Search Results

A blog, chronicling the finders' opinions, thoughts and events as they campaign for the recognition of the obvious in an environment of academic and bureaucratic avoidance and denial 22.11.25: ‘Crossing the Street’ Naively in 2020, we imagined our find was nothing but good news for the area and for Scotland. Regardless of public values and attitudes towards heritage, finding another thread of Scottish history, enhancing an area of understanding still shrouded in mystery, could only be a good thing for all—considering Scotland’s uniqueness with its diverse population, was the sum of its impressive scenery, inimitable culture and vivid history. All we were doing was adding to that legend—enhancing the country’s heritage—adding another notable ancient warrior to its rollcall. If we were going to upset some people, it perhaps would only be a few academics and local historians whom had overlooked the site’s history, carelessly lost in the nineteenth century. Whereas we could understand why that tiny group may present obstacle or reticence, we did not expect those, regardless of ideological, political, intellectual, or nationalistic viewpoint to choose to join that tiny group, not as dissenters, but avoiders , as those that might cross the street to evade encounter with a group of disagreeable pedestrians ( us ), or a conflict they might wish to avoid ( our discovery ). One group we thought might impartially, seriously consider, and support our find were politicians—those who by their very purpose, regardless of political position, represent the interests of both the people and the country they serve. What could we have possibly brought that was so abhorrent? What did we bring that was not good news for the country, its legend, the people and the economy? What did we represent that coerced politicians to cross over and walk on the same side of the street as a few historians with bruised egos? We had set out our discovery and argument comprehensively for all to interrogate. Anyone could choose to argue against it— or accept it . The evidence was well within the grasp of most people, so to ignore it when they were asked to consider it, without offering any cogent argument, could only be seen as negligent— not in the interests of the people nor the country. Yesterday, Digger met (after eight months of cajolement) with another politician to discuss our case. He was in a long line of politicians we had repeatedly contacted over the last four years that included John Cooper, Angus Robertson, Brian Whittle, Carol Mochan, Colin Smyth, Craig Hoy, Emma Harper, Finlay Carson, Martin Whitfield, Oliver Mundell, Sharon Dowey, Mungo Fraser, Ian Murray, Stephen Kerr, Nicola Sturgeon, Sir Kier Starmer, Nigel Farage, Linda Dorward, Ivor Hyslop, Maureen Johnstone and Tracey Little. The parliamentarian left the meeting with promises to do what he could within the parameters of governmental administration. We shall wait on his challenge to Historic Environment Scotland, to see if that beleaguered agency, in his view, acted properly in context of their legal requirement. Listening in on the conference call, during Digger’s passionate entreaty, her anxiety was clearly on display within her argument—after suffering five years of inexcusable obfuscation by an ignorant establishment, causing us severe financial and family depravation, it was not surprising. For all the promises made, we received the impression the Member of the Scottish parliament missed the point of what the discovery meant in terms of Scotland’s repute and world interest. We shall not be surprised if he joins the other side of the street along with his colleagues, listed above, to become another part of the sorry narrative surrounding this extraordinary case. 19.11.25:  'Blueprint' Last night, I spoke with an international art lawyer, regularly published, renown in the art and antiquities market. He reiterated authoritative authentication of the find is everything if we hoped to find an appropriate new keeper for our bells and the church.  He restated, regardless of our worthy case and peerless understanding of our bells, the market’s idea of provenance is not the ‘hard-won’ evidence that promotes the bells’ authenticity, but a recognised expert’s testimony or even the attribution provided by the collection from whence they came. For the market, superficial opinion by someone of status far outweighs evidence, perverse   as that may seem. Over the years we have had significant amounts of freely given advice from various legal minds, in absolute recognition of our find and the; ‘unfair and unjudicial treatment by systemic and inexcusable miscarried academic and bureaucratic behaviour [...] No logical individual could possibly review the petitions and archaeological inspection and find anything other than merited presentation—presentation leagues apart from the outmoded and superficial ill consideration that has been allowed to inappropriately define prior commercial and conservation proposals of the site’ All the lawyers agree a fundamental problem exists in that we, two people outside the academic and institutional establishment, have made a genuine discovery backed up with irrefutable evidence. Considering the establishment will not willingly endorse our find, perversely because of the resultant harm to public trust in the establishment, the lawyers propose only two options: to seek judicial review to resolve the lack of authoritative authentication of the find, under several heads of claim, while pressing home a significant media campaign to embarrass the authorities into action rather than offer obtuse avoidance. Both routes to authentication are expensive. In legal terms, they confirm, in a case like ours there is no blueprint to gain authoritative authentication, even through legal remedy, as the issue crosses over several heads of claim, requiring deeper consideration by those best qualified to press home the case. ‘Expensive?’  Far beyond the resources of the average citizen. We are told, not only do we present a remarkable discovery and a unique and priceless find both historical and financial, but we are having to go through the painful process of trial and failure to open the discussion to the wider public, illustrating what academic and amateur historians raise as problems amongst themselves, but never resolve. We are drawing up a blueprint for the merited historian to pierce institutional conceit, and this is why we are being ignored, not assisted. 17.11.25: Monument Today I offer a longer diary entry than I would prefer, but after I marked Remembrance Sunday  at Holywood’s war memorial, reading aloud the list of fallen soldiers to my little dog standing to attention by my side, and offering thanks for their sacrifice in the name of Pro Patria  (for one's country), I wanted to commemorate some of the former ministers of Holywood, that by their own legends offered sacrifice for the greater good of their charge, in the name of peace rather than war. Two of the six ministers that lay interrred in the churchyard had perhaps imbued Digger and I with a sense of justice, as we defended the men’s testimony against accusation of falsity made after their death—denigrating the men as unreliable witnesses and scholars. A sense of honour, dictating we should continue the men's charge and defend Holywood’s legend for the greater good, the parish and Scotland’s sake— in the name of truth . I often stand before the Reverend Robert Kirkwood and Reverend Bryce Johnston’s memorials. They are situated around twenty feet from where I’m camped, so I pass them every day. I must admit, at times I stand before the men’s graves in either brief contemplation or, in darker days, in quiet prayer asking for their guidance. Memorials to the Reverend Robert Kirkwood (foreground) and Reverend Bryce Johnston as they appeared in 2020, before the local council curtailed maintenance on the historic graveyard site. It was in consideration of their original testimony, made for the eighteenth and nineteenth century Statistical Accounts of Scotland , and their conflicted view on the Holywood bells with that proposed by James Barbour in 1898, that set us on course for re-examination—to clarify whose testimony was more accurate. Our assessment required reading all available publication to consider the legends of Johnston, Kirkwood and Barbour—taking measure of the men. But it was an unbiased appraisal of the bells that revealed only one conclusion. Our own investigation renounced Barbour’s examination as pure contrivance to suit a theory. Barbour’s dismissal of Kirkwood and Johnstone’s prior testimonies, out-of-hand, was unchallenged by Barbour’s Antiquarian Society and by Academia following in its footsteps. Barbour’s conceit, protected by his status, was well documented in contrast to the ministers’ munificence, words and confessed charity towards humanity, and in turn their integrity and humility confirmed by their flock. Just as Kirkwood and Johnston’s honest testimonies were dismissed, ours are too, because we also stand outside the accepted societal league of the historian class. In Barbour’s time, it was the Society of Antiquaries, now it is academia and their influence over heritage governance. This history 'club's' credo? “Status is everything, and singular-formed opinion is all that counts—any contrary presentation of fact is simply an inconvenience to ignore.”  (Henri Hueςon) *** In reverence to the two ministers and remembrance of their deeds, during the summer I considered pruning back the overgrowth and tidying up their graves. Armed with pruners and gloves, I took greater notice of the abundance of berries on the vines, butterflies on branches, and bees collected around the flowers. As I stood back to think, I noticed small birds in the yew and even more birds on the elder. I re-read the prose on the stone—words dedicated to the men’s charity and holiness. I reflected on the time of their existence, their greater Christian presence, their words in publication, and the legend they had left behind. Kirkwood, who was an avid naturalist and Johnston, a keen agriculturalist, both eloquent in Latin and sermon—praised by the parish and their peers. I wondered what the reverends would want. How I should tend the garden that had formed around their monuments. If I should deprive the butterflies, bees and birds of their playground. Then a weasel appeared from under a broken stone and in customary fashion threw abuse my way. I took the little carnivore’s vociferous advice, rudely offered. I preserved nature’s abundance set about the men’s graves and left all as it should be—in greater remembrance that everything born of this earth, grows accordingly to its nature, and then returns to the earth from whence it sprang—man’s ambition and interference in the meantime, means little in the greater plan. 16.11.25:  ‘Back on the Carousel’ On advice from our legal advocacy, we are preparing our fourth ( or is it fifth?)  ride on the carousel, hoping we will arrive at an academic institution with integrity placed above conceit—an academic reviewer that will selflessly acknowledge the merit and evidence we present, and help bring this momentous discovery into the public domain. But it is a carousel , and as such we should expect nothing other than to go around and around visiting the same view, again and again. Still, we hope, even with the acceptance integrity is in short supply within the establishment, that an organisation, at the very least, will see past bias and look at our case as an opportunity for themselves. We need to demonstrate, without question, that we continue to present our case to academia, asking for its help. We will, of course, continue to record their responses as testimony, perversely and probably generating a narrative that supports our claim of Templar provenance, not from academic authentication, but from the complete absence of supportable disavowal, even if it is in the form of deliberate and unreasoned evasion. We are approaching thirty-eight UK universities; those offering medieval history post-graduate scholarship, requesting assistance in authentication of this extraordinary discovery. Then we shall move onto international academies, asking for the same evaluation. We shall report our ‘success’ on the website in the new year. 15.11.25:  ‘Tying up loose threads’ The most significant problem with previous late eighteenth and nineteenth century interpretations of the Holywood bells was not Latin and heraldic misinterpretation, but an absence of follow through on the anomalies presented by or on the bells.  Issues ‘glossed over’ either by ignoring or adding elements purely to support the interpreters’ subjective theory, rather than proper consideration obtained through further research. We scrutinised any anomaly we found to find answers. It made sense to research the issues presented, as there appeared to be significant gaps in general understanding, not only in terms of medieval epigraphy and bell archaeology, but the circumstance that would lead a knight to take the title Masculus and its classical interpretation, rather than accepting the modern understanding of the Latin term, or the unevidenced and unworkable theory presented by a Victorian archivist to why William le Riche, de Maule, lord of Fowlis, would call himself William Masculus. Whereas we could not offer one hundred per cent certainty in our conclusions, we had tested them with comprehensive forensic consideration, research and elimination to ensure the probability for each conclusion was far higher than reasonable expectation. One thread however remained irritatingly unsolved, why Austin of Walpole  would carry the same arms as on the Holywood bell, despite Austin having no apparent connection to Holywood or William le Riche. We left the conundrum unsolved, as it did not affect the investigation’s conclusion, as with the death of William le Riche the consequences to his personal armorial had little relevance to the aim of our study.  However recently (the benefits of leaving the investigation and report open) we became aware of William’s presence as a witness on a charter granting lands by Thomas of Wabrun (Woburn?) to a Norfolk abbey a mere forty miles from Walpole. The charter was aberrant in that it is the only charter so far found that places William outside Scotland/Northumberland— Coincidence ? Only deep-dive research will turn coincidence into possibility; conjecture Wiiliam le Riche, in the absence of a direct male line, bequested his armorial to a non-relative; perhaps a retainer or friend of his close acquaintance. Conjecture, however, is likely as far as we will achieve. However, regardless whatever was found it would not change the conclusions of the bells’ origins. Read more in Appendix XVI of our archaeological report. 13.11.25:  ‘Anger?’ Yesterday, a journalist asked me if I was angry about being ignored by the local council, HES, DPEA, etc, etc .  I replied, ‘Not angry, frustrated.’  The journalist pressed how felt about these organisations. ‘Surely, I was angry that they dismissed our claims of Templar connection out of hand?’  I corrected him, ‘Claims—implies allegation. It is better to state they dismissed our evidence out of hand.  And as for anger… no, I feel pity, because to feel angry, to quote Betrand Russell, is a sign that we are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as we do.’  The journalist asked me to expand. I explained, ‘We presented an indisputable web of evidence and fact; so undeniable, no one has dismantled it whatsoever. It is akin (quoting Russell again) that these organisations, in their denial, want to believe two and two make five. Or that our discovery will disappear from their 'desks' if they bury their heads and ignore it.  No, I am not angry, I feel pity for them.  We do not offer opinion on the remarkable provenance of the bells; we provide fact, not drawn from superficial interpretation but contemporary evidence.  Only the establishment offers baseless opinion and ignorance, not us—and their opinion and ignorance on examination exposes that their action and inaction clearly goes beyond what the evidence warrants… much to their disgrace and stupidity.’ Betrand Russell (1872 –1970), philosopher, logician, mathematician, referenced from his essay, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish (1943) 08.11.25:  'SANCTI' All over the world, thousands of hours of earnest historical research are denied consideration because it is made outside the halls of academia. While too much academic historical consideration has become nothing more than a social-political weapon—historical revision wielded in the cause of personal philosophical agenda to indoctrinate a new generation, rather than presenting historical truth. Regrettably, it appears the disciplined sainted historian does not exist anymore; they who chronicle truth regardless of consequence to themselves. SANCTI S elfless—those historians that have more concern with presenting the truth, than preserving selfish ambition, bias and desire. A ware—those historians that seek a comprehensive understanding, rather than espousing knowledge presented by others. N atural—genuine individuals, not influenced by groupthink, but by their own unique intellectual authority. C ourageous—those who do not take part in the lie, but exhibit mental strength, eschewing self-preservation, whilst withstanding fear and difficulty. T alented—those historians that have natural skill or ability. Quality over qualification. I ntegrity—Honest people with strong moral principles. 05.11.25: ‘Ignorance’ I had a debate last night with a social media commentator, who took the opinion our removal of the bells from Holywood Church was illustration of the dangers of passing historic properties into private ownership. Why the council were right to enforce the bells return. That if they did not, ‘our heritage would be stripped clean in the name of profit or negligence’. I asked the commentator if they had read the case and fully understood the issues? The commentator clumsily avoided my question, declaring, ‘our theories were not reason enough to remove the bells.’ In return, I asked, what they regarded as theory ? Again, the commentator avoided a cogent reply. In counter to their defence of heritage remaining in the public sector, I cited Historic Environment Scotland's fundamental failures to maintain the historic properties in its care - a story currently featured in the national press. I supplementated my observation with our own case study, and the public agency's undeniable and catastrophic failure to understand the heritage it was supposed to protect. That if it were not for our intercession, in private ownership, a significant understanding of the history of Holywood would be lost. That, whether in private or public ownership there was no guarantee of sustainability, unless the public cared enough to support heritage regardless of ownership. I recommended the commentator interrogate the evidence and argument on our website and come back to me at a later date to take up the debate again. We shall see if they do. ‘without interrogating the facts, letting scepticism fuel our opinions, is holding on to ignorance, and in ignorance we do not understand, and without understanding our opinions are hollow and illusory.’ Barriers to Authentication 31.10,25: 'Talent' Historic Environment Scotland (our nemisis) are having a hard time of it in the press at the moment. Well, their governance and management mostly. But if you look at the lack of value the ‘accused’ bring to the historical keep of Scotland, there is a much wider problem of similar misbehaviour wherever you look. HES’s poor governance and delivery is not abnormal, it is regrettably the norm. Inefficiency, poor management and self-service rule in public governance rather than selfless public service, value, professionality and effectiveness. This is not to say there is no professional minded talent, challenge and selfless public commitment within these organisations, but it would be naive to suggest it is the norm, or that the systems and processes public agencies employ to counter a lack of employable talent or misbehaviour is a guarantee of excellence and improvement. Talent rarely rises to the top in public service because talent is seen as a threat to those that rely on arrogance and influence to secure status and position rather than demonstrable merit. This statement, I would think, is well evidenced. 29.10.25: Churchill ‘One of the signs of a great society is the diligence with which it passes culture from one generation to the next. This culture is the embodiment of everything the people of that society hold dear: its religious faith, its heroes.....when one generation no longer esteems its own heritage and fails to pass the torch to its children, it is saying in essence that the very foundational principles and experiences that make the society what it is are no longer valid. This leaves that generation without any sense of definition or direction, making them the fulfilment of Karl Marx's dictum, 'A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.' What is required when this happens and the society has lost its way, is for leaders to arise, who have not forgotten the discarded legacy and who love it with all their hearts. They can then become the voice of that lost generation, wooing an errant generation back to the faith of their fathers, back to the ancient foundations and bedrock values.’ (Stephen Mansfield - Never Give In, The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill) 28.10.25: ‘Truth that hurts, but strengthens our argument’ Historic Environment Scotland (HES) were recently in the news again, HES faces £842m repair backlog for historic properties . The exposé corroborated the observation made in our own article published in February , that the closure, restricted access, and scaffolding around many HES owned sites in Dumfries and Galloway were the result of the agency playing catch up with routine maintenance. Essential cyclical conservation that had failed to be scheduled whilst still in the ownership of its predecessors, Historic Scotland . It was another damning indictment of HES’s failure. HES, no doubt will cite reasons why its failure is not the agency’s fault, but due to the economy, rising costs, global warming, Covid and declining visitor numbers, etc… but the truth is HES’s problems have been decades in the making; not through financial hardship, but promoted by systemic poor management, inefficiency and yes —public and political indifference to Scotland’s history. 21.10.25: Facebook Digger and I try to avoid social media. We feel false news, provocation and bias opinion dominate. In our past commercial experience, social media used to inform and entertain, but now it seems to skew circumstance more than informs, with entertainment that is more often facile than inventive.   Hence, following a flurry of activity in 2024 in the hope of promoting productive discourse on our case, we no longer actively promote on social media. However, we do provide a Facebook page to facilitate public comment and discussion. As such, without media promotion, our case remains relatively unknown. Following three years of banging our heads against institutional and academic illogicality, we appreciate there are now only two paths open to us— legal remedy and media promotion. Therefore, we must park our personal preferences and use social media selectively to promote our case in debate and public awareness. We are still guarded against the dissent political and religious viewpoint often generates on social media, with single-minded belief, aggression and abuse often replacing reason, logic, and the respect of opposing opinion—and a desire to reach a mutually beneficial accord. However, we are prepared to grow the thick skins required to survive. If you have a comment to make on anything presented on our website, please use our Facebook page to engage in open debate or comment, or better still engage with us directly so we can enter productive discourse based on empathy and understanding of the issues presented. Helpful comment, including reasoned counterargument will be incorporated onto the website for all to read and consider. 13.10.25: Historic Environment Scotland – A Malignant Caretaker In February 2025, we wrote a report for an article on our website, titled; Historic Environment Scotland – ‘A Malignant Caretaker ’. It illustrated the gross delinquency of the government’s agency as it attempted to avoid carrying out one of its prime functions, ie., ‘to provide an up-to-date understanding of historic sites to aid decision-making about potential change.’ We had been sparring with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) for four years for it to honour its responsibility regarding the listing of Holywood Church in Dumfriesshire. Our report was a necessary chronicle, charting the insane obstruction we were experiencing achieving authoritative authentication for an irrefutable and significant medieval Knights Templar discovery—a massive historical coup for Scotland. In recent conversations with legal advocacy, despite our frustrations, they advised keeping dialogue open with HES, as we revisited our challenge to HES over its current listing of the bells of Holywood Church, and the significant and extraordinary impact the truth makes to the existing definition of the historic property, in stark contrast to HES’s artificial listing. We asked the question would we see common sense prevail? Or was the Scottish government, exemplified by HES, heading for a historical scandal? However, considering a recent news article in the Scottish Daily Express: Historic Environment Scotland boss suspended following probe into her conduct , including connected stories   and recent insider intelligences, it is unlikely HES’s management and their political handlers will do anything but double down—try and remove itself from any action that would authenticate or mentor our discovery. This further institutional avoidance was implied when HES reported to the Directorate for Culture and External Affairs , in April 2025, that it would consider removing the bells from the current listing if they were not returned, removing its obligation to both protect the bells under current legislation or recognise them for what they represent. We can only offer up conjecture why this would be so . We will never, I suspect, have the truth of it. But we know HES know exactly what these bells are. They have not and cannot disavow the discovery because it is so complete, so evidenced, so compelling. HES would rather deprive the Scottish public of their understanding of history than admit their records are outdated, and that talent for historical investigation lies in the acumen of the individual and not within the reign of the supercilious heritage and academic establishment. 11.10.25: 'X' I tuned into ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) to see what chatter existed regarding our case recently published in the local news. Digger and I are not fans, nor users of social media outside necessary engagement concerning Holywood Church and its bells' future. We, however, accept social media is a very popular vehicle for sharing opinion and mutual interest, a celebration of what individuals perceive as good, and condemnation of what they see as bad. On the existing posts, concerning our case there were no comments, likes nor engagement, with less than 400 views. No debate, no rhetoric, no condemnation, no support, no incensed heritage conservationists decrying out action, no questions, no challenge. There in fact was nothing evidenced but public disinterest, perhaps indicating why local journalists avoid any deep dive into the full story... who would care? 03.10.25: Winter Cometh—Dark days ahead With the shorter, colder days approaching, the high humidity inside the church begins to show itself. The walls, again run with rivers of condensation and the humidity meters within, show over ninety percent, regardless of the outside reading. Everything is damp through. The deviation in 2023, between the outside and inside humidity was plus fifteen percent, but with the large stained-glass window blown out by the storms and a recent window breaking by vandals, we perversely have improved ventilation. We expect this year the deviation to be lower. With more slates off the roof, and guttering beyond redemption, it means more water inside. However, I suspect the barn owl roosting in the church during the day, is taking advantage of the humid, warm air. This morning was colder than of late, and I was met with a blast of warm humid air when I entered the church first thing this morning. My mind played tricks, even though I knew the situation with humidity problem. Still, I had to tell myself there was no blaze in the church to fight with fire extinguisher and buckets, such was the marked increase in temperature in the entrance hallway of the unheated building, on comparison to the chilly outside. 02.10.25; The government’s declaration of war on historical understanding We have been patiently waiting for the Scottish government’s decision on whether the local council’s enforcement notice on us to return the bells to the church tower was sound. There were principles at stake. It was the balance of us finding extraordinary circumstances, and pragmatically breaking the rules, removing architectural fittings to remove them to temporary safety, which is what the council are complaining about, against the practicalities of the case which included a property listing that is woefully inadequate (and misleading) for the proper consideration of the building and the bells’ conservation, a mis-sold church that requires millions of pounds to refurbish (rather than the £150,000 quoted to us at point of sale), and two bells that should be in a secure museum, recognised for what they are, and not left, locked in a empty church in Dumfriesshire with a necessary £85,000 per year security bill to ensure the bells’ protection on-site, not to mention insurance against potential theft or damage of two bells judged by insurers, not on the current errant property listing, but our "entirely credible" archaeological report, to be worth in the tens and tens of millions. It is neither practical, nor affordable to refurbish the mis-sold church purely for the building’s sake, or to appease the planners' refusal to look at the whole case. The building cannot become our home as planned, which the council refuse to acknowledge. The council refuses to recognise their previous responsibility for its previous errant planning permissions or the deceit of the previous woeful conservation plan drafted, not in understanding of the building's heritage, as per the council's own policies, but in ignorance. There is no way any sane person would spend around £140,000 to return the world’s only provenanced Templar artefacts to an empty, dilapidated building sealed from the public, and spend up to £20,000 per month in security, simply because the Scottish Government does not care about Scotland’s heritage, only its own bureaucratic intent, littered with demonstrable failure. And what of the future for the building? We proposed creating the opportunity of transferring the bells to a new keeper, hopefully a Scottish national museum (difficult as they refuse to acknowledge the bells true history), and use the money to create a publicly accessible archaeological project within the church and then refurbish it as a signpost to the area's spiritual heritage, with a trust fund to see it open to the public in perpetuity. However the council are not interested in the future of the church, only its own bureaucracy administered by its own woeful gatekeepers. I remind the readers, Dumfries and Galloway are near the bottom of the league of council areas, in terms of crime, education, health and community... only to be pipped to bottom place by Glasgow City... and it has nothing to do with location. Faced with a fine of £20,000 and even imprisonment, against the cost of meek compliance with the council of around £260,000 while we battle to find the last vestiges of integrity within academia or the establishment, to help us realise this tremendous discovery... what would you do? Of course the council, know they cannot win the case (in a fair judicial system) but they would see us expending tens of thousand of pounds to defend our position and the bells' safety, all to prove Dumfries and Galloway are a poor authority... which every already knows. 'The government’s declaration of war on historical understanding, ' is the heading to this blog entry... we will go further; the Scottish Government is prejudiced against its own history, it discards, rather than celebrates it. And considering the only unique aspects of the nation, is its landscape, its history and its culture, what kind of Scotland is the government building? Why can we say and ask this? Because the Scottish Government have again declared the evidenced history and provenance of the bells is not material  to their decision making… which makes all the heritage policy and law they claim they are enforcing, hypocritical. And for us, if we cannot find support and common sense from those around us, we are destined for jail, because there is no way we will risk the safety of some of the most valuable and poignant remnants of Christian heritage, simply to appease the failures of what should be prudent and judicial governance in Scotland. 01.10.25: Time to Refresh Editing the blog is becoming compromised with its length, so it is time to archive the entries from March to September 2025 and continue afresh. Digger has coaxed me to leave anger and frustration out of my entries (for the sake of variety!) and walk on with a more positive and objective outlook to the end of our journey.  It is a new phase, so perhaps its time to refresh and rearm. We have exhausted any hope of pragmatic support from the Scottish Establishment, so any criticism we direct against it will be evidenced when we go to the wider public to broadcast our case—as our legal advocates phrased it, in the title of their latest report; ‘The Templar Bells Dilemma.'

