Robin Hood, a local lad or a myth?

[History dude]

You'd better hand over your Lupins then he he

[Guest Unitedite]

You'd better hand over your Lupins then

I must admit that I for one, have always tended towards the view that there has to be some truth in the Robin of Loxley stories.

If for no other reason perhaps, than the thought that even as long ago as the middle ages, that some enterprising Sheffield Lad had the bright idea to go and do a bit of "TWOCKING" amongst those southern softies in Nottingham. he he

[DaveH]

You'd better hand over your Lupins then

A well known Monty Python sketch.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2tr_jjs2LKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm sure Dennis Moore has been mentioned in another topic before.

[dunsbyowl1867]

I have seen (is it in the latest TV series?) it written as Robin of Locksley rather than Loxley - what's that about?

[DaveH]

I have seen (is it in the latest TV series?) it written as Robin of Locksley rather than Loxley - what's that about?

Perhaps TV producers wanted to make it more "realistic" by knowing that in medeival times most people couldn't read or write (or spell) and often wrote words phonetically, - so they may have called Loxley, "Locksley".

If this is the case it's a good job Robin didn't come from Oughtibridge, Beauchief, or Gleadless as no one from outside of Sheffield seems to be able to manage to say them right anyway. lol

[R0BIN]

Perhaps TV producers wanted to make it more "realistic" by knowing that in medeival times most people couldn't read or write (or spell) and often wrote words phonetically, - so they may have called Loxley, "Locksley".

If this is the case it's a good job Robin didn't come from Oughtibridge, Beauchief, or Gleadless as no one from outside of Sheffield seems to be able to manage to say them right anyway.

Extract from the Sloane Manuscript lodged in the British Museum. It looks as though that is how Loxley was spelt.

Robin Hood was borne at Lockesley, in Yorkeshire, or after others, (according to others) in Notinghamshire.

One of his first exploits was the goyng abrode into a forrest, and bearing with him a bowe of exceeding great strength. He fell into company with certayne rangers, or woodmen, who fell to quarrel with him, as making showe to vse such a bowe as no man was able to shoote with all; whereto Robin replyed, that he had two better then that at lockesley, only he bare thot with him nowe as a byrding bowe.

At length the contentioun grewe so hote, that there was a wager layd about the kylling of a deer a great distance of; for performance whereof, Robin offered to lay his head to a certayne soume of money. Of the advantage of which rash speech, the others presently tooke.

So the marke being found out, one of them, they were both to make his hart faint, and hand vnsteady, as he was about to shoote, urged him with the losse of his head if he myst the marke. Notwithstanding, Robin kyld the deare, and gaue every man his money agayne saue to him which at the point of shooting so vpbrayed him with danger to loose his head. For that money, he sayd, they would drinke together, and herevpon the other stomached the matter; and from quarrelling they grewe to fighting with him.

[R0BIN]

Again Roger Dodsworth spelt it in a similar way.

Roger Dodsworth the antiquary wrote, “Robert Locksley, born in the Bradfield Parish of Hallamshire wounded his stepfather to death at plough, fled into the woods and was relieved by his mother till being discovered when he went to Clifton upon Calder and became acquainted with Little John that khunted there ept the kine. Which said John is buried at Hathersage in Derbyshire where he hath a fair tombstone with an inscription. Mr Long saith that Fabyan saith, Little John was Earl Huntley’s son. After, he joined with Much the Miller’s son.” (Bodleian Library MS. Dodsw. 160, fol. 64r)

[R0BIN]

Footnote.

Loxley Chase was for the hunting of the deer and when Robin took the Kings deer it may well have begun here. Living on Loxley Chase were fletchers. Fletchers were arrow-makers so presumably they would have had bows as well.

In his pardon Robin was described as a "litser" which means either a dyer of cloth or the son of an arrow maker.

[Bayleaf]

Footnote.

Loxley Chase was a deer-park and living there were fletchers. Fletchers were arrow-makers so presumably they would have had bows as well.

In his pardon Robin was described as a "litser" which means either a dyer of cloth or the son of an arrow maker.

Putting on my pedant's hat Robin, Loxley was part of the Rivelin Chase, not a deer park. The distinction was that in the deer park, i.e. Sheffield Park, fallow deer were bred for the table, and slaughtered for the lord's feasts. More or less a deer farm. In the Chase were native red deer which were hunted for sport.

[R0BIN]

Putting on my pedant's hat Robin, Loxley was part of the Rivelin Chase, not a deer park. The distinction was that in the deer park, i.e. Sheffield Park, fallow deer were bred for the table, and slaughtered for the lord's feasts. More or less a deer farm. In the Chase were native red deer which were hunted for sport.

Rivelin Firth was not Loxley Chase.

The Bradfield parish boundary was the River Rivelin and although Rivelin Firth extended over the boundary with some of the chase being in Sheffield and some in Bradfield, Rivelin Chase stopped short of Loxley Chase. They were not the same and belonged to different people hence the different names.

Rivelin Firth belonged to Thomas, Lord Furnival who granted the grazing rights in the vast pasturage forest of Fulwood and Rivelin to Beauchief Abbey.

Loxley Chase belonged to the Wadsley family who also possessed Wadsley Common and Loxley Common.

Regarding ownership of deer.

Just as the British monarch retains the right of ownership to all unmarked mute swans in open water (thats not to say the queen exercises her rights) so also the king in medieval England had the right of ownership to the deer.

I take your point about Loxley Chase not being a deer park but a chase for the hunting of the deer by the Norman lords. This was a slip of the pen so to speak, but none the less I have amended my post accordingly. Thank you.

If anyone would like to do some research I have a suspicion that the Wadsleys, Wortleys, and Worral families were sons of Lord Furnival, so if anyone has any knowledge of this please let me know. Thank you in anticipation.

[Bayleaf]

Rivelin Firth was not Loxley Chase.

The Bradfield parish boundary was the River Rivelin and although Rivelin Firth extended over the boundary with some of the chase being in Sheffield and some in Bradfield, Rivelin Chase stopped short of Loxley Chase. They were not the same and belonged to different people hence the different names.

Rivelin Firth belonged to Thomas, Lord Furnival who granted the grazing rights in the vast pasturage forest of Fulwood and Rivelin to Beauchief Abbey.

Loxley Chase belonged to the Wadsley family who also possessed Wadsley Common and Loxley Common.

Regarding ownership of deer.

Just as the British monarch retains the right of ownership to all unmarked mute swans in open water (thats not to say the queen exercises her rights) so also the king in medieval England had the right of ownership to the deer.

I take your point about Loxley Chase not being a deer park but a chase for the hunting of the deer by the Norman lords. This was a slip of the pen so to speak, but none the less I have amended my post accordingly. Thank you.

If anyone would like to do some research I have a suspicion that the Wadsleys, Wortleys, and Worral families were sons of Lord Furnival, so if anyone has any knowledge of this please let me know. Thank you in anticipation.

If I'm going to be pedantic I really must brush up my pedant's hat! You are of course right about Rivelin and Loxley Robin, thank you for pointing it out.

As to the ownership of deer, I believe a landowner had to obtain a licence from the Crown to set up a deer park, but what was the equivalent position of a chase, where the wild red deer were hunted as opposed to the fallow deer usually kept in a deer park?

[R0BIN]

If I'm going to be pedantic I really must brush up my pedant's hat! You are of course right about Rivelin and Loxley Robin, thank you for pointing it out.

As to the ownership of deer, I believe a landowner had to obtain a licence from the Crown to set up a deer park, but what was the equivalent position of a chase, where the wild red deer were hunted as opposed to the fallow deer usually kept in a deer park?

Manwood in his Treatise of the Laws of the Forest defined a Forest thus: "A forest is a certain territory of woody grounds and fruitful pastures, privileged for wild beasts and fowls of the forest, chase, and warren, to rest and abide there in the safe protection of the King for his delight and pleasure. “The four beasts of the forest were red deer, fallow deer, roe, and wild pig, which together were called "the venison.”

He records an occasion when King Richard the Lionhearted who was hunting in Sherwood chased a hart out of Sherwood and into Barnsdale. Because the king failed to kill the hart (stag) he made a proclamation at Tickhill, in Yorkshire and at divers other places that no person should kill, hurt, or chase the said hart, but that he might safely return into the forest again. The hart was afterwards called, “a hart royally proclaimed.”

The Royal Forests were usually in the heart of the forest. The chases were granted by the king to his lords, and the deer parks for which a license should have been obtained were enclosed and not subject to Forest Laws. Whether it was roe, fallow or red deer they were all hunted. There was a privately owned deer park at Kirklees and one we all know is at Chatsworth. The term "Royal Forest," "chase," and "park" denotes the status of their owners rather than any sort of activity.

Chase is defined in Brewers dictionary as, "A small deer-forest held, for the most part, by a private individual, and protected only by common law. Forests are royal prerogatives, protected by the “Forest Laws.”

There is an article about Royal Forests here : -

http://www.robinhoodloxley.net/mycustompage0016.htm

[Waterside Echo]

The following article first appeared in the Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological Society, Volume 2, p. 201 and is reproduced here by kind permission of the Society.

( http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/hunter/index.html )

Robin Hood's Bower in Loxley

BY S. O. ADDY, M.A.

A tradition is recorded in 1637 that Robin Hood was born in Loxley Firth. The passage in Harrison's Survey of that year is as follows:

Imprimis Great Haggas Croft (pasture) lying near Robin Hood's Bower & is invironed with 'Loxley Firth & Cont. 1-2-27

Item little Haggas Croft (pasture) - wherein is ye foundacion of an house or Cottage where Robin Hood was borne this piece is Compassed about with Loxley Firth & Cont. 00-2-13

Item Bower wood lying betweene Loxley firth East & ye lands of Mr Eyre in part west & Cont. 4-1-5

Item Bower field (arable) lying betweene ye last piece East & ye lands of Mr Eyre North & west & Loxley firth South & Cont.' 2-1- 5

Ritson, who edited the Robin Hood ballads, says he was born at Locksly, in Nottinghamshire, and one of the ballads has it thus:

In Locksly town, in merry Nottinghamshire, In merry sweet Locksly town,

There bold Robin Hood he was born and bred, Bold Robin of famous renown.

Unfortunately, however, there is no such town as Locksly in Nottinghamshire. Locksley was the name of a` companion of Robin Hood, as we see in another ballad:

I have heard talk of Robin Hood, Derry down, derry down,

And of brave Little John;

Of fryer Tuck and Will Scarlet, Loxely, and maid Marion.

We need not stay to consider whether Robin Hood was born in Nottinghamshire or Hallamshire, for he never lived in the flesh. He belongs to mythology and romance, not to history.

What about this then ! The visit to our twin city of Bochum in 1985 was very enlightening, especially as on arriving there the head of Sheffield publicity made his appearance dressed as Robin Hood. He was supposed to be seen wearing clothes that could be identified with Sheffield, but as being draped in a red flag was not deemed appropriate the powers that be thought Robin would be the next best thing. Discussions had been held with Nottingham Council, as they could confirm that Mr Hood was a local Sheffield lad no objections were made. A few photos of Robin should be out there somewhere as there were around two hundred or so Sheffield people on that jaunt, amongst them a contingent of South Yorkshire police, Sheffield Wednesday junior football team and a brass band to name but a few. I was going to post this yesterday but due to the date I thought better of it. W/E.

[R0BIN]

In case anyone should doubt the reality of Robin Hood here is a recent find by Dr. Julian Luxford. The real breakthrough came with the discovery of Robin's pardon at York shortly after the Peasants Revolt and the Lord Mayor who was John Guisbourne. Julians find is not the legendary Robin Hood.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161809/Discovered-The-13th-Century-manuscript-shows-Robin-Hood-Merry-Men-werent-popular-all.html

[R0BIN]

What about this then ! The visit to our twin city of Bochum in 1985 was very enlightening, especially as on arriving there the head of Sheffield publicity made his appearance dressed as Robin Hood. He was supposed to be seen wearing clothes that could be identified with Sheffield, but as being draped in a red flag was not deemed appropriate the powers that be thought Robin would be the next best thing. Discussions had been held with Nottingham Council, as they could confirm that Mr Hood was a local Sheffield lad no objections were made. A few photos of Robin should be out there somewhere as there were around two hundred or so Sheffield people on that jaunt, amongst them a contingent of South Yorkshire police, Sheffield Wednesday junior football team and a brass band to name but a few. I was going to post this yesterday but due to the date I thought better of it. W/E.

Seeing as he was representing Sheffield he did the right thing to go as Robin Hood. Anyone from Nottingham needs to go as the sheriff, because it was the "Sheriff of Nottingham" who was from that city not Robin Hood.

[DaveH]

Extract from the Sloane Manuscript lodged in the British Museum. It looks as though that is how Loxley was spelt.

Robin Hood was borne at Lockesley, in Yorkeshire, or after others, (according to others) in Notinghamshire.

One of his first exploits was the goyng abrode into a forrest, and bearing with him a bowe of exceeding great strength. He fell into company with certayne rangers, or woodmen, who fell to quarrel with him, as making showe to vse such a bowe as no man was able to shoote with all; whereto Robin replyed, that he had two better then that at lockesley, only he bare thot with him nowe as a byrding bowe.

