mrv3000 | (no subject)

But maybe this is one of those things where I just can't quite get my mind into that monarch loyalty mindset? You serve your King/Queen without question? (Back then, that is.) Or maybe Robin really does believe that Richard is in the moral right? Or that the monarch is ordained by God?

There's all that--there's also the difference in what makes a good king then vs. what makes a good king now. Richard, for all that he did some nasty things, also was the ideal of medieval kinghood, in that he was an excellent soldier. In this period, might makes right--so the subjects would feel comforted by having a king who would defend the realm. Admittedly, Richard didn't do much of that, what with being off on Crusade and caring more about Normandy than England, but that was the perception.

There's a whole series of kids' books, the You Wouldn't Want series, that explores history with the idea of "You Wouldn't Want to be a Crusader!" or "You Wouldn't Want to Sail on the Titanic!" For me, it's a pretty flat-out "You Wouldn't Want to Live in the Middle Ages!" :-)

First off, I don't watch the show. (That seems to be my usual line whenever I reply to one your posts. Odd. ^^) That said, I never question why Robin Hood (in the movies, for instance) follows Richard blindly. If the writers keep true to (popular) legend, it's just the thing to do... isn't it?

There's all that--there's also the difference in what makes a good king then vs. what makes a good king now. Richard, for all that he did some nasty things, also was the ideal of medieval kinghood, in that he was an excellent soldier. In this period, might makes right--so the subjects would feel comforted by having a king who would defend the realm. Admittedly, Richard didn't do much of that, what with being off on Crusade and caring more about Normandy than England, but that was the perception.

I guess it's probably easier to see things through the eyes of history, and we do look at it with different sensibilities.

It just all seems so sheep-like, but I guess you had to be when the whole system was about whose protection and therefore rule you were under. It just kind of grates every once in a while.

There's a whole series of kids' books, the You Wouldn't Want series, that explores history with the idea of "You Wouldn't Want to be a Crusader!" or "You Wouldn't Want to Sail on the Titanic!" For me, it's a pretty flat-out "You Wouldn't Want to Live in the Middle Ages!" :-)

Yeah, no kidding. Especially as a woman.

I think why it's been standing out is that Robin (in this tv show, that is) always puts on this attitude of being in the moral right. There's his way and everything else is bad and wrong. I probably wouldn't have as much problems with it if 1) Robin didn't occasionally get this holier-than-thou attitude about it all, and 2) there was a wee bit more intelligence shown about it.

Grrr, clicked the wrong commenty button!

Edited 2007-11-14 16:17 (UTC)

The first season takes place in the year of our Lord 1192, if I'm remembering all of that correctly. ;) I think the first season is actually supposed to have taken place over...more than six months, I thought. It was a lot longer than I thought bit would've been.

And oh, how I've wondered about the King Richard thing. Especially in regards to the fact that Robin Hood's main motivator is the fact that the taxing of the poor is so Wrong. When most of it, at least, was done to fund the war his beloved King Richard was waging in "the Holy Land". It's just always something that's sort of perturbed me, because I was always rather confused as to where Robin landed on this. Is the King in the wrong for the expensive war, or is the King always in the right? *head explode*

Which is why I always loved episode 8 of season one when he kidnaps Guy and ties him to a tree (to have his way with him...). I think it's one of the first times they ever introduced any idea of moral ambiguity into the series. If I'm remembering correctly, they actually managed to give Guy a point of view that wasn't merely, "Oh, stabbing peasants is teh funz, srsly."

Of course, I was obviously reading far too into it as my younger sister always tells me when I get all pissy about King Richard. Grr.

There is a lot of contention generally about when the Robin Hood legends actually took place, whether they were in the Nottingham area, which didn't really have a true forest in that it was much more of a game reserve, or somewhere else entirely. In fact, Stephen R. Lawhead has recently started a new trilogy of books (Hood, Scarlett, and Tuck) which makes Robin Hood a Welsh rebel. The earliest references to him were in 1228, with most later 13th Century references using the term to refer to outlaws or criminals in general. Of course you can read all the history of how the legend developed, but many people in Yorkshire are now trying to reclaim the Robin Hood, or possibly Robert de Loxley, as many of the oldest takes seem to be more geographically specific about the West Yorkshire area.

