Vitória: A Vida de uma Rainha

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.

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 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.

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.