Re: Fictional Welsh Genealogies

On Dec 31, 2007 10:41 PM, taf <farmerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 24, 11:14 am, Hovite <paulvhe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Supposedly Ednyfed and Merfyn were related, their common ancestor
being Ceneu, thus:

Supposedly, yes, but this is actually indicative of nothing more than
that the same person was considered to be an appropriate ancestor of
these two lineages.

taf

I've been working with the Irish Munster genealogies for quite a while
and have noted things that make some of the lines appear to be
ficticious, but are, in fact, true lines.
First, the genealogies almost routinely skipped unimportant men.
Second, they skipped the daughters and their husbands except in a few
rare circumstances. Third, there were scribal errors that switched
people or meshed two lines together - I have found one that meshed 3
lines together. Fourth, a maternal line, or part of it, can be
inserted as part of the paternal line, and vice versa. Fifth, you may
be looking at a maternal line and not a paternal line but the mother's
name will have been dropped.
It can take months or even years, to dig out the problem, or the
missing name(s), but once you dig out the clue, the line is no longer
"Ficticious".

For example:

King X
|
Unimportant # 1 (Name not mentioned)
|
Daughter of Unimportant #1 = ? (Names not mentioned)
|
Unimportant #2 (Name not mentioned)
|
Person Y (who may even be in a different part of the country as he had
rights from his grandmother's husband)

The genealogies may read Person Y is "son" of King X, when he is
really the great grandchild, and the line would appear to be
ficticious, but is not.

Janet
.