midge56 At the end of the film, the host comes on to explain the harsh treatment of the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor) & Wallis. He said they made it to reflect changing attitudes against the Windsors. That tells us, they deliberately fabricated their portrayal to make them more hateful instead of the king who wanted the woman he loved. Facts don't change with attitudes. Apparently movies change facts to create attitudes. (As an example of a similar situation, Charles divorced & married Camilla who was also divorced).Here is an example of this movie being falsely hyped to make us hate David & Wallis. When they first introduce Wallis in this film, the camera is at waist height pointing up at her chin where a giant black mole has been placed. This makes her look like the wicked witch of the east. I defy you to find a photo of the real Wallis with a giant black mole like that. If she had one, it was so small & covered up, it wasn't visible on any photo. So, this giant mole & zoom was a rotten trick to make her abhorrent to us. I suspect the involvement of the Queen mother on this movie before she died. She helped them with the story at some point in the past or in a biography and they trashed David & Wallis due to her extreme hatred of them.It was the Queen mother & Queen Mary who retaliated against David & Wallis to cut them out of everything. Titles, money, appointments, palaces, you name it. They were spiteful. Not Bertie, but he was weak & couldn't say no to his wife & mother. Even forbidding Royal family or servants & employees to attend the wedding. Including his other brothers & his security man. Bertie could cut off their money, palace rooms & jobs if his wife insisted.Use your common sense, if David showed up to ask Bertie for money & titles, he certainly wouldn't have called Bertie's wife names in the process. That wouldn't have gotten him very far. Nor did he have a cocky attitude as he was portrayed.I didn't know about the bow tie aversion & his association with the windsor knot. I know the knot very well & taught every male I knew how to tie it. It is the only way to create a perfect knot. They used bow ties on his movie character to make David look like a honky tonk jerk.There is a much better movie called Wallis & Edward which shows how she tried to extricate herself & begged him not to abdicate but he threatened to kill himself if she left him. He was totally besotted with her & wouldn't let her go. Once he abdicated, she couldn't abandon him. She was trapped trying to make up for his sacrifice.I didn't know about the way Bertie's father snapped at him & Bertie's stammer. His teachers also slapped his hands to force him to write with his right hand. He was left handed. I can see why he stammered but it got old very fast in the film.I also didn't care for the dumb bumblebee proposal scene; even if is was true. Or the "I don't like your face" scene. Or the shooting scene. It was the cigarettes which killed him. Not the job. Many Royals in their family died from throat cancer from tobacco use.But, if you can overlook the phony Edward & wallis scenes and assume this was the Queen mothers edited nasty version of events, the movie is still watchable. If Edward had just married Wallis civilly like Charles, without asking anyone, there were other Kings who did (George IV), the entire parliament wouldn't have quit. Churchill would have remained to form a gov't. It only takes one or two. Just like Melbourne when Victoria wouldn't remove her ladies. The gov't survived. When you ask someone for permission, you are giving them power over you. Do it without asking. It's your life.

james henderson I viewed Bertie & Elizabeth on Sunday 17 July 2011 and as a piece of nostalgic history I enjoyed it. Costumes and setting were well presented . It was spoilt by the frequent recurring statements KING AND QUEEN OF ENGLAND I am Scottish and am at heart a Royalist but my knowledge of history is such that there is no such title as Queen of England or The English throne. It is The Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her Commonwealth and Dominions. Now I am not so naive to suggest long winded title should be used where applicable in the script and bearing in mind the World wide audience who may not know of the historical background and only know of England and disregard Scotland ,Wales and Ireland. King/Queen of Britain would be a historicallycorrect and in-offensive reference. This lack of detail is used widely in all the media and is very hurtful to other residents of the UNITED Kingdom of Great Britain.

suessis This television film shows a lot promise despite the historical inaccuracies. It's problem is the fast paced progression through history that provides little opportunity for character exploration and more in depth look at how George VI become one of the best loved and most respected of English Kings. Otherwise, the performances are quite good and the writing in certain scenes is first rate. It's worth a look despite it's obvious flaws.American Audiences might find the portrayal of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor a bit harsh after years of romantic conditioning but as Russell Baker notes in the segment that is shown after the film on the DVD it represents a more accurate picture of how those in the UK came to view Edward VIII.

Kevin Dennis (ksdennis) The film is missing some of Elizabeth's most famous remarks, even though they are alluded to, such as (and these are facsimiles): "I can now look the east end in the face." and "They {the Princesses} won't leave without me. I won't leave without the King. And the King will never leave." etc.It flies through history as a series of vignettes, arguably not necessarily the most important ones. It explains little about the psychology of the major characters, especially George VI's stutter, how instrumental his wife was helping him during his reign, her deep antipathy for Wallis, and Wallis's lack of understanding of her surroundings, England and the court. Wallis is portrayed with a complete lack of sympathy. ("Edward and Mrs. Simpson" this isn't!)The movie seems to contain glaring inaccuracies. If a royal highness by marriage, Wallis couldn't have passed this title on to any subsequent husband and, surely, the King would know this. The title was withheld - against custom and precedent - for many other reasons which are not explored at all. This is unfortunate.Nevertheless, the performances are wonderful, especially James Wilby as George VI; Juliet Aubrey as Elizabeth;, Alan Bates as George V; Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary; and Charles Edwards as an Edward VIII with a complete lack of appreciation that with great advantages from birth come great obligations.For the knowledgeable viewer, it's like looking through bits of a sentimental picture book. It's comfort food: sentimental, warm, and lacking in much nutritional value. Remember, however, the subjects (George VI and Queen Elizabeth) were, and remain, tremendously popular and this view may be very much a reflection of its time. And, having no idea of what really went on behind the walls of the royal residences, it is fun to have the illusion of being able to look.