Back in November 2003 the late Brice Clagett reported here on an alleged early Plantagenet descent for the Puleston family that had recently been published in “The Augustan”. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-11/1069111275 The descent was as follows: 1. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. (By mistress:) 2. Emma of Anjou, m. (2) Dafydd ap Owain Gwynedd, Prince of Gwynedd. 3. Gwenllian ferch Dafydd, m. Gruffydd ap Cadwgan ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn. 4. Hunydd ferch Gruffydd, m. Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, Denbighshire. 5. Moriddig ap Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Tangwystl ferch Cadfan ap Cadwaladr. 6. Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Gwladys ferch Gruffydd ap Meilir Eyton 7. Ynyr ap Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Ial, Denbighshire; m. _____. 8. Llywelyn ab Ynyr, Lord of Gellignan in Ial, Denbighshire; m. Margred ferch Gruffydd ap Iorwerth. 9. Margred ferch Llywelyn ab Ynyr; m. Sir Roger Puleston, of Emral, Flintshire, who d. c. 1339 Brice pointed out that the validity of this descent depended on the parentage of #4, Hunydd ferch Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, who was variously reported in Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies as being either the daughter or the sister of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. The late William Addams Reitwiesner had previously discussed this point in a post of 7 Nov 2002 in this group. WAR noted that Bartrum’s table Sandde Hardd 1 showed Hunydd as a daughter of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, while his table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 showed Hunydd as his sister. In the latter case, Hunydd would not be a Plantagenet descendant, and the Puleston descent (as well as others) would fail. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-11/1036440626 The reports of the discrepancies in Bartrum regarding Hunydd’s parentage were likely based on the published versions (1974 and 1983) of Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies. However, the versions of his tables now available online incorporate changes made by Bartrum to his tables subsequent to their original publication. In this case, the inconsistent reporting of the parentage of Hunydd has been eliminated. Bartrum’s table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 now shows Hunydd as the daughter, not the sister, of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. If accurate, this removes the doubt about this particular step in the descent shown above. http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5210/Bleddyn%20ap%20Cynfyn%2046.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y To be clear, I’m not opining on the accuracy of Bartrum’s statement regarding this parentage – either as originally stated or as revised by him. I’m simply pointing out that the inconsistency between Bartrum’s tables in this matter was resolved by him before he died. If he was accurate in this correction, it opens an avenue for Plantagenet descents which has not been much explored previously.

On 5/21/2016 6:04 PM, John Higgins via wrote: > Back in November 2003 the late Brice Clagett reported here on an alleged early Plantagenet descent for the Puleston family that had recently been published in “The Augustan”. > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-11/1069111275 > > The descent was as follows: > 1. Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. (By mistress:) > 2. Emma of Anjou, m. (2) Dafydd ap Owain Gwynedd, Prince of Gwynedd. > 3. Gwenllian ferch Dafydd, m. Gruffydd ap Cadwgan ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn. > 4. Hunydd ferch Gruffydd, m. Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, Denbighshire. > 5. Moriddig ap Sandde Hardd, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Tangwystl ferch Cadfan ap Cadwaladr. > 6. Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Burton and Llai, m. Gwladys ferch Gruffydd ap Meilir Eyton > 7. Ynyr ap Hywel ap Moriddig, lord of Ial, Denbighshire; m. _____. > 8. Llywelyn ab Ynyr, Lord of Gellignan in Ial, Denbighshire; m. Margred ferch Gruffydd ap Iorwerth. > 9. Margred ferch Llywelyn ab Ynyr; m. Sir Roger Puleston, of Emral, Flintshire, who d. c. 1339 > > Brice pointed out that the validity of this descent depended on the parentage of #4, Hunydd ferch Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, who was variously reported in Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies as being either the daughter or the sister of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. The late William Addams Reitwiesner had previously discussed this point in a post of 7 Nov 2002 in this group. WAR noted that Bartrum’s table Sandde Hardd 1 showed Hunydd as a daughter of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon, while his table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 showed Hunydd as his sister. In the latter case, Hunydd would not be a Plantagenet descendant, and the Puleston descent (as well as others) would fail. > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2002-11/1036440626 > > The reports of the discrepancies in Bartrum regarding Hunydd’s parentage were likely based on the published versions (1974 and 1983) of Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies. However, the versions of his tables now available online incorporate changes made by Bartrum to his tables subsequent to their original publication. In this case, the inconsistent reporting of the parentage of Hunydd has been eliminated. Bartrum’s table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 46 now shows Hunydd as the daughter, not the sister, of Gruffudd ap Cadwygon. If accurate, this removes the doubt about this particular step in the descent shown above. > http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5210/Bleddyn%20ap%20Cynfyn%2046.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y > > To be clear, I’m not opining on the accuracy of Bartrum’s statement regarding this parentage – either as originally stated or as revised by him. I’m simply pointing out that the inconsistency between Bartrum’s tables in this matter was resolved by him before he died. If he was accurate in this correction, it opens an avenue for Plantagenet descents which has not been much explored previously. There is a big problem here. According to the entry for Hunydd in the index, the earliest authority cited by Bartrum is from the seventeenth century. So, the chances of finding any reasonable supporting evidence for this claim seem pretty slim. Stewart Baldwin