Jump to content

Talk:Lionel Logue/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Demeaning expression

... in the process losing most of the Australian accent from his voice ...

What on earth does that mean? Is an Australian accent something that's sort of tacked on to a British accent, and can be removed just as simply? Well, hardly. No, it's a valid and legitimate way of speaking in its own right. If Logue's speech turned out to be untypical for Australians, what DID he sound like? That's the question. It's not good enough - and bloody demeaning, I might add - just to say he "lost his Australian accent". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality - South Australia is not a country

The infobox currently lists nationality=South Australian (until 1901), on the grounds that "South Australia was a self-governing colony until the federation was formed in 1901". While this may be true, I'm not sure that a colony is a "nation" or "country" (per Template:Infobox_scientist). Putting SA may be more useful than the technically correct "England" (of which SA was a colony, with "limited independence of Government"), but I think it should explicitly say "self-governing colony of South Australia". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How has this been done for other Australians of the era? Technically, Australia did not exist as a nation before 1901. But I'd be happy to go with whatever is common practice. Logical Cowboy (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what common practice is for this scenario - I've not come across it before. Searching for precedents might take a while. I agree that Australia did not exist as a nation before 1901, but neither did South Australia (as a nation). Personally I think "Australia" is the clearest and simplest, and most likely to be understood by the average reader. The technically correct (I think) England/English is just confusing. However if you think SA is important, I'm happy to leave it, but I really think it needs "self-governing colony of ..." so as not to confuse all the other people who know that SA is not a country. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As an aside should it be Australian (nationality) rather than Australia (country)? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To take an analogy, is John Curtin or Robert Menzies regarded as a Victorian till 1901 and an Australian only from then onwards? Hardly. I've never seen this distinction made in any other Australians' articles. It's fine to mention that SA was a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom (NB. not of "England" per se) till it became an Australian state in 1901, but that does not mean that there was no such thing as an Australian national until 1901. The people became a people before their nation was formally proclaimed as such. Logue was Australian, that's all we need to say. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support just saying "Australian" as nationality, and leaving out the years altogether. Technically, no one was Australian in nationality before 1901. But clearly Logue was Australian in nationality, in general. Have a look at John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin. Technically, neither was American nationality when born, e.g., if America never came to exist as a nation, they would not be considered American. But it is not worth belaboring this point. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I also notice that our History of Australia and Timeline of Australian history don't start at 1901. In particular the latter includes:
  • 1817: Governor Lachlan Macquarie petitioned the British Admiralty to use the name "Australia" instead of "New Holland"
  • 1824: Permission granted to change the name of the continent from "New Holland" to "Australia"
Mitch Ames (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I've made the change now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Australia became an independent country in 1901. Australian citizenship began in 1949. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • Australia came into existence as a federation in 1901, but it was in no way, shape or form an "independent country" at that time. In every way it was still a super-colony of the UK. The British government routinely disapproved of Australian legislative proposals, the British government spoke for Australia in foreign affairs, and the British government certainly had the final say about who the Australian governor-general would be, until James Scullin in 1931 insisted that the Australian Prime Minister should advise the Monarch of Australia directly on this matter, without interference from Whitehall.
  • It is true that there was no such thing as Australian citizenship until 1949, but this issue is not about formal citizenship, it's about nationality. People self-identify their nationality. I was born and bred in Australia, and so were the past 5 generations of my family. But I still identify as Celtic and as an Irish-Australian, in some contexts. I've never even been to Ireland, but I still identify much more with that nation of people than I ever would with the Scots or the English, even though I also have significant bits of Scottish and English "blood" in my veins. That's why nationalities exist separately from formal, legal citizenship of some country. Only since 1948 has Israeli citizenship existed, but nobody disputes that the Jewish people have existed as a continuous nation of people for thousand of years. The Austalian nation of people existed well before 1901, and if it hadn't, there would never have been a desire to formalise it by creating a legal entity called the Commonwealth of Australia. The Kurdish people have no country, but are still a nation. Nationality always precedes citizenship. Lionel Logue's citizenship was British from birth to 1949, then Australian after that, but his nationality was always Australian. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Brewer father?

In the film The King's Speech Logue clearly cliams that his father was a brewer, not a clerk. Is this just another example of the film's dramatic license? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As now added to the article, Logue's father was an accountant at his grandfather's brewery for a time. Truelight234 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Swearing at Bertie

The swearing and the use of "Bertie" are refuted by Logue's grandson, as cited in The King's Speech#Historical Accuracy. 75.18.162.134 (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

One line in the article reads:

In 1944, King George VI made Lionel Logue a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order. This high honour from a grateful King made Logue part of the only order of chivalry that specifically rewards acts of personal service to the Monarch.

This line is identical with one of the last lines in the 2010 movie The King's Speech (shortly before the credits roll). Could someone please verify who copied from whom and add a reference if necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.195.186 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

How did the York's find Logue?

A letter has been found in the John Murray Archive which explains how the York's got hold of Logue's name. Please read article here where a copy of the letter of introduction can be found, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12607852. If you require a copy of David McClay's email address then let me know. He has recently been in touch with Logue's grandson.Lanternrouge (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Logue a doctor?

The movie makes clear that Logue had no formal qualifications; yet I see he is awarded the title Dr. at the start of this article. Needs verification.Cross Reference (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. While Logue was raised to the order of CVO, I can find nothing that states we was awarded the title of Dr. I'm removing it until it can be verified. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lionel Logue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lionel_Logue/Archive_1&oldid=1136910328"