I have shown there is no reason to dread the charge in the great majority of these instances. Every nation has its own peculiar way of forming the baptismal surname. We have no less than five representing British as distinct from English nomenclature: Anglo-Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh. Each had his fashion of framing the patronymic, and all, I need not say, abound in the metropolis. The Norman made _fitz_ (French, _fils_) a prefix, and thus Gilbert, son of Hamon, became Gilbert Fitz-hamon. The Saxon made _son_ a desinence, and thus Ralph, son of Nichol, became Ralph Nichol_son_. The Welshman put _ap_ (_i.e._ son) in the forefront, like the Norman, and thus Owen ap-Richard became Owen Pritchard, or Griffin ap-Harry Griffin Parry, or Hugh ap-Rice Hugh Price. The inhabitant of “Caledonia stern and wild” also set _Mac_ at the beginning rather than the end, so that Andrew, son of Aulay, became Andrew Macaulay. Lastly, our friends of the Emerald Isle prefixed _Mac_ or _O_ to the baptismal name, as their form of descent, and thus Patrick, son of Neale, became Patrick MacNeale, or Patrick O’Neale. As the old rhyme has it: “By _Mac_ and _O_, You all may know True Irishmen, they say; But if they lack Both _O_ and _Mac_, No Irishmen are they.” Thus within the boundary lines of our own Britannic realm we have “_son_,” “_fitz_,” “_ap_,” “_Mac_,” and “_O_” employed in the formation of one single class of surnames. Sometimes the Welsh “_ap_” became “_ab_,” and thus ap-Evan has become “Bevan,” ap-Owen, Bowen, ap-Ethell, Bethell, and ap-Huggins, Buggins. In the same way, ap-Lloyd is found in the London Directory as Bloyd. There are about five thousand people in London bearing names of which “Robert” is the root and foundation. I wonder if it has ever struck my reader that the _nominal_ existence of four-fifths of this large population is the result of the life, adventures, and celebrity of that great outlaw Robin Hood. To gather up the links of evidence would fill a volume. I will occupy the remainder of this chapter by a brief _resumé_ of the argument. If I prove my assertion, this will be demonstrating the reality of my title, and show conclusively that the London Directory may be well styled a “romance.” That Robin Hood was the fictitious name of Robert, Earl of Huntingdon, has been proved an idle fable; but although there are serious doubts as to the existence of William Tell, there need be none as to the individuality of Robin Hood. That a noted forester—an outlaw—of this name roved in the neighbourhood of Sherwood during the first four decades of the thirteenth century, is beyond dispute. “In Locksley town, in merry Nottinghamshire, In merry sweet Locksley town, There bold Robin Hood was born and was bred, Bold Robin of famous renown.”