Beautiful Oil Painting of your Family Crest
Rex Alexander
Here's a terrific organization that will create a magnificent oil painting of
your Family Crest / Coat of Arms. If you don't happen to have a copy of your
Family Crest, they will even do the research for you free-of-charge. Check it
out at
e-mail : cre...@family-crests.net
hgfhfgd
Charles
> Beautiful Oil Painting of your Family Crest
>
> Here's a terrific organization that will create a magnificent oil
> painting of your Family Crest / Coat of Arms. If you don't happen to
> have a copy of your Family Crest, they will even do the research for you
> free-of-charge. Check it out at
<remainder deleted>
Yes, yes! Just imagine the Ooohs and Ahhhs you'll get from visitors when
you have this hanging on your wall between the print of the dogs playing
poker and the painting of Elvis on black velvet.
Sean MacLochlainn
news:a8k03f$tvj$1...@news.loxinfo.co.th...
> If you don't happen to have a copy of your
> Family Crest, they will even do the research for you free-of-charge.
I wonder how "in depth" that would be?
Like finding an international phone number by looking in a local directory
for someone with the same surname?
Sean
Micheál Ó Caináin
"Each painting comes with a "COA" Certificate of Authenticity."
Laugh? I nearly died.
Rgds
--
Micheál Ó Caináin
Do not reply to this address. Post to group.
"Sean MacLochlainn" <macloc...@oceanfree.net> wrote in message
news:Hemr8.5364$e5.3...@news.indigo.ie...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release Date: 02/04/02
Hugh McKiernan
>
>
>To my knowledge in comparatively contemporary times the, then, Chief
>Herald of Ireland, Edward MacLysaght managed to arrange for 'generic'
>family coats of arms, meaning that it was lawful for anyone to use
>those so designated . But of course such items specially designed,
>created, and paid for by for an individual was and is copyrighted by
>the individual owner.
>
MacLysaght would love to hear that. In truth coats of arms were
created and adopted by the Irish without the conferral or consent of
the English monarch quite shortly after coats of arms were adopted by
the English. Since the Irish did not use the same system of
primogeniture as used in England but elected their leaders from within
the fine (eighth degree relatives in roman law or fourth degree in
cannon law) the arms were not so much "family" but "tribal" coats of
arms.
They were in widespread use for hundreds of years before MacLysaght
and DeValera decided to recognise sixteen "Irish clans" (despite the
fact that the Tudor monarchs of England recognised more - possibly
because these were the guys waging war against the crown forces!) See
the Fiants of 1588.
It is indeed lawful for anybody to use these coats of arms but since
Irish citizens cannot hold titles there cannot be a family chief,
thereby making it impossible for family members to recognise their
chief as such, consequently making them inelligible to be members of
the clan.
Incidently, chiefs were elected from the dearbhfhine (part of the
fine) meaning that if a branch of the family didn't produce a chief
for four sucessive generations they lost their right to put forward a
candidate.
MacLysaght didn't do anyone any favours in the heraldic department but
he did write some pretty books.. fairytales on genealogy mostly.
H.
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02040...@posting.google.com...
> MacLysaght would love to hear that. In truth coats of arms were
> created and adopted by the Irish without the conferral or consent of
> the English monarch quite shortly after coats of arms were adopted by
> the English.
With a few exceptions, native Irish coats of arms are only traceable to the
17th and 18th centuries. Around the time that the Wild Geese required such
things to get into the French army, not a coincidence in my view.
> Since the Irish did not use the same system of
> primogeniture as used in England but elected their leaders from within
> the fine (eighth degree relatives in roman law or fourth degree in
> cannon law) the arms were not so much "family" but "tribal" coats of
> arms.
The various types of fine are creations of Brehon law. You seem to be
thinking of the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage, which is a
matter for the church.
> They were in widespread use for hundreds of years before MacLysaght
> and DeValera decided to recognise sixteen "Irish clans" (despite the
> fact that the Tudor monarchs of England recognised more - possibly
> because these were the guys waging war against the crown forces!) See
> the Fiants of 1588.
MacLysaght recognised several people as genealogical successor of a chief
living in Gaelic times. He did not recognise any of the associated clans,
which had long ceased to exist.
> It is indeed lawful for anybody to use these coats of arms but since
> Irish citizens cannot hold titles there cannot be a family chief,
> thereby making it impossible for family members to recognise their
> chief as such, consequently making them inelligible to be members of
> the clan.
Irish citizens can hold titles if given permission to do so by the
government while the Irish state cannot create titles. Clans ceased to exist
in the seventeenth century, so I am not sure what your last comment means,
but it seems to be heavily contaminated by Scottish ideas.
> Incidently, chiefs were elected from the dearbhfhine (part of the
> fine) meaning that if a branch of the family didn't produce a chief
> for four sucessive generations they lost their right to put forward a
> candidate.
This is a dicredited theory, a so-called "law of succession" that never
existed. There are many examples of succession by people who fail this test.
Sean
Sean MacLochlainn
> Irish citizens can hold titles if given permission to do so by the
> government...
I meant to say:
Irish citizens can ACCEPT titles if given permission to do so by the
government...
ie: titles already held by Irish citizens (eg: peerages given by the British
crown in its various guises) can be held without reference to the state.
Sean
Hugh McKiernan
>
> With a few exceptions, native Irish coats of arms are only traceable to the
> 17th and 18th centuries. Around the time that the Wild Geese required such
> things to get into the French army, not a coincidence in my view.
I'm afraid that I can't agree with you there Séan. The Ulster king of
arms was, after all, extablished in 1552 (presumably because it was
needed) as part of the Vice-Regal court and it governed the granting
of arms for the entire country. In any case I was referring to what
might be termed "sept" coats of arms -as described by McLysaght- in my
original post. These were adopted, as he points out, shortly after the
Normans came to Ireland.
I never knew that a coat of arms was a prerequisite to entering the
French army and am intrigued. Was it the same, do you know, with other
European countries?
> The various types of fine are creations of Brehon law. You seem to be
> thinking of the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage, which is a
> matter for the church.
I was not aware that there were various types of fine. I wasn't,
though, thinking of marriage. I was thinking of how the Irish became
chieftains. They were elected (before tanistry was widely adopted)
from that constituent part of the fine referred to as the dearbhfine.
By "types of fine" do you mean the dubh-fhine (sept without land),
dearg-fhine (tainted with murder) etc.. These aren't different types.
The fine remains the same family group no matter what adjective is
used. Or did you mean the four constituent parts of the seventeen
member fine, dearbhfhine having five members and the other three parts
(inn-fhine etc..)having four each. While I profess to know nothing
about "prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage" I would expect
these, by their very nature, to be similar. My mention of Roman and
Canon law was intended to help by providing a definition for a word
often described and interpreted vaguely.
> MacLysaght recognised several people as genealogical successor of a chief
> living in Gaelic times. He did not recognise any of the associated clans,
> which had long ceased to exist.
I agree Séan. As you say yourself in your very next post:
> ie: titles already held by Irish citizens (eg: peerages given by the British
> crown in its various guises) can be held without reference to the state.
>
This would include the 'Chief of his name' title, recognised and used
by many English monarchs, some of which were recognised during
McLysaght's tenure as the (first) Chief Herald of Ireland.
> Irish citizens can hold titles if given permission to do so by the
> government while the Irish state cannot create titles. Clans ceased to exist
> in the seventeenth century, so I am not sure what your last comment means,
> but it seems to be heavily contaminated by Scottish ideas.
Yes, I was beginning to wander off the point a little here. I regret
using the word 'clan' instead of 'sept' which, I assume, caused the
confusion. In any case, this next bit is what really interests me....
> > Incidently, chiefs were elected from the dearbhfhine (part of the
> > fine) meaning that if a branch of the family didn't produce a chief
> > for four sucessive generations they lost their right to put forward a
> > candidate.
>
> This is a dicredited theory, a so-called "law of succession" that never
> existed. There are many examples of succession by people who fail this test.
Whereas I'm willing to accept that there may be many exceptions to the
rule (of course there were - even in my own family the annals relate
six chieftains being hung on one day in the 1640s. In a small sept I
wouldn't expect the next chief to be very closely related to any of
them!) I'm intrigued to hear that this system never existed though.
Can you tell us who proved that?
H.
Sean MacLochlainn
<mailto:hugh.mc...@nuigalway.ie>wrote in message
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com
> > With a few exceptions, native Irish coats of arms are only traceable to
the
> > 17th and 18th centuries....
> I'm afraid that I can't agree with you there Séan. The Ulster king of
> arms was, after all, extablished in 1552 ...
The Ulster King of Arms very rarely granted arms to those of Gaelic origin.
The office was created as part of the Tudor anglicisation programme but its
clientele were almost all descendants of Norman and English settlers, even
in the 20th century. Harley 4039 in the British Library, circa 1712, is the
earliest collection of Gaelic arms of any size that I have found. In earlier
sources like Rawlinson B69 in the Bodleian Library, circa 1650, the number
of Gaelic arms falls off dramatically. If you have found a source predating
1712 which contains more than a handful of Gaelic coats of arms then please
cite it.
> > The various types of fine are creations of Brehon law. You seem to be
> > thinking of the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage...
>
> .... I would expect
> these, by their very nature, to be similar. My mention of Roman and
> Canon law was intended to help by providing a definition for a word
> often described and interpreted vaguely.
I doubt that persons fine was ever identical with the group of people they
were prohibited from marrying in church.
> > > Incidently, chiefs were elected from the dearbhfhine (part of the
> > > fine) meaning that if a branch of the family didn't produce a chief
> > > for four sucessive generations they lost their right to put forward a
> > > candidate.
>
> > This is a dicredited theory, a so-called "law of succession" that never
> > existed. There are many examples of succession by people who fail this
test.
>
> Whereas I'm willing to accept that there may be many exceptions to the
> rule....I'm intrigued to hear that this system never existed though.
> Can you tell us who proved that?
The main blow against your "law of succession" (election from among
derbfine) is that no such law exists in any Brehon law text. It was
originally created as a theory of succession to kingship by MacNeill in
1921. MacNeill made the basic assumption that a kingship would be
transmitted as if it were property and so applied the ordinary Brehon law of
succession to land (as understood at the time) to succession to kingship.
The theory was demolished by O Corrain in 1971, who pointed out the numerous
exceptions that disproved it. The basic assumption was wrong.
Note that nowhere has chiefship been mentioned, people who still hold to
this "law of succession" implicitly assume that kingship and chiefship are
one and the same.
Recent studies by Bart Jaski of succession to chiefship within the families
of MacCarthy, O Brien and O Regan in the late sixteenth/early seventeenth
centuries show that succession was most often from older brother to younger
brother, then on to the elder brothers children. So in addition to being
unregulated by law, succession to chiefship was confined within a much
tighter group than the derbfine.
Sean
Manus
least initial granting of arms in a somewhat different manner.
Knights Dubbed 1565-1616 GO Mss 51
includes O'Cahan, Maguire and others.
This may not be a full armory at the time, but it does give an inkling that
familial arms were in use. It is interesting to note that the official grant
of arms to Maguire some time before the knighting...
Hugh Magwier niles in extia cathederali Sta de miduidue Fermatis dublinelie 14
Jun 1590 (he was knighted in 14 Jan 1599 by Sir William FitzWilliams).
The arms depicted/described are not the same as those today. It seems that the
crest became the arms.
Anways... I don't if this proves one side of the arguement or other, it is just
that I had a reference worth mentioning.
Slan Leat!
Phil McManus
Sean MacLochlainn
news:20020412232210...@mb-de.aol.com...
> Just add some meat to the discussion. There are some recognition of arms
or > at least initial granting of arms in a somewhat different manner.
>
> Knights Dubbed 1565-1616 GO Mss 51
> includes O'Cahan, Maguire and others.
>
> This may not be a full armory at the time, but it does give an inkling
that
> familial arms were in use....
These are among the handful that can be traced beyond Harley 4039 circa
1712, being granted by Ulster King of Arms as an adjunct to surrender and
regrant, granting of English titles in place of Gaelic, etc. Of the several
hundred other Gaelic arms we know today, there is no trace.
Grants Carney and Hawkins GO62 contains blasons of many Gaelic sept arms,
but Carney and Hawkins were surnames shared by several heralds holding
office from 1651 to 1787 so the date of the blasons cannot be established
within this range.
Out of interest, what were the Maguire arms in GO51?
Sean
conaught2
Was speaking with somebody in County Louth who is researching the Dowdall
family. He was writing an article about the local castles and they all led
to Dowdalls. The ruins of one, Glaspystol sits in someone's front yard. It
is amazing. The owner had mentioned to Liam that there was a coat of arms
on the top of the tower but it was hard to see since it as covered with ivy.
They knew that Glaspystol had been built c. 1429. All that they could tell
was that there were 3 birds inside of a circle but had no idea whose coat of
arms it was. But they did not have a copy of the Dowdall coat of arms.
Told him to hold on a second because I had the Dowdall coat of arms sitting
on a book shelf behind the computer. Turns out the birds were martletts -
footless birds signifying the 4th son = dispossessed of land. With
connecting the coat of arms as the Dowdall coat of arms it is certain that
the Dowdalls built Glaspystol. Liam was so pleased with this discovery he
went to Athcarne Castle in Meath and beside the Bathe coat of arms was the
Dowdall coat of arms. A Dowdall woman married a Bathe. Don't know when
Athcarne was built , but it was c. 1500. So as you can see the coat of arms
is a very interesting discussion for me since all the recent discoveries in
the family history.
Slan go foill,
Margaret (Mairead)
> Just add some meat to the discussion. There are some recognition of arms
or at
> least initial granting of arms in a somewhat different manner.
>
> Knights Dubbed 1565-1616 GO Mss 51
> includes O'Cahan, Maguire and others.
>
> This may not be a full armory at the time, but it does give an inkling
that
Sean MacLochlainn
news:003301c1e2b6$9d08a800$198f...@mdfrd.or.charter.com...
> Something just came up in my family research that relates to this topic.
> Was speaking with somebody in County Louth who is researching the
> Dowdall family...
To clarify, Dowdall is Norman or Old-English rather than Gaelic. Norman and
Old-English families adopted heraldry in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, unlike Gaelic families.
Sean
ah...@world.std.com
Irish Nobility, Heraldry, and Genealogy
http://www.nli.ie/fr_offi.htm
Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland
These, and other useful links, can be reached from the TIARA web site.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dennis Ahern | The Irish Ancestral Research Association
Acton, Massachusetts | Dept. W, P.O. Box 619, Sudbury, MA 01776
ah...@world.std.com | http://www.tiara.ie
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sean MacLochlainn
> These are among the handful that can be traced beyond Harley 4039 circa
> 1712...
Just to give a flavour of the abrupt interest shown in Gaelic arms around
1700, around the time the Wild Geese needed such things to prove their
nobility abroad, here are the earliest collections of Gaelic arms* I have
found:
Genealogical Office 157 - O Ferralls Linea Antiqua, 1709.
British Library, Harley 4039 - Book of Arms by James Terry, 1712.
Cashel Library, MS 4729 - A Gaelic Armoury by Dermot O Connor, 1714.
Keatings History of Ireland - Appendix by O Connor, 1723 edition.
Genealogical Office 62 - Grants Carney and Hawkins, 1651-1787(?).
Given that the first Hawkins became herald in 1698, I would place the last
in the same general range as the rest.
Does anyone have any additions?
Sean
* ie: including more than the handful of Gaelic families who received grants
from Ulster King of Arms in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as part
of the anglicisation programme.
Hugh McKiernan
Fair play to you Denis you've chipped in, yet again, with an excellent
link. Even a cursory read of the site of the Chief Herald cannot fail
to provide the information that the Irish adopted the heraldic system
in the same way as any other European country.
There had been an heraldic banners in Ireland for centuries before the
Normans arrived. The red hand, the oak, and the stag have all survived
as emblems of their septs to the present day. The notion that 'there
is no such thing as a family coat of arms' has been put forward for
years by those who would prefer to cede authority in this matter to
the English crown.
In fact there have been arms on seals of Irish septs since the 1100s.
Before that there are recorded the banners of the Irish septs at
Clontarf in 1014 when the Vikings were repelled, the battle of
Hastings in 1066 where the Irish gallowglasses fought to save Harold,
the Saxon king of England.
This idea that the Irish didn't adopt a military strategy in
widespread use throughout the rest of western Europe cannot be
believed when there is so much evidence to the contrary. The Vatican
has records of the Sept or Family Coat of Arms of the McCarthys on
pilgrimage in the twelfth century.
Coats of Arms granted by the English to landholders in Ireland are a
totally different thing. These are, obviously, English Coats of Arms
even though they are (sometimes) confused with Irish Arms. McLysaght -
the first Irish Chief Herald - recognised and reproduced Sept Arms in
'Irish Families', 'More Irish Families' and an updated 'More Irish
Families'.
The unfortunate thing is, of course, that even as McLysaght criticises
the mistakes of O'Hart and others he makes more than a few errors
himself and continues to reproduce them in each edition. He can mainly
be criticised for his reproduction of translation errors. It would
appear that he did not use primary sources for information but,
rather, relied upon the translations and transcriptions of others.
H.
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Fair play to you Denis you've chipped in, yet again, with an excellent
> link. Even a cursory read of the site of the Chief Herald cannot fail
> to provide the information that the Irish adopted the heraldic system
> in the same way as any other European country
In the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a time when books
containing hundreds of English, Scottish and continental arms were being
compiled, there is the odd seal in Gaelic Ireland. These are the handful of
exceptions before 1700 I keep referring to. Note that these scant references
to Gaelic heraldry are made in the context of external relations. A coat of
arms was expected of ruling families who made treaties and agreements with
the English in Ireland, so they adopted one. A bit like the adoption of the
western business suit across the world.
Banners are not coats of arms, there are precious few banners mentioned in
any detail in the Gaelic sources anyway, so how do you explain the sudden
appearance of several hundred previously unknown Gaelic arms around 1700? If
you contend that they date back to the twelfth century and beyond then you
need to prove this rather than assert it.
Sean
Hugh McKiernan
Like I said in my last post Sean,
"The Vatican has records of the Sept or Family Coat of Arms of the
McCarthys who went there on pilgrimage in the twelfth century."
Whether you like it or not, the Irish were interacting with other
parts of Europe and beyond long before the English arrived here. They
had banners, seals, family coats of arms, arts, culture, scripture and
sculpture. In fact they were famous for it. I really don't think that
you could contradict a contention that the English hindered, rather
than helped, with Irish development - cultural and otherwise -.
Poynings law springs to mind; If it were illegal, under pain of death,
for me to practice my religion, illegal for me to educate myself and
my children, if I were forced to use the name of a profession or
colour instead of my surname, if I could not own land and if I had to
pay the tithe I feel that I, too, would be more concerned with
survival rather than writing books.
I agree with you that the Irish are not recorded favourably in books
published in Ireland and Britain prior to the eighteenth century. That
is more of a reflection on the authors than it is on Irish society...
Read this link, offered by Dennis Aherne to answer your Coat of Arms
criticisms
http://www.nli.ie/fr_offi.htm
and try to imagine the Ireland that you are talking about. A cursory
glance at the laws passed by the colonialists might help. If you have
any difficulty finding them I may be able to help.
H.
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> ...I agree with you that the Irish are not recorded favourably in books
> published in Ireland and Britain prior to the eighteenth century. That
> is more of a reflection on the authors than it is on Irish society...
Out of the hundreds of Gaelic manuscripts written since the middle of the
first millennium, I am not aware of any written before 1714 that deal with
heraldry. Surely you are not suggesting that the writers of these
manuscripts were Englishmen out to belittle the Gaelic Irish?
Sean
Sean MacLochlainn
> > ...I agree with you that the Irish are not recorded favourably in books
> > published in Ireland and Britain prior to the eighteenth century. That
> > is more of a reflection on the authors than it is on Irish society...
>
> Out of the hundreds of Gaelic manuscripts written since the middle of the
> first millennium, I am not aware of any written before 1714 that deal with
> heraldry. Surely you are not suggesting that the writers of these
> manuscripts were Englishmen out to belittle the Gaelic Irish?
Or are you suggesting that people who wrote freely on genealogy, law,
history, classics, lives of saints, etc found their children at the end of
an English bayonet whenever they attempted to write about heraldry?
Sean
Hugh McKiernan
> > Out of the hundreds of Gaelic manuscripts written since the middle of the
> > first millennium, I am not aware of any written before 1714 that deal with
> > heraldry. Surely you are not suggesting that the writers of these
> > manuscripts were Englishmen out to belittle the Gaelic Irish?
>
> Or are you suggesting that people who wrote freely on genealogy, law,
> history, classics, lives of saints, etc found their children at the end of
> an English bayonet whenever they attempted to write about heraldry?
I merely suggested that there were, indeed, such things as Family (or
Sept) Coats of Arms, that they existed in Ireland since the twelfth
century (or before), that this fact has beeen recognised for years,
and that there exists an example in the Vatican. Maybe you would go
and have a look.
Sean MacLochlainn
"Hugh McKiernan" <hugh.mc...@nuigalway.ie> wrote in message
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> I merely suggested that there were, indeed, such things as Family (or
> Sept) Coats of Arms, that they existed in Ireland since the twelfth
> century (or before), that this fact has beeen recognised for years,
> and that there exists an example in the Vatican.
That is a bit of a backpedal:
YourQuote 1
"> With a few exceptions, native Irish coats of arms are only traceable to
> the 17th and 18th centuries. Around the time that the Wild Geese required
> such things to get into the French army, not a coincidence in my view.
I'm afraid that I can't agree with you there Séan. The Ulster king of
arms was, after all, extablished in 1552 (presumably because it was
needed) ..."
YourQuote 2
"Even a cursory read of the site of the Chief Herald cannot fail
to provide the information that the Irish adopted the heraldic system
in the same way as any other European country."
So now you agree that heraldry was not widely embraced in twelfth to
fourteenth century Ireland, unlike other European countries, and remained
exceptional until around 1700?
Sean
Hugh McKiernan
No, Séan, I don't agree with you and no amount of browbeating will
entice me toward your opinion. Sept Coats of Arms, as adopted by the
Irish, and Coats of Arms granted by the English crown are, obviously,
two very different things.
On the subject of quotes, some of yours did elicit a snigger or two
and for that you must be thanked.
"Coats of arms were alien to the Gaelic Irish."
"The various types of fine .."
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> No, Séan, I don't agree with you and no amount of browbeating will
> entice me toward your opinion. Sept Coats of Arms, as adopted by the
> Irish, and Coats of Arms granted by the English crown are, obviously,
> two very different things.
> On the subject of quotes, some of yours did elicit a snigger or two
> and for that you must be thanked.
>
> "Coats of arms were alien to the Gaelic Irish."
>
> "The various types of fine .."
I have been discussing Gaelic heraldry in general, not grants v
self-assumption, and you have persistently failed to produce evidence to
back up your assertion that the Gaelic Irish adopted heraldry in the same
manner as elsewhere in Europe.
As for your overactive humour, look up alien in a dictionary then look up
heraldry in the index of any published edition of a pre-1700 Gaelic
manuscript. Then look up gelFINE, derbFINE, iarFINE and indFINE in the index
of 'A Guide to Early Irish Law' by Fergus Kelly.
Sean
Hugh McKiernan
>
> I have been discussing Gaelic heraldry in general, not grants v
> self-assumption, and you have persistently failed to produce evidence to
> back up your assertion that the Gaelic Irish adopted heraldry in the same
> manner as elsewhere in Europe.
>
You haven't been discussing Gaelic heraldry, Séan, you've been
discussing Irish heraldry - and in a very narrow context too.
I'll write this slowly for you:
T h e V a t i c a n h a s e a r l y I r i s h h e r a l d r
y.
Check out the site of the Chief Herald of Ireland for more information
or, better still, go to the Vatican to see for yourself. Take your
time, maybe stay a while.
To answer further:
>
> As for your overactive humour, look up alien in a dictionary then look up
I see nothing humourous about the word 'alien', Séan, and I grew out
of looking things up for laughs decades ago.
> heraldry in the index of any published edition of a pre-1700 Gaelic
> manuscript.
I can't comment on Manx and Scottish manuscripts but Irish manuscripts
prior to the seventeenth century certainly don't have indices, neither
were they published. You ignorance of this subject is becoming more
obvious Séan. You really should learn the meaning and correct use of
the word 'Gaelic' - it does NOT mean, and is not interchangeable with,
either 'Irish' or 'Irish-speaking'.
> Then look up gelFINE, derbFINE, iarFINE and indFINE in the index
> of 'A Guide to Early Irish Law' by Fergus Kelly.
These words may well be in the index of the mentioned work but they
are not, however, in any dictionary to which I have access
(O'Domhnaill, De Bhaldhraithe, Dinneen, O'Reilly, Lane, De Vere
Coneys, MacNeill, O'Beaglaoich and MacCurtin).
The Rev Patrick S. Dinneen M.A. Hon D.Litt(NUI) provides an excellent
definition of the word 'fine' and it's constituent parts in his second
(1927) dictionary. It is similar to the definition that I provided in
an earlier post, differing only in the number of members of two
constituent parts of the fine.
Such has been the demand for Dinneen's work, although it uses the old
spelling, that it has been reprinted eight or nine times. It was last
reprinted in 1996 and is still available.
I would suggest that you, at least, familiarise yourself with some of
the works listed above before you choose to question my use,
understanding and interpretation of Irish. Then, when you can speak
and read my language, as well as I can communicate in yours, I'd be
happy to oblige in any discussion.
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> You haven't been discussing Gaelic heraldry, Séan, you've been
> discussing Irish heraldry -
You had better check back over my postings, and please stop repeating
yourself. I am aware of these exceptions, but you do not appear to realise
just how exceptional they are and how they signal the slow uptake of
heraldry in Gaelic Ireland compared with the rest of Europe.
> I can't comment on Manx and Scottish manuscripts but Irish manuscripts
> prior to the seventeenth century certainly don't have indices, neither
> were they published. You ignorance of this subject is becoming more
> obvious Séan.
There are many Gaelic manuscripts that have been published. The Annals of
Ulster and O Clerys Book of Genealogies for instance. Most published
editions have an index. Who is the ignorant one now?
> These words may well be in the index of the mentioned work but they
> are not, however, in any dictionary to which I have access
> ...The Rev Patrick S. Dinneen M.A. Hon D.Litt(NUI) provides an excellent
> definition of the word 'fine' and it's constituent parts in his second
> (1927) dictionary.
What appears in your dictionary is irrelevant, the world is larger than your
own experience of it. The various types of fine are defined in the work I
cited, which happens to be the modern standard work on Brehon law.
You are certainly not a great advert for University College Galway.
Sean
Sean MacLochlainn
news:2a8185f1.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > I have been discussing Gaelic heraldry in general, not grants v
> > self-assumption, and you have persistently failed to produce evidence to
> > back up your assertion that the Gaelic Irish adopted heraldry in the
same
> > manner as elsewhere in Europe.
2. IGNORE REBUTTAL
> You haven't been discussing Gaelic heraldry, Séan, you've been
> discussing Irish heraldry -
3. CHANGE GOALPOSTS
> I can't comment on Manx and Scottish manuscripts but Irish manuscripts
> prior to the seventeenth century certainly don't have indices, neither
> were they published. You ignorance of this subject is becoming more
> obvious Séan.
4. INVENT GAFFE
5. WITHDRAW WITH TAIL BETWEEN LEGS
Full marks. Congratulations again Hugh.
Sean