Notes on the Pedigree of the McLaughlins of Tirconnell

There is considerable confusion in printed sources regarding the true descent of the McLaughlin of Tirconnell sept. That version most frequently encountered has them descend from Domhnall, the brother of Niall Glundubh, said variously to be the older or younger son of Aodh Finnlaith. This version appears in John O'Hart's "Irish Pedigrees," which was largely a copy of O'Ferrall's "Linea Antiqua," and is actually a corruption of the pedigree of Clan Domhnall, the second version. A third version, less frequently encountered, has the McLaughlins of Tirconnell descend from Nial Glundubh, rather than from his brother, Domhnall.

Version 1	Version 2	Version 3

Aedh Finnlaith	Aedh Finnlaith	Aedh Finnlaith
Domhnall	Domhnall	Nial Glundubh
Muirchertach	Flann	Muirchertach
Domhnall	Maelruanaidh	Domnall
Domhnall Oge	Maelsechlain	Muirdaigh
Muirdaigh	Lochlan	Lochlan
Lochlan

(corrupted version)	(Clan Domhnall)	(Nial Glundubh)

It is readily apparant that the corrupted version 1 is simply a combination of version 2 and version 3. It contains the descent from Domhnall, s. of Aedh Finnlaith, of version 2, but also contains the basic pedigree from version 3, with the addition of a superfluous "Domhnall oge." This is the version found in John O'Hart's "Irish Pedigrees" and the earlier "Linea Antiqua" of Roger O'Farrell.

Which is the correct version? Unfortunately, there are no sure answers.

Seamus O Ceallaigh has ably summarised the data supporting both versions in his book, "Gleanings from Ulster History." The following chart will show the two possible lines of descent for the McLaughlins of Tirconnell.

Supporting the Nial Glundubh descent are the following sources:

1. Rawlinson B.502 (c. 1120)
2. Leabhar Leacdin (Book of Lecan) (c. 1390)
3. Leabhar Bahile an Mhota (Book of Ballymote) (c. 1390)
4. Annals of Tighernach
5. Annals of Ulster
6. Annals of Clonmacnoise
7. The O'Clery Book of Genealogies

Supporting the Domhnall descent are the following sources:

1. Annals of Inish Faithlinn
2. Leabhar Laighean (Book of Leinster) (c. 1170)

O Ceallaigh also lists the MacFirbis Genealogies as supporting both lines of descent, which they do - both pedigrees may be found in this work - He also lists the opinions of O'Clery and O'Donovan to support the "Nial Glundubh descent; and Todd, Eoin MacNeill and Seamus O hOgain to support the Domhnall descent; but these are all later writers and I have omitted them from the above sources tables. He also lists the Leabhar Eoghanach by O Flaithbheartaigh as a source, but admits it's a doubtful one at best, since it was composed under the auspices of the O'Neills, who had their own reasons for promoting certain historical inaccuracies. The Leabhar Eoghanach.is also a very late source (early 17th century) without any particular historical relevance.

Rawlinson B.502 (c. 1120)

Genelach Clainne Neill

Domnall
m. Ardgair	m. Neill Frosaich
m. Lochlaind	m. Fergaile
m. Muiredaich	m. Maele-duin
m. Domnaill	m. Maeli-fithrich
m. Muirchertaich	m. Aeda Uaridnaich
m. Neill Glunduib	m. Domnaill
m. Aeda Findleith	m. Muiredaich
m. Neill Caille	m. Eogain
m. Aeda Oirdnide	m. Neill

Genelach Clainne Domnaill
	item:
Aed	Aed
m. Neill	m. Neill
m. Mael-Sechnaill	m. Flaithbertaich
m. Mael-ruanaidh	m. Murchertaich
m. Flaind	m. Domnaill
m. Domnaill	m. Murchertaich
m. Aeda Findleith	m. Neill Glunduib
m. Neill Caille	m. Aeda Findleith

Book of Ballymote (ca. 1400 AD)

Muiridach mac Domnaill micMuirchertaigh na cochall craicinn mic Neill glunduibh - mac do Lochlaind ri Oiligh. Aen mac la Lochlaind .i. Ardgal ..... Mac don Ardgal sin mac Lochlaind Domnall righ Erenn ..... Ceithri mic ag Domnall mac Ardgair mic Lochlaind mic Muiredaigh mic Domnaill mic Muircertaigh mic Neill glunduibh .i. Muircertach 7 Magnus 7 Nial 7 Concobar.

Muirdach son of Domhnall son of Muirchertach 'of the Leather Cloaks' son of Neill glundubh - son of Lochlan, king of Ailech. The son of Lochlan, i.e., Ardgal......the son of Ardgal son of Lochlan, Domnall, King of Ireland....the four sons of Domnall son of Ardgair son of Lochlan son of Muiredaigh son of Domhnall son of Muirchertach son of Neill glundubh, i.e., Muirchertach and Magnus and Nial and Connor.

O tugamar in treas-sin do chraebscailedh Claindi Eogain meic Neill tabram da ngeinelachaib andso sis bodheasta

Nial 7 Conchobar
m. Domnaill
m. Ardgair
m. Lochlaind
m. Muiredaich
m. Domnaill
m. Muirchertaich
m. Neill Glunduib
m. Aeda Findleith
m. Neill Kaille
m. Aeda Ordnide

Aed
m. Neill
m. Maeltsechlaind
m. Mael-ruanaidh
m. Flaind
m. Domnaill
m. Aeda Findleith
Cland Domnaill conige sin

Book of Lecan (ca. 1400 AD)

(from the Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae)

Genelach Meg Lachlainn annso .i. riga Ceniuil Eogain

Niall 7 Conchobar da mac
Domnall
m. Ardgail
m. Muiredach
m. Domnaill
m. Muirchertach
m. Neill Glundubh

Cland Lachlaind andso

Aedh
m. Niall
m. Mael sechnaill
m. Lachlaind a quo Cland Lachlaind
m. Flaind
m. Domnall
Cland Domnaill cosin

The Book of Leinster (ca. 1170 AD)

Genelach Rig Ailig

Muirchertach

m. Neill

m. Domnaill

m. Lochlaind

m. Mael Sechnaill

m. Mael Ruanaidh

m. Flaind

m. Domnaill

m. Aedha Finleith

Annals of Tighernach

1064 A.D

Ardghal mac Lochlainn hUi Neill mortuus est

Annals of Ulster

1099 A.D.

Da etire trena tuctha
Do Loechraidh Uladh o chein
In tres cen dibadh, abb Compgaill,
Do righadh Domhnaill hUi Neill.

Two important hostages were given over
Of the heroes of the Ulaidh of yore;
The third, in triumph, the abbot of Comgall,
To enking Domhnall O Neill.

Annals of Inis Faithlinn

1093

"Comdal ic righ Ailig .i. mac meic Lochlainn hUi Mail Shechnaill,"
7 ic hU Eochodha ic rig Ulad hic Dornann Dabaill for bru Locha
Echach, 7 co ndersat chomluge fo minnaib imdaib im bachaill Isu
tre chombaig i n-agid Hui Briain 7 Lethe Mogo." (Fol. 29 e)

To which sources we might also add the Laud 610 Tribal Histories
and Genealogies, although the lines end with the sons of Domnall 'of
Armagh."

Laud 610

Da mac Aeda Finnleith .i. Niall Glundubh 7 Domnall rig Ailig.
Tri maic Neill Glundubh .i. Muirchertach 7 Conaing & Maelciaran.
Cethri maic Murchertaig mic Neill Glunduib .i. Domnall ri Herend
7 Flaithbertach ri Ailig 7 Murchad 7 Flann. Cethri Maic Domnaill:
da Aed 7 Muiredach. Se maic Domnaill .i. Fergal mac Domnaill ri
Ailig 7 Donchadh, ota Dubgail mac Donchada, 7 Flann, diata Naill mac
Mailsechnaill 7 Flaithbertach, diata Murchad hua Flaithbertaig, 7
Maelmithig, 7 Conchobar, dia rabatar Mic Conchobar, Finit."

So we have some sources which have the McLaughlins descend from Nial Glundubh, and others which have them descend from his brother, Domnall. The Annals of Ireland are inconclusive on this issue; Only one Lochlan appears in the annals at his death in 1023, and he is named the son of Mael Seachlainn. Were there two Lochlans in this royal line, one of whom did not appear in the Annals?

O Ceallaigh's Argument

O Ceallaigh believed the Clan Domhnall descent was the correct one for the McLaughlins; so did Eoin MacNeill, and Seamus O hOgain. On the other hand, O'Donovan followed the Nial Glundubh line of descent for the family. Most modern historians, largely thanks to O Ceallaigh's influence, now accept the Clan Domhnall descent, including O Corrain and Katherine Simms.

O Ceallaigh admits in his article, the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of a Nial Glundubh descent for the McLaughlins; but he advances the following argument for a Clan Domhnall descent (p. 81):

   "In the main, the weight of authority if with the first column and for a lineage from Nial Glundubh. But it is easy to observe how even is the balance of evidence. There is, however, one aspect of the correlation between the genealogies and the narrative of the annals which has hardly had even cursory attention from the historian, and that is the constant association, during the time of their rise to power, of O Lochlainn and Fir Mhuighe Iotha. I have already explained who the latter were, and emphasised the fact that, though yet unstudied - indeed, unmentioned, by the historian - they were a big political force and a deciding military factor in the Tir Eoghain of that period. They branched off from the royal stem in the middle third of the eighth century - Conchobhar, their progenitor (from whom they care called Clan Chonchobhair), being brother to Niall Frasach and to Aedh Allan, both kings of Ireland. From out their multitude, O Caireallain of Clann Diarmada and O Cathain elbow their way to the front. It looks as if, while Ardghal mac Lochlainn and his son Domhnall are establishing themselves in Aileach and Telach Og, O Cathain is, at the very same time, stretching out his tentacles towards Craobh
and the Bann. This period of expansion one might tentaqtively put down, for Fir Mhuighe Iotha, as between the years 900 and 1100 A.D.; for O Lochlainn, from about 1000 to 1100 A.D. Domhnall mac meic Lochlain, aged 73, died in 1121, having spent his many years in pitting himself against the heemony of Cean Coradh. His last rival, Muirchertach O Briain, died two years before him, conceding him that brief tenure of office as King of Ireland.

(01) Domhnall mac Ardghair

   It might make the argument more obvious if the relevant references were taken backward in point of time. Let us deal with Domhnall mac Ardghair first.

   On the thirty odd occasions on which the activities of Domhnall are mentioned in the Annals of Ulster, he is spoken of simply as Ri AIligh, or, in a general way, as in command of the forces of Cineal Eoghain or Tuaisceart Eireann. But in one reference there is more specific information about the composition of his army:-

1080-"Maidm Atha Ergail i taebh Clochair for Feru Manach ria
nDomnall hUa Lochlainn 7 ria Feraibh Muighi Itha i torcradur
ingrinntide Arda Macha .i. Sitriuc hUa Coeman 7 mac Neill
hUi Sherraigh."

   This battle at Aireagal Da Chiarog is the only occasion on which we find the Fir Mhuighe Iotha definitely associated nominatim, with Domhnall. It is to be observed that this combination or matrimony did not arise out of relations as soveriegn and liegeman, for Domhnall was not king of Ailech intil 1083.

(2) Aodh ua Mail Sheachlainn

   If we revert to 1076 A.U., we are back again at the fight at Belat, in which the power of Cianachta was destroyed by Aedh Ua Mail Sheachlainn, suing the Fir Mhuighe Iowa:-

1076-"Maidm Belat ria nAedh hUa Mael-Sechlainn 7 ria Feraibh Muighi Itha for Cianachta co raladh a nderg-dr."

Who was this Aedh? If we consult the reconstructed pedigree on page 76, we shall find that Domhnall Ua Lochlainn was his first cousin, once removed. He was that Aedh whose reign was interrupted by the intrusion of Conchobhar O Briain in 1078. When Conchobhar was killed by Cineal Binnigh, and Ceinneideach was expelled from Telach Og, Aedh resumed the lordship and died in 1082. His father was Niall son of Mael Sheachalinn. Niall is a person of importance for us, and we shall later return to him.

(3) Ardghar mac Lochlainn

   Aodh's predecessor, Aodh ua Ualghairg, who intruded himself from an outside family, was only two years in office, and the lord of Ailech before his time was Ardghar, the son of Lochlainn and the father of Domhnall. He it was who, in the beginning, indued his family with the authority which afterwards came its way. He is first heard of in 1051 when he was expelled from the lordship of Telach Og by an O Neill. The reader is already familiar with this excerpt from A.U.:

1053:-"Crech la mc. Lochlainn & la Firu Muighe Itha for Cenel m-Binnigh Locha Drochait
co rucsat tri .c. bo & coro marbsat Dub Emna m. Cinaedha secnap Cluana Fiacna, &
Cu Macha m. Clairchen, moer Dail Cais."

On this occasion, when the Vice-abbot of Cluain Fiachna and the Steward of Dal gCais were slain, the "mac Lochlainn" in question was Ardghar, and the forces at his disposal were those of Magh Iotha. he did not reach the lordship of Ailech for another eight years (1061).

(4) Niall mac Mail Sheachlainn

   The king of Ailech who preceded Ardghar was Ardghar's uncle - Niall son of Mael Sheachlainn and father of Aodh of Belat. Niall died in 1061. He is recorded (A.R.E. 1023) as having killed his own brother, Lochlainn, King of Magh Iotha and Inis Eoghain (they were a continuous territory geographically):-

1023:-"Lochlaind mac Mail Sechlainn, rí Indsi h-Eogain & Muige h-Itha,
do marbadh dia derbrathair fein .i. do Niall & do Chianacht Glindi Gemin."

   In the accomplishment of this design, he enlisted the men of Cianachta - a military force which hiso wn son Aodh afterwards destroyed at Belat. We may assume that he then became king of Magh Iotha and Inis Eoghain, as he later did of Aileach.

(5) Lochlainn mac Mail Sheachlainn

   This allusion above to Lochlainn son of Mael Sheachlainn is the pivotal part of the whole problem. the long arm of the balance is the statement here that he was lord of Magh Iotha and Inis Eoghain; the short arm, the information in the Book of Ballymote that Lochlainn son of Muireadhach was king of Ailech. There is room here for confusion about these two Lochlainns and their territorial attributions. Of the existence of Muireadhach's son we have o confirmation from the side of the annals (though no absolute deduction can be made from that omission); we are not told the date of his death, and we hae seen that his occupation of Ailech was, a priori, unlikely during a supremacy so unequivocal as that of Flaithbheartach an Trostain. At this annalistic level the entries touching Niall and his brother Lochlainn do much to stablise our acceptance of the lineage as having come from Domhnall Dabhaill.

(6) ;Mac Muireadhaigh mhic Flaind

   In the next generation back, as will be seen from the table, Mael Sheachlainn, father of Lochlainn, had a full cousin who was king of Fir Mhuighe Iotha and was killed by his own people. A.U. and A.R.E. do not give his personal name. The Annals of Connacht supply this want - Coscrach.

A.U. 1016-"Mac Muiredaigh mic Flaind, ri fer Muighi Itha a suis occisus est."

(7) Aedh mac Dubhghaill

   There is still another link between this lineage and Fir Mhugihe Iotha. A.R.E. records:-

993-"Aedh mac Dubhghaill mic Donchadha tigherna Maghe Ithe 7
rioghdhamhna Oiligh decc."

   Reference to the table will make clear that this Donnchadh was son to Domhnall Dabhaill and that Aedh, who obit is here recorded, was grandson to Donnchadh and second cousin to Coscarch (6) supra.
   Three obits from A.U. carry us back from Mael Sheachlain, father of Lochlainn and Niall to Domhnall Dabhaill.

(8) 996-"Mael Sechlainn mac Mael Ruanaidh, ridomna Ailigh do ec..."

(9) 940-"Mael ruanaigh mac Flainn (.i. ridomna Ailigh) do marbhad
do Cheniul Conaill."

   According to A.R.E., he was killed in a battle at Tracht Mugha by Ruaidhri O Conannain, king of Cineal Conaill. He was being assisted by the Norse of Loch Feabhail.

(10) 905-"Flann mac Domhnaill righdomna in tuaiscirt mortuus est."

   A.R.E. puts his death at 901.

   It will be seen, in the first place, that, employing the annals and the genealogies in conjunction with each other, this table of descent between the two Domhnalls seems quite reliable. Noteworth, indeed, is the fact that it proves the existence and position of Lochlainn, son of Mael Sheachlainn, though that does not, of itself, establish the fact that Ardghar was this Lochlainn's son. The lineage of Niall Glundubh is, however, treated quite as amply down as far as Aedh Allan, son of Flaithbheartach an Trostain, who pre-deceased his father. From Aedh came that line of princes bearing the surname of O Neill, who, in the sequel, so long ruled Tir Eoghain. but there are two people on this side of the pedigree whose existence is not confirmed by any reference in the annals,- Lochlain, who could have been the father of Ardghar, and Lochlainn's father, Muireadhach. The omission is a strange one, and in general confirms the possibility that the Lochlainn who was Ardghar's father was the son of Mael Sheachlainn.
   In the second place, their recurrent association with Fir Mhuighe Iotha crystallises the desendants of Domhnall Dabhaill along a definite thread of historic unity. I have demonstated that, in the last four generations of this family shown in the table, at least seven individuals are mentioned as moving in close concert with the military forces of Fir Mhuighe Iotha. Here is, as it were, the cement which binds this Ardghar to Lochlainn son of Mael Sheachalinn even as it binds Domhnall to Ardhgar and (for this has hitherto been the cracked seam in the fabric) Lochlain and Niall his brother to the generation of Aedh, Cosrach and Mael Sheachlainn before them. Above all, it is to be noted that the might of Magh Iotha is never once cited as being enlisted by the descendants of Niall Glundubh; only by those of Domhnall Dabhaill. It is this consideration which induces me finally to regard the latter as the progenitor of the family of MacLochlainn.

This genealogy, developed from annal entries, is identical to the pedigree of Clan Domhnall found in Rawlinson B.502

Rawlinson B.502

Aed
m. Neill
m. Mael-Sechnaill
m. Mael-ruanaidh
m. Flaind
m. Domnaill
m. Aeda Findleith
m. Neill Caille

An identical genealogy also appears in Ballymote; but the corresponding entry in Lecan is corrupt.

Book of Lecan

Cland Lachlaind andso

Aedh
m. Niall
m. Mael sechnaill
m. Lachlaind a quo Cland Lachlaind
m. Flaind
m. Domnall
Cland Domnaill cosin

Lochlan is clearly misplaced in this Clan Domhnall pedigree in Lecan. But the heading of Clann Lochlain may show the scribe had some doubts about the genealogy; there was only one Clann lochlan in this line of Ui Neill kings and that was the MacLochlainns...

Was O Ceallaigh Right?

   The sources available to us boil down to two manuscripts, Rawlinson B.502 and the Book of Leinster, each written about the same time (or in the case of the Book of Leinster, slightly later).   Later genealogical manuscripts such as the Books of Ballymote and Lecan follow Rawlinson B.502 and are clearly derivative with no particular insight of their own. Lecan is already showing signs of some corruption in the Clan Domhnall line.   The annal entries (Tigernach, 1064; and Inisfallen, 1093) are also of about the same date and contain the same conflicting information as the genealogical manuscripts..
   It's difficult to see how two genealogical manuscripts, written at about the same time, could contain conflicting pedigrees for the line of the current High King of Ireland, in the case of Rawlinson B.502, Domnall MacLochlainn (d. 1122) and in the case of the Book of Leinster, Muirchertach MacLochlainn (d. 1166).   If we turn to the mauscripts themselves, both are considered weighty authorities by Irish historians; but there is a major difference in the two manuscripts and their presentation of the pedigree of MacLochlainn.

Book of Leinster

   The Book of Leinster consists largely of a collection of pedigrees for the kings of territories throughout Ireland. The MacLochlainn pedigree is found on p. 338; followed by pedigrees for the kings of Cenel Conaill (O Muldoraidh and O Canannan); Cenel Enna; Cenel Lugdach (O Donnell) and the king of Airgiallaigh (O Carroll). The MacLochlainn pedigree is the only representative of any Cenel Eoghain septs in the manuscript. This is somewhat puzzling when we consider there are three pedigrees for the Cenel Conall and Cenel Lugdach; and a nearly incomprehensible inclusion of a pedigree for the Cenel Enna, kings of Tir Enna in Donegal, an unimportant minor kingdom at best. Compared to the material available in the Book of Leinster for other parts of Ireland, the Cenel Eoghain in particular are severely underrepresented in this manuscript.

Rawlinson B.502

In contrast to the Book of Leinster, there is a wealth of information in Rawlinson B.502 on both the kings of the Ui Neill and the Cenel Eoghain as a whole. Rawlinson follows in great detail the line of the Kings of the Ui Neill through Domnall 'of Armagh' and his four sons; and the descendants of Domhnall dabhail, essentially the same information from the earlier Laud 610 tract; unfortunately stopping short of supplying the critical information we need on the MacLochlainn pedigree, which appears under the heading "Clann Neill" in para. 1014; followed by that of Clann Domnall (para. 1015) and the line of Flaithbertach an trostain (para. 1016). Then follow the rest of the Cenel Eoghain kindred, also largely drawn from the earlier Laud 610 tract.

There is no denying that Rawlinson B.502 is the superior source for Cenel Eoghainn pedigrees; but since most of it is drawn verbatim from the earlier Laud 610 tract, the issue of the MacLochlainn pedigree is still unresolved by a comparison of the relative merits of the two manuscripts.

One issue O Ceallaigh did not tackle (perhaps wisely) in his presentation was the question of why we find two conflicting pedigrees in manuscripts written at about the same date. And this involves the question of how the information in the pedigrees were collected and whether the scribes involved (or the families themselves) tailored their pedigrees for political purposes. For example, how did the scribes compile their pedigrees? Did they receive oral reports from the families themselves or their historians; or did they build on existing pedigree collections (such as Laud 610) filling in new generations from entries in the annals?

As an example, a scribe with a copy of Laud 610 or a similar manuscript in front of him might well have consulted a copy of the annals when updating an existing pedigree. Anyone attempting to compile a pedigree of MacLochlainn from the annals alone would note the references to Lochlan son of Mael Sechalainn in the annals and conclude that Ardghar MacLochlainn was his son since there is only one Lochlan mentioned. If the scribe of the Book of Leinster was working from the annals that would explain the pedigree deriving the MacLochlainns from Clan Domhnall. One could not, however, achieve the opposite results of Rawlinson B.502 by this method. This pedigree must have been developed in some other manner because as O Ceallaigh noted, there is no evidence at all for a Muirdaigh and Lochlan combination in the annals. This pedigree must have been composed by someone, either the families themselves, their historians or the scribe. And here we meet with the difficult question of whether the pedigree was faked in some way for political purposes.

Here the derbfine argument raises its ugly head. Did the MacLochlainns or the scribe fake their pedigree because the MacLochlainns were not eligible for the kingship of Aileach or Ireland under the concept of derbfine, which in broad terms states that any man whose grandfather had been king was himself eligible for the kingship? While it is undeniable that the MacLochlainns if descended from Domhnall dabhail were ineligible for the kingship of Aileach under the age-old derbfine concept, O Corrain has shown that this meant little or nothing at all. Interlopers into the kingship were rampant in Ireland; one need only examine the pedigrees of the O'Neills and O Donnells to see just how often and unremarkable this practice really was. We can dispense with the derbfine argument when it comes to the question of the MacLochlainn pedigree.

What is perfectly true, however, is that if the MacLochlainns faked their pedigree (or had it faked for them) by attaching their line to Nial glundubh and Domnall 'of Armagh', they would have a much more illustrious line of Kings of Aileach and High Kings of Ireland than was possible from a Clan Domnall descent. And this may have suited Domnall MacLochlainn perfectly, engaged as he was in a rivalry with Muirchertach O Brien for the High kingship of Ireland. If this is so, why then did this version of their descent appear in Rawlinson B.502 circa 1120 A.D. but revert back to a Clan Domnall descent in the later Book of Leinster circa 1170 or later? Why toss out a more respectable descent for themselves a few generations later?

I suspect the answer is that we are not dealing with a faked pedigree in either Rawlinson B.502 or the Book of Leinster; the more likely answer is simply scribal error or a misidentification of the men involved in the pedigrees. Because the Clan Domhnall descent could be concocted in error through the annals and the Nial glundubh descent cannot - I tend to think the Book of Leinster is in error and probably derived from the annals. This conclusion, tentative as it may be, is admittedly at odds with the opinion of the vast majority of Irish historians including O Corrain, Katherine Simms and O Ceallaigh himself.
This is based on a hunch, more than anything else, that the scribes of these genealogical manuscripts did not collect oral or written pedigrees from the families themselves, but originated the pedigrees in their own genealogical laboratories from existing sources and the annals and presented them to the families involved as a fait acomplis. I doubt if Domhnall MacLochlainn knew or cared about the descent claimed for him in Rawlinson B.502; ditto for Muirchertach MacLochlainn in the Book of Leinster. Both men were Kings of the north of Ireland and at least briefly High Kings of Ireland, if with opposition. Both were probably blissfully unaware of the ruminations of a priestly scribe in a monastery far from their own territory in a different part of Ireland. This would also go a long ways towards explaining errors cropping up in other pedigrees, including that of the O'Neills; there is hardly a pedigree in Ireland free of them.