GENIRE-L ArchivesArchiver > GENIRE > 2010-02 > 1267134945
From: Maureen Brady <>
Subject: Re: Walsh -- O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:55:45 +0200
Don't take anything you find in "O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees" for the gospel
truth unless you can find documentary evidence to back it up. I have a 1923
copy of Vol I of a limited American edition in two volumes, and the man's
real purpose was to prove that the Irish descended directly in 46
generations from the biblical Adam to King Milesius. Modern genetics has put
a decided stop to that kind of fantasising!
O'Hart based a lot of his research on "The Annals of the Four Masters",
which most genuine scholars today would recognise as mythopoetic folk
history -- much like the genealogies in the Old Testament, or the extant
griot traditions in Africa -- which often contains a few grains of truth,
but cannot be relied upon in the modern scientific sense. O'Hart is a fine
example of the obsessive, fanatical Victorian imagination. I have yet to
discover where he found his more recent data, as he gives almost no source
information, though I suspect he must have spent his life (the Pedigrees was
first published in 1875 and went into four editions; his final preface is
dated 1887; and he died in 1902) trawling through contemporary newspapers
and directories, and perhaps visiting graveyards. He also clearly favoured
the Anglo-Irish aristocracy (mind you, they were the most likely types to be
mentioned in the BMD columns of the newspapers of his day).
I'm not saying O'Hart can't be useful, as long as you regard entries like
the one below as mere starting points towards finding more corroborative
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Alison Kilpatrick <
> Alison Kilpatrick wrote:
> Found the following item on Google Books:
> Title: Irish pedigrees, or, The origin and stem of the Irish nation
> Author: John O'Hart
> Publisher: M.H. Gill & Son, Dublin (1881)
> "... Jane, the elder dau. of James Cane, of Inchicore, m. Andrew Walsh,
> of Oatlands, co. Meath, and had three sons and a dau. The sons were 1.
> William-Jeremy Walsh, who left no issue. 2. James Walsh, m. and had
> three sons and three daus. The sons were: 1. William-Henry Walsh, living
> unm. in 1879. 2. John Walsh, living unm. in 1879. 3. Henry Walsh, living
> in 1879; had one son and three daus. The son is: 1. James Walsh, of
> Clifton, England, living in 1879. 3. Henry-Thomas Walsh, the third son
> of Jane and Andrew Walsh, of Oatlands, co. Meath, left no issue. ..."
> p. 336
> For clarity, according to the extract given above, the sons of Andrew
> Walsh and Jane née Cane were 1. William-Jeremy Walsh, who left no issue.
> 2. James Walsh, m. and had three sons and three daus. [...] 3.
> Henry-Thomas Walsh, the third son of Jane and Andrew Walsh, of Oatlands,
> co. Meath, left no issue.
> Perhaps (2) James Walsh is your man??
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message