The disrespect turns my stomach.

[piperdbh]

"higgledy-piggledy" I like that phrase.

I think Jock wrote it here a day or three ago.

[Cygnus]

It's the man's home - and I don't think there's any doubt that tourism needs a boost during the current economic woes. There are guidelines for historical sites, but the earl seems to have gone through all the proper channels to make this happen. He also seems to be going through those same channels to request that it be permanent.

I also highly doubt that the exterior covering on the castle is the original, especially given how often modern stucco has to be patched or redone, so the "damage" is hardly irreversible.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I also highly doubt that the exterior covering on the castle is the original, especially given how often modern stucco has to be patched or redone, so the "damage" is hardly irreversible.

The exterior covering of the stone is called "harling", and takes its name from the fact that it is "hurled" against the raw stone to make it stick (sort of like pebble dashing is dashed against the side of a building to make it stick). It is similar to stucco, and the colour depends largely on the colour of your local sand. It was also not unknown for the harl to be dyed, or painted over. Not all "castles" in Scotland were white when they were built.

As any castle owner can tell you, harling is an on-going process and at least part of the building will require repair or total re-harling ever few years, a not inexpensive operation. Twenty or thirty years ago grants were regularly handed out to re-harl houses like Kelburn (or tiny Terpersie). In recent years these grants have become as rare as rocking horse poop (along with all other grants for "stately homes") although the statutory requirements for the owners of these buildings to maintain the property remain in effect.

The difficulty faced by the building owner is that the regulations are often quite daft. For example, exterior window sills have to be made of cut stone; the use of reconstituted stone is prohibited, even though there is no visual or structural difference between the two. There is however a considerable cost differential, which often time impedes the restoration (or even repair) of a listed building.

I note in re-reading the article that Glasgow sought permission for the murals while waiting to re-harl the tower, a process that would take about three years-- not the harling, but rather three years to obtain permission to harl.

Perhaps the Right Noble Lord is making a statement....

[Redhawk]

Too busy for me... But each there own.

[artificer]

I personally prefer the rather drab non-graffiti-covered look.

That said, it's his castle. If he got the original permissions needed, he can do as he likes.

ith:

[Cowher]

These reactions are interesting!

We talk about tartan, kilts (modern verses traditional) and what that means. We speak of rolled up sleeves, button down collars, a coat of arms and white hose.
Flame wars erupt. People get angry. Line are drawn and it gets rough.

People are very protective of Scottish highland dress. But deface a castle and we get "well it's his castle." or "I find it charming"..

I find this hilarious! I shall go back to work now for my lunch is over.

Cheers!

[LeeAnne]

These reactions are interesting!

We talk about tartan, kilts (modern verses traditional) and what that means. We speak of rolled up sleeves, button down collars, a coat of arms and white hose.
Flame wars erupt. People get angry. Line are drawn and it gets rough.

People are very protective of Scottish highland dress. But deface a castle and we get "well it's his castle." or "I find it charming"..

I find this hilarious! I shall go back to work now for my lunch is over.

Cheers!

There is a practical side to all this that really renders the kilt analogy redundant.

The fact is that - as with many historic buildings - internally Kelburn is in a bad way. What the Earl of Glasgow has done is generate publicity, and therefore revenue.

It is all well and good to talk of dignity and respect for history. But when it comes to bricks and mortar, money trumps everything. Maybe the earl simply decided that it was the choice between trying something different and generating some much needed extra cash, or maintaining the building's outward integrity whilst through lack of investment watching it slowly but surely collapse from the inside out.

[T-Bone]

These reactions are interesting!

We talk about tartan, kilts (modern verses traditional) and what that means. We speak of rolled up sleeves, button down collars, a coat of arms and white hose.
Flame wars erupt. People get angry. Line are drawn and it gets rough.

People are very protective of Scottish highland dress. But deface a castle and we get "well it's his castle." or "I find it charming"..

I find this hilarious! I shall go back to work now for my lunch is over.

Cheers!

That is what I was thinking...except lunch was over 2 hours ago.

From the article, it seems that local residents do not find it as charming.

[kilted hillbilly]

It makes me want to HARL! But seriously,if it has to be "re-harled" every so often, does that men the old harl sluffs off after a time? If so, wouldnt the paint come off with the harling? Problem solved.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

It makes me want to HARL! But seriously,if it has to be "re-harled" every so often, does that men the old harl sluffs off after a time? If so, wouldnt the paint come off with the harling? Problem solved.

Yup, that's exactly what happens. Due to expansion/contraction caused by heat/cold tiny cracks do appear in the harl. These cracks admit water, which builds up between the harl and the fabric of the castle. Eventually these pockets of water freeze, and chunks of harl pop off. While these holes can be patched, eventually the building has to be re-harled.

It's been years since I was last at Kelburn, so I haven't a clue as to the condition of the fabric of the building. That said I suspect that the murals would have a predictable life of between 5 and 10 years.