MovieChat Forums > Braveheart (1995) Discussion > Bothered by his affair with Isabella...

Bothered by his affair with Isabella...


Why would Wallace even have an affair with her?

His whole drive in the film was for the love of Murron. She will forever be his beloved and he betrays that love for one night of nookie with a lady that he only just met.

It just bugs me a little. I would have much preferred his character to have more of a subtle relationship with Isabella.

I can go as far as them both having a mutual attraction with each other, but not to the point of having sex and 'Loving each other'.

Gibson should've shown their affection for each other in a more implied, platonic way, instead of flat out acting on those affections to the point of consummation.

Call me crazy, but I just didn't like how Wallace fell in love with Isabella after being shown how much in love he was with Murron.



----
"97-X...Bam....The future of...Rock 'n' Roll."

reply

It never happened in real life. Isabella was only 9 when Wallace was executed. I agree with you that it likely would have been better to portray a more subtle relationship between the two, but it's a movie, meant to entertain and not to be historically accurate. Also, to be honest, I don't think (in the movie) that Wallace loved Isabella, at least not in the way he loved Murron. Isabella reminded Wallace of Murron, and so he slept with her, and likely felt some affection for her, but that's it. In the end, he was not willing to stay with her and preferred to die and go to Murron (in the execution scene, they show Murron walking among the crowd, and Wallace's happy reaction that soon he'll be with her).

reply

Yeah, I hear ya. Agreed....well said.



----
"97-X...Bam....The future of...Rock 'n' Roll."

reply

She lusted him.. he lusted her.. its a movie.

He changed after Murron died could no longer be a simple peaceful man living out his days.

She helped him, She seemed to be understanding to his cause, He knew she was into him. More then he was really into her... and one thing lead to another.

Doesn't bother me at all. Makes sense she was chasing him and he went along with it because of lust and her helpfullness to his cause.

reply

I could not agree with you more!

What drove him to such exploits is supposed to be his love for his murdered wife, Murron. Under the circumstances, the LAST thing he would do is sleep with another woman and soil her memory and his love for her. And the last thing his vision of Murron would do is smile at him during his execution, because the whole depth of their connection had been rendered pointless and hollow by the fact that he had had sexual relations with another woman.
I shake my head at that every single time:viewers have to be utterly stupid to feel that his connection to Murron had any sort of value at that stage. And that 'stage', mind you, is supposed to be the peak of the movie. Talk about a major flaw on what was otherwise a very good movie.

reply

Thank you! 😊

Glad someone sees it that way, also.

Good post.

I'm glad Wallace was able to feel and find love again. I'm just not too thrilled with the *physical* part of that love with Isabella. Like I said, I had no problem with them feeling affection towards one another, I just didn't like how they *acted* on those feelings.

It totally undermines his (true) love with Murron and renders his cause and motivation *for* that love feel empty and, frankly, artificial. It also makes his beautiful dream with his wife pointless. In *my* opinion, anyway.

Granted, it's only a minor gripe for me, but it's still "there" and it bugs me a little. I guess it always will.


----
"I learned that in prison, you like? You white trash piece-a shìt."

reply

He needed to gain back his humanity. Isabella showed him he could settle down and have kids. WW said this to someone else. That's why he agreed to meet RtB at the lion's den.

reply

It always bothered me as a kid as well because he told Murron I will love you my whole life, you and no other. I guess he hadn’t had any action in a while and honestly you’d have to be gay to reject Sophie Marceau (cough cough)

reply

Okay, Boomer 😉

reply

It's dumb, because Isabella was 4 years old when Wallace's rebellion took place, and she spent the entire time in France. She would have never come near him, even if she had been an adult and in England at the time.

Basically, this entire film was an ego trip for Mel Gibson, and he wanted to be the tragic hero that slept with all the beautiful women in the film, and both he and the princess got revenge on Longshanks by getting her pregnant by his most hated enemy, which never happened in real life. I'm sad to say this, but 80% of that movie is fiction.

Her relationship with Prince Edward was nowhere near as nasty as what happened in the film, and she had no reason to sleep with other men besides him. While history does hint that he may have had a male lover, Edward was not a wimpy little faggot that slept exclusively with men and hated women like the guy in the film. He was actually a warrior and produced several children with Isabella before he was deposed. If he had a gay relationship, he was extremely discreet about it, or we would have heard about it from tattling historical documents by now. At worst, he was bisexual and not a well-liked king, hence why Isabella did a coup against him later on.

reply

"Her relationship with Prince Edward was nowhere near as nasty as what happened in the film, and she had no reason to sleep with other men besides him."

Oh I dont know about that. She wasn't known as the She Wolf of France for nothing. Edward and Galveston were known lovers(we know this from Edward and Isabellas disastrous marriage dinner feast where Galveston wore Royal purple and Isabella's jewelry.They spent the whole feast sitting next to each laughing and joking while ignoring Isabella and her family, an insult so grave Isabellas family walked out) and after he was executed by the barons Edward turned to Hugh Dispenser the Younger. This led to the Dispenser War and a very gruesome execution for Hugh. Isabella went on a diplomatic mission to France in 1325 and it is widely considered that this is when she took Roger Mortimer as a lover. The two of them returned to England and forced Edward II to abdicate in favor of his son Edward III with Isabella as regent.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France

There also some really good docs on YouTube about her and Edward II

https://youtu.be/iYBZVSShBIE

https://youtu.be/3ftgbUJ3ZLc

Hugh the Younger

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Despenser_the_Younger

I'm A bit of History nerd especially Britain so I love discussing it :)

reply

Thank you for the links.

reply

No problem!

reply

The fact that Edward II fathered children with Isabella is not an indication of his sexuality. Many people historically believed to be homosexual (and probably would be out and proud in present times) were in heterosexual marriages with children. Some used marriage as a cover; some were married to continue the family name. Philippe, Duke of Orleans (the brother to Louis XIV), was a flaming homosexual, but he still married (twice) and fathered multiple children.

Hugh Despenser was almost certainly homosexual -- there are extant historical documents corroborating his preferences in the bedroom. And while he is not present here, he was once referred to as "the king's husband," so there were probably plenty of rumors floating around. People didn't suddenly start wondering about Edward's sexuality in 1995.

reply

I'm just saying, it was inaccurate to say that Edward II was exclusively homosexual. He was the Crown Prince and couldn't afford not to have heirs. Men like him had to briefly put aside their desires to keep the family going, or even became bisexual for practical reasons. Nobody in the court cared if he was gay, so long as he was discreet and put on a good show of marrying a royal beard and having children with her.

reply

True. Very few people would have been exclusively homosexual. The concept of homosexuality that we have today -- of a person who is romantically or sexually attracted to a person of the same gender and considers entering into monogamous, long-term relationship with said person didn't exist seven hundred years ago (or four hundred, or two hundred, or even one hundred). People viewed homosexual sex as specific act that a person chose to commit (or not). The idea of being exclusively homosexual because you were simply born that way was a foreign concept.

Edward II, James VI/I, Philippe of Orleans -- it's possible that they all would have been exclusively homosexual today. But in their times, they would have been expected - as heirs to their families - to marry and produce children. They all understood that their duty to their countries came first, regardless of who they preferred in the bedchamber. And in this regard, they succeeded. Every English monarch since is descended from Edward (including James). And if they ever bring the monarchy back to France, it will be given to Philippe's descendants.

And again, Braveheart didn't make up the idea that Edward preferred men, or that Isabella was unfaithful. It's true that many historians have debated Edward's sexuality, but they've been doing it for centuries. And Isabella DID mess around (but not with Wallace).

reply

The affair is bad enough. Her having his baby is just off the charts.

reply