Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn family

Sources etc

All source material for this wiki comes from two main sources;

• Lewis Dwnn, Heraldic Visitations of Wales and part of the Marches (as of 1613) which was then published in 1846 by Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick and again published in 2005 by Bridge Books. The parts pertaining to the Anwyl family and their descent from Owain Gwynedd are recorded in Volume II (Heraldic Visitations of the Three Counties of North Wales above Conway) pp69-71.

• [1] 2002-2009 Family Record/Wales Landed Gentry 100057.

I can provide copies of the original sources for any one wishing to scrutinize them 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who is able change the title of the page from Anwyl of Towyn Family to read Anwyl of Tywyn Family please, this is a spelling mistake which needs to be changed Aetheling1125 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted a number of references to the "De jure" status of the family, which is misleading given that their theoretical royal status has no current legal standing.JQ (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Project rating

I've just revised the article's rating from 'Top' to 'Mid'. The definition of a Top importance article is: "the article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information." We have very few Top importance articles and I fail to see how this article, which has been controversial, meets that criteria. It is hardly "of the utmost importance" to the Wikipedia Wales project itself and is not essential for an understanding of the country. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Evan Vaughan Anwyl

As per the conclusion of the AfD discussion for the article Evan Vaughan Anwyl I have merged the two articles.Aetheling1125 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Something just doesn't make sense in this article

This family is notable because of its claim (implied in this article, but clearly stated with those words in related articles) that the Anwyl of Tywyn are the de jure Princes of Wales. The problem with this concept is:

1. "De jure" means "by the letter of the law", & the law on this matter was passed by the English extinguishing this title; &
2. Even if we assume for argument's sake that the English have no jurisdiction here, Rhodri ap Gruffudd, through whom the Anwyl of Tywyn trace their claim, sold his rights of inheritance to Llywelyn the Last -- which at first glance means none of Rhodri's heirs have a "valid" (for any value of "valid") claim to the title, either by the letter or the spirit.

However, since this claim to being somehow the rightful heir of this extinguished title has been expressed by a number of different people over the centuries, I sense that I'm just not grasping a technicality here. In the first case, I can accept that de jure is not the proper term for conveying the idea "X would be the Prince of Wales, if we follow the practice of Welsh Law"; we need something better here. (So what exact words have the various claimants used over the years? If those convey the idea succinctly, they should be used here.) Second, if Rhodri's sale of his inheritance doesn't invalidate the claims of his heirs on the defunct title, that should be explained to readers like me who don't know the intricacies of the Welsh law of inheritance. (Although I fully admit that when it comes to royal titles, claims are more often judged on the basis of the political or military power of the claimant -- not the strength of legal arguments.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating and thank you. Yes, it all needs to be explained. My experience is with the Irish nobility and Chiefs of the Name, and I can tell you that if this family were Irish they would still be called and in effect Princes of Something. But it's complicated. For example, we have the MacDermot family, with the popular style of Prince of Coolavin but who are/were Kings of Moylurg, one of the petty or sub-kingdoms of Connacht. Now the MacDermots are the cadet branch of the same House from whom come the Royal Family of Connacht, namely the O'Conors, but they made an agreement not to contest the overkingdom with their kinsmen and to simply become "Vassal Kings" of Moylurg. Just an interesting example.

Then we have the great O'Neill dynasty and all their branches. Today they have a complicated situation with two important dynasts, each with a substantial following, claiming the title Prince of Ulster, when in fact both would appear to be junior to the descendants of the last sovereigns who ruled until 1607/8. But these last have fallen into relative obscurity and thus have no following. The dynasty is Ireland's most powerful still, even when they're mostly all in Europe, and so no one is interfering. In any case the family are broadly recognized by European authorities as more or less still the real Kings of Ulster, although variously styled for diplomatic purposes. It was lost by accident and poor communication with the Spanish, not by conquest. They are determined and eventually will probably get some of it back, although it may take a few more decades. As of 2010 they are busy building a small museum in their own honour there, complete with library, as well as re-inaugurating themselves, for which arcanum see White Wand (very likely the Welsh had a similar or identical custom). On of the two claimants, Hugo Ricciardi O'Neill, Prince of Clanaboy, has even corresponded with the United States' government, proposing an O'Neill headed constitutional monarchy for Northern Ireland.

What this Welsh family lack is all of that vast support, as far as I can see. An influential and international body of nobles and other princes who will recognize them and make it all true in some way is what they need. There is a substantial community out there and each of the major Gaelic dynasties of the Irish nobility enjoy substantial support. Noting they have a little Irish ancestry, I think this Welsh family and their few supporters should start making friends abroad. Their kinsmen the O'Brien dynasty are still strong enough to matter, although they have their enemies like everyone. Their head is the Prince of Thomond, also Baron Inchiquin currently. All the Anwyls need is for one high profile sovereign or prince out there to recognize them as princely. For all we know the Windsors might be happy to do it themselves and seem like nice enough people, being of ancient family themselves, but there is the problem of their subjects. Certainly an Anwyl could get recognized in the future but it would probably not be as Prince of Wales, that title being in use, regardless of how that came to be. Aberffraw or Gwynedd. I can tell you if an Anwyl were inaugurated with a Wand of Sovereignty he would become the real thing right there and then. Something to think about. DinDraithou (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch. To answer some of your points. The term '"De jure" is meant purely in the context of inheritance principles under native Welsh Law, not English. This is based on the pretext that the princes of Gwynedd held royal status through ancient hereditary right and not as a gift from the king of England (as spelled out robustly in the Garth Celyn Letters).

Regarding any title they went by in the past it is most likely that they were very careful about the claims they made because of the mortal dangers in being accused of treason. However, they were known as "the family of Owain Gwynedd" (according to Peter Yorke) or later as "Tylwyth John ap Maredudd" (tribe of John son of Maredudd) referring in particular to their line from Owain's 8 x grandson of that name). By using the arms of the previous king and stating you were of legitimate, patrilinear descendant from him would be inference enough and did gain them recognition as "royal" by Welsh society.

Regarding your other point, the Anwyl of Tywyn are in fact the descendants of Rhodri ab Owain (c.1135-1195) the son of Owain Gwynedd (who was the great-great Grandfather of Llywelyn the Last) and were not the descendants of the Rhodri you cite, Rhodri ap Gruffudd (c.1230-c.1315), who did indeed, as you say, surrender his rights and title to his elder brother Llywellyn the Last. James Frankcom (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Coming late here, sorry,

IIRC James' source for linking the Anwyl family to the Aberffraw family is Burke's Peerage, which is largely considered a definitive source in terms of peerages- even of peerages formerly of Welsh origin mediatising into the English peerage post-conquest. If the Anwyl are indeed legitimate heirs of Owain Gwynedd as the genealogy indicates, then under Welsh law as practiced before the Edwardian Conquest of 1284, then they are the de jure Prince of Wales in the Welsh tradition. The title Prince of Wales has its origins not in the English hijacking of the title, but in the even more ancient title of “Prince of the Welsh”, and “King of the Britons”. A claim that, according to Historian Professor John Davies, was supported as early as the mid 12th century in the “Life of Gruffydd ap Cynan” (Davies, John, A History of Wales, Penguin, 1994, Aberffraw primacy pg 116, patron of bards 117, Aberfraw relations with English crown pg 128, 135)

The Dinefwr and Mathrafal lines (princes of Deheubarth and Powys respectively) were offshoots junior to the Aberffraw line (decendent from junior sons of Rhodri the Great). And, according to historian Hurbert Lewis in his book “The Ancient Laws of Wales”, 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192-200, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certain circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim material patrimony through their mother in certain circumstances.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Burke's really isn't the most reliable or complete, especially not for Irish families, even for those who were still petty kings into the early 17th century and can prove it with mountains of evidence. I doubt they care much more about the Welsh so I wouldn't rely on that publication. DinDraithou (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I grant that Burke's may not be as reliable or complete for the Irish famlies, but I am not so sure for Welsh famlies. According to historian John Davies, after some time the native Welsh gentry became assimulated somewhat with the English gentry. King Edward I of England gave title and land to Welshmen who sided with the him during the 1284 Conquest, even to those who did not take up arms after the war but remained silent. Many of these Welshmen were in fact connected to the noble and princely famlies themselves, and there were plenty of decendents of Owain Gwynedd still living in 1284 and later that, post-conquest, would have become mediatised into the English peerage in Wales post-conquest. The title Baron of Cymmer-yn-Edeirnion (in the peerage of England) come to mind. These Welsh famlies did become part of English peerage to a degree through assimulation, and were eager to prove decent to a native Welsh prince or great Marcher lord. I grant that the eagerness to connect one's famly with a Welsh princes may have led to forgeries, but unles there is a solid critique of Burke's in a third-party source challenging a particular line, I think the entries should be regarded with legitimacy, and it then falls upon those who claim that a particular entry is illigitimate to prove it so.

But having said this, there is room for improvement with this article for clarity and precision. In particular, in text citations. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to say the family have no pedigree, just that I wouldn't rely on Burke's to make a good effort. They also make lazy mistakes edition after edition and never correct them. DinDraithou (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with this Claim

The claim that this family is the sole family capable of claiming the Welsh Thrones is problematic (despite the genealogy linked above - unless these claims come from the Bodleian library or Aberystwyth records of Welsh Royal Geneaology they are problematic).

Welsh Law is not really concerned with the direct male line (father to son) and does allow for male descendents to claim through the female line. Under the laws of Hywel Dda a women could not claim the throne but her male descendents could (her claim transferring to her sons). Welsh law is also not really concerned with simply a claimant being of the patrilinear line. Under Welsh laws any male descendent of Rhodri Mawr (whether legitimate or illegitimate) has claim. Also it is probably more likely that it is the descendents of Hwyel Dda who have a better claim to the Welsh thrones than this family. They can only claim to be descended from Anarawd ap Rhodri and none of his descendents ever ruled the other kingdoms of Wales (Powys, etc). They ruled only Gwynedd. Gwynedd may have dominated the other kingdoms but that was through right of conquest (which ended with the prince of that conquest) not succession. Hwyel’s descendents ruled all of the Welsh Kingdoms – with the lines being reunited by the marriages and descendents of Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd. Gwenllians’ line has a better claim to all of Wales not the descendents of her brother Owain Gwynedd (which this family claim through). Instead a better candidate family would be one which can trace their lines back through both Hwyel and Anarawd – both the nephew and the uncle.

This family also has to have their claims recognized by the other royal descendents of Rhodri – in custom with Welsh Law. A claim had to have support from among the people to be "acclaimed". Persons lacking the necessary support or excluded by convention were occasionally passed over in favour of another son or male member of the line (possibly through the female line – such as in the case of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn through his mother).

My point here is that it is wrong to suggest that this family has the best claim for a number of reasons: 1 – Welsh Laws of Succession accepts claims through the female line and from illegitimate sons – which suggests that the Anwyl of Tywyn are not the only possible candidates. 2- This family can only trace through Anarawd – when the convention has been that a claim has to include descendents from Hwyel. 3 –Welsh Laws of Succession do not provide for claims on merely being a male heir on the male line (that is important but it is not the only criteria). A claimnent has have support from the other Royal families of Wales (other descendents). This was put into place so that the best man got the title – not just the eldest son. Welsh Laws worked differently on this matter than the English system of patrilinear male descendents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is really an argument for the legitimacy of base descendants that you're making... the aspirations of patent nobility, the trash of Europe. There never has been and never will be any issue genuinely princely from the "female line". (There is no such thing.) DinDraithou (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Such a counter argument does not change the reality of the Welsh Laws. Under which the rights and claims of the female line (through their male children) are reflected. If this family (or its defenders) wants to count itself as "the Welsh monarchy" then they must contend with Welsh Law and accept that there are other male descendents who have claim. Wales did not accept the Salic Law. Patrilinear descent means nothing. Legitimacy means nothing. Basing your claim in the female line (the male descendents of the female) is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything, does this mean in terms of editing the article? Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am merely questioning the whole purpose of this article. This family are not the only ones in Wales who can claim to be royal direct descendents from Rhodri Mawr in accordance with Welsh Law (which is important when discussing questions of the current Welsh Royal lines). Why go into so much detail for one family when there are others and Welsh Law does not really find the concept of patrilinear descent important? This has a lot to do with the indirect claim that this article makes in suggesting that this family have claim to the headship of the Royal Houses of Wales. Why is only this family's line documented on Wikipedia when there are other families with as clear a lineage? There are such families in Anglesey, Abergwyngregyn and other places in Wales. Why do the Anwyl of Tywyn deserve such focus when there are other family's which can claim similar descendents from Rhodri (either through Anarawd, Hwyel or both)? Arguing that they are the patrilinear descendents is compeltely irrelevant - because that means nothing in Welsh Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know about these! Please provide evidence.James Frankcom (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to why this family is so heavily written about here is presumably because its creator and main editor has concentrated on it. I'm not convinced it's a good article as don't think genealogies per se are appropriate. I also think thyat the whole bit " The family does not make any public claim to these title which were officially abolished by the Statute of Rhuddlan of 1284. Given that the last native princes of Wales rejected English sovereignty (a controversial position leading ultimately to their deposition and deaths) and that their honoured position as Tywysog of Gwynedd was one which they held in their own right (as asserted in the Garth Celyn Letters written by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1282), the legality of such claims to those ancient titles if made by this family in the future would be a matter of debate." looks like original research and should be removed if no source can be found. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the original research is actually what our IP editor has placed in here. There is a substantial community of "female line" descendants of princely families out there, not just in Wales, who think they should have claims to something and make up all sorts of arguments. They apparently learned this from several English and Scottish dynasties famous for making spurious "female line" claims, like the Tudors and Bruces. (The Stewarts just brilliantly faked their pedigree back to the Gaelic kings.) "Female line" descent is not recognized in Europe or Ireland, nor theoretically even in England among the best behaved. Generally it is laughed at and internationally condemned as illegitimate. DinDraithou (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to associate that bit of OR with the creator of the article. I'm going to remove it. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, in fact it was in the original article (Evan Vaughan Anwyl that was merged into this article - part of the article's first edit, see [2]. I'm not sure what IP edits you are referring to. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to this discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. That makes sense. I didn't read 'in here' carefully. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

These claims of succession laws in other countries are irrelevant when considering Welsh succession under Welsh Law (which is what is important for this discussion). In Welsh Law those descendents (through the female line) have the right to make those claims and to be considered of the Royal line. The opposite may be true in England, Scotland, Ireland and Europe. But it is not true for Wales - where the Laws demanded that the rights of a royal Woman (and her heirs) be respected. The laws are quite clear on this point - the female's claims transfer to her son (or failing that to her daughters until a son is produced). That is how the Laws of succession accepted female rights back when the Laws were made under Hwyel Dda and how they remained until the conquest. If we are making arguments about Welsh Royal succession I think we retain the statutes of the Welsh Laws on these issues. Most historians accept that the Welsh princes and the legal system took seriously the belief that their daughters' line remained royal (Owain Glyndwr was accepted by the Welsh Princes even though his descent from Rhodri Mawr was based on the female line). The claims of female line descendents of other Royal lines in other countries are flawed because of male exclusive national laws of succession based on the Salic laws usually (which do not accept female line succession). This is not the case in Wales. All this talk of patrilinear descent is alien to Welsh Law and is simply being used to justify the claim of one family (the Anwyl of Tywyn) to the exclusion of all other Royal descendents. It is placing English succession Law above the Welsh. If you don't understand Welsh law do not comment on what is and what is not "proper" or "royal" in the Welsh circumstance.

My problem is that the family has not been recognised by the other Welsh Royal families to be the head of the Welsh Line of Rhodri Mawr and his descendents. The Wikipedia article existence (without other articles on other families) gives undue creditability to those claims when the reality is that they do not have the support to make such a claim. Sort of "oh they have a wiki article therefore they must be the head". This becomes more problematic if one does not understand Welsh law (which isn’t as straightforward on whose claims are superior as English law). Genealogies like this are not appropriate - especially when it excludes other families who have similar lineages (and thus rights to those claims under Welsh Law). I am also concerned by sources – their claims rest not on research in the Bodleian library or Aberystwyth records of Welsh Royal Families but on a problematic 17th century study (which others have pointed to above). My purpose with mentioning Welsh Law is to make sure that people understand that just because the family claims a direct male descent this does not entitle them to claim headship of the Welsh Royal House.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed 'de jure' claims

I've removed these, please don't restore them without reliable sources specifically discussing them in relationship to the named individuals. Note that so far as they relate to anyone living, they are, unsourced, BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the material on descent is also unsourced --Snowded ^TALK 10:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to remove it? The main editor is not exactly a fan of mine. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This proposal I'm afraid I'm not happy with. I have added the appropriate tag. You should be aware that the vast majority of articles on the aristocracy and their descendants lack proper sourcing or any sourcing at all. This article does better than most, and so I imagine that it does offer references might suggest OR to some. But you shouldn't get carried away and wreck what might turn out to be perfectly good. That would be discouraging. I don't know that it's good but who knows? Usually notes aren't needed for all offspring in any case. DinDraithou (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be discussing this, just removing it. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'd do it now but I'm going out. This claim is clearly contentious. We should also be removing other unsourced, including stuff that is unverifiable because it is just sourced to 'Burke's Peerage'. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Burke's is alright if there is nothing else. They make some mistakes but are still widely cited. I've looked over the article carefully and see nothing fundamentally wrong with it. There is nothing contentious, and certainly not about Evan Vaughan Anwyl. Sources are provided where needed. Remove anything essential and I will restore it. DinDraithou (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)\

claims to non-existent titles cannot be supported by Burk's and neither can it support a "certified" report. Anything which is not referenced can be removed DinDraithou, and the status on other articles has nothing to do with that. --Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the article, not as a cite, it says "This pedigree of William Lewis Annwill has been certified and published by Burkes Peerage (Landed Gentry, Wales 100057)." Where is it online (which the article says it is)? If that's a specific entry, then I've misunderstood it and it is verifiable. What does 'certified' mean? I hope you aren't considering restoring unsourced claims to a title. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Have I done that? I mean their descent appears to be properly sourced and carefully explained. Burke's can't really certify a pedigree but they don't publish one unless it is accepted. Some end up slightly wrong but they have to be accepted as fundamentally right in the male line to get published. Wives and daughters they have some difficulty with in my experience. DinDraithou (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Back again Doug? I knew it wouldn't take you long... look, before anyone does anything I would like to be involved in this discussion as I was the principle editor of this page. I worry that people like Doug not from the UK might not understand that Burke's Peerage is the principle reference source for the gentry in the UK. It cannot really be disputed. Please ellaborate any specific problems you have with this article here, now, and allow me time to address them. If more references are required then they can be added. I am not allowed to speak honestly about what I believe your intentions are Doug and I would like to ask now, formally, for a DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATOR to review this page other than Doug Weller to avoid any further bloodshed. One minute this page is a featured article and high standard the next it is under a Doug attack. If your interests are the same as the best interests of Wikipedia then Doug you should respect my request and go and look at some other articles and allow me to liaise with someone else whom I do not have such a history with. I am asking nicely. James Frankcom (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm acting here as an editor, not an Administrator. I think you misunderstand what I said about Burke's, which is that it is 'unverifiable', not wrong, if it isn't specific. In other words, just as with a book, you have to make it relatively easy for the average reader to check your source. Just saying 'Burke's Peerage, as it does, I believe, in one case, is not enough. I appreciate your putting the Burke's stuff on my talk page, but is there any way that you can make a cite more specific? I also note that it does not mention the Aberffraw family, does it mean that that claim is dropped?

As I'm not the only editor here sharing the same concerns, why single me out? And what, specifically, are you unhappy with in the recent edits? Simple attacks on me are a very bad idea after your last warnings from a number of other people.

This has never been a Featured Article. It's only C class, which frankly is not that good. Why do you claim it was a featured article? Have I missed something? Dougweller (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And I am from the UK and support Doug's edits. You can use Burkes to show a male line of succession and relatives etc. However all the stuff about welsh law used to establish de jure claims is another matter. --Snowded ^TALK 03:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would just like Doug to go. Because this is winding me up and he knows it. If he honestly believes in the best interests of this site and its content he will allow me and you (Snowded) to go through this. I have made allegations before about his conduct and yet he is here again. This is prima facie evidence of victimisation. SO let me go through the details. This is the content from Burke's Peerage:

You can check this yourself on their site but you will have to subscribe so I have put it here for your ease of reference.

ANWYL of Tywyn

Arms: Vert, three eagles displayed in fesse or.

See A to Z of Heraldic Terms

Copied content redacted pending some showing that it is public domain or compatibly licensed for use. Extensive quotation of non-free content is forbidden by policy. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: "WILLIAM LEWIS ANWYL" the High Sheriff of Merioneth and Caernarvon who died in 1642 is the main subject of page 69-71 of Heraldic Visitations of Wales and Part of the Marches (book 2, The Three Counties of North Wales) by Lewys Dwnn[3] and created by him and his researchers under the authority of Clarenceux King of Arms and Norroy King of Arms acted by command of Queen Elizabeth I between 1586-1613. The pages relating to William Lewis Anwyl (or "William Lewis Annwill") was recorded by William Hughes and John Davies in 1611 "this page agrees with ye. original being compared by us" on behalf of Lewys Dwnn and in the presence of William Lewis Anwyl. In 1846 Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick [4] had the book re-published. I have a copy and it shows the link between William Lewis Anwyl and Gruffydd ap Cynan.

If you are criticising Burke's for being uncheckable, well you are wrong. You can check this reference in the book I have just mentioned which is the premier source of Welsh genealogical information and was used extensively by Peter Clement Bartrum. I have a copy here in front of me and if you want a copy you will have to go to the library. If you are saying Burke's is a poor source then you must also say that most of the nobility and gentry of England have "unproven" claims too.

Regarding the Anwyl's particular claim, that comes from the fact that under Welsh Law male line inheritance was the principal mode by which title was inherited. There are NO OTHER KNOWN EXAMPLES of other persons having an unbroken male line inheritance. No one else has come forward and no one else is in Burke's (i.e. a contemporaneous person) who is related in the male to Welsh royalty.

They are members of the House of Aberffraw by virtue alone of being male line descendants of Rhodri Mawr.

I do not object to you taking out the "de jure" references, if you must. This was meant in a reference to Welsh Law before the conquest. I was referring to the article in the "project rating" which was "top". Now please, Doug, please do the right thing, show maturity and drop the bone. Allow me to discuss this with some other editors whom I have not made accusations of bullying and victimisation about in the past, proven or not. I also want to complain because I can see you are just wanting to DELETE most of the content about this page. The content is verifiable, demonstrably, and if you don't delete it you are going to encourage others to do so. It is as well referenced as other similar pages and I contend that this is another attack on ME rather than an objective review of this page by neutral parties. James Frankcom (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

James Frankcom (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it needs to be more explicit how a reader verifies the claims that are simply referenced 'Burke's Peerage', that's all. I'm not commenting on the quality of the claim. I am also saying that you need reliable sources for any claims about princely status. I'd like an apology for your claims of victimisation -- this discussion concluded " General consensus that James Frankcom was uncivil. Falsely accusing other editors of bullying, harassment, etc... is a breach of WP:CIVIL and the editor should desist and reconsider his actions. Further complaints can be brought to AN/I".

Although I appreciate what you are trying to do by copying Burke's to my web page and here, it will almost certainly have to be deleted unless you can demonstrate that it is copyright free, it's much to large a chunk of text to meet with our policy. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug why don't you just avoid this conflict and allow others to scrutinize this article given our history. Would that not be the best solution? Otherwise it looks like you are stirring things up. James Frankcom (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Frank on this one, that prehaps Doug's presence is too contentious to be helpful slicing through the text for what would make a good article supported by facts. I can't say to Doug not to participate, but prehaps a gentleman's agreement to allow others to bring it up to standards without undue commentary from either side. I know Snowded is very analytical and though he may have objections to the subject matter, he is one whom I think can be trusted to offer suggestions which would not be immediately seen as targeted and prejudicial to the subject matter. I know James wants a solid article too and is more then willing to work towards that end.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"They are members of the House of Aberffraw by virtue alone of being male line descendants of Rhodri Mawr."

James, what reliable sources say that they are members of the House of Aberffraw? Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You totally fail to understand the concept. Descendants of Rhodri Mawr ARE members of that House. Given that inheritance goes primarily and almost always through the male line (and only not if it has died out) then the only living male line descendants of Rhodri are just that. It is the same for many other princely houses around the world as you well know. But you are not seeking a reasonable outcome are you. James Frankcom (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for reliable sources that agree with you. If you're right, then there should be no problem finding them. I find sources that say the house is extinct. I see another of your articles, House of Gwynedd says "The House of Aberffraw is believed by many to have become extinct on the death of Owain Lawgoch in 1378, although it now seems more likely that some cadet branches of this family could have survived." But no sources (for anything in the article). You don't mention the claimant that I can find, [5] and there's also And this says "when Dafydd was hanged, drawn and quartered at Shrewsbury the following year, thus extinguishing the ancient royal house of Aberffraw[historical details after Hanes Cymru by John Davies]." You believe this because that's the way you interpret the law/whatever, but that is original research. We need reliable sources. You've been told this by other editors. Who says that there is an existing House of Aberffraw? Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes those two deaths are what most people know about. Frankly, those pages are wrong. You know about Madoc ap Llywellyn and his revolt in 1294 he was a descendant in the male line and claimed the title "prince of wales" and was after Dafydd's execution and a member of the House of Aberffraw post 1283. So the activities of the English state were intended to extinguish the dynasty but they did not. Similarly, other members survived in hiding. The last public descendant of Llywelyn the Great who maintained a profile was Owain Lawgoch. However there were also illegitimate descendants of Dafydd ap Llywelyn alive also (but expired in the 18th Century). There were many other descendants of Owain Gwynedd who survived. In about 1620 (I can find the precise date if required) Sir John Wynn made claim that he was a descendant of Owain Gwynedd in the male line. He was challenged and taken to court, where he won. So legally his claim was verified in court. Also, the work of Lewys Dwnn uncovered more people with male line ancestry. However, all of these lines with the exception of the Anwyl of Tywyn family have since died out (in the male line). It is not original research it is in Burke's and other sources I cited. James Frankcom (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug, those two links go to non-sources. The first picked up on a spurious "female line" claimant who probably campaigns for the throne on the internet somewhere. The second shows shows us Braveheart. DinDraithou (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are reliable sources, just that there are sources and I can't find any agreeing with James Frankcom. P. 189 of John Davies (historian)'s A History of Wales specifically talks about the extinction of the male line of the House of Aberffraw in 1378. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well despite the education he's obviously no specialist or top academic. General histories are not great sources. DinDraithou (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he can still be called a reliable source by our criteria. Cadet branch is a different claim, but still unsourced. Who says they are a cadet branch? Can you even have a cadet branch of an extinct house (again, opinions aren't relevant here, just sources). There's so much interet in this I'd think if this is a cadet branch it would be easy to find reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadet line is something easy to understand, and broadly that is what they appear to belong to, so it is not wrong to say it carefully, even if the royal house was long defunct before they appeared. However, in Ireland and in similar terms elsewhere they would be referred to as a discard sept of that line, meaning they are/were of absolutely no importance and are so junior they don't/didn't properly exist. If their pedigree is good then it is by many accidents they may now be the senior representatives. DinDraithou (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

John Davies is a highly respected source and in terms of the History of Wales is a top academic. If you disagree with his statement then you are going to have to find an equivalent source which says so. A lot of the arguments made above are stitching together various sources and claims and are (at least in part) a form of original research. We might have to go to the RS notice board on this, but I am pretty sure that the John Davis statement would trump Burkes anyway in wikipedia terms --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is we? You are of course welcome to go there, but which arguments exactly? DinDraithou (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We as in the group of editors trying to resolve this one. As to which arguments, well most of them from James to be honest. He is using a lot of sources and drawing conclusions from them with is probably a combination or OR and Synthesis. Regardless of whether he is right or not, WIkipedia works from reliable third party sources. So if one of the leading historians in Wales (I can't believe that you would doubt that) says that the male line died then we can't make a counter claim here without an equivalent source. --Snowded ^TALK 06:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

John Davies has over simplified. But he was writing a general history, not something that studied this particular area. If you look at another history book by a big author, Llywlyn ap Gruffydd by J. Beverley-Hughes (published in 1998 and thus more recent than Davies) the genealogical tables show the descendants of Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd alive after 1378 and they are the ancestors of the Wynn and Anwyl dynasts (a claim supported not just by those families themselves but also by Lewys Dwnn and his boss Robert Cooke in 1611 and by the Kings of Arms both Norroy and Clarenceaux. The fact the Officers of Arms support and continue to support their claim and allow them to use the coat of arms of Owain Gwynedd today this is itself also extremely important and supports the fact that they are recognised as descendants of Owain Gwynedd and are therefore defacto members of the House of Aberffraw, if you accept generally understood principles about family inheritance. Unless the family could prove their ancestors and genealogical connection between themselves and the person to last use those arms (Owain Gwynedd) then they would not be allowed by law in the UK to use the arms that they do (see Burkes). I think the published book by Sir John Wynn is another way to prove that the House of Gwynedd/Aberffraw survived after 1378 because in it Sir John makes the claim that he is a member of it.[6] [7] The thing about Owain Lawgoch was that his death marked the end of the descendants of Llywelyn the Great. That was it. It did not mark the death of the last descendant of Anarawd ap Rhodri because in 1378 there were many of them and they included the ancestors of Sir John Wynn who were (according to him and Lewis Dwnn) also the ancestors of the Anwyl family. That is verifiable because he wrote it in his book. It is fair to say that some have challenged their claims (particularly in a publication of 1884 entitled "Gweithiau Gethin" published by W.J.Roberts in LLanrwst) but it has not been proved one way or the other, maybe DNA would show. Nevertheless, people who share common ancestry with the Anwyl have claimed they are members of the House of Aberffraw and the Anwyl family by publishing their ancestry in Burkes and using, legally, the arms of Owain Gwynedd as their own are in effect doing the same thing.James Frankcom (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent]]James, you still do not seem to understand our basic policies. We can't use a book to prove something, that it doesn't specifically state. We can't use your understanding of the law whether it is right or wrong. Our fundamental policy on verifiability is "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." That source must actually clearly make the claim. Nothing you have provided satisfies our basic policies. You must haver reliable sources specifically discussing current claimants to the headship of the House of Aberffraw - and just to be specific and clear, if you want any article to suggest there is actually is such a current house you need sources for that. Have you yet read WP:VERIFY and WP:OR? Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur, the argument offered by James may or may not be right but its a mixture of OR and synthesis. Sorry James, but you have to find a source for all of this, and you can't dismiss Davies as "over simplifying" on your own authority. --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Philip Yorke, Thomas Nichols and Sir John Wynn. All of those published authors say that the direct ancestors of the Anwyl family are the House of Aberffraw (e.g. are descendants of Anarawd ap Rhodri who established that house). Don't they count? James Frankcom (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these authors do. Davies has obviously just made a common type of error and was probably unaware of this what I have described discard sept. The assumption that a dynasty or people are extinct when they cease to appear for a long period is common. An interesting case in Ireland are my own ancestors the O'Donovan family, not a great kindred but still the descendants of one notable regional king of the 10th century. After being noted a number of times in the 13th century their small dynasty went missing for approaching three centuries, a very, very long time, only to reappear in surprising strength on substantial lands towards the end of the 16th century... and strangely still stuck in the 13th century. It's like nothing, at all, happened in between. Some have questioned whether they are actually the same people but the evidence is clear they are. They reappeared in the right place and with actual memories centuries old, supported by a variety of 13th century sources. Just a case to think about. DinDraithou (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of some specific references to Yorke, Nichols, and Wynn? And opinions about Davies are just that, opinions, and you should both know that opinions don't cut the mustard on Wikipedia, which requires verifiable and reliable standards (using the criteria set at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur, I can and have verified the Davies reference. The danger here is OR and synthesis, you need to show sources --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

They are actually already referenced in the article. For example, "According to Philip Yorke in his book The Royal Tribes of Wales (page 14); "The father of Jeuan and Robert was Maredudd ab Hywel ab Dafydd ab Gruffudd ab Thomas ab Rodri, Lord of Anglesey, ab Owain Gwynedd, as is evident by the Extent of North Wales, in the twenty-sixth of Edward the Third. During Robert ab Maredudd's time, the inheritance, which descended to him and his brother Jeuan, was not parted after the custom of the country, by gavelkind, but Jeuan being married -enjoyed both houses, Cefn y fan and Cesail Gyfarch. From Robert, who did not marry till near eighty, descended the houses of Gwydir, Cesail Gyfarch, and Hafod Lwyfog; and Sir John the historian, his descendant, says, he was the elder brother; from Jeuan ab Maredudd, who was Constable of Cricieth, the families of Rhiwaedog, Clenenneu, Ystumcegid, Brynkir and Park."

And again "To John ab Maredudd his kindred and friends cleaved steadfastly, like courageous men: so then it began to be a proverb or phrase, to call the family of Owain Gwynedd Tylwyth John ab Maredudd, the race of John ab Maredudd." (p.14)

And again, "Maurice Anwyl is recorded by Thomas Nicholas in Annals and antiquities of the counties and county families of Wales (1872) p.699; "The ancient family of Anwyl have resided at Llugwy from the time when Maurice Anwyl (circa 1695) m. Joan, the heiress of that place, but previously for many ages at Parc, in the parish of Llanfrothen, in the same county of Merionethshire. There Lewys Dwnn, Deputy Herald, found them, in the 16th Century, when pursuing his Heraldic Visitation of Wales; and there they had then been seated for several generations. Their lineage is from Owain Gwynedd, the illustrious Prince of North Wales (12th cent.), son of Prince Gruffydd ap Cynan, of the direct line (through the eldest son, Anarawd) of Rhodri Mawr, King, first of N. Wales, then of all Wales (9th cent.)." James Frankcom (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

These sources and quotes may go against the Doug Weller Hypothesis (which is that Wales has no history and it is all nothing but myth and superstition) but I am still surprised that he never even noticed them in the article! They are third party sources that state the Anwyl Family are direct descendants of Anarawd ap Rhodri Mawr and as such are members of the House of Aberffraw in the same way other more famous descendants of Anarawd were as well. John Davies was writing a General History. That is what you need to remember and you cannot use the absence of something in a general history as proof that something much more specific isn't so. James Frankcom (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that personal attacks like this will help you, especially false claims about my attitude towards Wales, a country with a great history. Of course I saw those, and none of them contradict the statement that the House of Aberffraw was extinct. Indeed, they don't even seem to mention the House of Aberffraw. I thought you had something else. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2010

Doug you are in denial and your arguments are just circular and sadly clouded by your own opinions. These quotes state that the Anwyl family are direct descendants of Owain Gwynedd and Rhodri Mawr and as such ARE members of the House of Aberffraw by any normal understanding of inheritance as would be applied to any other family. I refer you to the first paragraph of House of Aberffraw where it says;

"The House of Aberffraw is a historgraphical and genealogical term historians use to illustrate the clear line of succession from Rhodri the Great of Wales through his eldest son Anarawd.[1][2][3]"

These sources assert that clear line of the Anwyl froim Anarawd and thus fit that definition. They do not use the words "House of Aberffraw" because that term was not used when these books were published but the definition, as now, clearly applies. I think you are being totally unreasonable.James Frankcom (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And I am not making a "personal" attack on you Doug. This is academic. I profoundly disagree with your methods and motives and the pattern of your confrontations feels to me like wikihounding. Doug you are quite wrong on this one. This article has umpteen references to primary sources and each part is referenced. The claims within the article are not my own, they are made by other notable third parties and have been in the public knowledge for years. James Frankcom (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That there was such a dynasty now called in the English the "House of Aberffraw", and what is meant by that, should be included in the article. It can be said that the family may descend from this without saying it explicitly. This should solve your problem and they won't be able to remove it because it can't be said to be irrelevant, it being the dynasty of the dynasts from whom this family are alleged to descend. Somewhere up top you should carefully describe the "House of Aberffraw", without making any hints or references to the material below. I don't see Doug or Snowded behaving badly yet but anyone would be if they messed with that knowledge the wrong way. DinDraithou (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

When you write "the Doug Weller Hypothesis (which is that Wales has no history and it is all nothing but myth and superstition)" there's no way to interpret it except as a personal attacik. If these claims are made by reliable third parties, then please cite them. Meanwhile our basic policies WPI:VERIFY and WP:NOR call for a specific source making these claims. That is our method and my motive, to see that our articles follow our policies. You seem to be insisting that my motive is something else, some hatred of Celts or Wales or you or something like that. Editors simply cannot apply definitions themselves, they can only state what reliable sources have said. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fair for us to say that the Anwyl of Tywyn family trace their lineage to Owain Gwynedd and leave it at that. Saying that they are the heirs of the Aberffraw dynasty, or that they are a "cadet branch" of it, requires making a leap that is beyond our scope to make. If the sources say that, fine, but if they don't neither should we, no matter how reasonable the conclusion may seem to us. That's the basis of the no original research policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I can see a way our of this. How about say that "the family descend from Owain Gwynedd in the male line and therefore share Anarawd ap Rhodri Mawr as an ancestor (Ref. Philip Yorke). As such they could be considered to meet the definition for being a cadet branch of the House of Aberffraw." If something is defined on one page and something clearly matches that definition on another (with third parties saying so) is it original research to say that it meets the criterea of that definition? Look we are getting gradually towards a resolution of this.James Frankcom (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section WP:SYN at WP:NOR it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." As I've said, we need sources that explicitly state the conclusion. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, we can't make any claim that doesn't appear directly in a source. In this case you have to apply a genealogical formula to make the claim that the Anwyl of Tywyn are the heirs to the Aberffraw dynasty in the first place; if this isn't backed up by reliable sources it is the definition of original research. And Wikipedia articles can't rely on other Wikipedia articles to make conclusions; those other articles could be wrong (or misinterpreted).

Perhaps we could say something like "the Anwyl of Tywnyn trace their decent to Owain Gwynedd." And then, as a point of explaining who this is: "Owain was king of Gwynedd and a scion of the royal House of Aberffraw."--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I can agree with that. If Snowded and Doug Weller are content as well do you want to make the changes Cuchullain? James Frankcom (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine my me as well, although some of the comments above are way our of line James, you really should strike them --Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of cordiality yes I will. Not sure how to score through but I will work it out and do it. 86.176.69.219 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(I for one am sick of the family now, as well as my own useless comparisons and musings, and am unwatching the article.) DinDraithou (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an easy answer, for who is and is not considered a prince/(petty) king is detailed by Herbert Lewis in "The Ancient Laws of Wales" 1889. Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200. According to Hurbert Lewis, though not explicitly codified as such by Hywel Dda, the edling, or Heir apparent, was by convention and custom the eldest son of the prince and entitled to inheirit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certin circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim materinal patromony through their mother in certin circumstances. By this application, the senior legitimate claimet/pretender to the throne of Gwynedd and Wales is the Anwyl of Tywyn family. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who says so? Your opinion is original research. This has been pointed out several times already, sources must make the specific claim for which they are being used. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NORN#Editor arguing that he can use a book describing Welsh law to make a claim for dynastic successionDougweller (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Lewis lists the legal means by which succession to Welsh titles were acquired before the Edwardian Conquest. He is the same means by which eminent historians such as Edward Lloyd and later John Davies have created their various histories. Lloyd and Davies both cite the House of Aberffraw/Gwynedd as the primary family of Wales, as attested to in the Life of Gruffed ap Cynan. Davies even mentions the Wynn claim to the position of Prince of Gwynedd/Wales and how he won that case in an English civil court preceding. Burkes Peerage clearly delineates the direct patrilineal male line successors of Owain Gwynedd, and with all other senior lines having expired, then the Anwyl of Tywyn family, are the heirs male of Owain Gwynedd. As their lineage extends back to Owain Gwynedd, mentioning the laws of succession is appropriate. Its not original research. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Its still original research of synthesis at best. You need a third party source which makes those points for it to be used here. --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's clearly original research as Wikipedia defines it. You know it, the editor who just reverted something similar at History of Plaid Cymru agrees, as does another editor at WP:NORN. Drachenfyre, you need to read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. You may not like what they say, but its basic policy, not guideline. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Applying a genealogical formula of determining succession found in one source, to a genealogy found in another source, is synthesis of published material that advances a position not taken in either source (that the Anwyl of Tywyn are the heirs to the House of Aberffraw).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The family can obviously show their descent from Rhodri Mawr (thus they are part of the Welsh Royal House) but the question of them being the "Head" of the House is not as clear cut under Welsh Law. Herbert Lewis' "The Ancient Laws of Wales" is out of date and does not really accept the notion that under Welsh law children through the female line remain royal and illegitimate children are considered legitimate. The book also ignores that the conventions of the Law were not really strict on who inherited titles (such as Prince) due to the conventions outlined below. Welsh Law was not really concerned with the direct male line (father to son) and did allow for male descendents to claim through the female line (which occurred throughout the period of Welsh Independence). Under the laws of Hywel Dda a women could not claim the throne but her male descendents could (her claim transferring to her sons). Welsh law is also not really concerned with simply a claimant being of the patrilinear line. Under Welsh laws any male descendent of Rhodri Mawr (whether legitimate or illegitimate) has claim. We must always bear this in mind whenever considering the claims of this family to be the sole lawful descendents of Rhodri Mawr (they may be descended from him but there are many, many other Families with such claim - as outlined by the vast definition of who had legitimate claim under Welsh law). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Above removal of "non-free" content

I have looked at what was removed and none of it is copyrighted. That's not how it works with Burke's, who only compile and reprint information found in other sources. When paying for access to their site you are simply paying for easy and convenient access to the accepted pedigrees, which Burke's will be the first to tell you they do not own. DinDraithou (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Can you identify the free source from which it was copied? We can't reproduce extensive text unless we can verify that it is PD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Look here [8]. I am stuck in a never ending war with Doug and it is the ONLY way of demonstrating the link between Evan Vaughan Anwyl (who is listed in Burke's) and the ancient ancestors. James Frankcom (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid what I see there is "© 2002 - 2010 Burke's Peerage & Gentry (UK) Limited." Is it possible to have somebody else who has access to the site verify its contents without reproducing them? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't I send you the page?James Frankcom (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I should be the person to decide this. I'm more the "copyright" person on Wikipedia. :D What about asking somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or at the reference desk? Surely somebody else subscribes to this site? (I can't believe we don't have a WikiProject Peerage.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me a copy James? I can paraphrase pretty well. And I wish to see the source directly myself without having to pay for it, lol. Email me at dc_llewellyn@yahoo.com ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After consideration

After consideration and review, my new .... sentiment is that the Anwyl of Tywyn page should only reference that they are, according to Burkes Peerage (and pending other citeable sources) direct decendents of Owain Gwynedd of the House of Aberffraw. I agree that other then that basic reference, no other claim of "prince or kingship" or claim's of royal status should be mentioned here unless it is citable. On the House of Aberffraw page, only a mention of the Anwyl of Tywyn should be that they are the decendents of Owain Gwynedd and through which one of his sons.

Does this meet satisfactory? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds suitable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me --Snowded ^TALK 07:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

kk then. Revisions will reflect this. In the mean time, I'll email Sion Jobbins about publishing an article on the Aberffraw succession. Also, mayhap I'll also send a letter to John Davies, he may take another look at the subject here too and have an opinion. *shurg* won't hurt. Anywhose... you all may want to look at these pages Alternate successions of the English crown and the Jacobite succession, both of which have far less documentation with seemingly more original research then Frank or I had used here. I'm just saying. It may be worth headed there for purges too. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink to wrong Richard Herbert

In this statement:

"William Lewis Anwyl, Esq., of Parc, Sheriff of Merioneth 1611, 1624, who married Elizabeth, daughter and co-heiress of Edward Herbert, Esquire, of Cemmaes, in Cyfeiliog, grandson of Sir Richard Herbert, Kt...By her he left a numerous offspring of 8 sons and 4 daughters."

there is a link to Sir Richard Herbert of Ewyas, bastard son of the 1st Earl of Pembroke. This is the wrong Richard Herbert. The Herberts of Cemmaes/Kemmaes/Kemmes/Cemmes were descended from Sir Richard Herbert of Coldbrook, a brother of the 1st Earl. Per the Montgomeryshire Collections, vol. 3:

p. 370 "Sir Richard Herbert, Knight, of Montgomery, had, by his wife Anne, daughter of David ap Jeuan ap Llewelyn Vaughan of Trefeglwys, five sons, of which the eldest was Edward Herbert, sheriff in 1557. The second was John Herbert, styled by Lewis Dwnn and other genealogists, of Kemmes..." p. 371 "John Herbert's first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Griffith ap Gwillim Derwas of Cemmes... Her son, Edward Herbert, succeeded to the Cemmes estates. The latter left a daughter and heiress Elizabeth, who married William Lewis Anwyl, sheriff of Merionethshire in 1611 and 1624."

The Richard Herbert who married the daughter of David of Trefeglwys is the son of Richard Herbert of Coldbrook, as shown in Dwnn's Visitation of Wales, p. 293. Richard Herbert of Ewyas married Margaret Cradock.

John Herbert of Cemmes has no article on wikipedia yet, but he was an MP in the mid-1500s: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/herbert-john-1515-83-or-later — Preceding unsigned comment added by PohranicniStraze (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Substantial trim

In accordance with Wikipedia:NOTGENEALOGY, and on account of its weak sourcing, I'm planning a substantial trim of this article. Can we discuss any concerns/issues here. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have "weak sourcing". Please let's no re-open this again. What you call a "substantial trim" is what others might call vandalism. Why delete information? The article is carefully sourced. Many of the sources are old but they are valid. 2A02:C7C:F01A:F000:8DA5:F4BA:9852:BBCC (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, will you do the courtesy, please, of saying what exactly you intend to delete (this is what you mean by trim) and why you feel this must be done. 2A02:C7C:F01A:F000:8DA5:F4BA:9852:BBCC (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello KJP1, I am one of the original authors of this article. There was a lot of debate about it years ago, eventually the current version was settled upon. I do however appreciate that there are grounds for trimming the article, but I think we need to discuss the changes first and then make them after some consensus has been established. I think it may well be appropriate to delete some of the genealogical listing, and summarise the descendancy so the information is retained in a less genealogical format. For example, instead of saying King Charles III is the son of Elizabeth II and she was the daughter of George VI who was the son of George V, the second son of Edward VII, who was the son of Queen Victoria, the same information could instead be summarised as "Charles III is descended directly from Queen Victoria via her grandson George V (d.1936)."

I hope we can discuss the proposal to trim this article and work on that initiative together.

PS. I am not completely familiar with all the edit functions on this site as I do not edit many articles anymore.

Aetheling1125 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

So, for me the issues are:

• Notability - is this family notable as a standalone topic? For that to be demonstrated, I'd expect to see some coverage of the term in reliable sources. We don't have that here (see below).
• Reliable sources - What we have are histories dating from 1799, 1846 (twice, although the Heraldic Visitations of the Three Counties of North Wales above Conway given in the Reference section appears not to be used), 1872 (twice although the second doesn't have a date and I think it's the same as the Thomas above), and Burke's Peerage of 2005 (although the link just takes you to the sales page, so it doesn't actually verify anything) and an interview of 2011 with an individual. So, as far as this article shows, there's not a single 20th/21st century historian that has covered the topic. For me, that is not indicative of Notability.
• Old sources - as indicated above, this article relies massively on very old sources of the 18th and 19th centuries. These are just not the kind of sources we should use although they are beloved of editors who want to write genealogy articles - which this is. But Wikipedia isn't a genealogy website. Actually, I think it's summed up well by Evan Vaughan Anwyl, "We've always been proud of our family history, but amongst ourselves, beyond that, no". There are plenty of sites where enthusiasts can compile such lists, but the consensus is very clear that this isn't one of them.
• Content - It's basically a "begat, begat, begat" list, interspersed with snippets of tangential history. There's nothing that tells me why the family is notable, beyond their claimed ancestry. And again, the guidance is very clear, Notability isn't inherited.

Therefore, what I'd plan to trim would be the long lists of names of non-notable people. Then, we can see what's left, and whether it warrants an article. Not that different, I think from Aetheling1125's point, "delete some of the genealogical listing, and summarise the descendancy". What would help greatly would be the addition of a couple of 20/21st century sources that cover the Anwyl of Tywyn family. Are there any? Happy to discuss further. KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi thank for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I have a couple of points to make about the purpose of all this: firstly it feels a little like this article is facing "double jeopardy" after a previous proposal to delete in 2010 was eventually resolved after a long and comprehensive process that at times felt like a Maoist 'struggle session'… the second point is pre determination: if we approach this article from a predetermined viewpoint that it should be deleted I suppose there's no point in my efforts to counter that because they'll be in vain if the powers at be that now control this site have already decided that this information, true as it is, should be removed. I suppose a third point is just to ask how you've come to be involved- is this part of an organised initiative?

I think it's reasonable to trim it. I think there should be a presumption to keep a shortened article. A cursory look on Google just now shows a lot of reference of this noble family of very interesting heritage. Old sources are not necessarily invalid. I don't understand the desire to delete things on Wikipedia, it's not as if this bit of text takes up any space - it's about 1KB. Aetheling1125 (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back, I'm currently abroad. I shall have a go at trimming, and we can see how it looks. It can always be reversed. Just for clarity on two points. I have no presumption in favour of deletion; as long as there are Reliable Sources to support inclusion. As to space, I don't think that's a very strong argument. Material should be included if it's reliably sourced, verifiable, and contributes to the building of the encyclopedia. Including unsourced, unreliable or unverifiable material just because there is space to do so, isn't, in my view, a positive contribution. KJP1 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This wiki is full of reliable sources. Some are old but that doesn't mean they are not reliable or correct. Aetheling1125 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Aetheling1125 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)