I can't answer your questions, but I saw the movie this week and also loved it.

I laughed at the end where the royal family came out onto the balcony at Buckingham Palace, and the camera focused first on the little Elizabeth giving the royal wave.

We just saw this movie tonight and we loved it. One of the best we've seen in quite a while. I heartily recommend it.

I don't know the answer to your questions A and B, but I believe that the reason the movie gave to C was correct. The British royal family were sensitive about their German descent in the face of a coming war with Germany. The more British sound George was a better choice than his previous, German-sounding Albert. I suppose that's part of the reason they have several given names. If they need to choose a different one later, they are all set.

Rosefolly

I thought this one of the best films I have seen.

The film was based on a book written by Mark Logue, grandson of Lionel, and he took it from Lionel's diaries apparently. I think the basic idea is accurate - certainly Lionel Logue helped the Duke of York overcome his stutter, even if it may not have been in the exact way shown.

Queen Victoria wanted all her male descendants to have Albert in their names and indeed, I found this:
"Respecting your own names, and the conversation we had, I wish to repeat, that it was beloved Papa's wish, as well as mine, that you should be called both, when you became King, and it would be impossible for you to drop your Father's. It would be monstrous, and Albert alone, as you truly and amiably say, would not do, as there can be only one Albert! You will begin a new line, as much as the Tudors and Brunswicks, for it will be the Saxe-Coburg line united with the Brunswick, and for the two united names will mark it, in the way we all wish, and your son will be known by the two others, as you are by Albert Edward." (Queen Victoria in her Letters and Journals, pp 179-180)*

So King Albert was also unacceptable in 1936, as 'there was only one Albert'! I think most of the Royal Family were fed up with Queen Victoria's adulation of her late husband. I have no doubt that the German connotations would also have been a factor.

Liz, this film only opened over here last week and it probably wont get to these remote parts until much later (if ever) but there has been many articles/comment in the papers about it.

a. It seems that it follows the methods used by Logue quite closely (does it mention the fact that Logue didn't have 'professional' qualifications?), even to showing the King making his speech on the eve of war in his shirt-sleeves, rather than sitting at a desk in full uniform, which was a set-up photo to mark the importance of the occasion.
It was pointed out that his stammer was not quite as bad as the film made out, especially in private and that his brother David (Ed VIII) was very fond of Bertie and never mocked the way he spoke.
Also incorrect was the part where Churchill was against Ed VIII marrying Mrs Simpson and being crowned. During the '30's Churchill had almost no influence in Parliament/with the country, though he did support Ed VIII. It was the PM Stanley Baldwin, together with the Heads of the countries of the old Empire (Can, Aus, NZ, India, many African states/colonies) who felt a divorced woman could never be Queen.
Hollywood probably thought Americans would be familiar with Churchill but not Baldwin, so did their usual 'tweak' of history.

b. familiarise would have been a word in use then, don't think it is an 'Americanism' or unusual
OT some amusement at a Woody Allen production (can't remember the title). Two English men are talking and one says " I was raised in the Chelsea neighbourhood" when a real English speaker would have said "I was brought up in the Chelsea area. So close and yet so far.

c. Albert. Yes, Victoria worshiped the memory of Albert and besides the Royal princes many many boys were given that name (including my poor father) but there had never been a King Albert so George was used, though it was the first name of his younger brother the Duke of Kent. Same with older brother David who became Edward VIII.
I don't think it was considered a very German name . . . though Saxe-Coburg was dropped during WWI.

Wasn't it also felt that by using George, it connected back to his father,George V, who represented stability, respectability...all the things that the abdication had rattled? Sort of sweep the brief reign of Edward under the carpet and go on as before?

I thought this the best film I've seen in years. In my opinion, the casting was perfect and I enjoyed the care the director took with historical details, e.g. the Corgis, Churchill's inimitable voice, and the boys sitting in their drafty house with scarves wrapped around their necks.

I can only add that due to the War, there was a definite tendency to change any German sounding names, e.g. Lord Mountbatten's former family name was Battenburg.

And Edward went by David in the family, but that was actually the last of his given names: Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. The last 4 being the 4 patron saints of the countries that make up the UK:
England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales. Christian was his great grandfather King Christian of Denmark.

So interesting to read this discussion -it adds so much more to the film..

Vee - you asked whether there was any mention in the film about Logue's lack of "professional" credentials. Yes, they did cover it quite well...

Such a good movie... I loved it!

A lurker here - I saw the film and loved it. Colin Firth is one of the few really good actors who can become the character, rather than be Colin Firth playing King George VI. He is very good, as is Geoffrey Rush.

They did note Lionel Logue's "lack of credentials", but at them time in the UK there were no credentials for speech therapists. Indeed, Logue was a founder, in 1935, of the British Society of Speech Therapists, and in 1944 became a founding fellow of the College of Speech Therapists (now called the RCSLT).

Enjoy

Thanks to your great recommendations here, my husband and I saw this movie over the weekend for my birthday. I LOVED it!

I know next to nothing about British royalty and this movie really inspired me to start reading about it. However, I'm feeling totally overwhelmed. Do I work my way from present day back? Or start from the very beginning? Is there any particular book or author that is a must-read? Is there a good family tree any where? Where should I start?

phaedosia, being from the UK I suppose I just know stuff about the Royal Family, so have had to scratch my head a bit to think of a suitable book that wont be either overwhelming or totally sycophantic and for starters I've found Alison Weir's Britain's Royal Families which has had some positive comments on Amazon . . . though I haven't read it.
I notice it is also for sale at The Book Depository.co.uk for the same price as Amazon, but without the shipping costs.
Let us know how you get on.

Here is a link that might be useful: Britain's Royal Families

Wow, phaedosia. Another Brit here, and like Veer mentions, I am not sure where to point you... Perhaps if you could narrow down your search to a particular time or century? Tudors? Wallis Simpson time? Lady Diana etc?

I did buy a good (helpful) reference book form B&N the other day in their Bargain book bit: Kings and Queens Of England and Scotland by Plantaganet Somerset Fry (real name but dead now - big historian in UK apparently). Anyway the book covers from the Anglo-Saxon Kings (first kings) all the way up to Eliz II so perhaps that would be a map of some kind for you??

Antonia Fraser has a book The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England which is a good starting point.

Thank you for your help! I just checked and my library has both Fry's and Fraser's books, so I'm going to start with those. I am really tempted to purchase The British Monarchy for Dummies.

Do you know of any books of anecdotal stories?

Here is a link that might be useful: British Monarchy for Dummies

phaedosia, is it just me or do others baulk at any book with 'Dummies' in the title? ;-)
When you have mastered the background to your subjects (about 10-20 years of study) try 1066 and All That by Sellers & Yeatman, which first came out in 1930 and is full of batty English humour.

Here is a link that might be useful: 1066 and All That

My book club was just wondering if this movie was based on a book and you have answered the question. Has anyone read it? Is the book good and might it make a good choice for a book club?

There is a book. It's written by Mark Logue, Lionel Logue's grandson. It's called The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy.

I downloaded it to my Sony eReader ($9.99), and I really enjoyed it. The book is well written and an easy read. It covers the lives of both the King and Mr. Logue . The movie deals with one part of their relationship, as you will see.

You can listen to some of the King's speeches online. The BBC has some in their archives as does the CBC.

Enjoy

Here is a link that might be useful: The book

It's so nice to see all these glowing reviews -- I cannot wait to see this film! We've been alternately socked in with snow or busy with other evening commitments lately, so getting out to the movies has been a challenge.

The King's Speech was wonderful. Little Elizabeth's wave (and the Queen Mum's) at the end made me laugh.

As for background on the Kings and Queens, in addition to an encyclopedic reference, what are some novels, historical novels, and nonfiction books that can also fill things in? I have a much easier time sorting everyone out if I can follow a narrative. The story part of history.

One that really helped me was
The Princesses: The Six Daughters of George III by Flora Fraser.

One you get that prolific family straight (13 kids), a lot of the later connections among the royalty and nobility become clearer. Get down all the sisters and brothers and you'll have a greater understanding of everything from Jane Austen, to The Flashman books to the film The Madness of King George.

For me, other books that give a great sweep of history and helps your trace things to the present day are The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson. If I recall correctly they cover from the Restoration to the arrival of the first George

Just saw it.....LOVED it. Certainly Colin Firth deserves an oscar for that role.

It seems that I have been reading so many different books about Britain during the two WW's : Maisie Dobbs series; Guernsey PPandLS; The Postmistress.....

The movie was very touching on many levels.
Nicely done, all in all.

I have recommended these books before, but for a "narrative" like AmyNJ is asking about:

The Abdication:
Royal Feud by Michael Thornton, is a parellel bio of Queen Elizabeth the QM and Wallis Simpson.

WALLIS & EDWARD Letters 1931-1937 edited by Michael Bloch

Finally managed to see this yesterday, despite it being a Sunday. When I was young we never would have been allowed to go to the flicks on the 'Lord's Day' . . . and I didn't even come from a religious background.
I thought Firth and Rush were excellent and we all really suffered with Bertie as he tried to get the words out.
I have noticed a tendency in these 'historical dramas' for rather too much 'explanation' in the script "Mark my words my boy, we will be at war with Germany in a very few years." Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but during the mid-30's almost no-one saw German re-armament as a serious problem. Churchill was the exception but was no longer in Govt.
Interestingly the audience was about 90% of really elderly folk, several on crutches or in wheel chairs. It obviously meant much to them, many of them clapped when it was over (when did that last happen, there is usually a stampede for the exit?). One lady told me she had seen it a couple of days earlier but got so much more from it the second time round.
Another point, I'm sure the Little Princesses were always known as Lilibet and Margaret Rose within the family but maybe it was thought the audience wouldn't connect them to their 'now' selves.

I have had many discussions with friends about this marvelous movie and we all had the same question:

Why, if she came from such a warm and family-oriented set of parents who created lovely , intimate family time, has Queen Elizabeth seemed to be the exact opposite in her own family ?

Or have we been misled regarding her?

Yvonne, of course I don't move in Royal Circles but I think that when the Queen was young, as you say, she had a warm family life, helped by a large staff and parents who were physically 'there'. Once she became Queen herself, at quite a young age, she had very much less time for 'family life' in the modern meaning of the word as she spent/spends most of her days dealing with matters of State, opening things, travelling abroad etc. Prince Philip seems to be a no-nonsense sort of chap, trained in the ways of the Royal Navy and both of them have that English characteristic of keeping their emotions under control, neither 'feely' or 'touchy' even in private.
I think this, plus their rather Victorian attitudes, made it difficult for them to connect with their children.
But . . . there are plenty of modern eg's of the most hands-on families who treat their kids as their best friends and want to share all their problems, who then watch in amazement as the same kids go on to wreck their own lives, go through several marriages/relationships, cause misery to their own children, treat those loving parents with disdain . . . it's the same old story.

I just typed a whole long entry about how Elizabeth allowed Philip to determine the education of the three Princes in the way Victoria allowed Albert to be 'king' in their family, even though she was the Queen...and Glyphs ate it. arrgghh.

There is a gap between the two older children, Charles and Anne, and the two younger, Andrew and Edward. From what I have read, Elizabeth was overwhelmed with the duties of Queenship that fell on her so early and suddenly, as well as concern for her grieving mother and wayward sister. So the two older ones were raised in the governess and boarding school way. She had more time to spend with the younger two because she was more comfortable in her role.

When he was young, Philip's family was in disarray-his sisters all older and married into the German aristocracy, his father exiled from Greece, his mother taking vows as an Anglican nun-so his uncle, Mountbatten, took over the raising of him. He was sent to boarding schools-a very spartan European one run by the eventual headmaster of Gordonstoun in Scotland, and then Dartmouth as a naval cadet. When it came time to educate Philip's sons, Gordonstoun and the service was the obvious choice to build character and an understanding of duty and service. Andrew had the personality to flourish at Gordonstoun and followed his father to Dartmouth, Charles hated it at the time but has since stated that he sees some benefits from his time there, Edward ended up as Head Boy. I find it interesting that all three of them enjoy close relationships with their children, and no one chose Gordonstoun-Charles' sons went to Eton.

As usual I am late to the party, but it takes a long time for films to get to my little peninsula. Well worth the wait, I loved it! Maybe the only film I have seen that surpassed my expectations. I am looking forward to seeing it again. All of the actors are brilliant. And it made me very nostalgic. No, I am not old enough to remember these events; they happened long before I was born - but my grandmother worshipped George VI and the Queen Mum because of their bravery during the war. She would have liked this film.

Will The King's Speech work visually on the small television screen? I live in the country and do not think I shall go to the cinema again this month as I went today. Saw Gerard Depardieu and Gisele Casadesus in My afternoons with Margueritte as I don't think it will come out on dvd. The King's Speech surely will. Is it a "talking heads" kind of film or is scenery important?

mariannese, it is far more of a 'talking head' pic' (especially considering its subject matter) than pretty views/imposing buildings. I believe it was made on a tight budget and although there are a couple of stock shots of Sandringham and Balmoral most scenes were filmed at less fancy locations. Regents Park, very early in the morning and Harley St (base for all top doctors) in thick fog. This 'fog' was the white stuff we are used to today and not the London pea-souper, which as its name suggests, was of a yellowy-green hue, so thick it would fill rooms in houses; a real killer.
One other thing I found unlikely was the location used for Lionel Logue's private house. We see the royal car parked outside what is little more than a slum, with local kids gawping at it, yet the interior is shown to be full of ultra-modern 30's wallpaper with the latest wireless and gramophone.
BTW, did anyone notice that Logue's wife was played by Jennifer Ehle, who was Elizabeth Bennett in P&P?

Vee, I did notice that. I thought it was a nice reunion for Ehle and Firth.

As for the furnishings of Logue's house, it would make sense for a speech teacher to have the electronic equipment of the day. The rest of the house looked a bit drab and bare to me. My guess is that it would fit a marginal middle class house for the 1930's. Am I wrong? I have a friend who grew up in Belfast in a working class family. She told me that her neighborhood didn't have indoor toilets until the 1960's.

Rosefolly

The Actor's Studio was running an interview with Colin Firth a few weeks ago.....*sigh*.....and they showed some scenes from the movie, out takes and back stories.
Apparently the producer found a place that they used for Logue's house/studio and did nothing to it. The way it is shown in the movie is exactly the condition of the house.
The interview was so interesting.
I didn't realize that Firth based his character's behavior and mannerisms in Bridget Jones' Diary on Mr. Darby in P&P.
He is such a simmering sort isn't he?
A real "bodice-popper" ! lol

I noticed that Logue's house was rather unusual, but I thought it was supposed to reflect his own unique personality.

The movie is very "tight" looking - narrow camera angles, etc., representing the constrictions of Bertie's world. I think it will translate very well to the small screen, just don't look for any sweeping views of pre-war England or gorgeous clothing - although the Queen's hats are delicious.

Firth is indeed quite the man!

I didn't notice Ehle, although I thought she looked familiar - quite the all star cast. She and Firth have only one brief scene together, quite a humorous one.

Our local theatre has connections with both Logue and Rush, so has put on an interesting display of memorabilia.
Go to www.hismajestystheatre.com.au and click on to the Museum of Performing Arts.

In case you missed 60 Minutes last night, there was a great segment at the end with Colin Firth and the backstory about the movie. It is amazing how the screenwriter became interested in doing this movie and how coincidences aligned so that the grandson of Logue produced the actual diaries and letters kept by his uncle. Much of the authenticity of the dialogue was based on these finds. The grandson also had the orignal copy of the King's speech with all the inflection marks which was used in the movie.
Very fascinating.
I hope this link works....

Here is a link that might be useful: 60 Minutes Firth interview

I should have mentioned that the first click is "What's on" after accessing the theatre.
I have a small link myself with all this. I was born on Coronation Day. My mother told me that she had to wait for the King to finish his acceptance speech on the radio which was in the main ward before the nurses who were listening would take her into the labour ward! She said it took him a while and she was muttering "Get on with it, George!"
As I have to wait for the DVD to be released, I don't know if this speech is shown.
I was presented with a Coronation spoon.

yoyo, just watched your '60 Minute' thing; very interesting. There will be a similar TV prog over here on Wednesday, looking at the correspondence and methods used by LL.
Annpan, I'm surprised your parents didn't christen you Georgina. :-)
In 1953 we all received Coronation mugs. I don't know if anything is authorised for the up-coming 'Royal Wedding' other than a public holiday. I'm still waiting for my invitation. I read in the paper that some silly girl in Mexico(?) is planning to starve herself to death unless she is invited to the wedding and has chained herself to the railings outside the British Embassy. I'm unlikely to go that far; there must be easier ways to lose weight.

It was noted in the interview with Firth that he actually listened to the original broadcast of the speech and was able to get the feeling for the King's hesitations etc.

Another interesting note...the movie was very low budget and they never expected it to be the raving success that it is.

Vee-saw today that offical regrets have been sent by some Royal office to the girl in Mexico apologizing that she is not being invited. Not sure if it is wise to take any official notice of what must be a very disturbed personality-she might take it as encouragement.

OT...Vee, I got 'Elizabeth' as a second name and my younger sister 'Alexandra', she escaped being Marie Antoinette. My father put his foot down on my Royalist mother's choice there!
Due to misunderstanding the nurse, when a reporter called the hospital about any Coronation Day babies, the local newspaper had me down as 'an Elizabeth' instead of Ann Elizabeth. Due to the excitement, my grandfather left a bag containing 30 pounds, a lot of money then, in the phone booth when he rang the hospital for news. It was still there when he went back!

annpan, Marie Antoinette would certainly be a couple of names too far. ;-)

Apparently the costume designer of KS is up for an Oscar. She said the budget was very tight, but she found a string of 'pearls' in a charity shop for ã1.50; looked better than the real thing. She also had great 'problems' with the use of fur as she is a strict vegetarian. She got in touch with some animal-rights charity and they said it was OK as long as she used really old and 'very dead' stuff.
How many RP'ers remember when all elderly women wore a fox-fur for 'best'. As a child I always wondered if I would be bitten. Those beady eyes were very much alive.

I love the wonderful stories this is bringing out! My grandmother had some bits and bobs of coronation ephemera - a tin box embossed with Her Majesty, a cup, etc. I wonder what ever happened to those things? Perhaps one of my sisters has them. No matter. Grandma also had one of those fox stoles, which was apparently de rigeur at the time. I hated it even then, long before animal rights days. Quite a few years later, when I was in my early thirties and changing careers and quite broke, I found an old mink in a thrift shop. The mink was turned into a lining for my lovely-but-not-really-warm-enough cashmere coat (a cast-off from a sister) by a very elderly, very talented Polish dressmaker. So in my poverty I walked around quite warm, swathed in mink and cashmere. I wore that coat until it fell apart, got it mended, and wore it some more until it fell apart for well and good. I still miss it.

OT...This is my fur story. An actress said that if you wore mink, everyone assumed you were wearing expensive clothes and real jewels. I had a legacy when there was a sale on at the furriers and bought a mink stole very cheaply. I had to go to a lot of social events where long dresses were required, so, then being a hard up part-time reporter, bought mine from charity shops or bridal shop reject racks.
My stole got a lot of use until the wearing of fur fell out of favour. I gave it to my mother-in-law. For some reason, older people did not come in for hard looks!

My fur story is cheaper. Back in 1955, my husband gave me a mouton coat for Christmas (mouton fur: sheepskin that has been made to resemble beaver or seal) which was popular here at the time with young women. However, it was three-quarter length, and I am short. It looked terrible on me, plus I had a three-month-old baby whom I could hardly pick up when she was wrapped in her crib blanket and I in my new coat. She did love it, though, and would stroke it with her little fingers like a teddy bear.

I never wore it much, and years later it was stored in my mother-in-law's cedar chest when they had a break in and it was among the things stolen. Their insurance company gave me $50 for it. I would have sold it like a shot for $50!

Back on subject, I loved the hats the Princess of Wales wore in the movie, especially that blue one at King Edward's party where she snubbed Mrs. Simpson.

Still with furs. I lived for a year in Canada (Ottawa) a cold country and very chilly city and someone gave me their very old fur coat. It was extremely heavy and rather moth eaten, probably less mouton and more dead cat.
One day I walked into the city library and, though it was snowing as I left home, it was raining by the time I got there . . . and my goodness did that soggy coat pong. All eyes and noses followed me round the shelves until, in sheer embarrassment, I had to take it off and hide it behind a distant radiator where it steamed-off noxious vapours. When I returned to the UK the coat stayed behind.

BTW Queen Elizabeth, was never Princess of Wales, just Duchess of York, as George VI went straight from D of Y to King. When Diana became Princess of Wales it was noted that the title hadn't been used since the time of the marriage of George V in 1890 something to Mary of Teck, always know as Old Queen Mary when I was a child.
Also a fact I only became aware of recently, the title of Queen Mother was specially created for Queen Elizabeth on the death of George VI . . . probably much more than you (true US republicans all) needed to know. ;-)

Well, time to correct my own mistakes mea culpa.
The last used title of 'Princess of Wales' (before Diana) was from a generation earlier, 1860's. When the then P of W who later became Edward VII (another Bertie) married Alexandra.
When Geo(V) married Mary (May of Teck) he was still Duke of York, until Victoria died 1901. Complicated, isn't it? ;-)

Regarding name changes of Royalty when coming to the throne, I read somewhere Prince Charles wants to take the name of William V and not Charles 111. Will Camilla, who he wants to be the Queen, use the mary from her second name Rosemary? So there will be another William and Mary.

Good to see it picked up some hardware, 'though I didn't see the 'ceremony' as it happens too late for us in the UK.

After mentioning here that the setting for Logue's private house in the film looked very 'down-market' I did a quick check on the 'Ancestry uk' site and found via the UK phone books section that he was at 146 Harley St followed by the wording Speech defects. His private address was quite far out in SE London, at 55 Sydenham Hill, than a leafy and well-heeled suburb. You can check it out at Google maps.

Vee, at the beginning they were living in Maida Vale, and Logue took a flat in South Kensington - although that sounds reasonably posh to me. There is a picture of the Sydenham Hill house in the book (I'm reading it at the moment).