Talk:Y Ddraig Goch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry VII flew both the dragon flag of Cymru and the yale flag of Beaufort in 1485. That beast had existed as the goat-lion yale of John of Lancaster, regent in 1422. The unicorn yale of Jane Beaufort of Somerset seems to have been adopted by James 1 in 1424 as supporter for the Arms of Kings of Scots. As Henry VII had relied on Wales to win his throne (and perhaps to save his life in battle), then his choice of national symbols was crucial. If the Red Dragon raised Welsh militant spirits, then logically the yale was also chosen for that. Hence, the goat-lion yale was equally a traditional cultural symbol. And Scots would not likely identify with the Welsh symbol, unless it was equally a Scots Celtic heritage. Dragon and goat-lion appear in Greek accounts of Celts. Echidna Kelto viper-woman was mother of Chimera goat-lion and of Keltos by Herakles /Hercules.- Diodorus 5.24. Etymologicon Magnum 502. Partheneion Alcman 30. "Dragon"< Gk. drakon. Latin draco "snake". "Chimera"< Gk. chimaira "goat". Y Ddraig Goch evidently derives from Homer's time and not from a copied Roman dragon-banner. Chimera lives on in UK Royal Coat of Arms, after 3000 years.
- The point of adding this was what now? If you want to discuss the evolution of the dragon in general from Grecian times to modern European times, then go to the main European dragon article. And explain how you get from talking about King Henry and the yale (a Roman creature with a Hebrew name originally) to Hercules and the Chimaira (a Greek creature who is only part dragon/snake and part lion). Also, "3000 years"? The Greeks that wrote down the legend of the Chimaira didn't live in 1000 BC. I don't know the exact figures, but it was closer to between 500 BC and 100 AD. The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom shows a lion and a unicorn, not the Chimaira, which is (again) a Greek composite creature unrelated to the yale or the Welsh dragon. 24.14.198.8 02:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.
[edit] A 'new' interpretation?
We seem to have an addition about a 'new interpretation' of the dragon without anything suggesting what the old interpretation(s) might be. (I presume the 'old' idea is that it's a dragon representing a dragon...) The authority for this is an article on a website. I don't know anything about www.vortigernstudies.org.uk or about the author of the article, but on a first glance it looks like a 'self-published source' (WP:SPS), and doesn't really cut it as a reference. I'm inclined to think it should be removed. Telsa (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

