# "The King's Speech" Great Except for the Clothes



## Joe Frances

"The King's Speech" is such a great movie. It is terribly interesting, and at times very funny. Geoffrey Rush is a consummate actor. He is truly brilliant as Lionel Logue. I have seen it twice in the theaters, and may go once more. The only problem I have is that neither the Duke of York nor Edward VIII are dressed properly. Why is it that early 21st C dressing style requires that men not know how to tie a proper knot for their ties; or to fill the collar gap appropriately? Both men, in real life, could do that with ease. See the 1979 "The King and Mrs. Simpson" for a perfect expression of Royal English dress as exemplified by James Fox as the Duke of Windsor. He was impeccably and accurately turned out. The men in "The King's Speech" were not well dressed. 

There were a couple of minor inaccuracies in the writing, which I would love to hear about from others in this Forum, but for now, I come to (essentially) praise the move, not to bury it.


----------



## hockeyinsider

Joe Frances said:


> "The King's Speech" is such a great movie. It is terribly interesting, and at times very funny. Geoffrey Rush is a consummate actor. He is truly brilliant as Lionel Logue. I have seen it twice in the theaters, and may go once more. The only problem I have is that neither the Duke of York nor Edward VIII are dressed properly. Why is it that early 21st C dressing style requires that men not know how to tie a proper knot for their ties; or to fill the collar gap appropriately? Both men, in real life, could do that with ease. See the 1979 "The King and Mrs. Simpson" for a perfect expression of Royal English dress as exemplified by James Fox as the Duke of Windsor. He was impeccably and accurately turned out. The men in "The King's Speech" were not well dressed.
> 
> There were a couple of minor inaccuracies in the writing, which I would love to hear about from others in this Forum, but for now, I come to (essentially) praise the move, not to bury it.


As I said on another post, "The King's Speech" is the best movie I have ever seen on original release. I was, however, rather disappointed in some of the clothing as you rightly pointed out. I didn't notice some of the nuances of style, but just thought they were dressed rather drab.


----------



## Joe Frances

Correction on what I wrote in the opening of this thread: the title of the 1978 series is, "Edward & Mrs. Simpson" and it starred Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris. I seem to confuse Edward Fox and James Fox a lot. Anyway, that production is much better than anything else ever done on the topic of the abdication. The clothing on the King/Duke is splendid. Any Ask Andy member would gain a great deal from watching those DVDs. It is still readily available, I believe.


----------



## Jovan

I thought it was due to how high and stiff the detachable collars were back then that it was difficult to "close the gap" as you put it. I could be talking out of my rear end though.


----------



## balder

The Queen mother put the blocks on Lionel Logue receiving an honour for his work with the King.Saying "He was paid,what more does he want".Par for the course for her!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Now listen here chaps, there was a war on, so clothing was not uppermost in people's minds, don'y you know! 
The Queen was very keen to make sure the Royal Family didn't appear too distanced from the people in those times of austerity. She also refused to evacuate her family from London in a show of solidarity, especially with those along the eastern reaches on both sides of the river who were being bombed into oblivion!


----------



## DougNZ

balder said:


> The Queen mother put the blocks on Lionel Logue receiving an honour for his work with the King.Saying "He was paid,what more does he want".Par for the course for her!


Logue was made a MVO and later a CVO, personal rewards by the King.


----------



## Jovan

Jovan said:


> I thought it was due to how high and stiff the detachable collars were back then that it was difficult to "close the gap" as you put it. I could be talking out of my rear end though.


 I just found out that the movie takes place during WWII. I thought it was earlier in the century... whoops. Attached collars were very much the norm save for semi-formal and formal wear by that time.


----------



## balder

DougNZ said:


> Logue was made a MVO and later a CVO, personal rewards by the King.


These are the sort of awards that a gardener gets for forty years service at Sandringham.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Just saw it this evening, what a wonderful and touching film. No CGI, no violence, no killing. Brilliant.


----------



## Jovan

MovieBob of The Escapist found it "blandly predictable," but I'm still interested in seeing it. He's pretty dead-on a lot of the time, though.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

balder said:


> These are the sort of awards that a gardener gets for forty years service at Sandringham.


Not a true reflection of reality I'm afraid. The vast majority of RVO members (all ranks) are peers and military officers. There is of course the odd member who was part of the Royal Household.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Just saw it this evening, what a wonderful and touching film. No CGI, no violence, no killing. Brilliant.


Then you'll probably want to go back and change your post where you say it takes place during WWII because now you know it doesn't.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Peak and Pine said:


> Then you'll probably want to go back and change your post where you say it takes place during WWII because now you know it doesn't.


Okay.


----------



## Jovan

Peak and Pine said:


> Then you'll probably want to go back and change your post where you say it takes place during WWII because now you know it doesn't.


 When did he say that?


----------



## JJR512

Jovan said:


> When did he say that?


Post #6, his first post in this thread.


----------



## Horwood & Shaw

I actually thought the clothing was very accurate in its portrayal of both the time line and the difference in station between Logue and the King. At times the clothing could have been worn slightly better (the ties for example) however the actors were not 'modelling' the clothes they were wearing them in everyday situations. In fact I think you will find that some garments were actually copies of original pieces! The film itself was brilliant and of course I would be very, very happy to see a return to the days when men wore tweeds suits like that on a daily basis.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Just saw it this evening, what a wonderful and touching film. No CGI, no violence, no killing. Brilliant.





Peak and Pine said:


> Then you'll probably want to go back and change your post where you say it takes place during WWII because now you know it doesn't.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Okay.





Jovan said:


> When did he say that?





JJR512 said:


> Post #6, his first post in this thread.


Thank you, Justin. (I employ some of the larger-sized members here as fact checkers.)

Anyway, last week I was in Orlando, hoped to see the Wizardry World of Harry Potter at Universal, but it rained so bad I got stuck in a theater seeing this King's Speech thing instead. Edited considerably it would make a very fine scene in a much longer movie yet to be made. As it is, it's not much. Finely acted, well shot, still I like a little story with my pop corn. Nix on this one. If this wins the Oscar, I'm going to see if I can get David Lean exhumed and together we'll make a _real_ movie, sort of a Lawrence of Maine thing maybe.


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> Anyway, last week I was in Orlando, hoped to see the Wizardry World of Harry Potter at Universal, but it rained so bad I got stuck in a theater seeing this King's Speech thing instead.


Next time try having lunch at Mythos instead.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JJR512 said:


> Next time try having lunch at Mythos instead.


Aw right, let me 'splain to the rest what you're talking about. The deleted original of the post to which that refers said I flew to Orlando to have lunch at Mythos, a restaurant at Universal Studios, but I thought that sounded a little pretentious so I changed it to the Harry Potter thing. I did have lunch at Mythos (it's in an Art Nouveau style cave, see below, and it's great) and I did go to the Wizardry World of Harry Potter but not on the day planned as it rained all day and so, drat, I wound up at King's Speech.


----------



## NorthShorer

balder said:


> These are the sort of awards that a gardener gets for forty years service at Sandringham.


They'd get the Royal Victorian Medal for that a gardening job, surely. Even now that's usually what the butlers get if you look at the honours lists.

Logue's CVO strikes me as about right. Very few Australians would have been admitted to the Royal Victorian Order before visits by the Queen to Australia began in 1954 - since then such honours are bestowed on those associated with royal visits and service by vice-regal staff.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Speaking of medals and not intending any insult here but, what had the King done to earn all the awards and decorations displayed on his military uniform. Are the Kings decorations/medals awarded purely based on his position or on direct/indirect participation in military operations. Would any of our Royal's watchers be able to clear this up for a terribly confused Continental(?


----------



## Cruiser

I don't know about the King, but here is a guide to Prince Charles' military decorations.










*1*: Order of Merit, civil version
*2*: GCB
*3*: Queen's Service Order (New Zealand)
*4*: Queen's Coronation medal
*5*: Queen's Silver Jubilee medal
*6*: Queen's Golden Jubilee medal
*7*: Canadian forces decoration
*8*: NZ commemorative medal
*9*: Knight of Most Noble Order of the Garter

No offense to the Brits, but I think that if it were me I would politely say "No thanks" to the last one, the Knight of Most Noble Order of the Garter. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine

Don't know about the medals. Eagle knows about this stuff. He was military (and you better not forget it). I have only merit badges. Not BSA ones. Little ones I make for myself that I wear all alone late at night.

But hey, how's about a good discussion of the film itself. Critics loved it. Seems a front-runner for the big awards. I didn't love it. Liked it a little, like it less the more I think about it.

For those unaware, it's about George 6 who had a stammer, his wife who sought out a therapist and the therapist who sorta corrected the problem.That's all it is. Ah, but the witty banter between the therapist and the king. Sorry, not there. Fog, tuxes at dinner, Winston Churchill portrayed by an idiot, that's there. But the big missing piece is story. It must have left the theater before I got there. A WouldaShoulda post has more drama.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Cruiser said:


> I don't know about the King, but here is a guide to Prince Charles' military decorations.
> 
> No offense to the Brits, but I think that if it were me I would politely say "No thanks" to the last one, the Knight of Most Noble Order of the Garter. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


His Son, (if that IS his Son) Harry, appears to have collected some "real" ones!!

I prefer to call it "intrigue" instead of "drama!!"


----------



## eagle2250

Cruiser said:


> I don't know about the King, but here is a guide to Prince Charles' military decorations.
> ......
> No offense to the Brits, but I think that if it were me I would politely say "No thanks" to the last one, the Knight of Most Noble Order of the Garter. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Actually, LOL, that last decoration is the one of most interest to me! 



Peak and Pine said:


> Don't know about the medals. Eagle knows about this stuff. He was military (and you better not forget it). I have only merit badges. Not BSA ones. Little ones I make for myself that I wear all alone late at night.
> 
> But hey, how's about a good discussion of the film itself. Critics loved it. Seems a front-runner for the big awards. I didn't love it. Liked it a little, like it less the more I think about it.
> 
> For those unaware, it's about George 6 who had a stammer, his wife who sought out a therapist and the therapist who sorta corrected the problem.That's all it is. Ah, but the witty banter between the therapist and the king. Sorry, not there. Fog, tuxes at dinner, Winston Churchill portrayed by an idiot, that's there. But the big missing piece is story. It must have left the theater before I got there. A WouldaShoulda post has more drama.


Peak and Pine: Thank-you(?) for remembering. However, LOL, your conclusions once again seem misguided. During my period(s) of military service, my interest was less on what paraphernalia I might qualify to wear over my left breast pocket and more on the nature of my service and what I might be wearing on my collar points or the epaulets of my Tunic. Sadly, I must admit to really lusting after those 'below the zone' promotions and while the list of a**es I might have kissed to get them is surprisingly short, the names are very, very distinguished!  Hanging in my closet today are a set of fully dressed out Class A's, a flight suit (worn in the late 1960's and 1970's, that still fits me today), a missile launch crew uniform and a set of dressed out BDU's, ready for the next campaign! The grandsons like to play dress-up in the flight suit, missile crew uniform and BDU's. So, it seems, at least in that regard, there was some value to my service. 

Now as for how I liked the movie, I watched much of it with a bit of a lump in my throat. My late, younger brother went through his all too short life, battling and living with the social realities of a stutter in his speech. Common people afflicted with such conditions are forced throughout their lives to endure the barbs and arrows of far too many flaming a**holes! I suppose I may have keyed in a bit too closely on this aspect of the movie but, must say that, overall, I thought it was really well done.


----------



## ajo

WouldaShoulda said:


> His Son, (if that IS his Son) Harry, appears to have collected some "real" ones!!


Actually George VI did see active naval service in the great war so some of the 'fruit salad' he wore in the movie would have been real.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

ajo said:


> Actually George VI did see active naval service in the great war so some of the 'fruit salad' he wore in the movie would have been real.


Thanks, saved me from writing it.


----------



## eagle2250

It does indeed seem that the younger son/prince(s), being further removed from the Throne, are allowed substantially greater latitude in their exercise of military service, than are their older brothers...the heir(s) apparent! Didn't Prince Andrew participate in combat operations in the Falklands? Prince Harry has been allowed to engage in firefights with the Taliban.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> Didn't Prince Andrew participate in combat operations in the Falklands?


NO. I was in the RAF Regt at the time. Prince Andrew, while "in theatre" did not engage on tasked combat ops., although he did come under enemy fire, while flying his helo on medevac, transport and ASW and SAR missions. Basically the 
C-in-C (mum) had the final say of course, and his senior officers were directed to keep him out of harm's way as much as possible, so he was never assigned to combat ops.


----------



## McKay

Not to appear argumentative, but is an ASW mission not a combat operation?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

McKay said:


> Not to appear argumentative, but is an ASW mission not a combat operation?


Yes, ordinarily from a ship or another sub but apparently not from a helicopter. I'm assuming his helo-bound ASW duties included recce patrols etc. But not combat apparently.


----------



## eagle2250

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO. I was in the RAF Regt at the time. Prince Andrew, while "in theatre" did not engage on tasked combat ops., although he did come under enemy fire, while flying his helo on medevac, transport and ASW and SAR missions. Basically the
> C-in-C (mum) had the final say of course, and his senior officers were directed to keep him out of harm's way as much as possible, so he was never assigned to combat ops.


Thanks for the clarification. Though if one is being shot at by enemy combatants, it is hard to deny combat exposure!


----------



## balder

ajo said:


> Actually George VI did see active naval service in the great war so some of the 'fruit salad' he wore in the movie would have been real.


 Albert AKA George VI was mentioned in dispatches for his behavior while commanding a gun turret at the Battle of Jutland.His brother the then Prince of Wales was very envious of this and pleaded with Haig to let him serve in the trenches.He said to Haig"it does not matter if I am killed.I've got three brothers"Haig replied"If I thought you would be killed you could go at once.What I cannot risk is you being captured!"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> Though if one is being shot at by enemy combatants, it is hard to deny combat exposure!


True, but the in British armed forces (and the Geneva Convention) the delineation between combat and non-combat and between combatants and non-combatants has always drawn razor sharp. So it's only "combat exposure" if you are a combatant on a combat task. 
Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that doctors, nurses and military patients in transport in theatre coming under enemy fire are "in combat" at that moment. And that is clearly not the case.


----------



## Penang Lawyer

Please see the article on the clothes made for the King's Speech in Savile Row Style Magazine Spring Edition 2011.


----------



## MikeDT

Just downloaded The King's Speech via BitTorrent, will watch it today on my laptop. See if it deserves the hype it's had.


----------



## imabsolutelyunique

It seems that I need to review this movie again, since I nearly nodded off...


----------

