• Join - It's Free

St. Brychan Gododdin, Brenin Brycheiniog - Brychan ab Analach and his thousands of children

Started by Private User on Friday, November 10, 2017
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 20 posts

I have been putting this off, because the whole tangle is difficult and wicked and Makes Me Sad, but apparently the time has come wherein we must deal.

We have here at present St Brychan and, let's see...6 wives, and 86 children.

Ok, not thousands.

Here are the issues:

Brychan appears in several traditions, and many manuscripts. Different traditions give him different wives and various children.

We have him here as a saint, but he's not, so we should take that out, probably.

The Wikipedia article, which of course is what users hit first if they go looking for information, is, as usual and alas, not very helptul. It doesn't list all the traditions; it says that in Christian tradition he had three wives, and then names them, but it's Ribrawst and not Gwladys who shows up in the sources if you go looking, and anyway Gwladys is Brychan's sister, or maybe his daughter, in the Welsh tradition; it has references to works that are not useful, if they are online and accessible.

Some of the children attributed to Brychan surely existed -- Arianwen, for instance, who was married to Idnerth ab Iorwerth -- St. Arianwen verch Brychan -- but she can't actually be his daughter, since she lived hundreds of years later.

Brychan himself appears to be legendary.

Here is what I suggest:

I suggest we handle Brychan the way we did the Arthurian material; in this case, we can keep ONE Brychan, but label his various wives according to the manuscript tradition they come from: the Welsh, the Breton, the Irish, the Cornish, etc. And label all the legendary people "Legendary," or "Mythological," so that users stop trying to make the genealogical lines make sense.

Then we end up not fighting over to whom the children belong, because we can give each wife all the kids the tradition she is in gives her. If any children show up more than once, it won't matter, because with a few exceptions, they are also probably legendary.

In the case of Arianweh, for instance, we should disconnect her from Brychan, and add in curator's notes explaining that later tradition attaches her to him, but even if he actually existed, he couldn't be her father.

So.

If this is agreeable (and I DO trust you that you will all tell me your objections, if it's not!), then I will indeed need some help.

Menedog . ferch Custennin comes from the Breton tradition.

Banhadlwedd . verch Banadl comes from the Welsh tradition.

Ribrawst verch Gwrtheyrn -- I don't know what her manuscript tradition is, though it looks like she might be from the Cornish tradition

Prawst verch Tudwal -- not surprisingly, given her name, she is from the Welsh tradition

Proistri . of Spain I don't know what tradition she comes from.

Now, we DON'T have Gwladys, who IS his wife, in the Cornish tradition, or Dina, his wife in the Irish tradition.

So.

Is this plan acceptable? And does anybody have access to manuscript traditions, as opposed to all these annoying precis that slam everybody together?

Tagging

Erin Ishimoticha
Justin Durand
Alex Moes

As far as what I've gleaned from Darrell Wolcott, he does not address any wives of Brychan, and only covers 2 children, son Rhein and daughter Meleri. But I will keep my eyes open if I can help any further.

Steven Mitchell Ferry -- most useful, in your line, will be figuring out which figures are legendary and which are not.

I gather Wolcott considers Brychan to be Real?

Anne, I have full confidence in your ability to sort this out in the most logical fashion. Go for it!

And thank you for your efforts. xo

Amy! That is so sweet!

I myself would have more confidence if I could track down some transcripts.....

Anne Brennen - I have seen nothing so far that would indicate that Wolcott does not think that Brychan was real. He doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say on him other than as ancestry in a few of his papers. This from "Legendary History Prior to 1st Century B.C." -

The traditional history of Wales usually begins about the time Rome left Britain in the early 5th century AD.  The events told of some families in the 3rd and 4th centuries are considered historic, but we tend to treat all stories about people who lived prior to the first landing of Julius Caesar in Britain as legendary.  Our own dividing line between that which is history and that which is probably legend is the birth of Beli Mawr c. 130 BC.

Thanks!

Ahhhh moment...if you look at Bartrum's chart number 27 for Brycheiniog it look's like he is saying that Arianwen is a daughter of Brychan, he being c. 400. This of course is impossible. But if you look closer at the chart, at the numbers assigned, you will see that they are generation numbers. Brychan is at Gen 3, while Arianwen is Gen 14, so 11 generations separate. If we borrow from Wolcott and use a 35 year generation span that would put her at c. 785, an age appropriate mate for Iorwerth Hirflawdd. I don't think Bartrum thought she was a daughter of Brychan, but, of course, I don't have access to Bartrum's finished charts.

But then again, Bartrum's chart 46 for Powys does label her as Arianwen ferch Brychan, referring back to the above mentioned chart number 27. His dates indicate that he must have known she could not be a daughter to the c. 400 Brychan, so I'm not sure what to think. Was she a daughter of a c. 750 Brychan ?

Darrell Wolcott charts Arienwen as born c. 495 to Brychan II and married to Idnerth ap Riagath of Powys.

One of the major problems with all this is that, to a great extent, we are in the Land Of Stuff That Existed In Some Sort Of Reality But Not This One.

But exactly WHO is invented and who had a human body and lived and died -- THAT is almost impossible to disentangle.

Anne et al,

Looks like I'm late to the party of St Brychan and his hoard of wives and children.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Do we know or have any idea who of the wives and children are real?

Another thought but maybe not a good one is since he is supposed to be Welsh do we focus on the "Welsh" traditions and kind of set aside the others for now?

Just looking at some way, but maybe not a good way, to prune the number of people.

John Love Actually, Brychan's paternal line is Irish.

Darrell Wolcott opines that he is conflated with his grandson, whom Wolcott labels as Brychan II, or Brychan ap Rhain ap Brychan. He is almost surely conflated with other similarly named men. All this yields the large number of partners and children, with those numbers varying widely, depending on the regional legend being followed.

I don't think there is a way to "prune the number of people" without starting a major dust-up. But I am not a student of Brychan, so maybe someone can chime in with suggestions.

Private User what say you?

Steven,
Thank you for your reply. I kind of thought we'd either need to keep them all or remove them all. Neither is ideal so by default we'll want to keep them all.
John

I think that there is no really good solution at the moment. Perhaps evidence will appear. But really probably not. Over time, if one had access to really good sources -- both manuscript and scholarly journals -- one could perhaps figure out some who are known to history for sure.

But again. Probably not.

It's much like the King Arthur problem, except that King Arthur, by the time he occurs in any written sources, is no longer human. So those different genealogical trees can simply be created separately........

.....wait.

This could perhaps be done with the St. Brychan families, that is, separating out the separate genealogies.

Here's what I mean, as it shows up in King Arthur:

Arthur ab Uthyr, {Fictional, Early Welsh Texts}
King Arthur, {Fictional, Early Scottish Genealogies}
King Arthur, Vulgate Cycle
King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth Text
King Arthur, Chretien de Troyes Text
King Arthur, Malory Text
King Arthur of Britain, {Fictional, Monty Python Text}

That's as far as I got; the Malory text is the template for almost all versions after him, so later versions don't need to be delineated -- usually.

And the St. Brychan trees wouldn't necessarily be fictional -- and if they were isolated they would not be connected to the Tree. One could be connected, though, and the rest linked to.

Here's my two cents: I quite like Anne's idea of parsing out and creating separate models of each major or important historical text source.

______________________________________

The only thing I take exception to is 'King Arthur as seen by Monty Python', and that sort of thing which is trivial, parodic, mocking, showing off, a waste of time and space, disingenuous, political, whimsical, flippant, undignified, demeaning, disrespectful, offensive, unhistoric, and quite a ridiculous juxtaposition, undeserving of any place in serious genealogy.

I have been continuously smiling for the past hour after looking at that Monty Python tree.

Tamás Flinn Caldwell-Gilbert I'm happy for you, I've never watched it because I can't decipher the accent of the actors, lol.

I tried once or thrice, but finally gave up because it's like a foreign language to me.

Tamás Flinn Caldwell-Gilbert — I was so happy when I found the Monty Python tree. It is, of course, not a remake of Malory.

Very amusing.

And, of course, a legitimate interpretation of a fictional character. lol.

Showing all 20 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion