World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: wing_genealogist on July 15, 2012, 05:01:54 PM



Title: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: wing_genealogist on July 15, 2012, 05:01:54 PM
There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752)


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: rms2 on July 15, 2012, 05:57:09 PM
Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising.

The Stewarts/Stuarts are supposed to be R-L21, but I haven't followed that claim closely.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: whoknows on July 15, 2012, 06:17:21 PM
Why of course it is an established 'fact' that R U106 is Germanic so by extension the Saxe-Coburg line of Monarchs would therefore have to be from that Haplogroup, right?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: rms2 on July 15, 2012, 06:24:57 PM
Come on, give me a break.

I said it isn't surprising that a line of kings who descend from Prince Albert are R-U106, since Prince Albert was a German.

It isn't my fault that Prince Albert was a German and that he was apparently R-U106. I would make him O3, if I could. That would be much more fun.

It is common knowledge that R-U106 is very frequent in Germany.

(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4239/haplogroupr1bs21.th.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/haplogroupr1bs21.gif/)



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: alan trowel hands. on July 15, 2012, 09:31:42 PM
Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising.

The Stewarts/Stuarts are supposed to be R-L21, but I haven't followed that claim closely.

and they were of course Normans, the male line of the Gaelic Scottish kings (the Cenel nGabrain or Canmore line as it was later known) having died out in the 13th century.   


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Castlebob on July 16, 2012, 12:14:38 AM
I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: whoknows on July 16, 2012, 05:28:09 AM
It is the implied assertion, as incontrovertible fact, that trumpets R U106 is Germanic, which any possessed of a more open and inquiring mind find difficult to regard as credible. It may well be that currently the Haplogroup appears in significant frequencies in some parts of Europe long associated with Germanic peoples. Of itself though that cannot in any logical or convincing fashion be considered as demonstrable evidence that all R U106 in NW Europe is therefore  'Germanic'. The early movements and settlements of peoples, in all likely-hood a mixture of Haplogroups no doubt established themselves in various regions of Europe long before the emergence of Germanic culture, it seems illogical to exclude R U106 from such a model. Tangentially I read with interest a piece by Tom Gull, written a couple of years back, in which he looked at the frequencies of R U106 in Austria and some parts of Switzerland and wondered if such data suggested that far from indicating the accepted view of Germanic movement from the Netherlands area down the Rhine, it may have been the reverse, with the different perspective that the Haplogroup may have been linked with Hallstatt culture. Again we are in the arena of opinion and speculation, however better to be open-minded and willing to embrace various opinions, than simply repeat the jaded mantra that insists all R U106 is Germanic. Who knows maybe (indication there that the following point is merely speculative) the Saxe-Coburgs and their lineage leading to the English throne (although apparently of that Haplogroup) could belong not to a Saxon origin, but that of the Halstatt Celts :)

PS: thanks for the pretty map, a triumph of statistical art over conclusive proof


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: rms2 on July 16, 2012, 06:26:09 AM
I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob

Yes, the Stewart royal line is originally of Breton stock. They supposedly descend from Alan fitz Flaad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_FitzFlaad), a Breton knight.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: rms2 on July 16, 2012, 07:24:49 AM
I gather that the Stewarts were of Breton stock. From memory, I think many of the Stewarts who have tested tend to be R1b.........4. Stuart was the French version of Stewart.
If of Breton stock, then potentially the Stewart kings would probably be of Brythonic Celt stock - IF the old theory of Brythonic Celts colonising Brittany is accurate.
I haven't read the King George V thread, but would be surprised if a direct member of our royal family had agreed to an open DNA test. If true, then that would be useful!
Cheers,
Bob

Yes, the Stewart royal line is originally of Breton stock. They supposedly descend from Alan fitz Flaad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_FitzFlaad), a Breton knight.

Here is something interesting from the Stewart Stuart DNA Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/stewart/default.aspx?section=news):

Quote
17 Apr 2012: ScotlandsDNA announced that "The DNA of the Duke of Buccleuch was found to be an exact match of a descendant of Charles Stewart of Ardshiel, who fought at Culloden, both men descended from Alan, the Seneschal of Dol, a Breton aristocrat. His family came to Britain in 1066 with William the Conqueror and then made its way to Scotland to found the Stewart line." The Duke of Buccleuch had been SNP tested and found to be positive for L744 (=S388) and L745 (=S463).

L744 and L745 are both downstream of L21. I guess that is confirmation that the royal Stewart line was/is R-L21.

One of my gg-grandmothers was a Stewart, and I have Family Finder matches to several of the Stewarts who are L744+ L745+. Can't confirm the connection yet, but their Scottish immigrant ancestor went to South Carolina, and my most distant known Stewart ancestor was born in South Carolina in 1801.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 16, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Since Prince Albert was a German, that is hardly surprising. ...

whoknows, please don't insert the controversy over U106's association or non-association with German speakers into every thread that U106 or Germany comes up in.

...  It may well be that currently the Haplogroup appears in significant frequencies in some parts of Europe long associated with Germanic peoples.

Right, I think that is all RMS is speaking of in this particular topic. U106 has higher frequencies in Germanic speaking groups today.

...Of itself though that cannot in any logical or convincing fashion be considered as demonstrable evidence that all R U106 in NW Europe is therefore  'Germanic'. 

I agree with you, particularly since you used the word "all" and before that "of itself" in reference to the current hg frequenices. However, this is off topic. Please start another thread if you want to discuss this.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 16, 2012, 10:01:07 AM
I thought that Henry had no sons and he was eligitimate himself.


There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752)


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jdean on July 16, 2012, 10:09:02 AM
I thought that Henry had no sons and he was eligitimate himself.

Where did you read that ?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: whoknows on July 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Mike your comments are well noted :)


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jean M on July 16, 2012, 12:23:01 PM
I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.

Charles II James II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married  Ernest Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Augustus,_Elector_of_Brunswick-L%C3%BCneburg), who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus.  


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 16, 2012, 12:51:33 PM
I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.



Charles II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married  Ernest Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Augustus,_Elector_of_Brunswick-L%C3%BCneburg), who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus. 


 
You left out Jimmy Stuart, Coronated in 1685. Also  MaryII & Anne were Jimmy's daughters.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 16, 2012, 01:13:30 PM
I watched a Time Team program about the legitimate heir to the throne and it was about  Henry VIII being an illegitimate line.



I thought that Henry had no sons and he was illegitimate himself.

Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII of England had one legitimate son - Edward VI, who died in childhood, so the claim to the English throne descended in the female line. One of those lines led to Mary, Queen of Scots, whose son James (Stuart) I of England and VI of Scotland became king of both countries. It is his male line that is under discussion as of Breton stock.

Charles II was the last of the Stuart kings, since he died without a legitimate son. The throne went to his daughter Mary, married to William of Orange, and then to Mary's sister Ann, married to Prince George of Denmark. Their son William did not survive childhood. So then we leap to the House of Hanover, since Parliament was dead against any Catholic head of State, which ruled out the rest of the Stuart line.

George I (1714-1727) descended from Elizabeth, daughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland. Her daughter Sophia had married  Ernest Augustus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Augustus,_Elector_of_Brunswick-L%C3%BCneburg), who later became Elector of Hanover. So the Y-DNA of George I comes from  Ernest Augustus. 


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jean M on July 16, 2012, 01:31:53 PM
I watched a Time Team program about the legitimate heir to the throne and it was about  Henry VIII being an illegitimate line.

I saw that. It was Tony Robinson ferreting around in Australia after the "true line". To be honest I didn't buy it. But it doesn't make any difference anyway for the present discussion. The Y-DNA haplogroup passes from father to son. So Henry VIII's haplogroup doesn't matter. The Stuart Y-DNA does not come from him. Nor does the Hanoverian.

By the way the "true line" tends to be the one that gets its backside on the throne and manages to keep it there. It is a romantic idea that blood tells, but what people really needed in a monarch was brawn, charisma and enough brain for tactics in the days when they led from the front and organised the defense of their people. That might get inherited. It might not. So chiefs tended to be picked for suitability from among the ruling family, or just win by battle, in early historic times. The idea of the eldest son having a right to the throne appears in the Middle Ages, and has the benefit of ensuring a smooth succession if everyone agrees to play along with it. Otherwise it is a bit of a lottery. People could end up with a king who was incompetent or mad as a hatter.



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jean M on July 16, 2012, 01:34:02 PM
You left out Jimmy Stuart, Coronated in 1685. Also  MaryII & Anne were Jimmy's daughters.

Sorry, sorry. More haste, less speed. Erring post has been corrected.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: rms2 on July 17, 2012, 07:02:19 AM
Regarding my original post in this thread, I would have said the same thing about Prince Albert being a German if he had turned out to have been R-U152 or I-M253, or any other y haplogroup that is common in Germany.

It would have gone something like this: "Oh, Prince Albert was R-U152? Not surprising: he was a German, you know."

But Prince Albert was apparently R-U106, which is also very common in Germany and far less common in some other places.



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: df.reynolds on July 19, 2012, 06:15:06 AM
There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752)

This is off a just a bit. Although the author was shooting to establish a connection with the Royals, he in fact proved that his R-L21 grandfather was not the son of the R-U106 King George V. I think the Y-STR match you are alluding to is likely the 36/37 match between the descendent of Prince Albert the author found and had tested, and the serendipitous test results the author found afterwards for someone who is descended from Albert's uncle.

--david


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Richard Rocca on July 19, 2012, 08:07:31 AM
There has been quite a bit of recent discussion regarding this topic on the U106/S21 Yahoo Groups.  An author has claimed his grandfather was the eldest son of King George V. He was able to convince a direct male-line descendant of Prince Albert (and Queen Victoria) to undergo DNA testing and he matches the family 66/67.

In addition, Deep-clade testing has shown where they are R1b-U106 and negative for all the sub-clades in FT-DNAs current R1b Deep-Clade testing. They have joined the U106 Y-DNA Project and are testing for the Z series SNPs below U106.

More discussion on this can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Kings-Soncom/163810717059752)

This is off a just a bit. Although the author was shooting to establish a connection with the Royals, he in fact proved that his R-L21 grandfather was not the son of the R-U106 King George V. I think the Y-STR match you are alluding to is likely the 36/37 match between the descendent of Prince Albert the author found and had tested, and the serendipitous test results the author found afterwards for someone who is descended from Albert's uncle.

--david

David, great to see you here my friend!


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: df.reynolds on July 19, 2012, 06:32:44 PM
David, great to see you here my friend!
Thanks, Richard. After returning to the online community, it has taken me a bit to adjust to the post dna-forums world, and find all the "new" watering holes. :)

--david


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 25, 2012, 07:32:29 AM
In 1603, two dynasties fell. Elizabeth I died childless,the Tudors lost the Crown and Hugh O'Neill surrendered to the English . Over a thousand years of Gaelic monarchy ended.O'Neill died in 1616 but history did not abandon him.
His daughter Sorcha O'Neill married an Irish astrocrat, a Magennis form Iveagh.
Ten generations later one of her descendants became Lady Glamis. She had a daughter Elizabeth Lyon the mother of Elizabeth Windsor who became Queen of England......


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 25, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
I wanted to let ye all know about the M222 link to the Royal family


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 25, 2012, 07:09:41 PM
In 1603, two dynasties fell. Elizabeth I died childless,the Tudors lost the Crown and Hugh O'Neill surrendered to the English . Over a thousand years of Gaelic monarchy ended.O'Neill died in 1616 but history did not abandon him.
His daughter Sorcha O'Neill married an Irish astrocrat, a Magennis form Iveagh.
Ten generations later one of her descendants became Lady Glamis. She had a daughter Elizabeth Lyon the mother of Elizabeth Windsor who became Queen of England......

The Tudor male lineage I believe was Celtic, but would have been P Celtic or Welsh, not really Gaelic. Of course, over in Ireland,  the O'Neill lineage must have been truly Gaelic

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaellic control there ???


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jean M on July 25, 2012, 07:52:40 PM
Ten generations later one of her descendants became Lady Glamis. She had a daughter Elizabeth Lyon the mother of Elizabeth Windsor who became Queen of England......

Queen Elizabeth has three lines from Brian Boru, according to my handy Royal Line of Succession booklet. Two come via her mother and one from Aoife, daughter of Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster, (d. 1171) who married Richard Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke, which wends its way through the Mortimers to Richard, Duke of York, and so on down to James VI and I.

Said Dermot MacMurrough had another daughter, Urlachan, who married Donnell More, King of Thomond (d. 1194). He was a descendant of Brian Boru as well, so this is where two lines meet and run down through the Kings of Thomond to Mary, sister of the 1st Earl of Inquin, who married Michael Boyle, Archbishop of Armagh. This it runs from their daughter Eleanor into the Hills, the Wellesleys, Cavenish-Bentincks to the Queen Mum. 



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 26, 2012, 07:43:38 AM
Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 26, 2012, 10:00:41 AM
Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.

I'll inquire about this again.
I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaelic control there ???

Strongbow, a Norman, married an Irish woman and I don't know the history immediately thereafter but I know the Cambro-Normans were extremely powerful in Ireland from 1170 AD on.  Oliver Cromwell definitely ended all of that, but I think you are saying that the Gaelic royalty regained control of Ireland in the interim. I'm not that familiar with the history.  What happened?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: OConnor on July 26, 2012, 11:23:28 AM
It is my understanding that Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster was ousted by the O'Connor King of Connaght.

Dermot MacMurrough went to the British Isles and returned with Strongbow who helped him regain his Kingship. Strongbow married Dermot MacMurrough's daughter, and upon Dermot MacMurrough's death shortly thereafter Strongbow claimed the Kingship in Leinster.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 11:23:42 AM
Mike, as you may know post 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, the majority of Ireland and its people regained their rightful sovereignty, thus in a sense the Gaels restored their leadership.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: OConnor on July 26, 2012, 11:28:59 AM
but how do we know who is who by 1921. Surely some of the oppressers over the ages have added to the gene pool. Descendants of which may claim to be the Irish of olde?

I don't how else to put it.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
Has anyone got a  view on James VI? He had an 'interesting' life & was  what might delicately be called 'an admirer' of the Duke of Buckingham. It was said a passage connected their two bed  chambers.
Charles I has the look of James VI, but were the paintings accurate?
This isn't meant to be a scurrilous tabloid newspaper-style question, but merely wondering if the Y-DNA from Charles WAS via James VI.
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: whoknows on July 26, 2012, 11:43:28 AM
Fair point regarding the uncertainty, culturally speaking they were as Irish as bacon and cabbage, so the post 1921 leadership onwards, within that context, could be rightly considered Gaels. Which I hope does not misrepresent what Stoneman was saying. Of course in terms of Haplogroup and YDNA lineage Eire (if you buy into associating SNPs to an ethnology) could well have been ruled since that time by Mongolians, Spanish, or Morroccan. Am sure they would not have allowed the IMF/EU to screw Ireland ;)


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Jean M on July 26, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
Has anyone got a  view on James VI?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I seems to get it right this time:

Quote
Throughout his youth, James was praised for his chastity, since he showed little interest in women; after the loss of Lennox, he continued to prefer male company.  A suitable marriage, however, was necessary to reinforce his monarchy, and the choice fell on the fourteen-year-old Anne of Denmark...  By all accounts, James was at first infatuated with Anne, and in the early years of their marriage seems always to have showed her patience and affection. The royal couple produced three surviving children...

No scandal attaches to Anne of Denmark, as far as I know.



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Castlebob on July 26, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
Thanks Jean
I did wonder!
Cheers,
Bob


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Mike Walsh on July 26, 2012, 03:41:01 PM
Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaelic control there ???

Mike, as you may know post 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, the majority of Ireland and its people regained their rightful sovereignty, thus in a sense the Gaels restored their leadership.

Right, but I thought Stoneman was talking about Gaelic royalty.  I think Ireland was fairly well fractured prior to the Normans, right?  Could it ever be pinned down to there being the High King of Ireland?  I don't know.  Perhaps O'Connor or Nial?

The Cambro-Normans consolidated control over large parts of Ireland for a period. In that sense, Normans were the royalty of large parts of Ireland during this period.  We know that Cromwell pretty wiped all of that out, but can we really say there was Gaelic royalty that any real control over most of Ireland from 1069 AD on?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 26, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Does it really matter?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Dubhthach on July 26, 2012, 04:52:35 PM
Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaelic control there ???

Mike, as you may know post 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, the majority of Ireland and its people regained their rightful sovereignty, thus in a sense the Gaels restored their leadership.

Right, but I thought Stoneman was talking about Gaelic royalty.  I think Ireland was fairly well fractured prior to the Normans, right?  Could it ever be pinned down to there being the High King of Ireland?  I don't know.  Perhaps O'Connor or Nial?

The Cambro-Normans consolidated control over large parts of Ireland for a period. In that sense, Normans were the royalty of large parts of Ireland during this period.  We know that Cromwell pretty wiped all of that out, but can we really say there was Gaelic royalty that any real control over most of Ireland from 1069 AD on?

Most of Ireland was reconqueored by Gaelic lords during the 14th and 15th century. Areas that didn't get reconquered ended up under Gaelicized Cambro-Norman control. The actual "Lordship of Ireland" (title held by British crown before Henry VIII declared himself King of Ireland) was restricted to just the Pale -- thence the expression "beyond the pale"

In the period between 1014 and 1169 Ireland was in the process of centralising and colasesing around strong regional kings who were vieing with each other for High-kingship (often described as "High-King with opposition"). If Diarmaid mac Murchadha hadn't invited the Normans in to regain Leinster (Laighin) more then likely the process would have contiuned.

Instead you end up with considerably more fractualed situation as "divide and conquer" is often an easier way to about a conquest. For example the Ó Conchobhair (O'Connor's) of Connacht eventually fractured into three independent lordships in the 14th/15th centuries. In the main line you had the "Ó Conchobhair Donn" (O'Connor Don -- Donn = Brown) and the "Ó Conchobhair Rua" (O'Connor Roe -- Rua = Red), these were pulled into wider Burke civil war, with one been supported by the "Mac William Íochtar" (Lower Mac William -- Mayo) and the other by Clanricarde (Mac William Uachta -- Upper Mac William -- Galway). The Burkes obviously originally been the Norman De Burgo family who invaded Connacht in the mid 13th century and who underwent a civil war during the 1330's (Clanwilliam of Limerick were third De Burgo grouping also involved). These Burkes became ultra-gael in behaviour, though they always regarded themselves as Gall due to male line ancestry.

The last highking of Ireland before the Norman invasion was Ruaidhrí Ua Conchobhair (Ruadhrí = Ruairí / Rory is anglisced version). However the current O'Connor Don doesn't descended directly from him but form his younger brother Cathal Crobhdearg (Cathal of the redhand -- probably a winestain birthmark). Their father was Toirdhealbhach Ua Conchobhair who was HighKing form 1120-1156. He had at least 22 sons by 6 wives.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Dubhthach on July 26, 2012, 04:56:45 PM
I should add there are at least two other men who are considered High King after Ruaidhrí these been:

Brian Ua Néill declared High King, killed at battle of Druim Dearg (battle of Down) in 1260 against the Normans.
Edward Bruce (Brother of Robert of Scotland), leader of Bruce invasion of Ireland, killed at the Battle of Faughart in 1318.

Many would consider Aodh Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill) the leader of the Irish side in the Nine year war as the last man who could be called Highking. He died in Rome in 1616.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: stoneman on July 27, 2012, 07:34:05 AM
Hugh O'Neill was descended from Neill of the nine hostages and he was king of Ireland. I think that you could call that a Royal Irish line. Neill was also desended from the Miliesian Gaels.



Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaelic control there ???

Mike, as you may know post 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, the majority of Ireland and its people regained their rightful sovereignty, thus in a sense the Gaels restored their leadership.

Right, but I thought Stoneman was talking about Gaelic royalty.  I think Ireland was fairly well fractured prior to the Normans, right?  Could it ever be pinned down to there being the High King of Ireland?  I don't know.  Perhaps O'Connor or Nial?

The Cambro-Normans consolidated control over large parts of Ireland for a period. In that sense, Normans were the royalty of large parts of Ireland during this period.  We know that Cromwell pretty wiped all of that out, but can we really say there was Gaelic royalty that any real control over most of Ireland from 1069 AD on?


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 28, 2012, 12:17:56 AM


Instead you end up with considerably more fractualed situation as "divide and conquer" is often an easier way to about a conquest. For example the Ó Conchobhair (O'Connor's) of Connacht eventually fractured into three independent lordships in the 14th/15th centuries. In the main line you had the "Ó Conchobhair Donn" (O'Connor Don -- Donn = Brown) and the "Ó Conchobhair Rua" (O'Connor Roe -- Rua = Red), these were pulled into wider Burke civil war, with one been supported by the "Mac William Íochtar" (Lower Mac William -- Mayo) and the other by Clanricarde (Mac William Uachta -- Upper Mac William -- Galway). The Burkes obviously originally been the Norman De Burgo family who invaded Connacht in the mid 13th century and who underwent a civil war during the 1330's (Clanwilliam of Limerick were third De Burgo grouping also involved). These Burkes became ultra-gael in behaviour, though they always regarded themselves as Gall due to male line ancestry.

& they all except for the clanRickard Burkes ended up by 1500 as subjects of the O’Donnells of Tyrconnel.

I should add there are at least two other men who are considered High King after Ruaidhrí these been:

Brian Ua Néill declared High King, killed at battle of Druim Dearg (battle of Down) in 1260 against the Normans.
Edward Bruce (Brother of Robert of Scotland), leader of Bruce invasion of Ireland, killed at the Battle of Faughart in 1318.

Many would consider Aodh Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill) the leader of the Irish side in the Nine year war as the last man who could be called Highking. He died in Rome in 1616.



Any male descendants of the 2n Earl of Tyrone? If I remember, a Portuguese is the O’Neill. Be interesting to see if it woul be O'Neill Y or if Kelly the blacksmith may’ve really been his pappy.

But even if O’Neill wasn’t a bastard his ally O’Donnell certainly was a SOB ;)(Ineen Dubh McDonnell)


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 28, 2012, 12:25:12 AM
Hugh O'Neill was descended from Neill of the nine hostages and he was king of Ireland. I think that you could call that a Royal Irish line. Neill was also desended from the Miliesian Gaels.

& also from a Greek Pharaoh & an Egyptian queen Scotia, & btw St Columba actually repelled the Locj Ness Monster (didn’t want to give him $tree fitty)

Seriously, Hugh O'Neill was accused of being a bastard, furthermore if you look at the paper about O’Neill Y above, it’s largest cluster doesn't matc w the other Niall groups & their related kin.  not even w the McLauglins who were their closest relatives & rivals for clan Owen over kings. It’s very likely early on some O’Neill was not paternally an O’Neill.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 28, 2012, 12:20:31 PM
Has anyone got a  view on James VI?
Well there are a group of fundamentalist Christians in the US that believe you can only be saved by reading the Bible, and in particular only the King James version of it.
Referring to James I/VI ‘preference’ or referring to him as Queen James is a tried & true way to rid yourself of their company quickly.

Gaelic rule ended with the flight of the earls in 1607 and returned for most in 1921.

A Republic is not exactly Gaelic rule, it's an entirely foreign political system.

I thought the Normans with Richard Strongbow, Chief Justicar of Ireland, ended Gaelic control there ???

In parts of Ireland by the end of the 1200’s but Strongbow was long gone by the time the FitzGeralds established control over parts of N Munster after playing one side against the other in the McCarthy civil war. In other places they & their Irish allies were defeated.


The Cambro-Normans consolidated control over large parts of Ireland for a period. In that sense, Normans were the royalty of large parts of Ireland during this period.  We know that Cromwell pretty wiped all of that out, but can we really say there was Gaelic royalty that any real control over most of Ireland from 1069 AD on?

Norman lords in Ireland (& in Wales) were given palatine powers to rule (like the Gaelic rulers) as mini kings in their domains.
After 1169 O’Connor was still king but a vassal to henri plantagenet


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Dubhthach on July 28, 2012, 12:33:19 PM


Instead you end up with considerably more fractualed situation as "divide and conquer" is often an easier way to about a conquest. For example the Ó Conchobhair (O'Connor's) of Connacht eventually fractured into three independent lordships in the 14th/15th centuries. In the main line you had the "Ó Conchobhair Donn" (O'Connor Don -- Donn = Brown) and the "Ó Conchobhair Rua" (O'Connor Roe -- Rua = Red), these were pulled into wider Burke civil war, with one been supported by the "Mac William Íochtar" (Lower Mac William -- Mayo) and the other by Clanricarde (Mac William Uachta -- Upper Mac William -- Galway). The Burkes obviously originally been the Norman De Burgo family who invaded Connacht in the mid 13th century and who underwent a civil war during the 1330's (Clanwilliam of Limerick were third De Burgo grouping also involved). These Burkes became ultra-gael in behaviour, though they always regarded themselves as Gall due to male line ancestry.

& they all except for the clanRickard Burkes ended up by 1500 as subjects of the O’Donnells of Tyrconnel.

I should add there are at least two other men who are considered High King after Ruaidhrí these been:

Brian Ua Néill declared High King, killed at battle of Druim Dearg (battle of Down) in 1260 against the Normans.
Edward Bruce (Brother of Robert of Scotland), leader of Bruce invasion of Ireland, killed at the Battle of Faughart in 1318.

Many would consider Aodh Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill) the leader of the Irish side in the Nine year war as the last man who could be called Highking. He died in Rome in 1616.



Any male descendants of the 2n Earl of Tyrone? If I remember, a Portuguese is the O’Neill. Be interesting to see if it woul be O'Neill Y or if Kelly the blacksmith may’ve really been his pappy.

But even if O’Neill wasn’t a bastard his ally O’Donnell certainly was a SOB ;)(Ineen Dubh McDonnell)


Well the O'Donnells liked to do power projection into Connacht, in general though it was mostly up around Sligo. It was very much back and forth. Of course there is a reason also why many of the lordships in Connacht fought on english side during the nine year war. That and it was a play to keep land. For example the Mayo Burkes played it very well. Tiobóid na Long Bourke (Theobald of the boats) the son of Granuaile (priate queen of folklore) became Viscount Mayo for his loyal service (his mother guided his policy). His descendants today still hold title been the Earl of Mayo (nearly 400 years later)

There are no known male line descendants of Aodh Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill), as you mention there is some debate regarding the parternity of his father. One feature of medieval Gaelic society is that women could declare that their son was the son of another man (disown their husband etc.). The most famous example happened in 16th century.

Conn Bacach Ó Néill (Bacach = lame) the last King of Tír Eóghain (Cenél nEoghain) was one of the first Irish nobles to proceed with "Surrender and regrant" (new policy of Henry VIII). In which he surrended his Irish title (King of Tír Eóghain) acknowledge Henry VIII as his King (newly minted title of King of Ireland) and was "regranted" the title of Earl of Tyrone.

Anyways Conn oldest son Phelim Caoch Ó Néill (Caoch = blind eg. bad sight) was killed on a raid against the Mac Domhnaill's (McDonalds of the glens). The obvious heir was Seán (pronunced Shane in Ulster), however a woman who was married to the smith of Dundalk (Surname Kelly) had declared that her son (Matthew) was actually the son of Conn. Conn had never been know not to accept such a declared son (he had lots -- good way to get extra swordsmen!). However Matthew (or "Fear Dorcha" -- (Darkman) as he is called in Irish) was older then Seán, as a result the english had that he was thus the successor and Matthew was installed as Baron Dungannon. Either way Seán was a legimate son whereas Matthew if he was really Conn son was illegmiate.

Seán was having none of this, after all the reason he was called Seán an Diomas (Shane the Proud). Matthew was subsequently murdered, Conn died the following year and Seán became the new Ó Néill. However he didn't get the Earldom. Seán was undoubtely basically "uncrowned king" of Ulster at the peak of his power. Of course he met his end eventually when he was murdered by the McDonalds while their guest. His head been sent to Dublin and onward to London.

Anyways Matthew son was Aodh (Hugh) who had been raised in the Pale and in general english mannor. He subsequently became Earl of Tyrone and Ó Néill. He tried hunting down the sons of Sean (MacShanes -- Johnstons later) and did manage to kill several of them. Of course that is why many of them fought on the english side during the Nine Year war.

There are a number of MacShanes/Johnstons who appear to have the "O'Neill Variant" haplotype. Though wether these are sons of Seán, or are a seperate McShane branch (from the 15th century -- another Seán Ó Néill) is a matter of debate.


The issue about the O'Neill's not been M222 (mainline) is tied to the fact that the Ó Néill family lost the control of the Kingship of Aileach in the 11th century, it was over 150 years before another Ó Néill regained the kingship from the Mac Lochlainn's. By which time there powerbase had shifted to East Tyrone. I reckon this is when an NPE occurred as most of the Ó Néill's mainline had been killed when the Mac Lochlainn's came to power.

-Paul
DF41+


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 28, 2012, 02:30:08 PM


Well the O'Donnells liked to do power projection into Connacht, in general though it was mostly up around Sligo. It was very much back and forth.


[/quote ]

IIRC by 1500  O'Donnell rule was over most of Connaugt. MacWilliams of Mayo were definitely  subject to Red Hugh O'Donnell's rule at that point. It’s interesting to see a Norman family fall prey to divisiveness like the many Gaelic families.


Of course there is a reason also why many of the lordships in Connacht fought on english side during the nine year war. That and it was a play to keep land. For example the Mayo Burkes played it very well. Tiobóid na Long Bourke (Theobald of the boats) the son of Granuaile (priate queen of folklore) became Viscount Mayo for his loyal service (his mother guided his policy). His descendants today still hold title been the Earl of Mayo (nearly 400 years later)

Land was also a reason so many later became protestant.

Some of my relatives bought the Mayos' land in Kill, Kilare some time back in the 20’s, apparently big on horses.


There are no known male line descendants of Aodh Ó Néill (Hugh O'Neill), as you mention there is some debate regarding the parternity of his father. One feature of medieval Gaelic society is that women could declare that their son was the son of another man (disown their husband etc.). The most famous example happened in 16th century.


[/quote ]

A very common occurrence & remarked upon by the English at the time.



Conn Bacach Ó Néill (Bacach = lame) the last King of Tír Eóghain (Cenél nEoghain) was one of the first Irish nobles to proceed with "Surrender and regrant" (new policy of Henry VIII). In which he surrended his Irish title (King of Tír Eóghain) acknowledge Henry VIII as his King (newly minted title of King of Ireland) and was "regranted" the title of Earl of Tyrone.



Conn, one of the first Ulster protestants along w Manus O’Donnell, who never became Earl of Tyrconnel in spite of paying homage to the soon to be king of Ireland.



Anyways Matthew son was Aodh (Hugh) who had been raised in the Pale and in general english mannor. He subsequently became Earl of Tyrone and Ó Néill. He tried hunting down the sons of Sean (MacShanes -- Johnstons later) and did manage to kill several of them. Of course that is why many of them fought on the english side during the Nine Year war.

There are a number of MacShanes/Johnstons who appear to have the "O'Neill Variant" haplotype. Though wether these are sons of Seán, or are a seperate McShane branch (from the 15th century -- another Seán Ó Néill) is a matter of debate.


Johnsons also  




The issue about the O'Neill's not been M222 (mainline) is tied to the fact that the Ó Néill family lost the control of the Kingship of Aileach in the 11th century, it was over 150 years before another Ó Néill regained the kingship from the Mac Lochlainn's. By which time there powerbase had shifted to East Tyrone. I reckon this is when an NPE occurred as most of the Ó Néill's mainline had been killed when the Mac Lochlainn's came to power.

-Paul
DF41+

Or if you take some of  John McLaughlin’s old conspiracy theories seriously they were simply a branch of the McLaughlin’s because they were out of the kingship for so long before allying w the upstarts of cenel conaill & obliterating the mcLauglin derbfine in 1241.



Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: Dubhthach on July 28, 2012, 03:15:56 PM
Again I wouldn't call it rule, no doubt alot of the the Connacht lords were paying "Sláinte" to the Ó Domhnaill's one way to tihnk of the practise of "Sláinte" it's like paying protection money to the mob.

Well given the MacLochlainn's show up as M222+ it's unlikely that the later Ó Néill "princely line" are derived form them. After the death of Flaithbherthach Ó Néill (Flaithbertach Ua Néill = middle irish form) in 1036 the Ó Néill family were excluded from the kingship of Aileach (The kingship of Northern Néill) for over seven generations. The next Ó Néill to hold the kingship was his 8th generation descendant until Aodh mac Muircheartaigh "an Macaoimh Tóinleasg" Ó Néill (Áed mac Muirchertaig "in Macáem Tóinlesc" Ua Néill = middle Irish) -- an macaoimh tóinleasg basically means the "lazy-arsed youth" hah -- was given the kingship by Ruadhrí Ua Conchobhair when he divided the Kingdom of Aileach between Aodh and the MacLochlainn's in the 1160's. It's quite a tight generation squeeze between the two men that's for sure.

There is also the fact that Aodh had been fostered by the Uí Thuirtre of East Tyrone (Airghialla grouping). The fact that Ua Cearbhaill king of Airghialla helped in his fighting against the MacLochlainn makes me wonder if was during this period the NPE came, and was due to grouping to the East. Tír nEoghain after all had been over the previous 2-300 years expanding South-eastwards at the expense of the Airghialla. The fact that after the Ó Néill come back out of the shadows are based in that area is somewhat suspiscous. That and they basically abandoned the tradition home of the Cinéal nEoghain eg. The penisula of Inis Eoghain (island of Eoghan) which was subsequently conquered by the Ó Dochartaigh (O'Doherty) of Cineal Chonaill.

It's kinda unexplainable why they would let the original territority be taken over, apart form part that it was actual MacLochlainn stronghold before the annihilation of their main line. After all Eóghan mac Néill the father of their kindred and son of Niall (of the Nine Hostages) is after all buried in Inis Eoghain (Inishowen) supposedly.


Title: Re: Last British Kings were R1b-U106
Post by: sernam on July 28, 2012, 04:36:41 PM

Well given the MacLochlainn's show up as M222+ it's unlikely that the later Ó Néill "princely line" are derived form them.


I never took it very seriously. I don't think even McLauglin believes it any more.



 After the death of Flaithbherthach Ó Néill (Flaithbertach Ua Néill = middle irish form) in 1036 the Ó Néill family were excluded from the kingship of Aileach (The kingship of Northern Néill) for over seven generations. The next Ó Néill to hold the kingship was his 8th generation descendant until Aodh mac Muircheartaigh "an Macaoimh Tóinleasg" Ó Néill (Áed mac Muirchertaig "in Macáem Tóinlesc" Ua Néill = middle Irish) -- an macaoimh tóinleasg basically means the "lazy-arsed youth" hah -- was given the kingship by Ruadhrí Ua Conchobhair when he divided the Kingdom of Aileach between Aodh and the MacLochlainn's in the 1160's. It's quite a tight generation squeeze between the two men that's for sure.

There is also the fact that Aodh had been fostered by the Uí Thuirtre of East Tyrone (Airghialla grouping). The fact that Ua Cearbhaill king of Airghialla helped in his fighting against the MacLochlainn makes me wonder if was during this period the NPE came, and was due to grouping to the East. Tír nEoghain after all had been over the previous 2-300 years expanding South-eastwards at the expense of the Airghialla. The fact that after the Ó Néill come back out of the shadows are based in that area is somewhat suspiscous. That and they basically abandoned the tradition home of the Cinéal nEoghain eg. The penisula of Inis Eoghain (island of Eoghan) which was subsequently conquered by the Ó Dochartaigh (O'Doherty) of Cineal Chonaill.

It's kinda unexplainable why they would let the original territority be taken over, apart form part that it was actual MacLochlainn stronghold before the annihilation of their main line. After all Eóghan mac Néill the father of their kindred and son of Niall (of the Nine Hostages) is after all buried in Inis Eoghain (Inishowen) supposedly.

I believe there was speculation it was part of a deal cut w the O’Donnells for their assistance in annihilating the McLaughlins. O’Neill may’ve felt it was worth losing the peninsula in return for regaining the leadership of the cenel Eogan.  At least in a later boundary dispute between the two septs over (IIRC) the strategic Mag Itha area, O’Donnell was able to produce some documents giving him claim to the territory signed by O’Neill’s ancestor. So it’s possible Inisowen was part of a payoff.