![]() That's quite a long time for someone's legacy to inspire such passionate action, though the plethora of Wallace monuments throughout Scotland may indicate otherwise. For starters, it took place in 1314, nearly a decade after Wallace's death, according to the BBC. However, there are some key differences between how the battle is portrayed on screen and how it actually went down. If nothing else, nobles in kilts were more of a 19th century fashion affectation, according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kilts weren't exactly popular wear for nobles, all of this meaning that Wallace and his fellows almost certainly wouldn't have worn them. However, if all of this is bumming you out, you can take heart in knowing that tartan patterns and kilts were definitely an established thing eventually, though not really until after Wallace's time, says Historic UK. But it would be nearly 100 years before clan tartans became a thing, helped along by weavers looking to make a profit and sketchy historians who weren't above making up their sources. In 1739, Highland soldiers were organized in the British army by region, with regiments given specific tartans. Though it seems like an entrenched part of Scottish culture today, the idea of tartans that were assigned to different clans didn't really start until the early 19th century or, if you really stretch the definition, the mid-18th century (via Collector's Weekly). Maybe they should have made a movie about her instead. ![]() In fact, she was a strong-willed and powerful ruler after the abdication and death of Edward II, to the point where she became known as the "she-wolf of France." Her bold moves and attempts to rule England as her young son and future king grew up set her apart as a singular medieval woman. What's more, the film really does Isabella a disservice by making her a typically swooning love interest. She certainly wouldn't have been in the country, much less be of an age where she could negotiate terms or carry on a torrid love affair with the Scottish rebel, as "Braveheart" really, really wants you to believe. The 12-year-old Isabella wouldn't marry the 23-year-old Edward II until 1308, nearly three years after Wallace was executed. In fact, according to History Extra, she wasn't even officially linked to the English royal family at that time. For one, there's the rather obvious fact that Isabella would have been about nine years old when Wallace died in 1305. However, Isabella's role is one of the biggest inaccuracies in the entire film. He would spend the rest of his reign as a beleaguered, unloved king. The inexperienced Edward II's lack of interest in making war allowed Bruce to begin his takeover, culminating with Edward's humiliating defeat at the 1314 Battle of Bannockburn and the loss of English control over Scotland. Per the World History Encyclopedia, Edward I died in 1307. He proved to be an unpopular and ineffectual king, especially after losing a key battle to Robert the Bruce. And, no, there's no evidence that he tossed his son's male lover out of a window.Įdward II is perhaps best remembered for allegedly having relationships with male favorites, namely Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser (via English Heritage). Yet, he was also apparently a loving husband, going so far as to build a series of crosses in memory of his beloved wife, Eleanor. notes that he was an uncompromising military man who had already conquered Wales before the whole Scotland affair got going. Yet, while Edward I could be ruthless, he probably wasn't cinematically villainous. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |