As may have become evident from some of my posts over the years, I have an interest in the hirstoriography os specific genealogical questions, whether it be the evolving thought on Agatha's origins, or the maternal ancestry of Teresa of Portugal. I have recently done some digging into the fraudulent pedigree that the Irish Burke and Vescy families promoted for themsleves.

The earliest examples of this pedigree I have located, from the mid-18th century, seem to come from the same person, and though thee are differences, by combinging what the two say, we can get some insight into the mind of the fraudster who concocted the line.

A work entitled 'The Pedigrees of the Right Honourable Smith Burke, Earl of Clanrickard, Viscount Clanmorris adn Baron of Dunkellin and John Bourke, Lord Viscount Mary, A.D. 1748." is not available to me but I did find an online summary of its contents with additions (which I have stripped out if not cited to the original manuscript, as best I can tell):

Charles Martel
Pepin
Charlemagne
Charles Duke of Ingelheim (married Juliana, daughter of the heroic Rowland, Charlemagne's nephew)
Rowland
Croise
Baldwin
Baldwin
John De Burgo, Earl of Conign
----Harlowen de Burgo m Arlotte
--------Robert de Burgo m Maud de Montgomery
------------William de Burgo
----------------Adelm de Burgo m. Agnes, dau Louis VII of France
--------------------William Fitz Adelm de Burgo
----------------John de Burgo
--------------------Hubert de Burgo
------------[dau] de Burgo m. Andrew de Vitrei
------------[dau] de Burgo m. Guy de Val
------------[dau] de Burgo m. Earl of Tholonse
--------Odo de Burgo
----Eustace de Burgo
--------Serlo de Burgo
--------John Monoculus de Burgo m2 Magdalen
------------Eustace Fitz John de Burgo m1 Beatrice dau Lord Vesey, m2 Agnes dau William Fitznigel
----------------William Vesey
----------------Rikard Fitz Eustace
------------Richard Rufus de Burgo
----------------Walter de Burgo

While I was forced to use an extraction dor this first appearance, there were several otehrs in the 1750s, of which a representative one is from 1757, 'The Memoirs and Letters of Ulrick, Marquis of Clanricarde . . . ' by "the present Earl of Clanricarde' - the same author. It's genealogy was then credulously repeated the next year in a literary review of the book. It gives the following (order of some children reversed for ease of display):

Charlemagne, son of Pepin, son of Charles Martel
Charles duke of Ingelheim, m. Juliana, daughter of Charlemagne's nephew Rowland
Rowland
Criuse alias Godfrey alias Gratian, defender of the Christians in Palestine
Baldwin I
Baldwin II, founder of the house of Blois
John earl of Comyn and baron of Tonsburgh
----Millecent m. Fulk, earl of Anjou, who succeeded him as king of Jerusalem, brother of king Almericus, father of Baldwin IV
----Harlowen De Burgo, d.s.p., m. Arlotte, mother of Wm the C
--------Odo
--------Robert earl of Cornwall m. Maud, dau Roger De Montgomery
------------William earl of Cornwall
----------------Adelm m. Agnes, dau Louis VII of France
--------------------William Fitz Adelm, founded one of the best . . . families in England
----------------John
------------------------Hubert de Burgo earl of Kent

A similar account had appeared in a 1754 Peerage of Ireland, and in 1756 The Irish Compendium it from the Vescy perspective: Charlemagne - Charles of Ingelheim - Rowland - Godfrey - Baldwin I - Baldwin II - John Earl of Comyn - Eustace - William de Vescy.

Clearly these are presenting the same fanciful pedigree, with some recognizable benchmarks in the construction. All or part of this same descent would be replicated (with errors) in several late-18th-century peerages, in the 19th-century Burke peerage works, and by O'Hart. We see a number of historical figures, as well as pure inventions, not only of specific relationships but of entire people.

Beginning with a childless son of Charlemagne, they then jump to 'Croise' alias Godfrey alias Gratian - a garbled reference to crusader Godfrey of Bouillon, but with only a single intervening generation to cover more than two centuries. The reason they selected this son of Charlemagne to be grandfather of Godfrey is unclear. It could be as simple as him not being familiar enough, like Louis and Pepin, for the fraudulent wife and son to be immediately evident. The intervening generation, Rowland, is invented. I suspect that in an earlier version this position as occupied by the heroic Roland himself, his identity being stripped later to allow a direct descent from Charlemagne rather than just a nephew. Were this the case, then perhaps it comes from an association of the two in the medieval and post-medieval mind, just as we see in Dante.

The next linkages are obvious - someone was going from a list of the Kings of Jerusalem, but converting the succession from brother to brother to cousin into a father to son to grandson lineage. What to me highlights seeming fraudulent intent, these three men have been stripped of any indication they ruled Jerusalem as kings. Likewise, the ambiguous description of Fulk, "who succeeded him in the Kingdom of Jerusalem" shows that John earl of Comyn was interposed within a list of Jerusalem kings that described Fulk as succeeding Baldwin II.

Why was the invented John de Burgo, earl of Comyn, stuck in there - here we have another operating principle of the creator, linking absolutely everyone with Burgo-like toponymics. Baldwin II is also known as Baldwin of Bourcq/Bourg, so he had to be linked to Herluin de Burgo (alias Herluin de Conteville), and to Serlo de Burgo, the apparent brother of John Monoculus, documented ancestor of the constables of Chester and of the Vescy family. Of course this is utter nonsese. They were each named after different 'burghs', as one would expect from such a vague geographical descriptor - you wouldn't expect everyone named Wood to come from the same wood, or with 'how/hough' as all or part of their name to be from the same mound.

I do not know the inspiration of this John, Earl of Comyn, but I did have to laugh over the explicit statement that Herluin de Conteville died before his father. Given that his claimed aunt Mellicent was three generations younger than Herluin de Conteville, is it any surprise that Herloin died before her brother? That's right. It makes Herluin de Conteville the great-great-grandson of Godfrey of Bouillon, a man younger than he was. (Maybe there is a timewarp here - with the early part of the pedigree having one generation fill 250 years, they had to pay back the time-debt somehow.)

What of Serlo de Burgo as son of Eustace, son of 'earl John'? He is a documented person, living in the first half of the 12th centuy (too long after Herluin de Conteville to have been his nephew). Predeceased by his son, he left his property to Eustace Fitz John, the well-known son of John Monoculus, thought to ahve been his nephew, though I am unaware of any direct testimony to this effect. This younger Eustace is well documented, and need not trouble us - indeed his wives have a shared characteristic that cannot be said for several of the wives listed here: they actually existed. But where did the earlier Eustace, son of John come from? For lack of a better explanation, it looks to me like the John Monoculus-Eustace Fitz John couplet was duplicated and placed above Serlo and John Monoculus in the pedigree, as a means of linking Serlo to Herluin and Baldwin into one happy Burgo/Bourg/Burgh family, with the concocted elder John serving as the point of conjunction for them all. The 1756 Vescy pedigree, which only has one John-Eustace pairing between Baldwin II and WIlliam de Vescy is perhaps an earlier form, before the couplet was duplicated (but it could instead have just dropped one of the couplets by accident).

Again, we see another short stratch of authentic genealogy, running from Herluin to his sons Odo and earl Robert, and the latter's known children, including William [FitzRobert] earl of Cornwall. Stripped of his lands, imprisoned and later becoming a monk, he is a perfect place to hang the Burgh founders, particularly given the Brugo throughline that was driving many of the fabrication decisions here.

And I just can't avoid giving a particual gold star for shamelessness to the decision to take a man so obscure we known him primarly from a patronymic and make him the son-in-law of a French king.

When was this conjured into existence? It wouldn't surprise me were this the work of the so-called Earl of Clanricarde himself, though there are aspects of it that are reminiscent of 17th-century visitation pedigrees presenting bogus family origins.

If anyone is aware of an earlier exemplar, or of possible precurors of John Earl of Comyn, I would be interested in learning of it.

taf