Date: 4/18/2002
Mr. O'Neil;
We feel that in the interests of completeness we must discuss Marianne
Foyster's marriages. We would propose to do so in one of the appendices
rather than in the main body of the text. We feel also that we should tell
you this as we have no wish to cause you any hurt.
The intention is to discuss this aspect of the matter with sensitivity and
purely on the documentary evidence. There will be no wild and sensational
theorising of the type to be found in Robert Wood's book, The Widow of
Borley. He even suggests that she committed murder and there is no evidence
whatsoever to support this allegation. It is this kind of thing that we
would seek to refute.
Sometimes unfortunate facts have to be faced and in this instance it will be
done with compassion. Would you let us have your views on this matter?
Kind regards
Edward Babbs and Keld Fenwick
Date: 4/18/2002
Gentlemen;
Why?
What on earth does that have to do with the alleged hauntings at Borley?
None.
The marriage to Greenwood was long BEFORE she arrived in Essex.
1914 vs 1930-35.
The marriage(s) to Fisher and O'Neil were AFTER she left Essex.
1930-35 vs 1935 and 1945, respectively.
Whether she was married to anyone other than Lionel has NO BEARING at all on the legend of the nun, the monk, Marie Larie, Henry Sr., etc. It was none of her later acquaintances that threw things down the stairs, started fires in the baseboards, moved objects, or turned on lights.
Why are people so d****** obsessed with her private life? Most of it is speculation and does not cover her time or her actions whilst at Borley - it is irrelevant.
Trevor Hall was obsessed, and followed us to North Dakota in the person of private detective Robert Swanson. The interviews with my mother were supposedly about the hauntings, but the very first sentence Swanson blurted into the tape recorder was NOT about the haunting, but about her love life.
I do not feel this needs to be covered at all.
By the way, won't this delay publication? Why did you think of this at this late date?
Vincent O'Neil
Date: 4/22/2002
Mr. O'Neil;
Following your e-mail of 18th April we have no wish to cause distress and we
hope that you will be kind enough to give us credit for contacting you about
this matter which was done out of courtesy to yourself.
In the interest of completeness, peripheral matters, including Marianne's
life, need to be discussed in a comprehensive assessment of the Borley
Rectory case and her five years there cannot be considered in isolation.
Details of her life have been in the public domain since 1973 when they were
described in the Tabori-Underwood book, The Ghosts of Borley. In 1992 a lot more detail was given in
Robert Wood's The Widow of Borley. You may like
to know that one of our chapters is a critique of this mischievous and at
times inaccurate book which appears to be little more than a reworking of
Trevor Hall's notes. Marianne's life is discussed also in The Enigma of
Borley Rectory by the late Ivan Banks published in 1996. With great
respect, it is difficult to see how we can omit this; otherwise we shall be
accused of being ignorant of the facts or trying to hide them.
Far from wishing to be hurtful, we feel that we may be able to help in this
matter. The general concensus is that all of Marianne's marriages were
illegal; that is, she was under the legal age on the first occasion and the
subsequent marriages were bigamous. It may be possible to show that her
marriage to the Rev Lionel Algernon Foyster was legal and there are two
points in support of the theory. First, the 1914 marriage to Greenwood was
clearly illegal. In view of the fact that Marianne was only 15 perhaps it
could be argued that it was also invalid (that is, having no legal force).
Second, Greenwood vanished in early 1915 and was never seen again. The
marriage to Foyster did not take place until August 1922, by which time it
could be assumed that the missing Greenwood was (legally) dead. The obvious
way forward is for us to get a professional opinion about these
possibilities.
Picking up your final point, the above is not really an afterthought. There
are four appendices already (one dealing with Mayerling's nonsense) and
there may be another about Caroline (Dodie) Bull's diary of 1884 - 85. We
have a photocopy of this in her own handwriting.
Kind regards
Edward Babbs
Date: 4/24/2002
Mr. Babbs;
Please forgive me for sounding abrupt, but I have been fighting this same battle full-time since 1994.
As you so wisely point out, my mother's private life has already been covered many times, including the scandalous work by Robert Wood, The Widow of Borley, which goes into explicit details. It is hard for me to see the need for yet another exposure. Trying to counteract this onslaught has been the main focus of my books and of my web site since 1994. I encourage you to connect to my web site and go over the thousands of pages I have gathered on the subject, including my mother's biography, The Most Haunted Woman in England.
The title to that book was not chosen at random - it fits perfectly the constant attacks thrown at her, especially those attacks that have nothing to do with the centuries-old claim of an alleged haunting at Borley Rectory.
Of all those who raise this particular subject, not one has seen fit to include the positive side of her life - her humanitarian and service awards, including the Pope John XXIII award for her "dedicated service to mankind." But then, that has nothing to do with whether or not Borley as haunted, does it? Neither do her marriages.
Widow of Borley is based on the research of Trevor Hall. This book has caused enough trouble without more fuel being added to the fire. Researching Borley, and rebutting the harm done by this publication is all I do - day in, day out. There is so much more to her life than this single focus, and I am mystified at why it overwhelms everything else!
I appreciate the courtesy you have shown by contacting me about your intentions. I hope I can dissuade you from sensationalizing your material. This has not been the first time this information has created stress. Not only for me, but for her granddaughter in England, several adopted children, my own six children, my grandchildren, and her many friends spread throughout the globe. Why rub salt into a very old - but still painful wound.
As I mentioned earlier, NONE of her previous or latter-day associates ever threw anything down the stairs of Borley, thumped on the walls, dragged their footsteps, or threw tumblers and lamps at Borley.
I have supported your efforts from the very beginning - back to February of 2000. I have even recruited three advanced sales! I have given the project much publicity on two different web sites, including the full outline.
Your February 2000 outline mentioned nothing of this new direction, and I am quite surprised to hear of this recent change. I thought yours was to be a fresh approach, not rehashing old material. As you so clearly point out, my mother's post-Borley life has all been covered many times before. The redundancy is unnecessary.
With all due respect, it wasn't necessary a month ago. I believe it was only very recently that you were advised to add to the EXISTING manuscript so it would exceed 200 pages? In effect, you had 32 new blank pages, and I understand your desire to make those pages worthwhile. This particular information, however, is not worthwhile.
Famous authors such as Peter Underwood have never found it necessary to detail her private life post-Borley. Nor has Rosemary Ellen Guilley, Colin Wilson, or Guy Lyon Playfair. None of them have been accused of hiding anything. It is partially because of their respect for the living - and the dead - that I hold them in such high regard.
In your effort, a paragraph in passing as part of a "Who's Who at Borley" might include a sentence or two, but again, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 1935 is irrelevant!
I have written extensively on my all aspects of my mother's life, and I encourage you to read what is presented - either on the Internet or on a CD-ROM. As part of that writing, I point out that the Greenwood marriage was annuled. In my mother's own words - ""My father asked me if this was what I wanted, and I knew Harold would always resent me if I persisted in being what his mother called a burden. So I said NO. Whereupon Dad went to an attorney and had a deed drawn up that Harold and I were separated legally, forever. Harold's mother said she would oppose any payment, my Dad said 'We don't want either your money, or you, or your son.' I never saw either of them again, as they both went back to England."
On another matter - if you have to bring the fictional account of Mayerling into all this, please review carefully my complete sheaf of documents rebutting his work of fiction.
In regard to (Dodie) Bull's diary, I have published most of those pages on my web site as part of a letter, but it will be interesting to see them in the original.
Again, I wish your effort every success. It will be a great asset to the many fans of Borley to see your new photos and new material. In the interest of fairness, I will present our discussion to the associates of the BGS and encourage their feedback on the matter. The Society is wide-based, with a global audience - supporters and skeptics alike.
My best wishes to you and yours.
Vincent O'Neil, president
The Borley Ghost Society
Date: 4/27/2002
Vincent
Thanks for your messages which made interesting reading. You may be assured
that we mean to respect the memory of your mother and it is to this end that
we are looking at the question of the first marriage to Greenwood. If this
can be shown to be invalid, the marriage to Foyster is legal. This is a
point which has never been raised before and is of fundamental importance to
the Borley story.
We have sought legal opinion on this point and we are awaiting a reply.
Under our law a legal separqation does not end a marriage. We are therefore
considering the other points which we have already told you about on 22
April. If we can establish the legality of her second marriage (to Foyster)
it will, to some extent, counter the less fortunate aspects of her life.
You may be assured that Marianne's life will not be discussed after the
Borley era. . . .
Kind regards
Keld and Ted
Date: 4/28/2002
Gentlemen;
Over the weekend, I had further insight to this quote from my mother -
"My father asked me if this was what I wanted, and I knew Harold would always resent me if I persisted in being what his mother called a burden. So I said NO. Whereupon Dad went to an attorney and had a deed drawn up that Harold and I were separated legally, forever. Harold's mother said she would oppose any payment, my Dad said 'We don't want either your money, or you, or your son.' I never saw either of them again, as they both went back to England."
You said, "Under our law a legal separation does not end a marriage," but what was the law in 1915? As my mother said, "Dad went to an attorney and had a deed drawn up that Harold and I were separated legally, forever." Since she was not a lawyer, maybe she got the words mixed up. The word "forever" sounds wonderful to me.....ah, official.....At any rate, there must be some paperwork somewhere to verify this.
I believe it is vitally important that everyone realize that my mother BELIEVED her marriage to Greenwood was OFFICIALLY over. She was not an attorney, and to her the words "Harold and I were separated legally, forever," means just that - a formal, LEGAL END to their relationship. She was 16 at that time her father took this matter into his own hands, so a personal acqaintance with laws and the like would not have been part of her concern.
She married Foyster with a clear conscience.
Also, the Shaws were in favor of her marriage to Foyster. They would not have stood behind it if it were bigamous - especially to a man of the cloth who was a family friend who had baptised her!
Further evidence that this subject is absolutely irrelevant.
Cheers from
Vincent O'Neil
I've given much thought to the correspondence between yourself and
Edward Babbs and Keld Fenwick. I've also asked my husband for his
opinion. . . . . We reached the conclusion that the
details of Marianne's life (which shed light on her character and
reliability as a witness) may be somewhat important to the story of
Borley Rectory, *but* no more so than the lives of the other witnesses
to Borley's phenomena. Are Mr. Babbs and Fenwick investigating with
equal attention the background and subsequent lives of, say, Captain
William Gregson, Harry Price, the Smiths, Ethel Bull, Lionel Foyster, or
Sir Sidney Glanville? If one witness' apparent character has bearing on
how seriously his/her testimony will be regarded, then this is true for
all of the hundreds of witnesses. I have gathered from your
correspondence that Mr. Babbs and Fenwick are invested in providing
quality research, evaluation and breadth of information on the Borley
mystery. I'm glad they contacted you about their intentions, and I hope
your feedback gives them another viewpoint to examine in the light of
their evidence.
Secondly, we feel that, in the interest of presenting a more balanced
examination of the Borley evidence, perhaps Mr. Babbs and Fenwick could
allow room in their appendices for a rebuttal by Vincent O'Neil, a noted
Borley authority? Surely the incredible wealth of information you have
gathered, and your evenhanded presentation of facts and documents (some
of which could be used in arguments showing your mother in a more
negative light), show a valuable degree of objectivity in your
conclusions regarding Borley's haunting, despite your obvious close
emotional ties to Marianne?
Thirdly, do Mr. Babbs and Fenwick truly "seek to refute" some of the
allegations made against Marianne? How will this fit into the book -- in
the main text, or in the appendices? Is this refutation made on
objective evidence, or on a well-meaning but subjective desire to defend
Marianne's honor (which may do more harm than good, if it is not done in
a scholarly and defensible fashion)? Since Marianne's character is
obviously a focus here, I would like to see facts and evidence supplied
to support conclusions, as you have done in your research, Vince.
Otherwise, I think it would be best for the authors not to deal with the
topic in any detail, since it truly wouldn't add anything to the already
published Borley material. What "professional opinion" regarding
Marianne's marriages are they consulting? Again, a rebuttal from you
included in the appendices may do much in the interests of fairness and
breadth of research.
These are just a few suggestions, in the hopes that you and Mr. Babb and
Fenwick might reach a compromise that is agreeable to both "sides". . . .
Sincerely,
Linda Cody
I can't say that I blame you for blasting those guys about your mother's private life, She is just like the celebrities today, "Enquiring Minds want to know" The actors and Sports figures of today catch the same flack, and the public thinks it is their "right" to know Duh!!
Kathy Rageur
I totally agree with you that Edward Babbs section of his book on your Mothers life would serve no purpose whatso ever, as to what happened at Borley, her past life as been written about by many and is widely known by all. I hope that we can dissuade them not to write such material. IT WILL SERVE NO PURPOSE.
Gary Cooke
I loved the correspondence with Edward Babbs and Keld Fenwick. You are
absolutely right to question them. (though they are both good people who
would not wish to cause offense to anybody) It is a difficalt moral decision
that requires some thought, and anyone who writes about Borley Rectory has
to be prepared to justify what he writes. My own view, like yours, is that
there is no point in any futher delving into poor Marianne's private life
unless it directly helps explain what happened at Borley Rectory.
The same applies to the Bulls, Whitehouses and Foysters, and a host of
others. That is why I maintain that 'The Enigma' was an offensive book. He
published speculation about the Bulls as fact, with no evidence at all
beyond seances. Price had this 'seance' information, but he had enough
decency and manners to keep quiet.
A chapter on Marianne's liberties with matrimony, or any of her other
indiscretions is, I think, wrong. A book that mentions them in the context
of the 'haunting' where it is directly relevant, and backed up by evidence,
is justifiable. I cannot see why her first marriage at the age of 15 is
relevant. It might be, but nobody has explained this.
Please remember that Trevor Hall promised not to publish any of his material
in Marianne's lifetime, and he never did.
It would be nice to add general guidelines to the authors guide, that would
apply to all participants in the Borley saga. Almost all of them have living
relatives.
Andrew Clarke
5 May 2002
AFTER READING THE LAST TWO BORLEY SOCIETY NEWSLETTERS, (ALL THE VERY INTERESTING) I HAVE TOUGJHT THAT MAY BE YOUR TREATMENT OF MR. BABBS AND MR. FENWICK AT THEIR ENQUIERY TO YOUR VIEWS ON THE APPENDICE RELATING TO YOUR MOTHER WAS POSSIBLY RATHER ABRUPT. AFTER ALL, IT DOES HAVE SOME SIGNIFACENCE ON THE HAUNTING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT SHE WAS A TOTALLY REFORMED CHARACTER WHEN SHE EMMIGRATED TO AMERICA BUT HER ACTIONS BEFORE THAT DATE, BOTH DURING, BEFORE AND AFTER THE BORLEY YEARS MAY CONCERN HER RELIABILITY AS A WITNESS. I AM SURE THAT NEITHER GENTLEMEN MEANT ANY HARM. MR. BABBS FOR ONE IS A VERY AFFABLE GENTLEMAN AND WOULD IN NO WAY WISH TO EXPLOIT YOUR MOTHER'S ACTIONS FOR THE SAKE OF SENSATIONALISM.
YOURS
JOE OLDING
You are right, I believe both gentlemen DO have the best intentions. They still have my utmost respect and best wishes for success. Please understand that I take the added chapter very personally, as anyone would do if the same subject were raised about their family. My initial reaction was probably abrupt because I have been familiar with - and supported - this project for a number of years, and was shocked that this new chapter was being considered. I couldn't help but wonder, "Why now? Why has it NOT been important all the years the project has been under way, but is now considered important?" What happened to my mother as a child of 15 with Harold Greenwood does NOT reflect on the haunting in any way - nor does her private life after Borley. None of her associates after Borley had anything whatsoever to do with the alleged haunting. Highly respected paranormal researcher Iris Owen has pointed out, "She could never understand why everyone made such a fuss. I think she was genuinely puzzled over the interest the phenomena generated. She felt persecuted that because of that interest her private life was exposed in such detail. In those times, there were plenty of people whose private lives would not bear that kind of inspection. They were very disturbing and frightening times in which to live (WWII)." As Owen has said many times, "she herself never made any claims about paranormal events." In an October 4, 1979 letter to Peter Underwood, Owen said, "I frankly do not see that it matters whether Marianne can be believed or not, since she was not the one making the claims - it was Foyster himself, and [Harry] Price." Reverend Foyster told Price things Marianne had supposedly said, and Foyster wrote those alleged events in his various journals. There is no way of knowing what Marianne actually told Foyster, or if anything she did tell him was meant in fun. There is no public record of any claims made directly by Marianne. In actual fact, as Owen explained to Underwood in that same 1979 letter, Marianne was "aggrieved that no one has ever asked her for her own version of the events." My mother told Owen, ". . . unhappily I happened to be there when the time was right for the sensationalist to make heyday. . .I am the innocent victim." The new book is supposed to cover aspects of Borley not discussed in previous volumes. My mother was tracked down for years by Trevor Hall, and the results of his research published in the scandalous Widow of Borley by Robert Wood. It does not need to be addressed repeatedly.
Best Wishes,
Vincent O'Neil