Talk:Principality of Wales/Archive 1

Untitled
The use of the title Prince of Wales/of the Welsh origionats with Owain Gwynedd of the Aberffraw dynasty in the early 12th century. After the battle on the Berwyn Mountains he was styles "princeps Wallensium, prince of the Welsh. After his death it was Lord Rhys of Deheubarth who used the title princeps Wallensium. Then, in 1116 at the council of Aberdyfi, after he won consessions out of the Magna Carta, Llywelyn the Great received fealty from all Welsh princes. Henry only recognized the new political reality.Drachenfyre 08:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Welsh flag (red dragon on green and white background) was only created in the 20th century - surely then it wasn't in use at the time of the Principality of Wales? AlbusUK 15:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed12.160.89.130 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Princes of Wales
I think that a brief overview of each of the Princes of Wales (according to the Welsh regnal list) should be given but no more than that, because they are covered in more detail on their own pages and we don't want the same information on multiple pages. May I suggest that the Llywelyn I (ap Iorwerth) section is edited to just a summary of a couple of paragraphs? James Frankcom (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no
The institution known as the Principality of Wales came into being with the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267. Llywelyn the Great referred to himself as the Prince of North Wales. The first officially recognised bearer of the title Prince of Wales was Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, the only native Prince of Wales to hold that title. Owain Glyndŵr is popularly refered to as having been Prince of Wales, but it is the victors who get to decide who was and who wasn't the bearer of the title. Owain lost, and for this reason the official Prince of Wales during Owain's rebellion was the future Henry V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanddef (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes. Owain Gwynedd called himself "Waliarum princeps" and "princeps Wallensium" (prince of Wales and prince of the Welsh) from the 1160s, among other titles, implying that his territory larger than the kingdom of Gwynedd itself could be described as the principality.
 * The Treaty of Montgomery merely marked the formal recognition of the principality by the king of England. The state had existed for many generations before that. It needed no recognition from any neighbouring state for legitimacy.
 * Owain Glyndwr held court as prince of Wales, summoned parliaments, enacted law and developed diplomatic relations: he ruled for a time as prince of Wales over much of the terrority of Wales, and had a claim to the title through descent from earlier rulers. That is sufficient basis to regard his claim to be prince of Wales as being fulfilled in reality. There is absolutely no reason to regard the claim of the future Henry V as being any more official than that of Owain Glyndwr.
 * Tremynfa (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What utter, utter rubbish. History is what it is, not what you perhaps would like it to be. The very idea of claiming Owain Gwynedd was Prince of Wales and calling him Owain I is nothing more than wishful thinking. What is worse is that other wikipedias translate this rubbish and take it as being accurate, which it is not. Go ask an academic.Sanddef (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Owen Glyndwr's claim to the title is well documented in the literature, so are interesting questions as to the primacy of Gwynedd in the 11th and 12th Century. You might want to tone your language down a bit, its more the language of the bar than academic discourse. -- Snowded  TALK  08:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I said Owain Gwynedd, not Glyndŵr. By the way, people have to remember that this isn't a page about princes of Wales, it's a page about The Principality Of Wales, an institution that did not exist prior to its establishment in 1267. That my friends is a fact. Sanddef (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read what I said I made reference both to Glyndŵr and to Gwynedd.  The Treaty of Montgomery involves an English recognition of what had been a de facto position so it is a lot more nuanced than you suggest -- Snowded  TALK  09:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read what you said. Did you? Regardless, the fact remains that the Principality of Wales was established in 1267. That is a simple and irefutable historical fact. What is more the so-called de facto principality you refer to was the creation of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, the very same Llywelyn ap Gruffudd who signed the Treaty. He was also the first person to style himself Prince of Wales, as previous princes of Gwynedd such as Owain Gwynedd and Llywelyn Fawr had styled themselves with other titles such as Prince of North Wales (not "of Wales") in the case of the latter and Prince of the Welsh (again, not "of Wales") in the case of the former (neither "Waliarum princeps" nor "princeps Wallensium" mean "Prince of Wales"), which is entirely irrelevant anyway as we are talking here not of titles or territorial ambitions but of a specific institution, namely the Principality of Wales, which was established in 1267. Furthermore it is wholly inaccurate to refer to Welsh princes as "Owain I", "Owain IV", "Llywelyn I" or "Llywelyn II" etc. Just because Owain Glyndŵr styled himself as such (thereby attempting to rewrite history) does not make it historically accurate for us to follow his whims by styling other Welsh princes in a manner they did not employ. Sanddef (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try and lay off the aggression will you, its not endearing or useful or especially welcome in Wikipedia. I commented initially as a result of your over the top invective against Tremynfa.  I was very careful to reference the primacy of Gwynedd as the pre ToM issue if you check and my point was that any history of the term "Principality of Wales" cannot simply start in 1267 it is more nuanced than that.  Equally the claim of Glyndŵr was recognised by France and established de factor for a period so that is a part of the history.   I don;t have access to my text books at the moment, but I am pretty sure that is referenced.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you stop worrying about my so-called "aggression" and concentrate on the legitimate points raised, none of which you have any satisfactory response to. There is absolutely nothing "nuanced" about the historical institution known as the Principality of Wales, as I have pointed out. I would further suggest that what should not be "welcome" on Wikipedia is the type of pseudo-history presented in this entry. Sanddef (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a circular argument, unless you are employing a definition of "principality" other than "state ruled by a prince". -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When Sanddef stops asserting his view by simply telling everyone else they are wrong we might make progress. Until then I doubt it. -- Snowded  TALK  13:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, touche, Snowded. Seriously though, if you can't address the legitimate points I've raised, then what are you still doing here? Sanddef (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's not how I remember the listing of Princes of Wales after 1301. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Article content and hatnote
No-one, I think, questions the fact that most of this article is, and should be, about the Principality as it existed in the mediaeval period. However, the term was also used subsequently and is still in use today (whether correctly or not is another matter). The sections covering those post-medieval periods have long been tagged, quite correctly, as needing expansion. My point is that the article is not, and should not be, entirely about the Principality as it existed in medieval times, and therefore the hatnote should not suggest that it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The hatnote has again been changed, without any substantive change to the content of the article, which still (quite correctly) covers post-1543 usage of the term. Why do some editors seek to retain this inconsistency?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The hatnote was changed back to what it said before some editor changed it without consensus, or even discussion. That this article is about its title is beyond dispute. That the term's later use is also mentioned does not mean it becomes the article's topic.Hatnote (Legitimate information about the topic) says: "… information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about the book, or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself."


 * The article also mentions: 'Wales as part of England'; and the 'Welsh Office' (neither subsection, bizarrely, even mentions the Principality of Wales). And they shouldn't be in the hatnote either. Quite what needs to be expanded in a section explaining the misuse of the article topic, I'm not sure. But whatever it is, it is highly unlikely to become the article topic. I have removed the addition to the hatnote. Please stop edit warring per WP:BRD, until consensus is achieved here. Daicaregos (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, say some high school student in Indonesia, for example, sees a reference to the "Principality of Wales", in a modern context, and turns to WP to see what that terminology means. They would turn to this page.  The first thing they would see is a hatnote indicating that the article is of no relevance to them, because it says that it deals with the period up to 1543, and nothing else.  Where should they look?  The fact is that, although the Principality in one sense only existed before then, the term was used in other senses in later centuries and is still in use today.  Whether that use is "correct" or not is almost irrelevant.  WP should not claim to be the ultimate authority on what is "correct" - it should report the world as it is.  Some random post-Tudor uses of the terminology in reliable sources are here -, , , , , ... etc.  The article as written does not explain these uses of the word in any detail, but it should do (without giving them undue weight, of course).  Equally, the hatnote should make clear that the article covers those usages.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: It occurs to me that one possibility might be for this page title to be used as a disambiguation page, and for (most of) the text of this article to be moved to (say) Principality of Wales (mediaeval), with an alternative direction at the disamb page to Wales in order to cover the looser modern use of the term. Would that be better, or worse?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point in question is that the topic of this article is not the post-mediaeval use of the term, it is about the Principality of Wales, which existed between1216 and 1542. And that is what the hatnote should say. As to your Indonesian student: perhaps it should be easier to discover that "Principality of Wales" has no modern context. Misused terms are a difficult question for encyclopedias. When people use a term incorrectly, should that merit its own article? Should that mean the correctly named term is moved from its proper name (per WP:TITLE)? This is how Queen of England has been handled, for example. My vote is to keep this article at its current name. If you decide to seek a page re-name, please provide a link here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point that you seem to miss is that, although the term "Principality of Wales" had a certain specific meaning in the period up to 1543, it was also used later, in official legislation as well as in general parlance. An article entitled "Principality of Wales" should either cover those usages in one article, or be a disamb page directing readers to other articles where it is covered.  I'll raise it at WT:WALES in the first instance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it seems we have to distinguish between three different uses of the term (pre-1543; post-1543 official use; post-1543 erroneous use), my vote is for a disambiguation page. That would be more informative. garik (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, now I ponder it a little, I think the "Modern use of the term" section of this article (which should perhaps be renamed "Later use of the term") solves the problem for our Indonesian student. We could just change the hatnote to say "This article is about the historical Principality (1216–1542). For later use of the term, see below." where "below" links to the later-uses section. That section would then say how the term was used officially post-1543 and end with a note that the term is still sometimes heard, but that it reflects no constitutional reality. The section wouldn't have to be expanded greatly, the article wouldn't move far away at all from its current focus, and Cambro-Indonesian relations would be improved. garik (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But, if we say "This article is about the historical Principality...", it seems to me to be inconsistent to follow that by saying that later use of the term is also covered in the article. If we said, for example, "..is primarily about..." there would be no problem.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I don't think you've quite put your finger on the problem. It seems to me that the later use of the term is a kind of long tail trailing from the mediaeval usage, so I don't find it a problem talking about the former in an article about the latter, any more than I see it as a problem talking about film adaptations in articles about books. But you're right that there is something wrong with the hatnote. The problem is that by saying, "This article is about the historical Principality..." we imply strongly that there exists a later principality, which should be covered in some other article. But there isn't; there's just a tail of usage. So you're quite right that we need to change the hatnote, though not I think to "... is primarily about..." which still implies that there's some other principality. But then, do we even need the hatnote at all? We already have, as the last sentence of the introduction, "The term principality is sometimes used in a modern sense to denote all of Wales, but this has no constitutional basis." Is it too much to hope that a confused person will read that far? If it is too much to hope, then what we need to change in the hatnote is the definite article (which is what implies that there exists some other Principality of Wales). We could do something like this: "This article is about a historical entity (1216-1542). For use of the term "Principality of Wales" to describe Wales after 1542, see below." Or even: "The Principality of Wales existed from 1216 to 1542; for use of the term to describe Wales after 1542,  see below" garik (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, even better perhaps, we remove the hatnote and change the introduction to say: "The Principality of Wales was founded in 1216 at the Council of Aberdyfi and encompassed two-thirds of modern Wales. It was brought to an end by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535-1542, although the term has on occasion been used since then to refer to the whole of Wales. This use has no constitutional basis." Then the next paragraph starts: "The Principality of Wales covered those lands ruled by the Prince of Wales directly and was recognised by the 1218 Treaty of Worcester between Llywelyn the Great] and Henry III. This treaty gave substance to the political reality of 13th century Wales and England, both part of the Angevin Empire. The principality retained a great degree of autonomy..." Some tweaking needed, to be sure, but I think this might solve the problem. garik (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A better attempt might be:

"The Principality of Wales (Welsh: Tywysogaeth Cymru) existed between 1216 and 1542 and encompassed two-thirds of modern Wales. After 1542, the term ceased to have any constitutional basis, but continued in occasional use as a synonym for Wales (see below).

"The principality covered the lands ruled by the Prince of Wales directly, and was formally founded in 1216 at the Council of Aberdyfi, and later recognised by the 1218 Treaty of Worcester between Llywelyn the Great and Henry III..."

Sound good? garik (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the things that I'm uncomfortable about is the assertion (and widespread belief) that any usage of the term post-1542 had (and has) "no constitutional basis", when there is evidence in some of the links I provided to Daicaregos (above) that, in fact, the term was used in later legislation to (apparently) refer to the whole of Wales, and was (and is) also used in terms such as the Honours of the Principality of Wales. Perhaps there is an analogy here with Cornwall and the Duchy of Cornwall - in that there, similarly, the term "Duchy of Cornwall" is used correctly to refer to the appurtenances of the Duke of Cornwall, but incorrectly to refer to Cornwall the place.  Perhaps "administrative basis" might be better than "constitutional basis".  I take the point about the hatnote - if the article were to be expanded to give better explanations of later uses of the term, it may not be needed at all.  The perceived need for the hatnote until now derives from the idea - unlikely, in my view - that readers may look for the "Principality of Wales" when they actually want to read about the modern country of Wales.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the hatnote's removal. As you say, a reader typing in "Principality of Wales" when they are searching for the modern country is highly unlikely. However, "Constitutional basis" is perfectly fine as it is. See here and here: In his autobiography, the Duke of Windsor complained that, as Prince of Wales, there was 'no specific routine job in the sense, for example, that a vice-president has a job … Though I was next in line to the Throne, with all that position implied, I actually possessed no formal state duties or responsibilities.' 'This constitutional vacuum' Jonathon Dimbleby, biographer of the Prince of Wales, has noted, 'was not an oversight, but documentary evidence of the peculiar position that the heir apparent occupies; there is no formal "role", except to wait.'
 * Daicaregos (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I think there are three main things to be done:
 * Remove the hatnote.
 * Decide on what sort of basis the PoW didn't continue.
 * Replace the introduction with something like what I suggest above.
 * Expand the "Modern use of the term" section, probably renaming it "Use of the term after 1542".
 * There might also be some general rewording necessary to keep the mediaeval administrative entity and the abstract heraldic entity clear and distinct. garik (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of Daicaregos' examples refer to the Prince of Wales, having no role in "the governance of Wales" and having "no formal constitutional functions".   Those points are undeniably true, but they refer to the Prince and not specifically to the Principality of Wales.  The term "Principality of Wales" has been used in post-1542 legislation - examples (possibly a full list) here - although it seems likely that the meaning in those acts is simply that of the appurtenances (if that's the right word) of the Prince of Wales rather than to mean the place.  So, I agree with Garik - remove the hatnote, summarise the article better in the introduction, and clarify and tighten up the sections on the later (post-1542) use of the term, both its "correct" use (as meaning the appurtenances of the Prince of Wales) and its common but incorrect wider use.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have to be careful with that search function. It doesn't do quite what you think it does (as is revealed if you search for "Principality of London"). So several of those pieces of legislation refer to Wales and "The principality of [e.g.] Andorra" separately. Of the four it returns that contain the exact phrase, three clearly refer to the heraldic entity (for want of a better term), while only one refers to the territory, and then only in reference to a charity set up to educate children whose parents were "born within the principality of Wales, the county of Monmouth, or the parishes of Oswestry, Sellatyn and Llanymynech in the county of Salop". Indeed, one of the amendments this act brings in is to replace this wording with "born in or are resident in Wales". So I think it probably is fair to say that the term has no constitutional meaning, but that it has a meaning in the peerage system. Unless we want to say that the term Earldom of Wessex (or Duchy of Edinburgh) has a constitutional meaning. I think this is basically your point. Provided Dai is of similar mind, I think we have consensus. garik (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. So far as the text on post-1542 uses is concerned, I think it would be best to do some restructuring.  Essentially, the article covers the pre-1542 Principality, apart from the sections on "The Principality as a subject of the English Crown" and "Use of the term after 1542".  So, I think for clarity it might be better to combine, and improve, those two sections.  At present, the sections on "Government, administration and law", "Population, culture and society" and "Economy and trade" only relate to the pre-1542 position, but come after the section on "The Principality as a subject of the English Crown", which I think is confusing.  (Personally I'm not convinced that the latter two of those three sections are needed in this particular article anyway - they may be better located at History of Wales.)  The section on post-1542 usage of the term should be improved (not necessarily expanded) with more references, both to the official use of the term as the "appurtenances" (??) of the Prince of Wales, and its incorrect wider usage.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Do we need the words "(see below)" in the introduction? The introduction is supposed to summarise the whole article, and I'm not sure it's necessary to draw attention to one particular aspect of the article in that way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right. It's not really necessary. And I agree that some restructuring (and source provision) would be a good thing. garik (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent edits have improved the introduction. However, as you say - the Lead should be a summary of the article. The part that says “and as a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom” seems to have been given undue weight and could be removed. Also, I prefer the sentence in the article body that says “The term has been occasionally used since then as a synonym for Wales, although no principality has ever been created that covers Wales as a whole.”, which could replace the current introduction, to give: The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1542; encompassing two-thirds of modern country of Wales. The term ceased to have any constitutional basis as the name of a territory after the Acts of Union, but has been occasionally used since then as a synonym for Wales. No principality has ever been created covering Wales as a whole.
 * Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also not quite correct to state that it is "a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom" - "Prince" is a title, but "Principality" isn't. How about: The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1542, encompassing two-thirds of modern Wales. Since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, there has been no geographical or constitutional basis for describing any or all of the territory of Wales as a principality, although the term has occasionally been used both in an informal sense to describe the country, and in relation to the honorary title of Prince of Wales.
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All good points. I like Ghmyrtle's suggestion the best. I also think it reduces the reference to the Prince of Wales in weight somewhat. I don't think we should remove all reference from the introduction. garik (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, I'd prefer to change the last sentence around to say ".....has occasionally been used both in relation to the honorary title of Prince of Wales, and in an informal sense to describe the country", but it may be felt that is giving slightly too much weight to the Prince of Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When used in relation to the honorary title of Prince of Wales, Principality seems to be used as a synonym for the country. So the final sentence of this suggestion would include that usage:The Principality of Wales existed between 1216 and 1542, encompassing two-thirds of the modern country of Wales. Since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, there has been no geographical or constitutional basis for describing any or all of the territory of Wales as a principality, although the term has occasionally been used in an informal sense to describe the country.
 * Daicaregos (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that your first sentence is quite true - for example, the Honours of the Principality of Wales seem to be the honours associated with the position of Prince of Wales, rather than being the honours of Wales, the place. I think it's helpful and accurate to disentangle that meaning of "the principality" from the looser, archaic and inaccurate use of the term as meaning the country.  But perhaps a "final" wording of the introduction should wait until after some more work has been done on improving the text and sources for that part of the main article itself that deals with post-1542 usages.  I can get back to that next week, if there is a consensus that some reorganisation and improvement of that part of the article would be beneficial (see earlier comments) and if no-one else gets in first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of this plan. Go right ahead! garik (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now made some changes. My intention was not to remove any content of significance (I've taken out a couple of peacocky terms, and irrelevancies), but to reorder it in a more logical and clearer way.  I'm sure there's more to be done, but I hope it's an improvement.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the stuff about modern uses of the term fits the flow better at the end of the lede, rather than the first paragraph. The only reason I moved it earlier in my edit is the Indonesian-student problem: if someone comes to this article having seen a reference to the Principality of Wales that obviously refers to a modern place, they have to read a little way down before they understand that this is indeed the article they're looking for. I'm in two minds about whether this is a problem or not. garik (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I now actually think it makes it clearer to state that it is a historical article, and explain about the history, before (in a separate para) stating that the term is also used more loosely in a modern context. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Angevin Empire: Scotland?
Why the reference to the Kingdom of Scotland being "part of the Angevin Empire"? Scotland was an independent realm throughout the Angevin period. The occupation of some castles in part of the Kingdom of Scotland's territory by English garrisons between 1174 and 1189 and Henry II's supposed overlordship of William I does not constitute Scotland being a part of the Angevin Empire. If this is the definition of membership of a foreign empire or realm the the Principality of Wales never existed and Wales was practically always a part of the Anglo-Norman realm of England. Please remove this passage and don't rely on the evidence of the "historian" Dr Davies (who always clutched at any passing straw in an attempt to assert the existence of a non-existent independent, Welsh principality/realm) as a basis for is factuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefyj (talk • contribs)


 * Please don't forget to sign your posts by writing ~ at the end of them! The article doesn't say that the Kingdom of Scotland was "part of the Angevin Empire". In fact, neither Scotland nor the Principality of Wales was a formal part of the Angevin Empire. Both were self ruling, but the leaders of both paid homage to the Angevin king of England. But I agree that the article is somewhat misleading, since it implies at one point that the Principality of Wales was a part of the Empire in the same way that England was. I'll see if I can't adjust it to be a little more accurate. garik (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC) amended by garik (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wales was never "self-ruling" Garik. An independent Welsh realm or state never existed. There were only Welsh kingdoms within current Wales, and all of those were at some point vassals of the King of England. The only Principality of Wales that ever existed was an appenage of England. There never has been a united, independent Welsh entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.162.161 (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1284-1540s
I'm not really sure of what the scope of this article is. 80% of it appears to be about the pre-Statute of Rhuddlan Principality with the rest about the post-Tudor title. I can see an argument for an article that's about the pre-1284 Principality alone, but clearly that's not what's been aimed at here. It's at its most confusing in the lead, where the opening makes it clear we're talking about 1216-1540s and then discusses only "de facto independence" - giving the impression that that was the position throughout rather than just for the 60 years at the beginning. I've amended the lead to clarify that. (Btw, I'm pretty sure that the lead contains a bit of an over-statement of page 148 of Davies book) The only coverage of 1284-1540s appears to be the list of Welsh claimants and a paragraph under "History". But the sections that purport to cover the whole period eg Government, Population & Culture, and, probably, Economoy are clearly about the 13th century. It needs a whole new section to cover 1284-1540s and those sections I've just mentioned to be tucked under a Pre-1284 heading. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now re-organized it so that it's clear which period the text is talking about: pre-1284 or 1284-1542. For the latter period I've added some information about governance, but otherwise just transferred existing text into the section. But it's quite basic and needs developing.DeCausa (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now added some more sourced material to the 1284-1542 section, and probably won't do anything more on this article. A final point is that the article remains extremely unbalanced as its heavily weighted to the 60 years of the "Welsh" Principality compared to the nearly three centuries of the Plantagenet/Tudor Principality. It's a pity because I think there's some extremely interesting constitutional developments/analysis around the later period (beyond my expertise to write on) and, to be honest, the "Welsh" Principality was quite a short-lived ephemeral concept which I think is boosted in this article for all sorts reasons unconnected with providing a well-founded historical piece . DeCausa (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The weighting is mostly my fault, as the High Middles Ages are of particular interest to me. I did major rewrites in 2007 (haven't really visited it much since) and the intended scope was something spanning from the 1216 Council of Aberdyfi/1218 Treaty of Worcester through to the Council of Wales and the Marches, really something tracing the constitutional governance of Wales. I admit that it became too big for me, and welcome others to balance appropriately. It is a mess as it stands now. I did/do wish to explore the Welsh aspect of the principality, pre-Edwardian Conquest, because I do believe that that period and the native constitutional developments deserves thorough treatment itself. But given the wider use of the term 'Principality of Wales' in the post-Conquest period that treatment now seems inappropriate here. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 06:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
The section on Owain Glyndŵr, Prince of Wales (aka 'Owain IV of Wales' in this article) boldly states that he "was explicitly crowned as Owain IV of Wales in 1404". Where on earth does this come from? Name me a single contemporary source that refers to Glyndŵr as 'Owain IV of Wales', let alone that he "was explicitly crowned as Owain IV of Wales in 1404." That he is referred to as such by some modern historians is one thing, but I know of no reference to him as 'Owain IV' and certainly none of him being crowned 'Owain IV of Wales' (he was crowned Prince of Wales in Machynlleth and did not use the style 'Owain IV of Wales'). The same applies to Owain Lawgoch etc., but I'll pass that for now, not having checked every statement yet. This modern revisionist terminology litters the article and gives the impression that these were contemporary terms; absolutely not the case. The Welsh did not adopt the formal styling system of numbering their kings and princes, as found in many other countries, for a number of reasons, none of which diminish the status and dignity of the monarchs of Wales. But to return to my main point. This article has been expanded considerably since I last looked at it - and many of the additions are welcome - but the inclusion of baseless assertions such as "when Owain Glyndwr was explicitly crowned as Owain IV of Wales in 1404" does it a great disservice as it casts doubt on the validity of everything else therein unless soundly referenced. Anyone who knows me on wikipedia will be aware that I can hardly be accused of being 'anti-Welsh' for questioning this. So where is the source? There is none, as far as I am aware: so why was this striking statement included? Maybe people are right to say "never trust Wikipedia"?! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A second example: since when has Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd been referred to as 'Dafydd I of Wales'??? Enaidmawr (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're right. The edit referring to Glyndŵr being "explicitly crowned as Owain IV of Wales in 1404" was made here by User:James Frankcom, and most of (if not all) the other contentious claims were inserted by the same editor.  If the claims are wrong or unjustified, I'd favour simply reverting them, but you may wish to contact that editor first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Ghmyrtle. Should have known! Reverting the individual edits would be a nightmare given the page history. I'll get back here later, hopefully (few other things to do first, here and there). Perhaps we need a Welsh history taskforce which could settle the question of nomenclature, amongst other things? It would also be useful to have a convenient place to note problem articles and solicit the assistance or opinion of fellow-editors (latest example: "Carnoban"). PS Re: discussing the edits, see Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd!. Enaidmawr (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On this article, presumably it would be possible to revert to this version, before his involvement, and then use this diff to reinstate the positive changes since his last substantive edit? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Thanks again. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming way late to this conversation. But the reference to Owain Glyndŵr being crowned as Owain IV came from the BBC Wales history site, written by John Davies. I was not the originator of that section myself and do not know who had added this. But as I follow the link there is this statement sixth paragraph down:

"In 1404, the castles of Harlech and Aberystwyth fell to Glyndwr and soon after he called his first Cynulliad, or Parliament at Machynlleth. He was crowned Owain IV of Wales and laid out his vision of an independent Wales."

At least retroactively, I have seen historians use regal numbers for a few of the princes. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 07:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Still Wrong
1. The institution known as the Principality of Wales came into being with the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267. It did not exist prior to that date. It's okay to mention the House of Aberffraw's attempts to gain the overlordship of Wales prior to 1267, and to state that the Principality was based on and comprised from the territories formerly associated with the Kingdom of Gwynedd, but it is factually incorrect to claim that the institution known as the Principality of Wales was founded in 1216.

2. It is also factually incorrect to state that the title of 'Prince of Wales' was held or even claimed by any Welsh ruler prior to Dafydd ap Llywelyn, who was the first to claim that title in 1245. Owain Gwynedd styled himself as "Prince of the Welsh"; Rhys ap Gruffudd "Prince of South Wales"; and both Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd and Llywelyn ap Iorwerth assumed the title "Prince of North Wales."

See: http://www.historytoday.com/d-huw-owen/welsh-and-english-princes-wales

3. The so called "Acts of Union" did not "unite Wales with England." What these acts did was unite the Principality with the Marcher Lordships and the rest of Wales in terms of the administration of law and governance, thereby dissolving the institution known as the Principality of Wales and creating a separate judicial administration for the whole of Wales that would exist until 1830. By dissolving the Principality they also dissolved the Prince of Wales' constitutional role in regard to that institution as a territory and a source of income.

Source: J. Goronwy Edwards, The Principality of Wales, 1267-1967, Caernarvonshire Historical Society (Denbigh 1969)

Sanddef (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

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</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">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? -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">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)


 * 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. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Y Draig Aur Owain Glyndŵr.jpg