I

The difference between abduction and the use of women as hostages is not always clear. In theory the two were very different phenomena, which ought not to be easily confused, but, as we shall see, recent research has proposed that the use of women as hostages was more widespread than is generally believed. Because of this, and a similarity of description between these different actions in various chronicles, there are now certain cases that occasion debate.

A close examination can go some way towards dispelling confusion. In the Irish context, abduction and hostage-taking must both be defined with reference to the law texts. There, abduction, ‘fochsal’ or ‘foxal’, followed by intercourse, was deemed a form of marriage, ‘lánamnas foxail’, and not rape, if consented to by the woman.Footnote ⁵ It is stipulated that such a union is formed with the consent of the woman but in defiance of her father or kin. This definition makes it clear that it is a single woman, unmarried or divorced, who is under consideration. However, the normative law texts are at odds with the political history of the annals. There, it is the married woman who is almost invariably the victim of abduction. The purpose of these abductions can be inferred on most occasions to be the humiliation of her husband. One law text, Uraicecht na Ríar, does show the married woman as a victim of abduction and it supports this interpretation. ‘For abducting his wife in disregard of him’, an aggressor would incur the largest possible penalty payable to an ollam.Footnote ⁶

In 1162 the king of the Northern Uí Néill, Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn, was advancing a claim to kingship of Ireland:Footnote ⁷ the Annals of Tigernach record that there was ‘a hosting by the son of Mac Lochlainn together with the men of Ireland to the Foreigners of Dublin to avenge his wife and her violation by them, but they separated without peace without battle’.Footnote ⁸ The circumstances under which the violation of Mac Lochlainn's wife had occurred are not recorded and this is the only entry in any surviving collection that alludes to it. On this basis it is also reasonable to suppose, especially given Mac Lochlainn's stature, that the record of many other such abductions has been lost over time or that they went unrecorded in the first place.

A similar abduction recorded in the annals took place in 1231, when Ua Domnaill brought away Cathal Ua Ragallaig's wife as part of a general raid of the territory of east Bréifne.Footnote ⁹ Examples of abduction as a political stratagem also appear in the fourteenth-century record. For instance, in 1315 Máel Ruanaid Mac Diarmata and Gilbert Mac Goisdelb abducted the wife of a rival, Diarmait Mac Diarmata, as a part of a general raid of Mag Luirg in Connacht.Footnote ¹⁰

Hostage-taking, by contrast, is a phenomenon with countless examples and one chiefly concerned with men rather than women. We should, therefore, be very cautious about attributing this categorisation to women on any given occasion. As pointed out by Lahney Preston-Matto, hostages were legally distinct from captives across Europe generally in the Middle Ages,Footnote ¹¹ and this was also the case under Irish law.Footnote ¹² In fact, different types of hostage were recognised in Ireland. Hostage may be a translation from ‘gíall’, ‘aitire’ or ‘brága’, depending on the context. In the inter-provincial political arena, a hostage was (almost always) a person given in guarantee of submission who could be killed, blinded or ransomed if that submission was breached.Footnote ¹³

Some thought has been given to the legal distinction between ‘géill’ and ‘aitiri’, and it has been argued that the original meaning of aitire was a representative of high rank who did not signify submission or loss of status for the king or people for whom they acted.Footnote ¹⁴ By contrast, the yielding of géill by one lord to another did denote the submission of the giver and recognition of the authority of the latter. Nonetheless, it has also been acknowledged that whatever their semantic differences originally, these terms were becoming interchangeable by the tenth century.Footnote ¹⁵

The term ‘brága’ (plural ‘braighde’) is also used for hostages in this period. It derives from a term for the neck or throat.Footnote ¹⁶ For this reason, it has been suggested that its increasing frequency reflects a growing trend towards the mistreatment of political hostages, but the usage of this term in the annals does not support such a claim.Footnote ¹⁷ Brága appears in the sense of hostage as early as 882 in Chronicon Scotorum and 1059 in the Annals of Tigernach, though, of course, this may be due to the influence of later copyists.Footnote ¹⁸ It occurs under 1113 and 1120, and then becomes the dominant term for hostage from the mid twelfth century.Footnote ¹⁹

Only one woman is explicitly called a hostage in the annals. That was the daughter of Eochaid Mac Duinn Sléibe, who was taken as a hostage by Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn in 1165.Footnote ²⁰ She was recorded to have been a brágaFootnote ²¹ (a ingin féin i m-braightechus), but elsewhere in the same entry she and other hostages are called géill,Footnote ²² again suggesting interchangeability. The circumstances of her surrender to Mac Lochlainn were exceptional. Donnchad Ua Cerbaill induced Mac Lochlainn to accept the return of Mac Duinn Sléibe as king of Ulaid, the latter having only recently been ousted by Mac Lochlainn. In return for acceding to this unsatisfactory arrangement, Mac Lochlainn demanded a son from every regional king in Ulaid and Mac Duinn Sléibe's daughter. In other words, the demand of a daughter as a hostage was exceptional, just as was the demand for a hostage from every regional king.

Anthony Candon has argued that the 1053 capture of Mór ingen Uí Chonchobair Failge from Gilla Pádraig, king of Osraige, by Conchobar ua Máel Sechlainn constituted an instance where a female hostage was concerned, rather than an abduction.Footnote ²³ It was this argument that provoked a reinterpretation of other cases of apparent abduction. Preston-Matto contended that the so-called three Gormlaiths and Derbforgaill ingen Uí Máel Sechlainn all represented hostages in their respective contexts.Footnote ²⁴ There are no obvious grounds, however, for the comparison between these women.

There is good reason to accept the idea that Mór was indeed a hostage, though she was not referred to by any of the three relevant terms when she was captured in 1053.Footnote ²⁵ She was taken by Conchobar ua Máel Sechlainn, a man known to have been her husband some time before, from Gilla Pádraic, king of Osraige. There is no record of how she came into Gilla Pádraic's keeping and, so, it is impossible to say for certain that she was not his wife by this time. Her status as a hostage is based on two points. The first is that she was a person of demonstrable political influence in her husband's circle before this incident.Footnote ²⁶ The second is that her recorded children were all by Conchobar ua Máel Sechlainn, reducing the likelihood of a second marriage.Footnote ²⁷

The idea that Meath was in ‘complete disarray’ after Máel Sechlainn Ua Máel Sechlainn's death in 1155 justified Preston-Matto in suggesting that Derbforgaill could be characterised as the ‘main legitimate representative of the kingdom of Temair’ at that time.Footnote ²⁸ She further inferred that Derbforgaill had major standing before his death, including at the time of her abduction in 1152. The exact dynamic at play in Meath will be discussed below so far as it relates to Derbforgaill's substantial donations, but here it suffices to say that Mór's hypothesised importance was not to her natal family, the Uí Chonchobair Failge, but rather to her first (and possibly only) husband Conchobar ua Máel Sechlainn.Footnote ²⁹ The case being made for Derbforgaill is, therefore, quite different. It is also somewhat confused between her importance to her natal family and her importance to her husband.Footnote ³⁰

The appeal by another historian that ‘Derbforgaill is mentioned far more often in contemporary accounts than her mediocre importance as wife of Tigernán Ua Ruairc, a minor provincial king, should entitle her to’ is a misreading of her relationship with her husband.Footnote ³¹ That relationship was not antagonistic, nor, it should be added, was Ua Ruairc a minor provincial king.Footnote ³² The vision of the two in opposition probably owes something to a throwaway comment made by Donnchadh Ó Corráin, who wrote that ‘Mac Murrough added insult to injury by abducting Tigernán's wife, Dervorgilla, who according to some of the annals was more than a willing victim, for Tigernán was as difficult in love as he was in politics’.Footnote ³³

Ó Corráin's reading was undoubtedly based on the Annals of Clonmacnoise, which report of Derbforgaill's capture that ‘shee was procured and enduced thereunto by her unadvised brother Melaghlin for some abuses of her husband Tyernan don before’, but the expression ‘for abuses don before’ is not a reference to abuse of Derbforgaill.Footnote ³⁴ It is a description of military action against the Uí Máel Sechlainn that had antagonised Derbforgaill's male relations, especially Máel Sechlainn Ua Máel Sechlainn. The expression is used in this way elsewhere in the Annals of Clonmacnoise.Footnote ³⁵ Derbforgaill also returned to Ua Ruairc after this episode, in 1153, even though divorce was easily obtainable.

There are other points that tell against the interpretation of Derbforgaill as a hostage. Diarmait Mac Murchada's Anglo-Norman-supported campaign of 1170-71 has created the false impression that he was a king who regularly battled for national supremacy and took the hostages of other provincial rulers.Footnote ³⁶ On the contrary, throughout his career he was more narrowly confined and, before 1170, had never campaigned to be king of Ireland. This is relevant because his march against Tigernán Ua Ruairc has been presented as a logical extension of his authority. On no prior occasion, though, had Mac Murchada invaded Bréifne or attempted to take Ua Ruairc's hostages. When the two had clashed in the past it had been in Meath,Footnote ³⁷ where Mac Murchada had generally been bested by Ua Ruairc, or possibly also in Leinster, where Ua Ruairc had done a great deal of damage as a deputy of Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair.Footnote ³⁸

Mac Murchada's presence in Bréifne is to be explained with reference to a recent association with the king of Connacht Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair, which involved him in affairs outside of his typical orbit, and not as an independent campaign against Ua Ruairc. In 1151, Diarmait Mac Murchada accompanied Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair as he marched against the Uí Briain, and so was present at the Battle of Móin Mór.Footnote ³⁹ After the defeat of the Uí Briain in that battle, suzerainty of Munster fell to Ua Conchobair and not to Mac Murchada.Footnote ⁴⁰ Custody of hostages would presumably have gone along with this. The move against Ua Ruairc in 1152 was primarily conducted by Ua Conchobair and Mac Lochlainn, with Mac Murchada again providing auxiliary support.Footnote ⁴¹ Much as in the case of the Uí Briain, Ua Ruairc's hostages were taken by Ua Conchobair. He brought them to Athlone, a base of the kingdom of Connacht, and Derbforgaill was not among them.Footnote ⁴² That the capture of Derbforgaill was not part of the plan is suggested by the facts that it was Mac Murchada who took her, not Ua Conchobair, that Ua Conchobair marched to Leinster to secure her release the following year, and the subsequent lack of further cooperation between Ua Conchobair and Mac Murchada.Footnote ⁴³

If Mac Murchada did not have form where the capture of hostages in Bréifne was concerned, he did for abduction and rape. In 1132, asserting his claim to the provincial kingship for the first time, he raided Kildare, the most important monastic community in Leinster. Its abbess, Mór, had been installed by Ua Conchobair Failge in 1127 at the expense of a daughter of Cerball Ua Fáeláin, king of Uí Fáeláin. Mac Murchada married Sadb, another daughter of Ua Fáeláin, around 1132, linking his provincial ambitions to that sector of north Leinster.Footnote ⁴⁴ During his attack Mac Murchada had Mór ‘carried off a prisoner, and put into a man's bed’.Footnote ⁴⁵ If the complementary account in Chronicon Scotorum is to believed, it was Mac Murchada's own bed. It reported that ‘the successor of Brigit was betrayed and carried off by Diarmait son of Murchad and forced to submit to him’.Footnote ⁴⁶ It is clear something similar occurred in 1152, despite (or perhaps especially because of) Derbforgaill's noted importance to her husband.Footnote ⁴⁷

Abduction was characterised by rape of the captured woman, usually implied but sometimes explicitly reported, and the consequent humiliation of an important male relation. Though the type of abduction discussed in the law texts envisions this individual as a father, in political circumstances it was almost exclusively a husband. Hostage-taking, by comparison, was intended to provide security for a future relationship. As noted above, there is only one certain case of a woman being employed as a hostage and the circumstances of that were themselves exceptional. There is merit to the argument that Mór ingen Uí Chonchobair Failge was also a hostage, but there is very little to support the idea that many women were used in this role and even less for the idea that Derbforgaill was among them.

Derbforgaill's status as an abductee is all but confirmed by her husband's conduct in 1166–7. Tigernán was instrumental in forcing Mac Murchada to flee from Ireland, leading two expeditions into Leinster: the first as an ally of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, and the second, after Ua Conchobair had returned home to Connacht, which was specifically intended ‘to take revenge for Ó Ruairc's wife’.Footnote ⁴⁸ As Ua Ruairc approached, many of Mac Murchada's nobles rebelled and when he saw that ‘they wanted to capture him, to hand him over and sell him to Ua Ruairc’, he fled from Ireland.Footnote ⁴⁹ When Mac Murchada returned in 1167, his first wave of foreign mercenaries proved insufficient to resist Ua Conchobair, Ua Ruairc and Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn (whom we will meet below). When he was confronted with their army, Mac Murchada paid Ua Ruairc 100 ounces of gold ‘in compensation for his wife’.Footnote ⁵⁰ It is perhaps needless to add that these events are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Derbforgaill had been a hostage.

II

The earliest Irish laws prohibited women from disposing of property without the permission of an appropriate male relation or guardian. This prohibition disappeared by the eighth century, though there is some doubt over whether donations to the church ever controverted it.Footnote ⁵¹ Certainly, even in the very earliest Irish historical documents there are references to women disposing of their own movable wealth. In his confession, Patrick tells how he felt obliged to return the gifts left by pious women on the altar because he did not wish to give anyone reason to criticise his ministry.Footnote ⁵²

There are other records of women donating to the church in early Christian Ireland, many of which are to be found in hagiographies. For instance, the Bethu Brigte records a cow gifted to Brigit by a woman, and of apples and sloes given to Brigit by two nuns.Footnote ⁵³ In a life of Finian of Clonard, translated by Whitley Stokes from the Book of Lismore, Brigit gave Finian a gold ring as he was leaving Kildare. This ring was valuable and Finian refused it to demonstrate his lack of interest in worldly possessions, but Brigit counselled him that though he refused it, he would need it.Footnote ⁵⁴ A life of Brigit from the same collection mentions the donation of a silver chain to Brigit by the queen of Crimthann mac Énna Cennselaig, king of Leinster.Footnote ⁵⁵ Similar donations are found in poetry and an expectation of such gifts from women also appears in the law tract Cáin Adamnáin. It demanded that all women, from the wife of a lord (bantoísech) to an unfree woman (bandoíre), regularly donate according to their ability.Footnote ⁵⁶ The amount expected from the wife of a lord was even specified: a scruple, or one twenty-fourth of an ounce, of gold.Footnote ⁵⁷

Lisa Bitel's collection of references to female donations to the church also includes women's surrender of themselves as persons to the church, a factor which is arguably just as relevant, but the examples above have been selected to show material rather than personal endowments.Footnote ⁵⁸ Such material contributions were minor, being for the most part ornaments, food and drink, an animal or a small number of animals, and small amounts of gold. The few relevant annal entries excluded from Bitel's analysis also correspond to this pattern. For instance, a cup of silver engraved by the daughter of Ruaidrí na Saide Buide Ua Conchobair was given to Clonmacnoise in 1129,Footnote ⁵⁹ and in 1153 Mac Duinn Sléibe's wife gave an offering of a single ounce of gold to Flaithbertach Ua Brolcháin, successor of Colm Cille.Footnote ⁶⁰

Even such gifts as these had value relative to the wealth women could expect to hold in medieval Ireland. A woman's personal holdings were always small compared to male contemporaries of the same class and derived primarily from her marriage. Categories of marriage were distinguished according to the wealth contributed by each participant, and legal capacity also depended on this factor; a man or woman who did not contribute equally to their marriage was subject to limitations on legal competence.Footnote ⁶¹ For most of the medieval period, though, a marriage of joint authority (lánamnas comthinchuir), resulting from joint contribution, was the most common type, at least among the nobility.

Describing the marriage practices of medieval Ireland in this way exaggerates the independence of women, however. As Bart Jaski argued, ‘the property she brought into the marriage did not come from her own assets — a woman usually had little or no private possessions which she could control freely — but from coibche given to her by her husband, which in an earlier period was given to her father’.Footnote ⁶² Jaski elsewhere conceded that ‘It may also be that the family made this contribution or dowry of their own accord, called tinchor or tinól in the legal texts.’Footnote ⁶³ The ‘coibche’ was a ‘bride-price’, later ‘bride-gift’, or payment associated with formal marriage. Though its value is nowhere recorded in the original laws, according to later legal commentators it equalled the bride's honour-price, which was half that of her father.Footnote ⁶⁴ Following marriage, a woman had half the honour-price of her husband.Footnote ⁶⁵

The link between coibche and a woman's honour-price, calculated as a fraction of her father's, must have impacted the wealth held by noble women of the highest class in subsequent centuries, because, as we shall now see, the honour price of provincial kings inflated considerably between the codification of the law texts and the twelfth century. The law tract Uraicecht Bec, dating to the ninth or early tenth century,Footnote ⁶⁶ reported that the king of Munster had an honour-price of fourteen cumala,Footnote ⁶⁷ a value which was elsewhere attributed to provincial kings in general.Footnote ⁶⁸ An earlier law tract, Bretha Nemed toísech, from the eighth century,Footnote ⁶⁹ gave twenty-one cumala for a supreme king,Footnote ⁷⁰ though this does not necessarily equate with a provincial king since yet another legal tract, Míadshlechta, perhaps eighth-century in date,Footnote ⁷¹ provided a further increment for a king of Ireland, called a tríath, whose honour-price was placed at five cumala of red gold.Footnote ⁷² A cumal was a unit of value, originally meaning a female slave. Allowing for variance and change over time, it has been estimated to equate roughly to between two and four cows, or three ounces of silver.Footnote ⁷³ It may also have had a land value of roughly thirty-five statute acres.Footnote ⁷⁴

The law texts reflect Irish society when they were recorded — i.e., usually circa 800. By the twelfth century, there is evidence to suggest that the honour price of provincial kings had increased. Tigernán Ua Ruairc demanded 100 ounces of gold from Mac Murchada as his eineach or honour-price in 1167.Footnote ⁷⁵ In 1168, the murderers of Murchad Ua Finnalláin, king of Delbna, paid either 700 or 800 cows as ‘eneclann’, or compensation for the violation of ‘eineach’ or honour-price, to the guarantors of Ua Finnalláin's life.Footnote ⁷⁶ This payment was quite separate from the ‘eraic’ fine incurred by the murder itself. The right to have eneclann calculated in precious metals was a prerogative of certain kindreds only, which may explain the payment in gold on one occasion and the payment in cattle on another, but gold may simply appear in the record as a unit of account.Footnote ⁷⁷ A similar payment was made by the murderers of Muirchertach Ua Briain, also in 1168, amounting to 720 cows.Footnote ⁷⁸ This was also eneclann, though it has been mistakenly rendered as eraic in the English translation of the standard edition.Footnote ⁷⁹

There is some ambiguity here since roughly the same payment (700–800 cows) was made to Ua Conchobair alone in one case (for Ua Briain's assassination) and to Ua Conchobair and Ua Cerbaill together in the other (for Ua Finnalláin's). Furthermore, going by the exchange rates offered in a Middle Irish legal commentary, the 100 ounces of gold given to Ua Ruairc in 1167 would be far in excess of even 800 cows.Footnote ⁸⁰ There is no reason to believe Ua Ruairc's eineach would be greater than Ua Conchobair's, but at the least it must be acknowledged that the twenty-one cow honour-price had been set aside in favour of larger payments, though undoubtedly the law texts still provided the underlying rationale.Footnote ⁸¹ This may also have happened in earlier eras, but it is the first evidence of it in the annals.

With an increase in honour-price must have come a corresponding increase in the wealth held by daughters of the major provincial kings. On this evidence we can suggest that, for females of royal status, the coibche payment in the twelfth century was somewhere between six hundred cows (equal to fifty ounces of gold according to the exchange rates typically used in legal commentaries) and three hundred cows.Footnote ⁸² As a result these women brought relatively large sums into their marriages. They were probably also gifted additional wealth by their own families. Though inexact, we can by these means approximate the movable wealth of women who donated to the church in the twelfth century.

Therefore, though donations to churches have been described as ‘frequent and substantial’,Footnote ⁸³ they are almost all minor and in keeping with expectable wealth for a woman in the period. That is, apart from the donations of Derbforgaill in the mid-twelfth century. Derbforgaill gave sixty ounces of gold to the new Cistercian foundation at Mellifont in 1157Footnote ⁸⁴ and she ‘completed’ the nuns’ church at Clonmacnoise in 1167.Footnote ⁸⁵ The question is not whether Derbforgaill's donations were exceptional, because by comparison with other donations by women they clearly were, but rather how she was able to make them and why she did so.

Along with generally increased wealth of noble women by the twelfth century, there is reason to regard Derbforgaill as an especially wealthy woman. When she was abducted by Diarmait Mac Murchada in 1152, it is noted particularly that she was taken ‘with her wealth,’Footnote ⁸⁶ ‘with her cattle’Footnote ⁸⁷ or ‘with her cattle and furniture’.Footnote ⁸⁸ Two different accounts of her return exist. In one, it is simply reported that ‘the daughter of Murchadh Ó Maelseachnaill came again to Ó Ruairc by flight from Leinster’.Footnote ⁸⁹ According to the other, however, Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair invaded Leinster ‘and took away the daughter of Ua Maeleachlainn, with her cattle’.Footnote ⁹⁰ It seems evident that her personal wealth was considerable to warrant such attention, not only from the kings of Leinster and Connacht, but also from the annalists who recorded these events.

One other significant point raised by Bitel is the idea that ‘every gift was given in response to and/or in the expectation of some sort of return’.Footnote ⁹¹ The returns considered by Bitel are primarily prospective religious ones, such as the intercession of the saints or a place in heaven,Footnote ⁹² or very minor material returns.Footnote ⁹³ What she does not consider, however, are the potential political returns and implications of gifts and donations. As great a donation as Derbforgaill gave to Mellifont, or even to Clonmacnoise, could only take place in a political context. This political context is to be discovered in the operation of her husband's kingdom and its neighbours.

III

Tigernán Ua Ruairc's long career was defined by intervention in Meath and even his marriage to Derbforgaill was an outcome of that interest. He dominated the kings of Meath as much as possible to extend his authority and protect his territorial gains at their expense. For many years, the de jure king of Meath was Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn, Derbforgaill's father. A brother of Derbforgaill, Máel Sechlainn Ua Máel Sechlainn, was the architect of Derbforgaill's abduction in 1152 and when Murchad died in 1153 he acceded to the kingship.Footnote ⁹⁴ That Ua Ruairc could not prevent this is evidence of diminished power in Meath after the events of 1152. However, in 1155 Máel Sechlainn Ua Máel Sechlainn was poisoned at Durrow,Footnote ⁹⁵ and the recovering king of Bréifne was probably responsible.

The kingship of Meath was then contested by two Uí Máel Sechlainn half-brothers, Donnchad and Diarmait. Each received support from different quarters, as Meath's neighbours sought to take advantage. Donnchad was endorsed by Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn, claimant of the kingship of Ireland, who imposed him as king.Footnote ⁹⁶ Unfortunately for Donnchad he was quickly deposedFootnote ⁹⁷ and left for Leinster to seek the help of Diarmait Mac Murchada.Footnote ⁹⁸ Mac Murchada took advantage of the opportunity to attack Tigernán Ua Ruairc's holdings in Meath under the guise of supporting Donnchad.Footnote ⁹⁹ Ua Ruairc naturally backed the claim of Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn, in opposition, though Mac Murchada won the battle when their forces met in 1156.Footnote ¹⁰⁰

After gaining this victory and recovering the kingship, Donnchad had one of the sub-kings of east Meath killed. Cú Ulad Ua Caindelbáin of Laegaire was firmly in Ua Ruairc's sphere, which probably prompted his assassination.Footnote ¹⁰¹ Ua Ruairc invaded Meath in response, but once again was unsuccessful.Footnote ¹⁰² It was in precisely this political climate that the consecration of a church at Mellifont, and the great donation of Derbforgaill, took place. She gave sixty ounces of gold, which was the equal of Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn's contribution of gold (he also gave cows and land) and of Ua Cerbaill's entire contribution. Derbforgaill also gave a chalice of gold and cloths for the nine altars.Footnote ¹⁰³

What, then, were the political implications and returns of Derbforgaill's donation? Ua Ruairc's presence, and the donation of his wife, certainly constituted a belated acceptance of Mac Lochlainn's overkingship. The synod was convened under the auspices of the king of the Northern Uí Néill, who made the largest donation: 140 cows, sixty ounces of gold and a grant of land.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ In return for Ua Ruairc's acknowledgment of his authority, Mac Lochlainn acquiesced to the excommunication of his former client, Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn. Donnchad was also removed from the kingship of Meath in favour of Diarmait.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Cú Ulad Ua Caindelbáin's assassination was the pretext for the volte-face, but Ua Ruairc's acknowledgment of Mac Lochlainn was the real reason Mac Lochlainn abandoned Donnchad.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ This settlement subsequently broke down and the kingship of Meath was contested again in subsequent years, but the excommunication and deposition of Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn in 1157 was a quid pro quo for the substantial donation made by Derbforgaill.

As for the substance of the donation itself, there remains a question of exactly whose funds were being donated. Derbforgaill's sixty ounces of gold (or its equivalent in silver or cattle) would have constituted an overwhelming portion of her own (significant) wealth. Considering the political advantage that accrued to Ua Ruairc through the donation, it seems reasonable to suppose that it was made at least partly with his support. Records are unequivocal that it was Derbforgaill who made the contribution, but contrary to the arguments and interpretations of modern historians, there is no reason to suppose that Derbforgaill acted independently or that she would not have supported her husband.Footnote ¹⁰⁷ Instead, Derbforgaill's donation at Mellifont should be regarded as uxorial support of Ua Ruairc's policies.

If the uxorial link and not the natal is key to understanding Derbforgaill's patronage, we must re-assess the connection to Clonmacnoise as well. The case for Derbforgaill's patronage of the nuns’ church at Clonmacnoise as a protraction of Uí Máel Sechlainn benefaction at the monastery has been boosted by, and indeed largely based on, the idea that Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn granted the church of the nuns at Clonmacnoise to Arrouasian nuns at Clonard in 1144. This appears in numerous works, but is in fact groundless.Footnote ¹⁰⁸

The work of Raghnall Ó Floinn,Footnote ¹⁰⁹ cited as supporting the theory of continued Uí Máel Sechlainn interest in Clonmacnoise,Footnote ¹¹⁰ makes no claim about either continued interest or an 1144 grant. Similarly, the work of John Brady,Footnote ¹¹¹ cited in support of the grant,Footnote ¹¹² contains no such content or evidence.Footnote ¹¹³ This factoid derives rather from Annette Kehnel's expansion on an earlier claim by Aubrey Gwynn and Richard Neville Hadcock's Medieval religious houses: Ireland, and William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, a seventeenth-century catalogue of religious houses and their dependencies. Kehnel's work was then accepted by others and used, directly or indirectly, to support the idea that Derbforgaill's 1167 patronage was an extension of her father's in 1144.Footnote ¹¹⁴

A transcript of a papal confirmation from February 1196 is extant, recognising the nuns’ church at Clonmacnoise as a dependency of the house at Clonard, but with no allusion to an earlier grant.Footnote ¹¹⁵ The claim of an earlier Ua Máel Sechlainn grant appears rather to derive from Gwynn and Hadcock, who stated that Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn ‘almost certainly’ founded the house at Clonard in 1144Footnote ¹¹⁶ and, further, that ‘The O'Melaghlins were also closely connected’ with Clonmacnoise.Footnote ¹¹⁷ Their justification for claiming that Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn founded a house of nuns at Clonard in 1144 was that, according to themselves, in Visio Tnugdali, St Malachy is said to have established houses of Irish nuns in 1144 and Clonard subsequently enjoyed pre-eminence among these.Footnote ¹¹⁸ Gwynn and Hadcock appear to have mistranslated Visio Tnugdali, which recorded the number of houses of monks and nuns founded by Malachy rather than the year in which they were founded. Most editions of this text record this number as fifty-four houses,Footnote ¹¹⁹ but the French translation used by Gwynn and Hadcock stated that Malachy founded forty-four in total.Footnote ¹²⁰ Judging by their own citation, they interpreted this passage to mean Malachy had founded houses of nuns in Ireland in 1144.Footnote ¹²¹

Kehnel further extended their supposition that Ua Máel Sechlainn oversaw the establishment of an Arrouaisian nuns’ convent at Clonard in 1144, but their summary of the record of the convent of nuns at Clonmacnoise in the passage referred to by Kehnel makes no positive reference to a Meath influence at Clonmacnoise in the same year.Footnote ¹²² Clonard's associations with the Uí Máel Sechlainn in the twelfth century are easy to verify and, though the reference to 1144 is groundless, the Arrouaisian observance is still likely to have been introduced there between 1142 (when Malachy established his first foundation in Ireland) and 1148 (when he died). On the other hand, as we will see, Uí Máel Sechlainn links with Clonmacnoise are much more elusive.

The contemporary political situation in Meath provides further grounds for challenging the supposition of Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn's involvement at Clonmacnoise, at least in 1144. This is partly because 1143–4 was a particularly tumultuous time in Meath. In 1143, the king of Connacht Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair deposed the incumbent king of Meath, Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn, imposing his own son Conchobar in Murchad's place.Footnote ¹²³ Conchobar was murdered within the year because he was not from Meath.Footnote ¹²⁴ Toirdelbach invaded Meath once again in 1144, to avenge his son.Footnote ¹²⁵ He then enforced a new political arrangement in Meath, and in fact two different arrangements, which may or may not be mutually exclusive, are recorded.

In both, he partitioned Meath. The first saw Donnchad son of Muirchertach Ua Máel Sechlainn given the west, and the east was further divided between Tigernán Ua Ruairc and Diarmait Mac Murchada.Footnote ¹²⁶ In the other, Toirdelbach restored Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn to east Meath alone and an unnamed son of Muirchertach Ua Máel Sechlainn was given the west.Footnote ¹²⁷ On the evidence of the annals, then, 1144 would be an especially unlikely time for Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn to intervene at Clonmacnoise. James Ware, who was also cited by Gwynn and Hadcock on the question,Footnote ¹²⁸ reports only that Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn founded the nunnery at Clonard before the arrival of the English.Footnote ¹²⁹

Moreover, unlike Clonard, in the mid-twelfth century Clonmacnoise was dominated by the kings of Connacht rather than those of Meath. Clonmacnoise had once received most patronage from Meath, but its associations with that kingdom declined sharply after Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair came to power in Connacht in 1114. As Kehnel remarked, ‘Donations, building activities in the monastery, as well as military support, were the characteristic features of Ua Máelsechlainn patronage over Clonmacnois during the tenth and early eleventh century. All three domains were taken over by the Ua Conchobair kings of Connacht from the later eleventh century.’Footnote ¹³⁰ The donations included ‘jewels’ (altar plate) offered in 1115 and a belfry built in 1124.Footnote ¹³¹ The defence of the monastery included action against the English, as in 1178 when ‘Hugo de Lacy came with a great and strong battalion to plunder Clonmacnois. But the Connachtmen did not let them sleep that night and early on the morrow he was carried off for fear of Ruaidhrí Ó Conchobhair and the Síol Muireadhaigh overtaking them in Cumang Cluana.’Footnote ¹³² The switch of political orientation at Clonmacnoise is underlined by the list of items stolen from the community in 1129. They included sacred objects given by patrons on both sides of the Shannon, but what is notable is the age of the items. A century-old model of Solomon's Temple given by Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill (d. 1022) and the chalice given by Donnchad mac Flainn (d. 944) were the noted items of Meath origin. The stolen objects thus highlight again the replacement of former patrons by Ua Conchobair.Footnote ¹³³

The appearances of Connacht families in positions of leadership at Clonmacnoise also increased dramatically in the twelfth century. The Uí Mháeleoin appear as comarbai or abbots of Clonmacnoise from 1109 onwards and, though their origins are obscure, Kehnel highlighted a passage in a little-known eighteenth-century manuscript where the author described them as an offshoot of the Uí Chonchobair.Footnote ¹³⁴ More reliably, the Uí Neachtain of Uí Maine in Connacht appear as heads of the Céilí Dé community at Clonmacnoise and the Uí Dubhthaigh archbishops of Connacht also had associations with Clonmacnoise.Footnote ¹³⁵

To stress the point still further, the kings of Connacht, and many other nobles of the province besides, were buried at Clonmacnoise in the twelfth century. This could be said of Ruaidrí na Saide Buide Ua Conchobair in 1118, Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair in 1156 and Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair in 1198, as well as Gilla na Naem Ua hEidin (one-time usurping king of Síl Muiredaig) in 1100.Footnote ¹³⁶ As for the many slain in the battle between Connacht and the Cenél Conaill in 1181, ‘the bodies of those nobles were conveyed, after their deaths, to Cluain-mic-Nois, and interred in the sepulchre of the nobles of their ancestors’, which suggests the prevalence of the practice.Footnote ¹³⁷ Meanwhile, the kings of Meath and their spouses, whose predecessors had previously done so, were interred at Durrow.Footnote ¹³⁸ Remarkably, a mint was also established by the Uí Chonchobair at Clonmacnoise in the twelfth century, in operation in the 1170s, and possibly earlier.Footnote ¹³⁹ Another important source, the Annals of Tigernach, derive their name from an abbot of Clonmacnoise and there is reason to believe they were indeed produced ‘in the Clonmacnoise scriptorium’. They were described by Flanagan as an Uí Chonchobair ‘house chronicle’ and noted by her to be favourable towards that dynasty.Footnote ¹⁴⁰ They also terminate in 1178, following the attack on the monastery by Hugh de Lacy in which it was defended by the forces of Connacht.Footnote ¹⁴¹

Therefore, though it has been asserted that Derbforgaill ‘was also very clearly stating her independence from her husband by giving resources to a church in her own family's circle’, this was not so.Footnote ¹⁴² There is only limited evidence to support the notion of a continuous Uí Máel Sechlainn interest in Clonmacnoise in the twelfth century. And, other than this imagined grant by Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn in 1144, all the evidence comes from the 1160s. This is, to wit, a grant of land by Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn to Clonmacnoise in 1161,Footnote ¹⁴³ the freeing of two small churches from ‘cess and press for ever in honour if God and St Queran’,Footnote ¹⁴⁴ also by Diarmait, in 1162, Derbforgaill's completion of the nuns’ church in 1167, and the death of Derbhaile, daughter of Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn, at Clonmacnoise, also in 1167.Footnote ¹⁴⁵

The explanation for these events lies in the political climate that existed when they took place. They represent an alliance with, or rather, dependence on Connacht, not an independent resurrection of Uí Máel Sechlainn influence at Clonmacnoise. In fact, the events were an immediate sequel to the circumstances behind the donation at Mellifont. As discussed above, at that time Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn was excommunicated and deposed. Now, Mac Lochlainn went back on his deal with Ua Ruairc and, in 1159, placed Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn in the kingship of Meath.Footnote ¹⁴⁶

During his exile, Donnchad had sought protection first in Leinster, and later in Connacht.Footnote ¹⁴⁷ In 1159, however, Diarmait's champion Tigernán Ua Ruairc formed an alliance with Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair.Footnote ¹⁴⁸ As a result, Diarmait immediately became the choice of the king of Connacht, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, for kingship in Meath, and Donnchad became Ruaidrí's enemy.Footnote ¹⁴⁹ The alignment thus shifted: Ua Conchobair and Ua Ruairc supported Diarmait and Mac Lochlainn supported Donnchad, who remained in power.

This came to an end in 1160, when Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn was assassinated.Footnote ¹⁵⁰ At once, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair marched into Meath and placed Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn in the kingship.Footnote ¹⁵¹ Furthermore, when Mac Lochlainn marched south to remove Diarmait later the same year, Ua Ruairc and Ua Conchobair supported the latter, and he retained power.Footnote ¹⁵² In 1161, Mac Lochlainn conceded the point and recognised Diarmait as the holder of east Meath and Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair as the holder of west Meath.Footnote ¹⁵³ Immediately afterwards, Diarmait granted Beann Artghaile (site now unknown), ‘to God and St Ciaran’ — that is, to Clonmacnoise.Footnote ¹⁵⁴ Clearly, this was done in recognition of support from the king of Connacht.

Similarly, when in 1162 Diarmait freed Cill Ua Nilucain and Ros Mide from tax ‘for God and Ciaran [Clonmacnoise]’,Footnote ¹⁵⁵ it was just after he had also made a payment of 100 ounces of gold to Ua Conchobair for west Meath.Footnote ¹⁵⁶ It may have been part of the deal, or it may have been further confirmation of good relations, but it certainly took place in the same context. In 1163 Diarmait was deposed once more and a rent was paid to Mac Lochlainn by his successors, rather than to Ua Conchobair.Footnote ¹⁵⁷ The donations to Clonmacnoise could also reflect Uí Máel Sechlainn desire to re-establish their connection with that site, but their political weakness in this period means that it was not an independent assertion of influence. After the fall of Mac Lochlainn in 1166, Ua Conchobair established control over all Ireland, aided by Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn and especially by Ua Ruairc. Great conventions held at Athlone in 1166, Tlachta in 1167 and Faughan Hill in 1168 emphasised the continued robustness of the Connacht-Bréifne-Meath alliance that had brought Ua Conchobair to power, as did the military manoeuvres of these and subsequent years.

Derbforgaill's completion of the nuns’ church at Clonmacnoise thus underscored the good relations between Ua Conchobair and Ua Ruairc. Her donation was not made to win favour, since good relations were well established. Instead, it was an additional endorsement of the alliance. It was not the only construction at Clonmacnoise that year: ‘a church was erected at Cluain-mic-Nois, in the place of the Dearthach, by Conchobhar Ua Ceallaigh and the Ui-Maine’ around the same time.Footnote ¹⁵⁸ This again emphasises the continued influence of the western province at the site. The authority of Clonard over the nuns at Clonmacnoise is much more likely to date from this point, as an inclusion of Meath, and Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn, in the acts of good will.

Dearbhaile, who died in 1167, was married to Ragnall Mac Cochláin, king of Delbna Ethra, the territory of Meath in which Clonmacnoise was situated.Footnote ¹⁵⁹ Her burial might well have taken place in Clonmacnoise for that reason alone, but it was certainly even more appropriate in the political climate of the time. She was a daughter of Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn, one-time enemy of Ua Ruairc, great-granddaughter of Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn and, therefore, grandniece of Derbforgaill, but these relationships are unlikely to have made any difference either way since, as we have seen, the dominant relationship of the period was marital and not natal.Footnote ¹⁶⁰

IV

If Derbforgaill's influence relative to her husband has sometimes been exaggerated, it is partly because her case seems to demand it.Footnote ¹⁶¹ She has other appearances in the historical record, in addition to the abduction and two major donations. The monk Gilla Mo Dutu Ua Caiside, associated with the monasteries at Ardbraccan in Meath and later Daminis (Devinish island on Lough Erne), was the author of several poetical compositions relevant to the present discussion: one referencing Tigernán Ua Ruairc and Derbforgaill (the metrical Banshenchas), and another referencing Ua Ruairc only (Éri óg inis na náem).Footnote ¹⁶² Modern consensus opinion is that Tigernán and Derbforgaill were dual patrons of Gilla Mo Dutu and, further, that Éri Óg inis na náem and the metrical Banshenchas were respectively dedicated companion pieces.Footnote ¹⁶³ The focus on kings in one and noble women in the other, and praise of both Tigernán and Derbforgaill in the metrical Banshenchas, is suggestive of this idea. On the basis that there is evidence of Ua Ruairc producing anti-Uí Máel Sechlainn propaganda, it may be further supposed that praise of Derbforgaill's parents, which also appears, was decidedly for her appreciation over her husband's.Footnote ¹⁶⁴ Gilla Mo Dutu's Meath origins should not be overlooked either, however.

These views are harmonious with the present reinterpretation of Derbforgaill's life. If we accept that Tigernán and Derbforgaill patronised these literary works together (whatever that says about mutual wealth), then we can easily extend that view to Mellifont and Clonmacnoise, where Derbforgaill was a named benefactor and her husband was not. Éri Óg inis na náem was written in 1143 and the metrical Banshenchas was produced in 1147; Mellifont and Clonmacnoise were patronised by Derbforgaill in 1157 and 1167 respectively.Footnote ¹⁶⁵

This suggests a long-standing arrangement and has implications for our views of female participation in political life. Though Ua Ruairc reigned for forty-eight years, Derbforgaill was his only wife; an unusual arrangement to say the least. The question of whether a sole wife was more likely to attain such a status within her husband's entourage may bear further investigation. If we accept the idea of mutual patronage, it also has implications for our understanding of the reform movement, adding Ua Ruairc to the category of ‘reforming kings’ like his contemporaries Ua Cerbaill and Mac Murchada (neither of whom were men of one wife).

Tigernán's patronage extended beyond partnership with Derbforgaill. His interests in Meath had already prompted investment before Gilla Mo Dutu's first compositions appeared. A series of notitiae or ‘notes’ contained in the Book of Kells preserve grants of land made by Irish kings before the English invasion, including Tigernán Ua Ruairc. He witnessed a grant by the community at Kells as early as 1133, and he was also responsible for two grants to the same community, one dated 1122 × 48 and another 1137 × 61.Footnote ¹⁶⁶ The latter, an award of ‘Mag nDechrad’ is the subject of a recent publication by Denis Casey, who estimated its extent at approximately 150 square kilometres.Footnote ¹⁶⁷ Even if doubt can easily be cast on that appraisal, it is, nonetheless, an example of Ua Ruairc's patronage.Footnote ¹⁶⁸

Royal patronage of ecclesiastical centres in Ireland in general is a well-known phenomenon and there are plenty of examples beyond those discussed here. The grant of Cashel by Muirchertach Ua Briain in 1101 is ubiquitously cited, perhaps because it illustrates how recently-acquired land could be secured against its former owners — in this case the Éoganacht Caisil. Another notable example is the grant by Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn to Newry Abbey of c.1157 and the Uí Máel Sechlainn are accredited with the foundation of the Cistercian abbey of Bective in 1147 as well.Footnote ¹⁶⁹ We also have Latin charters by Diarmait Mac Murchada, Domnall Ua Briain and Cathal Crobderg Ua Conchobair, among others.Footnote ¹⁷⁰ There is, as such, no reason to doubt Ua Ruairc's involvement, even if he appears to be the only king who donated through or with his wife.

V

Derbforgaill has drawn much attention and, for the purpose of proving different points, the events of her life have been presented in a variety of ways. Noted enough in the present day to warrant biographies in Medieval Ireland: an encyclopedia and the Dictionary of Irish Biography,Footnote ¹⁷¹ her fame started in her own time, when Giraldus Cambrensis penned a history of the invasion presenting her as ‘a Helen of Troy’ whose indiscretions had caused the invasion. Remarkably, vestiges of that argument still appear today, as up to now historians have been unwilling to place greater weight on the Irish sources (especially the annals).

Anthony Candon's hypothesis that Mór ingen Uí Chonchobair Failge, who was taken from Osraige by Conchobar ua Máel Sechlainn, was a hostage (that is a gíall), rather than an abductee, opened the possibility that other famous abductions were nothing of the kind. Whereas Candon's argument rested on Mór's prior relationship with Conchobar (he had once been or still was her husband), those who applied the theory to Derbforgaill focussed on her links with her natal family. They speculated that she was both a legitimate representative of the Uí Máel Sechlainn dynasty and that Diarmait Mac Murchada's capture of her constituted her husband's submission, in analyses largely directed at emphasising her importance (but at the same time downplaying her agency).

On the contrary, the political context precludes such a conclusion. Diarmait Mac Murchada's invasion of Uí Briúin Bréifne was something of an anomaly: he had never before ventured so far, nor was it a logical extension of his suzerainty. Furthermore, he only went as an ally of Toirdelbach Ua Conchobair, the powerful king of Connacht with whom he had become associated since the Battle of Móin Móir. The hostages of Bréifne captured during the 1152 expedition were taken to Athlone, the site of an Uí Chonchobair castle. The abduction of Derbforgaill on the other hand — for abduction it was — soured the alliance and Ua Conchobair even went to Leinster himself to secure her return. Mac Murchada's prior form where abduction and rape were concerned only underlines his predilection for the strategy, while Ua Ruairc's demand for compensation in 1167 confirms that he had suffered the humiliation associated with abduction.

Derbforgaill's wealth provides a link between the abduction and her later donations, since it was noted that Mac Murchada took her to Leinster ‘with her wealth’, and that same wealth returned with her to Ua Ruairc. A reconsideration of the basis of female wealth showed that the highest class of royal female could have expected greater wealth in the twelfth century than in earlier periods, since their fathers’ honour-prices, on which their greatest endowment, the coibche, was based, seem to have increased.

Nonetheless, Derbforgaill's donations were considerable relative to all other examples of female donation in medieval Gaelic Ireland. Sixty ounces of gold (or its equivalent), altar-cloths and the resources required for the construction of a nuns’ church go far beyond the single scruples or even ounces of gold offered by other women. The conclusion must be either that Derbforgaill received an enormous coibche and drew on additional wealth from other sources or, most likely, that her donations were supported by her husband.

Tigernán Ua Ruairc's political interests are reflected in the donations themselves. The consecration of a church at Mellifont represented an opportunity to endorse the European ecclesiastical reform movement for some of those present. Among these were Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn, Donnchad Ua Cerbaill and perhaps Derbforgaill, though it might be more accurate to say Derbforgaill and Tigernán together. Tigernán's real interest, as ever, was in controlling Meath. The excommunication and deposition of Donnchad Ua Máel Sechlainn, and his replacement with his half-brother, Diarmait, represented major progress on this front. Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn's support of Donnchad had put him at odds with Ua Ruairc. Now Ua Ruairc recognised Mac Lochlainn's suzerainty in return for a local concession.

The affair at Clonmacnoise was a sequel. Ua Ruairc, a steadfast ally of Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair from 1159 onwards, brought Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn into the king of Connacht's sphere of influence. After numerous setbacks, they defeated and killed Mac Lochlainn in 1166. Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair conducted a tour of the island, establishing his authority with the aid of Ua Ruairc and Ua Máel Sechlainn alike. They were also present at Ua Conchobair's subsequent conventions at Athlone, Tlachta and Faughan Hill. Derbforgaill's sponsorship of the construction of a nuns’ church followed Diarmait Ua Máel Sechlainn's own donations to Clonmacnoise. Connacht was the dominant secular power at Clonmacnoise from at least the early twelfth century, and, notwithstanding an early medieval connection between the latter and Meath, these donations reflected collective endorsement of the alliance, rather than an attempt by one party to recover ancient influence.

In addition to showing the political context of Derbforgaill's donations, this paper addressed a long-standing pillar of evidence for continuous Uí Máel Sechlainn influence at Clonmacnoise. This was a two-fold grant supposedly made by Murchad Ua Máel Sechlainn in 1144: first the establishment of an Arrouaisian house at Clonard, and secondly the grant of a nuns’ church at Clonmacnoise to this house at Clonard. Uí Máel Sechlainn associations with Clonard are undoubted, but the idea they introduced Arrouaisian observance to Clonard, and similarly at Clonmacnoise as a daughter house of Clonard, both in 1144, comes from a mistranslation of the Visio Tnugdali and general lack of familiarity with the political background; furthermore, the link between Clonard and Clonmacnoise is based on evidence no earlier than 1196, after the construction of the nuns’ church under Derbforgaill's guidance. It, therefore, cannot support the notion of Uí Máel Sechlainn influence at Clonmacnoise being perpetuated by Derbforgaill.

Arguably, the difficulty with existing interpretations of Derbforgaill is that they present her importance in opposition to her husband. The idea that the couple were antagonistic is unevidenced and unlikely, and it also presupposes an improbable degree of independence for Derbforgaill. The poetic compositions of Gilla Mo Dutu Ua Caiside are generally regarded as products of their mutual patronage and the one associated with Derbforgaill, the metrical Banshenchas, also praises Tigernán. Among the wider implications of this study must be the reconceptualisation of female political importance as functional through or in concert with marriage partners, rather than the natal family.Footnote ¹⁷²

This will not be the final word on Derbforgaill. The particulars of her case are guaranteed to provoke further interest and, therefore, future revelations and interpretations. There are also questions that this paper does not attempt to answer. For instance, Derbforgaill retired to Mellifont in 1186, dying there in 1193. It is not known why she chose Mellifont over the female religious community she had supported at Clonmacnoise, especially considering growing English influence in lower Airgíalla, where Mellifont was situated. Mystery adds to Derbforgaill's attraction and the evidence we have on her life is central to our understanding of numerous issues, especially those relating to female experience. It may reasonably be hoped, however, that the appropriate political context of the major events of her life has now been recovered.Footnote ¹⁷³