Many historians doubt the historical existence of both King Arthur and Robin Hood. Most people know the basic stories: King Arthur lived sometime during the fifth or sixth century, united the English against the Anglo-Saxon and Roman threats, married a woman named Guinivere, and was killed by his illegitimate son, Mordred. The legend of Robin Hood is of a similar nature as that of King Arthur. Robin Hood lived sometime around the reign of King John, robbed from the rich to feed the poor, ran around with his Merry Men in Sherwood Forest, fought with the Sheriff of Nottingham, and was made a hero with the return of King Richard I from the Crusades. With both of these men, historians find difficulty establishing their actual existence; they have even more trouble establishing the existence of those associated with Arthur and Robin Hood, mainly Mordred and the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, by looking at the writings of people during certain times of English history, we can see how current mass opinion influenced the development of those characters.

The roots of the Arthurian legend can be found in the writings of four men: Gildas, Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Sir Thomas Malory. These men wrote from the fifth century to the twelfth century. The first to write about Arthur was Gildas, who was born in the same year as the Battle of Mount Badon. He does not specifically write about some great King Arthur, but did attest to the existence of Ambrosius Aurelianus, who is believed to be Arthur or at least related to Arthur, and his victory at Mount Badon. The earliest known mention of King Arthur was written by Nennius in his Historia Britonum. This work, written in the ninth century , presents a detailed story of the Arthurian period as well as a chronicle of the Twelve Battles and Arthur's victories. Nennius also mentions Arthur's final campaign and the battle of Camlann.

The first mention of someone connected in the death of Arthur is in the Anneles Cambrine, a series of stories written by an anonymous author in the late tenth century. Two of the entries of most concern to those studying the Arthurian legend are the date of the battle of Mount Badon being in 516, and in 537 the "Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell." The question arising from this entry is: Who is Medraut? No mention is made of Medraut being any relation to Arthur or an enemy of Arthur.

The next influential writing about Arthur comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 1100s. Geoffrey explains Mordred as the man to whom Arthur had entrusted his kingdom and wife to when he went to the European continent to fight the Romans. Still, there is no mention of the Mordred being the illegitimate son of Arthur. In Geoffrey's writings, he also tells of the battle between Arthur and Mordred on the battlefield at Camlann and both of them are killed, each inflicting the fatal blow upon the other. The English author Wace, writing about 1155, tells of the treason of Mordred but ignores the Welsh tradition that Arthur did have a son and this son could perhaps be Mordred.

Where does the idea come into tradition that Arthur was betrayed and killed by his own son? Sir Thomas Malory seems to be the first to tell of the incestuous relationship between Arthur and his sister Morgause, producing their son Mordred. This was in Le Morte D'Arthur, circa 1469. Malory supports this claim by writing about Arthur's May-day decree in which all children born on May-day were to be killed; Arthur was trying to correct his own mistake by killing his own son. However, Mordred was saved and was sent to Arthur's court when he was fourteen with his half-brothers. Regardless, it was widely believed that Mordred was at least Arthur's nephew; he was the son of Morgause and perhaps her husband, Lot of Orkney. Even Malory is reluctant to call Mordred the son of Arthur and refers to Arthur as Mordred's uncle throughout the story.

The development of the Arthurian legend and the Mordred element can be seen by looking at political and social occurrences in England. During the time of Nennius' writings, the English were fighting off the invasions of the Danes and facing the consolidation of English power under one leader. Beginning around 800, the Danes began raiding the English coasts with no intention of settlement; however, in 865 an army arrived in East Anglia and made plans for permanent settlement. Systematically, the Danes destroyed the kingdoms of Northumbria and East Anglia and began to move into the kingdom of Wessex. These Danish invaders of the ninth century were compared by many to the Anglo-Saxon invaders of the fifth century, the very people against who Arthur rallied his fellow countrymen to fight. The people of England looked to the king of Wessex for guidance and leadership in the battle against the Danes. Alfred was able to make a treaty with the Danes, establishing the Danelaw in 886, and succeeded in making his kingship of Wessex the kingship of England. Arthur had done a similar thing in the sixth century when he united England against the Anglo-Saxon leaders. Therefore, while England was under the Danish invasion, Nennius recalled a legend from the past to help rally his countrymen against the Danes.

The development of the Mordred factor seems to come with the Norman invasion. Both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace are writing in the 1100s, after the establishment of Norman power and the imposition of Norman feudalism in England. The invasion of William the Conqueror brought a new order to England in the form of feudalism. With feudalism, the king was able to create an army of loyal supporters with the gift of land. The king's vassal pledged to the king his loyalty and service, and the king granted the vassal a piece of land in return for military service. This concept of loyalty to a ruler is reminiscent of Arthur's Knights of the Round Table. These knights, to whom Mordred was rumored to be a part of, were the ralliers of Arthur's armed force. The Round Table was broken with the betrayal of Mordred, and the knights divided between Arthur and Mordred, with one of Arthur's most trusted friends, Lancelot, siding with Mordred.

Another condition from which Geoffrey of Monmouth could have drawn a parallel was the problem of Norman succession to the throne. After William I, he was succeeded by his son, William Rufus, and then his brother Henry I. The throne then fell to Henry's nephew, Stephen, instead of going to his daughter, Matilda. However, the line did fall next to Matilda's son, Henry II, and continued through his sons. The practice of primogeniture that we are accustomed to was not established in England until around 1200. The issue of succession was a definite problem in Norman England, and it was a problem for Arthur. No one really knew who would succeed Arthur upon his death; he ended up naming Constantine as his successor while on the battlefield at Camlann. With the appearance of Mordred and his brothers at court, they appeared to be the closest relatives to Arthur that would have a chance at the throne. According to Celtic tradition, a nephew had precedence over a son as the successor to the throne, thus making all of the brothers possible candidates for the next king after Arthur. The succession to throne in Arthur's times appeared as dubious as it did in the Norman times.

In addition to the problems of succession, the Normans dealt with the issue of treachery against the king. When Henry I ascended after William Rufus, there was talk that Henry was involved in a plot to kill William, especially since that the day that William was killed, Henry rode to Winchester and took control of the royal treasury. Three days later, the archbishop of Canterbury crowned Henry king. Henry then made efforts to secure his place on the throne by gaining the barons' support. Similar circumstances occurred when Mordred seized the throne from Arthur. Arthur went to Europe to wage war against the Romans, and Mordred seized the castle as well as Arthur's wife. He then forced the Knights of the Round Table to choose between him and Arthur; the most notable being Lancelot, whose threw his support to Mordred. Thus, the ideas of treachery during his own time surely influenced Geoffrey of Monmouth to look for the treachery of Mordred back in the sixth century.

Malory was writing in the 1400s, during the Wars of the Roses and the revolt against Henry VI. The Wars of the Roses came about because of the fact that Edward III had too many sons, creating a conflict for the kingship. Again, 300 years after the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth, we find another influence coming from the problem of the succession to the throne. When Mordred seized the throne of England while Arthur was on the continent, Arthur was still claiming his right as the king of England. This question of who was king rings again during the Wars of the Roses, for the conflict about the family of the king-Yorks or Lancasters-probably influenced the masses to question about the validity of each man's claim to the throne. Once Henry Tudor succeeded in gaining the throne, he had to build up his support base, for his claim was very weak. He was successful in this matter, while Mordred was not when he tried to gain the support of the Knights of the Round Table.

Another English legend that can use this same pattern of using current issues during writer's times is the Robin Hood legend and his conflict with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Historians are more likely to doubt the existence of Robin Hood than they are the existence of Arthur. Some have traced Robin Hood to be one of the barons who forced John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, but he was by no means any great rebellion leader. The first mention of Robin Hood is in the writing of Piers the Plowman in 1377:

Some credence is given to this writing, for Randolph is believed to have been the third earl of Chester and did live during the time of Richard I, John, and Henry III. Even with this writing, most mythologists and historians think that the Robin Hood legend just comes out of the ballads written in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries.

In these ballads, there are many references to the conflict between Robin and the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, historians looking back to the twelfth century are unable to find a person who was the Sheriff of Nottingham. If they move forward to the fourteenth century, historians find a suitable match for the Sheriff of Nottingham and a direct relationship between someone who might have been Robin Hood. The most likely candidate is Sir Henry de Faucumberg, the sheriff responsible for Nottingham, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire. Sir Henry was sheriff during the reign of Edward II, who made it a point to crack down on deer poaching. Two men were brought before the court in June 1323 on a complaint that they had stolen a deer; these two men were Robert, son of Robert de Stutevill, and John, also known as Littel John. Robin Hood supposedly started his outlaw career when he shot one of the king's deer, so perhaps the legend does not have its roots with King John but with the general rise decline of sheriffs from the time of Edward II to Henry VII.

Even if historians are unable to find an acceptable figure for the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood, there was a High Sheriff of Nottingham, as well as High Sheriffs of other shires. The development of the sheriff had taken place since the Norman invasion of England. The sheriff was the king's representative in the shires and was a bridge between the king and the local government. The office of the Exchequer was a control on the sheriff's power to some degree, for all of the sheriffs were required to report to the Exchequer to turn in all taxes. Henry I continued William II's policy of rotating sheriffs out of office after one year to eliminate the seizure of power by the sheriffs.

One of the most common ways for sheriffs to gain power was by intimidating people into submission through increased taxation. The High Sheriffs also interfered in the local courts and bribed juries. During the reign of John, the sheriffs came under great fiscal demands. Since the office of sheriff was not very profitable anyway, the sheriffs began to demand more and more money from the shire residents. Most of this money came in the form of a bribe, the most notorious being the one hundred shillings paid by the men of Nottingham to the sheriff each year until 1260, well after the reign of John.

Perhaps the first mention of Robin Hood in 1377 coincides with the death of Edward III and the rise of Richard II, a boy of ten. Richard was by no means as strong a king as Edward had been. With the ascension of Richard, the sheriffs had the opportunity to secure some power for themselves. The year 1377 also marked the beginning of the poll taxes administered to the peasants to try to relieve the upper classes of the tax burden. Any figure that was associated with the crown could have turned into a hated figure. The sheriffs probably became the most hated men next to the king, since they were the ones responsible for the collection of taxes. The peasants were ready for any kind of hero to lead them in protest against the sheriffs, which could be from where Robin Hood comes and the conflict with the Sheriff of Nottingham. In the legend, King John is portrayed as a weak king, and the Sheriff of Nottingham is able to take much of the king's power into his own hands. Richard II simply did not have the power or influence that his father had wielded. It was probably very easy for other members of the English government to take some of Richard's power and use it for their own advantage and one of the natural choices would be the sheriff.

The last run of tyranny by the sheriffs came with the ascension of Henry VI in 1422. Henry VI came to the throne as a minor and surrounded himself with a circle of advisors until he declared himself able to rule. This was the same thing that had happened with the ascension of Richard II, and the sheriffs were able to gain a slight amount of power during both Richard's and Henry's reigns. The sheriffs were participants in the corruption of government as any other official; however, they became intimidated by the armies that evolved due to bastard feudalism. Once 1460 came, the Wars of Roses brought the sheriffs under control with the use of coroners, exchequers, and justices of the peace. Edward IV made it a point to centralize the power of the government into hands of his most trusted officials, building the base for Henry VII to follow him. Edward took away legal power from the sheriffs and handed it to local magnates and councils.

Henry VII stripped the sheriffs of their powers. Sheriffs could be punished for bribing juries or influencing their membership. The duties of a sheriff were clearly defined under Henry VII. He refused to return the sheriffs to their former position of power, for the name of sheriff had become associated with corruption throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Henry began to increase the use of the justice of peace, which normally handled judicial work. Henry managed to keep the justices under control by using the same methods that William II and Henry I had used to keep the sheriffs under control in their reigns, including the rotation of justices after one year of service and punishing them for any neglect of duty. Thus, because of previous corruption, the sheriffs were unable to return to their former positions of power and were never a major factor in English local government again.

The use of oral tradition has probably held the most influence in England, especially considering the successful English tradition of the use of the common law. With the telling of any story, it is likely that the story changes as it is told repeatedly. Each time someone tells the story, some personal bias is added. This helps followers of certain legends understand how the Arthurian and Robin Hood traditions developed. It is very clear in the story of King Arthur how certain elements of the story came from occurrences during the time of writer, especially with Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is more difficult to see the parallels in the Robin Hood legend; however, the rise of the sheriffs seems to follow the time frame of the legend and the decline of the sheriffs probably helps to explain why Robin Hood is only seen in one part of English history. People are prone to accept stories at face value and believe that the way it is told them is the original way the story was developed. We can see that with these two legends, this is not always the case

Brengle, Richard L. Arthur: King of Britain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.
Fletcher, Robert Huntington. The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles. New York: Burt Franklin, 1966.
Goodman, Jennifer R. The Legend of Arthur in British and American Literature. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988.
Internet Article 1. Mystical World Wide Web. http://www.mystical-www.co.uk. 1997.
Internet Article 2. UK Guide-Robin Hood-Reality or Myth? http://www.uk- guide.com/east-mid/rob-hood.htm. 1997.
Internet Article 3. British Local Government. http://www.mindspring.com/~whitewater/ WHITE_WATER_WEB/Rob's%20web%20site/British.html. 1997.
Jewell, Helen M. English Local Administration in the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1972.
Morris, William Alfred. The Medieval English Sheriff to 1300. New York: Manchester UP, 1927.
Reid, Margaret J.C. The Arthurian Legend. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1970.