Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
John Parsons
distinguish between a man's children on the basis of their mothers'
matrimonial status. Legitimate & illegitimate children alike had
inheritance rights. No notions of greater or lesser status would have
attached to Llywelyn's children and their marriages except perhaps, of
course, in the eyes of their spouses.
In other words, Llywelyn might not have bothered to identify any of his
daughters as legitimate or illegitimate when negotiating their marriages.
As far as he would have been concerned, they were all on the same footing.
We cannot, however, be certain why an earl of Fife would have wanted to
marry the daughter of a Welsh prince in the first place, and any debates on
whether that daughter was born in or out of wedlock must wait until that
first question is settled.
For all we know, the earl may have fallen in love with the girl at first
sight--not impossible--and was determined to marry her come what may. Since
her legitimacy didn't matter in her native land, it could very well not have
mattered to the earl.
Regards
John P.
>From: "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married
>John E of Hunt...
>Date: 22 Apr 2005 08:06:10 -0700
>
>Dear John ~
>
>Mr. MacEwen's point is that the Earls of Fife were of sufficient rank
>to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter of Prince Llywelyn.
>That is all.
>
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>Website: www.royalancestry.net
>
>
>"John Parsons" wrote:
> > Legitmacy was not necessarily the touchstone for the medieval
>centuries that
> > can be argued the same way it can be argued for later centuries.
> >
> > King Alexander I of Scotland married Sibylla, illegitimate daughter
>of Henry
> > I of England; the duke of Brittany married another of Henry I's
>illegitimate
> > daughters. Llywelyn himself had accepted John's illegitimate
>daughter as
> > his wife.
> >
> > Contingent political circumstances could induce a nobleman to marry
>another
> > lord's illegitimate daughter if, at the time, the resulting alliance
>was
> > attractive enough.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John P.
> >
> >
> > >From: WJho...@aol.com
> > >To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > >Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales
>married
> > >John E of Hunt...
> > >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:06:50 EDT
> > >
> > >In a message dated 4/21/2005 8:47:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > >royala...@msn.com writes:
> > >
> > > > Mr. MacEwen says that the Earls of Fife were the premier comital
>family
> > > > of Scotland in this time period. As such, they would have had
> > > > sufficient status to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter
>of
> > > > Prince Llywelyn.
> > >
> > >I think this is a very strong point. You are saying there is no
>reason
> > >they
> > >would be marrying an illegitimate daughter since this would be a
>step down.
> > >
> > >I wonder at the dating of Susanna's "guardianship" in 1228 and her
>father's
> > >death in 1230 (is that right?). Could these two events be causal ?
> > >
> > >Will Johnson
> > >
>
WJho...@aol.com
around the children of Donald of Mar by his wife, widow of the Earl of Fife.
(Did I get that right?)
I think Doug pointed out that she had five children. Is there firm evidence
for their birth years and that *she* was the mother of all five? I think that
would bear on the issue.
Another interesting thing is that nothing has been said about other children
by the marriage of the Earl of Fife to a daughter of Llewellyn. Did they
really only have one child in 20 to 40 years of marriage ? And then she goes on
to have FIVE by her next husband. That's a little hard to believe.
The alternative idea, that other children by this first marriage are not
mentioned in any work is equally hard to believe.
Having five children, whip-smack, in 10 years of marriage sounds like a young
woman to me, not a middle-aged woman who had only had one child in 20 to 40
years of prior marriage.
Will Johnson
Yvonne Purdy
between man and wife, leading to 'blue' babies who would have died in this
period. Also possibly many miscarriages. Maybe one child who survived.
On a second marriage, maybe a much better blood 'match' leading to further
children who survived?
I have a child who was 21 from a first marriage, no others ensued after that
birth (without controlling them), married again at 41 and produced two
others within two years and if better half hadn't screamed 'time' and his
surgeon agreed, could well have produced many more.
Strange things happen on the reproduction scene.
Kind regards,
Yvonne
Will Johnson
______________________________
Leo van de Pas
Peerage as well as in Plantagenet Ancestry. Blue babies? I just learned that
this applied to Anne of Britanny and her first husband.
Leo
Nichol...@yahoo.com
haemolyticus neonatorum), in which a woman with an Rh- blood type gives
birth to a baby with an Rh+ blood type. If she becomes pregnant a
second time with an Rh+ baby, the fetus will be destroyed by antibodies
her body produced from the first pregnancy. Today this condition can be
treated with medicine but of course in medieval times there was no
cure. So Rhesus disease might be the cause of a couple producing only
one child despite many years of marriage.
Gordon Banks
produce the same result, I don't see the usefulness of speculating about
a specific one unless there is some specific evidence.
Leo van de Pas
does apply to Anne, Duchess of Brittany and her first husband King Charles
of France.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <g...@gordonbanks.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
Jwc...@aol.com
If Susanna of Wales wardship (? and
marriage) were placed under the supervision of Nicholas de Verdon, would it not
be likelier for her to have been wed to one of his relatives and so enhance
the fortunes of his house than to any high ranking Scot ? Wouldn`t the Earl of
Fife been more apt to have obtained a marriage from Prince David, Earl of
Huntingdon or perhaps Prince John of Huntingdon who was married to another of
Llewelyn Fawr `s daughters instead ?
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Leo van de Pas
I agree with you. This is what I have said also. My remark seems to be
ignored as is my observation that the proof of 1237 that there _was_ a
Countess of Fife does not hold either. Yes, there was a Maurice, servant of
the Countess of Fife, Maurice was alive but was the Countess, and which
Countess? There could be a choice of three.
Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
children.
I think there are too many ifs and because of that should be stick to CP and
SP?
When producing facts, shouldn't we stick to what we know and if we speculate
shouldn't it be stated as such?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
Chris Phillips
> dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
> Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
> Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
> children.
What was said initially is that the wording of the chronicle suggests the
marriage took place in or soon after 1228. What was said more recently is
that it's not known when the relevant entry was written, though it was
apparently before 1266.
I don't see that this is any reason to disregard the evidence from the
chronicle. However, I should like to see the text before deciding how well
the inference about the date is justified.
> I think there are too many ifs and because of that should be stick to CP
and
> SP?
I think "sticking with CP" is a very bad idea if the evidence can't be found
to back up CP's account. The identification of different wives as the same
woman is always going to require positive evidence, which doesn't appear to
exist in this case.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:d4cvfe$8o5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Leo van de Pas wrote:
>> Now it also turns out that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be appropriately
>> dated, giving a time span of 1230 to 1266 for the marriage of the Earl of
>> Fife to a daughter of Llewelyn of Wales, which in turn can mean that the
>> Earl of Fife had only the one wife and she married again and had more
>> children.
>
> What was said initially is that the wording of the chronicle suggests the
> marriage took place in or soon after 1228. What was said more recently is
> that it's not known when the relevant entry was written, though it was
> apparently before 1266.
>
> I don't see that this is any reason to disregard the evidence from the
> chronicle. However, I should like to see the text before deciding how well
> the inference about the date is justified.
I wonder why Richardson hasn't bothered to post this yet, since he was so
proud of being able to follow it over the 'phone and showing off that he can
translate the odd word - so far he has regaled us with his understanding of
"nepos" and "postea", and his admiration of Andrew MacEwan for having
clearly "done his homework", something that Richardson would do well to
emulate.
The facsimile edition that MacEwan told him about is _The Chronicle of
Melrose, from the Cottonian Manuscript, Faustina B. IX in the British
Museum_, with an introduction by Alan Orr Anderson & Marjorie Ogilvie
Anderson, Studies in Economics and Political Science 100 (London, 1936). The
marriage of Malcolm is related under the year 1230, and the relevant text
was written in a hand whose additions the editors in their synoptic study
date as "earlier than the last rubric of the Glasgow series" (p. lv). The
rubric in question is for 1233 (p. lxxvii), but this may have been a later
addition (p. lxxvi).
Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer, Earl
Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded his
uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the chronicle
under 1230.
The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):
"Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius fratris
eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his nephew
Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
daughter of Llewelyn).
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
Whatever information is given should be examined but no-one should jump to
conclusions.
"Basically the only source that states Malcolm, Earl of Fife, married a
daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle"
"Under the year 1230 it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he
was succeeded by his nephew"
"Who afterwards married the daughter of Llywelyn".
I think we can accept that the uncle died in 1228 or 1229. The "afterwards
married" can depend very much on when the Chronicle was written. How long,
or short, is "afterwards"? One year? Ten years? If we knew when it is
written that would help, but the timespan given is from say 1230 to 1266,
which stretches the time span for the "afterwards married" a great deal and
renders it very vague.
I agree we cannot ignore the Chronicle, and we should accept the facts that
are given. But what are the facts? The uncle died before 1230 and after his
death the nephew married a daughter of Llywelyn..............that is all,
there is not enough to say, he was married by 1230.
We can start guessing. For instance, when was the first son, Colbran, born?
Colbran was apparently a father in 1262. In 1264, as a minor, he was
knighted. He could have been a father at age 15 or 16. This would make him
born, say, before or in 1247. This is nineteen years or so after the uncle
died in 1228. If Colbran was born in 1247 and his mother was 16 at the time
she could have been born in 1231, making her 39 when her son by her second
husband was born. It is not much of a stretch and we can guess she was born
several years earlier (10?) and she would still have been able to have a
child in 1270.
My opinion is that we should stick with CP and SP but only until we find
acceptable information to change it, and so far have we found anything
acceptable?
Another aspect we know nothing about is the circumstances of Malcolm the
nephew. What was he doing and where was he after his uncle died and he
became Earl of Fife?
He could have been away, he could have been ill, all kinds of circumstances
which may have delayed him marrying. As well there may have been an
understanding between him and Llywelyn that a marriage would take place once
the daughter was old enough.
He may well have regarded her worth waiting for. After all I think it was a
prestigious marriage.
Can you see a fact that changes the information given to us by CP and SP?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
Chris Phillips
> Consequently all we can be sure of is that, according to the writer, Earl
> Malcolm married a daughter of Llewelyn some time after he had succeeded
his
> uncle, whose death & burial at Kilenross are also reported in the
chronicle
> under 1230.
> The relevant text is as follows (p. 80):
>
> "Obiit comes Malcolmus...Cui successit Malcolmus nepos eius filius fratris
> eius qui postea duxit uxorem filiam Leulini" (Earl Malcolm died...his
nephew
> Malcolm, son of his brother, succeeded him, who afterwards married the
> daughter of Llewelyn).
Thank you for posting the text. I wouldn't have concluded from that that the
marriage necessarily took place "almost immediately" after Malcolm's
succession.
If I understand correctly, Andrew MacEwan's argument is that Malcolm the
uncle actually died in 1228 or 1229, so that it is really the marriage that
is being reported under 1230. But the natural reading seems to be that the
elder Malcolm died, and the younger Malcolm succeeded, in 1230. Whether the
younger Malcolm married immediately after his succession or some time later
could depend on whether the annal was written immediately afterwards or some
years later.
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Can you see a fact that changes the information given to us by CP and SP?
I can't see a definite disproof of it, but I can see in the chronology a
major warning sign against simply assuming that the daughter of Llewellyn is
identical with the widow left by Malcolm in 1266.
In this sense I don't think your question is quite the right one to ask. I
think we should ask whether there is evidence to support the identification
made by CP. I think if the answer is "No", we should amend CP so that it
reads more cautiously something like, "Malcolm married after his succession
a daughter of Llewellyn ... at his death he left a widow Helen, who
remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
these must be different women on chronological grounds.
One other point that I may have missed. Has anyone seen CP's evidence for
the identification cited in the Mar article [vol. 8, p. 403, note e], namely
"Fordun (Goodall), lib. ix, cap. 47; lib. x, cap. xxi"?
Does Fordun just copy the Melrose Chronicle, or is there some independent
evidence there?
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> In this sense I don't think your question is quite the right one to ask. I
> think we should ask whether there is evidence to support the
identification
> made by CP. I think if the answer is "No", we should amend CP so that it
> reads more cautiously something like, "Malcolm married after his
succession
> a daughter of Llewellyn ... at his death he left a widow Helen, who
> remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
> these must be different women on chronological grounds.
I might add that this is essentially what I've done on my "CP corrections
and additions" web pages, where MacEwan's argument is noted under Fife and
Mar in the "proposed corrections" section.
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
If there is good evidence that the elder Earl Malcolm died a year or two
before 1230, then the entry under that year describing his burial at
Kilenross church, that he had founded, was probably written some while
later, when the precise chronology of these events had blurred over time.
The succession to the earldom and its timing were likely to be more
accurately remembered than an earl's wedding, that could have taken place in
Wales.
At any rate, there is just a statement that the nephew married Llewelyn's
daughter after he became earl - for all we know, this could have been after
another wife had died.
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas
sons?
There is a fair idea that the sons were born a considerable time after 1230.
Possibly up to 19 years later......How old was minor Colban in 1264 but who
already had a child in 1262?
Perhaps it is not such a far fetched idea Malcolm was married three times.
"Fairly shortly" after succeeding as Earl, then the mother of his two son
and then the woman who became his widow and married the Earl of Mar and had
more children.
Surely "the daughter of Llywelyn" must be the outstanding one. And she could
be wife 1,2 or 3.
But then quoting Austin Spencer "If we cannot agree on the interval that
transpired between Malcom's accession and marriage, that puts the case for
more than one wife in some doubt, though not very much."
If only-----there was more or different evidence. I think there are too many
questions and possibilities for anyone to be able to say _fact_.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
Chris Phillips
> If only-----there was more or different evidence. I think there are too
many
> questions and possibilities for anyone to be able to say _fact_.
Yes - from what I've seen posted here, I think we have to say there is no
evidence as to the identity of the mother(s) of Malcolm's sons.
Chris Phillips
WJho...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
> at his death he left a widow Helen, who
> remarried ...", and mention in a footnote Andrew MacEwan's argument that
> these must be different women on chronological grounds.
I don't think we know that her name was Helen.
Will Johnson
Brendan Wilson
Llewelyn ( the Great) died 1240
|
Gruffyd ap Llewelyn = Senena
|
Llewelyn II (The Last) 1246-82 = Mistress
|
Helen(widow of Malcolm 7th Earl of Fife d 1266)=Donald, 6th Earl/Mar
Brendan Wilson
Jwc...@aol.com
As has been
commented on, legitimacy did not count for that much in medieval Wales and the Scots
ideas were very much the same. Remember the 13 or so claimants to the throne
in 1290 included de Roos and de Soulis, the former because of their
illegitimate descent from King William I the Lion the second because of an equally
illegitimate descent from his son King Alexander II. As such were considered
serious contenders for the crown its self what are the chances that the premier Earl
would care greatly about his wife`s legitimacy ?
WJho...@aol.com
Jwc...@aol.com writes:
> illegitimate descent from King William I the Lion the second because of an
> equally
> illegitimate descent from his son King Alexander II. As such were considered
>
> serious contenders for the crown its self what are the chances that the
> premier Earl
> would care greatly about his wife`s legitimacy ?
>
And was there also legitimate descent at that time from William that we can
compare their claims against? Or did they step forward because there was no
legitimate descent?
Will
Jwc...@aol.com
No. But John Baliol, John Hastings, John Comyn the Red, and
Robert Brus all descended in a legitimate line from King William I the Lion`s
younger brother Prince David, Earl of Huntingdon (in England).
WJho...@aol.com
Jwc...@aol.com writes:
> No. But John Baliol, John Hastings, John Comyn the Red, and
> Robert Brus all descended in a legitimate line from King William I the
> Lion`s
> younger brother Prince David, Earl of Huntingdon (in England).
And were the illegitimate ones excluded because they were illegitimate? Or
were they excluded because they were exclusively Scottish wereas John Baliol was
at least in name part English (being descended from an English Earl).
The illegitimate descendents stepped forward but I'm not sure that's
enough evidence to say that Scottish Earls looked upon legitimate and illegitimate
descent in the same way.
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
Robert de Roos who married King William I the Lion`s natural
daughter Isabel was English enough to be a Magna Carta Surety and de Soulis was
also an Anglo-Norman. As King Edward I of England picked the new King of
Scots it all had to do with his personal ideas on the subject rather than those of
the Scots` nation. He actually was a funny individual. If He truly wanted to
control Scotland as well as Ireland, England and Wales all He needed to do was
put himself forward as a candidate. By the traditional Scots law of tanist
succession, He could have claimed the crown for himself as a descendant of King
Malcolm III Cean Mor of the Scots d 1093. Malcolm III was an ancestor to all
the candidates put forward excepting only John Comyn the Black, a descendant of
his brother King Donald VI Bane and father by Alianor Baliol of John Comyn
the Red.
Paul K Davis
legitimacy. Rather, the Scots decided to allow the matter to be determined
by an impartial outsider, namely Edward I of England. It turned out he did
care about legitimacy, and he was also not impartial, exacting a pledge of
subordinacy from his winning candidate. War ensued.
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd...@earthlink.net]
> [Original Message]
> From: <WJho...@aol.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Date: 4/24/2005 9:36:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales....
>
> In a message dated 4/24/2005 9:04:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> Jwc...@aol.com writes:
>
>
> > No. But John Baliol, John Hastings, John Comyn the Red, and
> > Robert Brus all descended in a legitimate line from King William I the
> > Lion`s
WJho...@aol.com
pkd...@earthlink.net writes:
<< The illegitimate ones were excluded, but not because Scots believed in
legitimacy. Rather, the Scots decided to allow the matter to be determined
by an impartial outsider, namely Edward I of England. >>
I wonder if there is any primary document that says that Scots didn't care
about legitimacy ? I can understand the *belief* that they didn't but it seems
a little far from a fact so far in this discussion. And if they did care,
then it's a good argument for Susannah versus Elen.
Will Johnson