All the ancient British genealogies now in existence, excluding HRB for the moment, go back to about a dozen semi-legendary individuals who seem to have lived sometime in the period from the 4th century to the 6th. Listed roughly in chronological order, they are:
- Eudaf Hen (in Siluria?)
- Macsen Wledig (the Roman emperor Maximus)
- Coel Hen (in the north)
- Cunedda Wledig (in the north, near Manaw Gododdin)
- Eochaid Allmuir (leader of Déisi migration to Dyfed)
- Brychan (in Brycheiniog)
- Vortigern (near Kent? in Gwerthrynion?)
- Dyfnwal Hen (in Strathclyde)
- Casnar Wledig (near Powys?)
- Arthur (in the north)
- Erb (in Gwent)
To these may be added the following, which apparently left no traceable descendants:
the descendants of Tasciovanus in HG 16, which I discuss elsewhere
possibly a few other fragments about which nothing is known, such as HG 24 and 25
Now, whatever the pedigrees may say, Macsen was a Spaniard, and has no traceable ancestry. Eochaid Allmuir was of Irish extraction, and Brychan was probably of the same stock, although a few generations are traced on his mother's side to some "Annun Ddu, king of the Greeks". Vortigern is only traced back a few generations, apparently Roman nobility. The only ancestry recorded for Casnar Wledig seems to be a gross error. The others each have long, important pedigrees extending back well into antiquity, or rather into the remote legendary past.
The genealogies record connections between most of these persons. For example:
- Macsen married a daughter of Eudaf
- Vortigern married a daughter of Macsen
- Brychan married a granddaughter of Macsen
- Casnar married a granddaughter of Vortigern
- Coel married a granddaughter of Eudaf
- Cunedda married a daughter of Coel
- Arthur's mother was descended from Eudaf.
Also notable here is the epithet gwledig, which apparently was equivalent to the Latin title protector. We have, in approximately chronological order:
- Macsen Wledig, the first recorded example
- Coel Hen Godebog (which likewise means protector)
- Cunedda Wledig
- Amlawdd Wledig, maternal grandfather of Arthur
- Ceredig Wledig, paternal grandfather of Dyfnwal Hen
- Emrys Wledig, said to be paternal uncle of Arthur
- Casnar Wledig
- Cynan Wledig, probably a great-great-grandson of Vortigern
It would seem that the title was used mainly in the north and later in Powys. Perhaps only one person held it at a time. If so, the gap between Casnar and Cynan might be filled by Arthur, whose name stood alone, needing neither title nor epithet. Casnar is said in the romances to be a "knight" of Arthur, which most likely means he was a contemporary ruler, in this case an older contemporary and perhaps a predecessor.
Of the ancestries of these forefathers, we see that only the following have any substantial length:
- Dyfnwal Hen descends from Fer map Con
- Eudaf Hen and Erb both descend from Bran Fendigaid
- Coel Hen and Cunedda Wledig both descend from Beli Mawr
- St. Patrick, St. Manchan, and the Arthur of the Campbell pedigrees descend from an eponym of Britain
It is worthwhile to quote each of these (from EWGT unless otherwise noted) and examine them one by one.
HG 5: Dumngual hen map Cinuit map Ceritic guletic map Cynloyp map Cinhil map Cluim map Cursalem map Fer map Confer ipse est vero olitauc dimor meton venditus est.
Here we have the origin of the kings of Strathcylde. Ceretic guletic is probably the Coroticus to whose soldiers St. Patrick wrote a letter of reproach about 471. Some of the names farther up appear to be mutilated versions of Roman names. The text at the end has never been satisfactorily explained, but the suggestion of Miller is that the copyist garbled an original reading ...map Con. Fer ipse est Verb clitauc..., which is to say that Fer was also called Verb, which is consistent with a unique instance in the Pictish king list where the Strathclyde king Neithon is called Nechtan nepos Verb, meaning that he was a descendant of Verb, or in other words, a king from Strathclyde rather than Pictland. Other than that this man was a progenitor who apparently lived in the third or fourth century, nothing more is known of him.
Another curious thing is that this pedigree occurs in only one manuscript, the earliest extant genealogical collection. All later versions show Dyfnwal Hen as son of Ednyfed son of Antonius son of Maximus. Bartrum thinks this may be due mainly to confusion between Ceredig Wledig and the more famous Macsen Wledig, but Ford thinks that there were two Dyfnwals who have been confounded.
The ancestries of Eudaf Hen and Erb occur in several remarkable versions, which diverge somewhat after Llyr Llediaith.
ByS 76: ...Kynan ap Eudaf ap Caradoc ap Bran ap Llyr lediaith.
ByA 33: Elen f. Eudaf m. Karadawc m. Bran m. Llyr lletieith m. Garar m. Gerein hir m. Secuyn m. Keit m. Arth m. Morvran m. Kerint m. Cridol m. Dingarth m. Annun m. Lainus m. Brutus m. Ericonius m. Alanius m. Reesilue m. Nenne m. Parapilius m. Ascanius m. Eneas m. Anchise m. Troys m. Dardan m. Iauan m. Iaphet m. Noe.
JC 9: ...Erb m. Erbic m. Meuric m. Enenni verch Erbic m. Meuric m. Caradawc vreichvras.
MP 3: ...Urban ap Edric ap Kreirwy ap Meuric ap Meirchion ap Gwrgann vrych ap Arthvael ap Einudd ap Gorddwfn ap Goruc ap Meirchion vawd vilwr ap Owain ap Kyllin ap Kradoc ap Bran ap Llyr ap Barar ap Keri hir lyngwyn ap Kaid ap Arch ap Meryran ap Keraint ap Greidiol ap Dingad ap Annun ap Albanius ap Kamber ap Brutus ap Silius ap Ysganes.
Iolo: ...Bran ab Edric ab Creirwy ab Meyryg ab Meirchion ab Gwrgan frych ab Arthfael ab Einydd ab Gorddyfwn ab Goryc (alias Goria) ab Eirchion fawdfilwr ab Ywain ab Cyllin ab Caradog ab Bran ab Llyr ab Baran ab Ceri hir lyngwyn ab Caid ab Arch ab Meirion ab Ceraint ab Greidiol ab Dingad ab Anyn ab Alafon ab Brywlais ab Ceraint feddw ab Berwyn ab Morgan ab Bleddyn ab Rhun ab Idwal ab Llywarch ab Calchwynydd ab Enir fardd ab Ithel ab Llariau ab Tewged ab Llyfeinydd ab Peredur ab Gweyrydd ab Ithon ab Cymryw ab Brwth ab Selys hen ab Annyn Dro ab Prydain ab Aedd Mawr.
There are several interesting points. Firstly, all the early sources call Eudaf Hen a son of the legendary Caradog ap Bran. In the genealogies, Bran is a maternal grandson of Beli Mawr, who is consistently put about the first century. Moreover, the Gwent pedigree quoted here implies a similar date for Bran. For Eudaf to be a grandson of Bran is a glaring chronological inconsistency. David Nash Ford has quoted to me a late source showing Eudaf as a son of Einudd ap Gorddwfn in the Gwent pedigree, but for all I know this may be merely an emendation attempted on chronological grounds.
Nevertheless, ByA 33 must be a faithful copy of something very old, earlier than HRB, for it repeats (rather corruptly) the pedigree of Brutus given in HB, which was wholly supplanted by the alternate version given elsewhere in the same work and promulgated by HRB. The only other attempt to trace a line to Brutus was through Beli Mawr.
HG 1 (emended per ABT 1a): Cuneda map Ætern map Patern pesrut map Tacit map [Iago ap Genedawg ap] Cein map Guorcein map Doli map Guordoli map Dumn map Gurdumn map Amguoloyt map Anguerit map Oumun map Dubun map Brithguein map Eugein map Aballac map Amalech, qui fuit Beli magni filius, et Anna, mater eieus, quam dicunt esse consobrina Mariae virginis, matris Domini nostri Iesu Christi. HG 10: Coyl hen map Guotepauc map Tecmant map Teuhant map Telpuil map Urban map Grat map Iumetel map Ritigirn map Oudecant map Outigirn map Ebiud map Eudos map Eudelen map Aballac map Beli et Anna.
JC 4: Ewein oed vab y Vaxen o Keindrech verch Reiden. Reiden m. Eledi m. Mordu m. Meirchawn m. Kaswallawn. Yn amswer y Kasswallawn hwnnw y kymellawd y Rufeinwyr treth o ynys Prydein. Kaswallawn m. Beli mawr m. Anna. Yr Anna honn oed verch y amherawdyr Rufein. Yr Anna honno a dywedei wyr yr Eifft y bot yn gyfynnithderw y Veir Vorwyn.
The first of these is the pedigree of Cunedda Wledig, which has already suffered quite a bit of corruption before its first appearance. Anguerit is a doublet, as is Amalech, despite its persistent appearance everywhere except HG 10. The pattern of names repeated with Guor prefixed appears to be an error, one which also occurs in the Pictish king list. Probably this pedigree has been extracted from an early source that was a bit more verbose, whether oral or written, and, for a short section would, after stating a name, begin a new line by repeating the preposition guor followed by the name and then stating the name of the father. So this should probably be emended to Cein map Doli map Dumn map Amguoloyt....
With the emendations all considered, the pedigree of Cunedda is fifteen generations back to Beli, while that of Coel, father-in-law of Cunedda, is fourteen. Although Beli may be a pseudohistorical figure, the agreement is reassuring. He would seem to have lived in the first century BC or AD.
Next we find Ceindrech, wife of Maximus, six generations in descent from Beli. Unfortunately, this manuscript shows massive corruption throughout, and is our only source for much of the material it contains. It is therefore quite possible that an error has occurred here. Firstly, Caswallon ap Beli is a prominent figure in the Triads, and is often mentioned as living in the time of Julius Caesar. It it not improbable that he was the Catuvellaunian king Cassibellaunus who was killed resisting Caesar about 47 BC. This is at least consistent with the date for Beli implied by the other pedigrees. But unless a misidentification is at work here, there should be about twice as many generations.
Another curiosity is the statement that the wife of Beli (who becomes his mother in the more corrupt sources) was Anna, cousin of the Virgin Mary. This appears centuries before the first hint of legends about Joseph of Arimathea (allegedly a paternal uncle of Mary) coming to Britain. If Cassibellaunus is a son of Beli, this is all absurd, but if the son of Beli was a different man of the same name, the possibility that he might have married a daughter or niece of Joseph must at least be admitted, however unlikely it may seem that such a fact might be successfully transmitted over eight centuries. Again, whether Beli was an authentic person or not, the chronology is consistent. In the Triads, one child of Beli is also called a child of Dôn. Some suppose that this is a Celtic goddess, the analog of the goddess of similar name in Irish mythology, and that the name Anna is a corruption of Dôn.
Whatever the case, the ancestry of Beli was the springboard for all further attempt to trace a descent from Brutus. First from a mistake in HB, and later in the Triads and elsewhere, we learn that the traditional father of Beli was Mynogan. The first time that anything more is said is in GaC 2:
Beli mawr m. Manogan m. Eneit m. Kerwyt m. Krydon m. Dyvynarth m. Prydein m. Aet maur m. Antonius m. Seiryoel m. Gurust m. Riwallaun m. Kunedda m. Regat verch Lyr m. Rud m. Bleidud m. Lliwelyt m. Brutus ysgwyt ir m. Evrog m. Membyr m. Madauc m. Llocrinus m. Brut tywyssauc o Ruvein m. Silvius m. Ascanius m. Eneas ysgwyt wyn m. Anchises...
By this time HRB and ByB have already appeared, and it is clear that everything from Gurust on up corresponds to what may be found in ByB. It is odd that some of the names do not match ByB, but more closely resemble HRB; e.g., Rud instead of Run (ByB) for Rud (HRB), Lliwelyt instead of Lleon for Leil, and ysgwyt ir instead of taryan las for viride scutum. Seiryoel may also be a variant of Seisyll, for Sisillius in HRB, and if so, we have six names interpolated between Manogan and the beginning of material from ByB.
Kywryd ap Krydon and Prydein ab Aed Mawr are two figures from Welsh tradition, occurring in the Triads. Prydein is in fact the eponym of Britain. Bartrum sees this as probably the traditional ancestry of Beli, as far as Antonius. This Antonius, he theorizes, is ultimately the same as the Annun who appears in the ancestry of Bran Fendigaid (maternal grandson of Beli), and the number of generations is certainly agreeable.
Unfortunately, this is the least entangled with ByB that any of this will get; it only gets worse. A copy of what was apparently a damaged text in which was traced the purely male line descent of Beli from Brutus is found in MG 1 in EWGT:
Beli mawr m. Manogan m. Dyfynwal hen m. Gorwynyawn m. Kamber m. Brutus... Part of what is missing turns up in some late manuscripts, as the male line ancestry of Henwyn, where ByB traces everything through his wife Regau. This is definitely not in ByB or HRB, so its origin is a mystery. MP 2 in EWGT exists in two versions, the difference being a swapped pair of names, whose original order is uncertain:
MP 2a: Henwynn ap Blaiddud ap Asser ap Kyngenn ap Dyfnawl hen ap Gorboniawn ap Kamber ap Brutus.
MP 2b: Henwyn ap Kyngen ap Asser ap Bleiddud ap Dyfnwal hen ap Gorbwyniawn ap Camber ap Brutus.
Other than what has already been presented, there is one further way that Beli was traced back to Brutus, relying very heavily on ByB. To start with, where HRB shows Heli, son of Cligueill, son of Capoir, ByB replaces Heli with Beli Mawr and Cliguell with Manogan. The obvious question is: Did HRB mistakenly write Heli where Beli was intended, or did ByB mistakenly identify an insignificant king Heli with the illustrious Beli Mawr?
It seems more likely that Cliguell was wrongly replaced with Manogan, than vice versa. In either case, the grandfather is Capoir, where we should expect Eneit in light of GaC. HRB lists three sons for Heli: Cassibellaunus, Nennius, and Lud. The genealogies attribute two sons to Beli: Caswallon and Afallach. The identification of Cassibellaunus son of Heli with Caswallon ap Beli is tempting, whether it is true or not. The genealogies do call Lud a son of Beli, but in each case it is possible that the link is derived solely from ByB. Thus, I am inclined toward the view that tradition has inextricably conflated two Caswallons, and as a result, their two distinct fathers Heli and Beli were also conflated in ByB.
In either case, the next step is assuming that the succession of kings in ByB is from father to son except where otherwise stated. For the thirty or so kings preceding Capoir this is a chronological impossiblility, and probably is not what was originally intended, but the most severe problem comes at Dyfnwal Moelmud. There is a shrap genealogical break where the old royal line is extinct and after a division and interregnum this Dyfnwal comes to power. His ancestry is not stated beyond his father Clydno. Someone, whether by lucky accident or ingenious forgery, hit upon the idea to interpolate the discarded ancestry of Manogan found in GaC as the ancestry of Clydno. Thus we find in MP 1 in EWGT:
Beli mawr ap Mynogan ap Kapoyr ap Pyr ap Sawl Benisel ... ap Gwrgan varyfdrwch ap Beli ap Dyfnwal moelmud ap Klydno ap Enid ap Kerwyd ap Krydon ap Dyfnvarch ap Prydain ap Aedd mawr ap Antonius ap Seisill ap Grwst ap Rriwallon ap Kunedda ap Rregau verch Lyr.... Perhaps this first arose through confusion between Beli Mawr and Beli (Belinus in HRB) son of Dyfnwal and a misplaced marginal note giving the alternative fragment from GaC. The result is, for this portion of the pseudohistory, chronologically consistent and therefore convincing. The only further development observed is replacing Regau with her husband Henwyn and his ancestry as given above to make a pure male line. Bartrum observes the following:
"Some of this may have been in existence in written form in the twelfth century, for Giraldus Cambrensis [Desc. Kamb. i.3] says that the Welsh preserved in their ancient and authentic books the genealogy of Rhodri Mawr back to Aeneas thence to Adam. Writing at the close of the twelfth century, one would suppose that by 'ancient' Gerald would be implying a date before 1135 when Geoffrey's work appeared. However, we cannot be sure of this. The Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan, which probably appeared in its original Latin form before 1170, contains just such a pedigree of Rhodri Mawr, but it shows signs of contamination from the Brut and in its existing form may not be earlier than the date of the earliest surviving manuscript, that is, mid thirteenth century."
Bartrum uses the aformentioned genealogies of Beli Mawr and Eudaf Hen and related texts to argue for the existence of a British sort of "Book of Conquests", something on the model of LGE but on a smaller scale, and distinct from HB. At the crux of such a work would be tracing the descent of later kings and heroes from an origin in the eponym of Britain, either Brutus or Prydain, if not both.
So far we have seen two routes delving into the remote past until finally somehow reaching Brutus. There are, however, a few more, preserved only in Irish sources, that go back to a different eponym, Britan. MacFirbis (apud GT A 80-83) gives the following:
80. Padraig m. Calpruinn m. Photaighe m. Oidise m. Cornuithe m. Luibuirne m. [Mercuid m.] Otta m. Muiric m. Oiric m. Leo m. Maixime m. Encrete m. Pilisde m. Ferine m. Briotain....
82. Manchan mac Dubthain m. Ruin m. Siotumain m. Ruitin m. Goirtiger m. Clotnasan m. Felitir m. Briotain, a quo Bretain.
83. ...Dubhghaill Caimbel a quo [Muintir Chaimbeil] m. Eoghain m. Donnchaidh m. Gille Choluim m. Duibhne (o raitear Meg Dhuibhne) m. Feradaigh m. Smerbe m. Artuir m. Iobhair m. Lidir m. Bernaird m. Muiris m. Magoth m. Coill m. Cotogain m. Caidimoir m. Catogain m. Bende m. Mebrec m. Grifin m. Briotain....
Here we have Patrick, in the fifth century, 15 generations from Britan; Manchan, only 8; and the Arthur from whom the Campbells descend, whether he is the famous sixth century Arthur or not, is 13 generations from Britan. What is remarkable is that these are clearly authentic Welsh names rendered in Irish and preserved in Ireland where they would not suffer contamination from HRB and the rest of the genealogical orthodoxy, and only a little at the very end from LGE.
Approximating the modern Welsh equivalents of these names where possible yields the following:
Patrick m. Calpurnius m. Potitus m. Odissus [this much from the Tripartite Life] m. Cornodd m. Lleuborn m. [Marchudd m.] Oda m. Meurig m. Orig m. Lleu m. Maximus m. Engrid m. Pilis dde m. Fferyn m. Prydain. Manchan m. Dubthan m. Rhun m. Sidufan m. Rheudin m. Gwyrtheyr m. Clydno san m. Ffelidir m. Prydain.
...Arthur m. Ybar m. [E]lidir m. Bernard m. Meuris m. Magodd m. Coel m. Cadwgan m. Caid mawr m. Cadwgan m. Bende m. Mebrig m. Gryffyn m. Prydain.
The first of these may well have been committed to writing and poetry in the fifth century, and thus is an important early witness. There is no hint of Brutus, but instead their is a consistent termination of the pedigrees with Britan, undoubtedly the same as Prydain of the Triads. Yet these are the only genealogies ever to mention Prydain other than the one contaminated pedigree of Beli Mawr.
Now it remains to consider the contents of HRB, along with the parallel or derivative material in ByB, which differs here essentially only in the rendering of names. There are two prominent sections of HRB that seem to have derived originally from some collection of names, whether a genealogy or not: the prehistoric king list, from Brutus down to Heli, and list of those attending the coronation of Arthur. The former is itself rather complex, and divides itself into sections.
I. Brutus; his son Locrinus; his wife Guendolen; their sons Habren and Maddan; the latter's son Menpricius (who had a brother Malin); his son Ebraucus.
II. The twenty sons of Ebraucus: Brutus viride scutum, Margadud, Sisinnius, Regin, Moruid, Bladud, Iagon, Bodloan, Kingar, Spaden, Gaul, Dardan, Eldal, Iuor, Cangu, Hector, Kerin, Rud, Assarac, Buel.
III. The thirty daughters of Ebraucus: Gloigin, Ignogin, Oudas, Guenlian, Gaurdid, Angarad, Guenlodoe, Tangustel, Gorgon, Medlan, Alethahel, Ourar, Mailure, Kambreda, Ragan, Gael, Ecub, Nest, Chein, Stadud, Gladus, Ebrein, Blangan, Aballac, Angaes, and Galaes; Edra, Anor, and Stadiald.
IV. Ebracus's son Brutus viride scutum; his son Leil; his son Rud Hudibras; his son Bladud; his son Leir; his daughters were: Gornerilla, who married Maglaurus and bore Margan; Regau, who married Henuin and bore Cunedagius; and Cordeilla, who married Agganippus.
V. Henuin's son Cunedagius; his son Rivallo; his son Gurgustius; Sisillius; Iago, nepos of Gurgustius; Sisillius's son Kinmarc; Gorbodugo; his sons Ferreux and Porrex, who left no issue.
VI. Five kings for five parts of Britain: Clotenius rex Cornubie; Pinnerem rex Loegrie; Rudaucus rex Kambrie; Staterius rex Albanie; and one other, unidentified, but called Ievan king of Northumbria in ByB.
VII. Dunuallo Molmutius (son of Cloten); his son Belinus (whose brother was Brennius); his son Gurguint Barbtruc; Guithelinus; his son Sisillius; his son Kinarius; his brother Danius; his son Moruid.
VIII. Moruid; his son Gorbonianus; his next son Arthgallo; his next son Elidurus Pius; his next son Iugenius; his next son Peredurus; Gorbonianus's son [Regin?]; Arthgallo's son Marganus; his brother son Ennianus; Iugenius's son Iduallus; Peredur's son Runo; Elidir's son Gerontius; his son Catellus.
IX. Coillus; Porrex; Cherin; his sons Fulgenius, Edadus, and Andragius; the latter's son Urianus; Eliud; Cledaucus; Clotenus; Gurgintius; Merianus; Bledudo; Cap; Oenus; Sisillius; Bledgabred; his brother Arthmaiol; Eldol; Redion; Rederchius; Samuil; Penissel; Pir; Capoir. (Note the lack of genealogical connections.)
X. Capoir's son Cligueill; his son Heli; his sons Lud, Cassibellaunus, and Nennius. (With Lud begins a story in ByB not found in HRB, and at this point the Roman period begins.)
It is generally believed that this is not at all an accurate representation of British royalty in the first millennium BC. Much ink therefore has been spilled in trying to deduce the origin of all this data.
Bare names are an almost intractable material, but names with epithets are distinctive. Of these may be noted Brutus viride scutum, Rud Hudibras, Elidur Pius, Dunuallo Molmutius, Gurguint Barbtruc, and Samuil Penissel (broken into two persons). The last three are all names of kings in the fifth and sixth centuries, each of which may be found in HG. It is therefore inevitably suggested that HRB has drawn its names from HG or a related work. But the genealogies are wholly inconsistent with this. Either HRB has craftily used these genealogies, to quote Bartrum, "as a quarry for names", or else there is another explanation.
What little resemblance there is can be totally dismissed upon closer examination. In HG 16, we find a reverse list of Roman emperors back to Augustus. Yet someone has changed Antonius to Antun du & Cleopatre and Decius into Decius Mus. Some copyist has thought that he recognized the names and displayed his knowledge, or rather his ignorance, by supplying appropriate additional information. Likewise, every pedigree that contains the name Gwyddno will sooner or later attach the epithet Garanhir. The tendency is so strong that there is still uncertainty as to which one rightly had the name. All that has happened in HRB is that an earlier editor saw the names Dunuallo, Gurguint, and perhaps Samuil, and wrongly supplied the well known epithets that belonged to the more famous persons of the same names. Furthermore, since there are many names that bear no resemblance to the names found in extant genealogies, HRB must have drawn at least partly from lost material, and if this is so, there is no need to suppose that it was supplemented with anything we now have, or that names were drawn therefrom in any order but the most natural one.
If the genealogies are distilled from the stories in HRB, the type of source that may lie at the origin can be more clearly seen. In section I above, there is a line of descent traced from Brutus down to its failure with Leir. If this is not an innovation, it is most remarkable, because only two other instances of a pedigree traced to Brutus are recorded. The details are plentiful, including regnal lengths, and at the end is a sketch of the maternal descendants of Leir. This is precisely the sort of material that one would expect to find in Bartrum's hypothetic British Book of Conquests.
Next, in section II, the regnal lengths are discontinued, but there are still many details as a line is traced down from Henwyn to its failure. In two places there are breaks, where a successor is not explicitly called the son of his predecessor. These may easily enough be insignificant omissions of the narrative, but it is also possible that the Henwyn line properly ended with Gurgustius, and two more fragments of uncertain relation are inserted at the end. Although HRB does not state the ancestry of Henwyn, later sources do, as shown above. It is not improbable that HRB is drawing ultimately from a complete genealogy from Brutus down to the end of section II, but the earlier names have been omitted in the process of crafting a narrative. The compiler shows very little interest in genealogy anyway. Still, copies of the original genealogy may have been preserved just long enough to extract the pedigree of Henwyn, which filled an important void left by HRB.
Section III seems to begin a new genealogy with Cloten. There is another break with unstated paternity at Guithelinus. Twice, brothers are mentioned, and it is quite possible that it belongs together with section IV, which is essentially a tract on the descendants of Moruid. Usually such an item indicates that the genealogy was originally written down by a near contemporary source.
Section V is quite different, having almost no stated genealogical connections. It is, rather, more of a list than a genealogy, and when it happens that two persons in the list are related, the fact is simply stated. Probably, then, it is a list of contemporary persons, perhaps the rulers of eighteen kingdoms. Without being able to identify any of the persons with certainty, it is impossible to guess when it might have been drawn up.
Capoir heads the genealogy of the kings in the Roman period. In light of HG 16 terminating with Tasciovanus and the disagreement displayed in HA, the links before Tenuantius seem doubtful. Perhaps Capoir and some of his descendants properly belong to the list in section V, and there should be a break somewhere between. The breaking point would then be at Heli, who is assigned a reign of forty years, but it is not then clear whether he belongs in section V or section VI. On the other hand, it is also possible that section VI begins with a short tracing back of the history of the kingdom of Lud, including three generations of his ancestors, so that Capoir rightly belongs at the remote beginning of it, and this view is more consistent with what the text actually says.