Robin Hood is not Real. Or is he?

[PavlovtheCat]

DD is 5, and learning about different people from history. They have looked yesterday at Robin Hood, not sure if a child asked or it was planned.

Teacher told the class categorically that he was Not Real. He was made up.

But. Jesus is very definitely Real. And absolutely the Son of God.

It is not a religious school and I am wondering why the school would take a stance that one element of english folklore based in religion is absolutely real over other folklore being not real.

We talked about the fact that it is hard to say for sure if he was real or not because things were not recorded in writing very well at that time, like Jesus but that, like jesus, lots of people do beleive he was very real. She is not convinced, because her Teacher knows Everything.

I don't know if I am making a big deal of this (in my head, not so DD can hear) but I really think the school should think more carefully about the information they impart that our children put so much weight on.

DD does not always tell me everything she learns at school (obviously, being only 5!) so who knows what other Facts they are imparting?!

I am wondering if I should be putting this in AIBU section...but am scared as I probably am being!

I am not aware of any historians who regard Robin Hood as anything other than entirely mythical.

Whether Jesus is the Son of God is clearly a matter of faith but most historians accept that Jesus is an historical character and his baptism and crucifixion are historical events. The idea that he is entirely mythical is held by some scholars and popularised by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens but the scholarly mainstream rejects this view.

That does not, of course, mean that historians accept the gospel accounts as historically accurate. The two accounts of the nativity, the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion are disputed as, of course, are the various supernatural elements.

but there are conflicted suggestions/evidence of where he was born/buried etc? Of course they have not been proven and some say are not credible, but, they do not prove he did NOT exist do they? so, I just feel that stating categorically to a 5yo that this is the case is not entirely accurate.

And I do understand what you are saying about jesus, but Son of God simply cannot be proven or disproven, as you said, this is a matter of faith and DD does not go to a faith school.

As far as I know:

Robin Hood may or may not have been real. He was probably a mythical character based on one or more actual figures.

Jesus was a real, historically documented figure. He appears in historical documents written by people who had no vested interest in proclaiming his reality (notably Josephus, Jewish historian).

He may or may not have been the Son of God.

(Personally I think he was, but I agree that teachers should not be going beyond "some people believe that he was").

I always thought that Robin Hood was an amalgamation of several different real stories rather than a 100% true story.

achicken - the school are teaching that Jesus IS son of god. which might, or might not be true.

and, the jesus thing, I probably should not have compared. he is not really the issue.

My issue is the Robin Hood did NOT exist. where, as you said, me might, or might not, have been real.

I just compared jesus from my own viewpoint i guess. But he is less relevant than the way they teach at the school, that is my issue.

(but, then I should not be surprised, they also told DD that her nan/my mum was an angel in heaven and being looked after by jesus...)

soup yes, that it was I told DD. that there might have been a man called Robin Hood (there were several around that time I think) and that there were most certainly outlaws, and that the stories became about that one man.

I don't think that is a hard concept to grasp at 5. or at least to say he did exis but might not have done everything the stories say he did, or something.

I'm not sure why you seem to think of Jesus as "english folklore"?

Jesus of Nazareth existed, and there was stuff written about him, at the time, by people who were not his followers.

Robin Hood on the other hand - there are no contemporary documents giving any evidence of his existence.

I agree they shouldn't say that there is any evidence that Jesus was the Son of God (even Jesus didn't call himself that in the Bible!) but if they were talking about people existing or not, and what evidence there is, then they are right up to that point.

I always thought Robin Hood was real. Gutted. :(

amuminscotland* i was more thinking of Robin Hood being English. I was focussing on him really, so did not mean it in reference to Jesus. Obviously he is not English folklore.

Oh Dear, I can see that people are now going to get hun up on jesus. He was a wrong comparison. My issue is really the whole teaching a child something being categoric fact without it necessarily being so.

wellwisher exactly! he might well have been, but we just cannot know for sure! he must exist anyway. My US family have a photo next to his statue in Nottingham. How can they know what he looked like if he did not exist...

But amuminscotland while there is no proof that Robin Hood actually existed (well there is, but some people don't think it is credible) there is also no proof he did NOT exist. So that is what should be taught. And, some people do beleive it, and that also needs to be taught.

oooh, I had this exact conversation with a friend when I was at school. we ended up looking up Robin Hood in the encyclopedia (ancient crone, pre-internet )

anyway, the upshot of it was that yes, the tales are embellished, but that there was reasonable evidence that a man (or rather several, given the embellishments) existed who lived in the forest with a group of 'merry men' etc. I believe it is thought he died in around 1278 (would have to check with friend, who has the kind of memory which recalls this type of trivia nearly 25 years on!)

They do seem to be very dogmatic in how they approach things - and frankly the idea that your nan is "an angel in heaven" would bother me a lot. Not least because mainstream Christian teaching is that angels are something quite different from human souls, so they aren't even right from a Christian point of view

But I think at 5 you are just going to have to accept that she will believe whatever the teachers tell you, and not what you tell her, and just take a long-term approach of trying to get her to see that different people believe different things, and that teachers are not always completely right. But 5yos are so black&white in their thinking that it will be a few years yet before she understands what you are trying to say. She will get it eventually though - they all do!

amuminscotland i had words with them about the angel thing. It seems it was a teacher thing rather than a school thing. but they need to be careful not to push their own views onto the children.

Robin Hood must be real, I've seen him on TV. Several times.

And he always looks different which would match the theory that it is stories of several men rolled into one.

prh47 while he doesn't necessarily think that the Robin Hood legend can be authentically attached to any specific historical individual, JC Holt (who is of course an entirely reputable historian) has written extensively about the legend and the possible identities of real individuals upon whom it may have been based.

I think the teacher is right that RH did not exist in terms of how he's presented today (archery ace in green tights, and mates with Little John and Friar Tuck and Maid Marion) and that it's likely that's just a legend - albeit one based on an actual historical period and there were most probably people like him around.

Jesus- Almost certainly did exist and is not a legend, but obviously who he was (whether he was the Son of God, or a prophet, or just a nice bloke, or a crazy guy) is still open to debate and likely always will be. However, despite the limited records, there is a lot of consistency over certain key events.

So on balance I think the teacher is correct, but I agree with you that it's not clear cut. Maybe she should compare Hitler and The Wicked Witch of the north next time

I agree that the origins of the Robin Hood story are unclear and it may have been based on one or more real individuals. Many mythical characters are based on one or more individual. Santa Claus, for example, is largely inspired by Saint Nicholas of Myra, but I don't think many people would argue that he is real . What I was getting at is that there is no part of the Robin Hood legend that historians would generally accept is a genuine historical event, so most historians would put Robin Hood alongside Santa Claus in terms of historicity - perhaps even a bit lower down the scale since we do at least know the source for Santa Claus.

'anyway, the upshot of it was that yes, the tales are embellished, but that there was reasonable evidence that a man (or rather several, given the embellishments) existed who lived in the forest with a group of 'merry men' etc. I believe it is thought he died in around 1278 (would have to check with friend, who has the kind of memory which recalls this type of trivia nearly 25 years on!)'

That seems unlikely to me, unless the stories about him predating 1278 are prophecy?

I think Robin Hood vs Jesus is a good comparison.

Both of them lived (if they did) a long time ago. We have stories about them but we don't know if they are completely true. Maybe there were men with those names at about that time who did some things that inspired the stories. We don't know how close the stories are to the truth. Some people think it's exactly true, some people think it's all made up, some people think it's somewhere in the middle.

I did say I'd have to check with my friend re: the date, LRD

I absolutely cannot, ever, not ever, remember dates. History was the bane of my life at school

I was only being massively smug, silver.

It is so very rare that anything I know about comes up on a thread.

oh no, I am ing too - knew I'd bollocks up the date part!

but honestly I was all 'no no, it's all a myth. of course he didn't exist' and she dragged me off to the library, and we looked it up, and bugger me, apparently it was based on an actual person (with much added in the many re-tellings). now, she was smug about that, I can tell you

I bet! I didn't know it was real people until I looked it up but I reckon most myths start with some basis in fact.

I actually think - and this is probably not pavlov's first concern given it's primary school, I know - that the teacher is doing what a lot of people do, and that's assuming that medieval history is all myths and legends and 'dark ages' where we don't really know what happened. Aside from being incorrect it does seem a bit sad to me that children aren't being taught a rather fun bit of English history very well.

But then I grew up in Nottinghamshire so I am probably partisan here!

Myths are mythical.

Legends have a basis in fact, however slight.

I thought Robin Hood stories were legends.