Bertie e Elizabeth

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

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.

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.

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.

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.