There has been one epic problem in all my family tree research:
The Blennerhassett problem.
This is the problem of how we descend from the Blennerhassett family.
I first became aware of our possible descent from Blennerhassett in 1985.
It took me 35 years to prove it.
In 2020
I proved that we descend somehow from the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.
This page lays out the proof.
Documents and DNA now prove there is some connection to the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.
But exactly how we descend from them is still unknown and is the remaining problem to be solved.
The first evidence of our family's descent from Blennerhassett
is the use of
"Blennerhassett" as a first name and middle name in our family.
I grew up with the name "Blennerhassett" in the family.
For example, talking to my grandmother in the 1980s
about her grandfather
Blennerhassett Cashel (died 1915).
Everybody knew the name. It was impossible to avoid.
The people in our family with "Blennerhassett" as a name are:
As well as using the name "Blennerhassett",
our family had preserved a story of a runaway Blennerhassett marriage.
This story survived into the modern age in the
Papers of Patricia Lavelle.
Pat Lavelle died in 1966.
But her family history notes survived, and I read them in the 1980s.
Pat Lavelle's notes say it was the mother of
George Cashel
who was a Blennerhassett,
and her name was "Letitia Blennerhassett".
The story is that
the Protestant Letitia Blennerhassett
had a romantic runaway marriage with the Catholic
Edward (or George) Cashel
and they were the parents of George Cashel, father of Blennerhassett Cashel.
The story was that the Blennerhassett girl was disinherited for running away with a Catholic.
[PAT/10, p.3]
said:
"Her family disowned her but the Cashels all thought it very romantic".
The story in my family of a romantic runaway Blennerhassett marriage.
In the notes of my grandaunt
Pat Lavelle.
From
[PAT/10, p.3].
See full size.
The notes above include "Sir Rowland Blennerhasset" as a named parent for Letitia.
It is unclear if this named parent for Letitia
is part of the original family story (I think not)
or a later addition, included only after the
Gortatlea letter in 1965 (I think so).
We will discuss below whether this named parent is correct.
There is an illegible word written here beside "George Cashel",
looks like "Philip"
(see the dot for the second "i").
Does this mean "George Philip Cashel"?
So far, this lead has led nowhere.
The unusual name "Letitia Blennerhassett"
seems like a strong clue.
How would such a rare name be remembered as George Cashel's mother?
The following are the only known Letitia Blennerhassetts of child-bearing age in the world
in 1807.
Both of them are married at the time, and not to Cashel.
I spent many years looking at Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
There was (and still is) a lot of evidence that made it look like her.
See:
Theory of our descent from Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
But a detailed DNA study says it is not her.
See below.
There is more evidence in the official records.
When
George Cashel
joined the County Constabulary in Sept 1828,
he was recommended by "A. Blennerhasset, J.P.".
This presumably must be a relation.
One would imagine this would narrow it down.
However, there were multiple prominent and respectable A. Blennerhassett's,
even restricted to that time.
There are basically three candidates for this person, as follows.
In the Ballyseedy branch:
Arthur Blennerhassett, of Ballyseedy, Tralee.
High Sheriff of Co.Kerry 1821-22.
In 1834 he is on a Grand Jury.
In 1835 he is one of the Deputy Lieutenants of Co.Kerry, and one of the Magistrates of Co.Kerry.
Died 1843.
We have no particular evidence that our family could be from the Ballyseedy branch.
Sir Arthur Blennerhassett, 3rd Baronet,
of Churchtown, Killarney.
Nephew of Arthur Blennerhassett, of Blennerville.
High Sheriff of Co.Kerry 1820-21.
He married a Catholic in 1826 and converted to Catholicism in 1827.
So might have been sympathetic to Cashel's position
even if not close relative.
Became 3rd Baronet in 1831.
In 1832 he is one of the Magistrates of Co.Kerry.
Listed as J.P. in 1844.
Died 1849.
Since
two of the three possible Arthur Blennerhassetts are in the Baronet branch,
this indicated our descent might be from the Baronet branch.
This turned out to be true.
See below.
George Cashel's RIC record.
Showing that he was recommended by "A. Blennerhasset, J.P."
when he joined the County Constabulary in 1828.
So back in the 1980s, I discovered this letter telling me who Letitia's father was.
Why did I not believe it?
Basically, this letter was not very convincing:
Thomas Blennerhassett
does not provide any evidence for his statement.
According to the official histories like Burke's Peerage, the 1st Baronet had no daughter.
It is clear from the wider letter
that he knows little about the family history.
For example, he only "thinks" there are other Rowlands.
But anyone who knows anything about the Blennerhassett family would know all about
Rowland the famous Home Rule MP
and
Sir Rowland the famous writer and MP.
Thomas is not from the main Blennerhassett family.
He is from the disconnected
Gortatlea branch,
whose origin is unknown.
They are not close relations of the Baronets branch,
and he clearly knows little about them.
And yet, this letter seems to have some truth!
The documentary evidence does actually point to the Baronets branch.
DNA testing (see below) proves we are related to the Baronets branch.
We discovered that, contrary to the official histories, the 1st Baronet did have a daughter,
though she died as an infant.
We may descend from another, previously-unknown, daughter of the 1st Baronet.
Or (perhaps more likely) we descend from a son of the 1st Baronet who had an affair.
But in any case,
the letter has some truth.
The 1st Baronet really is a close relation.
How did Thomas know this?
For decades, I thought Thomas Blennerhassett was just guessing, in his really unconvincing letter.
That he was saying Letitia "must have been"
the daughter of
Sir Rowland because Sir Rowland was the only Blennerhassett he knew of at that period.
But now I wonder if he knew what he was talking about!
Maybe Pat Lavelle had a story it was "Sir Rowland":
But hold on.
We are missing Pat Lavelle's original letter to Thomas Blennerhassett.
What did she say in it?
Is it possible that Pat Lavelle herself is the source of the story?
Is it possible that she had some story of connection to Sir Rowland,
and she wrote to Thomas Blennerhassett with that,
and he is saying yes he thinks that must be true.
That would explain Thomas Blennerhassett's odd wording.
Maybe Pat Lavelle had a story it was "Rowland":
I think this is the most plausible story of all.
Maybe Pat Lavelle knew about a "Rowland" and not "Sir Rowland".
Maybe her mother or aunt had a memory of seeing "Rowland" and "Letitia" in the
stained glass window in Tralee
when they were young.
(It commemorates
Rowland Blennerhassett and his wife Letitia Hurly.)
So maybe Pat wrote to Thomas Blennerhassett with the remembered names "Rowland" and "Letitia"
and asked him what he thought.
That would explain Thomas Blennerhassett's odd wording in reply,
where he guesses that "Letitia" is the daughter of Sir Rowland,
since he has heard of Sir Rowland, and, not knowing much about the family history,
he does not know that Sir Rowland's son Rowland was married to a Letitia.
Pat incorporates the idea that Letitia is the daughter of Sir Rowland
(incorrectly written "Sir Ronald").
From
[PAT/13, no.1]
Pat incorporates the idea that Letitia is the daughter of Sir Rowland into her notes.
From
[PAT/10, p.3].
See full size.
This combines
the family story of a romantic runaway marriage
with the idea (either part of the original family story or maybe a newer idea)
that Letitia is the daughter of Sir Rowland.
For years, I thought the connection to Sir Rowland was made up.
Now I think it is basically true!
Though some details may be wrong.
In her notes,
Pat Lavelle
remembers her aunt Alice Cashel
and Jim Sullivan
arguing
over whose family had a claim to the
Blennerhassett estate.
Jim Sullivan left Ireland in 1920, but probably returned on visits.
He died in America in 1935,
so the argument is sometime before 1935.
Pat said that Jim's Sullivan family
"had come from near Tralee where the Blennerhassett estate flourished.
The old castle built long ago, he maintained, belonged to his family."
(He would mean the old Irish
Clan O'Sullivan.)
And
Alice had her Blennerhassett ancestors.
(One would love to hear what evidence she presented!)
So Jim and Alice argued about who had a claim to the old estate.
I took decades to realise the argument is about Churchtown
The addition of "Tralee" meant I took decades to realise
the argument is about Churchtown near Killarney,
and hence about the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.
I knew
Jim Sullivan's family
were from the Killarney area, not the Tralee area.
But only after a few decades, when I researched the Sullivan origin,
did I see exactly where in the Killarney area
they were from.
They were from Dromaloughane, in which townland is the ruined Castle Corr,
built by McGillycuddy,
said to be
a branch of the O'Sullivans.
The castle was built c.1450.
In the next townland is
the 18th century Blennerhassett house,
Churchtown House.
