Braveheart(the movie). Do you know this answer?

[Charade]

In the movie, Wallace gets the future Queen pregnant. The question is, is this historically accurate?

 

[SpecialK]

No. Don't remember the particulars, but I have a friend who is a history buff and she took great exception to many of the scenes in this movie, including this one.

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080909235607AA3xR72

Just cuz I feel like looking things up today.

I love the movie Brave heart and I know it was based on the real William Wallace but were his body parts really scattered around England by Longshanks?And do they have written chronicles of where they were? Was the King's son really Gay?Did Wallace really sleep with the Princess? I can't bear to watch the end of the movie each time it is on,Just like Saving Private Ryan, I can't watch that end either.

William Wallace was hung, disemboweled, beheaded, and quartered in London on 23 August 1305.

First, it's well known where Wallace's body parts went (except for a disputed fourth quarter which Perth and Aberdeen each claim):

---His head was stuck on a pike and decorated London Bridge.

---One-quarter went to Berwick-on-Tweed, where it is commemorated with the place-name of Wallace Green.

---One-quarter went to Newcastle, where it was hung over the town sewer.

While the first two quarters went to towns that had suffered under Wallace's invasions, the second two obviously when to Scottish towns to discourage the Scots from further rebellion.

---One-quarter when to Sterling.

---One-quarter supposedly went to Perth, though local tradition in Aberdeen holds that one of Wallace's quarters can be found in an old retaining wall.

Edward II, or Edward of Caernaron, was most probably bisexual. Married to Isabella of France, he sired two sons, Edward III (1312-1377), and John of Eltham, Earl of Cornwall (1316-1366), as well as two daughters, Eleanor (1318-1355), and Joanna (1321-1362, the wife of David II of Scotland. The itineraries of both Edward and Isabella show that they were together in the same location nine months before the birth of each child. Edward also fathered an illegitimate son, Adam FitzRoy, who accompanied Edward into Scotland on his Scottish campaigns.

Edward, however, is also known for his alledged homosexuality since he alienated his barons by surrounding himself with favourites, most notably Piers Gaveston and Hugh de Despenser the Younger. Edward bestowed Isabella's wedding gifts upon Piers Gaveston. After his death, Edward took up with Hugh de Despenser. When Edward refused to give up his dalliance with Hugh, Isabella joined forces with Roger Mortimer, one of Edward's disaffected barons, with whom Isabella did have an open affair. Isabella persuaded Edward that they send their youngest son to France (accompanied by Roger and Isabella). From France, the couple invaded England in 1326 and imprisoned Edward, ultimately dispossessing of him in September 1327.

Isabella, who was known for her beauty, was born in 1295 and didn't marry Edward II until 25 January 1308. William Wallace died when she was five-years-old, and she would have been three-years-old at the time Mel Gibson's William Wallace supposedly would have had an affair with her.

 

[c4a]

Can I prove it? No. But the Queen in question would have been Isabella of France & since she was only a little girl (10 or 11) when Wallace was executed-I kind of doubt that he is the father of Edward III. Add in that Edward III was born 7 or 8 years after Wallace died...even harder to believe.

It is one of my favorite movies-but there is a lot of historical errors. The name "Brave Heart" was actually Robert the Bruce's nickname; not Wallace. Then the fact that Wallace and the Bruce were actually pulling for 2 different men to rule...Wallace wanted John Balliol & the Bruce wanted...himself. There is also no evidence that the two ever fought at the same battle at the same time...or even met.

 

[Charade]

Thanks!

Still a good movie if not historically accurate.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Thanks!

Still a good movie if not historically accurate.

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

 

[Golf4food]

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

Works for politics and movies... why not!?

 

[Charade]

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

Wow...

Was that really necessary?

 

[What the Heck]

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

Yes, but Obama won even with the inaccuracies.

 

[Breezie]

Wow...

Was that really necessary?

I agree. It's sort of silly to say something like that in this particular thread.

I, too, like the movie, despite what's inaccurate about it! It's one of my favorites. I still cry every time I watch it. But then again, it doesn't take much (in terms of movies) to make me cry.

 

[PaulaSB12]

In the movie, Wallace gets the future Queen pregnant. The question is, is this historically accurate?

The film is typical in the way that the British are portrayed. Don't watch his films because of they way he makes his films.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Wow...

Was that really necessary?

Yes it was. The history of the United Kingdom is colourfull enough without the pathetic changes that film and tv makers seem to think essential. I mean look at the Tudors!! Its really pathetic left as it was it would be amazing changed its just another soap opera with tights.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Thanks!

Still a good movie if not historically accurate.

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

I agree. It's sort of silly to say something like that in this particular thread.

I, too, like the movie, despite what's inaccurate about it! It's one of my favorites. I still cry every time I watch it. But then again, it doesn't take much (in terms of movies) to make me cry.

Do you know one of the best things about this movie? It is far more successful in keeping interest in history alive ....than professional historians. Unfortunately, the Hollywood minds often have little regard for accuracy. It is still a very entertaining film. It has enough truth to pique the curiosity of the film goer and motivate them to further explore the actual events.

 

[islandmum]

the vast majority of the film is historically innacurate, such as pretty much all the historical dramas, ironically. Just take The Patriot, U-571, The Tudors, etc etc

all are fims/drama that many of us love and watch, but they are mostly fictional and thats what makes them entertaining .... most of the time if the actual truth were told it would be quite boring!

Also many times it does reflect the market the movie is aimed at and the production company. Obviousy a film such as U571 - they loved the idea of the hero decoders and interceptors - but it wouldnt have made a whole heap of money had it been a boat full of brits as the heroes (as in fact is really was). But stick in Matthew McConaughy and a US sub and it becomes a hit.

I watch and enjoy all the films, I know they're mostly innacurate and false but they're still good films, fun to watch .... If you take it as fact, such as the Patriot for example, best get onto reading your history books for the real truths

 

[Imzadi]

Yes it was. The history of the United Kingdom is colourfull enough without the pathetic changes that film and tv makers seem to think essential. I mean look at the Tudors!! Its really pathetic left as it was it would be amazing changed its just another soap opera with tights.

Well, why stop there? You must include your very own William Shakespeare. He certainly changed around his historicals. Only, he didn't really write them did he? Christopher Marlowe did...only Marlowe was actually someone else, too. Gee, who was there for the facts?

There's also a replica of the Globe Theatre in London, only it's not really a replica, as no one knows what the actual Globe Theatre looked like, to make a replica. I've actually been to it. paid the price of the tour too, knowing it wasn't real.

The fact is, no one was around during most of history, to sit there and write verbatim whole, private dialogues of conversations, or even much of the events.

Do we really know what Marc Antony & Cleopatra felt for each other?

What did Henry V really say to his fellow officers the night before the battle at Agincourt?

I don't think Braveheart ever represented itself to be a factual documentary or representation of events any more than Hamlet or Macbeth.

Troy was made into a film too. There's quite debatable evidence that it actually existed.

How do we really know what a Gladiator felt, to make that film?

A lot of films could be attacked for accuracy. I think of films as fiction & entertainment unless told otherwise.

 

[Charade]

Yes it was. The history of the United Kingdom is colourfull enough without the pathetic changes that film and tv makers seem to think essential. I mean look at the Tudors!! Its really pathetic left as it was it would be amazing changed its just another soap opera with tights.

Huh? Taking a (political) shot at me for expressing that I like the movie even though I realize it's not historically accurate? To me, it's entertainment. If I wanted a history lesson, I'd watch the History Channel.

You can argue that the necessary part was to point out the historical inaccuracies in the film but it was totally unnecessary to attack me.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Huh? Taking a (political) shot at me for expressing that I like the movie even though I realize it's not historically accurate? To me, it's entertainment. If I wanted a history lesson, I'd watch the History Channel.

You can argue that the necessary part was to point out the historical inaccuracies in the film but it was totally unnecessary to attack me.

Not a political thought in my head. I just get fed up with the way tv and movies change what happened, no matter of humming and haing will change the fact that Henry VIII had 2 sisters and neither of them married and murdered the King of Portugal. So sorry if you thought I was attacking you the thought wasn't even in my mind. Remember tv people history shouldn't be changed just because you don't like it.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Well, why stop there? You must include your very own William Shakespeare. He certainly changed around his historicals. Only, he didn't really write them did he? Christopher Marlowe did...only Marlowe was actually someone else, too. Gee, who was there for the facts?

There's also a replica of the Globe Theatre in London, only it's not really a replica, as no one knows what the actual Globe Theatre looked like, to make a replica. I've actually been to it. paid the price of the tour too, knowing it wasn't real.

The fact is, no one was around during most of history, to sit there and write verbatim whole, private dialogues of conversations, or even much of the events.

Do we really know what Marc Antony & Cleopatra felt for each other?

What did Henry V really say to his fellow officers the night before the battle at Agincourt?

I don't think Braveheart ever represented itself to be a factual documentary or representation of events any more than Hamlet or Macbeth.

Troy was made into a film too. There's quite debatable evidence that it actually existed.

How do we really know what a Gladiator felt, to make that film?

A lot of films could be attacked for accuracy. I think of films as fiction & entertainment unless told otherwise.

You can at least try and get some facts right, Henry VIII had 2 sisters, Wallace coudn't have got the future queen pregnant because she was about 3.

 

[Charade]

Not a political thought in my head. I just get fed up with the way tv and movies change what happened, no matter of humming and haing will change the fact that Henry VIII had 2 sisters and neither of them married and murdered the King of Portugal. So sorry if you thought I was attacking you the thought wasn't even in my mind. Remember tv people history shouldn't be changed just because you don't like it.

Kind of expected that line . . . no sense letting historical accuracy get in the way of an idea we like.

I didn't say you made a political jab, but CPT Tripss did but your reply sure made it appear you agreed with them.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I know movies are entertainment, but I stopped watching the Wizard of Oz when I found out there actually is color in Kansas and monkeys don't fly. I'm a bit of a stickler for rules.