Re: Mac Sweeney Doe update
Sean J Murphy
them under a pseudonym is of course a despicable troll habit, and I will
not respond under such headings in future. Yet obfuscators can sometimes
confuse themselves. I did indeed acknowledge receiving e-mails from Mr
Sweeeney - copies later sent by him by ordinary post as the electronic
ones did not get through. Of course the thousands of words of mostly
coarse abuse and falsehood at http://www.sweeneyclanchief.com/id27.htm
are designed to distract attention away from the fact that the
supposedly definitive report by Ms Mac Conghail in favour of Mr
Sweeney's claim to be Mac Sweeney Doe has still not been released.
Surely if this report is as devastating as claimed, its publication
would kill my objections and the controversy over the Doe chiefship
stone dead? (Ditto Mr Gorry's report on O Long of Garranelongy.) Even if
my report at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html does
not show that Mr Sweeney's ancestors were settled farmers in the
Gartan/Derryveagh area of County Donegal, as I believe it does, it is
certainly the case that Mr Sweeney has produced no documentary evidence
to prove his claim of descent from the wandering Doe claimant, Edmond
Sweeney, encountered by O'Donovan in 1835 some distance away in the
vicinity of Sheep Haven.
As I write in my report: 'Alleging that the present writer is 'totally
and utterly confused' in this regard, Mr Sweeney has woven a complicated
tale whereby 'Eamon Óg' took a lease of land in Altnadague in the 1830s,
and then invited his father, the wandering 'Eamon Rua' encountered by
O'Donovan in Sheep Haven, to join him, thus ending the 'long
dispossession' suffered by the family since the late seventeenth century
(for the latest version of this improbable yarn see
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id40.htm). No documentation is cited to
prove a transition from traveller to settled farmer status, or a move
from the vicinity of Sheep Haven to Derryveagh, and like much else in
the claim, vague and malleable oral pedigrees and family traditions are
all that are generally advanced.'
I realise that some posters here find these Irish spats tiresome,
perhaps accepting the authorised account that the problem of bogus and
questionable chiefships was entirely solved at the time of Terence
MacCarthy's outing in 1999. I can only suggest that they do what I do
when I encounter a thread that does not interest me, which is simply to
pass it by.
Sean Murphy
Joseph McMillan
>
> I realise that some posters here find these Irish spats tiresome,
> perhaps accepting the authorised account that the problem of bogus and
> questionable chiefships was entirely solved at the time of Terence
> MacCarthy's outing in 1999.
I'm one who finds them tiresome, but that doesn't mean I accept that
the denouement of the McCarthy affair ended the problem. I find them
tiresome not because their is no issue but because the exchanges
rarely if ever advance our understanding of them. They seem to be
more about egos than anything else, Sean forever patting himself on
the back for his role in the Niadh Nask business a decade ago, his
adversaries offended at having their claims challenged and confusing
credentials with substance.
I would suggest that:
- Whatever any genealogist has or hasn't done in the past has no
bearing on the merits of his or her findings in any particular piece
of research at hand. This applies equally to those whose work
purports to support the various chiefly claims (X is accepted by the
Genealogical Office as; Y is a fellow of this or that and has a
doctorate in Irish history) and to Mr. Murphy himself (I brought down
Terence McCarthy, I did this, I did that). Reputation, positive or
negative, is not a substitute for evidence and scholarly
argumentation.
- Conversely, no one's motives are relevant either. Genealogists on
one side or the other may well be indulging in self-promotion; I
really don't want to hear it, and I don't want to hear that the
strength of the case they present depends on their motives. It
doesn't. It depends on evidence and argumentation.
- The burden of proof--make that Proof with a capital P--lies on those
making claims to chiefships and the like. Skeptics (including Sean
Murphy) have done their job when they punch holes in the evidence or
the logic by which conclusions are drawn from the evidence.
- As in any field of scholarly research, nothing is worth anything
until it's published and thus made available for critical review. One
thing the MacCarthy Mor business truly should have taught everyone is
that privately prepared "scholarship" submitted for closed-doors
validation without bona fide peer review is somewhere between
worthless and dangerous. In short, Sean Murphy is correct to
challenge the "chiefs" to put up or shut up.
- But he doesn't need to issue and reissue the challenge over and over
and over. I really don't need a quarterly update telling me that
MacSweeney or O'Long or whoever has still not proved his claim, or
that Sean Murphy hasn't answered this or that claim, or that Charles
McKerrell still hasn't explained the Nasc Nia, or that anything else
hasn't happened. Save the electrons for actual news. Most of this
has become just repeated iterations of "dog bites man."
> I can only suggest that they do what I do
> when I encounter a thread that does not interest me, which is simply to
> pass it by.
>
And when, by some miracle, someone actually does post something that
illuminates these issues one way or another?
Joseph McMillan
Greg
I’m inclined to disagree that we don’t need any sort of update on
issues of interest to our community. I will agree, and have said many
times that research is only as valuable as the information it obtains
– just like legal argument; which these cases ride on, the proof of
the claim is what sways acceptance. I think that the real trouble is
that there are no statutes governing this subject, as there are no
statutes governing the claim or granting / assigning of “noblesse” in
some of Scotlands grants of arms, as with Chiefships, feathers etc.
I would very much agree that these degradations into character
assassination do nothing but attempt to divert people from the issue:
which in my view just proves weakness: there is much more ethos than
logic… Yet, this community is attached to sources, like Lord Lyons
Office, from whom recognition is the goal to legitimacy. Until there
are governing bodies installed to rule on these issues or, a claim one
way or the other is entered into the record by a recognized authority,
or the law, these claims one way or the other no matter how convincing
really mean nothing. They are very interesting, which is why I
advocate their posting. But until these “learned authoritative
professionals” can be proved or disproved – on the record, their
findings are nothing but opinions added to the mix; and I especially
agree that posting under aliases and trying to prove something is
simply an exercise in obtuseness.
The Chief
Joseph,
Just to say that while I agree with much of your sentiment,
there are a few points that should be borne in mind. With regard to
proof, it is unreasonable to expect people to hand out complete sets
of documentary evidence to any crank who should care to come along and
ask for same, especially when said crank (Murphy) is well known to be
utterly prejudiced, and simply looking for dirt. It is reasonable to
expect that claimants will work with official authorities, and that is
what both the O'Long and the MacSweeney Doe were voluntarily engaged
in. Characterizing working with the (then) official body responsible
for vetting such claims as "privately prepared "scholarship" submitted
for closed-doors validation without bona fide peer review is somewhere
between worthless and dangerous" is a misrepresentation of what was an
official process and is completely unfair. Of course, Murphy and Co.
put paid to said official validation process, leaving us in the
present state.
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<2f9f6641-82d5-425b...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> With regard to
> proof, it is unreasonable to expect people to hand out complete sets
> of documentary evidence to any crank who should care to come along and
> ask for same, especially when said crank (Murphy) is well known to be
> utterly prejudiced, and simply looking for dirt.
Not true. Whatever Murphy's real or imagined prejudices, the universal
rule is that the burden of proof is always on the proponent of any
genealogy (e.g. a claim of senior descent from a chief). If anyone
makes genealogical claims but fails to disclose the evidence to support
such claims, then the claims should be rejected until or unless any
evidence appears for public inspection (e.g. in print in a peer-reviewed
journal). Whatever your personal opinion of the person who pointed out
the lack of evidence, your only recourse is to publish the evidence.
Furthermore, when we see personal attacks in place of any evidence, we
naturally assume that it is because the alleged chiefs have no evidence.
> It is reasonable to
> expect that claimants will work with official authorities, and that is
> what both the O'Long and the MacSweeney Doe were voluntarily engaged
> in. Characterizing working with the (then) official body responsible
> for vetting such claims as "privately prepared "scholarship" submitted
> for closed-doors validation without bona fide peer review is somewhere
> between worthless and dangerous" is a misrepresentation of what was an
> official process and is completely unfair.
No, it is accurate. In a way it is reasonable to expect that claimants
of some sort of sanctioned status would follow the procedure of an
official body with oversight over the recognition of such status. But
whatever 'official' sanction the process may have, it is still a
closed-door process and therefore in the broader world of scholarly
genealogy has no value. Credentials of those who are allegedly involved
in a closed-door process are also of no evidentiary value. Only
publicly disclosed documentary evidence and published interpretive
scholarship is of value.
> Of course, Murphy and Co. put paid to said official validation process,
> leaving us in the present state.
No. The process was destroyed by the obvious abuse which had taken
place in the time of Terrence MacCarthy: it lost all credibility to
outside observers. Your claim that it was destroyed by the efforts of
those who exposed the abuse is false, and only reinforces our impression
of impostors trying to weasel out of exposure.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> In article
> <2f9f6641-82d5-425b...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > With regard to
> > proof, it is unreasonable to expect people to hand out complete sets
> > of documentary evidence to any crank who should care to come along and
> > ask for same, especially when said crank (Murphy) is well known to be
> > utterly prejudiced, and simply looking for dirt.
>
> Not true. Whatever Murphy's real or imagined prejudices, the universal
> rule is that the burden of proof is always on the proponent of any
> genealogy (e.g. a claim of senior descent from a chief). If anyone
> makes genealogical claims but fails to disclose the evidence to support
> such claims, then the claims should be rejected until or unless any
> evidence appears for public inspection (e.g. in print in a peer-reviewed
> journal). Whatever your personal opinion of the person who pointed out
> the lack of evidence, your only recourse is to publish the evidence.
> Furthermore, when we see personal attacks in place of any evidence, we
> naturally assume that it is because the alleged chiefs have no evidence.
Nonsense. The legal position today, as it always has been, is that a
chief/chieftain owes his position to the recognition and acceptance of
his clan/sept. No one else. The public, including you and Murphy, have
nothing to do with it, one way or another. In addition. being senior
in descent from a previous chief is nice, but not at all essential
>
> > It is reasonable to
> > expect that claimants will work with official authorities, and that is
> > what both the O'Long and the MacSweeney Doe were voluntarily engaged
> > in. Characterizing working with the (then) official body responsible
> > for vetting such claims as "privately prepared "scholarship" submitted
> > for closed-doors validation without bona fide peer review is somewhere
> > between worthless and dangerous" is a misrepresentation of what was an
> > official process and is completely unfair.
>
> No, it is accurate. In a way it is reasonable to expect that claimants
> of some sort of sanctioned status would follow the procedure of an
> official body with oversight over the recognition of such status. But
> whatever 'official' sanction the process may have, it is still a
> closed-door process and therefore in the broader world of scholarly
> genealogy has no value. Credentials of those who are allegedly involved
> in a closed-door process are also of no evidentiary value. Only
> publicly disclosed documentary evidence and published interpretive
> scholarship is of value.
As I just stated, who is or is not a chief is legally the sole
responsibility of the clan/sept concerned - what you would find of
evidentiary value is neither here nor there. In particular, it does
not depend on the former courtesy recognition process of the Chief
Herald. However, it did speak to the solidity of your claim if you
were willing to voluntarily submit to the official recognition process
- which both the MacSweeney and O'Long did.
>
> > Of course, Murphy and Co. put paid to said official validation process,
> > leaving us in the present state.
>
> No. The process was destroyed by the obvious abuse which had taken
> place in the time of Terrence MacCarthy: it lost all credibility to
> outside observers. Your claim that it was destroyed by the efforts of
> those who exposed the abuse is false, and only reinforces our impression
> of impostors trying to weasel out of exposure.
This is ridiculous. If we were to abolish or destroy heraldic offices
and processes every time there was a scandal there would be no
official heraldry, and we all know that. As for impostors, you appear
to be saying that Messrs MacSweeney and O'Long are impostors? Am I
correct in that?
>
> Nat Taylor
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<e7973e5e-99c6-410a...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
It is interesting that such people and their defenders place so much
weight on the alleged genealogies, then, when pressed, turn around and
insist that genealogy is irrelevant to chiefly status.
What interests me as a genealogist is the claim to a particular descent,
which is demonstrably dubious, but is defended not by providing
evidence, but solely (and tellingly) by attacking the critics. This is
one common identifying characteristic of fraudulent genealogy.
Insofar as recognition by one's 'clan' is the sole legal determinant of
who is a 'chief', if these men have the recognition of 'their' 'clans',
then they are not impostors in a strict sense. But they would still be
frauds if the genealogies on which they have based their claims are in
fact fraudulent. And to whatever extent they owed their acceptance by
their clans to that descent, then if the genealogy is false they should
be considered to have gained their positions by imposture. This is true
even if (and especially if) their respective clans had no demonstrable
existence before reformation in the late 20th century under precisely
these same individuals.
Here is an interesting aspect of the issue: because, in the Gaelic
traditions, senior genealogical descent by some set system of reckoning
was not an automatic determinant of chieftainship, therefore the
assumption of a chieftainship by someone with a spurious genealogy is in
a sense a victimless crime, as there can be no 'true' chief, out there
somewhere, who is being cheated out of a birthright. Nevertheless the
apparently spurious genealogies of these men, *and* the obnoxious way in
which they are defended, are an insult to genealogy itself and continue
to drag down the standing of 'official' genealogy and heraldry in
Ireland.
Joseph McMillan
>
> Nonsense. The legal position today, as it always has been, is that a
> chief/chieftain owes his position to the recognition and acceptance of
> his clan/sept. No one else. The public, including you and Murphy, have
> nothing to do with it, one way or another. In addition. being senior
> in descent from a previous chief is nice, but not at all essential
>
lengths to assert their genealogical claims? Why not just poll the
members of the clan/sept?
I would suggest that it is because the members *do* believe the
genealogy is important, whether that is a correct reading of law and
history or not. And if they believe it is important, then a claimant
to the chiefship owes it to them to produce proof of his claim that
can stand up to objective scrutiny. Even saints have to withstand the
attentions of the advocatus diaboli before they are canonized.
>
>
> As I just stated, who is or is not a chief is legally the sole
> responsibility of the clan/sept concerned - what you would find of
> evidentiary value is neither here nor there. In particular, it does
> not depend on the former courtesy recognition process of the Chief
> Herald. However, it did speak to the solidity of your claim if you
> were willing to voluntarily submit to the official recognition process
> - which both the MacSweeney and O'Long did.
This is only true if the "official recognition process" is itself
credible. Obviously the MacCarthy Mor debacle called the official
process into serious question. I would think that anyone who takes
the chiefship business seriously and has a claim to lodge would have a
very clear interest in reestablishing the credibility of whatever the
process by which chiefs are recognized, whether officially or
unofficially. This includes ensuring the fraudulent claimants don't
slip through the cracks. The best way to do that is to open the
process to public scrutiny and to invite independent examination of
the claim. The exception, of course, would be those who don't think
their evidence can withstand such scrutiny.
(By the way, after several years I'm waiting to be enlightened as to
why supposedly "*official* recognition" is invariably referred to as
"*courtesy* recognition." What exactly does the word "courtesy" mean
in this usage?)
>
> This is ridiculous. If we were to abolish or destroy heraldic offices
> and processes every time there was a scandal there would be no
> official heraldry, and we all know that.
A particular scandal doesn't necessarily destroy an institution.
Reacting to scandal by pretending nothing was wrong, trying to hide
from public scrutiny, resisting measures to prevent future scandals,
and generally sticking one's institutional head in the sand often
does.
>As for impostors, you appear
> to be saying that Messrs MacSweeney and O'Long are impostors? Am I
> correct in that?
I don't know what Nat Taylor is saying. What I'm saying is that if
they are going to claim to be chiefs, it is up to them to prove their
claims. As far as I can tell, they haven't done that.
Joseph McMillan
The Chief
Just where did I say that genealogy is irrelevant? It is very relevant
in that one has to be of the clann/sept, but it is **not** an absolute
requirement that one be the senior male heir of a previous chief. Most
people know, that, including yourself, from your comments below.
> What interests me as a genealogist is the claim to a particular descent,
> which is demonstrably dubious, but is defended not by providing
> evidence, but solely (and tellingly) by attacking the critics. This is
> one common identifying characteristic of fraudulent genealogy.
>
> Insofar as recognition by one's 'clan' is the sole legal determinant of
> who is a 'chief', if these men have the recognition of 'their' 'clans',
> then they are not impostors in a strict sense. But they would still be
> frauds if the genealogies on which they have based their claims are in
> fact fraudulent. And to whatever extent they owed their acceptance by
> their clans to that descent, then if the genealogy is false they should
> be considered to have gained their positions by imposture. This is true
> even if (and especially if) their respective clans had no demonstrable
> existence before reformation in the late 20th century under precisely
> these same individuals.
>
> Here is an interesting aspect of the issue: because, in the Gaelic
> traditions, senior genealogical descent by some set system of reckoning
> was not an automatic determinant of chieftainship, therefore the
> assumption of a chieftainship by someone with a spurious genealogy is in
> a sense a victimless crime, as there can be no 'true' chief, out there
> somewhere, who is being cheated out of a birthright. Nevertheless the
> apparently spurious genealogies of these men, *and* the obnoxious way in
> which they are defended, are an insult to genealogy itself and continue
> to drag down the standing of 'official' genealogy and heraldry in
> Ireland.
A lot of words, but you didn't answer my question: are you saying that
MacSweeney Doe and the O'Long are impostors, with spurious
genealogies, or not? As for putting out evidence, I think MacSweeney
has. It relies on non-documentary evidence - a sloinneadh - which is
the historical norm for Gaelic genealogies, and was legally accepted
just a few years ago in a chiefship case in Scotland. Of course, that
historical norm goes against the "documentary evidence only" stance of
many latter day purists, but so be it.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
> http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Regards,
The Chief
The Chief
Joseph McMillan wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2:08�pm, The Chief <The_Chieft...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. The legal position today, as it always has been, is that a
> > chief/chieftain owes his position to the recognition and acceptance of
> > his clan/sept. No one else. The public, including you and Murphy, have
> > nothing to do with it, one way or another. In addition. being senior
> > in descent from a previous chief is nice, but not at all essential
> >
> If this is true, why do the claimants to these chiefships go to such
> lengths to assert their genealogical claims? Why not just poll the
> members of the clan/sept?
Personally I strongly believe there should indeed be a poll or an
"acclamation" requirement, which would cut out and short circuit many
of these arguments. As for the genealogy, as I just stated to Nat, it
is a requirement that the chief be of the clan/sept in the first
place!
>
> I would suggest that it is because the members *do* believe the
> genealogy is important, whether that is a correct reading of law and
> history or not. And if they believe it is important, then a claimant
> to the chiefship owes it to them to produce proof of his claim that
> can stand up to objective scrutiny. Even saints have to withstand the
> attentions of the advocatus diaboli before they are canonized.
You must be a pre-Vatican II man, as there is so "advocatus diaboli"
anymore and has not been for quite some time!
Again, genealogy is important, it is simply that being the senior male
heir is not essential.
> >
> >
> > �As I just stated, who is or is not a chief is legally the sole
> > responsibility of the clan/sept concerned - what you would find of
> > evidentiary value is neither here nor there. �In particular, it does
> > not depend on the former courtesy recognition process of the Chief
> > Herald. However, it did speak to the solidity of your claim if you
> > were willing to voluntarily submit to the official recognition process
> > - which both the MacSweeney and O'Long did.
>
> This is only true if the "official recognition process" is itself
> credible. Obviously the MacCarthy Mor debacle called the official
> process into serious question. I would think that anyone who takes
> the chiefship business seriously and has a claim to lodge would have a
> very clear interest in reestablishing the credibility of whatever the
> process by which chiefs are recognized, whether officially or
> unofficially. This includes ensuring the fraudulent claimants don't
> slip through the cracks. The best way to do that is to open the
> process to public scrutiny and to invite independent examination of
> the claim. The exception, of course, would be those who don't think
> their evidence can withstand such scrutiny.
Actually I would agree - an improved process was the obvious answer.
But of course, that was not what happened, rather the whole process
was abolished.
>
> (By the way, after several years I'm waiting to be enlightened as to
> why supposedly "*official* recognition" is invariably referred to as
> "*courtesy* recognition." What exactly does the word "courtesy" mean
> in this usage?)
This is simply my guess, but I would say it probably reflected the
legal reality that chiefs strictly only depend on the recognition of
their clan/sept, so the "official recognition" is in some sense always
simply an additional "courtesy".
> >
> > This is ridiculous. If we were to abolish or destroy heraldic offices
> > and processes every time there was a scandal there would be no
> > official heraldry, and we all know that.
>
> A particular scandal doesn't necessarily destroy an institution.
> Reacting to scandal by pretending nothing was wrong, trying to hide
> from public scrutiny, resisting measures to prevent future scandals,
> and generally sticking one's institutional head in the sand often
> does.
Indeed, but as you know multiple measures were taken; new Chief
Heralds were put in place, new boards appointed, etc.
>
> >As for impostors, you appear
> > to be saying that Messrs MacSweeney and O'Long are impostors? Am I
> > correct in that?
>
> I don't know what Nat Taylor is saying. What I'm saying is that if
> they are going to claim to be chiefs, it is up to them to prove their
> claims. As far as I can tell, they haven't done that.
Again, my response is that they are under no obligation to prove
anything to you, and that the responsibility to prove their claims
lies elsewhere.
>
> Joseph McMillan
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<b48216de-a6cb-489e...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> has. It relies on non-documentary evidence - a sloinneadh...
If recognition by their clans makes them chiefs, then these men are not
impostors in a strict sense. But the genealogical issue is different.
Based on the sources I have seen (including the MacSweeney sloinneadh),
and on the narratives of the claims, I doubt the veracity of both their
genealogies, and furthermore suspect that the genealogies may well be
the products of conscious fabrication.
These men are under no obligation to publish evidence for their
genealogical claims, but Joseph has stated why it would be in their best
interests to do so, unless the claimed genealogies are false.
The Chief
Personally, I find the facility with which some people around here
jump to the conclusion that claimants to chiefships are impostors,
frauds or are peddling spurious genealogies somewhat depressing. At
least as depressing as the opposite behaviour in which obviously bogus
"chiefs" maintain a following despite mountains of evidence to the
contrary. So, which category does the MacSweeney Doe fall under?
Perhaps a little recapitulation is in order.
First, let us step back a little in time. Bogus genealogy and outright
fraud have been part and parcel of heraldy since its inception.
Indeed, heralds were notorious for centuries for their willingness to
create long and glorious pedigrees out of whole cloth. So, please,
spare us the "shock! horror!" aspects of some comments.
In this particular case, Sean Murphy has been vigorously pursuing a
personal vendetta against the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland
since the early 1990s. His breakthrough came in 1999 with the exposure
of the MacCarthy Mor scandal. This was truly a scandal, and left the
OCHI bloodied, but still extant. So, since then Murphy has been
looking to unearth other scandals, if at all possible, in order to
finish off his opponent. To Murphy, and some of his supporters, it is
clear that any and all other claimants to chiefships in the 1990s are
guilty of fraud until proven innocent, a stance which he has repeated
over and over down the years. Of course, victims are asked to help out
the inquisition by proving themselves innocent - to Murphy's
satisfaction - which offer a few have had the temerity to decline.
Now there are many frauds and fantasists around, but it is my personal
opinion that the MacSweeney Doe is not one of them. I believe him to
be an honest man who has a clear family tradition - a sloinneadh - of
descent from the historical chiefs. He also has documentary evidence
in favour of such a descent, but it is not conclusive. So, one has to
look at the totality of the situation, and make your own decisions as
to whether to believe him or not. What is completely unfair, however,
is to start throwing around allegations of deliberate fraud, being an
impostor, peddling spurious genealogy, etc. without the slightest
shred of proof for these allegations. Murphy would love to believe
that there is fraud, etc.,as it suits his purposes, but I don't see
the basis for others to make similar allegations. For if there is a
presumption of proof, the most fundamental one is that we are all
innocent until proven guilty, and I have seen no hard evidence of
fraud or of him being an impostor. It is simply his misfortune to have
been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and have run foul of
Murphy's long running vendetta.
Regards,
The Chief
The Chief
I find it very, very discomforting that you seek to hold the
MacSweeney Doe to high standards of proof with regard to his claim to
chiefship, while at the same time you so readily abandon the most
fundamental of all presumptions with regard to proof - that we are all
innocent until proven guilty, i.e. your readiness to "suspect that the
genealogies may well be the products of conscious fabrication." Double
standards and hypocrisy are terms that spring to mind.
This double standard is very prevalent and very depressing.
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<cde06b17-3bb4-4bcd...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> Personally, I find the facility with which some people around here
> jump to the conclusion that claimants to chiefships are impostors,
> frauds or are peddling spurious genealogies somewhat depressing...
<...>
> What is completely unfair, however,
> is to start throwing around allegations of deliberate fraud, being an
> impostor, peddling spurious genealogy, etc. without the slightest
> shred of proof for these allegations.
You asked me my opinion--twice. I gave it. I read the evidence which
is publicly available. I am told that there is other evidence but have
drawn certain conclusions from the fact that said evidence has not been
made available. I have also read reams of diversionary rhetoric, the
very existence of which to me suggests something about the possibility
of conscious misrepresentation.
Any genealogist knows that all genealogies are unproved until they are
proved; disproof is not necessary for doubt. In addition, it is
perfectly reasonable that a genealogist speculate on the circustances
under which a genealogy, if false, might have been born. Conscious
fraud is a natural suspicion, but of course not every incorrect
genealogy has fraud as its root.
You quite rightly say that "bogus genealogy and outright fraud have been
part and parcel of heraldy since its inception." Having admitted that
bogus genealogy is so common, it is disingenuous to try to paint
MacSweeney's critics as prudish and sensationalist by attributing to us
"shock" and "horror" at the idea that his genealogy might be incorrect,
or even consciously fraudulent. I find nothing particularly shocking or
horrific there; similarly you should spare us your own protestations of
shock and horror that we might harbor such suspicions. They are
perfectly reasonable suspicions based on all that has been published in
these case, not to mention the culture of the neo-chiefs in the past
generation.
> For if there is a
> presumption of proof, the most fundamental one is that we are all
> innocent until proven guilty, and I have seen no hard evidence of
> fraud or of him being an impostor.
[and again (in a second post, as if for emphasis!):]
> I find it very, very discomforting that you seek to hold the
> MacSweeney Doe to high standards of proof with regard to his claim to
> chiefship, while at the same time you so readily abandon the most
> fundamental of all presumptions with regard to proof - that we are all
> innocent until proven guilty, i.e. your readiness to "suspect that the
> genealogies may well be the products of conscious fabrication."
You do articulate a genuine philosophical conundrum here. Historians
are trained (and I am trained as a historian) to approach all sources
from a position of doubt. [One could say the same of art dealers, etc.]
When a textual source is so closely associated with a person and his
ambitions as these chiefly genealogies, genealogical observers are in a
sense torn between the legal habit of presumption of personal innocence,
and our aboriginal distrust of such texts until proved. That is why I
am not too personally worked up against people I suspect may be
indulging in what you recognize as the perennial vice of genealogical
misrepresentation. I might suspect the genealogy to be fraudulent, but
I would not necessarily cross the street to avoid its author. In fact I
might enjoy sitting down to talk with him about it. I find genealogical
imposture sociologically interesting; I am also interested in the
unusual methodological questions raised by the evidence presented in
these chiefly descent cases, including the sloinneadh.
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> In article
> <cde06b17-3bb4-4bcd...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I find the facility with which some people around here
> > jump to the conclusion that claimants to chiefships are impostors,
> > frauds or are peddling spurious genealogies somewhat depressing...
>
> <...>
>
> > What is completely unfair, however,
> > is to start throwing around allegations of deliberate fraud, being an
> > impostor, peddling spurious genealogy, etc. without the slightest
> > shred of proof for these allegations.
>
> You asked me my opinion--twice. I gave it.
Yes, indeed I did ask. But I asked in the first place because you were
clearly suggesting or broadly hinting at fraud, impostors, etc.,
without actually coming straight out with it. This tactic has been a
very nasty favourite of Murphy's for many years - to disagree with him
is to automatically be associated to TMM, with all that that implies.
> I read the evidence which
> is publicly available. I am told that there is other evidence but have
> drawn certain conclusions from the fact that said evidence has not been
> made available. I have also read reams of diversionary rhetoric, the
> very existence of which to me suggests something about the possibility
> of conscious misrepresentation.
Maybe, but my opinion is that much of it is simply to spite Murphy, a
goal with which I can all too readily associate.
It may even be that the MacSweeney Doe does not own the copyright to
the central "report" - I believe it is relatively common for the
genealogist concerned to retain copyright in Ireland (by contractual
stipulation).
>
> Any genealogist knows that all genealogies are unproved until they are
> proved; disproof is not necessary for doubt.
There is a fundamental difference of opinion here though. Some of us
regard oral genealogies as at least as "evidentiary" as documentary
evidence, and give it the same weight, Others completely depreciate
oral genealogies and hold them valueless.
> In addition, it is
> perfectly reasonable that a genealogist speculate on the circustances
> under which a genealogy, if false, might have been born. Conscious
> fraud is a natural suspicion, but of course not every incorrect
> genealogy has fraud as its root.
>
> You quite rightly say that "bogus genealogy and outright fraud have been
> part and parcel of heraldy since its inception." Having admitted that
> bogus genealogy is so common, it is disingenuous to try to paint
> MacSweeney's critics as prudish and sensationalist by attributing to us
> "shock" and "horror" at the idea that his genealogy might be incorrect,
> or even consciously fraudulent.
My comment was meant to cover a wide range of contributors going back
many years - there have certainly been prudish, "shock", "horror"
comments - self-serving shock and horror, in my opinion.
> I find nothing particularly shocking or
> horrific there; similarly you should spare us your own protestations of
> shock and horror that we might harbor such suspicions. They are
> perfectly reasonable suspicions based on all that has been published in
> these case, not to mention the culture of the neo-chiefs in the past
> generation.
But I see a fundamental difference between suspicions, and going on to
act as judge and jury and ending up, funnily enough, with a
conviction, as all too often seems to happen around here. It is the
latter aspect, assumed guilt/conviction, on quite serious "charges"
and all on very flimsy evidence, that I find horrifying.
>
> > For if there is a
> > presumption of proof, the most fundamental one is that we are all
> > innocent until proven guilty, and I have seen no hard evidence of
> > fraud or of him being an impostor.
>
> [and again (in a second post, as if for emphasis!):]
>
> > I find it very, very discomforting that you seek to hold the
> > MacSweeney Doe to high standards of proof with regard to his claim to
> > chiefship, while at the same time you so readily abandon the most
> > fundamental of all presumptions with regard to proof - that we are all
> > innocent until proven guilty, i.e. your readiness to "suspect that the
> > genealogies may well be the products of conscious fabrication."
>
> You do articulate a genuine philosophical conundrum here.
Why thank you.
> Historians
> are trained (and I am trained as a historian) to approach all sources
> from a position of doubt. [One could say the same of art dealers, etc.]
> When a textual source is so closely associated with a person and his
> ambitions as these chiefly genealogies, genealogical observers are in a
> sense torn between the legal habit of presumption of personal innocence,
> and our aboriginal distrust of such texts until proved. That is why I
> am not too personally worked up against people I suspect may be
> indulging in what you recognize as the perennial vice of genealogical
> misrepresentation. I might suspect the genealogy to be fraudulent, but
> I would not necessarily cross the street to avoid its author. In fact I
> might enjoy sitting down to talk with him about it. I find genealogical
> imposture sociologically interesting; I am also interested in the
> unusual methodological questions raised by the evidence presented in
> these chiefly descent cases, including the sloinneadh.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
Regards,
The Chief
Turenne
>.....while at the same time you so readily abandon the most
>fundamental of all presumptions with regard to proof - that we are all
>innocent until proven guilty, i.e. your readiness to "suspect that the
>genealogies may well be the products of conscious fabrication."
You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of 'the burden of proof'.
The McSweeney Doe case relies on the Civil Law where the burden of
proof is defined by the preponderance of the evidence. The more
evidence that Mr Murphy gathers against the McSweeney claim, the more
likelihood there is that he is correct in his assumption that the
claim is spurious.
Richard Lichten
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> In article
> <cde06b17-3bb4-4bcd...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I find the facility with which some people around here
> > jump to the conclusion that claimants to chiefships are impostors,
> > frauds or are peddling spurious genealogies somewhat depressing...
>
> <...>
>
> > What is completely unfair, however,
> > is to start throwing around allegations of deliberate fraud, being an
> > impostor, peddling spurious genealogy, etc. without the slightest
> > shred of proof for these allegations.
>
> You asked me my opinion--twice. I gave it.
[This may be a semi-duplicate - posts are slow].
I asked because you were very strongly suggesting fraud ("impostor"
was the word you used IIRC), without actually coming straight out and
saying it. This is a favourite long-standing tactic of Murphy;
repeatedly imply and insinuate that anyone disagreeing with you is a
fraud, or an accomplice thereto.
> I read the evidence which
> is publicly available. I am told that there is other evidence but have
> drawn certain conclusions from the fact that said evidence has not been
> made available. I have also read reams of diversionary rhetoric, the
> very existence of which to me suggests something about the possibility
> of conscious misrepresentation.
Maybe, but another possibility which suggests itself is that of
spiteing Murphy, a goal with which I can certainly identify!
>
> Any genealogist knows that all genealogies are unproved until they are
> proved; disproof is not necessary for doubt.
But there is a real disagreement as to what constitutes evidence and
proof. To some of us an oral genealogy can be as good and as much
evidence as documentary forms, while others completely depreciate
sloinneadhs and hold them worthless.
> In addition, it is
> perfectly reasonable that a genealogist speculate on the circustances
> under which a genealogy, if false, might have been born. Conscious
> fraud is a natural suspicion, but of course not every incorrect
> genealogy has fraud as its root.
Precisely - there is no need to always assume fraud.
>
> You quite rightly say that "bogus genealogy and outright fraud have been
> part and parcel of heraldy since its inception." Having admitted that
> bogus genealogy is so common, it is disingenuous to try to paint
> MacSweeney's critics as prudish and sensationalist by attributing to us
> "shock" and "horror" at the idea that his genealogy might be incorrect,
> or even consciously fraudulent. I find nothing particularly shocking or
> horrific there; similarly you should spare us your own protestations of
> shock and horror that we might harbor such suspicions. They are
> perfectly reasonable suspicions based on all that has been published in
> these case, not to mention the culture of the neo-chiefs in the past
> generation.
However, to me the key is not the suspicion, but the movement past
suspicion to outright assumption of guilt, guilt on serious charges,
and with little evidence. This unwarranted progression, and assumption
of roles of judge and jury, seem very common, and indeed is another
classic Murphy tactic.
>
> > For if there is a
> > presumption of proof, the most fundamental one is that we are all
> > innocent until proven guilty, and I have seen no hard evidence of
> > fraud or of him being an impostor.
>
> [and again (in a second post, as if for emphasis!):]
>
> > I find it very, very discomforting that you seek to hold the
> > MacSweeney Doe to high standards of proof with regard to his claim to
> > chiefship, while at the same time you so readily abandon the most
> > fundamental of all presumptions with regard to proof - that we are all
> > innocent until proven guilty, i.e. your readiness to "suspect that the
> > genealogies may well be the products of conscious fabrication."
>
> You do articulate a genuine philosophical conundrum here.
Why thank you.
> Historians
> are trained (and I am trained as a historian) to approach all sources
> from a position of doubt. [One could say the same of art dealers, etc.]
> When a textual source is so closely associated with a person and his
> ambitions as these chiefly genealogies, genealogical observers are in a
> sense torn between the legal habit of presumption of personal innocence,
> and our aboriginal distrust of such texts until proved. That is why I
> am not too personally worked up against people I suspect may be
> indulging in what you recognize as the perennial vice of genealogical
> misrepresentation. I might suspect the genealogy to be fraudulent, but
> I would not necessarily cross the street to avoid its author. In fact I
> might enjoy sitting down to talk with him about it. I find genealogical
> imposture sociologically interesting; I am also interested in the
> unusual methodological questions raised by the evidence presented in
> these chiefly descent cases, including the sloinneadh.
Might I suggest "sticking to the facts" and simply pointing out any
possible/potential holes in any genealogies/claims, and omitting the
subsequent judgmental leap to claims of fraud/impostor, etc., etc.
unless there is actual solid evidence for the latter? That would be
fair. and
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
> http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Regards,
The Chief
The Chief
I rather think you are misunderstanding. Murphy has made it a habit
for years of directly or indirectly imputing fraud to those who
disagree with him. Today, Mr Taylor came close to the same position -
what with "impostors," "spurious genealogies," "conscious
fabrication." etc. These are allegations of **criminal** activity and
intent.
Regards,
The Chief
Greg
The idea that the source and process of determining a clan chief is a
private matter does carry the merit of historical practice; that
practice including straying from the direct line. This logic however
presents double-edged sword: since a clan for all intents and purposes
is a private organization, it really only stands that the
preponderance only effects those charged with the decision. On the
other hand, based on the current state of Irish herladry; that is to
say, that state in which Irish heraldry does not represent statutes or
national sanction. This state being confounded by the MacCarthy
affair, it is only responsible that claimants seeking – Irish
recognition submit themselves to worthy scrutiny, otherwise their
claim carries no more weight than being president of a club. Moreover
it is not only just and act of responsibility to challenge, but a
necessary stand to protect that part of the cultural history that is
being represented and perpetuated.
I do not know exactly what if any personal ax Mr. Murphy has to grind.
But I think that the overall anxiety that has been produced is a good
measure toward making sure that this type of thing does not happen
easily. And that is I think one of the most supportive things that can
happen. ( I make that last statement with the confidence that there
are many - many people who would agree).
Personalities notwithstanding, let’s not forget that Mr. Murphy’s
findings are as open to professional scrutiny as any other work. Yet,
the objective facts genealogically and through precedence support
Sean’s work. It may have been reported I don’t know, but for the
purposes of this discussion, what is the position of the chief
herald? And what does he use as a precedence to uphold his position?
Or is this struggle about such recognition?
Sean J Murphy
> Placing the name of an opponent as the subject of a thread and abusing
> them under a pseudonym is of course a despicable troll habit, and I will
> not respond under such headings in future.
> . . . . .
> Even if my report at
> http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html does
> not show that Mr Sweeney's ancestors were settled farmers in the
> Gartan/Derryveagh area of County Donegal, as I believe it does, it is
> certainly the case that Mr Sweeney has produced no documentary evidence
> to prove his claim of descent from the wandering Doe claimant, Edmond
> Sweeney, encountered by O'Donovan in 1835 some distance away in the
> vicinity of Sheep Haven.
> . . . . .
As one who is accused of going on too much, I must admit that I am
amused by the wordiness of some of the contributors to this thread, and
their disinclination to tackle the key issue, namely, the evidence or
want of it to support the claim to the Mac Sweeney Doe chiefship. Other
contributors rightly draw attention to the issue of evidence, for
example, if I may quote Nat Taylor:
'What interests me as a genealogist is the claim to a particular
descent, which is demonstrably dubious, but is defended not by providing
evidence, but solely (and tellingly) by attacking the critics. This is
one common identifying characteristic of fraudulent genealogy.'
Indeed, ad hominem rather than ad rem.
Sean Murphy
Roger Connor
If -as I suspect- a sloinneadh is a family oral tradition, I would
expect several branches of the family to be independently familiar with
it, and this familiarity itself documented. This would not prove it's
validity, but would go a long way toward it being accepted until/unless
other documentary evidence is produced.
As a genealogist, I would also be prepared to accept corrections to a
genealogy based on further research that uncovered additional documents.
As far as the contentions for "chieftain" are concerned, the lack of
publicly available documentation and the combativeness of the
"contenders" with respect to actually publishing said documentation,
definitely gives me the impression of attempted fraud.
From this side of the salty pond, it REALLY doesn't matter what you
call yourself or what your ancestry was. What matters is what you do,
and the way you do it.
Regards,
Roger
The Chief
Well, Roger, from your side of the pond you would probably resort to
waterboarding to get to the truth of the matter.
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
> Murphy has made it a habit for years of directly or indirectly
> imputing fraud to those who disagree with him. Today, Mr Taylor
> came close to the same position - what with "impostors," "spurious
> genealogies," "conscious fabrication." etc. These are allegations
> of **criminal** activity and intent.
I am unfamiliar with criminal laws in your (oops, I mean Mr. Sweeney's)
neighborhood. Can spinning a fairy story about one's ancestors expose
one to criminal prosecution in Ireland? I doubt it. But I would think
it might expose one to the possibility of civil litigation for fraud if
one obtained money from others on the basis of a false genealogy. I
know nothing of Mr. Sweeney's financial activities. He doesn't have an
order of chivalry, does he?
> Might I suggest "sticking to the facts" and simply pointing out any
> possible/potential holes in any genealogies/claims...
OK.
Thomas Sweeney alleges on his website that he is the "senior known male
descendant of Maolmhuire/ Sir Myles Mac Sweeney, Chief of Doe,
1596-1630; " and further that he is "the senior great great grandson of
Eamonn Rua Mac Sweeney Doe." This Eamon Rua Mac Sweeney Doe was
apparently a tinker living in the vicinity of Sheephaven Bay, County
Donegal, in 1835, who recited a genealogy in which he claimed descent
from the Mac Sweeney chiefs.
I don't see a frank discussion of Sweeney's acknowledged recent
ancestors on his own website, but according to Murphy, Thomas Sweeney
descends from an Edward Sweeney who was living, as a farmer with
grandchildren, at Altnadague, Gartan Parish, Donegal (some miles away
and inland from Sheephaven Bay), at the time of the census of 1851.
Sweeney identifies this Edward, his apparent ancestor, with Eamon Rua
the tinker at Sheephaven in 1835. And while there is a narrative on
the Sweeney website at --
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id40.htm
-- telling a story of the wandering tinker and his extended family,
there doesn't seem to be any dispassionate discussion evaluating and
supporting the claimed identity. The claim is apparently based on oral
tradition, but nowhere do I see a simple statement of the substance of
that oral tradition, let alone quotation of dated recitations with
attribution to particular informants, etc., such as is customary in the
scholarly presentation of oral history. Since the only reporting of
this oral tradition appears to come from the very person who is an
interested party (i.e. Thomas Sweeney), we should naturally be wary of
its evidentiary value. If on the other hand we had independent
testimony that the Sweeneys of Altnadague always said they were
descended from Eamon Rua, or even from the Sweeney chiefs, then we might
have better reason to believe it.
Thomas Sweeney has stated (on the page cited above) that the identity
has been proved: "[A] consultant genealogist was able to confirm that
the Edward Sweeney ... listed on the ... 1851 census extract for ...
Altnadague ... was the Mac Swayne na Doe ... whom O Donovan met in
September 1835." What is the evidence for this confirmation? The
wording implies that the consultant found some evidence beyond the
alleged oral tradition from within Sweeney's own family. However, in
the absence of any such evidence, we have to proceed as if the claimed
identity is based on nothing more than Sweeney's say-so.
Murphy long ago pointed out that there was an Edward Sweeney listed at
Altnadague in the 1833 tithe applotment book (therefore a landowning
farmer), who is an obvious candidate to be identical with the
grandfather farming in the same place in the 1851 census. This casts
doubt on the alleged identity of the 1851 farmer with the 1835 tinker
miles away. Sweeney chastized Murphy for failing to *prove* that the
Altnadague Edward of 1833 and the Altnagadue Edward of 1851 were
identical, but this mistakes the genealogical burden of proof: without
proving the identity of the Altnadague Edwards, Murphy still
significantly weakened Sweeney's scenario simply by providing a *more
plausible* and mutually exclusive alternative. That does not mean the
more plausible scenario must be correct, but it means that a genealogist
should be less willing to accept the *less plausible* scenario based
only on an alleged descendant's alleged oral tradition.
Another segment of the pedigree is the alleged ancestry of the Eamon Rua
who claimed chiefly descent in 1835, back to the original early modern
chiefs. Here, it is interesting that the version of Eamon Rua's
ancestry presented by Sweeney has changed several times over the course
of years, apparently at least partly in response to various problems and
inconsistencies pointed out by Murphy. This suggests, at best, a
malleable oral tradition, which should increase one's doubts about its
trustworthiness, including the part of the tradition that alleged
descent from Eamon Rua himself.
All in all, the chiefly descent seems a slender and implausible
genealogical claim, in which the oral tradition which supports it is not
presented in any systematic way (fixed as a narrative attributed to a
particular informant at a particular time); and furthermore the
integrity of the oral tradition is impugned both by its own apparent
malleability, and by the existence of a plausible, mutually exclusive
alternative implied by the Altnadague applotment book of 1833.
Given all this I'm quite comfortable placing the whole alleged chiefly
descent of Thomas Sweeney in a big tub labeled 'unproved', and within
that tub in a smaller one labeled 'suspected conscious fabrication'.
I'd also be quite comfortable moving it to a different tub if new
evidence warranted it (if, for example, someone could share the evidence
allegedly found by the consulting genealogist which confirms the
identity of the Altnadague Edward and Sheep Haven Eamon Rua).
The Chief
It seems much, much simpler to me. It is indisputable that Eamon Rua
was generally acknowledged in his own lifetime as the MacSweeney Doe.
Thus the details of his exact lineage are not at all critical, what is
critical is whether the claimant is descended from or related to Eamon
Rua. A second critical point is that Eamon's son Tarlagh died as late
as 1916 (after having been described as of Princely blood in the Irish
Times in 1909, also indisputable). This is well into modern times and
also well within what I might call the period when "general repute"
can be used - i.e. if the residents of Co. Donegal are at all like my
relatives then whether the claimant is indeed of the correct family or
not would be common knowledge. If he were a fraud I would expect his
neighbours and relatives to have stated so long, long ago. As they
have not done so to my knowledge, I take it that he is correct. To me,
this general repute is worth far, far more than just how many Edward
Swinneys there were in an 1833 tythe valuation (there being several).
Regards,
The Chief
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> The 'chief' wrote:
>
> > Murphy has made it a habit for years of directly or indirectly
> > imputing fraud to those who disagree with him. Today, Mr Taylor
> > came close to the same position - what with "impostors," "spurious
> > genealogies," "conscious fabrication." etc. These are allegations
> > of **criminal** activity and intent.
>
> I am unfamiliar with criminal laws in your (oops, I mean Mr. Sweeney's)
> neighborhood. Can spinning a fairy story about one's ancestors expose
> one to criminal prosecution in Ireland? I doubt it. But I would think
> it might expose one to the possibility of civil litigation for fraud if
> one obtained money from others on the basis of a false genealogy. I
> know nothing of Mr. Sweeney's financial activities. He doesn't have an
> order of chivalry, does he?
No, it would not necessarily be civil litigation, but could be
criminal - old common law offence of false pretenses, though probably
now replaced/augmented by some statutory offence.
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<1a071cfc-6f07-4b57...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> It seems much, much simpler to me. It is indisputable that Eamon Rua
> was generally acknowledged in his own lifetime as the MacSweeney Doe.
Generally acknowledged? I am not sure how general.
> Thus the details of his exact lineage are not at all critical,
Except insofar as the malleability of his ancestry as variously reported
by Thomas Sweeney tends to lessen the credibility of the oral tradition
Thomas Sweeney purported to have drawn on for that information, thereby
calling into question Sweeney's descend from Eamon Rua.
> what is critical is whether the claimant is descended from or
> related to Eamon Rua.
Agreed.
> A second critical point is that Eamon's son Tarlagh died as late
> as 1916 (after having been described as of Princely blood in the Irish
> Times in 1909, also indisputable). This is well into modern times and
> also well within what I might call the period when "general repute"
> can be used - i.e. if the residents of Co. Donegal are at all like my
> relatives then whether the claimant is indeed of the correct family or
> not would be common knowledge. If he were a fraud I would expect his
> neighbours and relatives to have stated so long, long ago. As they
> have not done so to my knowledge, I take it that he is correct.
I do not think this argument from silence is particularly strong.
Granted Tarlagh died in 1916, but he lived and died nowhere near
Altnadague. The implausibility of the transition of his piper / tinker
father into a settled farmer at Altnadague, and the lack of reference to
the alleged Altnadague farmer kinsmen in any account of this Tarlagh,
all seems to cast doubt. And who among the locals would now gainsay an
alleged connection now 165 years distant? It may be that all the
Donegal Sweeneys claim descent from the chiefly family. And it may be
that many of them do in fact descend in some way from the chiefly clan:
it is far more likely than not.
But this particular alleged descent seems rather shaky; indeed, it seems
to me that it could well be a force fit between the claimant's known
ancestor and a contemporary of the same name. Because I know this to be
a reasonably common form of genealogical deception (self-deception or
conscious deception of others), I am ready to hypothesize that it might
be so in this case.
> To me,
> this general repute is worth far, far more than just how many Edward
> Swinneys there were in an 1833 tythe valuation (there being several).
How many Edward Sweeneys there are in other nearby townlands in the 1833
tithe valuation is a red herring. The fact that there is exactly one
Edward farming at Altnadague, right where one finds an older man of the
same name farming in the census 18 years later, suggests that that
particular Edward might be the same man. This suggests an alternative
story which seems more plausible, and therefore inclines me to doubt the
Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity.
Now that we've reviewed the cards which are face-up, would you by any
chance be willing to share the details of the consultant's alleged
confirmation of the Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity?
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> In article
> <1a071cfc-6f07-4b57...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems much, much simpler to me. It is indisputable that Eamon Rua
> > was generally acknowledged in his own lifetime as the MacSweeney Doe.
>
> Generally acknowledged? I am not sure how general.
Dr. O'Donovan is surely unimpeachable.
>
> > Thus the details of his exact lineage are not at all critical,
>
> Except insofar as the malleability of his ancestry as variously reported
> by Thomas Sweeney tends to lessen the credibility of the oral tradition
> Thomas Sweeney purported to have drawn on for that information, thereby
> calling into question Sweeney's descend from Eamon Rua.
The 'malleability" is IIRC correctly with regard to the exact nature
of the relationship between early members of the line - a point which
is often ambiguous in Irish genealogies.
>
> > what is critical is whether the claimant is descended from or
> > related to Eamon Rua.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > A second critical point is that Eamon's son Tarlagh died as late
> > as 1916 (after having been described as of Princely blood in the Irish
> > Times in 1909, also indisputable). This is well into modern times and
> > also well within what I might call the period when "general repute"
> > can be used - i.e. if the residents of Co. Donegal are at all like my
> > relatives then whether the claimant is indeed of the correct family or
> > not would be common knowledge. If he were a fraud I would expect his
> > neighbours and relatives to have stated so long, long ago. As they
> > have not done so to my knowledge, I take it that he is correct.
>
> I do not think this argument from silence is particularly strong.
> Granted Tarlagh died in 1916, but he lived and died nowhere near
> Altnadague. The implausibility of the transition of his piper / tinker
> father into a settled farmer at Altnadague, and the lack of reference to
> the alleged Altnadague farmer kinsmen in any account of this Tarlagh,
> all seems to cast doubt. And who among the locals would now gainsay an
> alleged connection now 165 years distant? It may be that all the
> Donegal Sweeneys claim descent from the chiefly family. And it may be
> that many of them do in fact descend in some way from the chiefly clan:
> it is far more likely than not.
Irish rural communities have amazingly long memories, If I were
seriously interested in resolving this puzzle, as some profess to be,
I would hot-foot it to Donegal. I can guarantee that a few days of
research with the right people would absolutely resolve this one way
or the other.
You may disagree with this all you want, but I am certain of it. In my
own family, I went straight back to the 1840s and indeed much earlier
from personal knowledge in multiple lines. A native traditional family
of Co. Donegal would be no different.
>
> But this particular alleged descent seems rather shaky; indeed, it seems
> to me that it could well be a force fit between the claimant's known
> ancestor and a contemporary of the same name. Because I know this to be
> a reasonably common form of genealogical deception (self-deception or
> conscious deception of others), I am ready to hypothesize that it might
> be so in this case.
Perfectly possible, but the current claimant would undoubtedly know
that his was not the correct family, and he would indeed be a fraud.
Having multiple lines of my own with folk of the same name all over
the place, I would also say that almost any explanation is possible,
and being perhaps simply old fashioned I prefer to believe that Mr
MacSweeney is an honest gentleman, absent conclusive evidence to the
contrary.
>
> > To me,
> > this general repute is worth far, far more than just how many Edward
> > Swinneys there were in an 1833 tythe valuation (there being several).
>
> How many Edward Sweeneys there are in other nearby townlands in the 1833
> tithe valuation is a red herring. The fact that there is exactly one
> Edward farming at Altnadague, right where one finds an older man of the
> same name farming in the census 18 years later, suggests that that
> particular Edward might be the same man. This suggests an alternative
> story which seems more plausible, and therefore inclines me to doubt the
> Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity.
Oh, it is trivial to come up with alternatives. Remember, even at the
best of times, Irish BMD and parish records do not provide enough data
to define a unique genealogy, so personal knowledge is **always**
required. This is in complete contrast to records in many other parts
of the world, such US, Australia, etc, where the records are detailed
enough to define unique descents. Thus, the key to determining your
family in Ireland is to have the personal knowledge required to make
the correct choices between all the alternatives. Where I have not had
such direct knowledge, I have had to resort to reconstructing all
families of the relevant surname in a district - very tedious I can
assure you. As a native of Donegal, of a long settled Donegal family,
I have little doubt that Mr MacSweeney has the local knowledge
necessary to untangle his roots. Murphy's boasts not withstanding, it
is also clear that the latter has not put in the effort required to
untangle the MacSweeneys of the district.
>
> Now that we've reviewed the cards which are face-up, would you by any
> chance be willing to share the details of the consultant's alleged
> confirmation of the Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity?
I have absolutely no knowledge of same.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook:
Regards,
The Chief
Turenne
>If he were a fraud I would expect his
>neighbours and relatives to have stated so long, long ago. As they
>have not done so to my knowledge, I take it that he is correct.
You've really thought about this matter long and hard haven't you? I'd
be interested to see other examples of your genealogical 'research'.
RL
Nathaniel Taylor
<87f8f216-74ca-49de...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> Irish rural communities have amazingly long memories, If I were
> seriously interested in resolving this puzzle, as some profess to be,
> I would hot-foot it to Donegal. I can guarantee that a few days of
> research with the right people would absolutely resolve this one way
> or the other.
> You may disagree with this all you want, but I am certain of it.
Your certainty on this does not impress me. I have already said that it
is a weak argument from silence.
> > But this particular alleged descent seems rather shaky; indeed, it seems
> > to me that it could well be a force fit between the claimant's known
> > ancestor and a contemporary of the same name. Because I know this to be
> > a reasonably common form of genealogical deception (self-deception or
> > conscious deception of others), I am ready to hypothesize that it might
> > be so in this case.
>
> Perfectly possible, but the current claimant would undoubtedly know
> that his was not the correct family, and he would indeed be a fraud.
Indeed.
> Having multiple lines of my own with folk of the same name all over
> the place, I would also say that almost any explanation is possible,
> and being perhaps simply old fashioned I prefer to believe that Mr
> MacSweeney is an honest gentleman, absent conclusive evidence to the
> contrary.
You are free to believe what you wish.
> > How many Edward Sweeneys there are in other nearby townlands in the 1833
> > tithe valuation is a red herring. The fact that there is exactly one
> > Edward farming at Altnadague, right where one finds an older man of the
> > same name farming in the census 18 years later, suggests that that
> > particular Edward might be the same man. This suggests an alternative
> > story which seems more plausible, and therefore inclines me to doubt the
> > Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity.
>
> Oh, it is trivial to come up with alternatives. Remember, even at the
> best of times, Irish BMD and parish records do not provide enough data
> to define a unique genealogy, so personal knowledge is **always**
> required.
You fail to understand (or pretend to fail to understand) the
significance of this particular tithe book entry. A genealogist
recognizes the role it plays in compromising the unsupported claims of
Mr. Sweeney.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
The Chief
You know, simple, trivial methods are often the best, despite
prejudice to the contrary. I stated that if I were investigating this
claim to chiefship I would go talk to neighbours and relatives in
Donegal. I stand by that advice.
As for my own genealogical research, it has been uncommonly successful
(by Irish standards), based in large part on my willingness to simply
talk to people.
Regards,
the Chief
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> In article
> <87f8f216-74ca-49de...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Irish rural communities have amazingly long memories, If I were
> > seriously interested in resolving this puzzle, as some profess to be,
> > I would hot-foot it to Donegal. I can guarantee that a few days of
> > research with the right people would absolutely resolve this one way
> > or the other.
> > You may disagree with this all you want, but I am certain of it.
>
> Your certainty on this does not impress me. I have already said that it
> is a weak argument from silence.
if you read more carefully, you would have noticed that I advocate a
more active role - go and ask!
>
> > > But this particular alleged descent seems rather shaky; indeed, it seems
> > > to me that it could well be a force fit between the claimant's known
> > > ancestor and a contemporary of the same name. Because I know this to be
> > > a reasonably common form of genealogical deception (self-deception or
> > > conscious deception of others), I am ready to hypothesize that it might
> > > be so in this case.
> >
> > Perfectly possible, but the current claimant would undoubtedly know
> > that his was not the correct family, and he would indeed be a fraud.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > Having multiple lines of my own with folk of the same name all over
> > the place, I would also say that almost any explanation is possible,
> > and being perhaps simply old fashioned I prefer to believe that Mr
> > MacSweeney is an honest gentleman, absent conclusive evidence to the
> > contrary.
>
> You are free to believe what you wish.
Indeed
>
> > > How many Edward Sweeneys there are in other nearby townlands in the 1833
> > > tithe valuation is a red herring. The fact that there is exactly one
> > > Edward farming at Altnadague, right where one finds an older man of the
> > > same name farming in the census 18 years later, suggests that that
> > > particular Edward might be the same man. This suggests an alternative
> > > story which seems more plausible, and therefore inclines me to doubt the
> > > Eamon Rua - Edward Sweeney identity.
> >
> > Oh, it is trivial to come up with alternatives. Remember, even at the
> > best of times, Irish BMD and parish records do not provide enough data
> > to define a unique genealogy, so personal knowledge is **always**
> > required.
>
> You fail to understand (or pretend to fail to understand) the
> significance of this particular tithe book entry. A genealogist
> recognizes the role it plays in compromising the unsupported claims of
> Mr. Sweeney.
But does it? The tythe valuations shows just two holders of land in
Altinnadague, Griffith's valuation (1857?) shows three, consistent
with Mr MacSwinney'c claim that there were changes in the landholding.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Therer are so many records such as census and church, that a familial
line is easily traceable - together with traditions. There are the
wills and admin records etc. The point being that any siblings can
link the Edwards together and so on. Many cemetary inscriptions list
siblings as well. Failing all of this, there is the realtively
inexpensive DNA matching that is now a prime tool in genealogical
research. Since the surname is not the question, the maternal line
should be the avenue. I'm sure that there is more than one descendant
so the answer should be easily obtainable. I'm very surprised that
this hasn't been mentioned.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would like to add that, I am not a professional genealogist, yet I
do posess very good research skills and an exceptional knowledge of
history, and just on my own I have a very neat and tidy trace to 1682
which extends well out of the bounds of the US. This was done using
the sources that I have named above, save for DNA. I cannot
understand the importance of this "Title" that is being claimed, other
than a connection to clandonald. Having said that, I don't understand
the level of difficulty that this has turned into.
Nathaniel Taylor
<23899407-67a1-432b...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> > Your certainty on this does not impress me. I have already said that it
> > is a weak argument from silence.
>
> if you read more carefully, you would have noticed that I advocate a
> more active role - go and ask!
and again:
> You know, simple, trivial methods are often the best, despite
> prejudice to the contrary. I stated that if I were investigating this
> claim to chiefship I would go talk to neighbours and relatives in
> Donegal. I stand by that advice. As for my own genealogical research,
> it has been uncommonly successful (by Irish standards), based in
> large part on my willingness to simply talk to people.
I did notice this advice. You are advocating that those who doubt the
line do homework--but it is up to the proponent of a line to take the
steps necessary to support it. All that is necessary for doubt is to
show that the proponent has not brought sufficient evidence to the
table. If, once the holes are pointed out, the proponent cannot support
his statements, then the line may be discounted. In this case, there is
no indication that this particular homework has ever been done--either
behind closed doors or for publication.
Essentially you are saying that if Mr. Sweeney's claim were false, some
Donegal neighbor with a 165-year memory would have spoken up before now.
I doubt it. I agree that canvassing a neighborhood for genealogical
memory *can* be very useful, but I doubt it would be conclusive in this
case. I am not prejudiced against this type of evidence in general, but
as with any evidence the burden is on the proponent to marshal it.
Given his apparent reliance on his own family's alleged oral traditions,
Mr. Sweeney should long ago have:
1. compiled a documented genealogy of all traceable descendants of
Edward Sweeney of Altnadague, who had children and grandchildren living
under at least three roofs at Altnadague in 1851 and surely has multiple
lines of modern descendants (though Thomas Sweeney claims to be Edward's
senior male descendant);
2. secured and published dated transcripts of oral testimony by such
cousins documenting the family tradition of descent from the Sweeney
chiefs and/or Eamon Rua, or any kinship to the piper Tarlagh (d. 1916);
and
3. compiled oral testimony of the neighborhood's 'general repute' (which
you have assumed to exist without any statement to that effect by Mr.
Sweeney, though perhaps I missed it) that these Altnadague farmers were
of chiefly blood or kin to Eamon Rua or Tarlagh.
If Mr. Sweeney earnestly desired to advance his claimed genealogy in the
best possible light--and if he were serious about advancing the
scholarly acceptance of oral genealogical testimony, which is one of the
causes championed by the neo-chiefly caste--he would already have done
these things. Since I see nothing of the sort on Mr. Sweeney's
voluminous website, I am left with the provisional conclusion that no
such data has been collected: all that one can currently view in support
of the claimed ancestry is Mr. Sweeney's own say-so.
Since Mr. Sweeney did not do this work, should his critics do it? It
depends how motivated we are. I have no interest in proving or
disproving Mr. Sweeney's claim: my interest was in analyzing the already
published evidence to show why Mr. Murphy's conclusions and suspicions
are appropriate. Beyond that I will not volunteer on this case
(Donegal, while lovely, is too far away and I am too busy).
By the way, I notice that Mr. Sweeney continues to update his website
regularly, usually with anti-Murphy invective. If by some chance
testimony such as I've outlined were miraculously to appear on his site
sometime soon, I would be hesitant to trust it. As of now, the
existence of such roads not taken--work left undone which should have
been done by the claimant--contributes to my suspicions about the
genealogy.
Roger Connor
>> Therer are so many records such as census and church, that a familial
>> line is easily traceable - together with traditions. There are the
>> wills and admin records etc. The point being that any siblings can
>> link the Edwards together and so on. Many cemetary inscriptions list
>> siblings as well. Failing all of this, there is the realtively
>> inexpensive DNA matching that is now a prime tool in genealogical
>> research. Since the surname is not the question, the maternal line
>> should be the avenue. I'm sure that there is more than one descendant
>> so the answer should be easily obtainable. I'm very surprised that
>> this hasn't been mentioned.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I would like to add that, I am not a professional genealogist, yet I
> do posess very good research skills and an exceptional knowledge of
> history, and just on my own I have a very neat and tidy trace to 1682
> which extends well out of the bounds of the US. This was done using
> the sources that I have named above, save for DNA. I cannot
> understand the importance of this "Title" that is being claimed, other
> than a connection to clandonald. Having said that, I don't understand
> the level of difficulty that this has turned into.
Greg,
DNA testing can prove that you are, or are not the suspect individual
that committed the crime that left a DNA sample -provided a sibling is
not also suspect. It can prove that you are or are not related to
specific other individuals, depending on exactly what is tested, and
what the relationship is. I.E. direct male decent - Y chromosome is
fairly easy. This is assuming that, for example, Roger Connor and Frank
Connor had a common male ancestor (it does NOT identify which common
male ancestor). Direct female decent is also fairly easy. Otherwise,
tends to get to be really difficult. ALL of the above are not cheap
tests, and takes lots of time (although that is decreasing).
Usually, in genealogy, the questions are: who were X's parents, where
did they live, where did they come from. If you know he had siblings,
tracking them may provide clues. But a large number of records have been
destroyed in fires, lost to the ravages of wars, or overzealous
"cleaners" who throw out "unnecessary obsolete papers". That's assuming
a record to begin with. Those of us with Amerind ancestry from the early
1700's are just out of luck for the most part, as very few records were
made.
Regards,
Roger
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Roger,
I disagree. With respect to DNA; there are two keys - the Y chromosome
determines which Edward the descent is from: other Edwards may not in
fact be MacSweeneys. The key however is tracing the X chromosome: the
true descent will show in the maternal line because X is the
variable... X's descent in this case came from a specific individual,
and that individual(s) back through line is the trail of bread crumbs:
Each Edward in the equation has a modern descendant: if there are
three Edwards, we're talking about three people: at aproximately $850.
per for a chomrehensive X-Y study we're looking at around $ 2600.00,
and that ain't very much.
We're also talkning about a trace from 1835, to 2008, that's about 3
to 4 generations; not much. I think that if these guys truly want to
go after this, they should stop messing around. I see this thing as
having been WAY over dissected.
The Chief
> In article
> <23899407-67a1-432b-887a-0d369fe5a...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Nat,
Historically, rec.heraldry was not a haven for slow learners, yet
here you are presenting nothing but a warmed over regurgitation of
your comments from Thursday - a dog's breakfast. These are no more
convincing or relevant now than they were then, so to recapitulate
what I stated to you on Thursday: The claim to be the MacSweeney Doe
does not depend on acceptance or validation by you, Murphy, or Joe
Blow. Mr MacSweeney is under no obligation to provide public
documentation; the essential recognition he requires is that of the
members of his clann/sept, and theirs alone.
As for the comments I made on Friday, it seems I again need to correct
you in that the "memory" which I advocate looking for in Donegal is
not one of 165 years as you say, but one of less than 100 years, i.e.
is the claimant's family close kin of Tarlagh Sweeney, or not?
Finally, the most important point here is that it is **you** who
continue to play fast and loose with the burden of proof: if you and
Murphy are going to make criminal allegations about Mr MacSweeney,
which you have done, then it is **you** who need proof - absolute,
beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof, not vague, generalised "suspicions".
Absence such proof, your accusations are completely unacceptable, and
you are behaving no differently than Murphy; howling in the ditch,
throwing dirt.
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<6dcc6d73-cf27-4f0e...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> ... to recapitulate
> what I stated to you on Thursday: The claim to be the MacSweeney Doe
> does not depend on acceptance or validation by you, Murphy, or Joe
> Blow. Mr MacSweeney is under no obligation to provide public
> documentation; the essential recognition he requires is that of the
> members of his clann/sept, and theirs alone.
Yes, that's true: Sweeney and his organization are free to say what they
like and elect whom they wish based on whatever system they wish to use.
How many feathers Sweeney wears, and by whose leave, does nothing for
his unsupported genealogical claim.
> Finally, the most important point here is that it is **you** who
> continue to play fast and loose with the burden of proof ...
I have been clear and consistent on articulating the role of the burden
of proof in this case. It is you -- who launched this whole chain of
discussion with your tired, regurgitated ad-hominem attacks on Sean
Murphy -- who obviously doesn't like what's being said and therefore
(among other ruses) continues to pretend not to understand the concepts.
> if you and
> Murphy are going to make criminal allegations about Mr MacSweeney,
> which you have done, then it is **you** who need proof - absolute,
> beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof, not vague, generalised "suspicions".
> Absence such proof, your accusations are completely unacceptable, and
> you are behaving no differently than Murphy; howling in the ditch,
> throwing dirt.
Redundant *and* deliberately distorted: you are in fine form. I have
discussed specifically why Sweeney's genealogy is not only substantively
unsupported, but the way it has been put forward, 'massaged', and
defended, as well as the known example of similar claims in recent
memory, leads reasonably to a suspicion of conscious fabrication. This
is not a 'vague' or 'generalised' suspicion, but a specific one, based
on interpretation of the evidence at hand. So far as I know, the
articulation of such a suspicion is not a criminal allegation in my
jurisdiction or his.
The Chief
> The Chief <The_Chieft...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > ... to recapitulate
> > what I stated to you on Thursday: The claim to be the MacSweeney Doe
> > does not depend on acceptance or validation by you, Murphy, or Joe
> > Blow. Mr MacSweeney is under no obligation to provide public
> > documentation; the essential recognition he requires is that of the
> > members of his clann/sept, and theirs alone.
>
> Yes, that's true: Sweeney and his organization are free to say what they
> like and elect whom they wish based on whatever system they wish to use.
> How many feathers Sweeney wears, and by whose leave, does nothing for
> his unsupported genealogical claim.
Hardly unsupported.
>
> > Finally, the most important point here is that it is **you** who
> > continue to play fast and loose with the burden of proof ...
>
> I have been clear and consistent on articulating the role of the burden
> of proof in this case.
Very clear with regard to genealogical proof, but blind with regard to
the completely separate allegations of fraud, spurious claims, etc.
You make those allegations, **you** provide the proof.
>It is you -- who launched this whole chain of
> discussion with your tired, regurgitated ad-hominem attacks on Sean
> Murphy -- who obviously doesn't like what's being said and therefore
> (among other ruses) continues to pretend not to understand the concepts.
This is a reversal of the truth. Murphy undeniably initiated this
"discussion" with one of frequent and trademark appearances to howl
from the ditch and throw dirt - his contribution to this forum for
years now. Now that is regurgitation, but you have no comment on that.
Murphy's motive in doing so is very well known, and was related to us
by Murphy himself in the first place, but reminding people of this
fact and of the unjustified dirt that he has spewed is an "ad-hominem
attack." My heart bleeds.
>
> > if you and
> > Murphy are going to make criminal allegations about Mr MacSweeney,
> > which you have done, then it is **you** who need proof - absolute,
> > beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof, not vague, generalised "suspicions".
> > Absence such proof, your accusations are completely unacceptable, and
> > you are behaving no differently than Murphy; howling in the ditch,
> > throwing dirt.
>
> Redundant *and* deliberately distorted: you are in fine form. I have
> discussed specifically why Sweeney's genealogy is not only substantively
> unsupported, but the way it has been put forward, 'massaged', and
> defended, as well as the known example of similar claims in recent
> memory, leads reasonably to a suspicion of conscious fabrication. This
> is not a 'vague' or 'generalised' suspicion, but a specific one, based
> on interpretation of the evidence at hand. So far as I know, the
> articulation of such a suspicion is not a criminal allegation in my
> jurisdiction or his.
Don't play games with us and pretend not to understand what you and
Murphy have been alleging. Conscious fabrication and numerous other
comments directly imply fraud and false pretenses, which is criminal
in Ireland, whatever about your ditch. The basic fact here is that you
have no proof at all for your very serious allegations, but you throw
the dirt anyway, and then get agitated when this is pointed out.
>
> Nat Taylor
> a genealogist's sketchbook: http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
have articulated doubts about the veracity of Sweeney's genealogical
claims; and, like Murphy, I have articulated doubts about the veracity
of Sweeney in making and defending them.
Thank you for letting us know.
The Chief
> Well, 'chief', apparently you do not like the fact that, like Murphy, I
> have articulated doubts about the veracity of Sweeney's genealogical
> claims; and, like Murphy, I have articulated doubts about the veracity
> of Sweeney in making and defending them.
>
If you and Murphy were to stick to the former, who could disagree? Mr
MacSweeney's claims are not fully documented in public.
But you and Murphy do not limit yourself to firm ground, you discredit
your own position and arguments by proceeding to make serious
allegations and innuendo that are unsupported by proof. Such
allegations are unacceptable without proof, and the burden of proof is
on you on you. Now why Murphy should want to do this is clear, while
you perplex me.
[Aside: you strike me as a "PC" sort, surely just as there are no
longer any "illegal immigrants" in the US, merely undocumented, an
unjudgmental classification of "undocumented chief" should appeal to
you?]
> Thank you for letting us know.
Glad to be of service.
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<5503e7ad-4afa-4d83...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 1:02 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > Well, 'chief', apparently you do not like the fact that, like Murphy, I
> > have articulated doubts about the veracity of Sweeney's genealogical
> > claims; and, like Murphy, I have articulated doubts about the veracity
> > of Sweeney in making and defending them.
> >
> serious allegations and innuendo that are unsupported by proof. Such
> allegations are unacceptable without proof, and the burden of proof is
> on you on you.
I have stated the reasons why I doubt the genealogy claimed by Sweeney.
I have also stated my suspicion that it may be consciously
misrepresented. Yes, these are quite distinct ideas and the second is
more 'serious' than the first (only a fraction of false genealogies are
produced consciously). And yes, the burden of proof is certainly on one
who would state such a thing to be so -- just as the burden of proof is
on one who claims a specific genealogy to be just so, or who claims
anything to be just so.
I do not know whether my suspicion of conscious misrepresentation is
correct, and I have said that I do not know. I do not agree that it is
unacceptable to make such a speculation, first because I have logically
stated what has given rise to this suspicion (therefore I have been
intellectually responsible), and second because I am, after all, stating
an opinion, something which is usually allowed to stand even without
stated reasoning.
Nothing you have said has persuaded me that this suspicion is untenable,
neither have you convinced me that it irresponsible or somehow
dishonorable to state it. No one else has stepped forward to reinforce
such a view, but maybe we can open the table on this point? I would be
interested to hear how this fits with the mores of others on this forum.
The Chief
> In article
> <5503e7ad-4afa-4d83-94a5-32d1d2025...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
A very, very American view of the issue, from an American. However,
the legal position in both Ireland and Britain is completely different
than in the US; any damaging written or oral comments and opinions
regarding a person have to be true, and provably true, or you are
liable for libel or slander. Stating the grounds for your opinion has
no impact on this legal responsibility that damaging allegations
**must** be demonstrably true. And yes, the legal burden is on **you**
to prove the truth of your allegations, e.g.
see http://www.carter-ruck.com/FAQs/Libel%20and%20Slander%20Cases.html
So, as for reinforcement of my view, I would claim the law itself.
Regards,
The Chief
Nathaniel Taylor
<845ea90c-e3e5-442d...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
The Chief <The_Ch...@att.net> wrote:
> > I have stated the reasons why I doubt the genealogy claimed by Sweeney.
> > I have also stated my suspicion that it may be consciously
> > misrepresented. Yes, these are quite distinct ideas and the second is
> > more 'serious' than the first (only a fraction of false genealogies are
> > produced consciously). And yes, the burden of proof is certainly on one
> > who would state such a thing to be so -- just as the burden of proof is
> > on one who claims a specific genealogy to be just so, or who claims
> > anything to be just so.
> >
> > I do not know whether my suspicion of conscious misrepresentation is
> > correct, and I have said that I do not know. I do not agree that it is
> > unacceptable to make such a speculation, first because I have logically
> > stated what has given rise to this suspicion (therefore I have been
> > intellectually responsible), and second because I am, after all, stating
> > an opinion, something which is usually allowed to stand even without
> > stated reasoning.
> >
> > Nothing you have said has persuaded me that this suspicion is untenable,
> > neither have you convinced me that it irresponsible or somehow
> > dishonorable to state it. No one else has stepped forward to reinforce
> > such a view, but maybe we can open the table on this point? I would be
> > interested to hear how this fits with the mores of others on this forum.
>
> A very, very American view of the issue, from an American. However,
> the legal position in both Ireland and Britain is completely different
> than in the US; any damaging written or oral comments and opinions
> regarding a person have to be true, and provably true, or you are
> liable for libel or slander. Stating the grounds for your opinion has
> no impact on this legal responsibility that damaging allegations
> **must** be demonstrably true. And yes, the legal burden is on **you**
> to prove the truth of your allegations, e.g.
> see http://www.carter-ruck.com/FAQs/Libel%20and%20Slander%20Cases.html
>
> So, as for reinforcement of my view, I would claim the law itself.
While I happen to disagree with your assessment of the exposure of my
observations to defamation action in UK law (let alone US; I have no
knowledge of Irish law), I suppose it is possible that differences in
defamation laws might have affected our respective expectations of the
bounds of appropriate speech here, and given rise to more shock and
vituperation than would otherwise have appeared. That is not to say
that I would not necessarily have come to (and voiced) the same
conclusions had I operated with a different set of subconscious legal
boundaries.
Joseph McMillan
>
> A very, very American view of the issue, from an American. However,
> the legal position in both Ireland and Britain is completely different
> than in the US; any damaging written or oral comments and opinions
> regarding a person have to be true, and provably true, or you are
> liable for libel or slander. Stating the grounds for your opinion has
> no impact on this legal responsibility that damaging allegations
> **must** be demonstrably true. And yes, the legal burden is on **you**
> to prove the truth of your allegations, e.g.
>
> So, as for reinforcement of my view, I would claim the law itself.
>
claiming various "chiefdoms" and their apologists. Be careful, or
I'll sue you for libel in the English/Irish courts! Yet somehow even
those within England and Ireland who express doubts about such claims
never find themselves in court. Why is that?
Joseph McMillan
The Chief
Follow the links or do your own search - am I right, or wrong?
Regards,
The Chief
Joseph McMillan
Right or wrong about what? About what a firm of libel lawyers tells
prospective clients about the English libel laws? I never doubted
that anyone who thinks he's been defamed can sue. My question is,
that being the case, why don't any of these chiefs, title vendors,
etc., actually do so? Could it be that their solicitors tell them
they couldn't win? Could it be that they understand that they then
open up their own claims to being publicly scrutinized by an
adversarial process that the claims cannot withstand?
I don't find the answer to those questions on the link you provide.
Joseph McMillan
Sean J Murphy
discussion of libel and slander, with dark hints that certain critics of
a certain claimant to chiefship might find themselves in court. This is
of course a favourite tactic of spurious claimants, the following being
an extract from a letter sent on behalf of Terence MacCarthy in 1998:
'. . . we shall institute proceedings for libel, slander and defamation
of character, and seek pecuniary damages'. Unfortunately, I was never
the lucky recipient of such a gem, although I understand some
contributors to this forum were in receipt of legal threats.
Meanwhile, the claimant to the Mac Sweeney Doe title has ceased to
bother to try and patch up the shambles of a pedigree at
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm, which has Donogh Oge, died in
France after 1691 (near Toulouse perchance?), suspended ambiguously as
the simultaneous son of three brothers.
Sean Murphy
Report on Mac sweeney Doe Chiefship
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html
Greg
>
> So, as for reinforcement of my view, I would claim the law itself.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anybody can stand on any street corner (rec.heraldry) and say anything
they want about anybody, for any reason. It is up to the damaged
party to follow through. And about the most they'll get on the
interent is to get the ISP to put presure on the submitter; and since
this Sweeney charachter hasn't said anything, and good luck if he
does, your argument doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of
getting anywhere, so you're barking at the moon. On top of that,
there have been so many of those phony suit threats that the idea is
laughable.
Now, if this Macsweeney, who has not proven his genealogical
connection to the right of chiefship is still making that claim, and
if he is collecting money from ANYBODY using this supposed title; then
he is committing a fraud, and should be prosecuted. But, you know
that Mr. Talon, or didn't that probability occur to you? It is also a
fact (that you should adhere to) that the objective facts in this case
of "Chiefship" do not support Mr. Macsweeney's assertion, because
without supporting facts, it is an assertion and nothing more. The
warrent proposed by Nat and Sean Murphy leave you out in the cold, and
you Mr. Macleod appear to be blowing as much smoke as Macsweeny.
Now --- sue me.
The Chief
So, let me understand you, Joseph. I am supposed to both describe and
defend other peoples legal advice and strategies for you? I think you
need to start paying me the appropriate professional rate (in guineas)
first. What you will find in the link I provided is that the burden
of proof in on the defendant.
Regards,
The Chief
StephenP
>
> So, let me understand you, Joseph. I am supposed to both describe and
> defend other peoples legal advice and strategies for you? I think you
> need to start paying me the appropriate professional rate (in guineas)
> first. What you will find in the link I provided is that the burden
> of proof in on the defendant.
>
> Regards,
I think it is true to say that in a defamation case the defendant
needs to prove what they say is correct. However, saying that you do
not believe that a claim is true or proven is not defamation.
Pointing out inconsistencies in a claim is not defamation.
The idea that you can use the burden of proof from defamation law to
reverse the burden of proof for genealogical claims is fanciful.
Greg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hello Roger,
I did contact a DNA firm with respect to the X maternal line, and the
answer follows:
" Please remember that a Human Male inherits the Y chromosome only
from his father, along with 22 other chromosomes, while his mother
contributes one of her two X-chromosomes, and the other 22-
chromosomes.
In the case of female children, an X-chromosome is inherited from
EACH
parent. Also be aware that in order to compare Genetic material, say
to
establish my decent from my g-g-g-grandfather, we either have to have
some DNA from him, or two lines of direct male decent with no other
common ancestor."
So you are right, and I stand corrected.
Regards
Greg
The Chief
Stephen,
It is sometime difficult in these long "discussions" to keep
track of who said what, so it is important to correct you that I have
**not** put forward the line of argument you are objecting to, rather
the contrary, as shown by the previous exchange with Dr. Taylor, as
appended below. No, what I have been objecting to as unacceptable is
the transition from "there is a gap in your pedigree or proof thereof
at step X," to "you are a fraud". The latter claim reverses the burden
of proof, and such claims should not be bandied around absent proof.
An extract from a previous exchange is as follows:
"> Nathaniel Taylor:
> Well, 'chief', apparently you do not like the fact that, like Murphy, I
> have articulated doubts about the veracity of Sweeney's genealogical
> claims; and, like Murphy, I have articulated doubts about the veracity
> of Sweeney in making and defending them.
The Chief:
If you and Murphy were to stick to the former, who could disagree? Mr
MacSweeney's claims are not fully documented in public.
But you and Murphy do not limit yourself to firm ground, you
discredit
your own position and arguments by proceeding to make serious
allegations and innuendo that are unsupported by proof. Such
allegations are unacceptable without proof, and the burden of proof
is
on you."
Regards,
The Chief
Turenne
>Such allegations are unacceptable without proof, and the burden of proof is on you.
Au contraire! The burden of proof is on the claimant
If someone were to claim that they were 'The Rightful King of England'
should we accept their word for it, or test the veracity of their
claim? All Sean and others are doing is checking (and calling into
question) Mr Sweeney's claims. If Mr Sweeney has incontravertable
proof of his claim, that does not rely solely on his neighbour's and
relatives' evidence (your words), I'm sure they would be happy to
accept his claim.
Richard Lichten
Nathaniel Taylor
<e1bce39d-7cce-4dc7...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Turenne <rick.l...@virgin.net> wrote:
> The Chief wrote:
>
> >Such allegations are unacceptable without proof, and the burden of proof is
> >on you.
>
> Au contraire! The burden of proof is on the claimant
Turenne, Chief understands that the burden of proof is on a claimant of
a genealogy. However, here Chief was referring to the burden of proof
if one claims another to be a fraud. However, he is mistaken to state
or insinuate that I have made such a claim. As I explained to him, my
observations of the obvious holes in the pedigree, combined with of
other behavior of the claimant in defending his pedigree by attacking
his critic, led me to suspect that conscious fraud might be at work;
this is a far cry from saying that it was so. Chief feels that one
should not even voice such suspicions without proof; there we disagree.
Turenne
Turenne, Chief understands that the burden of proof is on a claimant
of
a genealogy. However, here Chief was referring to the burden of
proof
if one claims another to be a fraud. However, he is mistaken to
state
or insinuate that I have made such a claim.
The Chief is doubly wrong then; since an opinion is nearly always
regarded as a defence to defamation, ditto statements made in good
faith and believed to be true, double ditto, statements that are
regarded as fair comment made in the public interest. Your comments
fall into all these categories.
Richard
Greg
That was said by me some time ago on this thread with a different
spin:
"Anybody can stand on any street corner (rec.heraldry) and say
anything
they want about anybody, for any reason. It is up to the damaged
party to follow through. And about the most they'll get on the
interent is to get the ISP to put presure on the submitter; and since
this Sweeney charachter hasn't said anything, and good luck if he
does, your argument doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of
getting anywhere, so you're barking at the moon. On top of that,
there have been so many of those phony suit threats that the idea is
laughable.
Now, if this Macsweeney, who has not proven his genealogical
connection to the right of chiefship is still making that claim, and
if he is collecting money from ANYBODY using this supposed title;
then
he is committing a fraud, and should be prosecuted. But, you know
that Mr. Talon, or didn't that probability occur to you? It is also
a
fact (that you should adhere to) that the objective facts in this
case
of "Chiefship" do not support Mr. Macsweeney's assertion, because
without supporting facts, it is an assertion and nothing more. The
warrent proposed by Nat and Sean Murphy leave you out in the cold,
and
you Mr. Macleod appear to be blowing as much smoke as Macsweeny."
So let him sue or threaten. I'm surprised you guys missed that.