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

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 ]


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

To: PotatoHeadMick

Looks like the Daily Mail writer is imputing one heck of a lot of his own thought into this little scrap. Besides, everybody knows Errol Flynn was a good guy!


29 posted on 03/14/2009 8:53:27 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick

He didn’t steal from the rich and give to the poor. He took the taxpayers’ money back from the government.


43 posted on 03/14/2009 9:36:15 AM PDT by Sir Gawain ("Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick
I believe the Vichy gov't said the same thing about the Resistance.

And then, there's this character.

44 posted on 03/14/2009 9:39:26 AM PDT by uglybiker (AAAAAAH!!! I'm covered in BEES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick

So, who decided that media bias was a recent phenomenon?


47 posted on 03/14/2009 10:03:20 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (Hey, Obama! Where's my check?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick

It should not be forgotten that whether Robin Hood fought for King Richard the Lion-hearted, or for the French-aligned Catholic reformists, both struggles were defeated. The evil King John came to rule in England, sending King Arthur (Richard’s chosen heir) into exile in France.

That John’s and Edward’s successors weren’t fond of Robin says almost nothung; that they claim to represent the England populace seems to be a notion introduced by the editor.


54 posted on 03/14/2009 1:01:09 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick

FURH.....


59 posted on 03/14/2009 5:16:32 PM PDT by waterhill (An armed man has the means for independence.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PotatoHeadMick

"Wait a tic...blimey...this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."

63 posted on 03/15/2009 10:06:37 AM PDT by dfwgator (1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Hood not so good? Ancient Brits questioned outlaw
PeoplePC Online | Saturday, March 14, 2009 | Staff
Posted on 03/14/2009 11:16:04 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2206603/posts


66 posted on 03/15/2009 5:25:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


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

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