Remember seeing this in the British papers. No-one was sure if she was taking the mick, or just genuinely stupid. A bit like the two teenage missionaries who were trying to crowdfund a trip to Glasgow to help the deprived locals dig wells for water.
Hi ! You might find this thread (on ww2tak) of interest : Darkest Hour (movie) I'm probably the only bloke on this, or the ww2tak forum, who can truthfully say "I once dined with Churchill" Ron
Went to see it this afternoon, and was thoroughly impressed. Might go see it again. Can't wait for it to come out on DVD so I can put the English subtitles on so I can understand what some of the actors were saying.
It's out on DVD now, and so I could finally watch it (nearest theater is about 120 miles away). Yes, Oldman does a great job! I would only comment that the film does Mr. Churchill a disservice by creating a weakness, a wavering, on whether they should negotiate with the Germans. This is purely for dramatic effect and in fact, Churchill did not waver in those dark days, or any other period throughout the war. He was a rock, and Britain needed just that man at that time. The link is to a fact-check on historical accuracy. We all know a 120 minute film must dramatize and condense events, but you may be curious about some of the liberties taken in this film. Fact-check: Darkest Hour movie gets Churchill mostly right .
Thought I would toss this out, a very nice film on Churchill throughout the duration of the war. In this, Churchill is played by Brendan Gleeson, who does a notable job in the role. This didn't garner much attention in 2009 when it came out, though I think it's in every way as good a film as "Darkest Hour." .
I'll have to get that one. Yoicks! Free for Prime members. Sold! Have we seen "The Gathering Storm" will Albert Finney? It's on Prime as well.
Good piece of fact-checking that, KodiakBeer. As it points out, that scene where the King just drops in to buck Churchill up is every bit as spurious as the one in the Underground. Unfortunately, both these spurious scenes are integral to the spurious dramatic trajectory of the film. I am very doubtful about the (less fundamental) details of the scene where the King makes Churchill PM. Was the King wearing an admiral’s uniform at the time? I doubt it. Did Churchill leave the King’s presence walking backwards? I doubt it.
I believe walking backwards from the monarch's presence was protocol and as monarch wearing a naval uniform (admiral of course) was allowed and mandated in certain situations.
This would certainly qualify as an "affair of State", being the beginning of a new government. Then again, he could have just liked uniforms, same as Kaiser Bill.
But the King served in the RN in WW1, and the monarch is commander in chief of the armed forces. Is there any record of whether or not the King attended an official function before seeing Churchill?
Wouldn't this kind of thing have been photographed? Seems like a major item in the day's news... A scan of Google Images shows George VI in uniform during the war years more often than not. Mostly the naval uniform.
Stuff like that is usually published in The Gazette even now, although I think The Telegraph also publishes Royal engagements daily these days. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/
