The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (10 page)

The most confused genealogy belongs to the children of Mar (also called Mor) and Maeswig, grandsons of Coel. Indeed, Bartrum conjectures that Mar and Maeswig may have been the same person, as
they feature commonly in the ancestry of their descendants. Mar’s son Einion is sometimes listed as a son of Arthwys, but we know that Einion’s son Rhun must have been contemporary with
Maelgwyn Gwynedd (i.e. 500–540) because Rhun’s daughter married Maelgwyn’s son. Eliffer is sometimes listed as a son of Gwrwst, but the earlier pedigrees treat him as a son of
Arthwys and this best suits the chronology.

This table should not be set in stone. It is an approximation of descendants and chronology but it is unlikely to be out more than 25/30 years either way. It places Arthwys somewhere in
Yorkshire in the period 470–510 which, as we will see, ties in with the probable dates of Arthur of Badon. It does not mean that he is the same as King Arthur, but it raises the question as
to whether some activities attributed to Arthwys in now-lost ancient records were picked up by Nennius and Geoffrey. We have tentatively recognised a part of the jigsaw.

These were not the only descendants of Coel and Cunedda, or “Men of the North”. There were also the British rulers of Alclud (Strathclyde), with their capital at
Dumbarton. Only one of the ancient records lists their pedigree, so we have no corroboration. Some of the other Men of the North, who ruled amongst the Votadini at Din Eidyn (Edinburgh) also belong
to this pedigree, through Dyfnwal Hen rather than Coel, so I have amalgamated all of them below. The only change I have made is that, in the pedigrees, the future rulers of Strathclyde (Neithon and
Bili), are listed as descended from Dyfnwal’s son Gwyddno, but that is impossible according to the time scale. I believe this was a scribal error mistaking their descent from a later Gwyddno,
descended from Garwynwyn. This is supported by the later Gwyddno having another son called Alpin who is recorded amongst the princes of Strathclyde.

To complete the North, we need to match all of the above against the rulers of Dál Riata in Argyll, and the Pictish kings. The chronology of the kings of the Picts at
this time is extremely confused and complicated, and is further aggravated by their kingship passing through the female line, making paternity difficult to track. The table below shows both sets of
rulers as a list of kings, rather than a pedigree. This includes our third “Arthur”.

We now move our attention to Wales. Table 3.6 lists the pedigree of the kings of Dyfed. They were descended from the Irish tribe of the Déisi, who
were driven out of Leinster in the fourth century and settled in Demetia in south-west Wales, under Eochaid mac Artchorp.

This is a rare example where there is both a Welsh pedigree and an independent Irish one. The latter, from the
Book of Uí Maine,
is listed in the first column, as
reprinted by Bartrum from a twelfth century document held in the Bodleian Library (MS. Rawlinson B.502). The second column is the Welsh version from Jesus College MS.20. The Welsh list is dubious
for the first five generations where at some stage a different pedigree has been fused on to Tryphun to create a descent from Magnus Maximus. I have placed those names in brackets but they are best
ignored. From Tryphun on the two pedigrees agree. This pedigree is important because the third Arthur is our first “real” Arthur.

The chronology looks reliable. It allows for Eochaid to settle in Demetia in the mid to late fourth century, which fits in with known events. It allows Vortipor to be an old
man at the time of Gildas (the above would give Vortipor’s life-span as 470–540), and it terminates at the known dates assigned to Rhain. Allowing for an error of maybe no more than 20
years, we can fix Arthur of Dyfed firmly in the late sixth century.

The pedigree of the rulers of Gwent and Glywysing (Table 3.7), which includes our fourth “Arthur”, is both complicated and confusing. Unlike in Gwynedd (Table 3.8),
where a strong hereditary kingship became established early on, in Gwent this proved harder to do. Leslie Alcock, who undertook a major archaeological study at Dinas Powys in Glamorgan, has
suggested that because Gwent and Glamorgan had been strongly Romanized, Gwent clung more tenaciously to the Roman way of life and no single hereditary kingship emerged for some time. Instead, there
were competing administrators and governors, no doubt many from the old Silurian nobility, all of whom sought overall authority but few of whom achieved it. When chroniclers tried to piece this
back together two or three centuries later the key records were lost. The position is not helped by Gwent incorporating three or four small kingdoms, which began independently and at various times
merged or regained independence. Gwent and Glywysing were the two main kingdoms. Part of Glywysing was originally called Cernyw and became Gwynllwg. In later years when Glywysing merged with Gwent
it was called Morgannwg. To the east of Gwent was Ergyng, which later became a sub-kingdom of Gwent.

The following table depicts all of these parallel and sometimes overlapping dynasties, and tries to rectify some of the obvious errors in the old genealogies. For instance, the Jesus College
manuscript shows a descent from Caradog Vreichfras, placing him so far back as to be contemporary with the Emperor Constantine. Yet other sources we will encounter show him as a companion of King
Arthur. A study of the pedigree shows that two recurring names (Meurig and Erb) have become repeated, conflating two pedigrees into one and doubling the span of time.

Dates for some of the reigns are more reliable by the eighth century, and the death of Ffernfael ap Ithel is recorded as 775 in the
Welsh Annals.
We also know that
Meurig’s father, Tewdrig, died after the battle of Tintern when he was already of an advanced age. That battle has been variously dated between 577 and 630, with around 626 being the most
likely. However, Morgan ap Athrwys is believed to have died in 665, which is too early for his position in the chart. We know that many of these kings lived to an advanced age, even the later ones
not listed here. Hywel ap Rhys died in around 885, well into his eighties; Tewdrig ap Llywarch was also into his eighties. So we may find a 25–30 generation span insufficient in this
instance. However, that makes it even more difficult to count back from Tewdrig, as it would push Owain Finddu, son of Magnus Maximus, back too far. Meurig’s mother Enhinti is identified as
either the daughter or sister of Urien of Rheged, so I have placed him in the mid sixth century, even though he was probably of the same generation as Cadog.

The table is nevertheless within a reasonable degree of accuracy and provides a life span for Arthur of Gwent of around 610–680, perhaps slightly earlier to accommodate his son and the
known longevity of his grandfather. This will seem late for those who have theorised that he is the Arthur of
Badon. This Arthur’s primary advocates are Alan Wilson and
Baram Blackett and, in
Artorius Rex Discovered,
they give Arthur’s dates as 503–575, or a
floruit
of 525–555, a century earlier than the above. I find it difficult
to accept such a date if the above pedigree is even approximately accurate. I suspect we may be missing a generation or two, even assuming the lines of succession are correct.

One of the curiosities of this table is that it identifies a person called Medrawd (or Mordred) as a grandson of Caradog, contemporary with Arthur.

In order to set these chronologies against the main powerbase in Wales, it will be useful here to set out the ruling dynasty of Gwynedd, where the chronology is better
understood. It will help us understand who else was active at the time of Badon, and during the lifetimes of the other Arthurs so far identified.

Table 3.2 provided dates for Cunedda of 440–470 but, as discussed, he almost certainly belonged to an earlier generation which I have adjusted here. These pedigrees are taken from Harleian
MS. 3859; though I have modernised the names where possible for easier understanding. Also, as with Table 3.3, because I am charting brothers and cousins, I have allowed a 40–year
floruit,
rather than 30, and used an average generation span of 30 years rather than 25–30.

The chronology throws up a few anomalies, especially in the line of Ceredigion. We know that Seisyll conquered parts of Dyfed sometime in the eighth century, probably in 730. To accommodate this
I have had to move Seisyll, his father and descendants down by two generations. However, as we have no independent dates to confirm Clydog’s ancestors it is impossible to know when these
missing generations occur. Something has to be adrift. There are nine generations from Cunedda to Arthwen, who died in 807. Taking the average 25–30 years per generation, that gives 250
years, which would put Arthwen’s mid-life at around 675, suggesting we are missing four generations. It means we cannot be sure where to place Arthfoddw, which may prove important later.