Donnell O'Brien, king of Thomond
Christopher Barttels
Lacy m. Richard de Burgh, lord of Connaught, (d. 1242), son of William
de Burgh (died 1205), lord of Connaught, by his wife, a daughter of
Donnell O'Brien, K.T. [king of Thomond?]. Refs given are; Orpen III,
chart pp. 286-287, IV, chart p. 159, DNB 3:328. Without these sources
at hand, does this give some indication of the ancestry of Donnell
O'Brien?
Is this Donnell O'Brien, Domnall Mór Ua Briain? If so is there a
known ancestry for him? Possibly descended from Brian Bóruma mac
Cennétig? Is this an accepted line?
Stewart Baldwin's input on this would be greatly appreciated, as I am
wondering if this line connects somehow into his works on Llywelyn ap
Iorwerth, Aife (Eve)of Leinster & Radnaillt of Dublin.
I was trying to tie up some loose ends with the ancestry of
Bartholomew de Badlesmere (1275-1322) who m. Margaret de Clare, dau.
of Thomas de Clare (d. 1287/8) and Juliane fitz Maurice.
IIRC, AR7 incorrectly gives Juliane's mother as Emmeline de Longespée,
as it should be (per Doug Richardson's SMG discussion) Maud de
Prendergast, the 1st (?) wife of Maurice fitz Maurice fitz Gerald,
Lord of Offaly (d. 1286).
Maud's parents, in the corrections from SMG last year were given as
Gerald de Prendergast and N de Burgh, (dau of the above mentioned
Richard de Burgh and Egidia de Lacy.)
Excuse me if I am sucking canal water here. Thanks all for the help.
Christopher Barttels
Dayton, WA, USA
Stewart Baldwin
Barttels) wrote:
>In AR7, line 177B-8, Douglas Richardson gives, Egidia (or Gille) de
>Lacy m. Richard de Burgh, lord of Connaught, (d. 1242), son of William
>de Burgh (died 1205), lord of Connaught, by his wife, a daughter of
>Donnell O'Brien, K.T. [king of Thomond?]. Refs given are; Orpen III,
>chart pp. 286-287, IV, chart p. 159, DNB 3:328. Without these sources
>at hand, does this give some indication of the ancestry of Donnell
>O'Brien?
>
>Is this Donnell O'Brien, Domnall Mór Ua Briain? If so is there a
>known ancestry for him? Possibly descended from Brian Bóruma mac
>Cennétig? Is this an accepted line?
Yes, Domnall Mór Ua Briain is the man who was said to be the
father-in-law of William de Burgh (more on that below). Domnall's
immediate ancestry is easily traced, and well documented, as follows.
Brian Bóruma, d. 1014, m. Echrad, daughter of Carrlus mac Ailella,
king of Uí Áeda Odba [BS189,228]
|
Tadc mac Briain, d. 1023, m. Mór, daughter of Gilla Brigte Ua Máel
Muaid, king of Cenél Fiachach [BS189,228-9]
|
Tairrdelbach ua Briain, d. 1086, m. Dub Choblaig, daughter of Mac
Lorcain, king of Uí Chennselaig [BS193]
|
Diarmait Ua Briain, d. 1118, m. Mór, daughter of Ruaidrí na Saide
Buide Ua Conchobar, king of Connacht [BS191]
|
Tairrdelbach Ua Briain, d. 1167, m. Sadb, daughter of Donnchad Balc,
king of Osraige [BS233]
|
Domnall Mór Ua Briain, d. 1194
In each case, citations for the wives are from Margaret Dobbs, ed. &
trans., "The Ban-Shenchus" ("BS") in Revue Celtique, volumes 47-9, the
citations above all coming from volume 48. Some of the above
individuals are known to have married more than once, but in each of
the above cases, BS identifies the wife in question as the mother of
the next generation.
>Stewart Baldwin's input on this would be greatly appreciated, as I am
>wondering if this line connects somehow into his works on Llywelyn ap
>Iorwerth, Aife (Eve)of Leinster & Radnaillt of Dublin.
Domnall, Aife, and Radnaillt were all descendants of Brian Bóruma.
>I was trying to tie up some loose ends with the ancestry of
>Bartholomew de Badlesmere (1275-1322) who m. Margaret de Clare, dau.
>of Thomas de Clare (d. 1287/8) and Juliane fitz Maurice.
>
>IIRC, AR7 incorrectly gives Juliane's mother as Emmeline de Longespée,
>as it should be (per Doug Richardson's SMG discussion) Maud de
>Prendergast, the 1st (?) wife of Maurice fitz Maurice fitz Gerald,
>Lord of Offaly (d. 1286).
>
>Maud's parents, in the corrections from SMG last year were given as
>Gerald de Prendergast and N de Burgh, (dau of the above mentioned
>Richard de Burgh and Egidia de Lacy.)
A serious weak link in the attempt to connect to Domnall here is that
there is no good evidence that this Richard de Burgh was a maternal
grandson of Domnall Mór Ua Briain.
[Note: The following discussion is largely recycled material from an
item which I posted to this newsgroup on the same subject on 29
November 1998.]
The primary source making the claim that William de Burgh married a
daughter of Domnall Mór is the Book of Lecan (an early fifteenth
century manuscript), folio 82r. It is in a genealogical tract on the
sept known as Uí Maine (later Hy-Many), and was given with an English
translation in John O'Donovan's "The Tribes and Customs of Hy-Many"
(Dublin, 1843), p. 44 (Irish) and p. 45 (English translation). The
full text of the relevant paragraph is as follows:
Irish:
Sé meic Domnaill Moir, mic Taidg Taillten, .i. Concobar, ocus Tadg
Find Maigi Ruscach, ocus Eogan, ocus Tomas Espoc, ocus Lochlaind, ocus
Diarmaid. Ingen Domnall Moir h-I Bhriain, mathair an t-seisir sin,
ocus derbsiur di mathair Fheidlimid, mic Cathail Croib-deirg, ocus
derbsiur eli doib mathair Ricaird, mic Uilliam Find, o fuil Clann
Ricaird.
[Note: The manuscript contains numerous abbreviated forms, which are
silently expanded by O'Donovan. For example, the word "ocus" is
always an ampersand in the manuscript. There are a few cases where
lenition (given by a following "h" in modern Irish) is given as a dot
over the letter by O'Donovan, and I have given it by a following "h",
due to the lack of the relevant symbols on computer keyboards.]
O'Donovan's English translation:
Domhnall Mor, the son of Tadhg Taillten, had six sons, viz.,
Conchobhar, Tadhg Finn of Magh Ruscach, Eoghan, Thomas the Bishop,
Lochlainn, and Diarmaid. The daughter of Domnall Mor O'Brien was the
mother of these six sons, and her sister was the mother of Feidlimidh,
the son of Cathal Croibhdherg [Charles the Redhanded] O'Conor, and
another sister was the mother of Rickard, son of William Finn, from
whom are the Clann-Rickard.
[Notes: In a note at the bottom, O'Donovan gives 1263 as the date of
death for Thomas the Bishop. O'Donovan has apparently modernized the
spellings of the names to nineteenth century forms. The anglicization
of "Charles" for "Cathal" would have been later, and it is not likely
that Cathal would have been known as "Charles" in his own lifetime.
The bracket after "Redhanded was misplaced by O'Donovan, and should
have been put after "O'Conor", which is also not in the manuscript.]
The tract, as it exists now, could not have been written before the
year 1378, for it refers (p.49 of O'Donovan's translation) to a
"Muichertach the Bishop" who is known to have become bishop in that
year. On the other hand, the writer was giving an account of the sept
Uí Maine, and there would have been no obvious motive for him to
invent a mother for Richard de Burgh. Thus, it seems likely that he
was either updating an earlier account, or had some other written
source for the statement.
However, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the above
account from the Book of Lecan is correct as it is given, there is
another problem, and that is that the descents from this family which
are relevant to most people follow through William's son Richard (d.
1243), so the marriage, even if true, does not do much good (for the
purposes of tracing ancestry from Domnall) unless this Richard can be
shown to be a son of that marriage. In the genealogical table in
volume 9 of "A New History of Ireland", p. 170, the Clanricard line of
the Burkes is traced back to a certain Richard "the younger", who is
then given (with a dotted line) as a possible younger son of William
de Burgh (d. 1205), and thus as a same-named brother of Richard (d.
1243), ancestor of the de Burgh earls of Ulster. A note at the bottom
the page of that genealogical table states: "The origins of the
Clanricard line are not absolutely proven, but the descent given is
that of the best Irish genealogical sources, and is not contradicted
by contemporary sources." Thus, if this is correct, the statement of
the Book of Lecan would apply to the younger Richard, and not to the
Richard who died in 1243, who would then likely be a son of William by
another marriage. Thus, if we accept the account of the Book of Lecan
as being accurate, it would apply to the Richard who died in 1243 only
if it could be shown that he (and not a younger brother of the same
name) were the ancestor of the Burghs of Clanricard.
Thus, the claimed descent from Domnall Mór cannot be accepted as
proven without additional evidence. If somebody could produce
evidence eliminating the weak link regarding Richard de Burgh's
mother, then the ancestry of Domnall Mór poses no serious problems,
and can be traced way back in a number of lines.
Stewart Baldwin