Talk:Principality of Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article update ?

The article has some good work, similar to Kingdom of Gwynedd. But similarly it was full of citations and potential page needed tags, also the article isn't really using the coding necessary to create a good article with correct references. I was looking at the work, before 1284, Aberffraw... Perhaps the article can mention a more direct passage for the Principality of Wales, also it could go on to mention the time period better, maybe making use of the wars Wales were involved with on the Continent, for instance the 100 years war, and the battle of Agincourt during that period. And also the Protestant reformation instigated by Henry VIII and the new rectories in Wales (mentioned in Island of Mona online book). Then maybe mention the Tudor link a bit more, maybe a tree list could be included to show the Welsh connection from the Seneschals and Llywelyn Fawr ? As for the references and further proof reading, maybe this is something I'll do again after working on and completing articles such as the Kingdom of Gwynedd and house of Aberffraw, also I worked on the Nannau estate if someone wants to see more work.Cltjames (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is specifically about the Principality of Wales - a particular institution - rather than a general history of Wales when the Principality was in existence. The topics you mention seem more relevant to Wales in the Late Middle Ages or History of Wales. Also, it’s important to remember that the institution came to an end with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. So anything after those dates should not have much material. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, so as to the point you made, you've only reinforced my beliefs that there is too much in the article to do with prior to the establishment of a Principality after the Kingdom of Gwynedd. As for topics I mentioned, I only did so to show my editing and writing capability (everything after history section section in Aberffraw, and also most of the Nannau article, and Kingdom of Gwynedd article, take a look at the comparison without citation from a few weeks ago). As for what I mentioned, Henry VIII is the Laws act, and there isn't a mention of him or that period. Frankly the article needs an overhaul, like you said DeCausa to add more relevant information. @DeCausa: Cltjames (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

” much in the article to do with prior to the establishment of a Principality after the Kingdom of Gwynedd”: that is very unclear what you mean. Other than that, my comments stand. It’s going to be WP:UNDUE adding a lot about Welsh history that’s not directly about the insttution of the Principality. There are other articles for that. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a section about Aberffraw, this repeats exactly what is mentioned in the Kingdom of Gwynedd, it takes up almost half the article and is about the years prior to the establishment of a Principality, the biographies section can be slimmed down vastly as it isn't during the Principality. Furthermore there is nothing mentioning Henry VIII and the protestant reformation, a passage about the background to the end of the Principality would be a great addition. And also a mention of the wars and Wales' position in the hundred years war would be excellent. The parts about rebellion are good, and government administration and law is good, yet I can think of a few books with information from this time period available on google books which are not apparent (yet they should be). Also the article could be expanded with information showing a connection between the house of Tudor and the Princes of Wales, maybe a family tree. Otherwise, the article needs to amend it's references and book section, a {{harv / {{sfn style citations would bring the article up to par, it seems neglected over the years, that's why I wouldn't suggest an upgrade otherwise. Please think wisely about your choices, and don't be overtly negative with criticisms, we need to work together to make this article up to date and inclusive with all the information necessary to make it a good article. Cltjames (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So, if you think that the Principality didn’t exist prior to the conquest, you’ll be arguing against consensus. This article originally was only about the Principality pre-Conquest (I added the post-conquest text). The role of the Welsh in the Hundred Years War is out of scope and I oppose that, as is the reformation in Wales. There are other articles where that is better suited. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the counter argument... I wouldn't stress a need in update if there wasn't anything missing. I'll bring back the key facts, consensus or no consensus, this isn't a complete article and it doesn't have a set date of completion. So, I'm adding a perspective about missing contexts, and too much work to do with prior to the Principality, repetition is a thing, and finding the same work in different articles (Kingdom of Gwynedd) isn't necessary. Again, a starting point, {{harv & {{sfn... Could I do an overhaul of the references, and then draft some potential inclusions for the Principality before you've made your mind up, because 1 person isn't a consensus, furthermore common sense dictates there's something missing about the years 1284-1542. Again, there is too much before 1284 and not enough after, there's missing facts I've found and would like to add about the collapse of the Principality, of the whole article there is 3 lines to do with the end of the era, and it is written poorly by including an encyclopedia quote, a definite weak point. There could be a section talking about life in the Principality explaining about the use of castles (Caernarfon, Harlech, Beaumaris, Conwy, Pembroke? Cardiff? Powys? Rhuddlan? etc.), details about society prior to the War of Roses, and also the new use of land gentry and titles still used today (Welsh peers and baronets, earls and barons). So how about an update for the references and take it from there ?Cltjames (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

What I said isn’t the opinion of “1 person”. Look at the talk page and the archives as well as WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Make sure you are aware of WP:ONUS and also, since you are making a change to the consensus version, you need to be aware of WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll try that again, can I upgrade the old fashioned references, and then draft a new section or two and suggest removal of work, that covers consensuses, and the other two WP pages you suggested is overtly phrased common sense, that is if you understand public domain articles. Ok so, {{harv and {{sfn upgrade ok ?Cltjames (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

I’m sorry havng problems understanding you. “ and suggest removal of work, that covers consensuses, and the other two WP pages you suggested is overtly phrased common sense, that is if you understand public domain articles.” doesn’t make any sense in English. Can you re-phrase it. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That is easy, shame your making such a fuss over nothing. I created a consensus for the correct reasons, no need to patronize me. Now I've inquired, it has given me more of an opportunity to think about the article. I would definitely cull the article, currently the title could be Principality of Wales - two centuries prior, and a century during. Besides, why are you the only one responding to my comments !? Any objections about amending the references with short foot notes (sfn, harv - instead of duplicate entries), and then I would like to draft a section or two, 1. castle building, 2. church reformation, maybe 3. dissolution of the monasteries 4. Wars - Agincourt, War of the roses (there's a mention, but not enough) 5. titled lands e.g. Earls and Barons. There's obviously a lot neglected, please stop changing the agenda. Cltjames (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

Your posts are quite difficult to follow and understand because of the way you express yourself. To the extent that you are undertaking WP:GNOMING (referencing etc) that’s fine. But I suspect that adding extraneous material on issues not directly related to this article (e.g the Welsh in the Hundred Years War) will be reverted. As will any POV that the principality didn’t exist until the 1280s. But subject to that it’s up to you how you wish to attempt to edit the article so long as you follow WP:BRD and seek consensus on the talk page if you are reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OK fine, I tried to add a joke that's all. Basically there is a gap in the market here, I have Welsh heritage, I speak Welsh and grew up in Wales learning about the history of the country. I will amend the references, they are outdated. Then I will try to write some paragraphs about the Principality and the missing information in the article. I have given an idea as to what should have been included by now, and we will work as a team to try and improve this article. Cltjames (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

Today I amended the references, and I've added a castles and town section incorporating a sentence left by itself without a reference. @DeCausa: tell me what you think, please don't just delete, we can negotiate the article's work. Cltjames (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don’t object to what you have done on references but per WP:CITEVAR it’s unnececcessary. I’ve taken out your section on Towns and Castles, however. It’s far too broad to be relevant to an article on the Principality, both in terms of period and geographcally. For example, there’s a paragraph on Powis Castle whch is not even in the Principality. If you wanted to add a section about Aberffraw castle building to the pre-1280 section - that would make sense. And a section about the Edwardian “Ring of Stone” in the post-1280 section makes sense. But a general section on castle building in Wales is out of scope. I would suggest that you could transplant your text to Wales in the High Middle Ages quite easily and appropriately. You do realise that most of Wales wasn’t actually in the Principality? DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, bizarre. I looked at Wales in the high middle ages, and it seems my passage on Welsh castles and towns between 1216-1542 won't fit into a period in the 11th and 12th centuries. Not to worry.... My point was something is missing in this article, and I'll stick to my point. This article needs dozens of citations and page needed tags for book references. The article has potential for an overhaul. I would like to leave it at this for now.... BTW I added an Aberffraw palace section in the House of Aberffraw article, but again there's common sense about not including history from 9-13th centuries in an article to do with 13-16th centuries!!? As for the ring of stone, and the castle building, I got the ball rolling with that passage, why don't you take a longer look at it again (==Castles and towns===, I was in the process of adding more about Conwy)? In terms of finding information for Wikipedia, it's not so easy, I was using referenced work, which is something this article lacks (hugely). As for ring of stone, I defined the era with work on Raglan and the Herbert family, and found crucial information from DNB about the new ruling families. Please look over my work again, and give it a draft if you have a chance, sheer deletion is unnecessary now because the work was related, your too fixated on Aberffraw for the principality, there needs to be am overhaul sorry.... Cltjames (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be edited down to material that’s about the Principality - you’ve thrown in too much extraneous material. You can’t expect other editors to do that for you. Can you answer my specific question. Do you realise the much of Wales post the 1280s was outside the Princpality? You’ve given the impression from the text you inserted that you’re under the misapprehension that the Principalty of Wales covers the whole country. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You ask about what I realize and don't; I'm learning on the job here, but being Welsh I have an extensive knowledge of the background but not the minor details. So, the issue with this topic is material, there is a huge lack of it. So, sometimes you have to think outside the box and grasp at straws with what you have. I inserted my section into Wales in the Late Middle Ages. I feel the information is apparent, only the thing with this type of situation is you have to look at it from a neutral perspective, so basically, my complaint has been about how any old Joe Blogs will look at the article and ask where the relevant information is and why there is so much about the past. As to the question again, I guess I can say yes, I know there's difference between Cymru and Welsh, and the gog's and the English influence in the south. As for the principality, I've learnt about it's borders, and I understand how a country and how counties evolved, the maps in the article explain things better.... I still think it needs an overhaul, minus Aberffraw biographies section, it seems repetitive between all this interlinking articles and the same stories. But seriously, don't you see a lack of information regarding the actual period of the Principality ??? Cltjames (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, the way you express yourself makes it virtually impossible for me to understand what you are trying to say. I’ll just be very blunt with you. The Principality of Wales between the 1280s and its effective abolition in the 1540s only included Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire, Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire. The rest was in the March of Wales. So anything outside of those 4 counties for the period between the 1280s and the 1540s is not going to be within scope for this article. Do you acknowledge that? DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand yes, this is something I wrote about today having read some work in wiki source encyclopedia. For the umpteenth time, the article needs an update, and I'm not talking about references. Why don't YOU tell me what needs to be added instead of me repeating myself (like a classroom, I'm expecting a good answer, sorry for patronising, you've been avoiding the issue!). Cltjames (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying anything needs to be added. You are - but not coherently or with any knowledge. I don’t think this is going anywhere and it’s time to end this. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a mention about Beaumaris Castle, and what about Llys Rhosyr, Llanfaes, Criccieth Castle,... That's a starting point. I feel your avoiding the topic too much, I'm going to use some book sources to try something about Edwardian castles ring of stone like you mentioned, and maybe you can try cooperate with me, sources, or ideas please.Cltjames (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Welsh castles]] is currently a re-direct to Castles in Great Britain and Ireland (although there s also List of castles in Wales. This seems to be where your interest really lies. Why don’t you look at developing the re-direct into a full article rather than shoe-horning your interest in Welsh castles into other articles. DeCausa (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Example of new paragraphs

Here is a draft and starting block for section which could be added citing work that hasn't been mentioned, the castles and church reformation. This is just scrap work to get started, I believe I've found books reinforcing the period of the Principality which only mentions castles and churches as there isn't much information to do with the Principality available. Books to reference : The History of the Principality of Wales, part 3 at Google Books / A History of the Island of Mona, Or Anglesey at Google Books / The Gwyneddion for 1832 at Google Books / An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Anglesey, Volume 2 at Google Books There's some reading material to catch up on, more research needs to be done... No rush !

Castles and churches====

The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 began what was effectively an end to Welsh rule since Roman times, the Principality of Wales would be divided into six shires, three of which represented the Kingdom of Gwynedd, Llywelyn the Great and his family would be what was the final direct descendant of the House of Cunedda signifying almost a millennium of rule of the British, Welsh and Gwynedd people. With the statute came a new era of castle building on an unpresedented scale, with 600 castles today, Beaumaris Castle, Caernarfon Castle, and Harlech Castle "It was built by the English King Edward I following his conquest of Wales, the main work being constructed between 1283 and 1289 with additions of c1295 and 1323-4; the overall cost is recorded as around £9,500 (in the region of £9.5 million in current terms). Harlech belongs to a series of Royal castles designed by Edward's chief military engineer, the Savoyard Master James of St. George, which rank amongst the most highly sophisticated and innovative examples of military engineering in contemporary Europe. Master James was himself created its first constable in 1290, and received a salary of 100 marks a year." The vast expenses and expertise granted to built such monumental projects made these castles fortress' for centuries. It was Owain Glyndwr who in 1404 made Harlech his capital for the following five years, which would have given rise to Owain Glyndŵr's Parliament House, Machynlleth and the first ever Welsh senate.

With the expansion of the Kingdom of England with full backing from the Duchy of Normandy on the continent, for centuries the Normans advanced in what was once the Kingdom of Gwynedd, and neighbouring kingdoms. Gwynedd was the last Kingdom to fall, it was through intermarriage with the English Crown that Gwynedd succesffuly negoiated leases and created the Prince of Wales title, this newly created title was a dedicated to the Principality of Wales which would eventually expand it's borders to include all of Wales, this was first adopted by King Edward II of England, Edward wasn't created a Prince in Wales, but in Lincoln in parliament in the newly elected state. The Duchy of Normandy, European style castles were in abundance, but the Welsh in their own Principality constructed 'Llysoedd' which would act as courts to rule from, Llys Rhosyr is a 13th century example which was constructed after being moved to make way for Beaumaris Castle on Anglesey.

Reconstruction of Llys Llewelyn at St Fagan's

With a new phase which had begun during the Edwardian conquest, it was the reformation of the Church which took place during the years of the Principality of Wales. The removal of courts (Welsh: Llysoedd) would signify the closure of the Kingdoms. Many churchs in the Principality were actually enlarged and remodelled instead of building new sites, for example on Anglesey St Beuno's Church, Aberffraw had a new chancel and nave built, but it was St Mary's and St Nicholas's Church, Beaumaris which was newly built in coordination with the castle in Beaumaris. And another example put into a museum from that era St Teilo's Church, Llandeilo Tal-y-bont now in St Fagans National Museum of History.

References

Cltjames (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s so much wrong with it it’s hard to now where to start:

• Firstly, it repeats chronology that’s already in the article at several points.
• Secondly, it mixes chronology within it - it starts with post-conquest castles and ends with the pre-conquest Llysoedd.
• Thirdly, it needs to be integrated into the existing chronology of the article which is split between the pre and post conquest principality.
• Fourthly, it seems to be a collection of random facts with no chronological or thematic progression, and no rationale of why those facts have been selected.
• Fifthly, at multiple points it makes statement which are either nonsense or just plain incorrect e.g. “The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 began what was effectively an end to Welsh rule since Roman times” - the Conquest did that. Why does your text have quotation marks without saying who’s quoted? “With a new phase which had begun during the Edwardian conquest, it was the reformation of the Church which took place during the years of the Principality of Wales.” apart from the fact that it’s appallingly written, the Edwardian conquest took place 250 years before the Reformation. what’s the link? “The removal of courts (Welsh: Llysoedd) would signify the closure of the Kingdoms.” What’s that supposed to mean? “With the expansion of the Kingdom of England with full backing from the Duchy of Normandy on the continent” TheKingdom of England didn’t expand into Wales until the 16th century. That’s the point of the Laws in Wales Acts. And “full backing” of Normandy is a pretty silly statement. It was a possession of the king which was lost by the time of the conquest. “Gwynedd was the last Kingdom to fall, it was through intermarriage with the English Crown that Gwynedd successfully negoiated leases and created the Prince of Wales title, this newly created title was a dedicated to the Principality of Wales which would eventually expand it's borders to include all of Wales, this was first adopted by King Edward II of England, Edward wasn't created a Prince in Wales, but in Lincoln in parliament in the newly elected state.” apart from the run-on sentence being a mess, intermarriage is irrelevant, the chronology is confused, what “leases”??, and worst of all, the Principality never expanded to include all of Wales. I think a lot of your confusion about this article seems to stem from this misunderstanding.

In summary: this is not an improvement to the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of passages

This is why I'm starting a draft. It's almost impossible to find the relevant information which is correctly sourced and referenced without the books available. What I'm doing is a type of anthology, like a mini history section going through the timeline beginning 1284 until 1542, by highlighting the key facts. We need to grasp the key facts better - Edwardian castles, St. George, church reformation ( best examples), and then the phase of creating counties from towns, I have shown some books, I will continue to read and try and create a perfectly referenced section with the criteria you have highlighted. Remember how difficult it is to write a paragraph with the correct references included ... No offence, this article is poorly referenced with no inline citations. I will continue to research to find the right citations to include Edwardian castles and the churches reformation and will attempt a rewrite and see what you think. As for the passage, there was a treaty for Llywelyn to enjoy the Prince of Wales title on lease until he died, and that is why Dafydd III rebellion failed, because the deal was already done, as for quotation marks - it's a direct extract about Harlech castle from a website, otherwise like I said, it's very difficult to provide work with inline citations, that is why I've added a {{tag, please respect the citation reference and improve and don't vandalize by deleting it without correct research done on the topic from now on. Cltjames (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Amending article (1)

I'm currently doing some reading these days, and am looking at the article with ways to amend missing facts. For now, under the infoxbox section, under the 'historical era ' the Welsh revolt of Glyndwr seems to be missing... Consensus to include Glyndŵr Rising ?? 1400-1412 there abouts? Cltjames (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, yesterday there was a pointless argument, now in the 'history' section of the talk page. But I achieved a minor goal of highlighting the needs for citations {{fact. Otherwise, I didn't understand 'event6' was last entry in the 'historical era', my question about consensus would be to remove something for Glyndwr Rising, maybe treaty of Worcester, as it doesn't actually have an article page. And this reinforces my beliefs there is too much irrelevant to the past history of the actual Principality, and how a mention on the Penal laws, and Laws passed by Henry V making Wales into an apartheid are more important than repeating stuff from other article, primarily Kingdom of Gwynedd Princes. Consensus please, I'd like to read some open suggestions and have a civilized chat for once ! Cltjames (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem which I've identified can also be shown in the imagery used in this article, for instance the Principality of Wales section Government, administration and law shows images and quotes texts from Laws of Hywel Dda, Peniarth 28 manuscript which was written about laws from the 10th century explaining life in the Kingdoms of Wales, and shows images from the 12/13 century, this misses the majority of the period of the Principality centuries. I have found the Principality of Wales at Google Books offers a more up to date version of the accounts for this time period. I wish to find some information to put forward to consensus to remove the citation issue in regard to making this article more directly involved in the time period, and maybe moving some imagery and facts to another article, mainly Kingdom of Gwynedd. Cltjames (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this is good work. Keep going with that. But, secondly, you can’t use the book you linked to - it was published in 1730! It’s certainly not “up to date” and isn’t WP:RS. Thirdly, the article is currently structured so that there are two clear parts: 1216-1280s and post 1280s. These were two different polities and hence the two parts. I’m not really sure what you are trying to say about “moving facts” to another article. That wouldn’t be appropriate unless you are challenging whether the first polity was a Principality of Wales too. That was previously debated (see archive) and resolved - I wasn’t involved in that. Fourthly, I need to repeat a word of caution about including material for the period 1280s to 1530s. That period shouldn’t become a history of Wales 1280-1536. There’s another article for that. During this period most of Wales was outside the Principality - so it has a very narrow geographical scope. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we get an independent consensus for WP:RS regarding Burton, Robert (1730). The history of the principality of Wales. : In three parts. Paternoster Row, London. - A history of the Principlaity of Wales at Google Books, because it's a trump card for this article hence the title being of the same idea, the Principality, as it's virtually the only google book available or this time period. I was hoping to reference a bunch of pages, I've read through most (or moft) of it, and yes, it is old hence the s/f pronunciation and spelling issue, but despite it's age it has a huge validity still... Is there a way of getting a third person's perspective on this please, Wikipedia:Consensus. Cltjames (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes: WP:RSN is the place. There are multiple modern works on the Principality. 18th century works can’t replace modern scholarships although sometimes they can be WP:PRIMARY. But that’s a very limited usage. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have been conducting research into this era of life in Wales, and it seems there are some authors who have delved into this topic (but none on google books except for 'Burton'). I'd like to bring up the creation of towns, being specifically the evolution of Wales from the hundreds, into cantref's and then finally creating towns which still exist today. These towns were established in the surrounding area of castles, and specifically made for trade after they're use as defensive fortifications used by the Normans. Perhaps a section like as follows - ==Towns and trades, then go into detail about the emergence of towns and the structure in terms of burgesses and constables, etc. Also how trades flourished and Wales became the farmlands we still see today, especially for Welsh wool, and how the countryside changed it's image with new pastures for cattle as such. Also then we need to go into detail about the laws, and the semi-apartheid era than begun in Wales post Glyndwr rebellion, and how the penal laws shaped Wales for centuries. Furthermore there is lots to mention, and I wish to conduct this research myself and keep the well wishers posted via talk. I'll post some drafts when I get around to it. Cltjames (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Having conducted research using the 'Wikipedia library' and another source I mentioned prior, I have found a key amount of information regarding the era in this book, linked : The Medieval boroughs of Snowdonia. The point I'd like to make about missing information is highlighted in this book to do with the medieval boroughs and the set up of the Principality of Wales in particular north Wales. This information is key, and if it there is an issue about WP:OLDSOURCE, then maybe someone can find a better source, but the copy has been digitally restored and is presented perfectly in the link I mentioned. To elaborate, the 9 official boroughs under Hereford jurisdiction, which fits into the Principality of Wales#Governance section, but this section in the article is missing all information to do with the castles and their importance for this period in Welsh history. The boroughs were the administrative areas, and the castles were the towns and this ties in perfectly with the 'Statue of Rhuddlan' section. I'll conduct some further reading and we'll chat about this, but please be open minded to the source in mention, and the information linked to the book is all in place to be referenced for this article and there isn't a better source to reference the boroughs of the Principality. Cltjames (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Don’t use that book it’s far too old. There’s plenty of material on urban settlements in the Principlaity in modern general histories that’s perfectly fine . If you want something specifically on boroughs please, at least, use R. A. Griffiths (ed.), Boroughs of Medieval Wales, 1978. it’s a little dated but at least it’s not 1912. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Castles and towns

As per talk, I have brought up on a few occasions missing information in regard to the Principality of Wales. Furthermore as discussed there has been objection from @DeCausa: regarding the references linked to the information I have presented. I would like to create a draft paragraph for inclusion to the article, below is a rough segment.

During the reign of Edward I of England to meet the political and economic climate of the Principality, charters were created for boroughs as consolidation for general policy in England and Wales. This period of settlement begun after the death of Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1282, and thus begun the period of Feudalism in the Principality. To consolidate the hold of the newly won Principality the policy of castle building begun and then the creation of the original 5 boroughs which were issued by the King of England, those being : Caernarfon, Conway, Criccieth, Bere and Harlech, the Welsh rolls (Latin: Rotuli Walliae) explain the Welsh interest under the great seal. Then as a consequence of the revolt of Madog ap Llywelyn during 1294-95, Anglesea was further fortified with the construction of Beaumaris Castle and later Ruddlan was added to the charter. Then there was also further enfranchisement was issued to the towns of Newborough, Nefyn, Pwllheli by the Prince of Wales, and also Bala was made a royal borough. These burghal communities recognized the rights of the charter and were granted for the period of the Principality between 1284-1536. These boroughs were called the 'store of the Prince' or in Latin: stauram principis (Welsh: dawnbwyd), also named the store of the castles, these commotes were set up to meet the requirement of the newly built castles in the ring of iron. As well as North Wales, there were other boroughs in the Principality consisting of Carmarthen, Flint and Cardigan.

The castles constructed would act as boroughs, the original 6 would be governed through Hereford which acted as a mother to the Welsh boroughs. In these boroughs Welshmen were nominally forbidden to dwell or hold tenements in the English boroughs, a situation similar during the period for the Scotsmen in Berwick or a Frenchman in Calais. This policy would be eased and eventually abolished during the reign of the Tudor dynasty. The lands surrounding castles acted as boroughs and were farmed greatly during this period with Beaumaris becoming the most prolific in the Principality. These castles would remain in use well past the end of the Principality, that is until the English Civil War which saw the slighting of some castles and destruction of others.

References

Cltjames (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m afraid I don’t get this at all. The language is quite confused and opaque and sometimes it verges on being a word salad. Take the beginning: “meeting the political and economic climate” of the Principality is either meaningless or incorrect (creation of boroughs was by popular demand??). It’s nothing to do with meeting any sort of climate - the creation of the boroughs was about exerting control, stimulating economic growth and tax revenues and an element of cultural imperialism. Equally meaningless or incorrect is saying “…as consolidation for general policy in England and Wales”. What general policy? I won’t do a line by line critique but the whole thing seems garbled. The second point is that it conflates three different, albeit related, issues: colonisation/settlement, castle-building and creation of boroughs. The sentences hop from one topic to the other and back again, without explanation. “The castles constructed would act as boroughs” is misleading. The third point is that the sourcing is inadequate. Most of the material isn’t covered in the sources you cite. Two of the sources are unacceptable. Do you realise that reference no. 2 is a pub website? How can you possibly think that complies with WP:RS? Reference no. 1, as already discussed, is an outdated work from 1912 - don’t use it, there’s plenty of modern scholarship available. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, as discussed this is simply a draft with all the key points, and as to references I'd like to propose that if you can find a better source then we'll use it, otherwise I would like to go ahead and reword with your help and put forward the information highlighted as it is missing from the article, it would be petty of you to refuse otherwise. The article is more important than it's references sources, albeit the book in mention is old, however it was recommended by the Wikipedia library and serves it's purpose. Please look through the book when you get a chance to get second opinion on the source as it is ideal and serves it's purpose. As for the Black boy site, that will be easy to replace, it's just an example. To reiterate, the article is missing key information, and I have now presented this information to be used wisely and not dismissed as it's relevance is in abundance to this article, all the information is correct, it just needs proof reading. Furthermore the reason I am doing this is because of a clear lack of information in the article, there is no mention of castles or towns, I added links to the towns not mentioned in this article, and it really is missing key information ! Also as for the wording I used, I tried to include key words from the book, this paragraph or two will not be easy to word, and I myself will take time to go through this to find a solution. I am sorry but I will have to refer to a Wikipedia administrator if you continue to dismiss my work like you've done so far, this passage I wrote is wholly purposeful to the work, please continue like this and we will see what will happen. Yours kindly Cltjames (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve added in the article a section on Towns using these soources:

• Davies, R. R. (2000), The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063–1415, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 371–373, ISBN 0-19-820878-2
• Stephenson, David (2019). Medieval Wales C.1050-1332: Centuries of Ambiguity. p. 127. ISBN 9781786833877.
• Rigby, S. H.; Ewan, Elizabeth (2000). "Government, Power and Authority 1300-1540". In Daunton, Martin J. (ed.). The Cambridge Urban History of Britain. pp. 302–303. ISBN 9780521444613.

DeCausa (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Although you could have gone into more detail bringing up the revolt for Madog ap Llywelyn for instance, or like you mentioned previously Iron Ring in North Wales, that is as you've previously mentioned yourself. But better than nothing I suppose. Cltjames (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: The passage works fine, only the opening sentence is a bit ambiguous, maybe something like... Following the Conquest of Wales by Edward I in the late 13th century, there was a new need to consolidate the conquest and by further pacifying the Welsh was to ensure the military security of his new....

Clarifying and defining Native Welsh rule versus English rule

It is important to define Welsh or English ruling periods of the principality in headings, arms in the infobox etc. The Kingdom of England was well defined at the time. The title of Prince of Wales was used by Llywelyn the Last. (The title of "Prince of North Wales and Lord of Snowdonia" was also used by Llywelyn the Great.Titus Gold (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's anachronistic and simplistic language for this time. Yes, there were cultural affinities and the Plantagenets were Kings of England, but they were rulers of a lot else, as were much of the ruling class that took land in ales after the conquest. The language of "English rule" and "Welsh rule" is misleading and suggestive of modern concepts of one "nation" ruling over another "nation". The conflict between the Plantagenets and the Aberffraw was dynastic and feudal and the victors were, in modern terms, multi-national. trying to make this "English Rule" at this time doesn't give the proper feudal and dynastic nuance. DeCausa (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Llywelyn the last was recognised as "Prince of Wales" by the monarchy of the Kingdom of England. The sense of nationhood in both England and Wales were clear and well defined but of course different dynasties competed for the crowns of England, Gwynedd and later Principality of Wales. England and Wales were both defined as countries by this time. There was an element of history of the royal families of course. But yes it was very much a case of one nation ruling another nation from 1283. "Pura Wallia" and "Marcher Wallia" were commonly used at the time as terms encompassing modern day Wales also and so Wales was well defined as a nation but was not unified under one Welsh ruler due to Anglo-Norman occupation of the Marches. Titus Gold (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's very much a narrow modern nationalist perspective and anachronistic. Edward's ties and cultural affinity was very much cross channel as well as in England, as was his ruling class. "English rule" by a Francophone?? His conquest was personal and dynastic and he was quite happy to give Powys etc back to their Welsh rulers provided they fitted into his feudal world view - in just the same way as his possessions in France. Equally, there were plenty of Welsh that sided with Edward - not just the likes of Owain ap Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn but also the 9,000 Welshman that formed the core of his army, and without which he probably wouldn't have succeeded. DeCausa (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes English rule because it was the Kingdom of England. 9,000 Welshmen was in 1977 and was likely linked to regional princes of Wales wanting regional power. The war of 1982 was a more national war with increased Welsh unity.

You raise good points about regional identity within Wales and aspirations of power but this does not change the fact that there clearly defined periods of native Welsh rule followed by English rule. A chronicler wrote about 1282 saying " all Wales was thrown on the ground". This was not smooth continuation of the same rulers. Titus Gold (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the term "English rule" which is simplistic nationalism and anachronistic. "Yes English rule because it was the Kingdom of England." What was "the Kingdom of England"? "It" (whatever "it" is) was also the Duchy of Aquitaine etc. The Principality wasn't "ruled by" the Kingdom of England (it wasn't even made part of the Kingdom until the 16th century) It was "ruled" as a personal fiefdom by Edward - until passed to his French-speaking Caernarfon born son. The ruling class of the new territory spoke either Welsh or French. Of course there were English-speaking colonists and Edward's most important territory was the Kingdom of England but what I'm trying to illustrate to you is that simplistic terms like "English rule" are ahistorical at this time. DeCausa (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, you raise some interesting and sensible points. Do you have a better suggestion for terminology other than "English rule"? Titus Gold (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You've used the term "Under the English crown" which I think is acceptable. Titus Gold (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold the term the 'Normans' applied to the age of Gruffudd ap Cynan and could certainly be used in some references to the English rule of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Last time I looked at it the Welsh princes spoke Welsh and came from Wales. The title King of England was held by Edward while the other territories were dukedoms and held in fiefdom to the King of France, Yes Welsh troops fought with Edwards as did Indian troops in the conquest of India - the splitting and use of native differences has long characterised the various English conquests. If we use Normans or similar that is a little off by the time we get to Edward, in terms of basic understanding for the modern reader it is English -----Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

While all that is of course true, and "English rule" becomes a "thing" later in the Principality's history, for the early period, it's too crude to reflect its essentially personal, dynastic and feudal nature rather than a national one. I agree it's too late for "Norman" although it might still be appropriate for some of the marcher lordships outside the Principality. Calling it what it was is the best option i.e. the personal fiefdom of the King of England, or his heir. A bizarrely similar analogy (considering its recentness) is "Belgian rule" in the Congo is considered to have begun only in 1908, despite the Congo Free State having been around for three decades prior to that. DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's odd argument, by this time the idea of `kingship' was clearly associated with named territory and the most logical common names are Welsh and English rule - anything else to too convoluted and would require too much explanation. It's also worth remembering that is immediately after Simon DeMontford and the establishment of various charters that changed the nature of the King's relationship. So I disagree with your 'personal fiefdom' idea - and critically any history book I have references English and Welsh as identities in that period, so if nothing else we should go with the balance of what is in the various sources, not some interpretation. We also have the Treaty of Montgomery which is relevant here as it establishes the primacy of Gwynedd over multiple 'princes' -----Snowded ^TALK 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Snowded: Firstly I've reversed your revert only because you took it back to 28 August. Actually there's been toing and froing since 8 August which you may not have noticed. So if it were to be reverted because of this ongoing discussion then it should be back to 8 August which is the lonstanding version. In fact, Titus Gold (from this discussion) was I think OK with the 28 August version which is why I've reverted only to then. But if you're not happy with that then no problem putting it back to the longstanding version as at 8 August - I'll leave that to you. DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm not really clear on the point you are making. Are you saying that Edward didn't set up the Principality as a "personal fiefdom"? That clearly is contrary to the historiography. English institutions (including Parliament except on one or two occasions) had no remit in the Principality and it had pretty much the same independent nature as the marcher lordships. That was the point of the Laws in wales Acts. Could you clarify. DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

To my mind the issue remains Welsh v English Rule, Wales was not a fiefdom in the sense that all Barons held their rights from the King. The claim of the English Kings on the Welsh is a somewhat tortuous affair that starts to be clearer under Henry II. Wales had its own laws that went back to the 6th Century and they persisted until the Laws in Wales Acts. That aspect predates Edward deciding to grant the princedom to his son - and that was in the period of English rule. At that point it is in the grant of the King but it wasn't before. It had a pre-normal existence and the Treat of Montgomery was defacto between two nations (given the use of that concept at the time). Apologies for the delay in replying - flight back to the UK from New Zealand took it out of me and I've taken about a year off Wikipedia anyway -----Snowded ^TALK 10:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The point here is quite specific: is the institution of the Principality by Edward appropriately characterized as "English rule". The Principality did not form part of the Kingdom of England, the English Parliament had no authority over it, no English institution (other than the monarch himself, personally) had any remit within it. What's the "English element"? Yes, it's ruler was the English monarch (or his heir). Yes, English colonists were imported into the new territory. Yes, members of the "English" ruling class held some of the high offices of the Principality (albeit most of them had more complex backgrounds than the word "English" does them justice). But the phrase "English rule" doesn't reflect the complexity of the relationship with "England", certainly in the early part of the Principality. Titus Gold, who first introduced the phrase "English rule" into the Infobox and article on 8 August 2022 appears from his comment earlier in this thread with the compromise "English crown rule" which I introduced on 28 August. That phrase seems to me to cover all the bases of "English" involvement but reflecting the feudal nature of the polity outside of english "national" institutions. But you've reverted that twice. If that's unacceptable then it should go back to the longstanding version (for many years) as at 8 August which makes no mention of either per this. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK if you have English Crown rather than English, but Welsh rule is more accurate and avoids the issues of if it was one prince or several -----Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, we mean "heir-apparent", rather then "heir". GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay just to add...I've attempted to argue previously that this article isn't completely accurate and has too much information regarding the Kingdom of Gwynedd, and certain paragraphs about Aberffraw should be excluded. Furthermore, the historical era section should exclude something e.g. a revolt and include the Glyndwr rebellion....

Any consensus???? Cltjames (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

By all means. If you can improve this article? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the pre 1283 section is heavily reliant on drawing on the history of Gwynedd generally and could be cut down. I didn't really understand the point about Glyndwr though. DeCausa (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I was just saying a point I made before. The significance of the Glyndwr rising is far superior to other revolts such as the revolt of 1316 and the Glyndwr wars should be mentioned in the historical era section. Cltjames (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

But it is already. DeCausa (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa No it's not. I mentioned the historical era section in the drop box at the top of the article. The Welsh revolt of 1316 should be replaced with first Welsh Senate 1404. Cltjames (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought you meant in the body of the article. If it's in the Infobox, then I would say both those revolts should be replaced by the Glyndwr revolts. DeCausa (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa the revolt of Madog 1295 is important as it led to the construction of Beaumaris castle, but as for 1316, it doesn't hold priority over the feats of Glyndwr, so I will change the historical era. Cltjames (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)