In the year 1843, Shipton Court hit national headlines after the mysterious death of Thomas Sinden, butler to the then-owner, Sir John Chandos Reade. Sinden's death was originally put down to an accident. Some accounts say he tumbled down a flight of stairs, others that he fell and either hit his head or was impaled on a pointed fire-dog (part of a iron fireplace).

However, in the weeks after Sinden's burial, local tongues began to wag and the finger of blame was pointed at Reade.

Sir John Chandos Reade had served as High Sheriff of Oxfordshire in his youth, but had developed a reputation as a heavy drinker. At around 11:15pm on Sunday 28 May 1843, Sir Reade had rung the servants bell, summoning Sinden to an upstairs sitting-room or library. Servants reported hearing a loud noise sometime after.

Sinden stumbling back into the servants quarters around midnight, badly injured and bleeding from an injury to his head and refusing to related what had happened beyond saying 'one blow did it'. He later went back upstairs, where he remained for about 20 minutes, before retiring to bed. The following day, he was still in considerable pain and a surgeon was called. The surgeon applies leeches, but could apparently do no more. Sinden's condition worsened over the following days until he finally died on 1 June.

Whichever version of events is true, the result is the same. Sinden died from his injuries a few days later and was buried at St Mary's Church, Shipton-under-Wychwood.

Not long after Sinden's death, his wife began to make accusations that caused quite a stir in the village, claiming that Sir Reade was responsible for her husband's death. Mrs Sinden claimed that she had been prevented from seeing her husband's body, and suspected this was to hide from her the obvious signs of foul play. Mrs Sinden suggested that Reade had lashed out at her husband in a drunken rage, killing him.

Consequently, Sinden's body was disinterred and an inquest took place at The Crown, Shipton-under-Wychwood. His body was in too much a state of decomposition for a medical examination to be conclusive, so the coroners inquest relied heavily on the testimonies of the staff at Shipton Court.

They were at a loss to explain exactly what had occurred, or why Sinden had refused to speak about it before his death. They emphasised the great anxiety shown by Sir Reade, who visited Sinden every day during his sickness. They also claimed that both Sir Reade and Sinden had been sober in the run-up to the incident.

However, one member of staff disagreed with this. Sir Reade's footman Joseph Wakefield claimed that Sinden was an intemperate man and, although he had been sober on the night in question, had been much debilitated through alcohol in the week prior. Wakefields account was backed up by Mr Cheatle, another local medical man, who testified that Sinden had sustained a concussion four years previously. Cheatle described how Sinden's health had gone downhill in the intervening years and he was subject to occasional fits and bouts of 'delirium tremens'.

Thanks to these testimonies, Sir John Chandos Reade was cleared of any wrongdoing. However, he never really managed to shake the rumours that he was in some way involved in his butler's death, and in his twilight years he became something of a recluse.

Sir John Chandos Reade died 25 years later. If eyebrows had been raised by the events of 1843, they would surely have shot through the roof when it was revealed that Reade had changed his will before his death. In his Will, he disinheriting his family and left his estate and fortune to the man who replaced Sinden as butler, none other than ex-footman Joseph Wakefield!

Rumours began to swirl that Wakefield must have some information about the mysterious death of Thomas Sinden that he was holding over his master, effectively blackmailing him in order to gain first a promotion, and ultimately Sir Reade's fortune. Could this explain why Sir Reade left everything to an apparent stranger?

Although some were scandalised that Sir Reade didn't leave his estate to his family, in truth he didn't have much family to leave it to. His wife had died giving birth to their fifth child. All but one of Sir Reade's children had died childless before him, leaving only his daughter Emily, who was childless and through ill-health had been 'certified incapable of managing her own affairs'. Sir Reade had been planning to leave his estate to his son Compton, only for Compton to die aged just 37.

In Joseph Wakefield's 1893 obituary he is described as Sir Reade's 'confidential servant', which implies a much closer relationship than butler. It sounds like Sir Reade was also close to his previous butler, Thomas Sinden, which paints a picture of a man who didn't let social class get in the way of friendship.

Given this, it's perhaps not as unusual as it sounds that he should choose to leave his estate to Joseph Wakefield, who had served him loyally for decades and who he may have looked on as a son.

In addition to this is the fact that Sir Reade changed his Will in Wakefield's favour a full 12 years before his death, so would have had ample time to change it again if he didn't truly wish for Wakefield to be his heir.

One of the terms by which Wakefield inherited the estate was that he took on the 'Reade' name, becoming Joseph Wakefield Reade.

As mentioned earlier, the fact that Sir John Chandos Reade chose to leave his estate and fortune to his butler and not a relative was considered highly unusual, but there could be another explanation for why he chose to do so.

It was not particularly unusual for aristocrats to have illegitimate children, either acknowledged or unacknowledged. This was the case with Reade's grandfather, the 5th baronet Reade (1721-1773), who had at least two illegitimate children, both before his marriage and during it. He clearly remained close to two of these children as they both received bequests in his Will.

Given the family history of honouring illegitimate children in Wills, is it possible that Joseph Wakefield may have actually been Sir John Chandos Reade's son? This would explain why he wished Wakefield to take on the Reade name as a condition of inheriting the estate.

This is merely a theory of course, I have no hard evidence to back it up. One point which goes against my theory is that Sir John Reade did not take the opportunity to explain Wakefield's true identity in his Will, something that his grandfather had done with his own illegitimate children when he wrote them into his Will.

According to Mark Turner in his book Folklore and Mysteries of the Cotswolds, Sir John's ghost was seen on a number of occasions and in a number of different locations throughout the court and its grounds. In 1868, a guest asked the footman the name of the old gentleman who she had met twice on the stairs.

The puzzled footman couldn't place the man, until the guest provided a more detailed description of the old gentleman's appearance and it became clear that it could be none other than the late Sir John. Sir John has also been seen walking in the avenue in front of Shipton Court.

Mark Turner writes that an apparently successful attempt was made by a group of clergymen to 'lay' the ghost of Sir John, which they did in the traditional manner of trapping his spirit in a vessel of some kind and concealing the vessel in the River Evenlode, below the bridge on Station Road.

If Sir John Reade does haunt Shipton Court, he is presumably a very unhappy ghost as he made it clear during his lifetime that he didn't wish to be buried in Shipton. He left instructions that if he should die away from home, his body should not be returned to Shipton. If he did die at Shipton, his wish was that he should be buried at St Philip's church, Little Rollright.

Why was Sir Reade so averse to being buried with his ancestors at Shipton Court? Although he lived there for many years, it seems he was not particularly fond of the place. This is perhaps understandable. After the deaths of his wife and children and the scandal surrounding the death of Thomas Sinden, Shipton Court probably held more than a few ghosts for Sir Reade.

In his classic 1973 survey of British hauntings, the fabulously-named Anthony D. Hippisley Coxe gives a brief yet tantalizing mention of what Coxe describes as an 'exorcism'* that is said to have taken place at Shipton Court at some undisclosed date in the past.

Almost no details are provided, other than the fact that the room in which the exorcism took place was then sealed up, and the location of the room was lost. The sealing of the room is an odd detail. If the exorcism was a success, why was there a need to seal up the room? Are we to assume that the exorcism was a failure and the room was deemed too haunted to be occupied?

Shipton Court was originally built in the early 17th century and has undergone numerous restorations and alterations over the years. The building was converted into separate apartments in the 1970's but today appears to be being offered as a single 12-bedroom rental property.

It's entirely possible, even likely, that the sealed room could have been unsealed during one of the many alterations. Could one of the modern-day renters of the house be unknowingly dwelling in the infamous sealed up 'exorcism' room?

*There's some disagreement as to whether 'exorcism' is the correct term to use when describing a ghost or demon being banished from a place, rather than a person.