The Case of Tanistry:

The Case of Tanistry is fascinating for a number of reasons.

First of all, what is tanistry?

You may be aware that today Ireland uses old Irish titles for leaders of government. For example, the prime minister is referred to as the taoiseach (pr. tee-shock), the parliament is called the dáil (pr. dawl), an old Irish word for an assembly, and the deputy prime minister or second in command is referred to as the táiniste (pr. tawn-ish-ta).

The latter is in reference to the old Irish custom of tanistry.

Bearing in mind that kings were not appointed through primogeniture in Ireland; the principal that the eldest male heir of the current king automatically inherits his title, rather they were elected among a number of eligible males (these being called the ríg domhna – meaning, of kingly material).

So it was not always clear-cut who would succeed the living king.

Now, the Irish developed a system to prevent rivalry and bloodshed between clans or factions vying for kingship. This was the custom of tanistry.

Essentially, a tanist was ‘the second’, the deputy, and they were selected and named during the reign of the current king – while he was still living. So it was clear, through this custom, who, in fact, would succeed the king upon his death.

So, at this point, I want you to keep in mind the two conflicting ways that succession might occur:

1. Primogeniture – the title of king goes to the eldest living male heir.

2. Tanistry – the title of king goes to the most suited, elected candidate among all eligible males, and this is determined while the current king is still alive.

Of course, tanistry is at complete odds with primogeniture and this is why the case of tanistry is so interesting.

It involved a dispute which arose around 1608 between two rivals claiming the right to a large plot of land. One claimed the right to inherit through the custom of tanistry, the other through primogeniture. Though it should be noted, the latter was a man who had married the daughter of a wealthy landowner who had no sons, and so, he sought to claim the right by virtue of his marriage.

This is perhaps the last great case of brehon law.

A group of brehons traveled to England to argue the case before the king’s bench. The case was drawn out over several years and, in the end, the parties found another remedy.

This case is interesting for several reasons but the principal ones are:

– It demonstrates the difference in attitude towards both inheritance and kingship between the Irish and the English

– It demonstrates the importance of title; in this respect, it shows us why it was so difficult for the English to totally subdue the Irish. If they happened to make an agreement with one chieftain who agreed to offer fealty, this arrangement did not automatically pass to his heirs – if his heirs were even to succeed him and not some other member of the clan. And so the legal agreements dissolved upon death.

– It provides us with an example of how the English treated native customary law.

– It shows how the Irish custom of tanistry was repugnant to and stood in opposition to the agenda of the English crown.

I have sourced the report of the case and made it available to you here in document format and produced a video reading the text along with some commentary on the key points.

Download the document here: https://brehonacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Case-of-Tanistry.pdf