This and King Arthur show that.....

I liked aspects of it very much, for instance I thought it had a great cast and the performances were strong across the board.

Also Nottingham seemed very real and lived in. I don't know what Ridley Scotts trick is to making his locations seem so much more real than in other films, but he does have some trick. Maybe its the sheer level of detail that's being picked up subconsciously.

Aside from that though I thought it was quite dull and forgettable, with a weak story and weak villain in Mark Strong. Also while I found Russell Crowe gave a good performance, he just wasn't Robin Hood, he's just too old and bulky.

 If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris

reply share

add reply

formatting help

We don't of course know the true story of either King Arthur or Robin Hood, or even if there really is any such thing.

The only problem with this is that we do know. Most people are just unaware, particularly authors and enthusiasts that have their own vested interests at stake, not necessarily the truth, blinded by their own conviction. Or historians stubbornly refusing to accept new information that conflicts with their outdated/indoctrinated teachings. And in the case of King Arthur, we basically know with absolute certainty, without room for doubt, eliminating all other possible candidates, including Lucius Artorius Castus (or his great-grandson), whom the film in question is incorrectly based on.

King Arthur's real name was, in fact, Arthur, not any other variant, especially Artorius, because the name Arthur does not derive from Latin. Nor is it a variant of Arthun, Athrwys or Armel. The name was wholly Irish, emerging from the Scythian-Milesian 'Artur'. The Romans never conquered Ireland and Irish names were not influenced in any way by the Romans. In fact, the root of the name Arthur can be found as far back as the 5th century BC, when Artur mes Delmann was King of the Lagain. It was centuries later that Augustus Caesar established the Roman Empire in 27 BC and, by 476 AD, the Empire had crumbled to extinction in the West, nearly a hundred years before King Arthur of the Britons was born.

Despite all the literary speculations as to whose name might've been changed to Arthur by the romancers, and notwithstanding all the regional tourism propaganda of today, the fact is that there were actually two royal Arthurs recorded by that very name in the 6th century.

Ignoring the wrong Arthur for the sake of summarising, the Arthur of the Grail legends is recorded as fighting at the Battle of Camelyn in the year 600, west of Falkirk in Scotland - a battle which is detailed in the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots. This Arthur was undoubtedly the famed king of the Grail stories. Not only was he proclaimed High King and Sovereign Commander of the Britons in 574, but he was the only recorded Arthur ever born as the son of a Pendragon. He was Prince Arthur of Dalriada, the son of King Aedán mac Gabrán of Scots, and his mother was Ygerna d'Avallon, whose own mother, Viviane del Acqs, was the recognised Lady of the Lake. Born in 559, he was the only Arthur with a son named Modred and a sister called Morgaine (referred to in Royal Irish Academy texts as 'Muirgein, daughter of Aedán in Belach Gabráin'), just as related in the Grail legends.

Arthur's primary seat was at Carlisle - the City of the Legion (Caer Leon) - from where he controlled the military defence of the English-Scottish border country. Arthur mac Aedán is cited in St. Adamnan of Iona's 7th century Life of St. Columba; his kingly installation by the druid Merlin Emrys is recorded in the Chronicle of the Scots; his legacy is upheld by the Celtic Apostolic Church of Scotland, while famous conflicts (including the Battle of Badon Hill) with which he is traditionally associated are recorded in the Chronicles of Holyrood and of Melrose, the Irish Tigernach Annals and the Books of Leinster and Ballymote.

The details behind the origins of the real King Arthur and his family who inspired the Grail stories - who are themselves steeped in esoteric history - are rich and extensive. As is Robin Hood's, although in his case there is a name change and several variants, but it's the same person.

When the Pagan symbolisms injected into the Robin Hood legends are removed to reveal the historical figure behind the romances, so is much of the mystery surrounding him. His story is more politically orientated and revolves around the Magna Carta, the Pope, royal titles, brotherly betrayal, religious differences, excommunication and the battle for land rights.

Robin is an alternative for the name Robert, while the Hood definition (originally Hod, Hodd, or Hode) is an elfin style related to the Teutonic sprite Hodekin. Robin Hood's legitimate name, following excommunication, was Fitz Odo, or alternatively Fitzooth. Or, more aptly, Robert of Fitzoath. Robert belonged to the House of Vere, a descendant of King Aubrey, Steward of the Royal Forest. His own family name of de Verriéres en Forez had been shortened by that time to de Vere. So when you imagine the real Robin Hood, you can either think of Robert de Vere, a regal nobleman, or Robert of Fitzoath, an excommunicated nobleman.

Much of this information is documented in the famous Sloane Manuscripts, including the real Robin Hood's date of birth of 1160. But when academics are taught a false history, they can't see the pattern to connect the dots. In essence, they can't see the forest for the trees.

In esoteric lore these are accepted truths because the documented accounts are available. They're just not heavily published or more easily accessible because for centuries the information was suppressed for empirical motivations and religious oppression. And that's not to say anything of the real Camelot, the origins of Excalibur, or Robin Hood's Albigensian lineage, all of which existed. The surface has not even been scratched.

OCJOC

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There was no King Arthur and there was no Robin Hood. Get over your "England is still great" kick. England is nothing more than a racist colonial has been. Bang up job "civilizing" Africa by the way.

reply share

add reply

formatting help