The following reprint from professional genetic genealogist Dr. Maurice Gleeson 17 May 2024 blog nicely complements the SURNAME Ancestry blog below. Dr. Gleeson's website is
Same Surname, Different DNA - some potential medieval explanations
Why
are there so many different genetic signatures associated with a single
surname? There are a multitude of reasons for why this may be so, and I
discuss many of them in
an earlier article here.
However,
in this article I want to focus on those potential causes that date
back to the time of the Irish clans, prior to the Cromwellian conquest
of Ireland. And this takes us back in time to a period prior to the
demise of the Old Gaelic social system, a system that had been guided
for centuries by a comprehensive legal system known as
Brehon Law.
(1) It recognised divorce, (some) equal rights for women, and defined
offences and punishments in meticulous detail. The end of this system
was signalled by a Proclamation of James I in 1603, which brought the
Irish people under the "protection" of the English Crown.
The Creation of Surnames
Brehon Law was well-established in Ireland by the time surnames were introduced (roughly
1000 years ago on average for the
O surnames, and 850 years ago on average for the
Mac surnames). Most Irish surnames arose from an ancestor's forename (e.g. descendants of Chief Conor became
O'Connor). Some forenames were very common (like Conor) and thus the surname arose in several places,
over several hundred years, but from completely different origins. And
hence the progenitors had completely different Y-DNA signatures, and
were not closely related to each other. There are at least six separate
O'Connor clans/septs recorded in
Woulfe's surname dictionary (2) ... and in fact there are 34 distinct genetic subgroups in the
O'Connor DNA Project (so far). Thus, one explanation for different genetic groups being associated with the same surname is that many surnames had origins, each of them distinct from the others, and each with their own unique Y-DNA signature.
In
1916 for example, T J Westropp, the famous antiquarian, described the
Limerick O'Malley's as one of several "petty tribes ... rather families
than septs". (3) And indeed, there may have been several of these
"families" within the Limerick area as there are now 6 subgroups under
L226 in the
O'Malley DNA Project, all with recorded (or likely) Limerick origins. I'll give some more examples in relation to the O'Malley surname below.
The Translation of Surnames
Another
possible explanation for different Y-DNA signatures being associated
with the same surname is the anglicisation of surnames, a process aimed
at forcing the Irish to conform to English culture that saw surnames
being translated from the Irish language form into an English
language form. (4) This long-term process was a key part of the English
colonisation of Ireland and picked up speed during the lifetime of
Grace O'Malley (1530-1603) with the passage of new laws under Henry VIII
(1537) that essentially labelled the use of the Irish language as a
sign of opposition to the English Crown. (5) Serious problems arose
during the process of translation. Some surnames in Irish with
completely separate origins were anglicised to the English
version. Thus A and B both became anglicised to X. And so genetically
we find that there are X's with an A genetic signature and X's with a B
genetic signature - two genetically distinct groups with "the same"
surname (or variants thereof).
Conversely, anglicization also
helps explain why there are so many variants of the O’Malley surname.
There are several examples on the
public Results Page of people who have the same Y-DNA but different surname variants (Malley, O'Malley, Maley, Melia, Malia, O'Meally, etc).
The Switching of SurnamesThere
were several important aspects of the Old Gaelic social system that
could explain why different genetic signatures became associated with
(for example) the O'Malley surname.
Some
people switched their surname to that of the chief as a sign of their
loyalty or fealty. (6) In this way, surnames of less powerful families
"gravitated" toward more powerful families. Such a process has been
termed "surname gravity" by leading medieval Irish academic, Bart Jaski
(see his
GGI2019 presentation here). Grace O'Malley herself (the famous
Pirate Queen of Mayo)
may have commanded such respect even though she was never formally a
clan chief. In her biography of Grace, (7) Anne Chambers describes how
Grace became
“a matriarch, not merely of her own followers and
extended family, but of neighbouring clansmen, whose chieftains had
either died in the numerous conflicts of the period, or who had
abandoned their obligations to protect their dependent followers.” Some of these refugees may have adopted the O'Malley surname as a mark of respect, gratitude and loyalty to Grace.
Strangers
could be given the honour of being adopted into a clan (a form of
citizenship) in recognition of their contribution to the clan community.
(8) Some of these may also have had the O'Malley surname bestowed upon
them (for example).
