Dear Spurtle,

With reference to the recent hoo-ha over a pink front door in historic Drummond Place, Edinburgh Council needs to address the very many far more serious breaches of listed buildings control in the New Town (e.g., the glass-carbuncle roof terrace on Abercromby Place, not 40m away from the property in question) before nitpicking of this sort. The capricious and inconsistent way these rules are enforced is a real problem – it’s almost as though they pick one easy target at random and make a martyr of them. 

The ‘rules’ about what one does to the exterior of one’s property in the New Town are at least as much about trying to present a coherent and unified architectural ensemble as they are about historical accuracy. For example, railings in the Georgian period would likely have been painted some sort of green colour, supposedly to mimic bronze. However, in Edinburgh, the decision has been taken that nowadays they are to be black, full stop. It looks better for the whole if everyone does the same thing.

For what it is worth, therefore, regarding ‘historical accuracy’ (as it is not the be-all and end-all of these rules), one really can do no better than to acquaint oneself with the writings of Patrick Baty (examples here and here), an expert on historic paint who has devoted himself to studying, by means of actual historic paint samples under the microscope, the paint schemes used by successive generations on historic buildings.

Many online reactions to the Pepto-Bismol door in Drummond Place have argued that the Georgians themselves used bright colours on front doors and that Edinburgh World Heritage/the Council are attempting to impose a uniformity that would never have existed 200 years ago.

The 19th-century homeowner might not have had to contend with the heritage police, but near-uniformity would have been the inevitable result of the tiny range of colours then in existence. Bright blues, yellows, reds and pinks (in oil and suitable for exterior use) were technically unfeasible with the pigments available at the time, or at the very least were out of reach financially to anyone except the very rich.

Mr Baty cites a work of 1811 which lists the colours available for outside painting as ‘white, stone colour (a creamy off-white), lead colour (a blue-grey), chocolate, olive green and invisible green’.*  He continues, ‘Nearly 50 years later, exactly the same colours are referred to as being in general use, and apart from the appearance of Brunswick green** in its various forms, little had changed by the death of Queen Victoria.’  One other common treatment for woodwork, including on the exterior, was wood-graining, referred to as ‘wainscotting’.

Clearly, it’s not 1822 any more, and aspirational tones such as rototo de Pepto-Bismol, sulking room, and cuisse de nymphe émue are now possible in every paint finish. But perhaps we can allow Mr Baty the last word: ’A restrained use of colour, possibly based on historical precedent, is a useful guide for the repainting of the older house, and especially one forming part of an architectural group’ (Palette of the Past).

Caroline Roussot

(Cumberland Street) 

* The intriguingly-named 'invisible green' was a dark green so called, per Humphrey Repton, as it 'harmonises with every object, and is a background and foil to the foliage of fields, trees and plants, as also to flowers.'

** Brunswick green, obtained by the mixing of chrome yellow and Prussian blue, was a brighter dark green than had previously been obtainable.

-----------------

Dear Spurtle,

I see that the colours of New Town front doors must be ‘in keeping with the historic character’ of the area.

At least, they can’t be pink, but, going on the evidence, bright yellow or red ones are absolutely fine.

It’s not obvious, then, what principle or precedent is being applied here. Probably none. However, I’d like to suggest the following: if a colour is deemed acceptable for local trousers (most of which are remarkably historic in character), there’s no reason why it’s not also appropriate for a front door.

Incidentally, isn’t it interesting how it’s fine to clog New Town streets with non-heritage vehicles, and acceptable to convert kitchens into bedrooms and turn butlers into Airbnb hosts, but heaven forfend a porte en rose?

Petty controversies such as this usually arise in the Drummond Place area. This is because, being right on the edge of the New Town, residents here tend to overcompensate. Let’s not forget, they are virtually Leithers.

New Town Flaneur

(EH3)

Dear Spurtle,

You report in the October issue (p.1) that Police followed a protestor who had held up a blank placard at the royal funeral procession, in order to 'prevent possible disorder'.

The suggestion that this was a potential Everard incident seems extreme; was this not simply the latest incident in a long line of Police mis-steps which only show how difficult they find it to police freedom of expression with anything approaching nuance?  

What's interesting is that, previously, the Police seemed to have been recruited into the culture wars to serve solely on the side of the woke and the perenially-offended. The legal action against the owner of a Nazi-saluting dog; the recording of a 'non-crime hate incident' against the Home Secretary in 2017; Police attendance at a man's workplace to 'check his thinking' after a poor joke on Twitter; last week's threat that 'misgendering' a convicted paedophile who now identifies as a woman would be treated as a hate crime - are among many examples. The to-do around funeral placards seems like a long-awaited taste of the same medicine.  

Perhaps now we can all agree that policing potential thought-crimes of whatever political hue (or indeed simple rudeness and bad behaviour) is no role for the Police.

Caroline Roussot