Where was Valentia Province in Britannia ?

[Arturus Uriconium]

“[Theodosius] restored to its former state a province which was recovered that he [Theodosius] had previously abandoned to enemy rule. This he did to the extent that it had a properly-appointed governor, and it was from that time onwards known as 'Valentia' by decision of the emperor.” (Ammianus, XXVIII. iii.)

So it has to be part of a province recently lost, which rules out the Gododdin region. Professor Birley in his book _The Roman Government of Britain_ believes that Britannia Secunda may have already been divided, possibly north and south as opposed to east and west, with the new part - whatever it was called - being renamed Valentia. Considering that Theodosius fought against Scotti and Attacotti (who could be a sept or lower class of the Scotti or the Deisi themselves?) it could point to the northwest below the Wall or, indeed, anywhere down the western seaboard to southwest Wales.

The other candidates are what is now Wales, or a part there-of, which then would have been Britannia Prima. This is because of a 16th century Breton document that says Brochmael was the king of Gualentius, the Latininized Breton version of Valentia.

The section on S. Sulian in the Lion Breviary of I 516 begins thus: Fuit igitur beatus Sulianus
Jilius Bromailli regis nobilissimi qui regnum Britanniae quod Gualentius dicitur suo quondam
tempore strenuissime noscitur g~be rnas s e(.T~h e blessed Sulian was the son of the most noble
king Bromaillus [sic Brochmael] who is known to have ruled most energetically the kingdom
of Britain which formerly in his day was called Gualentius [sic Valentia]). Gualentius is clearly
a Latinized Breton rendering of the name Valentia.

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 253)

The only Brochmael known is Brochmael Ysgythrog, as 6th century ruler of Powys. Ann Dornier forcefully argues that it’s possible that it is what was the northern half of Britannia Prima and the western half of Britannia Secunda became Valentia with the provincial capital at Chester, so being an answer to the Scotti threat.

Although there are several places which might be properly considered, the weight of evidence
seems in favour of Chester. It has been pointed out that by the early third century at the latest
the civil settlement of Chester had acquired independent status It was probably the civitas
capital of the Deceangli; and by the fourth century the civitas of the Deceangli may have
absorbed that of the Cornovii, thus increasing Chester's administrative importance.ls There
is a growing body of archaeological evidence that in the late Roman period Chester was more
than just a legionary base with a modest civil settlement: there was clearly a very prosperous
civilian population living to the west and south of the fortress; and there is the possibility
that in the west at least this area was bounded by a defensive perimeter, marked by the circuit
of the medieval west wall. This would bring it into line with such places as York and Lincoln.
Moreover, there are hints from post-Roman sources that Chester may have been a late/
sub-Roman ecclesiastical metropolitan, and therefore by definition a provincial capital.
Finally, the fortress of Chester may have been of greater military importance in the late period
than has hitherto been thought (see below, pp. 257-8), and this may have been a contributory
factor in the choice of Chester as the provincial capital of Valentia.

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 255)

...and she has this to say on the consular issue:

Why and in what context would a second consular province have been considered necessary
or desirable, and why Valentia? Several possibilities present themselves. First it may have had
something to do with the imperial ego. If the creation of Valentia was the work of Constans
in 343 and if it was originally called Constantia after him, it may have been given consular
status at its inception, befitting for a new province named after the victorious emperor.
Alternatively, if originally equestrian, its elevation may have gone hand in hand with its renaming
after the reigning emperor(s) in 369, perhaps as a way of underlining how great was
the imperial victory in recovering the province. Secondly, military considerations may have
been the important factor...

Ann Dornier (Britannia, Vol. 13, (1982), pp. 257)

If she's right it could explain the movement of Cunedda as we've discussed elsewhere. If he was 'hired' by Valentia he could have started in the north (as one source has him fighting at Carlisle) and making his way down the western seaboard and ending in North Wales, rather than just been sent there. Britannia Prima or Demetia could have then called on his assistance once he was there, hence Cunedda's Hill in Dyfed?

Another candidate, I believe, is that this was a new name for the diocese itself.

There is that matter of the 6th province named later by Polemius Silvius (Laterculus II) as Orcades (Orkneys).

Mak hock: