Talk:King of Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tags

Given Vortimer's edits, I vote that we remove the POV-title tag. However, I think the Refimprove tag should stay for now; I've added an additional reference (IIRC, I added the first as well) but two references isn't enough, in my view. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant

This page seems irrelevant and inaccurate and unrecearced and I believe it should be deleated. (Electrobe (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC))

agreed: Wales was never a Kingdom, any stretch at listing kings of Wales seems a bit strange therefore. The King of Gwynedd conquered surrounding lands to become Prince of Wales, but that title only lasted under the Crown of England. Delete unless strong references can be given. Instead include in the individual articles a mention of the referenced work referring to them as "King of Wales". Pbhj (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely needs improvement (and I started it!), but it shouldn't be deleted, as the title was used. Think of it is as an informal title rather than a formal title. Here are a bunch of references that should be mined and cited as appropriate: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22king+of+wales%22&btnG=Search+Books . I've added one reference; all I have time for at the moment. --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also question whether this article should exist. At the very least, there should be greater clarity, stating that kings of kingdoms within Wales certainly existed, and that Princes of Wales certainly existed (and, for better or worse, still do), but that the question of whether any of the possible claimants to the title of "King of Wales" as a unified entity actually claimed or were accorded that title is pretty dubious. To the casual reader, the article title "King of Wales" might imply that such a person truly did exist at some time. Hence, I added another tag to the article (but wasn't sure which one to use). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I havent myself come across the title "King of Wales", but have very often come across the title King of the Britons, which amounts to the same thing, all the way up to Llywelyn the Last. The Welsh considered themselves to be "Britons" until the 13th century. Prince of Wales was the creation of Llywelyn the Great which gave substance to the title King of the Britons. Prehaps the title should be changed to King of the Britons? Either way, there is a connection between King of the Britons/Wales and Prince of Wales♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a page King of the Britons which contains (at the time of writing) all of these rulers (indeed, this is where the table was copied from). I agree the page 'King of Wales' doesn't make any sense. Wales is a geographical region. Gereint of Dumnonia was not from Wales at all! He was called King of the Welsh because the Anglo-Saxons used 'Welsh' and 'Briton' pretty much interchangeably. As for the later rulers listed, they are from a handful who fall in the gap after the phrase King of the Britons ceased to be used, and before Prince of Wales became a title recognized by the English crown. I think it makes a lot more sense to list all the paramount rulers among the Britons/Welsh, at all stages of history, on one page, and since King of the Britons was the title most used, that is where they belong I suggest. See also the discussion page at King of the Britons Vortimer (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the author of the article has not responded to the above criticism, I think it is time to act. There is no point promulgating a "list" of Kings of Wales, since the title was only ever bestowed upon two rulers AFAIK. However, two is more than zero. So rather than deleting the article, I've edited it severely, removing the list and removing Gereint who never belonged, and replacing it with a discussion on the existence of a true King of Wales, (Gruffudd ap Llywelyn being the only candidate), and of the later rulers upon whom the title was bestowed, along with appropriate links. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone, including the original author. Vortimer (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For the most part I like the changes you made, Vortimer. Thanks for taking the time. To one of your sentences, what would you think of this (as an analogy)? "The title President of the United States was bestowed upon subsequent Presidents of the early 18th century. Their direct rule was however limited to east of the Mississippi." In other words, what constitutes Wales changed over time, which is especially confusing when Cornwall is called Wales. Do we use the modern definition of Wales everywhere or acknowledge its historic shift in meaning? Anyway, what I like about the article is the inherent messiness it acknowledges about petty kingdoms, a messiness which too often gets sanitized and ordered later by the winners who write history. In some alternate reality, Wikipedians are having this argument about King of England! Thanks again! --Jeffrey Henning (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Jeffrey, but actually I think Wales has not changed its geographical meaning since the 11th century. From c.1100, that part under English rule was known as Marchia Wallia (the Welsh Marches), and that under native rule as Pura Wallia. But the Kings of Wales or Head of Wales discussed here did not even rule the whole of Pura Wallia. They just ruled their own kingdoms, as explained in the article. Cornwall and Devon together were called West Wales in early Anglo-Saxon times, long before the era being discussed here. Vortimer (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be a strange thing sometimes. Some articles which should be saved are deleted and others which ought to be deleted, like this one, enduring. I have taken a keen interest in Welsh history for decades and have never come across the title "King of Wales". Rhodri Mawr called himself "King of the Britons" and at times other rulers came to rule over much or most of Wales (such as Gruffydd ap Llywellyn) but I don't think there is any evidence that they used that title in their lifetimes. John Davies (who appears to be the main source of too many articles) says that "all of Wales recognized his kingship" but apart from being a "king of the Britons" he was also the king of their petty-kingdom (e.g. Gwynedd, Powys etc) and not the "king of Wales". Owain Glyndwr might have been referred to, once, as "king of the Welsh" however he was crowned "Prince of Wales". So ultimately this page discusses a title which was never used and gives three examples which are all extremely dubious. It is a nonsense, and as there is a king of the Britons page already and because the title "King of Wales" has only ever been used retrospectively by historians, and then rarely, I propose that this page is deleted. (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn as king of Wales (105?-1063)

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was king of Wales until 1063. There are no doubts. However, it's not clear when he became king of Wales. The introduction uses 1055, John Davies said 1057 and the map shows 1058 for Morgannwg. Can somebody confirm?

ICE77 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Amending article.

I've started amending the article based on fact from the mythological period until the medieval times of Wales. I will continue to research and update what I feel should be added and what should be removed when I have free time soon. Please feel free to talk to me about the topic, to give advice etc. Cltjames (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)