A Conversation for Robin Hood
Raven Started conversation Aug 26, 2000
A while ago I read a book which was trying to get behind the real
Robin Hood identity. It is true that certain Robyn Hode existed in Nottingham Shire (not sure about Sherwood Forest)around the beginning the 14th century but the circumstances in which he lived were far less romantic than those described in the legend. He was a small landholder who one day decided that rather than eke out a living from given assets, he would be better off being highwayman (old term for robber). He stole what he could, so naturally tax collectors and travelling merchants were his targets. The fact that Normans were still making up the majority of nobility and other wealthy people may have given him a popular status with opressed Anglo-Saxon population. He didn't have any socialist ideals to speak of (rob the rich and give to the poor). He was not the contemporary of Richard the Lionheart but Richard III if I remember correctly. Because he was a minor noble he actually was an acquintance of the King. King himself had a rather dark secret. He was interested in boys and young men, mostly sons of nobles, in other words, he was a pedophile.
He died a violent death at the hands of persons unknown, but the clue for murder motive may be that his backside was interfered with by hot
How Robyn Hode ended up is not known as he was never officially arrested and tried, or if he was, no documents exist on this matter.
As I am not sure about Richard III being the name of the king I would welcome feedback from more knowledgable sources.
The Old Toenail Posted Aug 27, 2000
I have a freind, Lisa Hood, whom I consider to be an expert on the subject of Robin Hood. She told Me the Following family legend:
there was NOT ONE, but SEVERAL real life bandits who took the name "Robin Hood", and lived in the area of the legends.
To further confuse the Issue, there was a supernatual caltic mythic figure of that, or a simeler name.
One of the "Robin Hoods" was in fact, a relative of King Jhon, Brother of King Richard (Plantagenet/Lionheart).this man , and John, are her ancestors, or so she claims.
Jimi X Posted Aug 28, 2000
I believe Robin Hood gets mentioned in Ivanhoe as well. Of course, my books are still packed away someplace....
Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 Posted Aug 28, 2000
He is said to have come from the Sheffield area (Loxley) but that could have been Walter Scott making use of his poetic licence. There is a fair bit of (anecdotal) evidence of the existance of Rob in the Hood, but as has already been mentioned he was more likely more than one person.
As to his being a contemporary of Richard III - well probably not. And Richard of York (without whom we would never remember the colours of the rainbow) was killed in rather well documented circumstances - check out the War of the Roses (which history says the Red Rose won, but all we white roses know differently.......)
manolan Posted Aug 29, 2000
Well, I suppose paedophilia is an interesting interpretation of Richard III and the young princes in the Tower.
Seriously, though, Richard III died in battle (Bosworth). Edward II died by having a red hot poker up the bum. Whatever the truth, the story is he was gay (not a paedophile) and the senior nobility got a bit upset about his love for Gaveston. He died at Berkeley Castle on 21 Sept 1327, which at least makes him a 14th century king. From some other site, the quaint explanation:
Reigned 1307-1327 deposed and murdered. 1st Prince of Wales
His reign was troubled by extravagances, his militarist disasters in Scotland
notably at Bannockburn (1314) and unpopularity of his favourite Piers
Gaveston who died in 1312 and Hugh le Despencer 1262-1326.
He was deposed on 21 Jan 1327, and murdered by a red-hot poker in his bowels.
Invested as the first English Prince of Wales in 1301.
For the record, Richard III was a 15th century monarch.
Raven Posted Aug 29, 2000
Well, that at least is explained. It's been a while since I researched this subject. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 Posted Aug 29, 2000
Firstly I have to delcare interest here: I'm a Yorkshirewoman. So Richard III is one of "my boys".
I don't think he was sooooo bad. Most Kings & Nobles at the time were out for what they could get (like most politicians). He has received very bad press, mostly as a result of one Mr. William Shakespeare (booo hissss) who (sucking up to the "other side" namely the Tudors who replaced the house of York on the throne) wrote a very nasty character assassination. It was never proved that Dickon (as he was familiarly known, apparently) murdered the princes - so he must be innocent until proved otherwise Although, in all honesty, probably it was his idea. But the Tudors were a mercenary bunch, just look at Henry VIII and his daughter. Phew! Glad they're not like that now.
Ore Posted Aug 29, 2000
Well, two things spring to mind reading the letters in this forum. 1. Robin Hood did not rob the rich and feed the poor. He robbed every bugger, he just had a good PR man! 2. As far as Richard 111 being "gay" ( I would prefer to use different terminology) it only goes to prove what every self respecting Lancastrian has known for centuries, "There's nowt so queer as a Yorshireman bar two of em'!
Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 Posted Aug 30, 2000
*rolls up sleeves and adopts best hard stare (which is pretty soft, really)*
Wanna come over here & say that???
Robin Hood was responsible (IMO) for some of the raising of the taxes. If he hadn't robbed so much, Prince John would not have had to steal from him to give to the poor, if he did give to the poor, which is doubtful (since he came from Yorkshire, and... well, you know how we are with money).
"Self-respecting Lancastrian". Hrmph! isn't that one of those Oxymorons??
