Victoria (2016)

:

Season 2
  • Network: PBS , ITV
  • Series Premiere Date: Aug 28, 2016
Season #: 3, 3, 2, 1
User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 9 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 9
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 9
  3. Negative: 3 out of 9
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. Nuschler2131
    Jan 20, 2018
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. SPOILER ALERT!
    In history Lord Melbourne dies in 1848--7 years after marriage of Victoria. Historically he became a close confidant and mentor to Albert and remained a close friend to Victoria giving her advice too. Instead the scenes between “Lord M” remain coquettish and coy. Yuck!

    Now two episodes in second season Lord Melbourne dies and Victoria remains a child just giving him a windup bird in a cage. Rufus Sewell added a MUCH needed “adult in the room” and has been given just a few cameos here in the first two episodes and then...dies 5 years early!
    2nd child born-Edward, then Victoria suffers severe post-partum depression--no history at all of this happening. Scene after scene of her brooding, gloomy, then fighting with Albert.

    Then Lord Alfred has a homosexual affair with the PM’s secretary Drummond--uhh never happened as they didn’t meet until much later! In fact Lord Alfred married and had FOURTEEN children. They didn’t even use terms like homosexuals or gay or anything back then. Could he have been gay? Who knows but WHY make up a love scene??? (I am NOT homophobic by any means--just unnecessary.)
    Oh and we are back to “Upstairs-Downstairs” with Chef Francatelli back and someone revealing secrets to the media! Mrs. Skerritt in real history came from a wealthy background, not poverty with a sister needing money. The Chef actually only worked one year at Buckingham, the year of the wedding-1841, but the kitchen was terrible and the “royals” hated fancy food, so he left. He had a violent temper and struck a kitchen maid..then went to the finest places in Europe to ply his trade. So why invent these flirtatious scenes with Skerritt and make him out to be this handsome, suave man? He wasn’t nice at all in historical books.

    Yes there were “perks” to be had in selling used candles, but it’s been brought up about two dozen times now! Enough!!

    I truly think that the writers should be writing MUCH better dialogue showing that this couple, the Queen and her consort were very intelligent people who changed the lives of their subjects for the better! Instead we see/hear a few insipid lines between the extremely expensive galas, wardrobes, dances, and food.

    No more. I’ll go back to just watching The Crown.    … Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 3 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 3
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 3
  3. Negative: 0 out of 3
  1. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Mike Hale
    Jan 12, 2018
    80
    The need to compress history leads to moments that are maudlin or heavy-handed. But [Daisy Goodwin] has a Julian Fellowes-like ability to keep a story moving and fill it with interesting, engaging characters. ... But the engine of the show, the thing that keeps it from being just another period soap opera, is Jenna Coleman’s inexhaustible, tremendously engaging portrayal of Victoria, a performance whose easy charm can obscure the fact that it’s as subtle and witty as anything Claire Foy does as Elizabeth II in “The Crown.”
    Read full review
  2. Newsday
    Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Jan 12, 2018
    63
    The second season is a beauty, and Diana Rigg is in the house, but Victoria still feels like sanitized history.
    Read full review
  3. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: David Wiegand
    Jan 11, 2018
    50
    After its stellar first season, this year’s follow-up is still entertaining, but sometimes treats actual history as a mere suggestion, tries to get away with uninspired writing and is, sadly, boring for very long stretches.
    Read full review