Talk:Niall Garbh O'Donnell

a good article. I think you missed some important points but I'm not going to edit at the moment.

This grandson of Calvagh won Ulster for the English crown more than Mountjoy.

Docwra was useless without him

Niall Garbh is a much, much more common spelling of this guy's name in the English language. Google Books result (i.e. academic sources): Niall Garbh: 1500 results; Niall Garve: 433 results. Google Fight result: Niall Garbh: 1420 results; Niall Garve: 186 results. Indeed, the claim that 'Niall Garve' is the anglicisation given that the vast majority of the above results for 'Niall Garbh' appear in English language sources is a bit tenuous. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this reasoning, I am moving the page to "Niall Garbh O'Donnell'. Garbh is indeed the more common spelling SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that the cited source, Burke's, does indeed describe Hugh Boy as a son of Niall Garve. But that is incorrect. It is a notorious fact that Hugh Boy was Niall Garve's younger brother. It's a matter of intense research.

There is no single one of the many O'Donnell pedigrees that can be considered flawless, but this is a whopper. Probably the least problematic source in the public domain would be the appendix to O'Donovan's edition of The Annals of the Four Masters. I think Frank O'Donnell's "A Hidden Legacy" is probably the best, most complete source overall, though.

JackMason1 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jack, are you able to cite a source to confirm this? Burke's Peerage is the only source that claims Niall had a son called Hugh Boye, so if you have a more reliable source displaying where this misunderstanding came from, that would be great.

I think that Hugh Boye is Niall Garve's older brother though? The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Niall Garve's elder brother was "Hugh of Ramelton". Both the Annals of the Four Masters (page 2365) and Robert Dunlop state that Niall Garve had a brother named Hugh Boye. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this (page 2385) the appendix you referred to? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hugh Boy of Ramelton belonged to a very remotely related branch, on the far edge of the derbfine. He was a descendant of Hugh mac Hugh Dubh of Ramelton, whose father, Hugh Dubh, was the most recent common ancestor with this particular Niall Garve.

I want to make a joke at the expense of the Encyclopedia Britannica because the falsity of their statement is universally recognized among students of the O'Donnell dynasty. But to be fair, the relationships among these dynasts can become very confusing, what, with all the complex marriage alliances and what not. Plus, the pool of names they drew upon was pretty small. The addition of one of a pretty small stock of agnomina doesn't always help distinguish them. Off the top of my head, I can recall at least five (5) distinct individuals within the dynasty named Niall Garve.

To be honest, probably none of the established authorities renders a completely flawless version of the dynastic O'Donnell pedigrees. But relative to this group, McGettigan is very good. Francis Martin O'Donnell is probably better. But they're both still living, and so haven't yet acquired the same venerable level of authority as O'Donovan.

As far as can be established, this particular Niall Garve was the eldest of the three longest-lived sons of Conn, son of Calvagh O'Donnell. His brother, Hugh Boy, ancestor of the Larkfield O'Donnells, was next. Conn Oge, their brother, ancestor of the Austrian and Spanish O'Donnells, was youngest.

They had several other brothers, including one Donnell, who died young or whose relative seniority cannot be determined. So I am inclined to think that Donnell may have been even younger than Conn Oge. JackMason1 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct document, but I would reference a different page. Page 2397 of that document sets forth the ancestry of the Larkfield O'Donnells, and their founder is correctly given as Hugh Boy, son of Con O'Donnell--Niall Garve's father.

I don't know how you want to reference O'Donovan in the article, but for the record:

Niall Garve was ancestor of the O'Donnells of Newcastle and the Baronets of Newport House, both of County Mayo, and both extinct as of 2024. See pages 2391 and 2396, respectively.

His brother, Hugh Boy was ancestor of the O'Donnell families of Larkfield, Co. Leitrim, and Greyfield, Co. Roscommon. Both extinct as of 2024. Page 2397.

Their brother, Conn Oge, was ancestor of the O'Donnell families of Castlebar and Faheens, Co. Mayo (both extinct), and Spain and Austria, the latter two still surviving as of 2024. See page 2400.

I don't know why, but O'Donovan does NOT discuss the family at Faheens, although their descent is considered well-proven. A paper by Rupert Ó Cochláin from the 1970's vaguely references some documents in the Austrian Imperial military archives in support of a discussion of the biography of their founder, Charles, born around 1730. They were particularly closely intermarried with their O'Donnell cousins at Newcastle, so their absence from O'Donovan's notes is a bit mysterious.

One of O'Donovan's primary informants was Charles Joseph O'Donnell of Castlebar, and so very closely related to the families of Faheens, Austria and Spain. Charles Joseph entered into a number of controversies regarding the family history in which members of each branch stretched the truth a bit in order to enhance their own perceived seniority within the dynasty. O'Donovan seems to have done a very commendable job of establishing the factual truth of their respective genealogies, but I have to wonder whether the failure to represent the Faheens branch in his work at all reflects their relative lack of ambition, or at least access to O'Donovan.

There are families today in 2024 claiming to be surviving branches of the Larkfield and Newport House lineages, but skeptical observers might regard them as unproven. Certainly those claims were considered unproven, if not actually disproven, in O'Donovan's day.

The question of surviving descent from the dynastic stock of O'Donnells is actually pretty controversial within the genealogical community, with the exception of the Austrian and Spanish branches, whose pedigrees are impeccable. You might want to consider avoiding it altogether. It might be flame-war fuel.

But also just for the record, all of these families were closely intermarried up through the 18th century, so all of them are usually considered to descend from Nuala, sister of Hugh Roe, even though, as I understand it, the mother of Manus, Niall Garve's son, has never been positively identified in the contemporary record.

Burke's may be the most popular of the many standard reference materials on aristocratic genealogy in the English Sprachraum, but its uneven quality is pretty widely recognized. I don't think anybody in the genealogy community will regard it as a scandal that they've been caught in another howler. To their credit, subsequent editions often correct errors made earlier on.

JackMason1 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the dilemma of which authority to defer to when there is a clash between sources, I recommend deferring to the specialist over the generalist, and giving preference to established works when there is a choice between specialists. Burke's is more specialized than Encyclopedia Britannica with regard to questions of genealogy, but Darren McGettigan and Francis Martin O'Donnell are even more specialized with regard to the genealogy of the O'Donnell dynasty. O'Donovan may be somewhat less specialized than McGettigan and Francis Martin, but his authority has been established for far longer.

Really, on this specific topic, you couldn't go wrong with any of those last three. But since O'Donovan is kind of an icon, he seems "relatively" much less prone to controversy, in my opinion.

I don't think Wikipedia aspires to be an authority on specialized topics, but it does strive to be more accurate than most general reference materials. JackMason1 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jack, thanks for clarifying this. I've corrected the page using the O'Donovan source. You're right, Wikipedia should be accurate but not necesarily specialised. O'Donovan's appendix is incredibly detailed, but it's impossible to include everything!

On another note, could you recommend any sources on the O'Donnell rulers of Tyrconnell? My goal at the moment is to complete this page (List of rulers of Tyrconnell), but I am having a hard time finding sources beyond the Annals of the Four Masters and other lengthy translations of primary sources. O'Donovan's appendix looks helpful but it is fairly overwhelming! I'd also like to get my hands on Francis Martin O'Donnell's The O'Donnells of Tyrconnell: A Hidden Legacy but I am having a hard time finding it. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep thinking. I took a very idiosyncratic route to get this far. But off the top of my head, as loathe as I am to say this, maybe O'Hart might be useful as an introduction. O'Hart has a reputation for promoting far-fetched etymologies and being too eager to accept unfounded folk lore, but he does at least provide a legible introductory outline. Starting at page 643.

Francis Martin O'Donnell has a website with one page devoted to charts graphically summarizing his research, which really is comprehensive. Caveat, though: It may be a little "too comprehensive", for certain purposes. He's a great promoter of the communal aspect of the clan identity, and so has included some claimed lines of descent down to the current era which might not have the sort of supporting documentation that standard reference works would normally insist on. His pre-Plantation data is excellent, maybe the best. But the scope of his work extends beyond that.

Sorry to be so verbose and repetitive, but for the sake of emphasis: It's really only the Austrian and Spanish O'Donnells that have the type of impeccable documentation that can support a reliable claim to descent from the dynastic O'Donnells.

Good luck! JackMason1 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Just noticed that Hugh Boy of Ramelton is still listed as Niall Garve's brother. He was not. He was not even a contemporary--he was a generation or so younger, belonging to a far removed branch. The so-called "Ramelton" O'Donnells diverged after Hugh Dubh, Sr. d. 1537. The Rameltons descended from HD's son, Hugh Dubh, Jr., whereas both Niall Garve and Hugh Roe descended from Manus d. 1564.

As per O'Donovan et al., Niall Garve was the eldest surviving son of Conn mac Calvagh d. 1583. His brother, Hugh Boy, was not of the Ramelton branch, and was younger than Niall Garve.

For ease of reference, these major branches of the O'Donnell clan are conventionally named for the caput of their respective estates. Hugh Dubh, Jr. was centered at Ramelton, which formed the oldest part of the O'Donnell patrimony. Hugh Roe's family are referred to as the "Donegal Castle" O'Donnells. Donegal Castle was considered as pertaining to the office of King of Tyrconnell rather than the O'Donnell clan per se, although since the time of Donnell Oge d. 1281, the Kings of Tyrconnell were drawn exclusively from the O'Donnell clan. Niall Garve's family were referred to as the "Lifford" O'Donnells from their estate located there. It was a relatively late addition to the kingdom of Tyrconnell, being acquired by conquest in the 13th century, but also being agriculturally the most valuable.

Francis Martin O'Donnell has a separate chart on the 'lineages' page of his website accurately detailing the descent of the "Ramelton" O'Donnells. I can't recall his precise lineage off the top of my head, but I believe that the Hugh Boy of Ramelton that the Encyclopedia is confused about was actually a much younger man, active during the 1640s. JackMason1 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the page removing Hugh of Ramelton SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't know how I forgot this. It's a very well researched annotated discussion of the O'Clery pedigrees. The Ramelton (aka "Rathmelton") branch is analyzed beginning on page 391, under the heading of 'Aodh son of Aodh Dubh', indexed as # 177.

JStor offers free monthly access to a large number of academic papers. All that is required to sign up is an email address. There is an additional paid tier of service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackMason1 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it fair to use this description for Niall Garve? He organised his own inauguration at Kilmacrenan but his claim was never recognised at the time (nor nowadays). That being said, once Rory O'Donnell left Ireland, Niall Garve had a pretty reasonable claim for a few years until his arrest. Interestingly, Eunan O'Donnell calls Niall Garve the "last of the O’Donnells" (page 31). SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, Inion Dubh organized Hugh Roe's inauguration after she defeated his older half brother Donnell oge mac Hugh mac Manus. All of these inaugurations were opposed by powerful factions, and decided by somewhat irregular methods. And it has to be said that Niall Garbh retained so much support in Tyrconnell, even after the defeat of O'Doherty's Rebellion, and all the evidence of his complicity in O'Doherty's downfall, that the Crown didn't even bother to formally try him--they knew they couldn't get a conviction. I'm not sure Niall Garbh was obviously any less legitimate than Hugh Roe or Rory. JackMason1 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review