Gallery admits portrait isn't Bonnie Prince Charlie
This story in the Britman raises some doubts in my mind. Let's be clear that Charles was a pivotal figure in British and Scottish history and the present British state have an interest in besmirching his memory by any means possible.
Suggesting his most famous portrait is false and thereby restricting imagery to depictions of him as a little boy helps in legitimising their current puppet on the British throne.
According to the original aticle itself:
The La Tour pastel of Charles was exhibited in the Paris Salon of 1748, as ‘Prince Edouard’.
After Charles was forcibly ejected from Paris in December 1748, the pastel remained in the possession of his banker, Waters, until at least March 1752, when Charles requested it
be ‘packed up carefully by La Tour himself ’.
So we are to believe that a portrait which was attributed as Charles while he was still alive and formed part of his estate is less reliable than a copy which was later attributed as being his brother, probably based on it's likeness to the picture of Charles himself?
This doesn't seem too likely to me. The same article claims that other portraits of Henry should be discounted as they seem to look like someone else!
Perhaps the establishment prefer pictures which show Charlie as a foppish boy rather than as a grown man as it makes it easier to bury his memory.
Charles had a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland and immediately declared Scotland independent when he took power, prior to his ultimate defeat. Shortly afterwards the British parliament decided to declare that both the Scottish county of Berwick and the whole country of Wales were now part of England. A verse was also added to the British national anthem (God Save the King) boasting of crushing rebellious Scots.
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
The current monarch is controlled by the British parliament (from the second family drafted in for the purpose) and has no legitimate claim to the Scots throne whatsoever.
Who cares? No-one, perhaps, however the Queen remains the head of the British Government and with the House of Lords and Commons makes up the triumvirate of British rule.
The House of Commons is banned for any republican (ergo it is not properly democratic) and the House of Lords is made up of appointed lackeys.
The first past the post system ensures that two almost identical sets of political chancers maintain a corrupt system between them that should have been reformed centuries ago but never will be. This is the reason why they were able to deny Scotland devolution for a century (despite numerous votes by Scots MP's in the British parliament) and was the basis of their abusive rule of Ireland which they annexed in an act of international banditry with a ridiculous 'Union' in 1801 .
Britain obviously detests the memory of the Prince and various papers have repeated this assertion that the picture might be the Prince's brother so often that the National Portrait Galery has obviously decided that it can't be bothered defending it as an original portrait.
This same picture has been used in most biographies of the Prince however and by casting doubt on its origins based on some pretty controversial theorising it appears that doubt can be easily cast over all research on him.
If the Gallery has concern for its reputation (it may well see all publicity as good publicity, who knows?) it will mention that there are some contentious theories about the picture however most reputable sources believe it to be exactly what it purports to be, an original picture of Charles Edward Stuart.