Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amphytrion" data-source="post: 9761819" data-attributes="member: 7046181">Yes, we have had poor depictions of Richard here and there, but it is not the norm in this folkloric tradition. This is why I said "usually".Those are very cartoonish, ahistoric characterizations, which would indeed be inconsistent with historical record. We have very good scholarship conducted on both for the past 50 years, some of which is very accessible for popular readership (Jean Flori or John Gillingham's biographies on Richard, for example).This is a side tangent and I don't mean to derail the thread--after all, the historical Richard is mostly irrelevant for Robin Hood stories. What matters for the tale is the mythological Richard, the archetypal good king, and the depredation that his absence brings to the land. Many characters in Robin Hood have historical counterparts, and accuracy is a concern for none of them.Perfect descriptor; it does look very CW. I don't mind the derivation as much as I mind the overall cheapness of it.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.This isn't correct. Many things contributed to the Great Revolt of 1173-74 (far more than I could list here), and Eleanor didn't orchestrate much of it at all. There was the murder of Thomas Beckett and its impact, the strain of administering a kingdom so large (that encompassed recently suppressed Ireland and Scotland), a rising French power, Henry's lack of direct right to Aquitaine, etc. Most familial, perhaps, is Henry II's division of his holdings among his sons (on whom he relied on to rule). Henry II did favor his youngest son John, but John was still far too young to understand what was happening at this point.Richard was merely 15 and didn't play much of a part in it at all at first (much less as a "catspaw"). His older brother, Henry the Young King, led the rebellion by departing Henry II's court in Normandy, and he was followed by his nearly all of his close family (including the two middle brothers, Richard and Geoffrey). Eleanor attempted to join them later but was captured fairly swiftly into the rebellion. All of Richard's notable contributions to the rebellion happen after Eleanor's capture, not before.Henry II eventually defeated his sons Geoffrey and Henry the Young King, but not Richard, so they had to broker peace and Richard retained rulership of most of Aquitaine, since his mother was in captivity. This never sat well with Henry, and the question of succession remained an issue for the following decade. Richard eventually rebelled again, but Eleanor couldn't have orchestrated that either, considering Henry had her imprisoned in his possession.And Richard himself named John his successor before he died. The only feasible alternative was Geoffrey's son, Arthur, who was far too young for politics himself and whose cause was propped up by Richard's late-life detested rival and once close friend, Phillip Augustus. Even after Richard's death, Eleanor didn't solely put John on the throne, many other figures of importance in Plantagenet politics (e.g. William Marshall) played a role in his accession. Forgive my tangent. As mentioned above, historical accuracy is not important to Robin Hood stories. Even when they attempt to approximate it (e.g. Ridley Scott's 2010 film), Robin Hood's still much more myth than history by nature.</blockquote>

Verification