Grave Intent, Pt. 2

In the previous instalment, I discussed the strange goings-on at Kirklees Hall Estate, surrounding the alleged burial place of Robin Hood. Now, we'll look at plans underway for another venture to the much-trespassed spot.

Recent postings on The Supernatural World forum have concerned the Kirklees "mystery". And not just talking about it, but a proposed second "visit". When Barbara (aka "greenorchid") asked David whether any "progress" had been made at the site, David replied:

I'm afraid the answer to that is that we can't really know, Barbara. At least, not without visiting the site again. Maybe next year Gareth and myself can visit you again, but this year is out for me as I have another book to get finished. Might even be able to pick up Black Orchid on the way - that's if she wants to go, of course. If she does, would you be able to put the 3 of us up for a couple of nights? Its too far for a day trip!

I am quite convinced that the fact Robin Hood's Grave is situated on a ley line (possibly at the intersection of two) has something to do with all the reports of 'resless phenomena'. But this would involve furthe inspection on site. I might well write to manager David Hepworth again and see if he could get permission to hold a nightly vigil there. Attitudes might have changed a little now with the demise of Lady A; well, I can all but try. But I'd obviously keep you up to date.

So, that's the answer really . . . it would mean going there again.

"Black Orchid" (actual name unknown) is a fellow forum member, who went under the "Clarmonde" moniker on the Arcadia forum. Oh, and "the demise of Lady A"? That'd be Lady Armytage who died in 2008. She opposed repeated requests by the YRHS to gain further access to the site, which was on her property. As we've established, the YRHS proceeded without her permission, anyway.

Blackorchid expressed immediate interest, prompting David to say "Well, that's settled then; providing Barbara agrees. I could aim to get it arranged for next May?" The May date will become significant soon enough. But here's what Barbara wrote back:

Hi David--that's a great idea, but doubt you will get permission! I dont even know if the boys, Hep and Holl, are still there--well if they are they are keeping very quiet--so is everybody else! In fact it is absolutely no different to when her ladyshop was around! And before anyone makes the sarky comment , my involvement would be purely along Church lines, with the palm crosses and holy water as I did before Gareths and your ceremony.

I have to be careful also if it came to wall-scaling---I have crumbling bones so dont want to fall, though when my dog pulled me over last year and I broke my wrists I healed up okay.

To which David replied:

Thanks Barbara. Then consider it arranged (well, subject to details etc).

When my next book is out this year, I will have far more time. I suggested May as you know my thoughts about the cold weather. I have re-found DH's address, but if not him, I will write or speak to somebody.

And next time, when I give you any money towars the food, I will make sure I hand it to you personally.
Okay, Robin Hood's Grave, here we come again!

The thread quickly devolved into the so-called conspiracy surrounding Red Monkey's post-production status of the documentary. Barbara seems oblivious to the audacity in criticising the film company for requesting permission from Lady Armytage to use the Kirklees footage. The same footage, mind you, that concerns YRHS members trespassing on her property and follows it up with more references to trespassing:

Against our verys trong advice, Andy went to Kirklees to ask for permission to release the film--and got a flea in his ear we presume, but the point was our ceremony was only about 10 minutes in a 90 minute film--something could have been doen if we could not release the real ceremony.

Whether David will get permission to revisit I dont know, and he cant climb over the wall cos of his dodgy foot and back--watch this space,

It's possible that Barbara isn't familiar with the concept of location permission. But considering the lengths she and her "merry men" have gone to show their so-called "respects" to the gravesite, it's also possible that she doesn't give a toss.

Later on, David discusses travel arrangements for the upcoming "investigation" even though he hasn't secured permission to visit the site. More audacity concerning the footage shortly follows thereafter:

And yes, I'll get the transportation arranged somehow. Well, we've already got out destination arranged (thamks Barbara) so we can just take it from there. Try and get permission for an official visit to Robin Hood's Grave to be arranged. It has been done before, so there shouldn't be to much problem (well, hopefully!). Will let you know once I hear.

The coptright issue is not so simple. The copyright of any film remains in the hands of the people who filmed it - not in the hands of people who may have participated in any filming. But having said that, I do feel that Red Monkey Films remain inder some moral obligation to give us a copy of the film we all helped them with. Just have to see how they respond.

Yes, that's right: "moral obligation". The guy who trespassed on private property and participated in an unsanctioned ritual on a tomb, expects Red Monkey to live up to a "moral obligation". Further on, in the midst of discussing attempts at arranging permission, he goes ahead and confirms the date for the "visit", anyway. However, his tone is obviously more reserved as I raised just how dodgy their actions are during the course of the thread:

On the other matter of the Robin Hood investigation, as I told you last night, I shall be phoning the manager of the Kirklees Estate to get permission organised. In fact I tried earlier but no reply, so I will try again this evening. I will obviously let you, Barbara and Gareth know in private what he says and the way arrangements are progressing, but there's still plenty of time left yet. I will not be posting up the progress of these arrangements here for the simple reason that 1) I think most people would find this a little boring and 2) I am not obligated to discuss the private content of arrangements being made of any Society investigations. In fact, I am not evn obligated to discuss the results of any such investigations unless I choose to do so, but the latter remains a matter at my discretation. I have simply said that the Robin Hood investigation remains incomplete and (answering a question from Barbara on ley lines, I believe) said that nothing further could be done until another on-site visit was arranged. That is still how the matter stands, and I can confirm another visit will be made to Kirklees next May. I can tell you however, that I have since spoken to Gareth, and he is all for the idea of another visit.

The sad thing is, there are legitimate means by which they could visit the site. The Kirklees Council has a page for people wanting to visit to Robin Hood's Grave:

The site is on privately-owned land at Kirklees Hall and occasional visits are arranged through the walks programme of Calderdale Heritage Walks. Booking via the visitor centre is essential.

In fact, Barbara's YRHS listing on the Council's website (ironically) advises: "(For advice regarding access to Robin Hood's Grave please ring Hebden Bridge Tourist Office on 01422 843831.)". Clearly, she should take her own advice.

Grave Intent, Pt. 1

I don't usually discuss the Kirklees Vampire Case on this blog, but the latest rumblings of a proposed "investigation" are notable for their sheer audacity.

On April 22, 1990, Sean Manchester conducted an "unofficial vampire hunt" at the Kirklees Hall Estate, to determine the source of alleged supernatural phenomena reported in the area. He had previously requested permission to hold a "vigil" on the grounds from its owner, Lady Margarete Armytage. When this wasn't granted, he proceeded with the hunt, anyway. This act was subsequently watered down by the Vampire Research Society.

Nearly 15 years later, the site was trespassed by another group. It was lead by Barbara Green, president and founder of the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society (YRHS). Also present were Catherine Fearnley, Gareth J. Medway and David Farrant, the Society's Patron. Their intent: to "conduct a full-scale exorcism at the grave". This occurred on April 20, 2005.

So, what's the Robin Hood connection? The grave in question is (allegedly) the last resting place of the legendary outlaw. However, the evidence for this claim is incredibly flimsy (see: here, here and here). Yet, it's not Robin's ghost who's meant to haunt the area, but a "wicked prioress" who (allegedly) bled him to death at Kirklees Gatehouse, nearby. Historical record is noticeably silent on this (alleged) murderess.

Back to the "exorcism". What's the connection between this spectre to the grave? Sightings of a strange apparition have been reported there, and according to Farrant, Green, herself, actually witnessed it "pointing" at the tomb. Armed with this "proof", the following rationale and course of action took place:

Stories and controversy continued to surround the grave until, in the latter part of 2004, the Yorkshire Robin Hood Society decided that perhaps the best way to 'quiet' the restless phenomenon said to haunt the grave, and to thereby put at rest the fears of many local residents in the process, was to conduct an official exorcism at the gravesite to dispel the malevolent force - or forces - there.

The nature of this "malevolent force" has wavered over time. Indeed, despite Farrant's dismissals of the vampire hypothesis in the same article, Green previously gave it some serious consideration. At one point, after Manchester offered his patronage to the YRHS, he had proposed a vampire theory to her, concerning Robin Hood's death. When she was interviewed by Rosemary Ellen Guiley for Vampires Among Us (New York: Pocket Books, 1991), she told her that "it seemed worth pursuing" (129).

Indeed, the book also relates a visit Green made to the tomb with "a small band of like-minded friends, dressed in period costumes from Robin Hood's day" in April 1990, where they found "the body of a goat with its throat torn open, which they took as another sign of something evil afoot" (130).

