Customer Reviews

The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

I must say it is a most entertaining book. I laughed so much in the first thirty pages that I was almost in tears. As a student of history, I should have cried. Where to begin? How about Scotland being the oldest land mass on Earth? It goes on from there. This incredible Templar history, based upon a vivid imagination, is just that: incredible. Masons pop up in Scotland before any other recorded existance. An incredibly efficient Hanoverian-to-Windsor secret service hiding all information of a continuing Stewart line makes James Bond look like an amateur. If only the actual MI5 and MI6 were so capable. Other reviewers have covered some of the other ludicrous claims and so-called "facts," so I'll cover methodology. I loved the scattered footnotes. First, the ones that were from reputable sources covered well-known facts. The ones that referenced dubious statements were either from such highly regarded sources (LOL) as Laurence Gardner's "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" or the nebulous "The Vatican Archives, Rome." Would any of you of a historical bent care to verify an archival reference with no other information than that? As I said, footnotes were niggardly, but the bibliography was generous. I would like to know where in the book some of those in that extensive list were used. Anyone can make an impressive list of references, but that doesn't mean that they are used. I must admit that the geneological charts were creative. Is there anyone alive who is not related to Charles Edward Stewart from one side of the sheets or the other? From those charts, I doubt it. If you want a laugh, read the book. If you want history, avoid it like the plague.

This book would be even funnier if people did not take it so seriously. As a history, it doesn't even deserve notice; most of the assertions "Prince Michael" makes are backed up by citations that are so deliberately vague (The Vatican Archives, for example) that no serious scholar could ever attempt to verify his claims to being the legitimate Stuart claimant.

As a genealogy, this book is positively grotesque. "Prince Michael's" purported ancestry includes supposed ancestors that did not even exist, as has been conclusively demonstrated by a number of very good websites that specialize in European royal & noble lines. The fact that "Prince Michael" is in league with the very very dubious Laurence Gardner, who has no credence whatsoever in genealogical circles, should speak for itself.

A visit to "Prince Michael's" and Gardner's websites show clearly that the whole purpose of this enterprise is to make a buck, and evidently they have been successful in this venture, even if historical truth had to be sacrificed to achieve this.

This is not to say that I didn't enjoy the book. When the author doesn't have to bother with historical accuracy, he can instead concentrate on writing a brisk narrative. As a result, I was able to finish this book in rather short order. Also, there some pretty funny stuff in this book, such as the claim that Napoleon is the direct descendant of Charles I of Great Britain (supported again, we are told, by evidence buried deep within the Vatican Archives). Also, the absolutely god-awful painting of "Prince Michael" with his illustrious Stuart forebears (by the "court painter," we are told) was so bad that I could not help but laugh at great length. Such merriment can only be good for the soul, so I guess this book does indeed have something to offer.

In short, if you want a good laugh, by all means read this book. If you are looking for something with even a whiff of historical truth, look elsewhere.

*****UPDATE, 4 August 2006*****

The house of cards appears finally to have collapsed; Michael LaFosse, self styled Prince of Albany and de jure King of Scotland, has fled the UK (apparently returning to his mother's home) rather than face charges from the UK Home Office that his citizenship and passport were obtained using forged documents. He is also facing investigations into the charities he has organized. The support he once enjoyed appears to be evaporating in light of the Home Office investigations, as well as recent negative articles in the Sunday Herald & Sunday Mail.

And yet, this book was a best-seller when it was released. Even though it never stood up to close scrutiny, this book evidently told a lot of people what they wanted to hear, that there was a legitimate descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie who was looking out for Scottish interests.

It worked for awhile --- people seemed willing to look past the dubious nature of his claims, in part because they wanted to believe that it was true, and also because many people will believe anything that is in print. It is a sad commentary that a man with obviously forged documents could keep the game going for nearly 30 years, but for a con to work, people have to buy into it, and buy they did.

Now that Michael LaFosse's delusions of grandeur seem to have vanished in a puff of smoke (one has to believe that if he truly believed his own claims, he would have stood his ground and fought the charges), this may book may ultimately be the only remainder (the royal website seems to have been taken down for good) of one man's zany quest, much like the Hay Allan brothers' "Vestiarium Scoticum" from 1842. At times it verges into the realm of "so bad it's good," but mostly it is bad in a depressingly earnest sort of way.

Interesting only as a historical curiosity these days.

I thought it had all been said and done about Stuart Pretenders. This guy, however, takes the cake. First, his real name is Michael laForce, a Belgian national, who's weaseled his way into Scottish societies, Living History groups, and the Knights Templar no less. His claims are truely ludicrous. A 'secret second marriage' between Charles Edward and a French countess in the 1780's supposedly produced the 'Stuart heir' from whom this person is descended. Right. By 1780 Bonnie Prince Charlie was so riddled with drink, scurvy, dropsy, and, probably, liver cancer, that he was functionally impotent, often incoherent, and reduced to playing Jacobite airs (not heirs) on his cello. His marriage to Louisa of Stolberg had been a disaster on all fronts; they detested each other, and she moved herself in with the Bishop of Rohan, by whom she had two children. Charlie's only child, Charlotte, by Clementina Walkinshaw, died two years after her father, also without legitimate heirs. His brother Henry Benedict, Cardinal York, died in 1807, obviously without legitimate heirs. THE LINE WENT EXTINCT IN 1807. DUH! As the direct descendant (provable from real family and parish records) of one of the more famous Jacobite leaders, Lord George Murray, and other Scottish lines on both sides of my family, I take great umbrage at the unfounded and contrived assertions of someone whose sole claim is entirely fictitious, supported by forged documents and spurious assertions. By Act of Parliament of 1712, the only recognised heirs to the throne could be descended from James VI and I's daughter Elizabeth, mother of Prince Mauritz of the Palatine, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, and Princess Sophia, who married the Hanoverian Elector, and who produced George I, et. al. Even if you set this Act of Parliament aside, THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE HEIRS OF THE OTHER STUART LINE. PERIOD. Nobody really took the Hay-Allan brothers seriously in the Victorian era, when they called themselves the 'Sobieski Stuarts' and rode around with coronets on their carriage door. Nobody should take this idiot seriously either, in a day when all the Royal Houses in Europe, extant and defunct, are basically German, and what do they really do anyway, besides promote tourism and have unruly children? Give this one a pass; get some real Scottish history from Fitzroy MacLean.

Proof that when reading history, one should always consider the source. This is one of the most biased pieces of "history" I have ever read. I found it ironic that the author attacks the purity of the Queen Mother's Scottish ancestry when he has just spent over one-hundred pages tracing his own alleged descent through numerous Italian and Polish lines.

I was also continously amused by his assertion that all historical figures of import are either Scottish or an actual Stuart. He claims Napoleon I as a relative and the late Princess Diana as a fellow Scot (while I'm sure she has some Scots in her family tree, probably no more than the Queen Mother!--see above). This man wants to have his cake and eat it, too, and I feel like this work undermines sincere efforts to celebrate the rich history and culture of Scotland.

My family the Mackinnons of Kyle (Caol Haakon in Skye) paid a high price for our loyalty to the Stuarts in 1745. We lost all of our ancestral lands in Skye and Mull held since the 14th century. Michael Lafosse's claims may be true. Charles Stuart had both motive and opportunity to perpetuate his dynasty while the Hanoverian Guelphs had equally strong motive to suppress the House of Stuart. I find it hard to believe that Charles Stuart was able to father a son so late in his life especially given his state of health. If Lafosse's claims are true, then he is not the Head of the House of Stuart since he claims this title through his mother. This title should go to his cousin Paul Demidoff-Stuart being the heir male of the family. What ever the case, I must compliment Lafosse on his in depth knowledge and research and moreso on his passion and committment to his adopted country. This book was obviously written from the heart. He could definitely be of benefit to the cause of Scottish nationalism.

Disguised as straight history, this book is actually an polemic by someone calling himself "H.R.H. Prince Michael ... Head of the House of Stewart," pretender to the Scottish throne. The Prince's claim is based on his alleged descent from the second marriage (previously unknown to historians) of Bonnie Prince Charles. Among the interesting "facts" conveyed in its pages are: Napoleon was a Stuart; Marshall Ney escaped execution and was carried off to live in America; all Stuart monarchs were capable, wise, and tolerant, especially James II; there is a conspiracy of British officialdom and historians to convince people that the legitimate line of Stuarts died out in the 18th century. Amusing example of how to mix fact and fantasy and create an entirely new version of "history."

What a provocative read! Self-titled "Prince Michael Stewart of Albany" expands upon the brief coverage of the conspiracy against the Stuarts given in Bloodline of the Holy Grail. Many of the author's comments about the political and social history of Scotland are valid and there is a wealth of accurate historical information in this book however it is a dangerous merging of fact and fiction which invalidates any value it might have had. Prince Michael struggles to document proof of his legitimate descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie and too often falls back on the excuse that much of the proof lies in his personal family archives or those of the Vatican (both sources which no body could possibly verify). The author quotes old books to be found only in the French national library, unfortunately upon investigation I found that the authors existed but the titles ascribed did not and finally, a 'phone call to the Lyon Court in Edinburgh confirmed that Prince Michael has never had "a satisfactory position of status quo"(p307 hardback)and is rather considered a bit of a 'loon'and incidentally anyone can apply for a passport (visitors defunct or standard)and get one calling himself 'King Raspberry of Doodah' if he wishes. The appalling artwork by the "Court Painter" does nothing to add credence to his presentation and author Laurence Gardner's association with this says more about his own works' veracity than he should like. An astoundingly bad book with some excellent presentation. The historical facts are finally outnumbered by the author's fiction, meanwhile the true Stuart claimant is made further obscure by this work.

The first third or so of this book is a relatively conventional, if somewhat whirlwind, history of Scotland and the Stewart/Stuart family's place in it, up to James VII/II's flight from Britain in 1688. At that point, it becomes less a history text than a prosecution brief. 'Prince Michael' lays out the case for his belief in a 'Hanoverian Conspiracy' designed to suppress the fact that the legitimate sovereigns of independent Scotland lived, and continue to live to this day.

Although Hilaire Belloc is not mentioned in the index, 'Prince Michael' seems to agree with Belloc's argument that the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' that placed the House of Orange on the throne marked the end of liberal, aristocratic, rights-based rule and the beginning of a commercial oligarchic republic that preserved the forms of the old order without any of their substance. However, development of this argument takes a back seat to 'Prince Michael''s chronicle of several centuries of deliberate insult directed at the Stewart/Stuart succession.

The weaknesses of 'Prince Michael''s scholarship are mentioned in other reviews on this page. I was particularly bothered by the fact that in almost 500 pages of argument, there are fewer than 120 footnotes. Many of the footnotes he does give us are frustratingly unhelpful: 'The Vatican Archives, Rome,' or 'Archives Napoléon, Paris.' Contrast this with, for example, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's 'Leftism Revisited,' which has nearly 1,200 fully documented footnotes in just about the same amount of text as 'Prince Michael''s book.

'Prince Michael''s research relies to an unsettling extent on those traditional repositories of 'secret histories,' the Masons and the Knights Templar. He even quotes Gardiner's 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' -- a book for which 'Prince Michael' himself wrote the foreword. Many of his most eye-catching assertions, like the one mentioned in another review that Scotland is 'geologically the most ancient land mass on the planet' (p.11), are completely unsupported by citations or references. My favorite of these is the Abbot of Scone's alleged 1296 prophecy that 'Four scores and six hundred years it will take [ie, until 1976] before the Michael comes back to his inheritance' (p. 55). And when did 'Prince Michael' arrive in Scotland? In 1976! Wow!

'Prince Michael' unwittingly summarizes the nature of his research when he unironically describes his discovery of the connection between the Egyptian pharaohs, the princes of Scythia, and Scotland: 'I awoke suddenly one night, knowing precisely who Kinkiris was. I immediately rushed to the "Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers, and Statesmen," and there indeed was our man: Pharaoh Akenkheres' (p. 69). Who needs footnotes when you have divine revelation?

I'll leave it to genealogists more skilled than I to sort through the tangle of ancestors he claims (there are insightful websites that do exactly this). I'll just note that a few years ago, a British magazine did a study to determine who would have the strongest claim to a resurrected Scots throne. After sorting through the relevant genealogy, history, and legal precedents, they determined the person with the best claim to sit on the throne of Scotland is ... Queen Elizabeth II. If this book is 'Prince Michael of Albany''s appeal to overturn the court of history, the most charitable verdict can be Not Proven.

All those who want Scotland to choose a different path from that of England should hesitate before choosing to believe the claims of the author of this book. To cut a long story short, base your policies on fact, not fiction.

This book is totally ridiculous, and I'm glad that children have not been taught history from it. There are plenty of decent books on the Jacobites, and this is NOT one of them.

Michel LaFosse (b. April 21, 1958, Brussels, Belgium), whose father is a shopkeeper and whose mother is an office worker, has claimed since 1976 to be "the senior legal descendant of the Stuart Kings of Britain" (frontispiece). He has posed as HRH Prince Michael [Stewart], the Seventh Count of Albany. This book is his attempt to prove his claim, argue the superiority of the Stuarts/Stewarts to the Hanoverian usurpers, and advocate a restoration of the Royal House of Stewart in Scotland (preferably with a written constitution of his design). Modestly, he does not lay claim to the throne of England; his forebears, he says, renounced that claim during the reign of George V.
The author claims to be the legitimate head of the Royal House of Stewart because Bonnie Prince Charlie (Charles Edward Stuart, who was "symbolically crowned" as Charles III in Edinburgh on September 22, 1745) entered into a previously unknown second marriage in December 1785, three years before his death. One legitimate son supposedly resulted from that union, from whom the author claims to be the senior legitimate descendant. (He chronicles his invented genealogy at great length.) Charles's only legitimate heir from his only known marriage, Charlotte, died without issue, so the Stuart line had long been thought extinct; as the author puts it, "the Scots were generally unaware that their Royal House still existed" (3). How dramatic to have the head of the Royal House of Stewart suddenly reappear in Scotland after three centuries of exile!
This book was a bestseller, but LaFosse's key documents (including his birth certificate showing his princely title) have proven to be forgeries. LaFosse has fled from Scotland. His Web site about the Royal House of Stewart has been shut down.
As history, this book is useless. With LaFosse's claims exposed as fraudulent, this book is now a mere curiosity, like the claims of the late Anna Anderson to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanov of Russia. Why is our desire to believe in these pretenders so strong that we let them con us for so long?
LaFosse had a long (and presumably lucrative) run of cashing in on Jacobite sentiment and the resurgence of Scottish nationalism. However, he has done a disservice to the causes of Jacobitism and Scottish nationalism, despite his lofty, noble rhetoric.