All these portrayals we see of knights fighting must be absolute rubbish because knights in armour could literally have only had two or three blows and then they'd have had to sit down to have a cup of tea.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In big battle scenes, like 'King Arthur', you see the knights in all their fine armour, but they're not in the thick of it: follow the perspective, and you'll find some poor little sod, who didn't want to be there, anyway, with his head split.
A true knight is fuller of bravery in the midst, than in the beginning of danger.
And much more am I sorrier for my good knights' loss than for the loss of my fair queen; for queens I might have enough, but such a fellowship of good knights shall never be together in no company.
I found the offer of a knighthood something that I couldn't possibly accept. I found it to be somehow squalid, a knighthood. There's a relationship to government about knights.
Sword fighting in film is not about how good the fighter is, but how good the actor receiving the blows is.
There have been many gay knights in the past - like Sir Noel Coward or Sir John Gielgud.
I couldn't pick up a sword and go fight anyone, let me put it that way. It's choreography and it's acting. The best sword fights you see look amazing, but it's the acting that sells it more than anything.
I'm glad a genre writer has got a knighthood, but stunned that it was me.
It even has the same phraseology as the English orders of knighthood, companions and this sort of thing.
Knight without fear and without reproach.