Annoying Mistake: Peter riding unicorn

A_childs_imagination

A_childs_imagination

New member
I dont kno if anyone else has posted this but is it not very annoying that Peter is riding a unicorn? for a start it strictly states that you should never ride a unicorn and the only time one is ridden is in the last battle. i know hes the high king and everything but its still goes against C S Lewis' works!
Am i just being picky? what do you think
 
That bugged me so much! That and Edmund riding a talking horse. Last Battle says not many would dare ride a unicorn. The only reason Tirian did it was because he was in great need and Jewel was his best friend. And in Horse and his Boy once they're in Narnia people tell Shasta and Bree Narnians never ride talking horses (except in great need) because they are seen as equals.
That part eats me up. Peter should have been on foot for the battle. I don't care how dramatic riding a unicorn makes the scene.
 
it didn't bug me very much. there is no evidence that it is a talking unicorn... narnia does have dumb beasts. in the MN aslan only selected a few of the creatures to talk, so there were still those who were "regular" animals. but it did bug my that edmund rode philip (such an american name. not narnian at all!) who was a talking horse. In the Horse and his Boy, shasta... after he turns back into Cor says that nobody in narnia would ever dream of riding a talking horse. ok... i'll get off my soap box now :p .
 
you guys need to look a little closer at kitanna's post. (even though you didn't mean this) but the key answer is right in your post. talking animals can only be ridden 1st by permission, and second in times of great needs. so obviously the animals gave them permission and it is kind of a big need in Narnia. They're fighting a battle for their freedom. And remember Peter is the High King. Every creature wants to do whatever they can for him. my problem is that the unicorn was so not majestic enough. that horn was a little too simple for such a noble beast.
 
thanks for your opinion guys! i agree with you all i guess. this was my first thread so i was really chuffed (haha i love that word) that you guys took an interest in it!
 
onlymystory said:
you guys need to look a little closer at kitanna's post. (even though you didn't mean this) but the key answer is right in your post. talking animals can only be ridden 1st by permission, and second in times of great needs. so obviously the animals gave them permission and it is kind of a big need in Narnia. They're fighting a battle for their freedom. And remember Peter is the High King. Every creature wants to do whatever they can for him. my problem is that the unicorn was so not majestic enough. that horn was a little too simple for such a noble beast.
Click to expand...

I agree. Peter and Edmund aren't just any Narnians, afterall. And even in HHB, I'd imagine the rules which apply for your everyday Narnians might not be so strict when it comes to royalty.
 
And as previously mentioned, nothing could have a more striking effect than a beautiful white unicorn amidst all these tawny colored creatures, leading the fabulous charge that would free Narnia from 100 years of winter. That unicorn, and frankly Peter, outshine any and all on that battlefield, at least when they scan the riding warriors. :)

And as far as horns go, though I do agree that it is simple, anything more ornate may have brought your attention to the knowledge that the horn isn't real, thus you would have all been making fun of it instead of picking on it.
 
This is my opinion on the topic. For i was aswell a little disapointed with this too.


~
In fantasy Unicorns are feirce and states that it's not wise to do such things as ride on unicorns, and in the movie as we know Peter rides the Unicorn, it didnt even talk in the movie, are they not talking fantasy animals these beautiful creatures? And another thing if they would have followd it correctly the unicorn would have been charging along with the army as a solider not as a steed for Peter.
It also very bothered me that "Phillip" was road by Edmund, talking horses shouldnt be road as it is said and they shouldnt ever in my opinion. Unless the creature gives you permission for a dire need. And another thing "Phillip?" i mean that name for a narnian horse didnt fit for me, it could have gotten a narnian name or close too.
Don't get me wrong the part was funny when Ed rears up and says "whoa horsey" and the horse replies "my name is Philip" sure of course i laughed at that part everyone in the theatre did. But as many times i have read how Adamson wanted to live the book up to our expectations and foloow it as close to the book, well couldnt he have followed some of the rules and regulations that are in Narnia such as riding a unicorn or talking horse?
Anyways thats my opinion of this topic~
 
I think alot of Narnia fans are going a little overboard with this.

We ALL know what the books say. Unicorns should only be ridden in times of dire need, and that talking beasts should not be ridden except in times of need.

Let's see, a war against the greatest evil that Narnia had ever saw(and quite possibly the greatest ever) seems like a DIRE emergency to me. And like someone else pointed out, the unicorn may have wanted Peter, the High king, to ride him/her. Talking beasts pass on stories to their grandchildren(or grandfoals) too. I can hear the unicorn now "When I was your age, I allowed Peter the High King to ride me in the great war against the White Witch and the Hundred Years' Winter." It doesn't really bother me, because it was about the same situation with Tirian and Jewel(IMO).

As for Edmund and Phillip. Once again, when Edmund is practicing his swordmanship, it is kinda an emergency. Who better to tell Edmund how to fight on a horse than a horse? The Hunt for the White Stag, bothers me a fare bit, but not too bad. I mean that was definitely a "special" occasion, and didn't the Hunt for the White Stag only come around every so often years(I don't remember quite clearly now)? So I guess that doesn't bother me so much. Special occasion calls for a special horse.

Those are my thoughts.
 
and on the hunt for the white stag idea, it didn't even cross my mind. i just assumed that edmund and phillip had become good friends over the years and that phillip considered it just as much an honor to carry edmund as edmund did to ride him. plus i figured phillip probably wanted the wishes from the stag too. after all, in the story its a large hunting party. the kings and queens just go off on their own a little later.
 
We ALL know what the books say. Unicorns should only be ridden in times of dire need, and that talking beasts should not be ridden except in times of need.
Click to expand...
Your right about the dire needs. Im not taking this very seriously i love th idea about Peter using a Unicorn it was so great!But i was just saying my opinion about the different rules and what not, that are in narnia and fantasy
 
Phillip is a GREAT name for a horse. It is Greek, you know. Philhippus means "Lover of Horses."
 
Name of Horse

Considering all the other spiritual analogies, types and figures; it shouldn't be surprising that Lewis chose to call the horse "Phillip" since it's a biblical name.
 
About Peter riding the unicorn, AT LEAST HE DIDNT RIDE A CENTAUR!
(that would REALLY be known by true Narnians!)
 
Im glad they ditn do that oh boy a disaster:D:p lol
It would seem almost foolish seeing a king riding a half horse half man into battle, but Jill and Eustace were carried by centaurs right?Or were they riding, i forget
 
Back
Top