Talk:Statute of Rhuddlan

message: It wasn't the conquest of Wales. Wales didn't exist it was Gwynedd, etc., that were conquered.
:It wasn't the Wales we know today because of the marcher lordships but in the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery the English crown had acknowledged Llywelyn as "princeps Wallie" (prince of Wales). Cymrodor (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that Llewellyn had much say in what went on in the marcher lordships, any more than the king of England did when he was their immediate overlord.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales/Gwynedd 

message: In the hope of resolving what I suspect is a controversial edit over whether the conquered principalaity was "de facto" pr "de jure" incoroporated into England, I have removed both terms and said it was incorporated into the "kingdom of" England.  Since the Kings of England did not incorporate "Wales" in their title, I consider this is factually correct, but I hope it avoids offending Welsh sensibilities by implying that Wales is part of England (which the Interpretation Act 1888 implies).  I hope my change provides an uncontroversial solution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no complaints so I guess it worked to put in the political entity's proper name. Though one could point out that they're not represented on the flag etc. either way (a practice that should continue for aesthetic purposes). Still, good job! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  De facto/de jure 

message: It would be nice if the lead paragraph told the effect of the statute and left all the details for later on in the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The article needs a brief lead, before it goes into a great deal about the context of the statute.  I think that the reference to marcher lords is probably irrelevant, becasue they ruled their lordships with full jursidiction (except treason agaisnt the king of England).  Similarly, it would not have applied to those parts of Powys that became the lordships of Denbigh, Chirk, Bromsfield and Yale, etc. for much the same reason.  It would only have applied to the principality proper, i.e. the lands of the Princes, i.e the realm of Gwynedd.  However I am not sufficiently expert to be able to speak with certainty.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very disheartyening to have spent two hours rewriting this article, only to find that WP decalres "This page has expired", and wipe out my work beyond recall!  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I have now repeated that work, and I hope better than before.  There are perhaps rather too many citations of a single source, but it is all that I have available.  I have not taken as much trouble as I would have liked over the some of the wikilinks: I suspect that some of the redlinks could be solved.  It looks as if we need lists of Chief Justices of North and South Wales (justiciars in the article).  I have linked the Chester office, but that article does not go back far enough yet.  I expect that there are other improvements needed too.  I would have liked to have written with the text of the statute before me, but the relevant pages of Google Books do not appear to be available to me in England.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently obtained a copy of Vol. I of The Statutes of the Realm.  If you have a definite interest, I'd be willing to transcribe the English text of the Statute of Rhuddlan (presumably it could also be put up on Wikisource).  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did this statute do?