Perhaps Charles XII in 1713.

The king himself killed at least one Ottoman soldier with his sword in hand-to-hand combat when he and Roos came under attack by 3 Ottomans. During parts of the fighting, Charles was also actively sniping with a carbine against the assaulting enemy from a window in his sleeping quarters, positioned in the building where the Swedes had taken up their defense. The fighting lasted for over 7 hours and the Ottomans eventually used both artillery and fire arrows when the initial assaults were beaten back; the later method proved to be effective. The fire arrows set the building's roof on fire and forced the defenders to abandon it, the fighting then came to an abrupt end when the king tripped on his own spurs while exiting the burning house.

George VI del Reino Unido sirvió como oficial de torreta en el HMS Collingwood y vio acción en la Batalla de Jutlandia, siendo mencionado en los despachos. Esto fue, por supuesto, antes de que se convirtiera en rey.

El rey de Bélgica Alberto I dirigió a sus tropas, pero también luchó junto a ellas, durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. Wikipedia contiene una pequeña sección sobre esto:

Durante este período, el rey Alberto luchó junto a sus tropas y compartió sus peligros, mientras que su esposa, la reina Isabel, trabajaba como enfermera al frente. Durante su tiempo en el frente, se difundieron rumores en ambos lados de las líneas de que los soldados alemanes nunca dispararon contra él por respeto a que él fuera el comandante de mayor rango en peligro, mientras que otros temían arriesgarse a ser castigados por el propio Kaiser, quien era su prima. El rey también permitió que su hijo de 14 años, el príncipe Leopoldo, se alistara en el ejército belga como soldado raso y luchara en las filas

Otras fuentes:

• Alberto I, el rey soldado (libro)
• Historia de la guerra en línea: Alberto I, rey de Bélgica: luchó en las trincheras durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, y su reina se convirtió en enfermera

El último en el mundo fue Abdulla, Khalifa de Sudán que fue asesinado en Umm Diwaykara en 1899. Definitivamente, esa fue la participación más personal.

Y Khalifa> Sultan = Emperador, así que en el sentido feudal, era más alto que cualquier rey.

Napoleón fue herido en la Batalla de Ratisbona el 23 de abril de 1809:

Napoleón fue herido en el tobillo por una pequeña bala de artillería. El disparo se había realizado a gran distancia y no hirió gravemente al emperador, pero causó una contusión.

Sabemos aproximadamente dónde estaba Napoleón cuando resultó herido (a unos 900 metros de la ciudad de Ratisbona). paredes), porque se sentó en el Napoleonstein , a la vista de sus tropas para no amenazar la moral, mientras se trataba la herida.

En sus memorias, escritas mientras estaba en Santa Elena, Napoleón también afirmó que en Wagram, del 5 al 6 de julio de 1809:

En la batalla de Wagram un La pelota me rasgó la bota y la media, y me rozó la piel de la pierna izquierda.

En la misma Batalla de Ratisbona, donde Napoleón asaltó las murallas de la ciudad con la esperanza de acosar o capturar el equipaje del Archiduque Carlos y el tren de asedio, fue suficiente para Jean Lannes con simplemente tomar una escalera de asedio y amenazar con asaltar los muros personalmente para motivar a sus tropas a forzar con éxito la brecha.

"Bueno, te mostraré que ¡Fui granadero antes de ser mariscal, y todavía lo soy! " - de Trueno en el Danubio de John H. Gill

While it's clearly not the last, as shown by Thomas By's answer, I just recalled an interesting and late example of medieval-style chivalric bravery in battle. In 1525 (a good 40 years after Richard III of England in the Battle of Bosworth Field), Francis (François) I of France apparently fought in the front lines at the Battle of Pavia against the Imperial-Spanish forces (specifically Charles de Lannoy's contingent). Indeed, this was brave but sufficiently imprudent as to get himself captured by the Spanish forces! The date of the battle places this event in the Early Modern era as far as just about any historian is concerned, and I think is interesting because both traditional medieval weapons (lances, pikes) and guns (arquebuses) were prominent in the battle.

I cite the Encylopaedia Britannica entry on the Battle of Pavia:

Showing impeccable personal courage but limited judgment, King Francis led his armored cavalry in a medieval-style charge with couched lances. Unfortunately his horsemen rode in front of his cannon, making it impossible for the artillery to fire on the enemy.

Making a last effort, Charles formed a new army and arrived in the dead of winter before the walls of Nancy. Having lost many of his troops through the severe cold, it was with only a few thousand men that he met the joint forces of the Lorrainers and the Swiss, who had come to the relief of the town. He himself perished in the fight, his naked and disfigured body being discovered some days afterward frozen in the nearby river. Charles' head had been cleft in two by a halberd, ...

I want to propose Charles "Martin" "The Bold" Duke of Burgundy, who died in 1477 as described above (wikipedia).

There is this famous triple disaster: in the first battle he lost his goods, then his troops, then his (own) blood.

I looked up his life on wikipedia. I think he might qualify because he might be one of the last "real" fighting kings, at the end of an epoch. And he was attacking, not fleeing.

And why they call him bold? (I really wonder)

This Q is interesting. Already Agamemnon had to face some criticism, for letting the other kings do Ares' grim work (sorry). Alexander the Great almost captured Dareios, they say. But in more modern times, after 1500, a king probably does not belong on the battlefield. The business gets too dangerous with cannons and mercenaries. It is always (?) mixed with propaganda when a king puts on uniform.

Achilles to Agamemnon, right at the beginning:

"...though it is my hands that do the better part of the fighting. When the sharing comes, your share is far the largest, and I, forsooth, must go back to my ships, take what I can get and be thankful, when my labour of fighting is done..."

And wiki article Basileus (greek "king")

In Homer the wanax is expected to rule over the other basileis by consensus rather than by coercion, which is why Achilles proudly and furiously rebels (the central theme of the Iliad) when he perceives that Agamemnon is unjustly bossing him around.

Now "wanax" seems to be the mycean "overlord", or "high king", and disappeared as a title. "Basileus" was later used, which before was more "chieftain", (= "tribal chief").

And A.t.G. is mentioned extra:

Basileus and megas basileus were exclusively used by Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic successors in Ptolemaic Egypt, Asia (e.g. the Seleucid Empire, the Kingdom of Pergamon and non-Greek but Greek-influenced states like the Kingdom of Pontus) and Macedon. The feminine counterpart is basilissa (queen), meaning both a queen regnant (such as Cleopatra VII of Egypt) and a queen consort. It is precisely at this time that the term basileus acquired a fully royal connotation, in stark contrast with the much less sophisticated earlier perceptions of kingship within Greece.

(I am asking what is a king, exactly?)