Curious about the 'Victorian' era in the USA

[rocketeer]

Since joining this forum I have always been curious as to why Americans refer to the mid to late 19th century as the Victorian era when Queen Victoria was so obviously an English monarch. Why does America not define it's periods by it's Presidents as Abraham Lincoln is easily as well known as Queen Victoria. What would the pre-Victorian US era be known as? Georgian? Up to and including WWI?
We often refer to later periods as the Eisenhower or Regan era's and when we go right back George Washington's name crops up a fair bit.
I know most of what is posted on here is in reference to what is known as the 'Golden era'(inter war?) but there is the odd post referring to the 19th century every now and then.
Just curious, J

 

[HudsonHawk]

Since joining this forum I have always been curious as to why Americans refer to the mid to late 19th century as the Victorian era when Queen Victoria was so obviously an English monarch. Why does America not define it's periods by it's Presidents as Abraham Lincoln is easily as well known as Queen Victoria. What would the pre-Victorian US era be known as? Georgian? Up to and including WWI?
We often refer to later periods as the Eisenhower or Regan era's and when we go right back George Washington's name crops up a fair bit.
I know most of what is posted on here is in reference to what is known as the 'Golden era'(inter war?) but there is the odd post referring to the 19th century every now and then.
Just curious, J

Probably because it's so widely established and referred to throughout the rest of the world. When you say "Victorian Era", hardly anyone doesn't instantly know the time frame you're referencing. In the US, you'll also hear that period (at least different portions of it) variously described as the "Gilded Age", "Antebellum", "Post Civil War", or "Industrial Age", again depending on certain dates, though all pretty much overlap some portion of the reign of Queen Victoria. As for periods since then, they're often defined by conflicts, such as WWI, WWII and Vietnam.

As to your latter point about defining using US Presidents, it's probably because the term of Presidents is relatively short, no more than 8 years in all but one case.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I've always thought the term Victorian was problematic as a descriptor of a historical period because Victoria's reign was so long (1837-1901). That encompasses the late Industrial Revolution through the 20th century. It's just as absurd as calling this the second Elizabethan era!

 

[Gingerella72]

Many of the cultural and aesthetic details (many of which were championed by Queen Victoria herself) between the British Victorian era, and the American "Victorian" era, overlap. Fashions, architecture, decor (the concept of a Christmas tree, for example, had been unheard of by many until an engraving in a magazine showing how Victoria's family had one), rules of etiquette (I've heard that rules for mourning in the period were largely influenced by Victoria's intense and deep mourning for her husband), and much more seemed to mirror each other on both sides of the pond.

When I think of what "Victorian" means, my mind automatically jumps to matters of ladies dresses and doilies on elaborate furniture, rather than an era defined by a government leader, either in the US or UK. I think it's just easier to use the word Victorian to describe anything to do with the mid-to-late 19th century. But then, the US also has its very unique period descriptors as well, as someone said above like antebellum referring to pre-civil war/slavery days.

 

[Guttersnipe]

To me, the term Victorian is just a buzz word like vintage, retro, mid-century modern, Eames era, etc. What I mean by that is, it's essentially an invented term that can really mean anything, whereas other terms a exact specific historical implications and (meaningful) definitions. For example: U.S. antebellum refers to the period between the War of 1812 and the American Civil War; the Gilded Age, or Gilded '90s refers to the economic boom period in the U.S. in the late 1880s and early 1890s; and interbellum,of course, refers to that period between the First and Second World Wars, a/k/a the golden era in Fedora Lounge vernacular.

 

[Shangas]

Victorian is just the most widely recognised era/reference point. I suppose that's why people use it.

If you want to be super-technical, then it would be Colonial, Post-Colonial, Antebellum, CW, Reconstruction, Belle Epoque, Gilded Age.

The Victorian era in that spectrum, would run from the Antebellum period all the way to the end of the Belle Epoque.

 

[HudsonHawk]

To me, the term Victorian is just a buzz word like vintage, retro, mid-century modern, Eames era, etc. What I mean by that is, it's essentially an invented term that can really mean anything, whereas other terms a exact specific historical implications and (meaningful) definitions. For example: U.S. antebellum refers to the period between the War of 1812 and the American Civil War; the Gilded Age, or Gilded '90s refers to the economic boom period in the U.S. in the late 1880s and early 1890s; and interbellum,of course, refers to that period between the First and Second World Wars, a/k/a the golden era in Fedora Lounge vernacular.

Well, "Victorian" refers to a specific time period as well, specifically 1837-1901. It's not arbitrary like "vintage" or "retro".

 

[vitanola]

To me, the term Victorian is just a buzz word like vintage, retro, mid-century modern, Eames era, etc. What I mean by that is, it's essentially an invented term that can really mean anything, whereas other terms a exact specific historical implications and (meaningful) definitions. For example: U.S. antebellum refers to the period between the War of 1812 and the American Civil War; the Gilded Age, or Gilded '90s refers to the economic boom period in the U.S. in the late 1880s and early 1890s; and interbellum,of course, refers to that period between the First and Second World Wars, a/k/a the golden era in Fedora Lounge vernacular.

Well, the term was applied to the period almost immediately after its end, though often in a sense of ridicule. It's usage was cemented with the publication of Lytton Strachey' famous " Eminent Victorians". The term was in quite common use here in the 'states by the 'Twenties.

Parents who disapproved of sedans, rolled stockings, painted faces and necking parties were admonished "Oh Mother, don't be so Victorian!" by their daughters, who generally had no intention of getting out and walking. By the 1930's a distinction had been developed between supposedly the healthy attitudes of the "Early Victorians" and ostensible "Late Victorian" hypocracy. Of course, by this time a grudging respect had developed for some of the decorative arts of the Early Victorian period, whilst Late Victorian stuff was yet generally regarded as either risible or horrific.

 

[Shangas]

I don't agree with Guttersnipe. The Victorian Era does have a definition. That definition being the world as known, and as affected and changed during the years 1837-1901, during the reign of Queen Victoria. It's not a term which can be chucked around as others might be.

Some people like to stretch it, or shrink it, but it is, nonetheless, a definite period of history. Some pople like to do that with the Edwardian era which came after it - Strictly it was 1901-1910. Some people like to stretch that out to 1914, some, even to 1920, despite the fact that Edward was dead by then, and had been for years.

Britain has as many definitive time-periods as America does. The only difference is how they're defined.

In America, they're split up by wars and decades. In England, it's split up by the reigns of monarchs. Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Civil War, Stuarts, Georgian, Regency, Victorian, Edwardian...

 

[dhermann1]

I recall reading somewhere that by the 1880s people in England were referring to old fashioned types,who patterned themselves in the mannar of Victoria's EARLY years (i.e. maybe from 1940 to 1860) as "Victorian". So the term has meant "old fashioned" since before the end of Victoria's reign.
I think the term particularly is used to describe mores and morals, dress, and architecture.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Well, "Victorian" refers to a specific time period as well, specifically 1837-1901. It's not arbitrary like "vintage" or "retro".

I don't agree with Guttersnipe. The Victorian Era does have a definition. That definition being the world as known, and as affected and changed during the years 1837-1901, during the reign of Queen Victoria. It's not a term which can be chucked around as others might be . . . In England, it's split up by the reigns of monarchs. Plantagenets, Tudors, Stuarts, Civil War, Stuarts, Georgian, Regency, Victorian, Edwardian

I'm not sure you follow me. Using the 64 years of Victoria as a defining descriptor for the bulk of the 19th is not helpful because the only real continuity across that period her reign - in the United Kingdoms and Empire.

The key difference between using Victoria's reign and previous monarchs reigns is that they had a direct impact on world events. When you talk about the Tudor era, the historically literate will understand you mean the period in which England moved away from the dynastic wars of the Middle Ages and into the English Renaissance. Victoria and Albert were culturally influential, but her only real contribution to world events was through her lack of participation, which ultimately diminished the power of the English monarchy to nil. In other words, it seems to me that defining the era based on Victoria is kinda like using a double negative.

Also, as an American I don't ever not find the term highly anglocentric . . .

 

[HudsonHawk]

I'm not sure you follow me. Using the 64 years of Victoria as a defining descriptor for the bulk of the 19th is not helpful because the only real continuity across that period her reign - in the United Kingdoms and Empire.

The key difference between using Victoria's reign and previous monarchs reigns is that they had a direct impact on world events. When you talk about the Tudor era, the historically literate will understand you mean the period in which England moved away from the dynastic wars of the Middle Ages and into the English Renaissance. Victoria and Albert were culturally influential, but her only real contribution to world events was through her lack of participation, which ultimately diminished the power of the English monarchy to nil. In other words, it seems to me that defining the era based on Victoria is kinda like using a double negative.

Also, as an American I don't ever not find the term highly anglocentric . . .

I'm following you (at least I think I am), I just disagree with you. I don't think people necessarily use "Victorian" as the defining description of the events and culture of the 19th century (though that's certainly debatable), only in reference to a particular period of time. That's independent of any social, cultural or political contributions the Queen herself made. It's simply not an arbitrary term like "retro" or "vintage". It has a very specific meaning and application.

 

[Guttersnipe]

It's simply not an arbitrary term like "retro" or "vintage". It has a very specific meaning and application.

Vintage has a very specific meaning, if you're talking about wine but outside that context it's pretty all encompassing. That's why I use it as an example. Enter "Victorian" as a search term on eBay and you'll see what I mean . . .

 

[dhermann1]

Ebay certainly has helped the English language become a instrument of accurate communication, hasn't it?
I guess the point is that "Victorian" is one of those nebulous terms that can mean different things to different people.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Vintage has a very specific meaning, if you're talking about wine but outside that context it's pretty all encompassing.

Right. That's my point. "Victorian" is not. That's why it's so widely understood as a specific time period, even outside of the UK.

 

[rocketeer]

Ebay certainly has helped the English language become a instrument of accurate communication, hasn't it?
I guess the point is that "Victorian" is one of those nebulous terms that can mean different things to different people.

Thanks for all the views, I can appreciate better the way members post about this era at least though I would think it is an English language thing. I could not see the Chinese, Japanese, or Italians using the term. And especially not the French.:eeek:
As for eBay I guess the comment above was posted with tongue firmly in cheek.
Is there a dictionary of eBay definitions?

 

[Shangas]

The Chinese & Japanese go by reigns of emperors and dynasties.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

"Victorian" is of course quite specific (referring to something that occurred/existed during the reign of Victoria). It's also a meme. Curiously, also a trope.

However, in terms of fashion, I'd say when most people refer to "Victorian" they're talking about late, mourning-era Victorian. Dour black frock coats and such. I always thought the french Fin de Siecle really captures that particular era best, and so I use it, rather than "late Victorian".

Even in England you would refer to late industrial revolution, rather than "Victorian", as it's more specific to the point you're making. In terms of architecture, we typically refer to Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian, pre-war (WWII) and post-war (WWII). Again, the Georgian and Victorian demarkations would be early, middle and late.


"Victorian" is only used in anglophone countries, of course. The French use their various Monarch/Emperor/Republics to define eras, and it works quite well.

 

[Two Types]

The terms Victorian and Edwardian can get confusing when applied to architecture. My house (built 1906) is thus Edwardian, yet is Victorian in its construction and layout etc. The houses opposite mine are Edwardian (in construction and layout) but were built the year before my house. Furthermore, that style continued to be built into the 1920s when the Edwardian era was over.

 

[Two Types]

Do you know which phrase used to mark a time period really doesn't work for me? The Golden Era.

It goes hand-in-hand with the use of the phrase The Greatest Generation to describe "the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort".

I think the title was a handy hook to hang a book on, but it's wider use seems unfair to those from other periods who made such fantastic contributions to the world.