GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-04 > 1114109489
From: "Douglas Richardson " < >
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington (1207-37)
Date: 21 Apr 2005 11:51:29 -0700
References: <111.4882f19e.2f971e53@aol.com> <000801c54559$3df68860$c3b4fea9@email> <1113982319.546748.18910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <000401c5459f$a11a5020$c3b4fea9@email> <1114010648.893682.216400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <000001c545e2$66920c20$c3b4fea9@email> <0b0f61diad535idth25q09pooudod02l0c@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <0b0f61diad535idth25q09pooudod02l0c@4ax.com>
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Austin W. Spencer wrote:
>
> 4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen
married
> Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It
is not
> possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl
Malcolm's wife
> back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270."
[4/20/2005 3:31
> AM]
>
> This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise
language fails
> him. He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date
of
> marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely
reproductive
> interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his
accession. But she
> could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be
mentioned as a
> countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose
chronicle.
> We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's
tenure to
> date this marriage with any greater confidence. And if Ellen was
married closer
> to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to
imagine
> Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her
children by
> Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]
We need to be sure that we're talking about the same train of events,
if we're going to come to some agreement here. The source for Earl
Malcolm's marriage to Llywelyn's daughter is Melrose Chronicle, which
source places the marriage at or about 1228. This date and source were
overlooked by Complete Peerage's account of Earl Malcolm. Just why
this took place, I have no idea. Complete Peerage's failure to
properly assess the available evidence is what has lead us to having
this discussion today.
Now, if we accept 1228 as the date of Earl Malcolm's marriage to Prince
Llywelyn's daughter (which Mr. MacEwen thinks is very reasonable), but
we assume the marriage was contracted only and not consumated until
later, it is apparent that Llywelyn's daughter would have been born no
later than 1221. Age seven was the legal age to contract a valid
marriage in medieval times. That being the case, then it is impossible
for Llywelyn's daughter to be the same person as Earl Malcolm's
surviving wife, Ellen. If Ellen was Llywelyn's daughter, she would
have been a minumum of 54 (not in her 40's as you say) when she gave
birth to her last child by Donald, Earl of Mar. This is not possible.
I conclude therefore that there were at least two wives, not one.
> I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of
Ellen's
> remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological
evidence
> alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation.
Yes, it does. The chronological evidence makes it impossible for Earl
Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, to be the same woman as his first
wife, the daughter of Llywelyn, presuming we accept a date for Earl
Malcolm's first marriage as in or about 1228.
So, before we can
> accept this as a corrective to CP and SP, we need to know *even more*
about the
> circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being
identical with
> Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237, retaining a
servant
> named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and
Wales) at
> that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years
afterward.
>
> >I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when
knighted as
> >stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born
around
> >1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart
and if his
> >mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the
birth of
> >the other son.
Earl Malcolm's son and heir, Colban, is stated to have been a minor by
Complete Peerage at the time of Earl Malcolm's death in 1266. Complete
Peerage may well be right, but it gives no source for this statement.
If correct, it is barely possible for Earl Malcolm's surviving wife,
Ellen, to have been his mother. On the other hand, it is also possible
for Colban to have been the son of Earl Malcolm's first wife,
Llywelyn's daughter. So now we have a quandry.
My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. This three wives scenario
seems to fit the facts better than the two wives arrangement we have at
present. In any case, the one wife scenario is utterly impossible.
> >Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I
_try_ to
> >represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they
want to.
> >
> >I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words
like
> >blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.
Yes, it's true, I recommend that people follow modern historians'
standardization and modernization of names. But, I do not insist on
it. You are free to do what you wish.
> If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of
statements
> in the Melrose chronicle, the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to
cling
> stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship
has been
> published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And
the
> condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen,
makes it
> incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations
thereof.
I look for the good in people and I usually find it. You've been civil
and polite throughout this discussion, until you began to discuss my so
called "vice." It is not necessary for you to pass judgement on me in
order to discuss 13th Century Scottish nobles.
> Austin W. Spencer
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
This thread:
| Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington (1207-37) by "Douglas Richardson " < > |