Wallis & Edward

As a fan of the Monarchy and everything Royal I was really happy with this wonderful presentation of the Monarchy during this slightly difficult and emotional time. It was wonderful to see the ex-King presented in such an emotional way. There was love in that actor's eye, and to act in such a wonderful way is a true asset to any productions cast.

Wallis Simpson is your classic American character. I'm sure she wasn't like this back in the day... a boisterous, bossy and rather annoying woman, slowly becoming a reasonably acceptable character portraying someone who really was stuck in the middle.

All in all, I think this is a very good 'made-for-TV' presentation and I'd recommend it for anyone's 'Royal Viewing Schedule'.

I was disappointed in this film and pleased that I rented it before I bought it. I caught the goof where Winston Churchill addresses the Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" at the Jubilee ball, which for me was a red flag that the writers were not familiar with royal protocol and therefore probably anti-Roaylists. I was also disappointed when the investigations into Wallis Simpson were discussed (it was appropriate to investigate her past if she was the lover of the Prince of Wales) that at that point, nor anywhere else in the film, did they bring up the pro-Nazi connections between Wallis Simpson and the German elite. This is not speculation but historical fact: I have seen the photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as state guests in Germany greeted by Nazi elite. The rest may be rumor, but this was not and it was absent. Rather than portray Wallis Simpson as a social climbing adulteress, they portray her as a loving wife introduced to the Court of St. James by her husband and wooed by the Prince of Wales. No explanation is given why a Baltimore businessman would be a guest at a royal function. However, when Wallis accepts an invitation to spend a quiet weekend alone with the Prince of Wales, she willingly enters what is obviously a set up for seduction. Then later in the film, she is portrayed as shocked when her husband confesses a long time affair and asks for a divorce. Later,Edward defends her in her two divorces as being the victim. How is a woman who has committed adultery the victim in a divorce ending a wedding of convenience as hinted at several times in the script? This was not an unbiased film portraying the facts of the Wallis Simpson affair, but a romanticized fiction of a true love story of two people (although both are committing adultery as a man courting a married woman). If "The King's Speech" is a better researched, historically more accurate film, then Edward was an irresponsible, self centered, self indulgent man with little respect for the institution of the royal family. In "Wallis and Simpson", Edward is portrayed as a kind, loving, honest man who wanted to modernize the institution of monarchy. I can not believe that one is fiction and the other accurate while at the same time that the true character of Edward lay somewhere in between. Even if you feel that "The King's Speech" was unfair to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, they were both guilty of adultery and by law Edward VIII could not marry Wallis Simpson and be king. Yet, the script of this film misleads us into thinking that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mother) were cold and calculating in trying to separate Edward VIII from the love of his life. When Edward tells Wallis that she is the Duchess of Windsor, but not an HRH, Wallis makes a quip that she is sure that Queen Mary and Elizabeth had something to do with it. How would an American divorcée married to the former king be entitled to the the title HRH? Princess Diana lost this formal address when she and Charles divorced, though she remained Princess Diana, the Princess of Wales. In all, there were so many of these omissions, errors and glosses over character flaws that I believe that the writers wanted a love story with a sad ending rather than a historical film depicting the affair that brought Britain to crisis in 1936. My final opinion that this made for television Canadian film is what is seems: a soap opera love story and not a historical film. I will stick to "The King's Speech" as a historical, researched film depicting the Wallis Simpson affair and the abdication of Edward VIII to marry a woman that British law precluded as acceptable wife for the king.

Viewers with an interest in British history might wish to note that since the first Hanoverian came to the British throne (George I in 1714) it has been occupied by dimwits. These dimwits have fallen into two classes – those like Victoria, George V, George VI and the present incumbent, who saw themselves as the slaves of duty and therefore as ceremonial heads of state did little or no harm, and those like George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII who kicked over the traces, but did less damage than one might have expected. The 1936 abdication crisis was a crisis only for those who believe in monarchy, in this country a minority of about 25%, according to the 1999 Republic referendum. The story has been told several times before on TV – is there anything new about this 2005 ITV version, apart from the Baltic locations?.

Well, the publicity says there's more of Wallis's side of the story here, but I can't say that's obvious, apart from there being a bit more of Wallis' Aunt Bessie (Miriam Margolyes). Edward is portrayed as the seducer (in a candlelight chalet in winter) but Wallis (nicely played by Joely Richardson) doesn't exactly play hard to get. She had rivals for the post of prince's mistress (Lady Furness and Mrs Ward) whom she easily defeats. At the end she was left with the baby, or at least the immature prince, a duchess without honour exiled to France. Stephen Campbell Moore is about 10 years too young for Edward but his puppy-like demeanour is appropriate. The triviality of the Windsors is shown by the fact that it wasn't the loss of the Crown that irked them so much as the establishment's refusal to give Wallis the title "Her Royal Highness". Diana, of course, had exactly the same beef, but then she was demoted on her divorce. Camilla (for the moment) is a mere duchess, but is also "HRH". Winston Churchill, robustly played here by David Calder, was a principal supporter of Edward just because he was a prince, but then Winston was a rather romantic old Tory.

Nazi sympathies were not uncommon in the British upper classes prior to World War 2 ("those Nazi chappies certainly know how to make the trains run on time") but if an invasion of Britain by Germany had been successful (and it was a close–run thing), Edward, given his sympathies would have been the front-runner for puppet King. Edward was an undistinguished governor of the Bahamas between 1940 and 1945 but the main reason for that appointment was to keep him out of the reach of the Nazis. (Down under we got his younger brother, Prince Henry, who was even dumber than Edward, as GG (1942-1945), but a bit better behaved). After that he and Wallis spent the remaining 27 years of their marriage in very comfortable and well-deserved obscurity in Paris. One is left with the feeling we got lucky.

This production has a nice sheen to it and the 30s' era is well evoked. There are some other good performances, particularly 80 year old veteran Richard Johnston as Wallis' nemesis, prime minister Baldwin, and Julian Wadham as Edward's not exactly loyal private secretary Fitzhardinge.

It is impossible to fault this made for TV film - the principals make an attractive couple; the period is well evoked; the settings are suitably glamorous and the supporting cast is particularly strong.

There is a deft touch running throughout: the abdication crisis could have been played in a grinding and maudlin manner but it is handled summarily and almost underplayed.

What particularly convinced was the abdication speech, in the context of the film this "historic given" rang absolutely true. Quite an achievement.

However, it is still a made for TV biopic - the historic characters are necessarily painted a little bland and it is inescapably "light entertainment". There is much humour and subtle-digging at the royal family - but not without affection. Altogether, this film is far better than one could have reasonably expected and far more enjoyable too.

There is some hint towards the end of the narrative, of the sadness of the life of exile that the Windsors led, but that is a whole other movie. There are clear resonances in the movie of Camilla and Charles - I think this is deliberate for the contemporary audience but not overstated. Some of the historical context was a revelation: Churchill considered forming a King's party to champion the cause of Edward and Mrs. Simpson i.e. by no means was the whole county in favour of abdication.

When all is said and done, the story is a real life tragedy out of the Shakespearian mold, and one worthy of the retelling. My mother was at a girls' school at the time - and the whole class listened to the abdication speech in tears. The hold of the story at the time was intense as that other Shakespearian tragedy in our times of Diana.

Okay but very compressed version of the story of the events surrounding Edward VIII's abdication. Joely Richardson and Stephen Campbell Moore are adequate - she capturing some of the allure, and he showing the petulance and self centred nature of Edward. However some otehr characters are more caricatures. Appears to be filmed in northern America - some scenes rather unrealistic. The script shows a lack of knowledge in the writers, eg no idea of Parliamentary procedure and a reference to the KGB, a name which did not yet exist (it was the NKVD at the time). Also does not fully explain why the Church's role was crucial.