Deficiency in the trouser department

It's now widely known that Edward VIII had an exceedingly small gentlemanly appendage, and Wallis Simpson needed to have an intimate operation to ensure that physical congress was mutually satisfying. But this does not seem to be addressed at all in the film. Indeed, there are scenes of intense passion between the two principals, and Ms Richardson never once laughs, or asks "Is it in yet?"

I'm not suggesting that the late king's lack of man-sausage should be displayed explicitly (I do wonder how this might be done, as I presume Mr Campbell Moore packs a more than adequate punch in the sub-navel department - is there an equivalent of Mark Wahlberg's prosthetic from Boogie Nights, but one that makes the old chap look smaller?) but I think the subject could have been raised discreetly. Perhaps when Ernest Simpson discovered his wife's association with Edward, he could have made a snide gesture with his little finger. Or there could have been some gun symbolism in the grouse-shooting scenes, in a similar manner to the scene between the prodigiously endowed John Ireland and Montgomery Clift (aka Princess Tiny Meat) in Red River (1948).

After all, Edward's later admiration for the Nazis was undoubtedly swayed by the fact that many of the senior figures in the regime were similarly disadvantaged, although in their case it was the veg that was a problem, not the meat. (If I remember correctly, Hitler had only one, Goering and Himmler's were very small, and Goebbels was entirely lacking.)