Victoria and Abdul is at one level a harmless, nice, Dame Judi Dench historical romance. In fact it was with that in mind that I went with Mrs R on our usual Friday night jaunt to the DCA to watch it.
If I was writing this as a mere film review then I honestly couldn’t say much. I wasn’t as impressed as I had expected to be. Dame Judi Dench was wonderful and the filming and costumes are superb. But overall it was pretty boring, trite and shallow and about as historically accurate as Braveheart! A two star film at maximum. Most reviewers I read seem to agree.
But as a moderate dud it would not have left me so disturbed. What bothered me were a couple of things – the history and the current day indoctrination.
The History
Firstly lets deal with the history. There is no doubt that Queen Victoria had a friendship with an Indian servant called Abdul Karim. 
But whether it was as portrayed in the film is highly doubtful. Ever since the debacle of the ‘discovery’ of Hitler’s diaries and their publication in The Times I have been wary of long lost ‘diaries’ suddenly being discovered. But even supposing the diaries are genuine and they do indicate the depth of the friendship – there is much in the film that is demonstrably false. For example the death bed scene at the end is entire fiction – we know who was at her death bed. I recently finished reading AN Wilsons superb ‘Victoria’ and it mentions nothing of this and very little of Abdul Karim. Wilson is usually a reliable historian. Its quite amusing that the filmmakers pre-empt this criticism by saying the tale is ‘mostly true’.
If you really wanted to look at the history then consider the possibility that Karim really influenced Queen Victoria and hence her government over Islam and Hinduism – and perhaps sowed seeds that ended up in the partition of India on religious grounds. Or that he was portrayed by some as a lazy carpetbagger. Or that he had two wives.
Or that his brother in law was found to have sold one of Victoria’s brooches. Or that King Edward allowed him to be the last to look at her body lying in state before the coffin was closed and let him be part of the funeral procession. Maybe he was racially abused (it would be surprising in Victorian England with the increasing social Darwinianism if that were not the case), maybe he was just a friend and didn’t exploit that. But the truth is likely to be far more complicated than the simplistic black and white portrayal in the film.
The Royals
One historical fact which is much more disturbing was brought to mind by the Queensgrandson being at her side. He was Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Within just over a decade of her death the British and German nations (both governed by Victoria’s
descendants) would be at war with one another – a war in which millions of their young men would be slaughtered. The politics of royalty in 19th Century Europe, especially that of Victoria’s descendants, who ruled in countries varying from Greece and Denmark, Spain, Norway, Rumania, to Russia, Germany and the UK is something to be ashamed of.
The Islamaphilia
But even allowing for the simplistic Holywood/Bollywood style of historical film-making (there are the good guys and the bad guys and nothing in between) there was something much more disturbing for me. The irony is that by even saying it I will be accused of what they are trying to prevent – the new sin of the liberal elites – Islamaphobia.
Whilst the portrayal of Victorian Christianity was there with the usual caricatures – from the dour Scots Calvinist doctor, to the hypocritical pompous Anglicans, what struck me was the totally free pass given to Islam. Abdul Karim is wise and gentle and this is portrayed as a product of Islam. The Koran is quoted approvingly. Queen Victoria may have been a Christian (something one would have thought quite necessary for the ‘head’ of the Church of England) or a pantheist, but this film portrays her as someone deeply influenced by the Koran – even having a death bed quote from it recited to her. Even the appearance of Karim’s wife and mother-in-law in full burkhas is portrayed sympathetically. The impression one is left with is that of an Islam which is misunderstood and harmless. – if not positively beneficial. It is the Islam that our politicians want to believe in. It is the version of Islam that our cultural elites so desperately want to be true. It is the fantasy view of Islam which, even as I write, I am aware will have the Left screaming ‘Right wing Islamaphobe’! There can be no questioning the groupthink…there must only be positive portrayals in the media.
I am not saying that this was the purpose of the film, but it is a part of it which is indicative of our culture – showing the direction we are going. The thinking is that in order to combat Islamaphobia we need to have positive portrayals of Muslims in the media; just as we combated homophobia. Although how you put these two together is a conundrum that no-one has yet been able to answer – one thing is certain there is no possibility that the Time for Inclusive Education people will be enforcing their agenda on Muslim schools!
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t want negative portrayals of Muslims in the media either. Neither demonisation or glorification. Is it not possible to have truthful ones? In other words human beings with all their mixed up emotions, personalities, politics and religions. My objection is to the subtle and not so subtle attempts by our elites to avoid the hard questions and portray what they wish to be true, as true.
I see this in so many other ways. We are constantly told that there is no threat from 
Islam in the UK, and that to suggest there is, is just Islamaphobia. Were you aware that this past summer, at a meeting of a full council meeting in Oldham, Islamic prayers were led by an Imam. The Quran section read out spoke of ‘those who have gone astray, and those who have earned Allah’s anger’ . This is traditionally understood as Jews and Christians. This happened in a UK city. And, as far as I can see, not a word from The Guardian, the BBC or any of the usual media outlets. I don’t read The Daily Mail so can’t comment about them!
When a survey in Dundee schools found that the majority of pupils associated Islam with terrorism, a programme was begun to ‘re-educate’ the children and give them a positive view of Islam. This is not just in Dundee. I am aware of those who are in teacher training in the UK who are the receiving end of an education programme (ie. they are being indoctrinated to indoctrinate) which helps them to portray Islam in a 
positive light. In one instance students (I presume female) were asked to wear Islamic headdress – take photos and get a prize for the best looking. If a student were to complain about doing this (apart from the fact that it is patronising nonsense) then such is the intolerant atmosphere in our universities today – they would have their card marked and be in danger of being thrown out. No – if you want to be anti-religious in the UK today make sure you are anti-Christian and you will be fine!
A couple of weeks ago I wrote this in reviewing Doug Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe.
“In a free society Douglas Murray and others should be free to criticize Islam, Christianity or any religion, without being subject to abuse, banning and threats of litigation. Freedom of religion is the foundation for freedom of speech and thought. When European governments and elites deny their Christian heritage and forget their past we end up with a society where critiquing the Koran will be seen as equivalent to supporting the KKK. Secular Liberalism cannot help itself. It so believes itself to be ‘god’ that anyone who goes against its doctrines will be banned – in this respect questioning Islam is on a par with questioning Same Sex Marriage which itself is seen as being on a par with racism, genocide etc. The white Middle-Class guilt complex leads us down some very strange paths! One of which is that there will shortly come a time when my even writing an article like this could be considered a ‘hate crime’.”
In Victoria and Abdul I saw a small indication of this coming indoctrination.
(For more information I would suggest that you get this copy of the Solas magazine…order from http://www.solasmagazine.com/
In the interests of balance, I look forward to a film on Victoria and Disraeli….*Tumbleweed*
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Hello,
Victoria is now also an atheist. In the latest adverts for season two of “Victoria” she is heard to snap “God had nothing to do with it!” Any TV production team has a choice of quotes/scenes to choose from to make their programme appear exciting, why that??
I consider this to be a type of Viewer Advisory Notice: Don’t worry atheist viewers, no explict religion here. To be fair, perhaps the Queen was insightfully commenting on the meddling actions of Satan, but I doubt it.
An interesting analysis.
The film has a different flaw to the one you have given it. It shows the victors view of history, the UK as benevolent overseers of colonial lands. Nothing about the oppression and murder committed in the name of God and Country. You worry about future indoctrination but say nothing of what indoctrination already gone before.
Regarding A N Wilson’s biography, I have read it and I feel you are being unnecessarily picky about the death bed scene in order to make your partisan point about Islam. Wilson mentions Karim a good number of times in his biography and all of these references are reflected in the movie; e.g. Victoria being interested in eating Indian food and learning Urdu.
The movie is much more even handed than you suggest, e.g. it is accurate about the Muslim part in the Indian Mutiny.
Thanks Jeannie – I am not being picky at all….the scene as portrayed in the film is completely made up (including the Islamic incantation). Wilson mentions Karim six times in the biography – including the incident where his brother-in-law stole Victoria’s brooch and Victoria’s reaction against ‘You English’ (perhaps her German prejudice coming through?!)…Of course there is truth in what is portrayed in the film – Queen Victoria did have a friend ‘the Munshi’….who taught her Urdu and introduced her to Indian food. It is most of the rest that is made up – cheap caricatures designed for a purpose…..its quite simplistic but of course effective.
Yes, the death bed scene is made up. Not even the producers pretended otherwise. My point is that you pick out one scene to make a partisan point. If one had not seen the movie, one would be forgiven after reading your account f for thinking that it was sheer indoctrination. That is unnecessarily defensive and absurd.
Excellent stuff , much of which I agree with. We could ask why was Pakistan formed if Hindus and Muslims could live in harmony? It seems to me Ghandi was proved wrong but a little thought shows that is not surprising since we humans are tribal by nature. When the world powers snatched America from the Indians they encountered many tribes that lived in a sensitive harmony. Why did they not find one tribe? Of course the same reason the world is split into many nations ; the tribal nature of man. The Old Testament gives us the Jewish tribes , my goodness even the Jews were not one tribe and in dispute. Our first allegiance is to the family tribe ( one that Jesus objected too) and then the tribe of friends and relatives also preached against by Jesus Christ. The great religious teachers realised mankind was all one tribe homo sapiens.
The parable of the good samaritan tells us that Jesus was not a Jew but a Universalist.
Regarding the entertainment industry that is exactly what it is for to entertain not inform , so we must expect it to take us off into a world of fantasy. It seems to me the more fantastical the more popular it becomes.
. . . Jesus was not a Jew but a Universalist.? ?
The parable was not about Jesus, he wasn’t a player in the story. It illustrated the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, some of whom had betrayed Judaism and had decided to serve Satan (see John 8). Jesus kept the Jewish law to the “t.” He fulfilled all of the prophecies from the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. He was Jewish, not Universalist.
Perhaps I was not clear I often try to squeeze too much into too few words.The parable was told by Jesus who was Jew by birth and upbringing. The Samaritans were hated by the Jews since they were cross-platform breeds.
Yet the one who helped was not a religious Jew ; the point being our neighbors are the ones who help us regardless of their race or creed. The Jews hated Jesus because being a Jew he preached universalism. In the end they had him crucified.
I wouldn’t trade the truth of Political Islam for all the Buddhists in Afghanistan!
Ohhh riiiight, there aren’t any.
Not anymore..
Brooch. It is a brooch.
I won’t bother to watch this – the whole concept is false.
Movie makers have been brainwashing the audience from the beginning of the film industry.
Hmm, but like preachers, then !
Movie makers are entertainers not historians .
Sorry, ‘bit’ not ‘but’
The entertainment industry is just falling in with the new narrative of the liberal elites – that islam can do no wrong and cannot be criticised. All one is allowed to do is to heap praise on islam.
No religion can do any wrong only people do that and that is because we have a moral nature.m
Vote with your wallet. BOYCOT this idiotic film.
Here Here sir! I will! I am a Colombian from Dallas Texas and most definitely see the indoctrination from this side. My heart goes out to Londonistan , I mean London.
Adbul was islamic.
That brings to mind that the Briitish Empire cast their lot with the moslem rulers in India.
Victoria gave a lot of favors to the Moslems OVER the Hindus.
The Hindus Rulers in the provinces were crushed down by the Brits (And the Scots conquered by the Brits, in the last centuries, were the bullets fired by the Brit. rifles. THe Scots carried out the dirty work).
NOte also that Gandhi was made a hero OUTSIDE of India, but in India, the truth about him is known, and that is, that Gandhi favored the moslems, OVER the Hindus. Gandhi made sure the moslems were given political rights over the Hindus, so to the Hindus, to this day, he’s NOT a hero.
Right, Hollywierd is run by secular Jews who want what? Marxism in America (the whole world actually) and it’s no secret that the execution of their plan includes elimination Christianity thru the introduction of islam. It’s essentially the same MO they used in Russia 100 years ago. Of course once they have the primitive faux religion of islam ruling the sheeple, the conversion to Marxism will be made in a wink of an eye as there will be no educated class to oppose them. As to the adorable tolerant muslims enjoy this fun reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus and for a primer on Marxist takeover of Russia, watch the movie: In the Shadow of Hermes if you want to know what’s coming to the west.
I have permitted your post here – for two reasons. Firstly to let people see the level of anti-semitism that still exists amongst some professing Christians and the weird conspiracy theories used to justify it. And secondly to call you to repentance and to a level
Of clear and sane thinking.
The simple fact of the matter is that a street-wise confidence man managed to hornswoggle – for years – a senile romantic who garnered no affection from the clique around her because they were too busy preening their own feathers rather than genuinely protecting their monarch. Any decent family would have deep-sixed the creep ipso facto.
The whole shoddy affair is less a condemnation of the interloper than it is an astonishing revelation of how misplaced formality inhibits common sense … and how authoritarian organizations incite cowardice.
If you go and pay to see it- then you support it and what it represents. I will ban movies and Hollywood.
As if this new??? How about the on-going mind control of all the war stories of us as “Heroes” bringing “democracy” to the world, or the never ending “holohoax” epics, or the way we treated the “hostile” Native Americans, or all the identiy politics shoved in our faces?
Hollywood has been the propaganda arm of the Zionists for many decades, even worse once GUI and other digital affects were instilled. From product placement to CIA and other government “advisors” on scripts, etc. we are treated like experimental animials.
It is easy to be a critic when it doesn’t cost you anything but a few mins in a comment box.
I have absolutely no brief whatsoever for A N Wilson but I think you should also take into account that as well as his biography he has done at least one TV programme about Queen Victoria’s relationship with The Munchi. It does seem quite clear from his accounts in these that Queen Victoria had a soft spot for Abdul, in much the same way as she did for John Brown. We will never know the full story anyway because Victoria’s daughter took it upon herself to destroy many of Victoria’s papers and her diary after Victoria’s death.
The fact that a film (not a documentary) has taken liberties with some of the details should come as no surprise. Film makers do this all the time, including with books that I have enjoyed reading, and often for capricious and incomprehensible reasons. The film version of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is ruined by the ending. I can only assume that they paid John Le Carre a shedload of money to numb the pain of seeing his creation mangled.
Quite how you get from “film makers take liberties with some minor details” to “this is all part of a vast plot to make Islam seem soft and cuddly” escapes me. But, have axe, will grind, I suppose.
As far as I am aware, in the UK one is allowed to criticise any aspect of any religion WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW which is how it should be. But obviously there are lunatic fringes of people on both sides who feel that the answer is intolerance scapegoating and violence.
I am watching the movie and googling different questions as I watch as I too felt like I was being indoctrinated as I watched this film. This film seems to suggest that Queen Victoria accepted Allah and Islam as her guide into the afterlife–hence that she was not a Christian at all. Also, like you said, women in burqas are portrayed as a desirable thing. Meanwhile, anytime an Islamic country is liberated, the first thing the female population does is discard the thing. I felt like, as you, that not only was this movie rewriting history, but it was also propaganda. I wish I wouldn’t have rented it and I will be more careful in the future.
I had to add once I read the other comments that said you were being unnecessarily picky about the death scene. That is what sent me looking for veracity. If he indeed was at her bedside, and she was agreeing to Islam and Allah–that says two things that are highly alarming. 1. That she was not a Christian 2. Hence, she is in hell. THAT is why I was alarmed! Thank Jesus, it wasn’t true. May her soul rest in peace. Amen.
Many Muslims – like myself – find the practice of face-covering abhorrent in today’s age (though it may still serve a function in a lawless Afghanistan for example, by affording anonimity in dangerous public places to vulnerable young women).
In any case, veiling is in fact societal practice that precedes Islam and whose cross-cultural roots can be seen even today in the common bridal veils in the West, or the face veil (see-through) donned by both the First Ladies (Trump and before her Obama) during their respective official audiences with the Pope.
So yes, perhaps the film could have portrayed a more nuanced Victoria – though she herself was no stranger to the widow’s black clothes/veil and may indeed have reacted in a way that would boggle our contemporary mindset.
I guess I kind of expected how this would go but thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I should have trusted my instincts. I made it through just under an hour before the constant Brit bashing and virtue signalling of every other culture just became too much to swallow.
It is no surprise that it is made by the BBC as they really do hate everything about the first initial of their name. For the hour that I saw, it plays out exactly as you would expect it to. The British are terrible, intolerant, stuffy and arrogant. Our culture and heritage and traditions are there to be mocked and laughed at whilst all other cultures are pure and virtuous and perfect with all of their regressive idiosyncrasies conveniently overlooked.
Never mind that the world was different back then. Never mind that the Empire did many good and positive things to shape the world into what it is today. Never mind that it was a woman who held such a high position in what is portrayed as such a disgusting patriarchal society. Never mind that no other empire still maintains such good relations with its former colonies.
No, no, let’s sweep all that away and ensure that the studio’s Diversity & Inclusion officer has gone through the script with a marker pen to ensure that at every opportunity Britain, sorry England, is ridiculed, denigrated and besmirched with a heavy coating of bigotry, nastiness and intolerance.
In no part was the point greater made about the white washing of Islam than when the Queen describes the Burqa as looking splendid. It’s a symbol of female oppression, the equivalent of locking your wife in the basement because she belongs to you and no one else can look at her. I mean the bit where Abdul introduces his wife highlights the backward regression of this garment. The film wants to imply that the puzzled looks on the other people’s faces are indicative of intolerance and bigotry but what is the point in introducing someone when you can’t see them or hear them? All the norms of human and social interaction discarded to placate an ideology that you dare not mock or question.
I wonder if Bollywood produces film that are so ready to, at best poke fun and at worst, pour acidic scorn on the very culture that made it. I highly doubt it.
I liked the film, that is the affectionate, respectful and forgiving friendship between Queen Victoria and Abdul. And of course it was so easy to hate the pride and racism of the British elite. But I did find myself thinking that here was more lefty liberal BBC nonsense about Islam, particularly at the deathbed scene. I suppose that the BBC will get itself off the hook by saying there were crucifixes above Queen Victoria’s deathbed and in her hand and so she had a Christian death. But the presence of crucifixes was very unlikely given she identified mostly with the Church of Scotland and so the BBC is paying lip service only. As usual, the BBC is now one of the harbingers of the death of Christian Britain. But we should remember Psalm 2. God will have the last laugh.
I know this article is old, but I’m reading Victoria and Abdul by Shrabani Basu. This edition is updated since the discovery of Karim’s journals. I am finding the movie to be pretty accurate aside from some minor details. (The most glaring discrepancy to me is the burkhas worn by the wife and mother-in-law. That was inaccurate.)