O'Neill Dominance in 15th Century Armagh

O’NEILL DOMINANACEIN 15TH CENTURY

ARAMAGHAn Analysis of the Registers of the Archbishops of

Armagh in 1418-1456

DECEMBER 13, 2013JOCELYN BURGESS

Dr. Sparky Booker, Lecture Series “Accommodation, Resistance andGaelic Power; the O’Neill Dynasty,” Trinity College Dublin

JOCELYN BURGESS12/13/13

O’NEILL DOMINANACE IN 15TH CENTURY ARAMAGH

The brief study presented here serves as an introduction to the

argument that the relationship between the Archbishops of Armagh in

the early 15th century and the O’Neills of the same time period

deviated from standard vassal submission with the church and instead

departed from traditional roles into a situation wholly unique to

the area of Ulster and the diocese of Armagh. Through the analysis

of three registers, those of Archbishop Nicholas Fleming (1404-

1416), Primate Archbishop John Swayne (1418-1439) and Archbishop

John Mey (1443-56) and their interactions specifically with various

branches and individuals of the O’Neill family, the attempt to shed

light on the political environment present in the Kingdom of Ulster

is attempted here. It is proposed that the prominence that the

O’Neills reached, believed or otherwise, dictated the unusual

reversing of protagonists in the traditional relationship of

clerical interactions and is confirmed by the eventual submission of

the church under careful façade of customary roles. It is to be

mentioned that the intermingling of Armagh’s registers and hasty

binding without extreme care given to the organization of many of

these primary documents by Bishop Ussher in the 17th century does

lend a shadow over the documents, but should not affect the

overarching argument presented within.

1 | T C D 2 0 1 3



Registers proved a unique source of historical reference available

to late medieval historians that are taken for granted to any other

group of historians significantly after the world wide acceptance of

the Printing Press. Before the advent of registers the prevailing

format of recording history lied in the joint presence of Chronicles

and Annals, and even they were suspect at best. Annals, closest in

format to the registers investigated, emerged in the late 7th and

early 8th centuries. They were a primitive literary format with

scattered statements, causal additions and a haphazard collection of

events.1 Dating itself didn’t converge and solidify until the 12th

century and only then did a sense of unity begin to prevail and

identical form begin to emerge in the Chronicles and Annals of

Europe.2 Before, many annalists were using the Dionysus Exiquus

(from Rome 525 AD) calculations of the Birth of Christ as the

beginning of their ecclesiastical dating system- a direct shift from

the otherwise accepted Diocletian Dating system.3 In Ireland

specifically, the rapidly growing clergy were chastened by Synod of

Whitby in 664 AD for their adherence to the Dionysian method above

others put forth.4 It was widely accepted that all annals and

chronicles dated from the creation of the world to the apocalypse 1 Ian Robinson, lecture for "Academic Mentoring- Annals and Chronicles," Trinity College Dublin, 11 November 20132 Ibid3 Ian Robinson, lecture for "Academic Mentoring- Annals and Chronicles," Trinity College Dublin, 11 November 20134 Ibid

2 | T C D 2 0 1 3



(which to most medieval minds was imminently approaching if pastoral

services and sermons were to be believed),5 so many annals and even

chronicles predating the 12th and 13th century are dated differently

and can cause great confusion when attempting to compare across

areas and sources. The format of annals does also lend to the added

scholastic confusion on how to approach most materials available.

Annals in origin came from liturgical services through the advent

of Easter Tables and their use in the monastic and clerical

divisions. Easter tables were only created to merge the Hebrew and

Roman calendars, of opposing solar and lunar origins, to find

appropriate dates for the widely emerging Christian sect to

celebrate Easter and other hagiographic holidays.6 Annals emerged in

the margins of these Easter tables as monks began to choose to

record and add the events around them as they saw fit. Entries

ranged from simple admonishments to recall prayers for souls passed

and record deaths to major universal events that had reached the

authors ears and deemed important to remember.7 In the later part of

the 8th century annals shifted from the margins to blank pages of

their own, but with political purposes. With the emergence of texts

such as the Annales Laurissenses Minores, Annales Regni Francorum, Annales

Maximiani and others, annals shifted from just arbitrary records to 5 Ibid6 Ibid7 Ibid

3 | T C D 2 0 1 3



justifications for and legitimizations of the new emerging dynasties

across Europe.8 Because of this authors in the 10th century began to

coalesce the chronicles and annals into one form causing the

traditional form of chronicles after the 12th century to fade until

the emergence of the printing press in the 15th century.9 An

unforeseen side effect of the shifting of annals and chronicles from

religious records to political propaganda in nature was that from

the 10th century onwards they became increasingly fixated on local

politics and events, a divergence from the original attempt at

recording and understanding the universe first embarked on.10 The

attempted works of Regino of Prum, and his attempt at recording

“modern” German history, or Fiodard of Rheims works on West Frankia

would have been unrecognizable to those original monks scribbling in

the margins of their manuscript and tables.11

Just before the conquest of printed type across Europe, a new form

of record emerged in only the 14th and 15th century to fill the vacuum

that annals left after their mutation in the form of Registers.

Registers reveal a magnificent source of information on how the

diocese were not only manage but what the clergy conceived their

8 Ian Robinson, lecture for "Academic Mentoring- Annals and Chronicles," Trinity College Dublin, 11 November 20139 Ibid10 Ibid11 Ibid

4 | T C D 2 0 1 3



role and responsibilities in both church and community.12 Registers

only appear in the majority within the confines of the late medieval

English history and mainly as the focus on various sees

administrative extensive recording and archiving, especially if

viewed in conjunction of the Papal Calendars of the same periods.13

As the registers of the late medieval period give an expressly

accurate view through extensive documentation in those that have

survived the source is, like its annalistic predecessor, not without

faults. As each register was wholly dependent of the will,

priorities and personalities of the bishops and higher clergy that

kept them they lend a peak, but in no way extend a complete look at

the entire range of diocesan responsibilities and business.14

However, registers still lend towards a specific range of

information and specialization that becomes quite limited in the

confusion of the church in the 16th century but invaluable to a Pre-

Reformation society. The variety of material in the registers

concerns both lay and clerical attitudes towards the church,

providing an invaluable cultural barometer of the developing or

prevailing moods towards the church.15 However that is not at the

exclusion of problems in the source collection over time. Many

registers the main problem is not a deliberate omission of important12 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register,” 204. 20413 Ibid14 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.” 20415 Ibid

5 | T C D 2 0 1 3



events or types of information but the incomplete accumulation and

retention of data.16 Register do not reflect a complete and accurate

description of the often voluminous correspondences going in and out

of the various clerical offices of bishops and archbishops alike.17

Likewise, the inclusion of many small, everyday matters would be

insignificant to record, as well as potential shifting in positions

and ideology of the clerical masters let alone the populous at

large.18 No register successfully records all that went on in a

Bishop or Archbishops range of influence, especially considering no

explanation of what was (or was not) included in their papers was

left behind.19 Attempts to analyze comprehensively, and in any form

of statistical fashion, has continually frustrated the historical

community. Inconsistent formats, gaps in record, vacant dioceses,

absentee clergy and periodic shifts in importance of specific

responsibilities dependent on the mood of both the Pontificate and

Papal alike prevents scholars from even beginning to cover the

ambiguous rationality as to the appearance and disappearance of

specific record types in registers.20 Approaches to analytic

understanding of registers should be cautious in nature, especially

directed towards specific and probable indicators of shifts in

16 Ibid17 Ibid18 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.” 20519 Ibid20 Ibid

6 | T C D 2 0 1 3



practices or ideology both in and out of the church. Comparisons of

many registers can give possible gauges towards larger trends can be

approached with growing confidence, as attempted within this paper.

Several choices emerged in the approach of attempting to analyze

the role of the Archbishops and their relationship with the O’Neill

of Northern Ireland. As some of the only “mostly” complete registers

of the episcopal registers to have survived come from Armagh, it

seemed a viable place to start. Some other pieces or sources of

Irish clerical can be found in other places such as the Calendars of

Papal Registers or in the Registers of other English diocese that

either dealt extensively with emigrating Irish clerical students or

interacted with major Irish or Anglo-Irish families.21 But the rare

occurrence of surviving registers in Ireland already lends to the

ideology that, especially in comparison of the plentiful

contemporary registers available across the sea in England, the

situation was different in the interactions between a Bishop and his

faithful.22 The main entry form within a register is those entries

aimed at the enforcement of Canonical Standards for ordination and

retainers of parishes, many including ordination lists and

installation records.23 Patronage candidates and the often

compromised agreements surrounding less than suitable candidates 21 Davis, “Irish Clergy in Late Medieval England.”22 Gwynn, “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.”23 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.”

7 | T C D 2 0 1 3



provided by influential gentry families supports the claim that

Ireland, like England, struggled to keep positions filled to keep

with the ever growing demand on increased pastoral guidance.24

Ireland, however had two added struggles to this already prevalent

issue in the lack of native Irish clergy, and hostility towards

those already in office by English and Anglo English alike, but the

pressures added to the positions in politically English vacant

areas. Armagh felt this the most keenly as reports of physical

attacks on the general clergy were prevalent at an alarming rate in

comparison to other diocese in both England and other parts of

Ireland where they were still fairly common place.25

Even the registers in Canterbury, at the height of its wealth and

splendor, still held admonishments towards various person on account

of assaulting and absconding with goods belonging to clerical houses

existed, but in far less frequency.26 In Ireland it was hardly an

indicator of widespread anticlerical sentiment, though many

propagandists towards more violent solutions to the “Irish Problem”

would eventually attempt to spin the violence in that direction. In

Ireland many violences toward episcopal lands and goods were

entirely political in nature, as very few clergy were ever

physically harmed or their buildings damaged. Coupled with the lack 24 Ibid. 20825 Ibid. 21626 Gwynn, “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.”

8 | T C D 2 0 1 3



of heresies and pagan sects punishment by the church supported,

which had faded almost entirely from record by the end of the 12th

century, it is hard to conclude that the native Irish and the

O’Neill clan specifically were against the church.27 Quite the

opposite, but a lack of cultural understanding on the English side

of the record does lend to a bit of amusement by the native Irish

and advantages are never squandered.

From the beginning Nicholas Fleming had a unique understanding of

the Irish approach to not only religion, but the English as a whole.

He was a junior member (lesser son) of the Flemings, who held the

title of Barons of Slane within the English Colony.28 A prominent

family within the Pale that held significant land and buildings,

Fleming did not grow up an impoverished youth and his education

reflects the station his family held. Because of his family’s

prominence he was in turn allowed to wield considerable power within

Armagh once appointed Archbishop in 1404.29 Within his administration

he had one, Master Thomas O’Loughran, who was Dean of Armagh.

O’Loughran was a powerful and unique tool that Fleming had at his

disposal, as O’Loughran was from the powerful family of Donoghmore.30

As in traditional English and Irish custom he spent some time

27 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.” 21628 Lynch, “The Register of Nicholas Fleming Archbishop of Armagh 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.”29 Ibid.30 Ibid.

9 | T C D 2 0 1 3



fostering and serving in the O’Neill household. He acted as Niall Og

O’Neill’s secretary in the 1390’s, and in 1395 (Mar. 15) acted as

interpreter for him when he swore an oath of loyalty to Richard II

at Drogheda.31 Many accounts both in and out of registers remarks

that Niall held him in high regard, which in addition to his

language skills made him a valuable asset to the Archbishop’s

diplomatic issues and appears in accounts frequently until his death

in 1416.32

With Master O’Loughran in retention, Archbishop Fleming made

serious attempts to interact and find peace with O’Neill and his

kin. Fleming’s desire to protect his tenants and rent from raiding

lords has overwhelming presence in his registers, especially

directed in his admonishments toward O’Neill and those he answered

for.33 O’Neill did not respect the integrity of the church or its

lands and was constantly raiding them for loot, cattle and hostages.

The Archbishop responded frequently with excommunication, or threats

of, which always were ignored or quickly recanted to before swiftly

taking up the same practice not shortly after the recantation.34 A

trend that seems to continue through most of the registers of

Armagh, but also registers in general. Registers show that a great

31 Ibid.32 Ibid. 48733 O’Byrne, “The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishop of Armagh, 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.”34 Ibid.

10 | T C D 2 0 1 3



amount of care went into not only the religious wellbeing but

overall welfare of the laymen in their particular areas of

influence. Bishops and even Archbishops were not all remote

politicians removed from their diocese and engaged in actively in

matters of state, though due to the lack of viable English support

in Armagh, especially in later years, made this idea contrary in

concerns to the specific Archbishops investigated.35 Despite the lack

of secular support Fleming made considerable strides. Some

cooperation was experienced as in 1407 & 1410; Art (son of Cu Uladh)

O’Neill agreed to stop “taxing” church tenants and relinquish church

lands and rent to the Archbishop.36 Art agreed to respect church

tenants and their lands, to pay rents for the lands they had taken,

and to keep his brother Donall of Armagh from “exacting tribute”

from the citizens and church tenants of Armagh.37 However, these same

O’Neills appear again in 1412, as Art and his brother Ruaidhiri were

excommunicated for reneging on said promises, as directed by Fleming

to his entire clergy.38 They failed to honor their oaths and used

their compliance as a stalling technique against the Archbishop as

they regrouped and continued with disregard to consequences.

35 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.” 21936 O’Byrne, “The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishop of Armagh, 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.”37 Ibid.38 Ibid.

11 | T C D 2 0 1 3



Great care needs to be taken at this point to not surmise that the

apparent lack of respect towards threat of excommunication is a lack

of respect towards the catholic faith or ecclesiastic faith in

general.39 Excommunication was a long and arduous process that

required quite a bit of papal and secular enforcement that many of

the diocese couldn’t provide, especially when the secular arm the

sect in Armagh often relied on was in fact the very O’Neills they

were attempting to bring in line. The fact of the matter was in

Armagh the O’Neills had too much power and the church too little.

The detail that the O’Neills did recant, promise adherence and then

change attitudes for a period of time before continuing on as they

had before does support the ideology that excommunication was in

fact a serious concern and did lend the O’Neills pause, though once

the threat seemed forgotten they returned to standard political

practices. For that is what most of the interactions the Archbishops

(and lesser bishops initially) were, but political messages about

the superiority of O’Neill power and prominence and not an

irreverence or anticlerical sentiment.

Consider the fact that Fleming’s successor, John Swayne,

encountered ample occurrences of the same issues. Much of Swayne’s

early career was dealing with the brunt of the Great Schism and his

original support of John XXIII from Pisa and his eventual deposition39 Ibid.

12 | T C D 2 0 1 3



in favor of Martin V.40 Many of his letters to the Pisan Papacy and

back, as well as the Popes in Rome and Avignon are present in his

register, as they were taken with him at his appointment. However,

under Swayne the relationship with the O’Neills deteriorated

further. Unlike Fleming, other than the trip he potentially had to

make to accept his appointment, Swayne never ventured into Armagh

instead taking up residence in one of his diocese closer to the arm

of the Pale in either Dromiskin near Dundalk or Termonfeghin in

Drogheda.41 Swayne, despite being Anglo Irish and of illegitimate

origins, openly disrespected not only the native Irish in his care,

but fellow clergy that were Irish in birth.42 Swayne was a man of

humble birth that had worked against all odds to create the career

he had, and not without his share of setbacks. Swayne first appeared

as a clerk for the diocese of Kildare seeking papal dispensation for

the illegitimacy of his birth, which was awarded to him with

customary, but alarming, frequency in 15th century Ireland.43 Swayne

clung to his English claim, despite Anglo-Irish heritage that held

no real distinction for many in Ireland anymore, and spent most of

his early career in several papal courts in Rome while also becoming

Rector of the University of Siena in 1408.44 Swayne remained in Italy

40 Gwynn, “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.” 50141 Ibid. 50142 Ibid. 50243 Ibid. 49844 Ibid.

13 | T C D 2 0 1 3



all through the Great Schism and served in both courts of the

English backed Pisan Popes Alexander V and John XXIII, where we get

glimpses of him serving as clerk to both men and picking up the

jurisdiction over Swords and Archdeaconry of Meath among other

advancements.45 However the Council of Constance brought a temporary

halt to Swayne’s career until the advantageous opening of Armagh,

and a lack luster Irish candidate for appointment from a native

Irish born clergy chapter after the death of Fleming in 1416.46

It was Swayne who felt yet another schism, but this one within his

own diocese. For within the boundary of Armagh are the two sharply

contrasting territories of the English-settled Louth and the Irish-

held Amargh and Tyrone, which had put forth much of Swayne’s

supporting clergy of whom he held in contempt, if not open

disrespect.47 It could be said that Swayne was much more a political

creature than a man of confrontation and action, a claim that can be

supported by the lack of penetration into Armagh. Swayne had to

heavily rely on his bishops as he was left dealing with the chaotic

aftermath of the Great Schism and the administrative nightmares that

arose from it.48 This was not unheard of as bishops were widely

available but in high demand and were often stretched too thin in

45 Ibid. 49946 Ibid. 499-50147 Ibid. 50148 Ibid. 506-507

14 | T C D 2 0 1 3



their ability to perform their office specific duties, appearing by

petitioning Archbishops and higher for assistance or the ability to

delegate duties- especially when it came to when laymen sought them

out for resolution to disputes.49 Bishops as a peacemaker and

usefulness as an author of “compensations” between quarreling

parties was a highly sought after ecclesiastic duty by various

levels of the country and church body. However, as the O’Neills were

employed often both as executors and recipients of the “secular arm”

of the ecclesiastic cannon in Armagh. Most of the disputes involving

them had to go to the Archbishop, as many of the lesser bishops did

not present enough of a political force to bend the will of the

heavily empowered Irish family. Many occasions ended like the entry

of 3 of October, 1427 were Donald Omeriach, Bishop of Derry demanded

compensation as Bernard and Torgellus O’Neill violently beat and

robbed some of his clerks while on mission from the Archbishop, who

unfortunately was an often victim of the O’Neills judging by the

many appeals for admonishment on the cleric’s behalf that appear in

Swayne’s register.50

Most of the entries about the O’Neills under Swayne’s time are

admonishments in nature for traditional O’Neill pastimes; raiding,

49 Frankforter, “The Reformation and the Register.” 22150 Armagh, Ire. (Archdiocese) Archbishop, 1418-1439 (John Swayne), TheRegister of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418-1439, with Some Entries of Earlier and Later Archbishops. 71-72

15 | T C D 2 0 1 3



looting, accosting and “violently setting upon” person of various

stations, hostages, the occasional war with other Irish lords and

constant infringement on ecclesiastic lands and goods.51 By the time

Swayne had fully taken into his office after the settling of the

Papal State, Armagh was reduced to poverty by two centuries of

English and Irish strife, both in and out of the clergy and the

O’Neill now placed a constant threat with the loss of English

support to back the church.

Swayne knew that the O’Neill held the future of his diocese in his

hands as not only could O’Neill make the Archbishop’s position

indefensible, but the Primate would be unable to even collect his

basic rents and dues if O’Neill decided to rise up against him. This

would understandably support Swayne’s reluctance to venture into

Armagh and upset the tenuous balance he had achieved, unlike his

predecessors which we can derive from his lack of entries to or from

the Termonfeghin residence in Armagh that was Fleming’s primary

place of habitation.52 Because Swayne was such a political man, the

emergence of a higher record of two significant differences in his

registers bear mentioning. The first being the shifting in

terminology towards the O’Neill and his fellows as “Captains of His

Nation” as opposed to traditional addressing of Kings or Princes, as

51 Ibid.52 Gwynn, “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.” 502

16 | T C D 2 0 1 3



well as the increased record of Marital Right Petitions and

Alliances that can be seen that had not before.53 This lends a better

view at what the O’Neills were attempting to do politically outside

of their interactions with the church than before. The various

petitions of marriages on behalf of O’Neill women with “less than

husbandly” characteristics show which marriages were possibly in

pure political function.54 Coupled with the high amounts of

grievances both from laymen and episcopal parties alike may suggest

that the O’Neills were particularly secure in their wealth and

political situation with not only the native Irish, but also with

men and institutions of the Pale and English Crown.

This security in their own power can be further supported by

Swayne’s successor John Mey in 1443. Mey’s register is actually the

collection of seven pontiffs of Armagh, with Mey being the largest

contributor. Articles from Mey, John Swayne (predecessor), John Bole

(successor), as well as John Prene and several others are all

present and lend a larger view of the continuous interaction with

the O’Neills and Armagh as a whole.55 What we can tell is that Mey

worked more closely with the O’Neills than any archbishop before,

53 Armagh, Ire. (Archdiocese) Archbishop, 1418-1439 (John Swayne), TheRegister of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418-1439, with Some Entries of Earlier and Later Archbishops.54 Ibid.55 Watt, “Registrum Iohannis Mey. The Register of John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W. G. H. Quigley; E. F. D. Roberts.” 854

17 | T C D 2 0 1 3



both for matters in and out of the church. Mey took on the role of

peace maker, with serious aptitude, between the warring Irish and

English that split most of his parishes and churches under his

control. A factor that both help and hindered his position was his

appointment as deputy of Richard, Duke of York and Lord-Lieutenant

in 1453, therefore was vitally concerned with the native Irish

interactions and an important member of the civil administration of

his diocese.56 Mey actively campaigned with assistance of the

O’Neills against prevalent clerical issues within his diocese,

including but not limited to clerical concubinage, matrimonial

jurisdiction and other secular matters that affected the church.57

This relationship benefitted the O’Neills just as well, as

dispensation for services were often generous and included seizure

of goods and property, which they later took to with zeal eventually

earning admonishment.

Under Mey, and the Earl of Ormond, a “truce” was found between the

Irish and English, thanks in part to the relationship with O’Neill

on Mey’s behalf. By the end of 1449, a parley and agreement was

reached with Richard Nugent Baron of Delvin and deputy of the Earl

of Ormond and O’Neills at which the Archbishop was present only at

56 Ibid.57 Ibid. 855

18 | T C D 2 0 1 3



the O’Neill’s request.58 However not much later O’Neill badly treated

one of Mey’s messengers and the relationship began to dissolve as

Mey called the secular arm on O’Neill.59 Hugh and Murtagh, sons of

O’Neill, were the ones that eventually brokered an agreement with

Mey that contained much of the usual; lands of the church

undisturbed, no molesting the archbishop and his party on

visitations, and so forth.60 These articles which were echoed in

concordant at a later date between Mey and Henry O’Neill continued

in the vein that on the surface seemed mutually beneficial, but was

everything contrary to the idea.

The Concordant between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill in 1455

has long historical roots, in that many clerical figures attempted

to have individual agreements with the “wild” Irish chieftains,

especially when diocese were beyond the pale and reach of

significant English support. However, despite being only one of the

few survive records of such agreements, Mey’s concordant is unique

in that both agents of Mey and O’Neill were present at the writing

of this, so the language is carefully neutral allowing much more

leniency towards Henry than many other lords at the time.61 Part of

58 Otway-Ruthven, “Registrum Johannis Mey: The Register of John Mey, Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W.G.H. Quigley; E.F.D. Roberts.” 44259 Ibid.60 Ibid.61 Simms, “The Concordat between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill (1455).” 71

19 | T C D 2 0 1 3



the reason is believed to be because Mey had a hand in “helping”

Henry’s father, Eoghan, abdicate the kingship and pass along

responsibility to Henry, who was appearing in record as a prominent,

if not dominant role in the area despite his father’s clinging to

power in his late age.62 Through a very public execution of

excommunication for infringements against the church levied against

Eoghan and his fellows on St. Martins Day in 1454, Mey is believed

to have lent an active role in this transfer of power support by his

presence at Henry’s coronation quickly after his father’s

abdication.63

This Concordant sums up in one document much of what the other

registers already hinting at, as the Church had no real control over

the O’Neills as excommunication was not a viable tool unless

supported by other O’Neills vying for power.64 Even the very format

of the concordant shows the peculiar relationship that had developed

between the O’Neills and the Archbishop of Armagh. All other lists,

grants and agreements are presented as a list of demands on behalf

of the Archbishop that must be met by the intended audience of the

article, but here we have a carefully constructed agreement that

represents the interests of both parties that we know came from the

result of lengthy discussion and mediation based on the witnesses to

62 Ibid.63 Ibid.64 Ibid. 72

20 | T C D 2 0 1 3



the article.65 Because O’Neill was able to have representatives at

the formation of this document, we see a careful neutrality in

language and wording that is a far comparison of the more blunt

agreements and edicts by Mey’s contemporaries.66 Each clause of the

agreement carefully skirts around issues that have been stated less

than friendly in both the Armagh registers and other documents, the

prologue included.67 Harkening back on an agreement originally formed

between Eoghan O’Neill, the prologue addresses the defense of the

church and violently defend it and its borders by the O’Neills on

condition that the church pays an annual cash allowance to the

O’Neill and his retinue.68 Such careful handling of the traditional

concept of “black rent” applied by the O’Neills shows that the

Church was in no way the dominant party during these negotiations,

especially with terminology such as “all favour” and restorations to

the church in her defense is normally reserved for conjuring

superiors towards their inferior subjugates.69 Both May and O’Neill

knew that the Church needed the O’Neill himself to intervene and

grant various protections and services for the church in Armagh, as

there was a political vacuum in the area and Dublin could no longer

enforce the politics of the church let alone the English and that

65 Ibid.66 Ibid. 7367 Ibid.68 Ibid.69 Ibid.

21 | T C D 2 0 1 3



the main proponent of attack and harassment to the diocese were the

O’Neills. For the language to even approach this practice as a

“pension” being paid to the O’Neills as services rendered that bound

the O’Neills was only an attempt to retain an illusion of power on

behalf of the church for posterity’s sake.70 This form of rhetoric,

of the O’Neills granting permission rather than submission continues

through the articles with Henry O’Neill’s promise to refrain from

attacking the church, promises of abstaining from exhortation of its

residence and lands, assistance with absentee rent collection and

aid with the secular needs of the diocese.71 These clauses were all

in the traditional form of a vassal swearing allegiance to the

church but the last three articles of the document show that this

was at best surface deep, in that the last three clauses pertain to

the long and arduous history of abuse of the Archbishops authority,72

the devastation of the profits meant for the diocese that were

diverted into O’Neill pockets and the ever present fear of O’Neill

exacting tribute but continuing to break all promises laid out in

this concordant.73 Though the fear was not unfounded it should be

mentioned that as a testament to Mey’s work with the area of Ulster

that the next major rupture between secular and episcopal relations

did not occur until just before the death of Mey’s successor, John 70 Ibid.71 Ibid. 73-7572 Ibid. 7773 Ibid.

22 | T C D 2 0 1 3



Bole in 1470, and in most things the O’Neills held true to their

agreement.74

However, in the same vein we must view this document, and the

history of the relationship between the Kingdom of Ulster and the

archdiocese of Armagh, not as a religious English overlord exacting

tribute on the ever present barbaric natives, but a pontifical

submission and plead for further abatement of violence against his

already down-trodden flock so the diocese could exact normality and

potentially prosper without interference. The O’Neills were not, and

had never truly been, vassals of the many Archbishops of Armagh but

the prevailing secular power to which the church had to supplicate

for permissible functions and to whom tribute was paid not exacted

in the sparse marshes and wilds of Ulster, wholly unlike both those

in the Pale and across the sea in England.

74 Ibid.

23 | T C D 2 0 1 3



Works Cited

Armagh, Ire. (Archdiocese) Archbishop, 1418-1439 (John Swayne). The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418-1439, with Some Entries of Earlier and Later Archbishops. Edited by D. A.Chart and John Swayne. Belfast: H.M. Stationery Office, 1935.

Davis, Virginia. “Irish Clergy in Late Medieval England.” Irish Historical Studies 32, no. 126 (November 1, 2000): 145–160.

Frankforter, A. Daniel. “The Reformation and the Register: Episcopal Administration of Parishes in Late Medieval England.” The Catholic Historical Review 63, no. 2 (April1, 1977): 204–224.

Gwynn, Aubrey. “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 32, no. 128 (December 1, 1943): 495–509.

Lynch, Anthony. “The Register of Nicholas Fleming Archbishop of Armagh 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.” Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society 25, no. 4 (January 1, 2004): 485–491. doi:10.2307/27729953.

O’Byrne, Emmett. “The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishopof Armagh, 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.” Irish Historical Studies 34, no. 134 (November 1, 2004): 238–240.

Otway-Ruthven, Jocelyn. “Registrum Johannis Mey: The Register of John Mey, Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W.G.H. Quigley; E.F.D. Roberts.” Irish Historical Studies 18, no. 71 (March 1, 1973): 441–443.

Simms, Katharine. “The Concordat between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill (1455).” Archivium Hibernicum 34 (January 1, 1977): 71–82. doi:10.2307/25487422.

Watt, J. A. “Registrum Iohannis Mey. The Register of John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W. G. H. Quigley; E. F. D. Roberts.” The English Historical Review 92, no. 365(October 1, 1977): 853–855.

24 | T C D 2 0 1 3



BibliographyPrimary Sources

Armagh, Ire. (Archdiocese). Registrum Iohannes Mey: The Register of John Mey, Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456. Edited by W. G. H. Quigleyand E. F. D. Roberts. Belfast: H.M.S.O, 1972.

Armagh, Ire. (Archdiocese) Archbishop, 1418-1439 (John Swayne). The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, 1418-1439, with Some Entries of Earlier and Later Archbishops. Edited by D. A. Chart and John Swayne. Belfast: H.M. Stationery Office, 1935.

Catholic Church, and Irish Manuscripts Commission. The Register of Nicholas Fleming: Archbishop of Armagh 1404-1416. Edited by Nicholas Fleming and Brendan Smith. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 2003.

———. The Register of Octavian de Palatio, Archbishop of Armagh 1478-1513. Edited by Mario Alberto Sughi. Irish Manuscripts Commission (Series) Vol.92. Dublin: Irish Manuscripts Commission, 1999.

Secondary Sources

Chart, D.A. “The Register of John Swayne, Archbishop of Armaghand Primate of Ireland, 1418-1439. With Some Entries of Earlier and Later Archbishops.” The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 6, no. 1 (June 30, 1936): 194–196.

Davis, Virginia. “Irish Clergy in Late Medieval England.” Irish Historical Studies 32, no. 126 (November 1, 2000): 145–160.

———. “Material Relating to Irish Clergy in England in the LateMiddle Ages.” Archivium Hibernicum 56 (January 1, 2002): 7–50. doi:10.2307/25484192.

Frankforter, A. Daniel. “The Reformation and the Register: Episcopal Administration of Parishes in Late Medieval England.” The Catholic Historical Review 63, no. 2 (April 1, 1977): 204–224.

Gwynn, Aubrey. “Canterbury and Armagh in the Fifteenth Century.” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 32, no. 128 (December1, 1943): 495–509.

Lynch, Anthony. “The Administration of John Bole, Archbishop

25 | T C D 2 0 1 3



of Armagh, 1457-71.” Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society 14, no. 2 (January 1, 1991): 39–108.doi:10.2307/29742492.

———. “The Register of Nicholas Fleming Archbishop of Armagh 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.” Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society 25, no. 4 (January 1, 2004): 485–491. doi:10.2307/27729953.

O’Byrne, Emmett. “The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishopof Armagh, 1404-1416 by Brendan Smith.” Irish Historical Studies 34, no. 134 (November 1, 2004): 238–240.

Otway-Ruthven, Jocelyn. “Registrum Johannis Mey: The Register of John Mey, Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W.G.H. Quigley; E.F.D. Roberts.” Irish Historical Studies 18, no. 71 (March 1, 1973): 441–443.

Simms, Katharine. “The Archbishops of Armagh and the O’Neills 1347-1471.” Irish Historical Studies 19, no. 73 (March 1, 1974): 38–55.

———. “The Concordat between Primate John Mey and Henry O’Neill(1455).” Archivium Hibernicum 34 (January 1, 1977): 71–82. doi:10.2307/25487422.

Sughi, Mario A. “The Appointment of Octavian de Palatio as Archbishop of Armagh, 1477-8.” Irish Historical Studies 31, no. 122 (November 1, 1998): 145–164.

Walsh, Katherine. “The Roman Career of John Swayne, Archbishopof Armagh 1418-1439: Plans for an Irish Hospice in Rome.”Seanchas Ardmhacha: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society 11,no. 1 (January 1, 1983): 1–21. doi:10.2307/29740982.

Watt, J. A. “Registrum Iohannis Mey. The Register of John Mey Archbishop of Armagh, 1443-1456 by W. G. H. Quigley; E. F. D. Roberts.” The English Historical Review 92, no. 365 (October 1, 1977): 853–855.

26 | T C D 2 0 1 3

Date post:	22-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tcd
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

O'Neill Dominance in 15th Century Armagh

Documents