![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Lots of Islands have a North
Oh, Christopher Eccleston! I quite enjoyed Richard III: the New Evidence, but how could you wind it up by describing him as "Britain's last true warrior king" because he was the last king of England to fight and die in battle? Have you forgotten Flodden Field so soon?
Okay, I realise you were just narrating and probably didn't write the script, but still, this is the kind of thing that seems likely to swing the all-important Pedant vote behind the Yes campaign.
Okay, I realise you were just narrating and probably didn't write the script, but still, this is the kind of thing that seems likely to swing the all-important Pedant vote behind the Yes campaign.
no subject
You don't need to die in the battle to be a warrior king. Subsequent kings of England, let alone Scotland, led troops in battle, up through George II.
I would also maintain that Charles I fought and died in battle with a kangaroo court.
no subject