GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-11 > 1036184771


From: (Stewart Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Edwin, Prince of Tegeingl
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:06:11 GMT
References: <s76f7f8e.033@mail.cov.com> <3770453f.6758844@news.mindspring.com> <3DBE0A09.70803@verizon.net> <3dc0143b.40926194@news.mindspring.com> <3DC1C617.30006@verizon.net>


[Comments here from two different postings, with much snipping]

(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 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 lfred 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

This thread: