Talk:The King's Speech/Archive 1

Secondary sources needed

• "On Monday 7th December exterior scenes began to be filmed at the University of Greenwich, London."

Bradley0110 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• In early 2006, a stage version was sent by its author to producer Joan Lane at the London based production company Wild Thyme. Knowing the author had previous success as a screenplay writer and the story would make a good movie, Lane showed it to film colleague Simon Egan at Bedlam Productions; and Egan recorded the first read through, at the Pleasance Theatre London. With a view to mounting a stage production, but also with a screen version in mind, Wild Thyme sent the script to Geoffrey Rush for his interest, simultaneously championing Tom Hooper as the film's director. At the same time, Egan passed the script to Iain Canning of See Saw Films. Although there had been interest in a stage production in London's West End, the film production with its stellar cast took precedence.

Bradley0110 (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is fully cited now. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed copyvio

The article contained a copyvio in the plot section. It was copied verbatim from the Internet Movie Database. I discovered this while writing a Wikinews article. Just letting you know... --Diego Grez (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Section rewritten, removing warning.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

whats the with that funny picture

unecncyclopediaeic.... get a life -!220.245.253.81 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)!!!

What exactly is your objection to the picture? I don't fully understand the problem. --Korruski (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something. I'm not seeing any picture. Unless the IP means the picture at Template:In the news (i.e. the one on the main page), in which case it's likely to be the only one we've got - the main page is more constrained than elsewhere - it has to have free pictures, it can't use fair use pictures. That's an issue for WP:ERRORS, however. TFOWR 08:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume that is the one he objects to. I can't see a particular problem with it. --Korruski (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Images have been rechecked since. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2010/10/23/brand-new-international-trailer-for-the-kings-speech/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All text reworked now. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot §

I wrote the text currently there so there's no © problem with it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section currently reads: "The film applies the self-discovery trope as evinced by the play on words of the title, the idiom "The King's English", as a Throne Speech, and as the speech of the protagonist who would have to deliver one."

This doesn't explain what the plot is. And it's an overly complicated way of explaining how the title's a play on words. Sounds like it's written by an English Lit undergrad who's trying too hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.46.103 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Too hard to do what? Be literate in English? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Too hard, because he/she failed to be a) clear and b) accurate. A play on words is not proof of a "self-discovery trope". Also, his/her punctuation leads to ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.39.199 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed now. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot - Probable copyright violation

I've just replaced the Plot section with {{copyvio}}, because it appears to be a copy of http://kingsspeech.com/about.html, with only a few minor variations. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the few changes are not sufficient to avoid copyright problems. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dealt with as above. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot - errors of fact/phrasing

I haven't seen the film yet, but from my knowledge of history there are at least two things wrong with the plot description:

"The story opens as Albert, Duke of York, son of King George V, speaks before the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium. His halting, stammering speech visibly annoys the thousands of listeners in the audience. His wife, Elizabeth, Duchess of York, and his daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret, support him nonetheless." Err, no - this implies that his daughters were supporting him at the 1925 Exhibition - the oldest one wasn't born until 1926.

"Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin threatens to resign if King Edward marries Wallis Simpson, and then does so." Absolutely not. The whole point of the Abdication Crisis was that Baldwin WON and forced the King to abdicate before he could marry. Baldwin didn't leave office until later.

So are these errors in the film, or in our write-up? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It was these errors in the plot section that you cite that prompted me to edit it so thoroughly. Baldwin's resignation is his only major scene in the film. He barely mentions the reason why, but it clearly has nothing to do with the abdication business. The plot section of the article dwelt too much on the prime ministers in general, given how little they appear in the film.

And the daughters most definitely were not in the opening scene! Trumpetrep (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been changed, though please check again for accuracy. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The biplane that showed Edward VIII landing at Sandringham had a registration beginning with the prefix G-AN, but this series of letters was not used until the mid-1950s, around 20 years after the event portrayed.

It is unlikely that the Duchess of York would have had her first meeting with the speech therapist unaccompanied by a lady-in-waiting or an equerry.

• Not only that, Logue was working with the Duke from as early as 1926, not the mid-thirties as the film shows. I'm sure the film has taken a few other dramatic liberties - perhaps another section needed? Tim Bennett (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Being old enough to have known people who actually met the man who was to be George VI my impression is that the film misses the point. Because he was never to be King his education in terms of public speaking was woeful. Mistreatment gave him a stammer, he had real difficulty in pronouncing his 'R's and used a 'W' instead, heance 'Weally, Weally' was something of a joke, and as he lived entirely within the confines of the court his speech was almost incomprehensible to the common man. Not for nothing were the upper class called 'lah-di-dah'. So unlike the film, when he did speak at Wembley, nobody understood a word he said.

Secondly, the photo used in the Wikipedia article on the man in who called himself Edward VIII gives a pretty fair impression of the dubious masculinity of the unpleasant character. In the film he is portrayed by very masculine actor.

Drg40 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• "dubious masculinity" -- 1) is this not a homophobic and prejudiced remark? 2) Look at the other pictures; the picture you mean seems pretty standard for his class & age. ABS (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• R's & W's: I've heard this in other types of "U" English accents, one wonders if this counted as a speech defect then, or now? ABS (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I resist the accusation that that was "homophobic" remark. In the period under consideration homosexuality was illegal. You may wish that that was not the case and the mores of the next millenium could be translated back in time (Turing might not have been murdered if that were so!), and at least two predatory homosexuals were to be found hanging around avoiding imprisonment through their association with the Royal Family. Noel Coward springs instantly to mind, as does Anthony Blunt. These men's evil used homosexuality as it's vehicle, not the other way round. Further, bearing in mind David's continuing desire to "cook a snook" at the contemprary standards it does not surprise me at all to see him adopting such a pose for a formal photograph in the uniform of a Field Marshal.

As to the accent, Reith's desire to create a standard "Oxford" English had as much to do with taming the accents of the working class as it did in trying to reduce the alienation of the upper classes. Even during WWII the accent used in the army Officers Messes (especially, I understand, in the fancier regiments) was incomprehensible to the other ranks - one of the ways one could determine if a chap went to a decent school. I was told, and I have zero evidence for this although a short passage in the film implies support, that George V needed education before he made the first broadcast speeches because his accent was also incomprehensible to his people.Drg40 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Other inaccuracies: the movie dwells heavily on the psychological basis of the Duke's stammer, and on how Logue's treatment dealt with that (much of it seemed like a segment of Oprah or the like). The W. article on Logue & its sources stress that Logue dealt primarily with the physical aspects. Which is it? It seems to me much more likely that Logue dealt with the physical, and that this is a serious misrepresentation by the movie, but I'd like to see documentation one way or the other.

Also, the Logue page cites Australian news sources specifying that Logue's office was UPSTAIRS, not downstairs as the movie emphasizes. Also the movie emphasizes that it was the Duchess who first made contact, and that the Duke was resistant, all which is directly contradicted by the Logue page and its sources.

The movie page points to the BBC interview & mentions the director's &c. intent to make it historically accurate. This seems a ridiculous claim, considering the result. It happened in England -- they got that right. ABS (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

All of this is OR and off topic. Please cite a WP:RS for inclusion. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot - Logue stting on Edward's throne

Currently the Plot section says "... Logue presumptuously slumps in King Edward's Chair. The gesture provokes Albert's realization that he is just as worthy of the throne as his brother or any of the other kings before him." However my recollection of the movie was that Logue sitting in the chair triggered an argument that ended up with something like:

Albert: ... listen to me

Logue: Why should I listen to you?

Albert: Because I have a voice

Logue: Yes, you do

and it was this realisation (by Albert, that he did have a voice) that made Albert realise he was worthy. Should the article text be changed? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to summarize that moment as succinctly as possible, which is why I settled on that particular wording. Other editors are very concerned with the word count. I do think it would be helpful to have the fuller realization as a part of the plot. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the word count, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the realisation occuring as a result of Logue sitting on the chair vs "I have a voice" / "Yes, you do". (Of course my recollection or understanding of that scene may be incorrect.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I understood the scene it was more of a case of the King doubting Logue's treatment and, therefore, his own ability to ever speak confidently. However, when provoked to anger, he was able to speak fluently. That brings the realisation that he is capable of fulfilling the duties of King, and so is worth of the throne. The problem is that this scene is open to some interpretation. If there are any useful sources that give an explanation of it, that would help.--Korruski^Talk 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The scene begins with the Duke's doubts, prompted by information dug up by others, doubts esp. about Logue's honesty, as the Duke has just been informed of his background (btw, how could that be true?). Suddenly Logue has taken the royal seat, and the Duke is enraged that this commoner has rudely slouched in it. It was the argument, and the Duke's demand that Logue listen to him, yelling & speaking smoothly, that prompted the (unspecified) realization & climax. This should be made clearer. ABS (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been rephrased, though a summary is meant to only give a bare sketch, it is not a "novelisation" of the film. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I added five examples of good reviews as citations. With a bit more work, this could be a Good article. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is now. ;)--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2002 made-for-TV movie Bertie & Elizabeth

I dispute the relevance of the "further reading" entry "The 2002 made-for-TV movie Bertie & Elizabeth ...", and suggest that it doesn't belong, because it has little to do with the movie or Logue. Does anybody else have an opinion on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. It seems it could be more in a "see also" section. It's definitely not further to the film. The other works there are about Logue, or the events depicted in the film, but not about it. Ktlynch (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Related play?

Is the play A King's Speech by Mark Burgess in any way related to this film production? The radio play was first broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 30 April 2009. Ref here [1]. The Production section of The King's Speech Wiki page says "In early 2006, a stage play script of The King's Speech was sent to producer Joan Lane at the London based production company Wild Thyme" but there is no mention who this stage play script was by. Was it by David Seidler, the screenplay writer, or Mark Burgess, the radio play writer, or by someone else? The similarity in title seems curious. 86.133.211.60 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen any mentions linking the two. Pending a new source this won't be included.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy Synthesis

The Historical Accuracy section is mostly original research in the form of synthesis. This means it is combining sources or facts to make a case not in any of the supplied cite (A+B therefore C). For instance, the paragraph about Churchill cites his stance on abdication. However, the cite makes no mention of this film.

• A = Film's portrayal of Churchill (uncited and unverifiable)
• B = Historical fact about Churchill (cited)
• therefore C= Film is historically inaccurate (original synthesis)

If this material is to remain it really needs a reliable source that puts forward this exact argument. It cannot be constructed in this manner on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I have now provided a source in a reputable journal which makes directly the critique of the accuracy of Churchill's portrayal. In addition to making the argument as a whole (that is to say (C) above), this source is also evidence as to (A) film's portrayal of Churchill (which, after all, is verifiable by anyone who watches the movie). In case anyone then wishes to dispute the same journal's account of (B) historical fact about Churchill, I have supported the latter with two solid references from the history literature (dozens more could be found). Nandt1 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Have now completed process of supplying external sources directly making each specific critique of the film's accuracy throughout this section. Nandt1 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's much improved, thanks. Good work. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1) How does one answer EO's request about citing for criterion A, film's portrayal -- can one cite the film itself? (Or its script if it's available?)

2) Above there are other notes of inaccuracies, how can they be included? E.g., of the Duke's doubting Logue on the eve of the coronation for not being open about his lack of degrees -- a decade after their work had begun, &c.? Impossible. E.g., the film's focus on the psychological origins and Logue's psychological focus in treatment, when the W. article on Logue & its sources stress Logue's physical focus on exercises. These are clearly there, immediately verifiable, & problematic; how are they to get into this article?

Thanks, & good luck. ABS (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the movie, after showing a clip of Hitler, has the King asked what Hitler was saying & his reply that he didn't know, i.e., could not understand German. I think still in his generation of Royals, German was generally understood. Sourcing this would be helpful. ABS (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Churchill Didn't Say That - The King's Speech is riddled with gross falsifications of history..--Nemissimo (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone edited the section on the questioning of the historical accuracy of the film's portrayal of Churchill's stance during the abdication crisis in such a way that the critique was attributed only to Christopher Hitchens. No disrespect to Hitchens intended, but he has been known on occasion to take controversial/provocative stands, whereas in this case it would be hard to find a serious historian who would dream of disputing his critique. So I have tried to rework the section to show that this critique is not unique to Hitchens. (I am less au fait with the arguments about George VI's attitude to appeasement, though my impression is that huge numbers of people in the UK dared to hope for peace in 1938, and then went out and did their patriotic duty in 1939 and thereafter; perhaps the King was one of them?). Nandt1 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nandt, I agree with you that Hitchens is often polemical and again that he probably has a point here. However, the article is at risk of overstating the case. This section is already quite long. Hitchens's articles spend much time discussing events that are not portrayed in the film. One can only indict a film so much for not doing something. It is about the King's personal struggle, the events Hitchens discusses are just the backdrop.Ktlynch (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Music

We have little on the music, apart from the composer of the original score. For instance, I am extremely curious about the name of the music played during the key scene where Bertie holds the War speech - it is not original as it occurs also in Knowing (2009). The credits were unhelpful about the exact placement of the various pieces in the film. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th Symphony Stan drew (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just found out. A perfectly haunting piece of music that is! JFW | T@lk 20:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What about fragments of Mozart that are heard in the headphones (as far as i am concerned form the overture to Le Nozze di Figaro) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.90.112 (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a flute, and I haven't heard an oboe. Shall I add/remove it? FlannyBabes (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a section on the music at the GA stage. New, cited info is welcome though. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible new American edit of the film. New slogan in the US

Interesting news that the film could be re-edited to earn a lower censor's rating. Not confirmed yet, but one to watch!--Ktlynch (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this plan is not going ahead now, but it might still be an interesting factoid to include:Weinstein's proposal and Hooper's refusal.Ktlynch (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The King's Speech/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Swarm ^X 08:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Detailed comments follow this list.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No "see also" section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No information on soundtrack or film score.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One non-free image has incorrect licensing information.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Before it can be listed, there are some issues:

• The image of the French movie poster (File:Affiche The King's Speech.jpg) has a free license. The source given is AlloCiné. Proper licensing information and a fair use rationale needs to be added.

I nominated the other file for deletion from commons, and re-uploaded it to wikipedia with the correct licensing and rationale. Ktlynch (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• There's not much on the film's score or soundtrack. Nothing serious, but some information on these should be added to the article. Ktlynch (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• A 'see also' section should be added. Ktlynch (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll place the review on hold until these issues are resolved. Swarm ^X 09:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've added a see also section with a stray link which didn't fit elsewhere, though I can't think of anything else that needs to be linked, I've put a bit of thought into wikifying the article properly. There's now a new section on the score. Music is not my strong suite, so if other editors over it and introduce some technical terms I'd be grateful. I'm off to justify the other film poster now. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, couldn't have hoped for better. We've got ourselves a good article. Swarm ^X 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• YListed Swarm ^X 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

smear campaign

I had heard there was a smear campaign against this film, alleging the king was anti-semitic, and urging people not to vote for it. Does anyone have info on this? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/8262814/Nazi-smears-on-George-VI-threatens-Colin-Firths-Oscar-hopes.html Opera hat (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Some rumours around Oscar time, lots of info in release and awards. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Did he stammer or stutter?

I have the impression that the film mostly used stammer, but the two words are pretty evenly spread throughout the article. Anyone have better knowledge from the script? HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I counted 11 or 12 stammers, but not a single stutter! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression both words meant the same thing. (EDIT: Stuttering seems to agree) 86.146.218.27 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• To me the handicap might be a rebirthing one. Kantorovic in a real figure shape --Raskollnika (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that stammering is simply not being able to get the word out, whereas stuttering implies tripping up on one sound or phrase (for example, Edward VIII's taunt "B-B-Bertie" would be mocking a stutter, which George VI did not suffer from). RichardGHP (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stuttering is the preferred term in American English; as the film is a British film about a British subject the references to stutter should be reverted to stammer.Headhitter (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they are synonymous (in general speech), but most sources say "stammer". --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

I feel the following excerpt is unclear. I have read it several times and still don't know whether the king's speech improvement took months or years:

"However certain changes were made for artistic or dramatic reasons. Professor Cathy Schultz pointed out that the film-makers tightened the chronology of the events to just a few years. The Duke of York in fact began to work with Lionel Logue in October 1926, ten years before the abdication crisis.[33] The improvement in speech was apparent in months rather than years as suggested by the film. In a 1952 newspaper interview with John Gordon, Logue said that "Resonantly and without stuttering, he opened the Australian Parliament in Canberra in 1927"; i.e. just seven months after the Duke began to work with Logue"

If the chronology was tightened, shouldn't "the improvement in speech was apparent in years rather than months"? if not, this sentence is unclear. 24.64.237.4 (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not having seen the movie I don't want to change the article, but someone who has seen the movie should clarify those sentences. Carmaskid (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That part of the section relates to the film's chronology. The second discusses critiques of its treatment of appeasement. With the latest addition, I'm worried that the section overstates the case and has turned POV. The balance between the critiques and responses has been lost a little. I would contend that the Chotiner and Hitchens should be favoured since they were the first and most even analysts. The wikipedia reference is also a bit self-obsessed--Ktlynch (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC). Best,

I thought Podhoretz'z wiki reference his his most notable (if also unfair and rude) comment, which is why I added it. I agree that he makes much the same points as the others, and so this does seem to slant the section. Coming to this afresh I would have expected single examples of more trivial inaccuracies - such things as the wrong type of car or shoes, etc - and not a repeated re-analysis of how the film mis-judges political nuances or leanings. But I admit to being swayed by the prominence of Podhoretz himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree the section could be tightened up a little, but am shocked that you would expect a list of trivial mise-en-scene details! I've just come across more articles on the same points so am considering how to re-draft the whole thing to be balanced yet more concise. Ktlynch (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that I wouldn't really expect just trivia, that's true. Anything which contradicts the actual historical sequence of events should certainly be there. This might reasonably include the length of time between events. But politcal analysis can get a bit subjective. Certainly, if more than one commentator makes the same point, that should give it more weight (unless, of course they are simply jumping on a popular media bandwagon?). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don#t think this film needs more weight. The page neither. Has got enough; the balance of the personal conflicts and the representional norms a king has to fullfill is heavy and true told. Rooting on abel and playing possible relaxing games is well done!The documentary material is a memory contrast and a reference space... i think/ you tank!--Raskollnika (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should there perhaps be, in this section, a mention of the two younger brothers (Henry and George) that were completely missed out of the film? FlannyBabes (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think not. Even if many facts are missing they may be missing for a reason. The film is a drama, not a history lesson and the writer has deliberatly chosen what to include and what to omit. The article for King George himself should be referred to. If the film had claimed, for example, that he had three sisters that would be different. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

At second viewing, these are now some questions in my own mind over some details. Some are depicted events, some just reported events. The ones which stand out for me include - attendance of the Archbishop at the 1925 Empire Exhibition; Prince Albert's childhood left-handedness; the use of metal splints for the Prince's knock-knees; his abuse and starvation by his first Nanny; the new King being photographed by the press as he walks to what appears to be a taxi; the reference to air-raid sirens in London so early in the war; the position of the TV camera in Westminster Abbey; the flowers sent daily to Wallis Simpson by von Ribbentrop; young Churchill's consideration of surgery for his own speech impediment. Are these really worth checking or are they just trivial examples of dramatic licence? Maybe some or all are well-known facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the air-raid sirens, I think I remember reading that there was one shortly after Chamberlain's broadcast on the first day of the war. Opera hat (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a quite detailed description of the slow decline in the health of King George V at here. It certainly does not match the depiction in the film where the King, although sitting in a chair and not confined to his bed, seems to have lost all sense of reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And at the party at Balmoral, is it Bertie who asks why "Cousin Willhelm" and "The Czar" have not been invited? I suppose these are not historical inaccuracies as such, since Bertie may well have said such a thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No he isn't asking why they haven't been invited. He mentions them as a warning to Edward to change his behaviour or the British monarchy will fall as had Germany's and Russia's.--Britannicus (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But I suppose, in any case, characters in films are free to say whatever they wish, aren't they. Although King George V's "Marshall Stalin" does sound a bit strange, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, I doubt the vast majority of the audience when they heard the words "Marshal Stalin" thought: "But Josef Stalin wasn't a Marshal of the Soviet Union until 1943 so this is inaccurate!" It will sound weird to people who know Stalin wasn't a Marshal in the 1930s but that will be a small minority of people.--Britannicus (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Country of Origin

I have changed the country of origin to UK, at least partly to be consistent with the opening para which describes it as a British film. There was an edit here recently changing the country of origin to UK/Australia/USA, but I believe this has been copied from IMDb.com. As far as I know this film was produced by British companies. The co-production company See Saw Films, appears to either be based both in the UK and Australia, or is a British subsidiary of an Australian company. Either way the producing companies appear to be British, unless anyone has alternative info on this. 21:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)~

Further to this, someone re-instated USA and Australia as countries and added this note:

Please do NOT remove Australia or US from the country list. Country is aposed to where it was filmed NOT aposed to the cast or crew.

I'm not sure what it means but I left a note in the edit history again that there's a section on the discussion page if they want to discuss it. 86.129.242.76 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) has all the relevant info. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Now it says UK, some Australians were involved, but is predominantly in, by and about the UK. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Metagames

The king and his speech trainer act on Becket in an intelligent and existencial manner. So global player do! Telling the story of the difficult upcoming Georges and in addition to that a homecoming in the cosmos of winnie/willi and clov...Therfore the synopse of that film isn#t only a historical one, but a shakespeare and becket connection. --Raskollnika (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources? --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another comment about the plot summary

Generally the summary reads well. I see a minor chronological error in the middle of the section, though I'm not sure how to rewrite it in with the rest of the plot:

• Albert accuses Logue of treason and, in a temper, he mocks Logue's failed acting career and humble origins, causing a rift in their friendship.

The mention of treason came during the walk outside (in Regent's park?), which ended with Albert terminating their sessions in a huff. Logue's true backround info came later in the second church scene, before practicing for the coronation ceremony. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed now.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Second round of criticism by Christopher Hitchens

"The King's Speech Revisited: The movie's screenwriter goes too far in defending his version of history" in Slate here. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you consider it is merely a film? A slight diversion for a dull day. Has Hollywood ever produced a film that wasn't awash with propaganda masquerading as historical truth? (That goes for the British cinema too - in spades.)

It's a good film, but for goodness sake don't take the plot of this light entetainment seriously as though it had any historical merit or veracity. Drg40 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens has already been given some space, other more notable sources dismiss his arguments. I'm a Hitchens fan, but what he does there is typical: take a kernel of truth and completely exaggerate his case, probably overly personally against Seidler. --Ktlynch (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the criticism or think people are taking the film too seriously is really beside the point. The article isn't a movie review or repository for your judgments. I came to wikipedia *specifically* to find out what criticisms and arisen since I knew there had been some. I expect an encyclopedia to have a, well, encyclopedic, compendium of such information. I found instead an edited list of the criticisms that you happened to think had merit. Sadly, as is more and more the case these days the information I was looking for was buried in the discussion page. 87.198.231.90 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was merely advocating restraint and balance. This article is not a substitute for reading Hitchens's, and there is plenty of criticism, his included, in the article. Any encyclopedia editor must exercise judgement, and by definition edits the information he presents. You may have came to find criticism, that doesn't mean the article should consist mostly of it. It should be, well, " an encyclopedic, compendium of such information". The film received overwhelming praise so the article must reflect that. Critiques are mentioned -- so the article has given you that which you sought -- plus the contextual presentation that those opinions were only one among many. Now, if only I had time to get around to adding the critiques of the critiques... Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article included as further reading. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The origin of the title

I am rather surprised that no-one has mentioned the origin of the film's title which might not be obvious to non-UK people. Of course, it is about KG VI's stammer but it also refers to an annual speech that the monarch makes to Parliament that lays out the Government's legislative programme. This now is called the Queen's Speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.70.14 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it puns on it at some level, but the King does not open Parliament in the film. The major speech depicted is his address to the nation at the outbreak of war. This is mentioned in the plot summary, no source on the film mentions that it refers to a speech from the Throne, though a disambiguation link is provided to the article on that. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not a UK person are you? The point of the title is that it is a pun. It doesn't matter a jot that the King doesn't open Parliament in the film but ask any reasonably educated person in the UK what (and I am using the current nomenclature to avoid confusion but this will revert back when Charles ascends the throne) the Queen's Speech is and the would refer to the state opening of Parliament which happens annually in November. Before the film a reference to the King's Speech would have meant exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.70.14 (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you are both correct to some degree. The 'to-parliament' speech is certainly the most common use of the phrase, and the 'outbreak-of-war' speech is the main one in the film. However, unless one of these is specifically claimed to be the 'official pun' by the film-makers, the pun may very well be with the generic term of any Queen's/King's speech - Christmas, dinner with dignitaries, visiting heads of state, outbreak of peace, etc. Mannafredo (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the play on meanings, but this has not been mentioned in sources....so not mentioned in the article. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from YoungFogram, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Last sentence in first paragraph is a sentence fragment: "It was nominated for fourteen BAFTAs, of which it won seven; twelve Academy Awards nominations, of which it won four; and seven Golden Globes, with Colin Firth winning for Best Actor." semicolon should be a comma.

YoungFogram (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

One can use a semi-colon to separate items in a list when it would become unclear to use commas. Here commas are used to create further sub-clauses to indicate the number of wins. This structure comes from before the awards were announced and has been added to in bits, maybe we'll re-write it soon. Secondly, it is not a sentence fragment since there are several verbs: It was nominated. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Informed Imagination?

I cannot edit the article directly. WTF is "informed imagination" cited in the first paragraph? Is that like poetic licence?--96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article is protected because of IP vandalism, esp. given the recent exposure the movie received.

  "Informed imagination" probably deserves an article--here's something that at least mentions it and suggests a meaning. Here's something else. No "F" necessary. Now, what did you want to edit? Perhaps I can help. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"David Seidler began reading about George VI after overcoming his own stutter during his youth and, using informed imagination, wrote about the men's relationship." It's pretty clear from the context: he researched their biographies then wrote a fictional account. Again, semantic criticism is hardly acceptable from someone who writes as you do.--Ktlynch (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed now. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Great War or World War 1

Just a small point, and I could be wrong here. When Logue is telling the King how he came to deal with speech impediments, he says he was helping Australians who came back from World War 1 and were shell-shocked.

Now, I think this scene is set just around the time of the outbreak of World War 2. But when did people begin using the name "World War 1"? It used to be known as the "Great War". Wouldn't Logue and others still have been using that name? Myles325a (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the film it's usually referred to as "the war", it's still quite fresh in the mind. I suppose one could read books or newspapers from the era to find out. In any case, we just need to explain it succinctly and clearly here so I think WWI is best. --Ktlynch (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous for people to be talking about World War I before World War II had begun. That would be like knowing in advance that there would definitely be another major global war before it happened. Of course, AFTER WW II, a sequence is established, and it makes sense to speculate about WW III, and so on. Myles325a (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Plot section should not suggest dialogue that would never have occcured, unless it were an actual example of anachronism in the flim. I have added piped links in the Plot section which I think get around this problem. But someone could still check the dialogue/ screenplay in the film. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought it was rather vulgar to talk about "World War II" as if it was a film sequel. I prefer "the First World War" and "the Second World War", myself. Opera hat (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OP myles325a back live. I've since being following some interesting threads on imdb's message board on this film, and it appears that I am completely wouoiuouirrrrooo....woooowooo...wororoouuuuo......woorroororoouuuu...wrong. (That's strange, it appears that I develop a terrible stammer myself, but only on THAT word.) I have been informed that the shooting script refers to "The Great War", and the DVD also has that term. So the crew did not pander to the hoi polloi who would not know what that was. Then again, how many of the hoi polloi would be seeing this anyway? Let's just pretend this never happened. Myles325a (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

References to the "Great War" removed to avoid confusion.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Related Book

I barely have even enough information to start a stub, but there's a book of the same title, written by Mark Logue, grandson of Lionel. While it treads some of the same ground, this is a little different from most book-movie pairs in that this was neither the inspiration for the film nor a novelization of it. As the author notes in the preface, he heard about the production of the film, and decided to look through his grandfather's records for more information. He never knew Lionel personally, as he died twelve years before Mark was born [2]. Through a cousin, Mark found some of Lionel's diaries from the period, which form the basis of the book. -- A. (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not related to film though.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seidler quote

"Not a great deal was written about His Majesty's speech therapist, Lionel Logue, certainly not in the official biographies. Nor was much published about the Royal stutter; it appeared to be a source of profound embarrassment." – David Seidler[4]

I have a copy of the official biography by Wheeler-Bennett. It does mention Logue a fair bit (starting on p213 and elsewhere as seen in the index). It describes the King as a 'chronic stammerer' and begins to discuss Logue here: "October 19, 1926 was to be a momentous day in the life of the Duke of York, for on that day he had his first interview with Mr. Lionel Logue..." Might be worth quoting if someone knows how to handle the technical aspect because this quote seems like a complete misrepresentation of the official record, which does indeed acknowledge in detail the King's ordeal and his treatment. --50.46.103.178 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A useful quote. But what's the misrepresentation issue? The date or the fact that the day could fairly be described as "momentous"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would beWP:OR to criticise Seidler using info from the biography, nevertheless it is an interesting question. It might be something to follow up and look for sources which directly cover recordings of the York/Logue friendship. Seidler might have been talking about the content of the sessions, or just boosting himself. Ktlynch (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One wouldn't even have to criticize Seidler, merely point out that "seidler says XYZ, whereas in the official biography by wheeler-bennett, logue is discussed as follows" right? Seidler says this, the official biography says that, and the reader can make of the quotes what he or she will. By 'misrepresentation' I refer to Seidler's assertion that Logue was largely omitted from the official record of the King's life. --50.46.103.178 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Funding?

Are the British Film Institute and the National Lottery Fund not worthy of mention anywhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was funded bu the UK Film council, which has recently been merged with the BFI. I think they are mentioned in the production section. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

References

My RSS feed of film headlines from Variety (yes, I'm that hardcore) show quite a few headlines about The King's Speech today. I don't think that the articles' details are being used in the article and that they would be good addition. Here they are below. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Slicing 'King's' profit pie
• Who gets the 'King's' ransom?
• U.K. Film Council had chunk of 'Speech'

If you cannot view them, you can archive them (see WP:WEBCITE). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik. I'm working on including more of these now.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption

The caption for the illustration in the infobox reads: "Theatrical release poster". Since this is a British film, shouldn't it be "Cinematic release poster"? Headhitter (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information

(Copied message from User talk:114.94.123.186 by Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I hope I'm replying correctly, or in the right place. I'm not familiar with this system. I only know how to "edit".

Forgive me - I'm not trying to start an "edit war" with anyone.

But it seems to me that the info on "The King's Speech" is valid, useful, interesting, and factual - and I don't understand why someone keeps deleting it. It seems to me that someone is determined to avoid anything negative being said about that film. But that's just absurd.

If you don't like the facts that I am trying to see included on the page, then for goodness sake re-write them yourself in a way that satisfies you, or start a new section if you feel it's not relevant where it is at the moment. But don't just keep removing the information.

The page is a resource on the film. As a Wikipedia user, both reader and contributor, I find that info interesting; and other readers of the article do too. What on earth is the point in constantly removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.123.186 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the rules about wikipedia is that content has to cite a source, rather than just be an assertion. You might know that what you've written is true, but someone else has to be able to check that it's true, otherwise it will probably be removed. For example, a source for Logue's appointment as an MVO in the 1937 Coronation Honours is the London Gazette here. (By the way, that source shows his MVO was not of the fifth and lowest class, but of the fourth class, which was renamed LVO in 1984.) Provide similarly reliable sources for the constitutional theory behind appointment of Prime Ministers and your edits won't be removed. Opera hat (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed this because, as I stated in my edit summary, it is unsourced, original research and your interpretation. The fact that they don't mention his previous received honors doesn't make it inaccurate, it just means they didn't mention it, maybe they just wanted to list his highest honor. The subsequent edit summary remark, "thereby implying that his first honour from the king was in 1944", is entirely your opinion.

I would also like to already warn for WP:SYNTH, you can't say "the movie shows this, and this is what actually happens" and say it is therefor inaccurate. That requires third party sources which talk about the movie and history to state that is indeed inaccurate. Drawing comparisons between a movie and history, a book, a previous movie etc. is a tricky matter and requires exceptionally well sourced statements.

I can see the addition of the first section if properly sourced, the second one not really, not mentioning something doesn't make it inaccurate, incomplete perhaps but not inaccurate. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two occasions this information was inserted in the Plot section I removed it, and I explained at the time how it was Original Research. Please read what "original research" constitutes. I'm afraid that unless you have a reliable source that actually discusses this film specifically, and specifically in relation to the historical events you mention, then you are using original research. You have taken one set of facts, compared them with the film plot, and are making your own interpretation out of it.

Note that this doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong. You may be 100% spot on. But it means you are publishing an original analysis of the film that has not be made already elsewhere that can be verified. Encyclopaedias simply do not do this. The reader has no way of telling if you are correct, or way off the mark, and no way of knowing whether you know anything about the subject at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. But it is a pity, since the info is correct. And I still don't really see where the contention is: it's not in dispute that new British Prime Ministers must go straight to Buckingham Palace to be accepted by the Monarch. So it's fine if you want to remove my suggested deferential wording (which nonetheless I feel gives a clearer picture of how the scene would have played in reality, in contrast to the inaccurate way it was presented in the film). But the basic fact remains that a monarch is never "informed" of a new Prime Minister; rather, a monarch's permission is (and indeed must be) formally sought in order to validate a new Prime Minister. Perhaps more experienced Wikipedians might like to rewrite this fact in a way which satisfies the rest of the community, to elucidate a more accurate idea of how this scene would really have gone between the two men?

As for the info about Logue's appointment to MVO in 1937, I apologise if I was mistaken in saying that it was the first rank inthe order - but I got the info from Wikipedia's own page, and not the London Gazette (see Opera Hat's comment, above). Nonetheless, we have now established the facts: (1) Logue was given an honour by the king in 1937, and (2) the film (which closes in 1939) does not mention this (making only a final passing title-card reference to Logue's 1944 honour). This is misleading, clearly implying as it does that Logue's first (and only) such honour came in 1944, and passes over entirely his 1937 honour for his help to the king over his coronation. Can someone tell me why should this not be included in the article? 114.94.123.186 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)s

At the risk of repetition, because we need a reliable citation that establishes these facts, all together. Secondly, I don't see that it is that interesting: there is already a long section discussing the film's historical context. It's pretty obvious that a film-maker, for reasons of economy and elegance, might only include one salient fact on a title card rather than a complete list of titles and honours. No one disputes your motives or the facts themselves, it's more of a principle of how we edit, furthermore some facts interesting though they are to some must be left out. WP:INBRIEF Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Background music during movie climax

Main article identifies the closing music as the 2nd movement (Allegretto) of Beethoven's 7th Symphony. Am I mistaken, or was the music not instead the 2nd movement (Adagio, if I remember correctly) of Beethoven's "Emperor" Piano Concerto? 64.129.133.105 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New source & citation goes with the old one. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

George VI's understanding of German

The article notes "Filler cautions that George VI would never have tolerated Logue addressing him casually, nor swearing, and the King almost certainly would have understood a newsreel of Hitler speaking in German." The last claim seems to be questionable. In Classes and Cultures (Oxford: OUP, 2000), 3, Ross McKibbin notes that "Neither George V nor his two successors spoke German and all spoke French badly." I have not found any other biographical sources that address the matter one way or the other. I am not sure that the point is important enough to insert in the article, though.

A e blaine cavanaugh (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this very useful research--it could well be that the critic's supposition is incorrect. Since the two sources are in conflicit the best option could be to quietly drop Filler's claim to avoid an error in Wikipedia circulating around.

Does anyone else have a biographical source on the King confirming his knowledge of German or lack thereof? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that no one has ever pointed out the simple fact that George VI might just not have wanted to tell his two young daughters what Hitler was saying. Hitler's speeches were not exactly suitable-for-children material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.26.2 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems naive for George V and his two sons as sovereign having no ability to speak German. Was the language not on their curriculum as young princes, and as the maritally connected and German ancestried British Royal Family had much dealings with German states from Queen Victoria's time onwards before the fall of the German monarchies in 1918.Cloptonson (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Seidler quote

"Not a great deal was written about His Majesty's speech therapist, Lionel Logue, certainly not in the official biographies. Nor was much published about the Royal stutter; it appeared to be a source of profound embarrassment." – David Seidler[4]

I have a copy of the official biography by Wheeler-Bennett. It does mention Logue a fair bit (starting on p213 and elsewhere as seen in the index). It describes the King as a 'chronic stammerer' and begins to discuss Logue here: "October 19, 1926 was to be a momentous day in the life of the Duke of York, for on that day he had his first interview with Mr. Lionel Logue..." Might be worth quoting if someone knows how to handle the technical aspect because this quote seems like a complete misrepresentation of the official record, which does indeed acknowledge in detail the King's ordeal and his treatment. --50.46.103.178 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A useful quote. But what's the misrepresentation issue? The date or the fact that the day could fairly be described as "momentous"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would beWP:OR to criticise Seidler using info from the biography, nevertheless it is an interesting question. It might be something to follow up and look for sources which directly cover recordings of the York/Logue friendship. Seidler might have been talking about the content of the sessions, or just boosting himself. Ktlynch (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One wouldn't even have to criticize Seidler, merely point out that "seidler says XYZ, whereas in the official biography by wheeler-bennett, logue is discussed as follows" right? Seidler says this, the official biography says that, and the reader can make of the quotes what he or she will. By 'misrepresentation' I refer to Seidler's assertion that Logue was largely omitted from the official record of the King's life. --50.46.103.178 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Box Office

Why are the box offices figures for the US listed in £? Can they be converted to US dollars? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For consistency, the whole article uses Sterling.--Ktlynch (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to the dollars given in the cited source. Converting to pounds is original research and bad practice as we've no idea what exchange rate was used or is applicable.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I had converted it at the current exchange rate. It's not OR. In fact articles should use the same currency. I was looking for a template which would convert it and keep it accurate, though one does not seem to exist. It might be a nice one to create if anyone has the savoir faire. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the "current" exchange rate? Are you talking about tourist rates or bank rates? How is the current exchange rate applicable to rate on the film's opening week? You see, there is no straight forward way to convert from one currency to the other, template or not. It would be lovely if the sources all used the same currency, but they don't and any Wikipedia editor converting them is using synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. See MOS:CURRENCY, which says, "Conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling. Conversions should be in parentheses after the original currency, rounding to avoid excess or false precision (one or two significant digits are usually enough, as the exchange rates can vary significantly) and noting the conversion as approximate, with at least the year given as a rough point of conversion rate reference; e.g., Since 2001 the grant has been 10,000,000 Swedish kronor (approx. US$1.4M, €1.0M, or £800k as of August 2009[update]), not (US$1,390,570, €971,673 or £848,646)." We can do the conversion here but just round up. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Are US dollars and UK pounds "less familiar currencies"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that to most British people, US dollars would be common enough, but to a lot of Americans, anything that is not US dollars would be considerably less familiar. That is not meant as a criticism, just an observation of the reality of what people are exposed to. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You argued that conversion was original research, and it is not. Are you moving the goalposts now? I don't find "less familiar" to be strict criteria; the top of MOS:CURRENCY says, "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars ($123), the dominant reserve currency of the world. Some editors also like to provide euro and/or pound sterling equivalents, formatted as described in the next section." Do you think that this is a country-specific article or not? I think that providing the equivalent is useful. After all, we have currency conversion templates to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no "goalposts" and my position remains as before. It is synthesis in that it combines two sources of information (one for dollar value of box office, a second for exchange rates) to produce a figure not in either source (i.e. pound value of box office figures). But I don't follow the relevance of what you are quoting. That is an guideline for conversion to dollars in non country specific articles. What is happening here is translation from dollars in a country specific article. It's the complete reverse of what the guideline is referring to. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the technicalities at MOS:CURRENCY, it still says that conversion is acceptable as long as there is rounding. Are you calling guidelines in the MOS original research? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The MOS you are referring to is taking a pragmatic approach to a totally different scenario. It is totally irrelevant to this case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis means the creation of a false opposition between two arguments, or combining two ideas to get a third new one. Conversion is just displaying the same information in a different format. Characterising it as original synthesis is like saying translation is original synthesis. Though I agree picking a certain rate is problematic, though not insurmountable. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is the very slightest of cases. But I still cannot see much of an argument for converting a dollar value for box office receipts in the United States to pounds, particularly when the cite uses dollars. It's just totally incongruous. But I'm willing to go with consensus if everyone feels differently. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we update the Box Office Gross to "$313,126,037" that is according to the website Box Office Mojo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyinmist (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made changes in line with the MOS, the original figures from each source are used then an approximate conversion to GBP Sterling is given in brackets with a As of {{{1}}} template. I welcome discussion of other suggestions but there must be some internal conformity in the article to meet MOS requirements. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the conversion rates of August 2011 are relevant? What conversion rate? See my second comment above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I used the current conversion rate, the template is a standard tool which allows other editors to track information that might be need to be changed I don't mind if others want to remove it. We've already discussed your claim that conversion constitutes OR, I thought it had been dealt with. I see your point about differing rates, but the figures are rounded and intended for comparison, not trading. The MOS explicitly mentions this problem. Furthermore, my edits preserved the original figures so there is no corruption of the source usually present in original synthesis. How do you wish to treat the problem? Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the currency does not need to be converted. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See xe.com for current and historical inter-bank conversion rates. American In Brazil (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast

I've heard that soon, this article will be taken to FAC. Everything is good, except for the "Cast" section. It should be like this. 50.19.78.29 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your kind comments. Generally the MOS film says that cast sections should incorporate interesting information where dictated by sources. Specific information, for instance on Firth's preparations; Rush's involvement, is included in other sections as appropriate, it should be silly to strip it out and group it there. I'm personally against cast lists like this on Wikipedia, but other people seem to like them. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Familiary between Logue and the King

I too was dubious that Logue would ever have dared to address him as "Bertie", but according to this story in the Daily Telegraph (which I would rate as a relatively reputable source), "The King's Speech: The Real Story", he did just that:

Another part of Logue's unconventional approach was to insist on addressing the Duke as Bertie, much to the Duke's initial discomfort. ... At the end of the [1939 Declaration of War] broadcast Logue finally called him 'Your Majesty'.

Apparently it was all part of his psychological approach to the King's speech issues. Alas, I don't feel up to adding this to the article - perhaps someone else can? Noel (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the critique of that part of the script is cited to the same newspaper, but critic is a respected historian. I am less sure about this article, if one reads it carefeully it has the tone of a description of the film than a true account of the men's real life consultations. Anyway the issue is already mentioned and discussed in the article. Though of course its exprssion can stil be tweaked to sum-up better the various positions. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, re-reading it, you may be right. I wish I could find a really reliable source, one way or the other. I just can't see him doing it, in that day and age - but it's also entirely possible that he did, as part of his therapeutic approach. Alas, although his diaries and treatment records have come to light, the newpaper story on them, illuminating as it is to the actual true nature of the relationship between them, doesn't cast any light on this particular point.

Although now that I look, it does indicate that Logue did call him 'Your Majesty' prior to 1939: after the speech he gave after the Coronation (in 1937), Logue's diary says "I said 'The greatest thing in my life your Majesty is being able to serve you'." So, that part in the newspaper story I referenced originally is definitely wrong, so your take on that newspaper story (that it's based on the movie, not independent sources) is probably correct. Good catch!

And the tone elsewhere (e.g. "May I be the first to congratulate you Sire on your first Christmas Broadcast") is rather formal too - although of course, that was after he became King, perhaps it was different when he was just the second in line. Noel (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

A point worthy of adding, by someone in possession of the facts about the chronology of the day on 3rd September 1939. The end-of-film balcony scene is also 'absurd' because of the fear of air raids at that stage. The British public had been receiving air raid precaution instruction since 1938, and the horror of air raids was enhanced by news of the Condor Legion's attacks on cities in the Spanish Civil War (ended earlier in 1939) and the Luftwaffe Stuka raids on Poland when Germany invaded on 1st September. In that light would it not have been inadvisable to crowd on streets outside Buckingham Palace if there was a fear German raiders could be on the way? The first air raid alerts were sounded in London (through false alarm admittedly) at 11.28 AM after the Prime Minister's broadcast. Were there any further alerts in the coming 24 hours? At what time after the two events did the King's speech actually take place? Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Another intestesting angle on that scene. Would you have a source we could cite? It could merit a very brief mention; though must resist the urge to list every possible anacrhonisms: the section in question already notes several and recognises the film as a work of historical fiction. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Finish review, please

Would anyone care to particpate in the ongoing A-Class review? A perspective on the article would be great. Just click the link above. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Question re the baritone singing in The King's Speech

Credits are given only to the London Philharmonic. Who??? and what is he singing??? it refuses to identify itself.65.95.145.57 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles Of The Characters

Is it appropriate to describe the characters as "princess Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth II", when these transitions don't occur within the timeframe of the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.5 (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. It counts as original research to add material not in the original cast list. Links are provided that fill in the history for anyone interested and that should be enough. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

The recent additions by the "student editor" User:Jsomm1 required considerable revision. He is largely reliant on a single source and seems fixated on the fact that the film does not sufficiently criticise appeasement and Edward VIII's pro-Nazi sympathies. There are two main objections to this approach. In the first place it demands that a portrayal of life at the time should bring in anachronistic attitudes that developed with hindsight. In any case, the film is chiefly about the future George VI, whereas the "Historical accuracy" additions pay unbalanced attention to his elder brother and even bring in incidents outside the film's time-span. In this way they are off-topic. The film did not set out to cover the politics of the era and to argue that it should have done is an expression of personal opinion that has no place in an encyclopaedia. In addition, no attempt is made to moderate the overall condemnatory tone, thus transgressing WP policies on neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter filming.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Usage of future in the introduction

"Colin Firth plays the future King George VI". I understand that, in this context, the sentence means that it's about King George before he was a king, but I think that the sentence is kind of confusing and could be improved. In addition, if I'm remembering the film right, he becomes king during the timeline covered in the film. Clovermoss (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

In the overall context of the film's timeline, one might consider 'the future' redundant, as, in the course of the film, the erstwhile Duke of York becomes King and the latter part of the film depicts his settling into the role in the three years before WWII started. I have rephrased the phase to continue parenthetically "(then Duke of York)..." to fit in.Cloptonson (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes' validity

My edit was reverted because Rotten Tomatoes is not considered a reliable source. But, Rotten Tomatoes does do a good job of summarizing what critics think of a movie (Instant Family), which I've seen other people do. My edit states that critics said the movie was predictable. If you don't want Rotten Tomatoes, I can refer another critic, just tell me so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirusesSuck44 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologise for the edit summary. I took the comment as coming from a blog, which it may well have done. It's a translation from a Spanish language source for which the link does not work. It's also not contemporary with the film's appearance but from 2020 and only a single critic out of 15 pages, not "critics". The only other who used the word commented how the film transcended its "predictable" story-line. VirusesSuck44 has therefore misrepresented his source...and would do well to change his user name. It's on the edge of what is permissible on WP. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweetpool50, thanks for responding to this. Without commenting on the edit or reversions themselves, I was also puzzled by the edit summary. Grandpallama (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not terribly impressed with the comments of critics who complain that a true historical story is predictable. HiLo48 (talk)