Much has been written about the Palace label since the publication of the “Palaces de France” label update. New establishments have joined this distinction, while others have lost it. Some see it as a challenge to the system. Personally, I see it as the opposite.
Since the creation of my first luxury hotel blog in 2011, now DELPORTE Hospitality Mag, I’ve followed every evolution of the Palace label. I’ve written numerous articles on the subject, taken part in debates, answered journalists’ questions and observed the evolution of this distinction since its inception. From the outset, I’ve been driven by the conviction that a label is only valuable if it can be awarded, but also withdrawn. From this point of view, recent decisions reinforce the credibility of the system. They demonstrate that there is always a need, and that a Palace is not a title acquired for eternity.
However, the recent withdrawals, important as they are for the credibility of the system, are not, in my view, the real issue. For more than fifteen years, I’ve been observing the evolution of the French luxury hotel industry, and one question keeps coming up in my reflections: what exactly is a Palace?
A reform that has changed the French hotel landscape for good
To understand the current debate, we need to go back to the very origins of the label’s creation. When France reformed its hotel classification system in 2010, a major change took place. Until now, the highest category was that of four-star hotels, supplemented by the “four-star plus” distinction. The latter included the country’s most prestigious establishments. With the reform, the fifth star is officially introduced, and some of the four-star and four-star plus establishments now fall into this new category without any distinction whatsoever.
This development has profoundly altered the way the market is perceived. Overnight, the great historic French Palaces find themselves in the same category as many top-quality international hotels such as Sofitel, Sheraton, Westin and Intercontinental. Managers at the Ritz, Plaza Athénée, George V, Bristol and other historic establishments are now asking questions. They rightly see themselves as occupying a special place in the global hotel industry. These houses have a history, an international reputation, generations of loyal customers and unique expertise. Their feeling is simple: being classified in the same category as other five-star hotels doesn’t really reflect their uniqueness.
It was against this backdrop that the Palace label was born. However, there is no other Palace label in the world for classification purposes.
In retrospect, I understand their approach perfectly. These establishments had a special place in the global hotel landscape, as they were recognized as Palace hotels in the eyes of their customers. Yet I’ve often wondered whether the creation of a label was really necessary. The Ritz was already a Palace before the label was created. The George V was already a Palace. The Plaza Athénée was already a Palace. Their worldwide reputation did not depend on additional administrative recognition.
In the United States, there are five-star hotels, but no Palace label. Yet no one disputes the special status of certain historic addresses. In Brazil, the Copacabana Palace has borne its name for almost a century, and no one has ever needed a label to understand what it represents. In many countries, the term Palace exists naturally because it has become part of the collective imagination.
I remember very well the discussions surrounding the creation of the label. At the time, many professionals told me that this new distinction would be reserved for a handful of historic establishments. A dozen or so at most. I’ve never shared this analysis. As I studied the criteria, it seemed clear to me that the circle would gradually widen. In fact, I had the opportunity to write about it and explain it in several media. My conviction was simple: as soon as a Palace was defined by a grid of objective criteria, and not just by its history, reputation and seniority, many new entrants could legitimately claim this distinction.
At the time, this analysis came as a surprise. Fifteen years later, reality has proved him right. France now boasts more than thirty distinguished establishments, and the list is likely to continue to evolve. This development is not a criticism of the label. It is simply the logical consequence of its construction.
The Palace label and the notion of Palace do not necessarily refer to the same reality.
This is probably where the real debate lies. I’ve visited several hundred hotels around the world in the course of my career. I discovered some extraordinary contemporary establishments. Some offer remarkable experiences, exceptional infrastructures, magnificent spas, top-class restaurants and impeccable quality of service. However, one question often comes to mind: do you have to be a Palace to be an exceptional hotel?
I don’t think so. Conversely, does an exceptional hotel automatically become a Palace? I don’t believe it either.
When I think of the word Palace, I first think of time, of the historical dimension. I’m thinking of those establishments that have welcomed several generations of the same family. I’m thinking of the stories that are passed down from one concierge to the next, from one maître d’ to his successor, from one manager to the next generation. I’m thinking of a collective memory that can’t be bought and built in a few years.
It’s probably on this point that my thinking has never changed since my first articles on the subject. Time remains an essential element of the Palace. An exceptional building can be built in just a few years. Building a high-performance team takes more time. Creating a service culture, passing on know-how, building an international reputation and developing a real soul can take decades.
That’s why I’ve always found it difficult to compare some historic establishments with over 180 years of history with hotels that have only been open for ten years. I’m not questioning their quality. I’m just wondering about the meaning of the word Palace. When you have 180 years of know-how handed down from generation to generation, you obviously have remarkable expertise.
Whenever this question comes up in public debate, I immediately think of the Ritz. This alone sums up the complexity of the subject. Rejected when the label was first awarded, closed for several years for a spectacular renovation, then reopened without ever seeking this distinction again, the Ritz nevertheless remains one of the most obvious symbols of the French Palace. Who could seriously argue today that the Ritz is not a Palace?
This simple question shows that there’s a difference between a label and a recognition built on history. At the end of the day, it’s always the customers who decide.
What really makes a Palace
After visiting hundreds of hotels around the world, I have few memories of marble, gilding or the square meters of a suite. I remember more a butler who took the time to understand my habits, anticipate my needs and make my stay smoother without ever being intrusive. I remember discreet attentions, almost invisible details and that rare ability to create a sincere human relationship.
Perhaps that’s what really sets a Palace apart. A form of elegance that doesn’t always show. A story you can feel. A soul that goes far beyond the quality of the equipment.
The biggest risk for luxury establishments is probably not competition. This is standardization. International standards have considerably raised the general level of the global hotel industry. This is excellent news for travelers. And yet, the closer the standards get, the more precious singularity becomes. The real Palaces have always cultivated their difference. They have a strong identity, a personality and a history that no one else can replicate.
The Palace label will certainly continue to evolve in the years to come. It will also continue to play its role in promoting French hotel excellence internationally, which is an excellent thing. For my part, one conviction has remained unchanged for over fifteen years.
A Palace doesn’t need a label to be a Palace.
However, a label is not always enough to create a Palace.
Things to remember :
This reflection also leads me to look at the subject from another angle. Being a Palace isn’t just about preserving a legacy. We must also continue to enrich it. Historic establishments that survive the decades without losing their soul are rare. They’ve been through wars, economic crises, customer evolutions, technological revolutions and changes in ownership. And yet, they continue to make us dream, because they have been able to evolve without denying what made them who they are.
This is perhaps the most complex challenge. History cannot be a comfortable refuge behind which an establishment protects itself. It must remain a source of inspiration. Each generation of managers, employees and investors receives a sort of inheritance of which it is only the temporary custodian. His responsibility is to pass it on in even better condition to the next generation.
When I visit certain historic establishments, I’m often struck by their ability to bring the past to life without ever giving the impression of being stuck in nostalgia. On the other hand, some contemporary hotels are already building a strong identity that could, over time, become a real legacy. Because the story of a Palace begins one day. The difference is simply that it can take decades to find out if the story is really worth telling.
Finally, the debate surrounding the Palace label goes far beyond the question of hotel classification. It questions our relationship with excellence, transmission and time. At a time when everything is moving faster, when hotels are opening, renovating and reinventing themselves at an unprecedented pace, the Palace retains a rare singularity: that of reminding us that certain reputations are not built in a few years, but over generations.
