British antiquities revived, or, A friendly contest touching the soveraignty of the three princes of VVales in ancient times managed with certain arguments whereunto answers are applyed by Robert Vaughan, Esq. ; to which is added the pedigree of the Right Honourable the Earl of Carbery, Lord President of Wales ; with a short account of the five royall tribes of Cambria, by the same author.

The Answer.

IT appeareth in the statute of Ruthlan, that Edward 1. did not claime or account the principality of Wales to be his by the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor, for the assumes the glory of the conquest of Wales to himself, as is manifest before in my answer to the 6. Argument, whereunto for your better satisfaction in this point I re∣mit you. And the reason that he borrowed not the title of Mortimer his subject, (although it be a thing seldome or never heard of, that the titles of Kingdomes should be borrowed or lent,) and that his said subject himself did not seize upon the said principality from Leoline the last, as his right by inheritance, was, because that Mortimer had no right thereunto: for Gwlades his wife was the sole sister of Griffith, the eldest son of Lhewelyn the great, who left behind him diverse children, and not of David, according to your allegation, as by most strong ar∣guments and ancient authority shall appear, I doubt not, but to your full satisfaction. And first of all Ralph Lord Mortimer of Wigm••re the husband of Gwlades dhu did procure with all his might the delive∣rance of Griffith out of his Brother Davia's prison, and also labour for

his installment in the principality of Wales, as is apparent in Mathew Paris, which he would never have done, it his wi••e had been the sole sister and heir of David; for by the raising of Griffith to the throne of Wales, he should not only depose David, but also most indiscreetly ex∣clude himselfe from being heir apparent to the principality of Wales, and next to rule after David, who had no issue. Secondly, the Lord Mortimer, after the death of prince David, made no claime to the principality, which in no w••se he would have omitted, if he had been his heir apparent, and the king of Englands nephew, as you pretend, who for the recovery of his right would minister unto him sufficient aid both in men and money. But this neglect infallibly denoteth, that Gwlades with her posterity was not the heir of David, seeing that Le∣oline held that peaceably with the consent of the King. And in an old book written above 200 years ago, I found the pedegree of Richard Duke of York, father of king Edward the 4. wherein the Dukes de∣scent is first brought to the Mortimers by Anne his Mother, and from the Mortimers to the Princes of Wales by the said Gwlades, as being sister and heir of Griffith and not of David, even thus: Leolinus fuit princeps Walliae, & pater Gladys ddu, haeres suus fuit Griffinus princeps Walliae, qui habuit quatuor filios, Lew••linum (ille fuit ultimus princeps Walliae,) Owinnm, David, & Rodri, qui decesserunt sine haered bus: ideo re∣vertamur ad Gladys Dhu, quam Radulphus Mortimer duxit in uxorem. Lewelyn was Prince of Wales, and the father of Glaays ddû, his heir was Griffith Prince of Wales, who had 4. sons, viz. Lewelyn the last Prince of Wales, Owen, David, and Rodri, who dyed without heirs; therefore let us come back again to Gladys ddu, whom Ralph Mortimer married. Hereby it appeareth that Griffith was L••welyn ap Jorwerth's son & heir, & therefore born in Wedlock, & that his four sons leaving no Heirs (as that Author saith,) the right of the principality descen∣ded to the posterity of Gwladus, which directly proveth she was sister of the whole bloud to Griffith, and not to David, of whom the Author maketh no mention at all; accounting him and his sisters (some of whose posterity live at this day) no better then Bastards. Thirdly our ancient books of pedegrees do with one consent affirme that the children of Leoline ap Jor: were Griffith and Gwlades dhu, whose mother was Tanglwyst the daughter of Lhowarch goch of Ros: David Prince of

Wales, Gwenlliant, Angharad, and Marvred, whose Mother was Joan, the Daughter of King John. The white book of Hergest, a very fair and ancient parchment Manuscript, saith, that prince Lhewelyn wedded one Tanglwyst the daughter of Llowarch Lord of Anglesey, and begat by her Griff. and Gwladys dee. Gwilym Tew that flourished in the daies of Henry 6. hath written that Leolin ap Jorwerth begat Gwladus ddu upon the daughter of Llowarch goch, which was the mother of Grif∣fith. And last of all I find it noted in an old manuscript thus▪ Leweli∣nus Gervasii filius princeps Walliae, primo desponsavit Tanglwyst filiam Lhowarch Vychan, de qua genuit Griffith & Gwlades ddu quondam uxo∣rem Radulphi de Mortuomari, post mortem dictae Tanglwyst idem L••∣welynus desponsavit Joannam filiam Johannis regis Angliae, de qua genuit David principem, & Gwenlliant uxorem Jo: Lacie comitis Lincolnia, & Angharad primo desponsata Johanni, de Brewys domino de Brechon, post cujus decessum desponsata fuit Malgoni Vachan ap Maelgon ap Rees, & ex eadem uxore genuit filiam quae maritata est Johanni Scotico comiti Cestriae qui fuit nepos Ranulphi comitis Cestriae ex parte sororis sui. Here is (you see) most infallible proof, that Gwlades was not the sole sister and heir of David, but the only sister of Griffith (Lh••welyn the great his eldest son) who by equity should have succeeded his father in the principality of Wales; although you and others do averre that he was a Bastard, but how truly, I appeale to the judgment of impartiall Antiquaries: for do but equally consider whether a Bastard would offer to disquiet his father and Prince, because he intended that his lawfull heir should succeed him in his dominions; or presume to bandy with the legitimate heir for his due inheritance; or whether the King of England would maintaine such an execrable quarrell against his (naturall) nephew, or the Lords of VVales against their true & legitimate prince in a Bastard's behalf. These circumstances might satisfy, that Griffith was not only born in wedlock, but also the right & proper prince of Wales by inheritance. Consider likewise how Lhewelyn called all the Lords and Barons of Wales before him to Ystratflur, and caused them to swear to be faithfull subjects, and to do homage to David his son, and that long before his death; which had been needlesse and frivolous, if David had been his heir, and Griff: his bastard: consider I say, how that Henry the third immediately after the death of Griffith, assuming▪

the title of his said prisoner into his own hands, intituled his eldest son Edw: to the principality of Wales, accounting David no lawfull prince, as it appears thereby: yea and how, that neither the Bruses Lords of Brechnock. Lacies Earls of Lincoln, nor any other that married Prince Davids sisters of the whole blood, pretended any right to the principa∣lity of Wales after his death, though he left no issue or his body to sur∣vive him, which such mighty persons would hardly have omitted, if David had been the true heir of Leoline the great, and lawfull prince of Wales, ••urthermore David Benvras in a funerall Elegy to Lhewelyn and his two sons, gives them in generall the name of Princes, and pre∣fers Griff: before David. Whereupon I do conclude, that if Griff: had been a bastard, in all likelihood the Bard would not presume to prefer him before David, being legitimate; neither have given him the title of Prince, but that it was his Birth-right. Again Polydor Virgil in the 16. book of his History of England, denoteth that Griff: was his fathers lawfull heir, and that David was an usurper of the principality upheld by the King of Englana's favour in these words. Id temporis Leweli∣nus Walliae princeps è vita migravit, deinde inter Gruffinum & David filios ejus de principatu disceptatum est; quem ad ultimum David, etsi mi∣nor natu, favente Henrico, assecutus est: and a little after: multos Wal∣lorum miserebat casus Griffini, qui per proditionem avito principatu frau∣datus in carcere esset, insidebatque in illorum animis tanti facinoris memo∣ria. Adde hereunto how Leolinus Gerva••ii filius desponsavit Tanglw∣ist, de qua genuit Griffith, as I said before: adde I say the testimony of the book of Hergest before mentioned, with the which agrees John Griff: Eyton, an Author of above an hundred and fifty years antiquity. Here I might cite the opinion of Guttun Owen and the Bards, who with one consent do testify, that Gr: was his fathers eldest son and heir apparent, whose testimonies, seeing their function was nothing else but truly to decant the famous deeds and true pedegrees of the Princes and Nobility of Wales, I hold it good reason that we follow and preferre before the traditions of Strangers, who most commonly being enemies to the Welchmen were carelesse of their affaires, and therefore apt to erre in relating their histories, especially since they looked upon it as their interest to conceale or extenuate, rather then declare their glory. And the Translators of the Chr••nicle of VVales, tracing their

steps, and forgetting the fidelity of Translation, added at their pleasure▪ that Griffith was a Bastard, and that Gwlades was the sister of David going besides the old text wherein you shall find no such matter. Al∣so Bastards by the lawes of Howel Dha were excluded from any share of inheritance with their Brethren legitimate, but Gruff: as Dr. Pow∣ell out of Math: Paris relateth,

claimed a portion of his fathers inhe∣ritance according to the customes of VVales, even so much as of right ought to appertain unto him.

VVhich words do insinuate that he was ready to prove his Father and Mothers marriage lawfully con∣summated. And David confesseth a portion due to his Brother, when in the third article of his submission to H. 3. he saith, Item I, and the said Griffith, and either of us, shall hold our portions of land of our said so∣veraign Lord the King in capite. Lastly, the Bastards of the Princes of VVales were not tolerated to bear their fathers Arms; and if permit∣ted, yet not without difference, as may be observed in the Coats of Madoc the son of Gwenwynwyn Lord of Powis, David goch the son of David Lord of Denbigh and Fradhsham; Eneon and Cynwric twinnes, the sons of Mad: ap Mred: Prince of Powis; and Tegwared y bais wen being the Bastard of Prince Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth had therefore a pe∣culiar Coat of Arms given him and his posterity, to wit, Ar. a cheve∣ron S. charged with 3. Mullets pierced: But Griffith father of Llywelyn the last Prince, gave his fathers Coat without any change or difference at all, and so did his progeny after him, which proveth that he was lawfully born. These reasons and testimonies do perswade me to think that Griffith was unworthily defamed of Bastardy, and de••eated of his Birthright under that pretence. But in regard herein I thwart the judgment of good Antiquaries both ancient and modern, I leave the matter to a farther debate.