HG 15 states:
[G]ripiud . teudos
caten . tres sunt
filíí nougoy .
et sanant elized .
filia illorum . mater erat
Bartrum correctly interprets this slighlty corrupted text thus (the generation numbers are mine):
Gruffudd, Tewdws and Cathen were three sons of Nowy, the king of Powys, and Sanan daughter of Elise. JC 8 has:
Gruffud a the6dos. a cathen. meibyon y vrenhin powys. o sanant verch elisse y mam. Elisse. verch neuue hen
The full pedigree list in JC 8 is:
Comparing the two tables above, the ruler of Powys, Vrenhin Powys, in gen. 9 is clearly a reference to Nowy, Sanan’s husband. Bartrum errs when he maintains that the Nowy Hen listed in JC 8 and of gen. 7 is her husband’s name displaced :
In fact, he is shown correctly in gen. 7 and was Sanan’s grandfather. There is, however, a genuine error in the document when it states Elise was the daughter of Nowy Hen as Elise is a male name.
Note, Rhain Dremrudd and his father Brychan I are interlopers in this pedigree as the former was a contemporary of St. Cadog.
Bartrum proposed the idea that Nowy, the husband of Sanan, was the son of Madog using the lineage that appears in JC 16:
|Gen.||JC 16 seg.|
Nowy ap Madog occupies gen. 9 as does Nowy in the previous tables and I believe Bartrum’s proposal was sound. Unfortunately, however, he abandoned this idea, as can be seen by his crossing out in this chart:
He tentatively adopted Dumville’s incorrect proposal that Elise, not Nowy, was the king of Powys and that his father was Gwylog who appears in HG 27 and on the PE. In this scheme Nowy, the husband of Sanan, is made the son of Tewdwr ap Rhain, see the pedigree chart below:
Dumville’s chronology does not work. He suggests Tewdwr ap Griffri was a signatory of a land charter dated 934. In fact the LL states this individual was Tewdwr ab Elise.