Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Folarin Balogun is the striker and one of the best players on the U.S. Men's National Team that until last week, competed in the World Cup Soccer Tournament, the most important sporting event in the world, bar none.

Playing against Bosnia-Herzegovina in a do or die match on July 1, the winner of which would advance to the next round, in the 64th minute of the game, Balogun received a red card for a foul he committed against Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic. 

In going for the ball deep in Bosnia-Herzegovina territory, Balogun landed on Muharemovic's ankle causing it to turn over awkwardly. There was no initial whistle to stop the play but the VAR, (Video Assisted Referee), an official watching the game in the press box whose job is to look for fouls that the field referee misses, caught the infraction and halted play. In turn, the on-field ref shuffled off to the sideline where he reviewed the play from multiple angles and made the final call pulling the dreaded red card out of his pocket.

In soccer, a red card results in a player being ejected and his spot unfilled, meaning his team plays one man short like a penalty in ice hockey, except that in soccer, the penalty extends for the rest of the game. In addition, the offending player receives a one game suspension for the following match. 

Obviously, this is a stiff punishment reserved for actions deemed intentional or bad enough to cause serious injury, as opposed to injuries typical to soccer, that cause a player to roll around in agony until he realizes no one is paying attention, at which time he springs himself back into the game as if nothing ever happened.

Having seen replays of the incident many times, to my untrained eye, as the action may have hurt Muharemovic, (he did manage to stay in the game), Balogun's foul did not appear in any way to be intentional.

But what do I know, the referee disagreed and as red cards are not supposed to be challengeable, his is the only opinion that matters. 

Well, up until now. 

At this late date, I probably don't need to say what happened in the subsequent days when the president of the United States called his BFF the head of FIFA, the international governing body of the game that most of the world knows as football * and asked (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and go with asked) him to review the call.

The BFF said: "sure thing boss anything you say boss" and quicker than you can say Pelé, Balogun was reinstated and made eligible to play in the USMNT's next game against Belgium, to complete for a spot in the quarter finals. Did I mention the U.S. held on to defeat Bosnia Herzegovina 2-0 in that game?

The whole world cried foul, saying rightfully that neither the POTUS nor any politician has any business interfering with the outcome or the regulation of a sporting match.

What hardly anyone mentioned is that in successfully reversing a legitimate, if arguable call on the field, the president didn't do anything to help the U.S. men's soccer team, in fact, his actions very likely contributed to their defeat against Belgium and their exit from the World Cup, and may have caused serious repercussions on the international stage for the game of soccer in the United States for years to come.

That's not to take anything away from the Belgian team who going into the game Monday was ranked eight points higher in the ratings than the U.S. team. But like any other sport, ratings don't mean much when the teams come out onto the field. In this game, without the president's interference, the U.S. should have had several advantages going for them. First, it was played in Seattle and the fans in the stands were overwhelmingly on the Americans' side. Second, the questionable nature of the call against Balogun gave the Americans a chip on their shoulder, which is always helpful in sports. Third, Balogun's absence made the U.S. distinct underdogs in this match, another factor that gives a team a little emotional edge going into a game.

On the flip side, soccer is a game that isn't usually determined by one player. There are exceptions of course, players such as Argentina's Lionel Messi or maybe Norway's Erlig Haaland. But Balogun hasn't the brilliant vision of the entire field like Messi, no one has, nor the awesome physical presence of Haaland.

In the game where Balogun received the red card and was forced to the showers, the U.S. up by the slimmest of margins and down by one man, tightened up and played brilliant soccer, not allowing Bosnia-Herzegovina the chance to score. And the cherry on top was a perfect free kick by Malik Tilman which evaded a Bosnian wall of defenders and curved into the top corner of the net to give the U.S. an insurmountable 2-0 lead.

In a tournament filled with mostly ups for the Americans, the team was riding high, winning their division and looking forward to possibly making it into the elite eight in the World Cup for only the second time in history. That victory against Bosnia-Herzegovina, overcoming the adversity of the devasting loss of arguably their best player and having to play thirty minutes short-handed, was certainly their high point of the tournament, the fulfillment of what became the mantra of the team and its fans: "I believe that we will win."

The momentum from that brilliant win should have carried the team into their match against Belgium.

And it did until the president with his phone call, removed the chip off their shoulder and put it on the shoulder of the Belgian team. 

Maybe we shouldn't blame the president. After all, his entire life has been defined by people, mostly his father, bailing him out of adversity such as all those times he went bankrupt or the time daddy called a doctor telling him to find an issue, any issue that would excuse his boy from military service. Perhaps he felt that "helping out" the American team was his way of settling the score in some perverse way, or maybe some kind of easy karma.

But as I said, the president didn't do the national team any favors because in sports, adversity can be a good thing.

Here's something I came across on the internet:

Fútbol is not just another sport. Fútbol exposes who you really are when everything is on the line. When the pressure becomes unbearable. When the game turns against you. When nobody believes you can survive.

Look at Cape Verde.
On paper, Cape Verde had absolutely no business pushing Argentina to the brink. They were the Cinderella story. The little country that was supposed to be happy just to be there. They had nothing to lose and every reason in the world to play scared.
But they didn’t.
They dreamed.
They believed.
And most importantly, they went onto that pitch and PLAYED like they believed.

That is how  the U.S. National team approached the games they played through the Bosnia-Herzegovina match. They were in fact, albeit to a much lesser extent than Cape Verde, also a Cinderella team in this tournament

And by doing so, they gained the respect of the worldwide soccer community despite the fact that they represent a nation that is at this moment anyway, despised by much of the world. 

Then daddy president called the principal and told him to exempt his kid from the rules that all the other kids at school are subject to. And instead of being Cinderella, the USMNT all of a sudden became Cinderella's wicked step-sister. 

I said above that adversity can be an advantage in sports, but the adversity the president foisted upon the U.S. National Team at the time of the peak of their success was certainly not the kind they wanted or needed.

Here's more from the comment above:

But when adversity came, I did not see a team whose belief became stronger. I saw a team that looked defeated. I saw players pouting. I saw frustration. I saw a team acting like the game was already over before the final whistle.

I don't blame the American players one iota for that. Going into Monday's game against Belgium, they knew if by chance they won that game with their star player back in the lineup (which he was), that victory would be tarnished, as would any possible subsequent victory. 

And unlikely as it may have been, had they gone on to win the whole enchilada, there would have been in the record books, an asterisk forever placed beside their name. 

Perhaps it's a blessing none of that happened. In my comment following the game against Belgium, on Facebook I said simply: "the soccer gods are pleased tonight".

I can't say for sure but I think with the loss of respect that went along with the unfortunate action of the president and the FIFA goon, the American team lost their motivation to win. 

I wouldn't say that if the team had played their hearts out as Mexico did in their one goal loss to England last week, by far the best game I've seen in this tournament so far. 

The U.S./Belgium game could not have been more different.

Despite another brilliant free kick from Malik Tilman to score the only U.S. goal, the U.S. team's offense was insipid and they made several key defensive blunders throughout the game that would have made the coach of an 8U AYSO ** team cringe. The final score was 4-1, in international soccer terms, a devastating blowout. 

Did the American players play to lose that game? No, I don't think so. But sports, especially played at its highest level is a extremely psychological enterprise, and any advantage in that regard, can be the difference between winning and losing. 

Or the difference between losing by one goal, and by three as we saw.

Had there been no interference and the U.S. team played like Mexico in their farewell game, leaving both their hearts and their souls on the pitch after a hard played loss, it would have been a fitting end to a magnificent tournament for the Yanks. Granted there would always be people who would claim that the game was "rigged" against them because of a questionable call. But people who truly understand the game, and the nature of all sports that are on the up and up for that matter, know that bad calls are part of the game, some go your way and some don't. And when they don't, you have to play on. 

As England did after that game against Mexico when one of their players, defender Jarrell Quansah was sent off with a red card after a hard tackle banning him from the team's next game which was played against Norway yesterday. 

Without Quansah, England beat Norway in extra time 2-1 last night. In their infinite wisdom, FIFA has determined that Quansah's foul was serious enough to warrant a two game suspension which means the player won't be available Wednesday either when the Brits have the unenviable task of facing defending champions Argentina and their estimable captain Lionel Messi (who some claim to be the greatest footballer of all time), in the semi final match.

I could be wrong but I didn't hear any stories of King Charles dialing up FIFA and asking that their player be reinstated. 

In the spirit of fairness, maybe the POTUS should try his magic again with FIFA to help our old pals the Brits. 

I'm sure Argentina would be just fine with that.

*One of the glories of the World Cup is the quadrennial appearance of this John Cleese bit on what else, the glories of the game. In the bit he questions the logic of why we Yanks insist on calling it "soccer" and not "football", which given the way the game is played, would seem to make more sense.

As this is a comedy bit, not intended to be a Ken Burns screed, I assume that Cleese, quite the smart guy in his own right knows the answer. But some internet folks have got their panties (or as the English would say, their knickers) all in a bunch over the fact that Cleese doesn't seem know what he's talking about as "soccer" is actually a British term.

Soccer, or Football (not the American variety) came into being in England in the 1860s. In that era, two games evolved simultaneously, Rugby and Soccer, both of which were generally referred to as Football. To make the distinction between the two, the former was referred to officially as Rugby Football, while the latter was called Association Football. 

Those two mouthfuls were eventually shortened to Rugby and Association, and then further given slang terms at the universities where the games were almost exclusively played. In England at the time this meant shortening the word to its root then adding the suffix "er". Hence Rugby became "rugger". For obvious reasons, no, Association did not become "asser" but rather "soccer", using the second syllable of the word rather than the first. 

In the twentieth century, rugby remained a game mostly played at university (hence the description "a brutish game played by gentlemen"), while soccer became largely the game of the working class (hence "a gentleman's game played by brutes" by comparison). The terms soccer and football were used pretty much interchangeably in England to describe the same game until the mid twentieth century when the general term "football" began to replace the more preppie term "soccer". 

American football was developed in the same decade as the other two sports and since it had nothing to complete with at the outset, the name football stuck, as did the names rugby and soccer to distinguish them from the other sports when they made their way to these shores. 

It should be noted that countries with their own version of football such as Australia, South Africa, Ireland and others, also use the term soccer. 

Most other countries have stuck with some form of the word football borrowed directly from the English word so for example, in the countries where Spanish is spoken, you have fútbol, not the Spanish translation pelota de pie. 

Italy would be a major exception as there, soccer is called calcio, which comes from a much older Florentine game Calcio Fiorentino. Incidentally calcio comes from the verb calcare which means "to kick."

In Germany it's Fußball which conveniently enough is the literal translation of the word while surprisingly in France, there is no attempt to translate or francophone the word, there they call it simply football or on the streets, le foot.

**Eight years and under American Youth Soccer Organization

The King's Speech Parts II and III

Here's a link to a post I wrote in 2011 about a film which centered around perhaps the most important speech ever delivered by a British monarch. The film was appropriately titled The King's Speech and the speech in question was the address delivered over the radio to the people of Great Britain on September 3, 1939 by King George VI, immediately after Britain declared war on Germany, officially marking the start of the Second World War. You can find a recording of the actual speech on that post. 

In the last few weeks, I've been obsessing over perhaps the most important speech NEVER given by an English monarch. If you've been following my posts this year, you probably noticed that I'm on a bit of a Shakespeare kick, more than a bit actually. And if you know your Shakespeare, you might be able to guess which speech.

It's a speech you've probably heard in one form or other at some point. If you haven't heard it within its original context of the play King Henry V, you may have heard the St. Crispin's Day Speech performed on its own in any number of other contexts, including several films which feature a character reciting it. Or you may have heard a speech directly influenced by it, perhaps a scene set in a locker room where a coach at half-time motivates the team who is trailing by a seemingly insurmountable lead, or before a battle where a commander encourages the troops to fight on in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Perhaps such a speech was even addressed to you at some point in your life.

In short, Shakespeare's St. Crispin's Speech is the mother of all inspirational/motivational speeches. 

Here is a link to the speech from Lawrence Olivier's filmed version of Henry V. That film was made in Britain in 1944 and released to coincide with the Allied invasion of Normandy, intended to boost the morale of the English people.

In the scene, Henry V, affectionately referred to in the play as King Harry, is about to lead his vastly outnumbered army into battle against the French. One of his commanders the Earl of Westmoreland, in conversation with the other commanders, bemoans the uneven sides and wishes for more troops.

This catches the attention of King Harry inspiring his speech. He begins:

If we are marked to die, we ae enough

To do our country loss, And if to live,

The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

This is very powerful because right at the outset, Harry tells it straight to his men, he accepts that the odds are not good and they may die. If that is our destiny he says, so be it, we'll die for our country which is honorable in itself.

On the other hand, if we are destined to win the battle against the odds, fewer men means more honor for everyone who participates. I'm not quite sure if honor really works that way but it's a good mental image. 

Then he goes on to say what really matters to him: 

By Jove I am not covetous for gold,

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost... 

But if it be a sin to covet honor,

I am the most offending soul alive.

The guy really doesn't care about all the trappings of being a king (or so he says), he's just in it for the honor.

In the first half of the speech, much of which is edited out in the Olivier version, Harry asks Westmoreland three times not to wish for any more men to join the battle. In fact he says, maybe they should wish fewer:

He who hath not the stomach in the battle,

Let him depart...

We would not die with the man in whose company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

The key idea here is fellowship and camaraderie, themes which keep ratcheting up as the speech builds to its climax. Given the choice of Harry's words, I doubt that many took him up on the offer.

Now it starts to get interesting:

This day is called the Feast of Crispian,

He that outlives this day and comes safe home

Shall stand a tip-toe when this day is named

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

The speech is fiction but the battle and most of the characters depicted in the play are real. The scene revolves around the famous Battle of Agincourt which took place on October 25, 1415. Every day of the Church calendar is devoted to a particular saint, and October 25 happens to be the feast day of the two saints and martyrs, Crispin and Crispinian, the latter shortened to Crispian by Shakespeare to better fit into the scheme of his verse. 

He that shall see this day and live old age

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors 

and say:"Tomorrow is St. Crispian". 

Then shall he strip his sleeve and show his scars 

And say: "These wounds I had on Crispin's Day"

And the honor from participating in this battle will the participants take to their graves.

Old men forget yet all shall be forgot

But he shall remember with advantages

What feats he did that day...

Here Shakespeare throws in a little humor: "he shall remember with advantages", which is sometimes missed by audiences depending on the way the lines are delivered. 

This story shall the good man teach his son

and Crispin Crispian shall na'er go by

From this day to the ending of the world.

Not only will their honor endure through their lives, but the battle will grant them immortality. It should be noted that the Battle of Agincourt is indeed remembered in England today, and not solely because of Shakespeare's play. 

Now comes the pièce de résistance:

But we in it shall be remembered,

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers,

I've heard many veterans of war say that what they were really fighting for was not God, their country, or some noble cause, but rather for their comrades fighting beside them, their brothers in arms. More than 400 years after it was written, Shakespeare's work as always rings so true to life.

If that weren't enough:

For he that today sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother, be he na'er so vile

For this day shall gentle his condition.

The King himself being part of your band of brothers, how cool is that? Do we really believe that after the battle Harry considered all his brothers-in-arms, vile as they may have been, his equals? Unlikely given the way he is portrayed in the rest of the play and in the two previous plays (Henry IV parts one and two) where he is featured as a main character, but there's always the chance.

By the way, there are two possible meanings for that last line above. "Vile" could refer to the way we think of the word today, and in that case the last line suggests redemption. More in keeping with Shakespeare's time, vile could also mean social status, and the "gentling of his condition" could refer to an elevation of rank in society. Double meanings like this run through all of Shakespeare's work. Neither one is wrong.

Finally, the coup de grâce:

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

Who fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day.

Ouch.

I don't think even ol' Pete Hegseth would be that direct and crude. What Harry's saying in contemporary speak is that compared to us, the guys back home are just a bunch of pussies. 

With all due respect of course.

Westmorland's response to the speech is this:

God's will my liege, would you and I alone,

Without more help, could fight this royal battle.

Not only are he and the rest of Harry's army inspired, but so too is the audience of the play. One commenter I read said that even though he is a pacifist, every time he hears that speech his soul is stirred and he wants to go out and fight somebody.

Same goes for me.

Here's another, more contemporary interpretation. This is from the Globe Theater in London with Mark Rylance in the title role. Notice how Rylance draws out the humor in the part about the old soldier recounting his story. For my money this version without the histrionics and the uplifting (and overbearing) background music is every bit if not more inspirational than the Olivier version.

But truth be told, Shakespeare's words are so powerful I dare say even a non-actor terrified of speaking in public such as myself could pull it off, with advantages of course.

-----

I'm no expert so I don't know exactly where King Charles III's speech to a joint session of Congress in Washington last week ranks in greatness with all the speeches of the Brritish monarchs. But as it was given directly to American lawmakers and by extension the American people, I can compare it to other important American speeches and honestly, I'd say it's right up there.

King Charles addressing a joint session of Congress
April 28, 2026
Photo by Elizabeth Frantz, Reuters

In saying that, distinctions have to be made. Some speeches such as the "St. Crispin's Day Speech" are timeless and could be plugged into virtually any time and situation. I'd place Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech" in the timeless category as well.

Other speeches like King George's September 3rd speech belong to a singular moment in history. The impromptu speech Robert F. Kennedy Sr. gave in Indianapolis on the evening of the assassination of Martin Luther King would also be in that category. 

Charles' speech is interesting because it could fit into both categories. If that exact speech had been given before November, 2016, it would have been regarded as powerful and well-crafted, extolling the virtues of American democracy and the values of the American people, expertly delivered by a man who was literally born for the job. 

Ten years ago and before, there would not have been a bone of contention as the American political leaders of the day, and the vast majority of the American public would have agreed with every word of the speech. And because it would not have been controversial, the speech would have been forgotten as soon as its news cycle had expired in about a week or less. 

However, as the speech was delivered late in April of 2026 (God what a month that was), it will never be forgotten. 

Why? Because King Charles told the American people as politely as he could, but without the slightest hesitation, that we have lost our way. 

It began innocently enough with Charles acknowledging the ties between our two nations. In doing so he threw a bone to the current POTUS:

This, I believe, is the special ingredient in our relationship. As President Trump himself observed during his state visit to Britain last autumn, ‘The bond of kinship and identity between America and the United Kingdom is priceless and eternal. It is irreplaceable and unbreakable'.

That would be the one and only mention of the president by name, but his spirit would remain in the rest of the speech like the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room.  

Charles went on to remind us with bits of cheeky British humor and a "by jove" thrown in for good measure (where have I heard THAT one before?) how much our system of government owes to the British:

Two hundred and fifty years ago, or, as we say in the United Kingdom ‘just the other day,’ they declared Independence.... (The Founding Fathers) ... carried forward, the great inheritance of the British Enlightenment – as well as the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and Magna Carta...

Then Charles snuck in his first jab:

... the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.

One can imagine that the president was so smitten by the shout out from Charles that he may have missed this little detail. It's a little harder to imagine what was on the minds of the Republicans on the House floor, as they are the ones who daily forgo their responsibility of providing checks and balances on this president. Strangely enough, they responded by giving the King a standing O along with their Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle when he delivered that line.

The Christian zealots on the floor wholeheartedly loved the following: 

And, Mr. Speaker, for many here – and for myself – the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community...

Oh how they ate that one up. But Charles started to sound like the current Pope when he said this:

It is why it is my hope – my prayer – that, in these turbulent times, working together and with our international partners, we can stem the beating of plowshares into swords.

Mr. President any comment? How's that war of yours going by the way?

One might think the following would have rubbed some of the more fervent Christian Republicans in the crowd the wrong way, especially the last phrase:

I am mindful that we are still in the season of Easter, the season that most strengthens my hope. It is why I believe, with all my heart, that the essence of our two nations is a generosity of spirit and a duty to foster compassion, to promote peace, to deepen mutual understanding and to value all people, of all faiths, and of none.

But most of them stood and cheered anyway.

Then Charles brought up 9/11 and once more, that brought the house down. But it got complicated again:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article Five for the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together – as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder, through two World Wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security.

According to our president, NATO hasn't done shit for us.

The King begs to differ. 

Then came this:

Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people. It is needed in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace. 

Here you could start seeing cracks in the Republican armor. J.D. Vance seated right behind the King, didn't applaud for that one. Next came this:

So as we look toward the next 250 years, we must also reflect on our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.

I suppose that since the King didn't mention the words "climate change", you know, that big hoax we keep hearing about, the MAGA Republicans let that remark slip through the cracks. Nevertheless, the VP sat on his hands for that one too.

King Charles didn't mount a constant barrage of jabs, uppercuts and left hooks, he let up every once in a while, rope-a-doping on occasion to mark some achievement or other regarding our two countries cooperating with each other. But the punches kept coming...

I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking.

That one landed.

Now for the pièce de résistance...

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice-President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, America’s words carry weight and meaning, as they have since Independence.

The actions of this great nation matter even more.

...and, finally the coup de grâce, delivering a knock out punch using no less than a quote from the greatest of all American speeches:

President Lincoln understood this so well, with his reflection in the magisterial Gettysburg Address that the world may little note what we say, but will never forget what we do.

The Reverend Al Sharpton himself could not have delivered as scathing an attack of this administration as King Charles did last week, "a rapier wrapped in ermine" as The Guardian called the speech.

The King formerly known as Prince Charles (a change I have yet to wrap my head around), knows a thing or two about Shakespeare. That's why I couldn't help thinking about Shakespearean double meanings strategically placed into the speech that underscore his and I might add much of the rest of the world's disdain for this administration. 

There were a few, but the following came immediately to mind. At the beginning of his speech, King Charles brought up the incident that took place at the White House Correspondent's Dinner a few days before:

We meet, too, in the aftermath of the incident not far from this great building that sought to harm the leadership of your nation and to foment wider fear and discord.

As the timing of the incident involving a potential would-be assassin was so close to the event, it certainly deserved a mention but there was something in what the King said next that made me think he may have also had another incident in mind, one of vastly greater significance and horrific consequences:

Let me say with unshakeable resolve: such acts of violence will never succeed. 

He's right, such acts of violence, whether they be committed by an individual, or by a mob following the illegal orders of the President of the United States, will never succeed, hopefully. 

Whether Charles and his speechwriters made a conscious connection in that remark to the events of January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol Building or not, once you see it, you can't un-see it.

Charles' speech was a schooling, a master class in hardball diplomacy. 

But did it make a difference enough to change people's minds? 

Probably not. Certainly not the president who was too busy in awe of being in the presence of a real king to notice that he was being taken to the cleaners. Probably not the Republican congressmen who don't seem to be effected in the slightest by having their cowardice and hypocrisy on full view for all to see. And most importantly not to the millions of MAGA faithful who seem to be unmoved by anything coming out of this administration, even matters that personally affect them like the crippling inflation caused by this president's clueless handling of the economy.

In the magnificent St. Crispin's Day Speech, King Harry is speaking to men who are already on his side and prepared to go to battle for him. His words make a difference in that they give his army hope despite the odds, courage, and a sense of purpose. Did I mention they would go on to win that battle?

Likewise, King Charles III's speech last week give those of us who despair at the loss of American values, the virtues of our Democratic Republic, and perhaps most of all, the loss of common decency in our country, the message that hope is not lost and above all, those things are all worth fighting for.

Peacefully of course.

By Jove that speech was brilliant. 

On symbols and relevance

I came of age in the sixties and seventies, in the era of the Viet Nam War, Watergate, the height of urban decline, the race riots, the liberation movements, and many other events that shook the world from the relative complacency of the fifties. It was a time when we lost faith in our leaders and in concepts such as "my country right or wrong." The mantra of my generation was "question authority."

It is safe to say that the world changed forever during those years. My baby boom generation likes to claim credit for that. Of course the world changed forever many times in the last century, once for each of the two world wars and the Great Depression to name but three of the many earth shattering events that took place during that tumultuous century. Needless to say, the world is constantly changing and for the most part the changes have moved (with some notable exceptions) in the direction of individual liberty, freedom, and away from traditional values and the establishment.

England has been whittling away the powers of its Monarchy since the Magna Carta was written in 1215. The past forty years have seen that venerable institution fall from influence perhaps as much or more than in the previous eight centuries put together. With its traditions of pomp and circumstance carried out in a time where they seem to be out of step with the current state of the once mighty Empire, (not to mention contemporary styles, taste and fashion), the Monarchy has lost for many that very significant virtue in today's world, relevance.

In the midst of this comes a truly wonderful film called The King's Speech. The movie is about Albert (Frederick Arthur George), who would become King George VI, the father of the current Queen Elizabeth. This King George, played in the movie by Colin Firth, reigned during one of the darkest periods of English history, World War II. His reign also saw what was to be the end of the British Empire in favor of the Commonwealth.

The King's Speech is a human drama rather than a biography or a didactic, historical epic. It centers around the King's stammer, a speech impediment that afflicted Albert/GeorgeVI for most of his life. The two people closest to Albert in the film were his wife Elizabeth, (today known affectionately as the Queen Mum), played by Helena Bonham Carter, and Lionel Logue, a failed Australian actor turned speech therapist, played by Jeffery Rush.

That speech deficiency turned into a catastrophe after Albert's older brother became King Edward VIII upon the death of their father King George V, only to abdicate less than a year later so he could marry his lover, the twice divorced American, Wallace Simpson. Albert, the next in line, reluctantly assumed the throne and took the name of George, presumably because the name Albert was "too German" as Winston Churchill pointed out. Public speaking would become an unwanted but essential part of George's new life, and much of the film deals with his abject terror of it.

To their credit the film makers, director Tom Hooper and writer David Seidler chose to trust the intelligence of their audience to fill in the historical details for themselves. The significant terms of the day, "rearmament", "appeasement", and "Munich Pact" are not uttered in the film. We also learn very few significant details of the lives of the principal characters as so much of their legacy takes place after the last scene of the film. Yet in the process of watching this movie, not only do we gain tremendous insight into the personalities of three remarkable individuals, in the climactic scene, we witness time standing still while the world as people knew it at the time, was about to end.

A slight downside is the fact that some of the most important political figures of World War II are reduced to plot devises. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's main contribution to the plot is his refusal to support Edward's marriage. Winston Churchill contributes even less. His chief role is to inform King George that he too once had a speech impediment. And the politician most closely tied to the events that led directly up to the war, Neville Chamberlain, just stops in to say hello.

Even Adolph Hitler is used as a plot device. In a brilliant scene, the King and his family are gathered to watch newsreel footage of his recent coronation, the only depiction of the event in the movie. Following the coronation, the focus of the newsreel shifts to Hitler delivering one of his typically bombastic speeches. The newly crowned king watches the dictator with a mixture of horror and awe. His daughter Elizabeth asks him what Hitler is talking about and the king replies with almost starstruck bewilderment: "I can’t understand a word he’s saying, but he sure can speak."

In lesser hands the hero of the movie would view Hitler with nothing but contempt and disgust. Here, in one fell swoop, having George succumb ever so slightly to Hitler's compelling oratory style, not only gives the viewer insight into the Fürher's power over his own people, but also tells us volumes about King George's own feelings of inadequacy.

The speech referred to in the title of the movie is George VI's radio address to his Empire and to the world on September 3rd, 1939, announcing that the war that everyone (on the Allied side) had worked so tirelessly to avoid, had in fact begun.

Here is a recording of the actual speech:



In the film the king delivers the speech successfully, albeit haltingly with the help of Lionel Logue, and the soundtrack of the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony. It is a masterful piece of film making with Lionel conducting the "performance" as the world listens in, guiding his famous patient through what must have been an agonizing six minutes. It is one of those scenes that leaves the audience spent, in the end there is hardly a dry eye in the house.

The king's personal triumph comes on the eve of one of the darkest moments of history and the "feel good" ending for some stands in marked contrast to the gravitas of the situation. However I couldn't imagine any other way to end the movie without greatly reducing its dramatic impact. We know what was to follow after all, at least one would hope.

The one historic event that is dealt with in great detail in The King's Speech is the abdication of King Edward VIII. To this day many people, including a friend's 91 year old mother who we ran into at the theater, still see the abdication through rose colored glasses saying; "how romantic, imagine giving up a kingdom for the woman he loved."

The movie does not hesitate to portray Edward as history has proven him to be, that is to say a creep. Being born into the royal family is indeed a double edged sword, excessive privilege is more than tempered by unimaginable responsibility and sense of duty. Let's just say that Ed was big on the privilege part and not so much on the rest. His father George V realized as much. He is quoted as having said: "I pray God that my eldest son will never marry and that nothing will come between Bertie (Albert) and Lilibet (Albert's daughter Elizabeth) and the throne." The first part of the elder king's wish did not come true but the last part was certainly fulfilled. Confirming the thought that things happen for a reason, the scandal that resulted in Edward's abdication resulted in the far worthier man ascending to the throne at a time when he was most needed, and made Mrs. Simpson unwittingly the woman who very well may have saved England.

A subtext of the movie is the awkward relationship between the regal Albert/George VI and the commoner Logue. The comedy of manners is of course a common device and dare I say a cliché in much of the drama coming out of class conscious England. In this case it is Pygmalion with the roles reversed, here it is the commoner who usually has the upper hand over the aristocrat. While a bit predictable, these scenes point to the ever so slowly changing roles of the classes in British society. In his performance, Firth skillfully walks a tightrope. He portrays the King as vulnerable, sometimes unable to utter a single word in stressful situations, and given to inappropriate fits of emotion. However at all times he maintains his dignity, Firth comes close but never allows his character to be pathetic. Even the superior attitude with which Albert/George VI views his position in relation to Logue is portrayed sympathetically, we realize that Albert has never been in such an intimate relationship with a commoner and he simply doesn't know how to relate. Unlike his brother, Firth's character is ever duty bound, and never does he step out of that role, even when he is being a mere mortal, which is most of the time.

Both Bonham-Carter's and Rush's performances give us characters that are every bit the equals of Firth's. Bonham-Carter's Elizabeth is tough, intelligent and fiercely devoted to her husband. Similarly Rush's Logue greatly respects the Prince soon to be King, if not necessarily his position. Together the three performances give us rich characters for whom we care a great deal, as well as prepare us for the lives they would lead after the final scene in the film takes place.

As I mentioned above, the legacies of George VI, his wife Queen Elizabeth, and one could say the current Queen, were forged during the war. In a brief epilogue we are told that the King would reward Logue by inducting him into the Royal Victorian Order, first as a member, later as commander. As such he was the first commoner to be awarded in this manner. It also mentioned that the two men remained close friends until the king's death in 1952.

There is no mention of the following:

While they could have easily been spirited out of England, well out of harm's way, the King steadfastly insisted on remaining in London for the entire war, even during the Blitz as the city was decimated by German bombs. After the bombs found their way to the steps of Buckingham Palace barely missing the Royal Family, the Queen was quoted as saying; "Now we can look East Enders in the eye" referring to the terrible devastation the working class section of the city had already endured. The King and Queen made it a point to visit the bombed areas of their city and victims in the hospital. When the Queen came under scrutiny for appearing in the poorer sections of London in all her finery she replied that if the public were to visit her at her home they too, would show up in their finest clothing, she simply was responding in kind.

The Royals became a visible symbol of the city and the country's resolve during its darkest days. There was a great deal of concern about their safety, especially the safety of the children. Of this the Queen said: “The children will leave when I leave. I will leave when the King leaves. The King will never leave.”

For all of her efforts, Adolph Hitler dubbed her; "The most dangerous woman in Europe." Considering the source, quite a compliment indeed.

Princess Elizabeth cut her teeth during those terrible days. She was 13 in 1939 and made her first radio broadcast to the English people the following year. At the close of the war she actively participated in the war effort as a member of the Women's Auxiliary Territorial Service. In stark contrast to her current public image, she was trained as a driver and mechanic and ended up driving and maintaining a military truck.

In the movie, King George contemplates his role as a figurehead, a man with a lofty title but without any jurisdiction, a mere symbol of the authority handed down to him from his ancestors. Because of his sense of duty and obligation, even though he questioned it, he took that role dead seriously and never strayed, just as his daughter after him.

In our society we value self expression and freedom above all, obligation and service are almost unheard of values these days. That is perhaps why George's brother's story continues to be so compelling to us. Edward it seems turned out to be much more a man of his day than George.

Regarding the Monarchy, today many of us are likely to just scratch our heads and say; "what's the point?"

As an American, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest what our brothers and sisters across the great pond with whom we share so much, do with their Monarchy. After all, we jettisoned the King of England, another George if I'm not mistaken, a long time ago. But I do believe that symbols matter. And a thousand year old symbol of a great nation's continuity is something that deserves to be considered, not just thrown out with the bath water.

Many years ago, around the time she ascended to the throne, the current Queen Elizabeth made a proclamation stating: "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

Anachronistic as these words may sound, Queen Elizabeth as her parents before her, knows her place in the world.

To that all I can add is this:

May God save the Queen.