Abandoned theory of our descent from Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert

There has been one epic problem in all of 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 in 1985.

This page lays out the theory that Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert might be the mother of our ancestor George Cashel and the link of our family to Blennerhassett.

The paper evidence looked good for many years. So we turned to DNA evidence. However the DNA evidence says the theory is false, and the paper evidence must have some other explanation.

The Letitia theory is false, but we leave up this page to show how the paper evidence once looked good.

The 1806 deed that made it look as if Letitia Blennerhassett was separating from her husband the year before George Cashel was born.
It seems this is just an amazing coincidence.

Reasons why Letitia of Tarbert may be our Letitia

The mother of George Cashel was said to be "Letitia Blennerhassett". There are two known Letitia Blennerhassetts of the right age to be the his mother. These are:

Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert, Co.Kerry (dau of Rev. John Blennerhassett, of Tralee, Co.Kerry).
Letitia Blennerhassett of Harding Grove, Co.Limerick (dau of Gerald Blennerhassett, of Riddlestown, Co.Limerick).

There is no real evidence that it could be Letitia of Co.Limerick, but there seemed to be considerable evidence that it was Letitia of Co.Kerry. Letitia of Co.Kerry has two husbands, and neither are Cashel. So the theory would be that she had an affair with Cashel during her 1st marriage. This may sound unlikely. But there was in fact a large amount of circumstantial evidence that this happened. The evidence looked very good - until DNA testing proved it is not the link.

For what it's worth, here are the reasons why Letitia Blennerhassett, of Tralee and Tarbert, Co.Kerry, looked like she might be the mother of George Cashel.

An illegitimate child seems more likely than a runaway marriage:
1. The family story was of a runaway marriage, but George Cashel seems alone, without family. No parents appear in his life. He has no known siblings. His children have no known cousins (on his side).
2. If there was a runaway marriage, he would likely have siblings. His profile seems to fit a child on his own.
This is the only Letitia Blennerhassett in Co.Kerry:
1. Our George Cashel was born Co.Kerry, 1807.
2. RIC record says he was Catholic. (Though he might be born Protestant, and became Catholic at marriage 1838.)
3. Our family remembered that his mother was a "Letitia Blennerhassett".
4. This Letitia Blennerhassett is the only known Letitia Blennerhassett of that time in Co.Kerry.
The psychology of this Letitia Blennerhassett's background fits:
1. This Letitia Blennerhassett is one of twin girls who were the youngest (perhaps indulged?) children of a vicar.
2. Her mother might have died young. Her father may have enjoyed his drink. He was known as "Port Wine Jack".
3. Her father was chaplain to the Kerry Militia. Her sister Elizabeth married in 1791 to an officer, Capt. Edward Fuller.
4. She married in 1799 at 19 (very young) to another officer, Major Richard Ponsonby.
5. Richard Ponsonby was already part of her circle. His brother William Ponsonby was married to the widow of Capt. Edward Fuller's brother.
6. Richard Ponsonby has an inheritance of £4,000 which Letitia will inherit if he dies. And yet later we find he dies and she apparently does not inherit it.
7. Richard Ponsonby's parents separated when he was young, and his father paid his mother £500 per year to live on, while they lived apart. Like father, like son? Family patterns often repeat.
8. Letitia grew up in the social capital of Tralee, and married an officer. But he leaves the army and gets a boring customs job in 1803 in the relative backwater of Tarbert. The psychology fits for her to be restless. (Tarbert had the military base, and so was one of the more lively places in Co.Kerry, but would not compare with Tralee.)
9. Her husband was said to be "too fond of his wine".
10. Her father died early 1804 when she was 23. The psychology fits for her to have an affair now she has no parents.
11. It is interesting that Richard Ponsonby's parents James Carrique Ponsonby and Mary O'Hara separated in 1778, shortly after Mary's father died 1776 (and Mary's mother had died 1759 when she was young). The exact same pattern for James' wife repeats with his son Richard's wife?
An affair in 1806 fits:
1. Letitia was very fertile, but there is an unexplained gap. She had a steady succession of children with Ponsonby from 1801 to 1804, but then no children are born before his death in 1811. After she re-marries in 1811, she has a steady succession of children with Lindsay from 1812 to 1822. It is interesting that the gap fits with the birth of George Cashel. The explanation for the gap could be that she and Ponsonby split up.
2. If Letitia is the mother, she would have to have an affair in 1806 leading to the birth of George Cashel in 1807 (her age 27).
3. There is evidence Ponsonby cut her off. Ponsonby had a huge inheritance, but later we see Letitia is not well off, and her daughters by Ponsonby are living with Ponsonby relations, without her. Maybe she was disgraced? The Ponsonby girls in the 1820s still have their inheritance. Louisa Ponsonby does not even consider her mother Letitia when settling her estate in 1825.
4. Did Letitia have an affair with Cashel (child born 1807) while still married to Ponsonby (died 1811), and then did they separate, and did Ponsonby cut her off from any money, and take custody of the children, who retained their inheritance?
5. To be precise, Richard Ponsonby has an inheritance of £4,000 which Letitia will inherit if he dies. But he dies in 1811 and she apparently does not inherit it. [Case, 1852] seems to show the initial plan as follows. When Richard dies, Letitia gets £2,000, and the two daughters get £1,000 each (given to them at age 21). Then when Letitia dies, the daughters will divide up her share ("reversionary interest", a further £1,000 each). But Letitia outlived one daughter (and probably both).
6. But it is unclear that Letitia did inherit £2,000. The 1820s deeds about Letitia's daughter Louisa say she has inherited £2,000 (and her marriage settlement says she has £3,000). And the marriage settlement of Letitia's other daughter Mary says she has inherited £2,000.
7. [Case, 1852] says this is a mistake, that Louisa's marriage settlement assigned her money that was not hers but belonged to her mother. Is this (and the daughters living with their uncle) the result of Letitia having an affair?
8. There is a settlement at exactly the right time for Letitia to be having an affair: The 1806 deed. It is unclear what this deed means. It refers to their marriage settlement of 1799, and the inheritance of £4,000 (which comes from the Ponsonby side). It may be that this is Letitia getting disinherited for having an affair. That she cannot inherit this money but Ponsonby's children can.
9. The 1806 deed sets up a modest yearly sum of £40 to be paid to Letitia's brother Thomas Blennerhassett. This payment is unexplained. It may be that Ponsonby and Letitia are separating, and he is setting up a modest payment for her so she will not starve, to be paid to her eldest brother as her guardian.
10. Interestingly, the notes of Rev. Thomas Enraght Lindsay say that Letitia "had an income settled on her of £100 per annum". This sounds like the payment here.
11. No Ponsonby divorce bill is found before his death.
12. Letitia Lindsay says that her father Thomas Rupert Lindsay said there was some scandal, and Letitia was "drummed out of Ireland".
13. She is listed as Letitia Ponsonby at 2nd marriage, NOT Letitia Cashel. i.e. She did not marry Cashel. (Maybe Cashel was also married.)
14. She goes to the big city to avoid scandal. (Perhaps Limerick, where she re-married from, or maybe Cork or Dublin, where her brothers were.)
15. Interestingly, her brother Thomas Blennerhassett moved from Tralee to Cork in 1806. He was possibly being paid maintenance for her. Did Letitia go to live with him? Did he move to Cork to protect her from the gossip of Tralee?
16. Thomas named his own daughter Letitia, probably after 1809. This slightly supports the idea that his sister Letitia might have been living with him in Cork. Either way, he must have been fond of her to use the name.
The profile of her 2nd husband fits:
1. After her (perhaps estranged) husband dies 1811, she is free to marry. She marries again in Limerick city in 1811 to her late husband's employee, William Lindsay, a much younger man (her age 31, him age 21). They are both from Co.Kerry but they marry in Limerick city.
2. [Joseph Lindsay, 1897] explains her going to Limerick by the fact that she lost the government house that came with Richard's job in Tarbert. But why Limerick? Why not Tralee, where she was from, and where there would be Blennerhassett relations.
3. William started working under Richard Ponsonby in Mar 1805, when he was age 15 and Letitia was age 24. He might have fancied her for years.
4. William worked under Ponsonby from Mar 1805 until Ponsonby's death in Apr 1811. Even if Letitia was expelled to Limerick in 1806-07, he would still have known her before she went.
5. 1808 murder incident near Shanagolden seems to show the unmarried young William Lindsay travelling to Co.Limerick to see his mother's people. So he might have gone to Limerick city to see the exiled Letitia.
6. William is a step down in class from the wealthy Richard Ponsonby of the big house. Richard Ponsonby was the son of an MP and High Sheriff and his mother was grand-dau of an Earl. But William is merely a boatman, a young employee of Richard Ponsonby. Richard and Letitia are the same class as Leslie of Tarbert House, while William is the son of Leslie's agent or steward. Maybe, after the scandal, Letitia had no hope of securing a husband from her own class.
7. He is not only from a lower class, but he is c.17 years younger than her 1st husband, which is a massive change.
8. Put it this way: A woman from the great Blennerhassett family marries a Ponsonby from the big house. Now a wealthy young widow, with plenty of options. Someone like that would never marry someone like William Lindsay.
9. William's father is dead and so can't stop his 21 year old son marrying a 31 year old woman with a past.
10. Could William actually be the father of George Cashel? Unlikely. First, he was too young. In 1806 he was 16 and Letitia was 26. Second, he was an employee of Richard Ponsonby. He would never have kept his job if he had an affair with Ponsonby's wife.
11. Letitia and her 2nd husband William have 6 sons but do not name any son "George". OK this is not very convincing. But if there was a George Lindsay, it would have been evidence against the theory.
Why marry at all in 1811?
1. In fact, why marry at all? An independently wealthy widow with her husband's inheritance is free like few other women of the time. There is no need to marry anyone. So to marry again within months is very odd. It suggests she was not wealthy and did not have her husband's inheritance.
2. Why stay in Tarbert in 1811? Surely the first thing she would do is go back to Tralee.
Letitia's daughter gets pregnant outside marriage:
1. In 1825, Letitia's daughters by her 1st marriage, Louisa and Mary Ponsonby, are living with their uncle William Ponsonby. Their father is dead, but they do not live with their re-married mother.
2. Shortly before 1825, Louisa, on reaching age 21, "sold her interest in the £1000 [inheritance] which she was entitled to". This sounds like she is being irresponsible with her inheritance, without parental supervision.
3. Then in 1825, Letitia's unmarried daughter Louisa Ponsonby falls pregnant in a great scandal. Like mother, like daughter? It is a bit of a coincidence that I am looking for a Letitia Blennerhassett who maybe had an affair, and I find one whose daughter had an affair.
4. Why does Letitia not come to help her daughter in 1825? Louisa's father is dead. She is living with her uncle William Ponsonby, without her mother. Her mother is alive and in Co.Kerry. Why does she not appear to help? Why is Louisa alone? The simple answer would be that Ponsonby won't have Letitia in the house. Letitia is not allowed come to Crotto.
5. To see this, imagine there was no scandal back around 1806. Letitia and Richard Ponsonby were happily married. He died. She re-married. Letitia and William Ponsonby are quite friendly. Louisa is living with her uncle for innocent reasons - because he has a huge house, for example. Then as soon as Louisa gets pregnant, her mother would rush down to Crotto to help, or Louisa would go to her. It makes no sense for Louisa to be alone and distressed in Crotto for so long without her mother. It would make sense if there has been a family rift and William Ponsonby won't allow Letitia in the house.
6. And Letitia does care - Louisa ends up living with her later, after falling out with her uncle.
7. Louisa won a case to keep her inheritance, perhaps because she was over age 21 and her father was dead, and, unlike the case with her mother, no one could disinherit her.
8. Letitia's disgraced daughter Louisa came to live with her at Tarbert by 1829. Maybe Louisa would be sympathetic towards George Cashel as a result of her experience.
9. The uncle William Ponsonby may have been a bit of a tyrant. He had two step-children by his 1st wife. Both of them married or joined the army very young, as if they couldn't wait to get away from him. His step-daughter Sara Harnett married very young without his consent in c.1809. And his step-son Thomas Fuller Harnett fell out with the family, became a drug addict and was hanged for forgery in 1820.
Her family are all linked to the police, which George Cashel then joined:
1. Letitia's 2nd husband William Lindsay was involved in policing actions in the Agrarian Rebellion in 1821-22.
2. Letitia's nephew Richard Ponsonby (born 1795) was a policeman from 1823.
3. Letitia's 2nd husband William Lindsay was the brother of Thomas Lindsay (born 1794) who was a policeman from apparently at least 1824.
4. Letitia's daughter Mary Ponsonby married June 1828 to William Miller, chief constable of police at Listowel, Co.Kerry.
5. Letitia's possible son George Cashel (born 1807) joined the police in Sept 1828.
She is linked to one of the candidates for "A.Blennerhassett J.P.":
1. When George Cashel joins the police in 1828 he is recommended by "A.Blennerhassett J.P."
2. None of the three candidates for "A.Blennerhassett J.P." are close blood relations to this Letitia (all are only distant cousins). However, Arthur Blennerhassett, of Blennerville married a 1st cousin of Letitia's mother in Sept 1799, and his marriage settlement was witnessed by Letitia's brother. If she is our Letitia, then he is the likely candidate for "A.Blennerhassett J.P."
Her policeman son-in-law got into trouble at exactly the same time as her possible policeman son:
1. Mary Ponsonby's husband William Miller was suspended from the police in 1829, had charges brought against him, was jailed for debt in 1830, and dismissed from the police in 1830.
2. Both of Letitia's daughters got involved with men who caused a scandal. (One pregnancy, the other jail.) Like mother, like daughter?
3. The very same person who handled the minor disciplinary action against George Cashel in Sept 1829 - Major William Miller, Inspector General for Munster - also handled the major disciplinary action against (Cashel's possible brother-in-law) William Miller in Dec 1829.
4. Major William Miller dealt with some complaints about our William Miller in 1828.
5. In Sept 1829, Major William Miller wrote to the Chief Secretary, Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, recommending that George Cashel be allowed to remain in the police.
6. In Dec 1829, Major William Miller wrote to the Chief Secretary, Lord Francis Leveson-Gower, recommending that our William Miller be suspended from the police.
Her possible son George Cashel apparently gets his wife pregnant before marriage:
1. George Cashel married Mary Kickham in Feb 1838. Child baptised Sept 1838. It is just about possible this was a premature birth. But much more likely is that he got her pregnant before marriage. Like his mother and half-sister?
If this is our Letitia, did she have any contact with her son George Cashel over the many decades they were both alive? (She died 1876. He died 1882.) His branch certainly remembered the name "Letitia Blennerhassett" and used Blennerhassett as a family name.
If this is our Letitia, she was actually alive when some of her Sheahan and Cashel and Cashel great-grandchildren were born! She was alive when her great-granddaughter Agnes Cashel was born!

There are also some odd connections that may mean nothing:

The two Letitia Blennerhassetts are connected:
1. This Letitia's brother-in-law was William Carrique Ponsonby (brother of her 1st husband).
2. There is only one other Letitia Blennerhassett in Ireland at this time: Letitia Blennerhassett of Co.Limerick.
3. Curiously, when William Carrique Ponsonby marries Honoria Wren in 1814, he becomes the brother-in-law of the other Letitia Blennerhassett too! To be precise, Honoria Wren's sister married John Blennerhassett, brother of the Co.Limerick Letitia Blennerhassett.
4. Around 1852, Joseph Lindsay was renting from this John Blennerhassett or his son.
Blennerhassett and Ponsonby are connected to Leslie:
1. Honoria Wren's mother is of the Leslie family of Tarbert, who William Lindsay's father worked for.
2. In fact, Honoria Wren's mother would have lived in the very same house, Leslie Lodge, near Tarbert, that William Lindsay later lived in.
3. Sir Edward Leslie's 1st cousin Mary Rowan married Rev. Edward Day, who was apparently Rector of Tralee 1751-55 and 1758-60, and their son Rev. James Day was Rector of Tralee 1805-18.
4. So Letitia, daughter of Rev. John Blennerhassett, Rector of Tralee 1765 to probably 1804, would be the same social class, and would know Leslie's Day relations, and would no doubt have visited Tarbert House.
5. The Rowan family is linked to Blennerhassett, Leslie and Cashell.
"Mahony" is a common name, but still this is interesting:
1. Arthur Blennerhassett (the future 3rd Baronet, and maybe the man who recommended George Cashel for the constabulary in 1828) married a Catholic, Sarah Mahony of Blennerville, Co.Kerry, in 1826.
2. Cashel's first posting was under Chief Constable Darby Mahony (born Cahir, Co.Tipperary) in 1829.
3. William Lindsay may have married an Anne Mahony in 1840.
4. Blennerhassett Lindsay may have sp the Catholic baptism of a John Mahony of Tarbert in 1853.
Connections to Earl Mount Cashell:
1. George King, 3rd Earl of Kingston (born 1771), who pleaded for the life of Thomas Fuller Harnett in 1820, was the husband (married 1794) of Helena Moore, dau of Stephen Moore, 1st Earl Mount Cashell. (No known connection with the Cashell surname though.)
2. William Lindsay's brother George Lindsay married in 1829 to Alicia Moore, meant to be grand-dau of Stephen Moore, 1st Earl Mount Cashell.
Marriage without approval:
1. Around 1809, Sara Harnett, step-daughter of Richard's brother William Ponsonby (and niece of Letitia's sister) marries without her stepfather William's approval to a Royal Navy officer.
2. George Lindsay married his wife without the consent of her guardian in 1829.
3. Letitia's nephew Thomas Harnett Fuller eloped in 1832 to Glasgow to marry his wife without her father's consent.
American Civil War:
1. Letitia's possible grandson Edward Francis Cashel (bapt 1840) signed up in 1861 to fight for the Union in the American Civil War.
2. Letitia's twin Catherine Blennerhassett had a grandson, Blennerhassett Cotter (born 1839 or 1840, would be 2nd cousin of Edward Francis Cashel), who signed up in 1862 to fight for the Union in the American Civil War.
Letitia's grand-nephew James Franklin Fuller wrote an account of the Trial of Rowan Cashel in 1901-04. His grand-aunt was Letitia Blennerhassett, who may have had an affair with a Cashel.

Letitia's 1st husband came from this house, featuring here in an engraving published in London.

Letitia's 2nd husband came from this house, "a mud wall house in Tarbert".

Why such a contrast between the 1st and 2nd husbands?
Why would a wealthy widow be in such a rush to marry? And to marry a man so much younger than her, and of a lower class?

Reasons why Letitia of Tarbert may not be our Letitia

She was married to Ponsonby from 1799 to 1811. (George Cashel was born 1807.)
When Ponsonby dies in 1811, she does not marry Cashel but rather another man.
The above two reasons are why I discounted this Letitia at the start of this hunt in 1985. She seemed accounted for.
There is no mention of CASHEL in any Blennerhassett, Ponsonby or Lindsay material.
There is no mention of PONSONBY or LINDSAY in any Cashel material.
Letitia's son Joseph Lindsay, writing in 1897, does not mention a step-brother George Cashel. He never mentions any scandal, and writes as if nothing happened other than Ponsonby died and Letitia re-married. Joseph was born 1815. He was age 13 when George Cashel joined the police in 1828. Why does he not mention George Cashel? Possible explanations:
1. Joseph did not know about George. George did not grow up with the Lindsays. He was sent away young to be raised elsewhere. By the time Joseph was born, George was gone.
2. Joseph knows about George, but does not want to mention the scandal to the 1890s family tree researcher.
After such a scandal in Tarbert, Letitia does not stay away but rather returns to Tarbert to live for the rest of her life.
Letitia's 2nd husband William Lindsay is even made a Church Warden in the parish church in Tarbert in 1818-19.
Letitia's brother Thomas Blennerhassett named his own daughter Letitia, probably after 1809. Would he do this if her name was linked to scandal? Possible explanation:
1. Maybe she was living with him in Cork after her fall. Maybe he was very fond of her. Maybe he did name his daughter after her.

Lesser reasons (perhaps easily explained):

Rev. Thomas Enraght Lindsay says that after Ponsonby's death in 1811, "His widow and daughters moved to Limerick city". But he may be just assuming that she has the daughters with her.
None of the three candidates for "A.Blennerhassett J.P." are particularly closely related to this Letitia. But (see above) Arthur Blennerhassett, of Blennerville is connected to her.
Why Blennerhassett recommender and not Leslie?
- If George Cashel was stepson of William Lindsay of Tarbert, then when he joined the police in 1828, why was the reference written by a Blennerhassett (far away from Tarbert) and not by a local Leslie of Tarbert (who knew the Lindsay family well)?
- There is an answer to this, which is that Robert Leslie junior knew William Lindsay well, and had worked with him in suppressing agrarian insurgents in 1821-22. But Leslie had just died in 1827, and his son was only an infant. So a Leslie could not sign the letter in 1828.
- Someone joining the police had to be personally known to his recommender, who could be from various categories, including a local J.P. That implies that Cashel would be from same area as "A. Blennerhasset". But maybe he just knew him, but was not from same area.
"Letitia" never appears as a first name or middle name in George Cashel's children or descendants. (Though "Blennerhassett" does.)
Why would William Lindsay marry a woman like Letitia?
- If our theory is correct, William Lindsay married a woman who was (a) disgraced, (b) poor, (c) 10 years older than him, and (d) a mother of children (although they were apparently taken away). Is it unlikely that young Lindsay would fall for that?
- Not really. Letitia would represent for him an impossible glamour, an upper class origin that he could normally never expect to marry into. Compared to the daughter of a middle class merchant or farmer that he could otherwise expect to marry, Letitia would have had great appeal, despite the scandal. And of course there is always love. Who knows what she was like. It is not unlikely that he might fall for Letitia.

I've always known about Letitia of Tarbert

I've actually known about Letitia of Tarbert and her two husbands since the very start of this hunt in 1985.
But only in 2009 did I start to believe she is the one.

Letitia listed in [Foster's Royal Descents, vol.4, 1886].

Letitia in [Burkes Irish, 1976].

Letitia in the Blennerhassett section of my (offline) Cashel family tree, March 1992.

Letitia in my online Blennerhassett family tree on my website in Oct 1999.

Letitia in my online Blennerhassett family tree on my website in Oct 2007.
Nothing has changed. I didn't see how it could be her. She had two husbands, neither of them a Mr. Cashel.

Letitia on my website in July 2008, just before her section exploded.
I still didn't see how it could be her. Note that I still know little about her. Note that I have found the 1806 memorial.

In late 2009, thanks to Jackie Lindsay, I started looking at this Letitia more closely.
In Oct 2009 she was just an entry on her ancestor Black Jack's page.
By Dec 2009 she has her own page.
Today there are multiple pages for her, her two marriages, her in-laws, her siblings, her houses, and her children.

DNA evidence says Letitia of Tarbert is not our Letitia

After all the above paper evidence, in 2019 I started a DNA testing project to test relatives of Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert and George Cashel.

After enough samples, in 2020, I could see that the DNA evidence, surprisingly, proves the theory false. George Cashel's descendants are not DNA matches for the Letitia Blennerhassett family.

DNA is statistical, but this has gone beyond bad luck. According to how DNA normally works on known cousins, we should already have found some great DNA hits for Cashel. But we have found basically nothing. After 11 years pursuing Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert, it seems she is not the one after all.

Let us try to "explain away" all the main paper evidence above:

The gap in children for Richard and Letitia in 1804 to 1811 is just coincidence.
The 1806 deed is innocent and is just coincidence.
William Lindsay worked for Ponsonby and they were close, despite the social status gap. When Ponsonby died, Letitia married his friend, despite him being young and poor.
Ponsonby's house came with the job. Letitia had to leave the house after Ponsonby died. That is why she was in Limerick, not any disgrace. That is why she married Lindsay in Limerick.
Letitia goes back to Tarbert because that is Lindsay's town.
Letitia's daughters live with the uncle because he has money and room. Not because the parents separated.
I have misunderstood what happened with the Ponsonby inheritance. It is not evidence of any separation.
Louisa Ponsonby getting pregnant outside marriage is just coincidence.
The family being linked to the police is just coincidence.

In fairness, there seem a lot of coincidences. But DNA says they must be.

The Letitia theory was a dead end.

Once we gave up on the Letitia theory, we found out which Blennerhassetts we really descend from - the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.