I doubt it- unless their birth years were way off. Queen Isabella lived from ca. 1295--1358. William Wallace lived from ca. 1272-1305. Queen Isabella was married to Edward II (son of Longshanks) to help ease relations with France. Edward II was said to be very cruel to his queen. Eventually Isabella freed a man named Sir Roger Mortimer from the Tower of London and helped him escape to France to help her brother Charles. She later escaped to France also. With the help of Charles, Isabella and Sir Roger raised and army to overthrow Edward and his advisor Hugh Despenser (said to be his lover). The story is more detailed than that, but that's my understanding.
No. Braveheart, whilst being an exciting film, was full of historical inaccuracies. Isabella's firstborn, Edward III was born on 13 November 1312, William Wallace was executed on 23 August 1305. So a physical impossibility!
William Wallace really existed.
he is believed to be loaded because he was the second son of a minor noble but noone really knows.
the story of William Wallace is very much like the film; you just remove every single little detail of story, scenery, dialogue, and a good bit of the characters, voila.
yes. Prince Eward II is William Wallace's child because he had an affair with Princess Isabella the french princess who was married to King Eward I. She had the child a few months after William Wallace's death. The above statement is FALSE. Isabelle of France didn't give birth to Edward II, she was MARRIED TO HIM. Edward I (often referred to as "longshanks") was Father of Edward II, who married the French Princess Isabelle, but not until long after Wallace had been executed and two years after the death of Longshanks. Contrary to "Braveheart", she never met, let alone had a relationship with, either man.
No. Braveheart, whilst being an exciting film, was full of historical inaccuracies. Isabella's firstborn, Edward III was born on 13 November 1312, William Wallace was executed on 23 August 1305. So a physical impossibility!
William Wallace really existed.
he is believed to be loaded because he was the second son of a minor noble but noone really knows.
the story of William Wallace is very much like the film; you just remove every single little detail of story, scenery, dialogue, and a good bit of the characters, voila.
Nothing very exciting. It really is a rather boring year. France abandoned Naples and Isabella I died.
yes. Prince Eward II is William Wallace's child because he had an affair with Princess Isabella the french princess who was married to King Eward I. She had the child a few months after William Wallace's death. The above statement is FALSE. Isabelle of France didn't give birth to Edward II, she was MARRIED TO HIM. Edward I (often referred to as "longshanks") was Father of Edward II, who married the French Princess Isabelle, but not until long after Wallace had been executed and two years after the death of Longshanks. Contrary to "Braveheart", she never met, let alone had a relationship with, either man.
In "Braveheart," the character of Princess Isabelle, who is portrayed as having a romantic connection with William Wallace, is a fictionalized version of historical events. There is no historical evidence to suggest that William Wallace and Isabelle had any romantic relationship or that she became pregnant by him. The film takes significant creative liberties with history for dramatic purposes. In reality, Isabelle was married to King Edward II of England, and her relationship with Wallace is largely a fabrication for the storyline.
Difficult question, it really is not know if Wallace was married or not,, even his own birth date is not certain and is quoted as being between 1260 and 1278.. However Marion Braidfute has been suggested.
No Lauren Wallace is a student in Britain.
No, it is unlikely that the two ever even met.
The character isn't real, but there is probably someone named Isabella Swan somewhere.
Bella swan is really Isabella swan ----- Her full name is Isabella Marie Swan.