Re: Braveheart

["Mario M. Butter" <mbutter@tower.clark.net>]

> #1 That I know of, Sir William never had a fling for the Princess.  That was
> probably just thrown in as a romantic interest to make the movie more
> user-friendly (after all, Murren didn't last but 10 minutes).  And as for
> William fathering Edward III, I really don't think so.

Isabel had several flings (one of which she used to overthrow Edward II),
but Edward III was born 7 years after the execution of Wallace. Rather long
for a pregnancy, no?

Mario

Mario M. Butter            |GAT d++$ H>++ s:+ !g !p au+ a?  w+++ v++(-) C++
mbutter@tower.clark.net    |UL++++$ P+>++++ L++>++++ 3 N+++ E--- K-- W---
gaummb@fnma.com            |M-- V-- -po+ Y+ t++ 5++ jx R++ G' tv+++ b+++ !D
#include <std_disclaimer.h>|B-- e* u*@ h---- f* r+++ !n x** GeekCode v2.1

On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 EoganmacL@aol.com wrote:

> Achbar is right, it's a great movie.  I like it tenfold more than Rob Roy
> (and I _really_ liked Rob Roy).  It is more or less (or less) historical,
> save two major points.
> *****DO NOT READ IF YOU PLAN ON SEEING THE MOVIE******
> #1 That I know of, Sir William never had a fling for the Princess.  That was
> probably just thrown in as a romantic interest to make the movie more
> user-friendly (after all, Murren didn't last but 10 minutes).  And as for
> William fathering Edward III, I really don't think so.
> #2 Bannockburn.  For one thing, it was a different Robert Bruce, son to the
> one in the film, grandson of the leper, who lead the Scots to victory.  And
> there was also 9 years between this battle and  Wallace's execution.  It's
> understandable why they summed it up, though.  The movie was already three
> hours long, and to add another generation of Bruces and 9 more years would be
> overboard (woulda made a good sequel, though).  And they needed some closure
> other than Wallace's death.
> Bannockburn in the film was fought on the spur of the moment when Robert was
> supposed to ride out and pay homage to the the English King (by this time Ed
> II).  In real life it was planned for a year and was fought over Castle
> Stirling.  It was a wonderful battle, one of the best in history, and if
> anyone wants the full details of it, email me, and I'll tell you all about
> it.
> 
> Those are the major things that I noticed.  Any other innacuracies that
> anyone noticed?  Was Ed II really gay?  What about the Irish forces at
> Falkirk?  I doubt they really switched sides, although I wouldn't put it past
> them.  Any info?
> 
> Aye,
> Eogan MacLaren
>