Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald - what

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald - what

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 sep 2007 21:54:54

In Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 608,

Con Mor O'Neill, murdered in 1493, was son of Henry MacOwen O'Neill and NN
McMurrough

I haven't looked as yet for further ancestry, but I hope this helps.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "KPawel" <caellach@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:47 AM
Subject: Con Mor O'Neill,who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald - what was his
parentage?


Hello, all!

I have been trying to find the line leading to Con Mor
O'NEILL or Tyrone, who married Elizabeth FitzGERALD, daughter of Sir
Thomas FitzGERALD of Kildare, and who fathered Conn
Baccach O'NEILL (died 1559), 1st Earl of Tyrone.

I would have taken this to our Genealogical Library by now,
but inclimate weather and the Labor Day holiday have prevented that :(

Has anyone online tried to map-out Con Mor's lineage?

Thank you for your time and any help...

Kelly Paul Graham


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 04 sep 2007 00:14:30

On Sep 3, 9:54 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
In Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 608,

Con Mor O'Neill, murdered in 1493, was son of Henry MacOwen O'Neill and NN
McMurrough

I haven't looked as yet for further ancestry, but I hope this helps.

Burke's Peerage, 107th edition, volume 2, page 3005 has (amid several
pages on this clan):

"Henry, King of Ulster 1455-83, abdicated in favour of his son 1483,
married 1st by 1441 Sile Burke; married 2nd Gormfhlaith (died 1465),
daughter of Donnchadh MacMurrough Kavanagh, styled King of
Leinster, ....; married 3rd his cousin Joan, daughter of MacMahon, and
died 15 June 1489, leaving (probably by his 1st wife):
1. Conn Mor King of Ulster ..."

Burke's trace the ancestry back about 1000 years beyond Henry to

"Niall Noigiallach (of the Nine Hostages); High King of Ireland; had,
with other issue:
1. Loegaire, High King of Ireland 428-58; ...."

For what it is worth (which is not very much, because the pedigree
goes back well before the earliest written records), full details can
be obtained by subscription:

http://www.burkes-peerage.net/signup-info.aspx

KPawel

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av KPawel » 04 sep 2007 05:09:44

Thank you, Hovite and Leo !! :)

Hardly an hour had passed from when I posted that message, then I
found Con Mor O Neill's pedgree online :) If was one of those
Pedigrees that - in the days of the Bards - I am quite sure the
Senechees spent a full day reciting !! :) Anyway, this helps me fill
in the "who", of who the wives were who married in the MacDONNELL
clan!

Kelly Paul Graham

On Sep 3, 6:14 pm, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:54 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

In Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 608,

Con Mor O'Neill, murdered in 1493, was son of Henry MacOwen O'Neill and NN
McMurrough

I haven't looked as yet for further ancestry, but I hope this helps.

Burke's Peerage, 107th edition, volume 2, page 3005 has (amid several
pages on this clan):

"Henry, King of Ulster 1455-83, abdicated in favour of his son 1483,
married 1st by 1441 Sile Burke; married 2nd Gormfhlaith (died 1465),
daughter of Donnchadh MacMurrough Kavanagh, styled King of
Leinster, ....; married 3rd his cousin Joan, daughter of MacMahon, and
died 15 June 1489, leaving (probably by his 1st wife):
1. Conn Mor King of Ulster ..."

Burke's trace the ancestry back about 1000 years beyond Henry to

"Niall Noigiallach (of the Nine Hostages); High King of Ireland; had,
with other issue:
1. Loegaire, High King of Ireland 428-58; ...."

For what it is worth (which is not very much, because the pedigree
goes back well before the earliest written records), full details can
be obtained by subscription:

http://www.burkes-peerage.net/signup-info.aspx

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 sep 2007 12:46:37

On 4 Sep, 00:14, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
For what it is worth (which is not very much, because the pedigree
goes back well before the earliest written records), full details can
be obtained by subscription:

Dear Sir

You appear to be a man who is well informed. Perhaps you might tell us
what the earliest written records in this case actually are.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 04 sep 2007 13:31:50

On Sep 4, 12:46 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Dear Sir

You appear to be a man who is well informed. Perhaps you might tell us
what the earliest written records in this case actually are.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

The situation is complicated by a number of factors, so rather than
attempt to answer that, I will instead direct you to a book:

"Irish Kings and High Kings" by Francis John Byrne

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Kings-High- ... 1851821961

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 sep 2007 13:59:53

On 4 Sep, 13:31, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
The situation is complicated by a number of factors, so rather than
attempt to answer that, I will instead direct you to a book:

"Irish Kings and High Kings" by Francis John Byrne

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Kings-High- ... 1851821961

Dear Sir

As you seem to be acquainted with this work then perhaps you might
give a brief exposition concerning the earliest written records in
this case.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

KPawel

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av KPawel » 04 sep 2007 15:34:40

My guess, Sir Crispin, would be that the records are as reliable as
you
would think word-of-mouth would be, as someone here *might* debate
that
Ireland only had a usable-written-language since the coming of
Christianity
and the monsteries! (Although, it may be said that the learned
classes
had Ogham before that. The "latin script" just made it possible for
the rest of
Europe to read what the Celts were thinking. But, I may be getting
OT.)

On Sep 4, 7:59 am, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 4 Sep, 13:31, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

The situation is complicated by a number of factors, so rather than
attempt to answer that, I will instead direct you to a book:
"Irish Kings and High Kings" by Francis John Byrne
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Kings-High- ... 1851821961

Dear Sir

As you seem to be acquainted with this work then perhaps you might
give a brief exposition concerning the earliest written records in
this case.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 04 sep 2007 20:20:43

On Sep 4, 1:59 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 4 Sep, 13:31, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

The situation is complicated by a number of factors, so rather than
attempt to answer that, I will instead direct you to a book:
"Irish Kings and High Kings" by Francis John Byrne
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Kings-High- ... 1851821961

Dear Sir

As you seem to be acquainted with this work then perhaps you might
give a brief exposition concerning the earliest written records in
this case.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

It depends what you mean by "earliest". There are records that
supposedly record early events, but they were probably compiled at a
later date. The problem is to determine which records are fiction and
which are genuine. For Ireland, Byrne says (page 70):

"... documentary sources for the fifth century are practically non-
existent, while for the sixth they are very scanty. The annals for the
most part of this period are hardly contemporary: they are a product
of the great monastic flowering of the mid-sixth century, and the
earlier entries were probably written up at a much later date, though
the compilers may have had some meagre records on which to draw. Only
in the seventh century do we emerge into the full light of history ..."

Notice Byrne's choice of words: "practically non-existent", "scanty",
"meagre", and "hardly contemporary" and "probably written up at a much
later date".

The situation is much the same for other countries. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle pretends to record events from 60 BC onwards, but the first
version was compiled in 891 AD, and though some entries derive from
earlier sources, such as Bede, others are pure invention, such as the
infamous annal for 501, which has Port arriving at Portsmouth. Many of
the people in the earlier portion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are
imaginary, and they fight imaginary battles against imaginary foes.
Irish Chronicles are unlikely to be any more accurate.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 sep 2007 22:16:54

On 4 Sep, 20:20, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
"... documentary sources for the fifth century are practically non-
existent, while for the sixth they are very scanty. The annals for the
most part of this period are hardly contemporary: they are a product
of the great monastic flowering of the mid-sixth century, and the
earlier entries were probably written up at a much later date, though
the compilers may have had some meagre records on which to draw. Only
in the seventh century do we emerge into the full light of history ..."

Dear Sir

So it would seem that the earliest written records do indeed approach
the floruit of Niall of the Nine hostages.

How awful.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 05 sep 2007 22:49:56

On Sep 4, 10:16 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

So it would seem that the earliest written records do indeed approach
the floruit of Niall of the Nine hostages.

They do not. According to Byrne (page 80), "the oldest source" is "the
seventh century Baile Chuind" (some two hundred years after Niall's
supposed life). Details of that work can be found here (notice that it
is "not a story but a prophesy"):

http://www.hastings.edu/academic/englis ... huinn.html

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 sep 2007 23:38:01

On 5 Sep, 22:49, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
They do not. According to Byrne (page 80), "the oldest source" is "the
seventh century Baile Chuind" (some two hundred years after Niall's
supposed life). Details of that work can be found here (notice that it
is "not a story but a prophesy"):

http://www.hastings.edu/academic/englis ... huinn.html

Dear Sir

It would be a strange prophecy that prophesies past events wouldn't
you say? I see that obits have been added against those in the two
hundred years prior to composition. Presumably these are found in the
sixth century sources that you mentioned earlier. I conclude that this
is indeed the 'oldest source', the oldest source of a king list, and
that you are being somewhat selective in your quotations.

Harrumph.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.



Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 06 sep 2007 00:24:41

On Sep 5, 11:38 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Presumably these are found in the
sixth century sources that you mentioned earlier.

It the work cited is the earliest source, and does not include dates,
the the dates must came from a later source, such as chronicles
fabricated by monks long after the events they pretend to record.
That would be fairly normal. Once monks got into the habit of
writing chronicles, they were compelled to provide dates for events
(real or imagined) that had previously been undated.

The website mentioned above says "over one hundred of these stories
survive from the late seventh through the seventeenth centuries". So,
nothing survives from before the late seventh century, which confirms
the statement made by Byrne on page 80 of his book (you may find that
there is a copy in your local library).

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 13:57:56

On 6 Sep, 00:24, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
It the work cited is the earliest source, and does not include dates,
the the dates must came from a later source, such as chronicles
fabricated by monks long after the events they pretend to record.
That would be fairly normal. Once monks got into the habit of
writing chronicles, they were compelled to provide dates for events
(real or imagined) that had previously been undated.

The website mentioned above says "over one hundred of these stories
survive from the late seventh through the seventeenth centuries". So,
nothing survives from before the late seventh century, which confirms
the statement made by Byrne on page 80 of his book (you may find that
there is a copy in your local library).

Dear Sir

In the first paragraph I note that you beg the question rather than
provide a substantive reply. As for the second paragraph that such
texts survive from the late seventh century says nothing at all about
the earliest texts in other genres.

I have today sent a man to the British Library with a Raspberry (or
whatever those things are called) and he finds that you have indeed
been selective in your quotations. You have led us to believe on the
authority of Mr. Byrne that this seventh century Baile Chuind is the
oldest source but Mr. Byrne on page 80 clearly states this in the
context of the king list genre:

'O'Rahilly, on sound evidence, would eliminate Nath I altogether from
the list of high kings of Tara - he is ignored by the oldest source,
the seventh century Baile Chuind - and thus places Niall's death in or
around 427'

You present this as 'the oldest source' is 'the seventh century Baile
Chuind' which is not quite the same is it.

For a coup de grace my man quotes Mr. Byrne on page 52:

'Niall and his sons were indeed historical personages...'

and on page 72:

'Yet of Niall's own historicity there is little reason to doubt'

Harrumpf and good day to you sir.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 06 sep 2007 15:22:35

On Sep 6, 1:57 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
'O'Rahilly, on sound evidence, would eliminate Nath I altogether from
the list of high kings of Tara - he is ignored by the oldest source,
the seventh century Baile Chuind - and thus places Niall's death in or
around 427'

There are no surviving documents from 427 and AD chronology was not
even invented until much later; it was introduced to the British Isles
by Bede, who died in 735.

So, by saying someone died in 427, one is using a system of chronology
that was not available until 300 years afterwards. Such a date is an
expression of belief rather than a historical fact.

If you read more of Byrne's book, you will find that he suggests that
427 is too early.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 19:51:26

On 6 Sep, 15:22, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
There are no surviving documents from 427 and AD chronology was not
even invented until much later; it was introduced to the British Isles
by Bede, who died in 735.

So, by saying someone died in 427, one is using a system of chronology
that was not available until 300 years afterwards. Such a date is an
expression of belief rather than a historical fact.

If you read more of Byrne's book, you will find that he suggests that
427 is too early.

Dear Sir

You have in effect denied all of ancient history.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 sep 2007 21:21:26

On 6 Sep, 19:57, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
There are historians and chroniclers who are contemporary with the events they describe, just not for Ireland.

Dear Sir

But do they use modern chronological apparatus!

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 07 sep 2007 16:59:10

On Sep 6, 1:57 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

'O'Rahilly, on sound evidence, would eliminate Nath I altogether from
the list of high kings of Tara - he is ignored by the oldest source,
the seventh century Baile Chuind - and thus places Niall's death in or
around 427'

At the top of the next page, Byrne reports "all persons with whom
Niall is associated belong to the latter half of the fifth century ...
Niall died c.452".

So that is two different death dates in the space of two pages. The
humble reader may be forgiven for wondering whether he ever died at
all, or even if he ever lived.

And that is not all. Nath I seems to be eliminated on page 80, but he
turns up again on pages 275 and 280! This would seem to push Niall
back again, to the rejected death date of c.405 (page 80), but on page
81 his "sons" die around 462, 465, and 480, and one son is apparently
still fighting in 516.

At this point even Byrne begins to doubt his sources "absolute
certainty as to the meaning of these last three annalistic entries is
not possible".

Once again, it needs to be stressed that Byrne (page 48) was using
sources first written down centuries after the supposed events: "The
earliest reliable historical traditions in Ireland concern the warfare
between the Ulaid and the Connachta. These traditions are, it is true,
enshrined in legend and saga rather than historically documented.
Furthermore, the sagas were written in the eighth and ninth centuries
by men acquainted with the new learning of the monasteries, and they
continued to be retold and embellished in each succeeding generation
as much for literary enjoyment as for antiquarian interest."

Unlike Byrne, I do not consider such material as "reliable", and I
reject as worthless the historical and genealogical information
extracted from it. In reaching this conclusion, I am taking into
account recently published work regarding comparable Anglo-Saxon
documents, previously considered genuine, but now regarded as
fictional.

Interestingly, Niall's mother was said to be an Anglo-Saxon princess
with the unlikely Roman name of Carina (Byrne page 76).

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 sep 2007 22:16:57

On 7 Sep, 16:59, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
At the top of the next page, Byrne reports "all persons with whom
Niall is associated belong to the latter half of the fifth century ...
Niall died c.452".

So that is two different death dates in the space of two pages. The
humble reader may be forgiven for wondering whether he ever died at
all, or even if he ever lived.

And that is not all. Nath I seems to be eliminated on page 80, but he
turns up again on pages 275 and 280! This would seem to push Niall
back again, to the rejected death date of c.405 (page 80), but on page
81 his "sons" die around 462, 465, and 480, and one son is apparently
still fighting in 516.

At this point even Byrne begins to doubt his sources "absolute
certainty as to the meaning of these last three annalistic entries is
not possible".

Once again, it needs to be stressed that Byrne (page 48) was using
sources first written down centuries after the supposed events: "The
earliest reliable historical traditions in Ireland concern the warfare
between the Ulaid and the Connachta. These traditions are, it is true,
enshrined in legend and saga rather than historically documented.
Furthermore, the sagas were written in the eighth and ninth centuries
by men acquainted with the new learning of the monasteries, and they
continued to be retold and embellished in each succeeding generation
as much for literary enjoyment as for antiquarian interest."

Unlike Byrne, I do not consider such material as "reliable", and I
reject as worthless the historical and genealogical information
extracted from it. In reaching this conclusion, I am taking into
account recently published work regarding comparable Anglo-Saxon
documents, previously considered genuine, but now regarded as
fictional.

Interestingly, Niall's mother was said to be an Anglo-Saxon princess
with the unlikely Roman name of Carina (Byrne page 76).

Dear Sir

I am astounded at your poor standard of reading comprehension. That
you believe that Mr. Byrne's conclusion on Niall's obit is invalidated
by the mere fact that a discussion preceded it. That you believe that
Nath I not being excised from the historical sources dealt with in the
book somehow invalidates Mr. Byrne's conclusion that he did not exist.
That you believe these obits derive from the saga genre while quoting
Mr. Byrne's mild concern as to the chronological presentation of these
obits in the *annalistic* genre.

On balance I am inclined to believe that you have integrity issues Mr.
Hovite.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

taf

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av taf » 07 sep 2007 23:17:06

On Sep 7, 2:16 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 7 Sep, 16:59, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am astounded at your poor standard of reading comprehension. That
you believe that Mr. Byrne's conclusion on Niall's obit is invalidated
by the mere fact that a discussion preceded it. That you believe that


I must be living in a time warp because it isn't a full moon here, but
the behavior on the group of late would suggest that it must be,
somewhere.


On balance I am inclined to believe that you have integrity issues Mr.
Hovite.


Actually, I think he is having issues with the creature living under
the bridge.


Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.


Integrity issues. Right, Sir Crispin.


taf

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2007 11:57:10

On 7 Sep, 23:17, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
I must be living in a time warp because it isn't a full moon here, but
the behavior on the group of late would suggest that it must be,
somewhere.

Dear Sir

You are clearly a man who likes the sound of his own voice so I ask
you. Are you willing to present the case against the fly in the
Charlemagnic ointment that is Niall of the nine hostages? We must
refute the claims of the Irishry at every turn but I find that Hovite
is simply not up to the task.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2007 14:04:56

On Sep 8, 12:57 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 7 Sep, 23:17, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

I must be living in a time warp because it isn't a full moon here, but
the behavior on the group of late would suggest that it must be,
somewhere.

Dear Sir

You are clearly a man who likes the sound of his own voice so I ask
you. Are you willing to present the case against the fly in the
Charlemagnic ointment that is Niall of the nine hostages? We must
refute the claims of the Irishry at every turn but I find that Hovite
is simply not up to the task.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

The patients have taken over the asylum.

Anarchy reigns

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 08 sep 2007 15:33:08

On Sep 6, 7:51 pm, sir_crispin_gayl...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Dear Sir

You have in effect denied all of ancient history.

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

No, I have merely denied the historical value of myths and legends.
Some nations left proper records, and, if you are genuinely interested
in the chronology of the ancient world, then I recommend that you
consult:

E. J. Bickerman: The Chronology of the Ancient World

Gjest

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2007 16:46:23

On 8 Sep, 15:33, Hovite <paulvhe...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I have merely denied the historical value of myths and legends.

Dear Sir

We must engage the annalistic material yet once again you chase after
the red herring of myth and saga. Are you even aware of the difference
between annal, chronicle, history, king list, genealogy, legend, myth?

Yours, etc

Sir Crispin Gaylord, Bt.

Hovite

Re: Fw: Con Mor O'Neill, who married Elizabeth Fitzgerald -

Legg inn av Hovite » 14 sep 2007 20:08:18

On Sep 4, 3:34 pm, KPawel <caell...@comcast.net> wrote:
My guess, Sir Crispin, would be that the records are as reliable as
you
would think word-of-mouth would be, as someone here *might* debate
that
Ireland only had a usable-written-language since the coming of
Christianity
and the monsteries!

At which point pagan gods had to be excluded from the pedigrees.

As Byrne (Irish Kings and High-Kings, page 155) makes clear, Irish
tribes originally claimed descent from a god or goddess, such as
Brigantia:

"... The well-known Brigantes of North Britain probably were named from
the goddess, for dedications to DEA BRIGANTIA (in one instance
identified with VICTORIA) are of frequent occurrence in their
territory. Ptolemy mentions a tribe of Brigantes on the Wexford coast,
whom O'Rahilly took to be the ancestors of the Ui Bairrche. The
latter, in spite of their official descent from Daire Barrech son of
Cathair Mar, evidently from the grammatical form of their name are
called after a female ancestor. ..."

The goddess is still worshipped in Ireland, but she now called Saint
Brigit, and Byrne (page 156) quoted a Christian poem dedicated to her:

"Sit thou safely enthroned, triumphant Brigit, upon the side of the
Liffey far as the strand of the sea! Thou art the sovereign lady with
the banded hosts that presides over the Children of Cathair the
Great. ..."

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»