Talk:Battle of Doire Leathan

Dubious interpretation of primogeniture
" . . . the heir (by primogeniture, but not tanistry) to the O'Donnell Chiefdom and lordship of Tyrconnell, Sir Donal O'Donnell."

Does this really need to be included? It's not really accurate and doesn't add any useful information. In 1590, the succession to the leadership of Tyrconell was still governed by Brehon tanistry in which primogeniture or even direct succession played no part. The patent creating the earldom of Tyrconnell for Rory was not executed until 1603. In fact, as of 1590, a Crown patent for such a title had been drawn up -- but not sealed--for the rival branch of the O'Donnells seated at Lifford, who, descending from Sir Hugh's elder brother, Calvagh, would clearly have had priority even if primogeniture had applied.

Donal may have been Sir Hugh's oldest son, but that's not the same thing as being heir by primogeniture. Being Sir Hugh's eldest son may have given him some practical advantages in the exercise of rule, but it wouldn't have given him any privileged legal claim to the succession itself, since under the system of tanistry then in place, succession was in no way vested in Sir Hugh, and there were many other candidates who were senior to him, definitely in a genealogical sense, but also in some important aspects of English law.

I recommend deleting the note about primogeniture in the main article. It's not applicable and has some misleading implications. JackMason1 (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)