Hey look, there's a new Robin Hood show coming with Sean Bean as the Sheriff!

[GreyLord]

Of course, in Pyle's Robin Hood Legends, Robin is pardoned by King Richard, but eventually Robin once again crosses the Law and thus becomes an outlaw in King Richard's Realm as well.

If I recall correctly, Robin dies an outlaw, and with his last breath shoots an arrow out a window (not at the King, just shooting it...to shoot it?).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Of course, in Pyle's Robin Hood Legends, Robin is pardoned by King Richard, but eventually Robin once again crosses the Law and thus becomes an outlaw in King Richard's Realm as well.

If I recall correctly, Robin dies an outlaw, and with his last breath shoots an arrow out a window (not at the King, just shooting it...to shoot it?).

Yup, He is poisoned by the Abbess whist visiting nun-Marion if I remember correctly. A real downer.

 

[Ryujin]

Will Scarlett was robbed of his trailer!

and just like 60's spiderman, filled with people from Wayne and Shuster!

Rocket Robinhood came first. Ralph Bakshi (yes, that Ralph Bakshi) was high off his nut when he made it. When he was tasked with Spider-Man, a couple of years later, the delivery schedule was insane so he recycled RRH episodes for Spider-Man. Right down to using the same cells and dropping Peter into them, instead. I guess he figured that no one in the US saw some stupid little Canadian cartoon.

 

[Parmandur]

The Barons wouldn't have cared if he was evil. His sin was incompetence.

But I'm not related to him, my origins are Celtic and Scandinavian. It's unclear how genetically Norman the population of England is.

Genetically, questionable. But genealogically, odds are that most people on the UK are descended from John at this point. It is extremely common in the U.S., because the limited pool of colonial ancestors included quite a number of fourth sons or bastards from the gentry trying to carve a spot in the Colonhs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Genetically, questionable. But genealogically, odds are that most people on the UK are descended from John at this point. It is extremely common in the U.S., because the limited pool of colonial ancestors included quite a number of fourth sons or bastards from the gentry trying to carve a spot in the Colonhs.

My family where working class Scots, not English nobs!

 

[Parmandur]

My family where working class Scots, not English nobs!

The time scale for someone to be descended from literally everyone is about 40 generations, irregardless of ethnicity and class. King John is distant enough that it is highly probable that all working class Sclts are descended dedicated from him. They are are all, at least, all descended from William the Conquerer, and Williams stanlehand.Stanley and.

Most of my ancestors were farmers in Central Europe, yet here I am descended from John of Gaunt

 

[GreyLord]

The time scale for someone to be descended from literally everyone is about 40 generations, irregardless of ethnicity and class. King John is distant enough that it is highly probable that all working class Sclts are descended dedicated from him. They are are all, at least, all descended from William the Conquerer, and Williams stanlehand.Stanley and.

Most of my ancestors were farmers in Central Europe, yet here I am descended from John of Gaunt

Does that mean I could be related to an Emperor of Japan or Emperor of China?

What if most of my relatives are...from the Continent of Africa in origin. That's a bit of a ways away. Does it still work?

 

[Cadence]

The time scale for someone to be descended from literally everyone is about 40 generations, irregardless of ethnicity and class. King John is distant enough that it is highly probable that all working class Sclts are descended dedicated from him. They are are all, at least, all descended from William the Conquerer, and Williams stanlehand.Stanley and.

Most of my ancestors were farmers in Central Europe, yet here I am descended from John of Gaunt

The hard part is finding a vaguely trustworthy paper trail make the connection. In the US or northern or western Europe it seems like even if you can get back to the 1600s* it's like they appeared ex nihilo, sometimes with a penumbra of later speculative genealogies unsupported enough to make an LLM blush. For my wife we got solidly to one that was appointed a governor by the Lords Proprietor and had decent records going back.

If it wasn't illegal (if not immoral) it would be fun to see if there was a way to reconstitute the old DNA in graves into saliva and send it off to Ancestry or the like. I wonder how many in a row going back you could submit before some automatic flag kicked in and they realized they were getting stuff from long dead folks.

Mine are all Finland and Germany**, so no British royalty for me.

* I mean, I'm not complaining about the cases I can trace back that far!

** All the records on Matricula for the German Catholic records, and the Finnish historical society for theirs make it relatively depressing when trying to do early US ones.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I agree that it is fairly bland, and that Kevin Costner seems thoroughly bored for the entire duration. But I don't mind Sean Connery's cameo-shaped role; there's a tongue-in-cheek charm to it and he seems to be having a good time.

To be clear, neither do I. It is more a facet of cameos (and that we're referring to his inclusion in the movie as one to begin with) in general. They can be great fun (especially if the actor seems to be having a good time). However, they often do not elevate the overall product (except I guess by increasing the average overall number of minutes or runtime that one enjoys watching). Even moreso than the middling movie with great villains or a great score, etc., the cameo is a modular, atomic unit that is fun to watch. It doesn't change the other percentage of the movie where you are seeing the protagonist not be interesting or the love interest connection not work, etc. I'd certainly rather Connery be there than not, but, like Rickman's performance, it doesn't change my impression of the movie as generally bland.

Hot take: there has never been and can never be a historically accurate Robin Hood story, because Robin Hood is not a historical figure. Same goes for King Arthur.

I fully agree; and even if either were real at some poiny, historicity is not the point of their tales.

I don’t think this is a hot take at all, I imagine most everyone agrees on this matter.

You'd be surprised.

I think complaints about historical accuracy of (the historical parts of) folklore stories is something a select set of people get their undies in a bunch over. That said, I'd also agree that many-to-likely-most people don't consider it an important part of their stories. I don't know if stating the majority position of a controversial point is a hot take or not.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Will definitely check this out. I Robin Hood.