Talk:Coel Hen

From "Old King Cole" to "King Coel/Cole"

Moved the text out of the article mostly devoted to the nursery rhyme character, into its own article. Copied the text as-found. It badly needs someone's attention. Notuncurious (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally in favour of the move, even if it does create a few problems for that Nursery rhyme article. The problem here is that there may not be much more to say on this topic.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, I can say: you'd be surprised! Thanks to Cuchullain the article has been much improved and expanded since July 2009. Time to move it to "Coel" or ...? Cavila (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cavila. I would say that if there is a move it should be to "Coel", and have "Coel Hen" and "King Cole", etc., redirect to it. I hesitate somewhat, though, as the "Cole" spelling is likely the more common one nowadays, even if modern editions of the Welsh material and Geoffrey primarily use "Coel".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Coeling

"Coeling", meaning "descendants of Coel", is in fact Welsh. It is attested in the Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd, where the Coeling are mentioned alongside the Kynuerchyn or Cynfarching and the Cynwydion. See the cited text (an appendix to Rachel Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein) for evidence of this. The Bonedd can also be found on the Web here (item 7) and here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I could find no mention of the term Coeling in the link you posted. Please give an exact destination for me to look at. Coeling looks like an Anglicization to me just as Cynfarching is an Anglicization of Kynuerchyn. Cymraeg does not, to my knowledge, have -ing to denote a descendant of The Mummy (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I just said, just click on item 7 in the first link (the direct link is here, but won't show the side bar). The other link I provided also shows "Coeling" quite clearly, along with a convenient English translation. But the authoritative source is the Bromwich text, which is the one cited here for anyone to verify. "Cynferching" is a modernized standardization, not an anglicization; John T. Koch's encyclopedia Celtic Culture discusses both the Coeling and the Cynferching in their proper Welsh context. Hopefully that settles the issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you keep it although I think it is rather dubious. -ing is not correct Welsh and is obviously influenced by the English -ing. -yn is correct Welsh.

By the way, the books you offered do not prove that -ing is Brittonic at all, they seem to be using it as an Anglicization. Yes, Coeling and Cynferching are standardizations but only because the spellings have been standardized into an Anglicized format. -ing, I believe, was never used by any Brittonic writers. 11:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are free to believe what you like, but Bromwich's book, and the two websites I pointed out, reproduce the Bonedd in Welsh. Unless you're arguing that the author of this medieval text was not familiar with his or her own language, this case is acutely clear-cut – Coeling is attested in Welsh, and that's that. And by the way, it's not a matter of you "letting me keep it" - neither you nor anyone owns this page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuchullain is correct that it is long-attested in Welsh, with many examples. For one of the many publicly available, extant discussions on philology, have a look at this page from a scholarly publication. There are many others. Perhaps you might post a question on the topic at the WikiProject Wales, where there are knowledgeable Welsh-speaking editors and scholars who might provide further insight. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a descenant of Old King Cole. Royal1918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royal1918 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Coylton

The article says 'According to Welsh tradition the region of Kyle was named for Coel, and a mound at Coylton in Argyll was regarded as his tomb.' Neither Coylton nor Kyle are in Argyll, both are in Ayrshire, with Coylton being about 5 miles east of Ayr in South Ayrshire and Kyle being the area between the River Doon and River Irvine, which is now split between North, South and East Ayrshire. See http://www.scottish-places.info/towns/townhistory1101.html (Gazetteer of Scotland; the University of Edinburgh and the Royal Scottish Geographical Society)

I was going to change this but noticed there was already a reference provided and was not sure of the procedure. quizologist (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll double check the source when I'm able, though due to a move I don't have access to it at the moment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now changed Argyll to Ayrshire.quizologist (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'm not able to access all my books yet, including that one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Two King Coles

Genealogical records of ancient times are often codifications of legends. Genealogical records record two distinct King Coles. One, as mentioned in the article, is said to have been the father of St. Helena of the Cross, who was in turn the mother of Constantine the Great, in the third century AD. (While there is no historical record that she was a British princess, that is a matter of well-established legend.) An earlier Cole, in the first century, is said to have been the son of Saint Cyllin. Should the article be updated? Are the genealogical records considered to be reliable sources as to legends? (We know that they are not reliable sources as to history.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Genealogical records on their own will be very problematic sources, since they are primary sources. We need secondary sources for any interpretations (even something as simple as, "this primary source is accurate"). I don't think there's really any evidence for "two Coles" anyway, more that there are multiple evolutions of the tradition. The original Welsh tradition points to a figure in the Hen Ogledd in the fifth century as can be inferred from the Harleian genealogies and other sources. In the 12th century, Henry of Huntingdon and Geoffrey of Monmouth circulated the idea of a "Coel" who was the father of St. Helena. The claim that Coel (or a Coel) was the sone of Cyllin was circulated by Iolo Morgannwg in his forgeries;[1] I tend to doubt it has basis in authentic tradition.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Henry of Huntingdon and Geoffrey of Monmouth (and it's hard to tell which of the two came up with this first) are responsible for the fictional parentage of Helena - there are a few other Coel's mentioned here and there (fictional Coel son of Cunedda in a late genealogy, 11th century Coel son of Gweirydd, fictional Coel Garnach mentioned in a late manuscript referring to characters from a now-lost alternate version of the Romance of Owain), but no other notable ones; Coel Hen a.k.a Coel Godebog is the main Coel and the one most likely to be searched for. Note that Geoffrey (as he has done with several other historical characters), re-uses Coel's name a couple times to create new characters, like the fictional Coel son of Meurig and the fictional king Coillus, successor of Catellus.Cagwinn (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Move

No objection to the move to the "Coel" spelling, but the potential connection to "King Cole" definitely needs to remain, it's perfectly well sourced and can be expanded. Additionally, the hatnote needs to remain as long as "King Cole" is a redirect.
If we're moving, why not just to Coel? It's already a redirect, and the figure is often known without the "Hen" epithet (or with a different one). If there are no objections I'll go ahead with the additional move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the "King Cole" connection is well sourced - it is primarily "received wisdom" at this point in time and has little to support it. There is zero evidence that it is connected to Coel Hen. We should keep the epithet "Hen" because this is primarily how he is named in Welsh sources.Cagwinn (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As you know, the goal is to accurately represent what the best sources say, not make a ruling on what's accurate or not.. There are any number of sources suggesting that King Cole may be connected to Coel Hen, including the frequently cited book already used in the article. As I said Rachel Bromwich mentions it too (in Trioedd Ynys Prydein), as does Harbus' Helena of Britain in Medieval Legend. If there are any sources that specifically argue against a connection, we can mention that too.

There are also plenty of sources that use or mention the spelling "Cole" for Coel Hen or Geoffrey's Coel, so that should be restored. As for the article title, there are also sources that use "Coel Godebog", or "Coel Hen Godebog", as in the entry in Koch's Celtic Culture encyclopedia. As such I still believe simply "Coel" may be a better title for the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources spell the name "Cole"? It is Coil in Old Welsh (Latinized as Coilus by Geoffrey of Monmouth), Coel in Middle/Modern Welsh and that's it. Any other spellings are non-standard and inaccurate. I am fin with removing the epithet Hen from the article title.Cagwinn (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to double check when I get home, but I'm pretty sure the Harbus book I named above includes the "Cole" spelling. Others are easily found.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I just glanced through Harbus' book - once again, this is just received wisdom - she uncritically declares that Coel is the source of the nursery rhyme, following Opie's Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes (who everyone who supports this nonsense cites). Her consistent use of the spelling Cole for Coel (or Coil) is ridiculous and misinformed. You can't go around changing the spelling of a name of an historic person simply because it's similar to that of a character in a modern nursery rhyme!Cagwinn (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just a conventional spelling like any other, it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. If it did our article on Robin Hood would be at "Robyn Hode" or something like that. The spelling may not be in favor among contemporary Celticists, but readers who come to Wikipedia after reading a source like Harbus may get confused if we don't so much as mention it. Again, we can include your view that the Opies et al are wrong if there's a source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense. Why don't we change every single Welsh spelling in every article on Wikipedia to something more convenentional? The name is spelled first Coil, later Coel. That is is how the name should be spelled in any and all sources. Only careless scholars spell it any differently. One source cited in various books as being contra Opie in regards to the origin of Old King Cole is Charles Kightly, Folk Heroes of Britain, Thames and Hudson, 1982, p. 83 (cited by Harbus herself [in: Helene] on p. 65, n. 7). Cagwinn (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is, reliable sources have used the "Cole" spelling, so it needs to be mentioned here. We can use "Coel" through the article in general, I doubt anyone objects to that. As for Kightly, do you have access to it? Harbus says he "challenges the idea that the nursery rhyme relates to King Cole of Colchester, claiming it is about a Scottish king" (my emphasis). It sounds like he's supporting a connection to Coel Hen of the north to me rather than Geoffrey's Coilus of Colchester. Without seeing what he says directly I wouldn't be comfortable citing Kightly to challenge the Opies et al.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that the connection has been made to the rhyme and that is sufficient grounds to include it here. As for the title, which is most common?--SabreBD (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Some sources - based on ZERO EVIDENCE - uncritically make the claim - this is why it should be classed as "received wisdom"; people are repeating the same nonsense over and over again as if it is a proven fact, when in truth no one has EVER provided solid evidence for a link between the two. There is a much better case to be made for Thomas of Reading, A.K.A. "Old Cole" being the original "Old King Cole".Cagwinn (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, and if it's cited we can include it too. But plenty of other very capable people have had a different take, and as they've published it in various high quality sources, it easily meets the threshold for inclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Father-in-law of Cunedda

The "Context and Evidence" section stated this:

He was also considered to be the father-in-law of Cunedda, founder of Gwynedd in North Wales, by his daughter Gwawl.

There is a "Gwawl fab Clud" in the Maginigion but he is the son of Clud, not the daughter of Coel. I searched the cited reference for "Coel," "Cunedda," and "Gwawl" and found it makes no familial connection between them at all. I've removed the sentence completely. --2601:602:8800:7DF0:C4FC:3DB6:182E:D2AC (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: I started wondering how that line got in there and traced the Gwawl reference to this revision made in 2007 to the original Old King Cole article before it was split. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_King_Cole&diff=132848536&oldid=129771952

There's no citation at all for it. The son-in-law claim was already there, but likewise not supported. It looks like at some point someone just threw a spurious citation on a sentence that had been taken at face value for years.