In May 1767 the antiquarian Samuel Pegge read a paper to the Society of Antiquaries on the subject of the legendary English hero, Guy of Warwick. Less concerned with the Anglo–Norman and Middle English romances about Guy than the mentions of him by such historians as Leland, Camden, Heylyn and Dugdale, Pegge showed that almost nothing about the legend could be true. One after another, events in Guy's story fall beneath Pegge's antiquarian sword. He demonstrated that the Anglo– Saxon setting was anachronistic and that the tale could only have been composed in the later middle ages. He argued that pilgrimage to the Holy Land, of the kind that Guy undertakes, was not a feature of English life before the Conquest (37). Though there might have been a Guy of Warwick, he could not have been earl of Warwick, and neither could he have fought a duel with Colbrond in order to save the throne of England from the Danes (29). In the reign of Athelstan the Danes did not besiege Winchester, and did not have ‘it in their power to contest king Athelstan's title to the crown’ (35–36). Pegge deduced that Guy must have been about 68 when he died, so at the time he was supposed to have fought with Colbrond he was ‘rather too old to be engaged in such a perilous affair, and wherein so much was at stake, as the right to the crown of England’ (35).

Plausibly concluding that the story of Guy of Warwick might have been a confection made by someone seeking to ingratiate himself with the real earls of Warwick of the later middle ages, Pegge takes apart the story's claims to factual status. At best, it is an example of invented tradition. Exit one legendary English hero.

It is impossible to judge, at this distance of time, what the mood might have been in the Society's Chancery Lane rooms after the paper was read. Perhaps there was sage nodding at a job well done. Perhaps congratula– tions, as the errors in Leland, Camden and other pre–Enlightenment historians were relentlessly chased down. What seems un likely to have happened is that anyone present thought there was any novelty in Pegge's conclusions.