Follow TV Tropes

Following

History ArtisticLicenseHistory / RobinHoodPrinceOfThieves

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added detail


* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there during her time as his queen with only some evidence that she visited after she was widowed.

to:

* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there during her time as his queen with only some evidence that she visited after she was widowed. Those heavy taxes the people complained about? Richard imposed them to pay for his Crusading.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there during her time as his queen with only some evidence that she visited after she was widowed.

to:

* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most (most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there during her time as his queen with only some evidence that she visited after she was widowed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
removed reference to page image. Page images can change


* As mentioned in the page picture, Azeem has a hand-held telescope 400 years before its first recorded uses.

to:

* As mentioned in the page picture, Azeem has a hand-held telescope 400 years before its first recorded uses.use. ''Anywhere'', so this isn't one of the times the Islamic kingdoms held onto information while Europe was turmoil.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
pulled example to discussion page because of broken links


* ''WebVideo/{{Shadiversity}}'' has covered the inaccuracies regarding clothing, weaponry and fortifications [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IOUQMjF7l8 here]], [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO2_hJQoo6U here]], [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTmlxDNO7oA here]] and [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-6Tf0x_5k here]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
example indentation


* The presence of barbarian Celts during the era of the Crusades is downright nonsensical. The usage of the term "Celt" to mean a specific ethnicity had stopped after the Romanization of Europe, almost a millennium before the year the film takes place - the closest to a "Celt" the Norman and Anglo-Saxon peoples of the film would get would be a Welshman. The barbarians seen in the film are also referred to as pagans, but Britain had been thoroughly Christianized for more than six hundred years at this point.
* The Sheriff calling barbarian Celts "hired thugs" also stands out, as the word's root is the Thuggee gangs of India, which began two centuries later.

to:

* The presence of barbarian Celts during the era of the Crusades is downright nonsensical. The usage of the term "Celt" to mean a specific ethnicity had stopped after the Romanization of Europe, almost a millennium before the year the film takes place - the closest to a "Celt" the Norman and Anglo-Saxon peoples of the film would get would be a Welshman. Welshman.
*
The barbarians seen in the film are also referred to as pagans, but Britain had been thoroughly Christianized for more than six hundred years at this point.
* The Sheriff calling barbarian Celts "hired thugs" also stands out, as the word's root is the Thuggee gangs of India, which began two centuries later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
example indentation


** The Sheriff calling them "hired thugs" also stands out, as the word's root is the Thuggee gangs of India, which began two centuries later.

to:

** * The Sheriff calling them barbarian Celts "hired thugs" also stands out, as the word's root is the Thuggee gangs of India, which began two centuries later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added detail


* The "life debt" that Azeem owes to Robin is treated as a sort of Muslim cultural custom, but it doesn't have much basis in the real world. Had a Moor wanted to accompany the saviour of his life until repaying it to him, it would have been completely his own personal decision.

to:

* The "life debt" that Azeem owes to Robin is treated as a sort of Muslim cultural custom, but it doesn't have much basis in the real world. Had a Moor wanted to accompany the saviour of his life until repaying it to him, it would have been completely his own personal decision. There were some Arabian tribes where repaying the person who saved your life was considered essential, but those were local customs often older than Islam, not Muslim customs.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
example indentation


** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning such things as pagan superstition; the Sheriff and the Bishop would probably have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night without a trial and taking their lands.

to:

** Additionally, mainstream * Mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning such things as pagan superstition; the Sheriff and the Bishop would probably have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night without a trial and taking their lands.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
example indentation


** Also, there is ''no way in hell'' that Marian, even as King Richard's cousin, would address him so familiarly as "Richard!", or not at least curtsy in his presence.

to:

** Also, there * There is ''no way in hell'' that Marian, even as King Richard's cousin, would address him so familiarly as "Richard!", or not at least curtsy in his presence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there in her entire life.

to:

* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most adaptations leave out the fact that the Norman royal family and nobility spoke French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there in during her entire life.time as his queen with only some evidence that she visited after she was widowed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal, who had whittled it down from a longer list of suitable candidates. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got it's own separate one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff,'' who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve prior to 1449, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself - anything outside the walls would have been the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.

to:

* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal, who had whittled it down from a longer list of suitable candidates. candidates, though this was probably open to abuse and bribery. The Sheriff also then had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got it's own separate one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten shortened down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff,'' who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve prior to 1449, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself - anything outside the it’s walls would have been the Sheriff of Nottingham Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal, who had whittled it down from a longer list of suitable candidates. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff.'', who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.

to:

* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal, who had whittled it down from a longer list of suitable candidates. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got it's own separate one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff.'', Sheriff,'' who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve, Reeve prior to 1449, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, itself - anything outside the walls was would have been the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew[[note]] That nephew, Arthur of Brittany, actually had a better claim to the throne than John, being the son of Henry II's fourth son, Geoffrey. Geoffrey was the younger brother to Richard I but the older brother of John, but died before their father did, thus bumping Richard up the line of succession. Arthur disappeared in 1203, possibly murdered on the orders of John so that he couldn't claim the crown of England, as Arthur came before John in the line of succession.[[/note]] living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.

to:

* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew[[note]] That nephew, Arthur of Brittany, actually had a better claim to the throne than John, being the son of Henry II's fourth son, Geoffrey. Geoffrey was the younger brother to Richard I but the older brother of John, but died before their father did, thus bumping Richard up the line of succession.did. Arthur disappeared in 1203, possibly murdered on the orders of John so that he couldn't claim the crown of England, as Arthur came before John in the line of succession.[[/note]] living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew[[note]] That nephew, Arthur of Brittany, actually had a better claim to the throne than John, being the son of Henry II's fourth son, Geoffrey. Geoffrey was the older brother to both Richard I and John, but died before their father. Arthur disappeared in 1203, possibly murdered on the orders of John so that he couldn't claim the crown of England, as Arthur came before John in the line of succession.[[/note]] living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.

to:

* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew[[note]] That nephew, Arthur of Brittany, actually had a better claim to the throne than John, being the son of Henry II's fourth son, Geoffrey. Geoffrey was the younger brother to Richard I but the older brother to both Richard I and of John, but died before their father.father did, thus bumping Richard up the line of succession. Arthur disappeared in 1203, possibly murdered on the orders of John so that he couldn't claim the crown of England, as Arthur came before John in the line of succession.[[/note]] living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff.'', who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.

to:

* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal.Tribunal, who had whittled it down from a longer list of suitable candidates. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff.'', who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.



* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.

to:

* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew nephew[[note]] That nephew, Arthur of Brittany, actually had a better claim to the throne than John, being the son of Henry II's fourth son, Geoffrey. Geoffrey was the older brother to both Richard I and John, but died before their father. Arthur disappeared in 1203, possibly murdered on the orders of John so that he couldn't claim the crown of England, as Arthur came before John in the line of succession.[[/note]] living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the title through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.'', though this would have been shorten down. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, even though he actually wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note: Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain.

to:

* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the title position through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.'', Derbyshire,'' and had the power to administer justice throughout both counties, though this the name would have been shorten down. The High Sheriff himself was more like a glorified pen pusher, the actual people doing the work would have been the ''Under or Deputy Sheriff.'', who would have also been referred to as The Sheriff. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, just to confuse things further, even though he actually wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note: Nottingham town[[note]]Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain. \n The corrupt Sheriff abusing his position however, is a TruthInTelevision, with way to many examples to list.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* The Movie suggests that The Sheriff became so because he inherited the title through his "family," but being a Sheriff in England has never been an inherited position - you had to be appointed by the King himself, who chose the person for the position from a shortlist of three names that had been given to him by a Tribunal. The Sheriff also had to the pay the Crown a yearly allowance to keep the position. Also there was no ''actual'' Sheriff of Nottingham until 1449, when the town itself actually got one. Any Sheriff prior to that would have actually been the ''High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.'', though this would have been shorten down. The town did however have a town Reeve, who would had have the some of the same responsibilities as the Sheriff did for the county, and may have been referred to as the Sheriff, even though he actually wasn't one officially, and he would have only been responsible for the town[[note: Nottingham didn't become a city until 1897.[[/note]] itself, anything outside the walls was the Sheriff of Nottingham and Derbyshire domain.

Changed: 141

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** The Sheriff calling them "hired thugs" also stands out, as the word's root is the Thuggee gangs of India, which began two centuries later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most adaptations leave out the fact that the Normans spoke French). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there in her entire life.

to:

* Richard was only 42 when he died, much younger than Creator/SeanConnery was at the time of filming. He also spoke very little English (though in fairness, most adaptations leave out the fact that the Normans Norman royal family and nobility spoke French).French as a first language and often didn't learn English at all). The film also seems to imply that Richard is the standard image of "the good king", making jokes and behaving in a kind and gentle manner, and like most adaptations of this legend, seems to imply that now that he's back in England, everything can return to normal and Richard will make all things well. The reality was that Richard was soon off to war again, and didn't really care much what was happening in England while he was away. Richard saw England as a wet, miserable province, and preferred to think of himself as the Duke of his beloved Aquitaine. He spent a cumulative ''six months'' in England during his reign, and his wife, Queen Berengaria, never even set foot there in her entire life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men, and the climactic battle -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world didn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade.

to:

* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men, and for the climactic battle -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world didn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world didn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade. The Sherriff also apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle, despite the fact that he doesn't have any weapons like cannons (first came into use in England in the 14th century) that would need it.

to:

* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men men, and the climactic battle -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world didn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade. The Sherriff also apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle, despite the fact that he doesn't have any weapons like cannons (first came into use in England in the 14th century) that would need it.
Crusade.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world wouldn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade. The Sherriff also apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle, despite the fact that he doesn't have any weapons like cannons (first came into use in England in the 14th century) that would need it.

to:

* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world wouldn't didn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade. The Sherriff also apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle, despite the fact that he doesn't have any weapons like cannons (first came into use in England in the 14th century) that would need it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The Sherriff apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle -- pretty impressive, considering gunpowder wouldn't come into use in Europe until over 50 years after the Third Crusade.

to:

* Azeem makes gunpowder to help out the Merry Men in their fight against the Sherriff's men -- which is pretty impressive, considering the Islamic world wouldn't gain knowledge of gunpowder until fifty to eighty years ''after'' the Third Crusade. The Sherriff also apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle -- pretty impressive, considering gunpowder wouldn't come battle, despite the fact that he doesn't have any weapons like cannons (first came into use in Europe until over 50 years after England in the Third Crusade.
14th century) that would need it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* The Sherriff apparently has barrels of gunpowder stacked around the grounds of his castle that can be handily blown up during the final battle -- pretty impressive, considering gunpowder wouldn't come into use in Europe until over 50 years after the Third Crusade.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition; the Sheriff and the Bishop would probably have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night without a trial and taking their lands.

to:

** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it such things as pagan superstition; the Sheriff and the Bishop would probably have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night without a trial and taking their lands.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night and taking their lands.

to:

** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything superstition; the Sheriff and the Bishop should would probably have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night without a trial and taking their lands.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch.

to:

** Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch.witch, let alone killing them in the middle of the night and taking their lands.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Also, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch.

to:

** Also, Additionally, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Also, mainstream Christian doctrine in the early Middle Ages actually denied the existence of witches and witchcraft, condemning it as pagan superstition, so if anything the Sheriff and the Bishop should have gotten in trouble with the Church for ''accusing'' anyone of being a witch.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* When UsefulNotes/RichardTheLionheart shows up at the end, Robin greets him as "Your Majesty." The English sovereign wasn't called "Majesty" until the reign of Henry VIII, three centuries later.[[note]]This one can arguably be forgiven, as the average person doesn't know that and might be confused to hear Robin call the King "Your Grace," which was the period-accurate address for the sovereign - especially since in modern usage, "Your Grace" is almost exclusively an ecclesiastical title.[[/note]]

to:

* When UsefulNotes/RichardTheLionheart shows up at the end, Robin greets him as "Your Majesty." The English sovereign wasn't called "Majesty" until the reign of Henry VIII, three centuries later.[[note]]This one can arguably be forgiven, as the average person doesn't know that and might be confused to hear Robin call the King "Your Grace," which was the period-accurate address for the sovereign - especially since in modern usage, "Your Grace" is almost exclusively more commonly used as an ecclesiastical title.[[/note]]



* The bounty the Sheriff puts on Robin's head is in thousands of gold coins. Since the 100,000 gold coin ransom paid to rescue Richard the Lionheart on his way back from the Third Crusade was roughly equal to ''the entire GDP of England'', that would put Robin's bounty at far more than the Sheriff could plausibly afford.

to:

* The bounty the Sheriff puts on Robin's head is in thousands of gold coins. Since the 100,000 gold coin ransom paid to rescue Richard the Lionheart on his way back from the Third Crusade was roughly equal to ''the entire GDP of England'', that would put Robin's bounty at far more than the Sheriff could plausibly afford.afford - assuming, that is, that he intended to actually pay the bounty.



** That said, Richard did travel to Nottingham shortly after returning from the Crusades historically, to remove supporters of his brother John, including the sheriff, through force of arms. The coincidence of an outlaw in the Nottingham area fighting a corrupt sheriff and a historical king of England fighting a corrupt sheriff in the same area is likely how the Robin Hood tales got conflated with King Richard and the Third Crusade in the first place - if they both fought the same sheriff, then it turns the hero of the tales from a mere brigand to an unjustly outlawed supporter of the rightful king.
* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Further, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.

to:

** That said, Richard did travel to Nottingham shortly after returning from the Crusades historically, to remove supporters of his brother John, John - including the sheriff, sheriff - through force of arms. The coincidence of an outlaw in the Nottingham area fighting a corrupt sheriff and a historical king of England fighting a corrupt sheriff in the same area is likely how the Robin Hood tales got conflated with King Richard and the Third Crusade in the first place - place; if they both fought the same sheriff, then it turns the hero of the tales from a mere brigand to an unjustly outlawed supporter of the rightful king.
* Nobody brings up the fact that Richard had one legitimate brother and a nephew living at the time of the Third Crusade, so Nottingham's plot to get a claim on the throne by becoming a distant relative of the king through marriage wouldn't have gotten him very high in the line of succession. This one could potentially be justified by the idea of Nottingham using his new position within the family to murder his way to the top (probably with Mortianna’s help), but it’s still sketchy at best. Further, Granted, he is bribing the barons, and it's likely that he's doing that so that they would support his newly acquired claim; many English nobles later really did revolt against Richard's brother John, and proclaimed Louis VIII of France their king.

Top