Some Brief Conclusions
The differences between William of Newburgh’s account of the green children and Ralph of Coggeshall’s account is probably due to the differences in how each author originally heard the story. William appears to have investigated the story around forty years after it happened and talked to many people who recounted the event to him, so his version is likely a smoothed-out compilation of many short versions of the story. Certainly, he did not state that he talked to any eyewitnesses; so it’s quite possible that none of the people he talked to were.
Meanwhile, Ralph appears to have heard the story repeatedly from just one man who claimed to be not only an eyewitness, but a vitally involved character. This sounds suspiciously like said ‘eyewitness’ ? Richard de Calne ? may have been bragging to Ralph, and should make us suspicious of his claim of direct involvement in a locally famous tale. The simple fact that de Calne’s name is not mentioned in William’s account, despite the fact William interviewed numerous people, may be a strong indication that de Calne was not originally involved in either the event or the legend.
Although both accounts agree on the general structure of the story, they disagree on the details; so they cannot be used either to confirm one another, or to prove the event happened. Still, each has clues that narrow down the where and when of the event, so further digging may still be able to give a more definitive answer in the future. Of course, it would help if there were a third ancient account, but...