N.B. Dixon's Blog, page 30

The Folvilles and Robin Hood; who came first?

The last two blogs have concerned rebel heroes who might be compared to Robin Hood, or could be said to have inspired the ballads. This week, the focus is on a criminal gang operating at the time the earliest Robin Hood tales were supposed to be set. But were they really criminals? You must make up your own minds. I’d like to welcome back Author Jenny Kane to tell us more.

Although it cannot be categorically stated that the compilers of the Robin Hood ballads were influenced by the actual criminal gangs of the day, many similarities can be noted between the actions of gangs like the Folvilles, and those detailed in the literature of the day.
Audiences throughout history have all presented different ideas of what Robin Hood was like in word, action, and appearance. Every writer, film maker, and poet ever since the first tales were spoken, has adapted the outlaw figure to fit their own imagination.
Balladeers sang tales of Robin Hood long before they were written down. The earliest mention found (to date) of the name Robin Hood appears in the poem The Vision of Piers Plowman, which was written by William Langland in c.1377.
Piers Plowman was a protest against the harsh conditions endured by the poor in the Fourteen Century. Not only did it mention Robin Hood, but it also makes reference to the outlaw gang, the Folvilles.
“And some ryde and to recovere that unrightfully was wonne:
He wised hem wynne it ayein wightnesses of handes,
And fecchen it from false men with Folvyles lawes.”

The Folvilles were a noble family from Leicestershire who, throughout the late 1320’s and into the 1330’s, ran Ashby-Folville and its surrounds, as a base for criminal activity.

In 1310, John de Folville, Lord of Ashby Folville, died, leaving his widow Alice and seven sons. The eldest son, also John, inherited the manor. Historical records show that John lived largely within the bounds of the law. However, his brothers, Eustace, Laurence, Richard, Robert, Thomas and Walter formed a criminal gang which quickly became notorious.

The early fourteenth century was a lawless time in England. King Edward II’s reign was in chaos, and local crime rates soared. Corruption was rife in the governance of the land, and few people in power could be trusted.
The first crime that bought the Folvilles to the notice of the authorities was the murder of the Baron of the Exchequer, Roger Belers (or Bellers). Beler had risen to power due to the influence of the unpopular Despenser regime. Although neither Eustace, Robert, nor Walter, actually carried out the murder of Beler, they were all present at the time, and helped make sure it happened. (It is believed the murder was committed by one of the Folvilles associates, Roger de la Zouche)

Over the following decade, the Folville brothers’ travelled the countryside assaulting those they considered deserving of such treatment, and holding people and places to ransom. They hired themselves out as mercenaries, willing to commit crimes for the right price. The most violent of the brothers, Eustace, is known to have committed murders, robberies and even rapes across Leicestershire, Rutland, and possibly beyond into Derbyshire.

It was in 1332 that the Folville gang committed their most serious crime. They kidnapped the judge, Sir Richard Willoughby, on the road between Melton Mowbray and Grantham, near Waltham on the Wolds. A ransom of 1,300 marks was demanded from his men. While the Folvilles waited for the ransom they stole over one hundred pounds worth of goods from Willoughby as they dragged him from ‘wood to wood.’

The implications of Willoughby’s kidnap were far reaching. The Crown was expressing concern at the amount of outlaw action in the country, but after the kidnap they began to implement proceedings to stamp out the rise in violent lawlessness. The moves were ineffective, partly because the gangs were too well established, and partly because war with Scotland had suddenly become a bigger priority for the governance of England.

The kidnap and ransom of nobles passing through their land, the targeting of corrupt officials and the general gang activity employed by the Folvilles, all has echoes which can be found within the Robin Hood ballads, from The Lytell Geste to the later tales, such as Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne.

Like Robin Hood in the eighth fytte of the Geste, some of the Folvilles fought for the King (1337 Robert de Folville was sent overseas in the retinue of Earl of Northumberland, and Eustace de Folville fought in both Scotland and Flanders.)

When, at last, the law caught up with Richard de Folville, the Rector of Teigh, in 1336 a commission was sent out to arrest him and take him to the Tower of London. Richard however, took refuge in a church, along with some of his personal followers. He shot arrows from out of the church window, killing some of his pursuers, before he was dragged out and had his head chopped off directly outside the church!

It’s hard not to see another parallel with another Robin Hood tale here, as an image of Robin during the ballad Robin Hood’s Death, comes to mind; when taking sanctuary in Kirklees Abbey, Robin fired an arrow to mark where his body should be buried.

Like Robin, the Folvilles are often portrayed as the allies of the common people fighting a corrupt authority. Their targets were all officials that had gone beyond the norm of taking advantage of their positions. In fact Willoughby was so hated, that in 1340 another criminal gang made him the target of an attack, trapping him in Thurcaston castle. Later on Willoughby was imprisoned by King Edward III for corruption and was forced to pay 1200 marks to earn a pardon.

In 1450 the earliest single short ballad, Robin Hood and the Monk, was first committed to paper, but it wasn’t until 1510 that the original story (Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode), was recorded in its entirety. Whether the Robin Hood ballads were originally written as a result of storytellers being inspired by real gangs like the Folvilles, or whether the tales already existed, and were merely influenced further as real life events seeped into the consciousness of the balladeers, we may never know.
It can’t be denied however, that then, as now, literature was affected, adjusted, and changed by the reality around the storytellers of the time to modernised them; making them more relevant to their audience.

An echo of bands of criminal retainers like the Folvilles, and their fellow criminals the Coterel’s, and many others, are undeniably there in the Robin Hood story arc for all to see. But whether the Folvilles were the original source for the legend? The jury is still out.

Bio-
Jenny Kane is the author the contemporary romance Another Glass of Champagne, (Accent Press, 2016), Christmas at the Castle (Accent Press, 2015), the bestselling novel Abi’s House (Accent Press, 2015), the modern/medieval time slip novel Romancing Robin Hood (Accent Press, 2014), the bestselling novel Another Cup of Coffee (Accent Press, 2013), and its novella length sequels Another Cup of Christmas (Accent Press, 2013), and Christmas in the Cotswolds (Accent, 2014).
Jenny’s fifth full length romance novel, Abi’s Neighbour, will be published in June 2017.
Jenny’s first medieval murder mystery will be published in December 2016, and her second in 2017.
Jenny is also the author of quirky children’s picture books There’s a Cow in the Flat (Hushpuppy, 2014) and Ben’s Biscuit Tin (Hushpuppy, 2015)
Keep your eye on Jenny’s blog at www.jennykane.co.uk for more details.
Twitter- @JennyKaneAuthor
Facebook -https://www.facebook.com/JennyKaneRom...

Heir of Locksley update

Following the news item earlier in the week, I can now confirm that Heir of Locksley is available to preorder from Kobo, the Barnes and Noble Nook store and the apple IBook store.

Heir of Locksley available for preorder

Heir of Locksley is now available to preorder from Amazon, Smashwords and All Romance Ebook’s. Links to Kobo, Nook and IBooks coming soon. The paperback edition will also be available to preorder from Amazon shortly. Ebook and paperback editions are now available to preorder direct from the beaten track publishing website. Click here to preorder your copy now.
http://www.nbdixonauthor.com/outlaws-...

William Wallace: Braveheart or the Scottish Robin Hood

This week I would like to introduce the second of our rebel heroes, or as I’ve taken to calling them in my head, the real Robin Hoods. These are men whose deeds bear some resemblance to the Robin Hood legend and may possibly have influenced the growth of that legend over the centuries. This week, I’ll be looking at the life of William Wallace, a Scottish freedom fighter who is more commonly known by the nickname Braveheart.

Virtually nothing is known about William Wallace’s early life. It is believed he was the son of a minor Scottish knight and that, like many second sons with no land to inherit, he was destined for a life in the priesthood. There are as many rumours surrounding the life of William Wallace as there are facts. For instance, he is rumoured to have been accosted by a group of five English soldiers while fishing. It’s said that the soldiers demanded a share of his catch. Wallace offered them half, they demanded all of it, and a fight broke out. A soldier tried to stab Wallace, but Wallace deflected the blow and seized the sword, using it to decapitate its owner and kill two others. The remaining soldiers fled.

Wallace is said to have been an archer. It’s even rumoured that he conducted a love affair with a woman named Marion, whom he later married.

As with the stories of Robin Hood, Wallace’s Marion does not appear until later versions of the story. It’s possible she may even have been invented to romanticise the figure of Wallace.

The Scottish Crisis

In 1286, the King of Scotland, Alexander III died in a riding accident on his way home. The night was stormy, and he fell from his horse and broke his neck. His heir also died and Scotland was in danger of sliding into civil war. The nobles appealed to their nearest neighbour, the English king, Edward I. Edward, who had already conquered Wales and Ireland, saw this as a perfect opportunity to add Scotland to his empire. He backed the noble John Balliol, who became in effect his puppet. Ten years later, Balliol rebelled against Edwards rule. Edward’s reprisal was brutal. English forces were sent to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. There followed three days of slaughter. This aroused the wrath of the Scottish people. Though the nobles seemed inclined to fall into line, the common people were not so willing. Enter our William Wallace.

The first documented evidence of William Wallace is his murder of William de Heselrig, the English High sheriff of Lanark. A more romantic version of the story is that the sheriff murdered Wallace’s wife. It’s said that he lusted after her. When she helped Wallace to evade capture, the sheriff killed her. Another version has it that Wallace was wanted for poaching. Whatever the reason, his vengeance was swift and bloody. He broke into the sheriff’s home and killed him in his bed with a single blow to the skull. He then stabbed the man’s body three times for good measure. Wallace had now sealed his fate. He was an outlaw, a wanted man.

Wallace was not the only man to be fighting guerrilla campaigns against the English. He joined forces with a man named Andrew Moray, and in May 1297, Wallace had his biggest victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Wallace’s forces were outnumbered by at least 10 to one. The English forces comprised three thousand cavalry and five thousand infantry. The Scottish rebels were lightly armed in comparison. The outcome of the battle should have been a foregone conclusion. But Wallace, whatever his shortcomings, was a great strategist. He was able to turn the terrain against the English. The Scottish forces congregated on the north side of the River. The English were on the south side. The ground they had to cross was boggy and the bridge narrow. Only a couple of men could ride their horses across at a time. As the English forces delayed and prevaricated and tried to work out their best strategy, the river tide rose. As they started to cross, the Scottish forces waited until there were enough of them to fight and then engaged them. They brought down the horses and slaughtered the English as they fell. The weight of the English cavalry caused the bridge to collapse and many men drowned. The remaining English forces could not get across in time to aid their comrades. It was a resounding victory for Wallace, though his friend and partner, Andrew Moray was one of the Scottish casualties.

Wallace went on to conduct a series of raids into northern England, torching monasteries and schools, slaughtering anyone who came across his path, including women and priests. In recognition of his victory, Wallace was made Guardian of Scotland.

In April 1298, Edward I sent a force to deal once and for all with Wallace and his army. The two forces met at the Battle of Falkirk, the precise location of which is uncertain. Wallace had a strategy in place for this battle too. He had Spearman arranged in schiltron formations (circular, hedgehog formations). Behind them were shortbowman and Scottish cavalry. The outcome of this battle could not be more different than Wallace’s victory at Stirling. Perhaps Wallace was overconfident. The army he faced this time had a weapon he was not prepared for. The English Longbow had a far superior range than that of the Scottish shortbow. The Scottish cavalry deserted. Wallace’s reputation was in tatters. He resigned as Guardian of Scotland. He was once more an outlaw, reduced to hiding out in forests and fighting where and when he could.

But Wallace was nothing if not determined. Where force had failed, he was prepared to try a different approach. He travelled to the continent to try and drum up foreign support. By the time he returned in 1303, many Scottish nobles had submitted to Edwards rule. The people, too, had had enough of war. Wallace was not prepared to give up. In the end, it was not the English who captured Wallace. He was betrayed by a Scotsman. Moreover, the man was a personal friend and godfather to Wallace’s two children. Wallace was captured in 1305 and brought to London for trial. When accused of treason against King Edward, Wallace declared that he had not committed treason as Edward was not his king and he had always been loyal to the true king of Scotland. This did not endear him to his accusers and he was sentenced to die the traditional traitor’s death. He was dragged naked to Smithfield where his body was hung and quartered. His head was impaled on a Spike over London Bridge and the pieces of his body were sent to Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Berwick, and Stirling, the scene of his greatest victory.

Whether or not you believe Wallace was a hero depends very much on your point of view. To the English, he was a terrorist and a ruthless, bloodthirsty man. To the Scots, he was a symbol of freedom. Perhaps Wallace’s biggest problem was that he did not know when to leave well enough alone. Certainly the Scottish nobles may well have been annoyed at the fact that they were being led by a man of low birth. They may have thought that power had gone to his head and that he was more a liability than an aide. There is no denying however that Wallace has become a legend and that he is regarded as one of the great heroes of Scotland. Incidentally, the name Braveheart, which is what most people associate with Wallace was actually never given to him. That was awarded to the other great Scottish hero, Robert the Bruce, the man who it might be said was inspired by Wallace’s efforts and helped to secure Scotland’s independence from England. After his death, Bruce’s brave heart was carried into battle in a casket.

Wallace was ruthless, violent, and determined. He was also brave, and honest about what he wanted. Hero or villain, Wallace will never be forgotten.

Heir of Locksley coming December 1st!

Heir of Locksley will be released in paperback and ebook on December 1st. Preorder links and a cover coming soon!

Wilikin of the Weald: the forgotten English hero

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be examining some “real Robin Hoods”. All of these men were true heroes of history. They were charismatic, ruthless, and all of them were common men fighting for justice. Some parallels to the Robin Hood story are stronger than others. Some of these men lived long after the time when the earliest Robin Hood ballads were set, but as you read their stories, it’s easy to see how they might have influenced the Robin Hood tales, or even the other way around.

For the first hero, I would like to introduce guest writer Michael Long, author and ammeter historian. So without further ado, let the story begin.

‘Wilikin of the Weald:’ the forgotten hero of English History
On a list of ‘bad’ Kings of England, King John ranks at the top. Despite recent attempts by historians to rehabilitate his reputation, by any measure of kingship, he was a failure. ‘Bad’ King John lost the vast Plantagenet-Angevin Empire forged by his father, Henry II, which stretched from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. He imposed punitive taxes at home, alienated both the English clergy and his Barons. Little wonder that the ‘English’ Barons rebelled against him resulting in the peace accord that was Magna Carta in 1215.

By the summer of 1216, John’s reign was in turmoil. He had lost the Crown lands in Normandy; two-thirds of his barons were in open revolt and worse still, England had been invaded by the armies of Prince Louis of France, the eldest son of the French King Phillip II.

The Dauphin, Louis had control of southern England with the support of the rebel English barons who sought the overthrow of King John. French armies ravaged the countryside south of the Trent. Villages were levelled, crops and buildings burned as the French invaders left a path of rape, pillage and destruction in their wake. From the ashes of disaster emerged one English hero, hailed in the contemporary chronicles as defender of English freedom from French aggression; a supporter of his King; a common man; a low-born nobody, William of Cassingham, known as ‘Wilikin of the Weald.’

This was an age when history was recorded for the prestige of the prominent men in society; Kings, nobles, the senior clergy and written not by historians but by patrons paid to complete the task. Thus it is not surprising that the common man did not feature. Not so for Wilikin of the Weald. He established his fearsome reputation fighting the French invaders in a guerilla war in the Wealden forests of Kent and Sussex. In the early thirteenth century, this extended from London southwards through Kent and Sussex to the channel coast and west towards the new Forest. It was an area heavily forested and sparsely populated, the Weald became the battlefield for Wilikin of the Weald attacking the French using skilled local huntsmen and their favoured hunting weapon, the English longbow.
The story of Wilikin is well documented in both English and contemporary French chronicles. The monk, Roger of Wendover, writing at St. Albans Abbey said that Wilikin gathered local 1000 archers and attacked the French army and supply columns when they moved through the Weald. Although the figure Roger of Wendover gives, of 1000 may be speculation it is clear that Wilikin knew the terrain of the Wealden forest and used this local knowledge to good effect, killing thousands of French according to Roger of Wendover. The French knights, with their heavy armour, would be ineffective in the forests, and narrow tracks whereas the archers Wilikin could deploy could adopt ‘hit-and-run tactics causing maximum damage before retreating into the woodland. Kentish and Sussex villages would have witnessed French foraging parties seizing animals, food and supplies; Prince Louis’s troops engaged in ‘ravaging;’ a policy of terror, killing, rape, theft, burning and torture towards non-combatants. There was no chivalry in their actions. It must be noted, however, that the mercenary soldiers King John employed often engaged in similar practices.

That Wilikin was successful is not in dispute for the French chronicles also record his presence. A monk from Bethune in northern France wrote in his Histoire des Ducs de Normandie, of Wilikins, “..noble prowess,” and how he was much feared and “renowned in the Dauphin’s army.” Thus it is no surprise that Wilikin was labelled an outlaw and a price placed on his head. It must not be assumed that Wilikin and his men behaved in a chivalrous manner. Wilikin too engaged in ruthless tactics. He had his men take no French prisoners; French soldiers who surrendered were immediately executed and beheaded; at this time, a French Chevalier (a knight on horseback) could expect to be ransomed if captured. Long before the concept of guerilla warfare was developed Wilikin, was formulating the tactics. He could not afford the men to guard, much less the food any prisoners would consume, so execution provided the solution as well as instilling terror into the French already fearful of the forest and the evil spirits which they believed resided there. The French had to follow the tracks and ancient routes that crisscrossed the Weald to get north from their supply bases on the Kentish coast.

It is dangerous for a historian to make assumptions but the fact that between 1216 and 1217, Wilikin and his men moved seamlessly through the dense Wealden landscape suggests that they possessed definite local knowledge of the forest and the tracks. This provided Wilikin with a significant tactical advantage against the French invader. His successes against the French were not just known for the writings of the chronicles but were known at the time. One month before his death in October 1216, King John sent a despatch to Wilikin thanking him for his loyal service and paying him for the military campaign against the French; Wilkins exploits were known at the highest levels in society.

Who then was this ‘freedom’ fighter, Wilikin of the Weald? The use of an alias fits with the guerilla war he was waging, though it is uncertain whether this was the name he used or whether it was given to him by the French. His real name was William of Cassingham, but the surname applies to the manor he received as a reward for his success. The evidence of his existence and his exploits are very real. He was a young man, perhaps under thirty-years-old, for Roger of Wendover describes him as, “ … a certain youth, a fighter and a loyalist.” That he was loyal to King John is certain, unusual at a time when two-thirds of all English Barons supported Prince Louis. Roger of Wendover also records that Wilikin “despised those who were not” loyal to the King.

His origins are unclear; he may have been a Brabant mercenary, from the low countries, whose men had a much sought after reputation for military skills, or the son of one of an English mother. The chronicles do show him as a foreigner rather as a loyal Englishman fighting for his King. Had he been foreign it is likely that Roger of Wendover would have said so. What is also uncertain is where he learned his guerrilla tactics though fighting in France for the lands of his Plantagenet King is the most likely answer. It is possible he learned such skills as a common soldier on Crusade, but that does not fit with Roger of Wendover’s description of him as being a “young” man. To have accompanied King Richard on the Third Crusade in 1190 he would have had to have been born around 1175 which would put him well into his forties by 1216.

Both King Henry II and Richard I used Brabanter mercenaries in their campaigns in Normandy and King John employed them as his preferred mercenaries in his war against the Barons. That Wilikin had such a familiarity with the forests and scrubland landscape of the Weald indicated local knowledge from growing up there. His military ability suggests experience in warfare, and the most likely candidate would be in the unsuccessful English defence of Normandy after 1204. Wilikin and his men were a highly effective mobile fighting force, who, most importantly had the support of the local villagers who provided refuge, supplies and intelligence for Wilikins resistance fighters against the French invader.

The author of the History of William Marshal, Englands premier knight of the period and Regent for John’s young son Henry III, wrote, “witness the deeds of Willikin of the Weald,” when it came to attacking the French.Nine-year-old Henry succeeded to the throne on John’s death in October 1216, with Marshall Regent and the power behind the throne. Wilikin swore loyalty to the new King and continued taking the fight to the French. By the autumn of 1216 Prince Louis held nearly sixty percent of England having laid siege to many of its principal castles.

In February 1217 Wilikin was responsible for attacks on the French forces around the English channel port of Winchelsea. Such had been the effect of Willikin of the Weald’s guerilla attacks on the French that Prince Louis had to seek reinforcements. To land these reinforcements coming from France, Louis needed to secure both Winchelsea and the neighbouring channel port of Rye. Louis had been obliged to lay siege to Dover and its castle, and now he was concerned that the route his siege engines had to take, took them straight through the Weald exposing them to surprise attacks from Wilikin and his men.

Louis’s army found it difficult to make the journey to Winchelsea having to fight his way to the coast, harried all the way by Wilikin and his men. Louis lost a significant part of his army in an ambush at Lewes and Wilikin, and his men pursued Louis army all the way to Winchelsea. Ragged and starving when they arrived in the port they found an English fleet in the Channel to deter the ships carrying reinforcements and Wilikin on their flank. Some French supply ships did make it into port, but, with his supply lines to the capital severed, Louis had to send out foraging parties to find more food. The forging knights were easy prey for Wilikin and his men, enhancing his reputation amongst the local population and at Court with William Marshall.

Attempts by the French to force their way through to the open roads that would take them to London met with little success. According to the chronicles, Wilikin’s men “ harassed them fiercely” killing more than 1000 French and summarily executing any found alive. Unable to break out of the stranglehold William had imposed Louis mounted a major sea expedition to rescue his forces.

Louis’ position was still strong. His French army was besieging Dover castle, and Louis planned to land his reinforcements there to assist with the siege. While Louis was trying to land his reinforcements at Dover, Wilikin and his men launched a surprise attack on the French camp, burning it and killing many French attackers. Prince Louis was forced to abandon his landings, and he sailed east seeking another landing spot. He chose Sandwich and in a furious rage at Wilikin’s actions he sacked and burned the town moving on the Hythe and Romney the next months which suffered a similar fate. Meanwhile, his army was penned in by William and his archers. By the spring of 1217, such was Wilikin’s repute that William Marshal gave him joint command, with Oliver Fitzroy, the bastard son of King John, of the English army outside Dover.

Forgotten by history, Wilikin was a tactical genius. Although he did succeed in landing his army on the Kent coast in 1217, Prince Louis’ forces were pinned down by the guerilla campaign waged by Wilikin and his men. Roger of Wendover recorded, “all the time they attacked and disrupted the enemy, and many thousands of Frenchmen were slain.” Wilikin’s use of terror unnerved the French, even though the region they were fighting in was ostensibly ‘friendly.’ The French army vastly outnumbered Williams archers but such was his reputation that French soldiers were afraid to venture onto the roads and tracks of the Weald.

By the summer of 1217 Louis’ army had been defeated by William Marshall in a decisive Battle at Lincoln and that August French reinforcements were destroyed by an English fleet in a decisive naval battle outside Sandwich. Louis was forced to make peace and retreated to France eventually becoming king in 1223 and the civil war in England ended as William Marshal reissued Magna Carta and the rebel lords came to terms with their new King.

The manor of Cassingham, where Wilikin/William lived after 1217 no longer exists, it is now the small hamlet of Kensham. The contemporary chronicles both English and French, record the actions of Wilikin/William of Cassingham rooting him firmly in the period and indisputably as a real person. That a man of non-noble birth could make such a significant impression on the chroniclers of both sides is a testimony to the reputation of William as Wiliken of the Weald. His contemporary reputation extended to the King and the nobility as evidenced by his being given the joint command at Dover. His lone stand against the foreign invader made him a national hero. His name was used to inspire; a common born soldiers fighting the foreign invader behind enemy lines. With the loss of the Plantagenet empire in France, this was a time of forging a national identity as William Marshal sought to do with his rallying cry at the Battle of Lincoln urging his men to “ defend our land.”

With the war at an end, William was rewarded with a pension, estates and royal offices in Essex and Kent including the Wardship of the Seven Hundreds of the Weald. With peace, there were no more battles for the name of Willikin of the Weald to feature in the Chronicles. He died in 1257 though his reputation and his legend lived on. Three hundred years later, the sixteenth-century Holinshed’s Chronicles, the basis for Shakespeare’s plays, called William of Cassingham, Wilikin of the Weald, “O Worthy man of English blood!”

Heir of Locksley to be released winter 2016

After such a long wait, the countdown to the release of Heir of Locksley can now begin. Though I still have no exact release date, it will be in winter 2016. Heir of Locksley will be available in both ebook and paperback, and it will also be available to pre-order. Watch this space for more updates. You’ll have them as soon as I do.

Robin of Sherwood revived

I was lucky to attend a very special event on the seventh of May. It was to commemorate the release of Robin of Sherwood on audio. This TV series was first aired in the nineteen eighties and has lived in the consciousness of all Robin Hood fans since. It is considered by many to be one of the best loved versions of the legend, combining history, folklore and fantasy. Now, thirty years on, the series is being revived on audio, with many of the original cast reprising their roles to bring this wonderful series to life. At the event, I was lucky enough to meet several members of the cast as well as several delightful fans of the series. We were given a tantalising glimpse of the audio adventure and I was amazed at how it sounded. It really was no different than the DVD box set which I have already watched more times than I can count. I can only hope that this will be the first of many audio adventures to come.

Interview with Author Jenny Kane

This week I’m delighted to introduce Jenny Kane, Author of Romancing Robin Hood.

How old were you when you first heard the story of Robin Hood?

I honestly can’t remember! I feel as though I’ve always known them. My parents were
great bedtime storytellers, and I have vague recollections of them reading me Robin
Hood in its Ladybird book format as an under 5- but to be honest, that could be
something I just think that happened, rather than something that did happen.
I can tell you that I was 14 years old when I fell in love with the legend. I had
been off sick from school for a number of weeks, and was getting fairly bored. My
parents rented one of the- at the time- brand new video recorders from Radio
Rentals. To get used to how to use this new fangled device, they recorded the first
programme that was on. It was an episode of Robin of Sherwood. In seconds I was in
love- not just with that programme, but with the entire legend.
I began to watch every film and TV show about the outlaws from each and any era. I
read every book I could find and began to collect any Robin Hood merchandise.
Overnight, I became a Robin Hood junkie!

Tell us about your book Romancing Robin Hood.

I have written a number of contemporary fiction/ romantic comedy style novels over
the years, but I’d always to want medieval crime. Romancing Robin Hood gave me the
opportunity to do both in one go! It also gave me the chance to indulge in sharing a
bit of Robin Hood love!!

Blurb-

Dr Grace Harper has loved the stories of Robin Hood ever since she first saw them on
TV as a girl. Now, with her fortieth birthday just around the corner, she’s a
successful academic in Medieval History, with a tenured position at a top
university.

But Grace is in a bit of a rut. She’s supposed to be writing a textbook on a
real-life medieval gang of high-class criminals – the Folvilles – but she keeps
being drawn into the world of the novel she’s secretly writing – a novel which
entwines the Folvilles with her long-time love of Robin Hood – and a feisty young
girl named Mathilda, who is the key to a medieval mystery…

Meanwhile, Grace’s best friend Daisy – who’s as keen on animals as Grace is on the
Merry Men – is unexpectedly getting married, and a reluctant Grace is press-ganged
into being her bridesmaid. As Grace sees Daisy’s new-found happiness, she starts to
re-evaluate her own life. Is her devotion to a man who may or may not have lived
hundreds of years ago really a substitute for a real-life hero of her own? It
doesn’t get any easier when she meets Dr Robert Franks – a rival academic who Grace
is determined to dislike but finds herself being increasingly drawn to…

If you ‘d like to read Romancing Robin Hood you can buy it as an eBook on Kindle,
Nook and Kobo, and as a paperback from all good retailers, including Amazon-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Romancing-Rob...11?ie=UTF8&qid=1407428558&sr=8-1&keywords=romancing+robin+hood

How far have you gone in the name of research?

My love of the Robin Hood legend led me to do a PhD on the real life medieval crimes
and criminals of the fourteenth century. I spent five years working part time on
researching comparisons between the medieval ballads and political songs (including
those concerning Robin Hood, Adam Bell, Gamelyn etc), and the documentary records of
the day to see just how closely- or not- the ballads and songs reflected the truth
of criminal situation of the day.

It was this research that I used when writing the medieval crime part of Romancing
Robin Hood. This section, which features a kidnapped girl called Mathilda of
Twyford, is based around the real criminal gang known as the Folvilles. Many believe
it was the Folvilles, and others like them, who inspired the original Robin Hood
stories.

Is there any interpretation of the Robin Hood legend you particularly
liked or disliked and why?

I seriously disliked the latest Russell Crowe film. I can’t give you a deep
meaningful reason why, apart from the fact I am not a fan of Mr Crowe. It just
didn’t sit right with me.

There is a debate among many authors of historical fiction as to whether
accuracy when portraying historical events and characters should be
sacrificed in the spirit of entertainment. Where do you stand?

I hate reading fiction that feels like reading a text book. If I want to read
nonfiction I will. Stories should be just that. A story. Of course, it’s not good to
stretch historical data too far. Kings and queens birth, death, and reign dates
can’t be moved around, but smaller matters- the use of a sword style ten years too
early for example- shouldn’t be a matter for sleepless nights. Fiction is fiction
after all.

Do you have any advice for aspiring authors?

Don’t give up!! The road from wanting to be a writer, to writing, to writing
something that finally gets published is a long one- but if you want to write, then
hang onto that dream.

Any upcoming books or projects?

I’m thrilled to say that my latest novel, Another Glass of Champagne , will be out
in June. Then work begins on my first full length historical crime novel! All the
details are top secret for now- but it’s very exciting.

I can also announce that I will be selling copies of Romancing Robin Hood at this
year’s The Hooded Man event at Chepstow from 291th April to 1st May.

Details of the event can be found at –
http://www.thehoodedman.co.uk/

Bio

With a background in history and archaeology, Jenny Kane should really be sat in a
dusty university library translating Medieval Latin criminal records, before writing
research documents that hardly anyone would want to read. Instead, tucked away in
the South West of England, Jenny Kane writes stories with one hand, while working
for a Distance Learning Company with the other.
Jenny spends a large part of her time in the local Costa, where she creates her
stories, including the novels Abi’s House (Accent Press, June 2015), Romancing Robin
Hood (Accent Press, 2014), the best selling contemporary romance Another Cup of
Coffee (Accent Press, 2013), and the novella length sequels Another Cup of Christmas
(Accent Press, 2013), Christmas in the Cotswolds, (Accent Press, 2014), and
Christmas at the Castle, (Accent Press, 2015).
Her next full length novel, Another Glass of Champagne, (Part 5 of the Another Cup
of… series), will be published by Accent Press in June 2016.
Jenny Kane is also the author of quirky children’s picture books There’s a Cow in
the Flat (Hushpuppy, 2014) and Ben’s Biscuit Tin (Hushpuppy, 2015)
Keep your eye on Jenny’s blog at www.jennykane.co.uk for more details.
Twitter- @JennyKaneAuthor
Facebook –
https://www.facebook.com/JennyKaneRom...

The longbow versus the crossbow

In my continuing efforts to educate readers about Robin Hood and Medieval history in general, I will turn my attention to your lesson for this week. The longbow versus the crossbow. What does it matter? I hear you cry. They both kill you. Isn’t that the most important thing? You would not be wrong, but each weapon has advantages over the other, and any historical fiction fan worth their salt will need to know the difference.

Whether he is portrayed in literature, TV or comic strip, you will never see Robin Hood without his bow. A longbow to be precise. The longbow was the commonly used weapon by most outlaws, given that most outlaws were peasants and would have been trained in the longbow since childhood. All men were expected to come to the defence of the manor if their lord was attacked. Henry III actually made archery practice compulsory. The longbow has an impressive range as it can be accurate up to two hundred yards and penetrate chainmail. It’s also possible to nock and loose several arrows in the time it takes to load a crossbow.

The crossbow has a far shorter range, but requires much less training. It’s also easier to carry and capable of penetrating plate armour. Crossbowmen were always paid less than a traditional archer as the added skill had to be taken into account. Providing the archer had a good position, a bowman could decimate a large force. Numbers don’t always equal success. One of the few things Hollywood does get right. The upshot, be grateful neither bow is used in fighting today.