When I was a little girl, I had a stammer and a stutter. I was teased mercilessly by one cousin in particular and, always being shy, when I could get words out, it made it all worse. Fast forward to a few years ago, when I was working on an aircraft and was asked to go up to Business Class as a man there wanted to speak to me. He told me he was a vocal coach and that I had near perfect diction. I always remember him saying that I almost made the safety demonstration sound interesting! :rolleyes: (Needless to say, knowing he was listening, all my announcements after that were rubbish!)
To me, that was verification of how complete my healing of the speech difficulty had been – you see, I was healed through Christian Science. No exercises, practicing or breathing – I just remember my mother discussing it with me and pointing out that self-consciousness was being conscious only of self and not loving others. I was quite shocked to think of myself like that, as I’ve always been caring. From that moment, it was the end of the speech problems and I only remember them when something like the film “The King’s Speech” comes along.
What I have found interesting is to learn that Lionel Logue, the speech therapist of George V was a Christian Scientist. I understand that the speech sessions portrayed in the film were more the conjecture of the writers than any description they had from Logue.
I’ve been looking at some of the reviews in the Australian press (Lionel Logue was an Aussie) Thought this was a good one:
[url]King's voice coach calmed a nation[/url]
An interesting interview with Norman C Hutchinson, a Christian Scientist who has written a book on Logue (the strange squawking sound you can hear from time to time is a wattlebird.) He tells of one instantaneous healing of a three year old child who had speech defects.
[url]George VI making his VE Day speech[/url]
This is an interview with the director, Tom Hooper, and it's special the way he explained why he cast Firth as George VI:
"In the end I thought there was a spiritual connection between the two," Hooper says. "The king was nice to his core and a humble man and gentle man. Colin is nice to his core - there is not a malign bone in his body - he has great humility, he is gentle, he doesn't play testosterone-fuelled action heroes and I felt that connection in their personalities was most important."
Here's the whole article:
I’m really looking forward to seeing the film! But I’m grateful to have been reminded of that healing I had when just a child and to think of how different my life might have been had I not found my freedom.
I was looking at some of the passages in the Bible and Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health on speech, to try to think more spiritually about this expression of freedom and beauty and creativity!
[COLOR="Purple"]
O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue (Ex 4:10)
Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say. (Ex 4:12)
And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly. (Isa 32:3,4)
[COLOR="Blue"]This familiar instance reaffirms the Scriptural word concerning a man, "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." If one believes that he cannot be an orator without study or a superinduced condition, the body responds to this belief, and the tongue grows mute which before was eloquent. (Science and Health 89)
Love inspires, illumines, designates, and leads the way. Right motives give pinions to thought, and strength and freedom to speech and action. (Science and Health 545)
Love and peace,
Judy
I've been to see the film (it's already out in Australia), and I must say, I thoroughly recommend it on all counts! Superb actors, especially the three leads (Firth, Rush, Bonham Carter), and a compellingly told, very moving story.
The only slight reservations I had were over some possible historical inaccuracies, all of which were understandable given the need for dramatic licence. For one thing, I think they may have stretched out the King's speech difficulty somewhat for added effect (although of course I can't tell, not having known him myself - but nor did the script writers!). According to historical records, he - as the then Duke of York - first sought Lionel Logue's help soon after the embarrassment at Wembley in 1925, with which the film opens. By 1927, when he opened the Australian Parliament at its new seat in Canberra, the Duke, by all accounts, spoke with almost no trouble. He continued to receive Logue's coaching and support whenever he needed to make a public speech (especially for his coronation), but from then on, he and Logue were firm friends, and remained so for the rest of their lives. The film, however, has him struggling and baulking and blowing his top at Logue right up to the climax at the outbreak of WWII. It does, however, make for a more exciting story. 🙂
Also, virtually nothing is known about Lionel Logue's actual methods, as he was entirely self-taught, never trained any students and never left any notes. So it's hard to say how much of what is portrayed of him in the film is anything like what he really did. I have a feeling they may well have exaggerated his eccentricity, again for dramatic effect (but very well done). It's also not strictly true that he was a "failed Shakespearean actor". He was actually quite a successful actor and public speaker over a range of genres, before he started using his voice coaching skills to help shellshocked soldiers returning from WWI, and found his methods (whatever they were) successful.
The film doesn't mention anywhere that Logue was a Christian Scientist. With that background, however, it's fair to assume that - whether or not he ever explained this explicitly to his pupils (as he preferred to call his patients) - the deeper basis of his work would have been that every individual, as the image and likeness of the one all-good God, naturally has a voice and the ability (and right) to use it to glorify all that is good. It does come across in the film that he saw overcoming the King's long-held fears and self-doubt as the key to freeing his voice. I believe many modern therapists incorporate this kind of approach nowadays as well.
However, lest it be assumed that Christian Science treatment is mainly based on human psychology, here's a link to a healing of a speech difficulty stemming from physical damage to the vocal cords: [url]God gave me a voice and something worth saying[/url]
Thanks for the additional info Charis and for the link - super article!
Love and peace,
Judy
PS I also remembered the other day that as a child I had a lisp too! Couldn't say 'R's and another letter. That cousin particularly enjoyed saying all the 'R' words with a 'W' instead to tease me. (We were very close later on though!)
Hey folks, a friend alerted me (through the Sunday Times) that Mark Logue is giving a talk about his grandfather Lionel, next Tuesday evening 15th Feb at the Windsor parish church, so that will be interesting. Then the following Thursday, I'm going to Australia for a church conference and will be meeting the author of another Loinel Logue biography, Norman Hutchinson, whose video interview I've given a link to above. Strange how these things come up!
Love and peace,
Judy
Hi everyone,
I know this thread's been out of action for nearly two years, but I was just reading the latest edition of The Christian Science Journal - a magazine with which Lionel Logue would most likely have been familiar - and it includes a beautiful and detailed testimony from someone who was healed of stuttering through spiritual means. Here's a link to it in full: [url]Freedom to speak[/url]
Also, I'm aware that the article I referred to in my earlier post here has now been moved, so here's a link to it in its new location: [url]GOD GAVE ME A VOICE AND SOMETHING WORTH SAYING*/*Christian Science Sentinel[/url]
Charis :nature-smiley-008:
I've been to see the film (it's already out in Australia), and I must say, I thoroughly recommend it on all counts! Superb actors, especially the three leads (Firth, Rush, Bonham Carter), and a compellingly told, very moving story.
The only slight reservations I had were over some possible historical inaccuracies, all of which were understandable given the need for dramatic licence. For one thing, I think they may have stretched out the King's speech difficulty somewhat for added effect (although of course I can't tell, not having known him myself - but nor did the script writers!). According to historical records, he - as the then Duke of York - first sought Lionel Logue's help soon after the embarrassment at Wembley in 1925, with which the film opens. By 1927, when he opened the Australian Parliament at its new seat in Canberra, the Duke, by all accounts, spoke with almost no trouble. He continued to receive Logue's coaching and support whenever he needed to make a public speech (especially for his coronation), but from then on, he and Logue were firm friends, and remained so for the rest of their lives. The film, however, has him struggling and baulking and blowing his top at Logue right up to the climax at the outbreak of WWII. It does, however, make for a more exciting story. 🙂
Also, virtually nothing is known about Lionel Logue's actual methods, as he was entirely self-taught, never trained any students and never left any notes. So it's hard to say how much of what is portrayed of him in the film is anything like what he really did. I have a feeling they may well have exaggerated his eccentricity, again for dramatic effect (but very well done). It's also not strictly true that he was a "failed Shakespearean actor". He was actually quite a successful actor and public speaker over a range of genres, before he started using his voice coaching skills to help shellshocked soldiers returning from WWI, and found his methods (whatever they were) successful.
The film doesn't mention anywhere that Logue was a Christian Scientist. With that background, however, it's fair to assume that - whether or not he ever explained this explicitly to his pupils (as he preferred to call his patients) - the deeper basis of his work would have been that every individual, as the image and likeness of the one all-good God, naturally has a voice and the ability (and right) to use it to glorify all that is good. It does come across in the film that he saw overcoming the King's long-held fears and self-doubt as the key to freeing his voice. I believe many modern therapists incorporate this kind of approach nowadays as well.
However, lest it be assumed that Christian Science treatment is mainly based on human psychology, here's a link to a healing of a speech difficulty stemming from physical damage to the vocal cords: [url]God gave me a voice and something worth saying[/url]
Sorry girls had to butt in and emphasis the bit about being self-taught. Breath of fresh air in the modern world of certificate bureaucracy.
Sorry girls had to butt in and emphasis the bit about being self-taught. Breath of fresh air in the modern world of certificate bureaucracy.
Good point - although it could equally be argued that the pre-bureaucratic world of the 1920s and '30s also meant that just about anyone could set up as a "therapist" or "healer" without any proof that they knew what they were doing (or that their method was both reliable and safe!)... 😉
I've recently started reading The King's Speech: How One Man Saved the British Monarchy by Mark Logue (grandson of Lionel) and Peter Conradi, so will be very interested to see how much light it casts on Logue's methods and ideas.
All the best 🙂