Delaroche Fake or Fortune?

'The art world, where paintings change hands for fortunes.'

Selling at 95 million.

'But for every known masterpiece,

'there may be another still waiting to be discovered.'

-Well, that's it!

-Isn't it!

-That is it, that is our painting.

'International art dealer Philip Mould and I have teamed up

'to hunt for lost works by great artists.

'We use old-fashioned detective work and state-of-the-art science

'to get to the truth.'

Science can enable us to see beyond the human eye.

-Ta-da!

-Oh, wow.

'The problem is not every painting is quite what it seems.'

You successfully faked Lowrys

even while you were at school, didn't you?

Yes.

'It's a journey that can end in joy...'

-Oh, dear.

-Isn't that great?!

-Wonderful.

'..or bitter disappointment.'

I can't cope with this rollercoaster. What a nightmare.

'In this episode, could a painting hanging in a Scottish castle

'be a work by 19th-century French master Paul Delaroche?'

Oh, my goodness. That looks nearly identical.

A £500 picture might be a lost royal treasure.

Not just a painting with a provenance,

but a fantastically gilded, elevated one.

'Our investigation takes us to a French chateaux

'in search of a cherished gift from a king to his queen.'

Wow.

'We are led on a turbulent trail through revolution and bloodshed.

'So, your painting, if it is by Delaroche,

'witnessed some of the most dramatic events in French history?'

This is Sainte Amelie, this is it.

'But will we do enough to help one woman in her quest to prove

'her late husband was right?'

I mean, he really believed it was a Delaroche.

So, if we can prove it, it would be something very special.

'We are called to the far corners of the country,

'to help viewers investigate their mysterious works of art.

'This case brings us north of the border to Aberdeenshire

'and the beautiful county of Banff.

'We've been contacted by a family who think there might be

'a missing masterpiece hanging in their B&B.

'And what a B&B it is!

'This is Castle of Park, built in the 16th century.

'Many a laird has lived here over the past 500 years.

'But it is now home to the Wilson family and their guests.'

Hiya.

Who are you?

-I'm Archie.

-Archie, nice to meet you.

-How do you do, Archie?

Hiya. I'm Fiona, hi.

-Hi.

-Hi, there.

-Hi.

-Hi, how are you?

-Nice to see you.

-Hello, how do you do?

-Do you want to come in?

-Yeah, thank you.

'The Wilsons moved here in 2007.

'Becky has worked hard to restore the castle,

'filling the rooms with antiques and hanging the walls with art.'

All these gorgeous paintings on the wall.

And here is Neil's painting.

'Becky has asked us here to see a mysterious picture

'owned by her late husband, who was an art dealer.'

Oh, a portrait of a kneeling medieval queen, it looks like.

Absolutely beautiful, Becky.

I can see why your husband loved it so much.

-And what do you know about it?

-I don't know a lot.

I know he bought it when he left university,

when he was working at Christie's.

-This was one of the first pictures he bought there.

-And when was that?

It was in 1989. He bought it for about £500.

It is not signed, it wasn't attributed to anybody,

he just liked it because it was a beautiful picture.

-So, it was just an anonymous painting?

-Yes, absolutely.

It was only later,

after he'd been working a lot longer in the art world,

that he had a hunch it was painted by Delaroche.

So, by Paul Delaroche,

the great early 19th-century French history painter.

I mean, a name to conjure with.

'Paul Delaroche was a phenomenon in his day.

'Born in 1797, he made his name in Paris in the 1820s and '30s,

'painting famous scenes from history and religion.

'Joan of Arc in prison.

'The death of Elizabeth I.

'The Princes in the Tower.

'Delaroche's potent mix of high drama and human emotion

'made his works hugely popular.

'And thanks to the production of prints copied from his paintings,

'he became a household name across Europe and beyond.

'But after his death in 1856, tastes changed,

'and his work fell out of fashion.

'Now Delaroche is making a comeback,

'which means, if this is a lost work, it has currency.'

So, Neil bought it in 1989 for £500.

So, if it is a genuine Delaroche, Philip, what would it be worth?

Well, given that it is a really entrancing image,

and I think that is going to make a big difference,

if it is a genuine work by him,

I can see it being worth £50,000.

Wow. That would be a heck of a return on his investment,

-wouldn't it?

-Yes, it would.

You must have been pretty excited about it.

Did he get anyone else to look at it?

Yes, there was a Delaroche exhibition on

at the National Gallery in 2010,

so he took it down to the National Gallery

but the experts were not 100% sure.

They couldn't confirm that it was a Delaroche.

How frustrating.

-And, so, was he able to do any more research on it?

-He didn't, no.

He didn't have time to look at it then.

And, then, when he did get around to it, he unfortunately became ill.

So, it was sort of just put on the back burner.

'In 2012, Neil was diagnosed with a brain tumour

'and given months to live.

'Becky gave up work to care for him at home,

'and he fought on for a year and a half.

'But Neil passed away in June 2014.'

-How old was he, Becky?

-He was 48.

-FIONA SIGHS

-Yeah.

-So...

-So, this is very raw, recent history for you.

-Yeah.

-I'm so sorry.

Mm. But if, you know, if this is a Delaroche, it would be fantastic.

So, before Neil got ill, and despite being told that it couldn't be

proved as a genuine Delaroche, did he continue to believe that it was?

-Yes, absolutely.

-So, we need to prove him right, don't we?

-Do it for him. And for all of you.

-Yes, yeah.

'I'm keen to get the investigation under way by having

'a closer look at the physical evidence - the painting itself.'

Now that I am looking at it closer,

I can begin to see why it's working its magic.

There are beautiful areas of exquisite detail,

of really affecting power.

And, also, there is a rather surprisingly daring juxtaposition

of colours, the sort of thing you might expect Delaroche to do.

He was known for his boldness, his courage in that respect.

And one of the things that I also find reassuring and would

suggest that it's not a modern fake is the craquelure,

the drying cracks, the ageing cracks,

they're very difficult things to reproduce,

if you're trying to forge a picture of this date.

But before one gets too excited

at the thought that we are dealing with a picture that was done

during Delaroche's lifetime, could it in fact be by a copyist?

Could it be by someone who had been taught by Delaroche,

who'd learned his techniques,

who'd got insights into how to apply the paint?

You just can't rule out these rather dark possibilities at this stage.

But there is enough here,

enough evidence of quality, for me to want to find out more.

'There is a lot at stake here for Becky and her boys.

'Neil's illness has taken its toll on every aspect of their lives.'

I'm very aware as you talk about this painting that you had

-a really tough couple of years.

-Yup.

Big changes. Lots of changes.

But even before he died,

there were lots of changes because he was so ill.

He'd lost all his short-term memory and obviously his balance

and it's quite character-changing as well, a brain tumour.

But he never lost his sense of humour

and he never lost his long-term memory

so he could still beat us at Trivial Pursuit and Scrabble and things.

And he still knew who you all were?

He knew who we all were, yeah, absolutely.

I'm so conscious as we talk about this painting

that we have a job to do and we will do it for you.

-But this has a whole different meaning for you.

-Yep, it does. Yeah.

It's intensely personal to you.

If we do manage to prove that this is a genuine Delaroche,

what will you do with it?

I really don't know because it's such a beautiful picture

and it's so much to do with Neil that I would love to keep it. But...

£50,000 is a lot of money, so...

And it would help a lot with easing a few financial issues.

Obviously, income is a lot less than it was before.

And, so, we started running a B&B from the house, so that

brings income in to pay to stay here and not move out of the house.

-Is that a possibility, otherwise? That you would have to move?

-Yes.

I think so. I don't have enough other income coming in to live here.

So, we really need to prove that this painting is by Delaroche.

-Yeah, it would be fantastic.

-Right. We'll do our best, Becky.

-OK.

-We absolutely will, I promise.

-Fantastic. Yeah.

'I hope we can help finish what Neil started.

'We're leaving Castle of Park with a huge sense of responsibility.'

I can't help feeling that this investigation,

it matters more than any we've ever done.

Yeah, this is more than art history, isn't it?

This is about trying to prove the beliefs

of a man who is no longer around to do so himself.

'Back in London, we're retracing Neil's footsteps

'to see how far he'd got with his research.

'Becky told us that, back in 2010,

'he took his painting to the National Gallery.

'A big exhibition was being staged around one of the most

'popular paintings in the collection -

'Delaroche's monumental work, The Execution of Lady Jane Grey.'

So, this is the painting that Neil hoped his picture would hang beside.

This is Delaroche's masterpiece, of course,

The Execution of Lady Jane Grey.

She was Queen for just nine days.

This is clearly her at the point of execution.

I mean, it's an astonishing picture, though, isn't it?

And it shows you what he was about.

He plundered history,

he found those moments of human predicament.

It's almost like drama.

You're drawn into that terrible moment, that poor woman,

or girl, rather, 17 years old,

you know, feeling for the block.

It's like a still from a film, isn't it?

You can see the seeds of Hollywood in this.

I read that this is such a popular painting

here at the National Gallery

that the floor has to be regularly revarnished,

because so many people stand and just gaze at this.

Of course, it's not just today, in 1834,

when Paul Delaroche exhibited this picture and made his reputation,

it caused an absolute sensation.

Can you see anything in this painting that would indicate

that Neil's could be by the same hand?

I mean, there's something about the way the silks are done,

the way they catch that light and shimmer, the glow in the flesh

of the cheeks, this is a beautiful observation I think we see in ours.

I think there are enough details that are similar,

enough stylistic traits to make a really good case

for Neil's picture being by Delaroche.

'I've discovered from my contacts at the National Gallery

'that Neil had been following some intriguing leads

'before he became ill.

'I'm with Becky, following his trail to the British Museum,

'where Neil had made an exciting discovery.

'We've come to the Prints and Drawings Room

'to see what he'd uncovered.'

So, Becky, do you happen to know how far Neil managed to get

-in his researches on this picture?

-No, I don't know.

He didn't really talk to me about what he did with his art,

and I didn't talk to him about what I did with my accounting.

Well, it sounds like a good arrangement.

Well, actually, he'd been up to a bit of super-sleuthing,

and he managed to establish that there was a connection between

-your painting and two images that reside in this museum.

-OK.

Here is one of them.

Oh, gosh.

Gosh, that's very similar, isn't it?

This is a preparatory drawing,

by none other than Paul Delaroche himself,

for an oil painting that he was then going to go and paint.

So it's the earliest stage, as it were,

in the preparation for something quite significant.

-I mean, there's quite, yeah...

-You recognise it?

-Yes, I do.

There's quite a lot of differences,

but the faces are very similar, aren't they?

Well, there's more than one piece to this jigsaw,

because over here is another image in the museum, which relates...

-Oh, my goodness.

-..to your painting.

That looks...

nearly identical!

This is an engraving,

by Paolo Mercuri, done in 1837.

Now, the point is it's after an original painting

by Paul Delaroche.

The painting is nowhere to be found.

There is a missing link between this drawing and that engraving,

so the question is...

..is your painting this missing link?

OK.

But there is another aspect to this.

If we can prove that this is the lost work by Paul Delaroche,

it doesn't just become a lost painting

by a fascinating and important artist,

it is also a Royal Commission.

Wow.

Because the lost painting had been commissioned by none other

than the last King and Queen of the French,

Marie-Amelie and Louis-Philippe,

thus making it not just a painting with a provenance,

but a painting with a fantastically gilded, elevated one.

Wow.

Gosh, I didn't realise that at all.

-Well, I have to say, it raises the stakes.

-Yeah.

That's something quite special, isn't it?

It would be something to discuss in the guesthouse, wouldn't it?

Yes, absolutely! Yes.

Yes, definitely.

So, we're now dealing with a possible lost royal treasure.

'At the gallery, we're meeting with our specialist art researcher,

'Dr Bendor Grosvenor, to see what evidence we've got so far.'

Here's the man at the centre of our mystery,

artist Paul Delaroche.

And we need to establish whether Neil's picture is by Delaroche

and painted for the last King and Queen of the French.

And here they are,

King Louis-Philippe and Queen Marie-Amelie.

And they lived through a tumultuous time in French history,

there was revolution, rebellion,

culminating, ultimately, in their overthrow in 1848.

By all accounts,

Marie-Amelie was very religious, and it's documented

that in 1831 Paul Delaroche was commissioned to paint

a picture of her patron saint, Sainte Amelie,

and it was designed to be a model for a stained-glass window

in the Queen's private chapel.

And we've seen the original sketch by Delaroche

for this design, but experts say that the original picture...

is lost.

It's clearly an important painting, commissioned for the Queen,

no less, and of her patron saint.

In fact it was important enough to be exhibited in the prestigious

Paris Salon of 1834, here's the catalogue entry,

"Sainte Amelie",

and it says the picture belonged to the King.

Does it list the dimensions of the lost picture?

It doesn't, but I have found an exhibition catalogue from 1857,

which states very clearly

that the dimensions were 42 centimetres high

and 28 centimetres wide.

So...

Neil's is...

44.

-Mm.

-This is 29.

That's a bit of a worry, isn't it?

Because if this painting is the lost original,

you'd expect the dimensions to be the same.

Yes, and there's also other niggling concerns.

We know that the engraving is a copy of the lost picture.

For Neil's to be the lost picture,

they've therefore pretty well got to look identical.

Unfortunately, there are some differences.

I wonder whether you can spot them.

If you look at the plant pot, for example, or the jardinier,

if you want to be fancy about it,

in Neil's painting it's completely plain,

whereas in the engraving, it's richly decorated.

And the face of the middle servant,

in Neil's picture, is far less detailed

than the one you see in the engraving.

Then there's the cloth.

In the engraving, it's a richly decorated material,

whereas in Neil's painting, it looks like a bit of canvas.

Have a look at the step in the engraving.

You can see beautifully clearly, in Gothic writing, "Delaroche".

In the painting, there is nothing.

I wonder if that inscription might have been added by the engraver,

because sometimes engravers used to do that,

they used to fiddle with pictures and add little bits in.

Yes, and I also think there is possibly another explanation,

and that is some later restorer has touched in areas,

has changed them, skewing the eye

and making the experts think that it's a copy.

Forensic analysis should help us with that.

And I want to find out more about the original painting,

its royal connection and how royal treasure could be lost.

To find out more about Delaroche's lost Sainte Amelie,

owner Becky and I are travelling to France.

We've come to Normandy and the glorious Chateau d'Eu.

'Built in the 16th century,

'this was once the summer palace of King Louis-Philippe

'and Queen Marie-Amelie.

'After a turbulent period of rebellion and revolution,

'in 1830, Marie-Amelie and Louis-Philippe

'were crowned King and Queen of the French.'

Wow, what an incredible room.

They immediately set about transforming

their dilapidated chateau into a fabulous royal palace.

By the time work was finished,

the chateau contained 60 apartments and 250 bedrooms.

'As part of the renovations, the King requested Delaroche design

'a stained-glass window that would hang in the Queen's chapel.

'I'm hoping it can shed some light on Neil's painting.'

Becky, if your painting is by Delaroche,

this is the man who commissioned it,

King Louis-Philippe, in honour of his wife.

There she is, Queen Marie-Amelie.

-OK.

-They came to the throne,

and they surrounded themselves with the trappings of royalty

and they invited Queen Victoria and Prince Albert over here

to Chateau d'Eu in 1843 and that was not only to cement their friendship,

but also to bolster the French monarchy

with a bit of the stardust of the British monarchy and its stability.

The young Victoria wrote of the visit in her journal

and she mentioned something that might be of interest to Becky.

I've got a copy of her diary entry here.

Have a look at that, see if you can read her writing.

OK, "At half-past three, the King and Queen fetched us

"and showed us over the greater part of the chateau.

"The little chapel is beautiful,

"full of stained-glass windows and figures of saints."

And, of course, one of those windows was conceived from

-the original Delaroche painting.

-Yes.

-Which we hope is yours.

-Yes.

'The curator of Chateau d'Eu, Alban Duparc,

'has agreed to show us Queen Marie-Amelie's chapel.

'He's warned us it's not what it once was.'

It's a bit distressed, as chapels go.

FIONA SPEAKS IN FRENCH

The stained-glass windows, Sainte Amelie...

So, you took window out because there was water damage in here.

So it was the main window of the chapel, the central window.

Et voici vitrail de Sainte Amelie.

Oh, God.

Merci.

Oh, dear.

Gosh, it's in really bad condition, isn't it?

That's horrendous.

'The stained-glass window was removed back in 1970

'and it's in a terrible state.'

It's just so dark.

-Of course, what you need is to see the light behind it.

-You do.

'Alban has arranged to stand the window up

'in the hope that we can see the design.

'A large piece of Perspex is required

'to prevent the glass shattering.'

-Un...

-Deux...

-..deux, trois.

'This window hasn't been moved for 46 years and it's extremely fragile.

'We can hardly bear to watch.'

THEY TALK INDISTINCTLY

Wow.

-What a difference with the light behind it.

-Incredible.

Out of the darkness, Delaroche's design for Sainte Amelie is lit up

for the first time in nearly half a century.

That's just amazing, isn't it? When it was on the ground,

it just looked dark, dingy...

and it's just vibrant. It's amazing.

I mean, those colours, they're like jewels, glowing from the glass.

This is so beautifully done, look at that,

the figure of Sainte Amelie is just exquisite.

This painting, your painting, of course,

we hope was a source of this.

But does the stained-glass window designed by Delaroche

match up with Neil's painting?

I mean, there's obvious similarities, which is encouraging.

There's a few differences as well.

The dress with the girl on the right, but it's green, not blue.

-Also, look at the cloth in the background.

-Yes.

Her dress is beautiful.

I know it's different to the picture,

-but the colours are wonderful.

-It is different, isn't it?

Because the dress has got all that red in it and this doesn't have any.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

These differences could be cause for concern

and need further investigation.

What we need to do next, I think, is find out more about how this

was commissioned and that might give us more evidence

to show that your painting

was what led to this glorious piece of stained glass.

'Back in London, I'm focusing on the physical evidence.

'I'm hoping to unlock clues in the painting itself,

'so I'm taking it to the Courtauld Institute for forensics analysis.

'Aviva Burnstock is one of the world's leading authorities

'in the scientific study of art.'

-How do you do?

-Hello.

'Her research could provide vital evidence to prove whether

'Neil's painting is the lost Delaroche,

'or a copy by another hand.

'One problem I need her to address is the size of the picture,

'which doesn't match up with the catalogue entry Bendor found.

'If this is the lost original,

'it should measure 42 by 28 centimetres.'

-We're out.

-Mm.

It's 44 high

and...

29 across.

Well, hold on one minute.

If you look closely at the picture, you can see that there's

an unpainted edge at the top, and also at the bottom,

and on the left.

And this picture's been relined, you can tell that from the back.

-So, put on to a new canvas?

-Yes, put on to a new canvas,

and it's been restructured with the painted edge

further in the picture plane, so the turnover edge

-is further in.

-I see, yes,

areas that were folded over have now become incorporated into the front.

That's exactly right.

Shall we measure, then,

-what you consider to be the original?

-OK.

If we measure the painted edge to the painted edge,

the height is exactly 42...

and the width...

..is exactly 28.

The dimensions of the lost picture.

Aviva, you have solved a major problem here.

'Back in France, we're trying to find out more about Delaroche's

'commission to paint Sainte Amelie.

'Becky and I have come to the world-famous

'Sevres porcelain factory near Paris.

'Sevres was known for creating the finest hand-painted porcelain,

'still is today.

'But back in 1827, the craftsmen also turned their hands to creating

'grand decorative schemes in stained glass.

'Sevres engaged some of the most admired artists of the day

'to create designs,

'and when King Louis-Philippe requested the window

'for the Queen's chapel, he chose Delaroche for the job.

'We're looking for any evidence Neil's picture was Delaroche's

'original design for the Sainte Amelie window.'

Now, in here, Becky,

are the cartoons or drawings done by the artist here at Sevres,

from original paintings, to create the stained-glass windows

in the chateau, of course, one of which

came from a painting by Delaroche.

-They're absolutely beautiful, aren't they?

-Exquisite.

So beautifully done.

Now, what's this?

Oh, hang on.

-Bingo.

-There it is.

That's definitely it, isn't it?

You can see all the detail now that we couldn't see yesterday.

Let's get your picture, put it there and let's compare the two.

-What do you think?

-Well, again, it's different, isn't it?

-Every time we see a version of this picture, it's different.

-It is.

-I think that's encouraging, you know.

-Yes, it is!

I think it is encouraging because

if all the other versions looked the same

-and yours was the one that was different, I'd be worried.

-Yeah.

And, don't forget, this is stained glass,

so I would imagine that the craftsman here at Sevres

would have interpreted Delaroche's work

and then done a version which maximised the impact

of stained glass cos it's a completely different medium,

-it would have light shining through it.

-Yeah.

It's difficult, isn't it, to come to any firm conclusion

comparing your painting

with this wonderful image in front of us?

-But it is yet another piece that was missing...

-Yeah.

..in the jigsaw puzzle.

Back at the Courtauld Institute, Aviva is using imaging techniques

to reveal clues hidden within Neil's painting.

In the past, experts have dismissed the picture as a copy,

possibly because the print reproduced from the lost Delaroche

appears more detailed than Neil's painting in places,

for instance, on the plant pot,

in the curtain in the background

and on the face of one of the girls.

