JAMES PLUNKETT

Inquisition post mortem, Co. DUBLIN, Car. I, no. 40, taken at KILMAINHAM 28 MAY 1635. Read from the printed calendar 31 Jul 2026 (archive.org india.history.resource.77918). The inquisition finds that Oliver late Lord of Louth, Gerald Aylmer, Patrick Barnewall, Robert Barnewall and Walter Bealing were seised to the use of CHRIST' PLUNCKET and his heirs of the manor &c. of DUNSOGHLY and OUGHTERMOY — « 1 castr', 10 mes' & 120 acr' ter' » — with Larryston, Corbally, Donowre and Merryvall (10 messuages, 300 acres), DUBBER (« 1 castr' », 6 messuages, 80 acres), Hollywoodrath, Scribriston & Porterston, Killmacmonan, Johnston & Braghan, Bushopswood & Bushopsland, Whiteleas & Ballseskan alias Killseske, and 10 acres near the bridge of Finglas; with leases to Sir Edward Fisher (1627) and Sir Samuel Mayart (1619, 1628). ⭐ THE OPERATIVE FINDING, verbatim: « praefat' Christ' Pluncket condidit ultimà voluntat' suà ULT' DIE JUN' 1634, cujus tenor sequit' in orig', & 18 MAR' 1634, OBIIT. — praefat' JAC' PLUNCKET EST EJUS FIL' & HER', ETAT' 48 ANNOR' & MARITAT'. » ⇒ he made his will on the LAST DAY OF JUNE 1634 (its text entered on the original roll) and DIED 18 MARCH 1634 Old Style = 18 March 1635 modern; JAMES PLUNKET IS HIS SON AND HEIR, AGED 48 AND MARRIED ⇒ James born between May 1586 and May 1587. ⚠️ OLD STYLE is not assumed here, it is FORCED: the will of 30 June 1634 must precede the death, so '18 mar 1634' cannot be March 1634 modern. ⚠️ VARIANT: inq. 74 (Jan 1643) restates this death as « 13 mar 1634 » and the will as « ult jun 1635 ». The will cannot postdate the death, so 74's '1635' is an error; 40 is the better witness, taken ten weeks after the event. The DAY (18 vs 13) is an unresolved variant. ⭐ NOTE the formula « FIL' & HER' » — filius et heres, SON and heir. The same volume uses « consanguin' & her' » when the heir is NOT a son. See the inq. 74 citation.

Inquisition post mortem, Co. DUBLIN, Car. I, no. 74, taken JANUARY 1643 (running head of the printed section: « DUBLIN. A.D. 1648—1649 » for the enrolment). Read from the printed calendar 31 Jul 2026 (archive.org india.history.resource.77918). Recites the Dunsoghly settlements from 1619 onward, naming « Christ' Plunkett mil' » and « Jac' Plunkett » acting together as feoffees in 1619, 1627 and 1628; then: « praefat' Christ' Plunkett mil' condidit ultim' voluntat' [suam], ult' jun' 1635, cujus tenor menconat' est in praedict' inquis'. — 13 mar' 1634 praedict' Christ' Plunkett OBIIT. — JAC' PLUNKETT FUIT EJUS FIL' & HER' … » « Idem Jac' Plunkett, p fact' suum dat' 4 maii 1636, concessit praefat' Samuel Mayart [premissa] in Johnston … p term' 99 annor'. » ⭐⭐⭐ THE OPERATIVE FINDING, verbatim: « IDEM JAC' PLUNKETT OBIIT 4 NOV' 1641. — NIC' PLUNKETT EST CONSANGUIN' & HER' praedict' Jac', & tempore mortis praedict' Jac' FUIT ETAT' 13 ANNOR' & 10 MENS', NON MARITAT'. » ⇒ JAMES PLUNKETT DIED 4 NOVEMBER 1641; his heir was NICHOLAS PLUNKETT, aged 13 years and 10 months and unmarried ⇒ born about January 1628. ⛔⛔ « CONSANGUINEUS ET HERES » = KINSMAN and heir, NOT son. The distinction is legally load-bearing and this same volume observes it: Christopher → James is « FIL' & HER' » (inq. 40), and inq. 73, immediately preceding, likewise uses « consanguin' & her' » of Edward Walsh. ⇒ THE JURORS FOUND ON OATH THAT JAMES'S HEIR WAS NOT HIS SON. Under primogeniture a living son is heir before a grandson, so James had no surviving legitimate son on 4 Nov 1641. A Patrick Plunkett born 1618 would have been 23 and of full age, would have been the heir, and no wardship of a 13-year-old would have been required. ⭐ This independently confirms F. E. Ball, 'A History of the County Dublin' vi. 76, from a PRIMARY record — and corrects Ball's '1629' for Nicholas's birth to about January 1628. ⚠️ SIZE OF THE CLAIM: this excludes a surviving legitimate son in Nov 1641. It says nothing about an illegitimate son, or one who predeceased without issue — neither of which fits a Patrick who died in 1679 with children born from 1648. ⚠️ The Chancery rolls this calendars were destroyed in the 1922 Four Courts fire; the printed text is now the only witness.