Talk:Principality of Wales

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Principality of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507201040/https://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=thomastayloratlas5210 to http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=thomastayloratlas5210

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Coat of Arms post conquest

While the Principality can be considered to have existed until the Laws of Wales Acts, it was a territory owned by the English Crown. The title "Prince of Wales" was an honorific, the occupant did not rule the Principality so adding in the Coat of Arms doesn't seem right -----Snowded ^TALK 17:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please read the article. It was merged with the English crown while there was no heir apparent with the title. When there was an heir apparent the Prince was the feudal ruler of the territory of the Principality of Wales and the Marcher Lordships outside of the territory that were created after 1284 held their territories from the Prince and not directly from the crown. It’s in the article with citat actions. Please self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa. Original Arms of Gwynned is in the right place, but its use was short-lived (c. 1240–1282) and it wasn't the last Coat of arms, the state existed until 1542. Just see the article about Coat of arms and you will see it. Dragovit (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Snowded has mixed up the post 1536 position (when to be Prince was just an honorific) with the pre-1536 position when the role had genuine feudal territorial power. DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's more than possible that all three of us are right or wrong so let's look at things before we all start adopting firm positions. It's a recent addition so no one will die if we look into it first. I'll need to hunt down Davies to check his statement on this but if I look at the Encylopedia of Wales, which I have to hand, it makes it clear that the Council of Wales and (the and is critical here) Marches had feudal authority - dispensation to impose the death penalty was granted to its President and it had statutory status from 1543. While originally established to look after things for the Prince of Wales it was enlarged in 1473 and charged with maintaining law and order. This was an additional responsibility from the Crown not from the Prince. From the conquest, there was no real equivalent of the two LLywelyns that I can see. Edward of Caernafon was granted the principality in 1301, and that more or less the same as in 1267 but after that, it gets a little hazier. There might be a case for his arms, but not the modern-day one (unless it was the same which I doubt but haven't had time to check. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)-----Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not the modern ones that’s been put in, that’s the flaming point!! Your way off the mark here. Just calm down and discuss rather than edit war. The point is this article isn’t about the 2 Llewellyns - it goes up to 1536. Throughout the Middle Ages the Princes actually ruled the Principality and used the income from it to, for instance, rebel against their fathers! It’s actually quite straightforward and well established. The only times when this was the case is when there was no Prince in which case it merged with the kings authority. The Council is a relevant - it was either a tool of the Prince or the king depending on whether a Prince was incumbent or not. Nearly half the article is about this. You’ll need to delete all that to be consistent! DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

DeCausa, you are the one breaking WP:BRD not me so I suggest if anyone needs to calm down it's you. I restored the long-standing position pending discussion. I read the article and also one mainline source and didn't find the clear evidence you suggest. I also checked the Coats of Arms and you have chosen one, not the first of those held by the Prince of Wales. There is something to discuss here -----Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t choose the CoA - another editor put it in. What I did was to correctly title it the CoA 1399-1509. Have you actually read the article? As I say, I didn’t choose the CoA but it seems a reasonable choice as this is the CoA that longest represented the Princes while they had feudal authority. You can’t “break” BRD as it’s not policy. If you read it it makes clear that it is very much optional and very much guidance. As you reached 3 reverts before me, “glass houses” and all that....I think this is a good example of where BRD doesn’t work. To include the CoA is consistent with and illustrates the article as now written and as it has been for many years. Your position, if it were to maintain, would require a major re-write. (Of course, it’s wrong anyway). The pic should follow the text - you’re trying to make the tail wag your dog. DeCausa (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I restored the prior position to allow discussion DeCausa and the non-inclusion of one of several coats of arms does not require a major rewrite of the article itself. I'll check Davies and others on the degree of feudal authority actually exercised and also see what other editors think. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the layout could be clearer than at present. But to have one CoA that covers a period of 1216-1284 for an article that covers a period 1216-1536 to the exclusion of a CoA that covers the period 1399-1509 really doesn’t make sense. Further, by having one represents only the ‘native’ Welsh period by having both represents both that and the subsequent and lengthier Plantagenet/Tudor period. There’s a similar problem with the map. DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Snowden, to add the coat of arms of the Prince of Wales of Tudor period I intended as an improvement for the article, to show, how the latest version of the Coa look liked, in the specialized article about the coats of arms of Wales it is there (here) and I didn't know what complications it would cause. All or most articles contain the latest coats of arms, but especially the Principality of Wales is an exception. But what is the reason for that? Why the article contains only outdated symbolism of the period of independent principality? Is it a some "golden age", maybe? The main reason why the newer coat of arms cannot remain is probably your Welsh nationalism, Snowden, it has nothing to do with history, but the article is about history until 1542. The Arms of Gwynned was used until the 1282, the Arms of the Prince of Wales was newer and used for a longer time and it's therefore more significant. The article (here) also claims, the "arms of Gwynned or Llywelyn ap Gruffydd were the arms of the princes of North Wales(!)" so it wasn't a symbol for all of Wales? Why is there as a coa of the principality? Strange. It is desirable that the article be the same as others and followed the same custom as all other articles. I see no reason why Wales should have an exception. Or would it be because of Welch nationalism and no respect for history? Dragovit (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dragovit you can of course speculate about my motives, but it isn't encouraged and you might care to strike those comments, esepcially "outdated symbolism" and "golden age" which are hardly neutral. The issue I think rests on two points (i) The degree of feudal control in practice by the various elder male offspring of the English King and (ii) if they did exercise control which, if any Coat of Arms should be used. If you check above you see that I said a case might be made for the Arms of Edward of Caernarfon. It clearly does stop (and we are all agreed on that) in the 16C and I said I would hunt out Davies and some other sources to loook at the earlier period. Most editors would have accepted leaving your edit open while that was discussed rather than creating a needless confrontation.

Otherwise if you know your history then you know that the idea of a Principality of Wales really only gets formalised with the Treaty of Montgommery at which point Llywelyn was dominant - a position disputed by other Welsh leaders: a fact exploited by Edward in his two invasions. Interesting there are some similarities with the conquest of India there. You can hardly have a golden age which only lasts for a brief period of one Princes short life span. We might all speculate as to what could have been if Llywelyn had entered the Battle of Evesham but that was not to be. I don't think the arms would have been considered a symbol for the territories under his control and they certaily were never a symbol for the territory which is modern Wales. I'm not convinced there is a case of any coat of arms and I'm open to the alternative of all used where feudal control was exercised or none with a reference to the linked article instead.

From my perspective, I’m neutral as to whether there are any arms at all. There’s DUE issue with just having Aberffraw though. Actually, more of an issue is the map, which really isn’t representative of the article - there should be a double map pre-1277 and post-1284 in my view. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing all makes sense and agree on the maps -----Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not against the use the Aberffraw/Gwynedd arms and banner in the box, my intention is more practical than historical. Some wikipedists thought that Aberffraw/Gwynedd arms and banner were valid for all times of the Principality of Wales and added them in articles about the Hundred Years' War, so that's absolutely wrong. This article is responsible for this phenomenon, because it seems so that Aberffraw/Gwynedd have been valid throughout the existence of the state. Therefore, the second coat of arms is required there to show that this was not the case and no further errors could occur. The second coat of arms fits perfectly to the first, it's same design from the same graphic author and also fits with an article about the Kingdom of England, where it's identical coat of arms and coincides with the status that Wales was a client state of England, this seems to me to be the best solution. I do not agree to use the arms of Edward of Caernarfon, which is related to one person (Edward), also older and has only been used for a shortest period of time (a few years) and does not fit with the coat of arms in an article about the Kingdom of England, so it may confuse whether it's the original or non-original/adopted symbol of the principality. Dragovit (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And the option of taking them out completely? -----Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be unusual, this isn't a good idea. It is common to use the last existing symbols, so here we have the coat of arms when Wales was an independent principality and then the coat of arms when belonged to England. Dragovit (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Snowded: you might wish to amend this edit as the arms are not modern and haven’t been used since 1509. DeCausa (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa - I had made that correction elsewhere but not here so that is now done. -----Snowded ^TALK 04:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Y Draig Aur Owain Glyndŵr.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Article update ?

The article has some good work, similar to Kingdom of Gwynedd. But similarly it was full of citations and potential page needed tags, also the article isn't really using the coding necessary to create a good article with correct references. I was looking at the work, before 1284, Aberffraw... Perhaps the article can mention a more direct passage for the Principality of Wales, also it could go on to mention the time period better, maybe making use of the wars Wales were involved with on the Continent, for instance the 100 years war, and the battle of Agincourt during that period. And also the Protestant reformation instigated by Henry VIII and the new rectories in Wales (mentioned in Island of Mona online book). Then maybe mention the Tudor link a bit more, maybe a tree list could be included to show the Welsh connection from the Seneschals and Llywelyn Fawr ? As for the references and further proof reading, maybe this is something I'll do again after working on and completing articles such as the Kingdom of Gwynedd and house of Aberffraw, also I worked on the Nannau estate if someone wants to see more work.Cltjames (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is specifically about the Principality of Wales - a particular institution - rather than a general history of Wales when the Principality was in existence. The topics you mention seem more relevant to Wales in the Late Middle Ages or History of Wales. Also, it’s important to remember that the institution came to an end with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. So anything after those dates should not have much material. DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, so as to the point you made, you've only reinforced my beliefs that there is too much in the article to do with prior to the establishment of a Principality after the Kingdom of Gwynedd. As for topics I mentioned, I only did so to show my editing and writing capability (everything after history section section in Aberffraw, and also most of the Nannau article, and Kingdom of Gwynedd article, take a look at the comparison without citation from a few weeks ago). As for what I mentioned, Henry VIII is the Laws act, and there isn't a mention of him or that period. Frankly the article needs an overhaul, like you said DeCausa to add more relevant information. @DeCausa: Cltjames (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

” much in the article to do with prior to the establishment of a Principality after the Kingdom of Gwynedd”: that is very unclear what you mean. Other than that, my comments stand. It’s going to be WP:UNDUE adding a lot about Welsh history that’s not directly about the insttution of the Principality. There are other articles for that. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a section about Aberffraw, this repeats exactly what is mentioned in the Kingdom of Gwynedd, it takes up almost half the article and is about the years prior to the establishment of a Principality, the biographies section can be slimmed down vastly as it isn't during the Principality. Furthermore there is nothing mentioning Henry VIII and the protestant reformation, a passage about the background to the end of the Principality would be a great addition. And also a mention of the wars and Wales' position in the hundred years war would be excellent. The parts about rebellion are good, and government administration and law is good, yet I can think of a few books with information from this time period available on google books which are not apparent (yet they should be). Also the article could be expanded with information showing a connection between the house of Tudor and the Princes of Wales, maybe a family tree. Otherwise, the article needs to amend it's references and book section, a {{harv / {{sfn style citations would bring the article up to par, it seems neglected over the years, that's why I wouldn't suggest an upgrade otherwise. Please think wisely about your choices, and don't be overtly negative with criticisms, we need to work together to make this article up to date and inclusive with all the information necessary to make it a good article. Cltjames (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

So, if you think that the Principality didn’t exist prior to the conquest, you’ll be arguing against consensus. This article originally was only about the Principality pre-Conquest (I added the post-conquest text). The role of the Welsh in the Hundred Years War is out of scope and I oppose that, as is the reformation in Wales. There are other articles where that is better suited. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the counter argument... I wouldn't stress a need in update if there wasn't anything missing. I'll bring back the key facts, consensus or no consensus, this isn't a complete article and it doesn't have a set date of completion. So, I'm adding a perspective about missing contexts, and too much work to do with prior to the Principality, repetition is a thing, and finding the same work in different articles (Kingdom of Gwynedd) isn't necessary. Again, a starting point, {{harv & {{sfn... Could I do an overhaul of the references, and then draft some potential inclusions for the Principality before you've made your mind up, because 1 person isn't a consensus, furthermore common sense dictates there's something missing about the years 1284-1542. Again, there is too much before 1284 and not enough after, there's missing facts I've found and would like to add about the collapse of the Principality, of the whole article there is 3 lines to do with the end of the era, and it is written poorly by including an encyclopedia quote, a definite weak point. There could be a section talking about life in the Principality explaining about the use of castles (Caernarfon, Harlech, Beaumaris, Conwy, Pembroke? Cardiff? Powys? Rhuddlan? etc.), details about society prior to the War of Roses, and also the new use of land gentry and titles still used today (Welsh peers and baronets, earls and barons). So how about an update for the references and take it from there ?Cltjames (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

What I said isn’t the opinion of “1 person”. Look at the talk page and the archives as well as WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Make sure you are aware of WP:ONUS and also, since you are making a change to the consensus version, you need to be aware of WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll try that again, can I upgrade the old fashioned references, and then draft a new section or two and suggest removal of work, that covers consensuses, and the other two WP pages you suggested is overtly phrased common sense, that is if you understand public domain articles. Ok so, {{harv and {{sfn upgrade ok ?Cltjames (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

I’m sorry havng problems understanding you. “ and suggest removal of work, that covers consensuses, and the other two WP pages you suggested is overtly phrased common sense, that is if you understand public domain articles.” doesn’t make any sense in English. Can you re-phrase it. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That is easy, shame your making such a fuss over nothing. I created a consensus for the correct reasons, no need to patronize me. Now I've inquired, it has given me more of an opportunity to think about the article. I would definitely cull the article, currently the title could be Principality of Wales - two centuries prior, and a century during. Besides, why are you the only one responding to my comments !? Any objections about amending the references with short foot notes (sfn, harv - instead of duplicate entries), and then I would like to draft a section or two, 1. castle building, 2. church reformation, maybe 3. dissolution of the monasteries 4. Wars - Agincourt, War of the roses (there's a mention, but not enough) 5. titled lands e.g. Earls and Barons. There's obviously a lot neglected, please stop changing the agenda. Cltjames (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

Your posts are quite difficult to follow and understand because of the way you express yourself. To the extent that you are undertaking WP:GNOMING (referencing etc) that’s fine. But I suspect that adding extraneous material on issues not directly related to this article (e.g the Welsh in the Hundred Years War) will be reverted. As will any POV that the principality didn’t exist until the 1280s. But subject to that it’s up to you how you wish to attempt to edit the article so long as you follow WP:BRD and seek consensus on the talk page if you are reverted. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OK fine, I tried to add a joke that's all. Basically there is a gap in the market here, I have Welsh heritage, I speak Welsh and grew up in Wales learning about the history of the country. I will amend the references, they are outdated. Then I will try to write some paragraphs about the Principality and the missing information in the article. I have given an idea as to what should have been included by now, and we will work as a team to try and improve this article. Cltjames (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

Today I amended the references, and I've added a castles and town section incorporating a sentence left by itself without a reference. @DeCausa: tell me what you think, please don't just delete, we can negotiate the article's work. Cltjames (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don’t object to what you have done on references but per WP:CITEVAR it’s unnececcessary. I’ve taken out your section on Towns and Castles, however. It’s far too broad to be relevant to an article on the Principality, both in terms of period and geographcally. For example, there’s a paragraph on Powis Castle whch is not even in the Principality. If you wanted to add a section about Aberffraw castle building to the pre-1280 section - that would make sense. And a section about the Edwardian “Ring of Stone” in the post-1280 section makes sense. But a general section on castle building in Wales is out of scope. I would suggest that you could transplant your text to Wales in the High Middle Ages quite easily and appropriately. You do realise that most of Wales wasn’t actually in the Principality? DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, bizarre. I looked at Wales in the high middle ages, and it seems my passage on Welsh castles and towns between 1216-1542 won't fit into a period in the 11th and 12th centuries. Not to worry.... My point was something is missing in this article, and I'll stick to my point. This article needs dozens of citations and page needed tags for book references. The article has potential for an overhaul. I would like to leave it at this for now.... BTW I added an Aberffraw palace section in the House of Aberffraw article, but again there's common sense about not including history from 9-13th centuries in an article to do with 13-16th centuries!!? As for the ring of stone, and the castle building, I got the ball rolling with that passage, why don't you take a longer look at it again (==Castles and towns===, I was in the process of adding more about Conwy)? In terms of finding information for Wikipedia, it's not so easy, I was using referenced work, which is something this article lacks (hugely). As for ring of stone, I defined the era with work on Raglan and the Herbert family, and found crucial information from DNB about the new ruling families. Please look over my work again, and give it a draft if you have a chance, sheer deletion is unnecessary now because the work was related, your too fixated on Aberffraw for the principality, there needs to be am overhaul sorry.... Cltjames (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be edited down to material that’s about the Principality - you’ve thrown in too much extraneous material. You can’t expect other editors to do that for you. Can you answer my specific question. Do you realise the much of Wales post the 1280s was outside the Princpality? You’ve given the impression from the text you inserted that you’re under the misapprehension that the Principalty of Wales covers the whole country. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You ask about what I realize and don't; I'm learning on the job here, but being Welsh I have an extensive knowledge of the background but not the minor details. So, the issue with this topic is material, there is a huge lack of it. So, sometimes you have to think outside the box and grasp at straws with what you have. I inserted my section into Wales in the Late Middle Ages. I feel the information is apparent, only the thing with this type of situation is you have to look at it from a neutral perspective, so basically, my complaint has been about how any old Joe Blogs will look at the article and ask where the relevant information is and why there is so much about the past. As to the question again, I guess I can say yes, I know there's difference between Cymru and Welsh, and the gog's and the English influence in the south. As for the principality, I've learnt about it's borders, and I understand how a country and how counties evolved, the maps in the article explain things better.... I still think it needs an overhaul, minus Aberffraw biographies section, it seems repetitive between all this interlinking articles and the same stories. But seriously, don't you see a lack of information regarding the actual period of the Principality ??? Cltjames (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, the way you express yourself makes it virtually impossible for me to understand what you are trying to say. I’ll just be very blunt with you. The Principality of Wales between the 1280s and its effective abolition in the 1540s only included Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire, Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire. The rest was in the March of Wales. So anything outside of those 4 counties for the period between the 1280s and the 1540s is not going to be within scope for this article. Do you acknowledge that? DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand yes, this is something I wrote about today having read some work in wiki source encyclopedia. For the umpteenth time, the article needs an update, and I'm not talking about references. Why don't YOU tell me what needs to be added instead of me repeating myself (like a classroom, I'm expecting a good answer, sorry for patronising, you've been avoiding the issue!). Cltjames (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying anything needs to be added. You are - but not coherently or with any knowledge. I don’t think this is going anywhere and it’s time to end this. DeCausa (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a mention about Beaumaris Castle, and what about Llys Rhosyr, Llanfaes, Criccieth Castle,... That's a starting point. I feel your avoiding the topic too much, I'm going to use some book sources to try something about Edwardian castles ring of stone like you mentioned, and maybe you can try cooperate with me, sources, or ideas please.Cltjames (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Welsh castles is currently a re-direct to Castles in Great Britain and Ireland (although there s also List of castles in Wales. This seems to be where your interest really lies. Why don’t you look at developing the re-direct into a full article rather than shoe-horning your interest in Welsh castles into other articles. DeCausa (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Example of new paragraphs

Here is a draft and starting block for section which could be added citing work that hasn't been mentioned, the castles and church reformation. This is just scrap work to get started, I believe I've found books reinforcing the period of the Principality which only mentions castles and churches as there isn't much information to do with the Principality available. Books to reference : The History of the Principality of Wales, part 3 at Google Books / A History of the Island of Mona, Or Anglesey at Google Books / The Gwyneddion for 1832 at Google Books / An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Anglesey, Volume 2 at Google Books There's some reading material to catch up on, more research needs to be done... No rush !

Castles and churches====

The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 began what was effectively an end to Welsh rule since Roman times, the Principality of Wales would be divided into six shires, three of which represented the Kingdom of Gwynedd, Llywelyn the Great and his family would be what was the final direct descendant of the House of Cunedda signifying almost a millennium of rule of the British, Welsh and Gwynedd people. With the statute came a new era of castle building on an unpresedented scale, with 600 castles today, Beaumaris Castle, Caernarfon Castle, and Harlech Castle "It was built by the English King Edward I following his conquest of Wales, the main work being constructed between 1283 and 1289 with additions of c1295 and 1323-4; the overall cost is recorded as around £9,500 (in the region of £9.5 million in current terms). Harlech belongs to a series of Royal castles designed by Edward's chief military engineer, the Savoyard Master James of St. George, which rank amongst the most highly sophisticated and innovative examples of military engineering in contemporary Europe. Master James was himself created its first constable in 1290, and received a salary of 100 marks a year." The vast expenses and expertise granted to built such monumental projects made these castles fortress' for centuries. It was Owain Glyndwr who in 1404 made Harlech his capital for the following five years, which would have given rise to Owain Glyndŵr's Parliament House, Machynlleth and the first ever Welsh senate.

With the expansion of the Kingdom of England with full backing from the Duchy of Normandy on the continent, for centuries the Normans advanced in what was once the Kingdom of Gwynedd, and neighbouring kingdoms. Gwynedd was the last Kingdom to fall, it was through intermarriage with the English Crown that Gwynedd succesffuly negoiated leases and created the Prince of Wales title, this newly created title was a dedicated to the Principality of Wales which would eventually expand it's borders to include all of Wales, this was first adopted by King Edward II of England, Edward wasn't created a Prince in Wales, but in Lincoln in parliament in the newly elected state. The Duchy of Normandy, European style castles were in abundance, but the Welsh in their own Principality constructed 'Llysoedd' which would act as courts to rule from, Llys Rhosyr is a 13th century example which was constructed after being moved to make way for Beaumaris Castle on Anglesey.

Reconstruction of Llys Llewelyn at St Fagan's

With a new phase which had begun during the Edwardian conquest, it was the reformation of the Church which took place during the years of the Principality of Wales. The removal of courts (Welsh: Llysoedd) would signify the closure of the Kingdoms. Many churchs in the Principality were actually enlarged and remodelled instead of building new sites, for example on Anglesey St Beuno's Church, Aberffraw had a new chancel and nave built, but it was St Mary's and St Nicholas's Church, Beaumaris which was newly built in coordination with the castle in Beaumaris. And another example put into a museum from that era St Teilo's Church, Llandeilo Tal-y-bont now in St Fagans National Museum of History.

References

Cltjames (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s so much wrong with it it’s hard to now where to start:

• Firstly, it repeats chronology that’s already in the article at several points.
• Secondly, it mixes chronology within it - it starts with post-conquest castles and ends with the pre-conquest Llysoedd.
• Thirdly, it needs to be integrated into the existing chronology of the article which is split between the pre and post conquest principality.
• Fourthly, it seems to be a collection of random facts with no chronological or thematic progression, and no rationale of why those facts have been selected.
• Fifthly, at multiple points it makes statement which are either nonsense or just plain incorrect e.g. “The Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284 began what was effectively an end to Welsh rule since Roman times” - the Conquest did that. Why does your text have quotation marks without saying who’s quoted? “With a new phase which had begun during the Edwardian conquest, it was the reformation of the Church which took place during the years of the Principality of Wales.” apart from the fact that it’s appallingly written, the Edwardian conquest took place 250 years before the Reformation. what’s the link? “The removal of courts (Welsh: Llysoedd) would signify the closure of the Kingdoms.” What’s that supposed to mean? “With the expansion of the Kingdom of England with full backing from the Duchy of Normandy on the continent” TheKingdom of England didn’t expand into Wales until the 16th century. That’s the point of the Laws in Wales Acts. And “full backing” of Normandy is a pretty silly statement. It was a possession of the king which was lost by the time of the conquest. “Gwynedd was the last Kingdom to fall, it was through intermarriage with the English Crown that Gwynedd successfully negoiated leases and created the Prince of Wales title, this newly created title was a dedicated to the Principality of Wales which would eventually expand it's borders to include all of Wales, this was first adopted by King Edward II of England, Edward wasn't created a Prince in Wales, but in Lincoln in parliament in the newly elected state.” apart from the run-on sentence being a mess, intermarriage is irrelevant, the chronology is confused, what “leases”??, and worst of all, the Principality never expanded to include all of Wales. I think a lot of your confusion about this article seems to stem from this misunderstanding.

In summary: this is not an improvement to the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of passages

This is why I'm starting a draft. It's almost impossible to find the relevant information which is correctly sourced and referenced without the books available. What I'm doing is a type of anthology, like a mini history section going through the timeline beginning 1284 until 1542, by highlighting the key facts. We need to grasp the key facts better - Edwardian castles, St. George, church reformation ( best examples), and then the phase of creating counties from towns, I have shown some books, I will continue to read and try and create a perfectly referenced section with the criteria you have highlighted. Remember how difficult it is to write a paragraph with the correct references included ... No offence, this article is poorly referenced with no inline citations. I will continue to research to find the right citations to include Edwardian castles and the churches reformation and will attempt a rewrite and see what you think. As for the passage, there was a treaty for Llywelyn to enjoy the Prince of Wales title on lease until he died, and that is why Dafydd III rebellion failed, because the deal was already done, as for quotation marks - it's a direct extract about Harlech castle from a website, otherwise like I said, it's very difficult to provide work with inline citations, that is why I've added a {{tag, please respect the citation reference and improve and don't vandalize by deleting it without correct research done on the topic from now on. Cltjames (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Amending article

I'm currently doing some reading these days, and am looking at the article with ways to amend missing facts. For now, under the infoxbox section, under the 'historical era ' the Welsh revolt of Glyndwr seems to be missing... Consensus to include Glyndŵr Rising ?? 1400-1412 there abouts? Cltjames (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, yesterday there was a pointless argument, now in the 'history' section of the talk page. But I achieved a minor goal of highlighting the needs for citations {{fact. Otherwise, I didn't understand 'event6' was last entry in the 'historical era', my question about consensus would be to remove something for Glyndwr Rising, maybe treaty of Worcester, as it doesn't actually have an article page. And this reinforces my beliefs there is too much irrelevant to the past history of the actual Principality, and how a mention on the Penal laws, and Laws passed by Henry V making Wales into an apartheid are more important than repeating stuff from other article, primarily Kingdom of Gwynedd Princes. Consensus please, I'd like to read some open suggestions and have a civilized chat for once ! Cltjames (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem which I've identified can also be shown in the imagery used in this article, for instance the Principality of Wales section Government, administration and law shows images and quotes texts from Laws of Hywel Dda, Peniarth 28 manuscript which was written about laws from the 10th century explaining life in the Kingdoms of Wales, and shows images from the 12/13 century, this misses the majority of the period of the Principality centuries. I have found the Principality of Wales at Google Books offers a more up to date version of the accounts for this time period. I wish to find some information to put forward to consensus to remove the citation issue in regard to making this article more directly involved in the time period, and maybe moving some imagery and facts to another article, mainly Kingdom of Gwynedd. Cltjames (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)