Talk:Merfyn Frych

Father of Nest

Was Nest ferch Cadell the daughter of Cadell ap Brochfael? Her father is usually called cy:Cadell Powys, or cy:Cadell ab Elisedd. Then Brochfael ap Elisedd is her uncle. Shelley Konk (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Came here to ask the same question Shelley did: According to the article about Nest Cadell ap Elisedd was her father. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The genealogies cited in this article have her as the daughter of Cadell ap Brochwel, so that's what I used. I haven't sifted through the references to update the articles on Powys' leaders, so I haven't changed anything in those articles (it should happen in the fullness of time). Powys was beset by dynastic strife and fratricide at the time, complicated by some sources claiming that Nest was the mother (rather than the wife) of Merfyn, also complicated by Powys having several leaders named Cadell, all of which creates uncertainty. So, in short, I think that Nest is correctly described in this article, but I haven't gone on yet to update the article about her or her family. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, seems there is a mistake in the other articles then (they're also not consistent with the inscription at the Pillar of Eliseg). I'm not very famliliar with Welsh genalogies and naming traditions, but could it be possible that the same Cadell could have been referred to as Cadell M Brochfael (son of Brochfael) and C. M Elise(dd) (as grandson of Elisedd)? Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brut y Tywysogion, information that should be included

There is some information here that should be included, I'm not sure how reliable this source is considered - but it does mention Merfyn and and given that this is one of very few primary sources avvailable that information should probably be mentioned (even when considered inaccurate by modern scholars). Page 11-13 in this edition [1]:

• Nest as mother, Essylt as wife
• Reign started 818
• Account of several attacks from the Saxons/Mercians in Merfyns reign
• 833: Pagans came from Denmark, and "in conjunction with the Welsh" unsuccessfully attacked the Saxons.
• 838: "Battle of Cyveiliawc, a very severe engagement between the Welsh and Berthwryd, king of Mercia; and there Merfyn the Freckled king of the Britons [brenin y Bryttaniaid], was killed".

Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Brut y Saason was built upon several sources, including the Brut y Tywysogion, and it is mentioned in the article (eg, see the notes section, which describes the allegation that Nest was the mother). It is a verifiable source here, but certainly not a reliable one. Some of the other information comes from the Iolo Manuscripts, I think (also a verifiable source, but certainly not a reliable one). Lloyd and Davies and reputable historians, and explicitly note that the Harleian and Jesus College genealogies are credible, while the Brut is not. The rest of the information listed above lacks credible foundation. There are other sources that are verifiable but not reliable ... it's a tricky business to decide which is which, I suppose. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well&good. I was by no means suggesting that ByT should have precedence over the other sources, I assumed though as ByT is "one of the most important primary sources for Welsh history" (according to Wikipedia :) that some of these claims could be worth mentioning - just like the article now mentions (in note 2) that some sources claim Nest to be mother instead of wife, but that this has been refuted by scholars. In particular that ByT (contrary to Annales Cambria) directly links Merfyns death to a battle with Mercia (which I suppose is what Lloyd asserts is a later copyist invention in reference 4), and also describes him as "king of the Britons" (which seem to be a flattering but not very accurate description). From my personal interest it was the entry for 833 (=840??) that the Pagans from Denmark and the Welsh allied against the Saxons a hundred years before Brunanburh that intrigued me the most - but I suppose if the rest has been proven inaccurate not to much credit can be given to that entry either. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think opinions are varied around wikipedia, regarding "verifiable" and "reliable" sources. I don't see one as being much good without the other, but that's just me. The ByT is a valuable resource, but should always be taken with a grain of salt (or so I think), as should some of the others ... it seems most useful when corroborating other, unrelated accounts, but there is too much evidence that it plays loose and fast with the facts. The best sources regarding Wales and Britain seem to be the Irish chronicles, as they have no agenda to promote; but then, Wales and Britain are off their beaten paths, so they don't even mention most of the history of the island. Unfortunately, there are a lot of modern histories that do not cite their sources, but simply assert a point of view; it's nice if one can track down the assertions. Anyway, glad to see someone else with an interest in this topic, and a critical eye towards what is presented. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry(cruft)

I was browsing my hard disk looking for something else altogether when I came across a paper by Molly Miller ("Hiberni reversuri", from PSAS vol 110, which can be downloaded from here). She identifies the "meruyn ma6r" of the Jesus College 20 genealogy tracing Rhodri Mawr's descent from Macsen Wledig with the "Muirmin" whom the Annals of Ulster report killed on the Isle of Man s.a. 682. An interesting titbit, but I'm a bit worried about including it. As any fule kno, early medieval genealogies "do not always depict strictly accurate biological relationships but rather genealogical doctrines ... reflective of the power structures in place at the time...". And if we add one bit of uncertain genealogical tat, before we know it the article might be overrun with the stuff because it's easy to find bad genealogies on the internets. So is this a bad idea? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Koch's article for Merfyn Frych in Celtic Culture also refers to the possibility, which he says "has suggested to some scholars a long-established dynasty for Merfyn Frych’s family in Man" (my italics). Looks notable enough then, even if it has not produced consensus. In cases like these, Google Books (rather than the MLA bibliography or whatever) can be a useful tool to help determine how any particular idea or suggestion has been received by other scholars in the field. As far as I can see from the snippet available there, David E. Thornton (Kings, chronologies, and genealogies, p. 93) is a bit wary about accepting the identification all too easily, so a caveat seems in order. Cavila (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that including it helps make clear that Gwriad (and its variations) is the name of more than one person, and a reference to the name isn't necessarily a reference to either Merfyn's father or his ancestors. And Miller is a knowledgeable source on the interplay between Britain and Ireland, which also helps.

Good find on the article, Angus! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion or cleanup

It could use some more focus. Wade-Evans is a little old (1909), but he does a good job describing the important turning point Merfyn represented in Welsh history and includes some other sources as well. — LlywelynII 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)