Talk:Robin Hood

Archives
1. Wikipedia:Peer review/Robin Hood/archive1
2. Talk:Robin Hood/Archive2

What was archived

1 Was he really a Yorkshireman? 2 Objectivism 3 Minor POV Issue 4 When Things were Rotten 5 "Ken" 6 Pictures from the Walt Disney film 7 Robin Hood film 1908 8 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 9 neo-Pagan reinterpretations of Robin Hood 10 Tax collector passage 11 Locations edit by 80.47.185.51 12 Robin Hood Remake 13 Monty Python 14 Once and Future King 15 Meaning of "merry" 16 Wakefield edits, etc. 17 Size 18 Hai Yue Han 19 The poor and tradition 20 Who did he steal from? 21 Robbie Hood 22 Any place for description of "standard modern legend"? 23 Palimpsest? 24 'Popular Culture' 25 Swearing 26 Robin Hood in Stretford? 27 Fictional Foxes 28 Peer review 29 Very Minor Edits 30 Manuscript of A Geste of Robyn Hode

Someone should correct this

In the section "Connections to existing locations," regarding 'a record of the appearance of a "Robert de Lockesly" in court is found, dated 1245. As "Robert" and its diminutives were amongst the most common of names at the time, and also since it was usual for men to adopt the name of their hometown ("De Lockesly" means simply, "Of [or from] Lockesly"), the record could just as easily be referring to any man from the area named Robert': In feudalism, the use of an "of" or "de" does NOT represent habitation, but feudal possession. In Northern England, "So-and-so of Placename" may refer to a feudal baron, knight, or even a freeholder, but in no context will it refer to a someone who is not landed. For example, when a family owned something, the rolls said they were "So-and-so of Placename" and subsequently in the records they lost the estate due to debts and were then recorded as being "So-and-so IN Placename." In Scotland, the "of Placename" titles are still used for feudal barons, freeholders, and clan chiefs, and it is still widely known across all of Great Britain that if someone is written in a court document as being "of Placename" that this implies hereitable title. --User:Insightfullysaid 30 May 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

This article

I checked the history of this article in order to find the main contributors to this article. There is too much variety in the amount of users contributing, with many anonymous users also doing their share. This article has the best written flow that I have ever read on Wiki. How can it be assessed as B-class only? It should be at least GA-class with good opportunities to get promoted to A-class and then perhaps FA. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is exceptionally well-written. That said, we still need to go throught the article and make sure that statements without citation are tagged, and that tagged statements that have been sitting there for a while get removed as uncited. We cannot pursue GA status with problems that glaring. If you (or anyone else) are concerned that the statements you remove are important (always err on the side of caution here), port them over here before removing them from the article. That way, if they actually can be cited, they can be insterted back into the article. Make sure to provide the diff where they were removed, so that people can see where the statements originally were. I willprovide an example immediately after this post.

After that, we can pursue getting the article to GA status. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Re-Review

The article is rather spiffy and, with the last removal of uncited statements, I have resubmitted the article for a peer review to help us catch any problems we might be missing. If we pass that,I will nominate the article for GA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no Wiki expert so I leave this to those that are, but someone should incorporate these new findings: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/Title,31221,en.html--Thorsson64 (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed uncited info

The following:

Libertarians and Classic Liberals have interpreted Robin Hood as a liberty-seeking anti-government independent. In this phrasing, the power structure of the Sheriff and Prince John are representative of the government, while Robin Hood and the Merry Men are the rebellious everymen, with Friar Tuck as an ambivalent Church. Robin Hood returns taxes, confiscated goods and private property to their rightful owners, the common individual citizen in this reading. Those on the Left in turn have taken the opposing view of seeing Robin as the defender of the poor against the rich, "robbing from the rich to give to the poor" being seen as the classic socialist position.

and

Maid Marian, for instance, something of a warrior maiden in early Victorian novels, was reduced in demeanor to passivity during the period of the women's suffrage movement. As the media power of the modern feminist movement gathered momentum, Marian reacquired an altogether more active role.

was removed here due to lack of cited references. If you can cite them, please do. They cannot return to the article without them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I feel that this article satisfactorily meets the GA criteria:

• It is well written
• It has many references
• It has good prose
• It incorporates good images to support text
• It is both stable and neutral

I have therefore decided to pass it. Congratulations. Any questions should be directed to my talk page. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

Maybe this was discussed before, but can we really have a definitive data of birth given so prominently for a personage who is quite possibly/probably only a mythological hero? The date given, if I recall, was mentioned only once in one of the shorter and more obscure ballads. I would propose removing the date of birth from after the name in the first line. Its possible a later section could be added about that date as the traditional date of birth, but to have it in the first line without any question marks or other indicators of questionable authority gives it too much credence that I don't think we have the evidence to back up. 24.180.153.59 05:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are corect. I've marked it with a cn tag, letting people know that some proof needs to be presented here within 14 days, it will be removed as uncited. Good catch. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a manuscript of the Gest?

This is to explain my edit of the Gest section, including the addition of the reference to Ohlgren's book. While several very reputable sources, including Holt, do say that there is a manuscript of the Gest, none cite one. There is in I think the Bodleian, Oxford a later manuscript, but both Ohlgren and Knight are emphatic that the printed editions - both Wynkyn de Worde's and the Lettersneijder (sp?) edition in the National Library of Scotland are much earlier. I tried to make this claim a few months ago, but got distracted until today, when I looked at Ohlgren's new book - mostly a collection of previously-published essays, some of which you can get from his website, but some new and important work as well. I don't think any other scholar working on Robin Hood today has his authority on textual issues. Besides, and as I said before, where is this manuscript supposed to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.54.168 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe you should take a look around for it - maybe its stuck between the cushions of an old sofa or something... ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The story

What's today most accepted story? E.g. He is an outlaw living in the woods with his Merry Men...--200.125.34.244 19:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you reliably cite that, pls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know which novel featured Robin Hood hiding with dwarfs in their holes while an outlaw, and which ends with Sir Robin fighting the Evil Horde after they kill his wife, Marian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.34.0 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I definitely want to read it! (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.25.18 (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like one part of the life of Túrin, found in Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Leafcat (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fulk FitzWarin"

This does not belong in the intro, incredibly obscure and tedious links in the overall story of Robin Hood, no historical documentary or work on Robin Hood mentions him as being a prime candidate for Robin Hood. If he has a similar story, then that belongs in his own article, not the opening paragraph of this one. A google search reveals this...

"Robin Hood" - 2,610,000

"Fulk FitzWarin" and "Robin Hood" - 777 (most of which are mirror websites, copying this article, or the one on FitzWarin)

There we have it, if its added back to the intro, it shall be swiftly removed, thank you. - Yorkshirian 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, somebody added it back. I'll reiterate, there is no where which suggests that FitzWarin was Hood, he was just one of numerous characters with a similar story. "Fulk FitzWarin is Robin Hood" gets a grand total of ZERO results on Google and non of the books, documentaries or article on Hood that I have read mention FitzWarin as being relevent enough to hold such a place in this article. Mentioning him in the opening, is the equivelent of going to Tony Blair's article and writing "the story of Blair is incredibly similar to that of Margret Thatcher, they are politicians from Britain". It has no WP:Notability to it. - Yorkshirian 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who added it back in, Yorkshirian, and while you are new, it is vitally important for you to assume good faith regarding the edits of your fellows, and not characterize edits as vandalism which appear to simply be expressions of opinions other than your own. Charges of vandalism (n matter how politely expressed, and you are indeed polite) are pretty serious, and can lead to someone getting blocked or banned by an admin not paying close attention, and should be reserved for those people adding contentious, attack-y, or flat-out stupid information (ie, 'your Mom is teh<sic> best'). My edit, which reverted yours, attempted to preserve information that had not adequately been disproven via discussion or citations to that effect. In short, my main issue was that of the distinct lack of discussion. You must prove to the point of consensus that your edit should replace the pre-existent one.

As well, utilizing Google search results in Google is both pointless in matters of history and subject to manipulation, and is usually only valid after careful analysis (and more than a little contention) in Disambiguation pages. In matters of scholarly interest, as this article certainly aims at, JSTOR and other academic search engines are often more valid in finding references leading one way or the other.

Lastly, your syllogism comparing the disputed material to that of the prime ministers is not necessarily on point here, but i will avoid dismantling the argument for sake of brevity, politeness and a desire to stay on point here. You are contending that certain information - to whit, the Fulk Fitzwarin material - is not notable enough for inclusion. However, we have already in the version you reverted material that cites it as notable, When presented with that situation, it is always more advisable to present the proof that this pre-existing version is less than notable than the version you wish to replace it with. I freely admit that my knowledge of the Robin Hood legend is confined to films, local marketing schemes by the Nottingham Chamber of Commerce and the Blind Harry stuff, but I am aware that the best way to present an argument is not to do so as a fait accompli. Arguments presuming that it is easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission are doomed to failure in Wikipedia, as it is usually perceived by the body Wikipedian as an attempt to circumvent the most vital part of the Project's success, that of (often heated) discussion. Open discussion is the crucible in which the most equitable solution is found. And of course, the litmus for inclusion is not truth but verifiability.

Therefore, I am going to revert your version yet again, in the hopes that you will take the time to discuss why your version deserves to replace the one pre-existing. Please seek a consensus of agreement before re-adding your version, please. If you feel that my revert is unwarranted or unfair, you should feel free to seek out the advice of an administrator. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have took the time to discuss, you will note that I started this section, only you reverted without taking part in it until just now. Please read the rest of the article, there are many people who have had "similar stories" to Robin Hood, there is no work that describes FitzWarin as THE definitive, there were even other people from his time with similar stories. You have not shown me one other major work which suggests he would warrant such a place of stature to be in an opening paragraph (let alone the second sentence) of this article. As such I am going to revert it.

There is no evidence to prove beyond doubt that Robin Hood was not actually a real man (read the other references in the article), and besides that if you read the section we have called "Sources" in this very article it says "The origin of the legend is claimed by some to have stemmed from actual outlaws, or from tales of outlaws, such as Hereward the Wake, Eustace the Monk, and Fulk FitzWarin." That is three people just there, why would FitzWarin take precident over the other two? WP:POV, besides the connection to those three are just a theory, considered by a subsect of people, not a definitive word on the topic.

If the "theory" of the tale been derived from the lives of those three is accepted, then that would put a one sided stance that Hood wasn't real, when that isn't a proven fact and there are many real life places with substantial connections with him, all the major works on Hood also do not place the derivative theory as the central part.- Yorkshirian 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you using the Discussion page, Yorkshirian, and I appreciate you taking the time to point out your specific issues. Before you go sticking your edit right back in, you may find it instructive to wait and get the input of other editors to your response here. As such, I will be reverting your edit again. Time is not of the essence here, and being patient is going to garner you greater success than insisting on stating your pov and rushing forward to implement it.

Now, addressing your points, is it possible for you to add your information, instead of removing other information and replacing it with your own? Our job at Wikipedia is not to chew the food for the reader but instead to provide a balanced, informative article that fairly presents the majority of information present on the subject. Simply shunting off the former top of the article to the bottom implies a rather pov (point-of-view, aka biased) and dismissive attitude.The advantage that Fulk FitzWarin has over other similar adventurers is that Fulk is a similar legend from England, and therefore carries a bit more weight in regards to the source of the legend - a legend in which you do not posit an alternative, but instead seem keen on removing the Shropshire reference.

This is the bulk of my complaint with your edit, as the rest of it seems rather on point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Major Oak

Perhaps you should consider adding the photo of the Major Oak. It is a very notable oak and a destination for tourists. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Why should we consider adding the image? Forgive my likely ignorance, but what is the connection to RH? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The oak holds a legendary status for supposedly being Robin's hideout. It is a symbol for Robin and Nottingham and 500,000 people visit Nottingham forest, much due to the legend of Robin. But you already knew that and it's obvious you don't want the picture in the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't very polite. Ahem. Actually, i didn't know that, which was why I asked. Can you reliably cite its importance? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Have added a sentence, an image, a link to Major Oak WP page, and a ref. PamD (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you ever so much for doing so. Apparently, Anittas was feeling a bit too paranoid and snippy to do it himself. Nice picture, btw. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Anittas was indef blocked ("Attempting to harass other users: Racism, hatespeech, was already on a final warning"), so a double dose of thanks goes out to you, Pam. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Robin Hood

There's now a stub on The Legend of Robin Hood, the 1975 BBC TV serial. All help with expansion will be much appreciated. Timrollpickering 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find pictures from this serial? ..intended for that page? I have some in a 30 year old scrapbook, but surely someone knows of good quality ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.92.41 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An error?

Searching "Robin of Locksley" doesn't take you to this page, directs to some 2nd rate B movie... seems incorrect given how much more famous the general character is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.226.29 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Important Stuff?

Someone has deleted the chapter "Early references". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.84.210 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the chapter "Early references" was deleted on 7th December 2007 by somebody deleting vandalism; and not realising they should have simply "undone" it. As a consequence the whole chapter has been deleted.

Can someone find a way of reinstating that chapter??

31/12/07.

I've restored it. --Zundark (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Arcayne

You said my earlier message adding the section about "Robin Hood/Robin Wood" here was unnecessary, in that case, I'll go and delete that section from the "Sword in the Stone" page then. It's not vandalism, I'm just trying to fix things. KellyLeighC (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Middle English

I'm having serious trouble understanding what's written there. How about a translation? Siúnrá (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR?

That last edit looks wrong[1], but I don't want to just revert it without discussion because it seems good faith. It says 'A historical analysis', but doesn't cite any author, making me think the editor wrote it; it makes the bold and incorrect assertion that all of the tales take place in the reign of Richard I (eg A Gest names 'Edwarde'; the rest of the article mentions other conflicting dates); it draws unsourced conclusions about the origins of the characters; and it asserts that the end of the crusade would 'guarantee' the end of taxation, which needs backed up since governments continually find other wars to fight. And it doesn't seem to belong in the section on sources. Back it out? Bazzargh (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Someone's senior thesis isn't going to cover the notability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've undone it, easier to back it out before there are conflicting edits; we're not losing anything sourced yet. To the author: I won't revert this if you reinstate it, but I think other editors will take issue with the edit (particularly the without exception line, that contradicts the rest of the article), and it may be worth discussing here before you put it back? Bazzargh (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you bring the material in question to here? That way, it can stay in the discussion page until it is cited, and isn't just an edit diff in the article. I don't expect that citations are going to appear, but the good faith of 'porting it over to the discussion page might be helpful for now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This was the text added by the edit (it didn't remove or edit anything else):

A historical analysis of the origin of the tales of Robin Hood makes his transposition remarkable. Without exception, his tales take place during the reign of 'Good King Richard', Richard I. Richard was held in favour by the Barons and Lords of England at the time, for his personal rule and refusal to excessively tax the nobles. By comparison, the taxation levied by the Regent Prince John, later John I (John Lackland) through the agencies of his tax collectors and sheriffs was much reviled. Tax collectors were often newly-created knights, which landed nobles found repulsive. From these come Sir Giles of Gisbourne. The odious nature of Sheriffs create the villianous Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin himself is disposessed landed gentry, as he is the Lord Robin of Locksley.

The most curious aspect of the story is Robin's heroism for championship of the poor - 'To steal from the rich and give to the poor'. Medieval historians are almost unanimous in their analysis of the Feudal economy - that is to say, that the serf were almost without exception in a state of near constant poverty, and that wealth could only be accumulated with purchase of land. The poor in the tale could only be impoverished nobility, whose impoverishment would only be a localised phenomenon based on their monarch's demand for funding of his participation in the Crusades in Palestine. The adoption by the serfdom of Robin is therefore extremely curious given that he would not be a factor in their economic lives.

Another integral part of the story is the alleviation of financial suffering upon the return of 'Good King Richard'. In the story, Richard does return, and upon his return deposes Prince John, who in some versions is imprisoned, though there was certainly no historical justification of this latter event, which can only be viewed as wish fulfillment on the part of nobility. Richard's return would also guarantee a cessation of taxation, as he would no longer require funding of his Crusade in Palestine.

(quoting edit by User:118.92.189.35) Bazzargh (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence to anyone but it is actually ignorant to a shocking degree for an attempted edit. Citations are not given because they couldn't be, historical knowledge is about on the level of a (bad) children's encyclopedia, knowledge of the Robin Hood legend derived from a child's novel. Or maybe the television series? Jeremy (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, Jeremy. The reason that we call for citation, and remove it until we have it is that doing so is a lot better (and more civil) than saying 'shya, shure it is, ass-clown'. Let me postscript that by saying that I don't think the contributor is an ass-clown; I am making a an argument for handling it the way that e do. Too many edit-wars over bruised egos and hurt feelings (and subsequently less-professional editing environments) happen because we call an ass-clown an ass-clown. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and Real history

"In the oldest legends the outlaw's enemy is the sheriff due simply to his profession,[8]" I don't think this comment canbe justified even though it is sourced to Holt. Holt's conclusions are controversial anyway.....later in the article the bitterness of the holstility beteween Robin and the Sheriff is mentioned int he first known ballad of all, and it is also stressed early in the Gest. There is also no reason to believe that Robin Hood in the earliest stories is presented as a common criminal; already in the Geste he is clearly a very uncommon criminal indeed, "mind ye rob no husband man that tilleth with his plough, nor no knght nor squire that would be agood fellow". There is no reason to beleive that the Robin Hood of the ballads was anyhting but a "social bandit" not regardfed as a criminal but as a hero of his own community .....I think the articvle is superlative in places but needs some rewrite. The May Games probably need even more attention than they have in the article I'll have a go when I have time andd sources in front of me.

In the meantime I want to raise the issue for consideration. As for the "real Robin Hood" This area of history is obviously one of those that involves alot of amateurs with particular theories, and quite right too. But I think there is still prety general academic agreement that the Robin Hood ballads are literature not history and so taken when first performed. The search is thus for models not so much for a "real original". Once this is accepted I think it is clear that Roger Godberd is very much the strongest contender. It may be an exaggeration to call him the "real Robin Hood" but he is a good deal closer than Alexander Selkirk was to Robinson Crusoe......we should also remember that the early ballads and plays have been mostly lost despite their popularity; being a subversive literature would not have helped survival. We are assuming too much for example if we assume that Maid Marian is a late invention. After all the Geste fails to include the story of the Monk and of Guy of Gisborne, interestingly just the two stories most usually cited for excessive violence. Maybe that is why they were left out?. In the May day play about Robin Hood and the curtal friar the favours of a woman are aprt of his inducement for joining the band, not mentioned in the ballad in any extant version, and we know that in the May Games the protoptype of Maid Marain was not given to chastity. maybe that is why Maid Marian never made it into the Geste......

Just thoughts but of some relevance to potential editing. Will get back to it. In the meantime I've just included a modest reference to Roger Godberd. Jeremy (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) And, erm, sorry for the typos etc. Jeremy (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) I removed the "obscure footpad" claim. No evidence for it, the character as he appears in the earliest ballads was not that. The earliest historical references to an outlawed Robert Hood may or may not be directly connected with the ballads and in any case an outlaw was not necessarily a footpad or bandit. The lagal maxim was "Robin Hood in Barnesdale stood" and I've so corrected it though strictly it should be referenced. The claim, which I believe in any case to be wrong, that Barnesdale and Sherwood were all one forest should be referenced if it is to stand, a detail of some potential importance. Luv, Jeremy (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirteenth Century

Just done some basic editing of background section to sharpen up accuracy a bit. The most recent edition of Rymes of Robyn Hode has a intersting stuff which should be used....I don't right now have it in front of me....but the particular thing is there are references in the Gest which as a matter of legal and social history date the story to no later than the thirteenth century. To be precise Robin's question whether Sir Richard is "a knight of force" (ie knighted by force in to incur the associated obligations) and the character of the abbey as a major moneylender able to foreclose on a knight's lands. If someone with the reference in front of them can add it in that's be good, otherwise I will eventually. And I've called for a reference to the "Robin Hood as murderous psycho" comment in the same section. Certainly Robin is shown as a more violent character than later in these early stories, a point worth making, but I don't think any of the ballads portray him as a bad guy from the balladeers viewpoint....Jeremy (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire

I changed this: In popular culture Robin Hood and his band's tales are usually associated with the area Sherwood Forest and Nottinghamshire, though most historians point towards him being a Yorkshireman" to something to the effect that ealier sources associate him with Yorkshire, Yorkshirean changed it back on the basis that "earlier wording better reflects the sources". So just for a start, lets not get carried away, we are discussing the wording here (note to self). The earliest surviving ballads do indeed place Robin Hood in Yorkshire as almost everyone agrees, in addition his traditional grave etc. But I have several problems with the wording which is at the head of an important article and so worth some care. "Most historians" and the like are dangerous expressions, one had better be pretty sure one is correct before using them. I don't think a BBC documentary is of much value as a source, I've seen some pretty crap BBC documentaries (including one on Robin Hood). And in any case I think that what "most historians" would agree is that the ballads situate him in Yorkshire not that "he was a Yorkshireman", there is no early story of his birth or childhood; even more importantly I don't believe there is any substantial agreement that he was fundamentally a single histroical figure as the article as it stands implies here. Finally if Robin Hood was substantially based on a single historical figure then there is an excellent argument that that figure was, in fact must have been, Roger Godberd; who was born in Leicestershire. I'll leave it for a while but unless these arguments are countered then I will return to re-edit! Jeremy (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I had substantially improved this paragraph, not only removing the (false) implication that "historians" generally concede Robin Hood to be a historical character but also giving due weight to the Sherwood references. In my comments above I was in fact mistaken to say that the unanimous verdict of the early ballads was to support the Barnsadale location! Robin Hood and the Monk, the earliest, supports the Sherwood location. Also there is an early 15th century reference locating him in Sherwood. "South Yorkshire" of course did not exist in Robin Hood's day, which is why I wrote "what is now South Yorkshire". There have been periods, as is noted elsewhere on wikipedia, when the Barnsdale area was in fact part of Nottinghamshire....so that fact that Robin Hood on balance belongs to Barnsadale does not necessarily mean that he on balance belongs to Yorkshire. A reference from a BBC documentary is not a good reference; it is a borderline trash reference that should only be used in desperate circumstances when nothing better is available. Jeremy (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and Yorkshirean seem to be in an editing war here. He chooses not to engage on this page but just keeps reverting my edit. The references on which he apparently puts alot of weight are a bunch of TV shows, mostly about amateur historians, and sometimes more about local patriotism than history of any kind. (One story is about Yorkshire MPs backing the Yorkshire theory!...another seems to take for granted the Hunter theory largely seen as discredited by serious scholars). The references are evidence of course for the persistence of traditions associating Robin Hood with Yorkshire, and as such I have not removed them. They do not support the claim that "Robin Hood was a Yorshirean" however. The paragraph I keep putting in is:

"In popular culture Robin Hood and his band are usually seen as living in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire. Much of the action of the early ballads does take place in Nottinghamshire, and the very earliest known ballad does show the outlaws operating in Sherwood Forest . However, the weight of evidence from the early ballads show Robin Hood based in the Barnsdale area of what is now South Yorkshire (which borders Nottinghamshire), and other traditions also point to Yorkshire His birthplace is said to be Loxley in South Yorkshire, while his grave is claimed to be at Kirklees Priory in West Yorkshire."

I think that is accurate and informative and reflects the sources given. If Yorkshirean thinks different he might like to discuss it here. Jeremy (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Describing sources such as the BBC (the most dominant English language media in the world) as "crap" just because you do not agree with it is not how WP:V works. The information is sourced, yours is not. Such strong sources outweighs personal opinion. Also when Robin Hood lived, the local government administration area of South Yorkshire did not exist. Since the times of the vikings however the West Riding of Yorkshire did exist. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also please provide evidence to prove that "everyone agrees Robin Hood never existed". - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshirian.... I never claimed "everyone agrees Robin Hood never existed"! In fact elsewhere on this page I have suggested that a passage which gives too much weight to the "fictional" theory needs to be edited. The BBC is not IMO crap, and that is not what I said. However a reference to a TV documentary is not a good reference to the truth of anything claimed there, just to the fact that the claims have been made on TV. Even when genuine experts appear directly great care has to be taken in using what they have seemed to say because the director of the doco, who is part of the entertainment industry, has control of the context. In general the point is that TV documentaries are entertainment not scholarship. And sometimes even on the BBC, however "dominant" it may be, they are pretty crappy from a factual point of view.

The particular references you rely on to support your claims about "most historians" do not even pretend to support any such claims. If you think they do, please explain how. They concern the activities of local hobbyists and politicians, and are interesting on that level. I don't know how you can think anyone is doubting the existence of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The aim of the reference to "South Yorkshire" is to help people who may not even live in England to locate the area in question.

My information is in fact sourced, to Dobbs & Taylor's book on the Robin Hood legend and to the article Robin Hood and the Monk which links to the ballad. I should probably include in the reference the stanzas in which the outlaws are situated in Sherwood...Will do. May be there should be a quote from the ballad on the page if that would satisfy you.

Bottom line is you simply can't say that "most historians" say that Robin Hood was Yorkshire man, first of all because you can't even say that "most historians" reckon he existed as a single person indentifiable with the legend. The general view seems to be that he is a literary creation based to greater or lesser extent on real-life models; but I wouldn't say "most historians" say that even though I think it probably true because of the differences referencing it. (What I could do is quote a number of prominent historians to that effect.) And the early ballads don't say where he was born etc, they just mostly show him as based in Barnsdale. And I can (and in my contribution in fact did) reference a prominent scholarly source to the effect that the early RH legend sources him in Barnsdale which is in Yorkshire.

For the record, I tend to the Godberd theory myself. I have no personal stake in the Sherwood/Barnsdale controversy which the Godberd theory rather transcends anyway. Jeremy (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any excuse for using TV shows, etc as sources in this article where we have so many good scholarly sources. Certainly no excuse to linking to people who write about ley lines and vampires, or local politiciians. Personal websites, however much they quote Holt, aren't a substitute either. And maybe the correct word isn't 'historians' to describe all the scholars who have written about Robin Hood, what do you think? Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ballads and Tales II

Someone wiped it clean and replaced the section with "hi" several edits ago. I'm not sure how much of the article to revert; could someone more familiar with the article's history fix this? Thanks--Romulus (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks!--Romulus (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Earl of Huntingdon etc in introduction

I've reverted an intial naming of Robin Hood calling him Robert and Earl of Hingdon etc to plain Robin Hood. There is no consesnus that he was a Robert or an Earl or a Lord of Loxley, these additions appear in some versions of the story as the article itself makes clear. Another important addition to the introduction is to make clear that there is no consensus as to him being a historical figure. Various editors keep blurring that point. The introduction needs an integrated rewrite and the article needs some additions. There should be more info on the May Day plays, some reference to the theory associated with Robert Graves that Robin Hood was a pagan diehard, and more of the info on dating that story that appears in the current edition of Rymes of Robyn Hode (did I spell that right? I'm getting my copy back soon and will use to make some referenced edits). Jeremy (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballads and Tales

This section has some fairly contentious material which does need to be balanced, notably: In many respects, the character of Robin in these first texts differs from his later incarnations. While in modern stories Robin Hood typically pursues justice, and the Merry Men are a proto-democracy, this sense of generosity and egalitarianism is absent from the medieval and Early Modern sources. Robin is often presented as vengeful and self-interested, meting out barbaric punishments to his own enemies, but rarely fighting on the behalf of others. Nothing is stated about 'giving to the poor', although Robin does make a large loan to an unfortunate knight.[32] Furthermore, even within his band, ideals of equality are generally not in evidence. In the early ballads Robin's men usually kneel before him in strict obedience: in A Gest of Robyn Hode the king even observes that "His men are more at his byddynge/Then my men be at myn". Their social status, as yeomen, is shown by their weapons; they use swords rather than quarterstaffs. The only character to use a quarterstaff in the early ballads is the potter, and Robin Hood does not take to a staff until the eighteenth century Robin Hood and Little John.[33] And rather than being deprived of his lands by the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham, when an origin story for Robin appears, he takes to 'the greenwood' after killing royal foresters for mocking him (see Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham).

While he is sometimes described as a figure of peasant revolt, the details of his legends do not match this. He is not a peasant but an archer, and his tales make no mention of the complaints of the peasants, such as oppressive taxes.[34] He appears not so much as a revolt against societal standards as an embodiment of them, being generous, pious, and courteous, opposed to stingy, worldly, and churlish foes. His tales glorified violence, but did so in a violent era.[35] While he fights with royal officials, his loyalty to the king himself is strong.[36]''

The author here as it seems to me has misunderstood the early ballads. While Robin Hood certainly is not in the Gest and the Monk a sainted goody goody as he appears in later stories it remains clear, as the Gest puts it at the end that: He was a good outlaw/ Who did poor men much good Of "ideals of equality are generally not in evidence", this was the Middle Ages. But when Robin Hood was captured in the Monk, his men "swooned" with grief. Robin Hood tries to resign his leadership to Little John in gratitude for his rescue. It is not true that relationships within the band are simply ones of dominance and obedience. He does not "mete out barbaric punishments to his enemies", he kills people who try to kill him. And, of course, he is always up for a brawl. This contrasts with the ridiculous modern image of Robin Hood as some strange sort of pacifist but not with the tradition of the "good outlaw" or social bandit. Robin Hood's Progress to Nottingham does display barbaric behaviour but then it is a late ballad and not one that has been generally adopted into the tradition. The early ballads do not show Robin Hood as having strong loyalty to the king, he is shown in the Gest as accepting the king's pardon when hard-pressed but then reneging and returning to the greenwood. And just a minor point, the potter who uses a quarter-staff is apaprently also a yeoman. So, some revision is needed to this section. Jeremy (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now made what I regard as minimum surgery to "ballads and tales" along the lines of my comments above. (I'm Jeremy, not logged in]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.23 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There has of course for long been a theory as to the authourship of the early Robin Hood tales, namely the Barnsdale religious poet Richard Rolle 1290-1349. So far as I know it was first proposed by Joseph Hunter in his book on Robin Hood dated 1852. Probably that should be mentioned, as a theory, in the article. It is inseparable from the point that the early ballads are of (much) hifher value as literature than the later ones, that should be mentioned too. Jeremy (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Early References

This passage is I think too POV and needs re-writing: Therefore Robert is largely fictional by this time. The Gale note is inaccurate. The medieval texts do not refer to him directly, but mediate their allusions through a body of accounts and reports: for Langland Robin exists principally in "rimes", for Bower "comedies and tragedies", while for Wyntoun he is "commendyd gude". Even in a legal context, where one would expect to find verifiable references to Robert, he is primarily a symbol, a generalised outlaw-figure rather than an individual. Consequently, in the medieval period itself, Robin Hood already belongs more to literature than to history. In fact, in an anonymous carol of c.1450, he is treated in precisely this manner — as a joke, a figure that the audience will instantly recognise as imaginary: "He that made this songe full good,/ Came of the northe and the sothern blode,/ And somewhat kyne to Robert Hoad".

The implication is to support Child's famous comment that Robin Hood had no historical basis but was a entirely a creation of the "medieval ballad muse"; a legitimate enough position but certainly a contested one. Child's quote probably should be in the article btw, I'll chase it up when I can if no-one else does it first.....Jeremy (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Editors need to be careful to make sure that their references stay within guidelines. Eg, although some personal websites may be acceptable if you can show that their owners are recognised by reliable sources as experts in their field, most are not. Media websites which are normally acceptable may not be where they report people such as Barbara Green, whose opinions in my opinion are not a reliable source -- ghosts, ley lines, etc. [2]

I notice that A J Pollards book is in the bibliography but is not used as a reference. I strongly suggest editors read it [3] - it is also searchable on Amazon.com.

Holt is used extensively to the detriment of the article as work on Robin Hood has moved on and he is considered (by at least some, I can't say most as I don't know) writers to be out of date. He can be used about the plebian-aristocratic thing, but he should be used only sparingly, and with reference to more modern scholarship, elsehwere.

Some references that may help - Robin Hood A Mythic Biography By Stephen Knight [4] (ok, it's to a specific page, but it's the whole book I'm referring to), Imagining Robin Hood: the late-medieval stories in historical context, A J Pollard [5], possibly more searchable on Amazon [6], Robin Hood: The Shaping of the Legend By Jeffrey L. Singman, [7] which mentions one thing that people still quote Holt a lot about, class distinction in Robin Hood, Robin Hood in Popular Culture: Violence, Transgression, and Justice By Thomas Hahn [8], Transactions of the Royal Historical Society: Sixth Series By Royal Historical Society, Royal Historical Society [9].

The article needs quite a bit of clean-up. Can I point out that although it is ok to say that most historians do not think Elizabeth I was a shape-shifting reptilian (some people really think that!) that you can't say 'most historians' about Robin Hood unless that is actually a quote. I note that the article at the moment says "the weight of evidence from the early ballads" without a citation actually saying that, which means that that bit is original research which does not belong there. I doubt very much that he was a historical figure, certainly the geography cannot be taken literally. Oh - I'm an American living in Derbyshire, just so no one wonders. Doug Weller (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, but careless reading is always a problem isn't it? For example, "the weight of evidence..." quote actually did have a citation which I repeat in full here: Dobson & Taylor Rymes of Robyn Hood 1997, Sutton Publishing, page 20 "The final impression left both by the Gest and other early ballads is therefore of a legendary outlaw based reasonably firmly in the Barnsdale area but capable of expeditions southwards in pursuit of his arch-enemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham" So the quote is not OR and it does belong here! Dobbs and Taylor is a very standard mainstream text. I think you are right about Holt....and I know you are right about "most historians". I wonder, though, why you are so certain that the geography cannot be taken literally? Just suppose, for example, that Joseph Hunter was at least right in one thing, that the first author of the Robin Hood ballads was Richard Rolle in holiday mood. He lived in Barnsdale, he would have been writing for a local audience, why wouldn't he get the geography right, whether Robin Hood was a historical figure or not? OK, forget about the Rolle theory, on the assumption the ballads were first made by a local, why wouldn't they get the geography right? 203.87.64.23 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the 'weight of evidence' bit that is OR, correct or not. As for the geography, I shouldn't say I'm certain, it's just that it looks stereotypical -- the main thing is, as some of the writers have said, the 'greenwood'. Do you think it matters that Barnsdale was not a royal forest? I don't particularly care for the speculation about "In those days, Sherwood Forest and Barnsdale Forest were probably all one vast forest" either. Have you seen this by the way? [10]

One final point, the commentators on Robin Hood are not all historians, yet the article at times gives the impression that they are. Maybe that should be fixed. Doug Weller (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hum, Doug, OR? How so? Maybe I expressed myself badly, but I was just intending to paraphrase the view of Dobb and Taylor; so I'd tend to say that correct or not one thing it definitely is not is OR! In fact of course it is not possible to write a coherent article without some degree of "OR" strictly interpreted, but that is another issue. The "one forest" claim is wrong as I undeerstand the matter, I'll correct it in time if no-one else (yourself, perhaps?) does so first. Yeah, the "historians" point should be addressed, difficult though it may be....(Jeremy in a rush and not signed in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.7 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't seen the reference you show, and I'll have another look at it...a bit post-modern in tone? (Jeremy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.47.7 (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern Robin Hood

The modern Robin Hood, as opposed to the old ballads that only antiquarians like Sir Walter Scott knew, stems from Robin's appearance in Ivanhoe (1819). After that, Robin changes to suit the expectations of each generation. William E. Simeone, "The Robin Hood of Ivanhoe" The Journal of American Folklore 74 No. 293 (July - September 1961:230-234) should be reported and referenced in this article.--Wetman (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep Wetman, Robin's appearance in Ivanhoe should indeed be referenced in the article. It is one of his most significant fictional appearances, with presumably a huge effect on the modern legend. So why don't you report and reference it yourself? I don't think it is true however that only "antiquarians" know the old ballads. Scott as I recall tells us that his knowledge of Robin Hood came from the "garlands" (of mostly early modern provenance) still being printed in his youth; while the genuinely "old" late medieval ballads were known to a braoder public than just antiquarians.

There was an excellent Garth episode about Robin Hood btw, obviously based on the Gest, which is also one of the few Robin Hood stories to take a critical view. Does anyone know it or have a reference? Jeremy (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1911 Britannica Article

Flicking through the history, the 1911 Britannica article does not seem to have been used as a basis for this article. It might have developed differently if had done so. This is the unrevised 1911 article from LoveToKnow: [11] Its still useful I think, particularly as to the development of theoroies about origens. Jeremy (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert O'Vanderhey?

"However, the story is rumored to have originated from the life of Robert O'Vanderhey." deleted from introduction. Apparently "the story" is Robin Hood's story as a whole. If this can be referenced, and is a bit more than rumour, then it may belong on the Origins section. Please note that there are many theories of origin, only a few of which are mentioned in the Origins section. Jeremy (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Myth

I have heard that the Robin Hood story was the basis for a Medieval publicity campaign to get men and boys practicing archery in the time immediately before Crecy and Agincourt. --Pandaplodder (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

ROBin Hood or Robin HOOD ?

When I was a boy (decades ago), everybody around me (US midwest) and on TV said the subject's name with the stress on the first word, just like "shopping trip". This makes sense also because "Robin Hood", as far as I know, means "the hood of a robin", thus describing something about his appearance, his clothing. That makes "Robin Hood" a compound-noun (two nouns in a row which fuse into a single noun-structure, with the stress commonly on the first part, e.g. "post-office"). But a year or two ago in some British TV-show I heard "Robin HOOD", stressed on "Hood" just like "Davey Jones", thus, apparently, taking "Hood" to be his surname, which seems quite incorrect. I wonder (a few opinions, please) if there is a difference between American and British usage here, or between younger and older speakers? Jakob37 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Robin HOOD has always been my understanding, a name. Not particularly the hood of a robin. Jeremy (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved (at least for me): My old 1968 Random House Dictionary of the English Language has a listing for our hero, and shows a stronger stress on the first syllable. In certain respects, American pronunciation shows more conservative features than British pronunciation. As is common in many languages, the place of origin also continues to evolve and innovate at a more rapid rate than the periphery. If "Robin Hood" were simply a single name (as were most people's in his time), it would be a descriptive-turned-noun, just like "Blackbeard". The later reinterpretation as first-name + last-name would be an example of the innovations mentioned above, and it probably occurred a couple of hundred years ago, a time of many innovations in English pronunciation, when England and Australia were still quite closely linked. Jakob37 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was always that ROBin Hood was very much the American pronunciation, as heard in numerous films and TV shows over the years. I'm afraid to say that when we were younger and less forgiving, my friends and I sometimes used to say the outlaw's name with the American pronunciation of “ROBin Hood”, mocking the way that Americans couldn't pronounce it correctly. We used to do much the same thing to American tourists in London who got off the bus and asked "Can you tell me the way to LIE-sester square", when obviously it's pronounced "LESter square" (Leicester Square). Here in the UK Robin Hood is always but always pronounced as Robin HOOD, never as ROBin Hood, and since Robin was himself an Englishman, that's the correct pronunciation!! ;-) On a more serious note, I always thought that Robin Hood was a corruption of "Robin in the hood" or "Robin of the hood", as in a man named Robin who wore a hood (possibly to disguise himself). I know that this is certainly the origin of the name that the makers of the British TV series Robin of Sherwood took and ran with, although how historically accurate that is I don't know. Ultimately, the pronunciation ROBin Hood in my experience is a peculiarly American thing and just an example of the slight differences in pronunciation you hear on either side of the Atlantic. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your conclusion shows a lack of familiarity with some principles of linguistics: if we have two words together, and they are considered to be a name, the UNMARKED, or natural, ordinary pattern, would be to take the first as the Christian name, and the second as the surname, which of course would lead to stressing the second part. If that were the original situation, what motivation would "those crazy Americans" have to change from the normal pattern to an abnormal pattern? People just don't do that without a specific, unusual impetus. I can't imagine any here, can you? On the other hand, if the original form were ROBin Hood (for the reasons I outlined above), then the change, in Britain, from ROBin Hood to Robin HOOD would follow the very common linguistic rule of "analogical leveling", that is to say, the normal pattern is to stress the second word (in a name), so if something is out-of-line, there may be (subconsciously) a tendency to make it "level" i.e. equal to the general, unmarked pattern: if we say Robin SMITH, then, by analogy, we should say Robin HOOD. So, there is a very good reason for changing from ROBin Hood to Robin HOOD, but I can't think of any reason for change in the opposite direction. Do any linguists have an idea? Jakob37 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I'm no linguistics expert and I also wasn't being totally serious in my response either. However, it's an interesting point that you raise about why such a change in pronunciation should've occurred in America. Of course, it's not unique in being a word that is pronounced differently on either side of the Atlantic, take the word "tomato" for instance. In Britain it's pronounced as "Tom-ART-toe" whereas I've certainly heard it pronounced by Americans as "Tom-AY-toe" (in fact, isn't that a song - "you say tomato, I say tomato"?). I'm not sure that there's any great significance of motivation behind these changes in pronunciation or stresses on different syllables though (but I could be wrong). I just think it's all part of the colloquial changes that certain words in a language will undergo as a language is carried to another region, as was the case with the settling of North America. Maybe I'm wrong and there is significance to all of these changes (as I say, I'm no linguistics expert) but I would suggest that regional accent also has a part to play in this evolution of pronunciation. Perhaps as American accents formed and evolved in the decades following the colonisation of North America the pronunciation of certain words became noticeably changed too. You certainly see this occurring within a relatively small country like England, so it's feasible that it could've happened to two cultures separated by the Atlantic. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Should stop going on and on about this, but "why such a change in pronunciation should've occurred in America" - you're not even considering the possibility that the change may have occurred in England, not America. Again, the issue is directionality. Little children may say "one mouse, two mouses" by analogy with "one bus, two buses", (until they master the exception), but no child would say "one house, two hice" by analogy with mouse-mice. Irregular changes (often) to regular, regular does not change. (ROBin Hood = irregular, Robin HOOD = regular). OK? It goes both ways: American clerk with its "uhr" vowel is an innovation, the British "clark" pronunciation preserves the tradition better. Jakob37 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose the change could've occurred in England but again, I'm at a loss to explain why. The British pronunciation seems to make the most sense if we're going on the proviso that Robin Hood is a corruption of "Robin in the hood" or "of the hood" (although I'm not 100% sure that's correct). As you've pointed out, the English pronunciation is said like a name - like David Smith - which is obviously derived from "David the smith" (as in a blacksmith) so that would certainly seem the correct pronunciation if indeed I'm correct and Robin Hood is short for "Robin in the hood" or some such. My gut feeling is that it's a change that occurred in American at some point following the colonisation of the U.S. but that's only what I feel is likely...I have no evidence to back that up at all, so take it with as many pinches of salt as you want. It would be great to hear from someone who knows for sure. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article: "The oldest references to Robin Hood....From 1228 onwards the names Robinhood, Robehod or Hobbehod occur in the rolls of several English Justices....date from the late 13th century. Between 1261 and 1300 there are at least eight references to Rabunhod in various regions across England". So why are "Robinhood" and the other variants run together as one word? I haven't seen that happening with other names, have you? Four Gothic Kings (1987)p. 171 lists the names of some common folk king Edward II liked to hang out with: Robin and Simon Hod, Wat Cowherd, Robin Dyer. Why aren't THOSE written together as Watdyer etc.? Maybe because they were Christian Name + Surname, but Robehod etc. was not a surname but a single name (descriptive?). We English speakers say Paris with an -s but in France they say "Paree". It's their own language, their own country, so does that mean that the pronunciation without the -s is the original one? No: France is the origin of French, and the language has evolved, dropped the -s. English "Paris" with an -s preserves the old way. Similarly, in the Americas, far off from Sherwood Forest, it appears that the original has been preserved (ROBin Hood < Rabunhod et al.) whereas in England, any changes in pronunciation would have been more likely to affect local words (thus Robehood et al. > Robin Hood). Q.E.D. - p.s. Don't forget directionality (cf. above)! Jakob37 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point, why is the name all run together as one word like that? Hmmmmm...I must confess that I'd not thought about that and it certainly seems to discount the "Robin in the hood" origin of the name. Perhaps you're right and the change in pronunciation did occur in the UK but presumably this would've had to have happened after the settlement of the Americas in order to preserve the pronunciation there? Which would make it a fairly recent change, relatively speaking. Interesting. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I grew up in the American midwest,I never thought it meant hood of a robin, but I never thought hood was his proper surname either. as far as British English and American English, they both have deviated from the original english. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the derivation of the name, “Robin Hood,” I always thought the stories about a hooded man living in the forest and robbing people were about a “Robbing Hood.” Cmaestrojr (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger Ebert (rogerebert.com) 12 May 2010, re the new movie: "If you listen closely to the movie’s commercials, you may hear of a royal edict being issue against “Robin of the Hood.” A hood, in medieval English, was of course a wood or forest — a point that may be lost on many of the commercial’s viewers." -- "of course" ?! I have several reference books here on Middle English, none of which mention any of this, plus the Oxford English Dictionary has nothing about "hood" meaning, or being related to "wood(s)". Ebert's interpretation, plus the two above, do however again suggest that "Hood" was not some surname, but rather a description. In this connection, I again ask: why, in all other cases of early English historical figures that I know of, such as Thomas Becket, Jack Cade, Roger Bacon, John Wycliffe, do Americans put the stress on the second part, just like ordinary names such as Will Smith, George Fox etc., but in the case of "Robin Hood" put the stress on the first part? There must be some reason for this exception. (the fact that the British pronunciation treats it like any other given name + surname doesn't tell us anything, it is simply the common, predictable way).Jakob37 (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Robin Hood, well, I'm not really an expert in anything, really. But from my experiance with the stories and ballads of Robin Hood, I've always heard of a ROBin HOOD. This, to me, would seem to mean a Surname of Robin or Robert, and being of the "hood," as Jakob37 mentiond above. (StoneStage (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Your notation "ROBin HOOD" does not show me if you are putting the stress on "Robin" or on "Hood" Jakob37 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Robin as Saxon Battling Normans

This is my undertsanding of the legend. Much as Arthur as celtic king battling saxon invaders.

Well....no particular reason to see that as especially salient to the original Robin Hood audience, there is no "anti-Norman" feeling (as distinct from anti-aristocratic feeling) in the old ballads, and Robin Hood in any case lived in the old Danelaw area, so he is unlikely to have been all that Saxon!

Without meaning to exaggerate the point too much it is also true that nationalism in the modern sense was not so very a medieval notion. The historical King Arthur for example probably thought of himself more as a Christian king battling pagan invaders..... Jeremy (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this comes from Ivanhoe, I believe other aspects of Ivanhoe have been added to the Robin Hood mythos, such as Robin Hood being a returning crusader. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Born

Robin hood was born in 1311 and died 1368 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.57.204 (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Project Nottinghamshire Proposal

I have proposed to the WikiProject Council that I create WikiProject Nottinghamshire. Please go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Nottinghamshire to add your support or comments. I have started a template page in my sandbox for this project too.KlickingKarl (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ballads and Tales - Removal of French "Robin and Marion play" reference

I have deleted the stuff below from the Ballads and Tales section. See the Sources section to see why; the French "Robin and Marion play" is not generally seen as about the English outlaw Robin Hood; although it may well have contributed to the legend in particular by contributing the character Maid Marian. So the french paly is important and interesting and so forth, and deserves more detail on wikipedia, but it is not the earliest reference to "Robin Hood" (or if it is than that is a very controversial claim with so as I know no scholarly support). Anyway the deleted matarial:

The earliest surviving text of Robin and Marion is a musical play entitled "Le jeu de Robin et de Marion" (ca.1284) written by Adam de la Halle (ca1240–?1288) and found in the book Norton Anthology of Western Music Volume:1 (pages 46–47). In this song the sung text is:

"Robins m'aime.

Robins m'a.

Robins m'a demandée.

Si m'ara.

Robins m'acata cotele.

D'escarlate bonne et belle.

Souskanie et chainturele.

Aleuriva!

Robins m'aime.

Robins m'a.

Robins m'a demandée.

Si m'ara."

In which it translates to:

"Robin Loves me

Robin has me

Robin asked me

if he can have me

Robin bought me a skirt

of scarlet, good and pretty

a bodice and a belt

Hurray!

Robin Loves me

Robin has me

Robin asked me

if he can have me"

Jeremy (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Funeral monument inscription

From the article: "notwithstanding the implausibility of a 13th-century funeral monument being composed in English, the language of the inscription is highly suspect".

What language should a 13th-century funeral monument be composed in? Are stones from those era 100% Latin? --Itinerant1 (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

29November 2009

This is the inscription that I copied out on an unauthorised visit to the private site.

Hear Underneath dis laitl stean Laz robert earl of Huntintun Ne’er arcir ver az hie sa geud An pipl Kauld im robin heud Sick utlawz az hi an iz men Vil england nivr si agen Obiit 24 Kal. Dekembris 1247

It's not Latin or Norman-French - obviously - but neither, I understand, is it 13th century English. It looks like an 18th or 19th century pastiche, and probably is.

Locally the gravestone is said to have been a replacement for an earlier stone damaged by workers ('navvies') building the nearby canal, and later the railway, who believed that a chip from the gravestone was a cure for toothache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.78.146 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve, Yorkshire. 29/11/09

The use of Arabic numerals, which in Britain occurred sporadically in the 15th century but did not become really common until the 16th, is at least as anachronistic here as the Chattertonian diction. Anyway, "24 Kal. Dekembris" means not "December 24", but "the 24th day *before* the Kalends [first day] of December" (see The Oxford Companion to English Literature, 5th edition, p.1126). Following the standard Roman practice of counting the days at both ends of the sequence, that works out to November 8. I can't imagine a high ecclesiastical official such as the Dean of York being unfamiliar with this practice; but evidently whoever cited his inscription didn't understand it. Chresmo (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the mean of "May Day Game" or "May Game"

I'm translaing this article to Korean. I have no idea What is "May Game"'s mean. I searched several english dictionary, even oxford dictionary, but I couldn't find the word to match. Someone help me, please.

The "May Day Game" or "May Game" is seen on the chapter of Sources:

• Robin Hood's role in the traditional May Day games could suggest pagan connections but that role has not been traced earlier than the early 15th century.
• The earliest recorded example, in connection with May games in Somerset, dates from 1518.

JinJ (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My translation work is almost finished and I think that "May Day Game" or "May Game" is a festival including some role play as like as people put on special costume at May Day, isn't it? JinJ (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "May Game" is a reference to Beltane. --Itinerant1 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get a timely answer to this JinJ but yeah the "May Games" refers the traditional May popular festival and in the present context in particular to the plays and dances... Robin Hood May plays survive , one containing the substance of "Robin Hood and the Curtal Friar", and part of the story of "Robin Hood and the Potter", and an earlier play in manuscript (from about 1450 if memeory serves) which is more controversial but appears to refer to the Guy of Gisborne story and is notable for having the first clear reference to Friar Tuck. There should be more about the May Games in the article. Jeremy (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hoods skills imropable???

I dont think this text reffering to Robins Archery and Swords skills are imropable in any way.I will change it for the time bieng but you may prove me wrong with refs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I found refs:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=YmQOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR99&dq=Robin+Hood+was+an+exellent+archer&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.ie/books?id=YgWGRrTr8m8C&pg=PA69&dq=Robin+Hood+was+an+exellent+archer&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=utafxJAR63YC&pg=PA50&dq=Robert+Hardy.Longbow+of+Welsh+origin&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Robin%20Hood%20&f=false

--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Robin as a Longbowman

I noticed this article barely mentions Robin's famed use of the bow and arrow at all. It's been my understanding that the primary thing everyone associates Robin Hood with is the bow and arrow, like his well-known ability to split other arrows in two, for instance. But only two times is a bow ever mentioned in the article, and both times it's just in passing, as if it's an already known fact, an assumed point. There should be a section in the article about his reputation as the best bowman in the country. That's my two cents anyway. :) 99.163.22.236 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with you.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this note. I found it interesting that in my youth it was explained to me that one of the sources or themes of the Robin Hood tale was that he, like the longbow, was a great leveller. Indeed I think it is a matter of record that the French took great offence at the English use of well trained bowmen, being bitterly offended that a man of little worth could have in his hands a cheap weapon that (with considerable training) could readily kill an expensively armoured nobleman. Not only did the weapon come from the forest, but in the forest it was a weapon with significant advantage over a man on horseback, however well armed and thus enabled peasant ambush. One other point. Like Robin Hood, the weapon came to be "ennobled" when it was the instrument of defeat of the enemies of the crown at the Battles of Crecy and Agincourt. So I grew up assuming that the legend of Robin Hood was a tale woven round a legendary bowman and his longbow. A bit like Arthur and Excalibur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg40 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Robin Hood (Disney character)

I'm not sure Robin Hood (Disney character) warrants it's own article. If the information on the current article can be sourced (it currently is not) I'd suggest merging in into Robin Hood and/or Robin Hood in popular culture and redirecting Robin Hood (Disney character) to Robin Hood. If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll go ahead and do it, but please feel free to share your thoughts... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Robin Hood & His Merry Men's usual location

I see that at the beginning of the "Overview" section it says that Robin Hood is "usually portrayed as living in Barnsdale Forest, in Nottinghamshire." While I realise that a lot of the earliest manuscripts do indeed place him as being from Yorkshire, as a layman with slightly more than a passing familiarity with the evolution of the Robin Hood legend, this sentence really jumped out at me. In most (maybe all?) modern tellings of the legend he and the Merry Men reside in Sherwood Forest not Barnsdale Forest. If you were to ask most ordinary people on the street where Robin Hood lived...they would surely answer "Sherwood Forest". There's a reason that Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest are synonymous with each other in popular culture and that's due to the character always being portrayed as living there in modern adaptations of the legend. As such, I think to say Robin is "usually portrayed as living in Barnsdale Forest" is at best misleading, and at worst downright inaccurate. I think this needs to be amended urgently. Yes, there are sources that place him in Barnsdale Forest but in adaptations from within living memory, Robin Hood is portrayed 99% of the time as living in Sherwood Forest. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If 99% of the people agree on something that is incorrect, that doesn't make it correct.66.189.115.6 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction?

Reading this sentence:

In popular culture Robin Hood is typically seen as a contemporary and supporter of the late 12th-century king Richard the Lionheart, Robin being driven to outlawry during the misrule of Richard's evil brother John while Richard was away at the Third Crusade. This view first gained currency in the 16th century, but it has very little scholarly support.

one would have to come away with the conclusion that Robin Hood was an historic personage. But this is nonsense, is it not? What then is the meaning of this sentence? I mean, if scholars are debating Robnin's motivations and alliances, then he must have been real, mustn't he have been? 98.71.219.134 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No doubt partly the problem is bad phrasing, but partly the problem is the ambiguities inherent in the condition of legendary/folkoric identity......It is not necessarily nonsense that Robin Hood was a historic personage; but leaving that aside there are still versions of the legend that are older than others and versions that are more consistent than others (both internally consistent and consistent with history). Suppose, for example, the Gest to be entirely a work of fiction.....it is still fiction set in a particular time and place and that time is definitely not 12th century. Nor is the hero of this work, "Robin Hood", such a man as seems all that likely to have been an admirer of the historical Richard III.

Scholars still debate Hamlet's motivation and he wasn't a real person.....

And then there is the question of historical identity, not a simple one. If Roger Godberd was proven to be the model who sat for the Robin Hood of the early ballads (as I tend to think) would that show that Robin Hood was historical person? Or would it rather prove that he wasn't? Jeremy (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

With a Deeper Meaning

{{editsemiprotected}}

I totally agree with Jeremy. Most people take Robin Hood as a real person, such as I did when I first heard the story as a small boy. After thinking about Robin for some time now and contemplateing about his "true" identity, and doing some digging on my own, I have come to several conclusions about not only Robin Hood, but his band of "Merry Men" and the lovely Maid Marrian.

For one, Robin Hood could be an actuall person, but as history has shown before, has become a much bigger and a much more exagerated person than what originally was excepted as true. Modern as well as historical ballads, poetry, and movies have done that. If there was in fact a true "Robin of the Hood," he would have been a man who would have shown the traits that are generally excepted as "Robin Hood character," but maybe not as strong as we see him today.

Robin Hood could also be a combonation of several real outlaws. Outlaws or even nobel men who were seen as kind, and generous, who eventually became one person. An ideal sort of person that one should strive to become.

Robin Hood could be mearly a character dreamed up by society. People in Medevil Europe, were not treated esspecialy well. Kings, knights, barons, lords, and sherifs, robbed, plunderd, and murderd not only the peoples money and property, but their very souls and minds. You could almost compare this situation to Christianity of Jewdiaism. A prophesy for a redemer who would one day come to make the weak strong and cast the kings from their throns. Robin Hood could be just that. An idea of the "ideal" person who would save the lower class of fuedal Europe. Someone dreamt up by a society hungry for a honost, true, and just man who would save them all for the oppressor.

There is much symbolism in Robin Hood that can be related to todays day and age. Especially here in America. Economic lows, periods of war, such as Iraq and Affganistan, trust in world leaders falling, the list goes on. The lower to middle, the people hit the hardest by this recesion, could represent the peasants of fuedal Europe. We too, need a "Robin Hood" to save us all. The evil Sherif of Nottingham could be a symbol of power, and greed. King John could represent sloth, tryany, and despotism. We too, need a Robin Hood. Someone who will stand up and face these times with arrow drawn to full draw and sword at the ready.

On the other hand, maybe Robin Hood does not relate to ONE person who needs to make a stand, but society as a whole and how people should treat others. Maybe it is US who must stand and not leave it to just one person. That is what, I beleive, the "Merry Men" stand for in this story; Society taking a stand and following one who sets the example. Like Jesus did with his deciples.

Maid Marrian is an itriging character. For one, she is not only depicted as Robins love, but also as a strong female fiqure who's able to stand up and make decisions for herself. Not only can this be related to womens rights, but it also can give us insight into fuedal Europe and help us see that womens rights were even starting to form then. Maid Marrian represents someone who, like Robin, isn't afraid to put herself in front of the proverbial bullet (or would it be arrow in this case?) to break the mold for the rest of society.

With all this being said, I would like to propose entirely new sections to this article. Sections that could possibly push us over the brink into becoming a good article or, possibly, even beyond. These sections would add a certain amount of nuetrallity to the article that I did not sense while I read it. As well as a deeper look into the legend as well as the man who is Robin Hood. I would like to write a couple sections on the "fictitios" side of the legend, as well as a section on Robin Hood as an idea and symbolism of the story. I would also like to add a secttion on Robin Hood the legend as it relates to the modern world as of January 2000. I also beleive that a section on the meaning behind the "Merry Men" and Maid Marrian, as well as other characters such as King John and the Sherrif of Nottingham. If I were given permission to do so, that would be exellant. If others would like to submit there input on symbolism or other ways Robin Hood relates to the Modern world, please feel free to talk to me.

With best wishes,

(StoneStage (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The request should be followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Let us know what changes you purpose. You can copy the article and make changes in your own sandbox, and then propose those changes here.

Hope that helps! :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reply)

That's just the thing. I don't want to change anything. I want to ad something. I can't say change x to y because I don't want to change x. I want to add z, if you will. But all this being said, I do agree that I will create a sandbox of what I beleive the new sections should consist and will post it here when I'm through with the drafts.

Best Wishes, (Best of Wishes, StoneStage 18:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Karl Hess interpretation

I removed this from the "ballads and tales" section because it seems inappropriate there:

Robin Hood is often considered as the champion of the people. Karl Hess considers him as an anti-state, anti-tax rebellion who steals the tax money back from state officials (such as the sheriff of Nottingham) or churchmen and gives it back to the people

I am not sure where this would be a better fit. Anyone have any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See also section

The see also section in this article is out of control, with a great many entries that are only vaguely relevant. It is time for a serious cull of that list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Extraneous junk

Extraneous junk has been interpolated at the end of the Overview Section. Someone should perhaps remove it and restore the section to it's original contents, then lock it.Henrodon (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have reverted the section to remove the rubbish, you can do this yourself if you need to. Look at the History tab to see the changes to the article and click on the undo link at the end of the change that you want to back out. Keith D (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Robin Hood

relatively recently I read that there is a theory that robin hood was originally a welsh creation and was fighting in the Marches during the Norman invasion of wales, as opposed to Sherwood Forest 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Robin of the Hood

see the last part of the above section # 29 ROBin Hood or Robin HOOD ?Jakob37 (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood Red not Green

Robin Hood and his merry men are depicted as wearing red which explains Robin. Lincoln Green is a derivation from the real color Lincoln Graine which was red. Tomgazer (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, cite it or forget it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you cite a specific line? I have already cited the specific poem and if you check the wikipedia article on Lincoln Green it already discusses this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgazer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An average person reading this article should not be expected to search other Wiki articles, or read through an entire long poem in order to find the one line that supports your contention. The statements made in the article, and especially in the lede, should be clearly cited. It seems to me, looking at the sources you just provided, that there is disagreement on this matter. The Lincoln green article says only that he wore scarlet when he went to court, and it does not say that "Lincoln graine" was red. What it says is that "Graine is the dye-stuff, linguistically unrelated to 'green'." The beginning of the article goes into great detail as to what Lincoln green is and how the color was created. It is quite clear that it is not scarlet. So, it seems to me that your point is not proven. There is clear disagreement in the sources, and the article should say so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed this from overview: Some accounts give the colour worn by Robin as scarlet, which may provide an explanation for the name "Robin."<ref>Ohlgen, Thomas H., ed. “The Gest of Robyn Hode.” in Medieval Outlaw: The Tales in Modern English. Gloucestershire, England: Sutton Publishing, 1998. pp. 216-238.</ref>

The quote from the Gest refers to Robin Hood's men and does show that in the old materials, contrary to later tradition, not all the outlaws clothing was "Lincoln Green". It is a point worth making if not necessarily in the overview, but that Robin Hood was so-called for wearing scarlet is I think a marginal theory; the cources if hardcopy should at least be quoted, and if this is done it should be mentioned in the text....the association of Robin Hood with the Red Robin is to my knowledge connected to the "mythological" theory of the origins of the legend ("Who killed Cock Robin?" etc), and it would be fine to discuss that further in the article. But "Robin" is as the article notes a very common diminutive of "Robert" and was so especially in the 13th century, and that remains the default theory for the origin of the name. So the sentence deleted is out of palce in the overview. Jeremy (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Again, removed form overview: "Some accounts give the colour worn by Robin as scarlet or red, which may provide an explanation for the name "Robin" as well as "Will Scarlet"." Again, worth discussing in body of text but doesn't belong in the overview. The matter should be discussed here. My deletion was reverted without apparently any discussion. Do Ohlgen and Pollard really support the assertion made? A quote in the notes would be helpful and good practice in the interests of verifiability.....It would seem odd if either of them thought that Will Scarlet was so called because all the merry men dressed in scarlet, even odder if it was Robin Hood did. Elsewhere the ballads describe the men as dressed in Lincoln green and that was the expected costume of forester, see the Canterbury Tales for example. The Child reference only applies to the men's mantles. "Will Scarlet" is mentioned without introduction, giving the impression that the editor hasn't taken the trouble to read the article to find the right place for a discussion of the men's clothing. Jeremy (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You can only cite one source while I cite many, your evidence in your claim is one line from a poem while I list many. There are two pictures on this very page showing him wearing red and many more which is established by historical documents, do not change something that has already been established by historical evidence. Tomgazer (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tomgazer, no. It has not "been established by historical evidence" that Robin Hood dressed in scarlet, still less that that was the source of his name "Robin".(!) For one thing it hasn't been "established by historical evidence" that Robin Hood even existed. The tradition however is clear that he and his men dressed like foresters in Lincoln green...as even the "pictures on this very page" bear majority witness. You should not use expressions like "some accounts give.." Which accounts? References shoudl be verifiable so far as possible and it should be clear which precise claim is being verified by which source. And extended quotes in the references would be helpful if the source is not easily obtainable. My own main source is Dobson & Taylor's standard scholarly overview of the Robin Hood legend.

Robin Hood's alleged scarlet clothing which 'may provide an explanation for the name "Robin" as well as "Will Scarlet".' Except that there is fairly strong evidence that it doesn't, even leaving aside Robin's dress habits, as there are better explanations in both cases. 'Robert' was a stock name for a robber in the middle ages, note for example John Ball's reference to "Hobb the Robber" in his Letter to the Essex Commons...."Hobb" is a diminutive of Robert like Bob or Robin. "Scarlet" appears to be corruption of "Scathelock", the character is called "Will Scathelock" or "Scarlock" in ealrier sources. "Scathe" means wound, the name would appear to be rough equivalent to "Scarface" or the like; but to be sure it might be an ironical nickname like "Little John" (or Much, Much is actually a dwarf or midget as a close reading of the Gest makes clear,) so that maybe the real meaning is "Pretty Boy" as tradition would have it. All interesting questions, sometimes I think it is a pity that the OR rule discourages discussing them in the article.....but in any case thy don't belong in the overview.

Tomgazer, I have a pet theories too, for example I think that Robin Hood is based largely on Roger Godberd in a historical sense but that the current scholarly fashion has gone too far in discounting the folklore sources of the legend. I think that the May Games don't get enough credit as sources of the Robin Hood legend. You can see, can't you, that I should not keep pushing these theories willy nilly into the first paragraph or two of the article as the consensus view? Jeremy (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JaguarGrowl88, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to call you attention to two errors within the Bibliography Section. 1) Knight, Stephen Thomas (2005). Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography. Four Courts Press. ISBN 1-85182-931-8.

should be corrected as follows:

Knight, Stephen Thomas (2009). Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801489921.

2) Phillips, Helen (2003). Robin Hood: Medieval and Post-medieval. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3885-3.

should be corrected as follows

Phillips, Helen (2003). Robin Hood: Medieval and Post-medieval. Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1851829316.

Thank you.

Jonathan Hall Cornell University Press

JaguarGrowl88 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The first one does check out on WorldCat [12], and presumably it is that edition that the writer referred to.

The second looks correct too.[13]

There is no need to update that just because there is a newer edition. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask me.  Chzz  ►  19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Note: Further correspondence posted here from my talk page  Chzz  ►  00:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Chzz,

Thank you for your message. Just getting back with you in regards to my request of May 18th.

I appreciate you checking WorldCat but the issue still needs correction. The year, publisher and ISBN information is switched between the two titles.

The book as listed Knight, Stephen Thomas (2005). Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography. Four Courts Press. ISBN 1-85182-931-8 does not exist. The Year, ISBN and Publisher are incorrect.

I work at Cornell University Press and last year we published a new edition of this book (2009) which would be nice to list as the 2003 edition is now out of print and unavailable. Regardless, the correct information for the 2003 book is: Knight, Stephen Thomas (2003). Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3885-1

And conversely Cornell University Press has never published a book by Helen Phillips.

The current posting is incorrect - Phillips, Helen (2003). Robin Hood: Medieval and Post-medieval. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3885-3.

The ISBN, year, and publisher needs to be changed to:

Phillips, Helen (2005). Robin Hood: Medieval and Post-medieval. Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1851829316.

Thank you.

Jonathan Hall Publicity Manager Cornell University Press

JaguarGrowl88 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

JaguarGrowl88 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref. Talk:Robin Hood#Edit request from JaguarGrowl88, 18 May 2010

 Partly done: I've switched the mixed up data as requested, but as stated above it is not necessary to 'update' ISBNs. The listed ISBN likely refers to the edition which was consulted by the editor. AJCham 08:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Distance from Sherwood to Barnsdale?

The distance quoted in the article is 50 miles. Sherwood (Northernmost extreme at Worksop) and Barnsdale (Southernmost extreme at Doncaster) are no more than 15 miles apart. The proximity of the two forests is important to note, given the petty controversy over the location of the legend. To exaggerate this distance is misleading and needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisepolice (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Just a mistake for "50 miles north of Nottingham" I think, in any case that is how I have amended it....but Noisepolice, you could have done that. Jeremy (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of this statement

"For example, major road signs entering the shire depict Robin Hood with his bow and arrow, welcoming people to 'Robin Hood County" The roadside symbol in Nottinghamshire is of just a head. A bearded male profile with a triangular hat and feather. Wer ethe article not locked, I would edit this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisepolice (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

weapons

The weapons used may help in defining the period of the original Robin Hood.

The legends says that he was both a skilled archer and swordsman. As far as archery is concerned the longbow doesn't seem to have been fully evolved until about a century after the death of Richard lst.

The longbow as a hunting weapon is said in the relevant wikipedia article to have been known for a considerable time. The "warbow" which I think is what you have in mind, with an enormous draw strength and capable, with an appropriate arrow, of bringing down an armoured horse and deployed in battle by cohorts of highly trained men is perhaps of the date you suggest (AIUI). However a heavy hunting longbow would clearly be a very dangerous weapon in a forest where you were unlikely to go about wearing full armour, long before Richard. Drg40 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On crusade and elswhere Richard seems to have used the heavy long sword or battleaxe rather than the lighter sword usually associated with Robin Hood.

Overall, on these suggestions, Edward lst seems more likely than Richard lst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The ballads as we have them clearly do not belong to the time of Richard 1 for numbers of reasons, we can start with the Gest naming the king as Edward. If (as I think) the original of the Robin Hood of the ballads was Robert Godberd there was however an odd real life echo in the Richard legend. Roger Godberd was indeed pardoned by the king on returning from the Crusades; however different king different Crusade and very different circumstances. I would imagine that the tradition that Robin Hood was pardoned on the return of the king from the Crusades survived independently, eventually the identification of the king with Richard enabled that story to be harmonized with the story of the pardon in the Gest. But to discuss this in the article would be independent research I guess. The swords described in the early ballads were mostly the "sword and buckler" combo which was part of archers' equipment, and also much used in recreational fencing and brawling....it has been argued that we should see the Robin Hood use of the combo through the prism of the latter use, and so the first audience of the ballads would not necessarily associate them with lethal force. I don't know. Jeremy (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

This film should be referenced SOMEWHERE. 76.65.21.198 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood. Keith D (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Sections for the Robin Hood Article

{{editsemiprotected}}

You should be aware that you should not use Wikipedia as a source in an academic context; see this informative essay for details. Intelligentsium 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, if your project is to edit the article to include the below sections, they too will be reverted. The tone of the text below is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. They are uncited and may constitute original research or synthesis, which are also not permitted. Intelligentsium 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would please turn your attention to the bottom of the article. I have now referanced all of my material. I would also like to tell you that the "Please do not edit..." was when it was still in my sandbox in just in case someone stubled on my page. It is open for editing of any kind to anyone. This includes spelling, disagreements in content "non-encyclopedic" language. Please forgive as I have not been with Wikipedia long. (Best of Wishes, StoneStage 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

P.S. The "Introduction" was never ment to go on the Robin Hood page itself. Best of Wishes, StoneStage 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneStage (talk • contribs)

Hiya StoneStage, thanks for your essay on Robin Hood, it was interesting to read your reflections. But a wikipedia article is not the place for it! Very deninitely not. If you have a homepage you could put it there. Jeremy (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed New Sections for the Robin Hood Article

Introduction

Close your eyes. Now I'm going to say one word and I want you to say aloud to yourself what you first hear. Ready?

                                              Robin Hood

What did you see? Did you see a hooded figure, lurking in the woods, waiting for the next rich knight to come riding down the road, sadlebags stuffed with muslim gold straight from the Holy Land? Did you see a kind face, constantly looking for the next poor English citizen to help? Believe it or not, a good percentage of people don't believe that Robin Hood is a real person. Some people, see him as an idea, developed for a stuggling time. In the next few sections, I will explain this and much more.

My friends and colleges of history. We are here to help develope more historicle and more acurate views of the great man called Robin Hood. Am I not right? Then here, below this introduction, I have written several sections of new material about Robin, that, I think, should be added to the article. These sections include...

• Robin Hood and Fuedal Europe
• More than One Robin Hood?
• Robin Hood as an Idea
  • The Meaning Behind the Man
  • The Merry Men: A Lesson the World Should Learn
  • Maid Marrian: What Does She Really Mean?
  • Robin Hood in Todays Modern Culture and Current Events
• The Fact of Fiction
  • An account of how the Legend of Robin Hood Could mirror even earlier historical happenings

As you can see, I have a lot to add to this article. So, If you would read and consider what I have to offer, I think it may just prove valuble. So valuble, I dare say, as to put up a good fight for "good artle" or possibly even more.

Robin Hood and Fuedal Europe

Some people say that Robin Hoods skills as a swordsman and archer are just too good. True, things in history tend to become a little exaggerated and stories are streched, but Robin Hoods skills may almost be as good as the story relates. If you picture The social class system of midevile period called fuedalism as a giant triangle, with the king floating above; the small section at the top of the triangle consisted of Kinghts, Lords, Barons, and Vassles. All the rest of the triangle represents the lower class of peasants. Bellow the triangle is where the outlaws or other criminals sat. Around the time that Robin Hood legends first began to be sung, a new class was riseing out of the lower class. The "Yoeman" class or the worlds fist "middle class."

These Yoeman were strong individuals who fought in the Crusades. They were highly skilled profesional soldiers, loyall to the crown, but yet not rich enough for the expensive armor and lifestyle of the knights. People in this class sometimes became independent land owners and eventually made up the whole of Europe. This is the class that is beleived to be were Robin Hood came from.

When King Richard declared that he was leaving for the crusades, he drew from all of the lower class for strong, fit, and skilled men. These men learned new fighting techniques from the knights and became very skilled in the art of war. With this new knowledge, these people conquerd other castles, claiming them for King Richard. After the castle fell to the soldiers, they would plunder it for any remaining riches. This is how the peasants gained enough wealth to buy land or set up a shop somewhere prominant. The "Yoeman" class then settled down with their families and made up the first "middle class" the world had ever seen.

More than One Robin Hood?

One interesting new idea about the legend of Robin Hood is the idea that he could be more than one person. The earliest referance to Robin Hood in the Gest of Robin Hood is far less impressive than stories of him now. Could it be that the character that we know as Robin Hood today is really a combonation of many different outlaws? What if there were not just one Robin Hood, but twenty or even more?

Robin Hood as an Idea

The Meaning of the Man

Taking this look on the social class structer of Midevil Europe, we can see that, before the rise of the Yoeman, you were either extremely rich, or extremely poor and still taxed by the rich. The lower class had an extremely hard time holding on to any money they made. This is where the idea of Robin Hood began. With kings collecting their taxes, knights taking their share, then the lords wanting in on it as well, villagers had it pretty hard.

When in a situation like this, society as a whole begins wishing for someone to come along and save them from the oppresor. So, if we look at Feudal Europe, we can see society start wishing for a man to rise into the night, arrow at full draw, sword drawn, ready to take down any greedy despot who threatend to plunge civilization into the ground for his own gain. The recent movie Robin Hood (click to see list of other movies and TV series featuring Robin Hood), directed by Ridely Scott and featureing Russle Crowe, said it best, "Rise, and rise again, until lambs become lions."

The Merry Men: A Lesson the World Should Learn

Continuing our look at Robin Hood, we come to his band of "Merry Men." With our view of Robin Hood being an idea, generated by society of an "ideal" individual who will come to save them from the hard times of Fuedal Europe; the Merry Men could represent the people who notice that what this man is doing is right and decide to fowllow him. Much like the diciples of Jesus did after Jesus preforming the mirricle of the fish and the nets.

These men could represent the idea that if one man stands for society against the tyrant, then the others will fowllow. We need to learn the lesson that we need to stand up for what we think is right. Not fade into the backround like a coward.

Maid Marrian: What Does She Really Mean?

Maid Marrian is an interesting character. She is Robins true love, his inspiration, his inside source, and his justification to fight. In the legend of Robin Hood, she represents the strength of women and the developing ideas of womens rights in society. Maid Marrian shows herself as a strong individual being able to stand up for herself, even in the ugly face of tyrany. In one form of the legend, the Sherif of Nottingham plans to take Maid Marrian as his wife, even though she is married to Robin. In this situation, Marrian stands up and slaps the sherif across the face and runs away as a page boy the next dawn, right under the noses of the gaurds standing watch.

Robin Hood in Todays Modern Culture and Current Events

With todays hardships, especially in America, the lower class could identify greatly with the peseants of Midevil Europe. Natural disaster, economic hard times, as well as the disaster that is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, we need a person to stand up for the lower class of the world. We also need a "band of Merry Men" or even women as the character Maid Marrian tells us through the legend. The arrows fuguarative, the swords, metaphorical, and the robbing and plundering, rhetorical, we begin to see, Robin Hood could have been real, but he also could have been an idea

The Fact of Fiction

An Account of How the Legend of Robin Hood Mirrors Other Historic Happenings

As This article mentiond before, Robin Hood and his Merry Men could be compared in many aspects to Jesus and his diciples come to liberate the Jews. Could it be that Robin Hood was created to teach people about Christianity along with lessons of selflessnes and kindness? It wasn't long before the fall of the Roman Empire that Robin Hood appears. People were still trying to learn the teachings of Jesus and his deciples. It could be that Robin Hood was created to teach people, not only about Jesus and the apostles, but the teachings of Jesus all at the same time. Therefor, this makes him the fact of fiction. Neither fact, nor fiction, both support the other. Without either of these, Robin Hood fades. He becomes no more and no longer a peice of history. But he will come again, you can be sure of that. For allthough his name may not be Robin Hood, there will always be a character, always ready to rise into the night sword drawn, arrow at full draw, ready to take the next tyrant that treatens the normal mans status as human.

Closeing

So as you can see, this is quite a legnthy addition to the article. Please read this carefully and think hard, but let me tell you this. The article is lacking neutrallity. This will balance it much more. This could put us back in the running for good article or even better. So, my collegues, consider carefully.

Referances

All of my information came from the Documentary "The Real Robin Hood" that was made for the History Channel.

History, Channel. "The Real Robin Hood — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. May 2010. Web. 17 June 2010. <http://www.history.com/topics/robin-hood>.

Best of Wishes,

(StoneStage 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Robin Hood Project

I want to create a Robin Hood project. I already submitted a proposal. It just needs support now. JDDJS (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

See here for details. Keith D (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Robin Hood|p005492h}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Robin Hood

You can only cite one source while I cite many, your evidence in your claim is one line from a poem while I list many. There are two pictures on this very page showing him wearing red and many more which is established by historical documents, do not change something that has already been established by historical evidence. If you cannot support you claim with evidence do not post it. Tomgazer (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC) This comment is a double of a comment appearing above under its appropriate section where I have answered it.... It would be good if people editing this page took the trouble to get an overview of the scholarship, of which there is much, before pushing one contentious theory or another Jeremy (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood the Orthodox Saxon

I have removed the following:

"There is some speculation that Robin Hood was an Orthodox Christian Saxon whose criminal activities were really part of a larger anti-Frankish/anti-Norman resistance. (Source)"

The first para "There is some speculation..." sounds the warning. The source is not a scholarly one.....And if there is any good evidence of the claim made it doesn't appear on the site. Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire just incidentally are in the Danelaw area of England, traditionally not so very Saxon, more Viking, minor point I know. There was a once popular theory that Robin Hood was to be seen as a hero of resistance to the Normans, (it appears in Ivanhoe from memory,) scholarship hasn't backed it up. But hey, it is still worth mentioning in the body of the article, and better references to the theory are available. But it shouldn't be insinuated into the overview. Jeremy (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert de Vere

I've read in some places that Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford is the real Robin Hood , but I don't see his name in the Wikipedia entry. The article should address it, be it correct or incorrect. If this is minority view, please state it and clarify the comparison to the majority view. In the 12th Century, Melusine's descendant, Robert de Vere, 3rd Earl of Oxford, and legal pretender to the Earldom of Huntingdon, was appointed as King Richard's steward of the forest lands of Fitzooth. As Lord of the Greenwood, and titular Herne of the Wild Hunt, he was a popular people's champion , and, as a result, he was outlawed for taking up arms against King John. It was he who, subsequently styled Robin Fitzooth, became the prototype for the popular tales of Robin Hood. Morphh ^(talk) 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Wasn't it one of his descendants who wrote Shakespeares's plays? .....OK seriously, need a reference for this. It may have a place among theories of origin, but there are many theories of origin Jeremy (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Norman conquest began in 1066

The second paragraph of the article says that the Normans "... had conquered England in 1066". Historical records tell us otherwise - active resistance continued for at least two decades - so I have edited it to show that their conquest began in 1066. Perhaps a minor point, but worth making.Twistlethrop (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some 'greenwood marriage' and other material removed from history section.

I've removed the following from the history section:

Like the Greeks' Pan, Robin defended unspoiled land against the encroachment of towns. In country districts, each village set aside a plot of raw woodland, which was not to be disturbed, because it belonged to The Goodfellow, or the Good Man. Family names can be found dating back to the "greenwood marriages" performed by heathen shamans, symbolized by the renegade Friar Tuck. Barbara Walker writes that Morrises and Morrisons descended from orgiastic Morris-dancers, also called Marian's morrice-men. Children conceived from these rites were considered children of the Forest-God, Robin, and were accorded the name Robinson.

The bit about the Goodfellow, sourced to Scott, relates to the theory that RH is to be identified or associated with Robin Goodfellow. A section on this theory is fair enough but it has to be noted as controversial and (rightly or wrongly) out of academic favour at present. It is out of place in this section. Barbara Walkers Encyclopedia is not to be confused with a scholarly source. The bit about heathen shamans conducting greenwood marriages giving rise to modern family names....appears to be a garbled account of some remarks by Robert Graves in his White Goddess. An accurate referenc eto those remarks, and the ref to Barbara W might have a place in some other section. Not this one. Jeremy (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)