Victoria (2016–2019) User Reviews (150)

Polarizing, but I'm not surprised.

[fferraro-05994 · 8/10 · 14 January 2019]

**This is primarily intended as a rebuttal to some very unforgiving reviews.

I started watching this show when I first came out and as many other reviewers have already stated, I was absolutely captivated by Jenna Coleman's and Rufus Sewell's portrayals of Queen Victoria and Lord M, respectively. I maintain that Rufus was a brilliant Lord M, and frankly I think the reason the writers were able to successfully execute Lord M and Victoria's fabricated infatuation for one another is rooted in the casting. It wouldn't have worked if M was cast accurately, a bumbling old man 40 years her senior.

I'm actually very surprised to read so many criticisms of Tom Hughes's Albert. On the contrary, I thought he did an excellent job. I've always been quite interested in the monarchy and have read extensively on some kings and queens that have captured my imagination in particular - Victoria being one of them - and their personal relationships. It's well-known that V and A were besotted with one another; I believe Victoria wrote "Albert is beautiful" in her diary after their second meeting in 1839. It's also true that she did not want to get married and felt that she was being manipulated into a union with someone who was more convenient for the family than for love. Albert was shy, intellectually-inclined, and very handsome. I don't understand what element of that Tom Hughes neglected. His chemistry with Jenna was suspiciously compelling until I learned that they're together in real life. I think he was altogether very convincing - perhaps with a modern flair, but that seems to be the feel of the entire show.

Which brings me to my next point. For someone like me, who really enjoys costume dramas and romance, this is a wonderful show. The sets are magnificent (CGI leaves something to be desired, but it's not too offensive), the costumes are to die for, and the writing is good. No, it's not absolutely stellar. But it's certainly entertaining. The cast handles very artfully the script they've been given. If you are very knowledgeable about history and find it absolutely impossible to enjoy a show that has taken more than a few creative liberties, this is not the show for you. It's not anything near a documentary, and drama is paramount. I agree that truth is often stranger than fiction, and there are many stories that writer Daisy Goodwin could have spun into a far more accurate and believable series. That being said, I don't hold it against her. While there are some plot lines that seem to have been pulled out of nowhere, the majority of creative liberty comes in the form of exaggeration in this show. Inclinations and motivations are stretched to the nth degree to really show the watcher that this character is either a good guy or a bad guy.

I think the show is worth watching. If you're new to it, certainly watch up to episode 3 in season 1 - that's when Albert's character is really first introduced and the show begins to take a turn. Season 3 started last night here in the US and I found the premiere engaging. I'm excited to see what happens next, as long as Albert's death is conveniently delayed for as long as possible.

Rather captivating, I loved it. Every inch a Queen.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 28 August 2016]

I have eagerly anticipated this mini series ever since Jenna left Doctor Who and announced she was to play the famous Monarch. Period dramas have been hit and miss of late, we've had Jericho, War and Peace, Doctor Thorne etc, I'll leave you consider which were hits.

I knew from watching her Doctor Who journey that she'd be an actress capable of leading a drama and doing justice to a huge historical figure, I love her portrayal of Victoria, she has some presence and a definite strength of character. Rufus Sewell I thought was exceptional as Lord Melbourne too, the complex relationship the pair had in real life was explained very well.

The settings, costumes, and general production values were first rate, the show felt incredibly plush and lavish, I shudder to think of the budget for this series.

Totally engaging, this was first rate viewing 9/10.

Just for Fun

[cosmax10 · 8/10 · 15 February 2017]

I am enjoying the show as a period piece and not for its historical accuracy. I am not sure what the future episodes will reveal, but hopefully not Victoria as a loving devoted mother, which she was not. Reading her journals and letters, and especially letters to her adult children over the years reveals a woman who hated being pregnant, did not like babies at all, and considered one of her son's unfortunate because he was an ugly baby. She thought babies resembled frogs. She despised and was revolted by breastfeeding, which probably is not uncommon back then, and rarely spent any time with her young children and preferred to spend most of her time with Albert of whom she was devoted to and passionate about privately, but in her letters she blamed men for many of women's woes. They both desperately wanted to create a loving and warm family, which unfortunately, they failed to do for the most part. I feel the actors are doing the best they can with the script and you are never going to portray the accuracy of a period and relationships between people when you are not their to witness it. You can only go by accounts, and documents written in their hand, but that does not truly reveal who they really are either.

I wonder why they didn't continue the show

[LayllasLocker · 10/10 · 15 February 2022]

I do hope someone else picks it up if the studio decided to cancel, tho it seems unlikely. :(

Love this show. I started watching few weeks ago and now when I finished season 3 I find out the story was not completed and that there is no season 4.

Sad.

Captivating and Up-to-date Historical Drama

[l_rawjalaurence · 9/10 · 1 September 2016]

On the basis of seeing the first episodes of this Masterpiece drama, broadcast in the UK by ITV, I can freely say that I am hooked on to it. Daisy Goodwin's script is both taut and cleverly written, while the performances of the main protagonists are uniformly convincing. I particularly like Jenna Coleman's characterization of the young Queen - so apparently vulnerable yet possessed with an inner strength of will that enables her to resist the repeated blandishments of her self-interest mother the Duchess of Kent (Catherine H. Flemming), who so dearly desires to assume the title of Regent, aided and abetted by her unscrupulous ally Sir John Conroy (Paul Rhys).

This eight-part drama wears its moral scheme on its sleeve by contrasting the hissable villain the Duke of Cumberland (Peter Firth), with the pragmatic yet goodhearted Lord Melbourne (Rufus Sewell), who admires the Queen yet remains convinced that she has to transform herself from an immature girl into suitably monarchical material, and will try his utmost to achieve that transformation. Sometimes he has to be cruel to be kind, but all in a good cause. In between these two extremes stands the Duke of Wellington (Peter Bowles), and Sir Robert Peel (Nigel Lindsay), both members of the Tory Party (and hence implacably opposed to Melbourne's politics), but interested in maintaining the business of government.

As with most television costume dramas, the sets and decor are both opulent and historically accurate, supplemented by useful CGI shots where necessary. I especially liked some of the cinematographic effects (by John Lee) - especially the use of aerial shots to suggest the insignificance of humanity when compared to the greater business of running the country.

And it is this sense of contemporaneity that lifts VICTORIA out of the run-of-the-mill and transforms it into living, breathing drama. We hear a lot about the importance of "duty" - from the Queen as well as her friends and enemies - and we are led to speculate on what that term really signifies. Is it just a catch-all description masking self-interest, or do people really believe in it? In light of recent political upheavals in the United Kingdom, with one Prime Minister resigning (ostensibly out of "duty"), and the opposition party tearing itself asunder with different conceptions of the same term, we wonder just how much VICTORIA is commenting on the present as well as the past, especially in its concern with politics and its relationship to the country's future.

I am definitely hooked, and await the remaining episodes with eager anticipation.

Marvelous production

[fschultz-99932 · 9/10 · 25 February 2017]

Jenna Coleman's acting is worth an award. Camera work by John Lee is extraordinary (the right eye for detail), music is extremely well suited, the costumes are exquisite. It's a feast for the eye and while looking at it you just tend to forget the quibbles about it's historical mistakes.

A bit hit and miss, but a very great deal better than no series at all!

[jrarichards · 8/10 · 19 January 2017]

In years gone by, we Brits (and presumably others also) watched - rather addictively - such series as "Edward the Seventh" with Timothy West (1975), "Edward and Mrs Simpson" with Edward Fox (1978) and "Lillie" (also 1978) - about Mrs Langtry as Edward VII's lover while Prince of Wales, and hence covering some of the same ground. In each case they seemed to be well-done, featuring a host of stars and apparently looking for all the world like they were presenting the real thing.

In contrast, I find my adult self continually doubting the authenticity of historical recreations, which at times can seem to look quite lame. Presumably, this is the price one pays for greater knowledge and experience, and perhaps also increasing scepticism with age.

While part of Queen Victoria's reign was obviously covered in some of the aforementioned series, the doing of the whole thing was presumably considered too challenging an enterprise in the past, but once Jenna Coleman achieved a measure of stardom thanks to Dr Who, a realistic candidate for the starring role was found, and work on a series embarked upon.

Very visibly, the makers of "Victoria" have tried to out-Downton "Downton Abbey" by throwing in a layer of upstairs-downstairs story lines in the Buckingham Palace household context. These include some real historical figures, though doubtless doing many completely invented things. This at times seems like an awful and cheapening mistake by the makers, but on second thoughts one realises that many a story would have been quite difficult to present without it, and an opportunity for out-of-the-Palace background and social comment is also offered in this way. Fair enough, but the effect is not completely cringe-free!

More seriously (for the whole "suspend disbelief" thing), I simply ridiculed a scene in Episode 1 when Victoria took the salute with her soldiery in a very hammy-looking pseudo-military uniform, only to check on the Internet and find an early-Victorian sketch in which she is wearing EXACTLY such a uniform!

Further checks on further implausible-looking content from Episode 1 also revealed that they were actual events! Suitably chastened, but also much more enthusiastic, I turned to Episode 2 with vigour and very much enjoyed the rest of the series, which I recommend, even for those with a purist's interest in history, as well as lovers of drama.

Of course the viewer (myself included) may at times become over-trusting, as - for example - Prince Albert DID NOT increase his self-confidence and "find a role" by making a telling speech at the (real-life) World Anti-Slavery Conference convened in London in June 1840, fine story though that would have been, and most probably actually in line with the feelings of both Victoria and Albert, who were "progressive" figures in this field as in some others (as the series tends to make clear).

Other interactions between Victoria or Albert or both and other key figures of the day look more or less forced or phony, but overall there is a sense of the period conveyed here well enough, and many a true story told, in spite of everything. To that extent the series is educational, but it also works in its presentation of the royal couple as real, and quite remarkable people - all credit to Coleman, and to Tom Hughes for the role of Albert. There is even humour here, reminding us that - in her early reign at least - Victoria was sometimes "amused", was a lively enough girl and young woman, and was certainly deeply in love, and quite capable of feeling an appropriate measure of lust for her beau into the bargain. In short, a real and full human being, and a vigorous - and even quite talented - one at that.

This is all good stuff, well conveyed.

Prior to Albert's appearance, the Victoria story is entirely dominated (as it seems historically to have been) by Lord Melbourne, and here Rufus Sewell does an extremely good job, dominating a great many of the scenes and conveying a complex, thoughtful, kind and world-weary figure with many a pithy line to utter. Perhaps this version of Melbourne is greater than the real thing, but the performance is very fine in and of itself.

Peter Bowles's Duke of Wellington offers us little more than a sour and condescending oldish man (Wellington was certainly grouchy, reactionary and opinionated, but surely always evoked more respect than this character does, throughout his life, given his irrevocable status as national hero from India, Waterloo and the effective Peninsular War?).

However, Nigel Lindsay's Robert Peel is a great deal of fun to watch, and his growing interaction with Hughes's Albert is endearing. But was it really like that? That question again...

And so back to the original point. Perhaps we expect more these days (and thanks to the Internet we certainly have more access to knowledge - a healthy state of affairs). But does that slightly spoil the work of those with the temerity to make historical series for us, or is this just a necessary process of keeping them on their toes? Ultimately it is hard to say, and the price is an occasional feeling of discomfort/embarrassment watching "Victoria". But not to have attempted the series at all would have been sad, and as it is we have something interesting to watch, if mostly better at the small-scale, more intimate encounters than the large-scale national or state events, which do not always achieve persuasiveness.

Personally speaking, I shall be more than ready to watch Series 2 when it comes along.

Amazing show.

[destinyawest · 9/10 · 18 September 2016]

I was so looking forward to watching Victoria and I have not been disappointed. Having a keen interest in English history, especially of the Royal Family, I am obsessed with this series. I has been anxiously awaiting each new episode. Costuming is perfection, and the actors are are superb. I could not think of anyone better to play Queen Victoria. If you love period drama and English history, you will be enthralled by Victoria. I wish there was more shows like this on television. A definite must for fans of this genre. The betrayal of Lord M and Victoria's relationship may be elaborated a bit, but the basis of this show is worth the watch.

What a horrible place to end it!

[chuckccampbell-661-611901 · 9/10 · 28 December 2023]

I can not believe the production company nor the various directors could/would want to end the series where they did, in the middle of an emotional crisis. There are another 40 plus years of history, let alone many wars, adventures, and the entire Industrial Revolution. Is it that actors were tired of the fabulous custumes or were they tired of riding in unglamorous coaches? I think most of the watching audience had emotional attachments to many of the characters and or actors, including good, bad, love and disgust, all good character development!!! It will never be too late to revive the series, albeit the actors have aged, but so have the characters!

Good, but not that good

[emrys-948-238958 · 7/10 · 23 October 2016]

It starts very well. They give a nice insight into an 18yo girl, totally protected and kept from everything except her family, suddenly dropped into the position of Queen of the most powerful country on the planet. Not unexpected, but completely unprepared. The early episodes are very good. Melbourne and Peel are both very well done and the drama does what it should do, it breathes life into history.

The problems start when Albert appears. Tom Hughes is simply dreadful as Albert, completely unconvincing. Albert was an intense, prickly and stubborn man. Hughes plays him as a sulky toy boy. It is awful. But then Hughes tends to play sulky toy boys so it is hardly a surprise. A better casting would have been Daniel Brühl who played Nikki Lauda in Rush, but there it is. I suspect Hughes was included as eye candy for the ladies, and certainly as a man I found Jenna Coleman very nice to look at, so I don't begrudge them that. The difference is Coleman carried her part well, Hughes was all wrong. By contrast, his brother Earnest is excellent.

It also gets increasingly soapy after Albert arrives on the scene, culminating in a final episode that is little more than an extended advert for the 2nd series. It gets quite bad. It is known that Albert was not that keen on Victoria and accepted her proposal because it was his duty to do so. He fell in love her, very much so, but after they were married. That won't do at all for a soap (it would be OK the other way around), so he has to be besotted from the start. It's hard to see the Prince Albert we are given by Hughes falling in love with anyone except himself, so it's all very false.

Basic Theater Expertly Crafted and I'm Also Hooked !

[vanapa9 · 8/10 · 7 September 2016]

What's more entertaining than being transported back into history and being RIGHT THERE with young Queen Victoria, Lord Melvin and all the other super compelling characters in play ?? OK..besides that... and that !! Jenna Coleman must be superb to make this mini-series work. And, yes, as stated..this show WORKS! Let's give it up for Ms. Coleman. And Lord Melvin must also be just as compelling. And indeed, Rufus Sewell is impeccably cast and as always, turns in an outstanding performance. Of course the costumes and cinematography and sets must also be right on, and of course-they are brilliant! The only obstacle in the way of a 10 of 10 rating, is the rather too familiar , basic theater plot and script. However, this seemingly necessary evil is overshadowed by the cast, costumes, sets, cinematography etc. One makes slight notice of the too familiar villains and good guys and intrigues but, still remain steadfast and mesmerized by the unfolding drama. You, me and everyone else..is firmly in little lady Vic's corner!! I can not wait for the next installments. No, I mean I REALLy can not wait! Thus, I'm forming my own ensemble-including Victoria's dog Dash. I must first find a suitable replacement for Ms. Coleman..how about YOU ?? {call me....}

Changing History

[ClumsyBoarder · 6/10 · 19 September 2021]

I usually don't mind when movies or shows are not historically accurate. Typically changed for dramatic effect and better pacing. However, they made Queen Victoria seem more caring about the ignored classes. She did not intervene on behalf of the Newport Chartists. She did not show compassion for the Irish during the Great Hunger and was known as the Famine Queen. Changing history to make people feel better about history is dangerous. It reduces the struggle and discrimination of people considered as other. Outside of the misrepresentation of Queen Victoria, the acting, set, costumes, screenwriting, and cinematography are commendable.

Modernist Twaddle

[SeamusMacDuff · 3/10 · 17 January 2018]

As a professional review put it, "Very good as long as you have no expectations of historical accuracy." Exactly.

Queen Victoria should be an interesting enough person that one could craft several seasons of entertainment and information. (Admittedly it might be hard to know how many seasons it would last and cover her extended reign accordingly.) However, this is "Queen Vicki" for the millennial crowd, and as written by a woman has typically strong "girl power" vibe. (Sure she had power, but as a monarch not a feminist.) The focus is on her many angsts, her romantic attachments real or imagined (i.e. Melbourne), and her relationship with a rather wimpy Albert - who in real life she loved so much that she mourned him for 10 years.

Of course, Victoria has to be the most enlightened of all - even though her reign is synonymous with tightly controlled morals. She doesn't want to be a "broodmare", but in real life had nine children - child-bearing being the priority of any queen. Season two amps up the political correctness. In the opening eps we get to see a black (American?) actor giving them Othello, and a near infatuation with Ada, Countess of Lovelace (for whom the Ada programming language is named) as a female mathematician. (Although the 'calculating machine' was nearly all Charles Babbage's.) And finally a gaay angle between two dandies of the court. Why the "Upstairs Downstairs / Downton Abbey doings of the servants are part of the show is beyond me.

The costumes are sumptuous, the sets and settings beautiful, and mostly classically trained actors deliver their accented lines impeccably. None of this can compensate for the poor writing or wan themes.

Great show

[qianqikoh165 · 10/10 · 10 September 2016]

Victoria is an excellent show. Granted, the CGI in the film is rubbish, but the costumes and the set are marvelous. Even though Jenna Coleman does not resemble Queen Victoria at all, I feel that she portrays Queen Victoria beautifully. I love it when she tells others that she will not be pressurized into doing anything she does not want. Her comebacks are amazing when anyone belittles her. Every feminist should watch this. The romance between Queen Victoria and Lord Melbourne, though untrue as there was no evidence suggesting a relationship other than a platonic one, is extremely entertaining. Rufus Sewell, though too handsome to be Lord Melbourne, is so charming and smoldering. Their on screen chemistry is so good that I really do not want Albert to come into the story to ruin things between Queen Vic and Lord M. I say, to hell with historical accuracy!

Greatest Love Story Ever

[khuynh62209 · 10/10 · 19 October 2022]

This has been the most amazing series since Downton Abbey I have watched. I laughed, I cried, I got angry. I felt every emotion humanly possible through watching it. My mother and I binge watched it together and couldn't believe how much it draws you in from beginning to end. I am so heartbroken that it has not yet come out with a 4th season. My mother and I both are. We pray they decide to release another season. As many as it takes to tell her full story. After Downton Abbey ended we were left feeling empty. Then we found Victoria and now...we are empty again. We are not fans of flopping boobies or male parts. So this show, like Downton, is perfect. We don't feel the need to watch soft porn. Or any type of porn for that matter. We need more shows like these. They are wholesome and amazing. They wrap you up in them so completely and when gone, it's like losing family members. Like there's a void. I know I sound ridiculous, but it's true! Both Downton Abbey and Victoria have stolen our hearts. If you haven't seen either one, I strongly recommend you watch them. I plead to ITV or whoever, to please give the green light for the 4th season and then some. This is an amazing love story that NEEDS to be completed.

Lousy ending to Season 3!!!

[mlatapie-96614 · 10/10 · 14 December 2021]

The last episode in season 3 has Prince Albert collapsing at the end of the episode. They had 7 children, with still two more to go for the nine children born to their marriage. Also, Prince Albert died in 1860 at the age of 40 after 20 years of marriage to Victoria, not after ten years of marriage. Season 3 has a very sloppy ending; why no season 4 to clear all up? Feodora is left up in the air, so is Sophie; but mainly Victoria and Albert and their remaining two children!!!! Not a good ending at all for a, up to that point, good series!

Victoria well played!

[nelleke-97387 · 10/10 · 23 January 2017]

As a director of stage, not involved with any of this, I'm very impressed by Victoria the movie. Because somehow the wall between theater and movie is gone when you get involved with this story and cast. Of course because the girl who plays Victoria is very convincing, (although it could be any queen any time, any place..which I like very much) and of course also because of Lord M. played by the always very intense playing Rufus Sewell. Of course there is also a movement of telling these stories as realistic as one can imagine, like The Crown or like we in Holland have..same sort of such series. I think them less interesting because it is not as well played, to complicated to survive time, and it never can be reality, because we are NOW. So I do love the more timeless stories, where the tension and communication between the personages is most worked out! Of course Victoria is also very beautifully made,on amazing locations. I'm a great fan of British television costume drama..

Cute series..

[sanjin_9632 · 8/10 · 24 December 2016]

Cute is the adjective here. Because I hardly believe that the real Victoria was as cute as J. Coleman. This little birdie of nearly 5 ft. is a real delight (at least they got the height right). The only thing that kinda bugs me is that they just couldn't fix the eyes. The contacts made her eyes look like from another world or dimension. Other than that, superb and actually interesting series handling some history from the era. Some with accuracy, some less accurate. Sewell is one of my favorites. I'm used to him playing the bad guy or some kind of dark character who turns out the be the hero (Dark City), but in this he's superb as the helpful Lord Melbourne.

If one can look past the incest within the royal families from the era as a tool to keep the power within the circle and avoid conflict, than this series is quite entertaining. The supporting cast may be lesser known, but everyone's doing their part.

I like the 'Germans' in this. Predominantly because I live in Austria, near Germany, and it's always interesting hearing Brits speak German. I have to say 'Well done.', for the most part (with the exception of the right pronunciation). Sometimes it bugs me. This time it didn't. The mother (or the manager of the household) is a German actress.

I'm not going into detail (costumes, make-up, setting etc.) because with series like this one that stuff's mostly very well done. Overall very entertaining and I like that there are only 8 episodes. 7.5/10

After viewing first episode....

[jolymac · 19 January 2017]

For people who haven't read the book or watched the series, this may have a few spoilers. I read the book in a day and really enjoyed it and I've read a few biographies of Queen Victoria so I was really looking forward to the series. I am enjoying the parts that actually focus on Queen Victoria. Jenna Coleman and Rufus Sewell are quite good in their roles. The servants attempts to find ways to profit from their positions are sneaky and amusing. Cumberland and Conroy are despicable as they should be. What I do not like about the series is the addition of the 'former prostitute turned dresser' story line. It isn't in the books and seems to come out of nowhere. Then the head chef recognizes Skerrett from a 'nunnery' and, I've only seen the first episode, but I'm assuming there's going to be some kind of blackmail attempt in the future. I'm not sure why they thought this story line was necessary. I think it distracts from the real story.

25 episodes of Masterpiece Theater Greatness

[lantana75203 · 10/10 · 13 January 2022]

Splendid writing that keeps you fully engaged. I binge watched for hours upon hours. So many tears of happiness, anger, fear, and love. The series from beginning to end was rich and powerful. Daisy Goodwin created a fantastic journey through Queen Victoria's ascension and reign until the death of Prince Albert. Jenna Coleman and Tom Hughes played their roles as Queen and Prince beautifully. The sets and cinematography were rich and well made. My only regret and I've only one is that the series ended abruptly after 25 episodes with Albert collapsing in the very last scene and it left me agonizing. Historically Victoria agonized over the death of her beloved Albert for the rest of her life. Maybe Daisy thought it best to stop there, but I strongly disagree. Diana Rigg played "Duchess of Buccleuch" for 9 episodes in Season 2 (2017). Rigg played the character so well I had no idea it was the forever famous "Emma Peel" from "The Avengers" (1965-1968) and the iconic "Olenna Tyrell" in "Game of Thrones" (2013-2017) until I saw a tribute "Remembering Diana Rigg" and that she passed in 2020.

Upstairs Downstairs at "Buck House"

[trimmerb1234 · 6/10 · 4 September 2016]

Distinguished writer and historian of Victorian England A.N. Wilson is associated with the production but it seems difficult to imagine him accepting the distortions to history the production applies. It is as much about tone as about fact. The film "Mrs Brown" seemed to hit all right notes in all the different places - upstairs, downstairs, conversations between courtiers - and their very different tone when directly addressing Victoria. All providing the context for their shock and horror at Brown's extreme familiarity with her.

It would be wrong to say this production has a tin-ear for how people spoke - it's instead the clear intention to provide a commercial soap, pressing many modish buttons. Jenna Coleman's beauty, while helping the ratings also seriously distorts history. Suitors for Victoria's hand, knew that they were making a play for the most powerful and prestigious woman then in the world, they were the men who would be King. That she was short, dumpy and no beauty dissuaded none of them from their professions of devotion - as watching courtiers - and staff - would have observed and discussed. While Victoria was determined, wilful, direct and came to quickly occupy her status as a monarch,she did I think share with every respectable young lady a belief that she should speak politely to elders of comparable status and this production seems entirely modern in ignoring this absolute obligation.

Leopold was Victoria's much loved and respected uncle with whom, from their letters, was fond, frank when necessary but diplomatic - exactly as one might expect. In this production he (played by Alex Jennings) is blunt and crude in attempting to publicly dictate to Victoria a suitable financial arrangement for Albert. The screenplay cuts out an important figure - Baron Stockmar, Leopold's personal physician who was first Leopolds emissary on behalf of Albert then after their marriage, became at Leopold's request, adviser to the couple.Thus Leopold could remain the fond uncle and leave any uncomfortable topics to Stockmar to raise - on lines pre-agreed with Leopold.

Rufus Sewell (Melbourne) was brilliant in The Woodlanders. Here he seems woefully miscast. Sewell is 47 years old and appears and sounds younger whereas Melbourne was 58 at the time. Sewell comes across as an older brother, not a father-figure-counsellor. Melbourne was an accomplished major public figure, orator, womaniser and old charmer, immensely skilled in all the play-acting skills diplomacy, in arenas from international to drawing-room to playing the gallant to a young girl, required. Rufus Sewell does not remotely resemble such a figure

Lavish, colourful, entertaining but throughout, historically, overwhelming soap gets into the audiences eyes - and up this reviewers nose.

entertaining royalty soap

[cherold · 8/10 · 29 September 2016]

While neither as densely packed as Downton Abbey nor as confrontational as Indian Summers, Victoria is a satisfying entry in the lush English teledrama genre. Jenna Coleman is excellent as the young, headstrong queen, and there's something interesting about the mix of royal grace and petulant teen. The rest of the cast is also quite good.

One thing I wished I was more clear on is what exactly Victoria's role is. In the early episodes there are people angling to take charge of her so they can "help" her rule, yet it doesn't look like she has much more actual power than current British royalty. It looks like by this time the queen was already pretty much of a figurehead who could do little more than what parliament allowed for her. I think the series is basically about a young, rich, famous person's soap opera-ish life. But I'm fine with that.

Liked it a lot but

[barbarahart7 · 7/10 · 30 August 2021]

When Victoria was a girl, woman, or young wife she was interesting. The minute Prince Consort Albert dies the series ends. So, that is it? Her life has no further plot or stories to interest an audience without being bullied by a man or sought by a man or married to a man? Her widow-grief and struggles, marrying off her children, and later life are moot without a man? Is that the message here?

Was not the life of Victoria compelling enough?

[tim-783 · 5/10 · 10 November 2016]

Such a disappointment. Beautifully shot and acted - but the scripts? Teenage angst? Mommy and daddy issues? Nobody understands me? Whiney, catty relatives? Was not the life of Victoria compelling enough?

I like Jenna Coleman. She's the reason I bothered. She is playing a woman for whom an age is named. But the individual scripts would not make the cut of Downton Abbey.

And then there is historical accuracy.

In order to gin up some drama they create an entirely fictional love story between Victoria and Lord Melbourne, a man who in fact was 40 years older than the young queen. (The age difference between the actors is 20 years.) The casting of Rufus Sewell is a big part of this canard. The bogus love story is at the heart of the first four episodes. I am troubled by TV/films that take largely historically accurate stories and throw in nonsense. Is not the life of Victoria compelling enough? Maybe the fact that you could walk away believing there was a "thing" between these two historical figures does not trouble the authors. It should.

To make my point, about two other people from roughly the same period: does it matter that we try to get the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings right?

At one point, Lord Melbourne tells Victoria that he is thinking of retiring. Its his way of saying, "I'm too old for you." She tells him something like, "You're not old." At 60 he had exceeded life expectancy for men of the period by almost 15 years. Not only his he too old for a teenager, he is lucky to be alive.

Hopefully they will revisit for a season 4

[crazfox · 10/10 · 20 May 2023]

Very beautifully done for the 3 seasons we got and hope that one day for more .

I google very now and then to see if they announce anything, hope that they keep the same actors as they have done the job really well and I'm happy to wait for the actors to get older for the role.

There are so many achievements and fails in Victoria's time. Historical events that we should never forget. I like it when shows do there best to show great moments and sad moments in history.

Loss of lives due to sickness War Harvest failing And the curious minds and industrial society.

It makes me want to travel and see this beautiful world.