GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-07 > 0933113265


From: Suzanne Doig<smd49@*!*its.canterbury.ac.nz >
Subject: Re: Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's marriages
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 22:07:45 GMT


On Fri, 02 Jul 1999 23:29:48 GMT, (Stewart
Baldwin) wrote:
<snip>
>Today, while looking for something else, I stumbled upon a reference
>(in Anderson's "Early Sources of Scottish History" vol. 2, p. 467)
>that led me to an apparent reference to one of these marriages
>("Confirmat sententiam de sponsalibus inter filiam princeps Insularum
>et principem Norwalli"). Anderson's citation was to two items in
>Migne's Latin Patrologiae (generally cited as "PL" in the literature),
>in volumes 214 and 215, which consist of papers of Pope Innocent III.
>A complete transcription of both of these items is given below. The
>second item had a few footnotes, which are also transcribed, since
>they give other sources which might be relevant. I have transcribed
>everything as is (except for a couple of quotes which I put around
>some italicized references in the footnotes), and I did not try to
>correct obvious errors (such as the statement that the daughter of
>John who married Llywelyn was named Anne). Everything, including the
>footnotes, is in Latin. My knowledge of Latin is insufficient to
>offer a translation of a document this elaborate, so I have not
>attempted it, but others are welcome to try.

Okay, so it took a few weeks, but I've had a go at the first of the
documents. My Latin is less than flash and somewhat rusty, and I'm not
at all experienced in translating medieval Latin, so I wouldn't put
too much faith in my translation. The style is very ugly and overly
literal, and I've kept the awkward punctuation of the original (did
these people have something against full stops?). Bits I'm not sure
about are enclosed in {}.

In any case, I can't see a lot of useful genealogical material in this
first bit anyway. The basic gist appears to be whether a pledge of
betrothal or betrothal contracted before the age of seven is valid, or
would act as an impediment to a later betrothal to a relative of the
first betrothee [OK so I made that word up]. The conclusion appears to
be that any arrangement made before that age was invalid and did not
pose a problem of consanguinity. The main problem appears to have been
determining the age of the girl at the time of the two betrothals.

We have 'R', prince of North Wales, his unnamed paternal uncle, and
the unnamed daughter of the prince of the Isles. Is 'R' a mistake for
the name of the uncle, with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth ab Owain Gwynedd as
the prince and Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd d. 1195 as the uncle? The
inference is that the uncle is dead and that the rights of the nephew
are under dispute.
I have presumed that 'septennium' means the age of seven, or maybe the
seventh year. I've also translated 'subarrhatio' as 'pledge' and
'desponsata' etc. as 'betrothal', although I'm not sure what the
formal distinction between them is.

>[From PL 214, 791-2. (24 November 1199)]
>
>CCXXXIII
>MANNENSI EPISCOPO, ARCHIDIACONO BANGORENSI ET PRIORI DE INSULA
>GLANNAVO.
>
>Ne ante septennium sponsalia contrahantur.
>
>(Laterani, viii Kal. Decembris.)
>
>Postulavit a nobis dilectus filius vir nobilis R. princeps Norwali,
>ut de concessione nostra sibi liceret filiam dilecti filii principis
>Insularum subharrhatam ab ipso accipere in uxorem, non obstante quod
>patruo ejus eadem infra nubiles annos exstitit desponsata cum tamen a
>neutro traducta fuisset. Verum quoniam nobis constare non potuit
>cujus tatis puella tempore subarrhationis vel desponsationis
>exstiterit et cui antea fuerit, puta nepoti vel patruo, desponsata,
>cum secundum diversitates factorum jura etiam sint diversa, in
>hujusmodi certum non potuimus dare responsum, quoniam juxta canonicas
>sanctiones in rebus ambiguis non est absolutum judicium proferendum.
>Volentes autem, quantum cum Deo possumus, justas postulationes prfati
>principis sine difficultate qualibet exaudire, inquisitionem eorum qu
>prmismus sub certa forma examini vestro duximus committendam, quid
>juris sit in singulis articulis supponentes. Quocirca discretioni
>vestr per apostolica scripta mandamus quatenus vocatis ad prsentiam
>vestram quos videritis evocandos, sollicite inquiratis utrum puella
>septennium non attigerit quando subarrhata exstitit a nepote, vel
>patruo desponsata. In utroque namque istorum casuum, quia tam
>subarrhatio quam desponsatio de jure non tenuit, qu non potest
>septennium prvenire, quod factum est a patruo primo vel postea non
>obstante, nisi aliud quid impediat, puella eadem legitime contrahere
>poterit cum nepote. Si vero tam subarrhationis quam desponsationis
>tempore septennis exstitit vel majoris tatis, cum ex tunc incipiant
>placere sponsalia, si prcessit desponsatio patrui, non potuit
>contrahere cum nepote; quoniam secundum traditiones et observantias
>regulares nullus potest sponsam consanguinei sui accipere in uxorem,
>et hi duo casus non ad imparia judicantur. Si autem subarrhatio facta
>cum nepote prcessit, quod secutum fuit postea non tenente, cum per
>secundum factum non potuerit primum dissolvi, quod quantum ad
>sponsalia sortitum fuerit firmitatem, volentibus personis
>principalibus, matrimonium inter eas poterit consummari. Si vero
>nepos eam ante septennium subarrhavit et patruus in septennio vel post
>septennium desponsavit eamdem, nepos eam propter rationem prmissam
>ducere non poterit in uxorem, sin, vice versa, eam sibi legitime
>poterit copulare. Pro iis qu prmismus memori commendatis, cum de
>facto vobis constiterit, de jure non poteritis dubitare. Vos ergo,
>appelatione remota, secundum prmissas distinctiones injunctum vobis
>curetis negotium diffinire. Quod si omnes, etc., tu, frater episcope,
>cum eorum altero.
>Dat. Lat. viii Kal. Decembris.

To the bishop of [Mannensus - Menevia, St Davids?] Archdeacon of
Bangor and Prior of the Island of [Glannavus]

Betrothals may not be contracted before the age of seven

>From the Lateran, 24 November

Our beloved son R the noble prince of North Wales has applied for from
us, as he {?may have been - subjunctive mood} allowed by our
concession to him to take as wife the pledged daughter of our beloved
son the Prince of the Isles, that he was not obstructed because it
emerged that his paternal uncle had also betrothed her below the
marriageable age when however it may not have been made public by
either party. Yet, since it was not able to be agreed by us whose
pledge or betrothal may have existed when the girl was {?became} of
age, and whose may have been prior to that, [puta - ??] nephew or
uncle was betrothed, when after differences of fact the {jura - judge?
jury? judgment? evidence?} on this may also be contradictory, because
of this we were not able to give a definitive response, seeing that
the canon law does not give {?allow} absolute judgment on ambiguous
things.
We are willing, however, {?as much as we can with God}, to listen to
just claims of the prefatory principles without difficulty, (the
inquisition of which we sent ahead which we sent to you under a
certain form for your examination), which may be presented in a single
clause of oaths. Therefore we submit this to your discretion {?by
means of the apostolic writings}, as far as who you call summoning to
your presence, you should take evidence to solicit whether the girl
had not attained the seventh year when the pledge with the nephew
arose, or the engagement with the uncle. In both cases for example in
that event, because the law did not admit the pledge or that
betrothal, which is not able to come before the seventh year,
notwithstanding because it was done by the uncle first or later,
unless there may be other hindrances, the same girl would be able to
contract with the nephew. If in fact so much as a pledge of betrothal
existed at the time of the seventh year or if you like the {age of
majority - majoris}, from which time they may begin to satisfy the
engagement, if it preceded the betrothal with the uncle, she was not
able to contract with the nephew, seeing that according to tradition
and regular observances no-one is able to take the fiancee/bride
[sponsa] of a relative as his wife, {and these two events are not
judged unequal}. If however the pledge made with the nephew went
before, {because [? - secutum] was later not holding, when by the
second event it would not be possible to dissolve the first, because
as much as the decided arrangement would be steadfastly held to by the
principal parties, it would be possible for the marriage between them
to be consummated [is there a 'not' missing from this sentence?]. If
in fact the nephew was pledged to her before the seventh year and the
uncle betrothed her in or after the seventh year, the nephew would not
be able to take her as wife on account of the foregoing reasoning, but
if it were vice versa, he would legitimately be able to consummate
[copulare]. You recommend according to those memorials which we have
sent ahead, when the events may be agreed {?determined} by you, you
will not be able to doubt the law. You therefore, by means of remote
appeal, you may attend to the business in accordance with the attached
differentiation sent to you. But if all, etc., you, brother bishop,
with others of these,

Given at the Lateran on the 24th November

~~~

Suzanne

* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Suzanne Doig - remove obvious from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4038/index.htm

This thread: