Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's marriages
Stewart Baldwin
stating that Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had two other marriages which had
been overlooked in the literature, one to a sister of the earl of
Chester, and another to a daughter of the Lord of the Isles. Since no
evidence was offered to support these claims, the accuracy of this
information was difficult to judge, as was pointed out by others.
Today, while looking for something else, I stumbled upon a reference
(in Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish History" vol. 2, p. 467)
that led me to an apparent reference to one of these marriages
("Confirmat sententiam de sponsalibus inter filiam princeps Insularum
et principem Norwalliæ"). Anderson's citation was to two items in
Migne's Latin Patrologiae (generally cited as "PL" in the literature),
in volumes 214 and 215, which consist of papers of Pope Innocent III.
A complete transcription of both of these items is given below. The
second item had a few footnotes, which are also transcribed, since
they give other sources which might be relevant. I have transcribed
everything as is (except for a couple of quotes which I put around
some italicized references in the footnotes), and I did not try to
correct obvious errors (such as the statement that the daughter of
John who married Llywelyn was named Anne). Everything, including the
footnotes, is in Latin. My knowledge of Latin is insufficient to
offer a translation of a document this elaborate, so I have not
attempted it, but others are welcome to try.
Stewart Baldwin
------------------------------
[From PL 214, 791-2. (24 November 1199)]
CCXXXIII
MANNENSI EPISCOPO, ARCHIDIACONO BANGORENSI ET PRIORI DE INSULA
GLANNAVO.
Ne ante septennium sponsalia contrahantur.
(Laterani, viii Kal. Decembris.)
Postulavit a nobis dilectus filius vir nobilis R. princeps Norwaliæ,
ut de concessione nostra sibi liceret filiam dilecti filii principis
Insularum subharrhatam ab ipso accipere in uxorem, non obstante quod
patruo ejus eadem infra nubiles annos exstitit desponsata cum tamen a
neutro traducta fuisset. Verum quoniam nobis constare non potuit
cujus ætatis puella tempore subarrhationis vel desponsationis
exstiterit et cui antea fuerit, puta nepoti vel patruo, desponsata,
cum secundum diversitates factorum jura etiam sint diversa, in
hujusmodi certum non potuimus dare responsum, quoniam juxta canonicas
sanctiones in rebus ambiguis non est absolutum judicium proferendum.
Volentes autem, quantum cum Deo possumus, justas postulationes præfati
principis sine difficultate qualibet exaudire, inquisitionem eorum quæ
præmismus sub certa forma examini vestro duximus committendam, quid
juris sit in singulis articulis supponentes. Quocirca discretioni
vestræ per apostolica scripta mandamus quatenus vocatis ad præsentiam
vestram quos videritis evocandos, sollicite inquiratis utrum puella
septennium non attigerit quando subarrhata exstitit a nepote, vel
patruo desponsata. In utroque namque istorum casuum, quia tam
subarrhatio quam desponsatio de jure non tenuit, quæ non potest
septennium prævenire, quod factum est a patruo primo vel postea non
obstante, nisi aliud quid impediat, puella eadem legitime contrahere
poterit cum nepote. Si vero tam subarrhationis quam desponsationis
tempore septennis exstitit vel majoris ætatis, cum ex tunc incipiant
placere sponsalia, si præcessit desponsatio patrui, non potuit
contrahere cum nepote; quoniam secundum traditiones et observantias
regulares nullus potest sponsam consanguinei sui accipere in uxorem,
et hi duo casus non ad imparia judicantur. Si autem subarrhatio facta
cum nepote præcessit, quod secutum fuit postea non tenente, cum per
secundum factum non potuerit primum dissolvi, quod quantum ad
sponsalia sortitum fuerit firmitatem, volentibus personis
principalibus, matrimonium inter eas poterit consummari. Si vero
nepos eam ante septennium subarrhavit et patruus in septennio vel post
septennium desponsavit eamdem, nepos eam propter rationem præmissam
ducere non poterit in uxorem, sin, vice versa, eam sibi legitime
poterit copulare. Pro iis quæ præmismus memoriæ commendatis, cum de
facto vobis constiterit, de jure non poteritis dubitare. Vos ergo,
appelatione remota, secundum præmissas distinctiones injunctum vobis
curetis negotium diffinire. Quod si omnes, etc., tu, frater episcope,
cum eorum altero.
Dat. Lat. viii Kal. Decembris.
------------------------------
[From PL 215, 49-50. (19 April 1203)]
XLVII
ABBATI DE ABENTON (99), PRIORI DE HENLI, ET MAGISTRO M CANONICO DE
BERLINTON, BANGORENSIS DIŒCESEOS.
Confirmat sententiam de sponsalibus inter filiam princeps Insularum et
principem Norwalliæ.
(Laterani, xiii Kal. Maii.)
Olim dilectus filius, nobilis vir, N. (100), princeps Norwalliæ, a
nobis humiliter postulavit, ut de concessione nostra liceret eidem
filiam nobilis viri ....... principis Insularum, quam se subarrhasse
scribebat, ducere in uxorem, etc. In eumdem fere modum, sicut in
Regesto secundi anni (101), mense Decembri usque poterit copulare.
Partibus itaque in prædictorum judicum præsentia constitutis, sicut
ipsi per suas nobis litteras intimarunt, eis per testes constitit
evidenter, quod puella, completis octo annis, a L. principe Norwalliæ,
tam suo quam suorum consensu parentum, subarrhata fuerat, sed, eo ex
necessitate traducere differente, a patruo sine suo consensu postmodum
desponsata, qui, ea nequaquam carnaliter cognita, viam fuerat universæ
carnis ingressus. Unde, ipsi judices, communicato prudentum virorum
consilio, puellam eamdem a L. prædicto, Norwalliæ principe,
sententialiter concesserunt auctoritate apostolica desponsari, ne
discordia inter illos olim exorta, nunc autem sopita, iterum oriatur,
sicut nobis per suas litteras intimarunt. Nos igitur eorumdem
sententiam, nisi aliud rationabile quid obsistat, ratam et firmam
habentes, præsentium vobis auctoritate mandamus, quatenus ipsam
faciatis, appellatione remota, per censuram ecclesiasticam
inviolabiliter observari. Nullis litteris veritati, etc.
Quod si non omnes ... duo, etc.
Notes from PL:
(99) De abbatibus hujus monasterii, circa hæc in quibus versamur
tempora, nihil apud auctores "Monastic. Angl."
(100) Qui hic initiali N. alibi (vid. not. seq.) R. littera
designatur; sed forsan utrobique male. Rectius, ut infra, in hac ipsa
epistola, L. Lewellinum enim, Norwalliæ principem, circa hæc tempora
diserte nominat auctor coætaneus, et ipse patria Wallensis, Giraldus,
"De jure et statu Menevensis eccles." part. ii, pag. 554. Lewellinus,
item, fundator abbatiæ Aberconweyensis in agro Carmarthensi, prodit in
charta data anno 1198, principatus sui decimo, vii Id. Januarii.
"Monastic. Anglic.", tom. 1, pag. 918. An idem ac Lewellinus,
princeps Wenedociæ, cui Joannes, Anglorum rex, Annam filiam suam in
uxorem dederat, et munitiones ac oppida sua abstulisse dicitur anno
1211, cum Norwalliam magno exercitu stipatus adiisset? "Annal.
eccles. Menens." ad ann. 1211 (Vide etiam "Annal. eccles. Wigorn.,
Angl. sacr." part. i, pag. 481 et 482.)
(101) Epistola 233, ad Mannensum (legendum, forsan Menevensem)
episcopum, archidiaconum Bangorensem, et priorem de insula Glannavo,
directa.
Susan Hicks
Glyn Burgess in his book Two Medieval Outlaws, (published by Brewer 1997)
presents the translation of the Medieval Romance of Fouke FitzWaryn. The
romance says that Fouke's daughter Eve (by Fouke's second wife Clarice
d'Auberville) married Llywelyn after the death of Joan. True or not, I
don't know.
Suzanne Doig
Baldwin) wrote:
>My knowledge of Latin is insufficient to
>offer a translation of a document this elaborate, so I have not
>attempted it, but others are welcome to try.
I doubt *very* much whether mine's any better, but I'm having a go, to
get the gist of it at least. I've got a three hour plane journey to
fill in tomorrow.
One query - what does 'subharrhata'/'subarrhatio' mean? (Damned Latin
dictionaries which don't contain mediæval Latin...)
Suzanne
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4038/index.html
Stewart Baldwin
(Suzanne Doig) wrote:
>One query - what does 'subharrhata'/'subarrhatio' mean? (Damned Latin
>dictionaries which don't contain mediæval Latin...)
From the medieval Latin glossary in Charles Trice-Martin's "The Record
Interpreter":
subarrare:- to plough up; to espouse; to give a pledge, or earnest;
sometimes to take a pledge.
subharrare:- to plough up.
BTW, the one place where I typed "subharrhatam" was a typographical
error on my part, and it should have been "subarrhatam".
Stewart Baldwin
D. Spencer Hines
What's the context? It would be useful to see the sentence entire ---
with perhaps one either side of it.
It could conceivably mean "earnest money" or "bond".
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Warriors --- "There is much tradition and
mystique in the bequest of personal weapons to a surviving comrade in
arms. It has to do with a continuation of values past individual
mortality. People living in a time made safe for them by others may
find this difficult to understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris,
Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37837ffc...@news.mindspring.com...
Suzanne Doig
>Today, while looking for something else, I stumbled upon a reference
>(in Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish History" vol. 2, p. 467)
>that led me to an apparent reference to one of these marriages
>("Confirmat sententiam de sponsalibus inter filiam princeps Insularum
>et principem Norwalliæ"). Anderson's citation was to two items in
>Migne's Latin Patrologiae (generally cited as "PL" in the literature),
>in volumes 214 and 215, which consist of papers of Pope Innocent III.
>A complete transcription of both of these items is given below. The
>second item had a few footnotes, which are also transcribed, since
>they give other sources which might be relevant. I have transcribed
>everything as is (except for a couple of quotes which I put around
>some italicized references in the footnotes), and I did not try to
>correct obvious errors (such as the statement that the daughter of
>John who married Llywelyn was named Anne). Everything, including the
>footnotes, is in Latin. My knowledge of Latin is insufficient to
>offer a translation of a document this elaborate, so I have not
>attempted it, but others are welcome to try.
Okay, so it took a few weeks, but I've had a go at the first of the
documents. My Latin is less than flash and somewhat rusty, and I'm not
at all experienced in translating medieval Latin, so I wouldn't put
too much faith in my translation. The style is very ugly and overly
literal, and I've kept the awkward punctuation of the original (did
these people have something against full stops?). Bits I'm not sure
about are enclosed in {}.
In any case, I can't see a lot of useful genealogical material in this
first bit anyway. The basic gist appears to be whether a pledge of
betrothal or betrothal contracted before the age of seven is valid, or
would act as an impediment to a later betrothal to a relative of the
first betrothee [OK so I made that word up]. The conclusion appears to
be that any arrangement made before that age was invalid and did not
pose a problem of consanguinity. The main problem appears to have been
determining the age of the girl at the time of the two betrothals.
We have 'R', prince of North Wales, his unnamed paternal uncle, and
the unnamed daughter of the prince of the Isles. Is 'R' a mistake for
the name of the uncle, with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ab Owain Gwynedd as
the prince and Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd d. 1195 as the uncle? The
inference is that the uncle is dead and that the rights of the nephew
are under dispute.
I have presumed that 'septennium' means the age of seven, or maybe the
seventh year. I've also translated 'subarrhatio' as 'pledge' and
'desponsata' etc. as 'betrothal', although I'm not sure what the
formal distinction between them is.
To the bishop of [Mannensus - Menevia, St Davids?] Archdeacon of
Bangor and Prior of the Island of [Glannavus]
Betrothals may not be contracted before the age of seven
From the Lateran, 24 November
Our beloved son R the noble prince of North Wales has applied for from
us, as he {?may have been - subjunctive mood} allowed by our
concession to him to take as wife the pledged daughter of our beloved
son the Prince of the Isles, that he was not obstructed because it
emerged that his paternal uncle had also betrothed her below the
marriageable age when however it may not have been made public by
either party. Yet, since it was not able to be agreed by us whose
pledge or betrothal may have existed when the girl was {?became} of
age, and whose may have been prior to that, [puta - ??] nephew or
uncle was betrothed, when after differences of fact the {jura - judge?
jury? judgment? evidence?} on this may also be contradictory, because
of this we were not able to give a definitive response, seeing that
the canon law does not give {?allow} absolute judgment on ambiguous
things.
We are willing, however, {?as much as we can with God}, to listen to
just claims of the prefatory principles without difficulty, (the
inquisition of which we sent ahead which we sent to you under a
certain form for your examination), which may be presented in a single
clause of oaths. Therefore we submit this to your discretion {?by
means of the apostolic writings}, as far as who you call summoning to
your presence, you should take evidence to solicit whether the girl
had not attained the seventh year when the pledge with the nephew
arose, or the engagement with the uncle. In both cases for example in
that event, because the law did not admit the pledge or that
betrothal, which is not able to come before the seventh year,
notwithstanding because it was done by the uncle first or later,
unless there may be other hindrances, the same girl would be able to
contract with the nephew. If in fact so much as a pledge of betrothal
existed at the time of the seventh year or if you like the {age of
majority - majoris}, from which time they may begin to satisfy the
engagement, if it preceded the betrothal with the uncle, she was not
able to contract with the nephew, seeing that according to tradition
and regular observances no-one is able to take the fiancee/bride
[sponsa] of a relative as his wife, {and these two events are not
judged unequal}. If however the pledge made with the nephew went
before, {because [? - secutum] was later not holding, when by the
second event it would not be possible to dissolve the first, because
as much as the decided arrangement would be steadfastly held to by the
principal parties, it would be possible for the marriage between them
to be consummated [is there a 'not' missing from this sentence?]. If
in fact the nephew was pledged to her before the seventh year and the
uncle betrothed her in or after the seventh year, the nephew would not
be able to take her as wife on account of the foregoing reasoning, but
if it were vice versa, he would legitimately be able to consummate
[copulare]. You recommend according to those memorials which we have
sent ahead, when the events may be agreed {?determined} by you, you
will not be able to doubt the law. You therefore, by means of remote
appeal, you may attend to the business in accordance with the attached
differentiation sent to you. But if all, etc., you, brother bishop,
with others of these,
Given at the Lateran on the 24th November
~~~
I Wallace
called 'Sodor and Man', that is to say the Isle of Man and the Sudreys
(Southern islands). The Sudreys were some of the Hebrides - as opposed to
the Nordreys or Northern Isles, Orkney and Shetland? I have not been able
to check the date this dioceses was established but its territorial
jurisdiction would fit the context.
Ian Wallace (in Bexleyheath, Kent).
***************************************************************************
*****
Message text written by INTERNET:GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Suzanne Doig
wrote:
>Re below, could MANNENSI ESPISCOPO refer to the Bishop of the Diocese now
>called 'Sodor and Man', that is to say the Isle of Man and the Sudreys
>(Southern islands). The Sudreys were some of the Hebrides - as opposed to
>the Nordreys or Northern Isles, Orkney and Shetland? I have not been able
>to check the date this dioceses was established but its territorial
>jurisdiction would fit the context.
>
> Ian Wallace (in Bexleyheath, Kent).
Thanks Ian, that does make sense. Given the context, I was looking for
something Welsh, but Sodor and Man covers the other party in the
dispute.