Although that's an interesting statistic, I'd hardly say that Victoria and Elizabeth II define an age. Quite the contrary - the two reigns couldn't be more starkly different. Victoria's Britain was an imperial world power - THE sole superpower on the planet. Under E II R, Britain has lost all vestiges of empire, and is so impotent and weak now that even Scotland is poised to break away. The world leader in practically everything in the 19th century, the nation today, in general, is almost completely irrelevant on the international stage. Even English culture is in active decline. The UK actually now touts itself as "the most multicultural country in the world", and I don't think anyone can dispute that. When simply flying the flag of St George in its own country is frowned upon as insulting to other nationalities, it seems to me that England has completely lost all sense of itself.
All this, of course, is not Elizabeth's personal doing, but she's clearly shown herself to be in favour of all of these negative changes, and not speaking up for traditional English values in the least. Victoria stood for national and cultural strength; Elizabeth II, weakness. As monarchs, they are polar opposites in almost every way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-27 10:08 pm (UTC)All this, of course, is not Elizabeth's personal doing, but she's clearly shown herself to be in favour of all of these negative changes, and not speaking up for traditional English values in the least. Victoria stood for national and cultural strength; Elizabeth II, weakness. As monarchs, they are polar opposites in almost every way.