NOT Victorian!

Normans (1066-1154)
Angevins (1154-1216)
Plantagenets (1216-1399)
Lancastrians (1399-1461)
Yorkists (1461-1485)
Tudors (1485-1603)
Stuarts (1603-1649, monarchy abolished in 1649 and restored in 1660, Stuarts retake the throne from 1660-1714)
Hanoverians (1714-1901)
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (1901-1910)
Windsors (1910-present)

I've got a clan of gingerbread, men here a men, there a men
Lots of gingerbread, men

The girl is right, the Regency period is a totally seperate entity and is never used interchangably with Victorian. The values are far too different.

Beginning in 1901, the Victorian era began morphing into the Edwardian period, and mores and culture started to loosen dramatically. Victoriana was all full of awful overstuffed and appointed home furnishings; homes became cluttered and velvet and lace shrouded everything in the house. Even piano legs were covered lest they incite the flames of young men's lustful hearts. I kid you not.

In contrast, Prince Edward was a dandy and men soon started emulating his dress and manner. Women, most of whom adored Queen Alexandra, began dressing as she did - bustles be damned! Things began to lighten up and loosen up as stodgy, button-down, repressed sexuality was replaced in favor of a more cosmopolitan flair during the Edwardian period. Everyone loved Queen Alexandra, but were willing to turn a quick blind eye to King Edward's fancy women. And. . . at last, piano legs could again be viewed openly. Unfortunately Edward's reign and influence lasted only for a short time (he was King less than 10 years); shortly afterward, Europe began to devolve into martial fever as World War I loomed.

The war, which brought about monumental changes in the social structure and progressive movements (such as "the vote" for women) reverberated around the world. The groundswell of changes brought about by jettisoning Victorian customs, embracing the excesses of the Edwardian society, a sad, sagging economy, and the social upheaval caused by the Great War were unimaginable at the end of the 19th century.

Some movies are released; others sneak out.

In America, we name our periods after centuries on the larger scale (18th, 19th, etc.) and on the smaller scale, after wars or major political/ sociological events (The Revolutionary Period, The Civil War, Reconstruction, WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War etc.) More recently we've started using Presidents as benchmarks ("The Clinton Years, the Reagan Years") but that's usually reserved for more recent events, historically speaking. But you're right, it's not as simple as the monarch periods in the UK; though I know that for smaller time periods, the English also will use wars or political movements to describe a period (e.g. the Enlightenment or the Restoration.)

Glad to see that most of you out there know that Queen Victoria did not reign for over 100 years. That would be quite a feat! Great discussion.

If "willthrills" truly had a degree --in ANYTHING!-- he or she would value higher education far too much to tell so advanced a youth, as the original poster, to go "play with [her] barbie dolls".

I simply do not buy this joker's claim of a degree in "British Literature". Not.At.All.


"hesperus59" YOU must understand that many modern references merely describe how a term, or pharse, has come to be commonly used... And, many people --like yourself-- blithely accept this record of current usage... but, that DOES NOT make the usage correct!

I have studied much history, and much literature, and I can assure you that such distinctions ARE made between Georgian, Regency, Victorian, etc...!


More 13 year olds should hope to be so intelligent and mature as the original poster.

Well said Pink Weeds, I think the original poster had every right to air her
quibbles and in my opinion, her complaints were not at all unreasonable.

I think the distinction that should be made is that we are dealing with two
different texts here: the novel and its film adaptation. While the novel is unquestionably a Victorian novel, in both form and context, the historical period examined is Regency and thus, when summaries of the film is made, individuals should cite the film as Regency and not Victorian. To label the film as Victorian is very misleading as the social modes and historical paradigms of the Regency period were very different from the Victorian, not too mention vastly different in terms of fashion and technology.

(I hope I don't sound too pedantic, and while I am sometimes irritated when people fail to make distinctions between historical periods, I do want to say, however, that the idea of someone labeling Vanity Fair as Victorian to me is far more palatable than say, someone labeling Pride and Prejudice as Victorian (I've heard and read this description far too often) (Ugh!) :)

I'm an American, I know/knew nothing about the Regency and I thank the OP for educating me, a 58 yo man! I am however currently "reading" Vanity Fair (in audiobook format) and thoroughly enjoying it! I'm also enjoying this discussion.

Its interesting that Vanity Fair and Pride and Prejudice are both based in the regency period in England, yet they both have such extremely different portrayals of fashion.

The first lines of Vanity Fair do not state an actual year - it merely says 'while the present century was in its early years...' or something to that effect. The Napoleonic wars feature in the book, and that war went on from 1803 - 1815. This means that the book could be based any time between those dates. Lets assume that Vanity Fair is based before 1810. Pride and Prejudice was first published in 1813, and i like to think it was based around that date too. So...we can assume that fashion may have moved from the huge wigs, powdered faces and wide hip hoop dresses of the Revolutionary late 18th century years, to the look portrayed on Vanity Fair in the very early 19th century, to the Regency/late Georgian era portrayed in Pride and Prejudice.

What say all of you?