GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-07 > 0933398675
From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's marriages
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:24:35 GMT
On 30 Jul 1999 19:53:25 GMT, (AJones9446) wrote:
>From a History of Wales by Professor J. E. Lloyd (1911)
>
>Chapter XVI part II (The Rise of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth):
>
>page 588: "For some years previously there had been quarrels between Rhodri
>[uncle of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth] and his southern neighbours the sons of Cynan.
>About 1190 the latter had driven Rhodri out of Anglesey, whereupon he had
>sought the help of Reginald, king of Man, marrying his daughter as a pledge of
>alliance, and in 1193 he had with the aid of a Manx contingent expelled his
>rivals and again possessed himself of Aberffraw (70)"
>
>(70) the footnote points out that Brut y Tywysogyon states that this was with
>the support of Gwrthrych (Godred) king of Man but that Brenhinedd y Saesson
>states "more correctly" "the sons of Godrich". Lloyd says "Godred of Man died
>in 1187, leaving a lawful son, Olaf, under age, and a natural son Reginald, who
>at once assumed power and ruled the islands at this period. For Rhodri's
>marriage see page 617."
>
>Chapter XVII part I (the Rivalry of Llywelyn and Gwenwynwyn):
>
>page 616/7:
>
>[after mentioning the marriage of Llywelyn and Joan probably in the Spring of
>1205] "it had seemed likely during the previous five or six years that the
>Northern prince [i.e. Llywelyn] would find a wife in a very different quarter,
>for he had been negotiating with Pope Innocent III for leave to marry a
>daughter of Reginald, king of Man, wedded as a child to his uncle, Rhodri (29).
>In April 1203 the requisite papal authority had been obtained, but the Manx
>alliance was not concluded when the specially advantageous match with the
>daughter of his overlord presented itself to Llywelyn as the more attractive
>alternative.
>
>(29) The three letters of Pope Innocent III which deal with this business will
>be found in Migne's Patrologia (series Latina, ccxiv. 791 [25th Nov. 1199];
>ccxv. 49 [20th April 1203], 534 [17th Feb 1205]. Cf. Papal Letters, i. 8, 13,
>19. The patruus is not named but must clearly be Rhodri, whose alliance with
>the sons of Godred of Man is mentioned by B. Saes. s.a. 1193. He was married in
>1188 to a daughter of the Lord Rhys (Gir Camb vi. 126-7) but may have put her
>away or lost her by death before 1193. With equal certainty the "princeps
>insularum" may be taken to be Reginald, who had become king of Man in 1188."
Thanks for posting the references. Of the three letters of Pope
Innocent III mentioned by Lloyd as a source, the first two are the
ones which I posted in the original message in this thread (one of
which has been translated into English by Suzanne Doig in a later
posting). I went to the library today to get a copy of the third one,
and a transcription appears below. Note that this letter also
mentions the previous marriage to a sister of the earl of Chester.
["... idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis Castri, sine
contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat in uxorem,
.."]
Stewart Baldwin
---------------------------
[From PL 215, 534-7]
CCXX.
..... ELIENSI ..... NORVICENSI, ET ..... DE SANCTO ASAPH, EPISOPIS.
Ut causam matrimonii, inter filiam principis Insularum, et principem
Norwalli, vertentem terminent.
(Apud S. Petrum, XIII Kal. Martii.)
Cum olim dilectus filius, nobilis vir ... princeps Norwalli, a nobis
humiliter postulasset, ut de nostra sibi permissione liceret filiam
nobilis viri ... principis Insularum, quam se asseruit subarrasse,
ducere in uxorem, non obstante, quod ... patruo ejus eadem mulier
infra nubiles annos fuerat desponsata, cum neuter eorum transduxisset
eamdem, hon memori ... Mannen. episcopo, et dilectis filiis ...
archidiacono, et ... priori de Insula Glannav. sub certa forma causam
ipsam commisimus terminandam. Partibus itaque in prdictorum judicum
prsentia constitutis, sicut ipsi per suas nobis litteras intimarunt,
per testes ejus constitut evidenter, quod prdicta puella, octo annis
expletis, ab L. principe Norwalli, tam suo quam suorum assensu
parentum, fuerat subarrhata, sed, eo ex necessitate ipsam transducere
differente, ejusdem L. patruus ipsam sine consensu ejus postmodum
desponsavit, qui, ea nequaquam carnaliter cognita, viam fuerat
univers carnis ingressus. Judices ergo prdicti, communicato
prudentium virorum consilio, prdicto Norwalli principi auctoritate
apostolica concesserunt, ut puellam desponsaret eamdem, ne discordia
inter ipsum et parentes puell olim exorta, et tunc sopita, iterum
oriretur. Nos igitur, eorumdem sententiam, nisi aliud rationabile
quidem obstaret, volentes firmitatem debitam obtinere, dilectis filiis
... abbati de Abenton ... priori de Henli, et magistro M. canonico de
Berlinton. Bangorensis diceseos, dedimus in mandatis, ut ipsam
facerent, appellatione remota, per censuram ecclesiasticam firmiter
observari. Abbas vero prdictus, et conjudices sui, propter
conditionem in litteris nostris expressam, super matrimonio illo,
sicut in eorum litteris perspeximus contineri, studiose ac sollicite,
receptis testibus, veritatem inquirere curaverunt. Habitis ergo
quatuor productionibus testium, et redactis in scriptis
despositionibus eorumdem, ea, qu ad decisionem caus credebant
sufficere, de utriusque partis assensu, nobis transmittere curaverunt,
ut nobis rei veritas eluceret, consuleretur conscienti principis
supradicti, qui priores judices, et prsertim archidiaconum et priorem
dicebat juris ignaros, et litteras nostras per falsam suggestionem
obtentas, nec se credebat cum eadem puella posse salvari, qu patruo
ejus tradita in uxorem in uno lecto spius fuerat cum eodem. Nos
igitur, depositionibus testium diligenter inspectis, probatum
invenimus per easdem, quod idem L. puellam ipsam ducturum se juraverat
in uxorem, sed nec ipsam transduxerat, nec probabatur per testes, quod
benedictus fuerit, aut in una terra fuerit cum eadem, utpote quorum
terras mare medium dividebat. In actis quoque judicum perspeximus
contineri, quod suffucientibus testimoniis probatum fuerat coram
ipsis, octo annorum fuisse puellam, quando idem L. eam juraverat se
ducturum. Cumque pater puell filiam suam in Norwalliam ad statutum
terminum ducere distulis set, idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis
Castri, sine contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat
in uxorem, et R. patruus ejus puellam desponsaverat memoratum, et post
annum in facie Ecclesi, cum illa contraxerat, et a principio Maii
usque ad festum beati Viti martyris, quoties ei placuit, in eodem
lecto jacuerat cum eadem, et in Walliam fuerat elapso tempore
aliquanto reversus. Cterum, transacto secundo anno a tempore
desponsationis, primo vero a tempore nuptiarum, in Manniam rediens,
pacifice cohabitavit uxori, et eam secum per terram et mare deduxit,
sed, ea tandem sub parentum cura relicta, in Walliam rediit, ibique
fuit viam univers carnis ingressus. Ex dictis igitur testium
collegerunt judices supradicti, quod prdictus R. puellam eamdem a
tempore desponsationis habuerat per triennium, et tres menses, sed per
biennium, duos menses, et dies quindecim a tempore nuptiarum; fuit
autem diversitas inter testes, cum quidam, ex eo quod puella erat tunc
temporis macilenta, quod non fuisset carnaliter cognita existamarent,
licet esset tate nubilis, et toro matura; quidam autem nescire se
dicerent, si carnaliter cognita exstitisset, quidam vero crederent,
quod cognita non fuisset, quidam vero ab ipso R. assererent se
audisse, quod eam carnaliter non cognovit; licet adjicerent se
nescire, utrum postmodum fuerit cum eadem. Verum, prdictus episcopus
Manni, sicut in scriptis ejus, et suorum conjudicum secundo delegati
perspexerant contineri, conjudicibus ejus absentibus, tam ex ipsius
puell quam parentum, nutricis et famularum ejus didicit juramentis,
quod prdictus R. puellam ipsam carnaliter non cognovit. Patruo ergo
viam univers carnis ingresso, cum prdictus L. a rege Manni juniorem
filiam in conjugum postulasset, nec id obtinere potuisset ab eo,
utpote cum ipsa fuisset alii copulata, spedictam puellam de assensu
priorum judicum sibi postmodum copulavit. Constitit igitur ex
prdictis quod inter spedictum L. et prdictam puellam, cum octo
esset annorum cujus tamen consensus non invenitur expressus, antequam
cum ipsa ejusdem L. patruus contraxisset, tantummodo per verba de
futuro fuerunt sponsalia celebrata, ita quod nec idem L. transduxerat
aut subarrharat eamdem, nec cum ipsa fuerat benedictus, quin imo nec
in eadem fuerant terra simul, utpote quorum terras, sicut superius est
expressum, mare medium dividebat: unde prsumi non potest quod aliquid
attentarint, quod non potuerint consummare. Constitut etiam per
prdicta quod puella ipsa in nono anno spedicto R. desponsata fuerat,
et in decimo ab ipso transducta, et ultra biennium in uno lecto
frequenter fuerat cum eodem. Unde colligitur manifeste quod prim
litter per falsam fuerunt suggestionem obtent, cum contineatur in
illis quod neuter eorum transduxit eamdem. Cumque tandin simul in uno
lecto fuissent, de jure prsumitur quod facti fuerint una caro, cum
etiam in duodecimo anno, in quo liberum et legitimum habet in
hujusmodi puella consensum, voluntarie fuerit cum eodem, patet eam in
ejus matrimonium legitime consensisse, nec potuisse contrahere
postmodum cum nepote. Unde idem L. ducere ipsam de jure non potuit,
et, si de facto ipsam sibi post mortem patrui copulavit, ab ea est
merito separandus. Ideoque fraternitati vestr per apostolica scripta
mandamus, quatenus, vocatis qui propter hoc fuerint evocandi, causam
ipsam secundum prcriptam formam, appellatione postposita, terminetis,
facientes, etc.
Datum Rom, apud Sanctum Petrum, XIII Kal. Martii.
This thread:
| Re: Llywelyn ap Iorwerth's marriages by Stewart Baldwin< > |