User reviews

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.

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.

If you want historical accuracy, look elsewhere. Fact, distortion, omission, and plain fiction are so interwoven in this picture that I almost wanted to see a disclaimer at the start of the film.

However! If you can chuck all that aside and just focus on the film itself, it's a charming, sweet, no-brainer movie with uplifting moments tossed in.

The portrayal of the struggles between David and Bertie, who'd always been close, after the arrival of Wallis, is the most "poison pill" version I've seen. David is portrayed as a flat-out cad, while Wallis is a scheming, grasping "rhymes-with-'itch.'" The devastation of Bertie and the poise of Elizabeth are in sharp contrast to the "bad couple."

This is just one example of how the writers used elements to highlight the tremendous tension between public and private royal life in the 20th century, and how personal feelings *must* be sacrificed to duty. Obviously, this dynamic still plays out in the 21st century.

What shines through above all in this picture is the love between Bertie and Elizabeth. As such, it is a charming romance film with some lovely costumes and sets, and some moving historical references thrown in. The steadfastness of B & E's relationship, and how it allowed both of them to survive some of the most crushing episodes of their lives, is inspiring to watch.

And then one wants to grab a book to find out what *really* happened. :-)

Before THE KING'S SPEECH (2010) there was BERTIE AND ELIZABETH, a glossy costume-drama concentrating on the public life of King George VI (James Wilby). Dominated by his tyrannical father (Alan Bates), and cast into the shadows by his playboy brother David (Charles Edwards), Bertie grows up almost afraid of his own shadow with a stammer that becomes more pronounced in stressful situations. He marries Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Juliet Aubrey), who becomes his emotional as well as his spiritual rock. Together they visit Lionel Logue (Michael Elwyn), the speech therapist who begins his treatment by having the three of them lying on the floor. Although somewhat confused by this unorthodox approach, Bertie agrees, and slowly acquires self-confidence.

Giles Foster's production celebrates Bertie/ King George for his selfless devotion to duty. Despite his character flaws, he accepts the job of being King and undertakes it to the best of his ability. His loyalty is contrasted with his brother's fecklessness; despite an obvious surface attractiveness, David is too self-interested to become an effective monarch. He would rather spend his time cavorting with Wallis Simpson (Amber Rose Sealey) and exchanging malicious gossip about his brother's shortcomings.

Inevitably this ninety-minute production telescopes historical events, especially towards the end of Bertie's life (the seven years between the end of World War II and his death in 1952 are perfunctorily dealt with). Yet this does not really matter: what is more important is to note the way Bertie learns how to deal with events - especially the privations of the London Blitz. The scene where he and Elizabeth visit London's East End in the wake of an air-raid is particularly effectively done, showing the way in which social divisions no longer mattered at that time: everyone shared similar experiences of suffering.

Aubrey's Queen Elizabeth comes across as an eminently practical personality with a pathological hatred of her brother-in-law. On the other hand she, like her husband, are loving parents, providing a safe and secure environment for Lillibet (Naomi Martin) and Margaret (Jenna Molloy) to grow up in.

BERTIE AND ELIZABETH might not be historically very exact, but it nonetheless celebrates those particularly British virtues of understatement and stoicism.

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

I first became acquainted with this little docu-drama at some grocery store DVD stand and saw an ad for it on television many years ago. It seemed interesting but was never something I looked into until recently.

I checked out the reviews here first, and while I'm not quite finished watching it yet, I do say I have to agree with the majority; I am not well-versed in this particular part of history, but it does sound like there's probably plenty of inaccuracies, everything is rather glossed over, and oftentimes manages to be less compelling and more bland.

Which is not to say I do not like this film, because I do. It has a few admirable successes: all of the leads are superbly well acted, I do genuinely care about what is going on and occasionally get excited, the cinematography is quite good and I think the period set and costume pieces are lovely. In that respect, it's done its job.

However, possibly as a result of being a commissioned piece, the bleeding-heart patriotism and jingoism gets extremely tedious in places, particularly WWII, but in other places as well. I think the mini-series format might have been a better choice since it would have allowed for greater exploration of complex events, but given how the material was being handled, I doubt it would have changed things overly much or made a much more complex portrayal of the characters present.

While I'm definitely not going to run out and buy this on DVD - it's cute, but it's hardly worth that - it did make me more interested in the subject, so if I get some spare time I'd like to research that. So it is good for that, but judging it on its own merits, it is a little disappointing.

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.

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

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.

I call myself an amateur historian and a frustrated writer but this slapdash nonsense makes me look like Shelby Foote, Robert Towne and Mario Puzo rolled into one. This attempt at rewriting history is merely revisionist pantomime.

The hack dialogue sounds like it was lifted from lines found by Google.com and was compiled in a free-for-all chatsite by college freshmen. The producers may as well have cast the wardrobe coathangers to wear the costumes for all the good the lead actors could do with it. With luck none of them will be remembered for this unless, after clocking a BAFTA or an Oscar, some television hack/archaeologist pulls this from the forgotten dust-coated shelf it so richly deserves.

The only interesting casting was with big-name veteran actors in supporting roles. Alan Bates radiates as King George V; he almost outshines Eileen Atkins as Queen Mary. Together they're about the only believable parts in the whole production. Robert Hardy takes a switch by playing FDR for a change instead of his usual turn as Churchill; it would have been interesting to see him play the part in a full-fledge leading role. David Ryall turns in a fine portrayal as Churchill for the half-dozen lines he's allowed; ditto for him.

It makes you respect the actor's life with its hoops, its humiliations and its fickle fortunes.

Not a very realistic view of times or of the circumstances of the Abdication. Almost everything of the times are misrepresented most notable the fashions. The most notable fashion error is in showing Prince Edward, Prince of Wales, wearing bow ties. The Prince, and later King then Duke of Windsor, loathed wearing bow ties. He preferred long ties and there is even is special knot that he devised for it (the Windsor knot). Yet, every scene in which the Prince is in shows him wearing he loathed bow tie.

This is merely one very superficial example of the historical errors in this presentation. It is a superficial criticism of a very superficial production. I suppose it is better than saying that it is a lie.

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.

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 historically

correct 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.

I just watched this movie on PBS and didn't know it actually came out in '02. It is an enjoyable enough piece of Masterpiece Theatre-ish production about the English royals. Not overly familiar with the events and characters the film portrays, I was reasonably entertained. I do, however, have some problems with the casting, especially of James Wilby. I've seen his star turns in Maurice and A Tales of Two Cities and I do think he is a mighty fine actor. Unfortunately, I can't get over the distraction that, at the time of the production, he was 44 and he simply couldn't play a man in his 20s. Bertie first met Elizabeth when he was 25 and married her at 28. The scene when Elizabeth accepts his proposal and Bertie jumps up and down joyously is a good indication of what I'm talking about. It is painful and rather embarrassing to watch James acting like a gen-xer when he obviously looks much, much older. Ditto the scene when the brothers were rough housing in the garden party. I hate to say this, but he is not aging gracefully. Less distracting is the age difference between Juliet Aubrey who plays Elizabeth but still you wonder if the characters are in their thirties in the early scenes. Charles Edwards who plays Edward 8th has the reverse problem. The actor was 33 at the time and when his character goes back to meet with Bertie at the end of WW2, Edward should be around 50, yet he hasn't aged a day and he always looks younger than James Wilby no matter what time period they are in. I was just very bothered by this casting problem, another than that, it is an okay telepic.