The Prince and the Porridge Bowl

NB: Help needed with this topic: see bottom of page.

There is an item in The Anderson Collection: Porridge Bowl (northfield.house) which is described thus:

This China Dish was used by his Royal Highness Prince Charles Edward as his Porridge Cup, when halted in the house of the Revd. Ax. Keith (clergyman of the Episcopal Church) Invernessshire – after the disaster of Culloden – It was attained by his daughter – afterwards Lady Naesmyth and left by her as an Heirloom in the family.

Several elements in the provenance of this item are questionable – and will be examined here. The reader may wonder why this topic is aired on a website addressing issues to do with the Clan Grant – but the potential connection will become clear below.

Identifying Jean Keith’s ancestry

(a) The Naesmiths

We can turn in the first instance to Cokayne’s Complete Baronetage where we find this entry for Sir James Naesmyth

Sir James Naesmyth, or Nasmyth, Baronet [S. 1706], of Dawick and Posso aforesaid, 1st s. and h., by 3d wife, b. about 1704 ; suc. to the Baronetcy, 20 July 1720, being served heir gen. of his father, 8 July 1721, and to his mother, Barbara, 17 July 1776. He was an eminent Botanist, having studied under Linnaeus, in Sweden. He was M.P. for Peeblesshire (two Parls.) 1732-41; and was F.R.S. 1767. He abandoned the house at Posso and called that at Dawick by the name of New Posso. He m. Jean, da. of Thomas KEITH(a). He d. at New Posso 4, and was bur. 9 Feb. 1779 at Greyfriars, Edinburgh, aged 75.

(a) This Thomas Keith is stated in Playfair's Baronetage (1811) to have been "a grandson of the Earl Marischall" [S.], but by no legitimate descent could that, apparently, be the case.

We may now follow the family to the next generation where we find:

Sir James Naesmyth, or Nasmyth, Baronet [S. 1706], of Dawick or New Posso aforesaid, 1st s. and h. ; sue. to the Baronetcy, 4 Feb. 1779, and was, 22 April following, served heir male, heir of line, entail and provision to his father in divers lands, many of which, apparently, he subsequently sold. He m. firstly, April 1785, Eleanor, da. of John Murray, of Philiphaugh, co. Selkirk, by (— ) da. of (— ) Thomson. She by whom he had twelve children, d. after childbirth, 22 Feb. 1807, in York place, Edinburgh. He m. secondly (post nuptial settlement, July 1828), Harriet, da. of John Jones, of Westham, Sussex. _ He d. 4 Dec. 1829. His widow d. 21 April 1879, at Fern Lodge, Lower Norwood, Surrey, in her 88th year.

(b) Jean’s birth epoch and ancestry

We may start by noting Jean Keith’s husband’s birthdate 1704. Next we can see the younger Naesmith was first married in 1785 making the likely time window for his birth 1760x64. As Cockayne makes no remarks to the contrary, we should assume that Jean Keith was his mother, so we might hazard a birth epoch for her 1734x44, making her 30-40 years younger than her husband. Even if we assumed that she did not marry until she was 35 she would have been born c1725. About her ancestry we have an immediate problem because her father is named as Thomas, while the provenance of the bowl claims her father’s name was Alexander. I am distrustful of the Playfair entry not least because the “Earl Marischal” in question is not named. However it is unlikely that the name Thomas was merely plucked out of the air. We can see Cockayne’s disparagement of Playfair’s claim so let us consider what it is that might be possible.

Had she been an infant at the time of the Porridge Bowl incident, so born c1740x5 then she would have been in her 20s on marriage with her husband 40 years her senior. Should we not have expected children? All in all this is an unlikely scenario.

More likely Jean was already of ‘a certain age’ – actually highly uncertain - but already mid 40s if not older, making her birth epoch say 1715x1725. So here is a table to orient us into various scenarios.

(c) The Earls Marischal

Next we need to consider the pedigree of the Earls Marischal to see where it might be possible to fit ‘our’ Keiths in.

As we can see such is the gap between the births of brothers William and George (born in the 1610s) and William born in 1664 that I have interpolated a potentially missing generation.

Even if Jean had been but an infant when the prince visited, it is chronologically impossible for her great grandfather to have been George Keith the 10^th and last EM. Likewise William Keith EM9 would not have been able to sire a son until into the 1680s – far too late to be the grandfather of Rev. Alexander. On the other end of the scale William Keith EM5 is unrealistically old and his family circumstances make him an extremely unlikely candidate.

This then brings us to William Keith EM7 and his brother George Keith EM8, apparently both born c1614 – though it is not remarked that they were twins. Willam Keith seems to have been a regular sort of man. His son William died young and apparently without issue. However George Keith is a different matter altogether. So obscure was his life that his Wikipedia page is a stub only. However we are fortunate that C Smith has left an entry for him on Find a Grave.

8th Earl Marischal; 1st Earl of Kintore. George was the younger brother of William, 7th Earl Marischal, who died without male issue. He succeeded to the title at the death of his brother in 1661 (1671?).

In his younger years he served in the French army and rose to the rank of Colonel. He returned to Scotland when the Civil War broke out, but does not appear to have taken any active part on either side until the army of the 'Engagement' was raised to rescue Charles I from the Republican Party. He fought at the Battle of Preston (17 August 1648). Three years later he had the command of three regiments at the Battle of Worcester, where he displayed the hereditary bravery of his house, but was overpowered by numbers and taken prisoner. He appears to have lived quietly on his estates during the reigns of Charles II and his brother, James VII. He took no active part on either side at the Revolution.

George Keith married Lady Mary Hay (d. 1701), third daughter of George Hay (1596-1644), 2nd Earl of Kinnoull, on 6 February 1662.

As we can see George only married in his very late 40s and then produced at least one child – his heir William - soon thereafter. We can see readily that his military career will have got in the way of his marrying early or normally, but there is a lacuna after the Battle of Worcester (1651) – and , as C Smith implies, it is unlikely that the whole of this gap can be accounted for by imprisonment. Notwithstanding that many prisoners were sent to the Americas a slaves, even by 1651 it will have been clear that he was the heir apparent to being Earl Marischal, so it seems likely that he was eg ransomed by his brother.

So even allowing for a period of imprisonment there seems to be a period from, say from 1655 to his marriage in 1662 where his ‘bodily needs’ still needed to be met. So my opinion is that this is a likely time window in which he sired a son, possibly with a maid at Dunottar. Given the religious milieu of the time it is unlikely to have been a high born mistress. So we have this potential generation scenario:

Summary Conclusion to Part 1

Cockayne was entirely right to say that Jean’s descent from an Earl Marischal could not have been through a legitimate line, but descent from George Keith though an illegitimate line is plausible.

Where did Rev. Alex Keith minister?

This matter too is deeply problematic. I am grateful to Rev Alan MacLean of Dochgarroch who kindly checked in Bertie, David M. (2000). Scottish Episcopal Clergy, 1689-2000. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. p.B 74. ISBN 0-567-08746-8 only to be unable to find any reference to Alexander Keith or indeed any other Keith in Inverness-shire at the time in question notwithstanding the book’s description being

"This text represents a comprehensive reference work on all clergy who have served in the Scottish Episcopal Church since 1689, and includes biographical notes, details of the theological colleges, and information on the Church's history."

There was a Bishop Robert Keith consecrated 1727, d 1756, but he is at best of marginal interest only as the text shows that Bishop Keith descends from the 3rd Earl Marischal.
One of his books “History if the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland” is online (this link being to one of several volumes), his pedigree can be seen on geneanet and, of course he has his own Wikipedia page. The links facilitate the reader’s forming an independent view but mine is that he is not directly relevant to our search.

The potential Grant connection

“Inverness-shire” (in which Rev Alex. Keith ministered) is a very wide area; the Keiths belong to the east coast of Scotland and we have noted the Episcopalian commitment of the Keith family (whence the Jacobitism). It is possible that it is one cadet family of Grants – the Grants of Corrimony – which could bring these disparate elements together.

Differences of religious persuasion had been a matter of life and death for some considerable time before the reformation, but after it opinions solidified into different camps. The Chiefs of Grant seem to have been solidly Presbyterian, but the same cannot be said of the cadets in Urquhart and Glenmoriston. It was the difference of view between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians which led the Episcopalians to side with the Catholics in supporting the Jacobite cause.

George Gordon 4^th Earl of Huntly was married to an Elizabeth Keith and it was she who persuaded him to raise the army which lost catastrophically at Corrichie in 1562. Patrick Grant of Glenmoriston was in Huntly's army at this time.

Albeit some generations later John Grant 6th of Corrimony married Mary Keith of the wider family of the Earls Marischal. John Grant was probably born c1660 so Mary was probably born 1665x70. He died in 1726 and she outlived him - probably into the 1730s. She was probably a daughter of Keith if Kidshill and so named after her mother Mary Hay. She appears to have had a brother Alexander born c1670.

On the north shore of Loch Meiklie in Corrimony territory sits St Ninian's church. It is Episcoplian. The Episcopalians claim they built it in the 1800s after it was given to them, but the Old Statistical Account makes clear that the church was already there and disused in 1795. And we have seen that this church already existed in 1509 (and hence definitely before 1480) because of its mention in the Charter erecting the baronies.

Thus I conclude that when the Reformation happened in 1560 the Corrimony family took control of St Ninians church and ensured that it was served by an Episcopalian minister suitable to their taste. This arrangement being entirely private appears to be the reason why it has escaped the notice of the Episcopal authorities – which is a delightful irony given the whole point of the Episcopal church being the control exercised by bishops!

It is far from impossible that both Rev Alexander Keith and potentially his father fulfilled this role. And if so then Thomas Keith could have arrived in Glenurquhart some time after 1680 at the behest of Mary Keith when she married John Grant of Corrimony. Not only would there be several well to do communicants in the area but there was also the proceeds of the lands at Pitcherill Chapel. However as Episcopalianism was “abolished” in 1689 the need for secrecy is evident – and we have seen this too in connection with Ludovick Grant the Cherokee Trader and Patriarch (see Cadets’ section).

Summary conclusion to Part 2

Accepting that this scenario is extremely speculative (ie there is no documentary support for any of the proposals and they do build on each other like a house of cards) it is feasible that when John Grant, 6^th of Corrimony wished to fill a vacancy in the Episcopal ministry at St Ninian’s Chapel he took the advice of his wife Mary Hay and appointed Thomas Keith, the illegitimate son of George Keith the 8^th Earl Marischal, which ministry was carried on by his son Alexander Keith in the period up to and beyond the 1745 Jacobite uprising.

[Other locations for the ministerial base for Alexander Keith will be considered below.]

When might The Prince have visited Rev Alexander Keith?

The next thing we need to do is to is to see where and when they might have met from the Prince’s point of view. On the one hand we are lucky to have the “Itinerary of Prince Charles Edward Stuart” by W M Blaikie 1897. The reader is invited to explore this at leisure, and we shall discuss the problems and discrepancies below, but my analysis is that there is only a very narrow window of possibility. The relevant extract (pp60-64 with page numbers in red and Blaikie’s footnotes incorporated into the text in brown) is reproduced here:

[60] July 23:
Arrived in early morning at a hillside above Strathclunie [61] and rested in 'a fast place’ where they spent the day, covering the Prince with heather to keep off the midges (III. 379). Proceeding in the afternoon, and hearing firing near them, they turned northward, climbing to the top of a high hill between Glenmoriston and Strathglass (Ord. Sur. Sgurr-nan-Conbhairean, probably). Spent the night in an open cave, in which the Prince, wet to the skin, could neither lean nor sleep (I. 343).

July 24.
Joined the 'famous' Glenmoriston men 1 For the names of these eight faithful robbers, see III. 202. at Coiraghoth in the Braes of Glenmoriston, where the Prince was lodged in a cave, 'with the finest purling stream that could be running by his bedside within the grotto ' (I. 344); ' as comfortably lodged as if he had been in a royal palace' (III 381).

July 25-27.
At Coiraghoth (I. 343).

2. Coiraghoth, as it is spelt by Glenaladale, is a phonetic rendering of the Gaelic Coiredhogha, the last three letters of which are silent, or pronounced as a grunt, while the ' dh ' has a guttural sound. It means the corry of the river Doe, of which the stream of the Coire Mheadhoin is an affluent. Home spells it Corado (H. H. 253), and Mr. Ross calls it Corriegoe.

I have been singularly fortunate in obtaining the sketches of this celebrated cave which embellish this volume from Mr. Ross, formerly Provost of Inverness, who made them when on a visit to this wild and inaccessible district in July 1888.

Mr. Ross's description in a letter to myself entirely corroborates that of Glenaladale. ' ... a cavern formed by the great masses of rock at the bottom of a talus from the hill above—in fact a cavity in a cairn of stones. The roof of the cavity is formed by a peculiarly shaped mass, very much resembling three-quarters of an umbrella resting on a spur of rock. The floor of the cave takes a crescent form, the entrance being at the south-west, and coming round by the north to the south-east. About the centre was what appeared to be a hearth, and the south-east would have formed the bed. The bottom of the cavern was of gravel, and a pure rivulet of water passed close under the east side of the cave.'

Glenaladale mentions two caves in Glenmoriston, but only one is now known, and one of my informants, a gamekeeper of the district, stoutly denies that there can be two. Although John of Borradale only mentions one cave (in. 381), I firmly believe in Glenaladale's accuracy, and that a second 'grotto no less romantic than the former ' really exists, although its site, like that of MacLeod’s cove may have been lost.

July 28—31.
Moved on the 28th, two miles off, to Coirmheadhain (Ord. Sur. Coire Mheadhoin) (ib.) or Coirskreoch (in. 99) and resided in 'a grotto no less romantic than the former/ for four days (1. 344).

[62] July 31.
On July 27^th Kingston's Horse left Fort Augustus for England (S.M. 392).

Aug. 1.
Learning that Captain Campbell of the Militia was encamped within four miles of them, resolved to move northward, travelling by night (I. 344).

Aug 2.
In early morning arrived in Chisholm's country, the Braes of Strathglass, lodging in 'a sheally hut’ (I. 345)
The route from Coire Mheadoin to Strathglass and the resting-places in Chisholm's country are traditional and conjectural. There is no direct evidence in any contemporary narrative, and minute local investigation has failed to elucidate any very satisfactory traditional information. The most likely route on the journey north would be over the shoulder of Tigh Mohr into the pass of Alt na Ciche, which debouches into Glen Affrick at Ardnamulloch, at the head of Loch Affrick, and thence down Glen Affrick to the fast places of Fasnakyle — Chisholm's woods. The woods in this district are eminently suited for such a shelter as is described by John MacDonald (Ill. 381). Local tradition has it that the Prince's principal shelter in Strathglass was at the Achans, a hamlet on the eastern slope of the Beinn Acherain of the Ord. Sur., and here probably the shieling described by John MacDonald was erected.

From his narrative, written however long after the event, one would imagine that the party was stationary while in Chisholm's country, and possibly John remained in this refuge while the Prince and Glenaladale impatiently followed the road towards Poolewe in hopes of intelligence, as narrated by Glenaladale. There is some ambiguity, too, in Glenaladale's narrative, supplemented by Patrick Grant's (I. 346, III. 99), about climbing the hill Peinachyrine (or Beinn Acharain). Glenaladale says the party climbed a hill on the north side of Glen Cannich, which Patrick Grant says was called Peinachyrine, while the modern Beinn Acharain of the Ordnance Survey is on the south side of that glen.

Grant says this was the most northerly point attained by the party. Now, if the modern map be right, one or other of these companions of the Prince must be in error. I think, however, that it is the modern map that does not correspond with the names of 1746. Loch Bunacharan (Ord. Sur.) is in Glen Strathfarrar to the North of Glen Cannich. The name signifies the foot of Acharan, and I think there can be no doubt that the mountain which the Prince climbed was one of the peaks overlooking this loch, and could indeed have been none other than that called in the Ord. Sur. Meallan Odhar, which rises behind Leitry, and on Dorret's map of Scotland (1750) is actually figured Binachren. *In Blaeu's map of 1662, in which the topography is more correct than in Dorret’s, and in Moll’s atlas of 1715 the range is called ‘Skurr na Corran.’

This would of course be positive proof, were it not that Dorret's map is very incorrect in its topographical details of this part of the country. On Arrowsmith's Map (1807) and in Thomson's County Atlas (1832), in both of which the topography is fairly correct, neither the mountain now called Meallan Odhar nor that now called Beinn Acharain in the Ord. Sur. is named at all, though both are shown. The Prince's object in climbing the hill was to meet his messenger returning from Poolewe, which would be attained by his going up this Ord. Sur. Meallan Odhar, while [63] there would have been no object in climbing the Beinn Acharain of the Ord. Sur. Moreover he was actually seen descending this mountain according to the narrative of an eyewitness, apparently authentic, quoted in the Appendix to the Lays of the Deer Forest, vol. II. p. 343, Edinburgh, 1848. This witness actually saw the Prince: ' When first he observed him he was descending the hill at a place called Ruigh an t-Stucain [Ord. Sur. Allt Liath Ruighe], a part of the farm of Leitrie. From the direction in which the Prince descended, it was not doubted that he had crossed over from Ard-chuilc in Glen-Strathfarrar, which is exactly opposite to the farm of Leitrie, on the side of the Loch of Beinachrine [Ard-chuilc is really on the side of Loch a Mhuilinn, a small loch a little above Bunacharan], and in the ordinary track of a person crossing the hill from Poll-Eu.'

The authors of the Lays go on to argue that the Prince had visited Glen Strathfarrar, and point to a traditional cave near Deannie, on the northern side of the glen, as one of the Prince's hiding-places. But for this there is no authority whatever; on the contrary, the' direct evidence of Patrick Grant is that the Prince never visited Glen Strathfarrar (III. 101), though he overstates his case by saying that he was never within seven miles of it, as all Glen Cannich is nearer than that. I have assumed the hill above Leitry, where he was actually seen, as the farthest north of his wanderings, and have shown it so on this map. There is a cave called Craig Feasaig near Leitry, traditionally a refuge of the Prince. It is quite possible he was there, but there is no evidence for it, and all caves near where he was known to have travelled have a way of developing myths.

Tradition also states that the Prince spent a night in Comar, a house belonging to the Chisholm, but for this too I can procure no authority.

[63] Aug. 3.
Remained in the same place (I. 345).

Aug 4.
In early morning set out northward to get nearer Poolewe, whence the Prince expected tidings or help, travelled five or six miles and spent the night in 'a sheally hut' (ib.). Hence the Prince despatched two of the party to Poolewe, 40 Highland miles off.

Aug 5.
In early morning started, still travelling north, arrived at mid-day at Glencanna (Ord. Sur. Glencannich), passed the rest of the day in a wood, and late at night got shelter in a neighbouring village (ib.).

Aug 6.
Leaving Glencannich at 2 a.m., climbed the hill Peinachyrine (Beinn Acharain), the most northerly point the Prince reached in his wanderings (in. 99). In the evening they repaired to 'a neighbouring sheally hut ' (I. 346).

Aug 7.
Remained at the same place, where his messenger returned and informed him that the only French ship that had been at Poolewe had gone off, having landed two French officers who were making their [64] way for Lochiel's country in search of the Prince. He accordingly abandoned his idea of going to Poolewe and resolved to go south again, hoping to meet them and get their despatches (I. 346).

Aug 8.
At night 1 There could have been no moonlight. The moon set shortly after sunset. started off towards Strathglass. Crossed the Cannich water, and 'boldly by young Chisholm's house' 2 Almost certainly Muchrachd, then a residence of the Chisholm, but the party must have passed the house before fording the Cannich. (ib.).

Aug 9.
In early morning reached Fasnacoill (Ord. Sur. Fasnakyle), and remained three days 'in a very fast wood' (ib.).

Aug 10-11.
At Fasnacoill. Getting information that the troops who had been searching for the Prince had gone back to Fort Augustus, they resolved to go on (ib.).

Aug12.
Set out in the morning and in four hours reached the Braes of Glenmoriston, 3 To reach Glenmoriston from Strathglass in four hours, the route taken must have been that shown in the map, by Guisachan and Loch-na-Beinne-Baine. passed the day on the top of a hill, and learning that a strong party was scouring the Braes of Glengarry they resolved to wait till the road was clear and spent the night in a 'neighbouring sheally hut' (ib.).

Aug 13.
Sent a messenger to see if Glengarry were clear of troops and two to Loch Arkaig to summon Cameron of Clunes (ib.).

On 13th August Albemarle's camp at Fort Augustus was broken up, and the main body of the army marched southwards (S. M. 393). Campbell's Argyleshire militia were marched to Inveraray and disbanded on the 17th. Lord Loudon was left with his own regiment and seventeen companies of militia (ib. 374).

Aug 14.
Learning from their messenger that the road was clear, the Prince and his party 'ten in number' 4 The ten were the Prince, Glenaladale, his brother John, young John of Borradale, and six of the Glenmoriston men, the other two having been sent to Loch Arkaig. starting in the afternoon passed through Glenmoriston and Glenlyne to Glengarry, forded the Garry with difficulty and spent the night about a mile from the stream on the ' side of a hill, without any cover, though it rained excessively' (I. 347).

(a) Possible Grant Connection

Let us begin by noting one of Blailie’s comments:

Glenaladale mentions two caves in Glenmoriston, but only one is now known, and one of my informants, a gamekeeper of the district, stoutly denies that there can be two. Although John of Borradale only mentions one cave (in. 381), I firmly believe in Glenaladale's accuracy, and that a second 'grotto no less romantic than the former ' really exists, although its site, like that of MacLeod’s cove may have been lost.

This problem would be resolved if the second cave in question were not actually in Glenmoriston but rather Mony’s Cave (57°18'51.30" N 4°42'8.91" W).

It would also resolve a difficulty with the local legend of “Prince Mony”. The legend is that there was a Prince Mony, son of a Danish king who took refuge in Mony’s cave and was buried under Mony’s stone. “Mony” is a contraction of Corrymonie (it is a Gaelic word meaning “bog”) and indeed the Chieftain of Corrymonie did have recourse to hiding in this cave at one time. Apparently Mony’s Stone appears to have been moved from an original position near the cave – and I suspect that if this part of the legend had been created at that time then surely the stone would not have been moved. The association with “Denmark” probably arises because when the Grants acquired Corrymonie there was no doubt of their Scandinavian origins and indeed Scandinavian royalty – but at a good deal over 400 years really there was rather too much distance in time. But the circle could be squared if the reference to “Prince” Mony actually covered for Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Had the prince spent some time at Mony’s cave then the “commuting distance” to St Ninian’s at just under 4 miles is feasible.

Chris Grant is of the opinion that if the Prince had been in Glenurquhart then he would have heard about it and indeed there is no mention made by McKay in his “Urquhart and Glenmoriston” (see Library). While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it does nevertheless stack the odds.

(b) Alternative locations

The St Ninian’s connection is based on several assumptions – not least that Alex Keith was a working episcopalian minister. But even if eg his father had indeed come to St Ninian’s eg as a consequence of Episcopalianism being “outlawed”, it is still alleged that Alex Keith was active “in Inverness-shire” and he could have been nearby. Strathglass seems to have retained a strong Catholic presence, but that does not exclude Episcopalians – so perhaps he was ministering to them – based, for example, in Fasnakyle or even up Glen Cannich. In this case the connection would in effect have been facilitated by the Grant connection without the Grants being directly involved – indeed it is not impossible that Alex Keith could have served St Ninians amongst other places just as many peripatetic ministers do today.

(c) The Time frame

If the Prince visited St Ninians, we can pin down the likely date of the visit to August 1^st – 3^rd. If the Keiths were in Chisholm territory, then August 5^th - 11^th. Before the beginning of August the Prince was surely in Glenmoriston and after the 11^th he was focussed on moving south.

Summary

We started off with some claims none of which have a solid documented foundation. It is possible that all of them are fanciful, but I think not.

• I think that George Keith did have an illegitimate son who went to the church. The family influence was such that this was the Episcopal church – which brought its own problems with it.

• I think that one way or another either George’s son or grandson found his way to “Inverness-shire” using such family connections as they had – and the Grants of Corrymonie are likely candidates for this facilitation.

• The porridge bowl has been handed down as a family heirloom. No attempt has been made to trade on it, so I think that this lore has been honestly believed and I am disposed to think that the legend is true.

What I have tried to do here is to offer what I think are plausible scenarios, exploring alternatives which I hope may stimulate some readers with relevant interest or expertise to pursue matters and to alert me to any facts which they have but which are not in the wider public domain. Perhaps they will confirm some aspects, perhaps they will remove some possibilities. One beauty of the internet is the ease of updating.