the king's speech vs reality

• Recent changes
• Random page
• View source
• What links here
• Related changes
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Page information
• Create account

How historically accurate is the movie The King's Speech

In 2010, The King’s Speech won the Oscar for Best Picture and grossed over $414 million worldwide. It was an unlikely box office champion because it was based on a true story about King George VI of Britain (1895-1952) and an Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (1880-1953). It shows how Logue helped the king overcome a crippling stammer and how this helped him lead his country during World War II. The movie was directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler.

Critics have widely praised the editing, cinematography, directing, and acting. The movie was able to express the main characters' inner life by the clever use of lighting and other cinematic techniques. Colin Firth won an Oscar for his portrayal of George IV/ The King’s Speech was produced by a British company, and it was shot mainly in London. Among the supporting cast was Helen Bonham-Carter, who played Queen Elizabeth, the wife of the king. The movie was nominated for 12 academy awards, and it won four awards, including one for Best Picture.

Before the movie began filming, the writer, Seidler, found Logue's journal and incorporated elements from the journal into the movie. However, despite this, the historical accuracy of the movie has been questioned and even widely criticized.

When does the King's Speech take place?

The King's Speech takes 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. [1] 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 crisis.

After George V's death, he was succeeded by his eldest son, who became Edward VII in 1936. Edward VII's reign was both brief and controversial. Edward wanted to marry a divorced American, Wallis Simpson. Marrying a divorced was unacceptable to many in Britain at this time as the King was also head of the Church of England. Divorce was socially unacceptable, and the Anglican Bishops and others denounced the idea of the monarch marrying a divorced woman.

When Edward VII decided to marry Wallis Simpson, he was forced to abdicate his crown soon after his Coronation. This meant that his younger brother George or Bertie, as he was known, became king. [2] The depiction of these events in the movie has been fictionalized but is reasonably accurate.

However, there were some inaccuracies in the movie that troubled viewers. One of the scenes that caused the most controversy was when Sir Winston Churchill, the future leader of war-time Britain, supported the accession of George V. This scene misrepresented Churchill's view of Edward's abdication entirely. Churchill supported Edward VII (1894-1972) and believed that he should remain as king despite his marriage to Wallis Simpson. He was friendly with the abdicated king and remained a supporter. [3]

Unlike in the movie, Churchill did have grave doubts about the ability of George VI to carry out his Royal duties. He was not alone in the belief, and many others shared that view in the highest circles of the British government. Over time, he did come to accept the younger brother of Edward VII and came to respect him as an able monarch and leader . [4]

The King and his Stutter

The movie's central theme is the difficulties faced by George VI because of his stutter and how Logue was able to help him overcome his speech defect. This depiction is historically accurate, and the future George VI had a serious speech impediment. In the movie, Firth's character is shown as having a terrible stammer and that when he became nervous or anxious, he was almost unable to communicate. His stammer made public speaking almost impossible for the monarch.

The movie shows that his speech impediment was a result of his insecurity and shyness. [5] This was very much the case, and George VI did have a terrible stutter from childhood. The King’s Speech accurately shows the real problems caused by the future George VI and the entire Royal Family. In one scene at the opening of an exhibition celebrating the British Empire, George struggles with a speech and becomes visibly upset. The movie shows many senior officials and members of the Royal Family becoming gravely concerned about this. In the 1930a, when the movie is set, for the first-time, Royalty members were expected to speak in public and be effective communicators because of the growing importance of the mass media. [6]

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 a significant issue for the Royal Family.

When did Lionel Logue begin treating George VI?

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. He 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 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 overcome his stammer, which is right. The Australian was an early pioneer in speech and language therapy, and he was an innovator. [7] The film shows Rush trying to instill more confidence in the Royal. He adopts several strategies, but none are shown to work.

How did Logue treat George VI's speech impediment?

Eventually, he provokes the king, and in his anger, he can 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, which 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 because there was no education system for language therapy when he was young. Instead, he was self-taught and had traveled 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. [8]

What was the relationship between King George VI and Lionel Logue?

The movie shows that the two men began to become real friends over time, despite their differences. This was the case, and it appears that both men liked each other and even enjoyed each other’s company. The relationship between the British king and the Australian is very realistically shown, and they remained friends until the early death of George VI. The movie shows that Logue was present when George made important Radio broadcasts to the British Public. This was the case, but Logue continued to coach the king to speak in public for many years.

In the movie, Logue is shown when George VI pronounced that Britain was at war with Germany in September 1939 during a radio address to the nation. This is not correct, but the Australian did provide the king with notes on things where he should pause and breathe, and these were a real help in the most important speech the monarch ever made. Logue continued to coach the king for many years until about 1944.

The therapist is shown as being very much at ease in the King's presence and treating him like any other client. This was not the case. Despite their genuine friendship, Logue would have been expected to have been somewhat formal and respect the Royal Person of the King at all times. In real life, Logue was not as easy-going and familiar with George VI as portrayed in the historical drama. [9]

Was George VI accurately portrayed in the King's Speech?

Colin Firth’s performance was widely praised. The British actor won the Academy Award for Best Actor. While Firth's performance was widely acclaimed, there were some concerns about how accurately he portrayed the monarch. In the main, Firth did manage to capture George VI and his character in the feature film. The British actor did correctly show that the monarch was a timid and insecure man who felt that he was not equal to his Royal duties, and this was something that greatly distressed him. [10]

His stammer may have been a result of his sense of inadequacy, but this cannot be known, for certain. Firth does show that the monarch did grow in stature after he was crowned as King. It leaves the viewer in no doubt that by the end of the movie, Firth, who has largely overcome his stammer, could lead his country in its hour of greatest danger. [11]

This was the case, and the monarch became widely respected for his leadership and his calm dignity. However, the script tended to be overly sympathetic to George and avoided his character's rather unpleasant aspects. He was alleged to have both fits of anger and alleged acts of domestic violence. Those allegations have not been confirmed.

Helena Bonham Carter's performance was praised, and she does capture the personality of Queen Elizabeth (1900-2002). She was a very supportive wife and dedicated to her husband. She did not want him to become king because she feared what it would do to him. Her family, as shown in the feature film. [12] Geoffrey Rush played the character of the speech and language therapist Logue, and he presented him as a larger-than-life figure who was charismatic, and this was indeed the case. It is generally agreed that Rush really captured the personality of the acclaimed speech and language therapist.

How realistic is the King's Speech?

Overall, the movie is historically accurate. It shows the modern viewer the importance of the King's treatment for his speech impediment. This movie also captures the real sense of anxiety in Britain in the 1930s, and it broadly captures the historical context of the Coronation of George VI. The relationship between Logue and the monarch is also largely accurate. However, this is a movie, and the need to entertain means some inaccuracies, especially concerning details such as the king's treatment. However, when compared to other historical dramas, the movie is very realistic.

Further Reading

Bowen, C. (2002). Lionel Logue: Pioneer speech therapist 1880-1953. Retrieved from http://www.speech-language-therapy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53

Bradford, Sara. King George VI (London, Weidenfeld, and Nicolson, 1989).

Ziegler, Philip, King Edward VIII: The Official Biography ( London, Collins, 1990).

• ↑ Thorpe, A. Britain in the 1930s (London, Blackwell 1992), p 115
• ↑ Thorpe, p 118
• ↑ Rhodes James, Robert A spirit undaunted: The Political Role of George VI (London: Little, Brown & Co, 1998), p 118
• ↑ Logue, Mark; Conradi, Peter, The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy (New York: Sterling, 2010), p 13
• ↑ Logue, p 134
• ↑ Thorpe, p. 289
• ↑ Logue, p 145
• ↑ Logue, p 115
• ↑ Logue, p. 167
• ↑ Logue, p 189
• ↑ Logue, p 192
• ↑ Rhodes, p 201
• Historically Accurate
• World War Two History
• British History
• This page was last edited on 15 September 2021, at 05:21.
• Privacy policy
• About DailyHistory.org
• Disclaimers
• Mobile view

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How historically accurate is The King's Speech?

M y view is that a film is a film, and you have to move the drama on. People can say, for example, that Churchill didn't play nearly as big a role as he does in the film – he wasn't actually there at such and such a point, he never uttered those words, and so on. But the average viewer knows who Churchill is; he doesn't know who Lord Halifax and Lord Hoare are. I don't mind these things at all.

Of course, when the king made his famous speech after Chamberlain had declared war on Germany, none of those high-ranking officials who appear with him in the film were present. But they need to speak to the king, there's a point that needs to be made.

It's the essence of the story that counts, and the essence of the story here is very sound indeed.

The little things are very important, though. I like to think that if there are very few things that jar in this film, it's because of the subtle work of people like me. It's like presenting the flowers to the soprano at the end of the recital: if it's done well, no one notices it happen. I curtseyed to Claire Bloom, for example, and kissed her hand, to show her what Queen Mary might have done before the new king – her son – on the death of George V. Now I don't know whether that's actually what happened. But it's a very good way of showing that the old reign has come to an end and the new one begun.

Some things I'm not so keen on. There's a lot of swearing. And the Duchess of Windsor comes across as a bit gauche, which she wasn't. But everyone involved in this film deserves a huge amount of credit.

More on this story

The King's Speech flies the flag for a stiff upper lip that no longer exists

Stammering: lost for words

The King's Speech: an emotionally stirring Oscar magnet

The King's Speech rules Toronto film festival

Colin Firth: 'Playing the stammering king had an effect on me, a semi-paralysis'

Could Colin Firth's King's Speech become one of Oscar acceptance?

There are no short cuts for the monarchy.

The King's Speech – review

Colin Firth has left his posh acting peers in the dust. Give him the Oscar for The King's Speech now

The King's Speech: How George VI's simple domesticity made him the king his country needed in time of war

Most viewed.

Perspective: How true is ‘The King’s Speech’?

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

If any best-picture contender was going to face questions about taking liberties with the facts this Oscar season, it seemed likely it would be “The Social Network.” But now that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have tactfully retreated a bit from their initially contentious stands, the accuracy debate has shifted to “The King’s Speech.”

“The King’s Speech” is being sold as a feel-good tale of how a friendship between a royal and a commoner affected the course of history. But some commentators are complaining, among other things, that the film covers up Winston Churchill’s support for Edward VIII, the playboy king who abdicated to marry an American divorcee, and that the movie fails to acknowledge that the once tongue-tied George VI supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis. (Writing last month at slate.com, Christopher Hitchens blasted the film as “a gross falsification of history.”)

As a specialist in British history, I agree that screenwriter David Seidler certainly has tweaked the record a bit and telescoped events in “The King’s Speech” — but for the same artistic reasons that have guided writers from Shakespeare to Alan Bennett, who wrote the screenplay for “The Madness of King George” (and the play on which the movie was based). While historians must stick to the facts, dramatists need to tell a good story in good time. It also helps if they can explore the human condition in the process.

Seidler’s script opens with Colin Firth as Prince Albert (the future King George VI, but then the Duke of York and known to his family as “Bertie”) facing the ordeal of making his first radio broadcast. To add to the strain, the duke must deliver the address in a stadium before a large crowd. However, his words come only haltingly, causing embarrassment for all present. Not shown but later referenced in the film is the fact that in the crowd was Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist recently transplanted from Australia.

All this took place in 1925, but Seidler brings the speech disaster forward 10 years to the eve of the abdication crisis, which resulted in the duke unexpectedly being transformed into a king when his brother Edward VIII stepped aside. The compression of events, although understandable, requires a slew of historical alterations to explain the back story.

The duke’s stammer derived in part from the verbal abuse he received as a child from his father, King George V (Michael Gambon). To indicate this, Seidler concocts a scene showing the adult Bertie still being hectored by his father, and it is only after this that he agrees to see Logue.

Much of the early part of the film is taken up with Logue’s struggle to win the duke’s trust. The therapist succeeds partly by trickery and partly because of continued prompting by Bertie’s wife, the Duchess of York (Helena Bonham Carter). After achieving a “breakthrough” with his patient and following Edward’s abdication in 1936, Logue helps prepare the new king for the ordeal of the coronation ceremony. That hurdle cleared, the film culminates with the therapist coaching Bertie through another historic moment: his broadcast to the British Empire at the start of World War II with an approving Churchill (Timothy Spall) looking on.

In reality, the duke first sought treatment from Logue in 1926, and, contrary to the film, the two hit it off immediately. Logue wrote in a note later published in the king’s official biography that Bertie left their first meeting brimming with confidence. After just two months of treatment, the duke’s improvement was significant enough for him to begin making successful royal tours with all the public speaking that entailed. George V was so delighted that Bertie rapidly became his favored son and preferred heir.

In interviews, Seidler has been ambiguous about what sources he consulted in writing the script. The various biographies of George VI all tell of the king’s relationship with Logue. This includes the official biography published in 1958. John Wheeler-Bennett, the royal biographer personally selected by the king’s widow, was himself a former patient of Logue’s and so wrote about the episode with great emotion.

It remains unclear, though, to what extent sources not available to scholars or the public played a role in the final shape of the film. Seidler has said that Logue’s son offered 30 years ago to show him his father’s notebooks, provided the king’s widow agreed. But when Seidler wrote Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, he was told that she found it too painful to remember the old anguish and begged that he wait until she had passed away.

Although the Queen Mother died in 2002, filmmakers said they were provided with Logue’s diaries, notes and letters only shortly before filming began. Seidler has not specified how material from Logue’s records was used, but he has said that research guided him to the conclusion that Logue utilized Freud’s “talking cure” approach. Thus, by reading up on the king’s life, Seidler used what he terms “informed imagination” to create the film’s therapy scenes.

Seidler also drew on personal experience: He himself stammered as a child, and it was this that led him to an interest in George VI. From what he has said about his own successful treatment, Seidler indicates that he projected that experience into his fabrication about Logue having to work patiently to gain Bertie’s trust. This liberty with the truth certainly gives the film more dramatic interest.

There are many other instances of artistic license in “The King’s Speech.” For example, Bertie chose his regal cognomen, George, out of respect for his father and not as the film has it because Churchill suggested that Albert sounded “too German.” Another dramatic fantasy occurs when the Archbishop of Canterbury (Derek Jacobi) breathlessly revealed that Logue was not in fact a doctor. In reality, Logue’s credentials were never misrepresented. Bertie always referred to him as “Mr. Logue” or simply “Logue.” Logue’s grandchildren recently came forward to say that their grandfather never used Christian names with the king at all — despite the movie making a strong point that the future king bristled at being called “Bertie” by Logue.

As for Hitchens’ allegations, they are much ado about nothing. Churchill’s support of Edward VIII owed more to his near-medieval reverence for the monarchy than it did to the individual occupying the throne. In supporting the appeasement policies of Chamberlain, George VI acted in harmony with the overwhelming majority of the British population across the political spectrum. As a combat veteran of World War I, the king was as anxious as his subjects to avoid a second conflict by any promising means. George VI was also at one with most Britons in remaining skeptical about Churchill as prime minister until the great man had proved himself.

Hitchens will get a second chance to scrutinize moviedom’s portrayal of Edward VIII and George VI this year, when Madonna’s film “W.E.” — about Wallis Simpson and Edward — hits theaters. He’s probably already stocking up on pencils.

Freeman teaches history at California State Fullerton.

[email protected]

More to Read

‘Scoop’ depicts Prince Andrew’s infamous interview. These were the women behind it

April 5, 2024

Kate’s remarkable video was a Royal revolution, scepter-spinning in its frankness

March 24, 2024

David Seidler, ‘The King’s Speech’ screenwriter, dies at 86

March 17, 2024

The biggest entertainment stories

Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Company Town

Amazon’s Prime Video and Netflix are crashing TV’s ad-selling party

Why Disney is doubling down on theme parks with a $60-billion plan

The women in ‘Shōgun’ faced hardship in feudal Japan, but they still triumphed

These Latina queens will be on Season 9 of ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars’

April 23, 2024

The True Story Behind "The King's Speech"

"The King's Speech" is a 2010 dramatic biographical film, recounting the friendship between King George VI of England and his Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue. The film also covers Edward VIII's 1936 abdication, and George VI's subsequent coronation and shouldering of responsibility during World War II. George VI ultimately must conquer his stammer to assist and guide Britain during the war.

As a film, "The King's Speech" takes a few liberties with the historical timeline and in regards to simplifying certain characters. One element historians took particular umbrage with was the depiction of Winston Churchill . However, overall it is fairly faithful to the historical record. For one thing, George VI really did have a speech impediment since the age of eight, and Lionel Logue did work with him for several years. They did stay friends until they both died. Certain scenes, such as George VI's coronation, were praised for their accurate recapturing of the feel of the 1930s.

The main concept the film changed was simply adding drama to certain scenes, such as the speech announcing war with Germany towards the end. It also condensed the historical timeline significantly, shortening events. This was mostly done for the sake of keeping the narrative moving. Overall, however, " The King's Speech " is a fairly accurate, heartwarming rendering of George VI and Lionel Logue's friendship.

Prince Albert had a stutter as a child

Prince Albert, later George VI, developed a stutter when he was eight that he carried through to his early adult life. His parents were not terribly affectionate with him, and he was susceptible to tears and tantrums – traits he also carried through his adult years, writes Biography . Given that many of his public duties required speeches, Albert needed to – and worked tirelessly – to fix his stammer with multiple doctors and therapists, writes Stuttering Help . He wasn't successful with any speech therapies until he worked with elocutionist and informal speech therapist Lionel Logue, beginning in the 1920s.

When Logue saw the then-Duke of York give a speech, he said to his son, "He's too old for me to manage a complete cure. But I could very nearly do it. I'm sure of that." (via Stuttering Help ). He was right, and his positive attitude helped the duke recover from previous failures that had made him believe the problem caused him to be mentally deficient instead of simply physically injured. Despite how long they worked together, the duke's speech issues had more to do with how held his jaw and pronounced words; the result was that his stammer was mainly cleared up in a matter of months as opposed to years.

Lionel Logue was a self-taught speech therapist

Lionel Logue was an Australian speech therapist who, not being formally trained, used methods he had discovered and created on his own. He worked as an elocutionist first, but fell into helping Australian World War I veterans with speech defects, writes The ASHA Leader . No one else was doing what he was with the veterans, and speech therapy and audiology programs didn't even get off the ground until the 1940s (via UNC Health Sciences Library ). Logue was even a founder of the College of Speech Therapists.

Just before World War I, Logue worked a variety of jobs as a teacher of elocution and drama, theater manager, and reciter of Shakespeare and Dickens (via Speech Language Therapy's Caroline Bowen, a speech language pathologist ). Logue worked with patients on their speech, but also on confidence and the self-belief that they could accomplish what they set out to do. He was empathetic with his patients, and learned from each case he worked on. Logue originally tried out as an actor, and as a result, his manner was somewhere between a teacher and an artist. He was serious about his life's work and resolved to avoid cheapening it by writing a book about his efforts with the king.

Logue began working with Prince Albert in 1926

Elizabeth, the Duchess of York, first encouraged her husband to work with Lionel Logue, though the meeting as depicted in the film between Elizabeth and Logue likely didn't happen (via Logue and Conradi's "The King's Speech" ). Logue thus began working with the Duke of York in October 1926, soon after he opened his London practice on Harley Street. Logue first diagnosed the Duke with, according to CNN , acute nervous tension and the habit of closing the throat, which caused him to clip words out.

Logue met with him daily for the next two or three months (in advance of a visit to Australia), and his stammer was gone (for the most part) within that time frame; it didn't take years of treatment (via Speech Language Therapy ). Unlike in the film, in reality, the Duke and Logue weren't necessarily aiming for complete fluency. However, they did continue to work together for the next two decades, mainly on the royal's speeches.

Logue worked with Albert for over 15 years

Though the film condenses the timeline to make it seem as though everything takes place over just a few years, Logue and Albert worked together for decades (via CNN ). "The King's Speech" begins in 1925 with the close of the British Empire Exhibition, which would be historically accurate, but time simply speeds by until the film depicts the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 and later the outbreak of war in 1939 in just a few hours; it doesn't really feel as though a decade and a half have passed.

Regardless, Logue and the duke worked together on speeches even after the duke had mostly mastered his stammer. Lionel Logue's methods were unorthodox and primarily self-taught. He never specifically said what course of treatment he worked on with the duke, saying, according to The ASHA Leader : "...on the matter of Speech Defects, when so much depends on the temperament and individuality, a case can always be produced that can prove you are wrong. That is why I won't write a book." Much of the ideas for the therapy sessions depicted in the film come from Logue's diaries (though plenty of the dialogue was invented), which were inherited by his grandson Mark. They were used in the film, though the director only saw them late in the film's production.

Any sort of therapy is inherently individual, not to mention personal (via Psychiatric Times ). It's no wonder that Logue decided to avoid writing about his work.

Wallis Simpson was a more complex person than the film indicates

King Edward VIII was crowned in January 1936 and abdicated in December of the same year in order to marry Wallis Simpson , who had been twice divorced (via History ). His younger brother was proclaimed king the next day. The film is sympathetic to George VI and Elizabeth, and Wallis Simpson is cast as a vaguely Nazi-supporting villain; there is little depth to her character. However, her life and motivations were shrouded in rumors from the British upper classes and the media.

The upper classes, who learned about the Edward-Wallis romance before the British media, in particular saw her as an uncouth American divorcee, and had a hard time figuring out why Edward wanted to be with her. When the media did find out, in December 1936, she was both ruined and revered by them, according to History Extra . However, after moving overseas more-or-less permanently she faded from the spotlight. Her unfortunate reputation from the nobles stuck with her.

Ultimately, George VI didn't allow his brother and sister-in-law, who had moved to France, to be productive for the royal family; they asked multiple times for jobs and were denied (via History Extra ). Awful rumors followed Wallis Simpson even past her death in the 1980s, including one that stated she would do anything to become queen of England. Though it's clear both on and off screen that she and Elizabeth disliked each other, Wallis was more than a king-stealing villain.

Churchill was actually opposed to Edward VIII's abdication

One major element of the film that historians had trouble with is Churchill's abrupt support of George VI, writes Daily History . In real life, he encouraged Edward VIII not to abdicate in 1936, and remained a supporter of the royal, believing something could be worked out without having to resort to abdication. George VI and Elizabeth didn't fully support Churchill later in life due to his actions during the abdication. However, Churchill was later knighted by Elizabeth II (via Biography ).

This element is likely written as such for the film due to the writers having a hard time writing someone as beloved as Churchill with actual flaws. The writers of "Saving Mr. Banks" had a similar issue with Walt Disney and his flaws. As a result, it is one of the only concrete historical aspects that left historians scratching their heads in confusion. Everything else that is changed in the film is mainly done for the sake of adaptation, drama, and the good of the narrative. This change seems to be for the sake of preserving Churchill's reputation. Considering the film's lead-up of events to World War II, and Churchill's role in Britain's survival, it isn't that surprising.

King George VI's coronation was less fraught than the film depicts

Logue worked with George VI on his coronation speech in 1937. Five days afterward, the king wrote a heartfelt thank you letter for the assistance (via Tatler ), attributing the success to Logue's "expert supervision and unfailing patience." Just as in the film, Logue and his wife are seated in the royal box, so high up that Myrtle Logue needed to use opera glasses in order to see, writes CNN .

However, by this time, the king had mostly mastered his speech impediment, and the dramatic scene in the film with Logue and St. Edward's chair is likely fictional. It was written for the sake of the narrative of George VI realizing he does have a voice. Reality isn't necessarily so cinematic, and after weeks of working on the speech with Logue, George VI delivered it flawlessly. Regardless, according to Daily History , the film accurately conveys the atmosphere of the 1930s and the coronation of a new king. In reality, the king and Logue likely didn't have the same miscommunication as they do in the film, and it is doubly heartwarming that Logue and his wife were seated with the royal family, just because of the services Logue had rendered the new king.

Logue was more deferential to his royal patient

Geoffrey Rush's portrayal is much more animated than Logue likely was in reality. Logue certainly addressed Prince Albert respectfully, and the scenes of swearing in Logue's office are likely invented. Logue also never referred to the prince by a nickname, much less one used exclusively by the family. They were friends in real life, but their relationship was more realistically distant.

According to CNN , the letters Logue wrote to the king are addressed to "Your Royal Highness". On the other hand, the king signed his letters with his first name, indicating a measure of friendship between the two men. Logue also apparently allowed George VI to set treatment goals due to his position. Though they did end up being friends, Logue never forgot who exactly his patient was, and treated him accordingly (via Daily History ). Historical films always add heart-to-heart speeches between people which probably never actually happened but work for the sake of drama and the narrative. "The King's Speech" is no exception.

The speech announcing war with Germany was less dramatic

Lionel Logue further assisted George VI during the 1939 speech when he announced Britain was at war with Germany. However, Logue wasn't actually in the room with him, as the film depicts, and only wrote notes on places for the king to pause to collect himself when speaking or on which words to stress, according to CNN . Keep in mind that by this point in time, 13 years after meeting Logue, the king had essentially mastered his stammer. George VI also stood to give the speech, though photographs show him in full military uniform and sitting down.

Lionel Logue's diaries also answered a previously unknown question about the speech that was added to the film. George VI stammered on some of the W's in the speech, and according to a comment he made to Logue, it was so the people would recognize him, writes CNN .

The film turns the event into a climactic event, as a culmination of the years of work the king and Logue have put into his affliction – and which the audience has just watched on screen for the past two hours. Also, though it is unlikely the information was revealed at this exact time in real life, the character of Winston Churchill tells the king just before this speech that he, too, was a stammerer as a child, writes The Lancet . This element is true, though it is positioned for the sake of cinematic drama.

George and Logue's friendship didn't fracture over credentials

In the film, coronation preparations pause when the archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang, mentions that Logue doesn't have any formal training. Not having known this beforehand, George VI becomes outraged and only calms after Logue provokes him into speaking without stammering, causing him to realize that he actually can speak accurately. This entire element is invented for the film, presumably for the sake of drama (and humor).

By this point, the two men had known each other for over a decade and were friends. Though their relationship was primarily professional, in scouting out Logue's help, the king must have understood his credentials and it didn't bother him; after all, he worked with Logue, voluntarily, for decades (via Daily History ). Logue's formality likely kept their friendship professional enough that they probably had few personal disagreements.

Logue and the king wrote letters back and forth for years; the earlier letters were signed "Albert" and the later letters "George" by the king, according to CNN , indicating a measure of friendship that was likely meted out to few people. When Logue asked the king in 1948 if he would serve as patron of the College of Speech Therapists, George VI immediately agreed and it became known as the Royal College of Speech Therapy, writes The ASHA Leader .

The film has an obvious pro-George VI bias

Due to being written from a historical perspective, "The King's Speech" supports George VI, Logue, Elizabeth, and even Winston Churchill as characters and historical figures much more than it does George V, Edward VIII, or Wallis Simpson. The film has an agenda and a narrative it set out to tell: the story of how George VI overcame his stammer and led a nation successfully through a war.

According to The Gazette , the film's textual inclusion of Logue's appointment as a Member of the Royal Victorian Order is accurate. The king appreciated his services enough to reward him with a title for them, and this element certainly adds to the theme of friendship the film is so fond of.

In another interesting example of bias, however, the film omits Edward VIII's Nazi sympathies entirely, though Simpson is written to seem like an outsider to the royals. This was likely done for the sake of Edward's surviving family, though it was a slightly odd omission considering the context of the film. Edward isn't cast as a villain, however, he doesn't quite seem to realize what he's forcing his brother to step into. Though he immediately supports George, Edward doesn't seem to comprehend the royal family's – and the film's – endless demand of duty.

The King’s Speech True Historical Story

The King’s Speech is headed for Oscar glory but some have criticized its faulty history. Author Peter Conradi says the relationship between King George VI and his speech therapist was unusually close and important.

Peter Conradi

"The King's Speech," starring Colin Firth as the King - or Bertie as he was known to his intimates - appears destined to be rewarded by the Academy next February. (Laurie Sparham / The Weinstein Company)

The King’s Speech may get some historical details wrong , but it’s spot on when it comes to its central point: the closeness of the friendship between King George VI and his unconventional Australian speech therapist

On February 28, 1952, just over three weeks after King George VI of England died, at age 56, his grieving widow, Elizabeth, took out her fountain pen and some sheets of Buckingham Palace notepaper and began to write to an old friend. “I know perhaps better than anyone just how much you helped the king, not only with his speech, but through that his whole life & outlook on life," she wrote. "I shall always be deeply grateful to you for all you did for him."

The recipient of her letter was Lionel Logue, an Australian in his early 70s, who was also, as it turned out, close to the end of his life. Over the previous quarter of a century, this publican’s son from Adelaide, without a formal qualification to his name, had come to occupy an extraordinary position within the inner circle of King George, father of the present queen, not just as a speech therapist, but also as a friend.

The relationship between the two men is at the heart of the film The King’s Speech , which went on selected release at theaters in the U.S. over Thanksgiving weekend and will be shown elsewhere in the country over the coming weeks. After delighting critics at film festivals from Toronto to London, the film, starring Colin Firth as the king—or Bertie as he was always known to his intimates—and Geoffrey Rush as Logue, appears destined to be rewarded by the Academy in February.

Among the critics’ plaudits, however, there have been some notes of dissent—from, among others, Andrew Roberts, the respected British historian, writing last week here on The Daily Beast . Although gorgeously produced, he says, the film as history “is worthless because of its addiction to long-exploded myths.”

When the king made a speech on the evening of September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, he asked Logue to go through it with him first.

Roberts is right to point out that Tom Hooper, the director, has tinkered with some of the basic facts, such as having Winston Churchill back the abdication of Edward VIII, which put a reluctant Bertie onto the throne in December 1936, whereas Churchill instead spoke out in favor of Edward and his romance with Wallis Simpson. But then this never claimed to be a documentary.

When it comes to the debt owed by King George to Logue, though, Hooper's film is spot on—as became clear to me going through hundreds of diary entries, letters, and other documents that form the basis for the book The King’s Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy , which I have written with Logue’s grandson, Mark, and is being published to coincide with the release of the film.

The two men first met in 1926, when Bertie went to consult Logue in the dingy set of rooms at the cheap end of Harley Street in the heart of Britain’s medical establishment that he had rented after arriving, virtually penniless, with his wife and three sons on the boat from Australia two years earlier.

Bertie was badly in need of help. He had began to stammer at the age of 8—the letter ‘k’ (as in king) proved a particular challenge—and his condition worsened after he was created Duke of York in 1920 and had to take on official engagements. A major speech in front of thousands of people at the British Empire exhibition in Wembley in May 1925—which forms the starting point of the film—proved a particular humiliation. And he soon faced the grueling prospect of a major six-month tour of New Zealand and Australia.

The duke had already seen his fill of “experts,” but no one had been able to cure him. He was persuaded to have one last try by his glamorous young wife, Elizabeth, better remembered today as the queen mother (played in the film by Helena Bonham Carter). "I can cure you," Logue declared after they had spent an hour and a half together. "But it will need a tremendous effort by you. Without that effort, it can't be done."

Bertie certainly put in the required effort—but this was no quick fix. Indeed, despite weekly sessions with Logue, coupled with a rigorous program of exercises, he continued to consult the Australian for the rest of life. In the process the two men became close—even though, judging by the tone of their letters, the real-life Logue was somewhat more deferential toward his pupil than his on-screen depiction.

Their relationship intensified after Bertie became king. His stammer, as Roberts asserts, may not have been as bad in reality as in the movie, but it remained a major preoccupation—otherwise why would he have had several one-to-one sessions with Logue in the run-up to his coronation in May 1937? And why would he have insisted on his therapist joining the royal family for Christmas lunch at Sandringham so he could help prepare a broadcast to the empire that afternoon—and in subsequent Christmases?

Logue’s own diary entries show how much of a strain the king still found public speaking. One rehearsal on May 6, six days before the coronation, went especially badly: According to Logue’s account, the king became almost hysterical, although the queen managed to calm him down, “He is a good fellow,” Logue wrote of the king, “and only wants careful handling.”

• Andrew Roberts: The King Who Couldn’t Speak When the king made a speech on the evening of September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, he asked Logue to go through it with him first. We know that because an annotated copy—showing Bertie where to pause and breathe—was among Logue’s papers.

Just over a year later, when the king was practicing his speech for that year's State Opening of Parliament, he greeted Logue grinning like a schoolboy. "Logue, I've got the jitters," he declared. "I woke up at 1 o'clock after dreaming I was in parliament with my mouth wide open and couldn't say a word." Although both men laughed heartily, it brought home to Logue that even now, after all the years they had spent working together, the king's speech impediment still weighed heavily on him.

And so it went on through the war years, until a few days before Christmas 1944, when the king finally felt confident enough to deliver his message without Logue by his side. The broadcast went well. Logue, listening at home in London, with friends, rang the king immediately afterward to congratulate him. “My job is over, sir,” he declared. “Not at all,” the king replied. “It is the preliminary work that counts, and that is where you are indispensable.”

Plus: Check out more of the latest entertainment, fashion, and culture coverage on Sexy Beast—photos, videos, features, and Tweets .

Peter Conradi is a journalist with The Sunday Times of London. Read more about the book at www-the-kings-speech.com

Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast  here .

READ THIS LIST

Truth and Fiction in ‘The King’s Speech’

Historians and critics charge that George VI was a nitwit and a Nazi appeaser

On the heels of its 12 Academy Award nominations , “The King’s Speech,” an inspiring story of King George VI and his triumph over stuttering, is being criticized for historical inaccuracies.

It’s as predictable as the Oscars themselves. A new front-runner often means some fresh round of attacks, and the charge of historical distortion is a perennial one.

In this case, intellectual gadfly Christopher Hitchens and the New York Review of Books’ Martin Filler are charging that the monarch in question was no better than a Nazi appeaser and, in Filler’s words, “a nitwit.” They paint a portrait of the wartime king that is far different from the shy family man essayed by Oscar nominee (and favorite) Colin Firth.

“‘The King's Speech’ …perpetrates a gross falsification of history,” Hitchens wrote on Slate on Monday, saying the king was not worthy of hagiography. Fillers says the king had an uncontrollable temper and even struck his wife.

But Hugo Vickers, a historian who consulted on the film and author of a biography on the Queen Mother, disagreed: “He was a humble man and a courageous man and he was called upon to do a job for which he had not been trained,” he told TheWrap.

He said the depiction of a man struggling to overcome a crippling speech impediment is accurate.

The filmmakers themselves declined to comment, but have said publicly that the movie was carefully researched.

The appeasement charge stems from the king’s decision to pose with Neville Chamberlain on the balcony of Buckingham Palace after the prime minister negotiated the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938 (a fact that the movie skirts over).

Whether George VI’s evolving views of the threat of Nazism should be defined solely by that photo-op with Chamberlain are at the heart of the current debate. Historians and journalists sympathetic to the film say the criticism is overly simplistic.

When war came, King George VI and his wife bravely remained in London even as the blitzkrieg raged. It was his brother, Edward, they say, who was known to have Nazi sympathies, while the king eventually rallied the country – as the film depicts – to meet the threat of war.

And anyway, they add, the film is about stuttering, and not wartime politics.

Filler goes further than the acerbic Hitchens, emphasizing George VI’s personal deficits as much as the king’s leadership deficiencies.

“‘The King’s Speech’ doesn’t dwell on George’s limited intellectual capacities, but many who dealt first-hand with him did,” Filler wrote in the New York Review of Books .

For journalists such as Harold Evans, who reminisces about a wartime George VI in his book “My Paper Chase: True Stories of Vanished Times,” Hitchens and Filler misinterpret the king’s legacy. He also maintains that Hitchens’ anti-monarchist beliefs have colored the social critic’s view of history.

“It is hard for Americans to understand the atmosphere in England in the thirties. Everyone had lost a cousin or had a relative killed in World War I. They were horrified that we’d go back to war again,” Evans told TheWrap.

“It’s not a film about appeasement. It’s a film about the struggle of a man to overcome a great handicap,” he added.

Or is it just about Oscar politics?

Among Oscar campaigners, the articles by Hitchens and Filler are suspiciously timed – coming directly after the Weinstein Company film dominated the Oscar nominations, which followed an upset win at the Producers Guild Awards on Saturday.

For months critics have harped that “The Social Network” gets the story of Facebook’s founding gravely wrong.

Complaints about Hollywood biopics playing fast and loose with the facts are a staple of Oscar races (and are often gleefully passed along by rival films’ camps), and this season is shaping up to be no different. 

In the case of “Network,” critics have chirped that the David Fincher overstates the importance of Harvard eating clubs to Mark Zuckerberg and the seminal role a painful breakup played in the creation of Facebook.

Last week at a Digital Life Design conference in Munich, Sean Parker, the Napster co-founder and Facebook executive played by Justin Timberlake in the movie, “a complete work of fiction.”

In his Golden Globes acceptance speech, “Network” screenwriter Aaron Sorkin seemed to answer those critiques by saying he was using Zuckerberg as a metaphor.

In past years, Oscar candidates such as “A Beautiful Mind,” “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Queen” have been similarly bedevilled by charges of inaccuracy.

Nor are these the first times that the portrait of King George VI painted in “The King’s Speech” has been called into question.

Just days after the film began its limited release, Andrew Roberts in The Daily Beast , griped about the “…very many glaring and egregious inaccuracies and tired old myths that this otherwise charming film unquestioningly regurgitates.”

However, this latest set of slams are particularly trenchant.

In addition to griping about George VI’s wartime leadership, Filler and Hitchens contend that the movie misrepresents the relationship between Winston Churchill and the monarch. In the film, Churchill is depicted as pushing for the abdication of Edward VIII, so that the king can marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

In reality, Churchill fiercely opposed the decision, and his support for Edward VIII initially led to a frosty relationship with his successor.

Splitting hairs, say those who endorse the film’s version of history.

“If this were a documentary, rather than a theatrical release, I’d be the first to complain,” Evans said, adding, “I feel irritated by this attempt to make a political point with something that is an inspirational film.” 

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Movie Interviews

Tom hooper: on directing 'the king's speech'.

In The King's Speech , Colin Firth plays King George VI, who was adored by his subjects for refusing to leave London during World War II bombing raids. He also suffered from a terrible stammer and hated speaking in public. Laurie Sparham via The Weinstein Co. hide caption

In The King's Speech , Colin Firth plays King George VI, who was adored by his subjects for refusing to leave London during World War II bombing raids. He also suffered from a terrible stammer and hated speaking in public.

This interview was originally broadcast on November 18, 2010. The King's Speech was recently nominated for 12 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director.

In 1925, Albert, Duke of York, began seeing a speech therapist to correct his pronounced speech impediment. Eleven years later, he reluctantly ascended to the British throne as King George VI, after his older brother Edward VIII abdicated to marry the American Wallis Simpson.

As the king, George VI was expected to frequently address his nation, both in person and on the radio. During these public speaking engagements, he continued to rely heavily on his speech therapist, Australian Lionel Logue, to make sure he didn't stammer.

King George VI's relationship with Logue is at the heart of director Tom Hooper's historical drama, The King's Speech . The film stars Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as Logue, who developed his somewhat unorthodox way of treating speech impediments while treating shell-shocked soldiers in the years following World War I.

Related NPR Stories

Oscars 2011: the 83rd annual academy awards, oscars 2011: best picture cheat sheet, 'the king's speech' passes stutterers the mic, movie reviews, for a 'king's speech,' commoner helps find a voice.

"He basically taught himself through trial and error speech therapy and developed techniques in order to help these men," says Hooper. "Our film suggests that what he felt was that these young men had lost faith in their voice and he was giving them the right to be heard again — to talk about their trauma and to find their voice again."

Hooper tells Fresh Air 's Dave Davies that Logue's therapy techniques included asking his subjects personal questions about their childhoods and about traumatic moments in their lives, to see if there was a psychological reason for their stammers. King George VI, who was often neglected by his nannies and rarely saw his parents, worked with Logue on techniques to regain his own voice.

Tom Hooper directed BBC costume drama before making his feature film debut in 2004, when he directed Hilary Swank in Red Dust . Laurie Sparham via The Weinstein Co. hide caption

Tom Hooper directed BBC costume drama before making his feature film debut in 2004, when he directed Hilary Swank in Red Dust .

"What I learned about stammering was that, when as a young child you lose the confidence of anyone who wants to listen to you, you lose confidence in your voice and the right to speech," says Hooper. "And a lot of the therapy was saying, 'You have a right to be heard.' "

Hooper explains that for the film, both he and Firth watched hours of archival footage of King George, to develop the character.

"We watched a speech given in 1938 where the newsreel people cut from a close-up [of the king] to spectators in the crowd," says Hooper. "Whenever they come back in this profile close to the king, you just can see in his eyes — he just wants to get it right. That's all he wants to achieve. But he keeps getting caught in these horrible, painful silences in which he drowns and gathers his thoughts in silence. Colin and I both saw this and were extremely moved."

Hooper received Emmy Awards for Outstanding Directing for the HBO miniseries John Adams and Elizabeth I . His other films include Damned United and Red Dust .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Movie Review | 'The King’s Speech'

The King’s English, Albeit With Twisted Tongue

By Manohla Dargis

• Nov. 25, 2010

British films that make it to American screens these days often fall into two distinct niches: life is miserable and life is sweet (to borrow a title from the director Mike Leigh, who oscillates between the two). Given its quality headliners and high commercial profile (ding-dong, is that Oscar calling?), it’s no surprise that “The King’s Speech,” a buddy story about aggressively charming opposites — Colin Firth as the stutterer who would be king and Geoffrey Rush as the speech therapist — comes with heaping spoonfuls of sugar.

The story largely unfolds during the Great Depression, building to the compulsory rousing end in 1939 when Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, world calamities that don’t have a patch on the urgent matter of the speech impediment of Albert Frederick Arthur George (Mr. Firth). As a child, Albert, or Bertie as his family called him, the shy, sickly second son of King George V (Michael Gambon, memorably severe and regal), had a stutter debilitating enough that as an adult he felt compelled to conquer it. In this he was aided by his wife, Elizabeth (a fine Helena Bonham Carter), a steely Scottish rose and the mother of their daughters, Elizabeth, the future queen (Freya Wilson), and Margaret (Ramona Marquez).

Albert meets his new speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Mr. Rush), reluctantly and only after an assortment of public and private humiliations. (In one botched effort, a doctor instructs Albert to talk with a mouthful of marbles, a gagging endeavor that might have altered the imminent monarchical succession.) As eccentric and expansive as Albert is reserved, Logue enters the movie with a flourish, insisting that they meet in his shabby-chic office and that he be permitted to call his royal client, then the Duke of York, by the informal Bertie. It’s an ideal odd coupling, or at least that’s what the director Tom Hooper would have us believe as he jumps from one zippy voice lesson to the next, pausing every so often to wring a few tears.

To that generally diverting end, Albert barks and brays and raps out a calculatingly cute string of expletives, including the four-letter kind that presumably earned this cross-demographically friendly film its R. With their volume turned up, the appealing, impeccably professional Mr. Firth and Mr. Rush rise to the Acting occasion by twinkling and growling as their characters warily circle each other before settling into the therapeutic swing of things and unknowingly preparing for the big speech that partly gives the film its title. Before you know it, Elizabeth (Ms. Bonham Carter), the future dumpling known as the Queen Mother, is sitting on Bertie’s chest during an exercise while he lies on Logue’s floor, an image that is as much about the reassuring ordinariness of the royals as it is about Albert’s twisting tongue.

It isn’t exactly “Pygmalion,” not least because Mr. Hooper has no intention of satirizing the caste system that is one of this movie’s biggest draws. Unlike “The Queen,” a barbed look at the royal family after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, “The King’s Speech” takes a relatively benign view of the monarchy, framing Albert as a somewhat poor little rich boy condemned to live in a fishbowl, an idea that Mr. Hooper unwisely literalizes by overusing a fisheye lens. The royals’ problems are largely personal, embodied by King George playing the stern 19th-century patriarch to Logue’s touchy-feely Freudian father. And while Albert initially bristles at Logue’s presumptions, theirs is finally a democracy of equals, an angle that makes their inequities go down in a most uneventful way.

Each character has his moments, instances when Bertie the closed book tentatively opens and Logue’s arrogance gets away from him, but both are too decent, too banal and the film too ingratiating to resonate deeply. Albert’s impediment certainly pales in comparison with the drama surrounding his older, popular brother, David, later King Edward VIII (a fantastic Guy Pearce), and his married American divorcée, Mrs. Wallis Simpson (Eve Best). After King George V dies, David assumes the crown and continues to carry on with Mrs. Simpson, a liaison that, because of its suggestively perverse power dynamics — at a party, she orders the new king (yoo-hooing “David”) to fetch her booze — hints at a more interesting movie than the one before you.

That film does have its attractions, notably in its two solid leads and standout support from Mr. Pearce. Mercurially sliding between levels of imperiousness and desperation, he creates a thorny tangle of complications in only a few abbreviated scenes, and when his new king viciously taunts Bertie, you see the entirety of their cruel childhood flashing between them. By the time he abdicates in 1936, publicly pledging himself to Mrs. Simpson (“the woman I love”), turning the throne over to King George VI, Edward has a hold on your affections. Those would surely lessen if the film tagged after him when he and Mrs. Simpson subsequently took their post-abdication tour around Germany, where they had tea with Hitler and the Duke returned the Führer’s Nazi salute. Like many entertainments of this pop-historical type, “The King’s Speech” wears history lightly no matter how heavy the crown.

The King’s Speech

Opens on Friday in New York and Los Angeles.

Directed by Tom Hooper; written by David Seidler; director of photography, Danny Cohen; edited by Tariq Anwar; music by Alexandre Desplat; production design by Eve Stewart; costumes by Jenny Beavan; produced by Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin; released by the Weinstein Company. Running time: 1 hour 58 minutes.

WITH: Colin Firth (King George VI), Geoffrey Rush (Lionel Logue), Helena Bonham Carter (Queen Elizabeth), Guy Pearce (King Edward VIII), Jennifer Ehle (Myrtle Logue), Eve Best (Wallis Simpson), Freya Wilson (Princess Elizabeth), Ramona Marquez (Princess Margaret), Claire Bloom (Queen Mary), Derek Jacobi (Archbishop Cosmo Lang), Michael Gambon (King George V), Timothy Spall (Winston Churchill) and Anthony Andrews (Stanley Baldwin).

“The King’s Speech” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Coarse language.

Excuse My Thoughts

Fact vs. Fiction: The King's Speech

• July 7, 2021

Fact vs. Fiction: The King’s Speech

Before Queen Elizabeth II became Britain’s longest-reigning monarch , her father was king from 1936 until his death in 1952. He was born Prince Albert of York in 1895, later becoming Prince Albert, Duke of York in 1920. However, when his older brother abdicated in 1936, he ascended the throne as King George VI. He was an important character in many different movies, shows, and radio plays, such as The Crown and Darkest Hour . However, the most famous example is 2010’s The King’s Speech , which won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Screenplay. Many have praised it for its historical accuracy, while others have criticized its artistic liberties. What did The King’s Speech do right, and what did it get wrong?

The King’s Speech : A Brief Summary

The King’s Speech follows the early reign of King George VI, known as “Bertie” to his family and friends, spanning from 1925 to 1939. We first see him giving a speech at the closing ceremony for the British Empire Exhibition. However, with his debilitating stammer, he is barely able to speak. After trying and failing to treat his speech impediment many times, his wife asks him to see Lionel Logue, a non-medically trained speech therapist. Logue’s methods are unconventional, frustrating Bertie repeatedly. For example, Logue asks him to recite soliloquies while blasting classical music in his ears or to do breathing exercises while his wife sits on his stomach. Eventually, the two become friends as they get to know each other better.

When Bertie’s father, King George V, dies on January 20, 1936, Bertie’s older brother, known as “David” to his family and friends, ascends the throne as King Edward VIII. However, David abdicates soon after to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite and divorcée. Bertie finds himself overwhelmed by his sudden newfound responsibilities, ascending as King George VI on December 11, 1936. The movie ends with the titular king’s speech, Bertie’s first wartime radio broadcast after Britain’s declaration of war on Germany on September 3, 1939.

The King’s Speech : Historical Accuracies

According to historians and data journalists, The King’s Speech is approximately 75% accurate. Just like in real life, the movie depicts Bertie as reluctant to seek treatment after failing several times. It was only at the encouragement of his wife, Lady Elizabeth, Duchess of York, that he agreed to try again. The movie also accurately depicts Bertie as a family man, doting on his daughters, Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret. One scene shows his devastation at them having to curtsy to him before he can hug them. In another scene, King George V, Bertie’s father, shouts at Bertie for stammering during a practice speech. Some have suggested that his real-life harshness may have worsened or even caused Bertie’s stammer in the first place.

Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter’s portrayals of Bertie and Elizabeth, respectively, were highly praised for their accuracy. Bertie was a shy, timid man due to his upbringing. When he was younger, he was left-handed and knock-kneed, so his father forced him to write with his right hand and wear painful leg braces. He was also emotionally and physically abused by one of his nannies. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was raised in a loving household. Bonham Carter’s depiction of her warmth and dedication to her husband is true to life.

The King’s Speech : Historical Inaccuracies

Like many historical dramas, The King’s Speech took some artistic liberties for plot purposes. For example, after King George V’s death, his widow, Queen Mary, curtsies to David, the new king. Overwhelmed, David breaks down and cries while holding onto his mother. There are no reports of this happening in real life. However, it is well-known that Bertie cried on Queen Mary’s shoulder when David abdicated because he didn’t want to become king. Another inaccuracy is Winston Churchill’s role in David’s abdication. In the movie, he tells him to consider abdicating; in real life, he wanted David to remain king and supported his desire to marry Simpson. Lastly, the movie shows Churchill and Neville Chamberlain present at Bertie’s speech to show their support. However, in reality, neither of them was there.

One of the biggest historical inaccuracies is Bertie’s treatment and relationship with Logue. The methods shown in the movie were based on the screenplay writer’s own experiences with speech therapy. In real life, Logue’s actual approach never became public knowledge. There is also no evidence that Elizabeth was the one who asked Logue to help her husband. The movie also implies that Bertie only started working with Logue in the 1930s; in real life, they started in the early 1920s. Additionally, one of Logue’s grandsons doubted that his grandfather was ever allowed to call the king “Bertie”, or that he was allowed to swear in front of him. Lastly, in the movie, Bertie and Logue have a temporary falling-out. In reality, there was no record of this ever happening; they remained friends until Bertie’s death in 1952.

Contact Information

• [email protected]
• @scusemythoughts
• scusemythoughts

King’s speech: what is it and why does it matter?

Senior Lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University

Disclosure statement

Sean Lang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Today, King Charles will give his first speech from the throne as monarch. He delivered the queen’s speech once as Prince of Wales, deputising in May 2022 for his mother, who could not attend. This is the first speech by a king since 1951, though on that occasion King George VI was too ill to attend and the speech was read out by the Lord Chancellor .

Who writes the king’s speech and why does it matter?

The king’s speech is the central part of the ceremony marking the state opening of parliament .

At the start of each parliamentary session, the monarch goes – in a state coach and escorted by the household cavalry – to the House of Lords, accompanied by the crown as a symbol of his royal authority. There, he reads out a speech outlining the government’s plans and priorities for the year ahead.

Although it is known as the king’s speech, it is actually written by the government, for the monarch. In 1964, an irreverent Private Eye cover had Queen Elizabeth II reading the speech while saying: “I hope you realise I didn’t write this crap.”

The speech and the ceremony are a reminder of the constitutional relationship of crown and government. Although political power rests with the prime minister and cabinet, there is nevertheless a layer of authority above them.

What happens at the speech?

The tradition of a king’s speech has its origins in the medieval parliament, but the speech from the throne as we know it today first evolved in the late 17th century , when parliament finally established its power over the monarch.

Much of the modern ritual is a Victorian concoction. The monarch sits on the royal throne in the House of Lords – the upper house. Members of parliament are imperiously summoned by a royal official known as the gentleman usher of the black rod (though the office is currently held by a woman, and so: the lady Usher of the black rod). No seats are provided for MPs, so they have to crowd into an inadequate space at the back.

Meanwhile, the door of the Commons is slammed in black rod’s face as a reminder of the independence of the Commons. And that, ever since 1642, when Charles I entered the chamber with armed men in a foiled attempt to arrest five MPs, the House of Commons is the one place in the realm where the monarch is not allowed to step.

MPs amble informally down to the upper house to show they are going because they choose to, not because they are summoned, and the speech they are to hear is the work of the government, not the king. It’s political theatre.

What if the monarch disagrees with the speech?

Whatever his private feelings, the monarch must not show any overt preference for any political party, so the speech is always read in as neutral a tone as possible. Sometimes the speech might include current acronyms or technical terms which sit strangely with the glittering jewellery and gold on display, but the monarch must read it all, giving nothing away either by tone of voice or facial expression.

The monarch has the right to advise, warn and encourage the prime minister on policy. In return he must always follow the prime minister’s advice and he must read the prime minister’s speech.

This means that a monarch might solemnly read out a speech written by one party, and, a year later, if there has been a change of government, equally solemnly read out a speech outlining a completely different programme and written by their opponents.

What can we expect from this year’s king’s speech?

The grand ceremonial of the state opening has sometimes been scaled down, in wartime or if the economic situation suggests tactful restraint. This is something the king himself has to gauge, with advice from the government.

The speech is the first indication of the government’s legislative priorities for the year ahead. We can certainly expect reference to housing and the cost of living crisis, and possibly to the ongoing crises in Gaza and Ukraine. Reports have indicated that the speech will also include bills related to the prime minister’s pro-motorist plans, a gradual smoking ban and leasehold reform.

After the speech, the monarch makes an equally ceremonial departure and MPs shuffle off back to the Commons where they begin a debate, which normally lasts a week. This is called a humble address to the monarch, thanking him for his gracious speech, but in reality offering MPs a chance to support or attack the government for its now-public list of intentions. And so normal politics resumes.

• UK politics
• UK parliament
• Rishi Sunak
• King Charles III

Project Offier - Diversity & Inclusion

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the rain in sp…sp...sp....

Now streaming on:

"The King's Speech" tells the story of a man compelled to speak to the world with a stammer. It must be painful enough for one who stammers to speak to another person. To face a radio microphone and know the British Empire is listening must be terrifying. At the time of the speech mentioned in this title, a quarter of the Earth's population was in the Empire, and of course much of North America, Europe, Africa and Asia would be listening — and with particular attention, Germany.

The king was George VI. The year was 1939. Britain was entering into war with Germany. His listeners required firmness, clarity and resolve, not stammers punctuated with tortured silences. This was a man who never wanted to be king. After the death of his father, the throne was to pass to his brother Edward. But Edward renounced the throne "in order to marry the woman I love," and the duty fell to Prince Albert, who had struggled with his speech from an early age.

In "The King's Speech," director Tom Hooper opens on Albert ( Colin Firth ), attempting to open the British Empire Exhibition in 1925. Before a crowded arena and a radio audience, he seizes up in agony in efforts to make the words come out right. His father, George V ( Michael Gambon ), has always considered "Bertie" superior to Edward ( Guy Pearce ), but mourns the introduction of radio and newsreels, which require a monarch to be seen and heard on public occasions.

At that 1925 speech, we see Bertie's wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), her face filled with sympathy. As it becomes clear that Edward's obsession with Wallis Simpson (Eve Best) is incurable, she realizes her Bertie may face more public humiliation. He sees various speech therapists, one of whom tries the old marbles-in-the-mouth routine first recommended by Demosthenes. Nothing works, and then she seeks out a failed Australian actor named Lionel Logue ( Geoffrey Rush ), who has set up a speech therapy practice.

Logue doesn't realize at first who is consulting him. And one of the subjects of the film is Logue's attitude toward royalty, which I suspect is not untypical of Australians; he suggests to Albert that they get on a first-name basis. Albert has been raised within the bell jar of the monarchy and objects to such treatment, not because he has an elevated opinion of himself but because, well, it just isn't done. But Logue realizes that if he is to become the king's therapist, he must first become his friend.

If the British monarchy is good for nothing else, it's superb at producing the subjects of films. "The King's Speech," rich in period detail and meticulous class distinctions, largely sidesteps the story that loomed over this whole period, Edward's startling decision to give up the crown to marry a woman who was already divorced three times. Indeed, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (as they became) would occupy an inexplicable volume of attention for years, considering they had no significance after the Duke's abdication. The unsavory thing is that Wallis Simpson considered herself worthy of such a sacrifice from the man she allegedly loved. This film finds a more interesting story about better people; Americans, who aren't always expert on British royalty, may not necessarily realize that Albert and wife Elizabeth were the parents of Queen Elizabeth II. God knows what Edward might have fathered.

Director Tom Hooper makes an interesting decision with his sets and visuals. The movie is largely shot in interiors, and most of those spaces are long and narrow. That's unusual in historical dramas, which emphasize sweep and majesty and so on. Here we have long corridors, a deep and narrow master control room for the BBC, rooms that seem peculiarly oblong. I suspect he may be evoking the narrow, constricting walls of Albert's throat as he struggles to get words out.

The film largely involves the actors Colin Firth, formal and decent, and Geoffrey Rush, large and expansive, in psychological struggle. Helena Bonham Carter, who can be merciless (as in the "Harry Potter" films), is here filled with mercy, tact and love for her husband; this is the woman who became the much-loved Queen Mother of our lifetimes, dying in 2002 at 101. As the men have a struggle of wills, she tries to smooth things (and raise her girls Elizabeth and Margaret). And in the wider sphere, Hitler takes power, war comes closer, Mrs. Simpson wreaks havoc, and the dreaded day approaches when Bertie, as George VI, will have to speak to the world and declare war.

Hooper's handling of that fraught scene is masterful. Firth internalizes his tension and keeps the required stiff upper lip, but his staff and household are terrified on his behalf as he marches toward a microphone as if it is a guillotine. It is the one scene in the film that must work, and it does, and its emotional impact is surprisingly strong. At the end, what we have here is a superior historical drama and a powerful personal one. And two opposites who remain friends for the rest of their lives.

Note: The R rating refers to Logue's use of vulgarity. It is utterly inexplicable. This is an excellent film for teenagers.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Dad & Step-Dad

Carlos aguilar.

Apples Never Fall

Cristina escobar.

Matt Zoller Seitz

The Animal Kingdom

Monica castillo.

Glenn Kenny

Brian Tallerico

Film credits.

The King's Speech (2010)

Rated R for language

118 minutes

Directed by

• David Seidler

Latest blog posts

He's Got Something Going On: David Proval on Mean Streets, and Acting for Martin Scorsese

Girl Shy and the Birth of the Romantic Comedy

New 2025 Oscar Rules Specify New Composer Eligibility, Inclusion Requirements, No More Drive-In Eligibility

Luca Guadagnino Is Love

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

The king's speech, common sense media reviewers.

Superb drama about overcoming fears is fine for teens.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

The film has a stirring message: Our biggest limit

The three main characters serve as strong role mod

A character struggles with his temper, which is fu

A king abdicates from the throne because of his in

Strong language includes "bastard," &quo

Some social drinking (sherry, whisky, wine).

Parents need to know that The King's Speech is an engrossing, fact-based drama that's rated R primarily for a few scenes of strong language (including one "f"-word-filled outburst). It has inspiring and empowering messages about triumphing over your fears. An indie about a king who stutters…

Positive Messages

The film has a stirring message: Our biggest limitations are the voices in our head that remind us of all of our imperfections and failures. But they're only voices, and our will and perseverance are stronger than our fears. Communication, integrity, and humility are major themes. The film has some classist overtones, but they’re placed within historical context.

Positive Role Models

The three main characters serve as strong role models: Lionel Logue, though somewhat untraditional in his approach to speech therapy (at least for the movie's time period), believes in himself so much that he's able to help others do so, too. The queen is a lesson in being supportive without condescension, and King George VI is a man not to be denied his life because of his past.

Violence & Scariness

A character struggles with his temper, which is fueled by frustration.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

A king abdicates from the throne because of his involvement with a divorcee. There are references to her "talents" behind closed doors.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Strong language includes "bastard," "bloody," "tits," "damn," "ass," "hell," and "bugger." And in one memorable scene, a man yells out a stream of words like "s--t" and "f--k."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that The King's Speech is an engrossing, fact-based drama that's rated R primarily for a few scenes of strong language (including one "f"-word-filled outburst). It has inspiring and empowering messages about triumphing over your fears. An indie about a king who stutters might not seem like typical adolescent fare, but don't judge a movie by the brief synopsis: Teens will enjoy it as much as the grown-ups will if they give it a chance. In addition to the swearing, there's some social drinking, but that all fades in comparison to the movie's surprisingly moving themes of hope and perseverance. Note: An edited version of the movie that removes/lessens some of the strongest language has been rated PG-13 and released separately. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (65)
• Kids say (126)

Based on 65 parent reviews

Great Oscar winning about overcoming fears.

I loved this movie, what's the story.

In THE KING'S SPEECH, King George VI ( Colin Firth ), father to Queen Elizabeth II, inherited the British throne in 1936 after his brother Edward's controversial abdication to marry divorcee Wallis Simpson. Ultimately, he would lead the United Kingdom through World War II. But even before he ascended the throne, he was a man struggling with a persistent and troubling condition: He stammered. This was a source of deep despair for the soon-to-be king, who was known among friends and family members as Bertie. Despite his wife's ( Helena Bonham Carter ) best efforts and deep, abiding love, Bertie was stunted by rage and anxiety. But in this film based on true events, the king finally finds an ally in Lionel Logue ( Geoffrey Rush ), an Australian speech therapist who helps Bertie gain the confidence and will to overcome his fears and let his voice be heard, literally and metaphorically.

Is It Any Good?

It is a singularly gratifying experience to watch this film's three stars -- Firth, Bonham Carter, and Rush -- do what they do best: act. It's like watching a master class. They disappear into their characters and make them both interesting and understandable. That's not always the case with films about royalty. Often, they're a visual (and unremarkable) summary of what we know from books; here, they fascinate with their trials, triumphs, and, most of all, humanity. And for a movie steeped in a feel-good message -- "You don't need to be afraid of the things you were afraid of when you were 5," intones one man -- it's far from clichéd.

Credit, too, goes to director Tom Hooper and screenwriter David Seidler, who himself conquered a stutter and was inspired by the king. They have created characters so rich that they compel viewers to rush to the Web for some post-viewing research. We know a lot about today's royals, but they don't hold a candle to their predecessors -- or at least to the ones portrayed here. The movie makes history and self-help irresistible. Bottom line? The King's Speech is superb.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the messages in The King's Speech. What are viewers meant to take away from watching?

How does the movie portray stuttering and those who suffer from it? Does it seem realistic and believable? How does Bertie's struggle with stuttering affect him?

How did the queen pave the way for the king's success? Are they positive role models? Do you think the movie portrays them accurately? Why might filmmakers change some details in a fact-based story?

How do the characters in The King's Speech demonstrate communication and perseverance ? What about integrity and humility ? Why are these important character strengths?

Movie Details

• In theaters : November 26, 2010
• On DVD or streaming : April 19, 2011
• Cast : Colin Firth , Geoffrey Rush , Helena Bonham Carter
• Director : Tom Hooper
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : Weinstein Co.
• Genre : Drama
• Character Strengths : Communication , Humility , Integrity , Perseverance
• Run time : 111 minutes
• MPAA rating : R
• MPAA explanation : some language
• Award : Academy Award
• Last updated : March 10, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Drama Movies That Tug at the Heartstrings

Biopic movies, related topics.

• Communication
• Perseverance

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Challengers Link to Challengers
• Abigail Link to Abigail
• Arcadian Link to Arcadian

New TV Tonight

• The Jinx: Season 2
• Knuckles: Season 1
• The Big Door Prize: Season 2
• THEM: The Scare: Season 2
• Velma: Season 2
• Secrets of the Octopus: Season 1
• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• Thank You, Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story: Season 1
• We're Here: Season 4

Most Popular TV on RT

• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• Fallout: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• Under the Bridge: Season 1
• Sugar: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Under the Bridge Link to Under the Bridge
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

DC Animated Movies In Order: How to Watch 54 Original and Universe Films

The Best TV Seasons Certified Fresh at 100%

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Watch An Exclusive Pixar Studio Tour, Plus Inside Out 2 Secrets From The Set

Weekend Box Office Results: Civil War Earns Second Victory in a Row

• Trending on RT
• Rebel Moon: Part Two - The Scargiver
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
• Play Movie Trivia

The King's Speech

Where to watch.

Watch The King's Speech with a subscription on Max, rent on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV.

What to Know

Colin Firth gives a masterful performance in The King's Speech , a predictable but stylishly produced and rousing period drama.

Audience Reviews

Cast & crew.

Colin Firth

King George VI

Geoffrey Rush

Lionel Logue

Helena Bonham Carter

Queen Elizabeth

King Edward VIII

Timothy Spall

Winston Churchill

Best Movies to Stream at Home

Movie news & guides, this movie is featured in the following articles., critics reviews.

Home > The King’s Speech Ending Explained

The King’s Speech Ending Explained

• UPDATED: February 1, 2024

Table of Contents

“The King’s Speech,” a historical drama released in 2010, directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler, captivates audiences with its portrayal of King George VI’s journey to overcome his stammer with the help of Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue. The film, which stars Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue, concludes on a note of triumph and personal achievement, reflecting the king’s significant progress and the deep friendship formed between the king and his therapist.

Overcoming the Stammer

At its core, the film’s climax is centered around King George VI’s (Bertie) pivotal wartime speech to the British Empire, declaring war on Nazi Germany in 1939. This moment is not just about the delivery of a speech but symbolizes Bertie’s overcoming of his stammer, the culmination of his journey towards self-confidence, and the affirmation of his capability as a monarch. The successful broadcast is a testament to the tireless work and unconventional methods of Lionel Logue, whose close relationship with the king is crucial to this achievement. The scene captures the essence of Bertie’s transformation and his ability to fulfill his royal duties despite personal challenges​​.

Historical Accuracy and Dramatization

While “The King’s Speech” is grounded in historical events, certain creative liberties have been taken for dramatic effect. The film suggests that Logue’s treatment and the overcoming of Bertie’s stammer closely precede the abdication crisis and his coronation. However, in reality, Logue began treating Bertie in the 1920s, indicating a longer timeline of improvement before these events. Despite these dramatizations, the depiction of the king’s struggle with his speech impediment and the significance of his public speaking duties in an era increasingly influenced by mass media remains historically accurate​​.

The Portrayal of Characters

The performances of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush are central to the film’s success, bringing depth and authenticity to their real-life counterparts. Firth’s portrayal of King George VI captures the monarch’s initial insecurity and subsequent growth into a leader capable of uniting his country. Rush’s depiction of Lionel Logue as a charismatic and innovative therapist highlights the importance of their relationship. The film, while focusing on these two figures, also touches upon the broader context of the British monarchy and its challenges during a tumultuous period​​.

“The King’s Speech” ends on a high note, not just for the successful delivery of the speech but for what it represents: the overcoming of personal obstacles, the importance of support and friendship, and the affirmation of a king’s role as a leader during wartime. This ending is a powerful reminder of the human aspect behind historical figures and the personal challenges they face. The film’s blend of historical accuracy with dramatization serves to enhance the narrative, making it a compelling story of triumph over adversity.

By examining the blend of personal triumph, historical context, and the deep bond between King George VI and Lionel Logue, “The King’s Speech” offers a nuanced exploration of leadership, friendship, and the power of voice, both literally and metaphorically.

RELATED TOPICS:

• The King's Speech Ending Explained

Related articles you'll love:

The Boy and the Heron Ending Explained

Dark Harbor Movie (2019) Ending Explained

The Night Crew (2015) Movie Ending Explained

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane Ending Explained

Asteroid City Ending Explained

The Best Years of Our Lives Ending Explained

Latest articles, o.j. simpson saga – a tale of triumph, tragedy, and controversy, jeremy allan white filmography, jeremy allen white – all you need to know, da’vine joy randolph – all you need to know.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Ad Blocker Enabled!

Film Education - Resources, Training, Events

Skip to main content

The King's Speech

• Study Guide
• Event Q&A
• Shakespeare’s Henry V
• Great Orators
• Making a Speech

The King's Speech tells the story of King George VI (Bertie) who reluctantly assumed the throne after his brother abdicated. Plagued by a dreaded stutter and considered unfit to be king, he engages the help of an unorthodox speech therapist named Lionel Logue. Through a set of unexpected techniques, and as a result of an unlikely friendship, Bertie is able to find his voice and boldly lead the country through war.

A special schools' preview screening of The King's Speech , followed by a Q&A session with the film's director Tom Hooper and lead actor Colin Firth, was held in London in December 2010. This site features audio files from the event alongside a curriculum-linked study guide for English and Media at Key Stage 4 (11-16). Together, these resources offer engaging content to enrich study of this film and related topics.

(MUSIC STARTS)

TEXT: MOMENTUM PICTURES

QUEEN ELIZABETH: My husband is, um, well he’s required to speak publicly.

KING GEORGE VI: I have received…the (STAMMERS)…the…the

LIONEL LOGUE: Perhaps he should change jobs

QUEEN ELIZABETH: He can’t. And what if my husband were the Duke of York?

LIONEL LOGUE: Forgive me your…

QUEEN ELIZABETH: Royal Highness.

LIONEL LOGUE: Royal Highness.

TEXT: BASED ON THE INCREDIBLE TRUE STORY

QUEEN ELIZABETH: My husband has seen everyone, to no avail.

DR. BLANDINE BENTHAM: Annunciate!

LIONEL LOGUE: He hasn’t seen me.

LIONEL LOGUE: Who was your earliest memory?

KING GEORGE VI: I’m not here to discuss personal matters.

LIONEL LOGUE: Why are you here then?

KING GEORGE VI: (SHOUTS) Because I bloody well stammer!

LIONEL LOGUE: Do you know any jokes?

KING GEORGE VI: Timing isn’t my strong suit.

LIONEL LOGUE: (LAUGHS)

QUEEN ELIZABETH: Your methods are unorthodox and controversial.

(LIONEL LOGUE AND KING GEORGE VI SHAKE THEIR HEADS WHILE MAKING ‘AHHH’ SOUNDS)

LIONEL LOGUE: Up comes her Royal Highness

QUEEN ELIZABETH: It’s actually quite good fun.

TEXT: WHEN ABDICATION THREATENED THE THRONE

KING GEORGE VI: My brother is infatuated with a woman who has been married twice… Wallace Simpson.

TEXT: AND THE WORLD WENT TO WAR

(TELEVISION PLAYS A CLIP OF HITLER GIVING A SPEECH)

TEXT: A RELUCTANT PRINCE WOULD BECOME KING

KING GEORGE VI: (CRYING) I’m not a King! I’m a Naval Officer.

(SIRENS SOUND OUT IN THE STREET)

KING GEORGE VI: The nation believes that when I speak, I speak for them. Well I can’t speak.

LIONEL LOGUE: Why should I waste my time listening?

KING GEORGE VI: (SHOUTS) Because I have a voice!

LIONEL LOGUE: Yes you do.

TEXT: ACADEMY AWARD® NOMINEE // COLIN FIRTH

TEXT: ACADEMY AWARD® WINNER // GEOFFREY RUSH

TEXT: ACADEMY AWARD® NOMINEE // HELENA BONHAM CARTER

QUEEN ELIZABETH: It’s time

LIONEL LOGUE: Your first wartime speech

TEXT: SOME MEN ARE BORN GREAT

KING GEORGE VI: However this turns out I don’t know how to thank you for what you’ve done.

TEXT: OTHERS HAVE GREATNESS THRUST UPON THEM

TEXT: THE KING’S SPEECH

TEXT: REVIEWS

TEXT: CREDITS

END OF TRAILER

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

How Accurate Is Selma ?

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Atsushi Nishijima/Paramount Pictures; Photo by Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Ava DuVernay’s Selma , a retelling of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s historic 1965 Freedom Marches from Selma to Montgomery, opens in limited release this Christmas. (The movie will get a wide release on Jan. 9.) Already, the film has been met with critical acclaim: Many, including Slate movie critic Dana Stevens, have named it one of the best movies of 2014 . The film has also earned DuVernay a Golden Globe nomination for Best Director —the first ever for a black woman —and nominations for Best Picture and Best Actor.

In her review, Stevens noted the film’s attempt to realistically document the complicated days and months leading up to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “ rather than simply re-enact [the movement’s] moments of greatest triumph .” But did DuVernay get it right?

I sifted through archival news coverage, interviews, and public government records to separate what’s fact and what’s fiction. And while the film does, perhaps, exaggerate certain events and relationships for dramatic effect, I found that Selma generally sticks to the historical script. (“Spoilers,” of course, to follow.)

MLK and LBJ’s Relationship

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images; Photo by Atsushi Nishijima/Paramount Pictures

The film opens in 1964 in Oslo, Norway, with King (David Oyelowo) delivering his Nobel Prize acceptance speech . We hear rewritten parts of that speech ( the King estate did not grant DuVernay permission to use his words ) juxtaposed with the 16 th Street Baptist Church bombing that killed four young girls in Birmingham. That bombing actually occurred in 1963, the year before King’s Nobel Prize speech, but the overlapping depiction of it in the film sets the stage of racial tension and unrest in the South.

A couple scenes later, the film moves to the White House, where King meets with President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) to urge him to shift his attention to having Congress pass legislation that will protect voting rights for black Americans—citing the Birmingham church bombing as the kind of racial injustice that will persist if blacks remain unable to register to vote and have a seat on a jury. King and Johnson engage in a tug of war up until the film’s end.

Some critics have taken exception to the testy exchanges between King and Johnson presented in Selma . LBJ historian Mark K. Updegrove, writing for Politico , called the film’s depiction of their relationship a “mischaracterization”: “In truth, the partnership between LBJ and MLK on civil rights is one of the most productive and consequential in American history.” He argues that, based on a recorded phone conversation from Jan. 15, 1965 between the two, LBJ was more than cooperative with MLK’s quest to secure the vote for black Americans and that he even came up with suggestions for a course of action.

Building the Movement

After King’s discouraging first meeting with LBJ, he takes his civil rights movement to Selma, a small city in Alabama that activist Diane Nash (Tessa Thompson) says is where they’ll find “the next great battle.” Many of the activists introduced in this section are based on real historical figures: Many members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)—James Bevel (Common), Hosea Williams (Wendell Pierce), Andrew Young (André Holland), Ralph Abernathy (Colman Domingo), and more—were at MLK’s side in Selma and, as we see, used the home of Richie Jean Jackson (Niecy Nash) as a safe house . Amelia Boynton Robinson (Lorraine Toussaint), an early leader of the civil rights movement in Selma, also played a major role in the Freedom Marches, as did John Lewis (Stephan James), a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Earlier in the film, we see an older woman, Annie Lee Cooper (Oprah Winfrey), denied the right to vote on what DuVernay says was the real-life Cooper’s fifth attempt to register , after she couldn’t name the 67 county judges in Alabama. This was one of the many very real requirements meant to restrict blacks from voting . She, like many Selma residents ignited by MLK’s speeches at the Brown Chapel Church , later joined the movement.

Governor George Wallace and Sheriff Jim Clark

Part of what made Selma, and Alabama as a whole, the perfect “battle ground,” were two of its most vocal public officials, Gov. George Wallace (Tim Roth) and Sheriff Jim Clark (Stan Houston). In the film, King paints Clark as the kind of bigot who could be counted on to incite violence against blacks, which violence could then be used to build sympathy for King’s movement. This matches a description SNCC executive secretary James Forman (Trai Byers) shared in his autobiography —though he and the SCLC, as we see in the film, had some early differences of opinion .

In January 1965, King led more than 100 Selma marchers to the county courthouse as part of a nonviolent demonstration aimed at the office for voter registration. But as we see in the film, the protest came to a head when Cooper, who attended the sit-in, hit Clark after he twisted her arm and eventually dragged her to the ground— the photographs of which were splashed all over the news . Dozens were arrested, including King, just as in the movie.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Warren K. Leffler/Library of Congress; Photo by Curtis Baker/Paramount Pictures

Gov. Wallace, known at the time for being referenced in MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech and seen as an uncontrollable hothead by LBJ and his advisors , was already a behind-the-scenes tyrant. In the events that followed the protest at the county courthouse, he sanctioned a surge in violence against blacks authorized, at first, by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Dylan Baker).

The Death of Jimmie Lee Jackson

The movie faithfully portrays how the next month, in nearby Marion, the SCLC organized a group of protesters to march to the Perry County jail only to meet a wall of state troopers. Just as in the movie, the police killed the streetlights to thwart the onlooking reporters, and all hell broke loose. One of the protesters, 26-year-old Jimmie Lee Jackson (played in the movie by Keith Stanfeild) was killed in nearby café. According to eyewitness accounts , police troopers stormed the café, attacked Jackson’s grandfather and mother, and then shot Jackson at close range before fleeing. In the film, Jackson appears to die in his mother’s arms shortly after being shot, but he actually died over a week later in the hospital. James Bonard Fowler, the trooper who shot Jackson would, over 40 years later, claim self-defense in court , saying that he believed Jackson was reaching for his gun. Jackson’s death inspired one of MLK’s most powerful speeches , reimagined for the film, which sparked the first Freedom March from Selma to Montgomery.

Bloody Sunday

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Marion S. Trikosko/Stock Montage/Getty Images; Photo by Atsushi Nishijima/Paramount Pictures

On March 7, 1965, John Lewis and Hosea Williams attempted to lead more than 500 protestors on a 54-mile march from Selma to Alabama’s capital, Montgomery. There’s an ominous line early in that scene, as they march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where Williams asks Lewis if he knows how to swim—suggesting that might be the only way they survive this. Lewis says there weren’t any pools open to blacks where he’s from. * That exchange, like so many other moments in the film’s recreation of Bloody Sunday, was one DuVernay says came straight from Lewis’ memoir .

Alabama state troopers on horseback attacked the marchers using nightsticks and tear gas, as in the film, and we see both Lewis and Amelia Boynton (as well as dozens others) brutally assaulted and knocked to the ground. A photograph taken of Boynton while she was seemingly unconscious is recreated in the film and was printed in newspapers worldwide. Meanwhile, millions of Americans watched what happened in Selma that day when footage was broadcast on CBS .

The Second and Third Marches

Bloody Sunday and MLK’s calls for all to join a second demonstration in Selma led to an even bigger march , which included clergymen and ordinary citizens of various races, two days later. But, as we see, King turned that march back to Selma once they approached the same site of Bloody Sunday, concerned they wouldn’t make it much further without a court order allowing them to march peacefully to Montgomery with police protection. But before Judge Frank Minis Johnson (played in the movie by Martin Sheen) ruled in favor of the march from Selma , Ku Klux Klan members attacked three of the white ministers who’d traveled to Selma to march with King that day. (The film only shows two.) One of them, James Reeb (played in the movie by Jeremy Strong), died that same night. Days later, President Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress , which he later signed into law on Aug. 6, 1965. On March 17, King and 8,000 others completed the march from Selma to Montgomery. DuVernay says she relied on the cover of the September 1968 issue of Ebony to recreate the outfits King and his wife, Coretta Scott King (Carmen Ejogo), wore that day.

MLK and Coretta Scott King’s Relationship

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Morton Broffman/Getty Images; Photo by Atsushi Nishijima/Paramount Pictures

In the film, the relationship between King and his wife is a strained one. In a particularly tense scene, she asks him to confess to cheating after receiving audio of a man, presumably King, having sex with another woman. At the time, Hoover had spearheaded an FBI investigation into MLK’s activism in an attempt to link him to the Communist party, tracking his every move and wiretapping his phone lines . (We see the call logs from those taped conversations pop up on screen throughout the film.) And though those tapes have since been sealed by a court order until 2027, at least two that suggest MLK engaged in extramarital affairs have come to light, and we now know that   the FBI threatened to leak them to the public .

That’s not the only point of contention between the couple in the film: While King is in jail following the demonstration at the county courthouse, Coretta meets in secret with Malcolm X (Nigel Thatch) on his visit to Selma. She tells King it was to temper the feuding between the two civil rights leaders, though King doesn’t at first react kindly to her speaking with someone whom he doesn’t trust, especially behind his back. In a 1988 interview, Coretta described the conversation between herself and Malcolm X as taking place much like how it’s shown in the movie, saying it gave her hope that MLK and Malcolm X would soon reconcile their differences. Malcolm X died just days later. * Correction, March 6, 2015: This article originally misspelled the name of the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Previously How Accurate Is Unbroken ? How Accurate Is The Imitation Game ? How Accurate Is The Theory of Everything ? How Accurate Is Foxcatcher ? How Accurate Is Jimi: All Is By My Side ?

