Hoel of Brittany, Nephew of King Arthur

Hoel of Brittany is a character who features with quite some prominence in the legends of King Arthur. He was the nephew of the king and one of his closest allies. He also features in both Welsh and non-Welsh tradition. What do we know about him? Who were his family members? Was he a real person? This article will examine the answers to those questions.

Who Was Hoel of Brittany?

Hoel of Brittany was a nephew of King Arthur, being the son of Arthur’s sister. He appears for the first time in the Arthurian legends in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae, written in c. 1137. He subsequently appears in various accounts of Arthur’s reign that are based on Geoffrey’s account.

As well as being Arthur’s nephew, he was also one of his closest allies. It seems that Hoel was born relatively early in Arthur’s reign, meaning that he was already an adult by the time Arthur was fighting his wars against the Saxons. This enabled Hoel to assist Arthur in those wars.

Name

The name of this Arthurian character takes a few different forms depending on the record we look at. The form ‘Hoel’ is commonly used today. This is the form used by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Occasionally, we also find ‘Howel’.

However, the other common spelling of Hoel’s name is ‘Hywel’. This is how this character’s name appears in Welsh texts. This is the normal Welsh form of this name, attested for numerous other individuals.

Family

What do we know about the family of Hoel? Geoffrey of Monmouth gives some information about Hoel’s parents, although we know more about his father than his mother.

Hoel’s Father

Geoffrey describes Hoel as the son of Budic, the king of Brittany. From other, non-Arthurian sources, we find at least two different men named Budic attested as the king of Brittany.

According to Peter Bartrum’s A Welsh Classical Dictionary, one of these figures was born in c. 480. He was the son of a figure named Daniel. Almost nothing is known about this Budic. He was apparently a king of Brittany and allegedly invaded Alamannia.

The other Budic is a more likely candidate for the father of Hoel. His birth is placed in c. 500 by Bartrum. He was the son of Cybrdan. A brief account of part of his life is found in the Life of St Oudoceus, an account written in the twelfth century. Although contemporary with Geoffrey of Monmouth, this document displays no indication at all of being familiar with or influenced by Geoffrey’s work.

According to this account, Budic was forced out of his territory in Brittany and lived as an exile in Dyfed, which was ruled at that time by Aircol Lawhir. He lived there for some time, took a wife for himself, and then eventually returned to Brittany as king of that territory.

Bartrum identifies this second Budic with a king of the Bretons named Bodic mentioned by Gregory of Tours, a sixth century writer. This king is presented as dying in c. 570, so he is a chronological, geographic, and nominal match for Budic ap Cybrdan of the later records.

Since this Budic is recorded as sojourning in South Wales, he is clearly the best choice for the Budic mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth as the father of Hoel.  The reason why is revealed by Hoel’s legendary mother.

Hoel’s Mother

According to Geoffrey, the mother of Hoel was a sister of Arthur. She was the wife of Budic of Brittany. Since Arthur is closely associated with South Wales, it makes a great deal of sense that she would have married the Budic who is recorded as spending time in that very area. This was Budic ap Cybrdan, the Bodic mentioned by Gregory of Tours.

Unfortunately, Geoffrey does not provide the name of Hoel’s mother. Interestingly, the aforementioned Life of St Oudoceus provides the name of the wife of Budic ap Cybrdan. She is called Anauued, or Anawfedd. This is tantalisingly similar to ‘Anna’, the name of Arthur’s sister in the Historia Regum Britanniae.

Arthur’s sister Anna is reported to have married Lot of Lothian, according Geoffrey of Monmouth. However, there is reason to believe that this detail is an error, and that actually Lot married a different sister of Arthur, a woman named Gwyar.

Anna, therefore, could have instead been the sister who married Budic. Unfortunately, despite the apparent correspondence between this argument and the name of Budic’s wife in the Life of St Oudoceus, that latter document specifically calls her the daughter of Ensic, or Ensych.

Thus, it appears that the connection between ‘Anauued’ and ‘Anna’ is just coincidental. In fact, Arthur’s legendary sister Anna can almost definitely be identified with the historical Anna of Gwent, who married Amon of Dyfed (probably the son of a king of Brittany).

