Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/16/2010 9:21:36 PM PDT by stolinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: stolinsky
The only Robin Hood that matters.


2 posted on 05/16/2010 9:24:28 PM PDT by wastedyears (The Founders revolted for less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stolinsky

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.


3 posted on 05/16/2010 9:27:13 PM PDT by ssaftler (Arizonans: Doing the job that Americans won't do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: stolinsky
According to Winston Churchill's A History Of The English Speaking People, the historical Robin Hood was, in all probability, an impoverished Baron. Taking seriously his obligation to maintain his serfs (and wishing to maintain himself in proper style), he formed a small army and took to robbing other nobleman and women who were in less desperate straits.

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.

5 posted on 05/16/2010 10:46:09 PM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (BORDERS, LAWS and LANGUAGE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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