Talk:Kingdom of Gwent

Coat of Arms

This image needs to have a verifiable reference, or it will be deleted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image removed as no verification has been provided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and coat of arms (revisited)

The coat of arms has now reappeared in the infobox, and is apparently justified by a reference in Scott-Giles, C. W. : Civic Heraldry of England and Wales. Dent and Sons Ltd. London. 2nd Edition, 1953, 440 p. No ISBN. - see also this site, which under Monmouthshire County Council states: "The gold fleurs-de-lis upon blue and black are the arms of the ancient Kingdom of Gwent." I'm not happy, mainly because the impression of apparent certainty given by a well-drawn coat of arms in the infobox is at odds with the lack of firm knowledge about much of the history of the kingdom of Gwent, which is (or at least can be) set out in the article itself. I would prefer not to show it in the infobox - or, if it must be shown, show it by itself with a suitably uncertain caption. In fact, I'm not happy with the idea of using this "former country" infobox here at all, as it seems to be designed for those more modern and unambiguous states where dates, boundaries, heraldry etc. can be shown with certainty. What do others think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, I agree entirely. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you and Doug are no fun. It's lovely. If it's really a concern of yours then, like the gentle soul in the comment below this, kindly find out where this 'ancient' coat of arms actually came from and set it out in an explanatory footnote so people aren't 'misled'. I would imagine it came in fairly early as a status marker once the Normans were in charge and has far more 'authenticity' and history than the city seals of Census Designated Areas & such. — LlywelynII 15:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to us - it's up to the person who uploaded the image. They have claimed one offline source, which probably justifies not removing the image, but it still gives an unwarranted impression of certainty, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. It's not important whether it sits on a server at Wikicommons. The conversation to have is to what extent it goes here. Obviously, you're opposed and I'm for (though we could footnote it, with source and your (presumably sourced) caveats), but the uploader has nothing to do with any of that. — LlywelynII 18:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms, And gwent welsh?? Wtf?

Gwent was not a "welsh Kingdom", Wales is a Territory, not a people. Gwent was mainly centered around Gloucester, and Wiltshire in history. Later being overrun and largely assorbed by Mercia.

Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire, Herefordhire, Worcestershire, Northern Wiltshire, and Sommerset. Some records suggest as far as Oxfordshire. But we dont know, old land marks are different to modern ones. Orginally it was a Romano-British Kingdom. From there we dont know. But they kept up a lot of roman ways as far as we can tell.

It roughly corresponds to the old Pre Roman Brigantes Territory, who had their capital at Bristol. But they also controlled as far as modern Pembroke.

Gwent continued to contract as time went on until being subjectugated to mercia before Alfred's time. During Alfred's time they were certainly never referred to a a kingdom, or principality.

The Last of Gwents line, (as far as i remember) married into House of Plantagenet eventually ( Mind you i think it's a tenous link.), of which the current British monarch is a direct Descendant. As is the Duke's of Beaufort, (Marquess of Worcester, Earl of Glamorgan...wonder why he has those titles?). The Dukes of Beaufort are also the Last of the Plantegenet line of John of Gaunt. The line barred for ever from claiming the Throne. Surname is somerset now days, but is actually Plantagenet.

GWENT DID NOT HAVE A COAT OF ARMS. They ended before Armourials existed. Gwent was not even a Kingdom in Alfred the Greats Time. It was under Alfreds Rule. Before that, Subject of Mercia. Which is why no armourials exist.

Now i know it's not right to actually say what happened, far more interesting to make it up as a romantic saga. But i am sick to death with romantic saga's. And the Wales Saga'a are being re-written to suit modern political expendiency.

For Example, in history they dont say, Welsh, they do however, note their opponent. eg: Powys. or more often, the name of the leader they oppose. "The Welsh" is a modern political construct.

Tewdrig. His actualy name was Theodric. We actually know nothing about him. until 500 years after his death when the book of Book of Llandaff was written, so Llandaff could claim something that was appreantly theirs. more than likely a lie. (see below).

Now Theodric, headed a kingdom that maintained Roman ways orginally, and maintained the church, (in the manner they have come to expect). But we dont know anything about him from his time period, except he died defending his kingdom against the Sias. Saxons.

From what we do know, it can be quite easily concluded, Theodric's line weren't Britions, but perhaps Roman.

In the time of Alfred, Gwent was not an indepedant Kingdom, or land. they aren't even mentioned as such. not even as a lord, of note.

To give an Example, the First King to Rule a untied England was Egbert of Wessex, who claimed to be a west saxon, but was acutally from Kent. That was in ~825 AD. I say this, because most who study him today dont even realise he was from Kent.

And Gwent, was all but non existant in his time. Because Monmouthshire as it was known, was under the Kingdom of Wessex. Formerly of Mercia.

Like all ego tossers they change borders with the speed of snake.

Another current modern cock up, is west wales. or west welsh. ie: cornwall, Dumnonia . Most think they where celtic, but they where actually Britons. And they were overrun in 823AD and became part of wessex. again egbert. Mainly he got sick of all the bad people going and avioding his law i think.

In the "good ol days" books were written to make claim against someone/something, a book or treatise was a powerful right of law. hence lots of churchs forge papers to land they actually never had a right too, lords and groups did the same. Book of Llandaff , another classic peice of political give me now, i am right. written to justify itself against other churches, and make itself more important than it was. Also the old fashion reason, made it rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.141.45 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it took awhile to type that all out. Maybe you could spend some time finding sources explaining the (late) creation of the armorials and their illegitimacy. (Mind you, we'd probably keep them up as 'traditional'.) Plus, the idea the Welsh aren't a people or Gwent wasn't Welsh is just silly.

But there are some good ideas there: if you could, source some of the stuff like the fate of the ruling dynasty. I'm curious, too. — LlywelynII 15:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Which ruling dynasty? There's no great mystery about what happened after the Normans arrived - they made their peace with them (they were both enemies of Harold, after all), and were assimilated into the Celto-Norman landowning elite. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At which point they ended up too big to talk about? Surely the main line could be traced.

And their assimilation makes my point about these arms being created very early and have a long tradition we can surely document, however much the practice never existed during the life of the actual state itself. — LlywelynII 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Capital

Surely it didn't stay at Porth Yscoed. So did it move to Caerwent or Caerleon? or did it become migratory? or what? — LlywelynII 15:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all somewhat hypothetical, but the concept of them having a "capital" is itself rather dubious. Mediaeval courts routinely moved from place to place. But, I've read suggestions (which I could probably dig out if pushed) that Earl Harold's base at Portskewett was itself placed on the site of an earlier Welsh stronghold at Porth-is-Coed or "Portskewett" - which is not necessarily the same place as the modern village of Portskewett. There are other contenders for Porth-is-Coed, including the old coastal hillfort at Sudbrook, the anchorage now called St Pierre Pill, and a stronghold at Mount Ballan near Crick which may or may not have been a place later called Castell Conscuit. All these places, and Caerwent, are within two or three miles of each other. It's all very confusing and uncertain, so it is best not to be too specific here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's best to place the most-supported information we can find and then caveat it. It's not actually helpful for us to try to be clever and pretend London "wasn't a capital" just because the kings liked to hunt and mooch off the nobles.

[edit: As for Porth, the current treatment is better than listing five different sites since Portskewett already makes the ambiguity very plain and explains the other options.]

But none of that addressed the question: Caradog was very early. Regardless of where Porth Yscoed actually was, was the Gwent court generally supposed to be at some "Porth Yscoed" for the entire period after Caradog or did people generally talk about seeing the king/the king's hall/the king's court/whatever in Caerleon or Caerwent by the time you're getting to Morgan and his brood? — LlywelynII 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source giving Caerleon-on-Usk as the site of Gwent's later court but, since D. Moelmud is mentioned, I'm assuming it's based on Iolo's forgeries. Surely there's something in an authentic land grant or record somewhere, even if it just makes the case that they were close enough that they were treated as joint capitals. — LlywelynII 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Laws

Aberffraw used a modified form, but I assume Hywel's writ didn't run this far. Do we know anything at all about the differences between Gwentish practice and the traditions codified & modified by the Merfynlings? — LlywelynII 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Money

Related question: Hywel makes it clear the rest of Wales was operating on ceiniogau (albeit in practice more often a measure of cows than of silver). Did Gwent use the same unit/word? Do any records of their price-control systems survive? — LlywelynII 18:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

728 Battle of Carno

a possible Iolo forgery. See Talk:Óengus_I#Mount_Carno. — LlywelynII 02:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Gwent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023165437/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Monmouthshire to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Monmouthshire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)