Gwladus verch Gruffydd - Issue of the mother of Gwladys ferch Gruffudd

Private User, thanks for a wonderful history lesson of some of my ancestors. Gruffydd ap Rhys is my 23rd grandfather and I'm enjoying information you share. It is on a line of my family that my father said "had their own words." When I first started this journey, I learned after just a few months why that might be the truth in rural areas of America specifically. I think much has been talked about Irish and Scottish dialects as pockets in various regions, but no one ever mentions Welsh. Yet, it is the most different. I think it deserves a study for sure there are pockets in places or were.

On another note, let's hope we all have the courage to be a daughter of Gwenllian.

Indeed!

Cawley doesn't seem to have found sources (yet?) for her mother either:

GRUFFYDD ap Rhys, son of RHYS ap Tewdr King of Deheubarth & his wife Gwladus --- ([1090]-murdered 1137). The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Gruffudd son of Rhys son of Tewdwr, king of South Wales, came from Ireland to Dyved…returned to his patrimony" in 1112 adding that he "passed about two years, sometimes with Gerald steward of Pembroke Castle, his brother-in-law who had married his sister Nest…"[497]. The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Rhys son of Tewdwr began to reign" in 1077[498]. Gerald of Wales´s Descriptio Kambriæ names “descendientes...a Theodoro...Resus filius Theodori, Griphinus filius Resi, et Resus filius Griphini qui hodie praest” as successive rulers in South Wales[499]. Florence of Worcester records that "Griffinus filius Res" plundered castles in Wales in 1116 in protest at Henry I King of England not allowing him to inherit part of his father's territories[500]. He succeeded in 1135 as King of Deheubarth. The Continuator of Florence of Worcester records that "rex Waliee Griffinus filius Res" was murdered in [1137][501]. The Annales Cambriæ record the death in 1137 of "Grifinus Resi filius"[502]. The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Gruffudd son of Rhys" died in 1136[503].

m (after 1116) GWENLLIAN of Gwynedd, daughter of GRUFFYDD ap Cynan King of Gwynedd & his wife Angharad of Deheubarth (-1136). The 13th century History of Gruffydd ap Cynan names "Gwenlliant and Margaret and Rhannillt and Susanna and Annest" as the daughters of Gruffydd ap Cynan by his wife[504]. [The Gwentian Chronicle names "Gwenllian daughter of Grufudd son of Cynan" as the mother of "Rhys" son of "Grufudd son of Rhys"[505].] Her parentage and marriage are confirmed by the Chronicle of the Princes of Wales which names "Rhys son of Gruffudd" and "his uncle Owain Gwynedd" in 1155[506].

King Gruffydd & his wife had two children:

1. MAREDUDD ([1130/31]-1157). He succeeded his half-brother in 1153 as joint King of Deheubarth, jointly with his brother. The Annales Cambriæ record that "Maredut filius Grifini" was killed in 1156[507]. The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Maredudd son of Gruffudd son of Rhys, the king of Ceredigion and the Vale of Tywi and Dyved" died aged 25 in 1154[508]. m ---. The name of Maredudd´s wife is not known. Maredudd & his wife had one child:

a) daughter . The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records the birth in 1172 of "Meurug son of the lord Rhys son of Gruffudd, of the daughter of Maredudd son of Gruffudd, his niece, the daughter of his brother"[509]. She was mistress ([1171/72]) of her uncle, RHYS ap Gruffydd, son of GRUFFYD ap Rhys King of Deheubarth & his wife Gwenllian of Gwynedd ([1132]-28 Apr 1197, bur St David's).

2. RHYS ([1132]-1197). [The Gwentian Chronicle names "Gwenllian daughter of Grufudd son of Cynan" as the mother of "Rhys" son of "Grufudd son of Rhys"[510].] He succeeded his half-brother in 1153 as King of Deheubarth, jointly with his brother.

- see below.

King Gruffydd had four illegitimate children by unknown mistresses:

3. ANARAWD (-1143). He succeeded his father in 1137 as King of Deheubarth. The Annales Cambriæ record that "Anaraut filius Grifini" was killed in 1143 "a familiaribus Cadwaladri"[511]. m (1142) ---, daughter of CADWALADR ap Gruffydd & his [first wife ---]. [The Gwentian Chronicle records that "Anarawd son of Gruffudd son of Rhys…was married to the daughter of Cadwaladr [son of Grufudd son of Cynan] against the inclination of Cawaladr" in 1142, after which "Cadwaladr stabbed Anarawd in the ribs so that he died"[512].]

4. CADELL (-1175, bur Strata Florida). He succeeded his brother in 1143 as King of Deheubarth. He abdicated in 1153. The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Cadell son of Gruffudd died of a severe disease and was buried in Strata Florida, after taking the religious habit" in 1175[513].

5. GWLADUS . Her parentage and both marriages are confirmed by the Chronicle of the Princes of Wales which records that "the lord Rhys son of Gruffudd" met King Henry II at Gloucester 25 Jul 1175, taking with him "…Morgan son of Caradog son of Iestin by his sister Gwladus, of Glamorgan… and Seisyll son of Dyvnwal of Gwent Uchcoed, the man who was then married to Gwladus sister of the lord Rhys"[514]. m firstly CARADOG ap Iestyn of Morganwg . m secondly SEISYLL ap Dyfnwal of Gwent Uchcoed (-killed Abergavenny 1175). The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales records that "Seisyll son of Dyvnwal was slain, through the treachery of the lord of Brecheiniog, in the castle of Abergavenny, and with him Gruffudd his son and many of the chieftains of Gwent" in 1175[515].

6. NEST . Her parentage and marriage are confirmed by the Chronicle of the Princes of Wales which records that "the lord Rhys son of Gruffudd" met King Henry II at Gloucester 25 Jul 1175, taking with him "…Gruffudd son of Ivor, son of Meurug, of Senghenydd, his nephew by his sister Nest…"[516]. m IFOR ap Meurug of Senghenydd.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/WALES.htm

Cawley’s note takes you to the first MS I mention, one of the versions of the Chronicle of Princes.

Yes. That's why I added it.

Sorry - being helpful :-)

Thanks!

I was thinking further about the problems with various versions of the word meaning "sister" in early manuscripts, and I remembered the story that William AEthling had died, in the White Ship Disaster, trying to save his half sister Matilda. (Probably not, but it's a great story.)

So I went looking for the transcriptions of the MS versions of it -- this morning I can only find translations, not transcriptions of the Latin, darn it.

BUT it's clear even in the translations that she is called his "sister."

William of Malmesbury, working withmostly with Ordericus Vitalis, calls her William's illegitimate sister at one point, but then at another simply calls her his sister:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50778/50778-h/50778-h.htm (scroll down to 1116)

But Ordericus Vitalis calls her only his sister: https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalhi04ordeuoft/page/40

It's an ambiguous word.

Update -- Having gone through the histories, and the MS evidence, I've ironed out things to the best of our knowledge at this time.

Gruffydd ap Rhys had children before he married Gwenllian ferch Gruffudd, but we do not know who their mother was.

He also had children after his marriage to Gwenllian, who were not hers.

Gwenllian had named children; others of the later children might have been hers, but we don't know.

Lloyd's Welsh History (which, oddly, is the source for Gwenllian's section in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, which gives Gwladys as Gwenllian's daughter) specifically says that Gwladys is not Gwenllian's child -- https://archive.org/details/historyofwalesfr02lloyuoft/page/766

Not an easy tangle to tease out.

We have, at this writing, three partners for Gruffudd ap Rhys -- an early one, who might have been a wife or might not; he was in Ireland at this time, and the mother of the children he had is not named -- Gwenllian, whose sons are named in the manuscripts -- and then an Unknown partner, who of course might be more than one woman, who is the mother of some of the children he had after he had come back to Wales.

The statement, "He also had children after his marriage to Gwenllian, who were not hers" is completely false. Gruffydd ap Rhys died in 1137. There is no evidence that he had any children after his marriage to Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd (died 1136), because Gruffydd ap Rhys was married to Gwenllian from circa 1113 to 1136. Furthermore, the most authoritative Welsh scholars and academics have stated that Gwladus ferch Gruffydd was born between 1120 and 1130.

The children borne to Gruffydd ap Rhys from 1116 to 1134 were most assuredly those of Gwenllian. If a child was born after 1137, then this child was probably from a mistress after Gwenllian died. But due to the fact that Gurffydd ap Rhys died within a year after Gwenllian, it is unlikely he fathered any children after her death.

Lloyd's Welsh History does not specifically state that Gwladus was not the daughter of Gwenllian. There is a line over Maredudd and Rhys which says, "by Gwenllian," obviously separating them from the other two known sons of Gruffydd ap Rhys by a marriage prior to his 1113 marriage to Gwenllian. Of note, Morgan ap Gruffydd (b. 1116), is not included in this pedigree, who was another son of Gwenllian by Gruffydd ap Rhys.

Professor Thomas Jones Pierce specifically states in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography that Gwladus was the daughter of Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd. Professor Pierce was a careful researcher and a much better genealogical historian and authority on medieval Welsh families than Cawley is in his Medieval Lands!!!!

Competent and highly respected researchers, historians, and genealogists have all commented extensively on the unreliability of Cawley's Medieval Lands. Don't take my word for it, this has been discussed to death on genealogical websites such as SGM.

It may be that Lloyd is delineating two of Gwenllian's sons -- but not all of them -- from two of Gruffudd's sons who weren't hers, and ignoring the daughters, whom we are supposed to read as hers, though the bracket doesn't stretch that far, but it's an odd way of reading that genealogical chart, and not the usual. If he meant to include Gwladys, he could have stretched the brackets, since the brackets are labeled "by Gwenllian."

Not only does he not mention Gwladys as a daughter of Gwenllian, he points the reader, in his note, specifically to a manuscript, to see information on Gwenllian's children. And the manuscript does not mention Gwladys.

Thomas Jones Pierce cites Lloyd, and Lloyd alone, so that argument is circular.

I gather that your main argument is that Gwladys could not be a daughter of Gruffudd after his marriage to Gwenllian, because he was married and would not have been having other children?

That was not, apparently, an important consideration among the medieval Welsh. We have an enormous amount of evidence that Welsh men (and some women, though not to as great a degree) had children by women not their wives while they were married. This might be an important consideration for other times and other cultures, but not that one.

Some examples:

Gruffudd's son Rhys: Rhys ap Gruffudd, Prince of South Wales

Llewelyn the Great -- Llewelyn "The Great" ap Iorwerth, King of Gwynedd, Prince of Wales

Madog ap Maredudd, Brenin Powys

Owain Glyndwr ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales

What we need here would be primary evidence as to Gwladys's mother -- if there is a manuscript that states that Gwenllian is her mother, that would be excellent.

But without it, the issue remains a matter of speculation. And since the manuscript evidence, as it stands at the moment, does not list her as one of Gwenllian's children, that's where we are so far.

You can speculate that Lloyd is delineating two of Gwenllian's sons. I have no idea why he didn't extend the bracket over any of the daughters,when Professor Pierce probably found evidence to confirm Gwladus' parentage.

You said that Gruffydd ap Rhys had children after his marriage to Gwenllian. This is highly unlikely and probably did not happen as per the reasons I previously mentioned. I did not say that Gwladus was born after Gwenllian died, which would obviously make her the daughter of one of Gruffydd's mistresses. I also did not say that Gruffydd did not have children or daughters from mistresses during the time he was married to Gwenllian.

I also never said that Welsh men didn't have children by mistresses when they were married to other women. Gruffydd ap Rhys is no exception amongst the aristocratic ranks of princely Welsh families. You do not have to cite the various Princes, they are well documented, mind you.

The point being, is that Professor Pierce found some evidence to conclude that Gwladus was the daughter of Gwenllian. What this evidence is or was, we can't necessarily ask him because he is deceased. Either way, most Welsh researchers and authors who write about Gwenllian cite Gwladus as having been her daughter.

Furthermore, most of the online National Welsh biographies cite Lloyd's work, as Lloyd was a major contributor to most of these bios. That's why other authors of the bios cite Lloyd.

I'm confident that something Professor Pierce found formed his conclusion to assert that Gwenllian was the mother of as least one of Gruffydd ap Rhys' daughters and included that daughter in Gwenllian's Dictionary of Welsh biography.

So no, my argument isn't circular and obviously you have not seen all the evidence that is related to this family. At least to the point to discredit or discount Professor Pierce's assertions. That's the point I'm making. You can continue to speculate on Geni.com, that's your prerogative. You should also know that not all manuscripts are of the same quality of evidence.

That's where we are at.

If Professor Pierce found evidence as to Gwenllian being Gwladys's mother, he didn't cite it in the entry for the National Welsh Biography.

But if it's there, then it's findable.

At this point, we need primary evidence.

Private User said "I'm confident that something Professor Pierce..."

This is not evidence based genealogy, this is speculation. I encourage you to speculate and theorise and keep searching and discussing your findings but because Geni is a shared tree profile connections should only be made when there is actual evidence to support them.

Alex Moes said, "This is not evidence based genealogy." You are hilarious! I can run through a gambit of Geni profiles that are nothing but speculative presumptions based on zero evidence.

Professor Pierce is regarded as a quality secondary source. There isn't a hint of speculative genealogy when it comes to citing a biography written by a reputable source in the Welsh National Biographical series, regardless of what one Geni profile manager assumes or doesn't assume the actual evidence says or what she believes is fact from a pedigree in J. E. Lloyd.

So, with all due respect, your notion about primary sources and evidence-based genealogy is bunk here, especially when the medieval Welsh profiles on Geni are riddled with errors and inaccurate information.

Thank you.

Private User With all due respect, I have been on Geni for just a few years. Thankfully, I have found some relatives who have been on here, created profiles and provided a rudimentary structure for some of us to follow. Thankfully also, they will collaborate with many of us who wander in this amazing site by chance.

I just finished a real phone conversation with a relative that I would not have known without Geni a few months ago. We are third cousins. That is pretty close to me. I did not know she was just a few miles away until a few months ago. Her parents came from Finland like my grandparents did.

I get the issue of "evidence based genealogy" and that we are all trying to find it. I cannot tell you how much I have learned and been humbled on this site tonight. We all are here for the purpose of finding the truth as we can find it. There is no hilarious display that I see. It is all about finding the truth. The real truth.

Sometimes we have to back off of what we have been told as it was a myth. I am not a descendent of Pocahontas. No matter what Uncle Elbert said. But I might be a descendent of some other Native American who was a real freedom fighter of some war or other. It is the truth we are after and that is why I am on Geni.

Genealogy is an art and science. You have to think and find real opportunities for unearthing something profound. We are here to find out who we are. No more. That is enough. That is everything.

Susanne Floyd that is just wonderfully written and so true.

Keri Denise Jackson, ♊ Twin "A", You have been my guiding light to make a path. I found a grave mistake today and am humbled. Sometimes, we just have to find a place to find a space. This it is it. This is where truth should meet the road. I am thankful I am here.

Ms. Gunter, I applaud you for finding a long lost relative; however, it has no relevance to this thread. If you believe that you are descended from Pocahontas, I'm sure there is a Geni profile manager out there who will help you in that quest.

Back to the matter at hand! For those of you who do not believe that The Dictionary of Welsh Biography (DWB) is a reliable or credible source to reference for genealogical purposes, please take a moment to read the following statement from the National Library of Wales:

"The DWB is a comprehensive, "authoritative" and accessible standard academic
reference work intended for users of all backgrounds."

Yes, this authoritative premise applies even to Professor Pierce and his biographical article on Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd (died 1136) and the names of her children. In the absence of complete manuscripts, conflicting manuscripts, or contradictory information, a good researcher like Professor Pierce can drill down to the most likely historical fact by analyzing not just primary documents, but circumstantial evidence as well. The DWB articles are considered quality academic sources, which is attested to by its editors.

No, Private User, I do not believe that I am descended from Pocahontas, but I do know that I am descended from the profiles in question on this thread. I would not be responding otherwise.

Bear in mind that FLOYD is very Welsh.

Kelly,

I have made no comments about professor Pierce, the assumption I am referring to is made by yourself.

There are indeed thousands of profiles on Geni which lack any sources, that however is a strawman argument as those thousands of profiles are not the profiles we are looking at on this thread.

Susanne has learnt via evidenced based genealogy that she is not descendant from Pocahontas, she is not trying to regain some sort of connection but has learnt that reality is far more important than fantasy. Her post is quite clear and your misinterpretation of it is quite surprising (unless it is a deliberate attempt to distract from her point).

Anne Brannen is a professor of medieval history with a particular interest in Welsh genealogy, she is not obstructing you due to a lack of understanding of the nuances of Welsh history or how Geni works, she is the driving force behind the accuracy and reliability of Geni's historical tree in this portion. If some portion has not yet been built up to your standard that is because the tree is huge and the number of people working on it is small.

