Or perhaps hysterical hauntings what have you to offer? The only one that alarmed me was having spent an hour whispering occasionally to a friend whilst taking an hour to chug through a long winding canal tunnel - where silence is golden - I later found out, when asking her why she had knocked my hat in the water that she had not been down at the helm with me but in the bow   keeping my mother quiet as I concentrated with undue pride on neither hitting the sides or passing craft in the 1 foot allowance.

Later we read in a book that there was a cheeky chappie who sometimes escorted boats through....... There have been other occasions but more sensed than observed and not in the places where  one is supposed to  - on the whole. Anglo Norman had many tells to tell on this topic - so have we done it before?

Priscilla wrote:

Anglo Norman had many tells to tell on this topic

That's putting me under pressure, rather!  But see what you make of this.  It's a genuine photo - I can vouch for that, since I took it myself!  In the Communications Gallery at Hampton Court Palace, a few weeks back.  Not Charles II - I may not always be on the ball, but I'd like to think I can tell the difference between a costumed interpreter and a restless spirit!



Needless to say, I saw nothing out of the ordinary at the time. Is that a ghost in the bottom right corner?  I wouldn't care to say.  I passed it on to a ghost hunter friend of mine for her interest, and before I knew it it had ended up before the Society of Psychical Research!  I'm awaiting their august judgement.  Who could the face belong to, though?  It doesn't match any of the 'official' Hampton Court ghosts.

Pareidoliacally speaking you can simply make a ghost up if you want, AN. Such things defy "psychical research" (just as most things "defy" inverted gravity).

Thank you! I will!
I've been trying to think of a rational explanation and a startling example of pareidolia in a blurred photo is indeed the only thing I can come up with. When it comes to ghosts I am what you might call an open-minded sceptic, and I view the work of the Society with a degree of suspicion. However, I shall be interested to know their findings none-the-less.

nordmann wrote:

Pareidoliacally speaking you can simply make a ghost up if you want, AN. Such things defy "psychical research" (just as most things "defy" inverted gravity).

That image is hardly like seeing Nicola Sturgeon's face in the froth on a pint of Tennent's lager, or Jesus in a fried egg: the child's face is quite definite.

Who is the woman in the picture? Is it a picture?

Fascinating photo, A-N., especially as, as you point out, the boy is not an obvious candidate for a Hampton Court apparition.

Please keep us informed.

Temperance wrote:

Who is the woman in the picture? Is it a picture?

The one being held by Charles II? It's Nell Gwynne. Most if not all of the ladies in the gallery are (I believe) from the Merry Monarch's harem, and Charlie Chuckles was trying to find a spot to put his latest lady friend.

This is James Beauclerk, the son of Charles and Nell, by Wissing. Can't find anything about young James. Did he die young? Brother of Charles Beauclerk who became the 1st Duke of St. Albans.


Why on earth is he dressed like a girl - surely too old? The picture is on several sites - all identifying the "girl" as little James.  Confusing.


I think he looks like your ghost.

Snorts of derision can be heard from here.

James Beauclerk died aged 9.  Boys were typically 'breeched' aged about 7, although there seems to have been some variation.  Although the child looks very feminine in the portrait, the lack of jewellery does suggest a boy, so it's far from impossible the portrait is James Beauclerk.  I think identifying him with the 'ghost' is stretching it rather!

EDIT: I've just noticed it says on the painting who it is!

Perhaps the alterations didn't meet with the "ghost"'s approval. Fair warning is given here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFN8Wj37WYI

Anglo-Norman wrote:

 I think identifying him with the 'ghost' is stretching it rather!

It was stretching it a heck of a lot! Just thought such a crazy idea might get people talking.  

"Rational" is a word often bandied about. What does it mean exactly?


It is believed by some philosophers (notably A. C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.

Isn't "the injection of subjective bias" inevitable - one way or another? Does that suggest that to be human is actually to be irrational? And don't our ideas about what is "rational" change from generation to generation?

I have never seen a ghost, although I have tried very hard. I do know a couple of apparently sane, educated, "rational" people who have had some very odd experiences. And the "sixth sense" does seem to run in families - rather like a rogue gene.

The photo is interesting - there have been many that show mysterious things with explanations assorted. As for a sixth sense it is better to keep quiet as I have done since very early childhood. There was a place on the edge of town that I could not go near, just couldn't. Last year I   read that it was the site of bull and dog fighting shows during the 18thCent and possibly later. ,,,, one could in fact still see the raised turf edge of a square raised for spectators. More recently I had a really awful time in a place that I much later found out was built over a former Jap war time prison. Those who have this have to find ways to block it out - silence helps because few understand. Almost equally extraordinary was a feeling I had in a rural part  of New England; it was totally bland, devoid of all the heavy clutter that could over power me as in many places of ancient happenings centuries thick. I hope I have not passed it on but a 3yr old grandson once refused to go into a room in a castle because it was filled with people 'in nighties' he said; it was empty. Nothing more to say. I await a bit of scorn. Though to be honest  those I have confided in never have... to my face. Perhaps it goes with a slightly nutter reputation.

Depiction of one of the best known ghost stories. Apprentice plumber Harry Martindale's 1953 sighting of Roman Legionnaires in York.

Quote :

York is apparently still haunted by 2,000 year-old ghosts: the lost Roman Legion. Harry Martindale, an apprentice plumber installing a heating system in the cellars of the Treasurer's House, spotted the ghosts in 1953. He heard a horn in the distance, and then a disheveled Roman soldier on a horse emerged from the brick wall. This soldier was followed by others, all looking dejected, carrying swords and spears. They appeared to be walking on their knees, but really an old Roman road is located fifteen inches below the cellar, so the ghosts could have been walking on their own familiar road, on their way to the Minster. Others after Martindale have spotted these soldiers as well, so many that the area is now closed to visitors.

Yes, I remember hearing about that. An intriguing story. Having done a bit of googling, another account mentions that the soldiers wore green tunics, and describes the steed of the mounted one as like "a huge great carthorse". If the story could be proved true it would throw the world of Roman military scholars and reenactors into uproar, as the tunic colour of the Roman Army is one of the hottest debates! The huge horse is problematic, as horses of the time were not much bigger than large ponies.

I've been in that cellar and was told the story. Apparently the odd detail about green tunics worn by the soldiers convinced some that the workman was telling a kind of truth: it has been suggested that the remnants of the Roman army left in York were - towards the end of the Roman occupation - outfitted in material bought from Lincoln, a city famous of course for the production of green cloth.

EDIT: I have looked on the internet and can find nothing to back up this story - quite the opposite. Lincoln Green - made famous by Robin Hood - was not mentioned anywhere until the 12th century.

But it is odd. Someone - influenced by Holywood's usual presentation of members of the Roman army - attempting to make up a convincing story about Roman ghosts would surely have put his imperial apparitions in red tunics.

In the 1970s there was a spate of poltergeists around the country, each new haunting being eagerly reported in the tabloids and on TV (though nothing ever happened when the TV cameras were rolling). But these poltergeists all seem to have gone very quiet these days. I don't mean to be a cynic but nowadays with so many mobiles phones with video cameras, it's strange that nobody can capture any footage. Unless most of the hauntings in the 1970s were just hoaxes, or the case of people (often it was adolescents) thinking they were hearing/seeing the sort of things that were already being widely reported in the media?

Alleged ghost photo taken at Borley Rectory, reputedly the most haunted site in England;



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borley_Rectory

Isn't there a fair bit of "evidence" that dogs are sensitive to the paranormal - whatever that word means?

I remember being in a National Trust property (can't unfortunately recall which one) where the N.T. chap told us a convincing tale. Only guide dogs were allowed in the building and, on one occasion, such an animal - a particularly vigilant labrador - would not allow his blind mistress to cross the threshold of a gallery that led to an interesting stairway. The dog became visibly distressed when his owner tried to enter the gallery. What was remarkable was that the stairway was reputed to be haunted - human remains had at one time been found in that area of the house.

Probably a lot of nonsense, but we were all duly impressed by the story.

Hermitage Castle in the border region of Scotland is an seriously scary place. I can vouch for that! Some chilling tales here:

http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/scotland/roxburghshire/featured-sites/hermitage-castle.html

Triceratops wrote:

Alleged ghost photo taken at Borley Rectory, reputedly the most haunted site in England

Hmmm... Given that most of the 'hauntings' have been disproved, I'm guessing either pareidolia, or just a bad photo of an actual person.

With regards to the legionaries, the more I think about it, the more it doesn't add up for me. Unfortunately the only accounts I can find are second or third hand; it would be easier to judge by the witness's own words. However, as Temperance has discovered, although the Romans doubtless bought local there is no reason to suppose the cloth came from Lincoln. Supposedly experts have identified the soldiers as Late Roman. The majority of Late Roman reconstructions I have seen portray the soldiers in white or undyed tunics. I don't know if there was a particular reason for them thinking green was used by a local unit. I do, however, agree it's odd that if made up he would choose green rather than red. The ghosts do not seem to have been wearing trousers, even though this was the norm in the Late Roman era. The round shape of the mounted soldier's shield is not significant - round or oval shields were widely used throughout Roman history. The open-toed sandals strapped high up their legs, and the leather "jacket" (presumably a cuirass of some sort) sound very Hollywood. Short swords worn on the right doesn't sound correct, either - that would be Republican or early Imperial. By the end of Roman Britain soldiers usually used long swords worn on the left. Hmmm...

Meles wrote:

I don't mean to be a cynic but nowadays with so many mobiles phones with video cameras, it's strange that nobody can capture any footage. Unless most of the hauntings in the 1970s were just hoaxes, or the case of people (often it was adolescents) thinking they were hearing/seeing the sort of things that were already being widely reported in the media?

Being charitable and assuming that most of the older 'ghost' photos were not deliberate deception, I would guess that the dearth of digital spooks is due to changing technology. It's not possible to have a double exposure any more nor any of the effects of intusive light on film or processing slip-ups.
AN, what format was your photo and have you had any response from the society yet?

Digital. I'm still awaiting a final response, although apparently various theories have come up. One is that if I had the flash off (I can't remember if I did or not - I kept turning it off and on) then then shutter would have taken longer and if a child had walked across the shot at the crucial moment it might have produced the false image. I'm not convinced through. We'll see.