Apparently, not too many people are watching PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" anymore, and most likely aren't that interested in Britain's royal family. The scandalous affair between England's King Edward VIII (Charles Edwards) and Wallis Simpson (Amber Sealey; a very ambitious, American woman) isn't exactly hot gossip today. Although British royals had become quite snooty by then - and Edward VIII was a modern man - the movie didn't really bring-out that the "Elizabeth" (Juliet Aubrey) in it was a commoner, no doubt from a prominently wealthy family. Edward DID remind his brother (who had become King George VI) of that fact, and the scandals in their ancient family certainly were more notorious than a monarch marrying a common, divorced woman. One of those scandals was the changing of the family-name to "Windsor" from their German name during WW I. My comparison of the two actors was, George VI - the younger brother of Edward VIII - looked older ! Here is a perfect example of how close siblings become completely estranged.......
We are all aware the young "Elizabeth" in this movie is still on England's throne........veddy proper monarch (which makes me wonder how she is portrayed in the 2006 movie "The Queen"). History has recorded that Edward VIII (The Duke of Windsor) was given an allowance of 25,000 lbs-per-year, spending much of his time in The Bahamas, where Princess Margaret did a lot of her paryting - and it was a LOT of partying....she knew, as we have seen, Elizabeth II wasn't/isn't about to give-up the throne till she croaks. Since there was little chance of her ascending the throne, Margaret lived-it-up. Most popular of the long line of "royals" (although she was a commoner) was Elizabeth "The Queen Mum" (until 2002) was quite a character. This movie does not show enough of how light-hearted and fun-loving she was. Another pique to me was the movie did not mention that Queen Whilimina (of The Netherlands) was the world's wealthiest woman during the time she had her "court-in-exile" in England, escaping Hitler's hordes.
An interesting fact that perhaps few people in the world today know is that Buckingham Palace - the seat of British royalty - was once a "townhouse" in London. It was purchased in 1761 for George III's wife - the same one the U.S. revolted against. Queen Victoria was the first British monarch really to live there (1837), and did much of the re-building to make it the grand palace it is today. It is not a museum, although it is crammed with priceless objet d'artes, but is a working palace - all 775 rooms of it. The rooms shown in this movie are not nearly rich enough.......
I love all the intrigue in movies like "Bertie and Elizabeth". George V (Alan Bates) lived in much greater splendor than his successor. Today's Queen Elizabeth II has reverted to granduer, which we poor folk can hardly imagine. However, a great lesson can be learned from the fact that modern, American families can't be happy in their "palaces", because all of those creature-comforts really can't buy happiness. I guess it takes a special kind of "family" - how ironic Princess Di (another commoner) was the most beloved over all those royals.
I would recommend it would be worthwhile for anyone to do some research, find this TV-movie and enjoy its historical message, which is even British film-makers (director Giles Foster, scripter Nigel Williams) can't even show us how the royals live - that's why I rate it with an 8.....
We are all aware the young "Elizabeth" in this movie is still on England's throne........veddy proper monarch (which makes me wonder how she is portrayed in the 2006 movie "The Queen"). History has recorded that Edward VIII (The Duke of Windsor) was given an allowance of 25,000 lbs-per-year, spending much of his time in The Bahamas, where Princess Margaret did a lot of her paryting - and it was a LOT of partying....she knew, as we have seen, Elizabeth II wasn't/isn't about to give-up the throne till she croaks. Since there was little chance of her ascending the throne, Margaret lived-it-up. Most popular of the long line of "royals" (although she was a commoner) was Elizabeth "The Queen Mum" (until 2002) was quite a character. This movie does not show enough of how light-hearted and fun-loving she was. Another pique to me was the movie did not mention that Queen Whilimina (of The Netherlands) was the world's wealthiest woman during the time she had her "court-in-exile" in England, escaping Hitler's hordes.
An interesting fact that perhaps few people in the world today know is that Buckingham Palace - the seat of British royalty - was once a "townhouse" in London. It was purchased in 1761 for George III's wife - the same one the U.S. revolted against. Queen Victoria was the first British monarch really to live there (1837), and did much of the re-building to make it the grand palace it is today. It is not a museum, although it is crammed with priceless objet d'artes, but is a working palace - all 775 rooms of it. The rooms shown in this movie are not nearly rich enough.......
I love all the intrigue in movies like "Bertie and Elizabeth". George V (Alan Bates) lived in much greater splendor than his successor. Today's Queen Elizabeth II has reverted to granduer, which we poor folk can hardly imagine. However, a great lesson can be learned from the fact that modern, American families can't be happy in their "palaces", because all of those creature-comforts really can't buy happiness. I guess it takes a special kind of "family" - how ironic Princess Di (another commoner) was the most beloved over all those royals.
I would recommend it would be worthwhile for anyone to do some research, find this TV-movie and enjoy its historical message, which is even British film-makers (director Giles Foster, scripter Nigel Williams) can't even show us how the royals live - that's why I rate it with an 8.....