Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
SilverStormm

S03.E01: Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MamaMax said:

I also wondered about Real like Albert’s interest in/sympathy for  the poor. After the whitewashing Victoria got in regard to the great famine, I’m giving the show the side eye on that. 

Actually, if anything, I think the show has not given the credit he has been due in this regard. 

Spoiler

As shown in S1, Albert was a champion of anti-slavery. He was also a champion of child labor laws. He was behind the effort to get affordable, decent housing for the poor in London (I was wondering if the show is going to expand on that from what Albert observed in this episode). Not to mention the help to all people by championing a sewer system. For what I read, he always had a heart for the less fortunate. Even as a teenager in Coburg, he organized an effort to raise money for a family that lost their home in a fire. The Real Albert seemed like a really remarkable individual. I always have to laugh when stories come out that paint him as some villain who stole Victoria’s power. Stole her power to help the less fortunate in England?? If Victoria was against what Albert was using power to create, maybe it was good he took her power.

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind that there is a focus on the downstairs staff, but I wish it were more interesting than the stories they are telling.  Star-crossed lovers has been done before, over and over.  Find a new angle, or don't bother.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Actually, if anything, I think the show has not given the credit he has been due in this regard. 

  Reveal hidden contents

As shown in S1, Albert was a champion of anti-slavery. He was also a champion of child labor laws. He was behind the effort to get affordable, decent housing for the poor in London (I was wondering if the show is going to expand on that from what Albert observed in this episode). Not to mention the help to all people by championing a sewer system. For what I read, he always had a heart for the less fortunate. Even as a teenager in Coburg, he organized an effort to raise money for a family that lost their home in a fire. The Real Albert seemed like a really remarkable individual. I always have to laugh when stories come out that paint him as some villain who stole Victoria’s power. Stole her power to help the less fortunate in England?? If Victoria was against what Albert was using power to create, maybe it was good he took her power.

I always enjoy your history lessons.  Thanks! 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MamaMax said:

I also wondered about Real like Albert’s interest in/sympathy for  the poor. After the whitewashing Victoria got in regard to the great famine, I’m giving the show the side eye on that. 

I dont know if real life Albert ever went to actual slums to see what was up, but he very well could have, as real Albert really did have a strong interest in the poor and marginalized. As he didnt have many official duties as consort, he got involved in a number of reforms and causes. He helped reform a lot of English education (including teaching science and modern history), championed world wide abolition of slavery, and worked to reform public housing and make conditions safer for workers in a number of industries, and brought the issue of child labor to the palace.  Also, public health? He was a big fan, so thanks Albert! He did seem to have a real soft spot for the less fortunate, and really was quite passionate about reforms, social change, and modernization in ways that would help a lot of people.

Dang, @Nolefan got there first :) 

Edited by tennisgurl
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Actually, if anything, I think the show has not given the credit he has been due in this regard. 

  Hide contents

As shown in S1, Albert was a champion of anti-slavery. He was also a champion of child labor laws. He was behind the effort to get affordable, decent housing for the poor in London (I was wondering if the show is going to expand on that from what Albert observed in this episode). Not to mention the help to all people by championing a sewer system. For what I read, he always had a heart for the less fortunate. Even as a teenager in Coburg, he organized an effort to raise money for a family that lost their home in a fire. The Real Albert seemed like a really remarkable individual. I always have to laugh when stories come out that paint him as some villain who stole Victoria’s power. Stole her power to help the less fortunate in England?? If Victoria was against what Albert was using power to create, maybe it was good he took her power.

Spoiler

Those always make me laugh too. He's power hungry! He wants to be the power! By helping the poor? Fixing plumbing? Anti-slavery! For child labor laws! Affordable housing! Those are odd interests for someone so power hungry and wanting to use his or his wife's power for.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 7:07 PM, Nolefan said:

Overall, I liked the episode. It just felt like I watched half of the episode, which is weird because the last two seasons PBS combined two separate episodes into one for a two-hour premiere, but this year the first two episodes seemed connected, then PBS has a one hour premiere? Odd.

I think they're only showing one episode because of the Lucy Worsley special on Victoria and Albert's wedding that follows.  But you're right, this episode felt incomplete and the second episode continues to deal with the chartists, so a 2 episode premier would have actually made a lot of sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I dont know if real life Albert ever went to actual slums to see what was up, but he very well could have, as real Albert really did have a strong interest in the poor and marginalized. 

Spoiler

I found it interesting that there is speculation that Albert may have gotten typhoid from inspecting a sewer system, which he was known to do. It seems like has was not afraid to get his hands dirty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 12:51 AM, LittleIggy said:

 Who is this Sophie and her a-hole husband? I don’t remember them.

 

There is something I like about her character so far, although I feel like I will be questioning her judgment in regard to the men she attracted to based on the eyes she was making at Lord Palmerston. I think the show has been really lacking in regard to showing Victoria having any real female friends among her ladies. Emma Portman seemed there solely as a catalyst between Victoria and Lord M. And Harriet was just there for the Ernest storyline— heck I still don’t think Victoria has a clue about Ernest and Harriet!! I would like Victoria to have a true back and forth friendship with one her ladies. Maybe this will develop between the two.

Edited by Nolefan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I realize that this ship has sailed but I really miss Drummond/Lord Alfred.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Bit of a mixed bag as usual. I liked that they gave the older kids some characterization - hints of what was to come: Vicky the over-achiever and Bertie already annoying Papa with his lazy attitude.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Little Bertie is a brat, lol.  Probably the most realistic portrayal of the family.  I don't know why they made half-sister Feodora so creepy, but Victoria gave one of her daughters the middle name.  Perhaps the one she's expecting?   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Her youngest child, Princess Beatrice, was Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore.

Edited by chitowngirl
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 8:07 PM, Nolefan said:

Man, is Bertie a brat. Surprised he don’t get punished for throwing his crown at the former King of the French. 

2

Not a fan of obnoxious, bratty kids.  I hope Bertie isn't in a lot of episodes.

On 1/15/2019 at 7:33 AM, Nolefan said:

I am with you here. I am fine with the downstairs peoples’ interaction with Victoria and Albert, but the separate downstairs storylines is the weakest part of this show (and I keep wondering why Mr. Penge has not been fired yet), but for some bizarre reason, Ms. Goodwin just continues to double down on it. Then the powers that be will wonder why the rating go down.

1

Well, at least Penge has cleaned up.  He looked downright presentable.  

On 1/15/2019 at 1:19 PM, Ilovepie said:

I agree with this so much. It's like they want it to be Downton Abbey, but that show was about life in the Abbey, both upstairs and downstairs. This show is called Victoria - It should be about her and the people as they interact with her. It's not "Buckingham Palace". I don't need a separate story about these fake people. There is nothing new to say there that hasn't been done better elsewhere, and it detracts from the real story of the show - Victoria herself.

I also thought that guy was Ernst. I am so confused by the rotating people - they just come and go with no reason, and with the gap in time since the last season plus a time jump in the show, I just can't keep them straight. The sister is creepy though. I think Victoria is not annoyed so much that she left her at Kensington to get married, but more that she hasn't heard from her, like ever, and now she just shows up and expects Victoria to help her.

Albert continues to be my favorite part. I liked that when challenged that he didn't know how the lower classes lived, he went and found out. I don't know if Albert was like this in real life, but TV Albert is a gem.

 

Feodora comes across as grasping and jealous in addition to being creepy.  

Mine, too.  I was waiting for him to punch Palmerston in the face when he was making veiled threats about the queen's safety in Albert's presence. Albert is very protective of his family, especially his beloved Victoria.

I thought Lord Palmerston is a pompous ass along with Sophie's husband.  

The actress playing Miss Turner looks like Arya's disguise before she slit Walder Frey's throat in GOT.  The actor playing Joseph Weld favors Rufus Sewell a bit.  I cracked up at the buggy ride with Palmerston and the Prime Minister--don't touch me!  LOL

I agree that the drama south of the palace is dull and uninteresting, but it was nice to see some familiar faces sprinkled among all the new ones.  I don't mind Skerrett, Emma, Alfred, Charles and Brodie in tiny doses like cameos. 

P.S. Ignore the numbers in quoted text.  For some reason grammarly program does that and I can't figure out why or how to get rid of them...possibly because it's the free version. LOL

Edited by taurusrose
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, taurusrose said:

The actress playing Miss Turner looks like Arya's disguise before she slit Walder Frey's throat in GOT.  

That was her. She looked awfully familiar but I couldn't place her so I looked her up: Sabrina Bartlett, she's in lots of shows with a fantasy and or semi-historical setting (Doctor Who, Poldark, Knightfall, Versailles).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, taurusrose said:

The actor playing Joseph Weld favors Rufus Sewell a bit. 

I think he looks a lot like Rufus Sewell. Same look. Same build. The guy could play Mr. Sewell’s son or a younger version of him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad the show is portraying young Vicky and Bertie as I've always read them to be.  I'm a fan of the German/Prussia monarch so I'm some what familiar with Vicky and so far they've got her spot on.

I've heard Ernst and his love Harriet will be back this season.  I haven't heard anything about my beloved Duchess of Buccleuch so I guess shes not coming back but u assume we'll hear about her niece soon enough 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As far as downstairs drama goes....enh I'm amused but not enthralled as I was with Downton Abbey.   I blame the writers though, true Mr Pence is no Carlson but he doesn't have to be.   He seems to have enough underlying mystery to make him compelling.   Same with Skarette and Francatelli (forgive my spelling) give them something to do!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wondered about little Bertie sulking that he won't be king because 'in Britain we have queens' - apparently that's not complete fiction as it took him a long time to realize that he's first in the line of succession and not his older sister: Victoria as Mother - I feel tempted to add 'Censoring Queen Victoria' to my reading list.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On January 17, 2019 at 9:01 PM, taurusrose said:

The actress playing Miss Turner looks like Arya's disguise before she slit Walder Frey's throat in GOT

Yes! Thank you. I came here to ask that very question! Shows how often I have seen some GOT eps that I could ID her from just one scene. The actress has a very distinctive voice, even though she put on more of a lower-class accent here.

6 hours ago, MissLucas said:

apparently that's not complete fiction as it took him a long time to realize that he's first in the line of succession and not his older sister:

After this episode, and from what I know of Bertie, Vicky should have succeeded her mom! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that Feodora is being portrayed as a conniving and sneaky bitch....

So, of course I did some research, never having heard of her before, and what do I find?

Victoria actually loved and missed her and they kept in touch after Fedora married.  By all accounts she had a long marriage and a reasonably content one.  When she/they visited they did get money, but there is no indication that she was a sneaky person trying to undermine Victoria.  In fact, there are copies of many loving letters between the two...so I am not sure what the show is doing here.

My info came from Wikipedia mostly, so keep that  in mind.

This does seem to me to cast a whole lot of doubt about the entirety of the impression the show is leaving about Vic and her reign.

I am getting a much better impression of Albert than I previously had, so there is that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, kaygeeret said:

I agree that Feodora is being portrayed as a conniving and sneaky bitch....

So, of course I did some research, never having heard of her before, and what do I find?

Victoria actually loved and missed her and they kept in touch after Fedora married.  By all accounts she had a long marriage and a reasonably content one.  When she/they visited they did get money, but there is no indication that she was a sneaky person trying to undermine Victoria.  In fact, there are copies of many loving letters between the two...so I am not sure what the show is doing here.

My info came from Wikipedia mostly, so keep that  in mind.

This does seem to me to cast a whole lot of doubt about the entirety of the impression the show is leaving about Vic and her reign.

I am getting a much better impression of Albert than I previously had, so there is that.

I agree--I like the show, but I'm not really happy about many of the choices it has made. 

I also think the actress who plays the sister is way over-the-top. Every scene she's in, she almost looks like she's ready to stab Victoria. There's no reason for them to turn her into a villain, but I'm not sure how else to read her expressions and body language. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, kaygeeret said:

I agree that Feodora is being portrayed as a conniving and sneaky bitch....

So, of course I did some research, never having heard of her before, and what do I find?

Victoria actually loved and missed her and they kept in touch after Fedora married.  By all accounts she had a long marriage and a reasonably content one.  When she/they visited they did get money, but there is no indication that she was a sneaky person trying to undermine Victoria.  In fact, there are copies of many loving letters between the two...so I am not sure what the show is doing here.

My info came from Wikipedia mostly, so keep that  in mind.

This does seem to me to cast a whole lot of doubt about the entirety of the impression the show is leaving about Vic and her reign.

I am getting a much better impression of Albert than I previously had, so there is that.

The liberties it has taken have annoyed me as well. I’ve read enough about her life and reign to know the basics of her life and when major liberties have been taken. I think the most egregious part was Leopold telling Albert he was his father last season. Yes, that has been rumored but has never been more then speculation. Real life is dramatic enough. Why add fake drama?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

Yes! Thank you. I came here to ask that very question! Shows how often I have seen some GOT eps that I could ID her from just one scene. The actress has a very distinctive voice, even though she put on more of a lower-class accent here.

After this episode, and from what I know of Bertie, Vicky should have succeeded her mom! 

Edward wasn’t a bad king. He was just so old when his mom finally died so he had a short reign. Vicky had the misfortune of inflicting Kaiser Wilhelm upon the world.

Old Wellington still in the saddle! They had some beautiful horses in this episode.

Edited by LittleIggy
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/15/2019 at 8:53 PM, andromeda331 said:
  Hide contents

Those always make me laugh too. He's power hungry! He wants to be the power! By helping the poor? Fixing plumbing? Anti-slavery! For child labor laws! Affordable housing! Those are odd interests for someone so power hungry and wanting to use his or his wife's power for.

I don't think anyone would fault him for wanting to care for the poor, but

Spoiler

 

he kept taking more and more of Victoria's responsibilities in general and taking charge of every little detail.  Then he complained of being overworked!  He may have used that power for a good cause, but he prevented her from being actively involved in many of the affairs involving her own realm.  Plus, he had no inherent right to such power, as he would if he were the monarch himself, or elected to office.  

Plus, not all of his "reforms" were egalitarian.  He ordered servants and any common person to always stand when in the presence of royals, even nurses nursing the Royal babies.  It ended up alienating him from people he might have befriended (such as leading innovators of the day) and contributed to the depression he suffered. 

 

As for another person's comment that he got typhoid from exposure to the sewer system, another theory about Albert's death is that he had Crohn's disease.  Some think that he had renal failure as a result, and that's why he died.  Seeing the symptoms described, I think it's very possible. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Prince Albert died from pneumonia from the bad cold he caught traveling in bad weather to scold Bertie about his immoral behavior at the prince's boarding school. Victoria blamed Bertie for Albert's illness and death until HER dying day in 1901. Not true?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, floridamom said:

I thought Prince Albert died from pneumonia from the bad cold he caught traveling in bad weather to scold Bertie about his immoral behavior at the prince's boarding school. Victoria blamed Bertie for Albert's illness and death until HER dying day in 1901. Not true?

According to Wikipedia, the diagnosis was typhoid fever that was believed to have been exacerbated by visiting Bertie. However, it speculates that Albert could have very well had an underlying condition like Crohn's disease or even cancer that wouldn't have been diagnosed back then but that could have caused/ helped cause his death. Apparently he hadn't been in the best of health for a couple of years prior to his death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

I don't think anyone would fault him for wanting to care for the poor, but

  Hide contents

 

he kept taking more and more of Victoria's responsibilities in general and taking charge of every little detail.  Then he complained of being overworked!  He may have used that power for a good cause, but he prevented her from being actively involved in many of the affairs involving her own realm.  Plus, he had no inherent right to such power, as he would if he were the monarch himself, or elected to office.  

Plus, not all of his "reforms" were egalitarian.  He ordered servants and any common person to always stand when in the presence of royals, even nurses nursing the Royal babies.  It ended up alienating him from people he might have befriended (such as leading innovators of the day) and contributed to the depression he suffered. 

 

As for another person's comment that he got typhoid from exposure to the sewer system, another theory about Albert's death is that he had Crohn's disease.  Some think that he had renal failure as a result, and that's why he died.  Seeing the symptoms described, I think it's very possible. 

 

In response 

Spoiler

The problem I have with this is that I believe the powers that be were attempting to set Victoria up for failure when she married Albert. If she were King, she would have been given an anointed consort who was made a part of the monarchy as well, second only to the King. However, Victoria was prevented from getting a true helper like this. Sure, it was different because Albert was a man and all the implications that that might have had, but, bottom line, she was left alone to rule. While a lot of people will yell “Girl Power!” to this, in reality, the amount of  unrealistic expectations this places on Victoria is incredible to me. Not only is she expected to secure heirs to the throne, she is expected to run everything as well without missing a beat. Their are letters where Victoria states that she is happy Albert is doing the tedious work for her. From the dawn of time, successful men have had competent people doing work for them which they sign their name to and take credit for. CEOs  do this all the time. Yet, Victoria seems to get shamed for this. Or others want to paint the picture of a women having her power taken from her. I think Victoria trusted Albert, was smart enough to recognize talent, and use that talent to make HER a great Queen, a Queen who got a whole period of time named for her. The people loved Victoria, and never cared for Albert until he was dead, and after that it was Victoria that built monuments for him, not the English people. So this whole theory of Albert stealing Victoria’s power seems unfounded to me. And then “stealing her power” to help poor people is laughable.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Nolefan said:

In response 

  Hide contents

The problem I have with this is that I believe the powers that be were attempting to set Victoria up for failure when she married Albert. If she were King, she would have been given an anointed consort who was made a part of the monarchy as well, second only to the King. However, Victoria was prevented from getting a true helper like this. Sure, it was different because Albert was a man and all the implications that that might have had, but, bottom line, she was left alone to rule. While a lot of people will yell “Girl Power!” to this, in reality, the amount of  unrealistic expectations this places on Victoria is incredible to me. Not only is she expected to secure heirs to the throne, she is expected to run everything as well without missing a beat. Their are letters where Victoria states that she is happy Albert is doing the tedious work for her. From the dawn of time, successful men have had competent people doing work for them which they sign their name to and take credit for. CEOs  do this all the time. Yet, Victoria seems to get shamed for this. Or others want to paint the picture of a women having her power taken from her. I think Victoria trusted Albert, was smart enough to recognize talent, and use that talent to make HER a great Queen, a Queen who got a whole period of time named for her. The people loved Victoria, and never cared for Albert until he was dead, and after that it was Victoria that built monuments for him, not the English people. So this whole theory of Albert stealing Victoria’s power seems unfounded to me. And then “stealing her power” to help poor people is laughable.

What you say makes sense, but

Spoiler

 

Were Queen Consorts really involved in the day-to-day running of the monarchy, at least during the time before it was all ribbon cutting and shaking hands?  At least going by The Crown, and from what I know of Edward VII's marriage, no.  Queen Consorts might oversee charities, but they did not make decisions on governance.  When Empress Alexandra of Russia was put in charge of running things, there was a furor -- even though she wasn't a newcomer and was intelligent.  They had already set her up as a proto-Hillary Clintonesque boogeyman because she didn't just smile and go to parties.  But I digress... 

While I'm sure Victoria valued Albert, one reason is that he made sure that she depended on him.  She was grateful he took the tedious work from her, as anyone would be who hates tedious work, but it also kept her out of the loop.  As a result, we don't really get to see how Victoria would have ruled during some politically delicate times -- it's always viewed through the lens of what Albert did.  Maybe some of that is the fault of how she's covered: to date, I know far more about her private life and relationship with her children and grandchildren than I do about any thoughts or decisions she made about the Reform Bill of 1867 or the Women's Property Act or school reform, etc.  But at least I know she thought that Lord Palmerston and William Gladstone were rude.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

What you say makes sense, but

  Hide contents

 

Were Queen Consorts really involved in the day-to-day running of the monarchy, at least during the time before it was all ribbon cutting and shaking hands?  At least going by The Crown, and from what I know of Edward VII's marriage, no.  Queen Consorts might oversee charities, but they did not make decisions on governance.  When Empress Alexandra of Russia was put in charge of running things, there was a furor -- even though she wasn't a newcomer and was intelligent.  They had already set her up as a proto-Hillary Clintonesque boogeyman because she didn't just smile and go to parties.  But I digress... 

While I'm sure Victoria valued Albert, one reason is that he made sure that she depended on him.  She was grateful he took the tedious work from her, as anyone would be who hates tedious work, but it also kept her out of the loop.  As a result, we don't really get to see how Victoria would have ruled during some politically delicate times -- it's always viewed through the lens of what Albert did.  Maybe some of that is the fault of how she's covered: to date, I know far more about her private life and relationship with her children and grandchildren than I do about any thoughts or decisions she made about the Reform Bill of 1867 or the Women's Property Act or school reform, etc.  But at least I know she thought that Lord Palmerston and William Gladstone were rude.

 

I'm less well versed on Englsnd than I am Russia, but

Spoiler

I'd argue that though Alexandra was intelligent, her decision-making when she was left in charge merited the outcry it received. She was book smart, but it didn't translate to any actual political ability or even any real awareness of the reality of her situation in Russia. Her handling of the Rasputin situation is pretty telling in that regard. 

She was definitely the subject of hateful untrue rumors and vicious stereotyping for superficial reasons, but she also brought a fair amount of it on herself by being tone deaf and incompetent. Not that Nicholas was any better, of course. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Brn2bwild said:

What you say makes sense, but

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Were Queen Consorts really involved in the day-to-day running of the monarchy, at least during the time before it was all ribbon cutting and shaking hands?  At least going by The Crown, and from what I know of Edward VII's marriage, no.  Queen Consorts might oversee charities, but they did not make decisions on governance.  When Empress Alexandra of Russia was put in charge of running things, there was a furor -- even though she wasn't a newcomer and was intelligent.  They had already set her up as a proto-Hillary Clintonesque boogeyman because she didn't just smile and go to parties.  But I digress... 

While I'm sure Victoria valued Albert, one reason is that he made sure that she depended on him.  She was grateful he took the tedious work from her, as anyone would be who hates tedious work, but it also kept her out of the loop.  As a result, we don't really get to see how Victoria would have ruled during some politically delicate times -- it's always viewed through the lens of what Albert did.  Maybe some of that is the fault of how she's covered: to date, I know far more about her private life and relationship with her children and grandchildren than I do about any thoughts or decisions she made about the Reform Bill of 1867 or the Women's Property Act or school reform, etc.  But at least I know she thought that Lord Palmerston and William Gladstone were rude.

 

You should read about

Spoiler

Eleanor of Castile and King Edward. I also thought that in the olden days the Queen Consort was left in charge when the King went to war. A lot probably depended upon the closeness and respect the King and Queen had for each other. The thing that was the real difficulty with Victoria was that she was both bearing children, the traditional role of Queen Consort, and was essentially the King of England.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 3:31 PM, pasdetrois said:

That's Kate Fleetwood playing Feodora. Kate plays an 18th century dominatrix in Hulu's fabulous Harlots.

 

She was also Mary Cattermole in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I, and the bitchy factory worker who terrorized Fantine in Les Miserables.

Edited by AZChristian · Reason: Spelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/18/2019 at 6:00 PM, Nolefan said:

I think he looks a lot like Rufus Sewell. Same look. Same build. The guy could play Mr. Sewell’s son or a younger version of him.

The similarity is driving dear husband crazy.  He continues to insist it is the same actor.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/20/2019 at 9:42 PM, kaygeeret said:

I agree that Feodora is being portrayed as a conniving and sneaky bitch....

So, of course I did some research, never having heard of her before, and what do I find?

Victoria actually loved and missed her and they kept in touch after Fedora married.  By all accounts she had a long marriage and a reasonably content one.  When she/they visited they did get money, but there is no indication that she was a sneaky person trying to undermine Victoria.  In fact, there are copies of many loving letters between the two...so I am not sure what the show is doing here.

My info came from Wikipedia mostly, so keep that  in mind.

This does seem to me to cast a whole lot of doubt about the entirety of the impression the show is leaving about Vic and her reign.

I am getting a much better impression of Albert than I previously had, so there is that.

I will say I have mostly liked Albert.  

I was wondering when I watched this today if maybe I should have watched the last few episodes of the last season again, because I was really confused about some of the people.  I have read a more thorough biography on Feodora than Wikipedia would offer, but they are basically correct.  Also, if I recall correctly, once Victoria had a child, she and her mother spent a lot more time together.  I guess they feel like they need to portray Feodora as someone very different from who she was in real life.  I don't mind making up stories about the people who work in the palace, but I don't care for much change when it comes to the real people in her life.   Skerret (sp?) was okay at the beginning, but I am getting bored with her romance; in fact her romance bores me almost as much as the revolutionary people.  If I have to watch one more person sign the petition, I will scream.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The big change to Victoria's relationship with her mother (and apparently everybody's relationship with everyone else) was when Albert finally got Lehzen sent back to Germany.  Apparently she was a problem maker (intriguer sounds too smart, provocateur too skillful, and shit-stirrer too "on the nose" - heh), always creating trouble (Victoria v Duchess of Kent, Duchess of Kent v Queen Dowager Adelaide, Victoria v Albert) to consolidate her own position.  She finally screwed up her own duties badly enough (household finances, childcare of the little Royals, and so on) that Albert was able to persuade Victoria to let her retire - retire all the way out of the country, in fact.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 12:51 AM, LittleIggy said:

Who is this Sophie and her a-hole husband? I don’t remember them.

This may be old news to you at this point, but Sophie's the new Mistress of the Robes, so she and her husband haven't appeared before.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/20/2019 at 10:50 AM, Dirtybubble said:

Same with Skarette and Francatelli (forgive my spelling) give them something to do!

Skerrett. You spelled Francatelli (who was a real person, by the way) correctly.

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
×