Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 13th Century manuscript that shows Robin Hood and his Merry Men weren't so popular after all
Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 14th March 2009 | Paul Sims

Posted on 03/14/2009 7:48:20 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick

Folklore holds that Robin Hood was a fearless outlaw loathed by the rich and loved by the poor.

Fighting injustice and tyranny, his gallantry became the stuff of legend - and Hollywood movies.

But according to a newly-discovered manuscript entry it appears that Robin and his Merry Men may not have been as popular as the stories would have us believe.Written in Latin and buried among the treasures of Eton's library, the 23 sparse words shed new light on the Sheriff of Nottingham's mortal foe.

Translated, the 550-year-old note reads: 'Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies.'

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Miscellaneous; Religion
KEYWORDS: england; forstofnottingham; godsgravesglyphs; kingjohn; legends; nottingham; nottinghamgaol; richardthelionheart; robingoodfellow; robinhood; sheriffofnottingham; thegreenman; unitedkingdom; wales; yorkshire
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
I don't find this at all surprising, Robin Hood was after all an anti-establishment bandit, a terrorist if you like, so it would not be unusual to find monastic scholars who would owe their position to support of the government being opposed to him.

Something similar occurs when we read about the "partisans" behind German lines in Poland and Soviet territory, despite them being painted today as heroic figures for many people they were nothing more than bandits killing and stealing according to their own ideologies.

1 posted on 03/14/2009 7:48:20 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

bfltr


2 posted on 03/14/2009 7:55:04 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

Not many of the poor were writing manuscripts is my guess.


3 posted on 03/14/2009 7:56:34 AM PDT by woofer ('Senator Obama ain't run nothin' but his mouth' - Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

‘a terrorist if you like’

No he wasn’t a terrorist if you like. Kinda how we have transformed the word of terrorism this day in the WOT mantra.

Nothing wrong to be anti-establishment. That’s how America was created.


4 posted on 03/14/2009 7:56:43 AM PDT by BGHater (Tyranny is always better organised than freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

As others have said, this is hardly surprising. My understanding of the Friar Tuck character is that he is unusual — a “goodly friar” who does not adhere to the corrupt expectations of the local bishop. The Tax collectors, the abbots, the aristocracy — these people were oppressing the poor. Of course manuscripts kept by these people would be against Robin Hood.


5 posted on 03/14/2009 8:01:23 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

There’s a certain aura surrounding old Latin manuscripts that confers instant credibility. However, this is likely representative of the opinion of the very people Robin Hood opposed. So, it’s not surprising at all, and doesn’t change anything regarding the legend.

At least it’s difficult to deny that there actually was such an historical figure anymore.


6 posted on 03/14/2009 8:03:22 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

7 posted on 03/14/2009 8:04:38 AM PDT by I'm ALL Right! (Webster's says SOCIALISM is a Transitionary state between Capitalism and Communism. Wake up America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick
It is far from certain that the legendary "Robin Hood" ever existed as a real individual. He may have been the first urban legend, perhaps a composite of roving bandits in general, and the Merry Men the first organized gang. That such may have robbed the nobility and their minions(eg the sheriff of Nottingham) on occasion may be glamorization of the banal.
8 posted on 03/14/2009 8:12:35 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

>>> Something similar occurs when we read about the “partisans” behind German lines in Poland and Soviet territory, despite them being painted today as heroic figures for many people they were nothing more than bandits killing and stealing according to their own ideologies. <<<

Yes. how dare those Polish and other “partisans” go behind “enemy” lines and kill those poor, unsuspecting “Germans.” How can we paint these murderers as heroes when all they did was kill Wehrmacht soldiers who were busy collecting flowers and making slivovitz for their Polish and other slavic friends? And ALL because the Germans didn’t follow the same ideology! Shameless!


9 posted on 03/14/2009 8:14:03 AM PDT by Poe White Trash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

Of course this is made public now. There is a pretender on our throne who is taking all sorts of powers to himself and laying confiscatory taxes on the people. It is certainly not desirous that someone who fights against such tyranny is seen as “good”.

I know, I know, Robin Hood was in England, Caligula is in DC. This is just a coincidence.


10 posted on 03/14/2009 8:16:36 AM PDT by Jemian (PAM of JT ~~ Michael Steele is a craven squish. -Mark Steyne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick
This whole Robin Hood deal seems to me a bit off. The concept of Robin stealing from the rich to give to the poor, makes him seem like a socialist, a re-distributor of wealth.

Is not story really a bit different? Prince John usurps King Richard's throne, while Richard is off fighting against the warlords of islam, and with the Sheriff of Nottingham rules tyrannically, using the power of government to steal from everyone and give to themselves. Robin and his band, and the peasants (Saxons) are being systematically starved to death by the Normans. They resist the government, and they take back what is theirs and distribute it to the oppressed Saxon peasants while waiting for King Richard to return from the Crusades to make the government right.

That does not quite sound like a socialist who is "stealing from the rich to give to the poor". He is resisting tyranny.

11 posted on 03/14/2009 8:20:46 AM PDT by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

Calm down fella, I couldn’t agree more that any Pole who fought Germans in Nazi occupied territory was perfectly entitled to do so, my point is however that it wasn’t just Germans who were on the receiving end of partisan activities many ordinary people who wanted no truck with the Nazis but who just as importantly wanted nothing to do with Soviet backed Communists either were often victims of the partisans.

Try reading a bit of history before you fly off the handle.


12 posted on 03/14/2009 8:23:33 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick
"Something similar occurs when we read about the "partisans" behind German lines in Poland and Soviet territory, despite them being painted today as heroic figures for many people they were nothing more than bandits killing and stealing according to their own ideologies."

Like Karol Wojtyła?
13 posted on 03/14/2009 8:26:50 AM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

If King John was in charge he would almost certainly have branded Hood as a terrorist, after all he was attacking civilian targets in order to change the current political regime.

That is why I deliberately used the term, I agree that “terrorist” is a much abused term but in the context of King John’s England it would have been accurate.

And yes, if any secessionist attacked civilians in their campaign to break the link with Britain during the American War of Independence then the government in London would have indeed branded them as terrorists.

It’s not my fault if the word “terrorist” is often used out of context especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.


14 posted on 03/14/2009 8:29:15 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rigelkentaurus

>>> That does not quite sound like a socialist who is “stealing from the rich to give to the poor”. He is resisting tyranny. <<<

Which may be the reason why a UK paper wants to present him in a negative light. Don’t want the little laddies to get any foolish ideas about resisting tyranny, don’t ya know. Not to mention the fact that Robin and his Merry Men used swords, which are like very long and sharp knives. And all law-abiding Britons should know that knives are very dangerous, and their ownership should be strictly regulated by the Crown!


15 posted on 03/14/2009 8:29:35 AM PDT by Poe White Trash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

If the late Pope was involved in killing unarmed civilians who didn’t agree with his political viewpoint then yes but of course he never did so therefore your point is fatuous.


16 posted on 03/14/2009 8:30:45 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

No, like the recently canonised-by-Hollywood Bielski brothers, whose defence of Jews is considered sufficient exoneration for their documented war crimes.


17 posted on 03/14/2009 8:32:28 AM PDT by Philo-Junius ((One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

That was the group I had in mind when I made my post, they as Polish Jews were of course absolutely entitled to kill as many godammed Nazis as they could and good luck to them, they were not however entitled to ally themselves with Soviet occupiers in killing and robbing their fellow Poles.


18 posted on 03/14/2009 8:34:38 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

Your problem is that you painted a VERY broad picture by implying that ALL Polish resistance were nothing more than common criminals, which is so far from the truth as to be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.


19 posted on 03/14/2009 8:36:12 AM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PotatoHeadMick

This is interesting.


20 posted on 03/14/2009 8:38:02 AM PDT by Jane Austen (Boycott the Bahamas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson