Homosexuality is still a sin, despite plaudits for the scene in #Victoria

I've been watching the TV series Victoria, a series about Queen Victoria and her monarchy. It's fictionalized, but with episodes focusing on actual historical incidents. The reviews seem to render it historically accurate for the most part. There are a few minor things that aren't exactly correct, and some things they collapsed in time or for effect. However, there is one scene which, well, isn't accurate at all.

The homosexual community had heard that season 2 of the series, was going to feature a gay sub-story. The LGBTQ's were happy about this. As it happened, Lord Alfred Paget and Edward Drummond (Prime Minister Robert Peel’s private secretary) have been depicted all season as two men attracted to each other, with longing looks across drawing rooms, yearning among the manicured gardens, loaded innuendo, and sly smiles. The tension between the two men had been building until they exploded into a kiss while ambling along a pond shore.

Sadly, many tweets and messages along these lines emerged afterward:

Source Radio Times
The scene to which I refer today is the one afterward with the Lady in Waiting Duchess of Buccleuch, played by a historically inaccurate 79 year old Diana Rigg (the real Duchess was only 8 years older than the Queen, not 50-plus years.)


In history, there was an assassination attempt on PM Peel's life. Peel's secretary Drummond really was shot by a bullet meant for Peel. He died five days later at home, not instantly as the show depicted. In the show, Drummond heroically leaped in front of the Peel, shoving him aside and saving his life. Creative license for dramatic tension, that's OK. But Paget was left bereft that his blossoming love affair with Drummond was cut quite short. When the Duchess received the news of Drummond's sacrificial death, she called for Paget and brought him into a private drawing room. She compassionately told him the news about Drummond's death. Then she gave sage advice about hiding his grief from the mother and the fiance at the funeral. "They must be the chief mourners", she said.

The Duchess said with care and concern in her eyes that she may be old but she is not blind, and had seen how the two looked at each other.

This is anachronistic. The British attitude toward homosexuality was that it was repulsive and reprehensible, and a threat to family life. It was immoral, as encapsulated in the various laws that were not eventually repealed in all corners of the United Kingdom until 1992. They even coined a term for it, "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name."
Laws for society combatting same sex relations have dated back to the sixteenth century (Upchurch 14), and much of British society deemed homosexuality as 'the worst of crimes' (Upchurch 49). This unspeakable act threatened the stability of Victorian society (Brady 46) so much so that a homosexual identity did not exist in this era (Brady 17). This does not mean that British citizens did not know the characteristics of these types of men, and they had a great distaste for them (Brady 11) during the nineteenth century (Upchurch 13).
Many believed that one could not be moral and have these sexual relations (Upchurch 16), and for this reason homosexuality was the most problematic issue facing British society (Upchurch 16). For this fundamentally British society, it was embarrassing to speak of this sexual issue (O'Connor 112). If it was a wildly spoken of topic, the structure of society would 'have been shaken at its foundations (Brady 1-2; Brady 24). Source
So a Duchess cooing and comforting a young man devastated at the loss of a homosexual lover would never have occurred, partly because such things were never discussed, and partly because such a co-ed discussion would be considered uncouth.

These modern-day attitudes inserted into historical dramas are a problem. They might make certain powerful lobbies happy, but they aren't an accurate window of the general attitude of the times. Once we see these kind of anachronistic attitudes often enough, we might start to believe the propaganda.

Though homosexuality has been with us since after the Fall, it might be good to look at what the Bible says about it, rather than listening the constantly pressuring culture. Even though we reject the pressure, at some point it might be making inroads to our mind, which is supposed to be transformed to holiness in the likeness of Christ.

The Bible is clear that God created humans to enjoy sex only within the marriage between a man and a woman. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19). The Bible condemns sexual activity that is not between a husband and wife, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. (1 Corinthians 6:18).

When Jesus smote Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality it was actually an example of judgment that will come upon all those who indulge "unnatural desires." As Jude 1:7 states,

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Romans 1:28-32 shows the progression of sin in an individual heart or a nation's heart. Homosexuality is nearly last in the progression into darkness, demonstrating how far a society has sunk when they finally begin to engage in the sin of homosexuality.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)

Homosexuality according to the Bible is detestable, shameful, contrary to sound doctrine, and people practicing it are wrongdoers. (Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Romans 1:27)

God never accepts homosexuality as normal. It isn't.

However, if you repent, He will forgive you and He sends the Holy Spirit to help resist ungodly lusts.

If you or someone you know are struggling with a loved one who indulges homosexual desires, here are a couple of excellent resources. Though we do not condone any sinful behavior, including homosexuality, we must

Show proper respect to everyone, (2 Peter 2:17a, NIV)

What Letter Would You Write to A Gay Son?

David Murray explains,
Five years ago, Redditor RegBarc "came out" to his father. Shortly afterwards, his dad disowned him in a handwritten letter which RegBarc shared with the world on Tuesday, adding the comment: "This is how hate sounds."
He's right, it was a hateful letter. Murray continues,
As I find it hard to believe that a true Christian would ever write such a letter, I’ve drafted a letter that I hope a Christian father would write (although I’m sure we all hope we’ll never have to write it).
The second, hypothetical letter is beautiful. It's what love sounds like.

The 9Marks Mailbag is the best thing I read online on a consistent basis. Their answers are grace filled and practical, firmly based on a biblical worldview. It's very helpful. This answer by ex-homosexual Rosaria Butterfield is the most helpful I've seen on this subject.

How should parents treat their 18-year-old daughter’s relationship with her girlfriend? How do we love them without condoning their sin?


  1. Wow, I found both letters to be poignant and graceful. Thanks for sharing! It seems LGBTQ identification is really on the rise, particularly with those identifying as bisexual. I noticed a friend of my cousin on FB, who grew up with her, attended her Christian school and church, and is married to a man...is now identifying as bisexual (at least her FB banner seemed to indicate that). I am praying for her and ask if you would mind saying one for her. People are more and more falling into the deceitfulness of sin. :(

  2. Know what Christian kvetching I miss? Stuff about adultery. Surely nodding at this shows up much more frequently. Yet I never see the foaming at the mouth there.

    1. Then you should consider it your own little sacred duty to go off somewhere and kvetch about adultery. Do your part.

    2. Elizabeth has clearly condemned all sexual sin. Stop trying to ignore the sin of homosexuality by picking on her for having a blog post that reflects Biblical teaching.

  3. Elizabeth, I felt the same as you on this. We stopped watching Victoria after a few episodes because we got the feeling there was going to be something of an immoral nature. It has been truly disappointing because for so many years BBC had well done period pieces that didn't have to push some sort of agenda on the viewer. I find it so interesting that they are trying to makeover Queen Victoria of all people after decades of mocking the Victorian era and so-called "victorian" morality (as though they thought it up). Judy Dench did a movie a few years ago hinting that after her husband's death, Queen Victoria had a romance with a member of her staff. Now the new Hollywood movie starring Dench has Victoria romantically linked with a certain "Abdul". Hmmm...wonder what message that's supposed to convey?

    It's truly sad that a woman like Queen Victoria, who from all accounts truly loved her husband and had a good marriage, is now being presented as at worst immoral herself, or at best tolerating evil.

    They are truly targeting the young in Victoria with this young actress, and pushing this ideology on them. Our Western nations are being destroyed from without and from within and one way it's done is through historic revisionism and making us either loathe or forget our past. About the same time that I read your blog post, I also read this and thought it was an excellent commentary on what we see happening through the media:

    “Entertainment is the subtlest and most effective means of ideological indoctrinating. It creates a psychological opening through which political and cultural messages bypass the intellectual filters that arrest most input for critical analysis. Because the context for these messages is ‘entertainment,’ they get a free pass into the mind’s cultural framework, where they compete, at a subconscious level, with established ethical and moral standards.”


    1. Hi Anonymous,

      Thanks for your comment. I am disappointed also, mainly with the sub-story that Prince Albert was illegitimate. I truly don't think that was the case, historically.

      I agree with what you said, except the part about how the series presents Victoria as immoral or tolerating evil. I rather enjoyed her discussion and searching out of the Bible's stance on wifely submission and that tension against her job as ruler. The series hasn't made any suggestions that Victoria was immoral or include the sub-story about the gay couple as attached to her in any way.

      Things might come out in the Christmas special or next season, but thus far the series has been good except for the unfortunately anachronistic presentation of homosexual acceptance by the Duchess.

      I agree about entertainment being indoctrinating. It's all around us and we have to stay steady as she goes and withstand the push into our minds and hearts of worldly philosophies :)

  4. Elizabeth, you're right... I wasn't very clear...the current PBS Victoria program hasn't misrepresented the queen. I meant that it is targeting young people who then watch the subplots. It was the other Hollywood movies that I feel have misrepresented her.


Post a Comment