GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-10 > 0940464145


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: The hitherto unknown marriages of Llywelyn of North Wales
Date: 21 Oct 1999 00:02:25 GMT


[PART 4:]

So to summarize and add commentary:

Llywelyn was betrothed to the daughter of the King of Man when she was aged
eight, with her consent, and that of her relatives. But Llywelyn then declined
to take her to wife [having been betrothed to her, but not having had carnal
knowledge of her at that time], so she was betrothed to his uncle Rhodri.

It was claimed that Rhodri died without having carnal knowledge of her [--had
it been found that she and Rhodri had indeed had sexual intercourse, she could
not then (after Rhodri's death) marry Llywelyn]. After Rhodri's death, after
inquiry, judges appointed by the Pope declared that Llywelyn might be betrothed
to her.

There had been conflicting claims that Llywelyn had slept with the girl while
she was betrothed to his uncle, but the Pope found that Llywelyn and the girl
were not even in the same region during that period.

Recounting particulars from the beginning, Llywelyn was betrothed to the girl
when she was about eight. About a year after, the King of Man declined to send
her to Wales at the time appointed, so Llywelyn, without any opposition, took
to wife a sister of the Earl of Chester. [This would have been a politically
advantageous match, and--if this testimony is accurate--would have taken place
about the ninth year of age of the daughter of the King of Man, or ca. 1192
(see below).]

Then Rhodri was, first [in her ninth year], betrothed to the Princess of Man,
and a year later [in her tenth year] married her in the church door [a proper
legal marriage]. After this public union, Rhodri lay in the same bed with her
as often as he pleased between 1 May and the feast of St. Vitus [June 15]. He
then returned to Wales. After about one year, Rhodri returned to Man, again
living [and sleeping] with her peacefully. Leaving her in her parents' care,
he returned again to Wales, where he died [apparently in 1195].

The letter then recapitulates, stating that Rhodri was tied to the girl for
three years, three months from the time of their betrothal, and two years, two
months, fifteen days from the time of their marriage at the church door [which
would agree with the statement that they were married at the church about one
year after betrothal]. By taking this chronology into account, if we subtract
her age from the year of Rhodri's death, we come to a probable birth year of
about 1183.

The girl, her nurse, and her relatives all testified that Rhodri never knew her
carnally [here John and I both thought of the claim asserted by Catharine of
Aragon]. This claim was necessary, or Llywelyn would have been barred from
marrying her.

After Rhodri's death [in 1195], Llywelyn asked the King of Man if he could
marry the king's younger daughter [this might indicate Llywelyn knew his uncle
had carnal knowledge of the elder girl]. But she was already coupled with
another man, so Llywelyn, with the permission of the aforesaid judges,
'coupled' with the Princess of the Isles that we have been discussing.

[Now here we have a difficulty in interpretation. The verb 'copulare' can be
ambiguous in meaning. Here it seems to indicate that Llywelyn and the girl
were physically united in sexual intercourse, but it can also mean joining
together in other senses, such as being grouped together [in the same place,
like captives], grouped [like notes], to unite by ties of marriage, to
reconcile, to bind or oblige, to form a tie of peace or friendship, or even to
unite in spiritual love [Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources].

The Pope found, however, that as Llywelyn and the girl were initially betrothed
when she was aged eight, she could not have given proper consent. Also, the
union was only 'per verbis de futuro,' or that they intended to wed sometime in
the future. They had not been properly blessed [before the church by a
priest], and they had never lived together, but had been separated by land and
sea [hence their union ws not consummated]. This means Llywelyn was not
properly married to the girl prior to the time she was properly wed to his
uncle Rhodri.

She was espoused to his uncle Rhodri in her ninth year, married to him in her
tenth year, and often in his bed after that for a period of two years [before
he died in 1195].

It was clear to the Pope that there was false testimony, and that the claims
that Rhodri never carnally knew the girl were untrue. By law, it must be
presumed that since she and Rhodri lay in bed together they became one flesh
[consummated the marriage], and that since she was in her twelfth year and was
with Rhodri willingly, she thus indicated her consent. As her marriage with
Rhodri was by law complete and legitimate, the girl 'cannot now legitimately
contract marriage' with Llywelyn. The Pope therefore orders the commissioners
to terminate the business--he declares that Llywelyn and the girl cannot marry,
and orders their separation if they have in fact been [since] wed.

This implies to me that at the time Pope Innocent III sent this letter, he was
not aware of any proper marriage between Llywelyn and the Princess. I am
confused by the implication that Llywelyn and the girl coupled [joined in
physical union] at some point after Rhodri's death. That, and the girl's
willingness at the time should have constituted marriage. The Pope would have
then had to declare that the marriage was invalid and quash it. But that is
not what seems to be said at the end in the declaration.

One final important point. If any children had been born to the union, a
determination would have had to be made as to their legitimacy. If the girl
had borne any children fathered by Rhodri [even a miscarriage], it would have
been evidence of consummation and mentioned. If Llywelyn had fathered a child,
having had the approbation of ecclesiastical judges [letter two, discussed
before on this group], it could be argued that they would be declared
legitimate. But if the bride lied about consummating her marriage with Rhodri,
it might be that any such child by Llywelyn would be declared illegitimate.

The point is, there is no mention of issue--no declaration of children born, or
the legitimacy of children to be born. This would clearly indicate that the
Pope had no knowledge of any issue of Llywelyn by the daughter of the King of
Man, and since appeal was still being made to the Pope before 1205 [the date of
this letter], local authorities may have prevented any such physical union
until a final word could be received.

Llywelyn did not wait long to negotiate another marriage. He was espoused to
Joan in 1205, and married in 1206. One might argue that he had already been
pursuing possible arrangements with King John before the Pope sent this
declaration, and that Llywelyn's witnesses might have been so influenced, or
the Pope with the King of England's influence might have tried to find reasons
to invalidate the cause of marriage between Llywelyn and the daughter of the
King of Man.

The above would also indicate that the King of Man had two daughters, the elder
[who married Rhodri], born about 1183, and a younger daughter, already coupled
[at least espoused] by 1196.

As Llywelyn's betrothal to the daughter of the King of Man was not valid, and
as he had, without any opposition, married the sister of the Earl of Chester
[apparently] the following year, it would indicate that she was dead by the
time Llywelyn began negotiations to marry a daughter of the King of Man anew.
We know he resumed this by 1199, and continued until 1205. He could not have
begun negotiations for marriage to the younger or elder daughter of the King of
Man while lawfully married to another, and there is no declaration that his
marriage to the sister of the Earl of Chester was invalid.

If this is correct, Llywelyn would have married the sister of the Earl of
Chester sometime around 1192, and she must have been dead, without issue that
survived beyond 1232 [if she was legitimate] by 1199. Also, if Llywelyn had
had any issue which survived to adulthood by either of these women, it would be
likely they would be mentioned somewhere in the Welsh pedigrees [as were
children of Owain Gwynedd, Iorwerth ap Owain, etc.]

Of course, the concusions in the above posts depend on the accuracy of the
testimony in the Papal letters and other sources.

[end of part 4]

This thread: