GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-02 > 1012584285


From: (John Ravilious)
Subject: Re: Gwladus, Joan, Tangwystl
Date: 1 Feb 2002 09:24:45 -0800
References: <143.8c3ebd1.298b4bbf@aol.com>, <20020201034739.16522.00001111@mb-cu.aol.com>


Friday, 1 February, 2002


Hello Paul, Ken, Stewart, et al.,

I would agree with Paul's assessment that the source he is
referring to (Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia) is the closest
chronologically to 'the event'. I must disagree with the 'by far'
categorization, as the original source used in the compilation of the
Worcester chronicle (Annales Prioratus de Wigornia) certainly dates to
the lifetime of Llywelyn Fawr.

Further, as in our earlier discussions [for which see the SGM
archives], the Worcester chronicle has the edge as to overall accuracy
in recording events in Wales, ca. 1215-1216.

Further analysis of the Wigmore chronicle is merited, especially
in that it displays rather detailed information concerning the family
of Ralph de Mortimer and Gwladys Ddu that no other source provides.
In addition, Stewart is correct that a complete analysis is desirable,
and should include the later Welsh pedigrees (Peniarth 131, as I
recall).

The greatest weight should be given to accuracy in the evaluation
of any of these sources.

Good luck, and good hunting.

John



(Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<>...
> >
> >In a message dated 1/31/02 4:50:26 PM, writes:
> >
> ><< the most important single pices of evidence regarding
> >the identity of the mother of Gwladus is the contemporary evidence
> >(posted by Paul) that strongly suggests that the birth of Gwladus
> >occurred before the marriage of Llywelyn and Joan >>
> >
> >This is most certainly not the case. Gwladys could have been as yound as 7
> >years old when she was married ... she never did have children with Reginald
> >de Braose and may have never ever been to bed with him. The window in the
> >chronology is much wider that Paul determined.
> >
> >-Ken
> >
>
> To be redundant, I think what Stewart was referring to was that the chronicle I
> cited which used the term 'took to wife,' or 'took in marriage' (which would
> indicate an age of at least twelve--not seven) was, according to internal
> evidence discussed by the learned editor of the chronicle, recorded by 1222 (if
> not earlier), which would be within a handful of years of the 1215 event and
> the closest testimony we have, by far. We are aware of your reasons for not
> wanting to believe this, but if you follow historical method....
>
> Paul

This thread: