Rob Roy

[staticsan]

Rob Roy is VERY GOOD for looks, design, costume, and period history.
As for the precise events of Robert MacGregor (Campbell)'s life, I simply don't know enough about the truth. The movie is reflective of many of the popular legends of Rob Roy.

I haven't seen BraveHeart but I have seen Rob Roy. I'm gratified that no-one has questioned his existence because Robert Roy MacGregor certainly did exist. I'm one his (many) descendants, in fact; my mother's maiden name is MacGregor and an aunt of hers did some research many years ago to show the continuous line.

I can also tell you that the tartan they use is not the same as any of the modern MacGregor tartans. But what people do forget is that the tartan designs changed often over the years and were not standardised until after Rob Roy himself had died of old age.

Although it's a good film, there is some dispute over the accuracy of the story, particularly the ending. Rob Roy actually spent some years in prison and only obtained his freedom through a royal pardon (there are records for both). So Hollywood typically took some liberties.

Wade.

[Warhoover]

Wade, that was the basic meat of this thread. We were talking about how Hollywood makes a movie and how others want to tear it apart because of the liberties that they do take with history. Many just don't just see it for what it is, just a movie based on some historical character or event. Whether its Braveheart or Rob Roy or anything dealing with a historical figure, event or even revisionist history. Remember its a movie, enjoy it for what it is and that is all it is.

[Warlock]

I only watch movies for entertainment. If it is well made, I can get into it. If not, well I wasted my money.

[staticsan]

Wade, that was the basic meat of this thread. We were talking about how Hollywood makes a movie and how others want to tear it apart because of the liberties that they do take with history.

Well, I read the thread well, then didn't I? :-) I knew some of the history it was based on and contributed some points of comparison.

I did enjoy it, BTW. Haven't seen it in a while, though.

Wade.

[MacWage]

My understanding is that the movie is only supposed to be reflective of the pre-Jacobite Rebellion relation of Rob and Montrose. It covers their "falling out" and how Rob (a devout Jacobite) became protected by Campbell of Argyle (not a Jacobite and strong supporter of Queen Anne and the Hanovers).

Note, there is much about Queen Anne being on the verge of death and the related succession issues, but nothing on her death.

It is NOT on the whole life, just the beginning of the troubles.

It is like Braveheart covered Wallace up until the death of Hesilrig (the sherriff) or Sterling Bridge.

So, some of the questions on Rob Roy don't hold water (try to expand the time coverage much further-> till his old age).

Woodsheal, that book is on its way to be through Amazon Used books!
(now, to find time to read it!)

[David White]

[QUOTE=staticsan;327310
I can also tell you that the tartan they use is not the same as any of the modern MacGregor tartans. Wade.[/QUOTE]

Like this one?

[McClef]

The period was certainly one full of different loyalties in Scotland.

Anne was the last qualifying (ie Protestant) Stewart and had failed to produce any surviving heirs. No less than eighteen pregnancies had produced either stillborn children, or ones that died in infancy apart from William, Duke of Gloucester who died aged only 11.

Only the Act of Union in 1707 had brought Scotland officially into accepting the Hanoverian succession and it still wasn't a popular prospect.

Both Montrose and Argyll were supporters of it however and both were to be showered with honours in later life. At the time the film is set both were also only in their thirties (which you couldn't, even charitably, claim for Hurt and Keir).

So simply enjoy the film for what it is, not for an accurate historical account!

[macwilkin]

The period was certainly one full of different loyalties in Scotland.

Anne was the last qualifying (ie Protestant) Stewart and had failed to produce any surviving heirs. No less than eighteen pregnancies had produced either stillborn children, or ones that died in infancy apart from William, Duke of Gloucester who died aged only 11.

Only the Act of Union in 1707 had brought Scotland officially into accepting the Hanoverian succession and it still wasn't a popular prospect.

Both Montrose and Argyll were supporters of it however and both were to be showered with honours in later life. At the time the film is set both were also only in their thirties (which you couldn't, even charitably, claim for Hurt and Keir).

So simply enjoy the film for what it is, not for an accurate historical account!

Actually, the film does a pretty good job in portraying what you've just described. (with the exception of Montrose and Argyll's ages) -- there's a great line in the first of the movie where Montrose and Argyll are discussing Queen Anne, and Montrose makes a comment about how one would hope that a field so frequently plowed would yield a crop!

T.

[staticsan]

Like this one?

I don't recognise that one. MacGregor is a red/green tartan, not blue.

Wade.

[McClef]

Actually, the film does a pretty good job in portraying what you've just described. (with the exception of Montrose and Argyll's ages) -- there's a great line in the first of the movie where Montrose and Argyll are discussing Queen Anne, and Montrose makes a comment about how one would hope that a field so frequently plowed would yield a crop!

T.

The general setting was quite good in that regard. Mixing bits of truth with a lot of fiction and then having the history buffs like me and others try to spot it in analysis afterwards is fun!

But that's afterwards, you have to watch and enjoy the film for what it is which is goodie v baddie entertainment with kilts thrown in!

The comment you cite was certainly more delicate than some other ones in the film!