GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-10 > 0940539259
From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: The marriages of Llywelyn [PART 2, again]
Date: 21 Oct 1999 20:54:19 GMT
All segments came across on my server fairly quickly (but I subscribe to
soc.genealogy.medieval). Here's part 2 again for Vickie:
[PART 2:]
<<Cumque pater puellæ filiam suam in Norwalliam ad statutum terminum ducere
distulisset, idem L. sororem nobilis viri ... comitis Castriæ, sine
contradictione qualibet, circa fluem illius anni duxerat in uxorem, et R.
patruus ejus puellam sponsaverat memoratum, et post annum in facie Ecclesiæ,
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. Cæterum, 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 universæ carnis
ingressus.>>
About a year after the girl's father declined to send her to Wales at the
appointed time, Llywelyn instead, without anyone opposing it, "took to wife" a
sister of the earl of Chester. Then the uncle "took to wife" the other girl,
at first as his betrothed and then a year later married her at the church door;
and from the first of May until the feast of St Vitus {15 June}, as many times
as pleased him, he lay in the same bed with her. After a little time he
returned to Wales and stayed there a year. He then returned to the Isle of
Man, peacefully lived there with his wife, and returned to Wales leaving his
wife in the care of her parents. Upon reaching Wales again, he died.
{The Handbook of British Chronology states that Rhodri died in 1095. As one
account says Llywelyn declined to take her towife, but another account states
that her father declined to send her at the appointed time, in may indicate
which story was given by which side.}
<<Ex dictis igitur testium collegerunt judices supradicti, quod prædictus 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 ætate
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.>>
However there continues to be considerable disagreement among witnesses as to
whether the uncle actually ever had carnal knowledge of his wife, to whom he
was tied for 3 years and 3 months from the time of their betrothal, and for 2
years, 2 months and 15 days from their marriage at the church door. [NB--this
leaves no doubt that the uncle and the girl were properly married; but it's
still not clear whether they had carnal knowledge of each other.]
<<Verum, prædictus episcopus Manniæ, sicut in scriptis ejus, et suorum
conjudicum secundo delegati perspexerant contineri, conjudicibus ejus
absentibus, tam ex ipsius puellæ quam parentum, nutricis et famularum ejus
didicit juramentis, quod prædictus R. puellam ipsam carnaliter non cognovit.>>
By the testimony of several witnesses, including the girl herself, her
relatives and her nurse, the pope has heard that the uncle R. never knew her
carnally.
<<Patruo ergo viam universæ carnis ingresso, cum prædictus L. a rege Manniæ
juniorem filiam in conjugum postulasset, nec id obtinere potuisset ab eo,
utpote cum ipsa fuisset alii copulata, sæpedictam puellam de assensu priorum
judicum sibi postmodum copulavit.>>
After the uncle's death, L. asked the king of Man if he might not marry his
younger daughter, but as she was already coupled with another, L. with the
permission of the aforesaid judges coupled with the oft-mentioned girl.
<<Constitit igitur ex prædictis quod inter sæpedictum L. et prædictam 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 præsumi non potest quod aliquid attentarint, quod non potuerint
consummare.>>
However the pope determines that as the girl was only aged 8 when all this
started, she could not have given proper consent; the union with L was only
*per verbis de futuro*. They were never blessed together as husband and wife.
The pope finds that they never lived together but were divided by land and by
sea, and their union was not consummated.
<<Constitit etiam per prædicta quod puella ipsa in nono anno sæpedicto R.
desponsata fuerat, et in decimo ab ipso transducta, et ultra biennium in uno
lecto frequenter fuerat cum eodem.>>
In her 9th year she was espoused to uncle R., in her tenth year married him,
and for two years was often in his bed.
<<Unde colligitur manifeste quod primæ litteræ per falsam fuerunt suggestionem
obtentæ, cum contineatur in illis quod neuter eorum transduxit eamdem. Cumque
tandin simul in uno lecto fuissent, de jure præsumitur 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.>>
Therefore it is clear that earlier letters on this matter were false; as uncle
R. and the girl were in bed together, it must by law be presumed that they
became one flesh (i.e., consummated the marriage), and since she was then in
her 12th year and could give legitimate consent, that she was willingly with
him. Therefore her consent was legitimate and she cannot now legitimately
contract matrimony with his nephew.
<<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
vestræ per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, vocatis qui propter hoc
fuerint evocandi, causam ipsam secundum præcriptam formam, appellatione
postposita, terminetis, facientes, etc.>>
The pope therefore orders the aforementioned commissioners to terminate the
said business without the possibility of appeal and [etc.--to declare that the
two cannot marry and to order their separation if they have in fact wed].
[end of part 2]
This thread:
| Re: The marriages of Llywelyn [PART 2, again] by Reedpcgen< > |