History (dammit) is a killjoy

I saw The King's Speech over the weekend and loved it. In my humble opinion, it is deserving of an Oscar. Even hard to please Christopher Hitchens conceded that it's "an extremely well-made film with a seductive human interest plot, very prettily calculated to appeal to the smarter filmgoer."

But then Hitch lowers the boom. The movie, alas, is "riddled with gross falsifications of history" with respect to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (that’s Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to us, as Hitch drolly puts it) and the true nature of Churchill's relationship with the Windsors. Hitch, of course, is right. The historical truth is neither soft-focused nor pretty.

Long story short: Winston Churchill was actually a fan of the "conceited, spoiled, Hitler-sympathizing Edward VIII" (played by Guy Pearce). The stammering King, a proponent of the policy of appeasement, was an unabashed fan of Neville Chamberlain and congratulated him on his infamous Munich sell-out. Read Hitch’s depressing but compelling correction of the historical record in its entirety here.

In the piece, Hitchens sums up thusly:

"In a few months, the British royal family will be yet again rebranded and relaunched in the panoply of a wedding. Terms like "national unity" and "people's monarchy" will be freely flung around. Almost the entire moral capital of this rather odd little German dynasty is invested in the post-fabricated myth of its participation in "Britain's finest hour." In fact, had it been up to them, the finest hour would never have taken place. So this is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record—now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar."

Ouch. I almost retrieved "The Last Lion" from my bookshelf to re-read Britain’s pre-WWII history prior to seeing the film. I glad I didn’t. The historical truth (fresh in mind) might have spoiled the movie experience.