Jump to: navigation, search
no edit summary
[[File: Kings Speech One.jpg|200px|thumb|left| Firth as George VI and Bonham-Carter as his wife Queen Elizabeth]]
==The historical background==
The events take place mainly in the 1930s at a critical juncture for Britain and its Empire. The nation and its various dependencies had still not recovered from the ravages of World War or the Great Depression. Internationally, Hitler was in power in Germany and many feared, correctly, that there would be another World War <ref> Thorpe, A. Britain in the 1930s (London, Blackwell 1992), p 115</ref>. The rather bleak mood of the time is captured very well by the director. At this critical point in its history the British Royal Family faced its own crisis. After the death of George V, he was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Edward VII in 1936, but he wanted to marry a divorced American Wallis Simpson. This was unacceptable to many in Britain at this time as the King was also head of, the Church of England. Divorce at the time was socially unacceptable and the idea of the monarch marrying a divorced woman was denounced by the Anglican Bishops and others. When Edward VII did decide to marry Wallis Simpson, he was forced to abdicate, soon after his Coronation. This meant that his younger brother George or Bertie as he was known became king <ref>Thorpe, p 118</ref>. This was all shown in the motion picture and is shown accurately. However, there are some inaccuracies in the movie. One of the most glaring and one that caused controversy were the scenes where Sir Winston Churchill, the future leader of war-time Britain, supporting the accession of George V, but this was not the case. In fact, Churchill, believed that Edward VII (1894-1972) should remain as king despite his marriage to Wallis Simpson. He was actually very friendly with the abdicated king and remained a supporter <ref> Rhodes James, Robert A spirit undaunted: the political role of George VI (London: Little, Brown & Co, 1998), p 118</ref>. Unlike in the movie, Churchill did have grave doubts about the ability of George VI to carry out his Royal duties and this was shared by many others in the highest circles. Over time, he did come to accept George and even came to respect him as an able monarch and leader <ref> Logue, Mark; Conradi, Peter, The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy (New York: Sterling, 2010), p 13</ref>.
[[File: Kings Speech Two.jpg|200px|thumb|left|King George VI c. 1940]]
==The King and his Stutter==
The central theme of the movie is the difficulties faced by George VI because of his stutter and how Logue was able to help him overcome his speech defect. This is historically accurate, and the future George VI had a serious speech impediment. In the movie the character played by Firth is shown as having a terrible stammer and that when he became nervous or anxious he was almost unable to communicate. This made public speaking near impossible for the monarch. The movie makes clear that his speech impediment was a result of his insecurity and shyness <ref> Logue, p 134</ref>. This was very much the case and George VI did have a very bad stutter from childhood. The King’s Speech does show accurately the real problems caused for the future George VI and the entire Royal Family. In one scene at the opening of a exhibition celebrating the British Empire George is shown struggling with a speech and becoming visibly upset. The movie shows many senor officials and members of the Royal Family becoming gravely concerned about this. In the 1930a, when the movie is set, for the first-time members of Royalty were expected to speak in public and to be effective communicators because of the growing importance of the mass media <ref>Thorpe, p. 289</ref>. The inability of George VI to publicly speak clearly was a real problem and it was feared that it could damage the Royal Family and even undermine confidence in the government of the British Empire. The movie does somewhat exaggerate the importance of the king’s stutter, but it was nonetheless a very important issue for the Royal Family.
[[File: Kings Speech Three.jpg|200px|thumb|left|The future King Edward VII c 1920]]  
==The treatment of the King==
Perhaps the biggest inaccuracy in the movie is that Logue was in reality able to help the King to overcome his stammer before the abdication crisis and his coronation rather than after these events. His first began to treat the second son of George V in the 1920s and continued to do so for many years. The movie shows that the treatment took place in the 1930s and this was no-doubt done for dramatic effect but this is not strictly correct. Cooper’s movie relates how George had been seeking help all his life for his stammer and he tried every technique and treatment that was available for the time, which is true. The 2010 motion picture does really capture the sense of desperation and anxiety that the future George VI had over his speech impediment. He is shown as going in desperation to the Australian Logue and this is also correct. The therapist is shown as using innovative techniques to help George to overcome his stammer and this is right. The Australian was an early pioneer in speech and language therapy and he was an innovator <ref> Logue, p 145</ref>. The film shows Rush trying to instil more confidence in the Royal. He adopts a number of strategies, but none are shown to work. Eventually he provokes the king and in his anger he is able to speak stutter-free. In reality the speech and language therapist gave the monarch a series of daily vocal exercises, such as tongue twisters, that were designed to help him to relax. This helped the future king to relax and this was key to the improvements in his speech. The motion picture does show that the treatment was not a total success and the king continued to have a very slight stammer. This was indeed the case, however, the improvement in the speech of George VI was remarkable and this is accurately shown in the 2010 movie. It shows George having grave doubts about Logue and his treatment when he hears that he is not formally qualified as a therapist. In real-life, this did not cause a crisis in the relationship between the British sovereign and the Australian therapist. It is correct that Logue was not formally qualified that was because there was no system of education for language therapy when he was young. Instead he was self-taught and had travelled the world studying the ideas of respected speech therapists. The movie leaves the viewers in no doubt that the king and the Royal Family owed the Australian a great debt and this was the case and when George VI died, his widow, the Queen, wrote to the therapist to thank him for all he had done for her husband <ref> Logue, p 115</ref>.

Navigation menu