Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd

Untitled

Rydw i'n byw yng Nghwynedd. I live in Gwynedd. And a beautiful part of the world it is too.

For excellent novels about the Welsh princes see "Here Be Dragons", "The Reckoning", "Time and Chance" by Sharon Kay Penman [1] or "The Brothers of Gwynedd" quartet of books - "Sunrise in the West", "the Dragon at Noonday", "the Hounds of Sunset", "Afterglow and Nightfall" by Edith Pargeter [2]. These all chronicle the last century of independent Wales and the extraordinary intricate relationship with the Anglo-Norman crown and nobility that ultimately failed in Edward I's rampaging conquest that saw the end of an 800 year dynasty and Gwynedd become home to the highest concentration of the most formidable mediaeval castles castles of walesin the world.

---

Etymology

Cunedda = Gwynedd as follows

VOWELS change easily, only consonants have any real permanence "G" = "K" are very similar sounds that often evolve the one into the other, or the other into the one

SO

CuNeDDa = C.N.D(d)

GwyNeDD = G.N.D(d) ~ C.N.D(d) --> Cunedda

Thus, the Kingdom of Gwynedd is just a slightly varient pronunciation of Kingdom of Cunedda

Which makes sense, the Kingdom is named after its founding father

Hmmm... Do you have a reliable source for this? It's certainly plausible, but equally it could simply be a convenient coincidence. I plump for the latter, and my main reason is that I can't see why the sound changes should have affected the place name but not the personal name. It's also at odds with the derivation from Venedotia (now referenced!). That, however, looks to me like a latinisation of an original British name. garik 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also read how Cunedda was an origion of Kenneth. Cunedda is pronounced as Kenneth-a. So Gwynedd becomes Kenneth's Land, in much the same way as Glamorgan is Morgan's Country. Many Welsh place names have origions after personal names, witness Merionedd and others.Drachenfyre 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the University of Wales Dictionary (Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru), the name Gwynedd is derived from Brythonic *Ueneda and is akin to Goidelic (ancestor of Irish) Fenia (which gives fiana, "war-band" in Old Irish - e.g. Finn and his warriors). Thus the probable meaning is "Land of the Hosts" / "Land of the Warrior Bands", etc. Going further back etymologically the root *uen- is akin to Latin vena- and suggests "to struggle; to desire, to like" (the root of Latin venus, "love", and also venari "to hunt").

I've never come across the suggestion that Gwynedd is derived from Cunedda before. Etymological arguments aside, it would be a drastic change in such a short period of time, just a century or two. What is the source of this? So much speculation about things Welsh and Celtic (it's that mist again...) on wikipedia but never referenced! As for Venedotia / Venedocia, it's a perfectly good name which I personally like but which is of course a medieval Latin form of the Welsh Gwynedd, like Mona from Môn and Cambria from Cymru. I find it incredible that an article on wikipedia puts it the other way round! Enaidmawr 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Truthfully I am more like to agree with you reguarding the origion name if the source is from the University of Wales. I am no expert in the study of names, and from everyone I speak to Cunedda was the origion of Gwynedd. And the poster above where he demonstrates the plausability of Cunedda to Gwynedd seems valid. But does it not seem very odd that Kenneth and Gwynedd and even Cunedd (a) have very simular pronouncations? If the University of Wales has documented a different origion for the name then I clearly would defer to them. It just seems an odd coincidence reguarding the pronouncations. I didnt know there was a talk page for wales! Ill be there soon! Drachenfyre 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The explanation given at the beginning is pseudo-etymological bumbling at its worst, the linguistic equivalent of creationism and various other pseudosciences. Leave etymology to historical linguists, who know what they're talking about (and who tend to know the limits of their knowledge, sources, tools and methods); lay speculations are typically based on superficial, usually misleading similarities and generally incorrect, exceptions being occasional accidents. If any random person could find the origins of words by wild guessing, what would linguistics of the kind you can study at university be for? Do you expect that any random unschooled person can carry out complex and sophisticated (say) biological experiments, too, or perform brain surgery? Obviously not, so why should it be different for etymology?

As for Venedotia, Mona and Cambria, Cambria is a medieval Latinisation (if it were genuinely ancient, it should have been Combrogia or similar), but Mona and Venedot- are already attested in antiquity, Mona in Roman sources and Venedot- before 500, so they reflect much older (i. e., ancient British Celtic) forms of the Welsh names, which makes them valuable for the purposes of etymology. They are not as such Celtic, they are Latin, but they are borrowed from Celtic and the Celtic forms were probably very similar. From Latin loanwords in Welsh and cognate words and names in Welsh and Gaulish (and other ancient Celtic languages), Celtologists have derived the (essentially regular) changes that occurred between ancient Celtic and Welsh, which allows one to deduce what the precursor of Gwynedd should have looked like in antiquity and reconstruct a starred (non-attested) form (such as *wened-), and Venedot- indeed seems to fit the bill, although I'm not sure on all the details. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, *Weidh-n- doesn't look like a Primitive Irish reconstruction. At all. It doesn't even look like Proto-Celtic. It looks Proto-Indo-European if anything. I wonder if the source really says "Proto-Irish". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

The banner shown as the banner of the "Aberffraw dynasty" is incorrect and I assert is an historical misinterpretation.

All of the images I have ever seen showing the arms of Gwynedd consist of three red leopards on a white field. Occasionally they are shown as three white leopards on a red field but this is almost certainly a mistake caused during printing because at a distance it would be impossible to distinguish those arms from the arms of England - which in medieval Wales was quite a fundamental thing. The arms shown here are those of Owain Glyndwr who proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in 1400 and were never those of a Prince of Wales from the House of Gwynedd/Aberffraw.

Glyndwr was the son of the head of the house of Powys-Fadog. The arms of Powys-Fadog (and of Powys) were a red lion rampant on a yellow field. Glyndwr's mother was the daughter of one of the heirs to the house of Deheubardd whose arms were a yellow lion rampant on a red field. Thus, by heraldic convention, the arms of his mother and father were quartered creating the flag you see here. This is an established heraldic fact. These were not the arms of Llywelyn, Prince of Wales and Lord of Snowdon. His arms were three red leopards on a white banner.

How the arms of Glyndwr then got changed from being the lions rampant as shown here to the lions passant as seen on the modern banner of the English "Prince of Wales" is unclear. James Frankcom

That is sometimes said, but 1. J. Beverley Smith in his book Llywelyn ap Gruffydd gives the four lions banner as the arms of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. Smith is generally accepted as the leading authority on Llywelyn. 2. David Moore in The Welsh wars of independence (2005), the latest major history of the period 3. Glanmor Williams - another highly respected historian.

What are your sources? Rhion 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rhion

I have read extensively on this subject, but obviously I concede to these experts if they would show me otherwise, but it is my held belief that it is a simple mistake from the 15th Century that the arms shown are the arms of "the prince of Wales". They are the arms of "a" prince of Wales - Owain Glyndwr. It has long been thought that Llywelyn used the four lions banner and this supposed 'fact' has never been questioned. This does not make sense to me. The arms ARE those of Powys and Deheubardd quartered. It would be a striking and illogical coincidence if the arms of the prince of Gwynedd were the same as the arms of the princes of Powys and Dehuebardd combined. I have not yet found a contemporary description of Llywelyn's arms and the only picture from the 13th Century depicting any arms of Llywelyn of Gwynedd is one where he is shown seated to the left of Henry III and paying homage. In this picture the arms attributed to him are three red leopards on white. I challenge anyone to find documentary evidence of any reference to the four-lions banner as shown here PRIOR to the uprising of Owain Glyndwr. I highly respect J. Beverley Smith's work which I have read - twice - but I would assert that the arms as shown on this page have been attributed to the "Prince of Wales" only since the 15th Century and are infact those of Glyndwr, not Llywelyn. Glyndwr raised "his banner" when he proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in 1400. Before too many Welsh patriots lay this flag on the tombs of the princes of Gwynedd perhaps this issue ought to be resolved. James Frankcom

Hi James

I've been looking into this a bit more - it seems that the original form of the four lions banner showed the lions passant rather than rampant. There are a number of records of the four lions banner before Owain Glyndwr - the earliest seems to be a drawing by Matthew Paris (died 1259) of the arms of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr, showing them as "quarterly or and gules four lions passant counterchanged" - reproduced in "Walpole Society Publications 14 (1925-6). Following this there are a number of independent references to the four lions being used by others of the family down to Gruffydd's grandson Thomas ap Rhodri (on his seal) and Thomas' son, Owain Lawgoch. There is also a record from 1310 describing them as the arms of Gwynedd. There is a good discussion of this in The Princes and Principalities of Wales by Francis Jones (1969).

Ideally we should have an image showing passant lions, but the image used for "Prince of Wales" won't really do because of the crown. I don't know of any "passant" version I could scan without copyright problems, and I'm certainly not up to creating one. Rhion 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I can look for a copy of those arms online. The same graphics are shared by nearly everyone in these instances. I am ready to concede that I am wrong about Llywelyn's arms. It should be noted though that each othe princes of Gwynedd had their own personal arms. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had different arms to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, and Owain Gwynedd had quite different personal arms as well. Perhaps because Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was the last crowned prince of Gwynedd that his arms were retained by his descendants. However I am still yet to be convinced. On a contemporary picture found here Llywelyn is seen seated with his arms behind him. They are not these four lions.

However, is it fair to say, that there is a lot of confusion about the rampant and passant lions? Are the lions rampant the arms of Owain Glyndwr as I described? James Frankcom

It may well be that Glyndwr was the first to have the lions rampant. According to Francis Jones, of the princes recorded as using the four lions quartered arms, Dafydd ap Llywelyn and Gruffydd ap Llywelyn are both shown by Matthew Paris as having the lions passant but not guardant. (Dafydd ap Llywelyn also has another coat of arms assigned to him by Paris, so it may be that they had a personal coat of arms as well as the family arms.) Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and Dafydd ap Gruffydd are both described elsewhere as having the lions "passant guardant". (Dafydd incidentally is stated to have used a colour variant, with the substitution of azure for gules). I haven't been able to find a reference as to whether the lions used by Owain Lawgoch were rampant or passant. Francis Jones incidentally refers to a Chetham MS. 6712, a copy of a work composed around 1260, which states that the quarterly shield was originally borne by Iorwerth Drwyndwn, father of Llywelyn the Great.

I see you have removed the crown from the POW arms image - I had the same idea last night but you have done a neater job than I did. This is the one to use I think. Rhion 12:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhion, you have enlightened me, and for that I am very grateful indeed. It is nice to be shown why something is the way it is. I would now like to now know why the rampant lions keep popping up and if these are indeed the arms of Owain Glyndwr which have become on occasions confused with those of Ein Llyw Olaf - but that is a debate for a different page. James Frankcom

Hi everybody! I have a theory: what if the three red lions on white were the arms of the kings of Gwynedd, and four lions red on gold counterchanged were the arms assigned to the title "Prince of Wales" (this would explain why they passed from the House of Aberffraw to that of Mathrafal (and now to HRH Charles, Prince of Wales). What do you think? PS: excuse my English, I'm a Frenchman fond of everything about Wales...

I welcome your interest in Wales Tomas de Vernet! The four lions red on gold counterchanged are for the senior line of the Aberffraw dynasty and do not form any part of any other house. Prince Owain Glyn Dwr was himself decended from the Mathrafal and Dinefwr (Powys and Deheubarth) lines, and he adopted the arms but also adapted them showing the lions in a raised rampant fashion. Charles, the English "Prince of Wales,' has his own personal arms and is not entittled to the use of the Aberffraw arms. You will see the Aberffraw arms as an alt flag for Wales though. Drachenfyre 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then WHY is there a picture showing Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's as three red lions rampant on white? And I lso found websites about the Royal Tribes of Wales showing the three red lions rampant on white as the arms of the Aberffraw dynasty (this site in particular[[3]])?...Thomas de Vernet 11:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your reply to an earlier reply! lol. Sorry for the late reply. I believe the red lions on white field were the personal coat of arms assigned to Gruffydd ap Cynan of the Aberffraw line.... also a direct ancestor to Llywelyn the Great (whose arems are the four lions red on gold counterchanged ). Historically, both can be used to represent Gwynedd.... however it is Llywelyn the Great's arms that have become most identified with the Welsh principality.... and when Owain Glyndwr later adapted them to rampant the association was further solidifed.Drachenfyre (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gogs" and Gwynedd

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)

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)

12th-13th century princely titles

I think the subdivision of the list of rulers is a bit misleading, to say the least, although it does mark a change in terminology away from 'king'. If you check the list of documents in David Stephenson's definitive study The Governance of Gwynedd (University of Wales Press, 1984), you will find that 'Prince of North Wales' was actually more common than 'Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon' (which don't always occur together, for that matter). When Llywelyn ap Gruffudd became Prince of Wales he used the Latin style 'Prince of Wales, (and) Lord of Snowdon'. In the court poetry of the period various Welsh words for 'king' are commonly used as well, in addition to various permutations of the above titles; Llywelyn ap Gruffudd is referred to as Brenin Cymry/Cymru for instance ('King of the Welsh/of Wales'). My point is that the present wording suggests a formal uniformity of title when in fact that was clearly not the case. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that calling himself King would be treason and require a painful death from the Crown of England. When you say "'Prince of North Wales' was actually more common than 'Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon'" do you mean in the cited text, in parlance or in a body of surveyed literature? Pbhj (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean in the extensive list, quoting verbatim from contemporary documents, given in Stephenson's book. I'm not trying to argue priority for any one title, just pointing out that the situation is greatly over-simplified in the article and hence rather misleading. As for "king", both Llywelyns were regarded as such by the Welsh (at least witnessing their court poetry), no matter if they were also called "prince" or lord". Brut y Tywysogion calls Llywelyn Fawr "Tywysog Cymru", even though he was not recognised as such by the English Crown; the poets who sang to him use rhi (king), brenin (king), arglwydd (lord), teyrn (king, ruler) tywysog (prince) etc indifferently. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess this is where detailed knowledge of the linguistics come in and I don't know the source text, nor old welsh. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was a Welsh king [of Gwynedd] (wouldn't that be Brenin Cymry too) but was not King of Wales (though I don't doubt someone may have called him that). I might poetically say your are a King of Words, Lord amongst Wikipedians but you're still just a "contributor". In my view a King needs two things, a state over which they are sovereign and a coronation where they are recognised as sovereign King of that same state. Evidence that I'd find convincing would be something like a treaty signed by that person assuming that role, eg Elizabeth II signs Elizabeth R showing her to be sovereign and namely "Queen" [Regina]. Or maybe some lesser French/Irish/Scottish evidence of the use of the term. But I'd be more than happy to see something stating that Llywelyn was recorded variously in court poetry as rhi (king), brenin (king), arglwydd (lord), teyrn (king, ruler) tywysog (prince) cf Stephenson. Pbhj (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just a couple of points. I'm not trying to say that either of the Llywelyns were de jure "kings" in the modern legalistic sense as given by you above (it should be borne in mind though that Wales was a land of kings and kingdoms - united as a kingdom on at least one occasion, under Gruffudd ap Llywelyn - before the Norman period), merely pointing out the multiplicity and flexibility of titles in that period. As for the court poets, or bards, they should not be compared to modern poets and were not speaking "poetically" as such. These men were the repositors of traditional history and learning with a high place at court. They were men of the world. They were not afraid to counsel or even rebuke kings/princes and often played a leading role in the politics of the day. Some of them were warriors. They were about as far removed from the romantic poet with his head in the clouds as you can get; they chose their words carefully and knew their significance, even allowing for rhetoric. Both Llywelyns had a state with fledgling civil service and diplomatic correspondence, e.g. with the kings of France. Both were crowned and had their regalia, etc. I doubt very much if their common subjects cared to differentiate between "king" and "prince"; such a distinction would have been meaningless to most people. In their choice of titles, the court poets looked to the past, reflected the present, and also, it can be argued, looked to the future. Anyway, all I'm saying is that this diversity - found also in the official documents - should be noted. If I'm somewhat reticent to do so it's because I've almost given up on trying to edit this article as it has become so contentious and suffers from constant edit wars in which I have little wish to become embroiled. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reticent to do so it's because I've almost given up on trying to edit this article that's a shame I hadn't noticed any edit wars as yet.

INCOMPLETE REPLY Anyhow, to say "wales was united as a kingdom" you have to define "Wales". In respect of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd the book "The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England; Containing the Exposition of Many Ancient and Other Statutes." by Sir Edward Coke (printed 1817) recites him as King of Wales, in this manner "Lluellen [sic] was a prince, or King of Wales, who held the fame of the King of England as his superior lord and ought him liege, homage and fealty ...". As with Rhodri Mawr wasn't the first Llywelyn the "King of Britons" [sic], as in Gruffudd Ap Cynan: A Collaborative Biography By K. L. Maund see, eg, page 43, "Hywel Fawr and Gruffydd ap Llywelyn were seen as pan-Welsh figures - there was no stable kingship of Wales." Pbhj (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Llywelyn ap Gruffydd's death

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) Pbhj (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Britain?

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)

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)

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)

Infobox border

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)

Administration

We need some help with the boxes containing the lists of cantrefs to make them all equal width. Can anyone do this? James Frankcom (talk)

An error

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)

Requests for unbiased mediation

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)

Lead image

Any objections to me removing the image from the lead section? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I object♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Screw it, you win Jza, I quit wikipedia! Its yours. For someoen who claims this is not an issue for you it seems to occupy your time. You have behaived like a cyber bully by hawking over my edits. You and I both know this.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Your comment is duly noted however. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just reversing the material can we please respect the work that Drachenfyre has put into the page. Being sorry and noting a withdrawal is just not good enough. How about attempting to come up with a compromise? --Snowded (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm... I made a proposal, there was one weak unexplained oppose, and one support. Then the opposer asked for it to be removed: there's a consensus and I removed the image per this. OK some points:

1. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:

• Start an article with a right-aligned lead image.
• Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
• Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary.

1. The image has huge preformatted sizing, warping text in my browser.
2. The image is overbearing, and takes the reader away from the text.
3. The image is in the lead, sandwiching the text between the infobox (which is prohibited by WP:MOS, and is in turn a barrier to achieving GA and FA).
4. The image is anachronistic; it's a picture of modern Wales, not something about the ancient Medieval Kingdom.
5. The image adds no value to the lead or article; it's a misty field, not an image of an artefact or baronial landmark that would be of scholarly interest.

What exactly is the reason we're keeping this? "Because my friend likes it" isn't a valid reason to over-ride the Manual of style. In this capacity, I'm going to remove the image again. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You [2nd person plural] should know better than to edit-war over a picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There was one oppose, one support. The support made a statement that the picture gave the impression that the Kingdom still existed which is a nonsense and the text makes it clear. On my browser I can see the text. In addition this conversation started on the 13th (TODAY) you cannot claim a consensus based on three opinions in that short a space of time. I disagree with your proposal as I think the picture represents the geography of the area and also provides context. I do think it could be better placed, possibly in the info box. We have also had disagreements before about the degree of conformity that a template should impose. I think you go to far in this, and jump in to quickly to correct what you see as non-conformant behaviour. I am not going to get into an edit war now by reversing, although I would have grounds given the number of periods and the shortness of time. Can I suggest instead that you come up with a suggestion as to a better way of placing the picture (size location) and do something to build bridges back to an editor who is putting one hell of an effort into the content. Oh and please don't dismiss that motivation as "Because a friend likes it" it is about placing importance on content over form. --Snowded (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth... why not move it further down? While, yes, it did look pretty awkward where it was, I saw no issues with viewing it in my browser. Why all this hubub over nothing? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I believed it was a straight forward issue myself. I haven't seen any reason why the image should be kept. Sure, I can live with it, but I raised a concern above that it is a little anachronistic. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The image showing the extent of Gwynedd in 1090 in subsection 2.3.1 (The Norman invasion)

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)

