People attach far too much importance to records, especially amongst the bigger species (carp, barbel, pike etc). Catching a record does not automatically confer angling greatness on the captor. Being a record does not indicate any particular lineage or provenance to the fish concerned.
All that a record shows is that it's the biggest of its species caught on rod and line in the UK, nothing more. Only when others give it greater significance than that do any problems arise. There's no doubt that some record fish have been caught by good anglers, after a lot of effort. However, many records have been caught by getting lucky. The angler getting lucky may have put in no particular effort and may not come close to being considered a good angler.
Am I suggesting that everyone should aspire to catching this particular carp? Not at all. There's something not quite cricket about the whole thing as far as I'm concerned. However, I'll treat it with the same indifference as I do every record. Sure, the captor may milk it for all it's worth. I'm sure that the fishery and a few manufacturers will definitely try to milk it. That'll have no bearing whatsoever on me.
On top of all that, at what point does a fish cease to be a specially reared fish, 8oz, 1lb, 2lb, 5lb, 10lb, 20lb, 30lb........? The vast bulk of the carp in the UK are farm reared and stocked. Sure, most are stocked at relatively low weights, but what's the ethical difference between an artificially stocked fish going in at 20lb and 70lb?