Sir Francis Bacon – Natural History (1627)
An Itinerary (1617) is a three volumes travelogue recording the author’s travels throughout Europe (written in Latin) by the British explorer Fynes Moryson - who quoted Sir Walter Raleigh regarding the story of Katherine FitzGerald.
Historia Vitae et Mortis (History of Life and Death) [1623] - written in Latin by Sir Francis Bacon who says (in translation) ‘The Irish, especially the wild Irish, even at this day, live very long; certainly they report that within these few years the Countess of Desmond lived to a hundred and forty years of age, and bred teeth three times.’
Sylva Sylvarum (Natural History in Ten Centuries) [1627] was written by Sir Francis Bacon (in English) and covers the concept of longevity produced through humanity constructing a better world by developing a new science that produces a vastly improved nutrition, medical care, education, culture, leisure and political system, etc. The Latin title ‘Sylva Sylvarum’ literally translates as ‘forest’ and ‘wood’ - and probably means something like ‘make use of the material in the natural environment to build a new world’. Trees are cut-down to make wood which constructs all kinds of useful objects that make human life better. Yet again, Bacon quotes Raleigh with regards to Katherine FitzGerald (quoted at the top of this article).
Robert Sydney (Sidney) – 2nd Earl of Leicester (1595-1677). Whilst English Ambassador to France (resident in Paris), Robert Sydney wrote (in 1640) the following observations (original spelling and grammar retained): “The old Countess of Desmond was a marryed woman in Edw IV.s time, of England, and lived till towards the end of Q. Elizabeth, so she must needes be neere 140 yeares old. She had a new sett of teeth not long before her death, and might have lived much longer had she not mett with a kinde of violent death; for she would needes climbe a nut tree, to gather nutts; so falling down she hurt her thigh, which brought a fever, and that fever brought death. This my cousin Walter FitzWilliam told me. “ This old lady, Mr. Harriot told me, came to petition the Queen; and, landing at Bristoll, she came on foot to London, being then so old that her daughter was decrepit, and not able to come with her, but was brought in a little cart, theyr poverty not allowing means for better provision; and, as I remember, Sir Walter Rawleigh in some part of his story speakes of her, and sayeth that he saw her in England in anno 1589.” Her death was strange and remarkable, as her long life was, having seen the death of so many descended of her, and both her and her husband’s house ruined in the rebellions and wars. - the scholars associated with the ‘Dublin Review’ state ‘The Earl of Leicester is incorrect to assert that that Sir Walter Raleigh states that he met Katherine FitzGerald in England in 1589! Sir Walter Raleigh does NOT say this. Indeed, both Sir Walter Raleigh and Katherine FitzGerald were living near one another in Youghal (Eire) at this time, and probably saw one another on regular occasions. The Earl is also incorrect to assume that Katherine FitzGerald was the progenitor of the FitzGerald lineage – which she obviously was NOT.’
Sacred Chronology (Chronologia Sacra) written by Archbishop James Usher (Ussher) published in 1660. Whilst quoting Raleigh and Bacon – and confirms that Katherine FitzGerald was born during the reign of King Edward IV (1442-1483). He adds, however, that this fact is preserved in the genealogical records pertaining to the Desmond family of Cork, Eire.
Sir William Temple (1628-1699) – in his essay entitled ‘of Health and Life’ published in ‘Miscellanies’ (1689) - reiterates the above work of the 2nd Earl Leicester - whom he knew personally. Robert Sydney, whilst in conversation with William Temple, explained the entire story relating to Katherine FitzGerald. Temples states that a) the Countess of Desmond lived during the reign of King Edward IV (1442-1483) during which time she was married. B) she lived into the reign of King James 1 (1566-1625), and c) she died a number of years ‘beyond’ the age of 140-years. Temple also mentions her journey to London via Bristol – which many historians doubt.
Horace Walpole (1717-1797) - in his book entitled ‘Historic Doubts on the life and Reign of Richard III’ (1768) states that Katherine FitzGerald lived during the reign of King Edvard IV (1442-1483) and ‘danced’ with the future King Richard III (1452-1485) when he was still the Duke of Gloucester. Horace Walpole states that he gained this knowledge from his friend ‘Mrs Cholmondeley’ who was the sister of Lord Henry St John (1652-1742) the father of the great Lord Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751). The father of Lord Henry St John (1652-1742) was Sir Walter St John, 3rd Baronet (May 1622–1708). Sir Walter St John’s great uncle was Sir Oliver St John, 1st Viscount Grandison (1559-1630). As President of Munster (Eire) and later the Lord Treasurer of Ireland – it is possible that he was familiar with Katherine FitzGerald – Countess of Desmond – and that the knowledge he gained about her extraordinary life filtered through his family down through the ages, before being told to his descendent who knew Horace Walpole - about a hundred years later. ‘Mrs Cholmondeley’ is Anne St John (1650-1742) who married ‘Thomas Cholmondeley’ (1627-1701). Anne Cholmondeley (St John) lived into her 92nd year of life and passed away when Horace Walpole was just 25-years-old. She was probably some type of ‘mentor’ to Horace Walpole who states in numerous letters (and other writings) that a person known as ‘old Lady Dacre’ personally spoke to an ‘old’ Katherine FitzGerald who told her about the youthful experience she had ‘dancing’ with the future King Richard III – as the Duke of Gloucester. Lady Dacre is believed to be ‘Anne Sackville’ (1544-1595) - who married Gregory Fiennes, 10th Baron Dacre (1539-1594). As Anne Sackville, Baroness Dacre appears to have lived her life exclusively in Chelsea (on the opposite side of the opposite side of the Thames). Given that she spent virtually all her life in London, and that she never travelled to Eire, it is difficult to see ‘where’ or even ‘how’ she could have crossed paths with Katherine FitzGerald. Given that Lady Dacre died in 1595 (being buried in Chelsea) she was not ‘alive’ to witness the supposed visit to London Katherine FitzGerald made in 1604. (14)
James Granger (1723–1776) - in his book entitled ‘Biographical History of England from Egbert the Great to the Revolution (1769) - he states that Katherine FitzGerald was born during the reign of King Edvard IV (1442-1483) and that she also ‘danced’ with the future King Richard III (1452-1485) when he was still the Duke of Gloucester. For this ‘fact’ he quoted Horace Walpole (1717-1797).
Mr Sharon Turner (1768-1847) - the famous historian - wrote a poem entitled ‘Richard the Third’ which was published in 1845. Sharon Turner adds this note to the end of his poem “ Mr. Paynter, the magistrate, hearing of the announcement of the preceding poem, related to my son, the Rev Sydny Turner, the following particulars: “When a boy, about the year 1810, he heard the old Lord Glastonbury, then at least ninety years of age, declare that when he was a young lad he saw, and was often with the Countess of Desmond, then living, an aged woman. She told him that when she was a girl, she had known familiarly and frequently seen, an old lady who had been bought up by the former Countess of Desmond, who became noted for her extraordinary longevity, as she lived to be above one hundred and twenty years of age. This lady mentioned that this aged Countess of Desmond had declared that she had been at a court banquet when Richard was present and that he was in no way personally deformed or crooked. Edward IV was deemed, in his day, to be the most handsomest man of his court. It is a fair reference from her impression that his personal appearance could not be much as the Tudor partisans and our Shakespeare have described: and it is an instance how much they have misrepresented him.” In fact, Lord Glastonbury (1742-1825) was in his 82nd-year when he passed away – not living long enough to reach his 90s. In 1810, therefore, Lord Glastonbury was actually 67-years-old and not ‘ninety years of age’ as the above story suggests. The authors of the ‘Dublin Review’ state that ‘the last person to hold the title of ‘Earl of Desmond’ was ‘William Fielding’ (1640-1685) - a title he gave-up in 1675 when he became ‘3rd Earl of Denbigh’.’ This statement is only partially correct and potentially historically misleading. ‘William Fielding’ (1640-1685) DID NOT give up the title of ‘2nd Earl of Desmond’ when he assumed the new title of ‘3rd Earl of Denbigh’ - as his family were permitted to combine the two titles. Today, (this 1622 ‘fourth’ creation of the title of ‘Earl of Desmond’) is currently held by Alexander Stephen Rudolph Feilding, 12th Earl of Denbigh, 11th Earl of Desmond. Katherine FitzGerald, by way of comparison, was married (in 1530) to Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond (1454-1534) who held the title during its ‘first’ creation which existed between 1329-1582 – when all lands and titles were forfeited to the English crown due to the Second Desmond Rebellion of the Irish against the English. In this first creation there were sixteen Earls of Desmond. The second creation of this title existed between 1600-1601 and had just one holder. The third creation existed between 1619-1622 and had only one holder (although this holder - Richard Preston, 1st Earl of Desmond) is recorded as living to 1628 without any mention of his title being annulled. The fourth creation of this title was established in 1622 and is still in existence today. Lord Glastonbury mention above, lived well into the fourth creation of this title – whilst the long-lived lady he is discussing – Katherine FitzGerald – lived well within the ‘first’ creation of this title.
The ‘Dublin Review’ continues: ‘But we have heard of another line of tradition in which a Countess of Kildare is mentioned, who may possibly have been the lady meant by Lord Glastonbury, - from confusing the two great lines of the FitzGeralds. A clergyman of high birth, now living in the county of Rutland, has been heard to relate that he knew old Lady Stanhope, who knew old Lady Kildare, who knew the old Countess of Desmond, who knew and danced with Richard Duke of Gloucester. The old Lady Stanhope was Grizel (Hamilton); she died in 1811, in her ninety-third year. The old Lady Kildare was Elizabeth (Jones), widow of John eighteenth Earl of Kildare; she died in 1757, also in her ninety-third year. But this carries us to a period no further than the reign of Charles the Second, and another long life is required to take us to the days of the Old Countess of Desmond.’ The first known written record of ‘Rutland’ is found in the Will of Edward the Confessor (1003-1066) where it is referred to as the ‘King’s soc of Roteland’ - a ‘soc’ being a vaguely defined term found within the ‘Danelaw’ - extant throughout the Northern and Eastern areas of Britain controlled by the invading ‘Vikings’ (from Scandanavia) – whose long-boats once traversed the River Welland that flows through Rutland. A ‘soc’ refers to an area of land within which the ruling monarch (and-or their designated representatives) reserve the right to hold a judicial ‘court’ should they so desire. The ancient village of Duddington – the ancestral village of the ‘Wyles’ family (the Viking-derived surname carried by the author of this article) - used to reside in ‘Rutland’ before boundary changes shifted its location to being within ‘Northamptonshire’. Today, the boundary between ‘Northamptonshire’ (within which Duddington now resides) and ‘Rutland’ now runs along the left-bank of the River Welland.
The inscription upon Mr Herbert’s picture (of the Old Lady Desmond) held at Muckross carries an inscription which reads as follows (original spelling and grammar retained): ‘CATHERINE, COUNTESSE OF DESMONDE – As she appeared at ye Court of our Souraigne Lord King James in thys preasent AD 1614, and ye 140th yeare of her age. She came from Bristol to seek Reliefe, ye house of Desmonde having been rvined by Attainder. SHE was married in in ye reigne of King Edward IV. and in ye Course her long Pilgramage renewed her teeth twice. - HER PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE is at INCHIQVIN IN MUNSTER, WITHER SHE undavntedlye proposeth (her Purpose accomplished) incontinentlie TO RETURN. - LAVS DEO’ Within modern (British) English, ‘Lavs Deo’ is written as ‘Laus Deo’ and literally translates as ‘Praise God’ - but was often used by convention to be an accepted contraction of the phrase ‘Praise (Be) to God’. Within old written English a ‘u’ is often substituted for a ‘v’ as can be seen above. When this inscription has been checked for authenticity of language expression (to check if the writing used is consistent with the historical period the text is believed to have been generated within), the authors of the ‘Dublin Review’ state that this text has been declared ‘genuine’ with the only criticism being that the word ‘hath’ (have) could have been added before the words ‘renewed her teeth’ if the Countess of Desmond was still living when the inscription was commissioned - but this is countered by the recognition that this would not be necessary if the Old Lady had already passed (as indeed, she is recorded as doing in 1604 – with the text being composed ten-years later in 1614 – although the portrait was painted of her whilst she was alive and sat in person for the artist. Why the inscription would be composed ten-years after her death and not at the time of the painting is a mystery, unless, of course, Katherine Fitzgerald lived beyond the usually stated ‘1604’). The ‘Mr Herbert’ mentioned by the authors of the ‘Dublin Review’ is either ‘The Right Honourable Henry Arthur Herbert’ (1815-1866), or possibly his son ‘Henry Arthur Herbert DL MP (1840-1901) - with the ancestral home of the Herbert family being situated in ‘Muckross’, County Kerry (Eire). It is within this stately home that the above portrait of the Countess of Desmond is held – which is affixed with the above inscription. Within the Journal Article entitled ‘The Old Countess of Desmond. An Inquiry: Did She Seek Redress at the Court of Queen Elizabeth, as Recorded in the Journal of Robert Sydney, Earl of Leycester? And Did She Ever Sit for Her Portrait? By Richard Sainthill [Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1836-1869) Vol. 7 (1857 - 1861), pp. 429-473 (45 pages)] - states (as a footnote on Page 460) that the assumed portrait of the Old Countess of Desmond was commissioned by Queen Elizabth I – who sent Rembrandt to Inchiquin Castle (in Munster) Eire - to paint a portrait of the Old Countess of Desmond which is now preserved at Windsor Castle. Eire was rife with rebellions and uprisings against England’s rule at this time, and many doubt that a ‘foreign’ visitor could have safely traversed the country in search of ‘a very old woman’. It is thought that all the other portraits of the Old Countess of Desmond (including the portrait held at Muckross) are simply ‘copies’ of this original made with small alteration (here and there) so as to appear ‘original’ or ‘unique’ in one way or another. Some art critics suggest, however, that the ‘original’ Rembrandt (that hangs in Windsor Castle), is in fact the ‘mother’ of Rembrandt – or simply a non-descript ‘old lady’. As Sir Walter Raliegh’s account of the Old Countess of Desmond was published in 1614 – it is interesting to observe that the Muckross portrait is said to have been painted (or at least ‘rediscovered’) in the year that this story became generally well-known.
In 1750, in the book entitled the ‘Natural and Civil History of County and City of Corke’ by Dr Charles Smith [1715-1762] (also known as ‘The Ancient and Present State of the County and City of Cork - Containing a Natural, Civil, Ecclesiastical, Historical, and Topographical Description Thereof – in Two Volumes) it states ‘1534: Thomas, the 13th Earl of Desmond, brother to Maurice the 11th earl, died this year, at Rathkeale, in the County of Limerick, being of very great age, and was buried at Youghal...The earl’s second wife was Catherine FitzGerald, daughter of the FitzGeralds of the house of Drumands, in the county of Waterford. This Catherine was the countess of that lived so long, of whom Sir Walter Raleigh makes mention in his History of the World, and was reported to have lived to 140 years of age.’
If Katherine FitzGerald lived between 1464-1604 (104-years) - then she would have observed at least eight to ten individuals within her family assume the position of the Earl of Desmond – given that her husband was Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond (1454–1534). This process would have spanned the first (1329) and second (1600) creations of the title of the Earl of Demond (with the first creation being abolished and ‘attainted’ in 1582 due to Gerald FitzGerald, 16th Earl of Desmond [1533–1583] - leading the Second Desmond Rebellion). As Katherine FitzGerald lived until 1604 – her life spanned two incarnations of the title of the Earl of Desmond, albeit with the majority of her time being spent within the first creation. Therefore, she would have experienced the following men either holding (or assuming) to hold the title:
1) John FitzGerald, 12th Earl of Desmond (1460-1536) - brother of Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond and his wife – Katherine Fitzgerald - Countess of Desmond,
2) James FitzGerald, 13th Earl of Desmond (1513-1540) Great Grandson of Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond and his wife – Katherine Fitzgerald - Countess of Desmond.
3) James FitzJohn FitzGerald, 14th Earl of Desmond (1504-1558) - son of John FitzGerald, 12th Earl of Desmond – nephew of Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond and his wife – Katherine Fitzgerald - Countess of Desmond.
4) Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond (1533 – 1583) - son of James FitzJohn FitzGerald, 14th Earl of Desmond – was the great-nephew of Thomas FitzGerald, 11th Earl of Desmond and his wife – Katherine Fitzgerald - Countess of Desmond. Now, James FitzJohn FitzGerald, 14th Earl of Desmond (1504-1558) mentioned above (see number ‘3’) - married ‘Joan Roche’ (1512-1565) and sired one son named ‘Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald’ (1529-1595) - also known as ‘Sir Tomás Ruadh (Thomas the ‘Red’) of Conna – a FitzGerald who may have been known to the Old Countess of Desmond but who would never assume the role of Earl. Irish historical records state that this coupling also produced two daughters - Joan FitzGerald (d. 1596) and Eleanor FitzGerald (d. 1569). However, during the time of Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547) the legitimacy of this marriage was questioned in high places. The English monarchy declared that the marriage between James FitzJohn FitzGerald and Joan Roche to be ‘annulled’ on the grounds that it is improper for a ‘granduncle’ to marry his ‘grandniece’ (consanguinity). Joan Roche is often described as ‘being very young’ when she married James FitzJohn FitzGerald. Given that James FitzJohn FitzGerald remarried in 1533, his son from his first marriage (he would marry four times throughout his life) - Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald – must have been born well before this date, particularly considering that he had two younger sisters! Although English Law set the age of (sexual) consent at 12-years-old in 1275 – this does not seem to have applied within Medieval Ireland (whose legal elements appear to have been regulated by the Catholic Church as ‘conventions’ preferred by a) the Anglo-Norman settlers and b) the indigenous Irish Gaels). A young woman considered to be ‘of age’ (often in her early teenage years) by two families could be manoeuvred into marriage with a relative ease that the girl in question was brought-up to accept without question. Of course, Joan Roche could have been around 16-years-old when she married James FitzJohn FitzGerald (which would have been 1528). Using this model, then Joan Roche could have had her son - Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald – in the year 1529 (when she was aged 17-years-old). Her two daughters could then have followed over the next two-years – with Joan Roche giving birth two more times in 1530 and 1531. Her marriage with James FitzJohn FitzGerald could then have been annulled in 1532 - with James FitzJohn FitzGerald remarrying in 1533. This situation means that their son - Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald – was automatically ‘disinherited’ from the lineage and title of the ‘Earl of Desmond’. Technically speaking, Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald should have inherited his father’s title (as the oldest son) and assumed the role of the ‘15th Earl of Desmond’ - but this was not allowed to happen. Instead, Thomas had to settle with being knighted in 1569 by Sir Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland. Sir Thomas died on the 18th January, 1595 at the Castle of Connagh [probably Counagh] in Eire. Sir Thomas married ‘Ellice le Poer’ and sired five children. James, the eldest son, who became the 17th "Sugan" Earl of Desmond who died in the Tower of London in 1607. Gerald, the second son, who became a Count in Spain. Ada, his eldest daughter who married Donough – the 2nd son of Sir Owen MacCarthy Reagh, 16th Prince of Carbery. Margaret, the second daughter who married Donal na Pipi MacCarthy Reagh, 17th Prince of Carbery (their son - Cormac - married Ellinor, daughter of Edmund FitzGibbon, the 11th White Knight). John, the third son who migrated to live in Spain in 1615 - where he was styled Conde de Desmond. He died in Barcelona. He married a daughter of Richard Comerford of Dangenmore, Co. Kilkenny. (Irish records suggest that Sir Thomas may also have married his cousin - a daughter of David Roche, 2nd Viscount Roche – with no known offspring).
5) In the meantime, the title of ‘15 Earl of Desmond’ was transmitted to Gerald FitzJames FitzGerald (1533-1583) - the eldest son of James FitzJohn FitzGerald, 14th Earl of Desmond and his second wife - More O'Carroll. As Gerald FitzJames FitzGerald (1533-1583) took a prominent role in the Second Desmond Rebellion – the forces loyal to the English Crown eventually hunted him down after many months of hard fighting – which saw the 15th Earl of Desmond stand his ground and die bravely on the battlefield wielding his ancestral sword - surrounded by the bodies of his enemies and the fallen of his own loyal ‘Irish’ clansmen! As a punishment for this effrontery – Queen Elizabeth 1 abolished and attainted the entire lineage associated with the first creation of the title of the Earl of Desmond, and confiscated all lands and incomes to the control of the English Crown.
6) The eldest son of Sir Thomas and Ellice le Poer was ‘James FitzThomas Fitzgerald’ (1560-1607) - was the nephew of Gerald FitzJames Fitzgerald, 15th Earl of Desmond. The family title of the Earl of Desmond had been abolished in 1582 – but in 1598, exasperated at seeing his ancestral territories now being in the hands of English settlers, and at the efforts made to extirpate Catholicism - he joined Hugh O'Neill, 3rd Earl of Tyrone, in his war, and by him was created the ‘17th Earl of Desmond’. This is why the English Crown mockingly bestowed upon him the fallacious title of ‘Sugan Earl’ - or an ‘Earl of straw’ (with ‘sugan’ being the Irish-Gaelic word for ‘straw’) or an imposter assuming a ‘rank’ not appointed the ‘correct’ or ‘legitimate’ authority. Despite this English propaganda - James FitzThomas Fitzgerald soon gathered at least eight-thousand Irish-Gaelic warriors to his banner – becoming a distinguished Commander in Munster against the best soldiers Queen Elizabeth could put in the field! However, due to betrayal and English persistence, the Irish-Gaelic warriors were defeated and James FitzThomas Fitzgerald was captured on the 29th of May, 1601, where he was clapped in irons and deported to England where he was placed in the Tower of London. Irish Peerage Records record that he died in early 1607, and was buried in St Peter’s Chapel within the Tower on April 28th of that year. Although Katherine FitzGerald – Countess of Desmond died in 1604, she could well have been aware of most of this information presented above.
7) If the ‘Dublin Review’ is correct to assert that Katherine FitzGerald should have known at least eight to ten members of her family assume the role of ‘Earl of Desmond’ throughout her long-life – then we must account for why it is that only ‘six’ inheritors are obvious in the above list – with one of those not existing within the official lineage. This may well be due to problems of family lineages and the concepts of ‘de jure’ (in law) Earls – and ‘de facto’ (in fact) Earls. For instance, Maurice FitzGerald was the 1st Earl of Desmond (1293-1357) - with his eldest son sired with his first wife (Katherine de Burgh) - Maurice FitzGerald (1336–1358) - inherited the title of 2nd Earl of Desmond. These two Earls represent the combined (and unbroken) pristine state of a ‘de jure’ (by law) and ‘de facto’ (in practice) reality. Both men are entitled by law (and convention) to be where they stand within the historical narrative and occupying the titles they possess. However, the youngest son of Maurice FitzGerald sired with his third wife (Aveline FitzNicholas, Countess of Desmond) - Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald (1335–1398) - assumed the title of the 3rd Earl of Desmond following the death of his half-brother in 1358. This represents a ‘de facto’ (in practice) inheritance but diverts away from a ‘de jure’ (in law) transmission. This situation stems from the fact that the eldest son sired by Maurice FitzGerald and his third wife - Nicholas FitzMaurice of Ossory (1337-1367) - who should have inherited (by law and convention) the title of 3rd Earl of Desmond - suffered from a cognitive disability and is disparagingly referred to in many history books as being an ‘idiot’. Due to his disability, it was decided by King Edward III that Nicholas FitzMaurice was not able to ‘defend’ the Earldom of Desmond, and so royal permission was granted to ‘pass over’ Nicholas in favour of his younger brother - Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald (the now ‘de facto’ but not ‘de jure’ 3rd Earl of Desmond) - with the proviso that Gerald provides for the needs and care of his older brother for life. As matters transpired, Nicholas lived for just 30-years. The reality is this, regardless of ‘who’ or ‘why’ a different individual assumes the title – Nicholas will always remain the ‘de jure’ and therefore ‘rightful’ 3rd Earl of Desmond when lineages are recorded and preserved on paper. This means that technically speaking, the lineage list treats the situation as Nicholas ‘de facto’ and ‘de jure’ holding the title before relinquishing in favour of his younger brother – who would theoretically assume the ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’ title of ‘4th Earl of Desmond’.
8) Another example involves the disinheriting of Thomas FitzGerald, 5th Earl of Desmond (1386–1420) in 1418 by his paternal uncle - James FitzGerald the Usurper (1380-1463) who assumed the title of the ‘6th Earl of Desmond’ even though he possessed no ‘legal’ (or ‘de jure’) right to occupy this position in (de facto) practice. He was the third-son of Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald (1335–1398) and the younger brother of John FitzGerald, 4th Earl of Desmond (1366-1399) - who ‘drowned’ crossing the River Suir whilst returning from a retaliatory raid against the Earl of Ormond. Due to his young age being about 13 or 14-years-old when his father died (in 1399) – Thomas FitzGerald did not inherit the title straightaway – and this is exactly where all his trouble is thought to have begun.
9) Around 1400 – the English Crown (the Court of the ‘new’ King Henry V) - granted a temporary (de facto) custody of the title of the ‘Earl of Desmond’ to ‘Maurice FitzGerald’ - the 2nd son of the 3rd Earl of Desmond - Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald (1335–1398) - and paternal uncle of Thomas FitzGerald. (This could imply that ‘Maurice FitzGerald’ was the ‘de facto’ Earl of Desmond between 1400-1407). This arrangement was to last until Thomas FitzGerald reached ‘maturity’ of the age 20-years-old (in 1407) – when Maurice FitzGerald was required to transfer the title back to its rightful (de jure) holder. in 1411, James FitzGerald the Usurper (1380-1463) banished Thomas FitzGerald – 5th Earl of Desmond so that he had to flee to English where he petitioned the English Crown the assistance. This was eventually granted and Thomas FitzGerald returned to Eire in 1413 to reclaim his ancestral lands using a detachment of experienced English troops. However, but he was eventually captured and imprisoned by his uncle - Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald – and was released into the custody of the lieutenant, John Talbot, Lord Furnival and Earl of Shrewsbury. Thomas then travelled to France, where he joined the English king Henry V at the Siege of Rouen (1418-1419). He served in France, probably hoping to gain support for a second attempt at retaking his lands, but died in the summer of 1420 and was buried in Paris. Henry V was said to have attended his funeral. Gerald FitzMaurice FitzGerald the rejection of Thomas FitzGerald and himself accepted as the Earl of Desmond by suggesting that Thomas was a) illegitimate (and therefore, ‘unqualified’ to hold the title), and b) that he had broken the (racist) conventions associated with the Statutes of Kilkenny (which forbade the ennobled descendants of Anglo-Norman settlers in Eire such as the FitzGeralds from marrying anyone from the indigenous Irish-Gaelic population – to ‘prevent’ the mixing of blood and the ‘polluting’ of the assumed ‘superior’ Anglo-Norman race. Although ‘a’ is provably ‘false’, ‘b’ is a little more difficult to dismiss, as Thomas FitzGerald is said to had fallen in-love with an indigenous Irish-Gaelic woman (named Catherine MacCormack) and had even dared to marry her. This type of racist reaction is peculiar as many Anglo-Normans integrated into the Irish culture and learned to speak the Irish-Gaelic language – even if convention prevented ‘open’ intermixing and the pursuing of love affairs, etc. Furthermore, as many Earls of Desmond led ‘rebellions’ against the English Crown – it was the Irish-Gaelic clansmen who flocked to their banners in their thousands - willing to spill their own blood to secure the freedom of Eire! Interestingly, as Thomas was the ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’ 5th Earl of Desmond, this suggests that the only legitimate heirs to his ancestral lands and title were his own sons. This means that although there has been a long line of ‘de facto’ Earls of Desmond since Thomas left Eire – not a single one that followed James FitzGerald can be considered ‘de jure’ - or that is ‘lawful’ holders of the title and occupiers of the ancestral lands – as they are all ‘usurpers’ and rendered ‘redundant’ by historical events.
Although the case of Nicholas stands-out due to his disability, such lineage disputes occurred all the way through the first creation of the title of the Earl of Desmond (1329-1582) – with the disinherited ‘Thomas FitzJames Fitzgerald’ (1529-1595) being recorded on the lineage lists as the ‘de jure’ (in law) but not the ‘de facto’ (in practice) ‘16th Earl of Desmond’. This observation would allow for yet another ‘Earl’ related to Katherine FitzGerald (1464-1604) and explains why ‘James FitzThomas Fitzgerald’ (1560-1607) assumed the title of the ‘17th Earl of Desmond’ in 1598. With ‘Maurice FitzGerald’ holding the title at least in theory between 1400-1407 - this above analysis (which identifies ‘9’ relevant Earls of Desmond of the first creation which fit into the narrative of Katherine FitzGerald’s supposed long life of 1464-1604) - does tend to support the assertion made by the scholars of the ‘Dublin Review’ (1862) that at least eight to ten ‘Earls of Desmond’ would have traversed the senses of a very long-lived Katherine FitzGerald – Countess of Desmond. (15)
Married 1508 (18-years-old). Her children are as follows:
Katherine Fitzgerald (1509-1604) - Countess of Desmond – Aged 95-years-old at death.
Gerald McShane FitzGerald (1510-1553) - of Dromana, 3rd Lord of Decies – Aged 71-years-old at death.
Second Marriage – 1515 of Ellen FitzGibbon (1490-1560) to John FitzJohn Barry (1480-1534) - 13th Lord Barry
Married 1515 (25-years-old). Her Children are as follows:
John FitzJohn Barry (1517-1553) - 1st Viscount Buttevant – Aged 36-years-old at death.
Edmund FitzJohn Barry (1520-1556) 2nd Viscount Buttevant - Aged 36-years-old at death.
James Fitzjohn Barry (1523-1557) 3rd Viscount Buttevant – Aged 34-years-old at death.
born
1454
mar. (1)
Shela MacCarthy (d. after 1505), dau. of Cormac "Laidir" McTeige MacCarthy, Lord of Muskerrym by his wife Mary FitzMaurice, dau. of Edmond [FitzMaurice], Baron of Kerry and Lixnaw
children by first wife
1. Hon Maurice FitzThomas FitzGerald (dvp. from the plague Dec 1529; bur. at Jerpoint, co. Kilkenny), mar. his first cousin Joan FitzGibbon, dau. of John FitzMaurice FitzGibbon, the White Knight, son of Maurice "Mor" FitzGibbon, the White Knight, by his wife Ellice FitzGerald, widow of Thomas FitzJames [FitzGerald], 7th Earl of Desmond, and had issue:
1a. James FitzMaurice FitzGerald, later 12th Earl of Desmond
mar. (2)
his first cousin once removed Catherine FitzGerald, the celebrated "Old Countess of Desmond" (b. c. 1464; dspm. 1604), dau. of John FitzGerald, of Dromana, Lord of the Decies (by his wife Ellen FitzGibbon, dau. of John FitzGibbon, the White Knight), son and heir of Gerald "Mor" FitzJames FitzGerald, 2nd son of James [FitzGerald], 6th Earl of Desmond
died
1534 (bur. at Youghal)
suc. by
Grandson.’
This official peerage record uses the Latin term ‘Decessit Sine Prole Mascula’ (dspm) or ‘Died without Male Issue’ - whilst reiterating the claim that Katherine FitzGerald lived to 140-years-old (1464-1604)! Perhaps the year ‘1464’ is apocryphal in this instance - since ‘1464’ was a leap year and is one of eight years (CE) to contain each Roman numeral once - since it is written as ‘MCDLXIV’! Being a member of the aristocracy, ample evidence exists that confirms the presence of Katherine FitzGerald in the world. Given the meandering and snake-like nature of the genealogical data there is the continuous problem of ‘error’, ‘repetition’ and ‘mistaken identity’, not to mention outright ‘fraud’ and deliberate attempts at ‘deception’. Carefully gathering the evidence to together it is certain that Katherine FitzGerald a) existed – as Katherine Fitzgerald was definitely the ‘recorded’ Countess of Desmond, was also definitely the daughter of Sir John Fitzgerald, 2nd Lord Decies, and Ellen FitzGibbon, who in turn was the daughter of John FitzGibbon, the 9th White Knight, b) she was an Irish aristocrat who is recorded as marrying Thomas FitzThomas Fitzgerald, [11th] Earl of Desmond – both of whom sired a daughter who married Philip Barry Oge. After Thomas – her husband - died in 1534, the Old Countess would spend the rest of her life at the ancestral Inchiquin Castle, County Cork (near the South-coast of Eire, a few miles west of Youghal) - where would eventually encounter Sir Walter Raleigh. Indeed, according to Raleigh, he met the Old Countess personally when he participated in the Munster plantation in the late 1580s. After conversing with her, he discovered that she was married during Edward IV's reign, which ended in 1483. The problem with this narrative is that Thomas FitzThomas FitzGerald's first wife – Sheila MacCarthy – the daughter of Cormac Laidir McTeige MacCarthy, Lord of Muskery, was still alive in June 1505 - indicating that Katherine FitzGerald could not have married the Earl of Desmond during Edward IV's reign, and c) it is universally agreed that Katherine FitzGerald lived to an extraordinary age (dying in 1604) at a time within Eire that the average lifespan was just 31-years! The question historians strive to address is just how long that life was. The evidence is arranged such that the tantalising ideal that she was in fact ‘140-years-old’ is always present. Indeed, this is not a contrived or even deliberate outcome, but is merely inherent within structure of the story and texture of the details. Even if she was ‘95-years-old' - assumed by modern historians – then this is incredible in and of itself and appears almost as implausible as living to be ‘140-years-old'! What is odd (and wondrous) is the number of times the birth-dates for the ‘Old Countess’ are given as ‘1464-1604’ in what are otherwise considered ‘authoritative’ and ‘trustworthy’ historical and academic texts! As Katherine FitzGerald’s daughter – Katherine’ - married Philip Barry Oge, it would be interesting to research whether that genealogical line still exists.