The Duke of Windsor

The answer is both yes and no. As a "picture-postcard" portrayal of David the Man it was fairly close to the impression that comes across from verbatim accounts. Visually, however, there was absolutely nothing that remotely resembled the real man and no effort at all was made to replicate his way of speaking.

As for historical facts, well the film doesn't tell any lies but you are not going to get the plain truth in a 2-hour film that isn't even really about Edward Vlll!

It's not a bad film, but it is too superficial, and serious viewers should watch it with an English person who is intelligent enough to amplify and explain what is either shown or omitted.

I'll agree with the answer "Yes and No." There's only so much that can be done in a movie and yes, David was not even the main subject.

That said, I think thoughts of oversimplifying and exaggeration of him and Wallis is because this is told from Bertie and Elizabeth's point of view. The points that Wallis did mock Elizabeth, that Bertie thought surely David would not really abdicate (no monarch in British history or English history had ever done so voluntarily), and felt very much betrayed that David would lie to his own brother about money - that would cause hard feeling in most families, duty to the monarchy and the nation aside. David's intense focus on constantly badgering for money and even more important in his eyes the HRH for Wallis over and above any thoughts of his brother's problems or health or anything else is spot on from eye witnesses' view. Referring to Elizabeth and to Queen Mary as "ice-veined bitches" is true.

I think the portrayal seems like oversimplifying simply because of the time factor. They do make a point that the brothers were close pre-Wallis. And that their relationship changed drastically with the abdication - it would have been very surprising if it hadn't.

This is the first film that really portrays Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson in an almost totally bad light. One has to remember that this film was released after the Queen Mother's death (it's first release in New Zealand was literally days after her death), and that she had requested that no films be made directly about her until she passed on. Specifically, she did not want to go on record, or want her words to go on record, about the abdication crisis until she was gone. I can't blame her.

But this is not so much oversimplication as it is a good deal of information given very quickly. Read Shawcross' biography of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon that was released this year and you'll find a good deal of what's in this film documented, from her own accounts or from those close to her. I had seen this film when it first aired, but on rewatching it now I could see how much this agreed with Shawcross' findings, some of which came from Elizabeth's private letters and diaries.

Of course, there is more to David and Wallis' story that just Elizabeth or Bertie's viewpoint, and that is why I agree that it both is and isn't an accurate representation of them. But I think it is accurate from the royal couple's viewpoint.

'Edward V111: The Plot To Topple A King' is a good documentary to watch. It concerns the Archbishop of Canterbury's determination to make David abdicate because of his devotion to Wallis Simpson. I think it is generally agreed that David was a playboy royal who wasn't really interested in becoming a traditional monarch.