Katwallawn II, Prince of North Wales
Kelsey J. Williams
On page 128 of Turton's _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (London, 1928) the
following pedigree is given (in the index the source is cited as
_Archaeologia Cambrensis_, 1884):
1. Katwallawn I, Prince of North Wales (d. 517)
2. Maelgyn, ditto (d. 547)
3. Rhun, ditto (d. 586)
4. Beli, ditto (d. 599)
5. Iago I, ditto (d. 613)
6. Catnan, ditto (d. 630)
7. Katwallawn II, ditto (d. 634) = sister of Penda, King of Mercia
8. St. Kadwalladyr, ditto (d. 664)
9. Edwal, ditto (d. 712)
[further descendants down to Llywelyn ap Iorweth]
Stewart Baldwin covered this line in his "Ahnentafel of Llywelyn ap
Iorweth" (http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/llywelyn.htm) as follows:
524416. Iago, king of Gwynedd, d. ca. 616 [AC, which should only be
considered approximate]. [Note: Since Iago apparently died only 18
years (or thereabouts) before his grandson Cadwallon, he was evidently
elderly at the time. Thus, as has been pointed out on numerous
occasions, there are chronological difficulties with accepting his
traditional pedigree [HG.1: "... Iacob map Beli map Rhun map Mailcun
..."], which would make him the great-grandson of the famous Maelgwn
Gwynedd, king of Gwynedd, and contemporary of Gildas, who is
frequently dated to the middle of the sixth century (perhaps not
correctly). Despite these doubts, the traditional genealogy of Iago
is not absolutely impossible, even if Maelgwn died in the middle of
the sixth century. Furthermore, since the AC obituary of Maelgwn has
been convincingly shown to be a tenth century fabrication (see "Gildas
and Maelgwn: Problems of Dating", by David N. Dumville, in Gildas:
New Approaches (ed. Lapidge & Dumville, The Boydell Press), 51-9), it
is not impossible that both Gildas and Maelgwn should be dated earlier
in the sixth century, which would ease the chronological problems
caused by the
above genealogy. Thus, if a consensus should arise that the work of
Gildas should be dated a generation or so earlier than it normally has
been, the skeptical position on these earlier generations might have
to be reevaluated.]
262208. Catamanus (Cadfan ap Iago), king of Gwynedd, early seventh
century, whose tombstone survives at Llangadwaladr("Catamanus rex
sapientisimus opinatisimus omnium regum" [CIIC.970; ECMW.13]) [HG.1:
"Catman map Iacob"]
131104. Cadwallon ap Cadfan, king of Gwynedd, d. 634 [AC] [HG.1:
"Catgollaun map Catman"] = 131105. Unknown. [Note: Geoffrey of
Monmouth, in his HRB.XII.14, states that Cadwallon married a sister of
Penda, king of Mercia. However, Geoffrey is far too unreliable to be
accepted as an authority on this matter.]
65552. Cadwaladr Fendigaid ap Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd, d. 664 or
682? (sources differ, but the latter date, from AC, seems more likely)
[HG.1: "Catgualart map Catgollaun"]
32776. Idwal Iwrch ap Cadwaladr Fendigaid [HG.1: "Iutguaul map
Catgualart"]
The above treatment of this line certainly covers its Welsh aspects
but there seems to be a suspicious duplication in generations 7 and 8
which I would like to address. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his _British
History_ (XII: 6) provides the following pedigree for King Cadwalla of
Britain:
1. Malgo, King of Britain
2. Ennianus
3. Belin
4. Jago
5. Cadwan, King of Britain
6. Cadwalla, King of Britain
He further states that Cadwalla died the 15th day before the Kalends
of December after having ruled for forty-eight years (XII: 13). He is
alleged to have married a half-sister of King Penda (XII: 14) who was
"of the noble race of the Gewisseans" (why this reference to the West
Saxons when Geoffrey seems to have known that Penda was king of
Mercia?). His son is given as King Cadwallader "called by Bede
Elidwalda" who died the 12th day before the Kalends of May 689 in Rome
(XII: 18).
Although Geoffrey refers to Bede he clearly did not make the
connection between his British Cadwalla and the Saxon Caedwalla, King
of the Gewisse who is referred to in Bede's _Ecclesiastical History of
the English People_ (V: 7) as having reigned two years and then
traveled to Rome where he died on 20 Apr 689 and was buried in Saint
Peter's, aged thirty. Assuming my calculation is correct XII Kal. May
and 20 Apr are the same date or nearly so. This combined with the
similar name and the obscure reference in Geoffrey to Cadwalla's
mother having been a West Saxon seem too much of a coincidence to pass
over. It should also be observed that Bede (III: 7) mentions that
Ceanwealh, King of the West Saxons (i.e. the Gewisse) married the
sister of Penda, King of Mercia.
In the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (A 685) Caedwalla's pedigree is given,
namely: Caedwalla, son of Coenberht, son of Cadda, son of Cutha, son
of Ceawlin, son of Cynric, son of Cerdic. Three years later (AE 688)
his death is given at Rome on 20 Apr and it is noted that Ine, his
cousin succeeded him.
It seems then that Geoffrey has grafted information concerning two
cousins who ruled the West Saxons onto the Welsh royal pedigree based
upon a certain similarity of name. At least this appears to me to be
the most likely answer. If true, then any possibility of Cadwallon
having allegedly married Penda's sister could be dismissed. I'd be
interested in other people's comments on this theory.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Stewart Baldwin
Williams) wrote:
An excellent observation (which has also been made before by others
but of which I had been unaware). I went to the library to check it
out, and found relevant material in the following two sources:
J. S. P. Tatlock, "The Legendary History of Britain" (University of
California Press, 1950), pp. 251-3.
Neil Wright, "Geoffrey of Monmouth and Bede", in Arthurian Literature
VI (1986), 27-59, especially pp. 50-52.
Both of these authors made largely the same observations that you did
about the alleged marriage of Cadwallon and the false identification
of Cadwaladr of Gwynedd and Caedwalla of Wessex. Whereas both agree
that Geoffrey's statements on these matters are falsehoods, Tatlock
tends to feel that Geoffrey misinterpreted Bede, whereas Wright
accuses Geoffrey (correctly, I think) of deliberate falsification.
This shows that my comments above (and on other occasions) on the
alleged marriage of Cadwallon with a sister of Penda have been far too
charitable, and that I should have listed the marriage as a proven
fabrication rather than just expressing strong doubt. Thanks for your
comments that forced me to look at this false marriage more carefully
than I had before.
By the way, with regard to the death date of Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon
above, I think that it is generally agreed now that the date of ca.
664 that is indicated by Historia Brittonum is probably wrong, and
that the death date of ca. 682 that is indicated by Annales Cambriae
should be accepted with a much stronger degree of preference than what
I indicated in the matter quoted above.
Stewart Baldwin
Kelsey J. Williams
Hello,
Thanks very much for the comments and the citations. I'm glad I was
able to help pierce one more small part of the veil of myths that
surrounds early English history.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams