Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 1999-02 > 0918396596
From: Edward Andrews <>
Subject: Re: McClintock
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:09:56 +0000
> Now this starts to get interesting. Technically, I mean, rather than at
> a personal level.
> First, a return to Burke's Irish Family Records (as we don't have
> Burke's Peerage)
I do, but I have kept quiet about it as I don't do lookups.
> Remember that when this story starts, the family has already been in
> Ireland for 200 years, which is longer than any of us can remember back.
> JOHN McCLINTOCK, of Drumcar, co Louth, High Sheriff 1798, MP for Athlone
> 1823, and co Louth 1831, b 14 Aug 1769, m 1st 11 June 1797, Jane (d28
> April 1801) only dau of William Bunbury, MP, of Moyle, co Carlow, and
> had issue,
> 1 JOHN, cr BARON RATHDONNELL (see BURKE'S Peerage)
> 2 William Bunbury McCLINTOCK-BUNBURY (assumed additional surname
> 1846) of Lisnnavagh, Capt RN, MP for co Carlow 1846-62, b 1800,
> m 3 Nov 1842 Pauline Caroline Diana Mary (d 1 Jan 1876), 2nd dau
> of Sir James Mathew Stronge, 2nd Bt, DL, of Tynan Abbey, co Armagh
> (see BURKE'S Peerage), and d 2 June 1866, leaving issue (with two
> daus, who dunm)
> 1. THOMAS KANE, s his uncle as 2nd BARON RATHDONNELL under special
> remainder (see BURKE'S Peerage)
> 2. John William
> 1 Catherine
> Mr John McClintock m 2ndly 15 April 1805 etc and d 5 July 1855, having
> had further issue, 4 sons and 3 daughters not relevant to this story,
> but including the ancesto of the historian who provided Burke with this
> First, I don't know where the Rathdonnell estates came from, they
> certainly were not McClintock estates,
Yes they were, they were purchased 1597 by Alexander McClintock, the
first of Old Scottish Family who settled in Ireland devised to S&H
Alexander d 1696
and weren't in the hands of
> William Bunbury, of Moyle, co Carlow. Presumably they were Bunbury
> family estates, and left to John McClintock by another more senior
> relative of William Bunbury, after William Bunbury's death. Certainly,
> however, the money seems to have been Bunbury money, that being the
> reason why the Rathdonnell arms are comprised of the Bunbury and
> McClintock arms, quartered. In other words, money talks, and if John was
> heir to the Bunbury estates, he would have shown that in his coat of
We really need Burke's Irish Landed Gentry to really sort this one out.
Peerage claims William Bunbury McCLINTOCK-BUNBURY MP Carlow 1848 -62 In
compliance with the will of his maternal uncle Thomas BUNBURY, MP for
Carlow in 1846 assumed the name and arms of BUNBURY.
When John McC was created B in 1868 the peerage was limited to heirs
male or failing to the heirs male of William B McC-B.
John d.s.p 1879, and therefor s by nephew Thomas Kane McC-B
> It is interesting to note that the claim is made that the Rathdonnell
> estates were purchased in 1597, the same year that the first McClintock
> purchased Trintagh. either a misprint, or else the families had come
> over together, and perhaps known each other over the intervening two
> I note differences between the arms quoted for Rathdonnell and for
> various McClintocks.
> 1. The senior branch of the family has arms as already noted:
> ARMS (U.O. confirmed 1915) - "Per pale gu and az a chevron erm between
> three escallops that in the dexter chief or, that in the sinister chief
> arg and that in the base per pale of the fourth and last."
> 2. The family of McClintock, formerly of Seskinore, which descends from
> a younger brother of the first McClintock I listed, ie JOHN McCLINTOCK,
> of Drumcar, co Louth, High Sheriff 1798, MP for Athlone 1823, and co
> Louth 1831, b 14 Aug 1769, has the same arms.
> 3. McClintock, formerly of Rathvinden, descended from a younger brother
> of 1st Baron Rathdonnell (but not from Lord Rathdonnell himself),
> similarly has the same arms.
> On the other hand,
> 4. The Rathdonnell arms have "per pale, gu and az; a chevron erm between
> three escallops arg"
> 5. McClintock of cos Derry and Tyrone, who claim descent from the family
> of Lord Rathdonnell, also have this second set of arms.
> It would appear that in registering his arms (would have to see Burke's
> Peerage for details) the first Baron Rathdonnell changed them slightly
> from what appears to have been a clear family pattern.
> I don't know enough heraldry to describe the arms accurately, but let's
> For both coats of arms, Start with a shield
> The shield is divided vertically into two halves (per pale), coloured
> red (gu, for gules) and blue (az, for azure) respectively.
> I am not sure
> which side is which colour.
gu on the left of the viewer az on the right.
> Across the centre of the shield is a chevron, coloured erm (not sure
> what that is, is ermine a brown colour?)
Ermine is a fur, white with a funny black spot thing. How could a
colour rest on a colour?
> There are 3 scallop shells (escallops), positioned top left, top right,
> and bottom on the shield.
> Now the difference:
> In the original version, the three escallops are coloured differently:
> "dexter chief or" means that the scallop in the top left scallop is gold
> (or), or yellow. That is top left looking at the shield. dexter, of
> course, means right, but applie to the way the shield might be described
> by its holder, ie from behind.
> "sinister chief arg" means the top right (looking at the shield) scallop
> is silver (arg, for argentum), or white.
> The third scallop, at the bottom (in base), lies over the line dividing
> the two sides of the shield (red and blue), is divided vertically in two
> (per pale) and is coloured blue and red, ie the opposite colours to the
> section of the shield on which it sits.
> In the Rathdonnell version, it's all a lot simpler: the three scallops
> are all white or silver (arg, for argentum)
> Now, will someone with an Armorial please correct all that and do it
> properly? And provide an explanation of the change from one version to
> the other?
> The crest and motto of the Rathdonnell branch and the original version
> are of course unchanged.
Surely it depends on when the shields were matriculated. Rathdonnell,
McCLINTOCK being earliest is the simplest.
Because there was no descent but the other ones were collaterals and
recorded later, it was more complicated - but still pretty simple. What
I would like to know is who in Scotland uses either escallops or an
ermine chevron. That might give us a line.
St Nicholas Buccleuch Parish Church Dalkeith, Midlothian, Scotland
Visit our Web site