Evidence - Family names

The first evidence of our family's descent from Blennerhassett is the use of "Blennerhassett" as a first name and middle name in our family. I grew up with the name "Blennerhassett" in the family. For example, talking to my grandmother in the 1980s about her grandfather Blennerhassett Cashel (died 1915). Everybody knew the name. It was impossible to avoid.

The people in our family with "Blennerhassett" as a name are:

• George Blennerhassett Cashel (born 1807).
  He is father of:
  • Blennerhassett Cashel (born 1848).
    He is father of:
    • Blennerhassett Joseph Cashel (born 1879).

    And he is grandfather of:

    • John Blennerhassett Mary Riordan (born 1908).
    • James Blennerhassett Mary Conacher (born 1916).
    • Blennerhassett Conacher (born 1922).
    • John Blennerhassett McGrath (born 1934).

Baptism of George's son Blennerhassett Cashel, 18 June 1848.

Detail from grave of Blennerhassett Cashel.

Evidence - Family story of runaway marriage

Actually the story was lost to living tradition, but was found in the Papers of Patricia Lavelle. Pat Lavelle died in 1966. But her family history notes survived, and I read them in the 1980s.

Pat Lavelle's notes say we descend from a runaway Blennerhassett marriage. She said it was the mother of George Cashel who was a Blennerhassett, and her name was "Letitia Blennerhassett". The story is that the Protestant Letitia Blennerhassett had a romantic runaway marriage with the Catholic Edward (or George) Cashel and they were the parents of George Cashel, father of Blennerhassett Cashel. The story was that the Blennerhassett girl was disinherited for running away with a Catholic. [PAT/10, p.3] said: "Her family disowned her but the Cashels all thought it very romantic".

Pat probably got this information from her mother Agnes Cashel (died June 1958) or her aunt Alice Cashel (died Feb 1958). Alice Cashel certainly knew about the Blennerhassett connection. See argument between Alice Cashel and Jim Sullivan.

• The notes above include "Sir Rowland Blennerhasset" as a named parent for Letitia. It is unclear if this named parent for Letitia is part of the original family story or a later addition, included only after the Gortatlea letter in 1965, or some combination of both. More on this below. We will also discuss below whether this named parent is correct.
• There is an illegible word written here beside "George Cashel", looks like "Philip" (see the dot for the second "i"). Does this mean "George Philip Cashel"? So far, this lead has led nowhere.

Evidence - "Letitia Blennerhassett"

The following are the only known Letitia Blennerhassetts of child-bearing age in the world in 1807. Both of them are married at the time, and not to Cashel.

1. Letitia Blennerhassett of Tralee and Tarbert, Co.Kerry, born 1780.
   She married 1stly, 1799, to Richard Ponsonby and had issue.
   She married 2ndly, 1811, to William Lindsay and had issue.
   There was some pretty good paper evidence that it could be her.

   
   

2. Letitia Blennerhassett of Co.Limerick, born est c.1785.
   She married 1807 to Samuel Harding and had issue.
   There is no particular evidence that it could be her.

From [PAT/13, no.2].

From [PAT/13, no.6].
Copy in [PAT/7, no.7].

Evidence - "A. Blennerhasset, J.P."

One would imagine this would narrow it down. However, there were multiple prominent and respectable A. Blennerhassett's, even restricted to that time. There are basically three candidates for this person, as follows.

In the Ballyseedy branch:

1. Arthur Blennerhassett, of Ballyseedy, Tralee.
   High Sheriff of Co.Kerry 1821-22. In 1834 he is on a Grand Jury. In 1835 he is one of the Deputy Lieutenants of Co.Kerry, and one of the Magistrates of Co.Kerry. Died 1843.

In the Baronet branch:

1. Arthur Blennerhassett, of Blennerville, Tralee.
   His wife was 1st cousin of the mother of Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
   Appointed J.P. in 1822. In 1834 he is on a Grand Jury. Died (still a J.P.) in 1839.

2. Sir Arthur Blennerhassett, 3rd Baronet, of Churchtown, Killarney.
   Nephew of Arthur Blennerhassett, of Blennerville.
   High Sheriff of Co.Kerry 1820-21. He married a Catholic in 1826 and converted to Catholicism in 1827. So might have been sympathetic to Cashel's position even if not close relative. Became 3rd Baronet in 1831. In 1832 he is one of the Magistrates of Co.Kerry. Listed as J.P. in 1844. Died 1849.

Since two of the three possible Arthur Blennerhassetts are in the Baronet branch, this indicated our descent might be from the Baronet branch.
This turned out to be true. See later.
However it is still possible that the Ballyseedy man is the one who wrote the letter of recommendation.

George Cashel's RIC record.
Showing that he was recommended by "A. Blennerhasset, J.P." when he joined the County Constabulary in 1828.

Evidence - The Gortatlea letter

This letter looked unconvincing

• Thomas Blennerhassett does not provide any evidence for his statement.
• According to the official histories like Burke's Peerage, the 1st Baronet had no daughter.
• It is clear from the wider letter that he knows little about the family history. For example, he only "thinks" there are other Rowlands. But anyone who knows anything about the Blennerhassett family would know all about Rowland the famous Home Rule MP and Sir Rowland the famous writer and MP.
• Thomas is not from the main Blennerhassett family. He is from the disconnected Gortatlea branch, whose origin is unknown. They are not close relations of the Baronets branch, and he clearly knows little about them.

And yet, this letter seems to have some truth!

• The documentary evidence does actually point to the Baronets branch.
• DNA testing (see later) proves we are related to the Baronets branch.
• We discovered that, contrary to the official histories, the 1st Baronet did have a daughter, though she died as an infant.
• We may descend from a natural child of the 1st Baronet, or a natural child of his son.
• But in any case, the letter has some truth. The 1st Baronet really is a close relation. How did Thomas know this?

Is Pat Lavelle or Thomas Blennerhassett the origin of this theory?

• For decades, I thought Thomas Blennerhassett was just guessing, in his really unconvincing letter. That he was saying Letitia "must have been" the daughter of Sir Rowland because Sir Rowland was the only Blennerhassett he knew of at that period.
• But now I wonder if he knew what he was talking about!

Maybe Pat Lavelle had a story it was "Sir Rowland":

• But hold on. We are missing Pat Lavelle's original letter to Thomas Blennerhassett. What did she say in it?
• Is it possible that Pat Lavelle herself is the source of the story? Is it possible that she had some story of connection to Sir Rowland, and she wrote to Thomas Blennerhassett with that, and he is saying yes he thinks that must be true.
• That would explain Thomas Blennerhassett's odd wording.

Maybe Pat Lavelle had a story it was "Rowland":

• I think this is the most plausible story of all. Maybe Pat Lavelle knew about a "Rowland" and not "Sir Rowland".
• Maybe her mother or aunt had a memory of seeing "Rowland" and "Letitia" in the stained glass window in Tralee when they were young. (It commemorates Rowland Blennerhassett and his wife Letitia Hurly.)
• So maybe Pat wrote to Thomas Blennerhassett with the remembered names "Rowland" and "Letitia" and asked him what he thought. That would explain Thomas Blennerhassett's odd wording in reply, where he guesses that "Letitia" is the daughter of Sir Rowland, since he has heard of Sir Rowland, and, not knowing much about the family history, he does not know that Sir Rowland's son Rowland was married to a Letitia.

Pat incorporates the idea that Letitia is the daughter of Sir Rowland into her notes.
From [PAT/10, p.3]. See full size.
This combines the family story of a romantic runaway marriage with the idea (either part of the original family story or maybe a newer idea) that Letitia is the daughter of Sir Rowland.
For years, I thought the connection to Sir Rowland was made up. Now I think it is basically true! Though some details may be wrong.

Evidence - Alice Cashel argument with Jim Sullivan

Date apparently before 1921: Jim Sullivan left Ireland in 1921. If it is true that he never returned to Ireland to visit, this argument must be before 1921. He died in America in 1935, so the argument is certainly before 1935.

Pat said that Jim's Sullivan family "had come from near Tralee where the Blennerhassett estate flourished. The old castle built long ago, he maintained, belonged to his family." (He would mean the old Irish Clan O'Sullivan.) And Alice had her Blennerhassett ancestors. (One would love to hear what evidence she presented!) So Jim and Alice argued about who had a claim to the old estate.

The Alice Cashel argument with Jim Sullivan.
From [PAT/10, p.2 and p.3].
See full size p.2 and p.3.

I took decades to realise the argument is about Churchtown

• I knew Jim Sullivan's family were from the Killarney area, not the Tralee area. But only after a few decades, when I researched the Sullivan origin, did I see exactly where in the Killarney area they were from.
• They were from Dromaloughane, in which townland is the ruined Castle Corr, built by McGillycuddy, said to be a branch of the O'Sullivans. The castle was built c.1450.
• In the next townland is the 18th century Blennerhassett house, Churchtown House. Blennerhassett had acquired the McGillycuddy (O'Sullivan) estate.
• Churchtown House was the seat of the Blennerhassett Baronets branch. (They also had a house at Blennerville, near Tralee.)
• So it all makes sense, if we get rid of "Tralee". And it is more evidence pointing towards the Blennerhassett Baronets branch.

• Why did Pat mention Tralee? Because Tralee is the main place Blennerhassett are associated with. There is an entire village, "Blennerville", near Tralee. Blennerville House, near Tralee, was the other seat of the Baronets family, besides Churchtown House. The biggest Blennerhassett house is Ballyseedy near Tralee. It is perfectly normal for Pat to think they were referring to Tralee, when trying to remember this years later.
• Ballyseedy was also the estate of an old Irish castle. However it was not a castle of Clan O'Sullivan, but rather a Desmond castle.

Did Alice Cashel know about Churchtown?

A link to Churchtown means our family are linked to Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet, who built it.

Expenses for "James Sullivan" in payments made in June 1864 by Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 4th Baronet of Churchtown House.
From Churchtown House accounts book 1862-64.
This could be Jim Sullivan's father.

DNA failure - Letitia of Tarbert branch

I laid out the page above to make the Baronets line look the most promising lead. But it did not look the most promising lead for many years. The name "Letitia Blennerhassett" seemed by far the best lead. What a rare name. It must be telling us something.

I got nowhere with Letitia Blennerhassett of Co.Limerick.
But when I looked deeply (starting in 2009) into the life of Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert, I found a lot of circumstantial evidence that something happened in her life around 1806. That maybe she had an affair and separated from her husband and could be the mother of George Cashel. I found a lot of exciting-looking clues that something like this may have happened.

• So I constructed a theory from the paper evidence that our ancestor might be Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. The paper evidence looked really good.
• See Theory of our descent from Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
• After years of looking at paper evidence, I started a DNA project to test our family and Letitia's family.
• To my surprise, the DNA said that the theory is not true.
• See DNA testing - Cashel with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
• This DNA failure seemed like a disaster. But one good thing is that when we finally got good DNA matches, with a different Blennerhassett branch, this failure shows why our new matches really are proof.

DNA success - Baronets branch

I have now found multiple strong DNA matches of our family with the Blennerhassett Baronets family and, crucially, with the Yielding family who are doubly intermarried with the Blennerhassett Baronets family. There is no doubt that our family is closely related to both families, and indeed, must descend somehow from the original couple, Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding.

For full proof of this, see Proof of descent from Blennerhassett Baronets family.

DNA evidence - O'Connell family

We now have multiple strong DNA matches to this family, indicating a fairly recent branching off of George Cashel from this family. The most obvious interpretation is that the mother of George Cashel is from this family and his father is from the Blennerhassett Baronets family. To be precise, the DNA would be explained if George Cashel's mother was a sister of Mary O'Connell. But we must keep an open mind. There could be some other, less obvious, connection to O'Connell.

I used to think the wealthy Blennerhassett man probably had an affair with a lower status female. But I am now thinking, incredibly, that she was a woman of his own class. If so, surely this problem can now be solved. This whole strand of evidence has been open since 2025 and remains to be tied in with the other strands.

It is interesting that my family remembered Blennerhassett, but not the much more famous Daniel O'Connell. But maybe because George was a Blennerhassett by descent, while Daniel O'Connell's relationship is less direct. (He married a close relation.)

Summary tree of O'Connell matches

      Thomas O'Connell = Ellen Tuohy
                       |
   +-------------------+---------------+
   |                                   |
  Mary O'Connell                      Elizabeth O'Connell  
  m. Daniel O'Connell                 m. James O'Connor (or James Connor)
   |                                   |
   |                                   |
  DNA MATCH                           DNA MATCH
  29 cM                               29 cM 

More evidence - Stephen Cashel family

So I started looking again at a George Cashel, baptised in July 1808, son of Stephen Cashel, that I had known about for many years. Now I looked at him with new eyes, wondering if this could be our George and he was adopted by the Stephen Cashel family.

Evidence of descent from Stephen Cashel family shows the considerable amount of evidence and clues that our George Cashel may be the same as the George Cashel in this family. Many things make sense if we descend from this family. Whether he is their biological child or adopted child we do not know. Nor have we proved this is our George.

The date of baptism of their George (July 1808) indicates the date of the affair would be late 1807.

However, what if George Cashel is not the irregular child? What if he just descends from the irregular child? Because the Stephen Cashel family descends from a Catherine Blennerhassett, born around 1760, and she may in fact be our descent from the Baronets family. If she is the irregular child, then the affair is around 1760. An adoption was always a bit of a clunky theory, bringing in three families to explain things. If Catherine is the natural child, then we only have two families, and George descends from one of them.

The Stephen Cashel line of research is simply adding to the mountain of clues, without being able to put them all together into a final proof. We will continue to work on this Stephen Cashel family and see what happens.

We will now consider various issues, before summing up what we know.

False alarm - 1st Baronet had a daughter Melisent

However, no daughter was found in the official histories, such as Burke's Peerage. I had looked for a daughter before, and not found one. Bill Jehan had not found one.

On 13 June 2020, this changed. I discovered that the 1st Baronet did have a daughter, Melisent Blennerhassett, baptised in Dublin in Jan 1768, who is not in the official family histories. This was exciting. The evidence made a prediction that a daughter might exist. And a daughter was found. Maybe she ran away and was written out of the family history?

However it was a false alarm. On 16 June 2022, I discovered that Melisent died as an infant and was buried in Dublin in May 1768.

Letitia Cashel

Letitia Yielding

• DNA says we descend from Yielding.
• There is a Letitia Yielding (born 1777, died 1844). She apparently lived in Tralee parish and was buried in Ballymacelligott parish.
• Could she be Letitia Cashel? She runs away with Cashel and is mother of George Cashel? She uses the surname Cashel but (this is the unlikely bit) reverts back to Yielding later.
• Probably not. Letitia Yielding is written as "Letitia Yielding, spinster" in a court case in 1811.
• See Yielding theory for more on whether Letitia Yielding could be our ancestor.

The name "Agnes"

• George Cashel named his eldest daughter Agnes Cashel in 1838.
• She died and he named his next daughter Agnes Cashel in 1842. She is also written as "Agnes Mary" or "Mary Agnes". His wife was Mary.
• The name "Agnes" was clearly important to George. Maybe his mother or stepmother.

• "Agnes" became a name in the Cashel family.
• People in our family called Agnes, which may have come from Blennerhassett:
  • Agnes Cashel, bapt 1838.
  • Agnes Cashel, bapt 1842.
  • Mary Agnes Sheahan, born July 1873.
  • Agnes Cashel, born Oct 1873.
  • Agnes Sheahan, born 1882.
  • Agnes Garn, born 1890.
• Blennerhassett Cashel marries Maria Agnes Lyons, so we cannot really say Agnes comes from Blennerhassett in his descendants:
  • Agnes Cashel, born 1870.
  • Maureen Agnes O'Mara, born 1901, died 1990.
  • Ellen Mary Agnes Spain. "Agnes" is a confirmation name she took after her grandmother Agnes Cashel.
  • The name "Agnes" is still in the family.

• Millicent Agnes Yielding in the Baronets family:
  • The 1st Baronet's wife was Millicent Agnes Yielding. Her mother was Millicent.
  • Many descendants of the 1st Baronet and Millicent Agnes Yielding used the name "Millicent Agnes" or "Melicent Agnes" after her.
  • Could George Cashel have used Agnes after Millicent Agnes Yielding?

• Agnes Denny:
  • Richard Francis Blennerhassett married in 1798 to Agnes Denny. Richard died 1817. Agnes died 1842.
  • Could she have been close to George Cashel?

• Most likely theory: Agnes Noonan.
  • Currently the most likely theory is that Agnes Noonan is mother of George Cashel (either natural or adopted mother) and hence the name for his daughter.

"Letitia Blennerhassett" could be Letitia Hurly

But how could the family mis-remember such a rare name? Here is one way.

• If George Cashel's family are closely related to the 1st Baronet, then they are closely related to Rowland Blennerhassett of Kells, whose wife is Mrs. Letitia Blennerhassett (born Letitia Hurly, married 1808, alive in 1822, died before 1834).

• I do not think Letitia Hurly could be mother of George Cashel. I do not think she could have had a natural child before marrying Rowland. Reasons:
  1. His father would never have allowed the marriage.
  2. The marriage settlement mentions no child.
  3. The DNA connects us to Blennerhassett. That would make no sense if Blennerhassett was not related.

• I do not think Letitia Hurly is the mother. I think she is some close relation. So how was she remembered?
• One way she could be remembered would be if she wrote letters. The name "Letitia Blennerhassett" might have been remembered from the letters, and the name accidentally transferred to the mother when the great-grandchildren were trying to remember the story in the 20th century.
• Or, and perhaps most likely of all, the name was remembered just because of the stained glass window in Tralee.

"Letitia Blennerhassett" could be from the stained glass window

• This window may be the answer as to where "Letitia" came from.
• It is one of the most visible Blennerhassett monuments in Tralee.
• It is possible, even likely, that Blennerhassett Cashel showed this window to his children when on visits to his Falvey in-laws in Tralee before 1904, and told his children (correctly) that these Blennerhassetts were close relations, and this reinforced in later memory that their ancestor was "Letitia".
• This window may in fact be the whole origin of the name "Letitia".
• It was easy for Blennerhassett Cashel to get to Tralee since his employer the GSWR had a line to there since 1859. (GSWR had a line to Killarney since 1853.)

• So was "Letitia" a false clue?
• Not at all. If Blennerhassett Cashel showed the window to his children, then he probably knew he was the Baronets branch.
• The name "Letitia" may in fact be evidence for the Baronets branch: Looked at this new way, the name "Letitia" is evidence for the Baronets branch, since it indicates they looked at this window and considered it their branch.

Discussion

What if I never found Pat's papers?

If I never found her Blennerhassett notes:

• I would never have had the name "Letitia".
• I would never have wasted a decade on Letitia of Tarbert.
• I would never have spent time on Letitia of Co.Limerick either.
• I would not have the account of the Sullivan argument, which pointed to Churchtown.
• I would not have the vague clues pointing to the Rowland and Letitia window.

Instead I would have the following:

• We somehow descend from Blennerhassett. (Obvious from the names.)
• George Cashel, policeman, is recommended by A. Blennerhassett.
• This must mean we are related to either the Baronets branch or the Ballyseedy branch.
• So my DNA hunt would have focused on those two branches.
• DNA would soon find it was the Baronets branch.

So I would have ended up at the same place, without such a massive detour.
There were some good things about finding her notes:

• Without them, I would lose: (1) the account of the Sullivan argument, and: (2) the clues pointing to the window, both of which are thin documentary clues backing up the Baronets branch. It is nice to have them.
• It is also nice that at least one person noticed the Blennerhassett descent before me, and tried to work it out. It was not just something I discovered on my own.

But Pat's notes ultimately led to a decade of wasted work, to arrive at the same place I would have arrived at without them.
So overall it would probably have been better if I never found Pat's papers in the 1980s!

Some version of the family story is true

Something like the following. An affair. A natural child written out of the family history. An unapproved marriage. A Blennerhassett daughter disowned and maybe soon dead. A seduction of a Blennerhassett daughter by a man who ran, or a man who was already married. A Blennerhassett son, having an affair with a local woman or a servant, barely noticed outside the family, and a child that took her name not his.

Something happened. The DNA says it happened. Part of the family story is true. There was no long descent of a chain of Blennerhassetts from some unknown origin. This was a short and sudden descent from one of the glamorous, high-profile branches of the Blennerhassetts.

Conclusion so far

We have one line of evidence about the Baronets branch:

• I call it as proved that my ancestor George Cashel (born 1807) descends somehow from Robert Blennerhassett (died 1765) and his wife Frances Yielding.
• There is a densely inter-woven family tree below Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding, with multiple cousin marriages. Our family is DNA related to multiple lines in that tree. It is hard to know exactly what line we come from. But some form of descent from Robert and Frances is certain. Nothing else explains the DNA plus documents.
• See the proof of descent from the Baronets line.

• DNA evidence has emerged that we are closely related to the O'Connell family, who knew the Blennerhassett Baronets and were related to them. This family is closely related to Mary O'Connell who married Daniel O'Connell. George Cashel's descendants have strong DNA matches to this family, which suggests he branches off late from this family. The simplest theory would be that his mother is from this O'Connell family, and his father is from the Blennerhassett Baronets family.

• Documentary evidence has emerged that we may descend from the Stephen Cashel family, through either a natural or adopted child. Many things make sense if we descend from this family. This family descends from a Catherine Blennerhassett, born around 1760, and she may in fact be our descent from the Baronets family. An alternative theory is she is not relevant but her daughter adopted George Cashel.

• Blennerhassett Cashel being at this talk is not really evidence of a relationship, since the 4th Baronet was a well-known figure in public life, Catholic, and the President of the College in the city where Cashel lived. Cashel used to go to these type of talks anyway.
• See Cashel at a similar lecture the year before, reported in Cork Examiner, March 17, 1898.
• But it is interesting that the only Blennerhassett I can find on the same page as my family is from the Baronets branch.
• According to the theory above they are cousins. They could even be 1st cousins, if the 2nd Baronet is the natural father of George Cashel.

"We entered Tralee about seven o clock ... This is the county town of Kerry and is by far the most considerable town in the county and spoke of as the wickedest town in Ireland for everything that is bad and obscene."
- An anonymous traveller in Kerry in 1788, possibly indicating the kind of social environment that produced George Cashel.
From "Journal of a Visit to Kerry in July 1788", Gerard J. Lyne, Journal of the KAHS, No.21, 1988, pp.133-139.