Sources on Norman invasion of Ireland

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Not a mention of the coronation. Anything we should, ahem, know ?

Apart from us descendants of Muireadhach Muilleathan scoffing at those who smell of Niall [ Fecking Nordies (:p)] no, nothing coronation wise to see here thank you very much.....:D

dubhthach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well if it's historical accuracy you are after most posters here have Niall of the Nine Hostages leaking from everywhere

A few might have a faint whiff of Genghis Khan about them too...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8600-medieval-irish-warlord-boasts-three-million-descendants.html

Only problem though is that Trinity sort of jumped the gun on that M222 probably first arose about 2-300 years before Niall. Yeah he probably was a carrier but not all M222+ are descendants of Niall. For example men bearing Uí Fiachrach (Aidhne and Muidhne) as well as Uí Briúin (Ai, Breifne) surnames show up as M222+. Of course both these are descended from Niall's half brothers (Fiachrach and Brion) and form part of the wider Connachta.

Of course the really interesting bit is that M222+ seems to be older in Northern England/Souther Scotland then it does in Ireland. So perhaps what we are seeing is some truth in the old myth on Tuathal Teachtmár -- his mother fleeing with him in her womb to her father king of "Alba" and he returing later with an army to reclaim throne. Of course the pseudo-history puts this in 1st century AD.

dubhthach

Anyways to keep CDfm happy here some pictures, include forementioned horse and goat

Einhard

CDfm wrote: »

I would be careful of Geraldus Cambrensis who in his "Description of Ireland," reports that the ceremony of enthroning of the king of conaill involved copulation with a white mare who is then sacrificed and cooked.

Well, not sure if I could bring up animal-human intercourse in a first year class, but it's that type of exaggeration that I'm looking for, I want to be able to present them with a source which, while valuable in some sense, is still highly conentious and biased.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Einhard, if you really want to give the first years the WOW factor get in touch with Jesse de Burca Montague - http://www.montague.ie/education.html.

Nothing like seeing a fully armoured Norman to leave an impression :eek:.

That's a great idea. Sometimes I feel like dressing up in armour before heading into a class!

I'm only a student teacher so not sure if the other teachers would go for it, but it's definitely something to keep in mind for the future.

dubhthach wrote: »

Giradulus is infamous for his partisan view of Ireland, it's why you get several Irish authors writing in subsequent centuries with goal of refuting what he says. Other then details such as when certain areas were captured (and by which Norman). I wouldn't trust anything he says about general Irish society as he is intentionally playing up the supposed "barbarism" of the Irish to justify the Norman invasion.

That's the point really. The theme of the unit isn't so much the Norman invasion, as the use of evidence and source material in history. I want them to gain an insight into how important such material is, but also to view it in a critical way. The Norman invasion, while important and part of the curriculum, is really a means to an end in that sense.

dubhthach wrote: »

Anyways to keep CDfm happy here some pictures, include forementioned horse and goat

Are those illustrations from Gerald of Wales? Might you be able to point me in the direction of other such pejorative material on the native Irish?

BTW, thanks to everyone for responding.

Enkidu

Einhard wrote: »

Are those illustrations from Gerald of Wales? Might you be able to point me in the direction of other such pejorative material on the native Irish?

BTW, thanks to everyone for responding.

Yeah, it's Gerald of Wales. The picture on the top left is of a "monstrous woman" with a beard and "horned protrusions". Wikipedia have a good translation from chapter twenty:

"Duvenald, king of Limerick, had a woman with a beard down to her navel, and also, a crest like a colt of a year old, which reached from the top of her neck down her backbone, and was covered with hair. The woman, thus remarkable for two monstrous deformities, was, however, not an hermaphrodite, but in other respects had the parts of a woman; and she constantly attended the court, an object of ridicule as well as of wonder. The fact of her spine being covered with hair, neither determined her gender to be male or female; and in wearing a long beard she followed the customs of her country, though it was unnatural in her. Also, within our time, a woman was seen attending the court in Connaught, who partook of the nature of both sexes, and was an hermaphrodite. On the right side of her face she had a long and thick beard, which covered both sides of her lips to the middle of her chin, like a man; on the left, her lips and chin were smooth and hairless, like a woman"

Also fair play on working on something interesting for your class.:)

Einhard

Enkidu wrote: »

Also fair play on working on something interesting for your class.:)

Feck the class, this is for me! I don't know how they'll react to monstrous women with horned protrusions, but it defintely makes things more interesting for me in teaching it!

CDfm

The Norman's brought a clear legal system

CDfm wrote: »

I read years ago that there was a guillotine in Ireland in 1307.

Here is a woodcut depicting his execution with a guillotine like machine




So who was this guy and what did he do?

Rebelheart wrote: »

OK, a quick google under "Murcod Ballagh" and it seems the woodcut is from a book published in 1577: 'The execution of Murcod Ballagh near to Merton in Ireland 1307. This woodcut is from a book published in 1577.'

Holinshed's Chronicle?

Holinshed's Chronicle was used as a source by Shakespeare.

MarchDub

Einhard wrote: »

Feck the class, this is for me! I don't know how they'll react to monstrous women with horned protrusions, but it defintely makes things more interesting for me in teaching it!

It's important to note that Giraldus' propaganda attempt notwithstanding there is ample evidence from the record to show that the Irish church had started to 'reform' - become Romanised - decades before the Norman English invasion.

The Synod of Kells in 1152 had already re-structured the Irish church along the Roman style when 36 dioceses were established - and four archbishoprics under the Primacy of Armagh were also established. This spelled the death of the family owned monasteries but it also seriously angered the Archbishop of Canterbury who had harboured high hopes of controlling the Irish church from Canterbury.

Enter stage left Henry II and Giraldus et al...

dubhthach

MarchDub wrote: »

It's important to note that Giraldus' propaganda attempt notwithstanding there is ample evidence from the record to show that the Irish church had started to 'reform' - become Romanised - decades before the Norman English invasion.

The Synod of Kells in 1152 had already re-structured the Irish church along the Roman style when 36 dioceses were established - and four archbishoprics under the Primacy of Armagh were also established. This spelled the death of the family owned monasteries but it also seriously angered the Archbishop of Canterbury who had harboured high hopes of controlling the Irish church from Canterbury.

Enter stage left Henry II and Giraldus et al...

Also the arrival of the Cistercians bringing European style monasticism with founding of Mellifont in 1142 by St. Maelmhaedhoc (Malachy). There are at least three other abbies founded in period before arrival of Strongbow:

• Abbeydorney Abbey
• Bective Abbey
• Boyle Abbey

All sponsored by local Irish Taoisigh. It's interesting to ponder how things might have turned out in late 12th century without the normans as there were strong "Europeanising" (as in feudal Europe) factors going on both in Church and society anyways.

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Also the arrival of the Cistercians bringing European style monasticism with founding of Mellifont in 1142 by St. Maelmhaedhoc (Malachy). ..


All sponsored by local Irish Taoisigh. It's interesting to ponder how things might have turned out in late 12th century without the normans as there were strong "Europeanising" (as in feudal Europe) factors going on both in Church and society anyways.

The notion of reform goes back even further than the Cistercians arrival – when Cellach Ua Sinaig became Abbot of Armagh in 1105 he was one of the first to try and ‘reform’ the Irish church. He held a Synod near Cashel and attempted to introduce the notion of dioceses – this was a way of lessening the power of the abbots in Irish Christianity – and introduce the Roman system of bishoprics.

When Cellach died in 1129 his friend Malalchy came to be Abbot and it was he who travelled to Rome, on the way met with Bernard of Clairvoix, and Malachy became really determined to change the face of the Irish church and introduce a more Roman or European structure to Ireland. Bernard saw the introduction of the Cistercians into Ireland thus bringing great changes to the older indigenous Irish monastic system. It died out under the 'reforms'.

But not all historians see this as a positive thing by any means - many point out the value of the old Irish system and the contribution it made to scholarship and the arts and most significantly, the independence that the older indigenous Irish Christianity had from outside influences.

dubhthach

MarchDub wrote: »

The notion of reform goes back even further than the Cistercians arrival – when Cellach Ua Sinaig became Abbot of Armagh in 1105 he was one of the first to try and ‘reform’ the Irish church. He held a Synod near Cashel and attempted to introduce the notion of dioceses – this was a way of lessening the power of the abbots in Irish Christianity – and introduce the Roman system of bishoprics.

When Cellach died in 1129 his friend Malalchy came to be Abbot and it was he who travelled to Rome, on the way met with Bernard of Clairvoix, and Malachy became really determined to change the face of the Irish church and introduce a more Roman or European structure to Ireland. Bernard saw the introduction of the Cistercians into Ireland thus bringing great changes to the older indigenous Irish monastic system. It died out under the 'reforms'.

But not all historians see this as a positive thing by any means - many point out the value of the old Irish system and the contribution it made to scholarship and the arts and most significantly, the independence that the older indigenous Irish Christianity had from outside influences.

Indeed but my point wasn't that reformed was tied in with Cistercians. Instead I was pointing out that organically Ireland was already moving (moved?) to more mainstream practise when it came to Western Christendom.

Of course the papal bull Laudabiliter claims "church reform" as one of the reasons for giving Henry II a right to assume control of Ireland.

One thing to consider about the change of authroity from Abbots to Bishops been that the dioceses of course were based on the then political boundaries. So each large polity ended up with it's own Bishop. Who probably been from ruling family assumed the role of leading Abbot in that territority. (Meet the new boss same as old boss)

So for example Raphoe ties in with the Cenél Chonaill territory of Tír Chonaill. And Derry maps to Cenél nEoghain territority of Cenél nEoghain. Of course both been constutitent parts of wider "An Tuaisceart"/Over-Kingdom of Aileach.

No doubt the Bishop of Raphoe was present at the "Lovely Horse" event.

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Indeed but my point wasn't that reformed was tied in with Cistercians. Instead I was pointing out that organically Ireland was already moving (moved?) to more mainstream practise when it came to Western Christendom.

Yes, of course - that was the point I originally made as regards Giraldus and his attempt to blacken Irish Christianity. Change was already underway for decades before the Norman English arrived.

dubhthach wrote: »

Of course the papal bull Laudabiliter claims "church reform" as one of the reasons for giving Henry II a right to assume control of Ireland.

Laudibiliter is thought likely to have been the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury who wanted English control of the Irish church. In 1155 The English Pope Adrian IV was approached by the English hierarchy concerning 'reform' of the Irish church with the idea that only rule from Canterbury could 'save ' the Irish.

dubhthach wrote: »

One thing to consider about the change of authroity from Abbots to Bishops been that the dioceses of course were based on the then political boundaries. So each large polity ended up with it's own Bishop. Who probably been from ruling family assumed the role of leading Abbot in that territority. (Meet the new boss same as old boss)

It wasn't really that simple. The point that historians make is that the very nature of the Irish church changed. The old system spawned a very different attitude to scholarship and learning and even on the ground meant a different attitude to what Christianity actually was.

Donnchadh O Corrain says:

The reform was a triumph for the administrators and a disaster for Irish literature and general culture. The reforms destroyed the social, economic and cultural base of Irish learning. Nothing replaced the greater monasteries with their schools and learned cadres.

The Gregorian reforms came to Ireland - or tried to anyway. It was never clear cut - and in fact it took centuries for the Irish church to really become truly 'Romanised'.

CDfm

dubhthach wrote: »

No doubt the Bishop of Raphoe was present at the "Lovely Horse" event.

Isn't it well known that the Bishop bought the mare from a well known horse fancier Gerallt Gymro who just happened to be over researching a book.

An interesting part of the romanising of the church was that it allowed the normans gain footholds etc in otherwise Irish area's.

Hopefully , this will illustrate it.


Look at the Diocese of Ferns & its pre-reformation Bishops.Ferns was a stronghold of the McMurroughs.

Ferns, dates from about the year 1060, and is of the Hiberno-Romanesque style, having been built by Bishop O'Lynam, who died in 1062. The bishops were indifferently styled as of Ferns, Hy Kinsellagh, or Wexford; thus, Maeleoin O'Donegan (d. 1125) is called "Bishop of Wexford", while Bishop O'Cathan (d. 1135) is named "Archbishop of Hy Kinsellagh". This was by reason of the fact that the boundaries of the diocese are coextensive with the territory of Hy Kinsellagh, on which account Ferns includes County Wexford with small portions of Wicklow and Carlow. Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster, burned the city of Ferns in 1166, "for fear that the Connacht men would destroy his castle and his house", and, three years later, he brought over a pioneer force of Welshmen.

and then

Ailbe O'Molloy, a Cistercian, who ruled from 1185 to 1222, was the last Irish bishop in the pre-Reformation history of Ferns. He attended the Fourth General Council of Lateran (1215) and, on his return, formed a cathedral chapter. His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06045a.htm

One of the results of the Norman invasion in the twelfth century was the foundation of Cistercian abbeys at Dunbrody (in the present parish of Horeswood) about 1175, and at Tintern (in the present parish of Ballycullane) in 1200.
In 1184, Ailbin Ó Maolmhuaidh, abbot of the Cistercian foundation at Baltinglass, succeeded to the See of Maodhóg. He attended the Fourth Lateran Council in 1216. He wrote to Rome requesting, on behalf of the Church in Ireland, the canonisation of Lorcán Ó Tuathail (St Laurence O’Toole). His successor was an English courtier-cleric, John St John, nominated by King Henry III.
The last pre-Reformation bishop of the diocese was Alexander Devereux, abbot of Dunbrody at the time of its suppression by Henry VIII. He endeavoured to be loyal both to Rome and to the king. He died in 1566 and no Catholic bishop was appointed to Ferns for fifteen years when Peter Power was appointed by the Holy See in 1582.


http://www.ferns.ie/history.shtml

So you can see how the McMurroughs "lost" control of their territory thru this method. For example, property rights accumulated with the new church structure they co-existed with.

His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy. This bishop (8 April, 1227) assigned the manor of Enniscorthy to Philip de Prendergast, who built a castle, still in excellent preservation. In exchange, he acquired six plough-lands forever for the See of Ferns.

Now look at the list of Bishops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Ferns#Pre-Reformation_bishops

It is not totally simple as the McMurroughs allied themselves with the Butlers of Ormonde and appointies varied between those favoured by them and those of the Anglo Norman Earls of Kildare and their allies.

EDIT - and for a bit on Laudibiliter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056226312

MarchDub

Great links CDfm -thanks...

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

Great links CDfm -thanks...

They are the easy links

I have read thru the chronicles and material they come from which are not always chronological so I know the content is fairly bang on.

The Norman's operated thru a feudal & primogeniture system which needed records whereas the Irish elected leaders from eligeble clan members so didn't need the same records.

Thats why you don't find the same level of records. Also, in Ireland some titles were "titular" so our Norman's were also a bit more relaxed.

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

The Norman's operated thru a feudal & primogeniture system which needed records whereas the Irish elected leaders from eligeble clan members so didn't need the same records.

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Indeed. Many 'chieftains' produced books or scrolls which laid out their lineage thereby 'proving' their claim.
A good example is the 'Book of the Bourkes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Burkes.

Interestingly, according to Katherine Simms and Ken Nicholls it was standard practice for people to have their antecedents declaimed in public going back 4 generations including paternal and maternal lines.
As marriages were made for political/alliance reasons and the Gaelic Irish had a near obsession with bloodlines it makes sense to include the mother's line to show 'good' blood (and powerful relations) on both sides.

pedroeibar1

I’m not able to suggest sources on the Norman invasion as requested , but following Dubhthach and CDfm’s posts on goats, horses and attendant proclivities and peccadilloes , I do earnestly suggest that you refrain from using the expression that the Normans ‘came in by the back door’

CDfm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I do earnestly suggest that you refrain from using the expression that the Normans ‘came in by the back door’

Don't get on your high horse.

dubhthach wrote: »

Well not as simple as that, as a member of Clann you needed to know your position with regardes to the Derbhfhine of the clann. This is why you had "Professional Genealogists" from an early stage whose duty was to recite genealogies. To be in the Derbhfhine ye had to be within 4 generations of a previous leader.

Primogeniture was considerably simpler in comparison, ye just need to be the senior "male line" each generation.

In manuscript form a prime example of a collection of "Gaelic Irish" genealogy is Leabhar na nGenealach which was compiled by Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh during the 17th century using pre-existing material.

Of course, but how bloodless was succession. ?


And don't forget that Irish laws on marriage made this all the more necessary.

Turlough O'Donnell lord of Tír Chonaill from 1380-1422 had 18 sons by 10 women and 6 recorded wives

Shane O'Neill 2nd Earl of Tyrone 4 wives

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. Many 'chieftains' produced books or scrolls which laid out their lineage thereby 'proving' their claim.
A good example is the 'Book of the Bourkes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Burkes.

Interestingly, according to Katherine Simms and Ken Nicholls it was standard practice for people to have their antecedents declaimed in public going back 4 generations including paternal and maternal lines.
As marriages were made for political/alliance reasons and the Gaelic Irish had a near obsession with bloodlines it makes sense to include the mother's line to show 'good' blood (and powerful relations) on both sides.

Was there not divorce. ?


Didn't women have their own property too.

I seem to remember a certain Queen of Breffni was well endowed.

Bannasidhe

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get on your high horse.

You're riding that metaphor now.

Of course, but how bloodless was succession. ?

Depends on the circumstances and how canny the leading candidate was.

Sometimes the internecine wars of succession could destroy a powerful family - During the 13th century the Uí Conchobhair's tore into each other at the exact moment the Burkes were positioning themselves to manoeuvres into real control in Connacht. By siding with first one faction, then the other, (and sometimes another other) the Burkes managed to 'help' fracture the Uí Conchobhair into 'different' clans - hence O'Connor Don, O'Connor Rua, O'Connor Sligo etc.

In other cases the front runner was pretty obvious - although this in itself could be dangerous. Would Con Bacach Ua Neill or Murrough Ua Briain (or indeed Ulick Na gCeann Burke) have been in a position to 'surrender' and be 'regranted' if there had been a serious challenger to their position within the derbfine of their respective families?

In the Burke Book of Complaints written to Elizabeth I in the 1590s they describe the situation as they saw it very well. They explain to Elizabeth that they have no issue with her being Queenie - hell - sure that's just another 'overlord'- , or paying tax to her as that's just 'tribute' or 'black rent' by another name but the imposition of English ways and English administrators was, in their opinion, a recipe for disaster.

What they wanted was to be allowed to remain living according to Gaelic ways, recognise herself as Queenie and stump up the taxes once a year (eventually...when the cattle market picks up...).

Why? In their own words 'for we are a fractious family who do fall upon each other lest the strongest of us do lead.' They were essentially saying we have this way of life, it really works for us as we will beat the leaving daylights out of each other unless the biggest, toughest, scariest, most connected, slyest and ruthless of us is in charge and bangs our heads together if we go too far. Plus, we'll all be so busy fighting him that we won't have time to fight each other....simples.

Frankly, the second son of Somerset or Devon minor gentry was not going to cut the mustard with them - they could be ruthless, scary etc etc but they were also 'using' someone else's army - and could be replaced on a whim. They were (in the eyes of the snobbish Irish) frankly oiks who were set adrift, landless, in the world to 'make their fortune' - if they were so great why did their family in Somerset/Devon kick them out? When you think about it - they were employees :eek::eek:.

Plus - they killed children. On purpose. So to the Gaelic Irish these guys were barbarians.

And don't forget that Irish laws on marriage made this all the more necessary.

Turlough O'Donnell lord of Tír Chonaill from 1380-1422 had 18 sons by 10 women and 6 recorded wives

Shane O'Neill 2nd Earl of Tyrone 4 wives

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

Hugh O Neill had 6 wives - it really just meant the competition for the top spot was mighty - and really, really, careful track had to be kept of who was who's child...

Was there not divorce. ?

What does divorce have to do with who your mother is? Your Mammy is your Mammy regardless of who she may or may not be married to.

Didn't women have their own property too.

Yes - but that was completely separate from Clan land. She could will it to who she liked (The Inishbofin Cat's Home ).

I seem to remember a certain Queen of Breffni was well endowed.

*slap wrist* - No Queen's in Ireland!!!!!

And leave Dervorgilla Ní Mháelsechnaill and her bosums out of this .


Interesting article on Mrs O Rourke here:
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume11/issue4/features/?id=290

dubhthach

CDfm wrote: »

Don't get on your high horse.




Of course, but how bloodless was succession. ?


And don't forget that Irish laws on marriage made this all the more necessary.

Turlough O'Donnell lord of Tír Chonaill from 1380-1422 had 18 sons by 10 women and 6 recorded wives

Shane O'Neill 2nd Earl of Tyrone 4 wives

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982




Was there not divorce. ?


Didn't women have their own property too.

I seem to remember a certain Queen of Breffni was well endowed.

On succession it depends, often it was fairly bloodless (for the time anyways) particulary where succession was often in form of rotation between different branches of the Rigdomna (Kingly-material) within the Derbhfhine. One could argue that often in "primogeniture" societies it could often be bloody. After all it was the oldest surviving issue.

One only has to look at the trouble Henry II had with his four sons (let alone his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine)

Again divorce didn't affect the succession. Heck there was no concept of illegimatcy, thus a son by concubine had technically much right to inherit as a son of an official wife.

Sean Ó Néill is an interesting example. After all he was oldest legimate surviving son of Conn Bacach, however when Conn was elevated to Earl of Tryone (surrender and regrant) his heir was named as Matthew who was at most an illegimate son. If not more then likely possibly not even his son. As he had been know as the son of "the blacksmith of Dundalk". More then likely the english named Matthew as a means of divide and conquer.

Conn of course was known for "never not accepting a claimed son". This is one of reason why Sean warred against everyone as he saw his rightfull inheritance been upsurped. Of course Matthew (Fear Dorcha == Dark man) was subsequently killed, though his son is of course Aodh Mór Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill) of 9year fame.

Bannasidhe

dubhthach wrote: »

On succession it depends, often it was fairly bloodless (for the time anyways) particulary where succession was often in form of rotation between different branches of the Rigdomna (Kingly-material) within the Derbhfhine. One could argue that often in "primogeniture" societies it could often be bloody. After all it was the oldest surviving issue.

One only has to look at the trouble Henry II had with his four sons (let alone his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine)

Again divorce didn't affect the succession. Heck there was no concept of illegimatcy, thus a son by concubine had technically much right to inherit as a son of an official wife.

Sean Ó Néill is an interesting example. After all he was oldest legimate surviving son of Conn Bacach, however when Conn was elevated to Earl of Tryone (surrender and regrant) his heir was named as Matthew who was at most an illegimate son. If not more then likely possibly not even his son. As he had been know as the son of "the blacksmith of Dundalk". More then likely the english named Matthew as a means of divide and conquer.

Conn of course was known for "never not accepting a claimed son". This is one of reason why Sean warred against everyone as he saw his rightfull inheritance been upsurped. Of course Matthew (Fear Dorcha == Dark man) was subsequently killed, though his son is of course Aodh Mór Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill) of 9year fame.

Hiram Morgan is very much of the opinion that Matthew - and hence Hugh - were actually O'Kellys not O'Neills. I did have a long conversation with him about whether Hugh's obsession with being declared 'The O'Neill' was a result of the lingering suspicions (you can be sure there were 'whispers') that he wasn't an O'Neill at all. I think I convinced him but I was a bit drunk at the time...:o

dubhthach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hiram Morgan is very much of the opinion that Matthew - and hence Hugh - were actually O'Kellys not O'Neills. I did have a long conversation with him about whether Hugh's obsession with being declared 'The O'Neill' was a result of the lingering suspicions (you can be sure there were 'whispers') that he wasn't an O'Neill at all. I think I convinced him but I was a bit drunk at the time...:o

Indeed well there's also possibility that the Ó Néill mainline suffered a NPE (non-paternal event -- as we in Genetic Genealogy community call it) during the period of Mac Lochlainn overlordship of the Cenél nEoghain. A majority of them don't bear the signature (or M222+ marker) that was talked about in Trinity study. Heck they even show up as L21- (M222 = subset of L21 men, L21 = 80% of Irishmen)

There was an article published about it a couple of years ago in JOGG (Journal of Genetic Genealogy)
Insights Into the O’Neills of Ireland from DNA Testing
http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.pdf

They show for example that men bearing name MacShane/Johnston show up with this "O'Neill Variant" haplotype. Which make sense as they descend from Sean Ó Néill (and thus Conn Bacach)