l_rawjalaurence 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.

james henderson 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 historicallycorrect 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.

Kevin Dennis (ksdennis) 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.

Philby-3 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.