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. Not regarded as a trusted source for authoritative authentication, he was recommended as, ‘an able and objective medieval scholar’.
On interrogation of our report, the doctoral candidate, agreed the evidence pointed towards inarguable conclusion. The bells of Holywood were sponsored by a master within a military religious order—William leRich, 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 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 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, and not development of the church. ‘The interred archaeology, interesting as it was, has little financial value’. We were advised the 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 a solution it would bring to our current 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 and improve the surrounding cemetery; my home for the last six years. We did not want to contribute any further detriment to the significant catalogue of misplay already regarding the church and bells.
But nobility can be tested, only so far.