Campaign Diary [Archive; March-September 2025]
- Mark Huitson
- Oct 2
- 67 min read
Updated: Nov 13
Archived blog, chronicling the finders' opinions, thoughts and events.
30.9.25: Waiting
We wait on the Scottish government’s decision on our appeal against the council’s planning enforcement notice. We do not expect a positive response. We expect the government will purposefully disregard the bells’ extraordinary provenance, or the deceitful circumstances around the current property listing in their decision making, again avoiding the very pertinent reason why we removed the bells in the first instance, leaving us to battle it out with the local planning authority, and take action against Historic Environment Scotland under Section 14 of the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014.
However, we shall be patient. We shall wait and see if the Scottish Government care about Scottish Christian heritage and history enough to seek beyond blind bureaucratic eschewal, and furtherance of the planners’ dire signature on the quality of the Scottish built environment.
27.09.25: ‘A Cell’
The long nights and rainy days make my truck-turned-habitat feel like a cell. I do not sleep anymore—perhaps a few hours in the small hours. I certainly have more waking time to challenge any early morning visitors to the church—strange tall men with torches at two in the morning.
Waiting to resolve the conundrum presented by the church, to return to the life I had, are taking their toll. I feel much older. I smile far less, and my poor wee dog knows not all is well with her master.
Digger and I often talk of bringing the bells back to the church, securing the building as an unworkable project, and stepping aside to find a new life somewhere else. But could we live with the decision? If we were even remotely mistaken about the bells’ provenance, then perhaps we should bow down to the forces acting against us and move on. But it is certain we are not mistaken. So why has it been made taboo by the Establishment for two people to take the time to understand something that others have not bothered to do, and in the process find something undeniable, that can only bring benefit to the most? But of course, they want us just to be another entry in the catalogue of misplay that has defined the Church of Holywood for the last one hundred-and twenty years. But Digger and I have never been comfortable catalogued with ineptitude.
19.09.25: 'Ignorance is a poor tool in debate'
I had a ‘lively’ social media exchange with a humanities student who declared, ‘the bells were better off forgotten than presented as a celebration of religious genocide’. I challenged their viewpoint, suggesting the bells were nothing other than religious artefacts associated with a time of conflict with Islamic belligerents over contested territory and Holy site. I appreciated the modern Templar legend is often associated with the glorification of war in Christ’s name, but that was no reason to condemn artefacts that had a far deeper meaning than war. I avoided specific debate about the evils or merits of the Crusades, with what appeared to be quite an entrenched anti-Christian/Crusades viewpoint. Instead, I asked if the student’s position included all and any religious artefact associated with religiously motivated conflict, regardless of faith? The student failed to answer my question, concentrating on histories (the Thirty Years War included) of ‘Christians slaughtering innocents in the name of God’.
The student did not challenge the authenticity of the bells, but I challenged their proposed censorship of historical artefacts (le., the bells)—eradication based on both a bias and unbalanced view of the causes of the horrors of war. I suggested the maintenance of the material record of any conflict, both good and bad (depending on individual perspective) is essential memory for future generations, so they understand and avoid the mistakes of the past.
Considering the bigger picture, I referred the student to historians, Charles Philip and Alan Axelrod’s three-volumes of the Encyclopaedia of Wars. A catalogue of human conflict, in which war in the name of religion accounted for only seven percent of wars waged in the course of human history. Meaning ninety-three percent of wars and conflicts, and the associated death toll, perhaps as high as three hundred million, was the result of secular despotic governments and rulers following ideologies other than religious motivation. Murder and genocide, I suggested was chiefly the domain of the secular antagonist—so should all artefact associated with these perpetrators be destroyed—or is it only Christian artefact they found objectionable?
I asked the student what subject they were studying. ‘History - BA (Hons),’ came the reply. It was ‘encouraging’ to know another ‘objective’ academically tutored historian had entered the debate.
16.09.25: Common Sense
We did not expect our discovery to be drawn into so much weighty hidden conflict and machination. That a find of historical artefacts, instead of being fairly considered, evaluated and appreciated for the history it revealed, would instead be tainted by political skirmish, the clerical betrayal of fundamental values, governmental misdemeanour, name calling and even violence directed against the bells and the owners. We never imagined our discovery would be dragged into debate by opposing ideological groups; academic, political and clerical. We find such conflict, perverse, in contrast to the intelligent concept of win-win.
15.09.25: Confirmation
Several weeks ago, we were informed by a third party with professional interest in our dilemma, that several scholars within a US college had reviewed our report and agreed with our findings. He stated, ‘The facts you presented offered no other option, but to agree.’ We requested confirmation and details of their critique, as opinion without evidenced corroboration was merely unsupportable viewpoint.
Regrettably, we were told at the time, their acceptance was not necessarily a solution to our problem, as although it was the opinion of scholars, it would not necessarily come with endorsement from the college, and we still needed institutional acceptance. Nevertheless, we requested the scholars’ critique to add counter to the delinquent assessment we had already been presented by referred academics and the avoidance from others. We are still waiting for a reply.
13.09.25: ‘An Angry Man’
Digger raised a valid concern my posts on this blog are coming across as ‘repetitive—an echoing illustration of my anger and frustration more than objective comment and information. I must agree.
12.09.25: ‘Visitor’
A visitor had been noticed in the churchyard lately. Dawn and dusk, their presence is unmistakable. Standing out against the shadows cast by the surrounding monuments, lurking, watching, looking for opportunity. I think my own presence would scare the unfamiliar visitor away, but the stranger persists, as if it accepts me.
The stranger is a majestic Barn owl, new to the roll of beasts and fauna making the site a home and hunting ground. Never before have I lived somewhere that offers so much nature as my guest.
08.09.25: 'Understanding'
It has been over a year since we published our book, Hidden in Plain Sight—Unmasking Scotland’s First Knights Templar, and last night, unable to sleep, I found myself reading the first five years of our journey (in the hope it would put me into slumber). Sure enough, interesting, amusing passages and chapters led to perhaps verbose ‘considerations and deliberations’ as the author (yawn) wrestled with the problem of circumventing establishment self-service and hostility to any public intervention, the individual, and the truth.
What was clear to a tired man, a year-on, reading the text of our own story, was that Digger and I, at the time the book was written, still had a lot to learn about the inequities of the system. How deep-rooted, deceit, incompetence, and dishonesty had become in our country. How far human society, in what should be a highly developed prosperous, free-handed nation, had abandoned its own noble heritage—a heritage based on Christian values of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude.
Digger and I, who hold our ancestors’ legends dear, have learned that the bells are not just misplaced ancient artefacts but reminders of what we all have lost. We were a nation of canny thinkers, heroes, innovators, natural leaders, skilled politicians and mediators—moral adherents, prepared, without thought to cost or comfort, to shed blood for others in peril.
I pass an engraving every day in the churchyard that reads, ‘Pro Patria’ - ‘For Country’. It sits on a monument—a role of honour to soldiers who selflessly gave up their lives for God, King, and Country. It appears we have replaced their notion of sacrifice with ideologies, indolence, ineptitude and self-service that bring little to a nation’s repute or its honour.
Would we fight for God, King and Country today; make the ultimate sacrifice because we believe in something greater than ourselves—defend what we think is proper—and if not—why not?
05.09.25: 'Priggish'
Five years of research and campaign, results in innumerable conversations and interactions. I alone, possess four journals stuffed with notes and comments, made through such interaction.
Archiving is time consuming, particularly deciding what to omit and what should be publicly accessible. One such interaction, early in 2024 with a doctoral candidate in medieval studies, completing his thesis within a major UK university, prompted me to write, ‘priggish’, at the bottom of my hand written notes, highlighted with a smiley face, indicating amusement with a conversation that illustrated a dearth of critical thinking in a discipline that promotes itself as vital to that skill’s acquisition.
The rather priggish academic had issue with our inclusion within our archaeological study (11.3.63, page 128) of a work by seventeenth century French historian, heraldic scholar, and lawyer of the supreme court of the Paris parliament, André Favyn: The Theatre of Honour and Knighthood. Because Favyn’s work is unreferenced, with contemporary record absent, some historians, including our critic doubt its authenticity.
I challenged the academic’s premise that Favyn’s work was likely to be fiction. I conjectured that an important event occurred in France at the end of the eighteenth century—the French revolution. It was not unreasonable to expect the conquering republicans—the Jacobins, in their blood thirsty campaign to eradicate the monarchy and nobility loyal to the king, to destroy any record of their ‘noble’ knightly origin. Whereas this record (the source of Favyn’s dissertation) would have been maintained in France, thus accessible to the revolution and the Jacobins for destruction, Favyn’s work was already published and present in libraries across Europe—out the reach of the revolution. Hence the absence of reference material for Favyn’s work could not be so easily dismissed, rendering his work 'fiction'.
Besides, as I pointed out, our inclusion of Favyn’s work was purely in context of discussion of the possible roots of a knightly brotherhood that could have used the title ‘Masculus’ as an identifier, and as there was no mention in Favyn’s work, the thread of that enquiry was eliminated from our conclusions.
I asked, if that was the only problem the critic had with our study, when we could expect to receive his endorsement. Instead, he denied our discovery, despite the hollowness of his critique.
03.09.25: ‘And today’s lesson is...’
For all the virtue human nature can offer, we can say, generally it is only iniquity: self-interest, ignorance, indolence, cowardice and arrogance that has dominated our interactions with the establishment. Stupidity reigns over intelligence, as the individual puts their own intellectual authority aside so, as sheep, they may fit into the surrounding flock to receive acceptance—but they will never receive veneration.
It seems society lacks humility, hates talent, hates truth tellers, hates success, and hates anything that differs or undeniably challenges their point of view, as if their viewpoint was infallible, irrefutable, sacred.
Here ends the lesson for the day... It has been one of those days, tainted not by another disappointing reaction from authorities, or more apathy from the public, but via instruction given to us by those better placed to understand the inequities of the world, because they deal with malignancy and stupidity within the establishment, every single day.
26.08.25: "Conspiracy"
In our blog dated, 20.04.25, ‘The Templar Legend’, we recorded concern about our discovery being embroiled in conspiracy, particularly with the copious amount of speculative history already published about the Knights Templar.
So today, it was extremely disconcerting when a senior agent representing the very pinnacle of the ‘establishment’ confirmed, not only that the authorities had accepted the veracity of our discovery, but there was an orchestrated conspiracy of denial being delivered; not only because the discovery was found by individuals outside the ‘establishment’ but because the discovery, and what it represents, were abhorrent to anti-Christian political ideologies.
What is frustrating, because of confidentiality, and lack of evidenced testimony, we cannot use this intelligence to specifically name and shame individuals and agencies’ and their immoral behaviour—intent, not only to mask deficiencies in the establishment, but on destroying a nation’s legacy, purely to prop-up malignant political beliefs and perpetuate control over what they perceive as important.
23.08.25: “The Good of It?”
Last night, I telephoned an influential supporter, asking for his help. I pleaded with him to intervene; to use his influence to have our case not just considered ‘pending’ but acted upon quickly. We explained, every month Digger and I must find a considerable amount of money and resolve to keep the archaeology in our possession safe; see another month pass with our family plans put on hold, our children a little older and us disconnected.
We declared we were tired of dealing with malignant, publicly funded and sponsored institutions, that appear to exist only to serve themselves, intent on shrouding their incompetencies. We reported we were tired of recording what we could only see as our good intent, measured against unbelievably indecorous authorities; academic, bureaucratic and religious; petitioning institutions that harbour a dishonest attitude towards an incontestable discovery—an event that should be considered good news for all, except those whose incompetence was revealed. I declared we were tired of recording their excuses, again and again, hiding in rules they have invented to excuse their misbehaviour—justifying their avoidance as if it was published policy and enacted law; misbehaviour that fools no one, but is lost in all the other calamity that is governance in the twenty first century, and a public that has grown largely indifferent to the shoddy service they receive from organisations that have nothing but contempt for the public, the common good, or for the benefit of the country and its reputation which they purport to serve. I pleaded for help, for a voice far greater than ours to speak up in support of the truth.
Our supporter thanked me for the call—my “oration”, as he put it. He did not excuse his lack of action. He stated, “all was a matter of timing. That there was a reason Digger and I were involved.”
I informed him, I would be recording our communication on our blog, and that he should not take offence to our 'oration' or our frustration. He encouraged us to share our feelings. He said, “all we do, all we write, and all we suffer is for the good of it.” However, he is yet to explain to us ‘what the good of it’ really is.
22.08.25: ‘The Search for Assistance is now a Game of Elimination’
Since 2021, Digger and I have spread our net far and wide to procure assistance, not necessarily to have our discovery accepted, but to have our research fairly evaluated. In the beginning we anticipated nothing but good news—the illumination of hidden history, a greater understanding of Templar establishment in Scotland, a financial benefit, not only for us but for the region, and a solution for a church deceitfully mis-sold to us as a potential home.
Originally, the only significant misplay was Victorian misinterpretation made at a time of misunderstanding, and the adherence to that misinterpretation by the establishment who had not prioritised closer examination of an effaced abbey, an unremarkable provincial church in a small rural community, or the identity of the sponsor of its bells.
Our search for help was necessary as there was no official route to authoritative and promotional authentication of new historical discovery made outside academia (except for treasure trove dug from the ground). We attempted to counter professional opinion given in 2021, and tested over 2022, that academia would never consider our research, regardless of its merit or the fact it was a collaborative effort with academics and other scholars.
Digger and I, since then, have approached the breadth of Scottish and UK society and authority for help; from royalty, governmental and charitable agencies, politicians and political leaders, celebrities, notables and influencers, the media, the legal sector, the Scottish Christian Church (in all its guises and sects), the local and the wider community, and associations and interest groups that would have a concern for our discovery; from Templar organisations, the Masons, medieval and bell history societies, and medieval history academics all over the world from the US through Europe, Asia and onto Australia.
We did receive advice from some, for what they recognised to be a genuine discovery, evidenced by a remarkable piece of research. However, response if it was offered was invariably limited to tutelage or sympathy why our discovery would forever be obstructed, either through disinterest, scepticism, indolence, ego, prejudice, or the self-protection of a flawed academic-led historical sector and a malignant bureaucracy.
We have only a few leads left to pursue before we have eliminated all those we thought would or could help. What is left is the Scottish government’s consideration, and if they do not recognise and act on the issues raised by our final appeal, then we will legitimately be able to discount Scottish authority in all its forms in terms of the delivery of proficient, prudent and genuine care for vital Scottish heritage. It is a reflection of the sorry times in which we live.
Regrettably, after four years we are still left the task of finding safe sanctuary and an appropriate keeper for an unremarkable church and its remarkable archaeology. No one can dismantle our discovery, no one can argue we do not present understanding far beyond superficial opinion that has been allowed to form academic and public misunderstanding of the precious artefacts in our possession. Thus, we will now need to seek a worthy keeper for our mis-bought heritage outside Scotland; seek those who do care about ancestral roots and Christian heritage, and in the process, pour censure on a nation who refuses to foster one of its most important assets—its history.
21.08.25: ‘Setting down the Gauntlet… that no one will pick up’
Today, Digger and I were disappointed to read a thread of discussion about the bells of Holywood. Part of the discussion centered around displeasure. We had belittled the discussion group's associates’ expertise. ‘After all, who were we?’ We were individuals outside their community, declaring an understanding of their speciality—an understanding their association had not sanctioned. This defensive attitude is prevalent within many interest groups, where their skill set is not founded on forensic analysis but instead, popular viewpoint.
We have repeatedly presented our archaeological report to those that are declared experts or officially recognised authorities in the areas of our study. Digger and I challenge professed specialists to pit their proficiency against the forensic evidence we provide and ask them to tell us where we could be wrong. Absolutely no one has dismantled our conclusions. Most do not even rise to the challenge. Instead of engagement with the evidence we provide, if we are countered, it is only with opinion, and the opinion of others, none of which are supported with verifiable evidence. Using someone’s unsupported view as counterevidence, no matter the reputation of that individual, hardly presents a cogent argument against fact.
You might think those who take the time to become closely involved in an area of study, would care deeply about that subject. Would want to expand their knowledge or keep safe any physical record that is threatened. Would want to engage to discuss the issues, or to counter falsity, speculation and unsafe understanding. However, it seems these ‘authorities’ are more intent on preserving their ego than history or the integrity of their interest.
So, we are allowed to take affront with naysayers and armchair critics, when they offer disparaging comments based on ignorance rather than understanding. We are justified in our demonstration of their delinquencies—to challenge those who have long been allowed to push their subjective opinion as if it was scientifically derived fact.
19.08.25: ‘Controversy’
Throughout the years we have contacted Scottish media in all its forms, and every time our discovery and supporting evidence was ignored. Reception was very disappointing. Therefore, it was extremely frustrating today to have one of those media outlets contact us to pursue a thread of a story generated by our appeal to the Scottish government—nothing about the discovery of rare artefacts, or even dispute with the planning authority, but about digging up a lead on political rivals and their connection to the church’s previous benefactors. A story which enlivens potential Masonic controversy we had long ago deferred to concentrate on the archaeology, evidence and good news for the area, hidden by what we judged was misunderstanding and incompetence rather than deliberate deceit.
Dishonesty and controversy seems to be a recurring theme within our journey. We had not pursued the reasons behind the loss of the site’s history, medieval record and physical evidence of the former abbey, all which existed in the nineteenth century and subsequently ‘lost’. This disappearance, which had raised questions time and time again with archivists and archaeologists, may indeed have been by design rather than neglect—Why?
18.08.25: Bats in the Belfry
When we bought the church, the building already had a colony of long-eared bats. It was an issue with the church development we were more than happy to give proper attention, with support from the Bat Conservation Trust. With inspection, we located their roosts—in the south walls and the loft space around the tower, all areas where work was proposed. Holes in the wall, the bats point of ingress and exit, scheduled to be repointed, were identified to be left open, new work and access to the tower minimised and deleted so as not to disturb roosts. It was a compromise we were only too happy to take to preserve the bats’ home.
Thankfully, potential disturbance to the bats was an issue we could postpone, when it was identified no development work would be carried out in our ownership, due to the discovery and nature of the attending archaeology.
In 2021, we sadly observed a significant reduction of bats in flight in the evenings around the church. However, in 2025, an explosion of flying insects from the unmanaged church yard, has been met with a congestion of bats filling the sky, with pipistrels joining the long-eared bats in late evening and early morning displays of ‘flightmanship’.
Congestion brings casualty, and happily I am on site to give a practiced hand to those who have not been able to return to their roosts safely. Digger is envious of aspects of my charge. Every cloud has a silver lining; it’s just sometimes you have to be able to appreciate what that silver lining is.
15.08.25: ‘Smelling a Rat’
I was enjoying the good weather late into the evening, with both a cat and dog companion on each knee, when two men approached. They asked if they had found the local church. I informed them there was no local church, Holywood being closed and deconsecrated. The two men asked if they could look inside. One man, clearly in his twenties, told me of stories of his father taking him to Holywood Church for Sunday worship, and he wanted to see if the inside was as he remembered. Alarm bells rang loud. The church had closed for worship thirty years ago. I politely declined their request—advising the church was dilapidated.
I walked with the men to the front of the church, so I could see their transport—a large white van carrying Irish registration plates. The two men carried no regional accent, neither Irish nor Scottish. They flattered the church—a building with little to commend it. They flattered me. My suspicion grew. Their enquiries became intrusive, personal, and I decided to take my leave of their company. As I walked away, they asked if I had any scrap or fittings from the church to sell. Their purpose was revealed. I informed them the church had long ago been completely stripped. They followed, with more intrusive questions, at which point I made them aware they were being filmed on CCTV, and they retreated.
I did not sleep that night. At 3.00am my dog altered me to the churchyard gates being opened. I investigated, to see a large white van drive away. Two disconnected events? Perhaps...
14.08.25: ‘Intelligences’
Since the newspaper articles, we have had contact with various individuals possessing a greater insight into the institutions we’re dealing with. Historic Environment Scotland, the Church of Scotland, the local council, and even the Scottish Catholic Church all feature. We are advised from within, secrecy is a significant feature of these organisations, who far from delivering their prime intent, deliver failure instead. Rather than seek improvement and benefit, such is their contempt, they distance themselves from anything that highlights their dereliction—particularly when issues are raised from those they regard as ‘outsiders’ or ‘inferior’, ie., individual members of the public.
We are told our discovery is not in doubt; however, these organisations do not want to admit to it because of the issues it presents—criticism and censure due to their indolence and incompetence. Whereas we no longer have surprises regarding HES and the council and their anti-heritage behaviours, we are disappointed to have confirmed the malignant behaviour of the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church with regards to Christian heritage and their absence of paternal care for two Christians who have reached out in entreaty, regardless of the issues they bring. These two organisations exhibit actions which could only be viewed as ‘unholy’ and that makes these Christian institutions abhorrent to the intrinsic values of the Christian faith. Their misbehaviours directly contribute to our understanding why they are, and perhaps should be, in decline.
We cannot use these intelligences as evidence without openly declared and substantiated testimony from those individuals providing the information, but at least it furnishes us with questions we can ask when it comes to legal remedy, promotes debate in public forum, and supports our declarations of malevolence within Scottish institutions, shaping the future of the bells and the legacy they leave behind.
12.08.25: ‘Disillusion’
Soon after the first tranche of research was completed, to the point there was unarguable conclusion, Digger wrote to and telephoned innumerable leads in archaeology—tapping into past intellectual relationships. She tirelessly petitioned many major historical institutions, including, as example, National Museums Scotland, The British Museum, and the Vatican. She also approached many leading individuals identified with the correct interest in medieval heritage, and Scottish history. The regular theme in all her entreaties was disbelief that bells of such rare antiquity had been allowed to remain in a building discarded by the Church of Scotland, who considered them merely ‘a quirky feature’, rather than seek to keep safe what is vital from being lost to the public.
Even with the bells originally presumed to be early sixteenth century, their original siting in Holywood Abbey was special enough to guarantee they should not have been left to be ‘lost’ within a private house development but rather preserved in a museum or other public accessible institution. Worse still, the Church of Scotland must have known the church had acute archaeological issues, meaning they knew any re-development and with it the conservation of the bells would be severely compromised.
The Church of Scotland, custodian of many ancient churches, had no excuse for their catastrophic misunderstanding of bells held in their possession for a hundred years after doubt had been poured on the sixteenth century re-interpretation of what was originally reported and officially considered to be twelfth century.
However, after four years of, what seems like endless petitions, Digger is no longer surprised by the bells’ abandonment. Instead, original disbelief has been replaced by devastating disenchantment—discovery of the absence of integrity within the keepers of an archaeological discipline she passionately bought into as a student.
09.08.25: ‘Agenda’
The Historic Environment Policy for Scotland is unequivocal about the importance of an inclusive understanding of Scottish heritage. It recognises the historic environment record, as it stands, is incomplete and compromised.
‘Research, discussion and exchange of ideas can all contribute to our understanding of the historic environment and understanding will improve when information is made widely available, and everyone has the opportunity to contribute to knowledge of the historic environment.’
Apparently, however, agencies and authorities appointed by the Scottish government to enact government policy and foster an improved understanding, have a different unmandated agenda. For these heritage ‘safekeepers’ the specific history of a site or object is not critical to our understanding and is not important with regards to its protection under law, nor its conservation. All that matters is their mismanagement of our understanding is not challenged. Corruption comes in many forms, its effects evident in the denigration of a nation’s reputation.
08.08.25: 'The Natural State'
Mulling over an alfresco coffee, watching weasel kits competing to catch grasshoppers, I contemplated a red kite above and my presence denying his/her breakfast. I deliberated that my presence may be intruding on the natural order of existence. But after a debate on whose need was the greatest, the kite’s or the kits, I realised I had become part of that order. That the kits’ mother saw me perhaps as a surrogate guardian, allowing her children to stay out and play.
The grass is long and unmanaged in the cemetery, but what was originally a complaint to the council is a good thing now it is neglected, even if gravestones are lost in the green. It put into perspective the value of human interruption on the natural state. The long unmanaged grass has sponsored an explosion of wildlife in the cemetery—bringing many more visitors and homemakers of all size and interest—creatures I have never seen before—an abundance of life amongst the ancient monuments to the departed. The church, which had little character when we bought it, is slowly succumbing to this new natural state. Birds nest and foliage covers—it softens the ugliness of man’s creation—his poor aesthetic in decline.
Living on site for nearly six years, with further tutelage of the prevailing human condition, has changed my original ambition for a building discarded by the community and the bones and stone lying interred. In many ways the spiritual heritage of the site may be better served this way—man’s rejection of his spiritual disposition left to return to God’s created nature—to Eden, perhaps where it always belonged.
07:08:25: A Balance of Merit
In petition to John Cooper, Member of Parliament for Dumfries and Galloway, he suggested we should seek a second academic opinion, referring us to a named published medieval historian. The MP had been comprehensively briefed on the significant problems we had encountered trying to achieve objective academic evaluation and authentication. His advice, perhaps constructively meant, was ultimately both misapplied and unhelpful with regards to our case. The referred academic had already been considered and discounted because our investigation was outside his field of study. Mr Cooper had regrettably missed the point of our petition, as the two most academic referred consultant specialist historians (in terms of our investigation) had already ignored our research in favour of an amateur Victorian historian’s supposition.
The original singlehanded, superficial and uneducated hypothesis was presented in 1898 within a thousand-word consideration of the bells’ engraving, offered for peer review without illustration or reference. We, in contrast, had offered for scholarly review, a detailed collaborative examination in 2021, all within one hundred-and-twenty thousand words with full illustration and expert reference.
So why did the academics dismiss our understanding in favour of a Victorian historian and a demonstrable errant hypothesis, when they could not dismantle our analysis with any demonstrable merit? Were the academics seeking an inclusive understanding of history, or merely protecting the opinion of a fellow antiquarian society member presenting the foundation of the academic accepted record? If it is the latter, what is the academic and their understanding’s true worth? Where does the balance of merit lie?
05.08.25: ‘Fiction sometimes resonates fact’
‘We do not live in a meritocracy—merit placed in authority over every creed and kind. Where character is the judgement of any person, not their class nor origin. An intelligent win-win society that seeks only mutual benefit, eradicates harm, falsity and depravation. Where the privileged are positioned to help the less fortunate. Where honour, charity and right action dictate cause. Where decisions are made on value for the whole, not the less nor the selfish.
But do we live in a meritless society? Perhaps, perhaps not. Our success in life is not always judged by our performance, but how we run with the crowd. We choose dissociation from our own true character so we may succeed and be accepted by our peers. We live the lie so we may avoid denunciation. We perversely sacrifice honour to gain regard.
I sought acceptance through performance—the selfless pursuit of other people’s wellbeing and my employer’s reputation. However, I dared to offer quality rather than compliance, and so I find myself censured, in self-imposed exile from the establishment. A Christian without a Church, but finding better fellowship in God’s creation, rather than in man’s ambition.’ (Edward Hendon, The Borderer Chronicles, 1554) — Fiction sometimes resonates fact.
04.08.25: ‘A Deficit of Promotion?’
We can give a dozen excuses why we are not vociferously promoting our find on social media, exposing the outrageous delinquency of academics and poorly performing governance. Fear of intrusion into our lives is principal amongst them, but another is the hope that we can still find some intelligence and integrity within authority, and in doing so, bring this case to a mutually beneficial close, without pouring scandal and disrepute onto the already questionable value of academia and bureaucracy, even Church institutions. However, we are near to exhausting any remaining pursuit of logic within the establishment in all its forms.
We are not going to (or can afford to) disappear, nor is our case, so we will reluctantly have to shout, both in judicial halls and public forum. There will be no going back, and the only circumstance going to save the reputations of academics and administrators, is if our discovery is not real—and bad news; absolutely no one can dismantle it—oh dear.
03.08.25: ‘The Motives of the Council?'
Received more feedback regarding our planning defence from a senior legal advocate who had volunteered to review our case; considering the responses and arguments from governance—authorities who do not dismantle but ignore our evidence. The advocate cited the obvious imbalance of merit that would be evident in any judicial review. The case illustrated an obvious delinquency of proper, objective and professional behaviour by the authorities—falsehoods, misrepresentations, and a general and transparent truancy of prime understanding and prudent audit.
The advocate could not understand the motives of the council—why it was (historically) so dismissive of the prominence of the bells, as he claimed any legal decisions would be based on the validity and source of the information forming the property listing. It is apparent the understanding of the sites and bells’ special interest is not currently served by the current amended listing, as it is not based on any interrogable record, nor competent understanding. Our report he claimed, unquestionably (and expertly) improved the understanding of the bells, and regardless of any Templar attribution, the supporting evidence of the age and sponsorship of the bells had clearly been mistreated by the authorities on the listing. The report, currently in the public domain, would better lodged within Canmore only with assurances from the listing agent, HES, that it fed the narrative of the property listing (currently denied).
The council and HES’s purposed efforts not to engage or assist with the discovery can only bring discredit to the appointed managers of heritage, not vindication. However, the advocate warned the legal route to moral victory would be slow and expensive, without necessarily promoting a change in the behaviour of an obvious flawed academic and bureaucratic sector. He shared his misgivings about the Scottish legal sector to properly service our case, particularly considering its wide-ranging implications, and that effort, beyond necessary legal defence, may be better directed into media promotion of the issues, discussion and censure.
02.08.25: The Censorship of Historical Record
Digger and I have tried to stay clear of political and religious machinations with regards to our discovery and campaign, preferring to hold to the facts of the bells’ origins and their sponsor’s legend without bias commentary on the rights and wrongs of historical events influencing the bells’ creation and the motives of their sponsor. However, when a commentator on a social media post (since removed) vehemently wished the bells destroyed, because they promoted ‘white colonisation and European conquest of Arab lands', we have further cause to be concerned about the bells’ security, particularly as such attitudes do indeed exist. Perhaps the bells have far more relevance today than Digger and I appreciate.
31.07.25: The Good Historian
Anyone can call themselves an historian, so long as they have access to record, the ability to read, have an opinion on the past, and the ability to communicate their views to others.
There are two kinds of historian. The subjective historian is one who weaves prejudiced opinion into their consideration, camouflages speculation, mistranslates to suit, and cherry-picks sources to satisfy their own conceited conviction. An objective historian, however, is one who considers all the evidence, challenges all the sources of information, has empathy for all the players; someone who seeks to inform, not influence.
Unfortunately, there is an absence of coherent standards for us to judge good and bad historians. There is only scholarly judgement of their historiography. There are no professional standards, no accountability, and no judicial regulation. Thus, there is no measure of good and bad, and so subjective and objective historians exist without a clear distinction of their worth.
An historian’s acumen and talent are inherent within the ability of the individual and is not created by academia, who only fosters and mentors their scholarly method... and meticulous methodology is not the sole domain of the academic.
A considered historian is one, who can be either subjective or objective, but has the repute to be read by the masses and accepted. A great historian, however, is purely objective; someone whose histories can be trusted down the ages for their robustness, insightfulness, and unbiased fact.
29.07.25: ‘Bonkers!’
There is commentary currently on social media, questioning why the council is so adamant about the bells being returned to the belfry of a dilapidated building, before it is completely renovated? Why the council should be so opposed to the discovery being relevant to the future of the church? Why it is clinging to the restoration of ecclesiastical artefacts to an unused and so insecure de-sanctified church, only to be ‘lost’, rather than placed so the public can see and hear them?
On the evidence presented it is unlikely the church will be redeveloped unless public money is sunk into the project… and that, on the face of it, seems unlikely, as the council and the government are not supporting the discovery, despite the fact they cannot deny it.
‘Nonsense, ludicrous and bonkers’, are just some of the non-offensive expletives used to describe the situation. And that is with most of the commentators being ignorant to the full facts, demonstrating a case far worse than the one presented in the latest news stories.
We try to apportion reason for the conflict, but perhaps are looking for intelligent reasoning, rather than reasons we cannot possibly empathise with, because they are so abhorrent to any sense of logic, intelligence, good judgement and moral foundation.
28.07.25: “There are NO Templar Artefacts!”
I was assailed yesterday evening by a dogmatic, self-declared medieval historian. He derided the bells’ legend, claiming there were no Templar artefacts surviving because, in the wake of accusations of heresy at the beginning of the fourteenth century, all were destroyed. I asked him to provide evidence to support his conviction. He quoted a few references from books—opinions of other historians, none of which were founded on contemporary evidence or fact—purely suppositions based on the circumstance that so few provenanced Templar artefacts have ever been found.
I replied, ‘an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’ Like all religious artefact, there is a dearth of order tagging on objects. Unless an artefact is marked with an individual’s name with a proven connection to a specific order or establishment together with a date, assignment of objects to specific religious orders is extremely difficult. The Templars, like all the other Christian religious orders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, did not festoon their possessions with their order title, or some kind of copyright mark. It is true they had unique symbology, eg., field signs and markers, but these were not applied to all their possessions.
I suggested our critic could apply the same ‘absence’ theory to objects created by the Augustinians, Premonstratensians, Cistercians, Benedictines, etc, etc. No historian claims these orders’ artefacts were purposefully destroyed.
I asked, if he had read our archaeological report. He claimed he had, but it was clear he had not. I suggested perhaps he should evaluate the evidence forming the bells’ legend, before he forms an opinion. He got quite upset, I assume because I questioned his knowledge—his opinion not formed from understanding, not the application of his own intellectual authority, but other people’s theories.
It was another demonstration of prejudice. Dissent and opinion made without objective evaluation of the evidence presented. It is a sad fact; people will vehemently hold to their belief even if there is absolutely no demonstrable merit in the foundation of that belief.
26.07.25: Disinterest
After another widespread media publication of our case against the local council, a sad reality has absolutely sunk in. There has been no feedback, no enquiry, no public interest, no condemnation of us nor the council. No intercession by institutions with a reported interest in such matters. There is as much disinterest from the public regarding the case as there are lies and avoidance delivered by an establishment, more intent on preserving bad performance than building trust and wholesale benefit for all. What we originally thought was a good news story for the area and for Scotland, perhaps is not. Does Scotland share the British malaise? Does it sincerely care about its history and its heritage? The reality is, resolute protection of heritage is shouldered by only a few people, within a largely diffident public.
We will continue to promote the establishment’s malignant attitude towards truth and merit. We will continue to protect these bells and promote their history until we can find the proper place for them. Where that is, however, is unlikely to be determined by the public, if the public continues to demonstrate their lack of interest.
25.07.25: ‘A New Hope?’
Nearly a millennia ago, two artefacts were cast as symbols of conviction, dedicated to the security of freewill under a benevolent God. However, the relics’ origins were lost over a hundred years ago by the arrogance of vain men seeking distinction within their society. Their conceited notions were blindly accepted within the indolence of the institutional, bureaucratic and academic class, turned inwards towards self-service, specious ideology and diffidence, rather than the unbiased promotion of veritable understanding and munificent advantage.
Thus, the intent of good laws and policies set out to save these artefacts became corrupted by a lack of talent and integrity, and the former dignity of the built environment that housed these artefacts, influenced by a Christian aesthetic, suffered as a result.
When two people dared to illustrate the delinquency of understanding; institutional bureaucrats and academics doubled down on their failures, hiding behind poorly crafted deceit to deny the people the truth of history. 'Poorly crafted', as they could not dismantle the evidence and fact presented by the two.
Will good sense prevail? Will merit be recognised over misplay? Or will Scotland allow its legacy to be continually trashed—to be managed by a calamitous regime, alien to past glory?
23.07.25: The News
Because the local council insist we return the bells to the church, regardless of the consequences and in deliberate denial of the evidence of their provenance, we have appealed to the Scottish government. And because the appeal is published on the government’s portal, the news media have picked up the story and published our appeal and the council’s counterargument.
Fortunately, as the news media have reported on the text of our appeal rather than spin their own take on the story (the problem with the last news broadcast in the Sunday Times) it presents a tale of good reason versus blind bureaucracy, rather than present a tale of trite interest, devoid of the real issues our story presents.
However, following speaking to a journalist with ITN news, the same problems persist with the media. They are looking for ‘filler’ copy, rather than make any effort to interrogate our website and investigate fact and evidence and expose a scandal—deliberate deceit and deception aimed at the Scottish people.
Sadly, we have yet to engage any investigative journalism.
19.07.25: ‘I love to debate in the morning’
I had a debate with an emeritus professor of medieval history who challenged our discovery because he claimed our conclusion was entirely dependent on our translation of the name on the bell, and that could not be guaranteed.
He did not question our reinterpretation of William le Riche’s title, ‘Masculus’ as a religious dignity awarded as a knight and retainer of the Church, whilst a member of king David I’s entourage, or that William le Riche and his confraternity were most likely to be Templars.
I asked him to offer up an alternative translation for the bell sponsor's name. He could not, claiming it needed an expert. So, I asked him, as a former professor of medieval history engaged exclusively with the subject over a considerable period of his professional life, to name me an expert who could offer a practiced interpretation. He quoted a few palaeographic reference works and scholars. I pointed out we needed epigraphical reference, as it was a different study. He could not present me with any expert reference. So, I asked him, without any ‘experts’ at hand, how he, as a scholar, would tackle the interpretation of the mediaeval inscription on the bell,
He stated it was experience that presented reasoned interpretation. So, I asked him to go through our interpretation and discuss what alternative logical translations and inferences could be offered. He declined. So, I pressed him on what in our character-by-character consideration of the name construct could be so errant? How a name beginning with a corrupted ‘W’ and ending in ‘ICH’, separated by a single character denoting a common (medieval) contraction, could be anything else other than W [leR] ICH? He could not answer. He could not offer up any reasoned alternatives—whatsoever.
So, I asked him, if he, as a scholar, could not offer up any reasoned alternative, was it not logical the presentation we make, complete with analysis and discussion—an interpretation the professor could not dismantle, by conclusion, most probable? He refused to concur, hiding behind... ‘you asked for my opinion, I have given it.’
I posed the question, if I was an academic colleague in the next room, of equal standing, would he also refuse to agree? He stated his opinion was unbiased. I thanked him for his time and his further confirmation our discovery is presented without any supportable 'scholarly' counterargument.
18.08.25: ‘Misbehaviour’
This morning, I found a glass bottle in the church. It was evident it had been thrown through the opening in the damaged stained-glass window. I was grateful it had been lobbed in through the opening, rather than thrown at the window. There was only suspicion, no evidence, to who had brought the bottle into the cemetery and threw it, but it was a mindless act—perhaps trivial to those who committed the deed, but considering they had no idea where it would land, then it was reckless—and stupid. What concerns, while the property appears derelict, bad behaviour and petty vandalism, in all its forms, can be expected.
17.07.25: ‘A Cup of Coffee!’
Some days I need some kind of caffeine-induced stupor to remove me from reality... because reality is far more surreal than any subconscious nightmare can present; Truth suppressed by transparent deceit. That deceit ignored by authority. Decorum replaced with discourtesy. Professionalism replaced with ineptitude. Courage condemned as if it were a crime. A truancy of independent intellectual authority. Clarity of thought replaced by indoctrination and fraudulent rhetoric. A delinquency of beneficial munificence. A corruption of policy and law. No win-win, only the application of single-minded destructive self-absorbed behaviour— ignorant to the consequences. We live in a world governed by stupidity and illogicality… and the worse thing it’s not the uneducated that are the problem—it’s the 'educated'.
16.07.25: ‘Where are you?’
Some days, I want to say Scotland does not care about its history... but that would only be true of the nation's appointed governance over our case. However, we can exclaim with certainty, there is a substantial amount of public indifference and ignorance, governed perhaps by their own more pressing priorities.
However our case presents the logical inference there is a ubiquitous delinquency of talent within the historical sector, so long devoid of any kind of measurable and coherent standards of competence and performance. So we may have cause to shout at 'Scotland', in its denial of objective and proficient consideration of our case, but it would be wrong to denounce all those passionate individuals that both defend, seek to understand, enact and celebrate Scottish heritage every day—it’s just we have yet to find their passion and interest in our cause.
15.07.25: ‘Coffee, Dogs and Confession’
A few days ago, I shared a coffee with a former employee of Historic Scotland/Historic Environment Scotland. It was a chance meeting, brokered by our dogs. The long conversation about their professional life was educational up to a point—after all, I had worked in public service most of my own professional life, so I had no illusions of the truancy of merit that existed in public service bureaucracies, long on mission statements and rhetoric but short on delivery and good management.
The conversation added to intelligences already gleaned from third parties, confirming the establishment is aware both the current historical record and the expertise within the historical sector is lacking—public heritage service being more about promoting current political agenda than safeguarding and improving the understanding of history as per government policy, and often "indifferent to the plight of sites in subsidiary parts of Scotland". That managers were more intent in maintaining the status quo rather than fostering challenge, because to do so would mean a complete tearing down of the current establishment, both academic and governance, even though it meant lying to the public. No news there perhaps?
11.07.25: 'I fear for Digger'
Digger and I started this blog in March, so that our thoughts and actions would not be lost. It came about after Digger was admitted into hospital with extreme breathing difficulties, brought on, in no small terms, by the frustration and worry of maintaining the safety of two bells and a church mis-sold to us through the dishonesty and incompetence of others, while we battled with a demonstrably malignant establishment doubling down on its failures. She again is poorly, but despite pleas, will not give up and seek calm and free herself from the continual anguish of dealing with malignant and cowardly souls.
Through the gasps, as she tries to catch her breath and the tears of frustration, she stands resolute to the fact; "if we offered only speculation and theory then we should expect to be ignored, but we don't." We offer merit where there has been nothing but lazy assumption, indifference and untested, unqualified opinion. There is no supportable argument or disavowal of our evidence... whatsoever. Lies and obfuscation are offered instead of honesty and admission the system of governing the historical record is deeply flawed, and is long overdue for REVIEW and ACTION.
10.07.25: The Historian’s Subjective Opinion
Historians invariably write history from the standpoint of their own prejudices. As such, usually they will stay clear of open criticism of other ‘respected’ historian’s opinions. However, when David Irving crossed the line from ‘respected’ historian to holocaust denier, he was openly criticised. This resulted in Irving taking libel action against one historian, Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher for ‘a concerted attempt to ruin his reputation.’ What followed was a lengthy legal case, with the defendants expending two-and-a-half million pounds to prove Irving’s research methodology—his cherry picking of historical record, had corrupted history to the degree Lipstadt’s claims were justifiable.
What the case presented were the delinquencies of a universal lack of coherent objective standards amongst historians, and so the trial produced an ‘objective historian’ standard, a fictional embodiment of common sense somewhat reminiscent of the man on the Clapham omnibus standard traditionally used in English law. Irving’s departures from the objective historian standard were proved to be substantial.
Digger and I used the objective historian standard to test and qualify our own methodology. It was evident the two inspections on the bells before our study did not, and neither did the dissenting ‘specialist’ academics/professional historians who dismissed our methodology and conclusions out-of-hand, relying on their own spurious unevidenced opinion to justify denial.
The Irving v Lipstadt case was fought out at the beginning of this century, yet this objective standard has never been adopted by the professional historian, again leaving us fighting for objectivity to be considered over subjectivity—a meritless viewpoint, if truth is evidently compromised.
09.07.25: Barriers to Recognition - 'Groupthink'
Groupthink is a significant psychological phenomenon, adversely affecting any sound altruistic and beneficial decision making. In the case of historical enquiry, groupthink’s adverse effects extend beyond general academic conceit onto any group academia directly influence. The group, in this case, are those working within the heritage/history sector at different levels. Within groupthink there is a prioritisation of consensus and harmony over critical evaluation, leading to poor and irrational decision-making, suppression of dissenting opinions—fearing conflict or disapproval, and a failure to critically examine alternatives or consider potential consequences. A false sense of agreement emerges, as dissenting voices are silenced or ignored. In high-pressure situations, such as significant work turnover, or time constraint, it can intensify the desire for quick consensus. Groups with a lack of skill set and a truancy of cognitive reality or lack the diversity of viewpoints needed for thorough evaluation, will inevitably influence outcomes much to the detriment of good sense, oblivious to the consequences of their actions.
So many 'off the record' conversations demonstrate the truth of 'groupthink'. It is not that we do not present merit of understanding, an incredible history, that deters their agreement, it is the fact we present an uncomfortable truth no one is prepared to openly admit to, for fear of censure from their 'group'.
08.07.25: The Blue or the Red Pill?
Can we say, we've had six years of life misplaced by the malevolence of others? Incompetence and deceit wrapped up in a church mis-sold to us with reasonable hope for a home? Who should we blame? The indifference of the Church of Scotland to understanding the heritage of its own property? The unprofessionalism and indolence of the last developer’s agents and the dishonesty of the last developer? The establishment for not dealing with the fundamental problems with the historical record? Or, an academic philosophy that corrupts understanding and dismisses all who dare to challenge their conceited superiority?
Should we take the ‘blue pill’ and hope it eradicates years of frustration dealing with the unsettling truth of another one of society’s failures—allowing us, with ignorance restored, to walk away and leave the church as nothing more than an unfortunate purchase? Or should we maintain the dose of the ‘red pill’ and fight on?
We came to Scotland to build a home, not campaign for change—to save Scottish heritage from the inequities, incompetencies and indifference of Scottish governance. But what is the right thing to do?
We suppose, it is the difference between cowardice and courage, ignorance and understanding. The blue or red pill? Which would make us better people?
07.07.25: ‘Fraudulent Authorities’
If you cannot dispute an argument, then there appears to be three options; either have the humility to agree, employ ignorance—thus abstain from the argument, or offer a lie in contradiction, either based on a genuine misunderstanding or an intentioned falsehood.
Our argument is, there has been over a hundred years of demonstrable misunderstanding and misplay regarding the understanding of the site and the bells of Holywood—accompanied with irrefutable evidence demonstrating the lack of competent and comprehensive consideration. So, a reasonable person may expect some of the error, if not all, would be accepted by those who have been given a duty of care for the site. Yet there is no admission by the authorities of any fault in the understanding. They do not declare our argument is incorrect, instead they ignore it, offering facile support for that ignorance. They have the facts, so they cannot hide behind misunderstanding as a defence. The authorities may not offer lies to counter our argument, but their deliberate ignorance is fraudulent just the same.
05.07.25: ‘Virtue’
Following further interaction with those who are employed to care and safeguard heritage, we again received acceptance there is a significant problem regarding the historical record, but indifference and indolence regarding its improvement. It is the curse of the academic/professional historian, coached within the social sciences and its lack of cohesive standards. There is an undoubted absence of educational prowess, critical thinking, win-win, professionalism, integrity, munificence, empathy, nobility and courage—virtues now of only the few. Regrettably, we have only encountered very few of the few, so we currently languish almost alone—attempting to bring truth and good news—the understanding of history—unimportant to the most, but vital just the same.
01.07.25: ‘Special Interest’
We cannot believe we are having to counter the local council and Historic Environment Scotland’s (HES) argument; ‘the particular history of the bells does not contribute to the site’s ‘special interest’. It’s akin to declaring the ceiling of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, or the Louvre's Mona Lisa’s special interest is the fact they were both created by unknown ‘medieval’ artisans. We doubt the last sale of da Vinci’s work, Salvator Mundi, for four-hundred-and-fifty million dollars in 2017, would have fetched such a price if the work was unattributed.
Art or artefact, regardless of physical merit, its provenance is critical to understanding the value of its special interest. Whereas the our comparison of the Holywood bells’ sponsor to Michelangelo or da Vinci may be immoderate, the Holywood bells connection to a master of Templars—a subject with incredible universal interest, in a world with an absence of significant provenanced Templar artefact, is undoubtably a substantial event.
For HES and the council to downplay the importance of the bells' history, without any evidence to justify their dismissal, is appalling. It is purely a vacuous attempt to worm out of consideration of the discovery; an establishment downplaying the bells' provenance in their decision making, knowing they cannot disavow the discovery, so they choose to ignore it instead. They would rather condemn the site and the bells to obscurity, than foster public understanding. How much more is hidden we wonder.
28.06.25: ‘Digger Moon and the Cursed Ivory Tower’
There is no doubt Digger and I find ourselves in a sick plot, where the protagonists are desperately running through the story exposing scandal, while the establishment doubles down on its deceit. The first act is the excitement of discovery. The second the trial of bringing it home safely while all around, the heroes find indifference, ignorance, disbelief, false hopes, and promises tinged with sympathy but inaction. However, unlike most fictional tales, there seems to be no benevolent third act hero to come to the besieged heroes aid—a rogue, compassionate wise and respected academic, or a powerful bureaucrat working from within to put right the wrongs of a long-corrupted establishment.
Our story has all the elements of a worthy read, but whether it reaches a satisfying conclusion is perhaps in the hands of the reader, not the players.
27.06.25: Disturbance
Yesterday evening, returning to the church after visiting my family, there was a small group of eleven or twelve-year-olds in the adjacent cemetery. An hour later, the group had doubled to around ten. It was still light, and the children had a right to meet and be in the cemetery. By eleven o clock, they were still there but their numbers had grown to fifteen, bolstered by older boys. I admit I was concerned. Grave visitors had approached me more than once about petty vandalism and theft of grave mementos. To be prudent, I made sure the group knew someone was on site and they were being observed. They moved on. This morning, I found one of the boards covering a broken window on the church pulled away from its mounting, and another pushed in, not enough to affect entry, but tampered with all the same. I had no evidence to connect the two events, but you can appreciate the paranoia it left behind.
24.06.25: ‘Historian... Pah!’
Digger hates to be called, ‘historian’. Despite fulfilling the role of an exemplary practitioner in that particular discipline, in every way, she castigates me for acknowledging her as such, as if calling her ‘historian’ is nothing but an unforgivable insult. Perhaps to someone who has dedicated her forensic archaeological discipline, objective research and critical analysis throughout her professional life, it is.
You would expect, with the creation of historical study as an academic discipline in the late nineteenth century, the corruption of history by prejudice—political and personal, would have been banished to the imperfections of the past. An end to baseless supposition, amateurism, and bias cherry-picked fact and interpretation, purely to support subjective agendas and arguments—all designed to vilify one group in order to sanctify another.
This should be a new age of historical enlightenment. Nothing but dispassionate fact and empathy for all the players. A new age of historical understanding governed by professionalism. An age of conscientious historical consideration, so our society can learn from past mistakes, understand what fails and what succeeds, and so guide humanity to a state of mutual benefit and not conflict.
'Hmm, historian?' A noble occupation? Do me a favour, also call me something else instead.
22.06.25: The Road of no Return
This week ending, Digger and I, in pragmatic review, accept we are probably few more steps down the road to unavoidable legal remedy. It is a path ultimately in our favour, as any judicial review will have to consider the argument determining the bells’ special interest on the property listing, and if Historic Environment Scotland’s (HES) listing amendment was lawful and appropriate, or deliberately misleading. Both the council and HES are not disputing the bells’ Templar association, just prejudicially choosing to ignore it because they cannot objectively dismantle it. Their facile reasoning, offered in lieu of their avoidance to face the uncomfortable fact of the incompetence of the building record and its governance, being the bells’ extraordinary Templar provenance 'is not important to the bells’ special interest'.
HES and the council's premise is, of course, ridiculous. It would be akin to the reveal of a previous unattributed piece of sculpture in a broken down building being credited to the great Michelangelo, and the discovery meaning absolutely nothing to the interest of the building . Or a frieze painted around the church, originally thought to be by an unattributable medieval painter, but later evidenced to be painted by Leonardo da Vinci, and the council and HES declaring that fact as not at all important.. Ridiculous.
The issue is, not that the bells are included in the property listing, but their special interest on that listing, significantly conditioning the public's understanding of the site does not mislead and instead recognised, so the church receives appropriate conservation and development.
Of course, this is not about prudent bureaucratic behaviour regarding property conservation, historical accuracy, or public interest, but the establishment doubling down on its own incompetencies and refusing to engage with the merit of the discovery, because of its origins and what it demonstrates is wrong with the historical record; how it was formed and managed.
The problem is, regardless of any legal outcome—any aspiration the owners had for collaboration with the local authority and Scottish heritage governance, to present the bells for the public's enjoyment will have absolutely evaporated—replaced with irreversible distrust and deserved contempt.
The bells deserve far better consideration from the public authorities than they have received. History deserves competent understanding and care. Scotland may well lose these bells through the behaviour of its governance. Scotland deserves far better.
19.06.25: ‘Hidden History?’
We expected our discovery to be met with scepticism. “How has this discovery not come forward until now?” But the find is not so surprising. There is no published research on early Scottish Templars, outside a few lines of superficial consideration within accounts of the general history of the religious military orders in Scotland. Medieval bell archaeology and epigraphy is largely overlooked by scholars, as is research into the secular clergy—the most influential religious body in the high medieval period. Investigation of the sponsor of the bells is scant and unresearched—his presence in history merely a name recorded in larger genealogies—his title and purpose misunderstood and undetermined. The history of the site lost, with prior understanding and evidence of its Templar affiliation discarded, as twentieth century historians cherry picked sources of information to enter 'official' record. The correct skill set of those previously examining the bells and their sponsor was missing—it is as errant today as it was in the 19th century. So, the discovery is not surprising at all—it is simply the public place too much faith in the 'completeness' of historical narratives and opinion presented by ‘modern’ historians.
18.06.25: Opinion
An agency, set up to protect and understand the nation's heritage, referred to our discovery as ‘it’s your opinion’. The officer used this statement to denigrate the discovery as simply another thought on the bells. We corrected the critic; by re-stating we offered facts and evidence, not opinion—facts and evidence that spoke for themselves. Evidence derived from research on the bells, with facts transparently available for interrogation.
Unless the agency could offer evidence and fact to back up other opinion, then those ideas were simply superficial unevidenced theories, without demonstrable credibility, coming from the pens of long-past outmoded historians—their thoughts mulled over morning coffee, and not three years of collaborative research. We pointed out, to the agency, there was a huge difference between superficial opinion and research, as there was between supposition and evidence.
The agency retreated into obduracy and flocculence, tripping over their blatant prejudice and folly as they fled. They, of course, knew our discovery was genuine. It could not be anything else. The fact was, the agency did not want to be the ones to support it. So, they kept their heads down, offering what they stupidly thought was valid argument, kicking the issue down the road.
If the professional historian, employed to understand and protect heritage, by their prejudiced actions refuse to consider evidence in the cause of comprehension, thus defending heritage from misunderstanding and loss, what is their value?
16.06.2025: ‘Critical Thinking and Corruption’
When James Raine (1791-1858) offered his opinion as to the origins of a peculiar name interpretation presented in a single charter he was reading, we doubt he intended his published speculative thought to be employed as fact across a whole series of charters by future generations of history academics. Digger and I, hope James Raine would have had humility enough to accept his error when his obvious misinterpretation was revealed. However, academia is devoid of humility. Instead, it supresses the error, lest the world thinks its own opinion is also untrustworthy.
14.06.25: ‘Denial’
Academic historians acknowledge their perspectives on history are often based on the unresearched singular speculative theories of their Victorian predecessors—and as such the veracity of their understanding can be problematic. One such problem, is this Victorian notional history, because it is not audited, is allowed to form the Historic Building Record of many heritage properties. In turn, it is the historical property record, and any supporting academic narrative, that directly influences conservation proposals, public understanding and any heritage property’s valuation.
The solution, offered by agencies maintaining the historical building record, and academia, to this delinquency—a truancy of fact, is to ignore it, so long as it is not too aberrant to general understanding. But at what point, does ignorance and complacency with error become a conspiracy to defraud the public?
11.06.25: ‘The Small Things’
Last night, I had the anxiety of defending the site’s extraordinary hidden history. This morning the outlook is different. Often, it’s the small things that make a good life. Whether it’s a gulp of swallows, showcasing their skill below the church’s ceilings, or doves sharing their nesting, or the long-eared bats resting in the church walls, tired from their early morning frenetic display of flight, or just a brief time of early morning repose amongst the memories of the departed, with a big-hearted small companion. These are the church’s new congregation, and the church is better for it. The church may no longer exhibit its former spirituality but the world around it certainly does. Life can be good if you focus on the small things—the things that matter.
10.06.2025: ‘Dilemma?’
We are considering our response to the local council’s planning enforcement notice demanding we return the bells to the church tower. They deem we should spend over one-hundred-and-forty-thousand pounds to placate an errantly created, out-of-date property listing, incompetently audited by Historic Environment Scotland and its predecessors. But of course, for a witless obdurate bureaucracy, it does not matter what the bells represent—It does not matter they are perhaps the most valuable medieval artefacts in the world outside a museum—they are on the ‘listing’ and that is all that matters to the administrator. May the malevolent gods of the bureaucrat strike the tongues from their mouths if they dare to challenge their delinquent records and question process and procedure. They're only allowed to ignore what we highlight; the error of their understanding created over one hundred years ago by speculative amateur historians, and reinforced as ‘fact’ by prejudiced professional historians... oh what should we do?
08.06.25: ‘Heroes’
Digger and I, never thought we would become the besieged heroes in one of my novels. Two people fighting establishment idiocrasy with nothing but merit and the truth. Believe me, 'adventures' like this may be entertaining to watch, when they are played out in a movie, or as a TV serial, but they are far from engaging when you are living them. Gaslighted by a demonstrably flawed, often malevolent establishment—encountering avoidance hiding in bureaucratic process, institutional obstinance from those with a duty of care, ignorance and indifference from those who should care, denial by those invested in their own ill-found opinions, the apathy of the silent majority, and stupidity everywhere.
07.06.25: ‘Mistrust’
Being university-educated, and having lectured, in forensic archaeology, I, Digger, am conditioned to challenge everything I find. As an editor, I check every fact put before me. As a public servant, I consider the good of the public, and the reputation of my employer in all that I do. However, after five years of dealing with history scholars/professionals, far too many evading facts in favour of their own unevidenced opinion, my scrutiny has grown a new resonance—total mistrust of anything they pen. My love of museums and historical literature has grown weary, knowing how much is prevented from ever reaching public understanding.
06.06.25: ‘Anniversary’
It’s the anniversary of our campaign, and it is difficult to see any real progress. However, there are, ‘things’ happening in the background. Interesting prospects best kept from view. Meantime, Digger and I are still in dispute with the local council and Historic Environment Scotland, in our attempt to get them to either authenticate or disavow our discovery. They, of course, cannot disavow it, so they ignore it instead. The establishment are kicking the issue down the road, and Scottish ministers are keeping clear of the campaign, setting us on a course for a legal review—to test just how objective and judicious the Scottish legal system is.
04.06.25: A Commercial ‘Miscalculation’
The Church of Scotland had over a hundred years to question James Barbour’s 1898 errant dismissal of its own ministers’ testimonies of the Holywood bells’ remarkable twelfth century provenance. With a 1920 audit placing doubt on Barbour’s reappraisal, the Church of Scotland had even more cause to take the time to understand the bells, not only to restore previous understanding about their spiritual past, but their historical and even fiscal value. Regrettably the Church of Scotland did nothing. So, in 2010 the Church gave the bells away as 'a quirky feature' of a property disposal. The cost of their indifference? Well, that is to be seen, but it will be considerably more than the thirty-five-thousand pounds they received for Holywood Church. It seems the Church of Scotland is as diligent about safeguarding its asset, as it is safeguarding its Christian flock.
02.06.25: The ‘Value’ of University Education
Academia seemingly deems anyone outside its hallowed halls, as incapable of formulating a cogent thought, never mind able to challenge untested hypotheses. I, Digger, question why I spent so much time and effort spending six years at university reading archaeology, simply for that qualification to be treated null and void because I dared to find employment outside academia or archaeological services. What was the point in sharing my understanding for the subject with enthused classes for fourteen years if my knowledge is irrelevant? As a professional analyst in public service, why am I only considered to have those skills within my own organisation, and not with regards to historical enquiry? The historical discipline should encourage and welcome challenge for how else can we learn the truth of our forebears.
30.05.25: ‘Burial’
During my enforced guard duty, I like to think I add value whenever I can; litter picking in the surrounding graveyards, reverently attending graves long abandoned. I take time to reflect on names chiselled on the stones, in terms of their existence not their demise, offering deeper contemplation for those taken far too soon. Most days I witness grave visiting. I contemplate if it is important to those attending their loved ones' last resting place, to know who their remains share the earth with: amongst a thousand years of Christian burial—to know they lie amongst Templar-kind... Would it be a comfort, I wonder?
29.05.25: ‘A Hole in the Sand’
You might think the leading specialist academics rejecting our discovery—one a Templar historian, the other an expert witness from National Museums Scotland, should be enough for Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the council to take a position of disavowal of our hugely significant medieval discovery, rather than abstention.
A charitable senior legal advocate, giving over his free time and his morning coffee, shared his opinion; “In terms of judicial review, the two specialist witnesses, replete with unsubstantiated opinion and falsity, would be deemed unreliable. So, if the best regarded expert witnesses cannot even dent your evidence, or even present doubt; your evidence will stand untroubled. HES and the council know this, and is why they do not hide behind it. Still, despite your truths, they do not want to agree with you—the consequences are too uncomfortable. They cannot do anything but stick their heads in the sand until the storm blows away. My advice; dig them a bigger hole, so they can bury themselves up to their necks.”
28.05.25: ‘Midnight Ninjas’
Alarm at 12.30am. Three hooded youths found standing at the tower door. Caught on camera. Challenged. Their exit both rapid and unusual, as the steps are narrow and difficult to negotiate. Two turned into paratroopers... they did not fall well (no tuck-and-roll, more of a head-over-splat against the stone). One, hobbling in his retreat, nearly failed to mount his get-away bicycle. All cycled away under the cover of darkness. No lights on their bikes… isn’t that an offence? Police informed. Log updated.
25.05.25: ‘A Conspiracy of Reticence’
‘A Conspiracy of Reticence’ is hardly an engaging title for the owner/author’s next literary offering. I must admit, there was a time (long ago), Digger and I did think a Masonic conspiracy was afoot to hide the truth, such was the incredulity of the discovery and early response. The hippy archaeologist and adventure writer hoped there would be mystery and intrigue to fuel exciting early days of discovery. However, in sober days, we view the only dark force at play is the perennial bastard of any adventure tale, The Establishment; impenetrable, full of dullards and cowardly souls, hiding behind self-importance and an impenetrable veil of obdurate bureaucracy. It is not a case of organised conspiracy, because that implies intelligence is at play, but of complacency and complicity within flawed governance and the academic discipline; incompetence, a truancy of critical thinking, an absence of predictive intelligence, a lack of accountability, no audit—a sorry tale of elitist attitude and discrimination. It is an environment of players too scared to ‘rock the boat’.
Well, The Establishment, your boat is full of holes. You already have wet feet. Digger and I are the heroes of this tale, intent on kicking a bigger hole, hastening your swim to shore.
23.05.25: Customer Satisfaction
Why is it today, the only way to hold a public organisation accountable for genuine mistakes and idiocy is to resort to costly legal action?
I have spent most of my life in public service, in various authorities and in a variety of senior roles. Forty years ago, in my not so limited experience, there was always satisfactory resolution for customers who had a genuine grievance with the authority. An Ombudsman enquiry was a rare event. Mediators would be listened to—their clients dealt with, to their clients’ satisfaction. I have never experienced the necessity of legal remedy being brought by customers to resolve sincere and justifiable complaints.
Why is it today, we are in battle with obdurate public agencies, whose first response to a genuine complaint is to ignore what they can’t contest, and double down on their refusal to admit any error, kicking the complaint down the road in the hope the complainant will get tired and go away, as if there was no accountability for bad behaviour.
Why is it today, we must spend tens of thousands of pounds in legal action to reprimand idiocy in our public services... I forget... it’s progress.
20.05.25: 'Public Enjoyment?'
How would visitors know the bells are hanging in the tower? They are neither visible nor audible. Access to the public is denied, thus interest is only illusionary. Currently, the public can only read about the bells. But what should inform them? Are they medieval, taken from a former abbey, once on the same site, or are they twelfth century, taken from a former Templar preceptory, sponsored by a hero of Scotland? Both are true, but what offers greater illumination? Is a general knowledge good enough, or do the public deserve to be presented with all the evidence available, so they can interrogate the bells and the site’s beginnings? Which view has the greatest merit?
19.05.25: ‘Note to self – do not give up!’
Digger is steadfast. But there are days, when I am fatigued, I need to reinforce myself against the malignancy and sheer ineffectiveness of the establishment—that after years of beating on academic and bureaucratic doors, we are only obstructed, not by merit but by apprehension and a truancy of virtue. There is no doubt all know our discovery is genuine, because no one has dismantled it, because no one can. It is the establishment—academia and bureaucratic institution, refusing to accept the discovery because it highlights what they know is wrong with the historical record but choose to ignore... That much of the ‘official’ historical narrative is based on speculation rather than scholarly research and evidence... That academia knows a lot less about our history than it should after over one hundred years of expected ‘scholarly focus’.
18.05.25: William leRich
After five years of 'living' with a legend, I cannot help but picture the man. It’s conditioned by fifty years recreating military men in bronze and pewter for clients; collectors and museums; from the classical age to modern conflict; depictions of historical fighting men from across the world. My clients expected authenticity—truthful depiction, as far as it can be imagined, not an artist’s interpretation, but an artisan’s recreation of reality. In later years, turning to historical writing, I would adhere to a depiction of reality in the imaginations of my readers. I contributed that same empathic consideration to our forensic study of our bells and their sponsor, William leRich; Scottish holy warrior; English born of noble French heritage; knight and cleric; master over a knightly confraternity set upon defending the pilgrims’ path.
16.05.25: ‘No matter how many truths are offered, those who choose to be ‘deaf and blind’ will never accede.’
Monday’s campaign interactions taught me not all would be well with the week... by Friday I was ‘congratulating’ myself how correct I was. More affirmation of our discovery found, yet confirmation it would not change anything. A researcher, affirming our man’s twelfth century title with protection of the pilgrim trail to the Holy Land, down the west coast of France, sympathised with our plight but was candid about his support. “Please regard me as nothing but an adversary in a society of narcissists. I will gladly point the way, but won’t support your findings, no matter how convincing I find them. Believe me, even if you found written testimony of your Templar’s allegiance, your ‘intellectual’ rivals will find reason to deny your connections and use their perceived superiority not to aid, but to validate their pernicious denial. Accept, in academia, merit is often replaced with illogicality, veracity with corruption, objectivity with subjectivity, and vanity will forever succeed over integrity.” ☹
15.05.25: ‘Critics’
Within the presentation of someone’s conviction there are two types of critics. Firstly; the helpful critic, who cares about the subject of that person’s conviction and only seeks improvement of that person’s and even their own understanding. Then there is the malicious critic who simply wants to tear down that person’s conviction, for no other reason than they have issue with the person. Most senior history academics, government heritage agencies and the council are certainly within the second group. They care more about destroying the person’s conviction than they do about the improving that person’s, or even their own understanding... In this case the subject is our medieval heritage, however they want only their conviction, no matter how errant, to count.
12.05.25: ‘Community Priorities’
In 2024, looking for new keepers for the church, we had overseas speculative interest to acquire the property (primarily for the bells). We deferred the enquiry because we wanted to be certain we had done everything to give the bells and the site opportunity to be celebrated in Scotland, ensuring there was a lasting plan to maintain the church and improve the surrounding cemetery; my home for the last six years. We did not want a potential 'sell-out' to contribute to the already significant catalogue of misplay regarding the maintenance of Scottish history. It appears Scottish authority does not share our view. A frank conversation with a senior community leader today reinforced the demonstrable lack of care in the region for its past. ‘Community priorities, understandably, are not what they were.’
11.05.25: Knowledge v Understanding
Regard for knowledge is proper, and following wise leaders is prudent behaviour. However, blindly accepting professed truths because someone arrogant espouses them is giving up our own intellectual authority. We do it all the time—feed the ego of the ignorant. “Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” (Albert Einstein). We are constantly fed, by those we deem ‘better’ than us, what we blindly accept as knowledge. But without understanding how that ‘knowledge’ is formed—the motives and construction of narratives promoted by the perceived ‘great and the good’ in our society, we will forever be ignorant puppets of the unworthy. Challenge everything you read. Trust your own intellect.
10.05.25: 'An Act of God'
Storm Éowyn, hitting the church in January, had a surprising benefit. The wind took out the top of one of the already damaged (vandalised) stained glass windows, leaving a large opening. We had thought to board up the window to maintain weathertightness, but a lack of finance delayed immediate response. Now the Swallows and other birds, forever flying into the church and needing rescue, can come and go as they please. The ‘new’ opening promotes air flow in the main hall, so humidity readings have reduced by around twenty-thirty percent, but still twenty percent outside a healthy living/working environment, and indicating, despite a protracted dry spell, ground heated water is still present within deep underground voids.
08.05.25: Distortion of our own Histories
Medieval history is far from complete, because contemporary document is sparce. However, literacy and critical examination allows everyone to research their own specific histories and historical environments to understand the past. However, when we find ‘official’ understanding is built from detached singular perspectives and superficial scholarly imaginations, where collaboration, research and consensus has been replaced with conceited theory afforded by status and opportunity, not talent, it is no wonder we find pitiable distorted narratives of the places and people we care about.
05.05.25: Gaslighting
Bad day. Need to counter gaslighting. Our discovery is victim of academic and professional prejudice, with the deliberate employment of obfuscation and avoidance, instead of objective appraisal. This reasoning is supported by the stark contrast of review by those outside the clique of academic-led history professionals. Whereas ‘expertise’ may be cited as the reason for the difference of opinion, there is no evidence any professional historian’s dismissal is based on knowledge, understanding, or veracity. Witness testimony from within the clique of history professionals, supports that arrogance and prejudice will prevent any objective consideration of our discovery, thus their dismissal is considered unreliable as to fairness and prudence in terms of improving historical understanding, or preserving heritage—as opposed to preserving the ‘reputation’ of the builders of the ‘accepted’ academic record.
04.05.25: Predictive Intelligence
We are, today, writing more words in preparation for our defence against the iniquities of the Establishment, and the obduration of its officers. The time allows us to reflect on predictive intelligence, perhaps the single most important human skill, reflecting an individual's capacity to effectively predict and anticipate the consequences of their actions. We have reviewed circumstances and again questioned motive and outcome. Munificence, integrity and credit solidify our actions. No other truth exists to counter our discovery, languishing, only because we do not currently have the capacity to promote it. I see no criticism, no harm to our credibility, only significant reputational harm to those who have obstructed through lies, obfuscation, avoidance and artifice.
02.05.25: Beware of ‘Experts’
A bell engineer, like the ‘expert’ from National Museum Scotland, denigrated our twelfth century attribution to one of our bells, claiming, by its bell form alone, it to be no earlier than fourteenth century. He supported his expert view with his work on at least one hundred medieval bells, in his role as a bell engineer... experience indeed. He filled our inbox with photos of known pre-1200, high waisted bells, with a curt message citing ‘THESE ARE 12th CENTURY BELLS!’ What he did not present was the bell-form that had completely replaced high waisted bell design by the end of the thirteenth century. Considering there are over 65,000 bells in the UK alone, with a substantial proportion being undated medieval (1100-1600) bells, and a pictorial presentation of less than forty, confirmed pre-1200 bells, the sample of bells forming his own understanding of pre-thirteenth century bell form was less than 1%. With no comprehensive catalogue of bell design, decade to decade, definitive dating by bell form alone is impossible.
29.04.25: Not understanding the perils of AI
A helpful commentator pointed out, our YouTube videos, as well as our Facebook posting, were constrained by the amount of spurious published AI content, in the name of commercial enterprise. Some viewers would be wary about the reliability of our presentation and understandably reluctant to engage with the campaign, some believing it to be nothing but a scam. They suggested we put ourselves in front of the camera, in a serious of short engaging videos, highlighting the compelling evidence that underpins our case. I had to agree. The shy introverts must present themselves on the stage to be judged.
28.04.25: Lies, Lies and Artifice
Outside finding treasure trove, there is no official mechanism for having potential far reaching historical discovery recognised and recorded by the State, unless it comes from a recognised public or academic institution. Consideration by these bodies of any find outside their organisation, is voluntary, with no appeal mechanism when those bodies behave in such a way that is evidently dismissive, prejudiced, or unprofessional. We are repeatedly advised, "no leading academic in medieval studies will accept new historical reveal from non-academics. Only a report written by a regarded scholar will be properly considered, and only then if it does not challenge another academic or a fellow antiquarian’s work. Regardless how monumental, complete, evidenced and compelling your reveal is, no academic or institution will agree with it. Instead, what these individuals and organisations will offer you, to conceal their prejudice and flaws, are lies, lies and artifice."
25.04.25: Academic Arrogance
To understand academic prejudice, we referred to academics and articles, mostly authored by academics. One such critique was provided by Steve Tippins PhD; www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/academic-arrogance/ Although his article was framed in context of those ‘suffering’ within academia or academic-led institutions, it reinforced why we, outside ‘institutional halls’ have been ignored, lied to, and belittled, because we dared to challenge leading academic conviction of ‘superiority’ and ‘mastery’ of their subject. He compared academics to polar bears. ‘We live alone; we hibernate. If you walk down the halls of academic offices, you’ll find almost all doors shut. We live a solitary existence, vicious towards one another and our students, cutting other people down, assuming they’re stupid.’ We had two issues in amongst our agreement with Professor Tippins. Firstly, medieval history academics are not ‘masters’ of their subject; there is simply too much lost, hidden, or still to learn. Secondly, we disagree academics are like ‘polar bears’... We quite like polar bears.
24.04.25: Where are all the Champions?
I fear for Digger’s health as she tries to recover from her asthma attack last month. She is very poorly. We have tried to put the church and bells aside while we ‘rest’, but time is running out. We have a discovery we cannot ignore, even if bureaucrats and academics choose to ignore it, simply because they cannot dismantle it. Petty, they lack humility to accept merit in others. It is a shame recent appeals to the country’s politicians reveal more avoidance, more Scottish advocates ‘kicking the can down the street’, hands in their pockets leaving us to take up legal remedy as a last resort—demonstrating how delinquent and pointless public servants have become. Prove us wrong ‘Scotland’ or find us champions to help preserve Scottish history... and pride.
23.04.25: The Insincerity of the 'Establishment'
One of my characters presents the case... https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Borderer-Chronicles/dp/B074C7J2PL
22.04.25: Idiocy
Bizarrely, considering the thousands of years of human existence, the establishment has had to be told, via legal challenge, what a woman is. We therefore should not be surprised, in our own campaign to restore logic to the human existence, to have to resort to the same legal wisdom to remind the 'establishment' what the difference is between fabrication and truth, incompetence and merit, knowledge and understanding, and intelligence and stupidity.
20.04.25: The Templar Legend
A thought for Easter. Wishing to eschew any Templar controversy or sensationalism, we cannot seem to escape it. Read our story https://amzn.eu/d/gV1wmBO and see how perhaps, even today, the Templar legend lives on, defending Christian justice in an immoral world, battling malevolence protected within a Godless establishment.
19.04.25: NY Sage
In a late-night moment of self-pity, I contacted a prominent New York based professor of history; helpful in the past. Reminded prior conversations were recorded in our book, ‘Hidden in Plain Sight...’, I rang him, hoping he could help with a word to the influential. He was, as before, candid. He reminded me, "you will never get support from the very institutions you have set out to dismantle. Your truth hurts those that build careers on the misguided belief that others think what they do is worthy." He asked why our book and exposé was not on the bookshelves of his favourite Manhattan book shop. "Publish, promote and prosecute, it is the only way." The professor, maintaining his anonymity so as not to 'upset' his guild of fellow academics, again, frustratingly chose not to publicly support what he admitted to be a genuine discovery... I thanked him for his advice, adding that perhaps his public declaration would be the better way.
18.04.25: The Three Shell Game
We requested the Scottish government to ask Historic Environment Scotland (HES) a question; what specific aspects of our research prevented the agency amending the historical building record and the bells’ ‘special interest’ to reflect a comprehensive understanding, in turn ensuring sustainability of the church—promoting public understanding and enjoyment of Scotland’s medieval Templar history? HES did not answer the question, instead, just as in the three-shell game, a con-artist diverts attention away from things that matter—HES obfuscated to hide the truth. The truth is, there is nothing in our research, but institutional/academic prejudice and arrogance denying public enjoyment and understanding of the world’s only provenanced Knights Templar artefacts.
17.04.25: The Last Templars in Scotland?
Connecting with Templar organisations, worldwide, we have made useful contacts, gaining empathy with our situation, as Templar historians fight a similar battle against sensationalist histories, academic prejudice and misinformation regarding the Templar legend. In amongst the replies, we have an absence of communication from Templars in Scotland, so I wonder, despite their online presence, if they truly exist. Appreciating the secular and charitable nature of some Templar organisations, ‘Templar’ attribution should be (in my opinion) directed by Christian faith, not simply Templar appreciation. I have signed the ‘Templar pledge’ and filled out the forms but does that make me a true Templar? How should my wife and I be judged, if indeed God has directed us to save two Christian bells from oblivion, donated to Jesus, as an audible spiritual call to the Templar caste?
16.04.25: Pursuit of Understanding
Initial research only dipped into the pool of information regarding those knights titled Masculus in Europe connected to French abbeys and Spanish religious houses. Old enquiry has led to new information. Some knights, confirmed as secular clerics in the immediate years before the establishment of the Templar caste in Europe, later appear to share location, gifting and given names with knights connected to Templar houses as confratres. This is not viable evidence, unless undisputable connections can be made. Further investigation has been deferred, as further proof of the Holywood bells’ provenance is not required, particularly when the existing evidence we provide is already ignored.
15.04.25: 'No National Park for Galloway'
I generally support national parks. Living in two, I have experienced the benefits and pitfalls. In the case of a Galloway National Park, I support the ‘No Campaign’, not because a national park is not a good idea, after all, the countryside offers the primary draw to Dumfries and Galloway in terms of tourist income (certainly not its built environment). However, the quality of existing governance is so poor, is it worth the chance that a national park would succeed, other than the employment of another tier of underperforming bureaucracy? We highlight the absence of any sound governmental decision-making, contributing to further deterioration of the area’s historic-built environment. If current governance cannot get this right, how are we to trust another tier of ‘new’ governance with many of the same ‘faces’ behind the scenes?
13.04.25: Incursion
At 1.00 am, cameras and an alarm picked up two youths entering the immediate church perimeter. Observed, the two stood for some time, appearing to examine the tower door. No crime was being committed, although it was considered my concern should be reported to the police. I monitored their presence, a continuing concern, until I thought challenge was in order. I turned lights onto the two youths which coaxed an ‘urgent’ retreat. If the church was in a built-up area, then such an event would be less concerning, but the relative isolation of the church presents such events as not ‘casual interest’ but premeditated incursion, deviant by its timing.
12.04.25: Planning Debacle
Recent and historical planning decisions regarding Holywood Church had nothing to to do with preserving heritage or conserving the understanding of the site, but an unyielding and ignorant application of bureaucracy and indifference. There is an absence of prudence, professionality, critical thought, or objectivity. There is no regard for the realties of the local region in terms of the ‘success’ of its built-heritage in the twenty-first century, after decades of neglect in context of its commercial value or sustainability. These fundamental and ‘unfixable’ flaws are discussed in two articles to be published: Dumfries and Galloway Council—an Exercise in Neglect, and DPEA—Adding Misplay, not Merit.
11.04.25: ‘An Environment of Indifference ’
After four years, a million words, and many, many, approaches, in entreaty and exposition, it is evident we will not receive assistance towards recognition of the discovery from Scotland, either from its governance, academes, parliament, charity or private sectors. All have been challenged to interrogate the evidence. None have offered any demonstrable counterargument to dismiss our testimony. None have offered any assistance, involvement, promotion or objective examination. What we have, are Scottish agencies, public, volunteer and private, complicit in maintaining the status quo of an outdated and flawed historical record; ‘groupthink’, ignoring any argument we present, illustrating idiocy, ignorance—a truancy of logic and intellectual merit. They present scandal, denying and deliberately putting at risk national treasure, sadly illustrating the ‘quality’ of a nation’s care of its own history in the third millennium.
10.04.25: No Authoritative Authentication
We are campaigning, because unlike treasure trove found in the ground, or newly discovered art from recognised masters, there is no official, legal or recognised route to authentication of historical understanding. In the case of our discovery, there are no experts, only academics with a general understanding of the period, who will never endorse discovery made outside their clique—no matter how illogical their denial or abstention seems. Our case graphically illustrates why a legitimate process of authoritative authentication for historical and heritage understanding is essential—robust, professional and objective testing of any new evidence and comprehension, presented in the cause of increasing public understanding and enjoyment.
05.04.25: A Missed Opportunity
Again, refusal of a professionally based history academic to prudently consider our evidence, presents an opportunity lost for an inclusive understanding of history. This is a globally recognised problem—the scholarly-educated, institutional-based historian failing to mentor the community-based historian, who by their local placement, time and opportunity offers a resource to build a greater understanding of the detail of local history. Academia does not have the resources to focus on detail, nor challenge the existing record formed over one hundred years ago, within the limitations of the time, but instead of utilising and developing a valuable resource, they reject it out-of-hand.
03.04.25: Christian Perspective
One of the most important skills of a good historian, according to Oxford University, is empathy. However, whereas this trait can be understood, it’s an inborn human quality that cannot be maintained through learning. The prejudice displayed by most academic historians illustrates why this is so. My pet peeve is the atheistic historian articulating past Christian motives without a deeply Christian perspective or understanding. Whereas it is true, cynical self-serving motive often hides within religion, medieval people do not martyr themselves for self-serving greed or ambition, but a devout belief their actions, no matter how irrational, are made in faith of a benevolent God waiting to receive them.
02.04.25: Challenge
Through campaign, we are having to demonstrate academics do not necessarily know better. Unless they offer scholarly counter to our evidence, they should show humility and help shape good news. Our scholarly qualification is in the presentation of our investigation—facts eclipsing opinion. If denial is academia’s only contribution, we should dismiss it. If it offers silence, it is not argument, merely ignorance and negligence. Academia and heritage agencies must not simply ‘pay lip service’ to their mission statements and vision. If they claim to protect and promote heritage, then they must do so. If they claim to educate, then they must recognise knowledge existing outside their institutions. If they claim inclusivity, then they should engage with all who request their guidance, assistance, and challenge.
31.03.25: Paranoia?
Two men appeared in the graveyard, late (11.25pm). Respectfully challenged, they claimed to be visiting their mother’s grave. It’s not uncommon for late night grave visiting. The land surrounding the church is publicly accessible, no trespass was being committed, and a late-night stroll around the site is not unreasonable. However, another two men at the main gates with a van, presented an odd 'crowd', not typical at all. The lateness of the hour, the fact these visitors were nowhere near the 'open' cemetery, nor did they 'feel' genuine, together with a history of miscreant trespass into the church, I had good reason to be paranoid.
30.03.25: Human Barriers
In terms of discovery, our passage over the last few years has been a marathon. The both of us separated in the race by the different burdens we carry. My burden is protection of the church while we campaign, my wife’s; our family and finance. The starting line for the marathon was aided and abetted by Covid-19 lockdown, with years after, dedicated to focused desktop research rather than 'external' projects. Research was arduous and objective, challenging all we found until only one conclusion could be reached. Since then, the architect and instigator of our journey, call it fate, or God has presented us with a series of insurmountable barriers—the human condition—stupidity, ignorance and arrogance.
28.03.25: Armchair Historians
We promote critique amongst those following medieval, Templar and bell history on popular media forums. Response is useful, testing our discovery. Most useful—vociferous counter opinion. In all cases, presented with our evidence, arguments melt away—some critics simply retreat, their single-minded opinion perhaps refusing to be defeated. One exacting and caustic critic, extremely well read on Templar history, vehemently challenged our Templar connection to the bells, yet he could only present argument against only one of our supplementary discussion points, and found only one assumptive error in our report—our morphing of Robert le Riche as most likely a crusader to he was a crusader. We corrected our mistake, and in debate, the critic praised our research but would not change his opinion regarding a Templar connection, although they could not offer any alternate legend.
26.03.25: Toll
I can see four years toll in the faces of my wife and I, even our children. Four years ago, we all naively built new hopes and dreams out of a church mis-sold to us as a potential home.. After all, we were confident our mis-bought 'cloud' had not just a 'silver lining', but a 'bronze lining'. Our evidence was robust. Our investigation competent and professionally laid out. The mistakes in past interpretation of the bells, blatantly obvious, the benefits to historical enquiry, the town, region and Scotland significant… but that was four years ago.
25.03.25: An unqualified ‘professional’ opinion’
Recently, a professor of history employed the term, ‘in my professional opinion’ to perhaps denigrate our own ‘amateur’ view. However, their ‘opinion’ came without evidence. Pressed for scholarly argument, they could only add, ‘the traditional view is probably correct.’ The professor had confused the term ‘professional’ to qualify their proficiency, rather than merely the condition of their employment. In subjects receiving no scholarly focus, the professor’s expertise was restricted to determining the quality of research, leading to conclusion, not the conclusion itself. History is a vast topic and no historian, regardless of qualification or general understanding can declare professional competence into subjects they have never considered.
24.03.25: Journey
We both regard our lives, in context of our discovery, as a journey which began many years before we bought the church. Our varied, complementary, and peculiar skill set employed in finding a Templar’s bells was honed by our professional lives, and quirky life-choices pointing two ill-matched people bizarrely to a derelict church in Dumfriesshire. We both dislike church conversions. We wish we never bought the church. We are both intellectual introverts, who shy away from social interaction, status and material wealth. The discovery is not welcome, but we are honour-bound to see it through.
22.03.25: Unsound Understanding
The university-honed historian has existed for over one hundred years, yet not all historical understanding they present is formed from strenuous scholarly research. Much is built on the speculative opinion of their Victorian-born forebears creating the academic’s library. The antiquarian-society sponsored Victorian amateur historian is the foundation of a great deal of academic work. Unfortunately, the theory they present was rarely researched, objective or scholarly. With shaky underpinnings and the academic’s reluctance to dismantle it as the foundation of academic understanding, the objective historian, in context of presenting critical thinking and truth, can only regard such a subjective academic discipline as untrustworthy.
19.03.25: Policy Intent vs Mindless Bureaucracy
Reviewing the planning decision by the council and government over the treatment of the bells, our planning advisors claimed, ‘they applied a narrow, uninformed view, reaching an illogical conclusion.’ Advisors claimed, ‘their decision, they thought in-line with planning policy, was in fact contrary to the intent of policy. Their decision, not informed by a comprehensive understanding of the archaeology, or the error of the existing listing, condemned the site and bells, not their preservation. Policies and laws to protect heritage only benefit if those enforcing them understand the prime intent of those policies. However, it is apparent there was little acumen or empathy behind the planning bureaucracy in this instance.’
17.03.25: Dumfries Throws Away its History
In previous campaign, headed by a local ecclesiastic and a former town provost, it was claimed the ‘Historic bells could be ‘lost’ (The Daily Record, September 2009); ‘These bells are an important part of the town’s history, and it would be a tragedy if they were allowed to be lost with the sale of the church.’ After years of campaigning to present the bells for the public’s benefit, we, the new owners of the bells, supporting the previous protestors’ sentiment, declare the ‘town’, its leaders, and its ‘community’, as in 2009, are not interested in the bells’ future—they have, instead, discarded the town’s history. The bells are not lost; Dumfries, the Church of Scotland and the Scottish government have thrown them away.
16.03.25: Loss
My wife, unable to breathe, was admitted into accident and emergency, spending a week in care. A chronic asthmatic, the endless frustration, anxiety, and privation of family and finances, sacrificed for the security of an empty church and priceless bells took its toll. She is still not well, and doctors say she should still be in hospital. But she has much to do. I fear losing her. I am understandably angry. In the meantime, ever pragmatic, my wife encouraged me to record our thoughts, so if anything was to happen to either of us, and discovery and campaign abandoned in grief, all would be published and the cause of harm exposed.
