It is becoming apparent that Robin's homeland is drifting further away from the old magic into the new fake magic. Another is that State Hypnosis Pirates like Disney keep digging into the old legends to make their market share, doing so they corrode the whole reservoir of these personal histories.
Folklore is the forgotten Essential. Good on you for shining your lantern therein!
It is good you implicitly call out Astral for acting like Disney and beforehand Hollywood got it right: Disney makes everything childlike and simplistic and Hollywood just made things simplistic: compare Golden Age of Hollywood films to "Intolerance" or "Nanook of the North."
Hollywood made John Lackland the villain when in fact in the legend he only appears at the end of Robin's adventures, and all he does is get angry that the pardoned Robin has become an outlaw again. Robin decided to become an outlaw again just because Robin thought being an outlaw would be FUN.
The legend (which originally appeared in 1225, the year the Magna Carta was signed, as opposed to "Merrie Geste of Robyne Hode" which appeared in the days of Edward II) has him fight Good King Harry (Henry II) who whilst seemingly popular (as evidenced by his name) was condemned for his Caesaropapism and for unintentionally having Thomas a Beckett killed.
Out of respect for Jesus (in the same way we don't name children "Jesus") Hollywood replaced Henry II with his son Bad King John: part of the reason would have been no one in the legends seems to have hated Henry (despite being a Norman) which implies the Saxons hated the systemic oppression that was the Norman yoke.
Interestingly, no one in the legends hated Bad King John (despite John being hated by the Saxons) which implies the Saxons didn't care about John taxing the oppressive nobles, punishing the nobles without trial, or preventing Norman rangers from hunting - the Saxons only hated John because John forbade the Saxons from building homes for their families and John banned the Saxons from fishing.
This implies the Saxons viewed John as the lesser of two evils.
Maid Marian being a strong female character in the 2010 Robin Hood is a reference to her first appearance, in which she is a proud noblewoman good at sport.
Thanks for that note. I enjoy when people assault the false construction with clearly-expressed truths.
I have one meeny comment to add, which I hope you won't too much mind, in connection with your "Good King Harry (Henry II) who whilst seemingly popular (as evidenced by his name) was condemned for his Caesaropapism and for unintentionally having Thomas a Beckett killed." My take on this latter, "unintentionally", lies at the heart of the English millennial (talk about thousand-year reich?) monarchy and its speaking-out-of-the-side-of-the-mouth mode of operation, something I call the "Thomas á Becket Syndrome" where the Monarch only has to wonder about some apparent necessity for loyal courtiers to leap to fill the breach.
This method of government by sleight can be descried in action even today. I'll leave you to dig examples but, for a start, figure me how a chain of incompetent Prime Ministers have by chance led their country further and further along the same destructive road in some manner claimed as "The People's Will".
Thomas á Becket's fate as a bellwether for English (or Norman...) Monarchic Government: has stood the test of time.
King John's problem, btw, I hear from other more knowledgeable historians, was more to do with excessive debt and interest leading to unsustainable levels of taxation, the interest (as with William the Fatherless) being due to what some people known as "The Usuarial Suspects", pardon my pun.
Thanks for the opportunity to murder a few electrons in the cause of Truth!
The moneylending had NOTHING to do with Jews, for the obvious reason it had to do with the ransom paid to the Holy Emperor of the German Nation (which is what the Holy Roman Emperor was called in the High Middle Ages) and John raised taxes and borrowed money (most moneylenders were NOT Jews, for the obvious reason that Jews were just beggars who couldn't own property: it is like the stereotype of Cantonese immigrants being launderers despite the fact NO white settler would have done business with a nonwhite, or that black people would have politically dominated the South like how blacks now dominate South Africa if not for the Black Codes) from the nobility, since they owned vast amounts of land.
John would mostly have borrowed money from the Knights Templar as well as Venetian merchants (the Republic of Venice had not entered it's golden age, but it still made money from trade and banking).
I didn't mention anyone! but of course YMMV and my source on another substack did mention said usurers in full.
Who did Edward I throw out of England? and for what reason?
Fact is, from William the Bar Steward until Edward I the English Head of State borrowed without a budget and dumped the interest payment on who there was to dump it on, a theme that did not die with Edward I.
Your literary adventure into China and Africa didn't serve except as decoys ...
Thanks so much for this Astral, you're far too kind to these here Frogs from the frozen wasteland that is the north ;).
I'll get on your show and have a pretty free schedule.
I'm just moved by the warmth with which you described my substack you're far too kind.
Quebecois don't eat frogs, and what do Quebecois have to do with Hollywood?
Lmao fair enough, but we’re North American Frogs ;). And we’ve nothing to do with Hollywood.
It is becoming apparent that Robin's homeland is drifting further away from the old magic into the new fake magic. Another is that State Hypnosis Pirates like Disney keep digging into the old legends to make their market share, doing so they corrode the whole reservoir of these personal histories.
Folklore is the forgotten Essential. Good on you for shining your lantern therein!
It is good you implicitly call out Astral for acting like Disney and beforehand Hollywood got it right: Disney makes everything childlike and simplistic and Hollywood just made things simplistic: compare Golden Age of Hollywood films to "Intolerance" or "Nanook of the North."
Hollywood made John Lackland the villain when in fact in the legend he only appears at the end of Robin's adventures, and all he does is get angry that the pardoned Robin has become an outlaw again. Robin decided to become an outlaw again just because Robin thought being an outlaw would be FUN.
The legend (which originally appeared in 1225, the year the Magna Carta was signed, as opposed to "Merrie Geste of Robyne Hode" which appeared in the days of Edward II) has him fight Good King Harry (Henry II) who whilst seemingly popular (as evidenced by his name) was condemned for his Caesaropapism and for unintentionally having Thomas a Beckett killed.
Out of respect for Jesus (in the same way we don't name children "Jesus") Hollywood replaced Henry II with his son Bad King John: part of the reason would have been no one in the legends seems to have hated Henry (despite being a Norman) which implies the Saxons hated the systemic oppression that was the Norman yoke.
Interestingly, no one in the legends hated Bad King John (despite John being hated by the Saxons) which implies the Saxons didn't care about John taxing the oppressive nobles, punishing the nobles without trial, or preventing Norman rangers from hunting - the Saxons only hated John because John forbade the Saxons from building homes for their families and John banned the Saxons from fishing.
This implies the Saxons viewed John as the lesser of two evils.
Maid Marian being a strong female character in the 2010 Robin Hood is a reference to her first appearance, in which she is a proud noblewoman good at sport.
Thanks for that note. I enjoy when people assault the false construction with clearly-expressed truths.
I have one meeny comment to add, which I hope you won't too much mind, in connection with your "Good King Harry (Henry II) who whilst seemingly popular (as evidenced by his name) was condemned for his Caesaropapism and for unintentionally having Thomas a Beckett killed." My take on this latter, "unintentionally", lies at the heart of the English millennial (talk about thousand-year reich?) monarchy and its speaking-out-of-the-side-of-the-mouth mode of operation, something I call the "Thomas á Becket Syndrome" where the Monarch only has to wonder about some apparent necessity for loyal courtiers to leap to fill the breach.
This method of government by sleight can be descried in action even today. I'll leave you to dig examples but, for a start, figure me how a chain of incompetent Prime Ministers have by chance led their country further and further along the same destructive road in some manner claimed as "The People's Will".
Thomas á Becket's fate as a bellwether for English (or Norman...) Monarchic Government: has stood the test of time.
King John's problem, btw, I hear from other more knowledgeable historians, was more to do with excessive debt and interest leading to unsustainable levels of taxation, the interest (as with William the Fatherless) being due to what some people known as "The Usuarial Suspects", pardon my pun.
Thanks for the opportunity to murder a few electrons in the cause of Truth!
The moneylending had NOTHING to do with Jews, for the obvious reason it had to do with the ransom paid to the Holy Emperor of the German Nation (which is what the Holy Roman Emperor was called in the High Middle Ages) and John raised taxes and borrowed money (most moneylenders were NOT Jews, for the obvious reason that Jews were just beggars who couldn't own property: it is like the stereotype of Cantonese immigrants being launderers despite the fact NO white settler would have done business with a nonwhite, or that black people would have politically dominated the South like how blacks now dominate South Africa if not for the Black Codes) from the nobility, since they owned vast amounts of land.
John would mostly have borrowed money from the Knights Templar as well as Venetian merchants (the Republic of Venice had not entered it's golden age, but it still made money from trade and banking).
I didn't mention anyone! but of course YMMV and my source on another substack did mention said usurers in full.
Who did Edward I throw out of England? and for what reason?
Fact is, from William the Bar Steward until Edward I the English Head of State borrowed without a budget and dumped the interest payment on who there was to dump it on, a theme that did not die with Edward I.
Your literary adventure into China and Africa didn't serve except as decoys ...
He's one of my favorites, so of course TPTB had to twist his story into something it's not.
Everybody thinks Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor".
That's NOT what he did.
He returned stolen goods from a criminal government and returned them to their rightful owners.
The first "Forest Rebel".
NOW you know why they had to confuse people about his story...