beat out the truth of the point in question I cannot conceive so in regard you have not been pleased to be so particular in your quotation of Authors as could be desired And whereas you think it not fit to register the acts of Wales under Usurpers it seems you would deprive your reader of a perfect history and conceale such passages which are a requisite to be known as the lawfullest proceedings in that a history how rugged soever the passages thereof may be ought to testify the truth by the consent of times and immediate succession of Princes otherwise that will appear like a broken chaine wanting some necessary lincks to unite the whole neither will man's desire be satâ—sfied untill it receive instruction who were and who were not Usurpers and how their government differed or whether Usurpers being really possessed of the Crown did not use the same jurisdiction which belonged unto the right heir and withall t is far more fit decent that the acts of Wales should be registred under the name of those Vsurpers of Northwales in regard that all Wales was subject to the crown thereof then under the princes of Southwales who were as I said their subjects tributaries though the lawfull heirs of Cadelh And in my judgment you cannot so confidently excuse your Southwales government from usurpation for that time seeing Rotherchap Jestin and others are acknowledged to be Vsurpers within the compasse of the time limited You may be further convinced touching the truth of our allegation if you do but indifferently weigh the evident proofs that follow upon these grounds First how the soveraignty continued in Northwales before the daies of Roderic the great Secondly how Anarawd Prince of Northwales was Roderic's eldest son And lastly how the Princes of Southwales and Powis paid tribute to the Prince of Northwales To the first if you look back into the times before Roderic's raigne you must confesse Cadwalhon lhawhir King of Northwales was chiefest of the four that bare swords before Arthur at the triumphant feast of Caerlheon of which number as Galfridus Monemutensis affirmes the King of Southwales was one or you must deny the testimony of your George Owen Harry pag. 26. Then afterwards when the Britains wanted a supreme governour there was a generall meeting had for the election of a King and a continuall supply was had from the Princes of Northwales as first it may appear when after the death of Vortiporius whom we call Gwerthevyr the Britains met at Traeth Maelgwn as may be seen in those ancient British laws intituled Prawf ynad Lhe y caffas Maelgwn vot yn pennaf brenhin ac Aberffraw yn pen lhyssoedh a Jarlh Mathyraval a jarlh Dinevwr a iarlh Caerlh on y danaw ynteu whicâ— may be thus Englished Where it was ordained that Malgwn Prince of Northwales should be the chiefest or soveraign King and Aberffraw in Northwales the soveraign seat of the Britains and that the Earls of Powis Southwales and Caerlheon should be under him and obey him And after that when the Princes of Southwales Powis and Cornwall after the battell of Bangor met at Chester where with the consent of all those Princes Cadvan Prince of Northwales was made King of Britaine after him succeeded in their own right Cadwalhon his son and Cadwalader his grandchild at which time the Britains lost the soveraignty of the whole Isle as Galfridus saith And yet Râ—deris Molwynoc Prince of Northwales the Grandchild of Cadwalader was obeyed by all the British Princes as their supreme and soveraignâ— Prince and called also King of the Britains according to all Authors and so was his son Conan Tindaethwy and after him Mervyn Vrych King of Man who in the right of his wife Essyllt Conan's daughter was sole Prince of all Wales as your own George Oweu Harry and all other writers testify and after them succeeded Roderic the great their son who as Giraldus saith toti Walliae praesidebat So then hitherto that is 300 years before Anarawd's raign it was not controverted who had the soveraignty for it being most manifest that the soveraignty of Wales remained in Northwales it may perswade an indifferent Reader that Roderic would not alter the course of the Soveraignty being a matter of that ancient continuance especially when it must be confessed that the Prince of Northwales was eldest son and heir apparent to his father Rod ric as both old and late writers do with one consent confesse of which for brevities sake I will make choice but of few but such as are reputed to be of best credit and insight in Antiquity to assist me with their testimonies And first of all Dr. Powel in his notes upon Giraldus and additions to Caradocus proveth that Anarawd was the eldest son of Roderic the great and sayth farther that he was the right heir of Cadwalader as is evident by all histories Sr. John Prise a Scuthwales Gentleman in his description of Cambria saith that Rodericus magnus King of Wales gave Northwales as the chiefest part to his eldest son Humphry Llwyd in his Breviary of Britain and Jo. Leyland in his notes upon his book intituled Genethliacon Edvardi principis and the book of Hergest written in the dayes of Ed. 4. averre that Roderic gave Northwales to his eldest son adding withall that Cadelh who had Southwales was the third son Cyndhelw brydydd mawr that is Cyndhelw the great pâ—et who flourished in the daies of Henry the second King of England writeth thus I Rodri mawr vawr vilwriaeth Gymro I rai Gymru hâ—laeth A Gwynedh nwn gynnydh aâ—th I vab hynaf y pennaeth Caradocus Lancarvanensis forementioned who wrot in the dayes of Henry the first testifies in some copies of his Annals that Roderic had by his wife Angharad diverse sons as Anarawd his eldest son to whom he gave Aberffraw with Northwales Our old books of pedigrees written on parchment above 400 years ago do attribute the seniority of birth to Anarawd the son of Roderic the great and not to Cadelh To conclude Asser Menevensis Bishop of St. Davids who flourished even in the dayes of the sons of Roderic saith in the acts of King Alfred that Anaraut filius Rotri cum suis fratribus ad postremum amicitiam Northanhymbrorum dâ—serens de qua nullum bonum nisi damnum habuerat amicitiam Alfredi regis studiose requirens ad praesentiam illius aavenit cumque à rege houorificè receptus esset ad manum Episcopi in filium consirmatiâ—nis acceptus maximisque donis ditatus regis dominio cum omnibus suis cadem conditione subdidit ut in omnibus regiae voluntati sic obediens esset sicut Ethered cum Mercis Here your countryman gives our Anarawd a superiority over his brethren esteeming them no otherwise then his inferiors and subjects as plainly it appears when he saith that King Alfred of all the brethren honoured enriched with great gifts and entred into league with Anarawd only This testimony
Subjects who did erect strong Forts and Castles therein it is confessed as touching some part of the inheritance of Rees ap Theodor and it is also true that before and after the death of Rees ap Theodor the Kings of England did vex and molest Griff ap Conan as the Author of his Life averreth and his successors the princes of Wales sometimes by craft and deceit and sometimes with unjust wars insomuch that to purchase their peace and quietnesse and not otherwise the princes were often content to yield up unto the Kings of England four Cantreds This with other hard dealings hath been noted by diverse writers and Henry the second did not stick to confesse the same when he said as Giraldus affirmeth Per vires nostras magnas injuriam violentiam irrogemus Cambris to which force and violence and not to any new soveraignty gotten by the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor must be attributed what submission or acknowledgment of soveraignty that Griff. ap Conan and his successors the princes of Wales did to the kings of England if any was demanded or performed over and above the wonted and usuall It is also manifest that the Archbishop of Canterbury did obtein a supremacy over the Bishops of Wales shortly after the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor yet not by reason of this said overthrow but of the suggestion of false witnesses before Pope Eugenius in the Remensian Councell whose Apostolicall decrees all the churches in Europe obey'd in those dayes Moreover you urge out of the statute of Ruthlan that king Edward 1. added no more to his former possessions of the principality of Wales by the conquest of Leoline but only Terram de Snowdon whereas it doth not so appear in any copy of the said statute that ever I could find and yet I have seen diverse in Wales anciently written on parchment both in the Latine and British tongues As concerning the dishonour done to the prince after his death by fixing his head on the highest turret of the Tower of Londâ—n Examples of this kind of dealing with Princes we have frequent in histories Tigranes King of the Armenians who lived under Tiberius Caesar could not with all his kingly titles as Tacitus sayth escape the common death of a Romane Tacitus speaks also in the 2d book of his Annals of Artavasdes King of Armenia whom Antonius having by treachery got into his power loaded with chaines and afterwards put to death Cyrus that great monarcò of the Persians who being overthrown and slain by Tomyris queen of the Scythians had his head cut off and in great contempt and deâ—ision flung into a vessell full of of man's blood Ptolomy Ceraunus King of Macedon was in battell vanquished and slaine by Belius a Brittain as some are of opinion who caused his head to be cut off and carried before him on the point of a spear round about the field in token of victory and triumph There be many the like examples in histories of Kings and Emperors whose bodies have been coursely handled by their enemies who de facto use them so as being in their power though de jure they ought not to deale so with lawfull princes And here I may not passe over how that the Abby of Ystratflur whâ—re you say that the body of Rees ap Theodor was decently buried was not founded before the dayes of the Lo Rees ap Griff. ap Rees ap Theodor Prince of Southwales as appeares by his Charter made presently after the foundation Ego Rhesus Southwalliae proprietarius princeps venerabile Mâ—nasterium vocabulo Stradflur aedificare coepi aedificatum dilexi feci res ejus auxi possessiones in quantum suffragante Deo volui amplam omnem donationem quam eidem monasterio antea contuli Anno iterum ab Incarnatione Domini 1184. scilicet praesentis scripti memoriâ stabilivi tres etiam selâ—i scilicet Gruff Rhesus Mredith candem donationem eodem tempore loco in manu Abbatis de Straflur obtulerunt And in the year of our Lord 1164. just 20. yeares before the date of the former charter as witnesseth the book of Conwey it was first covented Rees ap Theodor was slain Anno 1091. whereby it appeares that your Abby was not founded 73 yeares after his death It remaines now that I speak somewhat of the true and undoubted conquest of Wales atchieved by Ed. 1. as it appeares by the power that he assumed over all the inhabitants of Wales after the fatall overthrow of Leoline the last prince of the British bloud for of all the Kings of England he was the first that altered the forme of Government in Wales he was the first that made the statute of Ruthlan as a Law to govern the people of that countrey by he also created Edw of Carnarvan his eldest son prince of Wales who according to Mr. Camden and diverse more ancient writers erat primus ex Anglico sanguine Walliae princeps Hereby it appears that W. Rufus was not the conqueror of Wales nor Rees ap Theodor the soveraigne prince of Wales for if Rees had been the superior Prince King W. Rufus having learned of his Father the lesson of a Conqueror would in no case have omitted to accomplish those rites of a Conqueror Neither did the kings of England challenge the principality of Wales by the conquest of W. Rufus but by the atchievement of Ed. 1. as it appears first of all by the words of the statute of Ruthlan Divina providentia saith Ed. 1 quae in sui dispositione non fallitur inter alia suae dispensationis munera quibus nos regnum nostrum Angliae decorari dignata est terram Walliae cum incolis suis prius nobis jure feodoli subjectam jam sui gratiâ in proprietatis nostrae dominiâ—m obstaculis quibuscunque cessantibus totaliter cum integritate convertit corenae regni praedicti tanquam partem corporis ejusdem anneâ—â— it univit Henry the fourth gives the title of Conqueror of Wales to Ed. 1. in his lawes against the Welshmen made An 2. H. 4. thus Nulle-Gallâ—is ait chastel fortresse ne maison defensive de son propre ne de autre agardere autrement que nâ—scoit usâ—z en temps le Roy Ed conquerer de Galez that is No Welchman shall have castle fortresse nor house defensive of his own nor of other to keep otherwise then was used in the time of king Edward Conqueror of Wales The title of those Petitions made at Kenynten do averre the same Peticones de Kenynton factae apud Kenynton per homines Northwalliae tam pro communitatibus comitatuum quam pro singularibus personis exhibitae domino principi filio regis Ed conquestoris Walliae Auno regni praedic Ed. 33. And John de Delves in the 8. year of Ed 3. layes open the King's title to the principality of Wales in these words Terra Walliae est terra conquesta
lost the crown and scepter of London as we find in Prawf Ynad being an ancient MS containing the old laws of the Britains Then by a generall assembly of the men of Gwynedh Powys Deheubarth Evas Morganwâ— and Sersyllwe it was ordained that Aberfraw in Northwales should be the chiefest seat and the king thereof the soveraign King of all the British Princes And King Howel Dha in his Laws mentioneth a tribute due to the king of Northwales from the kings of Southwales and Powis whereby and by the inquisition before specified it is apparent that the title of Aberffraw or Northwales in effect is as large ample and honourable as the title of all Wales The ninth Argument IF King Edward the first of England had not accounted Wales to be his by the conquest of Rees ap Theodor he might have assumed against Lhewelyn ap Griff. the title of Mâ—rtimer his subject in the right of Gwladice his wife sole sister and heir of David ap Lhewelyn the last lawfull prince of Northwales for Griffith ap Lhewelyn his eldest Brother father to Lhewelyn the â—â—st Prince was base born But neither did the King think good to borrow that title nor did the Mortimers albeit they were raised to be Earâ—s of March and becoming the strongest subjects in alliances and kindreds augmented the same by marrying the sole daughter and heir of the Duke of Clarâ—nce whereby they had after the crown of England ever claime the principality of Wales yea though they were in disgrace with the state of England and were in action against Henry the fourth which such mighty persons would hardly have omitted if the house of Northwales had had good right to the principality of Wales Neither would the policy of the State of England have suffered the rising of that house which by an undoubted right to Wales might have bereaved them thereof yet such right as they had is now lawfully vested in the crown by king Edward the fourth as heir to Mortimer 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 remit 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 arguments and ancient authority shall appear I doubt not but to your full satisfaction And first of all Ralph Lord Mortimer of Wigmâ—re the husband of Gwlades dhu did procure with all his might the deliverance 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 wiâ—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 exclude 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 wâ—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 Leoline 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 descent 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 Lewâ—linum ille fuit ultimus princeps Walliae Owinnm David Rodri qui decesserunt sine haered bus ideo revertamur 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 Lâ—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 descended 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 Griffith And last of all I find it noted in an old manuscript thus Lewelinus Gervasii filius princeps Walliae primo desponsavit Tanglwyst filiam Lhowarch Vychan de qua genuit Griffith Gwlades ddu quondam uxorem Radulphi de Mortuomari post mortem dictae Tanglwyst idem Lâ—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
with the rest is sufficient to prove that Anarawd Prince of Northwales was the eldest son of Roderic the great and therefore soveraign King of the Britains which Merdhin Silvester 300 years before Anarawds birth foretold to wit that he should be supreme prince of the Britains after his father Roderic Now time calleth me to come to my last argument which is that the Princes of Southwales and Powis payed a tribute to the Prince of Northwales Wherein to deale briefly I will not trouble you here with the testimony of our great Antiquary Mr. Selden before mentioned in my Answer to your 8. Argument nor with the authorities of our other late writers but will content my selfe with the ancient laws of our British Princes where thus we read Try mychdeyrn dyledoc a dhylu gwladychu Cymruoll danei thervyneu brenin Aberffraw arglwydh Dinefwr a hwn Mathraval Tri phrif lys arbenic sydh ir tri theyrn hyn yn essyddyneu breiniawl ydhynt Vn yw Aberffraw yngwynedh Dynevwr yny Deheu a Mathraval wynva ym Powys a llyma mal y dosparthwyd eu teyrnasau hwynt yn dair rhan vn bie vchafiaeth ar y dhwy nit amgen noc Aberffraw pie y bendevigaeth Teir mychdeyrn dhylyet adhylyir o Gymru olh Aberffraw gan y dhwylys hynny adhylu vn o Dhinefwr sef yw honno melget pedeir tunelh o vel a gassei pedeir mu ymhob tunelh dwy grenneit ymhob mu lhwyth deuwr ar drossol ym hob gren Peillget o Wynva a ymodh hunw hefyd Thus Englished Three lawfull Kings ought to rule all Wales under its bounds the King of Aberffraw in Northwales the Lord of Dinefwr and this of Mathraval these three Princes have three principall courts for their Princely dwellings Aberffraw in Northwales Dinefwr in Southwales and Mathraval wynfa in Powis Thus their Dominions were divided into three parts one hath a soveraignty over the other two viz. Aberffraw hath the Primacy Three princely Tributs are due out of all Wales whereof Aberffraw ought to have from those two seats one from Dinefwr which is a tribute of honey viz. 4. tuns of Honey every tun containing 4. mu every mu 4. grens every gren as much as two men could carry between them on a leaver the other is the like quantity of flower of Mathraval wynva This I hold sufficient proof that that Southwales and Powis were tributaries to Northwales and this should suffice me for this time had not Howel Dha a prince of Southwales and the son of Cadelh decreed in his Laws that as the King of Northwales was to pay a tribute to the King of London so should all the Kings of Wales pay tribute to the King of Northwales LXIII libras est mychdeyrn dyled quod rex Aberfrau reddere debet regi Londoniae semel cùm acceperit terram suam ab eo pâ—stea verò omnes reges Walliae debent terram suam ab eoaccipere i. e. à rege Aberffraw illi reddere meicheerd deleet abediw pâ—st eorum mortem verbum illius verbum est super omnes reges nullius verbum est super ipsum that is to say sixty three pounds is the Monarchicall tribute which the King of Aberfraw ought to the King of London when once he hath received his lands of him afterwards all the Kings of Wales ought to take their lands of him that is of the King of Aberfraw and to pay him a reliefe after their death And his law is a law over the Kings and no mans law is over him So saith Howel Dha The weight of these reasons makes me omit diverse others and many conjectures together with the vulgar opinion for seeing before Roderic's time the case is made out by good proofs and that in Roderic and his sons times and their posterity it is still strengthned with the authorities of both Southwales and Northwales new and old writers I see no reason why you should not conclude with me That the Princes of Northwales had the soveraignty over all Wales THE END A Mistake touching the Pedegree of the Earl of CARBERY corrected FInding a mistake in a book lately printed called Cambria triumphans touching the Pedegree of the right honourable the Earl of Carbery the Author making him to be descended from Gwaethvoed of Cardigan whereas indeed Gwaethvoed of Powis was his Ancestor I thought I should be wanting to my duty to that Noble person and the truth if I did not when I had an opportunity endeavour what lay in me the rectifying of it The Gentleman the Author I do very much respect and honour for his love expressed to our Country in his worthy pains to maintain the honour of it and do not so much impute the mistake to him being a stranger as to our late unskilfull Recorders of Genealogies who by reason of their not examining things throughly and not studying Chronology better have been the occasion of his Error In their writings they deliver to posterity that Gwaethvoed of Cardigan was the Father of Gweristan the Grandfather of Blethyn ap Cynvyn King of Wales the Earl's Ancestor but without any grounds for it as I shall make it to appear by shewing 1. That there were two Gwaethvoeds 2ly that Gwaethvoed of Cardigan could not be the great Grandfather of Blethyn ap Cynvyn and so not the Earl of Carbery's Ancestor That there were two Gwaethvoeds our boâ—ks of Pedâ—grees assure us which make often mention both of Gwaethvoed vawr of Powis and of Gwaethveed of Cardigan They are recorded as distinct persons the one being stiled of Powis the other of Cardigan for distinction's sake And they appear further to be distinct by their distinct Coates of Arms and distinct Pedegrees he of Powis beareth vert a Lyon rampant A. imbrued head feet and tayle the other Or a Lyon rampant regardant S. langued and armed G. And for their Pedegrees books written about 400 years ago say that Gwaethvoed of Powis was the son of Gwrhydr ap Caradawc ap Lles Llawddeawc c. to Beli Mawr Belinus magnus Monarch of Britaine the father of King Lud and of Cassibâ—lan who was King when Julius Caesar first entred Britaine And there are other books that derive the Pedegree of Gwaethvoed of Cardigan to Gwythno Garanir Lord of Cantre Gwaelod to wit that large Plaine extending it self between the Countyes of Carnarvan Cardigan and Pembroke long since swallowed up by the Sea thus Gwaethvoed ap Eunydd as Lewis Morgannwc saith but others leaving out Eunydd say he was the son of Cadivor ap Peredur peiswydh ap Eneon ap Eunydd and so to the said Gwythno Garanir and in a direct line from him to Cunedha wledig King of the North and Cambria That Gwaethvoed of Cardigan could not be the great Grandfather of Blethyn ap Cynvyn c. for Blethyn was neer of this Gwaethvoed's age Caradoc of Lancarvan in his history of Wales tells us that Blethyn was slaine A. D. 1073. being born as may be conjectured about 1023. supposing
if there had been any doubt in the matter And thus he writeth Tri meib i Rodri meun tremyn i keid Cadelh Nerawd Mervyn Rhannodh ef yr hwn oedh vn Rhodhiad holl Kymry rhydhyn Rhannodh a gadodh er gwelh dawn yfydh Dinefwr i Gadelh Ymab hynaf oi stafelh Pennaf o wyr pwyvn welh Nerawd wr gwastawd dan go yn gyfan A gafas Aberffro May dayoni Duw yno Fe biau i bryniaw ay bro. Gwir gwir a dhoydyr i dhyn paen ifank Powys cafas Mervyn Lhymar modh yr adrodhyn Ytreir rhwyng y trywyr hyn In English thus Three sons we find were unto Roderi VVhom Cadelh Nerawd Mervyn men do call Divide he did that was a Monarchy Of Cambria a guift between them all Divide and leave for best O justly done Dinevowr unto Cadelh did he then Within his bower the first begotten son And who so good the chiefest of the men And courteous Anarawd did possesse Aberffro for his portion mark you this Whom God I pray with goodnesse all to blesse Both hills and dales the same his own it is The tale is true yea true it came to passe That Powis should young Mervyn's portion be And thus for truth the very manner was How all divided stood between them three The Answer I cannot think it reason from the doubt of Northwales writers whether Anarawd or Mervyn were the eldest son of Roderic the great to conclude Cadelh to be the eldest especially seeing neither our writers nor any else do make any thing for Cadelh and also that all in generall do agree that the King of Northwales howsoever he were called was the eldest of the Brethren Not only Dr. Powel but a multitude of most ancient writers do prefer Anarawd to the Kingdome of Northwales as our ancient Bards and writers of Genealogies Illorum enim saith Dr. Powel constans assertio est Anaratum primogenitum principem fuisse Venedotiae The ancient Author of Griffith ap Conan's life brings the pedegree of the said Griffith lineally to Anarawd Meilir Brydydh that flourished in William the Conqueror's time averres the said Griffith to be descended of Anarawd Caradocus Lancarvanensis affirmes that Anarawd the eldest son of Roderic the great was King of Northwal s. And last of all Niâ—nius the old British writer and Disciple of Elv dugus who lived in the daies of Roderic and his children saith thus Anaraught rex Moniae i.e. Môn qui regit modo regnum Wencdociae regionis i. Gweinedh Therefore Giraldus Cambrensis with his followers Leyland and Lhwyd must needs be in an error when he gives his voice for Mervyn And truly Giraldus Cambrensis though in antiquity he were most expert and skilfull yet seems not a little to be ignorant of the true history of Roderic the great and his children for besides the former error in the 2d chapter of his book intituled Descriptio Cambriae he avers that the said Roderic was the cause of the division of Wales into the three kingdomes of Northwales Southwales and Powis whereas it is apparent that the said three kingdomes had their severall Kings many years before his birth as Dr. Powâ—l most truly proveth in his notes upon the said chapter then also he saith that Cadelh to whom Roderic had given Southwales for his portion survived Anarawd and Mervyn whereby he got the monarchy of all Wales Cadelh saith he praemortuis fratâ—ibus totius Walliâ— monarchiam obtinait And Caradâ—cus a more ancient writer testifieth that Cadelh died 6. years before Anarawd with whom agreeth your countreyman George Owen Harry and another most ancient British Chronologer which beginneth thus Oes Gwrtheyrn Gortheneu c. mentioned by Sr. John Prise p. 121. defensionis Britannicae historiae Lastly he faith that Cadâ—lh's successors even to Theodor enjoyed the said mâ—narchy whereas it is clear that diverse of the line of Anarawd ruled the Kingdome of Northwales during that time so that we cannot but conclude Giraldus to be in a grosse error And as to the testimony of David Nanmor on whom relies your whole hope for Cadelh's soveraignty it is answered that his Authority had it been as you make it to be which shall appear to be far otherwise especially in so ancient a matter as we now handle being favoured or strengthned by no antiquity and himselfe not flourishing before the middle of the raign of Henry the sixth would have been too weak to encounter not only Dr. Powel but a multitude of most ancient Anthors well seen in antiquity that maintain the contrary I cannot be perswaded that he was ever of that opinion nor that those verses you are pleased to lay to him are his They do not savor of the skill of the meanest Bard much lesse of Nanmor that sometimes contended with David ap Edmond for the chair at the Eistedhfa in Caermarthen and by his Compod manuel his Gorchestion Cywydhau Odes and Epigramms is well known to surpasse most men of his time in Poeticall science They have faults as to the measures in 4. seveâ—all places such as our Bards terme Twyll gynghanedh and Twyll odl which by the teachers of the faculty to wit Dr. David du of Hiradhic Edyrn dafod Aur Eneon yffâ—irad and divers others have been damned for schismes and solaecismes in the art and so forbid to be used It being so as to the Poetry the History may justly be suspected of mistakes if not of forgery in order to the promoting of a small designe And there are mistakes in the history for Rodâ—ric was not the divider of Wales and Cadelh is denyed by all writers to be the eldest of the 3. Brethren nor was the K. of Aberffraws name Nerawd but Anarawd And in the 5th and last Stanza which you forbear the mention of there is a manifest error for therein it is said that Roderic made his division betwen his 3. sons A.D. 811. long before his reign and probably before he was born for Caradocus saith he began his reign A. 843. and his father Mervyn frych but in the year 817. at which time Prince Conan Tindaethwy dyed The eleventh Argument THese authorities and reasons are delivered simply to beat out the the truth of this point in question and chiefly out of a desire to clear the way for a perfect History of Wales if any shall undertake it which otherwise cannot be for besides this evidence of the soveraignty of the Prince of Southwales where there never failed a lawfull prince to govern untill the period thereof by the fatall overthrow of the last and worthy prince Prince Rees ap Thâ—odor it seems not fit to register the acts of Wales for a great part of 200. years under Usurpers And therefore it is desired that if any shall be disposed to answer hereunto or to give reasons for maintaining their allegation it be done without prejudice or partiality and that they range not out of the limits of the question The Answer WHereas you alledge that your authorities and reasons are delivered simply to