Skip to comments.Robin Hood the Tea Partier
Posted on 05/16/2010 9:21:35 PM PDT by stolinsky
Robin fought against an oppressive government that levied crushing taxes. The government was led by King John, a weak man who aspired to be a tyrant, but was not quite up to the job. He had the ruthlessness, but not the strength. He evoked fear and anger, but not loyalty or respect. Is the Times implying that President Obama in any way resembles King John?
King John followed King Richard on the throne. Richard had spent much of his reign away at the Crusades, fighting to retake the Holy Land from warlike Muslims who had seized it from its former inhabitants. But John was no warrior, much less a Crusader. He set his eyes not on rescuing the Holy Land, but on seizing the land and money of his own people. As a result, the people compared him unfavorably with his brave predecessor. Is the Times implying that former President Bush in any way resembles King Richard?
(Excerpt) Read more at stolinsky.com ...
We saw the new version this weekend, and there were striking resemblances between the Kings of England and the current and past residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
That, and the fact that the French lost yet another battle made the movie somewhat watchable.
The Errol Flynn Robin Hood was Tea Partyish. Stop the govt from multiplying the poor.
The serfs were required by English commonlaw to remain in the service of their Lord. They couldn't leave his land. Failure to maintain the loyalty of one's serfs could cause them to break the law and leave, looking for other work, which often meant robbery and chicanery. Thus they became villains, meaning literally, land-bound peasants who had left the estate (villa) of their liege Lord.
Sounds like no more than a guess. Then again, an impoverished baron would more likely seek to repatriate the taxes originally paid to the king by himself and others instead of preying on his neighbors, now, wouldn't he? Besides, Robin would have joined forces with the other barons (and respected them) to defeat John at the Battle of Runnymede in 1215, because they ALL hated his guts, right? WHY do you think they forced him to sign the Magna Carta upon his defeat, giving birth to the fledgling idea of the rights of men other than the monarch?
If you disagree, take it up with the man himself:
Very little is known about the historical Robin Hood. He did not necessarily even live in the time of King John. The fall of a Baron into poverty could be due to drought or mismanagement. Actually, all knowledge of Robin and his men is guess work based on legends and songs.
In any case, if you can get ahold of Winston's History Of The English Speaking People, (in six volumes, which seems to be out of print), it's a great read!
You can find more information than you probably even want to know about the various legends of Robin Hood HERE
Meanwhile, there is this, from Wikipedia.
References to Robin as Earl of Huntington
Another reference is provided by Thomas Gale, Dean of York
(c. 16351702), but this comes nearly four hundred
years after the events it describes:
[Robin Hood's] death is stated by Ritson to have taken place on the 18th of November, 1247, about the 87th year of his age; but according to the following inscription found among the papers of the Dean of York...the death occurred a month later. In this inscription, which bears evidence of high antiquity, Robin Hood is described as Earl of Huntington - his claim to which title has been as hotly contested as any disputed peerage upon record.
Hear undernead dis laitl stean
Lais Robert Earl of Huntingun
Near arcir der as hie sa geud
An pipl kauld im Robin Heud
Sic utlaws as hi an is men
Vil England nivr si agen.
Obiit 24 Kal Dekembris 1247
This inscription also appears on a grave in the grounds of Kirklees Priory near Kirklees Hall (see below).
Very interesting. Thank you for all the wonderful insight.