did robin hood really exist?

Answer 1

Robin Hood (Robin of Loxley ) did exist although a mixture of exageration and legend has warped his story somewhat. eg: Maid marrion existed some 100 years later (who says age doesn't matter..yuk!) Robin Hood is actually burried in Huddersfield West Yorkshire.............a long way from sherwood forrest.

Answer 2

Evidence might be found in historical records of Lincoln County given reference to Robin Hood's Merry Men wearing Lincoln green. Robin might have been a woman as it does sound more like the name of a woman . There might have been a mixture of women among the men. There is also a legend of The Men Of Lincoln fighting a Tyrant. Not sure if was true.What would be good would to have several Robins add to the legend make them shapeshifting birds. Make a robin the emblem of a house.Robin likely had a family this was never mentioned in the tales.

Answer 3

At the time that the story is set it was very easy to become and outlaw. A simple debt could do it. So there were a number of men living in the forest for their own safety. One of these men is probably the origins of the story coupled with the legends of the Green Man who was a fertility figure. King John who is portrayed as a bad king was quite an efficient king but he upset the nobles hence the magna carta which he had the pope annul anyway. King Richard who was supposed to be Robin Hood's hero only spent about 6 months in England, could not speak English and simply used England as a cash cow to finance his battles

Answer 4

No. Robin Hood is a figure in archetypal English folk tales. Many accounts of Robin Hood, though not the very earliest, bear a striking similarity to accounts of the life of Fulk FitzWarin, a Norman noble who was disinherited and became an outlaw and an enemy of John of England.

Answer 5

It's a story and a legend, and there wasn't a real Robin Hood. It's possible that the character was modeled off a real-life figure at the time, but there's nothing to prove that.

Answer 6

there is not any information for the existence of the Robin Hood defined interior the thoughts. Eustace Folville did have some similarities to the Robin Hood defined nevertheless if I remember wisely.

Answer 7

Robin Hood did exist.He was Robin of Loxley.New research would now suggest though that he never had anythng to do with Sherwood Forest or Nottingham

Answer 8

There was a man, at some point in history, who was immortalised through ballad and word of mouth and eventually turned into the 'Robin Hood' that we know of today. This doesn't mean his name was Robin Hood or that he 'stole from the rich to feed the poor', although references through history suggest many names, such as 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Hobbehod', and many references to the name 'Rabunhod'. The term seemed to have been used as a way of saying 'outlaw' or 'criminal' in the late 13th century.

Although Robin Hood is traditionally atributed to Sherwood Forest in Nottingham, most of the original stories and ballads of him actually place him in Barnsdale, Yorkshire. This is also a more accurate piece of evidence to take into account as, according to census of the time and records, there are links with a man called 'Robert de Lockesly', which actually come from an old court hearing from 1245:

"No. 389, f0- 78. Ascension Day, 29 H. III., Nic Meverill, with John Kantia, on the one part, and Henry de Leke. Henry released to Nicholas and John 5 m. rent, which he received from Nicolas and John and Robert de Lockesly for his life from the lands of Gellery, in consideration of receiving from each of them 2M (2 marks). only, the said Henry to live at table with one of them and to receive 2M. annually from the other. T., Sampson de Leke, Magister Peter Meverill, Roger de Lockesly, John de Leke, Robert fil Umfred, Rico de Newland, Richard Meverill. (25) No. 402, p. 80 b. Thomas de Lockesly bound himself that he would not sell his lands at Leke, which Nicolas Meveril had rendered to him, under a penalty of L40. (40 pounds)"

This would explain the story behind Robin Hood that the 'evil' sheriff of Nottingham took his lands. In fact the whole story of how King Richard was 'userped' by his terrible brother, and the deeds of the evil sheriff of nottingham tend to be seen as spculation or bias opinion - Richard was known for leading the Crusades in Jerusalem, and as with any war, it was expensive, Therefore Richard had England and her inhabitants cough up the sums for his obsessions - and when the coffers ran dry, he told his brother Joh, whom he left to rule in his stead, to suggest new taxes to get him the money. At one point Richard was captured and held for ransom - his poor brother John had to then set yet more taxes to get him out again. Of course, the population in England heared of Richards warmongering and he fast lost favour with his public - when Richard finally returned home, he found his coffers almost empty, his subjects dissilusioned and a general feeling that he should 'go away' and John should be allowed to rule over him. Eventually John did succeed him as King, but not until Richard had slandered him as attemtping to userp his position. This is more than likely where the concept of the 'evil' king's struggle came from - so much for the 'Lionheart'.

There are always disputes about where Robin Hood came from, where he based himself, and whether the events in his life really did happen. All we know for sure is that there WAS a man called Robert of Locksley, he existed around the 1200's. More than that we cannot positively identify.

Answer 9

yes there really was a "bandit" that stole from the rich and gave money to the poor but his real name wasnt robin hood

Answer 10

I don't think so. Have you ever thought of the name
Robin = Robbing
Hood = Gangster or Gunman (in Robin's case Bows and Arrows)