Little Bo-Peep: A Cataloging Controversy?

Were nursery rhyme characters treated as authors, how might their names be represented in the author field (100)?

 Someone such as "Jack Sprat" or "Tommy Tucker" would be straightforward:
100 1  Sprat, Jack
100 1  Tucker, Tommy.
I doubt if a birth date (delimiter d) could be found for either.

For Old King Cole, the descriptive "old" may be omitted from the cataloging record, with "King" going into the personal titles sub-field (delimiter c) and "Cole" treated as a single forename.
100 0   Cole, |c King.

Simple Simon would be simpler, a single forename without a title:
100  0   Simon.

The same would apply to "Mary, Mary, quite contrary," assuming there are not two distinct Marys, in which case it would be hoped there could be found a way to qualify both names. If not, they might as well be identical twins, for their separate publications could be ascribed to either author.

The most problematic designated of a nursery character could well be Little Bo-Peep. One may first unaffix the "little" as a description not baptismally related to the name. If the hyphen between "Bo" and "Peep" is official, then the author field would be another instance of a single forename:
100 0   Bo-Peep.
However, if "Peep" is regarded as a surname and "Bo" a forename, then the field would read
100 1   Peep, Bo.
It depends on how much credence one gives to the hyphen.