|
|
Hampton Court - Ghost Caught on CCTV Video?
As this case is looking very much like a very important case regardless of the final outcome, we have devoted this page and it's updates to it. We realise that this is not an Ontario report or story, but it's difficult if not impossible to deny it's importance... regardless if the story/tape/photo is proven to be a hoax, a fraud, a mistake, or a genuine mystery... to the study of ghosts and hauntings.
Photo Courtesy of This Is London (Evening Standard)
As reported in late December, a security camera at London's Hampton Court Palace has picked up a very strange figure on October 7th, 2003... (See the photo above...)
A lot of the mainstream press are saying it's evidence of the ghost of Henry VIII (despite the fact that we have yet to find a historical precedent of Henry's 'ghost' being seen at Hampton Court... More information on the 'ghosts' of the palace below). Henry is of course famed for his many wives... some of whom, met their end at the end of an axe.
He's also famed for the "dissolution of monasteries" and the overthrow of the Catholic Church (and formation of The Church of England) for many reasons... "officially" because the church had more power than the king... semi-officially, because they wouldn't let him divorce his first wife... unofficially, it was a money-grab as the "state" snagged all of the church's property.
Hampton Court was built by the Catholic Cardinal Wolsey as a lavish home. Wolsey was initially in the inner circle of Henry VIII's court and when things began to look bad for Catholicism and, ergo: himself, he presented Hampton Court as a gift to Henry in an attempt to ensure he didn't "lose his head".
It sort-of worked... Wolsey indeed did not face the executioner, but as many of Henry's advisors who sided with or were Catholic and unwilling/unable to convert, he was arrested and more-or-less died of natural causes while awaiting his fate.
Hampton Court is one of the most reportedly "haunted places" in England... No doubt. The sheer number of sightings and reports rival such places as The Tower of London and even Glamis in Scotland.
Amongst the plethora of ghost sightings and reports from the palace that I know about... We have early reports of sightings of two "Cavaliers" (Circa the reign of the Stuart kings, as opposed to the Tudors) in and around the grounds during the early and mid-nineteenth century. The sightings of these Cavaliers are somewhat "substantiated" with the discovery (by workmen in 1871) of two skeletons buried in the Fountain Court thought to be Lord Francis Villiers and a colleague who were killed in a (British) civil war skirmish and buried hastily. Since the proper internment (burial) of the skeletons, the Cavalier phantoms have not been seen.
Of course, Cardinal Wolsey has been seen on many occasions... For myself, the most "memorable" telling of a sighting of Cardinal Wolsey came from a Canadian actor of some note who, during a conversation, told me that he was filming a period movie using the backdrop of the palace. He noticed what he thought to be an extra near one of the far walls near some apartments. He noticed that the extra was portly and dressed in scarlet robes so he knew the fellow was done up as a cardinal. He went to find the chap he saw and when he got to the spot where the extra had "disappeared" into, he realised that there was only one way to escape and that was into a locked door. More perplexed than shaken, he asked around about this "extra" to find it matched no descriptions of those staffing the film and as the palace was not "operating" as a tourist attraction during filming, the likelihood of a palace staffer in costume was remote. He was more perplexed when he realised that the apartments the "extra" was around were Cardinal Wolsey's last apartments before his death. He, without question, believed (and I assume "believes") he saw Wolsey's ghost.
The three most "interesting" cases based on numbers of reports and frequency of the sightings are Wolsey and two women...
Unknown to many, Hampton Court still has apartments that are used by people who's home is in the palace (referred to as "Grace and Favour" apartments... One must acquire one of these through "royal" connection) so there are people who live a modern life within the precincts of the palace.
One lady in a "Grace-and-Favour" apartment, about forty years or so ago, awoke in her to find a sad looking woman standing beside her bed looking down into the sleeping woman's face. Initially frightened, she became rapidly indignant and demanded to know why this person was there. The "woman" (apparition) apparently said she was tired and had come to sleep and "needed a home". Still indignant, the witness replied that this was her room and her bed and this woman should leave immediately at which, the "spectre" did indeed disappear...
On waking the next day, as opposed to being frightened, the "witness" actually felt remorse for being so heartless in ordering the poor "ghost" out of what might have been her room originally. The witness was genuinely sorry for her behaviour to the ghosts!
The other story, and more well known, is the reports of Henry's wife, Catherine Howard, who knew her head was not long to be attached to her body as she had been placed under "house arrest" at Hampton Court after being "tried" and found "guilty" of having some illicit affairs.
The story goes that Henry was in the Chapel Royal for services and Catherine escaped, ran past the guards and banged on the door to his private chapel imploring him for mercy and screaming her innocence... to no avail. Henry remained unmoved within the chapel and the guards dragged poor Catherine back to her room and, eventually, to the tower to face the axe.*
Her ghosts is now said to be heard (and even occasionally seen) running from her apartment to the chapel royal re-enacting her last, desperate attempt to receive Henry's mercy.
I've been to the palace personally three times (last time in the mid-1990's) and I can recommend a tour of the palace without hesitation and the chapel royal is one of the most breathtaking sights one can see within Hampton Court. There is a "certain air", if I may be allowed to say that, in the space at the door near Henry's private entrance to his seat within the chapel... Take this as you will.
Anyway, looking through the "historic reports" of ghosts at Hampton Court, I've found the two cavaliers, Cardinal Wolsey, Catherine Howard, Mistress Sibell (or Sybil) Penn, Jane Seymour and Anne Boleyn... two more of Henry's total of six wives.
For the records, Seymour didn't face the axe... she did die at court twelve days after giving birth to her son, Edward VI and Boleyn's fate was the axe - well, a sword to take her head off - at the tower for the capital crime of "adultery"... considered treason when one is married to a king!
As for Mistress Penn, (who, according to author Joan Forman in her book, Haunted Royal Homes, is said to be the most "well-authenticated" ghost of Hampton Court) she was the foster-mother of Prince Edward (Henry's lone son) after Queen Jane's death. Eventually, she became his nurse and proved to be an exemplary royal servant... so much so that she too received a "Grace-and-Favour" apartment and a pension from Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth and Mistress Penn fell victim, at the same time, to smallpox. The queen recovered but Mistress Penn passed on. She was buried in 1562 at St. Mary's, Hampton, where her body lay until the building was demolished in the 1820s and her tomb with it. Since then, she has been seen as a tall, long robed figure and is the most likely "suspect" for the report of the woman who was "rude" to the ghost who was looking for a home reported above.
Granted, Henry's ghost has yet (that I'm aware) been reported to have been spotted by a witness and the "capture" isn't necessarily Henry if, indeed, it is a "ghost". In fact, the video appears to be female and judging by what appears to be a small ruff on the outside of a long cloak, the "ghost" (or whatever) is in latter Elizabethan style of clothing rather than early Tudor.
About the video and vidcap: This story has made the rounds through the usual "media" circles as well as the "sceptics" circles. Although, to date (December 21st, 2003), Dr. Joe Nickell and CSICOP have yet to "auto-debunk" it publicly, some of the folks at OSSCI (our local Ontarian group of "sceptics"), have decided that this photo is a fraud to lure in tourists. This is a strange thing to state, although not without precedent, as the three times I've been at the palace, I was not there on "ghostly" duties and neither were the vast majority of the hundreds of other tourists who are usually there every day. From experience, Hampton Court is a well travelled tourist spot... ghosts or none. It's a historical treasure-trove and one of the most beautiful palaces in Britain.
As I consider myself a "true sceptic" (or, as I prefer, a "Moderate Truzzian"), I have said that I would like to hear about this photo from the security team (analysis of the image compared to other pics like it, who was on the site at the time, etc.), the makers/suppliers of the CCTV (Closed-Circuit Television Camera) system, and about five neutral SECURITY (not "sceptical" - read: "sceptdebunker") experts. What do they make of this image? What else (more natural) could cause this to happen?
(I hate to mention this again but please remember, I'm a true sceptic... I doubt, I don't deny. I want evidence and fact, I won't preach belief or disbelief. And, for the record, I do believe that ghostly phenomena exists and has been/is experienced by people.)
In other words, I personally want this photo to either stand or fall on it's merits based on facts and true-expert testimony... (I bring this up as Dr. Joe Nickell proclaimed himself to be a "photographic expert" to debunk the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall photo by stating it's a double-exposure... This may be true but Dr. Nickell is a professor not of "photography" or even "hard science", but of English. His credentials as a photo-expert are not known... I am sceptical of his abilities and credentials as a "photographic expert".)
In my honest "guesstimation", if the video does not prove to be a hoax or a mistake, it will be the most significant finding in the last few years.
Several things though... If this is from a CCTV video, where's the images and frames around it? Is there more on the video? If this was taped in October, why is it only being shown to the public now? Did it take this long to revue the tape? If so, why was this tape looked at? When is this door "period" to? Was there a door here back in the Tudor age or was it added when Christopher Wren added to the palace or perhaps later? (After all, it is a "fire door", according to the reports and the Tudors and many who followed weren't too "up" on modern fire and insurance protocols.)
According to a few of the new sources that have covered the story, the security staff at the palace say this is *not* a hoax or a fraud.
Local "sceptdebunker", Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychology researcher from Hertfordshire University, said: "It is either a publicity stunt by the Palace, which I doubt, or it is a member of the public thinking they were being helpful by shutting the doors."
Granted, was Professor Wiseman there? Has he interviewed the staff? Has he looked into the case? Or, like most "sceptdebunkers", has he simply done all his research and investigation by proclamation?
In my eyes, this case should be relatively easy to find substantial evidence if a willful hoax or fraud has been carried off. One wonders if anyone will actually do the work or, as stated, make their rather opinionated egos happy and simply proclaim.
Even if this video/photo is a hoax or the like, it's still very important and something most "ghost enthusiasts" should be very interested in and follow.
Quite impressive.
Hampton Court Palace is not a castle!
Hampton Court Palace should not to be confused with Hampton Court in Herefordshire... the latter is a true "castle" rather than a palace.
For the above image, thanks and apologies to Hampton Court Castle - Hampton Court Trust
For the record, Castles are "fortified" and basically ornate fortresses. Palaces are extremely grand homes.
UPDATE: Late night, December 23rd, 2003 Thanks to a poster on the Haunted Hamilton message board named "Woody" for this link... It's from Coast to Coast (Art Bell's old/still running show) and is supposed to be an animated GIF file of the video capture in it's entirety... To quote the post; "I'm not too convinced of its authenticity"... Click Here for this image... (Again, thanks to "Woody" and Haunted Hamilton for this help.
Also, thanks to some connections between Sue and myself, we now know of three investigative teams heading to the site for a more indepth look. Updates will be provided as they come in.
UPDATE: Evening, December 24th, 2003 A person going by "Henry the Ghost" posted on our message board that Henry VIII would not have opened or closed his own doors and was a "fat glutton" and the image is too thin.
Although the image certainly does not look like Henry (it looks - as best as can be seen - as a woman in possibly late Elizabethan dress, not early Tudor) Henry's image as an ill-tempered fat-guy is not really appropriate. In his late thirties and his "middle age" (Henry passed away at age 55), Henry had an ulcerated leg which kept him from being active and that's when he "packed on the pounds". Up until that point, he was fit and stayed remarkably VERY active. He was considered to be very handsome and jousted, played tennis (the Tudor aged tennis courts at Hampton are still major tourist draws and used to this day), hunting, and Greco-Roman wrestled. Although not a total "myth", most of Henry's life he was in good shape and humour.
As for not opening and closing his own doors, many texts and diaries of the time have mentioned Henry's "burtsting through doors" and, as Henry was a very "hands on" sort of fellow, I think it's safe to say he did, on more than several occasions, open and close a door or two without assistance.
Click here for a portrait of Henry at age twenty-nine.
Also, despite the villanification in North America, he was/is not considered to be an "evil" man at all by English historians, but as a popular ruler with his subjects... who's daughter (Elizabeth I) built the nation into a huge force to be reckoned with..
Again, as stated above, the chance of this vidcap being the "ghost of Henry VII" is not at all good as his phantom has never been reported at the palace and, yes, the figure in the vidcap seems to be decidedly female... at least with what we can see.
Is it a "real" anomally? I doubt it, but until the facts are in (as opposed to conjecture), my jury's out.
UPDATE: Later on December 24th, 2003: Click Here for the ITV (Britain) television news report on the video. Note that the staff say it's "unexplainable"... Is it??? (Real Player is needed to view this - Contains "full" video.)
UPDATE: December 27th, 2003 Thanks to the staff at Hampton Court for sending me the link to the official press release. Click Here for the official Hampton Court news/media item on the video.
Also, I must reiterate, we are not saying this video is genuine, just that the case is important. Regardless of the final outcome, you can bet that the image will be plastered on websites and in books for years to come be the image a hoax, mistake, fraud, or genuine anomaly. We (the GHRS) are not validating nor saying this image/video is a genuine 'ghost'... we are simply saying that before anyone passes judgement completely, the facts and information of the case must be brought forward.
Remember: An ounce of scepticism is a necessary thing and we at the GHRS live by this rule... Still, with the magnitude of the media attention of this situation, we felt that keeping people updated was important. If you disagree with this, we're sorry. Until it is proven to be a hoax, fraud, or mistake (which should be relatively easy to do for someone on-site), we will not condemn the image and if the investigations on-site do rule out any 'natural' or 'human' causation, we can't endorse it, either. As we've always said, unless we were intimately involved with the photograph or "data capture", we can only surmise as to it's 'origins'.
We are still waiting for the reports from our three teams in England who are going to do what they can "on-site" to look into the vidcap.
UPDATE: January 6th, 2004 In answer to a few things... The reason the tape has only come to light in Late December, according to security staff at the palace, is due to the fact that the door had a 'history' of being found open thus setting off alarms. This was a bone of contention at the palace and memos and lectures given to the staff of whom, of course, none of them claimed responsibility. When the video came to light, they thought they'd captured the elusive staff member who was causing the alarms. When they all claimed innocents, an investigation ensued to track down this "costumed staffer" who was opening and closing the door and setting off the alarms.
When this investigation yielded nothing tangible, it was released to the general information folks at the palace who, after a short time, made the images public.
So, according to our sources in security, that's why the October 7th to late December delay.
UPDATE: March 26th, 2005 The "debunking" done by the group in the U.S. has been, itself, debunked. They did not follow up nor did they attempt to do anything other than play with the video capture.
Professor Wiseman's debunking is also debunked. The palace did not 'advertise' new ghost merchandise or books to 'capitalise' on the new video footage.
A call from one of our British GHRS folks (and a follow up visit) confirmed our hypothesis... It is a costumed staff member that is afraid to come forward due to being in the "wrong" area and tripping an alarm that they had previously been told to stay away from.
The anonymous staff member, who did speak to our researcher, basically admitted the "crime" while he was on tour and, once alone with the guide, he simply asked.
Granted, the guide might have lied to avoid questions about "things ghostly" to stick to the tour at hand, but I doubt this as the answer is highly probable.
* - Of note, the story (ages old) of Catherine Howard's run to the Chapel Royal does not stand up to greater historical scrutiny... According to historian, Dr. David Starkey, Catherine was at Hampton under suspicion, but not charged. In fact, while at Hampton, Henry seemed like he might "break" and relent the pursuit of the charges levied against her.
A while after their arrival, Henry left to go hunting (usually a trip that lasted weeks) with Catherine feeling very much like she was out of the proverbial woods. Henry even sent her a note saying that he would send for her to join him and didn't believe the charges at all.
A touch over a month later, Catherine was "escorted" (suddenly) to a nunnery, this was done in an instant and didn't give her time to even consider what was going on... It also wasn't a "death sentence". This didn't happen until much later, when at the nunnery, she was told of her new accommodations at The Tower of London. That was when her "fate" was more or less confirmed.
So, to believe the "legend" of the palace, we'd have to believe that Catherine ran to an empty room where she knew Henry couldn't be... and all the time assuming she was not in any danger. Hard to believe the "running screaming woman" in this case.
As someone who has visited the palace on several occasions (personally), there is a "feeling" in that hall and by that door... and I'm not alone in noting it. But is it a "ghost" in the traditional sense, or a "tulpa" or "thought-form" coming from reams of staff and visitors who believe that this place MUST be haunted? A ghost created by thoughts... similar to the Philip experiments?
Although we (at the GHRS) wouldn't dare to "proclaim" a case closed without a plethora of empirical data, we can say that we will leave this as an "open but most probably explained" case. If there's a new development, we will revise this page.
This page will be updated as news items come in about this photograph/video.
©1997-2007 - GHRS
|
|
