The King's Speech

I just saw the "King's speech." Very good movies and a great chance to admire the man that was King George VI. However, one of the the things I wondered about in the movie if it is accurate, is that George V in my opinion had little faith in either of his two eldest sons to carry on the monarchy. Was he hoping neither one would not mess it up and that the monarchy would hold on for his grand-daughter, the future Elizabeth II, or was he thinking, when I am gone, it will end soon enough. What are some of your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It is fairly clear that George V wanted Bertie (i.e. the Duke of York) to succeed and like just about anyone with decent knowledge of the situation knew that POW would FUBAR. Contrary to some opinion, it was far from incorrigible once you read more about the masochist-in-chief.

Keir Hardie was a friggin' prophet (were I a Biblical literalist, I might call it a miracle) when he struck the only sour note in the usual Commons congratulations upon the future King Ed's birth. Everything he said came true.

Keir Hardie said:
From his childhood onward this boy [the future Edward VIII] will be surrounded by sycophants and flatterers by the score—[Cries of ‘Oh, oh!’]—and will be taught to believe himself as of a superior creation. [Cries of ‘Oh, oh!’] A line will be drawn between him and the people whom he is to be called upon some day to reign over. In due course, following the precedent which has already been set, he will be sent on a tour round the world, and probably rumours of a morganatic alliance will follow—[Loud cries of ‘Oh, oh!’ and ‘Order!’]—and the end of it all will be that the country will be called upon to pay the bill. [Cries of Divide!]
Speech, ‘Hansard’ 28 June 1894, col. 463
 
There were no worries about republicanism: it could've become very tense, gotten to Australia-1999 levels had KGV not unilaterally done the SCG to Windsor switch in WWI and made himself accessible to the masses as King, but no successful republican outcome. Both Edward VIII and George VI made many moves to make the monarchy more open and democratic, though in different styles.
 
I am not necessarily arguing that George V may not have preferred Bertie to succeed, I am just saying as I observed the scene in the movie where he tried to force Bertie to practice a speech on the radio, the scene portrayed to me that he did not think much of Bertie's talents or potential either. The movie suggests that Bertie loved "the King", but he his affection for his "father" was not equal.
 
Piers Brendon's The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s covers the abdication crisis in some detail. The book contains footnoted quotes from George V flatly stating he prayed daily that the Duke of York succeed him and that "Lilibet", his pet name for the future Elizabeth II, would follow. Another well known quote, in which George V correctly predicts the PoW won't last one year after his death, is also discussed.

While Keir Hardie may have been the first to predict the course of the life "David" would follow, the prince's own father made some startlingly accurate predictions too.
 
I liked the film too, I know it had some complaints regarding it's accuracy, mainly due to the fact that the film condensed the time involved considerably, but considering how historical events are often portrayed in films, that's not too much of a problem for me at least.
 
KGV was that way with both his sons growing up, a bit harsher on the DoY because he was the slower and clumsier one but it was more tough love as we'd understand the term than any lack of affection.

Everyone seems to have thought that way: his own PPS hoped he'd break his neck on the racetrack for the good of the country. Granted that by that point Lascelles had become embittered but everyone seemed to know it... except the one man who absolutely needed to know it, Baldwin himself. He didn't have the forceful personality for it, something that comes off both in the movie and in the historical literature. By contrast Chamberlain was blunt, acerbic and didn't care about bruising people's egos regardless of their rank, something which was necessary here. No one was thinking preemption beforehand except for vague ideas of the senior Cabinet making a collective plea at some point in the future. This is something which had to be done mano-a-mano in private.
 
I liked the film too, I know it had some complaints regarding it's accuracy, mainly due to the fact that the film condensed the time involved considerably, but considering how historical events are often portrayed in films, that's not too much of a problem for me at least.

Yeah, that bugged me a little too, at one point Elizabeth and Margaret are little girls but weren't they almost in their 20's or at least mid teens when ww2 broke out? Though I guess it didnt really show them that much to be a big deal I suppose
 
Truly a brilliant film, and Edward was a *dick* "B-b-b--ertie?" I wanted to smashhole that asshat! :mad:

That isn't historically accurate, before That Woman came on the scene they were BFF and close confidants, grew distant later because That Woman sucked all the oxygen out of his social room, among many other things, plus DOY being too much of a homebody. Still, never said anything like that. Yes he often was an arrogant douche among many other things, but not in that particular instance.
 
Yeah, that bugged me a little too, at one point Elizabeth and Margaret are little girls but weren't they almost in their 20's or at least mid teens when ww2 broke out? Though I guess it didnt really show them that much to be a big deal I suppose

Elizabeth was born in 1926, Margaret in 1930.
 
I am not necessarily arguing that George V may not have preferred Bertie to succeed, I am just saying as I observed the scene in the movie where he tried to force Bertie to practice a speech on the radio, the scene portrayed to me that he did not think much of Bertie's talents or potential either. The movie suggests that Bertie loved "the King", but he his affection for his "father" was not equal.

Hmmm... I saw this as more of a "throw him in the deep end"/"baptism by fire" thing, trying to push GVI so that he would push back and show father he was wrong.

Really, I thought the movie was great, I don't know enough about the period to note the inaccuracies. My only disappointment was Timothy Spall.
 
I liked that movie.

One question/thought I had is: why was it rated "R"? Just because of those two scenes of profanity?

I'm a somewhat conservative person and don't really care for a lot of profanity in that regard, but I felt those scenes weren't enough to give it the same rating as "Saving Private Ryan" or "SAW" or other similar movies. Were they enough to get it a PG-13 rating? I'd say yes, but not "R".
 

Thande

Donor
The film does have historical inaccuracies (primarily in whitewashing awkward opinions held by the good guys, such as George VI's support of appeasement and Churchill being an Edward VIII supporter) but that is not one of them.
 
Plus Baldwin's retirement: more to do with health (correct me if I'm wrong) plus mission-accomplished, certainly not because he suddenly converted to Churchillianism and didn't want to appear a hypocrite as the movie indicates.
 
There wasn't really anything that might indicate to Baldwin that he was wrong and Churchill was right when he retired. I don't think you can even apply that motivation to Chamberlain - he resigned only because his credibility was fatally undermined by the outcome of the Norway debate and Labour's refusal to serve under him in a Coalition Government. Chamberlain stayed on for over a year after appeasement was discredited.
 
Top