When did the Victorian Era become the Victorian Era?

For the discussion of language mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, trends, and other such linguistic topics, in english and other languages.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

When did the Victorian Era become the Victorian Era?

Postby flicky1991 » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

This might just be a case of me not being able to think of the right way to word this to get Google to realise what I want, but when did people start calling Queen Victoria's reign the "Victorian" era, or "Victorian times"?
Discord for Forum Games posters
---
avatar from marionic, edited by adnapemit

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25529
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: When did the Victorian Era become the Victorian Era?

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:08 pm UTC

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

Re: When did the Victorian Era become the Victorian Era?

Postby flicky1991 » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

Thanks!

So it only took like 20 years of her being on the throne. They had the term but wouldn't yet have quite had the connotations for it that we do now, I guess.
Discord for Forum Games posters
---
avatar from marionic, edited by adnapemit

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2036
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: When did the Victorian Era become the Victorian Era?

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

They were more precipitous with "The New Elizabethan Era" of 1952+ (going by what I understand already, no assistance from Google/etc), at the very start of Elizabeth II's reign, but that was probably because of the original namesake era by then being firmly implanted in people's minds, and the New Media of the time finding it a very catchy handle to use in their treatment of their contemporary viewpoints/commentaries on the era just starting.

Having said that, it hasn't been 'common coinage', except for in significant anniversarry overviews of the time (most recently that heady year of 2012 that had the Diamond Jubilee prompt a bit of a resurgence of the term).

Should we ever have the ascension of Princess Charlotte (currently 4th in line, behind brother George), as the first viable child even vaguely likely1 to adopt the regnal name of Victoria II (ignoring her current crop of names, including the possible route to "Elizabeth III") and immediately inspire "The New Victorian Age" to be coined. (Possibly with Diamond Age connotations abounding...)



1 Or, perhaps, George could set a minor constitutional precedent2 by becoming the first sitting monarch to have had/subsequently have gender-reassignment. Or, by then, just a more fluid attitude towards identity that allows him (or 'hir' or whatever) to break such boundaries at the time of the coronation3, without any old-fashioned fuss from society.

2 The Perth Agreement already smooths over most of the possible objections, however, even assuming a younger brother yet-to-be arrives on the scene.

3 One would have to check whether "King Victoria (the First)" would be valid/correct, but I suspect the monarchical name "Victoria II" would be most appropriate, whether prefaced with King, Queen or something neutral such as Monarch... But I digresss, perhaps.


Return to “Language/Linguistics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests