| |
Scottish Historical InaccuraciesMainly thanks to Hollywood, but also due to simple ignorance of the facts, many people (Scottish and not) have a rather skewed view of Scottish history. I'll try to correct some of the most common misapprehensions. For a more general overview of Scottish history, this site is a good place to start: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/bytime/scotland/ 1. England conquered Scotland Though England tried its best at various points before the seventeenth century, it never actually conquered Scotland. The two countries were brought together as the United Kingdom when Queen Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 leaving no immediate heir. Her nearest Protestant successor was King James VI of Scotland (who was the son of her cousin - Mary, Queen of Scots). By default the two crowns were then united, and despite great strain over the next two centuries remain so to this day. The two countries' parliaments followed over a century later in 1707 when the Scottish parliament dissolved itself (despite heated objections from the Scottish people) and Scottish MPs were admitted to Westminster. However, Scotland retained (and retains) its own education and legal systems and established Church. 2. Braveheart A fine example of Hollywood's reluctance to let fact get in the way of melodrama, Braveheart takes Scottish history, then ignores anything that was inconveniently undramatic or complicated. Firstly, William Wallace did not get Queen Isabella pregnant (and thus is not the direct ancestor of the present Queen). Apart from the fact that they never actually met in real life, far less had sex, Wallace died in 1305 when Isabella was 13 and hadn't married Edward II. Indeed, Isabella's son wasn't even born until 1312, which would have made for a rather long pregnancy even if they had met. Edward I did not die as Wallace was being executed, and did in fact live for another two years, finally toppling off the mortal coil as he rode north for another attempt at subjugating the Scots. Wallace himself was not a peaceful farmer driven to rebellion by the murder of his wife; he was a minor nobleman who had been carrying out a guerrilla-style war with the English for many years before the events of the film. Robert the Bruce and Wallace were enemies (Bruce being one of the two main claimants to the then vacant Scottish throne, and Wallace being one of the other claimant's supporters) and Bruce would hardly have invoked Wallace's name at a battle fought nine years after the latter man's death. There are many more errors in the film, but I think that's enough for now… basically don't treat any of it seriously. Safer not to. |