Talk:House of Aberffraw

Agnatic succession?
Is it really useful to describe Welsh laws of Succession as Agnatic? Welsh law accepts descent through the female line and even children considered illegitimate by other legal systems. Under the laws of Hywel Dda a women could not claim the throne but her male descendents could (her claim transferring to her sons). Welsh law is also not really concerned with simply a claimant being of the patrilinear line. Under Welsh laws any male descendent of Rhodri Mawr (whether legitimate or illegitimate) has claim to membership of the line (and thus dynasty).Most historians accept that the Welsh princes and the legal system took seriously the belief that their daughters' lines and their illegitimate offspring remained royal and legitimate. This had precedent during the period of Welsh Independence. In 1400 Owain Glyndwr was accepted by the Welsh Princes even though his descent from Rhodri Mawr was based on the female line and earlier still in 1055 Gruffudd ap Llywelyn claimed through his mother). Perhaps we should change mentions of agnatic descent to make clear that Welsh succession law did not work like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A very late comment to add, so apologies for not doing so before now - whatever the laws of Wales / Hywel Dda or anyone else, the fact is that in practise all manner of protocols were followed. As mentioned in another comment below, it was force of arms and/or personality that won succession as much as anything else. The English kings tried to impose some order to succession in Gwynedd - particularly after marriage of Llywelyn the Last to the daughter of the King, but it didn't go down well. Fferllys (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed all that as unsourced - before I saw your comment above. Such legal claims really need reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * More to go if we are strict. Claims such as "de jure Prince of Gwynedd" seem OR to me, in fact the whole article smacks of OR and an attempt to make a claim in respect of current living persons -- Snowded  TALK  07:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it falls under WP:BLP which doesnt' just apply to negative claims. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to delete all unreferenced material - and I include in that material by "inference". What do you think -- Snowded  TALK  07:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, I'm a bit concerned about a lot of this. A web search on "Idwal Foel ap Anarawd" Aberffraw (seeIdwal Foel ap Anarawd) turns up a lot of web hits, no GBooks or GScholar hits, and one of the hits is - I can't recall the exact content of discussions about Myron Evans I've seen, but they aren't reassuring. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know this whole area has come up before on one of the notice boards, so will see if I can find that. Will also wait 24 hours before taking any action to allow other editors to engage -- Snowded  TALK  07:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a section which states that there are other sections of the House (other than the Anwyl family) - and there are a few due to Welsh Laws of family lines. I was in the process of sourcing the info of my contribution on these other Cadet lines before it was deleted - using Melville Richards, The laws of Hywel Dda (The Book of Blegywryd), (Liverpool University Press) (1954).The problem with this is that there are probably 10 Welsh families which could claim to be part of the House and it would be too difficult to list/detail all of them with sources - thus the short explanatory note on Welsh laws (see the article on Welsh Law).Many historians have noted that it is probable that the house of Aberffraw still exists but the problem is that there are so many branches which can claim seniority under Welsh law that it is unfair to list simply one branch of the house (the Anwyl). By getting rid of this genealogy of the Anwyl and simply putting down the evidence that Welsh Law suggests that the House continues in multiple lines is probably the best solution. It eliminates all that un-sourced material and I get my call to clearly link the current status of the House to Welsh Law which is that multiple families have claim to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A search on "Idwal Foel" and Aberffraw does bring up useful stuff on GBooks, so I'm not sure why my earlier search on the longer form of his name didn't work. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a bunch of 'de jure' stuff at Anwyl of Tywyn Family which is related to this article as well - it's been discussed quite a bit there. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And see that article's creation: when the lead read "are the de jure Princes of Gwynedd and the legal representatives byWelsh law of the House of Aberffraw and Cunedda.". Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the present purpose of this article seems to be simply to argue the case for the Anwyl of Tywyn. Since the family's claims are not recognised to be the current heads of the Aberffraw by neither English law (since the 1285 abolition of Welsh titles) or Welsh Law (which has a very complicated conception of who is and who is not part of the House of Aberffraw) I think a more scaled down article is needed which reflects that the Anwyl are just one of many families which are part of the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Anwyn of Tywyn can be added to the sentence ... "Succeeding surviving branches emerged and included the Wynn family of Gwydir." But all other references to claim of headship of the family/claims as princes (for the Anwyl branch) I agree should be removed pending citations. It is acceptable to list that the only known surviving decendents of the House of Aberffraw (as per Burkes Peerage) is the Anwyl of Tywyn family. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We're getting somewhere, good. Why 'emerged'? And does Burke's explicitly say 'only known'? Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Burke's peerage is a useful source but its assertion that the Anwyl are the "only known" surviving descendents of the House of Aberffraw is still wrong (under English succession law such an assertion might be correct – but it is NOT under Welsh law). It would be better to leave it open and not endorse any family (the Anwyl included) until someone does more work on this (research on other sections of the House through other lines - via the Aberystwyth records and the records of the Welsh Princes at Bodleian library in Oxford). The article should simply end with Owain Lawgoch and other Welsh princes of the house who died before 1378 but state that multiple lines still exist to this day (without naming them until we have more detailed information and evidence on the various Welsh families - the Anwyl as well - which claim descent and membership of the House). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Where, precisely, is the evidence for a current head of this house, which seems in fact to be extinct?
What reliable sources says that Evan Vaughan Anwyl is head of this house? A search of Burke's on line for Aberffraw yields nothing. I have also found a claim here that the current head is someone else. And this says "when Dafydd was hanged, drawn and quartered at Shrewsbury the following year, thus extinguishing the ancient royal house of Aberffraw[historical details after Hanes Cymru by John Davies]." This looks like it is all original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) And we have Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet as another claimant. Not that that article is very good, it's main source is some Russian encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The various claims link to complex back throws as there is no direct line from Dafydd or his brother. However as currently outlined its original research and there is no basis to any claim in respect of the house itself.  All very iffy -- Snowded  TALK  12:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All these claims by various families go back to other descendents of Owain Gwynedd and his sister Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd or through other descendents of either Anarawd ap Rhodri or his nephew Hwyel Dda. No direct line from Llewellyn the Great (Owain Gwynedd's grandson) survived (either in the male or female line) after the death of Owain Lawgoch. More evidence for why the article should simply state that multiple families have claim to membership to the House - rather than making the whole article an articulation of one family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dougweller  please see the new website as of 2022 houseofaberffraw.org and please get involved with this article talk dilemma about my cited 'OR' work. An improvement but couldn't find new sources from late 19th and early 20th centuries. I am asking contributors if they have any sources to add instead of the Welsh older WP:RS source issue. Also becsuse this new Aberffraw website is self-published, but it has a big claim which could one day hold a validity. Cltjames (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "No direct line from Llewellyn the Great (Owain Gwynedd's grandson) survived (either in the male or female line) after the death of Owain Lawgoch".

The Queen of England descends in the direct line (female) from Llewellyn the Great so this is clearly wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.63.89 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I welcome all of this discussion. The fact is that there can be no such thing as a 'head of' the House of Aberffraw. The dynasty's succession is now, in effect subsumed into the United Kingdom - the Princes of Wales since the time of Edward I have carried the royal arms of Gwynnedd, and due to marriage by descendants of the dynasty, the current Prince of Wales and his predecessors since medieval times have all been descendants of Llywelyn the Great/ab Iorwerth. The other difficulty is that the line of succession of Welsh princes did not follow the custom of today - it was more a case of 'the strongest rules'. That is why the descendants of Owain Gwynedd's eldest son Hywel did not rule Gwynedd, but instead it was the descendants of his younger brother Iorwerth who became Princes of Gwynedd. It is noteworthy that being born out of marriage was no bar to succession to a son becoming his father's heir - it was all based on the son's suitability to rule, and that most often meant the one who could impose his will by military force. Succession also often followed an agnatic flow, rather as the House of Saud does today; and like the current situation with the house of Saud, the agnatic tendency was often broken. Brothers often competed with and fought their siblings to inherit their fathers patrimony - Deheubarth's history following the death of The Lord Rhys ap Gruffudd is one example. If one sought to find a 'Head of' the house of Aberffraw, following a principle of succession via the male line, and wished to pick out the eldest son of the ultimate eldest son etc, then one would need to go back to Hywel ab Owain Gwynedd. One would find that a family called Michael, one of whom (with the name 'Michael de Sybylltir') was granted the undifferenced arms of Owain Gwynedd by then Garter King of Arms, Peter Wynn-Jones at the College of Arms, c.1980s/90s...exact date and College reference unknown, but easily discoverable from the College itself. The idea of the Anwyl family being the head of the house of Aberffraw is historically, genealogically and otherwise impossible to conclude - the Wikipedia page itself shows the Wynn's being descended from an older son, and many other lines probably exist but unknown to us due to the paucity of existing records. Peter Bartrum's extensive genealogies illustrate the differing versions of pedigrees recorded by the herald and other bards and records. It is a romantic idea to find a head of this House of Aberffraw, but no claim would be likely to stand up to scrutiny if brought before the High Court of Chivalry at The College of Arms. Fferllys (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Aberffraw. 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/20040312013805/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/welshkings.wps.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/welshkings.wps.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

House of Aberffraw article update
I amended a citation tag about an empty history section, and also found plenty of references to finish the article. I've worked solo and added books and online sources. I think I've covered all the missing components to make a great article. However maybe restructuring the paragraphs could help, and adding Davies 1994 page numbers would compete the citations. However someone is changing the introduction without reference, don't expect me not to amend an error if it arises, I added another book reference and will try and cooperate new additions, but remember 'refs' if you are reading this. Cltjames (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Script warning message
A message appears in the article edit section :

Script warning: One or more templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden

Could someone please help with this script warning as I am unable to discover the problem for now ... ? Cltjames (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think I solved it, we needed to remove website= function in the citebook= templates, as the function is not recognized. Website= is for citeweb= template. For the maintenance issues, not sure how to do it. Academia45 (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

de Blackwell/Blackwelyn family
Leofric de Blackwell/Blackwelyn and Aelfgar son of Leofric Edith daughter of Aelfgar became queen consort of Gwynedd and lady of the Mercians married Into the Kingdom of Gwynedd Edith had two daughters Nest and Guenta.Then when the family had to flee in 1066 After the Battle of Hastings, Morcar and his brother arrived at London, sent their sister Ealdgyth-Edith, king Harold's widow, to Chester, and urged the citizens to raise one or the other of them to the throne. Her daughters Nest and Guenta lived. Chester was one of the last cities in England to fall to the Normans and William of Normandy and was the capital of the former kingdom Gwynedd,Chester is thought to once have been in North-east Wales early 10th century and 11TH Century become part of Gwynedd.

one of her daughter's Guenta who married Fleance son of Banquo. A few words concerning the origin of the House of Stuart might be apropos: Fleance, son of Banquo mentioned in "Macbeth," fled to England after the murder of his father, and there married Guenta, a daughter of Griffith, Prince of Wales, whose wife was Eadgyth aka Edith (afterwards the wife of Harold II., King of England, "The last of the Saxons"), a daughter of Aelfgar, Earl of Mercia and son of Leofric de Blackwell/Blackwelyn and the celebrated Lady Godiva. Alan, son of Fleance (or Flaald, as he was also called), was the father of Walter Fitz-Alan, who became Lord High Steward of Scotland, from which dignity he took his family name of Steward (or Stewart). His descendant, Alexander Stewart, married the Princess Marjory Bruce, daughter of Robert I., King of Scotland, and their son succeeded his maternal grandfather as Robert II., of Scotland. From him came all the succeeding Kings of Scotland and of England.The FitzAlan family shared a common patrilineal ancestry with the House of Stuart. (the House of Aberffraw) Edith married Gruffydd ap Llywelyn who was a member of the (Aberffraw dynasty Edith and Gruffydd had two daughters Nest and Gunnta. 2607:FB91:1018:804B:884A:4203:74A7:C727 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @2607:FB91:1018:804B:884A:4203:74A7:C727 Ok, very interesting. But the family Blackwell never had claims of descent from Aberffraw, as in Anwyl and Wynn both had written sources of their alliances with the Aberffraw dynasty and their direct male line descent. The Stuarts had an indirect descent from the Kingdom of Gwynedd, but again no real claim was made from what I understand. Also the text is good, but where is it from, as in book name, date etc? Besides, again, Aberffraw was male line descendants only. Cltjames (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Too many seats ?
Perhaps the seat section has gotten out of control, besides a lot if these castles were built by Normans and occupied by the Welsh. Maybe we could consider changing the seat to be a castle built by the house of Aberffraw as opposed to occupied? Cltjames (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

An entire article of OR?
The entire concept of a "house of Aberffraw" seems to be original research. Can anyone produce any suitable scholarly articles that use the concept? If not, this article needs deletion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Talaeth Aberffraw is a well-known Welsh dynasty that has been observed and covered by many scholars. Here is a basic entry from a royal forum. Then I will produce some book entries to reinforce this point made centuries ago. I think the key one to explore is the Rhodri Mawr (c. 873) founding of Aberffraw palace which became the capital of the Kingdom of Gwynedd for centuries, this is obvious in the text,
 * The Royal Forums
 * This is an internet chat forum. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - Rhodri Mawr son Anarawd ap Rhodri is given the House of Aberffraw, one of the 3 'talaith Tywysog' in Wales, along with House of Dinefwr and House of Mathrafal.
 * This dates from 1959, that is over 60 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - Llwyd gives a good explanation of the Welsh Talaeth (3 Royal houses descending from Rhdori Mawr, south, mid and north Wales, thus founding of the dynasties c. 870s), among many scholars available online. Please find a more modern book if you can WP:RS issue, 1832?
 * This dates from 1832, that is over 180 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 3 Talaith
 * This dates from 1871, that is over 150 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Welsh people, search Aberffraw
 * This dates from 1900, that is over 120 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This dates from 1911, that is over 100 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This dates from 1911, that is over 100 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sir John Prise Knight
 * This dates from the 16th century! KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Welsh Royal family tree Reddit link clearly showing a family tree involving the House of Aberffraw starting with Rhodri Mawr as specified in the article.
 * This is a Reddit post! KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * aberffraw.wales a local Anglesey website confirming the House of Aberffraw.
 * This is a blog. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * sarahwoodbury.com recognised author Sarah Woodbury blogging about Aberffraw.
 * This is a blog, by an author of fiction. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * (volume I:- ) King, Prince of Aberffraw, John Edward Lloyd.
 * This dates from 1911, that is over 100 years old. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