I'm hoping that Aviva's analysis can explain some of those differences.

First, we're looking at an ultraviolet image,

which can show where later layers of paint have been added.

One's eye is immediately taken to those rather, sort of,

vicious-looking scars in the background.

Yeah, you can see that the painting has been torn

and it shows, very clearly, some of the areas of damage

and repaint that have been put on in restoration campaigns.

And, homing in on specific areas...

So, for example, what about the pot?

Yes, in fact, you can see those blotchy-looking marks

that look quite dark blue, which, I suspect,

are not original.

There's definitely a great deal of overpainting

in that area of the picture.

That's reassuring.

So, let's look at other parts of the painting.

Now, the curtain in the engraving is evidently decorated.

-Ours is black.

-Mm.

Now, can that be explained by this new image?

Well, the background paint over the brocade cloth

is the most dense area of overpainting.

You can see that this dark area

completely solidly covers what's underneath.

So, is there anywhere else in the picture

you think is worth pointing out?

Well, there is a big area here of overpaint on the face.

You can see the, sort of, spidery cracks on the face itself

and the hair.

So, behind this brick wall of overpaint,

-might lie something that's closer to the engraving?

-Yes, it well might.

'This is encouraging.

'But I'm also keen to see whether an infrared image

'can reveal evidence of a master at work

'or a mere copyist?

'Are there any clues, changes of mind, that suggest

'the artist is working out the composition

'as he goes along?'

I always love changes of mind. It shows that there's

some creative process going on, that some thought is taking place.

Because, of course, you wouldn't necessarily expect

to find those in a copyist.

Well, actually, we can see quite a few changes.

For example, there's this area here in the background,

it's underpainted a very dark colour,

which now is a watery area of the background landscape.

And then, perhaps, the most striking of all

is in the hands of the left-hand figure.

-I think you can see here, this is the hands as painted...

-Oh, yeah.

..and this and this look like they are

where the hands are in a different position.

Brilliant. So, what we're seeing is creation in action

-rather than some laborious, slavish copying?

-Yes.

Whoever painted this picture was altering

their ideas as they moved along and we know that Delaroche -

this is the testament of his students -

used to do this himself sometimes.

Could it be that this is what we're seeing here?

Back in France, we're on the trail of the lost Delaroche.

I've been trying to find out where it went

after the work was completed in 1832.

The heavens have opened and we've taken refuge inside,

so I can tell Becky about a stormy period in the painting's past.

There's a reason I've brought you here to the Tuileries Garden,

bang smack in the centre of Paris. So, I've been looking through

all the archives I can find from that period

to see what did happen to that Delaroche painting -

-hopefully your painting - after 1832.

-Yeah.

I found a magazine here that I think you'll think

is rather interesting.

It's dated September 1837. It's called Revue Britannique.

And there's a reference here talking about the painting

of Mr Delaroche painted for the Queen of the French

and which decorates now - that is September 1837 -

-the chapel at the Tuileries.

-OK.

And what that's referring to...

is this -

the Palace of the Tuileries.

-So, you can see...

-Gosh.

-..it was a very grand affair,

which was just out there.

The Tuileries Palace no longer stands today.

It was burned down in the late 19th century.

But during the reign of King Louis-Philippe

and Queen Marie-Amelie, it was their main residence

and home to Delaroche's lost work.

She had the stained-glass window of Sainte Amelie

in her summer chapel at Eu and in her main chapel here

at the Tuileries, she had Delaroche's painting.

-And she would kneel before it and pray before it.

-Yeah.

Well, it must have been very special for her.

-And, hopefully, that's your painting.

-Yeah.

Queen Marie-Amelie and King Louis-Philippe

lived at the Tuileries for another decade

until their reign came to an abrupt end.

On the 24th of February 1848, an angry mob descended

on the palace, baying for their blood.

Terrified, they tried to escape, but the mob had stormed the gates,

burnt the carriages and killed the stable hands.

In disguise, they managed to flee for their lives.

The horses take them away, they escape the mob,

they go all the way to the coast and make safe passage

to England.

-And that was the end of the monarchy in France.

-Oh, gosh.

So, your painting, if it is indeed by Delaroche,

-witnessed some of the most dramatic events in French history.

-Wow.

So, obviously, they didn't take the picture with them.

By all accounts of what the King himself said in his diaries,

they took nothing but what they were standing up in.

-But the question is...

-Yeah, what happened to it after that?

That's what we need to find next.

We're hot on the trail of Queen Marie-Amelie and King Louis-Philippe

on their desperate flight from France to exile in England.

They travelled from Dover incognito

under the name Mr and Mrs Le Bras.

For fear of assassination, the King had shaved off his whiskers

and removed his wig.

Their loyal friend, Queen Victoria, came to the rescue,

offering them refuge at one of her favourite houses -

Claremont, in Surrey.

This grand, Palladian mansion is now a school.

But in 1848, it was sanctuary to the exiled royal family.

They arrived here with nothing.

The new French government forbade them access to

any of their money, property or possessions.

But eventually, some of their belongings were returned to them.

Something I'd like to show you this way.

We're meeting Bendor, who's been trying to find out

where the Queen's prized Delaroche ended up

in all the upheaval.

This was Marie-Amelie's bedroom from the time of her exile

when she lived here from 1848

and quite a nice room for a bedroom, don't you think?

-It certainly is.

-And, sadly, I haven't been able

to find an inventory of exactly what works of art

Marie-Amelie was allowed to take away from France.

However, I have got a painting here that was sold by her descendants

very recently in 2015.

It's a painting by the English watercolourist Joseph Nash,

who was renowned for doing very detailed interiors

of rooms in very plush houses, like this.

And in 1866, which is 150 years ago,

Joseph Nash came to this room and he stood around about here

and this is what he saw.

I think you'll find it very interesting.

-Where is it?

-Right there.

-Bingo.

-Wow.

-So, it was hanging just behind that door there.

Oh, my goodness.

'There on the wall right beside Marie-Amelie's bed

'is the only image of the Queen's lost Delaroche

'that's known to exist.'

I think that's fantastic, isn't it?

It's just... To see it there...

As soon as you said, "Nash," I thought, "Yes!

"There's going to be a picture of the room," and, sure enough,

there it is.

Nash, bless him for us, stood here and was meticulous

about recording everything he saw.

Wow. Now, do we think it looks like your painting, Becky?

That's the question. On close inspection, I think it does.

Yeah, I think it does.

All the versions we've seen have been different,

but this one looks closest to our picture.

It's the next-best thing we can get to a photograph.

-Gosh, how exciting.

-Yeah.

Don't you think, Becky, it's lovely to see

what a treasured item this picture once was to the

-Queen of France?

-Yeah, I mean, it's in a real prominent position

in her room, isn't it?

She prayed in front of it. It was tremendously important to her.

The painting must have been a great comfort to the Queen,

who'd lost her crown, her country

and she would soon lose her king.

Two years into their exile,

Louis-Philippe passed away at Claremont.

Marie-Amelie spent her remaining years in mourning

and died in 1866 - the year Nash painted her room.

It's possible that her family or someone

asked Nash to record the bedroom after she died, for posterity.

Of course, the thing is, Becky,

one of the great mysteries of many about your painting is

we know it started off in France, how did it end up in Britain?

-Yeah.

-Well, no, we know how certainly the original Delaroche

ended up in Britain,

which makes it just that smidge more likely that it could be yours.

Yeah, I think so, too.

I mean, I think up to this point

there's been quite a lot of doubt

cos there were so many different versions

but this is probably the first time

where I'm thinking maybe it really could be the thing.

Mm-hmm.

I think it's the closest we've got so far, isn't it?

It's amazing.

That was so exciting,

and for Becky, it was a real turning point.

She now believes that Neil's painting

could be the genuine Delaroche.

What we still don't know, though, is

is Neil's painting the one that we saw in that Nash watercolour?

We still can't be sure about that.

Neil's could be a copy.

We've still got work to do on that score.

Delaroche was painting at a time when it was standard practice

for copies to be made of his works by students

or artists in his circle.

But were any made of Sainte Amelie?

I've come to France on a mission to hunt them down.

If I can identify all the replicas that were painted,

hopefully I can rule out Neil's painting as one of them.

I've come to Prignac in Bordeaux to the church of Sainte Pierre.

I've been given a tip-off there's a copy of Sainte Amelie hanging here.

This is Sainte Amelie, this is it.

This is our image but expanded 50 or 60 times.

So, this was done in 1844, 12 years after the painting by Delaroche.

And it was an official copy,

something done with the permission of the King or Queen themselves.

And it's by an artist called Leontine Tacussel.

Even though it's been heavily restored,

I think you can tell there are definite weaknesses

when you compare it to ours.

I don't think the faces are anything like as fine.

It's almost as if they've been inflated with a bicycle pump.

And actually, it's a not dissimilar story in the landscape behind.

Here, it looks a bit like a sort of theatrical backdrop.

It's not as convincing.

It's reassuring to see that Neil's picture

is much more finely painted than this copy.

This is what you'd expect if it's the original Delaroche.

But I may be judging unfairly.

The copy recently underwent extensive restoration,

and to make some proper comparisons,

I really need to see an image of the picture before work took place.

Stephanie Richard from the local heritage association

has agreed to meet me to share what she knows.

Ah, Stephanie, bonjour, comment ca va?

-Bonjour, tres bien, et vous?

-Tres bien, merci.

This is what the painting looked like before restoration.

Uh-huh.

That's of some concern.

There are distinct differences in the colouring

when you compare it to ours.

I mean, look at the figure on the far right -

in our picture, she's got a blue dress.

Here, she's green.

And then the kneeling figure in the middle of the three,

the dress is yellow.

In ours, it's distinctly white.

But the most troubling difference is the dress of Sainte Amelie herself.

On Neil's painting, it's gold, but on the copy, its gold and red.

If this is a faithful replica of the original, we're in trouble.

Now, what we really need to know is could Leontine Tacussel

have had access to the original Paul Delaroche picture?

Yes, this is the letter that informs us that Leontine Tacussel

had access to the original painting of Paul Delaroche.

That's a problem.

-Is there anything else you've managed to establish?

-Yes.

We have also another letter from Leontine Tacussel

and we learned that another artist, Madame Gamen-Dupasquier,

made another copy of Paul Delaroche.

So, hang on...

-we've now got another copy out there?

-Yeah.

But smaller than Leontine Tacussel.

Do you know where it is?

No.

This is a troubling development.

There's a possibility that this rogue Sainte Amelie copy

could be Neil's picture.

That conversation with Stephanie was both worrying

and, frankly, completely unexpected,

so now we know that out there somewhere - don't know where it is -

is another copy of this composition

by this artist called Gamen-Dupasquier.

I mean, it's imperative that we try and find this picture

and establish that it's not our picture.