So there's a lot of contention about what Robin Hood really did and whether he really was a supporter of the King.

In terms of time frame, Richard I of England was king only from July 1189 to April 1199, and only spent six months of his short reign in England, being totally absent for the last five years fighting a war against Philip II of France. Richard was in the Holy Land from June 1191 to September 1192, and was a prisoner in Austria from near Christmas of 1192 until February of 1194. So while considered a Crusader King, he really wasn't crusading for the majority of his reign - he actually spent most of it in Europe. So if following the timeline giving the opportunity for Robin to serve in Palestine, it would have to be in 1192 I'd think.

Actually in a Medieval History class at the moment...so we went through Richard and John recently...

You have to think in terms of the time, which is probably the most difficult thing about history sometimes, but also why I love it. Though it's true he could care less about England, he was idolized because he was a good soldier and overshadowed the French King of the time. And at least among the nobles of the period (everyone else could care less really) crusading was a very noble action. It put Richard up on a pedastal that he was so willing to do what he could to take the Holy Land back from the "infidels." And then he was taken prisoner on his way back from the Crusades, when his brother refused to pay the ransom it was the nobles who finally did.

Contrast that to John who was no good with the military, and because he was actually in England he actually exerted more control over the country (whereas when Richard was gone the nobles got to control a lot themselves). The barons saw this as their control being undermined. Add on top of that John being stubborn, and distrustful. Then comes the Magna Carta.

Basically John gets a raw deal because the barons wanted control, and Richard is idolized because he's strong and goes to Holy War.

The first season takes place in the year of our Lord 1192, if I'm remembering all of that correctly. ;) I think the first season is actually supposed to have taken place over...more than six months, I thought. It was a lot longer than I thought bit would've been.

Huh. Yeah, it seemed a bit more compressed than that.

And oh, how I've wondered about the King Richard thing. Especially in regards to the fact that Robin Hood's main motivator is the fact that the taxing of the poor is so Wrong. When most of it, at least, was done to fund the war his beloved King Richard was waging in "the Holy Land".

Right. That's exactly it. It all gets a bit muddled. But at least I guess Robin usually passes out the money to the poor when he liberates it from the Sheriff. *wonders if the brutality about taxes would be exactly the same if the Sheriff was loyal to the King*

Which is why I always loved episode 8 of season one when he kidnaps Guy and ties him to a tree (to have his way with him...). I think it's one of the first times they ever introduced any idea of moral ambiguity into the series. If I'm remembering correctly, they actually managed to give Guy a point of view that wasn't merely, "Oh, stabbing peasants is teh funz, srsly."

I remember thinking that finally we'd get to see Robin emerging from his black-and-white world after that. And then he didn't.

Of course, I was obviously reading far too into it as my younger sister always tells me when I get all pissy about King Richard. Grr.

Ha! Yeah, I'm probably expecting too much from the show that half the time tries to be a comedy.

Well, I kind of understand why *Robin* is convinced Richard is the right way. Robin was a soldier, served with Richard, obviously shared similar goals at least at one point. If I remember correctly the reason he's back in England now is at least in part because he was wounded saying the King's life. Robin, and to a lesser extent Much, have personal investments that say Richard is good.

And well...Robin seems kind of like the type who wouldn't think too deeply into the fact that the over-taxation and the Sheriff's strangle hold on power owe a lot to King Richard being off in the Holy Land fighting this war. Nor do I really think he'd be the type to question how exactly it would be better with Richard around.

I did love it when they gave Guy some very good points about that last season. Kill King Richard - stop the Crusades - good for the people of England. I remember clearly thinking "Um, I'm supposed to the Guy's got a point here right? Because I do." It's one way I kind of regret the Black Knights plot this year, a group of nobles wanting power rather than Guy's actually somewhat well intentioned motivations.

So there's a lot of contention about what Robin Hood really did and whether he really was a supporter of the King.

Seems only natural considering it's legend and not historical fact.

and was a prisoner in Austria from near Christmas of 1192 until February of 1194.

Hmm. Wonder if they'll bring that up at all.

So if following the timeline giving the opportunity for Robin to serve in Palestine, it would have to be in 1192 I'd think.

Seems like that's the year. *Really* am wondering if they'll bring up him being a prisoner now.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if they gave up this wide-eyed "for King Richard!!" stuff, and settled into more of the outlaw way of thinking. Right now they all seem to be in this sort of mindset that they just need to hold on for a month or two, and everything will be back to normal. Or something.

There really is an interesting power struggle and history that's going on during this time period. Lots of people, players and things happening in very grey areas. Probably why it drives me so bats when it comes to Robin's attitude about it all. At least, on the show.

Marian's been way better about it throughout the series. Seems like she's more aware of the realities and the politics going on around her. Robin just wants to be a glorious hero for his King Richard.

Well, I kind of understand why *Robin* is convinced Richard is the right way. Robin was a soldier, served with Richard, obviously shared similar goals at least at one point. If I remember correctly the reason he's back in England now is at least in part because he was wounded saying the King's life. Robin, and to a lesser extent Much, have personal investments that say Richard is good.

Good point. Perhaps that whole comrade-in-arms thing is going a very long way with him.

And well...Robin seems kind of like the type who wouldn't think too deeply into the fact that the over-taxation and the Sheriff's strangle hold on power owe a lot to King Richard being off in the Holy Land fighting this war. Nor do I really think he'd be the type to question how exactly it would be better with Richard around.

And I think that's a lot of why I really can't feel for Robin as a character - there have been more than a few times that he simply does not think about things (even beyond this topic).

I would *love* for someone to mention that bit about the taxes and the war to Robin, and for it to actually register in his brain.

I did love it when they gave Guy some very good points about that last season. Kill King Richard - stop the Crusades - good for the people of England. I remember clearly thinking "Um, I'm supposed to the Guy's got a point here right? Because I do." It's one way I kind of regret the Black Knights plot this year, a group of nobles wanting power rather than Guy's actually somewhat well intentioned motivations.

Yeah, last series they were more willing to touch on the war. Maybe they realized that they needed to head in a different direction when the bad guys were the ones opposing the Crusades?

Wonder if they'll bring that up at all.

Unless they do something like a cartoon and make more and more episodes over which no actual time passes, instead of having us believe that perhaps days or weeks pass in between episodes, they'll have to start mentioning it sometime. Although my guess would be that they could put it off until the end of S2 - perhaps part of the cliff-hanger for the final episode or something.

*Really* am wondering if they'll bring up him being a prisoner now.

Historically, that was when taxes on the people of England most increased - Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard'd mother, raised some 150,000 Marks to pay for Richard's release, a number that was then two or three times the annual amount the King would collect for all of England. Many religious persons and nobility were taxed 25% of everything they had to raise the money. Certainly would put a crimp in Robin's "giving to the poor" when he knows the money being raised is to save the king.

Right now they all seem to be in this sort of mindset that they just need to hold on for a month or two, and everything will be back to normal. Or something.

Yes, it does seem like that. Which is very naive an opinion to have. Especially considering how brutal a ruler Richard could be - and was in parts of his French dominions before becoming King of England, Normandy, Anjou, and various other French lands.

Huh. Yeah, it seemed a bit more compressed than that.

I went and checked again just to make sure and apparently it's a five month span between episodes 1 and 8. But episodes 9-13 were pretty condensed as far as timeline goes. So anywhere from like...6 to 8 months maybe?

But at least I guess Robin usually passes out the money to the poor when he liberates it from the Sheriff. *wonders if the brutality about taxes would be exactly the same if the Sheriff was loyal to the King*

I kind of wonder if the writers got stuck between a rock and a hard place with that one. They seem to have some sort of obsession with making modern allusions with all the political aspects of the show, but then they try on some level to keep it in Medieval England. Which I think makes Robin seem both conflicted and hypocritical. He's all Give to the Poor, but because it wouldn't make any sense otherwise, he also is very loyal to he man that is, in essentials, starving the very poor he defends. Oh, Robin.

I remember thinking that finally we'd get to see Robin emerging from his black-and-white world after that. And then he didn't.

Which is why I've always thought Marian was just...way too good for Robin. Marian, and for that matter Allan (before the guyliner), really seems to be able to acknowledge that things are not always cut and dry. And to Robin it's just black/white, even if that makes him a big giant annoying asshole hypocrit. ...I have Robin issues.

Ha! Yeah, I'm probably expecting too much from the show that half the time tries to be a comedy.

I sometimes wonder if that's the main fault the show has. It doesn't have any idea what it WANTS to be. Is it a family show or just a drama? Is it serious or comedy? Is it modern or medieval? It seems really uneven and bizarre sometimes.

Edited 2007-11-14 23:30 (UTC)

They seem to have some sort of obsession with making modern allusions with all the political aspects of the show, but then they try on some level to keep it in Medieval England. Which I think makes Robin seem both conflicted and hypocritical. He's all Give to the Poor, but because it wouldn't make any sense otherwise, he also is very loyal to he man that is, in essentials, starving the very poor he defends.

Yes, exactly. Didn't they even have some kind of suicide bomber or something? But yeah, every once in a while you DO get them trying to make these modern political statements about Iraq, but then...you're left with Robin supporting the war and the person who's keeping the country in the war.

You know, Djaq should be all over this. I could see her wanting to help the poor, but the part about making sure the King stays in power? Why would she want to help this guy? It doesn't really make much sense.

Which is why I've always thought Marian was just...way too good for Robin. Marian, and for that matter Allan (before the guyliner), really seems to be able to acknowledge that things are not always cut and dry.

Yup!

And to Robin it's just black/white, even if that makes him a big giant annoying asshole hypocrit. ...I have Robin issues.

No, I get it. I'm fine with him when he's helping people, but when making speeches or even how he deals with a lot of stuff - he's a sanctimonious git. And in the first series, Marian called him on it quite a bit, which she hasn't done in this series and should be doing. Maybe the writers were starting to realize that the hero shouldn't be getting so much verbal smacking?

I sometimes wonder if that's the main fault the show has. It doesn't have any idea what it WANTS to be. Is it a family show or just a drama? Is it serious or comedy? Is it modern or medieval? It seems really uneven and bizarre sometimes.

That sums it up perfectly. :D

Although my guess would be that they could put it off until the end of S2 - perhaps part of the cliff-hanger for the final episode or something.

That'd be a perfect time to do it.

Certainly would put a crimp in Robin's "giving to the poor" when he knows the money being raised is to save the king.

I would LOVE to see Robin actually have to face that.

I could see her wanting to help the poor, but the part about making sure the King stays in power? Why would she want to help this guy? It doesn't really make much sense.

So many of those questions, so little time (or reason). I honestly have no idea, unless she's just willing to take the good and the bad. She doesn't really have anywhere else to go, and she IS helping the needy, so if the King that's killing her people and ravaging her homeland gets a LITTLE obscure help along the way, she can write it off. Or not.

And in the first series, Marian called him on it quite a bit, which she hasn't done in this series and should be doing. Maybe the writers were starting to realize that the hero shouldn't be getting so much verbal smacking?

Well, from what I understand, they haven't been interacting that much of late anyway. I don't know, perhaps they thought with the new love story, they needed to have Marian NOT bitchslap him verbally on a very regular basis. They have enough trouble, already, with Guy and Marian taking over a big part of the fandom. When diehard Robin/Marian people are starting to go over to the dark side, you've got issues. Though, honestly, if Robin and Marian were more like they were in the first 3-6 episodes of season 1, I would like them a hell of a lot more.