The duke (small "d" used on purpose) was a pro-German, self-involved, undisciplined cad. At least that's the impression I got from him in my history books.
Yes, but at this point his meetings with Dr Logue had helped with that quite a bit. It apparently wasn't as pronounced as it was made out to be in The King's Speech even to begin with.
Possibly it was decided that having him stammer would detract from the forward progress of the film? And also take away from what the actual plot was? In "The King's Speech" his stammer was THE actual focus . . . . .
The denial of the royal style for the Duchess is the only incorrect move in the whole situation. When the Duke abdicated he wasn't entitled to any titles or styles other than as the son of a king (HRH The Prince Edward). Still, as such his wife was entitled to a courtesy style.
This is her second marriage. Mrs Simpson I believe was finishing her second when she met the king. She didn't take marriage seriously. In those days marrying a woman divorced twice was unusual for anyone.
Two vastly different circumstances! Edward abdicated "for the woman he loved"... In reality, he was pushed out by Stanly Baldwin and others for his incompetence and ultimately double dealing with the Nazis. Meghan Markle became HRH because she married Prince Harry. I believe now, neither are allowed to call themselves with royal titles.
Dreadful dreadful acting , an unable cast , only to be surpassed by the risible and dreadful script , to include the inaccuracies and very poor interpretation/presentation of events . Imo.
:28 "Being King is rather hard work"???? A) You have no power, B) you're a Government Paid employee, C) you live in luxury while most of England is lucky to have the money for a piece of bread a week old. Hard my ass. All you do is go to charity events in $250 million in jewelry. 25,000 pounds a year?!?!?!? LOL cheap ass family. ive seen people work at McDonalds that make THREE times that. 1:36 his left eye is creepy looking. I dont think Wallis earned the right to have HRH. Its her fault they were in that mess to begin with. i dont really see why they use that title anyway. Royal my foot. Elizabeth II is probably more German then English. Hell they had to change her last name so that people wouldnt freak out having a German King as King of England. I sure as hell know that "Manbatten" is nowhere near English. Not to mention that "Saxon-Go-Bath-Boogie" or however you say it. The name "Windsor" didnt even exist until George V made it, yet they have "Windsor Castle" which is apparently 1000yrs older then its name that was invented in the 40s.
@@CidVeldoril -- No, I mean the Roman Catholic Church -- the first and only "true" Christian church. Obviously, neither Wallis nor the King were Catholics. Regardless, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church had the same views about divorce during this period in the 1930s, namely that it was forbidden. Yes, this stands in stark contrast with the antics of Henry VIII -- which is why he was excommunicated.
Silly, silly - Diana could not be "more royal than THE royal. The Spencers are descended from Charles II and James II/VII through illegitimate lines, and several other illustrious European and British noble families. The Queen is descended from the Stuart line as well,through James I/VI'sdaughter, Elizabeth. However, from a genealogical point, it's cool that Diana's marriage to Charles brought those lines back into the royal tree.
I always believed that as the mother of the future king, Diana should have kept her HRH. It makes no sense. Had she lived, she would've been duty bound to curtsy to not only her son's, but their wives and her grandchildren.
For all their faults, the British Establishment and the British Monarchy, even though the Protestant religion was founded to allow a divorce, they did the right things in relation to both Wallis Simpson & Princess Margaret later on, having already got it wrong with George IV (who destroyed the reputation and standing of the Monarchy, repeated by Edward VII and only partially repaired by William IV and Queen Victoria) and when they departed from this, chaos ensued, as every Marraige that Margaret had ended in divorce because of her irresponsible attitudes and hedonism, then Princess Anne, Andrew & Fergie and Charles & Diana - aside from Harry and Meghan (who is another Wallis Simpson) and in allowing Camilla to become Queen, even in allowing Charles to remarry after divorcing Diana, the same seems to be happening with William and Kate’s marriage because of William’s affair with Rose Hanbury and that Charles has a secret (illegitimate) daughter in New York (that we know about - yet) - morally, the Royal Family is on very shaky ground - the monarchy died when Queen Elizabeth died, as she was the only one that was holding the monarchy together since 1952 - today, the Royal Family is nothing but a cheap and tawdry soap opera that repeats the very worst excesses of the Edwardian age and that of the reign of George IV
I imagine,though I am no expert on these matters,that had Simpson been styled HRH & then subsequently divorced Edward,Simpson as a 'commoner',(not of royal lineage),taking a future spouse would not have entitled him to a 'royal title'.The queen removed Diana's HRH upon her divorce from Charles,& whilst Diana was seen as a 'commoner',(again,not of royal lineage),she actually was more royal than the queen,through her lineage dating back to the royal house of Stuart.
JohnPaul Dixon Diana had the HRH for a short while post-divorce. The Queen's decision came after. The only time I can remember a Royal being divorced before George were Victoria Melita of Edinburgh and one of Princess Helena's daughters.
Im no expert either but unless they specifically stripped it from her, she would be entitled to the style HRH upon marrying him anyway... While the HRH can be stripped, it automatically generally goes to anyone who marries an HRH except with morganatic marriages which....isnt common practice in the UK.
@@caligulalonghbottom2629 Morganatic marriages (a Prince marrying a woman who is not a Princess) don't exist in the UK (those were usually seen in countries where the family law dictated who one could marry without losing status). In the UK at the time of Edward's marriage, any royal family member who wished to marry had to have the consent of the monarch. If one married without that consent, the spouse could not take on the titles of the royal partner, and any children born of the union had not succession rights. Example here, from Queen Victoria's uncle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Fairbrother#Mrs_FitzGeorge And another, from the present Queen's cousin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lascelles,_7th_Earl_of_Harewood
Actually, had David's marriage not lasted and Wallis remarried, her next husband would not have been HRH. A wife usually takes her husband's style and title, but it does not work the other way 'round.
this scene was really a disaster. that is certainly not a conversation that was had. They didn't have to give her the HRH they had to strip her of it...upon marrying him,she would automatically be entitled to the title and style unless they made specific decrees to strip her of it, which is very uncommon.
Actually, it is within the Sovereign's prorogative to bestow or withhold a title or style as he or she sees fit. The sovereign is the "Fount of Honour" from which all such honours flow. As the former king whose reign ended by abdication, David's position was without precedent. On the one hand, he was a prince of the blood royal; on the other hand, he was not about to be rewarded for his abdication, nor could he have rightly expected his fiancee/wife to be received with open arms by either the Royal Family or by the Establishment. They did not wish to take any chances (considering scenarios similar to those discussed in the scene), and wanted to send a message to both David and Wallis that there were consequences to the choices they'd made.
By that logic, Edward VIII could have given her a peerage in her own right before abdicating and at the time wouldnt that have also enabled her to sit in the Lords? By that logic he could have made her a princess and given her an HRH prior to their marriage.... so it really doesn't matter. Its all made up anyway. Its petty that they didn't give her the status.
He could have done, but it would have been announced publicly garnering questions from the public about why this woman in the midst of her second divorce was being given a peerage, and would have created a constitutional crisis all the same. None of the party leaders would have supported it and, when word of the affair got out (remember, news of the reason for the crisis was kept entirely out of the British media) the people of the UK would likely have turned on David. It was hoped, right up to the moment he signed the instrument of abdication, that somehow David could be made to see the light.
She does unless she has a higher title than he does, then she can retain it. Princess Margaret was still referred to as Princess Margaret in her titles because her husband's rank of Earl was lower than hers. However, Wallis probably would not have been allowed to keep the title Duchess of Windsor because it came from being married to the Duke of Windsor.
Hence remove tiles from (modern day) H and M. Megan and Wallis notorious similar personalities, of which, as an American, I am embarrass to admit. Also this was an interesting and informative movie. Very much enjoyed watching it on Tubi.
I have a great disdain for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, but Elizabeth is insufferable here. King George and Queen Elizabeth, in this scene, getting rather serious on such a tiresome matter would be amusing if it were not so very stupid. Oh, the handwringing! I say this as an admirer of the current monarch, HM QE2 . You peons are over-obsessed with archaic royal protocol.
Edward VIII was a PATHETIC Man Child who betrayed his family, turned his back on his duty and dishonoured his country! The Queen Mother was a Tower of Strength not only for The King or The Royal Family, but for the whole Empire and Commonwealth!
This scene illustrates a typical conversation in my home.
The duke (small "d" used on purpose) was a pro-German, self-involved, undisciplined cad. At least that's the impression I got from him in my history books.
Didn't Bertie York (now HM the King George VI ) stammer in his speech?
Yes, but at this point his meetings with Dr Logue had helped with that quite a bit. It apparently wasn't as pronounced as it was made out to be in The King's Speech even to begin with.
Yes. His ignorant bully of a father had so mistreated him and his brothers, that such a result was inevitable.
Possibly it was decided that having him stammer would detract from the forward progress of the film? And also take away from what the actual plot was? In "The King's Speech" his stammer was THE actual focus . . . . .
@@mortner3669 Also he didnt stammer when he was angry, dealing with his brother and Wallis made him very angry.
I love this story and the actors are brilliant
Given the complete circus the royal family was to become, these guys needn't have bothered.
"You can't sit with us,"
The denial of the royal style for the Duchess is the only incorrect move in the whole situation. When the Duke abdicated he wasn't entitled to any titles or styles other than as the son of a king (HRH The Prince Edward). Still, as such his wife was entitled to a courtesy style.
Exactly, she was. It was not going to hurt any one of them to allow Wallis the HRH status she was entitled to as Edward's wife.
That never happened. Could'nt have. George VI was not stupid. He very well knew that the Duchess of Windsor couldn't pass her HRH to a fourth husband.
Why I suddenly remember harry n meghan...what meghan wants, meghan gets...end up by stepback
What movie is this???
Bertie & Elizabeth
Is this movie worth watching?
Is this skinny actress supposed to be the Queen Mother lolzys.....
👑👜H.R.H. •HOMER SIMPSON•😅😅😅
LOL! Odair Jose Inacio. Homer actually thought it stood for Henrietta R Hippo 🦛 LOL!
anyone knows where we can watch this full? thank you!
What’s the name of the movei ?
Bertie and Elizabeth
Yeah,& my comment was posted TWO years ago! DO move on.
Shame they gave the HRH title to Megahan
This is her second marriage. Mrs Simpson I believe was finishing her second when she met the king. She didn't take marriage seriously. In those days marrying a woman divorced twice was unusual for anyone.
Two vastly different circumstances! Edward abdicated "for the woman he loved"... In reality, he was pushed out by Stanly Baldwin and others for his incompetence and ultimately double dealing with the Nazis. Meghan Markle became HRH because she married Prince Harry. I believe now, neither are allowed to call themselves with royal titles.
Who cares, these people are all in bred
Meghan was not "given" the HRH. She has that by virtue of her marriage.
Meghan was not somebody else's wife. There's nothing wrong with their marriage syatus
Bertie speaks like he's always constipated
He had a stammer
Dreadful dreadful acting , an unable cast , only to be surpassed by the risible and dreadful script , to include the inaccuracies and very poor interpretation/presentation of events . Imo.
:28 "Being King is rather hard work"???? A) You have no power, B) you're a Government Paid employee, C) you live in luxury while most of England is lucky to have the money for a piece of bread a week old. Hard my ass. All you do is go to charity events in $250 million in jewelry. 25,000 pounds a year?!?!?!? LOL cheap ass family. ive seen people work at McDonalds that make THREE times that. 1:36 his left eye is creepy looking. I dont think Wallis earned the right to have HRH. Its her fault they were in that mess to begin with. i dont really see why they use that title anyway. Royal my foot. Elizabeth II is probably more German then English. Hell they had to change her last name so that people wouldnt freak out having a German King as King of England. I sure as hell know that "Manbatten" is nowhere near English. Not to mention that "Saxon-Go-Bath-Boogie" or however you say it. The name "Windsor" didnt even exist until George V made it, yet they have "Windsor Castle" which is apparently 1000yrs older then its name that was invented in the 40s.
Ask yourself what would happen to a carrousel if it lost its pivot column.
Bertie and Elizabeth did not treat David and Wallis fairly. They cheapened the monarchy!
No, David and Wallis "cheapened" the monarchy and violated the teachings of the Church.
You're correct. 'David' and Wallis cheapened the monarchy.
Moron. Edward and that woman were Nazi sympathisers.
@@markmh835 Do you mean the Church Henry made up so he could get divorced and remarry?
@@CidVeldoril -- No, I mean the Roman Catholic Church -- the first and only "true" Christian church. Obviously, neither Wallis nor the King were Catholics. Regardless, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church had the same views about divorce during this period in the 1930s, namely that it was forbidden. Yes, this stands in stark contrast with the antics of Henry VIII -- which is why he was excommunicated.
Bertie was more of a man van David with ever be and more of a king
Absolutely right.
Silly, silly - Diana could not be "more royal than THE royal. The Spencers are descended from Charles II and James II/VII through illegitimate lines, and several other illustrious European and British noble families. The Queen is descended from the Stuart line as well,through James I/VI'sdaughter, Elizabeth. However, from a genealogical point, it's cool that Diana's marriage to Charles brought those lines back into the royal tree.
RevWarRev same went to Queen Mom who is descendant of Katherine Grey, granddaughter of Mary Tudor Queen of France!
Marsilla Dewi Baruch oooo
Marsilla Dewi Baruch I thought she was from an ancient Scottish family
I always believed that as the mother of the future king, Diana should have kept her HRH. It makes no sense. Had she lived, she would've been duty bound to curtsy to not only her son's, but their wives and her grandchildren.
@@marsilladewibaruch7097 The Queen Mother was also descended from Robert II of Scotland (pre-union).
The corgis are connected to the royal family in an iconic way
A royal family Bertie
Incredible that british TV movie
Bertie's thoughts: David needs and going to get his wig split...by me
For all their faults, the British Establishment and the British Monarchy, even though the Protestant religion was founded to allow a divorce, they did the right things in relation to both Wallis Simpson & Princess Margaret later on, having already got it wrong with George IV (who destroyed the reputation and standing of the Monarchy, repeated by Edward VII and only partially repaired by William IV and Queen Victoria) and when they departed from this, chaos ensued, as every Marraige that Margaret had ended in divorce because of her irresponsible attitudes and hedonism, then Princess Anne, Andrew & Fergie and Charles & Diana - aside from Harry and Meghan (who is another Wallis Simpson) and in allowing Camilla to become Queen, even in allowing Charles to remarry after divorcing Diana, the same seems to be happening with William and Kate’s marriage because of William’s affair with Rose Hanbury and that Charles has a secret (illegitimate) daughter in New York (that we know about - yet) - morally, the Royal Family is on very shaky ground - the monarchy died when Queen Elizabeth died, as she was the only one that was holding the monarchy together since 1952 - today, the Royal Family is nothing but a cheap and tawdry soap opera that repeats the very worst excesses of the Edwardian age and that of the reign of George IV
It's Windsor, not Windors.
Duke of "Windors", eh? A mixture, maybe, of windows and doors...
Is the queen Cersei Lannister? The face isn't right, but for a second her voice was spot on.
No, that was Juliet Aubrey.
This Queen mum is too thin. Wasn't the real Queen mum chubby? And bitter towards her brother in law.
Elizabeth Bowes Lyons was a fairly slender woman in her youth. But she did gain weight as she aged.
I imagine,though I am no expert on these matters,that had Simpson been styled HRH & then subsequently divorced Edward,Simpson as a 'commoner',(not of royal lineage),taking a future spouse would not have entitled him to a 'royal title'.The queen removed Diana's HRH upon her divorce from Charles,& whilst Diana was seen as a 'commoner',(again,not of royal lineage),she actually was more royal than the queen,through her lineage dating back to the royal house of Stuart.
JohnPaul Dixon Diana had the HRH for a short while post-divorce. The Queen's decision came after. The only time I can remember a Royal being divorced before George were Victoria Melita of Edinburgh and one of Princess Helena's daughters.
Im no expert either but unless they specifically stripped it from her, she would be entitled to the style HRH upon marrying him anyway... While the HRH can be stripped, it automatically generally goes to anyone who marries an HRH except with morganatic marriages which....isnt common practice in the UK.
@@caligulalonghbottom2629 Morganatic marriages (a Prince marrying a woman who is not a Princess) don't exist in the UK (those were usually seen in countries where the family law dictated who one could marry without losing status).
In the UK at the time of Edward's marriage, any royal family member who wished to marry had to have the consent of the monarch. If one married without that consent, the spouse could not take on the titles of the royal partner, and any children born of the union had not succession rights.
Example here, from Queen Victoria's uncle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Fairbrother#Mrs_FitzGeorge
And another, from the present Queen's cousin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lascelles,_7th_Earl_of_Harewood
Perhaps not, but that would not stop them from doing it.
Actually, had David's marriage not lasted and Wallis remarried, her next husband would not have been HRH. A wife usually takes her husband's style and title, but it does not work the other way 'round.
this scene was really a disaster. that is certainly not a conversation that was had. They didn't have to give her the HRH they had to strip her of it...upon marrying him,she would automatically be entitled to the title and style unless they made specific decrees to strip her of it, which is very uncommon.
Actually, it is within the Sovereign's prorogative to bestow or withhold a title or style as he or she sees fit. The sovereign is the "Fount of Honour" from which all such honours flow. As the former king whose reign ended by abdication, David's position was without precedent. On the one hand, he was a prince of the blood royal; on the other hand, he was not about to be rewarded for his abdication, nor could he have rightly expected his fiancee/wife to be received with open arms by either the Royal Family or by the Establishment. They did not wish to take any chances (considering scenarios similar to those discussed in the scene), and wanted to send a message to both David and Wallis that there were consequences to the choices they'd made.
By that logic, Edward VIII could have given her a peerage in her own right before abdicating and at the time wouldnt that have also enabled her to sit in the Lords? By that logic he could have made her a princess and given her an HRH prior to their marriage.... so it really doesn't matter. Its all made up anyway. Its petty that they didn't give her the status.
He could have done, but it would have been announced publicly garnering questions from the public about why this woman in the midst of her second divorce was being given a peerage, and would have created a constitutional crisis all the same. None of the party leaders would have supported it and, when word of the affair got out (remember, news of the reason for the crisis was kept entirely out of the British media) the people of the UK would likely have turned on David. It was hoped, right up to the moment he signed the instrument of abdication, that somehow David could be made to see the light.
She does unless she has a higher title than he does, then she can retain it. Princess Margaret was still referred to as Princess Margaret in her titles because her husband's rank of Earl was lower than hers. However, Wallis probably would not have been allowed to keep the title Duchess of Windsor because it came from being married to the Duke of Windsor.
Hence remove tiles from (modern day) H and M. Megan and Wallis notorious similar personalities, of which, as an American, I am embarrass to admit.
Also this was an interesting and informative movie. Very much enjoyed watching it on Tubi.
Oh please.
A shame the acting is so bad. The guy who plays the king can't act to save is life.
History repeats itself with a certain American thinking she can tell our royal family what to do
People Republic UK end of this shit
A People's Republic of the United KINGDOM. You really haven't thought this through have you.
I have a great disdain for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, but Elizabeth is insufferable here. King George and Queen Elizabeth, in this scene, getting rather serious on such a tiresome matter would be amusing if it were not so very stupid. Oh, the handwringing! I say this as an admirer of the current monarch, HM QE2 . You peons are over-obsessed with archaic royal protocol.
The trouble was Elizabeth. She was a real witch
Edward VIII was a PATHETIC Man Child who betrayed his family, turned his back on his duty and dishonoured his country! The Queen Mother was a Tower of Strength not only for The King or The Royal Family, but for the whole Empire and Commonwealth!
Didn't Edward and Simpson get caught red handed being chummy with and visiting Hitler? That's not even mentioning some of Edwards yikes racial views