Adam gave me this book
for my birthday, to support my ongoing quest to be the world's foremost lay-expert on British history, with an emphasis on British royalty. Okay, okay, so I have been primarily focused on the Tudor era (sorry, but Queen Elizabeth is too cool to stray far from for long), but I was lured out of Elizabethan England for the pleasure of experiencing another era of British history. And it hasn't disappointed me!!!What has disappointed me is the warped version of history set forth in the 1995 movie, "Braveheart," based upon the life of the Scot, William Wallace and his foe, Edward the Longshanks of England. When "Braveheart" came out, I went to see it in the theatre with my sister Sarah, and without exaggeration, I can honestly claim that we wailed like hired mourners through the last half-hour of the movie. I was absolutely enthralled by the love stories, especially, and I thought the character of Princess Isabella to be lovely and brave, as seen in these wonderful screen captures from the movie:
So imagine my absolute dismay when, only 20 pages into my book, I've discovered the complete falsehood of the story!Therefore, I find it my solemn duty as a foremost lay-expert-in-training to set the record straight...
First of all, Edward the Longshanks (or Edward I) wasn't exactly as nasty as Mel Gibson wanted us to believe. Yeah, the guy apparently had a pretty famous temper, but he wasn't cruel and sadistic. In fact, he brought a lot of stability to England and is considered by many historians to be one of the better kings out of the whole lot. Of course, the battles with Scotland are all-too-true and frankly, Longshanks shoulda just let them be (duh). However (and I'm not defending him here, just trying to provide context), it's actually true that the Scots weren't exactly pleasant to the English either during that time and were quite fond of swooping down into the border towns and wreaking havoc, doing their share of raping and pillaging and whatnot. So, Longshanks' actions can historically be viewed as either just defending what was his and/or a pre-emptive strike. Moving on.
Edward the II, his son, was not exactly the, um, overt homosexual that was portrayed. Indeed, Edward was rumored to have had at least two ongoing love affairs with men, on whom he bestowed ridiculous amounts of money throughout their time in his favor, and it's more than possible that he had homosexual relations with them. However, he wasn't a frail little sick puppy as he's shown in the movie. In fact, he was quite the handsome fellow, built like a warrior with a presence commanding enough to demand the respect of his peers. And, he and Queen Isabella actually had 5 pregnancies and 4 surviving children together, so it can't be assumed that all those rumors about him were necessarily totally true. His dad didn't toss his favorite fellow out a window, and he wasn't that simpering crybaby who was ordered about by his wife.
And speaking of his wife, Queen Isabella actually came to England as Edward's wife when she was 12 years old -- not the beautiful 25-ish we see her portrayed as in the movie. She was really nothing more than a little girl, and most importantly, her father-in-law Longshanks was actually dead by the time she arrived! Now if that doesn't spin your head where "Braveheart" is concerned, I don't know what will. Indeed, she was still a little girl by the time William Wallace was executed in England, so sadly, their love story simply could not have happened. Sigh.
One final note, though: I'm a firm believer that true honest-to-goodness history is MORE INTERESTING than fiction. And I believe Isabelle's true story will bear this out. The author is only letting slip little tidbits of clues as she moves toward the controversial stuff, but so far I've gleaned that this lady was quite the warrior herself and she's been given quite the bad rap throughout history, having been accused of some pretty naughty actions, including having her husband murdered! However, the author of this book has promised "the true story," which she says will show Queen Isabella to be a great lady who was the scapegoat for the crimes of others. In any case, I can't wait to find out!
6 comments:
Of course I applaud your ongoing exploration of history (at least I have one sister who acknowledges the existence of the discipline), and I share your love of British history in particular (though I prefer the nineteenth century). What really surprises and concerns me about your comments is that you seem surprised that an historical film is not historically accurate. I wrote a paper about the motivations of Hollywood producers/directors/etc. in changing history in their films in my Historiography class my senior year at Franklin. "Braveheart" is just one of a slew of movies that don't get their facts straight. However, there are a few movies out there that do a pretty darn good job of depicting the truth - "Glory" is, I think, the best example. The sad thing about it is that not many people will ever dig deeper like you are to find out what was what.
Be,
In case you couldn't tell, that big long post was from me.
Wormie
Wormie,
Thank you for your support! It's true, I was a little surprised...maybe because Mel Gibson went to extraordinary lengths to get "The Passion of the Christ" perfectly Biblical and above reproach (and that he achieved, and then some, if I can say so!). So to go back and revisit a favorite movie from this perspective (believing Mel would have been a bit more honest in his portrayals!) and from the lens of the real histories that played out, yep, you called it, I was surprised. I knew William Wallace was the real deal in his day and age, and all my research shows his "truth" to be just as real (if not more so) than how Mel brought him to life for film, with the exceptions of the love stories. In fact, Alison Weir, the author of Queen Isabella, even talks about Wallace and Robert the Bruce with a bit of discernible awe in her tone when referencing them. So, at least I can still watch Braveheart and not be completely upset at being misled.
Speaking of movies that don't get their facts straight, though, don't even get me started on "Elizabeth." Quite frankly, I think they took the most brilliant actress they could get for that role, namely Cate Blanchett, coifed and painted her just right to look just like my beloved Elizabeth, and gave her ALL THE WRONG WORDS TO SAY AND ALL THE WRONG THINGS TO DO. There is so much wrong in that movie, it drives me insane.
Anyhoo, I don't know why Hollywood would go to such lengths to make historical films and then give a flying flip about accuracy.
Thanks for the comment Wormie!
Love,
Be
This book looks great, I can't wait to read it! I share your love and adoration of Elizabeth, but this woman isabella sounds interesting. I had just taken a english history course of some sort when braveheart came out, so i knew that it was not historically accurate in many ways, but i didn't know anything about isabella.
Christa-darling,
Yes, do read it! You'll see on the back cover (I think) that it was Shakespeare or Marlowe that began referring to her as "that she-wolf" but Alison Weir (author of this book) swears that this is an unfair moniker she's garnered from stodgy egotistical male historians who didn't do their proper research!!! Anyhoo, I'm about 100 pages into it, and even though it can get dry in sections (as any history book can), the facts are so compelling that she is quickly becoming my second favorite queen of England (well, maybe third, since I really really love "my version" of Anne Boleyn).
Let me know what you think!
hmm a blog with educational properties.
refreshing!
hey i think i learnt something.
:)
nice space.
Post a Comment