ORIGINAL doors in Miller's court

[GUT]

Richard I doubt we will ever no for certain and no matter where you place them there will be some who insist it’s wrong.

I will say this, what’s the likelihood they went to a fair bit of expense and moved them when digging the place up for cheap rooms

[richardh]

So we are back to the theory that the stairs (ORIGINAL) went across the width of the house? If this is the case, and with the ORIGINAL door to 13 being a few feet from the passage wall, then the stairs would be going up and turning to the right onto the landing above?

I have in mind also the discussion we've had in the past regarding the goings on during the lizzie Robets murder in room 19 a few years later. That [suggested] layout needs to be considered in relation to this discussion too.

I have to say that I find this whole subject a HUGH headache and very frustrating as I continue to build my VR Miller's Court. I am trying to arrive at a plan using logic and common sense but I fear any design will fall short of being an accurate version!

I posted some years ago that the smaller rear window of room 13 may have been the original backdoor, later bricked up as a window.
This back door led to a passage which took you to the stairwell in the center of the house, there being an internal partition wall, later removed, to separate this passage from room 13.

This is the reason the door we see wallpapered over behind the bed is several feet away from the corner of the room. This, I suspect, was the original internal door to enter room 13 from the stairwell. There would have been no backdoor for room 13 originally.
This is very similar to a turn of the century Brownstone terrace house I grew up in.

[GUT]

Hi GUT
I suspect the front room of No.26, referred to as a 'shed' in some reports, was a shop at one time.
The passage door (Praters?), would have been the common entry for the residents/tenants, to avoid them coming in through the shop.

More or less how I see it. In that door to the stairs up to rooms abov3 the shop. And that’d make Mary’s room either a store room for the shop or maybe a kitchen to cook what they sold.

[Wickerman]

I have always assumed that the front room, Mary’s and what is described as a storeroom, were originally a shop. So the front entry off Dorset St.

Hi GUT
I suspect the front room of No.26, referred to as a 'shed' in some reports, was a shop at one time.
The passage door (Praters?), would have been the common entry for the residents/tenants, to avoid them coming in through the shop.

[Wickerman]

I posted some years ago that the smaller rear window of room 13 may have been the original backdoor, later bricked up as a window.
This back door led to a passage which took you to the stairwell in the center of the house, there being an internal partition wall, later removed, to separate this passage from room 13.

This is the reason the door we see wallpapered over behind the bed is several feet away from the corner of the room. This, I suspect, was the original internal door to enter room 13 from the stairwell. There would have been no backdoor for room 13 originally.
This is very similar to a turn of the century Brownstone terrace house I grew up in.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello richardh

Good question. I have no proof; considering an original configuration for the house, Prater's door could have been in the design. If, for instance, a gate-door to the courtyard could be closed or locked, Prater's door would serve as an entrance to the house from within the court (so that a resident would not have to walk out to Dorset Street to enter the residence). I'm thinking of a design along the lines of 40 Berners Street with its' side access.

[Yabs]

I guess, what i'm asking is... were the passageway doors (No13 & Prater's) Original? there from the get-go?

I’ve always thought the original back door was converted into the smaller back window. It’s the same height as the other door to the side, and about the correct width for a door.
I’m with you in thinking Kelly’s door was a later knock through.
It was possibly converted into a window because I believe they used to store handcarts round the back and this would block the back exit.

[richardh]

I guess, what i'm asking is... were the passageway doors (No13 & Prater's) Original? there from the get-go?

[DJA]

Think the whole shebang was a townhouse originally,with 13 being the rear parlor.

[GUT]

The front door is original. there would be a back door which would be either Mary's room door (No.13) or poss the small window of No13 that was bricked up into a small window over the course of the house's life.

The other door in the passage way (prater's). Would this be an original door? I can see no reason for having an original doorway in this passage when the front door was perfectly adequate. Prater's door would not have been an original feature (used as the back door) because obviously it wasn't in the back of the house. So it must have been added after. Added for what purpose?
If it was to access the upper floors when they utilised the shed then they must have also built a new staircase which would be a big and costly task when they could simply partition off the shed from the original front door and keep using the front door. the Shed could be accessed via the double barn doors.

I want to ascertain the original features (doors & windows) of No.26 before the modifications were added.

I have always assumed that the front room, Mary’s and what is described as a storeroom, were originally a shop. So the front entry off Dorset St.

[DJA]

Used to be a tall gate at the end of the passage.

Fair bit of discussion on this a year or two ago.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=363648

[richardh]

The front door is original. there would be a back door which would be either Mary's room door (No.13) or poss the small window of No13 that was bricked up into a small window over the course of the house's life.

The other door in the passage way (prater's). Would this be an original door? I can see no reason for having an original doorway in this passage when the front door was perfectly adequate. Prater's door would not have been an original feature (used as the back door) because obviously it wasn't in the back of the house. So it must have been added after. Added for what purpose?
If it was to access the upper floors when they utilised the shed then they must have also built a new staircase which would be a big and costly task when they could simply partition off the shed from the original front door and keep using the front door. the Shed could be accessed via the double barn doors.

I want to ascertain the original features (doors & windows) of No.26 before the modifications were added.