Magna Carta, the facts, myths and legends briefly

Two or three men were combined into one mythical Robin Hood. There is Robhod, who in 1226 and 1227 did not appear in Wakefield court when summoned; Robin of Loxley in the time of Henry the Third;and Robert Hood, outlawed for treason by one of the Edwards sometime later. However, the ballad of Robin Hood and Alan a Dale refers to situations in the time of King John, who was forcing Saxon heiresses to marry Normans. On the other hand, the tale that Robin was an archer links strongly to the time of the three Edwards. What we have is a legend built up over time.Yes, there was a Robin hood, if you identify him with one of these three men, but he was a scoundrel who, as you say, bribed the poor to stop them handing him over.Court records still exist in Wakefield,which is at the northern end of what was then Sherwood Forest, and they mention Robhod. though the 1227 one calls him Hobdehod.

Was Edward the First a good king, yes as long as you consider subduing Wales and launching unjustified invasions of Scotland and France, during which he launched a massacre at Berwick upon Tweed, as constituting a good king! I regard him as a murderous thug.

I am aware of that, but I am taking a long term view of the significance of the charter in people' consciousnesses.

Derdriu Thank you

Robin Hood as a legend is still seen as a jolly fellow. The truth of the matter is that he was an outlaw and bribed the poor not to give him up to the authorities by giving them part of his loot.

Edward 1 is seen as a good king but the others you mention don't get a look-in. Robin is traditionally believed to have lived in the time of King Richard The Lionheart an Richard's brother John.

Frank
Magna Carta was never for "society ". It was for the benefit of the church and nobility. The ordinary people had nothing to do with it.

Magna Carta has a good reputation on this side of the water, for it was a step on a long path towards a more just society, but it was not the whole process.

Veronica, Very well done!
The Navajo believe that good leaves this world with death whereas evil lingers. It's interesting that King John's reputation here lingers as evil, possibly because of losing the royal treasure in the Wash and predominantly because of Magna Carta's and Robin Hood's good reputations on this side of the Atlantic pond. And yet King John may have been an effective administrator and chief financial officer whereas Magna Carta at its time and in fact may have been very different from its twenty-first-century presentations.
Also, historians here prefer Kings Henry III, Edward I or Edward II, not King John, as Robin Hood's monarch. What is the interpretation on your side of the pond?

The Magna Carta is usually thought of in a symbolic way, as others have said. It's helpful to examine what was actually written without losing its symbolic significance. Thanks for clarifying.

Whether we as,citizens wish to celebrate iMagna Carta is one thing; whether it is worth celebrating is another.

I think that people took it up and declared their support for it because it promoted the values that would eventually give rise to democracy.

But the " celebrations" were an 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta not what it came to mean. And Magna Carta was certainly nothing to celebrate.

We have t o differentiate between what Magna Carta meant and what it came to mean as it was used. Veronica is right about the historic meaning, which was quite limited. But the document became a potent symbol, invested with the hopes of many that life could be lived under just laws that bound the authorities. But remember, there are people today who see it as a burden. A quote from a left wing socialist whom I had the misfortune to know, "Why do you need to have committed a crime to be arrested?" He had the vision of a future in which disagreement with his views merited arrest; and he was and is not alone. The price of liberty is constant vigilance against such people.