is there proof that Robin Hood of Locksley existed?
347412
I know that there is no definative proof that he ever existed at all but I found a web site that was the best by far on the subject, quite fun and a good read to:\n\nhttp://www.boldoutlaw.com/robbeg/\n\nI hope this helps you.\n\nBlessed Be
464576
No, we have historical proof that God and Jesus DO exist, we also have historical proof that Santa, Toothy and E Buny exist.
912012
i think a monk called the venerable bede from northumberland had something to do with it .check him out on the net
783927
Do Ghosts really exist??\n\n\n\nNo one actually knows if ghosts really exist. The only evidence we have are photos and claimed sightings. Most of the photos are of poor quality or are not convincing enough. The sightings may be true but there is no evidence to say so. People have there own ideas of what ghosts look like, from human shaped figures to small objects. Even though there is so much material to say ghosts exist there is still no actual evidence. Until there is some scientific evidence to prove that ghosts actually exist, the legend about ghosts will stay a mystery.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n@ w w w . c a s t l e o f s p i r i t s . c o m\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nTHE GHOST OF HAMPTON COURT?\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle from DAILY MAIL - UK\n\nBy David Harding, Metro\n19 December 2003\n\nTo the sceptic it may simply look like a fuzzy CCTV image of someone in a long coat walking through a doorway.\nExperts say the long-coated figure could be the best proof yet found that things really do go bump in the night... and the day too.\nThe mystery surfaced two months ago at the 16th-century palace, once home to King Henry VIII.\nSecurity staff heard alarms ringing near an exhibition hall, indicating fire doors had been opened. But on investigation they found the doors closed.\nPerplexed, they examined CCTV footage, and that is when it got spooky.\nThe cameras showed the heavy doors popping open but no one there. Then, suddenly, the long- coated figure appeared and slammed the doors shut.\nThe guards were told the same thing happened at the same time - about 1pm - the day before.\nTo add to the mystery, the doors also flew open at the same time the very next day. But the ghostly figure has been spotted only once.\nThe suspected spook has not just been sighted by CCTV. Australian tourists also claim to have seen a ghost near the exhibition area. The palace, in West London, has ruled out its guides as suspects because they do not enter that part of the building.\nPsychologist Dr Richard Wiseman said the spectre, nicknamed Skeletor, might prove to be a significant discovery.\n'It could be the best ghost sighting ever,' he said. 'I haven't seen anything that would match that at all.'\n\nHENRY AND A HISTORY OF HAUNTING\n\nThis is London\n\n19 December 2003\n\n• CATHERINE HOWARD\n\nThe best known haunting at Hampton Court is by Catherine Howard, Henry VIII's fifth wife.\n\nCharged with adultery in 1541 and placed under house arrest, she broke free from her guards and ran to her husband to plead for her life. The guards dragged her back and she was executed. To this day, it is claimed, a woman in white can be seen floating down the Haunted Gallery.\n\n• JANE SEYMOUR\n\nHenry VIII's third wife, who died in childbirth in 1537, is said to walk through the cobbled courtyard carrying a lighted taper.\n\n• LADY IN GREY\n\nSibell Penn was nurse to Prince Edward, Henry's only son. She died in 1562 and was buried in Hampton Church. When the church was pulled down in 1829 her remains were disturbed and it is said she returned to the rooms she once lived in.\n\n• THE WOLSEY CLOSET\n\nThe room has a 'strange atmosphere'. A phantom dog has been seen and heard here on more than one occasion. \n\nCNN NEWS REPORT\n\nPalace 'ghost' caught on camera Friday, December 19, 2003 Posted: 1:54 PM EST (1854 GMT)\n\nLONDON, England (AP) -- Are there ghostly goings-on at Henry VIII's palace, or is that hazy image of a fellow in fancy robes just a bit of Christmas cheer?\n\nClosed-circuit security cameras at Hampton Court Palace, the huge Tudor castle outside London, seem to have snagged an ethereal visitor. Could it be a ghost?\n\n"We're baffled too -- it's not a joke, we haven't manufactured it," said Vikki Wood, a Hampton Court spokeswoman, when asked if the photo the palace released was a Christmas hoax. "We genuinely don'
121631
Magna Carta\nMagna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also known as Magna Carta Libertatum, is an English 1215 charter which limited the power of English Monarchs, specifically King John, from absolute rule. Magna Carta was the result of disagreements between the Pope and King John and his barons over the rights of the king: Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law. Magna Carta is widely considered to be the first step in a long historical process leading to the rule of constitutional law.\n\nHistory of Magna Carta\n\nAfter the Norman Conquest in 1066 and advances in the 12th century, the English king had by 1199 become the most powerful monarch Europe had ever seen. This was due to a number of factors including the sophisticated centralised government created by the procedures of the new Norman rulers combined with the native Anglo-Saxon systems of governance, as well as extensive Anglo-Norman land holdings in Normandy. However, after King John took power in the early 13th century, a series of stunning failures on his part led the barons of England to revolt and place checks on the king's unlimited power.\n\nThe failures of King John were threefold. First, there was a general lack of respect for King John because of the way he took power. There were two candidates to take the place of the previous king, Richard the Lionheart, when he died in 1199: John, and his nephew Arthur of Brittany in Normandy. John captured Arthur and imprisoned him and he was never heard from again. Although Arthur's murder was never proven, it was assumed and many saw it as a black mark against John that he would murder his own family to be king.\n\nSecondly, after Philip Augustus, the King of France, seized most of the English holdings in France, the English barons demanded of their king that he retake the land, and while he attempted to do so 8 years later, the effort came to failure at the Battle of Bouvines in 1214. John was given the nickname of "Lackland" not because of this loss, but because he had received no land rights in the continental provinces, unlike his elder brothers. (In French he is known as Jean Sans Terre, "John without land.")\n\nThe third failure of John was when he became embroiled in a dispute with the Church over the appointment of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. John wanted to appoint his own Archbishop and the Church wanted to appoint Stephen Langton. This struggle went on for several years during which England was placed under a sentence of interdict and finally John was forced to submit to the will of the Church in 1213.\n\nRunnymede and afterwards\n\nBy 1215, the barons of England had had enough: they banded together and took London by force on June 10, 1215. They forced King John to agree to a document known as the 'Articles of the Barons', to which his Great Seal was attached in the meadow at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. In return, the barons renewed their oaths of fealty to King John on June 19, 1215. A formal document to record the agreement between King John and the barons was created by the royal chancery on July 15: this was the original Magna Carta. An unknown number of copies of this document were sent out to officials, such as royal sheriffs and bishops.\n\nThe most significant clause for King John at the time was clause 61, known as the "security clause", the longest portion of the entire document. This established a committee of 25 Barons who could at any time meet and over-rule the will of the King, through force by seizing his castles and possessions if needed. This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, which was commonly done, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch. In addition, the King was to take an oath of loyalty to the committee.\n\nKing John had no
278916
I know about them and even belive some of them to be the truth such as the Gospel of thomas and the infancies of thomas, and most christians do belive in the Apocryphal Gospels without knowing it. The assemblies of God preach the when jesus died he went to hell and "set the captives free" which is not anywhere in the cannon in fact this is found in the apocryphal books.Also part of the reason they weren't cannonized is because they weren't found until after the cannon was set, as for the Gospel of thomas it wasn't accepted because the catholics didn't want people to belive that they didn't need to go to church to be christian because the love of money is the roo of all evil. Oh and P.S. LOVE the quotation marks, I belive that most people who claim to be christian are a bunch of fakers if they weren't they wouldn't be on here harrassing people and deliberatly trying to hurt others.
41382
No, by definition.\n\nNo, there is a lot of historical evidence that he existed, regardless wether you believe he is the son of god.\n\nYes, There is overwhelming evidence that both the old and new testaments were engineered by the catholic church and everyone else that touched it.
1018829
None that has been proven.
360580
Robin Hood with Erol Flynn. (I spelled his last name wrong)
283525
Well, I don't need to prove it because I have read about it in Encarta Encyclopedia. If you don't have one, then go to www.wikipedia.org\nThey will give you loads of info any time you want. \nGood Luck!
1080254
Yup. i've seem it. i like when he got new armor from lady blacksmith.\nn the story is like a championship n itsnt happened in the real medieval time right?
759017
Wow. That begs the question. Proof please (aside from one anecdote)?
239711
Colonel Thomas Blood, known as the 'Man who stole the Crown Jewels'.\nArticle at site below
981659
From 1227 onwards the names 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Hobbehod' occur in the rolls of several English justices. The majority of these references date from the late thirteenth century: between 1261 and 1300 there are at least eight references to 'Rabunhod' in various regions across England, from Berkshire in the south to York in the north. The term seems to be applied as a form of shorthand to any fugitive or outlaw. Even at this early stage, the name Robin Hood denotes an archetypal criminal. This usage continues throughout the medieval period. In a petition presented to Parliament in 1439, the name is again used to describe an itinerant felon, The petition cites one Piers Venables of Aston, Derbyshire, "who having no liflode, ne sufficeante of goodes, gadered and assembled unto him many misdoers, beynge of his clothynge, and, in manere of insurrection, wente into the wodes in that countrie, like as it hadde be Robyn Hude and his meyne." The name is still used to describe sedition and treachery in 1605, when Guy Fawkes and his associates are branded "Robin Hoods" by Robert Cecil.
292403
I would have to say yes. Seen no proof of it otherwise.
152384
I think it is likely there was, as most myths have some basis in reality.  However, who he actually was is lost to the mists of time.  Check out the link for interesting details, especially about the evolution of the legend.
181184
Hmmm, very good question. I have heard of this before, but I have never encountered anything that actually proves he did. I have also heard he had fell off of a horse and got his fingers caught in the bridle, which in turn, ripped them off. Actually, I think he was buried with ALL his fingers. Because if you look at his latest portraits, he has all of his fingers...although someone could have incorrectly painted him.