lynnmikenoel While we enjoy watching this interesting and historical movie, our enjoyment is somewhat tempered by our relationship to the film. My wife and I were extras in the Kenya segment of the film and had the opportunity and misfortune to see Edward Fox, a second-rate actor who should get down on his knees every morning to thank whatever powers that be that his brother gave him his breakout chance in film, behave as the spoiled and undeserving brat he is. He treated everyone around him as though he was the only true human in the area. At one point he reduced one young woman to tears when she was a (very) few seconds late running to hold a mirror for him to check that his face and makeup were up to his high standards. This young woman was making a tiny fraction of Mr. Fox's salary but she was worth twenty of him. In contrast, the fine actress Cherie Lunghi, who was not on camera at the time, asked the extras if they would like some tea. It was only when she stood up for her section of the shoot that we realized that she was ,in fact, a cast member, and hundreds of times more gracious than Mr. Fox.

Enoch Sneed This is certainly one of the best historic dramatisations ever made for television. Based on a deeply researched book and with the technical advice of the author, Simon Raven's scripts succeed in 'showing' us the story rather than simply 'telling' it.The character development of Wallis Simpson is a fine example of this. At first we see her as quite obviously socially ambitious, determined to work her way into Edward's private circle of friends. Once she has achieved this, she ensures the former lovers who helped her are excluded (and we see their hurt feelings). Having got her feet well under the table she begins to take over Edward's life, to the extent of getting him to neglect his official duties for her benefit. Finally her victory is complete: on vacation someone asks the King his plans for the next day and he says "Wallis, what are our plans for tomorrow?" She has taken control. Both lead performances are flawless.The supporting cast is a superb ensemble of British character actors who play their historical roles excellently. Some highlight David Waller's Baldwin, but John Shrapnel's increasingly frustrated (and disgusted) equerry Major Hardinge is equally compelling.Compared with today's 'historical' series about 'The Tudors' or 'Rome', this is highly intelligent and thoughtful drama. Only the technical aspects make it seem a little dated with studio scenes shot on video and exteriors on film (standard for UK television in the 1970's). Still, this is excellent viewing and well worth watching.

selffamily I have long wanted to see this series, having only read Royal Feud so far as background. I watched the first half, then as there was a delay in obtaining the second half, I read the book written by the Duchess of Windsor, The Heart has its reasons. Now I have just finished the second half and feel that I have had a well-rounded view of what went on. I did feel (contrary to what previous reviewers have said) that maybe it missed a few things and could perhaps have been longer!I have always felt instinctively that Wallis Simpson had a raw deal. She has been cast by history as a manipulator, a gold-digger and a not-very-nice kind of woman. Well history is always written by the victors as we have long known - Richard III's story is evidence of that - and there is nothing to really support that. I feel sad that so much power has been wielded by churches over the centuries, (I'm not the first as Henry VIII shows) because without the censure from the Archbishop of Canterbury maybe some other way could have been found. However, this man loved this woman and made a grand gesture, and we hope, lived happily ever after. It was a huge burden to put on one woman's shoulders but she bore it with dignity to the end of her days. The series was extremely well-done, the acting faultless and the writing most likely very accurate to historical fact. (I did think that some of the furnishings looked a bit shabby). I am British and I remember being told by older family members what a shocking and awful thing Edward/David had done. I don't agree - sometimes you have to do what for you is right, and he did. I admire him for that. Ironically, the late Queen Mother was rumoured to have fancied Edward/David first unsuccessfully; well if she wanted to be queen, then she got her wish. Just shows you should never wish for anything! With the perspective of the 21st century, it's good to see that society has slowly become more accepting and less judgemental. Thoroughly enjoyable to all who enjoy history being brought to life.

theowinthrop There was a time that the abdication of King Edward VIII in December 1936 was considered one of the most romantic and beautiful gestures of modern times. After all, the ruler of the greatest empire in modern time gave it away willingly because he could not rule comfortably without the love and assistance of the woman he loved. It certainly is a beautiful gesture.But the truth was uglier. Frances Donaldson wrote the biography that was the basis of this series, and showed that the good natured Prince of Wales was a lightweight in terms of understanding the key to modern British monarchy - public service comes first. As titular head of the Church of England, Edward had a moral obligation of setting a good example. It was accepted that he (like his grandfather Edward VII) could have a girl friend who might have a current husband, or could not legally marry the ruler. Edward VII understood this. He and Alice Keppel had a close, long standing affair (as he had prior to her with Daisy, Countess of Warwick, Lily Langtry, and others). But he always returned to his wife Alexandra. Edward could not understand this, and instead of keeping the twice divorced Wallis Warfield Simpson as his girlfriend, he decided to marry her. Seventy years later one might see this done - Edward's grandnephew Charles has just married his long time girlfriend Camilla Parker-Bowes. But Charles first wife Diane has been dead seven years. Even now however, many people are disappointed by Charles behavior.What Donaldson brought out was that Edward was too pro-German. He was willing to let bygones be bygones, but he went beyond that by attending meetings with German war veterans. Later he openly was friendly to Nazi leaders like Hitler and Goering. During World War II, although in the Bahamas, he attracted many Nazi supporters there, and he may have botched the investigation into the murder of Sir Harry Oakes because of Nazi involvement.Enter the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin. He was usually involved in normal political matters, but the King's demands to wed Mrs. Simpson brought about a political crisis...one that Baldwin loathed. He was fully sick of the reason for this crisis and he did not like the young monarch, who seemed more attuned to taking long vacations than doing his job as monarch. Baldwin certainly distrusted Edward's liking for Germany and it's regime. So he stage managed (beautifully, by the way) the refusal of most of the leading portions of the Empire/Commonwealth of any marriage. Australia, Canada, both Irelands, India, South Africa all rejected the marriage for moral reasons (New Zealand actually supported the King). He managed to keep the story out of British papers (outside of Britain everyone was aware of it). Then the Archbishop of Canterbury learned of it, and all hell broke loose. Wallis urged her lover to forget the whole matter for the time. Edward refused, and gave away the throne. His brother George would turn out to be a better King, and one not in love with Germany.Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris were very good as Edward and Wallis. David Waller, a British character actor - usually in comedies - played Baldwin as he should be played, as a cagey customer who by getting rid of the King helped the Allied cause immeasurably. Peggy Ashcroft as the Queen is excellent too. If they show it again you should catch it.