Blennerhassett had acquired the McGillycuddy (O'Sullivan) estate.
Churchtown House was the seat of the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.
(They also had a house at Blennerville, near Tralee.)
So it all makes sense, if we get rid of "Tralee".
And it is more evidence pointing towards the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.
Why did Pat mention Tralee?
Because Tralee is the main place Blennerhassett are associated with.
There is an entire village, "Blennerville", near Tralee.
Blennerville House, near Tralee,
was the other seat of the Baronets family, besides Churchtown House.
The biggest Blennerhassett house is
Ballyseedy
near Tralee.
It is perfectly normal for Pat to think they were referring to Tralee,
when trying to remember this years later.
Ballyseedy was also the estate of an old Irish castle.
However it was not a castle of
Clan O'Sullivan,
but rather a
Desmond castle.
Did Alice Cashel know about Churchtown?
So Jim Sullivan was right.
And DNA (see below) says Alice Cashel was right.
Her Blennerhassetts were from Churchtown. And she probably knew that.
But that information was not transmitted to
Pat Lavelle.
I had to go and dig it up again, almost a century after this argument took place.
Jim Sullivan
came from
Dromaloughane, near Killarney, Co.Kerry.
In Dromaloughane townland is the ruin of Castle Corr.
Above it in Churchtown townland is the Blennerhassett house,
Churchtown House.
I have laid out this page so far
to make the Baronets line look the most promising lead.
But it did not look the most promising lead for many years.
The name "Letitia Blennerhassett" seemed by far the best lead.
What a rare name. It must be telling us something.
And when I looked into the life of
Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert,
I found a lot of circumstantial evidence that something happened in her life around 1806,
and maybe, just maybe, she had an affair and separated from her husband
and she could be the mother of George Cashel.
I found a lot of exciting-looking clues that something like this may have happened.
So I constructed a theory from the paper evidence that our ancestor might be
Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
The paper evidence looked really good.
This DNA failure seemed like a disaster.
But one good thing is that when we finally got good DNA matches, with a different Blennerhassett branch,
this failure shows why our new matches really
are proof.
Later, after hundreds more comparisons,
I got up to
9.4 cM
but that hardly changes the argument.
The failure of the Letitia theory
Top row:
What the DNA matches look like for real 4th cousins.
Bottom row:
DNA matches for the postulated 4th cousins under the Letitia theory.
Conclusion:
They are not 4th cousins.
The Letitia theory is false.
See details.
Top row:
What the DNA matches look like for real 5th cousins.
Bottom row:
DNA matches for the postulated 5th cousins under the Letitia theory (truncated).
Conclusion:
They are not 5th cousins.
The Letitia theory is false.
See details.
The success of the Baronets theory
For comparison, we preview what a working theory looks like:
the Baronets theory, which will be explained later.
We cannot do the 4th cousins to compare with above because so far we have discovered
no 4th cousins (no times removed) under this theory.
So let us look at 5th cousins:
Top row:
What the DNA matches look like for real 5th cousins.
Bottom row:
DNA matches for the postulated 5th cousins under the Baronets theory (truncated).
Conclusion:
They are really 5th cousins, or at most 6th cousins.
They really are closely related.
The Baronets theory is true.
See
details.
And immediately, on the very first sample, DNA proved the two families are related.
The Baronets theory is true.
Proof that we descend from the Blennerhassett Baronets.
On 26 May 2020, this
15 centimorgans (cM)
hit was discovered on my very first sample with the Blennerhassett Baronets. We did just 11 one-to-one DNA comparisons and immediately got a rock-solid 15 cM.
The match is between these two people:
After the breakthrough with Chute,
other DNA matches came spilling out.
Multiple matches, and different sides of the family.
Though smaller than the Chute match, until Oct 2020, when we got one bigger than the Chute match.
On 18 Oct 2020, we got the following huge 21 cM
match with the Baronets family.
We have multiple DNA matches of our family now with descendants of the 2nd Baronet.
There is no doubt now. The Baronets theory is true.
We have a match between:
Our family has DNA links to the Blennerhassett Baronets family
(the Blennerhassett/Yielding family)
which clearly go through
Blennerhassett Cashel,
he being the common ancestor of people in our family with these DNA matches.
DNA links through Blennerhassett Cashel
to Blennerhassett/Yielding people must
in fact be links
through his father George Cashel,
and not through his mother or either of his wives.
Let us explain:
Any link to Blennerhassett/Yielding probably goes through Co.Kerry.
Blennerhassett Cashel's father
George Blennerhassett Cashel
is of Co.Kerry,
and has a well-developed paper theory of connection to Blennerhassett.
Blennerhassett Cashel's mother is
Kickham of Co.Tipperary
and has nothing to do with either Co.Kerry or Blennerhassett.
Blennerhassett Cashel's 1st wife is
Lyons of Co.Cork
and has nothing to do with either Co.Kerry or Blennerhassett.
Realistically, any link to Blennerhassett/Yielding
through Blennerhassett Cashel and either wife
is a link
through George Cashel
and not through any other line.
Any link to Blennerhassett/Yielding
through George Cashel and his wife
is a link
through George Cashel
and not through any other line.
Our family has
more DNA matches with the Blennerhassett Baronets family.
Our family has matches with
William Yielding (born 1750-51),
brother
of Millicent Agnes Yielding
(wife of 1st Baronet).
Our family has matches with
Belinda Yielding (bapt 1758),
sister
of Millicent Agnes Yielding
(wife of 1st Baronet).
What Yielding matches mean is complex since the 1st Baronet's mother was also a Yielding.
We will discuss this below.
We have moved the details of all DNA matches, and all analysis of DNA ("triangulation"),
to a separate page:
The conclusion is as follows:
I call it as proved that Arthur Blennerhassett of Blennerville
is related to our family through George Cashel and not through any other line.
I call it as proved that Sir Robert Blennerhassett, 2nd Baronet,
is related to our family through George Cashel and not through any other line.
I call it as proved that William Yielding
is related to our family through George Cashel and not through any other line.
I call it as proved that Belinda Yielding
is related to our family through George Cashel and not through any other line.
Let us summarise all DNA matches between my family and the Blennerhassett Baronets family.
I set the bar at 9 cM for a "significant" match.
In the list of all DNA hits
you see I have some hits that are marked as "matches" by the genealogy sites but are below 9 cM, so I exclude those ones
from the following.
We have the following matches with
the descendants of William Yielding,
brother of Millicent Agnes Yielding.
These people also descend from siblings of the 1st Baronet.
We have the following matches with the
descendants of Belinda Yielding,
sister of Millicent Agnes Yielding.
For the cousin numbers,
we assume Thomas and Tobias
are two generations below Belinda Yielding.
Recall we chose the family first, based on fragments of evidence in the documents,
and then, having picked the family in advance, we got these hits.
It is quite a list to get by chance.
It seems very hard to get even 9 cM by chance.
With the
Letitia theory,
we did
hundreds of one-to-one DNA comparisons
and we got a single 9 cM
and an 8.6 and 8.5
and that's it.
Compare that to the big list above.
Though caution because elsewhere in our testing, we did once see
12.4 cM happen by chance.
But could all of these happen by chance?
We chose the family first, based on documents, and then got these hits.
It is quite a list to get by chance.
In May 2020, I found DNA evidence that our family is closely related to
the 1st Baronet.
The family history suggested our ancestor was
a daughter of the 1st Baronet.
And now DNA was confirming this.
However, no daughter was found in the official histories, such as Burke's Peerage.
I had looked for a daughter before, and not found one.
Bill Jehan had not found one.
On 13 June 2020, this changed.
I discovered that the 1st Baronet did have a daughter,
Melisent Blennerhassett,
baptised in Dublin in Jan 1768,
who is not in the official family histories.
This was exciting.
The evidence made a prediction
that a daughter might exist.
And a daughter was found.
However it was a false alarm.
On 16 June 2022, I discovered that Melisent died as an infant and was buried in Dublin in May 1768.
So is there another daughter?
Later children were probably baptised in Co.Kerry and their baptisms cannot be found.
There may turn out to be another, younger daughter "Letitia".
Or a daughter with a different name.
Or (perfectly possible) we descend from one of the sons.
Could "Letitia" be an error, and could "Agnes" be a clue?
"Letitia" could be an error.
It is noted that none of the Cashels were given the name "Letitia".
If there is a female name in the Cashel family, it is "Agnes".
George Cashel named his eldest daughter
Agnes Cashel
in 1838.
She died and he named his next daughter
Agnes Cashel
in 1842.
She is also written as "Agnes Mary" or "Mary Agnes".
His wife was Mary.
The name "Agnes" was clearly important to George. Maybe his mother or stepmother.
She is Letitia Blennerhassett, a previously unknown daughter of the 1st Baronet,
who ran away with a Mr. Cashel.
She is born Letitia Cashel.
She had an affair with, say, one of the sons of the 1st Baronet.
They had a natural son, easily written out of the family history.
The son, George Cashel, took the mother's surname.
Alternative theory: She is Letitia Yielding.
As well as Cashel and Blennerhassett, DNA says we descend from Yielding.
There is in fact a Letitia Yielding (born 1777, died 1844).
She apparently lived in Tralee parish
and was buried in Ballymacelligott parish.
Could they be identical?
Letitia Yielding runs away with Cashel.
She uses the surname Cashel but
reverts back to Yielding later.
Probably not.
Letitia Yielding is written as "Letitia Yielding, spinster"
in a court case in 1811.
See
Yielding theory
for more
on whether Letitia Yielding could be our ancestor.
We do not know of the existence of any
"Letitia Blennerhassett"
who could be our ancestor.
Maybe it is an error.
But
how could the family mis-remember such a rare name?
Here is one way.
If
George Cashel's parent was child of the 1st Baronet,
then his aunt by marriage would be
Mrs. Letitia Blennerhassett
(born Letitia Hurly, married in 1808 to Rowland Blennerhassett of Kells, alive in 1822, died before 1834).
That is, unless Rowland Blennerhassett of Kells is father of George Cashel,
in which case Letitia Hurly is George's stepmother.
I do not think Letitia Hurly is actually the mother of George Cashel.
I do not think she had a natural child before marrying Rowland. Reasons:
The DNA connects us to Blennerhassett. That would make no sense if Blennerhassett was not related.
I do not think Letitia Hurly is the mother.
I think she is the aunt. (Or maybe the stepmother.)
So how was she remembered?
One way she could be remembered
would be if she was close to our family.
For example if she wrote letters,
the name "Letitia Blennerhassett" might have been remembered from the letters,
and the name accidentally transferred to the mother
when the great-grandchildren were trying to remember the story in the 20th century.
This window may be the answer as to where "Letitia" came from.
It is one of the most visible Blennerhassett monuments in Tralee.
It is possible, even likely, that
Blennerhassett Cashel
showed this window to his children
when on visits to
his Falvey in-laws in Tralee
before 1904,
and told his children (correctly) that these Blennerhassetts were close relations,
and this reinforced in later memory
that their ancestor was "Letitia".
This window may in fact be the whole origin of the name "Letitia".
It was easy for Blennerhassett Cashel to get to Tralee since
his employer the GSWR had a line to there since 1859.
(GSWR had a line to Killarney since 1853.)
So was "Letitia" a false clue?
Not at all.
If Blennerhassett Cashel showed the window to his children,
then he probably knew he was the Baronets branch.
The name "Letitia" may in fact be evidence for the Baronets branch:
Looked at this new way, the name "Letitia" is evidence for the Baronets branch,
since it indicates they looked at this window and considered it their branch.
Let us summarise all the DNA matches on a tree or trees.
Our family is a DNA match to multiple members of the Blennerhassett Baronets family,
which itself is tightly inter-connected with the Yielding family.
These trees shows the complexity of the Blennerhassett-Yielding family.
The Blennerhassett-Yielding family is so complex that we cannot fit all our matched lines on one tree.
1st Baronet family matches
There are matches with descendants of two of the sons of the 1st Baronet.
The tree is complex because of the two 1st cousin marriages.
Richard Yielding
|
+------+-----------+
| |
Robert Blennerhassett = Frances Richard
| |
+-------------------------+-------+ |
| | |
Arthur 1st Baronet = Millicent Agnes
| |
| +----------------------------------+-----------------+
| | |
Rosanna = 2nd Baronet Arthur
| |
| |
DNA MATCHDNA MATCH
21 cM 15 cM
Matches outside 1st Baronet family
This chart is actually more complex than shown.
There are matches with two descendants of William Yielding.
One is also a descendant of Sarah Blennerhassett.
The other is also a descendant of both Millicent and Sarah Blennerhassett.
The Belinda Yielding matches are straightforward.
Richard Yielding
|
+------+-------------------+
| |
Robert Blennerhassett = Frances Richard
| |
+-------------+---------+-----+ +---------+--------+------------+
| | | | | |
Millicent Sarah 1st Baronet = Millicent Agnes William Belinda
| | | |
| | | |
DNA MATCHDNA MATCHDNA MATCHDNA MATCH
14 cM 14 cM 14 cM 12 cM
We connect closely to this Blennerhassett-Yielding family. But where?
The best matches descend from the 1st Baronet.
Probably we descend from the 1st Baronet too.
Though the top match also descends from his brother Arthur.
Maybe we descend from Arthur and not from the 1st Baronet.
We could still have DNA matches with the other people.
My analysis (not shown here) does suggest that a 1st Baronet descent explains the DNA better than an Arthur descent.
But that does not mean an Arthur descent is false.
A descent from a sister of the 1st Baronet would make DNA sense,
but less sense according to the documents.
Why did George Cashel start using the name "Blennerhassett"?
It would be too far back.
You may note that every match descends from Yielding.
So in theory we could descend from Yielding and not from Blennerhassett at all.
I think this cannot be true,
since my family used the name "Blennerhassett".
We will consider this theory again below.
There are multiple ways we could connect and still get these DNA numbers.
It is too far back for DNA to tell us for sure.
We connect closely to this Blennerhassett-Yielding family.
But ultimately we cannot know exactly where and how we connect to them
until we find documentary proof.
This can also explain the Blennerhassett DNA matches since those people descend from Yielding too.
"A. Blennerhasset, J.P." is still a close blood relation.
George Cashel has no Blennerhassett ancestry.
But he is cousin of the Blennerhassett Baronets.
He adopted the name of his cousins as a tribute.
Maybe because his cousin Arthur Blennerhassett helped him join the police.
Note that the
Mahany tribute
is to in-laws/cousins.
Family story of descent from Blennerhassett: Must be false.
Runaway story: Probably false, unless a Yielding ran away.
Churchtown story: Must be false.
"Letitia Blennerhassett" story is now hard to explain.
Letitia Hurly
is now the wife of a cousin, rather than an aunt.
While it can work with the DNA matches,
it is a worse DNA theory than the Baronets theory.
Our top DNA matches
are with the descendants of the 1st Baronet and Millicent Agnes Yielding.
The big problem: Why use the name Blennerhassett?
Why did George Cashel call his son "Blennerhassett" in 1848?
He certainly got excited about the Blennerhassett name if it was only his grandaunt's husband and his cousins,
and not his mother or father.
If it was a tribute to his famous granduncle, or to his cousin who helped him get the police job 20 years earlier,
why not use "Rowland" or "Arthur"?
The use of just "Blennerhassett" suggests family descent, not a tribute.
Also, why wait 20 years?
Why the tribute with the youngest son not with an elder son?
Note that the
Mahany tribute
used "Rowland Blennerhassett Mahany",
not just "Blennerhassett".
I think our family usage of just the name "Blennerhassett" kills this theory.
Butler natural children:
If this theory is true, where could we connect to Yielding?
There is in the Yielding family a
Letitia Yielding
of Tralee, born 1777 (age 29 in 1806), died 1844.
Could she be George Cashel's mother?
She is the only Letitia Yielding I can find, in any time period,
and some of the details fit:
It seems that her father had a natural son in 1772,
and that son (Letitia's brother) had natural children in 1793 and 1803,
and her father died 1804.
Maybe Letitia then ran away with Mr. Cashel in 1806?
Her father is 1st cousin of both
Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet, and his wife Millicent Agnes Yielding.
But she still seems a bit far away to be getting those DNA matches.
A 2nd cousin, not a sister, of the 1st Baronet's sons.
Even if a double 2nd cousin.
Also, if she is Yielding and ran away with Cashel, then why use the name "Blennerhassett"?
She is 2nd cousin of Blennerhassetts
but that is too weak a connection to use the name.
Maybe Letitia Yielding had an affair with her Blennerhassett cousin.
And so Blennerhassett is the father.
This would explain the DNA.
But if so, where did the name "Cashel" come in?
DNA says we should keep this theory
alive.
But I think our family usage of the name "Blennerhassett" kills this theory.
Theory: Blennerhassett ancestry through Cashell line.
We already have a Cashel family linked to Blennerhassett. No need to find a second link.
Family story of descent from Blennerhassett: True.
Against this theory:
Runaway story: Must be false. The 1720s marriage was not a runaway.
Churchtown story: Must be false.
"Letitia Blennerhassett" story: Must be false. But why remember such an unusual name?
"A. Blennerhasset, J.P." is then a very distant relation.
Bigger problems:
"Blennerhassett" is not a middle name or first name in this Cashell family
in the 18th century.
Why would "Blennerhassett" suddenly emerge
as a middle name
and first name in our Cashel family in the 19th century?
(George Cashel born 1807. 1869 document says he had middle name Blennerhassett.
Blennerhassett Cashel born 1848. Baptised Blennerhassett in 1848.)
The strong DNA matches with the 1st Baronet family are very hard to explain.
The common ancestor would be too early.
The big one: This theory cannot explain the Yielding DNA matches at all.
Probably through their son the 1st Baronet (explains the DNA best).
Or through their son Arthur.
Through their daughter seems less likely.
(Why did George Cashel start using the name "Blennerhassett"?
It would be too far back.)
It is actually the most dramatic theory of Blennerhassett descent you could imagine.
A close relation of the only Blennerhassett that got a title.
I can see how it seems far fetched.
This is in fact why I rejected it when I first heard it in the
Gortatlea letter.
But the fact is, this is where the evidence leads.
Especially the DNA evidence.
I abandoned the Baronets theory for over a decade.
But the evidence has brought me back here.
Most likely an unnoticed event:
A runaway marriage of a daughter from this family
would be the most dramatic version, and a huge scandal in Kerry.
And there is no evidence for it.
Not even a candidate for the daughter. We would have to find a new person.
I suspect it was more ordinary. The oldest story on earth.
If I had to guess,
I would guess a Blennerhassett male had a natural child
with a lower status female.
Hardly noticed outside the family.
The child, George Cashel, took the mother's surname or had an invented surname.
More on this below.
The only theory that explains all the data.
Theory: Other Blennerhassett ancestry.
Summary of theory:
We descend from some unknown Blennerhassett line.
We will never find it.
For this theory:
It is what you expect if you find people with some undefined "Blennerhassett" ancestry.
You expect never to solve it.
For example, many genealogists have worked
on the huge Gortatlea line
and never solved it.
Bill Jehan
never proved his line.
He also collected vast numbers of disconnected Blennerhassetts around the world.
Connecting any of them to the main family is very rare.
Most remain forever disconnected.
Family story of descent from Blennerhassett: True.
Runaway story: Could still be true.
Against this theory:
Churchtown story: Must be false.
"Letitia Blennerhassett" story: Must be false.
Unless somehow we find a link to one of the two
known Letitias.
Why remember such an unusual name?
Who is "A. Blennerhasset, J.P."?
A bigger problem:
The strong
DNA matches with the 1st Baronet family are
very hard to explain if they are far away.
The big one: This theory cannot explain the Yielding DNA matches.
From above, it seems certain that George Cashel descends from
the 1st Baronet or his brother
Arthur.
Nothing else explains the DNA plus the use of the name Blennerhassett.
The top theory would be
descent from the 1st Baronet.
That explains the DNA better than descent from Arthur. Though Arthur is still possible.
My top theory would be that George Cashel is grandson of the 1st Baronet.
How could he be grandson?
Consider the possibilities:
George Cashel's mother is daughter of the 1st Baronet.
For this theory:
Explains the name "Letitia".
Explains surname Cashel. That is the father.
Against:
Would be an incredible scandal. Might even stop Rowland's Baronetcy happening.
Upper class women generally did not have affairs.
The stakes were far too high for them.
Upper class men had affairs (generally with lower status women).
The big one: No daughter is known to exist as a candidate.
We have to invent a new person.
Conclusion: Highly unlikely.
George Cashel's father is son of the 1st Baronet.
For this theory:
Any of the five sons of the 1st Baronet are possible
So my top theory is
that
one of the five sons of the 1st Baronet
had an affair with a lower status woman.
Perhaps a Miss Cashel, and the baby took her name.
No one in the family or Co.Kerry really noticed.
Maybe the grandfather the 1st Baronet never even knew.
This would mean George Cashel and Blennerhassett Cashel were actually Blennerhassetts!
It would also mean I could get George Cashel (and maybe more of my Cashels) into Burke's Peerage in the future,
like I did with Augustus Montgomery.
Any of the five sons are possible fathers of George Cashel:
It could be the 2nd Baronet
because our best DNA match is with his descendants.
Also Churchtown was remembered in our family.
Also the 2nd Baronet possibly had an affair.
The (future) 2nd Baronet was in 1806 married some years, and living at Churchtown.
It could be
Richard Francis
because of the name "Agnes" (his wife).
Also Richard Francis was an eccentric, and was called "Dicky the Goose",
and maybe had an irregular lifestyle.
Richard Francis was in 1806 married some years, and living at Blennerville or Tralee.
It could be Arthur
because we have a DNA match with his descendants.
Arthur was in 1806 married some years, and living in Dublin or Blennerville.
It could be Rowland
because of the name "Letitia" (his wife).
His wife, Mrs. Letitia Blennerhassett would then be George Cashel's stepmother.
Rowland was in 1806 not yet married, and living at Blennerville.
It is less likely to be William.
In 1806 he was newly married, so maybe not him.
But we can only speculate. We will never know for sure until we find documentary proof.
Pat Lavelle's papers
were a treasure trove for the broader family tree.
However, for the Blennerhassett hunt,
it would perhaps have been better if I never found her notes!
If I never found her Blennerhassett notes:
I would never have had the name "Letitia".
I would never have wasted a decade on Letitia of Tarbert.
I would never have spent time on Letitia of Co.Limerick either.
I would not have the account of the Sullivan argument, which pointed to Churchtown.
I would not have the vague clues pointing to the Rowland and Letitia window.
Instead I would have the following:
We somehow descend from Blennerhassett. (Obvious from the names.)
George Cashel, policeman, is recommended by A. Blennerhassett.
This must mean we are related to either the Baronets branch or the Ballyseedy branch.
So my DNA hunt would have focused on those two branches.
DNA would soon find it was the Baronets branch.
So I would have ended up at the same place, without such a massive detour.
There were some good things about finding her notes:
Without them, I would lose: (1) the account of the Sullivan argument,
and: (2) the clues pointing to the window,
both of which are thin documentary clues backing up the Baronets branch.
It is nice to have them.
It is also nice that at least one person noticed the Blennerhassett descent before me, and tried to work it out.
It was not just something I discovered on my own.
But Pat's notes ultimately led to a decade of wasted work,
to arrive at the same place I would have arrived at without them.
So overall
it would probably have been better if I never found Pat's papers in the 1980s!
Through the almost impenetrable wall of
over
200 years of silence,
the clues in the family stories were finally supported
by the DNA, which says something in the stories is true.
Somehow DNA from the Blennerhassett Baronets family was transmitted forward and made George Cashel.
We do not know how, but something like the following.
An affair.
A natural child written out of the family history.
An unapproved marriage.
A Blennerhassett daughter disowned and maybe soon dead.
A seduction of a Blennerhassett daughter
by a man who ran, or
a man who was already married.
Or (perhaps most likely) a Blennerhassett son, having an affair with a local woman or a servant,
barely noticed outside the family,
and a child that took her name not his.
We may never know, but the DNA says it happened.
Part of the family story is true.
There was no long descent of a chain of Blennerhassetts from some unknown origin.
This was a short and sudden descent from one of the glamorous, high-profile branches of the Blennerhassetts.
Let us summarise it again:
My ancestor
Blennerhassett Cashel
attends a lecture in 1899
in Cork by
Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 4th Baronet.
From Cork Examiner,
March 29, 1899.
Blennerhassett Cashel was GSWR goods head at Cork, apparently 1893 to 1911.
The 4th Baronet was Catholic, succ 1849, President of Queens College Cork 1897-1904.
This is not really evidence of a relationship, since the 4th Baronet was a well-known figure in public life,
Catholic, and the President of the College in the city where
Cashel lived.
Cashel used to go to these type of talks anyway.
See
Cashel at a similar lecture the year before,
reported in
Cork Examiner,
March 17, 1898.
But it is interesting that the only Blennerhassett I can find on the same page as my family
is from the Baronets branch.
According to the theory above
they are most likely 2nd cousins.
They could even be 1st cousins, if the 2nd Baronet is the natural father of George Cashel.
Donation Drive
Please donate to support this site.
I have spent a great deal of time and money on this research.
Research involves travel and many expenses.
Some research "things to do"
are not done for years, because I do not have the money to do them.
Please Donate Here
to support the ongoing research and
to keep this website free.
Theory makes no sense.
DNA says we should keep this theory
alive.
But I think our family usage of the name "Blennerhassett" kills this theory.
The only theory that explains all the data.
