Norwich – Robin Hood (Two Julians)
This visit was from a few weeks ago (as part of our Two Julians tour of Norwich since we’ve already straddled great chunks of the Waveney), when we meandered to the Robin Hood pub located near to the Cottage and also not far from Barrack Street.
There has been a pub with this name since the mid-eighteenth century, but it was in a different location. Here’s an early 1880s map of where it was, with the pub looking out onto Barrack Street and there was no shortage of other pubs along that street. Soon after this, the pub was moved to its current new purpose building which faces onto Mousehold Street. It then became a Watney Mann, then Courage and then Pubmaster pub. It’s somewhat of an unlikely survivor as it’s tucked away on a back street and indeed it has been closed for some short periods over the years.
In the Eastern Evening News in January 1884 it was reported that the landlord, Frederick Marcon, had gotten himself into some trouble.
“Frederick Marcon of the Robin Hood public-house, Pockthorpe, was summoned for assaulting Stephen Curl, Barrack Street, fish-hawker, on the 27th inst. Mr. Linay appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Sparrow defended. The assault was committed on Sunday evening last at the Robin Hood public-house. It appeared that Curl, accompanied by his brother and a man named Hicks, went to the Robin Hood. Defendant’s brother was also present, and without any provocation whatever struck complainant’s brother, causing him to be thrown to the ground. On his getting up defendant continued the assault by seconding his brother’s efforts, and on complainant going to his brother’s assistance, he was struck on the cheek and nose. Complainant was also thrown to the ground, and while in that position both the Marcons kicked him. The two companions of complainant were also called and corroborated. For the defence, Mr. Sparrow called defendant’s brother who said that one of them ordered some ale, but this was refused by his brother on account of their being “half drunk.” Defendant then asked them if they had come in for a row, and they replied with an oath that they had come with that object. The three then commenced on witness, and when defendant tried to protect him he was also struck. Hicks it appeared remained neutral, for he took up his position in a corner and watched the proceedings. The two Curls were eventually removed by their father and mother.
William Curl, brother of complainant, now charged the defendant Marcon with assaulting him at the same time. Curl was thrown to the ground, and while in that position he was kicked by Maroon on the head. Stephen Curl, the first complainant, also preferred a charge of assault against Thomas Marcon. Defendant hit him once in the cheek, knocked him down, and kicked him in the ribs. William Curl also charged Thomas Maroon with a similar offence. Curl alleged that Maroon struck him on the lip, the result of which was that he fell to the ground. Mr. Sparrow now urged that it was positively absurd to suppose that a landlord and his assistant should on the appearance of three customers immediately strike them, especially when there was no provocation to warrant it. The Bench then retired and on their return into Court the Chairman said that after carefully weighing the evidence in their minds they had come to the conclusion that they ought to convict. The defendant Marcon would be fined for the assault upon Stephen Curl 10s. and 15s. costs; in default, fourteen days’ hard labour; and for the assault on William Curl, a fine of 5s. and 9s. costs would be inflicted; in default, fourteen days. Thomas Marcon, for assaulting Stephen Curl, would be mulcted to the amount of 10s. and 7s. costs, in default 14 days; and for the assault upon William Curl, his brother, a fine of 20s. and 7s. costs would be imposed; in default 14 days.”
Probably a little sub-optimal for the pub landlord…. Fortunately, the welcome when we arrived at the pub was much more engaging from the current staff member although the venue did get in the news around three years ago when there was some considerable controversy relating to charitygate, but I’ll let individuals Google that if they so desire as I don’t think it relates to the current owners.
Some of the beer selection.
I went for the John Smiths and it tasted as expected and was reasonably priced. I also always appreciate when a pub stocks Mini Cheddars.
The pool table rather dominates matters in the main room, meaning they have to sit carefully around the edges of the room as is visible from the above seating, and then there’s one other smaller room. There’s a strong community element to this venue and the darts and pool teams are important to them. There was a bucket to catch the drips from the leak upstairs, but the staff member did apologise for that arrangement.
Julian looks enthralled, but he’s not really a TV in pub type person. Indeed, nor am I, but it added some musical entertainment to our visit. There is karaoke every Sunday afternoon and although this is evidently not going to encourage me in, it looks like a popular event. The TV must be a recent addition as the then owners were telling the EDP in 2023 that they were proudly a TV free zone. Since I always have a little look at on-line reviews…
“Came here with the pool team just too find out that it’s not child friendly, the owners allowed our captains child in for this time (via phone call) fair enough. Then get told the child can’t just press buttons on the fruit machines (not actually gambling/playing) anything because of licensing, for your information review the licensing laws on gambling as you clearly don’t know the laws and it’s not against the law for kids to be in a pub after a certain time it’s just a in-house rule, get out of your 1920’s pothole and get with the times.”
There’s one quite, er, direct review that the pub probably quite rightly didn’t respond to. I recall long ago when getting my licence that the law is quite clear that children shouldn’t be using these AWP machines in any shape or form, so it’s not unreasonable for a landlord to ask children not to play on them even for fun. And it is against licensing law for kids to be in a pub after a certain time if that’s what their licence says. Anyway, nearly all of the other reviews are positive, so as to add some balance.
It’s a pub that is off the beaten track and so is very much a community pub, but the welcome was friendly and clean, although it did need something of a refurbishment in places. All rather lovely, it’s worth popping in for anyone nearby.
