Page 1

Early Neely Records in Ireland

John Neilly lives in Newtownards, close to Belfast. I first met him several years ago on the internet
through his son, but have since visited with him. John is a retired Constable and avid researcher of
the Neely family for close to 40 years. His Neely ancestors changed the selling of their name in
the late !"00#s. He has been most generous in sharing his significant findings with me and others.
John has discovered a lot of original information that oints towards the first Neely coming to
Ireland from $cotland. I am grateful to John for much of the history on the origins of the Neely
family and genealogy of Neelys in Northern Ireland and also to his nehew %ar&, for some
historical contributions. John is continuing his research in Ireland, $cotland and 'ngland for
missing ieces of the u((le that are slowly, but constantly roviding new answers to our )uestions
and seculations on the beginnings of this family grou.
To John Neilly from Jim Neely March 11, 2001
Dear John,
Regarding the early Neelys, there is much to sort out regarding probable relationships and to try to
put in them into some meaningful and logical order. reali!e all of it can ne"er be done #ith
certainty, but thin$ if #e apply logic, your $no#ledge of the history there and the rule of %most
probable%, #e #ill come as close as possible. Therefore, propose #e initially limit oursel"es to
analy!ing only those records of Neelys that indicate they #ere born before 1&'0 and see ho# they
might fit together.
(rom our combined lists of records, thin$ the Neelys born before 1&'0 #ere)
1) William Neely * 1&+0 Muster Roll on ,hichester -state *probably born about 1'.0*1'.' based
on assumption children belo# are his.
2) William of Burt * /D0 record sho#s born about 1&21
3) John of Cumer * 1our record sho#s born 1&2., /D0 record sho#s 1&2'
4) Walter * 1our record sho#s Married 1&'2, ,hurch 2ill Donegal * probably born about 1&23
5) Roert * 4itnessed marriage of John Donnell in Derry ,athedral 1&'' * 5robably born 1&2'*
1&++
!) Rory "c#ill Neely * /D0 record sho#s born about 1&+0
$) "atthe% of Templemore * /D0 record sho#s born abt 1&+1
&) "ar'aret Neely * Married in John 5ayton Derry ,athedral May 6, 1&'6 * probably born about
1&++
() James Neely * Married Margaret 5ol$ in Derry ,athedral 7ct 1&&0 * probably born about 1&+'
1)) James Neely * Married Margaret Remington 7ct 1&&1 8/D0 record9 * probably born about
1&+&
Page 2
11) William * /D0 record sho#s born about 1&+' : 1&+; 82 separate people or same<9 in
/ondonderry
12) William * Married Jane =dams in Derry ,athedral June 13, 1&&1 * 5robably born about 1&+'
13) "atthe% of Templemore * /D0 record sho#s born about 1&60
14) "atthe% * /D0 records sho# Matthe# Neely married about 1&&2 Templemore
15) "atthe% * Married ,atherine /yon No" 16, 1&&' 8/D0 record9 * probably born 1&+3*1&60
1!) "atthe% * Married >athrine Ran$in in Derry ,athedral Dec +, 1&&' * probably born about 1&60
1$) *e%is * John Neilly record sho#s born Dec &, 1&62, son of 4illiam Neely of Ramoghy 8a$a
4illiam of ?urt<9
1&) Walter * /D0 record sho#s born about 1&6;
+iscussion and ,nalysis of Records
1) William Neely * There seems no doubt on the e@istence of this man because he is listed in
the 1&+0 Donegal muster roll li"ing on the ,hichester -state and ha"ing a As#ord only%. 2e
is the only Neely listed in the Donegal 1&+0 muster roll. My understanding is that these men
could be any#here from 1& to &0 years old. belie"e he must be a separate person from
4illiam of ?urt and indeed, belie"e 4illiam of ?urt #as li$ely his first son. My logic is that
4illiam of ?urt #as born about 1&21 according to the /D0 records and thus, he #ould ha"e
been only . years old in 1&+0, so #ould ha"e been too young to be listed in the muster roll.
4illiam of ?urt%s age is also some#hat confirmed by the birth of his son John in 1&'+
registered in the Derry ,athedral, #hich #ould ha"e made him +2 years old if he #as born
in 1&21. Therefore, #ith the e"idence at hand, belie"e William Neely 819 #as most
probably the first Neely in Blster. t also seems probable he could ha"e come in 1&0; as a
young soldier #ith 4illiam 0te#art per your pre"ious research. f so, he #ould ha"e been
born about 1'.0 and #ould ha"e been +1 #hen 4illiam of ?urt #as born and 60 years old
#hen listed in the 1&+0 muster roll.
2) William of Burt Neely -.1!21) * This man also e@isted and the /D0 record of his birth 8abt
1&219 is confirmed by the Derry ,athedral record of a son 8John9 being born to 4illiam of
?urt in 1&'+. n your last letter, you mentioned that 4illiam of ?urt and 4illiam of Ramoghy
#ere probably the same person. also agree this is the most probable. n addition, belie"e
it is most probable that 4illiam of ?urt #as the same 4illiam that #as in the /aggan =rmy in
1&61 and #as granted land in Tyrone #ith his brother John. f he #as born in 1&21, he
#ould ha"e been 20 years old in 1&61. ha"e forgotten #hen you told me the land grant
#as made, but belie"e you said it #as about 1&'0. assume 4illiam and John probably
stayed in this militia for a fe# years, but this may or may not be accurate. also belie"e
4illiam of ?urt #as most li$ely the son of 4illiam 81&+0 muster roll9 because of the
arguments in 19.
Page 3
3) John of Cumer Neely -.1!25) * The /D0 records sho# John of ,umer #as born about 1&2'
and your records sho# he #as born in 1&2.. 4e $no# he had a son named John born June 1',
1&'3 per the Derry ,athedral records. This sheds no definiti"e light on the age of John of ,umer
because it is compatible #ith both possible birth dates. 7n the other hand, if he is the brother of
4illiam in the /aggan =rmy in 1&61, he #ould ha"e been 1& if born in 1&2', not improbable if he
had Coined #ith his older brother. f he #as born in 1&2., he #ould ha"e been only 12, #hich
seems unli$ely. Therefore, based on the e"idence so far, thin$ it is most probable that John of
,umer #as born to 4illiam 81&+0 muster roll9 about 1&2' and #as the brother of 4illiam of ?urt.
f so, he #ould ha"e been the John in the /aggan =rmy 8maybe ser"ing a fe# years9 and the John
#ho #as granted the land in Dlencull along #ith the entitlements you mentioned pre"iously.
4) Walter Neely -.1!2$) * 1our record of this man%s marriage in 1&'2 #ould put his li$ely birth date
around 1&23. f you assume all these people #ere children of 4illiam 81&+0 muster roll9, then this
birth date fits in bet#een John of ,umer and Rory Mc>ill. 4hile this is a far cry from a sure thing, it
seems logical and certainly possible. do not see a relationship bet#een this 4alter 869 and the
4alter 81;9 born about 1&6; per /D0 records, because 4alter 869 #as married in 1&'2 8unless this
#as his second marriage9. also assume this family #as one of those remaining in the area of
/ondonderry, although ha"e seen no further records of them.
5) Roert Neely -.1!2() * This man #as listed as a #itness to the marriage of John Donnell in the
Derry ,athedral in 1&''. Therefore, he most li$ely #as bet#een the age of 21 and +0 in 1&''. f it
is assumed that he too #as li$ely a son of 4illiam 81&+0 muster roll9, the missing or a"ailable EslotE
in the birth of the children #ould ha"e been about 1&2., ma$ing him 21 years old in 1&''. n
addition, there is a Robert Neely listed in the 1&&& 2earth Money Roll of Ro#hillen 5arish,
Donegal. f Robert #as indeed born in 1&2., he #ould ha"e been +3 years old in 1&&& and about
the right age to ha"e a house #ith a fireplace. Therefore, assume this Robert Neely #as a son of
4illiam 819 and a younger brother of 4illiam 829 and John 8+9 and remained in the /ondonderry
area.
!) Rory "c#ill Neely -.1!3)) * This man%s name seemed so out of place until you found the
Mc>ill%s li"ing in 5ortpatric$ #ith the Neillies. The /D0 records list this man%s birthdate around
1&+0. This is some#hat confirmed by the Derry ,athedral record of the christening of (rancis
Neely, son of Rory Mc>ill Neely, on 1& No"ember, 1&'& #hich #ould ha"e made Rory Mc>ill 2&
years old at the birth of his sonFFFCust about right. belie"e that it is most probable Rory #as
the son of 4illiam 819 and named after his maternal grandfather. (urthermore, it seems logical that
his mother #as the #ife of 4illiam 819. This theory fits "ery neatly into the obser"ances you ha"e
made about 4illiam possibly coming from that area of 0cotland and the fact that Mc>ills #ere also
li"ing in that area. The unusual name for Blster ma$es anything else a fairly remote coincidence in
my mind. (inally, thin$ it is li$ely that 4illiam%s 819 #ife and mother to Rory #as named Margaret
Mc>ill because of the presumed daughter, Margaret 8;9 and the tendency to name her children
after her family 8i.e. Rory Mc>ill9. The Aromantic% speculation could certainly be that after 4illiam 819
came o"er in 1&0; at age 1;, he might ha"e gone home in his late 20%s and married a local girl,
then brought her bac$ to Blster 8maybe he had land by then9 and started raising a family in 1&21.
4ho $no#s, but it sure sounds good and fits #ithin the records #e ha"e.
Page 4
$) "atthe% Neely -.1!31) * The Matthe# Neely records seem to indicate t#o Matthe# Neelys.
7ne #as born about 1&+1 and the other about 1&60 according to /D0 records. This seems to be
corroborated by the Derry ,athedral record of Matthe# Neely%s marriage to >athrine Ran$in 81'9
on 7ctober 2;, 1&&' and the /D0 record of Matthe# Neely%s marriage to ,atherine /yon 81&9 on
No"ember 16, 1&&'. There is also a /D0 record of Matthe# Neely 8169 being married about 1&&2,
but #ithout listing the #ife%s name. The 1&&& 2earth Money Roll records sho# a Matthe# Neely of
Templemore, Donegal. ha"e a theory #hich fits these records, but no #ay to $no# if it is correct.
t is that the earliest Matthe# 839 born in 1&+1 #as the son of 4illiam 819 and #as first married in
1&&2. There is a Derry ,athedral record that 4illiam Neely 8named for grandfather <9 #as born to
Matthe# and christened ; July, 1&&+. My theory is that his #ife died and he married >athrine
Ran$in on + December, 1&&' according to Derry ,athedral. 7f course he could ha"e married
,atherine /yon instead, but am betting since his son%s christening #as registered in the Derry
,athedral, he #ould ha"e done the same for his second marriage. The other Matthe# Neely 81+9,
#as born about 1&60 according to /D0 records and married ,atherine /yon on 16 No"ember,
1&&' 8/D0 record9 as a matter of elimination. The unans#ered Guestion is #here did he come
from, #hich #ill speculate on in the section on James Neely 8109.
&) "ar'aret Neely -.1!33) * There is a Derry ,athedral record sho#ing Margaret Neely married
John 5ayton in the Derry ,athedral 6 May, 1&'6. =ssuming she #as 21 years old, typical of that
time, she #ould ha"e been born in 1&++. belie"e she is a child of 4illiam 819 Neely.
() James Neely -.1!35) * There is a Derry ,athedral record sho#ing James Neely married
Margaret 5ol$ in the Derry ,athedral in 7ctober 1&&0. =ssuming he #as 2' years old, typical of
that time, he #ould ha"e been born in 1&+'. belie"e he is a child of 4illiam 819 Neely.
1)) James Neely -.1!3!) * There is a /D0 record sho#ing James Neely married Margaret
Remington in 7ctober 1&&1. The Guestion is #hether or not this is the same James Neely as 8.9.
presume not, because of the different names of the #i"es, although it is possible that his first #ife
could ha"e died and he got married again one year later. doubt this. This then becomes the same
Guestion as Matthe# Neely 81+9 regarding #here they came from. am no# leaning to#ards the
probability that other Neelys came to the /ondonderry area sometime after 4illiam 819. =s
additional e"idence for this probability, the /D0 records also list t#o 4illiam Neelys born about
1&+' and 1&+;. s this the same person or t#o different people< ,learly, though, it cannot be in the
same family as 4illiam of ?urt. (or e@ample, perhaps James 8109, 4illiam 8119 and Matthe# 81+9
are brothers since it seems almost impossible they could be in the 4illiam 819 family and ha"e the
same names as their brothers. =lso the birth dates seem to be a little later. assume Matthe# 81+9
#as born in Blster about 1&60 according to the /D0 record. f this #as true, maybe another Neely
family 8a younger brother<9 came bac$ #ith 4illiam 819 if he #ent bac$ to 0cotland, and returned
#ith his bride before 1&21.
11) William Neely -.1!35 / 1!3&) * /D0 records sho# 4illiam Neelys born about 1&+' and 1&+;
in /ondonderry. s this the same 4illiam Neely or t#o different ones< no# lean to#ards another
and slightly younger family ha"ing settled in the same area because of James 8109, 4illiam 8119
and Matthe# 81+9 and the strong e"idence sho#ing them belonging to a different family that
4illiam%s 819. 0ee discussion in section on James 8109 abo"e.
Page 5
12) William Neely -.1!35) * There is a Derry ,athedral record sho#ing 4illiam Neely married
Jane =dams in Derry ,athedral on 13 June, 1&&1. =ssuming he #as 2' years old, typical of that
time, he #ould ha"e been born in 1&+'. belie"e it is li$ely this is the 4illiam Neely 8119 abo"e
and belongs to a separate family.
13) "atthe% Neely -.1!4)) * There is a /D0 record sho#ing Matthe# Neely of Templemore #as
born about 1&60. belie"e it is li$ely this Matthe# belongs to a separate family as discussed in the
section on James Neely 8109 abo"e.
14) "atthe% Neely * There is a /D0 record sho#ing that Matthe# Neely of Templemore #as
married about 1&&2. belie"e it is most probable this is Matthe# Neely 839 as discussed in that
section and that he is a son of 4illiam 819.
15) "atthe% Neely * There is a Derry ,athedral record that Matthe# Neely married >athrine
Ran$in in the Derry ,athedral on December +, 1&&'. thin$ the e"idence points most probably to
this being Matthe# 83 : 169 born in 1&+1 and his second marriage as discussed in that section. f
so, belie"e he is the son of 4illiam 819.
1!) "atthe% Neely * There is a /D0 record sho#ing Matthe# Neely Married ,atherine /yon on 16
No"ember, 1&&'. thin$ the e"idence points to this being Matthe# 81+9, born in 1&60, as discussed
in the section on Matthe# 839. belie"e this Matthe# belongs to a separate family.
1$) *e%is Neely -1!42) * John Neilly has a record of /e#is Neely born & December, 1&62 to
4illiam of Ramoghy. 4e agree that 4illiam of Ramoghy and 4illiam of ?urt 829 are probably the
same person as John has e@plained to me regarding the parishes there in the early days. This
#ould ha"e made 4illiam of ?urt 21 years old at the birth of his son /e#is, assuming the /D0
record of his birth about 1&21 is correct, #hich seems "ery possible.
1&) Walter Neely -.1!4&) * There is an /D0 record sho#ing a 4alter Neely #as born about 1&6;.
assume this man belongs to the Aother family% since 4alter 869 #as not married until 1&'2
according to John Neilly%s records. 5erhaps this 4alter 81;9 is the brother to James 8109, 4illiam
8119 and Matthe# 81+9 and maybe he #as named for his EuncleE 4alter 869. This is one more piece
of information pointing to the arri"al a second, and perhaps related, family of Neelys that came to
the /ondonderry area some#hat after 4illiam 819F i.e. 4illiam 8119 born H1&+', James 8109 born
H1&+&, Matthe# born H1&60 and 4alter born H1&6;.