It's a good analysis, Acanis, but remember the details of history versus romantic or adventurous literature and, most especially, modern movies, are two very, very different things. Which I know you're aware of, of course.
(Also, it's worth pointing out that, whenever you write a long essay, it's good to break it up with an occasional illustration, whether yours or someone else's...and of relevance. I was thrown that suggestion early on when I was posting in the forum for The Secret of NIMH Source. I guess younger readers have a tough time with sifting through pure prose, and need visual points to refocus their easily-distracted minds. I know, I know...I generally react the way I suspect you would upon hearing that:
But better that than seeing someone throw out the very discourteous and rude "tl/dr", or else just ignore the post altogether, while the post fades into obscurity. Right?)
Well anyhoo, if I may offer a few thoughts after having read through your post:
Most people tend to look at historical and literary figures (and those in movies and television shows) through a very selective and rose-colored lens. Either they love them for the popular imagery, or they hate them for it. They almost never take the time to consider the facts behind the real living, breathing people often represented (usually with a great deal of dramatic or poetic license) in entertainment media.
In the Disney Robin Hood movie (and other Robin Hood movies and in literature), King Richard is presented as a brave, stalwart and heroic figure. How often people forget, or refuse to even see, that the man was capable of manipulating, scheming and treachery. This bio paints things in a more accurate light:
As to his younger brother, John Lackland ("King John"), this was also a man of many facets, and both good and bad qualities. But he is certainly considered to have been one of the worst kings that England ever had:
So little is documented, beyond a reasonable doubt, as to the "dark ages" period of the British Isles, from the departure of the Roman forces through the beginnings of the medieval period, that many British citizens (as well as many French citizens) seem to forget that a lot of their ancestral blood comes very easily as much from the Scandinavians as it does from the Germans...rather than just the ancient Britons, Irish and Picts. Even the Normans weren't actually French in the ancient Gallic sense, but were originally invaders from Scandinavia:
Those same Normans were not all that dissimilar, in terms of their origins, to the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes who had consistently invaded, pillaged and raped the Britons when they set their eyes upon the British isles during the dark ages:
Technically, the best we can interpret out of history is that, given the plethora of incursions and invasions by the Scandinavian and Teutonic peoples during the dark ages, and even the relentless invasion and conquering of the Roman Empire before those times is that, by the middle ages, the people of the British isles were a hodge podge of various ethnicities: Roman (and certain other subjugated peoples who served in the Roman forces while occupying the British isles, including the horse peoples of the near-Asian steppes), Scandinavians (mostly from the regions now identified as Norway, Sweden and Denmark...the so-called "Vikings", "Norsemen"--later "Normans", Saxons, Jutes and Angles), and then the tribal peoples who had lived on the islands long before those centuries of incursions, occupations and slaughter: the Celts (which would include the various Britons, the Irish/Scots, and the Welsh) and the Picts who, as I understand it, were not considered Celts for some strange reason.
And then, in spite of all that rich and varied history, and the efforts to present it and have a passion for it (as you and I do), it is an unfortunate reality that most people who visit Animation Source probably don't even care, and wouldn't bother to look into it. A shame, really.