Dafydd ap Llywelyn not born until after 1211?

[Gjest]

In the book "England and Her Neighbours, 1066-1453", ed. Michael Jones
and Malcolm Vale, there is an article by A.D. Carr entitled "Anglo-
Welsh Relations, 1066-1282", and on pg. 128 Carr describes how King
John dealt with his son-in-law, Llywelyn Fawr, in 1210/1211. I quote
(with my comments in brackets):

"In May 1211 the royal army [John's army] advanced from Chester; it
was forced to withdraw because of a lack of supplies, but a lightning
campaign in July took the king as far as Bangor, and Llywelyn had to
submit. The terms were harsh; they included the cession of the lands
between the Conway and the Dee, the surrender of hostages, including
Llywelyn's own son Gruffydd, and a heavy tribute of horses and cattle.
The prince also agreed that if he had no son by Joan [John's
illegitimate daughter] his lands would escheat to the king."

Carr cites as his sources Lloyd's "History of Wales, ii, 634-6", Brut
y Tywysogyon (Pen 20 version) 85-6, and J. Beverley Smith's "Magna
Carta and the Charters of the Welsh Princes" EHR xcix (1984) 344-62.

This caught my attention because of the reference to Llywelyn as yet
(in summer 1211) having no sons by Joan, whom he had married in 1206
(as per the Worcester Annals). Has this ever been noted here before? I
ask because I remember that, several years ago, when Joan's maternity
of some of Llywelyn's daughters was discussed, it was questioned
whether so many children could be squeezed into the early years of
their marriage, assuming that Dafydd (unquestionably Joan's son) was
born shortly after 1206. But if Dafydd were not born until late 1211
at the earliest, and possibly later, then that lessens the time
contraints considerably.

[wjhonson]

We've seen before how secondary sources can distort the underlying
passages. So it's best to consult them directly. I think the Brut it
online for example.

Also I'm not sure at first thought, that if he had no sons by Joan,
his lands would escheat, is speaking in the present tense (if you
will), but rather conditional.

So that rather we'd see "If [when you die] you have no [surviving]
sons by Joan, then [because you are dead] your lands would then
escheat to the King"

Then the confusion in the way its phrased can be understood. We've
seen this here before on this board.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

J. Beverley Smith's article would seem to be the main source for the
statement in Carr's article, but unfortunately I do not have access to
EHR. If anyone does, and would be willing to summarize Smith's
findings, that would be much appreciated. Hopefully the original text
of the treaty would make it clear whether Llywelyn was referring to
future sons by Joan, or surviving sons already born.