Talk:Madoc

Altered source

Dunno why I'm editing something that needs merging, but the link in "Several local guest houses and pubs are called Prince Madoc in his memory. However, according to http://www.birch.net/~gbyron/kin/wales/page6.html " is dead. The "Porthmadog named after Madocks, not Madoc" thing is fairly well-established, but if you want a source, http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/historyhunters/locations/pages/4_2_the_cob.shtml will do. That paragraph is still a little confusing, though. Are the local pubs local to Wales, to Porthmadog, or to North America? I presume not the last, but haven't changed the wording there because I am not sure, although I altered quite a lot of the rest of the paragraph. -- Telsa 08:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both merge notices on the Madog ap Owain Gwynedd and this page say the other is going to end as the ultimate home of the information. Which is it?

"Most scholars doubt"

In the first paragraph of the article there is a statement "most scholars doubt that Madoc ever made a trip to North America,". This claim seems rather un-scholarly. By most scholars shall we understand 60% of scholars, 90%, 51%?. How was this majority determined?

I find the wording particularly dubious in view of the experience regarding Leif Eriksen and the Vinland Saga. Prior to the decisive discoveries at L'Anse aux Meadows there was an effort made to deny the legitimacy of that account. Bear in mind that in their American sagas, the Norse recorded an encounter with men they described as "Rough Irish". See Samuel Eliot Morison's Oxford History of the American People for one discussion of this matter.

It is pretty weasel worded, but it's true. No real scholar believes the Madoc story to be true, considering that there's no evidence that he existed, let alone made a voyage, before the 16th century. It's not that the story can't be true (it can't be proven false, obviously), it's just that there's no real evidence for it. Also, the Vikings were in America substantially before Madoc would have lived.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'rough Irish' thing is something someone found on the web, confusion with something else I guess.--Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

let alone.......

Even myths deserve respect. Deriding these traditions, even indirectly, is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Certainly, as you just said, it is feasible that a prince with this common Welsh name existed. And certainly the British Isles have lots of myths/stories of sailors and ships finding unknown lands. But there is no known documented evidence of his existance. But -- just possibly -- some evidence of this prince might be found someday, somewhere in English/Welsh records.

"...let alone", to me, forces the comparison of a historic period in a literate culture, where records could emerge, with a mythical period in a non-literate American culture. It has a negative nuance, it "puts down" the American culture because no written record is possible and no archaeological record can be expected. This is even more unfortunate for the native people, as the myth may not have originated with them but emerged from their contact with Europeans who were looking for an explanation of advanced cultural attributes among a "primitive" people. "...let alone" also derides the existance of the myth itself, but this article (and encyclopedia) is not about absolute truth. We seek to explain this myth and place it in the context of its time and place, which was 18th and 19th century America. So can we deal with these two categories of evidence, both empty, in two distinct sentences, please? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "let alone" is disparaging, and I can think of no more succinct way of conveying this information. The fact is, Owain Gwynedd is well attested, but there is no record of him having an illegitimate son named Madoc. It is of course possible that he did have one; how possible this is is a matter for scholars, not us, to decide, and I've never seen one who thought it very likely at all, considering the records mentioning him are from hundreds of years later. Him coming to America is even an even remoter step. Obviously if there is no record of him at all, it almost doesn't need saying that there is no record that he discovered America. I don't see how pointing this out is disparaging, nor do I think the phrase "let alone" is particularly negative.

Further, I really don't see how this puts down Indian culture at all. And the story certainly did not originate with them, but with Brits who spread the story for obviously political motives.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Succinct"? What? Is Wikipedia running out of space? I think we can take more space for introducing the article. As I understand the issue, "stories" from three different areas collide to create this myth. 1) Welsh legends regarding Madoc and a new land, 2) Origin traditions (common to all peoples) from specific Native American groups like the Mandan, and 3) an attempt by Europeans to twist and synthesis the previous two, primarily due to racial viewpoints common to the period. You seem very concerned that we don't give any credence to the story. I agree that there is not, and never will be, evidence to support the myth. But the intro and the article should lay a balanced view to clearly show how the myth emerged. Why it continues to be cited in more modern times, however, is more of a mystery. WBardwin (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have a few things wrong. The earliest, 16th century versions are not specifically Welsh, but generically British, and told of an otherwise unheard of prince discovering specifically America. These stories were politically motivated and intended to bolster British claims in the New World (Wales being part of the Kingdom of England at the time, and the Tudors being of Welsh origin). 100 years later, a separate tradition arose among white Americans that some Indian tribe somewhere had European origins, this was romantic speculation not based on actual Indian tradition or on fact. Eventually this was attached to the Welsh and the Madoc story, also by white Americans, though at least some Indians were familiar with the story, if Sevier's letter can be trusted. Native American tradition did not have anything to do with it, as far as I've been able to tell from the books I've read, though you'd know more about the Mandan than I do.

As for "succinctness", clearly the intro can be expanded, but the one point that there's no evidence for this guy's existence does not require more than one sentence to transmit the information. How better to say it? The info that needs to be there is that "Madoc's story has really gotten some traction, but there's no evidence that he was a real person, which obviously makes his candidacy for discoverer of America less likely." I think the rest of the intro ought to be on the story itself, and its origins.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WBardin still disagrees with the wording in the intro. The thing is, there's no evidence this man ever existed. So obviously there's no evidence that he existed plus discovered America.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We also need to make it clear that Madoc can refer several Saints, one of them also called Prince Madoc (6th century) the Pilgrim. :-) I'm trying to find adequate references before doing any editing. One of them is an Irish Saint evidently later given a Welsh genealogy, but I need to verify this.--Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have Madoc (disambiguation) for that purpose. It's linked at the top.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is it was the 6th Century Madoc who came to America not the Medieval one, that's the biggest Strawman the De bunkers use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't think so, [[1]] "Madoc was well known for his kindness to the poor and often gave away his food and clothes to them, while he himself lived on bread and water. Upon St. Dewi's death, he became the Abbot of Glyn Rhosyn, but later returned to Ireland to found famous monasteries like Ferns, Drumlane, Rossinver and Clonmore. He died in extreme old age on a visit to Mynyw (St. Davids) on 31st January 626. " Funny too how all those 16th century writers didn't mention your 6th century Madoc. Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was really wondering if the Prince Madoc the Pilgriam could have been where the Tudors got the idea. The disambiguation page needs some additions I guess.--Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Edward 'Morgan' - really Edward Williams

Well caught in once sense, it should have read Edward Williams known as Iolo Morganwg (w, not y), see for instance [2] I don't know about the Hewbrew stuff, but he played a key role in the development of the Madoc myth, so he needs to be mentioned. He's covered extensively in Gwyn Williams' book.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)