Published on an earlier website shortly after Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, published in 1998 with the help of Jack MacDonald and the very able Guy Stair Sainty, Michael ("Stewart") Lafosse was exposed as a ‘pretender’.

This was more recently followed by The case of Prince Michael of Albany/Lafosse in context.

Using in part the information as published in our two earlier exposes following now is a largely expanded compilation by Richard Hall who gave us permission to publish it here.

In 2002, an author who styled himself “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart of Albany” published a work with the title The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland [i]

In a radical reinterpretation of the accepted history that defines the end of the Royal House of Stewart with the death of Prince Benedict Stewart, the author asserts the existence of a second marriage by Prince Charles Edward Stewart. As a result of this marriage a legitimate “Albany” line of descent was established. The 7^th Count of Albany is “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart” until recently resident in Edinburgh, and claimant to the throne of Scotland.

This paper set out to establish whether the so-called “Prince Michael James Stewart” has a legitimate claim to a royal title, or whether even circumstantial evidence has been presented, or is available, to support the possibility. 

The evidence confirms that “Prince Michael James Stewart” is one and the same person as Michael Roger LaFosse, a Belgium citizen. In the name of “Prince Michael James Stewart, Count of Albany”, he has obtained British naturalization and a British passport. The UK Home Office is currently seeking to have Mr LaFosse answer some important questions concerning its belief at least some of the documents presented in support of the two applications are false. It is my belief that further evidence addressed in this paper does confirm that two birth certificates purporting to have been issued to Gustave Joseph Clément Fernand Lafosse, and Renée Julienne Dée, residents of “Bruxelles, avenue Jean Sobiesky, 36, are the recorded parents of Michael Roger LaFosse and “Prince Michael James Stewart”. In the case of the latter identity, all three parties are shown with royal or noble titles.

In summary, this paper:

·Presents a brief but factual outline of the life of Michael Roger LaFosse from his birth on 21 April 1958 to the time of his departure from Belgium for the United Kingdom in 1976.

·Displays the valid birth certificate for Michael Roger LaFosse, the son of Gustave Joseph Clément Fernand Lafosse, a shopkeeper, and the mother - Renée Julienne Dée, a business employee.

·Confirms that Michael Roger LaFosse and “Prince Michael James Stewart 7^th Count of Albany etc. etc.” are one and the same person.

·Identifies the school of Saint-Vincent in Soignes, Belgium as the provider of Primary and Secondary education for Michael Roger LaFosse.

·Confirms that no one was enrolled in this school with the title and name of “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart of Albany.”

·Suggests that on his arrival in Edinburgh, Scotland, his early circle of friends knew Michael Roger LaFosse by this name.

·Suggests that at some time after his arrival in Edinburgh, Michael Roger LaFosse adopted the name of “Michael James Stewart.” There is no evidence of a legal change of name. The birth certificates attesting to the validity of the “new” name have both been declared false. 

·Shows that with this royal pseudonym, Michael Roger LaFosse began to develop an alternative history for himself and that he wove it into a radical reinterpretation of the history of the Royal House of Stewart. This story deviates sharply from the orthodox account of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the accepted position that the Royal House of Stewart ended with the death of Cardinal York.

·Shows that no valid evidence has been provided, or found, to support the claimed “divorce” or annulment of the marriage of Louise of Stolberg and Prince Charles. A notice of Agreement for a Separation does exist.

·Shows that no valid evidence has been provided, or found, to support the claim that Prince Charles contracted a second marriage. Similarly, there is no evidence to identify a “Comtesse de Massillan, let alone as the wife of Prince Charles.”

·Shows that no valid evidence has been provided, or found, to suggest that this supposed marriage resulted in the birth of “Prince Edward James Stewart.” 

·Shows that no valid evidence has been provided, or found, to identify the baptism of “Prince Edward” in St Peter’s Basilica, or anywhere else.

·Confirms the finding of the Macdonald report that correspondence between “Prince Michael” and the Secretary of the Vatican Secret Archives had been tampered with in order to reflect the support of a Vatican official when so such support had been give.

·Confirms the emergence of two birth certificates for “Prince Michael James Stewart” bearing the same date of birth for Michael Roger LaFosse, the same parents and the same address, and, on one certificate, the same registration number. Both have been declared false by the authorities alleged to have issued them.

·Confirms that the marriage certificate purporting to be for “Prince Julius of Annandale” and “Princess Germaine Elize de la Tour de Sedan” (the alleged grandparents of “Prince Michael) has been declared false by the authorities alleged to have issued it.

·Shows that no valid evidence has been provided, or found, to confirm the location of the Casa Stuardo in Rome or the Chateau Moulin in the Belgium Ardennes. Nor have the remains of either been located.

·Shows that the Belgium Ministry of Defence denies calling-up a “Prince Michael James Stewart” to complete a supposed National Service obligation. No records have been found to confirm any military service by “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart.”

·Shows that Michael Roger LaFosse was called-up to undertake the National Service obligations required by Belgium nationals.This service was undertaken between 2 September 1977 and 1 September 1978..

·Shows that the Administrative Office of the European Community denies knowledge of the so-called “Council of Princes.” 

·Shows that the Head of the Austrian Habsburg family, alleged to have been the inaugural President and immediate predecessor of “Prince Michael,” denies having any connection with it. The Archduke has no knowledge about the existence or alleged role of the Council.

·Shows that no Vatican records have been located to confirm an alleged private audience of “Prince Michael” with Pope John-Paul ll in 1992 or at any other time.

·Shows that some members of ”Prince Michael’s” circles are also members of an organization called “The Noble Order of the Guard of Saint Germain.” No evidence has been produced or found to connect this group with any genuine order of nobility. Members who call themselves Knights, Dames and Companions of this order have their distinctions bestowed on them by “Prince Michael.” There is no evidence of any valid authority, national or international, asserting the right of “Prince Michael” to do this. In the United Kingdom, it is not legal to use such an honorific, other than those recognized by Royal Assent.

·Shows that the genealogies contained in The Forgotten Monarchy are substantially from the work of the self-styled Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain and were first published in Bloodline of the Holy Grail.[ii] This, in itself conveys no authority whatsoever. The lack of verifiable connections of the supposed genealogical entries attracts no recognition from anyone other than the readers of the popular esoteric material currently in some bookshops. This readership tends to accept a great many unsubstantiated and bizarre claims. 

·Shows that the existence of the so-called “Albany Line” totally lacks corroborative evidence. In trying to show how succession to the Scottish throne allegedly passed to “Prince Michael” from his mother, there are also some unexplained and certainly undocumented procedural anomalies.

·Shows that the author of The Forgotten Monarchy has deliberately used both identified and unidentified pieces of art in a deceptive manner. The most serious deception involves a work by Maurice Quentin LaTour. A pastel portrait by this artist is currently displayed in the Musée Antoine Lecuyer, Saint Quentin, France. “Prince Michael” alleges that it is a portrait of the “Comtesse de Massillan,” a work by Laurent Pechaux. Both the identification by “Prince Michael” of the subject and the artist are false in every detail. Other examples occur in The Forgotten Monarchy where an engraving and some sketches are attributed to artists whose inventories of artistic work do not confirm the provenance.

·Shows that the use of a popular “conspiracy theory” defence to explain the absence of documentary evidence is absurd.

·Shows that the UK Home Office is still seeking contact with LaFosse in order to discuss the provenance of documents submitted with his application for British naturalization and a British passport.

·Indicates that both official and private investigators are currently following new lines of enquiry. These inquiries do not have a particular bearing on the legitimacy of the claims to royal status. They do, however, have a bearing on the use to which the royal title may have been put.

·Shows that there are valid grounds for doubt in the matter of the alleged “authentication” process of various documents involved in this case.

It is with deep regret that I acknowledge that Michael LaFosse has not responded to my numerous attempts to have him comment on the draft of this document. In the first of many e-mails I advised him that his “alternative” version of the history of the Stewarts was both radical and exciting. I undertook to incorporate whatever comment he wished to make on my findings whether I agreed with them or not. I also stated that I would respect his wish not to comment should that be his decision, but I asked him to communicate those wishes to me.

Readers may draw their own conclusions from his silence.

Sadly for those who have a genuine belief in his royal legitimacy, the author of Forgotten Monarchy has totally failed to prove his claims. By promoting his claim to the “Throne of Scotland” and employing means that can only be regarded as morally dubious, he has taken advantage of the credulity of a number of his followers.

HOW FANTASIES START

AND SOME END

The first songs my mother sang to me were: Will ye no come back again?[iii] and The Skye Boat Song.[iv] I was about 5 or 6 years old and I soon learnt the words. We would perform while my mother and I sat on the doorstep of my great grandfather’s cottage (grandly referred to as “The Lodge”) near Leverburgh on the Isle of Harris.[v] Somewhere out in the sea, nearer to the mainland, was the Isle of Skye. I was not sure of the circumstances then but I did know that “the boy born to be king” was taken there in a speedboat! Indeed, I had a toy boat on with a methylated spirits powered engine that generated steam and “sped” the boat, rather slowly, across the pond at home. It was obviously the model for my concept of the flight of the Prince.

I knew that Prince Charlie apparently was “our darling”. He was affirmed as such in yet another song.[vi] My mother told me that Flora Macdonald assisted him in his daring escape from his enemies. I also knew that Flora was beautiful, for I saw her picture on tins of Walkers Shortbread. I do not remember the actual details of the portrait, but my mother had beautiful chestnut-red hair and I was sure that Flora looked just like her.[vii] What I did not know was that I was already caught up in Jacobite sentiment and nostalgia that has tended to replace reality for the past 260 years.

In due course, after singing more songs with less romantic themes about our pending triumph over Adolf Hitler, my mother, grandmother, my sister and I, sailed to Australia. It was to this ancient land, only relatively recently discovered by the West, where both the maternal and paternal sides of my family had already carved out, or perhaps whittled, a new life. 

Like most Scots they sprang from hardy stock. On my father’s side, Jon Hall, a parishioner of Kilbarchan was reported, presumably to the Elders of the Kirk, for “prophanatioun (profanation) of ye sabbath day by keeping ane grein (?) everie Sabbath at efternone with pyping and dancing.”[viii] The report of this crime was lodged on 2 July 1607.On 13 August he was again called upon to repent of similar sins and on 3 September was fined “the sum of twelve pence money.”[ix] On 15 October, 29 October and 12 November, the barely legible record seems to indicate that Jon Hall sinned yet again. The Reformation did not really get underway until about 1560, so it is possible that he was far from being a committed Presbyterian. Perhaps he acknowledged political expediency or maybe he was still in the “Old Faith.” The Fraser men (and women) of my mother’s clan had their own problems with authority. The future and irascible 11^th Lord Lovat had been imprisoned three times for Jacobite activities before he was sixteen. Spurred always by self-interest he flitted back and fo*rth, alternating between Jacobite and Hanoverian allegiance. Cannily electing to stay at home before Culloden, he sent the Master of Lovat with Fraser men to stand with the Prince. In the aftermath of the final battle Lord Lovat was one of four peers convicted of treason. All lost their heads at the Tower of London. Last time I visited the Tower, the Lovat portrait was still displayed above the block. Its purpose was presumably to remind the Scots to take due care.

As for myself, I entered a thirty-year military career followed by a second career in teaching. My areas of academic study have been (and still are) the Ancient History, Renaissance and Reformation, Asian Civilizations and military and art history. Apart from my enduring pride in my Scottish lineage, my interest in “Bonnie Prince Charlie” generally ended with the flight of the “Young Pretender” from Scotland on 21 September 1746.The question of whether he would come home again or not did not register for another 60 years.

Once when still a soldier and again after retirement from my second career, I took the opportunity to visit Culloden. I found myself analysing the battlefield and the tactics – such as they were. I ran the 100 yards or so run by the Highlanders. I stood where Prince Charles Edward Stewart sat astride his horse and from which he could see too little of the battlefield. I also stood where the Duke of Cumberland commanded his soldiers who were deployed more effectively – particularly with the artillery. Perhaps for the first time I considered the nature of the battle and particularly the shameful and unspeakable aftermath. For Cumberland’s troops (which included Scots) this was a very black day for the British profession of arms. As far as I am aware, “Culloden” does not feature as a Battle Honour on any British Regimental Colour or Guidon; nor should it.

I began to stock my library with more scholarly and popular publications on the Jacobite cause, the reactions to it and, more significantly, to the post-Culloden life of the once, but no longer “Bonnie” Prince. A selection of these and other references are shown in the Bibliography.

Then in 2005 I stumbled on book with the evocative title of The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland – the true story of the Royal House of Stewart . . . The author styled himself “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart, Count of Albany.”[x]

However unlikely it was that this alternative history was tenable, I thought that it was certainly worth investigating the trail of evidence offered by the author. 

The exercise put me in contact with some fascinating people. Many were helpful; some were rude. Genuine authorities gave sober judgement on the validity of documents. Librarians tracked down obscure sources and confirmed the non-existence of other cited material. I corresponded with some self-styled “royalty” with absurd and unhistorical titles. Knights of a number of false orders of the Knights of Malta and Knights Templar regaled me with the “legitimacy” of a lineage which, they claimed, took them back in an unbroken line to the time and operations of the Crusades. A real genuine member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta was gracious and helpful and foreshadowed further investigation and action by SMOM. Other authorities in the matter of the recognition of passports confirmed that SMOM is the only non-territorial entity with international authority to issue passports. Experts in genealogy and heraldry were also helpful once they had established my bono fides to their satisfaction. On the other hand my level of frustration often exceed the safety level. Some of my enquires were simply ignored by people in appointments and offices where more courtesy might have been expected. It is true that great patience is required when corresponding with the Vatican, but some archivists, librarians and a conservator at a French Art Gallery restored my faith in human beings with the promptness and accuracy of their responses. I also entered the world of the Internet. It was the first time I had done so with serious intent. Charlatans, new-age quacks, forum contributors frequently with an alias and experiencing a literary version of “road rage” also occupied this world. Similarly, self-proclaimed “experts” with possibly manufactured names, made weak and thoroughly unscholarly attacks on the counter position of recognized authorities. However, I do wish that this electronic notice board with it massive database had been available when I was involved in undergraduate and graduate studies.

It must also be said here that I made strenuous efforts to contact “Prince Michael.” A dozen or so pieces of correspondence failed to get a response. Only one reply was received from the “Secretary of the Royal House of Stewart.” He informed me that he had “forwarded this latest [letter] to HRH for his consideration. Prince Michael [he wrote] is travelling overseas quite a lot just now so please be patient awaiting a response”.[xi]

Thus I commenced the analysis that follows. It has lead me to conclusions that will, I hope, satisfy critical readers and resolve the issue whether a Scottish claimant had indeed come home. I accept that those loyal supporters of “Prince Michael” are unlikely to modify their position and will continue to take council of their hearts and condemn the citing of evidence as the product of an institutional plot! 

ON THE PATH TO THE TRUTH

On 21 April 1958, a male boy was born to two young middle class Belgium citizens. Doubtless, with all the joy of first-time parenthood, the father - Gustave Joseph Clément Fernand Lafosse, a shopkeeper, and the mother - Renée Julienne Dée, a business employee, undertook the legal registration of the birth.This was done before the Registrar in the Watermael-Boitsfort district of Brussels. The first names of the boy were entered into the city record as “Michel Roger”. At the time of the birth the family was domiciled at “Bruxelles, avenue Jean Sobiesky, 36.”[xii]

The family and witnesses were not to know that young LaFosse would one day repudiate this birth certificate and angrily declare it to be false.[xiii] He would replace it with not just one but two crude forgeries, both of which declared him to be “son altesse royale, le Prince Michael Jacques Stewart, septième Comte d’Albanie.”[xiv]

As this story developed, I tried to refrain from intruding too deeply into the private lives of the parents. I felt obliged to observe a degree of sensitivity. As fantasy developed into farce, the feelings of the parents could only be guessed at. Neither appears to have played a significant part in their son’s claims over the next 48 years. Courtesy and respect demand that they receive no more than passing reference in this analysis.

During the next 18 years the family did not appear to lead anything but an ordinary life. Michael Roger LaFosse was enrolled in the school of Saint-Vincent in Soignies. The duration of this period in the junior school is not clear for many of these records, including his have since been lost. He transferred from the junior to the senior school on 1 September 1971.During the period 1971 to 1974 Catholic priests taught him. Mrs Renée LaFosse was described on her son’s enrolment card as an “Employee” and listed as the only parent. She and her son were listed as residents at an address in the Watermael-Boitsfort district of Brussels.[xv] The Forgotten Monarchy does state that the parents of Michael LaFosse were divorced in 1969 by which time mother and son “had moved to a cheaply rented two room flat in Brussels.”[xvi] It is this book, authored by LaFosse with his “new” name, titles and distinctions that recasts his beginnings and creatively describes an unfulfilled path towards his claim to the throne of Scotland.

With no other information available and applying the greatest caution in using further material from The Forgotten Monarchy without verification, I note that young LaFosse states that he took employment with Thilly and Titwegger Insurance and Broker Company, Brussels, from July 1975 to July 1976.This firm certainly did exist at the time but was later taken over. The present company no longer holds employee records of that period.[xvii] In 1976 the eighteen year old packed up and sailed to the United Kingdom to pursue his dreams.[xviii] Although it must be said, it is difficult to define what the dreams of Michael LaFosse were at this stage.

In that one part of the book that offers the reader a genuine prospect for entertainment, LaFosse writes of his journey towards Edinburgh. I was charmed with the little story of his bewilderment at Elgin. Late in the afternoon the Receptionist at a hotel said to LaFosse, “and would you like an egg with your tea?” LaFosse was startled. Who would not be? But it appeared that this was “Scottish High Tea” and he was served a pot of tea, eggs, sausage, bacon, tomatoes and mushrooms! Visiting Scots from the great Diaspora, and others, delight in such fare, usually described as “a full Scottish breakfast.” I was not aware of the “High Tea” custom. However, memory of an “egg” story lurked in my unreliable memory. In due course I found that the consummate teller of traveller’s tales – H.V. Morton also wrote of a similar event in his much-loved book - In Search of Scotland.[xix] But alas, in his case, it was a breakfast.

ADDRESSING THE TASK

I make no attempt to comment on The Forgotten Monarchy in its entirety. It has already been analysed by many well-informed reviewers. These writers generally poured scorn on both the major premise and a welter of detail. A handful of reviewers, generally unknown in the literary world and sporting mysterious post-nominals, such as “Kt St Gm”[xx] praised the “meticulous research of the writer.”[xxi] Another with a Ducal title, unrecorded in any reputable royal genealogy, used phrases such as “An enthralling account” and a self-styled Bishop was “truly astonished at the author’s insight into the political affairs of Scotland”.[xxii] In marked contrast a spokesman of the Scottish National Party opined that LaFosse “was quite marginal in Scottish political affairs”. Most Scots, he claimed, were unaware of him or his pretensions.[xxiii] The laziest of reviewers could surely have glanced at the Bibliography. 

Evidence of scholarship is not immediately obvious.

THE TALE RECAST

My self-appointed task is limited to establishing whether LaFosse has a legitimate claim to a royal title, or whether even circumstantial evidence is available to support the possibility. I found that the task was made a little less difficult by focusing my attention on approximately 100 pages out of a total of 520 in which the author actually argued his case for recognition of his royal line of descent. Incredibly only 46 supporting annotations support this critical aspect of the book, in which radically new and startling evidence is promised. This is hardly an example of research, let alone suggestive of “meticulous research”. Some of these references are so imprecise as to raise the most serious reservations by any reader familiar with historical process. I could not locate the alleged memoires of the Comtesse de Massillan[xxiv] nor could the librarians who assisted me. No “Stewart file” exists in the “Vatican Archives.”[xxv] Cardinal Ercole Consalvi memoires[xxvi] are actually located in the Bibliothèque de Université de Savole, France. The repository cited in The Forgotten Monarchy did not hold a copy. The memoires actually make no mention of anything faintly helpful to the author of The Forgotten Monarchy[xxvii] An English translation is available. A two volume-set of the first English edition was recently sold for $(US) 1000.[xxviii]

The recast “early life” of LaFosse in his persona as “HRH Prince Michael of Albany” certainly adds some sparkle to the ordinariness of his real life. Assuming the researcher has the necessary patience to seek references to the reality, a reasonable benchmark can be established. My own brief sketch in shown in “Background”, above. To better contrast fact from garnishing, I will refer to the author of the Tale Recast in this section as “Prince Michael” or “the Claimant.”

THE “COMTESSE DE MASSILLANPROBLEM

Despite the enormous amount of smoke generated in the debate, the Claimant shows some skill in diverting the readers’ attention from critical issues to a whole range of peripheral matters. Irrelevant genealogies, absurd and imprecise bibliographic references, often cloud the pivotal question – is there any evidence for the alleged second marriage of Prince Charles Edward Stewart?If evidence of the annulment of the first marriage cannot be produced, then a second marriage in the Catholic Church simply would not be permitted under Canon Law.[xxix] Given that a dispensation document might have been lost or hidden somewhere, a search for the birth certificate of the prospective bride, her baptismal record, Charles’ (second) marriage certificate, the death certificate of this wife or her place of her burial, was certainly necessary. These documents would provide some of the mandatory “markers” required by genealogists to plot and verify the various connections and legitimate (and sometimes illegitimate) lines of descent.

It is in this area in particular that the greatest numbers of unsubstantiated assertions are made. In addition those document produced by the Claimant are, with the exception of one, indisputably false. The significance of this issue was the immediate focus of Jack MacDonald in 1980. The authenticity of correspondence to and from the Secretary of the Vatican Secret Archives (ASV) and the alleged entries in church records was challenged. MacDonald was courteous but ruthless in checking every detail and demanding full disclosure by the Claimant of his alleged correspondence with authorities in Rome.[xxx] I confirmed these findings with the current Secretary of the ASV and sought further information from the Dominican community in Rome.[xxxi] A summary of the outcomes of the MacDonald Report, with additional information I have gathered, is:

*There is certainly a document permitting Louise de Stolberg to leave the marital home due to her scandalous and adulterous behaviour and Charles’ abuse of his wife. These mutual contributions to the fact of the failure of the marriage resulted in an agreement to separate. It was not a notice of annulment.[xxxii] Neither party was free to contract a valid marriage then after. 

*There is no evidence that Louise did re-marry although she continued to cohabit with her lover Vittorio Alfieri.

*There is no evidence that Charles Edward contracted a marriage (valid or not) with anyone after he and Louise separated. He did not invite a mistress to join him to share his last few years of illness and physical and mental decline. It is not unreasonable to assume that his sexual appetites had, by then, well and truly abated. His daughter (Charlotte) however, provided a constant and caring presence. She would not have willingly allowed anyone to replace her and there is no evidence that she did.

*There are no entries in any documents held either at the Church of Santi Apostoli or in any identifiable files confirming a marriage between Charles Edward and the “Comtesse de Massillan”.The quality and context of the Latin in the transcription alleged to be from the Marriage Register, and offered by the claimant as evidence, was so poor that no Catholic priest in Rome at the time could possibly have been the author.[xxxiii] The latter part of the text is more correct. It has been transcribed word for word, with only the names changed, from the inscription in the Palazzo Marefoschi in Mecerata recording Charles’ marriage to Louise of Stolberg. The inscription begins with the words “Quod heic“ (here on the account of the fact that . . . ) This is perfectly correct for an inscription on a monument but quite meaningless in an alleged entry in a marriage register.).[xxxiv]

*There is no documentary evidence of a baptism being held in St Peter’s, for a child of “Prince Edward James Stewart 2^nd Count of Albany” and “Maria Pasquini,”[xxxv] let alone one conducted by the Pope. 

*Correspondence with Mons. Martino Giust of the ASV has been tampered with in order to create support for the Claimant when, in fact there is no evidence to support these claims. The Secretary made this clear to both “Prince Michael” and MacDonald.[xxxvi]

PROBLEMS WITH ART

One vexatious matter tended to take on a life of its own and threatened to be one of only three of the many deceptions I followed up that actually defied resolution. They were all pictures. Not entirely surprisingly, a small number of romantics clung to this lack of resolution and pointed out that because of this, the ”Prince” might have a valid claim.

Although other evidence[xxxvii] absolutely rules against the existence of a “Comtesse de Massillan,” at least as the second wife of Prince Charles Edward Stewart, the somewhat engaging portrait of the “Comtesse” could still not be identified.The author claims that the portrait is the work of the French Court Painter, Laurent Pechaux (1729 -1812) who painted the “Comtesse” in 1785 – the year of her alleged marriage to Prince Charles Edward Stewart. Although Pechaux was indeed a Court Painter, no art book records a subject as described in the caption, or a painting that resembled the reproduction. The Picture Credits in Forgotten Monarchy indicate that either the original portrait, or a reproduction, was located in the frequently cited “Stewart Achieves.”[xxxviii] This repository is variously described as being in Scotland and in Brussels. According to the author it appears to accommodate an additional 28 portraits, among many other items of “evidence”. Despite some clearly fabricated identities, claiming to be researchers studying the collection, no reputable scholar[xxxix] has ever even heard of the “Stewart Archives.” Although three pictures could not be identified I did not deem them of sufficient importance to investigate. It was the actual identity of the most crucial of these - the alleged “Marguerite Marie Therese O’Dea d’Aubert de Lussan, Comtesse de Massillan,” that presented the real challenge. 

The National Galleries of Scotland[xl] became enthusiastic collaborators, as did the Art Department of the Australian National University[xli] and the Australian National Gallery.[xlii] Advice was sought and received from Guy Stair Sainty[xliii] who suggested that Jean Marc Nattier might be the artist. He totally rejected the possibility that the subject was the “Comtesse de Massillan”. I spent some time trying to identify the complete inventory of John Marc Nattier’s works. Although the style and period were generally in favour of the artist, both by “Googling” and by the sending many e-mails to galleries and art dealers around the world, none of those consulted managed to deliver a positive identification. Corresponding with some French institutions was particularly unrewarding. None of my queries written in English were answered. Initially I was not confident enough to try my hand in the language of Voltaire and Victor Hugo but with the assistance of a more gifted family member, we did craft a request, in French, to one institution. The effort had its own reward and I received a gracious and comprehensive reply.

A doughty comrade in the search of the truth kindly displayed a copy of the “de Massillan” portrait on a web-site where comments on LaFosse were frequently placed and often disputed; it, like the web master, had provided valuable information to me in the past.

We placed a “Wanted” sign beneath the picture and invited assistance in identifying her. In due course this did attract a French family (there appeared to be three members alternating with their comments) who claimed it was the “Comtesse de Massillan” and that she was “obviously” related to the Scottish claimant. We engaged in a number of frustrating exchanges. The quality of the debate was not particularly high. I tried stoically to withstand a number of insults of which being a “bleating sheep” was one of the more original. I was provided with a collection of interesting but irrelevant papers, mostly in French, which, with the assistance of yet another family member, we laboriously translated my contact’s contributions. It was not a profitable exercise. However, I shall comment on the profile of La Fosse’s client-base elsewhere.

In September this year, I found a reference to the interesting Internet web site -“Art Watch”.[xliv] Having declared my interest in my correspondence with the Director, I hoped that I might find a new direction in pursuit of the identification of “de Massillan.” Director Michael Daly, referred me to the Witt Library[xlv] of the Coultauld Institute of Art, a London organization that specialized in cataloguing portraits reproduced in publications. In a remarkably short time Annette Lloyd-Morgan, the Deputy Librarian provided me with a copy of the library data card (Fig 1) plus a copy of a brief biography of Julie Jeanne Eleanore de Lespinasse (1732-76) by Dr Richardiere of Paris. (Fig 3.) It was attached to the back of the card. The inference was that someone had suggested that the unidentified female subject was, in fact, the notable French woman of letters. 

The pastel portrait by Maurice Quentin La Tour is in the Musée Lecuyer in Saint Quentin, France. It is clearly the same portrait presented by LaFosse as the “Comtesse de Massillan” and claimed to be the work of Laurent Pechaux. See Fig 2. The Musée Lecuyer has no record of permission being sought by “Prince Michael Stewart of Albany” to reproduce the portrait.

THE SUBJECT.

The genuine portrait is titled “Inconnue” (Unknown Women). It is not known if this is the title assigned by the artist or a subsequent cataloguer. I favour the latter. The files of the Musée Antoine Lécuyer, whilst rather meagre, also has a post card with the reference “mademoiselle de Lepinasse (?) “The Director does not know who has put forward [this] hypothesis.“[xlvi] Whilst the apparent lack of confirmed identity of the subject might give some comfort to those clinging to the hope that the subject really is the “Comtesse de Massillan,” there is not the slightest doubt over the identity of the artist, or where the work is displayed, or the title by which it is known and catalogued. There is also a clear inference that the subject might be mademoiselle de Lepinasse. Certainly, the dates of the presence of de Lespinasse and LaTour in Paris allow for the possibility of contact. The prominent position of the young woman in Paris society could well have caught the attention of LaTour. LaTour produced portraits of Rousseau, Voltaire, Louis XV, his queen, the dauphinand dauphiness, Mme de Pompadour and Prince Charles Edward Stewart. Artistically and socially, Julie de Lespinasse would not have been entirely out of place in this company.

A useful biography of Julie de Lespinasse may be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica.[xlvii] The relevant elements of this article, which mirrors the comments of Dr Richardiere, are as follows:

Julie was born in Lyons in 1732. She was the illegitimate child of Comtesse d’Albon and was brought up as the daughter of Claude Lespinasse, also of Lyon. Following her schooling at the local convent school, she became governess to the children of her mother’s legitimate daughter (Madame de Vichy) who was the sister-in- law of Madame du Deffand. 

Marie de Vichy-Charmrond, Marquise du Deffand was a leading figure in French society, famous for her witty letters to the Duchesse de Choiseul, to Voltaire and to Horace Walpole[xlviii].From the beginning of her intellectual life, she expressed herself to be an unbeliever and a skeptic. At one stage, at the request of her mother, the celebrated French preacher and bishop of Clermont (Auvergne) Jean Baptiste Massillon (1663 -1742) was invited to reason with her. Both mother and preacher were to be disappointed.

Madame du Deffand[xlix] was the centre of a brilliant circle of intellectuals in Paris. In 1754, with her sight nearly gone, she invited the precocious Julie to join her as her as a companion. 10 years later, and jealous of the young woman’s influence, Madame de Deffand dismissed her and suffered the indignity of being eclipsed by the popularity of Julie’s own salon, to which many of Madame’s former circle were drawn.

Meanwhile Julie indulged her passion for her role as the most sought-after hostess in Paris. Although not known at the time she also had a passion for letter writing. It was not until Mme de Guibert published a collection of these letters in 1809 that the intensity of her relationships received literary acclaim. Less discrete was her passion, first for the Marquis de Mora, and then for the Comte de Guibert.Mora died in 1774. Then the agitation and misery surrounding her affair with the worthless Guibert resulted in a total mental and physical collapse. She died on 22 May 1776 at the age of 44.

THE ARTIST.

Maurice Quentin de La Tour[l] (1704-1788) was a leading French pastelist. He was born at St Quentin on the 5th of September 1704. After leaving Picardy for Paris in 1727 he entered the studio of Spoede - an upright man, but a poor master, rector of the academy of St Luke, who still continued the traditions of the old guild of the master painters of Paris. This possibly contributed to the adoption by La Tour of a line of work foreign to that imposed by an academic training; for pastels, though occasionally used, were not a principal and distinct branch of work until 1720. In 1737, he exhibited the first of a sumptuous series of 150 portraits that became the feature of the salon for nearly 40 years. In 1750, he was appointed of painter to the (French) king. 1746 he was received into the academy. In 1751, the following year to that in which he received the title of painter to the king, he was promoted to the grade of councilor. His work had the rare merit of satisfying at once both the taste of his fashionable models and the judgment of his brother artists. The museum of St Quentin also possesses a magnificent collection of works which at his death were in his own hands. La Tour retired to St Quentin at the age of 80, and there he died on the 17th of February 1788. He endowed St Quentin with a great number of useful and charitable institutions. He never married. His brother survived him, and left to the town the drawings now in the museum.

I hesitate to speculate, particularly when it is the choice of coinage in use by manymembers of the pro-Lafosse group to replace evidence. However it is certainly of interest to identify the web of circumstantial evidence that links the false “Countesse de Massillan,” and the name “de LaTour” (both feature in LaFosse’s highly imaginative genealogy of “The House of Rohan and Sobieski” as does the name “Auvergne” – the actual bishopric of Mons. Jean Baptiste Massillon). As a young woman Marie de Vichy-Charmrond, Marquise du Deffand engaged in discussions with Mons. Massillon. He reproached her for her skepticism and disbelief and she defended herself enthusiastically. It was Mme du Deffand who brought Julie Jeanne Eléonore de Lespinasse into her inner circle. The implied identification of LaTour’s “Unknown Woman” is this same Julie de Lespinasse. It may also be worth noting that LaFosse, in the course of his research into The Forgotten Monarchy, was observed by some of his former followers reading reference books in local libraries and taking copious notes. Finally, it was with Horace Walpole with whom Mme. du Deffand engaged in correspondence and to whom agent Horace Mann reported on the decline of “Bonnie Prince Charlie.” My own research into this collection of names located all of them (as well as referring the reader to other volumes and sources) in Volume 13 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 

LaFosse could easily have consulted the same material, commencing what were not so much new interpretations of history but a shoddy distortion of it. In the context of this investigation, to accept these coincidences, if such they are, would require a considerable suspension of rational belief.Yet the pro-LaFosse parties continue to disregard an extensive body of modern scholarship. In the circumstances it is difficult to give any benefit of the doubt to the claimed origins of the author of The Forgotten Monarchy.

The picture represented in The Forgotten Monarchy as the “Comtesse de Massillan,” the alleged second wife of Prince Charles Edward Stewart, is not as captioned but is an unauthorized reproduction of a work held in the Musée Lecuyer, Saint Quentin, France.

*The portrait, therefore, cannot be held in the “Stewart Archives.”

*The Musée Lecuyer is the holder of the copyright for the portrait, not “Prince Michael Stewart,” or LaFosse for that matter.

*The artist responsible for the pastel is Maurice Quentin La Tour (1704-1788); it is not Laurent Pecheux.

*The portrait is titled “Inconnue” (Unknown) with no further explicit identification of the subject.

*There is some evidence that the subject is Julie Jeanne Eléonore de Lespinasse (1732-1776). The originator of this hypothesis has not been identified.

*There is significant circumstantial evidence that points to the way by which LaFosse harvested the names of his “players” from readily available sources in order to identify the improbable characters in his period-piece melodrama.

*On the evidence presented in this Part alone, I believe that the conclusions are sufficiently persuasive to show that LaFosse has deliberately deceived his readers.

PROBLEMS WITH DOCUMENTS

Not entirely surprisingly, the question of the validity of the birth certificate with the name Michael Roger LaFosse arose quite early in the “Tale Retold.” In 1980 the author of the MacDonald Report[li] stated that the writer had in his possession a copy of certificate Number 549 in the name of Michael Roger LaFosse and a second for Prince Michael James Stewart. Both bore the same number and the same parents, albeit with royal titles recorded in the second. In due course and in the presence of two witnesses, the Claimant was asked by MacDonald to justify the apparent differences in the documents. In reply “Prince Michael” maintained that there were indeed two birth certificates with the reference Number 549; one issued at birth without titles and one issued at age 18 with titles. The reason being (he said) that in Belgium one does not legally accede to titles until reaching majority. MacDonald communicated this “explanation” to the Belgium authorities and asked for clarification. The letter received in reply was signed for the Mayor of Watermael-Boitsfort and stated: "In reply to your favour received on 4 March 1980, this is to certify that, as you supposed, the birth certificate for Prince Michael James Stewartis a forgery."[lii] (My emphasis). Later, a second version of the “Royal” birth Certificate emerged. It appears that this is the certificate forwarded to the UK Home Office in support of an application for British naturalization. This certificate has also been declared to be false.[liii]

The Certificate displayed on the Sean Murphy web site,[liv] purporting to show the registration of the marriage between the brother of the 6^th Count of Albany and “Princes Germaine Elize de la Tour de Sedan” is also a fabrication.[lv]

I am particularly concerned over the way in which it is claimed that these “false” documents appear to have been authenticated.[lvi] The terms under which a Belgium Notary has exercised his commission and authority is not clear from the reference, nor are those in which a correspondent has claimed that a Notary in another country has “authenticated” documents relevant to the “Albany” line.In due course others will doubtless examine this matter.

Incredibly, these matters passed virtually unnoticed in official and public quarters with the exception of a few curious Internet researchers who, over time, referred their own questions to the Belgium authorities and received the same reply. The Claimant made a great deal of the fact that he had received British naturalization and a passport. It was, he claims, evidence that the “rigorous vetting of his application” confirmed his name and title. His current driving license bears the same name and title. His supporters chanted the same mantra every time doubts were expressed about claims to a Stewart name and title. Only in 2006 did the UK Home Office agree to a re-examine how the appearance of legitimacy was conferred on a person styled “Prince Michael James Stewart, Prince Of Albany”.[lvii] The efforts of the Home Office to seek an explanation for an alleged use of a forged document in an application for British naturalization and, subsequently, for a British passport, gained no response from “Prince Michael,” despite numerous attempts. The persistency of the requests from the Home Office investigator probably trigged the hasty departure of “Prince Michael” from the UK although a close friend of the Claimant has told me that he has gone to Belgium, not to escape investigation but because of matters of “an extremely personal nature (Family illness)”.[lviii] If this implies that “Prince Michael” will return to the UK in due course then the outstanding issue with the Home Office will still need to be resolved.

Although the Claimant was known as Michael Roger LaFosse in his early days in Edinburgh[lix], “Prince Michael” has recently added publicly to his versions of what is true and what is not by stating that the original certificate No 549 is a forgery. He informed the journalist that he had never heard of LaFosse[lx].

The Palazzo Muti still stands at the end of a small narrow street with the rather pretentious name of Piazza Santi Apostoli. This dull little building also once had pretensions of grandeur. For seventy years, it was the centre of the shabby little court of the exiled Stewarts. Certainly, the sad ‘Old Pretender’ and his neurotic little wife Clementina (granddaughter of the great Jean Sobieski - victor over the Ottoman fleet) were once the rulers of this house. Their sons, Prince Charles Edward Stewart and Prince Henry Benedict were born here. With his now legitimized daughter Charlotte, styled Duchess of Albany, caring for him, the ‘Young Pretender’ spent his final few years at the Palazzo Muti before succumbing to the effects of alcohol abuse, a failing mind, ulcerated legs, high blood pressure and a life of unendurable disappointment. 

Neither hidden nor subsequently discovered by “Prince Michael” is any evidence of an arrival in the house of a “Comtesse de Massillan”[lxi] to supplant Charlotte as the carer of the Prince. Nor is there any documentary evidence or literary comment about the alleged “annulment” of the marriage to Louise.[lxii] A number of authors write of the “separation” and “divorce”; others refer to “the end of the marriage.” Only the first is correct in law for a Catholic, the faith to which Charles had returned by this time. None of them constituted an annulment.[lxiii] It seems quite grotesque, almost unimaginable to consider that the infirm Prince could, or did, father a son in 1785.[lxiv] It was this son who was allegedly baptized “Edward James” in St Peter’s Church in Rome by the Pope.[lxv] It would be quite incorrect to presume that Charles felt that the fate of the Jacobite cause still rested on his ability to sire a boy! Although it is possible that Charles insistence that his daughter join him was motivated by love, it was not a quality he had previous demonstrated in any of his former relationships. Whilst the Jacobite Cause certainly maintained hopes for the continuation of the Stewart line, the responsibility now lay with an appropriate marriage for Charlotte and that an expeditious conception that would produce the heir. Although some in the Jacobite ranks must have been aware that Charlotte was already the mother of three illegitimate children by Prince Rohan, Archbishop of Bordeaux, it appears that Charles was protected from all knowledge of these events.[lxvi]

Margaret Palmer-Brown, a devoted supporter of “Prince Michael’s cause, has visited the Palazzo-Muti (whereas I have merely stood before it pondering its demise and the family that once lived there). Palmer-Brown tells me that she had expectations of gaining “access to the attics . . . which are believed to contain many old documents.”[lxvii] She was summarily banished from the property by the security guards. I do not know who might have given her the hope that such a momentous find was at hand. Certainly, correspondence and documents associated with the time of Stewart residency are included in the Stuart papers at Windsor.[lxviii] Cataloguers of the collection, particularly in recent times, have made no comment about significant gaps in the Rome sequence.[lxix] The Palazzo Mutti was converted to offices some time ago. I am not aware of any suggestion that any documents might have been left there by the Stewarts. Even if some had remained the probability of rediscovering them today would be remote. The brusque treatment meted out to Margaret by the guards in denying her entry to the attics should not be considered significant. The action may have been ungracious but it is unlikely to have been sinister.

Whilst this sad building continues to be a monument to Jacobite despair, “Prince Michael” creates another building to accommodate the “Counts of Albany” and their retinue before the family moved to Belgium. 

The Casa Stuardo (Stuarton House) is claimed to have been built by Charles Emmanuel lV, ex-king of Sardinia for Prince Edward James Stewart in 1802. It was then sold in 1892.[lxx] The search for this building has occupied the resources of a number of supporters of “Prince Michael” as well as by his critics. The games played by “Prince Michael” in this matter quickly descend to the level of farce. An apparent supporter urged his “Prince” to disclose the location of “Stuarton House” and the “Chateau Moulin” (see below) in order to silence the growing number of critics. “Prince Michael” responded by citing his reference in The Forgotten Monarchy. The house was, he said “by the Corso in Rome”.[lxxi] Later, the context of this advice indicated that he believed the Corso to be a river! An irritated and obviously correct Noel McFerran [lxxii] pointed out that the “Corso” is a street. As students of the history of Rome would know, as do most casual tourists, the Corso was named after the horse races that were run on this “course” during Carnival. Even the inventive Romans have not yet entertained the prospect of a swimming race for horses and their riders. “Prince Michael’s” only response was to hint at the existence of sinister secrets in McFerran’s background and even more sinister associations with elements of the Catholic Church.[lxxiii] Whilst these matters do not appear to have any relevance to McFerran’s superior knowledge of urban geography, “Prince Michael” urged his followers to dig up and reveal his critic’s [dubious/sinister] background.[lxxiv]

My own contacts in Rome who share my interest in history and have the experience and qualifications to undertake high-level research and to provide reliable advice state that there is no known documentary reference to Casa Stuardo other than in The Forgotten Monarchy. One of the most respected Italian language guides to buildings (and a genuine work of art in its own right) is a wonderful publication by “The Touring Club Italiano.”[lxxv] On his way through Rome, Italy, as part of the Allied Forces’ advance in 1944, my father “acquired” six volumes of the 1937 series. The books are now in my possession. The editors make no reference to Casa Stuardo either.[lxxvi]

The revelation of the location of Stuarton House, however, was another matter. It has still not been found. 

The Chateau Moulin is described as The Forgotten Monarchy as located in the Ardennes.[lxxvii] At the time of the sale of “Casa Stuardo” in 1892, “Prince Michael” asserts, “the family moved to [its] old estate in Belgium.” The “6th and 7^th Counts of Albany” were born there.[lxxviii] The “truly delightful castle with about 20 rooms” was, according to “Prince Michael,” his home until 1968. He goes on to state that the Chateau du Moulin is situated 12 Km to the south east of the town of Spa. He adds that the cartoon writer “Herge” (famed for his 'Tintin' series) used an anagram of the house belonging to Captain Haddock (Chateau de Moulinsart but dropped the 'tu' that would have given the readers 'Moulin Stuart'...).[lxxix]

An obliging "Marie Louise" posted advice that she had “easily located the Chateau on the A27 approximately 12 kilometres south east of Spa” and that “it is well known locally as the former Royal Stewart residence.”[lxxx]

This information has failed to help any number of other searchers and researchers. The charming alleged connection of the castle with “Captain Haddock” was completely scuppered by heraldist Derek Howard, RHM.[lxxxi] Noel McFerran consulted the definitive record of buildings of historical and artistic significance in Belgium[lxxxii] and pointed out that the Chateau is not mentioned in volume12. No one has yet offered a copy of title deeds, evidence of transfer of property or receipt for money paid in the purchase following the claimed bankruptcy of “Baron LaFosse” (Michael’s father).

My own search involved the willing and good-humoured assistance of a Belgium Information Office in the USA.[lxxxiii] The Belgium Embassy in Canberra and the Consulate in London clearly did not find my request for information of any great importance. The former referred me to the website of “The Royal House of Stewart” (now closed down) and the Consulate was unable to assist. On the other hand, the nameless staff at the Information Office canvassed local historians and tour agencies as well as the usually well-informed hotel proprietors in the Ardennes and particularly around the town of Spa. None could identify the Chateau. For some reason, an Italian was contacted. His inability to locate the Chateau was passed on to me with the cheerful closure of “ciao Aussie!”

“Prince Michael” was requested by both supporters and detractors to simply give the exact location of this and the Rome building. It was not a particularly unreasonable request. The besieged Claimant fired off some more tasteless insults and withdrew from the fray with the comment: “If they wish to find these properties (and considering the beggars are some of those most vicious detractors in any case), they can damn well look for them WITHOUT any help from me.”[lxxxiv]

Five years later, I have found no evidence that a simple map reference has ever surfaced, nor has the “castle.”

THE JESUIT SCHOOL

During my correspondence with the Secretariat of the Catholic school of Saint-Vincent in Soignies, Belgium, (neither owned nor staffed by the Jesuit Order) I asked the Secretary if there was a record of the attendance of a “Prince Michael James Stewart.” Whilst the searchers did locate the details of Michael Roger LaFosse, there was no evidence of the attendance of a “Prince Michael” in the school records.

NATIONAL MILITARY SERVICE

It is fashionable, almost mandatory, for royal sons to perform military service to better prepare them for the regal tasks ahead. “Prince Michael” describes an eight-month spell in the military, operating in “my regiment’s centre of transmission”.[lxxxv] This national service obligation was preceded by a visit to an Artillery Regiment”[lxxxvi] where he was royally entertained. “Prince Michael” cited certain extraordinary exemptions given by “The King of the Belgians . . . in 1892.”[lxxxvii] By this Royal Decree, the Stewarts were exempt from being subjects of the Belgian Crown.[lxxxviii] It was asserted that this agreement was upheld in 1978 when” [Prince Michael] was not required to salute the Belgian flag whilst serving in the Belgium Armed Forces.”[lxxxix]

Enquiries directed by letter to the Office of the Belgian Ministry of Defence, in which I identified my former military rank and my interest in the matter of the “Prince,” drew an almost immediate response. The Minister had directed that an investigation was to be conducted and that I should expect a response in four weeks time. Following a further exchange of letters to clarify some aspects, the report given to me was timely, short and to the point.[xc]

·Belgium citizen Michael Roger LaFosse was called up for National Service in 1978.

·This commitment commenced on 2 September 1977 and concluded following service at the Instruction Centre of [a] Signal School depot at Peutie, near Brussels on 1 September 1978.

·The Ministry had no knowledge of special exemptions for LaFosse.[xci]

Whilst Michael Roger LaFosse did complete his service obligations as a Belgium citizen, there is no record of “Prince Michael James Stewart” being called up or undertaking National Service.[xcii]

During my own military service, I have visited a number of foreign countries. When we are guests in another country, military visitors always observe the long standing courtesy of, when in uniform, saluting that county’s flag. At the many graduation ceremonies I have attended at the Royal Military College of Australia, the uniformed foreign military guests also observe the same courtesies. 

“Prince Michael” appears not to have been familiar with or experienced in the universal practices observed within the profession of arms.

COUNCIL OF PRINCES AND PAPAL AUDIENCES

At one stage during the writing of The Forgotten Monarchy, the author told Gordon Macgregor that he (the “Prince”) had just been elected to the Presidency of the European Council of Princes. Macgregor recalled that “Prince Michael” told him that it was “a great honour for the family.”[xciii] These words appear later in the final version of the book together with a history of the Council, the Charter, its officer bearers and membership. The Conseil Européen des Princes has apparantly existed since 1946 as an International Council of Government with delegates from both functional and deprived soverign families. There are currently 33 participating members. The House of Windsor is not represented. In 1992 the name was changed to its present form. Its charter was now to provide specialist consultative advice to the European Parliament. As a result of the unanimous choice of its membership, “Prince Michael” took over the Presidency from the Austrian House of Hapsburg. The representative of this House is claimed to have been in office for 46 years.[xciv]

Archduke Otto of the House of Habsburg is on record as totally denying any connection with any such organization.[xcv] Following an exchange of letters with various departments of the headquarters of the European Community, I was informed that it was not aware of the existence of the Council and it has neither sought nor received advice from any of the claimed members. All references to this organization are from the website of “The Royal House of Stewart” and simply reproduce the story in The Forgotten Monarchy. Not one of the alleged 33 members can be identified nor are the “Royal Houses of Europe.”

There is no evidence to support the existence of the “Council of Princes.”

Also on the former website of “The Royal House of Stewart,” “Prince Michael” described his official visit to Pope John-Paul ll in 19. The Pope, it was alleged, received “Prince Michael” in his capacity of “President of the Council of Princes”. Had this been true it would have been a quite remarkable event. Prince Charles Edward Stewart had never been permitted to present himself to the Pope as “King” or a royal prince. Clement Xlll would only receive Charles as a private citizen who could call himself “Count of Albany.” Charles once had to endure the humiliation of being announced as “the brother of the Cardinal of York and was forced to stand while Henry (a Cardinal) was seated.”[xcvi]

As it happens, there is no evidence at the Vatican of a Papal audience with anyone styled “HRH Prince Michael of Albany.” 

THE NOBLE ORDER OF THE GUARD OF SAINT GERMAIN

In some cases, de jure kings have retained the right to bestow certain honours.[xcvii] In the rather specialist field of heraldry and chivalry there are a number of universally recognized organizations whose publications are available to researchers. Similar respected sites are also available on the Internet. Sadly, the Internet is also infected with absurd “Royal” Genealogies, false Orders and titles, and self-promoting “authorities.” It takes very little effort to discover which sources are reliable.[xcviii] It is sufficient to state that “HRH Prince Michael” only gains recognition on sites that no serious researcher would rely on.

“Prince Michael” claims the authority to bestow a number of Jacobite honours including the titles of Knights, Dames and Companions of the Noble Order of the Guard of Saint Germain. Part of the justification for such authority is claimed to stem from legal advice received from “The International Parliament for Safety and Peace, Palermo, Sicily – Inc. USA.”[xcix] The office of this organization in the USA could not be contacted. “The International Parliament” has no authority to make judgments on International Law. Some within Prince Michael’s circle have asked for confirmation of the history of the “Noble Guard.” Many outside this exclusive group dismiss it as a fantasy. No evidence for its formation has been offered. There are still a number of men and women claiming to be members of the “Guard” who use the honorific “Sir” or “Dame” in the UK. This is not legal.[c] Members in the USA have received similar titles and use the same honorifics and post-nominal. Authorities there appear to treat this self-indulgence with bemused indifference. European countries have scores of make-believe royalty who tend to exchange honours with each other. No one takes them particularly seriously except the recipients.

I came across an account of a meeting of the “Noble Guard.” The poignancy of this tale tends to establish a credibility of its own, but it cannot be independently confirmed. Apparently, meetings took place in the ‘Jacobite Tea Room’ in the village of Tranent, to the southeast of Edinburgh. During their deliberations, member of the Order partook of cups of tea and leftover cakes that had gone unsold during the tearoom's normal daily business hours.[ci]

Until recently, “Prince Michael’s” name and title appeared on the prospectus and boards of a number of organizations.In view of recent adverse publicity, many have now severed their connections. I do not know what contribution the Claimant has made to the management or success of these businesses but the display of the title was presumably for the commercial or publicity benefit of all parties.

Some men have a tendency to “dress up” on the grounds that “Clothes make the man.”[cii] Scotsmen have no particular difficulty with this, as they possess the unrivalled advantage of the kilt and sundry trimmings! Some writer should have written, “But clothes do not make a king.” As member of various self-styled orders of chivalry, “Prince Michael” has a grand array of ceremonial garments, which he wears on various occasions. One such occasion was an “investiture for members of the Noble Guard” held at the Mansion House of the Civic Administration of the City of York (UK)[ciii] Two Civil Officials were invited. The “Royal House of Stewart” Court Report stated that one, with his wife, represented the City of York and another “represented HM the Queen”. In correspondence with Administration Officials it appears that neither the City, nor the “representative” were aware of the special status by Royal Appointment. The correspondents in York indicate that the matter is regarded as a “misrepresentation”[civ] and contact was to be sought with the “Royal House of Stewart” seeking an explanation. If these concerns were sent to “Prince Michael”, I do not expect that an explanation was provided. 

GENEALOGIES

Quite a feature of The Forgotten Monarchy is the so-called Genealogical Charts. They all lead, directly or indirectly, to “Prince Michael.” I showed the charts to a representative of the Heraldry and Genealogy Society of Canberra, Australia. (HAGSOC). Its members are primarily specialist document and genealogical investigators rather than historians. However, many member are well versed in the study of particular periods of history, some are most expert. All have highly developed skills in family history. A respected member of HAGSOC pointed out that the charts lacked almost all the elements required for the confirming the various lines of descent. There are no verifiable historical records cited, no documentary evidence of births, marriage, death, burial or wills, no evidence of gravesites and no inscriptions. An example of “Prince Michael’s methodology may be defined by his version of how he came to one particular connection in a dream![cv]

The charts also appear to have the print of Laurence Gardner, the self-styled Le Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain. This author of Bloodline of the Holy Grail also manages to take the lineage of “Prince Michael” back to the alleged offspring of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene and beyond! A comparison of the texts of Bloodline . . . and The Forgotten Monarchy indicates a considerable duplication of material.

Amidst the welter of names contained in the Genealogical charts is a “cousin” of “Prince Michael” who is identified as “Robert Demidoff-Stuart.”[cvi] He apparently traces his lineage back to the 4^th Count of Albany. Carol Roscoe contacted an “Alexandre Tissot Demidoff” in the hope of establishing any confirmation for “Prince Michael’s” claim. Demidoff advised that he had contacted “Michael of Albany LaFosse” (sic) and refuted the connection between “Demidoff of San Donator” and the Stewart/LaFosse line. Alexandre Demidoff went on to write: 

“Following my communication, Mr LaFosse changed his family history to allege that the connection with the Demidoffs was with an illegitimate child of Anatole N. Demidoff and Fanny de la Rochefoucauld.” Furthermore, he assured LaFosse that “Anatole Demidoff never confirmed the right for any natural offspring to carry his family name and this assumes the existence of any offspring with Mde de la Rochfoucauld, [of] which there is no trace of historical evidence. What is known is that Anatole and Mde de la Rochfoucauld had a child outside of marriage and prior to Anatole marrying his wife, Mathilde Bonaparte in 1840. Unfortunately, it was a stillbirth. There is no evidence that Anatole continued any relationship with the lady in question as his mistress following his marriage.”[cvii]

Qualified genealogists have already provided a persuasive and technical critique of the charts. They are universal in their rejection of the supposed lineage.[cviii]

THE ALBANY LINE

With no evidence to identify the marriage that starts off the Albany Line, there is not much reason to follow what can only be a contrived line of descent. However, I did proceed and the enquiry certainly confirms an entrenched practice of providing invented documents and giving accounts of unsubstantiated events. It also confirms the continuing practice of presenting men and women with hitherto unknown titles in an alleged connection with “Prince Michael.” Finally, genealogists utterly reject

Each generation, from Prince Charles Edward Stewart to “Prince Michael” appear to have inherited the title of “Counts of Albany”. While James was still alive, it was Henry who assumed the title of Albany as was appropriate to the younger son of the king. Charles chose to use the pseudonym of “Baron Renfrew”[cix] in his efforts to maintain diplomatic associations with the King of France. It was a pseudonym he also used at times in Rome, after the death of his father. To his utmost chagrin, he was never officially acknowledged in Rome as “King.” Pope Clement Xlll would only permit use of the title “Baron Douglas.”[cx] During his “royal progress” around Italy in pursuit of a tolerable social life, visits to salons, casinos and in the taking of the waters in an effort to cure his innumerable ills, Charles again called himself “Count of Albany.”[cxi] When he entered into the ill-fated marriage with Princes Louise of Stolberg-Gedern, the couple presented themselves as “Count and Countess of Albany,” although they were not always received as such. In the letter of consent for the departure of Louise from the marital home, she is recognized only by her legitimate title – Princess of Stolberg. 

Charles’ daughter Charlotte, once she had been legitimized, had the title of “Duchess of Albany” bestowed on her by her ailing father. There is no further record of the “Counts of Albany” until the arrival in Scotland of the charming charlatans, “John Sobieski Solberg Stuart” and “Charles Edward Stuart” – the so-called Sobieski brothers. They claimed to be the sons of a legitimate (but previously unknown) son of Bonnie Prince Charlie and Princess Louise of Solberg. John Sobieski called himself “Count of Albany” and his brother adopted the title after the death of John.[cxii] In 1847, the pair published a book in Edinburgh under the title Tales of the Century of Sketches of the Romance of History Between the Years 1746 and 1846. The work was a thinly disguised promotion of what they implied was their legitimate claim to Queen Victoria’s throne. The novel was copiously supplemented with “historical notes.” Lord Lovat demonstrated bemused tolerance and a few of the nobility showed mild interest. The court of Queen Victoria had many matters on their mind at the time but the “threat” of a possible Jacobite revival from “Sobieski brothers” was not great among them.

“Prince Michael” would have us believe that the” 2^nd Count of Albany” was the son of “Prince Edward James Stewart” (son of Marguerite, Comtesse de Massilan and Prince Charles Edward Stewart). The 3^rd Count of Albany “inherited” the title from his father, Edward James that was passed in turn to his son, “Henry Benedict, 4^th Count of Albany”. “Prince Julius Anthony Henry”, son of Henry became the 5^th Count of Albany” and the first “Royal Stewart” to reside in “Chateau Moulin.” “Prince Anthony James Stewart”, 6th Count Albany, succeeded him. When the 6^th Count died without issue, the senior legitimate succession fell to “Prince Michael’s” grandfather “Julius James Stewart”. The only issue of the marriage of Julius and his wife “Germaine Eliza Segars, Princess of Sedan” was “Renee Julienne Stewart”, created “Princess Royal of Strathearn”[cxiii] the year before she married her cousin “Gustave Joseph Clement Fernand LaFosse de Bois de Chatry.” She was therefore presumably the heir to the Throne of Scotland. She is also the mother of “Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart” (aka Michael Roger LaFosse).

“Prince Michael” claims that he took part in a “Rite of Dynastic Entry” in the Catholic Church of St Lambert in Brussels on 21 April 1976.[cxiv] Although why he would do this is a puzzle. He states that by 1906 all his family “were (sic) settled in the Protestant faith.[cxv]

An engraving alleged to be based on a painting by Baron Gerard is displayed in Forgotten Monarchy[cxvi] as evidence of the marriage between “Prince Edward James Stewart” and Maria Pasquini in Rome. The setting appears to be a loose interpretation of the main altar of St Peter’s Basillica. If this is meant to be the main altar of St Peter’s, then it is only the Pope who may celebrate Mass there. “Prince Michael” claims that the original painting is in the Vatican Collection. Both the Witt Library and the Australian National University Department of Art History confirm that the engraving is not from a Baron Gerard painting. Nor can a similar painting be found in the Vatican Collection. Close inspection of the hair and dress styles of the figures indicates that they are not consistent with the period. The setting is probably 100 years earlier.

In addition there are four pen and ink sketches of Counts of Albany allegedly from paintings by various know artists. A search of the inventories of works by these artists failed to produce any corroboration.[cxvii]

Some very significant problems arise from the above.

·“Prince Michael” has presented only one marriage certificate for members of the Albany line Belgium authorities have declared this document to be false. It is surprising that the “originals” or “copies” of such significant documents are not lodged in the “Stewart Archive”.

·There is no marriage certificate for the alleged second marriage of Prince Charles Edward and the Comtesse de Massilan.

·There have been no birth, baptism, marriage, death, divorce certificates or burial site titles presented to identify any of the Counts of Albany or their wives. (“Prince Michael’s” mother is still alive and would presumably have her marriage certificate as well as the civil certificate for the dissolution of her marriage.)

·There have been no documents presented to support the purchase or disposal of any property in the names of any of the royal Albany line. 

·The office of the Mayor of Brussels cannot identify the event that purports to be a celebration of the 50^th anniversary of the wedding of the “Prince and Princess of Annandale.” 

·There is no reference to the writ of abdication by “Princess Renee” in favour of her son Michael to whom, it appears, legitimate succession passed but without further explanation.

·There is no evidence for the “creation” of the title “Princess of Strathearn” nor by whose authority this conferral took place. One would expect that this document, being of such importance and of such recent date would also be held in the “Stewart Achieve.”

·There is no rite in Catholic Liturgy of a “Rite of Dynastic Entry.” Jack MacDonald contacted the priest-in-charge of the church in which the ceremony was allegedly conducted and was informed that no such event had taken place in his church.[cxviii]

·If these documents are not in the “Stuart Archive,” in which one would also expect many of the important documents that affected the family since 1892, where are they? Readers of The Forgotten Monarchy are probably being asked to accept that they have been lost or spirited away by Secret Service agents!

SECRET SERVICES AND GREAT CONSPIRACIES

A significant part of the material challenged in this Part of the paper has been the subject of enquiry, expressions of profound skepticism and heated debate. It probably serves some good purpose, however, to see the full range of material in a single paper that goes directly and exclusively to the issue of the royal claims. I would have preferred to have interviewed the claimant or, at least, corresponded with him. I would have welcomed honest comments on what attracted followers to his cause.I wish that those who have involved themselves in support of “Prince Michael” could indicate why they think the evidence provided by critics are so flawed when no concern is expressed about the falsity of the documents offered by the Claimant and the absence of so much other essential material. It would, at least, indicate a basic grasp of historical process for the supporters to recognize that it is the claimant, not the skeptics, who have the responsibility for meeting the burden of proof. Failure in all these areas stretches the credibility of the objective reader of The Forgotten Monarchy beyond breaking point.

Many of the Claimant’s followers offer this very weak defence of the “Prince’s” disputed lineage: “he looks like the Stewarts!” The only photograph published of the alleged “Prince Julius of Annandale,”[cxix] does not appear to display any visible Stewart characteristics. The provenance of the sketches of various “Counts of Albany” is so suspect that they cannot be taken seriously. The second defence is not really supportive of the claims at all. Popular though it might be in the foggy world of conspiracy theories, the theory only has merit with people who are inclined to blame the unidentified for just about everything. The conspiracy theorists feel that they are in the thrall of great manipulative powers. The belief is enough; they demand no evidence. An essential part of a conspiracy theory, in this case anyway, is that the evidence that would authenticate the claims of “Prince Michael” has been destroyed or hidden by “the authorities.” A number of my correspondents have offered me the notion that the Hanoverian sovereigns and their Whig lackeys have removed all the evidence of the true story of the Royal Stewarts. The Royal Families of Europe have either been complicit in this or the British “Secret Service” has penetrated the Royal and government archives both at home and throughout Europe and removed the evidence of the Albany line. Even today, intelligence agencies would be unable to undertake an operation of this magnitude.

I return briefly and with some reluctance to the position of “Prince Michael’s” parents. Plausible, but uncorroborated accounts of telephone interviews with Renée LaFosse have suggested that she does not wish to be involved in “Roger’s fantasies.” No one is taking very seriously a “supportive” letter purporting to be from “Princess Renee” and recently displayed on the “Royal House of Stewart” web site before its closure. Not entirely surprisingly, the unfortunate lady now simply hangs up the telephone when contacted by anyone making enquiries about the “Prince.”

CRITICS AND CRITICISM

A particular guiding principle in forensic investigations, legal case presentation and the writing of history, is the need to follow the path of the evidence. This is not to say that the journey is always easy. There are no guarantees that the writer will not take a wrong turn or stumble. Despite the best will and the application of scholarship, the process does not guarantee that mistakes will not be made. Writers also display an unacceptable level of hubris if they choose to close the door too quickly on the possibility of new evidence emerging after conclusions have been drawn.

I am aware that many of the views I have expressed in this paper have already been the subject of counter attack and dismissed with: “well that is just your opinion!” I agree that the opinions I have expressed in this paper, although supported by many others, are indeed my own. I strongly hold to the belief that the basis of my argument has been fully disclosed and is transparent. I welcome rebuttal provided that dissenters employ the same rigour. If the competing positions are placed in the public forum, there will be no lack of reviewers who will be happy to make a judgement between the two. Although the truth is not the product of a majority view, I am confident of the persuasiveness of my conclusions.

I believe that “Prince Michael” has completely failed to present a convincing case for the recognition of his titles. His claims to legitimate descent from Prince Charles Edward Stewart have no substance.

The reason for this failure is, first and foremost, the total absence of authenticated evidence. This failure is reinforced by the fact that “Prince Michael,” or a collaborator, has produced certificates declared to be false by the authorities alleged to have issued them. In the course of my research, evidence of other examples of deception has emerged. They have not been discussed in this paper. I choose not to do so because they do not address, in particular, the object of my task – to determine the likelihood that the claim to royalty should be taken seriously. However these deceptions do go to the credibility of the author. The credibility issue has almost certainly resulted in the general lack of interest in the subject of “Prince Michael” by the academic community.

Those of us involved in analysing historical events must never lose sight of the human element. The consequences of actions will always have an impact on people. Our current case is no exception.

I have great sympathy for the mother of Michael LaFosse.Her position must have been very difficult. Although a friend of LaFosse denies that he is with his mother in Belgium, it may yet be where he should be where those who really care for him, despite his flights of fancy, may surround him.

It is not my purpose to comment on the possible degree of naivety shown by members of the LaFosse circle, or those outside it who had hopes that their king had indeed come home. Although the sample is small, it is clear that some have felt betrayed, others are bitterly disappointed. One confided to me that his “dreams are smashed.” There are those still clinging to a concept of loyalty that does them credit. But I believe that they have been badly and deliberately misled.

My sympathy is reduced for those whose certainty that they belonged on the moral high ground, justified personal abuse however gravely provoked they felt. Less sympathy still, is felt for those who have shown a certain fleetness of foot in disengaging themselves from a connection with the “Prince” when adverse publicity was in the air. No sympathy at all is felt for those who, for whatever the reason, have been complicit in promoting the fantasy.

I can feel a degree of sympathy for Michael LaFosse himself in that he seems to have felt so great a need to create what he saw as more attractive family connections. The extent to which he profited (commercially or psychologically) from this long-term exercise is not a matter in which I wish to be engaged.

I do acknowledge the concerns of Scots with Unionist or Independence feelings as well as for both republicans and monarchists. Among the people seeking answers are those familiar with Scottish history and those less familiar. Some researchers have been more diligent and resourceful than others in their pursuit of answers. I am not aware that they used any underhand methods of enquiry or conducted themselves improperly. They should not be targets of slander as some obviously have.

Should LaFosse decide to return to the United Kingdom, he will need to answer the claims that the birth certificate provided to the Home Office was a false document. He could, however, produce further evidence, which, if independently authenticated, would invite a reappraisal of his claims, but I very much doubt that such evidence exists. He could also seek redemption by renouncing his fabricated life. That saga might even provide material for a readable book (or a film!).

The Home Office might also have to explain how the system failed to detect the dubious document, particularly in the light of present security concerns. 

With these things done, I had hoped that we could finally draw the curtain.[cxx]

Unfortunately I have learnt with considerable dismay that the self-styled “Prince Michael” now has a second book promising to reveal the shocking truth that the Knights Templar, and thus those of Freemasonry, are actually more deeply linked with Islam than to Christianity.” I will address this in my final chapter.

In the mean time, sad though it might be for some to accept, I believe that Michael Roger LaFosse is not the man born to be king; he did not come home to Scotland. This “pretender” is best forgotten.

It does seem quite extraordinary that Michael Roger LaFosse has recently submitted a manuscript to the publishers of Weiser Books. Even more extraordinary is the fact that I believe that the publication, due in November 2006, will have the author referred to as “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart.”

I have no wish to express views on matters of detail, as I do not yet have a copy of the book. But I recognized some familiar contrived elements. 

·An Editorial Review expresses the view that “Prince Michael writes with sterling scholarship.” If such be the case, there will have been a remarkable improvement in the author’s grasp of the rules of evidence.

·My concerns are not put to rest when I read that the whole revelation of the “shocking truth” appears to rely heavily on the “libraries of secret orders of which he is a member.”

·Doubtless readers will be told that the material contained in these archives have not been previously discovered outside the closed societies or that a dreadful plot has resulted in the truth being withheld by those who would be damaged by this truth.

·Once again we are told that the premature knowledge of these secrets would have “rocked the cradle of Christian and Judaic beliefs. Fortunately, the guardians of the secrets were the Knights Templar. One might ask if it is not time to give up on the endless stories of the strange forms of worship practiced by the men, the secret assignments of assassination, intelligence gathering and for providing the muscle for dark Catholic plots. There are some excellent examples of scholarship addressing the “rise and fall” of the order. I do not expect the author to address these works and expose how we have been duped for so long.

·Once again, “Prince Michael” has recently been named to a post of great distinction. The Editorial Reviewer advises that Prince Michael has joined “the Diplomatic Corps of the Government of the Knights of Malta.” I am quite certain that others more skilled in this area that I will be following up this claim. SMOM deals with such cases on a daily basis.

Some mention should be made about the publisher (Weiser Books). They are located in the USA and have been in business for some 80 years. The company specializes in esoteric titles. There is no doubt that the esoteric has a considerable fascination for readers for whom the outlandish, conspiratorial and historically revisionist approach, gives a better meaning to their lives. Such readership is generally less critical of process and certainly less demanding of evidence. It is sufficient to have an explanation that accounts for their own feeling of being exploited, or have fears of racial or religious domination. It gives hope to those who resent the authority of State or Church. It delivers a blow to established thought and above all satisfies the wish that the conventional is wrong because it is conventional.

I would not speculate on how convinced the writers of the esoteric are about their subjects. I am not at all confident that Michael LaFosse has a genuine conviction about anything. This will not stop his book selling well. But let the buyer beware!

Update 5 Nov. 2006: Review of Michael Stewart-Albany's second new book, and our co-worker Richard Hall's own extensive book proposal tilted A KING BEST FORGOTTEN.

Update 12 March 2016: At his side, attached to his belt, he carried a sword, and in his hands he held a huge wreath of flowers in the red and white colours of the Polish flag. He appeared disdainful and rather aloof – clearly "a somebody" – and just behind him strode two rather overweight gentlemen, also in kilts and sky blue doublets, and covered in every kind of Highland accoutrement you can imagine, dirks, powder horns, bonnets, sashes, dingly dangly orders and decoration, and firmly clamped in their right hands, drawn claymore swords. "Yes, His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Albany"

[i]HRH Prince Michael of Albany, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, Vega, 2002.

[ii]Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Element Books, Shaftesbury, 1996

[iii]Caroline Oliphant, Lady Nairn (1766 -1854). The song was written long after Prince Charlie was dead and the Stewart line was extinct.

[iv]Sir Harold Boulton in 1884.

[v]In the AA Road Atlas, 2001, page 52, the map reference is NB8.The significance of such precision will become apparent in Part 3 where I record the unsuccessful hunt for the Chateau Moulin, the alleged birthplace of “Prince Michael.”

[vi]Charlie is my darlin’Lyrics by James Hogg and Carolina, Lady Nairne

[vii]Walkers (Established 1898) Pure Butter Shortbread. The boxes still have a very small version of the portrait on the box top.I recently noticed that it was Prince Charlie who had the red hair not Flora. Furthermore, both are dressed most elegantly. The Prince is resplendent in the Victorian interpretation of full Highland dress - a most unlikely garb for a man who had been on the run for months.

[viii]Scottish records Office, “Kirk Session Records of Paisley Presbytery: 1602 – 1607”. Researched and transcribed by Justin Hall, 2001.

[ix]Op cit.

[x]HRH Prince Michael of Albany (sic), The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, Vega, 2002.

[xi]Correspondence with: “Secretary Royal House of Stewart” dated 30 March, 2006.

[xii]See Fig 1: Valid Birth certificate Number 549.It is displayed, as well as on numerous other sites, at (http://www.perthshireheritage.co.uk/albany_certs.html) and reproduced with permission from Gordon Macgregor. Sean Murphy, genealogist, posted an enquiry on 25 July 2002 to the Etat Civil, Commune de Watermael-Boitsfort, Place Gilson 1, 1170 Bruxelles, Belgique. A reply was received on 9 August 2002 confirming that the certificate was authentic, the words used being, 'Le certificat en question est une copie conforme à l'original'.

[xiii]Neil Mackay, “The Man Who Would Be King Of Scotland,” Sunday Herald, 2 April 2006. 

[xiv]op cit, See Fig 2.

[xv]Correspondence with: Vincent Willems, Executive Secretary C.E.S St-Vincent. The team from the Secretariat located the enrolment card for Michael Roger LaFosse. Understandably a copy of this card could not be made available for publication.

[xvi]HRH Prince Michael of Albany (sic) The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, Vega, 2002, page 299.

[xvii]Correspondence with:Carol Roscoe.

[xviii]The Forgotten Monarchy, page 301.

[xix]H.V. Morton, In Search of Scotland, Methune and Co. Ltd., 1929, page 158.

[xx]This particular title is clearly an indication of a “knighthood in the Noble Order of the Guard of Saint Germain”

[xxi]Back cover, The Forgotten Monarchy.

[xxii]op cit.

[xxiii]Correspondence with: Ian McCann, Party Clerk, Scottish NationalParty who sent me a copy of a report by a member familiar with the topic.

[xxiv]De Lavalette, Comte Antoine Marie Chaman Mémoires et souvenirs de Marguerite Marie Thérèse d’Audibert de Lussan, Comtesse de Massillan et d’Albanie Archives Nationales, Paris, 1831. The author certainly existed but there is no known record of the work cited.

[xxv]Correspondence with: Secretary “Archivio Segreto Vaticano (AVO)

[xxvi]Ercole Consalvi; J Crétineau-Joly Mémoires du cardinal Consalvi, Paris, H. Plan, 1864.

[xxvii]“HRH Prince Michael James Stewart” (sic) The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, Vega, 2006.

[xxviii]Lavalette was one of Napoleon's top aides. He attached himself to Bonaparte at the beginning of the emperor's rise to power and served him well in a number of diplomatic roles. Lavalette was appointed Postmaster General after Brumaire and held that office until Napoleon's exile. He was condemned to death after Waterloo but escaped and lived a long life. His MEMOIRS are noted for being well-written and supplying much information on the Italian and Egyptian Campaigns (in which Lavalette accompanied Napoleon) as well as presenting a vivid picture of Napoleon's return to Paris after the disastrous 1812 Russian Campaign.

[xxix]Although there was not an official legal collection known as Canon Law before 1917 (and was updated in and reissued in 1983), the longstanding practice in the Catholic Church was to regard marriage as indissoluble. Subject to certain specific conditions, a competent tribunal could rule that sacramental marriage had not taken place. The “appearance “ of the marriage could therefore be annulled. “Prince Michael” cites two conditions for the alleged annulment of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Louise of Stolberg. The first concerned her immoral behaviour and the second was her failure to bear a child. At no stage in the history of the Church was either of these matters ground for an annulment. “Prince Michael” merely displays gross ignorance or a cynical view of the competence of his readership in making such a claim at the beginning of his contrived version of the Albany line.

[xxx]For the “The MacDonald Report” see: 28oct2006.html

[xxxi]Fr Kieran Adams OP and Fr Denis Hallinan, OP are conscious of the close relationship of Prince Charles Edward Stewart and his father James, with the Dominicans. These two friars, resident in Rome, kindly undertook checking “on the ground.” 

[xxxii]A printing of this document may be found in Herbert M. Vaughan, The Last Stewart Queen; Louise, Comtesse of Albany, Her Life and Letters, Duckworth, London, 1910, page 110.The document was “Given and sealed with the seal of [Charles, legitimate King of Great Britain] in [his] Palace at Florence, April 3, 1784.”The document makes it quite clear that Charles gave the consent in response to Louise wishes, albeit with great reluctance. Noel S. McFerran also cites this reference and makes further comment at http://www.jacobite.ca.kings/charles3.htm. Herbert M. Vaughan, Vernon Lee and Margaret Crossland have all written on the subject of Louise of Stolberg.None have referred to an annulment.

[xxxiii]Critics have made this comment on previous occasions. A petulant respondent wrote that it was only the critic’s opinion!The simple response is that the author of the alleged “entry in the record” did not understand how the Roman calendar works.For example “XXVl Kal Dec” would, if it existed, be the 25^th day before the Kalends of December; that is 39^th of March!

[xxxiv]These, and other matters concerning LaFosse, are shown at his web site <http://www.jacobite.ca/essays/lafosse.htm>.

[xxxv]The claim is made in Forgotten Monarchy, page 221 and 223.The “MacDonald Report,” page 9, quotes the pertinent passage from a letter received from Msgr. Guisti dated 22 May 1980. “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.”

[xxxvi]“MacDonald Report”, Page 4.

[xxxvii]See Part 3, “Analysis of documents and other information cited and tendered by LaFosse”

[xxxviii]This collection referred to by LaFosse is not the Stuart Papers in the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle consisting of 541 bound volumes of letters and manuscript material acquired from Cardinal York and his estate by the Prince Regent in 1804, 1805 and 1816.Despite the author’s claim that he knows of an extraordinarily complex Hanoverian conspiracy to remove all documentary evidence of the survival of the Stuart line, there is no evidence that he ever consulted the genuine Stewart Papers. I cannot imagine how he knows what has and has not been purged from the record. Any paintings in the possession of the Cardinal at the time of his death would have been disposed in accordance with his will. There is no reference to a portrait of the “Comtesse de Massillan” and LaFosse offers no evidence or even an explanation of how the supposed painting (sic) came into the hands of the invented Stewarts either in Belgium or in Scotland.

[xxxix]Laurence Gardiner is the author of several books addressing the esoteric. Eg. Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Realm of the Ring Lords, Genesis of the Grail Kings, Lost Secrets of he Sacred Ark, Jesus, Adam and Eve, Anunnaki See:http://www.graal.co.uk - He frequently cites The Forgottten Monarchy of Scotland as a source, particularly in regard to his thesis that the Stewart Kings are one of the “Grail Kings” descended from the offspring of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene! Gardiner also cites the “Stewart Archives” as a repository containing critical documentation confirming these matters. Whilst his work may be popular in a niche market, his contribution to the writing of” history” only has credit within the company of the like- minded souls of his readership. See Paul Smith, http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/hbhgchildren.html for further comment. Gardiner claims to enjoy appointments to and titles from the fake “Royal House of Stewart” and the equally fake “European Council of Princes” of which “Prince Michael Stewart of Albany” is the self-appointed President. See also Entrevista exclusiva con Sir Lauréense Gardner. Copyright 2003 - Todos os directos reservados ao Jornal Infinito. Translated by: Marcus Sarmento.

[xl]Correspondence with Jim Thompson (Experts Directory Editor) May 2006. 

[xli]Discussions with Dr Elisabeth Findlay, Art History, Department of Humanities

[xlii]Discussions with Lucina Ward, “18^th Century European Art, July 2006.

[xliii]Correspondence with Guy Stair Santy, 23 May 2006. 

[xliv]Correspondence with Michael Daley artwatch@easynet.co.uk. October 2006.

[xlv]Courtauld Institute of Art, Somerset House Strand. London WC2R ORN. 

[xlvi]Correspondence with Monsieur Herve Cabezas, Conservateur du Musée Antoine Lécuyer, Saint-Quentin, France, 7 and 18 October 2006.

[xlvii]Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 13, page 991. (1968)

[xlviii]Letters de Mme du Deffand à Horace Walpole, edited by Mrs. Paget Toynbee (1912). Horace Walpole was the son of Sir Robert Walpole – regarded as the first Prime Minister of Great Britain. He served George ll with dedication and was the stern face of the Whig Party. It was to Horace Walpole, that the indefatigable Horace Mann, British Envoy at Florence, sent his endless reports on the activities of the dissipated life of Prince Charles Edward Stewart after Culloden.

[xlix]See also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 17, page 173. (1968)

[l]See, in addition to general works on French art, C. Desmaze, M. Q. de La Tour, peintre du roi (1854); Champfleury, Les Peintres de Laon et de St Quentin (1855); and "La Tour" in the Collection des artistes célèbres (1886); E. and J. de Goncourt, La Tour (1867); Guiffrey and M. Tourneux, Correspondance inédite de M. G. de la Tour (1885); Tourneux, La Tour, biographique critique (1904); and Patoux, L'CEuvre de M. Quentin de la Tour au musée de St Quentin (St Quentin, 1882). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol 13, page 793. (1968)

[li]Op cit.

[lii]“MacDonald Report” page 3.

[liii]Correspondence with: Gordon Macgregor. (See also<http://www.perthshireheritage.co.uk/albany_certs.html>.Gordon Macgregor supplied this document to Neil MacKay. MacKay showed it to Mr. Stewart during interview. Mr. Stewart stated that this was his real birth certificate. Mr. George Vanherbergen, Registrar at Ville de Bruxelles, has declared to be "faux" or false to both Mr. Macgregor and the lawyers of the Sunday Herald.Mr. Vanherbergen (Georges.Vanherbergen@brucity.be) stated:

"Monsieur,

En réponse a ce email relatif a M. Michel LAFOSSE, qui prétend être "Prince Michael of Albany" j'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir que les documents présents sont des FAUX.

Georges Vanherbergen.?Conseiller Etat Civil."

[liv]<homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/lafosse.htm>.

[lv]In response to further enquiries by Sean Murphy on 19 April 2002, a reply was received signed by the Conseiller Etat Civil, which stated that the. . . marriage certificate was false.

[lvi]It is hard to know how many documents have received some form of authentication. I would have thought that only a document expert could do this. At best, I would have thought that authentication could only be that a copy is certified as a true representation of the document tendered. As it is, there is no doubt that a number of documents have been repudiated by officials at the point of issue.

[lvii]Reasons suggesting why the relevant documents should be re-examined were conveyed to the Home Office at the request of a government investigator. Gordon Macgregor, a former follower of “Prince Michael” and from whom he severed connections as his doubts grew over the credibility of the claimant, provided the Home Office with copies of the disputed documents. Whilst the “Prince Michael” group regard Macgregor as a traitor, or worse, their disinclination to provide verifiable evidence of his alleged misconduct simply excludes the need for serious investigation. Similarly, “Black Devon” has had vague charges laid against her in the hot room of forum debate. I am not aware of the specifics of the complaints.

[lviii]Correspondence with: MargaretPalmer-Brown, November 2006.

[lix]Correspondence with: Gordon Macgregor.

[lx]Of the birth certificate naming him Michael Roger, he told Neil Mackay: “This is a concoction . . . has followed me for years. It is a fraud that was made deliberately.” He says he knows nothing of the Lafosse birth certificate or “this Lafosse character”. “The Man Who Would Be King Of Scotland,” Sunday Herald, 2 April 2006.

[lxi]Forgotten Monarchy, page 216-217.

[lxii]Forgotten Monarchy, page 210.The date cited, 3 April 1784, is in fact the date of the “separation” document was signed.

[lxiii]Forgotten Monarchy, page

[lxiv]Forgotten Monarchy, page 217 ff.

[lxv]Forgotten Monarchy, page 221.

[lxvi]Hugh Douglas, The Private Passions of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Sutton Publishing, 1998, page 264.

[lxvii]Correspondence with: Margaret Parker-Brown, November 2006.

[lxviii]The Stuart Papers are in the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle. They consist of 541 bound volumes of letters and manuscript material acquired from Cardinal York and his estate by the Prince Regent in 1804, 1805 and 1816.The collection remained in literary chaos until when catalogued them. There is no evidence for selective “weeding” of sensitive papers.

[lxix]See: Alistair Tayler, Henrietta Tayler, The Stuart Papers at Windsor: Being Selections from Hitherto Unprinted Royal Archives

[lxx]Forgotten Monarchy, Fig 57. See also further discussions on this topic at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jacobite/post?

[lxxi]Forum e-mails between “Prince Michael” and Robert Stewart, 29 April 2001

[lxxii]Noel McFerran in reply to the above.

[lxxiii]When under pressure “Prince Michael” has shown a disturbing habit of lapsing into anti-Christian (particularly anti-Catholic) bigotry. This is somewhat at odds with his claimed function as a priest of the “Celtic Church.”

[lxxiv]I am not aware of the results of this “digging.” The credentials of McFerran may be obtained quite easily. He received the degree Bachelor of Arts (in Classical Studies) from the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 1985 and the degree Master of Library Science from the same institution in 1988. He received the degree Master of Arts (in Theology) from Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary, Pennsylvania, in 1997. For fifteen years, he has worked as a professional librarian in public and academic libraries in Canada and the United States. Since 1998, he has been Head of Public Services in the John M. Kelly Library of the University of Saint Michael's College, one of the federated universities of the University of Toronto. Apart from his interest in the present (Jacobite) Royal Family, he is most interested in the life of Queen Mary of Modena, the reign of King Henry IX and I, and the religious aspects of the Jacobite movement. He is a life member of the Royal Stuart Society. He is also an Assistant to the Editor of English Reformation Sources, an online collection of primary documents about the history of the Reformation. From (http://www.jacobite.ca/mcferran.htm).

[lxxv]Attraverso L’Italia, Illustrazione Della Regione Italiana, Milano, 1935.

[lxxvi]The Library at which Noel McFerran works as a librarian has copies of the standard modern work on historical buildings in Rome - Ferruccio Lombardi Roma: Palazzi, Palazzetti, Case; Progetto per un Inventario, 1200-1870. McFerran has found no reference to "Casa Stuardo" in this work, nor in anything, he has read about King Charles Emanuel IV (whom most Jacobites recognize as the heir to King Henry IX and I). This information was posted on

[lxxvii]Forgotten Monarchy, page, and numerous other contributions to forums.

[lxxviii]Forgotten Monarchy, pages 293-294.

[lxxix]“Prince Michael” to “Robert Stewart” 29 April 2001.

[lxxx]“Marie Louise” at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jacobite/post?

[lxxxi]François Velde Hergé chose the name of the castle of Moulinsart from the hamlet of Sart-Moulin, near Braine l'Alleud, Belgium. Louis XIV gave the castle of Moulinsart to the chevalier François de Hadoque in July 1684. There is no suggestion whatsoever of a Jacobite connection.

[lxxxii]Le Patrimoine Monumental de la Belgique.1985, Volume 12, part 4 (the volume including the villages of Ruy and Moulin-du-Ruy), was cited by Noel S. McFerran in

[lxxxiii]Information Officer, BTO – USA, www.visitbelgium.com< http://www.visitbelgium.com>.

[lxxxiv]“Prince Michael” to “Robert Stewart” 17 May 2001 at (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jacobite/post?).

[lxxxv]Forgotten Monarchy, page 302.

[lxxxvi]“Royal House of Stewart,” <secretary@royalhouseofstewart.org.uk>

[lxxxvii]Forgotten Monarchy, page 312

[lxxxviii]op cit.

[lxxxix]Forgotten Monarchy, page 314.

[xc]Correspondence from: Lieutenant Colonel Jacques De Keyser, 10 July 2006 (File: JMBEMED 06-001589)

[xci]Correspondence with: Lt Col Vincent D’HOEST (File: JMBEMED 06-001589)

[xcii]ibid.

[xciii]Correspondence with: Gordon Macgregor

[xciv]Forgotten Monarchy, page 317.

[xcv]Correspondence between Gordon Macgregor and Archduke Otto.

[xcvi]Hugh Douglas, The Private Passions of Bonnie Prince Charlie, Sutton Publishing, 1998, page 235.

[xcvii]See Debrett’s for “Jacobite Honours”.

[xcviii]For example: articles by Guy Stair Santy, Francois Velde, and Sean Murphy et al.

[xcix]The Forgotten Monarchy, page 306 and endnote 1 to Chapter 20.

[c]Debrett’s, page

[ci]Correspondence with: Gordon Macgregor 16 May 2006

[cii]Early 15^th century proverb. The obverse of this coin is cited by Thomas Watson Snr., (Chairman of IBM) 1914-52. He claims that “clothes do not make the man . . . but they go a long way towards making a businessman." Quoted in Robert SobelIBM: Colossus in Transition (1981)

[ciii]Information about this event and a photograph recording the presence of “the Order” were displayed on the website of “The Royal House of Stewart” which has now been withdrawn.

[civ]City of York Civic Administrator, 20 Jun 2006

[cv]“Royal House of Stewart,” <secretary@royalhouseofstewart.org.uk>

[cvi]Forgotten Monarchy, “Albany Cadet Branches, Counts of Albany Chart: Supplement 2” page 486.

[cvii]Permission was given Carol Roscoe to distribute this letter. I include it in this present work with her permission.

[cviii]See comments by Lyon Court of Scotland, Debrett’s and Bourke’s, Sean Murphy, Guy Stair Santy and Francois Velde.

[cix]Stuart Papers, pp 118-119.

[cx]CarollyErickson, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Robson Books, 2001, p276.

[cxi]Op cit, page 280

[cxii]Clearly neither bearer of the ‘title’ was aware that during this time, according the genealogy of “Prince Michael,” the 4^th and 5^th Counts of Albany were living in Belgium. Perhaps the Chancery of “the Royal House of Stewart”, whereever that might have been, was losing its grip. 

[cxiii]Forgotten Monarchy, page 298.

[cxiv]“Prince Michael” informed Jack MacDonald of this alleged event in the course of the preparation of the “MacDonald Report.”

[cxv]Forgotten Monarchy, page 295.

[cxvi]Forgotten Monarchy, Picture 56.

[cxvii]Forgotten Monarchy. pp 268, 272 and 294.A former “Ambassador to the Royal House of Stewart” stated to me in correspondence that he saw LaFosse with these or similar sketches. He had the impression that LaFosse was responsible for the drawings. I cannot confirm this.There are other signs that the reproductions of the crest below two of the sketches are exactly the same, complete with smear marks on the left side of the shield. 

[cxviii]“MacDonald Report,” page 3. 

[cxix]Forgotten Monarchy, colour plate 8.

[cxx]However, Eric Vandenbroeck of worldNewsResearch wrote in an e-mail on 26 October 2006 that the “true tragedy of such cases is that their curtain never falls.”

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes.(1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000).

A.C. Ewald, Life and Times of Prince Charles Stuart, Count of Albany, Commonly Called the Young Pretender: From the State Papers and Other Sources. (London: Chapman & Hall, 1875.) 

Frank McLynn, Charles Edward Stuart: A Tragedy in Many Acts. (London: Routledge, 1988).

Patoux, L'CEuvre de M. Quentin de la Tour au musée de St Quentin (St Quentin, 1882).

Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Family: A Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999).

Among the older standard works are:

MargaretCrosland, Louise Of Stolberg: Countess Of Albany, (Hardcover Oliver & Boyd, 1962).

Andrew Lang, Prince Charles Edward Stuart: The Young Chevalier, (London: Longman, 1900).

Vernon Lee, The Countess of Albany, (1884), Marchesa Vitelleschi, A Court in Exile. (H. M. V.)

Viscount Mahon ed., The Decline of the Last Stewarts: Extracts from the Despatches of British Envoys to the Secretary of State (London 1893).

W.D. Norrie, Life and Adventures of Prince Charles Edward Stuart. (London: Caxton, 1903).

Alister and Henrietta Tayler, eds The Stuart Papers at Windsor, (London, 1939).

Herbert M. Vaughan, The Last Stuart Queen: Louise, Countess of Albany, Her Life & Letters (London: Duckworth, 1910).

There are a great number of popular biographies, the most widely read of which are the following:

David Daiches, Charles Edward Stuart: The Life and Times of Bonnie Prince Charlie (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973).

Carolly Erickson, Bonnie Prince Charlie: A Biography. (New York: William Morrow, 1989).

Moray McLaren, Bonnie Prince Charlie: A Biography. (New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972).

Home