Who was the real Robin Hood?

Transcription

1 Who was the real Robin Hood? The Real Robin Hood is a man based on many others; he was created from legends, stories, myths, ballads and poems passed down over time. Different time periods attract different versions of the Robin Hood legend, and there are several references to men named Robin Hood (or similar) in legal and court records of the 12 th and 13 th centuries. There are many candidates for the real Robin Hood; these include Robert Fitz-Ooth- Earl of Huntingdon ( ), Robert de Kyme (c1210-c1285) and Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls ( ). Each of these men have been found to fit different aspects of the Robin Hood legend, making Fitz-Ooth, de Hye and Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls the most widely accepted contenders for the real Robin Hood. There is a lot of doubt surrounding the validity of the research and the evidence given for each, and historians are very critical when it comes to interpretation and analysis of records, thus the identity of the true Robin Hood still is, and most likely always will remain, unknown. The theory of Robert Fitz-Ooth Earl of Huntington being the real Robin Hood was put forward in 1746 by Dr William Stukeley. According to Stukeley, Robert Fitz-Ooth was born in Loxley in 1160 and outlawed in the 12 th century; his land was then transferred to Ranulf, Earl of Chester (Robin Hood ltd, n.d). The name was later associated with Robin Hood in the Vision of the Piers Plowman ; I can noughte perfitly my pater-noster as the prest it synget, But I can rymes of Robyn Hood and Randolf erle of Chestre -The Vision of William concerning Peirs Plowman, The priest s ability to remember the rhymes of Robin Hood better than his own prayers suggests that the legend of Robin Hood was well known, as were the ballads and rhymes telling the tales of his life as an outlaw. This early reference to Ranulf, Earl of Chester, proposes that Robert Fitz-Ooth was indeed the real Robin Hood. In a publication titled History of Nottinghamshire written in 1797, author Robert Thoroton writes that the Norman name, Fitz, was generally dropped and that vulgarly pronounced, the TH of Ooth is changed to a D, meaning that this man was known as Robert Ood, or Hood (Thoroton, 1797). However, many historians have discarded Stuckley s claims as false and fabricated, claiming that he created evidence to suit his own theory, even going as far as to create fictitious family members as an extract from Professor J. C Holt s Robin Hood published in 1996 describes; For this he first misused and confused the information provided in William Dugdale's Baronage of itself by no means full or accurate, although a great and fundamental work for its date - and then, of his own, added families and individuals which were entirely fictitious. He concocted a marriage between Gilbert de Gant and Rohaise, daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert, He then married the fictitious Maud to a fictitious husband, Ralph fitz Ooth, after which not surprisingly, it was easy to discover a fictitious family of fitz Ooth with Robert fitz Ooth 'commonly called Robin Hood, 1

2 pretended earl of Huntington' in the third generation. -Robin Hood, Professor J. C Holt, Professor Holt refers to Stukeley s work as false and as something that would barely deserve attention (Robin Hood Outlaw Legend of Loxley, 2001) criticising his work and means of research as well as how he interpreted previous investigations and records. The Palaeographia Britannia ( ) described Stukeley s research as itself not completely accurate adding to the claims of falsity surrounding his theory of Robert Fitz-Ooth being the real Robin Hood. This detracts from the suggestion that Stukeley s theory reveals the true identity of Robin Hood and removes validity of Stukeley s research as there are many historians who disagree with his ideas. Robert Fitz-Ooth is a fictional character based on misinterpreted research. Although he fits in well with the Robin Hood legend, there is no evidence that is fully supportive of William Stukeley s Robert Fitz-Ooth theory and therefore cannot claim having found the real Robin Hood. Nottingham researcher Jim Lees followed Stukeley s claims to having found the real Robin Hood with that of his own, Lees claimed that Robert de Kyme (c1210-c1285) was the real Robin Hood. Robert de Kyme was of Saxon blood, and was outlawed in 1226 for robbery as well as disturbing the peace but was pardoned in According to Lees, de Kyme s life is similar to the events that take place in the ballad Little Geste including his return to the forest even after his pardon (Robin Hood ltd, n.d) Lees acknowledges Stukeley as searching in the right direction in terms of researching and tracing back bloodlines, however he theorises that Robin Hood was a minor 13 th century nobleman, whose wild ways got him disowned and a lord of Kime instead of the outlaw Stukeley suggested previously (W, Allen, 1997). In a 1994 interview with Lees, Chris Arnot describes; New and conclusive evidence of his long-held claim that the real Robin was Robert de Kyme, born around It is unlikely that the evidence will be enough to convince professors of medieval history that Mr Lees is anything other than an eccentric enthusiast. - Why Lees is a Merrie Man, Chris Arnot, Lees claims of de Kyme being the real Robin Hood are not widely accepted in the historical community due to his lack of education and degrees in the area. Lees has become satisfied with the work he has done and has come to the self-proclaimed conclusion that he has indeed uncovered the real man of legend. His work however, constantly falls under great scrutiny from historians claiming his research to be invalid and fictional. In Professor J. C. Holt s 1996 paper titled Robin Hood, he also criticised Lees work, claiming it as; Quite unacceptable. It involves an elementary misreading of the Gest It is also based on a tendentious and uncritical evaluation of the place-name evidence. -Robin Hood, Professor J. C Holt, Holt bases this disapproval on the fact that Lees work relies heavily on the research that Stukeley did, which itself is not dependable according to Holt, he is very unsupportive of the claim that Robert de Kyme is the real Robin Hood, and this concern is echoed by many other researchers. Consequently the work is not entirely credible nor can it be 2

3 taken as factual when its researcher used fake information, the real Robin Hood being Robert de Kyme is doubtful. A medieval professor at Nottingham University supports this, saying that he believes Robin Hod was not one man, but a number of characters from different time periods that consist of his features that have been brought together to create the legend (Chris Arnot, 1994). The research of Lees is very open ended, and relies greatly on evidence previously labelled fictitious. There is also limited support for his theory, meaning his research has little or no support from well-known, respected historians and from that it can be decided that Robert de Kyme is not the real Robin Hood. Joseph Hunter s theory of Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls being the real Robin Hood was given in Hunter s analysis of historical documents led to his statement that Robert Hood who appeared in the court rolls of Wakefield in was the real Robin Hood. According to Hunter, Robert Hood was not outlawed due to theft, but because of his support Thomas- Earl of Lancaster who was rebelling against King Edward II, he suggested that Robert Hood murdered his stepfather and fled to Wakefield where he appears on court roll entries for minor offenses (Robin Hood ltd, n.d) Others have taken Hunter s theory and speculated that Robert Hood was involved in the rebellion against Edward II, before being outlawed and then pardoned in However, Professor Holt disagrees, saying that there is no proof that this Robert Hood and Robin Hood are in fact the same person and refers back to an earlier reference in records that suggested that Robin was servicing the king on June 27 th 1323, he wrote; This one reference destroys the coincidence of detail which made Hunter s argument seem so attractive -Robin Hood, Professor J C Holt, The dates and locations do not match up for either his theory, or research conducted by other historians. There are years in between records that have no mention of either Robin Hood or Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls. Despite this, Hunter s theory is one of the most publicly accepted as it stays with the idea of Robin Hood originating from Wakefield where Hoods had lived for years. Although there is inconclusive evidence to support Hunter s theory, his ideas are widely accepted throughout historians as there is little evidence opposing him, Holt come to the conclusion that; Either the Hoods of Wakefield gave robin to the world, or they absorbed the tale of the outlaw into their own family traditions or their neighbours and decedents came to associate the two. One of the last is the most likely. -Robin Hood, J C Holt, Little research has been done in regards to Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls being the real Robin Hood, and yet people accept it with enthusiasm because of the suggestion that Robin lived in Wakefield according to Hunter. Any research that has been done is vague and there other than the court rolls, there is no evidence that entirely supports Hunter in his findings. The conclusion that Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls was the real Robin Hood therefore cannot be given or proved in any way. 3

4 Robin Hood, is merely a figure of legend, he is a combination of stories, myths and poems from different time periods and although there seem to be many men who could be thought of as the real Robin Hood, there is not enough records or evidence to support even the most accepted theories. Historically there are many potential Robin Hood s, such as, but not limited to, Robert Fitz-Ooth, Robert de Kyme and Robin Hood of the Wakefield Rolls, although each of these men comply with different aspects of the legend, a single theory does not provide an answer to the question of who was the real Robin Hood, instead they contribute to a changing tale passed down over time. Robin Hood as a figure has been altered to fit society; he has been romanticised and portrayed as a hero in multiple ballads, and as someone who aims to represent the everyday man. However there is not enough evidence to support any one theory of who Robin Hood was, and therefore this proves that Robin Hood did not exist and is purely a man of legend. 4

5 References Boldoutlaw.com (1997) Robin Hood -- The Search for a Real Robin Hood. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 28 Mar 2013]. Google Books (n.d.) History of Nottinghamshire. [online] Available at: +Earl+of+Huntingdon&source=bl&ots=qdiCiz1UAi&sig=DJB9hZgoLzaUl13Un2oDoa4FRDo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xjpKUa HYEoXliAeA34CgAw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Robert%20fitz%20Ooth- %20Earl%20of%20Huntingdon&f=false [Accessed: Mar 2013]. Internationalhero.co.uk (n.d.) Robin Hood. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. Robin Hood (1987) Robin in Nottingham. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. Robinhoodlegend.com (n.d.) The Many Robin Hoods 6 Robin Hood - The Facts and the Fiction. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. Robinhoodlegend.com (n.d.) Robin Hood - The Facts and the Fiction - Legends, Stories, Songs. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. The Independent (1994) Why Jim Lees is a very merrie man: After 40 years' work, he's cracked it: Chris Arnot meets a Robin Hood expert who is sure he knows the real name behind the legend. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. The World Wide Robin Hood Society (n.d.) Some Candidates for Robin Hood. [online] [Accessed: Mar 2013]. The World Wide Robin Hood Society (n.d.) The Origins. [online] Available at: [Accessed: Mar 2013]. 5

6 6