Discussion:
Llywelyn ap Iorwerth - new book
(too old to reply)
a***@googlemail.com
2019-07-07 12:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Here is a link to a sample chapter of a new book by Paul Martin Remfry, "The Aberconwy Register and Aberconwy Abbey", which can be read on google books. He makes deductions about the marriages of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth and the identity of his wife Princess Joan's parents.

Does his research stand up to examination?

Alan Jones
a***@googlemail.com
2019-07-07 12:39:16 UTC
Permalink
The link is

http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/Llywelynmarriage.html
taf
2019-07-07 15:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@googlemail.com
The link is
http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/Llywelynmarriage.html
Link isn't working for me.
taf
2019-07-07 15:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by a***@googlemail.com
The link is
http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/Llywelynmarriage.html
Link isn't working for me.
And now it is.
taf
2019-07-07 15:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
Post by a***@googlemail.com
The link is
http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/Llywelynmarriage.html
Link isn't working for me.
And now it is.
The first sentence on the page says there is a copy with footnotes on Academia. That would be here:

https://www.academia.edu/36293161/Llywelyns_marriage.pdf

The same author has an article there on the Mortimers, which may interest some here,

https://www.academia.edu/883047/THE_EARLY_MORTIMERS_OF_WIGMORE_1066_TO_1181

taf
c***@gmail.com
2019-07-07 19:31:45 UTC
Permalink
I'm not familiar with Mr. Remfry or his work. I can say my fellow historians often make terrible genealogists. So I always hold my breath when I read what a historian has written in context of family history.

Having said that, Mr. Remfry's article has several problems. He makes a variety of statements, many of which can be shown to be false or likely wrong.

In order to buttress one of his theories, for instance, he renders the Latin phrase "cl. mem." [i.e., clare memorie] as the given name "Clementia."

That's just plain weird.

If I was editing his article, I would have ripped out several sections and replaced them with factual and logic based deductions. Unfortunately I was not his editor.

Among other things, I note that Mr. Remfry advances the theory that the mother of King John's illegitimate daughter, Joan, was Clemence de Fougères [died 1252], wife successively of Alain de Vitré (or Dinan) (died 1198), seigneur of Dinan, and Ranulph, Earl of Chester (died 1232), and daughter of Guillaume de Fougères, seigneur of Fougères.

He states at one point: "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)." END OF QUOTE.

However, there was never a woman such as Queen Clementia of Wales and certainly none that died in 1252! At best Mr. Remfry is guessing that Joan's mother was Clemence de Fougères. I currently consider Joan's mother's identity unproven.

Elsewhere Mr. Renfry states without any documentation that Clemence de Fougères died 26 December 1252. It is certain that this lady was living on 29 April 1251, when William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, was granted respite the demand for 20 marks, at which he was amerced in an assize of darrein presentment lately taken between him and Clemence, Countess of Chester, concerning the advowson of Hartington, Derbyshire [Reference: Henry III Fine Rolls Project, 35/505 (available at www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_033.html)].

The following four records prove, however, that Clemence, Countess of Chester, died testate shortly before 6 August 1252. As such, she was already cold and long in her grave on 26 December 1252.

(1) On 6 August 1252 the king gave mandate to the queen and Richard, Earl of Cornwall, "so soon as a partition has been made amongst the parceners of the lands late of Clemence, countess of Chester, of the lands which fall to Henry de Hastinges, who is in the king's ward ward, to cause to be assigned to William de Sancto Ermino, king’s knight, £40 yearly of land ..." [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 220].

(2) On 27 August 1252 the king ordered his escheator in Nottinghamshire to take into the king’s hand all lands formerly of Clemence, countess of Chester in his bailiwick and to keep them safely until the king orders otherwise [Reference: Henry III Fine Rolls Project, 36/1031 (available at www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_033.html)].

(3) On 29 August 1252 the king mandated that the Abbot of Pershore, the king's escheator, take sufficient security from the executors of the will of the late Clemence, Countess of Derby, for the payment of debts. [Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls 1251–1253 (1927): 151].

(4) On 27 Nov. 1252 the king appointed Baldwin de Paunton and Walter de Bereford to extend the manor of Repindon [Repton], Derbyshire, with all other lands which she held in dower of the inheritance of Randolf, Earl of Chester [Reference: Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 224].

If Mr. Remfry is unable to get his basic historical facts correct, then his genealogical assumptions are necessarily all thrown into serious doubt.

If he was my student, I'd give him a D on his paper and tell him to go back and research it better and revise it extensively.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2019-07-08 02:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
I'm not familiar with Mr. Remfry or his work. I can say my fellow historians often make terrible genealogists. So I always hold my breath when I read what a historian has written in context of family history.
Having said that, Mr. Remfry's article has several problems. He makes a variety of statements, many of which can be shown to be false or likely wrong.
In order to buttress one of his theories, for instance, he renders the Latin phrase "cl. mem." [i.e., clare memorie] as the given name "Clementia."
That's just plain weird.
It is weird that he has cited the text of the papal letter in *Acts of
the Welsh Rulers 1120-1283*, pp. 414-4166 (here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4E2uBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA415) where "clare
memorie" is correctly given, and then has preferred to quote from an
edition of Honorius III's regesta where this is abbreviated (here, p. 73
no. 3996:
https://archive.org/details/RegestaHonoriiPapaeIIIIvssvEtMvnif/page/n85).

His books appear to be self-published, that is hardly surprising.

<snip>
Post by c***@gmail.com
Elsewhere Mr. Renfry states without any documentation that Clemence de Fougères died 26 December 1252. It is certain that this lady was living on 29 April 1251, when William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby, was granted respite the demand for 20 marks, at which he was amerced in an assize of darrein presentment lately taken between him and Clemence, Countess of Chester, concerning the advowson of Hartington, Derbyshire [Reference: Henry III Fine Rolls Project, 35/505 (available at www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_033.html)].
The following four records prove, however, that Clemence, Countess of Chester, died testate shortly before 6 August 1252. As such, she was already cold and long in her grave on 26 December 1252.
He was probably relying, directly or otherwise, on the annals of Burton
where she is said to have died after Christmas in 1252 (see here, p.
305: https://archive.org/details/annalesmonastici01luar/page/305).

Note that his surname is Remfry, not Renfry. To quote someone else who
ought to know better, "You just have to be careful".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-07-08 04:00:37 UTC
Permalink
On 08-Jul-19 5:31 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by c***@gmail.com
The following four records prove, however, that Clemence, Countess of Chester, died testate shortly before 6 August 1252. As such, she was already cold and long in her grave on 26 December 1252.
(1) On 6 August 1252 the king gave mandate to the queen and Richard, Earl of Cornwall, "so soon as a partition has been made amongst the parceners of the lands late of Clemence, countess of Chester, of the lands which fall to Henry de Hastinges, who is in the king's ward ward, to cause to be assigned to William de Sancto Ermino, king’s knight, £40 yearly of land ..." [Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 220].
This record is dated 6 August 1253, not 1252.
Post by c***@gmail.com
(2) On 27 August 1252 the king ordered his escheator in Nottinghamshire to take into the king’s hand all lands formerly of Clemence, countess of Chester in his bailiwick and to keep them safely until the king orders otherwise [Reference: Henry III Fine Rolls Project, 36/1031 (available at www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_033.html)].
(3) On 29 August 1252 the king mandated that the Abbot of Pershore, the king's escheator, take sufficient security from the executors of the will of the late Clemence, Countess of Derby, for the payment of debts. [Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls 1251–1253 (1927): 151].
(4) On 27 Nov. 1252 the king appointed Baldwin de Paunton and Walter de Bereford to extend the manor of Repindon [Repton], Derbyshire, with all other lands which she held in dower of the inheritance of Randolf, Earl of Chester [Reference: Reference: Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 224].
The last three records are from 1252 - the annalist of Burton who placed
Clementia's death after Christmas in that year may have been making or
copying a scribal error, writing 'post natale Domini' instead of 'post
natale s. Johannis' (i.e. after 24 June, the nativity of John the Baptist).

Peter Stewart

taf
2019-07-07 15:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@googlemail.com
Here is a link to a sample chapter of a new book by Paul Martin Remfry, "The Aberconwy Register and Aberconwy Abbey", which can be read on google books. He makes deductions about the marriages of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth and the identity of his wife Princess Joan's parents.
Does his research stand up to examination?
I am still working my way through it, but at least one thing he says seems to fall short.

He dates the first marriage of Llywelyn, then concludes based on nothing but this date that Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was son of this marriage. He then launches into an attack on Wikipedia (what is the point in a scholar doing this?) for saying that Gruffydd was son of Llywelyn's mistress, Tangwystl Goch of Rhos, as if Wikipedia is the original source for that claim rather than it being part of the longstanding body of Welsh genealogical tradition. It is fine to question this body of tradition, but diminishing it simply because it appears on Wikipedia shows either a lack of sufficient familiarity with the genealogical tradition, or is an exercise high-school debate point-scoring in place of scholarship.

He goes on to say that it is clear from the evidence that no mistress of Llywellyn was known, but this is a classic case of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The documents he is citing would not necessarily be expected to have referred to a mistress, being focused entirely in the minutiae of whether his first marriage should have occurred (said by the genealogical tradition to have been a slave).

His argument that Joan's mother is identical to Clementia de Fouguers is curious, but entirely circumstantial, based on what he reads into the interaction between the husband of the latter, the Earl of Chaster, and Llywellyn.

taf
taf
2019-07-07 16:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
He goes on to say that it is clear from the evidence that no mistress of Llywellyn was known, but this is a classic case of absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The documents he is citing would not necessarily be expected to have referred to a mistress, being focused entirely in the minutiae of whether his first marriage should have occurred (said by the genealogical tradition to have been a slave).
I garbled this in expressing it - the parenthetical refers to the supposed mistress, not to the marriage. It is unclear the documents he was citing would deign to reference that Llewellyn had a mistress, said to have been a slave.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-07-07 17:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
His argument that Joan's mother is identical to Clementia de Fouguers is curious, but entirely circumstantial, based on what he reads into the interaction between the husband of the latter, the Earl of Chaster, and Llywellyn.
I agree with Todd. I would also say the organization here is very poor for lack of a qualified editor which makes even understanding the arguments a bit more difficult. Instead of an impartial voice, the author chooses at times to assign feelings, e.g. "gleeful" to wikipedia entries, as if somehow he can make his argument stronger by denigrating what Phil in Accounting added to wikipedia yesterday. I am a bit turned off by how much he overstates the evidence rather than spending more time reviewing what previous academics have read into the evidence and why. He is exploring a thousand year old issue that has been well studied, so it is offputting to confidently disregard the whole lot of that research, rather than presenting it as a new starting point.
--Joe c
taf
2019-07-07 19:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I would also say the organization here is very poor for
lack of a qualified editor which makes even understanding the arguments a
bit more difficult.
On at least two instances he stated a conclusion as established fact, only to make the argument that (he thinks) establishes it pages later.
Post by j***@gmail.com
Instead of an impartial voice, the author chooses at times to assign
feelings, e.g. "gleeful" to wikipedia entries, as if somehow he can make
his argument stronger by denigrating what Phil in Accounting added to
wikipedia yesterday.
Particularly when the information to which he is referring is also what all of the accounts of the family published in the last few centuries say - he basically suggesting that Wikipedia gives a retrospective taint to any source material it uses.

He also rides a hobby horse (or beats a dead one) repeatedly, having in another part of his tome on Llywellyn concluded that Llywellyn Fawr is not the same as Llywellyn ap Iorwerth, he goes out of his way to inject mention of this conclusion into the discussion of the genealogy, where it provides no information relevant to the genealogy he is discussing, simply being self-congratulation, reminding people that he knows the truth and everyone else is wrong.
Post by j***@gmail.com
I am a bit turned off by how much he overstates the evidence rather than
spending more time reviewing what previous academics have read into the
evidence and why. He is exploring a thousand year old issue that has been
well studied, so it is offputting to confidently disregard the whole lot of
that research, rather than presenting it as a new starting point.
Sometimes there is a benefit to setting aside all of the older work with its layers of historiographical tradition and starting from scratch using the primary documentation, but one doesn't completely brush off what equally qualified and knowledgeable scholars have previously concluded simply by saying they were wrong and you know better.

The way he presented the Clementia de Fouguers portion, simply taking it for granted that they were the same, I couldn't even tell if the identity of the two woman was his own conclusion or one that had previously been suggested. When he said that Clemencia de Fouguers, Countess of Chester was certainly the same as the "Queen Clemencia of Wales who died in 1252", he was completely bungling his own argument, mixing together the two identities - specifically, it was the countess who died in 1252, only also the woman mentioned as Queen in a Welsh document (not 'of Wales') if the argument for identity he was making was true. By saying the 'Queen of Wales' died in 1252, he is begging the question.

Of course, these are stylistic criticisms. We can all draw our own conclusions from the evidence itself as to how likely his conclusions are.

taf
Loading...