Knights Templar of the Middle East:
Michael of Albany/Lafosse revisited
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, and a general overview by our co-worker Richard Hall.
Whereby now we come
to LaFosses new book (with underneath Richard Hall's
own book proposal):
Richard Hall: “For
the first time ever, a source within reveals the shocking truth that the roots
of the Knights Templar, and thus those of Freemasonry, were actually more
deeply linked to Islam than to Christianity.” Thus spake,
not Zarathustra, but the Amazon Editorial Reviewer of The Knights Templar of
the Middle East. Readers might well have thought that all that could possibly
be written about the Templar Knights had already be done and done again with
every conceivable interpretation, reinterpretation, romantic embellishment and
occult fantasy.
Unfortunately, the
book (the second by the self-styled “Prince Michael Stewart”) falls into the
latter category. Avid supporters of Michael LaFosse
(the real identity of the author) may well enjoy the latest flights of fantasy. It follows the standard formula for
commercially successful revisionism. Hidden truths are finally revealed. New
documents have been discovered, holy and unholy alliances are exposed to the
light of 21st century “illuminati.” The
failures and conspiracies of Christians, but most particularly those of the
Catholic Church, are exposed. The
connection of Freemasonry and the Scottish Templars knights gets yet another
airing together with the supposed leadership of the Royal Stewarts. Finally, there is an “Islamic” element that
engages us in contemporary issues.
Webmaster: So far the
introduction by Richard Hall, born in the UK he has been teaching history. As
for “Knights Templar of the Middle East: The Hidden History of the Islamic
Origins of Freemasonry” (2006) published by occultist Weiser Publishing in New
York, the idea that modern Freemasonry is a direct descendant of the order of
the Temple via a group of Templars who took refuge in Scotland after the
dissolution of the order in 1307, is one
that refuses to die in spite of lack of proven evidence to that effect. Today,
most bona fide historians either have declared against it.
Thus, any research
that would have added new information to those well-trodden paths would have
been much welcome; unfortunately, it is clear that the self-styled Prince
Michael and his collaborator, the filmmaker Walid Amine Salhab,
had a different agenda when they wrote their book.
As is often the case with tendentious works, the
authors start off from a few true facts, i.e. a) most of us in the West exhibit
a serious lack of knowledge and understanding about Islam, its principles, its
history, and its development; b)
Islamic scholars, both through their own original works, as well as
through the preservation and transmission of a vast body of classical Greek and
Asian philosophical, mystical, mathematical, and scientific works, were one of
the conduits by which Western Europe became reacquainted with the knowledge
that, eventually, spurred its own Renaissance; and c) the history of most religious organizations
(the authors conveniently omit Islam from their list) show numerous examples
when some of their leaders, as the flawed human beings they were (are?) engaged
in narrow-minded, bigoted, and, at times, downright cruel behavior. From there
on, "Prince Michael" and Salhab proceed to
weave a biased, sensationalist and ultimately nasty web of half-truths,
unproven facts, and self-serving myth.
After wading through
a litany of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-Catholic diatribes (just as the
first of frequent examples, see The Knights Templar, p. 3) and being subjected
to the writers' thorough disdain for any and all professional historians - who,
by the mere fact of disagreeing with them prove their pigheadedness and incompetence
- the reader is left with the familiar and unsupported claims expounded by the
prolific output of mutually-endorsing writers such as Laurence Gardner, Lynn Picknett & Clive Prince, Tim Wallace-Murphy &
Marilyn Hopkins.
In "Prince
Michael" and Salhab's own words:
...and their bid to
power [that of the Hasmonean princes who had been displaced by Herod the Great
(my parenthesis)] culminated in marriage, held at Cana, between a descendant of
the royal house of David, Jeshua ben Joseph, and a
Hasmonean princess, Myriam of Migdal. Today, they are better known as Jesus
Christ and Mary Magdalen (p.7).
Ironically, this
familiar, albeit completely unsupported statement, follows shortly after they
had stated: Roman Catholic Church (sic) promotes a history that is, to say the
least, somewhat edited. In fact, from the proper historian, there is little
truth to the historicity of the Christian church as a whole (p.6).
The first part of The
Knights Templar is but a reiteration of, and speculation upon, the meaning and implications
of the "Rex Deus" genealogy of the supposed descendants of Jesus and
Mary Magdalen - which, of course, includes one of the authors, "Michael of
Albany" - interspersed with a host of other startling claims, most of
which are, again, neither original nor substantiated, such as: Moses was
actually the Pharaoh Akhenaten; ancient Israel was located in the Western
Arabian Peninsula, the Kabbalah is not Jewish but Persian, Hugues de Payens (one of the co-founders of the Templars and their
first Grand Master) was an anti-Catholic crypto-Muslim, as was St. Bernard de
Clairvaux, together with the rest of the Cistercian-Templar hierarchy, and the
network of "Rex Deus" Royal families (descendants from Christ) who
supported him, etc., etc.
The rest of the book
deals with the stated - albeit, once again, unsupported - connection between
the Knights Templar and Freemasonry, and between Freemasonry and the Royal
House of Stewart, both before and after the so-called "Glorious
Revolution” of 1688 ousted them from the British throne and replaced them with
the House of Hannover.
Regrettably, those
matters - which, again, during the last hundred years have been the subject of
numerous studies by a variety of serious historians, both Masonic and
non-Masonic - are disposed of with the same lack of true scholarship the
authors exhibited in the previous sections of their book.
Update 7
Nov. 2006: Following the general overview by our co-worker Richard Hall,
underneath the book proposal Richard has started to work on:
A KING BEST FORGOTTEN SYNOPSIS OF EACH CHAPTER
Prologue: One small
Jacobite: singing songs and taking on a mission
In which I recall
boyhood holidays on the Isle of Lewis and learnt some Jacobite songs without
really understanding what they were about.
It was also where I became aware of my Fraser connections and the
fleetness of foot of the 11th Lord Lovat in matters of Jacobite or Government
allegiance. 73 years later, I recount my
surprise on seeing a book written by “HRH Price Michael James Stewart” in which
HRH claims to be a legitimate and direct descendant of “Bonnie Prince
Charlie.” I describe my growing
incredulity as I read the absurd reconstruction of orthodox history. This is quickly followed by my commitment to
exposing the falsity of his claims.
PART 1
THREE FACES OF
CHARLES EDWARD STEWART
Chapter 1: The face
of “The Man born to be King”
In which I deliver a simple
account of the rather complicated early life of the “Young Pretender.” I attempt to explain the extraordinary notion
of the “Divine Right of Kings” as it was enthusiastically embraced by the
exiled Royal Stewarts. Readers today
will find it almost unimaginable. Yet
James and his son, Charles Edward, followed the path they believed had been
laid out for them by a God who, they also believed, guided their
destinies. We glimpse the erratic and
overprotective mother and the gloomy father whose hopes of restoration rested
with his eldest son. The fantasies
hatched in the Muti Palace in Rome are contrasted
with the far more pragmatic machinations of the French King who regarded the
Stewart claim as a means to a successful invasion of the United Kingdom.
Chapter 2: The face of “Bonnie Prince Charlie” – the
Legend Begotten
The complicated
course of the ill-fated rebellion of 1745 is addressed. The Chapter traces the sequence of events
from the arrival at Borrodale House to the dreadful
aftermath of Culloden. The significant actions, the alleged spirited
pronouncements, such as “I am come home,” the “romance” of Flora MacDonald and
the genuine stoicism of Charles in the heather, are all placed within the
legend. The need for Charles to drink
in order to numb the pain of increasing despair leads the reader into the next
chapter.
Chapter 3: The Mournful face of a King Forgotten
The final chapter in
Part 1 describes the life of Charles Edward from his departure from Scotland
until his death in 1788. This account is
necessary, for it is still that part of the life of the Prince that is
unpalatable to the romantics. It is also
the part of the life of his life that the claimant (LaFosse)
reconstructs. He creates an entirely new
legend in which he is the present day reincarnation of a Prince who he alleges
consummated a second and valid marriage in 1785. LaFosse polishes
the accepted accounts of the sad decline of the Prince and claims that
scholars, who support any negative claims about Charles, are malicious. These
scholars, say LaFosse, have simple followed the
demands of “authorities” to blacken the name of the “true” king.
Chapter 3 provides
the chronology of Charles’ failure to engage in real friendships - particularly
with women. I suggest that his peculiar relations with his mother tarnished all
of his engagements with any female. He became a forgotten king, a despised
husband, a jealous lover, an alcoholic and the despair of the faltering
Jacobite cause. His health declined, he lost all support of the French king and
the Pope was not at home when he sought to present himself as King Charles lll. The devotion of
Charles’ daughter, as the Prince increasingly lost his grasp on reality,
injects another element of poignancy.
The period of her care of her father also coincides with the time,
according to the LaFosse claim, that the Countess de Massillan became Charles’ second wife and the mistress of Muti Palace. I point
out that LaFosse appears to be unaware of the
existence of the letters of daughter Charlotte to her mother, Clementine
Walkinshaw. In these rather pathetic
pieces of correspondence, Charlotte describes the dire condition of her father
and his failing mind. Equally well
recorded are the final hours of the forgotten king. He dies in the arms of his daughter and in
the presence of a few of the remaining Jacobites.
Chapter 4: Judgement and Epitaph
Historians like to
appoint themselves as presiding over their own court to deliver the “verdict of
History.” In this case many witnesses
would have been heard: Hanoverian Kings and their governments, Scots, English,
French and Italians, Catholics and Protestants.
The “evidence” of all would, to a degree, have been tainted as complex
agendas came into play. But it would be
his Maker who would judge Prince Charles, along with his supporters and his
detractors. Speculation on that outcome
is best left alone. As for “Bonnie
Prince Charlie,” his “history” may continue to evolve. The “record” will be
swept hither and yon by the winds of political change and the ambitions of
those who still wish to repaint or deface his portrait. To a great extent “Bonnie Prince Charlie” is
our own creation. We have tendered to
sanctify his charisma (what ever that was), his
undoubted stoicism, bravery and self-belief. We have concerned ourselves less
with his obstinacy, lack of genuine vision for Scotland, his strategic
ineptitude and his capacity for self-destruction. We blame French intransigence
and the lack of zeal by English Jacobites for the
disaster of Culloden. We mourn the
“destruction of Highland culture” when really it adapted and survived in a form
for which we (with the help of Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott, and even Queen
Victoria) may take some credit. Who
remembers “Butcher” Cumberland, the victor at Culloden? Who remembers James the “Old Pretender” or
even his father? Jacobites,
neo-Jacobites, Unionists and supporters of
independence alike, all remember “Bonnie Prince Charlie” in the way in which we
tend to remember William Wallace, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Guy Fawkes. And why not?
PART 2
WRITING OF ANOTHER
SONG
Chapter 5: Introduction
In which I disclose
the details of the birth of Michael Roger LaFosse
including his valid birth certificate, the identity of his parents and the
names of the witnesses.
I confirm the dates
of his departure for Scotland.
Chapter 6: The libretto revised
In which I apply the
standard tests for recognizing the scholarship of an author. This is in no way a malicious attack on the
author but rather to expose the syncopate writers of the “blurb” who make
extravagant comments on the depth of research.
Chapter 7: Artistic deceptions, documents and portraits
This chapter
describes the process by which I tracked down the true identity of a “painting”
claimed to be by Laurence Pechaux of the “Countess de
Massillan” (Charles’ alleged second wife). It is, in fact, a pastel portrait by Maurice
Quentin La Tour of an unknown woman.
However the evidence almost certainly identifies the subject as a young
woman of letters, resident in Paris. The
major portion of this chapter is now held at the Musée
Antoine Lécuyer for the interest of scholars.
A “portrait” of an
alleged “double” for Prince Charles Edward is shown to be a copy of a San
Clemente portrait of Charles himself.
In addition, I
identify the evidence that proves inter alia that:
• The marriage of Charles Edward and
Louise was not annulled.
• No second marriage took place
between Charles Edward and any one either at the Church of Santi Apostoli or
anywhere else in Rome.
• The alleged entry in the marriage
register at Santi Apostoli does not exist.
• No baptism of a Stewart (Albany)
is recorded at the Vatican.
• Correspondence claimed to be from
the Secretary of the Vatican Archives (ASV) to “HRH Prince Michael James
Stewart” has been tampered with in order to create the appearance of Vatican
support.
• The UK Home Office has now
reluctantly admitted that it is aware of the “assumed identity” of Michael
Roger LaFosse.
Chapter 8: Buildings with bricks and mortar and a couple
without
I briefly describe
the courts of the exiled Stewarts as an introduction to the existence of two
buildings LaFosse claims were occupied by the Counts
of Albany. One is allegedly in Rome
(Casa Stuardo) and the other in Belgium (Chateau
Moulin). The “evidence” is an engraving of the first and a photograph of the
latter. Whilst the engraving of some
building that may have existed in the 18th century, there is absolutely no
evidence that it is/was in Rome or that it was occupied by the Stewarts. The photograph of the second appears to have
been taken in the 1930s. It is certainly
not where LaFosse claims it to be nor do local
authorities have any knowledge of a residence resembling the Chateau or famed
as a previous residence of the Stewarts.
LaFosse claims that he was born there.
Chapter 9: Mischievous “memories”
Following an all out “search” in Rome for the appropriate authorities to
who I could put some of the more audacious descriptions of the personal
involvement of the false Prince, I can show inter alia that:
• I can identify the actual school
attended by LaFosse and the dates of his enrolment
and graduation.
• I have a copy of his enrolment
form and can confirm that he was entered into both the Primary and Secondary
school under the name of LaFosse.
• There is no evidence of the
existence of a so-called “Council of Princes” of which the false Prince claims
he is President.
• Contrary to the claim by LaFosse that he was “received by the Pope in audience” in
his role as President of the Council of Princes, the Vatican has no record of any
“HRH Prince Michael James Stewart” being received.
• The “Noble Guard of St Germain” is
a fabrication of LaFosse. He claims to have fons
honorium for the conferral of knighthoods in this
alleged order of chivalry. It also
happens to be a very profitable enterprise with extraordinary high “passage
fees” required by LaFosse.
Chapter 10:
Fabricated family ties and more lies
By far the weakest
part of The Forgotten Monarchy is the absurd “genealogies.” They appear to be the work of the notorious
writer in the esoteric genre – Laurence Gardner. I have contacted genuine and professional
Royal genealogists around the world. They regard the claims as impossible.
Chapter 11: The courts of the (exiled) Royal House of
Stewart and the modern misrepresentations
The legitimate courts
at St Germain and Rome are described.
The chapter focuses on the “court” of the false Prince. It is a small on-bedroom apartment in the centre of Edinburgh.
Its occupant boldly attached a plaque on the door stating that it “Stuarton House” (it certainly looks impressive on his
letterhead) and is the residence of “Michael Stewart, 7th Count of
Albany.” The “House” is also the address
for the Royal Chancery, the Office of the “Celtic Church,” the Office of the
Albany Trust. I record interviews with
his former neighbours who thought him to be quite
charming, but in the words of an elderly lady – “quite bent.” The Privy Counsellor resides on Norfolk
Island, an external territory of Australia.
He claims to be the Regent for the Royal House of Anjou. Apparently this does not create a conflict of
interest.
The Channel 4 Team
will conduct further investigation of this man.
Chapter 12: Is there
a case for recognition of a modern “Royal House of Stewart”?
This chapter concludes
Part 2 with an attempt to present a profile of the ordinary supporter of the
Claimant. It is very sad essay. LaFosse has cast
his net wide but with the most devious discretion. He has targeted the naïve, the romantics, the
extreme nationalists and the “darn right silly.” He has assumed (correctly as it happens) that
his faithful followers would not wish to demand “evidence of his claims” and
made no effort to track down the sources of some of his stories. I expose the pillaging of the works of John
Buchan and Sir Walter Scot, among others. I have cited the genuine heartbreak
of both men and women who thought they were genuine friends of the
“Prince.” He abused their friendship,
exploited their frailties, and took advantage of those willing to follow his
star for their own benefit. I have
expressed my sympathy for the mother of LaFosse who
has been aware of the fantasies. I have
chosen not to seek comment from her. She
is elderly, frail, divorced and, I believe, deeply concerned over her son’s duplicities. I have no wish to cause her further
distress. Should she ever read this MS I
hope that she will realize I have not written, as have so many anonymous
critics and supporters in chat forums. They have expressed their views without
sensitivity and with vulgar and bullying language.
I conclude that there
is no evidence even faintly favourable to the claims
by LaFosse. He is certainly imaginative, duplicitous
and opportunistic. It is remarkable how well he has held his nerve for so
long. There is a condition that is often
experienced by field agents in the intelligence services who are required to
assume a false identity and thoroughly emerge themselves in their role. In due course, under the extreme strain they
experience, there is a growing inability to recognize their real identity. Such
a crisis will normally result in the agent being extracted. In the case of LaFosse,
he has extracted himself. His tragedy
will be that it is unlikely that he has assumed his real identity and will be
sucked into more deceptions and greater isolation.
Chapter 13: Summary of Conclusions
My analysis 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 in the matter of birth certificates:
• Michael Roger LaFosse
was born in the Watermael-Boitsfort district of
Brussels on 21st April 1958.
• A valid birth certificate for
Michael Roger LaFosse was issued to his father,
Gustave Joseph Clément Fernand Lafosse, a shopkeeper,
and his mother - Renée Julienne Dée, a business
employee.
• Two further 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 both 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.
• “Prince Michael James Stewart” is
one and the same person as Michael Roger LaFosse, a
Belgian citizen.
• In the name of “Prince Michael
James Stewart, Count of Albany,” LeFosse has obtained
British naturalization and a British passport.
The UK Home Office is currently seeking to have him answer some
important questions concerning its belief that at least some of the documents
presented in support of the two applications are false. The Home Office also concedes that they are
aware of both the genuine and assumed identities.
• No valid record has been provided
or found to support a “divorce” or annulment of the marriage of Louise of
Stolberg and Prince Charles. A notice of Agreement for a Separation does exist.
• No valid record has been provided
or found that Charles Edward contracted a marriage (valid or not) with anyone
after he and Louise separated.
• No valid record has been provided,
or found, to support the claim that Prince Charles contracted a second marriage
to the “Comtesse de Massillan”.
• No valid record has been provided,
or found, to suggest that this supposed marriage resulted in the birth of
“Prince Edward James Stewart.”
• No valid record has been provided, or
found, to suggest that a baptism was held in St Peter’s, for a child of “Prince
Edward James Stewart 2nd Count of Albany” and “Maria Pasquini,”
let alone one conducted by the Pope.
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 evidence confirms
that, in the matter of other documents:
• The Secretariat of the Catholic
school of Saint-Vincent in Soignies, Belgian, located
the record of the attendance of student Michael Roger LaFosse.
There was no record of the attendance of “Prince Michael James Stewart.”
• 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 that are claimed to have issued it.
• No valid evidence has been
provided or found to support the claim that
• No valid evidence (birth, baptism,
marriage, divorce or death certificates, wills, burial sites or title deeds)
has been provided or found to support the existence of any of the “Counts of
Albany” or their supposed wives.
• The one-time existence of a UK
Passport issued in the name of “HRH Prince Michael Edward Stewart of Albany”
does not imply the standard of scrutiny of documents assumed by supporters and
doubtless many others.
• As the UK Home Office has now
admitted that it is aware of the real and assumed identity of Michael Roger LaFosse, doubtless, all necessary actions have now been
taken to meet the UK Government’s obligation to observe international and
domestic legal requirements in the matter of identification for “Prince
Michael.”
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of Church Canon Law:
* Prince Charles Edward and Louise
de Stolberg contracted a valid (sacramental) marriage. Therefore, neither was free to contract a
valid second marriage. If such a marriage did take place, it could not have
been celebrated in a Catholic Church. Both parties were subject to Canon Law.
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of the 1980 “MacDonald Report”:
• The author (Jack MacDonald) shows
that correspondence between the Secretary of the Vatican Secret Archives and
“Prince Michael” had been tampered with in order to reflect support of a
Vatican official when such support had not been given. On the contrary, the Vatican rejected all the
assertions of the Claimant.
• The alleged entries in the
Marriage Register of the Church of Santi Apostoli for a marriage between Prince
Charles Edward and the “Comtesse de Massillan” do not
exist.
• There is no rite in the Catholic
Liturgy for “Dynastic Entry.” The “MacDonald Report” refers to correspondence
with the priest-in-charge of the church in which this rite was allegedly
performed. The priest stated that no
ceremony resembling the one described by “Prince Michael” took place.
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of military service, special appointments and social
occasions:
• The Belgian
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 the service of “HRH Prince Michael James
Stewart.”
• Michael Roger LaFosse
was called-up for National Service obligations that were discharged between 2nd
September 1977 and 1st September 1978.
• The Administrative Office of the
European Community denies any knowledge of the so-called “Council of Princes.”
• The Head of the Austrian Habsburg
family denies having any connection with this Council about which he also has
no knowledge.
• No Vatican records have been
located that confirm an alleged private audience by Pope John-Paul ll with “Prince Michael” in 1992 or at any other time.
• The office of the Mayor of Brussels cannot
identify the event that purports to be a celebration of the 50th anniversary of
the wedding of the “Prince and Princess of Annandale.”
• 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 reference to the writ
of abdication by “Princess Renéee” in favor of her
son Michael to whom, it appears, legitimate succession passed but without
further explanation.
The evidence confirms
that, in the matter of alleged Stuart buildings:
• No valid evidence has been
provided, or found, to confirm the location of the so-called Casa Stuardo in Rome or the so-called Château Moulin in the
Belgian Ardennes. Nor have the remains
of either been located.
• No documentary evidence has been
provided or found recording the disposal of any property in the names of any of
the alleged “Albany” line.
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of the Noble Order of the Guard of St Germain and related
chivalric awards and honours:
• Some members of “Prince Michael’s”
circles are members of an organization called “The Noble Order of the Guard of
Saint Germain.”
• There is no evidence to support the
claim that the Noble Order of the Guard of Saint Germain is a legitimate order
of chivalry.
• There is every reason to believe
that the “order” is simply a creation of the Claimant.
• No members, including the
self-appointed Grand Master, have the right to the use of post-nominals
denoting membership of a legitimate order of chivalry, nor may they legally use
the honorific “Sir” or “Dame” before their names.
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of the Genealogical Tables:
• The genealogical information
contained in The Forgotten Monarchy is substantially from the work of the
self-styled Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain and
was first published in Bloodline of the Holy Grail. This, in itself, conveys no
authority. 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 who wish to believe the
bizarre claims.
• Qualified genealogists have already provided
a persuasive and technical critique of the charts. They are universal in their rejection of the
supposed lineage.
The evidence confirms
that in the matter of the misuse of art works to identify contrives figures in
the “Albany” story:
• The Claimant has deliberately
used both identified and unidentified pieces of art in a deceptive manner. The
most serious deception involves a work of Maurice Quentin La Tour. This
portrait 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.
• The original of this portrait
cannot be held in the “Stewart Archives.”
• 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.
• The subject is possibly Julie
Jeanne Eléonore de Lespinasse (1732-1776).
• Significant circumstantial evidence
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.
• There is a reproduction of a
portrait in The Forgotten Monarchy alleged to be of “Rohano-Stuardo. In turn, it is claimed that he is the alleged
second cousin of the Comtesse de Massillan and was a
double for the Prince Charles Edward.
The pictorial evidence is a poorly contrived cropping of a reproduction
of a portrait of the incorrectly identified “Old Pretender” at San Clemente.
Art historians now regarded it as depicting Bonnie Prince Charlie.
• There is no reference to any
artists such as Guiseppe Isola, Theo van Rysselberghe, or Michele Cammarano
having painted any subject recognized as a royal Prince in a line of Albany.
Summary
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. He has
constructed an audacious fantasy and has deliberately targeted a credulous
group. The story is riddled with
implausibility and fabricated evidence.
The deceptions have been lived out for far too many years without
exposure. The voices of the genuine and often scholarly researchers seeking to
expose the hoax by Roger LaFosse have generally
fallen on deaf ears.
It is no part of this
work to speculate on the reasons behind this elaborate deception, despite the
curiosity of some, including myself. The
reluctance of some authorities to assist in the investigation of the claims to
royalty will doubtless continue to fuel the belief of some that there is
something to hide and that there has been a deliberate cover-up. This possibility cannot be entirely
discounted. Equally likely, or even more so, is the possibility that the
contrived story has provided financial reward both from the publication of his
two books, numerous speaking engagements and the possible levying of “passage
fees,” for the processing and conferral of titles.
It remains to be seen
to what extent the UK Home Office will continue to work to bring LaFosse to account. One must hope that in these times of
the greater awareness by the public of the need to be accurately identified,
procedures will be implemented to tighten up the issue of passports and
documents that may be used to confirm the true identify the holder.
It is possible,
although I have no means to test this, that Michael LaFosse
actually believes in the story he spins but the extent to which he has profited
by the titles points to a possible motive.
It is hard to predict
whether the fantasy life of LaFosse is really over.
The appearance of a second book and the prospect of a third appears to indicate
that at least one publisher believes that the “Prince” can still harvest a
readership from those for whom the bizarre is still a comfortable substitute
for reality.
Sad though it might
be for some to accept, Michael Roger LaFosse is not
“the man born to be king”; he did not “come home” to Scotland. As with the Prince whose life he tried to
emulate and from whom he claimed descent, he now wanders through Europe. This
contemporary “pretender” is best forgotten.
Appendix 1: The MacDonald Report
Jack MacDonald is a
professional photographer, a gentle and cultured man and an enthusiastic
“nationalist.” He was a great friend of
the charismatic nationalist, poet and storyteller – Wendy Wood. They were both introduced to the young man
who claimed to be Michael James Stewart, claimant to the throne of
Scotland. Wendy embraced his cause with
enormous enthusiasm. Jack MacDonald and his wife became very found of Michael but urged caution until the claims could
be investigated. He then undertook to
make a careful examination of the evidence produced thus far. He undertook to
make a careful examination of the evidence produced thus far. He consulted a number of equally worried
associates who were concerned over the impact of the LaFosse
story on the credibility of the emerging rise of support for Scottish
self-determination. He believed that the last thing needed by the National
Movement was the appearance of a colourful character
making claims to royal descent that might not be substantiated. Among those who provided assistance to the
way in which the interviews should be conducted was an eminent Glasgow lawyer - James Docherty. His contribution is clearly reflected in the
way in which a number of vital questions were put to LaFosse,
the responses to which lead directly to MacDonald’s conclusions.
The report was given
to Wendy Wood in 1980. To the great
distress of her close and concerned friends, Wendy Wood ignored the findings
and continued to provide support to Roger LaFosse
until her death in 1981 at the age of 88.
As far as I am aware,
the report was not widely distributed but it did tend to divide the loyalties
of supporters and detractors. A practice
of denigration of the messenger rather than the message then took root. It continues today. Sadly, some of the more
recent and the conflicting positions are expressed in terms that reflect little
credit on the protagonists, however genuinely they hold their beliefs. Clearly,
the author of the MacDonald Report and the comments of other genuine
researchers cited elsewhere, are the exceptions.
The exchange of
correspondence was confined mainly with Vatican officials as, at that time, the
claims rested almost entirely on the purported support of the Secretary of the
ASV.
MacDonald concluded
that the claimant was both a charlatan and a forger. In the course of my investigations, I checked
all of his sources to which I added many of my own.
Appendix 2: Some additional sour notes
The contents of this
appendix have been set apart from the text of my major argument for the reason
that, whilst the material goes to the lack of credibility of the claimant, it
lacks the weight of direct evidence for or against his royal pretensions. But it does go to the matter of character
and, perhaps an exposure of his needs for recognition as something more than an
ordinary man. It does reveal to range of
fantasy and each has a strong element of attempts to redress what I regard as
social inadequacy.
In brief the examples
cited include:
• United Nations 2001 Volunteer
Service Medal: an “award” alleged by LaFosse to have
been issued by the UN. This organization
denys making the award.
• Certificate and Citation for Medal
Award: A forged certificate attesting to the award. Totally rejected by the UN
• Legion of Frontiersmen: shows how a supporter enrols
the claimant into this organization, had him awarded a senior position in the
organization and receiving a medal of distinction.
• Appointment to the Boards of
European organizations: Although there
are examples of mutual advantage being gained in having the “royal” credentials
shown, some organizations were genuinely taken in.
• Naturalization Certificate:
Naturalization Certificate: Naturalization Certificate: This is a very serious breach of security for
the UK. LaFosse
sought and received British naturalization on the basis of a false birth
certificate and providing other details that are false. I record the extensive stonewalling by the
Home Office in refusing to respond to my queries. Following a letter to the Home Secretary, I
was finally advised of an acknowledgement that the Home Office was now aware of
the “assumed” identity. The
naturalization and the UK passport have been cancelled.
• UK Driving License: As above
• UK Passport: As above
• “Diplomatic Passport”: LaFosse claims that he has travelled with this
passport. It has been issued by an
organization that claims to be a branch of the Sovereign Order of Malta, the
only non-territorial entity authorized to issue a passport. The branch” is one of several that falsely
claim a legal association with the Sovereign Order.
Chapter 5:
Introduction
Just on 238 years
after the birth of the “Young Pretender” to the Scottish throne and claimant to
the thrones of England and Ireland, another pretender was born in Belgium who
would develop similar dreams and was fated to the same disappointments.
Background to the
early life of young LaFosse
The boy born on 21st
April 1958 was the son of two young middle class Belgian 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.” [i]
(See Plate 4)
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.
[ii] 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.” [iii]
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. The need for
both courtesy and respect demands 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.
He transferred from the junior to the senior school on 1st 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. [iv] The Forgotten Monarchy does indeed 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.” [v]
With no other
information available and applying the greatest caution in using any 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.[vi] In 1976, the eighteen year old packed up and
sailed to the United Kingdom to pursue his dreams.[vii] 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 and still am unaware of the “High Tea”
custom – at least for its content.
However, memory of an “egg” story lurked in my unreliable memory. In due course, I found that the consummate
teller of traveler’s tales, H.V. Morton, also wrote of a similar event in his
much-loved book - In Search of Scotland. [viii] In his case, however, it obviously
was a breakfast and it was partaken at the appropriate hour.
Defining the task
I make no attempt to
comment on The Forgotten Monarchy in its entirety. It has already been analyzed
by many well-informed (and some ill-informed) reviewers. The former 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” [ix] praised the “meticulous research of the
writer.” [x] Another with a Ducal title,
unrecorded in any reputable genealogy of royalty and the nobility, used phrases
such as “[a]n enthralling account” and a self-styled Bishop was “truly
astonished at the author’s insight into the political affairs of Scotland”.[xi] 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.[xii] Whilst his comment
should also be recognized as a “political” response, there is little evidence
of widespread political influence by the Claimant.
My self-appointed
task, however, is limited to establishing whether LaFosse
has a legitimate claim to a royal title, or whether even circumstantial
evidence has been discovered to support the possibility.
CHAPTER 6:
THE LIBRETTO REVISED
Most book reviewers
and certainly the assessors of academic work will pay close attention to an
author’s bibliography as a means of determining the scope of research. One
would expect even the laziest of reviewers would do this. Clearly, supporters
did not.
I found that my own
task was made a little less difficult by simply focusing my attention on the
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-source annotations support this aspect of the book in which radically new
and startling evidence is promised.
Few of them referred to
a source that could be verified. This is
hardly an example of genuine research, let alone suggestive of the “meticulous
research” cited in various promotions. 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 [xiii] nor could the librarians who assisted
me. No “Stewart file” exists in the
“Vatican Archives.” [xiv] The memoires of Cardinal Ercole
Consalvi [xv] are actually located in the Bibliothèque
de Université de Savole, France. The repository cited
in The Forgotten Monarchy did not hold a copy. An English translation is
available. A two volume-set of the first
English edition was recently sold for $(US) 1000.[xvi] The memoires make no
mention of anything faintly helpful to the author of The Forgotten
Monarchy.[xvii]
Objective critics
cannot avoid concluding that there is little evidence of genuine scholarship in
the author’s attempt to advance an extraordinary reinterpretation of history.
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 but factual sketch is shown in
“Background”, above. To better contrast fact from garnishing, I will refer to
the author of The Revised Tale in this section as “Prince Michael” or “the
Claimant.
CHAPTER 7:
THE ARTISTIC
DECEPTIONS;
DOCUMENTS AND
PORTRAITS
The Problem of Marguerite Marie Therese O’Dea d’Aubert
de Lussan “Comtesse de Massillan”
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 really any evidence for the alleged second marriage of
Prince Charles Edward Stewart? No evidence of the annulment of the first
marriage, (see also Appendix 1) then or now, means that a second marriage in
the Catholic Church simply would not be permitted under Canon Law. [xviii] 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
(see also Appendix 1) the death certificate of this wife or her place of her
burial, is certainly necessary. These documents, if located, would provide some
of the mandatory “markers” required by genuine 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 documents
produced by the Claimant are indisputably false. The significance of this issue
was the immediate focus of Jack MacDonald in 1980. A transcript of this report
is shown at Appendix 1. 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.[xix]
I confirmed these findings with the current Secretary of the ASV and
sought further information from the Dominican community in Rome.[xx] 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
behavior, notwithstanding the well-recorded abuse of Louise by Charles. These
mutual contributions to the fact of the failure of the marriage resulted in
permission to separate. It was not a notice of annulment [xxi] nor had one been
sought. Neither party was free to contract a valid marriage then after.
* There is no authenticated evidence that
Louise did re-marry although she continued to cohabit with her lover Vittorio
Alfieri.
* There is no authenticated 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. So 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 to the
end. She was intensely possessive of her
father and would not have willingly allowed anyone to replace her; 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.
[xxii] 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. [xxiii]
* No such entry in the Marriage Register
can be located.
* There is no documentary evidence of a
baptism being held in St Peter’s, for a child of “Prince Edward James Stewart
2ndCount of Albany” and “Maria Pasquini,” [xxiv] let
alone one conducted by the Pope.
* Correspondence with Mons. Martino Giusti
of the ASV has been tampered with in order to create the appearance of Vatican
support for the Claimant when, in fact, there is no evidence to support these
claims. The Secretary made this quite clear in his letters to both “Prince
Michael” and MacDonald that the Giusti signature had been forged. [xxv]
Problems with Captions
One vexatious matter
tended to take on a life of its own and threatened to be one of the very few
deceptions I followed up that might defy resolution. Not entirely surprisingly,
a small number of romantics clung to this perceived imperfection in the
research and pointed out that, because of this, there was a possibility that
the “Prince” might have the basis of a valid claim.
Although evidence
[xxvi] rules against the existence of a “Comtesse de Massillan,”
at least as presented in The Forgotten Monarchyand
certainly not as the second wife of Prince Charles Edward Stewart, I could not,
initially, identify the somewhat engaging portrait of the “Comtesse.” The
author claims that the portrait is the work of the French Court Painter,
Laurent Pechaux (1729 -1812) who, he states, painted
the “Comtesse” in 1785 – the year of her alleged marriage to Prince Charles
Edward Stewart.
Pechaux was indeed painter to the Stuart Court. His
appointment was made by the de jure King Charles lll
following the death of the “Old Pretender” – James. Pechaux performed
his first commission by painting Charles.
A further commission to paint Louise of Stolberg soon after her wedding
in April 1772 followed this. However, no
publication on art history lists “de Massillan” as a subject
of Pechaux [xxvii] or anyone else.
The Picture Credits
in Forgotten Monarchy indicate that either the original portrait, or a
reproduction, is located in the frequently cited “Stewart Achieves.” [xxviii]
This repository is variously described as being in Scotland or 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 of researchers
studying the collection, no reputable scholar [xxix] has ever even heard of the
“Stewart Archives.” Of the three
pictures that could not be identified, I did not deem two of them of sufficient
importance to continue the search. 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 [xxx] became enthusiastic collaborators, as did the Art
Department of the Australian National University [xxxi] and the Australian
National Gallery. [xxxii] Advice was
sought and received from Guy Stair Sainty [xxxiii]
who suggested that Jean Marc Nattier might be the artist. He totally rejected the possibility that the subject
was the “Comtesse de Massillan”. (See Plate 5) I
spent some time trying to identify the complete inventory of the work of Jean
Marc Nattier. The style and period were generally in favor of the artist.
However, my own research and correspondence with galleries and art dealers
around the world failed to deliver a positive identification. Appeals to some
French institutions were 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 negative comments on LaFosse
had been made. It should be acknowledged that they were just as often disputed
– usually on other web sites.
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 that it was the “Comtesse de Massillan” and
that they knew how she was 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 papers, mostly in French, which, with the assistance of
yet another family member, we laboriously translated. It was not a profitable exercise. The papers
were mainly irrelevant or came from dubious sources. I shall comment on the
profile of the La Fosse client-base elsewhere.
In September 2006, I
found a reference to an interesting Internet web site - “Art Watch.”
[xxxiv] 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 [xxxv] 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 (See Plate 6) plus a copy of a brief biography of Julie
Jeanne Eleanore de Lespinasse
(1732-76) by Dr Richardiere of Paris. (See Plate 7)
It was attached to the back of the card. The inference was that someone had
suggested that the unidentified female subject was, in fact, a notable French
woman of letters (See Plate 6).
This pastel portrait
is by Maurice Quentin La Tour. It is displayed 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 Plate 5). 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 favor the latter. Artists generally did not assign a
title to portraits. For contemporary
viewers, the portrait would identify itself.
It was usually later that art historians (or sellers) provided a title –
sometimes it was not correct. The files of the Musée
Antoine Lécuyer, whilst rather meager, also have a
post card with the reference - “Mademoiselle de Lepinasse.”
( ?) The Director does not know who has
put forward [this] hypothesis. [xxxvi] 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, 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 La Tour 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 La Tour. He produced
portraits of Rousseau, Voltaire, Louis XV, his queen, the dauphin and
dauphiness, Mme de Pompadour and Prince Charles
Edward Stewart. Artistically and socially, Julie de Lespinasse
would certainly not have been out of place in this company.
A useful biography of
Julie de Lespinasse may be found in the Encyclopedia
Britannica. [xxxvii] 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. [xxxviii] 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
[xxxix] 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 [xl] (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 “painter to
the (French) king.” In 1746, he was received into the academy. In 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 eighty, 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 the drawings
to the town. They are now displayed in
the museum.
Other deceptions with
art: reaching a new low
The method used by
the Claimant in his artistic deceptions becomes even more obvious when he
captions a portrait claimed to be a cousin of Charles Edward’s second wife.
(See Plate 8A below) This is the person
whom the Claimant alleges was used as “a decoy when Charles made secret trips
to Britain.” [xli] By way of comparison,
a second portrait is shown, this time claiming that it is of the genuine Prince
Charles Edward.
It was not difficult
to identify the source of two portraits in The Forgotten Monarchy. (See Plates
8A and 8B below). A book by Donald Nicholas [xlii] was an obvious reference
source. It contains an extensive collection of portraits of “Bonnie Prince
Charlie.” One of them is located with the Irish Dominicans of San Clemente in
Rome. It was once described as a portrait of the Chevalier de St George, by
whom this is meant James the “Old Pretender.” The identity of the artist is
uncertain. However, no student of art
history would now regard the subject as being anyone other than Bonnie Prince
Charlie, albeit, far from his bonnie best! [xliii] All are clearly the same
work.
CHAPTER 5: Introduction
[i] 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 of 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'.
[ii] Neil Mackay, “The Man Who Would
Be King Of Scotland,” Sunday Herald, 2 April 2006.
[iii] op cit,
See Fig 2.
[iv] Correspondence with: Vincent
Willems, Executive Secretary C.E.S St-Vincent. The team from the Secretariat
located the enrolment card for Michael Roger LaFosse. Although I hold a copy of this card I do not
wish to reproduce it.
[v] HRH Prince Michael of Albany
(sic) The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, (Vega, 2002) page 299.
[vi] Correspondence with: Carol Roscoe.
[vii] The Forgotten Monarchy, page 301.
[viii] H.V. Morton, In Search of
Scotland, (Methune and Co. Ltd., 1929) page 158.
[ix] This particular title is clearly
an indication of a “knighthood in the Noble Order of the Guard of Saint
Germain”
[x] Back cover, The Forgotten
Monarchy.
[xi] op cit.
[xii] Correspondence with: Scottish
National Party. The Party Clerk sent me a copy of a report by a member familiar
with the topic.
CHAPTER 6: THE LIBRETTO
REVISED
[xiii] 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.
[xiv] Correspondence with: Secretary “Archivio Segreto Vaticano (AVO)
[xv] Ercole Consalvi; J Crétineau-Joly
Mémoires du cardinal Consalvi, (Paris, H. Plan, 1864)
[xvi] 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
Memoires 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.
[xvii] “HRH Prince Michael James Stewart”
(sic) The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, (Vega, 2006)
CHAPTER 7: THE
ARTISTIC DECEPTIONS, DOCUMENTS AND PORTRAITS
[xviii] Both the Eastern or Oriental Rite
churches have their own Code of Law.
These bodies of rules developed gradually. Initially it was the Councils that issued the
canons. In the West the standard text of
law became the Decretum of Gratian in c1140. This formed part of the larger Corpus Iuris Canonici in 1499. In 1917 this massive collection was rewritten
and reduced in size. It was then reissued in 1983. Through the history of the
development of Canon Law, the unchanging practice in the Catholic Church has
been to regard sacramental marriage as indissoluble. However, subject to certain specific
conditions, a competent tribunal could rule that a 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 behavior and the second was her failure to bear a child. At no stage in the history of the Church were
either of these matters grounds 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. See The
Code of Canon Law in English Translation, (Collins Liturgical Publications,
1983), particularly Title Vll: Canon 1141.
[xix] Jack S. MacDonald, author of “The
MacDonald Report” was a member of a group of the Scottish Patriots that
included Wendy Wood, A.J. Stewart, Nigel Tranter and others. My copy (see
transcription at Appendix 1) was received from Jack MacDonald. This excellent
piece of investigation has made a number of appearances on various Internet
sites. (See for example: Prince Michael of Albany alias Michel Lafosse).
[xx] Two Dominican Friars assigned to
appointments in Rome kindly facilitated a search of the San Clemente archives
and engaged in courteous and persistent correspondence with Vatican officials
on my behalf.
[xxi] 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.
[xxii] 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 25th day before the Kalends of December; that is 39th of
March!
[xxiii] These, and other matters concerning LaFosse, are shown at his web site <"Prince Michael
of Albany">.
[xxiv] 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.”
[xxv] “MacDonald Report”, Page 4.
[xxvi] Op cit. See Appendix 1:“Analysis of
documents and other information cited and tendered by LaFosse”
[xxvii] Donald Nicholas, The Portraits of
Bonnie Prince Charlie,( Clout and Baker Ltd., 1973) page 40 -42.
[xxviii] 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.
[xxix] Laurence Gardner 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 Forgotten 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! Gardner 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.htmlfor further comment. Gardner
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.
[xxx] Correspondence with: Jim Thompson
(Experts Directory Editor) May 2006.
[xxxi] Discussions with Dr Elisabeth
Findlay, Art History, Department of Humanities, Australian National University.
[xxxii] Discussions with Lucina Ward, “18th
Century European Art”, Australian National Gallery, July 2006.
[xxxiii] Correspondence with Guy Stair Sainty, 23 May 2006.
[xxxiv] Correspondence with Michael Daley
artwatch@easynet.co.uk. October 2006.
[xxxv] Courtauld
Institute of Art, Somerset House Strand. London WC2R ORN.
[xxxvi] Correspondance
with Monsieur Herve Cabezas, Conservateur du Musée Antoine Lécuyer,
Saint-Quentin, France, 7 and 18 October 2006.
[xxxvii] Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol 13, page
991. (1968)
[xxxviii] 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.
[xxxix] See also Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol
17, page 173. (1968)
[xl] 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); "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). Encyclopédique Britannica, Vol 13, page 793. (1968)
[xli] The Forgotten Monarchy, portrait
and caption, page 46. Multiple secret trips of Charles to Britain are part of
the modern fantasy of neo-Jacobite revisionists. Historians actually identify only one trip to
London between 12 and 26 September 1750.
It was a total failure. It must be said, however, that a decoy did
replace Charles on at least one occasion.
This was when a hunting party, which included both Charles and brother
Henry, used the diversion to detach Charles who sped off by horse for Massa and
from thence to Genoa on a secret journey to Paris. The hunting party returned to Rome on 17
January 1744 with a fair-haired young man who resembled Charles. Who ever he was, he
succeeded in convincing the Romans for about a week. (Carolly
Erickson, Bonnie Prince Charlie, (Robson Books, 2001) pages 89 - 90. There is
no evidence that the double was anyone of note and he was probably recruited
locally. Decoys may have been employed
on other occasions but there is no suggestion that an on-call “double” was used
in the way in which British authorities covered for General Bernard Montgomery
during World War ll.
[xlii] Donald Nicholas, The Portraits of
Bonnie Prince Charlie, (Clout & Baker Ltd) 1973. Page 41.
[xliii] Amy Vitteleschi,
A Court in Exile (London: Hutchinson, 1903), I, plate facing page 144,
describes it as of the "Chevalier de St. Georges" (i.e. King James
III and VIII). Alice Shield, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, and His Times
(London: Longmans, Green, 1908), page 266, writes that the "portrait is
not of James but of Charles in about his sixtieth year, and a good
likeness". Donald Nicholas, The Portraits of Bonnie Prince Charlie (Maidstone: Clout & Baker, 1973), page 40, writes,
"it is, however, obviously of Charles".
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"
And more recently he
apparently also maintains
a Facebook page:
For updates click homepage here