Talk:Prince of Wales

Prince of Wales elect

After about the manor Pentrehobyn. I am intrigued as to knowing if anyone can explain what is meant on their website about Hywel ap Edwin, who doesn't seem to have a Wikiepdia article. But more specifically, what they wrote about in explaining he was "elected Prince of Wales in 1096". This article doesn't mention anything about Hywel or the process of being elected Prince of Wales. Despite the website being a potential unreliable source, does anyone have any knowledge about Hywel Prince of Wales? Cltjames (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This Hywel ab Edwin died in 1044, 52 years before the supposed "election". The other Hywel ab Edwin, the son of Edwin of Tegeingl is an equally unlikely Prince oF Wales. To be ignored - just someone trying to rent out their property for events. There's very clear reliable sourcing that Owain Gwynedd is the first to use the title. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

@DeCausa tell me what you think I should improve, rather than passively-aggressively reverting my edits? The current account does not adequately explain why the title came into existence or who used it in the 1200s, and incorrectly says other things (like Owain Lawgoch being claiming to be ‘Prince of Wales’). Yes, I cite a journal from 1900. But it is a translation of a primary source. Much of the primary material to do with medieval Britain was translated in the 1800s and hasn’t been updated since for lack of need. Tipcake (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything to be salvaged from your changes. I'll start with Owain Lawgoch. Firstly, in Wikipedia we avoid primary sources, or at least it's not permitted to extrapolate from them which is exactly what you've done. See WP:PRIMARY. You need a secondary source to support your interpretation of it. Just to make this really clear: Lawgoch's declaration would need to have said, literally: "I will not employ the title 'Prince of Wales', or any title for that matter" for you to use it in the way you have in Wikipedia. And even then it would have to be made clear that he said that only once and could not exclude the possibility that he made other contradictory statements. Of course, he didn't say that at all but I give that as an illustration of how restricted we are in how we are allowed to use primary sources. As a general rule, avoid them especially when starting out in WP. Secondly, your theory on Lawgoch is not supported by Davies, who explicitly says It was as 'prince of Wales', not of Gwynedd or Powys or Deheubarth, that both Owain Lawgoch and Owain Glyn Dŵr put forward their claims.[1] Turning to your other edits, examples of other problems:

1. Madog should stay as a footnote. Making him more prominent based on one use of the title in one document isn't justified by WP:BALASP
2. There's too much on other titles used. This isn't Titles of Welsh rulers. Llywelyn ab Iorwerth didn't use the title and is not relevant here. Rhys's other titles are not relevant etc Equally, this article isn't about hegemonic Welsh rulers.
3. There's some WP:HIJACK/R going on, eg you add points about Owen Gwynedd not explicitly in the already cited source.

Generally, you need to remember that this is an encyclopedia entry not a essay with the room to explore tangential or adjacent topics - links to other articles take the load on that. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Concision is the objective.

Lastly, throwing around insults such as "passively-aggressively reverting" is unwise (not to mention prohibited per WP:PA) as a relatively inexperienced WP editor. Apart from the fact that edit and reversion is the normal flow of editing in WP, you may find that your opinion is not as solidly backed by WP policy as you may think it is. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa I advised @Tipcake: to explore options based on his research in Carr's book. I admit, I don't have the book, but there's a discrepency between Davies and Carr. I feel we should talk more on the matter because there obviously isn't a final answer here yet, but a debate. Can Tipcake please expand on his research to do with Lawgoch's claim to the title of king not prince..? Cltjames (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Davies is using "as 'prince of Wales'" in quotes as a metaphor here, since Owain Lawgoch did not use the title, and is using it to explain that he was an alternate figure seeking to ruler Wales as foil to the (English) prince of Wales and the (English) principality. Cf., pp. 236, 243, 247, 311, 315, 324, 329, 335, 336, 348, where it used without quotes to refer to the native princes who had this status. This is also why Carr never refers to Owain as 'prince of Wales' in his book on the man. Even the poems to Owain never call him 'tywysog' though he is indeed called 'Cymru Frenin', the French equivalent of which he attributes to his ancestors. You can see the poem online in Gwaith Gruffudd ap Maredudd vol. III, p. 70, l. 32.

For this reason I don't understand why Madog would be irrelevant (who did actually use the title) but Owain is claimed to have done so, when he didn't. If anything, it should be the other way around, with Madog ap Llywelyn and Owain Glyndŵr in the body, but Owain Lawgoch in a footnote.

Regards the other titles; well, it is a simplification of the matter to just list the uses of it off without considering their contexts. Otherwise the article is implicitly projecting the status of Prince William or Llywelyn ap Gruffudd onto Owain Gwynedd or the Lord Rhys, without explaining what the use of these titles meant at the time they were employed. To be balanced, it should explain the milieu in which these titles were employed, else the reader might get the idea that Owain Gwynedd ruled over all the other Welsh when he really just ruled Gwynedd and even acted as joint equal partners with the Lord Rhys (see Stephenson, D. (2005). The supremacy in (southern) Powys of Owain Fychan ap Madog:. Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 49. Vol 49, pp. 45-55). What have I added about Owain Gwynedd? Do you mean my saying 'in his dealings with Louis VII'? He used the title in a letter to Louis, not publicly, I just made that explicit. Tipcake (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

As a "metaphor"? That's utterly baseless. It's in quotes because Davies is discussing the title itself, fairly obviously. It's called Use–mention distinction and is a pretty basic point of grammar. You forget the sentence with the title in quotes also refers to Glyndŵr as well as Lawgoch...whose coronation in 1404 as prince of Wales certainly wasn't "metaphorical". By the way, I wouldn't have a problem in putting Lawgoch into the footnote too. Really, only Glyndŵr is notable post-conquest for the purposes of this article. As far as your other points are concerned, all the context necessary to understand the use of the title is already there. Any further context can be obtained by clicking through to the articles about the holders etc That's the whole point of Wikipedia. We don't have to have it all re-stated. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

‘Metaphorical’ isn’t the best choice of word, naturally, with Glyndŵr. Apologies for my lack of precision! But Davies is projecting the title onto Owain Lawgoch (it’s not his surname, it’s a nickname) because in all likelihood he would have called himself ‘king’ or ‘prince’ of Wales had he landed there. But the fact of the matter is he didn’t, and he never used the title himself, and it was never attributed to him in primary sources, regardless of what this single sentence says, which is not backed up by the only book on the man… Tipcake (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, none of that matters. It's WP:OR. We have WP:RS saying Lawgoch claimed to be PoW - not just Davies (twice: 1987/2000 and 2009) but also historians like Geraint H. Jenkins[2] and others[3][4][5]. Maybe they're wrong. But it's not for us to determine that. Do you have WP:RS citations we can look at that explicitly say he didn't claim the title? That's the only input that matters. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I would even go as far to mention Bleddyn ap Cynfyn as his position as the first so called prince who inherited Wales as a modern country from his brother Gruffudd ap Llywelyn after his death in 1063. There is a book written about Bleddyn as the first supposed ruler of Wales as a prince, although indirect, it is trivial and would fit into the article. Cltjames (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sean Davies doesn't actually make that claim for Bleddyn in his book, and in fact here he repeats that Owain Gwynedd was the first known to use the title. His argument is that Bleddyn can be described as the first prince of Wales because of his power not his title. That is metaphorical. DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)