it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

At the end of the film, the host comes on to explain the harsh treatment of the Prince of Wales (Duke of Windsor) & Wallis. He said they made it to reflect changing attitudes against the Windsors. That tells us, they deliberately fabricated their portrayal to make them more hateful instead of the king who wanted the woman he loved. Facts don't change with attitudes. Apparently movies change facts to create attitudes. (As an example of a similar situation, Charles divorced & married Camilla who was also divorced).Here is an example of this movie being falsely hyped to make us hate David & Wallis. When they first introduce Wallis in this film, the camera is at waist height pointing up at her chin where a giant black mole has been placed. This makes her look like the wicked witch of the east. I defy you to find a photo of the real Wallis with a giant black mole like that. If she had one, it was so small & covered up, it wasn't visible on any photo. So, this giant mole & zoom was a rotten trick to make her abhorrent to us. I suspect the involvement of the Queen mother on this movie before she died. She helped them with the story at some point in the past or in a biography and they trashed David & Wallis due to her extreme hatred of them.It was the Queen mother & Queen Mary who retaliated against David & Wallis to cut them out of everything. Titles, money, appointments, palaces, you name it. They were spiteful. Not Bertie, but he was weak & couldn't say no to his wife & mother. Even forbidding Royal family or servants & employees to attend the wedding. Including his other brothers & his security man. Bertie could cut off their money, palace rooms & jobs if his wife insisted.Use your common sense, if David showed up to ask Bertie for money & titles, he certainly wouldn't have called Bertie's wife names in the process. That wouldn't have gotten him very far. Nor did he have a cocky attitude as he was portrayed.I didn't know about the bow tie aversion & his association with the windsor knot. I know the knot very well & taught every male I knew how to tie it. It is the only way to create a perfect knot. They used bow ties on his movie character to make David look like a honky tonk jerk.There is a much better movie called Wallis & Edward which shows how she tried to extricate herself & begged him not to abdicate but he threatened to kill himself if she left him. He was totally besotted with her & wouldn't let her go. Once he abdicated, she couldn't abandon him. She was trapped trying to make up for his sacrifice.I didn't know about the way Bertie's father snapped at him & Bertie's stammer. His teachers also slapped his hands to force him to write with his right hand. He was left handed. I can see why he stammered but it got old very fast in the film.I also didn't care for the dumb bumblebee proposal scene; even if is was true. Or the "I don't like your face" scene. Or the shooting scene. It was the cigarettes which killed him. Not the job. Many Royals in their family died from throat cancer from tobacco use.But, if you can overlook the phony Edward & wallis scenes and assume this was the Queen mothers edited nasty version of events, the movie is still watchable. If Edward had just married Wallis civilly like Charles, without asking anyone, there were other Kings who did (George IV), the entire parliament wouldn't have quit. Churchill would have remained to form a gov't. It only takes one or two. Just like Melbourne when Victoria wouldn't remove her ladies. The gov't survived. When you ask someone for permission, you are giving them power over you. Do it without asking. It's your life.

And an opportunity to see the great Miss Eileen Atkins at her most sardonic as that old klepto Queen Mary whose penchant for stealing knickknacks from posh stores and country houses was kept from us plebs for half a century after her death. The late Mr D.Ryall,that most versatile of character actors,adds Winston Churchill to his not inconsiderable gallery of top class performances,a characterisation Mr T.Spall could have benefited by studying before attempting his impersonation in "The King's Speech",surely one of the least deserving Oscar - laden pictures in that award's somewhat eclectic history. "Bertie and Elizabeth" has no pretensions towards documentary - like veracity.It is meant to be entertainment centred around the lives of King George the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and succeeds at that level. It's cheap and cheerful,like a jar of jam bought from "Lidl" rather than "Harrods".Jam is jam,right? The Duke of Windsor doesn't come out of this too well and Mrs Simpson gets her usual character - assassination at the hands of the Brits who once saw Edward,Prince of Wales as their Prince Charming and have never forgiven the Yank who stole him from them,regardless of the fact that he was vain,weak and feckless and would have made a terrible king. All the usual clichés about the blitz are given an airing with jolly cockneys abounding and exchanging unlikely quips with Elizabeth as they gaily stand outside their ruined hovels after a visit from the Luftwaffe. But if you don't take it seriously,it's a lot of fun.

The story opens in 1920, as the young Duke of York (James Wilby), known as "Bertie" to his family, meets Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Juliet Aubrey) at a dance and is immediately infatuated with her. Though a royal prince hadn't married a commoner since Anne Boleyn, Bertie loved the charming and vivacious Elizabeth; they were married and had two daughters. Theirs was a true love match and Bertie spent happy times with his family, a luxury afforded him because he would never be King, or so he thought. Then his brother's abdication changed Bertie's life forever and he assumed the throne as King George VI.This is a sweet love story with two very likable actors in the leads. Wilby and Aubrey are quite sympathetic and convincing as Bertie and Elizabeth. Bertie was self-conscious and stammered, especially when bullied by his father, but Elizabeth helped him overcome it. As the years go by we see the abdication, WWII, their daughter's marriage, and a succession of Prime Ministers come and go; the one constant in their lives was their absolute devotion to each other and their personal strength and integrity. The story ends with his death at the age of 56; his wife would outlive him for fifty years.This Masterpiece Theatre production is recommended for those who enjoy stories about the royals. Despite the opulent sets and costumes, it's a wonderfully intimate story of a couple who loved their country and each other until the end.

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.