Talk:Jarlshof
Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit
Islandhopper 09:45, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Contents |
Islandhopper??
How did you manage to post that pic of the screen?? That can be a great help..
Me and Oddrun discussed this earlier on the phone,, several times, and we have come to the conclusion that it has to be something about the pixel settings of our pooters. we know that we are using same browser but still seeing different results.
Think we need input from a computer geek,,,, any volounteers??? :-)))
Robbie 10:02, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Well Robbie, that is a mounted pic of 4 screenshots I made with my graphics proggy. There is a way of creating screenshot just within the Microsoft environment but I don'd know how and I'm afraid if I would know there might be further difficulties due to the fact that we all use different keyborad drivers ... so, what is working when I type it into my German speaking keyboard & machine might not be working the same way on an English speaking keyboard ... :-) Islandhopper 10:29, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Not to talk about what my Norwegian keyboad are doing, cheers, Oddrun 11:03, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
With this screensetting (for nearly blind..), I see just the same as on that picture wolfgang posted...on my pooter with orginal screen settings, it is a white space from bottom upper right picture and down.., WELL, well, I know now that I'm not totally crazy..,but I soon will be with these settings ;-), have to scroll and scroll to read...Ho -ho !!!, Oddrun 11:28, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Heck, I posted this on the wrong page...it was the Mousa Broch that had that white space below the right pic.., this one is not so very different..,but my text ends about where the last picstarts, and the ex- link line ends a little above the textbox on that pic..funny things..have to move my chair back... ;-) , Cheers , Oddrun 11:55, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
From that I do guess your are on some 1284x768 resolution using medium type size on IE or something like that??? ;-) Would have no probs with that, personally spoken, but I'm afraid that this is not the standard used by the majority of the users? By far the most page developments over here are based on 1024x768 resolutions ... ;-) Islandhopper 13:48, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Thanks again Wolfgang,,, I agree with you, I am on standard 1024x768,,,which is 4:3 format, Oddrun is on 1284x768 which is 16x9 format(Widescreen) Oddrun dear, change format, I will explain better when I call tomorrow, and look on the bright side, the text will be bigger so you can leave your glasses off.. Joking of course...But when you change to a wide screen monitor you can go back to 1284x768....
But at least we know why the problem existed..
Elsker Deg Oddrun
Robbie 14:07, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
I'm not on 1284x768, I'm on 1284x1024,(high), and that's no wide screen..I remember that my 15" laptop had that 1024 x 768....and if I get a widescreen it will be something about 1500px wide...but x 1024..the only thing to do is to change on a page with many pics..the text is so big now that I'm wearing out the scroll weel on my keyboard !!!
Elsker deg, Robbie !!
Oddrun 14:22, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Ha, Oddrun, that's probably no Norwegian widescreen: widescreen resolutions over here start with 1284 ;-) ... for the rest see on "Mousa Broch" ... at least I have learned why there is that "hopper" ting in my nick ... ;-) Islandhopper 14:31, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Oi! :-) I'm still a bit confused Oddrun, but don't worry about it, we'll sort it out together next week,:-)))
In the meantime let's get back to adding content.. ;-)
Robbie 14:36, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
last rollback
reverted edits by User:58.147.0.227 : No text corrections, user just deleted links and categories which should be kept. Changed link was broken, too. Islandhopper 16:38, 9 June 2007 (MDT)
Message coming up with Pic
@Islandhopper/All. When I click on the 'Jarlshof Settlement' jpeg top right on the page, to go to that pic's own page and the full size version, as well as getting everything on the full size pic page I'm supposed to, I'm also getting this message printed just below the picture:
The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Image:PicJarlshofPlan.jpg".
This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.
If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.
It seems superfluous, as the full size pic was showing as it should and everything seemed fine. Is it of any consequence, or just a glitch that can be ignored?
Ghostrider 14:24, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
- Don't have it with this pic but had the same with other pics after the wiki upgrade. In between I have made a complete cache clearing on my puter and since then it never appeared but I have no idea whether existing cache content in combination with a probable directory change along with the upgrade was the real reason or not ... Islandhopper 15:43, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
You most likely are on to something there with the cache, I keep keep forgetting to evict the excess baggage in it as often as I should and doubt I've done it since before the upgrade, I'll spring clean ASAP and come back and check if it's made a difference. Thanks.
Ghostrider 16:10, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
Recent History?
Just wondering about this sentence from the article:
"When Sumburgh was in ruins a modern house of which nothing survives was built nearby but replaced by the 19th century building that is now the Sumburgh Hotel".
According to Irvine, what is the present day Sumburgh Farm House preceded the present day Sumburgh Hotel as the Bruce's residence, and (possibly) replaced the ruined Laird's Mansion on the Jarlshof site. Quote: "At Sumburgh a definite date for the building of the farmhouse, once the Bruce's Home, has not been established, but it was probably between 1680 and 1700. Sumburgh Farm, long known as the Home Farm...."
I would imagine he's relying, somewhat at least, on word of mouth information from older family members on this point, is there any written etc records anywhere the suggest he's been misinformed?
Ghostrider 14:15, 29 September 2007 (MDT)
- Ghostrider, that's something that confused me for years ... ;-)
- What might help is that we should make a difference between "Sumburgh", here the old Sumburgh farm, once the seat of the Bruces ... and "Sumburgh" in our modern understanding as the site of Sumburgh Hotel, which most probably has never been a farm but as its forerunner a Lairds seat only with the "home farm" somewhere in the neighbourhood. Irvine - as far as I know - strictly refers to Sumburgh as the farm and once seat of the Bruces and the buildings and rebuildings there. The site of the Sumburgh Hotel replacing an older mansion house is something different. The fact that Sumburgh farm at one time was referred to as the home farm does indicate that there has been a lairds seat (with which it was associated as the home farm) must have existed somewhere in the neighbourhood.
- On the other hand the laird's seat of Jarlshof was a Stewart one and as far as I do know the Stewart possessions passed into the hands of the Sinclair family. So, the sentence you quote from my earlier add might be wrong becauses it mixes up a series of mansion houses built in this area at the sites of Jarlshof and the now Sumburgh hotel with two different estates (the Stewart/Sinclair estate to the east and the Bruce's estate to the west) not knowing for sure to which estate the now Sumburgh hotel and its predeccessor belonged as a laird's seat ...
- The prob is that there is no other potential laird's seat for the Bruce's estate (and home farm) other than the site of the now Sumburgh hotel while the laird's seat of the Stewart's/Sinclair's, the one replacing Jarlshof might have been somewhere else ... probably Quendale Haa and/or the now mill complex ... but I don't have any reference neither printed or on the web to get it cleared but when we do associate Sumburgh home farm with the laird's seat at the hotel site we do have to search for a different seat replacing Jarlshof ... which bdw was completely covered under dunes just shortly befor Scott visited the site and might have been forgotten similar to the fact that we don't know what actually was the seat of the Sinclairs of Brow which is said to have disappeared completely under dunes ... "blowin to Bergene" as one source has it ... ;-) Islandhopper 17:00, 29 September 2007 (MDT)
I'm not sure about the Stewart possessions passing to the Sinclairs, according to Irvine again (I know I'm relying possibly a bit to heavily on his work at the moment, but it's the only source I have for now), Sumburgh was briefly initially in the hands of Sinclairs, in the shape of Sir David Sinclair, but following his death it reverted back to the Scottish crown, and subsequently in to the hands of Earl Patrick. In 1592 Earl Patrick "set" William Bruce with 26 merks of land at Sumburgh, 20 merks at Scatness, plus the tenancy of the "the houss lately biggit by said noble lord", assumedly the Stewart Mansion. Bruce was still tenant of the house in 1609 when he appears to have fallen out with Patrick and Patrick ransacked the house. William Bruce subsequently returned to Fife after giving evidence against Patrick in 1610, but it appears both he and subsequenly his son retained ownership of land at Sumburgh and were absentee landlords, it was his grandson who became the next Bruce resident laird at Sumburgh after he inherited the lands in 1642. They appear to also have been adding to their estate in those intervening years, as when in 1647 the grandson conveyed the Sumburgh lands in liferent to his father-in-law they amounted to 210 merks.
Obviously there's a big jump between tenancy of the house, which William Bruce had, and actual ownership, what became of it's ownership during Patrick's absence between 1610-1615, and/or after his death would probably give some pointers. It would seem though that there was a continous Bruce ownership of Sumburgh lands from 1592 to present, plus a continous Bruce residency on site between 1592 and at least 1609, which was in the Stewart Mansion, plus from 1647 to 1907, of that latter period 1867 to 1907 we know was in Sumburgh House which is now Sumburgh Hotel. So, only 220 years to account for. ;-)
I suspect a trip to/email exchange with the Archives may well be needed before this one is finally unravelled though.
Ghostrider 18:10, 29 September 2007 (MDT)
