Talk:Powys Wenwynwyn

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incomplete

The end of the article, in focusing on the male descendants of the princes does a disservice to the area, by completely failing to record its hisotry over the next 250 years when the lordship of Powis was a marcher lordship with full regalities under the English crown. This appears to be a failing in the WP articles on the hisotry of Wales generally. If there is soemthing on that, it is not properly linked to this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought to amwnd the article to deal with my crticism, but more needs to be done. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progeny

I shunted the descent to the Duke of Suffolk into a section at the end, because it was failing to say what happened to the lordship after its surrender. However Complete Peerage (under Dukes of Suffolk) was unable to find any evidence of a relationship between the de la Pole family, merchants of Hull and the lords of Powys. There were descendants of a younger branch, who were lords of Mawddwy, who ought to have a cross-reference, but the Hull family ought in my view to be removed, as merely a romantic invention; unless some one can provide evidence. In view of the opinion expressed in Complete Peerage, this will need to be something with strong authority. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a detailed statement as to why this section is disputed see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William de la Pole the Elder. This rssulted in deletion of "William de la Pole the Elder" as lacking WP:RS
See also William de la Pole (of Mawddwy) for the only male descendants of the princely house of whom there is evidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just restructured some recent accretions citing websites. These websites do not cite their sources, and almost certainly do not have any, other than the inventions of antiquarians. There was a man possibly called William of the "Pole" (though even that is uncertain), probably from a place of that name in Yorkshire, and another called William of the "Pole" (i.e. Welshpool). The websites seek to conflate these two people, from completely different parts of Britain, saying that because they shared a name and lived about the same time, they must be the same person. That is unsubstantiated. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Powys Wenwynwyn. 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/20081010164645/http://www.welshicons.org.uk/html/powys_wenwynwyn.php to http://www.welshicons.org.uk/html/powys_wenwynwyn.php

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) 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]