And as to Prince John. He died (after having lost the original crown jewels, what a silly chap, in the Wash) from eating a surfeit of lampreys (whatever they are) according the most reliable source of historical fact ever (I refer, of course, to 1066 and all That)
I still contend, however, that Richard III was very misunderstood. So he was gay, big deal. And he was a murderer, well these days he would have had his own website, book deal, and PR company. He did us all a big favour by "losing" the Wars of the Roses (which as every good Yorkshireperson knows, he lost in a strange parallel universe, not the proper one) so that generations of snotty nosed school children could remember the colours of the rainbow. I think that was a noble act.
Jimi X Posted Aug 30, 2000
Is Prince John the same one who gave us the Magna Charta?
(No jeers please, I'm a Yank trying to understand your history and getting confused by that silly habit of giving every king the same name - and we won't even talk about the French and their Louies! )
Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 Posted Aug 30, 2000
Yes. We always say he signed it at quarter past six (1215) to remember it...... but he didn't stick to it and annoyed the barons. He was a bit of a "soft lad" as we say in Yorkshire.
PS we usually call it the Magna Carta
Wait until Prince Charles gets to be King (if ever......) he can choose from Charles Phillip Arthur George (or pick another one) so maybe we'll have another king Arthur
And anyway, aren't you all just about to get another Prez George Bush?? !!
Jimi X Posted Aug 30, 2000
Ore Posted Aug 30, 2000
Sho. Thanks for the fast response. Oxy whats!? No no no, sheep pal, lots of bloody sheep but no ox's. And for your information and education a lamprey is a creature of the sea. I believe they have suckers on their heads and hitch rides of other bigger fish, bit like a Yorkshireman really! Did you know the best two things to come out of Yorkshire? Puddings and the M1. Says it all methinks.
Ore Posted Aug 30, 2000
Jimi X. Speaking of keeping things straight, wasn't your ex president George Bush the chap who said "Read my lips" and then did something completely different? Like farther like son mayhap?
Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 Posted Aug 31, 2000
Oh. *indignant hands on hips* Well, good things don't come out of Yorkshire, we're stingy don't forget: we keep 'em to ourselves
Except that we lend some of our Cricketers from time to time to help England win stuff for a change. To be fair to you lot: at least coming from the wrong (ie. your) side of the Pennines, is better than coming from.....THE SOUTH!
Jimi X: Do you thing George W Bush has borrowed his father's copy of Bonfire of the Vanities to show how up-to-date and well read he is? Does he like broccoli? These are the important issues! And I will give you that names like George III are confusing and silly, but was there really any need to rename a film "The Madness of King George" in case the American audience didn't go to see it because they hadn't seen George I and George II
Raven Posted Aug 31, 2000
So, both Eddie II and Dick III were "dames"? How about Henry VIII? Did he kill his wives because he felt more comfortable with boys? And don't tell me that mumbo-jumbo about them being unable to conceive sons with him?
Jimi X Posted Aug 31, 2000
Nah. Don't forget it was old Georgie the Third that we kicked out of here. Maybe the movie execs didn't want to bring up all those old feelings of revolution since the film was a sympathetic look at the crazy old coot.
Ore Posted Sep 1, 2000
Henry VIII was not a "dame" as you put it, he was hetrosexual. He had some of his wives beheaded due to their infidelity. Due to the fact that as a catholic himself at that time, he was unable to divorce a wife that could not concieve and therefore his advisers concocted rumours that again allowed him to get rid of them.
He then went on to invent divorce, er I mean the Church Of England which allowed divorce. But his daughter Elizabeth did succeed him to become queen and a damn good one as well. Good Queen Bess, the virgin queen as she was known. Never wed, no kids but had a good reign. Plenty of wars with Spain and France, Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh and all that jazz. It must make you colonials drool.
History, don't you just love it!
The Old Toenail Posted Sep 2, 2000
A yorkshireman with a prose as lively as pudding is thick, you are.
(For my fellow yanks, "pudding" is more like what you'd call a pot pie.)
Re: George Bush 1, He didn't have as much of a choice about the "reaad my lips" thing as he'd thought. Just like Shakespere hadn't much choice about which royals to please, and which not.
How do we know Richard was gay? I hadnt got that far in the history books. It seems to me that that could be as much rhetorick as the humpback and whatnot. Though the Idea that one of the Robin Hoods could have been around in Richards time , is as likely as any other time.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Raven (Aug 26, 2000)
- 2: The Old Toenail (Aug 27, 2000)
- 3: Jimi X (Aug 28, 2000)
- 4: Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 (Aug 28, 2000)
- 5: manolan (Aug 29, 2000)
- 6: Raven (Aug 29, 2000)
- 7: Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 (Aug 29, 2000)
- 8: Ore (Aug 29, 2000)
- 9: Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 (Aug 30, 2000)
- 10: Jimi X (Aug 30, 2000)
- 11: Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 (Aug 30, 2000)
- 12: Jimi X (Aug 30, 2000)
- 13: Ore (Aug 30, 2000)
- 14: Ore (Aug 30, 2000)
- 15: Jimi X (Aug 30, 2000)
- 16: Sho - unemployed again - Thanks Covid-19 (Aug 31, 2000)
- 17: Raven (Aug 31, 2000)
- 18: Jimi X (Aug 31, 2000)
- 19: Ore (Sep 1, 2000)
- 20: The Old Toenail (Sep 2, 2000)