Amlawdd Wledig, Ancestor of King Arthur

Amlawdd Wledig is an intriguing figure from the Arthurian legends. There are various references to him within Welsh literature, but almost nothing is actually revealed about him. For this reason, he is frequently viewed as an obscure and mysterious figure. However, a close consideration of the available facts clears up a lot about this character. In this article, we will examine what we know and what conclusions we can reasonably come to about Amlawdd Wledig.

Who Was Amlawdd Wledig?

Amlawdd Wledig is a character who appears primarily as an ancestral figure in Welsh texts. He is primarily known for being the father of Eigr (Igraine), the mother of King Arthur and the wife of Gwrlais (Gorlois), Duke of Cornwall. This would make him the maternal grandfather of Arthur.

However, he does not only appear as the father of Eigr. Various other characters in the Arthurian legends are presented as Amlawdd’s children or grandchildren. The grandchildren were often connected to him through daughters rather than sons. Sometimes, Amlawdd is mentioned in contexts where his grandchildren were explicitly described as cousins of Arthur.

For this reason, many scholars believe that Amlawdd Wledig may have simply served the function of allowing certain characters to be relatives of Arthur. As such, he may not have been a real person or even a real character in the legends outside of this function.

Name

The name of this figure is often spelt ‘Amlawdd’ in modern sources, hence its use here. However, there are a variety of other spellings that are used for his name in the medieval manuscripts.

Perhaps the earliest reference in which he appears is the Welsh prose tale Culhwch and Olwen. In this story, his name appears as ‘Anlawd’. This dates to c. 1100.

In the Life of St Illtud, written in c. 1140, his name is written as ‘Anblaud’. This suggests that his name originally had a ‘b’ within it, which was then lost quite early on.

The loss of the ‘b’ after the ‘m’ is something which is seen in a variety of instances, such as ‘Ambrosius’ becoming ‘Emrys’.

Title

What about the title assigned to Amlawdd? As we have seen, he is called Amlawdd Wledig. What does this title, ‘Wledig’, really mean?

The answer to that question is something which scholars continue to debate. It is used for quite a few figures in Welsh tradition, whereas it is conspicuously absent from others, yet its exact meaning is still unclear.

What is clear is that it was a title applied to a ruler of some kind. Yet, countless figures in the Welsh records were rulers, but very few of them have this title. Therefore, it evidently refers to a very specific type of ruler.

Rachel Bromwich’s conclusion regarding this title is as follows:

“[C. E.] Stevens’s own suggestion is more acceptable: that the term was originally applied to a leader of local, or native, militia. This would suit well with the ‘Romans’ Magnus Maximus and Ambrosius Aurelianus, and also the sub-Roman chieftains Ceredig and Cunedda.”

A similar suggestion is that it specifically applied to the “commander of the native militia (in a Romano-British province)".

The accuracy of this definition is questionable, since it is used in early Welsh poetry for Urien, a powerful king of Rheged in the north of Britain in the mid to late sixth century.

An Indication of Power

What is notable, however, is that all the figures who are given this title in the earliest sources are the most powerful rulers of their respective regions. Magnus Maximus, for example, was a Roman Emperor, while Ambrosius was the high king. Cunedda, likewise, is portrayed as the most powerful king of the region in which he was active, as is Urien.

Therefore, although we cannot be certain about the exact meaning, it does appear that a person with this title was an exceptionally powerful ruler – or at least, the most powerful ruler of the territory in which they were active.

Of course, not every powerful ruler is portrayed in the sources as having this title. Arthur and Maelgwn are notable exceptions. Hence, it evidently had a more specific meaning than just that.

Nonetheless, the evident inclusion of power in its definition helps us to see what kind of person Amlawdd must have been. This, in turn, may help us to work out his true identity. 

Family

Amlawdd Wledig is given numerous family members in the sources, most of whom were his children or grandchildren. Only a few references exist concerning Amlawdd’s own ancestry. Hence, let us begin by examining his descendants, and then we will consider his ancestry next.

Amlawdd’s Many Daughters

By far the most famous of Amlawdd’s daughters is Eigr. She is Arthur’s mother according to virtually all traditions. In non-Welsh sources, she appears with such names as ‘Igerna’, ‘Igraine’, and other variations. Allegedly, she was married to Gwrlais, or Gorlois, the Duke of Cornwall.

Another notable daughter was Tywanwedd, also spelt ‘Dywanw’. She appeared in a genealogical record known as the Descent of the Men of the North. Here, she is depicted as the wife of a certain ‘Tudfwlch Corneu, prince of Kernyw’. This is evidently Teithfallt, the king of Glywysing and Gwent in the fifth century.

In a genealogical record known as Bonedd y Saint, this same daughter appears as the wife of a figure named Hawystl Gloff. This would appear to be a title, meaning ‘Augustulus the Lame’. Given that one of their several children is named ‘Tudur’, a form of ‘Tewdrig’, and Teithfallt had a son by that name, this would appear to confirm that ‘Hawystl Gloff’ is a title given to Teithfallt.

The Life of St Illtud gives Amlawdd a daughter named Rieingulid, the mother of Illtud. She married Bicanus of Llydaw.

Another one of Amlawdd’s daughters was a woman named Goleuddydd. She appeared in Culhwch and Olwen as the mother of the titular Culhwch. Her husband, the father of Culhwch, was Cilydd. She is said to have gone mad during her pregnancy, with her sanity only being restored after her child was born.

In this same tale, Culhwch and Olwen, Goleuddydd is presented as having an unnamed sister whose child is named Goreu ap Custennin. Hence, Custennin must be the husband of this unnamed sister.

The record Bonedd y Saint also mentions a daughter of Amlawdd named Gwyar. She was depicted as the wife of Geraint ap Erbin, the king of Dumnonia.

Finally, there is an unnamed daughter who married a figure named Gwystyl (likely the son of Neithon ap Senyllt of the North) and gave birth to Gwair, one of Arthur’s knights.

In reality, for chronological reasons that we will go on to examine closely, it appears that most of these ‘daughters’ were actually granddaughters, great-granddaughters, or even more distant descendants.

Amlawdd’s Supposed Sons

While there are various daughters assigned to Amlawdd in the records, there are almost no sons who are explicitly depicted as his children. However, there were two individuals who, according to many scholars, were implied to be his sons.

These are Gwrfoddw Hen and Llygadrudd Emys. They were referred to as King Arthur’s maternal uncles in Culhwch and Olwen, the brothers of his mother.

The text did not clarify who this mother was. However, given the overwhelming consensus of Welsh tradition, it is logical to interpret this as a reference to Eigr ferch Amlawdd. This would therefore make Gwrfoddw and Llygadrudd the sons of Amlawdd.

In reality, evidence from the Book of Llandaff, a non-Arthurian historical source, indicates that Gwrfoddw (and therefore his brother, if that relationship is genuine) was actually the son of a king of Ergyng named Gwrgan Fawr.

It appears that the only figure who is directly presented as the son of Amlawdd Wledig is a certain Cynwal Canhwch. He appears in Culhwch and Olwen as an ally of Arthur. In Bonedd yr Arwyr, he is made a son of Amlawdd by Gwen the daughter of Cunedda.

Wife

According to the Jesus College MS 20 and the Bonedd yr Arwyr, the wife of Amlawdd Wledig was a woman named Gwen, daughter of Cunedda Wledig.

While nothing more is known about Gwen herself, her father Cunedda was one of the most prominent figures of the early fifth century. His sons carved out kingdoms for themselves all across most of North Wales.

This is consistent with the idea that Amlawdd was a powerful ruler, as was already indicated by his title ‘Wledig’.

Ancestry

Let us now consider his ancestry. There are two versions of this in the records. One of them is clearly more authentic than the other.

Non-Welsh Version

The less authentic version is based on the non-Welsh Arthurian romance entitled L'Estoire del Saint Graal, written in the thirteenth century. This makes the unnamed father of ‘Ygerna’ (that is, Arthur’s mother Eigr) a descendant of Joseph of Arimathea.

A Welsh genealogical record, first seen in a sixteenth century document, adapts this fanciful genealogy and inserts the name ‘Aflawdd’ in the place of Ygerna’s unnamed father.

More Authentic Version

In contrast, in the Bonedd yr Arwyr, we find the following fifteenth century ancestry given to Amlawdd:

“Amlawd wledic ap Kynwal ap Ffrwdwr ap Gwrvawr ap Kadien ap Kynan ap Eudaf.”

This places Amlawdd in the dynasty of Brittany or the dynasty of Dumnonia (the descendants of Cynan ap Eudaf ruled over both areas).

However, this ancestry is not plausible. Cynan ap Eudaf was a late fourth century figure. This ancestry places Amlawdd five generations after him, which would put his birth over 100 years after that of Cynan.

This would place Amlawdd well into the mid or late fifth century, or even the early sixth. Such a conclusion would be completely inconsistent with the record that makes Amlawdd’s daughter the wife of Teithfallt and mother of Tewdrig.

This is also inconsistent with the evidence concerning Amlawdd’s wife. As we saw earlier, his wife was Gwen the daughter of Cunedda Wledig. Cunedda, for his part, is believed to have been born around 370. Hence, his daughter Gwen is unlikely to have been born any later than the early fifth century.

Hence, Gwen’s husband, Amlawdd, should likewise have been born around the early fifth century, or even the late fourth century.

The main point to be taken from this evidence is that the aforementioned pedigree assigned to Amlawdd cannot be accurate. However, this does not mean that he cannot have been a descendant of Cynan ap Eudaf. In fact, we will go on to see that this probably was the case.

When Did Amlawdd Wledig Live?

Let us examine the chronological evidence in more detail. As we have seen, the Descent of the Men of the North makes Amlawdd the father-in-law of Tudfwlch, or Teithfallt, and a comparison with Bonedd y Saint shows that Teithfallt’s marriage to Amlawdd’s daughter resulted in the birth of ‘Tudur’, or Tewdrig.

A variety of records, such as the Jesus College MS 20, show that Tewdrig ap Teithfallt was the grandfather of Brychan. Based on the weight of chronological evidence about this dynasty, as indicated by David Farmer in The Oxford Dictionary of Saints: Fifth Edition Revised, this can only be Brychan II, not Brychan I.

Brychan II was born in c. 470 according to scholar Peter Bartrum, although c. 480 seems more likely. This being the case, Tewdrig was probably born about forty to forty-five years earlier, or in c. 435-440. His father, in turn, would have likely been born between c. 410-420.

As already explained, Amlawdd’s daughter Tywanwedd cannot have been a later wife of Teithfallt, since Tewdrig was one of her sons. Hence, she was probably born around 420. She might have been a few years younger than Teithfallt, but since she was the mother of Tewdrig, she cannot have been born much later than that.

Hence, Amlawdd himself must have been born in c. 400 or possibly even earlier.  This is consistent with the record of him marrying Gwen, the daughter of Cunedda, who was himself born in c. 370.

What This Means for Amlawdd’s Daughters

Now that we know when Amlawdd Wledig was born, we can establish with some confidence which of his recorded daughters were actually his direct daughters, and which ones must have been his later descendants.

Eigr

Regarding Eigr, the supposed mother of Arthur, the evidence is unclear. The weight of chronological evidence suggests that Arthur was born in c. 500 or just after. This is consistent with the vast majority of figures presented as his contemporaries in Welsh tradition and Latin records.

It is also consistent with the earliest explicit chronological evidence concerning Maelgwn Gwynedd. As Rachel Bromwich pointed out, this evidence suggests that Maelgwn was a late-sixth century king, which would place Gildas in the late-sixth century and thus, by extension, the Battle of Badon in the mid-sixth century.

The easiest way to harmonise this with the date in the Annales Cambriae for that battle is to assume that it was backdated by thirty-three years as a result of confusion between the birth and the death of Jesus, as sometimes happened in the records.

This being so, Arthur’s mother would have likely been born in c. 480 or possibly a few years later. Hence, it is virtually certain that Eigr was not actually the direct daughter of Amlawdd. She could, instead, have been his granddaughter or even great-granddaughter.

Possible Connection to Tewdrig

On the other hand, there is a convincing case to be made that the character of Uthyr Pendragon in the Arthurian legends should be identified as Tewdrig, regardless of the true identity of King Arthur (many researchers identify Arthur with Tewdrig’s grandson Athrwys, but the connection between Tewdrig and Uthyr does not depend on this).

If this is so, then it could be the case that Eigr was not necessarily the historical mother of Arthur, but was the wife of Tewdrig. With Tewdrig’s birth likely being placed in c. 440, this would logically place Eigr’s birth at about that time too.

Placing Eigr’s birth at this time would allow her to have been a direct daughter of Amlawdd, albeit one who was born abnormally late in his life. He would likely have been over forty, or even fifty, years old when Eigr was born. Hence, Eigr could plausibly be interpreted as a granddaughter too.

The chronological evidence does not allow us to determine whether she was or was not a direct daughter of Amlawdd, but she plausibly could have been.

Rieingulid

Given the firm chronological evidence that Illtud was born in c. 500, his mother was likely born in c. 480. Therefore, she was definitely not actually the daughter of Amlawdd.

Rieingulid’s True Ancestry

Interestingly, a late tradition recorded by Rice Rees makes her the daughter of Tewdrig. This is chronologically satisfactory. It would also explain her alleged descent from Amlawdd, since Tewdrig himself was the son of Amlawdd’s daughter Tywanwedd.

Furthermore, this may be related to the possibility that Tewdrig’s own wife was Eigr, a daughter or granddaughter of Amlawdd, her possibly being the mother of Rieingulid.

Goleuddydd

What about Goleuddydd, the mother of Culhwch in the tale Culhwch and Olwen? This story is set in King Arthur’s time, during his reign. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that this tale is set just after the Battle of Badon, after Osla (the Saxon enemy at that battle according to Welsh tradition) had already been subdued by Arthur.

Culhwch is depicted as a fairly young man at this time, since the story is about Culhwch trying to marry Olwen. Hence, with the Battle of Badon being properly placed in 549, thirty-three years after the date provided in the Annales Cambriae (see above), he was probably born in approximately 525.

Hence, Goleuddydd must have been born towards the very beginning of the sixth century, likely between 500-510.

This is a full century or more after the birth of Amlawdd Wledig, making it clear that she cannot have been his direct daughter.

Goleuddydd’s True Ancestry

Interestingly, within the Welsh records, there is only one other figure recorded as having the name ‘Goleuddydd’. This one other figure was a daughter of Brychan. Her name also appears in a shorter form, ‘Goleu’, in some manuscripts.

Given the estimated birth of Brychan in c. 480, Goleuddydd the mother of Culhwch is perfectly chronologically placed to be identical to Goleuddydd the daughter of Brychan.

Brychan lived in Brycheiniog, southeast Wales. The story in Culhwch and Olwen is primarily set in South Wales. Hence, as well as living at the same time, both of these women with the same rare name lived in the same region.

It is surely a logical conclusion to identify both Goleuddydds as the same figure. With this being the case, how does Goleuddydd being the daughter of Brychan tie in to the tradition of her being the daughter of Amlawdd?

As we have already seen, Brychan was the grandson of Tewdrig, who was, in turn, the grandson of Amlawdd through his mother Tywanwedd, the wife of Teithfallt. Hence, Goleuddydd ferch Brychan would have been the great-great-great-granddaughter of Amlawdd.

Furthermore, if Eigr really was the wife of Tewdrig and the direct daughter of Amlawdd, then Goleuddydd ferch Brychan would also have been Amlawdd’s great-great-granddaughter.

Unnamed Sister of Goleuddydd

If Goleuddydd can be identified as a daughter of Brychan, then her unnamed sister would logically have been another one of Brychan’s daughters. Unfortunately, since her name is not provided in the story in which she appears, it is impossible to make a specific identification.

Furthermore, none of Brychan’s daughters are recorded as marrying a man named Custennin. The records about these daughters do not always provide the names of their respective husbands.

Gwyar

Let us now examine Gwyar, the wife of Geraint ap Erbin. Geraint is recorded as dying at the Battle of Llongborth, which can very likely be identified as the prelude to the Battle of Camlann. Based on the revised Arthurian dates discussed above, this would place Geraint’s death in 570.

Since Geraint’s grandson, Constantine, was allegedly already an adult by this time and was able to take over from Arthur as high king after the Battle of Camlann, this would indicate that Geraint was born in approximately 510.

We also reach this approximate year when counting forward from Cynan ap Eudaf of the late fourth century, from whom Geraint was descended.

Based on this, it is once again obvious that Gwyar cannot have genuinely been a direct daughter of Amlawdd Wledig. She must have been a later descendant.

Gwyar’s True Ancestry

Interestingly, Wace’s Roman de Brut from 1155 calls Guinevere the cousin of Cador on his mother’s side. Cador is Cadwy ap Geraint in Welsh tradition. The Guinevere mentioned by Wace was Gwenhwyfar ferch Gogfran Gawr.

Therefore, putting Wace’s claim together with Welsh tradition, we can come to the conclusion that Geraint’s wife Gwyar (the mother of Cador/Cadwy) was the sister of Gogfran Gawr, the father of Gwenhwyfar. This would mean that Gogfran was also a supposed descendant of Amlawdd.

One conclusion would be that Geraint’s wife Gwyar can be identified as Ceingair. The name ‘Gwyar’ can be plausibly interpreted as a corruption of the second half of ‘Ceingair’.

Ceingair appears in documents about Brychan’s children, where she is presented as one of his daughters and the mother of Saint Cynidr. Notably, one of the children of Geraint and Gwyar was recorded as being named Cyngar. The letters ‘g’ and ‘d’ were sometimes swapped, as seen on the Pillar of Eliseg, whose honorand was named ‘Elisedd’.

This would also mean that Gogfran, apparently the brother of Gwyar, should theoretically have been a son of Brychan. Since Brychan was recorded as having a son named Cynfran, arguably a corruption of ‘Gogfran’, this supports the identification of Gwyar with Ceingair ferch Brychan.

Gwyar’s More Likely Identity

However, the most likely conclusion regarding Gwyar comes from the fact that Bonedd y Saint states that Cador (the son of Geraint) was Arthur’s nephew on his mother’s side. This would imply that Gwyar, the wife of Geraint, was Arthur’s sister.

As it happens, other Welsh texts (such as Culhwch and Olwen) confirm that Arthur did have a sister named Gwyar. Since Arthur and his siblings were descendants of Amlawdd, this would appear to explain the true identity of Gwyar the ‘daughter’ of Amlawdd.

Unnamed Wife of Gwystyl

The only daughter of Amlawdd left to examine now is the wife of Gwystyl, mother of Gwair. Gwair was one of Arthur’s knights. Given that the same story in which Gwair appears as an ally of Arthur also mentions a certain Gwystyl ap Nwython, it is very likely that Gwair’s father Gwystyl is the same as the son of Nwython.

Since this Nwython is mentioned as having another son named Rhun, he can almost certainly be identified as the Neithon who appears in the Harleian MS 3859 as a member of the dynasty of the Isle of Man, possibly originally based in Galloway.

This would make Gwystyl an alleged seventh century descendant of Magnus Maximus, from the fourth century. Thus, he must have been born in approximately 500. Therefore, his unnamed wife, the ‘daughter’ of Amlawdd, must likewise have been born in that general era.

Once again, we can see that this ‘daughter’ of Amlawdd must have been a later descendant.

The True Ancestry of Gwystyl’s Wife

Thinking, once again, about the daughters of Brychan (since he was perhaps the only known descendant of Amlawdd whose daughters were well recorded), it is likely significant that many of his daughters married into families from the North.

For example, recall the fact that Brychan’s daughter Gwawr married Elidir Lydanwyn, father of the northern poet Llywarch Hen. Another daughter was recorded as marrying Cynfarch, father of Urien, Llew (or Lot) and Arawn.

Another daughter married into a dynasty even further north. Lluan married Gabran, father of King Aidan of Dal Riada.

Therefore, although we cannot identify this unnamed ‘daughter’ of Amlawdd with any specific daughter of Brychan (since her name is not provided), it is entirely plausible to conclude that Gwystyl’s wife was indeed one of Brychan’s daughters.

A possible trace of this marriage may be seen in the fact some documents provide Brychan with an obscure child named Hawystl. This might be a corruption of ‘Gwystyl’, Brychan’s son-in-law being placed among his own children by mistake.

