posted 05 September 2001 08:30 AM         

I must agree with David Pilling, Robin Hood is not mentioned in history as such, simply because he was believed to be a common man. Since when is the common man mentioned in history. The only record of the common man comes from court records (where he has commited a crime) or minor land transactions. Can we name all the Bakers of Nottingham in the Fourteenth century, the surfs that laboured in the fields of Medieval England, of course we can't, because the common man was simply not deemed important or worth a mention. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE DID NOT EXIST. Just
because Robin Hood is not mentioned in history as such, it is impractical to suggest he is the model for some other historical person.

There have been countless outlaws recorded in official records, (some with the name Robert, but only a few with the name Robert Hood who could be considered outlaws)but much has been lost. Much outlaw literature has also been lost, there would be several real-life outlaws missing from the offical records which have simply become lost.

Pedigrees and family trees are very interesting, but they have no relevance to Robin Hood. He has no pedigree or family tree that can be traced.

I think we would all agree that to get to the origins of anything, we must start at the beginning. The beginning of Robin Hood as we know it comes from Medieval historians,writers and ballads, without them there is no Robin Hood. From the very first mention by writer and historian, Robin Hood is believed to have been a real person, but the name has always been ROBIN HOOD,or ROBERT HODE HOD HUDE, not earl of Huntington Huntingdon, Robert de Kyme, Roger Godberg, Robert of Wetherby, Robert Fitzooth, Robert Fitzodo, or any of the countless other candidates or so called roll models of Robin Hood that keep cropping up from time to time.

Even Geoffry Chaucer in his prologue to the Canterbury Tales, is almost certainly thinking of Robin Hood as the knight's yeoman. There is not any hint in any early record of Robin Hood to suggest that he holds any title whatsoever. The beginnings of the whole Robin Hood saga are clear. His name is Robin Hood and he is a yeoman, a cut above peasant.

There will always be new "discoveries" relating to Robin Hood, but many discoveries and theories have become accepted as fact, when they have no basis in fact.

John Major started the ball rolling in 1521 and it has been rolling ever since.

If any are interested in finding a possible "real" Robin Hood, the answer is going to be found by tracing the beginnings of the story, not the supposed story or theory written or "discovered" without firm historical record, hundreds of years after the know "facts"

Forget Huntington, Huntingdon, Loxley and all
the other fabricated theories, the answer is not there.

The Barnsdale of Legend is almost certain to be the Barnsdale in Yorkshire,the Bernesdale that Little John "looks into" in the Gest. Only this Barnsdale has Watling Street, and the Saylis (Sayles)as mentioned in the Gest,only this Barnsdale has Wentbreg (Wentbridge) that is mentioned in Robin Hood and The Potter (another early ballad that tell us about the legend of Robin Hood.

Let us all bear the fundamental early "facts" in mind when we speak of Robin Hood.

Robert Fortunaso

posted 05 September 2001 11:23 AM         

Fact 01. Disregard Munday.
Fact 02. In the early ballads Robin Hood is described as a Yeoman.
Fact 03. Robin Hood was never the Earl of Huntingdon.
Fact 04. David, King of Scots became the Earl of Huntingdon on the occasion of his marriage to Maud-de-Senlis, who was the daughter of Waltheof, the previous Earl of Huntingdon.
Fact 05. One of the Earls of Huntingdon (possibly David) is associated with Robin Hood.
Fact 06. It is presumed that Locksley became Loxley, which is in Yorkshire.
Fact 07. Robin Hood was born before the Harrowing of the North in 1069.
Fact 08. William Peveril the Sheriff of Nottingham had two castles, Nottingham and Castleton.
Fact 09. The area around Castleton was the King’s “Royal Forest of the Peak” where the nobility went for the hunting, William Peveril was in charge of the castle and the hunting.
Fact 10. The Hastings family later became the Earls of Huntingdon.
Fact 11. When the Hastings family received the title “Earl of Huntingdon” they christened one of their children “Hon. Aubrey Craven Theophilus Robin Hood Hastings.
Fact 12. The Armytage family have links with Huntingdon (perhaps also with Hastings) and they own Kirklees.
Fact 13.There were lots of disposed men in the forests and marshes immediately after the conquest fighting Williams men. [This would explain Robin’s band of men.]
Fact 14. The name “Robin Hood” is a non-de-plume.

What do people think of this so far?

------------------
Stan

posted 07 September 2001 07:27 AM         

Point 01. Disregard Munday.

Point 02. The name “Robin Hood” is a non-de-plume, and there are dozens of them.

Point 03. The nobility probably wouldn’t bother with a non-de-plume because they would be recognised, and anyway they might not need to bother.

Point 04. Robin Hood is not mentioned in history, simply because he was a commoner.

Point 05. Robin Hood has no pedigree or family tree that can be traced. (This ties in with the above.)

Point 06. Robin Hood was never the Earl of Huntingdon. (This ties in with the above.)

Point 07 One of the Earls of Huntingdon (possibly David) may be associated with Robin Hood, but perhaps not directly.

Point 08. In the early ballads Robin Hood is described as a Yeoman.

Point 09. The Barnsdale of Legend is almost certain to be the Barnsdale in Yorkshire. (This would tie in with a Scots/Northumbrian connection.)

Point 10. It is presumed that Locksley became Loxley, which is in Yorkshire. (In those days it was on the Northumbrian Boundary)

Point 11. David, King of Scots became the Earl of Huntingdon on the occasion of his marriage to Maud-de-Senlis, who was the daughter of Waltheof, the previous Earl of Huntingdon and Earl of Northumbria.

Point 12. If Robin Hood was born in Loxley, it must have been before the Harrowing of the North in 1069, which happened three years after the conquest.

Point 13. If Robin Hood is to be associated with Little John whom we are told was the son of the dispossessed Earl Huntlie he would need to have lived around the time of the Conquest. (This fits in with the time above.)

Point 14.There were lots of dispossessed men in the forests and marshes immediately after the conquests that were fighting Williams’s men. (This would explain Robin’s band of men and fits in with the time of 12 and 13.)

Point 15. William Peveril the Sheriff of Nottingham had two castles, Nottingham and Castleton. (Same time frame as the above.)

Point 16. The area around Castleton was the King’s “Royal Forest of the Peak” where the nobility went for the hunting; William Peveril was in charge of the castle and the forest.

Point 17. The Hastings family later became the Earls of Huntingdon.

Point 18. When the Hastings family received the title “Earl of Huntingdon” they christened one of their children “Hon. Aubrey Craven Theophilus Robin Hood Hastings.

Point 19. The Armytage family have links with Huntingdon and Hastings and they own Kirklees where Robin Hood is said to be buried, have they got any old documents?).

7 Sept. What do people think of this so far?

posted 07 September 2001 09:51 AM         

Point 03. The nobility probably wouldn’t bother with a non-de-plume because they would be recognised, and anyway they might not need to bother.

Two things here - Robin Hood, as an outlaw/rebel, would possibly, even probably gone in disguise, as highwaymen did in later years. The other thing is that few people outside the nobles' immediate circle would know what Earl David, for example, looked like. If you were riding in Sherwood Forest and came across the Duke Of Norfolk, for instance, without the benefit of a knowledge of photographs, would you recognise him?

Point 09. The Barnsdale of Legend is almost certain to be the Barnsdale in Yorkshire. (This would tie in with a Scots/Northumbrian connection.)

This is by no means certain: there were several Barnsdale Woods, not the least Sherwood (known as Bernysdel at the time).

Point 10. It is presumed that Locksley became Loxley, which is in Yorkshire. (In those days it was on the Northumbrian Boundary)

Loxley is irrelevant unless it can be proved that there was an outlaw from Loxley (ie Robert Fitz Waltheof), the memory of which somehow stuck in the folk memory without ever being written down. Unlikely, and any Loxley connection would have to be a coincidence.

Point 13. If Robin Hood is to be associated with Little John whom we are told was the son of the dispossessed Earl Huntlie he would need to have lived around the time of the Conquest. (This fits in with the time above.)

The Earldom of Huntly wasn't created until much later. Huntly at that time was the seat of the Earls Of Fife, the Strathbogie family, in the gift of the Scottish Kings, and is now the seat of the Gordon Clan. Huntlie, with that spelling, as far as I can tell isn't a place or an Earldom, although again, willing to be proved wrong.

posted 07 September 2001 01:25 PM         

Point 09. “The Barnsdale of Legend is almost certain to be the Barnsdale in Yorkshire.” and “It is presumed that Locksley became Loxley, which is in Yorkshire.”
(I think someone else was saying that and it would be nice if they would comment)

If I can add my two pennyworth about Loxley. Waltheof was the Lord of the Manor of Hallam, he was the Earl of Huntingdon, and Little Haggas Croft in Loxley was just a short horse ride away.

As regards Huntley, this is what I have from the Dictionary of Surnames by Patric Hanks and Flavia Hodges, Oxford University Press.
“Huntley, Scots habitation from a lost place called Huntlie in the former county of Berwicks (now part of the Borders region). Huntly near Aberdeen was named from the old borders place.”
And from the Book of Public Arms it says,
“Has no arms. The seal, which is not, Heraldic, shows a representation of the old castle of Huntlie. Motto Wile dulci”

I read somewhere that there is nothing to be seen of the old borders place and the two places are a good distance apart with no connection except that the new place took on the name, and even that is spelt differently. There seems to be three different spellings. Love to hear your comment.

posted 07 September 2001 07:35 PM         

Loxley and Huntingdon are red herrings - they are not in the Geste or Piers Plowman, but much later inventions. Therefore we should discount both, until it can be proved that someone from Loxley or an Earl of Huntingdon were in fact outlaws/rebels at some time before the tales of Robin Hood are accepted to have begun.

I am researching into David Earl of Huntingdon, it is true, but it is purely a coincidence that he bears the title mentioned by Munday. If it turns out that there actually is a connection, then fine, but until then he is just another potential rebel that might have been the inspiration for Robin Hood.

The same goes for Waltheof or his supposed illegitimate son Robert. Until we can a) prove that Robert existed, and b) did rebel against the King (which I guess would have been William II or Henry I), then he is also just another suspect, and the fact that he may have been born in Loxley is just a coincidence.

To finally wrap up the other Waltheof, I have been doing more digging, and found the first Baron of Stockport, or Stopford as it was then, and it was one of six brothers to whom Hugh Lupus of Chester gave copious lands, the chief among which was Odard, who became Lord of Dutton, and is well documented. One of the brothers was called Wolmer (or Wolmere, or even sometimes Warren), born 1050-53, who was given Stockport by Hugh Lupus. I can find no mention of a son, although another brother, Wolfaith (or Wolfarth, Wolfrid, and even Volfar), who was a priest, to whom his brother Nigel gave Runcorn, and its possible he became Lord after Wolmer, as his name is much closer to Waltheof. What happens to the line between then and Robert Baron of Stockport (b.1197), who gave the town its charter, I have yet to find out. But it doesn't matter - this is not Waltheof Earl of Huntingdon, and this is what matters.

Interestingly though, a descendant of the family, Geffry de Contentin (their family name), did hold Stockport against Henry II in the 74 rebellion. I mention this not because it's relevant, but purely because you find out all these facts and you have to tell someone!

So, the search for Robert Fitz Waltheof continues. The Brushfield and Longstone references are far more likely to refer to our Robert, I would have thought - this will need a delve into the Visitation of Derbyshire, if anyone has access to a copy (there may be one in your main library in Sheffield, I guess, Graham).

Did find the arms for Robert of Stockport and Earl John of Chester though. Totally irrelevant of course, but that's the joy of the internet.

All the best

posted 07 September 2001 09:13 PM         

Because they are not in the Geste or Piers Plowman? What does that prove?

You know as well as I do these were never meant to be works of reference.

And Alastair, in all seriousness, I suggest you don’t pay any heed to Munday, there is an academic study of him somewhere on the net, and although he may be a good writer his work is acknowledged to be pure fiction.

You say forget Loxley till we can prove a connection with an outlaw or rebel. Is Waltheof a big enought rebel for you? He rebelled a couple of times and was beheaded for it.

As I say we can’t prove Robert of Loxley existed, (This actually adds strength to the argument) but we can proof Waltheof did, and that he was the Earl of Huntingdon, and the gravestone supposedly connects Robin Hood to Huntingdon, but I have niggling doubts about that place. But we can prove Waltheof was in Loxley. And Loxley was on the Northumbrian border, and Waltheof was the Earl of Northumbria. I think this is the stronger case yet, anywhere.

And you yourself are researching into David Earl of Huntingdon.

So what is your problem Alastair? Am I too near the truth?

You say-The Brushfield and Longstone references are far more likely to refer to our Robert, I would have thought - this will need a delve into the Visitation of Derbyshire, if anyone has access to a copy (there may be one in your main library in Sheffield, I guess, Graham).

I will try and get into the library perhaps on Munday, I mean Monday, but I am not making any promises, and I am not sure where to look.

Longstone has a lot of history and is at Foxhouse overlooking Hathersage, you see every bone in my body tells me this is the right area. And Brushfield assuming it is the right one is open moorland between Taddington, Millers Dale and Monsall Head not far from Bakewell and Chatsworth House. I think Derbyshire is the best place to find info. But I have no transport.

Now, early Huntlies. They seem to be connected to the clan Gordon, who were French in origin. Adam Gordon was granted land in Long-Gordon in Berwickshire (right place) by Malcolm III, and in 1093 Adam fought for Malcolm and died by his side. (Right period)

The chief of the Gordon clan lived in Strathbogie, whose capital was renamed Huntly by its new owners. Sir Adam was killed at Halidon Hill in 1333. He left two sons, Adam inherited the Huntly estate and William, the younger, inherited the lands of Stitchel and was ancestor of the Viscounts of Kenmure.

From my reading of this there was a Huntly who died in 1333 and he renamed the castle Huntly, which must have been the family name. How far back did the Huntly family go? Could they have gone back to Little John? What do you think Alastair? I know you by now, you will come back with a big no, no. But you will have to give me evidence, I don't believe everything I an told.

posted 07 September 2001 10:24 PM         

"The first castle on this site, known as the Peel of Strathbogie, was a timber built motte-and-bailey, built by the Celtic Earls of Fife in 12th century. The Earl mistakenly chose not to support Robert the Bruce during the wars of independence, as punishment his lands were conferred on Sir Adam Gordon of Huntly, Berwickshire. He brought the name of Huntly to his larger estate. Construction of the stone castle begun early in 15th century, but was still unfinished when the first Earl of Huntly died here in 1470. The fourth earl carried out more building."

And I know Waltheof was a rebel - but he was so well documented there's no reason why he should have been remembered as Robin Hood. His illegitimate son, however, if he had continued his father's fight, might be a candidate. First find out whether he actually existed (from the Visitation - it should be in there: Dugdale was pretty thorough), and what his name was other than Robert Fitz Waltheof, then see if he figures in any histories. He may turn out to be known under another name, one that is known to history. He is the important one, not Waltheof. But even so, we are stil relying on the fact that the Huntingdon title and the town of Loxley somehow filtered into the folk memory only to resurface hundreds of years later. It is still coincidence until proven otherwise, which is what we're both trying to do.

The Geste may not be a text book, but apart from a batch of people with the surname or alias of robinhood turning up in the 13th century (two in Huntingdonshire, i might add), it's the earliest long form reference there is. No, we don't take it as gospel, but we have to assume it is a fictionalised account of events, places and people that may have been real.

All the best

posted 08 September 2001 12:10 AM         

Let me put this to you. The history books have King David, then Henry, then David again as being the first, second, and third Earls of Huntingdon. I presume you agree. They weren’t, Siward, King Harold II, and Waltheof were the Earls of Huntingdon before them. They were the first, second, and third Scots Earls! We have to be so careful. Another example is Kirklees Priory, I can’t remember the date but I think it is 12??+. The books don’t tell you it was built on the site of an earlier Priory, going back much further. Life isn’t easy.

You mention Strathbogie and here we are talking about the same place. The info I gleaned off the net mentions someone a little earlier than your first Earl of Huntly who died there in 1470. It mentions Sir Adam Huntly who was killed at Halidon Hill in 1333 and he inherited it from the Gordon clan, and when he inherited it, he renamed the estate Huntlie, and my question was if there was an Adam Huntly who died 1333, OK he was only a Sir, but the thought in my mind was, did the Huntly family go back to the time of Little John?

Now to that W******f chap, first you said you wanted documentation, and then you say he is too well documented. What do you need?

Did you know there is an area in Sheffield called the Manor (correct spelling) and the children go to “Waltheof School?” There is a Brushfield Grove near there, but there may not be any connection, and there is the “Brushes” estate in Sheffield, but I don’t know if it is a corruption of Brushfield. I will endeavour to find out. Talking about place names, I live in Upper Hallam, near Hallam Head, connections with Hallamshire near where Waltheof had his Manor House, (Aula) to be correct, but you wont find the name on the street maps, the districts are now called Cross Pool, Lodge Moor, Sandy Gate, Fullwood, and if you notice they are all names that describe terrain, the hunting was the best anywhere, and do you know what annoys me? It is people who sit in different parts of the country, pontificating about everything under the sun, but many of them don’t know the locality round here. I only mention about the change in place names because it makes research more difficult, and if you didn’t have local knowledge I don’t think you would stand much of a chance.