Daydream thread continues.....

RAS

lostinrates wrote: »

Ahh, I see. .

Ok, listed buildings were very protective over ceilings, but then told us we could replace bedroom one, which we have never asked to do, it's the only really 'rustic' one, on all the others the lathe has held and plaster is good. Ours might be older or gone longer since repair.

But they quibbled not at wall removal or opening ( which amazed us too). No rhyme or reason sometimes.

Thanks. Totally amazes me too.

The house had been muddled about quite a bit (new stair case put in level with the base of the inglenook, passage sliced off one bedroom to form a corridor to the bedroom over the workshop, large larder created by walling off the rear of the sitting room). Floor and ceiling heights were all over the place, up on step, down three, then down another three. But the basic structure was still there.

alfie_1

LIR......... you know [course u do...] your low ceiling over dogs...well maybe that above was a hallway that the other rooms upstairs led off of. in friends sussex house thats how it is come to think of it. each bedroom goes up 2 steps, one room has 3 steps up. it has a staircase both ends of the hallway. which might explain cupboard/stairs that were? at end of dog room and the opening [hatch] in wots now the temp kitchen. ????? just a thought...

Itismehonest

RAS wrote: »

Struggling a bit.

The original hall house dates from prior to the reformation and was probably a monastic grange.

Based on other hall houses I have been in round Dartmoor, the "morning room," dressing room and kitchen and the servants room above were added much later on the west side.

The split level room was two rooms, one internal to the hall house (originally the animal quarters and working area) and the other was a workshop with it own external doors at the bottom of the slope. I think that the workshop was added along with the east wing behind probably later than the 17th century suggested in the particulars. If I am right they have completely removed one of the original cob walls from the hall house to incorporate the workshop into the house. Think this was done in the 1980s.

The recent owners have certainly raised the floor in the bedroom above as there used to be two or three steps down into the room and the floor is now level. So I suspect the ceiling in the dining room immediately below is a complete replacement/mock.

Difficult to work out exactly what has gone on over the centuries as all the windows were replaced with the same at some point, probably 19th century?

Actually thinking about it apart from the main beams, none of the ceiling beams were exposed when I first knew the house.

An early indenture on our place has .....
which premises are the same as were comprised in the Indentures of Lease, Release and Closes Pieces and Parcels of Land and hereditaments: the Old Hall with the Chamber over and the Shippen or Cow House thereunto adjoining, the Easter Barn, the Hanging House, one half of the Dry House, one Little House called the Pigs Loose, ........ (it then goes off onto the land involved).

The norm was to have the animal section downhill of the living quarters enabling ease of mucking out. Ours place had a shippon with a central 'drain' running out into a leat. Water was thrown over the flagged floor, ran into the central gutter & out into the leat which, in turn, would eventually wash it away.

The only original beams (as opposed to joists & A-frames) on view here were (& are) the ones either side of where the screens would have been as one entered the main living quarters.
The floor levels on the downhill end of the house have been altered across the centuries - mainly when internal stairs were put in & they went for 2 proper floors instead of the room with loft arrangement, I think. Rhiw can confirm a rather boozy tilt to the floor/ceiling on the upper end :rotfl: The chamge in level means that the A-frames which once would have been in the loft became exposed in several upstairs rooms.
Changes have always been done to improve the life or productivity of the inhabitants. Our homes would be considerably less rich today if some tin god somewhere had refused to allow any progress. In fact, if they had, we probably wouldn't have half as many old properties as we do because people would just have moved out & let them fall down

Itismehonest

lostinrates wrote: »

This is so interesting. The old tread is no where near the outside of the house, it's up the middle of what would have been the Georgian bit, but also, in the very oldest room, so maybe it did turn from outside somewhere a long the line. The other old (but less old) staircase is also on the internal wall, I.e. only internal. (to a trap door). The 'real' stairs now, are obviously not original, we had thought early Victorian maybe, a bit older perhaps. But will have had significan works in the sixties, as they were just over from what we call 'the original' stair tread. It's very confusing layout really to try and describe!

I was talking medieval, LIR but they kept a similar idea for quite a while, I believe.

alfie_1

:j:j:j just "bayed" the gate that cost me peanuts for 70 squideroo's :D

rhiwfield

alfie_1 wrote: »

:j:j:j just "bayed" the gate that cost me peanuts for 70 squideroo's :D

Back in the game, Alf, back in the game :T:T

lostinrates

Itsmehonest, RAS and I are taking part elsewhere in a discussion on perfectionism, and there is no doubt deciding what and how to maintain these houses is a challenge to that! What's 'perfect' adaptation to one person is 'perfect' desiccation to another.

We dithered about removing an original wall, but even in the temporary way we have done it it's improved the flow of the house for us and our needs.

It's difficult to know where to stop, and also, many cases building reg requirments push one a stage further than wanted any way ( I admit, I find even our expensive hardwood double historic glazed windows a bit 'ugly' but they were required and this was as fair looking as I could find.)

Once you go new somewhere like that the other bits look odder and the new looks more raw and the old looks shabby not charming.....it's a difficult train to stop once started.

Itismehonest

Congrats, alfie :T

lostinrates

Itismehonest wrote: »

I was talking medieval, LIR but they kept a similar idea for quite a while, I believe.

The very core of the back of the house is very old ( the bit Alfie is talking about). Much older than the georgian bit. Bits the listing has at Victorian are, we believe on advice are also older than the georgian bit, the Georgian bit also looks like a refurb not a rebuild' but of a much much younger age than that back core of the house.. The annoying thing is, things that would help confirm...like original brick work, have been new bricked over in the big diaster here in the sixties.

We pretty much know there was something happening here in medieval the historical thing we were fearing upgrade over was circa 8 th / 11 th century...though I don't think any of these buildings are part of it. Hope not, not seen any evidence. If we did though it would be frustrating for plans it would also be very exciting.

alfie_1

LIR.......me finks a metal detector around the base of the old house ??

covering a 6ft border, thats what i did at an old cottage i restored that was 1750s..found a really old horseshoe..looked like a shires ! and various old tools ?
that cottage had a cupboard stair case..i will post pic if i can find it.