Talk:Llywelyn ap Gruffudd

Parenthetical

"(some would say he was the penultimate, but in effect he was the last ruler)"

Is this relevant/ prudent to an introduction? The Krunk 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No; it's gone now. Gareth 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The predecessor is wrong as might be the successorThey call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry VII

I'm pretty sure that James III would have been surprised by the claim that Henry VII was king of all Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.53.171 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation

The Welsh version says: "Heddiw, mae yna Gwobr Goffa'r Tywysog Llywelyn ap Gruddydd Prifysgol Cymru i'r traethawd gorau ar gyfer y radd o MPhil neu PhD." What does this mean?

"These days, there's a prize in memory of Prince Llywelyn ap Gruddydd at the University of Wales for the best dissertation at MPhil or PhD level." Marnanel 21:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page name

I've moved this back from Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf ap Gruffydd, after Seancdaug moved it there, in accordance with the Manual of Style. — OwenBlacker 11:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think that was the right thing to do. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd is either known as Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (note the spelling of Gruffudd which you will find in all modern secondary sources) or Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf or Llywelyn the Last. I think the English form is acceptable. Seancdaug's form of Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf ap Gruffydd is not one I have seen before. — Lyndafis 15:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regnal number

According to the Wiki standard for articles on rulers, I would have thought that something like Llywelyn III of Gwynedd or Llywelyn II of Wales would be more appropriate for this article. Siswrn 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very rarely that you see forms like 'Llywelyn II' for Welsh monarchs; they are almost always distinguished by a description (e.g. Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, Rhodri Fawr, Hywel Dda) or by lineage (e.g. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd). Gareth 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but Wikipedia has a convention that sometimes goes against common usage. For example, look at the discussion on 'Mary I of Scotland', who is usually referred to as 'Mary Queen of Scots'. Siswrn 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen the form Llywelyn II etc used to refer to welsh monarchs, common usage or not Tswsl1989 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation

It's my understanding that "Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf" translates to "Llywelyn, our last prince" as opposed to "last leader". Just a minor point though. Tswsl1989 07:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Llyw is Welsh meaning leader/ steerer. When the last of the Romans left the Britons, the Britonic people were gradually pushed Westward into what we now know as Wales. Princeps Wallie literally translates as Leader of the foreigners, which is what the Saxons called the native Welsh. Wales also got it's name from this.

Llyw & Princeps would appear to mean much the same thing but one is Welsh, one is Latin.

Lord & Lady of Snowdon

Llywellyn & his wife (Queen?) were known as the Lord & Lady of Snowdon. By whom? I'm assuming at this time the mountain was largely referred to by its Welsh/ Britonic name 'yr Wyddfa'? Snowdon being a Saxon name for the mountain. C Williams - Llantrisant 217.134.255.99 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Annexation

There are several assertions that seem a little POV, or at least are written in somewhat of a loose style: "Edward took particular delight in ...", "With equal deliberateness ...", "the most precious religious relic in Gwynedd ...", "Edward was thereby appropriating the historical and religious regalia of the house of Gwynedd and placarding to the world the extinction of its dynasty and the annexation of the principality to his Crown." (certainly not NPOV, very loose, also "placarding" seems overly trite and probably not true, certainly not "extinction of its dynasty" the next para mentions Rhodri for example).

"ended their lives in captivity" sounds like they all committed suicide, assuming that not to be the case perhaps "remained imprisoned until their deaths", some citations are needed on who the relatives are and where they were held captive if this assertion is to remain. The following para goes on to mention all the relatives (apart from Dafydds sons) who remained free and the manner of their deaths (not in captivity) so this seems internally contradictory.

That last sentence is weasely, two uses of "may". Pbhj (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Berfeddwlad

A minor point, but surely needs correcting on the 1247 divisions Map is 'Yr Perfeddwlad'. This should read 'Y Berfeddwlad'. See: http://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Berfeddwlad

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mother of Llywelyn

The article gives Llywelyn's mother as Senena ferch Rhodri, but Sir John Wynn's History of the Gwydir family names her as the daughter of Caradog ap Thomas. Anyone got any ideas?

It is interesting to conclude that he was trying to escape when he left the tower through the window. This is probably just a lie, implying that he was incompetent or an idiot. In reality, he jumped to his death, so that Wales would not have an imprisoned leader, and so another leader could take his place. Most English kings would not have the patriotism to kill themselves for the good of the nation. It is disappointing to hear lies about the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.182.165.34 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Article name/page move

User:Iamamazing77 yesterday moved the page from Llywelyn the Last to Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, but an admin., at my request, has moved it back to Llywelyn the Last. The reason is per WP:COMMONNAME, Google Books search shows that Llywelyn the Last is more common than Llywelyn ap Gruffyd. DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

May I present new evidence? It is noted above that “Llywelyn the Last” had the most mentions on a Google Book search, which showed that the current page name was correct as a WP:COMMONNAME. That conclusion is mistaken does not include the most common spelling. “Llywelyn the last" gives 24,100 results. While it is true that this is many more references than "Llywelyn ap Gruffydd" (at 7,380) - or the mis-spelt "Llywelyn ap Gruffyd" (at 194 results) - a more common spelling of his name is Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, which produces "64,300 results". I also contend that books using Llywelyn ap Gruffudd are on the more academic side than other spellings, and note that his Encyclopaedia of Wales entry is under Llywelyn ap Gruffudd too. I propose, therefore, that this page be renamed Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, and I note that Britannica also uses L ap G. But just one note of caution, I notice that among those Google results there are other Llywelyns ap Gruffudd eg Llywelyn Bren, albeit a minority. The Welsh patronymic format tends to result in historical names that are often not terribly distinctive, especially to the general reader: the advantage of the current article title is there's absolutely no doubt who it's about. But if you think it is important to move it on the basis of the new search, I don't feel strongly enough about it to object. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

One other thing I forgot to say, just to be clear. The conclusion that I put in my original post from 2013 wasn't "mistaken". That was purely about the page move that had been made at that time: it concerned a comparison of those two names only, and was clearly correct. DeCausa (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. No offence was intended. I have no doubt the comparison was made in good faith and struck that phrase above. Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please lets reach a consensus. Lloyd in History of Wales uses Gruffydd, for Gruffydd ap Cynan and Gruffydd ap Llywelyn. Davies in history of Wales uses both Gruffydd for Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, and Gruffudd for Gruffudd ap Cynan. I encountered the name via Lloyd and favor Gruffydd myself, but defer to consensus. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Had we not, in the discussion above? Llywelyn ap Gruffudd seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME now, by a long way. John Davies uses Gruffudd in A History of Wales, rather than Gruffydd. Lloyd published his History of Wales in 1911. He did use Gruffydd, but contemporary historians tend to use Gruffudd e.g. John Koch, Beverley Smith, R R Davies and Gwynfor Evans. 100 Welsh Heroes uses Gruffudd , as does the definitive source, the Welsh Academy's Encyclopaedia of Wales (p 517). Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, based on the Google results we would go with "Llywelyn the Last" before "ap Gruffydd". It seems the least used of the three top possibilities. DeCausa (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. 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/20071117020706/http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/subjects/3101 to http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/subjects/3101

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Common name in introduction

I read the discussions "Page name" (2004) and "Article name/page move" (20013-2014). Based on the comments it seems Llywelyn ap Gruffudd is the most common name for the king. Daicaregos mentioned that "contemporary historians tend to use Gruffudd" which include John Koch, Beverley Smith, R. R. Davies and Gwynfor Evans. However, this article starts with "Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (c. 1223 – 11 December 1282), sometimes written as Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" and it's entitled Llywelyn ap Gruffudd so that doesn't make any sense to me. If Gruffudd is the standard then the introduction in the text should reverse the names and say "Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (c. 1223 – 11 December 1282), sometimes written as Llywelyn ap Gruffydd".

ICE77 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Encylopedia of Wales entry is "Llwelyn ap Gruffudd" so I suggest we adopt your proposal -----Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

As there is no discussion here that indicates the current infobox image choice represents a group consensus, I have been bold and replaced it, moving the one that was there farther down the article. My reasoning is two-fold. First, the image itself is not the best representation of the statue - the angle from which the photo is taken gives an odd view looking up the man's nose, and the angled backlighting causes some unnatural shadow-and-light effects that highlight his knee and the back of his neck, while making the head at the bottom look like the Star Trek characters with their faces half-white and half-black. Second, there has been a longstanding preference on historical pages to use contemporary or near-contemporary representations in the infobox, while putting modern depictions farther down the article (see William the Conqueror, Alfred the Great & Urraca of León as just three of many examples), unless none exists or the modern representation is particularly iconic, neither of which is the case in this instance. Agricolae (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Llys Llywelyn.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2022 (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:

• Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's personal arms.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Catherine ferch Llywelyn?

I deleted a sentence about Catherine the illegitimate daughter of Llywelyn, as per conversation- Talk:Gwenllian of Wales, from this source (page 51). The story goes whilst genealogists made a family tree for Owain Glyndwr, some fabricated his genealogy to make him a descendant of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, but this was a mistake, as he was actually a descendant of Llywelyn the Great... Supposedly, and I believe the outcome is correct, Catherine is a fabrication/misunderstanding about the descendants of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. If someone thinks otherwise, please talk. Cltjames (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@NetworkAuthority: The re-inclusion of the text you have referring to Owain Lawgoch on page 16 has no reference to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd which makes it WP:SYNTH as you haven't got a source explaining the concept of Lawgoch emulating Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Also, it can be excluded because of the issue of WP:RS, as in reliable source, the book is over 50 years old and can be excluded for that reason only. Then the writing style of using bullet points for an article is incorrect, so the paragraphs would have to be redrafted. Please use the talk page and do not start an edit war, I will revert and look into finding more information in the literature which can back up your claim, or you can talk and we can find an alternative as a team. Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to transfer some parts more relevant to Glyndwr to that article. The Lawgoch text is also found in Siddons M P: 'The Development of Welsh Heraldry', Vol. I, p. 289, 1991, NLW - so age of reference is no an issue.

It reads:

A contemporary French chronicle, relating how Owain Glyndwr sought an alliance with Charles VI of France against the English, declared that he claimed to be the heir of Yvain de Galles: Solus princeps Wallie Glindour nomine .... ad id tamen audaciam prestitit quod famosus quondam armiger Yvo de Wallia, cui jure consanguinitatis successerat in servicio regis Francie Karoli nuper deffuncti occubuerat. Perhaps indeed he deliberately bore his lions rampant, this being the version of the arms of Gwynedd which were borne by the last of the direct line, who had himself been recognised by the King of France as the rightful Prince of Wales.

In my opinion it would be better to quote earlier article in the Cymmrodorion. It is unthinkable that some may consider the Cymmrodorion as an unreliable source!

As for the bullets, it is a simple matter for me to change the format. 2A02:C7F:6609:2D00:913D:FC8:99D1:4FF (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@NetworkAuthority: firstly, the book quote has an issue about WP:SYNTH, as it does not directly mention Llywelyn II. As for the text, it can be added to Owain Lawgoch under a new coat of arms section. Then, as for reliability of the source I am not doubting it, however, the book which was used as a reference to the bullet points was printed over a century ago. Cltjames (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I will the text to both the Glyndwr and Lawgoch articles since both are cited in the Latin, and my main concern are the pronouncements of Lloyd about Glyndwr's ancestry. As for the date of reference I shall add Siddons (printed in 1991) as an extra to qualify the Cymmrodorion article. Please indicate exactly (weblink) where the 50 year rule is stated in respect of WP:RS, because I have been unable to find it. 2A02:C7F:6609:2D00:CCE4:A2B3:DD61:CEB4 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@NetworkAuthority: Add text to Glyndwr and Lawgoch, I have a Glyndwr book which I can help you edit from. As for book references, I have been told by @KJP1: that over 50 years is contentious for WP:RS. Would KJP1 have any ideas about approaching these recent changes for this article ?? Cltjames (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add the text as agreed. If the book is: Glyndwr, A Casebook by Livingston & Bollard, which contains most things - including the inheritance reference, and an essay on the referenced subject, I have it. 2A02:C7F:6609:2D00:C9F4:D839:BCE:617 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@NetworkAuthority: I've done some proof writing in the Glyndwr article as you cannot copy and paste work on Wikipedia. Also, I removed a quote from Lloyd as it did not appear in the reference you gave, if you can find the book and page, then please re add it. I removed a reference from 1641, because of the reliability issue (WP:RS). I moved the paragraph in Glyndwr to a better place, will read a book to see if I can add something extra to the text. Otherwise, I will continue to fine tune the work, don't take it personal, I'm just proof editing. Cltjames (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself features George Owen York Herald ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Owen_(herald) ) as the author of the 1641 illuminated pedigree. I myself have a digitised copy of it (its digital size is over 10Mb, and it is a parchment of about 4 meters in length). I obtained my obtained from the Carmarthenshire Archives, as can anyone else if they care to follow it up. I have not included images ( Catherine is shown sited between Llywelyn and Glyndwr) from it because of permissions and copyright. The manuscript is also quoted by others in recent prestigious works. It is signed by George Owen, and also includes examination and approval signatures of Henry St George Norroy King of Arms and John Borough Garter Principal King of Arms. It is written on the document that it is itself sourced from "testified" sources of the officers of Arms. 2A02:C7F:6609:2D00:2576:D7DF:9F13:F79D (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in creating a balanced article concerning the two daughters of Llywelyn. Owen (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reign as Prince of Wales

The info box and table have him as prince from 1246 but this date doesn't seem to be mentioned in the text (there's a citation, 7). The introductory text instead uses 1258, which seems to be about his use of the term? It seems like 1246 should be mentioned somewhere, possibly replacing 1258 in the intro, but I know nothing of the topic. Tomcrocker (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tomcrocker well, supposing whoever put the date of 1246, the thought process must have been that Llywelyn was the lineal successor to Dafydd ap Llywelyn, and he died that year. But yes, officially in the history books, Llywelyn II was confirmed as Prince of Wales by the English monarchy in 1258. So, the question is, was his title heredity from his uncle, or simply a appointed by the King of England...? Cltjames (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't hereditary. He was prince of Wales from 1258. He was a prince of Gwynedd from 1246. The infobox is confusing, and the lead insufficient. We also have nothing in the lead about Owain, or how Llywelyn defeated him and seized his share in 1255. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And now I have edited it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Ok, thanks for the edit. However, you left out the Prince of Wales title in the infobox. Then, in the succession box at the bottom of the article, it still states he was Prince of Wales from 1246. Cltjames (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I left out succession of prince of Wales in the infobox because there is no succession of the title. Dafydd ap Llywelyn claimed the title, yes. However it wasn't recognised by England and Llywelyn had to win it, after first winning back sole control of Gwynedd in 1255. It makes no sense to put it under the succession parameter in the infobox. This is something that needs prose narrative to explain. As for that box at the bottom of the page, I think we should just remove that. It is not very visible, and again is just confusing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy the thing is, you say it wasn't recognised, however there is evidence that Llywelyn II was recognised as Prince of Wales by 1267. Cltjames (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dafydd ap Llywelyn's claim was not recognised by Henry III, and the claim was behind Henry's 1245 campaign against him. When he died the following year, his possessions were divided. Llywelyn and Owain shared Gwynedd and everything else was withheld by Henry. There is no sense that there was any succession of the title. It had to be won anew. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)