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. 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.

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.

When Digger and I prepared the first draft of our investigative report in 2021, we were confident we would receive assistance from the establishment to bring a good news event to the area, to Scotland, and to history. From the start, we had a significant contribution from scholars and specialists, and our conclusion was as robust as any scholarly consideration could be—free from speculation and 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 the two most referred scholars agreed to critique our report, we were confident of their mentorship.  A Templar historian referred to us by Malcolm Barber , acknowledged as the world’s foremost Templar scholar, and a specialist curator from National Museums Scotland , referred by several archaeology-leads, spoke on behalf of medieval scholars, bringing their critical view on the veracity and merit of our scholarly investigation, as well as its conclusion, in the knowledge there was no informed view, publication or scholarly focus in the area of our study. In 2021, whereas we were aware of the conceit of academics and experts, demonstrated by their opinions 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. There was no doubt we presented challenge to the accepted academic record, but as that record was populated with theory over fact, then all we were doing was presenting the investigation that had never been carried out, probably because it was a commitment beyond any historian’s restricted and fleeting consideration of the sites and the bells’ origins. Frustratingly, we did not receive a critique of our investigation from the specialist academics.  Our investigation was ignored, replaced with blind support for dismantled Victorian theory (the traditional academic view), supported by their own opinion , which was so blatantly errant to either peer or contemporary understanding it could only be regarded as deliberate artifice attempting to counter our evidenced conclusion. 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. The dismissal of the value of our investigation was a concurrent theme, as we presented our evidence, again and again, across the world of the history academic.  Scholars, even sympathetic to our cause, in veiled agreement with our discovery, would cite their ‘lack of expertise’ to critique 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 to criticise academic publication. What we did not understand in 2021, is we had broken the cardinal rules of the history academic, and stepped into a deeply prejudiced world, where those existing outside, regardless of acumen, professional status and merit did not count.  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.  What was incredibly frustrating was those dismissive academics were fully aware their own histories had been formed by a great deal of Victorian speculative theory and not evidence— but that did not matter. Thus, in 2023 when we complied and edited our journals 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 the theme of prejudice.  A further year of frustration followed, dealing with obdurate and ineffective authorities, within an environment of indifference and a bureaucracy that had long lost its sight of the good intention of policy and law, replacing it with maladministration and 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.  Digger and I sadly became better acquainted with the extent of the barriers presented against us—they do not diminish—they grow, like pernicious thorns cast by an evil sorcerer, determined to maintain their unworthy hold over the public’s misunderstanding . [more to follow... the list]

'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]

(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.

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 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 investigation, they would be 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. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61559675366381 Consider the facts:  On this site is the full investigative report for you to consider the evidence for yourself measured against previous Victorian theory, 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 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. https://amzn.eu/d/gV1wmBO 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. https://chng.it/HSkmycffYT 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. https://youtu.be/TO8UnEje0nE 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, the oldest provenanced Christian church bells in the world, 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.

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.

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.