I’m an expert historian and here’s how accurate Robin Hood on MGM+ is to real events

by

I just finished watching the new Robin Hood series on MGM+, and it’s definitely a different take on the classic story. Sean Bean is fantastic as the Sheriff of Nottingham, and newcomer Jack Patten really embodies a younger, more raw Robin Hood – they’re calling him ‘Rob’ in this version. It’s a much grittier, more realistic feel than previous adaptations, aiming for a modern audience. It really got me thinking though – how much of this feels rooted in actual history, and how much is just good storytelling?

While the story contains historical errors and made-up details, it actually stays true to the heart of the Robin Hood legend and how it has changed over time. Surprisingly, these inaccuracies don’t detract from its overall impact.

It’s no surprise the new TV series takes place in Sherwood Forest and Nottingham – it’s the natural setting for the Robin Hood legend. While we can’t be certain these locations were the original inspiration for the story, they’ve been associated with it since the earliest written accounts from the 1400s and remain iconic to this day.

What’s fresh about this version of the story is when it takes place. It starts with Robin in the year 1186, while King Henry II is on the throne.

Most historians believe the stories of Robin Hood originated between the early 1200s and early 1300s, with a slight preference for the earlier years. However, popular movies and TV shows usually place Robin Hood during the time of King Richard the Lionheart (1189-1199), as seen in productions like Robin of Sherwood, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and the films from 2010 and 2018. The newest adaptation, coming in 2025, is set in 1189, the final year of Henry’s rule. This means characters who were around 16 in 1186 now appear to be about 26, which is a significant age jump.

Let’s talk about the characters. In 1189, Henry is king, with Eleanor of Aquitaine as his queen. Their sons, John and Richard, are both competing to become the next king.

The matter of Robin Hood is more problematic, and here we start finding historical errors.

It’s very unlikely that the real Robin Hood, if he existed, was actually named Loxley – that connection was made much later in stories. Also, the idea of him being the Earl of Huntingdon is a later invention; that title wasn’t used in connection with Robin Hood until 1598, when nobles tried to portray him as one of their own.

As a film buff who’s always been fascinated by Robin Hood, I’ve learned it’s surprisingly hard to find the real Robin Hood in history. There were a lot of people named Robin Hood, or something similar, getting into trouble back in the 13th and 14th centuries, but ‘Robin Hood’ was a pretty common nickname then. It often felt like people were becoming the legend, rather than the other way around! We also see names like Little John and Friar Tuck popping up in the historical record, especially around the early 15th century, but tracking down the definitive figures is tricky.

The first mentions of Maid Marian in the stories of Robin Hood appear in texts from the early 1500s.

The history of the “Sheriff of Nottingham” is a bit complicated. While the title wasn’t commonly used until the 1400s – a time when sheriffs generally had less power – a “High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire” existed as early as the 1180s. It’s easy to see how that longer title could have been shortened to simply “Sheriff of Nottingham” over time.

Some changes are quite clear. Queen Eleanor seems to be governing England while Henry is away. This is surprising considering she was imprisoned for over ten years after leading a revolt against him in 1173-1174. Even after her release, she remained under strict watch, and Henry took away her authority and property until he died.

The character Friar Tuck doesn’t fit historically. Franciscan and Dominican friars didn’t come to England until the 1220s, yet he’s connected to a Trappist monastery—an order that wasn’t founded until over 450 years later! Also, he isn’t depicted with the traditional shaved hairstyle of a monk.

There are two main historical inaccuracies in the series. It incorrectly labels the French kings of England as “Normans.” Henry II and his sons were actually from Anjou, making them Angevins – a different group from the Normans who originally invaded with William the Conqueror. When Henry became king in 1154, he founded the Plantagenet dynasty. The show’s constant focus on unfair rule by “Normans” over the English people appears to be influenced by the popular 1819 novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott.

Another reason often given is that the native English, referred to as “Saxon,” practiced paganism and opposed the Normans’ Christian faith. However, England had already been a Christian nation for hundreds of years. In fact, the very first stories about Robin Hood emphasize his strong religious beliefs and devotion to the Virgin Mary.

Why aren’t these historical inaccuracies a problem? Because the stories of Robin Hood were always meant to be entertaining. Starting in the thirteenth century, popular tales combined real-life heroes like Hereward the Wake, Fulk FitzWarin, and Richard the Lionheart with fantastical elements, creating adventures more similar to sword and sorcery than strict historical accounts.

The stories of Robin Hood evolved over time, becoming a collection of different and sometimes conflicting narratives. However, these tales – whether performed as plays, sung as ballads, written down, or celebrated during May Day – were always intended to entertain. Simply put, the performers – singers, writers, and actors – needed to please their audiences to earn a living.

The same holds true for this version of Robin Hood, and for all the retellings yet to come. It’s a story that’s been delighting audiences for over eight hundred years, and that tradition will undoubtedly continue.

Robin Hood arrives on MGM+ on Sunday 2nd November 2025.

Read More

2025-10-31 10:44