Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

ó cuilliaéan family?


ailill

Recommended Posts

I looked up my surname once, "ó cuilliaéan", and only conspiracy websites seemed to show up. I love conspiracies, but I don't exactly understand the apparent "history" of my surname or what people seem to believe. My family doesn't talk too much about my ancestry so what I try to dig up on the internet is all I really know, and If anyone can tell me about the supposed history, whether mythical or real, would be greatly appreciated. 

Also, there seems to be a lot of ties between "demonisms" and my surname? which doesn't make sense as I was raised fairly Christian, (though my Mother confesses to a belief in the occult and metaphysical, though nothing with demons. Oujia boards strictly forbidden in the house.)

I am grateful for any responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people can claim that ancestry, if I am not mistaken the modern form is O'Collins or Collins. The phone books are full of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about going to a library and seeing what you can find out? If you are in Ireland(where I assume the name originated), you may find some information that hasn't found it's way to the internet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

How about going to a library and seeing what you can find out? If you are in Ireland(where I assume the name originated), you may find some information that hasn't found it's way to the internet.

One day I hope to, but I live pretty damn far from a library that would have any records on surnames... I hear that the only ones are in Dublin or other big cities. I would love to, though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, questionmark said:

Lots of people can claim that ancestry, if I am not mistaken the modern form is O'Collins or Collins. The phone books are full of them.

 

Yeah, so I hear. Its a pretty common name in Wicklow and Dublin, I think. But not too many others around where I am, and If there are some that pass through Its usually travellers and they don't typically like strange folk asking questions about their surname, though. Maybe Ill get a movie moment and come across one that has all the answers, but that seems quite unlikely, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cuillean bloodline is supposedly ancient and holy to various cults and religious beliefs. A quick search on Google will give you enough superficial knowledge of the familys occult history. But as pointed out in the above posts, ANY holy or powerful bloodline is today so watered down that it no longer may hold any sway in our modern world, but by the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ailill said:

I looked up my surname once, "ó cuilliaéan", and only conspiracy websites seemed to show up. I love conspiracies, but I don't exactly understand the apparent "history" of my surname or what people seem to believe. My family doesn't talk too much about my ancestry so what I try to dig up on the internet is all I really know, and If anyone can tell me about the supposed history, whether mythical or real, would be greatly appreciated. 

Also, there seems to be a lot of ties between "demonisms" and my surname? which doesn't make sense as I was raised fairly Christian, (though my Mother confesses to a belief in the occult and metaphysical, though nothing with demons. Oujia boards strictly forbidden in the house.)

I am grateful for any responses.

Perhaps this will help:

http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=O'Collins&uid=1575

Happy hunting.

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jackscolon said:

But as pointed out in the above posts, ANY holy or powerful bloodline is today so watered down that it no longer may hold any sway in our modern world, but by the few.

Yeah, and dragons and elves are real puny these days, too. It's almost like magic doesn't exist.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ailill said:

Yeah, so I hear. Its a pretty common name in Wicklow and Dublin, I think. But not too many others around where I am, and If there are some that pass through Its usually travellers and they don't typically like strange folk asking questions about their surname, though. Maybe Ill get a movie moment and come across one that has all the answers, but that seems quite unlikely, haha.

The real way to do this is to actually apply some muscle grease and trace down the linage, starting by what you know and then going from one parish to the next to find the bloodline in the baptism books. If you are lucky you will get through the MA without the whole thing getting murky. In the MA it could have happened that a name was continued because people occupied the same house as the Connors without being blood relatives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Yeah, and dragons and elves are real puny these days, too. It's almost like magic doesn't exist.

--Jaylemurph

Jest all you will, as per usual Jay, It doesn't change the fact that holy bloodlines has played a major part in history all the way up to modernity. The majority of people throughout ages have firmly believed in the power of holy blood. These beliefs still exists today even if you scoff at them. I'm not saying I personally believe in any of it, but devotion to holy bloodlines is a historical fact... Elves, dragons and Magis is not...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackscolon said:

Jest all you will, as per usual Jay, It doesn't change the fact that holy bloodlines has played a major part in history all the way up to modernity. The majority of people throughout ages have firmly believed in the power of holy blood. These beliefs still exists today even if you scoff at them. I'm not saying I personally believe in any of it, but devotion to holy bloodlines is a historical fact... Elves, dragons and Magis is not...  

Well, I think that we can all agree that whether or not magic exists It makes for some really amazing stories.

Its a cool thing to think about, though. Thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ailill said:

Well, I think that we can all agree that whether or not magic exists It makes for some really amazing stories.

Its a cool thing to think about, though. Thank you.

Magic is what the zeitgeist and the human psyche define it to be at any given time. I'm sure that demonstrating f.ex a gun to a medieval person will seem like performing an act of magic. It all comes down to the level of understanding from which we perceive things. But as for your research into the Cuillean blodline may I suggest the Ucadia Foundations and Frank O'collins if you haven't already found them on your own. Alot of the modern notoriety connected to the name may stem from the thoughts of this man.

Edited by Jackscolon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackscolon said:

Magic is what the zeitgeist and the human psyche define it to be at any given time. I'm sure that demonstrating f.ex a gun to a medieval person will seem like performing an act of magic. It all comes down to the level of understanding from which we perceive things. But as for your research into the Cuillean blodline may I suggest the Ucadia Foundations and Frank O'connell if you haven't already found them on your own. Alot of the modern notoriety connected to the name may stem from the thoughts of this man.

That's very true, and I've always thought that even things that magic, dragons, etc. cannot be discarded as "completely impossible" just because we frankly know absolutely nothing about the world around us in all truth. And the worst way to delay the understanding of the world is to discredit something as impossible. We can only accept truth as what we know now, our own personal view of the current understanding. 

And for the Ucadia Foundation, I believe that I did actually try to access the website but It said that It was down. But, I have yet to see Frank O'Connell. Another hole for me to dig, thank you.

:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jackscolon said:

Jest all you will, as per usual Jay, It doesn't change the fact that holy bloodlines has played a major part in history all the way up to modernity. The majority of people throughout ages have firmly believed in the power of holy blood. These beliefs still exists today even if you scoff at them. I'm not saying I personally believe in any of it, but devotion to holy bloodlines is a historical fact... Elves, dragons and Magis is not...  

I think there's a little more passion than fact in your interpretation. Bloodlines are notoriously difficult to prove (as mentioned above) and are ultimately meaningless, since we all ultimately come from the same genetic stock. This "holy bloodline" blather is a fig-leaf for maintaining the structures of actual political power. Manufacturing "holy bloodline" superstition is just another way the strong take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded. You may be willing to put those chains on yourself and the past, but credit the rest of us with being a little more canny.

Besides, the primogeniture that blood-line blather depends on his a fairly recent innovation, historically, not dating back beyond the later Middle Ages, although those in power have never known or never hesitated to lie about that, projecting back to the dawn of time, as you do.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

I think there's a little more passion than fact in your interpretation. Bloodlines are notoriously difficult to prove (as mentioned above) and are ultimately meaningless, since we all ultimately come from the same genetic stock. This "holy bloodline" blather is a fig-leaf for maintaining the structures of actual political power. Manufacturing "holy bloodline" superstition is just another way the strong take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded. You may be willing to put those chains on yourself and the past, but credit the rest of us with being a little more canny.

Besides, the primogeniture that blood-line blather depends on his a fairly recent innovation, historically, not dating back beyond the later Middle Ages, although those in power have never known or never hesitated to lie about that, projecting back to the dawn of time, as you do.

--Jaylemurph

I dont think he meant for me to feel that I had superiority above anyone because of my "bloodline". Im merely interested in history and especially the history of my family. For me, the conspiracies on surnames and bloodlines are just fun things to think about. I don't have chains tying myself to the past because I like to think about the occult and what my ancestors may have been like. It's purely for fun, and you're getting fairly offended because he gave me a fantastical answer to a question that was based on fantastical curiousity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's keep the thread positive, shall we?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I think there's a little more passion than fact in your interpretation. Bloodlines are notoriously difficult to prove (as mentioned above) and are ultimately meaningless, since we all ultimately come from the same genetic stock. This "holy bloodline" blather is a fig-leaf for maintaining the structures of actual political power. Manufacturing "holy bloodline" superstition is just another way the strong take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded. You may be willing to put those chains on yourself and the past, but credit the rest of us with being a little more canny.

Besides, the primogeniture that blood-line blather depends on his a fairly recent innovation, historically, not dating back beyond the later Middle Ages, although those in power have never known or never hesitated to lie about that, projecting back to the dawn of time, as you do.

--Jaylemurph

I am historical researcher and I guarentee that passion plays no part in my posts. I am sure you will recognize the fact that Europe and indeed most of the world apart from Northern America has been governed by monarchs over the past milleniums. Many families have possesed power based purely on the fact that their bloodline was somehow holy and ancient. The belief in these bloodlines had power in those days. I totally agree that it was a tool used in order to "take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded" as you put it. But it doesnt change the fact that the "holy bloodline superstition" once was perceived as fact!

As for the belief in holy bloodlines being a modern inevention I'm afraid I must disagree. The belief that the House of David was of holy blood has put people in power since before recorded history and still does in our modern days. As a historian I am very interested in how beliefs form society through time. Fortunately alot of people today believe in the power of democracy and in most part of the western society, we elect our leaders from a certain meritocratic viewpoint. I do not believe in inherited rights to power and I do not put any chains on myself, other than what our modern society dictates. But that does not make me ignorant of how the belief in holy blood affects parts of world society, both now and in the past.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ailill said:

I dont think he meant for me to feel that I had superiority above anyone because of my "bloodline". Im merely interested in history and especially the history of my family. For me, the conspiracies on surnames and bloodlines are just fun things to think about. I don't have chains tying myself to the past because I like to think about the occult and what my ancestors may have been like. It's purely for fun, and you're getting fairly offended because he gave me a fantastical answer to a question that was based on fantastical curiousity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's keep the thread positive, shall we?

Unfortunately that rarely happens in this forum :-) A select few find it more entertaining to bully posters from a supposedly enlightened platfom. And though it certainly is well deserved considering some of the outlandish views presented by especially newcomers, this agenda has now become the norm for conversation in this forum.

Having said that, you certainly received my post in the right frame of mind. I do not share any beliefs of the validity of any holy bloodline. But I am very interested in the effects these beliefs have had and still have on society. I find more value in trying to understand why certain people would put these "chains" on themselves than in discarding them entirely as "weak and feebleminded".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Jackscolon said:

I am historical researcher and I guarentee that passion plays no part in my posts. I am sure you will recognize the fact that Europe and indeed most of the world apart from Northern America has been governed by monarchs over the past milleniums. Many families have possesed power based purely on the fact that their bloodline was somehow holy and ancient. The belief in these bloodlines had power in those days. I totally agree that it was a tool used in order to "take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded" as you put it. But it doesnt change the fact that the "holy bloodline superstition" once was perceived as fact!

And you can't consider that perhaps they first possessed the power, and then manufactured the "holy blood line" claim to help them keep that power?

Regarding your researching history, I'd like to point out that you are conversing with an actual historian, not someone claiming to be an "historical researcher" when you converse with jaylemurph.

Harte

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I think there's a little more passion than fact in your interpretation. Bloodlines are notoriously difficult to prove (as mentioned above) and are ultimately meaningless, since we all ultimately come from the same genetic stock. This "holy bloodline" blather is a fig-leaf for maintaining the structures of actual political power. Manufacturing "holy bloodline" superstition is just another way the strong take advantage of the weak and feeble-minded. You may be willing to put those chains on yourself and the past, but credit the rest of us with being a little more canny.

Besides, the primogeniture that blood-line blather depends on his a fairly recent innovation, historically, not dating back beyond the later Middle Ages, although those in power have never known or never hesitated to lie about that, projecting back to the dawn of time, as you do.

--Jaylemurph

Have you read some of the stuff this supposed bloodline is associated with? Makes Geoffrey of Monmouth look like a pisher.

https://vaisnavarepublic.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/ucadia-express-trust/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UCADIA

Small wonder anybody's embarrassed to talk about it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harte said:

 

And you can't consider that perhaps they first possessed the power, and then manufactured the "holy blood line" claim to help them keep that power?

Regarding your researching history, I'd like to point out that you are conversing with an actual historian, not someone claiming to be an "historical researcher" when you converse with jaylemurph.

Harte

Yes your comment is entirely valid and obviously all holy bloodlines are most likely social construction. As I state above I am not looking for universal truths, but am much more interested in how different parts of societies throughout history has perceived them. My posts was merely ment to suggest areas of research that could help Ailill satisfy his curiosity regarding his family name. As Oniomancer state above Ucadia and Frank O'collins is a very likely candidates to why people would demonise the name today as it is absolute ridiculous quasi-religious drivel being presented. There has been other reasons throughout history which a quick search on the internet will reveal. As to my own input it was received with thanks by the OP as an area not yet researched.

As to the second part of your post I wonder what purpose your statement is supposed to commune? I myself is an educated historian and as for me "claiming" to be a historical researcher I hardly think it is a protected title? Anyone interested in history can lay clam to it... As I mentioned earlier in my posts this forum quickly degenerates into hostile posts and negative debates. As this forum is a public part of the internet I guess it "just comes with the territory" and most of the time I am content merely wacthing as the drama unfolds. This time I stuck my head out to help the OP and it seem like this goal was achieved. Satisfied that my posts was of value, to the OP at least, I will fall back before I draw too much hostile attention from the "enlightened brigade" :-)

My very best to you all!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jackscolon said:

Yes your comment is entirely valid and obviously all holy bloodlines are most likely social construction. As I state above I am not looking for universal truths, but am much more interested in how different parts of societies throughout history has perceived them. My posts was merely ment to suggest areas of research that could help Ailill satisfy his curiosity regarding his family name. As Oniomancer state above Ucadia and Frank O'collins is a very likely candidates to why people would demonise the name today as it is absolute ridiculous quasi-religious drivel being presented. There has been other reasons throughout history which a quick search on the internet will reveal. As to my own input it was received with thanks by the OP as an area not yet researched.

As to the second part of your post I wonder what purpose your statement is supposed to commune? I myself is an educated historian and as for me "claiming" to be a historical researcher I hardly think it is a protected title? Anyone interested in history can lay clam to it... As I mentioned earlier in my posts this forum quickly degenerates into hostile posts and negative debates. As this forum is a public part of the internet I guess it "just comes with the territory" and most of the time I am content merely wacthing as the drama unfolds. This time I stuck my head out to help the OP and it seem like this goal was achieved. Satisfied that my posts was of value, to the OP at least, I will fall back before I draw too much hostile attention from the "enlightened brigade" :-)

My very best to you all!

Pøj pøj!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oniomancer said:

Have you read some of the stuff this supposed bloodline is associated with? Makes Geoffrey of Monmouth look like a pisher.

https://vaisnavarepublic.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/ucadia-express-trust/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/UCADIA

Small wonder anybody's embarrassed to talk about it.

Why do you think I knew what the thingy was about?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jackscolon said:

Yes your comment is entirely valid and obviously all holy bloodlines are most likely social construction. As I state above I am not looking for universal truths, but am much more interested in how different parts of societies throughout history has perceived them. My posts was merely ment to suggest areas of research that could help Ailill satisfy his curiosity regarding his family name. As Oniomancer state above Ucadia and Frank O'collins is a very likely candidates to why people would demonise the name today as it is absolute ridiculous quasi-religious drivel being presented. There has been other reasons throughout history which a quick search on the internet will reveal. As to my own input it was received with thanks by the OP as an area not yet researched.

As to the second part of your post I wonder what purpose your statement is supposed to commune? I myself is an educated historian and as for me "claiming" to be a historical researcher I hardly think it is a protected title? Anyone interested in history can lay clam to it... As I mentioned earlier in my posts this forum quickly degenerates into hostile posts and negative debates. As this forum is a public part of the internet I guess it "just comes with the territory" and most of the time I am content merely wacthing as the drama unfolds. This time I stuck my head out to help the OP and it seem like this goal was achieved. Satisfied that my posts was of value, to the OP at least, I will fall back before I draw too much hostile attention from the "enlightened brigade" :-)

My very best to you all!

For the record, I don't really disagree with this poster at all. There were indeed people who used the idea of bloodlines to construct or manipulate people into following them. That certainly can't be denied. And I don't think this poster is denying that the power of the bloodline was made up, for the most part.

I'd be curious where he's getting the data to support his ideas, though, and why he thinks the particular myth of bloodline power we're discussing here is prevalent as he (at least) seems to imply. As I see it, for the vast majority of history, we don't know what most common people were thinking. We have virtually no record of it -- hence my curiosity. In my own current project -- looking at Western Europe in the 10th/11th Century, we certainly don't have records of populist sentiment. What we have is a historical record carefully filtered for and by the elite. Look at the work of two significant historians of the time -- Widukind of Corvey and Luitprand of Cremona. They both were writing to and about the Ottonian court, with a vested interest in keeping them happy. Of course they're going to report all the people loved and respected the Holy Roman Emperors, for whatever reason it was (papal favor, holy bloodline, whatever), whatever the people actually felt -- not their actual sentiments mattered in the slightest, even if Luitprand or Widukind actually knew what they felt (if they knew).

The problem with this conversation so far it's trying for too much -- if we're going to have this conversation in a historical useful manner, we need to carefully delimit the time and place we're looking at, so as to be aware of social and political context, and to carefully elucidate the source material we're using, and to fully and frankly disclose our own intentions for the project. We cannot do that for "all of human history across the globe" which seems to be the current canvas. With such a spread, for every putative society that follows a bloodline myth, we can name ten that didn't, thus making the conversation moot.

--Jaylemurph

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2016 at 2:47 PM, questionmark said:

The real way to do this is to actually apply some muscle grease and trace down the linage, starting by what you know and then going from one parish to the next to find the bloodline in the baptism books. If you are lucky you will get through the MA without the whole thing getting murky. In the MA it could have happened that a name was continued because people occupied the same house as the Connors without being blood relatives.

It's really hard to do in Ireland, a lot of records burned with the archives building in 1922. It's not impossible to piece a pedigree chart together, but he would have to work extra hard for less result than the average European.

http://www.irish-genealogy-toolkit.com/irish-records-burned.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.