Talk:Leo McKern

Request to clean up this article?

Hi I've never done this before so excuse me if this is outside of protocol or anything. But would someone please take the time to rearrange his film roles into chronological order? That would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.137.98.39 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumpole starting year

In the biography, it says, "In 1975 he made his first appearance as his most famous character, Horace Rumpole..." That's wrong. He first appeared as Rumpole in the late 60's. I have a tape announcing the year followed by the episode itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike8s2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 February 2006.

Are you sure that isn't the year in which the episode is set? The first ITV episode, "Rumpole and the Younger Generation" (from 1978), was set in 1967, which is displayed on screen near the beginning. --Mrwojo 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That is correct Mrwojo. Each of the six episodes of the first season had a year date given at or near the beginning of their story. The events of the first two or three episodes actually predate the action of the Play for Today episode "Rumpole and the Confession of Guilt" which was made for the BBC and aired in December of 1975.User:MarnetteD | Talk 14:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumpole created for McKern or Sim? Or Michael Hordern?

The article also states that John Mortimer created Rumpole with McKern in mind. Yet Mortimer has stated that his first choice for the role was Alistair Sim. Sim was unable to take the role. After Mortimer saw McKern as Rumpole he realized how suitable he was and then wrote future stories with him in mind. Mortimer also stated that he would no longer countenance having any other actor to play Rumpole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.179.38.130 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2006.

The text in question is based on the BBC's obituary for McKern (23 July 2002), as referenced in the article. The BBC obit is probably wrong here. [1] --Mrwojo 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. There seems to be another possibility. The entry for Rumpole of the Bailey says "Mortimer was keen on Michael Hordern for the role of Rumpole, but when Hordern proved unavailable the part went to Australian-born actor Leo McKern." Looks like there's some additional sorting out needed.

My vote is for Hordern, since the reference cited is from the book by Irene Shubik, who produced the original plays. She's much more likely to have the right information. GuiderBob (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Number Two - Leo McKern.jpg

Image:Number Two - Leo McKern.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian-born English actor?

This phrase in the lede needs a rethink. He wasn't just Australian-born, he remained an Australian his entire life. He was honoured by appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia, but was never given any awards by the UK government. Now, it's true he did move to the UK and spent most of the rest of his life there. That might qualify him to be called a "British actor", but not an English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish actor. Had he taken out UK citizenship (he didn't), he would have been a British citizen, not an English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish citizen. Comments? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

McKern didn't need to take out British Citizenship. He was born in Australia before that country had separate citizenship (which wasn't until around 1948), he was therefore born a British Subject and had therefore no need to acquire British nationality, as he already possessed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All Australians who were alive as at 26 January 1949 automatically became Australian citizens and ceased to be British subjects. They never had British nationality merely by virtue of being technically British subjects. Their nationality was always Australian. Leo McKern was an Australian national who lived for most of his life in the UK. That qualifies him to be considered a British actor, but it does not qualify him to be considered an English actor. That's my point. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't call him a British OR English actor - but an Australian actor, who spent most of his adult life in Britain. That to my eyes makes him an "actor in Britain" but not a "British actor". I believe he didn't come to Britain until he was 26, so all his formative years were Australian, and if he remained an Australian citizen, then for me he is Australian, not British. E.g. David Niven spent most of his career based in the USA, but never ceased to be regarded as British (indeed quintessentially British). So with McKern, an Australian who worked in Britain - but not British! DoctorMartin (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Prisoner and health problems

In 1967, Leo McKern starred as Number 2 in The Prisoner TV series. The episode was meant as number six but McGoohan saw something in it and kept it so it was eventually shown as episode 16 which lead into the final episode, episode seventeen. In it, Bernie Williams (who was Production Manager on the show, which meant he was responsible for about everything) in an interview on The Prisoner DVD set said in that episode that the duel between McGoohan's character and McKern's character became so intense on a personal level that he had to stop production because McKern had heart problems and he feared he might have a heart attack.(80.30.191.121 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Leo McKern/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Leo McKern appeared in the 1995 movie 'Dad and Dave: On Our Selection' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112775/ in the staring role of Dad Rudd along with Dame Joan Sutherland who stared as Mother Rudd Other stars in the movie include Geoffrey Rush Kind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek

Last edited at 12:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

I've removed the claim that McKern's wife died in the 2004 tsunami alongside “great-granddaughter Lucy and Jane (Attenborough), grandson Michael's wife”; this was not supported by the sources given (which refer to the Attenborough's but make no mention of any connection to McKern) or by logic (the sources, which refer to “mother-in-law” Audrey, (and not to the husband's "grandmother") give her age as 81, making her a contemporary of JA's (and her husband's) parents, not their grandparents). The text also names McKern's wife as "Jane Holland" (which is confirmed by IMDb) and then as "Audrey Jane" (which is not).
This was added in Nov 2015 with this edit; removed by Nasnema as "a goodfaith edit" which was "too far removed from the subject" (here); the removal was then undone as "possible vandalism" (here) by another 2-edit contributor.
I am removing it yet again, for the reasons given; if anyone feels it should be replaced they will need a source that actually supports the contention. Swanny18 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)