Thank you, Alex Moes. No more needs to be said. You said it all, in my humble opinion - and yes, I mean that. We wander through many roads in genealogical research, but it needs to be about truth. Finding the truth - whatever it is, no matter how painful and it is sometimes I know as a daughter of the South.

Mr. Moes, I'm sorry to say but you are grossly and falsely misrepresenting what I said. I'm happy for Ms. Gunter and what she has found out about her Welsh family. I hate to tell both of you, but Geni profiles are notoriously suspect. That is not my assertion but the factual statements made by competent and highly regarded historians and genealogists. I'm just bringing to light those issues, particularly with some medieval Welsh profiles in this instance.

Now, Mr. Moes, can we get back to this profile? The DWB is not a fictional Welsh compilation for kids. It is a real academic source and related to the Welsh profile in question. The fact that many Geni profiles are error-filled is not a strawman argument, but fact, and is a point directly related to this Welsh woman's profile. That's a fact, not fantasy, Mr. Moes, no matter how great of a historian you claim Anne Brannen to be
or whatever statement you make to distract from that point. For your information, I privately emailed Anne Brannen and asked her to remove several children from Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd's Geni profile, as there was a true consensus of them being falsely attributed to Gwenllian. Anne Brannen did as such. I don't see why she wouldn't acknowledge that if you cared to ask her.

If you want to compare Anne Brannen's expertise to Professor Pierce's on medieval Welsh history, and in particular this medieval Welsh woman, then please present your case! You conveniently interjected your opinion in this discussion, so please tell me how she is more of an authority on medieval Welsh women (or even Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd) than Professor Pierce?

For the record, I do not know an Anne Brannen, never heard of her, nor do I know anything about her credentials. With that said, I still commend her for working on Geni's historical tree.

Yes, Ms. Gunter, I agree with you on one notion. No more needs to be said.

Private User — You had demanded that I examine the manuscript evidence. I did. The evidence you want isn’t in the manuscripts that have been cited by any of our secondary works. If you want different manuscripts evidence, you need to find it.

Private User Cawley's Medlands is useful because it's online and cites primary sources. It invites historical analysis and engagement with the primary sources because of this.

I'm not seeing your primary sources, and if I'm reading you correctly, your argument is that illegitimate children do not happen.

Private User — I can see (if I’m reading this right) that one of the things bothering you is that I seem to be discounting the work of the historian Thomas Pierce, and that I have no right to do so, because I am not as great a historian as he.

Absolutely, I am not as great a historian as Thomas Pierce, but that is irrelevant. Nor am I discounting him as a great scholar. He was.

Wha I am saying is that in this one instance, he cites a source that backs up most of the entry for Gwenllian verch Gruffudd, but does not back up the one point we are discussing.

To accept that point, without further question, when we know that the citation is problematic, because he was a great scholar, is not scholarship. It is the opposite of scholarship.

We can’t accept that he looked at other sources or manuscripts, because he doesn’t tell us what they were. Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. No way of knowing.

The argument that we should accept what he says without question because he was a great scholar is what’s called an “argument from authority,” and is a logical fallacy. It has a long history, though, having been very popular in the Middle Ages.

It’s a fallacy, though. Alas.

This isn’t an argument that can be solved by weighing the academic credentials on the different sides. It’s an argument that can only be solved by evidence and sound logic.

Professor Pierce said, in his entry for Gwenllian verch Gruffudd, that Gwladys was her daughter. He cited his source. His source doesn’t anywhere in it say that. The only way one can cause the source to say that is by interpreting a genealogical chart in a way that negates what it actually says.

This line of argumentation is therefore a dead end. Several people have defended me, because they have found me helpful in the past and they trust my work, and that is very kind of them, but they have been lured into that method of argumentation because the appeal to authority fallacy is SO seductive. And then you can get into an argument about who has the greater authority behind them — Aquinas! Augustine! — and it can be very emotional and even entertaining, but it doesn’t actually address the actual argument.

Pierce is an excellent authority in most cases, but in this case, he falls short. His citation does not back up what you want it to back up.

So, Pierce doesn’t solve this. The Chronicles of the Princes don’t solve this. The genealogy in Jesus MS 20 doesn’t solve this.

At this point, the only thing that could show that Gwenllian is the mother of Gwladys would be a source that either a primary source that states the relationship, or a secondary source that cites the primary document which states the relationship.

I went and tracked down the manuscripts cited in the sources I found. If there are others, I will be delighted to see them. I’m not in this to win some kind of academic football game. I’m in it to uphold evidence and logic. I will happily agree that Gwenllian is Gwladys’ mom, if I see the evidence.

So far, there hasn’t been any.

Brannen stated: "Professor Pierce said, in his entry for Gwenllian verch Gruffudd, that Gwladys was her daughter. He cited his source. His source doesn’t anywhere in it say that. The only way one can cause the source to say that is by interpreting a genealogical chart in a way that negates what it actually says."

I don't know why the editors of the Dictionary of Welsh Biography did not include all the sources Professor Pierce used for him to conclude that Gwladus was the daughter of Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd. The most logical conclusion is that he found something (primary or circumstantial) to state that Gwladus was a daughter and Nest was not.

I don't think Lloyd's pedigree is a clear as you make it out to be. For one, Lloyd doesn't even include all of the children other sources credit to Gruffydd ap Rhys and Gwenllian. Two, Lloyd only delineates the sons listed, while not including all known children of Gruffydd and Gwenllian. There are manuscripts listing other legitimate and illegitimate children. So, you can not categorically say that Lloyd's pedigree is authoritative and complete in the slightest.

Brannen stated: "This line of argumentation is therefore a dead end. Several people have defended me, because they have found me helpful in the past and they trust my work, and that is very kind of them, but they have been lured into that method of argumentation because the appeal to authority fallacy is SO seductive. And then you can get into an argument about who has the greater authority behind them — Aquinas! Augustine! — and it can be very emotional and even entertaining, but it doesn’t actually address the actual argument."

I'm delighted that Geni.com people are seeking you out, you help them, and they are grateful. I'm not appealing to any authority, event though I am addressing the argument directly. I'm simply stating that you haven't reviewed all of the evidence (and certainly not the apparent evidence Professor Pierce reviewed), and you (as acknowledged by yourself) are not a scholar in medieval Welsh to the degree where you can so conveniently dismiss, discredit, and discount the work of Professor Pierce.

Brannen stated: "We can’t accept that he looked at other sources or manuscripts, because he doesn’t tell us what they were. Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. No way of knowing."

Furthermore, without contacting the editors of the DWB to find out what other sources Professor Pierce examined and weren't included in the bio of Gwenllian, we can't presumptively say that Lloyd is the only source that Professor Pierce looked at. It would be hard to fathom that a scholar on the level of Professor Pierce only looked at Lloyd's pedigree. Come on, now!!! Even a university freshman majoring in history would understand that premise.

I'm not trying to win an argument, just pointing out that there is a logical reason why Professor Pierce stated that Gwladus and not Nest was a daughter of Gwenllian!

Both Nest and Gwladus are recorded as 'sisters' of the Lord Rhys, where both could have been daughters of Gwenllian or perhaps just one. Gwenllian could have also had other daughters not discovered or recorded in any manuscripts.

The fact remains that it wasn't a careless oversight for Professor Pierce to list Gwladus as a daughter of Gwenllian, there is a fundamental and logical reason why he did.

Brannen stated: "Pierce is an excellent authority in most cases, but in this case, he falls short. His citation does not back up what you want it to back up."

That is your opinion and others have disagreed with you. I'm not referring to myself. I'm referring to respected authors, genealogists, and historians who have written biographies about Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd.

Again, I seriously doubt that Professor Pierce did not look at the entire collection of manuscripts, primary sources, and other circumstantial evidence before coming to his conclusions regarding the facts of Gwenllian's bio in the DWB. This is where you must respect the expert analysis of a true Welsh scholar. And no, your greater authority argument (Aquinas! Augustine!) is completely irrelevant when discussing the analysis of documents by an accepted authority. Just because you haven't found the evidence or reviewed all of the evidence doesn't mean your position is the historical fact.

Finally, I'll conclude by saying that I'm not a manager of the Geni profiles for Gwladus or Gwenllian. So the profile managers can put whatever parentage or children they want on these profiles in addition to any other medieval Welsh person.