Was Hoel’s Mother Elen?

One possibility which is sometimes mentioned is that Hoel’s mother was Elen. She appears in the Welsh Triads as a sister of Arthur. She only appears once, and in this appearance, she is described as going with him to Gaul when he went to fight Frollo, the Roman tribune. She is specifically described as never returning to Britain.

Since Budic was the ruler of Brittany, and Brittany was part of Gaul, this leads to the interesting possibility that Elen was the sister who married Budic. Supposedly, this ties in with the fact that Elen was said to have never returned to Britain. This seemingly fits well with the idea that she ended up marrying someone while there.

However, there are two big problems with this. The first is that Arthur’s expedition against the Romans occurred quite late in his reign, according to the first account which describes it (Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae).

If Elen travelling to Gaul with Arthur was what led to her marriage to Budic, then their son Hoel would not have even been an adult by the time of Arthur’s fall at Camlann. Yet, Hoel is shown as an adult active in battle from before the end of the Saxon wars, long before the Roman campaign.

Secondly, there is strong evidence that the account of the Roman campaign was lifted directly from legends of Magnus Maximus’ historical usurpation in the fourth century. The reference to Elen in the Welsh Triads is paralleled by other references in that same collection of traditions to Elen the wife of Maximus, who also travelled to Gaul and did not return. Thus, Arthur’s supposed sister Elen is almost certainly just a duplicate of Maximus’ wife Elen.

In reality, it appears that we simply do not know the name of Budic’s first wife, the sister of Arthur and mother of Hoel.

Hoel’s Career

Let us now examine what we know about Hoel’s life and career from the earliest account in which he appears, Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae.

Hoel’s Birth

The birth of Hoel is not described. However, we can work out roughly when it must have occurred. Since Hoel was the son of Arthur’s sister (and there is nothing in Geoffrey’s account to indicate that they were anything less than full siblings), this would mean that Hoel was probably born when Arthur was in his late-teens at the very earliest.

This would allow his sister, if she was born not long after him, to have been in her mid-teens at the time of her marriage to Budic and her giving birth to Hoel.

Of course, she could have been quite a bit older than that. However, an upper limit is established by the fact that Geoffrey describes Arthur as requesting help from his nephew King Hoel in Brittany during the middle of his Saxon wars.

It seems safe to assume that Hoel must have been at least twenty years old at the time, for him to have been a king and in a position to assist Arthur in fighting the Saxons. Thus, the birth of Hoel must have occurred some seventeen years or so after Arthur’s own birth, but about twenty years or so before this stage of Arthur’s Anglo-Saxon war.

Hoel Assisting Arthur against the Saxons

Let us now look further into what Geoffrey wrote concerning Hoel helping Arthur. The reason that Arthur decided to request help is because he had recently failed to take the city of York, which he had been besieging against the Saxons.

Thus, Arthur withdrew to the south and sent word across to Brittany. Geoffrey then tells us the following:

“Upon advice of the disturbances his uncle was threatened with, he [Hoel] ordered his fleet to be got ready, and, having assembled fifteen thousand men, he arrived with the first fair wind at Hamo's Port, and was received with all suitable honour by Arthur, and most affectionately embraced by him.”

This tells us several things. Firstly, it shows that Hoel and Arthur had a close relationship. As well as Hoel responding favourably to Arthur’s request for help, Arthur is said to have ‘most affectionately embraced’ his nephew.

Furthermore, this indicates that Hoel was a powerful king, for he is said to have assembled an army of 15,000 men. Of course, this is extremely unrealistic for this early medieval era. Nonetheless, while recognising this as an exaggeration, it does show that Hoel was remembered for being powerful.

Finally, the detail about Hoel arriving at ‘Hamo’s Port’, which is Southampton, is almost certainly an error. Archaeology shows that this was Saxon territory in the sixth century. Therefore, this is almost certainly an error for some other port, perhaps one that was further to the west, within the West Country.

Exmouth is a likely candidate, since it is recorded as ‘Lydwicnaesse’, meaning ‘point of the Bretons’, as early as the eleventh century, and sixth-century Byzantine coins have been found there.

Fighting Against the Saxons

From this point on, Hoel is implied to be involved in the battles against the Saxons, although Geoffrey does not specifically name him. He suggests that Hoel went with Arthur to fight against the Saxons at Lincoln, where they fought near two rivers. These would certainly be the Witham and Fosse Dyke.

This battle very likely corresponds to one or more of the four Battles on the River Dubglas mentioned in the Historia Brittonum’s brief account of Arthur’s battles, since it places those battles in the region called ‘Linnuis’, the region centred on Lincoln.

Arthur, undoubtedly with Hoel, then pursued the Saxons towards the Celidon Wood. In this context, it is more likely a reference to the Weald in the south rather than the Caledonian Forest in the north, since there is no logical reason for the Saxons to have fled further into British territory.

As a result of this battle, the Saxon army was driven out of Britain.

Left Sick at Alclud

After this, Arthur turns his attention to the north, to deal with the Picts and the Scots. Although Geoffrey does not mention it yet, we know that Hoel was still with Arthur at this point due to a detail that he goes on to mention afterwards.

At this point, the Saxon army which had agreed to leave Britain returns and decides to attack the West Country. It lands on the south coast of Devon and begins ravaging the territory towards the Severn Sea. This ends up leading directly to the climactic Battle of Badon.

Upon hearing this, Arthur rushes south. Geoffrey tells us the following:

“And desisting from an attempt which he had entered upon to reduce the Scots and Picts, he marched with the utmost expedition to raise the siege; but laboured under very great difficulties, because he had left his nephew Hoel sick at Alclud.”

 This reveals that Hoel had continued fighting alongside Arthur up until this point. However, as Arthur rushes south to confront the Saxons, he leaves Hoel sick at Alclud. This suggests that Hoel and Arthur had been fighting the Picts and the Scots somewhere in the general vicinity of Alclud, although obviously not too close to it, since Arthur would not have left his sick nephew in the middle of a warzone.

Interestingly, between the Battle at the Celidon Wood and the Battle of Badon, the Historia Brittonum’s battle list includes the Battle on the Shore of the River Tribruit. This battle is also mentioned in Pa Gur, where it is very strongly implied to be effectively synonymous with Edinburgh, or somewhere within or just next to Edinburgh.

Thus, Hoel was most likely helping Arthur to fight the Picts and the Scots at Tribruit, at or just next to Edinburgh. Upon Hoel becoming sick, Arthur evidently took him to Alclud, at present-day Dumbarton Castle, which was the centre of a friendly nearby kingdom.

Without Hoel to assist him, Geoffrey notes that Arthur ‘laboured under very great difficulties’. This shows that Hoel’s help was very useful to Arthur.

Resuming Hostilities against the Picts and the Scots

Ironically, this means that Hoel was not by Arthur’s side during the most significant of all the Saxon battles, the Battle of Badon. Yet, Arthur was still able to achieve a victory.

After successfully and resoundingly defeating the Saxons at Badon, Arthur returned his attention to the north of Britain. As Geoffrey says:

“He [Arthur] had advice that the Scots and Picts were besieging Alclud, in which, as we said before, Hoel lay sick. Therefore he hastened to his assistance, for fear he might fall into the hands of the barbarians.”

Arthur rushed north to continue his campaign against the northern peoples and provide assistance to his nephew. Geoffrey goes on to explain that Arthur successfully relieved the siege against Alclud. He then pursued the Picts and Scots to Mureif, or Moray in northern Scotland.

At this point, Geoffrey says that the northerners had fought ‘three battles against the king and his nephew’. This suggests that Hoel had recovered by the time Arthur returned to the north. Thus, he helped Arthur to achieve a resounding victory against these northern enemies.

Admiring the Wonders of Britain

The defeat of the Picts and the Scots is described as taking place at Loch Lomond. After their defeat, Geoffrey presents Hoel as admiring the loch. Supposedly, it received sixty rivers, had sixty islands within it, with sixty rocks on each island and also sixty eagles’ nests on the rocks.

Hoel was amazed at this striking correspondence between the numbers of all these features. This incredible description of the loch is clearly taken from the Mirabilia attached to the back of the Historia Brittonum, which contains an almost identical description of a place it calls ‘Loch Lumonoy’.

While Hoel was admiring the lake, Arthur approached him and spoke to him about two other marvels in Britain. One was a nearby pond which was perfectly square and which was inhabited by four different groups of fish, each of which stayed perfectly in their respective corners.

This is drawn from the Mirabilia as well, with the only difference being that the Mirabilia places it in ‘the region of Cinlipiuc’, evidently the medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg between the Severn and the Wye in southeast Wales.

The second marvel that Arthur informed Hoel about was a strange inlet in Wales along the Severn. This received a large intake of water as the Severn bore progressed, before then violently ejecting it later. Again, this comes directly from the Mirabilia.

The fact that Arthur and Hoel are presented as spending some time discussing these wonders of Britain testifies to their closeness.

Conquest of Gaul

The next time Hoel is mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth is in the context of Arthur’s campaign against the Romans in Gaul. Hoel appears in the account just after the defeat and death of Frollo, the Roman tribune who ruled over Gaul.

After defeating this ruler, Geoffrey goes on to describe how Arthur went on to conquer the entirety of Gaul. Arthur splits his army into two main groups. One is led by Hoel, while the other is led by Arthur himself.

The fact that Arthur divides his army in such a way shows the importance of Hoel. Essentially, his position is second only to Arthur’s. This not only reinforces the fact that he was a powerful king, but also that Arthur placed great trust in him.

Hoel is said to have fought against Guitard, the leader of the Pictavians. These were the Pictones, a tribe who dwelt south of the Loire. This region south of the Loire was known as Aquitaine, and Geoffrey specifically says that Hoel entered with his army into Aquitaine.

Hoel conquered the cities of that region, fought several battles against Guitard, and then finally defeated the Pictavian king. It seems that Guitard was not killed, but he was merely forced to surrender.

Geoffrey goes on to explain that Hoel then attacked Gascony specifically, which was a region of Aquitaine. He completely destroyed it with fire and the sword, and defeated its princes.

After this, Arthur is said to have given several provinces of Gaul to his men. Hoel is not mentioned here as one of those who received a province. This might seem odd given his prominence in the account. However, this is presumably because Hoel already had his own kingdom to attend to.

The Origin of This Tale

Despite Hoel’s prominence in the account of the conquest of Gaul, none of it can be taken as authentic tradition about this Breton king. The reason is because of what was already explained in the section about Elen.

As seen from the Welsh Triads, there was a tradition of Elen the sister of Arthur going with him on his expedition to Gaul and never returning. There was also a tradition of Elen the wife of Maximus going with him on his expedition to Gaul and never returning.

Along with many other pieces of evidence, this leads to the conclusion that the legend of the war against the Romans is a misplaced version of Maximus’ historical usurpation. The Arthurian characters from the sixth century are superimposed onto the account, but the actual events involved in the account are the events from Maximus’ conquest.

Therefore, despite the prominence given to Hoel, this does not tell us anything genuine about him other than that he was remembered as a prominent ally of Arthur.  

Arthur’s Special Coronation

After subduing Gaul, Arthur returned to Britain. There, he decided to arrange a special coronation for himself to celebrate his conquests. Numerous allies from all over Britain arrived at Arthur’s court at Caerleon, southeast Wales, for this special event.

One of these allies, unsurprisingly, was Hoel. About him, Geoffrey writes:

“Hoel, duke of the Armorican Britons, and his nobility, who came with such a train of mules, horses, and rich furniture, as it is difficult to describe.”

It is interesting that Geoffrey calls Hoel ‘duke’ rather than ‘king’. However, Geoffrey is often inconsistent with titles, so this is not too surprising. It may, in fact, be related to Hoel not being the high king of his territory, meaning that he was sometimes referred to with a lesser title.

This ties in with the fact that Hoel’s father, Budic, can almost certainly be identified with Budic ap Cybrdan and the King Bodic mentioned by Gregory of Tours; Bodic did not die until c. 570, which was after Arthur’s special coronation.

Furthermore, we can note that Hoel is said to have come with a very rich train of gifts for Arthur. This, again, highlights Hoel’s wealth and power as a ruler of Brittany. This is particularly noteworthy in view of the fact that none of the other allies are described as bringing anything. This does not mean that they arrived without gifts, but evidently only Hoel’s gifts were worth mentioning.

The Appointment of Teilo

In the context of Arthur’s special coronation, Geoffrey writes the following:

“In place of St. Samson, archbishop of Dole, was appointed, with the consent of Hoel, king of the Armorican Britons, Chelianus, a priest of Llandaff, a person highly recommended for his good life and character.”

 According to this, Hoel approved the replacement of Samson of Dol with Chelianus, a priest of Llandaff in southeast Wales. The name ‘Chelianus’ is a corruption of ‘Teilo’, a sixth century religious figure prominently associated with Llandaff.

Dol was a location in Brittany, and Samson was a religious figure who was prominently associated with that area. He was the founder of the monastery at Dol and the bishop of that area. In the Life of St Teilo, written in the twelfth century, Teilo is described as being made bishop of Dol in the place of Samson by King Budic.

This matches closely with what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote. The only difference is that Geoffrey attributes the appointment to King Hoel, while the Life of St Teilo attributes it to Budic. Given that they were father and son (and, as we have seen, Gregory’s King Bodic did not die until c. 570), this apparent contradiction is easily harmonised.

Second War against the Romans

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account, Arthur receives a letter from the Romans. They demand that he gives them tribute for having conquered their territories in Gaul. In response, Arthur proclaims to his men that he is justified in demanding tribute from the Romans, on the basis that at least two British kinsmen of his had previously occupied Rome.

After asking for his allies to express their opinions on the matter, King Hoel speaks for the entire group and declares that Arthur is indeed justified in his suggestion. He encourages the king, insisting that he will be successful and that his success is even guaranteed by a prophecy to the effect that three native Britons would obtain the Roman Empire.

Hoel’s Niece

At the very start of this second expedition onto the continent, Arthur and his men have to deal with a giant which is terrorising part of Brittany. It has captured Helena, the niece of Hoel, keeping her held at Mont-Saint-Michel.

Eventually, Arthur and his close companions are able to defeat the giant, but not before it has already killed Helena. Mourning for his family member, Hoel commands his men to build a mausoleum over the body and calls it Helen’s Tomb.

The Battle of Siesia

The final battle between Arthur and the Romans takes place at a valley called Siesia. In preparation for the approaching Roman army, Arthur divides his men into several bodies of troops, with Arthur himself staying with the one at the back. One body of troops is commanded by Hoel.

During the battle, Hoel contributes greatly to the success of the British troops. He is mentioned especially in conjunction with Walgan (Gawain), nephew of King Arthur. Since they were both nephews of the king, this makes Hoel and Walgan cousins. Hoel, however, was much older, since Walgan could only have been about twenty years old at this point.

Although Hoel does not contribute to the final blow to the Romans or to their leader, Lucius Tiberius, Geoffrey writes:

“Hoel, not inferior to him [Walgan], did no less service in another part, by spiriting up his men, and giving and receiving blows among the enemy with the same undaunted courage. It was hard to determine, which of them was the stoutest soldier.”

After the final defeat of this Roman army, Arthur learns of the usurpation of his nephew Mordred in Britain. Thus, he leaves Hoel in charge of restoring peace in Gaul, while Arthur himself returns with haste to Britain. This is the last that is heard of Hoel.

Hoel in Later Texts

Hoel features in many Welsh texts from after Geoffrey’s writing of the Historia Regum Britanniae. For example, he appears in Welsh translations of that work, as well as in several other Welsh Arthurian tales. Examples include Peredur, Geraint and Enid, and The Dream of Rhonabwy.

Another one of Hywel’s appearances comes from part of the Welsh Triads, a collection known as Appendix IV, or The Twenty-Four Knights of Arthur’s Court. Here, Hywel appears as one of the ‘Three Royal Knights’.

According to this entry:

“there was neither king nor emperor in the world who could refuse them, on account of their beauty and wisdom in peace; while in war no warrior or champion could withstand them, despite the excellence of his arms.”

In some of the later texts, the mother of Hywel (Arthur’s sister) is named Gywar. This later tradition concerning Hywel also makes Gywar the daughter of Gwrlais (Gorlois) and Eigr (Igerna).

However, the weight of tradition makes Gywar the name of one of Arthur’s other sisters, the mother of Gawain and Mordred. There is also little to recommend the idea that this was an older half sister, rather than simply a full sister of Arthur.

Was Hoel a Real Person?

Some modern sources make the claim that Hoel was fictional, a creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth himself. However, there is reason for doubting this idea.

For one thing, as Peter Bartrum noted in A Welsh Classical Dictionary, “there is some indirect evidence that he was known in Welsh tradition before [Geoffrey wrote].” The evidence for this is that Welsh versions of the Arthurian legend consistently exchange ‘Hoel son of Budic’ for ‘Hywel ap Emyr Llydaw’.

This goes beyond simply exchanging the name ‘Hoel’ for a more familiar Welsh form. This involves exchanging the patronymic as well, replacing the name ‘Budic’ for the title ‘Emyr Llydaw’ (meaning ‘Emperor of Brittany’). There is no obvious basis for this unless the character of Hywel ap Emyr Llydaw was already known, with that patronymic, in Welsh tradition.

Another point worth considering, which is rarely taken into consideration, is that the Life of St Leonorius attests to the existence of a figure named Hoeloc. Scholars Baring-Gould and Fisher argued that this was simply the name “Hoel with the termination oc appended”.

This Hoeloc is placed in South Wales. At first, this may seem inconsistent with identifying him as Hoel of Brittany, but recall that Budic of Brittany was said to have fled to South Wales and spent some time there before eventually returning to his own country and becoming king.

Furthermore, it is also consistent with the implication from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account that Hoel spent a considerable amount of time in Britain with King Arthur. The chronology is also consistent with this, since Hoeloc’s son Leonorius is recorded as being involved in the overthrow of Conomor in 560.

Therefore, although there is no definitive evidence for Hoel’s existence, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that he was a historical figure. As we saw, he may well be identical to Hoeloc from the Life of St Leonorius.

Connection to Athrwys

Interestingly, a comparison of the Life of St Leonorius with a record concerning a Breton saint named Tudual indicates that another one of Hoeloc’s sons was this very Tudual.

The reason this is significant is that Tudual is said in the Life of St Brioc to have been the nephew of Brioc. This Brioc, in turn, may well be identifiable with the exactly contemporary and identically-named Frioc. The twelfth-century Book of Llandaff shows that he was the brother of Athrwys, one of the most prominent candidates for the historical King Arthur.

If Hoeloc was Hoel, as seems likely, then this means that Tudual should have been a grandnephew of King Arthur. The fact that Tudual is directly described as a ‘nephew’ of Brioc, and thus possibly the nephew of Athrwys, dovetails well with this, if we can understand ‘nephew’ in the wider sense of ‘grandnephew’.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hoel of Brittany was an important figure from the Arthurian legends. He was the son of King Budic of Brittany, likely identifiable as the King Bodic mentioned by the contemporary historian Gregory of Tours. Hoel was the nephew of Arthur, as an unnamed sister of Arthur had married Budic.

Hoel features prominently in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of Arthur’s Saxon wars. He also appears in various later texts, including Welsh ones. In these Welsh texts, he is named Hywel ap Emyr Llydaw. His historicity cannot be completely confirmed, but it is supported by some evidence. A figure named Hoeloc from a non-Arthurian medieval source may well be the same person as Hoel.

Source

Bartrum, Peter, A Welsh Classical Dictionary, 1993

Bromwich, Rachel, Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain, 2014

Howells, Caleb, King Arthur: The Man Who Conquered Europe, 2019

Holpin, Gary, Britain's Heritage Coast: Exmouth to Plymouth, 2014

Baring-Gould, Sabine and Fisher, John, The Lives of the British Saints: The Saints of Wales and Cornwall and Such Irish Saints as Have Dedications in Britain – Volume I, 1907

Budic

Elaine

Hoel