The Cottingley Fairies

The photos that fooled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Aug 20, 2024

Frances Griffiths poses with the fairies, taken by her cousin Elsie Wright — Image Credit: Dominic Winter Auctioneers/PA

I’ve recently learned about fairy smut. I can’t believe I’ve just typed that phrase. But it’s true, fairies, or fae, are having a moment right now in the literary world. Though these are arguably more human-like (and horny) than the fairies of folklore. Then again, I suppose fairies have been hooking up with humans ever since A Midsummer Night's Dream. My point is, fairies are all the rage in 2024.

But, like the front part and baggy jeans, this is far from the first time fairies have been in fashion. Back in the early 1900s, a group of photos was released into the world — backed by none other than the father of the modern detective story — that captured the imagination of many.

The Game is Afoot

On Christmas Day, 1920, The Strand Magazine published a story from Arthur Conan Doyle, along with a series of photographs which featured two young girls frolicking in the English countryside with fairies.

Frances Griffiths, 9, and her cousin Elsie Wright, 16, claimed to have taken the photos during the summer of 1917. The images stumped the girls’ families, and eventually Elsie’s mom brought them to the attention of Edward Gardner, President of the Theosophical Society. From there Gardner took them on tour as part of his speaking circuit where they found their way to Conan Doyle, who was fascinated by the occult and spiritual worlds. Though wary he might be looking at fakes, the author remained fascinated by the possibility that they were real.

Headline from The Strand Magazine, p. 463, December 1920 — Image Credit: The Strand Magazine

“Should the incidents here narrated, and the photographs attached, hold their own against the criticism which they will excite, it is no exaggeration to say that they will mark an epoch in human thought,” Conan Doyle wrote as prelude to his story.

Much like his fictional creation Sherlock Holmes, the author recalled his attempts to investigate the veracity of the images. Gardner had been in touch with the family, who had provided him with the negatives from the two original photos, which he in turn shared with Conan Doyle.

“The negatives proved to be truly astonishing photographs indeed, for there was no sign of double exposure nor anything other than ordinary straightforward work,” Gardner was quoted as saying.

But that simply wasn’t enough for Conan Doyle, who was desperate to find the truth. He brought the negatives to the Kodak Company where experts were unable to find any flaws or evidence of fakery. However, another photo company that went unnamed in the story also inspected the negatives and dismissed them as fakes. The author even went so far as to bring the photos to a psychic who, ironically enough, also dismissed them as fakes.

Unconvinced by either argument and hungry for more evidence, Conan Doyle sent Gardner out to Yorkshire to meet with the girls where he took detailed reports about the exact nature of their experiences. Gardner’s report to Conan Doyle is below, he used pseudonyms for Frances and Elsie as well as their family to protect their identity.

One of the Cottingley Fairy photos — Image Credit: Marc Tielemans/Dominic Winter Auctioneers/PA

Gardner’s Report

“In consequence, to-day, July 29th, I am just back in London from one of the most interesting and surprising excursions that it has ever been my fortune to make!

We had time, before I went, to obtain opinions on the original negatives from other expert photographers, and one or two of these were adverse rather than favourable. Not that any would say positively that the photographs were faked, but two did claim that they could produce the same class of negative by studio work involving painted models, etc., and it was suggested further that the little girl in the first picture was standing behind a table heaped up with fern and moss, that the toad-stool was unnatural, that in the gnome photo the girl's hand was not her own, that uniform shading was questionable, and so on. All of this had its weight, and though I went North with as little bias one way or the other as possible, I felt quite prepared to find that a personal investigation would disclose some evidence of falsity.

The lengthy journey completed, I reached a quaint, old-world village; in Yorkshire, found the house, and was cordially received. Mrs. C. and her daughter I. (the girl as shown playing with the gnome) were both at home to meet me, and Mr. C., the father, came in shortly afterwards.

Several of the objections raised by the professionals were disposed of almost at once as, a half-hour after reaching the house, I was exploring a charming little valley, directly at the rear, with a stream of water running through, where the children had been accustomed to see and play with the fairies. I found the bank behind which the child, with her shoes and stockings off, is shown as standing; toad-stools exactly as in the photograph were about in plenty, quite as big and hearty-looking. And the girl's hand? Well, she laughingly made me promise not to say much about it, it is so very long! I stood on the spots shown and easily identified every feature. Then, in course of eliciting all that one could learn about the affair, I gathered the following, which, for the sake of conciseness, I set out below :—

I. (Elsie) was sixteen years old; her cousin A. (Frances) was ten years. Other photographs were attempted but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.

Colouring: The palest of green, pink, mauve. Much more in the wings than in the bodies, which are very pale to white. The gnome is described as seeming to be in black tights, reddish-brown jersey, and red pointed cap. He was swinging his pipes, holding them in his left hand, and was just stepping up on to I.'s knee when A. snapped him.

A., the visiting cousin, went away soon after, and says they must be together to "take photographs." Fortunately they will meet in a few weeks' time, and they promise me to try and get some more. I. added she would very much like to send me one of a fairy flying.

Mr. C.'s (Frances’ father) testimony was clear and decisive. His daughter had pleaded to be allowed to use the camera. At first he demurred, but ultimately, after dinner one Saturday, he put just one plate in the Midg and gave it to the girls. They returned in Less than an hour and begged him to develop the plate as I. had "taken a photograph." He did so, with, to him, the bewildering result shown in the print of the fairies!

Mrs. C. (Frances’ mother) says she remembers quite well that the girls were only away from the house a short time, before they brought the camera back.

Extraordinary and amazing as these photographs may appear, I am now quite convinced of their entire genuineness, as indeed would everyone else be who had the same evidence of transparent honesty and simplicity that I had. I am adding nothing by way of explanations or theories of my own, though the need for two people, preferably children, is fairly obvious for photography, in order to assist in the strengthening of the etheric bodies. Beyond this I prefer to leave the above statement as a plain, unvarnished, narrative of my connection with the incidents.”

“Iris” (Elsie) with a “gnome”, part of the original collection of photos — Image Credit: The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

The Hoax Revealed

Gardner’s full report was include in Conan Doyle’s story along with a footnote from the author that stressed his continued indecisiveness. While he seemed to believe that the images were genuine, as Gardner reported, he was still at a loss as to what to make of them. If they were truly real then, as he said at the start, it would signal an unprecedented shift in the way we perceived reality.

“The recognition of their existence will jolt the material twentieth-century mind out of its heavy ruts in the mud, and will make it admit that there is a glamour and a mystery to life.”

I agree with Conan Doyle’s determination here, glamour and mystery have been in short supply lately. But, unfortunately in this instance, the mystery has been solved. In 1983, the girls confessed to faking the photographs with cutout illustrations and hairpins.

In 2018, a hundred years after the photos were taken, the family sold several at auction. The images were called “one of the 20th century’s great hoaxes”. Two originals sold for over $26,000.

In an interview with The Guardian, Christine Lynch, Frances Griffiths’ daughter, said the fakes haunted her mother for her entire life. But she also stressed, as Frances and Elise did after their confession, that they never meant to mislead anyone.

Elsie Wright, 81, shows off one of the fakes she and Frances created in 1917 — Image Credit: The Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena

“My mother was glad the truth came out in the end,” Lynch said.

Now, at this point, studious readers of Monster of the Week might be wondering how I’m planning to wrap this episode up. After all, my desire with this series is to determine whether or not I believe in the “monster” in question. And it’s pretty obvious that this one never existed…right?

The Fifth Photo

Both women maintained until the end of their lives that they were only trying to recreate what they had actually seen. They had been “communing” with the fairies for weeks and, unable to get actual photos of them, opted for the next best thing. They also held firm that while four of the original pictures were fakes, the fifth and final photo (known as the Fairy Bower, or, Fairy Sunbath, taken in 1920,) was genuine.

According to her daughter, the fifth photo was actually an accident.

“She never thought she could take photographs of the fairies (but) she saw the grass had been shaped into a semi-circle nest. Without thinking, she took out the camera and set the timer, distance, and exposure and it was only when it was developed she saw there was actual fairies on it,” Lynch told the Guardian. “She didn’t like the dishonesty of it. She knew she had seen them, she knew they were fakes, but she knew the last one was genuine, so she didn’t talk about it at all with me.”

And indeed the fifth photo does have a certain quality to it. The fairies are translucent and appear less stiff than in the other photos. They seem to almost be glowing. Were they real?

The Fairy Bower, the fifth and final image from the infamous Cottingley Fairy photos, and the one the Frances Griffiths maintained was genuine — Image Credit: Burnside Rare Books

Do I believe?

I started Monster of the Week with a simple premise: to find out if I could rediscover my curiosity. I wanted to explore the boundaries of my own belief, to erase and redraw the lines around these monsters. On paper, this should be an easy one. Fairies are mythological creatures. They exist in folklore and, well, fairy tales. There’s nothing in me that believes fairies are, or have ever been, real. And besides, the girls confessed to faking their fairy photographs. Case closed.

But, as Holmes once said, “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”

Why did the women, after half a century, decide to confess to faking the photos only to claim that they truly had seen these creatures? If the lie had truly haunted Frances her whole life, why continue with another? Why insist, until their dying day, that the fifth photo was genuine?

“I must confess that after months of thought I am unable to get the true bearings of this event,” Conan Doyle wrote as an epilogue to his story on the Cottingley Fairies.

I can only wonder what he might have thought about the eventual (partial) confessions. Would that have put the whole thing to bed for him? Or would he, like me, be left with more questions than answers? It would be so easy, so obvious, to write off the fifth photo as an additional fake, and the women’s insistence that they had seen fairies as a further lie. But the truth is, I don’t know what to believe. All I can do is lay bare the facts, and accept that there is still a glamour, and a mystery, to life.

So, where do you stand? Are the fairies real? And more importantly, what would that mean for the world of erotica? Let me know in the comments!