The pedigree tables below shows the lists relevant for the reconstruction of the pedigrees of the royals of Gwent and Glywysing. Note, the generation numbers increase from top to bottom. It is proposed that the names in square brackets have been lost in the surviving manuscripts whereas those in round brackets are corruptions that should be ignored. The names appear as in the respective manuscripts except for those in square brackets which are given in their equivalent modern form as are those that appear in the accompanying text.
|Gen.||Date range||MP 3b seg.||Harl. 4181b seg.||JC 9||GM 1b||HG 29||HG 28|
|0||471×502||(Teithvallt) [Llywarch]||(Teithvael) [Llywarch]||Llywarch|
|5||633×665||Einvdd||Enyth||[Ei]Nud (hael)||(Haddhail) [Einudd]||(Iudhail) [Einudd]||[Einudd]|
|Gen.||Date range||MP 3a seg.||Harl. 4181a||GM 1a|
|8||731×762||Gwraidd||(Edwin Vryth) Gwriad||Gyriat|
|13||893×925||Morgan (mwynvawr) [Hen]||Morgan (Mwynfawr) [Hen]|
JC 9 claimns the husband of Enynny was called Caradog Freichfras. However, this is a corrupted transcription from an earlier document of Creirwy, or its abbreviation.
The name Einudd of gen. 5 takes the form Ainydd in Mostyn 212b (not shown). In JC 9 it has become corrupted to Nud Hael. In HG 29 the name Einudd was replaced by Ithel. This error was due to the fact that both Ithel and his father Einudd had sons called Rhys, see table 3. This lead to Einudd disappearing altogether in HG 28 and 29 and to the belief that Ithel was the son of Morgan.
Bartrum noted that ‘Ris’ of HG 29 was the ‘Rees’ of JC 9. He also took the ‘Artmail’ of HG 29 to be the ‘Arthuael map Gwryat’ of JC 9. His original conclusion that the names Gwriad and Brochwel had been lost in HG 29 was correct.
To understand why Brochwel and Gwriad disappeared from HG 29 one needs to look at MP 3 which the compilers incorrectly thought was one line of descent whereas it needs to be considered as two, namely MP 3a and 3b as shown in the tables 2 and 1 respectively. The Brochwel, father of Gwriad, of gen. 7 in MP 3a was assumed to be the Brochwel ap Meurig of gen. 11 in MP 3b. So, when the two lists were incorrectly joined into a single sequence, MP 3, Brochwel ap Rhys and his son, Gwriad, were removed as those names were assumed to be corrupt repetitions. In Harl. 4181 even Brochwel’s grandson, Arthfael, was seen as an incorrect repetition and removed from the combined list, see table 1. In Harl. 4181a Gwriad actually appears but in the corrupted form Edwin Vryth.
As mentioned earlier, the name Einudd became altered to Ithel. Chronology suggests that the Ffernfael ab Ithel who died in 775, according to the Annales Cambriae, was the son of Einudd.
The lists result in the tree diagram below:
Table 3 The date associated with each generation number is the mid-value of its generation range.