DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Ui Neill Dynasty - Why some O'Neills aren't M222+
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:28:16 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/2007 5:08:35 P.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:

I just noticed this very interesting PDF the other day - many regular
readers may have seen it already:

http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.pdf

It basically finds evidence of a non-paternal event in the O'Neill line.


As one who has studied the O'Neills for years I have to say this didn't
surprise me much. Seamus O Ceallaigh (Gleanings from Ulster History, 1952)
pointed out several problems in the O'Neill pedigree and history, which is based
largely on a 17th century document, the Lebor Eoghanach. If anyone would like
to read the article you can find it here:

http://members.aol.com/Mlochlan/ulster.htm

To be fair, O Ceallaigh also found severe problems with the history and
pedigree of the McLaughlins, the closest kin to the O'Neills. If these problems
exist in the line of the major kings of the north of ireland one can only
imagine the problems in lesser lineages.

In a nutshell, the problem with the O'Neills is this:

The O'Neill surname first arose with descendants of Domhnall 'of Armagh',
the High King of Ireland, who died 980 A.D. For two or three generations his
descendants, all called Ua Neill in the annals, held the kingship of Aileach.
Then after the death of Aedh Athlaman and Flaithbertach an trostain Ua Neill
(1033 and 1036) the O'Neills were completely eclipsed by their closest kin,
the McLaughlins. The McLaughlins held the kingship of Aileach (ie, the north
of Ireland) for the next 150 years, completely excluding the O'Neills from
the succession. During this long, dark night of the O'Neills not a single
O'Neill was named king of anything in the annals; their pedigree is completely
untraceable in the annals; and obviously in error when compared to the much
better authenticated pedigree of the McLaughlins.

Then suddenly, from nowhere, pops up Aedh Ua Neill 'the lazy youth', who was
suddenly named King of Aileach despite the now interloper status of the
O'Neills in the succession. Aedh's kingship didn't last long - he was slain in
1177 by two Mclaughlins who then regained the kingship. But from then on the
O'Neills are mentioned again in the annals and by 1241 A.D. had wrested the
kingship from the McLaughlin rivals once and for all.

The point is the O'Neill pedigree and history are unverifiable for a period
of 150 years or about five generations in the annals. And if there was some
kind of NPE event it most likely occurred during this time period because
after the time of Aedh 'the lazy youth' Ua Neill the O'Neill pedigree is well
traceable in the Irish annals.

In later centuries there were rumors aplenty about O'Neill bastards.

Plantation of Ulster
Rev. George Hill

p. 22

"Conn O'Neill, who accepted an English earldom in the year 1542, and died in
1559. This Ulster prince fell prey to certain English servitors, including
the Bagenalls, who were able to intermeddle with his family affairs, and who
eventually induced him to adopt the son of a Dundalk blacksmith, named Kelly,
to the exclusion of his only legitimate son, Shane O'Neill.

One of our best irish archaeological authorities - O'Donovan - believed that
Con O'Neill's heir was really the son of a blacksmith, and this his [the
heir's] son, who is known in history as Hugh O'Neill, second earl of Tyrone, was
not, therefore, an O'Neill at all.


Could a fairly late event such as this have resulted in the largest group of
O'Neills in Ulster who are not R1b1c7?

17th century English writers often had derogatory things to say about the
O'Neills (Fynes Moryson's [1566-1630] The Irish Sections - Unpublished
Itinerary, ):

"And so the Oneales boldly rushed into the possessions the English had left
voyde in Ulster, and not only the true Oneales, but every bastard warranted
by his mother to call himselfe Oneale, if he were more bold and bloody then
the rest, did from that time beare themselves for lords of Ulster."

"They have likewise a ridiculous cutstome, that maryed women give Fathers to
their Children when they are at the point of death. Insomuch as they have a
pleasant tale, that a yonger son hearing his mother give base Fathers to
some of his bretheren, besought her with teares to give him a good father. but
commonly they give them fathers of the Oneales, O Donnells or such great men,
or at least those that are most famous for licentious boldness. and these
bastard Children ever after follow these fathers, and thinking themselves to
descend of them, will be called swordmen, and scorning husbandry, and manual
Arts live only of rapine and spoyle."

The problem with the large group of O'Neills in Ulster who are not R1b1c7
though is they seem remarkably compact, tightly clustered in DNA showing a
probable single common ancestor. This doesn't seem to fit well with the
English claims of irish women on their deathbeds giving their sons famous names or
with various unrelated males proclaiming themselves to be O'Neills.

The following quote from the O'Neill article would seem to place the NPE
event closer to the dark night of the O'Neills than to any more recent bastard
of later centuries:

". It is noted that, using only their 80 O'Neills and haplotypes within one
mutational step or less of ONMH, McEvoy and Bradley estimated the TMRCA of
about 1,100 years (about 900 CE), very close to the time frame of the grandson
of Niall Glundubh, Domhnall “of Armagh”, said to be the first to use the
surname O’Neill. "

If we could ever find an O'Neill chief to test some new light might be
shed on this issue.


John











************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

This thread:

• [DNA-R1B1C7] Ui Neill Dynasty - Why some O'Neills aren't M222+ by "Paul Conroy" <>

  • Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Ui Neill Dynasty - Why some O'Neills aren't M222+ by