I sincerely give Greshem College millions of my thanks to the lectures provided with grateful materials to assist learners. Really insightful !! Really! An inspiring future from the UK to the world !!
Genuinely illuminating. I knew a Yorkshireman, called Barry Boyd, in the 1980's who passionately argued that Robin Hood was buried in Kirklees, West Yorkshire. The grave is 'marked' on O/S maps, but impossible to access. Like the creator of this video: I think Robin Hood is a myth; but I would like to visit the marked site of Robin Hood's grave in memory of Barry Boyd, a gentleman madman.
I seem to recall an episode of Robin of Sherwood from the eighties starring Michael Praed and Jason Connery that closely mirrors the tale of the knight being extorted by a corrupt abbot
Interesting lecture. Eamon Duffy in "The Stripping of the Altars" strongly disputes the idea that the speaker brings up a couple of times, that there was anything like a sacred and secular half year for the Medievals. That the major festivals on the calendar between Whitsun and Advent were all from the Sanctoral cycle didn't make it any less sacred for the medieval mind.
this was a fascinating talk, thank you so much! I'm so glad my own favourite Robin Hood (Mel Brook's Men in Tights) is carrying on the musical tradition :)
My oh my . . . so Robin is whatever the popular culture needs him to be? Sounds like Dennis Rodman. Thank you, professor, for a most entertaining lecture.
Dr who's transport is not in a 1920s phonebox, but an early 1960s police box. Something that was a commonplace in that time when dr who first appeared hence the police box was a disguise for the tardis.
I can’t believe there wasn’t anybody in the Middle Ages called Robin Hood. Lots of people wore hoods, as evidenced by all those illuminated monks who drew them doing all sorts of medieval activities; cutting wood, carrying things and praying, etc, so it stands to reason someone was making the hoods and was probably known as Mr. Hood and his wife as Mrs. Hood. It’s a short leap to have a son named after the UK’s favourite Christmas card bird- the Robin! I can’t be bothered doing any research to back up my postulation but I’ll happily let someone else take the credit if they do.
The problem is actually the opposite of the lack of Robin Hood. Between the years 1200 and 1400 there are several documented recorts (court rolls) of people named Robin/Robert/Robyn Hood/Hod/Hode in various parts of England and some of them were even outlaws. For this reason, it has been suggested that the Robin Hood of the legends would be an amalgamation of several different personnel.
Yes, it's on the western edge of Sheffield located in the valley of a small river of the same name - there even used to be a pub there called The Robin Hood (closed down about ten years ago). According to the current wikipedia entry: The extensive forest of Loxley Chase extended as far south east as Nottinghamshire in the 12th century where it joined up with Sherwood Forest. Loxley is one of the locations claimed as the birthplace of Robin Hood.
01:00 'no historical evidence for King Arthur'. Prof Church has clearly not heard of the Brut Y Brenhinnedd or Chronicle of the Kings first translated into Latin by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a historical work documenting early Welsh history, or, as it was known then, British history. (Wales was called Britain and England Anglia.) The original Arthurian account is contained in the Brut. The idea that there is no historical evidence for Arthur derives from the fact that Gildas, who would have been Arthur's contemporary, makes no mention of him, is because Arthur was not popular with all the Welsh, being thought of as a tyrant. A later source, Nennius, states that Arthur killed Gildas' brother which is why he expunged him from his annals. This story is common in Welsh folklore and was written down by Elis Gruffydd in 1530.
geoffrey on monmouth is considered historically unreliable by the vast majority of modern historians and anthropologists. he wrote mostly fictionalized accounts of events and people.
@@sarahoftheice He is considered unreliable by modern historians for the reasons I have given i.e. that there is no independent attestation of Arthur's existence. It is therefore generally considered that he wrote fiction. Geoffrey of Monmouth was not, however, making stuff up, he was translating from the Welsh (or British as it was called then) Brut Y Brenhinnedd, Chronicle of the Kings of Britain (or Wales as we now call it) of which no copies earlier than the 13th century now survive, leading historians to believe that the Brut is actually a translation into Welsh from Geoffrey's Latin, a preposterous idea since all the names in Geoffrey's account are clearly Latinisations of Welsh names! The basic account of Arthur's life and military career is contained in the Brut, along with his 'semi-miraculous' conception which is borrowed from the Greek myth of Zeus and Alcmene mother of Heracles. Later accretions by Chrétien de Troyes and others are clearly romantic legends and not historical in substance.
@@dirkcampbell5847 Geoffrey claimed to have had an ancient book as a source indeed, whether he had or not, or how old ancient meant is another matter. He doesn't name the book IIRC so there is no strong reason to think it was the Brut, or, more likely, an earlier version of that. Even if he did use the Brut is there any reason to think it goes back to anywhere near Arthur's supposed time? Both it and Geoffrey could be the result of centuries of imagination applied to a few old stories. Look how much the tale of Roncesvalles developed between the Carolingian skirmish and the "Song of Roland" that we have, in less time that between Arthur and Geoffrey or the surviving Brut.
Fictive Robin Hood was a compensatory fantasy. Che Guevara was a beret wearing poor little rich boy who enjoyed torturing and killing prisoners, a complete sh*t, a bored rich psychopath like Carlos the Jackal. So that'll be a no. One didn't exist, and it would have been better for everyone if the other hadn't ever existed.
The problem with English academics, is that they never look beyond their Malvolion minds. Now if we look with an open mind not a closed singularity mind, we find in The Annals of Ulster, 497, that Uther Pendragon was the father of king Arthur. Then as Francis Bacon ( Shake-Speare) says in his Promus ( Storehouse ) pub 1883, " To win the game ; Tick , tack, begin the game with Irish." So Udar means, Author / Origins, were Judah is from, then Pen is the Swan = Cygnus and Dragon = Draco. Now for the name Arthur, Ur is Irish for New / Fresh, if we look in the Upanishads , we find that Artha, means, " The Wounded Self, " which all authors , have known because they all show Arthur as the New / Fresh Artha. If we then look at the legend of were he was born Tintagel, Tin / Tine = Fire and Tagartha, is Irish for , Reference / Mention, he is there but you need to look with eyes bereft of prejudice, the English still believe that the Angles were real, another con job, from the Irish An Geill, meaning To Surrender, all the archaeological evidence shows that the Angles never existed a creation of the Roman Bede, to hoodwink, which he has succeeded in doing, to the Irish, England was always Aengael, were Bede's corruption came from.
Thank goodness for the lectures from Gresham college. It beats the drivel being pushed by media outlets. Great lectures!
I sincerely give Greshem College millions of my thanks to the lectures provided with grateful materials to assist learners. Really insightful !! Really! An inspiring future from the UK to the world !!
Genuinely illuminating. I knew a Yorkshireman, called Barry Boyd, in the 1980's who passionately argued that Robin Hood was buried in Kirklees, West Yorkshire.
The grave is 'marked' on O/S maps, but impossible to access. Like the creator of this video: I think Robin Hood is a myth; but I would like to visit the marked site of Robin Hood's grave in memory of Barry Boyd, a gentleman madman.
I seem to recall an episode of Robin of Sherwood from the eighties starring Michael Praed and Jason Connery that closely mirrors the tale of the knight being extorted by a corrupt abbot
Excellent lecture. Many thank to Gresham College.
Interesting lecture. Eamon Duffy in "The Stripping of the Altars" strongly disputes the idea that the speaker brings up a couple of times, that there was anything like a sacred and secular half year for the Medievals. That the major festivals on the calendar between Whitsun and Advent were all from the Sanctoral cycle didn't make it any less sacred for the medieval mind.
An excellent book by Eamon Duffy. Reformation propaganda created its own cancel culture.
this guy just saved my life for my assignment
this was a fascinating talk, thank you so much! I'm so glad my own favourite Robin Hood (Mel Brook's Men in Tights) is carrying on the musical tradition :)
Thank you for the lecture! We love Robin Hood. ✨
My oh my . . . so Robin is whatever the popular culture needs him to be? Sounds like Dennis Rodman. Thank you, professor, for a most entertaining lecture.
Dr who's transport is not in a 1920s phonebox, but an early 1960s police box. Something that was a commonplace in that time when dr who first appeared hence the police box was a disguise for the tardis.
I can’t believe there wasn’t anybody in the Middle Ages called Robin Hood. Lots of people wore hoods, as evidenced by all those illuminated monks who drew them doing all sorts of medieval activities; cutting wood, carrying things and praying, etc, so it stands to reason someone was making the hoods and was probably known as Mr. Hood and his wife as Mrs. Hood. It’s a short leap to have a son named after the UK’s favourite Christmas card bird- the Robin! I can’t be bothered doing any research to back up my postulation but I’ll happily let someone else take the credit if they do.
The problem is actually the opposite of the lack of Robin Hood. Between the years 1200 and 1400 there are several documented recorts (court rolls) of people named Robin/Robert/Robyn Hood/Hod/Hode in various parts of England and some of them were even outlaws. For this reason, it has been suggested that the Robin Hood of the legends would be an amalgamation of several different personnel.
Thank you.
That was wonderful!! Thank you!
Excellent channel, thanks
I'm interested in the Lincoln connection. Is that poem on public display I wonder?
Excellent lecture. Now please dissect the Legend of King Arthur, another person who never existed yet lives on in the mass public psyche.
Allow me to play "The Hooded Man"...
I like Joseph Hunter's 1852 research.
Tell me more and why, good fellow?
Loxley, South Yorkshire... no? Excellent lecture and summary, all but that one point
Yes, it's on the western edge of Sheffield located in the valley of a small river of the same name - there even used to be a pub there called The Robin Hood (closed down about ten years ago). According to the current wikipedia entry: The extensive forest of Loxley Chase extended as far south east as Nottinghamshire in the 12th century where it joined up with Sherwood Forest. Loxley is one of the locations claimed as the birthplace of Robin Hood.
Locksle is real. It's on the edge of Sheffield...
Are we just not going to talk about that sick rhyme during his medieval commentary mid-lecture?
01:00 'no historical evidence for King Arthur'. Prof Church has clearly not heard of the Brut Y Brenhinnedd or Chronicle of the Kings first translated into Latin by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a historical work documenting early Welsh history, or, as it was known then, British history. (Wales was called Britain and England Anglia.) The original Arthurian account is contained in the Brut. The idea that there is no historical evidence for Arthur derives from the fact that Gildas, who would have been Arthur's contemporary, makes no mention of him, is because Arthur was not popular with all the Welsh, being thought of as a tyrant. A later source, Nennius, states that Arthur killed Gildas' brother which is why he expunged him from his annals. This story is common in Welsh folklore and was written down by Elis Gruffydd in 1530.
geoffrey on monmouth is considered historically unreliable by the vast majority of modern historians and anthropologists. he wrote mostly fictionalized accounts of events and people.
@@sarahoftheice He is considered unreliable by modern historians for the reasons I have given i.e. that there is no independent attestation of Arthur's existence. It is therefore generally considered that he wrote fiction. Geoffrey of Monmouth was not, however, making stuff up, he was translating from the Welsh (or British as it was called then) Brut Y Brenhinnedd, Chronicle of the Kings of Britain (or Wales as we now call it) of which no copies earlier than the 13th century now survive, leading historians to believe that the Brut is actually a translation into Welsh from Geoffrey's Latin, a preposterous idea since all the names in Geoffrey's account are clearly Latinisations of Welsh names! The basic account of Arthur's life and military career is contained in the Brut, along with his 'semi-miraculous' conception which is borrowed from the Greek myth of Zeus and Alcmene mother of Heracles. Later accretions by Chrétien de Troyes and others are clearly romantic legends and not historical in substance.
@@dirkcampbell5847 how interesting, thank you for shining some light on this matter
@@dirkcampbell5847 Geoffrey claimed to have had an ancient book as a source indeed, whether he had or not, or how old ancient meant is another matter. He doesn't name the book IIRC so there is no strong reason to think it was the Brut, or, more likely, an earlier version of that. Even if he did use the Brut is there any reason to think it goes back to anywhere near Arthur's supposed time? Both it and Geoffrey could be the result of centuries of imagination applied to a few old stories. Look how much the tale of Roncesvalles developed between the Carolingian skirmish and the "Song of Roland" that we have, in less time that between Arthur and Geoffrey or the surviving Brut.
you reckon a professor of medieval British literature hasn't heard of Monmouth's acount of Arthur?
Sounds like the middle class can't figure out Robin Hood anymore in the current year than they could in the period.
Not in Yorkshire? Not in Robin Hoods Bay?
What about the village of 'Robin Hood' in Leeds - plausible links to the legend there.
I think these are all the same person described by different writers who each viewed him differently.
He was invented to justify crusader Richard 2nd.
Ancient order of foresters 1928 lieutenant little John. They stole from rich and gave back t poor. Red coits.
Little John was a Bigfoot. I pity the fool who challenges Little John Bigfoot!
Robin Hood was the prototype of the hero as guerilla warrior, the original Che Guevara. 😊
Fictive Robin Hood was a compensatory fantasy.
Che Guevara was a beret wearing poor little rich boy who enjoyed torturing and killing prisoners, a complete sh*t, a bored rich psychopath like Carlos the Jackal.
So that'll be a no.
One didn't exist, and it would have been better for everyone if the other hadn't ever existed.
The problem with English academics, is that they never look beyond their Malvolion minds. Now if we look with an open mind not a closed singularity mind, we find in The Annals of Ulster, 497, that Uther Pendragon was the father of king Arthur. Then as Francis Bacon ( Shake-Speare) says in his Promus ( Storehouse ) pub 1883, " To win the game ; Tick , tack, begin the game with Irish." So Udar means, Author / Origins, were Judah is from, then Pen is the Swan = Cygnus and Dragon = Draco. Now for the name Arthur, Ur is Irish for New / Fresh, if we look in the Upanishads , we find that Artha, means, " The Wounded Self, " which all authors , have known because they all show Arthur as the New / Fresh Artha. If we then look at the legend of were he was born Tintagel, Tin / Tine = Fire and Tagartha, is Irish for , Reference / Mention, he is there but you need to look with eyes bereft of prejudice, the English still believe that the Angles were real, another con job, from the Irish An Geill, meaning To Surrender, all the archaeological evidence shows that the Angles never existed a creation of the Roman Bede, to hoodwink, which he has succeeded in doing, to the Irish, England was always Aengael, were Bede's corruption came from.
Not a very auditoraly attractive speaker...