Robin Hood is from Loxley, Sheffield, Yorkshire!

[retep 69]

Thanks for the link, are you trying to imply that we are away with the "Fairies I meen". You require proof of every ledgend or belief before you will accept.

Do you have a releigious beleif, if you do have you proof I dont think so. Giving me a reply with a web site says to me that you can only provide an oppinion of other people.

Web sites including the BBC report the information and oppinions from the man in the street.

You seam to have a problem with the possability that Robin Hood, The Loch Ness Monster exist.So you prove and provide evidence they dont exist and I will appologise, it will be more difficult than proving they do exist.

Look forward to your proof

 

If I could make any sense of that it may be worth a reply, but I cant, so we'll leave you to your opinion.

[Ally_Fraser 10]

You're all wrong.

 

Robin Hood's clearly a Derbyshire man.

 

He no doubt had to visit south yorkshire every now and again to dish out a few sovereigns to the plebs, but he's definitely one of us!

[Grahame 10]

You're all wrong.

 

Robin Hood's clearly a Derbyshire man.

 

He no doubt had to visit south yorkshire every now and again to dish out a few sovereigns to the plebs, but he's definitely one of us!

 

I don't know if you are aware but the Royal Forest of the Peak which included Castleton and Chapel-en-le-Frith was in Derbyshire, and Tideswell was known as the 'Kings Larder.' There were so many deer in King Johns time that when they stampeded several men and dogs were killed. King John bread horses for hunting in the booths around Castleton, many of the Kings of England used Peveril Castle as a hunting lodge and the Royal Forest of the Peak had the best hunting anywhere in England apart from the New Forest although the sport of hunting was more thrilling in the Peak due to the terrain. (You could end up galloping over a cliff edge.)

 

The boundary of the Royal Forest was Derwent Valley which isn't very far from Loxley and there are court records of people being fined for hunting in Peak Forest from Bradfield and Wigtwistle and a clergyman from Glossop along with many others. So even though Robin Hood we are told was born in Loxley and spent his time on Watling Street at Barnsdale, I am sure he was hunting in the Royal Forest of the Peak and in fact Robert Loxley was in court in both Huntingdon and Nottingham along with members of the Meveril Family who were from Tideswell.

[Grahame 10]

Professor Holt on Nottingham's candidate for Robin Hood, who they say was Robert de Kyme.)

 

Since Mr J. Lees {The Quest/or Robin Hood, Nottingham 1987), has tried to revive Stukeley's pedigree in a revised form it may be useful to summarize a few of the salient errors.

 

First, the critical figure for both Stukeley and Mr Lees is William 'FitzOoth', who (Stukeley) or whose heir (Lees) was transferred to the custody of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1214. In reality the William son of Otho, whose heir or heirs were placed in the custody of Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1205 and transferred to Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1214, had nothing to do with the family of Kyme, or with the earls of Huntingdon, still less with Robin Hood. He is well known as an official of the Mint, holding his office in charge of the manufacture of the royal dies as a sergeanty. By 1219 he was succeeded by his son, Otho son of William, who still held office in 1242- 3. It follows therefore that 'Robert fitz Ooth' is entirely fictitious; so is the alleged link between 'FitzOoth' and Kyme; and so are the grounds for seeking an original Robin Hood in the Kyme family.

 

Secondly, there is no evidence that any Robert of Kyme mentioned by Mr Lees was outlawed. The instance on which he relies is a royal remission of wrath and indignation incurred by an appeal of rape against a Robert of Kyme at Wenlock in 1226; there is no mention of outlawry.

 

Thirdly, Mr Lees's 'Robert of Kyme' is compounded of at least two distinct individuals, none of them an outlaw and none of them a disinherited elder son; many of the relationships he proposes within the Kyme family are quite unsupported by any contemporary evidence.

[neil memmott 10]

Does all this mean that Father Christmas does'nt exist eithe:huh:r?

[Waltheof 10]

A fascinating thread, to which I hope I shall be allowed to add my two penn'orth, with reference to the real corporeal existence of R H and the "proof" of his birth in Loxley.

 

As for the substantiality of Robin Hood, I’m with those who aren’t really concerned whether he can be identified as a historical character or only a myth serving changing cultural ideas and needs over time; I incline to the mythic existence more. His influence on changing ideologies and cultural values has been more important than whether he actually existed. However, that said, it remains to aim for some historical accuracy in looking at the versions and manifestations of the myth. Here we get, for instance, into the matter of the “Sloane manuscript” championed as evidence for locating R H in Loxley, and the claim that it predates the earliest printing of the Gest (The Gest itself is thought to date from the early or mid-15th century). Grahame, who posted this, does not give us the reference for this manuscript, but I find from my books on the R H legend that it is Sloane 780, formerly Sloane 715. (I may have a look at it next time I’m in the British Library). This is a composite manuscript, made up of several 15th-century items on astrology and geography, the memoir of R H (ff.46-, a 15th-century calendar of church festivals, and three separate 17th-century moral poems. The memoir itself is on paper, in a typical secretary hand, and has been dated by all the modern authorities to c.1600. Since the first printings of the Gest are the Lettersnijder print (Antwerp) c.1510, the Wynkyn de Worde print (between 1492 and 1534) and Copland’s edition c.1560, it is clear that the prose memoir postdates them all. Sir Sidney Lee, in the collection of essays called Robin Hood, an Anthology of Scholarship and Criticism (1999), notes that the memoir is constructed from the earlier ballads, and even though it may be the first known to claim Loxley as the hero’s birthplace, it is clearly unauthentic and uncorroborated. The dating to the time of Richard I is merely taken from the line of chroniclers who copied each other, from John Major (1521) to Holinshed (1577), to Richard Grafton (1569), to John Stow (1580). Stow’s Annales, or a Generale Chronicle of England from Brute proved very popular, and was reprinted with additions and so should have been easily available to the compiler of the memoir. (My own copy dates from 1610 and does indeed say that “Robert Hood and little John remained in the woods, despoiling and robbing the goods of the rich” [and a bit more about him]. Incidentally, although I don’t know from where Grahame got his quotation of the beginning of the memoir, I can say that it was reprinted in A Collection of Early Prose Romances, edited by William Thoms (1828), of which fortunately I have a copy. The reprint preserves all the abbreviations and scribal practices of the copyist. Even conceding that this copy is a transcript of an earlier text, it cannot be much earlier, the flavour of the language is that of the later 16th century, and there is a telling remark within the text (p.40 of Thoms’ print):

 

“Of all saynts he most honoured ye virgin mary, so yt if any for her sake asked ought of him, he wold performe it if possibly he could, neither would he suffer any yt belonged vnto him to violate women poremen, or any of the husbandry, al theyr attempts were chiefly against fat prelates & religious persons & howses fryers, and he is commended of John Mayor[sic] for ye prince of all theyues & robbers &c” (my italics).

 

Forgive me if I’m in error here, but the reference must surely be to that same John Major whose chronicle dates from 1521, which disposes of any pre-1500 claims for this text. Moreover, the reference to the Pinder of Wakefield (“…after such maner he procurd ye pynner of wakefeyld to become one of his company”, p.39 of Thoms’ edition) is suspicious, because his exploits (as a trickster) only became popular from the mid-16th century. Although the earliest printed treatment is from 1632, a ballad about him was recorded in the Stationers' Register in 1557-58 (in the ballad recorded by Percy in the 18th century Robin battles against him, as he did against other figures in the ballads); and if we accept the date of the Sloane text as c.1600, we may note that Robert Greene’s play about the Pinder (1594) was published in 1599: A Pleasant Conceited Comedy of George-a-Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield, partly constructed out of an earlier ballad). On the contrary side, it has to be admitted, it is surprising that there is no mention of Maid Marion, who was a 16th-century addition to the legend, but perhaps the compiler was not interested in the hero’s romantic exploits.

 

Cumulatively, then, the evidence points to the Sloane text as being very late, compiled from preceding material, and not authentic. Even if it is the first text known to claim Loxley as the hero’s birthplace, this does not amount to very much. and since the various stories of Robin Hood lay some stress on places in Yorkshire and Lancashire principally, it might not be surprising if a reference to a Locksley was picked up somewhere and identified with the Yorkshire location, perhaps even in some lost ballad, though that is pure speculation. R. B. Dobson and J. Taylor, in their note on the Sloane manuscript (in Rymes of Robyn Hood (1976) conclude that “the Sloane Life’s identification of Robin Hood’s birth-place with the mysterious ‘Lockesley’ also derived from a now lost sixteenth century ballad than from any genuinely historical tradition”. Another possibility would be a derivation from one of the R H plays or May games which may have been associated with either the Warwickshire Locksley or the Yorkshire one; if the former, it could still have been picked up by the Sloane author and transferred to Yorkshire, given the general area of R H’s activity. These plays and games were very prolific: in a database assembled in the 1990s there are 136 citations before 1600, over fifty of them before 1537, and another fifty by 1577.

 

Incidentally, it is naïve to “prove” the existence of R H by quoting (post #49) the reference to him in Walter Bower's Scotichronicon of 1440 AD, especially when the poster does not bother to give us the date of the events he quotes (1266, during the Second Barons’ War of 1263-7). Plenty of time had elapsed between that date and Bower’s writing of his chronicle for the growing literature of R H to lead him to believe in the truth of the legend, and moreover, Bower is implying that the area of R H’s activities is in Warwickshire, whereas the development of the legend places him principally further north in Yorkshire and Lancashire, and even with influence in Scotland. Actually, the earliest Robin Hood surnames appear in Sussex before their association with further north.

 

The ramifications of the R H legend are many, and taken altogether they provide a fascinating insight into the changing values of the figure over time, some of which have been charted in sociological studies. R H is vital to the English literary and folklore heritage and is deeply engrained in English culture. All of this happened irrespective of whether such a figure ever existed; indeed, to try to find if he had a real existence is immaterial and diverts attention from his true importance as an icon for evolving ideologies in society.

[Grahame 10]

All you say has been gone over and over with a fine tooth comb and of course you are right in all you say but my understanding was that the handwritten Sloane MS pre-dated the earliest printed copies, however. I respect your obvious knowledge and any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. By the way, there has been a big study done on the Robin Hood names and its etymology. Thanks.

 

Anyway to business: -

Roger Dodsworth wrote, “Robert Locksley, born in the Bradfield Parish of Hallamshire (Loxley) wounded his stepfather to death at plough, fled into the woods and was relieved by his mother till he was discovered. Then he came to Clifton upon Calder, and became acquainted with Little John, that kept the kine. Which said John is buried at Hathersage in Derbyshire where he hath a fair tombstone with an inscription. (This tallies with the Sloane MS)

 

Mr Long saith that Fabyan saith, Little John was Earl Huntley’s son. After, he joined with Much the Miller's’s son." (Bodleian Library MS. Dodsw. 160, fol. 64r)

 

I should check your reference for the Bodleian Library regarding the above, this is correct. (So I am told)

 

Dodsworth gives his sources which was unusual in those days. Robert Fabian was a well known historian who died AD1513.

 

Earl Huntly and his son i.e. Little John have been identified by another researcher who claims to have identified Robin Hood. He tells me Little John was Robin Hood’s cousin.

[Waltheof 10]

I'd have to check Dodsworth's manuscript for myself to see what sources he cites. And why didn't Dodsworth go direct to Fabian, instead of quoting him second hand from this Mr Long, whoever he was? And of course we needn't assume that historians, of any time, knew what they were talking about. I can't give a comprehensive reply now but perhaps I'll have to think about it. I imagine Dodsworth's own account was derivative--I'd love to track it down! To be fair, Dodsworth was a careful scholar and his collections have proved very valuable, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was of his time and as likely as anyone else to take something in written record as fact, rather than researching it critically.

 

The truth is out there somewhere...maybe we'll find it one day...

[Grahame 10]

I'd have to check Dodsworth's manuscript for myself to see what sources he cites. And why didn't Dodsworth go direct to Fabian, instead of quoting him second hand from this Mr Long, whoever he was? And of course we needn't assume that historians, of any time, knew what they were talking about. I can't give a comprehensive reply now but perhaps I'll have to think about it. I imagine Dodsworth's own account was derivative--I'd love to track it down! To be fair, Dodsworth was a careful scholar and his collections have proved very valuable, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was of his time and as likely as anyone else to take something in written record as fact, rather than researching it critically.

 

The truth is out there somewhere...maybe we'll find it one day...

 

I hope so.

 

You see I take my inspiration from Dodsworth who identified the Hallamshire Loxley and the Sloane MS which identifies this Loxley by it's mention of the border dispute and there is no other Loxley that makes the claim, or any other place come to that, except for the Warwickshire Loxley which is a late fabrication by J.R. Planche who took up Stukleys flawed pedigree and published his paper, A Ramble with Robin Hood, in 1864.

 

I think it would have been a lot clearer if much of Dodsworths work hadn't gone up in smoke in a fire at Roach Abbey, but there we are.

[sydneyoss 10]

I think we can all agree "Robin Hood" is a fictional name of a character who really existed in the Lincolnshire,South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire area. At the time all Sheriffs, whether Sherrif of Nottingham or Sherrif of Rotherham had problem raising money to pay ransom monies for King Richard and others locked away in some European gaol. Money was taken and stolen from all over the land to pay ransoms of crusaders captured whilst returning from the holy land and it's easy to conjure up pictures of people being robbed to cover the price of ransoms. Joan (Mrs Sydneyozz)

[duckweed 10]

Might I suggest reading Tony Robinson's book on Myths and Legends. He has done a lot of research and quotes from a number of authorities about the legend. Like King Arthur a lot of other legends have been added to a real character. May I also speak up for King John who was added to later accounts. He was not the terrible person he is painted as. His brother swanned off to the crusades and drained the country of money culminating in a huge ransome that had to be paid by John to get his brother released. John was not collecting taxes to line his pockets but to pay for his brothers profligacy.

[sydneyoss 10]

Yes. I can agree. However, a fair amount of conflict can be created here. King John was the first King to make England into a royal realm with an English town as it's capital. He still ended up at Runymede as a result. The Church (or Rome) was the ultimate power and a thorn in the side of royalty. John wanted England. Richard was pleasing the Church and the general public believed in their church. "Robin Hood" or "Earl of Huntingdon" stole from the church and legend always couples him with King Richard. I will read Tony Robinson Myths and Legends if I can find a copy. thanks for the advice