Was Prince Edward gay? - Braveheart (1995) Discussion

Yes, it was quite obvious he was gay. Even King Longshank referred to him as "my gentle son".

reply

He had at least 6 children so if he was gay he obviously swung both ways. His supposed lover Gaveston also was married and had children.
Remember that medieval chroniclers often suggested certain people were homosexual to discredit their opponents and that the screenplay of Braveheart is about as accurate as Scooby Doo when it comes to the real histories of Wallace, Edward I and Edward II.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

reply

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

He had at least 6 children

Including at least one by a mistress, so it isn't even possible to argue that he only slept with a woman out of dynastic duty.

reply

[–] wielderofspoons 8 years ago

Even King Longshank referred to him as "my gentle son"

More obviously, the leader in York refers to him as "my sodomite cousin".

Historically, it's a matter of some debate. Yes he was married to a woman, but they were unhappy to the point where she became involved in his eventual death.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

Yes he was married to a woman, but they were unhappy to the point where she became involved in his eventual death.

That doesn't follow: thousands of women throughout history have been unhappy with wholly hetero husbands, up to and including the point of murdering them!

And actually Edward and Isabella seem to have been as happy together as any couple in a royal arranged marriage could reasonably have been expected to be, for many years. They married in 1308 when Isabella was 12 years old and their first child was born a bit over four years later, probably because - as was recommended good practice in medieval child marriages - he waited to consummate the marriage till she was mature enough for childbearing. They had a second son in 1316 and over the next 5 years two, possibly three daughters (plus Isabella seems to have had at least one miscarriage in 1313). The fact that they carried on conjugal relations for so long after doing their necessary duty by producing the statutory 'heir and a spare' implies a steady amicable relationship; it's only after 1321 that things seem to have broken down between them. Thirteen years is comfortably more than the average length of marriages in Britain today!

reply

[–] wielderofspoons 8 years ago

That doesn't follow: thousands of women throughout history have been unhappy with wholly hetero husbands, up to and including the point of murdering them!

Obviously, and Edward II had plenty of faults besides (by the outlook of the time) him not being heterosexual. But I think it's still at least possible that him having a sexual desire incompatible with a relationship with a woman was a factor (large or small) in the decline of his relations with Isabella.

Thirteen years is comfortably more than the average length of marriages in Britain today!

I'm sure, but marriage at the time (and even until just a hundred years ago or so) was generally meant to last for the whole life of either of the people. "Til death do us part". That their marriage ended at all and that (on top of that) she should be involved in murdering him is evidence of something being or going very wrong.

reply

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

besides (by the outlook of the time) him not being heterosexual.

Actually that’s not true. Whatever people thought at the time about his relationships with Gaveston and the Despensers (and that’s utterly unclear; there is no convincing evidence that anybody at the time considered these to be ‘unnatural’ rather than just socially and politically unacceptable), there isn’t a whisper of a suggestion in his lifetime or for hundreds of years afterwards that the children of his wife and his mistress might not be his, or any hints that anybody found it surprising that he had managed to sire them.

But I think it's still at least possible that him having a sexual desire incompatible with a relationship with a woman was a factor (large or small) in the decline of his relations with Isabella.

No, it really isn't. Quite apart from the existence of his bastard son Adam Fitzroy, which proves he did at least sometimes have purely recreational sex with women (as did Piers Gaveston, incidentally), for 13 years he clearly had a relationship with Isabella that was not only productive of children way beyond his dynastic obligations to sire an heir, but unusually affectionate by the standards of royal marriages: in their surviving letters he habitually addressed her as 'dear heart' while in her own letters she called him 'my very sweet heart' (mon tresdoutz coer), which was not usual for royal letters.

That their marriage ended at all and that (on top of that) she should be involved in murdering him is evidence of something being or going very wrong.

Well, by 1326 something was demonstrably very wrong: viz. Edward had mismanaged his realm into civil war under the influence of the Despensers, who Isabella (like most of the nobility) certainly hated: particularly Hugh the Younger. (Incidentally, she doesn't seem to have minded Piers Gaveston at all, so it was certainly not a case of 'hating his gay lovers'). She had been made the catspaw in the Despensers' revenge on some of the Marcher lords who opposed him; she had watched Edward and the Despensers cock up a campaign against Scotland in a way that had obliged her to scuttle for her life; Despenser II had persuaded Edward to confiscate her personal lands and sack her French servants. When Edward sent her to France to negotiate for help with her brother - which itself shows how much he trusted her - she was at her wits' end how to get rid of them and get Edward's reign back on track. Incidentally, she consistently said that that was her objective in allying with Mortimer, and that imprisoning and deposing her husband was never part of her agenda. Well, she would, wouldn't she; but it is certainly true that even after his imprisonment she continued to send affectionate letters and presents to him.

And actually there is no clear evidence that anyone murdered Edward at all, still less that Isabella was involved or even aware of the deed. (Indeed, at least one reputable historian doesn’t believe he died in Berkeley Castle at all, but lived out his life on the Continent. I don't buy that one myself, but the known facts available to us don't actually rule out that as a possibility.)

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 8 years ago

That doesn't follow: thousands of women throughout history have been unhappy with wholly hetero husbands, up to and including the point of murdering them!

No, it does follow, in a way.

Sure, there have been purely hetro unhappy marriages, but there was a suspicion (by contemporaries) of Edward II's sexuality. If he had a happy marriage it still wouldn't prove anything, but being married to someone who you believed to be perverted and committing unspeakable sins (opinions of the time, not mine) would undoubtedly result in an unhappy marriage.

So, in of itself, no an unhappy union says nothing, but an unhappy union with suspicions of contemporaries does strengthen the argument somewhat.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

There was a suspicion (by contemporaries) of Edward II's sexuality.

What's your evidence for that? I don't know of any evidence from his own lifetime, and I've already pointed out that statements made after his imprisonment and death have no value as evidence.

And all the actual evidence (the amount of time they spent together,the fact that they sometimes actually had sex when respectable Christian royals ought to have been refraining, the steady production of children over many years) points to a marriage that was, as arranged royal marriages go, extremely happy - at the lowest reckoning, perfectly satisfactory - for well over a decade, till the younger Desoenser came to dominate Edward's policies in a catastrophic way, and everything went t*ts-up including Edward's and Isabella's relationship.

Again, if you have any evidence that their marriage wasn't perfectly happy up till then, do say.

reply

[–] jco41566 8 years ago

Yes, all English are gay!

reply

[–] The_Ultimate_Hippo 8 years ago

I think you hit the nail on the head.

"I really wish Gia and Claire had became Tanner" - Honeybeefine

reply

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

'I think you hit the nail on the head.'

or a red hot poker up the bum!

It's that man again!!

reply

[–] CovertThunder 8 years ago

Like a lot of the movie, there's the movie's world and then there's reality.

In the movie, Prince Edward is definitively gay. He's repulsed by women, has a male "best friend" he frequently exchanges glances with, etc. King Longshanks and a few other characters even reference his homosexuality, and the princess in turn is shown as being repulsed and disappointed by her marriage to Prince Edward.

Historically, Prince Edward MAY have been gay. Gaveston was close to Prince Edward in real-life, and while Edward did enjoy his company to such an extent that tensions arose between the Edward and the English barons over Gaveston (although that was more because of politics), there's nothing to suggest that anything existed between them. In fact, there are only suggestions and accusations from the time period that claim Edward was homosexual instead of letters or records, which at the time was often used as an accusation against rivals or opponents.

Gaveston himself was married with children, and Edward's marriage to Isabella produced enough children to suggest that he was heterosexual. As far as arranged royal marriages go, Edward and Isabella have been suggested as having an unusually happy marriage compared to similar couples.

It almost makes me wonder why the film made Edward so obviously gay in the first place when in real life it probably wouldn't have even entered people's minds in the time period. The only thing I can come up with is that Wallace's wife dies early in the film and there needed to be a love interest for Mel Gibson because of course there needed to be. There's also how we needed to have a Scottish child on the throne of the Scot-hating English, and having a couple with an exceptionally happy relationship would lessen the chance that one of those kids would be Wallace's, although that would also negate the Prince being so willing to send the Princess into harm's way in the first place.

In conclusion: In the movie, yes, Prince Edward was not just gay, he was painfully obviously gay. In real-life, it's possible that he MAY have been gay, although it's based on accusations and suggestions.

Can't be too careful with all those weirdos running around.

reply

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

In real-life, it's possible that he MAY have been gay, although it's based on accusations and suggestions.

True. And, significantly, the accusations and suggestions do not appear to have been made in his lifetime. Granted, it's often not a smart move to make accusations against a ruling king, but medieval people had a well-established tactic for that: they simply made the accusations against the king's favourites or 'evil counsellors'. But the most varied and extravagant accusations were made against Piers Gaveston and the younger Despenser at the time - everything from trying to assassinate Isabella and her son; having their goons break the arms and legs of a widowed noblewoman; and stealing Edward's treasure and shipping it abroad - yet nobody mentions sexual misbehaviour at all.

So if nobody said he was a sodomite at the time, why was everybody saying and believing it a generation or so later? Simple: it was a dreadful sin to pull down a divinely-anointed king, and one that would draw down the wrath of God not only on the perpetrators but on the whole kingdom where such an act had been tolerated - unless said king had been guilty of a mortal sin that would have wholly estranged him from God's favour. Something like heresy, or, well, sodomy. The beauty of that as an accusation well after the event was that not only was it quite un-disprovable, but everybody in the kingdom had a strong incentive to believe it. 'Relax, people, God isn't going to strike us with plague or famine for deposing our rightful king, because the b*gger was a b*gger.'

reply

[–] samserious-67819 8 years ago

He was probably bisexual. He was way too attached to some of his "friends". They overdid his gayness in this movie tho. But his wife was really hot here.

reply

[–] samhmd-7489 7 years ago

Thing is, in real life Prince Edward was actually a tall and muscular man. He wasn't weak, and he definitely wasn't a coward.

Truthfully, his major flaw was that he was TOO brave. At least once he was happy to fight to the death and his own men had to drag him from battle.

reply