Talk:Maelgwn Gwynedd

Name

"also known as ... Maelgwn I ..."

Judging by a Google search, only known as Maelgwn I in this article. I've certainly never heard him called that. Rhion 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He is almost invariably referred to in Welsh (from the Middle Ages to the present), and most other sources as well, as Maelgwn Gwynedd. The patronymic as given is technically correct but just about never found outside of genealogical works. Most Welsh people have heard of Maelgwn Gwynedd but few would recognise Maelgwn Hir ap Cadwallon. Shouldn't wikipedia guidelines be followed here and the most common form of the name be used? Enaidmawr 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of the above points are very well-taken, although variant forms of his name should be included in a {{persondata}} at the bottom of the page for SEO.

"Maelgwn I" is just wrong, though, since (afaik) there was never a second.  — LlywelynII 17:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

"The historical Maelgwn king of Gwynedd and one of the most influential rulers of 6th century Britain."

This is not a sentence and means nothing. Since I know nothing about this I can't edit it to make sense... Teutanic 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can tell that the "and" means "was", but it's peacocky and unsourced...  — LlywelynII 17:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

Meaning of Maelgwn

Forgive my ignorance, I don't know much old or middle welsh, but doesn't this man's name mean "bald dog". In the Irish forms recorded for the Pictish king Bridei's father, this is indeed what it appears to mean (or rather "Máel of the Dog"). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. "Bald" was foel or voel (cf. Idwal the Bald).

You're quite right that we should get his name up if someone can find a good source. Leafing through Pughe suggests "iron..." whatever the hell the enclitic -gwn used to mean. "Horse", maybe?  — LlywelynII 17:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done! =) ["Princely Warhound", btw]  — LlywelynII 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of the name is widely known - it is mael "prince" + cwn (the archaic oblique form of ci) "hound".Cagwinn (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to open this thread up again, but I suggest that the 'Name' section be tidied up. Why does the 'it need to include a long and confusing discussion and a potted history of British phonology, instead of just stating that the name is British and means 'hound prince' (etc)? Only the most basic explanation of the origins are required for this article, the rest is just irrelevant. Psammead (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and done.Cagwinn (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Cf. WP:PRESERVE: Don't delete topical info—such as the Brittonic and medieval forms of his name—just because it isn't pretty. If you're not going to start Maelgwn (name) and move the linguistic info there, don't delete it here since it's perfectly on point. OP wasn't wrong that it could have used tightening up, though. {{refn}} is helpful, now that I know it exists. — LlywelynII 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of Gwynedd

Well, "of Gwynedd" obviously.

But surely this passage is in error:

Maelgwn was the first king to enjoy the fruits of his family's conquest and he is considered the founder of the medieval kingdom's royal family. He is thus most commonly referenced by appending the name of the kingdom to his own: Maelgwn Gwynedd.

It just seems much, much more likely that he got the epithet to distinguish him from some other Maelgwn. Any idea who?

Side point: he also isn't considered the founder of the medieval kingdom's royal family. The one people think of – with Hywel the Good, Gruffydd ap Cynan, and Llywelyn the Great – was headed by Merfyn Frych and Rhodri Mawr. Roderick's kids are the ones responsible for the major branches. Is that line just completely wrong or did the editor (possibly Notunc?) mean something else:

(a) Subsequent kings between Maelgwn and Merfyn played up their connection to Maelgwn more than their links to Cunedda owing to his glory;

(b) Subsequent kings ... played up their connection to Maelgwn because they came from separate, warring branches of Maelgwn's children;

(c) Historians now play up the connection of subsequent kings ... to Maelgwn because they consider he may have been a usurper but his successors weren't; or

(d) something else?  — LlywelynII 18:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gildas's Latin: Maglocunus

TCE takes Gildas's use of Maglocunus (instead of the apter Magloco) as a sign that British had ceased declining its nouns and the form of Maelgwn's name had gotten "stuck". Given Gildas's complete distaste for the man and impressive mastery of Latin, I have to say I disagree with my source: Gildy's not above making cheap puns at the other kings' expense and his form of Maelgwn immediately calls magnus/megalo + cunnus to my mind.*

However, Google not only doesn't give me a reliable source. It seems to say I'm the very first person to argue that.

Surely, that can't be right. Is my mind really that much more in the gutter than other classicists? or is a working knowledge of dirty Latin just that rare these days?  — LlywelynII 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• [Similarly, if the initial "g" were already being left unpronounced in Britain, he'd be hiding puns with mal-.]  — LlywelynII 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The possibilities are not all mutually exclusive. Perhaps a working knowledge of dirty Latin is not at all rare among all of the classicists who have their minds in the gutter :-)

Extrapolating that to something more substantial, Gildas certainly knew he was speaking to people much like himself, with a similar understanding of what was really meant. It's hardly a shining legacy for people who considered themselves to be serious clerics if there are obscene puns sprinkled about for future generations of serious clerics to see (and that packed into a document with numerous biblical references).

But never fear, perhaps some meaty reference to the Britons can be found in the writings of one of the bawdier classical writers ... Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

An Heir?

There is probably no point in mentioning this but, I am a descendent to the king of Gwynedd but this line dates back centuries and not much information has been passed down with my family so honestly, I have had more information about my ancestry after reading this! I do hope that all the information given is accurate. But it’s wonderful to know about my ancient family.

Gwyn Humphreys - Seriously

Dearest Gwyn,

I have a bridge I'd like to interest you in. - Seriously.

(More to the point, even if Maelgwn was from the royal line himself – and it's not at all certain that he was – his line died out a few generations later and you can't possibly be an heir(ess).)  — LlywelynII 17:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

article updated

The previous article, a collection of unreferenced quotes, has been replaced by a referenced article. Notuncurious (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Death Year

Please specify exactly which source states that he died "c 547". In the long discussion of sources, I don't see that specifically stated anywhere. Please be specific so I can read the original myself. Thanks.Pickle23 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

in the 5th paragraph of the article, beginning "Historical records ...", the reference to the date of his death is given as the Annales Cambriae. Click on the in-line citation (it is number "5"), and it takes you to the citations section, listing Phillimore's 1888 article, page 155. The text is quoted, but if you now click on Phillimore's name, it takes you to the references section, and clicking on the book listed takes you to the article cited. The book is available at google books, so enter page "155" at the top, and it takes to the page itself, where you can see that the above-quoted entry for AD 547 is just as the article states. I used "c. 547" because most early records from this era (Welsh and others) may be off by a small amount.

I'm somewhat of a stickler for citing sources, so note that the article describes what is found in the record (eg, his death, his appearance in the genealogies), what is "tradition" without supporting evidence (eg, his burial place), and which assertions have crept into historical works but are traced to unsupported claims made by others (eg, his alleged involvement with the foundation of Bangor, with the original source of the allegation cited).

Good enough? If there are other questions, please ask. Parenthetically, it is not required that references be available on-line, only that they are legitimate and are properly listed (for example, Davies' History of Wales, which is a reference for the article). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Notuncurious. The date was already referenced in the article but I've added the ref to the lede and removed the cn tag. Referring to his year of death as being "c. 547", based on the AC, is standard paractice in all reputable histories of the period. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree half-heartedly with Notuncurious (apart from the passive-aggressive [lmgtfy] followed by a sincere offer of help; that was great).

We should make it clear in articles using the AC that the dates are not provided; there is no such thing as a "year 547 — ..." entry; and the date mentioned has been reconstructed by (or quoted) by the scholar mentioned. The actual AC (B) places Maelgwn's death 517 (entries=ani=amusingly-misspelled anni=) years after the birth of Christ.

Sure, given the fact that it looks like that entry describes the post-541 arrival of Justinian's Plague, P's reconstruction looks better than the original text's; but we shouldn't be giving people the impression that it is in fact what the original text states. The date isn't based on the AC but about our other knowledge of the times.  — LlywelynII 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• This article. It's probably too non-scholarly to deserve direct citation but it does have a nice overview of the sources and times that can be used for improvement.  — LlywelynII 17:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dormarch

Apologies for the citation error - I have been unable to correct the fault. The Roman Numerals are correct usage as the main text uses standard numerals.Rosser Gruffydd 10:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bridei son of Maelchon

according to Tim Clarkson in 'The Picts' Maelgwn is the Welsh form of Maglocunus and that in some Welsh sources he is referred to as Mailcun and in some versions of the Pictish king lists the father of Briedei is spelt Mailcon or Maelcon, he states that 'many historians' believe they are the same person. Unfortunately there aren't any footnotes in the book so doesn't reference any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.122.149 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias

"Aside from having a similar name, there is nothing that connects the father of Bridei to Maelgwn Gwynedd." This is pretty biased, a lot of historians actually do believe him to be the father, so it shouldn't be put down in such a manner, especially when followed by a mini-rant against John Morris. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What?

@TheGracefulSlick:

(cur | prev) 15:21, 29 November 2016‎ TheGracefulSlick (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,610 bytes) (-219)‎ . . (Content dispute, original version with less controversial changes.) (undo | thank)

They aren't less controversial, they're wrong.

Maelgwn: Maglokunos
M > M
a > a
g > ɨ (since it's before an l, g is vocalised)
l > l
o > unstressed o is lost
k > g (k is lenited since it's intervocalic)
u > u
n > n
os > lost due to apocope

Which gives Proto-Brythonic Maɨlgun, which fits perfectly with the Old Welsh form of Maelgwn, which is Mailgun.
Sources:
Ranko Matasovic's Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic
Peter Schrivjer's Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology
Kenneth's Language and History in Early Britain
UtherPendrogn (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dragon of the Island

"Gildas says as much in his condemnation, saying he held a pre-eminence over the other 4 kings similarly condemned, and also describing him as the "dragon of the island",[11] where the Isle of Anglesey is the ancient stronghold of the kings of Gwynedd."

If we are saying that the island that Gildas refers to is Anglesey, then we need a source to back that up. In addition, I think the wording is a little awkward. It would be better to split this into two sentences, then reword the Anglesey part. Maybe something like what I've written below.

"Gildas says as much in his condemnation, saying he held a pre-eminence over the other 4 kings similarly condemned.[11]  He also describes Maelgwn as the "dragon of the island",[11] perhaps referring to Anglesey, the ancient stronghold of the kings of Gwynedd.[cite]"

Wjustus (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)