Talk:Prince of Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Flow

Would the article read better if there was a history section starting with Welsh princes (tabular?), then English, inserting Owain Glyndwr chronologically in the 15th century, then the next two sections would be about recent holders (Charles and William), then debate? Just thinking this might read more easily for people not familiar with British/royal history. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it sense to give History its own major section, although a little concerned that putting that table in the middle would mean a lot of scrolling before getting to the current holder. The information up front should be whatever readers are most likely to need when searching for "prince of Wales" and surely the majority of those want to know about the current or past holder. It might almost be better to have the history after them, but I can't say I have a formed opinion on this. Let's see what others think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand. There would be a "potted" history as part of the lead, of course. The full list of holders could be in a separate list article, possibly, leaving this article to be about the significant holders and the other aspects of the title, including debate? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A general point for me on this article is that IMHO there is far too much on individual holders - whether the recent ones or the native ones. We have bio articles, general history articles (and even Investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales) for that. I think it needs to be much more focussed on the title itself. I think the most about any specific holder should be in a tabular list. That's my 2p anyway. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not an unreasonable request from @Tony Holkham but @Sirfurboy also makes reasonable points. There is an inconsistency with there being a list of English/British princes of Wales and no native princes, however some native princes are discussed as well as Charles and William, and all justifiably so.

I think there is a case for paragraph discussions of Owain Gwynedd for origins; Llywelyn ap Gruffydd for treaties detail and end of native line; Edward II as first English prince; Glyndwr for the uprising and fact there existed both a Welsh and English prince simultaneously; Charles because there was a redefining of the role perhaps and significant controversy; William because of a change in the role again as well as more controversy. Titus Gold (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Sirfurboy, @DeCausa and @Titus Gold, for your comments; understood. I wasn't specifically making a request, TG, but asking a question. I'm happy to let this topic simmer for a while, as it may mean a fairly significant re-write of the article, for which of course there should be consensus. I wasn't anticipating any necessity for dropping anything; rather, creating a better flow. The significance of the Welsh princes of Wales is important, yes, in understanding the objections and/or resentment we see today. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham Speaking of flow, the article doesn't show the direct link of Prince William a descendant of Llywelyn the great. The point should be made explaining the intermediary years between Llywelyn and the house of Tudor via Tudors of Penmynydd, and who ever else links the Prince of Wales title together over the generations involving the rebellions and claimants to the title. Cltjames (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

And, of course, the descent from Glyndŵr, but any such mention, I would suggest, should be passing. However, mention of the Tudors is interesting, considering Henry Tudor's claim to be a native born prince of Wales, and the fact that he named himself prince of Wales on taking the throne. This, indeed, rather puts the lie to teh lead which says: "The title was later claimed by the leader of a Welsh rebellion, Owain Glyndŵr, from 1400 until 1415. Since then, it has only been held by the heir apparent of the English and subsequently British monarch." Also puts a big caveat on any place on Wikipedia we repeat that Owain Glyndŵr was the last native born prince of Wales. However, as in all things, we should stick to the sources. After all, he played up his Welsh ancestry and birth because he relied on Welsh support, but one might wonder just how Welsh he was. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for Henry Tudor naming himself prince of Wales? Just about every mention I can find of "prince of Wales" in relation to Henry is about his sons Arthur and Henry bearing the title. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it is in (Johnes, 2019:63), where he says "Henry declared himself, 'by the grace of God, King of England and of France, Prince of Wales and Lord of Ireland'. This was a break from the custom that reserved the Welsh title for the heir to the English throne."

• Johnes, Martin (2019). Wales: England's Colony? Parthian Books. ISBN 978-1-912681-56-3.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy ok, glad we found something connecting the Kingdom of Gwynedd and the Prince of Wales. Just to emphasise my point, the lineage chart shows titles, however it is primarily for the Earl of Chester, whilst a similar chart can be done for the Prince of Wales from Owain Gwynedd to Prince William. Cltjames (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I wasn't aware William is a descendant of Glyndwr, I could only find Llywelyn the great, can you show this claim ? Cltjames (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not off hand. I was speaking from memory. I first saw the claim on a BBC documentary of the Queen many years ago. I expect I could find something, but I don't think it is very relevant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy the article doesn't once state the relation between the native Prince's and the current title, surely there should be a few sentences or paragraph or something stating the blood line descent. Cltjames (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a direct line though. I am not averse to such a sentence, appropriately placed, but we'll need a source for the Glyndŵr line, and I really think it should be a passing mention, perhaps of the form "nevertheless the current holder can trace his line back to both Llywelyn the Great and Owain Glyndŵr." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I've done research, Llywelyn can be proven, by Glyndwr link isn't common knowledge. But I think a sentence like you've suggested should be added in the article, or maybe more to elaborate the connection. Cltjames (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Ok, after doing a little research here on Wikipedia, I see Elizabeth II was

the first descendant of Glyndwr via his daughter Alys ferch Owain Glyndŵr who married Sir John Donne and who's descendant married into the Cavendish family and eventually the Queen mother, Mary, wife of George VI. All a bit difficult to prove, and really unlikely to able to source correctly for references. But I still feel this is a connection that needs exploring and should eventually find it's way into this article. Cltjames (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Flow (break for convenience)

Just restarting the general discussion as the above thread seems to have moved in to some quite specific points. Looking at the article afresh I would propose the following:

1. At the top level I would suggest the article has 2 sections only: Welsh princes of Wales and Heirs Apparent.
2. Welsh princes of Wales section: I made some WP:BOLD edits to trim it last night. I would suggest it's more or less ok as is. The only thing I suggest is that it brings out more clearly that the title's function was really as an additional title of the rulers of Gwynedd to assert their pre-eminence. It should therefore refer out to the Kingdom of Gwynedd and House of Aberffraw articles and for this reason doesn't need a great deal more material added to it. I think adding more into this section creates repetition with those articles.
3. For the Heirs Apparent section, I think the subsections should be: (1) Role (2) History (3) Contemporary debate.
4. The Role sub-section can be more or less the current Title and Role section, but incorporating the existing Insignia section.
5. The History sub-section can start with the information in the current First English Prince of Wales section (but get rid of the long and unnecessary quote from Camden). There should then be a brief reference to the prince having real feudal power through the Principality of Wales appanage. Followed by it becoming a solely titular position in the 16th century. It should then conclude with the tabular list of princes. I don't see any need for the History sub-section to be divided into sub-sub-sections.
6. The Contemporary Debate sub-section remains as is.
7. IMHO, the 1969 Investiture and William, prince of Wales sections are unnecessary and should be removed. Both have their own articles anyway.

DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What you've suggested looks OK to me, but a simple sentence on the two living holders, formerly Charles and now William, might be good for completeness. And is it worth mentioning that there is a hereditary link (claimed or established?) between the current PoW and early Welsh holders? Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

For it not to be WP:FANCRUFT, sources would need to make something of it: e.g. used as a justification for the title in the controversy debate. I haven't seen any evidence for that being the case. DeCausa (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

tl;dr is I agree. Adding some flesh to that, I strongly approve of making use of linked pages and see also pages to present tangential information in depth without needless repetition here, and keep the focus here tight. I also dislike sub-sub sections as the headings are difficult to tell apart. I think the format you suggest is logical, and as long as the list is at the end of the article, I have no other strong feelings. An editor yesterday left a summary that is not quite correct: [1]. Owain Gwynedd styled himself in that letter as Owinus Waliarum princeps. Waliarum is genitive plural. Here he called himself "Owain, prince of the Waleses". His point being to assert overlordship of the Welsh kingdoms of north and south Wales. I considered putting the Latin in the article or a footnote but this is a prime example of where we can just focus on the core issue and leave the detail for other articles, so support the edit in that spirit. Your point 2, however, is then especially pertinent (an additional title to assert pre-eminence), and agree with that too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with this. It's going to look good. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: actually because I was proposing embedding the list of princes in the History section, it wouldn't have appeared at the end of the article as you would prefer. The only ways I can think of doing that are:

• Moving the History section to after the Contemporary Debate section - does that seem like an odd sequence?
• Separating the list as a fourth sub-section to appear after the Contemporary Debate - although it seems odd to me to separate it from History.
• Hiving the list off as a separate List of Princes of Wales (currently a re-direct). Might need additional disambiguation to distinguish from List of rulers of Wales#Native title of "Prince of Wales" - although that article could with some substantial reworking.

Not sure of best way to go. DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a separate list article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Yes, that needs more thought then. Options are:

1. Go with what you propose. I don't like the idea of the list in the middle of the page, because, thinking of the reader, I think they should have the prose up front. They are not going to read through the list. This is more reference information, where readers will jump to whoever they are interested in, but they are unlikely to read the list as though it were prose. I think prose that lies after the list will therefore usually also be missed. I am quite happy for people to disagree with me on that - it is just my reason for wanting the list at the end. So this option is viable, but not my preference.
2. Moving the history to the end. I believe this is viable too. Thinking of the reader, most readers reading about the Prince of Wales are likely to be interested in the current, or the most recent former prince of Wales. To this end, history is not as important a subject in this article. I would be fine with history at the end, but see what others think.
3. Separating list from the history - this works. I don't think it is ideal. It logically belongs with history.
4. Hiving off the list to a list article. I usually don't much like list articles, but on this occasion that may prove to be a good solution.

I think my general preference is 2, but happy to see what others feel. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Female equivalent Title?

Now that the supremacy of the male offspring has been ended, is there any discussion as to which Title would be conferred on the first daughter of the monarch? I mean, presumably it would be Princess of Wales, all things being equal... Lawrence18uk (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The title price of wales is not hereditary, ergo it is unaffected by the change. GimliDotNet (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if there are any reliable sources that discuss the question, it remains a hypothetical situation that isn't going to arise for at least another generation, so we're clearly in WP:CRYSTAL territory. And if there aren't, then editors' opinions or suppositions are irrelevant per WP:NOTFORUM. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Prince of Wales is/was not limited to first son of the monarch, it is generally granted to the male heirs apparent even a son or a grandson by the direction of monarch. And also even in previous succession rules female heirs apparent were NOT impossible and recent rule changes are not affected to the creation or succession rules of any royal /peerage title (Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, Dukedoms, etc) except throne. So we have to wait until such even occurs. Chamika1990 (talk) Chamika1990 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Iwan Rheon opposition

Noticed that actor Iwan Rheon has mentioned his opposition to the title recently. Perhaps a passing mention of this would be appropriate?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2023/07/22/iwan-rheon-interview/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/bbc-wolf-star-iwan-rheon-27412412

https://nation.cymru/culture/iwan-rheon-the-prince-of-wales-is-an-archaic-title-we-need-to-get-rid/ Titus Gold (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem noteworthy. Why would his opinion be of significance? DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Titus Gold. I thought you were t-banned from any pages (broadly construed), concerning Wales? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Only from articles - not talk pages. It was (accidentally, I think) an unusual framing of a TBAN. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :) GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It's basically an interview with The Telegraph to promote a TV series that is starting soon. He offers his opinion on a number of subjects of Welsh interest. It would be incongruous to mention a random actor in this Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

That could technically apply to Michael Sheen and Laura McAllister who are also mentioned here, being the lone non-politicians. I assume their fame has something to do with it? If not, their views probably shouldn't be given significance, unless added context can justify it. Rheon indeed less so. DankJae 00:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The laundry list of opinions, even politicians, in that section doesn't seem useful or encyclopedic. Does anyone care what Cefin Campbell or Michael Fabricant think on the issue? It would be better (with appropriate sourcing) to get away from individual randoms and focus on opinion themes presented in a WP:DUE way. Some individuals might be mentioned as examples of the themes - I can't see that any of those currently named are in themselves inherently significant. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that citing ten individual opponents to the title and four in favour gives the impression of majority opposition, which I don't think is the case. What we really need is one or more reliable secondary sources summarising the opinions of personalities on both sides of the debate. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - I think it's become like that because it's essentially a collection of newspaper clippings that have been added to as and when an item gets published in the media - without regard to the overall effect. It's a very common WP problem, of course. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The section is headed contemporary debate, but there is no debate there - just, as you say, a laundry list of opinions, all of which appear to be primary sources. I would be for removing the lot and replacing with a secondary sourced summary of the contemporary debate. If the secondary sources mention someone, then that mention is due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

After a short search, I found this:

• Clear, S 2022, 'Prince of Wales: why William inheriting the title from Charles has sparked a debate' The Conversation. <https://theconversation.com/prince-of-wales-why-william-inheriting-the-title-from-charles-has-sparked-a-debate-190577>

Although not the best source ever, being largely one academic opinion, I think it is sufficient for sourcing a replacement summary paragraph on the contemporary debate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That's just the type of discussion that's needed - although I'm not familiar with The Conversation (website) and it's RS status. On a first look it seems like an RS. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Conversation is not peer reviewed but it is a publisher with clear editorial policy and guidelines, and only accepts submissions from academics. See The Conversation (website). I think its clear editorial guidelines [2] and the fact that it does verify institutional status qualify it as sufficiently reliable in this case. It also verifies the author as being a "Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University". If we can find other sources, that's great, but I think a summary of this would make a good paragraph on contemporary debate that fully meets WP:V. I'll try something out from it if no one else beats me to it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The 'laundry list' is a legacy of Controversy of the Prince of Wales title, which was merged here and basically contained every available criticism of the Prince of Wales title. Undoubtedly the title became an issue after the previous incumbent became King. I don't think the laundry list needs adding to. As others have said, some of the existing list are questionable - Michael Sheen is very well known and is an active campaigner, but was speaking on a number of subjects in his interview; McAllicster is a respected academic but it would be better to have secondary coverage of what she said, rather than sourcing her views to a primary source, etc. Sionk (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been following the topic and debate here in the talk page, I myself of Welsh heritage would certainly say the backlash towards a coronation and the title's future are certainly being brought into debate. But looking at the controversy section and the title paragraphs, it seems to be full of politicians, maybe adding Rheon as celebrity and spokesperson would be relevant to the article to diversify the opinions. Cltjames (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten it now. See what you think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Ok, seems better arranged with key issues to the debate. Maybe the Charles quote is unnecessary, it's a bit vague as to whether it's a joke or serious, or what he's actually referring to. Cltjames (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed:

Removed unsourced information below. The designation of Prince for the native Welsh rulers of Wales (Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys) was appropriate as these leaders were semi-independent and while part of the Angivine Empire were outside of the Kingdom of England's legal jurisdiction until the Edwardian conquest. It was the Welsh leaders themselves who first used the title Prince, as Gruffydd ap Cynan did as Princepts Wallensium, who also used the title Prince of Gwynedd.

