User Reviews

Viewers with an interest in British history might wish to note that since the first Hanoverian came to the British throne (George I in 1714) it has been occupied by dimwits. These dimwits have fallen into two classes – those like Victoria, George V, George VI and the present incumbent, who saw themselves as the slaves of duty and therefore as ceremonial heads of state did little or no harm, and those like George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII who kicked over the traces, but did less damage than one might have expected. The 1936 abdication crisis was a crisis only for those who believe in monarchy, in this country a minority of about 25%, according to the 1999 Republic referendum. The story has been told several times before on TV – is there anything new about this 2005 ITV version, apart from the Baltic locations?.

Well, the publicity says there's more of Wallis's side of the story here, but I can't say that's obvious, apart from there being a bit more of Wallis' Aunt Bessie (Miriam Margolyes). Edward is portrayed as the seducer (in a candlelight chalet in winter) but Wallis (nicely played by Joely Richardson) doesn't exactly play hard to get. She had rivals for the post of prince's mistress (Lady Furness and Mrs Ward) whom she easily defeats. At the end she was left with the baby, or at least the immature prince, a duchess without honour exiled to France. Stephen Campbell Moore is about 10 years too young for Edward but his puppy-like demeanour is appropriate. The triviality of the Windsors is shown by the fact that it wasn't the loss of the Crown that irked them so much as the establishment's refusal to give Wallis the title "Her Royal Highness". Diana, of course, had exactly the same beef, but then she was demoted on her divorce. Camilla (for the moment) is a mere duchess, but is also "HRH". Winston Churchill, robustly played here by David Calder, was a principal supporter of Edward just because he was a prince, but then Winston was a rather romantic old Tory.

Nazi sympathies were not uncommon in the British upper classes prior to World War 2 ("those Nazi chappies certainly know how to make the trains run on time") but if an invasion of Britain by Germany had been successful (and it was a close–run thing), Edward, given his sympathies would have been the front-runner for puppet King. Edward was an undistinguished governor of the Bahamas between 1940 and 1945 but the main reason for that appointment was to keep him out of the reach of the Nazis. (Down under we got his younger brother, Prince Henry, who was even dumber than Edward, as GG (1942-1945), but a bit better behaved). After that he and Wallis spent the remaining 27 years of their marriage in very comfortable and well-deserved obscurity in Paris. One is left with the feeling we got lucky.

This production has a nice sheen to it and the 30s' era is well evoked. There are some other good performances, particularly 80 year old veteran Richard Johnston as Wallis' nemesis, prime minister Baldwin, and Julian Wadham as Edward's not exactly loyal private secretary Fitzhardinge.

This would have been OK if only they had chosen a more suitable actor for Edward. Stephen Campbell Moore is 14 years too young for the role of Edward as he was in 1936. He comes across as the nice boy next door who made everyone proud by winning a scholarship. He does not seem at all like a playboy prince of doubtful brainpower. Campbell Moore's Edward would have been intelligent and dutiful and would never have given up the throne for an American divorcée. This comes over very strongly in the scene where his father, George V, tells him "You disgust me". Not even the most crusty old Victorian could have said that to clean-cut Campbell Moore.

Ms Richardson is good as Wallis, except that she is rather better looking than the original.

Actually, I preferred the old version with Edward Fox and Cynthia Harris.

Unfortunately, the show contains quite a few inaccuracies: Ernest Simpson is portrayed as an American; he was English; the Simpsons' friend Mary was used in the film as the adultery partner for the divorce when it was simply a woman hired for the occasion, Edward is referred to as 'the king' before he was the king, Mrs. Simpson and the king are shown together after her divorce decree nisi was granted when in fact she left the country immediately as any hint of collusion with Edward might have meant the decree would not be granted. Aunt Bessie says 'He might have done' when as an American she would have said "He might have" .... the list goes on. I think filmmakers have a responsibility if they take on a historical drama when the facts are well know, to get it right.

It is impossible to fault this made for TV film - the principals make an attractive couple; the period is well evoked; the settings are suitably glamorous and the supporting cast is particularly strong.

There is a deft touch running throughout: the abdication crisis could have been played in a grinding and maudlin manner but it is handled summarily and almost underplayed.

What particularly convinced was the abdication speech, in the context of the film this "historic given" rang absolutely true. Quite an achievement.

However, it is still a made for TV biopic - the historic characters are necessarily painted a little bland and it is inescapably "light entertainment". There is much humour and subtle-digging at the royal family - but not without affection. Altogether, this film is far better than one could have reasonably expected and far more enjoyable too.

There is some hint towards the end of the narrative, of the sadness of the life of exile that the Windsors led, but that is a whole other movie. There are clear resonances in the movie of Camilla and Charles - I think this is deliberate for the contemporary audience but not overstated. Some of the historical context was a revelation: Churchill considered forming a King's party to champion the cause of Edward and Mrs. Simpson i.e. by no means was the whole county in favour of abdication.

When all is said and done, the story is a real life tragedy out of the Shakespearian mold, and one worthy of the retelling. My mother was at a girls' school at the time - and the whole class listened to the abdication speech in tears. The hold of the story at the time was intense as that other Shakespearian tragedy in our times of Diana.

Okay but very compressed version of the story of the events surrounding Edward VIII's abdication. Joely Richardson and Stephen Campbell Moore are adequate - she capturing some of the allure, and he showing the petulance and self centred nature of Edward. However some otehr characters are more caricatures. Appears to be filmed in northern America - some scenes rather unrealistic. The script shows a lack of knowledge in the writers, eg no idea of Parliamentary procedure and a reference to the KGB, a name which did not yet exist (it was the NKVD at the time). Also does not fully explain why the Church's role was crucial.

As a fan of the Monarchy and everything Royal I was really happy with this wonderful presentation of the Monarchy during this slightly difficult and emotional time. It was wonderful to see the ex-King presented in such an emotional way. There was love in that actor's eye, and to act in such a wonderful way is a true asset to any productions cast.

Wallis Simpson is your classic American character. I'm sure she wasn't like this back in the day... a boisterous, bossy and rather annoying woman, slowly becoming a reasonably acceptable character portraying someone who really was stuck in the middle.

All in all, I think this is a very good 'made-for-TV' presentation and I'd recommend it for anyone's 'Royal Viewing Schedule'.

Yet another Mills & Boon type foray into the unfortunate love affair between the "traitor king" (Edward VIII...David to the family) and his American paramour, but this one was all a bit one-sided and wishy-washy.

Wallis Simpson was a woman of questionable character and a chequered past. The suggestion bandied about that she had been a whore in a Chinese brothel, was I'm sure pure fiction, but the feeling that (as quoted in the film) "there's no smoke without fire", gave impetus to the general consensus of the day (although there was a certain popular sympathy with Edward's predicament), that the woman of his choice should not become queen.

Although obviously not as black as the media of the time painted her, she was certainly a woman of the world, and I don't believe for a moment that she hadn't really got designs on becoming Edward's consort. If she had known at the outset that she would never become queen, I doubt if the romance would ever have gone the distance. As it was, and I suppose to her credit, the future marriage (if not the passion) did last, but she lived it in disappointment and disillusionment, and after him giving up everything and bringing the whole British Empire into turmoil, probably felt she couldn't leave him. Anyway, she may not be a king's consort, but she had gained a certain status, and wealth. And who knows...? But as everyone does know, the fairy tale turned into a pointless, roundabout existence, including a hopeful collusion with the Nazis, (in particular von Ribbentrop, a close friend of Mrs Simpson) who wanted to put Edward back on the throne as a puppet king to prevent any interference from Britain to Hitler's nasty little designs in Europe. I wonder how world history would have changed had the plan succeeded.

There is no doubt that Edward and Wallis were sympathetic to this aim, and even before their marriage they both had friends in, and an admiration for, the Nazi regime, and he especially for everything German.

Given Winston's anti-Nazi views, Churchill surprisingly had supported the intended nuptials, but maybe as he was still in his "wilderness years" at the time, could have had his own agenda in mind. However, the bulk of the British Establishment must have been extremely jittery.

Apart from the actual Constitutional crisis, which of course was the primary concern, I believe this underlying factor was one of the unsaid objections to the marriage, and why the couple were eventually exiled to far off domains. Objections due to Wallis's background, her divorces, her foreign nationalism etc., were valid, but could have been overcome (unless she was a Roman Catholic, which she wasn't) and let's face it, the British royal families have been dealing with situations like that for centuries. But in view of increased European tensions and possible and impending hostilities, a potential Nazi collaborator on the throne could have been a little awkward to say the least. That Edward was besotted with the influential Wallis is well recorded and being a puppet on a woman's string is one thing, but to be the puppet of a psychotic dictator is quite another. So in hindsight, the abdication was perhaps a blessing in disguise.

Of course, none of the treacherous and treasonable qualities of "Romeo" Windsor and "Juliet" Simpson were shown to any great extent in this somewhat insipid and inferior re-telling of "Edward & Mrs Simpson", and why it was ever made is beyond me, but if you're a fan of the likes of "Brief Encounter" or Barbara Cartland, you'll probably love it. And I suppose it might just encourage the modern generation to delve into the history books.

The dialogue was slow and laboured at times and was only dragged along by the experience of an impressive cast, of which the acting honours have to go to Margaret Tysack as Queen Mary, the veteran Richard Johnson as Stanley Baldwin, and the ever excellent David Calder as a refreshingly look-alike Churchill.

Apparently the main attribute of Wallis Simpson was not so much her beauty, but her charm. Sad to say an irritating Joely Richardson exuded no charm whatsoever, nor for that matter, very many of her acting skills either, and her terribly contrived American accent grated on the nerves. (Why couldn't an American have been awarded the part? Seems logical to me.) Stephen Campbell Moore as the love-lorn and beleaguered prince looked so wooden and listless throughout most of the proceedings, that I wasn't sure he'd even make it to the abdication, let alone the wedding. However, he livened up a bit towards the end.

When I saw the preview on this production and its subject matter, I thought "Oh Lord, not again", but then considered that maybe it would shed a different light on the events. It didn't. Nevertheless I struggled gamely through it, but overall the boredom of this over-trodden story was only relieved by the commercial breaks, and of course it's conclusion.

I hope this is the end, for surely enough has been sung of the whole dismal song, about this sorry little Merryman and his Maid. As it happened Edward was not really missed. King George VI (Bertie to the family), unlike Edward, was loved by everyone, and without him we wouldn't have had the present queen.

I must conclude by saying that my father used to proudly wear a "Windsor" knot in his necktie. From the day of Edward's abdication he never wore that style of knot again, and his subsequent comments on the real Wallis and Edward are unrepeatable.

NB. Eduncan-1 is misinformed. Ernest Simpson was American-born, naturalised-British, but certainly not English. Eduncan-1 should also get his facts right.

This story of a ruptured line of monarchs seems like a very touching love story where the woman is portrayed as a sacrificing and sincere partner. However, most historical material speaks of a different Wallis Simpson--one who was eternally ambitious and actually never recovered from her inability to serve as Queen. In fact, in her own words, "You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance." They did not have the eternal love-flame of romance and it is believed that tolerance on both their parts was a key element in the marriage. History and reality aside, the movie presented a decent story line on its face. Wallis Simpson was no innocent flower. Edward may or may not have regretted his abdication--even to himself--but he became known more for suspected Nazi sympathizing during World War II than any other cause of noble intention. What is probably the best result of the royal mess is that the many interpretations of the love affair and marriage became a magnet for rich and poor alike.

One can only describe this rubbish as, well rubbish, the writer must have been a relative of Mrs. Simpson to write this drama in such a fashion. I note the decimation of Balomoral Castle was omitted, it would have been called sacking in days of old, but she cleaned out a few rooms, mind you stripping rooms was mild by her other favourite hobby, jewel collecting. Then we have them doing what could be called a state visit to the Nazi party, I thought only the head of state carried out official state visits, and what about the deal they both did with Hitler to put him on the throne as king and her as Queen is Hitler had invaded Britain. What about them dining with Nazis in Portugal while the British Government were trying to get them away from possible Nazi capture, they tried every way possible to get captured. Then we have them as governor of the Bahamas during the war, and hating every day of the post, because the residence was not big enough for their needs, and not enough servants allocated. This was pure and simply a load of rubbish, if the author had went for the truth instead of complete fiction, it might have made it even slightly less boring, but I decided to watch to the end, oh how I wish I'd turned it off after the credits at the start It was an exercise in nothing, as it was no where near to the truth, the only part that was remotely truthful was the abdication speech, well done to the author for that.

I was disappointed in this film and pleased that I rented it before I bought it. I caught the goof where Winston Churchill addresses the Prince of Wales as "Your Majesty" at the Jubilee ball, which for me was a red flag that the writers were not familiar with royal protocol and therefore probably anti-Roaylists. I was also disappointed when the investigations into Wallis Simpson were discussed (it was appropriate to investigate her past if she was the lover of the Prince of Wales) that at that point, nor anywhere else in the film, did they bring up the pro-Nazi connections between Wallis Simpson and the German elite. This is not speculation but historical fact: I have seen the photographs of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as state guests in Germany greeted by Nazi elite. The rest may be rumor, but this was not and it was absent. Rather than portray Wallis Simpson as a social climbing adulteress, they portray her as a loving wife introduced to the Court of St. James by her husband and wooed by the Prince of Wales. No explanation is given why a Baltimore businessman would be a guest at a royal function. However, when Wallis accepts an invitation to spend a quiet weekend alone with the Prince of Wales, she willingly enters what is obviously a set up for seduction. Then later in the film, she is portrayed as shocked when her husband confesses a long time affair and asks for a divorce. Later,Edward defends her in her two divorces as being the victim. How is a woman who has committed adultery the victim in a divorce ending a wedding of convenience as hinted at several times in the script? This was not an unbiased film portraying the facts of the Wallis Simpson affair, but a romanticized fiction of a true love story of two people (although both are committing adultery as a man courting a married woman). If "The King's Speech" is a better researched, historically more accurate film, then Edward was an irresponsible, self centered, self indulgent man with little respect for the institution of the royal family. In "Wallis and Simpson", Edward is portrayed as a kind, loving, honest man who wanted to modernize the institution of monarchy. I can not believe that one is fiction and the other accurate while at the same time that the true character of Edward lay somewhere in between. Even if you feel that "The King's Speech" was unfair to Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, they were both guilty of adultery and by law Edward VIII could not marry Wallis Simpson and be king. Yet, the script of this film misleads us into thinking that Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mother) were cold and calculating in trying to separate Edward VIII from the love of his life. When Edward tells Wallis that she is the Duchess of Windsor, but not an HRH, Wallis makes a quip that she is sure that Queen Mary and Elizabeth had something to do with it. How would an American divorcée married to the former king be entitled to the the title HRH? Princess Diana lost this formal address when she and Charles divorced, though she remained Princess Diana, the Princess of Wales. In all, there were so many of these omissions, errors and glosses over character flaws that I believe that the writers wanted a love story with a sad ending rather than a historical film depicting the affair that brought Britain to crisis in 1936. My final opinion that this made for television Canadian film is what is seems: a soap opera love story and not a historical film. I will stick to "The King's Speech" as a historical, researched film depicting the Wallis Simpson affair and the abdication of Edward VIII to marry a woman that British law precluded as acceptable wife for the king.