Talk:King of the Britons

More kings to include

The following rulers all assumed the title "King/Empereror of Britain/the Britons" (or related):

• Carausius
• Allectus
• Ethelbald of Mercia
• Athelstan of England
• Edmund I of England
• Edred of England
• Edwy of England
• Edgar of England
• Canute the Great

And yet are not on the list, presumably because - although they ruled over the Britons - they were not Britons themselves (though, in all fairness, Allectus may have been - we simply don't know).

But why, therefore, is Cunobelin on the list? He was a member of the Belgae ethnic group, and as such is just as likely to have been a speaker of a Germanic language as a Celtic language.

The basic question is this - is this list intended to be ethnically exclusive, or will it include all those who held a title equivalent to "King of the Britons"? TharkunColl 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As the one who put up the new Kings of the Britons article, I guess I should respond. There are a couple of points:

1. 'King/Emperor of Britain' is not the same as 'King of the Britons'. The former is geographical, the latter ethnic. The only time they would have been identical is when all inhabitants of Britain were identified as Britons. That is, they would not be identical at any time after the Roman Conquest. Carausius and Allectus were rulers of part of the Roman Empire, not rulers of a nation (the Britons).

   This kind of distinction is complete nonsense for the early Medieval period, when such distinctions were rarely made. john k 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

   I beg to differ. Please point out a single instance where "king of the Britons" and "king of Britain" were used synonymously in near-contemporary records.

2. Cunobelin and his countrymen were regarded as Britons, regardless of their supposed origins. (Note: when Caesar said the Belgae had Germanic origins he probably just meant they originally came from east of the Rhine).
3. I include 'Prince/King of Wales' as related to 'King of the Britons' because (by that time) Wales mean that part of Britain inhabited by the Welsh i.e. the Britons.
4. I do not include non-Brythonic kings who claimed to be King of the Britons in addition to King of the Angles or whatever. I do already say that: 'The title King of the Britons was often used by, or bestowed (often retrospectively) upon, the most powerful ruler among the Britons'. I guess I could add a sentence saying that it was sometimes also claimed by non-Britons, and that these do not appear in the table. Do you have a list of non-Brythonic monarch who claimed (or were attributed) the title 'King of the Britons'?

Vortimer 21:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Caractacus be on this list? DanTrent (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

At one point, I did include Caratacus on the list. However, he is never actually named by Tacitus as King of the Britons. Tacitus calls him a King, and says he "raised himself far above all the other generals of the Britons." but that is not actully saying he was a ruler over the other Kings of the Britons. Vortimer (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Links intended for List of legendary kings of Britain

We do not want to lose this article, so I have reverted the redirect. I have also requested that Vortimer rework the links to this article ASAP. Please be patient. Walgamanus 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from User_talk:Walgamanus). At first, it was indeed the case that I did not realise there was a problem with the linked articles. When I became aware of the large number of linked articles, I put up the front-matter (for want of a better word) to King of the Britons, stating "Links to this article were formerly redirected to List of legendary kings of Britain. If you are looking ...". I had hoped that this would be acceptable, as it only requires the reader to make one click to find the article they were meant to be directed to, and on the way they also find the King of the Britons article, which in some cases may be more appropriate anyway. Vortimer 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You should redirect all the links. There are hundreds of them, and it's your responsibility. If you had wanted to create a new article, you should have given it a new name, rather than hijack hundreds of links from elsewhere. I shall continue redirecting until you have made the appropriate changes, because you created the article in March and should have done it long before now. I would also suggest you think about the Wikipedia policies against POV and original research, and rethink your article accordingly. TharkunColl 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not create the article in March. TharkunColl, please check your facts before making accusations. I never edited anything on wikipedia until 2 months ago when I removed the automatic redirect which I believed (and still believe) was inappropriate because the article named "Kings of the Britons" should contain information about Kings of the Britons (information which was nowhere else). I have no idea why you would think my article does not present a neutral POV. I'm less sure about your "original research" objection, but Walgamanus and others obviously think my article is appropriate in content and I respect their opinion. If you want to discuss that, start a new subject on it. Meawhile, you have once again "vandalised" my page (to use the expression of Walgamanus). You should have raised the problem here first, and you should now show a bit of patience, and make constructive suggestions about how to fix the problem. As is obvious from what I wrote before in User_talk:Walgamanus, I would be happy for all the links you are concerned about to be fixed, and am just trying to determine how it could be done in the most efficient manner. Vortimer 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you call it "my page" if you did not create it? Anyway, whatever the case, the easiest way is what I suggested above: create a new page name that has not been used before, shift the contents to that, and restore the redirect on this one. TharkunColl 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we obviously have two rather polarised points of view here. Personally, I think it better to have the information still available while links are being fixed, even if this may cause some confusion in the short term. Francis Schonken's suggested merge notice will certainly alert readers to a possible problem however. I can only suggest that concentrating our efforts on getting the links fixed ASAP will be much more productive than starting an edit war and I would encourage anyone with an interest in both/either of these articles to lend a hand. Please note, however, that all linked articles need individual examination as not every instance of the link needs changing. Walgamanus 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I got to it before anyone else. I have fixed all the links and altered the dab statements on each article. I hope the situation is now acceptable to all parties. Walgamanus 17:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly acceptable to me. Thank you very much for doing this. I hope you had some quick way of doing it rather than editing each page individually! I changed two of the cases where you had made the link go to List of legendary kings of Britain back to going to King of the Britons, because I thought it was more appropriate. They were Prince of Wales and List of rulers of Wales. If anyone thinks these pages should also link to legendary kings, they could add a new link. Vortimer 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

evolved in to Prince of Wales?

"From the 12th century onwards the title evolved into that of the Prince of Wales" - I'd dispute that. A king, one of several local kings who probably came from the original Britons went on to proclaim himself Prince of Wales. But I don't think that's an evolution of the title - he was called King of Gwynedd, not King of [the] Briton[s]. Your phrase suggests that a line of title proceeded but this was all really down to local feuding. Pbhj (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First, by the time the title "Prince of Wales" was being used, the rulers of the Britons did not call themselves Kings anymore, but Princes or Lords. So the "Prince of Wales" was never "King of Gwynedd".

Second, the situation with "local feuding" to establish who was "Prince of Wales" was exactly the same as the situation regarding the title "King of the Britons". In both cases the title was claimed whenever a King or Prince (among the Britons) was strongest at a given time, and this may well have involved "local feuding" to get to that position.

Third, if you look at the table you will see that the title evolved in the sense that it changed over time, roughly as "King of the Britons" --> "King of Wales" --> "Prince of Wales". And you will see that in the intermediate stages there was mixed use: e.g. Owain Gwynedd was referred to as "Leader of the Britons", "King of Wales" and "Prince of the Welsh"! I think what I wrote is a perfectly reasonable sense of the word "evolved".81.157.242.59 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed?

I'm removing the "disputed" flag because I don't see any on-going disputes. Some issues were raised a long time ago on this discussion page. I (as principal author of the article) responded to all of them, I think successfully. If someone thinks there is still a dispute, they should open a discussion on this discussion page.

I'm also removing the "copy edit" flag. There is nothing blatantly wrong with the style of the article that I can see. If the person who put up the flag saw something stylistic that needs fixing, they should have fixed it, or at least put some comment about what needed fixing on this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortimer (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixing fact and fiction

The following discussion is copied from the Template "Kings of the Britons" Talk page:

I have very serious misgivings about this template. It mixes legend and history, fact and fiction, in an unacceptable and misleading way. To cite just one example, what on earth is Idris Gawr, the legendary giant of Cader Idris doing on this list alongside medieval Welsh rulers such as Llywelyn the Great? You can not be serious? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this template from the articles to which it had been added by its creator. I'm sure his/her intentions were for the best, but I think it is fair to say that he/she knows little or nothing about Welsh history. The article on which it was based, King of the Britons, is riddled with inaccuracies and assumptions and the very existence of the title per se is highly questionable, let alone its application to so many "holders", from Iron Age Celtic kings of south-east Britain through to Owain Glyndŵr. "Well, it might say that on Wikipedia, but...," as the sceptics would say. This now needs deleting, please. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Enaidmawr, there's not much point claiming that an article is "riddled with inaccuracies" if you make no effort to either describe or correct the alleged inaccuracies in the relevant article. You placed a tag on it last November. It was quite properly removed since you had left no message nor engaged in any debate about the supposed inaccuracies. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because I had no time to sit down and write an essay on the subject at the time and then eventually forgot about it, having other things to do. I'm not saying that the references given in that article are incorrect, as far as they go, and I don't doubt your good faith, but rather it is what is implied by the article and its uncritical presentation of the facts which concerns me: take the inclusion of Owain Glyndŵr as 'King of the Britons', for instance. But this template's talkpage is probably not the place to discuss those details. It was added, also in good faith, by a an editor who admits to knowing very little about Welsh history (I brought this up on her[?] talk page). It implies to the casual reader/visitor that all those listed on it held the title "King of the Britons" with all that implies. That is extremely misleading. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is not the right place to discuss the article, since it is the template discussion page. However, the article itself seems to be constructed in such a way that it includes critiques of the title of "king", giving a space to explain the source and problems with the title. However, I think this discussion should be moved to the proper page. Paul B (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately I've no time to do so tonight as it's just turned midnight and I've got a couple of loose ends to tie up on cy: before packing in as well. Thanks and regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've now looked at your comments on the relevant user's talk page. I take the view that users should be given information that allows them to identify the complexities of a topic. In other words, my default position is "more links not fewer". The current Kings of the Britons page tries to to do that by tabulating the ways in which the title was used. IMO, it should include Breton rulers (e.g Erispoe) and should explain the meaning of "Briton" more fully. Paul B (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has just come to this page with little prior knowledge, it seems to me that there may be some value in keeping it, despite the fact that much of what is there now seems to be unacceptable synthesis. However, there needs to be much greater clarity in the introduction as to the sources that have been used for the list and, in particular, to identify those in the list for whom there is no or little historical evidence, and those for which evidence exists. There should also be better links to other articles, such as List of legendary kings of Britain, and the possibility of merging the lists should at least be considered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps the copying of the above to here from the template talk page has caused some confusion, so I should make it clear that my remark "this now needs deleting" refers to the template, not this article. Thanks to Ghmyrtle for finding a wikipedia term which sums up the gist of my argument in two words: unacceptable synthesis.

Much of the evidence presented here is tenuous, distant (e.g. Annals of Ulster) or retrospective, and the assumption "Prince of Wales=King of the Britons" is unsupportable. Specific page references are not given, simply Brut y Tywysogion, Bede etc, which makes it a time-consuming task to find the text cited and judge the context. The possible influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia is not mentioned. The chronological order of the table suggests the succession of an accepted and recognised title. The opinion of modern historians is not given and no alternative argument is presented. That's enough for now. A great deal of revision needs to be done to make this article acceptable. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One example for starters. Reference is made to Selyf ap Cynan and Urien Rheged being described as "Battle-leaders of Britain" according to the Triads. The triad in question is number 25 in Rachel Bromwich's edition, "Tri Aerfeddog Ynys Prydain". Apart from the dubious equating of that formulaic description with the title "King of the Britons", how come the third person of that Triad is not included as well, i.e. Afaon fab Taliesin? That would pose a few problems though, as he is not an attested king of any realm and is a wisdom-figure in Welsh tradition. Selyf is called "rex Bretanorum" in the Annales, but in the context of being the presumed battle-leader of the Welsh forces at the Battle of Chester: another thing the article avoids mentioning is that Brython and Cymry often mean the same thing, both in Welsh and English sources, so rex Bretanorum could equally be interpreted as "King of the Welsh" (which he was not, in fact). To return to Urien Rheged, he is now left with the term "King of Kings" in a praise poem by Taliesin, but why should that equate with "King of the Britons"? It's a praise poem and as such is filled with rhetoric. So shall we remove Urien (definitely) and Selyf (arguably)? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know more about the Anglo-Saxons than I do about the Britons, but from the little I do know your arguments make sense. However, rather than going about this piecemeal, would it make more sense to describe how you think this article should look? If we have consensus, then you could make a wholesale transformation of the text. Mike Christie (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My last point was really meant to illustrate how unsound the article is as a whole and I certainly have no intention of going through every detail 'piecemeal'. If you'll look at the previous posts you'll see I've made numerous other suggestions as well. The most obvious starting point would be the removal of the various monarchs and princes who are in the list by virtue of being Prince of Wales etc. I've been unusually reticent here up till now in order to avoid a pointless edit war, but will feel tempted to go ahead anyway if there is no response in the near future. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Having waited long enough and having had no response from the supporter(s) of this article as it stands, I've taken the first steps towards getting some clarity in here. The rulers whose names I've removed were not referred to as 'Kings of the Britons' according to the information given here. The remaining references need to be properly sourced so they can be checked. The whole question of the use of the term 'Briton' in the context of Wales and the Welsh in the middle ages needs clarifying as well (for instance, until quite recently the terms 'Britons' and 'British tongue/language' were regularly used by English writers to refer to the Welsh people and the Welsh language). And that's just for starters. If you disagree I'd appreciate it if you would explain why, here, rather than revert the article; I'd waited two months for comments before doing this. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As the user who first put up this page (to contain historical rather than legendary kings) I'm sorry I missed all of this discussion. Let me give some thoughts.

1. The table is not meant to imply a orderly succession of kings. It just presents all the known instances of powerful rulers of the insular Britons to which the title "king of the Britons", or a related title, was given, often retrospectively. All this is stated in the article. Moreover, unlike many wikipedia articles, it gives sources for everything. Sure, the sources could be made more specific, with titles and book and chapter numbers etc, and I'm happy for anyone to start working on that. But the references I have given is far more than many wikipedia articles have, so I don't see why it has been singled out for such harsh treatment.

2. The table refers to "King of the Britons, or a related title." I don't see why Prince of Wales should not be considered a related title. Before Enaidmawr deleted all the 12th and 13th century examples, it was clear to see that there was a gradual evolution of the titles used by the most powerful Welsh ruler from "King of the Britons" in the 11th century to "Prince of Wales" in the 13th. Part of the point of the table was to show the evolution. This point is discussed earlier in this page. I think it is artificial to break pre-Norman and post-Norman Wales apart as if there was no continuity there. So I'd request that you put them back.

3. There is an accusation that there is legendary material there. e.g. "Idris the Giant". Ok, if people think that in this instance the report from the Annals of Ulster should not be linked to any figure in Welsh history in legend, then I'm happy to remove the link. Regarding Goeffrey of Monmouth, I fail to see why he should be brought up at all. The point of the article was to "rescue" the concept of "King of the Britons" from Geoffrey's pseudohistory. This page was not based on the list of the legendary kings of Britain page, it replaced it.

4. Regarding other controversial cases: Urien and Selyf. The former I agree has a fairly weak claim to be included. The latter has a perfectly good claim - the annals of Ulster call him King of the Britons! Enaidmawr says " rex Bretanorum could equally be interpreted as "King of the Welsh" (which Selyf was not, in fact). " I don't understand what point this is supposed to make. How can Enaidmawr say confidently that Selyf was not regarded as King of the Welsh, when we know almost nothing about Brittonic politics at the time? What does Enaidmawr even mean by talking about "the Welsh" at this time? The inhabitants of modern Wales? The Cymru (which included the men of the North)? Or those whom the Saxons called Welsh, which included the Dumnonians?

5. Continuing in the same vein, I don't see that "until quite recently the terms 'Britons' and 'British tongue/language' were regularly used by English writers to refer to the Welsh people and the Welsh language" is a problem for the article. This is exactly why it made sense to continue the list to the paramount Welsh rulers in Norman times. If you think this is something readers need to be told more explicitly, I'm happy for that information to be added.

6. I'm happy for the wording of the article to continue to be improved to avoid misunderstandings. One point I should make is that I envisaged the article as referring to paramount insular Brittonic rulers, not to rulers who ruled solely in Brittany. So in this case it would not be appropriate to list Kings of Brittany. I'm not happy with the introductory paragraphs as they stand now since they refer to both insular and continental Britons and would indeed lead the educated reader to wonder why Kings like Erispoe and Salomon do not appear. (Riothamus is appropriate because there are reasons to think he was a King in Britain before crossing to the continent).

So in summary, I don't think the removal of the Welsh rulers in Norman times was justified, I don't think adding all of those "citations needed" was at all called for, but I'm sure the information in the article can be improved by a constructive approach from all concerned. Sorry I didn't reply earlier.Vortimer (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A last point.

7. The page never refers to anyone as "holder" of a title or having "held" the title. It carefully says they either used the title, or were referred to by the title given. If readers do not read what is written that's not my fault. Vortimer (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have now removed any potentially questionable rulers (Caratacus) or attributions (for Ambrosius and Maelgwn) or information/links (for Idris). I have not yet put back the C12th and later rulers. I am waiting to hear any responses on this page. But if I hear nothing within a week, I plan to put them back. Vortimer (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for having left this so long but you raised a number of issues and I've been tied up both on Welsh wiki and here. As regards putting the later rulers back, I'd object for the simple reason they are not referred to by the title 'King of rhe Britons'. Unless that is, ironically enough, we accept that 'King of the Britons' can also be interpreted as meaning in effect 'King of the Welsh' (not sure about Old Irish but An Bhreatain Bheag is modern Irish for Cymru/Wales so the Annals of Ulster may also be referring to 'Kings of Wales'). Only in that way could one stretch things to make 'Prince of Wales' mean 'king of the Britons'. The other changes are an improvement. Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from on this; I'm aware of being a Brython as well as Welsh and am proud of that heritage. Sorry I've no time to add more at the moment but I'll get back on this before long. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gradual change from 'King of the Britons' to 'Prince of Wales'

As regards putting the later rulers back, I'd object for the simple reason they are not referred to by the title 'King of the Britons'. Unless that is, ironically enough, we accept that 'King of the Britons' can also be interpreted as meaning in effect 'King of the Welsh' (not sure about Old Irish but An Bhreatain Bheag is modern Irish for Cymru/Wales so the Annals of Ulster may also be referring to 'Kings of Wales'). Only in that way could one stretch things to make 'Prince of Wales' mean 'king of the Britons'. The other changes are an improvement. Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from on this; I'm aware of being a Brython as well as Welsh and am proud of that heritage. Sorry I've no time to add more at the moment but I'll get back on this before long. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [Copied from above under a new heading by Vortimer (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)]

Thanks for the reply. I still don't see why you would think it would be "ironic" that 'King of the Britons' should be seen as essentially the same as 'King of the Welsh'. As I'm sure you know, after the other Insular Brittonic areas (most recently, Cornwall, Strathclyde, and Cumbria) had been incorpotated into England or Scotland, Wales was sometimes called Britannia, meaning the land of the Britons. As I said above, Owain Gwynedd (1137-1170) was referred to as: 'Leader of the Britons' by the Brut y Tywysogion, while in contemporary charters he is entitled variously 'King of Wales' and 'Prince of the Welsh'. This, and other examples from the 10th to 13th century, show a gradual transition in terminology from 'King', to 'Leader'/'Ruler'/'Head', to 'Prince', and from 'the Britons', to 'the Welsh', to 'Wales'. I don't see that a special case has to made for this --- it is evident simply by looking at the table (as it was).

Here's another way of looking at it. You arbitrarily cut off my list with Rhys ap Tewdwr. Why? Perhaps because this is the last mention of a 'Kingdom of the Britons'. But one could argue for an earlier stop: Gruffudd ap Llewellyn, because he is the last to be called 'King of the Britons'. Or one could argue for a later stop: with Owain Gwynedd, because he is the last to be called 'King' and because this is the last mention of 'the Britons' in this context (that I know of). Or one could argue for an even later stop: with Llywelyn Fawr, because he is the last to be called 'Prince of the Welsh' (i.e. ruler of the Brittonic people, rather than ruler of a territory, Wales). The point I'm making is that any cut is arbitrary. 'The Britons' did not suddenly cease to be as a people, and they continued to recognize, from time to time, one of their rulers as having some sort of overlordship over the others, as they seem to have done for many centuries. To me it makes sense to have all of them in one table. Vortimer (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the 11th century and later paramount rulers of the Britons/Welsh, since, since we certainly can accept that 'King of the Britons' can also be interpreted as meaning in effect 'King of the Welsh' . I have also rewritten the opening paragraphs, and removed every instance of "citation needed" when the information was provided in the wiki article about the ruler in question. If you go to that article and think the information there needs further citation, then feel free to add there. But before doing so, I think it would be useful to stop and ask "does this particular fact have a worse citation than any of the other facts given in this article?" Vortimer (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Kings and Princes of Wales

I have created the page Kings and Princes of Wales. Perhaps there could be a discussion about limiting the page King of the Britons to Kings prior to Gruffydd ap Cynan, King of Wales? In addition, should we include images and arms for the Kings of this page. This is an excellent list by the way and thanks for your hard work in forming it. Titus Gold (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Were everyone from Gruffydd ap Cynan on removed, then we absolutely should not include arms, which are anachronistic inventions for everyone else on the list. Agricolae (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Family history.

I have traced my family history directing here. Are there any other links or facts anyone could share? WWalesMadog (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Further on definitions

Per extensive discussion above, can we come to an agreed definition of who should be in this list and who should be out?

More constructively, I suggest that people to be included should be:

- Historically real

- Have a recorded name (so the eleven un-named kings of Britain whose submission Claudius boasted of wouldn't be mentioned except in so far as they can be identified.

- Documented as being normally referred to by contemporaries, or themselves, as King or Rex (excludes post-Galfridian fantasies)

- Rulers (including either acknowledged sovereign or likely-subordinate ruler, so including Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus and Prasutagus, and saves arguments over the degree of sovereignty enjoyed) over a population thought mainly to consist of speakers of Common Brittonic or its descendants, in the island of Great Britain.

That would be quite a long list, but would have its uses and it approximates to the present article. Other articles can be transcluded to form part of it.

Does anyone have any better suggestions? Or amendments?

(It is arguable that this page should consist only of monarchs over the great majority of Britons, who were not also and primarily a monarch of England, and who also claimed the title of King of the Britons or of the Welsh. That would be a blank article. No such person ever existed. If we can't agree on a definition including a set of real people, perhaps a simple redirect to King of Wales would best serve the turn. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the definitions above are well thought out. Just to say, thought, that if there is no agreement then I think "King of Wales" should, in fact, redirect here rather than vice versa. It is not really clear to me why we have a "King of Wales" article when anyone aspiring to the title identified themself as King of the Britons. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)