The reader must not imagine that this marvellous romance was intended
to be regarded as myth; every effort was made to persuade the public
into accepting it as fact, and as fact several persons in Great Britain
and abroad have accepted it. But in the _Quarterly Review_ for June
1847, the whole story was thoroughly analysed and ruthlessly demolished
by some one conversant with all the bearings of the whole case. He
undeniably proved that the implied son of Prince Charles was no other
than Thomas, younger son of Admiral Allen, and himself an officer in
the Navy, who married, in 1792, Catherine Manning, a clergyman's
daughter; that in his will Admiral Allen termed him his son, and that
the sons of this Thomas Allen, the _soi disant_ "John Sobieski and
Charles Edward Stuart," had respectively published a volume of poems,
and had taken a wife in their proper names of Allen, thus completely
ignoring their pretended royal ancestry.
Even had not direct testimony been forthcoming, the circumstantial
evidence against the allegation that Prince Charles had left a
legitimate child is so strong that no amount of "Romance of History"
could upset it. In his latter days, when separated from his wife, the
Princess Louisa, Prince Charles sent for his illegitimate daughter by
Miss Walkinshaw; created her Duchess of Albany, made her mistress of
his household, and left her by will almost everything that he
possessed, including such family jewels and plate as were still in his
possession. Not only did he omit to make any provision for, or the
slightest bequest to, his supposed son and heir, but, what is still
less comprehensible, neither did the Princess Louisa, the child's
mother, ever appear to make any inquiry after it; nor when she died in
1824, when this pretended son must have been fifty years of age, did
she give any sign that she was aware of his existence; nor did he, this
son, come forward at any period of time to prove his birth and assert
his parentage. After the death of Prince Charles, who, from the time
of his father's decease, had borne the title of King of England, his
brother, clearly ignorant of the existence of a nearer claimant to the
distinction, also assumed the royal title, and caused himself to be
addressed as a sovereign, and styled "Henry the Ninth, King of Great
Britain and Ireland."
Many other proofs could be furnished of the utterly baseless nature of
the claims of these pretenders to royalty, but it is needless; should
any one desire to peruse a fuller exposition of this romance he may be
referred to the number of the _Quarterly Review_ already alluded to.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account