The sub-plot that’s behind a spoiler tag, in a thread that you’ve continued reading despite complaining about spoilers? That sub-plot?
No, I didnt open the spoiler box. I was talking about the ‘gay’ sub-plot mentioned in the post #19.
Ha, mea culpa, apologies. It’s not a massive spoiler if that helps?
I have no factual backup but pictures like this one have always made me think she had light eyes. It could just be the technology of the time, though.
The top of this page has a close up of her coronation portrait. It shows blue eyes.
If you’ve seen Season 2, Ep. 1, it’s not that much of a spoiler because it’s in there, if only for a few seconds. PatrickLondon mentioning it only confirms that I saw what I thought I saw.
While I love this show, I’m sure I’m going to start confusing plot points in Victoria with those in The Crown (young queens adjusting to the limitations of their office and the resulting occasional marital frictions), just like I did a little bit with Mr. Selfridge and The Paradise (new department stores with strong-willed but generous and mostly fair bosses). :smack:
In last night’s 2nd episode, the claim is made that Albert was actually the son of his supposed uncle rather than his presumed father. Any truth to that? I’m not seeing anything about that in wikipedia.
I’ve clearly not paid enough attention: what are the positions/relationship of the two gay guys to Victoria/Albert/the household?
How would anyone know for sure? No paternity tests at that time, and with husband/possible lover being brothers, I doubt there’d be any way to sort it out even a generation or two later.
Unless the husband never had sex with his wife in the relevant period and said so, I guess, but why would he have gone on record about it if he wasn’t seeking to divorce? And why we’d take his word as gospel anyway…
I actually cried during that; I have an elderly dachshund of my own. Didn’t give a crap about Lord Melbourne though.
I’m no expert on the history of the British monarchy, but I had never heard this was even rumor. I’m just wondering if this is something the writers completely made up, or was/is there some question about Albert’s paternity. I don’t expect there to be any solid proof.
I took it as they were aides to the Prince. YMMV. I don’t think anything is written about the Prince’s paternity. I havent read everything about it, but I have read alot. The writers took a few liberties.
The dark-haired one was introduced by PM Peel as his personal secretary. He doesn’t work in the palace but brings government papers & messages to the Queen. (When he brought the Army List, she admonished him tto tell her any news from Afghanistan.) The blondish one with many brothers (newly-commissioned Army officer, Reform Club, etc.) works for the Queen but I don’t think they’ve said what his job is.
I stand corrected as to the implausibility of the interloper.
As this season goes on, I’m less and less sympathetic to the queen. Not sure if it is the acting, the writing, the production, or all 3. As I understood it, Queen Vic was a pretty impressive individual, tho I am aware that the image many of us have is post Albert in a can. Last season I was happy to accept the portrayal of a young woman being thrust into an unthinkably difficult situation. And I was happy to imagine the difficulties of being viewed as queen and broodmare. But as this season progresses, I keep waiting for her to GROW UP! I feel for the career politicians who have to interact with and often defer to a petulant, ignorant child.
The queen does not strike me as much of an actress - or at least horribly miscast in this role. I can’t believe that the opening credits are supposed to show much of anything in the development of the character. She strikes me basically as a very young person playing dress up. Of course, maybe she is an incredible actress, because her intent is to portray a very young person who is having difficulty assuming her role…
My wife is quite involved in sewing and historical dress, and has enjoyed many period dramas primarily for the clothing. Yesterday she had lunch with a couple of like minded friends, and both of those friends found the series unwatchable. That’s really saying something, if the production is so bad that it turns off folk who would be happy to watch it for the clothes alone!
Oh, thank you – I do remember those things happening, I’m just rotten at remembering names/faces.
I have strong doubts on this series ‘succeeding’ for long. Already the problems Victoria (and Albert) are facing seem to be basically repeats of the first season. How many times will Victoria have to tell a Prime Minister/his representative that she wants to be keep informed, that she is the queen before they learn to give her the impression that they believe in her being intelligent/in control – regardless of whether they actually do or not?
Albert’s qualms last episode struck me as ridiculous – you’ve made my children illegitimate??? What rot. They are legally married, the children are legitimate, period.
I’ve never studied English history, either, but my overwhelming impression is that Victoria was a very conservative person, slow to adapt to the changing world, who had a lot of children, and actually had not much effect on what happened between England and the rest of the world. Didn’t she retreat entirely from the world for a decade or more after Albert’s death? Though I guess having all those children and getting them married off to nearly every other royal family in Europe was having an impact.
That’s probably why they seem to have decided on doing it in a sort of “Upstairs/Downstairs” mode. They can invent various crises and highlight the changing of the world through the cook and maids and whatall, while Victoria is ‘busy’ puttering around with her pet dog and Ladies in Waiting and popping out child 3/4/5/6…
I, myself, am hanging on by a thread. There’s very little good on TV right now, with most of the shows I like on hiatus. It’s just barely tolerable, and only in light of that.
I enjoy it so far. The actress who plays Victoria is very cute and I think does a good job. Albert seems to be presented in a very good light, which is something he probably deserves, especially for those who only know him as the butt of a phone prank regarding his name’s use in a tobacco product. Rufus Sewell is always worth watching - he’s very good as the Gestapo officer in charge of America in Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle. (Had no idea from watching that he was British). I didn’t know the backstory on Lord Melbourne (William Lamb) until I checked his wiki page and realized he was one of the main characters in a movie I watched as a teen, Lady Caroline Lamb, where Lamb was played by Jon Finch (Frenzy, The Final Programme). Lamb’s wife had a very public affair with Lord Byron (played by Richard Chamberlain in the movie), humiliating him. She was the one who coined the phrase “mad, bad, and dangerous to know” to describe bad-boy Byron, and wrote an erotic roman a clef novel about the affair that further humiliated him. When the affair ended, Lamb took her back, and her death greatly affected him (surprisingly, from my POV), which is mentioned as a plot point in Victoria.
He had no wars or any real challenges while he was PM, but was generally well-liked and considered kind, honest and not self-seeking, in the words of the Oxford Companion to British History. The city of Melbourne is named after him.
Well the Duchess of Buccleuch in France was funny, but I could’ve done with more of Prince Albert skinnydipping with his gay courtiers.
I think it’s great. I love period drama, anyway. I really thought Victoria was probably not nearly as cute as Jenna. Of course I am used to seeing her as an older person in pictures. She might of been cute as a young woman. She was a hot mess later in life. I read a book about her youngest daughter, she tormented that girl.