Talk:Brut y Tywysogion

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

King Arthur Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English meaning[edit]

Sorry, but Brut y Tywysogion does not translate as 'Brutus the Trojan'! Brut (modern Welsh brud) means 'chronicle' and tywysog (plural tywysogion) is 'prince'; y is the definite article, and the fact that y tywysogion follows brut shows it's possessive. So '(The) Chronicle of the Princes' is a literal translation. The name Brutus tends to be spelt just the same in Welsh, and Troy is Caerdroea: so Brutus the Trojan is Brutus o Gaerdroa, at least in modern Welsh. Garik 16:00, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Welsh history?[edit]

It seems rather misleading to refer to the book as chronicling Welsh history as people will think it refers to a landmass equivalent to todays Wales. Wales not being created til about 1200-ish and then lacking the whole of the South third of modern Wales. So the ref to the Welsh church seems rather imprecise given it's talking of Bangor in 768 - so that would be the Church amongst the Britons who were driven out by the Saxons, no? Reference to British history and then precision by mentioning Gwynedd, etc., would seem best IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where written and kept[edit]

The article now says "The original monastic annals are thought to have been written at Strata Florida Abbey, but may have been kept at the old abbey at Llanbadarn Fawr in the 11th century." However, Strata Florida was not established until 1164, which is well after the end of the 11th century. What exactly is intended here? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the misleading wording. What the editor should have said is that the annals on which the lost Latin chronicle was based were kept at Strata Florida in the 13th century and prior to that, at Llanbadarn Fawr and St David's (whether the practice of keeping annals at any of these houses goes back to the eleventh century I really cannot tell, but that's not impossible). Cavila (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]