The Kings Speech

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,529
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Anyone seen it yet?

I am a big Colin Firth and Geofery Rush fan, with Colin's win at the Golden Globes last night for best actor I am even more intrigued by this movie.
 
I thought the movie was great, although not entirely accurate. Some of the scenes are very painful. Definitely recommend seeing it.
 
I saw it Friday. It was good but long. It actually left me wanting to know more about George VI. It was odd for me trying to reconcile the portayal of his wife with the woman I would see on TV as the Queen Mum.

The character played by Geoffrey Rush had some stones the way he addressed Royalty.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
I saw it Friday. It was good but long. If the guy didn't stammer so much the movie would be 30 minutes long 40 tops:wink2:. Seriously, it was good. It actually left me wanting to know more about George VI. It was odd for me trying to reconcile the portayal of his wife with the woman I would see on TV as the Queen Mum.
Click to expand...
George VI is a fascinating fellow. He was never really trained for the throne, was a quiet and gentle man. Yet here he was thrown into the spot light at a time when the monarchy was under its greatest threat since the reformation.

During WW2 he considered going ashore during the invasion of France. He had planned to go with the Prime Minister and it was only until a few days before when his staff pleaded with him to change his mind did he relent. I lived in the UK for a couple of years in the 1980s and the people never had a bad word for him or his wife. The grandkids, well, that is another story.

I think this is one of those really good movies that may only come once a year. I had read that the King and Sir Lionel Lougue did indeed become very close personal friends.
 
Yes the movie said that George VI Knighted Lionel and that they did become good friends.
 
I saw this a few weeks ago. Excellent. Love Colin Firth. LOVE Colin Firth (loved his speech last night too - sigh - there is nothing like listening to a well educated Brit...)

I have more than a passing interest in English history and it was kind of poignant (in a filim kind of way) to see the two Elizabeths depicted when they were younger. And Princess Anne, such a beauty.

I was in London when the Queen Mum died. Saturday - day before Easter in 2002. I took many photos of half-mast flags on Sunday and the next day went to Windsor and placed flowers in the chapel there. The papers, of course, were full of her story and it was all fascinating. I may have saved one of the magazine inserts to one of them. Her funeral had been planned and tweaked for years and in fact when Diana died they used one of her funeral plans for Diana.

It took me until the abdication scene to realize it was Guy Pearce. I came to that realization suddenly - did not recognize him at all until then. He's aged a bit. Thinner.

Did I mention I LOVE Colin Firth?
 
I thought it was a grand film - recommended highly.
 
I saw it a few days ago and liked it a lot. After seeing the movied I looked up Lionel Logue on Wikipedia, and according to the source they cite, the problem was well in hand by 1927, so it appears that the film took quite a bit of dramatic license with the timeline in showing it still being iffy as to whether he would be able to successfully address the nation at the start of World War II. Presumably they did this to spice things up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Logue

http://books.google.com/books?id=hH3ueeoWy2kC&pg=PT460#v=onepage&q&f=false
 
ScottM said:
During WW2 he considered going ashore during the invasion of France. He had planned to go with the Prime Minister and it was only until a few days before when his staff pleaded with him to change his mind did he relent.
Click to expand...

I'm reading Eisenhower's Book Crusade in Europe, and he gives the impression that the King may have said he wanted to do this in order to convince Churchill not to go.
A number of people appealed to me for permission to go aboard the supporting naval ships in order to witness the attack. Every member of a staff can always develop a dozen arguments why he, in particular, should accompany an expedition rather than remain at the only point, the center of communications, where he can be useful. Permission was denied to all except those with specific military responsibility, and, of course, the allotted quotas of press and radio representatives.

Among those who were refused permission was the Prime Minister. His request was undoubtedly inspred as much by his natural instincts as a warrior as by his impatience at the prospect of sitting quietly back in London to await reports. I argued, however, that the chance of his becoming an accidental casualty was too important from the standpoint of the whole war effort and I refused his request. He replied, with complete accuracy, that while I was in sole command of the operation by virtue of authority delegated to me by both governments, such authority did not include administrative control over the British organization. He said, "Since this is true it is not part of your responsibility, my dear General, to determine the exact composition of any ship's company in His Majesty's Fleet. This being true," he rather slyly continued, "by shipping myself as a bona fide member of a ship's complement it would be beyond your authority to prevent my going."

All of this I had ruefully to concede, but I forcefully pointed out that he was adding to my personal burdens in this thwarting of my instructions. Even, however, while I was acknowledging defeat in the matter, aid came from an unexpected source. I later heard that the King had learned of the Prime Minister's intention and, while not presuming to interfere with the decision reached by Mr. Churchill, he sent word that if the Primer Minister felt it necessary to go on the expedition he, the King, felt it to be equally his duty and privilege to participate at the head of his troops. This instantly placed a different light on the matter and I heard no more of it.

​
http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Europ...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295305264&sr=1-1

I'm really enjoying this book, by the way.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I'm reading Eisenhower's Book Crusade in Europe, and he gives the impression that the King may have said he wanted to do this in order to convince Churchill not to go.
A number of people appealed to me for permission to go aboard the supporting naval ships in order to witness the attack. Every member of a staff can always develop a dozen arguments why he, in particular, should accompany an expedition rather than remain at the only point, the center of communications, where he can be useful. Permission was denied to all except those with specific military responsibility, and, of course, the allotted quotas of press and radio representatives.

Among those who were refused permission was the Prime Minister. His request was undoubtedly inspred as much by his natural instincts as a warrior as by his impatience at the prospect of sitting quietly back in London to await reports. I argued, however, that the chance of his becoming an accidental casualty was too important from the standpoint of the whole war effort and I refused his request. He replied, with complete accuracy, that while I was in sole command of the operation by virtue of authority delegated to me by both governments, such authority did not include administrative control over the British organization. He said, "Since this is true it is not part of your responsibility, my dear General, to determine the exact composition of any ship's campany in His Majesty's Fleet. This being true," he rather slyly continued, "by shipping myself as a bona fide member of a ship's complement it would be beyond your authority to prevent my going."

All of this I had ruefully to concede, but I forcefully pointed out that he was adding to my personal burdens in this thwarting of my instructions. Even, however, while I was acknowledging defeat in the matter, aid came from an unexpected source. I later heard that the King had learned of the Prime Minister's intention and, while not presuming to interfere with the decision reached by Mr. Churchill, he sent word that if the Primer Minister felt it necessary to go on the expedition he, the King, felt it to be equally his duty and privilege to participate at the head of his troops. This instantly placed a different light on the matter and I heard no more of it.

​
http://www.amazon.com/Crusade-Europ...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295305264&sr=1-1

I'm really enjoying this book, by the way.
Click to expand...

In Theo Aronson's book, The Royal Family at War, he discusses how the King had been attending many of the planning sessions for the invasion that normally had the chiefs of staffs and commanders at. He states that the King had decided to go along with Churchill at first and it was his private secretary that convinced him not to. Then the King began to work on Churchill, who had already started to make arrangements for himself to be on the HMS Belfast. There certainly was a test of wills between these two men. This all seems to have happened from about the time of 30May44 to 5Jun44. What was the King's true intention we may never know.
 
That the king had been, a naval officer during his education, was historically accurate.
 
Fasinating story on 60 minutes tonight about the King's Speech. There was also some info about a find of letters, diaries and other documentation of the story from the grandson of the speech therapist. He had his grandfather's notes and letters from the King that had been sitting in the attic for these 60 to 70 years.

CBS has some extended reports on the items

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20033610-10391709.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea.0

Very cool stuff.
 
woodstock said:
drat, missed it. TV at the beach has DVD player but no cable/reception.
Click to expand...
You can watch the 60 Minutes episode on the link Scott posted too.

I thought both the episode shown on TV and the extra segment were very interesting. Now I need to see the movie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top