Back at the gallery,

Bendor is trying to track down this suspect copy,

so we can eliminate it from our enquiries.

And his research has brought several other versions out of the shadows.

We're joining him to inspect a line-up

of all known copies of Sainte Amelie.

Hi, Bendor, how are you getting on?

Taken a bit of digging

but I managed to track down the lost Amelie copy to northern France.

It's in a church in a town called Wattignies.

And the thing is, it's big, it's over two metres tall,

so we can definitely rule out the possibility that Neil's picture

was the copy by Gamen-Dupasquier.

That's a huge relief, isn't it?

I mean, that was getting a real worry.

But there is, however,

one other copy that I'm afraid I haven't been able to track down yet.

There's a passing reference to it in this letter

by an artist called Ed Gerome, writing in 1847,

and he mentions that he's finishing a copy of Sainte Amelie.

Now, there's no dimensions here.

We don't even know if it was finished.

But then it's a possibility

that Neil's painting is that Gerome copy.

It is a possibility,

but I think we can cautiously assume that Gerome's copy,

like the other painter copies, would be big.

And it does make sense, doesn't it,

if the Queen is sanctioning these images,

these paintings of her namesake,

they're going to have some sort of propaganda function,

-they're going to be big and they're going to put over the message.

-Mm.

The only thing is, seeing these two church paintings now

side-by-side for the first time,

they look very similar, particularly when it comes to the colours,

but they don't look similar to Neil's.

Yeah, if Neil's is going to be the lost picture,

we have to work out why on earth the colours are different

from what we know the known copies are.

And the only thing that's going to help us with that,

-I suspect at this stage, is forensics.

-Mm.

So, how far have you got tracking where the lost Delaroche went?

Not very good, I'm afraid.

Only up to Marie-Amelie's death in 1866.

And then we've got this huge gap

between then and when it emerges on the market

when Neil buys the painting in the 1980s.

And I have to say, I don't like that gap at all.

We've nothing there.

I need to find out what happened

to Queen Marie-Amelie's art collection after her death in 1866,

so I've returned to France.

I'm heading to the National Archives in Paris.

The papers of the French royal family are held here.

It's the largest private archive in Europe,

amounting to 40 tonnes of documents.

I'm hoping Marie-Amelie's will

can shed some light on where her treasured Delaroche ended up.

So, we've got "Queen Marie-Amelie, will, diamonds, portraits."

"Queen Marie-Amelie, notes, silver, paintings."

So, let's look in here.

I mean, this is fascinating

to be able to peer into her life in this way.

It's a list of all the silver at Claremont.

There's a long list here of all her porcelain.

Oh, paintings. Here we go.

Right at the top of the list, "Sainte Amelie, Delaroche."

Brilliant.

And actually, it's also the most valuable - £1,200,

and that's saying something because there's a Van Dyck in here

and that's worth less.

So, at the top of the list and the most valuable in her will

is the Sainte Amelie by Delaroche.

But it doesn't say who she left it to.

A search through another file reveals a list

made by Marie-Amelie's son, the Duc de Nemours,

requesting certain objects that had belonged to his mother.

Oh, here we go. Here we go.

"La Sainte Amelie de Delaroche."

So, it looks like, therefore,

the painting that she loved so much went to her son,

to the Duc de Nemours.

The Duc de Nemours lived at Bushy House in Twickenham,

so we can assume Sainte Amelie hung there.

But where did it go after his death in 1896?

Well, this is the will of the Duc de Nemours.

And in it, he says that he leaves all his paintings to his son.

And then says there is a list of those paintings

in amongst his papers.

But incredibly frustratingly,

in all this paperwork about the Duc de Nemours,

that list of his paintings isn't here.

So, the trail stops here.

The provenance trail may have come to a halt

but back at the Courtauld Institute,

I'm hoping science might provide some answers

to the last hurdle concerning the colours in Neil's picture.

So, Aviva, we have a rather alarming issue.

Some of the colours in our painting

don't match the colours of the copies in the French churches,

and one of the particular areas of concern

is the dress of Sainte Amelie.

In the copies, it's red and gold -

in ours, it's just gold.

Well, actually, I've looked at that area quite closely

and we can see here a red paint has been applied,

which covered the golden paint in a decorative pattern.

And in those areas, the paint has faded.

There's no doubt about it, it's gone a bit murky,

but that's unquestionably a red now you point it out.

It is. It's red.

Some of these red pigments that were used in the 19th-century

faded more than others and this one looks like a natural dye

which has faded in the light.

So, this dress was definitely patterned red.

Was definitely patterned red, yes.

Well, OK, this is great,

but I've got something even more tricky

and that is the dress of the kneeling figure.

Now, in our painting,

it is unquestionably blue

but in the copies, it's green.

Well, I've looked at that area, too. So, it does look very blue.

But if you look at the very edge,

can you see that there's a green area,

a green line at the edge of the drapery?

Yeah, I can, there's sort of a little flash of emerald green.

So, I couldn't really tell what the pigments were under the microscope,

so I took a sample.

What you can see is the blue pigment was mixed with this other pigment,

which now looks white -

you see these groups of white particles?

Which were probably yellow originally,

so what you had was a yellow that faded.

So, the yellow added with the blue that made it green has disappeared,

turning it back to blue.

Yes. That's exactly right.

OK, but there's another clothes issue

and that's the other kneeling figure.

Now, in the copies, her dress is clearly yellow,

particularly the sort of skirt area beneath,

but in our painting, it's white.

Mm-hm.

Well, this area, interestingly, has been overpainted,

and you see that gritty paint,

which was applied over an underlying layer?

Yes, it's very clear.

It's sort of opaque and granular, isn't it?

You see it's everywhere, covering up another colour underneath.

So, we have got paint that has been applied on top,

which unquestionably, would explain a change.

That's true.

Based on Aviva's scientific findings,

we can now reconstruct what the picture might have looked like

before the colours changed.

For me, all nagging doubts have at last been ironed out

and Delaroche is still firmly in the frame.

We've done all that we can

but is it enough to convince the world authority on Delaroche?

Professor Stephen Bann is the leading expert,

having lectured and published on the artist for over 30 years.

We've invited him to the Courtauld Institute

so he can examine Neil's painting.

When the art market needs to authenticate a potential work

by Delaroche, Professor Bann is the expert they consult.

You get that sick sort of exam feel, don't you?

-How do you do?

-Nice to meet you.

-And you.

Professor Bann, nice to meet you.

We're going to give him some time to evaluate our evidence

and decide whether Neil's painting

is a genuine work by Paul Delaroche or not.

When we started this investigation,

there were some troubling concerns with Neil's picture,

but, rather wonderfully, science has explained them all.

There was the problem with the engraving,

it seemed that the Mercuri print

showed things that weren't in our picture.

We've explained that.

It's overpaint.

Then there was the colour changes as indicated by the copies,

but we now know that the pigments have degraded.

And then there's the artist's changes of mind,

the art world loves those.

I think we've proved that this is by Paul Delaroche.

But can we convince the authority?

It's always such an anxious time

when the painting's being scrutinised like this.

And I think we've taken Delaroche's lost painting

right back to the beginning.

We know why it was commissioned

by the last King of the French, Louis-Philippe,

as an act of love for his wife.

That magnificent stained-glass window was the result.

Then, in the tumult of the Revolution,

when Louis-Philippe and Marie-Amelie fled for their lives to England,

the painting followed.

And then she bequeathed it to her son.

But that's where the trail goes cold.

Between 1896, when he died,

and the 1980s, when the painting resurfaced for sale here in England,

where was it?

I don't like that kind of vacuum and neither does the art world.

I hope we've done enough.

A week has passed

and Becky is on her way to the gallery.

We're all about to discover whether Neil's painting

has been accepted as a genuine work by Paul Delaroche.

-Hi, Becky.

-Hi, Fiona. Hi, Philip.

-Hi, Becky.

How are you feeling?

-Bit nervous.

-Mm.

-Bit apprehensive.

If Professor Bann says that this is a work by Paul Delaroche,

it's worth £50,000.

Becky, Neil paid how much for it?

£500.

Well, so, that's a massive difference.

But it's not just about the money, is it, Becky?

I mean, this is Neil's painting, it was his vision, wasn't it?

Yeah.

I mean, he really believed it was a Delaroche,

so if we can prove it is a Delaroche,

it would be something very special.

We're about to find out.

Professor Stephen Bann is heading to the gallery

to give us his verdict.

Hello, Professor.

How do you do?

You've come to a verdict, I assume.

I have, I've reviewed all the evidence

and I've reached my decision.

In my opinion, this is definitely

the lost Sainte Amelie by Paul Delaroche.

-Oh, my goodness!

-THEY LAUGH

-How marvellous.

-That's fantastic.

Oh, what a relief.

Brilliant. Oh, my goodness, I'm slightly tearful.

Oh, that's just... Oh, my God, Becky, what do you think of that?

I know, that's just amazing.

Oh, I'm just so pleased because Neil was sure

that it was a Delaroche.

It's just...

It's fantastic.

-I wasn't sure we were going to make it, Becky, I have to say, at one point.

-No, I know.

Definitely, there were some points when I didn't think it was

the real thing, but, er...

but Neil did, so I'm so pleased.

So, Neil was right about his Delaroche all along

and a royal treasure, lost for over 100 years,

has at last been found.

But what swung it for Professor Bann?

There were several factors which influenced me.

The extraordinarily impressive work done

to trace the different incarnations of Sainte Amelie,

the scientific evidence, which I found extremely convincing,

and I found a letter

which strongly supports all the work that had been done.

Really?

Stephen has an 11th-hour revelation,

a letter written by Delaroche in 1832,

soon after he completed his Sainte Amelie.

He's just visited the stained-glass workshop

and he's found that his painting is in a pitiable state.

He says, "The damage is considerable

"and obliges me to undertake a long and tedious task.

"I'm going to try and repair the damage

"but I will no longer take responsibility for a new accident."

That's fantastic because it shows that the restoration

that we picked up on this picture

is actually partly, if not largely, by the artist himself.

Yes, indeed.

There may well have been further restorations later on,

but certainly it's true that Paul Delaroche

must have done a considerable amount.

Does that affect the value of it at all?

Yes. I mean, in commercial terms,

now that we know that a large part of those additions

are by the artist himself,

it becomes a much purer historical artefact.

And I can now see it pushing up to £75,000.

That's a lot of money.

This is a much-needed result for a family who've had a rough few years.

The whole thing's been a bit of a rollercoaster right from the start,

thinking it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't,

but I'm so pleased that it is the real thing.

The boys will be so excited.

They'll be jumping around the kitchen,

so, you know, they'll just be chuffed.

What a result!

We found a lost royal treasure.

And now we've proven Neil right.

If you think you might have an undiscovered masterpiece,

we'd love to hear from you at...