DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-08 > 1282250518


From: Bernard Morgan <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Mág Buirce (~Lamont)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:41:58 +0000
References: <ca49c.7033c83e.399eb754@aol.com>, <000001cb3fbf$97ca6bc0$c75f4340$@com>
In-Reply-To: <000001cb3fbf$97ca6bc0$c75f4340$@com>


True, however I do like it look of it: "Buirce" to "Burke".

> From:
> To:
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:57:22 +0100
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Mág Buirce (~Lamont)
>
> John/Bernard
>
> John, you mention Burkes in connection with Mag Buirc. I may have missed a posting, but I don't think Bernard mentioned a connection.
>
> Nonetheless, I've wondered about that since my closest match over 37 markers is Lamont (kit no 94014) at a gd of 1, followed by Burks (kit number 23033) at a gd of 2.
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Sent: 19 August 2010 17:36
> To:
> Subject: Re: [R-M222] Mág Buirce (~Lamont)
>
> In a message dated 8/19/2010 7:27:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> I came across this reference “(p. 38) pedigrees of descendants of Fiacha
> s. of Niall Naoighiallach: Ó Mail Muaid, Mág Eochagain, Mág Buirce” in
> catalog for manuscript NLI G61.
> _http://www.celt.dias.ie/publications/online/nli/2/NLI61.html_ (http://www.celt.dias.ie/publications/online/nli/2/NLI61.html)
>
>
>
> Bernard, I have no idea myself. What is the NLI MS., how old is it, etc?
> The only reference to Meg Buirc I've seen is the version quoted from the
> Lamont pedigree.
>
> That being said it is obvious by DNA not all Burkes in Ireland are the
> same. You could be dealing with different origins of the surname in different
> places. Maybe there is a local Irish sept named Meg Buirc who is not
> necessarily the same as the Meg Buirc of the Lamonts?
>
> I don't know.
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: