Lord George Murray had identified more favourable high ground to the south of the River Nairn but the Prince, fatally, chose this occasion to overrule his commander. He insisted on the battle being fought on level, boggy ground while half his army had still to arrive and those who were there, were exhausted after an abortive 20 mile night march just hours before. They were tired, cold, wet and hungry. Their very efficient quartermaster had been taken ill and his substitute proved himself to be completely incompetent, almost no food had been procured for them in the preceding 48 hours. That they managed to fight at all was testament to their bravery and commitment to the cause. However, in less than an hour it was all over and the second line, including the Duke of Perth’s regiment and that of his brother, Lord John Drummond, covered as best they could the retreat of the survivors of the front line. The Duke himself was in charge of the left of the front line, which consisted of the three Macdonald regiments who believed that their rightful place was on the right of the line. He was on horseback out in front of them, urging them to charge across that bleak moor. It soon became obvious that all was lost and they too joined the retreat. Both brothers made it off the field of battle, alive. What happened thereafter is the subject of much conjecture. The plaque in South Ancaster Square in Callander, erected by the 1745 Association, tells of the Duke’s death, at sea, in 1746. All the history books tell of the Duke’s death, at sea, in May 1746. It was therefore a revelation when I read that this story was false and that the Duke had died, on dry land, in June 1782! The first thing to establish was whether there were any facts to substantiate this claim. The death/burial of a James Drummond on the relevant date was a matter of public record, as was his marriage and even the birth of his bride. They had seven children and one of his sons had been killed in a horrific incident at sea. The eldest son had married and had a large family. Sometime after the 1746 Act of Attainder was repealed in1784 his eldest son, i.e. James Drummond’s grandson, had pursued a claim to the Earldom of Perth. Twice the case came before a jury of fifteen ‘good men and true’ and twice they found in his favour, that he was indeed “grandson and heir male of the body of James the sixth Earl of Perth who took upon himself the title of Duke of Perth”. Unfortunately when the claim came to be heard in the House of Lords the grandson turned up drunk. It was not the only time he had been under the influence. It was reported in a local paper that he had been drunk and disorderly in
a shop and had alarmed the customers. He also, for good measure, attempted to assault the arresting officer! For this unseemly behaviour he was fined two shillings and sixpence, plus costs. I was able to trace the family of the original James Drummond as far as 1911 using a variety of sources, e.g. parish records, census returns and birth, marriage and death records since Victorian times. From information received from a correspondent I discovered that there are still direct descendants living, although not a direct male heir. Would it be possible, from a distance of more than two and a half centuries, to find out what did happen in 1746, were these two James Drummonds one and the same person? The last time there was unanimity about the whereabouts of the Duke of Perth after Culloden, was that he was definitely at Ruthven. There, the survivors of the battle and those members of the Jacobite army who had, for various reasons, missed the actual battle, assembled and awaited the arrival of their Prince. After a few days a letter arrived instead, reportedly telling every man to seek his own safety as best he could. This is possibly Hanoverian propaganda as contemporary reports of its contents differ from that terse message. It seems that he professed devotion to them and their interests and said that, as he could do nothing for them on this side of the water, he intended instantly to proceed to France to obtain assistance or to procure better terms for them. He asked them to keep his departure a secret for as long as possible and to take advice from the Duke of Perth and Lord George Murray as to what they should do to defend themselves. He finally called on the Almighty to bless and direct them. Whichever version you believe, the sense of betrayal must have been almost palpable. They had risked everything for this man and a few thousand men were still willing to fight on, yet their Prince had thrown in the towel. Their leaders, knowing they faced charges of treason, made their plans for escape. I think it is possible that these plans were discussed between them, at Ruthven. Lord George Murray planned to fake his own death and escape abroad, others simply proposed to get on board any ship they could find, bound for Europe or Scandinavia. Suppose the Duke of Perth thought along the same lines as Lord George Murray. He would need others to provide the ‘evidence’ of his death to make it sound convincing to the authorities. A death at sea could not be disproved, no body to be dug up at a later date and it would only require a few of them to spread the story. The Duke’s very popularity would ensure
there would be volunteers to go along with this ruse. The Duke’s own father had escaped abroad after the ’15 and the Duke himself had shown courage and a cool head in escaping from his would-be captors the year before. Also my research has failed to find any corroboration of the story that he was badly wounded on the battlefield. Only his servant’s testimony tells of him being unable to ride unaided. If he had a musket ball in his shoulder would he have been able to participate in the gathering at Ruthven with its plans to continue the fight? Fragments of his clothing would have been forced deep into the wound, causing an infection. The other accounts of his death speak of exhaustion, fatigue, being worn out, but not of any serious wound. So, what did happen to James Drummond, 3rd Duke of Perth at and after Culloden? According to testimony given by his valet, the Duke receives a musket ball wound in his shoulder. He is unable to ride unaided and has to be helped from the battlefield, by his servants. He is then seen at Ruthven, where the letter from the Prince is received. They then proceed westwards, the Duke’s health deteriorating all the time, until eventually they have to carry him in a blanket. He appears to have had four servants with him so this would have been feasible. They reach Loch nan Uamh, the Duke by now a dying man. Wrapped in a blanket he is hoisted aboard a French warship, Le Mars. That ship and La Bellone are involved in a naval battle with ships of the British navy whilst still in the loch. Both ships are damaged but are quickly repaired sufficiently to be seaworthy. They set sail at 2am on 4 May and a few days later the Duke dies. His valet is with him throughout. A second eye-witness account is that of a French officer on board Le Mars. He tells of the Duke’s death on 8 May and of his burial at sea, with full military honours, the following day. The guns of Le Mars fire a salute as his body is consigned to the deep. Both ships arrive at Nantes, after a particularly prolonged voyage due to bad weather, on 27 May (according to the Julian calendar used by Britain until 1752) or on 6 June according to the Gregorian calendar which had been in use across Europe since 1582. A report of the arrival of Le Mars and of the Duke’s death is written by the Naval Administrator at Nantes on 7 June. He says “Ils sont perdu dans la traversée M. le Duc de Perth.” “They have lost during the voyage the Duke of Perth.” David, Lord Elcho, also on board Le Mars writes briefly in his diary of the death of the Duke and what a fine man he had been. The third eye-witness account is that 19