History Talk: The Victorian Era

[Notwisconsin]

It looks like the next episode will have something to do with the fall of Peel. I do wish that they might have a cameo of the very young Gladstone, who was a junior minister in Peel's cabinet. Gladstone and Victoria famously despised each other, A meeting with Disraeli might be fun as well.....

[iMonrey]

Quote

Also, Ernst married in 1842 and became the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in January 1844 upon his and Albert's father's death.

It's becoming rather ridiculous the way Ernst keeps tagging along with Victoria and Albert wherever they go week after week. I understand the show wants to utilize David Oakes as much as possible but doesn't this guy have anything better to do than spent every waking moment with his brother and sister-in-law? He's the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, surely he's got responsibilities at home. 

[kwnyc]

I also wondered who is doing the day-to-day running of the kingdom. Did Ernst have faithful family retainers? Did Uncle Leopold have his people do it? From actual historical fact, Albert and Ernst were very close. And they are portrayed as being each other's best friend, which is nice. Though later, of course, after Albert's death, Ernst did not behave well toward Victoria. reading that linked article about syphilis, you wonder if tertiary syphilis affected his personality and behavior.

[Razzberry]

The Queen also turned up at a commoner's house in Mrs. Brown, and had a most agreeable time.   Using the same plot device was disappointing, but the scenery is lovely.

 

 

14 hours ago, dorcastrilling said:

My maternal side also came from Roscommon

Sláinte mhaith!

[magdalene]

Wasn't Peel the one who founded Scotland Yard in a roundabout way?

I don't care how contrived Ernst's appearances are on the show. I am really enjoying David Oakes here. It's clear that show Ernst just doesn't want to be at home.

Edited February 12, 2018 by magdalene

[CarpeDiem54]

1 hour ago, magdalene said:

Wasn't Peel the one who founded Scotland Yard in a roundabout way?

Yes, Peel founded the police department.

[Anothermi]

39 minutes ago, CarpeDiem54 said:

Yes, Peel founded the police department.

Yes, and that's where the term "Bobby" came from.  Robert (Bobby) Peel.

"1835-45; special use of Bobby, for Sir Robert Peel, who set up the Metropolitan Police system of London in 1828"    (from Dictionary.com)

Edited February 13, 2018 by Anothermi

[Calvada]

In the episode about the Irish Famine, Victoria gives that emotional speech while holding baby Alice.  Alice was born in 1843 and the Famine began in 1845.  She would have been at least 3 when Victoria and others were being told what was happening in Ireland.  I've no idea why they decided to forsake historical accuracy to such an extent.  

I also am puzzled at the warm welcome Victoria gives Ernst.  I thought she did not care for him.  

[elle]

2 hours ago, Calvada said:

In the episode about the Irish Famine, Victoria gives that emotional speech while holding baby Alice.  Alice was born in 1843 and the Famine began in 1845.  She would have been at least 3 when Victoria and others were being told what was happening in Ireland.  I've no idea why they decided to forsake historical accuracy to such an extent.  

Neither do I.  I understand the need for creative license, but messing around with established dates so easily researched is taking away the enjoyment of this series for me.

Someone mentioned worrying about Lehzen in the next episode.  She was pensioned off in 1842 well before Princess Alice was born.  It is another case of forsaking accuracy for story.

Quote

I also am puzzled at the warm welcome Victoria gives Ernst.  I thought she did not care for him.

From what I've read, she loved him for Albert's sake.  Both Victoria and Albert had their problems with Ernst' lifestyle and interference.  He was strongly against Bertie's marriage to Princess Alexandra.  The relationship between Victoria and Ernst really deteriorated after Albert's death.

Edited February 13, 2018 by elle

[Kohola3]

8 hours ago, elle said:

10 hours ago, Calvada said:

In the episode about the Irish Famine, Victoria gives that emotional speech while holding baby Alice.  Alice was born in 1843 and the Famine began in 1845.  She would have been at least 3 when Victoria and others were being told what was happening in Ireland.  I've no idea why they decided to forsake historical accuracy to such an extent.  

Neither do I.  I understand the need for creative license, but messing around with established dates so easily researched is taking away the enjoyment of this series for me.

Precisely why I don't look anything up - I enjoy it for the fairy tale and that's about it.  I can read books with historically accurate facts.

[Driad]

Victorian Valentine cards were not necessarily affectionate.  Vinegar Valentines

[Evil Queen]

On 2/12/2018 at 8:55 PM, elle said:

Neither do I.  I understand the need for creative license, but messing around with established dates so easily researched is taking away the enjoyment of this series for me.

Someone mentioned worrying about Lehzen in the next episode.  She was pensioned off in 1842 well before Princess Alice was born.  It is another case of forsaking accuracy for story.

From what I've read, she loved him for Albert's sake.  Both Victoria and Albert had their problems with Ernst' lifestyle and interference.  He was strongly against Bertie's marriage to Princess Alexandra.  The relationship between Victoria and Ernst really deteriorated after Albert's death.

While I get it as well, it does bug me too when its twisted and turned in such ways that its far from even being close to what it was like. I had major issues with the famine episode as it is. But then toss in some other things that have been mentioned as well and it just adds up to wondering if anything was even researched enough or did they just not care? I am one that I watch things like this and I have to look up on what is truth or not if I am not sure. I knew about the Irish famine because of family and I knew what the truth on things was there so it bugged me. One hand its great to see this mentioned and not skipped over. On the other hand it should have been handled right. Don't lie on who did what in that situation. Its a bit of a disrespect IMO. This is when the show for me now started taking the turn where the enjoyment of it is leaving. I get wanting to add the "romance" side to it at times even if its fake but dates and who handled what and how shouldn't be twisted so much so it has strayed far from the real history. I don't mind a few odds and off things in these kind of shows but stray to far from truth and I start to lose interest. 

 

On 2/8/2018 at 6:00 PM, Razzberry said:

My maternal grandmother immigrated solo from County Roscommon to Boston when she was 18, but well past the famine.  Sunday's episode had me going through her old photos and mementos. 

I think religious conversion was desired by both sides, though their methods were probably less than productive.

 

Seems grandma was a bit of a rebel as well.

 

I love the Irish half in my family deeply, and there was never a dull moment growing up, but can't deny they ticked all the stereotypical boxes.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, a ton of baggage, a lot of liquor, and could hold a grudge til doomsday.  ;-)

My Great, Great Grandparents were born at the beginning of the famine. Didn't come to America until well after that time passed. First GG Grandfather came to set up his shoe making business in Missouri and then sent for his wife to be to join him later on. They got married not to long after she arrived her. Supposedly they came from County Tyrone but I know she was born or at least baptized (found the record) in County Tipperary and her parents marriage record there. I have one Great Aunt alive that I have no clue if she has stories about them or not. It would be nice to have but for some reason I am not given a way to talk to her and her family.  I do know that from doing my genealogy I have come across some 2nd cousins and such from the Scottish side and talking to them have come to learn that most that family was typical when it came to liquor. LOL I will say that the holding a grudge til doomsday so very much how I am. Don't cross me or that is it. LOL Thank you for sharing the papers you had from her. Its great history to keep passing down to each generation. 

[Kohola3]

I think that you can view this as a documentary or a fantasy.  If you are looking for factual representation, then this is not the show for you.  The scripts are all written, the episodes are filmed and if the expectation is that there will be a change in the path taken to make this into a documentary, then people will be disappointed. Either look at is as a fantasy and forget the facts or don't watch and get upset.  Just my opinion.

[elle]

On 2/15/2018 at 4:40 PM, Anothermi said:

The PBS website puts up background info on this (and other) series. Here is a link to a podcast interview with Daisy Goodwin on that very question!

That link lead me to this link where this quote is found.  I won't annoy all of you with my rant other than to say the real Harriet deserves better treatment as she was far more interesting than some contrived plot device.  It is really sad that the life of Victoria herself was not enough for a series.

FACT OR FICTION: HARRIET SUTHERLAND’S HUSBAND DIED FROM A HUNTING ACCIDENT.

Daisy: Well I’m afraid that’s fiction again. But in order to to show in order to illustrate Ernest’s dilemma I had to put Harriet in a position where she would be able to marry him, because otherwise it would be too complicated. But I thought this would be a way of illustrating it and also of course I wanted her to feel guilty because she felt responsible for her husband’s accident. In reality, they were very happily married and lived very happily at Clifton in Royal Barkshire.

Quote

I think that you can view this as a documentary or a fantasy.

This show is not being presented as a fantasy or did I miss the standard disclaimer of "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental"?  History can be fictionalized without resorting to ignoring facts.  Did Victoria have a crush on Melbourne?  Maybe.  Did Harriet's husband die in 1843? No.  If the author wished to expand the Ernst character then a fictional lady in waiting could be invented to show whatever it is she wanted to show.  Why use a real life person?  

Part of my frustration is that Harriet is such an interesting person.  The Duchess helped organize the "Stafford House Address" petition against slavery, this could have been used to show Victoria's views on slavery as well as the American Civil War.  She had 11 children, she would have been pregnant about the same time as Victoria.  Her husband died in 1861 about 10 months before Albert died.  She would have been a recent widow herself when Victoria was widowed.  So many missed opportunities for story telling.

Edited February 17, 2018 by elle

[CarpeDiem54]

@elle - I'd like to ? your post 100 times!

If they want show Ernst having a romantic interest, with accompanying moral angst with a lady of the court, make her a fictional character.  Don't besmirch Harriet, who sounds like a very interesting and lovely woman.

Daisy Goodwin sounds like something of a dingbat in those interviews.

[Anothermi]

While I am enjoying this show, and I appreciate viewing it through the lens of discussions on-line and that Ms Goodwin is going on record of what she has fictionalized (altered), I agree with the concern expressed by some about the deliberate falsification of the real history.

Only a small percentage of viewers put extra effort into their viewing (discussing with others, researching), but most viewers still form opinions about real historical people and events based on the fictionalized representations. It's a human weakness. It becomes a memory of something we "know" but don't remember how we came to know it. At some point those "facts" or opinions may inform future judgements or opinions.

I, too, agree that there are better ways of exploring the unknown thoughts and motivations of real historical characters without falsifying history.

[Jazzhands]

33 minutes ago, CarpeDiem54 said:

@elle - I'd like to ? your post 100 times!

If they want show Ernst having a romantic interest, with accompanying moral angst with a lady of the court, make her a fictional character.  Don't besmirch Harriet, who sounds like a very interesting and lovely woman.

Daisy Goodwin sounds like something of a dingbat in those interviews.

It reminds me of the way The Crown implied that Prince Philip had an affair with Russian ballerina Galina Ulanova. If you want to create a love story for dramatic purposes, why not just create a character for that purpose?

I’m fine with dramatic license, especially when it results in the gorgeous Rufus Sewell portraying Lord M. instead of an older, less attractive but more historically accurate choice.  Change timelines, combine characters, leave out details to increase drama.  Fine with me. I’m not expecting a documentary.  But why the need to besmirch the reputations of actual people by portraying them as adulterers?

[Kohola3]

11 minutes ago, Jazzhands said:

But why the need to besmirch the reputations of actual people by portraying them as adulterers?

Who has been portrayed as adulterers?  

[elle]

1 hour ago, CarpeDiem54 said:

@elle - I'd like to ? your post 100 times!

*blush*

1 hour ago, Anothermi said:

Only a small percentage of viewers put extra effort into their viewing (discussing with others, researching), but most viewers still form opinions about real historical people and events based on the fictionalized representations. It's a human weakness. It becomes a memory of something we "know" but don't remember how we came to know it. At some point those "facts" or opinions may inform future judgements or opinions.

This is exactly the reason I am upset, and, as an aside, I can not stomach The Crown.  I had higher hopes for this show. 

I will say something positive that has come out of the misrepresentation of the characters, including the Duchess of Buccleuch, they are receiving more press than if they had been properly portrayed.  There are some good articles about them but be warned there are MAJOR spoilers for the show in some of them.

[CarpeDiem54]

2 hours ago, Kohola3 said:

Who has been portrayed as adulterers?  

It's been implied that Harriet, the Duchess of Sutherland, disliked her husband and was interested in Ernst, when in reality, she and her husband had a happy marriage.

[Kohola3]

8 hours ago, CarpeDiem54 said:

It's been implied that Harriet, the Duchess of Sutherland, disliked her husband and was interested in Ernst, when in reality, she and her husband had a happy marriage.

Well, not sure exchanging a lock of hair qualifies as adultery.  But that's just me.

And I am not at all upset by the liberties as I view this as a fantasy - I watch for the costumes as much as the story!  And I rarely delve into the facts afterward. I know what I am watching isn't the truth and I don't care all that much about the real history so I thoroughly enjoy it.

[Ohmo]

Quote

The Queen married Prince Albert in 1840, three years into her reign – which turned everything upside down.

Albert and Lehzen detested each other. Lehzen had opposed the marriage (she was worried about keeping Victoria free of male influence and thought she should remain a virgin queen like Elizabeth I), and for his part, Albert found her repulsive and unworthy of friendship with the Queen.

Everything came to a head in 1841, when the royal couple’s eldest daughter Victoria (the Princess Royal) suffered an illness. Lehzen had been in charge of the nursery staff and had appointed Sir James Clark as doctor, despite Albert’s objections. Dr Clark said the Princess Royal had only a minor ailment and failed to give her the correct treatment; she became seriously ill.

The illness led to a major row between Albert and Victoria, with the Prince Consort saying the Baroness and the Queen would be to blame if little Vicky died. She pulled through – but this was the final nail in the coffin for Lehzen.

Baroness Lehzen was quietly dismissed. She was sent back to Germany and her close friendship with the Queen was severed, although the two continued to write letters to each other.

 

Was Queen Victoria really forced to fire her governess Baroness Lehzen?

Albert and Lehzen were definitely not "besties" in real life either, and he was apparently very upset when Vicky became ill.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Ohmo

[CousinAmy]

Would the Duchess of Buccleuch really be sympathetic to a young gay gentleman, or is that a terrible anachronism? It seems more a way to signal the audience that she's not quite as stuffy as she seems than a realistic scenario.

[OlderThanDirt]

I, of course, had to Google Drummond. No spoilers, but it's another example of poetic license in chronology.

[Ms Lark]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:13 AM, Driad said:

My PBS station ran a promo for this, airing Tuesday, February 6:

Hidden Killers of the Victorian Home
An examination of the unseen household perils of the Victorian and Edwardian ages begins with an "innovation" that killed thousands of babies; and a something that turned household havens into ticking bombs.

The whole series (Tudor, Victorian, Edwardian, etc.) has been up on You Tube for a long time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhJOul3n978

And, yes, it does cover the poisonous green dye and wallpaper.

[Notwisconsin]

The third season could possibly be it's last. After all, there are going to be several prime ministers in the 1850s, and do we really want to see Victoria's nervous breakdown and her monomanical mourning during the 1860s?...or the "cold war" between she and her children?

In the interview shown after the latest episode, the showrunner said how little girls loved how strong Victoria was. Do they want to ruin that by having a better part of a season with HM as a basket case similar to George III? One of the good things about this show was the willingness to tackle big historical problems like the Irish famine.

So best to have it end with the very start of Albert's final illness and a title card stating that he died, and she would live on until 1901.

 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Notwisconsin

[Yokosmom]

Quote

The third season could possibly be it's last. After all, there are going to be several prime ministers in the 1850s, and do we really want to see Victoria's nervous breakdown and her monomanical mourning during the 1860s?...or the "cold war" between she and her children?

Not to mention John Brown. Oh, I think that they could milk a lot of drama out of those later years.  I can't see the showrunners presenting a portly Victoria, though.

[AZChristian]

36 minutes ago, Yokosmom said:

Not to mention John Brown. Oh, I think that they could milk a lot of drama out of those later years.  I can't see the showrunners presenting a portly Victoria, though.

And let's not forget about Abdul!!!!!

[Brn2bwild]

4 hours ago, Notwisconsin said:

The third season could possibly be it's last. After all, there are going to be several prime ministers in the 1850s, and do we really want to see Victoria's nervous breakdown and her monomanical mourning during the 1860s?...or the "cold war" between she and her children?

In the interview shown after the latest episode, the showrunner said how little girls loved how strong Victoria was. Do they want to ruin that by having a better part of a season with HM as a basket case similar to George III? One of the good things about this show was the willingness to tackle big historical problems like the Irish famine.

So best to have it end with the very start of Albert's final illness and a title card stating that he died, and she would live on until 1901.

 

 

I heard this show was planning to do six seasons.  I could see the first 4-5 addressing Victoria and Albert's marriage, then the last 1-2 dealing with Victoria learning to live without Albert.  Of course there would be the glossing over of the 10 years she spent in virtual seclusion, and probably also the emotional berating of her children (the youngest of whom were still children) to always feel miserable that "dearest Papa" was no longer with them, but that's to be expected.

Proposed Timeline:

Season Three: Ends in early or mid-1850s.  Arthur and Leopold are born.  Victoria confronts hemophilia in her family for the first time.  The Great Exhibition takes place.

Season Four: Ends in the late 1850s.  Beatrice is born.  Vicky marries Crown Prince Friedrich of Prussia.  Albert and Victoria's troubled relationship with Bertie is portrayed.

Season Five: Ends shortly after Albert's death.  We have the drama of Bertie's sex out of wedlock, followed by Albert's illness and death.  

Season Six: Ends in the mid-1860s.  Victoria is in heavy mourning.  We have Alice's wedding (married to Prince Ludwig of Hesse und bei Rhein in 1862), Vicky feeling constrained by the Prussian court, Victoria blaming Bertie for Albert's death, Bertie's marriage to Princess Alexandra of Denmark in 1863.  Since the show takes a more upbeat view of Victoria and her life, it would probably end with her learning to live without Albert and reasserting her role as a ruler.   

Edited February 19, 2018 by Brn2bwild

[Yokosmom]

I'd like to see her relationship with Disraeli covered too.

[Driad]

Homosexuality was illegal at the time.  (At least for men; IIRC Victoria refused to believe that homosexual women existed.)  In 1895 Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years hard labour in Reading Gaol for “gross indecency.”  He was displeased with conditions there and said “If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any.”

[Calvada]

I'm currently reading The Last Princess by Matthew Dennison, which is about Princess Beatrice and her relationship with her mother.  I think this would be make a fascinating multi-season show, with Victoria attempting to keep Beatrice a child (amazing when you think how V&A had Vicky engaged at 16 and married 2 month past her 17th birthday) and not wanting Beatrice to marry since she had to be her mother's constant companion.  But Beatrice fell in love with her future husband at a time Victoria was distracted due to the death of her son Leopold.  According to the book, Victoria did not speak with her daughter for months and only consented to the marriage if Beatrice and Henry agreed to live with her.  After Victoria died, Beatrice acted as the transcriber and editor of her mother's journals, and is believed to have deleted over half of the original content - probably lots about John Brown and Abdul, and future monarchs such as Edward VII and George V.  

I believe Queen Elizabeth II has kept a diary since she was a child.  I wonder if there's someone designated to edit these diaries, deleting what she's written about her husband, children, daughters in law, prime ministers, world leaders, etc.  

[Notwisconsin]

17 hours ago, Driad said:

Homosexuality was illegal at the time.  (At least for men; IIRC Victoria refused to believe that homosexual women existed.)  In 1895 Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years hard labour in Reading Gaol for “gross indecency.”  He was displeased with conditions there and said “If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any.”

He was no martyr, he sued the Marquess of Queensbury (his lover's dad and the codifier of boxing) for libel for insinuating that he was gay. I he had just let it go, he'd have never have gone to jail.

[Yokosmom]

Quote

Would the Duchess of Buccleuch really be sympathetic to a young gay gentleman, or is that a terrible anachronism? It seems more a way to signal the audience that she's not quite as stuffy as she seems than a realistic scenario.

I was wondering about that.  On the one hand, it sounds like an anachronism, just putting modern words in the mouth of a nineteenth century character.  On the other hand, the Duchess would have lived through the Regency period and the stretch afterwards (pre-Victoria) which was known for its bawdiness, especially amongst the upper classes.  Just because she was a older woman in the 19th century, doesn't mean that she was unaware of homosexuality, or couldn't show empathy.  She could have had relatives in that situation as well.  So, I'm giving them a pass on this one.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Yokosmom

[AirQuotes]

I do love the show, but why do they insist on painting it with such a modern brush?  The real stuff was plenty dramatic.  *pout*

Lehzen was let go much sooner and Princess Vicky's illness was much earlier.  Albert objected to Lehzen because she hired Sir James Clark as the nursery doctor.  He was the same who examined Flora Hastings.  Infant Vicky was ill and he misdiagnosed it as a minor ailment when it was more severe.  Albert didn't like Lehzen and he was able to get her booted over that very serious incident.

[Ohmo]

4 hours ago, Yokosmom said:

I was wondering about that.  On the one hand, it sounds like an anachronism, just putting modern words in the mouth of a nineteenth century character.  On the other hand, the Duchess would have lived through the Regency period and the stretch afterwards (pre-Victoria) which was known for its bawdiness, especially amongst the upper classes.  Just because she was a older woman in the 19th century, doesn't mean that she was unaware of homosexuality, or couldn't show empathy.  She could have had relatives in that situation as well.  So, I'm giving them a pass on this one.

 

I also don't think it was "modern" storytelling.  Like kwnyc said in the show thread, homosexuality existed in those times.  It was just viewed as criminal behavior.  I can completely see it being tolerated (especially in the upper classes) as long as the people involved were discreet.  It's the same premise as Ernst and Harriet.  Albert knew what was going on but let it continue until Ernst was being obvious about it.  Then it was back to Coburg for Ernst.  I think that Drummond and Alfred took the greatest risk in Scotland.  If Miss Cooke had wanted to, she could have outted them criminally because they weren't being that discreet.  They were actually lucky that she saw them and not the Duchess because I believe that would have crossed the line for the Duchess---the lack of indiscretion.  I completely buy that there was some version of tolerance of homosexuality in the Victorian England upper classes as long as all public social expectations were also met or observed.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[AZChristian]

Another fact about Lord Alfred . . .

Spoiler

His oldest daughter (of 14 children) was named Victoria Alexandrina.

[Shanna Marie]

I just saw this come up in my Twitter feed. Apparently, there was a "Mrs. Skerrett" who was dresser to Queen Victoria, but this seems a bit different than we see in the show.

[elle]

7 hours ago, AirQuotes said:

I sometimes wonder if Victoria is trying to compete with Downton Abbey.  The inclusion of the staff story lines and the gay love affair are both very Downton Abbey like.  In my opinion, Downton did it better.

 

5 hours ago, humbleopinion said:

Agree, comparing apples to oranges....

The audience wants so badly to love Victoria as much as they did Downtown Abbey...comparisons are natural but unfair....

Just happy to have Victoria and The Crown to help me get over the end of Downtown Abbey....it's been over  2 years since we said good bye to DA...*sob*.....

This is where the problem originates, I think, with the inclusion of story lines trying to ramp up the interest in the show.  Every show now needs to be as huge, as popular as Downtown Abbey was for tptb. 

 

5 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I just saw this come up in my Twitter feed. Apparently, there was a "Mrs. Skerrett" who was dresser to Queen Victoria, but this seems a bit different than we see in the show.

Thanks for posting this!   I enjoy learning about the real people who worked with or for Victoria.

[Evil Queen]

On 2/16/2018 at 6:35 PM, CarpeDiem54 said:

@elle - I'd like to ? your post 100 times!

If they want show Ernst having a romantic interest, with accompanying moral angst with a lady of the court, make her a fictional character.  Don't besmirch Harriet, who sounds like a very interesting and lovely woman.

Daisy Goodwin sounds like something of a dingbat in those interviews.

Same here!!! 

On 2/17/2018 at 6:27 AM, Kohola3 said:

And I am not at all upset by the liberties as I view this as a fantasy - I watch for the costumes as much as the story!  And I rarely delve into the facts afterward. I know what I am watching isn't the truth and I don't care all that much about the real history so I thoroughly enjoy it.

If that is the case and you don't care much for the history why go into the thread on it and read it? Trying to understand here. It shouldn't matter how some watch it differently from others really. I know some like to watch things and not know the real facts of what went on and its fine. Its also find that there are those of us that do like the real facts of things and do not like how they are not given in a show that is not fantasy. Sure its not a documentary but its suppose to be a show about Queen Victoria. So why not go by the true facts of things that are important instead of twisting and turning them to the complete opposite and far from the truth. It does a MAJOR disservice to a lot of issues that happened during those years IMO. I don't mind a mix of little bit of stuff tossed in to add to the story but not like this. 

On 2/19/2018 at 5:29 AM, Notwisconsin said:

The third season could possibly be it's last. After all, there are going to be several prime ministers in the 1850s, and do we really want to see Victoria's nervous breakdown and her monomanical mourning during the 1860s?...or the "cold war" between she and her children?

In the interview shown after the latest episode, the showrunner said how little girls loved how strong Victoria was. Do they want to ruin that by having a better part of a season with HM as a basket case similar to George III? One of the good things about this show was the willingness to tackle big historical problems like the Irish famine.

So best to have it end with the very start of Albert's final illness and a title card stating that he died, and she would live on until 1901.

 

While it did bring the Irish famine into it, it still wasn't honest about it either. I wonder how many little girls watch this show. Its not on until 9pm and my 11 yr old daughter would have no interest in it at all. Yet if it is the case little girls are looking at this like that, they have already shown her as a woman that has PPD. That is a hard thing to go through no matter how one does. I had it myself after 2 of my kids but it wasn't like how Victoria was. Yet I think seeing as how we have seen the show twist things, I think they would find a way to do so with those times in her life as well. and skip over some of it. 

On 2/19/2018 at 1:55 PM, Calvada said:

I'm currently reading The Last Princess by Matthew Dennison, which is about Princess Beatrice and her relationship with her mother.  I think this would be make a fascinating multi-season show, with Victoria attempting to keep Beatrice a child (amazing when you think how V&A had Vicky engaged at 16 and married 2 month past her 17th birthday) and not wanting Beatrice to marry since she had to be her mother's constant companion.  But Beatrice fell in love with her future husband at a time Victoria was distracted due to the death of her son Leopold.  According to the book, Victoria did not speak with her daughter for months and only consented to the marriage if Beatrice and Henry agreed to live with her.  After Victoria died, Beatrice acted as the transcriber and editor of her mother's journals, and is believed to have deleted over half of the original content - probably lots about John Brown and Abdul, and future monarchs such as Edward VII and George V.  

I believe Queen Elizabeth II has kept a diary since she was a child.  I wonder if there's someone designated to edit these diaries, deleting what she's written about her husband, children, daughters in law, prime ministers, world leaders, etc.  

I read some place that while Beatrice did that, there was someone else, a man who for the life of me I can't remember the name of right now, who did the same but didn't leave stuff out. I don't think he got a hold of all of them because Beatrice was going to destroy them. 

Wouldn't it be something to read these things unedited? While I am sure many pages could be quite boring there probably are things that would be something to read for sure from both Victoria and Elizabeth II.

[Razzberry]

The show is visually lovely but I was expecting more depth from Masterpiece Theater.  I mean, let's get real.  She's gotta be one of the most mental in the family,  yet this sugarcoated version just isn't interesting.  Missed opportunities indeed.   Accuracy is atrocious, but I can forgive a lot if it's at least entertaining,  like The Crown.

[Kohola3]

Quote

If that is the case and you don't care much for the history why go into the thread on it and read it? Trying to understand here.

I read the history thread just out of curiosity for some things.  I don't care that the history doesn't match the series but I do enjoy history in general.

Not to be argumentative but if the lack of accuracy is so distressing, why watch it? 

[Nidratime]

Quote

I sometimes wonder if Victoria is trying to compete with Downton Abbey.  The inclusion of the staff story lines and the gay love affair are both very Downton Abbey like.  In my opinion, Downton did it better.

And speaking of the Victorian Era ;-), Downton Abbey is actually this generation's Upstairs Downstairs which was a popular BBC series from the 70's which focused on a wealthy, (minor) titled British family and their servants. Extremely popular.

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, Razzberry said:

I was expecting more depth from Masterpiece Theater.

High-brow soap has always been MT's bread and butter. 

[floridamom]

Absolutely LOVED Upstairs/Downstairs....great series.

[CousinAmy]

15 hours ago, Nidratime said:

And speaking of the Victorian Era ;-), Downton Abbey is actually this generation's Upstairs Downstairs which was a popular BBC series from the 70's which focused on a wealthy, (minor) titled British family and their servants. Extremely popular.

I got bored with Downton - it moved very slowly. I prefer Victoria; she is one of the most fascinating, consequential persons in history. Much of world history followed from the children of this young Queen - World War I has been called a squabble among cousins. So what happened in Buckingham Palace nearly 200 years ago is still worthy of examination today.

And her personal life with Albert; her mental state while a reigning monarch; the breakdown over Albert's death; and her ivory and ebony fashion statements - she popularized white for wedding gowns, and she lived robed in black as she mourned Albert till she died - add an extra dimension. 

There's a lot to unpack here; Daisy Goodwin could have still written a rip-roaring yarn without manipulating history. But it's so much fun I still look forward to every episode. 

[BusyOctober]

I am enjoying this series so much.  I have investigated some of the events and characters on occasion, and I am OK with the creative license taken in most instances.  I am a history buff, and Anglophile so any show fiction or nonfiction with the UK or royals as the subject is usually high on my watch list.

Sometimes I forget that not everyone ‘knows’ what I consider historical common knowledge.  While in a waiting room recently, a women who looked 50-55 years old was watching “Victoria” on her iPad.  She caught me looking, and smiled and said how much she liked the show. I said me too, and we started chatting about the show. She was really taken by the love story between V & A.  I agreed and said it’s easy to see why Victoria was so devastated when Albert died at a relatively young age...Well, she looked like I had just sucker punched her in the throat.  “What?!? He dies? When? How? OMG!  No! Don’t tell me!” She was truly surprised by this “spoiler”.  

I felt bad, but, come on, really?  Part of me felt like telling her, “By the way, Lincoln gets shot & the Titanic sinks.”

[Jazzhands]

I know what you mean.   It’s historical fact, and I’m genuinely surprised sometimes that people aren’t familiar at least with the broad strokes.  Same with other fictionalized historical shows like The Crown.

But on the other hand, when they go changing up the details, I’m often left wondering if I’ve got it wrong or am maybe going senile. So there’s that. 

[Brn2bwild]

On 2/21/2018 at 8:26 PM, CousinAmy said:

I got bored with Downton - it moved very slowly. I prefer Victoria; she is one of the most fascinating, consequential persons in history. Much of world history followed from the children of this young Queen - World War I has been called a squabble among cousins. So what happened in Buckingham Palace nearly 200 years ago is still worthy of examination today.

And her personal life with Albert; her mental state while a reigning monarch; the breakdown over Albert's death; and her ivory and ebony fashion statements - she popularized white for wedding gowns, and she lived robed in black as she mourned Albert till she died - add an extra dimension. 

There's a lot to unpack here; Daisy Goodwin could have still written a rip-roaring yarn without manipulating history. But it's so much fun I still look forward to every episode. 

Having a vivid downstairs made sense in Downton because they were the ones who reminded viewers (and the Crawleys) that there was actual life outside of the Abbey, things of consequence happening in the world.  On Victoria, it makes less sense because as the monarch, she's already exposed to big important events.

[dubbel zout]

14 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

I felt bad, but, come on, really?  Part of me felt like telling her, “By the way, Lincoln gets shot & the Titanic sinks.”

LOL. This reminds me of a bus ride years ago when the trip finished before the showing of Miracle did. A passenger got a little shirty that the driver wouldn't let him stay and watch the end, so I told him the U.S. men's hockey team goes on to win the gold medal. The guy looked at me like he wanted to murder me on the spot. It's only one of the most iconic moments in Olympic history! And this guy was old enough to be aware of it.