British itv series "Victoria"

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#41
@stevev

"This is all reality! Why the fiction??"

The fiction makes a rather odious little object (she was actually under 5 feet tall) seem more sympathetic, even entertaining. We are meant to pity her grotesque, obsessive grief, which lasted nearly 40 years.,and made everyone around her as miserable as she.
Actually, that height was from a postmortem measure. It's likely she was one or two inches taller as a young woman. Compared to her immediate predecessors, she probably saved the monarchy. Her mourning was an on and off thing. She visited Coburg in the summer of 1862, 6 months after Albert's death. In 1864 she personally intervened to stop Palmerston from involving Britain in a war with Prussia. She supported the Second Reform Bill (1867) and personally intervened to pass the Third Reform Bill (1885). By 1871 she was participating publicly again and was very popular in her later years as the symbol of Empire. No monarch reigned over a larger one.

She was eccentric but no fool. She had a better understanding of foreign affairs than most of her ministers and a remarkable memory. Given the number of books coming out about her recently , it seems many want to know more about this "odious little object".
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#42
Actually, that height was from a postmortem measure. It's likely she was one or two inches taller as a young woman. Compared to her immediate predecessors, she probably saved the monarchy. Her mourning was an on and off thing. She visited Coburg in the summer of 1862, 6 months after Albert's death. In 1864 she personally intervened to stop Palmerston from involving Britain in a war with Prussia. She supported the Second Reform Bill (1867) and personally intervened to pass the Third Reform Bill (1885). By 1871 she was participating publicly again and was very popular in her later years as the symbol of Empire. No monarch reigned over a larger one.

She was eccentric but no fool. She had a better understanding of foreign affairs than most of her ministers and a remarkable memory. Given the number of books coming out about her recently , it seems many want to know more about this "odious little object".

Didn't know about the height. How did that occur? My old mum was once 5 feet 8 inches. Today, she is just under 5 feet 6 inches, but she has osteoporosis.

I didn't say or mean to imply she was an idiot.She obviously was not. I was talking about her personality. My understanding is that she was a totally self absorbed person.Her periods of excessive mourning set the tone for wherever and with whomever she was living. She also felt she had an absolute right to 'manage' the lives of her adult children, married or no.

*However, It is arguably due to Victoria that the English monarchy survived: Although she was smart enough, she was never as involved with Government as she had been when Albert was alive.She made the monarchy superfluous in the daily life of the country.

*Plus, she was also notoriously tight fisted. seem she saved most of her government stipend, setting the base for the private fortune of Queen Elzabeth11

*Source "The Victorians" A N Wilson
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#43
*However, It is arguably due to Victoria that the English monarchy survived: Although she was smart enough, she was never as involved with Government as she had been when Albert was alive.She made the monarchy superfluous in the daily life of the country.
Palmerston might not agree with you on this point nor would Gladstone. They both could only wish what you say was true. I think she was right on the 2nd Schleswig War and getting the Third Reform Bill through when Gladstone could not was good for the nation if not for Gladstone.

We still don't know the full extent of her influence. From her accession she was compulsive about the red boxes. She must have been a speed reader because read everything and wrote many notes the her PMs. Only a fraction of them have been studied.

*Plus, she was also notoriously tight fisted. seem she saved most of her government stipend, setting the base for the private fortune of Queen Elzabeth11
I don't consider that a flaw. She was broke on the day of her accession because her mother refused a 10,000 Pound annual stipend for the Princess. She had to barrow money to live until her Civil List income was approved by Parliament. While generous enough, it was half what her Grandfather got and well short of that for George IV and William IV. She paid off her father's considerable debts and married a man who had no money.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#44
Palmerston might not agree with you on this point nor would Gladstone. They both could only wish what you say was true. I think she was right on the 2nd Schleswig War and getting the Third Reform Bill through when Gladstone could not was good for the nation if not for Gladstone.

We still don't know the full extent of her influence. From her accession she was compulsive about the red boxes. She must have been a speed reader because read everything and wrote many notes the her PMs. Only a fraction of them have been studied.



I don't consider that a flaw. She was broke on the day of her accession because her mother refused a 10,000 Pound annual stipend for the Princess. She had to barrow money to live until her Civil List income was approved by Parliament. While generous enough, it was half what her Grandfather got and well short of that for George IV and William IV. She paid off her father's considerable debts and married a man who had no money.
I don't consider her parsimony a flaw either.

The stuff about her her saving habits and of saving the monarchy are lifted from AN Wilson's book, which I acknowledged as a source. Hang, on I've just had a thought;I might have gotten that info from "London;The Biography" by Peter Ackroyd. In any case, both are pretty good historians.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#45
Season 3 Episode 4

I have to admit that when I saw Victoria call for Dr. John Snow to solve the London cholera epidemic, I thought this was over the top. In fact the two were aquainted and she had consulted him on other issues such as using anesthesia for childbirth. Snow was known as an eccentric and did have a speech impediment. He did find the cause of the epidemic, a single public water pump. He's considered a founder of the science of epidemiology.

Historically Victoria did know Dr Snow in the 1848-49 time period but the epidemic was in 1854.

Who Was John Snow, Queen Victoria's Doctor & Cholera Expert? - True Story of Dr. Snow on 'Victoria'
 
Last edited:

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#46
Season 3 Episode 5

The main historic event here is true. Victoria's 1849 visit to Ireland was unexpectedly successful. The Irish crowds have never been shown to be anything but genuine (despite Albert's character's belief it it was all arranged). Victoria's character apologizes about her late visit after 12 years on the the throne. In fact no British/English monarch had visited Ireland since Henry II (someone correct me it I'm wrong). The visit is well summarized on page 3, post 21: "Victoria's Other Island" p 51 (scroll up) . For a time relations did improve with more rights and funding for Catholic institutions. Relations mostly soured after Gladstone's Irish autonomy bill failed in the 1880's.

As for rest, it's all drama. It doesn't violate any significant history but the Feodora character is really obnoxious. Since she was a real person, I could find no evidence that she ever stayed at the palace or even visited England after leaving in 1828. There was correspondence, but Victoria corresponded with many people. Does literary license allow an author to completely misrepresent someone just because they're dead and not well known?
 
Last edited:

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#47
Season 3 Episode 5

Victoria's character apologizes about her late visit after 12 years on the the throne. In fact no British/English monarch had visited Ireland since Henry II (someone correct me it I'm wrong).
Apparently George IV visited Ireland in 1821. So the claim that no English/British monarch visited Ireland "since medieval times" by Victoria in the drama is wrong. It seem Richard II also crossed the Irish Sea as King once. Also Victoria's actual Mistress of the Robes was her close friend the Duches of Sutherland, not Monmouth at this time. I guess the actress that played Harriet was also no longer available or maybe they just needed someone like Sophie for this role.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#48
Apparently George IV visited Ireland in 1821. So the claim that no English/British monarch visited Ireland "since medieval times" by Victoria in the drama is wrong. It seem Richard II also crossed the Irish Sea as King once. Also Victoria's actual Mistress of the Robes was her close friend the Duches of Sutherland, not Monmouth at this time. I guess the actress that played Harriet was also no longer available or maybe they just needed someone like Sophie for this role.

Kinda on the point ; during the potato famine Victoria donated $2000 pounds of her own money to help the starving Irish. At that time, $2000 pounds was a huge amount of money. Eg a basic 'worker's home' was about $75 pounds to build.

---OF COURSE there's a lot more to that story. It seems the reality is a lot less romantic.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,415
Las Vegas, NV USA
#49
---OF COURSE there's a lot more to that story. It seems the reality is a lot less romantic.
Yes, and since you're not saying, I will. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was prepared to donate 10000 pounds but was refused by some bureaucrat because there was some inane rule that no one could donate more than the monarch. The Queen was apparently unaware of this and it's not clear what the Sultan actually donated if anything. She also raised about 400,000 pounds through two charity drives she oversaw.

The Crown's Civil List income had to cover the expenses of a number properties the royal couple rarely or never used. St James Palace in London was used exclusively for high ranking visitors whether they interacted with the Queen or not.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#50
Yes, and since you're not saying, I will. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was prepared to donate 10000 pounds but was refused by some bureaucrat because there was some inane rule that no one could donate more than the monarch. The Queen was apparently unaware of this and it's not clear what the Sultan actually donated if anything. She also raised about 400,000 pounds through two charity drives she oversaw.

The Crown's Civil List income had to cover the expenses of a number properties the royal couple rarely or never used. St James Palace in London was used exclusively for high ranking visitors whether they interacted with the Queen or not.

Over the last few years I've learned the tragedy of "The Hunger"was not quite as simple some claim. There were in fact English landlords who did what they could to help their starving tenants.. A major problem was a lack of infrastructure, such as roads. Near impossible to get relief to some areas.--or is that simply British revisionism?
 

Similar History Discussions