It surprised me that there's so little done usually around Robin's origins and motivation. We often get a set-piece event that spurred him but not much more. I felt that the creation of such a remarkable person really deserved a story arc of its own. Why miss out on the most interesting part of the character's journey?




About fifth level ranger/thief, I'd say. Chaotic Good.




It's her story as much as his.




Fair enough.




The endnotes explain this fully, but without spoilers I can't really go into it. Suffice for now to say that Fitzwarren and Robin Hood are linked back a very long way. One of the very oldest tales, Robin Hood and the Knight, features a character that could be old Fitzwarren - although the events of that story aren't reflected until Book 2 of my tale. Elizabethan drama, which first identified Robin as the Earl of Huntingdon, also intimately linked Robin with Matilda Fitzwarren.

And just to complicate things further, Fitzwarren really existed in history. He really had daughters. John probably fancied one of them. Fitzwarren really did fall out with Prince John. In fact he was forced into exile by John and he was one of the architects of the Baron's Revolt that beat John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta.

Oh, and the prefix "Fitz" on any name means "bastard of". Fitzroy is "bastard of the king" and there were several around in Robin's time, including the Archbishop of York. Warren's a Norman name but Matilda has Saxon red-blonde hair. Go back around 120 years to the Norman Conquest of England and draw your own conclusions.




I'm a big fan of George Macdonald Frasier's Flashman novels and his format and penchant for adding additional historical information probably influenced me.

Besides, so much of the Robin Hood legend is culturally and historically rooted that for non-English folk to really catch the full flavour they need information they wouldn't get in their own schooling. The feudal systems of villein, peasant, freeman, and lord are particularly baffling to outsiders; it's hard to imagine now an England in which 80% of the population were in many ways as much slaves as the Negroes of the American south. It's also difficult for modern readers to comprehend how different an economy without money was - many villeins never possessed a coin and traded entirely by barter; and how pervasive the influence of the church was in the lives of people who believed that their immortal destinies depended on the approval of their priests.

And more central to this novel was the role of women, and particularly noble women, as strategic and economic assets. Women were traded in the way a farmer might sell his horses and few had any rights over the wishes of a father or husband. It's telling that the medieval laws about rape have less to do with the woman's trauma or ordeal and more to do with how much compensation is due to her family for her loss of value. Indeed, often the woman was expected to marry her rapist if proper asset transfer could be negotiated. Marriage by force majeure was recognised in court, and was an easy way for an ambitious landless knight to gain wealth if he could kidnap and ravish the right landed maiden.

In a society that viewed women as docile assets you can see why a spirited girl like Matilda might actually find some use in being kidnapped by Robin Hood.




Thanks.