Though I've never found Jean Plaidy's/Victoria Holt's/other aliases' writings very poignant or deep, one can not come to the end of a 541 page novel and be unmoved. This was the story of Queen Victoria from early childhood until just weeks before her death at 81 and, while some sentiments may have been somewhat construed, it read much like the filling out of a detailed timeline, leading me to believe she obtained much of her information from writings from the Queen. The story was a little unbalanced as the first 40 years of her life were told in 410 pages and the last 41 were spelled out in just over 100.

I somewhat liked the Young Victoria of the novel's early chapters. She was lighthearted and friendly; yet everything was always so peachy with everyone she dealt with that I kept waiting for the shoe to drop. There were lots of sensitive crying men who doted on her (enter construes). That didn't seem super believable.

I found myself wishing there would have been a timeline included or dated chapters. It was difficult to imagine things happening in the timeline of the rest of history without stopping to look things up.

Once Victoria and Albert were married, I found that I began liking her less and less as time went on. I can't imagine speaking so meanly about my children. Even though I definitely do put my husband before my children and they know that relationship is most important, I could never say the things or treat my child the way they did toward Bertie. It's no wonder he struggled as an adult and I was happy to read he was so free and loving with his own children. I loved it when she said, "Remember your childhood!" and he said, "Oh yes, Mama, I do remember it well."

I didn't care much for Albert throughout the book and found it irritating when Victoria would say he could do no wrong---especially in the case of Bertie's upbringing where he is clearly overbearing and mean. She mentions at the end that she maybe saw him as too angelic---but then condemns herself for thinking badly of her dearly departed. I think she battled with being proper as opposed to being real.

Once Albert passed away, I had a difficult time liking her. It's not that I didn't want to be sympathetic but she seems to be hypocritical and pampered. I was annoyed that she even mentioned Alexandra didn't seek her permission for her parents to visit her on her sick bed. I was frustrated that she continued to blame Bertie for Albert's death and that she made Beatrice feel guilty if she wanted to venture away from home. She seemed very childish to me and it was difficult to respect her.

Though I think I probably found more negatives than positives, not all was bad. I do think she was a loyal friend and a loving mother, in her own way. She was loyal to her people and seemed genuinely affected when she'd fallen out of favor as she desired to be in their good graces. I loved that she employed servants from other cultures and learned from them. I was also applauding her left and right for standing up to an overbearing mother. Good for her.

One thing I learned from the book was the practice the Germans had of purposefully scarring one another's faces in Mensur. Ew.

All in all, I'm glad I read the book. I'll keep it in my collection as I'm sure I'll want to read it again in the future. ( )

One of the greatest queens in western history... or one of the greatest consorts? Jean Plaidy tackles the monumental Queen Victoria in this book whom I firmly believe is only as popular as she is because she happened to rule over the Industrial Revolution. While Plaidy covers a complex figure, readers get more of a sense that Victoria's true power was squashed by a larger than life prince consort.

Victoria comes to the throne as an eighteen year old, young, full of life and ready to live it. She is easily led by attractive and witty people; although, her strength is that she stays loyal to them no matter what. This is never more apparent than when she marries her cousin Albert. Throughout their marriage, Albert patronizes Victoria. Every now and then, she questions his behavior, only to reprimand herself for what she perceives as her unjustness towards him. The truth, as presented in this novel, is that he treated her like a child, easily preferred their eldest daughter to everyone else, and physically and emotionally abused their eldest son. Deep down, Victoria knows this is all wrong, but she can't bring herself to correct her husband.

It's truly sad to see a powerful woman who stared death in the face an unprecedented seven times, saw uncountable sadness, expanded the British empire through her children and grandchildren, and was kind to servants often be put in her place by the men she allows to rule her. You get a sense that she truly could have been awesome, if she had a little more confidence in her own rule.

That said, Victoria is still a compelling character, though I was begging for it to end at the 400 page mark because her ceaseless adulation of Albert was boring me into an early grave. ( )

The way “Victoria Victorious” began, I thought I’d end up rating it five stars. Victoria’s childhood years are interesting and entertaining. Ms Plaidy does usually create quality child characters, as she has done here.

As Victoria grows older, though, the narrative becomes less engaging. After Albert’s death, it goes from dull to plain boring, often reading like a dry history book or a series of newspaper reports.

Although I’ve yet to read the four-book Victoria series that Ms Plaidy wrote in third person, it’s obvious that she’s attempted to rewrite that quartet in first person and cram them into this one volume. This is what the novels in the Queens of England series are – first-person retellings of books the author has previously written as part of one third-person series or another.

In several novels I’ve read by this author, she tries to pack in an extensive period at the expense of a good story and larger-than-life characters. She would’ve been much better off ending with Albert’s death, perhaps following on with a one-page epilogue (or not), therefore leaving ample space to develop scenes and characters.

As it is, the years are so jam-packed that the passage of time is often unclear. Early on, I was picturing Victoria aged eleven, yet a few paragraphs later I’m told she’s thirteen. This kind of thing disrupts the narrative flow, as the reader has to adjust to the abrupt change.

This gets much worse later on the book when years fly by in order to fit the title character’s whole life in. Rarely is the reader clear when a week, month, or year(s) has passed, as no breaks between the paragraphs indicate that time has moved on. Ms Plaidy is not good at structuring chapters in her novels, and this is a prime example of that trait.

Another reason why the second half of the book is too dry and boring is through the author’s need to name-check as many people as possible who came into contact with Victoria. For instance, during one (or maybe two) paragraph, Victoria mentions how a Russian archduke visits her. He is described but never “seen”. No dialogue is used at all. No scene is dramatized to “show” the archduke to the reader. Therefore, why include this at all? It’s a waste of words, doing nothing to move the story forwards.

Same happened with other famous personages of Victoria’s time, most notably Florence Nightingale and Charles Dickens. In each case, Victoria gives a short summary of them coming to meet her, yet the reader “sees” nothing. No drama, no dialogue, just dry description and reported speech. Neither Dickens nor Nightingale have any relevance to the story, so why include these short but pointless scenes?

Like with many historical novels I’ve read, the author puts so much effort in getting the history elements correct that essential creative writing skills are neglected. Main problem being too much “telling” and not enough “showing”. Don’t tell the reader that “Conyngham looked bewildered” or “Lord Melbourne looked unhappy” – show their emotions with action, or body language, or a facial expression.

Things like Victoria’s daughter Alice’s impressions of Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt is blatant telling: “She quite clearly liked him.”

Whenever an author uses “clearly”, the reader sees or senses nothing, like when Victoria states that Bertie’s tutor “was clearly pleased by the appointment.” It’s not clear to the reader. Why not show his excitement?

Also, when Bertie gets a new tutor, Victoria “could see that Albert was getting irritated” and in the same scene we’re twice told that “Albert looked exasperated” and “'He is quite childish,’ said Albert in exasperation.” It’s repetitive as well as doing nothing to show the reader Albert’s body language and actions.

Reported speech is another on Ms Palidy’s traits: “Lord Melbourne said that it was customary to give the monarch's consort £50,000 a year, and he would ask the Parliament to agree to this.” Why couldn’t this dry statement have been dramatized?

This book has arguably more reported speech than in any other I’ve read by Ms Plaidy. She probably used this much to ensure she could cram Victoria’s whole life into the pages.

As mentioned, once Albert dies, the novel reads more and more like a history book or newspaper report:

“The future king, said the Press, is given to gambling, horse-racing, and other activities… not concerned with matters of state. His income was clearly too large. There were other causes on which the money could be better spent. There had been a time when Mr. Gladstone had induced the Prince to take up some charitable work and he had become a member of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes.”

I wouldn’t have a problem with the above quote if this was a work of non-fiction, but the point is that this is a novel, and as such it should read like one. Like with the brief inclusion of characters such as Dickens who have no relevance to the plot whatsoever, the author is determined to cover every important event that touched Victoria’s life, including matters that the queen had no personal involvement in:

“The administrator of Rhodesia was a Dr. Jameson who had carried out a very daring plan to overthrow Kruger. It was a foolhardy thing to do but very brave. Stealing into the Transvaal at night, with a few hundred mounted police, he had tried to foster a revolt against Kruger. His force was small; Kruger was powerful; and in a very short time Jameson and his men were overpowered.”

Rather than report on events in another country, why not focus on Victoria’s relationships with her family? Her children and grandchildren are mostly described, rather than dramatized, and Victoria tells us what they’re like and what they said, rather than showing the reader in a vivid scene with dialogue and action.

Sometimes, when there is dialogue, there’s no sense of place. Victoria starts talking with someone, yet the reader hasn’t a clue where the conversation is taking place. I tend to picture Victoria sitting on a throne, though it’s probable in most cases she wasn’t. This is ill-thought-out writing.

“Victoria Victorious” had the potential to be a great family novel. It starts out that way, but tragically it becomes the author’s mission to present a dry biography, focusing on political events abroad, rather than the more interesting relationships between Victoria and her family.

Something about Jean Plaidy’s books keep me coming back for more. Perhaps it’s her obvious love for English and French history, which I share, that draws me back. I wish she’d focused less on turning out as greater quantity of novels as possible and concentrated more on quality writing. A novel like this one should be revised about 20 times, yet this at best feels like a fifth draft and a book that can’t decide if it’s a novel or a non-fiction history book. ( )

Ok…i have to admit…i tried finishing Victoria Victorious by Jean Pliady

But I just couldn’t do it. It was soooo BORING!!! Victoria herself was just annoying, Albert was so perfect and always right and blah blah blah

in all honesty I felt like i was reading Twilight! Albert this, Albert that, oh Albert you’re sooo good, oh Albert you’re soooo handsome.

It was awful.

Happy Readings!

( )

This is a fictional biography of Queen Victoria. She had an unhappy childhood, but she married someone she loved (Albert), they had 9 children, who all lived.

This is a long book. It’s only the second book I’ve read on Queen Victoria, the first was only a month ago, and also written by Plaidy, but that one only included her childhood (there are sequels to that, so I will continue, but with larger gaps in between). Most of what I’ve read about British royalty was from the Tudors and earlier on, so 300+ years earlier. Some differences that happened in between included Royals being able to choose their spouses, and I found it interesting how much travel they did to see each other after Victoria’s children moved away to other countries. England now also had a Prime Minister, so decisions were not made by the monarchy, though they were discussed between the PM and the monarchy.

It was interesting to learn about Queen Victoria, as well as the different world that England had become over 300 years. I’m not sure, historically, how her husband, Albert, is regarded, but I was not a big fan, given how he’s described in this book. Victoria loved him, but I didn’t like him much. I found her family life (both as a child, and as an adult) more interesting than the politics in the book. ( )