Edwin, Prince of Tegeingl
Don Stone
quoted below and related posts to Prof. David H. Kelley. Prof. Kelley's
1970 TAG article "Edwin of Tegeingl" argued that Edwin, King of Tegeingl, who
died in 1073 (1071?), was identical with Edwin, Earl of Mercia, who died in
1071. He and I have discussed the matter and have some comments and
clarifications.
First, here is a summary of the major points in Kelley (1970) [see the source
list below for bibliographic information]. Some of this summary is simply
quotations from Kelley's article.
The mediaeval Welsh sub-kingdom of Tegeingl in the northeast corner of Wales
corresponds roughly to 20th-century Flintshire. At times it was subordinate
to Gwynedd to its west, and at other times it was part of Anglo-Saxon Mercia,
immediately to its east.
Edwin, King of Tegeingl, bore the title of _vrenhin_, the same title borne by
the kings of Gwynedd and used in Welsh sources to apply to such rulers as the
king of England or the king of France. Ednowain Bendew of Tegeingl, a
contemporary of Edwin of Tegeingl (his daughter married Edwin's son), is
sometimes referred to as king of Tegeingl but more often as prince (_tywysog_)
of Tegeingl. Thus Edwin is assigned a somewhat higher status. Still, it is
quite anomalous to have two contemporary rulers in one small sub-kingdom.
Vaughan (1891) attempted to explain this anomaly by suggesting that "Edwin,
King of Tegeingl" of the Welsh tradition, was none other than the historic
Edwin, Ealdorman (Earl) of Mercia, given a fictitious Welsh pedigree. Among
the evidence mentioned by Vaughan is the fact that Owain, ruler of Tegeingl
and son of Edwin, is called _Owain ap Aldud_, i.e., Owain "son of the
foreigner" (Harleian MS 2299, fol. 204). Conversely, some Saxon documents
(unfortunately not specified) refer to Edwin of Mercia as "the Welshman."
In 1071 Edwin of Mercia was leading a force (consisting probably of both Saxon
and Welsh soldiers) in resistance to William the Conqueror. The _Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle_ gives the death of Edwin correctly under the year 1071 in version D
and incorrectly under 1072 in version E, saying that he was slain by his own
men. Lloyd (1875, p. 228) reports that Edwin of Tegeingl was killed in 1073
by one Rhys ap Rhydderch ap Owain; unfortunately, he doesn't give the source
of this information. Many Welsh sources for this period give dates that are
two years later than they should be, so the correct year could be 1071.
Prof. Kelley supplies the following comments: The historically known ruler of
Tegeingl in much of the 11th century was Edwin, Earl of Mercia, the only Edwin
attested in contemporaneous records as an over-ruler of the Tegeingl area, or,
indeed, as any sort of ruler of Tegeingl. A contemporaneous Welsh ruler named
Edwin, specified to be of Welsh origin, is first "attested" more than 400
years later in late versions of _Achau Brenhinoedd a Thywysogion Cymru_
("Pedigrees of the Welsh Kings and Princes", commonly known as ABT). This is
a time when embroidery, misidentifications and outright faking were the order
of the day. I am glad to see that current scholarship rejects the various
Welsh pedigrees that have been put forth for Edwin of Tegeingl, but I believe
we should go further and reject a Welsh origin for Edwin of Tegeingl.
The following two additional observations can be made.
First, not only are the death dates of Edwin of Mercia and Edwin of Tegeingl
potentially compatible, but so are the circumstances of their deaths. Earl
Edwin of Mercia could well have been killed by a Welshman named Rhys ap
Rhydderch ab Owain in the force he was leading north. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle reports that Edwin of Mercia had Welsh soldiers in his army in 1065
(ASC (C) s.a. 1065; ASC (D) s.a. 1065; ASC (E) s.a. 1064), and he probably
also did in 1071. The Welsh were vigorously taking advantage of the weakness
of the Normans in England by supporting the rebellions of Eadric Cild and
Edwin of Mercia (Walker 1990, p. 26).
Second, in his _Ecclesiastical History_ Orderic Vitalis makes the mistake of
labeling Bleddyn as son of Gruffudd and Ealdgyth; Bleddyn was actually a
uterine half-brother of Gruffudd. Consistent with this misconception, Orderic
later specifies that Ealdgyth's brothers Morcar and Edwin were uncles of
Bleddyn (Maund 1988, p. 189). However, Maund says, "it is clear that people
remembered a tie of some kind between the rulers of North Wales and the family
of Leofric at this time, and that Orderic was aware of this." Orderic's
mistaken claim of a blood relationship between Bleddyn and Edwin is easier to
understand if (in addition to Edwin's being brother-in-law of Gruffudd)
Edwin's wife was Bleddyn's half-sister Iwerydd.
Baldwin's critique (below) of Kelley's hypothesized identity is primarily
onomastic, but Kelley's argument is not particularly onomastic. It is more
based on the status and circumstances of the individuals involved, as
described in the summary and comments above. These factors are not treated
specifically by Baldwin but are lumped together in the blanket dismissal in
point 3. Kelley's argument is also based on the late date of the first source
to give a Welsh origin for the Edwin who ruled Tegeingl. Related to this, in
point 1 below, Baldwin says
> While this alleged affiliation is itself based
> only on late manuscripts of uncertain authority, and might be wrong,
> the possibility that Bartrum's version is correct cannot be disproven
> on known evidence, and is onomastically quite reasonable.
The fact that one cannot disprove statements in a dubious source of much later
date is not a good enough reason even to give them serious attention.
In point 2 below, Baldwin comments on the name Uchtred
> The onomastic evidence involving the name Uchtred is also
> unconvincing. To my knowledge, no man of that name appears in the
> family of Edwin of Mercia, so the fact that Edwin of Tegeingl had a
> son of that name is not worth much.
Kelley's TAG article notes that Edwin of Mercia's brother Morcar has a
Northumbrian name and was chosen by the Northumbrians as their earl in 1065.
Given this, it would not be at all surprising to find another Northumbrian
name (Uchtred) in Edwin of Mercia's family, and if Edwin of Mercia is Edwin of
Tegeingl, this is just what we find. On the other hand, if Edwin of Mercia is
not Edwin of Tegeingl, the appearance of a son of Edwin of Tegeingl with the
name Uchtred, native to the rather distant region of Northumbria, is somewhat
surprising. Baldwin says about this appearance of Uchtred
> Certainly, it suggests some kind
> of Saxon connections, but such connections could easily come through
> the mother's side.
But it seems less far-fetched to postulate that Edwin of Mercia is Edwin of
Tegeingl than to postulate that Uchtred's mother Iwerydd had Northumbrian
ancestry (or for that matter, to postulate that Uchtred's father was a
somewhat obscure Welshman with Northumbrian ancestry). Baldwin in his point 3
frowns on "speculation with no clear support in primary sources."
Finally, Kelley supplies the following additional comments on sources:
My article on Edwin gave the sources for the pedigree of Edwin, with
the earliest accounts mentioned according to the manuscript, based on
Bartrum's reconstruction of the Ms. _Hanesyn Hen_. Clearly, it would have
been better to specify dates. Bartrum, 1966, has a good summary of the
dates of the various manuscripts involved, pp. 75-80, but has nothing
specifically on Edwin. One of the many parts of _Hanesyn Hen_ is ABT.
According to Bartrum, Version G probably derives from a Ms. of Gutun Owain
of about 1475, which _may_ have had the version G pedigree "Edwin vrenhin
Tegeingl ap Gronw ap Ywain ap Howel Dda". Peniarth Ms. 75 includes
version J of _Hanesyn hen_, after about 1550, and, elsewhere in the Ms.
the pedigree of "Edwin ap Gronwy ap Owaian ap Rodri ap Howel Dda".
Version F of _Hanesyn Hen_ comes from Peniarth Ms. 129 of about 1500 A.D.,
with some later additions. This Ms. also contains a reference (not in the
_Hanesyn Hen_ section) to "Edwin ap Gronwy ap Einion ap Owain ap Hywel
Dda", the so-called 'traditional' pedigree.
-- Don Stone and David Kelley
Sources:
Bartrum, P. C. 1966. _Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts_. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press.
Kelley, David H. 1970. "Edwin of Tegeingl." _The American Genealogist_ 46:
75-80.
Lloyd, J. Y. W. 1875. "The Lordships of Bromfield, Yale and Chirkland."
_Archaeologia Cambrensis_ 4th ser., vol. 6.
Maund, K. L. 1988. "The Welsh alliances of Earl Aelfgar of Mercia and his
family in the mid-eleventh century." _Anglo-Norman Studies_ XI.
Vaughan, H. F. J. 1891. "Chief of the Noble Tribes of Gwynedd."
_Archaeologia Cambrensis_ 5th ser., 8: 241-261.
Walker, David. 1990. _Medieval Wales_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart Baldwin wrote on 22 June 1999:
> On 22 Jun 1999 08:11:40 -0700, bcla...@cov.com (Brice Clagett) wrote:
>
>>Bartrum's Welsh Genealogies treats Edwin, Prince of Tegeingl
>>(Englefield) in the modern Flintshire, Wales, as the founder of one
>>of the Welsh tribes, and calls him son of one Gronwy ab Einion and
>>fourth in descent in the male line from Hywel Dda, King of Wales.
>>Edwin's obviously Saxon name has been explained by the claim that
>>his mother was Ethelfleda, daughter of "Edwin, King of Mercia"
>>(Dictionary of Welsh Biography, p.201; but no such King Edwin existed.
>>
>>Bartrum and DWB either were ignorant of, or discredited, a much older
>>article by H.F.J. Vaughan, "Chief of the Noble Tribes of Gwynedd," in
>>Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th Series vol. 8, pp. 241, 252-58, which
>>makes a powerful case that Edwin of Tegeingl was the same person as
>>Edwin, Earl of Mercia, son of Aelfgar, Earl of Mercia, and grandson of
>>Leofric, Earl of Mercia, and his wife, Godgifu (Lady Godiva). Earl
>>Edwin -- whose sister Aldgyth (Edith) married (1) Gruffydd ap
>>Llewellyn, King of Wales; (2) Harold II, King of England --, with is
>>brother Morcar, Earl of Northumbria, led the resistance to William the
>>Conqueror after 1068; Edwin was killed in 1071. Tegeingl, comprising
>>the commotes of Rhuddlan, Coleshill and Prestatin, in Flintshire, was
>>mostly part of Mercia from the 9th to the 11th century. If Vaughan is
>>right, Edwin left descendants in his Welsh territories among whom the
>>memory of their Mercian ancestry became confused, being shifted from
>>the paternal side.
>>
>
> I have not seen Vaughan's article, and it has been many years since I
> had easy access to "Archaeologia Cambrensis". However, I have seen
> David Kelley's article "Edwin of Tegeingl", TAG 46 (1970), 75-80,
> which mentions Vaughan's article, and I assume mentions all of the
> arguments which Professor Kelley considered to be important. I reread
> the article today, and still find it as unconvincing as I did when I
> read it before. If Vaughan's article includes any important evidence
> which was not in Kelley's article, perhaps you could outline it. My
> objections to the argument run as follows:
>
> 1. The fact that the name "Edwin" already existed in the royal family
> of Gwynedd by the late tenth century drastically weakens the supposed
> onomastic evidence in favor of the identification. See, for example,
> K. L. Maund, "Ireland, Wales, and England in the Eleventh Century"
> (Boydell Press, 1991), especially pp. 14-25. In fact, note that the
> version of the pedigree accepted by Bartrum would make Edwin of
> Tegeingl a nephew of Edwin ab Einion (living in 992) of the royal
> family of Gwynedd. While this alleged affiliation is itself based
> only on late manuscripts of uncertain authority, and might be wrong,
> the possibility that Bartrum's version is correct cannot be disproven
> on known evidence, and is onomastically quite reasonable. (Of course,
> there was probably an English marriage in there somewhere to explain
> the appearance of the name Edwin in the royal family of Gwynedd, but
> that probable marriage would have been back in the tenth century or
> earlier, well before the time of Edwin of Tegeingl and Edwin of
> Mercia.)
>
> 2. The onomastic evidence involving the name Uchtred is also
> unconvincing. To my knowledge, no man of that name appears in the
> family of Edwin of Mercia, so the fact that Edwin of Tegeingl had a
> son of that name is not worth much. Certainly, it suggests some kind
> of Saxon connections, but such connections could easily come through
> the mother's side.
>
> 3. All of the other arguments in favor of the thesis which I have
> seen also involve a significant amount of speculation, with no clear
> support in primary sources.
>
>
>>The only generally accepted descendants from Lady Godiva come through
>>Edith's marriage to Gruffydd ap Llewellyn. If Vaughan's theory is
>>right -- and, again, his case seems a strong one -- there are many
>>more through Edwin.
>>
>
> I think we would need to see more evidence before we accept that. It
> seems to me that the line through Bernard of Neufmarche is still the
> only line of descent from Godiva that can be accepted with confidence.
>
>
>>According to The Plantagenet Connection, Oct. 1998 page 122, Earl
>>Leofric was 4th in descent from Alfred the Great. I don't know
>>whether that is supported by good proof or not.
>>
>
> It would be interesting to see the evidence on which this claim is
> based.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
Don Stone
after almost a day.]
I received an off-list inquiry about making a genealogical connection with the
family of Edwin of Tegeingl. If the connection to Edwin of Tegeingl is
through his descendant Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, then Prof. Kelley and I recommend
consulting Stewart Baldwin's Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ancestor table
(http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/llywelyn.htm) for the details of this
connection.
We realize that Stewart may have changed his opinions on some of the issues
discussed in the old post to which we responded yesterday. In the note for
the Llywelyn AT entry for Edwin himself (no. 36) we think it would be
appropriate for him to change his comments on Kelley's 1970 TAG article from
negative ("unconvincing") at least to neutral.
-- Don Stone
Stewart Baldwin
Stone) wrote:
>A few months ago I sent a copy of Stewart Baldwin's 22 June 1999 post
>quoted below and related posts to Prof. David H. Kelley. Prof. Kelley's
>1970 TAG article "Edwin of Tegeingl" argued that Edwin, King of Tegeingl, who
>died in 1073 (1071?), was identical with Edwin, Earl of Mercia, who died in
>1071. He and I have discussed the matter and have some comments and
>clarifications.
>
>First, here is a summary of the major points in Kelley (1970) [see the source
>list below for bibliographic information]. Some of this summary is simply
>quotations from Kelley's article.
Comments interspersed (with much snipping)
>... Conversely, some Saxon documents
>(unfortunately not specified) refer to Edwin of Mercia as "the Welshman."
>In 1071 Edwin of Mercia was leading a force (consisting probably of both Saxon
>and Welsh soldiers) in resistance to William the Conqueror. The _Anglo-Saxon
>Chronicle_ gives the death of Edwin correctly under the year 1071 in version D
>and incorrectly under 1072 in version E, saying that he was slain by his own
>men. Lloyd (1875, p. 228) reports that Edwin of Tegeingl was killed in 1073
>by one Rhys ap Rhydderch ap Owain; unfortunately, he doesn't give the source
>of this information.
Two of the flaws in the argument are readily apparent above. Two key
pieces of evidence that are used to suggest that the two Edwins are
the same are taken only from late secondary sources, with an
acknowledgement that the original source is not known (but they are
then used anyway).
>... A contemporaneous Welsh ruler named
>Edwin, specified to be of Welsh origin, is first "attested" more than 400
>years later in late versions of _Achau Brenhinoedd a Thywysogion Cymru_
>("Pedigrees of the Welsh Kings and Princes", commonly known as ABT). This is
>a time when embroidery, misidentifications and outright faking were the order
>of the day.
This argument applies with even more force to the even later pieces of
evidence from secondary sources that are used in favor of the
identification of the two Edwins.
>First, not only are the death dates of Edwin of Mercia and Edwin of Tegeingl
>potentially compatible, but so are the circumstances of their deaths. Earl
>Edwin of Mercia could well have been killed by a Welshman named Rhys ap
>Rhydderch ab Owain in the force he was leading north. The Anglo-Saxon
>Chronicle reports that Edwin of Mercia had Welsh soldiers in his army in 1065
>(ASC (C) s.a. 1065; ASC (D) s.a. 1065; ASC (E) s.a. 1064), and he probably
>also did in 1071. The Welsh were vigorously taking advantage of the weakness
>of the Normans in England by supporting the rebellions of Eadric Cild and
>Edwin of Mercia (Walker 1990, p. 26).
Even if some primary source could be produced verifying the
circumstances of the death of Edwin of Tegeingl, the above would STILL
contain too many hypothetical statements to be regarded as evidence
that Edwin of Tegeingl and Edwin of Mercia had similar deaths.
>Second, in his _Ecclesiastical History_ Orderic Vitalis makes the mistake of
>labeling Bleddyn as son of Gruffudd and Ealdgyth; Bleddyn was actually a
>uterine half-brother of Gruffudd. Consistent with this misconception, Orderic
>later specifies that Ealdgyth's brothers Morcar and Edwin were uncles of
>Bleddyn (Maund 1988, p. 189). However, Maund says, "it is clear that people
>remembered a tie of some kind between the rulers of North Wales and the family
>of Leofric at this time, and that Orderic was aware of this." Orderic's
>mistaken claim of a blood relationship between Bleddyn and Edwin is easier to
>understand if (in addition to Edwin's being brother-in-law of Gruffudd)
>Edwin's wife was Bleddyn's half-sister Iwerydd.
I don't see why. Only one connection between the two families (i.e.,
the known marriage of Gruffudd to Edwin's sister) is needed to explain
Orderic's slip in making Bleddyn a son instead of a brother of
Gruffudd. (Orderic made other such slips, including some involving
families much closer to home, e.g., his mangled siblings of Matilda of
Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror.)
>Baldwin's critique (below) of Kelley's hypothesized identity is primarily
>onomastic, but Kelley's argument is not particularly onomastic.
I have said more on some of the other matters above, but the reason I
spent so much of my earlier critique on onomastics is that once we
eliminate the arguments that are based on statements coming from some
vague but unidentified source (as I think we must), and also toss the
arguments based on heraldry (a red herring, in my opinion), then there
isn't much left other than the fact that the two Edwins had the same
name, lived at same time, and that Edwin of Merica, among his MANY
possessions, happened to hold some lands in Tegeingl. Thus, the fact
that the name Edwin was borne by well documented descendants of Hywel
Dda is an important factor in showing that the similar name has a high
probability of being just a coincidence.
While I remain extremely skeptical, I would still be interested in
seeing what kind of argument could be produced in favor of the alleged
identification based ONLY on clearly documented evidence, without
using all of the dubious sources that have been used to present what
seems to me to be a vastly overstated case.
Stewart Baldwin
Don Stone
> While I remain extremely skeptical, I would still be interested in
> seeing what kind of argument could be produced in favor of the alleged
> identification based ONLY on clearly documented evidence, without
> using all of the dubious sources that have been used to present what
> seems to me to be a vastly overstated case.
We have been making the point that the existence of a Welsh Edwin ruling
Tegeingl at the period in question is based only on late and weak evidence, but
we agree that some of the evidence that we have been citing is also weak.
Our earlier somewhat strong statement about not giving serious consideration to
evidence from late and dubious sources was prompted in part by surprise.
Usually, when one person is arguing that information in a late and dubious
source could be true and the other side is arguing against this, we expect to
find Stewart Baldwin in the latter camp, but in the current debate, as he
argues for the existence of a Welsh Edwin, he seems to be largely in the former
camp.
We don't believe that weak evidence should be thrown out; we do believe that it
should be used very carefully, keeping in mind its significant limitations. If
there are a number of independent pieces of weak evidence all pointing in the
same direction, their cumulative impact can be strong; Stewart, as a
mathematics professor, certainly understands the probabilistic nature of this.
-- Don Stone
Stewart Baldwin
don....@verizon.net (Don Stone) wrote:
>Our argument is that there is only weak, late evidence that there was a
>_Welsh_ Edwin of Tegeingl. Thus, we are not proposing that two different
>well-attested individuals are identical, we are proposing that Edwin of Mercia
>is the _only_ person who was acting as ruler of Tegeingl at this time,
>according to contemporary documents. In other words, we are proposing the
>identity of Edwin of Mercia with the individual called Edwin of Tegeingl in
>late documents.
>...
>Edwin of Mercia didn't just hold some lands in Tegeingl. He was acting as
>ruler of Tegeingl; he was using Welsh troops who were his subordinates in
>1065; using troops like this is what a ruler does.
This is misleading. Edwin's possessions included MUCH more than just
Tegeingl, and I know of no evidence that would identify him "ruler of
Tegeingl" in any sense other than it being one district (of many) over
which he happened to be overlord. The fact that he used Welsh troops
means nothing in this regard.
As for Edwin "of Tegeingl", see below.
>On the frequency of the name Edwin in Wales in this period, we should keep in
>mind that some of the earlier Welsh Edwins are not well attested.
Surely the suggestion that "some" (unspecified) Edwins are not well
attested is a red herring, since there are two well attested Edwins
(Edwin ap Hywel Dda and Edwin ab Einion) who show that the name was
present among the immediate descendants of Hywel Dda, which was one of
my points.
>Further evidence might be obtained by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA of men in
>the families of Griffiths of Garn (male-line descendants of Edwin of Tegeingl)
>and Aylmer (possible male-line descendants of kings of Wessex). If there is a
>match, that would be fairly convincing support of the Kelley hypothesis; if
>there isn't, that would be inconclusive.
I would have to strongly disagree that any match would indicate strong
support for the Kelley hypothesis. There are simply too many
unverified hypotheses strung together here for this to be the case.
In addition to the problems surrounding the Edwins being discussed
here, it is only speculation that the Aylmer family was descended in
the direct male line from the Anglo-Saxon kings, and it is only
speculation that Edwin of Mercia had that descent. Even if it were
known that the Aylmer family had that male line descent, all a
positive result would indicate is that Edwin "of Tegeingl" was also a
descendant of the same male line as the Anglo-Saxon kings, but would
not say to which branch (or alleged branch) he belonged. (I plan to
say more about this on a forthcoming posting regarding Edwin's alleged
Saxon connections.)
In another posting, don....@verizon.net (Don Stone) wrote:
>We have been making the point that the existence of a Welsh Edwin ruling
>Tegeingl at the period in question is based only on late and weak evidence, but
>we agree that some of the evidence that we have been citing is also weak.
>
>Our earlier somewhat strong statement about not giving serious consideration to
>evidence from late and dubious sources was prompted in part by surprise.
>Usually, when one person is arguing that information in a late and dubious
>source could be true and the other side is arguing against this, we expect to
>find Stewart Baldwin in the latter camp, but in the current debate, as he
>argues for the existence of a Welsh Edwin, he seems to be largely in the former
>camp.
I think you are misinterpreting my statements. If you will look at my
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ancestor table, you will see that I avoided
making any comment about his origin. It is certainly the case that
Edwin is a well attested individual INDIRECTLY as a father of certain
individuals (although the evidence of Brut y Tywysogion also gives us
good evidence for the identity of Edwin's wife). I do not remember
ever arguing that Edwin had an attestable historical identity in his
own right (in fact, I remember arguing against an alleged account of
Edwin's death because it was based on an unknown source.) It is
probably the case that the "of Tegeingl" should be included in quotes.
(The term is useful for identification purposes in the same sense that
the anachronistic "the Old" and "the Great" are often useful to
identify certain kings named Gorm and Ælfred who were apparently never
identified with such epithets in their own lifetimes.)
When I was making my onomastic arguments, I was not arguing that good
evidence placed Edwin "of Tegeingl" as a descendant of Hywel Dda (and
I apologize if my arguments were interpreted as such), only that this
(very weak) theory had better onomastic support than the (even weaker,
in my opinion) Edwin of Mercia theory.
>We don't believe that weak evidence should be thrown out; we do believe that it
>should be used very carefully, keeping in mind its significant limitations. If
>there are a number of independent pieces of weak evidence all pointing in the
>same direction, their cumulative impact can be strong; Stewart, as a
>mathematics professor, certainly understands the probabilistic nature of this.
We are not talking here about sources that are just "weak". We are
talking about UNKNOWN sources that may not even exist at all, or may
have been interpreted so badly that they say nothing close to what was
stated by the nineteenth century secondary sources that used (but did
not cite) them. The fact that such unknown (and possibly nonexistent)
sources are being used in a key way only serves to emphasize how weak
the theory is.
Stewart Baldwin
Hans Vogels
[snip]
As a neutral outsider in this discussion I have the following
questions:
> >On the frequency of the name Edwin in Wales in this period, we should keep in
> >mind that some of the earlier Welsh Edwins are not well attested.
>
> Surely the suggestion that "some" (unspecified) Edwins are not well
> attested is a red herring, since there are two well attested Edwins
> (Edwin ap Hywel Dda and Edwin ab Einion) who show that the name was
> present among the immediate descendants of Hywel Dda, which was one of
> my points.
What is the relationship between these two persons accept being
descendants of Hywel Dda? Do you propose a single marriage of their
common ancestor to account for the use of the name Saxon name Edwin or
do you accept the possibility that these two person were seperately
named after their "mothers" side of the family?
With regards,
Hans Vogels
Don Stone
> don....@verizon.net (Don Stone) wrote:
[snip]
>>Further evidence might be obtained by comparing the Y-chromosome DNA of men in
>>and Aylmer (possible male-line descendants of kings of Wessex). If there is a
>>match, that would be fairly convincing support of the Kelley hypothesis; if
>>there isn't, that would be inconclusive.
>
> I would have to strongly disagree that any match would indicate strong
> support for the Kelley hypothesis. There are simply too many
> unverified hypotheses strung together here for this to be the case.
> In addition to the problems surrounding the Edwins being discussed
> here, it is only speculation that the Aylmer family was descended in
> the direct male line from the Anglo-Saxon kings, and it is only
> speculation that Edwin of Mercia had that descent. Even if it were
> known that the Aylmer family had that male line descent, all a
> positive result would indicate is that Edwin "of Tegeingl" was also a
> descendant of the same male line as the Anglo-Saxon kings, but would
> not say to which branch (or alleged branch) he belonged. (I plan to
> say more about this on a forthcoming posting regarding Edwin's alleged
> Saxon connections.)
I'll be interested to see this forthcoming post.
To respond to Stewart's comments on DNA testing, let me explain in a little
detail my perspective on this.
Prior to testing the Y-chromosome DNA of two men, someone analyzing the
situation will have a subjective estimate of the probability that these men
are agnatic (male-line) cousins and (if they are cousins) subjective estimates
of the probability of one or more different ways that they could be cousins.
After learning of the result of the DNA testing, an analyst will be expected
to adjust his/her subjective probability estimates. If the result is a match,
then the subjective probability of agnatic cousinship will probably be boosted
to close to one, whereas if the result isn't a match, the subjective
probabililty of cousinship will probably be demoted to close to zero. (I'll
ignore for now the case of a near-match involving probably a mutation.)
Further, in the case of a match, the subjective probabilities of one or more
different hypothesized lineages that would make the men cousins will
presumably also be boosted.
However, these subjective probabilities can vary considerably from one analyst
to another. They depend in part on the analyst's subjective estimate of the
number of different ways that the genetic match might have occurred (many of
them probably undiscoverable at this point) and the likelihood of each.
Stewart worries about unverified hypotheses being strung together. But if I
were to see a DNA match which is compatible with a sequence of uncertain and
unverified hypotheses, then that DNA match generally would impress me more
than a DNA match compatible with a lineage containing only one uncertain
unverified hypothesis. (And the more hypotheses that are strung together, or
the less certain they are, the more I would be impressed by a match.) I would
be reasoning, for example, that if all but one of the sequence of hypotheses
were correct, and one was false, then there would probably not be a DNA match.
Of course, if there is a DNA match, that doesn't prove that all the
hypotheses are correct; at that point we subjectively estimate the chance that
the DNA match could result from some lineage other than the one postulated by
the sequence of hypotheses. (But if at least some of the hypotheses had
seemed inherently unlikely, then presumably the perceived chance of some other
similar lineage producing the DNA match would also be low. Skeptics may need
to revise their initial judgement of "inherently unlikely", because they don't
want to be in the position of saying that a hypothesis is inherently unlikely
but that a necessarily similar set of circumstances could easily explain the
DNA match.)
While Stewart and I have quite different subjective probability estimates, I
will grant him that in this case there is a reason for some caution; the
following quote from Prof. Kelley's 1994 TAG review of Stuart's _Royalty for
Commoners_ refers to Charlemagne but the same idea applies also to Kings of
Wessex.
"Royalty had a tremendous breeding advantage and a substantial survival
advantage over the nobility, who had similar advantages relative to to those
below them. What this means is that we all probably descend from Charlemagne
tens of thousands of times for every time we descend from one of his peasants,
even if most of our own immediate ancestry consists of peasants."
Nevertheless, I still would find a Y-chromosome DNA match between a Griffith
(formerly) of Garn and an Aylmer "fairly convincing support" of the Kelley
hypotheses, when considered along with the other arguments that have been put
forth.
-- Don Stone
Stewart Baldwin
>What is the relationship between these two persons accept being
>descendants of Hywel Dda? Do you propose a single marriage of their
>common ancestor to account for the use of the name Saxon name Edwin or
>do you accept the possibility that these two person were seperately
>named after their "mothers" side of the family?
The two Edwins (both of whom appear in the Welsh annals), were
granduncle and grandnephew, as follows:
Hywel Dda
d. 950
_________}__________
| |
Edwin Owain
d. 954 |
Einion
|
Edwin
living
992
In general, an Anglo-Saxon maternal descent would need to be
hypothesized only for the first member of the family of that name,
since the second Edwin could easily have been named after the first.
Stewart Baldwin
Don Stone
There might not have been an Anglo-Saxon descent for either Edwin. J. E.
Lloyd's _History of Wales_, 2nd ed., 1912, p. 337, says "Edwin ap Hywel Dda
bore an English name, which was possibly given him out of compliment to the
young son of Edward the Elder who perished in 933."
-- Don Stone
Hans Vogels
[snip]
> Edwin, King of Tegeingl, bore the title of _vrenhin_, the same title borne by
> the kings of Gwynedd and used in Welsh sources to apply to such rulers as the
> king of England or the king of France. Ednowain Bendew of Tegeingl, a
> contemporary of Edwin of Tegeingl (his daughter married Edwin's son), is
> sometimes referred to as king of Tegeingl but more often as prince
> (_tywysog_) of Tegeingl. Thus Edwin is assigned a somewhat higher status.
How can this referring to, be explained?
[snip]
> Among the evidence mentioned by Vaughan is the fact that Owain, ruler of
> Tegeingl and son of Edwin, is called _Owain ap Aldud_, i.e., Owain "son of
> the foreigner" (Harleian MS 2299, fol. 204). Conversely, some Saxon
> documents (unfortunately not specified) refer to Edwin of Mercia as "the
> Welshman."
This item is not yet explained.
Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
[snip]
> In addition to the problems surrounding the Edwins being discussed
> here, it is only speculation that the Aylmer family was descended in
> the direct male line from the Anglo-Saxon kings,
Has this topic been discussed previously on Soc.Gen.Med? I did a quick
Google search but DSH kept on popping up.
Hans Vogels
Don Stone
> Nevertheless, I still would find a Y-chromosome DNA match between a
> Griffith (formerly) of Garn and an Aylmer "fairly convincing support" of
> the Kelley hypotheses, when considered along with the other arguments
> that have been put forth.
To be somewhat more precise (and accurate), "fairly convincing support"
generically for Kelley's hypotheses (and restatement of hypotheses of others)
concerning descents from the Wessex royal house, though some of the details of
those descents may differ from the specifics discussed by Kelley.
-- Don Stone
ernest...@yahoo.co.uk
Secondly I have also read that both Edwin and Morcar participated at Hastings which seems highly improbably given the age of the former and the defeat at Fulford and thence the forced ride to the south coast.
We know that Earl Edwin showed fealty to William at Berkhampstead and probably returned to his Staffordshire home with his tail between his legs for the next three years.
Thus following the uprisings of 1069-1071 and the Harrying of the north we can see evidence from Domesday the selected trail of 'wasted villages' throughout the county and his reprisal against the people thereof.
Can the same be said for Flintshire and did William follow him into the lands of Edwin of T? If the two were the same surely william would have done so?
Do you have any information why his own man turned on him at this point or was he in the fear of a reprisal from william if he was left alive?
Your opinion on these matters is much appreciated.
many thanks
L
don.c.s...@gmail.com
> Sir. my apologies for intruding upon this thread for I am extremely interested for my part relating to Edwin of Mercia and his possible connect with Edwin of Tegeingl. For the first part as I am rather confused by the opposing discussion is it your opinion that the two are the same or not?
> Secondly I have also read that both Edwin and Morcar participated at Hastings which seems highly improbably given the age of the former and the defeat at Fulford and thence the forced ride to the south coast.
> We know that Earl Edwin showed fealty to William at Berkhampstead and probably returned to his Staffordshire home with his tail between his legs for the next three years.
> Thus following the uprisings of 1069-1071 and the Harrying of the north we can see evidence from Domesday the selected trail of 'wasted villages' throughout the county and his reprisal against the people thereof.
> Can the same be said for Flintshire and did William follow him into the lands of Edwin of T? If the two were the same surely william would have done so?
> Do you have any information why his own man turned on him at this point or was he in the fear of a reprisal from william if he was left alive?
> Your opinion on these matters is much appreciated.
> many thanks
> L
However, I have to admit that I have done very little Welsh research since I was working in this area with Dave Kelley almost 16 years ago.
And I have donated the volumes on Welsh genealogy that Dave gave to me to a genealogical library.
So I'm not in a good position to answer your questions. (Sorry.) Perhaps some others are.
-- Don Stone