Some
marriages resulted in the husband adopting the surname of the wife,
especially if she was of higher social standing than he was. An apt
example of this is the case of Oliver Cromwell, who should really have
been called Oliver Williams. However, in 1497, his great great
grandfather (Morgan Williams) had married Katherine Cromwell, sister of
Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to Henry VIII. Morgan and Katherine’s
three sons took the surname Cromwell in honour of their famous maternal
uncle. Thus, Oliver Cromwell carried the Cromwell surname but Williams
Y-DNA. Some family members later reverted to the surname Williams in
order to distance themselves from their contentious cousin, thus
executing a double-surname switch. (9)
Some
women retained their maiden name. After the death of her second husband
(Richard Bourke) in 1583, Grace O'Malley herself used her maiden name
(Grany Ni Mailly) in her exchanges with Queen Elizabeth I who addressed
her as such in her replies. (10)
Marriage, Sex ... and possibly Infidelity?
Under
Brehon Law, marriage and sexual relations were approached very
differently compared to today (and very very differently compared to the
Victorian attitudes of 100-200 years ago). Ireland under Brehon Law was
a much more sexually permissive society than one might imagine. It
might be tempting to think that medieval society was like The Swinging
Sixties, but better regulated and with everyone "on board", but
promiscuity was frowned upon (at least female promiscuity), and was
among the types of behaviour most frequently censured in women. (11)
Furthermore, the introduction of inheritance by primogeniture (i.e. to
the eldest son) led to a gradual change in sexual permissiveness in the
1600s, particularly for the landed classes. (12)
Most
marriages were secular marriages based on the ancient customs - few
people were married in church (13). Divorce was easy (for both men and
women) and it was usual for the upper classes to have a string of
different spouses. (13) This created an environment where the same
surname could become associated with different types of Y-DNA.
Marriages
usually started out as trial marriages for "a year and a day". (8) If
at the end of the period, the couple were happy to continue as husband
and wife, then they got legally married. But if they did not feel they
could live together, they separated. Grace O'Malley famously did this
with her second husband, shouting "Richard Bourke, I dismiss you" from
the ramparts of his castle where she had installed herself and her
followers, and locked him out. He can't have been very pleased to have
lost a wife and a castle on the same day. (7)
Interestingly,
if a couple separated at the end of the trial marriage, any children
born to them during that time became part of the woman's kin (and thus
presumably bore the name of her kin). (8) Thus if an O'Malley woman had a
child during the trial period and then decided not to continue to legal
marriage, the child would become an O'Malley but would carry
non-O'Malley Y-DNA. Thus different Y-DNA was introduced to the wider
O'Malley Clan.
Polygamy
was allowed and it was common to have two or more wives. However, the
term "wife" was more applicable to the first wife (the chief or
principal wife). Subsequent wives had fewer rights than the first wife
and might perhaps be more aptly considered as "concubines". (8,11,12,13)
The
Brehon Laws refer to nine forms of sexual union. (11) The first three
roughly equate with our modern concept of marriage, and the next four
could be more akin to casual sex (referred to as "affinity" or
"affiliation"), and the last two cover rape and insanity. The nine forms
of sexual union are:
- when a man and woman get married and bring equal property or wealth to the marriage
- a marriage where the woman brings little or no wealth / property / goods to the marriage
- a marriage where the man brings little or no wealth / property / goods
- when a man visits a woman at her home, and with her kin’s consent
- when a woman freely goes away (elopes?) with a man, but without her kin’s consent
- when a woman allows herself to be abducted, and without her kin’s consent
- when a woman and man secretly visit each other, without her kin’s consent
- union by rape
- union of two insane people
Why
was it necessary to create these categories of sexual union? The
reasons are probably complex and our understanding of them incomplete,
but they had applicability with regard to the rights of children to
inherit their father's estate, the inheritance rights of the different
types of "wife", the division of property and wealth following divorce,
and the legal status of the woman (i.e. under whose rule she came, how
much fine was payable if she was killed or raped, and how much fine was
due and payable by whom if she committed a crime).
In
cases of rape, forced abduction, or where the woman did not consent to
the sexual union, heavy fines were levied on the offender, and the
responsibility for raising any child of the union fell on the offender
and his kin. (8,11) This applied whether the woman was married,
unmarried, a servant or a slave. (11)
Sex
with servants was apparently commonplace, both heterosexual and
homosexual. (8,14) The children of any such union may have become the
father's responsibility, and may have adopted his surname, but this is
unclear and would have depended on the circumstances and whether the
mother had any rights.
In
certain circumstances, the woman alone was responsible for rearing a
child (presumably with the help of her own kin). These included if she
was a prostitute, or if the father was a stranger / alien (cú glas),
a slave, a satirist, a man expelled by his kin; a dependent son, who
impregnated her without his father's permission; or a priest who later
repented. What surname the child took in these circumstances is not
clear, but no doubt in many instances a son would have retained the
mother's surname, and in this way, the particular surname could have
become associated with different Y-DNA.
Divorce & Separation
Brehon Law allowed for women to divorce their husbands under specific circumstances, (8,11,13,14,15) including:
- if he tricked her into marriage through sorcery
- if he failed to support her
- if he hit her and left a (permanent?) mark
- if he insulted her in public
- if he spread a false story or satire about her
- if he discussed their sex life with others
- if he became too fat to have sex
- if he was impotent
- if he preferred to lie with boys
- if he rejected her for another woman
- if he entered the priesthood
- if he took a second "wife" her knowledge (was this akin to our current concept of "infidelity"? Also, if he took a second wife/concubine the knowledge of his first wife, would this then be considered infidelity? In other words, you could do what you wanted as long as you told your spouse in advance??)
Men also had grounds for divorcing a wife including:
- "infidelity" (not further defined)
- thieving (... but occasional thieving was okay?)
- bringing shame on her husband's honour
- inducing an abortion
- smothering a child
- not being able to produce breast milk because of sickness
Furthermore
women who left their husbands without just cause were stripped of their
rights, denied shelter, and treated as outcasts. (8,11,14) There is no
mention of this same treatment being inflicted on men, so the gender
equality scales were not exactly balanced.
Another
interesting example of grounds for divorce was if the couple were
related by "affinity" i.e. if either party had had sex at any time in
the past with a relation of their spouse, out to the level of third
cousins. (13) Under Canon Law, the medieval church forbade marriage if
the couple were 3rd cousins or closer, or if either had been married or
had had sex (even once) with any of their prospective partner's
relatives, out to the level of 3rd cousin. (How did they figure this
out? Did they sit down and go through each other's family trees? Sounds
like if you wanted to get married properly, you had to be a
genealogist.) If either party was previously married to a relative of
the other (within the proscribed range), a papal dispensation would be
necessary for the new marriage to be allowed and to be considered valid.
Given society's relaxed attitude to sex, and the tendency to marry
one's own kinfolk, it is likely that many marriages would not have been
considered "valid" in the eyes of the Church, but the couple managed to
sail under the ecclesiastical radar ... or alternatively, could divorce
each other at the drop of a hat. (12,13)
There
were specific circumstances in which a couple could separate without
being fined or penalised. Eleven such scenarios are listed in one book
of Brehon Laws (Heptad 53) and these include death, entering the
priesthood, and a variety of situations associated with temporary
separation, such as going on a pilgrimage, searching for a far-off
friend, going on a sea voyage, being in a revenge attack party, or being
sick and requiring care away from home. But the most relevant situation
with regard to Y-DNA is where the husband is infertile, the wife does
not wish to divorce him, and instead goes away "to seek a child" by
another man. The resultant child was treated as that of her husband -
and in such a situation, the child would carry the husband's name but
another man's Y-DNA. (11, p75)
Illegitimacy
Under
Brehon Law, there was no concept of "illegitimacy" as we know it today
- every child was cared for by kin, no matter what their origins, be it
a legal marriage, a casual fling, or an illicit tryst. In addition,
there was apparently no social stigma, no concept of "the fallen woman"
who had become pregnant "out of wedlock". Their attitude to such things
was very different to that of (for example) 20th century Ireland.
(8,11,13,14)
And
these children, born outside of legal marriage, had equal rights to
inherit their biological father's estate. (11,13) Just a few years ago
(in 2022), legislation was passed by the Irish parliament that restored
this prior right that such illegitimate children would have enjoyed
under Brehon Law. The only thing that "out-of-wedlock" children were
barred from doing was being a priest, apparently because "the child
carried the sin of the mother".
In
medieval Ireland, sometimes entertaining the guests went a lot further
than just having them over for dinner. This is evidenced by the custom
of "Naming" of children. In this case, a married woman, usually on her
deathbed, would reveal that one of her sons had in fact been fathered by
a man other than her husband, and usually quite a famous man with
status, wealth and property. This newly illegitimized son thus became
entitled to inherit the estate of his new father, but could also fall
under his protection (thus securing his safety when his mother was no
longer around to protect him). There are numerous contemporary examples
of these "named children" and some of them (or their own children)
became clan chiefs (e.g. in the latter half of the 1500s, James Meagh
became chief of the O'More's, and Feardorcha O'Neill's son Hugh O'Neill
became Earl of Tyrone). (13) Undoubtedly some of these "naming" events
were pure lies, but this is another example of how different Y-DNA could
become associated with a particular surname.
Adoption & Fosterage
Fosterage
was very common in medieval Ireland. Parents would give a child for
fosterage to another family if they wanted to forge strong links with
that family, or if they wanted their child to learn a profession. The
period of fosterage was usually up to to seventeen years old for boys,
and up to 14 years old for girls (after which they became nuns or
wives). (11)
If
a child was adopted (by a childless couple, for example), it is likely
that they would have carried the surname (but not the Y-DNA) of the
adoptive father. But if a child was fostered, then they probably
retained the surname (and Y-DNA) of their biological father. The only
circumstance where the fostered child might adopt the name of the foster
father, might have been if the natural father died while the child was
being fostered.
The Election Process
The
way clan chiefs were elected changed considerably over time. The Irish
clans operated under Brehon Law and the system of Tanistry, whereby a
successor for the chieftainship would be chosen from relatives within
the
derbfine, i.e. direct male line relatives of the chief out as
far as "the fifth degree of relationship" (roughly second cousins).
(13) As a result, the Y-DNA signature of the clan chief should have
remained relatively unchanged down through the generations, because
subsequent clan chiefs would be related to him on his direct male line.
However, it is possible that the DNA of the Clan Chief may have varied
from time to time, if a DNA switch had occurred on the direct male lines
of relatives within the
derbfine. And thus (for example), the
various genetic groups with
Mayo origins that we see in the O'Malley DNA project today, may have
been associated (at one time or another) with an O'Malley chief that
carried their DNA signature.
This
Irish system of Tanistry was eventually replaced when the English
system of primogeniture was foisted upon the clans (including the
O'Malley's) following the Composition of Connaught in 1585. (16,17)
Thereafter, the role of chief should have been passed from father to
eldest son (the law was not always obeyed), thus probably reducing the
opportunity for different DNA signatures to be associated with the role
of clan chief.
Summary
So,
to recap, the potential medieval causes for different genetic
signatures being associated with the same surname may have included the
following ...
- multiple origins for the same surname
- anglicisation of Irish surnames to English approximations
- switching surname as an act of fealty / loyalty ("surname gravity")
- having your surname switched as an honour / distinction bestowed by a clan
- changing your surname to that of your higher status wife
- being the child of failed trial marriage (and taking the mother's surname)
- the child being raised by the mother on her own (and taking the mother's surname)
- the wife being impregnated by another man if her husband was infertile
- a child in fosterage adopting the name of the foster father following the death of his biological father
- being a "named child"(i.e. the result of a union with a man of high status)
Maurice Gleeson
May 2024
An earlier version of this article appears on the O'Malley DNA Project blog here. Sources & Links
3) Westropp, T.J. (1916)
The antiquities of Limerick and its neighbourhood. Dublin: Hodges Figgis & Co. Available from the
Archive.org website here. Note that pages 81 and 140 are missing from this version but can be found in this alternative version on the
AskAboutIreland website here.
4) Murphy, P.
The Anglicization of Ireland: A Model for the Linguistic Imperialist? Available
online here.
5) Crowley, AE (2016) Language, Politics and Identity in Ireland: a Historical Overview. In: Hickey, R, (ed.) Sociolinguistics in Ireland. Palgrave Macmillan , London , pp. 198-217. ISBN 978-1-137-45347-1
7) Chambers, A (2009, 7th edition).
Grace O'Malley: The Biography of Ireland's Pirate Queen 1530–1603. Gill Books. Available from
http://www.graceomalley.com/8) Kerrigan, J (2020)
Brehon Laws: The Ancient Wisdom of Ireland. Free Kindle edition
available here.
9) Castlelow, E.
Oliver Cromwell. Biographical article at Historic UK website
available here.
10) Trowbridge, B (2016)
Meeting Grace O’Malley, Ireland’s pirate queen.
This article includes digital images of Grace's petition to Queen
Elizabeth I (Catalogue reference: SP 63/170 f. 204) as well as the 18
"interrogatories" and her responses (SP 63/170 f. 201-202). Available at
The National Archives blog.
11) Kelly, F (1988, reprinted 2016)
A Guide to Early Irish Law. School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Available from
DIAS here.
Prof Fergus Kelly is a Senior Professor in the School of Celtic Studies at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS).
12) Simms, K (1975)
The Legal Position of Irishwomen in the Later Middle Ages. Irish Jurist, vol.10, pp96-111. Available to
read or download here.
Katharine Simms is Senior Lecturer in Medieval History in the School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College Dublin.
13) Nicholls, K. (2003, 2012 digital reprint)
Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages. The Lilliput Press. Kindle Edition available
from Amazon here.
Kenneth Nicholls is a former Professor of History at University College Cork.
14) Duggan, C (2013)
The Lost Laws of Ireland. Glasnevin Publishing. Kindle Edition. Paperback edition
available here.
16) Cunningham, B (1984)
The Composition of Connacht in the Lordships of Clanricard and Thomond, 1577-1641. Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 24, No. 93 (May 1984), pp. 1-14. Available
online here.
17) McInerney, L (2011)
The Composition of Connacht: an ancillary document from Lambeth Palace. North Munster Antiquarian Journal vol. 51. Available
online here.
*******************************************