Posted on 04/13/2002 7:59:24 PM PDT by LarryLied
HE sounds like a man who still cannot fully believe what he has discovered.
After five years of detailed research, Peter Pininski - a Scottish-Polish art historian - claims to have proved that he is a direct descendent of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
His path through his family tree involves multiple illegitimate births, changes of names and adoptions, to provide proof, he claims, that his great-great-great-great grandmother, Marie-Victoire de Rohan, was Bonnie Prince Charlie’s grand-daughter.
Speaking exclusively to Scotland on Sunday of his search, which is detailed in a book to be published later this month, Pininski said: "I suppose I was unnerved at times during my research - there were a large number of very important pieces of evidence almost dropping into my hands. Many times I found myself thinking, ‘come on, sober up.’"
But Pininski found that the evidence, even after repeated scrutiny, led to the conclusion that he was related to Charlotte Stuart, the illegitimate daughter of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
The 46-year-old started researching his background after spotting a portrait of a beautiful woman on the wall of an aunt’s house in southern Poland.
He spent five years raking through 22 archives in seven countries seeking to uncover the history of the woman in the painting, his great-great-great-great grandmother, who went by the name of Marie de Thorigny.
He says he has found evidence that suggests de Thorigny was not her real name, that it had been changed to cover up the fact she was the product of an illicit affair between Charlotte Stuart and a prominent churchman, Cardinal Frederick de Rohan.
She was then raised as part of another family in a bid to escape the stigma of her true parentage. This obscured her link with Charlotte and the Stuart dynasty and helped her escaped the attention of history.
His claim is consistent with what historians have long believed could have happened to the Scottish Royal line.
It is generally accepted that Bonnie Prince Charlie fled to Europe after the disaster at Culloden and married Princess Louise of Stolberg, a barren relationship that led the Prince to form a relationship with Clementina Walkinshaw, who bore him Charlotte Stuart.
Historians agree that Charlotte probably had children, but Pininski is the first to document their identities and trace their descendants, in his book The Stuarts’ Last Secret.
Owen Dudley Edwards, a history lecturer from Edinburgh University, said it was perfectly possible that Pininski was, as he claims, a descendant of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
"There have been rumours for years that Charlotte Stuart, who looked after the prince in his old age and who was claimed as his child, had children of her own," he said. "And there were rumours about Cardinal de Rohan and his involvement in affairs."
But he questioned whether Pininski had any claim to the British throne.
"This is all very interesting but it will not make one bit of difference. Elizabeth is looking very comfortable on the throne," he said.
Edinburgh-based writer Michael Stewart, who also claims to be a direct descendent of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the rightful heir to the crown of Scotland, dismissed the importance of Pininski’s claim.
The self-styled Prince Michael of Albany said: "There are 1,500 legitimate descendants of James VI and they all have a better claim to the throne than the Queen.
"My claim is based on primogeniture, that I came from the first born and am therefore first in line."
Pininski himself has no plans to press his claim to the throne and has declared himself satisfied by uncovering the secrets of his family. He said: "I would dearly like to stay right away from Stuart claimant-type charlatanism, because it’s not what I find interesting."
"I would dearly like to stay right away from Stuart claimant-type charlatanism, because it’s not what I find interesting."
No finer or funnier way to respond to a pompous twit, than with mild indifference!
Andrew
I believe that the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria have the best claim on strictly genealogical grounds, if the rule excluding Catholics were ignored.
Idi Amin once claimed to be the uncrowned King of Scotland, but I've never seen any genealogical evidence offered in support. Maybe he claims descent from the Black Douglas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.