Robin Hood Existed

By Michael Reuel

Hollywood likes to make money out of Robin Hood, but the truth about him should not be allowed to fail.

Robin Hood did exist! Understanding why the storytelling has become so murky is key to re-enlightening our culture on what exactly he meant and means to the nation.

The existence of everyone’s favourite outlaw has been questioned for years, but the truth is that this is all based on historical misplacement. We don’t have to tell our children untruths about this son of Sherwood, have that awkward moment when we break it to them that he might not have existed, or even embellish the tale for the sake of the telling.

There are currently multiple Robin Hood movies in production, none of which give any indication that they are focused on historical research in order to construct a story. However, for those who go looking, it is possible to find something authentic – more than just a legend or myth. The only difficulty is knowing where to start, which historians to reject or pay attention to, and learning which avenues of the story are false.

Michael Reuel’s research gets to the core of the Robin Hood we should know, by sifting through the evolution of the folklore to achieve a clear definition of his origins, while establishing which historical approaches are the most fruitful when studying the life of a medieval outlaw.

As popular culture continues to evolve, the original tales of our folkloric heroes need to be cherished more than ever. Because the more false myths that are allowed to form around a man like Robin Hood, the further away from the original tales the storytelling gets.

There is, in fact, such a thing as a definitive take on the original Robin Hood tales. Even a blueprint for telling the story as it was originally envisioned to be told, providing we understand what context to view the earliest texts. Robin Hood Existed provides that context, shedding light on what kind of man Hood was, his lifestyle, his culture and his worldview.

The result is far more down to earth and brutal than that of the dispossessed nobleman we are often introduced to, but fear not. The original Robin was certainly heroic; a deeply principled man whose affections for the ordinary folk led him to live a life that does indeed fit the mold of the hero who robbed from the rich to give to the poor. There’s just so much more to it than that.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Howard
• Release date: Oct 3, 2016
• ISBN: 9780992805333

Michael Reuel

Michael Reuel is a folklorist and storyteller who has made it his mission to champion overlooked stories and support their belonging within the public consciousness. Though usually attracted to obscure tales, he was inspired to write about Robin Hood when he came across a now extant Wikipedia entry which began ‘Robin Hood was a medieval outlaw who did not exist’.This dismissive statement, along with the prominence of popular ‘false myths’, convinced him that he needed to write on the value of England’s cultural and storytelling heritage. His subsequent research resulted in a startlingly different conclusion, which the UK’s most prominent BlogSpot on Robin Hood writings has described as “Surely the platform for all future serious research regarding Robin Hood”.With a publishing background and journalism experience, Reuel published his first work of fiction in 2012 and continues to develop his own writings alongside ghost-writing projects.

Book preview

Robin Hood Existed

by

Michael Reuel

Copyright © 2016 by Michael Reuel

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the author.

Published by Rule Hard Publishing.

ISBN: 978-0-9928053-3-3

Acknowledgements

Robin Hood researchers will always be indebted to Francis Child for the collection of ballads he published from 1882–98. As this work is a study of storytelling as well as history I am also particularly grateful to have had Brian Boyd’s On the Origin of Stories, which has helped to enrich my understanding of the early ballads and dismiss a great deal of the cynicism that has followed the Robin Hood stories around for too long.

Contents

Foreword

1. Of Folklore

The Car Park King

Hidalgo

The Great Whore

2. Storytelling Threads

False Story Trails

Plot Decoration

3. The Ballads

Robin Hood and the Monk

Gest of Robin Hood

Robin Hood and the Potter

Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne

The Death of Robin Hood

4. A Historical Puzzle

The Usual Suspects

History vs Legend

Henry III

Here Lies Robert

5. Hereward the Wake

The English Resistance

The Ever-Watchful

The Silvatici

6. The Ballads Reconsidered

Wild Robin

Woodland Geography

He Gives to the Poor

Fame and Popularity

7. The Essence of Story

A Storytelling Key

The Science of Storytelling

Medieval Humour

New Questions

8. Our Comely King

From Hero to Zero

A New Age

Remaining Puzzles

9. Conclusion

Foreword

Folklore is a subject that can be equally delightful and problematic depending on what we are trying to gain from its study. An enjoyment of tales from times gone by – which are what we mostly come to associate as being folkloric in nature – remains an encouraged and healthy pursuit throughout modern societies and cultures. Storytelling enriches the imagination, especially during growth and developmental stages, and historical or mythical settings will always provide a wide tapestry for creative content. So it remains, and hardly looks likely to peter out any time soon, that a medieval story concerning a woodland outlaw named Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men continues to fascinate as much today as it ever has. At the time of writing there are reported to be no less than six Robin Hood films in development at various Hollywood studios, as well as one TV production. This might seem an excessive number but I have not even considered trying to count the amount of written retellings of this famous story that are regularly springing up among book and eBook distributors.

Robin Hood remains a tantalising draw for readerships and audiences all around the world, therefore, all thanks to a collection of initial ballads found to date between 1450 & 1520. However, when we put the joy of storytelling to one side and start looking for truth behind the stories being told, this is often when folklore ceases to hold its worth and, specifically, because it does not hold its worth in the eyes of historians. The subject becomes a no-go area when it comes to exploring any of Robin Hood’s possible time periods, referred to only fleetingly as representing some form of public consciousness at work, but not as something to be delved into in order to enrich our view of medieval history. Like a scientist asked to comment on the likelihood of the Loch Ness Monster existing, folklore becomes a playing field for professional embarrassment, essentially because it will always be associated with romanticism and wishful thinking. Folkloric tales are chiefly remembered because they are enjoyable to read or hear – and what is more romantic than the world’s favourite outlaw who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor? Though this might be the case, by all accounts, when the stories of Robin Hood were first related orally, they succeeded in engaging their audiences just as much as, if not more than, they do today. They were popular enough to be integrated into medieval England’s culture and traditions and their ongoing appeal, albeit much developed from original sources, leads to a desire to locate some truth behind them – and desire can be a dangerous thing.

As a result, Robin Hood’s reputation seems to have been shoved unceremoniously aside and away from being a potential figure of history to being one of the tall tales we tell our children which they will one day learn is untrue. Just as learning that Santa Claus is not real can be a disappointment, or that mankind has never seen a dinosaur or a fire-breathing dragon, so too can learning that our favourite heroes, whether Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot or otherwise, might not have existed either.

Perhaps it is sensible to tread cautiously as far as matters relating to heroism and adventure are concerned, after all. The creative and imaginative mind wants amazing times and people to have existed; the world is more inspiring that way and it stands to reason that, unless you are the Sheriff of Nottingham, we would all prefer Robin Hood to have been a real person – and preference does not equal cold, hard, historical fact. Enchanted hearts, and warped ones, can get carried away and so coming to terms with certain storytelling disappointments should always be an important part of growing up.

Historically, therefore, Robin Hood has become of little value, aside from showing that storytelling has been an important part of our culture throughout the centuries. We are not encouraged to grant historical worth to such heroes of folklore, no matter how rooted they remain within popular imagination.

So folklore is, of course, not history; a consensus I will not seek to contradict within this research. But I do wish to pose the question as to whether it is wise to remain fixed in a mode of study that presumes we can learn nothing from the subject? Especially when, as in Robin Hood’s case, the amount of material available is so much more significant than with so many other figures from whom storytellers continue to draw creative inspiration. Making a comparison between the Robin Hood legend and, for example, Lady Godiva’s naked ride through the streets of Coventry to protest against her husband’s harsh taxes, we are confronted by two completely different animals. Even though we know for sure that Lady Godiva existed, her selfless act is only referenced in one lone thirteenth century text¹. Understandably historians are unconvinced by the credibility of this amazing story, but dismissing Robin Hood, on the other hand, is not as easy as is often made out. As opposed to dealing with one small account in a possibly dubious text, we are dealing with extensive ballads that were known and celebrated by multiple communities. To conclude that we can learn so little from studying the material further seems very limited indeed.

The following chapters are a result of my endeavours to answer this dilemma. From the title of the book it will be obvious that I have concluded that there is indeed a lot more to interpret from the folklore, in Robin Hood’s case at least, to the extent that I feel historians should strongly consider changing their tune upon the outlaw’s existence, even if we remain absent of hard ‘historical evidence’.

Currently Robin Hood only really gets a mention in historical texts in a very loose and dismissive manner, as far as his possible existence is concerned. Countless times I have come across him after a ‘might have’ a ‘maybe’ or a ‘possibly’, with very few robust attempts going on to pinpoint where he really did come from. When the names of alternative outlaws spring up in historical study it has become something of a habit to suggest that said outlaw ‘might have’ inspired some of the content found within the Robin Hood legend, especially if they were ever said to be located in a Midland or North of England forest. However, there is no particular outlaw taking all the plaudits, or even being argued as a prime candidate. We come across comparisons when referring to outlaws active during the reigns of King Richard I (1189–99) or King John (1199–1216), or maybe King Edward I (1272–1307) Edward II (1307–27) or Edward III (1327–77); almost 200 years of ‘maybe’ contenders. Or else we can go further back and find the germs of Robin Hood stories in the doomed English resistance that followed the Norman Conquest of 1066; maybe the reputation of the most notorious rebel, who became known as Hereward the Wake and became something of a folk hero himself, inspired the Robin Hood stories to spring up some two or three centuries later.

If such a wide range of suspects are not enough to put excited Robin Hood fans off looking further then we also have the added issue of historians who do not even respect the roots of the stories as belonging to central England at all. Although the Robin Hood stories have come down to us with a consistently clear location (typically Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire, although it is often contested that the neighbouring Barnsdale Forest in Yorkshire is an equal or even better contender), it is not unusual for historical texts to be suggesting that tales of William Wallace north of the Scottish Borders, or even Finn MacCool across the Irish Sea, might prove to be the real inspiration for Robin Hood tales. The suggestion is that English storytellers of the time were jealous of their neighbouring nation’s forest heroes and decided to cherry pick from one or the other in order to create something exciting for themselves. From a storytelling perspective, it seems pertinent to question why English people of the time would need to look to neighbouring lands to steal material considering they already had Hereward the Wake, not to mention a sheer massive amount of outlaws from Richard I to Edward III’s time to choose from, when England’s vast woodlands that are now so depleted did provide a refuge to so many who had fallen out of favour. Nevertheless, the comparisons are still regularly made; the result of which is that one of our most treasured stories has become something of an uprooted legend, spread too thinly across the length and breadth of the British Isles to incorporate a list of suspects that consists of just about any male that was ever reported to do something in a forest.

All of these maybes and might haves might feel and appear perceptive when they turn up as individual references, but collectively they serve to give us nothing at all. In this case there is no consensus whatsoever. Perhaps those who wish to remain wary of romanticism might assess this to be an acceptable position to adopt but, through understand storytelling better, I am firmly of the opinion that we should be able to be a lot more specific when the question of who Robin Hood really was is raised.

For a start, even by considering the origins of the word ‘folklore’, anyone suspicious of this nothingness surrounding the famous hero might begin to suppose an alternative approach.

The word ‘folklore’ was first coined in 1846 by the English antiquarian and writer William John Thoms². His reasons for doing so were based on an observation that the terms of the time, such as ‘popular literature’ and ‘popular antiquities’, were too loose to really relate what type of story they were referring to. Specifically, Thoms wanted a category for those stories that equated to what were not only tales or narratives but also represented something that people took to be true, or to contain strong elements of truth. A folklore might be a story but it is also a belief, therefore; it could be a custom, a tradition or a superstition as well as a story, but the term was born because Thoms believed the English language needed something to distinguish between tales that were supposed to reflect truth and those that came from some ulterior purpose.

There are many other terms and categories that stories can be placed under of course: legend, mythology, fairy tale, parable and fable, to name a few whose nature will also be touched upon in later chapters. It is certainly fair to say that many of these can be loosely applied and that the meaning of ‘folklore’ has changed slightly since Thoms’ time, largely into referencing those stories that feel local and down-to-earth in nature; tales that belong to people rather than storytellers or some higher purpose. The Oxford English Dictionary now defines it as ‘the unwritten literature of a people, as expressed in folk tales, song…’

In comparison, myths and legends feel more high-brow in nature and, although many are purported to be true, or represent a truth of some kind, the terms tend to be applied when referring to stories from times largely divorced from present circumstances; perhaps by landscape, culture, peoples and social norms, or all of them put together. King Arthur, Hercules and Beowulf belong to myth and legend. Folklore, on the other hand, feels nearer. Like something closer to our own lives that we can almost reach out and grasp. The woods of Sherwood’s hero are still there, if greatly reduced, while Nottingham remains an important city that still has a sheriff; the longbow’s place in British history is not contested and, as we shall see, the cast of characters do not contradict any of the social positions and norms of medieval England.

Scholars active during Thoms’ time would have been conscious of the fact that Robin Hood was believed to have existed by the audiences or readerships that had come before. In tracing its origins, therefore, we need to assess the reasons for which broad opinion has come to reject Robin Hood’s existence, in spite of its categorisation as folklore making it a contender for something genuine. While, if Robin Hood was considered to be a folk ‘belief’ during the nineteenth century, we also need to ask how can we be sure it was not also considered a belief when the original stories were first being told? If there has been deceit involved then at what point and for what reasons would people come to suppose it to be true?

‘Folklore’, as a term, might sound flighty and romantic to us now, but that is only because it has been painted that way by minds that demand ‘history’ or ‘archaeology’ be the go-to terms for finding out what the past was like. The choice of the syllable ‘lore’, however, is a very serious one. Thoms did not choose the word to be flighty or fun in any way. As a linguist he would have known that ‘lore’ refers to a body of knowledge that would have once been used to inform learning. Considered in this context, it is difficult to assess why Robin Hood stories did not become classed as fairy-tale or mythology instead, if their origins were as unconvincing during the nineteenth century as they are often painted today.

With this book I intend to first set out how we can begin to approach questions of authenticity, in order to seek out something more specific from this storytelling heritage. Robin Hood has taken a backseat from historical debate for too long as some kind of ethereal entity that no one seems to know where he has come from or why we have cause to remember him.

To conclude this Foreword, however, the first key point to make in moving forwards is that the same historians who, for years, have been pointing out that there is no evidence for Robin Hood existing have also managed to produce absolutely no evidence to show that he did not. Consequently, understanding why there is simply no evidence to dismiss the stories is perhaps as important a task as defining the arguments for why Robin Hood likely did exist. To begin, therefore, I will first endeavour to show why any attempt at disproving the folklore or dismissing it as a load of tall tale-telling has not been definitively achievable. Getting to grips with why this is will provide its own illumination as to why we are then able to fill that vacant analysis with something tangible and ultimately argue for Robin Hood’s existence after all.

Primarily this will be a folkloric study rather than a historical one, though one that does not seek to contradict the historical