I’ve given up trying to follow the ins and outs of all the colour names of purpurata. It doesn’t interest me that much. If I see one I like, that’s fine, the name is immaterial. There has been so much hybridisation work between the best forms that the naming is getting to be in a real muddle.
Naming within Cattleya except on species level seems to me in a shambles compared to Paphs - with colourforms (i.e. plants and flowers that only differ in respect to the colouring of the flowers and without no morphological differences what so ever) being described as varieties. This no present botanist in sound mind within the Paph-crowd would accept - they, logically, insist, that these diffences be described as what they are: colourforms (abbr. fma.).
I have even seen, what seems to be clonal names, elevated to variety status. This reflects, I suppose, that a lot of "variety" designations probably originate from growers or nursery owners with limited understanding of botanical nomenclatura. These designations, although void in a strict botanical sense, might, though, make sense for breeding purposes, but should then be considered horticultural names and designated as such (Hort.).
... the new abode is in the grounds of a large hotel of about 70 acres which are kept to a high standard. It’s quite lovely!
It seems to me, that you have found a set-up, that can only be characterized in one way:: perfect!
Reminds me of a now retired colleague, who has an apartment just opposite and with a splendid view over a lovely park in Copenhagen, Kongens Have (The King's Garden). The Park is located just beside, what in my eyes is a little architectonic pearl, Rosenborg Slot (The Rose Castle). Rosenborg was build as a little summerhouse (not summer residence, but literally summerhouse!) between 1606 and 1634 and in Dutch rennaisance style by Christian IV of Denmark. Then it was situated outside the city walls, now very much in the city center.
Rosenborg viewed from "my colleague's park" :