Talk:House of Mathrafal

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Requested move 3 September 2025

[edit]

House of Mathrafal → LleisionLleision – The name of the dynasty is properly 'Lleision', i.e. the descendants of Lles Llawddeog, a legendary ancestor of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, and was the name of the dynasty in the Middle Ages. See David Stephenson, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293, p. 24, and note 8 on that page. While the chief court of the kingdom of Powys was Mathrafal, the dynasty was not named after it. Naming dynasties after courts is an Anglo-Norman tradition, and furthermore the "House of Mathrafal" is not used in any scholarly source. Tipcake (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says : "On the other hand the ancestors of Gwrgeneu given in the genealogical tracts included Lles Llawddeog, from whom the royal house of Powys in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries derived their name of the Lleision.8 The principal branch of the Lleision descended from Bleddyn ap Cynfyn.."
And the note 8 refers to a poem of Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr which is only a poem.
The House of Mathrafal page is already full of references about either the name of Mathrafal or Powys. Your source is only a few lines in a book from what I can read.
The reason scholars named it the House of Mathrafal or the House of Powys is to separate it from the first House of Powys at the time of Cyngen ap Cadell who was the last of the original line of kings of Powys.
As for the House of Mathrafal, scholarly source here by historian John Davies who wrote the A History of Wales book, one of the most important work on the subject : A History of Wales
And for the House of Powys name, source here by historian Arthur Wade-Evans : The Houses of Cunedda and Rhodri Mawr 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite. The actual members of the family considered themselves to be 'Lleision', not members of the 'House of Mathrafal'. It is not 'only' a poem, the work by Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr is critically important to scholars of medieval Powys because it lists all of its noble families: the Lleision at the top, then the Cadelling, then the Iorweirthion, then the Madogion, then Arodion, then the Lluddion, then Gweirinion, then Llafroddion, Tyngyrion, Cwcwllfyrion, Gweilchion, Hil Gwriaeth Ysgoyw, Ffynudion, and finally Cyndrwyning. See Gwaith Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr vol. 1, poem 10. The book I cited from originally is also the only book-length study of the kingdom of Powys, and refers to them as such repeatedly. There's no better source than that!
If you want more sources where they are called Lleision, you can see T. M. Charles-Edwards, 'Dynastic Succession in Early Medieval Wales', pp. 81-2, in Wales and the Welsh in the Middle Ages, where he discusses the Lleision and the closely-related Iorweirthion, David Stephenson, 'Madog ap Maredudd, Rex Powissensium', Welsh History Review, 24 (2008), pp. 1-28, Patrick Sims-Williams, 'Powys and Early Welsh Poetry', Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 67, pp. 33-54, Ann Parry Owen, 'Rhieingerdd Efa ferch Madog ap Maredudd, Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr a'i cant', Ysgrifau Beirniadol 14, pp. 56-86, and Ben Guy, Medieval Welsh Genealogy (2020), probably the most critical source for this.
You will find that only John Davies calls them the 'House of Mathrafal'. He was also not a medievalist. I presume he chose the name for simplicity's sake as it is a work intended for the general reader. I am merely repeating what modern, scholarly sources written by experts in the field call the family. The 'House of Powys' is I think an inferior name as it would cause confusion with the earlier houses of Powys, namely the Cadelling and the supposed descendants of Gwrtheyrn. So what serves best is to call them by 1) the modern spelling of their contemporary name which 2) is used in modern academic sources and 3) clearly delineates them from the other two kin-groups which ruled Powys in an earlier period. Tipcake (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with your arguments is that it is a sort of reinterpretation of what is already written in the sources by scholars, despite some scholars referring to the Lleision origin.
At the time of the Tudors, none of them called themselves the Tudors. Only later did historians give them this name. If what you are worried about is losing the past heritage of the House of Powys, I suggest you simply add it to one of the sections on the page. Like from where the House originated and how it was called at the time, with reliable sources.
Also, when the Kingdom of Powys was divided, the titles became princes of Powys Wenwynwyn and Powys Fadog. The link with Powys is pretty clear.
As a compromise, I suggest that we rename the page the House of Powys quite simply, like it is said in the sources, and then next to the name in the summary, we write "also known as Mathrafal or Lleision in Welsh". 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'reinterpreting' what is already written by scholars. I am giving you sources by multiple living sitting professors which call them the Lleision, not from an outdated edition of the Laws of Hywel Dda from over a century ago or a coffee-table history of Wales. This page is about the family which is descended from Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, which was contemporaneously (i.e. in their time, if that wasn't clear) known as the Lleision. The poem by Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr which refers to them as the Lleision was sung in 1160 to try to bring the family back together after the death of Madog ap Maredudd and his son Llywelyn:
Yr amser mwyaf tebygol i'r gerdd gael ei chanu yw'r cynod adfydus yn dilyn marwolaeth Madog ap Maredudd a'i fab Llywelyn yn 1160. Y tebyg yw mai cyfeirio a wna'r bardd at wahanol adrannau o osgordd gyfoes Powys sydd wed eu henwi ar ôl cyndeidiau iddynt neu hen arwyr. Bwriad y gerdd, felly, fyddai adfer hyder aelodau'r osgordd, wed iddynt golli eu pennaeth, drwy eu clodfori a rhestru eu gorchestion. -- from the introduction to the poem, op. cit, p. 113
The only scholar who calls them the 'House of Mathrafal' is John Davies, who was a modern historian, not a trained medievalist. Continuing to keep the page under this name will only confuse people who go from the page to check modern academic sources about the family. Again, as it is not the only 'House of Powys', that name is also inappropriate. What is best, I would judge, is to begin the page with:
The Lleision were the ruling family of the resurrected Kingdom of Powys and its successor lordships beginning with the rule of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in 1063... with a note saying "note that John Davies calls them the House of Mathrafal, though this is not contemporaneous or used in other scholarship".Tipcake (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You called a A History of Wales (book) a "coffee-table history of Wales" ? ... Look, maybe you find the name of Powys inappropriate but it is the one that we see the most in sources. We are not the scholars ourselves on Wikipedia, we simply write down the history written by others and link reliable references to their statements.
Look here in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, where it is named also the royal house of Powys :
GWENWYNWYN (died 1216), lord of Powys
In your own source named Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality, and Lordships 1132-1293 :
Page 52 it says : "It is significant that one of Madog’s sons, Owain Fychan, appears in English sources as Owain de turri or de la tour, and another as Owain de Porkington, the location of another castle. 81 This emphasises not only the ‘Frenchified’ identity of the royal house of Powys, but the importance of the castle within that identity."
p. 59, same source you provided : "Another possibility is that the poet was referring to an act of treachery within the ruling house of Powys".
p. 68 : "When Cynddelw addressed him as the leader (llyw) of the Lleision, the ruling house of Powys, the reference was probably retrospective, and cannot have meant much after 1171".
The Lleision here fits as an alternative name I guess like you said.
p. 217 : "Edeirnion and the associated territory of Dinmael, part of which was occupied by the forces of Owain Gwynedd in 1160, was held by members of three branches of the ruling house of Powys in the last three decades of the twelfth century, and finally passed into the hands of Owain Brogyntyn and his descendants, amongst whom it was divided into at least three segments."
p. 276 : "Prydydd y Moch several times proclaimed Llywelyn’s Powysian ancestry and his descent from the most celebrated of Powysian rulers: he was of the stock of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn and the grandson of Madog ap Maredudd; he was one of the Lleision, the royal house of Powys; and on occasion his descent from Madog was given precedence over that from Owain Gwynedd."
Again Lleision as an alternative name rather than the name of the main royal house. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, John Davies' History of Wales is a coffee-table book, that is why it was written, to give a digest of Welsh history to laymen. That isn't to denigrate it, I just mean that it cannot be taken as authoritative compared to actual scholarly work by medievalists working on this period.
I am not saying that the term 'royal house of Powys' is incorrect. I don't know if you are misunderstanding me or if I am unclear; I apologise if the latter is the case. I mean that the family which this article is about is not the only 'royal house of Powys', so to reserve the term solely for the Lleision, that is, the family which this page is about, is incorrect. So, for example, in histories of Gwynedd you find reference to the 'first dynasty of Gwynedd' from Cunedda and the 'second dynasty of Gwynedd' from Merfyn Frych, but there is no such equivalent term for the kingdom of Powys, which was ruled over by at least two separate families: the Cadelling until the end of the ninth century, and the Lleision when it was resurrected by Maredudd ap Bleddyn in the twelfth. The term Lleision is interchangeable with 'royal house of Powys' in the twelfth century and afterwards only. How is this?
The Lleision became the second ruling House of Powys following the reestablishment of the kingdom by Maredudd ap Bleddyn in the first decades of the twelfth century. The first kingdom of Powys, ruled by the Cadelling, was conquered by the sons of Rhodri Mawr at the end of the ninth century. Tipcake (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but in sources it is not referred as the house of Lleision or royal house of Lleision or Lleision dynasty. In most books about the royal house of Powys, the Lleision name is not even mentioned.
House of Powys once again here by historian John Edward Lloyd.
A history of Wales from the earliest times to the Edwardian conquest, p. 464, p. 755
Look at the Fitzgerald dynasty page. They are also known as the Geraldines but their house is not named that way. About Powys, yes the name is the same as the fist house of Powys, but in the end, it is the later house of Powys who became notable in history.
If you look at the House of Habsburg. They are also known as the House of Austria, but Austria was founded as the Margraviate of Austria first. Their family was not even founded yet. But historian still refer to them as the house of Austria.
Even the Tudors. The Tudors of Penmynydd were the first real house of Tudor but historians decided to make the newest house of Tudor in England the one with the Tudor name, and the first House of Tudor as the Tudors of Penmynydd because they were less notable.
Powys is the house with notability, hence why historians used that name in the references, and Lleision an alternative name just like Mathrafal pretty much. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may be called the 'House of Powys' in those books because the context allows you to know which dynasty is being talked about when you say the 'House of Powys' in the twelfth century or later. The point is it is not the only 'house of Powys'. Here is Thomas Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons, p. 450, and 451:
What they both share is the view that Cadell, after whom the early dynasty of Powys (italics mine) was called the Cadelling, was descended from Gwrtheyrn (Vortigern).... To interpret the claim that Cadell was a slave as a Gwynedd attack on the dynasty of Powys, which, perhaps, it already proposed to supplant, is to ignore an Old Testament parallel that would have sprung immediately to the mind of many early medieval clerics.
You simply cannot call the page 'House of Powys' without context because there is another family of the same name. That is why you need to refer to them with their specific name, that of the Lleision. Also, there is only one book about Powys, David Stephenson's. That is why he wrote the book, to rescue it from Lloyd's marginalisation of it in favour of weaving a nationalist myth about the Llywelyns of Gwynedd!Tipcake (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is create a page like they did for the Tudors of Penmynydd and name it the first House of Powys, that's all, or add it to the history section of the current page. My point is not about not recognizing that there is more than one house of Powys in history, it is that on Wikipedia what matters is notability and references. The second house of Powys is more notable.
I think you are mistaken that there is only one book about Powys. One book or author doesn't have the monopoly on history. We use and gather references from many historians, we should not push a point of view that has been marginalized by most historians. Be careful with What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Advocacy.
On page 450 from the source you provided, it also says right after : "The much earler Harleian Genealogies do not share this idea". And further down the page, it says : "Kirby, for example, has argued that the ascription of the ninth-century kings of Powys to the Cadelling was a fabrication created in Gwynedd"...
At that point, it may be easier to keep the Mathrafal name used by Davies after all. I'll add the Lleisions name next to it for now, but you can revert my edit if you disagree. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am more partial to the article being called the 'Second Dynasty of Powys', but it is still very clunky, Lleision is shorter and more importantly, actually used in scholarship...
Just to your other comments: the "idea" which the Harleian genealogies do not share is that Cadell was descended from Vortigern; the dynasty is always called the Cadelling, the uncertainty is whom he was descended from, a slave or Vortigern. Charles-Edwards introduces Kirby's theory only to reject it on the next page, which I have already quoted.
Also, Lleision is the plural! Dych chi ddim yn siarad Cymraeg? Dylwch chi'n gwybod yr iaith os chi'n eisiau 'sgwennu am yr hanes...
Stephenson's book is the only monograph on Powys, you are mistaken. Please see the review of Ben Guy here, which says thus in its first sentence: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/698000?journalCode=spc He is of course not the only person to have written about Powys but it is the only book solely devoted to the history of the (second) kingdom. Tipcake (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second House of Powys as a name simply add confusion.
The books already refers to it as the House of Powys, and not as the second one. This is the name Wikipedia users will search when they look for Powys.
Look at how they did it here with the Houses of Orange.
First House of Orange and the House of Orange. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As we have established, simply calling it 'house' or 'dynasty of Powys' can refer to two different families, and no academic source says 'first' or 'second' dynasty of Powys. It is therefore untenable.
Why do you keep referencing irrelevant families from the Continent? Different places have different traditions, and the first page cites no scholarly sources to boot.
I am sure that a page for the 'first' dynasty of Powys, possibly related to Vortigern of all people, would get just as much or more traffic as the Lleision. Vortigern has 10x the monthly viewers than this page.
Probably the easiest thing to do in this case is to create a 'House of Powys' disambiguation page that leads to a Cadelling page, which I would be happy to write, and this one, renamed Lleision. Tipcake (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... Because Wikipedia doesn't work on traditions, it works with reliable sources and books. None of the books or references you provided shown a "royal House of Lleision", so I tried to show you how others have solved the problem.
Again with your tone, calling the houses of Habsburg, Orange, and the like as irrelevant families from the Continent is not very respectful. Just like when you called the work of historian John Davies a coffee-table history of Wales...
Despite our long discussion, I still don't see how changing the well-known name of house of Powys to Lleision is an improvement for our readers. You don't have any sources for a "house of Lleision", yet you keep pushing for it, depsite having many for "royal house of Powys". This is very similar to Wikipedia:Advocacy. 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:B403:74E:362E:8D82 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is talking about a "Royal House of Lleision"? The name of the family as a collective was Lleision. It is a plural noun formed from the name of their ancestor. Lles. The name of the article should be "Lleision". The name of the family. Not "Royal House of Lleision". Not "House of Lleision". Nothing other than the name of the family itself, as is normal when speaking of Welsh kindreds. They just happened to rule the second kingdom of Powys, and thus are sometimes called the "House of Powys" when that context is clear. I feel like you are trolling because I have cited reams of modern academic sources and literally contemporary sources calling the family "Lleision". You are only arguing from the weight of tradition on Wikipedia, but that's surely irrelevant if it is incorrect.
I am frankly beginning to lose patience because of your utter ignorance of Welsh historiography and inability to grasp the fundaments of my reasoning. By 'tradition" I mean like how the Irish Uí Néill are called such (literally 'grandsons of Niall') and not the "Royal House of Ulster" or whatever an analogy with your suggestion would give for them. It is not customary when writing about Welsh dynasties to say 'House of X, House of Y' as the name of the dynasty itself, that is a Continental tradition based on families being connected with some ancestral seat. That is what I meant by "irrelevant", not that the Habsburgs of all people are irrelevant in and of themselves. I am not going to respond further to you, I hope someone else can weigh in. Tipcake (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Mathrafal cadet branch.

[edit]

There are 2 stories for the house of Mathrafal cadet branch. However the most reliable is the Welsh source cited- Llwyd, Angharad (1832). A history of Anglesey. pp. 60–63. - A History of the Island of Mona at Google Books

@Academia45: Please read the source which explains Mathrafal was one of three cadet branches of Wales when the country after split into 3 Kingdoms by Rhodri the Great. The 3 houses emerged from Gwynedd, Deheubarth and Powys. The article details should be changed based on the Welsh source, and not the confused European point of view it has followed. Cltjames (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bernard Burke is a more reliable source than Angharad Llwyd as he was the Ulster King of Arms, despite some inaccuracies. He represents the College of Arms, thus the British Crown. Angharad Llwyd was an antiquary and despite talking about the splitting from the Welsh chronicles, I'm not quite sure I understand what the problem is.
As stated in your reference : "Rhodri, when he ordained these laws, must have been little acquainted with human nature, to image such regulations were sufficient to counteract, at a distant period, the wild passions and ambition of princes".
Just look at the Tudors, their claim was weak... truth is those who take power make new rules, and who gets the claims change as a result. The source doesn't give any information about the cadet branches either, and about the Nannaus, I didn't see a reference where it is said that they are co-representatives of Mathrafal either, only that they are descendants.
I don't think it is about pushing Welsh sources or European sources or whatever, simply finding reliable references about a topic. So many references on the House of Aberffraw page are from blogs that would never pass Wikipedia guidelines.. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. I would not be surprised that a contributor of the Aberffraw page created the website now linked to it called : https://houseofaberffraw.org/ ? Academia45 (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Founding of Houses

[edit]

Bleddyn ap Cynfyn died 1075 is credited as being the 'founder' of the house of Mathrafal in 1063 with the parent house as Dinefwr.

In my experience the parents tend to be older than the offspring so I wonder how Bleddyn's ancestors, all the way back to Corf ap Caenog of around 790, (this date assuming the ancestry to be valid) can belong to the house he founded while his descendants all belonged to the 'parent' house? This is not an isolated instance as the reversal appears in many of the Wikipedia pages