BONNIE Prince Charlie is hiding in one of Britain’s most famous paintings, according to a US-based researcher.
The Duke of Cumberland can also be seen in the 18th-century March of the Guards to Finchley, believes Jeremy Bell who has been studying the painting for years.
Much has been written about the characters in the work created by William Hogarth just after the 1745 Jacobite rising but, until now, no-one has noticed the resemblance of two of them to Bonnie Prince Charles and the “Butcher”.
Neither man was at Finchley but Hogarth is famous for the clever puzzles within his art and Bell is convinced the painting depicts details of their imminent battle at Culloden.
Despite the Prince being unnoticed in the work for nearly 300 years, Bell says it doesn’t take long to spot him once it is known he is there.
In the picture, the tall, slender, upright figure is similar to official portraits of the prince. He is riding away from a sign showing Charles II, which might be a reference to his desire to become Charles III. However, from the point of view of someone looking at the picture, he is heading to a barren tree which lies just around the corner.
Bell argues that this is a symbol of the impending disaster that awaits the House of Stuart and contrasts with a healthy tree nearby which is also just out of the prince’s sightline.
READ MORE: It's about time we binned the ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ name
Meanwhile, Bell believes the Duke of Cumberland is represented by a soldier killing a Catholic woman with one end of his pike and cutting an innocent mother and child with the other. Both these readings are only possible because of the painter’s trick of perspective.
The Catholic woman, identified by her cross and priest-like robes, is hitting a grenadier and his pregnant wife with a Jacobite newspaper but the other soldier appears be charging her from behind and driving her back with his halberd.
“On closer inspection, this soldier’s face is similar to a portrait of the Duke of Cumberland which the Protestant woman carries in her basket,” says Bell. “It is covered by a copy of ‘God Save the King’, a reference to rumours of the duke’s aspirations to rule.”
BELL says the Catholic woman represents the Jacobite forces and her assault is being repelled by a pikeman in what appears to be a reference to the Battle of Culloden. The other end of the halberd axe appears to threaten a mother and child in a cart.
“I believe that this trompe l’oeil refers to the alleged atrocities that took place after the battle,” says Bell.
The grenadier seems to be clutching his chest as his pregnant wife looks on aghast. It is as if he has been shot. This might also be a reference to the battle in which 400 British soldiers were killed. Bell also believes that a man crouched behind Charles is meant to be a Scot because of his red hair. The man looks as though he could be pointing at the prince while also signalling not to give him away.
READ MORE: Outlander blasted for misrepresentation of Bonnie Prince Charlie
The man is painted as if he is being speared by a bayonet which Bell thinks is another reference to the butchery caused by the order not to give quarter to any Jacobite troops. The soldier with the bayonet is also unaware that his rifle is pointing at the head of the man behind who appears to be celebrating the arrival of the Jacobites as he is raising his hat to the portrait of Charles II.
“His execution is another premonition of the carnage that will follow,” says Bell. “It is the foreboding story of a brave attempt to regain the crown for the Stuart line and the atrocities that were committed after its failure.
“How fascinating to discover several hints that identify Charles Edward Stuart in this painting on the 275th anniversary of the Battle of Culloden.”
Bell has found details in many other works by William Hogarth that show how the artist was commissioned to include anti-Jacobite propaganda within his most famous works. His book, William Hogarth – A Freemason’s Harlot, can be ordered from his website Brotherhogarth.com.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel