Post by Wolpertinger on Jun 6, 2022 21:45:33 GMT
This topic came up recently in another thread, but I think it’s fun and interesting enough to warrant its own. Everyone is of course free to have their own interpretations!
** Could Guy have more siblings? **
Specifically, one passage of Richard Carpenter’s novel provides evidence for such:
‘I remember my last tournament,’ Gisburne went on boringly. ‘We were fighting a party of knights from Chester. Roger de Lacy’s men. They lost their tempers completely. My horse was killed under me and my brother had an eye gouged out. Mind you, it was his fault; he was wearing the wrong sort of helmet.’This could, of course, simply be a mistake on Richard Carpenter’s part, as he had probably not yet worked out Gisburne’s backstory yet. Or perhaps Guy simply meant “brother-in-arms”. But I believe it can still make sense in context of the story regardless.
While Lady Gisburne only birthed one child, this does not mean Lord Gisburne only fathered one. The simplest explanation would be he sired a son out of wedlock, as was common for noblemen to do. Of course, it is also possible that Lord Gisburne had already been married once before, and has already fathered at least one other son.
This second option is supported by multiple clues. Firstly, his brother must have been knighted to compete in this tourney, which financially is less likely (but not impossible) for an illegitemate son. If Guy participated in a joust some time in the past with his brother, then this brother would almost certainly be older than him. Guy is already on the younger side of knighthood, and would have been even more so whenever this tourney took place.
Secondly, nobody is expecting Guy to inherit the Gisburne estate and titles. Not Abbot Hugo, not the Sheriff, not even Guy himself ever implies expecting him to come to any means of power and wealth through inheritance in the future. I imagine at least the Sheriff would be plotting how to best use this windfall to his advantage. Guy is not put under pressure to marry for the sake of carrying on the family name. When they meet again, Lady Gisburne (aware of her deadly condition) feels no urgency to compel her son to return home and take over the estate.
For all this, the easiest explanation would be that Guy has at minimum one older brother. Of course a nobleman will still want more sons, at the very least a spare to his heir, so Lord Gisburne demanding more children from his shiny new wife Lady Gisburne would also still make sense. After all, that would be seen as the point of a marriage (next to cashing in the dowry).
** Could Robert have more siblings? **
This is an interesting one. Looking at the historical Earl David of Huntingdon, he did indeed have many children. Does the historical set of children fit into the Robin of Sherwood universe, however?
Notably, when Robert takes on the mantle of Robin Hood, he is shown to be a natural team player. Robin of Loxley was a natural leader, and one who liked to lead from the top, while Robert strikes me as a little more group-oriented. Considering Robert is a noble (the nephew of the King of Scotland, no less), that in itself is already remarkable, but even more so as an only child and heir. I would imagine him spoiled and pampered.
Historically, David of Huntingdon and his wife, Matilda of Chester, had five children in quick succession (from 1194 to 1199): Margaret, Robert, Ada, Matilda, and Isobel. (David also sired at least three more illegitimate children.) In other words, Robert had four sisters very close in age. This can help explain why disrespect toward women upset him enough to put Owen of Clun in his place, and why cooperation is not a new concept to him. Considering the young age that noble girls were married off or sent to an abbey in those days, it also makes sense why they aren’t present at the start of season three. If they are all around Robert’s age, they will have already left their parents’ home.
In addition to this first set of children, David and Matilda had two more boys, John (1207) and Henry (died young). John would be, give or take, a decade younger than Robert. At the start of season three he would either still be in the nursery (up until age 7) or employed as a page boy in a different noble household (age 7-14). While in this scenario Robert remains the heir of the Huntingdon lands and title, he wouldn’t be the only potential heir. This means the Earl of Huntingdon doesn’t have to try and win Robert back to save his family dynasty, though he may still want to for multiple reasons. This also means Robert is at least free of the guilt of potentially having destroyed his family line by turning outlaw.
Personally, I like the idea that Robert rejects his inheritance in the end and remains an outlaw, leaving John to carry on the Huntingdon legacy (and John did become the next Earl historically). Having Robert reinstated as Earl, to me, betrays the cause he is fighting for and makes it feel like he was only roleplaying a poor person in his rebellious youth, before returning to the fold of the wealthy. This makes for a more satisfying ending, to me at least.
In summary, I find it very possible for these two half-brothers to have even more half-siblings, and for people creating fan works that might be a fun thought to explore further.
