Talk:Michel Roger Lafosse

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I wonder if this article shouldn't be at Prince Michael of Albany. His claims are bogus, sure, but this is what he is known as, and has written books as, and so forth. The article text's using Michel Lafosse first is fine, though. john k 19:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is what he is known as by himself, and by the small circle of people who accept or say they accept his claims. To the Belgian tax authorities, who I believe are taking a close interest in his affairs, he is known as Monsieur Lafosse. Having an article called Prince Michael of Albany, as opposed to a redirect, would seem to me to be a Wikipedia endorsement of his claims. We don't have an article for Henry IX of the United Kingdom. So far as I know we don't have articles under their self-claimed titles for even legitimate claimants to extinct thrones. Lafosse is just a con artist and shouldn't be dignified in this way. Adam 03:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See for example Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France - not Henry VII of France. Adam 03:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He does not call himself Henry VII of France. He is known to his own followers as the Comte de Paris...Similarly, Cardinal York was not generally known as Henry IX (and he'd be "Henry IX of England", at any rate, since the creation of Great Britain and later of the UK were illegitimate in Jacobite eyes.) We do have Louis XVII of France, who never reigned, because that is how he is best known, and also Napoleon II of France. More to the point, we have Emperor Norton, who was, in fact, not an emperor. john k 19:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Humph - well, we shouldn't have. Bogus persons shouldn't be dignified with titles. Lafosse is not a prince and we shouldn't connive at his fraud by calling him one. Adam 19:52, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Screaming Lord Sutch was not a lord, either - we just need to be careful to distinguish actual titles from bogus ones in the article text. The Wiki naming guideline says to call people what they're best known as, at least in the title. But I don't feel that strongly about it. Perhaps other opinions would be useful...maybe I'll list at Requests for Comment. john k 20:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are all being entirely unfair to Prince Michael/Lafosse, true he cannot prove his claims but it is also true that you cannot disprove it. I also feel that since he is the only pretender to the Scot Throne who champions Scottish culture and issues he should get at least as much respect as "King Francis II" as the Wiki calls Franz of Bavaria.

You appear to be confused about the burden of proof. Lafosse has claimed to be the king of Scotland, and it's up to him to prove it, not up to anyone else to disprove it. Idi Amin also called himself the king of Scotland. Do we have to disprove that as well?

No, his claims are completely fraudulent. Charles Stuart never divorced his wife, and never had a legitimate son. The "evidence" that Lafosse presents to show that he did is laughable at best, and the narrative that he creates is basically nonsensical - there was absolutely no reason that such a legitimate heir would have been kept secret. Furthermore, the genealogy which Lafosse presents to get from this fictitious son of the Young Pretender to himself is equally ridiculous. See [1] for a thorough rebuttal of Lafosse's claims. john k 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PROVE that the claims in the link you provided are true, you cannot prove it so therefore it the whole matter is still open to debate. The easiest and most noble thing you could do would be to just admit you don't care for objectivity or open mindedness and that will be that. SMS

Wiki doesn't call Franz of Bavaria King Francis II, it just mentions that Jacobites call him that - which they do. Wiki calls him Franz, Duke of Bavaria. Jess Cully 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Fair enough, I will concede the above point concerning Duke Franz. SMS[reply]

The burden of proof in claims such as this should really be on the person making the claim, don't you think? The fact of the matter is that Duke Franz's descent is documented and "Prince" Michael's is not; the evidence he has presented is sparse, to say the least, and his invention of the "European Council of Princes" - an organisation no European Prince except him has admitted to membership of - makes him a highly dubious source in any case.

Image

Is there something wrong with the sizing of the image? ~ Dpr 06:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prince Michael of Albany

It seems that there was some confusion about Michael Lafosse's genealogy. It was said above that we cannot disprove his genealogy--this is simply wrong; we can. His father was a shopkeeper and not a baron, and his mother has no connection to the Stewarts, and lacks the last name he claims she had. Furthermore, it is well-documented that the male line of Stewarts died out quite some time ago. This is more than enough to realise that this man is a fraud. -Soquiligaoulo Chota There seems to be a bit of out of place hostility regarding the claims of Michael of Albany. Note that I refer to him by his legal name as a British subject, not his former name as a Belgian. I myself do not beleive for a moment that he is who he claims to be. However in all fairness there are a growing number of people and officials within various governments outside of the U.K. who do. In my mind, it is not the function of an Encyclopedia to offer opinion based on biased, wether founded or unfounded, it is rather to present the facts as they exist no matter how annoying those facts might be. His legal name is Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany, he is known as and often refered to as Prince Michael of Albany, both by private citizens and officials of the British government (although not every official), he has even been addressed to his person as "Royal Highness" by senior members of the British Royal Family. Do these facts make him a prince, not at all. However, perception is an extremely powerful tool, so powerful that as incredible as it might seem, Michael Lafosse, recreated as Prince Michael of Albany, might, just might, find himself sitting upon the throne of an independent Scotland. Historically, this would not be the first such instance of an imposter succedding at such ludicrous odds. In any case, whatever we think as individuals, the Scots will decide for themselves who this man is, and what if anything, he can offer them. PrinceImperial

It's not perfectly clear what his "legal name" is at this point, since he seems to use various names in various circumstances. This is not a place to propagandize for him, nor to suggest that his false genealogy has merit. If the Scots make him king despite the lack of a provable genealogical claim, we'll be sure to write about it. - Nunh-huh 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the imput. I do not think using the term alias would be appropriate, since on his website there is a copy of his naturalization papers showing his status as a British citizen and his legal name which is Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany, something which I have independently verified. This in mind, I would not consider it propaganda to use "Albany" as a descriptor for him, no more than I would to use Muhammid Ali to indicate Cassius Clay. The fact that the term "Albany" is a style similar to that which would be used by a titled person is perhaps regretable, nevertheless it is the proper way in which to refer to him. I was very concerned not to be partisan or political with the topic, and to keep a tone of high improbability regarding his claims, which to me, seems a very encyclopedic way to think. Again there seems to be a hostility towards this subject, which somehow, seems very out of place in a venue like this. PrinceImperial 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only hostility here is for inaccuracy. Unfortunately one cannot rely on the accuracy of documents reproduced by Lafosse. We try not to use deceptive names at Wikipedia - like Emperor Norton or Michael of Albany. - Nunh-huh 06:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with Prince Imperial about the narrow issue of page title. It is generally our policy to give people page titles based on the name they actually use. If this guy's legal name (by deed poll, or whatever) is Prince Michael of Albany, and this is what he always calls himself, and this is how he is best known in the world at large, it seems to me that wikipedia policies demand that we put his page at Prince Michael of Albany. The text of the page ought, I think, to demonstrate clearly enough to anyone that he is not, in fact, a prince. john k 06:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "if" is the question, isn't it? - Nunh-huh 06:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a person would care to expend the time, as I have done, they could contact the relevant British government agency, where they would be informed that his legal name is Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany, not Prince Michael of Albany, not King Alexander VII of the Scots, his new surname is completely legitimate in the eyes of British Justice, therefore it should be appropriate to use. Because I do not like that particular situation, does not give me the right to change it, or ignore it, with an indignant stroke of my key pad. It is obvious that an article titled Prince Michael is a problem, especially as he is not a prince. However Michael of Albany or something similar should not be rejected simply because we think he is a fraudulent person (and I do). Regarding the statement concerning hostility, the previous articles generally seemed to swing from one extreme to the other, wether for or against his position, with barely concealed partisanship. I have noticed that the term probaganda has been used quite often. I wonder if it is not propaganda to relate that Lafosse or Michael of Albany, was given the grand cross of St. George (reserved historically for high ranking dignitaries and sovereigns) at a ceremony in which senior members of the UK government were present in an official capacity? Or to relate that when he travels to foreign countries he is regulary meet by representatives of the host countries government, and during official functions given precedence usually accorded to a foreign head of state? PrinceImperial 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely as it would be to take your word for it, we need a citable source to verify his name. And yes, it's propagandistic to call yourself Santa Claus because you get mail addressed to Santa Claus. Even if true, it doesn't make you a merry old elf. - Nunh-huh 08:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the citable source would be the UK Office of Immigration and Naturalization. The question of the legal status of his name aside, you probably would not want to delete Michael Lafosse, since it is a name by which he is widely known. I do not want to help support his claim in any way, on the other hand it should not seem as though we are persecuting him. Since, oddly enough such a perception could work to the advantage of the would be elf. Recently I have noticed quite a few people looking for information concerning the book he published, so I have added an article related to it. If you think the article is biased or too partisan, feel free to edit it to your satisfaction, however I ask that you please refrain from deleting it. PrinceImperial 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, a document of some sort might be a citable source. "The UK Office of Immigration and Naturalization" is not a citation, or at any rate not a complete one. - Nunh-huh 19:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Order of St. George" cited in this article is a spurious or self-styled group, like the other "Orders" held by LaFosse. The citation here makes it look like a genuine Order has presented LaFosse with a genuine honour.

A) The Order of St. George is not a spurious self styled order as you well know. B)His status as a diplomate is accredited with the Republic of Sao Tome & Princip C)He did receive the UN 2001 award under the name Albany. 69.250.98.67 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaFosse's "Orders" are all self-styled. None of them qualify as a genuine Order of Chivalry. To be an Order in reality, an organization must be recognized as an Order by the country in which it has its headquarters, and must be headed up by a Head of State. None of the ones he holds meet those qualifications. His many falsifications call the other statements made on his website into question. 66.156.107.108

Apparently the earliest possible date for this particular "St. John order" is 1988, when the group from which it was apparently splintered was incorporated in Missouri. Ref. added to article. I note with interest that Lafosse was "invested" in this "order" at the same time as the president of Sao Tome e Principe. - Nunh-huh 00:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring up the horrible bias against the subject of this article(whoever he really is). Claims against his position are incoherent, mostly stemming from the "fact" that the direct Stuart line became extinct some time ago, and the "Diverted Succession" is brought into play. Mr. Lafosse's claims and position are not properly laid out as they should be in an encyclopedic article. I am not well-read enough on the claims, positions, etc. of Mr. Lafosse, or I would fix the neutrality issue myself. -Genealogyman1066

You'd like to assert there's a bias, but you are unacquainted with the actual facts involved? It is, simply, a fact (no scare quotes are needed) that the direct Stuart line is extinct, and it is also a fact that Lafosse's purported genealogical descent from the Stuarts is a fabrication. Mr. Lafosse's claims are given appropriate exposition; there is no bias involved in adhering to fact. - Nunh-huh 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that there is enough real doumentation that there are only a couple lines of direct Stewart descendants, from King James, still holding the Stewart name that live in the US - They moved to the US in the early 1700s and still exist - These documents hard to track down, as it took me several years in the making to find this information - Prince Michael, per his claims would not be, if in fact he is telling the truth, the only Stewart - Thanks for letting me post - Stewart_Researcher

Well, Stewart Researcher, you may be aware of such documentation but apparently nobody else is. If you have evidence for the extraordinary claim that there are Jacobite lines senior to the diverted (Bavarian) succession living in the US, please share it. (Which "King James" do you mean, by the way? As it stands this could refer to one of the fifteenth century Stewarts!)

Stewart clan?

(although not the Stewart clan).

I was always under the impression that, as a lowland family of continental origins (they shared a common male ancestor with the Earls of Arundel), the Fitzalan/Stewarts were not a clan. Our Scottish clan article, at least, implies that "clan" generally applies to highland families of Gaelic origin, although there are apparently some lowland clans - but also of Gaelic origin. I'm going to remove this statement unless somebody objects. john k 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the lowland Stewarts(as opposed to the Stewarts of Appin) were actually a clan prior to the registration of lowlands clans in the early nineteen century, Mr. Kenney, but I am certain that the Royal Stewarts possessed a tartan(something that only Highland clans usually possessed).--Anglius 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Lafosse supporters February 2006

The article, to be truly unbiased, could stand to be worded in a less condescending manner. It would also be good to mention that Mr. Lafosse, or if we go by his legal name as a British subject, Michael of Albany, cannot be conclusively disproven either. Please, please, be more objective. I don't mean to insult your article, only to point out that it is not objective. It is very easy to see that as it stands, the author is clearly attacking the subject it is written about. An encyclopedia shouldn't offer opinions, just facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.141.170 (talk • contribs)

First some general housekeeping: by convention, the most recent comments go on the bottom of the talk page, not the top, so I've moved your comment, and added an indication of who wrote it. (You can most conveniently sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) which will be converted to your user name or IP address when the page is saved). In terms of substance, please point out specific issues you have. We have no policy requiring us to treat fraudulent claims sympathetically; there are other places on the web for that. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Thank you for your moving my comment and not being too harsh on my low level of familiarity with Wikipedia. I would not consider myself a Lafosse supporter though. To be frank, I certainly do not believe for one second that he is descended from Bonnie Prince Charlie. I do, however think some of the language used in the article is overly critical. While in no way encouraging revising the article to support Lafosse's claims, I do believe some certain things could be re-written to bring the article to a neutral state.

1."In summary, Lafosse's claims of royal descent are considered to be complete fantasy by every serious researcher who's investigated them.." There are several independant researchers, not affiliated with Lafosse or Sir Gardner, who are of the opinion that Lafosse's claims have merit.

Do you have any citations for this claim? john k 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2."and has since used the name Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany." It would do to mention that the above actually is the man's legal name in Britain. (It of course should be mentioned that he legally changed his name to the above when he naturalised.), as opposed to "also known as".

I agree with this, and I think that the article should probably be at Michael of Albany, as this is how he is best known. john k 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3."In 1998 he authored a controversial book (which many consider to be a fraud) The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland,.." It would be better stated "Some consider materials in the book to be fraudulent", or a complete omission of "(which many to consider a fraud)", as many do not.

4. "He also says he has been awarded the United Nations 2001 "Volunteer Service Medal" under the name "Albany".." He has. Though, he probably requested that they award it to him under the name Albany, as if he were noble. (Nobles quite frequently use this form of nomenclature, not to suggest he is who he says he is, though.)

5. "The "Noble Order of the Guards of St Germain" is another Lafosse invention.." This can in no way be proven, (to my knowledge), if it can, please demonstrate proof, otherwise re-phrasing it would bring the article to a more neutral point of view.

I should think that it would be up to him or his supporters to demonstrate that it has some prior existence. 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

6. "However, the documents provided by Lafosse, contain severe discrepancies and aberrations from accepted and established history,..." Restating "severe discrepancies and abberations" to "contains much that is at odds with accepted and established history" or something like it would remove the harsh feel of the article, bringing it to a more neutral point of view.68.191.141.170 08:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "severe discrepancies and aberrations" is problematic, if the discrepancies and aberrations are indeed severe, which they are. john k 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less echoing the above, though written before I saw it: Looking at your points in order:

1. By all means, if you can identify a serious independent researcher who is of the opinion that Lafosse's claims have merit, we should name him/her/them. Who did you have in mind? 2. We can't mention that "Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany" is his legal name in Britain, as we don't know it to be the case. Can you provide a citation? 3. We can't leave out those who consider his book a fraud in order to accommodate those who consider only parts of it to be fraudulent. 4. Can you provide a citation (not originating from him, of course) for the award of the United Nations 2001 "Volunteer Service Medal" under the name "Albany"? If so, we can eliminate the "says". Yes, this is the famed "Miracle on 34th Street" maneuver that fraudulent royals/nobles are so enamored of, and won't mean much, other than that the U.N. is easily fooled, but if it's true then we should include it. 5. Those who study orders of nobility have no record of "The Noble Order of the Guards of St Germain" before Lafosse. 6. Actually, the documents provided by Lafosse, contain obvious impossibilities and peculiarities suggesting they are not genuine. - Nunh-huh 20:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add to this that anyone with a knowledge of Latin that views the birth records put forward by this gentleman, as discussed in [2] would believe them to be a cut and paste job. The grammatical inconsistencies suggest someone copying and placing known words or names with no regard for the rules governing the declensions of Latin nouns. Consider this one "proof" of the source's veracity. majec

Matching the External Links to the article

This article needs in-text citation. I imagine most of the material within it is lifted from the external links. Someone who is familiar with the pages - perhaps even the person who wrote the text - might be good enough to add proper referencing? I don't doubt for a second that the overwhelming consensus in publication is that Lafosse is either misguided or a fraud, but the article is written in very strong tones and needs to be fully cited in order to justify these tones. Nach0king 10:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Silly Subject

Your article is an objective assessment of a truly silly subject. I do, however, wonder if it is worth including such an item when there have been countless pretenders of one kind or other throughout history; the subject could justify a whole encyclopedia of its own. In the past such people tended to have a harsh fate: I know of at least one pretender to the Scottish throne who was burned alive. I certainly have no ill-will towards this man: the worst fate I have in mind is that he marries the Grand Duchess Anastasia (or a descendent thereof)and rides off to Tir na nOg on the back of Shergar, and there read how the Earth is really flat, while he is being seranaded by Elvis Presley. Less charitable people might feel that he deserves the same fate as the Dook and the Dauphin in Huckelberry Finn.

Rcpaterson 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he marries the Grand Duchess Anastasia (or a descendent thereof)and rides off to Tir na nOg on the back of Shergar

Via Brigadoon, of course. Jess Cully 01:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Michael Albany

As his legal name by deed poll seems to be "Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany" Lets just call him "Michael Albany" or "Mr. Michael Albany" or "Mr. Michael J.A.S.O. Albany". As we commonly represent middle names in this fashion - "J.A.S.O.", even his last middle name "Of". As for his surname "Albany", it's common enough

And your reference for the change of name by deed poll is? - Nunh-huh 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that "of" is a middle name. If indeed that there is a deed poll, Stewart of Albany would be his last name. Charles 02:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael of albany

Make him get a Dna test

And compare it with whom? According to the article, he claims Stewart ancestry through his mother. There isn't a way to test for that. -Acjelen 19:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Michael Stewart - A Supporter's Opinion.

Contrary to the revelations on this webpage it seems 'The Prince' left Britain in order to support his dying Father in Belgium. It is possible his claim is perfectly valid and may be found in the records of French nobility. Owing to the Hanovarian occupation (after the '45) many of the ties between Scotland and France were severed. This may serve to explain why there is no record in Scotland of the third marriage between the Bonny Prince to Margueritte O'dea de Lussan Comtesse de Massillan and the reason why some say there is no evidence to support Michael Stewart's claim. Ĥ.

No, it's not possible that his "claim is perfectly valid", since the genealogy he presents to support it is false. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and lack of referances.

This article continues to lack any referances. Despite a recent major alteration, we have simply shifted from one wording to another wording that still states the same POV. Referances need to be supplied for both Michael's claims and for the debunking of his claims. Please see WP:CITE for information on what makes a valid referance.