I both agree and disagree, but I’m not sure which wins out.
Agree because yeah, codpieces were obviously ostentatious and nonfunctional, and why would you not expect women to do the same thing if given the same chance?
On the other hand, the risk imposed by boobplate is more substantial than codpieces. The groom area is not a very good target for opponents because it’s kinda hard to reach and it will harm your target less than the head and chest areas. Boob armour, on the other hand, is right at the spot most thrusts and many cuts are going to be targetted at regardless. The risk of directing glancing blows back in towards your vital organs is greater with boobplate than codpieces.
It’s not like these Kings or Generals really saw someone swing a sword at them or needed actually functional armor
I think this depends on the time period, location, and individual King/General. There’s a reasonably long Wikipedia page on monarchs killed in action. And more might have been injured in combat, or attacked but safe thanks to their armour (and skill). On the other hand, some might be included there mainly because they were overrun and died in action even though they never intended to be in action at all.