The claim that the 1st Baronet had a daughter Catherine
See the
proof of our Blennerhassett descent.
This suggests our family most likely descends from
Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet.
Our family story was that we descend from a runaway Blennerhassett daughter.
So I am keen to establish if the 1st Baronet had a daughter.
In the past, there were
claims that
he had a daughter Catherine.
This is clearly an error.
The printed histories
The printed family histories such as Debrett's and Burke's
at one point showed a Catherine.
But this is clearly an error.
The 1st Baronet has no daughter in
the entry for Blennerhassett
in [Debrett's Baronetage, 1815].
This is
on p.1247
of vol.2.
The genealogy has errors ("Harley" for Hurly).
The 1st Baronet has no daughter on
p.1178
of vol.2 of
[Debrett's Baronetage, 1819].
In [Debrett's Baronetage, 1824],
the 1st Baronet is now listed with a daughter Catherine.
From p.1115
of vol.2.
- This edition is a bit out of date. The 1st Baronet died in 1821.
-
In the entry, the 1st Baronet's daughter
Catherine marries Rev. Edward Conyers, of "Knockmare".
-
Knockmare however is not a CoI parish.
-
This is clearly confusion with Catherine,
dau of the 2nd Baronet, who had just
married in 1822 to
Rev. Edward Fitzgerald Conyers,
of Castletown Conyers,
now
Rector of Knockane,
Co.Kerry.
- This edition does not yet list the children of the 2nd Baronet.
The 1st Baronet is still listed with a daughter Catherine
on
p.628
of vol.2 of
[Debrett's Baronetage, 1828].
- In this edition, Debrett's now also lists Catherine, dau of the 2nd Baronet.
That is, it
lists both the 1st Baronet and the 2nd Baronet with a dau Catherine who marries a Rev. Edward Conyers.
- The 2nd Baronet's daughter is listed correctly, with the correct middle name and origin.
It does not list his parish.
- In the entry, the 1st Baronet's daughter
Catherine marries Rev. Edward Conyers, of "Knockman".
-
Knockman however is not a CoI parish.
-
[Ardfert and Aghadoe Clergy]
also says there is only one Rev. Conyers in Co.Kerry, the one of Knockane
who married the daughter of the 2nd Baronet.
- It is clear the 1st Baronet has no daughter Catherine and this is just an error.
19th century printed sources duplicate this
Late 19th century on: The printed sources correct this
Starting in the late 19th century, the printed histories seem to have decided this "Catherine"
was an error
and removed her.
- Foster removes this "Catherine".
The 1st Baronet is on
p.574
of
[Foster's Royal Descents, vol.4, 1886]
and it shows no daughter.
- [Burkes Peerage, 1894, p.144]
still lists
both the 1st Baronet and the 2nd Baronet with a dau Catherine who marries a Rev. Edward Conyers.
-
[Lodge's Peerage, 1903] and
[Lodge's Peerage, 1912]
are still listing the 1st Baronet with 5 sons and "other issue".
- [Burkes Peerage, 1912, p.244]
has now removed the 1st Baronet's daughter "Catherine".
Later editions show no daughter for the 1st Baronet.
They show only the 2nd Baronet with dau Catherine.
- See extract
from [Burkes Peerage, 1959].
The 1st Baronet has no daughter.
- Mercifully, the error appears to be finally dead.
Even a search on Ancestry trees
does not turn up this error.
Records of Ballingarry
More confusion was caused by a misleading extract from the book
Records of Ballingarry.
Catherine Blennerhassett, born 1788, daughter of "Sir R. Blennerhassett".
From
Limerick City Library
extracts
from the book
Records of Ballingarry
[Hamilton, 1930].
If she really was born 1788, this would be a dau of the 1st Baronet,
not the 2nd Baronet (who married 1790).
When we look at the original source in [Hamilton, 1930] though,
we see the extract is misleading.
The extract makes it look like it is an original baptism entry.
But it is not. It is just an extract from a set of family notes in the book.
In the original notes,
Catherine is discussed as the person who married Rev. Edward Conyers
and was born 1788 and died 1869.
This context is lost when making the extract of BMD.
So there is no new Catherine.
The date 1788 is simply an error.
