Talk:Principality of Wales

Infobox Glyndwr period 1400-1415

The period 1400-1415 should also be included in the infobox periods as: "Welsh rule: 1400-1415 (Glyndwr Rising)" as Wales was under Glyndwr's ruler for at least 1400-1409 (I think according to John Davies) which would also be an acceptable period.

Similarly, Glyndwr's arms or banner should be included in the infobox.

Thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't cram everything in the Infobox. That's why there are a lot of editors don't like them (because it's difficult to present complexity through them) and there had to be a whole Arbcom case about them. If it can't be reprsented succinctly and easily in an Infobox it's best left out. The text at the top of the Infobox and the number of banners is getting out of hand. Let's keep it minimal - the article is where all this is explained. DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not overcomplicating to include three lines

Welsh rule: x-x

English rule: x-x

Welsh rule:x-x

OR

Welsh rule:x-x, x-x

There are already three images in the infobox. Would just replace one with a Glyndwr banner or arms. That doesn't add complexity and it gives a complete picture. Titus Gold (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The Glyndwr one is the least significant. The Plantagenet/Tudor arms represents 2 and half centuries. Aberffraw is half a century. Glyndwr is 14 years. that's the one that's not needed. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa my opinion would be the flags shouldn't be represented by a period of time, moreover it would be best to represent the infoxbox with images relating to the articles information, and as we've established that the Glyndwr rising takes precedence over other events and is key to the era relating to the Principality. So the rising only lasted 15 years, but the legacy of the rising lasted centuries more. Cltjames (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:UNDUE policy needs to be kept in mind when thinking about the Infobox as well as MOS:INFOBOX. With regard to the MOS, the following pupose of Infoboxes is worth highlighting: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Less is more. We already have the Glydwr period covered in the Infobox. What is the banner actually adding given that fact. and given the exhortation "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". It's tempting to have every aspect that one thinks is important to be highlighted to the highest level. But what do you think is really added for the benefit of the reader when already the Glyndwr rising is highlighted in the infobox and in the article. It just reduces the impact of all the banners in the Infobox to a blurring mess for the passing reader. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa ok, I understood. But another point would be to request more information to do with the first Welsh parliament 1404. Perhaps a paragraph explaining the backstory and significance in terms of the impact of this period in the Principality. Cltjames (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if it can be decently sourced with WP:SECONDARY reliable sources published by academic scholars in the 21st or late 20th century and linked to the Principality specifically. Why not? DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not overwhelming or complex to include one more date. One Gwynedd arms or banner can be replaced with Glyndwr arms. Titus Gold (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold also we mention the council of Aberdyfi, this event coincided with the signing of Magna Carta, there should be a mention of this event too. Cltjames (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You are right to raise the importance of the Council of Aberdyfi @Cltjames. This event was important in the context of this page. It is mentioned in the infobox already but I would support it being cited as the establishment date and event for Welsh rule. Titus Gold (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As it stands the date of English rule is ahistorical. It completely ignores the Glyndwr period of rule. I'm willing to listen to options of compromise for dates and arms/flags? Titus Gold (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

take out "English rule". The problem only arose because you decided to add in the various periods. There's no reason to do that. The polity is the polity - Infoboxes don't normally divide it up in that position in the Infobox. The more complexity you add into the Infobox (any Infobox) the more it opens it up to those sort of issues. As the Infobox policy I quoted above says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Infoboxes are not designed and are not intended to deal with these sorts of complexity. Less is more. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please try to make a compromise. There's being simple and there's being ahistorical and incorrect. @Cltjames care to weigh in? Titus Gold (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As I keep trying to explain to you the cause of the problem is the change you have made which is not the way Infoboxes are normally treated and which disrupts a format which has been the same for years. There was nothing incorrect with simply heading the box with 1216-1542. You've caused the problem with breaking the dates down further. The "English" Principality also existed in parallel (either in whole or in part as the area controlled by Glyndwr changed) during the period 1400-1415. How is that to be reflected? The more information you try to add in the more complexities bob to the surface. That's why the Infobox policy says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Less is more. Keep it simple and leave the complexity to the text in the article itself. Also, pinging Cltjames to support you... WP:CANVASS. DeCausa (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Titus Gold In my opinion there should be clarification as to the beginning of the Principality. Also I believe there is a chance to include information on the magna Carta and the first council of the Prince of Wales in Aberdyfi. Maybe a paragraph explaining this opening era in this article. Cltjames (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Amending article

I'm going to bring up a discussion I started before into relevance of the article's information. The backstory of Wales Kings is fine, but the inclusion of Princes such as Owain Gwynedd, his son and various other Princss do not fall into the timeline of the Principality and need to be amended to either explain an expansion of the Wales background or deleted altogether. The relevance of this article needs to be improved for the time era suggested, hence Princes born before the 1216 era do not need inclusion. Any consensus please?? I would like to work on this article some more sometime. Cltjames (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I want to give a perfect example of my argument, Later Welsh princes and claimants is incorrectly categorized for the article, considering the timeline is inclusive for these Princes, furthermore a title could be created for 'Earlier Princes and claimants' in reference to Owain Gwynedd and his immediate family. Therefore there are gaps in this article which need amending. Please discuss my points so we can improve the article's work. Cltjames (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the pre-1216 princes should just be removed. I don't think there's any need to make any reference to them. I don't think they were even "claimants". DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

So... I tried to move paragraphs and remove irrelevant information, only to find duplicate sentences, so I edited more and changed paragraph titles. This is still a work in progress, please don't delete but work with me, more references to come from a Turvey book I now possess. But I think these edits are an improvement. Cltjames (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but there's a lot of problems there. Much of the 1216 stuff (both whhat was there before and what was added) is just incorrect. There's a WP:UNDUE emphasis on the political unity of Wales before the 13th century. The theme should be that it was politically divided with only sporadic and ultimately unsuccessful attempts by a king to gain control of the whole country. There was no "Kingdom of Wales". But I'll wait till you've finished before editing further. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa Ok, so what I'm doing is taking this step by step with your guidance to use the work that was there before, but to streamline what effectively is needed and what is unnecessary. But because of troubles referencing and avoiding duplicate sentences, this is step by step by me. Cltjames (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm done amending the article, I moved paragraphs to have a better order but still feel some paragraphs could be expanded and further elaborated, that is if anyone else want's to have a go? Cltjames (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove the pre-2016 info. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've previously mentioned necessary additions. I'd like to clarify, this article needs to add - Magna Carta, Llywelyn Bren, and battle of Bosworth, and maybe more... Discuss. Cltjames (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I believe the Magna Carta can be mentioned as a back story to the council of Aberdyfi, then also the revolt of Llywelyn Bren needs a mention as an important event in the Principality. Any ideas about where and how to add these events in this article ?

What's the relevance of Magna Carta? Can you explain the point you want to make? DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa the information is limited for this time period, however chapters 56-58 of the Magna Carta elaborate the customs between England and the Welsh Principality and can be used to expand information on the backstory of this time period. Also perhaps a backstory to the battle of Bosworth field explaining the divisions of the allegiance of the crown of England and eventual demise of the Principality in conjunction with the battle of the roses. And again any information we can find for this time is a plus, and Llywelyn Bren deserves a mention. Cltjames (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Afrer looking at the article, I believe Bren deserves a place as a claimant alongside Madog, Lawgoch and Glyndwr. Also the Madog section should be expanded a bit to include the invasion of Anglesey and subsequent construction of Beaumaris castle as a direct response to the revolt of 1295. Cltjames (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the section on Glyndŵr etc back under 1284-1543 as a subsection entitled "Welsh revolts". That's where it always was until recently and is far more logical. On that basis Bren fits in there quite easily. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll need a decent scholarly secondary source (a recent academic source) to connect those chapters to the Council of Aberdyfi. See WP:PRIMARY. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've ordered the book 'Compact History of Welsh Heroes: Llywelyn Bren' and it will be delivered to me from the UK overseas in a minimum of 3 weeks. Maybe I'll look at using the reference for the Llywelyn Bren article as well as this Principality of Wales article. Cltjames (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pktlaurence

@Pktlaurence: Regarding this. Per WP:BRD bring it here rather than reverting. By your edit summary you seem to have a very deep misunderstanding. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

War of the roses

I know Welsh revolts are briefly covered in the article. But an important part of the conclusion of the Principality would have been the War of the Roses, 1455-1487. I have a book reference used in the Nannau article referring to the use of Harlech Castle during this time period and also the Welsh influence in the Battle of Northampton (1460). Then, also on the conclusion of the Principality and the creation of the 13 Historic counties of Wales which began with Edward I, 1282 until 1974, but were renacted in 1535. Does anyone else have any material regarding the the House of Tudor, War of the Roses or even Tudors of Penmynydd in relation to the Principality of Wales ? I'd like to draft something short soon in relation to these topics for this article, if anyone would like to contribute or has objections, then talk. Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: opinion? Cltjames (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to comment without knowing the specifics of what you want to say and the sources. What I would say is that there's little point in duplicating content that could go into the History of Wales article or its subsidiary articles. It's best to keep content in this article to that which is directly and exclusively relevant to the Principality as an institution. So, for example, if it's a siege or battle that happened to take place on the territory of the Principality I would suggest that's best dealt with in one of the History of Wales articles. If, however, it's about changes to the governance of the Principality that didn't apply to the rest of Wales then here would be the place. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added high relevance work considering it's direct connection to the article concerning the identity of the Marcher lordships and the historic counties replacing those areas with better imagery for the sections, and did a bit of grammar. Otherwise, I'm browsing through the article, again I find myself wondering if the Aberffraw Princes can be cut back into one section instead of separate headings for individual Princes, maybe a Llywelyns section explaining the transition from Kingdom under 1st to the Principality after the 2nd. Then, also the Welsh revolts needs a rewrite, maybe a siege of Harlech section which can incorporate the effects of the War of the Roses on the Principality. But, it's true to say the Principality was directly affected by the emerging house of Lancaster and Tudor who directly descended from the Aberffraw Princes, I think there could be a closure section which takes away from the Edward phase centuries later and away from the Princes of Wales and write about the wars leading to the formation of the Kingdom of England. Maybe a new revolts section; such as Principality at war, it can describe the revolts and siege and can look at the Welsh in the 100 Years War (or even Owain Lawgoch attempting a coup d'etat) as mercenaries fighting for the French against the English which is relevant to the mentality of many Welshmen during the apartheid style environment in affect during that time period of the Principality; any thoughts?? Cltjames (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand: the Marcher lordships and the post-1536 counties are by definition outside the Principality. Also, you've added this text: The other lordships being: Flint, Montgomery, Brecon, Pembroke, Radnor, Monmouth and Glamorgan These are all outside the Principality apart from Flint. Can you explain what you are doing? DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You've made a decent point, I've done a grammar/fact correction. However, looking at the article it only make sense to make a comparison to Wales during the Principality and the formation of before and after 1536. You just have to compare to Principality of Wales#Later administration and see mentions from Wales up until 1998. Therefore the flow of the article is improved to join eras between Pre-1536 up until today. I believe the new Principality of Wales#Historic counties section is relevant because it shows the progression and planning up until 1536 and it fits well into the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 section as a sub heading as it further explains what happened between the years of 1535-1542. And if you look at the infobox, it specifies 1542 is the ending of Crown rule, thus making 1536 actually a year in the Principality. We can further explore this technicality I have found, but I don't see a reason to delete this, it's 100% valid based on my reasoning.

But my question which I would like to explore with you would be, again, Principality of Wales#Welsh revolts is lacking big time, and in need of a better flowing paragraph, not just separate sentences. So, what is your opinion on a potential new paragraph involving the contemporary wars, e.g. Madog, Bren, Lawgoch, Glyndwr, 100 years war (Welsh mercenaries) & War of the roses (Harlech siege), the section can do with an upgrade frankly. Cltjames (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa:Ok, or you can just delete instead of a talk. Please read my comment carefully and justify where I'm wrong and how your right, I believe your revert unnecessary and would like to revert my extracts please. Cltjames (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've taken out the things which are obviously irrelevant to this article which i've mentioned above. there's already too much post 1536 - should be reduced not expanded. The article already covers Lawgoch, Glyndwr etc as claimiant princes - the detail is better in other articles. I think there's some problems in the other edits which i'll ake a look at later. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)