Ahh, you're right! I knew she had died in the late 1730s, but I had forgotten the exact year. Okay, then, yeah, somebody decided to save on that expense after she died, and Peter had no other sufficient connections. :/ Poor Peter.
methinks it does reveal Peter being seriously afraid that having helped Crown Prince Fritz the way he did makes him look bad to King Fritz.
Awww, yes. I wasn't sure what conduct he was referring to, since we know so little about the late 1740s [ETA: except that Fritz thought he was intriguing with the Brits, and we don't know that Peter *didn't* find this out], but yes, you're right that the most likely candidate is the 1730 conduct. Again I say, poor Peter. I'm glad we know Fritz gave him some money in 1750, both because his pension got taken away and because FRITZ.
I think one can make the case Fritz probably did not think of him as "Keith" the way Katte was "Katte". Or was Peter the primary Keith, Keith Prime, and the rest of the Keiths were the Keiths-plus-other-name?
My guess? George was Mylord Marischal (the name by which he's usually known), James was Field Marshal Keith, Peter was Lt. Col. Keith or maybe Stallmeister/Écuyer/Equerry Keith, especially as there was at least one other Lt. Col. Keith that I know of in the early 1750s.
Checking the correspondence on Trier, I see a lot of "mon cher mylord" and "le maréchal Keith", so that corroborates my first two guesses. The letters we have where Fritz refers to Peter just say "Keith", but those are also 1740 and 1742, before the brothers Keith came along. Oh, wait, there's the 1747 letter, but 1) still no brothers Keith until later in the year, 2) that's in response to a letter about Peter, so which Keith it is goes without saying. So I don't think we know what name Fritz thought of Peter by in 1750.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Peter Keith: $$$$$
Date: 2023-01-08 07:21 pm (UTC)Ahh, you're right! I knew she had died in the late 1730s, but I had forgotten the exact year. Okay, then, yeah, somebody decided to save on that expense after she died, and Peter had no other sufficient connections. :/ Poor Peter.
methinks it does reveal Peter being seriously afraid that having helped Crown Prince Fritz the way he did makes him look bad to King Fritz.
Awww, yes. I wasn't sure what conduct he was referring to, since we know so little about the late 1740s [ETA: except that Fritz thought he was intriguing with the Brits, and we don't know that Peter *didn't* find this out], but yes, you're right that the most likely candidate is the 1730 conduct. Again I say, poor Peter. I'm glad we know Fritz gave him some money in 1750, both because his pension got taken away and because FRITZ.
I think one can make the case Fritz probably did not think of him as "Keith" the way Katte was "Katte". Or was Peter the primary Keith, Keith Prime, and the rest of the Keiths were the Keiths-plus-other-name?
My guess? George was Mylord Marischal (the name by which he's usually known), James was Field Marshal Keith, Peter was Lt. Col. Keith or maybe Stallmeister/Écuyer/Equerry Keith, especially as there was at least one other Lt. Col. Keith that I know of in the early 1750s.
Checking the correspondence on Trier, I see a lot of "mon cher mylord" and "le maréchal Keith", so that corroborates my first two guesses. The letters we have where Fritz refers to Peter just say "Keith", but those are also 1740 and 1742, before the brothers Keith came along. Oh, wait, there's the 1747 letter, but 1) still no brothers Keith until later in the year, 2) that's in response to a letter about Peter, so which Keith it is goes without saying. So I don't think we know what name Fritz thought of Peter by in 1750.