Kingsman: The Beginning (5 Stars)

Note: the official title of this film is "The King's Man", but I've decided to use the title it has in Germany, "Kingsman: The Beginning". It's more sensible, and it groups it with the other films in my alphabetical list of posts.

---

Kingsman: The Beginning (2021)

How much history is there behind the fiction?

Introduction

The first two Kingsman films were essentially extravagant spy adventures, combining the conventions of James Bond with comic-book violence, spectacular choreography and a considerable amount of outrageous humour. "Kingsman: The Beginning" takes a different approach. Rather than simply providing another adventure involving the Kingsman organisation, it attempts to explain how that organisation came into existence, using the First World War as its historical setting.

The result is a curious mixture of genuine history and complete invention. The director, Matthew Vaughn, introduces real political figures, actual historical events and some of the most notorious personalities of the early twentieth century, then connects them through an elaborate conspiracy involving a secret organisation determined to destroy the British Empire. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Russian Revolution, the death of Lord Kitchener and the activities of Mata Hari all become part of the same fictional narrative.

The historical background is one of the film's greatest attractions. It gives the story a substance that the earlier films didn't particularly need, and it makes the adventure considerably more interesting than a straightforward collection of action sequences. It also raises three questions worth investigating. How much of what we see actually happened? Which details have been changed or invented? And, perhaps most interestingly, could the fictional events have taken place within the political and social circumstances of the period?

I'll examine these questions separately, beginning with the actual historical events.

1. What historical details are correct?

The three royal cousins

One of the film's most interesting historical elements is the relationship between three of Europe's most powerful monarchs:

• King George V of Britain

• Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany

• Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.

The film presents them as cousins, and this is entirely correct. George and Wilhelm were first cousins, as were George and Nicholas. Their family connections were part of the extraordinarily complicated network of European royal marriages that had developed over several generations.

George V and Nicholas II were particularly close relatives. Their mothers were sisters, both daughters of King Christian IX of Denmark, and the physical resemblance between the two monarchs was remarkable. Wilhelm II was also closely connected to the British royal family through Queen Victoria, who was his grandmother. These relationships were not merely ceremonial. The monarchs corresponded with one another and were familiar with one another personally.

The three men occupied very different political positions, however. George V was a constitutional monarch whose government exercised political authority, Wilhelm II had considerably more personal influence over German policy, and Nicholas II ruled Russia as an autocrat. Their family connections therefore existed alongside very different political systems and national interests.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on 28 June 1914 is one of the film's central historical events. Franz Ferdinand was heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his visit to Sarajevo was connected with military exercises taking place in Bosnia. The date was particularly sensitive because it coincided with Vidovdan, an important Serbian national and religious anniversary.

The assassination was organised by a group of young Bosnian Serb nationalists, several of whom had connections with the Serbian nationalist organisation known as the Black Hand. One of the conspirators was Gavrilo Princip. The group was equipped with weapons and explosives, and several of its members were positioned along the Archduke's planned route through Sarajevo.

The first attempt occurred when Nedeljko Čabrinović threw a bomb at the Archduke's motorcade. It failed to kill its intended targets, and the Archduke continued to Sarajevo Town Hall. Later, he decided to visit officers injured in the bombing. Unfortunately, the route was changed, and the chauffeur of his car took a wrong turning. The vehicle stopped and reversed, bringing it close to Princip, who was standing nearby. He fired two shots, killing both Franz Ferdinand and Sophie.

The assassination was followed by a diplomatic crisis that developed into the July Crisis. Austria-Hungary accused Serbia of responsibility and presented the Serbian government with an ultimatum containing extremely demanding conditions. Serbia accepted most, but not all, of the demands. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914, and the involvement of the other European powers transformed the conflict into a general European war.

Rasputin and the Russian imperial family

Grigori Rasputin was one of the most extraordinary and controversial personalities in the final years of the Russian Empire. He was born in 1869 in the Siberian village of Pokrovskoye, into a peasant family. His early life was a long way removed from the world of the imperial court, and there was little in his background to suggest that he would eventually become one of the most discussed figures in Russia.

He married Praskovya Dubrovina in 1887, and they had several children. Rasputin was not a monk, despite the way he is sometimes described, and he held no official position within the Russian Orthodox Church. His religious life developed through experiences and pilgrimages in the late nineteenth century. He acquired a reputation as a wandering holy man, a spiritual healer and someone who possessed unusual religious insight. His appearance, manner and unconventional approach to religion made him a rather different figure from the priests and officials normally associated with the Church.

By the early twentieth century he had reached St Petersburg, where he gradually established connections with members of the aristocracy. Two Montenegrin princesses, Militsa and Anastasia, helped introduce him to the imperial family. His access to Tsar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra eventually became much closer, although it was Alexandra who developed the strongest personal attachment to him.

The reason for this relationship was largely connected with their son, Alexei. The boy suffered from haemophilia, a hereditary condition that prevents the blood from clotting properly. The disease had entered the Russian royal family through the descendants of Queen Victoria, and it was a constant source of fear for his parents. Even a relatively minor injury could result in serious bleeding, and the family went to considerable lengths to keep his condition secret.

Rasputin appeared to have an extraordinary ability to calm Alexei during these episodes. On several occasions, when the doctors seemed unable to help, the boy's condition improved after Rasputin had intervened. Exactly why this happened remains uncertain. His calming presence may have reduced the child's distress, and it has also been suggested that he discouraged the use of aspirin, which can make bleeding worse. Whatever the explanation, Alexandra became convinced that Rasputin had been sent by God to protect her son. Her trust in him became exceptionally strong.

This gave Rasputin an unusual position at court. He was not a government minister, a military commander or an official adviser, yet he could communicate directly with the Empress and, through her, influence the Tsar. During the First World War, when Nicholas took personal command of the Russian army, Alexandra became increasingly involved in political affairs at home. Rasputin was consulted on appointments and matters of government, and his influence, although often exaggerated, was a source of considerable resentment among politicians and aristocrats.

His private life added to the controversy. Stories circulated about drunkenness, sexual relationships with women and scandalous behaviour. Some of these accounts were based on genuine incidents, while others were exaggerated or invented by people who wanted to discredit him. Rumours that he was having an affair with Alexandra were particularly damaging, but there's no credible evidence that such a relationship existed. Nevertheless, the combination of his influence over the imperial family and his unconventional behaviour made him a deeply unpopular figure among many members of the Russian establishment.

By 1916, Russia was in a disastrous position. The war had brought enormous casualties, economic disruption and growing public dissatisfaction with the monarchy. Rasputin became a convenient symbol of everything that was wrong with the imperial court. A group of aristocrats and political figures decided that he had to be removed.

He was murdered on 30 December 1916 at the St Petersburg palace of Prince Felix Yusupov, who was married to a niece of the Tsar. The conspirators included Yusupov, Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich and the politician Vladimir Purishkevich. The story that subsequently became famous is almost theatrical. Rasputin was supposedly given cakes and wine containing cyanide, but survived the poison. He was then shot, attacked, and eventually thrown into the river, where he drowned.

There are good reasons to be cautious about this familiar version. Much of it comes from Yusupov's own memoirs, written by one of the men responsible for the murder. His account is not an impartial record, and the dramatic details may have been exaggerated to make the assassination seem more extraordinary. A forensic examination published in 2024 by Roger Byard questioned several parts of the traditional story, particularly the alleged poisoning and drowning. It suggested that Rasputin may already have been dead from a close-range gunshot wound to the head before his body entered the river. The precise sequence of events remains uncertain, but the popular story of a man who seemed almost impossible to kill is far from securely established.

Rasputin's murder took place only a few weeks before the February Revolution of 1917. Within months, Nicholas II had abdicated, bringing the Romanov dynasty to an end. The former Tsar and his family were eventually executed in 1918. Rasputin had become one of the most notorious personalities of the final years of imperial Russia, and his life and death have continued to attract an extraordinary amount of fascination.

Lord Kitchener and HMS Hampshire

Herbert Kitchener was Britain's Secretary of State for War when the First World War began. He was already a celebrated military figure, having served in several colonial campaigns, and became one of the most recognisable personalities of the war. His famous recruitment poster, showing him pointing directly at the viewer with the words "Your Country Needs YOU", became an enduring image of British wartime propaganda.

Kitchener died on 5 June 1916 while travelling to Russia on a diplomatic mission. He was aboard HMS Hampshire, which struck a German mine off the Orkney Islands and sank. Kitchener was among the 737 people who died in the disaster. Only twelve people survived.

His death was a considerable shock in Britain. Kitchener had become a national figure, and his loss removed one of the most recognisable members of the British government during the war.

Mata Hari

Mata Hari was the stage name of Margaretha Geertruida Zelle, a Dutch woman whose extraordinary life became almost inseparable from the legend that grew up around her. She was born in Leeuwarden in the Netherlands in 1876. Her father was a successful hat merchant, and she enjoyed a relatively comfortable childhood, although the family fortunes later declined. Her early life was not particularly glamorous, and her later reinvention was in many ways an escape from circumstances that had become increasingly unhappy.

In 1895 she married Rudolf MacLeod, a Dutch army officer considerably older than herself. They moved to the Dutch East Indies, where MacLeod was stationed. The marriage was deeply troubled, and the couple eventually separated. Their time in the East Indies nevertheless became important to the identity Margaretha would later create for herself. She became fascinated by the region's culture and traditions, although the exotic image she subsequently presented to European audiences was largely a theatrical invention rather than an accurate representation of Javanese life.

After returning to Europe, she reinvented herself as Mata Hari, presenting herself as a mysterious dancer from the East. She claimed to be a Javanese princess and constructed an elaborate story around her supposed upbringing and religious education. Her performances in Paris attracted considerable attention. They were less conventional dance recitals than carefully staged spectacles, combining exotic costumes, sensual movements and a gradual removal of clothing. At a time when Paris was fascinated by Orientalism and the supposed mysteries of the East, Mata Hari became a considerable celebrity.

She also became involved with wealthy and influential men, including military officers and diplomats. Her relationships were part of her social and professional world, and she developed a reputation as a courtesan as well as a dancer. This was later used against her. The image of a woman who could obtain secrets through her personal relationships was an appealing one for the authorities and the newspapers, but it was not necessarily supported by evidence.

The First World War changed her circumstances. As a Dutch citizen, she was a national of a neutral country and could travel more freely than women from belligerent nations. Her connections with officers and officials attracted the attention of intelligence services. In 1916 German intelligence recruited her, giving her the codename H21. She also came into contact with French intelligence, and the precise nature of her dealings with the different services still remains a matter of historical debate.

Mata Hari accepted money from the Germans, but that does not necessarily mean she was the effective spy portrayed in popular accounts. The information she provided appears to have been outdated or of little practical value. She later maintained that she had been playing one side against the other, and there's considerable uncertainty about what she actually passed on. The British authorities, who had also investigated her, did not regard her as a particularly dangerous agent.

The French arrested her in February 1917. She was accused of supplying Germany with information that had resulted in the deaths of thousands of Allied soldiers. Her trial took place at a time when France was suffering military setbacks and public morale was deteriorating. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, her relationships with influential men and the image she had created for herself as a seductive and mysterious woman. The evidence that she had been responsible for serious damage to the Allied war effort was far less convincing than the accusations suggested.

She was convicted by a military tribunal and executed by firing squad on 15 October 1917. Her death transformed her into an enduring symbol of the seductive female spy. The popular image of Mata Hari, using her beauty to extract military secrets from senior politicians and officers, owes much to wartime propaganda and subsequent storytelling. The real woman was certainly involved in intelligence contacts, and she did accept German money, but the evidence for the master spy of popular legend is weak. Her life was complicated, her activities remain disputed, and her execution has continued to be regarded by many historians as an example of wartime paranoia and the search for a convenient scapegoat.

Lenin and the Russian Revolution

Vladimir Lenin's return to Russia in 1917 is another important historical episode used by the film. Lenin had been living in exile in Switzerland when the February Revolution brought about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. He wanted to return to Russia to participate in the revolutionary movement, but travelling through Allied territory presented considerable difficulties.

The German government recognised an opportunity. Russia was still at war with Germany, and the possibility of encouraging revolutionary activity offered the Germans a way of weakening their enemy. They therefore permitted Lenin and a group of fellow revolutionaries to travel through German territory.

The journey began in Zurich on 9 April 1917. Lenin travelled in a specially arranged train whose passengers were not subjected to ordinary border controls and were not permitted to leave the train during the journey through Germany. The arrangement was intended to preserve the appearance that Lenin was not simply travelling under German supervision. He eventually reached Russia on 16 April, according to the Western calendar.

His return was followed by the events that culminated in the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917. The German government had helped him reach Russia for its own military purposes, although Lenin's political objectives were entirely his own.

 

British intelligence before and during the war

There's another historical detail that deserves attention because it provides an interesting background to the fictional Kingsman organisation. British intelligence services were beginning to develop into recognisable modern institutions in the years immediately preceding the First World War.

The Secret Service Bureau was established in 1909 and initially consisted of just two officers, Mansfield Cumming and Vernon Kell. It was divided into Home and Foreign Sections, which eventually developed into MI5 and MI6 respectively. At the outbreak of war in August 1914, Kell's domestic organisation had only sixteen staff, including the caretaker.

During the war, British intelligence expanded its activities, working with military intelligence and collecting information in neutral and occupied territories. Women were also recruited for administrative work. The organisation was still very small by modern standards, but the foundations of Britain's modern intelligence services were already in place.

2. What historical details are incorrect?

Having established what actually happened, we can now look at the film's alterations. Some are relatively minor changes made for dramatic convenience, while others fundamentally rewrite historical events. The most important distinction is that the film doesn't merely invent a few characters. It creates an entirely new explanation for events that shaped the twentieth century.

The origins of the First World War

The film's central conspiracy is its biggest historical invention. It proposes that an organisation led by a mysterious Scottish nationalist known as Shepherd deliberately manipulates European governments and arranges a series of events intended to bring about the destruction of Britain. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand is only one part of this plan.

In reality, the origins of the war were considerably more complicated. The assassination provided the immediate trigger, but the underlying tensions had been developing for decades. Germany and Britain were engaged in an increasingly serious naval rivalry, Austria-Hungary and Russia competed for influence in the Balkans, France had never reconciled itself to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine following the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, and nationalism was becoming increasingly influential throughout Europe.

The alliance system also played an important role. Germany and Austria-Hungary were closely associated, while Russia and France had their own military alliance. Britain had agreements with France and Russia, although these were not quite the same as a formal military alliance. Once Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, the various commitments and decisions of the European governments turned a regional conflict into a much larger war.

There was no single organisation directing all these events, and no evidence of a secret mastermind controlling the European powers. The July Crisis was the product of political decisions, miscalculations, competing ambitions and a series of increasingly dangerous responses to an international crisis.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand

The film uses the real assassination but changes the circumstances by introducing Conrad Oxford into the events. Conrad is present in Sarajevo and intervenes in the assassination attempt, even managing to save Franz Ferdinand from the bomb thrown by Čabrinović.

The real Conrad, of course, never existed, and there was no young British aristocrat involved in the incident. The assassination was carried out by the Bosnian conspirators, with Princip firing the fatal shots after the motorcade took a wrong turning. There's no historical evidence of a mysterious Scottish organisation arranging the assassination or controlling the movements of the conspirators.

The film also simplifies the relationship between the Black Hand and the Serbian authorities. The organisation was real, and members of the Serbian military establishment were involved in providing assistance to the conspirators. However, the precise extent of the Serbian government's knowledge and involvement remains a more complicated question than the film suggests.

Rasputin as an international conspirator

The historical Rasputin was already a remarkable and controversial personality without needing to be turned into an international criminal mastermind. His relationship with the Russian imperial family was real, as was his reputation for eccentric behaviour and his influence over Alexandra. His murder by Russian aristocrats was also genuine.

What is entirely fictional is his participation in Shepherd's organisation and his involvement in the conspiracy to bring about the First World War. The film also gives him extraordinary fighting abilities, transforming him into an almost superhuman opponent. His famous dance and the subsequent fight sequence are entertaining, but they have no basis in historical fact.

There's a further historical complication concerning Rasputin's murder. The traditional account, largely based on Yusupov's memoirs, describes a lengthy struggle involving poisoned cakes, gunshots, physical attacks and eventual drowning. Modern forensic analysis has cast considerable doubt on this version. The available evidence suggests that Rasputin was probably killed by a close-range gunshot to the head before his body entered the river. The film is therefore drawing upon a popular legend rather than an entirely secure historical account.

The death of Lord Kitchener

The film's treatment of Kitchener's death is another substantial alteration. His death aboard HMS Hampshire is historical fact, but the suggestion that it was deliberately arranged by Shepherd is entirely fictional.

Kitchener was travelling to Russia when his ship struck a mine. There's no convincing historical evidence that the sinking was an assassination organised by a secret organisation. It was a wartime disaster, not a carefully planned murder.

The film also uses Kitchener's death to advance its conspiracy narrative, turning a real tragedy into a convenient plot device. This is a particularly striking example of the way Matthew Vaughn takes a genuine historical event and assigns it an entirely different explanation.

Mata Hari as a master spy

Mata Hari's story is perhaps the most interesting example of the difference between historical reputation and historical evidence. She was certainly arrested, tried and executed as a German spy. However, the extent of her actual espionage activities remains disputed.

The prosecution accused her of passing information to Germany, but the evidence was considerably weaker than the public mythology suggested. Some historians believe that she was a genuine, albeit rather ineffective, agent. Others regard her as a convenient scapegoat, condemned in an atmosphere of wartime paranoia and suspicion.

The film turns her into a highly effective operative working for Shepherd, capable of manipulating powerful men and participating in an international conspiracy. That is a considerable exaggeration of her historical activities. Her real life was already sufficiently unusual, and her trial and execution remain controversial more than a century later.

Lenin and the German government

The film's portrayal of Lenin also requires some qualification. Germany really did facilitate his return to Russia, hoping that revolutionary activity would weaken the Russian war effort. That much is historical fact.

However, Lenin was not simply a German agent. He had his own political ambitions and was determined to bring about a communist revolution. Germany was exploiting an existing revolutionary movement, not controlling it.

The film places Lenin within Shepherd's organisation and presents him as part of a much larger conspiracy. There's no historical evidence for this. Germany's assistance was a cynical military calculation, and Lenin was perfectly capable of exploiting the opportunity for his own purposes.

The Zimmermann Telegram and American entry into the war

The Zimmermann Telegram is another genuine historical element, although the film incorporates it into its fictional conspiracy. In January 1917, German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sent a secret telegram to the German ambassador in Mexico, proposing a military alliance should the United States enter the war against Germany. Mexico was promised the possibility of recovering territory lost to the United States, including Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

The British intercepted and decoded the telegram, and its publication caused considerable outrage in the United States. It was one of several developments that contributed to America's eventual entry into the war on 6 April 1917.

The film uses the telegram as part of its fictional narrative, involving Conrad in the recovery of evidence relating to its authenticity. The historical telegram was real, but Conrad's involvement and the surrounding conspiracy were inventions.

It is also worth remembering that the telegram was not the sole reason for American entry into the war. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 was another major factor, alongside the growing deterioration of relations between the two countries.

The Second Boer War and the opening of the film

The film begins in 1902, during the final stages of the Second Boer War, with Orlando Oxford, his wife Emily and their young son Conrad visiting a British concentration camp in South Africa. The historical background is genuine. Britain did operate concentration camps during the Boer War, holding Boer civilians and, in separate camps, Black Africans.

Conditions in the camps were appalling. Overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, poor food and disease resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, particularly women and children. The camps became one of the most controversial aspects of the British campaign in South Africa.

Emily Oxford, however, is fictional, as is her death during the visit. The film uses a genuine and deeply uncomfortable episode of British colonial history to establish Orlando's opposition to war and his determination to protect his son from military service.

3. Could the fictional elements really have happened?

This is where the film becomes particularly interesting. Historical fiction doesn't have to reproduce actual events, but its inventions should ideally be compatible with the world in which the story takes place. A secret organisation such as the Kingsman is not inherently implausible, but the extent of its activities is another matter.

A private intelligence organisation

The basic idea behind the Kingsman organisation is quite feasible. Wealthy individuals have always employed private secretaries, investigators, bodyguards and other people to protect their interests. An aristocrat with sufficient money and international connections could certainly establish an organisation dedicated to gathering intelligence and protecting influential people.

Indeed, the timing is quite appropriate. Britain's Secret Service Bureau had been established in 1909, and intelligence gathering was becoming increasingly important as European tensions grew. The real organisation was initially tiny, but it developed rapidly during the First World War.

The Duke of Oxford's network is therefore not an entirely ridiculous invention. A wealthy aristocrat could employ people with different skills, establish contacts in foreign capitals and obtain information unavailable to ordinary members of the public. His servants, Polly and Shola, are also quite plausible as trusted members of such an organisation, particularly given the importance of personal relationships and discretion in intelligence work.

What is less convincing is the organisation's ability to operate almost everywhere, seemingly without encountering serious difficulties. The real intelligence services of the period were far less efficient and considerably more limited in their resources.

The aristocracy and international connections

The film makes considerable use of the social connections between European aristocratic families. This is one of its more convincing elements. The European nobility was an interconnected community, with marriages, friendships and family relationships crossing national boundaries. Wealthy individuals travelled frequently, attended diplomatic functions and maintained contacts with influential people in other countries.

A British duke might well have known members of the Russian, German or Austrian aristocracy personally. He could have obtained information through these connections, attended important social occasions and moved between political and diplomatic circles.

The Duke of Oxford's ability to use his social position as a means of gathering information is therefore quite credible. His access to the royal family and other influential individuals is not particularly difficult to accept.

Political assassination and covert interference

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand demonstrates that important political figures were vulnerable to relatively small groups of determined individuals. The conspirators did not need an enormous organisation or sophisticated technology. They needed information about the Archduke's movements, access to weapons and an opportunity to carry out their plan.

Political assassination was certainly not an invention of the twentieth century, and governments and political organisations had long employed covert methods to influence events. The idea that a secret organisation might attempt to destabilise a government, encourage revolutionary activity or arrange the assassination of an important individual is historically plausible.

There's also a genuine example of foreign interference in the Russian Revolution. Germany's assistance to Lenin demonstrates that governments were prepared to exploit political instability in enemy countries. A secret organisation could conceivably have attempted something similar, although its success would depend on circumstances largely beyond its control.

The film's conspiracy is therefore built around methods that were available during the period. The problem is the scale of the operation, not the basic concept.

Could the First World War have been deliberately engineered?

Here the film becomes considerably less convincing. The idea that an organisation could manipulate individual political events is plausible. The idea that it could deliberately engineer a war involving most of the major European powers is much harder to accept.

The European governments were not puppets waiting for somebody to pull the strings. They had their own political objectives, military plans and domestic problems. Even within individual governments, ministers and military commanders frequently disagreed about the best course of action. The July Crisis demonstrated how difficult it was to control events once the diplomatic machinery began moving.

A secret organisation might have been able to encourage hostility between two countries, provide money to revolutionary groups or exploit an existing political crisis. But controlling the decisions of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France and Britain simultaneously would have required an extraordinary degree of influence.

It would also have required an organisation capable of anticipating and controlling events that were frequently unpredictable. Even governments with extensive intelligence services struggled to understand the intentions of their opponents. Shepherd's organisation is therefore operating on a scale that belongs more in a James Bond adventure than in a historical drama.

The manipulation of the Russian Revolution

The Russian Revolution provides an especially interesting example of the limits of foreign interference. Germany was able to facilitate Lenin's return because it recognised the possibility of weakening Russia from within. However, the revolution itself had deep domestic causes.

The Russian Empire was suffering from economic problems, food shortages, military defeats and widespread dissatisfaction with the Tsarist government. The February Revolution was not created by Lenin, let alone by Germany. It was the result of a crisis that had been developing for years.

An outside organisation could certainly have exploited this instability, but creating and controlling the entire revolutionary movement would have been another matter. Even Germany, with its considerable resources, could not simply dictate what happened in Russia.

The Kingsman agents themselves

There's one final aspect of the film that deserves consideration: the extraordinary abilities of its principal characters. Orlando Oxford, Shola and Polly are all remarkably effective operatives, capable of fighting their way through situations that would defeat most trained soldiers.

The idea of highly trained individuals working for a private intelligence organisation is perfectly credible. The particular fighting abilities demonstrated in the film, however, are considerably less so. The elaborate choreography, the ability to defeat multiple opponents and the almost supernatural physical endurance are part of the Kingsman tradition rather than a serious attempt at historical realism.

Rasputin's fight is an especially entertaining example. Rhys Ifans gives the character an extraordinary combination of eccentricity, physical agility and menace. The choreography is deliberately exaggerated, and I suspect that Matthew Vaughn had considerable fun creating the sequence. It's one of the film's highlights, but it has nothing to do with the historical Rasputin.

Could an organisation like Shepherd's really have existed?

The short answer is that an organisation of wealthy and influential people could certainly have existed. There's nothing inherently implausible about a private group employing investigators, collecting intelligence and attempting to influence political developments. The real British intelligence services were still in their infancy, and private organisations could potentially have operated alongside them without attracting much attention.

Shepherd's organisation, however, is something else entirely. It appears to possess practically unlimited financial resources, agents in several countries, access to the highest levels of government and the ability to manipulate events with extraordinary precision. Its members include people who would otherwise have had very different political and personal objectives. Maintaining such an organisation would have been extremely difficult, particularly in wartime, when governments were increasingly suspicious of foreign interference.

There's also a practical problem. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the greater the likelihood that somebody will reveal its existence. An organisation responsible for assassinations, political manipulation and the orchestration of international conflicts would have needed an enormous number of people. Keeping all of them silent for years would have been a formidable undertaking.

The film's secret organisation is therefore an entertaining invention, but its effectiveness belongs firmly in the world of espionage fantasy.

The appearance of Adolf Hitler

The film's mid-credits sequence introduces another historical personality: Adolf Hitler. Erik Jan Hanussen, having taken over Shepherd's organisation, introduces Lenin to the man who will eventually become the dictator of Germany.

This is an intriguing reference to the future, particularly because the film has already used real historical personalities to create its fictional conspiracy. Hanussen himself was a real Austrian mentalist who became famous in Germany during the 1920s and early 1930s. He was murdered in 1933 after attracting the attention of the Nazi authorities.

The suggestion that Hanussen introduced Hitler into an international criminal organisation is entirely fictional. There's no historical evidence of such a relationship or organisation. Hitler's rise to power was the result of a very different set of political, economic and social circumstances.

Nevertheless, the scene provides a rather ominous suggestion of what might have happened had the Kingsman story continued into the 1930s.

Conclusion: An entertaining alternative history

I think "Kingsman: The Beginning" deserves credit for attempting something different from its predecessors. Rather than simply repeating the formula of the first two films, Matthew Vaughn has created an adventure that uses a substantial amount of genuine historical material. The First World War is not merely a convenient background. Its political circumstances, personalities and events are central to the story.

The film is frequently accurate when describing individual historical events, although it sometimes relies on popular versions of events that are not entirely supported by the evidence. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Rasputin's murder, Kitchener's death, Mata Hari's execution and Lenin's return to Russia all provide genuine historical foundations. The problem arises when these separate events are connected through Shepherd's fictional conspiracy.

I find the basic idea of the Kingsman organisation considerably more convincing than the film's explanation of the First World War. A wealthy aristocrat establishing a private intelligence network is entirely feasible, particularly during a period when British intelligence was still developing. The Duke of Oxford's social connections and ability to gather information are also reasonably credible. What is much harder to accept is that one secret organisation could have engineered a war involving most of the major European powers, manipulated the Russian Revolution and controlled the activities of so many influential individuals.

But perhaps historical accuracy isn't quite the point. The film is an alternative-history adventure, not a documentary, and it uses real events to create a fictional explanation of how the Kingsman organisation came into existence. Its inventions are often outrageous, but they are built around some fascinating historical material.

I particularly enjoyed the more serious approach. The action choreography is less exaggerated than in the earlier films, although Rasputin's extraordinary ballroom sequence provides a welcome reminder that this is still a Kingsman production. Ralph Fiennes gives the Duke of Oxford considerable dignity, while Rhys Ifans makes Rasputin an unforgettable character. Gemma Arterton and Djimon Hounsou also make valuable contributions, and the film benefits from having a rather more substantial story than its predecessors.

My verdict is that "Kingsman: The Beginning" succeeds as an entertaining historical adventure, even if it occasionally treats history rather carelessly. It isn't a reliable account of how the First World War began, but it does provide an enjoyable excuse to revisit some of the extraordinary personalities and events of the period.

And if it encourages somebody to investigate what really happened in Sarajevo, St Petersburg or revolutionary Russia, then it has achieved something worthwhile.

Success Rate:  - 0.7

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de