Search Results

One of the bells being removed from the belfry of Holywood church to aid inspection and security There is speculative interest in the bells. Agents, grasping the discovery’s veracity, see profit in helping find new owners for the church and bells— but their clients’ motives are very different from our own. In 2024, continual trawl through international academics in medieval history, trying to find objective appraisal of our discovery, led to a senior US academic with sympathy for our predicament. The professor of history read the report but declined his critique. It was a familiar story. We asked, as an alternative, not to cast judgement on the conclusion but at least comment on the quality of the investigation, as he might review a thesis on a subject in his general field but not his specific subject. He declared he would not involve himself with non-academics concerning an ‘academic subject’, particularly a reveal that would associate his name. He could not be seen to validate what his fellow academics had failed to find. He would not compromise his position amongst competing colleagues within his prestigious college. Even an offer of a share in the discovery for his engagement was no inducement; "Academics live in a world not governed by greed—only status and conceit." The academic initially referred us to Professor Helen Nicholson, as an internationally acknowledged expert in the military orders, but on reading her critique he too concurred, ‘her counterargument is based on personal opinion and not fact’ . However, he was considerate enough to pass our research onto a junior colleague—a doctoral candidate looking to make a name outside academia. He was not regarded as a trusted source for authoritative authentication, but recommended as, "an able and objective medieval scholar." On interrogation of our report, the doctoral candidate agreed our evidence pointed towards inarguable conclusion. There was no other possible name interpretation on the bells, and so the bells of Holywood were sponsored by a master within a military religious order. William leRich was most likely a Templar. He also confirmed what we feared, "the academic world will never endorse the discovery… no matter how illogical their denial seems". However, he offered his help in procuring contacts to further our cause to free ourselves from the, " burden of discovery." Consequently, over the following weeks, we received international phone calls regarding acquiring the church and bells. However, the speculative enquiries were more about obtaining the bells than development of the church, or promoting our find. We posed the question, how would the enquirers or new owners resolve authentication? It was candidly put before us, collector/dealer clients would easily resolve the issue, able to pay or coerce authentication, with legitimacy of the find guaranteed by the completeness of our investigation. Alarm bells rang when we were asked to present all we had done to seek authentication and ‘acceptance’ by the Scottish government. It was clear the enquiries were only interested in removing the bells from the country, and not development of the church or presentation of the bells for the public. "The interred archaeology, interesting as it was, has little financial value." We were advised any legal penalty for removing ‘medieval’ bells from the church would not be a ‘financial concern' for the church’s new owners, if the Scottish government refused to recognise the bells’ full provenance. We chose to defer such speculative interest, no matter how much of an early solution it would bring to our current frustrating situation, because we wanted to be certain we had done everything to give the bells and the site opportunity to stay and be celebrated in Scotland, and the church to be redeveloped to provide a signpost to the area’s rich heritage. We wanted to ensure there was lasting plan to maintain the church and improve the surrounding cemetery; my home for the last six years, and we did not want any potential 'sell-out' to contribute further detriment to the already significant catalogue of misplay existing regarding the church and its bells. But our nobility can be tested by the stupidity, prejudice and ignorance exhibited by Scotland's heritage governance, only so far.

In February 2025, The   Scottish   Sunday Times featured a news story, centered on a planning decision. It was the Scottish government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division ’s (DPEA) verdict that the owners’ bells, should be returned to Holywood Church belfry, regardless of the fact the bells were evidenced to be the only significant provenanced Knights Templar artefacts in the world,  worth millions of pounds: Marc Horne , Senior news reporter for The Times , writing the original article, claimed his editor believed the owners of Holywood Church ‘were hard done by, with regard to the bells’ , and so he followed up the initial story with an interview with one of the owners, and another article: Was The Sunday Times Newspaper, along with the owners’ planning advisors, legal advocacy and agents wrong to criticise the DEPA’s reporter’s decision?  Were the owners wrong to remove the bells from the dilapidated church, to keep them safe?  Was the DPEA’s reporter’s judgement sound?  Professional?  Objective?  Did the reporter test the owners’ claims the bells were the only significant Knights Templar artefacts in the world, regarded as unique, before they disregarded the attribution as irrelevant?  Did the reporter challenge the origins of the property listing to make sure it was sound?  A category B property listing that had originally incorrectly cited these unique religious antiquities as sixteenth century architectural fittings, then as simply, ‘medieval’, in ignorance of the irrefutable evidence provided of their extraordinary Knights Templar provenance.  A misleading listing created by the Scottish government’s heritage agent, Historic Environment Scotland  (HES).  Should these unique bells be regarded as architectural fittings, or unique religious artefacts and treated as such?  In fact, did the reporter’s observation and judgment reflect the owners’ appeal at all? Should these unique bells, have ever been regarded as architectural fittings, or unique religious artefacts and treated as such? The owners’ conflict with the Scottish Government continues... Two people attempting to save Scottish heritage from the malevolent behaviours of academia and governmental institution.  The owners have sacrificed over five years of their time together to understand their mis-sold church and its attending archaeology, and then to save it, rather than building themselves the home together they intended.  All they found is a catalogue of indifference and incompetence.  Has the DPEA added another entry in the catalogue or are they the first government agency to add merit in what should have been a good news story for Scottish history but has turned into a woeful indictment of Scottish heritage management? Context It is important to consider the context of the owners’ appeal against the council’s decision that the bells should be returned to the church—why it was so important to have the bells removed from the former church building in the first place, and why the Scottish government, through its agencies, should acknowledge and support the reason for the bells’ removal. There are over sixty-five thousand bells in the UK—most of them hanging in church belfries. Amongst them is a considerable number of undated medieval bells.  Medieval bells are not rare, however dateable medieval bells are.  Bells, regardless of age, invariably form part of the property heritage listing of churches, and as such are regarded as integral architectural fittings.  There is a spiritual argument they should not be regarded as such, but in context of Holywood Church, the owners took on the bells’ care as an integral part of the property, within its category B listing.  They bought the dilapidated church on the understanding the bells were recorded on the building record as sixteenth century, held in a deconsecrated church disposed of by the Church of Scotland , abandoned by the local parish in its de-Christianisation.  The owners’ sole aim for the church was to build their home, within the constraints of the planning permission to create a three-bedroom dwelling for their family. The bells, despite their notable ‘sixteenth century’ dating, were left in the church by the Church of Scotland because removing and storing them would be far more expensive than their monetary and spiritual value.  A substantial number of churches were closing and there is already a surfeit of bells without a home—thus church bells, even unattributable medieval bells, have little market worth outside scrap metal value. The owners’ examination of the Holywood bells was the first time the bells had been comprehensively studied. The research contributed significantly to the understanding of the bells, their affiliation to the site, and the foundation of Holywood Abbey as a Templar preceptory.  The three-year investigation exposed the overt delinquency of an 1898 inspection that had errantly dated the bells as sixteenth century.  Worse still, a 1920 government audit supported this contrivance, through weak and errant observation and exposition.  In correction, the owners confirmed what the 1898 report had discarded, ie.,  the reports made in the First and Second Statistical Accounts of Scotland , that one of the bells had a mid-twelfth century date attribution, with the other bell certainly a pre-thirteenth century design. Following extensive research, absent in prior examinations, it was found the bells were cast and hung over the convent of Holy Wood in the mid part of the twelfth century.  They were later removed and installed into a new church on the same site in 1779 and were the oldest confirmed bells in the UK.  However, age was no reason to remove the Holywood bells, because even with their great antiquity, they were initially judged by the owners as neither remarkable nor particularly historically valuable outside their intrinsic connection to the site. However, researching the bells’ sponsor led to an inescapable conclusion.   W. leRich, appearing on both bells, could only be a master within a Christian religious military order.  It was the sponsor’s father’s legacy that led to the compelling conclusion, out of the two military orders that existed in Scotland at that time, W. leRich was a Knights Templar master. His bells were donated to hang over the Templar preceptory, Sacro Nemore  or Holy Wood, as such they were unique amongst bells across the world.  They were amongst some of the most valuable bells and mediaeval artefacts existing outside a museum.  And with that, the bells became more than bells, more than architectural fittings, but precious artefacts deserved of public recognition—not locked away in a private church tower, not to be seen nor heard. Thus, keeping the bells within the church, with a competent understanding of their extraordinary history, meant it was no longer a case of developing Holywood Church as a dwelling but the church becoming a purposed vessel to display the bells or their facsimiles for the public’s interest, and historical understanding. The significance of the Knights Templar attribution challenged the existing historical building record and increased the valuation and interest of the church substantially, which was incredibly fortuitous, because in the course of research, the estimated rehabilitation costs for the building hit seven figures, ten times the original estimate.  Any plans for a house conversion were abandoned by the owners, and with no plans to develop the church as a signpost to the bells, the archaeology and the site’s re-discovered history, a new appropriate developer had to be found, otherwise the church would remain in a state of dilapidation. Thus, it was incredibly important the discovery received authoritative authentication, and this included HES amending the property listing, to reflect a relevant understanding of the bells’ special interest and their Templar affiliation.  It was only this Templar association that would attract a new developer to the church.  A new appropriate keeper who would see merit in developing the building, with necessary and costly archaeological investigation and subterranean engineering.  Without authoritative acceptance of the bells’ provenance, it would be impossible to market or attract suitable interest in the church, leaving the church, potentially undeveloped, to become another ‘at risk’ heritage property in Scotland. Prejudiced, Evasive and Obdurate Behaviour Despite the presentation of the owners’ comprehensive study and irrefutable evidence, HES, National Museums Scotland  (NMS), medieval history academics, and subsequently the planning authority— Dumfries and Galloway Council , doubled down on the weaknesses and the incompetencies of the existing historical record of Holywood.  All had reviewed the evidence but refused to consider the owners' detailed and comprehensive archaeological report.  All wilfully obstructed the discovery, knowing its veracity.  All avoided authentication.  Internationally referred academics, identified by academic and heritage leads, disavowed the owners’ discovery with blatantly unsupportable opinion and falsity; so deviant it had no peer support.  No counterevidence was presented to dismantle the owners’ reveal, and while history academics and professionals eschewed the merit and inescapable conclusion of the owners’ investigation—beta readers—professionals, senior civil servants, and academics outside the history academic-led sector, objectively praised the owners’ investigation and discovery. HES, in an attempt to readdress the error of its predecessor’s incompetent 1920 audit of the bells, arbitrarily changed the original sixteenth century attribution assigned to the bells within the property listing to read ‘medieval’ (1098-1601), despite it agreeing the ‘accepted view’ was problematic, and even though this flocculent dating paradigm did not exist in any historical narrative concerning the Holywood bells.  It was the opinion of the owners and their legal advocacy that this was HES’s deceitful solution not to conflict with the evidence provided by the owners, but to deny it, keeping the property listing from being ‘factually inaccurate’, even though it grossly and intentionally diluted the bells’ ‘special interest’ on the listing. HES’s solution to the discovery was to suggest the owners submit their report to be archived in Canmore , where it would not define the official narrative on the bells within the property listing, but simply allow ‘future debate’.  HES were challenged by the owners, asking how their denial and lack of support for the discovery satisfied the Scottish government’s heritage policy— seeking a comprehensive understanding of the history of the built-heritage environment .  HES, in reply, ignored the issue and stated their ‘medieval period’ redesignation did not conflict with, or overrule, legislative policy. HES evaluated the report and unable to contest its conclusion, prejudicially ignored it, thus misrepresenting the bells’ extraordinary special interest on the Historic Building Record - corrupting Scottish history. This evasive and discriminatory behaviour, directed against the architects of the discovery was carried through the planning authority’s decision to ignore the owners’ archaeological report without any objective appraisal.  The council offered no authoritative disavowal of the Templar designation and so ordered the owners to return the bells to the church belfry under the ‘medieval period’ classification—thus recklessly endangering some of the most significant medieval finds ever made in Scotland. Without any   authoritative disavowal  of the owners’ Templar discovery, the owners could only act according to the evidence in their possession—in contempt of the transparent prejudice being applied against them, their discovery, and the challenge it presented to the administrators of Scottish heritage attempting to play down the significant shortcomings of an outdated, conjectured historical record and its malformed influence on heritage property listing. The bells were irrefutably, unique and significant Knights Templar antiquities unable to be contained securely in Holywood Church, without significant investment and an appropriate conservation and security plan.  Returning the bells before the church presented a safe, publicly accessible environment, and while the owners promoted the evidence of discovery to circumvent the obvious prejudice of the establishment, would present irresponsible endangerment to the bells and the church—and to the owners if they chose to remain on site. And so, the owners presented their case to DPEA, in appeal against the council’s decision not to recognise the unique provenance of the bells and allow the bells to pragmatically remain off site. The Appeal The council, in response to the owners’ appeal, reiterated their refusal to grant permission to remove the bells. The thrust of its argument was that the particular history of the bells did not contribute to the site’s ‘special interest’. The council asserted, regardless of the bells’ provenance, as they formed part of the category B listing, their removal would diminish the understanding of the site. The council defended its judgement that it ‘had undertaken an assessment of the significance of the assets recorded in the Historic Environment Record. This assessment [being] materia l  to the council’s consideration of development proposals.’  This meant the council had ignored the owners’ archaeological report and made its decision purely on the information presented in the property listing, created in 1971 and amended by HES in 2022, removing the sixteenth century date attribution of the bells, replacing it with their own designation; ‘medieval’, that was not supported by any transparent historical narrative or specialist assessment . The council’s stance, however, flouted the pre-amble within the council’s  Local Development Plan , stating the historic environment could accommodate change, providing it can be carefully and sensitively managed. The degree of permissible change being judged ‘ on a sound understanding of the historic asset  in question and its setting’ .  Considering the historic environment record was proven to be unsound, and did not provide a comprehensive understanding of the bells, nor the site, the owners’ counter to the council’s defence was unequivocal. Any reasonable  person would see the fundamental flaw in the council’s argument.  Any property heritage listing is formed by a sound understanding of the property, its connection to a site, and its history.  It is the bells’ history that dictates and conditions both the nature of their special interest, the site, and their connection to that site.  As such their particularly extraordinary Templar history is highly relevant to the bells’ inclusion onto the listing in the first instance, so long as it is accompanied by an evidenced, comprehensive understanding of their connection to the site, and to the building in which they hang. Thus, if the original listing is significantly flawed or errant through misunderstanding or ignorance, then it is incumbent upon the listing agent, ie.,  HES, to evaluate new evidence and amend that listing to reflect the understanding of the property, and the special interest it contains, conditioning the understanding of the site, influencing any conservation proposal, protection and subsequently the valuation of the property. In the case of Holywood Church, the council was fully aware HES did not amend the property B listing to reflect an objective evaluation of that misunderstanding. The council had no authoritative disavowal of the owners’ discovery.  They had no verification to allow them to discount the bells’ extraordinary and unique Templar provenance, yet they negligently ignored the merit of the owners’ investigation and evidenced understanding as if it would not have any significant impact on the listed property.  Just as HES offered a totally subjective and unqualified opinion to discount the owners’ understanding of the bells, informing their special interest, the council, instead of challenging the property listing—the foundation of their involvement, chose to be complicit in deceit. Considering the significance of the find, not only in terms of Scottish history but world interest, this failure to disavow the owners’ archaeological evidence and guide the discovery into the historic narrative and understanding of the property record, so recognising the bells’ extraordinary special interest, appeared to be a huge oversight, confirmed by the owners’ legal advocacy and planning advisors: ‘There’s no escaping the point that you [the owners] dispute the historical record.  It is noted HES failed to engage with you [the owners] on the artefacts or archaeological report as if there were no legal ground so to do.  I do not understand why, but it is nevertheless on record.  That should be highlighted in any appeal.’  (Planning Advice Scotland) Expectation The owners had a reasonable expectation DPEA’s reporter, Ailie Callan , representing Scottish ministers, would carry out a professional, objective  appraisal of the owners’ planning appeal.  As a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute  (RTPI), it was expected the reporter would adhere to the principles of their professional code of conduct.  Thus, the reporter’s professional opinion would be made on relevant, reliable and supportable evidence, and they would only comment on only that they were qualified by education, training or experience. (RTPI Code of Professional Conduct, February 2023 ) There was no doubt the owners’ appeal presented the reporter with a challenging case, with an appreciable amount of information submitted, reflecting both the owners’ comprehensive understanding of the bells and the barriers they had been presented to either academic or institutional acceptance. However, the owners had confidence the officer would approach it professionally, as in any judicial review, without bias, in consideration of the significant issues the owners had presented, not only in terms of planning and heritage policy and law, but in context of the planners’ main aim as published by the RTPI; ‘To deliver outstanding placemaking that creates inclusive, healthy, prosperous, sustainable and happy communities.’ ( RTPI Website 2025 ) [* Placemaking  is the process of designing and managing public spaces to enhance their value and create places that people want to be in, focusing on community needs and aspirations. It's about transforming spaces into places that foster social interaction, economic vitality, and a sense of belonging.] The DPEA’s reporter was made aware, regardless of the outcome of any decision, the owners expected it to be made on an inclusive understanding  of the nature of the bells and site, appraised without partiality, governed by the entirety of evidence and facts presented.  That the security of the bells, because of their extraordinary provenance, was the only defining factor for the bells’ removal—not the condition of the property itself. It was expected the reporter would need to seek clarification of the bells’ provenance, in order to assess if the original listing, the foundation of planning’s involvement, truly reflected the special interest stated within the property’s category B listing.  This meant, the reporter would need to consider if HES amended the listing in 2023, to reflect the evidence presented by the owners, evaluated and qualified by specialists sponsored by HES as required under section 1.3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The DPEA—Continuing the Misplay The owners’ reasonable expectation the reporter’s professional opinion would be made on relevant, reliable and supportable evidence was not  met.  The reporter’s bias decision bore little relation to the owners’ appeal, ignoring much of the extraordinary circumstance—subjectively cherry picking only that information to support their decision, reinforcing it with misleading observation, irrelevant statements and falsity. It was clear to the owners, even before the reporter conducted their investigation, the reporter’s decision had already been predetermined, as they refused to acknowledge or meet the owners’ security protocols regarding viewing the bells, implying they refused to recognise the bells' priceless and unique nature. The reporter also requested an inspection of the interior of the church, but with the presence of unseen archaeology constraining development and causing significant health and safety issues, with high spore readings, internal inspection was denied.  Again, it was unclear what the reporter hoped to achieve from inspecting the property when its condition had nothing to do with the bells’ removal. The reporter subjectively dismissed the owners’ Knights Templar testimony, without any test of that evidence (as had HES and the council), in favour of HES and the council’s unevidenced assertion the bells were unattributable ‘medieval’ bells. With this biased rejection, the reporter conducted their assessment as if the bells had no special interest, no unique Templar attribution, no potential benefit to either a comprehensive dynamic understanding of the site, nor how that understanding would ensure the sustainability and appropriate conservation of the church, nor any consideration of the potential commercial wellbeing of the community. Instead, the reporter adhered to the ambiguous narrative created by HES and the council that the bells were of no extraordinary interest other than they were previously hung in a former medieval abbey that once occupied the same site. It was expected, considering the huge significance of the discovery which would completely change the public’s historical perspective on the Holywood site and its listing, the reporter would seek clarification of the understanding of the bells, before their decision was made. This was not only reasonable, but entirely prudent considering the huge significance and impact the discovery would have (in a subject with world interest) on the tenor of the property listing, within the context of the government’s Historic Environment Policy, advocating the goal of a comprehensive understanding, and delivered by RTPI's promises ‘to deliver outstanding placemaking that creates inclusive, healthy, prosperous, sustainable and happy communities.’ The reporter: misrepresented the owners’ testimony, by incorrectly stating the bells were removed from the church in 2022 because of the building’s humidity problem, archaeological constraints and tower’s condition; failed to acknowledge the bells were removed for security reasons only; failed to recognise why the bells’ extraordinary attribution dictated they should be removed while new appropriate owners were procured and appropriate conservation plans formed for the church; misled by stating there were differences in opinion regarding the earlier history of the bells.  The only evidenced understanding is presented by the owners, which has only been countered by deliberate ignorance of that understanding and not any supportable alternate histories; claimed there is a disputed history.  There is only one supportable, evidenced history (the one the owners present).  HES and the council are not disagreeing with that history, just prejudicially refusing to consider it; offered facile reasoning, that an extraordinary and unique Templar provenance has no bearing on the bells ‘special interest’. deceived by stating that all agree the bells are medieval.  The owners and all historical narrative prescribe dates, with only a twelfth century attribution being valid.   Only HES subjectively state the bells are from an undefined medieval period. *made uneducated and ill-informed archaeological observations, without evidence to substantiate those observations; **displayed ignorance regarding humidity and its effects on the bells. [*The reporter stated, ‘I note from submissions that historical references to under crofts and deeper works have been attributed to Holywood Abbey which previously occupied the land within the church yard rather than the site of the church building.’   The reporter’s observations are both   unqualified and misleading , as there is no  archaeological survey, nor historical record that has determined the exact location and the extent of the abbey complex and its basements, both within the boundaries of the church yard and beyond. Basements have been opened up in the adjoining graveyard, but this in no way informs the extent or location of all the basement complex.] [**Regardless of the humidity problems throughout the church, it would not affect bells, hanging fifty feet from the ground in an open belfry. The reporter demonstrates ignorance of that fact   and misleads,  implying this is the reason the bells were removed. The humidity problem, caused by the subterranean voids under the church prevents cost-effective refurbishment of the building to a safe standard of habitation—it has nothing to do with the bells’ removal.] What the reporter did not consider Was the property listing, in terms of understanding, correct and as accurate as it could be with regards to its special interest, thus influencing relevant conservation and protection proposals? Would the owners unique and priceless Templar attribution, if it were true, have any significant impact on the property listing, in terms of understanding the property’s special interest? That HES did not amend the listing in 2022, as per the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, Section 1.3. Th at there was no objective third-party evidence to disavow the owners’ conclusion of a ‘unique and priceless’ Templar discovery. Why HES did not engage with the owners’ archaeological report, as it is was clearly within their remit. A point raised by the owners’ planning and legal advocates. In clarifying the com prehensive nature of the bells’ special interest, how that understanding would best serve the sustainability of the property. Planning advisors had already prepared the owners for what they predicted be the likely illogicality of the planner’s decision, and confirmed it in review: ‘They [the council and the reporter] applied a narrow, uninformed subjective view, reaching an illogical conclusion... their decision, they thought in-line with planning policy, was in fact contrary to the intent of that 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 or sustainability.  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... We suspect your accusations of prejudice and evasion to deal with the uncomfortable facts of truancy in merit within the historical record and its management are well founded.’ ( KSL, Planning Advocacy , March 2025 ) Illogicality, Prejudice and Negligence The reporter’s decision was circulated around the owners’ advocacy.  There was not a single argument in support of the DPEA’s decision making process; only condemnation. There was agreement the bells’ unique Templar provenance was no reason to exclude the bells from the listing, so long as the listing reflected that unique provenance—conditioning the site’s special interest.  This fundamental knowledge was essential, so any conservation and protection proposals would be appropriate to the property's development. If the listing was correct in the first instance, including such valuable and historic bells, the church would never have been disposed of by the Church of Scotland for thirty-five-thousand pounds, determining a house conversion was the only option for the unwanted building and its bells.  This is a fundamental argument supporting the importance of the listing being correct, informed by competent understanding and not reliance on out-dated ill-formed supposition. HES, the council and the DPEA were not at liberty to ignore the owners’ evidence, unless it had been properly and objectively evaluated and discounted as irrelevant to the 'special' understanding of the bells and the property. This transparent evaluation had not occurred, so the government and local government’s agents had acted both prejudicially and negligently. The owners’ advocacy agreed the former church building, from this point forward would exist purely to serve the bells, rather than the bells serving the building as an ‘architectural feature’.  That the DPEA added another layer of prejudiced bureaucracy, doubling down on a recognised flawed historical record and the consequently outdated property listing ‘maintained’ by HES. The owners had the right to appeal to the Court of Session , within six weeks of the date of the appeal decision.  The owners did not have the resources to appeal, and as any appeal could only be made on a point of law, there was no guarantee it would result in reaching the owners’ goal—not necessarily to remove the bells from the property listing, but to obtain authoritative authentication , and so find new keepers for the church and its bells, so the bells and property could be treated appropriately.  Or, conversely, authoritative and evidenced disavowal , so the owners could secure the church, together with its ‘medieval’ bells and move on, leaving it to an uncertain fate in the owners’ reluctant unused ownership.

