Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

S03.E00: Comfort And Joy

Recommended Posts

Since Albert was the one who directed the hanging of the trees, I would assume that was something done in his part of the world when a child.  He then brought it to England and got the ball rolling.  Looks to me as though it is right side up, though.

 

MV5BNWQ4OTk1OTYtYjc1NC00MDdhLTg5N2MtMjFkZmM1NzIyYmNiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Google the origins why of the tree hung from the ceiling... mimics the Trinity to negate the paganism, blah ,blah blah.

You can pick and choose what you want about why Albert had a tree hung from above in his childhood memories.

The Christmas fan-atics have been doing this for decades, more trees to decorate that won't take up floor space and more stuff to buy and hang on them...$$$ for the Christmas industry...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Earmuffs Mom said:

It wasn't explained.  What I didn't understand is why Albert chose this Christmas in particular to start creating childhood memories?  They already had 3+ children by the time he decided to start celebrating?  Was it so they could remember?  What did they do the other Christmases?

I’m guessing that if this is the same year that Albert found out about Leopold possibly being his father, he wants to be the best dad ever and try to make the holidays memorable for his kids. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Mumbles said:

I also laughed a little because in movies and in TV (and often in life) there’s someone who goes overboard and loses their damn minds about Christmas. It is usually conveyed as a woman so I enjoyed that it was Albert.

It was so in Albert's character! Surprised he hadn't also designed special festive costumes or accessories for people to wear (still thinking about his penchant for engineering better umbrellas and helmets). The kids are probably learning to equate Uncle Leopold with amazing experiences. Whenever he's there, there's a pony! (last episode) or lit-up trees indoors! 

I laughed when Little Vicky said how she recognized Duchess Grandma.

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

There were several things going on here that seemed a little too "TV." Like Skerritt inheriting a fortune from some uncle she didn't even know she had: only on TV. Or Ernest pretending not to like Harriet anymore and hurting her feelings to "save her:" only on TV. 

For me, this episode seemed to illustrate events, and not really let us feel what the stakes or consequences were. It might be because so much was crammed into this double sized episode, and each character's story had to have a resolution. Uncle Hanover King's snit about his mother's diamond necklace was barely an issue, and very neatly tied up. BTW, are all the royals allowed to barge in whenever they want? Skerritt's out of the blue cliche inheritance and then her letting it all go--that was just too much to believe. How convenient for storytelling purposes that her entire inheritance consisted of slaves. Granted, since she no longer had to support Original Recipe Skerritt, maybe the urgent need for money wasn't there any more, but it wasn't painted as too much of a temptation. (Even with the object lesson of Penge's investment and dreams of bettering himself)

Did I miss a callback to Albert's stance on slavery years/episodes ago when he was first trying to establish himself?

6 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

I thought the skating scene was strange.  Albert falls under the ice, Victoria rescues him, it's so dramatic, and then... it doesn't get mentioned again.  Albert doesn't even show signs of a cold.  The whole sequence seemed like a dream.

I thought it was a dream sequence starting with Victoria wandering out looking for Sarah by herself. Has she ever been shown going outside without someone accompanying her? Even if she has, you'd think after the Scottish escapade they would have people on them whenever they go a-wandering, even if it's on palace grounds.

I liked the Servant's Ball a lot. It's moments like that which play off the investment we've made in "downstairs" characters a lot.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think a lot of Albert's prudishness was a reaction to his own parents - his mother was exiled by his father because of her affair, even though his father had a mistress or mistresses and Victoria's own uncles George and William  - George with his unofficial wife and splitting from his official wife and William with his ten (yes 10) children with his mistress Mrs. Jordan.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

I thought the skating scene was strange.  Albert falls under the ice, Victoria rescues him, it's so dramatic, and then... it doesn't get mentioned again.  Albert doesn't even show signs of a cold.  The whole sequence seemed like a dream.

 

1 hour ago, Kaiju Ballet said:

I thought it was a dream sequence starting with Victoria wandering out looking for Sarah by herself. Has she ever been shown going outside without someone accompanying her?

I thought it was a dream too.  Victoria never screamed for help, she was out alone on slippery surfaces while pregnant (assuming her ladies knew).  I also was worried about her going up and down the snowy stairs by herself at the end while saying farewell to Sarah.

Ernst did make the joke about Albert skating on thin ice.

Did anyone momentarily think that Victoria was going to tell Princess "Sarah" that she should resume the use of her African name?

8 hours ago, voiceover said:
8 hours ago, my3sons said:

Can someone please tell me what was written in the locket that was given to Lord Alfred?  I didn't have my glasses on and couldn't make out what it said.

It was part of the Bible verse that Miss Coke had read to Alfred earlier: "Surpassing the love of women", which was a reference that King David made re: the relationship with a friend who'd died.

From Samuel, it references the story of David and Jonathan.

6 hours ago, humbleopinion said:

The Captain and Mrs. Forbes fell in love with Sarah because they allude to  the joy of having a child in the household again...either theirs were away at boarding school, or passed away or grown...hard to tell what Daisy wanted the audience to surmise from that comment...

I assumed passed away.  They seemed too sad for anything but that. They didn't didn't seem old enough for "grown", and a child at boarding school would almost certainly be home for the holidays.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, milner said:

What exactly does anyone think would happen to the slaves Mrs. Skerrett said should go free.  There wasn't anyone over in the USA to ensure they were in fact set free.  And even so how would they live?

Good point, but I wonder what should Mrs. Skerrett have done?

 

Quote

Back when the movie “The Legend of Bagger Vance” came out years ago, a film critic came up with the term “Magical Negro”, a minority character who exists not as a fully formed person but rather only to teach a white character a lesson or comfort them through a crisis. I was getting hints of that when little Sarah came in to comfort the crying Victoria. But that was countered somewhat by Mrs Forbes, who truly loved the little girl. The actors(Mrs Forbes and Sarah) did a great job conveying a real warmth. 

I did not see Sarah as a "Magical Negro" because the episode began with her.  We, the audience saw where she came from.  Had she simply appeared as a "present" for Victoria, I would have called her a Magical Negro, as that character is always lacking any type of back story.  Bagger Vance kind of came out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere.

Edited by Neurochick
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Anyway, back to the Christmas thing.... Was it ever explained where Albert got the idea of hanging a tree upside down from the ceiling? How bizarre. I'm glad we don't carry on that tradition today or those of us not lucky enough to live in a castle, would be knocking our heads against the thing constantly!

Not upside down-suspended from the ceiling by the top, I believe.  Not sure how that's done without the top breaking off and the whole thing plummeting-I wouldn't want to walk under it, but I guess it was the standard in the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha palace of his memories.

The necklace story didn't really make sense: when Victoria's grandmother Queen Charlotte died, Victoria's father was still alive, along with four other sons beside Ernest Augustus, future King of Hanover;  so if her will left the necklace to her male heirs (assuming it didn't actually belong to the Crown), at least a share of it would have belonged to Victoria's father, and would subsequently belong to Victoria (or her mother). It wouldn't belong solely to Ernest Augustus.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how Victorian politics and royal connections worked, so for a brief moment when the King of Hanover told Victoria that he had come for his property, I thought he was talking about Sara.  I was relieved that it was jewelry.  Sara was so cute (but sad, too).  I'm so glad she was able to go back and live with the Forbes family.  I loved how she described the 'white rain' in her letter to Mrs. Forbes.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I found this episode a bit uneven--I agree with everyone that it might have worked better to be able to watch it during the Christmas season.

But I found Ernst deconstructing Albert's "happy Christmas memory" devastating, even though I had thought Albert's Christmas cheer was getting a bit ridiculous. (I'm kind of a Scrooge myself.) 

I don't know whether that specific moment ever happened in real life for them, but the scene rang so true to me. I have an older brother who is about the same age difference with me as there is between Ernst and Albert. Our parents had a very bitter divorce when we were small, and he and I remain close as adult. I have some memories of my parents being together but not really. I recall several conversations between us where because I was the youngest I didn't remember anything being wrong, but he had vivid memories of what was actually happening. It always made me sad for my brother that he had all this painful knowledge that I had been unaware of and had been sheltered from.

So, watching that scene between the two brothers, I couldn't help but feel really sorry for both of them--Ernst because he couldn't enjoy this happy memory because he knows it's a lie, and Albert for having his one happy family memory wrenched from him. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, voiceover said:

It was part of the Bible verse that Miss Coke had read to Alfred earlier: "Surpassing the love of women", which was a reference that King David made re: the relationship with a friend who'd died.

David and Jonathan.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t think Albert cared about Sarah’s feelings. He just wanted to, as usual, prove Victoria wrong and get rid of that child who wasn’t “like” them. He was very dismissive when Victoria asked why Sarah didn’t have her own little tree. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

I liked when Ernst dropped the ornament. I cheered. ?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not quite sure how Albert knew that Sarah was miserable with Victoria but would have been happy with Mrs. Forbes. I get that he picked up on her being miserable. That was easy enough to see. But seeing as he never once talked to her I don't know how he could tell that it was Mrs. Forbes she missed and not her murdered family, for example. He needed to be there once while she was talking about Mrs. Forbes because otherwise he looks like a mind reader. Also, he should have made sure she had a tree. He might have felt she belonged somewhere else, but while she was with them he should have treated her like family.

Leopold's kindness towards Harriet was totally overshadowed by his cruelty towards whatever woman he was pointing Ernest's way once he knew Ernest was ill. That will ruin some poor woman's life but Leopold only cares about expanding his influence. Icky.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, vibeology said:

I'm not quite sure how Albert knew that Sarah was miserable with Victoria but would have been happy with Mrs. Forbes. I get that he picked up on her being miserable. That was easy enough to see. But seeing as he never once talked to her I don't know how he could tell that it was Mrs. Forbes she missed and not her murdered family, for example. He needed to be there once while she was talking about Mrs. Forbes because otherwise he looks like a mind reader. Also, he should have made sure she had a tree. He might have felt she belonged somewhere else, but while she was with them he should have treated her like family.

Leopold's kindness towards Harriet was totally overshadowed by his cruelty towards whatever woman he was pointing Ernest's way once he knew Ernest was ill. That will ruin some poor woman's life but Leopold only cares about expanding his influence. Icky.

I am glad Leopold sabotaged Ernst's cruel to be kind gallantry but I doubt it had much to do with kindness towards Harriet.  Leopold was always against Ernst marrying Harriet because as a "mere" duchess she is not an appropriate match for the royal line to his thinking.  I believe he thought that if he told Harriet the truth about Ernst's illness she would never give Ernst the time of day again.  But Harriet truly loves Ernst and was not deterred.

As for Albert and Sarah - maybe his thinking is a combination of picking up that Sarah was miserable but also not being comfortable with having Sarah in the royal household permanently?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched "Victoria" for the first time---because of the wonderful Peter Firth! He was glorious in his youth as Angel Clare ("Tess"), and he is magnificent as an older man in this and in "MI-5"!

On 2/25/2018 at 11:34 PM, voiceover said:

the Saxe-Coburg Bros!

Ha! Not a phrase one hears often! :-)

Thank you, Prince Albert, for our Christmas traditions! And for a joke that never gets old!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Having to watch "Sarah" in tears throughout the episode was so heartbreaking. A bittersweet ending for "Sarah" - while she did end up with a family she was more comfortable with, I'm sure she still missed her real home and family.

I too was fascinated by the Christmas traditions and the extravagance, pretty scenery for the eyes.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I have to admit I was a little peeved when Ernst deliberately broke the Bohemian glass ornament.  First of all, Bohemian glass ornaments are gorgeous and my dad's side of the family emigrated here from Bohemia (which no longer exists as a country).  So I took it a little personally....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Kohola3 said:

I have to admit I was a little peeved when Ernst deliberately broke the Bohemian glass ornament.

It was such a peevish thing to do. Let Albert have his happy Christmas, you killjoy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/25/2018 at 10:34 PM, Kohola3 said:

I almost wish that PBS had saved this for the holiday season.  Not necessarily on Christmas Day but at least not this time of the year.  As with mmecorday, I probably would have enjoyed it more during that season.

I think PBS has a scheduling issue during the holidays.  Many British shows have holiday specials.  During this past holiday season, I saw Call the Midwife during the holiday season, along with Last Tango in Halifax.  I can see them just deciding to air a couple during the holiday season.

 

On 2/26/2018 at 2:38 PM, mmecorday said:

Also, Ernst, shame on you. He could have handled that situation with widowed lady love better. It's not her fault he's an STD playground.

I think Ernst was intentionally trying to make Harriet hate him so that they would not be tempted in the future and have her be put in danger.  I've heard of one person in a couple doing that.  He/She believes this will make things easier for the other person by forcing a clean break instead of continuing to hang on in the hopes that things might improve.

I'm not thrilled by Skerrett and Francotelli, and I don't buy that she's not at least a bit wary of him.  I fear that she's going to find herself "in trouble" (to use an old-fashioned euphemism), it will cost her her position in the palace, and he'll want to bail on her for whatever next great opportunity is available.  He gave that Irish servant that watch to sell, but there's a difference between doing a kindness and being a stand-up guy.  I don't think Francotelli is the latter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2018 at 12:46 PM, Nidratime said:

Anyway, back to the Christmas thing.... Was it ever explained where Albert got the idea of hanging a tree upside down from the ceiling? How bizarre. I'm glad we don't carry on that tradition today or those of us not lucky enough to live in a castle, would be knocking our heads against the thing constantly!

Eastern European Upside-Down Christmas Trees

Quote

Legend has it that England's St. Boniface was furious when he saw pagans revering an oak tree in 7th-century Germany where he was teaching. He cut it down, but a fir tree sprang up on the same spot. Boniface used the triangular shape of this fir tree as a tool to describe the Holy Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

The pagans who had been converted to Christianity began to revere the fir tree as God's Trinity Tree. By the 12th century, it was being hung upside down from ceilings at Christmastime in Central and Eastern Europe as a symbol of Christianity and God the Son becoming a man because it resembled the shape of Christ being crucified.

Upside-down Christmas trees and 4 more Pennsylvania German Christmas traditions
 

Quote

One of the ways the Pennsylvania Germans celebrated was with an upside-down Christmas tree hung from the ceiling. Why, you ask?

Many ornaments were edible, so suspending the tree from the ceiling kept the snitz (dried apple garland) and other treats out of the reach of mice.

Edited by Ohmo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2018 at 5:56 PM, Kaiju Ballet said:

 

I liked the Servant's Ball a lot. It's moments like that which play off the investment we've made in "downstairs" characters a lot.

ITA!  And I must say while I'm sad Mr. Pence didn't make a fortune on his railroad investment I am glad he'll be back next season.  He's still no Mr. Carson but I'm learning he doesn't have to be,  he has a duplicity to him that I like.....hateful one min then human the next.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Penge can certainly cut a rug...loved the scenes of him dancing with the queen.  I wonder how gracious the royals are in real life when dancing at the Servant's Ball.  Or don't they do that anymore?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Penge's name always reminds me of Horace Rumpole's favorite case, the Penge Bungalow Murders.  Maybe Penge later made enough money to invest in a housing development.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2018 at 4:56 PM, Kaiju Ballet said:

Granted, since she no longer had to support Original Recipe Skerritt, maybe the urgent need for money wasn't there any more, but it wasn't painted as too much of a temptation.

I must've missed something here.  I didn't know Mrs.  Skerrit was no longer responsible for the original Skerritt.  When did that happen and how?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, b2H said:

I must've missed something here.

I was wondering that as well.  What happened to her and her kid?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The last I saw of the original Ms. Skerritt was of her screaming at the palace gates with the other protesters. What happened that it's assumed that Nancy Skerritt is free to keep her own wages?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

https://enoughofthistomfoolery.wordpress.com/tag/marianne-skerrett/

Quote

Meanwhile, still on the trail to find out who leaked the “Boy Jones” incident to the papers, suspicion falls on Francatelli who has been sporting an expensive new watch and new clothes. Mrs Skerrett confesses to Victoria and the Baroness that it was her cousin who leaked the information and that it was she who had told her of the incident. She also mentions that her cousin who sold the story was the real Nancy Skerrett but had fallen pregnant out of wedlock and she had taken her cousin’s place.

In the episode "Sins of the Fathers", the cousin made a lot of money selling the story. It was implied that she didn't need fake Mrs Skerritt's help any more, as she was unconcerned that Nancy could lose her job at the Palace (and did for a good ten minutes). I don't think we ever see the cousin and child again.

But this does bring up the interesting issue of Nancy knowing full well how she could lose everything if she becomes pregnant. For me, it takes away from that moment between her and Francatelli in "Comfort and Joy", knowing how much she has at stake.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kaiju Ballet said:

In the episode "Sins of the Fathers", the cousin made a lot of money selling the story. It was implied that she didn't need fake Mrs Skerritt's help any more, as she was unconcerned that Nancy could lose her job at the Palace (and did for a good ten minutes).

Oh, that's right.  I forgot all about that, thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2018 at 10:42 AM, iMonrey said:

I still don't think I understand the sequence of events here. Sarah was given as a "gift" for Queen Victoria, and the Forbes took her back to England but then never notified the Queen? And the Queen found out about her somehow and summoned them to the Palace? Forbes tells his wife he got a letter from the Queen and his wife is very upset. It almost seems like they never intended to tell the Queen about Sarah and just keep her for themselves until the Queen found out about her somehow.

I don't think they were upside down. I was wondering about that myself but when I looked it appeared that the widest parts of the trees were at the bottom so it looked like they were hanging right-side up.

We had a Danish family rent our house one year, and they hung the Christmas tree from the ceiling.  Right side up.

Edited by Calamity Jane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I completely agree with those who thought this would be better as a December broadcast -- very odd to watch it on a 70-degree day.  EXCEPT:  this has the resolution of the Ernst-Harriet thwarted love, and it would be jarring to see that nine months from now, instead of as the resolution to this second series. 

I found it very odd in terms of a directing choice, that the Forbes were relegated to standing in the snow next to the carriage to meet the Queen and take custody of Sarah.  Why not invite them in for a cup of tea to warm up?  (Those carriages are cold!  Was production trying to get its money's worth from having that elaborate entrance available for filming?)  Also agree that I hope that parrot was not relegated to riding in the cold on top of the carriage!  Although, he seems to have survived happily in this version. 

I thought I would not enjoy this after binging on "The Crown", but it turned out to be just as enjoyable as the first season.  I hope they find a way to keep Ernst in the storylines -- the bro-love scenes are among the best, and the family needs him there to cut through the general gloom with his vividness.  I really felt bad for his shame. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just binge-watched this season.

Two comments about this last episode:

1) Why was it suddenly a surprise to see Victoria's mother and Uncle Leopold at Christmas? Weren't they around all the time anyway? I didn't understand why Victoria was so shocked that her mother and uncle were at the palace for the holiday. Seems like they were just in a recent episode, and no mention had been made of them being sent away with no intention of reconnecting.

2) Where were Harriet's children? Doesn't the show say that she has two sons? They can't be much older than adolescents -- maybe young teenagers at the oldest. And their father has just died. Why aren't they with their mother for Christmas? Seems pretty brutal to keep them at boarding school during the holiday, or are they with their father's family and either Harriet was not invited or chose not to go? Why wouldn't she be with her children?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, TiaLou said:

1) Why was it suddenly a surprise to see Victoria's mother and Uncle Leopold at Christmas? Weren't they around all the time anyway? 

Victoria's mother was an infrequent guest at the Palace, given Victoria's antipathy. Leopold had recently told Albert that he believed Albert was his son: a revelation he timed to the burial of Albert's father. Leopold also had a Kingdom that might look to him to head its own holiday celebrations.

12 hours ago, TiaLou said:

Where were Harriet's children?

Wherever the show needs them to be. I like your suggestion that they were spending their school holiday with their late father's family. As long as their uncle doesn't choose that time to unburden himself...And Harriet could always plead being summoned to court. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/26/2018 at 1:25 AM, izabella said:

I was wondering why he was so against Sarah being there, but when he finally shouted, that Sarah had a family with the Forbes, and that Victoria was blind to her unhappiness, I realized he was looking out for her.  I was glad they showed Sarah writing that letter to Mrs. Forbes, though, because I hadn't realized at first that she had become so attached to the Forbeses.  How long was she with them?  

I thought that it was pretty obvious to everyone in the room when Captain Forbes introduced Sarah to Victoria and explained what a wonderful, smart girl she was and the time his wife spent with her (Captain Forbes even appeared a tad misty-eyed to me) that Captain Forbes cared for Sarah — way beyond just a soldier delivering a “gift.” But I guess it was just me. Albert being a father himself of two little girls was maybe more attuned to this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎27‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 12:45 AM, twoods said:

I’m guessing that if this is the same year that Albert found out about Leopold possibly being his father, he wants to be the best dad ever and try to make the holidays memorable for his kids. 

No, after Leopold told Albert that he was his father, Victoria and Albert visited Paris where Victoria became pregnant, she gave birth to their third child and now she is pregnant again.

The show is such a fairytale that people don't often have any motives. But if one must invent one, maybe it was that also Bertie is now old enough to enjoy Christimas.

However, I don't think that children actually need so much fuss. Albert probably made Christmas more for himself, i.e. a little boy inside him.

Unfortunately the habits seemed more important to him than the spirit of Christmas. Therefore he had a bourgeois idea about a happy family gathering although relatives didn't like to be together. 

Edited by Roseanna · Reason: correcting grammar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

No, after Leopold told Albert that he was his father, Victoria and Albert visited Paris where Victoria became pregnant, she gave birth to their third child and now she is pregnant again.

The show is such a fairytale that people don't often have any motives. But if one must invent one, maybe it was that also Bertie is now old enough to enjoy Christimas.

However, I don't think that children actually need so much fuss. Albert probably made Christmas more for himself, i.e. a little boy inside him.

Unfortunately the habits seemed more important to him than the spirit of Christmas. Therefore he had a bourgeois idea about a happy family gathering although relatives didn't like to be together. 

That makes sense he didn't really come from a happy family I can see why he would want to do that even if he's claiming its for the children.  He probably was the one who wanted all that for Christmas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 8:25 AM, izabella said:

I was wondering why he was so against Sarah being there, but when he finally shouted, that Sarah had a family with the Forbes, and that Victoria was blind to her unhappiness, I realized he was looking out for her.  I was glad they showed Sarah writing that letter to Mrs. Forbes, though, because I hadn't realized at first that she had become so attached to the Forbeses.  How long was she with them?  

 

On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 8:43 AM, twoods said:

I am so sad that we have to wait another year for season three after waiting so damn long for season two. Nine episodes is not enough!

The Albert and Ernst scenes continue to be some of my favorites. It definitely got dusty once Ernst broke down, and then the tears kept coming during the proposal and Sarah going back to live with Mrs Forbes. She was so adorable! Alfred and Miss Cook are also a good match.

Ernst and Harriett were hot. I second the notion to give him some penicillin and condoms so he can have his happy ending. We will definitely be seeing more angst in season three, with the star crossed lovebirds and Charles and Nancy trying to hide their engagement.

I like that Albert’s concern about Sarah was more about taking her away from her new family than her interfering in their family. It was obvious to everyone except for Victoria that she wasn’t comfortable at the palace. 

 

On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 9:00 AM, magdalene said:

For once I was glad that Uncle Leopold blabbed again, this time to Harriet. So much is embellished and changed chronologically on this show I too found myself saying, "who cares that antibiotics hadn't been discovered yet - just give Ernst some treatment that works!"

I thought it was pretty clear from the beginning that the adorable Sarah had formed an attachment to Mrs .Forbes and vice versa and I was just waiting for Victoria to catch on.

I will just have to hope that Nancy's noble deed led to a good life for the slaves she freed.

I liked Mr. Pence this episode and I had started to warm to him during his good bye to Lehzen in the last episode.

 

On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 7:10 PM, LittleIggy said:

But they made it seem as if he telepathically knew this. They never showed him talking to Mr. Forbes or Sarah. Then there was Albert saying something to the effect that Sarah wasn’t “like us.” 

 

On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 7:37 PM, dubbel zout said:

I don't think it was a giant leap for Albert to realize Sarah wasn't happy in the palace. Mr. Forbes saved her from being murdered like the rest of her family, and Mrs. Forbes had become a mother figure. Victoria wrenches the girl out of this life because it suits her (Victoria). She had good intentions, but just because a girl is a princess in her own country doesn't mean living with other royalty will work out. Albert is still enough of an outsider to recognize another one.

I agree with Littleleiggy. We were shown that Sarah was unhappy and how she longed for Mrs Forbes, but Albert never even spoke with her. He may have noticed her unhappiness as probably all in the palace did, but the logical conclusion would have been that she mourned her own family who were killed in Africa - unless he eavesdropped what she said to Victoria about Mrs Forbes.

On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 7:46 PM, Nidratime said:

As for Sarah, it seems Victoria was channeling her own feelings as a young princess and projecting them on to Sarah. Victoria related to her as a child, even though she hadn't lost her entire family but only felt abandoned by them. She kept talking about being shunted away during holidays and celebrations by her mother and only having her dolls for friends, so of course she gave Sarah a doll. What she didn't realize is that Sarah had also met her own "Lehzen" in Mrs. Forbes, who had become a second mother to her. I don't know that Albert knew this so much as he picked up on how unhappy she was. In fact, the household seemed to realize it since they kept talking about how Sarah would hide away. Anyway, I'm glad she went back to the Forbes since they appeared to have no children and could focus solely on her, while Sarah would only get lost amidst Victoria and Albert's brood in that big castle.

Anyway, back to the Christmas thing.... Was it ever explained where Albert got the idea of hanging a tree upside down from the ceiling? How bizarre. I'm glad we don't carry on that tradition today or those of us not lucky enough to live in a castle, would be knocking our heads against the thing constantly!

Yes,, instead of Albert, it was Victoria who should have made the right conclusion about Sarah but her self-centeredness prevented it. 

Spoiler

According to A. N. Wilson's biography, Victoria's "unhappy childhood" was mostly her personal mythology, created her enousmous ability to self-pity. 

Share this post


Link to post

I find it strange that Albert inivited as a Christmas guest Victoria's mother although Victoria doesn't like her but not Lehzen whom Victoria loves. Even if I understad why Lehzen couldn't stay permanently when she and Albert are opponents, why can't she even visit Victoria? That shows that Albert is insecure and jealous. He wants to keep Victoria to himself alone, not understanding that one person can't fulfill all needs and there are matters that a woman speaks rather with an other woman.    

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎26‎.‎2‎.‎2018 at 6:02 PM, anniebird said:

I had to look that one up because it seemed like a ridiculous story line but it turns out to actually be true. It happened, however, when they were first married and before they had children. 

It may have happened but never in the way it was presented in the show - it was quite impossible and ridiculous. If Albert had really gone underwater under the ice, he would have died for he and Victoria coudn't have able to break the ice with bare hands. Or if they could have, the ice had been so thin, it would have broken under her.  

In this video you see first a man who is alone falls in the ice has very difficult to get to ice without ads and then you see two men who have aids and they can be saved themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/30/2018 at 1:06 AM, Roseanna said:

I find it strange that Albert inivited as a Christmas guest Victoria's mother although Victoria doesn't like her but not Lehzen whom Victoria loves. Even if I understad why Lehzen couldn't stay permanently when she and Albert are opponents, why can't she even visit Victoria? That shows that Albert is insecure and jealous. He wants to keep Victoria to himself alone, not understanding that one person can't fulfill all needs and there are matters that a woman speaks rather with an other woman.    

There was a scene where Victoria flat out asked Albert why he invited her mother without asking her. His response was that he did it for the children, i.e., the kids would remember Christmas with the whole family there. I don’t see this as making Albert “insecure” and “jealous” and wanting to “keep Victoria to himself alone.” In fact, I think it disproves this. Albert has very much tried since the beginning of his relationship with Victoria to promote and encourage  the reconciliation of the relationship between Victoria and her mother, which would expand her circle of relationships. Victoria has other friendships with her ladies, so she has other women to share things with and talk to. Albert does not seem to mind at all these friendships.

Spoiler

And from what I read Victoria and her mother did grow closer, Victoria’s mother was a dotting grandmother who played a big role in the lives of all nine of her grandchildren, and Victoria was devastated when she died, regretting the years there was a rift between them. As for Lehzen, I read that Victoria and Albert visited Lehzen when they traveled to Germany. I hope Season 3 includes Victoria and Albert’s trip to Coburg and the visit to see Lehzen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Historically Albert did push the reconciliation - his mother-in-law was also his father's sister, so it was his family business.  Also, Lehzen really was an important person to young Victoria who was not well able to allow her charge to grow and move on.  She pretty much had to be pushed, otherwise she could have remained at court as Elizabeth I's childhood household did.

Relationships change, and the retainers who remain effective are those who remember to change too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Nolefan said:

There was a scene where Victoria flat out asked Albert why he invited her mother without asking her. His response was that he did it for the children, i.e., the kids would remember Christmas with the whole family there. I don’t see this as making Albert “insecure” and “jealous” and wanting to “keep Victoria to himself alone.” In fact, I think it disproves this. Albert has very much tried since the beginning of his relationship with Victoria to promote and encourage  the reconciliation of the relationship between Victoria and her mother, which would expand her circle of relationships. Victoria has other friendships with her ladies, so she has other women to share things with and talk to. Albert does not seem to mind at all these friendships.

  Reveal hidden contents

And from what I read Victoria and her mother did grow closer, Victoria’s mother was a dotting grandmother who played a big role in the lives of all nine of her grandchildren, and Victoria was devastated when she died, regretting the years there was a rift between them. As for Lehzen, I read that Victoria and Albert visited Lehzen when they traveled to Germany. I hope Season 3 includes Victoria and Albert’s trip to Coburg and the visit to see Lehzen.

I used "insecure" and "jealous" and "wanting to keep Victoria to himself alone" about Albert's reaction about Victoria's relationship with Lehzen. I understand why Lehzen had to go, but I can't understand why Victoria couldn't even meet her f.ex. at Christmas. (Victoria's ladies are chosen politically and change when the government change and can't replace Lehzen as her confidantes.)

As for Victoria's mother, it's OK for to encourage one's spouse to have better realationship with her/his family members, but one should remember that it's her/his own decision. It's not OK for a spouse to inivite them as guests and thus force to meet them. In this, Albert treated Victoria like a child. 

Of course Albert is an authoritative man of his times. Therefore, their marriage shouldn't be presented in a romantic light. It wasn't a marriage of equals.  

Spoiler

A.N. Wilson says in his biograhy that Albert infantilized Victoria and even called her "mein Kind" (in German, my child).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I used "insecure" and "jealous" and "wanting to keep Victoria to himself alone" about Albert's reaction about Victoria's relationship with Lehzen. I understand why Lehzen had to go, but I can't understand why Victoria couldn't even meet her f.ex. at Christmas. (Victoria's ladies are chosen politically and change when the government change and can't replace Lehzen as her confidantes.)

As for Victoria's mother, it's OK for to encourage one's spouse to have better realationship with her/his family members, but one should remember that it's her/his own decision. It's not OK for a spouse to inivite them as guests and thus force to meet them. In this, Albert treated Victoria like a child. 

Of course Albert is an authoritative man of his times. Therefore, their marriage shouldn't be presented in a romantic light. It wasn't a marriage of equals.  

  Reveal hidden contents

A.N. Wilson says in his biograhy that Albert infantilized Victoria and even called her "mein Kind" (in German, my child).

I think both Victoria and Albert are authoritative, hence they are in a power struggle at this point in their marriage. I also think that Albert’s m.o. in their martial  power struggle appears to be to take action first as to what he thinks is best, then ask for forgiveness later. I agree that Albert should have asked Victoria first, but I don’t think his motive for wanting to  invite Victoria’s mother was wrong. To me, this doesn’t make Albert some evil person trying to lock Victoria away in some dungeon to take over power so that he can rule England. It just seems like normal bad moves that couples make in their marriage when they try do get what they want — normal marital power struggles. They are a young couple who are still trying to figure out how to be married and how to fulfill each other’s needs. I thought that Albert made some advancement in how he relates to Victoria in this episode. He went from the beginning to just telling Victoria her childhood fears were irrational, to understanding that what Victoria needs (and what Lehzen provided) is someone to support her, not tell her she is acting irrationally (which was the point of the Uncle Cumberland stuff). When Albert stood up at the table at the end of the episode when Uncle Cumberland showed up like he was ready to throw Uncle Cumberland out, this made all the difference to Victoria (she knew at that point Albert understand and validated her feelings). This action by Albert, then made Victoria see things from Albert’s point of view (that maybe she needed to start forgiving people and not hold on to old grudges or they were going to destroy her) thus Victoria’s statement to her mother about maybe things were no that bad and inviting Uncle Cumberland to stay. Again,typical martial struggles to me. I find nothing wrong with presenting their marriage in a romantic light. They had normal martial struggles their overcame together. Despite their real life struggles, overall both seemed very happy and madly in love.

Spoiler

As for Albert calling Victoria “child” maybe that was the Victorian equivalent of calling your wife “baby” or “babe” like we do today in America ;) A term of endearment, not a way to be demeaning.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

As a P.S. to romanticizing Victoria and Albert’s relationship, I think they did that themselves. An example being the sexy painting Victoria gave to Albert and the crown Albert designed specifically for Victoria. This is downright legit fairytale stuff. It frustrates me to see people attempting to disparage their relationship as being less than what it was, when the two parties to the relationship both professed by words and action time and again that they were madly in love.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/4/2018 at 6:22 AM, Nolefan said:

As a P.S. to romanticizing Victoria and Albert’s relationship, I think they did that themselves. An example being the sexy painting Victoria gave to Albert and the crown Albert designed specifically for Victoria. This is downright legit fairytale stuff. It frustrates me to see people attempting to disparage their relationship as being less than what it was, when the two parties to the relationship both professed by words and action time and again that they were madly in love.

I think that people may fail to realize that a marriage can be romantic WHILE also containing patriarchal power struggles. Victoria & Albert most certainly had romantic love and genuine sexual attraction for each other, but that doesn’t mean their marriage was egalitarian in the manner many people in 2018 would like to view marriage. 

Edited by Scarlett45
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I think that people may fail to realize that a marriage can be romantic WHILE also containing patriarchal power struggles. Victoria & Albert most certainly had romantic love and genuine sexual attraction for each other, but that doesn’t mean their marriage was egalitarian in the manner many people in 2018 would like to view marriage. 

Excellent point. Judging 1840s behavior through a 2018 lense can make things appear distorted. I think what may get lost while doing so is the fact that, even for the 1840s, I think Victoria and Albert’s marriage was more “modern” than the typical marriage of the time period. The whole idea that an 1840s’ husband would have to ask permission and/or get input from his wife on ANY decision is pretty revolutionary. Although Albert definitely struggled with this, he seemed very progressive for the time period for the amount of control he did give up. I think Victoria was well aware of the societal norms of the time, and understood this, even if the 2018 audience finds this hard to fathom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Excellent point. Judging 1840s behavior through a 2018 lense can make things appear distorted. I think what may get lost while doing so is the fact that, even for the 1840s, I think Victoria and Albert’s marriage was more “modern” than the typical marriage of the time period. The whole idea that an 1840s’ husband would have to ask permission and/or get input from his wife on ANY decision is pretty revolutionary. Although Albert definitely struggled with this, he seemed very progressive for the time period for the amount of control he did give up. I think Victoria was well aware of the societal norms of the time, and understood this, even if the 2018 audience finds this hard to fathom.

Most 19th century marriages among the upper classes were arranged for financial concerns, but that didn’t mean that some couples weren’t genuinely attracted to each other and ended up falling in love- but it was still an 19th century marriage with legal coventure and all that entailed. By Victoria being Queen- she was in a unique position as a wife....

 

It’s kind of hard to have actual equality or a partnership when the woman is no longer a legal person! (Even if the husband was kind, loving, non abusive and did take her thoughts into consideration) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×