Talk:Uilleag de Burgh

1343 vs 1353
I've moved this page and edited links according to what appeared to me to be the wiki consensus date of death of 1343, as per the succession boxes, etc. It now appears that both 1343 and 1353 are used for this individual in various articles, and I have no way to determine which of the two is correct. I'll halt any further editing until such time as one of these dates is agreed. Ian Cairns 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's been some confusion here. Sir Ulick Burke of Annaghkeen, son of William Liath Burke, died in 1353, and is the ancestor of the Clanricarde. His nephew Ulick Burke of Umhaill, son of Richard, son of William Liath Burke, died in 1343 and is the ancestor of the Bourkes of the Owles. I've made this article about the former and will spin off a stub for the latter. Choess 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Succession box
No sources, so tagged as ; succession box apparently added by serial hoaxer User:Burkem should be regarded as suspicious, see diff and User:Burkem/review_list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I believe the sucession box should be thier so that the reader knows who's the sucessor of the last, (talk • (contribs) 11:55, 14 April 2077 (UTC)

Lineage
I've expanded the article a bit (diff), to include both of the supposed lineages for Ulick, and a bit more on the Burke Civil War. I'd be grateful if you could both look it over, both for readability and for balance and accuracy, as I am not particularly familiar with the period or the sources.

Surrounding articles on the de Burghs and the de Burgh civil war seem to be an inconsistent mixture of which account they follow; and also which date they give for Ulick's death. It would be useful to review these; and also, ideally, to see what some more, more recent sources have to say (eg: relevant entries in the Dictionary of Irish Biography or other souces cited at eg William Liath de Burgh). It is all very well giving what the Oxford New History of Ireland states as authority, but it would be useful to know what reasons modern sources give for preferring one or other of the accounts.

I notice that the article William Liath de Burgh does apparently identify him as the son of William de Burgh (d. 1270), apparently following the DIB (but it would be useful to confirm that). Where does this leave the MacFirbis version? Do we assume that he and the 1570s manuscript may just have attached the "Liath" moniker to the wrong line? (and missed out a few more intermediate de Burghs?) Or is this a significant point in favour of the Lodge (1789) version? On the other hand, if Lodge is right, then why did Ulick's branch come to be called "Clanricarde"? One of references gave the suggestion that this was after Ulick's son, Richard Óg Burke; but that would seem to be inconsistent with "Clanricarde" apparently being used at least as early as 1335.

It's interesting also to consider how the two versions may have played to the interests of the two different branches of the family -- the "Mayo" version apparently placing them much closer to the Earls of Ulster, with the Clanricardes the descendents of an upstart illegitimate sept; compared to the version much more favourable to the Clanricardes (much the more dominant family by the late 18th century), in which their ancestor is a elder, senior sibling of the Mayo ancestor. (Could sensitivity about this even be the reason why the Earls of Clanricarde had the version in Lodge's first edition version suppressed?)

Anyway, I'd be grateful to know what you each think of the additions; and it would be good if we could dig some additional reliable modern sources as to why one version should be preferred over the other. Thanks, Jheald (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just found an interesting 2013 blog on the question by Cllr Donal Burke,, citing a number of further papers in the JGAHS of the early 1900s, by Hubert Thomas Knox in particular, which quote a number of further annal books, registers, and old sources.
 * According to Cllr Burke, it is "the prevailing view" that Ulick was the son of Sir William Liath de Burgh, and a younger brother of Sir Edmond Albanach and Sir Walter de Burgh: "The prevailing view with regard to the descent of the MacWilliam Burke chieftains of Clanricarde and their descendants, the Earls of Clanricarde and the junior branches stemming therefrom, is that they descend from Ulick of Annaghkeen, son of Sir William liath de Burgh"; "It is now generally accepted that both Sir Edmond Albanach and Richard og [ie Richard Óg Burke, d. 1387] were descended from Sir William liath de Burgh".
 * Cllr Burke notes that, "like MacFirbisigh, it [the Book of the Burkes ] gave Sir William son of William of Athanchip and William Liath as two different men". Burke does not subscribe to this: "this early section of the pedigrees was incorrect", "certain details of the earliest members of the wider de Burgh family are incorrect in MacFirbisigh’s pedigree, details of later members tend to be more accurate. Knox ... pointed to the fact that MacFirbisigh’s knowledge and familiarity with the pedigree of the Burkes established in Clanricarde and about the later County Galway was inferior to his knowledge of that of the Burkes of Mayo and the descendants of Sir Edmond Albanach"; however he suggests that where these say that Ulick was the son of Richard son of William Liath, this should perhaps be taken more seriously, in particular in view of the letter sent to Elizabeth de Clare before her council in England in 1327, after the death of Richard Óg de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster. The letter names Walter de Burgh (= Walter Liath de Burgh) second of the six most significant members of the de Burgh family in Ireland, with his brothers ‘Edmond le cousin’ and ‘master’ Richard.  However the younger brother that is mentioned together with Edmond several times in the 1330s and 1340s (and eg was the brother imprisoned with Walter and Edmond) is Reymond, not Richard.
 * So Burke conjectures that Richard may have died by this date, albeit being the lord of lands that were then inherited by Ulick, who went on to become the first Clanricarde.
 * I also checked the New History of Ireland to see exactly what it says. The genealogical table in Volume IX in fact does represent the father of Edmond Albanach as "William Liath de Burgh".  But, as stated in the article, it gives Ulick's ancestry as per Duald MacFirbis and the Book of the Burkes, from a William Liath that it shows as another William Liath de Burgh, son of Richard Óg de Burgh, son of William de Burgh (d. 1205).  It's possible that the editors just may not have been very interested in the finer points of the Burkes after the death of the Red Earl.  In the running text of Volume II, the killing of the third Earl is passed over with just "William, aged twenty in 1333, was murdered in some obscure family feud by his own men, including his seneschal" (p. 354) -- just a sideshow to the main story of the English authorities' lack of will (or lack of power) to maintain Norman law over the lords of Ireland (both English and Irish) of this period, leading to the effective end of central authority from Dublin. To be fair, there was earlier a little more about the killing in the previous chapter at page 300), but even then only a couple of lines.
 * (On the other hand, Orpen, in Ireland under the Normans, vol. 4 p. 247 (1920), which the New History cites, does explicitly identify the brothers of Walter de Burgh in Connaught as "Edmund Albanach, from whom were descended the Mac Williams Eighter (Lower) of Mayo, and Ulick, whose son, Richard Og was the first Mac William Oughter (Upper) of Galway").
 * Meanwhile the Dictionary of Irish Biography seems a bit cagey about who Ulick and his ancestors may have been. The article on Richard Óg Burke (a1133) says that he was the was eldest surviving son of Ulick, and the second lord of Clanricarde, from 1343; but otherwise there is nothing about Ulick, or what Clanricarde may have represented.  And there is no mention of Ulick at all in the articles on William Liath de Burgh (a1148), his potential father, nor those for Walter de Burgh (a1141) or Edmond Albanach de Burgh (a1125), his potential brothers, nor that for Edmond de Burgh (a1126), their antagonist in the "Burke Civil War".  Jheald (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)