![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I watched the last few minutes of the Oscars last night, best director, actress, actor, film. I usually don't watch any of it. I understand this wasn't a particularly good show compared to recent years, but compared to the horrifyingly dull ones of my youth, it wasn't that bad.
I have to admit I was rooting against TKS for best actor and best picture. I thought it was a very fine film, I enjoyed watching it very much. As a story about someone overcoming a debilitating problem it was excellent. I'm just not convinced it was ever the best of the best.
In the end the film very much emphasized to me the absurdity of the whole situation. To my knowledge the last English royal who made much of an attempt to get involved in the politics of the country was Albert the husband of Victoria. Even his attempts were a far cry from attempting to reimpose the divine right of king's. Once he passed away, although Victoria occasionally expressed her opinions, she had much less interest in doing anything about it. The English commercial classes were only too happy to step in and fill the power voids and do homage to a queen who had little interest in preventing them from doing as they pleased. By the 1930s the monarchy had devolved into a hereditary family of ribbon cutters, who for sentimental reasons were considered the symbols of the nation. David (Edward VIII) seemed to dislike the whole business, especially the ribbon cutting part of his life and rather preferred partying with foreigners who liked him for who he was - rich, good natured, well mannered, not overly intelligent. Unfortunately the perfect match of a bride for such a king, namely Diana Spencer, was not born for a couple generations. In the event, a right which Englishmen cherish for themselves, his personal choice of a bride, basically got him run out of the country. Then by the ancient laws of heredity and the "grace of God," the kingship and the title of Majesty came to rest on a man disastrously lacking in public speaking ability.
The point is not to run down Albert's (George VI 's) struggle to do his duty. But clearly if the English monarchy had been been peacefully ended after World War One when so many other monarchies ended, England would not have suffered more or less in World War II. England would have found other voices to rally behind. As I left the theater I had a genuine sympathy for the real George VI, but a sort of bad taste in my mouth over the essential emptiness of demanding such symbolic gestures like making rousing speeches of those who wouldn't choose to do them on their own.
From the book The King's Speech written with the assistance of Lionel Logue's son it's fairly obvious that most of the dramatic moments of the film outside of the speech-making attempts never happened in real life. George VI did not make his speech at the opening of the War with a Beethoven symphony swelling behind him, and perhaps it was fitting that Colin Firth's voice and Beethoven so dominated the brief clips of the best picture nominees that TKS's victory was a foregone conclusion.
Also perhaps it was fitting that the very pretty Anne Hathaway never got comfortable in her role as host and fumbled her way through toward the end.
I have to admit I was rooting against TKS for best actor and best picture. I thought it was a very fine film, I enjoyed watching it very much. As a story about someone overcoming a debilitating problem it was excellent. I'm just not convinced it was ever the best of the best.
In the end the film very much emphasized to me the absurdity of the whole situation. To my knowledge the last English royal who made much of an attempt to get involved in the politics of the country was Albert the husband of Victoria. Even his attempts were a far cry from attempting to reimpose the divine right of king's. Once he passed away, although Victoria occasionally expressed her opinions, she had much less interest in doing anything about it. The English commercial classes were only too happy to step in and fill the power voids and do homage to a queen who had little interest in preventing them from doing as they pleased. By the 1930s the monarchy had devolved into a hereditary family of ribbon cutters, who for sentimental reasons were considered the symbols of the nation. David (Edward VIII) seemed to dislike the whole business, especially the ribbon cutting part of his life and rather preferred partying with foreigners who liked him for who he was - rich, good natured, well mannered, not overly intelligent. Unfortunately the perfect match of a bride for such a king, namely Diana Spencer, was not born for a couple generations. In the event, a right which Englishmen cherish for themselves, his personal choice of a bride, basically got him run out of the country. Then by the ancient laws of heredity and the "grace of God," the kingship and the title of Majesty came to rest on a man disastrously lacking in public speaking ability.
The point is not to run down Albert's (George VI 's) struggle to do his duty. But clearly if the English monarchy had been been peacefully ended after World War One when so many other monarchies ended, England would not have suffered more or less in World War II. England would have found other voices to rally behind. As I left the theater I had a genuine sympathy for the real George VI, but a sort of bad taste in my mouth over the essential emptiness of demanding such symbolic gestures like making rousing speeches of those who wouldn't choose to do them on their own.
From the book The King's Speech written with the assistance of Lionel Logue's son it's fairly obvious that most of the dramatic moments of the film outside of the speech-making attempts never happened in real life. George VI did not make his speech at the opening of the War with a Beethoven symphony swelling behind him, and perhaps it was fitting that Colin Firth's voice and Beethoven so dominated the brief clips of the best picture nominees that TKS's victory was a foregone conclusion.
Also perhaps it was fitting that the very pretty Anne Hathaway never got comfortable in her role as host and fumbled her way through toward the end.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
The monarchy was still politically active during that time - notably as boosters of appeasement - and their support of the policy mattered at least a little. David was a Nazi sympathizer and had to be banished from Europe during the war... Churchill's rather strong affection for David was a stain on his reputation for some time.
For me, the silliness is less in the restrictions placed upon the Royal - the dutiful show they are supposed to put on the public - but more in the lavish life bestowed on them for nothing other than birth.