is this a true story? I heard it was. If it was does anyone know what happened with the baby the Queen was carrying(wallace's baby at the end) when she told lonshanks she was carrying a baby not of his blood it was wallac's right?
2006-06-09 05:58:51 · 16 answers · asked by luv_questions 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No, no, no and a thousand times NOOOOOOOOOOO!
The woman portrayed as carrying Wallace's child wasn't even born until after his execution.
They took the story of William Wallace, a story of great heroism and patriotism, the story of a genuine democratic national movement and they made it into Hollywood Jock-schlock. Like the Battle of Stirling Bridge - only without the bridge. And when they came to him before hand to warn him that the English were coming Mel Gibson was - for no particular reason - standing about at the top of a mountain in a gale. No he wasn't, he was beseiging the English garrison in the castle of Dundee. Wallace was not some painty-faced peasant. He was an educated man, who treated with kings and governments overseas to insist upon Scotland's place in the world as a free, sovereign nation, who fought in armour, not wrapped in a travel rug and who died with the Psalms held up before his face.
And that utter crap from Mycroft above about "insurrection". Ye gods! It was resistance to an invading force and the first right of every nation is self defence.
2006-06-09 06:07:04 · answer #1 · answered by scotsman 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well...the characters are based on real people. there was King Edward and there was William Wallace. The queen did not have an affair with Wallace who was actually much more of a barbarian than portrayed in the movie. Robert Bruce tried to appease the English but Wallace was an outlaw for lack of a better word.
He was caught and drawn and quartered. So...the characters did exsist in history. After that the rest is Hollywood story telling. Still...makes for good entertainment. If you read the real story about what occurred you'd no doubt be bored silly.
2006-06-09 06:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by Quasimodo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes the movie is based on a true story but of course Gibson had to add somethings to make it exciting and make some stuff up. Two major examples of things wrong with the movie...the Battle of Sterling was on a bridge and not in a field and Wallace never met the queen to be much less got her pregnant.
2006-06-09 06:04:32 · answer #3 · answered by suzannet79 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, William Wallace was a real person. There is actually a monument to him in Scotland.
Sir William Wallace (c.1270 – 23 August 1305) was a Scottish knight who led a resistance to the English occupation of Scotland during significant periods of the Wars of Scottish Independence.
I don't know about the baby, but I do know that the film was criticized for having many historical inaccuracies.
2006-06-09 06:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by texasaggiephil 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Braveheart is LOOSELY based on the story of William Wallace. The movie has the basic facts right, in that Wallace led an insurrection against King Edward I (Longshanks) of England, was later captured and executed by hanging, drawing and quartering.
The love story between the princess and Wallace is fiction, although the reality is horrible enough. In reality, the Princess gave birth to Edward III, the son of Edward II, and fomented a civil war against Edward II. When Edward II was captured by the Queen's forces he was murdered by having a red-hot poker thrust down his throat and into his stomach. He died horribly.
Edward I Longshanks is buried in Westminster Abbey in London, and his grave is marked "Malleus Scotorum, " which is latin for "Hammer of the Scots."
2006-06-09 06:07:00 · answer #5 · answered by Mycroft 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was a real William Wallace who opposed Edward Longshanks's rule of Scotland. Yes, he wandered around with his army and provoked a rebellion.
He was captured, drawn and quartered, and placed in various public places -- to deter other rebels. It didn't work. Eventually Scotland became independent of England.
However, much of the specific plot and characterization of the movie is fabricated, for emotional effect. It's basically a fictional story that uses some real history to support its setting, meant to move and inspire you.
(For example, Robert the Bruce, I think, wasn't the young idealist historically who "found himself" after Wallace's sacrifice; he was a more crafty fighter who picked away at England until finally they gave in.)
So there was no love affair, no baby, none of that actually happened.
But it's a GREAT story. :) The characters and acting alone is worth watching over and over.
2006-06-09 06:06:09 · answer #6 · answered by Jennywocky 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Often when someone says that a movie is based on a true story, it's very, very loosely based on one. Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on a true story. Problem is the guy it's based on was more of a grave robber than anything else. Oh and he never used a chainsaw.
2016-03-26 23:15:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The movie is loosely based on fact. The baby was fiction.
2006-06-09 06:00:31 · answer #8 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What Tosh.
It's about as true as American versions of the second world war.
Gibson's character was dead and never ever met the queen.
It's Hollywood pal, not history.
Try reading a book.
2006-06-09 06:06:08 · answer #9 · answered by Mr T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, except the real Bruce did not have a bad accent
2006-06-09 05:59:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