the king's speech historical accuracy

• Hankering for History

Hanker: To have a strong, often restless desire, in this case for–you guessed it–history!

Is The King’s Speech Historically Accurate?

I will start by saying that The King’s Speech is an exceptional movie. I took the opportunity to see this movie in theaters when it first came out, in 2010. There is a reason that this movie, starring Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, received four Oscar awards (and was nominated for another eight) [1]; unfortunately, that reason was not because of the historical accuracy of the film.

It is no secret that many of the details in this movie have been skewed and exaggerated. Hugo Vickers, a royal adviser to film, stated that he understands that the adjustments were necessary to make an entertaining movie. He also believed that correct details are important, however, for this particular movie the “essence of the story” is what was most important.

“My view is that a film is a film, and you have to move the drama on…It’s the essence of the story that counts, and the essence of the story here is very sound indeed.” [2] -Hugo Vickers (1/9/2011)

So while the movie wasn’t completely honest, it got out its message. As I look into the historical accuracy–or lack of historical accuracy–in this film, I run across article after article crying foul. Slate’s review of the film is entitled Churchill Didn’t Say That –  The King’s Speech is riddled with gross falsifications of history . The Washington Post reviews the movie as “ Brilliant filmmaking, less-than-brilliant history .” My favorite article title is from New Republic; the headline of their article was simple– Royal Mess . However, the article with the hardest-hitting, historical-correcting blows comes from The Daily Beast. Their article, The King Who Couldn’t Speak ,  is a well-written piece by British historian Dr. Andrew Roberts. Dr. Roberts claims that the film “gets the story all wrong and is simply bad history.”

Dr.Andrew Roberts noted that,

“…viewers should know of the very many glaring and egregious inaccuracies and tired old myths that this otherwise charming film unquestioningly regurgitates.” [3] -Dr. Andrew Roberts (11/20/2010)

Some of the more egregious historical inaccuracies from his lists are:

• The time period of the movie. The speech therapist, Lionel Logue, started working with King George VI in 1926, not in 1930’s.
• The severity of his stutter. King George’s stutter was relatively mild compared to the movie’s portrayal.
• The politics. An example of this would be Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill is shown as supporting the Abdication of George VI’s elder brother King Edward VIII, whereas he violently opposed it.

While the list of smaller inaccuracies are too many to list, The King’s Speech, overall is excellent! As far as my moviegoing experience, The King’s Speech was so impressive that I can overlook the “egregious inaccuracies and tired old myths.” I highly recommend that you take the opportunity to watch this film.  If you want a more detailed account of historical discrepancies, I suggest checking out the full article that I mentioned above from The Daily Beast. 

[1] IMDb: Awards for The King’s Speech

[2] The Guardian: How historically accurate is The King’s Speech?

[3] The Daily Beast: The King Who Couldn’t Speak

More Stories

How sparta and rome influenced hitler and the nazis.

• People & Places

Why did FDR Serve 4 Terms as President?

• The History of...

The History of Harvard University

5 thoughts on “ is the king’s speech historically accurate ”.

This is why historians are historians and dramatists dramatists. Can’t we all get along? I am disappointed in the attitude of ”oh well, its for a good story”. No. We can tell great stories that are accurate. History is full of interesting stories. The Churchill mistake is inexcusable. Great Post, Grant!

this finna be a bruh moment Front?

you suck big weenis

Thats a funny one, i hate this film

Sucks big Weenis

Comments are closed.

You may have missed

Who Was Pocahontas?

What Was the Battle of the Bulge?

7 Facts About Isaac Newton

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.

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.” 

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

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

Regina King says son Ian is ‘always with me,’ breaking her silence two years after his death

March 14, 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

Entertainment & Arts

The Broad expansion: What you need to know about the $100-million project

Beyoncé’s ‘Cowboy Carter’: Rounding up the latest on the new album

Kristen Stewart will only do a Marvel movie if Greta Gerwig directs

What to know about the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs lawsuits, raids

March 28, 2024

clock This article was published more than  13 years ago

‘The King’s Speech’: Brilliant filmmaking, less-than-brilliant history

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and I must have just watched another British movie based on historical events.

I emerged from the theater enthralled with “The King’s Speech,” nominated for 12 Oscars. Although I was uncertain about the accuracy of Colin Firth’s portrayal of King George VI and his debilitating stammer (as the Brits call it), Firth’s performance was so impressive that it left me with a stutter of my own.

The Golden Globes agreed, giving Firth a best-acting nod. Can Oscar be far behind? Jolly well ought to, I thought as I exited the theater.

Then I ruined it. I mentioned to my wife that I might check some facts. “Don’t spoil it,” she groaned. (Speaking of spoilers, a warning to readers who haven’t seen the film: Continue at your own risk. )

Let’s start with the stammer, which surfaced when “Bertie” (a family nickname) was a child. It’s the most powerful character in the movie. Some films have sexual tension. “The King’s Speech” has stammer tension.

Long before Bertie took the throne upon his brother’s abdication in 1936, he dreaded public speaking. As Duke of York, he could not avoid it. Into Bertie’s terror comes speech therapist Lionel Logue. As they work to conquer the stammer that threatens the king’s reign and his psyche, you want to stand and cheer.

Brilliant filmmaking. Less-than-brilliant history.

Recordings survive of Bertie’s speeches from his earlier years as Duke of York. As British historian Andrews Roberts wrote in the Daily Beast, “They make clear that his problem was nothing so acute as this film makes out.” The tension builds on the back of an altered timeline that turns the stammer into something “so chronic that Colin Firth can hardly say a sentence without prolonged stuttering,” according to Roberts.

Peter Conradi, a Times of London journalist who wrote a companion book to the movie with Logue’s grandson, had access to letters and diaries Logue kept. Conradi’s reply to Roberts is telling: “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.”

Conradi generously offers an example of inaccuracy. “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.”

Tinker? Recasting Churchill into the opposite role?

Cinematic storytellers often defend the liberties they take with history by saying they are aiming for “emotional truth,” as if the facts won’t yield it. If challenged, they often retreat to Conradi’s final contention: “This never claimed to be a documentary.”

There’s no grand deception here. We all know that movies alter timelines and omit facts for efficiency or dramatic effect. But why bother to do a film about historical events if those events merely become props to be reordered in search of a manipulated “truth?” For many, “The King’s Speech” will probably be the only version of those events they will ever know. The all-too-real stammer provided more than enough material to do a compelling movie.

I should have learned my lesson 30 years ago, when I saw “Chariots of Fire,” the story of two British runners at the 1924 Paris Olympics.

One was Harold Abrahams, a sprinter weighed down by his ethnicity (he was Jewish). Crushed by his decisive loss in the 200 meters, he sets out with an almost blinding determination to redeem himself in the 100 meters. He achieves that goal — for his country, for himself and, the film suggests, for the Jewish people.

Captivated by this unfamilar history, I wanted more. Big mistake.

The film had reversed the order of the two races so Abrahams could lose, then triumph. The “emotional truth” of his determined dash to redemption? A fiction.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice . . .

Good luck, Colin. You created a great character. I’m rooting for you.

Steve Luxenberg is an associate editor at The Washington Post.

Accessibility Links

How today’s King’s Speech differs from the last one 72 years ago

Such are the myriad delights of Britain’s constitution that the following bizarre sentence is correct. On Tuesday, King Charles III will become the first man to deliver a King’s Speech since Gavin Simonds on November 6, 1951.

It was not George VI who did the honours that day. He was too ill to attend while suffering from cancer, and any desire that the Princess Elizabeth should give the speech would have been frustrated by her visit to Canada.

So the job fell to a royal commission (a group of privy counsellors appointed on the monarch’s behalf) and Lord Simonds, the lord chancellor, delivered it.

The last time a king delivered the eponymous speech had been 12 months earlier, on October 31, 1950. It was the

Related articles

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

Churchill Didn’t Say That

The king’s speech is riddled with gross falsifications of history..

The King’s Speech is an extremely well-made film with a seductive human interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer and the latent Anglophile. But it perpetrates a gross falsification of history. One of the very few miscast actors—Timothy Spall as a woefully thin pastiche of Winston Churchill—is the exemplar of this bizarre rewriting. He is shown as a consistent friend of the stuttering prince and his loyal princess and as a man generally in favor of a statesmanlike solution to the crisis of the abdication.

In point of fact, Churchill was—for as long as he dared—a consistent friend of conceited, spoiled, Hitler-sympathizing Edward VIII. And he allowed his romantic attachment to this gargoyle to do great damage to the very dearly bought coalition of forces that was evolving to oppose Nazism and appeasement. Churchill probably has no more hagiographic chronicler than William Manchester, but if you look up the relevant pages of The Last Lion , you will find that the historian virtually gives up on his hero for an entire chapter.

By dint of swallowing his differences with some senior left and liberal politicians, Churchill had helped build a lobby, with strong grass-roots support, against Neville Chamberlain’s collusion with European fascism. The group had the resonant name of Arms and the Covenant. Yet, as the crisis deepened in 1936, Churchill diverted himself from this essential work—to the horror of his colleagues—in order to involve himself in keeping a pro-Nazi playboy on the throne. He threw away his political capital in handfuls by turning up at the House of Commons—almost certainly heavily intoxicated, according to Manchester—and making an incoherent speech in defense of “loyalty” to a man who did not understand the concept. In one speech—not cited by Manchester—he spluttered that Edward VIII would “shine in history as the bravest and best-loved of all sovereigns who have worn the island crown.” (You can see there how empty and bombastic Churchill’s style can sound when he’s barking up the wrong tree; never forget that he once described himself as the lone voice warning the British people against the twin menaces of Hitler and Gandhi!)

In the end, Edward VIII proved so stupid and so selfish and so vain that he was beyond salvage, so the moment passed. Or the worst of it did. He remained what is only lightly hinted in the film: a firm admirer of the Third Reich who took his honeymoon there with Mrs. Simpson and was photographed both receiving and giving the Hitler salute. Of his few friends and cronies, the majority were Blackshirt activists like the odious “Fruity” Metcalfe . (Royal biographer Philip Ziegler tried his best to clean up this squalid story a few years ago but eventually gave up.) During his sojourns on the European mainland after his abdication, the Duke of Windsor never ceased to maintain highly irresponsible contacts with Hitler and his puppets and seemed to be advertising his readiness to become a puppet or “regent” if the tide went the other way. This is why Churchill eventually had him removed from Europe and given the sinecure of a colonial governorship in the Bahamas, where he could be well-supervised.

All other considerations to one side, would the true story not have been fractionally more interesting for the audience? But it seems that we shall never reach a time when the Churchill cult is open for honest inspection. And so the film drifts on, with ever more Vaseline being applied to the lens. It is suggested that, once some political road bumps have been surmounted and some impediments in the new young monarch’s psyche have been likewise overcome, Britain is herself again, with Churchill and the king at Buckingham Palace and a speech of unity and resistance being readied for delivery.

Here again, the airbrush and the Vaseline are partners. When Neville Chamberlain managed to outpoint the coalition of the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, and the Churchillian Tories and to hand to his friend Hitler the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country’s vast munitions factories, he received an unheard-of political favor. Landing at Heston Airport on his return from Munich, he was greeted by a royal escort in full uniform and invited to drive straight to Buckingham Palace. A written message from King George VI urged his attendance, “so that I can express to you personally my most heartfelt congratulations. … [T]his letter brings the warmest of welcomes to one who, by his patience and determination, has earned the lasting gratitude of his fellow countrymen throughout the Empire.” Chamberlain was then paraded on the palace balcony, saluted by royalty in front of cheering crowds. Thus the Munich sell-out had received the royal assent before the prime minister was obliged to go to Parliament and justify what he had done. The opposition forces were checkmated before the game had begun. Britain does not have a written Constitution, but by ancient custom the royal assent is given to measures after they have passed through both houses of Parliament. So Tory historian Andrew Roberts, in his definitively damning essay “The House of Windsor and the Politics of Appeasement,” is quite correct to cite fellow scholar John Grigg in support of his view that by acting as they did to grant pre-emptive favor to Chamberlain, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to you) “committed the most unconstitutional act by a British Sovereign in the present century.” 

The private letters and diaries of the royal family demonstrate a continued, consistent allegiance to the policy of appeasement and to the personality of Chamberlain. King George’s forbidding mother wrote to him, exasperated that more people in the House of Commons had not cheered the sellout. The king himself, even after the Nazi armies had struck deep north into Scandinavia and clear across the low countries to France, did not wish to accept Chamberlain’s resignation. He “told him how grossly unfairly he had been treated, and that I was genuinely sorry.” Discussing a successor, the king wrote that “I, of course, suggested [Lord] Halifax.” It was explained to him that this arch-appeaser would not do and that anyway a wartime coalition could hardly be led by an unelected member of the House of Lords. Unimpressed, the king told his diary that he couldn’t get used to the idea of Churchill as prime minister and had greeted the defeated Halifax to tell him that he wished he had been chosen instead. All this can easily be known by anybody willing to do some elementary research.

In a few months, the British royal family will be yet again rebranded and relaunched in the panoply of a wedding. Terms like “national unity” and “people’s monarchy” will be freely flung around. Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in “Britain’s finest hour.” In fact, had it been up to them, the finest hour would never have taken place. So this is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record—now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar.

Like  Slate on Facebook . Follow Slate and the Slate Foreign Desk on Twitter.

‘The King’s Speech’: Good Drama—but Accurate Science?

Newswise — “The King’s Speech” is a compelling enough story to merit 12 Oscar nominations. (We’ll find out how compelling when the Academy Awards are announced Feb. 27). However, as contentions surface about the film’s historical accuracy (Lionel Logue’s grandson said his grandfather would never call the King of England “Bertie,” and the real-life Churchill, contrary to the film’s portrayal, staunchly opposed Edward VIII’s abdication), what about the film’s depiction of stuttering and Logue’s therapy techniques? Did the film portray them accurately?

“While stuttering and its treatment have been documented for hundreds of years, systematic development of effective treatment methods didn’t really emerge until the late 1940s,” said Doug Cross, associate professor of speech-language pathology and audiology at Ithaca College. “As depicted in the film, stuttering has been treated by using every technique you can imagine, from putting stones in the mouth to signing speech to physical relaxation. In that sense, the movie accurately portrayed the myriad of techniques available at the time, especially for an untrained speech pathologist such as Logue. An impressive part of the film was the way it accurately depicted the important relationship between the mechanical and psychological aspects of speech and stuttering. As much as the field has evolved and specialized since Lionel Logue’s day, most speech-language pathologists agree that focus on integrating the perceptions and emotions that clients experience about themselves and their speech problems with effectively modified mechanics of coordinated speech is an important aspect of treatment.”

Chief among those emotions is fear.

“Fear does not cause stuttering,” Cross said. “The roots of stuttering are complex and multidimensional, but anxiety and fear about becoming stuck on sounds and words and the stigma society often places on stuttering behavior play significant roles in the development and perpetuation of the problem. The more the person tries to hide, prevent or rapidly escape stuttering, the worse the problem becomes, creating a negative cycle of anticipation and struggle. This type of negative anxiety about performance and recovery from mistakes affects stuttering much in the same way it affects many other behaviors we experience in life.”

As it did with George VI, stuttering usually starts between two and six years of age. However, in many cases up to age 12, sufferers experience spontaneous recovery. After 12, though, the chances of spontaneous recovery dramatically decrease.

“Since Lionel Logue’s day, we’ve developed more effective protocols for treating stuttering and its impact on effective communication,” Cross said. “Advances in science and technology, such as brain studies and DNA analysis, tell us about the effects of neuromotor systems on speech patterns; still, there’s no silver bullet to treating stuttering, and there is no cure. I think it would be inappropriate for a speech pathologist to say, ‘We’ve cured stuttering.’ Its causes are much too complex. This concept eventually comes out in the film.”

However, contemporary speech pathologists can help stutterers find their voices, either by designing different methods of speaking that would prevent stuttering or by reducing the stutter to the point where it is no longer a distraction.

“Stuttering is a communication problem that often makes both speakers and listeners extremely uncomfortable and anxious, but at the same time it fascinates them,” Cross said. “I think that might explain why ‘The King’s Speech’ is making such an impact.”

MEDIA CONTACT

Type of article.

• Experts keyboard_arrow_right Expert Pitch Expert Query Expert Directory
• Journalists
• About keyboard_arrow_right Member Services Accessibility Statement Newswise Live Invoice Lookup Services for Journalists Archived Wires Participating Institutions Media Subscribers Sample Effectiveness Reports Terms of Service Privacy Policy Our Staff Contact Newswise
• Blog FAQ Help

Turn Your Curiosity Into Discovery

Latest facts.

9 Longevity Supplement Facts A Growing Global Industry

5 Interesting Facts about Automotive Transport

30 facts about the movie the king’s speech.

Written by Arlene Steelman

Modified & Updated: 03 Mar 2024

Reviewed by Sherman Smith

The King’s Speech is a critically acclaimed film that has captivated audiences since its release. Directed by Tom Hooper, this historical drama takes us on a journey through the life of King George VI, the father of Queen Elizabeth II, as he struggles with a debilitating stammer. The movie explores the unlikely friendship between the reluctant monarch and his eccentric speech therapist, Lionel Logue.

With its stellar cast, including Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter , The King’s Speech has received numerous accolades, including four Academy Awards. Beyond the captivating performances, the film offers a compelling story filled with emotional depth and historical significance. In this article, we delve into 30 fascinating facts about the making of The King’s Speech, shedding light on its production, casting decisions, and its impact on audiences worldwide.

Key Takeaways:

• The King’s Speech is a movie based on the true story of King George VI’s struggle with a speech impediment. It won four Academy Awards and highlighted the importance of effective communication and perseverance.
• The film’s success sparked conversations about speech disorders and inspired audiences worldwide with its powerful portrayal of courage and determination.

Box Office Success

The King’s Speech was a critically acclaimed film that also performed well at the box office, grossing over $400 million worldwide.

Historical Accuracy

The movie portrays the true story of King George VI’s struggle with a speech impediment and his efforts to overcome it.

Oscar-Winning Performances

The film won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director for Tom Hooper, Best Actor for Colin Firth, and Best Original Screenplay.

Colin Firth’s Preparation

Colin Firth spent months working with a speech therapist to accurately portray King George VI’s stammer.

Geoffrey Rush’s Role

Geoffrey Rush played the role of Lionel Logue, the speech therapist who helped King George VI overcome his speech impediment.

Historical Significance

The movie sheds light on the importance of effective communication and how speech can impact leadership and self-confidence.

Multiple Nominations

The King’s Speech received a total of 12 nominations at the Academy Awards, the most of any film that year.

Supporting Cast

The film also features stellar performances from Helena Bonham Carter, who played Queen Elizabeth, and Guy Pearce , who portrayed King Edward VIII.

Royal Approval

The Queen Mother, who was King George VI’s wife, reportedly gave her endorsement for the film.

Accents and Dialects

The actors underwent extensive training to master the British accents and dialects of the time period.

Emotional Journey

The movie takes viewers on an emotional journey as they witness King George VI’s struggle and eventual triumph.

Historical Context

The film is set against the backdrop of the abdication crisis of 1936, when King Edward VIII gave up the throne to marry Wallis Simpson.

Collaboration

The King’s Speech was a collaborative effort between British and Australian filmmakers, showcasing the talent from both countries.

Real Speech Recordings

The filmmakers used actual recordings of King George VI’s speeches to ensure accuracy in the movie.

Costume Design

The film’s costume designer , Jenny Beavan, won an Academy Award for her work in recreating the fashion of the 1930s.

Film Locations

The King’s Speech was primarily filmed in England and Scotland, adding to the authenticity of the period setting.

Critical Acclaim

The movie was praised by critics for its performances, screenplay, and historical accuracy.

Audience Response

The King’s Speech resonated with audiences worldwide, connecting on a human level with its themes of perseverance and self-belief.

The movie has left a lasting impact on the film industry, inspiring others to tell stories of triumph over adversity.

International Success

The King’s Speech was not only a hit in English-speaking countries but also gained popularity in international markets.

The film’s score, composed by Alexandre Desplat, received critical acclaim and added depth to the storytelling.

Positive Reviews

The King’s Speech holds a high rating on review aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes, with praise for its performances and storytelling.

The movie received a rating of 12A in the United Kingdom, making it suitable for a wide range of audiences.

Cultural Impact

The King’s Speech sparked conversations about speech disorders and increased awareness of the challenges faced by those who stammer.

Educational Value

The film has been used as a teaching tool in various educational institutions to explore topics such as leadership, communication, and overcoming obstacles.

Film Adaptation

The movie is based on a stage play of the same name, which was also highly acclaimed.

International Accolades

In addition to the Academy Awards, The King’s Speech received numerous accolades from film festivals around the world.

Inspirational Story

The film serves as a reminder that anyone, regardless of their status or background, can overcome personal challenges and achieve greatness.

Historical Detail

The King’s Speech captures the essence of the time period, immersing viewers in the world of British royalty during a pivotal point in history.

Lasting Legacy

The King’s Speech will continue to be remembered as a powerful and touching portrayal of courage and determination.

In conclusion, The King’s Speech is a remarkable film that captivates audiences with its gripping story and exceptional performances. Through its portrayal of King George VI’s struggle to overcome his speech impediment, the movie showcases the power of determination and the importance of finding one’s voice. With a brilliant cast led by Colin Firth , Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech earned critical acclaim and numerous accolades, including four Academy Awards. The film’s masterful direction, compelling script, and stunning production design make it a must-watch for any movie enthusiast. Whether you’re a fan of historical dramas, inspiring stories, or top-notch acting, The King’s Speech is sure to captivate and leave a lasting impression.

1. Who directed The King’s Speech?

The King’s Speech was directed by Tom Hooper.

2. Is The King’s Speech based on a true story?

Yes, The King’s Speech is based on the true story of King George VI of the United Kingdom and his struggle with a speech impediment.

3. How many Academy Awards did The King’s Speech win?

The King’s Speech won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Colin Firth), and Best Original Screenplay.

4. Who played King George VI in the movie?

Colin Firth portrayed King George VI in The King’s Speech.

5. What is the significance of the title “The King’s Speech”?

The title refers to the pivotal speech that King George VI delivers to inspire and rally the British people during World War II.

6. What impact did The King’s Speech have on raising awareness about speech impediments?

The movie shed light on the struggles faced by people with speech impediments and helped raise awareness about the importance of empathy and understanding towards individuals dealing with such challenges.

7. Was the stuttering portrayed accurately in the movie?

Geoffrey Rush worked closely with speech experts to accurately portray the challenges faced by those with speech impediments. The film’s depiction of stuttering was highly praised for its authenticity.

8. Are there any other notable performances in The King’s Speech?

In addition to Colin Firth’s memorable portrayal of King George VI, Geoffrey Rush’s performance as Lionel Logue, the speech therapist, and Helena Bonham Carter’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth were also highly praised by audiences and critics alike.

9. What awards did The King’s Speech receive?

Aside from its Academy Awards, The King’s Speech also received numerous other accolades, including multiple BAFTA Awards, Golden Globe Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards.

10. Can I watch The King’s Speech online?

Yes, The King’s Speech is available for streaming on various platforms, including Netflix and Amazon Prime Video.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

The King’s Speech Review

07 Jan 2011

118 minutes

King’s Speech , The

Some films turn out to be unexpectedly good. Not that you’ve written them off, only they ply their craft on the hush-hush. Before we even took our seats, Inception had trailed a blaze of its cleverness the size of a Parisian arrondissement. We were ready to be dazzled. If you had even heard of it, Tom Hooper’s The King’s Speech looked no more than well-spoken Merchant Ivoriness optimistically promoted from Sunday teatime: decent cast, nice costumes, posh carpets. That was until the film finished a sneak-peak at a festival in deepest America, and the standing ovations began. Tweeters, bloggers and internet spokespeople of various levels of elocution announced it the Oscar favourite, and this also-ran arrives in our cinemas in a fanfare of trumpets.

But for all its pageantry, it isn’t a film of grandiose pretensions. Much better than that, it is an honest-to-goodness crowdpleaser. Rocky with dysfunctional royalty. Good Will Hunting set amongst the staid pageantry and fussy social mores of the late ’30s. The Odd Couple roaming Buckingham Palace. A film that will play and play. A prequel to The Queen.

Where lies its success? Let’s start with the script, by playwright David Seidler, a model for transforming history into an approachable blend of drama and wit. For a film about being horrendously tongue-tied, Seidler’s words are exquisitely measured, his insight as deep as it is softly spoken. Both an Aussie and a long-suffering stammerer, he first adapted the story as a play, written with the permission of both the late Queen Mother (George’s wife) and Logue’s widow. Stretching into the legroom of film, he loses none of the theatrical richness of allowing decent actors to joust and jostle and feed off each other.

As their two worlds clash, this outspoken “colonial” and this unspoken aristocrat, Seidler mines great humour from the situation. Logue’s outlandish treatments are designed to rock George, whom he insists on calling Bertie (the impertinence!), out of his discomfort zone. He has to lie on the floor, his dainty wife perched upon his chest, strengthening his diaphragm. He has to swing his arms like a chimpanzee, warble like a turkey. And in a sure-to-be classic scene, Logue cracks the dam of his patient’s cornered voice by getting him swearing. “Say the ‘F’ word,” commands Rush, his eyes twinkling at Logue’s front. “Fornication!” howls Firth, like a man bursting. Such naughtiness — escalating to a magnificent chorus of “shits” and “fucks” — landed the film an R rating in America. The silly-billies: the moment couldn’t be more tender or uplifting.

What Hooper sensed of Seidler’s play is that this is not about fixing a voice, but fixing a mind bullied by his father (a waxen-voiced Michael Gambon as George V) and brother since boyhood, a soul imprisoned by the burden of forthcoming kingliness. Between his handsome London backdrops, elevating any potential staginess with sleek forward motion and microscopic historical accuracy (from mist-occluded parks, to the Tardis-sprawl of the BBC’s broadcasting paraphernalia with the death-noose of their microphones), Hooper plays on the idea of childhood. We meet Logue’s scruffy brood and the twee Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret; while in another scene loaded with codified meaning, George begins to open up as he gently completes a model plane. The tragedy is that he never had a childhood. Friendship is a voyage into the unknown for Bertie. Logue is gluing him together.

Hooper, whose own mother recommended the play, knew straightaway here was his cornerstone — the unlikeliest of friendships. To get all zeitgeist on its royal behind, it’s a bromance. One that required two performers to go to opposite places. Colin Firth has found a rich vein of form: A Single Man provided emotional entrapment in repressed grief, but here were greater perils still, treading the perilous high-wire of physical affliction. In terror of mockery or Rainman, he looked to Derek Jacobi’s definitive stammering in I Claudius (Jacobi winkingly cast here as a conniving Archbishop Of Canterbury) and got to grips with an actor’s greatest fear — being unable to find his words. It’s a bristling irony: acting is a craft exemplified in the crystal-clear diction of Shakespeare, but here is a gripping performance where the actor is virtually incapable of speaking at all. Not in a straight line. It is an anti-acting role, yet Firth doesn’t ever stop communicating: pain, sadness, yearning; intelligence and humour demanding escape; and the fierce self-possession of a man born to privilege. When Logue, pushing and pushing, oversteps the mark, Bertie rounds on him, furious, his voice suddenly eloquent in the spate of his fury. The idea of class is never far away; what marks out one’s place in the social network of yesteryear more than how one speaks?

Logue, a psychotherapist before his time (a royal in therapy — the very thought!), finds Rush in equally fine fettle. He locates Logue’s own shortcomings, a failed actor who turns his office into a stage, striding and pontificating, a show-off with a big heart. A modernist trying to break through social prejudice. A colonial nobody desperate to be an English somebody. Stripped walls line Logue’s drafty chambers: the deprivations of pre-War Britain are here, yet warmed by family. The cushioned train of anterooms of Buckingham Palace appear antiseptic in comparison. Life crushed by velvet. Grimacing Whitehall serving as a cold reminder of war to come.

Any behind-the-drapes depictions of British royalty carry the base pleasures of a good snoop. But these were changing times. Helena Bonham Carter makes for a vibrant Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mum-to-be), both devoted wife and teasing wit whirling around the word “contraverseeal” like a figure skater, another modernist in a dusty enclave who takes the risk of contacting Logue. If anything, older brother Edward VIII was the true trailblazer, breaking through the bars of royal absolutes to marry American divorcee Mrs. Simpson, and unthinkably vacate the throne for his timorous brother. In that decision, precedents were shattered and the modern world spilled into the royal household. Guy Pearce (an Aussie in English robes) has enormous fun as the arrogant older sibling, plumbing his voice to the borders of camp, but a flash harry flinty enough to shed a nation for a wife. As George will angrily point out, what use does a king serve anymore?

If we start small, a lonely prince trying to express himself, we end big. History knocks the door down. Edward abdicates just as that unquenchable ranter Hitler gets warmed up, and Timothy Spall drops by as a slippery Churchill (a jar to the film’s subtleties) to sneer about oncoming “Nazzzeees”. A sense of terrible urgency engulfs the therapy, but what an ending it offers. George VI must use his faltering voice to soothe a frightened nation in a radio broadcast, all but conducted by Logue, transformed into match-winning glory. You’ll be lost for words.

Related Articles

Movies | 28 09 2023

Movies | 09 11 2020

Movies | 15 05 2017

Movies | 24 04 2016

Movies | 02 02 2016

Movies | 03 12 2014

Movies | 17 01 2012

Movies | 05 10 2011

Symbols and Tropes

Hero's journey, point of view, what's up with the title, what's up with the ending, shock rating, tired of ads, logging out…, logging out....

You've been inactive for a while, logging you out in a few seconds...

W hy's T his F unny?

• Advertise with us

• History Magazine
• History of Britain

The King’s Speech

Perhaps you have seen the Oscar winning film, now you can view the original transcript of the King’s Speech, which was sent to Scotland Yard in 1939, announcing that Britain was going to war…

Ben Johnson

Perhaps you have seen the award winning film – which was nominated for 12 Oscars – now you can view the original transcript of the King’s Speech, which was sent to Scotland Yard in 1939, announcing that Britain was going to war.

The transcript – which was broadcast to the nation on 3 September 1939 – can be viewed free at the Metropolitan Police’ Historical Collection – along with hundreds of other documents, artefacts and images detailing the history of policing since 1829.

The King’s Speech – starring Colin Firth – tells the inspiring story of George VI who overcomes his stammer as he reluctantly takes the throne when his brother, Edward VIII abdicates in 1936 over his plans to marry twice divorced Wallis Simpson.

A series of announcements by the King and Prime Minister were broadcast to the country asking police for their help in getting people to follow air raid precautions and wear gas masks. A war cabinet was also formed and people were asked to stand firm and resolute in the battle ahead.

In his first speech, on 3 September 1939 , King George VI said: “In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in our history, for the second time in the lives of most of us we are at war. Over and over again we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between ourselves and those who are now our enemies. But it has been in vain. The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead and war is no longer confined to the battlefield.”

The new king quickly won the respect of his ministers and his people and his hard work and conscientious manner eventually brought him respect in his war torn country.

Neil Paterson, Manager of the Historical Collection said: “The Met is in such a unique position to have a rich history of documents, photos and images dating back to 1829. We are very proud of our Collection – which is free to see – and people from all over the world regularly come to view it.”

View the transcript below of the King’s speech:

The Historical Collection is based at Empress State Building, Empress Approach, Lillie Road, London, SW6 1TR, London, from 10am – 4pm weekdays.

Published: 25th December 2014.

History in your inbox

Sign up for monthly updates

Advertisement

Next article.

Historic Allies and Enemies of Great Britain

Since the Act of Union in 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain has fought in over 120 wars across a total of 170 countries...

Popular searches

• Castle Hotels
• Coastal Cottages
• Cottages with Pools
• Kings and Queens

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The King's Speech: True blood or right royal dud?

Director: Tom Hooper Entertainment grade: A– History grade: B+

Prince Albert, known as Bertie, was the second son of King George V. He acceded the British throne as King George VI on the abdication of his brother, King Edward VIII, known as David.

Bertie (Colin Firth) was from his childhood affected by a stammer, which made his public life exceptionally difficult. The film is right in suggesting he endured various therapies to address it, though the scene in which he is made to fill his mouth with marbles is straight out of My Fair Lady.

Or perhaps the film-makers were thinking of Charles I, another stammering king: he tried to correct his speech by filling his mouth with pebbles and talking to himself. The film has Bertie going to therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) in the late 1930s, a decade after the two really began working together. The importance of their relationship as depicted in the film is something of an overstatement.

David and Bertie's martinet father, George V (Michael Gambon), is shuffling off his mortal coil. Guy Pearce perfectly captures David's self-pitying brattishness and his coldness towards his family: when the real David was informed of his father's imminent death, he refused to return from a safari holiday in Africa and instead spent that evening seducing the wife of the local commissioner. Pearce does not perfectly capture David's accent. Owing to a childhood spent almost entirely with nannies, the Prince of Wales spoke in private with a Cockney inflection – and later, in exile, developed an American twang.

It must be difficult to play Winston Churchill without slipping into caricature. Timothy Spall certainly can't manage it, pouting, scowling and waddling around like the Penguin. Just as bad is the film's implication that Churchill counselled Bertie to take over during the abdication crisis. In fact, Churchill was one of David's fiercest supporters, advising him: "Retire to Windsor Castle! Summon the Beefeaters! Raise the drawbridge! Close the gates! And dare Baldwin to drag you out!" Churchill also rewrote David's abdication speech, splendidly delivered by Pearce in the movie. Before Churchill got his hands on it, David allegedly wanted to open with: "I now wish to tell you how I was jockeyed off the throne." Churchill replaced this with the more dignified: "At long last I am able to say a few words of my own."

Meanwhile, the film seems intent on imparting dignity to Bertie when David abdicates. Instead of the sombre scene in the movie, with both brothers calmly signing the abdication, Bertie spent an hour sobbing on the shoulder of his mother, Queen Mary. "I feel," he declared, "like the proverbial sheep being led to the slaughter, which is not a comfortable feeling." He never got used to it: "How I hate being a king!" he once said. "Sometimes at ceremonies I want to stand up and scream and scream and scream."

The King's Speech has been criticised by several writers for glossing over Bertie's support for Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler. True, it could have made more of George VI's support for Chamberlain – and, indeed, of his personal preference for Lord Halifax to take over as prime minister rather than Churchill on Chamberlain's resignation. But shoehorning a whole load of heavy stuff about the royal family's many political imperfections into The King's Speech would not have advanced the film's theme of Bertie's private struggle with his public role. Leaving it out, meanwhile, is not the most offensive of cover-ups. The extent of the scandal is that the king supported Chamberlain – a regrettable misjudgment, but a common one at the time. And, anyway, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box. He came 68th out of 68 in his final examinations at naval college. Portraying Bertie as an appeaser also wouldn't have helped audiences like him – but the truth is sometimes inconvenient like that.

A moving portrayal of George VI's struggle with his stammer: accurate on its characters' personalities, but not on their politics.

• The King's Speech
• Reel history
• Colin Firth
• Geoffrey Rush

More on this story

The Directors Guild and Screen Actors Guild awards - in pictures

What The King's Speech can teach Prince William and Kate Middleton

The King's Speech rouses Britain to the box office

The King's Speech odds-on for Oscars glory after SAG and DGA wins

Oscar nominations are box office jewels for The King's Speech

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

Colin Firth and The King's Speech win Screen Actors Guild awards

Colin Firth wins a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame

Most viewed.

In a critically and commercially disappointing year for the film industry, one of the few highlights has been the reception given to The King’s Speech . The movie has been nominated for just about every existing award, and a bevy of Oscar nominations are forthcoming. The period drama is also on its way to financial success.

Like Stephen Frears’s film from 2006, The Queen —which won Helen Mirren an Oscar for her eponymous performance— The King’s Speech is a testament to Americans’ continuing fascination with the British Royal Family. But, unlike The Queen , which was merely simplistic in its portrayal of the monarchy, The King’s Speech is historically inaccurate, entirely misleading, and, in its own small way, morally dubious.

The film tells the story of King George VI (Colin Firth) and his battle with a speech impediment. Bertie, as he was known, seeks the help of a speech therapist (played by Geoffrey Rush), and the two spend most of the film—differences in social status be damned—bonding. By the time the credits roll, Bertie has conquered his stammer, and the British people are well on their way to vanquishing fascism—the latter, naturally, having been aided by the former, thanks to an inspiring royal address from Buckingham Palace after the German invasion of Poland. This heartwarming tale plays out predictably and unsubtly— The King’s Speech is one of those films that is not content to show us a friendship developing over two hours; no, the characters must also tell us how much the friendship means to them.

The only reason that Bertie managed to ascend to the throne in the first place was that his older brother, David (aka Edward VIII), decided to abdicate so he could marry a Baltimore divorcee by the name of Wallis Simpson. In the film, Edward VIII (nicely played by Guy Pearce) is presented as childish and cruel to his brother (which no doubt he was). And, as a way of presenting his political views, we see him make a single foolish comment about the Nazis. What the film never mentions is that Edward VIII was an ardent admirer of Hitler and of fascism, and a proponent of appeasement long after Germany moved onto Polish soil and hostilities began in earnest. Edward lived in continental Europe with Simpson after abdicating; following the German invasion of France, he absurdly asked the Nazis to look after his house. Eventually, the British government convinced the couple to move to the Bahamas, where he became governor. The idea was to keep the pair far away from the Nazis so as to prevent Edward from cutting any deals with Hitler. The last we see of Edward and Simpson in the film is when they listen to Bertie’s big speech. (There is a beach in the background but the viewer has no idea where they are.)

By shortchanging the danger that Edward posed to Britain, the viewer is likely to believe he was no more than a ridiculous and self-indulgent brat. But he isn’t the only character who is sanitized in the movie. First, there is Winston Churchill, played by Timothy Spall in a small role. Spall’s crucial scene takes place after the Simpson affair has become known. Churchill counsels Bertie and reports his (Churchill’s) dismay at the way Edward is behaving. This will come as news to historians because Churchill—astonishingly—supported Edward throughout the abdication crisis. His grandstanding on the issue even shocked his allies, who couldn’t believe that he would risk his political comeback to support an appeaser and fascist like Edward. Most likely because of Churchill’s historical standing, the film simply omits all of this and assigns the heroic war leader the opposite position to the one he actually held.

Bertie himself is also romanticized. He is seen presciently raising the question of German aggression before the invasion of the Sudetenland. Edward waves off Bertie’s warning, and, the next time we are instructed to focus on political questions, the King is heroically rallying his people to the battle against fascism. The film leaves out what happened in the intervening period.

Bertie ascended to the throne at the end of 1936. Three years later, he gives the speech of the film’s title. In the time between these two events, the British government notoriously blundered and appeased the Nazis, most famously at Munich. Less well-remembered is that after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from giving away a chunk of Europe to the Germans, he was immediately invited to Buckingham Palace to appear on the balcony with the King and Queen (the latter is now better known as the recently departed but beloved “Queen Mum”). This was both a violation of protocol—the Royals are supposed to stay out of politics—and an extraordinary endorsement of a prime minister whose foreign policy was disastrous. Much of the Labour Party was rightly furious. This despicable historical fact is less well-known than it should be, but the film fails twice—first, by not showing it at all, and, second, by implying that Bertie was staunchly anti-fascist from the start.

The strange unwillingness of The King’s Speech to mention any of this is at least somewhat surprising for one reason: The actual arc of George VI’s character would make a fine and interesting movie. Just think: A king fights against a stutter and his dastardly, treasonous brother, while eventually sloughing off his old instincts for appeasement. He even overcomes his distaste for Winston Churchill—the politician who bent over backward for that very same brother—and lends his steadfast support to Churchill’s aggressive policy against fascism.

Why wasn’t this story told? The likely answer is that even highbrow critics and audiences love to toast the House of Windsor. While the Royal Family may frequently appear more tawdry than anything else, cheap American Anglophilia can always be counted on to provide thunderous applause. Take The Queen . Unlike The King’s Speech , that movie was witty and compelling. But it also presented the Princess Diana phenomenon with a complete lack of distance. Viewers who wondered why the Western world came to a halt for two weeks solely because of an unexceptional woman’s death were unlikely to find any answers from the movie. Now, The King’s Speech has taken things a step further by not only simplifying its story but grossly misrepresenting real events and people. Apparently, the life of George VI had too many shades of gray for a mainstream film.  

Isaac Chotiner is the executive editor of The Book.

King's Speech, The (United Kingdom, 2010)

The King's Speech delivers solid drama with a rousing climax - a fully satisfying and uplifting period piece that achieves its dramatic potential without sacrificing historical accuracy. Unless you count Hitler, who is seen from afar, the narrative is villain-free, allowing the focus to be on the internal and interpersonal struggles of the characters - a more rewarding approach than when a bad guy is invented to fill the need for a conventional conflict. Even though it is set against the backdrop of mid-20th century British royalty, there are no barriers to mainstream accessibility. The wealth of acting mined by director Tom Hooper may represent the best ensemble not only of this year but of the last several years. Big and small, there are some astounding performances here.

The film opens in 1925. The man who will become King George VI (Colin Firth) is now merely Prince Albert. His official title is the Duke of York and, because he's the second son of King George V (Michael Gambon), he is not expected to ascend to the throne because that role will fall to his older brother, Prince Edward (Guy Pearce). A life away from the relentless attention of Buckingham Palace is suitable for Albert and his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), who do not desire to be king and queen. And there's another issue: royalty in the age of radio presents a unique challenge for Albert, who is afflicted with a stammer that hampers his ability to speak publically (and, at times, privately). In an attempt to be free of this impediment, he visits Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist known for unorthodox methods. Logue's importance in Albert's life escalates when circumstances conspire to make him the king of England at a time when the storm clouds of World War II are gathering on the horizon.

Although The King's Speech is primarily a drama and can be seen as a buddy movie and an instance of the underdog triumphant, there are plenty of humorous moments. None of the comedy is overdone or out-of-place. One can easily imagine, for example, the amusing awkwardness that would affect a middle-class wife upon discovering the Duchess of York sitting at her modest dining room table. The King's Speech is as positive and life-affirming as any recent movie. Like a sports figure who overcomes incredible odds to score the winning points, King George VI is presented as a man who, through sheer force of will and because of the trust he places in Lionel, is able to surmount the obstacle that blocks his path. Too frequently, we leave movies largely unmoved by the experience; The King's Speech sends viewers home with smiles on their faces and lilts in their hearts.

Rarely have we observed so many fantastic performances in one movie. First and foremost is Colin Firth who may win the Oscar (and, if he doesn't, he should). Perhaps the best way to describe the way Firth inhabits the character is to recall Helen Mirren's astounding turn in The Queen . It's the same sort of thing - a man who sheds his skin and crawls inside that of another so fully that we believe in the character. Geoffrey Rush, with his hangdog face, is the perfect foil for Firth. Rush gives Lionel a false bravado to cover his inner uncertainty about serving such a distinguished client. Beneath the seemingly confident exterior, we see the softer, gentler man. Firth and Rush share strong chemistry, which is critical in any buddy film, irrespective of how offbeat it may be. There's also no shortage of chemistry between Firth and Helena Bonham Carter, whose Elizabeth is a delight. She's sharp-witted and whip-smart but capable of great caring and humanity.

The secondary cast is populated by notable names giving sterling performances. There's Timothy Spall, whose interpretation of Winston Churchill is more than an exercise in mimicry. Derek Jacobi, who played a famous stammerer as the title character in I, Claudius , is the cranky and propriety-conscious Archbishop Lang. The royal family is filled out by Michael Gambon as George V, Claire Bloom as his wife, Queen Mary, and Guy Pearce as Edward, whose infatuation with a twice-divorced American woman creates problems for his reign. Finally, Jennifer Ehle's participation as Lionel's wife allows her an opportunity to be reunited with her Pride and Prejudice co-star, Firth. This is the first time they have shared the screen since that monumental mini-series.

The final scene, which gives the movie its title, represents not only the climax of the story but the moment in which all the elements come together - Firth and Rush's acting; the classical strains of the score; the stark simplicity of the production design (the room in which the speech is given is functional and unadorned). Hooper orchestrates everything with flawless diction in his cinematic language. The microphone looms not merely as an aid to voice amplification and recording, but as an implacable enemy - the faceless foe George VI must defeat by exorcising his own personal demons. It's an amazing moment.

The MPAA, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen to saddle The King's Speech with an R rating, believing there are too many "fucks." Jack Nicholson got away with 2.5 gratuitous "fucks" in How Do You Know, but that inferior picture survived with a PG-13. Admittedly, there are more than 2.5 "fucks" in The King's Speech (as are there in this now R-rated review), but they are anything but gratuitous. They serve a purpose within the context of speech therapy. The MPAA has once again shown its narrow-mindedness. Those "fucks" are the only reason this is R-rated. There's no sex or violence, just one word spoken a few too many times.

The King's Speech is everything a good movie should be. When the two hour running time expires, many will wish there were more minutes to come. With its deceptively complex drama, skillful direction and polished screenplay, and top-notch acting, The King's Speech illustrates by example how disappointingly lacking so many recent would-be dramas have been. This is a deeply human story that touches the heart and inspires the audience not only in relation to the characters and their circumstances but as a reminder that, in the dreary muddle of 2010's mediocrity, a motion picture like this can still make it to theaters.

Comments Add Comment

• Cider House Rules, The (1999)
• Citizen Kane (1941)
• War Zone, The (1999)
• Hole in My Heart, A (2005)
• Neon Demon, The (2016)
• Showgirls (1995)
• Pride & Prejudice (1996)
• English Patient, The (1996)
• Bridget Jones' Diary (2001)
• Then She Found Me (2008)
• Circle of Friends (1995)
• Last Legion, The (2007)
• Paradise Road (1997)
• Ides of March, The (2011)
• Backbeat (1969)
• Greatest, The (2010)
• Pride and Glory (2008)
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
• Good Shepherd, The (2006)
• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)
• Toys (1992)
• Sleepy Hollow (1999)
• Amazing Grace (2007)

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Martin Luther King Jr. Biographer Wins American History Prize

The New-York Historical Society honor goes to Jonathan Eig, whose “King: A Life” presents the civil rights leader as a brilliant, flawed 20th-century “founding father.”

By Jennifer Schuessler

Jonathan Eig, the author of “King: A Life,” has been named the winner of the New-York Historical Society’s 2024 Barbara and David Zalaznick Book Prize, which is awarded annually for the best work of American history or biography.

Billed as the first major biography of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in decades, Eig’s book draws on recently declassified government records and other new sources to take a panoramic yet intimate look at Dr. King. The book places him in the context of the many figures, inside and outside the civil rights movement, who shaped his thinking and actions.

The biography, almost 700 pages long, shows a young King struggling to establish himself in the shadow of his father, a prominent Baptist preacher and community leader in Atlanta. As King and his movement grew, Eig shows him in a complicated dance with white leaders like President Lyndon B. Johnson, who sometimes supported and sometimes hampered him, and with more radical Black activists who increasingly saw him as dedicated to an outmoded form of “ respectability politics .”

While hailing King as “one of America’s founding fathers,” Eig doesn’t stint on his personal struggles and flaws, including his marital infidelities and posthumous revelations of plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation. Reviewing the biography last year in The New York Times, Dwight Garner called it “a very human, and quite humane, portrait” that is “worthy of its subject.”

The historical society’s prize, which comes with a cash reward of $50,000, honors books that are accessible to a general readership. It generally focuses on works of political history that keep founders, presidents and other prominent figures at the center of the frame, if not always in a celebratory way. Last year’s winner was “G-Man,” Beverly Gage’s biography of J. Edgar Hoover, who as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation worked to undermine Dr. King , authorizing wiretaps of his home and office and planting bugs in his hotel rooms.

In a statement, the historical society’s board chair, Agnes Hsu-Tang, called Eig’s biography of Dr. King “a deft, multidimensional portrayal” that avoids hagiography, showing how “America — and its many founders — can be both heroic and imperfect.”

Other past winners of the prize include Alan Taylor , Drew Gilpin Faust and Jill Lepore.

Jennifer Schuessler is a culture reporter covering intellectual life and the world of ideas. She is based in New York. More about Jennifer Schuessler

David Seidler, ‘The King’s Speech’ Screenwriter, Dies at 86

By Michaela Zee

Michaela Zee

• Pierce Brosnan Gives Aaron Taylor-Johnson His Blessing to Be the Next James Bond: ‘The Man Has the Chops, Talent and the Charisma’ 2 days ago
• Netflix’s ‘Fear Street: Prom Queen’ Sets Ensemble Cast 2 days ago
• ‘The Bachelorette’: Jenn Tran Named First Asian Leading Lady for Season 21 3 days ago

David Seidler, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of “The King’s Speech,” died Saturday while on a fly-fishing expedition in New Zealand. He was 86.

“David was in the place he loved most in the world — New Zealand — doing what gave him the greatest peace which was fly-fishing,” his longtime manager Jeff Aghassi said in a statement. “If given the chance, it is exactly as he would have scripted it.”

Seidler won the Academy Award for best original screenplay for 2010’s “The King’s Speech,” directed by Tom Hooper and starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter. The historical drama also went on to win best picture, best director and best actor.

Seidler wrote multiple TV movies, including “Onassis: The Richest Man in the World” (1988), “Tucker: The Man and His Dream” (1988), “Whose Child Is This? The War for Baby Jessica” (1993), “Dancing in the Dark” (1995), “Come on, Get Happy: The Partridge Family Story” (1999) and “By Dawn’s Early Light” (2001). He also wrote episodes for such series as “Adventures of the Seaspray,” “Days of Our Lives,” “Another World,” “General Hospital,” “The Wonderful World of Disney” and “Son of the Dragon.”

Seidler is survived by his adult children, Marc and Maya.

More From Our Brands

The best sunglass brands to shop right now, billionaire marc andreessen’s longtime silicon valley estate just popped up for sale at $33 million, jets owner lambastes nfl network over ‘irresponsible report’, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, shōgun ep: fuji’s tea-sipping reaction shot had crew ‘guffawing,’ ‘was everything we dreamed it would be’, verify it's you, please log in.