Review: PBS’ ‘Victoria’ is good, but not as royally entertaining as ‘The Crown’

“Victoria,” debuting Sunday on PBS’ “Masterpiece,” is a perfectly entertaining period piece that has the misfortune of arriving shortly after a similarly themed but dramatically more compelling series, Netflix’s “The Crown.”

The seven-part series, which has already been renewed for a second season, follows the first few years in the reign of Queen Victoria, who ascended to the throne at age 18 and ruled the British Empire at the height of its global power.

It charts her transformation from sheltered young princess to savvy stateswoman, a journey complicated by her gender and the pressure to marry and produce a healthy heir.

Not only must Victoria (Jenna Coleman) deal with meddling family members eager to portray her as flighty and temperamental so they can undermine her influence, she also has to tread lightly on the ego of her German husband, Prince Albert (Tom Hughes). Future seasons of the ongoing series will chronicle Victoria’s 64-year tenure as monarch.

It’s territory that will be familiar to anyone who enjoyed the lavishly produced “The Crown,” which just won a Golden Globe for drama series — or for that matter, watched Cate Blanchett in “Elizabeth” or Emily Blunt in “The Young Victoria.”

While Shakespeare had his Richards and Henrys, contemporary pop culture seems particularly fixated with female royals, both real and fictional (e.g., “Game of Thrones’” Daenerys Targaryen).

And it’s not hard to see why. From our modern vantage point, the seeming contradiction between unimaginable wealth and power of being a queen and the strictly circumscribed gender roles of the past is a tantalizing source of drama. (Even if we Americans still aren’t exactly comfortable with women in the highest leadership positions.)

Written by Daisy Goodwin, “Victoria” is focused on themes of gender, political power and romance, and zips along divertingly. It will surely satisfy fans of “Masterpiece.” The problem is it does little to liven up what, by now, has become a reliable period-piece formula: take a flawed but sympathetic woman, add lots of frustrating societal restraints and a brooding love interest, and bake at 350 degrees for seven to 10 episodes.

Coleman, best known for playing the Doctor’s companion on “Doctor Who,” is quite convincing as the young monarch. With her saucer-like eyes and perfect button nose, Coleman doesn’t much resemble Victoria (or at least the version of her we’ve seen in various portraits), but she captures her transformation rather beautifully.

In early scenes, we see “Drina,” as she was known before she became queen (her birth name was Alexandrina), literally playing with dolls. Once she ascends to the throne, Victoria is brash and impetuous, with a teenager’s knee-jerk tendency to defy her mother, the Duchess of Kent (Catherine Flemming). An early scandal erupts when she suspects one of her mother’s ladies-in-waiting of being pregnant, and forces her to undergo a gynecological exam.

Thankfully, Victoria has sound enough judgment to turn to prime minister Lord Melbourne, who becomes her close adviser, surrogate father and quasi-romantic interest. Like a freshman English major with the hots for her Brit Lit professor, Victoria develops an intense crush on “Lord M,” as she calls him, which, given that he’s played by Rufus Sewell, is perfectly understandable. (Sewell is especially charming in a rare, non-villainous role.)

Later, her relationship with Albert unfolds in the enjoyably predictable manner first established by “Pride and Prejudice.” The headstrong Victoria resists a match with Albert, mostly because it’s supported by her mother and uncle, King Leopold of Belgium (Alex Jennings, who also happened to play Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle in “The Crown”).

Albert is a German Mr. Darcy, aloof and deadly serious with a mop of emo rocker hair. She’s a silly flibbertigibbet who feeds her pet dog at the table. But – spoiler alert – opposites eventually attract, and a passionate romance ensues. (Just try not to linger on the fact that Albert and Victoria were also first cousins. Sorry, did I just ruin it for you?)

In a seemingly obligatory attempt to mimic the upstairs-downstairs drama of “Downton Abbey,” the series also dabbles into the lives of the servants who serve Victoria at Buckingham Palace. “Victoria” blends in real-life figures, such as Baroness Lehzen (Daniela Holtz), the German governess who effectively raised Victoria and managed the royal household.

A major subplot revolves around the tentative courtship between Miss Skerrett, the queen’s dresser (Nell Hudson of “Outlander”), and her cook, Charles Elmé Francatelli (Ferdinand Kingsley). (Though Francatelli was a real person, the romance is presumably fiction.)

Alas, their story feels tacked on and superfluous to the main action. Yes, there’s an implied comparison between Victoria, who must marry and produce an heir, and Miss Skerrett, who’s determined to preserve her freedom by remaining unattached, but the narratives never really come together meaningfully.

What made “Downton Abbey” work on two levels was the inextricable connection, the symbiotic relationship between the aristocrats and their servants. “Victoria” seems to have missed that memo.

Likewise, it never reaches the same heights as “The Crown,” which elevated the royal biography through episodes that played like self-contained movies and told a deeply personal tale while never losing sight of historical perspective.

There are references to the rise of steam power and the abolitionist movement in “Victoria,” but a greater sense of England’s place in the world, circa 1840, would help this queen shine.

See the most-read stories in Entertainment this hour »

‘Victoria’ on ‘Masterpiece’

Where: KOCE

When: 9 p.m. Sunday

Rating: TV-PG (may be unsuitable for young children)

meredith.blake@latimes.com

Follow me @MeredithBlake