Draft talk:List of legendary rulers of Wales

Additional medieval Welsh King list article

This article has been inspired by other Celtic nations' articles; List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland, List of legendary rulers of Cornwall. Although it is a merger from the previous King of Wales article, please read Talk:King of Wales article page for a further explanation. If users have ideas or objections, please use talk page. Cltjames (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames: I'm afraid this article is ringing alarm bells for me, and I've given it a {{disputed}} tag. While the article title is List of legendary rulers of Wales, the lede treats King Camber as a historical figure (he wasn't) and Cambria as "a sub-kingdom of the Kingdom of Britain" in the Iron Age. But see the lede of the article Cambria: "The term was not in use during the Roman period (when Wales had not come into existence as a distinct entity) or the early medieval period ... The term Cambria is first attested in Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century as an alternative to [Britannia and Wallia]". "The Celts established Wales, England, and Scotland as the countries of Great Britain" is another dubious statement, and the entire "Establishing the Kingdom of Cambria (Wales)" section is pseudohistory (all from Geoffrey of Monmouth, I think) written as if it were historical fact. Also, the title and the scope don't match as the article begins with legendary figures and ends with historical ones. Ham II (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the lede can be altered, but I personally don't have book sources going into detail about the dispute of Geoffrey of Monmouth, so I wouldn't know what to change or add. But please see also similar articles, List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland and List of legendary rulers of Cornwall for comparison as to how this article can be structured and presented. Cltjames (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Draftification

This article appears to be a copywithin from King of Wales, placed under another title, but I agree with Ham IIs comments above, and additionally it does not even claim to be what the page title suggests it is. I think this needs more work before we publish to the world. A reader needs to understand the scope and subject of the page. I have thus moved to draft. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Ham II and @Sirfurboy that it needs to be rewritten – it really needs to make clear which figures are purely legendary (e.g. Camber and his decendents), which ones are possibly historical but repurposed as pseudo-historical kings (e.g. the List of Kings of Welsh Kingdoms as King of Britain in the article), etc. – the lead at the moment reads like it's placing these legendary kings into the historical context that they would have existed in, had they been real (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH). That said, there seems to be a consensus on Talk:King of Wales to keep that article free from legendary kings, so if the above points can be addressed, it would be good to have this article to match the List of High Kings of Ireland, Legendary kings of Scotland and List of legendary rulers of Cornwall articles listed above. @Cltjames – I'd be happy to work with you to try to fix these problems if you'd like. --Yodin^T 12:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above, not what I intended by expressing my openess to this type of article. But it is clear that there is interest in this topic so best as a fully separate legendary article, rather than mix it with more certain history. This shouldn't be a copy of the King of Wales reverted version. DankJae 13:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I would much appreciate your experience and perhaps some input as to how to approach the publication of this article. My issues are that I cannot retrieve much information regarding the issues to do with Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, and I don't have many, if any any direct sources of my own for the subject matter. Could you recommend a book perhaps, or even better, would you contribute your source material from Cornwall on the matter please? I'd be more than happy for you @Yodin: to help edit the article to get it published correctly. Sorry I just copied and pasted my original post, I wasn't thinking really (school exam period next week), I did spend an hour altering the article slightly, but not much needs to be done really to get it up to standard. Cltjames (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sad to say that a great deal needs to be done to the article in order to get it up to standard. It purports to be a list, but it is in fact a farrago of synthesis and original research. This is an article about a legend. It should not be a version of the pseudohistory according to legend; it should be the real story of the development of the legends and the people who elaborated them. A list, possibly formatted as a table, with brief comments on the first ascription of the title to that name, would be a good start - there's an example in List of legendary rulers of Cornwall. The List of legendary kings of Britain probably covers most of the same territory as this draft. You might want to think about how to avoid duplication.

Best wishes with your school examinations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting

I've made a start by removing the prose sections for now (see WP:SALLEAD for the type of initial prose needed, and examples of featured lists to see the best way to apply these guidelines in practice – probably best to do this once the lists have been finalised). Next step will be to go through the lists, and work out if anything's been missed, whether they should all be added to one list, and if not, what the sections should be. Will fix the refs after reviewing the lists, to see which ones are needed. @Cltjames – don't be discouraged by this! --Yodin^T 15:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, good start, thanks. I found some work on JSTOR for Geoffrey of Monmouth, which I'll try adding prose for when I get some more time next week, otherwise Bartrum mentions his work briefly in the 1993 book, I'll try and cross reference that too. Also, I can't find anything online about Baglan 1607, any thoughts on his research, or analayses of the book you know of @Yodin: Cltjames (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, seeing at the article has been deconstructed, I've moved some parts to the History of Wales template article. I.e. Celtic Tribes, Gwynedd & Llywelyn II. Cltjames (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Bartrum's Welsh Classical Dictionary is a good source for details of individual legendary figures, and we could use it to find other kings, etc. that have been missed (I am a bit concerned that by concentrating on the HRB and Baglan, we're missing out most kings/rulers from genuine Welsh myths). The scholarship of Joseph Alfred Bradney's 1910 edition of the Book of Baglan still holds up, and its introduction and notes, etc. can be used to provide context. This is probably enough for the lead (again, I'd be aiming for something simple like the List of legendary rulers of Cornwall lead, rather than trying to give readers context of lots of tangential stuff: concentrating specifically on the development of the legends, rather than mixing in history), but other parts of the Wikipedia Library might provide more sources if needed. I'm not in the US, and so the HathiTrust scan isn't accessible, but I'll try to upload a copy of the scan to Commons (could also start a transcription project for it at Wikisource). --Yodin^T 22:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I managed to get hold of a copy of Bradney's 1910 edition of Baglan's book on an ancestry website, and took some screenshots. Otherwise, I feel that the Legendary kings of Scotland article holds up well with plenty of book references on the topic, and the Cornish article achieves its purpose well in displaying the facts correctly. Whilst the High Kings of Ireland article is in between, but somehow goes back to 1934 BC... A fact I believe from the settlements such as Newgrange, I wonder if there are histories from Stonehenge connected to kings of modern times. So, like I said next week I will tackle a bunch of articles on Geoffrey's book from JSTOR to find some balance to the article with text and not just a list. But I find it odd how Baglan's book has been so quietly kept, to the point we know it was transcribed in 1607, but from what sources... I haven't been able to find anything on Baglan online, and can't access the HathiTrust website either. But for sure, tbc. Cltjames (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a stand-alone list; in which case it would be best to change the title to something like Legendary rulers of Wales, Legendary kings of Wales, or Legendary Welsh rulers (as many of the entries are not rulers of the whole of Wales). I think it will be much, much easier to get this published as a list, but am not opposed to expanding the scope as long as there's no WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I don't want to put in much more time until I'm sure this is the case, and I think there's a good chance of passing the Draft Review process so the time we put in doesn't go to waste, but would be happy to review it when you're ready. As for Baglan – it's brilliant for us, but I think to most scholars it's just one of the many Welsh genealogies (e.g. Harleian genealogies, Genealogies from Jesus College MS 20, Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd), a much less ancient one at that, as you say, and mixing in Heraldic visitation-like stuff which makes it seem less reliable. That said, searching for "Book of Baglan" on Google Books returns about 9 pages of usable results, and I think Internet Archive would return many more when it's back online. --Yodin^T 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded the HathiTrust scan of the 1910 edition of the Book of Baglan here: File:Llyfr Baglan; or The Book of Baglan (1910).pdf (currently without an OCR layer; can use the HathiTrust search to provide page numbers). --Yodin^T 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, great thanks, I recall we're looking at pages around 80-110 approx. I'll take a look at start on something this coming weekend. Cltjames (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that the Book of Baglan consists of the detailed genealogies and heraldry of various Welsh gentry families, with some additions of legendary monarchs slightly garbled from Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination. It doesn't seem to have attracted much interest at any time between 1607 and Joseph Bradney's edition, and very little thereafter, and it isn't an independent source for the legendary rulers. I hope you can find something of use to an encyclopedia in it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Bartrum's WCD often mentions Baglan when discussing individual legendary kings, etc., and as mentioned above, there are quite a few reliable sources that also cite the book; we should follow WP:LISTCRITERIA to determine the scope of what's included. Again, my main concern is that if the scope of the article is expanded to something like Legendary kings of Scotland, it may be difficult to provide an overview section specifically about the rulers of Wales within the Book of Baglan without either doing original research, or synthesizing from a number of different sources. All that being said, I will withold any judgement until I see what you have in mind @Cltjames! --Yodin^T 17:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the first step at completing the article by making a lede and an introductory backstory to the list. I've used JSTOR and some older sources I used in the King of Wales reverted text. Please read and talk. But basically, I believe there should be some text before the list begins. Then also, the question is how to approach the list, as in Baglan, Geoffrey or a combination of both ? Cltjames (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I've finished for now. I know there's lots of objections regarding the validity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work. I have added an introduction which explains the controversy correctly. Then I've integrated texts. My only thought now would be whether the text could add in Geoffrey's king list including Dyfnwal Moelmud and his predecessor and successor as Kings of Cambria. Just that list is difficult to define, as it hasn't been done yet on Wikipedia. Again, please talk and we can find a solution. But this edition should be a rough draft and a good template as to what should be transcribed. Cltjames (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, to whom it may concern. I have readded what I feel to be adequate information regarding the era and people involved in comparison to today. Instead of deleting, can we please talk and cooperate to find the ultimate solution. I believe the prose I found on Geoffrey on Monmouth (==History of kings==) works well and is adequately sourced, and its just about whether all the detailing of the lists is needed or not is the question. I won't submit draft until we get a consensus and a neutral perspective. Please and thanks. Cltjames (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Again you have inserted at great length your own thoughts to synthesize an account of history as if the frank mythology had useful roots in reality. As others have pointed out, this sort of stuff may be a great basis for fantasy and fiction, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Your current draft needs a lot of deletion. I'm sorry to say, those deletions would include almost all of your prose. Let's stick to the list. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The positives to me are that the prose itself is well written, and is much more toned down than the first draft. Next week is very busy for me (and I think you mentioned you had university exams next week @Cltjames); would it be ok to take a break for a week, and then perhaps we could start discussing aspects of what's in the article on a case by case basis, to try to show what we think wouldn't get through the draft review process? --Yodin^T 12:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, have just noticed you also deleted the HRB kings I was drafting (Rudaucus, and the kings of Venedotia and Demetia)! 😂 --Yodin^T 12:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, to update. I'm fine with a cull, I just simply wanted to put out the full potential as a gauge of where I was and what I did. So, I will go ahead and trim the article and take another look. @Yodin:, as for your list, I didn't delete it in full, I moved Cadwallon Lawhir into the list of post Roman kings, but I didn't know what to do with the rest, because I specified the list was of Welsh kings, and I didn't see any link between the kings to Wales or Cambria at that. But by all means, please explain how we could add those names, and then we can take it from there to try to merge or adjust some lists. So, I've removed plenty about Brutus, but kept some stucture, any ideas how to improve the article now ?Cltjames (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So, in the Historia Regum Britanniae ("The History of the Kings of Britain"), Geoffrey seems to have invented Camber as the namesake and first ruler of Cambria. No successors are mentioned, until Rudaucus (book 2, chapter 17), who is named as the king of Cambria during the pentarchy. At some unspecified point after this in the HRB, Wales is divided into two kingdoms: North Wales (which he calls Venedotia), and South Wales (which he calls Demetia), and several of these kings are named through the rest of the HRB, while no further kings of the whole of Wales/Cambria are given. You seem to have taken one of these kings of Venedotia (Cadwallon Lawhir) and removed the rest. If you would rather this be a list purely of figures who were claimed to be rulers of the entirety of Wales, we should probably remove all of the "Governors of North Cambria", and "Kings of Welsh Kingdoms as King of Britain". As for any ideas how to improve the article now ? – again, I would suggest taking a break, and discussing some time after next week – but as Richard Keatinge says above, I think there still seems to be a huge gap between the article as it is now, and the consensus of all other editors who have raised their concerns above. --Yodin^T 17:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Just a question, do you have a book reference about how Geoffrey invented Camber which could be added to the text? Otherwise, I've readded the table you inserted, and I've titled it ==Kings of Demetia (South Wales), but we now have a duplication of a few king entries. In terms of my input, that's about all I can conjure for now, and feel the structure is well presented now, we just have to dissect what should be kept and removed or added. Cltjames (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Will see what I can find. 🙂 --Yodin^T 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yodin so, I did a little restructuring, and have considered that if my prose don't fit in, then I can transfer text to another article regarding manuscripts. But after some time to think, what is your opinion on the article now, and what would you recommend please ? Cltjames (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of your prose is absolutely unfit for anywhere in Wikipedia. You keep on producing original versions of fantasy history. The proper task of this article is to list the fantasy rulers who reliable authors - Bartrum probably the main one - have given as part of authentic legend. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, point heard. However, in terms of what I wrote, it's simply a template Wikipedia draft article, as in, I directly linked the JSTOR library to the true author of this article: Geoffrey. Otherwise, I would like a consensus about the prose I wrote about the manuscripts, not the Iron Age part (that is a another story), that considering I only paraphrased a journal regarding this topic, because, honestly there is more depth to this subject matter than meets the eye, and I'm still favouring the writing style of the legendary kings of Scotland article as the template for Wales. Cltjames (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the manuscripts section has many of the same problems: the main one being that it's not directly relevant to the topic of legendary kings (if readers want to find out more about the history of the texts, there are links to the relevant articles, and there is nothing on the development of kingship in Welsh myths and legends, I guess because you haven't found any sources about this, or it doesn't interest you?). It reads as your perspective on this stuff, rather than professional historians' perspectives on it, for example, talking about the sources of the Historia Regum Britanniae:

• Their works are deemed to be drawn from traditional Celtic materials and are supposed to have deep roots to the point that the publications are considered reliable and not the imagination of one man, aka Geoffrey. However, since Geoffrey's publication of the Historia Regum Britanniae (De gestis Britonum), his work has been downgraded due to factual errors that were once recorded for the publication of his work i.e. observations to do with Stonehenge.

This is almost the opposite of the modern academic consensus. I started a draft breaking down each part of this section to explain what I think's wrong, and can post this if you want (warning: I'm very critical of almost everything currently in the draft) but I'm not sure it would be helpful, as I'm not prepared to rewrite the current article (I think it's not relevant to the topic), and I'm not sure whether you would be prepared to remove all this stuff, or replace it with writing about the modern—highly skeptical—academic approach to the subject itself. You mentioned above that you weren't very familiar with the Historia Regum Britanniae or the Book of Baglan, and you haven't mentioned any genuine Welsh myths or legends – I'm trying to understand what it is that you really want to write about – what is it about this that inspires you? --Yodin^T 13:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am more than willing to cooperate and ask for advice, and I've now stated that if anyone has anything they'd like to directly input then please do, as this is an open topic which I am interested in, very much been editing similar articles for 5 years now, but I cannot find anything on Baglan, so my work is a simple paraphrase from JSTOR, simple ideas based on a search for Geoffrey. I'd like your input if you say you have ideas as how to present this article with a prose and not just a list, just I paraphrased and don't want to move away from fact. But your right the prose has nothing to do with kings, but about Geoffrey, it is a simple disclaimer to someone who doesn't know the back story. So, if you have any ideas, please, I'd like to hear, because I'm drawing some blanks here. Cltjames (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You said below that you were planning on leaving some text I've sourced for the Ewyas and Ergyng (Archenfield), because Bartrum doesn't really go past into BC, whilst Baglan is offering spotted list going back thousands of years to the Iron Age. I think that's pretty close to the crux of the difference between what you're trying to do, and what the overwhelming consensus of other editors are trying to point out: you seem interested in having a list that goes back thousands of years, and trying to provide as much evidence that it might be a genuine tradition as possible; while everyone else is trying to point out that that isn't what writing Wikipedia articles is about! On the plus side, you've got lots of established editors putting in time trying to point out these problems! If you're set on having this as a prose article, my advice would be to start by finding sources that are about the concept and history of kings in Welsh myths and legends: when you've found as many as you can, read them all, and then write the article about what they say. Once this is done, you could add a bit of context (my advice about this would be to start with no context, and then reread the article, asking yourself "would a reader know what this is?" and if not, add a few words to explain what it is, with a wikilink for interested readers to find out about the subject). Again, you said below that Bartrum alone has hundreds of possible references about this – it could take months or years to get a good overview of the subject – might also be worth moving this draft to userspace, to prevent the possibility of it being eventually deleted as a draft. --Yodin^T 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well. The concept was to cover the topic as a whole, which has somehow been met with resistance, despite how the fellow Celtic nations have adopted the stance on there being a king list into the Iron Age (Ireland Bronze Age), whilst the Bartrum reference stops at 0AD for the Roman Age. I just wonder how it could be done to incorporate the Governors of North Cambria without anything more than Baglan's list. Something I'll pick up on in the near future, but I have some ideas about using the Life of Gruffudd ap Cynan as a cross reference starting with Beli Mawr. Tbc, again thanks for the advice @Yodin:. Cltjames (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries, don't give up, you've got lots of people trying to help you improve if you let them! And just to be clear, there's still a strong consensus in favour of a list of these kings, and nothing against the concept of writing a prose article about it in principle (if enough sources can be found, which I think is likely), but there is strong resistance to the draft in its current form, for all the reasons listed on this page. If you disagree with the principles or consensus on Wikipedia, I'd also urge you to look at all the other online encyclopedias, many of which would welcome and encourage your perspective and research as it currently is! Good luck! --Yodin^T 15:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

History

I took a look at what you have here. I only looked at one section, Iron Age tribes, but I think the points I would make could be generalised. The section is being presented as a summary of facts - many of which are wrong or debatable. For instance: During the British Iron Age (c. 800 BC- 0AD) should be up to 43AD - the Roman invasion (or generalised as 50AD). is when the Welsh tribes split into four regional tribes. There may have been others. Your text adds in the Gangani as though they arrived during the Roman occupation, but that is a supposition based only on the fact that Ptolemy is the first (and only) person to mention them. Ptolemy never says they had just arrived. And the other tribes and their extents are only known to us through Roman writers. So then you tell us that the Silures were in one place from 800BC for a thousand years (from the start of the Iron Age and overlapping the late Bronze Age). Which may be true, but how would we know? And if they were there in 800BC, how do we know they were not there before? I forget if it is Nora Chadwick's claim or perhaps Beresford Elis or even Kendrick, but the claim is made that the Silures were an indigenous bronze age tribe and not really Celtic at all except in cultural assimilation. But these are old claims and any truth in them is heavily nuanced by the fact that this would be true of all tribes, and that before the Romans started writing things down, we only have archaeology to rely on.

So with these and other concerns about what we are saying in wikivoice, I looked at your sources. Your first one is Barry Cunliffe, which is okay, but your second paragraph is where it gets hairy. Your repeating of what looks like old theories about the Silures has two references. The second is just a museum's short description about hill forts in the Malvern hills (tertiary), but your first source is The history of Ewias Harold (Bannister, 1861). This is where these old theories are coming from. Let's see what Bannister says about himself first:

I am neither antiquary nor poet, but merely one who, living day by day among the hills and streams of Ewias land, has come under its spell; and, in the spare moments of a busy life, I have strung together these fragments of its story.

So that is a strong caution from the writer himself. But look what he now tells us:

We now know, however, that they [the silures] were not Britons at all, if by Britons we mean the old Celtic inhabitants of Britain, who spoke a language akin to modern Welsh. They were the remains of a pre-Celtic race, who came into England in a distant age, when as yet a broad bridge of land connected what is now the island of Great Britain with the mainland of France and Belgium. So far from being Celts, they were not even Aryans.

I would hope I do not need to explain why this is nonsense. And why age matters so much in sources. A point that is being made a lot.

So what to do? This is the wrong article for any of this. As Richard Keatinge has pointed out, this article needs to concentrate on describing the legendary rulers of Wales as described in sources - primarily Bartrum. It is not the place for describing Celtic tribes. It is not the place for presenting any kind of history in wikivoice. Describe the legendary rulers source, and follow it. Don't try to synthesise an article from other sources. Just keep it simple. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thats fine by me, the article will undergo another cull. I have moved the text which can be adapted for another article to my sandbox, and given the time I have as a student now I will look into adapting Bartrum's point of view about legendary rulers, only when he mentions legendary it comes up with over 400 quotes in his book search, then there are very minimal dates to go by, so it makes a table very difficult to explain without cross referencing, which could be impossible considering the sources I have to go by. But, this article deserves its publication. @Sirfurboy: what do you think about the use of the Book of Baglan ? And then leaving some text I've sourced for the Ewyas and Ergyng (Archenfield), because Bartrum doesn't really go past into BC, whilst Baglan is offering spotted list going back thousands of years to the Iron Age. BTW, to whom it may concern, please feel free to edit the draft and add to as it required to be able to publish this article. Cltjames (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Richard Keatinge:, to be honest, that's what was needed, a bold move. I guess, this leaves us with very little to talk about, just a consensus to ask if we can publish the article or submit for review, or if anything else would need to be done ?? Cltjames (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If the list is to be finished soon, then I decided to tackle the Bartrum fictitious list, so I added all the BC names with the dates (oddly can't find these dates anywhere else). I'm not too sure how it could be presented, or how it affects the other lists... So, can we try and find a solution, because the list is a reliable list from a reputable source. Any thoughts ? Cltjames (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Using the Bartrum list is a really good idea. But the thing about legendary people is that they generally don't have actual dates, on account of not actually existing in the first place. That makes the dates original research, if we are attributing them, or straightforward balderdash, if someone else does. I'd suggest leaving them out entirely. In the few cases where the legendary person may be the shadow of a plausibly-real one (Ambrosius Aurelianus comes to mind), we could offer a wikilink to the real person. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note that none of the figures in the list you've added have anything to do with Wales in the HRB; for example Cingetorix (one of the "four kings of Kent"). They might have a place in List of legendary kings of Britain if you want to expand the scope of that article. The dates Bartum gives for all these figures is to indicate roughly when the HRB claims they were alive (it tends to use "lived at the same time as" and names a Biblical figure every few generations), and they're helpful for readers for the same reason that Bartum considered them helpful for readers. --Yodin^T 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The list is from the Welsh Classical Dictionary, and what's interesting is Bartrum is suggesting these were the rulers of Wales, but also all of Britain, hence the Welsh naming, which you won't find elsewhere, so I think it holds validity for that. And also I feel the dating of kings holds its value, simply because it's not done elsewhere on Wikiepdia, and people like myself have always wondered about the correct dating of historical figures, something a lot of articles are missing frankly. But, by all means, open to discussion, I just felt because it's from a source about Welsh leaders, then it can be used. Cltjames (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

what's interesting is Bartrum is suggesting these were the rulers of Wales no, he's not. For the historical Welsh kings that the HRB repurposes as "kings of Britain", Bartrum notes if they were mentioned in Welsh genealogies, etc. For others, there's no mention that they were supposed to be kings of Wales. Please quote the part of the entries for Cingetorix, Albanactus, Locrinus, Maddan, Ebraucus, etc. where it mentions that they were rulers of Wales? Bartrum doesn't limit himself to entries only on Welsh figures, but on all figures that are important to understand the context of Welsh legend, including HRB characters such as Brutus, and the figures mentioned above. --Yodin^T 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you're suggesting that we include every HRB king of the whole of Britain here, then you may as well transclude the entire List of legendary kings of Britain article here. --Yodin^T 19:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote the list, at first I didn't realize it was the same people, because of the Welsh name spelling. Then as for the kings, what I meant was that they were Kings of Britain, at a time when there wasn't a King of Wales, so surely Bartrum is including the names as rulers of Wales but again Welsh spelling which does make it unique to this article. I'm going to wait to see if there is some more consensus to see what people are gauging, if anyone wants to edit, please feel free or talk about more ideas. Cltjames (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

See comment below: again, you don't seem to be understanding the sources you're using, and don't seem to be very familiar with the subject. Bartrum gives the Celtic (Welsh) form of the names that Geoffrey of Monmouth has turned into Latin for the HRB. This doesn't imply that these are Welsh legendary kings, any more than it implies that they are Latin or Roman legendary kings. --Yodin^T 20:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames also worth reading the introduction to the book before making assumptions like this! Here's the paragraph about names (p. 2):

• The term ‘Welsh’ in the title might be more accurately replaced by ‘Brythonic’, because the dictionary strays occasionally to the Brythonic people of all Britain as well as Brittany. [...] Modern forms of names are normally used, unless unknown, or in quotations [...]

--Yodin^T 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

One final note; the List of legendary kings of Britain article also gives a pretty misleading way of understanding the HRB. The HRB claims that there was one king of the Britons, but in addition to this often mentions sub-kings in passing; the implication being that they all pay homage to this one "high king". So each "king of Britain" in the HRB isn't a direct ruler of Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, England, etc. etc., but (again, fictionally in the HRB – it's crucial to understand that none of this is remotely historically accurate) is the chief king over all of the British kingdoms. --Yodin^T 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@DankJae:, @Ham II:, @Sirfurboy:, @KJP1:, @Titus Gold:, @Martinevans123: also... @Academia45:, @Doug Weller:, @Celia Homeford:, @NetworkAuthority:, @Hogyncymru:, @DeCausa:, @DuncanHill:, @Tony Holkham: if you don't want to participate, then ignore this message. To those who have been involved over the past year with the subject of legendary rulers in Wales, I'm not asking for much or your time, just a simple consensus about the Bartrum list before the article is released soon; 1. Should the list of names of List of legendary kings of Britain be included but translated into Welsh, considering those people named were rulers of Britain, which Wales was part of at the time. 2. What about the dating that Bartrum is offering, personally the list needs including on Wikipedia (I looked but couldn't find), because it is vital to elaborating the article, and Bartrum did a great job in transcribing the dating system, and it's missing from British kings list articles, but is similar to List of High Kings of Ireland article. Cltjames (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Bartrum is a huge and well researched source. But We are not going to just reproduce it, because this is a list of legendary kings (and because simply duplicating his work would be plagiarism). What will be the inclusion criteria as to what is in and what is out? On your other questions:

1. No. For several reasons. Firstly, a simple data science one: normalisation of data. We have the list there, and if we copy it here then edits to one set will not be reflected in the other set, and they become inconsistent. Rather, you should link to that list. Transclusion is possible, but I would discourage it because secondly there is a "when was Wales" question here. The list should either only have legendary rulers after there was a territory known as Wales, or it could include earlier rulers, if their kingdoms were entirely within the borders of what we recognise as Wales. And I would very much prefer the former. I am strongly in favour of keeping this page simple, not least because, if you want it to be read by anyone, it needs to be short and to the point.
2. I am not clear what you are saying. Dating of legendary rulers is going to be fuzzy in any case. They are legendary! Can you give an example of what you mean by this question?

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

To put simple, "dating of legendary rulers", it is legendary, the dating is unofficial in terms of modern standards of accuracy and isn't necessarily correct. However, I prefer the lists that show the information available, excluding the dates seems to be incomplete, like someone forgot something. Cltjames (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

These dates aren't information. They are an attempt to write fiction as if it were real history, they are piffle of no relevance to fact. Those that are not directly extracted from canonical versions of the legends must go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Keatinge (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your opinion on this doesn't seem to be shared by reliable sources about legendary figures. By definition, legends are set in a specific historical period (for example King Arthur fighting off the Saxons, or Robin Hood in medieval times), in contrast to the timeless past of myths. Putting these figures into historical context was central to the purpose of the HRB (the entire point of pseudo-history is its claim that it actually happened in the past) – and many, many scholars, including Bartrum, who we're using as the main reliable source for this article, construct chronologies for the king lists of all cultures, including the supposed legendary ancestors of genuine historical kings. Most of the similar articles on Wikipedia include the dates that scholars have deduced (List of High Kings of Ireland is a good example – it even includes two proposed chronologies by different scholars). They also provide a context so that readers can easily see the difference in time that these kings were said to have lived in, without trying to deduce this from cryptic notes such as which Classical or Biblical figures they were said to have lived at the same time as. If you are concerned that readers will think that these are real figures, or actually existed at those times, then add severe disclaimers to the lead, but to remove academics' scholarship about a subject because you personally disagree with its purpose seems to go against Wikipedia's aims. --Yodin^T 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

This draft still needs a lot of work. Most importantly, we need explicit criteria for inclusion. I propose that we accept names who, according to Bartrum, are legendary, who were supposed to have ruled within the territory of modern Wales, and were supposed to have done so since the end of Roman rule. If we are to stick to the strict letter of the current title, they should also be people who were supposed to have ruled over all of modern Wales. If we are to change the title to "Legendary rulers in Wales" we will need criteria to decide who is important enough to be regarded as a "ruler". I look forward to comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sirfurboy and yourself that we should set inclusion criteria. We seem to have three different opinions on this. I would prefer the scope to be kingdoms the majority of whose territory is within modern Wales, and any period of time. Restricting to post-Roman seems completely arbitrary to me; do you know of any reliable sources that define a similar subset of kings? I also understand Sirfurboy's concerns that if it's too long it would overwhelm readers, but to me readers would expect any list of Welsh rulers to be complete, and if readers only skim/read part of the list, then so be it (in fact, I suspect very few readers read entire lists in the same way that they might read an article). I also don't think there will be very many at all even if we expand the scope in this way, assuming we remove the Baglan material not in Bartrum – and don't know how many, if any, legendary figures said to be rulers of the entirety of Wales exist, other than Camber and Rudaucus – I think this it will become clearer once the Baglan question has been decided, and those entries have been removed from the draft. Regarding the name: if the consensus is to remove most of the Baglan material that Bartrum doesn't cover, then switching from "rulers" to "kings" would make sense, and would avoid the need to define that (I don't know of any characters that Bartrum covers that are legendary rulers, but not kings; but correct me if I'm wrong). I guess that "rulers" was chosen to allow for the Baglan "Governors of Cambria", and to match List of legendary rulers of Cornwall (which makes sense for that article, as some legendary figures are dukes of Cornwall, while others are kings or princes, etc.) but I don't think is necessary here? --Yodin^T 10:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I've just about finished reshuffling the lists to look comprehensive, I've left the dates in there just as a guide to make it easier for me to rewrite the whole list and split it into several lists. Then I've also added a separate list for the Governor's of North Cambria, as it doesn't add up in terms of numbers and is impossible for me to include into the list correctly. Leaving us with the idea that you feel to keep the article in line with others, you'd like the dates removed, would you Richard? Otherwise, I think there's not much more I can do except for a prose section, but remembering this is a list article and it doesn't necessarily fit into the scope of the article. I'm going to leave it at that for a week or so to see if someone else has any ideas, or just to just submit for review. @Yodin:, any thoughts of what I believe to be the complete list including the Kings of Demetia in order...? Cltjames (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think there's great value in having a list of Welsh kings in the Matter of Britain. I'm not sure if you're following the discussion but the other editors seem to be opposed to this, as Bartrum correctly defines them as fictional, and not part of Welsh myth or legend. It would be interesting to discuss whether there would be opposition to creating a separate article along these lines. --Yodin^T 17:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We need criteria for inclusion. In the absence of a canonical and definitive legend - though Geoffrey would be a strong candidate - we do need modern sources for every inclusion. It is not appropriate for us as Wikipedia editors to seek out the various speculations and fantasies that form part of the legend itself, most of them no more than lists of names who may or may not have existed, though we could certainly provide wikilinks to any that are individually notable. And, I suggest, Bartrum is the only appropriate modern authority, the only academically-published list. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, I suggest that we list:

People who are described by Bartrum as legendary or mythical

and who are described by Bartrum as ruling the approximate territory of modern Wales

but are not described as legendary rulers of Britain.

Does this seems workable to everyone? How could these criteria be improved? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Camber and Rudaucus are the only characters I know of that would match your second and third criteria, but both of these are defined as fictional by Bartrum, not legendary or mythical. Do you know of any who would match all three criteria @Richard Keatinge? As there seems to be a consensus on the following criteria:

• People who are described by Bartrum as legendary or mythical
• but are not described as legendary rulers of Britain

I would suggest making a list of all entries that match these two criteria, and that Bartrum defines as kings/rulers. Once this is done, I think it will become a lot clearer, and we will be able to have an informed discussion about narrowing down whether it should be the entire of modern Wales, etc. I'd made a start on this earlier but haven't added it to the draft yet, until we're agreed this is a good way forward: I'm reluctant to add this to the draft before this, in case it gets mixed in with the existing material. --Yodin^T 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Arguing things out, person by person, strikes me as a recipe for wasting a lot of time. On your basis, could we agree on:

• People who are described by Bartrum as legendary or mythical
• and that Bartrum defines as kings/rulers
• but whom Bartrum does not describe as legendary rulers of Britain.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that if @Sirfurboy is, as long as we can come back to this once it's done – not to discuss this in excrutiating detail on a person-by-person basis, but because it might change editors' perspectives once we know exactly what Bartrum defines this way. Also, just to be clear: Bartrum (rightly) defines the entire of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae as fictional, not legendary or mythical – are you both ok with either removing all this Matter of Britain material from the current article or separating it as a different section? --Yodin^T 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes this seems sensible. I haven't scoped the size of the task, but that should also hopefully be manageable. Certainly happy with some kind of demarcation to separate out the Matter of Britain material into its own section or delete it. Thanks all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've always regarded Geoffrey's stuff as legendary in itself, and the Matter of Britain as the canonical part of the corpus of legend. But ok, it depends in your definitions; let's leave it out or at any rate separate it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames: Would you like to have a go implementing this, or are you prepared to leave this to me? --Yodin^T 12:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I was looking for someone else's input and am more than happy to take the back seat for a while, thanks for asking. I'll add if I find something else, otherwise, I feel I've added all I can from the little sourced we have. Please go ahead @Yodin: Cltjames (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)