[regularfry]

(incidentally: it's "free rein" as in horses, not "free reign" as in monarchs)

[thinker5555]

Not a lesson I was expecting to learn today, but here we are. I always thought it was the "reign" version because monarchs can "reign freely".

[regularfry]

Yeah, the more usual wording is "given a free rein", which makes it a little clearer. A monarch isn't given their reign, it's theirs by right (well, with a bit of hand-waving. Or possibly sword-waving, but not since Henry VII).

[rjsw]

The last English king to try to reign with no constraints was Charles I, it didn't end well for him.

[Zuider]

James II entertained the same delusions as Charles of being absolute monarch. He had a kinder fate, being carefully allowed to escape twice on his journey to France.

[pasc1878]

For English kings you forgot William III

[dash2]

Actually I think the last king to go into battle at all was George II.

[Zuider]

Giving 'free rein' comes from the pragmatic practice of allowing a horse to chose the best path over difficult terrain on the grounds that the animal would know better than the rider.

[Zenchess]

thanks, i've probably been making that mistake for years...

[samatman]

One of the more sensible eggcorns out there, admittedly.

[gavinray]

What, really?

Welp, I've had that wrong my entire life.