Alan , after being involvedin several skirmishes with the English over the years and his son Williamwas a full- .
William Wallace’sfather was not killed by the English when Wallace was a child but he was verymuch alive when William Wallace was fighting the English. Alan Wallace was a Scottish knight and noble andnot a “commoner with his own lands” as the movie suggest. Wallace’s family isshown as a poor peasant family who were killed when Wallace was just a boy butthis is again false William Wallace’s father, Alan Wallace was the real name ofWallace’s father as stated in The Lübeck letter and the Ragman Rolls, notMalcolm as the film portrays In the film William Wallace originsare completely falsewhich happened 11 years earlier inthe film. The nobles recognized that they didn’t have army to opposed Edward Ihad he decide to invade Scotland instead the nobles after extensivedeliberation finally agreed to recognized Edward’s over lordship. King EdwardI then finally awarded the Scottishcrown to John de Baliol. John de Baliol quickly found out that he had no real power andwas essentially a puppet king of the English. He soon revolted against KingEdward I.
Inresponse Edward I launched his armies to Scotland and in 1296 defeated theScottish army in the Battle of Dunbar which resulted in English occupation ofthe Scottish Lowlands. Edward I demanded the full surrendered of John De Baliol and thekingdom of Scotland. John De Baliol, king of Scotland renounced his kingdom over to Edward. It wasn’tuntil 1296, 16 years after the beginning of the film 1280, when Edward “claimedthe throne of Scotland for himself”. Also, another mistake in the film was thatKing Edward I did not invite the Scottish nobles for “talks of truce” that waspresented in the film but he presented himself as arbitrator between theScottish nobles that took place in 1292, twelve years after the film beginningtook place.