original passage: Oswald seems to have been on good terms with the West Saxons: he stood as sponsor to the baptism of their king, Cynegils, and married Cynegils' daughter. Her name is reported by only one source, Reginald of Durham's 12th century "Vita S. Oswaldi", which says that it was Kyneburga. Although Oswald had one known son, Æthelwald, it is uncertain whether this was a son from his marriage to Cynegils' daughter or from an earlier relationship—since Æthelwald began ruling in Deira in 651, it has been argued that a son from this marriage would have been too young at the time to be trusted with this position, and therefore may have been older, the product of a relationship Oswald had during his exile.
original sentence: Although Oswald had one known son, Æthelwald, it is uncertain whether this was a son from his marriage to Cynegils' daughter or from an earlier relationship—since Æthelwald began ruling in Deira in 651, it has been argued that a son from this marriage would have been too young at the time to be trusted with this position, and therefore may have been older, the product of a relationship Oswald had during his exile.
sentence2: Did the bloodline of Cynegils survive in Deira?
sentence1: Oswald seems to have been on good terms with the West Saxons: he stood as sponsor to the baptism of their king, Cynegils, and married Cynegils' daughter. Her name is reported by only one source, Reginald of Durham's 12th century "Vita S. Oswaldi", which says that it was Kyneburga. Oswald had one known son, Æthelwald, who is now known to have been born from an earlier relationship—since Æthelwald began ruling in Deira in 651, it has been argued that a son from Oswald's marriage to Cynegils' daughter would have been too young at the time to be trusted with this position, and therefore must have been older, the product of a relationship Oswald had during his exile.