Skip to content

Imposters and pretenders

13 November 2013

An. dsse de Praslin OBrienHere is a pastel described by the auctioneer as an anonymous “19th century” portrait of “Charlotte Antoinette Septimanie O’Brien de Chomond”. It is (to judge from the wholly inadequate photograph on the website) a perfectly good late eighteenth century pastel  (although I should need a better photograph to confirm the attribution I have in mind), of the duchesse de Praslin. Her death in 1808, inscribed on the back, explains the dating; ignorance of contemporary orthography and of Irish genealogy explains the misreading of Thomond. For she was the daughter of the Earl of Thomond.

Except of course that she wasn’t. Her father was Charles O’Brien, “Viscount Clare”, the cousin of Henry, 8th Earl of Thomond, on whose death in 1741 Charles would have succeeded, had his grandfather not fought on the wrong side at the Battle of the Boyne. Charles in fact was totally French: born at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1699, he served with distinction in the French service, where he was known as the maréchal comte de Thomond. He was made a chevalier du Saint Esprit, the highest chivalric order in France. His only son died without marrying, so that the titles, already under attainder, became extinct (they could only pass to the male heirs, so the duchesse de Praslin plays no further part in this story). Meanwhile, according to the English, in 1741 the 8th Earl was succeeded by his wife’s nephew, Percy Wyndham, who added the name of O’Brien. When he died, unmarried (according to the British reference books), the title became extinct, although it was later revived as an Irish marquessate for Lord Inchiquin, a distant member of the O’Brien clan.

Except that that wasn’t the version according to a certain Raymond Moulton O’Brien (1905–1977). I came across him as a child, since his wife was our housekeeper. Not you may imagine the most likely occupation for a sovereign princess – nor did I at the time discover the full extent of her husband’s elaborate fantasy, claiming to be Colonel his Highness Raymond Moulton Seán, by the Sovereign Authority of the Roman Pontiff Prince O’Brien of Thomond, also entitled The O’Brien, Prince O’Brien of the Dalcassians of Thomond, Earl and Count of Thomond and Baron of Ibrackan etc. etc.

Apparently he was a member of the Wyndham family, since he claimed descent from a secret marriage of the last Earl – who had no O’Brien blood in him: so even if the putative secret marriage had taken place, and even if Moulton-O’Brien was the direct descendent of such a union, he simply could never have been The O’Brien; the two claims were incompatible. But this technicality was lost on the court in Mexico where he obtained judgement in 1936 recognising his claim, for which he then obtained some form of recognition in Germany, Luxembourg and France. All of this was part of a hugely elaborate, lifetime pursuit, involving a number of ingenious deceptions. He called himself prince on his children’s birth certificates (his son was given the courtesy title of Baron Ibrackan, and a notice of his birth was inserted in the newspapers claiming an Apostolic Blessing), and arranged the registration of the transfer of a castle in Co. Clare – presumably a ruin – to his heir, again with their full titles appearing in official documents.

Next he faked an accusation of slander against him, which permitted him to bring a court case. Mysteriously the two parties agreed to settle, with the Prince being awarded full damages; the purpose of this was then to have the court record the agreed arbitration – whereupon the scheme fell apart, as the Chief Herald spotted the ruse; it seemed that O’Brien was simultaneously plaintiff, defendant and arbitrator. He created a bogus chivalric order (the Most Honourable Dalcassian Order of the Princely House of Thomond, of which of course he was the sovereign grand master), issued postage stamps for the principality of Thomond, claimed that his house in Dublin (a run-down tenement in Charlemont Street) was an embassy (it appeared in Thom’s Directory in 1950 as such) etc.

A photograph of the “Countess of Thomond” (allegedly the former Vassilia Comtesse Guliaris de Zante of Greece) and her husband appeared in a number of American newspapers in October 1936 as they (including the New York Times) printed the completely false story that his claim to the title had been acknowledged by the British royal family, and that he and his wife would attend the coronation of George VI in that capacity.

Claiming sovereignty over Shannon airport, he sent a letter to John Foster Dulles in 1953 offering to permit US air force planes to land there. The newspaper described him as a former floor-sweep and fence tarrer – while the New York papers who had printed the 1936 reports described him as a New York oil man. According to Edward MacLysaght (Changing Times, 1978) “he was eventually confined to St John of Gods, an institution then situated at Stillorgan Castle . . . an address well suited to his dignity.”

O’Brien’s thoroughness has an amusing afterlife: when Googling his name, I found one of the press cuttings acknowledging his claim which had been scanned in with a volume of Cockayne’s peerage, giving it the ultimate endorsement for the many who take their information in “snippets”.

What I find slightly curious today is my complete lack of interest in Mrs O’Brien’s story at the time. My parents explained that we should have sympathy for her burden, having to sew name-tags into her children’s clothes with the titles of Prince and Princess of Thomond, knowing the ridicule they would receive at the schools they couldn’t afford. I shared in the amusement in the postage stamps they had printed (I remember they were a vivid green in colour), but I had only the dimmest notion of what it might mean for the 14th Earl of Thomond to be locked up in a mental hospital. I also had no interest in the genealogical aspects of his claim, involving questions which at the time would have seemed to me quite silly (whatever the answers).

But today my work as an art historian specialising in portraiture involves endless examination of pedigrees and similar documents. Which leads me to the rather disconcerting aspect of this story: were Moulton-O’Brien’s pretensions any more ludicrous than those of the aristocrats whose claims are recognised in the official sources? Was his parallel universe categorically different from that of the maréchal comte de Thomond? In Talleyrand’s mot, it’s only a question of dates. And in the eyes of a Charlus, most aristocrats are no better than the vagabond under the pont d’Iéna. Of course, if Julian Fellowes gets to write the script according to the rules he prefers, the title would be handed over to a chocolate.

Advertisements

From → Art history

10 Comments
  1. Dear Sir,
    Thank you for this public “Mise au point”.
    I wonder how could “His Highness Raymond Moulton Segahan, the O’brien prince of the Dalcassian order of Thomond, baron of Ibrackan, count of Pogla etc…” could obtain some “form of recognition” in France, as far as the State and Government have ceased to play any role in the question of titles and nobility since 1872 (by official decision suppressing the “Conseil du sceau” published in the”Journal officiel”). The recognition of the “Earl and count of Thomond etc…”, probably as far as I can guess, came from pseudo entitled in France (fake orders and “faux barons”…). He was also member of an “Order of the crown of Charlemagne” created in the 30’s by Paul Bertrand (called himself “chevalier de la Grassière”). I think this “chevaleresque” association lives still now in the USA.

    Greetings, please excuse my approximative english.

    D. M. Delgrange

    • Thanks for your comment. If you’re really interested you can consult Edward MacLysaght, Changing Times, 1978, pp. 213f; but surely the point of my post is to know how far to go in pursuing such things!
      PS Here is an amusing article from the Spectator archive.

  2. John permalink

    Are comments still being accepted here?

  3. John permalink

    How far do you go in pursuing such things, you ask.
    Well, in my opinion you must put your whole heart and soul into a claim of such proportions and Mr.O’Brien did just that. It was lifetime enterprise that he addressed singlemindedly and he did believe in his own cause. He lost his battle and that is why people disparge and belittle him today.
    In that kind of struggle you must win otherwise you are a fool or a criminal or worse.

    Much of the reason why he lost was because of the times in which he lived. Communism and Socialism were on the march in those days and aristocracy was waning. I think that his claims would have been successful in the early 19th century or even up to just before WW1. As I remember him he was a creature of the 18th century really who had no place in the 20th.

    Your housekeeper’s name was Sarah.She was a lovely lady, long suffering, hardworking and devoted. She was too level; headed to earnestly participate in this kind of thing herself but I think that she believed in her husband rather than in his cause.

    She died quite suddenly in 1964 and the very day she died Mr.OBrien was defeated. I could see that straight away. The adventure was over
    I will never forget that funeral and we took him and the two children home for dinner that evening.
    They appeared to have no relatives in Ireland and his daughter went to live with other people sometime later. I heard that she ended up in Canada.

    From there he just destabilised mentally and the last time that I saw him he was wandering around Harcourt Street looking like a tramp, down and out.

  4. John permalink

    Niall,
    Correction to offer to your account.The invitation was to the coronation of Edward VIII scheduled for May 1937 not George VI but this coronation never took place due to Edward’s abdication.

  5. Thank you for your correction, and for your humane contribution to this sad story.

  6. John permalink

    Neil,
    With regard to your comment at no (2) and the “amusing article from the Spectator archive” that you mention, titled “Men in Black” by Brian Inglis, Mr.O’Brien actually made a reply to this in letters to the editor on 7th December 1951.

    archive.spectator.co.uk/article/7th-december-1951/20/letter-to-the-editor

  7. John permalink

    Sorry, that address should be “…………………letters-to-the-editor” not

  8. Thank you again for that further contribution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: