La jeunesse de la reine Victoria, depuis son ascension au trône à l'âge de 18 ans jusqu'à sa cour et son mariage avec le prince Albert.La jeunesse de la reine Victoria, depuis son ascension au trône à l'âge de 18 ans jusqu'à sa cour et son mariage avec le prince Albert.La jeunesse de la reine Victoria, depuis son ascension au trône à l'âge de 18 ans jusqu'à sa cour et son mariage avec le prince Albert.
- Nommé pour 2 Primetime Emmys
- 11 victoires et 19 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
**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.
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.
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.
10crazfox
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJenna Coleman was allowed to read Queen Victoria's diaries as research. Parts of the diaries were removed upon the Queen's instruction shortly after her death.
- GaffesThroughout the series, Victoria's dresses have zippers, some of which are even used on screen. Zippers were invented in 1851, and weren't introduced to the public until the Chicago World Fair in 1893, where they were met with little commercial success. The first use of a zipper in clothing occurred in 1925, 24 years after Queen Victoria died.
- Versions alternativesSeries 1: PBS Masterpiece broadcasts add on average 5 minutes of additional footage per episode not shown in the ITV broadcasts. The exception to this are the first two episodes of Series 1 which for PBS airing were edited together to form a single feature-length episode for a two-hour timeslot; the edited version removes several minutes of footage from these episodes (including the original closing moments of episode 1). The North American DVD/Blu-ray release of Series 1 is the ITV version and thus does not include the extra footage seen on PBS. Also, the ITV broadcasts/DVD release indicate episode numbers in the opening credits alongside episode titles; this is not shown on PBS.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Too Much TV: Épisode #1.21 (2016)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Victoria have?Alimenté par Alexa
- Will there be a 4th season?
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Вікторія
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant