Anwn Ddu "the Black" ap Budic, King of Greece or Brycheiniog - Years

Steven Mitchell Ferry -- oh, the early Welsh tree.

Do you know what we need to mess with here? Apparently I've got the lines according to Bartrum, but the dates aren't making sense.

It looks to me like two men named Annun Ddu have been conflated. The date for the Annun Ddu in the ancestry of Brychan was derived from working back from c. 400, the date generally assigned to Brychan. If you'll note that on Bartrum's chart (https://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/6516/TABLES%...) there is only one son for Annun Ddu, King of Greece, which in itself means little as it is only charting the line for Brychan. But when you review Bartrum's chart for Emyr Llydaw (https://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/6516/TABLES%...) that son, Tathal, is not listed as a son of Annun. But maybe Bartrum is just dealing with Saints, although he does have some listed without the saint indication, and certainly Tathal's line leads to many saints via Brychan. But to me the tell is in geography. How would Emyr Llydaw, whom Wolcott dates at c.400 as a descendant of Cynan Meriadoc, have a son, who may have come to Britain, and was titled King of Greece? In deed, Bartrum assigns different dates for Annun on the two charts.

It looks to me like we need to separate this Annun Ddu from Emyr, the listed wife, and all children but Tathal, preserving his line to Brychan, and to create a new profile for Annun ap Emyr, whether he be Ddu or not, as the father of the remaining children and husband to the listed Anna ferch Meurig.

Wolcott writes that none of the sources which deal with Annun Ddu, King of Greece, name his father. So, on second thought it would be a lot easier to start a new profile for him and just move Tathal under the new profile. We can change the date on the Annun in the current profile to c. 435. Also I just noticed that I gave the same chart link for both Bartrum pages. This is the one that deals with Emyr: https://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/6516/TABLES%...

Thanks!

I will untangle.

Supposedly this figure is a descendent of Saint Patrick. Not directly but his ancestor is a sibling of Saint Patrick.

Steven Mitchell Ferry -- in trying to work this stuff out, I've been working on the issue of "King of Greece," which of course makes no sense.

Here is Sowerby, discussing his supposed son St. Samson, and mentioning the conflation of two Anwns -- https://books.google.com/books?id=BbQ4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=... -- Anwn Ddu, rex grecorum, is Marc Antony.

Which still doesn't solve the "king of Greece" part, since Anwn King of Graweg (Annwn du, vrenhin Groec) is different.

One of the problems here is that both Bartrum and Wolcott do not often distinguish, in these early genealogies, from mythical//legendary and historical. The lines are often quite blurry.

So whether we are dealing with an historical figure who has become called by a legendary epithet (rex grecorum), or one of the legendary figures who show up at the far reaches of the genealogies, is not yet clear to me, at least.

Anne Brannen You can definitely rule out Marc Antony on dating alone. As for King of Greece, that is most interesting. There is a theory that Troy was not in the Mideast at all, but in Briton, hence the labeling of Brutus of Troy as being one of the first kings of Briton. And if we follow Tolstoy we realize that "history" is written by the victor regardless of the facts.

Oh, it’s not really Marc Antony.

Any more than King Arthur is really anybody’s ancestor.

Yet another instance of mythical ancestors. In this case, though there really was a Marc Antony elsewhere and elsewhen, this is a mythical one.

The dates seem to be thrown in by people as circa 300, as an example. This being the case, people will get a lot of dates tangled. It's much easier when working with an exact date, as opposed to an approximate.

I was jumping up here for Mr. Carey, but it looks like you are already on it, Anne. Thank you.