|
Your article on “The Brown lady of Raynham”
|
Posted By:
Walpole
Jan 12, 2005
|
You say :
"When Charles learned of his wife's infidelity, he punished her by imprisoning her in the family estate at Raynham Hall, located in Norfolk, England. He never allowed her to leave its premises, not even to see her children. She remained there until her death, when she was an old woman."
Infidelity is not really the appropriate term, as her relationship occurred before her marriage. She became the mistress of the disreputable Lord Wharton during the time that her future husband was married to his first wife, the daughter of Baron Pelham of Laughton. She married Charles, 2nd Viscount Townshend, in 1711, 2 years after the death of his first wife.
She had no less than 7 children with Charles Townshend, before he discovered her previous relationship and locked her in her appartments at Raynham Hall. Her children were also in the same house at Raynham, but she was prevented from seeing them.
You refer to her being an old woman. It depends what you call old. She was born in 1686 and died in 1726 at the ripe old age of 40 ! I have done some research on the unfortunate Dorothy Townshend, née Walpole, as I am related to her.
|
Comments
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 | 01:00 PM
Thanks for the info. I feel sorry for that poor lady. |
richard
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 | 11:17 PM
mi interpretation of the photo is it's a fake. my reason for this is that the figure is obviously composed of light. the question is what kind: earthly(mechanical), celestial(sunlight), or spiritual(psychic). the first two are the most obvious candidates, the chief reason being that if studied closely the figure's edges can be seen to mold themselves aroung the form and details of the stairs. a figure of idependent, self-contained(meaning non-dispersive and non-reflective) psychic or spiritual light from another dimension would not conceivably do this. considering the photographer's assistant admitted to using a flash gun in lighting the scene, we must assume it was some ingenious trick use of this device; though not being a photographer i would not know what that is and would appreciate any expert's advice as well as info as to any recreation being attempted at the site for a conclusive demonstration. experimentation is the best proof |
Julia
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 | 08:44 PM
Wellll...... If you believe in ghosts or not, I think that it is awfully suspicious, seeing as there were several sightings in the past and the photographer was highly reputable. |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
