steepholm: (Default)
steepholm ([personal profile] steepholm) wrote2014-08-27 06:24 pm
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.
gillo: (Richard III portrait)

[personal profile] gillo 2014-08-27 06:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Are you only a warrior if you lose? Charles I fought. So did his son. And two James Kings of Scotland after 1485.

[identity profile] steepholm.livejournal.com 2014-08-27 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Are you only a warrior if you lose?

Given that Henry VII was also present at Bosworth, and won, I suppose so! But perhaps he only counted as king once the fighting stopped?

They suggested afterwards that later kings (of England, at least) stood well back from the lines and didn't get their hands dirty, but I don't know how true that is, or indeed whether being a general discounts you from being a warrior. Were Wellington and Napoleon not warriors?
gillo: (Default)

[personal profile] gillo 2014-08-27 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I thought Henry backdated his reign to the day before Bosworth, to give himself carte-blanche in dealing with his surviving opponents.

Interesting question as to whether generals counted as warriors? Haig? Montgomery? Rommel?