Llewelyn's wives - a summary
Jim Stevens
and what info I already had on Llewelyn's wives & children. Does the
following do justice to the status quo ?
Apparently Llewelyn might possibly have had several mistresses throughout
the course of his life.
His first known long term relationship was with a Welsh woman, Tangwystyl,
whom he never married. She bore him:
1. Gruffudd
2. Gwaqldys Ddu
He was betrothed to, and apparently married a daughter of a "lord" or
"prince" of the Isles. This woman had previously been betrothed to one of
Llewelyn's uncles, most probably Rhodri. Rhodri had been a close ally of
Reginald, King of Man, who is the most likely candidate for the woman's
father. The other most likely father would be another Reginald - Lord of
the Isles and a descendant of Somerled. Ecclesiastical permission was
necessary for this marriiage and negotiations to obtain such went on from
1199 to about 1203. Apparently they were married by 1205.
Llewelyn's marriage to the daughter of the Isles had to be annuled because
during the time that negotiations were going on he had apparently married a
daughter of Hugh of Cyveiliog, Earl of Chester. Which daughter has never
been established, It could possibly even be an otherwise unknown
illigitimate daughter.
3. Margaret
Margaret is the subject of heated debate. She has been suggested to be a
daughter of the daughter of the Isles, of Earl Hugh's daughter, of Joan,
and of one of Llewelyn's mistresses, either Tangwystl or an otherwise
unknown mistress. Based purely on chronology, the daughter of the Isles
seems the most likely.
On the heels of the tumult regarding the Isles and Chester ladies, Llewelyn
had the good fortune to be offered the hand of Joan, the daughter of King
John. As Joan was a much more favorable match than either of the others,
Llewelyn married Joan in 1206. Although Margaret has just the slimmest
chance of being Joan's daughter, we are almost certain of two of Joan's
offspring:
4. Dafydd
5. Helen, who married John "the Scot" Earl of Chester and Robert de Quincy.
The daughter of an unknown misterss:
6: Helen, who married Donald, Earl of Mar
One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of Llewelyn:
7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she married ?
Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
Today is the first day of the rest of your life ! (jste...@iquest.net) Jim
Visit my genealogy website at
http://www.gendex.com/users/jast
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I have spent the last couple days reviewing the last couple month's posts
> and what info I already had on Llewelyn's wives & children. Does the
> following do justice to the status quo ?
>
> Apparently Llewelyn might possibly have had several mistresses throughout
> the course of his life.
>
> His first known long term relationship was with a Welsh woman, Tangwystyl,
> whom he never married. She bore him:
> 1. Gruffudd
> 2. Gwaqldys Ddu
I think the placement of Gladys is still a matter of contention. I have
seen noone claim that she should be placed as daughter of Tangwystl,
this possibility only being presented to counter a statement of her
certain placement as Joan's daughter. I know of no evidence to
specifically suggest that she was Tangwystl's vs. child of one of the
other wives or mistresses.
> Llewelyn's marriage to the daughter of the Isles had to be annuled because
> during the time that negotiations were going on he had apparently married a
> daughter of Hugh of Cyveiliog, Earl of Chester. Which daughter has never
> been established, It could possibly even be an otherwise unknown
> illigitimate daughter.
This is unclear. It is not a question of which daughter, as there
appears to be general agreement that it was not one of the known
daughters. Thus it is an otherwise unknown daughter of Hugh, the
legitimacy of whom has been debated.
>
> 3. Margaret
>
> Margaret is the subject of heated debate. She has been suggested to be a
> daughter of the daughter of the Isles, of Earl Hugh's daughter, of Joan,
> and of one of Llewelyn's mistresses, either Tangwystl or an otherwise
> unknown mistress. Based purely on chronology, the daughter of the Isles
> seems the most likely.
This is not a valid conclusion. Purely on chronology, you cannot
eliminate any of the mistresses, known or particularly unknown. A
chronological argument only works in concert with a legitimacy argument,
thereby limiting the choices to the daughter of Hugh, the daughter of
the Isles, or Joan. Purely on the basis of chronology, you can only
eliminate candidates for whom there is known chronology (such as Joan),
but not those for whom this is not known (such as Tangwystl or the
hypothetical 'other mistresses').
> On the heels of the tumult regarding the Isles and Chester ladies, Llewelyn
> had the good fortune to be offered the hand of Joan, the daughter of King
> John. As Joan was a much more favorable match than either of the others,
> Llewelyn married Joan in 1206. Although Margaret has just the slimmest
> chance of being Joan's daughter, we are almost certain of two of Joan's
> offspring:
>
> 4. Dafydd
> 5. Helen, who married John "the Scot" Earl of Chester and Robert de Quincy.
IIRC, there was another, a daughter whose burial has been recorded.
> The daughter of an unknown misterss:
> 6: Helen, who married Donald, Earl of Mar
I am not sure she need have been illegitimate.
> One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of Llewelyn:
> 7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
I am not sure this is universally accepted.
> Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she married ?
>
> Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
There is a herd of additional daughters.
taf
Reedpcgen
>"prince" of the Isles.
The third letter from Pope Innocent actually refers to him as the King of Man
[rege Manniae] and Rhodri's travels to and from Man, so there is no question
about who her father was in that sense. 'Prince of the Isles' was used, not
LORD [dominus]. Stewart has already tried to make a valid point of this.
>This woman had previously been betrothed to one of
>Llewelyn's uncles, most probably Rhodri.
Not only was she betrothed to Rhodri, she was properly married to him in the
church door [in facie Ecclesiae], and slept with him in the same bed for quite
some time, so the Pope concluded that though her nurse, parents, etc., denied
after his death that they had intercourse, the Pope had to declare as a matter
of law that they did know each other carnally.
If the chronological accounts given in the third letter are correct [not part
of the falsified information], she would have been born about 1183 [Rhodri died
in 1195].
>Llewelyn's marriage to the daughter of the Isles had to be annuled because
>during the time that negotiations were going on he had apparently married a
>daughter of Hugh of Cyveiliog, Earl of Chester.
No, the cause of marriage was quashed because the [elder] daughter of the
Prince of the Isles had already been married and known by Llywelyn's uncle.
This to me implies that the sister of the Earl of Chester was already dead in
1205, or she would have been an impediment. And the wording of the document
[as shall come out] indicates that no children were born to this possible union
with the Princess of Man.
I HAD NOT WANTED to put all this forward until the Latin text could be
presented too, which will probably not happen for a few more days, so be
patient.
There may be a slim chance that Margred was daughter of Joan. Tangwystl would
be a more likely candidate. As the sister of the Earl of Chester was likely
legitimate, she could not have been Margred's mother or her issue would have
been coheirs. And there is definite reason to believe [because of the wording
of the Latin text of the third letter of Pope Innocent] that no issue came from
Llywelyn by the Princess of Man, so Margred would not be her daughter.
Paul
U...@aol.com
jste...@iquest.net writes:
> One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of
Llewelyn:
> 7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
>
> Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she
> married ?
>
> Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
>
Here's what I have:
Descendants of Hugh de Lacy
1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
.. +Rose O'Connor
2 William de Lacy
.. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
*2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
.. +Rohese de Clare
2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
.. +Margery of Braiose
2 Hugh de Lacy
Always optimistic--Dave
Douglas Richardson
Wales, had a daughter named Gwenllian (or Gwenthlian) who married
William de Lacy. I found her mentioned in a contemporary letter to
King Henry III of England in which she was plainly identified as the
sister of Llywellyn's bastard son, Griffith. The implication of the
letter is that Griffith and Gwenllian were full siblings. If correct,
then Gwenllian's mother would be Tangwystal, Llywelyn's known mistress,
who as I recall was Griffith's mother. Gwenllian was definitely not
the daughter of Lllywelyn's wife, Joan, otherwise the letter would have
referred to Gwenllian as King Henry III's own niece (Joan being the
sister of King Henry III).
I trust this helps you.
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!
John Carmi Parsons
proof that Gwenllian was indeed Llywelyn's daughter and not merely Gruffydd's
sister, the letter cited below would not put her paternity beyond question.
As described the letter appears to offer no reason to rule out the possibility
that Gwenllian might have been Tangwystl's daughter by a man other than
Llywelyn. Such a sibling would have been described in a contemporary letter
as Gruffydd's sister whether or not they had had the same father. Simply
saying that the letter's "implication" is that the two were full siblings
is in a case like this inadequate; the text should be quoted. If Gwenllian
were Llywelyn's daughter, I would expect to see her identified as such rather
than as Gruffydd's sister. If further proof of Gwenllian's paternity exists,
it should be cited as well.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
simply swim out to sea tonight --- without an inner tube.
When WILL you learn to stop shooting off your mouth like that?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da gloriam, propter
misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V, [1387-1422] King of
England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates and chaplains ---
after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while every able-bodied
man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:7udrck$dhg$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu...
| KHF...@aol.com wrote:
| <snip>
| : strikes me as significant. Why? Because if the family had known
that
| : Gwenllian was the author--combined with her heroic demise--it
appears to me
| : that the name could be something quite special, not something
bestowed on the
| : child of a concubine.
|
| : When we deal with a name like David, it is quite common. Gwenllian,
on the
| : other hand, is not so commonly recorded, though one of her sons also
married
| : a woman named Gwennlian.
|
| Regardless of the validity of other assertions and claims, this
particular
| one is easily addressed in an objective manner.
|
| The earliest period from which we have a good selection of
statistically
| valid samples of personal names from Wales is the late 13th century,
when
| the Lay Subsidy of 1292/3 and a variety of land surveys are available.
|
| In the Lay Subsidy records from Merioneth, the name "Gwenllian"
represents
| 12% of all feminine given names appearing in the record, while the
name
| "David" represents 9% of all masculine given names appearing there.
(This
| includes given names appearing in patronyms.) In the Lay Subsidy
records
| from Monmouth and the Three-Castles region, "Gwenllian" represents 6%
of
| feminine given names, while "David" represents 9% of masculine given
| names. In Lay Subsidy records for Lleyn, "Gwenllian" does not appear,
| while "David" represents 10% of men's names. In the Lay Subsidy
records
| for Nefyn, "Gwenllian" comes in at 29% (!), while "David" is
competitive
| at 22%. In the 1315 survey of Bromfield and Yale, "Gwenllian"
represents
| 9% of women's names, while "David" represents 11% of men's names.
Among
| Aberystwyth burgesses in 1300, "Gwenllian" represents 11% of women's
names
| and "David" 11% of men's names. That's pretty much all the early
sample
| populations I have with enough women's data to be useful.
|
| In summary:
| Gwenllian David
| Mer. 12% 9%
| Mon. 6% 9%
| Lleyn 0% 10%
| Nefyn 29% 22%
| B&Y 9% 11%
| Aber 11% 11%
|
| In other words, when examined as a proportion of the available data,
the
| two names are remarkably equivalent in popularity. The superficial
| impression of "David" being much more common than "Gwenllian" derives
| primarily from the fact that the ratio of women to men appearing in
| these records ranges from 1:10 at _best_ to essentially non-existant
at
| worst.
|
| Further, the evidence suggests that -- far from being a rare and
| specially-bestowed name in the medieval period -- "Gwenllian" was a
very
| common and widespread name in medieval Wales. Therefore, any arguments
| based on the alleged uncommonness of the name should be re-examined.
In
| particular, the argument that the reason the name reoccurs frequently
in a
| particular family can be connected with a famous bearer of the name in
| that line pretty much dissolves when you discover that the name
reoccurs
| requently in _many_ Welsh families in that period.
|
| --
| *********************************************************
| Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
| **********************************************************
Jim Stevens
Can you cite your source for the marriages of William de Lacy? I am
particulary interested in the Rohese de Clare you have as his 2nd wife.
Note (h) on p. 701 of the entry on Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester
(1222-1262) in CP says that the Earl had a dau., Rohese (b. 17 Oct 1252),
but mentions only one marriage for her - to Roger de Mowbray in 1270. Is
this the same Rohese de Clare ?
Nathaniel Taylor
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu () wrote:
>Regardless of the validity of other assertions and claims, this particular
>one is easily addressed in an objective manner ...
>In the Lay Subsidy records from Merioneth, the name "Gwenllian" represents
>12% of all feminine given names ...
Heather, this is great data. Is it part of a published onomastic study
(or studies) or is it based on such work you are currently doing?
Nat Taylor
Kay Allen AG
>
> In a message dated 10/14/99 12:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jste...@iquest.net writes:
>
> > One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of
> Llewelyn:
> > 7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
> >
> > Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she
> > married ?
> >
> > Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
> >
> Here's what I have:
>
> Descendants of Hugh de Lacy
>
> 1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
> .. +Rose O'Connor
> 2 William de Lacy
> .. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
> *2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
> .. +Rohese de Clare
> 2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
> .. +Margery of Braiose
> 2 Hugh de Lacy
>
> Always optimistic--Dave
I have something a little different. I show that Walter and William are
half brothers. Walter is said to be son of Rose of Monmouth d. bef 1180,
whom I believe has been said to be the widow of Monmouth and actually
Rose de Clare; while William is said to be the son of a dtr. of Rory O'
Connor. Could someone else please comment?
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
>
> In a message dated 10/14/99 12:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
> jste...@iquest.net writes:
>
> > One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of
> Llewelyn:
> > 7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
> >
> > Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she
> > married ?
> >
> > Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
> >
> Here's what I have:
>
> Descendants of Hugh de Lacy
>
> 1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
> .. +Rose O'Connor
> 2 William de Lacy
> .. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
> *2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
> .. +Rohese de Clare
> 2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
> .. +Margery of Braiose
> 2 Hugh de Lacy
>
> Always optimistic--Dave
Sorry for the previous post. It is early, early here and I misread
Dave's post that the two were indeed half brothers, not whole brothers
as my fuzzy eyes read.
K
Jim Stevens
>U...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 10/14/99 12:28:30 PM Central Daylight Time,
>> jste...@iquest.net writes:
>>
>> > One post mentions a "universally accepted" illigitimate daughter of
>> Llewelyn:
>> > 7. Gwenellian who married a member of the de Lacy family
>> >
>> > Can someone give me more details on this Gwenellian and which Lacy she
>> > married ?
>> >
>> > Does this list cover all of the suspected wives and children of Llewelyn?
>> >
>> Here's what I have:
>>
>> Descendants of Hugh de Lacy
>>
>> 1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
>> .. +Rose O'Connor
>> 2 William de Lacy
>> .. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
>> *2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
>> .. +Rohese de Clare
>> 2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
>> .. +Margery of Braiose
>> 2 Hugh de Lacy
>>
>> Always optimistic--Dave
>
>
>I have something a little different. I show that Walter and William are
>half brothers. Walter is said to be son of Rose of Monmouth d. bef 1180,
>whom I believe has been said to be the widow of Monmouth and actually
>Rose de Clare; while William is said to be the son of a dtr. of Rory O'
>Connor. Could someone else please comment?
>
>Kay Allen AG
Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (177A:7), (177B:7), have Walter as the son of
Rose of Mommouth.
The chart on the first page of the appendix to Gerard Lacey's "The Legacy
of the de Lacy . . . Family, 1066-1994" shows William's marriage to a "d.
of Llewelyn, Prince of N. Wales". Lacey shows, as you suggest, William as
son of Rose O'Connor and Walter as son of Rose of Monmouth.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: In article <7udrck$dhg$1...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
: hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu () wrote:
The raw data itself is published in various places (the Merioneth and
Bromfield & Yale as separate publications, the rest as articles in BBCS,
Studia Celtica, and similar), but the analysis is my own.
D. Spencer Hines
Perhaps he did do the right thing after all and slip this mortal coil.
I really doubted that he had the grit to follow through.
If he did indeed rise to the occasion, that is a Good Thing.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da gloriam, propter
misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V, [1387-1422] King of
England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates and chaplains ---
after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while every able-bodied
man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
<hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:7ufi3e$k4t$3...@agate-ether.berkeley.edu...
U...@aol.com
jste...@iquest.net writes:
<< > 1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
>.. +Rose O'Connor
> 2 William de Lacy
>.. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
> *2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
>.. +Rohese de Clare
> 2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
>.. +Margery of Braiose
> 2 Hugh de Lacy
>
>Always optimistic--Dave
Can you cite your source for the marriages of William de Lacy? I am
particulary interested in the Rohese de Clare you have as his 2nd wife.
Note (h) on p. 701 of the entry on Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester
(1222-1262) in CP says that the Earl had a dau., Rohese (b. 17 Oct 1252),
but mentions only one marriage for her - to Roger de Mowbray in 1270. Is
this the same Rohese de Clare ?
>>
No, the Rohese I show as 2nd wife of HUGH de Lacy is daughter of Gilbert Fitz
Richard de Clare [1066-1117] and Adeliz de Clermont. This Rohese I show as
1st? married to Baderon de Monmouth. Source for this marriage is Michael
Altschull's "A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217-1314"
Sorry, I do not have source for this Rohese's marriage to Hugh.
Always optimistic--Dave
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/17/1999 7:03:40 PM, hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
writes:
<< he argument that the reason the name reoccurs frequently in a
particular family can be connected with a famous bearer of the name in
that line pretty much dissolves when you discover that the name reoccurs
requently in _many_ Welsh families in that period. >>
Great stuff. I am impressed.
My primary purpose was to call attention to Breeze's theory that Gwenllian
was the writer of THE FOUR BRANCHES. My primary interest is literature.
- Ken
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Nil heard from Finton, whose derriere is grass to the HRJ lawnmower.
Just for the record, I would like to register my distaste for having any
of my posts used as tools in one of Hines' usual slime-campaigns.
Suzanne Doig
wrote:
>U...@aol.com posted
>>Descendants of Hugh de Lacy
>>
>> 1 Hugh de Lacy d: 1186
>>.. +Rose O'Connor
>> 2 William de Lacy
>>.. +Gwenllian of Wales d: 1281
>> *2nd Wife of Hugh de Lacy:
>>.. +Rohese de Clare
>> 2 Walter de Lacy b: 1172 d: 1241
>>.. +Margery of Braiose
>> 2 Hugh de Lacy
>
>Can you cite your source for the marriages of William de Lacy? I am
>particulary interested in the Rohese de Clare you have as his 2nd wife.
>Note (h) on p. 701 of the entry on Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester
>(1222-1262) in CP says that the Earl had a dau., Rohese (b. 17 Oct 1252),
>but mentions only one marriage for her - to Roger de Mowbray in 1270. Is
>this the same Rohese de Clare ?
I don't have this information source noted, but I have Hugh de Lacy
m.(1) Rohese/Rose, daughter of Baderon of Monmouth and Rohese de Clare
(dau of Gilbert fitz Richard and Alice de Claremont); m.(2) Rose, dau.
of Ruadri O'Connor. As above, I have Walter and Hugh as children of
the Monmouth marriage plus a daughter m. Meiler fitz Henry .
Suzanne
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/smdnz/
Kay Allen AG
Somewhere my memory is telling me that I have seen a source which said
that it was Rohese de Clare, the mother and not Rohese de Monmouth
who married Hugh. I wish if it could remember this blasted minutiae, it
could remember where I saw it :-)
Kay Allen AG
OR...@aol.com
all...@pacbell.net writes:
> I don't have this information source noted, but I have Hugh de Lacy
> > m.(1) Rohese/Rose, daughter of Baderon of Monmouth and Rohese de Clare
> > (dau of Gilbert fitz Richard and Alice de Claremont);
The above from AR 177A-7
m.(2) Rose, dau.
> > of Ruadri O'Connor. As above, I have Walter and Hugh as children of
> > the Monmouth marriage plus a daughter m. Meiler fitz Henry .
From a previous post:
Hugh (2) de LACY died in 1186. "HUGH II (ob. 1186) = (1) Rose of Monmouth
(ob. ante 1180) = (2) daughter of Rory O'Connor"
--- W E Wightman, *The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194*,
genealogical chart following p 260. A son is shown of Hugh (2) and ----
O'Connor, identified only as William. Besides the son Walter of Hugh (2) and
Rose of Monmouth, three other sons are shown, identified only as Hugh,
Gilbert and Robert.
wk