I have to wonder if the movie was deliberately edited this way, in light of the political climate. You have a country whose previous leader racked up spending for his war in the Middle East, and his callow, curly-haired successor is trying to tax the country dry, inspiring a resistance movement. The anti-tax protestors assemble peacefully citing a need for strict-constructionist constitutional government, property rights, and respect for individual freedoms, and an end to government prohibitions on the killing of wild animals. And as a result of government hostility, they get their weapons and move back into the woods.

Even more telling, IMO, is their leaving out the typical Robin Hood mission statement of "rob the rich and give to the more." The one socialistic element of the Robin Hood story and they leave that out. The ONLY thing remotely touching on this is when they steal grain and plant it for themselves, which will incidentally benefit the poor people too. But that was more of a whole-group-need thing than a spread-the-wealth thing. Friar Tuck also is something of an entrepreneur, running a side business, so yay! capitalism.

Related to the tax-protest plotline, a while ago, Cracked.com ran a list of "Actors who have been typecast in oddly specific roles." The article essentially drew up similarities in roles an actor as has played (such as the similarities between the Russian hookers in Max Payne & Hitman, played by the same actress), and can now add Gerald McSorely (NO clue if I spelled that right - can't expect me to get these foreign names) & his propensity for playing loyal Northern subjects of a douchey, adulterous king, who lead protest movements against the plundering ways of the king's minions. Being involved with both the Magna Carta & the Pilgrimage of Grace is even more kick-ass than fighting in the Battles of Stirling(bridge), Gallipoli AND the Cowpens (mostly because of that last one would never have happened without the MC). Gerald McSorely beats Mel Gibson!