Man in tights: another British question

[Guest]

Gauche, Wills, Cahab: What's the deal? Are red and white roses involved?

concerned, Perdita
--------------

British spat over where Robin Hood hung his hat - Yorkshire questions Nottingham's claim

Lizette Alvarez, New York Times, February 17, 2004

Nottingham, England -- Not since Mikhail Baryshnikov defected from the Soviet Union has there been such a fuss over a man in tights.

For centuries, Robin Hood, the dashing, chivalrous hero to the oppressed, has been the property of Nottinghamshire in the Midlands -- land of Sherwood Forest, Nottingham Castle and one nefarious sheriff.

But now, in a brazen grab for bragging rights, Yorkshire, an abutting county, is laying claim to the 800-year-old legend and demanding, by way of a parliamentary motion, immediate redress.

In a country where historical figures and legends can make or break a city's fortunes -- consider William Shakespeare of Stratford, the Beatles of Liverpool -- it is a bold attempt at forging a "brand" that appeals to visitors.

David Hinchliffe, a Labor member of Parliament from Wakefield, in West Yorkshire, wants Nottinghamshire to take down signs along the motorway proclaiming the county "Robin Hood Country."

"We believe very strongly that Robin Hood was a Yorkshireman and we are aggrieved to read that we are now entering Robin Hood country," he said. "It's very, very serious business. The way things are going, the signs are going to get torn down by angry Yorkshiremen."

In fact, Yorkshire locals contend, Robin Hood, a man no one is sure ever existed, may have been born smack in the middle of the Wakefield bus depot. They also point to a bloke called Robert Hode of Wakefield who lived in the 1300s and the fact that Sherwood Forest extended well into Yorkshire in medieval times as further proof of their claims.

The leaders of Nottingham are aghast, if slightly smug, knowing that legends and their associations die hard. "I don't know why Yorkshire is being so sensitive," said John Hartshorne, the deputy mayor of Nottingham. "They have their icons -- Yorkshire pudding, for example. Yorkshire is a very beautiful place and they could do a lot with that without poaching on our icons."

In truth, most Robin Hood experts seem to agree that the master archer, a man committed to spreading the wealth, was probably an amalgam of several men who lived during different periods. The legend derives from early ballads and tales, one being a ballad, "A Gest of Robyn Hode," which was compiled by 1400.

The Yorkshire incursion has served to arouse Nottingham. For all these years, the county has failed to exploit its most famous resident as fully as it might. It turns out the man-in-tights image, courtesy of Errol Flynn, is one the people of Nottingham were squeamish to embrace, civic leaders said. It seemed so dated, so 13th century, so embarrassing.

But it is never too late.

"I mean, you have Baker Street in London and Sherlock Holmes," said Bob White, who used to be director of the public relations and tourism office for the Nottingham City Council and is now chairman of the World Wide Robin Hood Society. "I mean, he never even lived there."

One thing is clear, though, said John Heeley, chief executive of the tourism office, Experience Nottingham. "There are no immediate plans to take down road signs."

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have always understood that Robin Hood was a real person, although highly glamorized, and his name was Locksley. The time of his exploits should be fairly easy to pinpoint because he lived at the time King Richard the Lion-Hearted returned from the Crusades. He is a major figure in "Ivanhoe", along with some other heroes and villains. One of the villains was named "Meathead".


I like your AV, Dita, even though I am not much of a leg man.

 

[Guest]

Perdita,

The red and white roses pertain to the Wars of the Roses between the Yorks and Lancastrians (Nottingham isn't part of Lancaster, more north-midlands -ish). I love this era in history, so indulge me for a few minutes.

The Yorks had the White Rose as their 'symbol' or 'motif' (and still do) the Lancastrians the Red - and they still have that, too.

Dredging up stuff from my memory here (I took History at 'A' level), there were decades of feuding/civil wars between the two Houses of York and Lancaster, during the 15th Century.

A major point of conflict was that both sides were direct descendants of Edward III, so they both wanted and claimed the throne. Henry VI (Edward III's great-grandson - I believe) was a Lancastrian, and he surrounded himself with nobles who were greatly disliked. He was also a bit mad - a recurring theme amongst the British Monarchy.

Edward IV then became King, he was a member of the House of York, then Henry VI was King again for a few months - following the Battle of Edgecote Moor. Edward IV soon won the throne back, and he reigned for another twelve years. If I remember correctly it was he who had the 'Princes in The Tower' murdered. After him was Edward V, who died young, then Richard III. He was killed by Henry Tudor at The Battle of Bosworth field - which effectively ended The Wars of The Roses.

Anyways, the Wars really came to an end when Henry Tudor (a Lancastrian, and descendent of Henry VI) married Elizabeth of York. On ascension to the throne he became Henry VII, the founder of the Tudor dynasty.

Clear as mud, eh? I *think* my facts are straight, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, you probably knew a lot of this anyway, as some of the best Shakespeare plays were based on some of these monarchs.

Lou

 

[Guest]

I have always understood that Robin Hood was a real person, although highly glamorized, and his name was Locksley. The time of his exploits should be fairly easy to pinpoint because he lived at the time King Richard the Lion-Hearted returned from the Crusades. He is a major figure in "Ivanhoe", along with some other heroes and villains. One of the villains was named "Meathead".


I like your AV, Dita, even though I am not much of a leg man.

Box, the theory that Robin Hood was really Robin of Locksley is merely that - a theory. And it was that conjecture that Kevin Costner's film was based on.

I, personally, believe that Robin Hood is a legend, an urban myth, if you like. They may well have been somebody whose name was close, who did help the poor by stealing from the rich. Perdita's article seems pretty feasible to me, but just as feasible as all other claims and theories.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Loulou. I love the history plays and all the characters, but I can always use a refresher in remembering who succeeded whom. I just threw the roses in for a lark.

Perdita of Motown

 

[Madame Manga]

Edward IV soon won the throne back, and he reigned for another twelve years. If I remember correctly it was he who had the 'Princes in The Tower' murdered.

Edward IV was the father of the little Princes. After he died, his elder son was proclaimed king as Edward V. The boys' uncle Richard Duke of York, the brother of Edward IV, was made Lord Protector because of the youth of the King. A short time later, he proclaimed the Princes illegitimate (complicated story) and took the throne himself as Richard III.

No one knows what happened to the sons of Edward IV. They disappeared at some point, but it's not clear when. Shakespeare portrays Richard III as a monster, following the accounts written after Richard was killed at Bosworth and the throne assumed by Henry Tudor. He directly accuses Richard of their murders (and of many others.)

However, there are credible theories that exonerate Richard and point the finger elsewhere, notably at Henry VII. After all, the existence of either of those boys would have destroyed his vague claim to the throne. Several rebellions during his reign were figureheaded by men claiming to be one of the lost Princes. It is very possible that at least one of them was an actual son of Edward IV on the wrong side of the blanket, since he had no shortage of mistresses.

Ever since reading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey about twenty-five years ago, I have been a partisan of Richard's.

MM

 

[Guest]

Ah yes! Thanks, MM.

I had a feeling I'd got some of my facts a bit wonky.

Lou

P.S. Perdita, I wasn't sure how you'd meant that comment. Glad my waffle was of interest, anyway.

 

[Guest]

I know Shakespeare created his own R3, but I would think it obvious the villain was not the point. None of the histories are perfectly factual, Shakespeare uses history to show more than a plot. His villains are great figures because they have such depth (probably more than the real lives on which they are based).

For me "R3" is like the court's fool; he makes moral mincemeat out of all the courtiers around him. There are no innocents in the play; even the 'babies' know something of truth and are as mean as kids can be to their uncle.

The thing that escapes so many readers/viewers is that one cannot read Shakespeare like a book. The 'novelization' of his plays does not work and only hides the wealth there is in them.

Perdita

 

[TheEarl]

Gauche, Wills, Cahab: What's the deal?

Ahem.

I wouldn't have imagined the people of Yorkshire knew or cared that much about this association. The word association game goes - Robin Hood, Sheriff of Nottingham, Sherwood Forest, Nottingham. Whether he's a real person or a myth, I don't think Yorkshire are going to have much luck getting the idea shifted.

The Earl

 

[raphy]

Myths and lore don't change just because some brass hat in whitehall decides to make a law about it

I'm with The Earl.

As for Robin Hood, I personally think Plunkett and Macleane much more likely

 

[Madame Manga]

I have never held Shakespeare up to any historical standard other than his own. Don't get me wrong, Perdita--I love the play. I watched Olivier's film of it over and over, a high-school classmate and I did the seduction scene with Lady Anne as a performance project, and I'm anxiously awaiting the next production of RIII at Ashland.

W.S. is the major reason I am interested in the Wars of the Roses in the first place. I once charted out the whole genealogy of the Yorkist and Lancastrian claims for a Shakespeare seminar and can still do it by heart. I doubt I would have immersed myself in English history to that extent if textbooks had been my sole introduction to the subject!

MM

 

[Guest]

I have never held Shakespeare up to any historical standard other than his own.

Madame, I did not think you had, but too many do so I wanted to make my point.

Too many people also don't hold RIII as highly as the other plays but I adore reading and hearing the characters. The seduction scene is one of the most brilliant things ever written in any language. Also Richard's words to Elizabeth when he tries to arrange for the hand of her daughter, brilliantly evil thinking.

Crap, now I just want to go read the play (again), haha.

Perdita

 

[gauchecritic]

The Roses thing, white and red combined to make the Tudor Rose. The Dukes of York and Lancaster were political not necessarily geographical titles. (Andrew is the latest Duke of York)

Robin Hood, was almost definitely a Yorkshire bloke. In the north we have a sea-side town called Robin Hood's Bay. Wakefield (David Hinchliffe's constituency) has a hamlet or village by the same name. The judicial rolls of Wakefield have Robin Hood as having been held on trial there. At that time more of England was wooded than not. Forests covered many counties. Sherwood Forest certainly extended in all directions covering much more than a few acres in Nottinghamshire. (Full of scabs and blacklegs)

The Sheriff of Nottingham was merely the most local lord to where Robin carried out his robbery, sorry re-distribution. Bit pointless robbing his own landlords, Barons etc which would have deprived his own fellows of livelihood and no doubt brought retribution, so he commuted to his place of work. In a similar manner to Jack Nevison.

Who?

You must have heard of the famous highwayman Dick Turpin? Well his most celebrated exploit was in fact carried out by another local in these parts: Jack Nevison. The (in)famous ride from London (Kent actually) to York in less than a day? On horseback? Pursued by the law? Making a leap across a great chasm to escape? You can read about it here.. Except the chasm part.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Thanks so much, Gauche. I knew York and Lancaster were political more than otherwise; I think it's the first Henry VI that has the roses scene. Anyway, your information makes sense. Whether true or not, I only wonder why it's taken so long to make this reclamation?

Perdita

p.s. I recently saw Sarah Ferguson in her WW commercial and just could not reconcile to the duchesses of York I know from the history plays.

 

[oggbashan]

Commercial Tourism

Every part of the UK has its own set of legends most of which are based on dubious sources.

The Arthurian legends get confused with the real King Alfred. Winchester, Glastonbury, Cornwall and Wales all claim Arthur.

If you believe hotel keepers, Queen Elizabeth the first slept (alone) in hundreds of hotels.

Robin Hood travelled everywhere up and down the East of England. There are references to Yorkshire in some of the legends.

Dracula is good business for Whitby in Yorkshire.

Dickens is good for most of Kent.

Shakespeare is good for the Midlands, yet he spent most of his time in London.

Chaucer for Canterbury even though his Pilgrims NEVER got to Canterbury.

If we don't have real legends then someone invents them. The Romney Marsh has real accounts of smugglers yet trade on Doctor Syn invented by Russell Thorndyke in the 1930s and 40s.

Shrewsbury has an interesting real history yet Ellis Peters Cadfael books attract the tourists. You can walk the Cadfael trail even though most of the monastery he 'knew' is covered by a car park. Shrewsbury Abbey is very interesting but unprepossessing.

If the local tourist office doesn't have a legend, they are failing in their marketing objectives.

Og

 

[NoJo]

I walk past Boudicca's burial mound nearly every week, on Hampstead Heath. I have no idea what the evidence is for this, if any.

 

[Guest]

Dorset, Devon and Cornwall are legends for their cream teas.

Somerset for its cider.

My part of the world (Dorset) is famous for the Toll Puddle Martyrs and Thomas Hardy.

Lilly Langtree owned a house in Bournemouth.

Nell Gwyn also came here, and Mary Shelley is buried in the Town Centre's Graveyard, with her husband, Percy. It is rumoured that Lord Byron visited Bournemouth, once, too. Although, Bournemouth never really existed back then, just the small villages that now make up suburbs of the town, such as Throop and Holdenhurst.

Ok, so I've wandered off legends onto real historical figures, but real local history rich in all parts of the UK.

Lou

 

[Bi Brit]

The real Sherwood

Having lived in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, County Durham, Yorkshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Birmingham (can't remember which county that's in), Wiltshire and having finally settled in Worcestershire, I must agree with Tatelou. They all have (even Birmingham) interesting historical and mythical figures.

It's not until you visit or live in other countries, such as the States or Australia, that you realise how enriching local British History is.

Good choice Tatelou, if I didn't live where I do now, I would move back to Dorset. The inland and coastal scenery is stunning and the people are generally friendly. I think you forgot Lawrence of Arabia lived, and I think was buried there.

Back to the original thread, I was born very close to the epicentre of Sherwood Forest, or maybe Sherwood copse would now be more apt. There are about half a dozen oak trees, a tacky visitor centre, and a "Centre Parc". Some of the romance has definitely dissapeared.

Ooops, sorry if there are any Americans reading this, "The forest is a vast array of fine English Oak, set in a dramatic landscape. A historical centre and luxury accommodation have been tastefully added. Please come and spend your money there."

However, I wouldn't want to trust Yorkshire with the Robin Hood legend, after the aweful hash they've made of the original magnificent Harry Ramsden's. They've turned it into a worldwide chain of glorified McDonalds.

 

[Guest]

Hello, BiBrit. Thanks for your reply, it was interesting and new for me; enjoyed the special humour directed at Americans.

best, Perdita

 

[gauchecritic]

My part of the world (Dorset) is famous... Thomas Hardy.

Lou

"A. A Sat. Doesn't make sense. A Saturday! In. In No. Noo. November. A Saturday in November was. Now it's a long word, appro, appro, is it approving no... it's approaching. And he's done the definite article 'the' again."

Commentary from "Novel Writing From Dorset." A popular British tea-time radio programme.*

Gauche

*M.Python

 

[pop_54]

Ha

Nice to have a bit of history about isn't it, we have loads round here, ancient and modern.

A recently discovered bit is although Colchester lays claim to being the oldest town in England, it has recently been proved by archaeologists that our little town just outside Oxford pre-dates Colchester by some 500 yrs as a permanetly inhabited settlement.

We have some lovely Abbey ruins, good old Henry VIII made them that way, also the oldest, (first constucted) Lock and weir on the river Thames, built by the Monks before Henry hacked their heads off and torched the Abbey, or whatever.

The church where we were married, and all three kids were Christened, was originally built in 997AD Some of the original is still standing.

Of course the Uni down the road is quite old as well and has supported or employed some rather famous peeps over the years.

As for men in tights, well apart from me on the 'odd' occasion, I don't think we've had many of those, not sure if Robin made it this far down.

 

[snooper]

Re: Ha

Nice to have a bit of history about isn't it ...

The trouble is, Pops, that the US doesn't mean the same thing by the word "history" as we do.

I remember back in the 1950s I was at school in Nottingham, and I was showing some American visitors round and happened to refer to the "new building". They looked round and didn't see any new buildings, so they asked me which I meant. When I answered that I meant the whole thing because we hadn't moved in until 1745 I discovered what they mean by "history".

Anything over 100 years is archaeology to an American, whereas anything less than 200 years is mere journalism to a Brit.

 

[raphy]

Re: Re: Ha

The trouble is, Pops, that the US doesn't mean the same thing by the word "history" as we do.

I remember back in the 1950s I was at school in Nottingham, and I was showing some American visitors round and happened to refer to the "new building". They looked round and didn't see any new buildings, so they asked me which I meant. When I answered that I meant the whole thing because we hadn't moved in until 1745 I discovered what they mean by "history".

Anything over 100 years is archaeology to an American, whereas anything less than 200 years is mere journalism to a Brit.

I call this the 200 syndrome.

Americans think 200 years is a long time.
Brits think 200 miles is a long way.

It's all a matter of perspective, really.

 

[oggbashan]

Brits who have lived in Australia have a different perspective on distance.

What is old? Where I live the town is new, being a 19th century foundation, but we have Roman remains and recently uncovered a pathetic Bronze Age settlement on the site of a new housing estate. 'Pathetic' because they built in the wrong place, on a flood plain, and abandoned the settlement after a couple of years.

The new housing estate is STILL on a flood plain. Developers don't learn.

If I dig in my back garden I turn up bits of 19th clay pipes. If I walk the shoreline I can find fossilised sharks' teeth and occasionally Roman bricks and tiles. I can walk down the coast and put my hand on a Roman wall built about 300 AD, or lean against a Saxon church started about 900 AD.

Nearby is Canterbury. I can visit the Cathedral, see the church where St Augustine worshipped, look at the graves of the Kings of Kent (all seem to be named Eg-something) and walk the City walls started by the Romans.

I can visit a Cinque Port, or Dover Castle, or a Stone Age hillfort.

My 'new' house was built in 1939. My 'old' house was built in 1903. My brother's 'new' house was built in 1650. His 'old' house was built in 1639 using the timbers from a ship broken up in 1600. It still shows the shipwright's marks and the carpenter's marks when he used the wood to build the house. The floor boards are from the ship's decking. It isn't easy to drill a hole through 2 inch thick 400 year old oak to install a central heating pipe.

Having old buildings around does remind you that you are part of a continuing tradition. Sometimes we forget why we started doing things. In 1957 the Army asked why they had two soldiers, one with a telescope, keeping watch 24 hours a day from the roof of Dover Castle. When they researched the reason they found that the soldiers had been posted there to warn if Napoleon Bonaparte tried to cross the Channel. Nobody had changed the orders.

Og

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: Re: Re: Ha

Americans think 200 years is a long time.
Brits think 200 miles is a long way.

...and Svenskaflicka thinks 200:- SKR is a helluva lot of money.