The curse of the Highgate Vampire Legend has it that in the 1970s, Highgate Cemetery in London became the hunting ground for a mysterious vampire-like creature. This creature, known as the Highgate Vampire, was said to be a tall, dark figure with glowing red eyes who would prey on unsuspecting victims in the night. As the stories of the Highgate Vampire spread, so did the fear and fascination surrounding this supernatural being. People began to visit Highgate Cemetery in hopes of catching a glimpse of the vampire, and rumors of vampire hunters and occult rituals started to circulate. One of the most famous accounts of the Highgate Vampire came from a man named David Farrant, who claimed to have encountered the creature himself. Farrant was a self-proclaimed paranormal investigator who visited Highgate Cemetery in search of evidence of the vampire's existence.
East India Company
And the busiest tradesman of all was Matthew Hopkins, a shadowy figure who called himself Witchfinder General and had around 300 women executed in East Anglia during the turmoil of the English Civil War in 1645 and 1646. While witch trials might seem like the epitome of collective madness so much so that modern cases of mob justice are regularly called witch hunts, they were surprisingly bound up in the law.
Farrant was a self-proclaimed paranormal investigator who visited Highgate Cemetery in search of evidence of the vampire's existence. According to his account, he saw a tall figure with glowing red eyes and a cloak-like garment standing near a grave. Farrant attempted to chase the creature, but it disappeared into thin air.
England’s Witch Trials Were Lawful
While witch trials might seem like the epitome of collective madness–so much so that modern cases of mob justice are regularly called “witch hunts,” they were surprisingly bound up in the law.
The monarchs of 1600s and 1700s England believed that controlling witchcraft was a way to control the supernatural, writes Malcolm Gaskill for the journal Past & Present. The religious Reformation occasioned by Henry VIII “was widely believed to have unleashed antichristian forces,” Gaskill writes, “such as magicians able to predict, even cause, the death of the monarch.” In an attempt to prove that they had absolute control–even over deciding what did and did not constitute witchcraft–in the 1500s Tudor monarchs enshrined into law provisions establishing witchcraft as being under the purview of the court system that they oversaw. This changed who was seen as a witch and how they were prosecuted over time.
The Witchcraft Act of 1542 was England’s first witchcraft law, enacted during Henry VIII's reign. It established witchcraft as a crime that could be punished by death, and also defined what constituted witchcraft–using invocations or other specifically magical acts to hurt someone, get money, or behave badly towards Christianity. Being a witch–whether or not specific harm was caused to another person–was enough to get you executed.
This law only lasted until 1547, when Henry VIII died. It wasn’t replaced with anything until Elizabeth I’s reign, which began in 1558. In 1563, An Act Against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcrafts was passed. It made causing anyone to be “killed or destroyed” by use of witchcraft punishable by death.
“By 1560 there were two stages to criminal prosecution,” writes Gaskill: “ examination and committal by a Justice of the Peace, followed by arraignment and trial.”
After Elizabeth I died and her success James I took the throne, though, things really went off the rails. “He passed a new Act that made almost all forms of witchcraft punishable by death,” writes Erin Hillis for Impetus. In 1597, several years before taking the throne, James had written a book on witchcraft, Daemonologie. When he became king in 1604, he quickly enacted a new law. However, she writes, the conviction rate for witchcraft actually went down under the 1604 law, writes Hillis–likely because one of the other things that law did was outlaw the use of torture to get a confession.
However, like the Tudors before him, James I was using witchcraft law to help remind everyone who was in charge. In the climate of paranoia that shaped his reign, writes Frances Cronin for the BBC, hunting witches (just like hunting Catholic rebels like Guy Fawkes) became “a mandate” for the British. England’s most infamous witch trials happened during this period–including the trial of the Pendle Witches, which began on this day in 1612.
This trial, writes Cronin, used something James had written in Daemonologie to justify using a child as the prime witness. In other criminal trials of the time, children's testimony would not have been accepted, but James had written that there's an exception for witches. “Children, women and liars can be witnesses over high treason against God,” was used as justification for using nine-year-old Jennet Device as the chief witness in the case. In the end, Device’s testimony convicted her own mother and grandmother as well as eight other people. They were all hanged.
Device’s testimony eventually provided the precedent for using child witnesses in Boston’s Salem witch trials–even though by 1692, the idea of trying someone for witchcraft was dying down in both England and America.
Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.
Execution of Charles I
Whether or not the Highgate Vampire truly exists is up for debate. Some people believe that it is nothing more than a product of rumor and superstition, while others claim to have had their own encounters with the creature. Highgate Cemetery has become a popular destination for tourists and ghost hunters alike, hoping to catch a glimpse of the infamous vampire. Whether real or imaginary, the legend of the Highgate Vampire has become deeply ingrained in the folklore and history of London. It serves as a reminder of the power of collective belief and the enduring fascination with the supernatural. The cursed image of the Highgate Vampire continues to haunt the imaginations of those who dare to delve into the mysteries of the night..
Reviews for "Curse of the Highgate Vampire: Tales of the Undead in London"
1. Emily - ★☆☆☆☆
I was really disappointed with "The Curse of the Highgatd Vampire". The plot was confusing and hard to follow, with too many unnecessary subplots that only served to convolute the story further. The characters felt underdeveloped and lacked depth, making it difficult to connect with any of them. The dialogue was also very weak and often cliché, with lines that made me cringe while reading. Overall, I found the book to be poorly written and unengaging, and I wouldn't recommend it to others.
2. Andrew - ★☆☆☆☆
"The Curse of the Highgatd Vampire" was a major letdown for me. The pacing was incredibly slow, and it took forever for anything interesting to happen. Even when something did finally happen, it was often predictable and lacked any real excitement. The plot was unoriginal and felt like it had been done a million times before, adding nothing new or fresh to the vampire genre. The writing style was also a turn-off, with overly flowery descriptions that seemed unnecessary and distracted from the story. I was hoping for a thrilling and engaging read, but unfortunately, this book fell completely flat for me.
3. Samantha - ★★☆☆☆
I had high hopes for "The Curse of the Highgatd Vampire", but it failed to live up to my expectations. While the concept was intriguing, the execution was lacking. The pacing was inconsistent, with long periods of boredom followed by rushed and confusing action scenes. The characters were also quite forgettable, and I didn't feel invested in their fates. Additionally, the world-building felt underdeveloped, leaving me with many unanswered questions. While it had potential, this book just didn't deliver for me, and I wouldn't recommend it to others looking for a captivating vampire story.
4. Jason - ★☆☆☆☆
I couldn't finish "The Curse of the Highgatd Vampire". The writing was simply unbearable. The prose was overly verbose and filled with unnecessary descriptions that seemed more focused on showcasing the author's vocabulary than telling a compelling story. It felt like the author was trying too hard to be poetic and profound, but it came across as pretentious and self-indulgent. The lack of editing was also apparent, with numerous spelling and grammatical errors throughout. I couldn't connect with the characters or the plot, and ultimately, I had to put the book down out of frustration.