Patrick Plunkett

Audited 31 Jul 2026 — Junction #7. ⛔⛔ THE DUNSOGHLY GRAFT ABOVE THIS MAN IS CONTRADICTED BY THE STANDARD AUTHORITY, not merely unsourced. F. Elrington Ball, 'A History of the County Dublin', vol. 6, p. 76, read in full text from archive.org (historyofcountyd06ball) on 31 Jul 2026: 'Nicholas Plunket[t] was the grandson of James P[l]unkett, and had succeeded to Dunsoghly on the death of his grandfather, whi[c]h took place a few days after the outbreak of the rebellion. HIS FATHER, JOHN PLUNKETT, WHO WAS HIS GRANDFATHER'S ONLY SON, had died ten years before, in or about the year 1631. He had married Elizabeth Roper, daughter of Christopher, second Lord Teynham … and left by her Nicholas, who was born in 1629. After his grandfather's death, Nicholas Plunkett became THE WARD OF SIR HENRY TICHBORNE, who paid two thousand pounds for the trust.' ⭐ TWO INDEPENDENT STRIKES: (1) James's ONLY son was John, d. c.1631 — there is no Patrick; (2) a STRUCTURAL argument that does not depend on Ball's accuracy — a wardship was bought over the 12-year-old GRANDSON, which is only necessary because no son survived. This man, b. 1618, would have been 23 and of full age in 1641. ⭐ CONTROL-BACKED ZERO: a search of the whole volume for 'patrick plunk' returns 0 hits, against an instrument proven live by Plunket 63 / Dunsoghly 53 / Finglas 214 / Bagnal 1. Ball never mentions a Patrick Plunkett. ⭐ AND THE LINE ENDS IN DAUGHTERS (pp. 77-78): 'Henry Plunkett, WHO NEVER MARRIED' d. winter 1760, and his brother Nicholas 'left three daughters who succeeded to Dunsoghly' — so the Dunsoghly male line is extinct in the 1760s. ✅ WHAT BALL CONFIRMS, so the break is exactly ONE generation lower than it looked: p. 71, Sir Christopher was married 'while a child, to a daughter of Sir Nicholas Bagnal'; p. 72, 'his son and successor, James Plunkett'. THE TREE IS RIGHT DOWN TO JAMES. ⚠️ ProofFather and ProofMother on this man's child link were set to 3 = DISPUTED, NOT 2 = disproven: Ball is a 1906 SECONDARY source and no primary record has been read either way. ❌ 'Markree, Sligo' (E4726) is unsupported — Markree was McDonagh clan land in the barony of Tirerrill until Cornet Edward Cooper was allotted it in 1663; no Plunkett connection appears in any account of the castle. That is an argument from the ownership record, not a search of Sligo landholding — the Books of Survey and Distribution vol. 16 (Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo) would settle it. ⚠️ THE 1679 DEATH DATE WAS LEFT ALONE: Patrick Plunkett, Catholic Bishop of Meath, died 18 Nov 1679, matching exactly — but he was born 1603, not 1618, and was a brother of the 1st Earl of Fingall, i.e. the KILLEEN branch, not Dunsoghly. The date was probably borrowed from the bishop; that is NOT the same as saying the bishop is this man. ⛔ THE 1641 DEPOSITIONS WERE NOT SEARCHED — 1641.tcd.ie now returns an F5 CAPTCHA interstitial to curl, to a real signed-in Chrome, AND in every Wayback capture; the printed IMC edition on archive.org is access-restricted and failed a control query on 'rebell'. NOTHING was learned from the depositions in either direction. ⭐⭐ AND WE KNOW WHICH ONE TO PULL: Ball's own footnote (vol. 6 p. 72 n. 2) cites 'Depositions, 1641, Trinity College Library, LUKE MARIOTT' as his source on James Plunkett's affairs. ➡️ MOST DECISIVE NEXT DOCUMENT: the inquisition post mortem / Chancery inquisition for James Plunkett of Dunsoghly, Co. Dublin, 1641-42, which names the heir and surviving issue on oath. ➡️ THE ONE AVENUE NOT EXCLUDED: Ball p. 71 shows Sir Christopher had more than one son ('one of his sons … being educated at Douai', 1609), so a Patrick could be CHRISTOPHER's son and JAMES's BROTHER — which still would not produce the tree as written, and for which no evidence exists. ⚠️ NOTHING WAS DELETED: the parent link is flagged and explained, not cut. Severing it would lose the question along with the answer. Memo: ancestry/plunkett-dunsoghly-junction.md, the 31 Jul (night) section. ── ADDENDUM 31 Jul 2026, SAME DAY, AND IT UPGRADES THE VERDICT: DISPUTED -> DISPROVEN. The note above said 'do not upgrade to 2 without the inquisition post mortem'. THE INQUISITION POST MORTEM WAS FOUND AND READ THE SAME HOUR, free, in the printed Repertorium of the Irish Chancery inquisitions (vol. I, Dublin 1826; archive.org india.history.resource.77918). Co. Dublin, Car. I, inq. 74, taken Jan 1643: « 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'. » ⛔⛔ CONSANGUINEUS ET HERES = KINSMAN and heir, NOT son — and the same volume proves the wording is deliberate, using 'FIL' & HER'' (filius et heres) for Christopher -> James in inq. 40. A sworn jury found in Jan 1643 that James Plunkett's heir was a 13-year-old kinsman. Under primogeniture a LIVING SON inherits before a grandson: this man, born 1618, would have been 23 and of full age on 4 Nov 1641, would have been the heir, and no wardship would have been needed. HE CANNOT HAVE BEEN JAMES PLUNKETT'S SURVIVING SON. ProofFather and ProofMother set to 2 = DISPROVEN. ⚠️ THE SIZE OF THE CLAIM: this excludes a surviving LEGITIMATE son in Nov 1641. It does not speak to an illegitimate son, nor to a son who predeceased without issue — but neither fits a man who died in 1679 with children born from 1648. ⚠️ THE LINK WAS NOT CUT. A disproven link that is flagged and explained is more useful than a severed one, which loses the question along with the answer; RootsMagic's 'disproven' flag exists for this. ➡️ WHAT IS STILL OPEN: who this man's father actually was. Everything below him — Roscommon, Killummod, Knockroe — stands on its own evidence and is untouched by this. The 1641 Depositions (Luke Mariott, TCD MSS 809-841, cited by Ball vi. 72 n. 2) remain unsearched behind a CAPTCHA and could still name Plunkett kin. Memo: ancestry/plunkett-dunsoghly-junction.md.