'A Cautionary Church Tale' Holywood Church, Dumfriesshire We suspect every developer, seeking to convert a discarded church, has a story of woe to tell.  Buying any ancient building to convert into new use is fraught with danger—to your peace of mind, your bank account, your savings, and even your relationships as you descend into the never-ending credit trap often required to complete a project appearing to be a good prospect... at the time . But the price of dreams often costs more than money—sometimes they require sacrifice, dedication and fortitude—particularly when dealing with the unknown. And then there is officialdom— planning bureaucracy —endless hoops to jump through and hurdles to clear, while money falls from your pocket to feed an overpriced heritage industry, gorging on opportunity. There will be as many horror stories as there are happy endings, with beautiful new homes and businesses built within old, discarded churches and chapels—ensuring the surfeit of old spiritually diminished architectural souls are reborn into the new. However, in amongst good old stone sold off at bargain prices, there is rarely economic success—that is the price of owning heritage—it is a commitment of the heart, not the head . Our purchase may have been constrained by our own economic realities, but it was definitely a purchase of the heart. Our church, however, would never become our intended home. Instead, we were left to question why fate brought us to the church’s doors, to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, not to home make, but in the name of discovery, protection, and challenge to an iniquitous delinquency of historical understanding, fostered by indifferent and incompetent governance. Why would a church initially estimated to cost a few hundred thousand pounds to redevelop, be reappraised to cost a few million pounds, and why would its architectural fittings be worth twenty, thirty, forty times that? It is the price for not understanding heritage—and in the case of Holywood Church, it is hard to see the merit in its former keepers, and those historians who corrupted the site’s history through ignorance rather than competence. [Full article to follow]

Leading history academics in the field of the authors' study, offered judgement on the authors' conclusions, not within the context of the research, which the academics ignored, but instead purely in terms of their own opinion. The authors, grateful to receive the academics' ‘learned assessment', particularly when other academics abstained, were understandably disappointed when the scholars dismissed the discovery. Within the academics' critique there was not a single conciliatory agreement with the authors that the nineteenth century audit of the bells had erred (the basis of the academic view), or that the authors raised a single point of merit. The authors' were understandably perplexed that all the academics' views were offered in disagreement, yet all their counter-opinion was easily repudiated by contemporary evidence, or lack of it. The list of the academics' errant opinion was significant, and in blatant disagreement with medieval record. Professor Helen Nicholson, specialising in medieval history and the religious military orders, erred, in that the academic claimed every member of a religious sect always carried their rank and order designation on every document, despite a gross lack of medieval Scottish charter evidence to support the premise. The Templar scholar also claimed the spiritual head of a Templar preceptory was a preceptor, knowing that the preceptor, akin to a prior, answered to a Templar master as spiritual head of the convent, just as a prior would answer to an abbot. Dr Alice Blackwell (National Museums Scotland) , deemed a specialist in heraldry and medieval metal work, cited the interchangeable use of heraldic components was common practice, even though precision had been a legal heraldic requirement since the thirteenth century. This premise was employed by Dr Blackwell to defend the Victorian historian's attribution of the two armorials, presented at the beginning of this article, as belonging to the same person. Dr Blackwell claimed the difference was purely the engravers' compromise to space restriction, despite the space available to the engraver presenting a considerable canvas for complete armorial presentation. The scholar even ignored the fact the Victorian had erred in his understanding of his identified sponsor's armorial attribution in the first instance. Dr Alice Blackwell (National Museums Scotland) reported of the above armorial . ' The shield is exactly what would be expected for the traditional dating {sixteenth century}.' Professor Alan Macquarrie, specialising in Scottish medieval military orders and Scotland's contribution to the crusades, claimed all members of the religious orders were celibate, unmarried and without children, despite the 1128 Templar specific Latin Rule including a proviso for the inclusion of married knights, and over a hundred years of recognised family tradition of membership, father to son. All critiquing scholars testified the absence of numerals on the 'date' on the inscription (rendering the date unreadable) was acceptable, even though the paradigm does not exist. None had issue with the Victorian's weak interpretation of the bells' inscription, despite its obvious errors in his interpretation of letters, including his proposed name proposition, in which he managed to ignore the obvious incongruities in three of the five letter characters he used to interpret 'Welch.' It led the authors to two deductions, but one inarguable conclusion. One possibility was the academics offered their genuine misunderstanding of fundamental historical fact. Or, unhappy with the authors' discovery, and not finding a genuine argument against their conclusion, offered fiction designed to purely counter the find, and maintain the academic traditional view regardless of how poorly informed it was. Neither was an endorsement of the academics’ integrity, and in doing so they disqualified themselves from impartial and proficient judgement over the authors' research and conclusion. What was concerning, either way, was that they exposed themselves as fraudulent. The authors had little reason to doubt the academics' competence, and their errant understanding of such basic historical detail was hard to accept, so errant in fact, others less informed could easily see the inaccuracy in the academics' opinion and even questioned the authors' qualification of the academics as ‘specialists’. The contempt for the academics' views was unanimous, even amongst other history academics, deeming the referred scholars' assessment as singular opinion, not based on fact or any general understanding. It was frustrating the critiquing academics were referred to the owners in the first instance by a significant number of other history academics, including world renown Templar expert, Malcom Barber, as the best option for review. Considering the stronger possibility the reviewing academics intentionally offered falsehood; as it was easily identified as such, it implicated the academics not only duplicitous, but injudicious to propose something in argument so easily discounted by evidence. Neither their appearance of incompetence nor their poorly offered deception presented profit to the authors. historical understanding, or reward for themselves, as in publication their views would only bring censure by the public, or in other words, lose: lose , defined in absolute terms as stupidity  by Professor Carlo M Cipollo (1976).

With an imperfect record of our past, when we seek to understand it through investigation, it is important all the material to which we have access is gathered and objectively appraised. It is vital we judge that gathered information—material, circumstantial, and opinion—with a critical eye and empathy for those who produced it within the constraints of their time, from the information they had at their disposal, which is perhaps now lost. However, the ‘accepted’ understanding of the Holywood church bells, and the site to which they are affiliated, is an illustration where, despite information being available, if not a surfeit of surviving contemporary record, it appears it is only the opinion of 'approved' narrators satisfying the vanity of academic historians, that is allowed to prevail—which in turn has resulted in one of the greatest miscarriages of historical understanding the authors can perceive—the failure to recognise the Templar bells of Holy Wood , and their sponsor, the son of the first Templar of Scotland— William le Riche. Following, is illustration of how the understanding of the past has, and is, being corrupted by the ‘appointed’ academic caretakers of our history, and how past understanding is swept away by the conceit of the institutional historian. After you read this article, the authors invite you to read the evidence presented in their investigative report and journal, and within the interactions between the authors and those so-called ‘appointed caretakers of heritage’ and come to your own opinion of these 'paragons' of heritage safekeeping. Scottish Chroniclers In the mid part of the nineteenth century, a Dumfriesshire chronicler, John McCormick , undertook a tour of the area in and around Dumfries, recording the memories of historic buildings demolished or in a ruinous state. He captured the stories and recollections of those who were alive when the buildings existed and studiously recreated them in The Antiquities of Dumfries and its Neighbourhood , a collection of drawings and memories from previous generations and his own. McCormick was a commendable local historian, following in the much larger footsteps of many admirable Scottish chroniclers, such as John of Fordun , a fourteenth century secular priest, stirred by the removal, loss and destruction of many national records by Edward III of England , to collect material, recollection and understanding. His record preserves the roots of a nation, and as such is much valued, forming understanding of Scottish heritage.   John McCormick, in his own chronicle, drafted in 1843, formed from existing documents and over a hundred years of recollections of local people from the Georgian period (1714-1837), claimed the former Holywood church was part of a twelfth century-built Templar preceptory/infirmary. His drawing, attached to his narrative appears to be a recreation constructed from an eighteenth century water colour created while the old church still stood in dereliction. He enhanced the source material beyond its depicted ruined state by the inclusion of windows, a tomb attached to the gable wall, the remains of the demolished section of church, and illustration of the two bells in its open Norman-style belfry—bells that were subsequently transferred to the later eighteenth century-built Presbyterian church.   Regrettably we do not have John McCormick’s notes or his references; information that illustrated the understanding of the site by those, who in his day had sight of history existing in unpublished document or artefact—since lost, or in stories recalled and shared. All we can draw on, to determine the veracity of McCormick’s testimony, is the information that remains recorded against the site by those who lived, worked and visited the church in the hundred or so years up to John McCormick’s chronicle. Sir John Sinclair , another Scottish chronicler, coordinating the first Statistical Account of Scotland , surveyed the geography, history, economy, and agriculture within parishes throughout Scotland, in order to reveal the ‘quantum of happiness’ of its people. Of Holywood Church, the entry compiled by the then parish minister, the Reverend Bryce Johnston , sometime between 1791 and 1799, included his reference to two bells removed from the former abbey church and placed into his new church, built 1779. One bell, he confirmed was consecrated in 1154 by an ecclesiastic named ‘Wrich’. His reference was informed by both the name inscribed on the bell and a corresponding second engraving in his sight, with the same name presentation and a date, 1154. We can only speculate on what this second engraving was on, but as the Reverend Johnston used it to confirm a consecration date for the bell, we can assume it existed on an engraving that would substantiate the date he proposes, eg., a wax seal or master’s seal matrix, implying the commencement of the bell sponsor’s tenure and so potential commission date for the bell. What perhaps may be viewed as anomalous, is that if it was understanding that Holywood was a Templar preceptory in the 12th century, why Reverend Bryce Johnston did not attribute the 1154 bell to a Templar sponsor, instead citing , ‘...by an inscription and date on it, appears to have been consecrated by the abbot John Wrich...’.  But there again, Johnston misinterpreted ' Abbas ' (father) as 'Abbot', and his report could not be regarded as a treatise on the bell or bells, just a statement of fact as he viewed it (but with a degree of conjecture). Sometime in the eighteenth century, Francis Grose visited the original church, before its demolition. He recorded the church in his 1789 work, Antiquities of Scotland , ‘Across the middle of the building was a fine Gothic arch that supported the oak roof. Under the floor were a number of sepulchral vaults. The entrance was through a handsome semi-circular arch.’ Regrettably, Grose did not illuminate the church’s history, so we do not know how much the original church developed over its four-hundred-year history before the Reformation, or how large the original church was, or if the seven-foot-wide wall excavated in 1906, was part of the original church build, possibly supporting a tower. Regardless, the original church could not be considered built as a small chapel. In 1811, the venerable archivist, George Henry Hutton , a professional soldier and amateur antiquary, who enthusiastically compiled a collection of over five hundred drawings, maps, plans, and prints, dating from 1781 to 1820, relating mainly to Scottish churches and other ecclesiastical buildings, produced images: accurate representations of the Holywood bells. Reverend Johnston had passed on six years earlier, but at the time of Hutton’s visit, even before he viewed the bells, he would have the parish minister’s assertion and the record of a 1154 consecration date. The report was probably reason enough for him to visit the site and record the bells. Regardless what Hutton observed from the bell’s inscription, he obviously thought the bell and its mate worthy subjects to record in detail, implying he did not question nor denigrate their antiquity, nor the inscription. Hutton will have encountered many church bells in his thirty years’ experience, and he judged the Holywood bells singularly important enough for him to record for his collection. At the time of his visit, he recorded a seven by two-foot medieval gravestone, depicting a stepped  or calvary cross, lying outside the main church door. Hutton also commented on the inequalities of the ground at the south east corner of the ‘new; church where part of the abbey is reported to have stood.  At the time, it was reported the gravestone was one of around thirty ‘crusader’ grave markers that lay around the cemetery. All have been lost, and so we cannot confirm the nature of the markers. It was the Reverend Robert Kirkwood  who was the minister of Holywood at the time of John McCormick’s visit to the site. At fifty-nine years old, he had already confirmed his predecessor’s attestation regarding the ‘inscribed’ bell’s provenance in his official return for the Second Statistical Account of Scotland  of 1837. Kirkwood also confirmed he had ‘ a bull of Pope Innocent III [1198-1216], addressed, Abbate de Sacro Nemore, to the abbot of the Sacred Grove, in the diocese of Glasgow', implying Holywood was certainly not in the possession of the Templars after the beginning of the thirteenth century, confirmed by audit in the wake of the Templars’ dissolution at the beginning of the fourteenth century.  We can only assume if McCormick interviewed Reverend Kirkwood, to confirm his own testimony, but it is highly probable McCormick’s interactions will have included Holywood parishioners and wardens of the church. Fanciful Conjecture? Was the understanding of Templar origins of the demolished Holywood church simply fanciful conjecture recorded as fact by John McCormick?  Was his testimony his singular idea or purely speculative rumour—sensationalist attribute of the site to the Templar legend? Professor Helen Nicholson, in her consideration of the original version of the authors’ report on the bells of Holywood proposed that although McCormick’s sketch of the church states that it was Templar, his statement should not be taken seriously without evidence from the pre-Reformation period. The professor confirmed it was regrettably common for eighteenth and nineteenth century antiquarians to declare a ruined property of uncertain background must have been Templar. There certainly is evidence elsewhere to support the professor’s opinion. The problem with the professor’s argument is, although the original Holywood Church building may have been removed by the time of McCormick’s chronicle, the understanding and memories of the original church were not. There is evidence that documents and artefacts existing in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries concerning the history of the church and abbey had been lost or intentionally removed, thus it follows there was  material at McCormick’s disposal, that is no longer available for us to test McCormick’s attestation. Therefore, we cannot assume his ‘Templar’ attribution as invention through a lack of uncertainty or dismiss it as such. In determining McCormick’s ‘Templar’ provenance, further questions are raised. Why would McCormick attribute a purely speculative history to a property that had been in continuous operation since before the first millennium? How could he substantiate his claims in his own chronicle, and why would he invent such a legend, if it was not already the contemporaneous understanding of those that would read and critique his work? Why should we not give credence to John McCormick’s understanding of the former church being founded on the understanding of those he interviewed, and document or artefact he observed, rather than his own singular imaginative creation? Did he have reason enough to judge the source of the information he gathered sound enough to declare a positive Templar attribution? Can we apportion reliability to McCormick by his work alone, without knowing his integrity for the truth, the thoroughness of his research, and sight of the evidence and reference he uses to justify his narrative? Was Professor Nicholson correct to discount McCormick's testimony as unreliable? It is perhaps perverse that although Professor Nicholson was prepared to discount John McCormick’s testimony as unreliable, the academic absolutely supported a later 1898 testimony on the bells' provenance, demonstrated as pure invention. Why? All we can assert from testimony presented in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is the church potentially  had a connection with crusaders/pilgrims, one of the bells was testified  to be of twelfth century origin, and McCormick believed  the site to once belong to the Templars in the twelfth century. These ‘considerations’ were collected and referenced by the authors, but because they could not be substantiated by sight of Reverend Johnson’s engraving, nor the decoration upon the grave markers, nor the data that formed McCormick’s belief, the information was recorded but not regarded as material to forming any conclusion of the bells’ origins. Confirmation Following McCormick’s chronicle, nothing was subsequently presented to support or refute McCormick’s twelfth century Templar attribution (until the author’s report in 2021). However, Reverend Bryce Johnston’s and Kirkwood’s 1154 attribution for one of the bells, and consequently the existence of a master of Holywood named ‘Wrich’, was discarded by a 1898 report placed before the local Natural History and Antiquarian Society  by a Fellow of the Society of Scottish Antiquarians, James Barbour . Barbour’s reputation and status within the historical society ensured his revision and opinion of the bells as both sixteenth century, attributed to ‘Welsh’ and not ‘Wrich’ and to ‘Kennedy’ was allowed to stand unchallenged, and subsequently cemented into the accepted academic and institutional understanding. However, Barbour’s interpretation of the bells’ inscriptions was little than contrivance to meet his own hypothesis rather than a presentation of any demonstrable evidence, with his name hypothesis ‘Welch’ reported unsound by governmental audit in 1920. Further detailed analysis of the inscription by the authors, demonstrated Barbour made specious assumption, failing to apportion the correct armorial to his chosen bell sponsor, read letters on the inscription correctly, or correctly interpret medieval abbreviation, and added characters absent on the bell to make his hypothesis work; in fact Barbour misinterpreted over sixty percent of the bells' elements. The conclusion of the authors’ investigation was the name on one of the bells was not ‘Wrich’ as claimed by Reverend Bryce Johnston, but W’(le)rich, who was indeed a twelfth century ecclesiastical connected to the Bishopric of Glasgow. The owners following the bells sponsor’s legend on contemporary charter led to the evidence of him existing as a knight/cleric, not as secular clergy, but within religious life; the master of a religious brotherhood, a member of a military religious order—most likely the  Templars , thus the church his bells were created for, was most likely Templar property. The authors of the investigative report had not employed John McCormick’s testimony in reaching conclusion, instead it was the authors’ forensic investigation that had confirmed John McCormick’s understanding of the former church as a twelfth century Templar property as being correct. Therefore, it was probable the understanding McCormick was fed in his own enquiry, was at some point evidence-based rather than speculation, from contemporary or prior attestation held in the possession of others but no longer existing, or published, and regrettably long lost. Perhaps it should not be surprising, following the authors’ lengthy focused forensic enquiry, the authors consequently legitimise what was already the accepted view in the eighteenth century, before the popularisation of antiquarian pursuits engaged socially aspiring amateur Victorian historians, networking within their elite societies, to apply and impress with their own theories of ancient material objects, without the benefit, or in some cases, even care of a comprehensive access to wider understanding, research and challenge. Their thoughts were advanced within publication by their antiquarian societies, wiping away the previous accepted view without due consideration. Another Victorian antiquary, James Raine offered a similar untested hypothesis to the understanding of the bell sponsor’s title, ignoring the eighteenth century testimony of Harry Maule of Kelly and the entry within Robert Douglas’  eighteenth century Peerage of Scotland . Raine’s unresearched understanding, again perversely adopted as the foundation of the academic accepted understanding by the late nineteenth century-created university-trained professional historian, despite the truancy of discipline academia would seek to apply to new research and enquiry. The miscarriage of Historical Understanding A deliberate miscarriage of historical understanding became evident, when the understanding the authors had researched and confirmed, in proven counter to the ‘traditional’ or ‘accepted academic view’ was presented to the appointed caretakers of heritage—‘specialist’ medieval academics, National Museums Scotland, and Historic Environment Scotland. The authors had gathered all the information made available in publication, archive, database, expert witness and the internet, and presented an understanding by way of comprehensive and collaborative consideration of all  that information. The presentation of the investigation and its evidence adhered to the best practices of enquiry, and was tested in discussion and elimination, employing critical and logical reasoning, and challenged until only one  conclusion remained. The merit of the work, presented in document and an accompanying journal—over two hundred thousand words, copious illustration, referencing and photographic evidence—demonstrated competencies far beyond certificated qualification. In addition to degrees in archaeology and forensic archaeology, the authors exhibited the skills and knowledge acquired in professional working lives as analysts and the associated disciplines competent enquiry requires. The authors had, in fact, carried out an investigation that neither James Barbour nor the auditor from the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland  (RCAHMS) could not—a protracted , detailed   collaborative examination of the bells’ inscriptions, considering every  element and challenging every  assumption made by former inspection and consideration, with the benefit of expert consultation and far more reference material available today than was accessible to previous examiners. The owners of Holywood Church tested their investigation with recognised specialists and found neither dismantlement of their conclusions nor any verifiable counterargument. Yet despite all this, the authors’ understanding, formed over years of focused research, along with John McCormick’s and Bryce Johnston’s testimonies, were dismissed—not taken seriously, indeed an absolute refusal to even read the report in some cases, on the premise the authors could not possibly have anything to offer if working outside academia. Considering the huge  significance of the find, the reception to it was judged perverse , not only by the owners of the church and bells, but the dozens of professionals who reviewed the investigation—individuals not employed as appointed caretakers of Scottish heritage, but proficient intelligent individuals with an understanding of history and objective enquiry. No assistance was offered by the appointed caretakers of heritage, nor did they even declare a crumb of plausibility in the authors’ research, nothing to provoke further enquiry or deliberation. In amongst all this denial and indifference, not a single piece of verifiable scholarly or logical counterargument was offered in defence of a demonstrably errant and indolent Victorian theory. In view of the importance of the discovery, with an exposure of a significant piece of ‘missing’ Scottish medieval history, it was inexcusable that research which restored the original understanding of the bells and their connection to a site was dismissed and ignored, without any sound reason. Worse still, dismissal was made in the understanding the bells, constrained by planning statute, and the church, unsuitable for development under proscribed permissions and understanding, would be consigned, undeveloped, to the rot that pervaded south west Scotland. Vanity Over Substance The establishment of the professional historian, created at the end of the nineteenth century in universities, has devalued the good historian existing outside their kind—the storyteller—the chronicler, whom the professional academic historian deems ‘amateur’ in deliberate deprecation. It is these storytellers who have chronicled our past for thousands of years. The record these storytellers left is not perfect nor complete, but it appears many modern academic historians have decided to ignore any understanding offered by the chronicler, to ‘cherry pick’ their immediate forebears bias to inform their own narrative (often the published Victorian, historical-society-based antiquarian). Illustrating this partial application of historical understanding, is the response and appraisal of the authors’ investigation by the two most referred professional academic ‘specialist’ historians. In each case the academics dismissed John McCormick’s, Bryce Johnston’s and the authors’ understanding as invalid to the understanding of the bells, citing a lack of academic understanding that the site was Templar, despite the fact there was no contemporary evidence to confirm that understanding, and the many academic references which confirm significant Templar presence in Dumfriesshire, notably surrounding Holywood, in the place titles, and audit of Templar holdings in the fourteenth century. Instead, the ‘specialist’ academics supported and confirmed James Barbour’s singular-made understanding, despite it having little merit in terms of observation or interpretation. Barbour’s interpretation of the bell’s sponsor was so deviant to the evidence presented, it was challenged the very next time the bells were appraised and audited in 1911, by the Scottish government. Yet, despite Barbour’s indefensible opinion in lieu of actual evidence, Barbour’s view was chosen as the academics accepted understanding of the bells. To support their understanding, they offered their own opinion without any supportable fact. So aberrant was their view that even those who supported the credibility of the two academics could not support their views, citing they presented opinion,   not fact . One may say, such deliberate subjective views on what should constitute vital historical understanding, makes the modern authorised safekeepers of our history, little more than indolent, conceited caretakers of our heritage. The authors, the owners of Holywood Church and its attending archaeology, are also caretakers of history—custodians of the past for successive generations. Custodians only, as we are not at liberty to do with our owned heritage as we please. However, perhaps the owners’ motivation for its care and understanding is a little more focused, vital, and vastly more dynamic than those purely salaried to consider and protect heritage, within the vanity of their own understanding. As you see, their understanding is not formed through the same degree of time, thought, and research the authors have dedicated to understand their mis-bought heritage, but instead to adherence to swiftly formed, isolated, unevidenced ‘ideas’ published over one-hundred years ago. An Exclusive  Understanding of History The research into the understating of the bells of Holywood, and the reception by the official safekeepers of heritage, illustrated it was not evidence or  merit that formed understanding of our heritage, but the status  of those that made it. Vanity was allowed over substance and an exclusive  understanding allowed to prevail over any inclusive  understanding. But were the Holywood bells an aberrant circumstance in an otherwise meritorious management of the historical record? Apparently not, as the Scottish government recognises this fundamental flaw in historical understanding, within their own heritage policy, ‘Decisions affecting any part of the historic environment should be informed by an inclusive understanding of its breadth and cultural significance… knowledge and information about the historic environment is critical to our understanding of our past, present and future… Research, discussion and exchange of ideas can all contribute to our understanding of the historic environment. Understanding will improve when information is made widely available, and everyone has the opportunity to contribute to knowledge of the historic environment.’ ( Historic Environment Policy, Scotland ) Regrettably the intent of governmental policy is often compromised by those charged to deliver it. Either a lack of capacity, leadership, integrity, or the presence of prejudice leads to the manipulation of their employer’s policy to suit undisclosed agenda of those tasked to serve the people and their government’s goals. A further article, Historic Environment Scotland, 'a malevolent caretaker'  illustrates it is this unmerited ‘exclusive’ understanding of history and prejudice against those outside academia that results in the loss of understanding, deprivation of the public enjoyment, sustainability of discarded heritage, and ultimately leads to sustainment of an incorrect historic record. The Importance of an Inclusive Understanding Is it important to have an inclusive understanding of heritage? Is history important at all—events and ancient artefact that have little impact on current lives and society, beyond a point of interest? What does it matter to anyone, except to the historian and those with an interest in history? What vital benefit does a specific understanding of heritage, and its artefact provide? Perhaps the debate should be directed to what material benefit to current and future lives such an understanding provides. In the case of the appreciation of the Holywood bells and the attribution to a Templar preceptory, it presents significant financial benefit, not only to the owners, but to the Scottish and local economy. It is this material consideration that dictates any understanding, even if its sceptically received, should be seriously considered and not ‘swept under the carpet’ by those safekeepers—keyholders of the past—the appointed caretakers of heritage. The understanding the bells provide opens new lines of enquiry that will lead to further illumination of a period of medieval history sparse on detail. Therefore, understanding is  important and makes the dismissal of the authors’ research into the comprehensive understanding of the bells all the more heinous. It is the individual’s right to disagree with the discovery the authors present, as it is to have an opinion. The challenge is to put evidence and fact behind that counter-opinion to dismantle any understanding the authors present. Academic understanding of the bells of Holywood and the origins of the site are sadly not founded on veracity, but duplicity, as are the behaviours of those appointed caretakers of history. If the authors of the investigation were equally duplicitous, then it should be easy to offer verifiable counterargument. Dissenters  have not  and without evidence they cannot. To date, the authors have dismantled every counterargument placed before them, and if dissenters stay on the ‘other side of the fence’, it is simply that those dissenters lack humility enough to agree. And whereas the amateur historian can be excused their ill-informed dissent and opinions, the professional historian has a duty to present an evidenced understanding, not partial ill-informed judgement. ‘Any fool can know. The point is to understand.’ Albert Einstein  speaks volumes about the importance of understanding. He implies knowledge without understanding is useless, and so it is important to truly comprehend something before you can make use of it. Understanding requires more effort than simply blindly accepting what others believe, it involves a deeper insight into the matter. This means taking time to ask questions, logically analyse data, and draw argued conclusions. The authors can see none of this in the behaviours of those professional academic historians, and the appointed caretakers of heritage judging the bells of Holywood.

It is not surprising early Scottish Templars have not been identified, despite Ailred of Revaulx's eye-witness testimony that, ‘very fine brothers of the illustrious knighthood of the Temple of Jerusalem surrounding David I of Scotland by day and night’ between 1128 and 1153, because it appears no one has looked for them. Instead, historians not finding the word ‘Temple’ attached to an individual on Scottish charter, have declared the members of the Templar brotherhood, missing, even though it was expected to find these virtuous members of the kings' entourage as witnesses on royal charter. But as twelfth century Scottish medieval charter does not include religious order designations, and it is usually names on specific document pertaining to an order or an order’s house, by implication identifies members of that order, and with no Scottish Templar document surviving from before the end of the twelfth century, we can presume Scottish Templar knights do exist on charter, it is only that we cannot easily identify them. Just as it is difficult to identify an individual’s religious order affiliation, unless they appear in a document specific to that order, it is difficult to attribute medieval material to an owner without a name tag present. Despite popular belief, the Templars did not have trademark exclusivity of a cross design, employed marking them out as guardians of the Church, its people, and property. In consideration of early Scottish Templars, historians should have considered any common group of knights surrounding David I on charter. Knights who displayed mutual attributes, a shared deviant title, crusaders by repute, and indication they were members of the king’s entourage by repeatedly witnessing royal charter. Enter a knightly brotherhood populating twelfth century charter; titled Masculus ; an honorific awarded to eleventh and twelfth century secular clerics; a Latin ecclesiastical legal descriptor of the exemplar classical male, a worthy Christian warrior. One knight, William Masculus, aka William le Riche, reported esteemed by David I, hero of the Battle of the Standard, crusader, a pious man short on land holdings, in comparison to his contemporary peer nobles. There is no mention of William or the other knights, Masculus , within the Templar Order, but without any surviving Scottish Templar record from before the end of the twelfth century, their membership can neither be confirmed nor denied. Fortunately, we have material artefact tagged with William’s unique title, in the context of David’s religious establishment. The material is not only marked with his name, but his rank. William is named father of a holy convent, not just sponsor, but the religious head of a community of brothers. It proves he existed as a knight within king David I’s entourage, while at the same time existing within the spiritual ascetic, and only members of the religious military orders could wear those two ‘hats’. William le Riche’s declaration as master of a religious convent, offers proof he had crossed the bridge from the secular clergy to monastic life, all within a martial purpose as dictated by his rank, milites —knight—soldier; the very origins of the military religious orders, as Bernard de Clairvaux and Hugh de Payens, the architects of the Templar Order, seek to redirect the vanities of secular clerical knights into the Cistercian ascetic, within a focused religious life.

In 1846, a local historian, interviewing those who could remember buildings lost or dilapidated in and around Dumfries, reported the former church of Holywood was part of a twelfth century Templar preceptory/infirmary.  The eighteenth-century Statistical Account of Scotland  reported one of the bells was of twelfth century origin (1154).  The other bell is a confirmed pre-1200 pattern.  The bells’ sponsor, W’leRich existed between 1120 and 1189 as a senior, confirmed knight-cleric.  With the Holywood convent created around 1150, confirmed to be held by a regular order after 1198, then it is highly likely, in terms of eighteenth century understanding, the bells came from a Templar property.  All this record however was passed over by the singular imaginations of Victorian historians, who through status had their specious translations of two bells and the misunderstanding of their sponsor’s title cemented into the historical and academic record. During the owners’ investigation, collecting all the available information on the early understanding of the site and bells, the authors dismantled a great deal of Victorian spurious theory; the foundation of academic understanding, to better appreciate what the academic professional historian had not, because they had ‘cherry-picked’ their Victorian 'scholarly' forebears’ theories without auditing, rather than building their own works on an inclusive  review of all  the evidence.  Regrettably, a considerable amount of academic historical understanding is formed by subjective thought, rather than objective research.  This is the fundamental difference between the Humanities  (the route of learning for professional historians managing historical governance) and STEM based enquiry. Subjective ‘academic view’, built on the shoulders of approved ‘cherry-picked’ sources, much of it spurious Victorian publication (the foundation library of history-focused academia), is the basis of much academic thesis and publication, informing the description and understanding of many objects held in museums, collections, and heritage properties.  As such, what the public think they know is often untrustworthy. As example, a scientific study in 2022, disproved academic understanding of a series of gold coins, bearing the portrait of a Roman emperor called Sponsian.   The coins   were thought to be fake, Sponsian fictitious, and so were not displayed to the public.  The academic view was founded on a singular theory of a Victorian coin specialist, who wiped away an earlier eighteenth century declaration the coins were genuine.  However, it was obvious to a scientist with interest in Roman history, that the coins exhibited signs of wear and burial, and with the correct skill set and opportunity, scientifically proved the coins had been in circulation for some considerable time— not fakes at all. Such   successful contest of the academic view is rare, not because the academic view is robust, but unless science or the status of the challenger is unquestionable, many challenges are ignored or treated by academia as invalid. The significant flaw in academic historical understanding is common knowledge amongst those working within the historical sector, and forms part of the disgruntlement many, who base their discipline on objective study, have with academic historians, who arrogantly protect their own discipline and paternalistic control of historical understanding. History by its nature, with an often lack of verifiable evidence, is prone to debate. Therefore, although objectivity is seen as the goal of those who work on history, in practice it is widely accepted that objectivity is often unattainable, thus, historian-scholars choose not to directly challenge the subjective thought of their recognised scholarly forebears—and so subjective opinion becomes the foundation of their own understanding.  However, subjective thought is not the foundation of other disciplines outside academic historical investigation.  For instance, the owners’ disciplines refined in value  and efficiency  management, underpinning their investigation, had ensured the owners challenged each speculative theory, and questioned everything  that was the traditional or accepted view. An equal amount of time was expended by the owners to challenge and test findings until only one conclusion could be made.  More importantly, the owners ensured their discovery would stand up to any judicial review—the true test of authenticity.  This test of objectivity was supplied by legal precedent established in 2001, Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt,  with regards to what constitutes an objective historian in context of a professional witness.  In consideration of this benchmark, the owners were satisfied their conclusions would pass the test. An objective historian must: treat sources with appropriate reservations. not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration. be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew ‘cherry-picking’. clearly indicate any speculation. not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of text. weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict their favoured view. take the motives of the historical participants into consideration. Regrettably, the behaviours listed above are not necessarily drafted into essential practice and performance of academically trained historians.  Indeed, all the critiquing academics, and every prior academic-approved historian's testimony of the bell's provenance, would fail the above test on every point.  Unfortunately, it is these academics that is the only route to ‘scholarly’ authentication, as there are no other ‘experts’ in the subjects of the owners’ enquiry, ie., twelfth century bell archaeology, early Scottish Templar foundation, the nature and titles of those employed as secular clergy, or high-medieval inscription. In search of trusted third-party authentication, when it came to critique, the professional academic reviewers, including Professor Helen Nicholson, mediaeval historian, and Dr Alice Blackwell from National Museums Scotland, in their rejection of the owners' study, failed to dismantle the discovery because they used unsupportable subjective argument to try and cancel out the owners’ objective evidence. Repudiating the owners' objective research, these foremost internationally referred specialist academics chose to ignore the presented owners’ evidence, detailed from three years of collaborative research presented in over one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand words and illustration.  Instead, they supported a solitary Victorian subjective interpretation, limited by the information-access constraints of the time, wiping away all previous understanding without argument, with a superficial inspection, offered within a report of less than a thousand words, free from any illustration or reference. Dr Alice Blackwell, heraldry and medieval metal-work specialist (National Museums Scotland), reported of the above armorial carried on a confirmed twelfth century bell design, ' The shield is exactly what would be expected for the 'traditional' dating.' {ie. the 'academic view' of the bell being of sixteenth century origin.) In context of seeking authoritative authentication, Dr Blackwell and Professor Nicholson had acted as representatives for eminent Templar historians, National Museums Scotland, and medieval metalwork specialists.  They were academics, recognised in their fields for their expertise, deemed both competent and able to interrogate the owners’ study and challenge it effectively on behalf of academia.  Indeed, eminent academics across the world, specialising in the subject of the owners’ investigation had recommended these scholars as the best placed to consider the legitimacy of the discovery.  Since the referred scholars had not refuted the owners’ study’s conclusion with any convincing argument, and had resorted to indefensible contradiction, they perversely indicated the study’s conclusion had far greater value than they were prepared to declare, dismissing their ‘discipline’ as duplicitous. In repudiation of the owners' research, all the foremost internationally referred specialist academics agreed with the Victorian interpretation of the inscribed name as 'WeLCH', ignoring the incongruities of the first three characters, which included a confirmed 'i' as the third letter. Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish government’s lead heritage agency also tried to cancel out the veracity of the owners’ research by treating the owners' conclusion as purely the owners’ view; one of a few disparate ‘opinions’, none of which the agency regarded as conclusive, hence its own subjective redesignation of the bells, as 'medieval'.  The agency had recognised the owners had dismantled any veracity in Victorian supposition, and did not rely on the academic experts’ support of the Victorian theory, as the agency saw it clearly indefensible.  The agency however, vehemently resisted sharing its review of the owners’ testimony; doubtless because the agency also could not dismantle the owners’ discovery.  It was concluded by the owners' legal advocacy that any objective view would have come to the same conclusion as the owners, so clear was the evidence, both physical and circumstantial.  Likewise, any subjective review offered by Historic Environment Scotland, purposed to counter the owners’ conclusions would have to include falsity, which like the specialist academic views, would be transparently contrived and unsupportable, hence the agency deferred any feedback to the owners, to hide its discrimination against, not the research, but the architects of the investigation. Historic Environment Scotland’s three years of sparring with the owners over its reluctance to share its evaluation of the owners’ discovery, confirmed the owners’ conclusion had far more merit than the agency was also prepared to admit.  It would have been an easy task for the agency to present their disavowal, if the find was not genuine, and so bring a decisive end to the owners’ repeated entreaties (see Historic Environment Scotland—‘a Malignant Caretaker’ ).  The agency's desperate attempt to hide their full evaluation from the owners, illustrated how entrenched prejudice was amongst subjective, academic-derived professional historians, against any they deem 'amateurs', regardless of any merit in their objective enquiry. Consequently, when the owners requested to remove the bells from the church to preserve their safety until new appropriate keepers for the church and bells could be found, both the planning authority and subsequently the Scottish government, via the owners’ appeal to the DPEA, refused their request, not in consideration of their discovery, but in the wilful ignorance of the evidence presented.  Without authoritative authentication, both the planning authority and the DPEA chose to ignore the evidence, again without referring to, or insisting on an objective evaluation of the owners’ conclusions, so the agencies’ decisions were entirely subjective. In all cases the professional historians tried, and wanted to dismiss the owners’ discovery, not because it was not genuine or had demonstrable merit, but because it challenged their own professional discipline—a field where objectivity is often absent.  Professional historians rarely articulate their notion of objectivity or discuss it in detail, and like other professions, historians rarely analyse themselves or their activity and are highly resistant to anyone outside their profession who challenges their worth.

WATCH THE VIDEO Learn why the Holywood bells' sponsor could only be a master within a twelfth century Christian religious military order... William leRich, master of the House of the Temple   in the land of the king of Scots .