King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (nee Bowes Lyon)

[mcdnab]

In common with the vast majority of people King George VI and Queen Elizabeth were entirely pro-appeasement in the thirties (as were most of their friends and aquaintances). For anyone who'd lived through the First War trying to avoid another one is hardly a crime - Edward VIII was certainly more pro-german he spoke it better than his brother (dating to a visit to his mother's great aunt in Mecklenburg Strelitz before the First War) and saw himself as committed to peace hence his misguided visit to Germany after his abdication - it is still debatable whether he was misguided, plain stupid or desperate to find some kind of role. His actions during his short reign with regard foreign policy would at a push be regarded as unconstitutional but then so would the blatant support that George VI and most of the Royal Family gave Chamberlain right up until his resignation and ultimate death.

In part that was because Chamberlain was utterly on their side (he was determined that Edward VIII be kept away, had never fallen for his charm and had told his sister that the Duchess of York was the 'only royalty' he could get along with, he was a very loyal friend during protracted negotiations over the new civil list for the new King and Queen) - to them he was the politician who was committed to peace, and perhaps more importantly wasn't Churchill who they saw as very pro-Edward VIII (unlike his wife who was less charmed by Edward and his american consort) - Churchill's views changed over time and certainly he and the King became close (but it took a lot of work on both sides in the early days of Churchill's premiership). It is perhaps staggering that the great opponent of Nazism was so romantically attached to Edward VIII - but then many people were.

It is so easy 70 years after the event that we find it staggering that anyone didn't want to fight Hitler and his vile regime - but it is a mistake whilst there were many people in many countries who were convinced that war was inevitable and something had to be done - the vast majority of people certainly in France and Britain would have done anything and sacrificed anyone to prevent war.

I also dislike the snide tone of articles like Hitchens which in effect boils down to oh of course they were pro-german they are german...well dynastically that is so but at its heart it is just a less than subtle form of racism that is acceptable because it attacks the institution. If one attacked an Irish, Jewish or Asian emigree on those grounds one would quite rightly be castigated for it.

[grandduchessella]

Very much in agreement with you mcdnab. Here is a quote from Geoffrey Rush:

"Rush also voiced his frustration over critics who say "The King's Speech' distorts history by omitting details, such as Edward VIII's (Guy Pearce) Nazi sympathies and Winston Churchill's (Timothy Spall) support of Edward VIII during his embarrassing abdication of the throne to his brother. "There were more scenes in the longer version of the film…that delved a little bit more complexly with Churchill," said Rush. "But, ultimately, to tell a two-hour story, there's a certain movement and momentum. The heart of the story needed to revolve around the key players of the royal family and the relationship between King George VI and Logue." In the end, Rush said the film's main source material was the one he most believed in. "I would say that given we had access to Logue's diaries…I don't think we've over-mythologized anything," he said. "If anything, we've put a kind of everyday humanity into a family blanketed with propaganda.""

Perhaps in the DVD release they will be in deleted scenes or something.

[RichC]

I appreciate the very thoughtful comments on this matter.  I agree that Hitchens is annoyingly snide.  But he still makes some very good points.  And my issue is not with George VI and how pro or anti German he was.  My issue is with the film that purports to take historical accuracy very seriously.  I really enjoyed this film when I saw it and I recall the scene with Churchill and the Duchess of York very clearly.  I came away with the impression that the Duke and Duchess had allies among the leading figures of the government, led by Churchill who happened to be the most anti-German (or anti-appeasement)  at the time.  So, like it or not, the film definitely creates a tie-in between the abdication crisis and German appeasement.  But as you mentioned in your thoughtful post, mcdnab, it wasn't really quite like that.

And I'm sorry but Geoffrey Rush can't have it both ways.  What he's really saying is that "movement and momentum" trump historical accuracy.  Rush may call some of the criticisms "omitting details" but casting Churchill as a stalwart anti-nazi who supports the Yorks over the "degenerate" David (one has to admit that Edward VIII is portrayed as having NO redeeming qualities whatsoever) is fictionalizing what actually happened.  Churchill WAS a stalwart anti-nazi, but he was no friend of the Yorks.  Rush can say that the focus of the movie was on the relationship between George VI and Logue but even here he threw "historical accuracy" out the window.  According to his grandson, the real Logue never swore in front of the King and never addressed him as "Bertie" -- but they are crucial scenes in the film.

[grandduchessella]

It's always my sense with these movies that 'historical accuracy' is more about the feel of the period and the accuracy of the costumes & setting. There is always so much artistic license taken that it was taken here isn't surprising at all. I've gotten quite a few royal movies/miniseries for our library of various prestige. I would imagine many of them could be picked to shreds. For the movie industry, it's the feel that matters--or it would be a documentary. I mean, just look at the movie section for critiques of various movies.    Yes, it is more difficult when you know what the true history is and a little maddening to think what people could take away from it but it doesn't negate the artistry of the film. I mean, if people depend on movies for their facts, well, that's below wikipedia standards.

[mcdnab]

RichC
I think that your initial point about the portrayal of Churchill and Edward VIII in the movie is a perfectly valid one and I wasn't having a go so to speak.
I think part of the problem is Churchill, George VI, Queen Elizabeth and Edward and Mrs Simpson have been so mythologized by the events of the late thirties that portraying any story about them accurately is virtually impossible. In many people's minds the three - Churchill, George and Elizabeth have become so intrinsically linked by those wartime images (and in many case propoganda) that to portray the mistrust that existed between the three of them on Churchill's elevation to the premiership is really hard.
I think also the mystique around Churchill (who was a pretty awful peacetime prime minister) has made it hard to show him in anything less than a favourable light and he doesn't come out of the abdication crisis particularly well (he was the only leading politician who refused to give Baldwin a guarantee that if the Government resigned over the issue he, Churchill, wouldn't be willing to try and form a government). It was in part not helped by his closeness to Beaverbrook's whose papers were very pro-Edward and anti-Baldwin.
By 1936 the good relationship between Edward and his siblings and in-laws had virtually collapsed due to his passion for Mrs Simpson - his family simply didn't understand how he could behave like this and they were willing then and in the following decades to heap all the blame on her - again it is hard to treat Edward fairly in film because the public, particularly in Britain, still think of his pro-german reputation as being pro-Nazi and many equate him with the fascism of Moseley and his followers (who were all very pro-Edward) whether that is fair is harder to say but it makes difficult drama when he is not the leading character, which he isn't in this film.
As to the other stuff I think dramatic licence is fine - but I would prefer drama's that masquarade as fact to at least try and stick to the known facts about certain individuals - it is dramatic enough without embellishing it.

[Alexander1917]

http://www.britainnews.net/story/740383

as it reads as follows

Queen Elizabeth amused by 'The King's Speech'
Britain News.Net
Friday 4th February, 2011 (IANS)

British monarch Queen Elizabeth II was 'amused' by Colin Firth's turn as her father George VI in 'The King's Speech'.

The Queen enjoyed a private viewing of the Oscar-nominated movie, which features child actress Freya Wilson as the young monarch herself and the 84-year-old was said to have found the film 'moving' in its portrayal of her dad's battle with a stammer, reports thesun.co.uk.

'The Queen loves a good film. 'The King's Speech' is close to the bone as it is a portrayal of her family in the 1930s. But she found it moving and enjoyable. She was clearly amused by some of the lighter moments,' said a source.

[Grace]

Hmm, hate to sound a sceptic, but it's always "a source", isn't it?  Still, it's from The Sun so musn't expect too much.  Very much doubt HM would ever have referred to the late King George VI as "my dad" either!

[Kalafrana]

The story was in the Daily Telegraph as well.

But I believe the Queen called her father 'Papa', and when she refers to him it's as 'my father'.

Ann

[Alexander1917]

I just searched for an english original. Here in Germany this story was printed in the Sächsische Zeitung with the dpa (Deutsche Presse Agentur - German press agency) as source.

[cebi26]

How was the relationship of George VI and Queen Elizabeth with their two daughters?

[darius]

Very, very, very close.  The King and Queen spoke of "we four".  They appear to have been rather an insular family, trying to protect eachother from the outside world.  The only real moment of tension was when the present Queen was determined to marry Philip of Greece, rather against her parent´s wishes.

[cebi26]

Thank you! And anyone knows if the King have a particular favorite?

[mcdnab]

The real tension was that the King was very protective of his daughters and believed that the present Queen was too young to fly the nest so to speak. A lot of courtiers weren't keen on the match (partially because of Philip's relations particularly his germanic ones) the Queen would have perhaps initially preferred a British aristocrat to Prince Philip but they got on relatively well - both the King and Queen were under no illusions about Louis Mountbatten's influence which was one source of tension but both realised that the Princess was absolutely determined.

Very, very, very close.  The King and Queen spoke of "we four".  They appear to have been rather an insular family, trying to protect eachother from the outside world.  The only real moment of tension was when the present Queen was determined to marry Philip of Greece, rather against her parent´s wishes.

[Kalafrana]

'Thank you! And anyone knows if the King have a particular favorite?'

Of the two daughters Elizabeth was certainly the one more like her father, but I have seen suggestions that the King spoilt Princess Margaret.

Ann

[mcdnab]

I think the quote (how accurate it is i can't remember) was"Elizabeth is my pride,Margaret my joy."

I think most courtiers thought Margaret was the naughty one whilst Elizabeth was more dutiful (and perhaps more aware of what awaited her). The King was according to some biographers simply amazed by Margaret's beauty but took immense pride in Elizabeth.