A question of money

[fortcollinsjerry]

I recently spent a good 5 weeks in Scotland being lazy and taking part in a couple of tour groups. Naturally, tours of several castles was part of the itinerary....Traquair comes to mind, but there were others. The common thread connecting all these is they are still residences of famlies who, in some cases, have lived there for hundred's of years. Traquair, for example has been an actively lived in place for nearly a thousand years.

How have the families afforded to keep these castles? I'm interested in the day to day economics of castle ownership & maintenance. If one is a Lord, for example, do they enrich themselves like our Congress and Senate members do - with lifetime income from the Government? Anyone have a start?

[Highland Logan]

How have the families afforded to keep these castles?

Many just make ends meet, as I understand it. And your 25£ entry fee to see their home, and the collectors book, and the many other must haves during your visit helps.

Frank

[Phil]

Sadly no. Traquair being the example you give has visitor tours, craft centres, a brewery (nice beer by the way) , wedding venue, salmon fishing on their bit of the Tweed and other fund-raising events to try and keep the place going. They are supposed to be one of the oldest inhabited houses in Scotland and yet I don't believe they get any funding to support them. And no, they receive nothing in they way you suggest apart from what they can raise through the activities they promote. The only people who receive funds from the populace are the Royal family via the Civil List, supposedly to fund their civic duties (opening things, launching ships etc.) but sadly nowadays more likely to subsidise golfing trips to St. Andrews etc.

[Chas]

Many of the great houses in the UK are owned by the State through agencies such as The National Trust in England and the equivalent in Scotland.

Regards

Chas

[Highland Logan]

Many of the great houses in the UK are owned by the State through agencies such as The National Trust in England and the equivalent in Scotland.

Regards

Chas

Not all are owned, but some are managed by the National Trust.

Frank

[Phil]

And Traquair is not one of them. I believe that the National Trust are in some difficulties at the present time anyway.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Castles are costly beasts. They are, by and large, kept going by the ingenuity of their owners-- some run B&Bs, others farm, and almost all of them have "real jobs" to pick up the slack. Some of the "slack" was taken up at my place by virtue of the fact that it was just a tad over one mile from the front gates of a movie studio, with the result that we became a very popular location for all sorts of films, television programs, and TV commercials. In a really good year the house would earn enough to almost cover its heating bill...

[fortcollinsjerry]

. In a really good year the house would earn enough to almost cover its heating bill...

I had a chuckle at this comment. I got fairly close to one owner who neded to install central heating in his castle, so he contracted it out to a local outfit which gave a bid on the job. Problem is the contractor failed to recognize they would have to drill through 4 foot thick stone walls to complete the job. The heating went in finally (four months over schedule) but the company went broke.

That castle, BTW, has a few rented out bedrooms to local professionals.

About 25 years ago I was on another tour when we stopped at another lived in Castle that set on a harbor of some kind in the north. The tour guide related that the building next to the castle was the spot where the allied Commanders planned and mapped out the invasion of Europe. The harbor was deep enough for the Supreme Commnaders to be brought in by Sub. I thougth that was really a neat piece of history. We got to tour the ground floor of the main castle and I remember all the mideval weapons hung on the walls.

[Jock Scot]

Some shed blood ,sweat, and tears whilst also using the brain that they were given and yes the occasional advantage(some of those are rather doubtful) of bith to maintain what they consider is their duty to conserve. Some are even rather good at it.

[thanmuwa]

Some shed blood ,sweat, and tears whilst also using the brain that they were given and yes the occasional advantage(some of those are rather doubtful) of bith to maintain what they consider is their duty to conserve. Some are even rather good at it.

And for the rest the National Trust exists. An organisation that exists to rescue the brain dead from the consequences of their own mismanagement. As long as they were born to the right family of course. After all, it is not their fault, centuries of inbreeding have brought us to this .
That was meant tongue-in-cheek, so immediate apologies to anyone upset by it. I realise there are instances of genuine misfortune amongst the tides.

However, while I agree with the aim of the National Trust (preservation of very important buildings) and I can see the historic links that families have to the ancestral pile ("wot-wot"), I can't quite get my head around the moral ambiguity of why a charity should fund people to stay in their own home when a similar family in a different house gets no such support. IMHO the Trust should simply offer to buy said pile for an approriately large sack of wonga, and if occupancy is desirable, rent it out to a nice nouveau riche essex footballer and his WAG who may even end up looking after the place better. After all the original ancestor of the family was probably a Yahoo too.....

Back to the original question, for those who still own the family castle, Jock and Macmillan have pointed out how it is done, basically as inventively as possible, with your fingers in as many pies as you can. One of the best examples of the type (the business model as it were) is the Marquis of Bath, who has part of his house open to visitors, has a safari park and a tv program about said park amongst other things. His estate is called Longleat. As a bonus the guy is absolutely, endearingly, completely barking mad (and is a fascinating character). For example he wanders around his stately home painting 60's psychadelic style murals on the walls. He has had 74 "wifelets" (He feels it is insulting to call them mistresses or concubines). Also, I love this quote about how he embarrasses his kids, mentioning his daughter Lenka:

“They have told me that they are embarrassed sometimes,” he admits. “Especially Lenka – she would criticise me for my polygamy. And when she was younger she would ask me not to wear handbags,” He giggles gently.

I would love to know, from a purely curious point of view of course, how he first broached that subject (and I don't mean the handbags) with his wife.....