Victoria

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.

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!

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.

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.

**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.