The Young Victoria (2009)

The Young Victoria is a historical and biographical drama about the early years of Queen Victoria. It is divided into three parts. (1) In the first part Victoria is not yet queen. (2) In the second part she is queen, but not yet married. (3) In the third and final part she is queen and married.

Victoria was born in May 1819 and was proclaimed queen in July 1837. Her coronation took place in June of the following year. In February 1840 she married Prince Albert. They had nine children. Albert died in December 1861, only 42 years old. Victoria never remarried. She remained a widow for the rest of her life. She died in January 1901 at the age of 81. She was a queen for 63 years and seven months.

I like to watch historical dramas. Often the past comes alive in fascinating ways. This movie is no exception. It is, in many ways, a good drama. Several important points are presented in a very convincing way:

(a) The conflict between the young Victoria on one side and her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her special “friend” John Conroy on the other side.

(b) The conflict between King William IV and the Duchess of Kent.

(c) The conflict between two prominent politicians of the day, the Whig Lord Melbourne and the Tory Sir Robert Peel.

(d) The alliance between Victoria and Lord Melbourne.

This movie is good, but it has some flaws. Historical truth is violated on several occasions. Some flaws are minor (items 1-3 below), while others are major (items 4-6 below).

The actors cannot be blamed for this. They have to follow the script and do what they are told. The responsibility lies with the director, the writer, and the producers who allowed the historical inaccuracies to remain there. 

Here are some examples:

(1) In the movie there are several references to “Germany.” When Victoria was young, there were several German states, but there was no country with the name Germany. This country was not proclaimed until 1871.

(2) In the movie Lord Melbourne and Victoria meet at Windsor Castle on the occasion of King William IV’s birthday. Victoria is not yet queen, and not yet 20 years old. The actor who plays Lord Melbourne appears to be slightly older than her, around 30 years old. In the real world Lord Melbourne was forty years older than Victoria, because he was born in 1779.

(3) In the movie the name of this politician is constantly mispronounced. He is called MELBURN, which is wrong. It should be MELBORN. Why did nobody check this? Why did nobody tell the producers or the actors to get it right?

(4) During the birthday celebration at Windsor Castle, King William IV made a speech during which he accused the Duchess of Kent of trying to keep her daughter away from him. In the movie the Duchess is seated far away from him, she gets up and leaves the room in protest over this insult. But the other guests do not really react to this. In the real world the Duchess was seated next to the king, and she did not leave the room. But Victoria cried, and the other guests were shocked by the incident.

(5) John Conroy was a bully who tried to control Victoria, hoping to use her position for his own benefit. She hated him for doing this, and she hated her mother for letting him do this without protesting. As soon as she was proclaimed queen, she banished him from the court. But in the movie it does not happen like this. Victoria wants to dismiss Conroy, but she allows him to stay out of respect for her mother. So Conroy pops up from time to time. In the movie he is not dismissed until after Victoria’s marriage to Albert, and Albert is the one who finally kicks him out.

I do not understand this change from fact to fiction. I think the movie-makers want to present Victoria as an independent person (which she was in many ways). But here they seem to say that she was unable to get rid of Conroy - her husband had to do it for her.

(6) In June 1840, while Victoria and Albert were driving through London in an open carriage, there was an assassination attempt on them. A man called Edward Oxford tried to shoot them. In the movie Albert is hit, while protecting his wife. He takes a bullet for her. He is rushed back to the palace, bleeding. Fortunately, he recovers. Later we see him walking around with one arm in a sling.

This is not true at all. The would-be assassin missed. Neither Victoria nor Albert was hit. Of all the alterations presented here, this is the worst, because it is a deliberate falsification of history. I am sure Albert was ready to take a bullet for his wife, but he never did, so why pretend that he did?

Some people may ask me: “Why do you have to complain about these historical details? Why can’t you just enjoy the movie?”

Here is my response:

I understand that there may be a situation where the producers have to use some kind of fiction, but the alterations presented here do not fall into this category. The alterations presented here are not necessary, they are not justified. Why do the producers try to rewrite and “improve” history, when the true story would be just fine, perhaps even better, and it has the advantage of being true?

I like this movie and I want to give it a good rating, but as you can see, there are some flaws which cannot be ignored. I have to remove one star because of them. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS. Here are some basic facts about this movie:

** Premiered in 2009
** Released on DVD in 2009
** Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée
** Written by Julian Fellowes
** Run time: 105 minutes

*****

 

The coronation of Victoria in June 1838:

Emily Blunt plays the role of Queen Victoria

*****