'Our Crown'… for Colonials Only

Could be interesting in that she may be the last queen ever. Who knows?

Ben. …

thanks for that… I was trying to lean my original coments in that direction but just couldn’t seem to find the wording. It was something that had fleetingly crossed my mind… that each of the ‘noted’ eras in the history of the Realm have all made considerable contributions to the lives and cultures that have been in that ‘orbit’. For some reason, I just can’t seem to ‘visualize’ my life having been lived in the ‘neo’ Elizabethan age… perhaps its just something better left for another 40 years so I can look back and then say I lived in that era.

Of historical significance, I think the one true ER II legacy for me was the repatriation of the British North America Act, that act in itself did more to affirm her role (especially here) as our Queen and notional ‘head-of-state’.

James

Just a random thought-type question…. but while watching Nigel Spivey’s ‘Kings & Queens’ this evening, the thought crossed my mind…. we’ve been trough the Elizabethan, Edwardian, Georgian and Victorian (etc.) periods…. but just what will historians refer to the last 54+ years as?

I only ask this simply because ER II has been the only queen I’ve known (and owed alegiance to) and her more than half century on the throne is surely owed a regal ‘title’.

JJ

Good question, being a historian myself with a healthy interrest in the Victorian Age. (I wrote my master thesis on the Boer War) It could be that the present age would be regarded as the elizabethan age (though not to be confused with 16th century QE), but the reason why we talk about ‘the age of the victorians’ has not only to do with the queen herself. It’s the whole cultural background you have to take into account: conservatism, dandyism (O. Wilde), new imperialism (the scramble for africa). Even back in the 19th century people were talking about the ‘victorians’, not because of queen victoria only. The ‘Victorian Age’ symbolises an era when Britain was still ruling the waves, when its financial and military power were still not matched by any other nation. With all respect, the heydays of British financial, political and cultural dominance are over since the 1950’s, so I don’t think it would be appropriate to call this the Elizabethan age. Whether you like it or not, Britain now is a part of a larger entity called Europe (I’m not pro/anti EU here just making a non-political statement!) and does not have the same influence over other countries. From a British national perspective you can ofcourse talk about the QE2-era, however, it will never have the historical significance as the Victorian Era.

Common logic might assume that the last 54+ years might be referred to as Elizabethan again – since the Queen of the Realm is indeed an Elizabeth by name.:D

what will historians refer to the last 54+ years as?

JJ

Boring?
At least when it comes to HRH…and that’s not a bad thing or meant as an insult.
However, her children have been a boon for Fleet Street.

The last 54 years have been fairly peaceful for the country. The UK led the world in a lot of popular culture influences.
People have a higher standard of living than ever before…
but under her reign the empire ended (not her fault) and a lot of the UK export industries like cars and aircraft seem to have pretty much vanished (again, not her fault).

Overall, not the stirring stuff for future novels…no big wars, beheadings, etc.:D