This new genealogists the think about it high you to definitely Nicholas’ partner Clementia try provided right here since, under regular circumstances, she would not be mentioned. When Susanna at some later big date was given out to a different protector, the latest spouse of these guardian was not said.

This would imply that Queen John spent some time indeed there and you will the possibility of an enthusiastic amorous liaison that have Clementia exists

Here are some we have found a principle advanced by the certain eminent genealogists, however it is fair to state that the conclusions was hotly contested!

Which concept leads to an excellent and interested ‘twist’ on story out of Joanna, that could appeal admirers off HBD!

At first glance, there would be absolutely nothing to strongly recommend any union between the hostage, Susanna out of Wales and you can Clementia, partner away from Nicholas de Verdun. Yet not, the feel of certain genealogists that have foreign hostages, such youths, might have been that they was basically will set having loved ones, if any was offered.

Moving forward to 1236, there is an admission regarding the Tewkesbury annals which relates to Joanna’s mommy due to the fact “Queen Clemencie!” It checks out in part:

Today, we tavata kauniita Israel-naisia, jotka haluavat miehiä know that mommy away from Joanna is entitled Clementia (Clemence?

In this case the monk is actually obviously indulging into the medieval legalism. Before their dying, Joanna is legitimised by the Pope. Based on one legitimisation, the latest Tewksbury monk obviously got it on themselves to raise Joanna’s mother to your standing regarding King, as if her mom ended up being King John’s wife! It is a fact but not, that Queen John and Clementia was in fact never ever married. By speaing frankly about Joanna’s mother since “Queen” Clementia, this new monk whom registered Joanna’s death are proving his significant esteem to possess Joanna, but not trying to replace the true facts.

When it comes to term out-of Clementia de- Verdun, Paget suggests that she are the new daughter of Roger de Dauntsey, out of Wiltshire. One genealogist considers they high you to Clementia hailed regarding Wiltshire given that he has realized that Queen John had a powerful attachment so you can you to condition, they as being the house off their safest partners, brand new Longespee, ilies and Geoffrey Fitz Peter.

Genealogists discovered your title ‘Clementia’ try very rare certainly one of English noblewomen regarding the months. In one dining table away from women’s names that was collected, there were only two incidents of your own name “Clementia” off a maximum of 1407 feamales in this new sample! The truth that people titled Clementia was from the Susanna is recognized as significant.

Therefore! The data was effective, yet not definitive, one in 1228, Susanna, given that good hostage, gotten off to the newest care of their particular maternal grandmother, today partner off Nicholas de Verdun!!

The newest Scottish genealogists of your own MacDuffs’ keep you to definitely Susanna ferch Llywelyn was given birth to 1214 during the Gwynnedd, Wales and you may died c. 1259 in the Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland. She married Malcolm MacDuff, Earl out of Fife in the 1230 and had several children: Sir Colbran MacDuff, Earl of Fife, born 1245, passed away 1270 and you will MacDuff MacDuff born 1247.

Obviously, there are avoid objections to all which conjecture! Queen John had many mistresses and perhaps possibly seven illegitimate people. The mother off Joanna might have been created circa 1172 and you may marriageable circa 1184. Joanna by herself was given birth to circa 1191 (fourteen yrs old during the time of their own matrimony so you’re able to Llywelyn). Rohese, the fresh recognized genuine daughter out-of Nicholas de Verdun with his spouse Clementia was born circa 1210-1213. In the event the Clementia is the mother out of Joanna, she would are in their late 30’s, very early 40’s when pregnancy to help you Rohese! Maybe not hopeless, some state, but improbable.