Royal Gwentish Descent for the Herberts?

[Isla MacDonald]

This is from Peter Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies AD 300-1500 and I have adjusted the dates from the records in the Book of Llandaff and elsewhere. I did deviate from Bartrum in line B, because the Book of Llandaff and the sources mentioned by Bartrum in A Welsh Classical Dictionary seem to suggest there were two Meurigs whose mothers were named Enynny. Corrections and critiques are not only welcomed, but desired. Sources following.

A1. Erb, King of Gwent (c. 475-aft. c. 555)
A2. Nynnio, King of Gwent (b. c. 505)
A3. Llywarch, King of Gwent (b. c. 535)
A4. St. Tewdrig, King of Gwent (c. 565-c. 625) m. Enynny (b. c. 570) (same as B4)
A5. Meurig, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 590-c. 665) m. Onbrawst (b. c. 595)
A6. Athrwys, King of Ergyng (c. 615-bef. c. 665) m. Cendlen (b. c. 620)
A7. Morgan, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 645-c. 710) m. Rhiceneth
A8. Iudhael, King of Gwent (c. 680-c. 745)
A9. Rhys, joint-king of Glywysing (c. 720-c. 775) m. Ceingar (b. c. 750)
A10. Arthfael, King of Glywysing (b. c. 765) m. Brawstudd (b. c. 775)
A11. Rhys (b. c. 795)
A12. Hywel, King of Glywysing (c. 830-c. 886) m. Lleucu
A13. Owain, King of Glywysing and Gwent (c. 860-c. 930) m. Nest ferch Rhodri Mawr
A14. Morgan "Hen", King of Morgannwg (ca. 890-974)
A15. Idwallon, joint-king of Morgannwg (b. c. 935)
A16. Ithel (b. c. 970)
A17. Gwrgan (b. c. 1010)
A18. Iestyn, King of Morgannwg (c. 1040-1093)
A19. Madog, Lord of Rhuthian (b. c. 1080) m. Jonet ferch Ynyr Fychan ap Meurig
A20. Hywel, Lord of Meisgyn (b. c. 1115) m. Mawd ferch Gruffudd ab Ifor Bach
A21. Cynwrig, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1155) m. Angharad ferch Lewys ap Rhys
A22. Hywel, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1190)
A23. Meurig, Lord of Llanharan (b. c. 1230) m. Crisli ferch Adam Fychan ab Adam
A24. Dafydd (b. c. 1265) m. Efa ferch Hopkin ap Hywel Fychan
A25. Glawdus (b. c. 1305) m. Ieuan ap Rhys ab Ifor Goch
A26. Mawd (b. c. 1330) m. Llywelyn ap Hywel Fychan ap Hywel
A27. Sir Dafydd Gam (c. 1355-1415) m. Gwenllian ferch Gwilym ap Hywel Grach
A28. Gwladys "the Star of Abergavenny" (c. 1388-1454) m Sir William ap Thomas (d. 1446)
A29. William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (ca. 1423-1469) m. Anne Devereux
A30. Lady Katherine Herbert (c. 1468- bef. 1503) m. George Grey, 2nd Earl of Kent (c. 1443-1503)
A31. Lady Anne Grey (c. 1492-1546) m. John Hussey, Baron Hussey of Sleaford (1465-1537)
A32. Elizabeth Hussey (c. 1512-1554) m. Sir Robert Throckmorton, of Coughton (d. 1581)
A33. Muriel Throckmorton (d. 1615) m. Sir Thomas Tresham, of Rushton Hall (1543-1605)
A34. Mary Tresham (c. 1585-1664) m. Thomas Brudenell, 1st Earl of Cardigan (ca. 1583-1663)
A35. Robert Brudenell, 2nd Earl of Cardigan (1607-1703) m. Lady Anne Savage
A36. Francis Brudenell, Lord Brudenell (1654-1698) m. Lady Frances Savile (d. 1695)
A37. Anne Brunedell (1671-1722) m. Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (1672-1723)

B1. Glywys, King of Glywysing (b. c. 450)
B2. Dyfwn (b. c. 520) m. Meurig, King of Glywysing (b. c. 520), a son of Caradoc and Enynny
B3. Erbic, King of Glywysing (b. c. 545)
B4. Enynny (b. c. 570) m. St. Tewdrig, King of Gwent (c. 565-c. 625)
B5. (same as A5) Meurig, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 590-c. 665)

C1. Eudaf Hen
C2. Gadeon
C3. Morfawr/Gwrfawr
C4. Tudwal
C5. Cynfor
C6. Custennin Gorneu
C7. Erbin
C8. Geraint (c. 465-c. 510) m. Gwyar ferch Amlawd Wledig
C9. Cadwy (Cado/Cador of Arthurian lore) (c. 490-c. 537)
C10. Peredur (? = Berth ap Cado of Arthurian lore) (b. c. 520)
C11. Theudu (b. c. 560)
C12. (?) ? (b. c. 595) m. Briafel Frydic ap Llywarch ap Tewdwr ap Peibo Glafoeriog ap Erb
C13. Cendlen (b. c. 620) m. Athrwys, King of Ergyng (c. 615-bef. c. 665)
C14. (same as A7) Morgan, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 645-c. 710)

D1. Emperor Magnus Maximus (c. 335-388) (? m. Helen)
D2. Severa m. Vortigern, King of Britain (c. 370-c. 441)
D3. Pascent, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 410)
D4. Riagath, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 445)
D5. Mepurit, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 485)
D6. Paul, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 520)
D7. Eldoc, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 555)
D8. Eldad, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 590)
D9. Moriud, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 625)
D10. Guoidcant, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 660)
D11. Pascent, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 700)
D12. Gloud (b. c. 735)
D13. Brawstudd (b. c. 775) m. Arthfael, King of Glywysing (b. c. 765)
D14. (same A11) Rhys (b. c. 795)

Sources

Peter Bartrum, Welsh Genealogies AD 300-1500
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/4026

Peter Bartrum, A Welsh Classical Dictionary: People in History and Legend up to about A.D. 1000
http://www.llgc.org.uk/collections/digital-gallery/printedmaterial/a-welsh-classical-dictionary/

Wendy Davies, An Early Welsh Microcosm: Studies in the Llandaff Charters (London, 1978)

Wendy Davies, The Llandaff Charters (Aberystwyth, 1979)

William Addams Reitwiesner, The Ancestors of Rev. Roger Parry, Rector of Hinton-Ampner (d. 1634)
http://www.wargs.com/family/parry.html

Vortigern Studies
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/questhomepage.htm

Historia Brittonum (828)
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm
http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf

[Hovite]

These lists appear to be fictional, as they extend backward beyond the earliest written records by hundreds of years.

List C commences with a sequence of bare names, with no information about the people, which is always suspicious.

The standard reliability test is that each generation should be about 25 years, but the generations in lists A and D generally exceed this average.

The form of the names in the earlier sections are wrong for the period. Men would have had names such as Arviragus or Magliavos. Of course, the names could have become corrupted or modernized. Cynfor would have been Conomorus, and Custennin was Constantinus, while Geraint is the modern form of Gerontius, and Meurig is from Mauritius.

[al...@mindspring.com]

Hi Isla

Carl Boyer, 3rd, Medieval Ancestors of Certain Americans, Santa Clarita, California, 2004, pps 1, 160-161.

Shows the same pedigree, but with a few additional generations as shown below:

> A1. Erb, King of Gwent (c. 475-aft. c. 555)
> A2. Nynnio, King of Gwent (b. c. 505)
> A3. Llywarch, King of Gwent (b. c. 535)
> A4. St. Tewdrig, King of Gwent (c. 565-c. 625) m. Enynny (b. c. 570) (same as B4)
> A5. Meurig, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 590-c. 665) m. Onbrawst (b. c. 595)
> A6. Athrwys, King of Ergyng (c. 615-bef. c. 665) m. Cendlen (b. c. 620)
> A7. Morgan, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 645-c. 710) m. Rhiceneth

A8. Rhys ap Morgan
A9. Brochwel ap Rhys
A9a. Gwriad ap Brochwel m. Ceingar ferch Maredudd

> A10. Arthfael, King of Glywysing (b. c. 765) m. Brawstudd (b. c. 775)
> A11. Rhys (b. c. 795)
> A12. Hywel, King of Glywysing (c. 830-c. 886) m. Lleucu
> A13. Owain, King of Glywysing and Gwent (c. 860-c. 930) m. Nest ferch Rhodri Mawr
> A14. Morgan "Hen", King of Morgannwg (ca. 890-974)
> A15. Idwallon, joint-king of Morgannwg (b. c. 935)
> A16. Ithel (b. c. 970)
> A17. Gwrgan (b. c. 1010)
> A18. Iestyn, King of Morgannwg (c. 1040-1093)
> A19. Madog, Lord of Rhuthian (b. c. 1080) m. Jonet ferch Ynyr Fychan ap Meurig
> A20. Hywel, Lord of Meisgyn (b. c. 1115) m. Mawd ferch Gruffudd ab Ifor Bach
> A21. Cynwrig, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1155) m. Angharad ferch Lewys ap Rhys
> A22. Hywel, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1190)
> A23. Meurig, Lord of Llanharan (b. c. 1230) m. Crisli ferch Adam Fychan ab Adam

FWIW, would require some redating.

Doug Smith

[John Watson]

Dear Isla,

The early generations are probably fictional, but even if they existed there is no evidence that each 'king' was the father of the next. Inheritance in Celtic society was often matrilineal.

Regards,

John

[Isla MacDonald]

Hi Doug,

In the Welsh Classical Dictionary Bartrum mentions recorded genealogies for line A and discusses the generations added by Carl Boyer, but dismisses them as collateral relations who were mistakeningly added into the main pedigree.

In the Welsh Classical Dictionary under Arthfael ap Rhys, "His genealogy also occurs in the expanded 'Hanesyn Hen' tract (ABT §15 in EWGT p.105) as father of Rhys of the line of Glywysing. In JC 9 in EWGT p.45 two names are added: Arthfael ap Gwriad ap Brochwel ap Rhys. The version of the 'Hanesyn Hen' tract is preferable. But MP 3 in EWGT p.122 wrongly reinstates the two names and adds two more. His wife was Brawstudd ferch Gloud ap Pasgen Buellt, by whom he was the father of Rhys (JC 14 in EWGT p.46)..."

And the same work under Gwriad ap Brochwell whom he dates to c. 870, "The two names appear as genealogical links in the pedigree of Hywel ap Rhys, king of Glywysing (JC 9: Gwriad ap Brochwel ap Rhys ; MP 3: Gwriad ap Brochwel ap Meurig ab Arthfael ap Rhys, in EWGT pp.45, 122). The names are apparently wrongly inserted in the pedigree. See Arthfael ap Rhys. Gwriad may be properly the son of Brochwel ap Meurig ab Arthfael, king of Gwent, as wrongly inserted in MP 3. This would put him in the right generation to be Gwriad, father of Noë (above)."

[Isla MacDonald]

I was hoping for more than a very general denunciation of this genealogy with the inference that I've haven't researched it at all.

I highly doubt most of the people listed are fictional. I can understand the doubt with line C, because it gets into relations of King Arthur. I don't know whether or not scholarly consensus considers Eudaf Hen historical like Cunedda and Coel Hen, so I have him listed for now.

Otherwise, A and D are both based on earlier records and 25 years between generations isn't sufficent for the Welsh genealogies at this time. Stewart Baldwin mentions in passing that the Dyfed line is unusual because "the dynasty of Dyfed appears to have had a somewhat smaller average number of years per generation that the other lines followed" and if you do the math with the Dyfed dynasty we're looking at about 25 years per generation.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/llywelyn.htm

Bartrum mentions the same, and while I don't trust their conclusions over Bartrum's, this site that examines Welsh lineages frequently mentions the higher number of years between generations in early Briton/Welsh families.
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org

The generations D2-D11 in Line D are from Historia Brittonum (828) and D1-D3 can be deduced from the early accounts of Vortigern's family and the Pillar of Eliseg (9th century).

The genealogy of Line A might not have contemporary documentation but just about all the kings of Gwent and Glywysing are mentioned in the charters recorded in Book of Llandaff (compiled c. 1125) and I've not seen anyone question it's validity. So the later genealogies do include historical figures.

[al...@mindspring.com]

Hi Isla

Welsh pedigrees are notoriously disputed. An alternate ancestry of St Tewdrig is proposed at:

http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id168.html.

I am not familiar with Darrell Wolcott's work but it appears carefully researched.

His take on the earliest ancestors of the Herberts is at

http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id40.html.

I have not had time to read the bulk of the articles there but they do seem interesting. Perhaps someone else here is familiar with his work.

Doug Smith

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Here is a short biographical sketch of the author, from the "Vortigern Studies" website:

"Born in Jefferson, Texas in 1935 Darrell Wolcott grew up in Ohio. After a career in banking he took early retirement in 1996, and returning to his place of birth he created and endowed the Center for the Study of Ancient Wales. During the past 8 years, the foundation has constructed a small castle to house its library and offices and acquired copies of thousands of source and secondary works related to the history of Wales, many of which are otherwise unavailable outside Britain. At present he is its sole researcher."

So, the "Center for the Study of Ancient Wales" is not a genuine scholarly research facility, but something financed by a retired banker, apparently so that he can post his theories under an aura of credibility. Far from being "carefully researched", from what I can see, the author plays "cut-and-paste" to rearrange Welsh pedigrees to his own liking, ignoring or explaining away any evidence that doesn't fit his theories. If you are interested in serious genealogical research, then my advice would be not to waste time reading this stuff.

Stewart Baldwin

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Isla MacDonald wrote:

>This is from Peter Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies AD 300-1500 and I have adjusted the dates from the records in the Book of Llandaff and elsewhere. I did deviate from Bartrum in line B, because the Book of Llandaff and the sources mentioned by Bartrum in A Welsh Classical Dictionary seem to suggest there were two Meurigs whose mothers were named Enynny. Corrections and critiques are not only welcomed, but desired. Sources following.
>

>A1. Erb, King of Gwent (c. 475-aft. c. 555)
>A2. Nynnio, King of Gwent (b. c. 505)
>A3. Llywarch, King of Gwent (b. c. 535)
>A4. St. Tewdrig, King of Gwent (c. 565-c. 625) m. Enynny (b. c. 570) (same as B4)
>A5. Meurig, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 590-c. 665) m. Onbrawst (b. c. 595)
>A6. Athrwys, King of Ergyng (c. 615-bef. c. 665) m. Cendlen (b. c. 620)
>A7. Morgan, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 645-c. 710) m. Rhiceneth

>A8. Iudhael, King of Gwent (c. 680-c. 745)
>A9. Rhys, joint-king of Glywysing (c. 720-c. 775) m. Ceingar (b. c. 750)

>A10. Arthfael, King of Glywysing (b. c. 765) m. Brawstudd (b. c. 775)
>A11. Rhys (b. c. 795)
>A12. Hywel, King of Glywysing (c. 830-c. 886) m. Lleucu
>A13. Owain, King of Glywysing and Gwent (c. 860-c. 930) m. Nest ferch Rhodri Mawr
>A14. Morgan "Hen", King of Morgannwg (ca. 890-974)
>A15. Idwallon, joint-king of Morgannwg (b. c. 935)
>A16. Ithel (b. c. 970)
>A17. Gwrgan (b. c. 1010)
>A18. Iestyn, King of Morgannwg (c. 1040-1093)
>A19. Madog, Lord of Rhuthian (b. c. 1080) m. Jonet ferch Ynyr Fychan ap Meurig
>A20. Hywel, Lord of Meisgyn (b. c. 1115) m. Mawd ferch Gruffudd ab Ifor Bach
>A21. Cynwrig, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1155) m. Angharad ferch Lewys ap Rhys
>A22. Hywel, Lord of Radur (b. c. 1190)
>A23. Meurig, Lord of Llanharan (b. c. 1230) m. Crisli ferch Adam Fychan ab Adam

>A24. Dafydd (b. c. 1265) m. Efa ferch Hopkin ap Hywel Fychan
>A25. Glawdus (b. c. 1305) m. Ieuan ap Rhys ab Ifor Goch
>A26. Mawd (b. c. 1330) m. Llywelyn ap Hywel Fychan ap Hywel
>A27. Sir Dafydd Gam (c. 1355-1415) m. Gwenllian ferch Gwilym ap Hywel Grach
>A28. Gwladys "the Star of Abergavenny" (c. 1388-1454) m Sir William ap Thomas (d. 1446)
>A29. William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (ca. 1423-1469) m. Anne Devereux
>A30. Lady Katherine Herbert (c. 1468- bef. 1503) m. George Grey, 2nd Earl of Kent (c. 1443-1503)
>A31. Lady Anne Grey (c. 1492-1546) m. John Hussey, Baron Hussey of Sleaford (1465-1537)
>A32. Elizabeth Hussey (c. 1512-1554) m. Sir Robert Throckmorton, of Coughton (d. 1581)
>A33. Muriel Throckmorton (d. 1615) m. Sir Thomas Tresham, of Rushton Hall (1543-1605)
>A34. Mary Tresham (c. 1585-1664) m. Thomas Brudenell, 1st Earl of Cardigan (ca. 1583-1663)
>A35. Robert Brudenell, 2nd Earl of Cardigan (1607-1703) m. Lady Anne Savage
>A36. Francis Brudenell, Lord Brudenell (1654-1698) m. Lady Frances Savile (d. 1695)
>A37. Anne Brunedell (1671-1722) m. Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (1672-1723)

I have not researched this specific line in any detail, but I can make the general comment that Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies are essentially a guide to the claims made by the early Welsh genealogical manuscripts, and should in no way be regarded as definitive. Any serious research on this line would have to examine the actual statements of the genealogical manuscripts themselves, along with any other relevant sources, taking into account the dates of the sources and other factors bearing on their reliability. As I recall, most of the Llandaff charters are forgeries which appear to be adapted (at least in part) from genuine earlier charters. They tend to argue for the existence of many of these early medieval Gwentish kings, but not for their genealogy or chronology. The early genealogical manuscripts contradict each other, and the lines in A and B are to some extent a cut-and-paste trying to smooth over the inconsistencies. I would be reluctant to accept the genealogical details prior to ca. 600. Most of the marriages of the ancestors of Morgan Hen are likely to be fabrications created by the original author of the Jesus College genealogies, who all-too-conveniently provides previously unmentioned female members of other dynasties to marry ancestors of Morgan and give him an illustrious descent.

>B1. Glywys, King of Glywysing (b. c. 450)
>B2. Dyfwn (b. c. 520) m. Meurig, King of Glywysing (b. c. 520), a son of Caradoc and Enynny
>B3. Erbic, King of Glywysing (b. c. 545)

>B4. Enynny (b. c. 570) m. St. Tewdrig, King of Gwent (c. 565-c. 625)
>B5. (same as A5) Meurig, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 590-c. 665)

See above.

>C1. Eudaf Hen
>C2. Gadeon
>C3. Morfawr/Gwrfawr
>C4. Tudwal
>C5. Cynfor
>C6. Custennin Gorneu
>C7. Erbin
>C8. Geraint (c. 465-c. 510) m. Gwyar ferch Amlawd Wledig
>C9. Cadwy (Cado/Cador of Arthurian lore) (c. 490-c. 537)
>C10. Peredur (? = Berth ap Cado of Arthurian lore) (b. c. 520)
>C11. Theudu (b. c. 560)
>C12. (?) ? (b. c. 595) m. Briafel Frydic ap Llywarch ap Tewdwr ap Peibo Glafoeriog ap Erb

>C13. Cendlen (b. c. 620) m. Athrwys, King of Ergyng (c. 615-bef. c. 665)
>C14. (same as A7) Morgan, King of Gwent and Glywysing (c. 645-c. 710)

Most of these figures are fictional, based on the inventions of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

>D1. Emperor Magnus Maximus (c. 335-388) (? m. Helen)
>D2. Severa m. Vortigern, King of Britain (c. 370-c. 441)
>D3. Pascent, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 410)
>D4. Riagath, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 445)
>D5. Mepurit, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 485)
>D6. Paul, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 520)
>D7. Eldoc, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 555)
>D8. Eldad, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 590)
>D9. Moriud, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 625)
>D10. Guoidcant, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 660)
>D11. Pascent, King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion (b. c. 700)
>D12. Gloud (b. c. 735)
>D13. Brawstudd (b. c. 775) m. Arthfael, King of Glywysing (b. c. 765)
>D14. (same A11) Rhys (b. c. 795)

As noted above, the link of generation 13 can be discarded as a probable invention. The title of "King of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion" given to most of these individuals is a very late (probably 20th century) invention. The genealogies give them no such titles, and the Welsh had no known king-lists. Although Magnus Maximus was historical, and there is no good reason to doubt the existence of Vortigern, Helen is completely fictional, and Severa was probably also an early invention.

Stewart Baldwin

[Hans Vogels]

Isla,

If you read
Worlds of Arthur. Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages (2013, Oxford University Press) by the historian Guy Halsall
any hope of a historical king Arthur will be gone forever. He sketches the current evidence for 5th-and-6th-century Britain in a both scholarly and readable way, and debunkes all the populist Arthurian history written by amateur enthousiasts.

Hans Vogels




Op zondag 22 februari 2015 22:40:58 UTC+1 schreef Isla MacDonald:

[al...@mindspring.com]

Hi Stewart

I looked at the "articles" again which are only published on the web page. I do see some careful research mixed in with a lot of wild speculation where he "cuts and pastes" to his pleasing. It is clearly not a scholarly research facility and nothing is peer reviewed.

Doug Smith

[Isla MacDonald]

Thank you for taking the time to have a look at this, Stewart. The chronology of the Gwentish line I adopted comes from Wendy Davies's examination of the Book of Llandaff in comparison with other sources and events, not the charters themselves.

So B and C are unreliable, D's convenient marriage to a cousin of a king descended from Vortigern is unlikely and we are left A which might have issues in the earlier generations? I think that officially eliminates any descents from Vortigern then, because the Powys genealogy is obviously very confused in different sources and even the Pillar of Eliseg is incomplete. And if Severa wasn't historical that would do away with any realistic descendants of Magnus Maximus in Britain. Also, just from memory, I don't think either A2 or A3 are mentioned in the Llandaff charters, so maybe Tewdrig is a good place to cut it off. He would have been alive c. 600 AD.

Hans, I may have to reluctantly give it a look. I hate to kiss a great Celtic hero goodbye, but facts are facts.

Doug, that is the feeling I got from Ancient Wales Studies too. He will discuss sources and what other authors think, but then veers off into theoretical make-believe. I prefer Vortigern Studies, because there he focuses more on the primary sources, which he quotes in full, and less on theories. And with it's superior formatting it's far easier to separate fact from theory.

Isla MacDonald

[John Watson]

And then you face another problem. Inheritance in early Celtic societies was often matrilineal, so even if these 'kings' existed, it is quite possible that there were no father-son relationships between the succeeding generations.

Regards,
John

[Isla MacDonald]

>
> And then you face another problem. Inheritance in early Celtic societies was often matrilineal, so even if these 'kings' existed, it is quite possible that there were no father-son relationships between the succeeding generations.
>
> Regards,
> John

Hi John,

Besides the Picts what other tribes do you know of that practiced matrilineal succession in the Roman and/or early medieval period? I have never heard of medieval Britons practicing matrilineal succession.

[John Watson]

Hi Isla,

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality under "In mythology".

Regards,

John

[Bronwen Edwards]

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 2:19:41 PM UTC-8, John Watson wrote:
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality under "In mythology".

Coming in part from a modern matrilineal culture, this caught my eye. The caption for this wiki article is "in mythology", as you said. There's the keyword. The article speaks of "motif", "myth", "King Arthur", etc. but not of actual people in the relevant period who were matrilineal. The Picts are a well known example and there were *probably* others in the northwestern European region - but - they have not been identified as such. Remember that we are discussing a particular time period. I have never seen evidence of actual matrilineality other than the Picts for that time. I have my suspicions about more ancient people in Scandinavia, Brittany and elsewhere - but nothing that rises to the level of evidence. Bronwen.

[Hovite]

Even with the Picts, the evidence is poor. No Pictish genealogy has been preserved, and the surviving king lists identify kings by reference to their father: Drest son of Talorgen, Talorcan son of Drostan, Talorgen son of Onuist, Conall son of Tadg. Generally the fathers were not themselves kings, consequently it has presumed that the succession passed through mothers, but those mothers were never documented, so the actual system of succession is unknown. The supposed reference to matriliny by Bede turns out to be mythical:

The Picts, accordingly, sailing over into Britain, began to inhabit the northern parts thereof, for the Britons had possessed themselves of the southern. Now the Picts had no wives, and asked them of the Scots; who would not consent to grant them upon any other terms, than that when any question should arise, they should choose a king from the female royal race rather than from the male: which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day.

[wjhonson]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 5:00:59 PM UTC-8, Isla MacDonald wrote:

>
> Historia Brittonum (828)
> http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm
> http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf

Writing in 828, I'm suspicious that the anonymous (not Nennius) compiler of the Historia Brittonum, is a reliable source for events that happened three hundred years earlier.

[Stewart Baldwin via]

The statement that the "supposed reference to matriliny by Bede turns out to be mythical" is very misleading. The key part of Bede's statement is the last part: "... which custom, as is well known, has been observed among the Picts to this day." This is direct and contemporary evidence for the succession custom among the Picts during the time of Bede. The word "mythical" would apply ONLY to the first part of the quoted paragraph, in which Bede reports an myth attempting to explain how these "well known" (and apparently unusual) succession practices came into being. Bede does not describe succession among the Picts in enough detail to claim that he was specifically describing matriliny, but the very fact that an origin myth was given suggests that Pictish succession practices were unusual in some way which required an explanation, and that it somehow involved succession through females. The "anti-matriliny" group of scholars has been particularly active during the last several decades, but I have been completely unconvinced by their arguments, which lack a sound logical basis. The core of their argument is the quite valid point that matrilineal succession has not been documented elsewhere in Europe, but the rest of their argument has consisted of attempts to "explain away" Bede and SOME of the other evidence for matriliny, and ignoring the evidence which they cannot satisfactorily explain (principally, the striking onomastic difference between the names of Pictish kings and the names of fathers of Pictish kings). In my opinion, all the "anti-matriliny" arguments have succeeded in doing is to show that the evidence in favor as matriliny is not as strong as what was once thought. I have been especially annoyed by the tendency of some recent authors to brush aside matriliny as if the case against it had been settled. Fortunately, not all scholars have adopted this attitude. The most recent detailed discussion of Pictish succession practices in a major journal of which I am aware is Nicholas Evans, Royal succession and kingship among the Picts, Innes Review 59 (2008): 1-48. Evans does not offer any definitive conclusion, but clearly leans toward matriliny for the earlier (pre-700) period. (Almost all scholars agree that succession to the Pictish kingship was predominantly patrilineal by the early ninth century.) I am unaware of any later detailed discussion of Pictish succession in a scholarly journal.

Stewart Baldwin