Notes |
- William Douglas, of Liverpool
Died unmarried at Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1842. He survived the controversy with the Keiths of Ravelston. Succeeded in the representation of the family by his nephew William, oldest son of his brother Stewart.
- (Research):Three of the letters received from the Marischal Special Library.
(1) - was addressed to the Bishop's great-grandson, William Douglas, Esq., at No. 4 Broughton Place:-
Sir,
I am favour'd with your Letter enclosing a Pamphlet written by the late Bishop Robert Keith tending to show that he and his Grand-nephews were the lineal Descendants of the Marischall family. My father and I have been in possession of this Pamphlet for above sixty years, so that it is nothing new to me. It is however needless to enter into that subject again, as the Bishop and his three nephews are all dead without male Issue. Hence there is now no doubt that I am the nearest male Representative, and to shew you that your father was of that opinion (for I presume you are a son of the late Mr. Douglas, Quality Street, Leith) when the last of the three nephews (Col. Robert Keith) died he gave me his Seal with his Coat of Arms, as the person best entitled to use it.
I observe that you seal your Letter with the Arms and Supporters of the Chief of the Family of Keith Marischall. Please explain what right you have to do this. You must know that the Title, Office, and Estates of the Family, are and have been uniformly limited to Heirs male, so that you should be cautious how you assume these Arms. If you will take the trouble to look into the records of the Lyon Court, you will find that I have acquired from the Lord Lyon a patent to bear the Arms and Supporters of the Chief, upon a title which is there clearly recited, and is also explained in the appendix to Douglas' Peerage (think he means Baronage..), and in Mr. Wood's Peerage lately published. In case you can point out any interest you have in this matter I will be glad to shew you the writings which instruct (put in order) my Title. But you must observe it is incumbent, previously to condescend? on your Right to assume the arms of the Chief, which I beg you may do without delay.
" I am, Sir, " Your most obedient Servant, " ALEXR. KEITH."
Ravelston, 24 June, 1818.
P.S. It seems proper further to inform you that the writings from which my Title was instructed, were delivered by order of the last Earl Marischall to my father several years after the above-mentioned pamphlet was wrote. Hence it can be of no avail, and ought not now to be produced.
********************
? A Scots term meaning " to make a plain statement of the case."
For the preparation of a suitable reply to this letter, Mr. Douglas appears to have sought the help of a Mr. Riddell, a lawyer, who replied as follows:-
(2) Letter addressed to William Douglas Esq., 4 Broughton Place
Ed. 25 June, 1818. Dear Sir,
I return you the letters, and send you a draught of what you might perhaps send in reply to Mr. Keith.
I remain Your faithful and obedient servant, JOHN RIDDELL 111 George Street
********************
(3) Mr Riddell's suggested draft:-
Sir,
I received your favour of the 24th inst., and shall, agreeably to your request, immediately proceed to answer it.
No one can be more desirous than myself of beholding a male representative of the ancient, and noble family of Marischall, or of contributing my utmost exertions in securing to so respectable a person as you, such a great and enviable preeminence, but excuse me for adding that until you shall have adduced legal evidence of such a status, as undoubted lineal heir, and representative of the Branch of Pittendrum, from which you and your ancesters allege a direct descent, and with which apparently for the attainment of your object you must infallably conceal. I, in that character, must feel it incumbent upon me (and here I conceive my interest to be manifest) to examine into the nature of your pretensions, and should I find it necessary, eventually to resist them.
If you have legal evidence to appeal to, it may easily be in your power to produce it, and you certainly would oblige me much by an inspection, for besides, I must frankly tell you that what has hitherto been submitted on the part of your family is, in my estimation, rather of a nature to prejudice than assist this right which you have lately taken many opportunities publickly of asserting. This impression, in which I happen not to be singular you can at any time easily remove - either by a free communication - by printing your evidence as I have done - or by duly establishing a service as heir male of Pittendrum, and of the late Earl Marischall, and reducing that of George Keith of Northfield in the year 1782, which your family tho then possessed of the ancient heirlooms, "the black stock of Dunnottar", and "the oaken table of the Catti"? rather oddly allowed to proceed.?
? Essentially the same thing '96 the following is an extract from Bishop Keith's "History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland??.." p. lxxiv ??It is farther stated that "this Alexander keith of Ravelstone purchased in 1766, from George Earl Marischal, the castle and lands of Dunnottar; and the Earl ordered the whole Family Papers, and the black stock of Dunnottar, an oaken table said to be brought by the Catti from Germanty, reckoned an ancient heir-loom of the Family, to be delivered up to him as an acknowledgement of his descent." But admitting the purchase of the castle and lands of Dunnottar by that gentleman, the alleged presents of the Family papers and the old oak table prove nothing, and could not confer on him a descent which it was impossible for him to acquire.
? After the death, in 1780, of Lt.-Col. Robert Keith, it being supposed that all the male de-scendants of the 3rd Earl were extinct, George Keith, of Northfield, who claimed descent from John Keith, a younger brother of the 1st Earl, was in 1782 served heir to his greatx10-grandfather, Sir Robert Keith. No male descendants of this man exist, but there may be surviving collaterals.
The first method will perhaps be the easier, and the most convenient, but nevertheless legally substantiate in what manner you please either that you, as your Grand Father asserted, are the direct lawful male representative of the last Laird of Pittendrum, or the new position, which you have lately taken up, that you are only a collateral (descended from the same stock but by a different line) heir male, descended from the body of a William Keith (of Camculter?), younger lawful brother of the said Laird - son of William Keith of Pittendrum, by a Barbara Keith his wife - and I shall abandon all further scepticism and confess my error. If on the contrary you shall decline compliance, or fail in your proof, I shall feel myself fully justified in this application. As yet it strikes me you have favoured the world with no solid evidence of your Pedigree - you no doubt quote Lion (Lyon) record - an authority, to which, with all deference, I had thought none would condescend to appeal, where they had any other to offer - but as you inform me that it is warranted by evidence of your own I shall unquestionably give it every credit, and shall doubtless wait with eagerness for an opportunity to examine it.
One word more; you challenge my right to the arms impressed upon my letter - it is perfectly clear that until you legally prove your descent, any objection on this head from you cannot, for a moment, be legally listened to. Until then, as an undoubted descendant of the Family of Marischall, I conceive that to them (the arms?) I have a preferable right. Perhaps you have not very judiciously selected this topick. As heir of line, and representative of Pittendrum I, also, have according to the best Heraldick authorities the sole right to bear their arms with-out any difference - consequently both here, and also upon other grounds, I might well reflect upon your open assumption of them in Douglasse's Baronage (Douglas's Baronage of Scotland published in 1798).
As to your matriculation in the Lion (Lyon) Office, which I have examined, and which specifies no single particle of evidence (and no doubt your frequent allusions to this Record rather astonish me) - you do not surely intend seriously to lay any stress upon this circumstance, as if the favourable award of such a Court in modern times, without any contradiction would ever, especially when challenged, be entitled to weight: the effects of which (too) I could so easily, at any time, counteract either by a Protest entered upon his Register, or direct petition to the Lord Lion (Lyon).
I may here add I never had any intention of bearing the plain arms of Keith. [Here explain the reason why you sealed the letter with that seal.]
_________________________________________________________________________________
Some little inaccuracies as to the Family and Representatives of Bishop Keith, having appeared in the Preface and Biographical Sketch prefixed to the First Volume of his History, as republished in 1844, under the auspices of the Spottiswoode Society, I beg to supply you, from an authentic source, with more correct information ; simply adding that, when the First Volume appeared, there was no opportunity of testing the accuracy of the statements then made to the Editor, by reference to any of the Bishop's descendants. What follows, therefore, will be received in connexion with the statements in Vol. 1st. pp. viii. xi. lvii. lviii. lxxv. xc.
" The Bishop married a lady named Isabel Cameron, daughter of the Rev. John Cameron, by whom he had two daughters. One of these died unmarried ; the other, named Katherine, was married to Mr Stewart Carmichael of Leith.
The offspring of this marriage was a daughter, Katharina Stewartina, and a son who died young. The former became the first wife of Mr William Douglas, Merchant, Leith, and left issue by him, William (who died unmarried) Stewart, Archibald, and four daughters. The direct representation of the Bishop's Family, therefore, rests with the descendants of the late Mr Stewart Douglas ; who left five sons, the eldest of whom, William Douglas, Esq. of Liverpool, the great-great-grandson of the Bishop, is likewise nearest of kin, through his grandmother, to Colonel Robert Keith, of the 2d Regiment of Foot Guards '97 who was, up to his death in 1780, acknowledged as the nearest male representative of George, tenth Earl Marischal, who died two years before him, namely, in 1778.
" Taking it for granted then, that, with the death of Keith of Northfield, referred to in the statement by John Riddell, Esq. in p. lxxxix, the male representatives of the Family became extinct, the representation in the female line belongs, in the first place, to the direct descendants of Keith of Northfield; or failing them, to the direct descendants or nearest heirs of Colonel Robert Keith, who are manifestly much nearer, in point of propinquity, to the last male representative who would have inherited the title and property, than the Family of Lady Clementina Elphinstone can be.
" In reference to a statement made at p. Ixxv, it may be remarked, that the fact of the title and estates of Kintore devolving on the heirs-female of George, tenth Earl Marischal, goes no farther than to point out the representatives of the Kintore Family, which, by the terms of the charter, were allowed to pass through the female line. The title and estates of Marischal were restricted to male descendants ; and would, therefore, as has been before observed, have devolved on Colonel Robert Keith, as the nearest male heir.
" By giving insertion to the foregoing statement, for the accuracy of which I am of course responsible, '97 You will much oblige, Rev. Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
A. J. Douglas.
Mathon, Malvern,
8th December 1849.
|