Jan. 3. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



1 15 



<lescription of that in the possession of the Knight 

 of Kerry?" I have since met a painter of 

 eminence, avIio assui-es me that Horace Walpole's 

 criticism is correct, and that the portraits com- 

 monly known as those of the Countess are really 

 the likeness of " Rembrandt's mother." If they be 

 identified with that I have described, the idea that 

 we possess a "counterfeit presentment" of this 

 ancient lady, must, I fear, be given up as a 

 delusion. 



But the lady herself remains a "great fact," and 

 a physiological curiosity ; and there is yet a sub- 

 ject for inquiiy respecting her. We may identify 

 her on the herald's tree, if not on the painter's 

 board or canvas. Who was she? In attempting 

 to discuss this question, I must not take a merit 

 which does not belong to me in any thing. I may 

 say I am but following out the original research 

 of an accurate and accomplished antiquary, Mr. 

 Samthell of Cork, of whose curious OUa Podrida 

 (privately printed) I possess, by his favour, a copy, 

 which contains a paper on this subject originally 

 read before " The Cork Cuvierian Society." This 

 paper, together with some MSS. notes of Sir 

 William Betham, Ulster king-at-arms, furnish 

 my text-book ; and I have little more to do than 

 correct some mistakes, which appear to me so 

 obvious, that I think they must arise from slips of 

 the pen, or slops of that most teasing confounder 

 of dates and figures, the printer^ — who can so often, 

 by merely dipping into a wrong cell of type, set 

 us wrong by a century or two in a calculation. 



All authorities are agreed in fixing on " Margret 

 O'Bryen, wife of James, 9th Earl of Desmond," as 

 the long-lived individual in question. Sir Walter 

 Raleigh, by calling her " The old Countess of 

 Desmond, of Lichiquin" determines the fact of her 

 being of the O'Bryen race, — Inchiquin being the 

 feudal territory of the O'Bryens. There was more 

 than one intermarriage between the Desmond 

 earls and the O'Bryen family ; but none of them 

 include all the conditions for identifying the " old 

 Countess," except that I have specified. 



We now come to dates : and here it is that I 

 have the presumption to question the conclusions 

 of the two eminent antiquaries on whose researches 

 I am remarking. 



"James Fitzgerald, ninth Earl of Desmond, 

 ■was murdered by John Montagh Fitzgerald, of 

 Clenglish, a.b. 1467, a;tat 29," says one of my 

 authorities. "The old Countess bore the title 

 only for a few months, for she became dowager on 

 the murder of her husband in 1467 (not 1487)," 

 adds my second authority. These are formidable 

 dicta, coming from such sources ; and if I venture 

 to question them, it is only under pressure of such 

 circumstances and authorities, as at least demand 

 a hearing. 



I think both these gentlemen confound the 

 tnurde?' of James, the ninth Earl of Desmond, with 



the execution of his father, Thomas, the eighth Earl, 

 who, according to all annals and authorities, was 

 beheaded at Drogheda in the year 1467. Of this 

 fact there can be no question. Ware gives it in his 

 Annnls, stating that " John Tiptoft, Earl of Wor- 

 cester, called a parliament at Drogheda, and 

 passed a certain enactment, in virtue of which 

 " the great Earl of Desmond was beheaded, 15th 

 of February, 1467." AVe find the very act itself 

 (in the Cotton MSS. Titus, B. xi. 373.) headed 

 and running as follows : — " VII. Edw. Quarti " 

 (1467). " Pur diverges causes, horribles treisons 

 et felonies prepenses, et faitez per Thomas Count 

 de Desmond, et Thomas Count de Kildar," &c. &c. 



We now proceed with Ware to the date 1487, 

 and he writes thus : — " On the 7th of December, 

 James Fitz-Thomas, a Geraldine, and Eai-1 of 

 Desmond, who, for almost twenty-eight (?) years 

 flourished in wealth and power, was suddenly and 

 cruelly murdered iby his servants in his house at 

 Rathkeale in the county of Limerick." " This 

 James dying without issue, at least issue male, his 

 brother Alorrish succeeded him ; by whom, John 

 Mantagh, the chief contriver of that murder, was 

 soon after taken and slain." Here is a distinct 

 statement from an annalist which may be contra- 

 dicted by facts, but cannot be misunderstood as to 

 meaning. 



The more I look at Mr. Samthell's account, the 

 more I am disposed to consider the date he gives 

 as a slip of the pen, or the result of that kind of 

 confusion into which the most accurate mind will 

 sometimes fall, from too long and intense considera- 

 tion of the same point. I say this, because his own 

 statements furnish at every step matter to confute 

 his own conclusions : thus, he says, " Supposing 

 the old Countess to have been eighteen at her 

 husband's death (and the Irish marry young), she 

 would have been 140 years old in 1589." This 

 calculation plainly assumes the death to have taken 

 place in 1467 ; but in a passage further on he says, 

 " It will be remembered, that Thomas, eighth Earl 

 of Desmond, father to Margret O'Bryen's hus- 

 band, was Lord Deputy of Ireland for the Duke 

 of Clarence, brother to Edw. IV., from 1462 to 

 1467 !" And again, giving some brief notices of 

 the earls from " A Pedigree of Sir William Be- 

 tham's," he sets down, " 8th earl, Thomas, be- 

 headed A.D. 1467 ; 9th earl, James (son of 

 Thomas), murdered a.d. 1467;" — overlooking the 

 fact, which would have been in itself memorable, 

 that he makes the beheading of the father, and 

 the murder of the son, to have taken place in the 

 same year ! Although I cannot ascertain whence 

 Mr. Pelham took the dates which he has given in 

 his print, I have no hesitation in adopting them, 

 as agreeing best with all the probable circum- 

 stances of the case ; he places Margret O'Bryen's 

 birth in 1464, her death somewhere from 1620 to 

 1626 ; this would sufficiently tally with the 



