Lots of Islands have a North

[steepholm]

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.

Comments

[lilliburlero]

ARGH. (I'm just the sort of person to be swung by that sort of thing, though I don't have a vote to swing). I was once at a pub quiz (in Scotland, though the quizsetter was English) where that gaffe was made and the wrath was mighty. But really, where have all the fact-checkers gone? In a programme about Richard III you shouldn't be talking about Britain in any sense but the purely geographical.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Whoever did the historical advising on this programme wants their backside booting through their cranium!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

And besides that ...

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.

[gillo]

Are you only a warrior if you lose? Charles I fought. So did his son. And two James Kings of Scotland after 1485.

[vschanoes.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the pedant vote. Sadly, in the US, we have retreated in despair.

[sovay]

"Britain's last true warrior king" because he was the last king of England to fight and die in battle?

That seems a rather defeatist definition of "warrior"!

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

George VI saw action at Jutland (although not while king, admittedly).

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

And for getting your hands dirty in the military, if not under fire, there's this: