Talk:Maelgwn Gwynedd

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Meaning of Gwynedd

message: 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)
thread_title:  An Heir? 

message: The previous article, a collection of unreferenced quotes, has been replaced by a referenced article.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

message: * 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)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion

message: 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)
thread_title: Dormarch

message: 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)
thread_title: Bridei son of Maelchon

message: "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)
thread_title: Bias

message: (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)
thread_title:  What? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Dragon of the Island