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. The handwritten comment from Brigadier Alex Potts, Principal Private Secretary to Their Royal Highnesses, The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh reads: 'What an extraordinary piece of research!' 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 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/couple-claim-shouldnt-forced-return-35592198 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’ Salvator Mundi (1499-1510) by Leonardo da Vinci 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 a n 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.

Mark Huitson, November 2025 DIGGER often counsels me to avoid political and religious posturing in my entries onto the diary or within the content of articles on our website. In many respects Digger is far wiser—she, the most passionate in our remarkable partnership, knows when to suppress deep-held sentiment for the sake of objective viewpoint. However, in the approach to Christmas 2025, with many noteworthy family anniversaries passed by without note, and weeks spent apart on parallel disparate paths to the same place, and financial ruin seemingly our only shared reward, considerations by others have surfaced in the realisation we are but a fleeting moment in the Holywood bells’ history. Guides along our journey have suggested that the artefacts in our care, the road to discovery, and the continuation of our trial have profound meaning. That, not only two remarkable artefacts of significant spiritual origin have possibly reawakened for purpose other than the burden they have imposed on two weary travellers, but the journey itself is a story perhaps as remarkable as the antiquities we hold and protect. Leaving aside holy men, lawyers, and their allegories by the side of the road, Digger and I find our journey has brought us to a very dark place. Frustration, our erstwhile travelling companion has long departed, instead illness, deprivation and disillusion accompany every step we take. We have been forced, through recent life-threatening experiences, to face our own mortality as well as our misfortune of discovering a most incredible historical find, but in realisation it was found, administratively speaking, in the wrong area, at the wrong time for us, within an inexcusable protracted environment of demonstrable incompetence and indifference. However, in broader consideration, perhaps it came at the right time. In many ways, while recognising the discovery came at the wrong time for Digger and I—two people who love and already had found a simple, but rewarding life, including self-imposed exclusion from the herd mentality of society, we perhaps were the correct finders, even if timing was not in our selfish interest. Our discovery further broadcasts and illustrates the pernicious ills that have been allowed, without prudent treatment and intervention, to take hold over our society, emphasising its moral delinquency, injustice, and misunderstanding through corrupted learning. The existence of two church bells may appear trite in a world full of bells, but their extraordinary origins speak loudly to popular culture, especially that part that are looking for redemption and truth, in condemnation of the ills of establishment behaviour—to those that are perhaps looking back to another time where holy resolution and moral boundaries were better defined and executed. Digger and I, did not buy Holywood Church to discover history, but to protect it, while selfishly providing ourselves a home. We did not ask or expect to find blatant error in the historical understanding of our new charge. It was the bells’ age that was questioned, not their origins. To that end we have dedicated five years of life’s journey to correct what was misjudged. It took years of hard and dedicated travel to arrive at an unexpected Knights Templar connection. Treasure hunting was not the reason for the journey, only the finding of truth. Was our original intent and sacrifice important enough to correct a point of view that had little bearing on our existence in 2019, or our modest ambition? It is ultimately a question of moral and instinctive behaviour, our journey inevitable because Digger and I are analysts; trained to synthesise fact to come to inarguable conclusion. It is a quality, unfortunately not universally practiced by historians; academic or amateur. Such objective study and dissemination of long past history is important because without universal historical understanding, we can only relate to the last two generations of human existence: through their stories, recollections and experiences. Without a universally informed objective understanding of past history, it allows biased commentators to corrupt the past to vilify one group in the eyes of another, to corrupt past events to promote ideology rather than support objective, critical and predictive thought. This is why Digger and I promote historical truth and protect heritage under objective criterion, and why we will not allow intellectual and bureaucratic conceit prevail over our charge. Despite Digger’s good counsel, I considered my thoughts better recorded than left unsaid. And whereas I do not think my personal views are important to anyone other than myself, I recognise we have uncovered an extraordinary discovery, not through chance, but perhaps through fate, sponsored by merit, ably demonstrated throughout our careers, vocations, and legend. We repeatedly and successfully challenge the failures of the system; offer proof that there is always a better way— win-win . I cannot ignore the fact we will come to a point along our journey where we will be heard. That people will congregate to hear our testimony. That perhaps we deserve to be listened to. So , best we present and publish it all in preparation, so we do not have to linger on the current road, long after the goal is reached, simply to recount and debrief, but instead allow us to immediately return to the journey we planned in 2019, free of bells, Templar knights and establishment machination. There cannot be any doubt, regardless of individual political, religious or intellectual position, that society is not in a good place. Division, prejudice, and injustice exist. We see narrow-mindedness, institutional failure and public derision, rather than mutual respect, individuality, constitutional success, and common approval. Diversity and inclusion are not  celebrated, they are in fact universally reviled, because opposing philosophical sides have been drawn, rigid discriminatory positions and cherry-picked parameters, with slur, prejudice and intolerance directed against any  that choose to challenge and think differently. Bureaucracy seeks compliance and cancellation for those that do not conform— this is not inclusion. Intellectual authority is universal, yet one group will always seek to impose its intellectual views or perceived superiority on another. This is the way since the beginning of history. In a seesaw of such conflicting dogma, it is hoped time and logic see balance achieved, but it always comes at great cost, even if at times an uneasy temporary accord is achieved. Mutual respect and charitable behaviour is an anathema to human nature.  This is why we need a moral code—a spiritual guide. My choice of moral code is Christianity, in primitive form, but I respect all those others who choose differently, so long as it is by free-will, in mutual respect of other faith and belief, within a win-win society. Humankind will always rebel against the imposition of conformity of thought, because such abhorrent control over free thought is no different to our innate survivalist nature, combating a zombie plague intent on eating itself alive.  Extreme, oppressive and discriminatory political, bureaucratic, academic and religious ideology, even in diluted forms, in my personal view is such a plague. It is an evil intent on destroying our heritage, free-thought, and discrete culture—replacing truth with fiction to elevate the few at the cost of the many. Digger and I refuse to cast honour, charity, integrity and cultural preservation aside to appease a bloated, unrestrained, bureaucratic and malignant establishment—shielding deficiencies with demonstrable falsity. My political position? I am a Libertarian by nature, seeking a free market and the reduction of bureaucracy and needless governance. I respect those that disagree with my stance. I adhere to common law and the people’s consensus without vociferous protest. Do not however, expect me to abandon confidence in my own intellect, and the very real outcomes of value I have provided for the most that justify my personal philosophy. Do not expect me to willingly acquiesce to someone else’s thought—particularly when that thought does not bring benefit to the most. I will tolerate and support the people’s choice for direction but challenge it nonetheless if it directly corrupts the well-being, moral mission and verity of that contained in my charge. Without restraint, sections of our establishment; institutional religion, academia, international and local governance bodies, once respected, are now inflicted with corruption, bias and manipulation by the few and their ideologies in counter-interest to the many. Our journey is just one of many graphic illustrations of a failed establishment, and condemnation of institutions that persist in failure, supported and protected by those invested in their own self-interest. And for all we condemn public governance, we have empathy with bureaucracy because we are or have been a part of it. In employ, we only ever sought benefit to our employer’s published mission and intent. We have been unwavering to that end. We have delivered value where it was lacking, and benefit to the public where there was little. We are, in terms of public servants a rarity in the establishment, the antithesis of the typical bureaucrat’s self-serving spirit. Thankfully, there are still heroes invested in noble mission and self-sacrifice. Compassion, integrity, empathy and chivalry are their nature. Rebellion is a necessary part of their human existence. It may not be commendable to those it threatens, but necessary when one side refuses to acknowledge the merit in another and fails to offer any cogent or logical argument to defend its own behaviour. Our journey has turned Digger and I into reluctant heroes. We challenge anyone to demonstrate that our actions, to have history recognised, is not based on comprehension, merit, prudence and truth, or that our journey is undeniably in the public interest, more than our own, despite the reward it will bring us further down the road.

From 2021-22, I had a series of long late-night telephone conversations with a leading American historian. He was a former advisor to the US presidency and director of a major US institution. I will, for reasons cited later in this article, refer to him as ‘Professor X’. The professor was an extremely animated individual, generous with his time, engaging, challenging, eloquent and communicative. He became a useful source of Digger and I’s education regarding the problems with academia and the academically trained historian. He was a good teacher, better than I realised at the time, especially regarding the realities marching onwards that were contributing to the denigration of universities. He was candid about subjects rarely presented in popular discourse, sharing stories, not published, about conscientious academics turning the lens inwards onto their own academic snobbery, and as he claimed, tomfoolery —a surprising expression for an American. Professor X was forthright about the very real dilemma we were in, and as expected, supportive of his own ‘intellectual creed’ who were understandably careful not to follow every enthusiastic historian down the ‘rabbit hole’. However, within his compassion for his kind, he still shared his frustration with, ‘snake oil salesmen’ —academics who ‘offered performance rather than substance’—vain individuals—mediocre intellectuals using their higher degrees and perceived eminence to promote, through their academic qualification and status within their academic institution, fake product to the gullible; influencing new generations of ahistorical and biased rhetoric to support political antagonism, as opposed to the promotion of societal cohesion through learning, empathy and real-world experience—balanced teaching, building on the success and failures of our ancestors’ experiments in political and religious ideology. I gathered he may  have been a conservative, frustrated with his socialist academic peers redesigning Marxist and Communist ideology to suit a new generation, directing the resentment of youth against any cause established within the academics’ own bias. I must admit, at the time, I was not interested in his political oratory, because I was certain our problem was purely discrimination directed against us because we were outside academia. Time, however, and discussion with others still on the inside of the establishment, would revise my judgement with a wider perspective on the entirety of the barriers placed against us . Revisionism and the Good Historian Historical revisionism was one of the many topics of our conversations, which at times I thought he used purely as a diversion into lively philosophical debate. In my attempt to keep us on the topic of our specific problem, I wrestled with the professor that our case was not one of revisionist history but corrected historical understanding of a specific artefact that in turn reconditioned the specific understanding of the Holywood site. The professor countered, stating we had raised other wider and far reaching considerations that had been neglected by the history community, for example the true nature of the secular clergy, that in turn conditions improved comprehension of the warrior cleric, even offering a better understanding to who Bernard de Clairvaux (one of the architects of the Templar movement) was directing his criticism against. Thus, in example, we offered a fresh perspective on a wider historical understanding, gained from scholarly consideration. What we finally concluded, was revisionist history had unfortunately become synonymous with political and ideological propaganda—defined as the reinterpretation of accepted historical accounts to suit a shifting societal lens. Revisionist scholars, promoting perhaps disinformation, excuse their agenda within an accepted process of critically examining prevailing narratives, questioning established facts, and proposing alternative explanations based on new evidence or perspectives. In the Humanities, rife with ambitious academics keen to make a name, denial or distortion is often far more attention-worthy than presenting revisionist narrative in its most legitimate form, ie., revisionist history as an essential component of historical scholarship, providing continuous refinement  of our objective  understanding of the past. Just as scientific understanding undergoes continuous reappraisal and development, presented historical interpretation also requires periodic reassessment to ensure accuracy and relevance. The question the professor posed, was did our reinterpretation of what had been accepted as the historical narrative follow the good practice of the revisionist historian? I am glad to say we passed his test, in that we offered the proper construct; that understanding of history should not be fossilised (as it had been), but should be an evolving objective discipline, constantly reshaped by new discovery, archaeological find, and re-evaluated sources. Our work was entirely empathetic, recognising past bias interpretation, contemporary mindset, whilst being aware and sympathetic to current ‘preferred’ thought and sensibilities. Historical Revisionism? Maintaining my own unsophisticated understanding of the problem, I still challenged his discourse at the time, maintaining our case was not historical revisionism to suit progressive political agenda, but more a correction of a manifest mistake in singular misinterpretation made through incompetence, that had been allowed to corrupt the record, in a case that would have only significant benefit to all , not only to us, the owners of the heritage in question, but to the nation, regardless of creed and ideology. Professor X proposed the issue was not the original Victorian mistakes made, but the acceptance of those mistakes by academia ipso de facto  as the record. And so, what we propose, as far as academia and the establishment were concerned, was indeed revisionist history—a direct challenge to the qualification of academia and the state’s authorised understanding. Their first consideration would not be the evidence, but who was making the challenge—ie., what were our credentials to challenge their intellectual authority? To the layman our immediate credentials are unsound, it is only interrogation of our legend; three years collaborative study with academic, professional and specialist qualification, and most importantly a demonstrably peerless understanding of our subject, verified with critical evaluation, detailed consideration, evidence, and fact—with that understanding tested and evaluated by recognised specialists, eliminating opinion and speculation. All this however, is secondary to academia and the institution—state—establishment—however we wish to frame it. Eminence is everything, and merit including the wisdom it generates is subsidiary—this is the great failure of academia and the establishment, it is no longer the source or mentorship of merit and understanding, but instead ideology, pseudo-intellectual qualification and the ardent protection of their own perceived intellectual authority. The Process of Historical Revision: Source Examination and Validation We had complied with the principle of good revisionist historians, ie., critically examining existing source materials; primary sources (e.g., original documents, artifacts, firsthand accounts) and secondary sources (e.g., books, articles interpreting the primary sources). We had evaluated the authenticity, provenance, and reliability of those sources. Just as scientists must ensure the integrity of dependencies, we as historians verified the validity of the evidence provided from primary and secondary sources. Identification of Prejudices, Omissions and Misinterpretations Historical accounts are often influenced by the biases and competencies of the authors or the prevailing ideologies of the time. Historical interpretation is particularly vulnerable as it is rarely a collective effort, and so historical narratives often reflect the perspectives and agendas of the singular view without judgement, test or counter opinion, thus leading to theory built on singular assumption, misunderstanding and conceit. We therefore ensured we sought collaborative view on our historical enquiry but ensured we tested any  and all  opinion with our own observational technical discipline, interpretation, logic, and mathematical probability where it was allowed. Presentation of New Evidence or Interpretations Revisionist historians present new evidence uncovered through archival research, archaeological discoveries, or the application of new analytical methods. They may also offer alternative interpretations of existing evidence, challenging conventional wisdom and proposing new explanations for historical events. In our case, we challenged the opinion of two Victorian historians, finding their thoughts had no solid evidence to back up their theory. Worse still, they had  revised history, cancelling out original narrative without any consideration of it whatsoever. These unevidenced theories, adopted as the academic view, had demonstrably no solid merit outside immediate, plausible, but ultimately superficial and untested notion, defying the principles of the good historian. However trite their thoughts may have been, in terms of historical accuracy or consequence, (accuracy—a belief that is thought to be almost impossible to achieve within the historian’s discipline) they had caused a catastrophic misunderstanding that we are now trying to unpick. Who is to blame for this catastrophe of historical misunderstanding—was it the original excusable superficial thought or the discipline that inexcusably accepts it without audit, or the establishment who blindly acts on academic whim, prejudicially picking an unsupportable opinion over objective research, regardless of the consequences. What we present is a graphic example of academic and institutional misbehaviour that is often excused because historical misunderstanding has little real-world consequence, but as we demonstrate, can detrimentally affect the daily lives and even the safety of members of the public. Peer Review and Scholarly Debate Revisionist historical arguments are rightly subject to scrutiny by other historians. This process involves scholarly debate, criticism, and the evaluation of evidence. The goal is to ensure that revisionist interpretations are grounded in sound evidence and logical reasoning. However, when the scrutiny itself is devoid of sound counter evidence and logical reason, and with no peer-formed authoritative regulation of that scrutiny, it is left to the public or even judicial review to appraise the balance of merit within any historical revisionist argument. This is why there is an oversupply of spurious historical narrative, promoted and unchecked, based on ideological and subjective theory rather than tested objective fact. Integration (or Rejection) into the Historical Record If a revisionist interpretation withstands scrutiny and gains acceptance within the scholarly community, it may eventually be integrated into the mainstream historical narrative. Not all revisionist arguments are successful. Some may be rejected due to lack of evidence, flawed methodology, or ideological bias, or in our case, academic prejudice because we are judged not to be in the scholarly community. Our discovery does not guarantee a change in the academic view, but as far as the historical narrative, unless the scholarly community can offer up supportable counter-opinion to support their accepted narrative has more credibility than our presented case, then considering the extraordinary nature of the discovery, it will be their  credibility that will be brought into disrepute, perhaps resonating far beyond, contributing to the increasing criticism of the humanities as a wholly beneficial and systematic discipline. The Bad Historical Revisionist In our specific experience surrounding the bells of Holywood, we can point to a lack of prior competence and a lack of audit of historical understanding. We found, regarding the narrative surrounding our bells, an academic discipline and associated heritage management built on the thinly presented thought of outdated and unqualified Victorian historians, credentialed only by their membership of their antiquarian societies—well-meaning examiners not tested for merit, subject to rigorous and challenging peer review, or any professional objective audit. This failure to challenge what we found to be the obvious flaw in past Victorian supposition demonstrated the failure to revise historical understanding when it clearly misrepresents. However, what concerned, is when collaborative academic projects (such as the People of Medieval Scotland  database) exacerbates the problem by applying patently flawed understanding to corrupt other considerations and understandings. The Battle against Ugly Historical Revisionists Professor X was the one who originally pointed us to a legal case ( Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt ) to illustrate it took several years and millions of dollars to discredit a particular revisionist history against patently available facts surrounding the holocaust in WWII. To the logical, there was only evidence and witness testimony of the holocaust and the German state’s sponsorship of its genocide policy. However, that did not prevent an eminent historian from twisting history to suit their own bias and political ideology. Even when the revision was blatant and in direct and obvious contest to the facts, it still required a great deal of effort within the historian class—directed by a judicial review, to cancel the lie out to safeguard the truth. In later consideration of the professor’s case study, our truth would be no less difficult to defend in a patently bias discipline, that allows the validation of individual opinion over impartial truth. In the third millennium it appears feelings are allowed to trump facts. In reflection of the professor’s case study, did a successful case against one holocaust denier mean other holocaust deniers were silenced forever? Did it influence the academic class to adopt the professional objective standards imposed on the academic witnesses by the judiciary? One must make up their own mind about the results of that test case, but recent public opinion and protest would say the deliberate corruption of history is a very real problem, purposed by academia to fuel social-political rhetoric and not societal cohesion, prosperity, justice and win-win logicality. Practicality over Principle At the time, I did not fully understand Professor X’s tutelage. He praised our noble intent to restore correct historical understanding, but he counselled that we should be realistic about how we were unlikely to influence future behaviour of the academic class or the institution, no matter how much censure we may pore on their behaviour. It was a guarded warning, not to allow our nobility to deny us the tangible benefit of our discovery. That fighting for principle comes with cost. The martyr is rarely bathed in gold, and the only glory attained, is in the history they make, only if the establishment chooses to recognise it. Invariably heroes become just as much target for vilification as they are veneration, and so those that are acutely sensitive to criticism should be wary of the path they choose to take. Revisionist history is a worthy task, but only if the vehicle for it is committed to prudence, justice, truth and accuracy, but it was clear during discourse with the professor, that academia and the establishment were not. Discourse with the professor, as well as others, and the application of our own intent, have contributed to our increasing safeguard of the artefacts’ historical value, and our own moral preserve, even if it has resulted in the gross depravation of our comfort, family and finances. It was this armour we applied in 2025, when we found ourselves in discussions with those in influence, who perhaps were more interested in the religious and political capital of our discovery, rather than altruistic furtherment of our ambition of an unbiased presentation of history for education and the nation’s sake, as well as a guaranteed future for our mis-sold church and its archaeology. We may have raised the profile of our case through these influencers, but Digger and I were not interested in promoting our discovery as anything other than a reveal of history for the benefit of all, and of course a solution to our mis-sold adventure. Reconnection I tried to reconnect with Professor X in 2025, this time not to ask for his help in critique and seeking authentication for our discovery, but to plead for his personal endorsement as an eminent historian and scholar—to decalre his belief in the discovery, regardless of any peer condemnation - to put honour and integrity before 'compliance'. Instead, I learned he had passed away. Hence why I cannot name him, because he is not alive to confirm my testimony. I shall remember our conversations, not because they moved Digger and I on significantly in our cause, but because he unselfishly ‘held the hand’ of a besieged historian clinging to the truth and finding frustration and depravation of the quality of his life because of it—at a time I needed validation in what seemed like a relentless environment of ignorance, indifference, and prejudice. He armed me with questions to ask and realities to consider, as we journeyed down a process in which academia and the state would only dig in deeper— which indeed is the case . I will name Professor X, free to cite him as a good historian and teacher, when our case is done and in final print, with our discovery where it should be, contributing to our historical understanding. I have to admit, some of the content of this article is to be found in other editorial posted on our website , but in a campaign where we are overtly critical of academia and academics—not necessarily their work but their behaviour, I wanted to record a positive engagement with an academic and an intellectual. A scholar who chose not to dismiss me because he deemed our opinions inferior, but mentor a stranger, simply because he viewed me worthy of his time. During our conversations, he never confirmed he had read our archaeological report, but his comments belied the notion he had not interrogated it fully, as he cited detail and expressed no doubt in our discovery. In retrospect, I wished he had publicly endorsed our find, rather than abstaining. He excused his critique because he was not a medieval scholar. Even though I argued the process of historiography is a universal methodology applied to any aspect of history, and thus expertise is not a prerequisite to critical assessment of the methodology employed in historical revision, particularly if the source of that revision is clearly laid out for the layman to consider. I condemned him at the time for his abstinence, an accusation I somewhat now regret, in the knowledge even his endorsement would not have guaranteed acceptance in a world of conflicting academics. Besides, not known to me at the time, he was never in mortal circumstance to support us going forward. God rest his soul.

Mark Huitson, September 2025 Introduction To any logical individual, the discovery of priceless  and unique  medieval artefacts would be very good news—especially for the finders. Particularly a discovery which generates a life changing event, solves a long-standing historical mystery, brings a huge benefit to the local community, to tourism, increases a country’s revenue, and provides a future guarantee for the site of its discovery, mis-sold to the finders and certainly at risk due to significant rehabilitation costs. There certainly were no doubts expressed about the find when an antiquities expert for a Scottish auction house carefully interrogated our initial archaeological report. He confirmed what others had testified—we had irrefutably dismantled the existing understanding of two ancient church bells, presenting what previous inspections had not—comprehensive and expertly derived testimony of the bells’ provenance. He was the same specialist who had inspected our church bells in 2020 for reasons of insurance valuation, but instead pored doubt on their original dating. The next stage, proposed by the expert from Lyon and Turnbull , one of Scotland’s leading auction houses, seemed both straight forward and logical. “All you need is a publicly recognised academic or expert to validate your findings.” Regrettably, there were no experts in the areas of our investigation; the origins of the Templar caste in Scotland, our bells’ sponsor, nor the secular clergy, one of the founding religious factions of the church’s military orders. We had in the absence of prior scholarly focus, de facto,  become the experts on our bells and their sponsor. There were bell experts, but it was not the form of the bells that provided evidence of provenance. Nothing about the bells’ forms contradicted the age proposed by our report, one presenting a form that had been completely replaced in Britain by the thirteenth century and the other of a later form carrying the same initials as the pre-1200 bell. Thus, we relied on academics; archaeologists and professional historians to interrogate our research and inspection methodology, our referencing, collaborating specialists, discussion, exploration and elimination, ie.,  all that we employed to arrive at what our antiquities agent had confirmed, an inarguable conclusion. It was entirely reasonable for the academic and heritage establishment to question the discovery— to be sceptical. However, we had provided a comprehensive collaborative study, incomparable to previous superficial inspections, tested with an objective beta read. Thus, the only rational barrier Digger and I, the finders, should have encountered was— the discovery is it genuine—is there any doubt? Our beta read confirmed we had provided everything to answer those questions, and so it only required the establishment  both academic and governance to evaluate our report prudently, professionally and objectively, for the benefit of accurate historical understanding. However, after four years, instead of objective evaluation, we have encountered inexcusable barrier after barrier from the establishment; academia, Scottish heritage governance (in all its forms; state-sponsored and volunteer) and even the Scottish Church to prevent any benefit the discovery would bring to the community, historical understanding, heritage preservation and to Scotland. No  supportable scholarly counterargument has ever been produced to refute our discovery, nothing  to cast doubt on our conclusion, and there is no  authoritative denial of our find—instead it is replaced with perverse authoritative and academic avoidance, exposing the gross delinquencies within the historical sector. Understanding the barriers placed before us and our inarguable discovery has become another phase of our journey. The process of exposing errant past thought, found through critical examination, as opposed to superficial and conceited opinion, has grown into incredulity as we found an academic class devoid of integrity, nobility or in some cases authentic intellect, despite their higher degrees. What has been experienced in this subsequent and incredibly frustrating part of our journey, blocked by barrier after barrier, is the gross delinquency, not only in the establishment, but in the public’s attitude in its abandonment of its own intellectual authority and prudence in the third millennium. Regrettably, in our local experience, culture and heritage in the region has become a niche pastime celebrated and sustained by only the few. Scottish governance and academia seem to be focused on its own self-serving ambitions, and not the impassioned and unprejudiced preservation of a nation’s history for future generations to understand and learn. Finding probably Scotland’s most significant medieval artefacts. When Digger and I prepared the first draft of our investigative archaeological report in 2021, on two medieval bells and their sponsor, we were confident we would receive assistance from the establishment to bring a good news event to the area, to Scotland, and to history. We did not set out to find Templar artefact but instead clarify why there was gross disparity between two earlier reports of the age of one of the bells. We needed confirmation, as insurance for the bell was denied when the valuer raised concern the bell and its mate appeared to be far older than their sixteenth century estimation—the basis of the official historical record and any prior valuations associated with the property. From the start of our investigation, we had a significant contribution from scholars and specialists, which we rigorously cross-referenced and tested so our conclusion was as robust as any scholarly consideration could be—free from speculation and subjective opinion—critical objectivity replacing Victorian speculative theory, laying out fact and evidence that spoke for itself. A comprehensive understanding was presented where none had ever been presented before— on two ancient bells. Reception from our initial beta read was affirmative, so when two of the most appropriate academic referred scholars agreed to critique our report, we were confident of their mentorship. These specialists included a Templar historian referred by Malcolm Barber , acknowledged as the world’s foremost Templar scholar, and a specialist medieval metal-finds curator from National Museums Scotland , referred by several museum and archaeology-leads. Both individuals acted on behalf of medieval history scholars. Both academics were deemed appropriate by their peers to bring critical consideration on the veracity and merit of our scholarly investigation, the methodology we had employed, as well as its conclusion, in the knowledge there was no informed view, publication or scholarly focus in several key areas of our study. In 2021, whereas we were aware of the conceit of academics and experts, demonstrated by incidents of condescension disparagingly thrown at us during our investigation, we were confident, in proper consideration of our evidence, such ill-formed ‘off the cuff’ opinion would not be able to be employed in counter to our discovery. There was no doubt we presented challenge to the accepted academic record, but as that record was known to be populated with theory over fact, then all we presented was the investigation that had never been carried out, probably because it was a commitment beyond any historian’s restricted and fleeting consideration of the site and the bells’ origins. Frustratingly, we did not  receive a critique of our investigation from the specialist academics. Our investigation was ignored in favour of blind support for the existing Victorian theory that had corrupted the previous eighteenth century official understanding of the bells (which our investigation supported). The prevailing 1898 theory (the academics’ preferred interpretation) proposed by James Barbour, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, had little to commend it, as it ignored, invented, and misread over sixty percent of the bells’ form, decoration and inscription. The academics chose to support Barbour’s blatantly errant, superficial, unevidenced and unreferenced supposition, rather than objectively consider our two-year collaborative investigation, laid out in detail, fully referenced, and supported by forensic analysis, profuse consideration, discussion, elimination and evidence in support. The academics did not dismantle our research but instead offered their unevidenced opinion  that Barbour was probably correct, thus dismissing our  evidence. However, their opinions were so blatantly errant to either peer or contemporary understanding and evidence, the robustness of their critique was rejected by every  other academic, supporter or institution in subsequent review. The academics’ testimony was so errant, they presented themselves as having no understanding of their own studies, ie.,  they were incompetent. However, not doubting the competence of the two academics, we could only regard their critique as deliberate artifice to counter our evidenced  conclusion, cancelling us out from having any valid contribution to understanding the objects in our possession. Instead, their failure to present any cogent counterargument, or ability to pore any credible doubt on our work, presented the unmistakable fact we had produced a robust conclusion, and they were evidently prejudiced against us and our work. According to specialist medieval academics, this is " definitely" a sixteenth century engraving, despite absolutely no evidence to support that opinion, and it appearing on a pre-1300 bell design. Prejudiced dismissal of any value in our investigation would become a concurrent theme, as we presented our evidence across the world of the history academic. Even scholars, sympathetic to our cause, would only offer veiled agreement of our discovery. They openly admitted there was an undeniable issue with prejudiced academic historians and a flawed, even corrupted historical record but in retreat, would cite their own ‘lack of expertise’ to avoid critiquing our investigation. All would prefer ignorance of the discovery and their poorly excused abstention, so as not to be censored by the academic world for colluding with two non-academics who dared to criticise academic thought and publication. Prove us wrong, was our call... No one has , and no one can, such is the strength of our argument. No evaluating specialist has dismantled our discovery or offered any supportable argument against it. All avoid agreement, because they cannot offer evidenced disagreement . What is made worse is this denial is surrounded by other apathetic and egregious behaviour by those who supposed to care for heritage. Instead of a good news story for Scotland, and our understanding of medieval history, we illustrate the delinquency of the historical sector (in all its forms) in terms of truant integrity. Campaigning to have the discovery recognised In 2023, when we drafted and edited our journals ready for publication, to help us in campaign, it was primarily to circumvent the academic prejudice we had experienced. In 2024 we published our investigative report and a book to help us in campaign, primarily based around that theme. We anticipated a kind of people’s crusade, to help us bypass what was already accepted— the existence of academic snobbery . However, a further year of frustration followed, dealing with obdurate and ineffective authorities, within an environment of public and community indifference. We found bureaucracy had long lost its sight of the good intention of policy and law, replacing it with maladministration and a truancy of critical and predictive thinking—a society of governance where win-win, the philosophy of the intelligent, had been replaced with lose-lose, the mantra of the stupid. We encountered ignorance and indifference where we thought we would receive support, especially from those purporting to have interest in the very thing we had found.   Digger and I, sadly became better acquainted with a fuller (if not complete) understanding of the barriers presented against us. Academic prejudice was certainly a major hurdle, and it was certain if either of the referred scholars had mentored our discovery rather than dismissing it out-of-hand, we would not be campaigning. Perversely, these initial reviewing academics, if they had acted with integrity, would be anticipating significantly more benefit and prosperity than the censure that will come their way, in public reveal. It was clear, however, beyond the academics’ foolish, short-sighted attitude, we had to come to terms with other irrational barriers just as deep-rooted and seemingly impossible to break down as the first. What is clear, these other barriers are built with similar components, and as such they have a common foundation and intrinsic connection. Ignorance, indifference, dogma, conceit and fear are just a few of the building blocks of the barriers we face. Some components are evident, while some are hidden, and as such we do not know if they exist at all or if they are simply projections of paranoia and conspiracy. What is clear, these barriers do not diminish—they appear, like pernicious thorns cast by an evil sorcerer before us, in an attempt to maintain their unworthy hold over the public’s misunderstanding and prevent us from reaching public acceptance. The Barriers 1. No Judicial Route to Authentication As in art, refusal by a prime expert or institution to authenticate any new discovery or associated artefact has the drastic consequence of rendering that discovery hollow in the eyes of the public and the antiquities market. Even if the finder demonstrates extremely sound provenance, if the prime ‘perceived’ expert refuses to agree with the attribution, their opinion will make the artefact unsaleable, and the circumstances associated with it, untenable, even if the prime experts’ opinions are unsubstantiated. In some cases, as in the case of our discovery, there are no experts because there has been no scholarly focus on the subjects we cover. In such a case there can only be reliance on opinion and assessment of the discovery, in terms of scholarly cross-examination by leading academics in the general area of the subject. Frustratingly, as we demonstrate, academic bias dictates only research and discovery conducted by regarded scholars will be properly considered, and only then if it does not challenge another fellow antiquarian’s work, regardless of any demonstrable error by those antiquarians. Regardless how monumental, complete, evidenced and compelling a discovery is, no leading academic will agree with anyone outside their intellectual society. This tenet has been tested with over two hundred approaches to leading medieval history academics and their institutions world-wide and found to be true, universally accepted, and criticised. The only other recognised route to authoritative authentication, outside specialist academic corroboration was Historic Environment Scotland (HES). The government’s heritage agency maintains the historic record of Holywood Church, which previously to our petition, included the identification of two sixteenth century bells taken from the former abbey as a point of ‘special interest’. We challenged the property listing, so it would reflect a far more accurate understanding of the bells’ significance. Such fundamental comprehension of the bells as priceless Templar artefacts, dictating the extraordinary provenance of the site, would completely change the understanding of the origins of the former abbey, the bells, and existing church in terms of valuation and conservation. However, HES refused to acknowledge the Templar provenance, without reason for their denial. Instead, the agency only corrected their sixteenth century misattribution, misrepresenting all the existing narrative on the bells—all proposing dates, replacing it with an unqualified and ambiguous unattributable, ‘medieval period’ designation. We raise the ridiculousness of HES’s behaviour, and the perversity pointed out by an archaeologist, the bells would have a far better chance for authentication (at least in terms of logical dating and sponsor’s attribution) if they had been found buried in ground, not attached to Holywood, treated as treasure trove, and evaluated free from any previous or HES’s biased reporting. 2. Academic prejudice What we did not understand in 2021, is we had broken the cardinal rules of the history academic. We had stepped into a deeply prejudiced world, where those existing outside, regardless of acumen, professional status and merit did not count. A world where self-serving ego would prevent any kind of meaningful collaboration, even within their own kind. Our report would never be considered by any leading academic, especially as we had criticised their ‘go to’ scholarly publications—the root of their own understanding—built on the shoulders of Victorian speculation, and fossilised in the record, never to be challenged or audited, only referenced. Frustratingly, dismissive academics had intentionally discounted any merit in our investigation, including the contribution of other academics, respected institutions, record and publication, simply to maintain the misunderstanding, because it was this misunderstanding that had fueled academic work. Annoyingly, other academics implied we should be sympathetic to the academics’ plight, in that they were simply defending previous scholarly works from being torn apart by our investigation. But what of the truth? Apparently, according to the many academics we interrogated, that did not matter, and with that we have illustration of the gross delinquency of the academic historians’ discipline. What was originally perceived to be a science at the birth of historical studies within universities in the late nineteenth century, ie., the synthesis of fact to arrive at inarguable conclusion, became corrupted with the incorporation of social science; politics, economy, and culture within historiography. Critical thinking, despite it being lauded as a key discipline of the historian, took a back seat to the individual presentation of theory over fact and rigorous research. 3. Institutional Prejudice Institutional prejudice is a common mindset exhibited amongst staff working in the public sector. Just as academics treat everyone outside their ‘intellectual credentials’ as vacuous, establishment bureaucrats treat the public as if they are ignorant, regardless of qualification and experience. If the bureaucrat’s competency is challenged by experience outside the establishment, humility not being a virtue within their spectrum, they will defend belligerence with obfuscation, refusing cogent response to any challenge they cannot counter. Digger and I have spent over fifty years working in various public service organisations, at different managerial levels, in differing roles, forever encountering staff majority-think that the public are outsiders—an irritation to endure rather than oblige. The public sector’s greatest nemesis is the ‘public’ that challenges their authority, exposing a gross lack of excellence, integrity, prudence, diligence, and veracity, existing particularly within badly performing public sector departments, led by incompetent and unprofessional attitudes. Digger’s academic credentials and experience teaching archaeology, as is my long professional experience in building surveying, conservation, historical research and systems analysis, are meaningless to the bureaucrat, because we are not a recognised part of their establishment. Our views are worthless, despite the obvious merit in our presentations. For example, Dumfries and Galloway Council  and Historic Environment Scotland  emphasise prejudice, exhibited through its officers, by making the point the research, leading to the reveal of the bells’ Templar provenance, is our  work. They make this point, not to clarify the source of the discovery, but to emphasise the bells’ Templar identification is not the establishment’s thinking. The institutions ignore our comprehensive evidence, compiled collaboratively with recognised scholars and their research, choosing instead, Historic Environment Scotland’s ( the establishment’s ) entirely subjective, amateurish and unevidenced opinion. These institutions deliberately malign the value of the work we present, without providing any justification for that denigration, choosing to replace fact and evidence with its own truancy of intellectual understanding, seeking hollow establishment credential over evidenced accomplishment. The institutions transparent excuse for ignoring what is obvious is apparent in its replies, carrying no measure of integrity. This truancy of honesty is then underwritten by other parts of the establishment—in our case the Scottish government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division  (DPEA), who contributed a further absence of professional objectivity, in their supposed  impartial review. 4. Scepticism Any reveal of new Knights Templar history is going to hit an unavoidable barrier of scepticism. The history of the Templars has long ago entered popular culture, and with-it copious speculation, conspiracies and imaginings all tapping into a current and significant fan base. Opportunists exploit the lore of the Templars in media presentation, entertainment and in book, both adventure and new editions of Templar history, adding perhaps a differing subjective assessment, not always on new supportable  evidence, but reinterpretation. Claims of satanic rituals, where the Templar treasure is buried, the Holy Grail hidden, attachment to Masonic conspiracies and Templar secret societies, all feature as ‘history’ presentation. Thus, in superficial public consideration, we can easily understand why our case may be passed over without serious consideration and instead judged as two people presenting more speculative history. But without interrogating the facts, letting scepticism fuel our opinions, is holding on to ignorance, and in ignorance we do not understand, and without understanding our opinions are hollow and illusory. Even some who have comprehensively interrogated our archaeological report and found nothing whatsoever to challenge the discovery, refrain from open and unequivocal support for the find. They accept we are not two fantasists who have travelled down the rabbit hole to find the Holy Grail or the treasure of the Templars. They admit we present nothing but evidence and fact, not opinion, that speaks for itself—yet some will not speak up on our behalf. Those who do, inevitably are met with a cynical response, particularly from academics, and so they retreat from supporting our cause, so those around them; their peers and mentors do not judge them foolish. We can understand those sceptics who will not even examine our case, because it is not in their interest to do so. However, we cannot forgive sceptics who, through duty, are commissioned to look beyond their own prejudice and review the evidence as its presented. To do so and deny the evidence is not a demonstration of a sceptic, but a bigot, and they have no place in either education or heritage understanding and conservation. Scepticism is indeed a powerful barrier. Every time I see a news article concerning our bells, with the editorial declaring, ‘the owners believe the bells are linked to the Knights Templar’, even I want to roll my eyes in pity for the two deluded fools. We have been gas-lighted by the establishment so maliciously to the point, we continually feel the need to review our evidence—to challenge our research to make sure nothing is based on ‘wishful’ interpretation. However, there is no doubt in our discovery, no hole for sceptics to exploit. There is only the frustration of two people who wished they had not bought Holywood Church, found misbehaviour presented in a woeful catalogue of misplay, and with other choices made, would be on course to have the home together they planned. 5. Fossilization of the historical record The Victorians were the last ‘public’ having the opportunity to shape the officially accepted local historical record of the built environment and artefacts contained within government database, museums, libraries and local archive. Much of the narrative you read about objects and places were created on the shoulders of Victorian supposition, opinion and their interpretation of ancient documents—many of those original documents sadly lost or misplaced. The Victorians were constrained by the period in which they lived, with a lack of ready access to other historians’ research and opinion. Therefore, many Victorians’ theories were based on singular thought without collaboration and research. The route to acceptance of their theories was through publication by their antiquarian societies, and it was very much their status within their societies, rather than evidenced merited study that ensured their views were accepted. James Barbour, fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and vice chair of the local antiquarian society is a good example of a vociferous and prolific amateur historian and archaeologist, who presented his theory on the Holywood bells, without presenting an objective study—his thoughts being accepted without question or challenge by his society, despite it clearly presenting many issues and deficiencies of understanding he did not address. These accepted publications and understandings by amateur/historical society-based, non-academic historians filled newly created academic libraries, both heavily influencing and forming the basis of emerging academic historical studies in the late nineteenth century. With over one hundred years of academic labour, mostly concerning wider areas of consideration, but built on the shoulders of this flawed, fossilised Victorian narrative, academia is understandably (but unforgivably) reluctant to support any discovery highlighting the significant delinquency of their discipline. Their understanding built on Victorian theory rather than scholarly deep-dive objective research, denigrates the substance of their understanding in comparison to other scientific disciplines. This coupled with the fact, since the creation of the academic discipline of historical study, only academic work is now entered into the academics’ library, or understanding, it means any new thought or research made outside their discipline, or their regard, is excluded from consideration, regardless of merit. Thus, where a Victorian’s amateurish derived theory set over one hundred years ago is accepted by academics as competent understanding, modern, proficient, comprehensive and collaborative research, made by those academia deem outside the academic class, is not. 6. Groupthink Groupthink  is a significant psychological phenomenon which adversely affects any sound altruistic and beneficial decision making. It is groupthink and not reason; logic, munificence, or the application of personal intellectual authority that has much to do with the ills of society today, as influencers within society cling to the imaginings of others, within a need for acceptance of that peer group. Groupthinkers, prioritise consensus and harmony over critical evaluation, which leads to poor and irrational consensual decision-making, fearing conflict or disapproval; fail to critically examine alternatives or consider potential consequences, leading to a false sense of agreement and reality; do not upset the status quo of any groupthink’s prevailing thought, regardless of any absence of logic; unable to present cogent arguments for any poor logic, groupthinkers, as a defence against those offering valid counter opinion outside their own, can only retaliate with silence or ignorance, or in extreme cases, slur and threat; often have a lack of skill set, a truancy of cognitive reality, and lack the diversity of viewpoints needed for thorough evaluation; placed in positions of authority, they will inevitably influence outcomes much to the detriment of good sense, oblivious to the consequences of their actions; fears censorship or ‘ridicule’ from their adoptive ‘group’, more than any discredit they will ultimately have to endure in the case of failure of their opinions and behaviour. In our particular case, ie.,  our objective historical enquiry and its consideration of the truancy of past theory , groupthink’s adverse effects extend beyond general academic conceit of its own intellectual worth and opinion, onto any management group academia directly influences. The group, in this case are those influenced and supported by, or working with, the heritage/history sector at different levels within different purposes. It is obvious many, including professional academic historians, accept our discovery. Many have expressed sympathy with our case. Regrettably, those relying on support and employment within any groupthink orientated activity, do not want to break rank and publicly support the merit of our investigation, for both the censure it will bring them, and humiliation it will bring to their clique. 7. Location The sustainability of heritage is most successful in communities where there is a strong local commitment to the area’s legacy and history, existent in its record, legend, heroes, buildings and remains. Commitment, not necessarily through ancestral roots or birthright, but by those with a keen interest in their current environment beyond personal, property and familial boundaries. Learning gathered from interviews and interactions with the local and wider Dumfries community and former community leads, it became evident the closure, disuse and disposal of Holywood Church was not only due to a falling local congregation, but also a lack of interest and commitment to understanding and celebrating the area’s heritage. Holywood Church, the oldest significant publicly accessible Georgian remnant in the area, and the site of a former medieval abbey had little value to the community, few visitors, and an appreciable lack of concern for its future—an attitude disappointingly exhibited throughout Dumfries and the region beyond, illustrated by the behaviours of politicians, Gallovidians, local and national Scottish history/preservation societies, and Historic Environment Scotland. We doubt the church bells’ 1898 re-interpretation by James Barbour, dismissing the original hundred-year-old record and challenged by a 1911 government audit (published 1920), would have been allowed to endure if there was strong local partisan interest in the church, its bells, and the site’s archaeology/history, regardless of Barbour’s standing in local society. The disinterest in defending the site’s heritage and antiquarian record had been long standing, replete with undocumented or poorly chronicled removal of archaeology, ancient record and antiquities from the site—lost into private ownership. Physical archaeological record was less than comprehensive, evidenced by the scant remains maintained in the local museum, or declared by the Church of Scotland. Much that was unearthed was handed over to local landowners, without proper recording, only to be ‘lost’ to further enquiry or inspection. With a lack of community interest, we have no local support—no voice greater than our own. Local politicians have ignored the issues we present, and whereas we can be sympathetic with those who may feel they have greater concerns than local heritage protection, they should not be surprised when heritage sites in the area struggle. The local community will have no grounds for complaint when those who have taken on the role of heritage protection are critical of local attitude. They should be mindful, that we, once supportive of retention of the bells on the site, are now unsupportive when singular local voices complain about removal of the site’s history. The fact is we can count only two local people (outside bureaucracy) that have raised the issue in four years of campaign. None understood the provenance of the bells. Removal is because of need —a result of community apathy towards understanding, protecting, sustaining and maintaining the area’s history in the first instance. We wonder if the church and its bells were located in another part of the UK, if the bells would have been recognised long before, and the site protected. Without data and only conjecture, we can only offer the suggestion. 8. Indolence, Indifference and Ignorance We have grouped these obstructive behaviours in recognition of the significant number of non-replies to our innumerable petitions made over the years, from organisations and individuals who by their published remit should have a strong interest in our case. Without engagement, we cannot assign a reason for non-response, but we can state their lack of decorum in their failure to even acknowledge our petitions is telling—and disappointing. These organisations and individuals’ influence would have made a significant difference in circumventing the problems we were having with bureaucratic and academic obstruction, so it was very disappointing for them to ignore our petitions, particularly as our discovery directly affected them, and in any future review they would perhaps receive censure for their abstention, regardless whether it was down to an indolent attitude to reviewing our discovery, disinterest in our case, or ignorance to our petition due to administration failure, ie.,  referral. There were those that did  respond—undertaking a promise to consider our case but did not follow up on promises made, so again we cannot assign a reason for their abstention. We appreciate we offered a lot of information for them to consider, but in many cases our petition presented tangible profit for their engagement. Again, these organisations demonstrated a lack of honesty, professionalism and basic decorum in their failure to follow up on promises made, leading to our poor perception of both their organisation and its integrity. We do not want to single out organisations for their abstention, but as an example, it was particularly disappointing to have those international organisations purposely interested in Templar history, those who recognised the flaws in existing understanding, fail to follow up with any further view, comment or engagement, beyond initial confirmation and reported interest in our petition. We have to report, the only Templar organisation that did not respond, was based in Scotland. It must be said, although reluctantly, there was disproportionate ignorance displayed by Scottish institution, rather than from those based outside Scotland. Whereas we accepted our case probably did not come before those who could (or wanted to) help, or that initial scepticism could only be overcome by full and objective consideration of the evidence contained within our comprehensive archaeological report, we still cannot but condemn indolent, indifferent and ignorant behaviour, particularly when it concerned historical artefacts and a discovery of national importance, that will eventually make considerable news, identifying the poor behaviours of those who failed due prudence. 9. Legacy With innate and inherited problems, often created over decades, such as the fossilisation of the historic record, it is often easier for institutions to accept and manage the problem rather than resolve it. The heritage sector and academia are well aware of the deficiencies of the historic record—not necessarily the absence of contemporary narrative and evidence but published (and accepted) understanding created through misinterpretation created over one hundred years ago by subjective historian theory rather than evidenced research. This misinterpretation has fueled narrative for over a hundred years, and so dismantlement would in fact negate a significant amount of scholarly work already created, bringing other content within those works into potential disrepute. This is why many academics advised us to reframe our work in the terms of ‘possibility’ rather than offer direct challenge to the deficiencies of Victorian thought, informing the traditional academic view. Thus, in consideration of academic sensibility, we were not seen to be condemning previous work, only offering an alternate theory . However, what we present by our research is not  theory but fact that presents one inarguable conclusion. Unless academia can provide evidenced consensus we are mistaken, then the truth should be recognised, even if it challenges former publication and understanding. This is the fundamental basis of learning—to challenge and to understand with erudition and not echoing unproven thought. We believe this may be one of the reasons HES and National Museums Scotland, for instance, have refused to acknowledge our discovery, despite these organisations clearly unable to dismiss our conclusions on evidenced grounds—because it may open the flood gates to challenge to the deficiencies in the historical record maintained by these academically sourced organisations. Instigating substantial improvement to historical understanding is a huge commitment in terms of manpower, skills-setting and cost. Unless there is commitment, such gross improvement to the record, with inaccuracies inherent for over one hundred years fostered by academia, is a problem difficult to resolve, without bringing academia into disrepute. Successful audit is unlikely because the objective skill set needed to challenge the record does not exist, and we can point to academia and the professional history sector for this deficiency. As laymen, outside the academic society, we must challenge the validity of a discipline seeking to maintain falsehood to justify any work built upon it. The ethics of deliberately maintaining misunderstanding is questionable, regardless of the academics’ pleas, particularly as the deficiencies of the current record are recognised by the Scottish government in their heritage policies, with a commitment by its appointed agency to improve our understanding. However, the Scottish government’s commitment appears to be rather hollow when presented with the facts of our case and our discovery, which would be a significant coup for the nation, not only in terms of historical understanding, but revenue creation. It may have been a different matter if our discovery was a minor correction to an existing historical misunderstanding. However what we present is an extremely significant re-discovery, and as such denial for the sake of preserving existing legacy understanding is a serious breach of public trust. 10. The False Door Some barriers are camouflaged—open doors inviting the public and heritage keepers in, to provide assistance and to ensure our understanding of heritage is properly recorded and utilised for the conservation of heritage. But these open doors lead only to barriers of insincerity and artifice—bureaucratic misdemeanour and obstruction. In 2021, we opened a public door to Historic Environment Scotland (HES), a government agency purposed to deliver the government’s heritage policy. Instead of welcome, we expended three years trying to open the next door, asking for help and receiving nothing but obstruction and thinly veiled avoidance. The Scottish government’s Historical Environment Policy is clear and unequivocal; it supports the inclusive understanding of heritage and everyone’s  contribution to that understanding. HES mirror the government’s intent by declaring itself its lead agency for the improvement of everyone’s involvement and comprehension of the nation’s history. So why was our contribution ignored? Well not completely disregarded, because following the agency’s evaluation of our archaeological report, its misrepresentation of the age of the bells was corrected, but not to the twelfth century we and previous declarations reported but instead given an unqualified ambiguous ‘medieval period’ dating categorisation, which did not appear in any previous inspection narrative. HES then used this argument to declare they did not conflict with our report, preferring to ignore the bells’ extraordinary attribution. The agency failed to mentor our discovery in any way or present any argument to disavow our conclusion. The potential barriers behind HES’s false door are considered elsewhere in this article, and so we can only offer conjecture why we were cancelled. 11. A Lack of Professional Behaviour There is a lack of professional behaviour underpinning academic and institutional prejudice. We illustrate, through an uncharacteristic thorough examination of two artefacts, significant shortcomings of the historical narrative of the Holywood Church site, created over one hundred years ago. Our research illustrates multiple errors in past understanding due to the employment of personal conjecture over collaborative and comprehensive investigation. Typically, where contemporary information is scant or absent, historical understanding is formed from superficial consideration and opinion, endorsed by the qualification of the narrator’s status within either their historical societies or academic qualification—not expertise, detailed analysis, or investigation. Subsequent scholarly work is built upon this flawed understanding, with scholars and historians plagiarising former academic recognised work as the basis of their own understanding, adding further opinion rather than offer comprehensive original research and thorough objective review of former interpretation and supposition. This subjective behaviour, rather than thorough objective research—a lack of systematic and professional discipline, exists within many historians and those educated through the Humanities. Despite the aim to provide scholarly discipline to the study of history, academia has fallen short of promoting collaborative research and challenge to what has always been flawed past narratives to suit misinformation promoted by political, regnal and religious ideology rather than unbiased truth. Academia’s lack of professional standards with regards to objective behaviour was ably demonstrated by the 2001 legal case; Irving v Lipstadt/Penguin Books , centered on determining the quality of a respected historian, David Irving’s historiography. It was left to the judiciary considering the case to formulate a professional and objective standard to qualify the eligibility of any history professional witness statement. Unfortunately, this standard has never been adopted by the Humanities (history-centered study) which remains primarily subjective-based learning. Academia (the Humanities) do not want to publicly admit there is this lack of coherent or professional standard within their discipline, particularly when it comes to auditing any delinquency of understanding, so instead they either avoid, deny, obfuscate, or in some instances lie, rather than support genuine discovery based on challenge, fact and objective analysis, regardless from where it originates. 12. Jealousy Jealousy is a very destructive and powerful emotion. It creates an environment of denial and derision when one group covets the success of another. It is often not deliberate behaviour, it has no logic, no reason—it is a consequence of being human, hence why warning against this very destructive human nature features so strongly in the Bible, eg.,   Proverbs 27:4 - Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy? In our case, we seem to have lost support of those working in the archaeological field, whose friendship and mentorship long pre-dated our discovery. Where their voice in support could have helped, even delivered our discovery into public acceptance, their silence has been ‘deafening’. Similarly, influential reviewers who agreed with our conclusions, but the discovery perhaps belittled their own contribution to issues surrounding our find, have been less than vociferous or magnanimous with regards to helping us realise the truth. One Christian minister, originally supportive, was more intent on broadcasting his own efforts to save the bells than support our own labours. A historian/collector, who agreed with our investigation’s conclusion, chose to demean the bells’ value, because it perhaps belittled his own collection of Templar artefacts, and his own opinions on why such artefact is scarce. Academics decried any obvious merit in our investigation, even lying to further denial. They could not bear to acknowledge any quality in our examination, outside it being ‘neatly presented’, or unable to find worthy criticism, pointed out grammatical deficiencies instead. 13. Disturbing the Status Quo High-pressure situations, such as significant work turnover, time constraint, and a lack of prevailing acumen or skill-set or acute decision making, can intensify the desire for quick consensus, rather than add any complication brought about by a serious challenge to ‘operational soundness’. To employees lost in the bureaucratic machine, it is often far easier in the short-term to ignore credible challenge than seek to resolve it beneficially, sweeping the issue aside in the hope the ‘problem’ will move on from their watch. It is an indolent strategy Digger and I have encountered repeatedly in our time in public service management. Our discovery, coming from outside academia and the establishment, involving contentious Templar history, debunking the source information forming the building listing record, illustrates not an aberrant case, but a widespread problem created by a fossilised record, and a legacy of superficial consideration, rather than deep dive research. Routine low level institutional consideration is not conditioned to deal with wider problems, only processing issues put before them on a case-by case basis. We present issues beyond the capacity of many public-service officers, instead a consideration for management, with far reaching implications to their service delivery. However, there is and always has been a tendency for time-pressured managers to bury their head in the sand, hoping the issues presented to them, challenging their own critical understanding and the value of their existence, will pass to another, at another time. 14. Fear Fear of change. Fear of challenge. Fear of being found out. The greatest danger to the specialist’s self-esteem, is new discovery challenging what the expert currently understands or what they have previously reported. Experts often rely on conjecture rather than fact, and in the absence of challenge or any consensus, they can escape contest, impressing the layman with their ‘knowledge’, but not if a credible understanding is presented to counter their previous estimations,  ie., any evidenced demonstration of a hole in their expertise. Often, with no one around able to challenge their competence, they can offer opinion without the need to back it up with evidence. We have had many perceived ‘experts’ offer opinion on subjects of which they clearly do not have full and insightful understanding. Early bell archaeology, medieval epigraphy, the founding establishment of the Templar caste, the nature of noble and the lower ranks of medieval secular clergy, are all subjects short on comprehensive scholarly understanding, yet we appear to have ‘experts’ able to counter our research, with their ‘learned’ opinion. We tend to trust the specialist, particularly if they possess qualification or status within their peer group. However, in subjects with significant scope, such as the expansive medieval era, with a lack of data, confirmable narrative and record, or material understanding, academic historians and archaeologists often present subjective opinion, even in preference to other academics and archaeologists’ robust and evidenced research. These experts invariably fail to engage in debate when their opinion is challenged by evidence. They retreat into silence, as was the case with the two referred academics who initially reviewed our study—as was the case with every self-declared ‘expert’ we presented with a conundrum or reinterpretation they could not answer without descending into implausibility—or experts faced with our erudite solutions to interpretations, retreating from previous collaboration with us because they could not answer with any kind of cogent argument, why they may be so wrong in their own initial interpretation or estimation. 15. Outlanders An entrenched historical legacy exists, inherent to the human condition— the clan.  In any political or nationalistic call for social unity, regardless of creed and culture, the tribal nature of groups of individuals connected by legacy and neighbourhood is a factor political intent will never subjugate. Scotland for instance is the sum of many parts. Hebrideans will never see themselves as Gallovidians, or Highlanders see themselves as comparable to Lowlanders. Although tolerance and friendliness exist between neighbours, regardless of origins, and there will be an acceptance of a national identity, there will always be underlying division and even distrust between those with differing cultural and regional backgrounds. We have been informed by those working within the community sector, our ‘foreign’ presence and find is perhaps uncomfortable, because it ruffles the feathers of locally born residents, as well as local historians and professionals with generations of personal investment into their territory. We are seen by some as an irritation to local sensitivity. It is irksome for us to point out what they have failed to understand, particularly as it is, as one local commentator put it, ‘a big deal’. There is no research found to backup what can only be judged as hearsay without proof and evidence. However, resistance to outside challenge is  a condition in the local area, that can be confirmed by the author’s own previous experience of working in the region. In 2004-5, the author and his former employer, both value and lean management and maintenance service specialists, were invited into the area by the local college, social services, suppliers, and the main social housing provider, to resolve a significant local service deficiency. Subsequently, a significant improvement and employment initiative was delivered, and proven immensely successful. However, long-term delivery was cancelled by covert pressure placed on the initiative’s employers. Local organisations, companies, and training organisations, seeing their capability and value challenged by ‘outlanders’—despite the huge benefits to disabled groups, trade shortage and local employment, complained and lobbied to have future contracts denied. This partisan, negative attitude to challenge and improvement by local agencies and sensitivities was cited for persistent service shortcomings, which was resolved in 2005, yet now persists in 2025. At the time, the local college cited a lack of humility, awareness and a resistance to change and external involvement—contributing factors why the area often is presented with a negative reputation. 16. Ethical Ideology This barrier is highly relevant in today’s politically and ideologically charged society where it seems you are judged either left or right wing, and no middle ground seems acceptable. Our narrative exposes two bells cast in a time of aggressive conflict between Christian and Muslim nations over the Holy Land, as well as European land grabs and conflict over religious autonomy. The bells were cast, sponsored by a Christian knight who embraced the classical sense of stoic hegemonic masculinity. After reading hundreds of thousands of words in treaties and thesis about medieval masculinity within historical, gender and women studies in context of the medieval period; classical masculinity and Christian-based colonialism is often portrayed as a toxic concept, taught to significant parts of today’s educated society. It follows, any academic-educated bureaucrat or critic who is influenced by gender theories and anti-masculine, anti-Christian rhetoric or arguments directed against European colonisation, would be less than objective or ‘excited’ by our discovery. 17. The Legacy Media Traditional legacy media has proved a poor outlet for our discovery. After four years of contacting newspapers, journalists, both local and national, coverage has been trite and unproductive. There has been no investigative journalistic consideration of our case, and when featured, it has only been in relation to governmental planning appeal—news ‘filler’ more than journalistic exposé. 18. Failure to Audit The danger to the robustness of any intricate, multi-faceted human derived system of understanding, is both a failure to audit and to make correction when audit reveals observable and demonstrable failure. Digger and I did not discover ‘new’ history, we only return to public understanding what was lost in the nineteenth century, through a singular flawed, superficial 1898 review of the bells and their history, and subsequent error to follow through by the last government audit in 1911, which failed to counter the fundamental flaws it had discovered in the understanding created by the previous appraisal. We carried out both an audit on the bells and followed through on the errors we found. However, our audit has been discounted, because we are deemed by the government’s agencies and academia as not qualified to audit the bells, despite presenting a peerless evidenced  understanding, demonstrating our competences. Our audit has been discounted, not because the government and academic evaluation of our assessment reveal it discountable because of a lack of competence and evidence, but because we are deemed by these bodies as not credentialed  rather than intellectually qualified. However, it is clear both all ‘credentialed’ inspections carried out on the bells in the last one-hundred-and-twenty years, were carried out by individuals who were not intellectually qualified—hence their failure to see the obvious and interpret with robustness, instead of ill-informed conjecture, ignorance and contrivance. James Barbour’s 1898 misinterpretation of the bells was not the problem, but more so the reaction to it in later government audit and the academic acceptance of Barbour’s obvious flawed inspection in the hundred years since doubt was raised. The misinterpretation of Barbour was allowed credibility because of Holywood’s ‘lost’ history, exacerbated by indifference to the site, not only by the site’s keepers, the Church of Scotland, but by academia and the local community. Renowned bell archaeologist, Ranald Clouston, ensured his 1993 report on the condition of the Holywood bells, reiterated the interpretation of the inscription on the bells was not his, but the government’s (RCAHMS). In 2009 when argument was raised the bells were far older than recorded, the complaint was ignored by both the church keepers (the Church of Scotland) and the local council. In 2021, we faced the same indifference, despite presenting a peerless inspection and consideration, not only of the bells’ engraving but the sponsor’s legend—all which restored the original eighteenth century understanding of the site and its bells. We can forgive past misinterpretations made in superficial consideration. Such behaviour is inevitable when comprehensive knowledge, time, experience and skill set are absent. But we should not forgive the establishment, made aware of the error, who evaluates it and purposefully does nothing to correct it. Such action is a serious breach of the very intention of Government policy and law governing the understanding and protection of heritage. Following every petition made to government agencies to review and amend a significant understanding of the site of Holywood and its bells, not a single argument has been offered to counter our discovery. Instead, what has been made clear by the establishment is the discovery is not as important as the establishment’s own (and delinquent) understanding and management of heritage. We illustrate the gross deficiency of one single entry in the 1911 government audit. It would be unrealistic to treat the auditor’s failure in assessment of the Holywood bells as uncharacteristic in an otherwise overall proficient exercise. A new audit of the Scotland’s historic environment is long overdue (last undertaken more than one hundred years ago). However, we doubt there is sufficient skilled resource available to carry out any objective review. Thus, it is extremely frustrating when HES, do not even appreciate or treat external audit appropriately when it is offered, even by members of the public. But considering HES have failed to maintain any comprehensive audit on the heritage at risk in Scotland (see article; Historic Environment Scotland-A Malignant Caretaker ) , we only present further evidence of governance that fails to deliver value to the nation's heritage. 19. Peer Review It was suggested in 2021; to circumvent academic prejudice we should publish a pared down archaeological report in a peer review journal, such as published by the local antiquarian society. After careful consideration and further consultation with society members, this route to authentication was eliminated. It was reasoned, the article may indeed produce debate and even interest within society membership, but was unlikely to enter public consumption, nor academic consideration. Even within the antiquarian society, similar barriers of prejudice were predicted, with many members not choosing to interrogate the full report past the pared down article—preferring to contribute bias opinion, fuelled by the various reasons cited in this article. Also, if the two most referred internationally recognised specialists did not offer objective argument in debate, and support for our case, what was the antiquarian society going to add, even if it agreed, other than unqualified opinion rather than credentialled evaluation? Since academia no longer builds its understanding from antiquarian society papers, then our discovery, at best, would be viewed in peer review, as a possibility not a reality. 20. The Scottish Church In our attempt to secure the opportunity for the bells to be displayed in Scotland, eg.,  a Scottish museum or another Scottish church, recognised for their unique provenance, we hoped we could rely on the prudence, justice and care of the Christian Church in support to break down the dissolute barriers presented against us. With one of the finders a professed Christian, a desire existed to see the bells have opportunity to ring out over a Christian community, like they had done for nearly nine hundred years. Keeping these unique and priceless bells locked away in a dilapidated building, destined not to be a private house development (as planned) was abhorrent. Presentation on site was impossible, unless a new developer could be found prepared to spend millions to develop the church appropriately to its archaeology. All professional commercial and heritage advice dictated any  purchaser would remove the bells, because that is where the value lay. It brought the realisation the bells’ nine-hundred-year presence on the site would need to end, as retention was impractical due to the bells’ value. It was also clear, in terms of the bells’ spiritual heritage, without any dedicated religious convent or community remaining in Holywood, their job was done within this location—the bells needed to find a new keeper. However, in continuation of the Church of Scotland’s disinterest in the Holywood bells, we received no help from the bells’ former keeper. We also petitioned the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Vatican, as the bells were part of their heritage. In appreciation of the bells’ origins, purpose and founder, we offered to share the benefit of the discovery with these organisations. Shamefully, we did not receive the courtesy of consideration. Instead, we met another unbelievable obstacle—ignorance, deceit and apathy—an indifferent attitude to the celebration and conservation of Christian heritage. Added, was the Church’s rejection of the trial of two people. The Church of Scotland simply reinforced its woeful attitude of deceit and negligence with regards to its disposal of the former church, aware of its catastrophic problems due to its interred archaeology. The Catholic Church also ignored our repeated petitions, without even a single acknowledgement. This barrier of indifference presented by the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Catholic Church, illustrated by their dismissive and careless attitude to the disposal and treatment of the bells, is a sad reflection of the region’s lack of concern for its Christian heritage and the failure of the country’s principal state recognised Church institutions to ensure the sustainability of a nation’s spiritual and moral adherence in the third millennium. There seems to be little action to fortify the public’s understanding of its society’s Christian foundation, and the handover of religious heritage to new generations. Redundant churches are increasing at an alarming rate, their disposal becoming no more than a development and planning problem to solve, protected by law, and dispassionately administered by uncaring, indolent and unimaginative bureaucrats. Adhering to cardinal virtues, Christian organisations should set the benchmark for integrity, providence, understanding and benefaction to the wider community as well as the Christian family. They have no excuse for failing to deliver these fundamental values. Regardless if we are qualified to judge the Church of Scotland or the Catholic Church as Christian safekeepers, in context of the bells and parish of Holywood, it is clear the Scottish institutional Church long ago became unworthy of their keep and their discovery. The state-recognised Holy Church has abandoned its foundational beliefs, allowing malignancy to corrupt the moral, prudent, merit worthy and selfless foundation of Scottish society—the malignancy obstructing the truth of the Bells of Holywood being celebrated in Scotland—and so perhaps the Church presents the greatest moral barrier of them all. 21. Deep-hidden Barriers With the precise nature of barriers often difficult to discern, and reasons for rejection never explicit, we are often left with questions more than specific motives. It would be an entirely different situation if we presented doubt . With uncertainty, it would be understandable for people and institutions to be wary of expending any effort in assistance. But we only present facts, logic, and a web of circumstance that arrives conclusively to only one compelling interpretation. We do not present understanding free from logic, clarity, evidence, or counter any former credible and rigorously informed understanding. We only add detail to what was already understood at the turn of the eighteenth century. If you read the interactions between ourselves and the government’s agents; HES, National Museums Scotland, the local council and the critiquing academics, you will see a huge imbalance of credibility in terms of wishing to understand the bells’ provenance. The establishment avoid it, without offering any supportable denial, or any rational concern for what the discovery means, not only for us, but for a significant enlightenment of history, a solution for the conservation of Holywood Church, tourism enhancement, and to Scotland in terms of repute and income generation. It is these facts of the matter that presents incredulity far beyond any cogent reason, including prejudice. In our mission to understand the environment around our discovery, we have encountered many inside commentators—those who work with the very establishments obstructing our find. In certain cases, these third parties offer conspiracy rather than hard provable reasoning. More than one suggestion has been made, the deliberate denial of our find is because of what it represents to some sections of the public. Intelligences offered to us by those with insight into the internal machinations of the establishment, including the Church, alluded to ‘religious and nationalist sensitivities’ and as such, ‘celebration’ of Templar history could be seen as ‘problematic’. We are doubtful such strategic common denial is a prime issue, particularly as discord came at such an early stage in our petitions. We question the probability, leaders with oversight of institutions such as HES and National Museums Scotland, as well as managing officers within, would all conspire so uniformly to deny our discovery on ‘religious grounds’. Without written evidence, such as policy confirmation, we cannot ratify these intelligences as anything other than hearsay, but the reports are not far removed from an increasing imbalance of even-handed behaviour in the UK, particularly Scotland, with regards to any sort of celebration of Christian heritage. The council’s historical dismissal of the importance of the bells, the government’s lack of concern for the benefit the discovery will generate, even when faced with the same evidence everyone outside governance and biased academia sees as compelling, are mysteries we can never define with absolute confidence, without deep and infallible interrogation of the suspects. There are unmistakable opaque forces working in UK politics and society we cannot ignore. Politics and secular ideologies, founded in academia, now influence state governance rather than the Christian Church with its fundamental moral foundation—a contrary position to what existed in the UK for over a thousand years. Cultural heritage, and in particular Christian heritage are not a priority or even desirable within some facets of political or academic thought and progressive ideology. Whereas this should have no bearing on the maintenance of historical artefact and a true historical record, heritage perhaps has increasingly become a game played by politicos and revisionists to suit a prejudiced social-political agenda rather than the impartial and dedicated preservation of a nation’s past. We are still left with questions why the establishment, not denying what is demonstrated with evidence as a genuine discovery would purposefully refuse any help to see it saved for the nation. We have laid out several barriers why this may be so, but in broader terms the establishment’s reaction could be  part of a larger problem that exists, currently steering western civilisation, repealing its former contribution to global human existence, mostly conducted under Christian ideology and imperialism. It may be we are looking for intelligent reasons why there is no strategic or intellectual foundation for denial of our discovery, but in reality we are simply facing defining negative doctrines of bureaucracy and academia—organisations filled with self-service and mediocrity rather than talent, operating under doctrines of incompetence, prejudice, indolence, ignorance, arrogance and indifference. There is also the posibillity of a higher power at play, both leading us to the discovery and obstructing its reveal. It was a discussion I had with a senior cleric within the Catholic Church; an agent of the Vatican. A discussion generated from an earnest spiritual consideration, fostered by my own incredulity that somehow I, a Christian, would find myself at the doors of a dilapadated church in Scotland, with a uniquely and perversely derived skillset, to find the only provenanced Templar artefacts in the world. Was it only coincidence that my ancestery, traceable back to a French knight, Henri de Huecon, was a vassal knight to Guarin le Riche, the grandfather of William le Riche, the bells' sponsor. Was God's hand at play, I asked, and if so, why was I having such a hard time bringing the find into the public record. ' Timing ', was the reply. 22. Systems Collapse Many of the obstacles we face obtaining authoritative authentication of our discovery are a combination of varying hidden attitudes and behaviour, rather than openly professed and regulated practice. The barriers we face are not always tangible, set by historical conduct, but instead underpinned by irrational changes in societal attitude—the erosion of common sense, accelerated by the abandonment of Christian-inspired morality; basic concepts of integrity, constancy, fairness and diligence, as well as the rejection of patriotism and its unwavering protection of a nation’s heritage and culture. We present a question, would we have faced the same obstruction to our discovery, if it were made, say thirty or forty years ago? We still propose location is a deciding factor, and the decline of, and interest in, heritage in the region has been decades in the making, but there is argument supporting the fact attitudes to merit, as well as ancestral culture and heritage are certainly in decline. There is an undeniable universal failure to adhere to empiricism and meritocracy within UK governance, establishment administration and education. Unless one subscribes to a replacement mindset, it is difficult to see the logic in many new behaviours, particular in respect to critical thinking and predictive intelligence—benchmarks, not of intellectual reasoning, but wisdom. Instead, theology, pragmatism and meritocracy have been given over to secular ‘intellectual’ ideologies—producing conflicting societal dogma, free of common ground. Thus, division in society exists, as it always has, with class distinction and its associated partisan leanings, being replaced with political and intellectual discrimination, with evidently more vehemence and antagonism, and overtly harmful disruption to a unified state. Many intellectuals cite the current situation as ‘extreme’, with some historians considering the current behaviours of society as recognition of systems collapse —a situation contributing to the implosion of many former intricate ancient civilisations. It is cited, much of new destructive socio-political dogma and any associated idiocrasy, is mentored by intellectual theory promoted by the humanities, which includes historical studies. This wave of new education has influenced and even corrupted (depending on your own point of view) new generations of ‘thinkers’, who choose to deny or interpret the past as it chooses, to fuel both progressive ideologies and any associated bias. Outside all the current rhetoric, as one side condemns another, within Digger and I’s lifetimes, we personally have witnessed a palpable disappearance of merit in the operational intricacies of the establishment in terms of management, value, integrity, humility and governance. Increasingly, sound delivery has been replaced, not with improvement and benefit, but alternative concept and agenda—actions without providing any meaningful audit or benefits’ analysis to test both their operational and philanthropic value. Integrity, prudence and professionalism has been swapped out with artifice, foolishness and ineptitude designed to serve prevailing ideologies, rather than benefit and service to the general public. Influenced by ideologies, promoted by conceited intellectual thought rather than rational education, the establishment is now grossly staffed by those who are often ill-suited to objective and munificent public service, but instead heavily constrained by groupthink and institutional prejudice, regardless of their personal view. Our case is further illustration where integrity, humility and merit has been replaced with illogicality due to arrogance and the refusal to deal with, not only a different point of view, but the truth presented, not by recognised credentialled opinion, but by rational and merited investigation, logic, mathematical probability and objective observation. We have produced a peerless understanding of two bells, and a meritorious scholarly treatise to explain their origins, and despite absolutely no supportable and intelligent counterargument to our significant discovery, we are left fighting to bring profit to the nation—fighting those very organisations tasked to benefit and educate the state. There has always been debate and challenge about the differences between the performance of the private sector against the public sector. Incompetence, tardiness, and questionable professional behaviours of officers outside the rigours of enforceable professional conduct and accountability all contribute to the display of bureaucratic failure, and it appears we are illustrating how heritage management is suffering along with every other aspect of UK governance. 23. Developing of the site without authentication There are many historical attractions that do not rely on official recognition of the site’s history. We have been referred by commentators to several private museums and ventures, as examples of alternatives to communicating the site’s history to the public, thus circumventing dogmatic barriers of academic and institutional ignorance. This of course, is reliant on a workable business plan, which we are advised by specialists there is none. The site offers little attraction other than the bells and any potential attending finds found in successive archaeological exercises. The cost of archaeological exploration and rehabilitation of the church as a publicly accessible museum to hold the bells would be at least six million pounds, and as such would require considerable third-party investment. Any such investment would need to buy into the bells’ Templar provenance, with redevelopment as a public attraction requiring cooperation from the local authority and local landowners, as the church has no outside space of its own. However, in terms of commercial reality, the bells would generate far more income by being sold to a museum or collector in the short term than would ever be realised by paying visitors to an attraction in the long term. The site does not present a workable infrastructure for visitors. There is no public interest, nor community commitment to the site, and no interest shown by the local authority who maintains the surrounding graveyards and access. Insurances would prohibit the bells from being stored on site, and so replica bells would have to be displayed. We purchased Holywood Church as a potential home. However, with minimum development costs approaching two million pounds, and quiet enjoyment denied, as well as the significant security concerns the bells present, any ‘home’ plan is untenable. We have absolutely no interest in creating a museum, especially in the challenging commercial environment of Dumfries and Galloway. Thus, we would need to sell the church to a new developer, and to do so, we need to assign a property valuation. Thus, we are back to the fundamental requirement of authoritative authentication for both the bells and the site. 24. Self-Built Barriers— the Tribulations of Promotion Whereas we were ably equipped to make the discovery, we are ill-equipped to promote it. We have no institutional influence, financial resources, or social following to employ as promotional tools. We are extremely shy of self-promotion, preferring quarantine from common societal behaviour, particularly social media. There is a balance to strike between public exposure and maintaining privacy, and there is no doubt the latter strongly influences Digger and I’s behaviours to the point we procrastinate or persist in seeking quiet acceptance and cooperation from the establishment, rather than broadcast or encourage public censure of it, although it is deserved. 25. Legal Remedy We were fortunate to be offered legal advice from several senior advocates; internationally recognised experts with a keen interest in history, our case and appreciation of the prevailing academic and bureaucratic mess thwarting common sense. They advised us under what headings to take legal action to have the bells recognised and who to act against. All counselled, describing the resources required, time frame and the stages of the legal process if the authorities doubled down on their misrepresentations and deceits. On evaluation, those advocates that studied our archaeological findings and the academic and bureaucracy’s response, could find no justification for the behaviour exhibited. Not only had governmental policy been corrupted but also planning statute. The advocates agreed our investigation presented peerless and expert  understanding of the artefacts under consideration, perversely supported by academia’s and governmental failure to dismantle our conclusion—employing demonstrable ignorance, rather than evidenced, intellectual and factual argument. The legal advocates laid out the potential problems within the judicial system with increasing political and ideological influence, and the likely issues beyond any moral victory. It was clear any legal action on our part was a significant undertaking. Defence against any action taken against us was one thing, but the resource required to take action against the Scottish government was something else entirely. What was made clear, if combative legal remedy was sought to have the Scottish government recognise the provenance of the bells, then we as the current owners would be disinclined to work with the Scottish Government in the future. Thus, it was probable our ambition to see the bells maintained in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish nation would not be realised. The safety of the bells was seen as paramount and that may be only guaranteed outside an environment displaying a less than protective attitude to its cultural underpinnings, eg.,  prevailing political ideologies that are anti-heritage, anti-culture and anti-Christian.

A journalist asked the owners, what made them so sure of their discovery?  The owners directed the journalist to their report.  All the evidence was there—all contained within one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand words, laid out in investigation and illustration, distilling three years of research.  The reason, however, why the discovery is genuine, was not just informed by the amount of evidence or examination, but how the researchers conducted their enquiry— it was an objective review of the whole record. The owners’ investigation presented, in terms of historical enquiry, an uncharacteristically comprehensive and impartial view of the artefacts in their possession, using evidence, fact and critical elimination, with substantial evidence and compelling circumstance building the conclusion.  It   was an objective view based on case study and example, rather than reliance on supposition, opinion, or nebulous association and speculation.  Importantly, the owners ensured the veracity of their discovery would stand up to any judicial review—the true test of authenticity, using existing legal precedent to assess any testimony. The owners employed a great deal of time and effort on two inscriptions, acquiring the knowledge to interpret through expert assistance, tutelage, and reference.  They placed a magnifying glass on the bells and devoted far more time and collaboration than could be afforded by previous interpretations—prior inspections that resulted in any anomalies being ignored and absences on the bells’ inscriptions filled with invention.  Identification and trail of the bell sponsor was time consuming and rigorous, and although could not be exhaustive due to a lack of comprehensive record, there was enough information to assign the uniquely titled sponsor, the legend of a knight-cleric whilst a spiritual head of a convent, in the entourage of David I, the king of the Scots. Perhaps not surprisingly, the owners established what was already substantiated by record created in the eighteenth century, formed from understanding of the site and bells that had existed for hundreds of years.  Regrettably, this understanding had been ignored or discarded by antiquarian society-based Victorian historians, replacing it with their own speculative and unresearched theories, which in turn entered into the academic record, treated as ‘fact’, wiping away any former understanding from academic comprehension. The journalist exemplified the many who challenge the legitimacy of the find, not because they had read the owners’ report and found it unconvincing, but because there was not a ‘trusted source’ to read it on their behalf and confirm it.  Similarly, antiquities experts said the veracity of the owners’ report was not what the antiquities market required, but a trusted source who had authenticated the owners’ testimony.  Regrettably the ‘trusted source’ are subjective academics, adhering to their ‘cherry-picked’ academic view, and who by their prejudiced nature would never consider any study made outside their own kind valid, never mind consider it objectively. So, what made the owners so sure of their discovery? Because there is not a single  verifiable counterargument presented by those academics or specialists best placed to challenge the owners’ conclusions.  The fact any dissenting ‘professional experts’ do not declare the find genuine has nothing to do with the veracity of the discovery and everything to do with prejudice—they know the discovery is genuine, but they do not want to agree with its architects.  Indeed, their patent use of falsity and artifice, in desperate attempt to discount or ignore the discovery, demonstrates how complete and inarguable the discovery is. Complimenting academia's failure to dismantle the research and its conclusion; the establishment, ie., the local authority and government agencies such as Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) avoid making any statement that contradicts the discovery. They know it is genuine but they, like academia, do not want to recognise it; accept merit exists outside the establishment. That talent and truth are where you find it. Regrettably, very little talent and truth exists inside the establishment.

Mark Huiton October 2025 To the Reader As ever, this article concerning the Scottish government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division  (DPEA) latest judgement on our case, published on our website, is a vehicle to record our interactions, correspondence and frustrations with Scottish institution over the safeguard, mentorship and recognition of an important missing piece of Scottish history. Some of the information is covered, some of it in greater detail, in other articles but is also included in this article for context. The reader must decide for themselves if the Scottish government through its agencies such as DPEA are protecting the nation’s interest, within the constraints of law and policy, in terms of understanding, celebrating and safeguarding the nation’s heritage. Introduction From 2021, we set about obtaining either authoritative disavowal or authentication for our discovery of two extraordinary and priceless Knights Templar bells, remnants from a twelfth century-built Templar preceptory/infirmary, named Sacro Nemore  (Holy Wood), situated in Dumfriesshire. As part of that process, we offered out our focused three-year investigation for debate and review. Our entreaty, to those appropriately placed to assist, included the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Knights Templar archaeology interred beneath Holywood Church and in its belfry, that demanded serious reconsideration in terms of the future of the only Templar preceptory bells in the world, and the treatment of the interred archaeology beneath the church causing catastrophic humidity and service installation problems above; archaeological issues prohibitively preventing any kind of cost-effective house conversion, not that a house conversion was now appropriate to the building’s legend. The discovery was not a minor historical consideration, but one of the most spectacular medieval finds of the twenty-first century, not only a significant event for Scotland but for the world—particularly to those who are invested, through ancestry or interest, in Scotland, its history, and Christian historical legacy. In our trawl for support, we included the most referred academics, Historic Environment Scotland (HES), National Museums Scotland (NMS) and various institutes and specialist international museums—all within a total of over two hundred approaches, that included international scholars, Templar historians and institutes. No one came back with any  supportable counterargument against the discovery, yet no one came back with support for authentication of our find. We cite many reasons in publication for this avoidance to support and mentor our discovery into the public record, none of them because our find is not genuine. Advice from those working with academia and heritage institutions, cited our find was an embarrassment to the establishment, an unwelcome exposure of the delinquency that has been allowed to languish within the historical/academic sector, in an environment of academic and institutional snobbery, with its entrenched opinion based on decades of ‘accepted’ misinformation and unsupportable opinion. Many senior scholars declared we had challenged the intellectual authority of academia, hence we would receive no academic support for our conclusions, even though we had copious research involvement from international academics either via direct contribution or their scholarly works. Another significant obstruction was avoidance and reticence to support the discovery of a subject (Templar history) that had already attracted copious spurious report and speculation, particularly from those the establishment deemed amateurs. The significant difference was our presentation was a peerless investigation and conclusion supported only by fact and evidence and not supposition and opinion—the fodder of a great deal of subjective history narrative. By the end of 2023, we were citing academic prejudice, ignorance, indifference and deliberate avoidance being the main hurdles to the discovery. However, by the middle of 2025, after discussions with establishment insiders, we concluded there were several other factors at play, none with any moral foundation. Thus, sadly and frustratingly, it was no longer about obtaining support from Scottish institution for the find, but a realisation exercise to demonstrate that we would receive no support from relevant Scottish organisations, tarnishing the discovery, a supposed good news for history and Scotland with scandal. We included the country’s institutional churches in the list of Scottish organisations, also the King’s royal agents, Scottish notabilities, the national and local press, legal advocacy, Scottish heritage agents, history-specific volunteer societies and the local and wider community. It was a hard fact to swallow, that we could find no public institute, or community-based group willing to help us bring these bells into public enjoyment, even though we had received nothing but applause for our archaeological report from our beta read of impartial professionals in a variety of disciplines and expertise outside the academic/institutional history sector. Thus, by 2025, we were increasingly left with only two routes to ensuring the safeguard of the church and the bells’ future; judicial review and orchestrated media promotion, neither of which would present Scotland’s heritage management in a positive light nor place us in any firmer footing with the very agencies to which we originally looked to for support. We were not the appropriate keepers to retain the bells nor refurbish the church from whence they came. Importantly, we had failed to procure support for these bells to enter a Scottish museum or serve another Christian convent in Scotland, suitable to their historic and fiscal value. Any prospect of creating Holywood Church as a purposed private museum for these bells and the interred archaeology was untenable, due to the level of private investment required, lack of deliverable business plan, particularly in an area with a poor record regarding heritage sustainability and tourist attraction. The Local Council’s Enforcement Notice As part of our battle against Dumfries and Galloway’s indifference to the discovery, and the council’s continued disinterest in the church, its historic graveyard, and its Templar history, we were challenging the council’s illogicality in forcing us to return the bells to a dilapidated building without a guaranteed future. We temporarily removed the bells without planning permission, while all work had been suspended on the dilapidated and vandalised church, as we sought authoritative authentication for what would be the world’s most valuable bells outside state or museum care, and an appropriate new developer for the church mis-sold to us as a viable house conversion. We had pragmatic reasons for removing the bells from the church in 2022 without first seeking planning permission— secrecy and security . The safety of the bells and us their keepers, while still on site protecting the building against a history of petty vandalism, was paramount. We had already circulated our archaeological report to a limited pool of readers under a confidentiality agreement and were hesitant about going through a lengthy public consultation period, openly declaring our find, admitting there were two relatively small priceless Templar artefacts hanging in a derelict church. There had been several arson attacks reported in the area shortly before we lowered the bells for closer inspection, with a devastating fire perpetrated on an historic convent a mere three miles away—it was enough to remove the bells and loose medieval stonework into temporary off-site storage. On-site security was a prime issue, that we later tried to resolve with specialist security (Triton UK) in 2024, only to suspend it due to untenable cost. In 2022, we were not at that time aware the council would show no interest in the discovery whatsoever . From the end of 2023, after we engaged with the council and its representatives with the full detail of the discovery, neither support nor interest was offered around the find, despite the Dumfries and Galloway Museums Director East supporting the need for the bells to be reconsidered based on the evidence we had presented. The council, not in any position to disavow the discovery, chose ignorance over logicality and prudence. Particularly damning was the local ward members abstention, and from 2021, the council’s archaeology officer’s avoidance of the reported discovery, failing to provide any technical or professional appraisal of our archaeological report as an archaeologist. Again in 2024, the council’s archaeology officer did not disavow the discovery, again choosing to ignore it instead . The council’s enforcement notice was purposefully ignorant of the discovery, without any testimony or evidence that allowed it to disavow it. Its action was entirely dependent on HES’s amendment to the listed building record of Holywood Church, that had removed its prior errant record of two sixteenth century bells to cite them as two unattributable ‘medieval-period’ bells (1098-1601), taken from the former abbey. This was an HES exercise in both removing its errant listing while not legally conflicting with our report. Regardless, HES did not disavow our discovery, and so the council were acting on a point of law, badly applied without understanding the heritage in question. The council acted on the principle ‘the particular history of the bells did not contribute to the site’s ‘special interest’. As the history of the bells re-interprets the site’s special interest in dramatic fashion, such a statement was hard to swallow. The legitimacy of the historic property listing maintained by HES could be challenged under Section 14  of the Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014  and certainly would not satisfy the established principle of Wednesbury Unreasonableness , a highly influential standard used in Scottish administrative law for judicial review, determining if a decision made by a public body is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. Adding to the unreasonableness was the council’s obligation for us to prematurely part-refurbish the church, in order to ‘temporarily’ return the bells to the church belfry and two stone plaques, previously built into a fireplace into a hearse house in 1965, without the relevant security protocol being available to us as the owners. This work was expected by the council, while we procured new owners for the church, based not on the existing errant and misrepresentative listed building record, which even with the bells returned and the required essential work, rendered the church both unsaleable and undevelopable, but for what the evidence of our discovery exposed, in the knowledge any reasonable and prudent owner of two bells valued (with authoritative authentication) in nine figures Sterling, would remove the bells from the building as it did not provide adequate security. The council were not in a position to discount prudently the discovery, without authoritative disavowal, just as we could not find new keepers for the church without authoritative authentication of the find—an impasse the council ignored. We had no intention of complying with the council’s enforcement notice, because it made no sense whatsoever, particularly while absolutely no one had provided any supportable argument to disavow one of the most significant medieval discoveries so far made in the twenty-first century—denied not because of a lack of merit in the discovery, far from it, but via the intentioned and demonstrable obstruction of malicious academic and institutional prejudice. DPEA’s Involvement Our second appeal to the DPEA in 2025, was less about securing support against a prejudiced decision made by the local planning authority, but another test to see how far the Scottish government would go to consciously deny and put at risk such unique and priceless remnants of Scottish history, with the knowledge there was no supportable disavowal of the discovery—replaced instead with demonstrable institutional avoidance to deal with an uncomfortable truth for the establishment, but which would be tremendous news for Scottish history and the nation. We had to go through the DPEA appeal process, frustratingly without any expectation the DPEA would cancel out Dumfries and Galloway Council’s enforcement notice. We anticipated DPEA would follow the prime construct of its last involvement, ie.,  act only on the existing listed building record as material consideration, under pre-defined parameters and ignore everything else. We needed to explore how far DPEA would go to ensure the enforcement notice had been correctly offered, ie., in its opinion, was the listed building record   correct—sound enough to justify the council’s action under planning statute and legal remedy? This point of consideration was not only fundamental to justify the council’s actions, but to the future of the church, its sustainability and safety—the prime functions of planning involvement. We had to consider if DPEA, representing Scotland’s governmental ministers, had again deliberately chosen to ignore the incredibly extraordinary and far-reaching circumstances surrounding the discovery and its conflict with the existing ‘accepted record’ and its implication on the original and amended listed building record   (fundamental to the case), or if they would objectively follow process, assessing the council’s actions purely as objective and professional and our appeal as unfounded and unreasonable. The DPEA decision perversely did not disappoint . It was illogical as predicted, even by advising planners, who declared the DPEA reporter had acted in proper application of Section 35 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997, grounds (d) and (e), but they in turn delivered an outcome that made no real sense, because it avoided the extraordinary circumstances they do not deny. As ever, before public agencies release their official response, we as members of the public are never privy to internal discussions and investigations carried out by those public services, or the truth of the rationale of decision making. However, we should expect that the process is fair and objective, with decisions based upon a fair and objective conclusion in the best interests of the public, within the judicial application and understanding of published policy and the law. The decisions of the DPEA were based on the listed building record   as it exists, choosing to discount our protestations that the current listing was manufactured by HES's refusal to confirm the bells' provenance; that HES’s behaviour was irrational, prejudiced, procedurally improper, and its amended listing and lack of support for our discovery totally inadequate for any sound conservation behaviour and decision making. Our argument was dismissed by DPEA as something to be resolved between us and HES and had nothing to do with DPEA’s own decision making. Thus, DPEA cited there was no health and safety (security) issues, that the bells were no different from any other bells in other churches, and the council was entirely correct to insist we return the bells, on the understanding of this ‘perceived bureaucratic reality’. However, while conflict existed over the listed building record, and the fact our discovery and the bells’ Templar provenance, now promoted in the public domain had no supportable authoritative argument against it, the entirely ‘bureaucratic decision’ imposed by the council and DPEA had no pragmatic credibility in the eyes of the public, especially that area of the public that may perpetuate mischief. This was the reality we had to live with—far reaching and potentially catastrophic implications for the health and safety of ourselves and the safety and security of the bells, unless of course the public agreed with the DPEA and the council’s decision that their opinion was sound, based on evidence and disavowal of the bells' extraordinary potential value. Our Assessment We raised questions with our legal and planning advocacy and sought answers. Did the DPEA: employ objective prudent decision-making, ensuring historic continuity, integrity and sustainability, for the benefit of the public? act, constrained by strict criteria applied to their decision-making, which did not allow any scope for challenge? make an illogical decision based on either the incompetence of the DPEA reporter, or inherent failures of their decision-making process? act with complicity to cover up, or avoid considering a wider issue and problem within governmental administration, or the quality of the historic record and data informing heritage planning decisions? In review, a fundamental point was raised that all historic environment planning considerations are dependent on the correctness and origin of the historic property record. It was clear to any reasonable person the historic property record and its amendment did not reflect the undisputed evidence presented, nor was qualified by the competence of either its origin or its amendment. That the bells’ provenance profoundly reconditioned the understanding of the site and the underpinning archaeology. This fact would have been recognised by the DPEA reporter, tasked with objective review, but they chose to ignore it, adhering strictly to the criteria set out in Section 35 of the Planning Act. Thus, DPEA’s actions were biased, shrouded behind due process, but at the same time not challenging the potential catastrophic error in the government’s record, endorsing HES and the council’s negligent behaviour with regard to significant heritage conservation. A Damning Admission by HES DPEA were made aware of correspondence between HES and the Directorate of Cultural and External Affairs , in which HES stated, ‘ We [HES] may consider updating the listed building record if the bells are not returned to the building . This implies HES considered the legal protection of the historic property and the bells listed within that property was not necessary, ie.,  the bells could be removed from the listed building record if they were not returned. This contradicts the punitive legal action which the council intends to pursue, to safeguard the bells attachment to the property under the category B listing. The question is, why would HES suggest removing the bells from the listing unless it doubted their presence on the listing was valid, ie.,  they accepted the bells’ provenance, and it was the case HES did not want to get involved in authenticating the bells or legally defending its amended listed building record. Consequences Predictive intelligence combines historical, real-time, and contextual data to forecast what is most likely to happen in the future, helping to generate actionable insights that guide smart decisions. The primary aim is to anticipate critical outcomes before they materialise. Planning agents are not excused this consideration, as their prime mission is sustainability. In our particular case, did DPEA; expect we would return the bells to the church, on their basis of its decision? anticipate we would abandon our researched and proven evidence, accept the lack of any supportable counterargument, and risk unique artefacts, to satisfy what would appear to a reasonable person to be a blindly applied bureaucratic decision, hidden within legal and planning framework but devoid of any kind of real-world logic? foresee any legal escalation of the dispute with HES’s revised listed building record would vindicate or endorse DPEA’s decision? expect its rejection of all the evidence provided as immaterial, be justified in any future governmental, public or judicial review? foresee the Scottish public applauding its decision, as entirely beneficial to them? What should DPEA have decided? In our opinion, under our legal advisement, DPEA (like the council) were not in a sound position to make an informed rational decision, even within the strict parameters of Section 35 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Prudence dictated the bells (and the site’s) extraordinary provenance should be resolved before any decision was made, particularly resulting in the bells being prematurely returned. Especially when that decision could potentially present irreversible harm on the building, its bells and its keepers. It was correct to keep the bells associated with the property under planning statute until resolution, but certainly not put at risk the fittings while the DPEA (and the council) were not in a position to validate the listed building record   (the basis of the legal action) as appropriate for the application of any  action under the 1997 Planning Act, or the comprehensive understanding of the extraordinary historic nature of the site and the building’s archaeology. In legal argument, the question would be raised, would any reasonable person expect the bells to have been included as integral architectural fittings of an eighteenth-century church, within the category B listed building record created in 1971, if they were known to be unique  Knights Templar artefacts, in full consideration of their significant fiscal and historical value? Or was it the case, original inclusion onto the listed building record was only the result of ignorance of the site and bells’ history, within an incompetently derived historical narrative, corrupting any appropriate conservation proposals for the church and in particular its bells? Response to DPEA We sent a public statement to the DPEA  in advance of any questions we may receive from the press regarding DPEA’s decision. DPEA responded , accepting the provenance of the bells was not their concern, nor did they dispute it, while misreading our statement, claiming we accused the DPEA of religious discrimination, which certainly was not the case. We had simply pointed out the reality of our find and how security was of great concern to us in the current societal, political and religious climate. We suspect however the Scottish government is extremely sensitive around such matters, hence its misplaced defence. Its offer of challenge to their decision, eg., utilising the Scottish Ombudsman, had little relevance. Regrettably for many public agencies, particularly those with diverse and often inherent problematic public service delivery, the Ombudsman is purely part of the bureaucratic conveyor belt—a wagging finger to be tolerated—seen as an annoyance more than a corrective watchdog. The Ombudsman has no ‘sharp teeth’ nor ‘biting’ punitive remedy to bear on organisations when they get it wrong. Public organisations generally show little humility with regards to their failures, and in the case of many governmental agencies and departments such as the planning function, who field a lot of discontent, recommendations by the Ombudsman have little lasting effect on operational improvement or customer satisfaction. Conclusion The public should expect escape clauses in process, especially in review, where a human operator, adhering to concepts of value and mission, challenges the soundness of the criteria informing the fundamental argument underpinning the process, before they allow it to proceed—human intervention—professional consideration based on critical and predictive thinking. Critical thinking is the process of actively and objectively analysing information, evaluating evidence, identifying dependencies, risks and benefits, and questioning assumptions to make a reasoned judgment or decision. It involves applying logic and reason to understand situations from different perspectives and stakeholders, identify potential flaws in arguments, and draw well-supported conclusion. In many bureaucratic systems, the human operator is robbed of any critical thought they may apply to outcome, or any application of predictive intelligence, excusing them of the consequences of their decision. Instead, the bureaucrat is focused on their very narrow view of the process. This narrow view process mind-set is inexcusable for reviewing senior bureaucrats, such as DPEA reporters. It is expected both critical and predictive intelligence is employed to qualify any decision made is both beneficial within any published policy, law, process and is wholly  defensible. DPEA admitted in its decision, the quality of the listed building record   was not considered although it accepted it was in dispute. Any intelligent person would be able to see the issues with the current property listing, and although not in a position to challenge the listing, the DPEA was in a position to stop the process until the matter was clarified. Instead, it allowed the process to continue without any regard for the outcome. It has to be said, it would take an incredibly obtuse DPEA reporter to read the archaeological report and all the evidence provided, compare it to the information forming the listed building record   and the lack of narrative supporting HES’s revision, and not, on a personal level, recognise there were considerable issues presented. DPEA officially declared it discounted all this information as immaterial to its decision making. Did this mean the DPEA did not read the evidence? Was this prudence or was it, we suspect, more evidence of institutional avoidance, hiding behind bureaucratic directive? The reality is DPEA, like the local council, HES, NMS, the Scottish Church and multiple Scottish agencies, simply did not want to get involved with any action that may validate our discovery, regardless of the consequences. The prevailing attitude within public authorities seems to be one of contempt for the general public. The public’s views, any expertise and qualification they may possess in the matter at hand is discounted for the perceived professional authority and competence of officers contained within public service. DPEA’s decision provided one of the final steps in our journey to receive prudent and open institutional support for our discovery. All we can say is that DPEA’s actions were consistent to that of the local council, HES, NMS, the Scottish institutional Church, and many more Scottish organisations. Absolutely nobody offered any supportable counterargument to the research we presented. All that was illustrated was a poor inditement of the quality of Scottish watchfulness on its own history. In 2021 we presented, within our archaeological research, a catalogue of misplay, dating back to Victorian supposition allowed to corrupt the existing historical record at that time—through one hundred years of further mismanagement and negligence of the historic understanding and record of Holywood. As our campaign proceeds, more institutional misbehaviour is uncovered. It appears previous mismanagement was not a glitch in meritorious behaviour but simply a prologue to ongoing bureaucratic and institutional failure, we assume not specific to the Holywood site. Frustratingly we have become embroiled in ridiculous circumstances that should never have been allowed, particularly when all we ever requested was support to objectively and authoritatively authenticate or disavow a historical discovery— was that such a difficult request?   The case illustrates the Scottish government’s heritage policies are perhaps empty rhetoric. HES, DPEA and the local authority are seemingly little more than delinquent agents in the promotion and protection of Scottish heritage, and that academia is devoid of integrity and humility.

Within the history of a dilapidated church, under the peal of its ancient bells, is the human account of two individuals struggling to have a discovery, not necessarily accepted, but properly considered by Scotland’s history keepers. Without academic and governmental endorsement, the discovery cannot enter the public record, nor the artefacts potentially retained in a public institution, correctly recognised for what they are, or the church site developed, rather than left to slowly decay through disuse and vandalism. The discovery should be recognised for what it is—a far-reaching benefit—a good news event for Scotland. The unwanted church was bought to turn into a family home. This can never be. Instead, the owners have spent four years investigating and protecting the artefacts, the church, and site at great personal cost and sacrifice. They do not have limitless resources to protect medieval heritage under immediate threat, or limitless time to wait for pragmatic acceptance by those who are assigned enquiry, protection and understanding of heritage, but who instead choose to ignore fact, for want of something sadly lacking amongst governance— intelligence, courage, and common sense . Regrettably, it is a familiar story the world-over. Professional academic historians, following a perverse and arrogant universal principle, not accepting any research, challenge, or reveal from whom they deem ‘amateur’. Despite two learned people dedicating four years of their lives to find out the truth of their bought heritage, presenting their discovery in a commendable and peerless investigation, they find themselves intentionally frustrated by arrogance and obduracy. Much of the value of history is in revenue. Income generated by Scotland’s historic environment in 2017-18 was over £4bn and attracted millions of visitors. Heritage is important to local communities, and sites provide a sense of a special identity and commercial benefit. The recognition of the site at Holywood as a Templar house, with the remnants of his church, basements, history, and facsimiles of a Templar master’s bells will provide a huge draw, promoting a region of Scotland in need of more commercial enterprise. Thus, a campaign has been forced upon the owners of a historic church under threat, not only to bring the evidence before the public and circumvent academic prejudice, but to bring tremendous lasting benefit to the local community and illumination of medieval history, hidden for want of the correct record. How you can help Join the debate:  The campaign aims to circumvent professional academic discrimination by creating a platform for open debate and discussion. Join the conversation, share your thoughts and insights, and help build a large community of active supporters. Consider the facts:  On this site is the full investigative report for you to consider the evidence for yourself, measured against previous Victorian theory, weak governmental audit, and the opinion of specialist academics. We ask you to share both your opinion and our report within your own social networks. Read the journey:  Click the link to find  Hidden in Plain Sight, Unmasking Scotland first Knights Templar : A chronicle from 2019 to 2023, charting the issues around the research and the reception by the professional academic historical sector. All royalties go towards supporting the campaign and securing the artefacts and the site whilst the campaign progresses. Sign the petition: Help us quantify support, so we can demonstrate the strength of feeling of those who care for historical truth, more than the professional academic’s preservation of their view over any challenge. Watch the video:  Share, like and subscribe. Help us reach a larger audience, bring them to the website so they can engage with the evidence and join the debate. Funding:  We are in desperate need of investment to preserve Scottish heritage from dereliction, maintain security for the site and the artefacts, and run the campaign. Investors can expect to share in the wealth of the discovery, and a very healthy return for their support, once a new keeper/s are found for the bells. Contact us at info@hiddenheritage.info . Stay informed: Subscribe to news. Scroll on and enter your email. Engage with us . Email us at info@hiddenheritage.info  if you have questions or are able to offer your services in assistance.

Scotland has a wealth of historical environment. Its museums and collections are filled with artefact, art, and treasure. Its history is displayed in its castles, churches, and within the remains of its classical past, industrial might, and neolithic origins. On top of this, there is much still interred in the ground— hidden history . But not all unrevealed history lies buried deep in the earth, some remains unseen due to misleading antiquarian record, and the professional historians’ reluctance to audit their predecessors ill-founded suppositions. Scotland’s earliest religious knights and their artefacts are such hidden history, hidden in plain sight, undiscovered for want of proper scholarly consideration. Scotland’s first Knights Templar have never been identified by historians. This is partly due to the fact all early Templar record was lost—purged by centuries of war, wilful destruction, and calamity, and partly due to historians not considering the evidence presented by those knights surrounding David I, the Scottish king who welcomed the Templars into his kingdom, sponsoring with money and land, setting them into his entourage as his guardians, and as witnesses to royal charter. It is not until late in the 12th century, that the first master of Templars in the land of the King of the Scots is identified on a surviving Templar charter. However, we know there were Templars in Scotland before 1153, confirmed by testimony from Ailred of Rievaulx, who declares Knights Templar surrounded the king ‘day and night’ before his death. It is presumed Templar presence was established in Scotland shortly after the Grand Master of the Templar Order, Hugh de Payens visited David I in 1128. The first Templar holdings being established in Midlothian along with a preceptory at Balantrodoch (now called Temple). In 2020, two church bells, sponsored by a 12th century knight were identified in a church where they had hung over the same site for nine hundred years, installed originally over the convent of Sacro Nemore  in Dumfriesshire. The origins of the bells, hidden by Victorian misinterpretation, were revealed by a protracted, detailed, and collaborative investigation, led by two trained analysists: a qualified forensic archaeologist and an experienced historian. The study involved international academics in palaeography, ecclesiastical history, bell historians, and the College of Arms. It was the first time the bells and their sponsor had been thoroughly considered. Incontrovertibly, the knight’s name on the bells was William le Riche, son of Robert le Riche, a former crusader who had travelled to Scotland from the court of Henry I of England with David to take the Scottish throne. Robert is thought to have died around 1130, but before he did, he donated his Midlothian barony, a gift from King David I, to a beneficiary other than his sons, William and Roger. William le Riche is amongst at least six knights recorded on Scottish charter with the title Masculus —a title employed by senior secular clerics in the late 11th and early 12th centuries. These confraternities of secular canons were the origins of the Church’s miliary orders. William is first listed as ‘Masculus’ in 1141, as he witnesses royal charter, and leading up to his death between 1180 and 1189, he is only recognised as a land holding knight—Lord of Fowlis. While recorded as a knight, his name appears on an engraving dated 1154, associated with a church bell, affirming him ‘father’, religious head of the convent of Sacro Nemore , and a declaration of his tenure of twenty-two years as master within the occupying religious order. William’s existence as a knight whilst in religious life, master of a religious sect, confirms he was member of a religious military order. Only two military orders existed in Scotland at the time of David I. Foremost are the Knights Templar, originating in Midlothian, and the Knights of St John, given property in West Lothian. William’s origins dictate he was a Templar, member of Scotland’s foremost Templar family. Frustratingly, despite inarguable conclusion, academics and the Scottish Government’s lead historical institutions chose to ignore and deny the discovery. Neither scholarly argument nor supportable counter opinion has been offered, only unreasoning support for discredited Victorian hypotheses. And so, professional academic historians would see an incredible reveal of priceless, unique medieval artifacts, the only bells from a 12th century Templar house in existence, some of the oldest provenanced Christian church bells in the world and the oldest pairing, remain hidden, not through misunderstanding, but through wilful negligence—all so the professional academic historian may maintain their paternalistic control over the keys of history.

(clockwise, left to right),; the ruined historic factory at Heathhall, the deteriorating beauty of the façade of former Rosefield Tweed mill, fire damaged and vandalised St Benedict's convent, and the remains of St Andrews Cathedral, all 'at risk', prominently placed to 'invite visitors into Dumfries. For tourists visiting Dumfries and Galloway, amongst their citations praising the wonderful scenery, hospitality and beautiful coastline, is the mention of the rot that lines the streets in every town. The decrepitation of historical buildings, prominently situated in and around the area, is keenly exhibited—an imposing sight of neglect—billboards advertising the region’s lack of care for its environment and the local council’s indolent attitude to finding a lasting solution. The council’s approach to the issues surrounding the development of Holywood Church, discarded by the Church of Scotland in 2010, is further graphic example of a council intent on, not arresting the rot, but contributing to it. What the owners of the church illustrate, within an unbelievable catalogue of misplay and incompetence, is the local council’s continued misbehaviour, through its indolence, ignorance and indifference to the history of the church and the significant constraints to the building’s redevelopment. The council purposefully prevents priceless Templar artefacts having the opportunity to be presented to the public, or the site recognised for its Templar legend. The council would rather see the artefacts—two bells and their history lost in dereliction, rather than preserved, bringing millions of pounds into the local economy. The council does not refute the site’s twelfth century Templar provenance, or the bells’ twelfth century dating, recorded in the local museum and in the Statistical Accounts of Scotland, instead they ignore it—not through objective or even subjective appraisal of the information placed before them, but via an attitude of ignorance and indolence, with the Scottish government agencies; Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) contributing their own brand of bureaucratic and prejudiced delinquency to the process… it is simply not good enough.

Mark Huitson, 5 September 2025 Introduction Throughout our five-year campaign to have an extraordinary medieval Knights Templar discovery equitably evaluated by the Scottish establishment; we found a widespread environment of prejudice, discrimination, avoidance, and indifference exhibited by government heritage agencies, academia, politicians, the professional and voluntary sectors, the local authority, agents of the Crown, the local community and various Scottish interest groups, organisations and societies. The indifference and avoidance presented before us, was not because institutions and groups within the establishment had considered the evidence and disavowed our findings, but because they either did not want to recognise or felt no obligation to consider the discovery. Either way, it illustrated considerable deficit in terms of wanting to understand and protect the nation’s Christian heritage, and a willingness to challenge the previous misunderstanding of ancient material- two bells , badly evaluated over one hundred years ago, within the significant deficiencies of Victorian skillset, expertise, and access to research. Whereas we can forgive those who perhaps considered the discovery was not their concern, thus thought not to assist or get involved, we are less than impressed with their absence of basic decorum, ie.,  a polite reply and deferment to our multiple, earnest petitions. Regrettably, rude silence certainly represented the majority of those with whom we engaged. Regardless of the reasons for non-replies, whether poor management or administration, their silence is inexcusable—an example of poor leadership and a lack of care. Within our campaign, we also approached Scotland’s institutional orthodox Christian establishment, a few local independent evangelical churches, and notable Christian commentators operating within academia or on social media. Our approach was different from what it had been for secular organisations and individuals, recognising the fundamental understanding that any Christian Church institution or Christian believes (or should believe) God moves within, directing behaviour through Biblical teachings and the Holy Spirit, and that all Christian organisations, despite any liturgical and doctrinal differences, believe in the basic and essential tenets of Christian conviction—theological virtues of faith, hope and charity  and the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude . Our approach to Church organisations was less about asking for recognition of medieval history found, appraised through dedicated and objective understanding of evidence and circumstance, but a cry for mentorship and guidance for two individuals who had been assailed by worldly deceit and indifference. One, a professed Christian, directed by bizarre circumstance to find what should never have been lost, and two frustrated souls, convinced their discovery was not happenstance but by design. Two, trying to understand why their modest ambitions and daily joy of making a home for their family and books had been interrupted by extraordinary circumstances not of their making. Our case, we felt, was underpinned by our substantial effort to understand the Christian heritage of which we had become custodians. We considered we had exhibited prudence —our stewardship of the intelligence God and nature bestows on every one of us; to understand what is misinterpreted and overlooked through ignorance and indolence. The Church, of all institutions, should appreciate those Christians who pursue reason and knowledge with diligence and vigour, particularly those who embrace knowledge and understanding with the humility of a child. Our writings in presentation demonstrated that humility; our completeness to understand what we did not, and our challenge to all that we thought we understood. There was a truancy of justice  in our dealings with the secular establishment. An absence of fairness, as well as prudence. A demonstrable truancy of truth telling, maintaining promises, being straightforward, and committing to the truth of the understanding of our discovery. In turn. w e anticipated the Christian organisations we approached would recognise the challenges presented by our case, as we pursued justice for the purpose of promoting truth and serving the public interest. In our journey, set out in chronicle and investigation, we demonstrated undeniable fortitude— courage of our commitment to our extraordinary charge, despite the cost, not only to our purse (which has brought us significant financial depravation) but to the deficit it has brought to our lives, separated by unwanted circumstance. None of our trial was about the wealth and recognition the discovery could bring, as we had already eschewed a worldly greed for costly material possession, exchanging it for simplicity and generosity, and replaced worldly status for integrity—regardless of the cost to our professional careers. Thus, we offered up our discovery to the Church in Scotland , in the context of two individuals trying to adhere to the very principles of their faith, seeking pastoral care while they brought benefit to bear for others, and in doing so, offer help to the Church. Background In 2020, ‘Digger’, a trained forensic archaeologist, and I, an experienced historical researcher, carried out a collaborative scholarly study on two medieval bells sold to us along with a dilapidated eighteenth century-built church. In consideration of the scant historical record available, there was an obvious disparity over the recorded age and sponsorship of the bells. One of the bells was initially reported by the first parish minister of Holywood in the late eighteenth century, as consecrated in 1154, confirmed by engraving he possessed matching the sponsor’s name carried on the bell. The other bell, undated, was unmistakably of pre-thirteenth century design. This belief stood for a hundred years, documented within the eighteenth and nineteenth government-commissioned, Statistical Accounts of Scotland , as the bells were inspected and the site considered by various notable antiquarians visiting Holywood. Despite this, a Victorian historian, Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland , in 1898, supplanted the initial record with his own unevidenced and errant hypothesis—that the bells were both manufactured in the early sixteenth century. His supposition was accepted by his antiquarian society without challenge and without question. However, his idea, not long in the making, was  challenged by a 1911 government audit (published in 1920), which in theory should have dismissed the Victorian historian’s revised dating. To any competent reviewer, there was no  evidence to support the sixteenth century dating attributed to the bells, yet it was this singular theory, challenged a mere thirteen years after it was made, that was allowed to form part of the historic record of the church and subsequently influence the building’s valuation when the Church of Scotland disposed of Holywood Church, which it considered a liability, in 2010. The Sale of Holywood Church In 2009, some ten years before our involvement with Holywood, there had been a campaign led by a locally regarded ecclesiastic and the town’s provost to have the bells removed from the deconsecrated church of Holywood at the campaigners’ expense, and placed in a local museum or another church, and so save the ancient bells from being lost to the public in any private sale and redevelopment of the church as a dwelling. The disposal of the building by the Church of Scotland was an understandable operational reality in an area that has largely abandoned its Presbyterian adherence, in the increasing de-Christianisation of a nation’s former religious identity attached by its principal recognised denominational Christian Church institutions—the Presbyterian (Protestant) Church of Scotland and the Scottish Roman Catholic Church. At the time, the campaigners, with strong associations with church bells and heritage, refuted the sixteenth century dating given to the bells on the public record, judging the bells to be made far earlier, and as such far too precious to be disposed of as a redundancy along with the building. However, the Church of Scotland dismissed the campaigners and their request to remove the bells, deeming the bells no more than unwanted fittings to be included in any future sale. Regrettably, the campaign failed to attract any public or council support, and so the church was sold for around thirty-five thousand pounds to a developer seeking to convert the Georgian building into a three-bedroom home, with its bells included, as promoted by the Church of Scotland’s legal agents, as merely a ‘quirky’ architectural feature. The Church of Scotland’s Disposal of the Bells The Church of Scotland’s dismissive attitude towards retaining the bells in the public domain as the only remnants of a former twelfth century-built abbey that once sat on the same site, was questioned by a few concerned members of the public in 2009, again in 2010, and again by Digger and I in 2020. We, like the campaigners before us, were in disbelief the Church of Scotland would purposefully discard two relatively small medieval bells, rather than work with the previous campaign to see them salvaged from a private sale and a housing development and instead presented for the public’s enjoyment as an accessible material record of the area’s spiritual history. However, what remained even more illogical was that the Church of Scotland, in its last hundred-years of ownership of Holywood Church, did not rationalise its understanding of the antiquity of the bells, especially after doubt was pored on the veracity of the1898 re-interpretation. This disinterest in the bells provenance was inexplicable, considering Holywood parish’s own eighteenth and nineteenth century ministers had testified, on record, one of the bells was consecrated in 1154, making the bell the oldest datable bell in the UK, and so of considerable historical interest. But what was even more incredulous, was that local understanding of the former abbey, recorded by John McCormick in 1843, implied the abbey was created in the twelfth century as a Knights Templar preceptory/infirmary. With the abbey church-build occurring no earlier than 1124, the association of the 1154 bell with the Templar foundation of the site was palpable. We conjectured, in appraisal of James Barbour’s legend, a locally recognised Victorian historian, vice chair of the local antiquarian society, architect and lay member for the United Presbyterian Congregation , that he had sufficient influence to see his views maintained, rather than properly challenged. Thus, his misinterpretation was allowed to corrupt the understanding of the bells, and therefore comprehension of the site’s origins. However, regardless of James Barbour’s legend, it was no excuse for the Church of Scotland to ignore the evidence on the bells in its consideration of their future once the church had closed. This truancy of consideration extending, it appeared, to the catastrophic, decades-long environmental (humidity) problems the underlying archaeology had presented within the building. Moreso, when a few pieces of random decorative stone were unearthed from under a small section of the church floor in 1965, there must have been consideration that far more remained interred, adding to the potential problems the church would present to future development. All this information, on record, should have formulated the Church’s understanding of the asset in its charge, before deciding on disposal. Approaching the Scottish Church Finding nothing but avoidance, obfuscation and idiocy from academia and heritage governance with regards to assistance towards the discovery, we turned to the Christian establishment for help. We approached a variety of Orthodox Christian organisations in Scotland, both locally and nationally, including some notable international Christian commentators. Our approach had three main threads. Firstly, it was a plea for guidance and support from two battle-worn  individuals, one a confirmed Christian, who genuinely felt God had purposefully moved them towards the discovery. An event supported by the finders’ extraordinary personal circumstances, life journey, and unique skills acquisition. The discovery was presented to the Church institutions with only incontestable fact within a considerable web of inarguable interlacing circumstance. The research was a peerless understanding of two medieval bells in our possession; a study immeasurably superior to any prior understanding—offered without any supportable or evidenced counterargument from those deemed by the establishment as the best placed specialists. It was a find, that in our opinion had no right to have been lost in the first instance, never mind undiscovered, especially as the site had already been understood locally to be a former twelfth century-built Templar preceptory, and one of the bells reported consecrated in 1154. Digger and I could not accept the past keepers of the church and local historians were so unaware as not to have already made the discovery. The second thread was recognition through forecast, that the two main denominational churches in Scotland, with a connection to the Holywood site were in decline, set to collapse before 2040—the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Roman Catholic Church. 1  We wanted to help in any way we could, particularly as the find would eventually, once we circumvented the barriers presented before us, generate significant world interest and generate income and publicity to help us assist said establishments. [ 1 www.churchmodel.org.uk ] Reconnecting the Church of Scotland with the Holywood site would give the organisation opportunity to mitigate any criticism they may receive for any past careless decision making and misunderstanding, while potentially providing much needed urgent financial assistance. The Catholic Church, also in decline in Scotland, but statistically having a better forecast for revival, particularly with new papal leadership apparently intent to realign the Church’s leadership with fundamental Christian moral virtues rather than worldly ideology. Although the Catholic Church’s involvement with the site and the bells had ended in the sixteenth century with religious reformation, in many ways the historic connection to the bells was far stronger with the Roman Church in Scotland—the Church that originally backed the bells, their Templar founder and the abbey that developed beyond Templar possession. The bells had equal time under Papal authority as under Protestant keep, and as the bells no longer were in Protestant ownership, the Catholic Church had just as much right to be involved in recognising its own heritage in Scotland. The third thread was contact with other Christian denominations, evangelical churches (the author’s own Christian fellowship roots), and those Christian commentators who had influence through social media. These avenues of support were far more  about moral support for us, and not about promotion of the discovery, although it was the discovery that had brought the finders to their knees, pleading for help from the Christian community—help to understand why their lives had been disrupted so significantly. Our Petition to... The Church of Scotland We had already contacted the Church of Scotland in 2020 to interrogate the information held in their archives concerning the church and site of Holywood. It confirmed that no other information other than what we had already gleaned from public record was available. Church archivists stated no record of the church pre-1820 existed, and any pre-reformation record, now part of the historical collection housed in Aberdeen University was devoid of anything referring to Holywood Abbey, with some archivists observing that even with destruction, the total absence of record was abnormal. In March 2025, we petitioned the Church of Scotland, offering up our extraordinary campaign in the context of a Christian perspective. Key to the petition was our request for mentorship and moral support, ‘for telling the truth and trying to save a significant part of Scotland’s Christian heritage’. We confirmed how we appreciated ‘why the Church of Scotland was forced to sell its asset, Holywood Church, and how it had been deceived over its true worth, proposing to share the significant wealth the former Church of Scotland’s property would have realised if it had been informed by a competent understanding of the provenance of the bells and site’. Mindful our discovery was Christian artefact, we declared we had turned to Christian organisations in the region; Evangelical, Roman Catholic and even national and international Templar organisations, hoping they could help us realise the discovery and direct any ‘value’ in the bells into real benefit for the many, befitting the approval of the medieval Christian and Holy architects of their creation. The Church of Scotland’s response was hollow, bearing little relation to the Christian sentiment and content of our petition. Sympathy was expressed regarding the decline of Digger’s health (an near fatal respiratory incident), specifically due to the anxiety of our case. The Church promised to forward our discovery on to a specialist in church artefacts, however the Church admitted there was little the Church of Scotland could do, as they were no longer owners of the church, referring us to Scottish Churches Trust  for advice and support. The Church of Scotland’s current lack of proprietorship of Holywood Church had nothing to do with the substance of our petition. They had ignored the point of our petition completely. As for the sympathy expressed, it was naught if they did nothing to help us resolve what in fact was orchestrated by their own negligence. No follow up by the Church of Scotland has ever  been received, and so we must assume the promise was either not kept, or the 'specialist' recipients of our petition failed to act upon it. There has been no authentication or disavowal of our find, no enquiry, instead replaced with disinterest and ignorance. It is a poor demonstration of essential Christian behaviour in what should be regarded as vital in any Holy institution—a beacon set above the inequities of the secular establishment, providing solid witness as to the qualities of the Christian faith and the proper prudent, righteous and resilient action that should spring from it. Those officers and agents representing the Church of Scotland have no excuse for poor behaviour. Forecasts lead to the conclusion the Presbyterian Church, as it exists as a denomination, recognised as the Church of Scotland has perhaps run its course. We suspect although the Catholic Church is also in decline, we doubt it will share the same fate as the Church of Scotland. Of course, God moves those within any Christian family, and so forecasted demise is never certain. However, if our opinion counts, we add further illustration why the Church of Scotland has failed to deliver and sustain the Gospel in the nation—maintain and grow its flock. It is an institution that appears to have abandoned the basic virtues that should set it apart from the secular establishment, bending instead to intellectual vanity, self service, negligence, slack ideology and ignorance rather than the Word—understanding and wisdom that fosters ethical and right action. The institutional Church’s ranks, whilst no doubt containing the virtuous and commendable, also (through demonstration) field individuals and leaders that fall far short of what should be unquestionable responsibilities and behaviours of the virtuous Christian. The Catholic Church in Scotland A senior Catholic cleric, not connected to the Scottish Catholic Church, had thoroughly considered our case and tested our discovery, and advised us to petition the Catholic Church in Scotland regarding the circumstances around the find, and the potential benefits we thought the discovery may bring, not only for us, the area, but the Catholic Church in Scotland, and how it could help enhance its message and outreach. However, the cleric warned us of the ‘difficulty and challenge’ the Catholic Church in Scotland was facing, including internal conflicts with the Catholic Church leadership, and that we should not be surprised or disheartened by its likely response to our petition. At a local level, we had already contacted the Catholic parish church twice, without response, and later visited, talking over our frustration with a parish priest, who was friendly but deferred the issue, as it was outside his understanding. Our petition was sent to the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh , to the Most Reverend William Nolan , by registered post and email on June 23, 2025. We received no response. A follow up letter was sent on August 2, 2025. Again, there has been no acknowledgement or response. In July 2025, we received ‘off-the-record’ intelligences the petition had been handled by the Diocese, and so a lack of response of any kind, was extremely disappointing. We, of course, cannot report on why we should be ignored so rudely, but there was little excuse for a lack of basic decorum. The Diocese had access to our archaeological report and our journey from discovery to our earnest and heart-felt petition, so to be rejected so dismissively did not contribute to our overall confidence in the institutional Scottish Church to act prudently, fairly or charitably. Whereas the Catholic Church may have viewed us, not as Catholics, so outside their pastoral care, the bells were certainly part of the the Catholic Church's heritage, and we as custodians should have been considered worthy of their effort. Other Denominational Churches Despite the existence of other recognised denominational churches in Scotland such as Scottish Episcopal  and the Free Church of Scotland , we only contacted the Salvation Army . In the past we had supported the Salvation Army’s work, having a significant professional relationship with members in the nineteen-eighties and nineties. We had discriminately held on to the past admiration we had for the exceptional   quality of the ‘Army’s’ officers and the organisation’s legend, so we anticipated a positive interaction in terms of help and a way forward that would benefit both us and their work in the area. Sadly, the Salvation Army did not respond to our petition and visits in person to their centre in Dumfries were less than inspiring. A difference of locale, personnel, focus, ideology, and forty years of change were factors we had not properly considered in our deep-held respect for that Christian agency. Local Evangelical Churches The presence of several local evangelical churches evidenced the Christian Church in Scotland was far from dying but growing. New churches had sprung up from the twentieth century onwards, growing and multiplying. We did not contact them all but focused on the largest and most local to Holywood. We petitioned as besieged individuals seeking answers to a dilemma. It was not about the extraordinary nature of our find, but about our extraordinary journey to its discovery. We asked were our circumstances by chance or design, and if by design what was the ultimate purpose? Three out of the four churches contacted responded to our petition, taking the matter to the leaders of several evangelical churches in the region. They engaged with our request for help, offering all they thought they could offer, in what they considered to be a remarkable event— prayer . Christian Commentators on Social Media We contacted several respected Christian commentators operating on social media—those that came with endorsement from those we trusted. We hoped they would use their reach to help us further our campaign. Some replied with helpful advice, some referred us to others providing useful insight, some made promises we have yet to see delivered, some did not follow up their deferment, some ignored our requests; none provided us with an immediate outlet to help us further our cause. However, without knowing how much time and consideration they invested in our entreaty and evidence, it is difficult to know what help they actually did offer, as it is certain influential Christians have since ‘found us’ to offer what appears to be moral support for our contribution to ‘a larger scheme (we assume to be a Christian revival) dictated by timing’. One of the local ecclesiastic campaigners trying to safeguard the Holywood bells from being lost within a private house development, the Reverend Andrew Crosbie, was a beta reader of our initial archaeological report. As a concerned ecclesiastic, bell ringer/historian/enthusiast, he had strong views on the merit of James Barbour’s 1898 contribution to local history, founded on several reports the antiquarian had made which completely denigrated the history of several regional church bells, through conceited assessment. At the time, Reverend Crosbie’s critique of our report was amusingly restricted to “wow”, but he agreed to help us take the matter forward and secure recognition for the bells for what they were, as opposed to what they were not—to give them the opportunity to be displayed in a museum or be re-sited in a different, publicly accessible church. Unfortunately, Reverend Crosbie left the UK soon after reading our report, so probably was in no position to help further. However, he later contributed—posting his disdain of the local council on social media, in reaction to the news of our conflict over planning in 2025. Regrettably, his solitary comment highlighted the fact he was alone in his condemnation of the bells being ignored for what they represented, and concern over their treatment. It highlighted the fact that with the Dumfries community indifferent to the heritage, notwithstanding the significant value of the bells, the likelihood of a successful transfer of the bells to a local institution, or development of the site as a signpost to the site’s history was unlikely. Schemes and attractions rely on tourism, but with little draw to Dumfries in terms of attraction, reliance on local support is essential. With local interest in the area’s heritage limited, as demonstrated by the closure in 2024, due to public apathy, of Moat Brae  in the centre of Dumfries; the house and garden that was the inspiration for J.M. Barrie’s   Peter Pan , so soon after millions of pounds of investment (2019). No Sanctuary for the bells in Scotland? In 2020, we wanted to make sure, in the development of Holywood Church, that its bells were not lost to the public. We sought proposals to display them on site, understanding that their ringing days were over, which meant bringing them down from the tower and displaying them on the ground floor with public access. However, in the necessary understanding of the bells, we uncovered an irrefutable truth, a rediscovery—the bells were remnants from a Templar preceptory, sponsored by a Templar master, and as such were unique in a world full of medieval bells. The evidence and research we provided was immeasurably superior to anything that had been produced on the bells previously, yet those responsible for considering and recording the history of the site, ignored indisputable truth. The bells were inarguably priceless, regardless if the state refused to recognise them as such, and therefore could not be displayed on site, unless Holywood Church became a secure building, purposed to display the bells with security measures to suit— and not our home. In attempting to secure the opportunity for the bells to be displayed in a Scottish museum or hung in another Scottish church to ring out like they had done for nearly nine hundred years, we met unbelievable obstacles of ignorance, deceit and apathy, with the community playing their part in an indifferent environment of heritage celebration and conservation. The institutional Christian Church in Scotland regrettably added to this woeful delinquency, and so whereas we had hoped the bells and church could be transferred to a Scottish concern, for enjoyment by the nation, we doubt such ambition will ever be realised, unless there is contrition from the Scottish establishment—we fear that will only come with humiliation, and humiliation is not a sound foundation for the sustainable protection and veneration of the Christian artefacts in question, nor the Holywood site, with its interred archaeology. Outside planning restrictions, indifferently administered by the local authority, there appears to be little interest in safeguarding the Christian history of the site, in terms of preservation. In many ways the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Catholic Church’s apathy is a continued tale of elimination of the abbey’s physical presence and record—a two-hundred-year purge that has bewildered archivists and archaeologists alike. Eradication that appears  to have a degree of orchestration—mystery and collusion, with speculative imaginings and real circumstances of secretive governmental, political, and Masonic influences, with a colourful history of highly influential local landowners with connections to the opiate trade. In many ways, evidence reveals the Church of Scotland’s and the Scottish Catholic Church’s dismissive and careless attitude to the disposal and treatment of the bells, is merely a reflection of the region’s lack of concern for its Christian heritage, and the failure of the country’s principal state recognised Church institutions to ensure the sustainability of a nation’s spiritual and moral adherence in the third millennium. There seems to be little action to fortify the public’s understanding of its society’s Christian foundation, and the handover of religious heritage to new generations. Redundant churches are increasing at an alarming rate, their disposal becoming no more than a development and planning problem to solve, protected by law, and dispassionately administered by uncaring, indolent and unimaginative bureaucrats, within a political climate that is demonstrably anti-Christian. In the aftermath of news stories about our fight with the local authority over planning issues we have been approached by individuals from agencies, including the Development Trusts Association  and the Scotland’s Churches Trust,  who amongst other activities support community groups considering taking over the glut of unwanted Church properties entering the market. In many ways our own story is a cautionary tale. Developing cheap redundant, (and in our case misrepresented) churches does not represent sound investment for those without deep pockets. That anyone considering taking a redundant ancient building from the Church of Scotland should carry out vigorous, independent research, before purchase.  No reliance should be given to the integrity of the information provided by the establishment, in all its forms—church, commercial, or governmental, nor rely on professionals to present proficiency of behaviour to seek a competent understanding of the heritage and legacy of buildings under consideration. Our experience has not slanted our positive view of the Christian Church and its significant and positive impact on Christian lives all over the world. Instead, the local response was simply further illustration of an already emerged pattern of apathy, prejudice and ignorance—a general issue that seems to repeat with Scottish Institution—a significant complaint that will only be confirmed by further debate and discussion with those working with, or subject to their governance. We hope recognition of the Christian heritage in our possession can still be delivered with a positive message with regards to proper Christian prudence and justice over secular and non-secular artifice, deceit and incompetence. Christian organisations should set the benchmark for integrity, providence, understanding and benefaction to the wider community as well as the Christian family. In context of a secular, perhaps sardonic viewpoint, it may seem bizarre the Church of Scotland was not directed by God to understand the nature of the bells of Holywood whilst in their possession—and the value they would bring to an impoverished institution fighting to rationalise falling congregations. However, if you take a Christian viewpoint, then you must ask why the bells, with an extraordinary Templar provenance and legend, have been delivered to two people outside the institution of the Church, but Christian, nonetheless. Regardless if we are qualified to judge the Church of Scotland or the Catholic Church as Christian safekeepers, in context of the bells and parish of Holywood, it is clear the Scottish institutional Church long ago became unworthy of their keep and their discovery. The Christian Church in Scotland is far from dying, but as in the sixteenth century when reform was necessary to realign the state-recognised Holy Church back to foundational beliefs, again the Church in Scotland must reform to counter the malignancy that has corrupted the moral, prudent, merit worthy and selfless foundation of Scottish society. The malignancy that has obstructed the truth of the Bells of Holywood  being celebrated in Scotland.

. When a legal advocate asked the owners of Holywood Church; the authors of ‘ The Templar Bells of Scotland, an investigation into the origins of the bells in a Dumfriesshire church’, to describe Historic Environment Scotland’s  (HES) response to their research and subsequent pleas for help, the owners termed the government agency ‘an indolent caretaker’ —a necessary custodian who makes excuses not to do their job. The advocate, already having carefully and objectively considered the evidence of the owners’ discovery and HES’s response to it, agreed . ‘An enormous coup for Scotland is denied because of an academic and bureaucratic mess... malignant caretaker  may be a more fitting description.’ As soon as the owners presented their research to HES in 2021, identifying the first Templars of Scotland and presenting priceless unique Templar artefacts, the prime question HES should have asked is, ‘the discovery... is it genuine?’ Scepticism should be expected, but considering the tremendous benefits to the owners, the church's sustainability, the local economy, and the understanding and appreciation of Scottish medieval history, then perhaps even the potential of the discovery was something not to dismiss without prudent consideration. It was important HES appraised the discovery carefully, to either disavow the owners’ conclusions; finding their discovery unsound, or assist, mentor and promote a genuine discovery because it was significant to the history of the nation. However, rather than disavow or authenticate the discovery, HES expended three years of bureaucratic energy to avoid engagement, employing excuse and artifice not to disagree or agree with the find, but to avoid considering the discovery. Why? Why, after receipt of the owners’ investigation, would HES manipulate the historic record of the bells, so as not to conflict with the owners’ dating, but stop short of confirming or denying the owners’ Templar attestation? We can only speculate of course, but with evidence of prejudice underlining the academic-led professional history sector, then it is likely HES did not approve of the architects of the find. After all, the authors of the report were deemed ‘amateurs’, so the agency were perhaps hesitant to help. HES being particularly cautious, as the owners had raised the often-speculative subject of Templar history, and in the process of their examination had dismantled the 'accepted' academic and historical record, identifying the incompetence of not only one ‘scholar’ but several, caught by lazy reliance on supposition over research, fielding a lack of skill set, and deficiencies in observational and logical reasoning—bench marks of supposed scholarly work. What is certain, rather than ‘fence’ with the owners for three years, if HES could have dismantled the owners’ investigation in a single blow, it would have, but just like the denials of the foremost referred scholars, the agency could not dismiss the discovery with evidenced argument. However, unlike the specialist scholars, HES stopped short of using falsity as counterargument, employing bureaucratic obfuscation instead. By its actions, HES implies it had accepted  the owners’ conclusions, but rather than authenticate a legitimate discovery or help the owners with a very real dilemma regarding the sustainability of their mis-bought heritage, the agency abstained, probably because of the consequences the find would have on the ‘professional’ repute of the tenured historian, discomforted by those it deemed illegitimate scholars. What is clear in the communications between the owners and HES, is a plea for help on one side, for the benefit of heritage, and rebuttal on the other, purely to safeguard the professional historian’s control. One side has merit, the other malignancy. Read the evidence and judge for yourselves which is which.