At length the contentioun grewe so hote, that there was a wager layd about the kylling of a deer a great distance of; for performance whereof, Robin offered to lay his head to a certayne soume of money. Of the advantage of which rash speech, the others presently tooke.

So the marke being found out, one of them, they were both to make his hart faint, and hand vnsteady, as he was about to shoote, urged him with the losse of his head if he myst the marke. Notwithstanding, Robin kyld the deare, and gaue every man his money agayne saue to him which at the point of shooting so vpbrayed him with danger to loose his head. For that money, he sayd, they would drinke together, and herevpon the other stomached the matter; and from quarrelling they grewe to fighting with him.

So it must have changed from Locksley to Loxley at some point in time.

..and in the "olde Englishe" language of your quotation it appears that they couldn't spell much else either, - I find it rather difficult to follow in places.

Then again, I can't read and understand the much later works of Shakespear either which is why I consider, much to the horror of English teachers, that he was Britains worst and most over rated playwright.

[R0BIN]

So it must have changed from Locksley to Loxley at some point in time.

..and in the "olde Englishe" language of your quotation it appears that they couldn't spell much else either, - I find it rather difficult to follow in places.

Then again, I can't read and understand the much later works of Shakespear either which is why I consider, much to the horror of English teachers, that he was Britains worst and most over rated playwright.

Like you I don't think they could spell either. Even their own surnames had different spellings which doesn't help when you are trying to research the different families.

The language was evolving very quickly as well from Norman French and eventually into Chaucer's English and now into text speak! I think I would rather have Chaucer's English than that. :rolleyes:

[History dude]

I hope this clears up the confusion on parks and chases.

The Norman's who were nuts about hunting chased after deer on horseback, this continued right up to the time of Henry VIII, who because he couldn't ride about, (with his gammy leg and being fat) put an end to the chase of deer for sport on horseback. Instead hounds (Talbots) were sent after the deer, when they caught one the hunters rode out to the place it was and the guest or whoever was deemed right, would have the privilege of killing the deer. The hunters would wait at special places which were built for the purpose, these were often high towers and built on hills for best observation of the hunt. They became known as "stands" hence how Stand House School got it's name. Up to that time the hunting method was the same in parks and chases. However the differnce being that on the chase the deer were wild deer and often smaller, because in parks they were fed on holly and hay grown for them, farmed if you like.

Then again, I can't read and understand the much later works of Shakespear either which is why I consider, much to the horror of English teachers, that he was Britains worst and most over rated playwright.

Then again, I can't read and understand the much later works of Shakespear either which is why I consider, much to the horror of English teachers, that he was Britains worst and most over rated playwright.

If English teachers knew the real meanings of Shakespeare's words they would never be able to teach them in Schools! Tell them to read Filthy Shakespeare by Pauline Kiernan that will make them think twice about him!

Spellings were of course not standed till Johnson and his dictionary came along. Many have remained fixed with a spelling from Johnson, that doesn't sound like the word as spoken, hence why kids ofter spell them out as sounded and get them wrong!

[DaveH]

Like you I don't think they could spell either. Even their own surnames had different spellings which doesn't help when you are trying to research the different families.

The language was evolving very quickly as well from Norman French and eventually into Chaucer's English and now into text speak! I think I would rather have Chaucer's English than that.

I would have thought that Norman French would be the language of the nobility and royalty, used in court, whilst most ordinary people would still be using a very primitive form of English made up of Anglo Saxon words. Latin would still have been the language of choice for the church which of course was very powerful at the time. I suppose this mixture of languages could explain why language was changing very quickly ay this time.

As you say it makes following old documents very difficult at times.

I personally prefer what I call "20th century English" By the start of the 20th century allgedly all of Britain was speaking the same "English", as defined by the dictionaries and commonly called "the King's / Queen's English". However, throughout the 20th century the development of mass media communications revealed a whole range of localised regional accents and dialects, a massive variation within the same language which gives it, even today, a whole range of colour, intonation and charm. I am quite proud of my "dee-daar" Sheffield accent, but fortunately I can switch it off when I need to, and I love to hear other regional accents as well.

As for written English we need to be much more consistent and stick to a standard use of English so that it can be universally understood by any reader, so like you I do not like text language (Txt ) at all.

[DaveH]

If English teachers knew the real meanings of Shakespeare's words they would never be able to teach them in Schools! Tell them to read Filthy Shakespeare by Pauline Kiernan that will make them think twice about him!

Spellings were of course not standed till Johnson and his dictionary came along. Many have remained fixed with a spelling from Johnson, that doesn't sound like the word as spoken, hence why kids ofter spell them out as sounded and get them wrong!

I also think, but I am no expert on Shakespeare so other views are welcome, that his "historical" plays are actually historically inaccurate even though they are frequently believed to be true, - for example his interpretation of Richard III as a diminutive, dwarf like hunchback. I get the impression in these plays he re-wrote history somewhat to appease the current monarch, Elizabeth I, who in exchange favoured his works.

[R0BIN]

"Lord's Seat" is where the Lord or the King, Baron or whoever would watch the progress of the chase. There are dozens of such places across the British Isles, this is Rushop Edge at Castleton. It must have been quite exciting to watch the chase in progress. Peveril Castle was used as a hunting base by several medieval kings who hunted in the Royal Forest of the Peak, before that it was the Saxon Earl Waltheof who was the Earl of Huntingdon from his aula which may have been on Long Causeway. :)

[History dude]

I also think, but I am no expert on Shakespeare so other views are welcome, that his "historical" plays are actually historically inaccurate even though they are frequently believed to be true, - for example his interpretation of Richard III as a diminutive, dwarf like hunchback. I get the impression in these plays he re-wrote history somewhat to appease the current monarch, Elizabeth I, who in exchange favoured his works.

Your quite right on Elizabeth favouring him. For in the "police" state of that time, it would have been impossible to get any play or text published without full approval of the Queen.

But what appears on the surface to be historical nonsense hides more history than anyone can imagine. It's like this, writers are not very good at coming up with pure fiction, even those based on true events. For example, if you take the Robin Hood films, there's nothing written down about what Robin says. So the script writer(s) have to come up with thier own words. So they tend to base it on what someone of the time is going on about. So the Errol Flynn dialogue tells you more about what was happening in the world when the film was made then in the 13th Century. So think the same with Shakespeare. For example I quickly spotted that Shakespeare talking about Talbot and the scurge of France and his dealing with Joan of Arc, after my studying the Mary Stuart story, was really about George Talbot and Mary Stuart. Mary of course came from France so was perfect for Joan of Arc! I actual think that William was so well connected in the court of Elizabeth that he pieced most of the life of the Tudors, from Henry VIII, to Elizabeth together. Anything in fact in living memory and it's all in those plays jumbled up. All you have to do is work out who the "real" people are and the context and bingo you have real history. Often I believe, with the real words of the people that spoke it

I hope that wet your appetite for more on Shakespeare's real history, I'll tell more later on another thread. This about the hooded man afterall ;-)

[R0BIN]

Talking about Shakespeare, Anthony Munday wrote two plays about Robin Hood called “The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington” and “The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington” possibly in collaboration with Shakespeare and Henry Chettle who was another English dramatist. The chronicler John Stow was a friend of Anthony Munday who was known at court and would have been acquainted with Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon and the families connection with Robin Hood. The plays were acted out in front of Queen Elizabeth whose father King Henry VIII had a fascination with the legendary hero and apparently the plays were well received.

For such eminent playwrights there are serious problems in continuity that suggests a cobbling together of short sketches by different people? In “The Downfall” the heroine is called Maid Marian at the beginning of the play and then she becomes Matilda. Later in the play she deliberately changes her name to Marian, as a sign of the new identity she has adopted when joining Robin and his Merry Men.

The Death shows the same type of problems. Characters' names change for no reason. Lord Salisbury becomes Aubery de Vere, Earl of Oxford, and switches back and forth between the two identities. Similarly, Hugh becomes Mowbray.

The two plays cannot be taken seriously and I suspect there may have been a political motivation?

[Waterside Echo]

Seeing as he was representing Sheffield he did the right thing to go as Robin Hood. Anyone from Nottingham needs to go as the sheriff, because it was the "Sheriff of Nottingham" who was from that city not Robin Hood.

Brighouse has reputed Robin Hood connections, though as yet there`s no Robin Hood theme park, and no Robin Hood mugs to buy. According to folklore, the outlaw lies buried in the grounds of the privately owned Kirklees Hall. W/E.

[R0BIN]

After spending day after day in the Public Record Office at Kew two researchers finally discovered a pardon granted to Robin Hood who was active in the Peasants Revolt at York. The name of the unpopular Mayor was John Gisbourn. 

I am looking for comments, good or bad so that any weak points might be rectified.

Thank you all for your help.

http://robinhood-loxley.weebly.com