Talk:King of Wales

King of Wales

Ok. You decided to cull the article without a talk. So I propose an article returning the information that was added on the lines of, "legendary Kings of Wales"... What is your opinion? Cltjames (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's indefensible to add immense reams of garbled pseudohistory as fact, and this isn't the only article where that urgently needs remedying. If we can't agree on this, I propose that we ask for help from Wikiproject Wales. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Maybe that's a good idea. There was a lot of relevant research which was added to the article involving credible sources from the era associating Kings of Gwynedd as Kings of Wales, not just from Geoffrey of Monmouth. So I think a new article should be created or at least look into the medeival Kings of Wales list to revert some entries, because there are several individuals with claims the the title King of Wales as listed from historically reliable sources. Cltjames (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames Would you be kind enough to make on this page a suggestion for a "fact" -just one - that should go in here? We may discuss more profitably and at reasonable length. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge My contribution for the article was the inclusion of the Book of Baglan. I wrote about the Governors of North Cambria who were also Earls of Ewias and Irchenfeld. These were the descendants of King Camber son of the legendary Brutus of Troy. I also cross referenced the Book of Llandaf, Welsh triads, Mabinogion, Historia Regum Britanniae, Where Troy Once Stood. The article previously mentioned Camber, King of Cambria (Wales). I simply elaborated the connection to the medieval Kings of Wales and Celtic origins.

In terms of a simple fact, perhaps I should firstly continue explaining that maybe a separate article could be created about the Earl of Ewyas and Irchenfeld or about the Governors of Cambria (also part of the Dukedom of Dumnonia). A similar list is found at the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall article (my inspiration for the changes). I believe Wales too should have a legendary King list on Wikipedia like Cornwall or Ireland (List of High Kings of Ireland) do, or a continuation of the List of legendary Kings of Britain

But as for fact, I believe the medieval Wales King list to be legitimate and I think it was Brut y tywysogion which was the main source. The list spans from c. 600 - c.1200 and definitely specifies Kings of Wales prior to the use of the titles of Princes. Cltjames (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, let's keep it initially simple by considering the Book of Baglan as a source. To use it as a reliable source we would need specific references to academic, accepted, modern analyses of the work that confirm each and every point being made. The popular modern literature on the subject, varying from popular books to devoted websites, isn't reliable (it can be fun, but that's not the point here, our speculations are irrelevant), and points made in transcriptions/translations (do you have a copy of Bradney's edition?) would only be acceptable with modern academic backing. And a simple link to our article on the Book isn't adequate reference for anything at all. What do you have as reference for your points from the Book of Baglan? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Also now there is an inconsistency in an article related which mentions Rhodri Mawr with a link to this article. And also the Brut y tywysogion list is in the Ruler of Wales article as King of Wales, but not here since you've deleted the article. List of rulers of Wales#Title of "King of Wales". There needs to be consistency between both articles which link the King of Wales title. Also the Ruler of Wales article specifies the King of Britain, which you removed. Again, a historically reliable article using correct sources.Cltjames (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are some references that can be used to refer to the Kingdom of Ewias and a connection to the Silures tribe.

• Bannister, Arthur Thomas (1861). "1". The history of Ewias Harold (PDF). Jakeman & Carver. pp. 2–4. Retrieved 12 September 2023.
• "A Brief History of Ewyas Lacy". ewyaslacy.org. Retrieved 7 September 2023.

Not an academic work, heavily dependent on post-Galfridian material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Then there are a few websites that speak about Brutus of Troy and his Welsh descendants.

• "Beli Mawr And Lllyr Lledaith in Welsh Pedigrees". ancientwalesstudies.org. Retrieved 7 September 2023.

A SPS without academic credentials Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Rex Britannorum". kingdomofwales.wales. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

Another WP:SPS Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Between them, you can find references to other sources that speak of the same descendants of King Camber, especially later on when talking about the family of Llyr and the Mabinogion. Then there is the Cornwall survey which confirms the descent of some members of the Governorship of Cambria.

• Carew, Richard (1769) [1602]. The Survey of Cornwall. And An Epistle concerning the Excellencies of the English Tongue. E. Law and J. Hewett.

Again, not reliable for our present purposes. page 77 onward doesn't even name his own relevant sources. Much of it has a degree of charm though. I'd like to have met M. Charles Treuanion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I was also thinking that with this research there is a chance to expand on the Celtic Silures tribe research and find more information linking the Mabinogion character Llyr to the tribe and then the descent of Beli Mawr (Heli) and his ancestral connection to the Governor of Cambria. That was the research I conducted, I think it mostly verifies an Earldom of Ewias and Irchenfeld in the Herefordshire area, and there is a gap in the Welsh royal history articles on Wikipedia to include a pre-AD list of Governors and tribal boundaries of Wales. Cltjames (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no really tactful way to say this, but none of these references are suitable for Wikipedia, or indeed as a guide to real pre-Galfridian history. They don't verify anything relevant. You appear to be going down a rabbit hole into a world of myth and legend at best, outright fantasy otherwise. May I strongly suggest that you revise WP:RS and confine your efforts on Wikipedia to reliable sources? On your own website etc you can put whatever you like, and that might be the best outlet for your recent researches.

I repeat my offer to ask for help from Wikiproject Wales, WP:3O, etc if you feel that's needed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Ok, well, your right about the rabbit hole, the research is a bit of a dead end. However, that's the beauty of the subject, there is a definitive amount of information which can be correctly presented, no more, but also essentially, no less. As for the articles, I will look into creating a separate article for the descendants of Camber, nothing concrete yet, just exploration about the Governorship of Cambria. Mythological and legendary articles based on ancient Kings is a subject picked up by Cornwall and Ireland like I previously mentioned and this it would be in Welsh interests to connect these Celtic Britons articles. So, when the correct approach is gathered then I would like to speak to Project Wales on Wikipedia about the research I conducted and how to create a link from Brutus of Troy, Celtic tribes, medieval Kingdoms and the Prince of Wales. As the connection is there for 3,000 years of history, it just needs to be explained correctly, we've started something now.

I suggest that the best place for this is on your own website, or in your own novel (lots of scope there). List of legendary kings of Britain is probably as much as Wikipedia needs. I'm sorry to say that exploration of mythical kings is not suitable here, nor is "creating links". Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise the other point which you didn't address is that there is now an inconsistency between this article and the List of rulers of Wales article which has a {{see also link to this article, but this article now lacks the correct information to link both articles to do with the Gwynedd Kings who claimed King of Wales and previously King of Britain. Cltjames (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am just going to pop a quick word of agreement with Richard Keatinge here, largely so as not to waste your time on something. A list of Legendary kings of Britain is fine, but such a list cannot be made for Wales because Wales did not exist as a polity at the time. Nor, indeed, was it a unified polity with a single ruler at any time except for a very brief period prior to conquest. Presenting information about legendary figures is fine, but they are legendary figures of the Britons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As per advice on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 14#King of Wales the article has been restored to previous version, and will be discussed appropriately.Cltjames (talk) 17:52, 134 September 2023 (UTC)

The advice applied to a blank-and-redirect or deletion, neither of which this was. Following extensive discussion above I have reverted to the last defensible version - thanks for the typo fix. Please avoid edit warring and instead seek consensus for your changes here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, which I completely agree with. Sanity restored - the long rambling fictional confusion was completely unencyclopedic. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, and thanks again. We really couldn't have an article claiming the first King of Wales was descended from Zeus, by way of Aeneas, sourced to Geoffrey of Monmouth! KJP1 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency with other articles

@Richard Keatinge Also now there is an inconsistency in an article related which mentions Rhodri Mawr with a link to this article. And also the Brut y tywysogion list is in the Ruler of Wales article as King of Wales, but not here since you've deleted the article. List of rulers of Wales#Title of "King of Wales". There needs to be consistency between both articles which link the King of Wales title. Also the Ruler of Wales article specifies the King of Britain, which you removed. Again, a historically reliable article using correct sources.Cltjames (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the inadequately-referenced list and the unhelpful link that you mention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge Ok, the final issue now would be the King of the Britons article which has a similar list of Kings of Wales. I think this is a bigger scope than deleting the information and like you said it should go to wikiproject Wales to decide what to do. Can you make the request please? Cltjames (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if King of the Britons needs only a bit of editing, possibly a disclaimer, to the effect that none of the persons in the list was actually King of all the Britons, so the article lists people who were ever referred to by (almost) contemporaries as something of the sort, whatever their claims to kingship or to overlordship may have been. Anyway, that's best discussed on the appropriate talk page. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Can we clarify what the focus of this article is intended to be? Is it a list of Legendary kings, like List of legendary kings of Britain or Legendary kings of Scotland? Or does it purport to be a list of actual kings, setting aside for now the question of how you can have a king without the existence of a kingdom? If it's the former, should this not be made clear in the title, e.g. Legendary kings of Wales? If it's the latter, where is the current, reliable sourcing that supports their historical existence? To take the first, directly relevant, section as an example, "Establishing the Kingdom of Cambria (Wales)", this has seven sources/ footnotes:

• Book of Baglan - complied in the 1600s. Our article on this says "it is not considered wholly accurate";
• Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae - written in the 13th century. Our article on this says, "it is now considered to have no value as history";
• A book by John T. Koch - Unfortunately, it's not accessible online;
• A blog published on a travel website - authored by Bernard Jones who, as far as I can see, has no standing as a professional historian;
• Geoffrey of Monmouth, again - our article on him says he is "is now considered historically unreliable";
• A article by Darrell Wolcott - he appears to be a retired banker who has established his own Welsh studies centre, [1]. I've no idea of his standing as a historian, but the conclusion on Brutus of Troy states, "his pedigrees are deficient and likely fabricated"
• The Book of Baglan, again.

Assuming the Koch to be an RS, we appear to have one such source that may suggest King Camber, of whom our article states "Camber has no historical basis but is the product of Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination, invented largely for political ends within the contemporary Anglo-Norman world", was a descendent of Brutus of Troy, Aeneas and ultimately Zeus. I am really struggling to see how we can confidently present this information as credible, if we are suggesting this is a list of actual, as opposed to legendary, kings.

Could the article's main authors (the text is showing as +90% to be by User:Cltjames and User:Titus Gold), clarify the aim/subject of this article. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, ignore all of the above. User:Richard Keatinge has addressed the concerns by a reversion, for which many thanks! KJP1 (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the version of the page before the edits of those two editors, so you can check that to see what may have been the original aim of the article when it was created and before these later overhauls, which seemed to be disputed. There could be something that can be re-added from these older versions, or is proof the subject itself is flawed. Nonetheless the older version has less citations, so best to be constructive if anything even minor from these later overhauls can be re-added and aren't disputed. DankJae 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, it should be evidence based and historically accurate for those who self-identified as "King of Wales" or who were recognised by others as a King of Wales, regardless of how much of modern Wales they controlled. Titus Gold (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What? That includes him? That's an utter and complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia should be, which is your core problem and why you were TBAN'd. It needs to be WP:DUE. Of all the WP policies, it's the one you should read and re-read. Random claiming in an after-the-event medieval or antiquarian source? Who cares? The only timethe WP:RS (arguably) reference a King of Wales was a decade under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, regardless of POV pipe dreams. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing King of Wales claimants

I agree that the pseudo-historical Kings don't belong here and that deletion was very much appropriate and needed.

What does not seem appropriate is the removal of historically sourced Kings or claimants of the title of King of Wales/King of the Welsh, regardless of how much of modern-day Wales they controlled.

Would it be agreeable to add this table back, please? I'm open to it being adapted or simplified etc. for inclusion.

Thanks for your cooperation!

Extended content

Depiction Name & life details Arms House, Kingdom Welsh Titles Reign Death & cause Source Cynan Dindaethwy (Cynan ap Rhodri) Gwynedd(insecurely from 754) "King of all Wales" (Welsh: "Brenin Cymry oll") 798–816 Brut y Tywysogion Annals of UlsterAnnales Cambriae Rhodri the Great (Rhodri ap Merfyn) Gwynedd, from 855 also Powys, from 872 also Seisyllwg "began to reign over the Welsh" (843 AD) King of Wales King of the Britons 843 Brut y Tywysogion Annals of Ulster Cadell ap Rhodri Deheubarh "ruled over all Wales" (877 AD) 877 Brut y Tywysogion Anarawd ap Rhodri Kingdom of Gwynedd "ruled over all Wales" (900 AD) 900 Brut y Tywysogion Hywel Dda(Hywel ap Cadell) Deheubarth(from 920), from 942 also Gwyneddand Powys "King of all Wales" (Welsh: "Brenin Cymry oll" 942–949/50 Brut y Tywysogion Annals of UlsterAnnales Cambriae Aeddan ap Blegywryd Kingdom of Gwynedd "acquired all Wales from sea to sea" (1000 AD) 1000 Brut y Tywysogion Llywelyn ap Seisyll Gwyneddand Powys; from 1022 also Deheubarth "took the government upon himself...in his time the country of Wales was twelve years without war" "sovereignty of Wales" 1023 Brut y Tywysogion Annals of Ulster Gruffydd ap Llywelyn 1010–1063 Gwyneddand Powys, from 1057 also the rest of Wales Rex Walensium ("King of Wales") King of the Britons (in 1063; in 1058) Had "gained all Wales prior to 1037" Ruled modern day Wales from 1055 to 1063. The Ulster Chronicle states that he was killed by Cynan in 1064, whose father Iago had been put to death by Gruffydd in 1039. John of Worcester Annals of Ulster Brut y Tywysogion Gruffudd ap Cynan 1055–1137 House of Aberffraw, Gwynedd(insecurely from 1081) 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 Caernarfon (Retroactively attributed with no evidence of use.) Gwynedd King of Wales King of the Welsh Prince of the Welsh Prince over the British nation (in 1146) 1146–1170 Died in 1170, aged 69–70. Brut y Tywysogion; contemporary charters. Following this period, the title Prince of Wales only was used References

Titus Gold (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It was removed for good reason i.e. anachronistic and random instances of someone somewhere referencing the title rather like King Allan Evans. WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer prose rather than a table, considering how short this article is and how the table is not having too much. But we ideally should focus on those who used the term "King of Wales" rather than those who were/claimed as a king in Wales. If a King of Gwynedd happened to rule most/all of modern-Wales, they are still a King of Gwynedd unless they used the KoW title instead and with legitimacy (rather than a temporary description). In the end, this article is about the title, not a bunch of people described as kings that happened to rule over most/all of modern-Wales or the Welsh (or their ancestors) temporarily in the absence of a legitimate, Kingdom of Wales. This article indeed needs improving, but on the actual title rather than becoming Welsh kings or Kings of Wales, which is covered by List of rulers in Wales. DankJae 01:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa actually there is a recognised claim that was added here (March 2018 revision) to the Heads of former ruling families article. And obviously the male line of Owain Gwynedd for Anwyl of Tywyn family. But Evans was joking and everyone knows that. Cltjames (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

What you linked to was no less ridiculous than Mr Evans. I'm glad to see someone's removed the nonsense from that article. DeCausa (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa the paperwork produced by Mr. Jones was proven in international courts of law in Japan and America. The entry was only removed because he refused to make public his documentation. You can find more information in his 'self published' website. Please read kingdomofwales.wales (website not working right now, try later) to better understand the process of selecting a modern day head of house for Gwynedd and Cymru. But the claim does hold its own and deserves more acknowledgment than it had received on Wikipedia. It's simple, male Primogeniture from a King. Anwyl is proven from Owain Gwynedd until this generation and Llywelyn Jones has proven the Welsh custom of gavelkind in America as a descendant of the Welsh in exile. I don't think it's nonsense and might deserve a paragraph to explain the situation in this article. But I agree Allen Evans had no more than an advert in the Times and that doesn't hold enough documentation to prove anything significant to this claim, because he isn't persuing the title. Perhaps a paragraph in the text to explain the current situation could work, based on Mr. Jones' Wales online articles and genealogical research for the Anwyl family. Cltjames (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You see, it's the kind of movement which will not hold its on in the courts of law of the United Kingdom, however when (not if) the Welsh gain indepdence, it is most likely some of these royal titles will return, for instance, such as the current de jure Prince of Gwynedd title (Anwyl), and potentially a King represented by Mr. Jones' family of America. But in all fairness, that isn't happening anytime soon, is it? Cltjames (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cltjames, it may help you to revise, and consider, why experienced editors feel that many of your edits and suggestions are unsuitable for Wikipedia. They are a waste of everyone's time, including yours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It was just a comment for consensus, I am reframing from editing in this ongoing discussion. This is why a talk page is available to create productive reasoning based on fact and not a voting system. Please feel free to talk about how you would adapt your work on the topic and about how you were going to include references for the blank sentences you added @Richard Keatinge:. But to reiterate my point, just look at other Celtic King lists and you can see there is something drastically missing for Wales' article, e.g. List of legendary rulers of Cornwall, List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland, albeit two mentioned are simply lists. But the information is there, so please can we reach and agreement to present it accordingly. Cltjames (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind @DankJae's suggestion of using prose rather than a table.

Would it then be agreeable to convert the table above to prose under the pre-existing heading "Use by regional rulers"?

It seems that has already been done to a small degree.

Thanks all Titus Gold (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the table was based on a spurious misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. The sort of thing that led to the Anwn Ddu fiasco. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and also this article is about King(s) of Wales who actually existed and ruled all of Wales. It is not about mythical kings of anywhere, nor about people who ruled parts of modern Wales. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I've mentioned in a similar discussion happening on the Prince of Wales article, then perhaps a separate article on the lines of; List of legendary rulers of Wales, similar to that of Cornwall and Ireland. Then the information available can be correctly presented on Wikipedia like the Celtic counterparts have already. Cltjames (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would you think that content that could go in an article called List of legendary rulers of Wales could possibly be included in this article? Trying to add it here where it clearly doesn't belong is just disruptive. Back in September you tried to warp the opening of this article with this nonsense edit in which you made the article open with this absurdity: King of Wales (Welsh: Brenin Cymru) royal title has origins spanning 3,000 years. Originally established by King Camber (c. 1,000 BC) of Cambria (Wales) during the European Iron Age. If you are so incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction you need to be topic banned from articles on Wales dealing with historical fact. Stop trying to insert myth and legend into articles about history. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, we've spoken about this before, there was a method behind the madness, I was editing in good faith about the industry standard relating to other Celtic legendary King lists. And sorry for getting involved in the talk, I should have planned this better than a consensus-driven debate. I have decided to talk to relevant people concerning a lack of Welsh Iron Age content. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales#Legendary Kings of Wales for a talk I started, or even to contribute. To better explain, I wanted an industry standard relating to the fellow Celts of Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland who have legendary figures published on Wikipedia, and some content uses the Book of Baglan. Maybe I was unprofessional in my approach, but the constructive criticism has enabled me to find the correct path to take regarding publishing correctly, I believe a ban would be unnecessary, just a bit more experience is needed that's all. Cltjames (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty#Celtic Princes of Wales for the latest discussion. As we've spoken about before, we need a professional opinion on how to approach this conundrum of a subject. Cltjames (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Professional? ...we're all amateurs. Anyone can join a Wikiproject. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't require professionalism. We do require competence, or at least willingness to learn. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The table should not be added back. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've said that a table is not essential and could be added back in the form of prose instead. I also agree that secondary sources would need to be used for them. Titus Gold (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems the conversation stalled. I was wondering if you (@Titus Gold:) have any material in paragraph (not just list) form you can bring together from sources you've mentioned as references...? I understand there's a ban in place for you Titus, I just want to know the validity of the medieval claim in modern sources, maybe something I could look into adding if the material is in place. Or does anyone else have anything they wish to add to the conversation about the article? I feel the text needs another few paragraphs minimum to better explain the title of King of Wales, as was shown in the table, there is a history spanning hundreds of years about the title of King from its Latin origins. Cltjames (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a history spanning hundreds of years about the title of King, from its Latin origins. Is there? Also you added the ping to Titus Gold in a follow up edit. This won't work, so I have added a ping in this reply. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the aggressive response. Titus' list was a legitimate list from a primary source, it simply needs to be brought into modern times with literature, which he has found, and rewritten into prose, which we have identified would work better for this article. Back to this again, somehow... The list specifically names monarchs as King of all of Wales, reign over the Welsh, King of Wales, ruled over all of Wales, acquired all Wales from sea to sea, sovereignty of Wales... The list goes on, the evidence is overwhelming, and this traffic jam is just slowing the process, all this negativity is unnecessary. Please, can we work as a team to complete the article, because right now it is not up to standard. Cltjames (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is specifically on those who used the term "King of Wales", not a list of every single king found to have been in modern Wales. DankJae 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so this can be added with correct reference. Such as a dating system; "between the 8th to 12th centuries the title of King of Wales was sporadically used in different contexts such as King of the Welsh, and sovereign of Wales". I would add just I don't have the references to cite, that's why I'm reaching out. Otherwise I've added {{tags regarding the lack of information, where in the most case in this article, one sentence should become a paragraph or more to explain the back story and contemporary perspective. I hope we can be more proactive as a team this time. Please skip the criticism and constructively respond to my comments. Cltjames (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't intend "is there?" to be an aggressive response. The rest of my response was being helpful in pinging in the editor you wished to ping. As Richard Keatinge says above, this article is about King(s) of Wales who actually existed and ruled all of Wales. It is not about mythical kings of anywhere, nor about people who ruled parts of modern Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy but if you look at references, mythical begins before the age of the Romans as shown in Bartrum's 1993 dictionary of Welsh people on the list of rulers article. Therefore the age of the kingdoms, aka the middle ages are well documented and verified in modern literature, and they need no justification for exclusion. And I believe that's the purpose of this article in showing medieval listed Kings of Wales, not a bias opinion about 3 or 4 rulers, but an explanation of who they were and how the inherited the title and where it originated from. We've agreed the list is seperate, now we need to continue in improving this article in explaining the context. Right now it's like 30% complete. Cltjames (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a history spanning hundreds of years. (emphasis mine). I am not much interested in an article about mythical kings. Neither do I think this is that article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy please define your interpretation of mythical kings ?Welsh mythology is a continuation from BC. Therefore the middle ages wouldn't count as mythology. Cltjames (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not just BC or else we will be talking about Uther Pendragon and whatnot as historical. Which they aren't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure if "King of the Welsh" can be used equivalent to "King of Wales" as this article is mainly about, my main issue with the table is that it tries to combine a king with a claim over Wales, rather then those directly using "King of Wales" or its latin equivalent. This article is about the title "King of Wales", not a "list of kings in Wales" AFAIAA.

Agree that the article needs improving, but a bit reserved over the pseudo-history dispute earlier. Ideally sources should mention "King of Wales" or its latin equivalent, than less direct derivatives? But not sure.

@GoodDay, DeCausa, Richard Keatinge, and KJP1: Pinging those before, who may offer sources or more help than I. DankJae 21:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

TBH, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of this page. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Nor would I. In its present form it has all that can be justified, and that's feeble enough. The idea of adding the other contents of the table, people who did not rule all of modern Wales, nor claim that they did, is absurd. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article has be nominated if you're unaware. ​​​​ DankJae 12:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also support deletion or a merger. It doesn't seem that there's a vast amount to say on this subject, so it might be better as subsection of Prince of Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the AfD is going strong keep so far. Not too into history to form an opinion. I see both sides of the argument. But the article's scope needs clarifying nonetheless. DankJae 13:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I would observe, however, that no one in the discussion has yet produced a single source that demonstrates "King of Wales" is a notable topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Turvey reference I added yesterday all but says he was King. It specifically explains he was a leader of a unified Wales as a King, and quotes y Brut, "head and shield of the Britons", make what you wish of the quote, but it speaks volumes about his position. Cltjames (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and as per Davies & Davies (2012) that I posted in the AfD noination too [2]. There is no doubt that Gruffudd ap Llywelyn did something that no one else did - uniting Wales as a single kingdom and becoming the king of that kingdom. Although he did not call himself King of Wales, he - and he alone - held that honour. Any treatment of Gruffudd must surely extensively cover this aspect of his reign. But, in observing the lack of any evidence of notability for a page on the subject of King of Wales, I say again that Gruffudd did not take the title himself, and there really was no one else. It has been hundreds of years. This is Welsh history. What texts discuss the concept of King of Wales? There are, of course, plenty that discuss the princes, and surely they all must mention Gruffudd's kingship too. But they don't treat the King of Wales as an academic subject. Do they? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• There's a whole seam of WP editing that has tried to draw WP:ORish conclusions from the use or attribution of various titles by/to Welsh rulers. Actually, there's a better, and much more interesting, article to be created by someone someday into which this should be merged: Titles of Welsh rulers (not a list). It would discuss the numerous early medieval titles in Welsh (gwledig, mynawg, rhi, brenin etc etc), the shift from rex to princeps, the shift from titles linked to lineage to place/realm, the development of titles to assert/claim authority/hegemony. It would be much more encyclopaedic than this sort of nuance-less Ladybird-ish article, of which we have too many in the Welsh history area. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I support De Causa's excellent points and validating suggestion. It's the way to a better encyclopedia in this area. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that such an article would be a very good thing to do, and said as much at the AfD. We would have a good range of sources to call on for such an article. Note that at the AfD, Srnec similarly suggests Rulership in medieval Wales, so the merits of the best title might need some thought. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good topic - but, I would say, quite a bit more ambitious. Potentially quite a lot to cover in that. DeCausa (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ambitious topic

I have boldly started the page Titles in medieval Wales, using some of the present text of King of Wales. I hope that it will prove to be a useful foundation for a far better article than King of Wales can ever be, and that we will soon find consensus here to turn King of Wales into a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wales Kings book

The book I referenced in a text I tried out was written by a contemporary writer, and printed in 2010, so no issue of WP:RS, or WP:OR. I used the chapter King of Wales, which comes as close as anyone's going to get on writing about the topic. Could I please get a consensus on this paragraph, and some sentences from the book...?

==Kings of Wales Many early rulers of areas within Wales used titles (Rex, Brenin) now translated by "King", or prince (Welsh: Tywysog), which has its roots taken from the Welsh word tywys, meaning to lead. The medieval Welsh were simlilar to the fellow Celts of Ireland, who use the Gaelic term Taoiseach for the modern Prime Minister of Ireland. However, the Welsh word Brenin did replace the word Rhi for king, which evolved from Latin Rex. In some cases, kings became religious leaders, such as Saint David, whose father was the King of Ceredigion. Then, those nobles after the Norman invasion of Wales came to be known as 'uchelwr', like landowner or administrator. Of the Welsh kingdoms, the most prominent were:

Epithet of kings== The earliest documented case of a King of Wales would have been Caratacus (Caradog) King of the Catuvellauni tribe. He fled England for Wales and joined the Welsh Silures tribe and fought against the Romans, but was defeated in battle and sent to Rome during AD 51, where he was taken a liking too, and his life was spared. Welsh leaders aspired to be like him. The next well known kings to follow in Caradog's footsteps were given nicknames as rulers; Maelgwn Gwynedd in the 520s, Rhodri Mawr (Welsh: 'the great/big'), and his father Merfyn Frych ('the freckled'), then Rhodri's grandson Hywel Dda ('Howel the Good'). Rhodri was a successful king who married his sons to other ruling families, which made his family the ruling family of all of Wales' major provinces, i.e., Anarawd was given Gwynedd, Cadell given Deheubarth, and Merfyn was given Powys. Then another nicknamed king was Morgan Hen ('the old') of Kingdom of Morgannwg, which makes us assume he had longevity in his life. The names of these kings stood them out above those of their peers because their names were not simply their patronymics, e.g., Rhodri ap Merfyn is his patronymic name, Rhodri Mawr, his nickname. Another king to gain an epithet was Rhys ap Gruffydd who became known as the Lord Rhys (Welsh: Yr Arglwydd Rhys), c. 1136.

Gruffydd is seen as the exception of kings who did not have a nickname, as he was simply referred to by his patronymic name.

His name Gwynedd was given to him from the kingdom his family ruled from.

==Consensus on an adjustment. The article is empty and needs something extra, if this book's chapter named- King of Wales, fails the verification, then there's something wrong in this process. Cltjames (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ok, if @Richard Keatinge: wants to avoid pre medieval, how about cutting out the part about Caradog, and adapting the paragraph I wrote about this notion that all kings were given nicknames (epithets), except Gruffudd ap Llywelyn. It fits in well. Besides the first paragraph I've written using a good reliable source from a famous author, so we can use it to expand the titles section used in the medieval ages with the Irish comparison. Cltjames (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your section heading misrepresents the source, which is titled Royal Wales and has a chapter "Kings of Wales". Your text above does not follow this source (Fisher, 2010). You have The earliest documented case of a King of Wales would have been Caratacus (Caradog) King of the Catuvellauni tribe. but Fisher has:

The earliest Welsh leader whose name we know is the man called Caradog by the Welsh and Caratacus by the Romans, and he did not originate from the region we now call Wales. A son of King Cunobelinos of the Catuvellauni, who ruled the area around Colchester, Caratacus fled westward before the Roman invaders, after the defeat of his own people, and joined forces with the Silures, the tribe native to south-east Wales. After a further defeat, he retreated north to ally himself with the Ordovices.

(Page 3). Fisher's account is correct, from all we know, although I am not really happy with her use of "Welsh leader" here. She knows, of course, that there was no Wales at the time, and she means a leader of the territory that would come to be known as Wales. On the same page she more correctly refers to him as the British leader. The reason she discusses Caratacus at all is on the next page, where she says:

These are the qualities for which Caratacus is remembered, and these are the qualities to which Welsh leaders aspired when they gave or took the name ‘Caradog’.

So Caratacus is important in the Welsh consciousness, yes, but Fisher does not call him a king of Wales. How could she? There was no Wales. He was King of the Catuvellauni, a tribe with a territory in what is now England. He allied with two major tribes in what is now Wales, but he was not called king of those tribes. He did not ally with the Deceangli and Demetae, also in the territory now called Wales. There may have been other tribes too. To call him the first document King of Wales is a clear synthesis, reaching a conclusion beyond that of the author. This is likely to be a general problem in any attempt to write out this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sirfurboy🏄. Cltjames, this article is about the actual title King of Wales, and the present version contains pretty much all that can usefully be said about it. It isn't about the use of nicknames for important figures in Welsh history, nor titulature for the leader of the Irish Republic, nor about a king of the Catuvellauni who became a resistance leader within the area that became Wales. And it has no place for expatiation of the epithet Pendragon. This is an encyclopedia article, not a essay. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much into syth, because the chapter mentioned is named King of Wales. I was just using the chapter title to label Caradog. Otherwise. What about improving the paragraph listing the title translation. The book does a great job at explaining the differences between Rhi, Tywysog, Brenin.. ? Cltjames (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The chapter is titled Kings of Wales, with an s. It may seem like a small thing, but it makes a big difference. The King of Wales is the ruler of the polity of Wales. However if there is a territory of Wales that can be described by a name that is not a single polity, and has many kingdoms, each with a king, then these would be kings of Wales, but not the King of Wales. Consider: Kings of Europe. All British kings would be kings of Europe, but none was ever the King of Europe. Admittedly, if we spoke of, say, the Tudor kings of England, we would be speaking of actual kings of the polity of England, so there could be ambiguity in the chapter title. That ambiguity goes away, however, with the recognition that there was only ever one man who had a claim to be king of all Wales, and so the plural form is not required. In any case, the book does not call Caratacus a king of Wales. That is going beyond the text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy OK, but doesn't answer my questions about whether the rest of the text is fine. Frankly, a chapter titled Kings of Wales should be a template for this article. And I did extract a good paragraph about the nicknames of kings and the uncommon usage of patronymic names. What about adding that ? Cltjames (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cltjames , Sirfurboy's comments should tell you the answer to these questions. No, the rest of your text is not fine. No, a chapter on Kings of Wales is not necessarily (or probably) a good template for this article. No, the nicknames of various Welsh kings are not relevant in this article. At this stage I have to ask, in view of the amount of other editor's time that you continue to waste, whether your seemingly-indefatigable efforts are a net benefit to this encyclopedia. Please learn from the wise comments of Sirfurboy and others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge I'm just raising awareness because this article is lacking in content, which is available. Again, it's a good faith edit, and I was hoping for a cooperation in dissecting the text, not culling, because some of it was applicable to the article. I think I'll add a reference for the titles section. And we'll take it from there when the draft for List of legendary rulers of Wales is complete, and we'll be able to merge some work, I'm sure. Cltjames (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cltjames, nobody has doubted your good faith. Your comments in multiple articles do bring your competence into question. To make just one point, you speak of merging this article (about two real people, one who claimed to be King of Wales and one Welsh king who did in fact rule the whole of modern Wales) with material relevant to the legendary kings of Wales. I hope it's clear that these two categories happen to be mutually exclusive, and that your discursive essays on, for example, Welsh nomenclature, are not suitable for encyclopedic articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge I feel the manuscript sections I have produced would fit well into Wikipedia. It's a topic that hasn't been covered yet except for a list Manuscripts of Wales (start article), and a prose National Library of Wales General Manuscript Collection (doesn't actually cover the topic of kings I've written about). Therefore, I'm looking to continue coverage of Welsh kings by finishing the topic, and I think we've cornered it now to very few issues after years of hard work. Cltjames (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I will step back from this article for a bit. We will see what you come up with, and how other editors feel about it in due course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: I, for one, am not holding my breath. And thanks for reverting those irrelevant ramblings. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa when you said rambling I assume you're not being rude and talking about walking in the United Kingdom. I'm genuinely disappointed with the attitude of some here because of this aggressive stance towards my good faith edits, which are obviously for the better, not worse. I hope this fad comes to an end because it's not fair to someone like me who wants to improve, not deconstruct, like we've seen in this article! Cltjames (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"Good faith edits" - yes, absolutely. Happy to acknowledge. "obviously for the better, not worse". Absolutely not. As has recently been posited on your talk page by another user, I don't believe you are suited to Wikipedia or Wikipedia suited to you. Having a genuine heartfelt desire to improve articles is laudable. But failing to recognise a deep discrepancy between that and the ability to execute it causes a headache for the other editors who have to pick up the pieces. Sorry to be blunt but after two or more years interacting with you there's no other way to frame it. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa working as a team is Wikipedia, as in many users editing one article. Being rude as a policy is not. I will leave it at that and continue doing what I know to be good work. You can also see the barnstars on my talk page, but you refuse to talk about my good work for some reason. Cltjames (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You look at your talk page and see barnstars from 3 users and are blind to anything else that doesn't meet your self-perception. You've got over 9k edits and 13 years on Wikipedia. The last post on your talk page is an admin warning you about cut and paste moves. Something's wrong. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa "blind"? I guess you're finally proving my point. Your comments are unnecessary and aren't socially acceptable, DeCausa. I hope you learn how to work in a team. Reverting everything and not cooperating to find a solution for the better good is not teamwork. My intentions are good, and articles like this are not up to standard, END OF STORY, no need to act like a bully. p.s. my copy and paste was from my sandbox and doesn't break any rules. The issue I raised is viable. Not every article needs to be an A standard. As in if the work is unavailable, then the next best solution is an older source, especially if it's a history article, like you can see in a LOT of Wikipedia articles. I'm still on the fence as to whether this anger directed towards me is personal. Cltjames (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. Dunning-Kruger. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)