Anyway, as “historical” films frequently take liberties with the truth, can anyone please point out the ways in which TKS differed from the historical record?
Also, on a somewhat-related note: If Edward VII had to abdicate for being married to a divorced woman, how is Prince Charles (divorced, and married to a divorced woman) going to be allowed to assume the throne? Has the Church of England (or the British constitution or whatever governs this sort of thing) relaxed the rules since Edward VII?
The C of E changed its position on divorce in 2002. Even so, Charles and Camilla were not permitted to marry in a church, IIRC. My understanding is that Camilla will NOT be given the title “Queen” when/if Charles becomes King.
I believe there were some innacurracies with respect to Churchill. In particular I remember reading someone (Hitchens?) being upset about this. Yeah, here you go: The King's Speech: good movie, very bad history.
I think the time frame was rather compressed as well, and the idea that there were huge cheering crowds outside the palace after a radio speech is not very true to history.
If memory serves, there’s a piece on the Discovery channel coming up that gives a factual accounting. They have some actual footage of the speech therepy.
The wikipedia article on the movie has a section on historical accuracy.
The panic over the speech at the end was dramatic license. The Duke of York started working with Logue in the late twenties, and his ability to speak was greatly improved a long time before he became king. Logue did continue to help him prepare his speeches, though.
Churchill’s role is not portrayed accurately - he supported Edward VIII during the abdication crisis. The king was a friend of Chamberlain’s and supported his appeasement policy, so it was a while before George VI and Churchill warmed to each other.
IMDB, as usual, has a goofs section for this movie. In addition to the usual continuity goofs, incorrect costume bits, etc. there are some goofs that seem rather important to the plot of the movie, especially this one:
I thought this would also have been the case for Diana (and will be for Kate Middleton) - that is, only the blood descendant of the ruling monarch can be named king/queen, while the blood descendant’s spouse remains a prince/princess.
Isn’t this why Elizabeth II is the Queen, and her husband is still Prince Philip?
This is wrong. In the British system, the wife of a king is always a queen. In the U.K., this is known as a “queen consort.” However, the husband of a queen regnant (like Elizabeth) is never a king, because kings outrank queens and a queen regnant cannot be outranked by anyone, in particular, she cannot be outranked by her consort.
More generally, in the royal/noble system, a woman can benefit from her husband’s status, merely by being his wife. However, it is much trickier when a man married a woman of higher status.
No, there’s two categories of “Queen”: Queen regnant, who reigns, like the current Queen, and Queen consort, who is the spouse of a King, like the late Queen Elizabeth, spouse of George VI. The spouse of a Queen is (almost) never a King, but a lower rank, usually Prince.
A wife takes her husband’s rank - she automatically becomes a queen, a duchess, a countess, etc., upon her marriage, or whenever her husband acquires his rank. It doesn’t work the other way around.
I think they will have to create specific legislation to keep Camilla from becoming a queen.
Public opinion has relaxed. King Edward’s government regarded his choice of a consort as a matter of grave public concern, and advised him to stop seeing Wallis Simpson, because she was a twice-divorced American commoner with an extremely dubious past. She had still been married when she began flirting with the King (then prince). The match was considered inappropriate on many levels.
The King must follow ministerial advice in all cases–or abdicate. The King chose the latter course.
Nowadays, people don’t care as much. I’m not British, but I don’t sense any movement on the part of the politicians to intrude themselves into the succession over Charles’s choice of a consort. (It helps, I’m sure, that heirs aren’t an issue.) Public opinion may be satisfied if she doesn’t use the style of “Queen”, as she currently doesn’t use Princess of Wales. Or perhaps people won’t even care about that.
This is, to be noted, a relatively new thing, introduced by Queen Anne. Prior to that, in the laws of England, at least, the husband of a queen regnant would become king regnant, as happened on two prior occasions (Queen Mary I of England upon her marriage to Phillip, and Mary II upon her marriage to William.)
I read an article in the Washington Post that suggested that Princess Margaret’s divorce is what made it possible for Charles, Andrew and Anne to get divorced.
Phillip was only king consort, not king regnant. He had no real power while his wife was alive and did not suceed her on the throne. This is why he’s never appears in the list of British/English monarchs, only on the list of royal consorts.
William (of Orange) III was a special case. Both he and Mary had rights to the throne, but Mary had a far stonger claim (being the eldest daughter of James II). However William had no interest in being a mere consort and Mary agreed with him. After her father (& brother) were deposed she let it be known she’s only accept the throne if it was offered jointly to her and husband. Parliament agreed and they both took the throne as full co-sovereigns (the only time this has over happened in British history) only William could excercise their joint authority (unless he was abroad). This is why he remained king even after his wife died.
Mary, Queen of Scots made her first two husbands (Francis II of France & Henry, Lord Darnely) King(-consort) of Scots.
All documents had to be signed by both of them, he took the title “king”, his face appeared next to hers on the money, and it was treason to deny his kingship.
Philip is/was considered King of England jure uxoris and part of the marriage agreement specifically stated that Philip had all rights and privileges of his wife’s titles while married, and while Mary lived. So in essence Philip was genuinely King of England in a legal sense, but could not continue to reign as King if Mary predeceased him (and she did, by several decades.)
While all that Captain Amazing said is true, and is evidence that he was legally King, it should be noted that in England up to that point the law was that when a man married a woman he assumed all of her titles. So by the law of the land at the time, Philip should have been outright King, should not have had to share the sovereignty whatsoever, his signature alone should have appeared on bills, his face alone should have appeared on currency and et cetera. The fact that this was not the case was quite a major change in the law up to that time, and was considered scandalous and insulting to Philip in Spain proper.
Of course Parliament simply would not have allowed a true Spanish monarch without a fight; so the law was in effect changed. Interestingly history would probably be very different during the 1550s-1650s in England had Philip and Mary’s union produced a child (especially a male child.) A male child of Mary would have been without doubt rightful King of England. At the same time, Mary’s will (that had been more or less accepted by Parliament) stipulated that Philip would rule as sole regent during the minority of their son (if he had been born/existed.) One could then see a scenario in which Philip and Mary have a son, Philip rules England in fact during the child’s minority and eventually that child could have inherited an empire that included England, Spain, Portugal, most of the modern-day Netherlands/Belgium and a portion of Northern France.
It’s worth noting that I think the behavior and activities of Philip in the real chronology are why he is not considered a proper King of England and isn’t in any real accepted lists of Kings of England.
First, Philip and Mary were only married from 1554-1558 (when Mary died), and during that brief period Philip was mostly absent from England. He was present in the country for the marriage (and two days prior–the first time him and Mary had ever met in person), he was present in England up to a point in 1555 (during which Mary had a phantom pregnancy) and then left to wage war on the continent. He came back in 1557, but left again and was in Belgium when his wife died in 1558.
Philip was interested in the political possibilities of the English union, but it looks like once he actually traveled up there he lost most of his interest. He tried to get Parliament to agree to help him/Spain in wars with other powers and when they were recalcitrant he mostly seemed to realize he wouldn’t get any real actual benefit out of being married to Mary and while he was respectful and made all the appropriate political protestations of mourning in fact I think he was very happy to be out of the union so quickly.
If he had totally invested himself in the rights he had gained from his marriage, he could have perhaps become a political force in England. However, Philip also knew such acts would probably at some point result in fighting and rebellion (there was in fact some rebellion against Mary due to the marriage) and that is why he never tried to take a very active role in English politics. But if he had I think it possible he would have been acknowledged as a true King of England.
Others have commented on the portrayal of Churchill (leaving aside the dreadful acting), which is what made me wince when watching it. Pretty much the only thing that detracted from the film in my eyes.
There was no legal barrier to Edward VIII [sic] marrying a divorced woman. The problem was a combination of the following:
[ul]
[li]Concern about the character of Wallis Simpson (including the fact that surveillance had found that she appeared to be carrying on with another chap after she began seeing Edward)[/li][li]Concern regarding the moral authority of the King as Head of the Church of England, at a time when divorce was not generally considered to be acceptable by (at least) the middle and upper classes[/li][li]Concern as to Edward’s judgement; and the related concern that he was not prepared to accept the formal advice of his ministers[/li][li]The fact that Wallis Simpson was an American and a commoner (this is very much more of a subtext)[/li][/ul]
There’s a distinction between the legal status of “Queen”, and the use (or otherwise) of the title. Legislation would not be necessary for the latter.
Nevertheless he had no legal powers as King. And you’re not correct regarding their signatures; the Queen could continue to formally sign in her own right.
Before the marriage took place, the English parliament passed An Acte touching the Articles of the Quenes Highnes most noble Marriage, which ratified the marriage treaty and explicitly confirmed that the Queen continue as “a sole Quene”, with exactly the same power and authority as she had before the marriage.
It had already been considered necessary to pass an Act confirming that Mary’s powers as Queen were equal to those of past Kings. The marriage of a Queen regnant was new legal/constitutional territory for the English, and the fact that her betrothed was a foreign prince made it doubly necessary to clearly establish safeguards. The safeguards were of course for England, and not for Mary personally.
I don’t exactly get the hangup over divorces - wasn’t that precisely the reason for Henry VIII to found the Church of England in the first place? Maybe my understanding is a bit simplistic, but I learned that he broke with Rome (superficially at least) so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.
So why can’t a king marry a divorced woman? Spoiled goods? Or is there a better reason less founded on an obvious double standard?
