HG 15 states:
[G]ripiud . Teudos
caten . Tres sunt
filíí nougoy .
et sanant elized .
filia illorum . mater erat
Bartrum originally interpreted this slighlty corrupted text correctly thus:
… tres sunt filii nougoy regis pouis, et sanant filia elized illorum mater erat.
This is shown int the table below where the generation numbers have been allocated:
JC 8 has:
Gruffud. a thewdos. a cathen. Meibyon y vrenhin powys. o sanant verch elisse y mam. Elisse. verch neuue hen mab tewdwr.
The full pedigree list in JC 8 is:
Comparing the two tables above, the ruler of Powys, Vrenhin Powys, in gen. 8 is clearly a reference to a Nowy, Sanan’s husband indicating Elisse verch Nowy Hen is an error and that Elisse was the son of Tewdwr. In fact, Elise is a male name.
Note, Rhain Dremrudd is an interloper in this pedigree as he was a contemporary of St. Cadog. Tne cognomen Dremrudd has been incorrectly attached to Rhain ap Cadwgan.
Bartrum correctly proposed the idea that Nowy, the husband of Sanan, was the son of Madog using the lineage that appears in JC 16:
|Gen.||JC 16b seg.|
Nowy ap Madog occupies gen. 8 as does Nowy in the firs table and 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.