Talk:Idwal Iwrch

revised part of the way back
I think this update is better grounded in the record, which was a main reason for originally updating the article. The literary Dialogue has debatable merits as a "confirmation" of historical kingship, including influence from Geoffrey and other medievals on the surviving work (which should be discussed in the article if the literary Dialogue is to be used as historical source asserting probable kingship). Idwal may have been a king, or the next king, or he may not have been, we simply do not know, and sometimes that's the best we can say. Actually, it seems quite likely that he was, but saying it that way is different than saying that it is based on the record. What are your thoughts? Is the present mention of the Dialogue satisfactory? Or maybe we might ask around for more opinions. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed a few things in the intro; I removed the question mark in Rhodri's dates, per MOS:DOB, and changed the first sentence to say that he is a "figure in the genealogies of the kings of Gwynedd", since the Dialogue mention shows that he's not only known from the genealogies, though the genealogies contain probably all we can say about him as a historical figure. The Dialogue can't corroborate that he was king, but to me it seems that it is most probable, as he was the son of one king, the father of another, and there are virtually no other candidates for who may have been king at that time. It would be nice to have a secondary source for this. At any rate, I think the Dialogue mention should specify that Idwal is given as a king and that he is purported to succeed Cadwaladr, as that's most of the reason for mentioning it at all. Though, as the text is a very late and literary, rather than historical, source, it probably doesn't matter much.
 * One other thing: I think we need to remove the line "...as the father of "Rotri son of Tutgual son of Catgualart", where perhaps 'Tutgual' should be read as 'Iutgual'". The two sources given contradict each other, with the website giving a clear variant of "Idwal" instead of "Tutgual". Mary Jones' site agrees with the latter, and gives its source as P. C. Bartrum's Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, which is probably the best source available. I don't know where I could find a copy of Bartrum, but I don't see a reason to doubt Jones on this point.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Cúchullain, your changes improved it, thanks. And thanks for tolerating my late-nite modifications (I really should just sleep on things rather than doing that in a reduced mental state).


 * I also don't have access to Bartrum but wish I did. I put in the "perhaps should be read as ..." as an ill-advised weasel-word placeholder until I checked whether it was a typo, and it does look to be so in Owen's work. The name is "Intguaul" in Phillimore's work. I used that as a reference in Cynan Dindaethwy ap Rhodri, and will update this article shortly, and elsewhere that I used Owen's work. This page shows "Intguaul". By the way, the Harleian genealogies website that you are using says it is a copy of this publication by Phillimore, which is equally accessible on the web (and perhaps also the website's Annales Cambriae A, but haven't confirmed it yet). The Jesus College MS. 20 is also a copy from Phillimore, which I've been citing in preference to the copy of it ... have found that kind of thing often, where a later-dated reference has copied someone's 19th century work.


 * Let me see if I can find the right weasel-wording (in the positive sense) regarding Idwal as king; it will definitely say that the Dialogue prophesies him as king; if I don't go far enough, then you take a shot at it. Sound good?


 * Some of the references commenting on the Dialogue are bothersome (Geoffrey especially, also parts are alleged to be "advantageous" for some medieval Tudors, who claim descent from Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon and his ancestors, implying a change for their benefit) ... would dearly like to avoid that can of worms.


 * Agree that Idwal is a likely candidate, but it is also likely that the leading family was superseded for awhile, given Gwynedd's slide from power; so it seems speculative to assert that someone is most likely to have been king at this particular time; it is possible that Idwal was king, but it is also possible that he was not king. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried to fit things in for unanimity, but if I missed, say so and I'll try again (or just go ahead and take a pass at it). Also (1) removed citation of Rhodri Molwynog's death date, as it is cited in his article and try to avoid citations in the lead paragraph; (2) perhaps controversial, the added citations to Phillimore's Jesus College MS. 20 and Phillimore's Harleian genealogy were copies of Phillimore's work, not separate citations, so dropped them (without prejudice).

By the way, all of these obscure kings should gain context in the fullness of time by articles on the full 7th/8th/9th century histories of the region and whole island of Britain (not just separate histories for this kingdom and that); a lot was happening, mostly wars and plagues and such ... Idwal's time on earth (late 7th, early 8th century) included. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Notuncurious. I did not realize the Harleian site was just a copy of Phillimore, so thanks for pointing that out. It looks good to me now; barring us finding other sources containing new or updated material, it should be set for the foreseeable future.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)