There is the self-published article of HouseOfAberffraw.org this was recently created based on fact and research conducted in Wales but could be in question because of Verifiability. However, the concept of a Royal house is proven and just needs to be researched to be found. I've included a few books to start with in this article which name Aberffraw as a royal house representing the Kingdom of Gwynedd, my inclusion again is an elboration. I did not start this article, nor will I finish this article. Please refer to the prior inclusions before my work began in April 2021. I just used some of the sources I named here as lists of references I correctly included.
 * , the book was re-released in 2004 and hold validity. John Edward Lloyd 1911, 2004. So surely add some information from this book regarding Aberffraw?[[User:Cltjames|Cltjames] (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - I repeat, you don't understand RS. Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. That a 1911 history was re-issued in 2004 tells us precisely nothing about the accuracy of the content and conclusions of a text written over 100 years ago. KJP1 (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * what about a newspaper article dailypost.co.uk ? & also this Monarchy website seems respectful... Understandingmonarchy.com (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a blog. KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This article is all correctly referenced with adequate sources for the most part. Please do not haste into a deletion. Because of Wikipedia:Verifiability then maybe there is a chance this article can have a slimming edit, not a deletion. Please use talk before making adjustments, as we've spoken before we can do this the proper way and speak with a 3rd person, as in Wikiproject Wales as you've previously mentioned in the King of Wales article. Please and Thank you. p.s. I've started a conversation at WikiProject Wales Cltjames (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of this article. It is hard to know where to begin, as there are so many things wrong with it, but as examples of the many concerns:
 * No original research - the policy is very clear; "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". Cltjames's stated approach is in direct conflict with this: "That was the research I conducted", "I would like to speak to Project Wales on Wikipedia about the research I conducted and how to create a link from Brutus of Troy, Celtic tribes, medieval Kingdoms and the Prince of Wales"; "the concept of a Royal house is proven and just needs to be researched to be found". What they are doing, here and elsewhere, goes directly against policy.
 * Reliable sources - Cltjames does not understand Wikipedia's concept of RS. As just a few examples, among literally hundreds:
 * ○ When asked to provide an example of a suitable, scholarly source which discusses the House of Aberffraw, they respond with this, The Royal Forums;
 * ○ The most up-to-date online source given in this article dates from 1911. Most are 19th century. Similarly, the entire National Biography section dates from the 1880s/1890s. (The Welsh National Biography is a bit of an improvement, but even here everything is pre-1960.) These are simply not sources which meet our requirements. Cltjames was warned of the dangers of using such historical sources over a year ago, "Rule of thumb: don’t go much before 1990", but they have continued to completely ignore the advice. A rough guess would be that 70%+ of this article, specifically the material directly relating to the "House of Aberffraw", is sourced to pre-20th century sources. The modern materials appear mainly to relate to more general topics, e.g. the section on Norman castles.
 * ○ The definition of Seneschal is sourced to this, a fantasy blog about an imaginary kingdom;
 * ○ The entire section, "Current succession" is sourced to this, House of Aberffraw blog. (As an aside, I think it likely that Cltjames is its author.) That, wholly unreliable, blog is then used to verify the claim that there is a current, credible debate around a revival of the title of Prince of Gwynedd. There is no such debate, either public or scholarly, happening anywhere outside of the internet forums that the blog author frequents.


 * Verifiability - the credibility of this site depends on the information on it being verifiable. When we present fantasy, pseudo-history such as this, as being verifiable, we are doing a disservice to our readers and damaging Wikipedia's credibility. And, as noted by Richard Keatinge, the issue is not confined to this article. There are a myriad of internet chat rooms/fora/blog-hosting sites where Cltjames can present their research. This shouldn't be one of them. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Cltjames and KJP1. I feel that we are approaching consensus for deletion of this article, perhaps replaced by a redirect to Rhodri Mawr. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There article is supported by a reliable DWB (dictionary of Welsh Biography) source, besides the fact I did conduct 'OR', I believe there is a fine line between research and filling the gaps as a good faith edit. The article was poor and in need of an upgrade, I took some time over the past month to fill in the gaps based on actual facts. Deletion is unnecessary, as the 1911 John Lloyd book was republished in 2004 and therefore holds full validity of the claim of Aberffraw in modern times, the response of 2 editors cannot surely claim a real Royal dynasty as a fiction as Wikipedia is accessed by millions who if needed would want to know the truth about Aberffraw and it's Princes and Kings, therefore this article needs some bulk to explain to the public. Can we simply edit slim down the WP:RS, or blog validity issue? Cltjames (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * More quoted sources -Also another comment on the house of Aberffraw in a newer book found in Hanged, drawn and quartered
 * A book of trivia Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And PDF about Mabinogion and the Royal Houses of Wales, including a quote for a book by C. P. Lewis 1996. mabinogi.net.
 * A private website. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The issue is some of these sources are undeniable, perhaps an exploration into C.P. Lewis' modern work can yield the results you are looking for . Another Aberffraw quote - visitwales.com.


 * A tourist website Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, John Davies (historian) quote about the Flag of Wales, which proves Owain Lawgoch connection which I observed and added to the article. Cltjames (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Cltjames (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The nearest you have come, but still far from adequate for your purpose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * To add, the dilemma in attempting to delete this article is that you have related articles in the House of Dinefwr and the House of Mathrafal which have held their claim to their respective Kingdoms and has been acknowledged by the Wikipedia community for well over a decade. So please explain how one Royal House of Welsh medieval history can be eradicated from Wikipedia, but the other 2 would still be in the history books ? Could we please speak about correcting the issue at hand and not simply deletion ?? So, to reiterate, after adding more sources from a modern perspective (remembering Aberffraw c.1000s) the dilemma of WP:RS can be forgotten. Therefore, I propose the removal of blogs and older sources and a trimming of the article to stay consistent with other European medieval houses, because again, the importance of the House of Aberffraw is undeniable, it would be irresponsible to simply delete and redirect to Rhodri Mawr . Cltjames (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cltjames - as KJP1 points out, you don't appear to understand reliable sourcing. This was clear from the first of your edits that I noticed. The subject of this article simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements, and it is not helpful to suggest that another editor reads through the work of an insufficiently-specified author in the vague hope of rescuing your indefensible position. I have redirected this article and then intend to move on to other subsidiary articles such as House of Mathrafal and House of Dinefwr where the arguments here apply a fortiori. I do regret your misdirected efforts and I hope that you can use them in some environment - not Wikipedia - that will welcome it. There may be a good novel in there somewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so be it. But this is such a broad scope of medieval European Royal Houses, it's not just in Wales. I wonder if the article will return one day with a broader consensus... ??? Cltjames (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , I have created a discussion. Please be neutral and independent in the discussion, Deletion review/Log/2023 September 14. It only makes sense to rewrite the article with adequate sourcing. You just have to look at consistencies with other Dynasty articles to understand the House of Aberffraw needs to be represented more than a redirect to a King Rhodri Mawr. Cltjames (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks to I understand it was not me who was meant to create a Deletion review, but . It seems this was done much more hasty than was necessary, WP:OR and WP:RS can be amended. You can't change the history of the dynasty of Aberffraw, now there is a direct void of unprofessionalism stemming from deleting the entire content. My goal was to improve the article, not eradicate it. There needs to be something basic on the article explaining the connection to the Kingdom of Gwynedd, King of Wales and Prince of Wales as they're all directly linked to the House of Aberffraw. Please see User talk:Richard Keatinge to better understand the situation. I made a mistake in adding too much relevant information, and then I made another mistake in creating a delete review, but I was scrambling for consensus whilst the topic was still new. As a team of royal history enthusiasts can we please reach a consensus for a simple rewrite, and redirect to appropriate articles? I'm afraid a simple redirect to Rhodri Mawr is not sufficient for such an important time period in medieval Wales and the United Kingdom. Please and thank you, Mr. James. Cltjames (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, again. There has not been a deletion. No-one needs carry out a deletion review yet. There was a WP:BLAR which is not a deletion. Should you object to a WP:BLAR you can simply revert it and it is at that point that Richard or another editor may well choose to take the article to WP:AFD for a full deletion discussion. If, after that, someone is unhappy with the AFD process, then that is when it goes to deletion review. We are a long way from that. But yes, if you disagree with a bold redirect you may simply revert it, but please take note what I said elsewhere. A bold redirect preserves the page history. If you revert the redirect and someone takes it to AfD the result may be deletion, including all the page history. How you proceed is up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * House of Wessex is a perfect example of how Aberffraw is potentially an adequate article. In Wessex there are references from 1675 without more than one source to reinforce the majority of article, also full paragraphs without references at all. Yet no one seems to want to delete the article, please reconsider the judgement and work with the reliable sources as we have to potentially rewrite the House of Aberffraw article for us all to accept. Cltjames (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This maybe one of many articles than appear to be wholly OR. See Anwyl of Tywyn family as another example which seems also to have no merit based on its sourcing.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Velella There were Kings and Princes and Lords of Aberffraw for the dynasty period specified between 9th-13th century. This information was passed down and translated over centuries and is fact not fiction (references displayed in article and talk). Eradicating the Aberffraw article will leave too big a void in Welsh history, and that effects English royalty (House of Tudor) as well as Jacobite etc. Cltjames (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that any assertion was made that this was fiction, simply that it was OR based on inadequate sources. That remains the case.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Velella Ok thank you for your observation. That brings me back my current argument, of if this is truly deemed an issue of WP:OR, then the answer is surely rewrite and not redirect. Can anybody give me consensus now to do the right thing ?? Cltjames (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The answer is to find and quote reliable  sources that support the text. Simple. A re-write using the existing sources is simply re-written OR.  Velella  Velella Talk  21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

- Your editing, here and elsewhere, conflicts with a core policy of Wikipedia, No original research. What you are doing is undertaking your own research/analysis of a mass of sources, many of which are outdated, unreliable, or plain nonsense, and which do not constitute reliable sources. You are then using Wikipedia as a platform to present your results. This isn't allowed. I've therefore taken the rather drastic step of reverting the article to the state in which it existed before your expansion. The article as it currently stands is 90.4% your work, so the loss is limited.

If your aim on here is to help build an encyclopaedia, you can then begin a re-expansion. But I would strongly suggest that you have a read of our core policies before you do. In particular:
 * Use only reliable sources, carefully and accurately summarising their conclusions;
 * Don't include anything that is the result of your own research/analysis;
 * Don't use blogs/fantasy sites etc. which have not been subject to editorial oversight;
 * Don't use histories that predate the 1950s. KJP1 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * the article is almost unreferenced at present. May I suggest, as a useful exercise and to demonstrate competence, that you identify one valid reference for one point, and insert it, in an acceptable format, with page number for the point, into the article at the relevant place? I, and I imagine other contributors to this section, would be happy to advise on the results. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 Ok, fine. Team effort here. Only now the article has some 4 paragraphs without references. And simple coding such as the family tree is non existent. So, there is still work to be done. I will look at the few books I have. And try to find more information to bring the standard a bit higher, because that was simply my intention, to raise the standard, as Aberffraw has more history than simply a John Davies book. Because as you mentioned before, the Lloyd 2004 used is a reprint book, so surely the 1911 book can be referenced to find more information,
 * No it doesn't. Please re-read KJP1's comment carefully. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and the Hubert quote is from 1889, which opens possibilities of using other 19th century Welsh books which haven't been re-printed or expanded by other authors.
 * Again, no, it doesn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Richard Keatinge Ok, thanks for the advice I support. I've decided to turn my attention of original research (very fine line here, something most Royal houses could be argued against) to something I can help educate other people and also learn the same time:- teyrnasguynet blogspot, please feel free to pop by and say hello sometime. Otherwise you never know, with success maybe some of my research could end up back on Wikipedia. But in the mean time to add to the article legitimately, would {{cite DWB - Dictionary of Welsh biography, and {{ Coflein be accepted as sources?? Cltjames (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * - yes, both DWB and Coflein would work. The former is a bit dated at times but it's a valuable resource. Coflein, I've actually just used myself in a couple of cites for the historic llys. I don't seem able to make the link to your new site (above) work, but I wish you well there. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 Ok thanks. Try the link again. And as for sources, the castlewales site was quoted from Cadw, but second hand sources. I wonder if the original source quotes are available from Cadw, anyone know? Cltjames (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

As we know, the House of Aberffraw hasn't been covered much, but as I proved, there are plenty of older sources. Bye for now, if someone else can try improving this article with modern book references that they have, that would be ideal. Cltjames (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Improving the article.
I'm adding a continuation to the debate about WP:OR. I would like to ask users involved in this talk about the House of Aberffraw whether my recent edits are up to standard. Remembering WP:RS was an issue, however that wasn't the case with all my article work. The books I've added for the Cambro-Norse era references are within dating range for an acceptable source. These paragraphs which effectively are a partial revert are well written and very relevent to the article. The section fills in the gap between the 9th to 12th centuries for the Aberffraw dynasty in Wales which is necessary for continuity. Please talk to help improve if any problems have arisen. We should work as a team to improve this article, thanks for your patience. Cltjames (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * you wrote a small paragraph using an extract from Coflein, adding Aberffraw was traditionally considered the seat of their first llys, but the references do not support this claim (it explains it was the chief seat of Gwynedd). Do you have a reference for this information? Llwyd (1832) specified Cadwallon (c. 620) started base on Aberffraw to help repel Irish Picts, but I've found no mention of original courts except Maelgwn had court at Deganwy in the c. 520s. Cltjames (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "the traditional site of Aberffraw llys or princely court". In the source. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 article quote "have established their first royal court". Whilst reference makes no mention of first royal court. Cltjames (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s clear to me. KJP1 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 it should be reworded for a neutral user's clarity....
 * "traditionally claimed to have established their first royal court ", article quote.
 * "This is the traditional site of Aberffraw llys or princely court", Coflein quote.
 * .... It could be (from Coflein quote ....
 * The tradition principal (chief) seat of the Kings of Gwynedd as part of the 3 cantrefi of Anglesey, a princely court (llys) which was also used as a Royal palace. Cltjames (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what you are talking about. What on earth do you mean by "neutral user's clarity"? I'm not interested in debating this further. If you are unhappy with the section, then delete it. KJP1 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 I'm happy with the references, sorry, misunderstood that's all. I interpreted traditional in another way. Stating the court was their first llys isn't confirmed in the reference, only a suggestion, and to be grammatically correct the reference simply states it was used by the Kings of Gwynedd. I'll look into this later, working now. Cltjames (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another succession of edits improving the introduction, location and history and dissolution. Added dictionary sources from {{DWB & {{DNB with books and a website. Feel free to talk about references with me, I hope to find a permanent solution to the article's lack of information. That's it for now, I'll try get more modern books to further improve old an old source (Hubert) and {{citations. Again, thanks for your patience users, and sorry about previous confusions. Cltjames (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed this series of edits does seem to include some acceptable references, acceptable both in their form and in actually supporting the points in the text. Thanks for this vital improvement. We still need much better clarity on what the scope of the article should be, and I hope for discussion and eventual consensus in the next section:

Scope of the article
It is about the House of Aberffraw as a concept used in reliable sources. It is not here to duplicate the articles on the members of the house, or on the history of Wales in the Middle Ages in general. I suggest that we should be working towards an article, probably based on John Davies since he's the major reliable source that uses the concept, that:
 * explains the (retrospective) concept of the house of Aberffraw, supported by brief discussion of the relevant early mediaeval ideas of inheritance and royalty
 * gives a genealogical tree of notable members of the House, from Rhodri Mawr to Owain Lawgoch, with wikilinks
 * Possibly, and subject to consensus, a list of most notable members of the house, again with links, and possibly a very brief note, maybe a couple of sentences at most, on their lives. This would not duplicate their own articles, but would mention the importance of the House to them and to their deeds.
 * That's it. Further material from houseofaberffraw.org etcetera would not be appropriate. Comments welcome of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm looking forward to comments on this proposal. I'll leave it for a few days at least before I start work on it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Richard Keatinge Ok good. But to confirm, technically Anarawd founded the dynasty as a King of Aberffraw, but the documentation I found were from older sources. The Aberffraw cantref was established as a Post-Roman administrative centre and was in use by Kings of Gwynedd from the 5th and 6th centuries. A grandson of Cunedda, Cadwallon Law Hir expelled Irish Picts in 470 (I read this several places and don't know where it's origins are from as a source) and settled Aberffraw as a family seat. But Maelgwn Gwynedd had his court at Deganwy in the 520s. So there's a gap here in telling the story of the settlement of Aberffraw by Kings. This principal seat was again vacated to Caernarfon for 250 years from c. 620 again because of Irish invasions (old source). Cadfan ap Iago was buried in the Aberffraw cantref (official source, encyclopedia 1911). Rhodri Mawr returned to Aberffraw in the 870s thus beginning the dynasty.
 * Sources are hard to come by, but what can be proven is King Cadfan ap Iago and his son were in the Aberffraw cantref and their descendant Rhodri Mawr returned. So, as an origins story, do we start with Cunedda's family, similar to Kingdom of Gwynedd, or Rhodri Mawr's descendants? Also, how much can be proven about the Kings and Princes of Aberffraw as a potential family tree?
 * Also looking at the Anglesey article, there is a few sentences about the status of an independent Aberffraw during the era of Owain Gwynedd and his descendants, but a vague reference to cover this, again maybe a book reference to confirm this? The only {{DWB confirmation about the Kings or Princes is Llywelyn the Great, Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon.
 * So, just an origins/ back story which can be explored and debated to try to find the correct translation from medieval literature. Any thoughts ? Cltjames (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Very happy with the suggested scope, and would certainly endorse a "summary style" approach. I see the article size is rising again, and note a number of sections where the relevance to the House of Aberffraw seems tangential at best. I also note that some of the 100+ year-old sources are making a reappearance. KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hope that Cltjames isn't wasting their time; to repeat, this article should be about the use of the term House of Aberffraw, as a concept, in modern reliable sources. The rest is irrelevant to an encyclopedia and needs to be removed, possibly used as material for Cltjames' own website. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Richard Keatinge Ok, fine line between wasting time and doing the correct research. Just look at the House of Wessex as an example (despite the lack of references), there is a history section. And Aberffraw has history confirmed in the {{DWB sources spanning from 9th-13th centuries. And as for older sources, I thought wiki source {{DNB & EB1911 were pre approved by Wikipedia because they are specific coded references...? Cltjames (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @KJP1 Actually I was thinking about moving some Cambro-Norse era information to the Rhodri Mawr article. But it's the only reference I could find for Aberffraw in the era (968 raid) and the article was missing the 10th and mid of 11th centuries. Cltjames (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First, there's no need to repeatedly ping me, I'm watching the page. Second, if the House of Aberffraw doesn't receive any/any significant coverage in recent/reliable sources for a period of 150 years, then we shouldn't be covering that period in an article on the House of Aberffraw. Third, as an example, the whole section on Llywelyn the Great makes one mention of Aberffraw. What is the direct relevance of all of the rest to the House of Aberffraw? As an aside here, does the DNB entry actually mention Aberffraw at all? I couldn't see it. Lastly, without wishing to go over old ground again, your reliance on centuries-old sources remains problematic - just as it was over a year ago when De Causa urged you to "put out of your mind using these old sources". That the DNB is public source and available in the Wiki Library, does not change the fact that it is very old, and no substitute for modern scholarship. The risk that you run, here and elsewhere, is that you trawl a bunch of outdated sources looking for any minor reference to your quarry, be it HoA or Nannau, and then attempt to stitch together these passing mentions into a Wikipedia article, often spiced, to be blunt, with your own research. This just isn't the way to write an article suitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry to go on at length, but you really seem to be struggling to understand the concerns that a range of editors have expressed. KJP1 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been quoted on WP:RS for the Principality of Wales, in truth my understanding of old sources was insufficient. However, the article text for that period was nonexistent (c. 1300-1500, post-Kingdom) and the article was wholly unreferenced, so I added {{DWB which is surely better than nothing and I made suggestions working as a team member to include castle building (c.1277-1320) and penal laws 1402, but it's still lacking 200 years (except a few sentences about Glyndwr) history of the Principality, it's shame it took so long to improve. The same goes for Aberffraw, I'm glad Richard has gotten on board because the article lacks a high enough understanding of the topic. But anyway, I've now learned about WP:OR, but there's a fine line between research and knowledge. For Aberffraw, I did present important facts but maybe went overboard with the current head reference (I felt it relevant, but learned it's a self-published website). Is there any way to connect the article to its current claimants? I'm guessing this article will get another cull. I can only find old sources regarding the llys, so I'll try and find more modern references. But as for my Princes' addition, I simply expanded on the text lacking references, but it does have relevance to explain the closure of the dynasty in terms of lineal successors. And as for Nannau, I mostly used a 2016 RS modern book, with a website connected to the author. The article is well written, everything is referenced with numerous new books to reinforce the text. I'm not sure if it's OR because the family is famous in that region of Wales. I recently added a few news sources that are relevant to the topic until something more concrete arises. Cltjames (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

{{outdent}} This phrase, Is there any way to connect the article to its current claimants?, does illustrate the issue rather well. We're trying to write a verifiable encyclopaedia. We're not, or shouldn't be, trying to do a Dan Brown-style Bloodline of Christ piece that attempts to link 9th-century figures to 21st-century claimants to... what, the Welsh throne? Such fantasy pieces are fine for your blog, but they don't belong here. As an illustration, look at Joseph Bradney's A History of Monmouthshire from the Coming of the Normans into Wales down to the Present Time. Bradney loved family genealogies, and pillaged old sources, including Geoffrey of Monmouth and Iolo Morganwg, to draw them up. But, seventy years ago, it was recognised that they weren't historical - "Sir Joseph Bradney gives a large number (which) trace their ancestry to Welsh kings or Norman lords but are, like those of their English contemporaries, mostly fictitious". All the best with the blog. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)