BRITISH Antiquities revived: OR A friendly Contest touching the sovereignty of the three Princes of Wales in ancient times, managed with certain arguments, whereunto answers are applied.  
By ROBERT VAUGHAN Esq  
To which is added the Pedigree of the right Honourable the Earl of CARBERY, Lord Precedent of WALES: with A Short account of the five Royal Tribes of CAMBRIA, by the same Author.  
Sunt duo tresve qui revelvant▪  
Nostrarum tineas ineptiarum. Martial. l. 11.  
OXFORD, Printed by HEN: HALL. Printer to the University, for THOMAS ROBINSON. 1662.   

To the right worshipful Sr. RICHARD WYNNE of GWEDIR Baronet, and Knight for the County of CARNARVAN in this present Parliament.  
SIR,  
I Had designed this small Treatise (being the first fruits of my study in Antiquities) for your honoured Father; but failing of my purpose by reason of his death (which was untimely to his friends, though not to himself) I thought I might not (without being highly injurious) present a thing once devoted to him to any else besides yourself, who as his heir might lay a just claim to it, and also to my most humble services; I promise myself you will vouchsafe it a kind entertainment, since (I know) both your goodness and your interest in the subject, as lineally descended from the Princes of North-wales (whose rights are therein maintained) are more than sufficient to oblige you thereto. The writing of it was upon this occasion: some Gentlemen of Southwales being dissatisfied with Caradoc of Lancarvan's History of Wales, published by Dr. Powel, in regard that therein the Prince of North-wales is held forth to be Sovereign over the other two Princes of Southwales and Powis, as being of the elder house, thought fit (in order to the compiling of a more exact history) to draw up certain arguments for the sovereignty of all Wales to be in the Prince of Southwales, and to send them also into North-wales to see what could be said in answer to them, before any further use should be made of them. They were delivered by Sr. Thomas Canon late of Pembrokeshire Kt. to Sr. John Lloyd of the Inner Temple Kt. and Sergeant at Law, who delivered them to me above 40 years ago, desiring I would take the pains to peruse and answer them as well as I was able. At his entreaty I undertook it, and, as you will find, done somewhat in it, though in a rude manner, which I hope will be excused in a person, whose only design is plainly to set forth the truth, which shows always best in its own proper colours without the elaborate dress and varnish of Rhetoric. But some men possibly may object against this undertaking of mine, that it was needless, and that, if it had been to any end, it was no discretion to revive and publish an old Contest long since (God be praised) happily decided. I confess we have reason to bless God for his mercy to us in our happy establishment under one Monarch; we may well say we were conquered to our gain, and undone to our advantage, periissemus nisi periissemus; But yet it must be granted, that it is no small delight that redounds from the revolving and perusal of old records: though Troy hath for several ages lain buried in its ashes, both its glory and government being quite dissolved, though the Athenian, Spartan, Theban, and other petit Grecian Estates have long since had their periods, yet we still take a great deal of satisfaction in reading their stories, how they began, grew up, flourished, strove, & decayed. Besides there may be this good use made of it, viz, that by reflecting upon our former miseries and divisions while we contended for sovereignty, we may be induced to put the greater value upon our present happiness. Thus having given you an account of the work, and what I had to say in its defence, I commend it to your protection: and with my prayers to God for you and your noble family remain, Sir,  
Your faithful Servant at command ROB: VAUGHAN Hengwrt May the 9th. 1662.   

The state of the Question.  
RODERIC the great, King of Wales, about A●: Dom: 876. did dispose the three Principalities thereof to three of his sons, viz. Southwales to Caedelh, who is maintained in this Treatise to be the Eldest; North-wales to Anarawd, who is held by some late writers of North-wales to be the Eldest; and Powis to Mervyn, who is held by some other writers of North-wales to be the Eldest: (which being lest probable, as touching Mervyn) the Question here is, Whether Cadell or Anarawd were the Eldest son of Roderic the great, and which of them had the sovereign power and rule over all Wales.   

Arguments proving Cadelh Prince of Southwales to be the Eldest Son of Roderic the great, (King of Wales,) and that he, and his issue after him had a superiority over the rest of the Princes, over his two Brethren, and the Descendants from them.  

The first Argument.  
THE principality of Powys after the death of Mervyn, the youngest Brother, (who died without issue, according to the most credible writers of the Antiquities of Wales) descended to Cadelh, as the Eldest brother and Heir, and from him to Howel Dha his Son, and so to Bledhyn ap Convyn by due course of inheritance from Cadelh. And for the opinion that Mervyn had a Son named Lhewelyn, (whose Daughter and Heir was married to Mredith ap Owen, third son of Owen ap Howel Dha, and great Grandchild to Cadelh,) and that thereby Powys came to the line of Cadelh, it is fit the authority thereof do appear, before it receive credit. Likewise, whereas some Writers for North-wales do allege, that Cad●lh took Powys by force from his brethren after the death of his brother Mervyn, it is therefore impliedly confessed, that Mervyn had no children: and it is not unlike that he actually entered into and seized Powys as his inheritance, and that his brethren might pretend to have portions there by Gavel-kind upon the death of their brother Mervyn. But could he carry a principality from all the race of Roderic (who had divers sons, besides those three princes) by strong hand, and without right or opposition? whereas it doth not appear throughout the whole course of the histories of Wales, that either there was any stir or claim made by the prince of North-wales, or any of the descent of Roderic for Powys, or any entries made by them into that country, until after the sovereignty thereof came to the King of England, by the conquering of Rees ap Theodor, that they made head in those parts as in other parts of Wales against the invasion of the Lords Marchers, whereas they might have done it most easily, seeing it wholly bordereth on North-wales, and is farthest from Southwales, and especially being incited and warranted thereunto for recovery of their right. And if a judgement may be made that that which is ill gotten cannot long endure, Et de male partis tertius haeres non gaudebit, then let the long continued descent of divers parts of Powys in the heirs of Cadelh, plead for him that he came justly and lawfully to it: for the Lordship of Mowthwy being a part of Powys is enjoyed to this day, (by descent from Cadelh.) And a great part thereof was held (until of late time) by Grey Lo: Powys by like descent, and the rest of the possessions continued long in his posterity and line, until by partition they were branched into divers families, whereof a great p●rt is now in the Crown by several means; howbeit the sovereignty remained still in the heirs of Cadelh, as Prince of Southwales, which appeareth by their chastising the defections, and taking pledges for the obedience of the Lords of Powys, and such testimonies of Sovereignty related by the writers of North-wales. It is alleged also by some of them, that the possession of Powys was witheld by the heirs of Brochwel Ysgythroc, who was Prince thereof about An: Dom. 617. If that were true, the● Cad●lh did not take Powys by force from his brethren. But for the truth hereof Roderic was lineal heir to Brochwel Ysgy●hroc, viz. son of M●rvyn Vrych, son of Nest, sister and heir of Cyngen, son to Cadelh son to Brochwel Ysgythroc. And thereby Roderic had both the Right and Possession of Powys. And therefore until another Heir be found, or other descents appear from Brochwel Ysgythroc to Bledhyn ap Convyn, then by the line of Roderic the great, and all the persons be mentioned that held Powys in all that time, other than the line of Roderic; the belief of this allegation may be well suspended. And thus the way is cleared to conclude upon this first point, that Cadelh was the Eldest and sovereign Prince of Wales by the descending of Powys unto him.    

Anarawd maintained to be the Eldest son of Roderic the great, and to have the right of Sovereignty over all Wales, and so likewise his successors the Princes of North-wales.  

The Answer to the first Argument.  
THE later Prince of Powys held that by inheritance from the third son of Rod●ric the great, as Mr. Camden in these words declareth▪ Powissiae principes à tertio filio Roderici magni prognati hunc agrum (viz Mountgomerieshire) cum aliis perpetuâ serie ad Ed: 2. temporat●nuerunt Therefore Cadelh prince of Southwales (out of whose loins the later princes of Powys were descended) must of necessity be the third son o● Roderic the great, which degree of Birth the white book of Hergest, Tho● Maylor, Jo: Leland, Hum: Llwyd, Miles, and many more both modern and ancient Authors do attribute to Cadell by name. And if to avoid that, you will say that Camden by tertio filio did not mean Cadelh, the● must Mervyn be the man, and consequently he must have issue, else the later princes of Powys could not derive themselves from Roderic, and i● he had issue, than Cadell could not have Powys by inheritance, as being the Eldest of the 3 Brethren; what was got otherwise, is not the thing in question. And truly to deny Mervyn's issue were injury in the highest degree offered to divers Gentlemen of Wales descending from him, and in particular to the reverend and learned Judge, Sr. William Jones of Carnarvan shire Kt. and lately one of the Justices of the King's bench, who derives his pedigree lineally from Triffin the son of Mervyn: and if you doubt whether Mervyn had such a son, a very ancient parchment MS. written above 400 years ago will resolve you, O Driffin mab Mervyn mab Rodri mawr ydd benyw gwehelyeith Riw o Leyn: that is, the inheritors of Rhiw in Llyn are descended of Triffin the son of Mervyn, the son of Roderic the great. Likewise in a Genealogy of the princes of North-wales, Southwales, and Powys descending from Roderic the great, annexed to a Latin copy of the Laws of Howel Dha, we find that Idwal voel son to Anarawd King of North-wales did marry Avandreg the daughter of Mervyn King of Powis, upon whom he begat Meuric the Ancestor of Lhewelin the great, prince of North-wales. But the ancient and learned Giraldus Cambrensis in the relation of the Genealogy of the said lewelyn the great, hath not only himself fallen into an error, but hath drawn many learned and grave Antiquaries that followed his tract into the same snare, for speaking of this Avandreg, he saith she was the Son and not the Daughter of Mervyn, (the which Mervyn against all Antiquity and truth he calleth prince of North-wales,) and so ascendeth to Roderic the great by the feminine line, making no mention at all of Idwal voel the son of Anarawd prince of North-wales indeed, whom ancient writers term and stile by the name of Ludwallus rex omnium Wall●nsium, who also, as is said before, upon this Avandreg the daughter (and not the son) of Mervyn king of Powis, begat the forenamed Meurig, the Ancestor of Leoline the great. But for your better satisfaction of the ground whence Giraldus did conceive this error, behold these Roundlets following.  


Rodric the great. 

Anarawd K. of North. wales. 

Idwal Voel K. of N.W.    
Mervin K. of Powis.  
Avandrec daughter. 

Meiric.       Farther more, Caradoc Lancarvanensis a Southwales man, who lived about 500 years ago, saith, that a son of Mervyn, named Haeardur, was drowned An: 953. My last witness for Mervyn's issue will be George Owen Harry, another Southwales man, who saith, that Angharad daughter and heir of Llewelin the son of Mervyn king of Powis was married to▪ Owen ap Howel dha (not to Mredyth the said Owen's son, as you say,) his testimony, seeing he was an Antiquary of Southwales, and a strong maintainer of Cadelh's Supremacy, aught to move you to believe this point, especially seeing that this marriage is the only title that the said Author ascribeth to the posterity of Cadelh over Powis, which whether it were lawful, as he is of opinion, or unlawful, as may be inferred out of the words of the English History of the princes of Cambria, I leave others to judge: it shall suffice me to prove that the Prince of North-wales, not of Southwales had the Sovereignty of Powis, as doth appear, when Owen surnamed the great, prince of North-wales, having in his company Cadwallader ap Gr: ap Conan his brother, and the Lord Rees prince of Southwales entered Powis, and chase Owen Cyveiliog Prince thereof out of the Country, seized upon all his inheritance, and gave Caerenion to Owen Vachan to hold of the prince of North-wales; the rest he reserved to himself, saving Dywalwern a little piece of Cyveiliog, which he gave the Lord Rees, because (according to the book of Conwey) the report went, that it stood within the confines of the said Rees his dominions. Hereby it is manifest that the sovereignty of Powis did not belong to the prince of Southwales; for if it had, questionless the Lord Rees then present would have challenged the same as his right by inheritance: and that it did of right appertain to the prince of North-wales may farther appear by an ancient Inquisition taken at Bala before Humphrey Duke of Gl●cester, a: 6. Hen. 6. Totum dominium de Powis tenetur de domino Rege Angliae, ut principe Walliae per servitium Baronum, viz. de serto de Aberfro: & est in dominio de Powis qued dam alind s●rtum vocatum Mathraval, quod simul cum omnibus terris & tenementis eidem certo de Mathraval junctis & annexatis tenet de domino rege ut principe Walliae per servitium praedictum in capite & de jure teneri debet ut de certo de Aberffro praedicto. An other Inquisition found likewise at Ba●a in the 48th year of Ed. 3. saith that, Dominium de Powis iutegrè ten●batur de principibus Walliae in capite, viz. de certo de Aberffraw. Et est in dominio de Powis quoddam alind certum vocatum Mathraval, quod simul cum omnibus terris & tenementis eidem certo junctis & annexatis tenebatur, & adhuc de jure teneri deb●ntur de certo de Aberffraw. And last of all, I must put you in mind, that Cadell king of Powis, Father of Nest, Grandmother to Roderic the great, was the son of Elisseu, and not of Brochwel Ysgithroc; for Brochwel, as you say, was King of Powis An. 617. and this Cadell whom you will have to be his Son, died An: 808. as Caradoc of Lancarvan affirmeth; so then, that one, or yet both of them should reign very near 200 years is almost impossible, and altogether untrue: for according to the ancient histories of Wales, Cadelh was the son of Elisseu, the son of Cynllaw, the son of Beli, the son of Maelmynan, the son of Selyf or Solomon, the son of Cynan, the son of Brochwel Ysgythroc: King of Powis, and Earl of Chester. Thus you see your first Argument and reason for Cadell's seniority and sovereignty quite overthrown, First, by the testimony of Camden, declaring that the latter princes of Powis (the issue of Cadell) were descended from the third son of Roderic the great, which degree of birth the Authors above mentioned ascribe unto Cadell by name: Secondly by an undoubted proof of Meruyn's issue: and lastly, by the sovereignty over Powis proved to be in the princes of North-wales; all which infallibly conclude them to be descended from the eldest son of Roderic the great.   

The second Argument:  
THat Southwales, which was the portion of Cadelh, was far larger than any of the two other, almost double in quantity, containing 38. canters, and 80. Commots, whereas both North-wales and Powis contained but 29. canters and 78. Commots: and yet the Cantred of Buelht, and the forest of Dean are admitted in that division to be in P●wis, which were part of Southwales, and assigned to Cadelh. Southwales also was the far better Soil generally, and most replenished with Noble men and Gentry. Therefore it was the fittest portion to be assigned to the Eldest and Sovereign, and unfit for a younger brother upon evident ground of reason.   

The Answer to the second Argument.  
TO find out the true proportion of Cadelh's inheritance, your Countryman Jo: Asser Menevensis, that lived in Cadelh's time will with most approved Authority direct us: Illo enim tempore & multò ante omnes regiones dextralis Britanniae partis, ad Elfred regem pertinebant, & adhuc pertinent. Hemeid soilicet, cum omnibus habitatoribus Demeticae regionis, & sex filiorum R●tri vi compulsus regali se subdiderat imperio, Hovil quoque filius Ris rex Glegnising & Brochmail atque Fernail filii Meuric, reges Gwent vi & tyra●●ide Eadred comitis & Merciorum compulsi suapte eundem expetivere regem, ut dominium & defensionem ab eo pro inimicis suis haberent. Helised queque filius Teudyr, rex Brechoniae eorundem siliorum Rotri vi coactus, dominium regis praefati suapte requisivit. Hereby it appears that Dyved (now called Pembrokeshire.) Brechnock, Gwent and Glewising, had their several Kings in Cadell's time, so that of a certainty his portion cannot exceed the two counties of Cardigan and Carmardhen of old called the Kingdom of Cardigan, which country being then the possession and Kingdom of Cadell, who was not yet in league with King Alfred, Asserius mentioneth not. And Rees ap Theodor (the most powerful prince, as you say, since Roderic the great's time) had no more in his possession then those two counties, as Sr. Edward straddling in the conquest of Glamorgan makes good; all which containing scarce IX. canters may seem far inferior in quantity to North-wales, which in the days of Howell Dda contained 18. canters, as Morgeneû y nad and Kysnerth his son do aver in their book of British laws. Neither will it avail you though you proved that Cad●lh's sovereignty as chief prince of Southwales did extend to all the inferior princes within Southwales; for so likewise did the sovereignty of ●narawd conclude Cadelh and all Wales in general, as owing homage to him the first of their line, by the ordivance of Roderic the great mentioned in the Description of Cambria, by Sr. Jo: Price, and confirmed also by the laws of Howel Dda. Farther, I stand not so much upon the Fertility of North-wales as upon the Situation and natural strength thereof against all invasions, being therefore most fit and requisite for a sovereign prince in a troubled time, though well I might call the Inland country of North-wales wherein the valley of Clwyd stretcheth itself 18. miles in length, and sometimes 4. 5. 6. and 7. in breadth, to witness against you. Vallis haec (saith Mr. Camden) à salubritate, fertilitate, & amoenitate verè foelix; incolarum color est sanus, capitis firma sinceritas, inoffensum oculorum lumen, & annosa admodum senectus. Ipsa verò virentibus pratis, flaventibus arvis, creberrimis villis, & templis spectantium oculis mirum in modum arridet, And also the I'll of Anglesea and the vast Snowdon hills (that send so many thousands of cattle yearly to England, and no small number to Westwales) lest affection might overrule me Giraldus your countryman, whose testimony you cannot except against, shall speak for me: Est autem haec insula prae cunctis Cambriae finibus triticeo germine incomparabiliter foecunda, adeò ut proverbialiter dici soleat linguâ Britannicâ Môn Mam Gymry, quod latinè sonat, Mona mater Cambriae, quoniam aliis undique terris deficientibus, haec sola gleba praepingui uberique frugum proventu Cambriam totam sustentare consuevit. And in another place, Tantae●tiam & tam immensae quantitatis esse perhibentur montes Eryri (that is Snowdon hills) ut antiquo proverbio dici sol●at sicut Monam insulam h●minibus in annona, sic Eryri in pascuis coactis in unum armentis omnibus totius Walliae sufficere posse. Then if you look to the situation thereof, which you should have done, together with these comparisons you shall find it to be farthest from the English, a matter of great consequence in those days, and which is more, it was and yet is the strongest country absolutely within the Is● of Britain: contrarily, Southwales is very weak in situation, and therefore open for the invasion of all Strangers; but more especially of the Saxons, that bordered even on the neck thereof. And yet it had another inconvenience worse than all the rest, by reason whereof it was reputed even in those days to be far worse than North-wales, though it were greater in quantity, and that is this: Southwallia (saith Giraldus) quanquam quantitate longè major, propter nobiles tamen qui vchelwyr quasi superiores viri vocantur, quibus abundabat, qui & dominis rebelles esse solebant, d minumque ferro detrectabant, deterior esse videbatur. Is it likely then that Roderic the great would prefer his Eldest son and sovereign prince of the Britaines to a Kingdom that did not only want natural fortification, but had also the unhappiness of having inhabitants, whose condition and privileges disposed them to Rebellion. But if our opinions in this case be conceived not authentic, as proceeding from prejudice, Mr. Camden an indifferent person may be thought fit to decide the controversy. And to say no more to this Argument, let your own Countryman Giraldus his forementioned Incomparabiliter prevail upon you to be of another judgement.   

The third Argument.  
THat Howel Dha the eldest son of Cadelh, and succeeding him prince of Southwales, did command the Archbishop of St. David's, and all the Bishops of Wales, and chiefest of the Clergy to the number of 140. and all the Barons and Nobility of Wales, and six of the most wise and best esteemed in every Commot of Wales for the Commonalty, to assemble at his palace called Y tu gwyn are tas in Dyved in Southwales, where with great solemnity he did ordain the Laws whereby North-wales and Powis, and all the people throughout the whole dominion of Wales were governed and ordered, until after the conquering of Rees ap Theodor, that King Henry the first did plant the common law of England, first in the counties of Glamorgan, and Pembrock, (which were conquered and made Counties from that time,) and that the Lords Marchers as they won into Wales did settle a form of Justice mixed of the common law and of the laws of Howel Dha, yet so distempered (as justly may be said) with regal jurisdiction permitted for the time by the King of England, that in the end it became as intolerable to the Crown, as to the people, which laws of Howel Dha were nevertheless entirely executed within so much of the principality of North-wales as continued in the four ancient counties there, viz. Anglesey, Carnarvan, Merioneth, and Flint, and in the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan in Southwales, until the subduing of lewelyn ap Griffith the last prince of North-wales, that King Edward the first ordained the statute of Ruthlan for justice to be done in these six last recited counties (wherein all the principality of Wales then remained,) howbeit many of the laws of Howel Dha continued in force as well in those counties, as in the Lordships march▪ rs until the Statute of Wales in 27. H. 8. even as some few do continue to this day under the title of Customs. Upon all which it is also concluded, that to give or ordain laws, and with these muniments of Authority, proveth without question a Sovereignty.   

The Answer.  
HOwel Dha prince of Southwales by reason of the incapacity (as you say in your 5th. Argument) of the Heir apparent of North-wales, took upon him the rule and government of all Wales. Which being true, it is not to be marvelled at, if he commanded the clergy and nobility of all Wales to assemble before him, that by their counsel and advice he might reform the ancient laws of the Britons: nor yet if the succeeding princes of North-wales, finding those laws good, wholesome, and confirmed by the Sea Apostolic, and also such as did not abrogate but confirm their Sovereignty over all Wales, embraced them, and commanded their subjects to obey them duly, considering that his said Authority was grounded upon his regency over North-wales, and the Heir thereof, as manifestly appears when Howel Dha in his said laws saith, that verbum regis Aberfraw est verbum super omnes reges Walliae, & nullius verbum est super ipsum. So that whereas you would derive a sovereignty to Howel Dha from his power in making laws, you should first have suppressed or burnt all the Copies of the laws of How: Dha, which give to the King of North-wales an absolute sovereignty over all Wales.   

The fourth Argument.  
THat the Bishops of North-wales were created and consecrated in Southwales by the Archbishop of St. David's, that they were his Suffragans, and subject to his Sea. And therefore Roderic in the division, did aptly dispose the sovereign jurisdiction temporal in the territory where the sovereign jurisdiction spiritual was seated, which otherwise had been absurd, and would undoubtedly have bred great troubles.   

The Answer.  
IN regard the Sovereignty of the Eldest son of Roderic extended over all Wales, it is not material in what part thereof the Ecclesiastical supremacy be seated: for be it in the territory of the third or second brother, it cannot prejudice the Eldest that is Sovereign over all. Your Argument, did I hold it firm, would persuade with me to make Edlstan the youngest son of Eghert to have a sovereignty over his eldest brother Ethelwolph, as being King of Kent, wherein is seated Canterbury, the chiefest Sea for spiritual jurisdiction: or well might I gather that the king of Dyved, in whose Kingdom St. David's lay, was superior to Cadelh and his successors, by reason of his good neighbourhood with the Archbishop.   

The fifth Argument.  
THat the prince of Southwales did seize the principality of North-wales, and removed the princes thereof upon occasiou, or offence committed, as the said Howel Dha did seize the same, partly by the incapacity of Meuric son of Edwal voel, to govern and to stay the usurpation of others (upon that pretence) whereby to preserve the general peace of Wales: and partly by forseiture, for spoil that had been done by the prince of North-wales upon his countries of Cardigan and Ystradgwy. This prince Howel, as the writers of North-wales do record, was of a goodly behaviour, just and discreet in his government, and beloved of men; wherefore he obtained the attribute of Dha, which is in English (the good,) whereby it is to be concluded probably, that his coming to the principality of Wales was upon just and lawful grounds. Likewise Owen ap Howel Dha his son prince of Southwales▪ did seize North-wales out of the hands of Cadwalhon ap Jevaf for usurpation and tyranny, and made Mredith his third son Prince there, which, if it had been the sovereign seat, he would not have permitted his younger son to enjoy it, and to become thereby his superior. And in this point the writers of North-wales do obscure the truth with some art by concealing this to be done by the power of the father (prince of Southwales,) and attributing the same wholly to the power of a third son, whereas it is evident, that he had neither force nor authority to perform it, but as his father's minister and subject, whom his father thought good to honour with the fruit of his valour and victory, being achieved propriâ manu not proprio mart, more than the conquests of the famous prince Edward, called the black prince, whose everlasting honours they are, but the possessory right of them was to his father's crown. And it is to be observed, that as the division of Wales by Roderic the great did give the ground of the subduing thereof to the crown of England, so it bred these preparatives thereunto; first the continual usurpation of the Descendants of Anarawd upon his lawful heirs, Insomuch as for 200 years after the division, five of that line did intermissively usurp the government of North-wales, and only two lawful princes ruled there, and those not past 12 years, if they be allowed to be the issue of Anarawd, which some writers of North-wales do gainsay: in which licentious times one Aedan ap Blegored, a mere private man, neither of the blood of the Prince, nor of the Nobility, that any antiquity doth record, intruded into the government, and held it 12. years, until he was expelled by the prince of Southwales. Secondly it gave the Danes and English opportunity to invade and weaken all the parts of Wales, (who were often called in by the usurpers of North-wales to join with them against the prince of Southwales.) By those occasions the princes of Southwales as supreme lords of Wales, & for the general quiet & preservation thereof, did seize & assume into their hands the government of Northasales, wherein six of them ruled the said 200. years, which had not they done, the government in all likelihood had been in that time translated from the race of Roderic the great. But in the end of those 200 years, Rees ap Theodor prince of Southwales with great valour and wisdom did overcome all these long grown evils, and being the most powerful prince that was since Roderic the great, and lineal heir to Cadelh, expelled Trahern ap Caradoc the last usurper of North-wales, and placed Griffith ap Conan (who was held to be the lawful prince of the house of Anarawd) in the quiet and settled possession thereof: which honourable dealing was very ill requited by Griffith ap Conan towards the son of Rees ap Theodor in his distress, as shall be after declared. By all which may appear the general care of the princes of Southwales over the whole dominion of Wales derived from their supreme power, authority, and jurisdiction. For confirmation hereof, it is further to be observed, that since the said division, no prince of North-wales did ever rule in Southwales, or by any occasion did make claim to the principality thereof: and therefore upon this disposing of the principality of North-wales by the princes of Southwales, it is further concluded, that the princes of Southwales were the sovereign princes of Wales.   

The Answer.  
IT is recorded by Caradocus, that Anarawd King of North-wales made a road into the country of Cardigan & Ystradtywi, the possession of his brother Cadelh, but being that the Author allegeth not the cause thereof, as whether it were lawful or unlawful, it might with better reason be said, that it was made for the defect of Payment of the Tribute due to the crown of Abersraw from Southwales, than such a Rebellion, as thereby forfeiture of Royalty should ensue: and considering also that no chastisement was executed by Cadelh or Howel Dha his son upon Anarawd, who lived long after, it may seem great rigour and tyranny in him, and much to derogate from his title of Dha, that is, the good, if he did deprive Idwal's son of his inheritance, for the offence of Anarawd his grandfather, committed many years before his birth, not upon the countries of Howel, as you say, but of Cadelh his father. Therefore if you hold his coming to North-wales to be upon good and lawful grounds, it will be your best course (rejecting offences and forfeitures) wholly to stick to the incapacity of the heir of North-wales, by reason whereof Howel's coming to North-wales, whether it were as being next of blood, able, and worthy to undertake such a charge, or by the appointment of his cousin Idwal, foreseeing perhaps the weakness of his son, or else by the election of the people, was good, just, and lawful. And in regard of his said regency over the house of North-wales, and the right thereunto belonging, I do confess that he was the sovereign prince of all Wales. But considering, that after his death the other sons of Idwal Voel, and their successors the princes of North-wales recovered and held (as I said before) as well the sovereignty of all Wales, as the rule of North-wales, it plainly appears that the right of sovereignty belonged not to Southwales. Moreover Owen the son of Howel Dha was never ruler of North-wales, nor had any action against Cadwalhon ap Jevaf, whereby to deprive him of his Crown and Kingdom, as you say; neither is it likely, if he had so conquered him, that he would prefer his yonngest son to the Government of that Kingdom, lest by exalting the younger brother to honours and dignities above the elder, discord and sedition might breed between them: and in a word, your own countryman Caradocus, that lived about 250 years after this time, attributeth the overthrow of Cadwalhon ap Jevaf and conquest of North-wales to the only power of Mredith ap Owen (who then in his Mother's right did rule all Powis land, whereby his power to undertake that voyage may plainly appear) in these words. Mredyth ap Owein a lathawdh Cadwallawn ap Jevaf drwy fuddugoliaeth a chaffael meddiant hey gyvoeth, sef gwyneth a Mon a ddarystngawdh iddaw: that is, Mredith ap Owen slew God: ap Jevaf in battle, and seized on his dominions, for North-wales and the isle of Anglesey submitted to him. Here is no mention had of Owen or his power, and therefore our writers of North-wales being only Interpreters of your Caradocus, are free from that scandalous imputation that you charge them with. And Lhewelyn ap Seissyllt prince of Southwales, who overcame Aedan ap Blegowryd did not challenge the regency of North-wales, (for Jago the son of Idwal the lawful heir, as is thought, was not as yet in full age) as appertaining any way to the crown of Southwales, as you could wish it, but as he was next heir of blood unto the said Jago; for as Caradocus saith, he was descended from the kings of Wales by the mother side, whose name was Trawst, the daughter and heir of Elissau, the second son of Anarawd the eldest son of Roderic the great, and by that means according to the same Author he claimed and enjoyed the right of North-wales; therefore his coming to the rule of that Kingdom doth not at all favour or confirm your Argument. And here I do greatly marvel who those six Kings of Southwales were, that (as you say) assumed to their hands the government of North-wales, for Mredyth ap Owen was neither king nor heir apparent of Southwales, when he conquered North-wales: and Howel ap Edwin was King of Southwales when Griffith ap Lhewelyn undertook the rule of North-wales; and in like manner Mredyth ap Owen ap Edwym governed Southwales, when Biedhyn ap Cynfyn received the principality of North-wales at the hands of the king of England, doing homage for the same, whereby it is evident that these three princes were not of the six that you mention, and Howel Dha with Lhewelyn ap Seissyllt though they were most worthy and noble princes, yet cannot exceed the number of two, therefore the number of six must needs be a mistake. It is also to be observed that these princes Mredyth, Griff: Bledhyn, and Trahayarn ap Caradoc, after they had settled themselves in the sure and quiet possession of North-wales, seized to their hands the Kingdom of Southwales, and held the same either by strong hand and usurpation, or by state of inheritance, or else in the right of Sovereignty over all Wales that belonged to the crown of N●rthwales. Usurpers they were not, if it be true, that as you say (in the end of your Treatise) Southwales did never fail of a lawful Prince to govern it, till the period thereof by the fatal overthrow of prince Rees ap Theodor: lawful heirs also to Cadelh they cannot be, for the posterity of En●on the son of Owen king of Southwales, and eldest brother to the said Mredyth were living, and therefore they could not challenge Southwales by inheritance; it remains then of necessity that their title to Southwales was grounded on the sovereignty that belonged to the king of North-wales whereof they were princes. But howsoever the matter went, it is certain that they were kings of North-wales, and being so, they took into their hands the regiment of Southwales, whereby I do conclude it was a gross error in you, when you say, that no prince of North-wales did ever rule in Southwales, or by any occasion did claim the principality thereof: seeing the examples of four princes must cause you to confess either, your ignorance or partial censure. Lastly, you say that Rees▪ ap Theodor prince of Southwales with great valour and wisdom did expel Trahern ap Caradoc the last usurper of Nerthwales, and placed Griff: ap Conan in the quiet possession thereof: but antiquity & the truth will inform us otherwise; for in the life of Griff. ap Conan we may read, that when the said Griffith with his navy landed at Portcleis near St. David's, your powerful prince Rees had been a little before deprived of his Kingdom by Trahayarn king of North-wales, and others, and for safeguard of his life had covertly taken Sanctuary at St. David's: but hearing of Griffith's approach, he came with the Bishop and all the clergy of that house to meet him, where Rees fell upon his knees before Griffith, and acquainting him with his ill fortunes, desired his help and aid to fight with those his adversaries, promising to do him homage, and to reward him with the moiety of his Revenues: and Griff: pitying his estate yielded to his request, and having overthrown in battle his enemies, he installed Rees in the quiet possession of Southwales, entered and destroyed Powis with fire and sword, and recovered the Kingdom of North-wales his due inheritance: here withal I find an entry made to Powys by a prince of North-wales before the fatal overthrow of Rees ap The●dor, which you deny in your first Argument.   

The sixth Argument.  
THat the kings of England did ground their title to the principality and sovereignty of Wales upon the conquering of Rees ap Theodor prince of Wales in the reign of Rufus, and not upon the subduing of Lhewelyn ap Griffiu in the reign of Edward the first, as the writers of North-wales do allege: for from the conquering of Rees ap Theodor all the withstanding of the power of the kings of England in Wales was termed by them Rebellion and Treason, which before always had the name of War. And thenceforth the Kings of England did give Signories and possessions in Wales to their English subjects, and so the Lords Marchers began: and thenceforth were the strong Castles, and Forts erected, and Garrisons planted in all parts of Wales, wherein either the Kings of England, or the Lords Marchers did set footing, which grounded in the Kings of England a resolution to prosecute and accomplish the absolute conquest of Wales. And thereby the bishopric of St. David's, and by that sea all the rest of the Bishoprics of Wales were brought under the jurisdiction of Canterbury. And thereupon Griff. ap Conan, and the rest of the princes of North-wales succeeding, yielded to the kings of England submission for that principality, and to hold the same of the crown of England, and gave them pledges to abide in their peace. And the kings of England were stayed from the absolute conquest of North-wales, chiefly by their unsettled state in England, being full of troubles, especially by the French and Barons wars, which were no sooner ended, but that King Henry the third, and his son Edward. 1. took North-wales from Lhewelyn the last, yet adding thereby no more to his former possession of the principality of Wales (as the statute of Ruthlan doth show) but terram de Snowdon, and accounting Lhewelyn not an Enemy, but a Rebel, as appeared by fixing his head on the highest turret of the Tower of London, and executing his brother David for Treason, whereas the English did deliver the slain body of Rees ap Theodor to a decent and honourable burial in the Abbey of Ystradflwr.   

The Answer.  
ALthough the Kings of England after the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor did term the withstanding of their power in Wales rebellion and Treason, it cannot be conceived that should be a sufficient ground for their title to the principality of Wales: for what are those terms, but the hard censure of their utter and always professed enemies in their greatest anger and indignation, peradventure after some shameful overthrow and loss received, and therefore not much to be regarded. But it cannot be granted they gave such names to those wars; for the wars between King John (with his Successors the Kings of England) and Lhewelyn the great, David his son, Owen Goch and Lhewelyn ap Griffith, Princes of Wales, are always termed Guerrae, as it appears in the submissions of David ap Lhewelyn, An: 1240. & 1241. of Owen Goch and Lhewelyn, An: the adward of Ottobonus the Pope's Legate, a: 1268. and the agreement between Edward the first, and the said Lhewelyn prince of Wales, An: 1277. do likewise call those wars Guerrae, which doth not in any Author signify Rebellion, as must needs be acknowledged. Now that the kings of England thenceforth did give Signories and possessions in Wales to their 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 quietness, and not otherwise, the princes were often content to yield up unto the Kings of England four canters. This with other hard dealings hath been noted by divers writers, and Henry the second did not stick to confess 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 sovereignty gotten by the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor must be attributed what submission or acknowledgement of sovereignty, 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 wont and usual. It is also manifest, that the Archbishop of Canterbury did obtain 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 Council, whose Apostolical decrees all the churches in Europe obeyed in those days. 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 divers in Wales anciently written on parchment, both in the Latin 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 Lond●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 saith, escape the common death of a Roman. 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 chains, 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 de●ision flung into a vessel full of of man's blood. Ptolemy Ceraunus King of Macedon was in battle vanquished and slain by Belius (a Britain 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 deal so with lawful princes. And here I may not pass over how that the Abbey of Ystratflur, wh●re you say that the body of Rees ap Theodor was decently buried, was not founded before the days of the Lo: Rees ap Griff. ap Rees ap Theodor Prince of Southwales, as appears by his Charter made presently after the foundation. Ego Rhesus Southwalliae proprietarius princeps venerabile M●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 sel●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. years 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 appears that your Abbey was not founded 73 years after his death. It remains now that I speak somewhat of the true and undoubted conquest of Wales achieved by Ed. 1. as it appears by the power that he assumed over all the inhabitants of Wales, after the fatal overthrow of Leoline the last prince of the British blood; for of all the Kings of England he was the first that altered the form of Government in Wales, he was the first that made the statute of Ruthlan as a Law to govern the people of that country by; he also created Edw: of Carnarvan his eldest son prince of Wales, who according to Mr. Camden, and divers 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 sovereign 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 achievement 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 domini●m obstaculis quibuscunque cessantibus totaliter & cum integritate convertit, & corenae regni praedicti tanquam partem corporis ejusdem anne●● it & univit. Henry the fourth gives the title of Conqueror of Wales to Ed. 1. in his laws against the Welshmen, made An: 2. H. 4. thus, Nulle-Gall●is ait chastel, fortress ne maison defensive de son propre, ne de autre agardere, autrement que n●scoit us●z en temps le Roy Ed: conqueror de Galez: that is, No Welshman shall have castle, fortress, 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 aver 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. lays open the King's title to the principality of Wales in these words: Terra Walliae est terra conquesta & conquisita fuit per dominum Edwardum nuper regem Angliae proavum demini principis nunc per quem conquestum tota terra tam de dominio quam in servitiis injuncta fuit & annexa coronae Angliae.   

The seventh Argument.  
AFter this conquest of Wales by the overthrow of Rees ap Theodor, and the expulsion of his son Griff: ap Rees, who was forced to fly to Ireland, Griff: ap Conan being then prince of North-wales, and of greatest power of any prince there, sithence the said division, never stirred for the principality of Southwales; which, if he had been the supreme Prince of Wales, by this occasion he should most properly and justly have done; neither did any of the Princes of North-wales succeeding him to the last prince Lhewelyn ap Griffith make claim thereunto: Albeit they were all of them, one after the other, the most powerful, worthy, & fortunate Princes that had ruled in North-wales since the division, as Owen Gwyn●th, David ap Owen, Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth, David ap Lhewelyn, and that they had the advantage in their times of the alteration of seven Kings of England, & a troubled state there to have attempted it. But Griff: ap Rees returning from Ireland (to recover his patrimony) in the weakness of his fortunes retired to Griff. ap Conan then prince of North wales, whose daughter he had married, & had by her worthy sons. Of whose return & purpose Henry the first King then of England understanding, knowing him to be the undoubted heir of Wales, and that he would be received by the people, sent for the prince of North-wales, and drew him in, to yield to the delivery of Griff: ap Rees into his hands, which the Prince attempted, and had effected accordingly, but that Griff: ap Rees (upon some notice thereof) hardly escaped into the Sanctuary of Aberdaron, whence the prince would have forced him, but that he was rescued by the whole clergy of the country, and thence conveyed to Southwales, whereupon it is evident, that if Griff. ap Conan had been sovereign prince of Wales (de jure) first no necessity compelling him, he would not have been so undiscreet as to have put himself into the King of England's hands (who claimed the sovereignty thereof,) neither would the king have suffered him to depart, seeing by detaining him he might more easily have compassed his end. Secondly, the Prince of North-wales would not have been so injurious to himself, as to have delivered Griffith ap Rees (if he had been his homager of Southwales) whereby to divest himself of his right thereunto by his own act. But it is plain that the prince of North-wales in respect of the conquering of Rees ap Theodor, having submitted himself to the King of England (as his homager,) and to his peace, came to the king at his sending for him, knowing well that the King was careless of him as touching the right of Sovereignty of Wales. And so he yielded (to make his peace the firmer with the King) to the betraying of his Superior, of his guest and son in law, and the son of him who got him the possession of the principality of North-wales. Hereupon Griff▪ ap Rees put himself in arms, and so held himself during King Henry's time, and a part of King Stephens, recovering a great part of Southwales, and died, leaving his troubles and possessions to his son, called the Lord Rees, who in the end made peace with king Henry the second, and surrendered to him his title to the principality of Wales, bringing the chiefest of the Nobility and Gentry of Southwales to Gloucester, where they submitted themselves to the King, and received their lands and possessions by the Kings grant, to hold of him. And the Lord Rees accepted of the King to be his Justice of Southwales, which office continued until 27. of King Henry the 8. and ended in the Lord Ferrer of Chartley.   

The Answer.  
FOr Answer hereunto, you must first conceive that Griffith ap Conan at the time of Rees ap Theodor's death, was not so powerful as you make him to be: for as we read in the Author of his life, he was then but newly escaped out of the Earl of Chester's prison, where he had remained 12. years. Secondly, that notwithstanding his unsettled state in North-wales (by reason of his said imprisonment,) and the King of England's displeasure conceived against him, he joined forces with Cadwgan ap Bledhyn his son in law, and entering Southwales, after they had slain in battle a great number of Normans, a great part thereof though not all became subject to Cadwgan, as the British history of the Princes relateth; wherein also we find, that afterwards Griff: ap Conan sent his sons Owen and Cadwalladr twice to Southwales, being one time accompanied with 6000 Footmen, and 2000 Horsemen, they took the Castles of Walter Espec, and Richard de la Mare, and also the Castles of Aberystwyth, Dinerth, and Caerwedros', subduing the whole country to the town of Cardigan; and after the slaughter of 3000 Normans in the field, they chased the rest out of the Country, restoring Griffith ap Rees to his father's inheritance, and the ancient inhabitants to their former dwellings. Which is sufficient evidence that they made claim to Southwales as sovereign Princes. And Griffith ap Conan cannot be imagined to interest himself in the cause, (especially in his weakness) by sending his subjects to the field, but that he challenged the sovereignty thereof as due by inheritance, and his son Owen Gwynedd prince of North-wales would not have entered Southwales, in the first year of his reign, as the Chronicle witnesseth, overthrowing the Castles of Ystratmeuric, Stephens, and Hwmphreys, and burning the town of Carmarthen, and compelling part of Dyved to pay tribute unto him, (as Gwalchmai ap Meilir that lived in that age hath recorded) retaining most of Cardigan in his own hands, without claim or pretence of title. Likewise when Henry 2. King of England made his third Expedition against Wales, the Lord Rees and the power of Southwales, and all the other Lords of Wales with their forces marched against the King under the conduct of the Prince of North-wales, which directly proveth his sovereignty over all Wales. After these tumults and turmoils, Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth Prince of North-wales, to prevent all doubt that might arise concerning his right, made all Southwales and Powis swear fealty unto him, as the book of Conwey makes good, wherein we read that they acknowledged the like fealty to David his son, and Lhewelyn the last Prince. But as concerning the unkind dealing of Griff: ap Conan with Gr: ap Rees, and Gr: ap Conan's going to the King of England, I cannot see how that deserves an answer as an Argument for the sovereignty in the Princes of Southwales. Lastly you affirm that the Lord Rees surrendered his title to the principality of Wales to the King of England: which seems unto me most improbable, considering he would not voluntarily depose himself of such royal pre-eminence and sovereignty, without he were brought to such extremity that there were no other remedy; whereas it is evident that the Lord Rees was in great favour with King Henry the second at the time you mention, and had been for many years before; witness the Office of being Justice of Southwales, which the King had given him three years before that peace at Gloucester, as the book of Conwey mentioneth: then also that he brought to the King's peace at Glecester no lords of North-wales or Powis, but few of Southwales, such as had formerly offended the King; whereby it appears that his said resignation, if there were any such, extended no farther than his title of Southwales only, and yet in regard that all the English writers do term and style the said Lord Rees King of Southwales, even to the last period of his life, I cannot readily believe that there was any such surrender made, until the same do appear by some Authentic record.   

The eighth Argument.  
THat the Princes of North-wales (though some late writers of those parts call them Princes and Kings of Wales) did not write themselves so, nor were taken to be so in their time, when there was fit occasion to set forth their title. But ever since the conquering of Rees ap Theodor they did acknowledge this title from the Kings of England, as may appear by the said submissions and transactions between the kings of England and the Princes of North-wales, from the death of Rees ap Theodor to the death of Lhewelyn the last prince, even as they are related by the writers of North-wales. And which maketh it more evident, when the Pope did absolve Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth from his oath of obedience made to King John, and David ap Lhewelyn from his oath of obedience made to King Henry the third, he gave them the title of Princes of North-wales only, whereas both the Princes would have sought, and the Pope would have yielded them the title of Princes of Wales, (in that case especially for the larger extent of their absolutions) if there had been ground for it. Likewise it appeareth by the excommunication of Lhewelyn ap jorweth, when as he persisted in action against King john, after the Pope had made his end with the King, that the Pope styled him Prince of North-wales only: and the colour that those writers do take to term them of North-wales Princes of Wales was, for that after the subduing of Rees ap Theodor, the people of Wales had no other in their distresses to resort unto for protection but the Princes of North-wales. And in that respect, and not otherwise, there being then no Princes of Southwales, Lhewelyn ap jorwerth Prince of North-wales being incited by the Pope and Barons against King john, did assume a command in most parts of Wales: but it ceased in short time, and he submitted himself and his country to King Henry the third.   

The Answer.  
IT it is certain, that the Princes of North-wales, howsoever they did lay down their titles, were always reputed and taken to be the sovereign Kings of Britain, & Princes of Wales, for Caradoc Lancarvan in Glamorganshire speaking of Anarawd prince of North-wales, gives him the title and honour of King of the Britain's, and chief King of Wales, as is manifest in the ancient copies of his History, Idwall oel his son is called by William Malmesbury and others, Rex omnium Wallensium. The same stile, or the like in effect, Caradocus attributeth unto the sons of Idwal, Howel ap Jevaf, Meredith ap Owen, and Bleddyn ap Cynvyn, Princes of North-wales. Trhayarn ap Caradoc is called King of Wales by George Owen Harry, a Gentleman of Southwales. Griff: ap Conan, whom Mr. Camden calleth princeps Walliae, was acknowledged by Rees ap Theodor himself to be Brenhin Brenhincedh Cymru, that is, King of the Kings of Wales, as the Author of Griffiths life averreth; whereby it clearly appears, that the said Rees prince of Southwales pretended no right to the Sovereignty of Wales. And Caradocus also saith that Griff: ap Conan prince of North-wales was p●nna brenhin ac amdhiffynnwr a thangnefedhwr Crmruoll: that is, the chiefest King, defender, and peacemaker of all Wales. Leoline the great also is by Matthew Paris, Mat: Westminster, Polidor, and all our British Antiquities termed prince of Wales, and sometimes king of Wales, as in an old British Ode dedicated to Lhewelyn, by one Encon wan, a Bard of that age, is extant, wherein he is called Gwir frenhin Cymru, that is, the true or natural king of Wales. And David Benuras a Bard of great estimation in his time, in the funeral Elegy of David Lhewelyn's son, calleth him mab brenhin Cymru, that is, the son of the king of Wales. In like manner Prince David, and Leotine the last, are termed most commonly Princes of Wales by all Authors. And here I may not pass how that our great Antiquary Mr. Selden in his notes upon Mi: Draiton his Polilbion, gives our Princes from Anarawd to the last prince the name and title of princes of Wales: adding withal, that after the division among Roderic Mawrs sons, the principality was chiefly in North-wales, and the rest as tributaries to the Prince of that part. Seeing therefore that the princes of North-wales, even from Roderic's time to Lhewelyn ap Griffith, were reputed and taken to be the undoubted Princes and Kings of Wales, I cannot be induced to change my opinion upon bare pretences, be they never so specious. Furthermore it is confessed, that the Princes of North-wales did acknowledge as well the principality of Wales, as the title thereof to the kings of England, yet not only after the death of Rees ap Theodor, but many hundred years before, as it appears by tribute paid by our Princes unto the kings of England in acknowledgement thereof: for in the days of the old Britain's, Tair talaith (as we find in an old British Manuscript, and in the British Triades) a dheleid y dala wrth goron Lundain, un ym-Henrhyn Rhionydhyny Gogledh, are all daleith yn Aberfraw, are drydedh yn Gerniw: that is, three Coronets ought to be held of the Crown of London, the one was the Crown or Coronet of Penrhynrhionydd in the North, the second was of Aberfraw, and the third that of Corawall. And touching the Pope's absolution of Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth from an oath of obedience to the king of England, by styling him Prince of North-wales; whence you infer, that he was not Sovereign of any other part, else the Pope would have given it him in his stile, it concerns you, before you make good your conceit herein, to propose unto us the Pope's own words in the Original, and then to show yourself to be of his Counsel, that when he named North-wales the chiefest seat, you might be sure he did thereby intend to take away the Sovereignty over the rest of Wales. And that North-wales exceeded Southwales in respect of supremacy, you may be easily convinced, if you look back into those times when the Britain's lost the crown and sceptre of London, (as we find in Prawf Ynad, being an ancient MS: containing the old laws of the Britain's;) Then by a general assembly of the men of Gwynedh, Powys, Deheubarth, Evas, Morganw●, and Sersyllwe, it was ordained, that Aberfraw in North-wales should be the chiefest seat, and the king thereof the sovereign King of all the British Princes. And King Howel Dha in his Laws mentioneth a tribute due to the king of North-wales from the kings of Southwales and Powis▪ whereby, and by the inquisition before specified, it is apparent, that the title of Aberffraw or North-wales 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 M●rtimer his subject in the right of Gwladice his wife, sole sister and heir of David ap Lhewelyn, the last lawful prince of North-wales, (for Griffith ap Lhewelyn his eldest Brother, father to Lhewelyn the ●●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 Ear●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 Clar●nce, whereby they had after the crown of England) ever claim 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 North-wales 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 bereft 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 claim 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 seldom or never heard of, that the titles of Kingdoms 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 divers 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 Wigm●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 instalment in the principality of Wales, as is apparent in Matthew Paris, which he would never have done, it his wi●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 himself 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 claim to the principality, which in no w●se he would have omitted, if he had been his heir apparent, and the king of England's 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 pedigree of Richard Duke of York, father of king Edward the 4. wherein the Duke's 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, Lew●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 died without heirs; therefore let us come back again to Gladys ddu, whom Ralph Mortimer married. Hereby it appeareth that Griffith was L●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 blood 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 than Bastards. Thirdly our ancient books of pedigrees do with one consent affirm 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 Marured, 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 days 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 L●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 sororis sui. Here is (you see) most infallible proof, that Gwlades was not the sole sister and heir of David, but the only sister of Griffith (Lh●welyn the great his eldest son) who by equity should have succeeded his father in the principality of Wales; although you and others do aver that he was a Bastard, but how truly, I appeal to the judgement of impartial Antiquaries: for do but equally consider whether a Bastard would offer to disquiet his father and Prince, because he intended that his lawful heir should succeed him in his dominions; or presume to bandy with the legitimate heir for his due inheritance; or whether the King of England would maintain such an execrable quarrel against his (natural) nephew, or the Lords of Wales against their true & legitimate prince in a Bastard's behalf. These circumstances might satisfy, that Griffith was not only born in wedlock, but also the right & proper prince of Wales by inheritance. Consider likewise how Lhewelyn called all the Lords and Barons of Wales before him to Ystratflur, and caused them to swear to be faithful subjects, and to do homage to David his son, and that long before his death; which had been needless and frivolous, if David had been his heir, and Griff: his bastard: consider I say, how that Henry the third immediately after the death of Griffith, assuming▪ the title of his said prisoner into his own hands, entitled his eldest son Edw: to the principality of Wales, accounting David no lawful prince, as it appears thereby: yea and how, that neither the Bruse's Lords of Brechnock. Lacy's Earls of Lincoln, nor any other that married Prince David's sisters of the whole blood, pretended any right to the principality of Wales after his death, though he left no issue or his body to survive him, which such mighty persons would hardly have omitted, if David had been the true heir of Leoline the great, and lawful prince of Wales, furthermore David Benuras in a funeral Elegy to Lhewelyn and his two sons, gives them in general the name of Princes, and prefers Griff: before David. Whereupon I do conclude, that if Griff: had been a bastard, in all likelihood the Bard would not presume to prefer him before David, being legitimate; neither have given him the title of Prince, but that it was his Birthright. Again Polydore Virgil in the 16. book of his History of England, denoteth that Griff: was his father's lawful heir, and that David was an usurper of the principality upheld by the King of Englana's favour in these words. Id temporis Lewelinus Walliae princeps è vita migravit, deinde inter Gruffinum & David filios ejus de principatu disceptatum est; quem ad ultimum David, etsi minor natu, favente Henrico, assecutus est: and a little after: multos Wallorum miserebat casus Griffini, qui per proditionem avito principatu fraudatus in carcere esset, insidebatque in illorum animis tanti facinoris memoria. Add hereunto how Leolinus Gerva●ii filius desponsavit Tanglwist, de qua genuit Griffith, as I said before: add I say the testimony of the book of Hergest before mentioned, with the which agrees John Griff: Eyton, an Author of above an hundred and fifty years' antiquity. Here I might cite the opinion of Guttun Owen and the Bards, who with one consent do testify, that Gr: was his father's eldest son and heir apparent, whose testimonies, seeing their function was nothing else but truly to decant the famous deeds and true pedigrees of the Princes and Nobility of Wales, I hold it good reason that we follow and prefer before the traditions of Strangers, who most commonly being enemies to the Welshmen were careless of their affairs, and therefore apt to err in relating their histories, especially since they looked upon it as their interest to conceal or extenuate, rather than declare their glory. And the Translators of the Chronicle of Wales, tracing their steps, and forgetting the fidelity of Translation, added at their pleasure▪ that Griffith was a Bastard, and that Gwlades was the sister of David going besides the old text wherein you shall find no such matter. Also Bastards by the laws of Howel Dha were excluded from any share of inheritance with their Brethren legitimate, but Gruff: as Dr. powel out of Math: Paris relateth, claimed a portion of his father's inheritance according to the customs of Wales, even so much as of right aught to appertain unto him. Which words do insinuate that he was ready to prove his Father and Mother's marriage lawfully consummated. And David confesseth a portion due to his Brother, when in the third article of his submission to H. 3. he saith, Item I, and the said Griffith, and either of us, shall hold our portions of land of our said sovereign Lord the King in capite. Lastly, the Bastards of the Princes of Wales were not tolerated to bear their father's Arms; and if permitted, yet not without difference, as may be observed in the Coats of Madoc the son of Gwenwynwyn Lord of Powis, David goch the son of David Lord of Denbigh and Fradhsham; Eneon and Cynwric twins, the sons of Mad: ap Mred: Prince of Powis; and Tegwared y bais wen being the Bastard of Prince Lhewelyn ap Jorwerth had therefore a peculiar Coat of Arms given him and his posterity, to wit, Ar. a cheveron S. charged with 3. Mullets pierced: But Griffith father of Llywelyn the last Prince, gave his father's Coat without any change or difference at all, and so did his progeny after him, which proveth that he was lawfully born. These reasons and testimonies do persuade me to think that Griffith was unworthily defamed of Bastardy, and defeated of his Birthright under that pretence. But in regard herein I thwart the judgement of good Antiquaries both ancient and modern, I leave the matter to a farther debate.   

The tenth Argument.  
THE late writers of North-wales cannot agree whether Mervyn or Anarawd were elder. Mr. Humphrey Lloyd following Giraldus, preferreth Mervyn; Doctor Powel, Anarawd. How can they then fitly decide this point, or conclude against Cadelh to be the eldest? It is probable that Giraldus living in Henry 2ds. time, being a native of Wales, and best seen of any (as his works do show) in the antiquities thereof, and living in a time when there were more store of them then now are, or have been in this last age, and otherwise a great learned man and Bishop of St. David's, had as good grounds and helps to prove for Mervyn, as any later writer for Anarawd. Therefore upon this doubt and uncertainty, which of these two were elder, it is safest for the truth to agree upon so good authorities and grounds of reasons for Cadelh to be the eldest, which is confirmed also by the authentic Authority of a country man of North-wales, David Nantmor, the famous Bard, who was and still is of such estimation in North-wales, as none will contradict any thing written by him. Neither would he have declared the truth so plainly, 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 of your hwn oedh un  
Rhodhiad hell Kymry rhydhyn.   

Rhannodh a gadodh er gwelh, dawn, yfydh  
Dinefwr i Gadelh  
Ymab hynaf oi stafelh  
Pennaf o wyr pwyun welh.   

Nerawd wr gwastawd dan go, yn gyfan  
A gafas Aberffro  
May dayoni Duw yno  
Fe biau ay bryniaw ay bro.   

Gwir gwir a dhoydyr i dhyn, paen ifank,  
Powys cafas Mervyn  
Lhymar modh your adrodhyn  
Ytreir rhwing y trywyr hyn.   
In English thus.  

Three sons we find were unto Roderi,  
Whom Cadelh, Nerawd, Mervyn men do call,  
Divide he did, that was a Monarchy  
Of Cambria a gift 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 possess  
Aberffro for his portion, mark you this,  
Whom God I pray with goodness all to bless,  
Both hills and dales the same his own it is.   

The tale is true, yea, true it came to pass,  
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 North-wales 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 general do agree, that the King of North-wales, 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 Kingdom of North-wales, 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 pedigree of the said Griffith lineally to Anarawd. Meilir Brydydh (that flourished in William the Conqueror's time) avers the said Griffith to be descended of Anarawd. Caradocus Lancarvanensis affirms that Anarawd the eldest son of Roderic the great was King of Northwal s. And last of all Ni●nius the old British writer and Disciple of Elv dugus, who lived in the days 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 skilful, 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, entitled, Descriptio Cambriae, he avers that the said Roderic was the cause of the division of Wales into the three kingdoms of North-wales, Southwales, and Powis, whereas it is apparent, that the said three kingdoms had their several Kings many years before his birth, as Dr. Pow●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 frat●ibus totius Walli● monarchiam obtinait, And Carad●cus a more ancient writer testifieth, that Cadelh died 6. years before Anarawd, with whom agreeth your countryman George Owen Harry, and another most ancient British Chronologer which beginneth thus, O's Gwrtheyrn Gortheneu etc. mentioned by Sr. John Prise, p. 121. defensionis Britannicae historiae. Lastly, he faith that Cad●lh's successors even to Theodor enjoyed the said monarchy, whereas it is clear that divers of the line of Anarawd ruled the Kingdom of North-wales during that time: so that we cannot but conclude Giraldus to be in a gross error. And as to the testimony of David Nanmor, on whom relies your whole hope for Cadelh's sovereignty, 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 strengthened by no antiquity, and himself not flourishing before the middle of the reign 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 persuaded that he was ever of that opinion, nor that those verses you are pleased to lay to him are his. They do not savour of the skill of the meanest Bard, much less 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 surpass most men of his time in Poetical science. They have faults as to the measures in 4. several places, such as our Bards term Twyll gynghanedh and Twyll odl, which by the teachers of the faculty, to wit Dr. David du of Hiradhic, Edyrn dafod Aur, Eneon yff●irad, and divers others have been damned for schisms 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 design. And there are mistakes in the history: for Rod●ric was not the divider of Wales; and Cadelh is denied 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 between 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 died.   

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 sovereignty of the Prince of Southwales (where there never failed a lawful prince to govern until the period thereof, by the fatal overthrow of the last and worthy prince, Prince Rees ap Th●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 allege that your authorities and reasons are delivered simply to 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 conceal 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 chain, wanting some necessary links to unite the whole; neither will man's desire be satisfied, until 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 withal 'tis far more fit & decent that the acts of Wales should be registered under the name of those Usurpers of North-wales, 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 lawful heirs of Cadelh. And in my judgement you cannot so confidently excuse your Southwales government from usurpation for that time, seeing Rotherchap Jestin, and others, are acknowledged to be Usurpers within the compass 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 sovereignty continued in North-wales before the days of Roderic the great. Secondly, how Anarawd Prince of North-wales was Roderic's eldest son. And lastly how the Princes of Southwales and Powis paid tribute to the Prince of North-wales. To the first, if you look back into the times before Roderic's reign, you must confess Cadwalhon lhawhir King of North-wales was chiefest of the four that bare swords before Arthur at the triumphant feast of Caerlheon (of which number, as Galfridus Monemutensis affirms, the King of Southwales was one:) or you must deny the testimony of your George Owen Harry, pag. 26. Then afterwards when the Britain's wanted a supreme governor, there was a general meeting had for the election of a King, and a continual supply was had from the Princes of North-wales; as first it may appear, when (after the death of Vortiporius, whom we call Gwerthevyr) the Britain's met at Traeth Maelgwn, as may be seen in those ancient British laws, entitled Prawf ynad, Lhe y caffas Maelgwn vot yn pennaf brenhin, ac Aberffraw yn pen lhyssoedh, a Jarlh Mathyraval, a jarlh Dineuwr, a iarlh Caerlh. on y danaw ynteu: whic● may be thus Englished. Where it was ordained, that Malgwn (Prince of North-wales) should be the chiefest or sovereign King, and Aberffraw in North-wales the sovereign seat of the Britain's, 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 battle of Bangor, met at Chester, where with the consent of all those Princes, Cadvan Prince of North-wales was made King of Britain; after him succeeded in their own right Cadwalhon his son, and Cadwallader his grandchild: at which time the Britain's lost the sovereignty of the whole Isle, as Galfridus saith. And yet R●deris Molwynoc Prince of North-wales, the Grandchild of Cadwallader was obeyed by all the British Princes as their supreme and soveraign● Prince, and called also King of the Britain's 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 reign, it was not controverted who had the sovereignty; for it being most manifest, that the sovereignty of Wales remained in North-wales, it may persuade an indifferent Reader that Roderic would not alter the course of the Sovereignty, being a matter of that ancient continuance, especially when it must be confessed, that the Prince of North-wales was eldest son and heir apparent to his father Rod ric, as both old and late writers do with one consent confess: of which (for brevity's 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 saith farther, that he was the right heir of Cadwallader, 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 North-wales as the chiefest part to his eldest son Humphrey Llwyd in his Breviary of Britain, and Jo. Leyland in his notes upon his book entitled Genethliacon Edvardi principis, and the book of Hergest written in the days of Ed. 4. aver, that Roderic gave North-wales to his eldest son, adding withal, that Cadelh (who had Southwales) was the third son. Cyndhelw brydydd mawr, that is, Cyndhelw the great p●et, who flourished in the days of Henry the second King of England, writeth thus: 
I Rodri mawr vawr vilwriaeth Gymro  
I rai Gymru h●laeth  
A Gwynedh nwn gynnydh a●th  
I vab hynaf y pennaeth.  Caradocus Lancarvanensis forementioned, who wrote in the days of Henry the first testifies in some copies of his Annals, that Roderic had by his wife Angharad divers sons, as Anarawd his eldest son, to whom he gave Aberffraw with North-wales. 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. David's, who flourished even in the days of the sons of Roderic, saith in the acts of King Alfred, that Anaraut filius Rotri cum suis fratribus ad postremum amicitiam Northanhymbrorum d●serens, de qua nullum bonum nisi damnum habuerat, amicitiam Alfredi regis studiose requirens, ad praesentiam illius aavenit, cumque à rege hovorificè receptus esset, & ad manum Episcopi in filium consirmati●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 entered into league with Anarawd only. This testimony with the rest is sufficient to prove, that Anarawd Prince of North-wales was the eldest son of Roderic the great, and therefore sovereign King of the Britain's, which Merdhin Silvester 300 years before Anarawds birth foretold, to wit, that he should be supreme prince of the Britain's after his father Roderic. Now time calleth me to come to my last argument, which is, that the Princes of Southwales and Powis paid a tribute to the Prince of North-wales. Wherein (to deal 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 myself 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 lies arbenic sydh it tri theyrn hyn yn essyddyneu breiniawl ydhynt. Vn yw Aberffraw yngwynedh, Dyneuwr yny Deheu, a Mathraval wynva ym Powys: a llymas mal y dosparthwyd eu teyrnasau hwynt yn dair rhan, un buy uchafiaeth are y dhwy, nit amgen not Aberffraw pie y bendevigaeths. Teir mychdeyrn dhylyet adhylyir oh Gymru olh, Aberffraw 'gan y dhwylies hynny adhylu, un o Dhinefwr, sef yw honno melget, pedeir tunelh o vel a gassei pedeir mu ymhob tunelh, dwy grenneit ymhob mu, lhwyth deuwr are drossol ym hob gren: Peillget o Wynva a ymodh hunws hefyd. Thus Englished. Three lawful Kings ought to rule all Wales under its bounds, the King of Aberffraw in North-wales, the Lord of Dinefwr, and this of Mathraval: these three Princes have three principal courts for their Princely dwellings, Aberffraw in North-wales, Dinefwr in Southwales, and Mathraval wynfa in Powis. Thus their Dominions were divided into three parts, one hath a sovereignty 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 North-wales: 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 North-wales was to pay a tribute to the King of London, so should all the Kings of Wales pay tribute to the King of North-wales. LXIII libras est mychdeyrn dyled quod rex Aberfrau reddere debet regi Londoniae semel cum acceperit terram suam ab eo; p●stea verò omnes reges Walliae debent terram suam ab eoaccipere, i. e. à rege Aberffraw, & illi reddere meicheerd deleet & abediw p●st eorum mortem, & verbum illius, verbum est super omnes reges, & nullius verbum est super ipsum: that is to say, sixty three pounds is the Monarchical 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 relief after their death. And his law is a law over the Kings, and no man's law is over him. So saith Howel Dha.  
The weight of these reasons makes me omit divers 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 strengthened with the authorities of both Southwales and North-wales new and old writers, I see no reason why you should not conclude with me, That the Princes of North-wales had the sovereignty over all Wales.   
THE END.   

A Mistake touching the Pedigree of the Earl of CARBERY corrected.  
FInding a mistake in a book lately printed, called Cambria triumphans, touching the Pedigree 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 unskilful 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 showing 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 books of Pedigrees 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 styled of Powis, the other of Cardigan, for distinction's sake. And they appear further to be distinct by their distinct Coats of Arms, and distinct Pedigrees: he of Powis beareth vert a Lion rampant A. imbrued head, feet and tail; the other, Or a Lion rampant regardant S. languid and armed G. And for their Pedigrees, books written about 400 years ago, say that Gwaethvoed of Powis was the son of Gwrhydr ap Caradawc ap Lles Llawddeawc etc. to Beli Mawr (Belinus magnus) Monarch of Britain, the father of King Lud, and of Cassib●lan, who was King when Julius Caesar first entered Britain. And there are other books that derive the Pedigree of Gwaethvoed of Cardigan to Gwythno Garanir Lord of Cantre Gwaelod, (to wit, that large Plain extending itself between the Counties 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 etc.] for Blethyn was near of this Gwaethvoed's age. Caradoc of Lancarvan in his history of Wales tells us; that Blethyn was slain A. D. 1073. being born, as may be conjectured, about 1023. supposing Angharad (Prince lewelyn ap Sitsyllt's widow, who was slain A. D. 1021.) to marry Convyn Blethyn's father 1022. Now Gwaethvoed of Cardigan could not be ancienter than Blethyn, if so ancient, will appear, if we examine the 2d. book. and 4th ch. of Giraldus Cambr●nsis his Itinerarium Cambriae; there we may find, that in the year 1188, when Baldwin Archbishop of Canterbury visited Wales, with Giraldus in his company, to persuade the Welsh to list themselves for the holy war against the Saracens, that there was a son of this Gwaethvoed's (an aged man) then living, called Ednowen, a Lay Abbot of Lanbadern vawr in Cardiganshire, being a 115 years just after the death of Blethyn ap Cynvyn; therefore we must needs conclude this Gwaethvoed could not live long before Blethyn, and if he did live before him any time, he could not so long before him, as to be his Grandfather.  
Besides, that Gwaethvoed, the Earl of Carbery's Ancestor, was a distinct person from Gwaethvoed of Cardigan, and far ancienter, may from hence further be gathered, viz. that the generations from him to our time are more in number then the generations from Gwaethvoed of Cardigan, as appears by this instance, to wit, my Lord Vaughan the Earls son is the 21th. generation from Gwaethvoed his Ancestor; whereas Sr. Richard Price of Gogerddan Baronet, descended from Gwaethvo●d of Cardigan my Lord's equal in age is but the 17th. in descent from that Gwa●thvoed. Also we read in our books of one Morvydh daughter to Yayr ddu King of Gwent (now Monmouthshire,) who lived in King Ath●lstan's time, A. D. 921. as Rog: Hovenden hath it recorded, that married one Gwaethvoed, which could not be that of Cardigan, who, as is said, having a son living 1188. cannot rationally be supposed to be born before the year 1000, or thereabouts, but may very well be that Gwaethvoed of Powis, the Ancestor of Blethyn; this Gwaethvoed might very well be Blethyn's great grandfather, there being a 100 years' difference of time and above, between them.   

The Pedigree of the right honourable Sr. RICHARD VAUGHAN Earl of Carbery, Lord Viscount Molingar, Baron of Emlyn, and Lord Precedent of the Marches of WALES.  
Gwaithvoed vawr Lord of Powis. Morvydd damn: & coheir of Yayr ddu king of Gwent. Gwerystan Lord of Powis. Nest danghter of Cadell ap Brochw. l. Convyn Lord of Powis. Aagharad Queen of Wales, da: & heir of Mredith ap Owen king of Wales: the relict of Llywelyn ap Bledhyn ap Cy●vyn King of Wales. Haer da: & coheir of Cilli●● Blaidd rudd of (Seissylt. Gest. Meredith ap Bleddyn Prince of Powis. Hunyth damn: of Eynydd. Madoc ap Meredith Prince of Powis. Eva damn: of Madoc ap Urien ap Egmir ap Lles ap Idaerth Benuras of Maesbroke. ER. Gh. Enion Evell. Arddyn da. of Madoc Van ap Madoc ap Enion hael ap Urien of Main Gwinedd. R. C. Run ap Enion. Elizabeth damn: to Jo. Lord Strange of Cno●kin Gh. ER. Cyhely● ap Rh●●. Eva da. and heir of Grono ap Cadwgan Saethydd Lord of Henvache Gh. ER. Ivaf ap Cyhelyn. Eva damn: to Adda ap Awr of Trevor. Gh. ER. Madoc Coch. Lleuki damn: of Howel goch ap Mared Van etc. to Bleddyn ap Cynvyn. Gh. ER. Madoc Kyffin. — the damn: of Griffith ap Rees ap Madoc ap Ririd Ulaidd. Gh. David ap Mad. Kyffin. Catharin damn: of Morgan ap Davydd ap Madoc ap David Van ap David up Griff. ap Jorwerth ap Howel ap Moriddig ap Sandde, Gh. RC. David Va. of Gartheryr. Gwervyl damn: to Griffith ap Rees ap Griffith ap Madoc ap Jorwerth ap Madoc ap Ririd ulaidd. Gh. Griffith Vaugh. Tibod damn: to Meredith ap Tudur ap Gronw ap Howel y gadair. Gh. Hugh Vaughan Esq. Jane damn: of Moris' ap Owen ap Griff. ap Nicôlas. Gh. John Vaugh. Esq. Catherine da. of Harry ap Trahayarn of Bodlysgwm. Gh: Walter Vaugh. of Golden Grove. Marry da. of Griffith Rees of Tresnewyth in Carmartbin shire. John Earl of Carbury etc. Margaret da. of Sr. Gely Meuric. Kt. Richard Earl of Carbury, etc. Alice da. of John Earl of Bridgewater.  
He beareth Or. a lyoa rampant G. the coat of Blethyn ap Kynvyn, not the Coat of Prince Madoc ap Meredith, being A. a lion rampant S. armed and languid G.   

The 5. Royal Tribes of Cambria.  
1. GRiffith ap Conan King of North-wales is the first registered in our books; he was the Grandchild of Prince Jago ap Edwal, whose son Conan was forced to fly into Ireland for safety, where he married Ranullt daughter of Auloedd King of Dublin, Man, and the Isles, and the reli●● of Mathganyn King of Ulster, and had issue by her this Griffith. He beareth G. 3 lioncels passant in pale barry A. armed Az.  
2. Rees ap Tewdwr mawr, the second Royal Tribe, who took upon him the government of Southwales A. D. 1077. G. a Lion rampant Or. within a bordure indented.  
3. Blethyn ap. Cynvyn (the third royal Tribe) was King of North-wales and Prince of Powis, and after the death of his grandfather Meredith ap Owen (Prince of Southwales) he became King of all Wales, Or a Lion rampant G. armed and languid Or.  
4. The fourth Royal tribe Elystan. Glodrydd Prince of the country between Why and Severne. He was the son of Cyhelyn ap Junr by Rhi●ingar the daughter and heir of Gr●nw ap Tuder Trevor, from whom he had derived to him the title of the Earldom of Hereford. Athelstan King of England was his Godfather. Elystan's two Coats quartered. A. 3 boars heads cobazed S. languid G. tusked Or. His Mother's Coa●. Parted per Bend sinister Ermine and ermines, over all, a lion rampant Or.  
5. Jestyn ap Gurgant, the fifth Royal Tribe, was Prince or Lord of Glamorgan, he descended from jewdric King of Gwent in King Arthur's time. He lost his Country to Robert Fitz hamon the Norman, and his 12 knights, whom by the procurement of Eneon ap Cadivor ap Colwy● he had hired to come with an army to assist him against Rees ap Tewdwr Prince of Southwales, & Blethyn ap Maenyrch Lord of Breeknock▪ a just judgement upon him for his disloyalty to the said Rees his Lord & Prince! God being pleased suddenly to permit treachery to be punishedwith treachery. Rees and Blethyn after a very bloody fight (not far from Brecknock were both slain in the field. G. 3 che●onels in pale A.  
Prince Griffith ap Conan, Rees ap Tewawr, and Blethyn ap Cynvyn made diligent search after the Arms, Ensigns, and Pedigrees of their Ancestors, the Nobility and Kings of the Britain's; what they discovered by their pains in any papers and records was afterwards by the Bards digested and put into books. And they ordained 5. royal Tribes (there being only 3 before) to whom their pollerity to this day can derive themselves: and also 15 special Tribes, of whom the Gentry, especially of North-wales, are for the most part descended. And in our books we have mention of the Tribe of the Marc●● etc. besides other Tribes called Gwe●●lyth and Gwehelaethan.  
THE END.