Jump to content
Kohola3

S03.E05: A Show of Unity

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Was she forced into the marriage by her parents or something?

I think this is the mostly likely situation.  Her father was "in trade" but had made a lot of money at it.  Duke Evil was poor but had a title.  Her dad sold her off so that he'd have someone in the family married to a titled man which would improve his standing in society. Women had little say in their lives or fate back then.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Sophie's mother wanted her to be a duchess, the duke wanted her dowry. I'm fairly certain nobody cared what Sophie wanted. Tale as old as time.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know how many more seasons they plan on? Since this season Victoria is preggers with baby #7 I can imagine the end of Albert will coincide with the end of next season, if there is one.  Are they planning on seasons with Victoria in widowhood too? I'm not sure I want to follow this through the "Mrs. Brown" period and beyond.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, madhacker said:

My question is, wouldn't the punishment for what the tutor did to Bertie be uuuuh severe? I mean the guy was abusing the heir to the throne, I know times were different then, but still. I'm surprised that Albert didn't attack the guy, seeing how protective he is to his kids.

Albert had agreed to the punishment before hiring the tutor since Bertie was out of control,  but the show made it seem they were shocked.

Victoria continues sighing, deeply and often.  So out of touch that her maid has to inform her the Irish still have issues.

Albert has a faraway look in his eyes these days.

Feodora gives the kids booze with breakfast and takes pearls for peerage.  I like her.

There's no 'squirreling' of Lady Palmerston.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kassygreene said:

Except the real Victoria wasn't that sheltered, was brought up in the post-Regency decades (and apparently spoke Regency English to the end of her life), and she was a Hanover.  The Palmerston arrangement was certainly not unusual for their class, and I thought they were kind of sweet together.  The real Palmerston married the real Lady Cowper when they were both over fifty, and he was really supposed to be the father of that daughter (and one of the younger sons was generally believed to be the son of one of her earlier lovers -- again, not unusual).

What I hadn't realized was that "Lady Cooper" was Lady Cowper, who was one of the patronesses of Almack's (generally described as the nicest), which takes me back to Georgette Heyer, whom I should be re-reading.

Victoria was kept away from the Hanovers by her mom and Conroy under the strict Kensington system, with little to no visitors. She was very sheltered. I think the real Victoria was also particularly atune to staying away from scandal, as she was infuriated with how her mom’s and Conroy’s relationship was gossiped about in a handful of Court events she attended. Heck, she caused a scandal by publicly questioning Lady Flora’s morals. She might have been more liberal than Albert, but not by much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was odd that Victoria was wearing the same "shamrock dress" (her term) and green ribbons in her hair that she wore to meet the bishop (archbishop?) when she returned to the palace in London.  It had to be several days and several modes of transportation later before she could have been back in London. .  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NeenerNeener said:

Does anyone know how many more seasons they plan on? Since this season Victoria is preggers with baby #7 I can imagine the end of Albert will coincide with the end of next season, if there is one.  Are they planning on seasons with Victoria in widowhood too? I'm not sure I want to follow this through the "Mrs. Brown" period and beyond. 

I have no idea.  Her mother dies soon after Albert.   She didn't appear much in public after Albert died so I don't know what they will show except her sending Bertie out to tour the empire and maybe a quick glimpse of Mr Brown and Abdul Karim.   I am not enjoying this season as much as the others.

I want to thank the person that invented captioning for tv.  I don't usually have trouble hearing, but I had trouble with a couple of scenes in the episode prior to this so I turned it on for the entire episode this time. 

I cannot care about the Duchess and the footman as I feel I hardly know them. 

I liked Lady Palmerson (sp?)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NeenerNeener said:

Does anyone know how many more seasons they plan on? Since this season Victoria is preggers with baby #7 I can imagine the end of Albert will coincide with the end of next season, if there is one.  Are they planning on seasons with Victoria in widowhood too? I'm not sure I want to follow this through the "Mrs. Brown" period and beyond.

I hope they go at least one season beyond Albert's death, if only so we could see Victoria interact with her grown children.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, CCTC said:

Regarding the Palmerston marriage, I thought Albert was much more offended by it than Victoria (which him being more prudish than her might be more true to history).  Really with Albert's own immediate family and Victoria's Hanoverian uncles and their common-law families, their arrangement should not have been a surprise. 

I think they were both more shocked that Lady Palmerston was also having affairs: even before Victoria told Albert that she was doing so, he was upset at the thought that her daughter from her first marriage was fathered by Palmerston (which within the world of the show, could be bringing back the memory of his uncle telling him that he was his biological father.)  Of course, Albert's own mother was divorced and exiled from court for having an affair, so he was probably amazed that Palmerston was in agreement with his wife's behavior.  It must have been very confusing for Albert.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 12:14 AM, madhacker said:

and Yeah, the Duchess and the footman's subplot isn't going to end well. I'm seeing a duel between the husband and the footman in the season finale.

I agree with the first part, but it would be way beneath a Duke's honor to challenge a footman to a duel.  He would have admitted to being cuckolded by a commoner! He would be more likely to pay someone to take him out in a brawl, or something of that nature.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t mind Rufus Sewell and Laurence Fox being cast as younger and hot Lords M and Pam. This isn’t a documentary! 😏

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that when it came to the tutor and Bertie. Vicky asking people what they thought of the tutor. What happened to him was bad but I'm glad it didn't go there. I liked Victoria ordering the tutor out of her house and the boy yelling too. I wish we had gotten something more out of Albert when he arrived too. Given all his fears about his family's safety you'd think he'd have gone off on someone brought into his home to hurt his son. I liked Lady P too. The Duke can die at any point. Feodora needs to go. Tired of her completely she's too much of a cartoon. When Albert mentioned her talking to him about how Victoria's behaving since having her latest baby that they'd finally compare notes. That Victoria would remember what Feodora has been saying to her. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, MegK said:

I have to admit, I'm also really liking the Duke of Monmouth, even though he's doing everything short of twirling an evil mustache. At least he's interesting! The scene where he accuses Palmerston of "rogering my wife" was hilarious.

I had the closed captioning on, and in that part of the scene, the CC said “no audio” 😄

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Capricasix said:

I had the closed captioning on, and in that part of the scene, the CC said “no audio” 😄

Yes, this is one of the things I don't like about PBS.  I am an adult.  I watch adult television all the time.  I don't like blurring butts and silencing dialogue.  If they were so concerned about our "delicate" little minds, they'd cancel Victoria after this episode altogether.  It was horrid.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, LittleIggy said:

I don’t mind Rufus Sewell and Laurence Fox being cast as younger and hot Lords M and Pam. This isn’t a documentary! 😏

Agreed it is not a documentary, but it is based on real historical people. I am totally on board with the Hollywood version of these historical people, but significant changes in ages so as to manipulate the audience into buying into a romantic relationship between characters is just manipulative. Most history books portray Lord M and Victoria as a father/daughter relationship.  If Ms. Goodwin wanted to show it was otherwise, fine. But by making Lord M decades younger than he really was is a manipulative way of doing so. It says to me that this show even believes the real age difference between Lord M and Victoria has an ick factor to it, most audience members would not support it, so to make the audience get on board, they drastically changed his age. Then, turned him into a souped up version of Lord M and put him up against a more realistic version of Albert. Then, we get some audience members “cheering” against history, when the history they are portraying is actually fiction and a fictional character. This is a story about real history, right? And now we get comments that Victoria should dump Albert and sleep with Lord Palmerston. Sure, now that Palmerston is a young, sexy guy. Doubt we would get the same reaction if the character was in his 60s. Pure manipulation.

Edited by Nolefan
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I found Victoria’s attitude in the episode about her pregnancies to be out of character. When Victoria and Albert were talking in bed in Ireland about why things are different in comparison to Scotland and Albert answers that they have 6 children now, I was surprised Victoria said this wasn’t an issue in their relationship (saying something about having an army of servants). It seemed like a major theme of this show was how Victoria despised being constantly pregnant. Even at the end of the show, I was expecting her to break down at the thought of being pregnant once again. And now suddenly this isn’t an issue for her? It’s just Albert’s issue?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2019 at 10:26 PM, Suzysite said:

Knowing that Bertie grew up to be a bit of an a-hole himself doesn't diminish the fact that I want to bring the little guy home with me and keep him safe. 

This calls for my favorite Max Beerbohm cartoon

victoriabritain1819f.jpg

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe that close-up shots of the duchess showed modern highlights/streaks in her hair, and dark roots!

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, pasdetrois said:

I can't believe that close-up shots of the duchess showed modern highlights/streaks in her hair, and dark roots!

This episode made me very cranky. And yes! I noticed that too! I was already taken out of the scene when they showed the (wandering, unchaperoned) Duchess approaching the naked footman on the beach. The sudden appearance of flame-breathing dragons would have been a lot more believable, especially when he said, "Walk with me, Duchess" (after he put on clothing) And she does.

And honestly, it's hard to root for a dude--no matter how good the eye candy--who nearly lost his job because he couldn't resist going for a swim, just running off to test out some new waters. If Downton Abbey--the show Daisy wishes Victoria was--taught me anything, it's not like footmen could treat road trips as work/vacation. Was he counting on the Duchess to bail him out again, with her villainous husband only a few feet away? Because that just makes him stupid or entitled, or both.

His "I offer you love" would have worked if he had been set up as a total manipulative player before, rather than an 8 foot tall bewigged stalker, but here it was just him mouthing the payoff to the on-the-nose discussion between the Pams about how the Duchess needed luuuuurve. Hope Daisy Goodwin didn't dislocate a shoulder patting herself on the back with that.

After Victoria caught herself addressing Abigail as Skerritt, I half expected her to declare that she was just going to continue to do so, because that's exactly the kind of tone deaf that's a lot more believable than her blithely inviting Duke Boar/Bore along and then ignoring him behaving like a drunken fool in her presence.

I did like Lady P, a lot. In just a few lines she was a lot more interesting than Feodora, Duchess Lookin4LoveinAlltheWrongPlaces, and NuSkerritt combined.

I feel like I've seen that (beekeeper's) veiled intro to a new character before--maybe even on this show. Any ideas? Although with the lengthy buildup to seeing her face, I was sorta expecting Rufus Sewell in drag.

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Agreed it is not a documentary, but it is based on real historical people. I am totally on board with the Hollywood version of these historical people, but significant changes in ages so as to manipulate the audience into buying into a romantic relationship between characters is just manipulative. Most history books portray Lord M and Victoria as a father/daughter relationship.  If Ms. Goodwin wanted to show it was otherwise, fine. But by making Lord M decades younger than he really was is a manipulative way of doing so. It says to me that this show even believes the real age difference between Lord M and Victoria has an ick factor to it, most audience members would not support it, so to make the audience get on board, they drastically changed his age. Then, turned him into a souped up version of Lord M and put him up against a more realistic version of Albert. Then, we get some audience members “cheering” against history, when the history they are portraying is actually fiction and a fictional character. This is a story about real history, right? And now we get comments that Victoria should dump Albert and sleep with Lord Palmerston. Sure, now that Palmerston is a young, sexy guy. Doubt we would get the same reaction if the character was in his 60s. Pure manipulation.

This.  If Goodwin wanted to create totally make-believe situations, she should have written genuine fiction with characters she created and not use historical figures to indulge her fantasies.  She is being totally disingenuous by claiming this isn't a "documentary" and "it could have been this way" to justify her work.    No.  I think the real Victoria left enough written evidence of HER life that Goodwin's actions are not only ridiculous, but insulting.  I call bullshit.  Furthermore, I have no respect for Goodwin or this season of Victoria and I'm seriously considering dropping it.  As I stated before, a little bit of poetic license or creating a plausible scene around a fact is one thing.  This is something else and I find it beyond distasteful.

Edited by taurusrose
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaiju Ballet said:

This episode made me very cranky. And yes! I noticed that too! I was already taken out of the scene when they showed the (wandering, unchaperoned) Duchess approaching the naked footman on the beach. The sudden appearance of flame-breathing dragons would have been a lot more believable, especially when he said, "Walk with me, Duchess" (after he put on clothing) And she does.

And honestly, it's hard to root for a dude--no matter how good the eye candy--who nearly lost his job because he couldn't resist going for a swim, just running off to test out some new waters. If Downton Abbey--the show Daisy wishes Victoria was--taught me anything, it's not like footmen could treat road trips as work/vacation. Was he counting on the Duchess to bail him out again, with her villainous husband only a few feet away? Because that just makes him stupid or entitled, or both.

His "I offer you love" would have worked if he had been set up as a total manipulative player before, rather than an 8 foot tall bewigged stalker, but here it was just him mouthing the payoff to the on-the-nose discussion between the Pams about how the Duchess needed luuuuurve. Hope Daisy Goodwin didn't dislocate a shoulder patting herself on the back with that.

After Victoria caught herself addressing Abigail as Skerritt, I half expected her to declare that she was just going to continue to do so, because that's exactly the kind of tone deaf that's a lot more believable than her blithely inviting Duke Boar/Bore along and then ignoring him behaving like a drunken fool in her presence.

I did like Lady P, a lot. In just a few lines she was a lot more interesting than Feodora, Duchess Lookin4LoveinAlltheWrongPlaces, and NuSkerritt combined.

3

Amen!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, taurusrose said:

This.  If Goodwin wanted to create totally make-believe situations, she should have written genuine fiction with characters she created and not use historical figures to indulge her fantasies.  She is being totally disingenuous by claiming this isn't a "documentary" and "it could have been this way" to justify her work.    No.  I think the real Victoria left enough written evidence of HER life that Goodwin's actions are not only ridiculous, but insulting.  I call bullshit.  Furthermore, I have no respect for Goodwin or this season of Victoria and I'm seriously considering dropping it.  As I stated before, a little bit of poetic license or creating a plausible scene around a fact is one thing.  This is something else and I find it beyond distasteful.

Also having a really hard time with this season and seriously considering dropping it. These last 2 episodes have just been dreadful, in my opinion. Debating whether I should ride out the season or not, but at this rate, I'm not watching season 4. Still hoping for a David Oakes sighting at some point, but damn, I can watch him in other things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone remember when PBS was educational TV? Maybe this series is a class in how (not) to write "real people porn."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair the show is not produced by PBS, it's produced by ITV. But yeah they're airing it so . . .

There is something unsettling about telling fictional stories with historical characters, I admit. I'd like to see what this series would look like if there wasn't some unspoken mandate that it ape as much of Downton Abbey as possible. 

I mean, I don't mind that Victoria and Albert etc. are much more attractive on the show than they ever were in real life, but when you start playing fast and loose with characters like Feodora who never played any kind of role in Victoria's life that comes anywhere close to what they're doing with her on the show, that's going a step to far. It's maligning. 

The footman and the duchess are harmless enough since both characters are fictional, but the trouble there is that it's unrealistic. 

And yeah, Lord Palmerston should be way older by now. If they're going to just make stuff up about him it's like they might as well throw Ghengis Kahn into the story or some other historical character in a fictional role. Go nuts!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, iMonrey said:

To be fair the show is not produced by PBS, it's produced by ITV. But yeah they're airing it so . . .

There is something unsettling about telling fictional stories with historical characters, I admit. I'd like to see what this series would look like if there wasn't some unspoken mandate that it ape as much of Downton Abbey as possible. 

I mean, I don't mind that Victoria and Albert etc. are much more attractive on the show than they ever were in real life, but when you start playing fast and loose with characters like Feodora who never played any kind of role in Victoria's life that comes anywhere close to what they're doing with her on the show, that's going a step to far. It's maligning. 

The footman and the duchess are harmless enough since both characters are fictional, but the trouble there is that it's unrealistic. 

And yeah, Lord Palmerston should be way older by now. If they're going to just make stuff up about him it's like they might as well throw Ghengis Kahn into the story or some other historical character in a fictional role. Go nuts!

Not contradicting you because I really don’t know, but Rebecca Eaton, from PBS, is listed as Executive Producer of Victoria. All of S3 is just off to me. No disrespect to the actress because she is playing the character written for her, but the whole Feodora stuff has been a major mistake in my opinion. It is totally fictional. Why base a whole season of the show on a fictional character? Also wondering if they had to cut other major characters. like Ernest, to pay Kate Fleetwood’s, Laurence Fox’s, and John Sessions’ salaries. Also, Jenna Coleman has done very little to promote the show (maybe the money ran out to send her to do promotion?). Also noticed that Daisy Goodwin has not been listed as the writer on most of the episodes so far. Everything seems very strange.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2019 at 11:26 PM, CCTC said:

I thought Albert's "you just want adoration" dig was even more petty than normal, esp. since Victoria seemed to good intentions on the trip as something that needed to be done and not because she wanted their adoration.  I got the impression her speech on the stairs with the bishop and with the dove was because she thought it might help relationships not that she wanted applause.  Her thinking might be overly optimistic like Albert thought, but he seemed pretty dismissive of her diplomatic efforts and nice handling of what could have been an awkward meeting.

Rewatched the episode last night. While the show, in my opinion, is doing a piss poor job of relaying Albert’s perspectives on things and why he is so angry at Victoria, I think I am getting it a lot better after a second viewing. I think Albert has been shown as caring deeply about less fortunate people (even from his introduction in S1). He has also been shown as a man of action. It is not enough for him to sit around talking about fixing things, he wants to actually do something about it. A thread through this whole season has been Albert laying the blame on the ruling class (including himself) of failing the British people, stating over and over that the people have every right to be angry. The question for the governing class on a high level seems to be, what should the ruling class do to address the people’s concerns? Victoria herself seemed to struggle with this in the first couple of episodes. Albert’s opinion is that reforms need to be made to actually fix the problems. Competing with Albert, is Lord Palmerston, who is wildly loved by the people despite the conditions the people are living in. Palmerston wants to keep the people in their place because as he stated, “putting the ignorant masses in charge will signing the ruling classes’ death warrants.” Victoria seems at this point stuck in the middle. Victoria sees how Palmerston is loved by the people, and wants that same type of love. But she knows that Palmerston doesn’t really care about the people, that his is only an act. Victoria, I think, really, truly cares about her subjects. I think she is trying to take a page out of Lord Palmerston’s play book and follow his advice for getting popular, but she thinks her popularity is better for the people because Victoria truly feels the love for her people. And it seems to be working in Victoria’s eyes because the people are cheering for her and she perceives this as she is making her people feel happy. Albert, on the other hand, thinks the happiness of the people is purely superficial. He thinks Palmerston is superficial, and that the whole life Palmerston projected in Ireland with his wife was superficial. Yet, Victoria seems enamored by even Palmerston’s life. She even indicates that her and Albert’s relationship is not so different from Palmerston and Emily’s relationship. Heck, Victoria sees that Palmerston and Emily are happier than her relationship with Albert. She even tells Albert she knows Palmerston is having affairs, but Emily is too, so what’s the big deal? Even though Albert’s comment about Victoria’s questionable decision making since the birth of Louise came before this scene, I think in Albert’s mind this is an example of Victoria’s *new* state of mind. In the past, Victoria and Albert have been on the same page about adultry, but now Victoria is fine with it. I think he thinks that Victoria has almost been seduced about leading a life of pleasure (almost like the French Court stuff from S2). Albert finds this phony and fake, thinking that *true* happiness cannot come from this. I think he is very disappointed/angry in Victoria because she seems content to believe that her people are happy because a small group of people tune out for events for her waiving flags with smiles on their faces — that this is all the help these people need. Albert, I think, sees the bigger picture of all the people that are not there who are truly suffering. (and at this point is wondering what happened to the woman I married? Thinking that woman would not think this) He wants *real* change — action taken. Do I think Victoria is satisfied with just the cheering, as Albert thinks? Heck, no. But, her reliance on Palmerston’s advice is only getting her to this *superficial* point, because Palmerston is a superficial person. However, it seems all the advice Albert has given Victoria so far (with the topper in this episode being the abusive tutor) has been epic fails, with the tag lines being “he meant well.” I don’t think Victoria trusts Albert’s advice, and why should she when he has been wrong at every step? And if you don’t have trust/respect in your spouse (which neither Victoria and Albert have for each other right now), what are the chances for your marriage?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Nolefan said:

Rewatched the episode last night. While the show, in my opinion, is doing a piss poor job of relaying Albert’s perspectives on things and why he is so angry at Victoria, I think I am getting it a lot better after a second viewing. I think Albert has been shown as caring deeply about less fortunate people (even from his introduction in S1). He has also been shown as a man of action. It is not enough for him to sit around talking about fixing things, he wants to actually do something about it. A thread through this whole season has been Albert laying the blame on the ruling class (including himself) of failing the British people, stating over and over that the people have every right to be angry. The question for the governing class on a high level seems to be, what should the ruling class do to address the people’s concerns? Victoria herself seemed to struggle with this in the first couple of episodes. Albert’s opinion is that reforms need to be made to actually fix the problems. Competing with Albert, is Lord Palmerston, who is wildly loved by the people despite the conditions the people are living in. Palmerston wants to keep the people in their place because as he stated, “putting the ignorant masses in charge will signing the ruling classes’ death warrants.” Victoria seems at this point stuck in the middle. Victoria sees how Palmerston is loved by the people, and wants that same type of love. But she knows that Palmerston doesn’t really care about the people, that his is only an act. Victoria, I think, really, truly cares about her subjects. I think she is trying to take a page out of Lord Palmerston’s play book and follow his advice for getting popular, but she thinks her popularity is better for the people because Victoria truly feels the love for her people. And it seems to be working in Victoria’s eyes because the people are cheering for her and she perceives this as she is making her people feel happy. Albert, on the other hand, thinks the happiness of the people is purely superficial. He thinks Palmerston is superficial, and that the whole life Palmerston projected in Ireland with his wife was superficial. Yet, Victoria seems enamored by even Palmerston’s life. She even indicates that her and Albert’s relationship is not so different from Palmerston and Emily’s relationship. Heck, Victoria sees that Palmerston and Emily are happier than her relationship with Albert. She even tells Albert she knows Palmerston is having affairs, but Emily is too, so what’s the big deal? Even though Albert’s comment about Victoria’s questionable decision making since the birth of Louise came before this scene, I think in Albert’s mind this is an example of Victoria’s *new* state of mind. In the past, Victoria and Albert have been on the same page about adultry, but now Victoria is fine with it. I think he thinks that Victoria has almost been seduced about leading a life of pleasure (almost like the French Court stuff from S2). Albert finds this phony and fake, thinking that *true* happiness cannot come from this. I think he is very disappointed/angry in Victoria because she seems content to believe that her people are happy because a small group of people tune out for events for her waiving flags with smiles on their faces — that this is all the help these people need. Albert, I think, sees the bigger picture of all the people that are not there who are truly suffering. (and at this point is wondering what happened to the woman I married? Thinking that woman would not think this) He wants *real* change — action taken. Do I think Victoria is satisfied with just the cheering, as Albert thinks? Heck, no. But, her reliance on Palmerston’s advice is only getting her to this *superficial* point, because Palmerston is a superficial person. However, it seems all the advice Albert has given Victoria so far (with the topper in this episode being the abusive tutor) has been epic fails, with the tag lines being “he meant well.” I don’t think Victoria trusts Albert’s advice, and why should she when he has been wrong at every step? And if you don’t have trust/respect in your spouse (which neither Victoria and Albert have for each other right now), what are the chances for your marriage?

I think the portrayal of Albert's personality is pretty accurate from what I know, but the show does seem to gloss over his more elitist side.  For instance, he was the one who insisted servants always stand in the royals' presence, even wet nurses feeding royal babies.   

Edited by Brn2bwild
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Brn2bwild said:

I think the portrayal of Albert's personality is pretty accurate from what I know, but the show does seem to gloss over his more elitist side.  For instance, he was the one who insisted servants always stand in the royals' presence, even wet nurses feeding royal babies.   

He really did that? Wow, what a jerk.

I wonder if people would like show Albert quite so much if he wasn't played by such a pretty actor?

IMO, an abstract sense of "wanting to do good" does not mean Albert didn't have a complete belief that he was "better" and more entitled than most of the people he encountered on a daily basis.

Personally I believe being born into royality is the luck of the draw and they are not better than the people who empty their chamber pots, etc.

And quite frankly British royality was lucky that they didn't share the fate of their unfortunate French brethren.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, magdalene said:

He really did that? Wow, what a jerk.

I wonder if people would like show Albert quite so much if he wasn't played by such a pretty actor?

IMO, an abstract sense of "wanting to do good" does not mean Albert didn't have a complete belief that he was "better" and more entitled than most of the people he encountered on a daily basis.

Personally I believe being born into royality is the luck of the draw and they are not better than the people who empty their chamber pots, etc.

And quite frankly British royality was lucky that they didn't share the fate of their unfortunate French brethren.

Well, the same would apply to all the aristocrats in this show. Victoria, Lord Melbourne, Lord Palmerston, etc., were all born into privilege. There is historical proof that Albert did more than “want to do good.” Unlike everyone else on the list except maybe Victoria, history shows he made changes to help the poor, worked for anti-slavery, and made reforms to child labor laws. The standing up while feeding the children stuff, was actually Victoria insisting on being recognized as the Queen, as shown in this show she loved to do. Makes me wonder how many more people would like Albert if Lord Melbourne was not played by such a pretty, younger actor??

Edited by Nolefan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The actor playing Albert is much much prettier than Albert actually was.  And Rufus Sewell who played Melbourne is in his early 50's while Lord Melbourne was 58 when Victoria became queen.  That's not actually much of a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meep.meep said:

The actor playing Albert is much much prettier than Albert actually was.  And Rufus Sewell who played Melbourne is in his early 50's while Lord Melbourne was 58 when Victoria became queen.  That's not actually much of a difference. 

Rufus Sewell was 48  (playing a 58 year old) and Jenna Coleman was 30 (playing an 18 year old), so the characters on screen looked closer in age (only 18 years apart in real life). A real life 18 year old (who was still playing with dolls at the time and had absolutely no romantic experience) with a worldly 58 year old man would be icky to a lot of people. As for real life Albert, he was considered one of the most handsome princes in Europe at the time, so having a good looking actor play him was the right casting. (Agreed that Tom Hughes is the Hollywood version of Prince Albert, as is almost all the actors on this show) Actually, of all the historical figures in this show, the only one that is commented on in history about his above average looks was Albert. Not to mention that real life Victoria found real life Albert incredibly physically attractive. Lord Melbourne was known for his charming personality, but at the time he was old, overweight, and falling asleep at dinner. Victoria commented on real life Lord Melbourne’s charm, but never commented on any physical attraction to him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Nolefan said:

Not contradicting you because I really don’t know, but Rebecca Eaton, from PBS, is listed as Executive Producer of Victoria

I thought Rebecca Eaton was the Producer of Masterpiece, so she produces the shows of Masterpiece in that she brings shows to Masterpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Nolefan said:

The standing up while feeding the children stuff, was actually Victoria insisting on being recognized as the Queen, as shown in this show she loved to do. 

Gillian Gill's We Two: Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, Rivals says otherwise.  I don't have a copy with me, but will look for applicable quotes once I do.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, chitowngirl said:
On 2/14/2019 at 8:05 AM, Nolefan said:

Not contradicting you because I really don’t know, but Rebecca Eaton, from PBS, is listed as Executive Producer of Victoria

I thought Rebecca Eaton was the Producer of Masterpiece, so she produces the shows of Masterpiece in that she brings shows to Masterpiece.

Not to go too far into the weeds, but Eaton is the EP of Masterpiece, and if PBS helps finance a project, she's often listed as an EP of the show itself. 

I feel like more and more Masterpiece shows have some PBS money in them, probably so PBS can get a piece of the streaming/DVD/rerun dough. It's smart business on their part.

Share this post


Link to post

I hope one of my parents never thought "we put too much store in happiness" when thinking of their children!  We were not spoiled in any sense, but I'm confident they wanted us to be happy.   Although we didn't get wine for breakfast . . .

Re the discussions on closed captioning - I find it a necessity for many shows, but particularly those with various British accents, which seems to be most of what I watch on PBS.  Albert's whispering combined with the German accent is incredibly difficult for me to understand.  Maybe I should get my hearing checked.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calvada said:

I hope one of my parents never thought "we put too much store in happiness" when thinking of their children!  We were not spoiled in any sense, but I'm confident they wanted us to be happy.   Although we didn't get wine for breakfast . . .

Re the discussions on closed captioning - I find it a necessity for many shows, but particularly those with various British accents, which seems to be most of what I watch on PBS.  Albert's whispering combined with the German accent is incredibly difficult for me to understand.  Maybe I should get my hearing checked.  

I'm sure your hearing is fine! If I watch without closed caption on, I miss about half of what is said, even if I crank the volume to ear shattering level. Albert is particularly hard to hear and understand. So is the historically inaccurate, Snidely Whiplash-esque Feodora.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I use close caption for a lot of shows usually with an accent or when they speak in a low voice. 

Edited by andromeda331
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your posts about the clarity of what the heck some of them were saying. I thought I was losing my hearing too. Can't understand them sometimes. Why do they have such bad audio on some shows?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 1:32 PM, Kohola3 said:

I must be missing something because I don't like Palmerston any more now than I did the first time we saw him.  I did like his wife, though.

On 2/11/2019 at 12:12 AM, LittleIggy said:

I would accept Laurence Fox’s Lord Pam’s “boots by the door” invitation! 😏 Loved Lady Palmerston. She was his longtime mistress before they married (in their 50s IRL).

Once again I wanted to cut those foppish curls out of Albert’s face. He was beyond annoying during this episode.

Feodora needs to be shipped back to her principality. She looks like a vampire. I keep expecting the sun to burn her skin.

I found Lady Palmerston’s (and later Lord Russell’s) characterizion of Lord Palmerston’s affairs as his “collection” creepy. Sounds like how a serial killer describes his victims. I half expect that in a future episode, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are going to show up and prove that Lord and Lady Palmerston are demented Victorian-era serial killers and their victims included the people from their ghost town village. Especially, as Albert stated the whole trip seemed to be a show, covering up something more sinister underneath the facade. But, I have just finished watching the Frankenstein Chronicles in which the actor playing Lord Palmerston plays a Victoria-era psychopath who creates (with the help of Ada Lovelace!!!) weird mechanical dolls, so that may be coloring my perception.

Edited by Nolefan
  • Like 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

This week on Victoria Saves The Day: Victoria discovers that the tutor is abusing her son, after getting tipped off by her ladies maid! 

God, this show. All that’s missing for Victoria is a cape.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Albert's whispering combined with the German accent is incredibly difficult for me to understand.  Maybe I should get my hearing checked.  

It's not just you. I don't watch with close-captioning but I have to rewind and listen to a lot of Albert's dialogue twice. He's a low-talker.

Quote

I half expect that in a future episode, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are going to show up and prove that Lord and Lady Palmerston are demented Victorian-era serial killers and their victims included the people from their ghost town village. Especially, as Albert stated the whole trip seemed to be a show, covering up something more sinister underneath the facade. 

Sadly that would be more interesting than what we've been getting this season so far. As I said earlier, if they are going to use historical characters in fictional situations they might as well go for it and at least make it interesting.

Next week: Victoria meets Long John Silver!

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/16/2019 at 5:49 AM, floridamom said:

Thanks for your posts about the clarity of what the heck some of them were saying. I thought I was losing my hearing too. Can't understand them sometimes. Why do they have such bad audio on some shows?

Dear Hubby is a huge fan of Jenna and Tom from the BBCAmerica shows, particularly Dr. Who.  I have taught him he art of closed captioning and it has made his enjoyment of British shows in general so much better.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Feodora is like some kind of phantom ghost woman swooping around being all weird and creepy. What is her deal? What is her end game here? Its not like she can become queen or anything, and she still has a family elsewhere. Can she just never go back, and she will just be the eternal house guest crashing on her little sisters well upholstered coach. 

Anybody else reminded of Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Pj3422 said:

Anybody else reminded of Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca?

OMG. I said that to my husband just last week!

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2019 at 10:42 PM, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I think they were both more shocked that Lady Palmerston was also having affairs: even before Victoria told Albert that she was doing so, he was upset at the thought that her daughter from her first marriage was fathered by Palmerston (which within the world of the show, could be bringing back the memory of his uncle telling him that he was his biological father.)  Of course, Albert's own mother was divorced and exiled from court for having an affair, so he was probably amazed that Palmerston was in agreement with his wife's behavior.  It must have been very confusing for Albert.

On top of that, didn't we find out that Uncle Leopold was most likely Albert's father?  Or am I just mixing this up with something else in my head.  But, in the event that I haven't gotten this confused, that would also propel Albert away from being a fan of "modern" marriage.  

On 2/17/2019 at 6:58 PM, Pj3422 said:

Anybody else reminded of Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca?

Yes, very much so.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, smores said:

On top of that, didn't we find out that Uncle Leopold was most likely Albert's father?  Or am I just mixing this up with something else in my head.  But, in the event that I haven't gotten this confused, that would also propel Albert away from being a fan of "modern" marriage. 

Correct, that's what I was referring to when I said; ". . . which within the world of the show, could be bringing back the memory of his uncle telling him that he was his biological father."

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

Correct, that's what I was referring to when I said; ". . . which within the world of the show, could be bringing back the memory of his uncle telling him that he was his biological father."

I probably shouldn't have posted yesterday, it wasn't the best day and I knew I wasn't thinking clearly.  Obviously, I also couldn't read clearly either! LOL!

  • 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
×