The Grants in Iverk, Kilkenny in the period 1640 to 1690

A distillation of available records for this traumatic period, shows that perhaps not unnaturally the various branches of the Grant family backed different factions in the conflict.

The 1649 Officers

A list of the officers who served in the mainly protestant army of Munster, and who claimed their land back, with name Grant.


Among the muster rolls of the Army of Munster in 1640 were Corporal Thomas Grant of the 3rd Troop and Quartermaster Thomas Grant in the 4th Troop.

Included in the list of the Protestant army of Munster which switched to support Cromwell in Oct 1649 was a Thomas Grant.

So some of the Grants were protestant. From their names they appear to be from the Waterford family (James, Matthew, Jasper), and the Ballynabouly family (William, Nicholas, Thomas and Henry)


There are detailed records of the forfeiting proprietors, and what they got in compensation. Those forfeiting were:-

David Grant of Corlody Castle
Corlody 383 acres + 29 acres
Portnascully 191 acres
Talbertstown 101 acres
Tiermore,Ullid 25 acres
Dungolagh 1/2 of 221 acres
pt.Rathkieran 1/2 of 224 acres
Thomas Grant of Ballinabouly
Ballinabouly 63 acres
Edmond Grant of Polroan
Polroan 437 acres (317+106+4+10)
Dungolagh 1/2 of 221 acres
Dournane 58 acres
Richard Grant of Aglish
Aglish 1/2 of 178 acres & Portnahully

And what Transplanted Land did they get? (from Ormonde Mss)

The terms of transplantation were that the man had to go to Loughrea, register and stake a provisional clain. He would then be meant to throw up a shack, while leaving his family behind to look after the crops and animals. He would then return for his family and animals.

Decree of Innocents 1662

A list of those who were considered to have taken no part with the Irish before 1646 included:-

Duke of York's Claim

Included in a list of land, mainly in Co Tipperary, but also including other areas, submitted to the Settlement Commissioners in 1667 by the Duke of York was:-

The claim was turned down, but eventually granted to the Duke of York, who held the land for David Grant of Corlody.

King James Irish Army List

Irish Army Lists 1661-1685

1675 Tenants of Licketstown

Williamite confiscations


The Christian names give the clues as to which side the various families threw their lots in with over this period.

The Corlody branch had been firmly Catholic. In 1611 they were accused of harbouring a catholic priest. David is listed as an Irish papist in the confiscations. They were missing from the rolls of the Protestant army of Munster, they had influence to obtain help from the Catholic Duke of York, and after the defeat of James II were outlawed. They appear to have gone to France with James II where they continued to serve the Jacobite cause for as long as it existed. Perhaps James, who became Baron d'Iverque under Prince Charles Edward Stuart, was a descendant.

The Ballinabouly branch seem to have been royalists who sided with the Protestants, who sold their transported land and were therefore not liable to get any other compensation in the Courts of Claims. Listed as royalist in confiscations. Their Christian names suggest that they are the Grants who were in the Protestant Army of Munster in 1640/49 and who appear in the Hearth Money Rolls in Tipperary, near Thurles in 1666. They would have used the money to become small farmers.

The Polroan branch were probably Catholic, as their names do not appear in the Protestant army lists. They are listed as Irish papists in the confiscations. They seem to disappear from the records at this stage, though there is an Edmund listed at Crobally, Knocktopher in 1664.

The Aglish branch appear to be smaller Catholic landowners, probably an offshoot of the Curlody branch. Richard is listed as Irish Papist in confiscations. Records show Richard & John still owning 15 acres in 1664 in Portnahully and a Walter at Rathpatrick, Ida in 1664. So they probably managed to remain in the area. Many Grants still lived here over the next centuries.

There are various genealogical records that I have gathered over the years for the family that remained here, but without personal input from a present day genealogist, it is not possible to produce family trees for these families

Return to the Grant genealogy index