Bertie and Elizabeth

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.

You're right folks, this really was below par. I now know why it went straight to cable. Yet it wasn't for lack of acting talent. James Wilby was excellent as the shy and fearful Bertie, thrust onto the throne by his brother David's abdication, and Juliet Aubrey was fine as Elizabeth. Alan Bates harrumphs splendidly as George V and Eileen Atkins, although too old for the role, carries off Queen Mary in a sympathetic manner. Charles Edwards as Edward VIII (`David') has plenty of presence and Paul Brook is superb as private secretary Tommy Lascelles. So what went wrong?

The scriptwriters clearly set out not to offend anybody living, and while Elizabeth the Queen mother died in 2001 her daughter is very much alive and occupying a position of some importance. They were so careful in fact that Prince Philip, always good for some boorish misunderstanding, does not even appear. Neither does his conniving uncle Dickie Mountbatten, though he is mentioned in the dialogue. The enmity between Elizabeth and Wallis Simpson is merely hinted at. But the real problem is the failure to identify the strong elements in the story, the courtship/ wedding, the abdication and the war and write around them, instead of putting the whole thing together as a sort of photo album. Maybe as another commenter says, the mini-series format would have been better, though it might have just created a longer mess.

If you really want to know about the history of the early Windsors, you are going to have to read some books. Edward VIII wrote his account in `A King's Story' published in the early 1950s. He blames Baldwin for forcing him out but makes it clear that he had little difficulty in choosing between love and duty. Poor old Bertie had no such choice and was saddled with the extra burden of being King during wartime. His father describes himself and Edward as `ordinary men' and Bertie, like most of the hereditary aristocrats of Britain was deeply ordinary (and interested mainly in country pursuits). The most remarkable thing about Bertie was the way he overcame his stutter (especially over `B' words). It would have been interesting to know how this was done, but though the stutter gets some attention we are hustled out of the (Australian) therapist's rooms just as the treatment starts.

So, more or less a waste of space. There's been plenty of attention given to `David' before, but this show fails to give a new perspective to the historical events it so lightly covers. A great pity the Queen Mum never wrote her memoirs – now that would have been interesting.

Now I really liked Bertie and Elizabeth on the whole. It is sumptuously filmed, with beautiful photography, costumes and scenery, and the music is beautiful. And the casting is wonderful, James Wilby is surprisingly good as Bertie while Juliet Aubrey is charming as Queen Elizabeth. Alan Bates is a wonderful George V and Eileen Atkins gives another solid turn as Mary, while Charles Edwards was good as Edward VIII(David).

Though David Ryall seems underused and Robert Hardy is wasted(my opinion) as Roosevelt, somehow I didn't feel he was right for the role, and both actors were given little to do. The pacing is good as is the direction and there are some charming and witty moments in the script.

However, some characters aren't developed with care as much as the other characters, David is quite flat character-wise and Wallis is like a witch here. Also the story has some glaring inaccuracies as well as some moments and people that are either underdeveloped, mentioned and then forgotten or not even mentioned. In spite of the good pacing in general, there are one or two scenes that are too tedious and overlong.

Overall, worth seeing for some good acting, music and visuals, however for those looking for a history lesson or a completely true story they are perhaps better off reading a book on the subject. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this mini series last year on Masterpiece Theatre here in the USA and loved it so much I bought the DVD. It was refreshing to see another side to the Wallice/David romance. I was appalled just how spiteful Wallis/David were to Bertie and Elizabeth. No wonder the Queen Mum and the Queen despised Wallis so much. Wallis came across as a power hungry witch who seemed to wear the trousers in that relationship.

The casting for this mini series was superb. The young actresses who played theyoung Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret through childhood and young women, their likenesses were uncanny. I wish I could say the same for Robert Hardys portrayal as Roosevelt. He would have been better off playing Winston Churchill in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster that they was disappointed that the quote from Elizabeth during the blitz "I'm glad we were bombed, now I can look the East End in the face" wasn't used. David Wilby was amazing as Bertie, I truly felt so much compassion for his struggle with his stammering. And he overcome it with the help of his beloved Elizabeth (the delightful Juliet Aubrey). What a wonderful couple they were. An excellent story,

It made me so proud to be British. 10 out of 10 from me. High praise indeed as I don't usually watch Royal romance dramas.

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.