Clearly, the prospect of "something evil" at the site has long influenced the YRHS's so-called "investigations" of the tomb. Their desire to dispel it, has even lead them to breaking the law. You see, none of the visits to the tomb were authorised by the property's owner, Lady Armytage. The "full-scale exorcism" of April 20, 2005, was also unauthorised as Barbara boasts (see May 23, 2010 at 07:02 comment):

Local people have always gone up to the grave so finally that is what we did. When we heard all the posh or “important”people were allowed access of course we were miffed. So okay we did get a bit infected with the spirit of Robin Hood–it was exciting trespassing and we felt we had a right to show our respects, even if some people deny his existence there are plenty of other bodies on the hillside, outside the consecrated grounds of the nunnery.

Yet, the "respects shown" mainly consisted of an hour-long pagan ceremony conducted by Medway, in which he invoked three ancient Greek goddesses: Athena, Hecate and Themis. Did any overt manifestations of supernatural activity occur while this ritual was performed? Here's what Medway reported: "What I did notice was that, when I arrived, I felt very cold and my nose kept running, but that after the ritual I did not notice the temperature at all." David elaborates on this seemingly unnatural coldness in the same article:

This group, accompanied by some others, met at the grave site at around 7 p.m. - several of them having approached from different directions to avoid suspicion from one large group of people travelling together.

It was a forlorn evening; not too cold, but a stubborn 'dampness' pervaded the atmosphere. As well, all observed a distinct 'coldness' that seemed to encompass the actual grave within an area of two feet or more. Thermal readings confirmed this, but compass alignments reacted unpredictably - although the latter could have been caused by the old rusty railings that surrounded most of the grave.

The need to "avoid suspicion" was necessary, of course, because they were trespassing on private property. Another explanation for the mysterious cold and "dampness", which is unexplored in David's report, is the actual location itself. Here's a picture of the tomb. See if you can work out why these atmospheric conditions may have been present during the "fast approaching darkness":


One also has to question the "respects shown" when you realise that this ritual was also filmed for an intended documentary. As Barbara's chronology reveals, Red Monkey had approached the YRHS in 2004, requesting an interview for an upcoming feature. The film's still in post-production, which Barbara believes is part of a conspiracy to stifle her Society's efforts (note her comments under username "damiana").

In the next instalment, I'll discuss current plans for another venture to the gravesite.

Trespassing on Private Property

In a recent comment, "Demonologist" (TFO) disputed some items I wrote concerning the Bishop's investigation into the Kirklees Vampire.

I stated that the Bishop had trespassed on private property to carry out his "vigil". I also said that Manchester himself, admitted this.

TFO's response was, "Where? Please provide the source reference with a verbatim quote."

Let's turn to "The Kirklees Vampire", an article by Sean Manchester that appeared in The Unexplained 38 (1992), p. [761].

The alleged scene of this vampire haunt was a "dense woodland not far from an old, almost forgotten priory gatehouse in the precincts of Kirklees Hall Estate", says the article. However, as this land was in private ownership, Manchester had to obtain permission to conduct his investigation.

In Manchester's own words, here's what happened:

I approached the landowner, Lady Margerete Armytage, and requested permission to hold a vigil and carry out a number of experiments near the tomb. Unfortunately this was not granted.

Take note of the admittance, "this was not granted."

Especially when just a couple of paragraphs later, Manchester says:

It was now time to organise an unofficial vampire hunt, which finally went ahead on the evening of Sunday, 22 April 1990.

This sentence helps kill two birds with one stone.

You see, TFO also previously disputed that it was Manchester's intention to hold a vampire-hunting vigil:

Except that Seán Manchester's vigil was not a "vampire-hunting vigil." It was a vigil to determine what the nature of the disturbances might be.

There's not much room to determine what the "nature" of a "disturbance" might be, if one blatantly admits to holding "an unofficial vampire hunt", is there?

I also stated that Manchester had "anti-vampire gear" on his person. Demonologist's response was: "What "anti-vampire gear"?"

Let's refer back to the article again:

I unfastened my large bag of accoutrements and removed an armoury of crucifixes, holy water, garlic, candles and all known vampire-repellents, before continuing.

That anti-vampire gear.