Talk:King of the Britons

message: The following rulers all assumed the title "King/Empereror of Britain/the Britons" (or related):
*Carausius
*Allectus
*Ethelbald of Mercia
*Athelstan of England
*Edmund I of England
*Edred of England
*Edwy of England
*Edgar of England
*Canute the Great
And yet are not on the list, presumably because - although they ruled over the Britons - they were not Britons themselves (though, in all fairness, Allectus may have been - we simply don't know).
But why, therefore, is Cunobelin on the list? He was a member of the Belgae ethnic group, and as such is just as likely to have been a speaker of a Germanic language as a Celtic language.
The basic question is this - is this list intended to be ethnically exclusive, or will it include all those who held a title equivalent to "King of the Britons"? TharkunColl 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who put up the new Kings of the Britons article, I guess I should respond. There are a couple of points:
# 'King/Emperor of Britain' is not the same as 'King of the Britons'. The former is geographical, the latter ethnic. The only time they would have been identical is when all inhabitants of Britain were identified as Britons. That is, they would not be identical at any time after the Roman Conquest. Carausius and Allectus were rulers of part of the Roman Empire, not rulers of a nation (the Britons).
#:This kind of distinction is complete nonsense for the early Medieval period, when such distinctions were rarely made. john k 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At one point, I did include Caratacus on the list. However, he is never actually named by Tacitus as King of the Britons. Tacitus calls him a King, and says he "raised himself far above all the other generals of the Britons." but that is not actully saying he was a ruler over the other Kings of the Britons. Vortimer (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More kings to include

message: We do not want to lose this article, so I have reverted the redirect. I have also requested that Vortimer rework the links to this article ASAP. Please be patient. Walgamanus 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should redirect all the links. There are hundreds of them, and it's your responsibility. If you had wanted to create a new article, you should have given it a new name, rather than hijack hundreds of links from elsewhere. I shall continue redirecting until you have made the appropriate changes, because you created the article in March and should have done it long before now. I would also suggest you think about the Wikipedia policies against POV and original research, and rethink your article accordingly. TharkunColl 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not create the article in March. TharkunColl, please check your facts before making accusations. I never edited anything on wikipedia until 2 months ago when I removed the automatic redirect which I believed (and still believe) was inappropriate because the article named "Kings of the Britons" should contain information about Kings of the Britons (information which was nowhere else). I have no idea why you would think my article does not present a neutral POV. I'm less sure about your "original research" objection, but Walgamanus and others obviously think my article is appropriate in content and I respect their opinion. If you want to discuss that, start a new subject on it. Meawhile, you have once again "vandalised" my page (to use the expression of Walgamanus). You should have raised the problem here first, and you should now show a bit of patience, and make constructive suggestions about how to fix the problem. As is obvious from what I wrote before in User_talk:Walgamanus, I would be happy for all the links you are concerned about to be fixed, and am just trying to determine how it could be done in the most efficient manner. Vortimer 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you call it "my page" if you did not create it? Anyway, whatever the case, the easiest way is what I suggested above: create a new page name that has not been used before, shift the contents to that, and restore the redirect on this one. TharkunColl 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we obviously have two rather polarised points of view here. Personally, I think it better to have the information still available while links are being fixed, even if this may cause some confusion in the short term. Francis Schonken's suggested merge notice will certainly alert readers to a possible problem however. I can only suggest that concentrating our efforts on getting the links fixed ASAP will be much more productive than starting an edit war and I would encourage anyone with an interest in both/either of these articles to lend a hand. Please note, however, that all linked articles need individual examination as not every instance of the link needs changing. Walgamanus 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I got to it before anyone else. I have fixed all the links and altered the dab statements on each article. I hope the situation is now acceptable to all parties. Walgamanus 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly acceptable to me. Thank you very much for doing this. I hope you had some quick way of doing it rather than editing each page individually! I changed two of the cases where you had made the link go to List of legendary kings of Britain back to going to King of the Britons, because I thought it was more appropriate. They were Prince of Wales and List of rulers of Wales. If anyone thinks these pages should also link to legendary kings, they could add a new link. Vortimer 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Links intended for [[List of legendary kings of Britain]] 

message: I'm removing the "disputed" flag because I don't see any on-going disputes. Some issues were raised a long time ago on this discussion page. I (as principal author of the article) responded to all of them, I think successfully. If someone thinks there is still a dispute, they should open a discussion on this discussion page.
I'm also removing the "copy edit" flag. There is nothing blatantly wrong with the style of the article that I can see. If the person who put up the flag saw something stylistic that needs fixing, they should have fixed it, or at least put some comment about what needed fixing on this discussion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortimer (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed? 

message: I have created the page Kings and Princes of Wales. Perhaps there could be a discussion about limiting the page King of the Britons to Kings prior to Gruffydd ap Cynan, King of Wales? In addition, should we include images and arms for the Kings of this page. This is an excellent list by the way and thanks for your hard work in forming it. Titus Gold (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Were everyone from Gruffydd ap Cynan on removed, then we absolutely should not include arms, which are anachronistic inventions for everyone else on the list. Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kings and Princes of Wales]]

message: I have traced my family history directing here. Are there any other links or facts anyone could share? WWalesMadog (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family history. 

message: Per extensive discussion above, can we come to an agreed definition of who should be in this list and who should be out? 
More constructively, I suggest that people to be included should be:
- Historically real 
- Have a recorded name (so the eleven un-named kings of Britain whose submission Claudius boasted of wouldn't be mentioned except in so far as they can be identified.
- Documented as being normally referred to by contemporaries, or themselves, as King or Rex (excludes post-Galfridian fantasies)
- Rulers (including either acknowledged sovereign or likely-subordinate ruler, so including Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus and Prasutagus, and saves arguments over the degree of sovereignty enjoyed) over a population thought mainly to consist of speakers of Common Brittonic or its descendants, in the island of Great Britain. 
That would be quite a long list, but would have its uses and it approximates to the present article. Other articles can be transcluded to form part of it. 
Does anyone have any better suggestions? Or amendments? 
(It is arguable that this page should consist only of monarchs over the great majority of Britons, who were not also and primarily a monarch of England, and who also claimed the title of King of the Britons or of the Welsh. That would be a blank article. No such person ever existed. If we can't agree on a definition including a set of real people, perhaps a simple redirect to King of Wales would best serve the turn. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definitions above are well thought out. Just to say, thought, that if there is no agreement then I think "King of Wales" should, in fact, redirect here rather than vice versa. It is not really clear to me why we have a "King of Wales" article when anyone aspiring to the title identified themself as King of the Britons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further on definitions