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)

Recent edits

A new editor is attempting to make substantial changes to the page, without attempting to seek agreement from other editors. Further discussion here, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that in this edit [1] marked Minor IagoHughes added as a ref a blog from a novelist [2] which I was about to revert when it was done for me by User:Ghmyrtle. Perhaps they need reining in by an admin?SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor's activities have been reported at WP:AN/EW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add Glyndwr's achievement of forming the first Welsh parliament, his specific birth place of birth, and his title as Prince of Wales under his name alongside lord of Glyndyfyrdwy and of Cynllaith Owain. I would also like to edit his predecessor as Prince of Wales to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd as he was the last independent Welsh Prince of Wales before him, not Owain Lawgoch. Again I would also like to add that Glyndwr was the last native Welshman to hold the title Prince of Wales. I would like to consult with other editors first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IagoHughes (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you begin with using the talk page to write a draft with the references in place to gather a consensus. My immediate thoughts would be that Lawgoch was never officially crowned as the Prince of Wales, in fact Dafydd ap Gruffydd would be the final native Prince of the House of Aberffraw, but the topic of native Prince is hotly contested, referring to Tudors of Penmynydd and the House of Tudor. And as for a first ever parliament, this is true, but similar gatherings had occurred since the era of the Kingdom of Gwynedd only under a different premise as royal gatherings of Princes and Lords. Maybe simply adding a sentence could work, but please show references. Cltjames (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that IagoHughes is currently blocked from editing, for edit-warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 5 April 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:

• Arfbais Owain Glyndwr arms.png

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

Lead changes

Several newer editors have made large additions to the lead, which is currently far too long. Please see the guidance on leads at the link above, and in particular MOS:LEADLENGTH. I'll try tidying it up/cutting it soon if nobody else gets round to it first. Jr8825 • Talk 04:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I tried rectifying the article mostly on the lead area by adding a heading "History" based on the description.

Thank you in advance. Magotech (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 Ok, your right. I'm a bit busy these few days but would like to try and tidy the article towards the end of the week... Please have patience. Cltjames (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 I've amended the intro, I hope it is acceptable now. Do you think it's missing anything? Cltjames (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I've been busy recently so haven't looked. I do have Davies' 1997 book on loan from the library and will at some point get round to it. From a quick glance, although I think the lead is better than it was, honestly I think it could do with a broader rewrite. It doesn't really give a good summary of Glyndwr's life, focuses too much on folklore/popular conceptions (although this is important, it should probably only be ~1/4 (a rough guesstimate) of the total lead size (i.e. a summary of his legacy). There are some bits I think can be written better, and saying "the aim of the war" is a bit redundant/anachronistic/simplistic, as the rebellion didn't take develop a clearly national spirit/extent until ~1403 (3 years into it); it was better I think to simply say "against English rule". Thanks for your effort though, and I agree this article needs more of a collaborative long-term effort (it'll be much easier to summarise the lead once the article body is properly cleaned up and sourced). Jr8825 • Talk 02:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 I feel the information provided should suffice to describe Glyndwr in the introduction, as in it doesnt need to be deleted. However, if you have ideas about expanding information to with his lifetime then please add to what is already existing. Cltjames (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825 I've made a new effort at fully describing Glyndwr's life, that is I added a new paragraph. Please don't delete, read it over and talk to me about grammar, improvements etc. Cltjames (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping and for your effort. I haven't taken a look at it yet as I haven't been active much on-wiki over recent weeks, but will offer feedback when I have the time. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I remodeled the introduction, but frankly would like to find some time to edit the whole article, the writing is accurate but seems poor. For the time being it is acceptable, hopefully, this is satisfactory. Cltjames (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (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 [3] 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)