Talk:Owain Glyndŵr

Help identifying "he" and "Henry"

In the section "The Revolt, 1400-15", starting with the sentence "His young protégé..." I can't tell for certain who 'his', 'he', and 'Henry' refers to. I think we need to use Hotspur, Monmouth, and Henry IV here to keep it clear, but I'm not the one to do this correctly. Any help?

Hardship after the revolt

I am wondering if the documented hardship after the revolt is as bad as it was made out. My theory is that most of the documents were from the English side, and the Welsh documents made by the higher ends of society which would more likely see the effects.

I wager that many of the English settlers in the towns left back for England during the years of the uprising which was the main cause of hardship and "grass growing in town centres" because populations in these areas was so low, whereas if 75% of the Welsh population at the time was "barefoot peasants" then any economic impact would be negligable on the poorest but self sufficient individuals.

This is in considerable contrast to today, where the poorest always seem to suffer first because of the absence of self sufficiency and dependance on society. I understand that the high echeleons of welsh society felt the pinch just as much as the English however, but I feel that widespread hardship of the Welsh as a whole is incorrect, beyond anti-welsh policies of the English.

Extent of support in wales

This article does not specify how much support Owain actually had across the population of Wales (that presumably contained people of other origins). Neither does it explain the extent of Wales at that time (borders change). FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The narrative is inevitably "national-ised" through a contemporary political lens, so I don't know how remarkable it would be to comment on the fact the majority of people in Wales at the time would likely have never even heard of him, as it was still a largely feudal society. But this is hardly unique of most historical figures, their legacy was much more limited than we might like to imagine now. Yr Enw (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@FreeFlow99: The article has a section in 6.9.1. 'As a Welsh Icon' explaining his popularity, and maybe if you could find references to support the inclusion more information about the support he received then it could be double checked. And again about the border changes, I've read about Glyndwr's plan to open the borders further into England in one of the sourced books, that's something I could look into myself, or again if you have a referenced citation then we could work with that too. Also if you look at Owain Glyndŵr#Tripartite indenture and the year of the French, the section includes the proposed planning of an independent Wales with Mortimer and Percy sharing the lands of England and Wales. Cltjames (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Random update consensus

I recently messaged @AirshipJungleman29: about the random changes to the article, please see User talk:AirshipJungleman29#Owain Glyndwr for the chat. I'd like to create a consensus to make sure the correct changes are made to this article, Glyndŵr is dear to my family and I and I wish to find the best option for this article... Please talk ! Cltjames (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The link to the specific changes can be found here. It was a while ago, but I believe the issues were resolved with removing unnecessary duplication of content, smoothening of lists into prose, the eradication of short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION, removal of trivia and popular culture information per MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULTURE, and more. Please ping me if you have any questions about my so-called "random changes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Editorialising

This edit [1] introduces talk of apartheid, a modern concept, and creates a link to the crime of apartheid page, which is unnecessary editorialising of this, and raises significant NPOV concerns. The subject is historical, and until a source review is completed, I do not believe the term "apartheid" should be used at all, but even if it is used in some nuanced form in line with the one source that uses that says the penal laws were "effectively" like apartheid, it is certainly quite wrong to wikilink the term to crimes of apartheid. That raises a significant WP:NPOV concern for the whole article. Rather than revert the edit a second time, I shall add an appropriate template. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The term is inappropriate here but if used it should be handled with care. The quality of the source should be examined as should be what the source actually says, something which is often lost in transferring to a WP article. I cannot read either source BTW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Prince of Powys Fadog?

@Academia45: You're using WP:SYNTH to support this. You'e given 3 citations:

• Pierce: "he was thus descended from Madog ap Maredudd, last king of united Powys, and in him reposed claims of succession to that ancient province". Typically of Pierce, that's a rather antiquated turn of phrase: But what it doesn't actually say is he claimed that title. "In him reposed" actually suggests dormancy; something which has not been activated. that's actaully pretty close to the truth since there is no evidence that he accompanied his proclamation as Prince of Wales with a claim to Powys.
• Gower: "Owain's father, Gruffydd Fychan II, had been hereditary prince of Powys Fadog". It doesn't say Owain was prince of Powys Fadog. Prince Andrew's mother was Queen of the UK. It doesn't mean he will ever be.
• Davies/BBC: "He was the lineal descendant of the princes of Powys" Same point - it doesn't say he was prince of Powys.

It's notable that while each of these three sources deal with his ancestry - none say he claimed to be Prince of Powys. If you look at Davies The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dŵr on pages 153-155 he goes into detail on what was proclaimed in the revolt - he declared himslef prince of wales. there's no mention of Powys. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. No he didn't claim it, but was hereditary in the order of succession, which is why it is changed from claimant to hereditary like it was before. The first reference should have been enough but someone contested it after basically 10 years being there. Pierce reference = " in him reposed claims of succession to that ancient province " = he was the hereditary Prince of Powys Fadog. That the title was claimed or not is not the point here. As an example, the current heads of the House of Bonaparte and House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies did not "claim" their titles, as the monarchy was abolished a long time ago, but they are still Princes, as heirs (heredetary). Their titles are "titles of courtesy". Royal titles from deposed monarchies differs from noble titles.

External link : https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/why-do-royals-from-deposed-monarchies-keep-their-titles-104662/ Academia45 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: @Academia45, if you're citing Royal Central, note it is depreciated, not to be used. DankJae 02:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

you are right, I added it on the spur as a quick explanation of the concept. Academia45 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources say he was "hereditary Prince of Powys". There's no inherent meaning of "hereditary" Prince of anywhere - you have applied your own interpretation which isn't in the sources. At minimum two of the sources fail verification and I'm taking them out. They don't even say that he was next in the line of succession. The Pierce source fails verification as well but I'll leave it in for the moment but add a better source needed tag. TYhe whole thing is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Location of marriage.

Is the location of the wedding incorrect? I believe the church was the St Chad's at Hanmer not Holt. This would make sense as it is where the Hanmer estate is based and would be their family church. 2A00:23C8:6E08:7601:ED94:6BA:582D:84E1 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction made, thanks. Cltjames (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article

Any thoughts on working on the article a little more, with only 8 {{citations needed, and 3 {{pages needed, this article is almost complete after being restructured, and grammatically corrected. This article is better than a 'B', and I don't think this article would need an overhaul for a Wikipedia:Content assessment improvement, but I believe this can easily be upgraded to a Good Article (GA) with the removal of the unreferenced text and to find alternative sources or page numbers for incomplete references. Any thoughts on this potential article promotion to a good article from B? Cltjames (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@DankJae: what do you think ? Maybe the article needs some more proof reading, but as for a GA nomination, it's about ready, is it not?? Cltjames (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Ham II, @A.D.Hope, and @KJP1, who have more GA experience I think. Be free to ping others.

A little rough with GA personally and a bit busy, but will look briefly soon. Thanks DankJae 20:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did some more work (most), but more {{citation, now 11. I felt a proofread was necessary and the separation of new sections. I haven't gone through all of it, but am at a bit of a disadvantage to finish as I don't have the correct sources to reference all the text. If anyone could come up with some references, that would be great, if not, tbc... Cltjames (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts:

• The prose needs, quite a lot of, work;
• There's a mix of referencing/citation styles, sfn and other;
• There are quite a lot of old sources, 19th century histories and earlier, which I'm dubious about. The Banners / Lineage and Ancestry confusion sections are particularly weak here. On that point, I'm not sure what the Ancestry confusion section is actually saying. It says other historians "reciprocate" [not the right word] Lloyd, who appears to be saying OG wasn't descended from LG, but then ends with a citeless sentence that says he was? There are more modern sources - which is great - but are we sure we cover the most up-to-date studies of OG? It's not my period, so I can't say. There's also at least two blogs in there which would need to come out. KJP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  @KJP1 OK, thanks. So, as for the prose, I agree that another proofread would be necessary to ensure the flow of the article. All I did was restructured chronologically and separated paragraphs with new headings for better clarity. Then, a simple grammar improval and the removal of duplicate text. As for the ancestry confusion, that was a late addition, and it is difficult to correctly explain due to a lack of sources. Which brings the issue of WP:RS with many books from the 19th and early 20th centuries. For now, I will try add a few details, to remove {{cn. But I will look into finding newer materials to replace older sourced references, so I guess take it from there for now before the article can be considered a GA, but it is close! Cltjames (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Place of death, or resting place

Should any entry appear in the infobox, with or without a footnote? The article says this: "Tradition has it that he died and was buried possibly in the church of Saints Mael and Sulien at Corwen close to his home, or possibly on his estate in Sycharth or on the estates of his daughters' husbands: Kentchurch in south Herefordshire or Monnington in west Herefordshire." But the single (non-academic) source is this one, and this clearly says "Alex Gibbon's claims are disputed." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the article addresses the confusion over Glyndwr's death place, therefore the infobox can explain there are suggested sites from different sources, despite one location seeming to be the most recognised oral tradition passed through generations of the same Scudamore family of Monnington Staddle. Cltjames (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Any suggestions as to what should actually appear in the infobox? It's meant to be only a summary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I altered the text slightly and added your quote, please read and tell me if its ok or I'll comment vice versa, also I think adding it to the Death Date section works ok. Or alternatively, specify the Scudamore family source or his burial in Monnington Staddle, then add a text note about the confusion surrounding the burial location. Cltjames (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the footnote to the Burial place field. Does that work better? Also made some small changes to the wording +links. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 Yes, good, thanks. The infobox is complete now with an adequate description as to his burial location, and unclear works well. Cltjames (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Updating lede, and fact check

@2a02:8084:c542:a600:9c32:f5ca:f72:71a: refuses to acknowledge the research conducted and work on the article over the past months regarding the additional text elaborating Glyndwr's ancestry. I updated the lede for 2 reasons. 1 it was outdated. 2 the lede was still too long after we had agreed to already shorten it. I trimmed the lede and updated the section considering the newly added sections involving Glyndwr's ancestry. Could we please find common ground on the 2 subjects mentioned, again being length of lede, and also addition of ancestry in lede. Cltjames (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I never edited anything regarding Glyndwr’s ancestry, that’s not the issue. The issue was how you completely changed the opening of the article and unnecessarily removed reliable information without coming here and getting consent from the talk page first. You also wrote that Owain Glyndwr was a descendent of King Edward I which is false. 2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor does not need consent to make a bold change to a page - even quite a major one. And we should never revert simply because someone made a big change. However, if you take issue with the content of the change for some reason, then we can discuss that. Per onus, if content is reverted with reason then the onus would be on the editor introducing the reverted text to gain a consensus for it. That's how we do it here. So, what are the specific concerns you have, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

specific concerns are incorrect information such as the claim that Owain Glyndwr was a descendant of King Edward I, several punctual mistakes, and the removal of important context, information, and sources. 2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay so we can just fix punctuation mistakes. Could you be more specific about what removals you are objecting to, and why. On this issue of descent from Edward I, this has gone in the article body:

He was also a descendant of the English King Edward I, via his ancestors in Gwynedd.

Refs 3 and 4 there are not great. I don't have ref 1, although I do have other histories by these authors. I would be interested to know what they say exactly though, as I don't recall them saying this elsewhere. I do have library access to ref 2, and looking at page 45, I don't see the claim. I see discussion of a genealogy that purports to show his descent from King John, but the source does not say this is actually correct. What it says is

Versions of a text designed to show that Owain Glyndŵr was, through his mother, descended from Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and King John are found in Llanstephan 12, pp. 18–19 and 65–6 (s. xvimed) and Brogyntyn I. 15, pp. 382 and 391 (1593–6); these must derive from the common exemplar of those manuscripts, probably written by Ieuan Brechfa (cf. Table A.4.1.1).

That "designed to show" is a suitable caution. Genealogies were appealed to in order to give legitimacy, but we should avoid being more strident on the matter than the source itself. In any case, I would describe this claim as dubious at this point. Does anyone have the text of Davies & Morgan (2009)? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added links and had to paraphrase the final paragraph of the lede, as the text was moved to legacy. I still feel the lede is too long, and perhaps the article too. The text in the article is available in Glyndŵr rebellion and doesn't need to be duplicated in full in this article, which is a biography, not a story about a rebellion. So, can we please get opinions on the potential issue of WP:RS because of the age of the source explaining Glyndwr's ancestry in full. The problem is Bernard Burke was the King of Arms geneologist and is considered the industey leader, hence Burke's peerage. Also if he were to get the ancestry of Glyndwr incorrect in the 19th century, then there was over 150 years for his mistakes to be corrected, so the author is a reliable source regarding Glyndwr's ancestry. It's just whether people are willing to accept it or not. Otherwise, too reiterate, lede too long, needs to update regarding ancestry, Glyndwr was the direct descendant of the 3 royal houses ( Aberffraw, Dinefwr, Mathrafal), and that is how he qualified as the Prince of Wales, because his ancestry, then I added Edward I, because it's been updated in the text, so why not the lede? Please comment. Cltjames (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summarised description of his life, achievements, and fate. More advanced information is in the other sections below for readers. Regardless you still didn’t get consent here first for your edit which completely restructured large parts of the article. And lastly, yes Owain Glyndwr was a descendant of the 3 royal houses of Mathrafal, Dinefwr, and Aberffraw, however he was not a descendant of King Edward I, that shouldn’t be in the text. 2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 I don't know where you've been these past few months, look at the Llywelyn II talk page regarding Burke's geneology, we have accepted Edward I's ancestral connection, it is in the article, it is not misinformation, stop being biased and read the facts, again, update was added to text, not the lede, that is why it was added yesterday, if the text is updated, the lede should be to represent the text. Besides, the lede is too long and not relevant to a person, but more a rebellion. An edit war won't change that, nor will it change history. Read the facts and ask for a consensus regarding the including of Glyndwr's ancestry and lineage in this article, otherwise, leave the text alone. And please can we get a consensus about the inclusion of Glyndwr's ancestry into the lede..??? Cltjames (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of Edward I or Glyndŵr's descent from him on Talk:Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. What am I missing? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy we spoke about Catherine ferch Llywelyn, and @NetworkAuthority: made a bold inclusion, and with some editing the paragraph was added about ancestry confusion. I helped edit and found sources to confirm Llywelyn II's daughter being documented, and added it to the Glyndwr article, that is how Glyndwr was a descendant of Llywelyn II and Edward I, confirming the lineage section here in Glyndwr showing the connection to Gwynedd correctly but also adding some prose about the confusion between geneologist. Cltjames (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a source by any historians that say that Glyndŵr is so descended? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy The problem is not really, Lloyd 1881 in this article does mention the marriage of Glyndwr's Dad to Tomos, but no further. Virtually no sources I could find connects Tomos to Eleanor, Countess of Bar. Despite the fact of the authority of Norroy and Ulster King of Arms stating the legitimacy of Glyndwr's ancestry to Edward I, there isn't any websites or book directly addressing this issue that I could find. And, in the couple of books I have, and DWB, Llywelyn II has been ignored by modern Welsh scholars as Glyndwr's ancestor, and they revert to Gruffudd ap Cynan. Cltjames (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't say it either. If we make this claim, it will be original research. An encyclopaedic article needs to follow what the historians say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Ok, strange situation. If it is deemed 'OR', but the contention is that the article could be missing key facts, then surely a note can be added explaining the geneological research of Bernard Burke in 1844 & 1876. Cltjames (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Look at the Eleanor of England, Countess of Bar article for book references on the debate. Cltjames (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between Eleanor is sometimes credited with a daughter named Eleanor (b. 1285), who married a Welshman named Llywelyn ap Owain and was an ancestress of Owain Glyndwr and Owen Tudor, but this claim is now considered dubious. and [Glyndŵr] was also a descendant of the English King Edward I, via his ancestors in Gwynedd. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy I went with the Burke PDF reference from 1876 showing the line of ancestors from Glyndwr via Llywelyn II to Edward I. And like I said, Burke cannot be brought into dispute, really, despite this debate. Cltjames (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, another source can be found in Angharad ferch Llywelyn (Kenneth Panton, Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, (Scarecrow Press, 2011), p. 173). Another modern book, which I haven't read, but I'm not doubting its authenticity in proving the ancestral link between Glyndwr and Edward I, but this time via Llywelyn the Great (Llywelyn I), not Llywelyn II. So, the references for the ancestral link exist as reliable sources. Now, the question posed today would be whether Glyndwr's ancestry should be mentioned in the lede or not?? Can we get a consensus, please? Cltjames (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Panton (2011) does indeed say

Eleanor (born in 1285) married Llewelyn ap Owain (a Welsh noble),

whereas Connolly (2021) states,

A possible third child, Eleanor, is said to have married Llywelyn ap Owen of Deheubarth; but her existence seems to be in question.

This needs rewriting. I'll make an edit to express the doubt. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy Ok, thanks. It's a good addition that realistically explains the situation regarding the confusion about Glyndwr's royal ancestry. Cltjames (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

References