MONTENEGRIN RELIEF FUND. It is announced that the Montenegrin Relief Fund, which was instituted at the out- break of the Great War by Sir John Roper Parkington, Consul-General for Montenegro in Great Britain, who died last year, is about to be closed. About £80,000 in all was collected,[ the modern day equivalent would be about £ 24,000,000] and many thousands of destitute Montenegrin refugees were helped, including a member of the late King’s family and some of the Cabinet and representatives of the aristocracy. A large number of refugees proceeded to America. Outstanding contributions should be sent to the fund’s offices, 30, Bucklersbury, E.C.4, addressed to Sir William H. Thomas.
Bow-Street.-A middle aged man, of gentlemanly appearance, named Eugene Macarthy, was brought up in custody of Inspector Scott, of the A division of police, the officer in charge at the Reading-room of the British Museum before the sitting magistrate, Mr. Henry, on a charge of stealing from the reading-room six books-viz., Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms,” the “Historical Memoirs of the Irish Rebellion of 1641,”Dod’s “Parliamentary Companion”, Lawless’s “Ireland,” Hegel’s “Philosophy”, and a work in the Irish language, the title of which in English is “Christians’ Instructions”
Mr Poland, the barrister, attended to prosecute for the Trustees of the Museum, and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Morgan, solicitor.
It appeared that the prisoner, who had practised as a solicitor in Ireland, was recently prosecuted for marrying Miss Mary Anne O’Brien during the lifetime of his former wife.
In the course of that prosecution he wrote a letter to Mr. Miler, Miss O’Brien’s solicitor, applying for certain books, papers, &-c., which he had left in her care at the time when they were living together as husband and wife. Mr. Miller submitted to her brothers, Dr. John O’Brien and Mr. Stephen H. O’Brien, tho prisoner’s letter, which was as follows:-
” 2, Caroline-street East, Camden-town, Aug. 7.
“Sir,- I venture to trespass on your kind indulgence to ask the favour of your either preferring the request yourself,or forwarding the request to 30, Westbourne-place, that certain books and MSS., with some other things, fairly mine, and of much moment to me, may be forwarded here by parcels’ delivery:- a hat-box and an old carpet-bag, both containing MSS., with a small writing-case,. I would have have asked this earlier of you, but severe illness prevented me till now. I apologize for addressing you, but really not knowing whom else to ask of, will excuse me. I am your obedient servant,”
“E. P. Macarthy.”
Book Stacks, British Museum Reading Room
Mr. Miller advised the Messrs. O’Brien, acting on behalf of their sister, to deliver up to Mr. Macarthy all books, papers, or other property belonging to him, but with the precaution that they should carefully examine such articles, and make a list of them. In the course of the examination which was made, in conformity with Mr. Miller’s advice,Dr. O’Brien discovered that among the books left by the prisoner in Miss O’Brien’s care were two which had evidently belonged to some library. These were the ” Historical Memoirs of the the Irish Rebellion of 1641” and Dugdale’s “Antient Usage of Arms” .It first struck Dr. O’Brien that these works were impressed with a crown on the binding, and were marked with certain numbers. Upon a closer scrutiny he came to the conclusion that they were stolen from the Reading-room of the British Museum. He at once proceeded to the Museum and submitted the books to the inspection of Mr. Rye, one of the principal assistants there. Mr. Rye identified the books as having been stolen from the Reading-room. [The Reading Room was officially opened on 2 May 1857 ] They had been given out in July, 1857, to a reader named Macarthy, and had never been returned. The were missed on the 1st of September, 1857. At that time the prisoner was a reader at the Museum. He became a reader on the 22nd of July that year, when he entered his name in the usual manner in the readers’ book, and that signature was proved, to be in his handwriting. His name was also entered in his own hand- writing on the fly-leaves of the books, and in one of them a label engraved with the Macarthy arms had been pasted over the Museum press mark. Upon this label the mottoes of the Macarthy family were written in Latin and in Irish, in the prisoner’s handwriting.
There was also found among the books left in Miss O’Brien’s care by the prisoner, four other books:-viz., Dod’s Parliamentary Companion, Lawless’, Ireland, Hegel’s Philosophy, and The Christians’ Instructions, all bearing the press mark, and all identified as having been missed from the Museum prior to the 1st of September. They were all marked with the prisoner’s signature and other memoranda, and marginal notes in his handwriting. Upon this information, Inspector Scott apprehended the prisoner at the Central Criminal Court, when he attended to take his place upon tho charge of bigamy. He was then taken to the station-house in Bow- street, but was not brought before the magistrate, as it was agreed, in order to leave him free to answer the charge of bigamy, that the present charge should be postponed until the other prosecution had been disposed of. He was convicted of the bigamy, and sentenced to a week’s imprisonment at the expiration of which period he was again apprehended by Inspector Scott, and brought up at Bow- street on the present charge.
Dr., Mr., and Miss O’Brien, Inspector Scott, and other witnesses, including Mr. Rye and Mr. Holder of the British Museum, were examined at great length in support of these charges.
Mr. Morgan, in cross-examining Miss O’Brien, asked her whether she had not herself held a ticket of admission to the Reading room of the Museum, and whether she had not signed her name in the readers’ book.
She replied to both questions in the affirmative.
Mr. Poland observed that he was glad those questions had been put, as it would enable him to show that Miss O’Brien was not a reader until after the time at which the books had been stolen.
The readers’ book, in which Mr. Macarthy’s signature had already been proved, was now again produced, and Miss O’Brien swore to her own signature as “Mary Ann Macarthy” (at that time she believed herself to be Mr. Macarthy’s wife). It was under the date 14th October,1857.
Mr. Poland called the magistrate’s attention to the fact that all these books had been missed from the Museum on the 1st September, being six weeks before Miss O’Brien had admission to the Reading room.
Mr. Morgan said,-After the evidence which we have beard, I think that the most prudent thing for the prisoner is to decline to say anything.
The prisoner was committed for trial, without bail.
Mr. Eugene Plumber M’Carthy, solicitor and notary public in Ireland, was charged on remand with double bigamy and perjury in making an affidavit to obtain a licence for his third alleged marriage. The evidence previously taken in support of the charges went to show that the prisoner was married on the 28th of January, 1839, to Catherine Creagh, at Cullenswood, near Dublin, by the Rev. J. G. F. Schultz; that he was again married on the 29th of June, 1844, to Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, at St. Peter’s, in the county of Cork ; and again to Emily Reiley [sic. Actually Emily Verling] at St. James’s, Holloway, on the 22d of May, 1852. The affidavit for the last marriage set forth that the prisoner was a bachelor.
Yesterday, upon the prisoner being again brought up, Mr. Wontner attended on his behalf, and the case was reopened, the validity of the first marriage being questioned. The proof of this marriage rested upon the testimony of Mr. Harrington, who was present when that ceremony was performed. Letters were written by the accused many years afterwards to Mr. Mellor, a solicitor, which were produced and repeatedly referred to. In one, dated the 5th of September, 1860, at 16, Eaton-street, Woolwich, he says:-” I could have wished that the recital of the marriage of 1839 should exonerate me from committing a deliberate fraud in tho marriage of 1844. It was some years subsequent to the latter date that the validity of a marriage, without bans or a licence, by a Dissenting minister, was recognized. All the circumstances attending the marriage of 1839 strengthen the conviction that it was worthless, until, to my consternation, the Courts decided otherwise. I was then a very young man. The woman lived with me previously, and a certificate was had only to save appearances. In 1839 we separated, the woman no more than myself viewed it as valid. She resided in the city of Cork. I also resided near it. She never sought me, and knew where I was residing. I was married by licence in 1844 at St. Peter’s, Cork. Frequently saw the woman in the street. Was never molested or accosted by her. Never made the least claim upon me,for she, as well as myself, attached no value to the marriage and I remained so contented until, as I have already said, the question was raised on circumstances similar, and the Courts decided their validity; hence I am fairly entitled to be absolved from any fraud in making the contract of 1844.”
A postscript adds,-” I need scarcely add, you shall find me ready to do any and every act you may deem necessary to secure Mrs. M’s rights; as recompense for an involuntary wrong it is justly due.”
The second letter is in the following terms, dated Woolwich, September 9, 1860:-
“The place of celebration of the ceremony of 1839 was in Cullenswood,a suburb of Dublin; the celebrant. the Rev.Mr. Schultz, a German Lutheran minister, at his residence. The register he keeps is in the Prerogative or Consistorial Court, Dublin, lodged or impounded there since his marriages were first questioned. I can afford no information of Creagh’s death. I did hear it occurred in 1855, but where I know not. It may have been Cork, the last place I heard of her. But persons of her class assume new names, and have aliases for every week of the year,- and it may be no easy matter to satisfactorily trace her. She was in London a considerable time after 1839, and in Dublin also as long. There can be no doubt that she was in Cork early in 1855, and no difficulty in proving it. The decision settling the validity of Schultz’s marriages is well known in Ireland, and I have no doubt many a heedless young man found himself snared by it as I did.” – The letter concludes with some remarks about the settlement deed before alluded to.
Miss Mary Anne O’Bryan, 30, Westbourne-place, Eaton. square, was cross-examined by Mr. Wontner. She said she was first acquainted by her brother, Dr. O’Bryan, with the prisoner’s first marriage in 1852. She did not then believe it. The witness was married in 1844 and continued to live with the prisoner until 1852, when he went away with Miss Railey. [sic. Actually Emily Verling]. The witness fetched him back, but he went away again with her. She and her family sold off his goods. She could not say whether her brother took the prisoner’s position of notary at Queenstown. This was the first time she ever heard her brother was notary. She had heard Robert O’Bryan was practising there as notary, but this was mere hearsay. When married to the prisoner her property was not settled upon her; but, after being married seven or eight years, he settled it upon her in April 1852. In 1860 she was desirous of recovering the sole control of the property, and instituted a suit in the Irish Chancery Court. He wrote the two letters produced to facilitate her getting the money out of court. The witness and the prisoner were living together in 1860, when these letters were written. The witness did not read them before they were sent but posted them herself as the prisoner was lame. The witness continued to live with him after this, but left him when she found she could. It was June 12 months when she last lived with him; she had since corresponded with him in answer to his letters for money, and had seen him, but not frequently. He had lived in Belgrave and Warwick Places, and there being some arrears of rent an execution was put in, when she declared herself to be a single woman. She could not say her brothers gave him into custody on his coming to the house at that time for this bigamy.
Mr. Harrington, the only witness to the first alleged marriage, said he was present at Schultz’s when the prisoner and Catherine Creagh were there. He was present at the prisoner’s invitation. Schultz was a very notorious person; he performed marriages when persons had not time to contract them through the Church. There was a ceremony of some sort gone through, but he could not say what. Schultz read and spoke in some form, and witness believed the parties were married at that time. He saw no books used by either of the parties, and never saw such a marriage before. The prisoner said he was anxious to make Catherine Creagh reparation and marry her. He could not say whether Schultzwas in canonicals. He thought he saw the parties kneel, but could not say
An Irish policeman was called to prove that Schultz’s marriage had been acted upon as valid in the courts of law in that country.
Mr. Arnold thought that, with the letter and the evidence of Mr. Harrington of a ceremony, there was a prima facie case made out.He committed the accused for trial upon the first charge of intermarrying with Miss O’Bryan while his former wife, Catherine (Creagh), was alive, but he offered to take one surety in £ 20, as he thought it was not a case in which the prisoner should be locked up.
CHARGE OF BIGAMY—A MAN WITH THREE WIVES.—Eugene P. M’Carthy, a solicitor and public notary in Ireland, described as having no fixed residence, was charged with intermarrying with Catherine Craigh, otherwise Cree, his former wife, Mary Jane O’Brien, being still alive.
Mr. Stephen O’Brien, brother of the second wife, residing at Queenstown, produced papers proving the second marriage in July, 1854, at Dublin, and he further stated that the prisoner subsequently married Mary Ann Bunning, at St. James’s Church, Islington. The first marriage took place on the 29th of January, 1839.
Dr. James O’Brien, brother of the prosecutor, corroborated the evidence.
The prisoner was remanded for the attendance of the witnesses to attest the respective marriages.
As ever, the Cork Examiner is enthusiastic, but fairly sloppy in its reporting, just like it was in Pauline Roche’s case four years earlier. It manages to get the third wife’s name wrong, [they call her Mary Ann Bunning, she is in fact Emily Verling]. They also say the second marriage took place in Dublin, in 1854, when it actually took place in St Peter’s church in Cork in 1844. Finally they turn great great grandpa into James rather than John .
Eugene Plummer Macarthy’s conviction for bigamy at the Old Bailey is very brief
THIRD COURT.—Friday, August 22nd, 1862.
PRESENT—Sir JOHN MUSOROVE, Bart., Ald.; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Reference Number: t18620818-888
888. EUGENE PLUMBER M’CARTHY (44) , Feloniously marrying Mary Ann O’Brien, his wife being then alive; to which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined One Week.
Reference Number: t18620818-889
889. EUGENE PLUMBER M’CARTHY was again indicted for feloniously marrying Emily Verling, his wife being then alive.
No evidence was offered for the prosecution.
NOT GUILTY
from www.oldbaileyonline.org
There has to be some significance in the sentence only being a week.
This goes with Eugene Macarthy’s trial at the Middlesex Sessions on September 2, 1862 for the theft of books from the British Museum. One of the questions from that was who are “Miss O’Bryen”, the wronged wife, “Mr O’Bryen” her brother, and “Dr. O’Bryen, another brother,”. as the principal witnesses; the defence barrister censures “the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case.” Are they members of the family, and if they are who exactly are they?
There are alternative spellings of names M’Carthy/Macarthy, O’Brien/O’Bryen/O’Bryan but some solid indications they may be John Roche O’Bryen, his only surviving sister Mary Anne O’Bryen, and one of their brothers. The Times report spells all their surnames O’Bryen in its September report of the theft trial, but as O’Bryan in the bigamy indictment report of July 1862. The Old Bailey transcripts has Mary as “Mary Ann O’Brien”. and “Emily Verling,” the name on the second indictment which is interesting. Ellen Verling was the O’Bryens’ great aunt [their grandfather John Roche’s sister] and had a daughter who was also called Ellen, as well as at least two sons, James Roche Verling, a naval surgeon, and Bartholomew Verling. The Times however calls her “Emily Reiley”, and refers to their marriage at St. James’s, Holloway.
The circumstantial evidence is begining to build up, but more comes from Eugene M’Carthy’s indictment for trial at Westminster Police Court, as reported in The Times in July 1862. But in the meantime, the Cork Examiner is enthusiastic, but fairly sloppy in its reporting, just like it was in Pauline Roche’s case four years earlier. It manages to get Mary Anne’s name wrong, the places both weddings took place wrong, and the bigamous second marriage date ten years later than it happened. As well as moving it from Cork to Dublin.
The Cork Examiner, 17 July 1862
LONDON POLICE—WESTMINSTER, TUESDAY.
CHARGE OF BIGAMY—A MAN WITH THREE WIVES.—Eugene P. M’Carthy, a solicitor and public notary in Ireland, described as having no fixed residence, was charged with intermarrying with Catherine Craigh, otherwise Cree, his former wife, Mary Jane O’Brien, being still alive.
Mr. Stephen O’Brien, brother of the second wife, residing at Queenstown, produced papers proving the second marriage in July, 1854, at Dublin, and he further stated that the prisoner subsequently married Mary Ann Bunning, at St. James’s Church, Islington. The first marriage took place on the 29th of January, 1839.
Dr. James O’Brien, brother of the prosecutor, corroborated the evidence.
The prisoner was remanded for the attendance of the witnesses to attest the respective marriages.
This is one of those great stories that you stumble across every so often if you’re lucky. This has the intriguing addition of “Miss O’Bryen”, the wronged wife, and the help from “Mr O’Bryen” her brother, and “Dr. O’Bryen, another brother,”, as the principal witnesses; the defence barrister censures “the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case.” Are they members of the family?
Middlesex Sessions September 2, 1862
(Before Mr Serjeant GASELEE)
Eugene Plummer Macarthy, 44, a man of gentlemanly exterior, described in the calendar as “formerly a soldier”, with a superior education, was indicted for stealing six printed books, the property of the trustees of theBritish Museum.
Mr. Serjeant Parry (specially retained) and Mr. Poland (instructed by Messrs. Brae and Co, Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury) appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Ribton (instructed by Mr. Morris, of Beaufort-buildings, Strand) defended the prisoner.
This was a somewhat extraordinary case, and the facts, as detailed by the learned counsel who conducted the prosecution, appeared to be as follows :-
A short time ago the prisoner was tried at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of bigamy, there being two indictments against him he pleaded guilty to one of them, and there was no evidence offered in support to the other, and only a short term of imprisonment was passed upon him. At the termination of his sentence he was apprehended on the present charge, taken before a magistrate, and committed for trial The charge against the prisoner was for stealing six books from the British Museum about five yeas ago, he then having the privilege of admission as a reader to the reading-room. Itseemed that the prisoner obtained a ticket of admission to the building upon the recommendation of Mr. W. H. Gordon, of Princess- street, Cavendish-square, on the 22nd of July 1857, upon which day be attended and signed the book required to be signed by readers on their first admission. In the letter of recommendation he was stated to be a member of the Irish bar, and that he was desirous of prosecuting some researches into Irish history connected with his name and family, having for some years ceased to practise at the bar, and that in the interval he had been residing at Toulouse with Vicomte de Macarthy, his father,and that his stay in England would not be protracted. He came frequently to the reading-room, and had the use of a great number of books and MSS., and it would seem that on the very day after his first admission a book which he had, entitled Christian Instruction, was missing from the library.
On the 23rd of June, 1858, he was expelled from the library for writing on a manuscript, but on his representing to Mr. Panizzi [Sir Antonio Genesio Maria Panizzi (1797 – 1879). He was the Principal Librarian at the British Museum from 1856 to 1866, having been first Assistant Librarian (1831–37), then Keeper of Printed Books (1837–56). He was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1869] that he merely corrected an error, and believed that he was rendering a service to future readers, he was re-admitted to the reading-room in the following month of July. The prisoner represented that he was collecting materials for biographies of his country-men engaged in foreign services, and that some of them had appeared in the Dublin University Magazine, and it was important to a certain degree, as five out of the six of the books which the prisoner was charged with stealing bore upon Irish history and titles of honour.
The Reading Room, British Museum
Three of the books were kept on shelves in the reading-room, from which readers were allowed to help themselves, and they were missed in 1858. The other three required a ticket to be filled up, with the title and reference to the museum catalogue, but it was supposed some fraud had been perpetrated in respect of the tickets for these books, so that they should not be produced against him. Since the prisoner was committed by the magistrates access had been obtained to his papers, and among them had been found a ticket upon which he obtained one of the books,but two other tickets were not forthcoming.
At the August Sessions, at the Central Criminal Court the prisoner was indicted for bigamy, in having married Miss O’Bryen, in 1844, his former wife being then alive. There was also a second indictment for marrying a third wife, the other two being alive, and when he was on bail on these charges, he wrote to Mr Miller the solicitor who was acting for Miss O’Bryen, a letter, requesting that some books which were in Miss O’Bryen’s possession, and belonging to him might be returned to him. When Miss O’Bryen discovered that she was not his lawful wife, she ceased to live with him, and the books and papers were kept in a bag ready to be delivered to the prisoner whenever he should apply for them. Upon the receipt of this letter an examination of the books and papers was made by Mr. O’Bryen, the brother of Miss O’Bryen .
On the 19th of August Dr. O’Bryen, another brother, being at the house in Westbourne place, observed on the table two books, the subject of these proceedings, which he immediately supposed to belong to some public library, and on a little further examination he was led to think that they belonged to the British Museum. On the same day he took these books to the British Museum, and, having shown them to Mr. Rye, the assistant-keeper of the printed books, he at once identified them as belonging to the Museum library. Mr. Rye on the same day went to Westbourne-place, and made a further examination, when other books belonging to the British Museum were found and identified. No doubt being entertained that the prisoner had become unlawfully possessed of the books in question, it was determined to institute a prosecution against him on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum, and he was arrested and charged with the theft, and after being remanded, Mr. Henry committed him for triaL.
Several witnesses having been called to substantiate these facts,
Mr. Ribton rose to address the jury for the prisoner, and said the first thing which would be for their consideration was,-Did the books in question belong to the British Museum, and if so were they removed by the prisoner ? If they were satisfied of that, the next and most important question they would have to consider was,-Were they taken away by him with an intention of stealing them ? That was a very important question to consider, for in point of law the mere taking of an article away was not stealing, unless at the time of taking it there was an intention of stealing it, and to deprive the owner of it altogether. The mere act of applying the article to his own use was not sufficient, and unless they were satisfied that there was an animo furandi, they could not find the prisoner guilty of stealing. Having paid attention to the facts of the case, he would ask the jury whether they could safely and conscientiously say, supposing Mr. Macarthy took these books from the British Museum, that he intended to steal them, by permanently depriving the trustees of the British Museum of them and appropriating them to his own use. There was every presumption that the prisoner intended to return the books, for he attended the British Museum for a legitimate and honourable purpose, for he had written an article called the O’Byrnes of Wicklow, inserted in the Dublin University Magazine, and sometimes wrote for newspaper and periodicals. He had no intention of felony, for when he took them he did so that he might carefully peruse them, and although it might be a breach of the regulations of the Museum to take books away, that was a very different thing from stealing them. Having censured the conduct of the O’Bryens in imputing matters which had nothing to do with the case, he said, even if the jury had a doubt in the case, the prisoner was entitled to acquittal at their hands, and he trusted the benefit of it would be cheerfully acceded to him.
Mr Serjeant Gaselee very carefully summed up the evidence.
The jury, after a few minutes’ consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty of stealing.
Mr. Serjeant Gaselee said it was painful to see a person in the position in life of the prisoner charged with such an offence, as from his education he ought to have set an example, and was not exposed to the same temptations as those they were in the habit of punishing every day. He could well understand that the prisoner felt his position painfully, but the Court had a public duty to perform, and to show that the administration of the law was equal with high and low, rich and poor, and, as the position in society of the prisoner made his offence the more heinous, it would be his duty to pass a severe sentence.
Prisoner.-Oh ! my Lord, I pray you to temper justice with mercy.
Mr Serjeant Gaselee said that was the feeling of the whole bench, but, having given the case the fullest consideration, they had come to a conclusion upon it, and the sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for 18 months.
Prisoner. –I did not expect so severe a sentence as that.
In addition to the request from the Corporation, the Lord Mayor has now received an influential and largely signed requisition from bankers, merchants, and traders in the City asking him ” to call a public meeting at the Guildhall at the earliest convenient date to protest against the imposition of the new telephone rates until Parliament has been consulted, and a proper and full inquiry has taken place.” Among the signatures are those of the President and Chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce, Messrs. Cook, Son, and Co., Messrs. Henry Tate and Sons, Messrs. Samuel Hanson and Son, the London Commercial Sale Rooms (Limited), the Corn Exchange Company, Messrs. John Howell and Co., Messrs. T. and R. Morley, Messrs. Mappin and Webb, Messrs. James Spence and Co., Sir Roper Parkington, Sir James Martin, and over 100 members of the Stock Exchange. The meeting will be called at an early date. When the Cardiff Telephones Advisory Committee met yesterday it was announced that several members desired to tender their resignations in order to show their resentment of the action of the Post- master-General in not consulting the advisory committees of the country before determining to advance the telephone rates. This was regarded as a direct breach of the pledge that the advisory committees should be consulted in all matters relating to the telephone service.
Sir Roper and Lady Parkington gave a dinner last~ night at Claridge’s Hotel to meet the Montenegrin Peace Delegates. Among those present were M. Lazare Miouchkovitch, M. de Voinovitch, and M. Jean Popovitch (Delegates), the Greek Minister and Mme. Gennadius, M. Grouitch (Servian Charge d’ Affaires), M. de Fleuriau (French Embassy), Lord and Lady Rotherham, Sir Alfred and Lady Newton, Lady Meiklejohn, Sir Edward and Lady Boyle, Lady McGregor, Sir Benjamin and Lady Franklin, Sir Albert Rollit, and Sir Horatio and Lady Shephard.
I’ve avoided this one for a while, partly because it is out of period, and also partly because it is hard to work through. It does also appear to be slightly showy-offy, which it isn’t intended to be, well maybe a bit.
It does make it a bit slow going around the National Portrait Gallery, as well as getting a bit of a look when I chime up with “That’s another one of yours…”
Where I do think it helps, is in helping to set into context, how the Grehans would have felt about themselves. In a period when lineage, and status was very important to people; and when there was a strong emphasis on family backgrounds, then it is almost impossible to believe that there wasn’t talk of being the descendants of Irish kings, and of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. It almost certainly colours some of the wedding choices in the C19th.
But a word of warning from Sir Bernard Burke, in the preface to the 1912 edition of Burke’s Irish Gentry.
“Of course, one knows that every Irishman is the descendant of countless kings, princes and other minor celebrities. One admits it, the thing is unquestionable. One knows, of course, also, that every family is the oldest in Co. Galway, or Co. Sligo, or somewhere else, and that, for some reason or other, every Irishman is the ” head ” of his family…”
Elizabeth I – The Armada portrait
However, it does appears that if you are somehow descended from Patrick Grehan Senior (1756 -1832) and Judith Grehan (nee Moore), [in our case, they are great,great,great,great, grandparents, so ha ha Danny Dyer] then you are a fourth cousin of Anne Boleyn [yes that one.], and a fifth cousin of Elizabeth 1st [yes that one, as well.], as well as descended from a number of Kings of Laois, and a fair smattering of Irish Earls.
The first major clue comes from Burke’s Landed Gentry in the 1871 edition. In the lineage of Patrick Grehan III (Patrick Grehan senior’s grandson) there is the following statement.
“(lineally descended from Lewis, the 4th son ofRoger O’More(more commonly, referred to now as Rory O’More), of Leix, by Margaret, dau. and heiress of Thomas, 3rd son of Pierce, 8th Earl of Ormonde). Through this marriage with the co-heiress of Moore, Mr Grehan of Mount Plunkett quarters the arms of O’More of Leix, and Butler, Ormonde.”
Patrick Grehan III had his rights to the arms confirmed in June 1863, so it must have been accepted by the Ulster King of Arms.
Broken down in, I hope, the simplest way; Judith Grehan’s great-grandfather was Edmund Moore,and he, in his turn, was the great-grandson of Lewis More, the youngest son of Rory O’More, and Margaret Butler. So they are separated by seven generations.
Therefore, Judith Grehan is a fourth cousin of Anne Boleyn, seven times removed, and a fifth cousin of Elizabeth 1st six times removed. In order to work out your own relationship simply add on the right number of generations. In the case of my children, it is a fourth cousin of Anne Boleyn, fourteen times removed, and and a fifth cousin of Elizabeth 1st thirteen times removed.
Rather than expand this post too much, I have decided to link to two further posts, containing the workings-out.
The Royal Palace Hotel once stood at 6 Kensington High Street, at the corner with Palace Avenue. It was demolished in the 1960s. The Royal Garden Hotel now stands in its place. I’m not entirely sure the Royal Garden Hotel was an inspired addition to the High Street.
Royal Palace Hotel c.1900Royal Garden Hotel c1967
In 1960, the Royal Palace Hotel was demolished and a new hotel was built in its place designed by Richard Seifert, who was responsible for some of the nastier buildings in London in the 1960’s and 70’s, including Euston Station, Centrepoint at the top of Oxford Street, Kings Mall in Hammersmith, and Tower 42 in the City.
After five years of building works, the new hotel opened in 1965 as the Royal Garden Hotel. In 1966, it hosted the official reception celebrating England’s victory in the World Cup final. I find it very odd I have no memory at all of the hotel being built, even though we played in that part of the park at least once a week, using the path that is just visible in the bottom right-hand corner of the photo above.
My first memory of the hotel is The Monkees waving to thousands, and thousands, of teenage girls in the park from a seventh, or eighth, floor balcony.
The Royal Palace Hotel had a stunningly over-decorated Victorian style, as can be seen from the photos below.
View north from the roof of the Royal Palace Hotel, looking towards Kensington Palace in 1920. On the left-hand side of the picture, you can see the allotments on Palace Green remaining after WW1.
