History HubΒ permalink
History Quiz
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Hi everyone
Have a go at answering this week's question - which is:
Which famous stately home has links to the following people?:
Mary, Queen of Scots
John F Kennedy
The Mitford Sisters
Good Luck
Katy -
Message 2
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Chatsworth?
The youngest Mitford sister, Deb, married the Duke of Devonshire, whose sea is Chatsworth.
The Duke's (half?) brother married JFK's sister (both were then tragiclaly killed a few years later), but the Devonshires stayed in touch with the Kennedys and went to both JFK's inauguration and his funeral.
I'm taking a punt that one of MQoS's (many!) 'genteel prisons' included Chatsworth at some time, or possibly another castle/manor owned by the Devonshires, or that the Duke/relation was some kind of 'gaoler' for MQoS. -
Message 3
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Friday, 1st July 2011
I thought it might be Syon House - because of the Northumberland link - and JFK staying there. Mitfords are probably linked somehow to all great name houses. There being 6 of them and they got about a bit, as it were.
Regards, P. -
Message 4
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Well done Jenny - it is indeed Chatsworth.
George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury (4th husband of Bess of Hardwick) was the gaoler of Mary, Queen of Scots at Chatsworth.
Kathleen Kennedy (sister to J.F.K) married William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington in 1944.
Andrew Cavendish, 11th Earl of Devonshire married Deborah Mitford in 1941.
Congratulations - your turn to set a question -
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Bit of a poor show - answering a question then not setting one. The Friday Quiz will die a death at this rate.
-
Message 6
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Well, I think the invitation was long enough ago for anyone else to step in & give it a bash with a question if they want to.
-
Message 7
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Ok, here goes:
Which parish church connects to the beginning and end of the reigns of two monarchs and why is it unique apart from Westminster Abbey? -
Message 8
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 1st July 2011
A pure guess would be Sandringham - although I don't even know the name of the church there. I would suggest that it connects to the beginning and end of the reigns of George V and George VI although I wouldn't know why. Did they not both die at Sandringham? And is it unique because it is a 'royal peculiar' of the Church of England?
-
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st July 2011
Not only a pure guess, but a good one, but not what I was thinking of. The church on the estate is St Mary Magdalen, whose entrance is shown on TV as the Royal Family leave after Christmas and Easter services. Both George V and George VI did indeed die at Sandringham House and George VI was also born on the estate at York House but George V was born in London and both are buried at Windsor. You're right that Westminster Abbey and St Mary Magdalen are both royal peculiars where the Queen appoints the incumbent but so is St George's Chapel, Windsor and there may be several others.
The church I'm thinking of occupies the same relationship to a grand house, which was a former royal palace, that St Mary Magdalen does to Sandringham. No royals are buried there but perhaps the next level down from royalty is which should give you the answer. -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 1st July 2011
I'm probably getting colder but I'm now being drawn towards Blenheim Palace and the parish church in the nearby village - Bladon? - or somewhere. The one where Winston Churchill PM is buried. But I don't think that Blenheim (although a ducal palace) was ever a royal palace. So that's probably wrong.
-
Message 11
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 1st July 2011
You're right, a gift from the nation to the 1st Duke of Marlborough for defeating Louis XIV. But you're on the right lines with Winston Churchill. Just think of a few of his predecessors.
-
Message 12
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
"Bit of a poor show - answering a question then not setting one"
Many apols! Y/day turned into one of those rushing days where you don't get to draw breath. -
Message 13
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
hello Allan
it's not clear from your reply if Bladon is correct or not. Are you waiting for an answer to the 'unique' part of the question perhaps? -
Message 14
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Apologies for being so opaque. Bladon is not the right answer but if you think of where some other Prime Ministers (in the plural) are buried and their proximity to a former royal palace (singular) then you should get the answer (I hope!).
-
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
When I said "you're right" I meant right in thinking Blenheim was not a former royal palace. It was built specifically for the 1st Duke. I didn't mean you had given the right answer. Again, apologies for misleading you.
-
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Okay - is the church St Margaret's and is the royal palace St James Palace and is St Margaret's unique for being the only church apart from Westminster Abbey where a monarch has been crowned? Don't know about the beginning and end of the reigns bit though.
-
Message 17
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Isn't Blenheim the former Royal palace of Woodstock - or at least on the same site?
-
Message 18
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
If it's the St Margaret's I'm thinking of that's next to the Palace of Westminster (aka the Houses of Parliament) which is a former royal palace rather than St James' which still is one. Anyway, not that. Try going outside the capital for a house (the word 'palace' may have confused you) which is associated with both a monarch of both the hereditary and elected kind.
Best save your question about who was crowned at St Margaret's until you have to set one as I didn't know that although I'm sure you're right. -
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Isn't Blenheim the former Royal palace of Woodstock - or at least on the same site?Β Maybe, I thought it was built on land belonging to Woodstock Palace but the one I'm thinking of (although substantially rebuilt) has definitely a part of the original palace still standing of which the original occupant would have been well aware.
-
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
hi Allan
the thing about a monarch being crowned in St Margaret's was just a guess. Seems strange if it were true having the Abbey so close by. If St Margaret's is older than the Abbey, of course, then that would be a different matter. Just guessing.
And to continue the guessing (and going away from Westminster) then let's head to the South Country and to Arundel in Sussex. Was that once a royal palace? Don't know if any prime ministers are buried there but there could be. -
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Going too far. It's only just outside the capital. I'm currently in North London (a short walk from Arsenal's ground) and it's about a 15 minute train journey. Think of a political family who served both monarchs in the question and a Prime Minister whose wife's lover was "mad, bad and dangerous to know" and then, well, bob's your uncle.
-
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
I don't know the answer, but it clearly involves Queen Victoria's first and last PM.
Caroline Lamb said Byron was made, bad etc. She was the wife of Queen Vic's first PM, Lord Melbourne.
Bob's your uncle was said to Arthur Balfour, he being the nephew of Lord Salisbury, Queen Vic's last PM. The Earl of Salisbury was of the Cecil family. The Cecil's also served Queen Elizabeth and James I; Lords Burgley ofHorsetrials. Their stately home is Burgley Park, near Stamford.
TP -
Message 23
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
But Burghley is even further from Westminster than Arundel is.
How about Hatfield House in Hertfordshire? -
Message 24
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Almost home, you will be glad to know. Lords Melbourne and Salisbury were indeed the Prime Ministers at either end of the reign of Queen Victoria. William and Robert Cecil were Chief Ministers at either end of the reign of Elizabeth I. Now find the church where three of them are buried which is next to the house which connects the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I with the Prime Minister at the end of Victoria's reign and you're home and dry.
As you have been cheerfully persistent I'll setttle for the house (which isn't Burghley, which Cecil built later in Elizabeth's reign and which didn't pass to Robert as he was a younger son) as the church is a bit obscure and difficult to spell. -
Message 25
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Hatfield House aka The Old Palace, built by one of the bishops of Ely. Elizabeth was confined there when she learned of Broody Mary's death.
Melbourne is buried in St Etheldreda's or Ethelfleda's church in Hatfield, can't remember which -
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Cross posted-
Exactly right - although the church next to it is St Etheldreda's which serves the manor of Hatfield and is where Robert Cecil, Lord Melbourne, his wife Lady Caroline Lamb and Lord Salisbury, Victoria's PM, are all buried, thus connecting the beginning and end of Victoria's reign.
Hatfield House was a royal palace before James I swapped it for Cecil's house in Hertfordshire, Theobalds, removed from royal ownership during the Civil War and now a hotel. It was where Elizabeth was brought up and where, whilst reading a book beneath an oak tree in the park on what must have been a remarkably clement November day for that period, she was told by William Cecil that she had become Queen. She held her first Council meeting as Queen in the Great Hall, which is the only part of the old royal palace still standing at the rear of the church (Cecil demolished most of the palace in order to build the present house).
And the unique part? St Etheldreda's is the only church I know of, apart from Westminster Abbey where the last PM to be interred was Lord Attlee in 1967, which houses the remains of more than one PM.
Your go, Vizzer, you deserve it. -
Message 27
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Ur-Lugal has the church (I'm sorry my replies are so long I'm missing the answers) but Vizzer deserves a go for persistence. He was the first to mention Hatfield too.
-
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
I concur - Vizzer should set the next question.
-
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Unless he's having a "rushing day" too! He must be exhausted by all that effort in which case feel free, U-L, if you wish to keep the thread active.
-
Message 30
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Sorry folks I was out walking the dogs on such a beautiful evening.
Okay an easy question - which athlete won 3 Gold medals for England at the British Empire Games in Hamilton, Ontario in 1930? -
Message 31
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Clue:
He also won Gold for Great Britain at the Amsterdam Olympics in 1928 and Silver at the Los Angeles Olympics in 1932. He made his Olympic debut in Paris in 1924 but was eliminated in the First Round at the Stade Colombes. He was famous as a hurdler. -
Message 32
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Are we still with the Cecil family?
-
Message 33
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Sure are.
-
Message 34
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
David Cecil, aka Lord Burghley, later Marquess of Exeter. Won both hurdles races, and was part of the winning 4x440 relay team
-
Message 35
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Is there anything you don't know, U-L? I stand amazed at your breadth of knowledge. Not the David Cecil who wrote the two-volume life of Lord Melbourne - " Young Melbourne" and "Lord M" - said to be JFK's favourite reading after Ian Fleming's Bond novels - who came from the Salisbury, as opposed to the Exeter, wing of Hotel Cecil.
-
Message 36
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
That's the man Ur-Lugal.
The character of 'Lord Lindsay' played by Nigel Havers in the 1981 film 'Chariots of Fire' was based on him. Lord Burghley refused to give permission for his real name to be used in the film because he wasn't happy with the historical liberties taken by the film-makers. He died 13 days after the film was released.
Your turn. -
Message 37
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
I'm out at the local carnival all day - if someone else cares to ask a question, please feel free.
-
Message 38
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
Not Alabama, but what other ship from Jonathan Laird's yard in Birkenhead led to a diplomatic incident between Britain and an American nation?
You'll need to wait till about 5 o'clock for answer confirmation, I'm afraid. -
Message 39
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
The Trent?
-
Message 40
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
No idea I'm afraid; although oddly I do know of one launched at Sheerness that caused a diplomatic incident between the US and Britain!
TP -
Message 41
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
Not really my thing but - a stab in the dark- as the question says "AN American Nation" what about the Graf Von Spee and Uruguay or Argentina in the build up to the Battle of the River Plate?
Cass -
Message 42
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
Earlier than either Graf Spee's sojourn in the South Atlantic, and on the other seaboard. Despite Farragut's reported comments at Mobile Bay, the action featured the first use of a specific weapon - and the vessel is still in existence.
-
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
Reflecting on my "stab" I thought that the Graf Spee was a new German kind of pocket battleship (perhaps like some of the points on the "Singapore" thread an adjustment to the new situation on the High Seas after 1919).. But were there not some British ships involved in the whole question of the Graf Spee trying to find fuel and repair facilities within the ports of the Plate Estuary?
Anyway wrong answer.
While pondering on such things, however, I remembered my ex-neighbour from across the road telling me that he was serving in the Royal Navy minesweeper that received orders to the effect that it was the closest vessel to the Bismarck and that its orders were to attack. Len said that it felt like a suicide mission. But it had to be done.
Which ship would that have been? And was it initially "on its own"? I believe the real damage to the Bismarck was achieved by torpedo-armed Swordfish planes.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 3rd July 2011
Cass -
WWI - Admiral Graf Maximilian von Spee was, in 1914, in command of the German East Asiatic Squadron, based at Tsingtao. He assembled a force of 6 cruisers, (detaching 1, the Emden, to act a a lone raider), and proceeded to South American waters. Off Coronel, he was met by a Royal Navy squadron, and, in the ensuing action, HMS Good Hope and HMS Monmouth were lost with all hands. He attempted to return to Germany, but, when he decided to attack the Falkland Islands to damage the British base there, he was met by a force including two battlecruisers. All but one of his ships were sunk, and there were a number of incursions into disputed waters, by both sides, until the last ship, Dresden, was finally hunted down and sunk - in Chilean waters.
WWII - the pocket battleship Graf Spee was named for the above, scuttling herself, as I'm sure you know, in the River Plate estuary. None of the above are part of the answer - except that Chile is the current owner of the vessel in question. -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 4th July 2011
Ur-Lugal
Thanks for those pieces of information..
A long time since I last touched on the War at Sea during the First World War, and longer too since my course in Latin American History 1964-66.. But you have given me cause to go back to my notes and the British role in the struggle for independence in Latin America.
As the whole thing was a consequence of the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath, thousands of British men sought escape from the economic depression by signing up to go out and join the fight for freedom.
As you mention Chile this struggle was associated there with Jose de San Martin who led the fight that allowed Chile to break away from the Spanish Province that had ruled this region from Buenos Aires.
When the Royalists were defeated the governorship of Santiago went to O'Higgins. And O'Higgins set about creating a Chilean Navy . Some American and British vessels were given "letters marque" ,which allowed them to act as privateers against Spanish Royalist ships. But also both countries sold ships to the new country, while both British and American seamen went into Chilean service.
In November 1818 Thomas Cochrane was appointed the commander of the Chilean Navy. And in 1820 San Martin was CinC of an expedition against Spanish power in Peru, sailing with about 4,000 Argentinian and Chilean troops to Pisa. In July 1821 Martin proclaimed the independence of Peru.
But subsequently Martin, who established a military dictatorship at Lima, quarrelled with Lord Cochrane, which deprived Martin of the assistance of the Chilean Squadron, just when Martin faced the downward surge of the campaigns of Simon Bolivar, who received over 5,000 British volunteers to his campaigns in Venezuela over 3 years. San Martin had one British general William Miller, and Bolivar another James T. English.
But I do not know whether any of the British ships under Cochrane's command were from the Laird shipyard.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 4th July 2011
Despite Farragut's reported comments at Mobile Bay, Β
Farragut's comments presumably refer to submarines? The CSS Hunley was the first to sink an enemy vessel and was "rescued" recently. But I'm guessing that's not it by your reference to "other seaboard". -
Message 47
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 4th July 2011
Farragut's reputed comment was "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedos" - but we wouldn't regard them as torpedos.
-
Message 48
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 4th July 2011
Answer and link will be posted shortly before board closes tonight - and anyone who wants can take on the role of Quiz Inquisitor
-
Message 49
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 4th July 2011
gives a reasonable account of the ship in question. -
Message 50
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th July 2011
Ur-Lugal
Thanks for the answer yesterday evening.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.