The First Marriage of
Llywelyn ab Iorwerth
1195-1203
Virtually since the study of Welsh history began in earnest
it has
been asserted that Prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth (d.1240) was only
married once and this to the daughter of King John. Such an
assertion can now be seen to have been false as is shown in the
following text taken from the book, The Aberconwy Register and
Aberconwy Abbey.
The full text and footnotes of the paper are reproduced in Academia.
The status of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth's marriages played a great and
devastating part in the thirteenth century history of Wales.
It
certainly led to much warfare, destruction and killing and much
fighting on the granges of Aberconwy abbey. To consider how
this
came about it is necessary to look at what marriage actually meant at
the time. Today marriage is thought of as a pairing of
adults. In the twelfth century marriage could and did take
place
between young children. Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), in a
letter to the archbishop of York, ordered that there should be no
espousal or marriage before the age of seven. In a later
ruling,
he changed this age to twelve. Even so, younger marriages
still
took place with papal dispensations and in both the cases of Rhodri and
Llywelyn without, although Llywelyn tried to rectify his irregular
union after the event and Rhodri spent a year engaged and apparently
even had banns read. Earlier King Henry II had obtained papal
approval for the marriage of his son Henry to Princess Margaret of
France. They married on 2 November 1160, the young Henry
having
been born on 28 February 1155 and Margaret about 1 January
1158.
Therefore he was five and she not yet three.
Similarly as the age of marriage was being raised, the way marriage was
performed was also being altered. At the Council of
Westminster
in 1076 it was ruled that:
No one should give his daughter or other
relative to
anyone without priestly blessing, otherwise it will be judged not a
legitimate marriage but a fornicator's marriage.
This was reiterated at the Council of Westminster in 1200 when it was
stated that marriage should only take place:
publicly in front of the church and in
the presence
of a priest. No marriage should be contracted without a
public
announcement in church on three occasions.
This was the first direction for banns to be read in England.
Giraldus Cambrensis was well aware of this and stated that the readings
of the banns should occur on the three Sundays preceding the
wedding. As will be seen, Rhodri ab Owain had his banns read
three times as early as the Spring of 1192.
The wedding service subsequently carried out was somewhat similar to
that still performed today. The marriage should have begun at
the
church door with the priest asking if there was any reason why the
couple could not be legitimately married. The heart of the
ceremony was still the priest's following questions to the bride and
groom.
Do you take this woman...to keep in
sickness and in health?
If both members of the couple replied Volo (I do) then the priest and
the man giving the woman away would hand her to the groom.
The
latter would put a ring on her hand saying:
With this ring I honour you...with my
body I wed you.
All this took place outside the church, before the main door.
During this ceremony the husband was expected to give his wife her
dower ‘at the church door'. The bride's father or
guardian
would then present to the groom a marriage portion - property or cash
to increase the size of the husband's estate. This might be
done
by handing over a symbolic object such as a knife or a sod of
turf. It was only now, after the actual wedding had taken
place,
that everyone entered the church to hear mass. During the
mass,
the couple would lie prostrate before the altar and the altar cloth
would be held over them. The husband would then kiss the bride, but
first he had to give the priest the kiss of peace during the communion.
Unfortunately, there were occasional problems with marriage when things
went wrong. The Church stated that for a marriage to be legal
both parties had to consent, 'Marriage is contracted by consent
alone.' However, this led to the well founded worry that
marriages could be conducted in secret and the truth of the matter
would therefore be difficult to know. Consequently, it was
increasingly held that the marriage ceremony needed to be witnessed, so
it became common practice for all marriages to be made in front of the
church in a public ceremony before witnesses and with the blessing of a
priest. Despite this, lawsuits and appeals to the clergy and
even
the pope show that the fact of marriage could and often was
successfully appealed. Sometimes the marriage partners were
willing in the absolution of their marriage, sometimes not.
Indeed, whether a marriage was legal or had even occurred was also
argued out in clerical courts. This bears great relevance to
what
happened in Wales during the first half of the thirteenth century.
Much confusion exists about Llywelyn ab Iorwerth's first marriage, with
most historians having denied that any such match ever took
place. It will be shown here that this view totally ignores
the
original evidence as accepted by Prince Llywelyn, King John and Pope
Innocent III, to name but the most important. That said, the
evidence is really quite straight forward.
It was during the last months of Gruffydd ap Cynan's principality of
North Wales that the young Llywelyn ab Iorwerth appears to have begun
to think of regularising his own marriage status. Quite
obviously
he was worried that he had been illegally married. This can
be
deduced from three surviving pieces of papal correspondence.
Considering what Llywelyn called himself in the first of these, it is
possible that there was either an agreement that he would succeed
Gruffydd to paramountcy in North Wales or the more likely scenario,
that he had forced Dafydd ab Owain to recognise him as his heir to the
title of king/prince of North Wales in 1198. In favour of the
former there seems to have been an easy transfer of lands from Gruffydd
to Llywelyn on the former's death and there seems to have been no
attempt by any other prince, even Gruffydd's brother, Maredudd, to
dispute this process for at least twelve months.
It is unfortunate that the original evidence in these three papal
letters has been poorly studied and consequently misconstrued by
earlier historians. This has disguised both their importance
and
their meaning. To put this right it is best to first print
the
offending ‘translations' and then the full letters in their
precised form and finally the full text in an English translation, with
the original Latin appearing in Appendix 9, p.342.
7 Kal Dec 1199, Lateran.
Mandate to the bishop
of Man, the archdeacon of Bangor and the prior of the isle of Glannan,
to take cognisance of and decide the case of R prince of North Wales,
who wishes to marry a daughter of the prince of the Isles previously
betrothed to his uncle.
From this precis it has generally been assumed that Prince R must have
been Llywelyn, possibly on the widely held, but erroneous belief, that
he had been prince of North Wales since 1194. As noted above,
this does not conform with the original evidence and if any prince was
lord of North Wales in 1199 it was Gruffydd ap Cynan or even Dafydd ab
Owain and not their nephew Llywelyn. Yet, before looking at
the
document this precis came from, it is worth commenting on the lords of
North Wales to elucidate which prince appears to be being discussed in
papal circles.
Although it is rarely stated, Rhodri is the only known prince of North
Wales who is historically recognised to have had a Manx royal bride in
the late twelfth century. In November 1199 his near relatives
included Gruffydd ap Hywel the son of Hywel ab Owain (d.1170), Gruffydd
ap Cynan (d.1200), Maredudd ap Cynan (d.1212), Llywelyn ab Iorwerth
(d.1240), Madog ap Gruffydd (d.1236), Gwenwynwyn (d.1216), Goronwy ab
Einion (d.1206+), Cadwallon ab Owain (d.bef.1231), Maredudd ab Owain
(d.bef.1231), Meurig Powys (d.1200), Owain ap Dafydd (d.1212), Thomas
ap Rhodri (d.bef.1243), Einion ap Rhodri (d.1209+) and Gruffydd ap
Rhodri (d.1240+). Obviously there is no Prince R. amongst
these
and possibly the R. has been written in mistake for the initial letter
of Rhodri ab Owain, the prince who had previously been married to the
lady in question. Alternatively, the capital letter could
have
been miswritten or entered wrongly. What can be said is that
the
only men liable to call themselves princes of North Wales at the time
were Gruffydd ap Cynan and his brother Maredudd, Madog ap Gruffydd,
Gwenwynwyn and, of course, since the discomfiture of Dafydd ab Owain in
1197, Llywelyn ab Iorwerth. Of these there is evidence that
Gruffydd ap Cynan did describe himself as prince of North Wales before
1199. The possibility that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth did likewise
has
not to my knowledge been previously demonstrated, although it has been
asserted without the foundation of quoting any original documents that
prove such a case. The possibility of Llywelyn using this
title
is not proved in the twelfth century as is shown in the above chapter,
Prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth from 1199 to 1202.
The marital status of the sons of Cynan at this time is uncertain, but
Gruffydd's known children were born before 1175, so it is possible that
he was seeking a new wife in 1199. Of Maredudd ap Cynan's
children, Llywelyn Fawr (the real one, not Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, see
Appendix 11, p.348) was born before 1200 and his brother Llywelyn
Fychan before 1212 - which would at first sight suggest that it is
possible that Rhodri's widow might have been their mother.
Madog
ap Gruffydd was married to Ysota Lacy before 1199 and she outlived
him. Gwenwynwyn married Margaret Corbet around
1204. She is
thought to have been his first wife. Finally, Llywelyn ab
Iorwerth was having children by his ‘wife' from apparently
1197
until after 1200. This does not mean that Llywelyn did not
enquire about taking a Manx wife in 1199, but surely the evidence as
stated above would more likely mean that one of the sons of Cynan was
the prince of North Wales referred to. This is especially
true
when considering the title and the marital statuses of the nephews of
Rhodri. It would have been beneficial for them to consider
taking
a bride to strengthen their political position in North
Wales. Of
course, none of this is provable, but it does beg the question as to
why this Prince R was taken to be Llywelyn ab Iorwerth by later
historians if they had not seen the original document this precis was
taken from.
Concerning this ‘the bards' of the sixteenth century and
their
later copyists state that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth was ‘married'
to
Tangwystl ferch Llywarch Goch of Rhos. As such it would
initially
seem possible that Gruffydd ap Cynan was the prince seeking the hand of
his aunt by marriage and that no more was heard of the affair due to
his death within three months of the pope asking for an inquiry to be
made. It should further be remembered that a letter took
about a
month to go from Rome to North Wales if the weather and all else were
favourable. Therefore, on this basis, it is a surprise that
most
historians have definitively asserted that Llywelyn was the Prince R
referred to in the papal document precis.
After this discussion of the logic of the readings of the document it
is necessary to print a translation of the entire original document, as
copied into a contemporary papal register, as this has not previously
been widely disseminated. It also shows yet again how
important
it is to go back to the original authority and not take the judgements
of previous historians as sound, especially when the logic behind these
assumptions can be seen to have been suspect .
To the bishop of Man, the archdeacon of
Bangor and the prior of Ynys Llannog [Ynys Seiriol or Priestholm].
Betrothals may not be entered into
before seven [years].
At the Lateran, 24 November 1199.
Our beloved noble man, Prince R. of
North Wales, has
asked our permission that it is lawful for him to take to himself for a
wife the daughter of our beloved son, the prince of the Isles,
notwithstanding that it has come to light that his paternal uncle was
betrothed to her, when she was below marriageable years, nevertheless
at the time neither side were brought together [for consummation of the
marriage]. Since the truth to us is not apparent at what age
the
girl was pledged or betrothed has come to light and to who she may have
been [pledged] before, [whether] pure [when] betrothed to the nephew or
the paternal uncle, with the following diversities of the facts and
also the diversities of the laws in this matter we have not been able
to give an answer, because under canonical laws in doubtful causes it
is not possible to advance an unconditional judgment.
However,
wishing, as much as we are able with God, that the just petitions of
the before mentioned prince may be clearly heard without hindrance
where you please, we direct that you come together in an inquiry of
them which we have before set out in a sure fashion for your
examination, that justice may be done on every point.
Wherefore,
through your understanding of the apostolic scriptures we entrust, to
what extent you will call to your presence those summoned to be seen,
with anxious care you will examine whether the girl might not have
reached her seventh [year] when it appears she was espoused to the
nephew, or betrothed to the paternal uncle. For in either of
these before mentioned cases, because just as espoused as betrothed may
not be held with justice, if they have not reached their seventh
[year], notwithstanding whether that was made with the paternal uncle
first or afterwards, unless there is something else which may impede
[it], the same girl may lawfully be able to enter into marriage with
the nephew. Nevertheless, if truly espoused or betrothed at
the
time she appears to have been seven years of age or older, when from
which time betrothals begin to be acceptable, if the betrothal of the
paternal uncle had taken place before, it is not possible for her to
enter into marriage with the nephew; because, following traditions and
canonical observations, no one is able to contract in marriage a blood
relative or to take her as wife, and these two cases are not to be
judged unequal. If however, the espousal with the nephew
preceded
[that with the uncle], what followed afterwards was not binding, since
the following act cannot annul the first, because such a firm choice
was willingly made for betrothal by the principal parties, should the
marriage between them have been consummated. If truly the
nephew
was espoused to her before the seventh [year] and his paternal uncle in
the seventh or after the seventh had been betrothed to the same, the
nephew on account of the aforesaid rule will not to able to take her to
wife, but, if on the contrary, it is the other way around he may be
lawfully joined to her. On account of the same aforementioned
recommendations we have forwarded, when you have reached agreement of
the fact, you will not be able to doubt the law. Therefore,
distant to appeal, following these different premisses, you are
enjoined to take care of the assigned task.
With respect to which whether all, etc,
you, brother bishop, with another court.
The first thing to notice from examining this document is that although
the original copyist has decided that it concerned Prince R, it must
have originally been Prince L for Prince Llywelyn ab Iorwerth as two
subsequent letters ,which will be examined later, are certainly
directed towards the marriage of that prince.
If it is accepted that the letter was concerned with the marriage of
Llywelyn ab Iorwerth then it appears that the pope does not ask the
local court to decide the case of a prince of Wales wishing to marry
his aunt, but to decide if there was an impediment to the marriage
which had already taken place, as both uncle and nephew had been
betrothed to the bride before she was seven years of age, the minimum
usual age for betrothal. Obviously this had not mattered to
Llywelyn or her previous spouse, Rhodri ab Owain. It was only
now, some four years after the event and at least one child later that
Llywelyn sought to regularise his marriage situation in the eyes of the
Church. The consequence was the formation of the
ecclesiastical
court under local ecclesiastics who could be little but favourable to
Llywelyn's wishes. The grammatical cases of the verbs of the
letter are standard for this era and could imply that the marriage had
not taken place, but equally they could be taken to mean that it
had. Events show that the latter case is correct.
From this it can be adjudged that the court was set up to decide
whether the current prince and princess of North Wales were married
illegally and if they were, the logical conclusion was that the
marriage was to be annulled. Further, as it had been stated
that
Rhodri's bride was underage when they married, as well as when Llywelyn
was betrothed to her, this would have a bearing on the case.
It
had further been stated to the pope that the marriage between Rhodri
and the girl was never consummated and therefore her remarriage to the
nephew, Llywelyn, was legal. Despite this, the pope was
worried
that the real age of the bride appeared uncertain and he therefore
asked the bishop to check into this as well as the bride's status when
she married both the uncle (Rhodri) and the nephew
(Llywelyn). It
can therefore be seen that the statement of the precis of the papal
register that Llywelyn wished ‘to marry a daughter of the
prince
of the Isles previously betrothed to his uncle' is not a clear precis
of the document and is consequently misleading. This
misapprehension has bedevilled studies of thirteenth century Wales ever
since. It should be noted here that the name of Llywelyn's
first
bride had apparently been lost by the time of Lewis Dwnn and it was
only John Wynne of Gwydir who invented Tangwystl ferch Llywarch Goch as
Llywelyn's first spouse. This matter shall be discussed
further
after the status and problems with Llywelyn's first marriage are
examined.
Over three years after the commission first deliberated upon Llywelyn's
marriage, another papal court of inquiry was set up as the outcome of
the first had obviously proved unsatisfactory to settle the
matter. Once again it is worthwhile printing the mangled
precis
of the papal register and then looking at what was really
said.
According to this tainted source, on 19 April 1203, a mandate was sent
to:
the abbot of Aberconwy (Abenton), the
prior of Enlli
(Henli) and Master M., a canon of Beddgelert (Berlinton), within the
diocese of Bangor, to cause to be observed the sentence about the
marriage between the daughter of the prince of the Isles and L Prince
of North Wales.
Another more modern ‘translation' goes slightly further than
this with:
the abbot of Aberconwy (Abercon), the
prior of Enlli
(Henli) and Mr M. canon of Beddgelert (Berlincon), of dioc.
Bangor. Confirms the judgement of the delegates in the case
committed to them in no.168 above, declaring that for the sake of
restoring peace L(lywelyn) prince of North Wales might marry the
daughter of the prince of the Isles. They had been betrothed
when
she was 8 years old, but later she was betrothed against her will to
his uncle, now dead. Mandate to cause the sentence to be
observed, unless there be reasonable objection.
Again this is hardly what was stated to have been recorded in the
original letter. The full text from the register of papal
correspondence actually reads:
To the abbot of Aberconwy, the prior of
Enlli and Master M, a canon of Beddgelert, in Bangor Diocese.
He confirms the sentence concerning the
betrothals
between the daughter of the prince of the Isles and the prince of North
Wales.
At the Lateran, 19 April 1203.
Formerly the beloved son, the noble man,
Prince L of
North Wales, humbly asked us, that it be permitted by our grant [that]
the same daughter of the noble man ... prince of the Isles, of which he
himself wrote of his espousal, to take as wife etc. In almost
the
same manner, just as in the register of our second episcopal year [the
1199 entry above] during the month of December, [that] he would to be
able to be always united with [her]. Accordingly, with the
parties in the presence of the appointed aforesaid judges, just as they
intimated to us through their letters, by the same through the
witnesses it was clearly established, with respect to the girl, she
having completed eight years, by Prince Llywelyn of North Wales, as
much by his consent as that of her parents, he had espoused [her], but,
by necessity delayed from proceeding, by his paternal uncle without his
[Llywelyn's] consent after a while he [Rhodri] betrothed [her], who,
though never carnally known to him, he [Rhodri] went the way of all
flesh. Hence, the judges themselves, having received the
advice
of these prudent men, [that] the same girl by the aforesaid Prince
Llywelyn of North Wales, in the form of a judicial sentence, pardoned
by apostolic authority, their promise of marriage, lest the discord
formerly risen between them, however at present caused to rest, might
be raised again, just as they intermated to us through their
letters. We therefore the same sentence, unless any
reasonable
cause may stand in the way, considering it authoritative and secure, we
entrust to you by the authority at hand, since you in person can bring
about, by this distant appeal, by ecclesiastical decree to be observed
inviolably. That if not all, two etc.
Here finally we get towards the truth of the matter. The
previous
enquiry started in 1199 had found that Llywelyn's marriage was suspect,
but the prince had persevered in it and the ecclesiastics acquiesced in
this as the marriage had taken place for the political reason to stop
strife between the two parties. Despite it being stated that
Llywelyn's betrothed had not been carnally acquainted with his uncle,
Rhodri, while they were married, the pope did not appear to believe
this and was prepared for the marriage to be quashed, although he was
content for it to continue for the sake of peace. It seems
obvious from this that Llywelyn had persisted in the marriage since his
first request to the pope in 1199. Now, nearly four years
later
in April 1203, the matter was before the pope again. A
conclusion
from this would appear to be either that the problems with the marriage
had not been suppressed by Llywelyn's actions in 1199, when he wrote to
the pope, or that Llywelyn was now looking for a way out of his
marriage. The birth of children in 1197 and before 1200 as
well
as these two appeals to the pope would suggest that Llywelyn did not
put aside his bride before 1203.
It is therefore a possibility that Llywelyn stuck by his wife in this
period, while coming under increasing ecclesiastical pressure to put
her aside. Such pressure had been brought against previous
princes of Wales to end non canonical marriages, viz. Owain Gwynedd
with his cousin Christina ferch Goronwy, Rhodri ab Owain with his
cousin Agnes ferch Rhys and Cadwallon ap Madog with his cousin Eva
ferch Madog. Considering this, it is fantastic that Giraldus
makes no mention of this affair in all his works, when obviously he
should have been favouring the canons of the church and supporting his
pope in bringing religious orthodoxy to Wales.
Another reason that Llywelyn was finally brought upon to relent
concerning his first marriage appears to have been more political than
mere ecclesiastical pressure. In mid April 1205 Llywelyn
married
Princess Joan, the illegitimate daughter of King John.
Despite
this, there is some evidence that the match was contemplated as early
as 27 May 1203, when King John was looking at bringing Ellesmere, the
dower of his aunt, Emma Plantagenet, under his direct
control.
The implication is that the king was thinking of using this as dower
for his own daughter being given in marriage to Llywelyn.
Therefore, it can be seen that all the pieces fit nicely
together. Llywelyn married his aunt by marriage soon after
the
death of Rhodri. This was probably done to honour his alleged
betrothal which would have to have been made before 15 June 1192 when
Rhodri married the girl and apparently granted her lands in dower which
had been granted, no doubt by Gruffydd ap Cynan, to Aberconwy abbey -
hence the land claims made by King Reginald against Aberconwy abbey in
September 1192. If correct this would mean that the two known
children of Llywelyn, the unnamed one who died in 1197 and Gruffydd ap
Llywelyn, were both the grandchildren of King Reginald of
Man.
This can virtually be confirmed by checking against the almost
universally baseless assertions found in Wikipedia under the erroneous
and anachronistic title of Llywelyn the Great rather than Llywelyn ab
Iorwerth:
Little is known of Llywelyn's mistress,
Tangwystl
Goch, except that she was the daughter of Llywarch "Goch" of
Rhos. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (c. 1196–1244) was
Llywelyn's
eldest son and known to be the son of Tangwystl.
It is a great pity that no contemporary ‘knew' that Gruffydd
was
the son of Tangwystl, rather than he was a child of Llywelyn's then
legitimate wife. The pope's letters therefore make far more
sense
when considering Gruffydd ap Llywelyn's obvious grievance against his
father and younger half-brother, Dafydd ap Llywelyn (d.1246);
especially when it is realised what trouble Llywelyn went to in having
Princess Joan declared legitimate; especially when he didn't go to such
trouble for his own surviving child from his ill-starred first
marriage, but he did make the effort, as detailed below, to have
Gruffydd castigated by the pope as ‘the son of a slave
girl'. Once again the world of history has been ill-served by
those who wish to make events up and fill in the historical voids with
their own ignorance, rather than fact.
Finally, it can be seen that despite the matter of Llywelyn's marriage
being unsound, the affair was still rumbling on two years
later.
Consequently, the pope wrote again to his brethren of England
concerning the matter - and it is immediately apparent that he wrote to
the bishops of the see of Canterbury and not to the heads of lesser
establishments, like abbots, priors and canons in Wales.
Unfortunately, yet again, this mandate has been cruelly
precised.
Thus it was said to have been recorded:
17 February 1205 [13 Kal Mar].
Mandate to the
bishops of Ely, Norwich and St Asaph to bring to an end the cause
relating to the marriage of the daughter of the prince of the Isles and
Prince L. of North Wales.
The more modern version at least leans a bit more towards the
complexity of the subject:
17 Feb 1205. To bp of Ely, bp
of Norwich and
bp of St Asaph. Recounts the earlier history of the marriage
case
concerning Prince L of North Wales and the daughter of the prince of
the Isles. The last judges were not satisfied that the
marriage
of Llywelyn was valid and sent to the pope further evidence, including
evidence that L, when betrothed to the girl, had married a sister of
the earl of Chester. As a result the pope decides that there
has
been no valid marriage between L and the daughter of the prince of the
Isles. He orders the addressees to summon the parties and
give
judgement accordingly.
Once again, when the copy of the original document is examined, rather
than the best known, but misleading 39 words of the first precis, the
story told is very different and totally changes the perception of
Welsh history in this period. The pope's real letter of some
nine
hundred words runs:
To the bishops of Ely, Norwich and St
Asaph.
In order that they may conclude
overturning the case
of the marriage between the daughter of the prince of the Isles and the
prince of North Wales.
At St Peters, 16 February 1205.
When formerly the beloved son, the noble
man, Prince
[Llywelyn] of North Wales, humbly asked of us, that from us to himself
he might be allowed permission, the daughter of the noble man Prince
[Reginald] of the Isles, whom he himself [Llywelyn] had claimed to
espouse, to take in wife, notwithstanding that [Rhodri] his paternal
uncle had been betrothed to the same woman before she was of
marriageable age, since neither of them married the same [woman], we
commissioned Bishop [Michael] of Man, of good memory, and our beloved
sons [Gervase?] the archdeacon and Prior [?] of Ynys Llannog, to
conclude the actual case in the specified form [This was on 24 November
1199, Book II, No.233 above]. And so with the parties
assembled
in the presence of the aforesaid judges, just as they themselves
intimated to us via their letters, through the witnesses it was clearly
established, that the aforesaid girl, having reached eight years, by
Prince L. [Llywelyn] of North Wales, so much through her assent as
through her parents, she was pledged, but, due to necessity he put off
marrying her in person, the paternal uncle [Rhodri] of the same
Llywelyn, without the consent of the same [Llywelyn] presently in
person married her, who, she by no means became known carnally [to
him], went the way of all flesh. Therefore the previously
named
judges, having taken counsel of experienced men, granted the aforesaid
prince of North Wales by apostolic authority, that he might betroth the
same girl, lest the discord that once arose between himself and the
parents of the girl, and was then calmed, should again arise.
We
therefore, being of the same opinion, unless there might be other
reason certainly to oppose it, desiring strongly that it might be
maintained; [so] to our beloved sons, the abbot of Aberconwy, the prior
of Enlli and Master M, a canon of Beddgelert, of Bangor diocese, we
gave orders, by distant appeal, that they might strongly observe in
person through ecclesiastical sentence. Truly the aforesaid
abbot
and his co-judges, on account of the terms expressed in our letters,
concerning that marriage, just as we had observed contained in their
letters, zealously and carefully, received from the witnesses, they
undertook to seek the truth. Therefore by the production of
four
witnesses, and by rendering their depositions into writings, the things
which they believed were sufficient to settle the case, with the assent
of both parties, they undertook to transmit to us, that the truth of
the business might be manifest to us, and that they might consider the
conscience of the aforesaid prince; who said that the previous judges,
and particularly the archdeacon and prior were ignorant of the law, and
that our letters were obtained through mistaken propositions, nor did
he himself believe that [the marriage] might be able to be saved with
the same girl, who had been delivered over as wife to his paternal
uncle [Rhodri], she often being in the one bed with him. We
therefore, by carefully examining the depositions of the witnesses,
find it proven by them, that the same L. [Llywelyn] had himself sworn
to take the girl herself in marriage, but she herself did not proclaim
it, nor was it proved by witnesses that it had been blessed, or even
that she might have been on the one land with the same, in as much as
their lands are divided by the sea between them. Likewise,
enclosed in the records of the judges we have observed, that sufficient
witnesses have been approved in court by themselves [the judges],
[that] the girl was of eight years when the same L [Llywelyn] swore to
take her. However, the father of the girl [King Reginald],
delayed taking his daughter into North Wales at the stated time, not to
mention that the same L. [Llywelyn], the sister of the noble man Earl
[Ranulf] of Chester, without objection anywhere, about the end of that
year he took as his wife, and R. [Rhodri] his paternal uncle
[Llywelyn's] was betrothed to the girl spoken of, and after a year in
the presence of the Church entered into marriage with her, and from the
beginning of May up to the feast of St Vitus the martyr [15 June], as
often as it pleased the same, in the same bed he lay down with the
same, and he returned to Wales and a considerable amount of time went
past. The other [Rhodri], in the second year from the time of
the
betrothal, truly the first from the time of their marriages, he
returned to Man, peacefully cohabiting with his wife, and he took her
with him through land and sea, but, at length at the court of her
parents he left the same behind, he returned to Wales [1194], and there
he went the way of all flesh. Therefore the judges mentioned
above deduced from the words of the witnesses that the aforesaid R.
[Rhodri] had by that time been betrothed to the same girl for three
years and three months, not to mention during two years and two months
and fifteen days since the time of their marriages; however, there has
been a difference between the witnesses, with some, from the fact that
the girl at that time was slim/thin/meagre, in respect of which they
judged that she had not been known carnally, although she was of
marriageable age and swelling maturely/early; yet, some said it was
unknown to them if it had come to light that she had been carnally
known, truly some might believe that she might not have been known,
truly some asserted that they had heard from R. [Rhodri] himself that
he had not known her carnally; although adding that they themselves did
not know whether afterwards she could have been with him. In
truth, the aforesaid bishop of Man, just as in his writings, and his
following co-judges who examining the enclosed, with his co-judges
absent, as much from the girl herself as from her parents, from her
nurse and the household of the same he has been told on oath that the
aforesaid R. [Rhodri] had not known the girl herself
carnally.
Therefore, once the paternal uncle [Rhodri] had gone the way of all
flesh, when the aforesaid L. [Llywelyn] asked from the king of Man a
younger daughter to join in marriage, nor was he able to obtain that
from the same, in as much as he was already coupled with her another
way, the frequently said girl, with the assent of the preceding judges,
after a while he [Llywelyn] joined her physically to himself.
Therefore it was established from the aforesaid that between the often
mentioned L. [Llywelyn] and the aforesaid girl, at the time she might
have been eight years, whose consent nevertheless was not found clearly
expressed, before the paternal uncle, the same Llywelyn had entered
into marriage with her, merely through words that in the future they
would celebrate espousal; therefore, because the same Llywelyn neither
took or pledged to the same, nor at the time had themselves blessed, in
fact, on the contrary, they had not even been in the same land at the
same time in so much as any lands, just as is expressed above, the sea
divided between them: from whence it cannot be presumed that he was
able to attempt anything, because they would not have been able to
consummate. It was also determined from the preceding that
the
girl herself was in her ninth year when the often said R. [Rhodri]
married her [by pledge], and in her tenth when she was conducted
[married], and for a further two years was frequently in the one bed
with him. From whence it is plainly deducted that the first
letters were obtained by supplying a false proposition, seeing that it
was maintained by the former that neither of them had taken the
same. And since they might have been simultaneously in one
bed
together, it is to be presumed according to the law that they had been
one flesh, when furthermore in her twelfth year, in which the girl
freely and lawfully in this gave her consent, she was willingly with
the same, it is evident that she legally consented in this marriage and
was not able to enter into legal marriage with the nephew
afterwards. Hence the same L. [Llywelyn] should not have been
legally able to take her [as wife], and, if he has physically joined
[in marriage] with her after the death of his paternal uncle, he
requires to be rightly separated from her. And therefore we
command through your brotherhood through these apostolic letters, to
what extent, you call those who should be summoned for this, cause a
verdict itself in the following form, that the appeal is set aside,
concluded, done, etc.
It is quite clear from this that Llywelyn's marriage, which appears to
have begun soon after Rhodri's death, ended in the period of 1203 to
1205. It also appears clear from this that Llywelyn was
trying to
maintain the marriage in 1199, but that his attitude had changed
dramatically by 1203. The story would seem to go like
this.
After the initial inquest of 1199 it was decided that Llywelyn's
marriage was unsound, but should not be annulled due to its benefits to
all parties. Yet by 1203, Llywelyn's position seems to have
changed and certainly by 1205 he denounced the archdeacon of Bangor and
the prior of Ynys Llannog as having been ignorant of the law when they
examined the cause in 1199. The implication of this is that
he
now wished to abandon his current wife and acquire the king's daughter
as his spouse. The result of this was the second inquisition
of
1203 and the papal confirmation of 1205 that Llywelyn's marriage was
unsound and was to be quashed. The second enquiry was led by
the
abbot of Aberconwy and although it found that Llywelyn should not have
married his current wife, it allowed matters to stand as it had brought
peace to a dispute. The abbot obviously knew this as part of
his
lands were the bone of contention between the king of the Isles and
Llywelyn. Quite obviously the abbot was protecting his own
lands
as well as the general well being of the land. The result was
the
third hearing led by English ecclesiastics which has been preserved in
greater detail than the two previous ones. This shows clearly
that most witnesses were of the opinion that Rhodri and his wife had
not known each other carnally, but their evidence was not accepted as
they were forced to make the lawyers' plea that although they knew that
this had not happened, they could not swear that it had not happened
out of their sight. The main proponent of this view appears
to
have been Llywelyn ab Iorwerth himself. It is therefore
apparent
that the prince had changed his viewpoint between 1199 and
1203.
The most logical reason for this, after his marriage had been accepted
by the pope in 1199, is that he now wished to have his marriage
annulled so that he could make a better match with a Plantagenet
spouse. Comparisons with his eighth great grandson, Henry
VIII,
are apparent.
A final point must be raised about the death of Rhodri as the dates
given by the pope do not agree with the death date of the prince given
in both the St David's and the Strata Florida versions of the Annales
Cambriae. They both record this as the first event of 1195,
yet
the pope's statement that Rhodri had been betrothed for three years and
three months and married for two years, two months and fifteen days,
means that he must have died about 30 August 1194. This makes
much more sense than Rhodri hanging about in limbo for twelve months
after his defeat at Coedana. Llywelyn chased him back from
there
to Holyhead where he died, no doubt of either dysentery or his
wounds. This also means that Rhodri betrothed the girl about
1
June 1191 when he was in the Isle of Man. This again suggests
that Rhodri was expelled from Gwynedd in late 1190 or early
1191.
Finally, the fragments of original evidence provide a plausible
scenario for the events of 1190 to 1194, until and unless further
original evidence might come to hand and change this reading.
The
alternative that Rhodri became engaged to the Manx princess about 1
June 1192 and then married her a year later does not really work, as
this would mean that King Reginald complained to the Cistercian chapter
in 1192 before his daughter would have been given any dower and that
Rhodri would have married her immediately before his Manx invasion of
Anglesey. In short, the 15 June 1192 marriage is the date
that
works best with the available evidence that survives.
The pope's final letter on the matter shows that by 1205 Prince
Llywelyn had clearly repented of his former attitude and put his wife
aside. What became of her is unknown, but she was only 21 in
1203. The pope's summation of the case and the appointment of
the
three bishops from Canterbury province in 1205 was obviously done to
ensure that Llywelyn was free to marry again and this he did in mid
April 1205. The pope's summary clearly shows the desire for
the
regularisation of Llywelyn's matrimonial affairs and this it appears
was intended to ensure that Gruffydd ap Llywelyn would never inherit
Gwynedd if the proposed Plantagenet marriage proved fruitful.
It
should also be noted that canonically illegal marriages seem
commonplace at this time as is easily confirmed by a quick study of the
Chronicles of the Kings of Man and the Isles.
Looking at the personages involved in settling the cause of Llywelyn's
marriage it is apparent that most were of Gwynedd, viz. the bishop of
Man (who may have held or claimed some influence in Mon), the
archdeacon of Bangor, the prior of Ynys Llannog, the abbot of
Aberconwy, the prior of Enlli and a canon of Beddgelert. All
these were people directly connected with and within the patrimony of
Prince Llywelyn. However in 1205, two of those appointed were
from the east of England and could not have been pressurised by
Llywelyn. Such might mean that the pope was worried by
Llywelyn's
attitude, or, more likely, he wished King John to be certain that
Llywelyn was free to marry. Certainly the responses of the
ecclesiastical judges from Llywelyn's principality suggest that they
were not overawed by him. Further still, the princely
complaints
of the ignorance of two of them suggests that Llywelyn made strenuous
efforts to overturn the previous finding in favour of the validity of
his first marriage. It is also interesting to see that the
abbot
of Aberconwy was placed in charge of overseeing the dissolution of
Llywelyn's marriage in 1203. This again shows the importance
of
the abbey after only seventeen years in existence.
It can be seen from this evidence that Llywelyn has never been known to
have had any mistress or any illegitimate children, other than the
surviving Gruffydd who was apparently only made illegitimate in 1203 by
the dissolution of his parent's marriage. The final question
about Llywelyn's matrimonial habits that must be asked is was Tangwystl
Goch the real name of Llywelyn's first wife, the daughter of King
Reginald. This Tangwystl, the alleged daughter of Llywarch
Goch,
appears to be a seventeenth century invention made simply to tidy up
the family tree. That said, there may have been a real person
of
this name who was associated with Prince Llywelyn. Around
1336,
ie over 130 years after the time being written about, the survey of
Denbighshire recorded that the land of Dyncadvel in Llannefydd
(Carvedvennith) was at some unknown time mortgaged to Prince Llywelyn
ab Iorwerth for £13.
Certainly which prince gave the said
mortgage to
some friend of his named Tangwystl Goch' and he sold that to some Cynan
ap Laurence whose heirs hold that...
Qui quidem Princeps dedit dictum pignus
cuidam amice
sue nomine Tanguestel Goch' que illam vendidit cuidam Canon ap Lauwar
cuius progenies tenet illam...
The word used to describe Tangwystl is amice. This comes from
the
Latin, amic/us and its case is vocative, singular and
masculine.
If Tanguestel was a woman then surely the word would have been
amica. In short, it cannot be certain if this Tangwystl was
male
or female from the text, although the former is explicitly stated by
the Latin, though this could possibly be a scribal error.
Finally, this supplies no evidence as to whether he/she was a lover of
Llywelyn and mother of two of his children.
If there is no evidence that Tangwystl was female or the mother of
Llywelyn's first children, there is another far more credible wife for
Llywelyn in the form of Rhunallt, the daughter of the king of
Man. By c.1500 the bard Guttyn Owen mistakenly thought that
Rhunallt was the bride of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, and not his
mother. Historically it is clear that Gruffydd only had one
wife
and that this was Senana ferch Caradog (bef.1200-52+).
Further
they appear to have married before 1214 judging from the birth dates of
their children. This allows no time for Gruffydd to have
married
and had children by another wife. As Senana outlived her
husband
there is little chance that Gruffydd had another wife from the Isle of
Man. The matter is confirmed by a poet contemporary to Owain
Goch
ap Gruffydd, the brother of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (d.1282), who calls
Owain of the lineage of the kings of Man. Quite clearly this
refers to Owain's grandmother and establishes the four brothers'
lineage through Rhunallt and the kings of Man. It would
therefore
appear that this was not a very oblique reference to their distant
ancestry through the half Irish Gruffydd ap Cynan (d.1137) as has been
suggested in modern histories.
With Llywelyn ab Iorwerth's first wife clearly identified as Princess
Rhunallt it is worth taking a further look at what occurred with the
marriage of Llywelyn and Joan Plantagenet. On 26 May 1222,
the
new pope, Honorius III (1216-27), the successor to Innocent III
(1198-1216) who had quashed Llywelyn's first marriage, wrote to
‘his beloved noble man, Lord Llywelyn of North
Wales'. This
was in reply to a now lost letter of the prince asking that as
Llywelyn, with the consent of King Henry III, Archbishop Stephen of
Canterbury and Legate Pandulf, had abolished the detestable custom that
illegitimate children should inherit just as if they were legitimate,
that the pope would confirm this. Further, the prince asked
that
the pope would confirm Llywelyn's statute that his son Dafydd
‘by
his legitimate wife Joan, daughter of the late king of England' should
succeed him by hereditary right in all his possessions'.
Various
versions of this text have been printed. It is therefore once
again necessary to consider them here and then see what was actually
stated.
26 May [7 Kal June] 1222, Confirmation
for Llywelyn
Lord of North Wales, on his petition showing that there is a detestable
custom in his country that the son of the handmaid should be heir with
the son of the free, putting legitimate and illegitimate sons on the
same footing, of an ordinance made by him, with the consent of King
Henry and by the authority of Stephen Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury
and Pandulf Bishop Elect of Norwich then acting as legate, to the
effect that his son, Dafydd born of Joan, daughter of the late king of
England, should succeed him.
The text this translation appears to have come from actually seems to
have run:
Nobili viro Lowelino domino
Norwallie.
Confirmat statutum quod ipse in terra suae ditioni subiecta cum
consensu Henrici regis Anglorum fecerat, consentientibus quoque
Stephano Cantuariensi archiepiscopo S R E Cardinali et Pandulpho
Norwiciensi electo Apostolicae Sedis Legato, contra abusum in eius
terra introductum, ut illegitimi succederent in hereditates sicut et
legitimi, ordinando ut David filius suus quem ex Iohanna filia cl. mem.
[et] regis Angliae uxore sua legitima suscepit, haereditario iure in
omnibus bonis suis ei succedat.
This literally translates as:
To the nobleman Lord Llywelyn of North
Wales.
Confirming a statute that [Llywelyn] himself in the land lying under
his authority made with the consent of King Henry of the English,
likewise acting together with Archbishop Stephen of Canterbury... and
Pandulf the elect of Norwich and legate of the Apostolic See, against
the abuse which has been introduced into his land, that the
illegitimate may succeed in hereditary [title] just as the legitimate:
orders that Dafydd his son who was born from Joanna the daughter of
Clementia [cl. mem.] [and] of the king of England, his [Llywelyn's]
lawfully accepted wife, that he might succeed him in hereditary right
in all his goods.
The differences are readily apparent and at first sight the handmaidens
of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth appear ready to be dispatched back into the
realms of scripture from which they were summoned forth in the last
century. However, recent scholarship has found and translated
the
original letter of the pope, filling in many blanks from standard
formulae found in other papal letters, which have largely been left out
in the first two extracts above.
Petition stating that since a detestable
custom has
developed in his land, whereby the son of the handmaiden was equally
heir with the son of the free woman and illegitimate sons obtained an
inheritance as if they were legitimate, Llywelyn has abolished this
custom, that was contrary to divine and human law, with the consent of
King Henry of England, as well as the authority of Archbishop Stephen
of Canterbury and Pandulf, bishop elect of Norwich and legate, and has
ordained that henceforth the canonical sanctions should be inviolably
followed in the aforesaid cases, issuing a statute whereby Dafydd, his
son by his legitimate wife Joan, daughter of the late king of England,
should succeed him by hereditary right in all his
possessions.
Llywelyn seeks confirmation of the statute by apostolic authority.
The above precis had been made from the following Latin text:
Nobili viro Lowelino domino
Norwallie. Cum a
nobis petitur... effectum. Sane tua petitio nobis exhibita
continebat quod cum quedam detestabilis consuetudo vel potius
corruptela inolevisset in terra tue ditioni subiecta, ut videlicet
filius ancille esset heres cum filio libere et illegitimi filii
hereditatem sicut legitimi obtinerent, tu karissimi in Cristo filii
nostri Henr regis Anglor illustris domini tui accedente consensu ac
etiam interveniente auctoritate venerablilis fratris nostri Stephani
Cantuarien archiepiscopi sancte Roman ecclesie cardinalis ac dilecti
filii Pandulfi Norwicen electi tunc in partibus illis legationis
officium exercentis consuetudinem seu corruptelam huiusmodi iuri divino
et humano contrariam abolere ac extirpare curasti, statuendo ut in
predictis casibus id decetero in prefata terra inviolabiliter
conservetur quod cautum est per canonicas et legitimas sanctiones,
secundum statutum huiusmodi ordinando ut David filius tuus quem ex
Iohanna filia clare memorie regis Anglie uxore tua legitima suscepisti
hereditario iure te succedat in omnibus bonis tuis; quare nobis
humiliter supplicasti ut predictum statum apostolico roborare munimine
dignaremur. Nos igitur iustis precibus tuis benignum
impertientes
assensum, statutum ipsum sicut provide factum est auctoritate
apostolica confirmanus communimus. Nulli ergo conffirmationis
infringere. Si quis autem... Dat' Alatri vii kal iunii anno
sexto.
A more literal translation of this would run:
To the nobleman Lord Llywelyn of North
Wales.
Bringing about from us the attached petition. Certainly your
petition to us showed that since some detestable custom or rather
corruption has developed in the land subject to your authority - as
evidently the son of the slave girl could be the heir together with the
son of the free woman and illegitimate sons could obtain the
inheritance just as the legitimate - you [Llywelyn] and your Lord
Henry, the illustrious king of the English, beloved sons of Christ,
have agreed in harmony and also furthermore with the intervening
authority of our beloved sons, our venerable brother Archbishop Stephen
of Canterbury, cardinal saint of the Roman church and also Pandulf the
elect of Norwich then in those parts as official legate in the
customary manner, or if the corruption of this sort contrary to divine
and human justice is to be abolished and rooted out in curing, it is
required to be established that in the preceding case it henceforth in
the before mentioned land inviolably will be followed that the
provisions of the law is by canonical and lawful ordinances, according
to the statute of this sort as composed [by you] that Dafydd your son,
who from Joan the daughter of Clementia and the king of England, your
legal wife, should succeed in receiving your inheritance by right in
all your possessions; wherefore from us you asked as a supplicant that
the preceding apostolic statute we might think worthy to strengthen by
this fortification. We therefore to your just prayers bestow
assent, the statute itself just as provident is made by the authority
of the apostolic See strongly fortified and confirmed.
Therefore
no one is to infringe on this confirmation. However if any
do.... Dated at Alatri the seventh calends of June in our
sixth
year.
This important document therefore indicates that even at this late date
Llywelyn was very interested in bolstering the lineage of his children
by his second marriage by further downgrading the legitimacy of his
children by his first wife. It also gives us the true name of
Princess Joan's mother, Clementia. This adds another
dimension to
the story of Prince Llywelyn's marriages, for this Clementia is easily
traceable in the records and she impacted appreciably on the politics
of the age (Fig.13).
Clementia was born before 1180, possibly in Fougères,
Brittany,
to William Fougeres (d.7 June 1187) and his wife, Agatha
Hommet.
Agatha was a granddaughter to the great Richard Humez Hommet (d.1181),
the seneschal of Normandy for Henry II. Her ancestry is
asserted
in a copy of a charter, probably of 1232, when the widowed Clementia
gave away her Lincolnshire lands of Freiston (Fotstun) and Bennington
(Benyngton) on the death of her husband, Earl Ranulf of
Chester.
In this she describes herself as Clemenciae filiae Willielmi de
Fugeres. Before 1193 she would seem to have presented Count
John
with an illegitimate daughter who was named after the king himself,
Johanna. Today this Johanna is better known as Princess Joan
or
in modern times, Siwan of Wales. Before 1199 Clementia had
married Alan Vitre of Dinan, for 1199 is the last possible year in
which she could have given birth to Gervaise Vitre of Dinan.
Before 1218 Gervaise married Juhel Mayenne and presented him with three
daughters before his death in battle in 1220. Gervaise lived
on
until after 23 December 1236. Another reason Clementia's
marriage
must have taken place before 1199 is that on 7 October 1200 she,
obviously as a widow, married the thirty year old Earl Ranulf
Blunderville of Chester. A copy of the charter by which her
brother, Geoffrey Fougeres, gave her away tells much of her
history. In this charter Geoffrey granted lands to Earl
Ranulf
together with his sister, Clementia. This included all the
lands
that she was given when she married Alan Dinan, which was all the land
the family held in the valley of Mortain (Moretoniae) and the manor of
Bennington (Belingtona) in England. This was currently held
by
William St John by the custom of England as he had received it as the
marriage portion of his wife, Olive, who was the mother of Clementia's
and Geoffrey's grandfather, Ralph Fougeres. Before the
witness
list came a confirmation of William Hommet, the constable of Normandy,
who swore that the gifts were legal. This William was
maternal
grandfather to Clementia and Geoffrey. A second charter made
on
the day of the wedding carried the seals of both Williams and Ranulf as
well as confirming the lineage of Clementia and her marriage to Alan
Dinan. There can be little doubt that the Queen Clementia of
Wales who died in 1252 was the same woman who was wife to Earl Ranulf
and Alan Dinan and mother of Princess Joan of Wales (d.1237).
From all this information it is possible to see that when Prince
Llywelyn married Johanna Plantagenet in April 1205, Earl Ranulf
(Fig.13) became his step father-in-law. It is also possible
that
he was already his brother-in-law, if Llywelyn had married Ranulf's
sister in 1192. Here we finally have the coming together of
Ranulf and Llywelyn in alliance and this explains much of their acting
in unison in the coming years. The Tewkesbury chronicler was
certainly aware of the relationship, for on the death of Princess Joan
in 1237. He wrote:
The Lady Johanna of Wales died, the wife
of Llywelyn, daughter of King John and Queen Clementia, 30 March.
Queen Clementia is a bit of an overstatement, but no doubt the scribe
who wrote the entry was aware that Clementia was the legitimised
consort of a king and the mother of a princess. The
ecclesiastical logic that as Joan was the legitimised daughter of King
John then Clementia must have been lawful wife and consequently was
queen dowager of England is therefore natural, if a little strange to
us today.
The knowledge that these events give to us makes much more sense of the
relationship between Earl Ranulf and Prince Llywelyn. It was
one
of father-in-law to son-in-law. This makes far more sense of
Llywelyn rushing to meet Ranulf when he returned from Crusade on 16
August 1220. It is just such a great pity that this scribe
never
finished the sentence he was writing about the affair. This
relationship explains why Earl Ranulf abandoned Cheshire's western
provinces in Wales so easily to Llywelyn. He did not abandon
them, he passed them on to his step-daughter and his
son-in-law.
There was no ‘conquest' of Tegeingl by Llywelyn, it became a
marriage portion and this is why the cantref was treated differently in
Llywelyn's 1211 treaty with King John. This treaty and
Tegeingl
will be examined later. Consequently, the harmony seen
between
the two is more easily explainable. Especially when it is
remembered that Ranulf was childless and therefore that Llywelyn, via
his wife, Johanna could be considered as an heir to his wife's
dower. Such a family bond tends to make a nonsense of the
suggestion that Ranulf ‘had a fellow-feeling for a great
territorial lord whose franchises were threatened by the activity of
the central government'. It also makes far more sense of the
contemporary statement that Ranulf was both family and friend to
Llywelyn. Family was the reason for their closeness, not
politics.
Clementia's daughter, Johanna Plantagenet, would appear to have been at
least forty years old at the time of her death in 1237, ie born before
1197. This age is suggested as the children she bore Llywelyn
were born from 1208 at the latest onwards. According to the
pope
it was against religion and custom for husbands and wives to indulge in
carnal relations before the girl had reached the age of
eleven.
This suggests, but does not prove, that Johanna was born before 1197 to
be at least eleven by that date. As her mother was married to
Alan Dinan before 1198 at the very latest and gave birth to his
daughter, Gervaise (d.1236) before 1199, it would suggest that Johanna
was born before 1198 at the very earliest to allow Clementia time to
give birth to her second daughter, Gervaise, by 1199.
Johanna's
marriage to Prince Llywelyn in 1205 would suggest she was a minimum of
eleven years old, again according to the pope's letter quoted above
concerning her predecessor as Llywelyn's wife, although the evidence
related above shows she was probably at least twelve. During
their married life Johanna presented Llywelyn with at least seven
children, Dafydd around 1213, Gwladys Ddu before 1208, Margaret before
1209, Angharad, Gwenlliam and Helen/Eleanor all before 1210 and
finally, after a suspiciously long gap, Susannah before 1228.
These tentative dates are based upon marriage dates or contemporary
mentions. It can therefore be seen that Johanna died quite
young,
being somewhat over forty years old, especially when considering the
age her mother reached. Clementia Fougeres died on 26
December
1252. She was aged at least 72. Little is recorded
of her
activities after her marriage to Earl Ranulf in 1200.
That the problem of succession was strong in Prince Llywelyn's mind is
obvious from the great lengths he went to strengthen his second
marriage. Indeed, on 29 April 1226, he, working in tandem
with
his nephew, King Henry III (1207-72), secured a papal dispensation
which legitimised his wife. The precis of this runs:
Dispensation to Joan wife of Prince
Llywelyn of
North Wales, declaring her legitimate, but without prejudice to the
king or realm of England. Mandate to the bishops of St
David's,
Bangor, and St Asaph, on the showing of Prince Llywelyn, that he, by
command of King Henry, caused an oath of fealty to be taken by the
great men of Wales to his eldest son David, to give counsel and help
that the oaths so taken be inviolably observed.
It would appear from this that Llywelyn did everything practical, after
he succeeded in having his first marriage annulled by the pope, to make
as sure as possible that his marriage to his second wife was as secure
as he could make it for the benefit of his youngest son, Dafydd ap
Llywelyn (d.1246). It has been argued that an oath of fealty
was
given to Dafydd in 1226 on his reaching fourteen years of
age. If
this is the case, Dafydd was born in March 1212, ie. about a month
before the pope's reply to Llywelyn's letter, when presumably the
ceremony of fealty took place. A week later, on 6 May 1226, a
papal bull was issued confirming Prince Llywelyn of North Wales in all
the liberties that King John had allowed him. It was at this
time
that Dafydd's half brother, Gruffydd, was granted a large share of
Powys. It is therefore possible that Dafydd's coming of age
was
recognised with Gruffydd being granted Powys as his
patrimony. It
should be remembered that Llywelyn's mother was Margery ferch Madog,
the daughter of the last king of a united Powys, Madog ap Maredudd
(d.1160). It is therefore quite possible that Llywelyn was
intending to substitute Gruffydd for the heirs of Gwenwynwyn as prince
of Powys. If this was his intention it failed within two
years
and Gruffydd was condemned to six years imprisonment by his
father. It is interesting to note that Gruffydd was
apparently
imprisoned in Degannwy castle immediately before the Ceri campaign of
1228. As Ceri was an area that had been under Gruffydd's
control
it is possible that Gruffydd's removal from southern Powys by his
father was another factor in having the king invade the commote, and
that just maybe the king was acting on behalf of his vassal, Gruffydd
ap Llywelyn, just as he would later claim to do in 1241. It
is to
be presumed that the six years of Gruffydd's imprisonment, which seems
to have begun early in the year and certainly before 26 September 1228
when Abbot William of Chester died, was used by Dafydd to tighten his
grip on Wales as the only legitimate heir to his father.
Another factor that has been generally overlooked in the affairs of
North Wales is the involvement of the kings of Man. King
Reginald
obviously wanted a good life for his daughter and seemed happy with her
marrying two princes who were vying for supremacy in North
Wales.
He certainly was intricately involved with Rhunallt's marriage to
Rhodri as he invaded Mon - unsuccessfully as it turned out - on the
strength of it. His dispute with Aberconwy abbey was quite
likely
due to Rhunallt's marriage portion having been granted to Aberconwy
abbey by Gruffydd ap Cynan after he had overwhelmed Rhodri in
Mon. The dower was probably made in June 1192 when Rhodri
took
Rhunallt as his wife. What Reginald thought of Llywelyn's
marriage to his daughter after the prince had helped hound Rhodri to
his death is unknown, although he obviously consented in it as she had
been left under his care in Man when Rhodri had returned to
Wales. Further, the bishop of Man being appointed to oversee
the
cause of the marriage in 1199 would suggest that he was still
favourable to it at that date. The pope's later comments
would
also support that view. Finally in 1205, a series of royal
documents concerning the king of Man throw more light upon the affair.
On 8 February 1205, when Prince Llywelyn had set aside Rhunallt, but
had yet to marry Joan Plantagenet, King John, while at Woodstock, took
Reginald under his personal protection.
King John undertakes the protection of
King Reginald of Man.
Know that we have accepted our beloved
kinsman, King
Reginald of Man, into our safe-keeping, protection and legal
maintenance and all his lands and his men. And we prohibit
anyone, to inflict injury upon, or annoyance on the same, because if
any should make forfeit against him, this fact will be reflected upon
by us.
That this was happening exactly when Llywelyn was finalising his
wedding plans with John's daughter is too apparent a coincidence to
overlook. It would appear that the king was ensuring that
Reginald would not be vexed or suffer undue loss caused by the
annulment. On the same day, one year later at Salisbury, the
king
issued a safe conduct for his ‘beloved and faithful relation,
King Reginald of the Isles' in coming to see him over Easter.
Even the phraseology of this demands comment. In what way was
King John related to King Reginald IV of Man? Strictly
speaking,
he was his half second cousin once removed, via his great grandmother
being an illegitimate daughter of King Henry I, King John's great
grandfather. If this was not the family so obliquely being
alluded to in John's letters, then it seems more likely the immediate
link of King John and King Reginald with Prince Llywelyn via his first
wife is the answer, though neither suggestion can be directly proved.
It is not possible to state what the two kings discussed, but John's
attitude is interesting in that he accepted Reginald as a king, but
only ever referred to Llywelyn as prince. It is entirely
possible
that Reginald's continuing dealings with King John may have been due to
his interest in otherwise unknown lands in Mon, held as the dower of
Rhunallt. Certainly it is possible to speculate that Reginald
took Llywelyn's side in the Welsh war of 1210-11 and 1212-17.
Two
records support this assumption. On 16 March 1212, King
Reginald
of Man became a liege man of King John, after John seems to have
acquired military control of Man during his Irish campaign of
1211. With Llywelyn having been brought soundly to heel in
August
1211 this seems a natural move to confirm John's power in the Irish
Sea. The notification of the agreement also shows John's sly
sense of humour, considering his struggle with the pope at this time.
Greetings to all faithful Christians and
King Reginald of the Isles, I present a charter for inspection.
Know that he has come to be the liege
man of the
lord King John of England against all mortals as long as I live, and
the same thereupon tenders faithfulness and an oath of
allegiance. And in this thing I therefore make this charter
thereupon. Witnessed Bishop Peter of Winchester, Earl W of
Salisbury, Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter of Essex, Earl Saer of Winchester,
William Briwere and Warin Fitz Gerold at Lambeth.
If this was the king's method of binding Llywelyn's ex-father-in-law to
him, the process failed as Reginald subsequently joined in the Welsh
revolt. This can be seen by a letter of the regent to the
king of
16 January 1218. In this Earl William Marshall states:
The king of the Isles has letters of
conduct to come
to the king to pay his homage to the same & for the excesses
made
by his men against the lord king, as much in England is in Ireland, by
the men of his land, & in staying and in returning.
And the
conduct will endure up to 15 days after Easter in the second year of
the reign of King Henry, witnessed by the earl at Winchester.
And
the justiciar of Ireland is ordered not to interfere, or permit
molestation to occur, or any unjust injury or inconvenience to the said
king, or his men, or the lands of the said king of the Isles.
Quite evidently the king of the Isles had been at war with the king of
England before this point. The obvious time for his rebellion
was
in the period leading up to Magna Carta. Unfortunately, of
Reginald's actions and the status of his daughter at this time there is
no further mention. Although this is the last time that
Reginald
seems to have been recorded in possible dealings with Wales, his family
involvement with Llywelyn appears one more time, much later in
1241. This will be considered in a later Chapter, Aberconwy
Abbey
During the Wars of Prince Dafydd, 1240 to 1246.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the artificially created
‘evidence' that Llywelyn did not have a first wife coloured
the
opinions of the editors of the nineteenth century papal registers, thus
reinforcing a recent invention at the cost of real history.
Once
more ‘the infallible bards' who recorded history accurately
down
through the generations until they could be written down in the
sixteenth century can be seen to have the historical strength of
nothing more than wishful thinking. The damage done to
medieval
history by ‘bards' and ‘heralds' from the
Renaissance
onwards concocting family trees and ‘history' may possibly
never
be undone. As if such invention were not bad enough, a quick
search of the Internet shows that modern ‘bards' have given
the
fictional (and male) Tangwystl a birth date of c.1168 in Denbighshire
and a death date of 30 March 1226 in Caernarfonshire. Such
dates
are totally fantastic - even more so when you consider that there were
no shires in North Wales other than Cheshire and Shropshire before
1284! Mind you, this does contradict that historically woeful
source, Wikipedia, which gleefully speculates that Tangwystl had
obviously died in childbirth as she is heard of no more.
Certainly that is a useful way to dispose of the awkward fact of the
lady's non existence in contemporary records.
This is one chapter out of the book: The Aberconwy Register and
Aberconwy Abbey
Copyright©2019
Paul Martin Remfry