Rhun was the oigional author of the map you see in the 1090's, his oigional source is unknown. However, James Francom has reproduced another simular map based off of other sources such as J.Beverley Smith's "Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" 1998 biography. I was still upset over Azra so did not resond earlier.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A cautionary note: The Doomsday Servay was taken in 1086 as you mention, but at a time in North Wales when the Normans had displaced the Welsh from their land. By 1090, all of Gwynedd was nominally in Chester's hands and it would have served his purposes to have all of this as seen to be successfully under his authority. However, all of this land remained disputed for the next two hundred years. According to historian Professor John Davies, Chester claimed all of north Wales to the Clwyd river, with everything west of the Clwyd intended for his brother Robert. The traditional boundry between Gwynedd and Chester was the Dee river, with Tegeingle (Flintshire), Harwarden, Caergwle, and Maelor as the frontier commotes between the two.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

We agree that it should not be made more then it is. I believe that the nuances of the dispute regarding Tegeingle (Flintshire, Atiscross and Exestan), between Gwynedd and Chester is best presented on the page for Perfeddwlad rather then here. In the context of the narration here, it is presented as being in dispute between Chester and Gwynedd with the sentence Earl Hugh claimed the Perfeddwlad up to the Clwyd river (the commotes of Tegeingle and Rhufoniog; the modern counties of Denbighshire Flintshire and Wrexham) as part of Chester, and viewed the restoration of the Aberffraw family in Gwynedd as a threat to his own expansion into Wales.[7] and is sourced accordingly. Any further explination would distract the narration further and in my opinion give undue weight to the dispute here.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I did review my notes and sources, and the map of Wales created by Rhion is accurate in so much as it presents Wales without the influence of the Norman Invasion... so I agree a better map could be presented for the invasion itself. Davies has a great map in my book but getting someone to create a map is difficult. The map presented seems to me to represent 1063-1067, just prior to the Norman invasions. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is known is that as late as 1081 Tengeingle is ruled by Edwin ap Gronwy, whose family seems to have been ruling it for some time. Some sources say that Tengeingle was part of Mercia, while others demonstrate it was under Welsh control "... and a passage in the Cheshire Domesday Book says King Edward gave to Gruffudd (ap Llewelyn) all the land that lies beyond the River Dee; this may have been merely an acknowledgement that the Welsh already possessed it and Edward simply quit claiming it on paper. Thus, it is possible that both commotes were then (in the 10th and 11th centuries) under Welsh control" THE ANCESTRY OF EDWIN OF TEGEINGL By Darrell Wolcott http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id42.html . Though this is one internet source I can look for others.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will note in the "government and administration" section the dispute between Gwynedd and Chester regarding Tegingl more forcefully and clearly. The map here created by James Frankom is accutate in so much as it represents Gwynedd as administered by Gwynedd.... but here too we can hi-light those border areas in dispute. I think we did earlier but the various colors began to distract from the main point: listing the cantrefi.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When I get home today I will attempt to make some fixes to accommodate the debate.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA?

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)

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)

I addressed the map issue above. But the page is lacking and not ready for a nomination at present. I was too distracted by Azra85 to further work on it. Much needs yet to be added.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Assessment

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)

Pronunciation

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)

I could remove it for you, if you like. Pronunciations belong at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwynedd - Guinevere

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)

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)

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)

Title: Lord of Snowdon

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)

List of rulers

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)

History

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)

'Undesirable nose?'

"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)

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.[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 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)

Many thanks for the swift reply and explanation!Butcherscross (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Date confusion

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)

Where's the evidence for a Roman-Britain connection? The article goes on to assert, "but they had to abandon their ways". This presupposes a connection where none exists. A more likely explanation would be that there is no actual historical connection and that the changes represents an entirely different tribal confederation with zero connection with Rome.

I'm going to strike out that entire section as OR. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:8D01:2E49:A6E3:2820 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations amended

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)

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)

Amending article

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)

Houses of Wales

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)

Aberystwyth Castle

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)

Davies and Lloyd quotes.

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)

House of Cunedda?

Sorry, but, the article pages of House of Cunedda 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)