Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd

message: I have marked the statement with "fact", since it seems quite far-fetched (the simple explanation from Gogledd is much more plausible). In any case, I think this statement belongs in Gwynedd, not here. Edricson 10:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No source has been provided, and I don't think one can be. I've removed the statement. Rhion 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gogs" and Gwynedd 

message: Previous section:
Tywysog Llywelyn was offered a bribe; One thousand pounds a year and an estate in England, if he would surrender his nation to Edward. From Garth Celyn Llywelyn wrote a dignified and emotional response setting out his total rejection of the offer. Within a month, Llywelyn, on 11 December 1282, was lured into a trap and executed. The letters preserved in the Lambeth Palace Archives provide a clear picture of the events.
Well that's great and all but please give some way we can reference these letters - who wrote them, when, to whom, what manuscript numbers they have in the archive. Also, don't add that to this page, add it to the page about Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. I'm editing this section to reference the page about Llywelyn and to be more open as clearly there's a huge difference of opinion on this.
The thinking elsewhere in this Wiki records that Llywelyn was allowed to keep the title Prince of Wales by the English crown, under the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267 and that in exchange he had to pay homage to the tune of 25000 marks, 3000 marks a year (doesn't add up but that's what it says, query it under [Llywelyn ap Gruffudd]] if you like). He couldn't pay. Rebellion began against Edward I, not from Llywelyn though. Eventually battles loomed - the Archbishop of Canterbury stepped in and negotiated an out for him in 1282, a bribe as you say, if he stepped offered the Crown control of his lands. He didn't take it and was killed by enemy forces. To claim he had a "nation" at this stage is a bit ripe. He certainly controlled the northern regions but geography and selfish ambition (then as now) meant some disenfranchisement between the southern princes and Llywelyn.
Anyway ... this ain't the place for it, see [Llywelyn ap Gruffudd]].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Llywelyn ap Gruffydd's death 

message: In the infobox it says that the country/nation-state prior to the Kingdom of Gwynedd is the Roman Empire. While I suppose this is true, I believe it should be Roman Britain. This would keep the history of Gwynedd and Wales to a more localized setting while still acknowledging that it was part of the Roman Empire. I didn't want to do it without a discussion first. Any thoughts? Dcs315 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. For a start the Roman Empire was neither a country or a nation-state. Wales - and Gwynedd - was part of the Roman province of Britannia (slight problem there again, as obviously it was not a country or nation-state either, but at least it is more localised). One of the problems with some wikipedia categories, especially in history and geography, is that they are too rigid, rather arbitary and all too often "revisionist" (prime example: UK bishop stubs which includes early Welsh, Scottish and Anglo-Saxon bishops!). Of course it could be argued as well that Gwynedd emerged from the Celtic tribal structure of Roman and sub-Roman Wales, but that's probably only creating more complications! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Howabout detatching the information about the history of the Ordovices under Roman occupation and having a page called Ordovicum civitas as the roman subject-prior to the Kingdom of Gywnedd? James Frankcom (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Britain?

message: Hello contributers, I am working with Wikid77 on the info box border. This is a styalistic choice to make the page distinctive. I plan on adding styalistic boxes to the other kingdoms of Wales, and also the Principality of Wales page. For Gwynedd, I chose Imperial Purple as some evidence maintains that Gwynedd maintained the use of latin well into the Dark Ages for writting and titles. This is an styalistic decision, and I feel that the purple backgroud next to the arms and flag of Gwynedd (red/gold) makes the image really pop out. We are still working on the info box, currently the left side extends too far out and it will be brought in some. Any comments or concerns?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox border 

message: I can not find what it is that has caused a 'catagory error' to appear above the info box, if anyone catches this before I get home to further work on it I would appreciate it.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An error

message: Hello! I am an editor contributing to Wikipedia, however I seem to have entered into an edit conflict with another editor who hawks over my edits and reverts them. He orchastrated a campaign against styalized country info boxes, and now has followed me to the Kingdom of Gwynedd page and is editing-out an into image there. I seek others opinions because I feel that these are targeted against any edits that I do. Thank you very much!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for unbiased mediation

message: I'd like to ask whether this map is entirely supported by the sources given. My reason for asking this is that my reliable sources for Cheshire at the time of the Domesday Survey (of 1086, only four years previously) show two hundreds of Cheshire as being part of Cheshire, and which were lost from Cheshire and returned to Wales later on (Atiscross and Exestan). Furthermore, the southern part of Dudestan hundred became part of Wales and was known as Maelor Saesneg later on. Now I know that boundaries at this time may have been subject to change and under dispute, and from our standpoint, it may be difficult to disentangle what the situation was, but if anyone could clarify the legitimacy of the map with some specific reliable sources about its boundaries around that region, it would help me revise and expand some aspects of the Hundreds of Cheshire article as well as others about the History of Cheshire and so on. After all, the difference between the two dates is only four years, and so specific reliable sources about boundary changes in between those two years would be probably most relevant. If there aren't any reliable sources justifying the boundaries at that time (1090), then perhaps some comment about the boundaries being disputed needs to be made on the map, or the map redrawn? The sources I used (the Victoria History of the County of Cheshire, and a copy with modern English translation of the Domesday returns for Cheshire) seem quite authoritative on the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I accept what you say about the area being under dispute, but that means that, at present, the section is misleading, asd neither the map nor the text makes that as clear as it could; especially as other reliable sources ("The Victoria History of the County of Cheshire" Volume 1, to give one example) suggest otherwise. I think it should be possible to modify both this text as well as the corresponding texts in the verious relevant Cheshire articles to take the disputed issue into account in a way that would clarify the issue, as well as strengthening each of the relevant articles. I do think the map is misleading, as it needs to show areas particularly under dispute, and, as it does not at the moment, give the reliable sources on which it was based, I would say that it would be challenged successfully on this matter if the article was submitted for FA review (and perhaps even GA review, given what we have already discussed here about it.) I don't want this to sound as if I am suggesting it is more of an issue than it is, as I think it would not require large-scale changes to make it clear and to fit in with the other, suitably altered, articles dealing with Cheshire. In the case of the two hundreds that were mentioned in the Domesday returns for Cheshire: Atiscross and Exestan (setting aside the area of Dudestan that became Maelor Saesneg), Atiscross was split into two parts: a hidated and unhidated part, which would suggest that there were differing degrees of dispute or secureness of the Norman occupation of that area. Take a look at Hundreds of Cheshire and see how I have attempted to reconcile this, though a suitable reference from a reliable source to the disputed nature would be appreciated. I suggest that the text and the map be suitably edited to make the disputed nature more clear.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The image showing the extent of Gwynedd in 1090 in subsection 2.3.1 (The Norman invasion)

message: I think this is GA ready? I'm willing to nom it if there isn't any concerns. I'm just letting you know also that I haven't ever nomed or written a GA before so I'm pretty clueless. :P  CWii(Talk|Contribs)  14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the previous section where I have voiced a concern: the boundaries shown in the map do not correspond with the boundaries I have in some very reliable and authoritative sources, and it needs some discussion and some resolution: ignoring the problem does not seem to be a sensible option here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for addressing the issue, but  it is not really resolved, since it remains unclear and misleading as it now stands. I have responded, above, supplying a way in wich it can be made more clear and thereby improved, as well as making it and the relevant articles dealing wit Cheshire, fit togeter more. I do think some editing of the map is required. I hope you can see that my suggestions do not destroy what is already there which is good, but improves its clarity and accuracy.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I could perhaps help out with the "Dark Ages" (ahem! Early Medieval, pliz) section. I am not an expert, but I do have some books - Maund's Welsh Kings, Dark's Britain and the end of the Roman Empire, maybe others - that might be useful. At the moment the article is rather biased towards the Norman and later periods. But I don't want to step on your toes if you have already got plans for this. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest Angus, I was thinking on nominating a split between the periodes: Early Medieval Gwynedd: foundation to the Mathrafal occupation, and Mideival Gwynedd: restoration of the Aberffraw line with Gruffydd ap Cynan until the foundation of the Principality of Wales with Llywelyn I of Wales (1216). What do you think?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few issues that need addressing before going for GA, specifically the amount of mis-spelling, deadlinks and the suitability of/lack of context with the images. There's a couple of breaches of WP:HEAD and WP:IMAGE (which could be easily fixed), but I'm also a bit worried on the possible over-reliance on Lloyd as a source, and lack of context in some of the mid-to-late parts of the article too. --Jza84 |  Talk   01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, that's one possibility, but you could also look at whether the sections on Gruffydd ap Cynan, Owain Gwynedd, &c, contain things that should be moved to those articles. If not, then yes, some sort of split - before and after Gruffydd ap Cynan? before and after the Normans? - is going to be necessary. As Jza84 says, it's generally best to have more than one main source. More context will make a split even more probable, even if the summary-style sections can be more ruthlessly summarised. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Angus, I am in favor of breaking the artical between Early Midieval Gwynedd and Midieval Gwynedd myself. There is alot of infomration that I am leaving out from sources such as Davies, Llwyd, and Warner, three sources for most of the information here, amongst a few others. The History of Gwynedd specific for the Norman periode is very importand and this is the best place for it. Early Mideival Gwynedd should be narrated on a different page.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: One reason I advocate the split just prior to Gruffydd I ap Cynan is because Gruffydd reestablished the Aberffraw family and essentially refounded Gwynedd. The prior century witnessed Gwynedd largely occupied by usurptions from Powys and from Deheubarth. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: Anyone that would like to argur this article down from Top importance to High, is welcome to do so here.FruitMonkey (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: On my browser, the pronunciation in the introduction isn't showing up correctly. I don't know if anyone could correct this ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could remove it for you, if you like. Pronunciations belong at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: It may sound outlandish, but while researching the 6th Century of this area, it seems a bit unusual to locate a name so similar to King Arthur's bride. I know my comment can receive more than a bit of criticism, but please allow me to simply outline the fact that King Arthur was said to rule the area as a "sub-king" between the 5th and 6th centuries. In addition, there are pieces of evidence that may suggest Avalon is in fact the Isle of Man and if proven, this is an interesting geographical location. My apologies in advance if this seems childish. Twillisjr (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwyn is a common word in Welsh. Lots of things sound like her. That said, the etymology here is entirely different. Sorry. — LlywelynII 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It's not childish to be ignorant of things that experts know, and to err based on that lack of knowledge. It is childish to disrespect experts, commit the most basic fallacies gleefully, proudly and obliviously and act like a stubborn, overconfident jerk (those people are a pain in the arse and Wikipedia's bane); but you didn't do anything like that, quite the opposite, so all is well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gwynedd - Guinevere 

message: It's not dubious that Lly used it, but we need a cite before we go around claiming anyone else did. Most of them got by with Gwynedd or Cymru in Welsh and Venedotia, Norwallia, or Wallia in English. — LlywelynII 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title: Lord of Snowdon

message: Moved to list of rulers of Gwynedd: the page was overlong as it was; the section had more than enough content to justify a page; and the section included extraneous genealogy that (while still off topic) at least fits into a ruler article under "pretenders".
The new page could probably use a table and more details about the specific historical titles as they were used, though. — LlywelynII 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: List of rulers

message: Is lovely, but probably ought to be moved to History of Gwynedd or History of the kingdom of Gwynedd with a much abbreviated version left here hitting the highlights. We have entire sections not on the history of the country itself but basically just pasting in the content of individual biography articles... — LlywelynII 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: "It later came to light that Hywel Trwyndwn (the bodyguard and brother to Iorweth) was not allowed to claim his inheritance due to his undesirable nose."
Is this a typo/vandalism or is it genuine? If genuine, then as it seems such a bizarre statement, I think it requires a brief parenthetical explanation. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering why an undesirable nose prevents an inheritance.Butcherscross (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A combination I guess. It wasn't his bodyguard that had the deformed nose, it was Iorwerth Drwyndwn himself, and apparently he was passed over for the crown after Owain died possibly due to his nose. But his son Llywelyn the Great became king later. This needs fixing.     I've removed the text meanwhile is it had been put between a source and the quote from the source and actually belongs in the next section. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the swift reply and explanation!Butcherscross (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Undesirable nose?'

message: I am getting a little bit confused with the date concerning the establishment of the Kingdom of Gwynedd as I seen the date sometimes form 1216 to 1254,
Also I noticed there were conflicting dates between the Deheubarth and this article.This article sates the kingdom of Deheubarth directly was                  d established in 1216 in the creation of the Principality of Wales while the Deheubarth article stated that it ended in 1197 almost 20 years before the creation of the principality of Wales.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date confusion 

message: Previously I had been learning about and working on web pages about Welsh history and royalty. I found and read many of the sources necessary to complete the Kingdom of Gwynedd article. Citing Dictionary of national biography and the dictionary of Welsh biography, I found most of the sources necessary to complete the article by amending citations, and some additional books and references from other articles. Currently it's in between being worked on and then completion, with grammar work yet to be double checked. But, the article is now almost complete after a lengthy spell of being neglected. 
Any questions about my recent research or work, then use talk to chat. Cltjames (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All references complete with some proof reading pretty much finished. Although a few books are needed for pages, and a few citations without any references online which might need to be double checked. Otherwise the article seems complete with some good work gone into it. I didn't change it too much, only tailored some paragraphs to include new references including DWB & DNB. Any issues, please talk and we should come to an agreement. And maybe we could consider changing some title headings again - House of Cunedda, house of Aberffraw ?? Cltjames (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations amended 

message: The article has officially identified the dates of the kingdom, yet there is the issue of the infobox which mentions the government of a monarchy, however, the key individuals are missing some potentially more important people, and also have monarchs after the 1216 date. The infobox should be amended to include such monarchs as Rhodri Mawr, Hywel Dda, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn to name a few and the Princes of Wales - Llywelyn II, Dafydd III should be removed for being out of the timeframe of the Kingdom of Gwynedd. Cltjames (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Amending article

message: The houses of Wales have been defined but seem to be duplicated between the house of Gwynedd and this page the house of Cunedda, the article is titled kingdom of Gwynedd, which surely would be included into the house of Gwynedd.
Any ideas on how to amend this issue ? Cltjames (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houses of Wales 

message: The text of this page says Llywelyn built Aberystwyth castle, with in text citation to (Davies, 1987), which is an impeccable source, but also expensive and not readily available. I don't have a copy but I doubt this source verifies that statement exactly. Llywelyn, as I understand it, razed the Norman castle at Tan-y-Castell to the ground and rebuilt that one. He was not the first builder of that castle, nor the first to rebuild it. I think he was the last to do so. The current castle was a new build on a new site by Edward I - a site chosen for its ready access from the sea. So this text needs some adjustment - but it would be useful to know what Davies actually says. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aberystwyth Castle 

message: On a random search finding the names Lloyd and Davies, both authors have over a dozen quoted mentions each. This search finds as to what is written and said in their books. I would like to ask about consensus about how an article on this topic should be written, please. My opinion is that there doesn't need to be repeated mentions of these 2 authors and quotes from books consistently throughout the article. I believe some sections could be rewritten based on facts from time period in relation to modern literature and not directly quoted. As in, there doesn't need to be roughly 30 mentions of these 2 authors repeatedly, but instead, there should be a better elaboration of medieval sources in modern literature focusing on the Kings of Gwynedd and not Lloyd or Davies book theories throughout the webpage. Any thoughts, please ?? Cltjames (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davies and Lloyd quotes. 

message: Sorry, but, the article pages of  and the Kingdom of Gwynedd articles have the same redirect. However, these 2 articles should be recognised as different topics. As in, can we please redirect Cunedda to a new article involving a family tree of Welsh monarchs and an introduction to the Kingdoms and royal houses of Wales? That is, the Kingdom of Gwynedd and The House of Cunedda should be separate and not in they're present form as one article. Again... If you have any requests, thoughts or suggestions, please talk: Cltjames (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Cunedda?