The translation as "Prince" was used by Englishmen to undermine the power of the rulers of Wales, causing them to appear inferior to the Kings of England (as a Prince is lower than the King in the hierarchy).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Lord Rhys

After conducting research, I've come to realise the section regarding the pre 1283 origins is missing Rhys ap Gruffudd as Prince of Wales from approximately 1171 until his death in 1197. Like Owain Gwynedd, he too was a descendant of Gruffudd ap Cynan, and like Gwynedd he too listed his title as Prince. Rhys was referred to as a Prince of Wales in Latin regarding grants to Abbeys in charters listed in Brut y tywysogion. Will someone add the proof ? Cltjames (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: thoughts? Cltjames (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you pinged me. I don't think every random claim for someone being called "prince of Wales" is warranted to be included in this article. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa That's fine, I saw you were involved in the talk about the Prince of Wales before, and nobody else was commenting. As for every Prince, you might have a point, however, in the history books there is a cut off point of Kings of Wales prior and during to the Norman invasion, then Princes ever since. Like you've said, not every claim is warranted. But this so called list of pre 1283 'de jure' Princes could be expanded a little to include just a couple more names , similar to a previous edit showing a list of Welsh Princes in the article, and not only a paragraph or two. Does anyone else care to weigh in on the conversation about the Lord Rhys, or even Gruffudd ap Cynan as mentioned above as Latin: Princepts Wallensium- Prince of Wales? The talk page here for Prince of Wales specifically mentions Gruffudd but no one else has bothered to comment anything. Besides, does anyone know the source listing him as Princepts ? The dilemma with these Princes is, the title could be misleading and have actually been deemed more on the line of Princes in Wales as part of their own Kingdoms with an other reigning monarch as King e.g. Prince of Gwynedd in Wales, son of the King. Like we see today in the monarchy, with say Prince Harry, yet not a Prince of a principality. Back to the question, Lord Rhys was acknowledged by the English crown as the Justiciar of South Wales, and effectively was the Prince of South Wales. Any more consenus about Lord Rhys as another potential Prince perhaps ? I believe the Prince list is simply a continuation of the King of the Britons or King of Wales lists, and only a few people should be added, that is the Lord Rhys & Gruffudd so Cynan as mentioned above... Unless there is more information that someone else would like to add? Cltjames (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear, that if Rhys ap Gruffudd called himself Prince of Wales in a 1184 charter, then we can't construe that he was Prince of Wales from 1171 until his death. We'd need some sort of authoritative source that makes this conclusion, not wishful thinking by a Wikipedian. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And then we might actually have a read of the sources before we get too excited. I note that Rhys ap Gruffudd refers us to Pryce (2005), which is here [3]. You can borrow it from there. It has quite a bit of discussion on the title, but says things like:

Walliarum princeps may have referred to the wider hegemony within native Wales to which Rhys aspired.

(page 97). I don't want to misrepresent the discussion that does make a case for his intentional use of the title, but we are not really speaking about the same thing as the ruler of a single principality, and neither are we looking at a settled understanding of the matter. I reverted some text out of the Rhys ap Gruffudd page yesterday. The text went beyond the source, and we might not be too surprised as to how it found its way into that article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, just going on what I've read online, as I do not have a source that lists Lord Rhys as Prince, but a book noting him effectively as Prince of south of Wales. However, despite your recent edits, his infobox still lists him as Prince of Wales between 1171-1197 succeeding Owain Gwynedd. But this fact is not consistent between articles. Any ideas; do we change Lord Rhys or the Prince of Wales article? Cltjames (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: you've deleted the Lord Rhys article Prince of Wales infobox succession from Owain Gwynedd to Llywelyn the Great, however, there is no consistency between artciles because the Owain and Llywelyn seperate articles still both list the Lord Rhys, aka Rhys ap Gruffudd as a successor and precessor as the Prince of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: ok thanks for confirming the situation presented in these articles and creating consistency by labelling Llywelyn I as the first Prince. Guessing we're going with the English classification of the title and not the self proclamation of the Welsh Princes. Cltjames (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not an English classification, it is a historical one. Unless there are secondary sources that say otherwise of course. And not just any random secondary source, or else we would have to start with Bleddyn ap Cynfyn.[4] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy what I meant by English classification was Llywelyn was recognised by Henry III King of England as the Prince of Wales and Llywelyn II also, and they were not solely self-proclaimed Princes like a few we've mentioned after him and Aberffraw. Although it's mentioned Owain Gwynedd was bestowed the title of Prince by Henry II, the sources I have don't mention this, and DWB is very vague about his ascension as the Prince of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"Ascension as the Prince of Wales". This is your fundamental misunderstanding about the Welsh princes. None of them "ascended" to the title. Take a look at Insley's piece. Prior to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd what there is is sporadic use of the title in a document here or a document there. There wasn't the concept of passing the title from one ruler to another. The Welsh princes didn't have any concept of a consistent use of a title - it was very fluid. It is only with Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in the late 1250s that this changes and he consistently uses the title. I really makes little sense claiming that these people were "princes of Wales" before him. You and Titus Gold have amended a number of Welsh historical articles over the last couple of years and giving a totally misleading picture. You've been exaggerating a "Prince of Wales" namecheck in a source where it lazily gives them that title simply because it was used in one (eg Madog) or 2 (eg Rhys) documents into that being their defining status. The Lord Rhys is a good example. He used multiple titles only one of which (and one of the least common) was prince of Wales. There's no evidence that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth ever used the title. It's just retrofitting what Llywelyn ap Gruffudd did to his Gwynedd predecessors. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa just take the Ascension of Jesus as an example, there isn't one specified perspective, but many different interpretations. I specified Owain Gwynedd's ascension in relation to his military gains territorially, a factor which Llywelyn I also aspired to when he conquered Wales in 1215 and self proclaimed himself as overlord of Wales (the English called him the Prince) at Aberdyfi in 1216. And as for my POV, It has nothing to do with the Prince of Wales and your being unnecessarily personal, but I will reply. There was a gap in the market in 3 articles I edited which used supposed older sourced material (House of Aberffraw, King of Wales and Principality of Wales, in which you only added new paragraphs because I forced your hand, and now the article is more accomplished), but it's a historical article and on average on Wikipedia, users use older sourced when no new sources are available, which is very much the case with my edits (and one paragraph and a few sentences using a Wikipedia approved blog). Also, I am contesting the accusation or WP:OR, the sources weren't checked correctly that's all because I worked very meticulously. Take the "fiasco" of Anwn Ddu for instance. You missed the point of me wanting to help improve work, and if I wasn't coerced and afraid to continue my research after your backlash in criticism, I feel I would have found that flaw myself by eventually conducting a verification of the List of rulers in Wales. Sometimes criticism can be detrimental to progress. So, please picking up from where we left off, what are you going to do about Lawgoch, or shall I simply add one sentence incorporating the existing text ?? Cltjames (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I and multiple other editors have wasted huge amounts of time dealing with your nonsensical editing and bizarre talk page postings. You think a 1730 book is "up to date"[5][6]. You think there have been Kings of Wales for 3,000 years since King Camber.[7] You are an endless time sink that has not the slightest clue on how Wikipedia articles should be sourced and written. I'm done. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever, I tried to help. I'm still eager to contribute, but I've learnt a lot about the need for new sources, something I was unaware about 4 years ago. Sorry if you feel I wasted your time, I will find the correct path to take to avoid WP:RS (older sources) in the future. Cltjames (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

No list of native princes anywhere on Wikipedia

There doesn't seem to be a list of native Welsh princes anywhere on Wikipedia following the removal of the table from List of rulers in Wales.

Could an editor add this to an appropriate page please? Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the table:

Extended content

Depiction Name & life details Personal arms Kingdom arms House, Kingdom Welsh Titles Reign Death & cause Source Prince of Wales title (and King of Wales title) Gruffudd ap Cynan 1055 –1137 House of Aberffraw, Gwynedd(insecurely from 1081) "king and sovereign and prince and defender and pacifier of all the Welsh" (in 1136) 1137 Died in 1137, aged 81–82. Brut y Tywysogion Owain Gwynedd 1100 - November 1170 Gwynedd(coat of arms is of Caernarfon which is retroactively attributed) Prince over the British nation (in 1146) King of Wales King of the Welsh Prince of the Welsh Princeps Wallensium 1146–1170 Died in 1170, aged 69–70. Brut y Tywysogion; contemporary charters. Prince of Wales title only Rhys ap Gruffydd (The Lord Rhys) 1132 – 28 April 1197 Deheubarth(from 1155) Head of all Wales (in 1197) Prince of the Welsh (in 1184) Prince of Wales 1184–1197 Died in 1197, aged 65. Brut y Tywysogion; contemporary charters. Llywelyn the Great (Llywelyn ap Iorwerth) 1173 – 11 April 1240 Kingdom of Gwynedd Gwynedd(from 1194), from 1208 also Powys, from 1216 also Deheubarth Prince of the Welsh (in 1228) Prince of Wales (in 1240) Ruled all of Wales 1228–1240 Died in 1240, aged 66–67. Brut y Tywysogion contemporary charters Dafydd ap Llywelyn March 1212 - 25 February 1246 Kingdom of Gwynedd Gwynedd Prince of Wales (from 1240) 1240–1246 Died suddenly in 1246, aged 33. Treaty with England Llywelyn the Last (Llywelyn ap Gruffydd) 1223 – 11 December 1282 Kingdom of Gwynedd Gwynedd(from 1246), at times also Powys and Deheubarth Succeeded Dafydd in 1246 as prince of Gwynedd. Prince of Wales (in 1264; in 1258; in 1267; 1258–82) Used title "Prince of Wales" from 1258. (Recognised by Henry III 29 September 1267) 1258–1282 Killed on 11 December 1282, aged 59. Killed by English soldiers in an ambush trick under the guise of discussions. His head was paraded in London and placed on a Tower of London spike. Brut y Tywysogion treaty with Scotland treaty with England letters charters Dafydd ap Gruffydd 11 July 1238 – 3 October 1283 Kingdom of Gwynedd Gwynedd Prince of Wales (in 1283) 1282–1283 Killed on October 3, 1283. Dragged through the streets of Shrewsbury by a horse, hanged, revived and disemboweled. His bowels were thrown into a fire as he watched. Finally, his head was cut off and placed on a Tower of London spike next to his brother Llywelyn, and his body cut into quarters. Letters English rule begins following the execution of Dafydd ap Gruffydd. Madog ap Llywelyn (most likely, Prince of Wales arms via Kingdom of Gwynedd) Gwynedd Prince of Wales (in 1294) 1294–1295 (Not recognised by the English crown.) Unknown. Held prisoner in London (most likely the Tower of London.) Penmachno Document Owain Lawgoch1330 – 1378 Prince of Wales arms via the Kingdom of Gwynedd Gwynedd Prince of Wales (proclaimed before 1372) Proclamation before 1372 (Not recognised by the English crown.) Was killed by an assassin whilst fighting against the English in France, on the orders of the English king. Contemporary records Owain Glyndŵr (Owain ap Gruffydd) 1359 –1415 Prince of Wales arms via the Kingdom of Gwynedd and Deheubarth Northern Powys, by 1404–5 all Wales, by 1409 only Gwynedd Prince of Wales (From 1400 and technically until his death in 1415 as he never accepted a pardon from Henry IV and V of England.) 1400 – 1415 (Crowned as Prince of Wales in Machynlleth.) 1415, aged 55–56, secretly buried. Contemporary records e.g. coronation ceremony (1404.) References

Titus Gold (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside that there's dubious candidates on that list, the topic is fully covered in this article and also in Principality of Wales#The Pre-Conquest Principality. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your participation, but the same argument could be used to remove the English Princes of Wales table from this page, so that's not a fair assessment.

Tagging some recent WikiProject Wales editors: @Sirfurboy @Sionk @Cltjames @DankJae - As I understand it, the main argument not to include the table of native princes here before was that they were already included in a table in List of rulers in Wales. Because that table has been removed from the "List of rulers in Wales" page, surely it now needs to be included here for balance?

Thanks all. Titus Gold (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The tabular form of the post-Conquest Princes of Wales is necessary because it covers 700 years and 23 individuals. There's no need need for a tabular format for the pre-conquest ones - it's a very small number over a small period (once the spurious ones you've included are removed) which is perfectly well covered by the existing text. DeCausa (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa I would disagree. There is the need for professionalism, and like Titus said, a table is the correct way to display the text. As for the Principality, you know my position on how the article is simply repeating Kingdom of Gwynedd and House of Aberffraw, and covers the period of 1216-1283, which is a technically not part of the Principality but the final stage of the Kingdom. And @Titus Gold: what he has written is legitimate and needs a place in Wikipedia. And personally I don't see the objections that could be valid, because the information is key to the era and should be promoted with a place on this platform. Cltjames (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what you're saying. As this article says there are generally recognised in some shape or form 4 pre-Conquest Princes of Wales; Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Dafydd ap Llywelyn, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and Dafydd ap Gruffydd with an outside case for Owain Gwynedd. It just doesn't need to have a table. The argument that because the 23 "English" princes have a table so the 4 Welsh ones should as well is petty and pointless. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa Like I previously said about the Lord Rhys on this talk page, if the information is available, then it should be presented in it's entirety. There is no need to avoid the subject and dismiss a claim based on 1 person's personal preference. I will leave this a day or how long it takes for others to get involved. But to reiterate my position, I'm going on fact, and if the history books say Lord Rhys was a de facto Prince of Wales, then it should be listed. Also, the term native doesn't need to be apparent, they were in fact Celtic Princes, something the English Kings did not have a claim for. Therefore, a separate list can be created based on background of the Princes of Wales, firstly the Welsh Celts, secondly the English Anglo-Saxons. These are 2 different entities, just look at other Royal e.g. Marquess of Cholmondeley and Baron Newborough, 2 separate Barons of Newborough, but for those interested in reading the topic, there are 2 separate lists, this is an encyclopedia, not a personal webspace. Please allow the facts to be presented in full, this article is bigger than you are giving it credit for. Cltjames (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

We only put into articles the significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable (secondary) sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[8]. That doesn't mean we cram in everything we can dig up on the internet come what may. DeCausa (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa Like I said, you are underestimating the topic, i.e. Lord Rhys is listed on paper as a Prince of Wales, but somehow not online. A consensus raised by you Decausa will not change history. It will simply slow the process. Cltjames (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While I am not a history person, and do not have a clear opinion on this. I vaguely remember past instances which gave excessive weight to the native ones, which shouldn't be repeated, and an increase in detail would require post-conquest also being expanded, as being the main use. But as the list has been wiped off from List of rulers in Wales (re-focused on regional leaders), I believe somewhere for them is needed, but it would need to be with due weight. Open to a List of princes of Wales list (de-capped), containing both pre/post-conquest, as tbh the table here is quite protruding, with this article focused on the title/history, like Monarchy of the United Kingdom and List of British monarchs.

I am not an expert in whether some past claims to the title should be recognised, may be there should be a way to format the disputed claims of some? But if some reliable sources describe them as such then we should include them duly, but making a note other sources may dispute it, rather than conveniently ignoring it. Unless the claimant sources are clearly unreliable.

The article may need a overhaul, although ideally from those with more experience in the topic than I. DankJae 01:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely with DeCausa: the status quo is just fine. The pre-Conquest princes are mentioned, with due weight, and putting them in a table would not add anything useful. Arguably, what is really missing from this article is a discussion of the post-Conquest history of the title and its holders, to balance out the pre-Conquest discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 this is information would be better presented in the Principality of Wales article which is lacking relevance for its time period. Cltjames (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This table cannot be included in this form. Too many of the rows are uncited or marked as needing citations. I also think some of the columnns, such as the depictions and coats of arms, are unnecessary, intrusive and misleading because there are no contemporary images or coats of arms known. The table also appears to be original research by synthesis: there should be a single citation that lists all the princes of Wales. Problems also arise because some of the entries are disputed and not normally considered princes of Wales. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford the Brut y Tywysogion reference covers the most part of the entries. Then as for David II & III that would be easy to find citations. Then yes, there is a problem with Madog and Lawgoch who were not gavelkind male line primogeniture, which can be better explained instead of left blank. This is not original research, this is contemporary medieval documentation brought into modern times. Excluding the text only raises questions like this discussion. This isn't a consensus voting system, this is fact driven history. The topic has a definitive answer, the truth and the hope we can agree not to hide it. Cltjames (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate @DeCausa 's point on how established some of the native princes were e.g Owain Lawgoch should have a note like "proclaimed in France". Agree that there could be more mention of later English/British princes that are only shown in the table.

Agree with @DankJae that a list here is now needed since it has been removed completely from List of rulers in Wales. Some might argue that this is the more appropriate article for them anyway.

Agree with @Cltjames that they all have appropriate dates etc. and are sourced from y e.g Brut y Tywysogion or other historical sources.

Agree with @Celia Homeford that the table needs to be tidied up a little and consistency of showing where exactly the info is from with appropriate citations added.

Agree with @Rosbif73 that there should be a little more said on the later English/British princes and how the role of the title changed e.g role on Welsh councils and any change in responsibility. Bear in mind that there are already lengthy paragraphs on the first English prince, insignia, titles, roles and investitures which haven't been discussed for the native princes, so arguably more should be said there on symbols used by the native princes.

Potential conclusion based on input

• Re-add a table that is tidied and fully cited with coats of arms removed, cause of death shortened or removed and note for e.g Owain Lawgoch like "proclaimed in France". A majority of four editors seem in favour of this, if the table is tidied-up in a manner agreeable to @Celia Homeford. Hopefully, this is more agreeable to the two editors that were originally not in favour also.

Separate matters

1. Add English/British prince's responsibility change e.g any Welsh council with more mention of later English/British Princes and any role change - I'm happy for editors to go ahead and make well-thought additions here.
2. Add a mention of any symbols used for native princes as Princes of Wales (can be discussed at another time).

Hope that is a positive contribution. Thanks all. Titus Gold (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for re-adding the table. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa personal opinion. I disagree, and would to suggest if this doesn't get through, then a new article needs to be created... List of legendary rulers of Wales... This could incorporate the Book of Baglan from 1000 BC through to Owain Lawgoch 1378 and Brut y Tywysogion. Also an issue raised in the talk for King of Wales article. And then it would bring Wales article on par with other Celtic King lists... List of legendary rulers of Cornwall, List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland. Cltjames (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I second the opinion that we have not reached any sort of consensus here. We've thrown a few ideas around, some good, some bad, nothing more... Rosbif73 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

And to add, why are we talking about primary sources like Brut y Tywysogion and the Book of Baglan? What secondary sources list the Welsh princes in this way? Celia Homeford raises a valid concern about SYNTH and OR, which will only continue if we seek to pull together a bunch of primary sources to do something. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've since found two reliable secondary sources and I completely agree with Sirfurboy that the addition of secondary sources would be useful. I could adapt the table with the aforementioned suggestions for improvement made by other editors in my sandbox or a draft page and re-present a version at this talkpage at a later date? Titus Gold (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a new talk page tactic: say you agree with everyone then ignore the substance of what's being said as though everyone's said they agree with you (which they haven't). DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford @Cltjames@DankJae@DeCausa@Rosbif73@Sirfurboy

I've tried to take everyone's comments on board. Here is a provisional table following recommendations by Celia Homeford and Sirfurboy, including the inclusion of secondary sources. Thus far two of seven editors are not in favour of a table; so hopefully this improved version is more agreeable and I welcome further compromise.

Note: There is a link above the English/British princes' table to the now-deleted native princes' table.

(The following seem to be regarded as a Prince of Wales in function but did not personally use the title: Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Gruffudd ap Cynan, and Llywelyn ap Iorwerth so I think that they should be mentioned in prose I think rather than in a table. The latter two are referred to as Prince of Wales in chronicles such as brut also. Llywelyn I in particular is regarded as an equivalent to Prince of Wales with chroniclers referring to him as such and having taxes paid to him by all other Welsh princes.)

Extended content

Image Names Kingdom of origin Title and notes Years evidenced Death date and cause Before this period only the title King of Wales or King of the Britons was used Owain ap Gruffudd Owain Gwynedd Gwynedd Prince of Wales Prince of the Welsh (first to use this style to indicate independence, sovereignty and supremacy over other native rulers) ~1165 Died 1170 at 69-70 years old. Rhys ap Gruffydd Yr Arglwydd Rhys (The Lord Rhys) Deheubarth Prince of Wales 1165 11841197 Died 1197, at 65 years old. Dafydd ap Llywelyn Gwynedd Prince of Wales 1245 Died suddenly in 1246, at 33 years old. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf (Llywelyn the Last) Gwynedd Prince of Wales 12551258, 1262, 1267 Killed by English soldiers under guise of peace talks on 11 December 1282 at 59 years old. Dafydd ap Gruffydd Gwynedd Prince of Wales 1282, 1283 Hung drawn and quartered on 3 October 1283 after capture by English soldiers. English rule begins following killing of Llywelyn & Dafydd ap Gruffydd Madog ap Llywelyn Gwynedd Prince of Wales 1294 Kept as a prisoner in London. Owain ap Tomas Owain Lawgoch (Owain Redhand) Gwynedd Prince of Wales 1363 Assassinated July 1378 Owain ap Gruffydd Owain Glyndŵr Powys, Deheubarth,Gwynedd Prince of Wales 1400 Died 1415, at 55-56 years age and buried in secret. References

Titus Gold (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a bit of apples and oranges going on here. There are princes of Wales and princes of, well, Wales. But not all of Wales. Not Wales as a single polity, nor princes as rulers of that polity. This is a problem that is more easily unravelled in prose than in a list. But, when I spoke of secondary sourcing, I did not mean a history that states x was a prince of Wales (whatever that meant) but a secondary source that meets WP:LISTN:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.

If a historian had presented a list and said, "these are the pre-conquest holders of the title of Prince of Wales" then we would have something to work with.

So what is wrong with this list? Well just to pick one example at random. Madog ap Llywelyn. Our wikipedia page says: proclaimed "Prince of Wales" with two in text citations. One is Schoolshistory.org! and that one does not mention this fact. The other is the dictionary of Welsh biography, which says,

Madog placed himself at the head of the North Wales insurgents and claimed to be ' Prince of Wales.'

Claimed to be. It doesn't actually say "proclaimed". Proclaimed by who? And this is certainly not the only case of shoddy use of sources to make a claim that is probably not recognised in any list of the kind proposed. Where did this problematic edit come from? Ah yes. [9] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That citation is on a different Wikipedia article not in this table! It's not relevant discussion for this table and would be better suited to that particular talk page. Please keep discussions fair and focused. Titus Gold (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The table uses secondary sources for every prince, some of which also discuss title use in a grouped manner e.g The Acts of Welsh Rulers

Other sources not included more obviously discuss in a grouped manner; "Sovereigns and Princes of Wales 844 – 1283"[10], The Welsh Princes The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1282 [11].

Hope that helps. Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the problem. There are 2 sources cited: Davies and Carpenter. I can't access the particular page of Carpenter but Davies does indeed say that Madog assumed the title of PoW. But both the Davies and Carpenter are broad survey works that, though written by noted RS historians, will be summations - and in Davies that was only a passing reference without discusion of what it means. For example, there is no discussion of what recognition it was given. Here's what you find if you dig a little deeper: Prof. A.D. Carr in his Gentry of North Wales in the Later Middle Ages tackles the issue specifically: the rising [i.e. Madog's] cannot be seen as a bid for the restoration of the native principality, although Madog did style himself prince of Wales in a grant of lands in Ardudwy and Rhos in 1294.[12] That's enough to exclude Madog whatever Davies and Carpenter say. This is the trouble with cherry-picking passing references that do not discuss the recognition that was given to the supposed PoW. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources Madog ap Llywelyn:

1. Struggle For Mastery. If you type in e.g "Madog" you can see [13] page 513; "The rising of 1294-5 was more formidable. Edward had eliminated the main line of the Gwynedd dynasty, but there remained a sprig of the Meirionydd branch, Madog ap Llywelyn living on a small estate in Anglesey. In 1294 he proclaimed himself prince of Wales and led a revolt which drew on widespread resentments against the privileges of the new towns, the exactions of the sheriffs and the attempted levy (for the first time) of a general tax in Wales."
2. Beverly Smith (seems to be considered an authority on the Princes)[14], page 583: "Madog ap Llywelyn assumed the style 'prince of Wales' when he rose in rebellion in 1294.4 A member of the princely lineage of Gwynedd, though not the illegitimate son of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd that an ..."
3. Medieval Wales; "Madog ap Llywelyn , uses style Prince of Wales" page 155 [15]
4. History of Wales by John Davies: Madog ap Llywelyn used "Prince of the Welsh"
5. "Madog declared himself to be the lawful successor and assumed the royal titles of his predecessors including that of Prince of Wales (an example of which can be seen in the so-called Penmachno Document)" Jones, Craig Owen (2008). Compact History of Welsh Heroes: The Revolt of Madog ap Llywelyn. Gwalch. (Wikipedia quote as original source not accessible electronically)

Based on secondary sources it seems clear that he did use the title. It's up for discussion how he is mentioned on the page; whether in this table or in prose. Titus Gold (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

But the point is, yes he did "use" it. But what Carr is telling us is that he used it once in a land grant in 1294. That's not enough. You're obsessed with raising every passing mention and every claim to mean that they are included in a tabulated list on a par, and with equal prominence, with holders that indisputably were Princes of Wales. That's WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

5 other secondary sources have been provided saying he assumed the title and led a widespread rebellion. All the Princes listed are well documented users of the title but I assume the issue you have is only with Madog ap Llywelyn.

If criteria for inclusion in a table is use of the Prince of Wales title then the list is appropriate and has been cited appropriately with reliable secondary sources. If you want to suggest a different criteria, you're welcome to do so.

Think we now need to wait for third voices of opinion. Titus Gold (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about criteria for your table. This is about why having your table, at all, makes no sense and is better covered by the existing text approach. It's only you that wants to bring back your table. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reached out to a professional Wiki project, please see discussion: Wikipedia Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Celtic Princes of Wales. It's a shame we haven't been able to agree on much at all. I have reaffirmed my position and have given alternative ideas about creating a King list of 'legendary' rulers which have been ignored. Be it medieval or Iron Age rulers, the lists exist and should be published in articles similar to other Celtic nations and other monarchies around the world. Please contribute to the talk I have linked. This is the best way to find the correct solution to the dilemmas that have arisen. Cltjames (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, this page is acceptable. The English/British heirs-apparent, are the more notable title holders. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be little support for the inclusion of the table in this article. I tend towards oppose as well, and would prefer to see the table in its own article dealing with the Welsh princes. We have to understand that some sources are very remote and that, at the time of the Welsh princes, the territories we now recognise as the modern nation of Wales were in a state of flux, and some of these princes were princes in Wales rather than of Wales. I'm happy with the article as it is (though I don't see that the link to List of rulers in Wales is very helpful; it should be in See also...) Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Going back a few comments, Carpenter merely says "In 1294 he proclaimed himself prince of Wales." Titus Gold produces other sources saying the same thing. He took the title Prince of Wales for himself. But then, so did Allan Evans [16]. And not to be facetious about this, but here is the problem. The extent to which you think that Madog ap Llywelyn was a prince of Wales will largely rest in your POV. Adhering to strict neutrality, DeCausa has already demonstrated, with sourcing, why he should not be in a table here. But perhaps there is room for a mention of his assumption of the claim, which is stronger than Allan Evans, primarily inasmuch as he had some people willing to kill people at his command. Any mention would need to have sufficient nuance that a reader can clearly discern the difference between a title and a claim to a title (especially a claim with no apparent attempt to rule the territory). I believe the native Welsh princes are best treated here in prose, not a table. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the Welsh princes (with the possible exception of the latter Gwynedd princes, and then only really Llywelyn ap Gruffudd) is the patchy usage and the odd claim - which is very different to the well established list of the Plantagenets and later. They're not the same and text is the right way to discuss them. Otherwise, if Madog is to be included why not Bonnie Prince Charlie?[17] DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm open to not having a table as long as all the Welsh princes in this table are at least mentioned in prose for which the table makes a useful reference. There should be at least some relevant images as well to brighten the section. In prose, there is opportunity to provide the context of the title use and how widely it was used/established.

I've also said that the prose could be expanded for the English/British princes where there was a change to the role in responsibility.

Does that sound fair? Titus Gold (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The existing text already covers the princes in your table except Rhys, Madog and Owain Lawgoch. I've put a sentence in about Madog. I haven't added the other two. The source you've put in your table doesn't refer to anything about "Prince of Wales" in relation to Owain Lawgoch. The source you've put in for Rhys is WP:PRIMARY only. There's no room and would be in any case WP:UNDUE to include more images in this section. As far as I can see this now closes the issue. DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source which references Rhy's use of the title in 2 documents - I've added that (in parentheses) into a new opening sentence which gives the context of the development of the title by the Gwynedd rulers. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good. Im not too sure why that took over 3 weeks of debating to add the Lord Rhys, and even then it's in brackets. But I would like to bring up the question of a coat of arms again, specifically Llywelyn and the 4 lions. A flag that was later incorporated by the Prince of Wales, it would fit in well to the text with relevance to today.

Coat of arms of Llywelyn

Coat of arms of the current Prince of Wales.

Cltjames (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it. Again, the 'native' princes of Wales aren't as notable as the English/British heirs-apparent. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay we've spoken about rewriting to article, and this is a perfect example to write a paragraph and explain the original coat of arms and it's use today through imagery. I'll leave it there for a broader consensus considering its a gap in the text that makes sense to add because it is one of very few pieces of history that can link the original native Celtic Princes and current day English Princes. Cltjames (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see we are coming to a reasonable compromise. With the following additions, I think the native princes section would a relatively fair overview;

1. Reasoning behind Owain Gwynedd's decision to use the title, which was originally included. Since he was the first who was definitely known to use the title himself, this seems essential for the article to understand its origin.
2. Lord Rhys and Owain Lawgoch mentioned, even if just half a sentence each giving context.
3. I think it's also worth mentioning Glyndŵr's Senedd and perhaps a brief mention of international representation from Castille etc. because it reflects the recognition of the title. An optional addition is the offers of pardon to him because it could be a reflection of the relationship between the two traditions?

(+ at least one image to brighten the section. A coat of arms or whatever is relevant) Titus Gold (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Using your numbering:

1. I removed that because it's now covered by the first sentence: Owain Gwynedd's motivation was the same as all the Gwynedd princes. It wasn't specific to him.
2. Rhys is mentioned already - Owain Lawgoch isn't because there's no source saying he used it.
3. Unnecessary. There's a link to his article. And sounds like making a POV point via WP:SYNTH.

Also mine was a WP:BOLD edit. Others may think that mentioning Madog and Rhys is undue and remove them. No room and no need (UNDUE) for arms/images etc. These people are footnotes to the central use of the itle over the last 800 years. DeCausa (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, could we just make the minor additions of:

1. "princeps" as the latin term used in the Roman system said to have inspired the use by Owain Gwynedd. This is quite important for the page as a whole as it explains the origin of the term.
2. I accept this mention of Rhys.There are secondary sources that mention the use of the title by Owain Lawgoch including: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7WquBwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT52&dq=owain+lawgoch+proclaimed+prince+of+wales&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=owain%20lawgoch%20proclaimed%20prince%20of%20wales&f=false and also this secondary source: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Welsh_and_the_Medieval_World/geyVDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=owain+lawgoch+proclaimed+prince+of+wales&pg=PA242&printsec=frontcover (page 242) so I think mentioning him in passing in the same sentence as Madog ap Llywelyn would be appropriate.
3. I accept this reasoning.

I think one image depicting e.g Llywelyn's arms would be appropriate such as suggested above.

Hope you agree that this is reasonable. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to change or add to what I previously said. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Titus Gold secondary sources for Lawgoch confirms his claim and alleviates the issue. It's odd to have a family of Princes and listing the self proclaimed individuals but missing one person from the bunch. I agree with Titus, Lawgoch needs a mention. Lawgoch was the final ruler of the line beginning with Owain Gwynedd and is listed on DWB as the lineal successor, he's referenced from multiple locations, this to me looks like a mistake in the article, not undue. I'm sure you know the saying; if you give to one, you have to give to all. Cltjames (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

if you give to one, you have to give to all – No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We give due weight to things based largely on the weight that reliable secondary sources give them. If there are few or no RS stating that Lawgoch used the title, there's no good reason to mention him here. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia's link to "OWAIN ap THOMAS ap RHODRI (' Owain Lawgoch '; died 1378), a soldier of fortune and pretender to the principality of Wales". Dictionary of Welsh Biography. National Library of Wales. is the MOST reliable source for Welsh royal history, the quotes speak for themselves and disprove any due weight issues... "very conscious of his hereditary claims as lineal successor of the two Llywelyns .... preceded by a notable proclamation setting out Owain's claims" the quote is undeniable and lists him alongside Llywelyn I & Llywelyn II. The text does not represent this fact and should explain his position, which is a necessary cog in the system. Cltjames (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That source states that he issued a proclamation setting out his claims, sure, but I see no mention of what those claims actually were and whether they included any pretence to the title of prince of Wales. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 the potential sentences written about Lawgoch would be about closure, a sort of conclusion of the Kingdom of Gwynedd and House of Aberffraw. It brings together an explanation about the Llywelyns and their lineal successor, it fits in perfectly to the text and everyone knows that. Cltjames (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not mind-readers! How about proposing some "potential sentences" to see whether there's consensus to add them? Rosbif73 (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok good, thanks. It can be trimmed, or even extended with references, etc. Please feel free to suggest anything extra or less... But I feel he deserves more than one sentence, and a small paragraph gives readers a better explanation of the situation at the time after the Kingdom leading up to the Glyndwr rebellion during the Principality.

In 1294, Madog ap Llywelyn led a rebellion against English rule in north Wales, during which there is evidence that he used the title "Prince of Wales" in one document.[18] Then less than a century later saw the end of the lineal succession of the House of Aberffraw, this time it was Owain Lawgoch (French: Yevain de Galles, Owen of Wales) who was the final male hereditary claimant to the title of Prince of Gwynedd and potentially Prince of Wales. By 1372 Lawgoch was planning a coup d'etat in Wales against the English Crown, however, he was assassinated in 1378 by a Scotsman in France where he lived in exile as a mercenary in the service of Philip VI of France during the 100 years war.Dictionary of Welsh Biography. National Library of Wales https://biography.wales/article/{{{id}}}. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Cltjames (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, looking at the Claimants text, it so very vague. There is no mention of the Kingdom of Gwynedd, only Deheubarth, and it wasn't they're claim it was Gwynedd and the descent of Gruffudd ap Cynan who beat the Normans and his direct descendants claimed authority over Wales. Then the House of Aberffraw laid the claim to the title over other royal houses (Dinefwr- Deheubarth, Mathrafal- Powys). But yet neither Gwynedd nor Aberffraw is mentinoed, which is a mystery to me. There is potentially something missing and my Lawgoch paragraph can attempt to fill in some gaps. Cltjames (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Even a quick glance shows several problems there:

• The cited reference makes no mention of the titles of Prince of Gwynnedd and Prince of Wales, nor of the House of Aberffraw, nor of the 100 years war, nor that he was the final hereditary claimant, nor that the expedition of 1372 was planned as a coup d'état – so any mention of all of these is WP:OR unless you intend to cite sources other than the DWB article (and even if you do, beware of WP:SYNTH).
• At the time of Lawgoch's assassination, he couldn't have been in the service of Philip VI, as Philip died in 1350!
• You haven't shown that this is WP:DUE.

Rosbif73 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, if someone else is wanting to help out please... The text is missing a connection between the Kingdom of Gwynedd and their cadet branch of the House of Aberffraw to the Prince of Wales. @Titus Gold: Do you have any references to back up my paragraph? If not, I will rewrite and will talk again. Cltjames (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, DWB reference paragraph simplified. But then I would look to move the Gwynedd and Aberffraw (there isn't a single mention about the royal house) context to another part of the origins section to better explain the situation.... A great nephew of Llywelyn II, Owain Lawgoch (French: Yevain de Galles, Owen of Wales) whose hereditary claims was as the lineal successor and pretender to the Principality of Wales was as a soldier of fortune in the Kingdom of France. Lawgoch unsuccessfully attempted an expedition to Wales from France in 1372 after a proclamation for his claims, he was subsequently condemned as an enemy and traitor by the English Crown. Lawgoch was then assassinated in 1378 by a Scotsman in France. Cltjames (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is way over the top. Even if you could find a source that said he claimed the title, all that could be justified is a very short sentence, probably immediately after the sentence on Madog, that simply says that Owain Lawgoch also unsuccessfully claimed the title in the years X. That's it. Anything else gives far too much text to someone who wasn't prince of Wales. We don't need "closure, a sort of conclusion of the Kingdom of Gwynedd and House of Aberffraw". This is an encyclopedia article not a fanciful blog. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  These native princes additions that would bring a more complete overview to the section and would bring this particular discussion to a close from my perspective:

  1. Very brief mention of term "princeps" to explain origin.
  2. Very brief mention of Owain Lawgoch. "He was proclaimed Prince of Wales" source which mentions relation to both Llywelyns: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7WquBwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT52&dq=owain+lawgoch+proclaimed+prince+of+wales&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=owain%20lawgoch%20proclaimed%20prince%20of%20wales&f=false
  3. A single image of Llywelyn or Glyndwr arms.

  I've already come a long way in compromising on no inclusion of a table or detail on some of the native princes. Don't think these three simple requests are asking for much. Titus Gold (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  1. No brief mention is possible as the origin of the term as applied to the Welsh princes is much debated.

  2. Rather than googling for the preferred phrase in Google books, it would be better if one chose a source based on the credentials of the author and then read what the author said about the subject. I know the author of that book, and he is able and knowledgeable, but also an archivist who mostly only publishes modern political history. That book is okay, but the relevant section is essentially just a sketch of Owain Lawgoch. Better sources should be possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I'll try that again, 1 sentence (2.5 to fit the relevant text)...

  The next to be proclaimed Prince of Wales was Owain Lawgoch in Montgomeryshire during 1363. As the lineal successor to the Llywelyn II of the House of Aberffraw, he lived in France as an exile from before 1365. Lawgoch was a soldier of fortune and had led an unsuccessful naval expedition to Wales in 1372, he was then assassinated in July 1378."OWAIN ap THOMAS ap RHODRI (' Owain Lawgoch '; died 1378), a soldier of fortune and pretender to the principality of Wales". Dictionary of Welsh Biography. National Library of Wales.John Graham Jones (17 October 2014). The History of Wales. ISBN 1783161698.

  I believe the House of Aberffraw needs a mention somewhere in the pre era. Otherwise the 1 sentence actually needs to be 2.5 to make sense. Potential drafting... "from before 1365"? Impossible to pin point the date he left for France, any ideas how to word that better? The rest makes perfect sense. Any thoughts? Please edit the sentence to your liking if needs be by using the references shown, otherwise, it should be posted to the article if consensus says it's acceptable... Cltjames (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have a thought: stop posting this. Multiple editors multiple times have told you the problems with this. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa ok well it was the case highlighting 2 issues. One being a legitimate claimant, shame we haven't come to an agreement yet. @Sirfurboy: as for 1 source, there was nothing wrong with citing DWB, it's already used as a source for multiple Princes. Secondly there is a need to include a sentence about the House of Aberffraw. I will stop posting my draft because its ready for publication. Can I get a broader consensus please, or a simply a green light instead of an edit war. Lawgoch should be added, end of story. The article mentions 8/9 claimants, it's bizarre and looks like a mistake to leave one out. OK??? Cltjames (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  My reply was to Titus Gold. The source I was talking about was :

  • Jones, John Graham. (2014) The history of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

  Not that I have a real problem with either, but for record, if you search on the term you want to find and then cite the books that your search returns, you have assumed your conclusion in your premise, and unintended bias will be the result. The better way to find the sources is to select the best sources, read all that they say on the subject and then summarise.

  There is no good reason I can see at all for mention of the house of Aberffraw, because the native princes were not really dynastic. Again, you don't appear to be working forward from any secondary sources here. Rather, you appear to want to assert something about the Aberffraws and are working backwards to do so.

  As DeCausa has said, your draft is too long. The only thing that we can say about him was that he was a pretender to the title. We have a source for that (DWB) and it appears to me that such information is solid; but then, is it due?

  At this point there is clearly no consensus for your proposed text. You have a few options though:

  1. You could try for the barest mention of his being a pretender to the title;
  2. You could seek dispute resolution if you feel that the consensus here is stonewalling your progress (I don't think we are. I think we just don't agree. But that is an option); or
  3. You could open an RfC to get more eyes on this, but note this will take a month, and you will need to be careful how you open the RfC to ensure a neutral question that can be clearly answered.

  But really, I would suggest that DeCausa has already indicated where consensus is likely to rest on this. So option 4 would be to accept that this is not the right article for a long piece about a man who was not the prince of Wales, although he seems to have had ambitions to be so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy ok thanks. 1 sentence:

  The next to proclaim himself was Owain Lawgoch who died in exile during July 1378 in the Kingdom of France.{{DWB Cltjames (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  To reiterate, the sentence is verified through DWB for this article. This is legitimately necessary for the completion of the section. 1 sentence can be created as demonstrated above. @DeCausa: I know you said drop it, but as per advice I've tried to amend the sentence. What about this new brief sentence now? Please answer the question and don't divert the issue, as one sentence will not do any harm to this article. Cltjames (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• The source isn't supporting the text. See separate post below. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• R.R. Davies in his The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415 (p.436) does say "It was as 'prince of Wales', not of Gwynedd or Powys or Deheubarth, that both Owain Lawgoch and Owain Glyn Dŵr put forward their claims". That does put Owain Lawgoch in a context with Glyndŵr. Lawgoch on the following 2 pages is positioned as a harbinger of the much more serious revolt of Glyndŵr I would therefore make this suggestion (which also deals with Madog). Convert the first sentence under the sub-section 'Post-conquest claimants' (which I added on Madog two days ago) into a footnote (use of the title once in the Penmachno Document warrants no more) and replace with this:

  In the fourteenth century, two pretenders to the title of 'prince of Wales' attempted to make good their claims: Owain Lawgoch, a descendant of the princes of Gwynedd, and Owain Glyndŵr, whose ancestors included the former rulers of Powys and Deheubarth. The former's abortive attempt at invading Wales in 1372 was followed by Glyndŵr's much more serious revolt beginning in 1400. Supporters of Glyndŵr proclaimed him "Prince of Wales" on 16 September 1400...

  Then continue as currently. The Madog footnote could be added at the end of the first sentence. DeCausa (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

• Sure, that makes sense. Only maybe not in the fourteenth century; maybe... In the mid to late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, two... Cltjames (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is about professionalism. Back to one of the points to improve the article; Owain Lawgoch? Can someone give a clear reason why not to include another sentence about a claimaint. Or please add it yourself... Cltjames (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

'Origins to 1283'

I've WP:BOLDly re-written this sub-section for the following reasons:

• It was inaccurate eg Llywelyn ab Iorwerth never used the Prince of Wales title.
• The potted bios of each of the princes aren't relevant to this article. What needs to be discussed is specifically how the prince of Wales title was used in relation to each of them - this article is about the title. (Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE readers can click through to the bios).

DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite. This is much better and much clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this @DeCausa, good work. Makes the text more related to the use of the title.

I think the section now only needs:

• Mention of the term "princeps" (e.g latin, Roman term) because this is the origin of the term for the whole article.

This is already in the first sentence of the lead, and in "note 1" Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe Titus Gold may be referring to the text he wanted in June, viz, the change was made to reflect his position as the unquestioned leader of Wales, as according to Roman law, "princeps" referred to the sovereign ruler of a country. But if so, that won't do at all, as that is much debated. It doesn't belong here. See: Talk:Prince of Wales/Archive 1#Owain Gwynedd. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• A single image of Llywelyn arms to show origin of arms used by later English/British princes.

There is no direct evolution from Llywelyn's arms to Edward II's arms (three lions), so not logical to include arms at all, IMO. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

(Perhaps a one sentence explanation of Edward's motivation for the conquest because this is the cause of the shift of the title use from the Welsh tradition to the English/British tradition?) Titus Gold (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is also adequately covered, both in the lead and in the subsection "First English Prince of Wales". Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Article or section slanted

Just getting the ball rolling here. It seems the article has been tagged as being slanted towards recent events. So, how do we solve this problem? I would like to once more suggest a coat of arms section, this would be perfect to connect the native (Celtic) Princes to the modern day Prince by explaining the use of Llywelyn's banner of Aberffraw. Any other ideas? Cltjames (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The English/British heirs-apparent are the most notable individuals, concerning holders of the title 'prince of Wales'. That's what this page should & is presenting. GoodDay (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay the {Recentism|} banner is highlighting that section, correct. The section mentions: first Prince MOS:QUOTATIONS; titles and roles missed 600 years; Insignia could add various coat of arms and badge again missing key information regarding transition of 600 years; then 1911-1969-2022. So immediately the section seems to be covering the 14th and 20th centuries & 21st briefly, however, the 15th to 19th centuries are practically missing. In terms of consensus, what do users think that should be added ? Cltjames (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames, The banner was added in this edit under the § Heirs apparent to the English or British thrones section by @RadioactiveBoulevardier, with the summary tag for recentism (e.g. zero discussion of 1911 investiture at which the future Edward VIII spoke in Welsh). Although the section seems to have the 1911 investiture, was this recently added? Unless they're arguing for more detail and possibly earlier investitures? So nothing to do with native-born princes nor expanding details of such, which per the discussion above seems no clear consensus for. DankJae 11:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see. So, technically the banner can be removed... However, I think I've raised a fair point in suggesting a missing link between mentions in the 15th to 19th centuries, except a quote from 1607 which is out of place and can technically be moved to the origins section. Then under titles and roles, a {see also|Honours of the Principality of Wales or link can be added. Also, the insignia section can be greatly expanded to include the numerous successive coats of arms used by the Prince of Wales as there is no mention of the 8 different arms that evolved, Coat of arms of the Prince of Wales#English/British Heir Apparent. Like you said @DankJae:, the article may need an overhaul, and I have found some weaknesses that can be strengthened for now. Cltjames (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the 1911 investiture was recently added. A nice demonstration of why detailed "reason" parameters are helpful. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There's still a huge gap between the investment of Edward of Caernarfon and that of his namesake in 1911. Without going into the details of all the intervening holders of the title (we already have a table), there must have been some noteworthy events relating to the title over those six centuries. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Could mention the anomaly of brothers Arthur and Henry Tudor both holding the title consecutively. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

...and the subsequent historic religious break with Rome as a result of both being betrothed to the same woman? Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Henry's use of the title for himself was also significant in that he was asserting himself as a native born prince of Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't think that's right; Henry VIII's article gives his birth as Greenwich. It was Henry VII who was born in Wales, but was never PoW. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a key link to explaining the genealogical connection between Llywelyn the Great of the House of Aberffraw, and King Henry VII of England, thus connecting the native (Celtic) pre 1283 claimants and the Anglo-Norman Princes of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Another Prince of Wales worthy of mention here might be Frederick, the most recent Prince of Wales not to inherit the throne. And coincidentally, Frederick also almost married a Lady Diana Spencer! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

In the same vein, Edward VIII became king, but never crowned (the only PoW this applied to?), but my addition of that anomaly was removed as unrelated to the article topic. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)