The real reason this bomber was not produced in larger numbers must be that it failed to fully meet the air ministry requirement to present an awkward and ungainly appearance.
Technically, the nose guns were a flexible turret sighted by the pilot (I am too lazy to get my book of British turrets off the shelf to check the number). In practice, such an arrangement wasn't really practical so they got fixed in place. There was a dual 50 version of the top turret but it was never fitted. (B.X mk. 2 or something where X is unknown, not ten as there was an actual B.X turret but I think that was in the Blenheim)
@@radiosnail yes, the prevailing assumption in 1941 was that armament was required and they tried to cram some on a Mosquito. Five years later it has all changed. The last UK bomber design, outside maritime, with defensive armament was thus the Lincoln, including the twin 20mm Bristol B.17 turret.
@@radiosnail it's out of print but I will get round to typing the full title at some point. Some of the photos and text get naughtily posted on the interwebs. I doubt there's quite enough interest to justify a reprint. I think my physical copy cost about £40 in good condition.
As always, Ed delivers substantial info on a largely forgotten aircraft. Had never even heard of this one before today. Of course the needs of war make for many experimental aircraft. Bravo Ed, and keep up the content.
i cant believe at that late date they were still fitting 303 brownings as primary when they could easily use US M2s .50 caliber ( 12.7mm) or 20mm cannons.. its very first outing theyd have seen it was woefully under armed for the period and would have needed a refit..
Same reason they kept building more Pom-Poms despite knowing full well how outclassed they’d become at the time. They had so much ammo for it, trying to replace it would’ve cost them too many political brownie points The 7.62x54r cartridge is a more recent example of this. Why did the USSR and Russia both continue to produce rifles chambered in that caliber, rather than modernize to something like .308? Simple. They still had a gazillion 54r rounds left, so they were damn well gonna use the stuff. The only difference being that 7.62x54r is in no way “obsolete” because that round is spicy, even on today’s battlefield
The idea at the time was that bomber turrets were unlikely to actually shoot down an enemy, and instead were mostly useful for forcing enemy fighters to break off their attack run. For that purpose, the sustained hail of tracer coming from 4x303 machine guns was more effective than a smaller number of larger bullets.
@@ripvanwinkle2002 Do you have any sources for that? Everything I can find suggests that the 8th air force lost roughly two bombers for each fighter they shot down. Losing 20 men to kill one isn't a good exchange, no matter how many times you do it.
Another one of those little corners of aviation history which usually came up a one photograph and a short description in a book of also rans. But still worth a look.
Good video I think p is silent in Hampden though. Also interesting to remember the Albermale was originally a Bristol design and has some family resemblance to the Blenheim IV particularly the front end.
The Australians found out that the Mosquito had big structural problems from warping of the wood when operating in the moist hot tropical climate. So too bad that the Buckingham had serious handling issues. It would of been great in Burma.
@@watcherzero5256Yes, the plywood couldn't handle the intense humidity of the wet tropics. Some more jingoistic commentators would have us believe that the problem only occurred in Mossies made by De Havilland Australia. The flaw in that theory is that the warping didn't happen with Aus Mossies that served only in non-tropical areas.
David, yes and the same factories in Australia used for the Beaufighter (and before that the Beaufort) could more easily have switched to the Buckingham. Unfortunately, wartime propaganda created a mythology around the Mossie that led to it being sent to theatres to which it was not well-suited. So De Havilland built Mossies in Australia and actual RAF (in addition to RAAF) squadrons were formed in Aus to fly it in support of an invasion of Japan. Incredibly, these were being formed for the anti-shipping role in the South China Sea; a wet tropical climate that would have been lethal to the Mossies' plywood.
@@TheGrant65 They were aware of the risk of the tropical climate and sent a few Mozzies out for testing which didn't experience any issues in the heat so then they formally deployed them to the theatre and intermittently encountered issues after. Likely due to variations in weather (and therefore humidity) over the year.
These Air Ministry types - umming and arhing, stop/starting, shifting goalposts - overseeing the Buckmaster - were they the grandparents of the HS2 planners of today's transport ministry by any chance?
No. The decision had been taken years before that medium types would be purchased from the USA. The Buckingham was never really more than an insurance policy had US neutrality curtailed sales as the Buckingham origin is prior to US entry. It was also a way of keeping Bristol design busy as the Blenheim wound down as although the Buckingham wasn't a big priority, there might have been a need for something else later on. If the war had continued, perhaps Bristol would have made a new heavy rather than the Brabazon. We see something similar with the P-39 - not a domestic success but government funding continued as much to keep Bell design going as provide the USSR with machines
Or the A-26, which entered service in 1944. The glass nose versions had a front-facing armament greater than the Buckingham and greater flexible armament too.
It carried twice the typical load of a Mosquito (few carried Cookies) further but rather slower. The better comparison is the A-26 which was available to the UK from 1944. The A-26 was better in most regards apart from maybe cockpit visibility.
Long time learner. Do you take recommendations? The Experimental Aircraft posted about the Grob Egrett and I think that might be a great forgotten Aircraft to cover. The Propeller driven U2!
It looks rather like the Tu-2. Slightly larger, more powerful engines, somewhat better performance (on paper, anyway), overlapping specification. Very different reputations.
Except for that gondola, that was a rather nice looking aircraft. Where can I find information about the Blenheim marks with that rear-pointing chin turret? That's an oddity that I've seen nothing about.
Not a bad looking aircraft and DAMN but I would the the first to buy a 1/48 kit if the beast but it did feature some truly outdated features (that ventral bathtub harks back to the He 111!). It was an interesting answer to a combat type that was no longer required (the light bomber). They were being replaced by attack aircraft (like the Douglas A-26, and even the Buckingham's sibling, the Brigand) even the Mosquito was still a contender.
Great vid on a type I had never heard of before. The "overcome by events" factor - oh well. I'm curious of how would the Buckingham compare to the A-26?
When you see the planes in the natural aluminum colors or other, brighter colors, they seem to be completely different planes from their camouflaged brothers. The camouflage paint schemes seem to make them stodgier looking.
I don't quite understand why the RAF did not use the Buckingham in the Pacific, due to its very long range and greater robustness against tropic climate compared to the Mosquito
Bristol really did come up with some very good & other very promising, yet unsuccessful, planes before & during WW2. They were serious guys who made good planes [when left alone]. I like her, but, Buckingham seems too niche vs available existing planes for the RAF. Beaufighters & Mozzies could really do everything these would be asked to in either theatre. Thanks Ed.
I wonder if it was ever thought of to put four engines on the Wellington (i.e. the Manchester to Lancaster). Being the Wellington was (apparently) much better at taking damage than the Lancaster. Perhaps it should have been. ☮
Aha! They did! But it was thought tricky with the geodetic design - probably mention that in my next video (which means you might be able to guess what it is about ;) ) Ultimately for four engines they went with the Windsor.
With 5000hp it would be interesting if any studies or tests were done to see what kind of speed they could get by removing the gun turrets and belly blister. Surprised the aircraft wasn’t given to Coastal Command for duty over the Atlantic.
Since the range was decent. Why not use them as sub hunters? Sea patrols seem like an area where one never has enough aircraft to cover the rather large ocean theater of operations.
I wonder how fast the Buckingham could have gone if (like the Mosquito) it had only two crew and no defensive armament/turrets, outside of forward firing guns in the nose? ☮
Interesting you should mention the Mossie, I can't find any dedicated Mossie vids of yours ... have you ever done one? The poor Mossie has taken quite a performance bashing over the last few years particularly, deemed massively over rated, with fantasy performance and lingering British WW2 mythology. It now appears to be a niche okay performer a Jack of all trades rather than good at anything, relegated to pathfinding, recon and anti-shipping. Could a clean fighter version really turn with a fw190? Was Goering really obsessed with it? Was it a great as immediate post war British entertainment made out? Was it fast or not?
The Mosquito FB Mk.VI had a sustained turn rate of ~24 seconds for a full 360° circle. The Fw190 A-5 had a turn rate of ~23 seconds, so they were quite evenly matched in that regard. If the Mosquito was light on fuel there's a good chance it would out-turn a Fw190 in a constant turn. The Mosquito could also climb faster (~10s faster to 3000m) and had a similar top speed (~350mph at sea level, faster at high altitudes). Where it couldn't match the single-seat fighters was agility - the Fw190 would be able to change the direction of it's turns much more quickly than the larger, heavier Mosquito.
The thin for agricultural Bristol wing, the engines and the lower drag extended engine nacelles looked really good, shame about the fuselage. It must have been a bit like what the ministry _experts_ really wanted to do to the Mosquito?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I've been having alot of problems recently wit YT, text typing lag, 2 - 3 seconds delay for each letter typed. Very annoying. Plus, buffering with videos.
The orders were apparently primarily to keep the Bristol workforce employed and skilled building aircraft and engines until the Hawker Tempest Mk II was ready for production (with Bristol building 50 before production moved back to Hawker with the end of the war), an improved version of the Bristol Buckingham the Bristol Brigand was built as well as a naval bomber and saw a decade of service in the far east.
Bristol Aircraft Company seemed to be a social class ridden company, that never works. All these aircraft named after stately homes, quite sickly, isn't it?
Buckingham Palace was originally owned by the Duke of Buckingham who took his title from the town of Buckingham. The Blenheim was named after the battle in the Dpanish Warbof Succession at which John Churchill, the 1st Marquis of Marlborough, lead the Grand Alliance of England, Scotland, Austria, Prussia and the Dutch Republic in victory against the French and Bavarians. The Beaufort was named after the inventor of the Beaufort Scale, rear Admiral Francis Beaufort, a man and certainly not a stately home.
The real reason this bomber was not produced in larger numbers must be that it failed to fully meet the air ministry requirement to present an awkward and ungainly appearance.
It just struck me as a kind of good-looking aircraft, too.
Funny
It was better looking than the Blackburn Blackburn - incredibly.
It wasn’t until I saw that photograph of the aircraft with someone standing in front of it that I realised just how large it was.
The Bristol Turdeater... The ultimate medium bomber underated low altitude low velocity, low payload, high cost RAF. wunderwaffe!!
Very cool, Ed. I'm as much a WWII aviation geek as anyone, and here's a plane I've never heard of. Thanks to you that's been corrected!
Technically, the nose guns were a flexible turret sighted by the pilot (I am too lazy to get my book of British turrets off the shelf to check the number). In practice, such an arrangement wasn't really practical so they got fixed in place. There was a dual 50 version of the top turret but it was never fitted. (B.X mk. 2 or something where X is unknown, not ten as there was an actual B.X turret but I think that was in the Blenheim)
I recall reading decades ago, that the RAF continued with development because they did not think the Mosquito would keep it's speed advantage for long
Ironic, given that Buckingham was slower than all Mosquitos.
@@wbertie2604 The idea was with defensive armament ,she would at least be able to defend herself. Will have to look that book up.
@@radiosnail yes, the prevailing assumption in 1941 was that armament was required and they tried to cram some on a Mosquito. Five years later it has all changed. The last UK bomber design, outside maritime, with defensive armament was thus the Lincoln, including the twin 20mm Bristol B.17 turret.
@@radiosnail it's out of print but I will get round to typing the full title at some point. Some of the photos and text get naughtily posted on the interwebs. I doubt there's quite enough interest to justify a reprint. I think my physical copy cost about £40 in good condition.
Lovely to see this rare aircraft type getting some acknowledgment, could you do a video on the Brigand as that is a type that is just as forgotten.
Beat me to it. 😂
I was on 84 sqn at Nicosia on Whirlwinds. The squadron operated Bristol Brigands in the far east in the Malaysian Emergency.
As always, Ed delivers substantial info on a largely forgotten aircraft. Had never even heard of this one before today. Of course the needs of war make for many experimental aircraft. Bravo Ed, and keep up the content.
i cant believe at that late date they were still fitting 303 brownings as primary when they could easily use US M2s .50 caliber ( 12.7mm) or 20mm cannons..
its very first outing theyd have seen it was woefully under armed for the period and would have needed a refit..
Same reason they kept building more Pom-Poms despite knowing full well how outclassed they’d become at the time. They had so much ammo for it, trying to replace it would’ve cost them too many political brownie points
The 7.62x54r cartridge is a more recent example of this. Why did the USSR and Russia both continue to produce rifles chambered in that caliber, rather than modernize to something like .308? Simple. They still had a gazillion 54r rounds left, so they were damn well gonna use the stuff. The only difference being that 7.62x54r is in no way “obsolete” because that round is spicy, even on today’s battlefield
The. 303 Vriwning was actually an effective gun for a while. Also, the M2 took up a lot more room.
The idea at the time was that bomber turrets were unlikely to actually shoot down an enemy, and instead were mostly useful for forcing enemy fighters to break off their attack run. For that purpose, the sustained hail of tracer coming from 4x303 machine guns was more effective than a smaller number of larger bullets.
@@MrWillNeedham and yet the B-17 shot down more axis fighters than any other plane
@@ripvanwinkle2002 Do you have any sources for that? Everything I can find suggests that the 8th air force lost roughly two bombers for each fighter they shot down. Losing 20 men to kill one isn't a good exchange, no matter how many times you do it.
Fun fact I have a fuel gauge from a Bristol Buckingham
Another one of those little corners of aviation history which usually came up a one photograph and a short description in a book of also rans. But still worth a look.
Good video I think p is silent in Hampden though. Also interesting to remember the Albermale was originally a Bristol design and has some family resemblance to the Blenheim IV particularly the front end.
Interesting video of a nearly forgotten aircraft. Like many aircraft on all sides, just not really necessary.
The red bit on the rounders and tail banner show up as different shades of grey for a bunch of those pictures
The Australians found out that the Mosquito had big structural problems from warping of the wood when operating in the moist hot tropical climate. So too bad that the Buckingham had serious handling issues. It would of been great in Burma.
I would imagine the glues that laminated the wood broke down in the warm moist air.
@@watcherzero5256Yes, the plywood couldn't handle the intense humidity of the wet tropics. Some more jingoistic commentators would have us believe that the problem only occurred in Mossies made by De Havilland Australia. The flaw in that theory is that the warping didn't happen with Aus Mossies that served only in non-tropical areas.
David, yes and the same factories in Australia used for the Beaufighter (and before that the Beaufort) could more easily have switched to the Buckingham. Unfortunately, wartime propaganda created a mythology around the Mossie that led to it being sent to theatres to which it was not well-suited. So De Havilland built Mossies in Australia and actual RAF (in addition to RAAF) squadrons were formed in Aus to fly it in support of an invasion of Japan. Incredibly, these were being formed for the anti-shipping role in the South China Sea; a wet tropical climate that would have been lethal to the Mossies' plywood.
@@TheGrant65 They were aware of the risk of the tropical climate and sent a few Mozzies out for testing which didn't experience any issues in the heat so then they formally deployed them to the theatre and intermittently encountered issues after. Likely due to variations in weather (and therefore humidity) over the year.
I have heard of the defective glueing process which killed several Mosquito crews - was that mistaken for 'humidity damage' at the time?
I always enjoy your videos and learn something every time. Thanks Sir
You've done it again, Ed.
I have never heard of this aircraft before now.
Thank you.
☮
These Air Ministry types - umming and arhing, stop/starting, shifting goalposts - overseeing the Buckmaster - were they the grandparents of the HS2 planners of today's transport ministry by any chance?
And the Ajax…
War has a nasty habit of changing priorities.
No. The decision had been taken years before that medium types would be purchased from the USA. The Buckingham was never really more than an insurance policy had US neutrality curtailed sales as the Buckingham origin is prior to US entry. It was also a way of keeping Bristol design busy as the Blenheim wound down as although the Buckingham wasn't a big priority, there might have been a need for something else later on. If the war had continued, perhaps Bristol would have made a new heavy rather than the Brabazon. We see something similar with the P-39 - not a domestic success but government funding continued as much to keep Bell design going as provide the USSR with machines
Poor Buckingham had no chance against the Mossie.
Bristol: "we've made a prototype"
De Havilland: "Sorry old chap, can't hear you above the noise of the 6pdr autoloader on our Mk.XVIII"
Or the A-26, which entered service in 1944. The glass nose versions had a front-facing armament greater than the Buckingham and greater flexible armament too.
It carried twice the typical load of a Mosquito (few carried Cookies) further but rather slower. The better comparison is the A-26 which was available to the UK from 1944. The A-26 was better in most regards apart from maybe cockpit visibility.
Elegant-looking, the ventral bump aside.
Thank you Ed for another informative video as I did not even know this place ever existed !
Long time learner. Do you take recommendations? The Experimental Aircraft posted about the Grob Egrett and I think that might be a great forgotten Aircraft to cover. The Propeller driven U2!
Good suggestion! I shall add it to my list!
It looks rather like the Tu-2. Slightly larger, more powerful engines, somewhat better performance (on paper, anyway), overlapping specification. Very different reputations.
Bristol had previously designed tricycle aircraft - so why a taildragger?
Thank you for another very informative video about an aircraft that I did not know existed before this video. Well Done!
You can never have enough aircraft no matter what the design is ! 👍
If you don’t mind a suggestion, it’d be neat if you do a video on ki-32
Not at all! Good suggestion.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Nice! Its radial cousin, ki-30 is also cool too
Except for that gondola, that was a rather nice looking aircraft.
Where can I find information about the Blenheim marks with that rear-pointing chin turret? That's an oddity that I've seen nothing about.
IIRC those are Mk.IV's
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Thanks! Is there an in-depth Blenheim video in the works??
Looks very similar to the Brigand!
Interesting placement of the bombardier in the belly gondola doubling as a gunner instead of in the nose. Were any other bombers configured this way?
Not a bad looking aircraft and DAMN but I would the the first to buy a 1/48 kit if the beast but it did feature some truly outdated features (that ventral bathtub harks back to the He 111!). It was an interesting answer to a combat type that was no longer required (the light bomber). They were being replaced by attack aircraft (like the Douglas A-26, and even the Buckingham's sibling, the Brigand) even the Mosquito was still a contender.
Let's build what we needed a year ago!
I heard that armament and i was immediately wanting this thing added into war thunder
Great vid on a type I had never heard of before. The "overcome by events" factor - oh well. I'm curious of how would the Buckingham compare to the A-26?
When you see the planes in the natural aluminum colors or other, brighter colors, they seem to be completely different planes from their camouflaged brothers. The camouflage paint schemes seem to make them stodgier looking.
I don't quite understand why the RAF did not use the Buckingham in the Pacific, due to its very long range and greater robustness against tropic climate compared to the Mosquito
Bristol really did come up with some very good & other very promising, yet unsuccessful, planes before & during WW2. They were serious guys who made good planes [when left alone].
I like her, but, Buckingham seems too niche vs available existing planes for the RAF. Beaufighters & Mozzies could really do everything these would be asked to in either theatre. Thanks Ed.
Excellent video, Thanks.
problems with the gondola for the bomb aimer, oil and exhaust from the engines and spray from the main gear, not ideal
Have you covered the Stirling bomber?
No mention of the later Bristol Brigand? Shared many elements of the Buckingham and was in service with the RAF until 1958...
Thatll get it's own video in time 😁
I have a quibble. Being armed with. 303 Brownings, regardless of number, was not "heavily armed".
Cheers!
I wonder if it was ever thought of to put four engines on the Wellington (i.e. the Manchester to Lancaster).
Being the Wellington was (apparently) much better at taking damage than the Lancaster.
Perhaps it should have been.
☮
Aha! They did! But it was thought tricky with the geodetic design - probably mention that in my next video (which means you might be able to guess what it is about ;) ) Ultimately for four engines they went with the Windsor.
Good stuff 👍🏻
Another great video, Ed.
With 5000hp it would be interesting if any studies or tests were done to see what kind of speed they could get by removing the gun turrets and belly blister. Surprised the aircraft wasn’t given to Coastal Command for duty over the Atlantic.
Yes, a maritime role was what immediately sprang to my mind.
Yes, a maritime role was what immediately sprang to my mind.
Yes, a maritime role was what immediately sprang to my mind.
interesting. I did not know much about this plane
That's one I had never heard of.
Although it carried half the load of bombs this one could the Hornet out classed everything except the new jets.
Bristol Beaumont? Did they also consider calling it a 'Gloria?'
9:12 - Forgotten aircraft?
I take issue with that comment.
I think the...
the...
what aircraft are we talking about again?
☮
do you remember FORDs v-12 DOHC merlin-like engine? was eventually cut down to a 60 degree v-8 and installed in tanks?? whats the story on it/
Awesome thanks
Still a very good-looking aircraft.
That Mosquito raid on Berlin was whilst Goerring was bragging that no allied aircraft could attack the Nazi capital city.
Since the range was decent. Why not use them as sub hunters? Sea patrols seem like an area where one never has enough aircraft
to cover the rather large ocean theater of operations.
They should have put a radar and MAD detector on it, and exploited it's range advantage to make it a submarine hunter.
They had liberators. 4 engined heavies. Higher range, heavier weapons load, better protected. Why would they bother?
I wonder how fast the Buckingham could have gone if (like the Mosquito) it had only two crew and no defensive armament/turrets, outside of forward firing guns in the nose?
☮
Subbed. Thanks
Wasn't the Mossie already on the cards at this point?
You sound depressed Ed.
That's a neat-looking airplane.
I am surprised that the aircraft was not faster with 5,000 hp to power it.
Before the Whitley, the RAF was whitless.
Compared to the Mosquito, the Buckingham was positively palatial.
And then after 40 years in the band you get kicked out.
...Oh wait, wrong Buckingham
And you try to reform in the late 70's then your drummer dies of a drug problem....
Oops. Wrong other Buckingham(s)....😉
Buckingham looks like a pokemon evolution of Beaufighter.
ab fab... and so objective too
what a pity. thats a good looking aircraft
A German style ventral gondola is unusual on a British aircraft
B-17D_esque you mean?
Many were designed with it.
But not fitted
Interesting you should mention the Mossie, I can't find any dedicated Mossie vids of yours ... have you ever done one?
The poor Mossie has taken quite a performance bashing over the last few years particularly, deemed massively over rated, with fantasy performance and lingering British WW2 mythology.
It now appears to be a niche okay performer a Jack of all trades rather than good at anything, relegated to pathfinding, recon and anti-shipping.
Could a clean fighter version really turn with a fw190? Was Goering really obsessed with it? Was it a great as immediate post war British entertainment made out? Was it fast or not?
400mph. Very few lost in combat.
🤷 massive firepower in fighter guise.
The Mosquito FB Mk.VI had a sustained turn rate of ~24 seconds for a full 360° circle. The Fw190 A-5 had a turn rate of ~23 seconds, so they were quite evenly matched in that regard. If the Mosquito was light on fuel there's a good chance it would out-turn a Fw190 in a constant turn.
The Mosquito could also climb faster (~10s faster to 3000m) and had a similar top speed (~350mph at sea level, faster at high altitudes). Where it couldn't match the single-seat fighters was agility - the Fw190 would be able to change the direction of it's turns much more quickly than the larger, heavier Mosquito.
Hmmm. Buckinghams instead of the Mossie in the movie 633 squadron? Nah.
Never heard of this particular aircraft. Clean good looking type just not a contender to the Mosquito
The thin for agricultural Bristol wing, the engines and the lower drag extended engine nacelles looked really good, shame about the fuselage. It must have been a bit like what the ministry _experts_ really wanted to do to the Mosquito?
well in the end they got the Mosquito so I see no issue there 😅😅😅
Kind of like a taildragging B25 from some angles
It's pretty though
The Buckingham looks a lot like the Harpoon
Sad my posts are being deleted .
Not by me. Are you saying something to upset the RUclips AI?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Don't think so, i just said - Hard to compete with American quality medium bombers ....
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I've been having alot of problems recently wit YT, text typing lag, 2 - 3 seconds delay for each letter typed. Very annoying. Plus, buffering with videos.
@@RemusKingOfRome RUclips is getting increasingly erratic all round. Lot of content creators are fed up and quitting. Considering it myself TBH.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters R__U++mble..
Still, beautiful lines on her. What a shame.
If it appeared in 1940 it would be more successful.
wasted lots of money and time
The orders were apparently primarily to keep the Bristol workforce employed and skilled building aircraft and engines until the Hawker Tempest Mk II was ready for production (with Bristol building 50 before production moved back to Hawker with the end of the war), an improved version of the Bristol Buckingham the Bristol Brigand was built as well as a naval bomber and saw a decade of service in the far east.
Bristol Aircraft Company seemed to be a social class ridden company, that never works. All these aircraft named after stately homes, quite sickly, isn't it?
Beaufighter was a success though
@@bob_the_bomb4508 The Australian built version with R-1830-92 Twin Wasp engines ( also Australian built) was feared by the Japanese. .
@@binawayindeed.
Buckingham is also a town in England which was the name convention for many British manufacturers
Buckingham Palace was originally owned by the Duke of Buckingham who took his title from the town of Buckingham. The Blenheim was named after the battle in the Dpanish Warbof Succession at which John Churchill, the 1st Marquis of Marlborough, lead the Grand Alliance of England, Scotland, Austria, Prussia and the Dutch Republic in victory against the French and Bavarians. The Beaufort was named after the inventor of the Beaufort Scale, rear Admiral Francis Beaufort, a man and certainly not a stately home.
+