Lancelot is one of the most famous figures of the Arthurian legend, yet he is also one of the most commonly used examples of an element from the Romances that is 'definitely fictional'. This is based on the fact that he is first mentioned in the late 12th century. He appears in no prior sources - at least, not by that name. It seems incredible that a real figure (evidently a very significant one) would, if real, have gone completely unmentioned until the late 12th century. However, could it be that he did appear prior to that, but was simply not referred to as 'Lancelot'? It would only be possible to assess the plausibility of such a suggestion by simply looking to see if there is any character who, though obviously not possessing the same name, fits smoothly into the profile of the character in sufficiently numerous respects.
This article will present the case that the historical origin behind Lancelot was, in fact, one of the few figures from Dark Age Britain about whom there is definite, contemporary evidence. The historical figure in question is the powerful king of Gwynedd, Maelgwn.
The reasons for drawing such a conclusion start with the simple fact that, as discussed in this article, all the knights of the Round Table that can be identified as real or at least semi-legendary individuals from earlier records can be identified as kings or at least princes (as per Historia Brittonum; Arthur led 'the kings of Britain' against the Saxons). So it stands to reason that if Lancelot was real, he would have been a king or a prince. Furthermore, Lancelot was supposed to have been extremely powerful, being one of the greatest knights of the Round Table. So, if he was based on a real king in Arthur's time, said king must have been very powerful. Maelgwn was, indeed, extremely powerful. Gildas explicitly describes him as one of the most powerful leaders in his day, and the Historia Brittonum refers to him as 'the great king'. Similarly, Geoffrey of Monmouth describes him with the following:
"After him succeeded Malgo, one of the handsomest of men in Britain, a great scourge of tyrants, and a man of great strength, extraordinary munificence, and matchless valour."
So in this sense, Maelgwn certainly fits the shoes of Lancelot.
In conjunction with this, the available sources tell us that Maelgwn was allied to Arthur. In the Welsh Triad concerning Arthur's courts, it says that Maelgwn was the 'chief elder' at one of them. So, he was in Arthur's service. Supporting this is the Dream of Rhonabwy, which makes one of Maelgwn's sons a companion of Arthur.
So thus far, Maelgwn fits the very basic profile of Lancelot. He was a very powerful king, and he was one of Arthur's allies. Furthermore, he was serving Arthur away from his own land. Maelgwn was not from Arthur's own kingdom in the south of Wales (as I place Arthur). This matches Lancelot inasmuch as he, too, was supposed to have come to Arthur's court from outside, as opposed to being from a family already in that area.
So, definitely in broad terms, it is clear that Maelgwn matches Lancelot very well. But now for some more specific details:
As mentioned earlier, one of Maelgwn's sons is said to have been one of Arthur's knights in the Dream of Rhonabwy. This son is named Rhun, and he is mentioned in a Triad as 'one of the three fair princes of the Island of Britain'. Though not very detailed, this brief description surely corresponds to Lancelot's son Galahad, supposedly the 'perfect knight'. And like Galahad, Rhun was illegitimate. His mother, Maelgwn's mistress, was Gwallwen daughter of Afallach. Given the tendency for initial 'g's to be dropped from names in Welsh (as in 'Withur' and 'Gwythyr'), I think it's not too improbable that 'Gwallwen' would have been recorded as 'Wallwen' and then this was substituted with 'Ellen', or 'Elaine' - a name much more familiar to the Romance writers. Elaine was the name of Galahad's mother, Lancelot's mistress, in the Romances. Also, she was the daughter of Pellinore, and I would argue that he and Afallach are one and the same. That is a case to be left for another time, but if valid, it would significantly strengthen the case for Maelgwn and Lancelot being the same person - it would mean that they both had illegitimate relations with similarly named daughters of the same man.
To get back to Maelgwn himself, he was said to have spent some time in a monastery and he supposedly ended up dying in a church. Given that he was said to have become high king after Arthur's death, the fact that he ended up in a church and died there ties in with the concept that Lancelot was the mighty warrior who helped to restore order to Britain after Arthur's death, before becoming a monk and living out the rest of his life like that.
Furthermore, Maelgwn is explicitly described as attacking south east Wales on more than one occasion. Given that this is where I believe the majority of the evidence points to being Arthur's homeland, it seems reasonable to suppose that at least one of the records concerning Maelgwn waging war on south east Wales could relate to the stories of the war between Lancelot and Arthur. In fact, in one of these records, Maelgwn is specifically said to have taken a daughter of Cadoc's (unnamed) officer. This immediately brings to mind the story of the war between Lancelot and Arthur, which war involved Lancelot's affair with Arthur's wife. There is also a late version of Taliesin's condemnatory poem against Maelgwn that refers to how he 'betrayed the race of Arthur', which, again, sounds suspiciously like Lancelot.
And then finally, there is name of his kingdom to consider. Lancelot's father was supposed to have been the king of a place called 'Benwick', as it is called in some records. Others spell it 'Genewis' or 'Gomeret'. There are a number of sources which suggest that this may be a reference to either Gwynedd or Vannes (spelt Gwened in Breton). The names are identical (especially as 'Gwynedd' was spelt 'Gwened' in Old Welsh), so even if Vannes was actually the intended location, this still fits the theory, for it makes perfect sense that a French writer could have seen a reference to 'Gwened' (i.e. Gwynedd, Maelgwn's kingdom) and logically but incorrectly assumed that it was talking about Vannes. Hence, 'Lancelot' (Maelgwn) was transported over to France.
So, to summarise, the sources tell us that Maelgwn was a very powerful king who was allied to Arthur and serving him away from his own land. This fits the basic profile of Lancelot, who was a very powerful 'knight' in Arthur's service, serving him away from his own land. The name of Lancelot's kingdom could quite possibly have come from the name of Maelgwn's kingdom. Maelgwn and Lancelot both had an illegitimate son with a woman whose names could plausibly share an origin (and whose fathers, I would argue, are identical). These illegitimate sons were both known, at least in some records, for being extraordinarily virtuous in some way, and they both served as knights of Arthur. Lancelot is recorded as fighting a war against Arthur over a woman, Guinevere, while Maelgwn is recorded as waging war against what I believe to be Arthur's kingdom, taking a daughter of one of the officers there. Finally, Maelgwn and Lancelot both spent time in a religious setting towards the end of their lives and then died in a church.