Summary

In summary, it appears that almost all of the children assigned to Amlawdd in the records are actually his later descendants. His only definite daughter is Tywanwedd, the wife of Teithfallt and mother of Tewdrig.

Eigr might have been the daughter of Amlawdd, although it is also plausible that she was his granddaughter.

However, almost all the other daughters appear to have actually been daughters of Brychan. They were known as the daughters of Amlawdd Wledig by virtue of Brychan’s own descent from Amlawdd.

The only exception would appear to be Rieingulid, who was possibly the daughter of Tewdrig and thus the aunt of Brychan.

Where did Amlawdd Wledig Live?

The fact that Amlawdd must have been born in c. 400 or even earlier helps us to establish who he really was. Nonetheless, there is more that we need to establish concerning him, to determine that. Notably, we need to ascertain where he lived.

Not Ergyng

Many scholars argue that Amlawdd Wledig was associated with Ergyng. However, the basis for this is very weak.

As we saw earlier, Culhwch and Olwen mentions that Arthur’s two maternal uncles were Gwrfoddw and Llygadrudd. Since the Book of Llandaff mentions a king of Ergyng named Gwrfoddw, this is the basis for connecting Amlawdd with that kingdom.

The problem is that Amlawdd himself never appeared in the Book of Llandaff, despite that collection of charters providing a perfectly comprehensive record of the kings of Ergyng in the generations before and after Gwrfoddw. Given his relative position to the other kings who did appear, Gwrfoddw would appear to have been the son of Gwrgan Fawr.

Ascertaining His True Kingdom

In reality, the evidence suggests that Amlawdd was the king of Brittany. Consider the first and only record which explicitly states where Amlawdd reigned. This is the Life of St Illtud. This record described the birth of Illtud, explaining that he was the son of Prince Bicanus of Llydaw and Rieingulid, daughter of Anblaud the ‘king of Britannia’.

Traditionally, Bicanus has been interpreted as a prince of Brittany, since ‘Llydaw’ is the medieval name for that region, while Amlawdd has been interpreted as a king of a kingdom somewhere in Britain.

However, many scholars have convincingly argued that ‘Llydaw’ in this context actually refers to a region in Brycheiniog. Bicanus could plausibly be identified as Brychan, the prince of that region at that time.

Hence, if Illtud’s father was the king of a kingdom within Britain, as the evidence would appear to support, then how does this relate to Amlawdd being described as ‘king of Britannia’?

Elsewhere in the Life of St Illtud, when British kings are mentioned, they are described as being the kings of specific regions. For example, Poulentus is called the ‘king of the Glamorgan folk’. King Meirchion receives the same description.

Amlawdd was the only one in the account who is called by such a general term as ‘king of Britannia’. This would imply that he was not the king of a minor kingdom within Britain, but was the king of the entire area known as ‘Britannia’.

The contrast between Bicanus being called the king of Llydaw, a specific kingdom in Britain, and Amlawdd being called the king of Britannia is undoubtedly significant.

Of course, if Amlawdd was ever considered the high king of Britain, there would surely be more traces of this in Welsh tradition.

King of Brittany

In view of the aforementioned evidence, as well as the date in which Amlawdd really lived, one conclusion stands out as by far the most likely. We can confidently conclude that Amlawdd was the king of Brittany. Why can we say this?

If Amlawdd had been the king of a specific kingdom in Britain, the Life of St Illtud should have mentioned it by name. On the other hand, the idea that he was the high king of Britain is not viable either.

Excluding these two possibilities, the only remaining one is that ‘Britannia’ in this passage is a reference to Brittany. This is indeed the name by which it was known in early records. For instance, this name is used by Procopius, the sixth century Byzantine historian.

While Brittany had come to be divided into at least three distinct kingdoms by the sixth century, tradition indicates that it was a single kingdom in its early history. Amlawdd, living in the early fifth century, was reigning not long after Brittany had first been established by Cynan ap Eudaf, its first king.

Therefore, the description of Amlawdd in the Life of St Illtud is easily understandable when we interpret him as the king of Brittany and place him in the early fifth century.

Identifying Amlawdd Wledig

Now that we can see that Amlawdd Wledig was evidently the king of Brittany in the early fifth century, it becomes quite straightforward to identify him with another recorded individual.

The individual in question is Aldroenus, the king of Brittany in the early fifth century in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae. The spellings that Geoffrey uses are not always particularly close to the original Welsh forms. In this case, Welsh texts spell this name ‘Aldwr’.

Evidence That Amlawdd Wledig Was King Aldwr of Brittany

The genealogy assigned to Aldwr in Welsh records is obviously wrong, for it places too many generations between him and his ancestor Cynan ap Eudaf. Nonetheless, it is very similar to the equally incorrect ancestry provided for Amlawdd, discussed earlier.

The first part of both genealogical records is identical. The only differences are the names of Amlawdd’s and Aldwr’s respective father and grandfather. In the case of Amlawdd, his father is recorded as ‘Kynwal’. On the other hand, Aldwr’s father is recorded as ‘Kynfor’.

Notably, there are examples of the letter ‘r’ being exchanged for the letter ‘l’ in the manuscripts, and vice versa (see Geoffrey’s ‘Eridur’, for example). Furthermore, the letter ‘f’ was often written in the manuscripts as a ‘u’, making it easily confused with a ‘w’. Thus, the names ‘Kynwal’ and ‘Kynfor’ are so similar that one can easily be dismissed as a corruption of the other.

The name of Aldwr’s grandfather is recorded as ‘Tudwal’, while the grandfather of Amlawdd is recorded as ‘Ffrwdwr’. When we again bear in mind the common confusion between an ‘r’ and an ‘l’, one of these two names can likewise be considered a corruption of the other. Given that neither of these genealogical records is early, this is not implausible.

Therefore, while both genealogical records are obviously flawed for chronological reasons, their very close similarities support the conclusion that Amlawdd and Aldwr were actually the same person.

This conclusion is supported even further by the fact that Baring-Gould and Fisher’s Lives of the British Saints notes that one account presents Rieingulid, traditionally the ‘daughter’ of Amlawdd, as the daughter of Aldwr.

Amlawdd’s Original Name

Based on this evidence, we can conclude that Amlawdd’s original name was something like ‘Amblawdwr’. Through one line of transmission, this then became shortened into ‘Amlawdd’ (notice the similar clipping of the name ‘Tywanwedd’ as ‘Dywanw’, to mention just one of many examples).

Through another line of transmission, this became shortened into ‘Alawdwr’ (notice the similar reduction of a consonant cluster in the name of Briacat ap Pasgen in the Jesus College MS 20). Evidence for this form is seen in the Welsh poem Cadair Teyrnon, which refers to ‘Aladwr’ as an ancestor of King Arthur.

This, in turn, was then reduced in this line of transmission even further to ‘Aldwr’. For comparison, notice how the historical name ‘Mandubracius’ became reduced to ‘Andragius’ in the Historia Regum Britanniae.

Who Aldwr Really Was

There are no reliable records about Aldwr. However, according to the Historia Regum Britanniae, he was the fourth king of Brittany after Cynan. Presumably, he was Cynan’s descendant, although his exact lineage is unknown.

According to Geoffrey, Aldwr’s younger brother Constantine was sent to Britain to rule as king after the Romans had neglected to defend them. This Constantine can almost certainly be identified with the Constantius of the Historia Brittonum, the king who ruled for sixteen years, and not Emperor Constantine III.

Constantius, Aldwr’s brother, was likely the leader of the Britons when they expelled the Roman administration in 409. His sixteen-year reign takes us to 425, the start of Vortigern’s reign.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Amlawdd Wledig is famously a mysterious figure from the Arthurian legends. However, when we examine his character in more detail, we can see him for who he really was. He was Aldwr, or Aldroenus, the legendary king of Brittany in the early fifth century. Many of his ‘daughters’ were actually later descendants.

Sources

Bartrum, Peter, A Welsh Classical Dictionary, 1993

Bromwich, Rachel, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain, 2014

Morris, John, Arthurian Period Sources, Vol 3: Persons, 1995

Farmer, David, Oxford Dictionary of Saints: Fifth Edition Revised, 2011

Howells, Caleb, King Arthur: The Man Who Conquered Europe, 2019

Baring-Gould & Fisher, The Lives of the British Saints: Vol III, 1911