The Jack MacDonald Report
Jack MacDonald, a
gentle and cultured man and an enthusiastic “nationalist” was a great friend of
the charismatic nationalist, poet, and storyteller - Wendy
Wood. They were both introduced to the young man who claimed to be
Michael James Stewart, claimant to the throne of Scotland. Wendy
embraced his cause with enormous enthusiasm. Jack MacDonald and his wife became
very fond of Michael but urged caution until the claims could be
investigated. He then undertook to make a careful examination of the
evidence produced thus far. He consulted a number of equally worried
associates who were concerned over the impact of the Lafosse
story on the credibility of the emerging rise of support for Scottish
self-determination. He believed that the last thing needed by the National
Movement was the appearance of a colorful character making claims to royal
descent that might not be substantiated.
Among those who
provided assistance to the way in which the interviews should be conducted was
an eminent Glasgow lawyer - James Docherty. His
contribution is clearly reflected in the way in which a number of vital
questions were put to LaFosse, the responses to which
lead directly to MacDonald’s conclusions.
The report was given
to Wendy Wood in 1980. To the great distress of her close and concerned
friends, Wendy Wood ignored the findings and continued to provide support to
Roger LaFosse until her death in 1981 at the age of
88.
The report was not
widely distributed but it did tend to divide the loyalties of supporters and
detractors. A practice of denigration of the messenger rather than
the message then took root. It continues today. Sadly, some of the
more recent and conflicting positions are expressed in terms that reflect
little credit on the protagonists, however, genuinely they hold their beliefs.
Clearly, the author of the MacDonald Report and the comments of other genuine
researchers cited elsewhere, are the exceptions.
The exchange of
correspondence was confined mainly with Vatican officials as, at that time, the
claims rested almost entirely on the purported support of the Secretary of the
ASV.
MacDonald concluded
that the claimant Michael Lafosse was both
a charlatan and a forger.
RECEIVED
ON TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 1978 |
J. P.
BROOKE-LITTLE, ESQ. M.V.O.,
M.A., F.S.A. RICHMOND
HERALD OF ARMS REGISTRAR AND LIBRARIAN |
HE
COLLEGE OF ARMS QUEEN
VICTORIA STREET LONDON, EC4V 4BT Telephone :
01-248-1310 |
|
|
|
4th December, 1978 |
Dear Mr. Stewart-Hill,
Thank you very much for your long and interesting letter and for the
enclosures.
If anything, I find Michael's story even more ludicrous than that of your
friend Ned. The so-called Decree of Nullity must be a forgery. At the time when
Charles was supposed to be contracting a secret marriage and sireing a legitimate son, he was busy legitimising
his bastard daughter, Charlotte, whom he declared to be his heiress and whom he
created Duchess of Albany, a title accepted by Lois 16th of France. The one
thing that Charles desperately wanted was a legitimate heir, which suggests
that if his 'new' wife had in fact produced a child, the news would have been
made public at once. There can have been no possible reason for keeping quiet
his marriage. Also, the last drunken years of Charles' life are well documented
by diarists and those who attended at his Court. It is strange that none makes
mention of a new wife and heir.
I really think that if these 'pretenders' want to pretend with any conviction,
they should at least study the history of the people from whom they claim
descent, and also the general history of the period.
I shall be interested to hear whether the Duke of Bavaria responds to your
letter.
Please forgive this rather brief note, but, as you know, I have just returned
from a second trip to your country and a pile of work claims my attention.
Mr. E.H. Stewart-Hill |
Yours sincerely |
REPORT REGARDING
EVIDENCE OF THE CLAIM OF MICHAEL JAMES STEWART OR MICHAEL ROGER LAFOSSE.
________________________________________________________________
1.
The Claimant arrived
in Scotland in August 1976. He approached several organisations
and individuals, presenting papers which he alleged supported his contention
that he was a direct descendant of Charles Edward Stewart.
The claim is based
essentially on two sets of papers; the first set, it is maintanied,
is the result of researches in the secret archives of the Vatican State which
are explained on letters and other documents and signed by Martino Giusti,
Prefect. The other set of papers is from Belgium, the Claimant's birthplace. In
addition, he says he has other papers in his Swiss bank.
This enquiry is
founded only on the following documents which are in my possession:-
From Belgium.
(All papers marked *
are "originals" signed in ink)
Photocopy |
1. |
Birth Certificate |
" |
2. |
Extract Birth Certificate
* |
" |
3. |
Extract Marriage Certificate. |
" |
4. |
Statement Ville
Bruxelles District 2 (2 pages). |
From the Vatican State.
Photocopy |
5. |
Letter
from Martino Giusti, Prefect, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, dated 11th
December 1978 |
" |
6. |
Statement
dated 13th December 1978, signed by Martino Giusti, confirming the divorce of
Charles Edward Stewart and Princess Maximillian Stollberg
Gedern and his subsequent secret marriage to Margareth Dee. Also shows the issue from this and later
marriages down to the Claimant. |
" |
7. |
Letter from
Martino Giusti confirming descent of Margareth Dee
from the Stewart line, dated 13th Jan. 1979 |
" |
8.* |
Letter
from Martino Giusti dated 23rd March 1979. |
" |
9.* |
Letter
from Martino Giusti dated 25th May 1979. |
" |
10.* |
Letter
from Martino Giusti concerning the Pope's visit to Ireland, dated 26th July
1979. |
" |
11. |
Letter
from Martino Giusti to Claimant's representative in Ireland sent c/o the
Claimant - with previous letter (photocopy 10). |
" |
12.* |
Statement,
undated but signed in ink and enclosed with previous letters (photocopy 10),
(photocopy 11).2 pages. |
2.
Three Certificates.
Photocopy |
A. |
Papal Dispensation dated 1783 |
" |
B. |
Marriage Certificate dated 1783 |
" |
C. |
Baptism Certificate dated 1958. |
THE BELGIAN PAPERS
With regard to the
birth certificate (Photocopy 1), I wrote a letter to the department in Watermael-Boisfort, Brussels, responsible for its issue,
enclosing a photostat copy. The pertinent paragraph of my letter was:
"Would you
kindly let me know if this is a true copy of your records or not, and IF NOT
please let me have a copy of the certificate to which No.549 refers".
In return I received
an extract birth certificate No.549 (Photo.3)
There are several
fundamental differences between the information given on the two documents, the
most important concern the names of the Claimant and his mother.
On the certificate presented by the Claimant, the names appear as Prince
Michael James Stewart, Comte d'Albanie, and his
mother as Princess Renee Juliana Stewart. On the extract birth certificate from
Bussels, they appear as Michel Roger Lafosse and Renee Julienne Dee.
In due course, and in
the presence of witnesses A, B and myself, the Claimant was asked to justify
the apparent differences in the documents, and in reply he maintained that
there existed two birth certificates with the reference No.549, one issued at
birth without titles and one issued at age 18 with titles. The reason being
that in Belgium one does not legally accede to titles until reaching majority.
Furthermore, as his descent from the Stewarts was through his mother's side he
would naturally be represented by his father's name, Lafosse,
on the earlier birth certificate.
He was asked to note
the inference in my letter to Belgium, which asked for a true copy of the
certificate referring to 549 if the photocopy enclosed was not a true copy. As
they had sent a different document, it therefore implied that the certificate
which the Claimant had presented was not a true copy. The Claimant considered
that the Belgian authorities had made a mistake.
On 29th February 1980
I sent a follow-up letter to the same department (photo.14). The relevant
passage in this was:
"....the
document I received from you was for Michel Roger Lafosse.
This person is now claiming the existence of two birth certificates bearing the
number 549, one for Michel Roger
3.
Lafosse and one for Michael James Stewart. Can you confirm
the existence of two certificates, or is the one for Michael James Stewart a
forgery?"
The communication
received in reply (photo.15) was signed for the Mayor of Watermael-Boitsfort.
"In reply to your favour received on 4th March
1980, this is to certify that, as you supposed, the birth certificate for
Prince Michael James Stewart is a forgery".
* * *
* *
The Claimant has
stated both orally and in writing that, on 21st April 1976, in the church of
St. Lambert in Burssels, he went through a ceremony
arranged by the Protestand and Catholic Churches
attended by several European Royal Families. This ceremony he called his
"Dynastic Entry".
In August 1979
witness A phoned the Claimant and asked him to produce certain papers. (Transcript of this
conversation photo.16). The papers
requested were:
CONCLUSION
1. |
The
documents on which his Dynastic Entry was registered in the Brussels
archives. |
2. |
Papers
to prove that this ceremony took place. |
3. |
Copies
of every document held in the Swiss bank. |
As at May 20th 1980
none of these documents have been produced by the Claimant.
On March 18th 1980 I wrote
to the Church of St. Lambert, Brussels. (Photo 17). The relevant passage of the
letter was:
"Mr. Lafosse tells us that the Vatican and the Protestant
churches together organised a ceremony for him in
your church on April 21st, 1976. This ceremony was called his "Dynastic
Entry" and was attended by many important people including representatives
of several European Royal Families. Would you please inform me if this event
truly took place or not?..."
The reply to this was
written and signed in the margin of my letter, beside the relevant paragraph:
"Dear sir, Not in our Church!" There was also a card written and
signed by the same hand. (Photo.18).
"Excuse sir - but I have not the practice in English correspondence. The
answer is right."
* * *
* *
In June 1979 the
Claimant received a document in the form of a twopage
statement from L'Officier de l'Etat
Civil de la Ville de Bruxelles (photo 4), purporting
to show that his father was also in line of descent from the house of Stewart.
4.
In April 1980 I wrote
to the Officier de l'Etat
Civil, enclosing photocopies of the document and received in reply, the letter
as shown in photocopy 19. The following is a translated extract:
"Referring to
your letter in which you ask me to confirm the authority of a document
concerning Mr. Michael Lafosse, I have the honour to advise you that this document is false"
"....being given
these facts I am passing your letter, also the photocopy of the document to the
king's prosecutor for possible proceedings."
* * *
* * * *
THE
VATICAN PAPERS
There are ten
documents in my possession which are alleged by the Claimant to have been sent
by the Vatican. Four of these are "originals" signed Martino Giusti
in ink of biro.
These
"originals" are produced on inferior quality plain paper without
watermarks, the coat of arms of the Vatican is printed in black ink and there
are no reference numbers. It must be stated at this point that Msgr. Martino
Giusti is indeed the Prefect in charge of the Archivio
Segreto Vaticano.
Msgr. Grady, the
Vicar General of Edinburgh, in a conversation with witness C and myself, stated
emphatically that these letters were forgeries for the following reasons:
1. |
The
difference in paper quality. |
2. |
The lack
of any watermark which is always present in genuine Vatican letters. |
3. |
The
abysmal English grammar which would not be permitted to be sent what is, in
effect, a centre of diplomatic influence. |
4. |
The
coat of arms is always printed in blue ink. |
Witness A wrote to
the Archivio Segreto in
1979 and was replied to on heavy quality paper, strongly watermarked and with
the coat of arms printed in blue ink. In my possession I have a copy of a
letter sent by Msgr. Giusti to Mr. E.H.Stewart-Hill
of New York (photo.21). On both these letters there is a reference number and
the English is impeccable. On E.Stewart-Hill's letter
Msgr. Giusti says;
"....I can state
quite categorically that these letters were not sent from this office and that
the signature they bear is not mine."
In July 1979 the
Claimant gave into my possession two letters from Martino Giusti, one a
photocopy and one an "original" signed in ink, also a two page report
likewise signed in ink and depicting the basis for the Claimant's titles. (Photocopies
10, 11 and 12).
5.
On
of these letters was addressed to the Claimant's representative in Ireland at
that time, and he is referred to as "Witness D".
These papers contain
more grammatical errors and on the "originals", clearly discernable
underneath the ink signatures, can be seen traces of pencil marks following the
line of the ink. Here one must ask - for what reason would someone write his
name in pencil and than write it again in ink over
the top?
There is an added
significance to these papers as they make direct reference to the Pope's visit
to Ireland, and express the Pontiff's wish to be met on Irish soil by the
Claimant. It was on seeing this that I called on Msgr. Grady, the Vicar General
of Edinburgh who examined the papers and in the presence of witness C and
myself, phoned a "high-ranking" representative of the Vatican State
who was staying in London and explained the situation to him.
Meanwhile, in
Ireland, witness D approached the Papal Nuncio with the letter containing the
Pope's "expressed wish" to meet the Claimant. The Papal Nuncio's
reaction was to inform witness D that the letter was a forgery.
Another point
regarding the Vatican papers is worth mentioning. It concerns the signature of
Martino Giusti on the letters (photo.5) and the second page of the statement
(photo.6). If one signature is superimposed over the other with a light shining
from the back, e.g. held against a window - it will be seen that they fit each
other precisely. Trials with friends with names of a similar length showed
that, without tracing, it would require an extraordinary coincidence to achieve
this result. In fact, none of my friends came anywhere near doing so.
The three
certificates (a), (b) and (c) are crudely presented using, for the most part, a
Gothic or Old English typeface, produced in a modern typefoundry
and which is known under various names depending upon which company is
responsible for producing it. The characters are uniformly precise although the
alignment in "papal Dispensatio" on (a) and
"Michael James Stewart" on (b) shows they have been "set"
by an amateur. Compare the capital M for example in the word "Magnae" in (a) with the M's in "Most" in (b)
and "Michael" in (c). They are exactly the same apart from the
type-size. They do not show the slight variations which would be apparent if
they had been produced by different typefounders.
We are therefore
asked to believe that the Vatican in 1783 produced two certificates using type
from the same typefounder as the Church of St.Lamberts
in Brussels (Protestant) used in 1958 for a baptism certificate.
6.
Father Edwards, who
is a historian of the Jesuits, with a special interest in the history of the House
of Stewart and a Latin scholar, has stated that the Latin in (a) is not of the
right period. We must also ask why is (b) written in English? In any case it
would be expected that one-off documents concerning a Papal Dispensation or
secret marriage of a royal couple would have been hand lettered.
The view has been
expressed by some of the Claimant's supporters, that despite the fact of forged
documents, his claim may still be be genuine. In
fairness to this point of view I will quote from a letter encapsulating their
arguments.
"The young
gentleman - Michael James - is disappointing, and his dishonesties and
intrigues are indefensible. However, it may be that knowing that certain people
are in the position to advance his claims - and are unwilling to do so openly -
that he made it appear that those persons were, in fact, advancing his claims.
There are those who will say that certain papers are forgeries; in the
strictest sense this is probably true. However, if it is a case of a young man
having incontestable truths at hand, truths that others will not vouchsafe with
paper warrants, he may well feel obliged to issue his own paper warrants,
making them appear as if they had come from some respected authority. Therefore
the real question is, if the papers, wherever they emanated from, contain incontetable truths - are they really forgeries?
"I am amazed
that despite the enormity of the claims, and therefore the enormity of the
fraud, nobody has seen fit to take legal action against the young gentleman. The
Vatican, the Court of St. James, the Lion Court of Scotland, and the Court of
the House of Orange all seem to have a case if the young gentleman is a false
claimant; yet none has seen fit to act against him, this despite the fact he
has been quite open in his activities."
There is some logic
in this argument, however, we now know that the Belgian State (photo.19) have
threatened legal action and in fact the police have already visited the
Claimant's mother in this respect* (See footnote). Also Martino Giusti has
implied action by "higher authorities"
______________________________________________
* Footnote. On 10th
May 1980 the Claimant phoned me to ask if I had written to the Belgian State
regarding his papers. On replying that I had, he became very angry and said
that the police had been to see his mother and she was very upset. He told me I
had no right to do such a thing and threatened me with court action. I replied
that he had no right to distribute forged literature and surely he was aware
that his documents would have to be verified. He reiterated his intention to
prosecute and rang off. As yet there has been no solicitor's letter.
7.
In October 1979 I
discussed with the Claimant the concern which was felt by some of his friends
regarding the validity of his documents. We agreed to send a letter written and
signed by him to Martino Giusti which could be sent c/o my address and posted
in my presence. (Photo.23).
This was executed on
November 2nd 1979, although I must admit to losing sight of the envelope during
the walk from my house to the postbox.
When one remembers
the high regard and even deferential terms with which Martino Giusti had
allegedly written to the Claimant in the past it must be considered remarkable
that to this letter Msgr. Giusti did not reply at all.
The following January
the Claimant, together with witness E and myself again discussed the dilemma.
We made careful and specific arrangements to repeat the exercise. The Claimant
was to write a covering note to be included with the original letter and phone
me to collect them from him at his place of work. I was to seal the letters in al registered envelope and post the package personally.
Approximately two
weeks later I phoned the Claimant to find out why he had not yet complied with
the arrangement. He replied that he had already sent the letter.
This total disregard
for an arrangement which was evolved as much to protect the Claimant's
credibility as to instil confidence in his supporters
raised more serious doubts as to his honesty. There was no question of a
misunderstanding. He has supplied me with a certificate of posting (photo.20)
which is genuine, but of course this only proves that an envelope was sent.
There has been no reply from the Vatican to this letter either.
The Claimant would
have us believe that this is the first time the Vatican have not replied to
him, and it may be asked why another forged letter was not produced to fill the
gap. In this context it should be remembered that anything other than a letter
on official Vatican notepaper with watermark would not have been acceptable.
* *
* * * *
It must be agreed
from available evidence that all the Claimant's documents used as a basis for
this report are forgeries. Perhaps good enough to be accepted at face value, as
did many of us at first, but not convincing when subjected to close scrutiny.
The question now
posed is:- Was the Claimant aware of, or indeed responsible for these
forgeries?
8.
That he was aware of
the forged birth certificate was indicated on the occasion when he made a
deliberate attempt to explain the first denial of the Belgian State (photo.13)
by the lie regarding the existence of two birth certificates.
With regard to direct
responsibility, please refer to photocopy 22, which is a typed letter from the
Claimant addressed to my family.
It is dated 14th
December 1978 immediately under the signature which is in biro. Observe the
triangular flourish underneath the M in Michael and compare it to the one on
the signature of Armand Deseager on page 2 of
photocopy 18. This M can also be compared to the M in Martino Giusti's alleged
signature on photocopy 9.
The most conclusive
point, however, concerns the highly individual method of inserting punctuation
marks. Note the position of full stops and commas in the letter typed by the
Claimant and compare this to the typing on the alleged Vatican letters or the
Belgian papers. Also compare these to the two genuine letters from Martino
Giusti to E.Stewart-Hill of New York and myself
(photos.21/25) which place the punctuation marks normally.
Clearly
the personal letter to my family, the Vatican papers and Belgian documents were
all typed by the same person.
Finally I turn to the
question of the claim of Michael Roger Lafosse to
direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart, for although the Claimant's papers,
both from the Belgian State and from the Vatican are seen to be and have been
stated by both authorities to be false, there has as yet been no categorical
denial from the Vatican (the alleged source of the information upon which the
claim is based) that the claim itself is false.
One April 18th 1980
wrote to Msgr. Giusti at the Archivio Segreto for clarification on this point (photo.24). The
following extract is pertinent:-
"...there still
remains some ambiguity; for although we are of the opinion that the documents
are forgeries, you do not state this categorically in your letters, neither do
you deny the existence of any evidence in the Secret Archives which would
support Mr. Stewart and his supporters, as an excuse, claim that the Vatican
are not at liberty to divulge information concerning this matter, except to Mr.
Stewart himself, and that the ambiguities in the letters from yourself are
concerned with "political diplomacy". It is also pointed out that no
action has been taken against Mr. Stewart for the unauthorised
use of
9.
your letterhead and
the forging of your signature if, in fact, this is the case"
On 30th May I received
a reply from Msgr. Giusti dated 22nd May 1980. (Photo
25). The characteristics of
this documents are:
1. |
Large
clear watermark in the form of the Papal coat of arms. |
2. |
Blue
coat of arms at top lefthand corner. |
3. |
Heavy bond paper. |
4. |
Impeccable
English grammar and sophisticated construction of sentences. |
The pertinent passage
reads:
"For your
clarification I wish to specify that Mr. Stewart has managed to duplicate by
photocopy the letterhead and stationery of this archive. He forged my
signature, copying it from my letter of denial that I sent him in 1978 in
response to his request as to whether there existed in the Vatican documents
testifying to his presumed princely titles.
"I add in
closing - and I think this will please you - that I have already notified
higher authorities of the behaviour of the
aforementioned Mr. Stewart."
CONCLUSION
1. |
The
Claimant known as Michael James Stewart, also Michel Roger Lafosse is responsible for producing and distributing
forged documents which purport to show his direct descent from the Belgian
State and the Vatican State declaring certain papers as false. That the
Claimant is responsible for these forgeries is conclusively proved by the
evidence regarding the unique punctuation system in all papers including a
letter signed by him. |
2. |
There
is no foundation to his claim of direct descent from Charles Edward Stewart.
This is conclusively proved by the receipt of a letter from Msgr. Martino
Giusti, Prefect of the Secret Archives of the Vatican (photocopy 25) which
denies any evidence of such claim. |
This report must
therefore find that the Claimant is a forger and a fraud.
Jack S.
MacDonald
1st June
1980
For updates
click homepage here