I really don't mind, but probably the third is the most logical, as twenty years is probably too long. I'll change the date (the timeline has already other minor alterations, I'll share a revised version soon)For a Wiki entry what would be your preferred version on the war timeline for EK?
- Ten year war 85-86
- Change the date to 85
- Keep 95 and just make Raegar wrong perhaps just a slip of the tounge or whatever
I understand your reasoning with QEII but "young queen" was tabloid commentary not history-type-history. In England, four Kings of England were under 10 years old (one of them was just months old!). Fifteen Kings of England were under 20 years old. Up north, Mary Queen of Scots was 6 years old at ascension. As for English Queens, Victoria was 25 when she ascended, Elisabeth II was 27 at ascension. (Whereas Mary and Ann were 37 on ascension).
Well, kind of a semantic argument (what does "young" mean?). For me the point is, only for extremely brief periods were kingdoms ruled by truly young kings/queens: following the english example, in the last 250 years, an english subject only had maybe 10 years in which he was ruled by a "young" monarch, combining those in which Victoria and Elizabeth II were in their 20s. That makes "young" a remarkable trait to describe a king or queen.