Was Robert de Vere the real Robin Hood?

Robin Hood is one of England's most enduring legends, but the truth behind the myth has long been lost. Historians believe that Robin Hood existed, but exactly who he was remains a mystery. Popular stories have Robin and his outlaws living in Sherwood Forest, fighting for the people in the name of Richard the Lionheart against his evil brother Prince John. He has always been portrayed as the hero who took from the rich to give to the poor. He is known by many different names, including Robin Hood, Robin Wood, Roberd Hude, Robert Hood, and other variations. Robin Hood also exists in many forms, simply because his stories were first passed around by spoken word, in the form of folk tales and ballads dating back to the 1300's.

Robin stands as the hero of the common people and yeomans and a symbol of "right against might". Because of the Sheriff of Nottingham's tyrannical rule and exploitation of the common people in Nottinghamshire, Robin united his fellow folk and rebelled against the Sheriff. Robin is also known for "robbing the rich and giving to the poor."

Robert de Vere, the historical claimant to the earldom of Cambridge and Huntingdon, heritor of the lands of FitzOoth or Hood. Robert or Robin - a Knight Templar in accordance with his legend - was outlawed by King John and lost all his lands and castles. However, according to Professor Holt, the former Master of Fitzwilliam College and Professor of Medieval History, this myth was based on a false pedigree concocted by William Stukeley:

It seems that lovers of Robin Hood have been hoodwinked for two and a half centuries by a false pedigree concocted by William Stukeley who invented a fictitious earl resulting in students being thrown into confusion by his inventive fabrications. He misrepresented the information provided in William Dougdale's Baronage of 1675, and then added families and individuals who were entirely fictitious. He concocted a marriage between Gilbert de Grant and Rohaise, a daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert. He gave them a fictitious daughter called Maud who he married to a fictitious husband Ralph fitz Ooth, stating that Ralph was commonly called Robin Hood. He then attaches the fitz Ooths to a genuine family who were the lords of Kime in Lincolnshire, giving the whole fabrication a false sense of authenticity. He gives a date for Robin Hood's death of c.1274, which has no foundation in fact and that has caused Robin Hood to be placed in the reign of kings from around that period.

This flawed and false pedigree was taken up by Mr J Lees of Nottingham who transferred William fitz Ooth into the custody of Robert de Vere which is wrong, and so the whole sorry state of affairs has gone from bad to worse. First Nottingham's candidate was Robert Fitzooth, and then it changed to Robert-de-Kyme. They say he fought at the Battle of Evesham in 1265 and later changed his name to Robin Hood. The Complete Peerage says, "Robin Hood, otherwise Robert Fitzooth, the famous forest outlaw, popularly ennobled in legend as Earl of Huntingdon, never possessed that Earldom or any other title of dignity."

The critical figure for both Stukeley and Mr. Lees is William FitzOoth who (Stukeley) or whose heir (Lees) was transferred to the custody of Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1214. In reality the William son of Otho, whose heir or heirs were placed in the custody of Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1205 and transferred to Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, in 1214, had nothing to do with the family of Kyme, or with the earls of Huntingdon, still less with Robin Hood. He is well known as an official of the Mint, holding his office in charge of the manufacture of the royal dies as a sergeanty. By 1219, he was succeeded by his son, Otho son of William, who still held office in 1242-3. It follows therefore that 'Robert fitz Ooth' is entirely fictitious; so is the alleged link between 'FitzOoth and Kyme, and so are the grounds for seeking an original Robin Hood in the Kyme family.