The King's Speech: Part Two

The Real Princess Elizabeth (future Elizabeth II), Elizabeth, Queen Consort, King George VI and Princess Margaret on VE Day, 1945

As I was watching The King's Speech the one question that kept on coming back to me was, do people get it? While the story focuses on Prince Albert's relationship with his speech therapist, the underlying problem that forces him to seek therapy to begin with is the Abdication Crisis that would drive his brother Edward VIII from the throne.  Edward as King was also Supreme Head of the Church of England, and was forbidden constitutionally from marrying a divorced woman whose spouse (in this case spouses) were still alive.  I was wondering how contemporary audiences would process this.  In the United States we have had a divorced, remarried man whose former spouse was not only still alive but quite in the public eye, as president.  In fact we celebrate his birthday today.  His name was Ronald Reagan (his ex-wife, actress Jane Wyman, had a successful television show during his presidency).  Presently the State of New York has a newly minted governor who is divorced and living in the governor's official residence with a woman not his wife, not even civilly. I could see people shaking their heads and saying, what's the big deal about who he wants to marry, or sleep with for that matter? It's his life isn't it?  What does it have to do with being a public official?

The real Lionel and Myrtle Logue in 1906

Since the producers have King George as the hero this time out the above tack wouldn't have been helpful.  One controversy about the movie is its highly negative portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, with some historians saying it went little too far.  The film makers concede to the exaggeration charge, explaining it as a dramatic devise that sets them in clear contrast with our heroes.  While Wallis Simpson's marital status is brought up, more serious objections arise over possible affairs that she may have been having at the time, include one with an official of the Third Reich.  Both are characterized as pleasure seeking and self centered, little concerned with their duties and responsibilities.  This brings me back to the original question, do people get it?  I'm writing not primarily about the social convention and religious principle at work in the abdication of Edward, but in the deeper questions about duty and responsibility.  In our contemporary, therapeutic culture, what is most important is individual self realization.  In this light the greatest responsibility we have is to ourselves and our personal happiness and fulfillment. The Duke and Duchess could just as easily be cast as heroes of nonconformity and revolutionaries who helped break down out dated social norms.  To make King George's dilemma relevant for the modern viewer it was important to find some personal, "human interest" angle.  Simple fidelity to duty just wouldn't suffice.

Wallis Simpson and Edward, Duke of Windsor

The solution found in The King's Speech is to turn the meetings between "Bertie," (the King's nickname) and Lionel Logue into counselling sessions as opposed to elocution lessons, with the therapist trying to dig out the crisis of his client's childhood.  Louge sees the greatness within Bertie, and even surmises that he's seeking his help because he does indeed secretly want to be king in place of his brother.  Why shouldn't he? He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!  The theme of duty to country is not absent from the film, but there is this sense that this alone was not going to capture the imagination of today's audience.  They had to come at it with therapeutic themes of self realization, of the little guy overcoming his fears and anxieties (even if he is a fabulously wealthy member of the Royal Family) for people to be touched by it.

What's lost here is that the real George VI, against his own desires, fulfilled his duties while Edward put conditions on service, ultimately walking away at a moment his country needed strong leadership the most.  Both men could be cast as heroes using the "therapeutic method," depending on what aspects of the self actualizing ethic you wanted to accent.  But only one is a hero when selfless duty is made the standard, and I'm afraid it's not the Duke.  As an American I can't identify with the Divine Right of Kings, but as a Catholic Christian I can connect with the notion of God's call that asks that we put personal desires, even legitimate, deeply held ones, aside for the greater good.  This ideal of self sacrificial love goes back to the Master Himself, who gave up his life on the cross for the life of the world.  I don't claim to know the heart of either man, but one, at least on the surface, lived fully the call to service he was born to, if not by a Divine right, then by a Divine call.

That The King's Speech follows the more contemporary, Oprahfied approach does not change my opinion.  It is a well crafted film that I think is Oscar worthy. I wouldn't punish it for being a product of its age. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic who would like to see a return to the days when duty, self sacrifice and courage were as honored as feeling good about yourself.