A substantial corpus of etymological and linguistic evidence can be assembled to support the hypothesis that the surname MUFFETT (as opposed to the more familiar MOFFATT with which, until now, it has usually been associated) is derived from the Gaelic Mor (cf: the Welsh Mawr as in Bryn Mawr) which means "of great size; great; long; important" and Faich (pron: Fych, see Maclennan's Gaelic Dictionary, John Grant, Edinburgh 1925) meaning "a field where soldiers are reviewed; a green; a meadow."
The tendency for the Celtic "ch" to anglicise into "tt" is convincingly demonstrated (again from the Welsh) by the diminutive "Fychan" (meaning "Lesser" or "Younger", and therefore "Junior") transforming into the English surname FITTON, which is frequently encountered throughout the Welsh Marches but especially in Cheshire.
When I was in America, I had cause to undertake some research in general linguistics, during which I came upon either a Dictionary of Surnames or else a Gaelic Dictionary - in over twenty five years I am now uncertain which (but in any case, of 19th century vintage as I recall) - which had a section on surnames derived from that language. One name, recorded as follows, immediately struck a chord in a half-forgotten childhood memory:-
I was, however, so illinformed at that time that I did not even realise that the war cry "Castle Downie" - a place I had never heard of - forged a self-evident link with the Frasers of Lovat. Lamentably, also, I failed to take a copy of the entry!
Endeavours are now being made to trace this source, but so far have not borne fruit. However, I know what I saw and I am unshakeably certain as to the accuracy of my remembrance!
If, however, the information published by the Clan Fraser Society of North America via Internet is to be credited, it appears that Mor Faich has, historically, had a special meaning for all Frasers, for it states categorically that the War Cry of the Clan is "A MHOR-FHAICHE (The Great Field), and later CAISTEAL DHURI (Castle Downie)". I would like to be assured that the "DHURI" is correct and is not a misprint for "DHUNI".
In the light of the above, therefore, it surely behoves we who bear that surname to recognise that there may be more to it than has hitherto been accorded and that the popular theory that MUFFETT is nothing more than a variant of the place name MOFFATT ought now seriously to be questioned! Everybody agrees on a Gaelic derivation of some sort for both surnames. The question now, therefore, is derivation from what? And is the hitherto accepted derivation accurate in the first place?
A Dictionary of English Surnames, P.H.Reaney and R.M.Wilson: Routledge, London & New York, 1991 reads:-
MOFFATT Scots and N.Irish: habitation name from a place in the former county of Dumfries, so called from Gael. magh plain, field + fada long. (Is this statement actually correct?) Vars. Moffett (Chiefly N Ireland) Moffit Muffatt, MUFFETT, Meffat, Mefet.
...and, I might add since my own name passed into the Hausa language, "Mafed"!.
The Reaney & Wilson entry obviously echoes that of the earlier work A Dictionary of Surnames; Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York 1988, which reads:-
MOFFAT (ALSO MOFFATT) Origin: Irish, Scottish. Derived from the Gaelic words "magh" and "fada" meaning field and long. [Again, is this accurate?] The name was given to those from Moffatt, a former (sic) place in Scotland
In general terms, MOFFAT or MOFFATT has hitherto been classified as a "territorial" or "habitation" name based on Dumfries. But whether MUFFETT (and its alternative spelling MUFFET) should ever properly have been included as one of its variations is now the point at issue and the alternative theory set out above as to the name's true derivation - and, more to the point, the evidence of its definitive link with the Frasers of Lovat - now clearly demands a somewhat more critical examination within that context. Dwelly (The Illustrated Gaelic-English Dictionary, Gairm Pubns., Glasgow, 1971) states:-
"It must be born in mind that Gaelic surnames, in the English sense, are not generally in use, at least in colloquial Gaelic, except when speaking of strangers. Everyone living in a Gaelic speaking district has a local name describing his trade or some physical peculiarity... Sometimes they are named after the place they lived in last, or were born in... If the person named is of a family long settled in the district he will probably be named after his father or grandfather, as Seumas phiobar, (the piper's James). Where a person's mother is a native married to an outsider, he may be called after her... The sole object of Gaelic surnames is to make the identity of the person spoken of as clear as possible through the speaker reminding his hearers every time it is mentioned, [of] to whom or where he 'belongs'".
I have had first hand experience of precisely this same tradition in Maritime Canada, where it is still deeply entrenched. Three examples, all personally known to me, illustrate the point well.
First, Eric M?????n, locally a noted media figure, is known throughout the fisherfolk on the North Shore of Prince Edward Island as "Eric Lily Wallace" and by nothing else! Lily, his mother, was the daughter of Wallace P?????y, a respected (though long since dead) owner of a "Fish House", title to the land on which it is erected being granted to his forebears, at an annual rental of "one peppercorn", directly from Queen Victoria ("of her own free will and mere motion") in the 1840's.
Lily was thus a native Prince Edward Islander and therefore, as far as the Islanders went, her son had to take his lineage from her. The Newfoundland father never entered into the equation, although he and his Islander wife, Lily, "came home" to the Island each year and he was well known to, and on friendly terms with, everybody!
Secondly, there was Jimmy Fricass, a paid hand on an inshore fishing boat who lived near New Glasgow, also on the North Shore. His patrimonial surname I never could discover! Jimmy's mother was a famous cook, especially noted for her "jack-rabbit stew" (actually jugged hare) or "fricass" as it was termed locally (from the French fricass). That was his name - Jimmy Fricass - and he was known by, and answered to, nothing else!
Thirdly, the idiom even crossed the language barrier and applied equally to Prince Edward Islanders of French descent. In one case, the owner of a prosperous fishing boat, whose real name was Emille D?????e, was universally known as "Long-nosed Bill" (for obvious reasons) to the complete disregard, by the totality of the community, of his actual surname; and to the utter confusion of private parcel deliveries, though the Post Office had probably got used to it!
A similar or related phenomenon, of course, can be discerned amongst the Welsh. "Evans the Milk" (and variations on the same theme) spring readily to mind!
Given the above, nothing would be more natural than for "Seumas" (James) who, as of hereditary right, carried the Clan Standard, the Braiteach - usually made of silk and in two colours (see D. Preston, The Road to Culloden Moor, Constable, London, 1995) coming to be known as "Seumas Mor Faich", since the primary meaning of "faich" (MacLennan op. cit.) is "a field where soldiers are reviewed" and the Standard, of course, would only be unfurled on the mor faich itself, the great parade ground, where the Chieftain (or his authorised representative) would naturally be in command.
"Seumas Mor Faich" would anglicise into James Muffett (or "Tearlich Mor Faich" into Charles Muffett) as already demonstrated. After all, "The Great Field" is hardly an immediately inspiring (or even comprehensible) War Cry in itself! It surely needs something more to be added to it.
As the embodyment of the "Parade Ground", however, the North American Society's record of the War Cry becomes a great deal more explicable, given the implicit synomony of "You're On Parade", "Steady! Boys! Steady!" and even "Rally Round The Flag", or "Keep to the Drill"!
In our own Family, we know from his tombstone that my great great grandfather, William Muffett, was born in 1765 and probably, though by no means certainly - for there are many Williams, including several William Frasers, on record round Inverness at that period - because of his given name, that he was born in England. What we do not know - yet - is where he was born.
Nor do we know what his father's name was, where his birthplace was, what age he was when he named his son William or what his occupation was, though we can guess at "James" (the reason for which will become clear later) and at "carpenter", a trade which his son William and at least three of William's sons (his grand-sons) also pursued, one of whom (my great grandfather) so successfully that he became a comfortably wealthy man who, when he died, left an estate in Kent which he had named "Longfield"!
At Culloden, on 16 April 1746, the Fraser contingent of between six and seven hundred men was commanded by the young Charles Fraser of Inverallochy who, having been left on the battlefield grievously wounded, was shot in cold blood on the personal command of the Duke of Cumberland (DNB & R.Chambers, Jacobite Memoirs of The Rebellion of 1745, Longmans, London, 1834, p.363). The Master of Lovat, also Simon Fraser (1728-1782), the oldest son of the executed MacShimi by his first wife Margaret Grant, had, on his father's instructions, been active for the Prince from his student days at Aberdeen University since before the Battle of Falkirk (17th January, 1746). There is, however, very persuasive evidence that he was at best a reluctant participant.
According to the DNB he was away raising recruits on the day that the Clans deployed on Drummossie Moor, though Preston op. cit. has him in command there, as also does D.N. Mackay (The Trial of Simon, Lord Lovat of the '45, William Hodge & Co., Edinburgh & Glasgow, 1911). Mackay quoted "Mr Alexander Mackenzie, the Fraser historian" in support of his statement, although he adds that:
"A part of the second line left the field with tolerable regularity, with their pipes playing and banners displayed." (Is he writing of the Frasers?) "and when half way between Culloden and Inverness met the master coming up with three hundred fresh men" (DNB).
It is not conceivable that the Clan Standard had not been unfurled, or that it was not carried by the Hereditary Standard Bearer!
The Order of Battle (said to have been drawn up on the back of a nine of diamonds playing card the night before) set the Frasers in the centre of the line, which was some six hundred yards long, with Clan Mackintosh on their left and the Appin Stewarts on their right, and Clan Cameron and three battalions of the Atholl Brigade even further to the right to complete the Division. (Preston op. cit.)
After the battle, on the evening of 16 April, Charles Edward Stuart, with half his army - such as remained - made his way to where Lovat was, a few miles from Inverness. There, at Gortuleg, "where Lovat was then staying at the house of one of the gentlemen of his clan", they met (DNB). (Scott says that "Fraser of Gortuleg [was] an especial confident (sic) of Lovat", whom he used once as an emissary to the Prince). Statements made at Lovat's trial confirm the meeting at Gortuleg, though one witness does seem to indicate that Lovat was at Castle Downie on the night after the battle and that it was there that the Prince visited him.
According to Preston op. cit., when they met the Prince was given a flagon of wine and some cold meat and was urged by Lovat to hasten and take refuge in the Highlands, there to emulate his forebear Robert the Bruce and make a last (and, hopefully, successful) stand! At his trial, Lovat's hospitality at Gortuleg was portrayed rather more fulsomely!
However, Lovat is also said to have remarked, as soon as the Prince had gone, "I am a dead man!" (Preston op. cit.). He was right!
He first fled, with an escort of about twenty clansmen, to a refuge that "he had prepared for himself on Loch Muilly" (DNB), though this did not prevent him from taking part (on about 15th May) in a meeting with several other Clan Chiefs, amongst them Lochiel, his brother Dr Archibald Cameron, Gordon of Glenbucket, Clanranald, Murray of Broughton, and MacDonald of Barisdale, in Coll (a man whose loyalty was suspect by both sides, but who seems to have enjoyed the confidence of the Prince and to have exercised some influence on Lovat).
They met in a hut at Mortlaig to try to agree upon some way of negotiating terms with Cumberland. In the absence of any such agreement, though this was said probably more in hope than expectation, it was declared that there would be "la guerre l'outrance!"
Mackay, op. cit. says that there were several such meetings at Mortlaig and that the place was more correctly called Muirlaggan (situated on the shores of Loch Arkaig). The 13th Witness for the Prosecution - a man named Charles Stuart, whom I, personally, strongly suspect was a Hanoverian spy - gave evidence at Lovat's trial that he took the minutes of the meeting! The bid failed.
On his way from Gortuleg to his hiding place on Loch Muilly in the first instance, Lovat "is said to have witnessed from a hill-top the blaze of Castle Downie, set fire to by the soldiers of Cumberland" (DNB). From Loch Muilly he finally moved a further seventy miles to Loch Morar on the West Coast, still with his escort of twenty clansmen.
Not only was he eventually taken prisoner (though not by the Redcoats but by the Navy, which "portaged" a boat from an offshore man o' war, overland to Loch Morar, where, in his island retreat at the western end of the loch, Lovat perceived himself to be impregnable since he owned the only boat on it! (DNB)), but his whole estate was forfiet and systematically laid waste by Cumberland's men as well.
Chambers op. cit. records the following, taken from the papers of Bishop Robert Forbes of Edinburgh (p. 257):-
"The horses, cows and calves, ewes and lambs, goats and kids, were taken out of my Lord Lovat's country, the Aird and Glenmazerin, and kept starving and crying, which was not agreeable to hear or see. The common treatment they met with was, a stroke from the soldiers, with 'Damn your soul, you rebel!'...[and, as well,] many innocent persons were deprived of their all."
After his capture, on 7th June 1746, Lovat was taken by easy stages, first by litter to Fort William, then on to Fort Augustus and thence to London, under escort by coach, "by way of Stirling, Edinburgh, Berwick, Newcastle (where he was hissed by the crowd), Leicester, [Preston says St.Albans] and Barnet" (Mackay op. cit.) - a journey of about six weeks - and lodged in the Tower.
From there he was taken to Westminster Hall, where he stood trial for High Treason before the House of Lords on 7 December 1746.
One hundred and seventeen Peers attended "all excuses set apart", although there were naturally some absentees from amongst those Peers who had sided with the Pretender. Their names were read out before the Trial began.
Lovat made practically no defence and was unanimously found guilty on 18 March 1747. He was beheaded on Tower Hill (though he had actually been sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered- as some of those taken prisoner were) after a lapse of three weeks on 9th April 1747 - the last person in Britain to suffer that penalty!
This was eighteen years before our William Muffett was born.
But who went with Lovat to London? It is a fair question to ask because, according to the DNB, Lovat:
"made use of all arts to impress upon his followers 'how sacred a character that of a chief or chieftain was;'... At Castle Downie he kept a sort of rude court, and several public tables... The manners and customs prevailing at Castle Downie were a reflection of the strange idiosyncracy of the chief...a wild savagery... flourished along with sentiments of brotherhood ...and ceremonious formality... The territory of Lovat had in 1704 been erected into a regality, and as in addition to this he was appointed sheriff of Inverness, he found considerable scope for the exercise of his remarkable talents in augmenting his influence in the north of Scotland" (DNB).
Given his propensity for protocol and outward show, Lovat's urge to go to London in some style would have been irresistible. Pipers he could not take - piping was now a hanging matter! He could not wear his tartan either, since that, too, was proscribed. He was not even to be allowed his wish to be buried in the family vault at Kirkhill - as he had at least been half-promised (DNB) - nor to have (in lieu of pipers) "some good old highland women...sing a coronach (lament) at his funeral" (DNB). But he could take his Standard!
As a member of the House of Lords, yet to be tried, this could not be denied him - and with it, surely, went the Hereditary Standard Bearer! Was this our William's progenitor? And did he decide to disappear into "The Smoke" when he learned that his Chief's body was not to be returned home (as his retainers believed had been assured) but instead was to be hauled back to the Tower in a cart, there to be buried within its precincts? (Actually, it was disinterred in 1877 and reburied in the crypt of St Peter's ad Vincula, where it now lies).
There were others who made similar decisions to stay in London! Chambers, op. cit., p.265, records a note by Bishop Forbes concerning a participant at Culloden who was named Lindsay.
"I know this gentleman. His name is James, second son to Lindsay of Dowhill. He was a shoemaker in Perth and joined Lord Strathallan's corps. He was carried to London, where he was condemned; but at last he obtained a remission, and is now living in London, following the business he was bred to, and he meets with great encouragement. R.F."
If James Lindsay, why not James Muffett? For never forget that our William Muffett gave the name James to his firstborn son (b. c.1796 - the fiftieth anniversary of Culloden) who died in his infancy! Was he named James after his grandfather?
The Master of Lovat referred to above (Simon Fraser 1726-1782) was one of the 43 persons named in the Act of Attainder (4 June 1746) (DNB). He surrendered to the government on 2 August (Mackay op. cit.) and was imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle from November 1746 until 15 August 1747, after which he was released to reside in Glasgow "during the King's pleasure". He was given a full and free pardon in 1750.(DNB). The fact that he was a godson of King George II (DNB) may well have influenced this decision!
In 1752 he became an advocate and in about 1753 he journeyed to London where, in 1756, he obtained leave to raise a corps of Highlanders for the King's service during the Seven Years War. Within a few weeks Fraser had a following of eight hundred men to which many more were shortly added (DNB).
The corps was first known as the 2nd Highland Battalion (the 1st, presumably, being the Black Watch), but almost immediately it was renamed the 78th Foot or Fraser's Highlanders. Fraser's Commission as its Colonel was dated 5 January 1757.(DNB). The Regiment served under Wolfe in Canada both at Louisburg and at Quebec with distinction and was highly regarded by him (DNB).
It was Wolfe who (according to Preston op cit,a major on Cumberland's Staff at Culloden, though Scott says that he had his own battalion and would therefore have been a Lieutenant Colonel) refused to carry out the Duke's personal order to shoot young Fraser of Inverallochy, as did other officers too, so that the gruesome task, that the Duke insisted upon, eventually fell to be done by a private soldier.
Fraser's Highlanders were not alone in enjoying Wolfe's esteem. Another Regiment, the 47th Foot (nicknamed Wolfe's Own) also did and, when he was killed at Quebec in 1759, was ordered by George II into perpetual mourning for him. The 47th Foot later became the 1st Bn. The Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) - into which I was commissioned on 12 November 1938 - and to this day all its regimental insignia still incorporates a black feature of some sort in Wolfe's memory and in obedience to this Royal command.
The Regiment's first Colonel (by 1746, a Brigadier-general) was John Mordaunt, who raised it in 1741. He was named several times during Lovat's Trial as being an active "inquisitor" at Inverness after Culloden, along with Mr Bruce the Judge Advocate.
In 1763, when the war ended, the 78th was disbanded and Fraser went on half pay as a Brigadier-general. He was still, however (and had been since 1761) M.P. for Inverness and in 1771 he is shown in the parliamentary records not only as an M.P., but also as a Lieutenant General in the Portuguese Army and a Major General in the British. It was in those capacities, therefore, that he petitioned the government for the restoration of the family estates (DNB).
It is important also to recognise that the presence in London of the Macshimi, the Clan Chief, from say 1763 until his death, would have provided an attractive "focus" there for immigrant clansmen from all or any families over a number of years.
Fraser's petition was granted in 1774 by special Act of Parliament (24 Geo.III c.37) it being held that his military service entitled him to "some particular act of grace". But he had to fork out an indemnity of £20,983 (worth millions in modern money) for the privilege and the title of Lord Lovat was not restored to him - King's godson or no!(DNB).
Again, at the outbreak of the American War of Independence in 1776, the Macshimi (as he had been since his father's execution) raised another Regiment of two Battalions, this time known as the 71st Foot (DNB).
Fraser died in Downing St on 8 February 1782, leaving as his widow an English lady, nee Bristo, with whom he had had a childless marriage.(DNB). For this reason, title now passed to Simon Fraser's half-brother, the son of the executed Lord Lovat by his second wife, Primrose Campbell. This was Archibald Campbell Fraser (1736-1815) who had six sons, all of whom predeceased him.
With his death, therefore, the lines of both the ninth and the twelfth (not the eleventh as the North American Society erroneously states) Lords Fraser of Lovat (as Simon styled himself at his trial) - to which title, incidentally, he did not achieve full legal recognition until 1733 - became extinct (DNB). The estates and the male representation of the family thereafter devolved upon the Frasers of Strichen, in Aberdeenshire and it was upon this branch, in 1837, that the revived title of Lord Lovat was again bestowed after a lapse of ninety years.(DNB).
Was it, therefore, when this change of line took place on the death of Archibald Campbell Fraser in 1815, that the tradition of associating named families with domestic or household "offices" (in effect, creating "Housecarles" in the Danish or Old English [Saxon] idiom. OED) which had customarily been practiced by successive Lords Lovat - such as, for example, that of "Chamberlain" or "Hereditary Standard Bearer" - ceased and the "titles" themselves lost their "value" and fell into disuse?
Or was there another reason? A Candid and Impartial Account of the Behaviour of Simon Lord Lovat from The Time his Death Warrant was Delivered, to the Day of his Execution: By a Gentleman who attended his Lordship in his last Moments: Printed for George Faulkner in Essex Street [etc.]; published in Dublin 1747. (10806 b.37 p.10) records an extraordinary outburst:
(Lovat speaking):- "The taking off of my Head, I believe, will do 'em no Service, but if it will, God bless 'em with it; though I can't but think myself hardly dealt by: In the first place, I was stripped of every thing, and might have wanted even the common Necessaries of Life, had not my Cousin Mr William Fraser, advanced a considerable Sum of Money to General Williamson, and promis'd on certain Conditions, to pay for my farther Subsistence; and then to be convicted by my own Servants, by Men that had been nurtured in my own Bosom, and I had been so kind to, is shocking to human Nature; but I believe each of 'em has a Sting of Conscience on this Account, that will bear him Company to the Grave; though I'm very far from wishing either of them any Evil. 'Tis a sad Thing, Sir, for a Man's own Servants to take off the Head of their Master and Chief."
What reliance can be placed on such a source? Had there been some cataclysmic domestic upheaval in which two (as it would appear) of Lovat's retainers had testified damningly against him at his trial? And does this account for the disappearance of certain "domestic offices" (and their office-holders) from amongst the Lovat Frasers thereafter? An examination of the record in "State Trials" might well resolve this question.
In either case, however, it is worth noting that the senior branch of the Clan, namely the Frasers of Saltoun, still has an Hereditary Standard Bearer, represented by a male from the family of MacGruer! It would be extremely interesting to know if their War Cry is still "A MHOR-FHAICHE" as stated by the North American Society. Clearly it could never have been "CASTLE DOWNIE"!
To resolve the question of to whom was it that Lovat was referring that gave rise to his outburst recorded above, I am fortunate in that I had ready access to the record of Lord Lovat's Trial for High Treason (State Trials, Vol. XLIII pp.603-752) as printed in the "1778 Edition by T Wright, Essex St., Strand. With a new preface by Francis Hargrave Esq." and, in this case, the ninth Volume, as well as to a copy of Mackay op cit.
There were sixteen (Mackay says seventeen) prosecution witnesses in all. Four of these (Nos.10, 14, 15, 16 [and 17 making five]) were outright "government servants" like, for example, Lieutenant John Dalrymple of the Furnace sloop (Capt. Fergusson, who later had custody for three weeks on board the same vessel of Flora MacDonald (Mackay)) who gave evidence of Lovat being brought aboard Furnace after his capture on 7th June and Sir Everard Fawkener (sic), then Cumberland's Secretary, who was sent by the Duke on several occasions to sit with Lovat in his prison room at Fort Augustus, to see if he could "pump" him for information.
Asked if he wished to cross-examine Fawkener, Lovat replied "No! Only that I am Sir Everard's humble Servant and wish him joy of his young Lady." This was Lovat "taking the micky", since only the month before he gave his evidence Fawkener (who started his political career as the London merchant who had hosted Voltaire during most of his visit to England) had married Harriet, the natural daughter of General Charles Churchill (Mackay op. cit.)
Many of the rest of the witnesses were (or had been) either arrested, interrogated or under indictment themselves (e.g. Murray of Broughton [No.3] - who had turned King's Evidence on more than one occasion) and his servant John Farquhar (No.12).
One witness (No.7, Hugh Monro, Lovat's blacksmith) was stood down at the insistence of Lord Halifax, on the grounds that he was contradicting himself. Personally, I do not find his Lordship's objections to be very substantial, while, with my knowledge of the working of tribal societies elsewhere, I find Monro's evidence to be compelling, entirely convincing and fully in keeping with the attitude to be expected from someone of his status to his Chief!
His homespun loyalty is touching and his admission (on cross-examination by Lovat) that he once had held land from him on a tenancy of "6 bolls a year" (36 bushels), whilst he was also paid £5 "wages" a year ("paid in land") for his services in his smithy, throws an interesting light on the Clan system!
So, too does his submissive acceptance that Lovat had the absolute right to dispossess him of his holding if he chose to - which he had, in fact, already done before the trial began!
But it was the evidence of two witnesses in particular,(Nos 2 & 9) which established Lovat's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and which condemned him. The basis of their evidence lay in the letters taken with Lovat when he was captured on Loch Morar and which were opened in his presence by Captain Fergusson of Furnace and Captain Duff of the Man o' War Terror, who was the senior naval officer with the squadron. Sloops, of course, were invaluable on operations of this nature since they were able to work very close inshore.
These letters were sworn to before their Lordships by Lovat's two ex-secretaries, Hugh Fraser (secretary from "about April or May 1741" to October 1744) and Robert Fraser - from October 1744 until his capture, together with Lovat, by Captain Millar (probably Captain of Marines on board Terror) on 7th June, 1746. Their evidence sealed Lovat's fate and there can be no doubt that they are two of the men to whom he was referring in the extract quoted above, although the evidence of William Walker, described as "having lived in Lord Lovat's family for three and a half years", was pretty damning also and may have qualified him to be a third person whom Lovat had in mind.
Apart from these, however, there is no evidence of any mutinous intention among the Lovat retainers - often the reverse - and we are therefore thrown back onto the first hypothesis as to the most likely explanation for the office of Hereditary Standard Bearer apparently ceasing to exist - or even any longer being remembered - among the Lovat Frasers.
What there is evidence of, however - and in abundance, both written and spoken - is that the Master of Lovat was reluctant in, even hostile to, his (as he saw it) enforced participation in the Rebellion and that he perceived himself as being set up as some kind of a stalking-horse for his father - and a dispensable one at that! On one occasion, a witness deposed that, in his father's presence, he saw the Master tear the white cockade out of his bonnet and cursing it, hurl it into the fire! Others also spoke of friction on the subject between father and son and Lovat was lampooned after his execution in the Gentleman's Magazine - "No child laments the tyrant of his son"! (Mackay).
It would be interesting to know, too, whether the Braiteach itself ever became the Regimental Colour of either the 78th or the 71st. If so, that may well have contributed to the conscious elimination of any hereditary or Clan influence on who paraded it. Certainly the badge of the 78th appears to have been the Stag's Head and motto. Was it also the badge of the 71st? And of the Lovat Scouts in the days of the Boer War?
But from our point of view it is the evidence of "little people" (Robert and Hugh Fraser, the two secretaries, excepted) which touches most nearly on the issue that primarily concerns us - "Colours" or "Standards". There are constant references throughout the Trial to both - and to "Bell Tents" (in which, apparently, arms were stored to keep them and the powder dry).
Witness No.2, Robert Fraser, the immediately past secretary to Lord Lovat, was asked by the Solicitor General (The Hon. William Murray M.P.):
"Did you know of any Colours being made?"
He answered: "Yes. We had one pair of new ones made and another pair
mended".
Q.: "About what time was that and what month?"
R.F.: "About the month of September, I think."
Q.: "Was it before the first rendezvous?"
R.F.:"I think it was after the first rendezvous."
Q.: "Can you give an account of the men being rendezvoused and whether
it was done by my Lord Lovat's direction, under his authority?"
R.F.: "They were rendezvoused"
Q.: "Where were they rendezvoused?"
R.F.:"Upon that part of Lord Lovat's estate near Castle Downie".
Q.:"About what time was this, in what month?"
R.F.: "In the month of August."
Q.: "What was the particular purpose of their being reviewed there?"
R.F.: "To see who was capable of bearing arms and who had any."...
Q.: "About how far was the place of rendezvous from Lord Lovat's
house?"
R.F.: "About a quarter of a mile".
The 4th Witness, Hugh Fraser of Dumballoch, a clansman and son of a land holder, gave evidence concerning the sending of the "Firy Cross" (sic) throughout the Clan (shades of the KKK!). He was cross-examined by Sir Richard Lloyd M.P., one of the House of Commons' "Managers" of the Impeachment:
Q.:"Do you know what they mean by the Firy Cross?"
H.F.: "I remember the Firy Cross when it went about my father's
ground. It was a long pole with two cross sticks burnt the forend and
the design was to raise the men and to threaten them with fire and
sword that their houses should be burned if they did not rise".
Q.: "Was the Firy Cross carried through the Clan that you know of or
have heard of?"
H.F.: "I have heard that it was carried through the Clan. I did not go
about all the country".
Q.: "You say you saw it at your father's?"
H.F. "I did"...
Q.:"When you were in Lord Lovat's House at the time you speak of...did
you see any Colours?"
H.F.:"I saw the Colours of the House of Castle Downie"
Q.: "What Arms were upon them?"
H.F.:"There was upon one large pair of Colours my Lord Lovat's Arms,
to the best of my memory..."
The 5th Witness was John Ridell, a groom who was for five years in
Lord Lovat's service. He was first interrogated in Inverness by
Brigadier Mordaunt and Mr Bruce, the Judge Advocate, on 24 April -
eight days after the battle. He was cross-examined by the Attorney
General:
Q.: "Were you present or near when a number of Frasers were 'drawn up'?"
J.R.: "I saw 700 men together once".
Q.: "Where were they?"
J.R.: "In the Aird".
Q.: "Is that place near my Lord Lovat's House?"
J.R.: "It is within half a mile." ...
Q.: "Do you know what kind of mark they had upon their bonnets?"
J.R.: "They had a cockade and sprigs of yew"
[N.B. a sprig of yew was (and I presume still is) the "badge" of a
Fraser, just as a sprig of gorse was the badge of a Plantagenet - a
fact of which, I now realise, I have been aware since early childhood
as, also, I have been aware that my great grandfather (Charles Muffett
b.1816 d.1883 and the youngest son of William Muffett) named his not
inconsiderable estate in Kent "Longfield"! Did he know of the Gaelic
origin of his surname?]
Q.: "What kind of cockade had they?"
J.R.: "White cockades."
Q.: "Was not that the distinguishing mark of the Rebel Army?"
J.R.: "Yes".
Q.: "Did they make use of sprigs of yew as a distinguishing mark?"
J.R.: "Yes".
The 6th Witness was William Walker. He is the man who claimed that he lived in Lord Lovat's family for three and a half years, though why is not stated. Cross-examined by Sir William Yonge (one of the "Managers"; M.P. for Honiton and reputed to be "a place-hunting politician" who was greatly disliked by King George II, who called him "Stinking Yonge". [Mackay])
Q.: "Do you know Thomas Fraser the baker?"
W.W.: "Yes".
Q.: "Was he at my Lord Lovat's then?"
W.W.: "He came to Castle Downie with some Colours they were to make at
Inverness."
Q.: " "What Colours were they?"
W.W.: "Two Standard Colours, four bell tents and two painted flags."
Q.:"What were they painted with?
W.W.: "My Lord Lovat's Arms were upon the flags"...
Q.; "Did you see any number of men rendezvoused in the neighbourhood?"
W.W.: "Yes...The first of the rendezvous we reckoned there were seven
to eight hundred men"...
Q.: "Did you ever see them afterwards?
W.W.: "Yes I saw a Company of them drawn up on the Green" (N.B. in Gaelic Faich!)
Q.: How near is the Green to my Lord Lovat's House?"
W.W.: "About a hundred or two hundred yards"...
Thomas Fraser, a baker from Inverness, cross-examined by Mr Yorke M.P. (a "Manager") was the 8th Witness.
Q.: "Have you ever been employed to work for my Lord Lovat any time
about September 1745 and upon what occasion was you so employed?
Answer the question distinctly"
T.F.: "No. I was never employed by him."
Q.:"Was you employed at Castle Downie at this time? T.F.: "Yes. I was
at Castle Downie and was employed by my Lord's Chamberlain."
Q.: "About what business?"
T.F.: "About mending some old Colours".
Q.: "And what else was you employed at?"
T.F. "About some Camp Colours"...
Q.: "Whose Arms were put on these Colours...?
T.F.: "There was no Arms put upon them: the crest of Lord Lovat's
family, the Deer's Head...was put upon the Camp Colours"...
Q.:"Were the Arms upon the Colours?"
T.F.: There was a stand of old Colours that were done by Fraser.
Q.: "Were these Colours set up afterwards, or were they set up at
all?"
T.F. "Yes. I stuck them up on the Green of Castle Downie...they were
to stay there 'til they were dried by the wind".
Note the precision of the phrase "on the Green (Faich) of Castle Downie" - saying of not at!
Interesting as all this is, however, and - to a certain extent corroborative of the general tenor of the thesis - nothing in any of it answers the crucial question "Who carried the Fraser Standard at Culloden? - And afterwards on Tower Hill?"
