The hitherto unknown marriages of Llywelyn of North Wales
Douglas Richardson
marriages of Llywelyn, Prince of North Wales. Here is that
information:
Source: C.R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney, The Letters of Pope
Innocent III, published 1967
pg, 29: Letter dated 24 Nov. 1199. To the bp. of Man, the
archdn. of Bangor, and the prior of the island of Glannach,
Mandate to hear and decide case, according to the
instructions given, concerning the proposed marriage of R
(recte Llywelyn) prince of North Wales with the daughter of
the prince of the Isles, formerly bethrothed to his uncle
(Rhodri).
pg.77: Letter dated 19 April 1203. To the abbot of
Aberconway, the prior of Bardsey, and Mr. M, canon of
Beddgelert, of dioc. Bangor. Confirms the judgement of
delegates in the case committed to them, declaring that for
the sake of restoring peace L(lywelyn) prince of North Wales
might marry the daughter of the prince of the Isles. They
had been bethrothed when she was eight years old, but later
she was bethrothed against her will to his uncle, now dead.
Mandate to cause the sentence to be observed, unless there
be reasonable objection.
pg. 100: Letter dated 17 Feb. 1205. To (Eustace), bishop of
Ely, (John), bishop of Norwich, and (Reiner), bishop of St.
Asaph. Recounts the earlier history of the marriage-case
concerning L(lywelyn) prince of North Wales and the daughter
of the prince of the Isles. The last judges were not
satisfied that the marriage of Llywelyn was valid and sent
to the pope further evidence, including evidence that
Llywelyn, when betrothed to the girl, had married a sister
of (Ranulf) Earl of Chester. As a result the pope decides
there has been no valid marriage between Llywelyn and the
daughter of the prince of the Isles. He orders the
addressees to summon the parties and give judgement
accordingly.
As we see above, the marriage of Prince Llywelyn to the
daughter of the lord of the Isles was pending in the period,
1199-1203, but the language of the third document indicates
that the parties had already married by 1205. The intent of
the third document was to nullify the marriage. Evidence is
cited in the third document that Llywelyn had previously
married a sister of the Earl of Chester.
I believe that Llywelyn's daughter, Margaret, was probably
the daughter of his second marriage to the daughter of the
lord of the Isles.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Douglas Richardson
I typed out the citation regarding Prince Llywelyn EXACTLY
as it appears in the book on Pope Innocent's letters. As
you can see, the abstract of the third letter indicates
that Llywelyn was married first to a sister of the Earl of
Chester and second to a daughter of the lord of the Isles.
The word "marriage" suggests to me that sometime before
1205, Llywelyn had moved past the betrothal stage with the
daughter of the lord of the Isles and had actually married
her. That shouldn't surprise us as the second letter I
cited indicates that the marriage to the Isles girl
received the go ahead signal from the local religious
authorities back in 1203.
I presume what undid Llywelyn's marriage to the Isles girl
was the fact that he claimed to be lawfully betrothed to
the Isles girl. But it appears he hid the fact that when
he was supposedly betrothed to the Isles girl, he was
actually married to the Earl of Chester's sister. If the
basis of approving the marriage to the Isles girl was their
earlier betrothal, then his marriage to the Earl's sister
in effect voided his betrothal to the Isles girl. And,
when their betrothal was shown to be null and void, then
the Isles girl's secondary betrothal to his uncle was
revived as a valid canonical bar to her marrying Llywelyn.
When all these facts became clear to the Pope, he had no
choice but to declare the marriage of Llywelyn and the
Isles girl invalid, which is what he did.
I trust that answers your question.
All for now. Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
intercourse (see Pollock and Maitland 2:364-95).
Could you please give us the exact wording of the last citation [1205]?
pcr
Vickie Elam White
> pg. 100: Letter dated 17 Feb. 1205. To (Eustace), bishop of
> Ely, (John), bishop of Norwich, and (Reiner), bishop of St.
> Asaph. Recounts the earlier history of the marriage-case
> concerning L(lywelyn) prince of North Wales and the daughter
> of the prince of the Isles. The last judges were not
> satisfied that the marriage of Llywelyn was valid and sent
> to the pope further evidence, including evidence that
> Llywelyn, when betrothed to the girl, had married a sister
> of (Ranulf) Earl of Chester. As a result the pope decides
> there has been no valid marriage between Llywelyn and the
> daughter of the prince of the Isles. He orders the
> addressees to summon the parties and give judgement
> accordingly.
>
> As we see above, the marriage of Prince Llywelyn to the
> daughter of the lord of the Isles was pending in the period,
> 1199-1203, but the language of the third document indicates
> that the parties had already married by 1205. The intent of
> the third document was to nullify the marriage. Evidence is
> cited in the third document that Llywelyn had previously
> married a sister of the Earl of Chester.
It does seem to indicate that a marriage had finally taken
place, but how can we be sure that the authors made the
correct interpretation of the 1205 letter? If all this hinges
on the correct interpretation of a few phrases, then I'd feel
better seeing an exact quotation. Do the authors provide
a complete transcript of the letter, an abstract with a few
key quotations, or simply their interpretation of it?
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
DKJ200
place in 1205 or 1206? Apparently it was at Ascensiontide (May) in one of
those years. The answer might be apparent if the date of the letter from the
Pope to the Bishops of Ely, Norwich and St Asaph could be clarified - was it 17
February 1204/5 or 17 February 1205/6?
David Jamieson
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>I believe that Llywelyn's daughter, Margaret, was probably
>the daughter of his second marriage to the daughter of the
>lord of the Isles.
What reason do you have for supposing that Margaret was the result of
this marriage, as opposed to another marriage of LLywelyn's? Also, do
you have reason to believe that the mother was a daughter of a LORD of
the Isles (i.e., a descendant of Somerled's family) as opposed to a
KING of the Isles (i.e., King of the Isle of Man)? Other sources
which have mentioned this marriage/betrothal have generally assumed
the latter.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Although the book cited by Doug is different from the book I used, the
ultimate primary source, namely three papal letters, is the same as
the three items for which I posted complete transcriptions (in the
original Latin, from Migne's PL), the first two on July 2 of this
year, and the third on July 31. You can find the exact wording of the
originals in those postings. If you use a power search at dejanews,
using "Llywelyn" as a key word, and limiting the date to one of the
two above dates, you should be able to find these transcripts fairly
quickly.
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
If you examine the chronology involved with these people,
it is clear that Llywelyn's daughter, Margaret, can not
have been the child of his third wife, Joan, the bastard
daughter of King John of England. I base this on the date
that Margaret gave birth to her first child by her Braose
marriage. Margaret was almost certainly older than her
half-sisters, Ellen or Gladys, as Ellen and Gladys didn't
have their first known child until much later. Both Gladys
and Ellen were evidently married off to their first
husbands as young girls. As best we know, both of their
first marriages were childless. I assume these marriages
were childless because Gladys and Ellen were too young to
bear children.
Reviewing the chronology, it fits for Margaret to be the
daughter of Llywelyn's second marriage to the daughter of
the lord of the Isles, which marriage took place in the
1203-1205 time frame. If Margaret was a child of that
marriage, she would have been bastardized by the actions
which Pope Innocent took to invalidate her parents'
marriage. That would explain why it was Gladys'
descendants who claimed to be Llywelyn's lawful heir,
presumably because she was the eldest child of his lawful
third marriage to Joan of England. Margaret would lose her
claim as the eldest legitimate child, as her parents'
marriage had been invalidated. Also, I note it was Gladys
(not Margaret) who accompanied her brother, David, to
England when he was recognized as her father's lawful
heir. David, of course, later died without legitimate
issue. Gladys was of course David's full sister, whereas
Margaret would have been their half-sister. Also, David
and Gladys were niece and nephew to King Henry III of
England whose court they visited, whereas Margaret would
have no such kinship.
In regards to your question about the term "lord of the
isles," versus "king of the isles," I'm of the impression
that "lord of the Isles" was acceptable terminology during
this period. The term "lord of Galloway" was used
interchangeably with "prince of Galloway" in the same
period.
I hope this answers your questions.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Suzanne Doig
Baldwin) wrote:
>What reason do you have for supposing that Margaret was the result of
>this marriage, as opposed to another marriage of LLywelyn's? Also, do
>you have reason to believe that the mother was a daughter of a LORD of
>the Isles (i.e., a descendant of Somerled's family) as opposed to a
>KING of the Isles (i.e., King of the Isle of Man)? Other sources
>which have mentioned this marriage/betrothal have generally assumed
>the latter.
He is definitely described in the first (1199) and second (1203)
documents as 'princeps Insularum'. This is consistent with the
betrothal/marriage of Rhodri ap Owain Gwynedd to a daughter of
Reginald of Man given in Bartrum.
Suzanne
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/smdnz/
Reedpcgen
Joan, to the daughter of the Lord of the Isles and to the sister of the Earl of
Chester.
I can accept that there were two betrothals, but only one marriage. I don't
have time to go into great detail, but would like to vent the following for
argument.
According to Canonical Law and the way it was then applied in England, an
espousal [desponsatio: see Frederic Maitland's _History of English Law before
the time of Edward I_, 2:368] was binding unless something broke it. An
espousal followed by the act of union [intercourse] was binding marriage. An
espousal or declaration of intent was necessary before sexual intercourse or it
was fornication.
Everything that preceded the physical act of union "could be no more than an
espousal (desponsatio) and the relationship between the spouses was one which
was dissoluble; in particular it was dissolved if either of them contracted a
perfect marriage with a third person." [Maitland 2:368]
Isn't this exactly what occurred in this instance?
Let me summarize, and perhaps someone who has been following this more closely
than I [Stewart?] can correct me.
First, Rhodri sought the aid of the King of Man, after he was driven out of
Anglesey. Rhodri pledged to marry King's daughter.
That not being consumated, we then have an attempt to arrange a marriage
between the daughter of the King of Man and Rhodri's nephew Llywelyn.
As an espousal was binding, inquiry was made to determine if the bride had
given consent before attaining the age of seven ["At the age of seven years a
child was capable of consent, but the marriage remained viodable so long as
either of the parties to it was below the age at which it could be consummated.
A presumption fixed this age at fourteen years for the boys and twelve for
girls. In case only one of the parties was below that age, the marriage could
be avoided by that party but was binding on the other." (Maitland 2:390)]
Since the bride was under age seven, it was found that her consent was not
binding, and the espousal/betrothal to Llywelyn could lawfully be made. The
letters which concern these inquiries are dated 25 Nov. 1199, 20 Apr. 1203 and
17 Feb. 1205.
It seem to me that the negotiations for Llewelyn's marriage to the daughter of
the King of Man preceeded his marriage to the sister of the Earl of Chester.
The Latin terms in the account produced by Stewart simply state there had been
an espousal or pledge between Llywelyn and the pricess of Man, not that the
marriage had been consumated.
As negotionations continued, they were found to have become moot, because in
the intervening time Llywelyn had married the sister of the Earl of Chester
[politically a more desirable alliance]. This voided the espousal to the
princess of Man.
It seems clear to me that Llywelyn was betrothed to the princess of Man before
his union with the sister of the Earl of Chester. If that first espousal had
been physically consumated, than in no wise would the marriage to the sister of
the Earl of Chester stand or be valid.
So it seems to be that though there was an espousal or pledge, there was no
consumated marriage with the daughter of the King of Man, so it is wrong to
refer to it as a marriage, rather than an espousal [desponsatio].
I'll post more in a followup message.
pcr
P.S. What I am not certain of is what the exact nuance or meaning the verb
duce, -ere, duxi, ductum would have been at that time. It can mean to take as
husband or wife, to cause or to consider, but does it mean the couple the
couple publicly professed their union [sponsalia per verba de praesenti/futuro]
or that they actually engaged in physical union [carnalis copula]?
Douglas Richardson
Cheneys states that the "marriage" of Llywelyn and the
daughter of the lord of the Isles was "not valid," I have
to assume a marriage between the parties actually took
place. Now whether the marriage was consumated or not,
none of us are able to say. Clearly there was a betrothal
and it seems clear that the parties were given approval to
marry as indicated by the second letter dated 1203.
Unless the Cheneys have improperly abstracted the third
letter in question, I think it is quite clear that Llywelyn
married both the sister of the earl of Chester and the
daughter of the lord of the isles and in that order.
D
I have the name TANGWYSTYL. Are they one and the same?
What was the name of the "SISTER OF THE EARL OF CHESTER" that Llywelyn is
also alleged to have married?
Thanks & Regards
Dan
Mike Davidson
In article <0eeed401...@usw-ex0102-013.remarq.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> Hi Stewart:
> In regards to your question about the term "lord of the
> isles," versus "king of the isles," I'm of the impression > that "lord of the Isles" was acceptable terminology during > this period. The term "lord of Galloway" was used
> interchangeably with "prince of Galloway" in the same
> period.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you have missed
Stewart's point. It is not a question of whether 'lord' or
'king' is the proper term, but whether the marriage was to
the daughter of a 'lord/king of the isles' or a 'king of
Man' - if memory serves these terms refer to two entirely
different families.
For what it is worth, historians generally refer to
Somerled's ancestors as 'Lords of the Isles', but historians
have been known to employ terminologies of convenience,
rather than those which correspond directly to the primary
material. . . Terms like 'princeps', which advertise a
quasi-regal status, do, however, create problems of
translation.
Cheers,
Mike Davidson
Dept. of History
University of Edinburgh
Mike Davidson
In article <269584ac...@usw-ex0108-059.remarq.com>,
Mike Davidson <9407990...@coll.sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Somerled's ancestors
[sic] read 'and his successors'
"bunnicus@c...@capital.net
the one to Joan. It does mention an interest in marrying the daughter of
the King of Man, but the better offer to marry Joan came along.
Tangwystl, I believe, or so I read, was a daughter of a Welsh lord, Rhos
or Roos (?).
Sandy
U...@aol.com
See my article in *The Genealogist* (Association for the Promotion of
Scholarship in Genealogy), vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1980), pp. 80-95. The
children of Llywelyn Fawr ap Iorwerth (c1173-1240) were as follows:
Sons:
(1) Gruffudd, illegitimate son by Tangwystl ferch Llywarch Goch
(2) Tegwared y Baiswen, illegitimate son by unknown woman
(3) Dafydd, legitimate son by Joan of England
Daughters:
(4) Angharad m. Maelgwn Ieuanc ap Maelgwn Hen (or Fawr)
(5) Angharad m. Philip ab Ivor
(6) NN (name unknown) m. William Caentwn
(7) Gwladus Ddu m1. Reginald de Braose m2. Ralph de Mortimer
(8) Margred m1. John de Braose m2. Walter de Clifford
(9) Gwenllian Las m. William de Lacy
(10) Elen m1. John, Earl of Chester m2. Robert de Quincy
(11) Elen m1. Malcolm, Earl of Fife m2. Donald, Earl of Mar
The purpose of my article was to show that the commonly ascribed maternity
of Llywelyn Fawr's daughters, i.e., that most if not all of his daughters
were also daughters of his wife Joan, daughter of King John of England, is
unsupported and that the mother of these daughters must be shown as
"unknown". Later, in the same periodical, vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall 1983), pp.
137-138, Andrew B. W. MacEwen proved that the daughter Elen who married the
Earl of Chester and later Robert de Quincy was a daughter of Joan.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Always optimistic--Dave
Gee Gee Hughes
Iorwerth, with a marriage to Rhanult ferch Rheinaltt, king of Man.
Could this be the same individual as the N.N. (a child) d/o Reginald, king
of Man, wife of Llywelyn's uncle, Rhodri?
If the above individuals are the same, was the marriage of N.N. really
consummated with Llywelyn Fawr, or did Gruffudd (his son) marry her?
Interesting that 3 members of the same family (Rhodri, Llywelyn and
Gruffudd) seemed to be linked with a daughter of the king of Man.
Am I correct in assuming, that if Llywelyn was married to a sister of
Ranulf, Earl of Chester, it would make her a daughter of Hugh of Kevelioc?
If so, which one?
Hugh of Kevelioc had daughters:
1. Maude b. 1171 m. 1190, David, Earl of Huntingdon, d. 1219
2. Agnes m. 1192, Wm Ferrers, d. 1247
3. Hawise b. 1180, d. 1241/3, m. Robert de Quincy
4. Mable m. 1215, Wm D'Aubigny, d. 1220
Gee Gee Hughes
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Am I correct in assuming, that if Llywelyn was married to a sister of
> Ranulf, Earl of Chester, it would make her a daughter of Hugh of Kevelioc?
> If so, which one?
>
> Hugh of Kevelioc had daughters:
> 1. Maude b. 1171 m. 1190, David, Earl of Huntingdon, d. 1219
> 2. Agnes m. 1192, Wm Ferrers, d. 1247
> 3. Hawise b. 1180, d. 1241/3, m. Robert de Quincy
> 4. Mable m. 1215, Wm D'Aubigny, d. 1220
I would assume that, like the daughter that married Ralph de Mainwaring,
this daughter would be illegitimate.
Regarding Margaret, is there a reason to limit the search for her
maternity to the woman to whom Llywelyn was married at the time of her
hypothesized birth? Do we know she was born to a wife and not a
mistress? If not then determining her approximate birthdate only allows
potential mothers to be excluded.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
Hughes) wrote:
>Although no source is given, Bartrum's does show Gruffudd ap Llywelyn ap
>Iorwerth, with a marriage to Rhanult ferch Rheinaltt, king of Man.
Bartrum gives sources for all of the relationships in his tables, but
they are located in the index, and not on the tables themselves. For
Rhanullt ferch Rheinallt brenin Manaw (the father presumed to be the
Reginald king of Man who died in 1229), said to have md. Gruffudd ap
Llywelyn, the sources given are Peniarth MS 131 [ca. 1480, by Gutun
Owain], pp. 119, 182, Peniarth MS 129 [ca. 1500], pp. 20, 56, and
Peniarth MS 127 [ca. 1510-23, by Sir Thomas ab Ieuan ap Deicws], pp.
24, 79. Although the manuscripts themselves date to 200+ years after
the claimed relationship, it may be that examination of the texts
themselves would provide clues as to the original date of composition
of the genealogies involved. However, such a determination would
require having access to the texts themselves, and to my knowledge,
none of these manuscripts is available on microfilm at the FHL (or
anywhere else outside of Wales).
Stewart Baldwin
DavidBotts
Welsh tradition says this Gellert, a hound dog, was a gift from King John I of
England to Llywelyn. Anyone ever hear of this hound, his breed, or Welsh use
of hounds for hunting in Llwelyn's time?
Thanks,
Dave Botts
San Antonio, Texas
From a once noble family long since gone to the dogs. Cousin to the first wife
of the last owner of the world renowned Russian bulldog, Traveler.
"...Traveler would rush around in hot pursuit of fiddler crabs, which was a pet
diversion of his, and would bark and throw up the sand with his paws in wild
glee when he had succeeded in driving a number of the ungainly objects into the
sea. But even fiddler crabs had no attraction for Traveler when he went to walk
with Mr. (Jefferson F.) Davis. He was then a bodyguard, pure and simple, and
had all the dignity and watchfulness of a squad of soldiers detailed as
escorts..."
Davis and His Dog, Traveler
By: L. H. L.
Excerpted from the Confederate Veteran
Vol. XVII, No. 4, April, 1909
Jon Meltzer
>
>Welsh tradition says this Gellert, a hound dog, was a gift from King John I of
>England to Llywelyn. Anyone ever hear of this hound, his breed, or Welsh use
>of hounds for hunting in Llwelyn's time?
>
No, but there's probably a line from him in "Royalty for Commoners"
:-)
DavidBotts
Dave
Reedpcgen
Rhodri ap Owain Gwynedd and his nephew Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of North
Wales, to the sister of the Earl of Chester and the daughter of the King of
Man. Due to the length of the following discussion, I've had to chop it into
several pieces.
[PART 1:]
John Carmi Parsons was kind enough to take time to summarize the third letter
of Pope Innocent III [concerning the negotiations for marriage between Llywelyn
and the daughter of the King of Man]. As this is long, further commentary will
follow in separate posts. I have also inserted a few comments in this post
{enclosed like this}.
<< ..... ELIENSI ..... NORVICENSI, ET ..... DE SANCTO ASAPH, EPISOPIS.
{To the Bishops of Ely [Eustace], Norwich [John de Gray] and St. Asaph
[Reiner]}
Ut causam matrimonii, inter filiam principis Insularum, et principem Norwalliæ,
vertentem terminent.
Apud S. Petrum, XIII Kal. Martii.
Cum olim dilectus filius, nobilis vir ... princeps Norwalliæ, a nobis humiliter
postulasset, ut de nostra sibi permissione liceret filiam nobilis viri ...
principis Insularum, quam se asseruit subarrasse, ducere in uxorem, non
obstante, quod ... patruo ejus eadem mulier infra nubiles annos fuerat
desponsata, cum neuter eorum transduxisset eamdem, honæ memoriæ ... Mannen.
episcopo, et dilectis filiis ... archidiacono, et ... priori de Insula Glannav.
sub certa forma causam ipsam commisimus terminandam.>>
This preamble indicates that the uncle was betrothed to the girl before she was
of nubile age, but neither the uncle nor the prince himself had actually ever
taken her to wife.
<<Partibus itaque in prædictorum judicum præsentia constitutis, sicut ipsi per
suas nobis litteras intimarunt, per testes ejus constitut evidenter, quod
prædicta puella, octo annis expletis, ab L. principe Norwalliæ, tam suo quam
suorum assensu parentum, fuerat subarrhata, sed, eo ex necessitate ipsam
transducere differente, ejusdem L. patruus ipsam sine consensu ejus postmodum
desponsavit, qui, ea nequaquam carnaliter cognita, viam fuerat universæ carnis
ingressus.>>
Witnesses testified that the girl was betrothed, aged 8, to Llywelyn with her
consent as well as that of her relatives; but because of subsequent necessity
[I assume political] he declined to take her to wife, and the uncle was
betrothed to her without her consent, but he [the uncle] died before having
carnal knowledge of her.
{That the uncle died without knowing her appears to be false testimony, the
motive for which was an attempt to avoid any impdeiment that would have
prevented her from being able to marry Llywelyn.}
<<Judices ergo prædicti, communicato prudentium virorum consilio, prædicto
Norwalliæ principi auctoritate apostolica concesserunt, ut puellam desponsaret
eamdem, ne discordia inter ipsum et parentes puellæ olim exorta, et tunc
sopita, iterum oriretur.>>
On the counsel of prudent men, the appointed judges conceded to the prince by
apostolic authority that he might marry the girl, lest the former discord
between himself and her relatives, which has now been put to rest, break forth
again.
<<Nos igitur, eorumdem sententiam, nisi aliud rationabile quidem obstaret,
volentes firmitatem debitam obtinere, dilectis filiis ... abbati de Abenton ...
priori de Henli, et magistro M. canonico de Berlinton. Bangorensis diœceseos,
dedimus in mandatis, ut ipsam facerent, appellatione remota, per censuram
ecclesiasticam firmiter observari. Abbas vero prædictus, et conjudices sui,
propter conditionem in litteris nostris expressam, super matrimonio illo, sicut
in eorum litteris perspeximus contineri, studiose ac sollicite, receptis
testibus, veritatem inquirere curaverunt. Habitis ergo quatuor productionibus
testium, et redactis in scriptis despositionibus eorumdem, ea, quæ ad
decisionem causæ credebant sufficere, de utriusque partis assensu, nobis
transmittere curaverunt, ut nobis rei veritas eluceret, consuleretur
conscientiæ principis supradicti, qui priores judices, et præsertim
archidiaconum et priorem dicebat juris ignaros, et litteras nostras per falsam
suggestionem obtentas, nec se credebat cum eadem puella posse salvari, quæ
patruo ejus tradita in uxorem in uno lecto sæpius fuerat cum eodem. Nos
igitur, depositionibus testium diligenter inspectis, probatum invenimus per
easdem, quod idem L. puellam ipsam ducturum se juraverat in uxorem, sed nec
ipsam transduxerat, nec probabatur per testes, quod benedictus fuerit, aut in
una terra fuerit cum eadem, utpote quorum terras mare medium dividebat. In
actis quoque judicum perspeximus contineri, quod suffucientibus testimoniis
probatum fuerat coram ipsis, octo annorum fuisse puellam, quando idem L. eam
juraverat se ducturum.>>
There have been conflicting claims that L. did in fact sleep with her *while
she was betrothed to his uncle*, but after diligent inspection the pope finds
that L. and the girl were never even in the same region together during that
betrothal, but remained separated
both by land and by sea.
{This appears to refer to the time of Llywelyn's original betrothal when she
was about eight.}
[end of part 1]
Reedpcgen
The technicalities of what constituted a legal marriage was still somewhat
ambiguous at the period Llywelyn was negotiating to marry the daughter of the
King of Man. It may be helpful to cite a few passages which put the motivation
of testimony given by various parties into historical perspective.
Maitland [2:367] cites the case of Richard de Anesty's lawsuit which resulted
in a divorce pronounced about 1143: "a marriage solemnly celebrated in church,
a marriage of which a child had been born, was set aside as null in favor of an
earlier marriage constituted by a mere exchange of consenting word."
Yet, "According to the doctrine that prevailed for a while, there was no
marriage until man and woman had become one flesh. In strictness of law all
that was essential was this physical union accompanied by the intent to be
thenceforth husband and wife. All that preceded this could be no more than an
espousal (desponsatio) and the relationship was dissoluble; in particular it
was dissolved if either of them contracted a perfected marriage with a third
person." [Maitland 2:368]
"However, in the course of the twelfth century, when the classical canon law
was taking shape, a new distinction came to the front. Espousals were of two
kinds: sponsalia per verba de futuro, which take place if man and woman promise
each other that they will hereafter become husband and wife; sponsalia per
verba de praesenti, which take place if they declare that they take each other
as husband and wife now, at this very moment. It is thenceforth the
established doctrine that a transaction of the latter kind (sponsalia per verba
de praesenti) creates a bond which is hardly to be dissolved; in particular, it
is not dissolved though one of the spouses goes through the ceremony of
marriage and is physically united with another person." [Maitland 2:368]
"The espousal 'by words of the present tense' constitutes a marriage
(matrimonium), at all events an initiate marriage; the spouses are coniuges;
the relationship between them is almost as indisseverable as if it had already
become a consummate marriage." [Unless a spouse free themselves from an
unconsummated marriage by entering religion or getting papal dispensation.]
"...a marriage that is not yet 'consummated' should ... be no marriage at all.
As to sponsalia per verba de futuro, the doctrine of the canonists was that
sexual intercourse if preceded by such espousals was a marriage; a presumption
of law explained the carnalis copula by the foregoing promise to marry."
[Maitland 2:368]
What of children born to a union later dissolved? Would they be declared
legitimate or illegitimate? "'If a woman in good faith marries a man who is
already married, believing him to be unmarried, and has children by him, such
children will be adjudged legitimate and capable of inheriting...." [A
contemporary of Bracton says,] "'If a woman is divorced for kinship, or
fornication, or blasphemy ... she can not claim dower, but her children can
inherit both from their father and from their mother according to the law of
the realm. But if the wife is separated from her husband on the ground that he
previously contracted marriage with some other woman by words of present time,
then her children can not be legitimate, nor can they succeed to their father,
nor to their mother....'" [Maitland 2:376-7]
But the actual practice seems to be that if a couple married and joined
physically in good faith, any children born to the union were declared
legitimate. If parties were not married in good faith [if they had knowledge
of impediments before the fact], the children were not legitimate. And any
child born before the act of marriage could not be temporally legitimized after
the fact ["our temporal courts would not allow to marriage any retroactive
power; the bastard remained incapable of inheriting land even though his
parents had become husband and wife ...." Maitland 2:277].
[end of part 3]
Reedpcgen
<<Cumque pater puellæ filiam suam in Norwalliam ad statutum terminum ducere
distulisset, idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis Castriæ, sine
contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat in uxorem, et R.
patruus ejus puellam sponsaverat memoratum, et post annum in facie Ecclesiæ,
cum illa contraxerat, et a principio Maii usque ad festum beati Viti martyris,
quoties ei placuit, in eodem lecto jacuerat cum eadem, et in Walliam fuerat
elapso tempore aliquanto reversus. Cæterum, transacto secundo anno a tempore
desponsationis, primo vero a tempore nuptiarum, in Manniam rediens, pacifice
cohabitavit uxori, et eam secum per terram et mare deduxit, sed, ea tandem sub
parentum cura relicta, in Walliam rediit, ibique fuit viam universæ carnis
ingressus.>>
About a year after the girl's father declined to send her to Wales at the
appointed time, Llywelyn instead, without anyone opposing it, "took to wife" a
sister of the earl of Chester. Then the uncle "took to wife" the other girl,
at first as his betrothed and then a year later married her at the church door;
and from the first of May until the feast of St Vitus {15 June}, as many times
as pleased him, he lay in the same bed with her. After a little time he
returned to Wales and stayed there a year. He then returned to the Isle of
Man, peacefully lived there with his wife, and returned to Wales leaving his
wife in the care of her parents. Upon reaching Wales again, he died.
{The Handbook of British Chronology states that Rhodri died in 1095. As one
account says Llywelyn declined to take her towife, but another account states
that her father declined to send her at the appointed time, in may indicate
which story was given by which side.}
<<Ex dictis igitur testium collegerunt judices supradicti, quod prædictus R.
puellam eamdem a tempore desponsationis habuerat per triennium, et tres menses,
sed per biennium, duos menses, et dies quindecim a tempore nuptiarum; fuit
autem diversitas inter testes, cum quidam, ex eo quod puella erat tunc temporis
macilenta, quod non fuisset carnaliter cognita existamarent, licet esset ætate
nubilis, et toro matura; quidam autem nescire se dicerent, si carnaliter
cognita exstitisset, quidam vero crederent, quod cognita non fuisset, quidam
vero ab ipso R. assererent se audisse, quod eam carnaliter non cognovit; licet
adjicerent se nescire, utrum postmodum fuerit cum eadem.>>
However there continues to be considerable disagreement among witnesses as to
whether the uncle actually ever had carnal knowledge of his wife, to whom he
was tied for 3 years and 3 months from the time of their betrothal, and for 2
years, 2 months and 15 days from their marriage at the church door. [NB--this
leaves no doubt that the uncle and the girl were properly married; but it's
still not clear whether they had carnal knowledge of each other.]
<<Verum, prædictus episcopus Manniæ, sicut in scriptis ejus, et suorum
conjudicum secundo delegati perspexerant contineri, conjudicibus ejus
absentibus, tam ex ipsius puellæ quam parentum, nutricis et famularum ejus
didicit juramentis, quod prædictus R. puellam ipsam carnaliter non cognovit.>>
By the testimony of several witnesses, including the girl herself, her
relatives and her nurse, the pope has heard that the uncle R. never knew her
carnally.
<<Patruo ergo viam universæ carnis ingresso, cum prædictus L. a rege Manniæ
juniorem filiam in conjugum postulasset, nec id obtinere potuisset ab eo,
utpote cum ipsa fuisset alii copulata, sæpedictam puellam de assensu priorum
judicum sibi postmodum copulavit.>>
After the uncle's death, L. asked the king of Man if he might not marry his
younger daughter, but as she was already coupled with another, L. with the
permission of the aforesaid judges coupled with the oft-mentioned girl.
<<Constitit igitur ex prædictis quod inter sæpedictum L. et prædictam puellam,
cum octo esset annorum cujus tamen consensus non invenitur expressus, antequam
cum ipsa ejusdem L. patruus contraxisset, tantummodo per verba de futuro
fuerunt sponsalia celebrata, ita quod nec idem L. transduxerat aut subarrharat
eamdem, nec cum ipsa fuerat benedictus, quin imo nec in eadem fuerant terra
simul, utpote quorum terras, sicut superius est expressum, mare medium
dividebat: unde præsumi non potest quod aliquid attentarint, quod non potuerint
consummare.>>
However the pope determines that as the girl was only aged 8 when all this
started, she could not have given proper consent; the union with L was only
*per verbis de futuro*. They were never blessed together as husband and wife.
The pope finds that they never lived together but were divided by land and by
sea, and their union was not consummated.
<<Constitit etiam per prædicta quod puella ipsa in nono anno sæpedicto R.
desponsata fuerat, et in decimo ab ipso transducta, et ultra biennium in uno
lecto frequenter fuerat cum eodem.>>
In her 9th year she was espoused to uncle R., in her tenth year married him,
and for two years was often in his bed.
<<Unde colligitur manifeste quod primæ litteræ per falsam fuerunt suggestionem
obtentæ, cum contineatur in illis quod neuter eorum transduxit eamdem. Cumque
tandin simul in uno lecto fuissent, de jure præsumitur quod facti fuerint una
caro, cum etiam in duodecimo anno, in quo liberum et legitimum habet in
hujusmodi puella consensum, voluntarie fuerit cum eodem, patet eam in ejus
matrimonium legitime consensisse, nec potuisse contrahere postmodum cum
nepote.>>
Therefore it is clear that earlier letters on this matter were false; as uncle
R. and the girl were in bed together, it must by law be presumed that they
became one flesh (i.e., consummated the marriage), and since she was then in
her 12th year and could give legitimate consent, that she was willingly with
him. Therefore her consent was legitimate and she cannot now legitimately
contract matrimony with his nephew.
<<Unde idem L. ducere ipsam de jure non potuit, et, si de facto ipsam sibi post
mortem patrui copulavit, ab ea est merito separandus. Ideoque fraternitati
vestræ per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, vocatis qui propter hoc
fuerint evocandi, causam ipsam secundum præcriptam formam, appellatione
postposita, terminetis, facientes, etc.>>
The pope therefore orders the aforementioned commissioners to terminate the
said business without the possibility of appeal and [etc.--to declare that the
two cannot marry and to order their separation if they have in fact wed].
[end of part 2]
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/20/1999 6:54:52 PM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< >The Handbook of British Chronology states that Rhodri died in 1095.
This should read 1195. >>
I did not get part two, not I suspect did anyone else. This statement is not
in the posts received.
- Ken
Reedpcgen
So to summarize and add commentary:
Llywelyn was betrothed to the daughter of the King of Man when she was aged
eight, with her consent, and that of her relatives. But Llywelyn then declined
to take her to wife [having been betrothed to her, but not having had carnal
knowledge of her at that time], so she was betrothed to his uncle Rhodri.
It was claimed that Rhodri died without having carnal knowledge of her [--had
it been found that she and Rhodri had indeed had sexual intercourse, she could
not then (after Rhodri's death) marry Llywelyn]. After Rhodri's death, after
inquiry, judges appointed by the Pope declared that Llywelyn might be betrothed
to her.
There had been conflicting claims that Llywelyn had slept with the girl while
she was betrothed to his uncle, but the Pope found that Llywelyn and the girl
were not even in the same region during that period.
Recounting particulars from the beginning, Llywelyn was betrothed to the girl
when she was about eight. About a year after, the King of Man declined to send
her to Wales at the time appointed, so Llywelyn, without any opposition, took
to wife a sister of the Earl of Chester. [This would have been a politically
advantageous match, and--if this testimony is accurate--would have taken place
about the ninth year of age of the daughter of the King of Man, or ca. 1192
(see below).]
Then Rhodri was, first [in her ninth year], betrothed to the Princess of Man,
and a year later [in her tenth year] married her in the church door [a proper
legal marriage]. After this public union, Rhodri lay in the same bed with her
as often as he pleased between 1 May and the feast of St. Vitus [June 15]. He
then returned to Wales. After about one year, Rhodri returned to Man, again
living [and sleeping] with her peacefully. Leaving her in her parents' care,
he returned again to Wales, where he died [apparently in 1195].
The letter then recapitulates, stating that Rhodri was tied to the girl for
three years, three months from the time of their betrothal, and two years, two
months, fifteen days from the time of their marriage at the church door [which
would agree with the statement that they were married at the church about one
year after betrothal]. By taking this chronology into account, if we subtract
her age from the year of Rhodri's death, we come to a probable birth year of
about 1183.
The girl, her nurse, and her relatives all testified that Rhodri never knew her
carnally [here John and I both thought of the claim asserted by Catharine of
Aragon]. This claim was necessary, or Llywelyn would have been barred from
marrying her.
After Rhodri's death [in 1195], Llywelyn asked the King of Man if he could
marry the king's younger daughter [this might indicate Llywelyn knew his uncle
had carnal knowledge of the elder girl]. But she was already coupled with
another man, so Llywelyn, with the permission of the aforesaid judges,
'coupled' with the Princess of the Isles that we have been discussing.
[Now here we have a difficulty in interpretation. The verb 'copulare' can be
ambiguous in meaning. Here it seems to indicate that Llywelyn and the girl
were physically united in sexual intercourse, but it can also mean joining
together in other senses, such as being grouped together [in the same place,
like captives], grouped [like notes], to unite by ties of marriage, to
reconcile, to bind or oblige, to form a tie of peace or friendship, or even to
unite in spiritual love [Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources].
The Pope found, however, that as Llywelyn and the girl were initially betrothed
when she was aged eight, she could not have given proper consent. Also, the
union was only 'per verbis de futuro,' or that they intended to wed sometime in
the future. They had not been properly blessed [before the church by a
priest], and they had never lived together, but had been separated by land and
sea [hence their union ws not consummated]. This means Llywelyn was not
properly married to the girl prior to the time she was properly wed to his
uncle Rhodri.
She was espoused to his uncle Rhodri in her ninth year, married to him in her
tenth year, and often in his bed after that for a period of two years [before
he died in 1195].
It was clear to the Pope that there was false testimony, and that the claims
that Rhodri never carnally knew the girl were untrue. By law, it must be
presumed that since she and Rhodri lay in bed together they became one flesh
[consummated the marriage], and that since she was in her twelfth year and was
with Rhodri willingly, she thus indicated her consent. As her marriage with
Rhodri was by law complete and legitimate, the girl 'cannot now legitimately
contract marriage' with Llywelyn. The Pope therefore orders the commissioners
to terminate the business--he declares that Llywelyn and the girl cannot marry,
and orders their separation if they have in fact been [since] wed.
This implies to me that at the time Pope Innocent III sent this letter, he was
not aware of any proper marriage between Llywelyn and the Princess. I am
confused by the implication that Llywelyn and the girl coupled [joined in
physical union] at some point after Rhodri's death. That, and the girl's
willingness at the time should have constituted marriage. The Pope would have
then had to declare that the marriage was invalid and quash it. But that is
not what seems to be said at the end in the declaration.
One final important point. If any children had been born to the union, a
determination would have had to be made as to their legitimacy. If the girl
had borne any children fathered by Rhodri [even a miscarriage], it would have
been evidence of consummation and mentioned. If Llywelyn had fathered a child,
having had the approbation of ecclesiastical judges [letter two, discussed
before on this group], it could be argued that they would be declared
legitimate. But if the bride lied about consummating her marriage with Rhodri,
it might be that any such child by Llywelyn would be declared illegitimate.
The point is, there is no mention of issue--no declaration of children born, or
the legitimacy of children to be born. This would clearly indicate that the
Pope had no knowledge of any issue of Llywelyn by the daughter of the King of
Man, and since appeal was still being made to the Pope before 1205 [the date of
this letter], local authorities may have prevented any such physical union
until a final word could be received.
Llywelyn did not wait long to negotiate another marriage. He was espoused to
Joan in 1205, and married in 1206. One might argue that he had already been
pursuing possible arrangements with King John before the Pope sent this
declaration, and that Llywelyn's witnesses might have been so influenced, or
the Pope with the King of England's influence might have tried to find reasons
to invalidate the cause of marriage between Llywelyn and the daughter of the
King of Man.
The above would also indicate that the King of Man had two daughters, the elder
[who married Rhodri], born about 1183, and a younger daughter, already coupled
[at least espoused] by 1196.
As Llywelyn's betrothal to the daughter of the King of Man was not valid, and
as he had, without any opposition, married the sister of the Earl of Chester
[apparently] the following year, it would indicate that she was dead by the
time Llywelyn began negotiations to marry a daughter of the King of Man anew.
We know he resumed this by 1199, and continued until 1205. He could not have
begun negotiations for marriage to the younger or elder daughter of the King of
Man while lawfully married to another, and there is no declaration that his
marriage to the sister of the Earl of Chester was invalid.
If this is correct, Llywelyn would have married the sister of the Earl of
Chester sometime around 1192, and she must have been dead, without issue that
survived beyond 1232 [if she was legitimate] by 1199. Also, if Llywelyn had
had any issue which survived to adulthood by either of these women, it would be
likely they would be mentioned somewhere in the Welsh pedigrees [as were
children of Owain Gwynedd, Iorwerth ap Owain, etc.]
Of course, the concusions in the above posts depend on the accuracy of the
testimony in the Papal letters and other sources.
[end of part 4]
Reedpcgen
This should read 1195.
Paul
Reedpcgen
The sons and grandsons of Owain Gwynedd [son of Gruffudd ap Cynan], ruler over
Gwynedd [North Wales], who died 1170 [Bartrum says he was b. ca. 1100], are the
main players in this story. Owain had matches with at least nine women.
Christina/Cristin f. Gronwy was considered a legitimate wife. The following
children are given in the _Handbook of British Chronology_, after which are
additional children listed in Bartum's Welsh Genealogies [Gruffudd ap Cynan,
various charts]:
(1) Rhun, d. 1146.
(2) Hywel, killed 1170 [son by Ffynnod Wyddeles ("an Irish woman"); issue:
Caswallon].
(3) Iorwerth Drwyndwn [flatnose], son by the first 'wife' Gwladus f. Llywarch,
was father of LLYWELYN ap Iorwerth [both the _Handbook of British Chronology_
and Lloyd's _History of Wales_ state that Llywelyn was born in 1173] and Adda
ap Iorwerth. He married the daughter of Madog ap Meredydd, Prince of Powys.
One account states that Iorwerth was excluded from his share in the succession
because of his deformity, and was driven out of Gwynedd, meeting an untimely
demise in Powys. But an elegy upon him by Seisyll Brffwrch calls him ruler of
Arfon, and his grave is said to be in the church of Llandudclud [now Penmachno]
at the head of the Conway Valley. Lloyd also thinks there is good reason to
believe he held the commote of Nanconwy with the castle of Dolwyddelan. Wynne
says Iorwerth received the hundreds of Nanconwy and Ardydwy as his inheritance,
and that he dwelled at the castle of Dolwyddelan, where it is though his son
Llywelyn might have been born.
(4) Maelgwn [son by Gwladus], who received Anglesey as his portion.
(5) David ap Owain [son by his second wife Christina] eventually won Gwynedd
from his other male relatives in 1175, was dispossessed in 1194, and died in
exile in 1203. David had married, 1174, Emma, natural daughter of Geoffrey of
Anjou.
(6) RHODRI ap Owain [son by Christiana], married (1) a daughter of Rhys ap
Gruffudd of Deheubarth, and (2) the elder daughter of the King of Man. Rhodri
died in 1195.
(7) Cynan ap Owain [mother not known], died in 1174. He had sons Gruffudd ap
Cynan [d. 1200] and Maredudd [d. 1212].
(a) Angharad [daughter by Cristin], married Gruffudd Maelor.
(b) Gwenllian [Gwenllian I, daughter by Gwladus], married Owain Cyneiliog.
[other children listed by Bartum, order not known:]
(8) Rhirid, married a daughter of Iarll Desmond [Desmond, in Ireland?]
(9) Iago [son by Mofudd f. Elfan ap Sandde].
(10) Philip [son by Mofudd f. Elfan ap Sandde].
(11) Madog.
(12) Einion.
(13) Cynwrig [I].
(14) Cynwrig [II]
(15) Cadell.
(c) Gwenllian [II].
Bartrum shows that Rhodri ap Owain Gwynedd married, in 1188, Gwenllian ferch
Arglwydd Rhys, by whom she had two sons, Gruffudd and Cynan. Bartrum states
that Rhodri then married, in 1193, a child, daughter of Reginald, King of Man,
but they had no issue. Bartrum also attribues two other sons to Rhodri, Thomas
and Einion, but the identity of their mother is unknown (concubine).
Sources for the following chronology and events:
Sir John Edward Lloyd, _History of Wales_ (1948, first published 1911)
2:549-54, 564-6, 587-90, 617.
_Brut y tywysogion; or the Chronicle of the Princes_ (London, 1860), ed. John
Williams ab Ithel, 238-41.
_Handbook of British Chronology_ (London, 1986) [Royal Historical Society], 51.
_Medieval Anglesey_ (Llangefni, 1982), A. D. Carr, 44-7.
_The Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin through Wales, A.D. MCLXXXVIII [Spring,
1188], by Giraldus de Barri [Geraldus Cambrensis]..._, Sir Richard Colt Hoare
(London, 1806), v. 2.
Sir John Wynn, _History of the Gwydir Family_,e d. J. Ballinger (1927), 7.
DNB; and Dictionary of Welsh Biography [under Rhodri ab Owain].
.
1170:
Owain Gwynedd dies. His sons dispute his lands. His son Hywel is defeated and
killed at the battle of Pentraeth by his brothers Dafydd and Rhodri. Gwynedd
[North Wales] was divided and the share of Anglesey fell to their brother
Maelgwn.
1172:
Owain Gwynedd's brother Cadwaladr dies on 29 February, increasing the lands
claimed by Owain's sons.
1173:
Dafydd drives his brother Maelgwn from Anglesey and forces him to flee to
Ireland.
1174:
Dafydd expands his ambitions and attempts the conquest of all of Gwynedd. The
death of his brother Cynan helps remove one opponent. Iorwerth may also have
been dead by this time. Maelgwn returns from Ireland, but is imprisoned. This
left only his brother Rhodri and his nephews to oppose him. Dafydd conquers
the whole region, displacing the others.
Having not been necessarily unloyal to Henry, King of England, in the upheaval
of 1173-4, Dafydd sends a special envoy to ask the king for the hand of his
half-sister, Emma, illegitimate daughter of Geoffrey of Anjou, "famed for her
beauty, and now, it would seem, a widow." The marriage took place in the
summer of 1174.
1175:
Rhodri, as his most important rival, is imprisoned by Dafydd, but escapes from
captivity and drives Dafydd out of Gwynedd west of the Conwy [before the end of
the year], establishing a balance of power. The sons of Cynan also recover
their father's lands. Dafydd, unable to overcome this defeat, agrees to the
partition. Rhodri was to hold these lands peacefully through the next decade.
Rhodri enters into an alliance with Rhys ap Gruffydd, Prince of South Wales,
and marries one of his daughters [Gwenllian].
1177:
Rhodri and the sons of Cynan are absent from the Council of Oxford, before the
King of England. Dafydd was in attendance, as were the rulers of South Wales.
1188:
Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, tours Wales [accompanied by Giraldus]
recruiting for the crusade [Jerusalem had fallen to enemies the previous year].
He preached at a place in Anglesey, possibly Porthwaethwy. Rhodri and his
men, in the audience, declined to take the cross. Rhodri is chastised for his
marriage to his cousin [the daughter of Rhys ap Gruffydd] which fell within the
prohibited degrees (this would indicate his first wife was still very much
alive).
Gerald relates: "From Bangor, we crossed over a small arm of the sea to
the island of Mona, distant from thence about two miles, where Roderic
[Rhodri], the younger son of Owen, attended by nearly all the inhabitants of
the island ... came in a devout manner to meet us. Confession havingbeen made
in a place near the shore, ... many persons were induced to take the cross, by
the persuasuve discourses of the Archbishop, and Alexander, our interpreter
.... Many chosen youths of the family of Roderic were seated on an opposite
rock, and not one of them could be prevailed upon to take th ecross, although
the Archbishop and others most earnestly exhorted them, but in vain, by an
address particularly addressed to them. It came to pass within three days,as
if by divine vengeance, that these young men, with many others, pursued some
robbers of that country; being discomfited and put to flight, some were slain,
others mortally wounded, and the survivors voluntarily assumed that cross they
had before despised. Roderic ... who a short time before had incestuously
married the daughter of Rhys, related to himby blood in the third degree; in
order, by the assistance of that prince, to be better able to defend himself
against the sons of his brothers, whom he disinherited, not paying attention to
the wholesome admonistions of the Archbishop on this subject [was eventually
dispossessed of his lands]. [Itinerary, 101-2]
Lloyd says that Llywelyn ap Iorwerth attained his majority in 1188 [at age 14]
and began to make trouble for his uncles [2:565]. Lloyd specifically states
that he was born in the early part of 1173 [2:587]. It appears that Llywelyn's
father, Iorwerth, died while Llywelyn was an infant, and that Llywelyn was
raised in his mother's land of Powys.
1190/1:
Rhodri is driven out of Anglesey by his nephews, the sons of Cynan ap Owain.
He seeks the aid of Reginald, King of Man, and pledges to marry his daughter.
Lloyd says "about 1190," some accounts say 1190, and another 1191. Godred,
king of Man, had died in 1187, and his minor son Olaf was displaced by Godred's
natural son "Reginald."
1193:
Rhodri ap Owain "subjugated the isle of Mona [Anglesey], through the aid of the
sons of Godrich, king of Man; but before the end of the year he was expelled by
the sons of Cynan, son of Owain Gwynedd, his nephews." [Brut, 238-9.]
The victory by Rhodri was known as 'Haf y Gwyddyl.' It was apparently called
'the Gaelic summer' because of the influx of Gaelic-speaking men from the Isle
of Man that had accompanied Rhodri into Gwynedd.
1194:
"And king Richard returned from Jerusalem. And then Llywelyn, son of Iorwerth,
and Rhodri, son of Owain, and the two sons of Cynan, son of Owain, combined
against David, son of Owain Gwynedd, and oppugned all the territory of David,
except three castles." [Brut, 240-1.]
But conflicting accounts indicate that Rhodri sided with David and was
defeated by Llywelyn at Coed Aneu in Anglesey, and that Rhodri's defeat left
him with almost nothing. DWB says it is unknown if Rhodri "returned from exile
and shared in his brother Dafydd's humiliation in 1194". Lloyd makes reference
to the various conflicting sources [2:588-8].
1195:
Rhodri dies, and is buried at Holyhead/Caergybi.
DNB states there are several poems to Rhodri:
The 'Myvyrian Archaiology' contains one by Gwalchmai (2nd ed., p. 146 [in which
Rhodri is called the "great rampart of his people"]), one by Elidyr Sais (p.
241), and four by Llywarch ap Llywelyn (pp. 201-3).
This appears to agree with the information in the second and third letters from
Innocent III. It would seem Rhodri properly married the daughter of the King
of Man in 1193, sleeping with her from 1 May to 15 June [the feast of St.
Vitus]. It would make sense that having fulfilled and consumated his marriage
pledge, the King of Man sent forces with Rhodri to reconquer his lands in
Anglesey in the summer of 1193. If the testimony in the third letter is
correct, it would help us narrow down the date of Rhodri's death. If he
married her shortly before 1 May 1193, and was bound to him for another 2
years, 2 months, 15 days, he would have died sometime about 16 July 1195. Of
course, this is speculation based on the accuracy of the testimony of the
information sent from Innocent III, but it helps narrow things down a little.
So, what think ye of all this?
Paul
Reedpcgen
5. Henry I, King of England
|
4. Robert, Earl of Gloucester
|
3. Maud/Matilda
|
2. Hugh 'de Kevelioc,' Earl of Chester
|
1. [daughter] espoused to Llywelyn
********************
5. Henry I, King of England
|
4. Matilda = Geoffrey, Count of Anjou
|
3. Henry II, King of England
|
2. John, King of England
|
1. Joan, m. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth
pcr
Douglas Richardson
It's interesting information. Because you broke up your post, Paul, I
can't tell without close examination if all three Papal letters are in
your post. I assume they are. Correct? As best I can tell, your
translation of the third letter makes no reference to Llywelyn's
"marriage" to the daughter of the King of Man, as did the published
abstract provided by Cheney. Do I understand correctly that the third
letter does not contain any wording to the effect that Llywelyn's
"marriage" to the Man girl was "invalid."
Also, do I understand it correctly that the Man girl was evidently
married to Llywelyn's uncle, Rhodri, about 1193, when she was 12 years
old? If correct, I asumme she would have been 22 years old when
Llywelyn was trying to marry her in 1203. Correct? And, was Cheney
correct when he said that the second letter granted permission for
Llywelyn to marry her?
If the second letter granted permission for the marriage and if the
third letter does not tell us if a marriage between Llywelyn and the
Man girl took place, I suppose it's anyone guess if they actually
married. I'm not sure what to make of all of it. My impression is
that Llywelyn was the kind of guy who would have married the woman,
gambling that the Pope would want to avoid a confrontation about the
issue. If so, it appears he gambled wrong. The Pope clearly had his
way in this matter. The betrothal/marriage was completely invalidated.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
In article <19991020213427...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
> ..
> ..... Many chosen youths of the family of Roderic were seated on
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Vickie Elam White
I don't think the PART 2 message made it through
cyberspace. I still haven't received it, and I
noticed another person who said he hadn't
received it yet.
Could you possibly re-send PART 2? And
thank you very much for doing this. It is
quite helpful.
Vickie Elam White
10265...@compuserve.com
Reedpcgen
soc.genealogy.medieval). Here's part 2 again for Vickie:
Reedpcgen
There should have been five parts to my posts on Llywelyn and Rhodri's wives.
If you have not seen all of them, I can send them to you directly.
Your post contains a number of erroneous conclusions and questions. Other
people have told me the answers are clear enough [in English, no less], so
rather than me taking more time right now to answer things that should be
clearly apparent [stated several times in my posts], please take the time to
read through them more carefully, and then post specific questions again. To
quote you, "I can't tell without close examination...." I expected that you
would make close examination before debating specific points.
As to the statements by Cheney and Cheney [C.R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney, _The
Letters of Pope Innocent III_ (1967)], they have made no differentiations in
rendering Latin words which might be better translated as: to espouse, to
betrothe, to take to wife, to take in marriage, to pledge oneself, etc. As I
have tried to explain more than once already, these terms do not mean there was
a perfected or complete marriage. Not only did there have to be some type of
verbal declaration of intent, the spouses had to consummate their union to
perfect it.
Though the second letter comfirms the judgment/decree that Llywelyn and the
girl might be properly espoused, it contains false testimony--and is based on
false testimony--as it states that the girl and Rhodri never had carnal
knowledge of each other. The judges must have suspected something was amiss
[see immediately below].
Cheyney and Cheyney's state, in their summary of the third letter, "The last
judges were not satisfied that the marriage of Llywelyn was valid and sent to
the pope further evidence,..." If the judges were now satisfied that the
betrothal [desponsatio] was valid, does it not make sense that they would have
kept the bride [who resided on the Isle of Man] and Llywelyn [who had
consolidated his holdings and was Prince of North Wales, and resided IN North
Wales] apart? Remember that they were divided by both land and seas, and it
took a concerted effort to join them. There were plenty of local girls for
Llywelyn to satisfy himself with, and it is already established that he had
children by Tangwystl by this time [1203-5].
[Cheyney and Cheyney continue:] "...including evidence that Llywelyn, when
betrothed to the girl, had married a sister of (Ranulf) Earl of Chester." The
Latin here rendered "married" is 'duxerat in uxorem.' This would be taking
someone in marriage, but does not tell us if the marriage was consummated. But
it does seem to imply a statement of 'per verba de praesenti' rather than
'futuro.'
[They continue:] "As a result the pope decides there has been no valid marriage
between Llywelyn and the daughter of the prince of the Isles. He orders the
addressees to summon the parties and give judgment accordingly." I can see how
this was misleading. The "As a result..." refers to receiving the evidence,
not as a result of Llywelyn's marriage to the sister of the Earl of Chester.
And only the first and third letters have been rendered/summarized in English,
though the second one is fairly straight-forward. The first letter was
translated and posted to this group some months ago.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>Cheyney and Cheyney state, in their summary of the third letter, "The last
judges [i.e., the judges prior to the third letter] were not satisfied that the
marriage of Llywelyn was valid and sent to the pope further evidence,..."
[This means the judges had further evidence the Pope had not yet seen when the
second letter was written, and that they were NOT satisfied with the decree
declared in the second letter.]
>If the judges were NOT satisfied that the betrothal [desponsatio] was valid,
does it not make sense that they would have kept the bride [who resided on the
Isle of Man] and Llywelyn [who had consolidated his holdings and was Prince of
North Wales, and resided in Wales] apart? Remember that they were divided by
both land and sea, and it would take a concerted effort to join them. >>
Paul