• 12 Mighty Orphans
• 12 Years a Slave
• 15:17 to Paris, The
• 300: Rise of an Empire
• 80 for Brady
• A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
• A Journal for Jordan
• A Million Miles Away
• A Small Light
• Against the Ice
• All Eyez on Me
• All My Life
• American Gangster
• American Hustle
• American Made
• American Sniper
• American Underdog
• Amityville Horror (1979)
• Amityville Horror (2005)
• Annabelle: Creation
• Antwone Fisher
• Arthur the King
• Bad Education
• Battle of the Sexes
• Beanie Bubble, The
• Beautiful Boy
• Beauty and the Beast
• Being the Ricardos
• Best of Enemies, The
• Big Lebowski
• Big Short, The
• Big Sick, The
• BlacKkKlansman
• Bleed for This
• Blind Side, The
• Bling Ring, The
• Blue Miracle
• Boardwalk Empire
• Bohemian Rhapsody
• Boston Strangler
• Boys Don't Cry
• Boys in the Boat, The
• Breakthrough
• Brian Banks
• Bridge of Spies
• Burial, The
• Butler, The
• Bye Bye Man, The
• Calendar Girls
• Can You Ever Forgive Me?
• Captain Phillips
• Case for Christ, The
• Catch Me If You Can
• Charlie Wilson's War
• Chasing Mavericks
• Cocaine Bear
• Concrete Cowboy
• Conjuring 2, The
• Conjuring, The
• Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It, The
• Courier, The
• Crowded Room, The
• Current War, The
• Danish Girl, The
• Danny Collins
• Darkest Hour
• Dear Edward
• Death of Stalin, The
• Deepwater Horizon
• Deliver Us From Evil
• Devil Wears Prada, The
• Disappointments Room, The
• Disaster Artist, The
• Dolemite Is My Name
• Donnie Brasco
• Downton Abbey
• Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
• Dream Horse
• Dropout, The
• Eddie the Eagle
• Emancipation
• End of the Tour, The
• Erin Brockovich
• Exorcism of Emily Rose, The
• Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile
• Eyes of Tammy Faye, The
• Fabelmans, The
• Farewell, The
• Fault in Our Stars, The
• Favourite, The
• Fighter, The
• Fighting with My Family
• Finding Neverland
• Finest Hours, The
• Five Days at Memorial
• Flamin' Hot
• Florence Foster Jenkins
• Ford v Ferrari
• Founder, The
• Free State of Jones
• Freedom Writers
• Gigi and Nate
• Girl from Plainville, The
• Glass Castle, The
• Goldbergs, The
• Good Nurse, The
• Good on Paper
• Goodbye Christopher Robin
• Gran Turismo
• Greatest Beer Run Ever, The
• Greatest Showman, The
• Gridiron Gang
• Hacksaw Ridge
• Hands of Stone
• Haunting in Connecticut, The
• Heaven is for Real
• Hidden Figures
• Hillbilly Elegy
• Hollywoodland
• House of Gucci
• Hurricane, The
• I Am the Night
• I Can Only Imagine
• I Saw the Light
• I Still Believe
• I Wanna Dance with Somebody
• Imitation Game, The
• Infiltrator, The
• Inventing Anna
• Irishman, The
• Iron Claw, The
• Jerry and Marge Go Large
• Jersey Boys
• Jesus Revolution
• Jimi: All Is by My Side
• Judas and the Black Messiah
• Kill the Messenger
• Killers of the Flower Moon
• King Arthur
• King Richard
• Last Duel, The
• Last Full Measure, The
• League of Their Own, A
• Lone Survivor
• Lost City of Z, The
• Ma Rainey's Black Bottom
• Maggie Moore(s)
• Man Who Invented Christmas, The
• Masters of the Air
• Mauritanian, The
• McFarland, USA
• Megan Leavey
• Men of Honor
• Military Wives
• Million Dollar Arm
• Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, The
• Miracles from Heaven
• Molly's Game
• Monuments Men, The
• Mothman Prophecies, The
• Mrs. America
• Munich: The Edge of War
• My All American
• Next Goal Wins
• Not Without My Daughter
• Old Man & the Gun, The
• On a Wing and a Prayer
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
• One and Only Ivan, The
• Only the Brave
• Operation Finale
• Operation Mincemeat
• Oppenheimer
• Ordinary Angels
• Outlaw King
• Outpost, The
• Pain & Gain
• Pain Hustlers
• Passion of the Christ, The
• Patch Adams
• Patriots Day
• Pawn Sacrifice
• Penguin Bloom
• People v. O.J. Simpson, The
• Pianist, The
• Pope's Exorcist, The
• Prayer Before Dawn, A
• Promise, The
• Public Enemies
• Pursuit of Happyness, The
• Queen of Katwe
• Quiet Ones, The
• Railway Man, The
• Remember the Titans
• Rescued by Ruby
• Revenant, The
• Richard Jewell
• Right Stuff, The
• Rookie, The
• Saving Mr. Banks
• Saving Private Ryan
• Schindler's List
• Serpent, The
• Slender Man
• Social Network, The
• Society of the Snow
• Soul Surfer
• Sound of Freedom
• Staircase, The
• Survivor, The
• Tender Bar, The
• Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The
• Texas Rising
• Theory of Everything, The
• Thing About Pam, The
• Thirteen Lives
• To Write Love on Her Arms
• Top Gun: Maverick
• Trees of Peace
• Trial of the Chicago 7, The
• True Spirit
• United Kingdom, A
• United States vs. Billie Holiday, The
• Upside, The
• Victoria and Abdul
• Walk the Line
• Watcher, The
• We Own This City
• We Were the Lucky Ones
• Weird: The Al Yankovic Story
• Welcome to Marwen
• When the Game Stands Tall
• When They See Us
• White Boy Rick
• White House Plumbers
• Wicked Little Letters
• Wolf of Wall Street, The
• Woman in Gold
• Woman King, The
• Zookeeper's Wife, The

The Crown (2016)

How did queen elizabeth and prince philip meet.

The Crown true story reveals that Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, arranged the first meeting between Philip and Elizabeth in 1939 when the Royal Family toured the Royal Naval College. The exiled Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was 18 and serving in the British Royal Navy. Elizabeth was 13-years-old and became smitten with the older Philip, who in turn took an immediate liking to Elizabeth. The pair began writing letters to each other and continued their correspondence throughout the Second World War. Philip was of royal blood and was distantly related to Elizabeth. They were third cousins through Queen Victoria and second cousins once removed by way of King Christian IX of Denmark. Both Philip's mother and grandmother were born at Windsor Castle. Philip proposed to Elizabeth in 1946 and they were married on November 20, 1947. See footage of Elizabeth and Philip's wedding day . The real Queen Elizabeth and Philip (bottom) on their wedding day, November 20, 1947. They were married at Westminster Abbey. Claire Foy and Matt Smith portray the newly minted royal couple in the Netflix series (top).

Did Elizabeth really get married in a dress bought with clothing coupons?

Yes. In 1947, Britain was still recovering from World War II and was in a period of economic austerity. Designed by Norman Hartnell, Elizabeth's ivory satin gown was adorned with 10,000 white pearls. While fact-checking The Crown , we discovered that Elizabeth had collected clothing coupons to use to obtain the fabric for the gown. Women across the country sent their own coupons to her as well, but she tactfully returned them, not wanting to take from those who might need them more. -GQ

Did King George VI really like to tell vulgar limericks?

Not that we're aware of, but he was known to occasionally use coarse language and lose his temper, traits that were also depicted in the 2010 Colin Firth film The King's Speech . On the Netflix show, King George VI (Jared Harris) gets frustrated as his valet struggles to adjust his collar. To calm him down, his equerry, Peter Townsend, shares a dirty limerick and then King George shares one of his own. The limerick told by George on the show was made up by director Stephen Daldry and the production team. -Mashable.com

Did King George VI really have a lung operation in the Palace rather than a hospital?

Yes. In researching The Crown true story, we learned that in 1951, they really operated to remove part of King George's lung under the chandeliers of Buckingham Palace and not in a hospital. Crowds gathered outside awaiting news on his condition following the surgery. Heavy smoking had contributed to the development of lung cancer. -TIME.com

Had the Queen really been a mechanic during the war?

Yes, on Netflix's The Crown TV show, Elizabeth helps fix their broken-down automobile in Kenya and refers to being a mechanic in the military during World War II. In exploring the true story, we learned that this is indeed factual. She was a member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and trained as a military truck driver and mechanic ( watch footage of Elizabeth driving and working on a military truck ). In addition, she is the only female in the Royal Family to have ever served in the armed forces. -GQ Queen Elizabeth was trained as a Red Cross mechanic and driver during WWII as a member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

Did Princess Elizabeth really learn of her father's death while writing a letter to him in Kenya?

Yes. The true story behind Netflix's The Crown confirms that this was indeed how Princess Elizabeth learned of her father's February 6, 1952 death. She and Philip had been on a tour of Australia via Kenya. Like on the show, they had just returned to the Sagana Lodge after a night spent at Treetops Hotel in Aberdare National Park in Kenya. Philip broke the news to her while she was in the middle of writing a letter to her father, King George VI, whose death marked Elizabeth's immediate accession to the throne. At only 25 years of age, she returned home the Queen. Her coronation was held the following year on June 2, 1953, more out of respect for her father's passing than any ploy by an aging Prime Minister Winston Churchill to secure more time in office. -TIME.com

Did Philip really make a fuss about having to kneel in front of his Queen at her coronation?

Not likely. With regard to the tense scene, expert Christopher Wilson told the Daily Mail , "I doubt Prince Philip ever spoke those words to his wife, because he came from a royal house which had borrowed so much of its ritual and protocol from the British Royal Family. He knew full well what was expected of him in public, and was prepared to go along with it." What unfolds on The Crown TV show is completely unproven. One thing that is based in truth is that the Queen's coronation was the first to be aired on television. Watch Queen Elizabeth II's coronation . The June 2, 1953 coronation of Queen Elizabeth II (left) at Westminster Abbey. Claire Foy (right) as Elizabeth after the crowning on the show.

Did Princess Margaret really have an affair with Peter Townsend?

Yes. Group Captain Peter Townsend was a British Royal Air Force officer who became Equerry to King George VI and then to his daughter Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to 1953. Like on Netflix's The Crown TV show , he fell in love with Princess Margaret, 15 years his junior, and divorced his wife after Margaret's sister Elizabeth became Queen. He proposed to a 22-year-old Margaret the following year, but the Parliament and the Church of England refused to approve a union with a divorced man. Similar to her uncle, she was given the option of giving up her royal titles and income, a price she was not willing to pay. "She could have married me only if she had been prepared to give up everything—her position, her prestige, her privy purse," Townsend wrote in his 1978 autobiography Time and Chance . "I simply hadn't the weight, I knew it, to counterbalance all she would have lost." Margaret eventually ended the romance in 1955 and she later became engaged to Antony Armstrong-Jones shortly after learning of Townsend's own engagement to Marie-Luce Jamagne (which some say was a sign Margaret was not over Townsend). Armstrong-Jones was a photographer who the Queen made the Earl of Snowdon. Margaret's turbulent marriage to Armstrong-Jones would end in a scandalous divorce in 1978. -VanityFair.com

Did Queen Elizabeth II have a tense relationship with Winston Churchill?

No. Winston Churchill seems to be one of the more misrepresented characters on the show. In real life, he was less uptight, more jovial, and adored by the people. His relationship with Elizabeth was not fraught with tension like it is for much of the first season of The Crown . Instead, Elizabeth and Winston had a famously good relationship. In later years, she was asked which Prime Minister was her favorite. Her reply, "Winston of course, because it was always such fun." Churchill had also been close friends with Elizabeth's parents and had a strong working relationship with them as well. One can only guess why the filmmakers chose to largely reinvent Churchill and portray him in a somewhat negative light. No, Winston Churchill (left) is not giving the peace sign. He's displaying the V-sign for victory in WWII (the sign was later hijacked by counterculture activists during the Vietnam War). John Lithgow (right) as Churchill in The Crown .

Does The Crown present King Edward VIII's abdication accurately?

Not exactly. For the most part, it focuses on only one side of the story, the Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII) abandoning the throne so he can marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson. It fails to mention that King Edward VIII was actually adored by the people, especially the poor, and it was the monarchy and Parliament who wanted to oust the often hard-to-control king, a monarch with an apparent disregard for longstanding constitutional conventions. Edward's desire to marry Simpson provided them with a way to get rid of him. This King Edward VIII documentary reveals more about what it refers to as a "British coup." The Netflix series begins after the abdication and also fails to mention that Edward had been in a relationship with Wallis Simpson for five years before he started his brief 326-day stint on the throne (the shortest in British history), which began with the passing of his father, King George V, on January 20, 1936. While some in the country stood behind Edward's choice to leave the throne for love, he had been previously known for his affairs with married women, and his father, King George V, had told others that he prayed Edward's younger brother Albert (George VI) and granddaughter Elizabeth would eventually inherit the throne (ironically, Elizabeth went on to become the longest reigning monarch in British history).

Did the Duke and Duchess of Windsor really have nicknames for the Royal Family?

Yes. When King Edward VIII abdicated the throne on December 11, 1936 so he could marry the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson, it certainly created a rift with the Royal Family. Edward and Wallis (the Duke and Duchess of Windsor) indeed had a handful of nicknames for them. In letters published in 1988, they called the Queen Mother "Cookie" or "the Scottish Cook" and the Queen "Shirley Temple." They referred to Winston Churchill as "Cry Baby." Upon learning that his personal allowance was being cut off after the death of his brother, George VI, he called Queen Mary and the two Elizabeths "ice-veined bitches." When he returned to England again in 1953 after his mother, Queen Mary, died, he wrote to his wife and highlighted his bitter relationship with the Royal Family. "What a smug, stinking lot my relations are and you've never seen such a seedy worn out bunch of old hags most of them have become."

Did Queen Elizabeth II really take advice from her uncle, the former King Edward VIII?

No, this is not based in fact. In Netflix's The Crown series, the Queen seeks advice on aspects of her reign from her uncle, the Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII), who had abdicated the throne to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson, thrusting the Queen's father, King George VI, into a role he never wanted. The scene between the Queen and her uncle is fictional. "It's unlikely that the Queen would have turned to the former King Edward VIII for counsel on her role as monarch," says royal historian Carolyn Harris. -Mashable.com

Did Winston Churchill have his secretaries read him his papers through the door while taking a bath?

Yes, during our investigation into The Crown true story, we confirmed that Prime Minister Churchill indeed did this, though the scene where he carelessly causes a wave of water to pour out of the tub and under the bathroom door is likely fiction. -Royal Central

Was Winston Churchill's assistant Venetia Scott really killed by a bus?

No. The Crown will have you believe that Churchill's eager assistant Venetia Scott (Kate Phillips) was struck by a bus, prompting him to change his position on the Great Smog of 1952 and come to London's rescue. According to the Radio Times , the show's starstruck secretary who memorized Churchill's autobiography is pure fiction. Venetia Scott never existed in real life. The Great Smog was real but Churchill's assistant on the show, Venetia Scott (Kate Phillips), is not.

Was the Great Smog a real event in London?

Yes, fact-checking The Crown confirms that the Great Smog was indeed a real event in 1952. An anticyclone combined with a period of cold weather and windless conditions to create a thick blanket of dense smog that enveloped London for several days from Friday, December 5 until Tuesday, December 9. An estimated 3,500 - 4,000 people died as a direct result of the smog and hospitals had trouble keeping up. Research conducted later suggests that the long-term effects of the smog led to a considerably greater number of fatalities, totaling between 6,000 and 12,000. Though the event was devastating, Netflix's The Crown TV show turns it into more of a political crisis than it actually was in real life. In reality, it was tragic but not nearly as dramatic. It did not cause outright panic. This was partially due to the fact that Londoners were used to poor air quality and had experienced "fogs" in the past, albeit they were shorter and less dense. In addition, the long-term consequences of the Great Smog weren't recognized until weeks and even years later. -People.com

Was Philip really upset over his children not getting his chosen last name?

Yes. Courtiers and government officials advised Elizabeth against having her children take Philip's chosen last name of Mountbatten since they were worried that it would award the Mountbatten family stature over the Windsors. Like on the show, Philip balked, "I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children." Philip's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, did wield considerable influence over him. Philip had lived with the Mountbatten family since he was seven (his mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and sent to an asylum, and his father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, abandoned the family and moved to Monte Carlo after being exiled from Greece). Despite announcing in 1952 that her children would use the last name Windsor (as she does on the show), in a 1958 move made under the radar, she changed the name to "Mountbatten-Windsor." It is believed this was done to resolve a point of contention for Philip. -People.com The real Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip (left) with a young Prince Charles, and Matt Smith (right) in Netflix's The Crown TV show.

Was Queen Elizabeth close friends with Porchey?

Yes, Porchey, aka Lord Porchester (born Henry Herbert), was a childhood friend of Queen Elizabeth. The two were very close in real life too, and the Queen welcomed him as her horse racing manager in 1969. Some speculated that the two had an affair and even that Porchey is Prince Andrew's real father, but no evidence of an actual romance exists and that rumor has been called 'fraudulent' by historians. Also, Elizabeth's confrontation with Philip regarding his jealousy of Porchey (where she also accuses him of loving other women) is pure invention. Of course, it is believable that Philip could have resented a platonic friendship between his wife and Porchey, but if so, those feelings were never made public. Like on the show, Lord Porchester (later the Earl of Carnarvon) eventually married Anglo-American Jean Margaret Wallop, with whom he had three children. He also eventually became the owner of the Downton Abbey backdrop Highclere Castle. -People.com

Did Elizabeth and Philip endure the marital strains depicted on the show?

For the most part, no, at least not according to historians, who say there has never been any evidence that the marriage was ever under the hardships seen on the Netflix drama. This includes Philips roving eye and Elizabeth's near-inappropriate friendship with Porchey. "I have never come across anything which suggested the marriage was under any real strain at any point," says royal biographer Philip Ziegler. "The Queen's friendship with Lord Porchester was a platonic and personal one. They were both passionate about horses." One flare-up from the show that was based in fact was when a furious Queen threw a tennis racket at Prince Philip as he fled an Australian chalet where they were staying in 1954. -Daily Mail Online The marital strains seen on the show are speculative at best. There is no evidence to support that the marriage was under such hardships.

Did Philip really struggle after Elizabeth became Queen?

Yes. In addition to Elizabeth not taking his name, Mountbatten, Prince Philip made the sacrifice of giving up his naval career once Elizabeth became Queen. He played second fiddle to her despite having more royal blood than Elizabeth herself. The palace courtiers attempted to curtail his modern ways and froze him out of the Queen's matters. In the early days, he went out drinking at places like the infamous Thursday Club in Soho, an exclusive male gathering spot for the well-to-do. His shenanigans there were noticed and seemed to be his way of escaping the difficulties of his new life as husband to the Queen of England. -The Guardian

Did the Queen ask her favorite Private Secretary, Martin Charteris, to take over when Tommy Lascelles stepped down?

It is unknown whether this is true or not. On the TV show, the Queen (Claire Foy) tries to promote Martin Charteris (Harry Hadden-Paton) to be her Private Secretary instead of Michael Adeane, who was next in line for the job. What we do know is that Charteris was the Queen's favorite Private Secretary, and according to former royal correspondent Jennie Bond, Charteris told her that the Queen wanted him from the beginning. The Queen backs down on the show and accepts Adeane after Tommy Lascelles warns her not to deviate from the established way of doing things. In real life, it took another 20 years before Martin Charteris would advance to become her Private Secretary, a position he held from 1972 until his retirement in 1977. Though it's not emphasized on the show, prior to his 1972 appointment, he was the Assistant Private Secretary alongside Adean and Edward Ford. -RadioTimes.com The real Queen Elizabeth II (left) and Claire Foy (right) in The Crown .

Did a grieving Queen Mother really flee to Scotland right after the 1953 London unveiling of a statue for her late husband?

No. In real life, the Queen Mother's trip to Scotland occurred in 1952 and the statue of King George VI wasn't unveiled until 1955. The show's creators manipulated the timeline to add more drama. -Macleans.ca

Did Churchill's wife really burn the painting?

For the most part, this is true. Winston Churchill and his wife Clementine indeed hated Graham Sutherland's 1954 full-length portrait, which was presented to Churchill at Westminster Hall on his 80th birthday, November 30, 1954. His wife had viewed the completed portrait prior to the unveiling. Unlike on the show, she took a photograph of it back to her husband. He tried to reject it before the ceremony but was urged to go ahead with the unveiling, so as to not upset the donors who paid for it. During the presentation, Churchill wryly commented, as John Lithgow's character does, that it was "a remarkable example of modern art." Naturally, Churchill's critics liked the portrait while his colleagues condemned it as a disgusting insult. Afterward, he took it back to Chartwell where it was never displayed and was hidden away in the cellar, that is until Clementine asked her secretary, Grace Hamblin, to get rid of it. Due to its weight, Hamblin asked her brother ("a landscape gardener or something") to help her sneak it off the property during the night. They put it in her brother's van and drove it to his house a few miles away. According to Hamblin, they built a huge bonfire around back and then burned the portrait of Winston Churchill where no one could see. -VanityFair.com A reproduction of Graham Sutherland's portrait of Winston Churchill (left) and the portrait of John Lithgow as Churchill that is unveiled in Netflix's The Crown (right).

Was the Royal Household involved in the making of The Crown ?

No. The royal press office released the following statement: " The Crown is a fictional drama. The Royal Household has had no involvement." The scenes that happen behind closed doors and out of the public eye are fictional and mostly speculative, as the Queen and Prince Philip are well known for their ability to keep their private lives private and their opinions neutral when in public. -Bustle.com

Further peer into The Crown true story by watching the documentaries, news reels and speeches below, including Queen Elizabeth II's first televised Christmas speech and a King Edward VIII abdication documentary, which concludes he was just as much ousted as king as resigned.

• Watch The Crown on Netflix

• Entertainment
• The True Story Behind the Netflix Movie <i>The King</i>

The True Story Behind the Netflix Movie The King

Warning: This post contains spoilers for The King .

Shakespeare’s plays have been a source of entertainment for centuries on the page, the stage and the screen. Director David Michôd’s The King , which reimagines Shakespeare’s Henriad plays, is the latest entry in the vast body of adaptations of the Bard’s works. The King follows the life of a young Prince Hal, from his days of drinking and gambling to his eventual rise to the throne of the King of England, from which he must navigate politics, betrayal, war and the chaos his father left in his wake.

The King , which stars Timothée Chalamet , Lily Rose Depp, Robert Pattinson and Joel Edgerton (who co-wrote the screenplay with Michôd), premiered at the Venice Film Festival in August before a limited theatrical release in October. It becomes available to stream on Netflix on Nov. 1.

Here is everything you need to know about the true story behind The King — and Shakespeare’s telling of that history .

What are Shakespeare’s Henriad plays about?

William Shakespeare’s famed Henriad plays, loosely based on events that took place during the 15th century, span from Richard II to Henry IV, Parts 1 and II , and Henry V . The plays chronicle the rise of the Lancaster branch of England’s House of Plantagenet in the 15th century, with a focus on politics and diplomacy, war and betrayal.

In the first play, the Lancasters ascend to the throne of England, as Henry Bolingbroke — later King Henry IV — deposes his cousin King Richard II. Prince Hal, played by Chalamet in The King , is the central figure of the later plays — which cover his young life of debauchery and camaraderie with his friend Sir John Falstaff (Edgerton) to his eventual rise as King of England and subsequent disregard for his old friends.

The King features aspects of the latter two plays, but with some key differences.

What was King Henry V’s relationship with his father like?

In both Shakespeare’s Henriad plays and The King , Prince Hal’s relationship with his father is tense. Hal’s father, King Henry IV (Ben Mendelsohn), envies Lord Northumberland for having an honorable son (Percy), compared to the “riot and dishonor” of Prince Hal. But there is a significant difference in the way in which The King leaves their relationship before the king dies.

In Shakespeare’s play Henry IV , the king feels betrayed when Prince Hal, thinking that his father is dead when in fact he is asleep, takes his father’s crown and leaves the room. But the pair settle their differences after Hal reveals his love for his father in a poetic scene, which ends with the king giving his crown to Prince Hal before he dies.

The King takes some liberties with this moment. After Hal’s father strips him of the crown and instead gives it to his younger brother, Hal doesn’t answer calls to visit his father’s deathbed. But, angry after his brother’s untimely death in battle, Prince Hal storms into his father’s bedroom and strips away the bed sheets of the dying monarch, leaving him shivering at his final hour. While the King tells Hal that he must be king and appears to regrets his actions, Prince Hal doesn’t speak of love for his father; instead he remains silent as his father dies before him.

How does King Henry V’s relationship with Sir John Falstaff differ between the Henriad plays and The King ?

In the Henriad plays, Falstaff and Hal have a close friendship until Prince Hal famously rejects Falstaff during his coronation and, in Henry IV Part II , bans him, on pain of death, from seeing him. Audiences of Shakespeare’s plays have been left baffled by this move — the Prince seemingly forgets his old friend once he becomes King, dismissing him as “a fool and jester”. Falstaff doesn’t feature in the final Henriad play, and the audience is simply told that he dies, with no further explanation.

The relationship between the two characters is entirely different in The King . While Prince Hal does appear to forget about Falstaff as soon as he becomes king, he later returns to Falstaff, admits his neglect and asks him to join his ranks. Falstaff is a key character throughout the film, and regularly provides guidance to Hal, as both prince and king of England. Sir John Falstaff even comes up with the game plan for the Battle Agincourt and sacrifices himself in battle to help King Henry win. Instead of dying without explanation, as in Shakespeare’s Henry V , Falstaff dies with dignity and bravery in the Battle of Agincourt in The King. In an emotional scene, King Henry finds his friend’s body, laid among fallen soldiers in the mud, and cries over him.

Did the battle in France really happen?

The Battle of Agincourt in 1415 was immortalized by Shakespeare in Henry V , and features in The King , as well. More than 600 years ago, King Henry V led an army to victory on the field of Agincourt, near Azincourt in northern France, as part of the Hundred Years’ War.

As depicted in The King , the English army landed in France and launched a victorious attack on the port town of Harfleur, but the siege took its toll — many of the soldiers died of disease and many were left behind to defend the captured port. This left King Henry V’s army weakened and outnumbered by an estimated 30,000-strong French army. But, in a historic turn of events, the English army won the battle due to King Henry’s decisive leadership, compared to the muddled leadership of the French troops. The U.K.’s National Archives show that, as in The King , wet weather on the day before battle made the ground muddy, which led many French soldiers on foot, pressed forward by their comrades, to fall, making them vulnerable to the English attack.

Did King Henry V marry Catherine, the French Princess?

Both Shakespeare’s plays and The King introduce the audience to Princess Catherine de Valois, who married King Henry V. This was also the case in real life: the couple married on June 2, 1420, but not without some complications on the way to the altar. King Henry V refused to consider marriage with Princess Catherine after her father, the King of France, could not meet the young king’s demands of the return of Normandy and Aquitaine and two million crowns. Henry V later invaded France at the battle of Agincourt in 1415.

The King suggests that the marriage took place soon after the Battle of Agincourt once the French army was defeated — but in reality, the couple married five years later, after Henry called for another invasion of France. Eventually, the French king agreed to pass the throne to Henry V after a decline in his mental health and in 1420 signed the Treaty of Troyes, which arranged the union between Catherine and Henry V.

The couple’s marriage is far from the romantic depictions from both Shakespeare and The King (portrayed by real-life couple Timothee Chalamet and Lily Rose Depp). King Henry V left for France after five months of marriage — Princess Catherine only reunited with her husband one more time before his death in 1422.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
• The Revolution of Yulia Navalnaya
• 6 Compliments That Land Every Time
• What's the Deal With the Bitcoin Halving?
• If You're Dating Right Now , You're Brave: Column
• The AI That Could Heal a Divided Internet
• Fallout Is a Brilliant Model for the Future of Video Game Adaptations
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]