It is neither of those roses, nope. Without knowing more about its bloom habit (does it repeat?) and size, fragrance, cane/thorn type, its not going to be easy to ID.

You might want to go back to the folks you bought it from and see if someone there recognizes it. If it was sold to you as 'Constance Spry', then perhaps its a different Austin variety - it has the Austin look.

I would be thrilled if it turned out to be Prospero, as it cannot be purchased anymore, I tried taking a cutting from a friend who has it, but it failed to take root.

Im not sure what it is but the color is really beautidul!

That doesn't look like 'Prospero' to me. 'Prospero' tends to be a very tightly organized, shallow, flat flower. Like so:

Prospero

A bit more information. It is young, but it appears that it will remain compact, no bigger than 3' x 3'. It has thorns, but they are very small. I do not yet know if it repeats bloom.

Here are my own root Prospero and CdR.

CdR.

Prospero.

CdR.

I actually got a positive ID if anyone was interested. I found the handwritten tag in the small container in which I brought the rose home, it is a once blooming hybrid perpetual called Paul Ricault https://www.helpmefind.com/rose/l.php?l=21.316130

How nice to have the .mystery solved. Paul is a really gorgeous rose.

@Matthew Gandin I'm skeptical of that identification. 'Paul Ricault' is never "purple/lavender" - its always a medium warm pink. (often with a subtle paler pink reverse)

Paul Barden, if you read the note along with the photo from Paul Lowery on Help Me Find, purple is actuallty the original color noted in early European literature, and he suggests that most of the roses sold in the US under that name are actually misnamed, they are a different rose called Paul Perras.

I saw Paul Ricault at Roseraie de L'Hay outside of Paris in 2016 and it was pink.

@Matthew Gandin Using period writings that make reference to color is problematic, since what was called "purple" or "red" or "crimson" 100 years ago isn't what we think of when using those terms now. I've seen written descriptions of pink and lavender roses that state their color as "purple" or some such variation. 'Slaters Crimson' for example is typically a dark pink for most growers, for much of the growing season.

I've seen Gregg Lowery's photo and comment, and if anyone knows, Gregg does. However, his remarks are still speculative at best. Its also true that the 'Paul Ricault' of commerce doesn't match the original descriptions, it is this warm, medium pink cultivar that is known globally by this name, and is almost guaranteed to be what you get if you buy a rose under this name.

I would want to find out exactly who sold you this rose, and determine its provenance before concluding that it is "the original" 'Paul Ricault'. Its possible the person who propagated it got it from Gregg, which would be a detail worth knowing, and that detail would add credence to the tentative identification.