Subject: Re: Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's marriages
Michelle.Mu...@ccmail.team400.ie
>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].
This translation suggests that if "R", the Prince of Wales, was indeed Llywelyn,
that at some point he sought to betroth/marry the daughter of the Lord of the
Isles, notwithstanding a previous betrothal to his uncle. Chronologically
speaking, it seems more likely than the alternative, i.e. that his uncle sought
to marry the girl after a betrothal to her by Llywelyn when she was very young -
though this scenario is still possible.
So does anyone know who Llywelyn's uncles married? Apart from Dafydd and Rhodri,
we must consider any other sons of Owain Gwynedd but ALSO any brothers of his
mother Marared, one of whom was called Gruffydd. Does the document specify that
it was a paternal uncle, or could it have been either?
The second issue is of course that even if Llywelyn was checking out the
legality of a betrothal with this lady, it by no means suggests that the
marriage ever took place. In fact, given that we have never heard of this woman
referred to as a wife of Llywelyn's, it looks more like a betrothal that never
panned out, as Stewart Baldwin recently suggested. I would be interested in
narrowing down which uncle they might be referring to, though - and if his was
the second betrothal, whether he actually married this woman or not.
Any experts out there on who the Lord of the Isles would have been at this time,
and what happened to any known daughters of his?
regards
Michelle
michell...@life.friendsfirst.ie
Gee Gee Hughes
.......snip..........
>Michelle Murphy wrote:
>So does anyone know who Llywelyn's uncles married? Apart from Dafydd and
>Rhodri, we must consider any other sons of Owain Gwynedd but ALSO any
brothers >of his mother Marared, one of whom was called Gruffydd. Does the
document >specify that it was a paternal uncle, or could it have been either?
Bartrum's only shows a few of the marriages for the sons of Owain Gwynedd.
The ones shown are:
Rhodri m. (1) Gwenllian ferch Yr Argllwydd Rhys (the Lord Rhys), m. (2) in
1193, N.N (a child) d/o Reginald, king of Man.
Dafydd m. Emma Guse d/o Geoffrey Plantagnent, C. of Anjou.
Cynan m. Angharad f. Genillin.
Gee Gee Hughes
bunn...@capital.net
"..........but his grandson, Llywelyn ab Iorweerth, deemed it wise to
secure a papal dispensation in 1203 for his proposed marriage to the
daughter of the king of Man." [The Age of Conquest:Wales 1063 - 1415]
There was no mention of any other marriage other than to Joan, daughter
of John, in any of the books.
Sandy
Michelle.Murphy%EIH...@ccmail.team400.ie wrote:
>
> Suzanne Doig translated:
>
> >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].
>
> This translation suggests that if "R", the Prince of Wales, was indeed Llywelyn,
> that at some point he sought to betroth/marry the daughter of the Lord of the
> Isles, notwithstanding a previous betrothal to his uncle. Chronologically
> speaking, it seems more likely than the alternative, i.e. that his uncle sought
> to marry the girl after a betrothal to her by Llywelyn when she was very young -
> though this scenario is still possible.
>
> So does anyone know who Llywelyn's uncles married? Apart from Dafydd and Rhodri,
> we must consider any other sons of Owain Gwynedd but ALSO any brothers of his
> mother Marared, one of whom was called Gruffydd. Does the document specify that
> it was a paternal uncle, or could it have been either?
>
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Bartrum's only shows a few of the marriages for the sons of Owain Gwynedd.
> The ones shown are:
>
> Rhodri m. (1) Gwenllian ferch Yr Argllwydd Rhys (the Lord Rhys), m. (2) in
> 1193, N.N (a child) d/o Reginald, king of Man.
This would be the marriage in question, 6 years before Llywelyn looked
into the issue. This is the Reginald called Reginald iv at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/man.htm
taf
Fern...@aol.com
following marriages are given for Iorwerth ap Owain Gwyned and his brothers:
page 3 Maelgwn l 1173-4 no marriage given
page 3 Cadwallon l 1165 no marriage given
page 4 Iorwerth Drwyndwn m. Margred f. Madog (Bl ap C 3)
page 12 Rhordi m. 1> Gwenllian f Yr Arglwydd Rs (Rs ap T 4)
2> NN (a child) dau. Reginald, K of Man see Rheinallt
m. 1193
page 10 Hywel I don't have
page 16 Iago I don't have
page 3 Llywelyn no marriage listed
page 3 Maredudd Ddu no marriage listed
page 3 Idwal no marriage listed
page 3 Rhun no marriage listed
page 3 Cadell no marriage listed
page 3 Philip no marriage listed
page 3 Cynwrig I l 1165
page 3 Cynwrig II
page 3 Cynan d. 1173 m. Angharad f Genillin (Meirion G 1)
page 3 Dafydd d. 1203 m. Emma base daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet C. of
Anjou
page 3 Rhirid m. NN f Iarll Desmond
This seems like a lot of sons but I haven't listed the daughters. Their
father, Owain Gwynedd 1100-1170 has 9 wives or not listed on page 3.
Fern
Gee Gee Hughes
1195. If N.N. were 7years old in 1193 (according to the document you
translated), then the marriage would surely not have been consummated with
a ten year old, which would have been N.N.'s age at Rhodri's death.
Gee Gee Hughes
>>Rhodri m. (1) Gwenllian ferch Yr Argllwydd Rhys (the Lord Rhys), m. (2) in
>>1193, N.N (a child) d/o Reginald, king of Man.
>
>I had wondered this already, but could this document refer to
>Reginald's daughter? It seems unlikely as the letter only refers to a
>betrothal to the uncle, not a marriage, but she must still have been a
>child when Rhodri died. If the marriage were unconsummated, did they
>(whoever they might be) try to pass her on to Llywelyn?
>
>(Must start on that second letter!)
>
>Suzanne
>
>* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
> Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4038/index.html
At 02:15 AM 7/29/99 +0000, you wrote:
>On 28 Jul 1999 16:52:06 -0700, G.G.H...@worldnet.att.net (Gee Gee
>Hughes) wrote:
>
>>>Michelle Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>So does anyone know who Llywelyn's uncles married? Apart from Dafydd and
>>>Rhodri, we must consider any other sons of Owain Gwynedd but ALSO any
>>brothers >of his mother Marared, one of whom was called Gruffydd. Does the
>>document >specify that it was a paternal uncle, or could it have been either?
>
>The word used, patruus, means specifically paternal uncle in classical
>Latin (cf. avunculus = maternal uncle). I don't know whether this was
>still the case in the 12th century.
Suzanne Doig
Hughes) wrote:
>>Michelle Murphy wrote:
>
>>So does anyone know who Llywelyn's uncles married? Apart from Dafydd and
>>Rhodri, we must consider any other sons of Owain Gwynedd but ALSO any
>brothers >of his mother Marared, one of whom was called Gruffydd. Does the
>document >specify that it was a paternal uncle, or could it have been either?
The word used, patruus, means specifically paternal uncle in classical
Latin (cf. avunculus = maternal uncle). I don't know whether this was
still the case in the 12th century.
>Bartrum's only shows a few of the marriages for the sons of Owain Gwynedd.
>The ones shown are:
>
Stewart Baldwin
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Gee Gee Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Bartrum's only shows a few of the marriages for the sons of Owain Gwynedd.
>> The ones shown are:
>>
>> Rhodri m. (1) Gwenllian ferch Yr Argllwydd Rhys (the Lord Rhys), m. (2) in
>> 1193, N.N (a child) d/o Reginald, king of Man.
>
>This would be the marriage in question, 6 years before Llywelyn looked
>into the issue. This is the Reginald called Reginald iv at:
>
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/man.htm
>
>taf
The source cited by Bartrum for the above marriage to the child
daughter of Reginald, king of Man is (unfortunately) a secondary
source, Lloyd's "History of Wales", pp. 588, 617, to which I do not
have access. Perhaps somebody who does have access could check that
book and tell us what those two pages say about the matter (with
citations, if any).
Stewart Baldwin
Suzanne Doig
Hughes) wrote:
>This begins to make sense, as Bartrum gives a death date for Rhodri of
>1195. If N.N. were 7years old in 1193 (according to the document you
>translated), then the marriage would surely not have been consummated with
>a ten year old, which would have been N.N.'s age at Rhodri's death.
Yes, and she would have been ~13 in 1199 - the document suggests that
it would have been okay for Llywelyn to consummate the marriage
(copulare is the verb used) so long as she was betrothed to the uncle
*before* she turned seven [septennium].
A birth date of c 1186 also seems to be quite consistent with
identifying the unnamed girl in the document with a daughter of
Reginald of Man.
This leaves the question - was it possible to refer to Reginald of Man
as 'prince of the Isles'? Was there some confusion due to the
Lord/Prince of the Isles at that time also being called
Reginald/Ranald? They were cousins (R of Man's father was half-brother
to R of Isles' mother), just to add to the confusion.
Stewart has already pointed out that the marriage to Rhodri is only
given in a secondary source; is it possible that Rhodri's wife has
traditionally been assigned to the *wrong* Reginald?
>>I had wondered this already, but could this document refer to
>>Reginald's daughter? It seems unlikely as the letter only refers to a
>>betrothal to the uncle, not a marriage, but she must still have been a
>>child when Rhodri died. If the marriage were unconsummated, did they
>>(whoever they might be) try to pass her on to Llywelyn?
>>Suzanne
Stewart Baldwin
(Suzanne Doig) wrote:
>This leaves the question - was it possible to refer to Reginald of Man
>as 'prince of the Isles'? Was there some confusion due to the
>Lord/Prince of the Isles at that time also being called
>Reginald/Ranald? They were cousins (R of Man's father was half-brother
>to R of Isles' mother), just to add to the confusion.
>Stewart has already pointed out that the marriage to Rhodri is only
>given in a secondary source; is it possible that Rhodri's wife has
>traditionally been assigned to the *wrong* Reginald?
I don't have a Latin copy of the Chronicle of the Kings of Man, but
Anderson's English translation of some passages in "Early Sources of
Scottish History" sometimes refers to kings of Man as kings of "the
Isles", so I think that we have to allow for the possibility that
"prince of the Isles" might have referred either to the Lord of the
Isles or to the King of Man.
Stewart Baldwin
AJones9446
Chapter XVI part II (The Rise of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth):
page 588: "For some years previously there had been quarrels between Rhodri
[uncle of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth] and his southern neighbours the sons of Cynan.
About 1190 the latter had driven Rhodri out of Anglesey, whereupon he had
sought the help of Reginald, king of Man, marrying his daughter as a pledge of
alliance, and in 1193 he had with the aid of a Manx contingent expelled his
rivals and again possessed himself of Aberffraw (70)"
(70) the footnote points out that Brut y Tywysogyon states that this was with
the support of Gwrthrych (Godred) king of Man but that Brenhinedd y Saesson
states "more correctly" "the sons of Godrich". Lloyd says "Godred of Man died
in 1187, leaving a lawful son, Olaf, under age, and a natural son Reginald, who
at once assumed power and ruled the islands at this period. For Rhodri's
marriage see page 617."
Chapter XVII part I (the Rivalry of Llywelyn and Gwenwynwyn):
page 616/7:
[after mentioning the marriage of Llywelyn and Joan probably in the Spring of
1205] "it had seemed likely during the previous five or six years that the
Northern prince [i.e. Llywelyn] would find a wife in a very different quarter,
for he had been negotiating with Pope Innocent III for leave to marry a
daughter of Reginald, king of Man, wedded as a child to his uncle, Rhodri (29).
In April 1203 the requisite papal authority had been obtained, but the Manx
alliance was not concluded when the specially advantageous match with the
daughter of his overlord presented itself to Llywelyn as the more attractive
alternative.
(29) The three letters of Pope Innocent III which deal with this business will
be found in Migne's Patrologia (series Latina, ccxiv. 791 [25th Nov. 1199];
ccxv. 49 [20th April 1203], 534 [17th Feb 1205]. Cf. Papal Letters, i. 8, 13,
19. The patruus is not named but must clearly be Rhodri, whose alliance with
the sons of Godred of Man is mentioned by B. Saes. s.a. 1193. He was married in
1188 to a daughter of the Lord Rhys (Gir Camb vi. 126-7) but may have put her
away or lost her by death before 1193. With equal certainty the "princeps
insularum" may be taken to be Reginald, who had become king of Man in 1188."
The following reference is from Gerald of Wales: the Journey through Wales
(Penguin Classics): Book II chapter 7:
"Only a short time before [1188] Rhodri [ab Owain] had taken the daughter of
Prince Rhys [ap Gruffydd] as his mistress, this being incest, for she was his
close blood-relation and a cousin three times removed (356)."
(356): "This seems really to have been a marriage. A little later in 1193
Rhodri married the daughter of Reginald, king of Man."
The following references are taken from the University of Wales Press
transcripts and translations (by Thomas Jones) of Brenhinedd y Saesson and Brut
y Tywysogyon:
Brehinedd y Saesson s.a. 1193: "In that year Rhodri ab Owain subdued the island
of Anglesey, and that with the support of the sons of Godric. And before the
close of the year he was expelled from the island by the sons of Cynan [ab
Owain Gwynedd, his nephews]".
Brut y Tywysogyon Peniarth 20 version s.a. 1193: "In this year Rhodri ab Owain
subdued all the island of Anglesey through the help of the son [sic] of
Godred."
(the Note to 1193 in Brut y Tywysogyon Peniarth 20 version says (in summary)
that the original scribe of that version wrote "through the help of Gorthrych"
which agreed with the Red Book of Hergest version of Brut y Tywysogyon but the
early corrector of the text added mab [son of] in the margin for insertion
before Godred; J. E. Lloyd [the reference above] had shown that the original
text could not be correct as Godred had died in 1187; Godred had two sons Olaf
and Reginald which supports the Brenhinedd y Saesson reading; but that since
Rhodri ab Owain married Reginald's daughter it appears that the corrected
reading of Peniarth 20 is the one to be preferred.) [but why ?]
Brut y Tywysogyon Red Book of Hergest version s.a. 1193: "That year Rhodri ab
Owain subdued the island of Anglesey through the help of [emended to add "the
son of"] Godred, king of Man."
(the Note to 1193 in BT RBH version says that this text has been emended by
comparison with Peniarth 20. It explains that Godred had died in 1187 so the
original reading could not be correct; the phrase "king of Man" which appears
in this version is not in the Peniarth 20 version nor in Brenhinedd y Saesson;
in the RBH unemended text it could only refer to Godred, but if one assumes
that "the son of" has been lost, it could apply to Reginald, son of Godred, who
succeeded his father.)
Stewart Baldwin
Thanks for posting the references. Of the three letters of Pope
Innocent III mentioned by Lloyd as a source, the first two are the
ones which I posted in the original message in this thread (one of
which has been translated into English by Suzanne Doig in a later
posting). I went to the library today to get a copy of the third one,
and a transcription appears below. Note that this letter also
mentions the previous marriage to a sister of the earl of Chester.
["... idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis Castriæ, sine
contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat in uxorem,
.."]
Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------
[From PL 215, 534-7]
CCXX.
..... ELIENSI ..... NORVICENSI, ET ..... DE SANCTO ASAPH, EPISOPIS.
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. 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. 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. 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. Cumque pater puellæ filiam suam in Norwalliam ad statutum
terminum ducere distulis set, idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis
Castriæ, sine contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat
in uxorem, et R. patruus ejus puellam desponsaverat 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Constitut 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. 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. 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.
Datum Romæ, apud Sanctum Petrum, XIII Kal. Martii.
Stewart Baldwin
>(29) The three letters of Pope Innocent III which deal with this business will
>be found in Migne's Patrologia (series Latina, ccxiv. 791 [25th Nov. 1199];
>ccxv. 49 [20th April 1203], 534 [17th Feb 1205]. Cf. Papal Letters, i. 8, 13,
>19.
I spent a few hours yesterday in the library at the University of
Georgia, and one of the things I found was the Papal letters reference
above. The full citation is "Calendar of entries in the Papal
Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland - Papal Letters, vol.
I, A.D. 1198-1304", edited by W. H. Bliss (Public Record Office, 1893;
Kraus reprint, 1971). The items on pages 8, 13, and 19 are brief (and
incomplete) English abstracts of the items from Migne which I have
already transcribed in full in previous postings. (I'm not positive
what the "Regesta" volumes and folio numbers are. Presumably they are
references to either the original manuscripts or another published
version of the same.) The abstracts read as follows:
----------
p. 8 (Regesta vol. IV)
7 Kal. Dec [1199]. Lateran. (f. 200)
Mandate to the bishop of Man, the Archdeacon of Bangor, and the prior
of the isle of Glannan, to take cognisance of and decide the case of
R. prince of Nort Wales, who wishes to marry a daughter of the prince
of the Isles previously betrothed to his incle. [Opp. ed. Migne, i.
791]
----------
p. 13 (Regesta vol. V)
12 Kal. May [1203]. Lateran. (f. 57d.)
Mandate to the abbot of Abenton, and prior of Henli, and Master M.
canon of Berlinton, in the diocese of Bangor, to cause to be observed
the sentence about the marriage between the daughter of the prince of
the Isles and L[ewellin], prince of Nort Wales. [Opp. ed. Migne, ii.
49.]
----------
p. 19 (Regesta vol. V)
13 Kal. Mar. [1205] St. Peter's. (f. 173d)
Mandate to the bishops of Ely, Norwich, and St. Asaph, to bring to an
end the cause relating to the marriage of the daughter of the prince
of the Isles with L. prince of North Wales. [Opp. ed. Migne, ii.
534.]
----------
These are obviously not complete abstracts. For example, the third
abstract makes no mention of the sister of the earl of Chester which
clearly appears in the Latin version from Migne already transcribed
earlier. I would appear that Lloyd, in his History of Wales, relied
mainly on the above incomplete abstracts, and did not look at the
versions in Migne very carefully. At least, that would explain why he
did not mention the Chester marriage.
Stewart Baldwin
Chris Pitt Lewis
<sba...@mindspring.com> writes
I haven't followed these threads as carefully as I might, but assuming I
have not misunderstood which Reginald is referred to, the answer is yes.
Chronicon Regum Manniae et Insularum, ed G Broderick, (in Broderick and
Stowell, Chronicle of the Kings of Mann and the Isles, (with English and
Manx translations) Edinburgh 1973):
53. ...Haec fuit causa per quam Mannensis populus Reginaldum sibi regem
constituit.
54. Anno MCLXXXVIII. Reginaldus filius Godredi coepit regnare super
insulas.
61. Anno MCCV. Iohannes de Cursi [Courcy] .... Reginaldum regem
insularum cum centum ferme navibus secum duxit ad Ultoniam.
67. ... uxor reginaldi regis, regina insularum, ...
69. Ipso tempore [1224?] Reginaldus et Olavus diviserunt inter se regnum
insularum data Mannia Reginaldo super portione sua cum regali nomine.
Olavus vero acceptis cibariis a populo Manniae cum comitatu suo ad
portionem suam insularum rediit.
72. Anno gratiae MCCXXVI. Recuperavit Olavus hereditatem suam, regnum
videlicet Manniae et insularum, quod Reginaldus frater eius gubernaverat
per XXX et VIII annos, et regnavit secure duobus annis.
The Chronicle usually calls Reginald just Reginaldus or Reginaldus rex.
The only time it specifically calls him King of somewhere, in 1205, it
is King of the Isles.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
Gee Gee Hughes
ap Iorwerth a marriage to Rhanult ferch Rheinaltt, king of Man. It does
not show his source.
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 so, perhaps when Llywelyn had a better offer in marriage to Joan,
Gruffudd stepped in and married N. N. aka Rhanult.
Gee Gee Hughes
Douglas Richardson
have in my files on Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's multiple
marriages. In the meantime, I'd like to say how glad I am to
see Stewart Baldwin and others venturing into the primary
sources of this period, albeit Latin texts. Good work!
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!