I have a quick question about the bromance at the heart of The King's Speech. Why did the King not ever grant Lionel Logue the Knighthood within his power to give? It is true he made Logue a Commander (CVO) - however, the top two rankings include a knighthood of the order. Perhaps rewarding a friend in this way would have been unseemly - but given that all the failed speech-doctors were knighted (according to the screenplay itself) the dramatic outcome should have been, surely, such public recognition / redemption. Nor was Logue as poor as in the film (he lived in a large villa with dozens of rooms). I also have a few continuity questions, particularly relating to chairs/ thrones in the Cathedral scene - at times there is one, at others two, within a few shots. Finally, is it at all likely that the King would have really kept, for years, the recording of his voice, that finally, in the film, triggers his return to Logue? And, if he could read perfectly while listening to loud music - why was this method never employed during the famous broadcasts? I think Hooper's film is very good, but found it very much a play for voices (the radio play of 2008 is actually more moving), and, while Rush is magnificent, think a lot of it mannered, old-hat and slow-moving. That being said, Logue's central sympathy, compassion and humour is admirable and I am glad he is receiving posthumous recognition on a wider scale for his good works. The Social Network should win the Oscar tonight for best film, though - it is the Citizen Kane of our time.