In most versions of Robin Hood, Robin heads home to England from Jerusalem during the Crusades. Was that possible in real life? I find it especially jarring in the Prince of Thieves when he escapes imprisonment and heads back home instead of heading towards King Richard armies.
He's probably had enough of the Crusades what with the imprisonment and horrific torture/ near loss of his hand. It's not unreasonable to expect that he would just want to go home and see England again.
It's called desertion.
Militaries weren't exactly as formal back then. As a knight he presumably did owe fealty to the King and would be in violation of his oath for leaving but that's not quite the same thing. In any case King Richard presumably included that in his pardon.
It's also not found in a lot of version where Robin becomes an outlaw because he refuses to go.
It was not only possible, it was a not-uncommon occurrence. Quite a few Lords, knights, soldiers and peasants on Crusade simply packed up their bags and went back home; heck, in the First Crusade, that's what happened with most of the leaders.
There seems to be a bit of confusion; Richard I didn't finish Crusading and go straight back to England- he was captured and imprisoned for two years by the Duke of Austria (who accused Richard of murdering his cousin), so Robin probably went home expecting Richard to show up any day only to learn he's been incarcerated and the corrupt Prince John is happy for him to languish in chains and rule England as a corrupt tyrant instead. Richard I would not be released for another year or so, so Robin had a whole year to raise a band of outlaws and rebel against John. Plus, even after Richard was released and returned (despite John trying to pay his captors to hold Richard for even longer, Richard forgave John anyway and named him his heir before heading off to Europe to go fighting again, so it still makes sense that Robin was fighting the corrupt John while his "true king" was away. Either way, Robin didn't have to do anything wrong to come home from Crusading before Richard did.
Robin Hood doesn't make much of a case for his robberies, preferring to say he and Little John "simply borrow a bit from those who can afford it". But no, really, as he has no intention of paying it back, he's not borrowing anything. He should have addressed John's concern that they're potentially "bad guys" by reminding him that the money they take originally belonged to the poor in the first place, and was only taken because nobility (and the prince) raised taxes to an impossible degree in King Richard's absence.
Little John's objection to robbing the Royal coach is "there's a law against robbing royalty!" Well of course there is! There's a law against robbing anyone! Sure, most of the law enforcement probably doesn't give a hoot if peasants are robbed, though they'd probably still detain the bandit if he were caught in the act. But Robin and Little John don't rob peasants. They rob nobility, and the law would certainly be concerned about that! But John draws the line at the prince? The line should have been something about how likely they are to be killed as the prince is heavily guarded, but no, he objects because it's against the law...you know, like everything else he and Robin have been up to.
This flew right over my head as a child, but has now become impossible to ignore what the heck is a monk like Friar Tuck doing taking care of a church?
In some areas, that is what monks did. Likewise, he might not have been a monk, rather, he might have been a preacher more so.
He is a friar-that's different from a monk. They traveled and preached, filling in for parish priests or assisting them when necessary.
The song "The Phoney King of England" refers to "Robin's wily pack", i.e. the Merry Men. And yet the only Merry Man the movie has seems to be Little John, with Alan-A-Dale and Friar Tuck as part-timers. I'm not sure you can call these three a "wily pack."
Perhaps they're counting Skippy in the group as well?
He could be informally including the group listening in. Most of them joined in the fight at the archery contest, after all.
Did Prince John choke Sir Hiss by tying his throat in a knot? Hiss sounds like he's choking, but apparently has no trouble breathing while inside the basket.
It might have been that the initial tightening choked him, but after that the knot loosened enough for him to breathe. Ever notice that tying a good knot with a really smooth material can be tricky because it'll slide open right away? Kind of like that.
Robin's goal in going to the tournament was to get the prize of a kiss from Marian. Yet the disguise he wore was a stork, meaning the false bill covered his entire snout and mouth. How was he planning to kiss her?
You said it yourself: a kiss from Maid Marian. Not the right to kiss Maid Marian yourself. Especially given her high status, it wouldn't be the right to kiss her on the mouth but the right to be kissed by her on the cheek.
Where the heck were Marian and Klucky between the "Phony King" song and the final scene? They just vanish in the middle of it then appear at the very end of the film. Where were they?
Well, if I remember right, Robin rescued Marian and they were seen dancing while the other ones were in prison. In terms of Klucky, Little John did pull her out of the way of the arrows, so she was rescued. In terms of why we don't see them in either of those scenes is because they were most likely in hiding.
Who pulls the carriages? Prince John rides in a carriage. The very last scene is Robin and Marian riding away in a carriage with a "Just Married" sign. Are horses just not anthropomorphic in this world?
Larger creatures seem to pull the carriages. Prince John's carriage is pulled by some of his elephant soldiers. Little John pulls the cart during the escape from the castle. What's going on with the carriage at the end of the film is left ambiguous, though.
Lady Kluck mentions that Marian is King Richard's niece. But Marian is a fox, and Richard and John (and presumably the rest of their family) are lions. So... is Marian adopted? Is she his niece by marriage? How did that happen?
She may be adopted, or she might just have some lion blood in her. There's no reason to assume different species of anthropomorphic animals can't interbreed in this universe (after all, some of the the 1970's comics shows Robin Hood to actually take place in the Middle-Ages of the Donald Duck universe, where different species can and do interbreed).
During the film's ending, as the newly married Robin and Marian part to their honeymoon, Skippy climbs to their carriage alongside Little John, as according to him, he will keep an eye on things when Robin has children, but is Mother Rabbit even aware that her eldest son is leaving her to accompany the town's hero? She could get really worried.
Maybe Robin offered Mother Rabbit offscreen to take Skippy under his care to babysit his future children? Aside that, it's implied that while the Sheriff of Nottingham is now in custody, the Rabbit Family is still poor. By allowing her son to go with Robin, Mother Rabbit probably has one less mouth to feed.
Arrow-splitting: it was awesome and impossible and exciting, but it does NOT win the game. Other dude hit the target dead centre, Robin hit the target dead centre with bells and whistles. That round was a DRAW. They should continue play. The contest was hit the centre of the target It was not a bells and whistles contest.
I've always presumed it was a case of the score being close, and only a dead-centre hit on Robin's part would get him a win. Since there was already an arrow there...
The skill needed to hit the point of an arrow and actually pierce all the way through it may be considered enough to tip the scales in his favor. I'm not sure, since I'm not an archer myself, but that may be the reasoning behind it.
Speaking as an archer, splitting an arrow from knock to point is impossible. It is possible to split arrows, but not perfectly all the way down. (It's due to the grain of the wood.) However the competition is to find the BEST archer, not the one with the most points. In a modern competition splitting an arrow doesn't get you any extra points (it just means you have to pay for a new arrow to replace the one you wrecked) but if you do it on purpose rather than accident, and can do it on demand, then you get kudos for being THAT good (and always get a target to yourself!) so in a more informal competition it might sway the verdict in a draw.
This is minor, but irritating. When Robin and Kate first meet, it's pretty clear that they've never met before. He calls her "young lady" before she introduces herself, and she says, "You're Robin Hood!" in the tone of one who is meeting someone they've heard about for a long time, but never actually seen before. Yet Robin has previously been shown to be a very hands-on Lord of Locksley, on first name basis with all of his servants and practically every single serf who lives in the tiny village, and Robin even explicitly calls her mother "Rebecca" without any introductions. How can he recognise and know Rebecca and not Kate? Is Kate apparently so young that she and Robin don't know each other from the first time he went on Crusades; which by the show's rather tenuous time-line, would have been eight years ago?
So I guess my question is - how old is Kate meant to be?
Allan's death. Dear God, this was the absolute worst case of Dropped a Bridge on Him I've ever seen, especially for the only character left on the show that I didn't want to beat around the face with a heavy object. Getting shot down by the man who killed his brother, failing in his attempt to warn his so-called "friends" of the approaching army, and dying alone on the side of the road was horrific enough, but the only reason this even happened was because the rest of the outlaws (once again) proved themselves to be complete idiots. If Isabella had been paying Allan to act as The Mole inside Robin's gang, then why would she announce his pardon to the entire population of Nottingham?? Geez outlaws, you don't think that the woman who has been double-crossing you for the last six or so episodes just MIGHT be trying to stir up dissent among the ranks?? If Allan had been the only one left standing at the end of the carnage (having nicked everyone's stuff and hitchhiking back to Will and Djaq in the Holy Land), I would have considered it a perfect ending to the show.
Given she'd been "double-crossing them for the last six or so episodes", it is not equally possible (from the outlaws' point of view) that she double-crossed Allan by announcing his pardon in the knowledge that the outlaws would learn of it? Robin promises to come back and "sort it", he doesn't make any decision on Allan's guilt or not.
Then couldn't they have said that? As it played out, it was clear that that option simply hadn't occured to them. It grates that a) the outlaws knew that Isabella wasn't trustworthy, and b) Robin was prepared to implicitly trust the man who shish-ka-bobed his wife and yet not give Allan the benefit of the doubt.
Little John insists they can't trust Allan and it snowballs from there. I think the writers were sort of going for mob mentality.
Oh yeah...Little John insisted that Allan couldn't be trusted...one episode after Allan saved his life. Thanks John, your one and only contribution to season three was to be an ass and get your friend killed. That and insist to Robin to that he should hook up with the Shrieking Harpy of Despair.
So I'd like to know what happened to all the other outlaws from the first two episodes, the one's that Little John led, all of a sudden, it's just John, Roy, Allan, and Will. what happened to the rest of the outlaw bunch, did they just say "okay, Robin's here, let's leave?" I'd hate that this was the director's way of doing some major screw up
Maybe they died in an offscreen battle. At least one of them had a loved one still in Nottingham - maybe all the business with John seeing his wife and son convinced them to reunite with what families they had. The most likely out-of-universe reason is that they were Canon Foreigners - after they're gone, the only Canon Foreigner left in the gang is Roy and he leaves two episodes later. It's the same as the fact you never see specific villagers again after their Day in the Limelight. Occasionally it's written that they have to leave but a lot just end up disappearing. The writers seemed to want to focus on the core Robin (& gang) vs Sheriff (& Guy) storyline that Robin Hood is most famous for. Doing that meant losing a lot of the dead weight. Besides, they were never exactly hugely important enough to be missed...