Re: [MR] Braveheart

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Poster: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>


Baron Corun notes an inaccuracy of the movie Braveheart:

> Wallace could not have fathered a child on the Princess either, since
> she did not give birth until six years *after* Wallace's death. That
> would have either been one hellaciously long labour, or an immaculate
> conception to beat all immaculate conceptions. (Wallace was drawn and
> quartered. This would give a whole new meaning to being one quarter Scot).

Actually, Wallace could have fathered a child on the Princess.  She did 
not carry a child TO TERM until six years after Wallace's death.  She 
could have conceived, and miscarried a child before then.  Since Prince 
Edward would have known the child was not his, having not yet gotten up 
the gumption (is that the word?) to fulfill his marrital and dynastic 
duties, the pregency would have quite likely to have been kept quiet.

Besides, she could have always been lying to Longshanks.  He certainly 
deserved something nasty to chew on in hell ;-).

Leifr Johansson
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org