Roald Dahl's hut

Heard the interview and found it difficult to believe that it turned into an appeal for money. I love his books, poems and recipes and have passed this love onto my daughter and grandaughter.
His family should have looked after their inheritance - not just the manuscripts but the surroundings in which they were written. At £19 for a family ticket, many families cannot afford a visit to the museum. Hope a shed does not spoil such a wonderful world.

RD fans I guess.

You have to wonder who are these gullible people who have contributed to the two hundred and fifty thousand pounds raised so far.

Hi namo - yes it is a very strong looking fence. Stops it rampaging around the estate.

Well it was the Today prog actually MaggieP - wouldn't be the first time they gave us the wrong impression.

Whew - so relieved to hear the dinosaur was penned in.

The Roald Dahl Hut appeal is being made to Businesses and Trusts and not the general public,this is quoted by the Museum Chairman.
10% of all Roald Dahl's royalties are donated to the charities named after him, as stated in his books.
The Dahl family have donated to this project and Sophie Dahl was doing the PR in her capacity as the museum's patron to help the Museum!
The power of Twitter certainly has caused much ill-informed gossip.

When the curator or whatever she is at the Roald Dahl museum was interviewed on the BBC, she gave the impression that the money was needed because the entire edifice was to be transferred and repaired. Now I realise that it's only the contents so the amount requested seems even more absurd. I shan't be donating.

I bet the carpenter who put the quote in to repair and rebuild the hut, is laughing his head off. His legacy is his books not his hut.

whatever happens to his hut it is never going to be as grand as our "grandads shed " is it

Am I missing the point here?
If the museum need to 'acquire' the hut ...then it must still be in the 'care' of the family? Are the family intending to sell it to the museum ...and then the museum have to repair/maintain it because the family haven't 'wasted' their money on its up-keep?

Surely ..an interactive web-site has more meaning for the world's children who love his books?

Do you know, I think Roald Dahl might have enjoyed having the piss taken out of his hut by a bunch of grans.

There's a difference between a building that has significance – Durham cathedral, a magnificent piece of architecture and structural engineering as well as a reflection of society over quite a few centuries, Scot's hut in the Antarctic, a unique edifice that speaks of an extraordinary group of men, and somewhere someone famous/well-known/well-connected lived. While I'm not suggesting demolishing houses that were once the homes of such people, I do sometimes wonder why it so interesting to see Charlotte Bronte's nightie, especially as it is displayed in Branwell Bronte's bedroom – a place where I would have expected Emily to have an interest if, of course, any of the sisters did.

And there's that word 'iconic' again - see the cliché thread!

See this link for a quality shed not far from here.

www.mkheritage.co.uk/cnm/html/EXHIBITS/gardens/summerhouse_garden.html

A shed load of money..for a shed . I like that!

Having seen the photos of the inside I don't think anyone is going to be able to do other than peer through the windows.

From the Roald Dahl Museum

" We need to raise £500,000 to carry out the first phase of this exciting and important project, which involves acquiring, conserving and displaying the interior of the iconic Writing Hut and its contents..... with £250,000 already raised! The second phase, for which we need an additional £500,000....."

When a museum talks about the cost of "acquiring" they mean buying.It would appear that someone sees the chance of getting a shed load of money for something they couldn't even be bothered to maintain themselves.If so then it's all a bit grubby and greedy.How about just giving it to the museum, if it falls down you'll have to pay to have it carted away anyway.

Maybe the Dahls don't think it's worth the cost of restoring and moving it but thought they'd ask to see if anyone else wanted to fork out the money. Just a (lateral) thought.

Clearly the estate are not interested in giving back the money and this is something Sophie Dahl is doing as a family relative.

I went to visit the house in which Dylan Thomas lived and you could also see the converted garage at the end of the lane where he used to hide away and write The cost of the upkeep of this quaint little building is covered by the admission charge of the property I should imagine, so therefore if you are not interested in Dylan Thomas you don't pay to visit his house! The same should apply to Roald Dahl's property. But I would think the millions his estate is making from the sale of all of his books should surely cover the expense of renovating a 'hut'.

Haven't they just spent a fortune restoring Scott's hut, even though not many of us will ever get to the Antarctic to see it?

If there are people who feel this is an appropriate way to commemorate the author and wish to donate money, that's fine. I shall continue to direct my charitable donations to causes that I consider appropriate.

Shouldn't there come a point where we stop raising charitable money preserving any old thing, especially if the person who left it also left a great stash of cash with his nearest and dearest, whose life's work still gathers in royalties and no doubt it will be surrounded by don't touch signs anycase.

At school we contributed to the removal of a whole dinosaur and the job was completed for a few thousand. (it was a hideous "work of art" but some people loved it. It is now in a pen in the park...)