Cid_Yama wrote: In the story of Robin Hood, Robin Hood supported the legitimate government (King Richard) against the usurpers led by his brother John. He was against the injustices of John impoverishing the people through harvesting ALL of the wealth of the nation, as is happening today. And not by the legitimate government or through taxes but through pillage.
Yes---thats the Disneyland version of the story. But the actual history is different. You aren't going to understand the reality of anything, Cid, if you base your understanding of the world on Disney Cartoons.
Start with the fact that although Richard was King of England for 10 years, he spent only 6 months in England. Thats right---Richard spent only 6 months in England---he was either in his home in France or on crusade or imprisioned by various people who wanted ransom payments after he got captured trying to return to England. I hate to break it to you, Cid, but in spite of what you saw in a Disney Cartoon or an Errol Flynn swashbuckling movie from the 1930s King Richard was not a very good king.
Your Disney fantasy about John "usurping" the crown is also just a cartoon fantasy. In the real world John Lackland didn't usurp the crown---thats right he didn't usurp the crown. Its almost unheard of in a royal family for a king to be able to leave the Kingdom for years to go on crusade, and then instantly regain it when he returns but thats what happened. There was no usurpation.
Yes---John Lackland wasn't a "usurper." When King Richard left England to go on the crusades, he selected three people to rule in his stead while he was away. Unfortunately one of Richard's own surrogates died immediately and the other two started to quarrel with one-another, leaving no one in control. As things got worse Richard himself told John to leave Normandy and return to England, where things were somewhat chaotic. Then Richard disappeared on his way back from the crusades. A few parts of England asked John to take direct control because he was the brother of King Richard. Later it came out that Richard had been captured by the King of Austria and was being held for ransom.
After Richard was ransomed he returned to England and he immediately took up his duties as king---John Lackland hadn't usurped the Kingship as you wrongly believe.
Then when Richard died five years layer he indicated John was to be his successor---again no sign of usurpation there. The facts are clear--- King John was no usurper---he acted on Richard's account and he never declared himself king while Richard was away---even when Richard disappeared and was thought dead--- and then King John ruled England for 50 years after Richard passed away.
Yes, John was a unpleasant person and the taxes were very high in England during King Richards time. Yes there was friction between John and King Richard when Richard returned. But there was no usurpation. Richard was always the King of England---there was some doubt when Richard disappeared and was thought dead, of course--- but John never was crowned King until after Richard's death.
But if Richard was always King, your next question will be, why were the taxes high? You don't know? The Disney cartoon you saw about Robin Hood didn't go into it? Well--- something not in the Disney version of the story is that King Richard had to tax and borrow to pay to equip an army and then he had to pay a small fortune to ship the army to Palestine for his little crusade in the Holy Land. Thats a very expensive undertaking. Richard borrowed much of the money from Jewish moneylenders (and allowed anti-Jewish programs to occur---but thats another story). The bottom line is that War taxes are always high, and Richard was set on having a glorious little war in Palestine. Then while Richard was in Palestine, a revolt broke out in Brittany which then was ruled by England. More war---more expense----more taxes. Then on the way back from the crusades Richard was captured and ransomed. The ransom for King Richard was HUGE---amounting to 3 times England's annual GDP. Much of the money for Richard's crusade was borrowed, and Richard's ransom was borrowed from his mom Eleanor of Acquaitaine, creating a huge national debt. The debt had to be repaid, just like the current US debt has to be repaid. This high level of government spending on war is what led to high taxes in England just as it drives taxes higher in the US today.
Finally, your suggestion that Robin Hood wasn't an anti-tax activist and was actually fighting the usurper for Richard is silly. TO start with, there was no usurper (see above).
Robin Hoods oppositions to the high taxes and government land seizures is the whole central point of the story---Robin Hood was against the high tax rates and high-handed treatment of the people by the British government----which was under King Richard's rule the whole time. This story is superimposed on the long standing friction between the Norman ruling class descended from the Norman Conquest, and the indigenous Saxon population which had been conquered 150 years earlier. The Norman rulers were out to keep the conquered Saxons down.
There was no "usurpation"----King Richard left a mess in England when he went off to fight the crusades and then he asked John to go to England to help sort things out. When King Richard returned John Lackland then voluntarily relinquished power and returned the Kingdom to King Richard, even though Richard returned almost alone and penniless---thats not the act of a usurper. And then when King Richard died after 10 years as King, he favored his brother John as his successor and so John then was crowned and ruled for 50 years---thus King John was no usurper was in fact the legal King of England for decades after Richard died..
Cheers!