…(1239-1307) in Braveheart?
What was the knickname of the king, and what actor played Edward I in Braveheart?
Only the names are accurate, the rest is a load of c*ap. It used to be that names were changed to protect the innocent. In this movie, the names stay the same to disguise the lies. Mel Gibson is a man with many problems, a hatred of Britain, being an abusive loud mouthed drunk and being a well known anti semitic being just a few of them. Poetic license is another name for changing the facts completely. One fact is that the Scots did not wear kilts at that time, so the scene where the English army was mooned by the Scots only occurred in Gibson’s head, well known to be addled by drink.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:45 am
edward the longshanks. patrick mcgoohan (the late). i don’t know how accurate mel was, iv’e heard not very, but then, i think the purpose of the film, inaccuracies aside, was to remind people of the price of freedom, and i think it did that rather well.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 9:22 am
‘Long Shanks’ yes that bit is true - Actor Patrick McGowan (could of spelt it wrong - anyway was in ‘The Prisoner’ Series). As for the accuracy of the film - no not really, a bit of Artist license was employed there. Great Film though, with an ambiance of truth about a very real Anti- Royalist.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Edward ! (Longshanks) was past 60 when Wallace started in. His second wife, Margaret of France, was in her 20s. Although she bore him three children (two boys and a girl), her children were not the heirs to the throne. Edward’s son by his first wife succeeded him. Margaret never met Wallace.
The film is fiction loosely based on historical fact. To make it more entertaining, they used poetic license.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 10:37 am
He played them both?
I was unaware that he played Edward I, as well.
And, not terribly…it’s a movie, you know…for entertainment.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Utterly inaccurate. There was a Scotsman called William Wallace and an English king called Edward I, nicknamed Longshanks: once you’ve said that, you’ve said about all that was historically accurate in that film.
Click on the link below for a historian who lists and discusses the 18 major errors in the first two minutes of Braveheart, and take her and my word for it that things don’t improve after that. As she says, "The events aren’t accurate, the dates aren’t accurate, the characters aren’t accurate, the names aren’t accurate, the clothes aren’t accurate — in short, just about nothing is accurate."
References :
http://medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml
February 20th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Only the names are accurate, the rest is a load of c*ap. It used to be that names were changed to protect the innocent. In this movie, the names stay the same to disguise the lies. Mel Gibson is a man with many problems, a hatred of Britain, being an abusive loud mouthed drunk and being a well known anti semitic being just a few of them. Poetic license is another name for changing the facts completely. One fact is that the Scots did not wear kilts at that time, so the scene where the English army was mooned by the Scots only occurred in Gibson’s head, well known to be addled by drink.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Not very–If you ever want to rile up a Scot, ask this question during a lull in conversation.
A quick glance at the Wikipedia entry for "Braveheart" notes the following historical inaccuracies:
1) Mel Gibson at age 39 was too old to play Wallace, who died at approximately age 33. Admittedly, 33 most probably approached middle age during the 13th century.
2) Major battle scenes were shot in Ireland.
3) Scots didn’t wear belted tartans or kilts at this point in time. Actually, until the 19th-century, Lowland Scots wouldn’t be caught dead in Highland dress, and Wallace was a Lowland Scot. For costuming, think medieval knights and their retainers, not Highlanders stereotypically dressed in kilts.
4) Wallace never met Isabella since she married the Prince of Wales three years after Wallace’s death.
Additionally, I’ve thought of several more inaccuracies:
5) The Picts wore blue wohl on their faces; 13th century Scots didn’t.
6) Mel Gibson is 5′8" while William Wallace was 6′7"–truly a giant of a man given the time in which he lived. Let’s just say Gibson had "stage presence".
6) No one knows what Wallace said before he was hung, drawn, and quartered.
7) Wallace was actually of a higher social status than depicted in the film. His father, Malcolm Wallace, was a fairly prosperous knight of middling status; his mother’s brothers held fairly high offices in the Church, and one maternal uncle, Sir Reginald de Crauford, was actually the sheriff of Ayrshire.
All the same, the film shows Wallace’s ability to lead a volunteer army and his grasp of military tactics. Critics acknowledge that the Battle of Sterling Bridge was one of the best battle scenes ever filmed. The score is also stirring, and Gibson probably played Wallace’s personality with historical accuracy, given the few quotations he has been attributed as saying.
Mel Gibson’s William Wallace is opposed by Edward I of England ("Longshanks"), played by the Irish-American actor Patrick McGoohan and abetted by Isabella, Edward’s daughter-in-law–a textbook example of anachronism–as well as Robert the Bruce, who doesn’t make much of an appearance in the movie.
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart
February 20th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Mel Gibson said that he was more interested in making a movie about the legends of William Wallace than he was in making a correct documentary. So in the battle of Stirling Bridge he omitted the bridge.
—————
The fact that Edward II (the original Prince of Wales) was a homosexual is a very long standing rumor that goes back to his contemporaries. The fact that his wife hated him and probably was part of the plot to murder him is generally accepted. There is no possibility that their son was actually fathered by William Wallace is impossible as she was a child in real life when William Wallace was executed.
===========
The unborn baby in the film would be Edward III (of Windsor) who would reign for 50 years. Because he was born at Windsor Castle he did a lot to elevate that castle to prominence in English History. He had many children and grandchildren all of whom survived the devastating black death. Scientists today believe the over 99% of Englishmen are descendants of Edward III. The idea that he was actually the basterd son of William Wallace is a plot device more in keeping with the legends that have grown around William Wallace.
==========
Personally, I am mostly with the school of thought that says that movies that bring attention to historical characters are positive even if they take large poetic license. Another movie Elizabeth was made shortly after Braveheart, that also took great liberties with the facts of the life of Elizabeth I, but was generally good theater.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The film in general was very inaccurate. In fact there were so many inaccuracies I won’t even bother to list them here.
However, one key point was correct: Edward I was a cruel, warmongering king who thought he had a divine right to rule the whole of Great Britain despite the fact the Scots and Welsh didn’t want anything to do with him. He managed to subjugate Wales and the Scots were keen, to say the least, not to let him do the same to us.
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Very little was accurate (not the clothing, hair, battle tactics, dates, names, Wallace was also not poor, but was in fact the son of a landed knight, at the time of the setting Scotland had not been oppressed for years as the beginning of the film suggests, there is also no mention in history at that time of English lords taking brides on their wedding nights) usually I wouldn’t care, but many Scots already have a massive chip on their shoulder as it is and are convinced that they’ve been mistreated and abused for centuries; this stupid movie has solidified that thinking in the minds of many and thus in its own way has further damaged the Scottish-Anglo relationship.
It’s obvious from this movie and The Patriot that Gibson has some sort of pathological hatred for England, not to mention the Jewish people. I’ve read that he’s making a film based on the Viking raids on English in the dark ages; I can’t imagine how he’ll turn that around to make England the bad guy, but I’m certain he’ll think of something.
Read the link below, it’s a very funny attack on how historically inaccurate his films are:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100023091/revealed-the-script-for-mel-gibsons-new-viking-movie/
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
No Hollywoodmovie is concerned about history accuracy that does not sell tickets. Entertainment is the game.
Some of the things in the movie were accurate. The battles and dates were correct, The weapons were correct and the battle tactics were correct.
As to William Wallaces personality not alot is known. Gibson protrays him in the heroic way Gibson protrays all his characters. Get beat upon and have a great injustice done by a dastertley villian in the forrm of a evil English Lord who slits the throat of his wife. AND THEN MEL kicks butt! The first part of the movie is fiction. The part about the Lord of the manner having first crack at the new wife is true and caused alot of trouble with the people. It was theie own custom for a Scottish Lord to to this, but not the hatted English counquor.
Wallace did lead a revolt was knighted and won the battles shown in the movie. Mel gibson was a little small to play him as Wallace was a very big man between 6"4" to 6′8" a giant for the times.
The best character was King Edward. Lots is known about him. His character was accurate. He was one of England greatest fighting kings. His son was also protrayed accuratly and was homosexual. His father hated him for it. The scene where he throws his lover out the window is Hollywood but is something that Edward would do. The wife of the son was a acceptional woman but the admiration she had for Wallace is to be doubted as a Hollywood inhancement.
Overall the movie was one of the better historical movies.
Gibson in the Patriot made me sick so inaccurate it I wanted to scream!
References :
February 20th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
what everybody else said.
when i was in norfolk i got to spend the day in castle acre (or was it castle rising) where edward and isabella’s son exiled her after he came of age to the throne. isabella was not the nice lady in the movie. she was known as the "she wolf of france". probably (someone named mortimer?) her boyfriend was the father of the next king of england, not william wallace as implied in the movie.
she and said boyfriend are rumored to have killed gay edward and ruled in regency for the infant son. until he grew up, that is.
if you ever get a chance, there are a lot of impressive castle ruins in wales that were built by longshanks during the occupation of the english. some were never finished.
References :