DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-07 > 1280106909


From: John Mclaughlin <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Roll Call
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:15:09 -0500
References: <1885332589.301481.1279570807214.JavaMail.root@sz0165a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> <4C4BB448.3050007@aol.com><000001cb2beb$de6d6010$9b482030$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000001cb2beb$de6d6010$9b482030$@com>


On 7/25/2010 6:23 AM, Sandy Paterson wrote:
> My memory wasn't bad - the mean is 11 and 88.5% of the observations lie
> within the gd range of 8-15.


Maybe you have something there then. We also have 20 or so McLaughlin
samples compared to 61 odd Doherty samples. And yes there is a known
bottleneck in the McLaughlin line.

I mentioned that all McLaughlins in the O'Clery book of Genealogies are
said to descend from one man who died in 1241 AD although the surname
actually arose two centuries before. This man was King of Aileach and
was slain in a brutal battle with the O'Donnells and O'Neills (Caim
Eirge). According to the annals most of the his derbfine was slain in
the battle and some commentators have thought few McLaughlins survived
the carnage. The man had one son who had one son etc. for five
generations until three different branches of the family emerged. So
says O'Clery anyway. I wasn't sure how much I believed. The three
branches could be as late as 1400 AD.

That kind of thing happened a lot in Irish royal circles. At least one
family I know of in Donegal (O Muldoraidh), chieftains and kings for
centuries, went completely extinct during all these wars of dynastic
succession sometime around 1200 AD.


John


This thread: