Part 1: Introduction and Generations 1-5
Part 2: Generations 6-8
Part 3: Generations 9-11
Part 4: Generations 12-14
Part 5: Generations 15-16
Part 6: Generations 17-18
Part 7: Generations 19-20
Part 8: Generations 21-25
Part 9: Bibliography
Since comments are inevitable on material like this, please use common
sense with regard to the amount of material quoted, to save bandwidth.
If you only have a question on one item, there is no need to quote the
entire part.
Stewart Baldwin
Supposedly William de Burgh, died 1205 was married to a daughter of Domnall
Mor, through whom the lineage goes back to various Irish kings.
Does anyone know how valid this line is?
Leslie
That is an excellent question, and one I had wondered about myself.
Trying to find out more about the claim was one of my projects during
my last trip to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City. To my
knowledge, the only primary source making the claim is the Book of
Lecan (a 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, in conclusion, 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.
By the way, anyone who decides to look into this in more detail needs
to be aware that the father, William de Burgh, has frequently been
incorrectly identified in later sources with William Fitz Aldhelm,
another Norman leader in Ireland. Thus, if you find a source which is
confusing these two men, it is a good idea to take its statements with
a grain of salt.
Stewart Baldwin