Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
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....