N.N. verch Watkin - of Sir Thomas (1362) ap Gwilym, Kt. and N.N. (????) verch Watkin

John Love

10/19/2022 at 2:49 AM

Good morning Anne,
I have been working on the children of Thomas (1362) ap Gwilym and am having some uncertainty on how/when to fit his spouse N.N. (????) verch Watkin and their two children into the time frame. Thomas's other spouse Mawd (1369) together had a number of children with her passing in c 1438 as did Thomas.

It would then make sense that he was married to Unknown verch Watkin prior to his marriage with Mawd. It is a tight fit to have two children before the first child with Mawd - WIlliam ap Thomas in c 1380. I know these dates are fluid but wanted to get your thoughts on how best to place the children with verch Watkin. You have a better knowledge on this than I do.
Best regards,
John Love

Private User

10/19/2022 at 8:30 AM

Steven Mitchell Ferry -- do you have dates for these people?

John -- The death date for Mawd came from who knows where. Bartrum says she died after 1314. Bartrum gives the daughter of Watkin as the second wife.

Steven Mitchell Ferry C

10/19/2022 at 9:34 AM

Bartrum (https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000173393013821 ) dates Thomas ap Gwilym at c. 1330, Mawd at c. 1370, and N.N. ferch Watlkin at c. 1400. Wolcott (http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id40.html ) does not address the two women, but dates Thomas at c. 1360, obit of 1438, and his son, Sir William, at c. 1390, with obit of 1446. I agree with Wolcott (of course) and think that a c. 1170/75 Mawd, is an age appropriate first wife for Thomas, and mother of Sir William.

As to N.N. ferch Watkin, given Bartrum's dating, she would not even be of child rearing age until c. 1415, at which time Thomas would have been 55 per Wolcott, and 85 per Bartrum. So it looks to me like she is misplaced and should be attached to some other Thomas ap Gwilym.

John Love - you may find this article from Wolcott helpful in your dating scheme. Here is Bartrum's dating scheme: https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000173388585842 (note the numbers placed before the names in his charts.

Steven Mitchell Ferry C

10/19/2022 at 9:37 AM

Oh, and remember that just because one woman is labeled (a) and another (b) does not necessarily mean sequential marriages. It could also just represent a wife and concurrent mistress. (But that would not be the case here as mentioned above.)

N.N. verch Watkin - of Sir Thomas (1362) ap Gwilym, Kt. and N.N. (????) verch Watkin

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion