Those who believe that a knowledge of genealogy and pedigrees is superfluous
to heraldry may wish to ignore this post. As I anticipated, the Scottish
decision in the MacDonald of Keppoch case in favour of the validity of a
'sloinneadh' or orally transmitted pedigree has been noticed in Ireland. In
particular, the decision is being used to buttress the controversial claim
to the County Donegal Mac Sweeney Doe Chiefship:
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id35.htm

The law may reach its own sometimes inscrutable conclusions, but every
informed genealogist and heraldist knows that while an orally transmitted
pedigree may be a useful aid in research, by itself it is not conclusive,
and documentary evidence is required. Worse, as demonstrated in the Mac
Carthy Mór and Maguire of Fermanagh cases in particular, disregard for the
principle of proper documentary proof can open the door not only to delusion
but outright fraud.

The loss of Irish records over the centuries has been advanced as an excuse
for accepting oral traditions here, but of course this won't wash. It is
even more difficult to understand how an orally transmitted pedigree could
be given such weight in Scotland, which has such an excellent record base.
Finally, I should say that I have invited the claimant to the Mac Sweeney
Doe Chiefship to furnish documentary evidence for his right to the title,
but such material as he has provided to date is in my opinion inadequate. I
still hope to produce a fuller report on the Mac Sweeney Chiefships, Doe,
Banagh and Fanad, the latter two of which are claimed only in an honorary
fashion.

Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

From:	mcmillanj at earthlink.net
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	14 Jan 2005 13:13:00 -0800

siabair ~^~ wrote:
>
> I am not impressed by your refusal to place the oral genealogy in
context
> and your continued misrepresentation of the MacSweeney claim.
>
Maybe if a disinterested party asks the questions:

Sean Murphy has listed in narrative form his understanding of the
sloinneadh and his interpretation of the chart on the MacSweeney claim.

If he is misrepresenting either, what do you ("siabair") understand the
sloinneadh to have said and how do you interpret the names on the
chart?

If there are differences in the names on the two, other than obvious
changes in spelling, how exactly do you reconcile them? Bad HTML won't
do; on my browser the chart on the MacSweeney site seems perfectly
clear.

I am, perhaps naively, more inclined than Sean Murphy to credit oral
genealogies recorded by people with direct knowledge of their immediate
antecedents, with progressively less credence to their knowledge of
earlier generations. But if I understand the issues here, one of
inconsistencies seems to be involve the father of the man who recited
the sloinneadh in the 1830s.

Is this man's youth a period in which written parish records would be
unavailable in Ireland to resolve the matter? Or are such contemporary
records unreliable for some reason? I'm not talking about comparing
written records for the 1600s with an oral genealogy handed down from
the 1600s; I'm referring to the contemporary registers of births,
marriages, and baptisms in the mid- to late- 18th century.
Joseph McMillan

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:38:48 -0000

wrote in message
news:1105737180.863177.174470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Maybe if a disinterested party asks the questions:
>
> Sean Murphy has listed in narrative form his understanding of the
> sloinneadh and his interpretation of the chart on the MacSweeney claim.
>
>
> If he is misrepresenting either, what do you ("siabair") understand the
> sloinneadh to have said and how do you interpret the names on the
> chart?
>
> If there are differences in the names on the two, other than obvious
> changes in spelling, how exactly do you reconcile them? Bad HTML won't
> do; on my browser the chart on the MacSweeney site seems perfectly
> clear.
>
> I am, perhaps naively, more inclined than Sean Murphy to credit oral
> genealogies recorded by people with direct knowledge of their immediate
> antecedents, with progressively less credence to their knowledge of
> earlier generations. But if I understand the issues here, one of
> inconsistencies seems to be involve the father of the man who recited
> the sloinneadh in the 1830s.
>
> Is this man's youth a period in which written parish records would be
> unavailable in Ireland to resolve the matter? Or are such contemporary
> records unreliable for some reason? I'm not talking about comparing
> written records for the 1600s with an oral genealogy handed down from
> the 1600s; I'm referring to the contemporary registers of births,
> marriages, and baptisms in the mid- to late- 18th century.

Good questions for Siabair, and I'll step back for a while to give him a
chance to reply.

As to your other point, Irish records are unfortunately very poor pre-1850
compared to England and Scotland. Urban and richer rural areas had church
registers commencing in the later 18th or early 19th centuries. But Donegal
and other western counties are particularly badly served, with Catholic
baptism registers in some cases not commencing until the 1850s, 60s and 70s.
We had a series of marvellous censuses for the period 1821-51, bequeathed to
us by the departing British, but alas destroyed most of them during the
Civil War in 1922, along with two-thirds of Church of Ireland (Anglican)
registers. In these circumstances there is, I know, a temptation to fill the
gaps with wishful thinking or just plain MacCarthy-style fabrication. And
allow me to point out again that my chosen profession is not therefore
pointless, as we actually have more records surviving that we deserve,
including civil BMD from 1864, censuses from 1901 and various earlier census
substitutes, and on average can trace our ancestors back to 1800-20. In due
course I will present a full report on the Mac Sweeney Doe claimant's
ancestry, but as with MacCarthy Mór, I am working entirely on my own and
requests for adequate documentary citations have been ignored.

Sean Murphy
Beginner's Guide to Tracing Irish Ancestors
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/dir/guide.htm

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:41:51 -0000

mcmillanj@earthlink.net wrote:
> Maybe if a disinterested party asks the questions:

I am also a disinterested party as between Sean Murphy and the MacSweeney
Doe claimant. Sean states that the oral genealogy as recorded in 1835 was
as follows

Sir Mulmurry
Donough More
Murrough
Donough Oge
Turlough
Edmond

The MacSweeney website http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm shows the
following after allowance for the obviously garbled spacing (note the
vertical dash way out on the right for instance) that I see using both
Mozilla and Internet Explorer

Maolmhuire
Donnchadh Mór
Maolmhuire
Donnchadh Óg
Toirrdhealbhach
Eamon Mór

The equivalance between the English and Gaelic spelling of personal names
is uncontroversial (Maolmhuire/Mulmurry, Donnchadh/Donough,
Maolmhuire/Murrough, Donnchadh/Donough, Toirrdhealbhach/Turlough,
Eamon/Edmond) and the equivalance between English and Gaelic spelling of
epithets is uncontroversial (Mór/Mor, Óg/Oge) so the website does reflect
the oral genealogy as recorded in 1835.

Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget that the
MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of Sean's
professional colleagues.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:44 -0000

Siabair wrote:

> . . . . . Sean states that the oral genealogy as recorded in 1835 was
> as follows
>
> Sir Mulmurry
> Donough More
> Murrough
> Donough Oge
> Turlough
> Edmond
>
> The MacSweeney website http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm shows the
> following after allowance for the obviously garbled spacing (note the
> vertical dash way out on the right for instance) that I see using both
> Mozilla and Internet Explorer
>
> Maolmhuire
> Donnchadh Mór
> Maolmhuire
> Donnchadh Óg
> Toirrdhealbhach
> Eamon Mór
> . . . . .

Siabair and not I has misread the purported pedigree on the MacSweeney
website. Consider Peter Berresford Ellis's account in 'Erin's Blood Royal',
page 288, which he sources to a 'Clan Sweeney publication':

'The current chiefly line descends from Donogh Óg's uncle Edmund, who was
also outlawed, went to France and died there. His name was first on the
County Donegal Outlawry List of 1691 and his nephew Donagh Óg was thrird.
Edmund was the largest landowner to lose his property at the start of the
Williamite Confiscation. His son Donagh Fhergal is said to be the last of
the family to hold Doe Castle. It was Donagh Fhergal's son Tarlagh who was
the next MacSweeney Doe.'

This I assure you is the Mac Sweeney Doe part line, and accords with my
reading of the relevant portion of the claimant's purported pedigree:
Edmund - Donagh Fhergal - Tarlagh. Siabair's reading garbles an already
confused and contradictory pedigree, by substituting Maolmhuire and
Donnchadh Óg for Edmund and Donnchadh Fhergal, giving Tom Sweeney ancestors
he has never claimed. The HTML error seems simply to be the misplacing of
the vertical line between Donnchadh Fhergal and Toirrdhealbhach.

Hopefully we can now leave Siabair's additional obfuscation and return to
the following unexplained contradictions:

O'Donovan's 1835 pedigree in AFM and OS Letters: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny
Doe -
Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac
Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in
1835.

The claimant Mr Sweeney's pedigree summarised from
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm and as reproduced in 'Erin's Blood
Royal': Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Chief of Doe1596-1630 - Donnchadh Mór -
Edmund - Donnchadh Fheargal - Toirrdhealbhach - Eamon Mór d 1834 - Eamon
Rua.

In my opinion the claim to the Mac Sweeney Doe Chiefship is so riddled with
contradictions and devoid of acceptable documentary evidence as to be
utterly invalid. I am aware that another professional genealogist has
validated the claim, but I have not been able to see the report and requests
for adequate citations of documents have gone unanawered.

Sean Murphy
Review of Erin's Blood Royal
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/bloodroyal.htm

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:24:16 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Siabair and not I has misread the purported pedigree on the MacSweeney
> website. Consider Peter Berresford Ellis's account in 'Erin's Blood
> Royal', page 288, which he sources to a 'Clan Sweeney publication':
>
> 'The current chiefly line descends from Donogh Óg's uncle Edmund, who
> was also outlawed, went to France and died there. His name was first
> on the County Donegal Outlawry List of 1691 and his nephew Donagh Óg
> was thrird. Edmund was the largest landowner to lose his property at
> the start of the Williamite Confiscation. His son Donagh Fhergal is
> said to be the last of the family to hold Doe Castle. It was Donagh
> Fhergal's son Tarlagh who was the next MacSweeney Doe.'
>
> This I assure you is the Mac Sweeney Doe part line, and accords with
> my reading of the relevant portion of the claimant's purported
> pedigree: Edmund - Donagh Fhergal - Tarlagh. Siabair's reading
> garbles an already confused and contradictory pedigree, by
> substituting Maolmhuire and Donnchadh Óg for Edmund and Donnchadh
> Fhergal, giving Tom Sweeney ancestors he has never claimed. The HTML
> error seems simply to be the misplacing of the vertical line between
> Donnchadh Fhergal and Toirrdhealbhach.

No simply about it. Such format errors are cumulative so that in getting
the vertical line into the correct place you shunt everything downstream
forward the same distance causing new linebreaks to come into operation.
The Beresford Ellis account does not appear in my copy of Erin's Blood
Royal (so I presume you are using the post-MacCarthy second edition) but
this does not resolve matters as the MacSweeney Doe website falls within
the definition of 'a Clan Sweeney publication' so that your argument
becomes circular, with Beresford Ellis sourcing from the same diagram as
yourself.

Your central assertion seems to be that an imposter has taken an oral
genealogy recorded in 1835 and has broken it apart in order to further his
own spurious claim. This makes no sense whatsoever as the easiest thing for
him to do would be to attach his own line to the end of it so in general
terms as well as in detail your interpretation makes no sense.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:15:01 -0000

Correction: 'This I assure you is the Mac Sweeney Doe part line . . . ',
which should of course read 'party line'.

"Sean J Murphy" wrote in message
news:V1jGd.45710$Z14.25429@news.indigo.ie...
> Siabair wrote:
>
> > . . . . . Sean states that the oral genealogy as recorded in 1835 was
> > as follows
> >
> > Sir Mulmurry
> > Donough More
> > Murrough
> > Donough Oge
> > Turlough
> > Edmond
> >
> > The MacSweeney website http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm shows the
> > following after allowance for the obviously garbled spacing (note the
> > vertical dash way out on the right for instance) that I see using both
> > Mozilla and Internet Explorer
> >
> > Maolmhuire
> > Donnchadh Mór
> > Maolmhuire
> > Donnchadh Óg
> > Toirrdhealbhach
> > Eamon Mór
> > . . . . .
>
> Siabair and not I has misread the purported pedigree on the MacSweeney
> website. Consider Peter Berresford Ellis's account in 'Erin's Blood
Royal',
> page 288, which he sources to a 'Clan Sweeney publication':
>
> 'The current chiefly line descends from Donogh Óg's uncle Edmund, who was
> also outlawed, went to France and died there. His name was first on the
> County Donegal Outlawry List of 1691 and his nephew Donagh Óg was thrird.
> Edmund was the largest landowner to lose his property at the start of the
> Williamite Confiscation. His son Donagh Fhergal is said to be the last of
> the family to hold Doe Castle. It was Donagh Fhergal's son Tarlagh who was
> the next MacSweeney Doe.'
>
> This I assure you is the Mac Sweeney Doe part line, and accords with my
> reading of the relevant portion of the claimant's purported pedigree:
> Edmund - Donagh Fhergal - Tarlagh. Siabair's reading garbles an already
> confused and contradictory pedigree, by substituting Maolmhuire and
> Donnchadh Óg for Edmund and Donnchadh Fhergal, giving Tom Sweeney
ancestors
> he has never claimed. The HTML error seems simply to be the misplacing of
> the vertical line between Donnchadh Fhergal and Toirrdhealbhach.
>
> Hopefully we can now leave Siabair's additional obfuscation and return to
> the following unexplained contradictions:
>
> O'Donovan's 1835 pedigree in AFM and OS Letters: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny
> Doe -
> Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac
> Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in
> 1835.
>
> The claimant Mr Sweeney's pedigree summarised from
> http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm and as reproduced in 'Erin's Blood
> Royal': Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Chief of Doe1596-1630 - Donnchadh Mór -
> Edmund - Donnchadh Fheargal - Toirrdhealbhach - Eamon Mór d 1834 - Eamon
> Rua.
>
> In my opinion the claim to the Mac Sweeney Doe Chiefship is so riddled
with
> contradictions and devoid of acceptable documentary evidence as to be
> utterly invalid. I am aware that another professional genealogist has
> validated the claim, but I have not been able to see the report and
requests
> for adequate citations of documents have gone unanawered.
>
> Sean Murphy
> Review of Erin's Blood Royal
> http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/bloodroyal.htm
>
>

From:	Bryan J. Maloney
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:05:46 -0600

"siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch news:csbkmj
$3cm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget that the
> MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of Sean's
> professional colleagues.
>

The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:18:04 -0000

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote in message
news:Xns95DFB81FAFE1EYarblookie@216.196.97.136...
> "siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch news:csbkmj
> $3cm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget that the
> > MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of Sean's
> > professional colleagues.
> >
>
> The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.

I should hasten to add that we are 'colleagues' only in the loosest sense,
in that I am effectively blacked from professional work related to
validating chiefly pedigrees. This is firstly because I have refused to play
the game of massaging evidence in order to arrive at required results, and
more because I publicly exposed the Office of the Chief Herald's role in the
Mac Carthy Mór hoax.

Sean Murphy
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:42:09 -0000

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.

My understanding is that the Chief Herald's file on MacCarthy was bare of
any validation.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Bryan J. Maloney
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:26:31 -0600

"siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch news:csc9pa
$2tc$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.
>
> My understanding is that the Chief Herald's file on MacCarthy was bare of
> any validation.
>

This has been answered elsewhere in the thread by Mr. Murphy.

From:	mcmillanj at earthlink.net
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	16 Jan 2005 08:53:05 -0800

siabair ~^~ wrote:
>
> The MacSweeney website http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm shows
the
> following after allowance for the obviously garbled spacing (note the
> vertical dash way out on the right for instance) that I see using
both
> Mozilla and Internet Explorer
>
> Maolmhuire
> Donnchadh M=F3r
> Maolmhuire
> Donnchadh =D3g
> Toirrdhealbhach
> Eamon M=F3r
>
> The equivalance between the English and Gaelic spelling of personal
names
> is uncontroversial (Maolmhuire/Mulmurry, Donnchadh/Donough,
> Maolmhuire/Murrough, Donnchadh/Donough, Toirrdhealbhach/Turlough,
> Eamon/Edmond) and the equivalance between English and Gaelic spelling
of
> epithets is uncontroversial (M=F3r/Mor, =D3g/Oge) so the website does
reflect
> the oral genealogy as recorded in 1835.
>
Even if we grant that Toirrdhealbhach on the chart should be read as
the son of Edmund and brother of the Donnchadh Fheargal, what are we to
make of the two Eamon's who succeed him, Eamon Mor and Eamon Rua? If
the sloinneadh was recorded in 1835, it must have been recorded by
Eamon Rua, identified as 5th C. Cl., since Eamon Mor is shown on the
chart as dying in 1834. But the sloinneadh says the narrator's father
is Turlough, doesn't it? So how does Eamon Mor fit in?

Joseph McMillan

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:25:28 -0000

mcmillanj@earthlink.net wrote:
> Even if we grant that Toirrdhealbhach on the chart should be read as
> the son of Edmund and brother of the Donnchadh Fheargal...

Nobody is arguing for that interpretation so I have no idea what you mean
by this.

> ...what are we
> to make of the two Eamon's who succeed him, Eamon Mor and Eamon Rua?
> If the sloinneadh was recorded in 1835, it must have been recorded by
> Eamon Rua, identified as 5th C. Cl., since Eamon Mor is shown on the
> chart as dying in 1834. But the sloinneadh says the narrator's father
> is Turlough, doesn't it? So how does Eamon Mor fit in?

I dealt with this earlier on in the thread. The 'missing' generation is not
necessarily missing at all as I see it. A straightforward interpretation is
that Eamon/Edmond when asked for his genealogy by O Donovan began with the
name of his father who was also named Eamon/Edmond. This explains O
Donovan's comment that the genealogy he recorded was 'a generation short'.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 13:16:47 -0800

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1105737180.863177.174470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Maybe if a disinterested party asks the questions:
> >
> > Sean Murphy has listed in narrative form his understanding of the
> > sloinneadh and his interpretation of the chart on the MacSweeney
claim.
> >
> >
> > If he is misrepresenting either, what do you ("siabair") understand
the
> > sloinneadh to have said and how do you interpret the names on the
> > chart?
> >
> > If there are differences in the names on the two, other than
obvious
> > changes in spelling, how exactly do you reconcile them? Bad HTML
won't
> > do; on my browser the chart on the MacSweeney site seems perfectly
> > clear.
> >
> > I am, perhaps naively, more inclined than Sean Murphy to credit
oral
> > genealogies recorded by people with direct knowledge of their
immediate
> > antecedents, with progressively less credence to their knowledge of
> > earlier generations. But if I understand the issues here, one of
> > inconsistencies seems to be involve the father of the man who
recited
> > the sloinneadh in the 1830s.
> >
> > Is this man's youth a period in which written parish records would
be
> > unavailable in Ireland to resolve the matter? Or are such
contemporary
> > records unreliable for some reason? I'm not talking about
comparing
> > written records for the 1600s with an oral genealogy handed down
from
> > the 1600s; I'm referring to the contemporary registers of births,
> > marriages, and baptisms in the mid- to late- 18th century.
>
> Good questions for Siabair, and I'll step back for a while to give
him a
> chance to reply.
>
> As to your other point, Irish records are unfortunately very poor
pre-1850
> compared to England and Scotland. Urban and richer rural areas had
church
> registers commencing in the later 18th or early 19th centuries. But
Donegal
> and other western counties are particularly badly served, with
Catholic
> baptism registers in some cases not commencing until the 1850s, 60s
and 70s.
> We had a series of marvellous censuses for the period 1821-51,
bequeathed to
> us by the departing British, but alas destroyed most of them during
the
> Civil War in 1922, along with two-thirds of Church of Ireland
(Anglican)
> registers. In these circumstances there is, I know, a temptation to
fill the
> gaps with wishful thinking or just plain MacCarthy-style fabrication.

Sean,
You seem to be saying that those who have an oral pedigree to work
with are either fools or frauds. A remarkable, highly prejudicial and
very inaccurate conclusion in my opinion. In fact, I would strongly
assert the reverse - that the only way for most people to find their
ancestors accurately in the extant records in Ireland is to start with
a prior knowledge of names and locations from family tradition - a
sloinneadh if you will. The reason for this is simple; the problem with
Irish records, whether of church or state, is not just their existence,
but more fundamentally the lack of detail therein. As you must be
aware, records in other countries can be remarkably detailed, but in
Ireland a typical church baptism or marriage record can consist soley
of the names of parents/parties and the sponsors/witnesses, while state
records provide little more, with the exception of fathers name and
occupation on marriage registrations. This being so, and given the
(sometimes exteme)commonality of both Christian names and surnames, it
is usually simply not possible to locate ones ancestors with confidence
unless you already know where and who you are looking for! Even then,
for parishes that don't give addresses, you may have to examine and
reconstruct all the families of the same surname in the parish in order
to be certain as to which "John Murphy" is yours! To give one example
from my own experience, in parish records I can trace a certain family
back to the 1790s with certitude as the entries match my pre-existing
oral pedigree. The records contine on back to the 1670s and I can
construct several possible lines of descent from them - but whether one
or any of these possbile descents is correct I simply can't tell
because of the lack of detail in the records, and the fact my oral
pedigree does not extend that far back. Conclusion: pre-existing
personal knowledege of ones family is the vital component to looking at
Irish records. Absent this prior knowledge one can construct any number
of meaningless descents from the records, yet this seems to be the
process you endorse!

I would also state that the oral pedigree I started with proved to be
remarkably accurate in all lines, extended to the existence of distant
relations and to events back in the 1700s and even 1600s. The point of
this being that I have no reason to think that my family was/is in any
way special in this regard. [Within Ireland that is - I think it is
very different for emigrants who obviously loose contact with the
spatial geography and place/family associations of their origins].

>And
> allow me to point out again that my chosen profession is not
therefore
> pointless, as we actually have more records surviving that we
deserve,
> including civil BMD from 1864, censuses from 1901 and various earlier
census
> substitutes, and on average can trace our ancestors back to 1800-20.

Again, given how difficult I personally have found it at times to
accurately determine which are my relatives in the records, even though
I started from an excellent knowledge base, I really don't understand
how you can for your clients, given your stated belief that oral
pedigrees are either foolish or fraudulent. I guess that is why you are
paid the big Euros! My own opinion is that many pedigrees constructed
simply "from the records" are incorrect.

> In due
> course I will present a full report on the Mac Sweeney Doe claimant's
> ancestry, but as with MacCarthy M=F3r, I am working entirely on my own
and
> requests for adequate documentary citations have been ignored.
>=20
> Sean Murphy

Regards,
The Chief

From:	Sandford MacLean
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:12:04 GMT

While I have Mr. Murphy's attention in this newsgroup--as he does not seem
to answer personal email-- I want to enquire about the bona fides of a
gentleman named The Hon Laird Rutherford Barry Johnson of McIan of McShane,
K.S.S., C.E., N.S.C. Is there a recognized clan in Ireland called the Clan
McShane?

Kind Regards,
Sandford MacLean

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:42:27 -0000

"Sandford MacLean" wrote in message
news:SSRDd.1934$Xx1.1421@attbi_s04...
> While I have Mr. Murphy's attention in this newsgroup--as he does not seem
> to answer personal email-- I want to enquire about the bona fides of a
> gentleman named The Hon Laird Rutherford Barry Johnson of McIan of
McShane,
> K.S.S., C.E., N.S.C. Is there a recognized clan in Ireland called the
Clan
> McShane?

Unfortunately I had a recent mishap with my e-mail system when endeavouring
to change from Outlook to Mozilla, and have not yet ironed out all the
technicalities. But I will take the opportunity to reply to Mr MacLean via
this forum. As my work on bogus Irish chiefs to date has cost thousands of
hours of unpaid work, and effective professional blacking in certain
quarters, I would be slow to tackle new cases brought to my attention by
others. However, with the caution that I have not carried out detailed
research on the case in question, I will state my initial opinion that the
Clan McShane is another artificial construct, and that the Hon Laird's
titles are questionable to say the least. If the individual in question
feels I am doing him an injustice, he is free like all other claimants to
contact me and present copies of supporting documentation for examination.
Again, Ireland did not have a clan system like Scotland, and the 'Clans of
Ireland' movement is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century romantic fiction
borrowed from our Celtic cousins, complete with kilts and bagpipes. Latterly
I note that canny Scots suppliers are even adding Irish tartans to their
stock!

Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

From:	Sandford MacLean
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:57:02 GMT

Dear Mr. Murphy,

I feel your assessment is correct in this case. Thanks for your assistance.

Cheers,
Sandford MacLean
"Sean J Murphy" wrote in message
news:AhSDd.45231$Z14.23240@news.indigo.ie...
> "Sandford MacLean" wrote in message
> news:SSRDd.1934$Xx1.1421@attbi_s04...
> > While I have Mr. Murphy's attention in this newsgroup--as he does not
seem
> > to answer personal email-- I want to enquire about the bona fides of a
> > gentleman named The Hon Laird Rutherford Barry Johnson of McIan of
> McShane,
> > K.S.S., C.E., N.S.C. Is there a recognized clan in Ireland called the
> Clan
> > McShane?
>
> Unfortunately I had a recent mishap with my e-mail system when
endeavouring
> to change from Outlook to Mozilla, and have not yet ironed out all the
> technicalities. But I will take the opportunity to reply to Mr MacLean
via
> this forum. As my work on bogus Irish chiefs to date has cost thousands of
> hours of unpaid work, and effective professional blacking in certain
> quarters, I would be slow to tackle new cases brought to my attention by
> others. However, with the caution that I have not carried out detailed
> research on the case in question, I will state my initial opinion that the
> Clan McShane is another artificial construct, and that the Hon Laird's
> titles are questionable to say the least. If the individual in question
> feels I am doing him an injustice, he is free like all other claimants to
> contact me and present copies of supporting documentation for examination.
> Again, Ireland did not have a clan system like Scotland, and the 'Clans of
> Ireland' movement is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century romantic fiction
> borrowed from our Celtic cousins, complete with kilts and bagpipes.
Latterly
> I note that canny Scots suppliers are even adding Irish tartans to their
> stock!
>
> Sean Murphy
> Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/
>
>

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 16:01:24 -0800

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> "siabair ~^~" wrote in message
> news:csbkmk$3cm$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > > Of course I know that partisans of
> > > the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's list was not
a
> > > pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device which
> > > allows you to play around with the data ad lib.
> >
> > I have noticed that just such a device appears in the diagram on
the
> > website (Ceann Clainne meaning 'head of the clan')
> >
> > Maolmhuire, 1st Ceann Clainne
> > Donnchadh =D3g, 2nd Ceann Clainne
> > Toirrdhealbhach, 3rd Ceann Clainne
> > Eamon M=F3r, 4th Ceann Clainne
> >
> > If you believe that the oral genealogy has been fictioned into a
> succession
> > of chiefs then you must admit that your interpretation of the
diagram on
> > the website is incorrect. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> It is not I who am endeavouring to have it multiple ways, but those
who
> twist and turn their meagre or non-existent evidence in an effort to
prove
> chiefly status.

To characterize a sloinneadh as "meagre or non-existant evidence" in
completely unhistorical, as you are doubtless aware.

> Again, the contradictions which you are unable to explain:
>
> O'Donovan's 1835 pedigree in AFM and OS Letters: Sir Mulmurry Mac
Sweeny
> Doe -
> Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge
Mac
> Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61
in
> 1835.
>
> The claimant Mr Sweeney's pedigree summarised from
> http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm: Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Chief
of Doe
> 1596-1630 - Donnchadh M=F3r - Edmund - Donnchadh Fheargal -
Toirrdhealbhach -
> Eamon M=F3r d 1834 - Eamon Rua.
>
> Sean Murphy

Additional information is provided at
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id28.htm
which you never reference.=20

Regards,
The Chief

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 13:47:39 -0800

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> "siabair ~^~" wrote in message
> news:cs3upu$b12$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The Chief wrote:
> > > Well for once you seem to have embraced the orthodox creed, at
> > > least with regard to oral genealogies/sloinneadh. Quite why they
> > > provoke such negative reactions has always escaped me
(professional
> > > bias?). A sloinneadh is the product of much time and effort, as
> > > compared to the momentary transaction that can create a written
> > > document. In my own limited experience, the written documents
that are
> > > so beloved of professional genealogists are rife with errors,
> > > omissions and inaccuracies - if I had relied on such sources
alone
> > > then I would never have figured out some branches of my family.
To me
> > > asloinneadh is at least, and maybe more, trustworthy than any one
> > > individual documentary source, and teh Scottish decision is the
> > > correct one.
> >
> > I have found that those who scoff at these things tend to have
little
> > hesitation accepting the presumption-ridden descents reconstructed
from
> > genealogical detritus that you find in peerage works and the like.
That
> the
> > MacSweeney oral genealogy at its earlier end overlaps into 17th
century
> > genealogical records that were extremely obscure until published in
the
> > mid-20th century speaks powerfully for its accuracy.
>
> That the Maguire of Fermanagh 'tradition of the family' at its
earlier end
> overlaps into 17th century genealogical records and was accepted by
the
> Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland speaks only for the credulity
and
> worse that afflicts Irish genealogy and heraldry.

Sean,
This argument is of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
variety, and not very useful. One might just as well say that many a
documented pedigree has been fraudulently generated - insert favourite
example here - so obviously documentary pedigrees are not to be relied
upon.
As regards the heraldic implications, I have personally encountered at
least one case where the old Ulster granted undifferenced historic arms
to a family, based on no more than their assertion of a link back to
previous holders, and I believe I have seen reference to other such
cases (by the infamous Mr. T. MacCarthy Mor?). I think Ulster's
presumption was in favour of the applicant being a gentleman, and
honest, and the CHI has perhaps continued in this tradition?

> The Mac Sweeney Doe oral
> genealogy is not only largely uncorroborated, but contains
significant
> contradictions which cannot be explained away by HTML errors. Again,
> O'Donovan's oral pedigree contains six entries, Sir Mulmurry, Donough
More,
> Murrough, Donough Oge, Turlough, Edmond aged 61 in 1835. The
'corrected' or
> rather creatively tweaked 'sloinneadh' of the current Mac Sweeney Doe
> claimant contains seven entries, dropping one name and adding
another:
> Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Donnchadh M=F3r, Edmund, Donnchadh Fheargal,
> Toirrdhealbhach, Eamon M=F3r d 1834, Eamon Rua.

I know nothing of the Mac Sweeney Doe's apart from what I just learned
from a brief glance at their website. This showed something very
signficant that you have not mentioned: that there is significant
documentary evidence from unimpeachable sources that a member fo the
family was generally acknowledged to be "The Mac Sweeny Doe" in 1835.
That being so, the exact details of the sloinneadh back to the 1600s
are pretty much irrelevant. All that would matter (for me) is that a
current claimant show descent to/from the acknowledged Chief of the
Name in 1835.

>
> Incidentally, 'Chief', 'Siabair', why conceal your identities if
clarity and
> truth are your aim?
>

My answer has not changed from when you asked previously:
security/privacy. Would you be any the wiser if I started posting as
Sean Smith?

> Sean Murphy
> Report on Pedigree of Maguire of Fermanagh
> http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/maguire.htm
Regards,
The Chief

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	11 Jan 2005 14:35:08 -0800

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Those who believe that a knowledge of genealogy and pedigrees is
superfluous
> to heraldry may wish to ignore this post. As I anticipated, the
Scottish
> decision in the MacDonald of Keppoch case in favour of the validity
of a
> 'sloinneadh' or orally transmitted pedigree has been noticed in
Ireland. In
> particular, the decision is being used to buttress the controversial
claim
> to the County Donegal Mac Sweeney Doe Chiefship:
> http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id35.htm
>
> The law may reach its own sometimes inscrutable conclusions, but
every
> informed genealogist and heraldist knows that while an orally
transmitted
> pedigree may be a useful aid in research, by itself it is not
conclusive,
> and documentary evidence is required. Worse, as demonstrated in the
Mac
> Carthy M=F3r and Maguire of Fermanagh cases in particular, disregard
for the
> principle of proper documentary proof can open the door not only to
delusion
> but outright fraud.
>
> The loss of Irish records over the centuries has been advanced as an
excuse
> for accepting oral traditions here, but of course this won't wash. It
is
> even more difficult to understand how an orally transmitted pedigree
could
> be given such weight in Scotland, which has such an excellent record
base.
>=2E....

>
> Sean Murphy
> Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

Dear Sean,
Well for once you seem to have embraced the orthodox creed, at
least with regard to oral genealogies/sloinneadh. Quite why they
provoke such negative reactions has always escaped me (professional
bias?). A sloinneadh is the product of much time and effort, as
compared to the momentary transaction that can create a written
document. In my own limited experience, the written documents that are
so beloved of professional genealogists are rife with errors, omissions
and inaccuracies - if I had relied on such sources alone then I would
never have figured out some branches of my family. To me asloinneadh is
at least, and maybe more, trustworthy than any one individual
documentary source, and teh Scottish decision is the correct one.
Regards,
The Chief

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:45:55 -0000

The Chief wrote:
> Well for once you seem to have embraced the orthodox creed, at
> least with regard to oral genealogies/sloinneadh. Quite why they
> provoke such negative reactions has always escaped me (professional
> bias?). A sloinneadh is the product of much time and effort, as
> compared to the momentary transaction that can create a written
> document. In my own limited experience, the written documents that are
> so beloved of professional genealogists are rife with errors,
> omissions and inaccuracies - if I had relied on such sources alone
> then I would never have figured out some branches of my family. To me
> asloinneadh is at least, and maybe more, trustworthy than any one
> individual documentary source, and teh Scottish decision is the
> correct one.

I have found that those who scoff at these things tend to have little
hesitation accepting the presumption-ridden descents reconstructed from
genealogical detritus that you find in peerage works and the like. That the
MacSweeney oral genealogy at its earlier end overlaps into 17th century
genealogical records that were extremely obscure until published in the
mid-20th century speaks powerfully for its accuracy.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:12:02 -0000

"siabair ~^~" wrote in message
news:cs3upu$b12$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Chief wrote:
> > Well for once you seem to have embraced the orthodox creed, at
> > least with regard to oral genealogies/sloinneadh. Quite why they
> > provoke such negative reactions has always escaped me (professional
> > bias?). A sloinneadh is the product of much time and effort, as
> > compared to the momentary transaction that can create a written
> > document. In my own limited experience, the written documents that are
> > so beloved of professional genealogists are rife with errors,
> > omissions and inaccuracies - if I had relied on such sources alone
> > then I would never have figured out some branches of my family. To me
> > asloinneadh is at least, and maybe more, trustworthy than any one
> > individual documentary source, and teh Scottish decision is the
> > correct one.
>
> I have found that those who scoff at these things tend to have little
> hesitation accepting the presumption-ridden descents reconstructed from
> genealogical detritus that you find in peerage works and the like. That
the
> MacSweeney oral genealogy at its earlier end overlaps into 17th century
> genealogical records that were extremely obscure until published in the
> mid-20th century speaks powerfully for its accuracy.

That the Maguire of Fermanagh 'tradition of the family' at its earlier end
overlaps into 17th century genealogical records and was accepted by the
Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland speaks only for the credulity and
worse that afflicts Irish genealogy and heraldry. The Mac Sweeney Doe oral
genealogy is not only largely uncorroborated, but contains significant
contradictions which cannot be explained away by HTML errors. Again,
O'Donovan's oral pedigree contains six entries, Sir Mulmurry, Donough More,
Murrough, Donough Oge, Turlough, Edmond aged 61 in 1835. The 'corrected' or
rather creatively tweaked 'sloinneadh' of the current Mac Sweeney Doe
claimant contains seven entries, dropping one name and adding another:
Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Donnchadh Mór, Edmund, Donnchadh Fheargal,
Toirrdhealbhach, Eamon Mór d 1834, Eamon Rua.

Incidentally, 'Chief', 'Siabair', why conceal your identities if clarity and
truth are your aim?

Sean Murphy
Report on Pedigree of Maguire of Fermanagh
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/maguire.htm

From:	Bryan J. Maloney
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:54:49 -0600

"Sean J Murphy" abagooba zoink larblortch
news:e7iFd.45506$Z14.24360@news.indigo.ie:

> Incidentally, 'Chief', 'Siabair', why conceal your identities if
> clarity and truth are your aim?

Maybe he really is Akins of that Oink.

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:44:00 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> That the Maguire of Fermanagh 'tradition of the family' at its
> earlier end overlaps into 17th century genealogical records and was
> accepted by the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland speaks only for
> the credulity and worse that afflicts Irish genealogy and heraldry.
> The Mac Sweeney Doe oral genealogy is not only largely
> uncorroborated, but contains significant contradictions which cannot
> be explained away by HTML errors. Again, O'Donovan's oral pedigree
> contains six entries, Sir Mulmurry, Donough More, Murrough, Donough
> Oge, Turlough, Edmond aged 61 in 1835. The 'corrected' or rather
> creatively tweaked 'sloinneadh' of the current Mac Sweeney Doe
> claimant contains seven entries, dropping one name and adding
> another: Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Donnchadh Mór, Edmund, Donnchadh
> Fheargal, Toirrdhealbhach, Eamon Mór d 1834, Eamon Rua.

I am not impressed by your refusal to place the oral genealogy in context
and your continued misrepresentation of the MacSweeney claim.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Bryan J. Maloney
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:08:38 -0600

"The Chief" abagooba zoink larblortch
news:1105482908.860643.215990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> never have figured out some branches of my family. To me asloinneadh is
> at least, and maybe more, trustworthy than any one individual
> documentary source, and teh Scottish decision is the correct one.
> Regards,
> The Chief

Akins of that Oink?

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:22:21 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> The law may reach its own sometimes inscrutable conclusions, but every
> informed genealogist and heraldist knows that while an orally
> transmitted pedigree may be a useful aid in research, by itself it is
> not conclusive, and documentary evidence is required. Worse, as
> demonstrated in the Mac Carthy Mór and Maguire of Fermanagh cases in
> particular, disregard for the principle of proper documentary proof
> can open the door not only to delusion but outright fraud.

The key difference is that the claims of MacCarthy and Maguire appeared out
of thin air little more than ten years ago while the MacSweeney Doe oral
genealogy was recorded in the 1830s from a man in his seventies who can be
presumed to have known his grandfather. This validates the oral genealogy
back to circa 1690, beyond which the genealogical records relating to the
Gaelic aristocracy are good to excellent.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:52:39 -0000

"siabair ~^~" wrote in message
news:crreno$js0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > The law may reach its own sometimes inscrutable conclusions, but every
> > informed genealogist and heraldist knows that while an orally
> > transmitted pedigree may be a useful aid in research, by itself it is
> > not conclusive, and documentary evidence is required. Worse, as
> > demonstrated in the Mac Carthy Mór and Maguire of Fermanagh cases in
> > particular, disregard for the principle of proper documentary proof
> > can open the door not only to delusion but outright fraud.
>
> The key difference is that the claims of MacCarthy and Maguire appeared
out
> of thin air little more than ten years ago while the MacSweeney Doe oral
> genealogy was recorded in the 1830s from a man in his seventies who can be
> presumed to have known his grandfather. This validates the oral genealogy
> back to circa 1690, beyond which the genealogical records relating to the
> Gaelic aristocracy are good to excellent.

As I indicated in an earlier post, John O'Donovan recorded an orally
transmitted Mac Sweeney Doe pedigree in 1835, which he noted was probably
one generation short. The current claimant to the chiefship has identified
the missing name as that of his ancestor Éamon Mór MacSweeney, but has so
far failed to produce any documentary evidence to support this link.
Undocumented orally transmitted pedigrees fall short of required standards
of genealogical proof, and even more so when 'missing' generations are
simply interpolated by interested parties.

Here is O'Donovan's pedigree as recorded in 'Annals of the Four Masters', 6,
page 2341: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe -
Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny
Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in 1835. Sir Mulmurry/Miles died in
1630, so this is a two-century 'remembered' pedigree. For what I regard as a
rather creative adjustment of this pedigree see
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm

Sean Murphy

Sean Murphy

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:30:26 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> As I indicated in an earlier post, John O'Donovan recorded an orally
> transmitted Mac Sweeney Doe pedigree in 1835, which he noted was
> probably one generation short. The current claimant to the chiefship
> has identified the missing name as that of his ancestor Éamon Mór
> MacSweeney, but has so far failed to produce any documentary evidence
> to support this link. Undocumented orally transmitted pedigrees fall
> short of required standards of genealogical proof, and even more so
> when 'missing' generations are simply interpolated by interested
> parties.
>
> Here is O'Donovan's pedigree as recorded in 'Annals of the Four
> Masters', 6, page 2341: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough More
> Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac Sweeny Doe
> - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in 1835.
> Sir Mulmurry/Miles died in 1630, so this is a two-century
> 'remembered' pedigree. For what I regard as a rather creative
> adjustment of this pedigree see http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm

The webpage is very obviously suffering from garbled HTML but the genealogy
within would seem to agree to the oral genealogy recorded in 1835 in
everything except orthography (with Gaelic forms bsuch as Eamon being
substituted for anglicised forms such as Edmond).

The 'missing' generation is not necessarily missing at all as I see it. A
straightforward interpretation is that Eamon/Edmond when asked for his
genealogy by O Donovan began with the name of his father who was also named
Eamon/Edmond. This explains O Donovan's comment that the genealogy he
recorded was 'a generation short'.

I would also point out that it is hardly an undocumented orally transmitted
pedigree as it was documented in 1835 and as such can be considered
reliable for a couple of generations prior to that.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:48:53 -0000

Siabhair wrote:

"siabair ~^~" wrote in message
news:crul4t$u74$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > As I indicated in an earlier post, John O'Donovan recorded an orally
> > transmitted Mac Sweeney Doe pedigree in 1835, which he noted was
> > probably one generation short. The current claimant to the chiefship
> > has identified the missing name as that of his ancestor Éamon Mór
> > MacSweeney, but has so far failed to produce any documentary evidence
> > to support this link. Undocumented orally transmitted pedigrees fall
> > short of required standards of genealogical proof, and even more so
> > when 'missing' generations are simply interpolated by interested
> > parties.
> >
> > Here is O'Donovan's pedigree as recorded in 'Annals of the Four
> > Masters', 6, page 2341: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough More
> > Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac Sweeny Doe
> > - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in 1835.
> > Sir Mulmurry/Miles died in 1630, so this is a two-century
> > 'remembered' pedigree. For what I regard as a rather creative
> > adjustment of this pedigree see http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm
>
> The webpage is very obviously suffering from garbled HTML but the
genealogy
> within would seem to agree to the oral genealogy recorded in 1835 in
> everything except orthography (with Gaelic forms bsuch as Eamon being
> substituted for anglicised forms such as Edmond).
>
> The 'missing' generation is not necessarily missing at all as I see it. A
> straightforward interpretation is that Eamon/Edmond when asked for his
> genealogy by O Donovan began with the name of his father who was also
named
> Eamon/Edmond. This explains O Donovan's comment that the genealogy he
> recorded was 'a generation short'.
>
> I would also point out that it is hardly an undocumented orally
transmitted
> pedigree as it was documented in 1835 and as such can be considered
> reliable for a couple of generations prior to that.

Again, here is O'Donovan's 1835 pedigree: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny Doe -
Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac
Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in
1835.

Here is the claimant Mr Sweeney's pedigree summarised from
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm: Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Chief of Doe
1596-1630 - Donnchadh Mór - Edmund - Donnchadh Fheargal - Toirrdhealbhach -
Eamon Mór d 1834 - Eamon Rua.

As can be seen, the lists differ significantly, particularly in the third
entries. Furthermore, you cannot just 'correct' O'Donovan retrospectively by
stating that he misunderstood his informant and add another generation. An
oral pedigree written down does not thereby become 'documented', as it still
requires corroboration by other sources, preferably primary. Of course I
know that partisans of the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's
list was not a pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device
which allows you to play around with the data ad lib. However, we now have
O'Donovan's original 1835 Ordnance Survey letter in print, in which he
specifically states that 'Emon, now the senior, aged 61' is son of Torlogh
('OS Letters Donegal', Dublin 2000, page 26).

In short, O'Donovan's 'sloinneadh' is advanced as key evidence, and then
morphed at will to produce a desired result. Incidentally, I asked last year
for a full copy of the report prepared by a consultant to the OCHI for the
Mac Sweeney Doe claimant, but have yet to receive same. But of course, who
am I but 'the self-appointed saviour of Irish genealogy', wantonly bothering
lofty experts who know best about these matters.

Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:35:11 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Of course I know that partisans of
> the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's list was not a
> pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device which
> allows you to play around with the data ad lib.

I do not understand what you mean by this. In what way does a fiction
converting the genealogy into a father-son succession of chiefs allow
someone to play around with the data?

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:12:02 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> As can be seen, the lists differ significantly, particularly in the
> third entries. Furthermore, you cannot just 'correct' O'Donovan
> retrospectively by stating that he misunderstood his informant and
> add another generation. An oral pedigree written down does not
> thereby become 'documented', as it still requires corroboration by
> other sources, preferably primary. Of course I know that partisans of
> the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's list was not a
> pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device which
> allows you to play around with the data ad lib. However, we now have
> O'Donovan's original 1835 Ordnance Survey letter in print, in which
> he specifically states that 'Emon, now the senior, aged 61' is son of
> Torlogh ('OS Letters Donegal', Dublin 2000, page 26).

Sean, I am surprised that you continue to misrepresent the claims of this
person. Anyone can see that the diagram from which you abstract your
version of the MacSweeney genealogy is broken due to incorrect line length.

To address your points, I think it is reasonable to correct O Donovan as he
himself expresses doubt as to his recording of the genealogy and that
asking someone who their father and grandfather was is about as primary as
it gets. In this case that is all that is needed to get the line back into
the seventeenth century and the copious genealogical records of the Gaelic
aristocracy.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:42:05 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Of course I know that partisans of
> the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's list was not a
> pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device which
> allows you to play around with the data ad lib.

I have noticed that just such a device appears in the diagram on the
website (Ceann Clainne meaning 'head of the clan')

Maolmhuire, 1st Ceann Clainne
Donnchadh Óg, 2nd Ceann Clainne
Toirrdhealbhach, 3rd Ceann Clainne
Eamon Mór, 4th Ceann Clainne

If you believe that the oral genealogy has been fictioned into a succession
of chiefs then you must admit that your interpretation of the diagram on
the website is incorrect. You cannot have it both ways.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:46:07 -0000

"siabair ~^~" wrote in message
news:csbkmk$3cm$2@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
> > Of course I know that partisans of
> > the Doe claimant now state as well that O'Donovan's list was not a
> > pedigree as such but a succession of chiefs, another device which
> > allows you to play around with the data ad lib.
>
> I have noticed that just such a device appears in the diagram on the
> website (Ceann Clainne meaning 'head of the clan')
>
> Maolmhuire, 1st Ceann Clainne
> Donnchadh Óg, 2nd Ceann Clainne
> Toirrdhealbhach, 3rd Ceann Clainne
> Eamon Mór, 4th Ceann Clainne
>
> If you believe that the oral genealogy has been fictioned into a
succession
> of chiefs then you must admit that your interpretation of the diagram on
> the website is incorrect. You cannot have it both ways.

It is not I who am endeavouring to have it multiple ways, but those who
twist and turn their meagre or non-existent evidence in an effort to prove
chiefly status. Again, the contradictions which you are unable to explain:

O'Donovan's 1835 pedigree in AFM and OS Letters: Sir Mulmurry Mac Sweeny
Doe -
Donough More Mac Sweeny Doe - Murrough Mac Sweeny Doe - Donough Oge Mac
Sweeny Doe - Turlough Mac Sweeny Doe - Edmond Mac Sweeny Doe, aged 61 in
1835.

The claimant Mr Sweeney's pedigree summarised from
http://www.sweeneydoeclan.com/id22.htm: Maolmhuire/Sir Miles, Chief of Doe
1596-1630 - Donnchadh Mór - Edmund - Donnchadh Fheargal - Toirrdhealbhach -
Eamon Mór d 1834 - Eamon Rua.

Sean Murphy

From:	siabair ~^~
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:43:09 -0000

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> It is not I who am endeavouring to have it multiple ways, but those
> who twist and turn their meagre or non-existent evidence in an effort
> to prove chiefly status.

I would advise you to get your story straight next time.

--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost', 'phantom', 'spectre'

From:	Biggar
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	8 Jan 2005 17:32:25 -0800

Dear Mr Murphy,
I have unfortunately not been able to reach you by e-mail. I am very
interested in the MacSweeney Doe research. I would like to send you the
pedigree of my grandfather Valentine Mac Swiney as researched by the
CoA , for your comment (from 1200). I always understood that my
grandfather (died 1945) had a claim to be head of the Doe line but his
research in the early 1900's could not prove anything conclusively. As
far as I know he never attempted to gain recognition. His line is now
extinct (as his only son - my uncle- and his only son are both dead),
so the question of status is purely academic. Nonetheless, I am
interested in the research and applaud your rigour, which I apply to my
own researches. It would be interesting to see where his pedigree ties
in to that of the current pretender. You may recall we had some contact
with one another re. the MacCarthy. Mor hoax. Please supply me with an
email or fax address. You can do this also if you wish via a personal
message using the Heraldry Society Of Scotland website.
With my thanks in anticipation,
Charles Ross of Biggar

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 15:56:16 -0800

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> "siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch
news:csbkmj
> $3cm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget that
the
> > MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of
Sean's
> > professional colleagues.
> >
>
> The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.

Source please? I don't recall that ever having been claimed at the
time.

Regards,
The Chief

From:	Sean J Murphy
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:12:49 -0000

"The Chief" wrote in message
news:1105833376.690118.296140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > "siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch
> news:csbkmj
> > $3cm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
> >
> > > Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget that
> the
> > > MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of
> Sean's
> > > professional colleagues.
> > >
> >
> > The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional colleagues.
>
> Source please? I don't recall that ever having been claimed at the
> time.

The Mac Carthy Mór claim was validated in 1992 by the then two most august
figures in Irish heraldry and genealogy, namely, Chief Herald Donal Begley
and Deputy Chief Herald Fergus Gillespie, who cosigned the now infamous
certificate of recognition for Terence MacCarthy. The technically correct
term is probably 'professional superiors' rather than 'professional
colleagues', but strangely enough I could never muster up any feelings of
inferiority with regard to these gentlemen.

Sean Murphy
The Mac Carthy Mór Hoax
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm

From:	clanmcshane at yahoo.co.uk
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	8 Jan 2005 20:38:40 -0800

Dear Readers,
Clan McShane is organized purely to conduct genealogical,
historical, and now DNA research on our family. We do not give out or
recognize any titles or orders. Members are simply trying to
coordinate research to detail their own family histories. If members
choose to use titles, postnomials, or Orders, that is their own
decision and has nothing to do with the Clan organization itself.
Best Regards,
Clan McShane

Sandford MacLean wrote:
> Dear Mr. Murphy,
>
> I feel your assessment is correct in this case. Thanks for your
assistance.
>
> Cheers,
> Sandford MacLean
> "Sean J Murphy" wrote in message
> news:AhSDd.45231$Z14.23240@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Sandford MacLean" wrote in message
> > news:SSRDd.1934$Xx1.1421@attbi_s04...
> > > While I have Mr. Murphy's attention in this newsgroup--as he does
not
> seem
> > > to answer personal email-- I want to enquire about the bona
fides of a
> > > gentleman named The Hon Laird Rutherford Barry Johnson of McIan
of
> > McShane,
> > > K.S.S., C.E., N.S.C. Is there a recognized clan in Ireland
called the
> > Clan
> > > McShane?
> >
> > Unfortunately I had a recent mishap with my e-mail system when
> endeavouring
> > to change from Outlook to Mozilla, and have not yet ironed out all
the
> > technicalities. But I will take the opportunity to reply to Mr
MacLean
> via
> > this forum. As my work on bogus Irish chiefs to date has cost
thousands of
> > hours of unpaid work, and effective professional blacking in
certain
> > quarters, I would be slow to tackle new cases brought to my
attention by
> > others. However, with the caution that I have not carried out
detailed
> > research on the case in question, I will state my initial opinion
that the
> > Clan McShane is another artificial construct, and that the Hon
Laird's
> > titles are questionable to say the least. If the individual in
question
> > feels I am doing him an injustice, he is free like all other
claimants to
> > contact me and present copies of supporting documentation for
examination.
> > Again, Ireland did not have a clan system like Scotland, and the
'Clans of
> > Ireland' movement is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century romantic
fiction
> > borrowed from our Celtic cousins, complete with kilts and bagpipes.
> Latterly
> > I note that canny Scots suppliers are even adding Irish tartans to
their
> > stock!
> >
> > Sean Murphy
> > Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/
> >
> >

From:	Glen Cook
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	09 Jan 2005 23:56:47 GMT

>Dear Readers,
>Clan McShane is organized purely to conduct genealogical,
>historical, and now DNA research on our family. We do not give out or
>recognize any titles or orders. Members are simply trying to
>coordinate research to detail their own family histories. If members
>choose to use titles, postnomials, or Orders, that is their own
>decision and has nothing to do with the Clan organization itself.
>Best Regards,
>Clan McShane
>

Yet the website at http://www.clanmcshane.org/ seems to indicate otherwise, as
it includes a Chief and all the other incidents of a Scottish Clan.

One might also query why the Lion Rampant is pictured with a shamrock.

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 20:46:50 -0800

Sean J Murphy wrote:
> "The Chief" wrote in message
> news:1105833376.690118.296140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > > "siabair ~^~" abagooba zoink larblortch
> > news:csbkmj
> > > $3cm$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk:
> > >
> > > > Interesting though this discussion may be, let us not forget
that
> > the
> > > > MacSweeney claim has been validated in its entirety by one of
> > Sean's
> > > > professional colleagues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The McCarthy Mor claim was also validated by professional
colleagues.
> >
> > Source please? I don't recall that ever having been claimed at the
> > time.
>
> The Mac Carthy M=F3r claim was validated in 1992 by the then two most
august
> figures in Irish heraldry and genealogy, namely, Chief Herald Donal
Begley
> and Deputy Chief Herald Fergus Gillespie, who cosigned the now
infamous
> certificate of recognition for Terence MacCarthy. The technically
correct
> term is probably 'professional superiors' rather than 'professional
> colleagues', but strangely enough I could never muster up any
feelings of
> inferiority with regard to these gentlemen.
>
> Sean Murphy
> The Mac Carthy M=F3r Hoax
> http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/irhismys/maccarthy.htm

Sean,
I am begining to worry that you are being somewhat deliberately
obtuse here. The only other interpretation is that you have had a
sudden change of heart and now consider the CHI and Deputy to be your
"professional colleagues", which I would never have dreamed possible!
To recap:
The MacSeeney Doe genealogy is stated to have been verified by a
"professional colleague", which to me implies a professional
genealogist not on the staff of the Genalogical Office. Was the
MacCarthy Mor claim similary validated? - I don't believe so.
Regards,
The Chief

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 21:04:04 -0800

A question for Sean Murphy:
Do you accept that the current Chief of the
Name is the valid senior heir of the Eamonn MacSweeney of 1835? If so,
then I don't understand why there is any issue at all, as there is
documentary evidence from unimpeachable sources that Eamonn MacSweeney
was generally accepted as the Chief of his Name in that year. Or is it
that you do accept that the current Chief is the senior heir of Eamonn
of 1835, but are demanding "documentary" proof for each generation from
him all the way back to the 1630s? If the latter is the case, I think
you are deliberately setting out an unreasonable and completely
unnecessary test which you know will not be met.
Regards,
The Chief

From:	clanmcshane at yahoo.co.uk
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree--Clan McShane
Date:	8 Jan 2005 20:30:41 -0800

Sandford MacLean wrote:
> Dear Mr. Murphy,
>
> I feel your assessment is correct in this case. Thanks for your
assistance.
>
> Cheers,
> Sandford MacLean
> "Sean J Murphy" wrote in message
> news:AhSDd.45231$Z14.23240@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Sandford MacLean" wrote in message
> > news:SSRDd.1934$Xx1.1421@attbi_s04...
> > > While I have Mr. Murphy's attention in this newsgroup--as he does
not
> seem
> > > to answer personal email-- I want to enquire about the bona
fides of a
> > > gentleman named The Hon Laird Rutherford Barry Johnson of McIan
of
> > McShane,
> > > K.S.S., C.E., N.S.C. Is there a recognized clan in Ireland
called the
> > Clan
> > > McShane?
> >
> > Unfortunately I had a recent mishap with my e-mail system when
> endeavouring
> > to change from Outlook to Mozilla, and have not yet ironed out all
the
> > technicalities. But I will take the opportunity to reply to Mr
MacLean
> via
> > this forum. As my work on bogus Irish chiefs to date has cost
thousands of
> > hours of unpaid work, and effective professional blacking in
certain
> > quarters, I would be slow to tackle new cases brought to my
attention by
> > others. However, with the caution that I have not carried out
detailed
> > research on the case in question, I will state my initial opinion
that the
> > Clan McShane is another artificial construct, and that the Hon
Laird's
> > titles are questionable to say the least. If the individual in
question
> > feels I am doing him an injustice, he is free like all other
claimants to
> > contact me and present copies of supporting documentation for
examination.
> > Again, Ireland did not have a clan system like Scotland, and the
'Clans of
> > Ireland' movement is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century romantic
fiction
> > borrowed from our Celtic cousins, complete with kilts and bagpipes.
> Latterly
> > I note that canny Scots suppliers are even adding Irish tartans to
their
> > stock!
> >
> > Sean Murphy
> > Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/
> >
> >

From:	The Chief
Subject:	Re: The 'sloinneadh' or oral pedigree
Date:	15 Jan 2005 13:06:50 -0800