There is no trace whatever of my great great grandfather William Muffett's birth in England (or in continental Europe) in 1765 - or at any time between 1750 and 1770, in either the International Genealogical Index or in the Ancestral Files at Salt Lake City.
All we know, is that about the middle of the eighteenth century new "clusters" of Muffetts began to appear in the London area and in Norfolk. Prior to this date, there were but two such clusters in London in a couple of hundred years, all of which disappeared after 1661, and did not reappear until 1724, when a John Muffett was born to a woman named Rebecca (though the name of the father is not given). He was christened at St Sepulchre's on 24 February, 1724...
Even now it is not a common surname, only a handful occurring in the main Telephone Directories. Of the two clusters and six small families in all of London between 1553 and 1661, the chief amongst which must be that of Dr Thomas Muffet(t) (b.1553 d.1604), M.A. Cantab., M.D.Basle, M.D.Cantab., son of Thomas Moffat of London, and Court Entomologist to King James I & VI. His daughter Patience is said to have been the prototype "Little Miss Muffett"! His DNB entry has his name spelt in six different ways, including MUFFETT and MORFET.
Dr Muffett was the author of The Silkwormes and their Flies ... [a work] "lively described in verse" and was a man "whose admiration for spiders has never been surpassed". There is no trace of the rhyme in written form, however, before 1805", though its "concept" may "go back to heathen times" and originally came "from the north country" (Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes).
On the other hand, William Muffett's marriage to my great great grandmother on 8 October 1795 - fifty years after the '45, when he was thirty years old - is amply documented in both the IGI and in the Parish Rolls, as are the births of his children. Since, on his tombstone in Bromley Churchyard it is recorded that he died on 8 July 1817, aged only fifty two, the year of his birth is not seriously to be gainsaid.
However, there is another record in the IGI of the birth, in 1816, of a boy, Charles Frederick Muffett, whose father was a James Muffett and whose mother was named Elizabeth. Charles Frederick Muffett was christened on 27 August 1816 in St Mary's Church, Marylebone (nearly eight months after my great grand- father, Charles Muffett, was christened in Bromley). Charles, James and Frederick, are all "repeating family names" of ours - Charles and James especially - although prior to my great grandfather's birth in 1816, no Charles is recorded as being born to any Muffett anywhere in England as far back as records go, i.e. to 1553! After 1816, however, the name repeats generation on generation in several lines. This simple fact surely lends credence to the arrival on the scene of a committed Jacobite immigrant sometime before William's birth in 1765?
But the James Muffett who fathered that child in 1816 can hardly be the same man who fathered William Muffett in 1765! He could, however, very easily have been that same man's son, and therefore William Muffett's brother! That would make the Marylebone born Charles Frederick Muffett and the Bromley born Charles Muffett (both born in the same year - 1816) grandsons of the hypothetical "Seumas" Muffett and being sons of brothers, therefore cousins!
And was it that the original "Seumas" (now "James") Muffett, still perceiving himself, even after eighteen years, to be "lying low" as a result of Culloden and the execution, was therefore cautiously loth to look too meticulously to the recording of the baptisms of his sons James and William in their "new" domicile, for fear of "blowing his cover"?
We do not know when William Muffett arrived in Bromley in Kent, apart from the fact that it must have been before 1795 when he married my great great grandmother, Susanna Sanders, for he is described in the Marriage Register as "Bachelor of this Parish", but that is certainly the first time that he, or for that matter any other William Muffett, is recorded in London - or, apparently, elsewhere either - within the timescale!
There are, however, two 18th century sets of birthday on record that are of interest. On 18 March 1796, a daughter Katherine was born in Walls, Shetland, to James Muffett and his wife Isobell (sic), nee Fraser! Closer investigation showed that the couple had a total of seven children between 1793 and 1809, three girls and four boys - one of whom (b.1804) was named William.
Of comparable interest is the christening in May, 1733 of James MORFETT - whose parentage is not given - in the church of St John Zachary, London. Permanent residency in England cannot, of course be assumed on the basis of one case, though he could have been a brother of the 1724 John, and whose name was spelt "as heard" by the clerk.
It is probable that much of what I have written above will be assailed as unjustifiable speculation in order to prove a point - and a not very important point at that! I disagree profoundly and so did John Buchan, later Lord Tweedsmuir! Often it is amongst "little people" that the aftermath of the history of great events can most interestingly be seen to be reflected.
Therefore, if anyone is able to assist me in checking, or dis-proving or verifying any of my conclusions, or can confirm, refute or in any way add to my research, I shall be extremely grateful.
"For where is Bohun: Where is Mowbray: Where is Mortimer and, most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are all entombed in the Urns and Sepulchers of Mortality: yet let their Names and Dignity stand so long as it pleaseth God." Sir Ranulf Crewe J. (1558-1646)
D.J.M. Muffett, October 1997