Bertie and Elizabeth

In the UK this was ITV1's big attraction for Jubilee night and came on a couple of hours after nearly 2m people had crammed the Mall to sing patriotic songs in front of the Queen.

This is the story of her parents' marriage and reign. I got the impression it may have been on the shelf for a few years, awaiting the death of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in March 2002, who was of course the Elizabeth of the title.

Covering a thirty year period 1922 to 1952 this fairly gallops through history and that is one of its faults. It would have been better as a mini-series over six hours rather than the two hours it was.

There is a fascinating story here, especially the less usual view of the 1936 Abdication Crisis from those like Bertie and Elizabeth who had to pick up the pieces. The late Queen Mother's deep and long lasting consequent hatred of Mrs Simpson is barely hinted at.

Unfortunately we were up against some fairly wooden acting and dreadfully superficial treatment of the known facts. I presume this was made with some American money hence the scenes with FDR (Robert Hardy and a large slice of ham) and the constant grating reference to the 'King of England' and 'English democracy' even by the monarchs portrayed themselves. No British monarch would ever thus describe themselves - they are monarchs of the United Kingdom.

Small incidents such as the Dutch Queen calling early in the morning to ask for fighter squadrons to fend off the German invasion of the Netehrlands and her subsequent arival loom large whilst the King's drawn out death from lung cancer, concealed from him and the people of the UK and Commonwealth for several years is glossed over. And the Queen Mother most famous remark after Buckingham Place was targetted by the Luftwaffe 'I'm glad we've been bombed, it means I can look the East End in the face' just doesn't appear.

Cockneys are portrayed all 'Cor love a duck' and Mrs Simpson as virtually a witch, when really she was probably out of her depth in a society she could not understand.

Alan Bates does give a good turn as George V and the bloke who played Edward VIII gave a good sly performance of a weak and superficial man.

Otherwise a wasted opportunity I'm afraid.

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.

For all the perks that being a royal can get you one of those is not true romance. You can count on the fingers of both hands the true love stories of kings and queens in many countries, the United Kingdom no different. The story of Bertie And Elizabeth is unique because they were genuinely in love. No scandal touched their relationship though their family sure had it share of them.

The story of Bertie And Elizabeth begins with their meeting in the 20s. The future King George VI and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons meet and fall in love and get the consent to marry. James Wilby playing Bertie would have gone on in a comfortable but obscure position in the line of succession had things gone as they should.

But something is always interrupting the flow of history. Brother David who became ever so briefly Edward VIII played by Charles Edwards won't settle down and marry some respectable princess type. His choice when he does is twice married already Wallis Warfield Simpson.

The contrast to the respectable Elizabeth played by Juliet Aubrey and Mrs. Simpson played by Amber Sealey is as real here as in real life. She hated the woman who would marry their king. As it turned out the two did stay wed until Edward VIII died in 1972. But given her track record there was no reason to think that. The royals were concerned and rightly so that royal property might become community property in a divorce settlement.

Anyway Bertie became king when his brother abdicated and both he and his wife were about duty. In fact he worked hard at being king, so much so it might have led to an early death. Unspoken as it is, but you constantly see him puffing away on a cigarette. No doubt that did his health no kid.

James Wilby and Juliet Aubrey did have a natural affinity for their roles and for each other. I really did get to think I was watching some private royal scenes between the two of them. Alan Bates played George V and Eileen Atkins was Queen and later Dowager Queen Mary. Both of them had a sense of responsibility that equalled that of number 2 son and his wife.

This is an excellently done feature and I recommend it highly for American audiences who might not get some of the subtleties involved with the abdication crisis. And because it's fine film making from Great Britain

This isn't a review so much as it is an explanation. In the film, King George V is at dinner with David, Bertie, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Queen Mary. David asks George V "why this obsession with ritual?" and George V replies "Monarchy is ritual, boy. That's why. Doing things in the prescribed manner. You've read your Badgett...". Badgett is how the closed captioning spells the word.

I have tried several times to locate anything named or written by Badgett and have always come up empty. So I began to play around with the spelling of Badgett. And I stumbled upon Walter Bagehot who wrote a book called, "The English Constitution", which was originally published in 1867. After the Reform Act of 1867, an extensive addition was added in the 2nd edition of 1872.

The book explores the nature of the English Constitution and its relation to Parliament and Monarchy. This is, I believe, the book David has supposedly read which sets out how to do things in the prescribed manner.

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.