An Era In Fashion: The Early Victorian Era (1846 - 1859)

[acerb45666555]

those,"Gentlemens" suits were a 1000 times more classy than the unsightly, unbearably drab dull grey "Utilitarian Fascist!" suits theyve worn for the last 111 years!!

[doctorw2]

wow these ladies are just gorgous!

[Humaneering]

nice art love peace from RobotRuss

[theromanian19]

Amazing video and music.

[inveca]

what classical music piece is used as the background music? i've heard it many times but never been able to figure out who it is.

[AxeBlack84]

You must be crazy to think that anything close to the majority of people back then were "happy" in this period. Maybe if you were a Noble or Aristocracy, but the majority of people were of the lower working class, and didn't live this romantic easy happy life as portrayed in these pictures.

The Art was nice though...

[SciMasterGeneral]

@AxeBlack84 We don't need an f'n history lesson, we all know how things were back then. THIS WAS LIFE AND REALITY FOR ALOT OF PEOPLE though.

[SuperLoli101]

@AxeBlack84 True true. But poverty, inequality, oppression - it's every society in every time period. But most often, people looking back into the past - they will be looking at the glorious aspects of the period not how people were suffering. Because I'm pretty sure, if I had to look back to the 21st century, I'd be more focused on how our society is advancing technology wise or something not as much on how people are suffering in third world countries

[GhettoBoi619]

i luv their outfits. i wish women dress like that

[Briercliffe1]

I compiled a video of Victorian women and mens fashions c. 1870-1910. The video is called Old Burnley People 2.

[MystyMary]

some just exquisite pictures there. Delightful to watch. I'm a life-long hugest fan of the era and their costumes for ladies, especially of the 1840s. Thank you for the pleasure of this great video.

[andreavende]

Hermosos...!!

[gianka9574]

splendido come tutti ...mia..sabina..

[sabinabarbara]

che splendore

[MrBEB123]

The Victorian Era wasn't just about fashion. It was a way of thinking with quality values and meaningful culture. I believe that today's modern society is not an improvement not taking into account improvements in science, medicine and technology.

[Boromir26]

@MrBEB123 It surely isn't, outside if an astounding evolution in the field of technology and science we are inferior in terms of values morality level of culture,look at the constant crises we are facing -> thats because of democracy I tell you! We were far better off without it,just a bunch of corrupt and incompetent politicians who suck wall street cock!back then,society was far better structured, everyone know their place and at least looked up to their leaders,now most ppl are just ignorants

[DomtheRad]

@Boromir26 this has to be the dumbest comment iv ever seen on you tube.

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad If you can also give an intelligent deconstructive reply to my statement I will debate this with you until then I am sticking with my own analysis. Just take a historic perspective: humanity out of its 10.000 years of recorded civilisation, has experienced global widespread democracy for only 100 years and half of that time we spent taking sides in a meaningless race to quench communism, and by doing so we invested more power into corporations and bankers than some kings used to have.

[DomtheRad]

@Boromir26 you honestly think people were better off under a monarchy? people were going around burning eachother at the stake and torturing eachother and shit, women had no rights at all how could you want something like that? the monarchy was more corrupt then any pollitician these days mate. and they invested power into the biggest bank that has ever exsisted, the vatican. listen man, democracy isnt perfect ill accept that but its a hell of a lot better then living under a monarchy. progress

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad come to think of it, I guess they were better off in a monarchy, excepting a few underprivileged classes, which exist nowadays as well however under another aspect. From your comment I come to think that you have quite a narrow understanding of what a monarchy is and how it looks like, remember monarchy did not exist only in the dark ages.. and I am talking about the INSTITUTION itself not forms of it aka medieval continental europe. Have you ever heard of Le Contrat Social?

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Your "few underprivileged classes" were the majority of the population.

Nor did monarchy provide more stability than democracy. Here in the United States we've had an admittedly flawed democracy running for over 200 years. How many 200 year periods can you find in the history of the British Monarchy with out succession being decided at the point of a sword?

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad what about the Enlightened Monarch principle?? where the power did not rest solely in the hands of 1 king! come to analyze this even in then dark ages important decisions such as war issues or territorial expansion were never taken by the king himself, but by all his vassals and tributaries because in the end they had to support it.. of course they invested into Vatican, but they had its backing in political decisions, banks nowadays rely on the state to support their failures

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Vassals and tributaries= the rest of the upper (and least productive) 2% of society. Back then you had a monarchy/oligarchy. Today we have a democracy/oligarchy. Of course my vote doesn't hold as much sway as, for instance, that of a major stock holder for a Fortune 500 company. But when enough of us vote together it becomes very hard for the rulers to ignore our wants.

Gov't bailing out banks has more to do with the rise of Capitalism than whether we have Kings or Ballots.

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad and don't get me started with women... they had a very important positioning within society and had good excertable influence, only because they did not hold public office doesn't mean they did not have rights.. and voting rights?? those exist only since the second half of the 19th century if they would be that important why are the quotas of ppl attending the votes so low? cause they realized that the system is so corrupt that their vote doesn't mean anything any more.

[58jtaylor]

@Boromir26 I have read your comments and it was quite impressive for someone like yourself to explain what i have been feeling about the current work we live in! It does not make sense. This workd is fucked

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Granted that low voter turnout is in part due to disgust at the failures and corruption of the system. It also has something to do with the democracy's success. We've had it good so long we take our rights and prosperity for granted. Many have forgotten what it took to get those rights and whats at stake.

On the other hand, if things were so great before, why did up to 3 million of Britons during the period of these lovely dresses signed the National Peoples Charter, 3 times.

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad oh and don't even get me started on the symbolic capital monarchical systems had which lead to a better social cohesion; furthermore the social structure was far more stable and people knew their place, nowadays the world and especially the young generations are confronted with a profound sense of purposeless existance because the bureaucratic apparatus that offers the biggest job market is just not offering any perspectives and an apparent sense for a cause, which is intrinsic in us.

[58jtaylor]

@Boromir26 I too feel the emptiness you speak of, every thing these days feels so fake and unnecessary, everyone is just so unhappy. and the modern medical psychologists to and just label things like depression and other mental illnesses instead of actually getting to the root cause of all of this madness witch is the way society is functioning, anyway thats what my take of it is. anyway good comments Boromir26 ; ) god to see someone else understands

[Boromir26]

@DomtheRad all of which was better anchored in a monarchical system!

Cheers

[DomtheRad]

@Boromir26 you win

[SuperLoli101]

@DomtheRad Torture is apart of every society. Doesnt really matter if it was in a monarchy or not. After all, how would you explain the Salem Witch trials for example? That certainly was not due to them being ruled under a monarchy. I think it honestly had more to do with their strong religious faith and fear of superstitions than anything. Both forms of government have their pros and cons and if the people arent happy with the monarch, they'd rebel and overthrow them right? French Revolution?

[amynmiami2]

@SuperLoli101 Actually Salem was still under the English monarchy at the time of the witch trials (1691-1693) and the towns that held witch trials had to get permission from England to hold the trials.

You are right about torture being part of every society at that time. I'm sad to say I think it happens today more than we know...regardless of monarchy.

[SuperLoli101]

@amynmiami2 It didnt matter if the witch trials were still under English Monarchy rule lol. I'm very well aware of that I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with whether they were or not because the trials were a result of fear due to strong religious beliefs. Of course, today's methods of torture and what not are kept as hidden as possible lest the country might be charged with crimes against humanity and all that stuff...*sigh*

[tomasmoura]

@DomtheRad Progress?! Democracy is killing the European Culture! Culture is dying!

We are becoming more and more like those Slaves we used to have...

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 I agree with you about the folly of the last hundred years, the excessive power of money and corporations, etc.. But monarchy? Really? If we've wasted the last hundred years trying to quench communism, how many hundreds of years (not to mention lives) did the English and French monarchies spend fighting each other? Who paid the cost for these wars of royal aggression? French peasants had a saying; when the great ones fight its the little guys house that burns.

[Boromir26]

@BradloRaul Monarchy is always a better option thatn democracy! Yes, you are right both systems are flawed and opression is present, but while traditional European monarchy, and be aware that this is only 1 form of this sytem, opressed mostly peasants, and this too until the Social Contract which stated the right of the man over his land, democracy opresses everyone by dumbing them down with false ideas of equality. And do you feel yourself privileged that you can vote?

[Boromir26]

@Boromir26 Do you actually feel like your vote counts.You said that your voice counts. how does it count, beyond a formal complaint that is done after huge bureaucratic processes and ends up being read by a drone at an customer relations office. And during monarchy the burgeosie developed better and faster than todays 'middle working class' is, mostly because rulers had monarchical envoys that were checking the quality of goods produced. Research the imperial branding in the Habsburg Empire.

[Boromir26]

@Boromir26 It was in the best interest of the royal house to assure the development of trade and manufacturing either to increase their prestige or the assure a steady local supply of quality goods for the royal court, therefore there where coart advisors on all the issues in the 'kingdom' and in the end if the shit hit the fan at least ppl would know whom to blame and kill. A king can be overthrown if he is too unjust a government can't be overthrown except through massacres.

[Boromir26]

@Boromir26 Furthermore, with genealogical rulers you would know who is next in line to succeed so many 'lobbysts' invested in the development of the future king to assure their safety, that is being done today but through subversive hidden means, like illegal campaighn fundings(research clinton) However as history shows is that a monarchy once it reaches its apex of wealth and power develps a far more efficient process of wealth redistribution than democratic systems.

[Boromir26]

@Boromir26 This happens because democratic systems are based on cyclic power distribution, there are always new ppl in power, new ppl whose main concern is to fill their pockets, when this goes on and on in a monarchy the ppl who fill their pockets stay the same and at one point, sooner or later, reach a level of satisfaction. I'd rather have 1 greedy king, with the hope that his son won't be that greedy than a horde of social leeches who get elected on lies and steal shamelessly.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 If you believe that the Royal Courts were not filled with "ppl whose main concern is to fill their pockets" you need to read more history. Those courts were greedy hordes of "social leeches". The aristocracy was nothing more than an hereditary club for royal cronies. If kings got enough wealth, then were satisfied Euro. history books would be a LOT shorter.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 If you believe that the Royal Courts were not filled with "ppl whose main concern is to fill their pockets" you need to read more history. Those courts were greedy hordes of "social leeches". The aristocracy was nothing more than an hereditary club for royal cronies. If kings got enough wealth, then were satisfied Euro. history books would be a LOT shorter.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Kings redistributed wealth to their favorites among the aristocracy. Usually, the aristocracy was as far as that wealth went. I defy all comers to name many instances of Monarchs redistributing substantial wealth to the poor. Sure, a little bit trickled down to to villagers- but that's where the wealth came from!

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Kings redistributed wealth to their favorites among the aristocracy. Usually, the aristocracy was as far as that wealth went. I defy all comers to name many instances of Monarchs redistributing substantial wealth to the poor. Sure, a little bit trickled down to to villagers- but that's where the wealth came from!

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Democratic regimes establish standards of quality and assist in the development of trade and manufacturing all the time. They are usually better at policing those regulations than monarchies were. That's probably how they spend the bulk of their resources. Many, especially on the Libertarian Right would say they do too much of it. As to the ease with which a king can be deposed, it usually took a bloody war and often those failed.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 The 'middle working class' developed to its greatest size and economic power during the 20th C.. At no time in the history of civilization did a larger segment of society enjoy a higher standard of living, not even close! Now that may be slipping. Here in the U.S. the average families buying power has been going down since the '70s which is troubling. But we didn't gain that level of prosperity under Kings and we aren't losing it because too many people can vote.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Oh! they oppressed mostly peasants? That's alright then init? And that ended with the era of the Social Contract?

1) During the period of the "traditional Euro. monarchy" Europe was mostly peasants. They made up about 9/10s of the pop. til about 1750 by most estimates. The 90% that fed and clothed the other 10%.

2) There is no evidence that the espousal of the "Social Contract" led to peasants being treated better.The worst of the enclosure movement happened after it.

[Boromir26]

@BradloRaul Please I beg you to go back and read ALL my comments on this thread! You will have a better and more complete image of why I consider monarchy a better option, an option that is more in touch with societal development and the sense of being of the masses. I do not wish to change your opinion but to show you that although the many problems of monarchy, problems which by the way persist in democratic systems as well, it still makes a better system overall.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 We still have way too many ppl suffering poverty, inequality, oppression, etc.. The standard of living for the average person has increased immensely since the fall of monarchy. It's like saying a man covered in gasoline set on fire and one with a fever are the same- "they're both too hot!"

Pls, read more social hist., how normal people lived, what they suffered and what they sacrificed so we could neglect these rights. If you still fancy a monarchy, there's always Saudi Arabia.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 Back in the good ol' days people looked content because sedition was a hanging offense. Look at English History: The 1380's Peasant Revolt, the Lollards, Robert Kett's uprising, the Pilgrimage of Grace, the Diggers, the English Civil War, Captain Swing's and Ned Ludd's revolts.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head, of the dissatisfaction of average people coming to such a head that large masses of them were willing to risk death to protest their treatment.

[BradloRaul]

@Boromir26 You speak about constant crisis in our lives? Most of us don't know what crisis mean. I've never gone a single day with out eating because my "betters" decided not to open the community granaries (as happened to my Irish ancestors), I've never had to worry about warring aristocrats fighting over my valley, or try to push me off my land because they want to replace the lot of us with sheep.

[BradloRaul]

Respond to this video...I wont agree that monarchies were not corrupt, history shows little evidence of that. Perhaps in some cases they were less hypocritical- they openly espoused the belief that they and their aristocratic cronies deserved the lions share of the wealth of the nation. That does not make for a better society. Quite the opposite. 

[BradloRaul]

Respond to this video...  Of course everyone knew their place, and they knew the legal system was designed in hundreds of ways to keep them in it. How much did they look up to their leaders? We'll never know, criticizing them was "sedition" - that's a hanging offense. As to people today being "just ignorants (sic)", at least the average person you meet can read. Universal education came to most of Europe in the late 19th C. along with the rise of republicanism.

[BradloRaul]

@MrBEB123 I dunno, I'm a white, college educated male. Back then I would have been a second class citizen with out the vote because I'm not rich enough. I would probably have worked 6 days a week in unsafe conditions and been fired if I got injured or spoke up to the master.

I'm not saying we haven't lost something along the way, part of me would love to live in a village where I knew all my neighbors. Lets not romanticize things though. Those farmers all had deformed spines.

[acerb45666555]

all this is from east of the Missouri river. it was very differant west of the Missouri river!! >>ie: " why, i aint never seed fancy duds like 'at afore, whered ye trade fer 'em?"

[tsukichan22]

awesome pictures

[KosmiskRevolution]

Very nice compilation. The pictures are beautiful :) It must have taken a great time to find them all. I really like the descriptions in the beginning:)