Posted on 02/27/2009 10:49:38 AM PST by BGHater
Not really. Robin Hood robbed from the government to give to the people, against the government of the future King John which sought to:
* Reserve all the land for environmentalist causes
* Restrict arms as a means of preserving the peace
* Tax the poor heavily
* Exploded the public debt by bailing out bankers
Not integral to the legend, King John also:
* Opposed fighting a war against the Muslims in the Middle East, even secretly attempting to become a Muslim (the Sultan of Morrocco rejected him!)
* Regarded Christianity as an enemy, and tried to subvert it
A real legend. Some identify him with Robert Hode, but even he’s a bit legendary.
Robert Dore born in Loxley also known as Robin of Loxley. Little John’s grave is in Heathersage.
bttt
No! You have the players wrong.
Robin Hood robbed from the government and the church which were empoverishing the rising middle class by high taxes and other wrongfully imposed fees. He took back what was considered excess and stolen and returned it to the rightful owners who had been made poor.
So, the modern day players are Obama and his henchmen are the Sheriff of Nottingham, etc. The overtaxed in this country are the "poor" of Robin Hood's day. WE DO NOT YET HAVE A ROBIN HOOD AND HIS MERRY MEN.
Liberals turn every good thing to, uh, trash.
They had to corrupt the story of Robin Hood because they are the thieving Sheriff of Nottingham kind of guys.
Economy stifling taxation is patriotic and building a business and creating jobs is evil.
The freedom restored by the Magna Carta got the English economy moving. The English were free to own land, raise pigs and cattle and ate meat, which made them strong enough to draw a longbow with a hundred to a hundred fifty pound draw.
Nobody on the continent could do that be cause their economy was serf based and almost nobody but the very rich could eat meat.
Today’s commies hate that the English were the forefathers of modern freedom, and that they grew strong by eating meat.
During the hundred years war, some English longbows were captured by the French. they had everybody in the army, from peasant to lord, try to string them, and nobody could.
The free economy led to meat eating and strength, which led to use of the longbow, which enabled less than twenty five thousand English to overcome two hundred thousand French Knights in heavy armor and on horseback.
In my college days, I remember the disdain the commie professors had for the English. took me a while to figure out why.
Remember, the American Revolutionaries were originally just demanding the god given rights and freedom of Englishmen.
The money that Robin Hood took from the Royalty was the unreasonable taxes taken at sword point from poor subjects in the kingdom.
He returned the “robbed” taxes to the poor subjects that it originally came from....
He didn’t rob the royalty of their “hard earned money”.
This is wholly unlike Obama and other Marxists who want to confiscate hard earned money from the wage earners and distribute to other people who didn’t earn it or pay it.....
We could use a good “Robin Hood” right now.......
>> Robert Dore born in Loxley also known as Robin of Loxley. Little John’s grave is in Heathersage.
<<
I found a personal blog asserting that, but nothing scholarly. (There is no mention, for instance, of Robert Dore in Wikipedia.) Furthermore, the basis for this claim is a pardon dated in 1380, 150 years too late to account for the legend. By that late date, “Robin Hood” had become practically a common noun, as in “He’s a real Robin Hood.”
>> Robin Hood robbed from the government and the church <<
True in a way, but gravely misleading:
The regency of John and the Catholic Church were quite at odds. In fact, it’s quite possible that the legend of Robin Hood may well have been fed by a Catholic to shift the blame of England’s poor bank accounts away from Richard the Lionhearted’s wholehearted support for the war against Islamofascists and onto King John’s theivery.
While John so bitterly hated the Church’s influence that he sought out the Sultan of Morrocco to convert England to an Islamic state (!), the Church proclaimed an interdict against England (possibly explaining Friar Tuck’s role of giving mass to the people in the countryside, rather than in a church building). When John asecnded to the throne, the Church denied his validity, instead holding the position that Arthur of Brittany was the legitimate holder to the throne.
Needless to say, however, John had Rome-approved church hierarchy replaced by sycophants and thieves, to the extent that he could.
may well have been fed by a Catholic
should read
may well have been fed by a Catholic effort
ping
Thank you for the correction. I had not heard about Bad King John’s attempted conversion. He was so bad that even a moslem wouldn’t accept him! Ha! That is really low.
Thank you for the correction. I had not heard about Bad King John’s attempted conversion. He was so bad that even a moslem wouldn’t accept him! Ha! That is really low.
Thanks for the ping. Leaving a person in that pit would be worse than just killing them outright.
LOL - good one!
What is treason? Merely a matter of dates!
I dont recall King John trying to “restrict arms as a means of preserving the peace”. Actually NOT practicing archery on Sunday afternoon was punishable by fine.
King John also managed to lose the Crown Jewels of England. He really wasn’t a very successful king.
>> I dont recall King John trying to “restrict arms as a means of preserving the peace”. <<
Ouch. I might have allowed some of the legend of Robin Hood to leak into the reality of King John, on that one. He is often depicted as having siezed the swords and other weapons of the townspeople to prevent their support of Robin Hood. I can’t really figure where else I might have learned that one from.
>> Actually NOT practicing archery on Sunday afternoon was punishable by fine. <<
I can’t really picture how that would take place. Did you mean that a certain class of people were fined?
Every able-bodied freeman was expected to spend sunday afternoons shooting longbows. Failure to do so would collect a fine. It was a device to ensure a plentiful supply of troops in case of war, of course.
I find mention made of this during the reigns of Edward III and Richard II; have you perhaps mixed up the reigns of the King Richards? Or was this part of a Robin Hood story you’ve read? (The legends of Robin Hood vary considerably as to when they took place. I’ve certainly dates as late as Edward III. It was only in later centuries that they merged around King John I.)
Anyway, if you have any sources, I’d be quite interested to learn more. (Maybe it was that the non-Freeman were not allowed to own bows?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.