George was clearly bisexual. His heterosexual affairs were voluminous and varied. He probably did not act upon his gay inclinations until adulthood -- no child of 15 and under in pre-1919 England would find his leanings toward same-sex relationships as anything except something to deny, repress, forget about. Again, why would the sexual inclinations of a repressed turn-of-the-century bisexual child be of interest in the life of his innocent, simple-minded epileptic short-lived brother? Or be accepted even by the child himself?
When George makes the remark about Johnny being able to be himself, it makes complete and perfect sense -- in that George, who was clearly extremely artistic, talented, cultured, and urbane, was forced to deny and leave all of that in favor of the military training and service which he despised and which he tried the best he could to get out of.
His sexuality had nothing to do with this remark. Royal license being what it was/is, royalty has always been able to indulge in whatever sexual behavior it desires, upon reaching adulthood -- whether that behavior is under wraps or not. Not until Diana's ripping apart of the code of silence about royal indiscretions has it mattered, gossip aside, what happens in the bedchambers of the royal family. Georgie was clearly heterosexual enough, and married enough, to be someone who could sit on the throne of England, had that been necessary (it was certainly considered but his elder brother was the final choice).
I personally don't see why the undisclosed sexual inclinations of a very underage royal would have any interest or place in the history of the winds of WW1.
Anyway, that's my personal view of it. People want this movie to be all kinds of things it wasn't -- to mention the U.S., to mention the four other royal siblings, to have this political leaning or that political leaning. Why not just accept the movie for what it was -- a piece of perfect artistry and history told innocently, beautifully, and tastefully, unmarred by extraneous and unnecessary detail -- and leave it to be as it was intended to be?
reply
share
GordonReade
19 years ago
If they made the entire movie from John's point of view and showed only what he was aware of the film would have been about nothing but toys and gardening.
Also, what you seem to be saying is George would be in complete denayal about his sexuality until he turned 18 and then, like flipping a switch, he suddenly realized that he liked other boys and went wild. I don't know about that.
reply
share
angelofvic
19 years ago
I'm sorry we are not in agreement. In my opinion, they did make the movie from the point of view of John's life (hence the title of the movie). That is why the movie is so light, innocent, and pleasing.
Georgie was possibly aware of his same-sex inclinations in his adolescence; some bisexuals are at that age, although far fewer than are people who are gay. When one is bisexual, it is much easier to deny same-sex feelings and concentrate on the socially accepted ones. Why would he have expressed any taboo feelings to Johnny? Why would any Edwardian adolescent express any taboo feelings or inclinations at all? This was a mere 10 to 20 years after the world-renowned incarceration of Oscar Wilde.
Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I personally don't see where sexuality of any sort fits into the scheme, tone, and scope of this movie -- especially the nascent hidden sexuality of a barely teenaged boy, who leaves the family at age 13 to go to military school, and who was not even the subject of this movie. There are already a couple of movies out there that focus on George, and cover his life, including his adulthood drug addictions and same-sex affairs. This movie was so far removed from any of that, time-line-wise, focus-wise and tone-wise, that I don't personally know why anyone would expect it.
reply
share
green_eyes_547
18 years ago
Actually, I believe the real reason the Duke of Kent's sexuality was not mentioned was because his three children, Edward (the current Duke of Kent), Alexandra, and Michael are still living. If he was portrayed as gay or bi they could have sued -even though his affairs with men are well known. There is a hint, though, when he and Queen Mary are talking about antiques, I believe. He's the only one of her children interested in beautiful things like that. The first time I watched it I went "mmhmm I know what they're doing". But maybe it's so subtle that everyone missed it?
reply
share
angelofvic
18 years ago
No, they couldn't have sued. His homosexuality has been portrayed in other films, books, articles.
That wasn't a hint of homosexuality in the movie in my opinion, that was a demonstration of Georgie's finer sensibilities, which totally made his entry into the military untenable, as we see later in the film.
reply
share
green_eyes_547
18 years ago
No, his homosexuality hasn't been in other films. It might have been mentioned in books and articles, but not films -even then it only merits a slight mention. There will be nothing in depth written about George the person and not just the younger brother of two kings, until his children have died. It's called respect. If you don't believe me go to www.forum.alexanderpalace.org and I'm sure they can set you straight.
reply
share
angelofvic
18 years ago
Not true. You have only to look at the BBC TV documentary film The Queen's Lost Uncle, not to mention the play, African Nights by Jeffrey Corrick.
Sorry, but people have no qualms about 'disrespecting' living royals or heirs any more, if indeed they ever did. Look what Diana did at exploding that cover-up mentality. And now Helen Mirren is even starring in a scathing movie about QE2's non-existent response to Diana's death.
reply
share
green_eyes_547
18 years ago
Eh believe what you want. Anyway, Helen Mirren's film is anything but scathing. It's actually a very positive portrayal -so much so in fact that Mirren herself went from being a staunch anti-monarchist her entire life to being quite middle of the road about it and has a newfound respect for QE2. If anything, the new film about the queen is anti-Blair.
But about The Lost Prince...yes, most people who watched the film have at least a passing interest in the royal family, so we knew that Georgie was bisexual. There were hints all throughout, but it would have made no sense for it to be discussed, because such things were not discussed then. This was the early 20th century -not early 21st. He wasn't going to come out of the closet to George and May. When the film ended he was what, 17? He probably hadn't even had a sexual encounter with a male yet. The whole movie was very sympathetic to the royal family -especially Miranda Richardson's non-stereotypical way of presenting Queen Mary- and I still say Poliakoff wanted to be respectful of the late Duke of Kent. If anything, he was probably afraid Princess Michael of Kent would come after him. Understandable -the woman is scary.
reply
share
angelofvic
18 years ago
Well, The Lost Prince wasn't about Georgie's perspective or about sexuality, so there was no reason to discuss Georgie's childhood sexual orientation in an Edwardian-type-era film, which is what I've been saying all along in this thread. This had, however, nothing to do with threats of repurcussions, as Georgie's adult sexuality has already been discussed in film, theater, articles, and books, as I've also mentioned. It had to do with the fact that it would have been absurd to mention or alude to it. The film was about an innocent viewpoint, not about digging up dirt on a child or adolescent sibling.
reply
share
ceebeegee
13 years ago
Why should they sue? There's nothing wrong with being gay. If they bothered to take offense, they would make themselves look as ridiculous as Tom Cruise, who threatens to sue at the slightest rumor of homosexuality, which defensiveness just gives further credence to the rumors.
Regardless, I doubt the Kents would take the slightest notice at any public assertion of their father's bisexuality. They know he was a hero, and what he did between the sheets with consenting adults is really no business of ours.
reply
share
kitsilanoca-1
18 years ago
Bravo! Just what I would have said if you hadn't. Having epilepsy I found the story of Prince John was very important not only to me, but also to members of my family and friends. Like you said, Prince George's sexual inclinations weren't the topic; it was all about Prince John and his relationships with his family and his nursemaid. Whatever George was experiencing in puberty wasn't a necessary topic and could be told in a completely different series if someone decides to put it under the microscope.
reply
share
sadako1998
18 years ago
"The Lost Prince" was to do with George's love for his little brother, why would his homosexuality need to be mentioned? I don't care if Georgie was gay or not... many people say out of all of George V's sons Georgie would have made the best King because he was highly intelligent, sensitive, caring and great ambassador! It's a tragedy he too died so young.
I am saying this as someone one who dislikes the royals!
reply
share