viking

As I said earlier, the Industrial Revolution and the growth of towns was an overwhelming feature of the nineteenth century. The growth of towns was staggering. Manchester will serve as an example. in the 18th cent the population was around ten thousand. In the early part of the Industrial Revolution it had soared to seventy thousand. First we should ask, where did these peope come from? The Acts of Enclosure had forced people off the land and so we can account for part of that. Secondly the advent of the factory system was a direct challenge to cottage industries.Obvious result was dislocation of industry in small towns and villages and a resulting flow to the towns.
There was also a constant stream of labour from Ireland.
But a rise from ten thousand to seventy thousand means they have to be housed. The quality of housing, overcrowding and the lack of infrastructure brought it's own problems. It has been noted that in 19th cent, London;'s increase in population was by migration and not natural increase.
So to be very over simplistic, the growth of towns caused massive changes over time in the very structure of all of Britain's society. Just what those changes were and how they came about is a large topic in itself.

clement

In reality, from the Renaissance to the 19th century, sexuality became more and more repressed, and I don't know why people usually tend ot believe that Religion was the exclusive factor for this. The 18th century was nice for some part of the society, and especially the nobility. But it was an age of sexual repression : it was the century during which lots of treaties were written on the danger of masturbation for example (whereas it was something generally accepted before). When you read Rousseau, you get a very clear sense of how unrestrained sexuality was ill-considered at that time. The thing with the Victorian era was that the king consort (rather than the queen) happened to adhere to this model of a more disciplined sexual life, the court followed, and it became a model for the society as a whole. The 19th century was just the culmination of a process that started earlier. It was not a religious process (though religion played a part) : it was rather that as we advance in the modern era, the life of the individuals became more and more controlled, by the state for example (which often used churches as a mean for this).

As for the OP, the Victorian era is often seen as very posh and politically correct in a sense (which is simply untrue, it was also an era of subversive countercultures and literature, social tensions, political reform etc.) because of its huge emphasis on moderation, civility, respectability. Before the Victorian era, the main model of sociability was that of the nobility. The nobles were the ideal standards of perfection. And nobles were expected to be scoundrels, good-looking, stylish and witty but unruly, often gambling, drinking, womanizing etc. All the sudden, all things changed, and a the ideal gentleman became (in theory, though prostitution for example thrived during this era, and alcohol and drug consumption did not decrease. In fact opium and laudanum became quite fashionable in this era) much more disciplined, stoic and dull.

viking

Society until the Reformation had been controlled by the Church. Even Kings were subject to it's control. In Britain Henry VIII tried to keep control by use of the Anglican Church, a sort of Catholic Church in disguise, but the genie was out of the bottle. People wanted their own religions. The British Civil War had, as one of it's motivators, the non conformist church in it's many forms. Why these should have been so constantly sexually repressive is not something I can answer easily. The point where I disagree with you is the statement that state control was often through the churches, With a massively expanding population and compression of that population into towns, state control became increasingly necessary. Expanding urbanisation created new problems. I have mentioned infrastructure, overcrowding and housing. The density of living altered the type and frequency of crime. Revolt rarely starts in the country. Ideas spread as quick as any contagion where people are close together. The state did have a need to control but thought the Church is a hard argument to sustain

Albert was, of course and ideal model, but a model for a society already in change. The rising middle class seized on respectability and outward decorum. The reason is again population pressure. Bring people closer together and the way to survive is to allow private space but equally for all to adopt adopt rituals of behaviour. Don't rock the boat.

Black Dog

The British modern day, and, indeed Victorian attitude towards the Victorian era is often contradictory and confusing.

Modern day Brits tend to see the Victorians as sexually repressed (they weren't), stodgy, upright and rather staid and boring.

In fact, they were the most forward thinking, dynamic and revolutionary era of our, and probably world, history. They created the modern world, good and bad.

For their part, the Victorians realised that they were living through a break in British history, a break with a lifestyle and culture that had served us for centuries. On one hand, they enthusiastically embraced the breaking down of barriers, of new things, of the opportunities the modern world had.

On the other, they had a wistful yearning for the past. This is very evident in their literature, their art, and even their marketing. Biscuit tins and Christmas cards with scenes from "Merry England": Dicken's fond memories of his childhood and snow at Christmas (it did not often snow at Christmas during much of the Victorian period). Hardy writes at length at the break between the old ways and the new in all of his books. Poets like Wordsworth loathed modernity and fled to the rural areas, where, ironically, they now have the nerve to encourage visitors in his name. He would have hated that.

The deferential society of the past was not dead- but was decaying. (Deferential societies are not necessarily unhappy or servile).

In short, how we see them in general is not accurate: their own view of themselves is far more so.

clement

Of course, this phenomenon occurred. But if the middle-class model suddenly became so fashionable, it was also because the royals adopted it. The middle-class, very much influenced by Protestantism, saw discipline and civility as virtues. Hard work and thrift was for them the symbol of a strong sense of duty, a certain humility and also a certain intelligence. On the contrary, with its more "Catholic" (in fact high church anglican with some classical and secular influence) mindset, the nobility saw hard work as oppressive, something that restrained or suppressed freedom.

Iolo

I don't think that the aristocracy was particularly high church (and Anglo-Catholics were widely active in social activities amongst the poor, including early socialism). I think that the chapels were vital, rather, in training people into organisational roles, the control of money and so on. When I was working on D.H. Lawrence I found that a surprising number of early Labour Party and Trade Union leaders were Congregationalists, for instance.

I think it is also important to keep in mind just how very long Victoria reigned. The hungry forties were extremely different from the respectable sixties or the socialist eighties.

What I know about the background of my own family suggests that this was, with all its limitations, as Black Dog suggests, a period of remarkable change, ferment and liberation.

Grimald

The "socialist eighties"? Could you explain that to somebody with next to no knowledge of the internal politics of Britain at that time? Do you refer to the introduction of social security similar to what Bismarck introduced in Germany at that time?

clement

It seemed to be that the Aristocracy was mainly mainstream Anglican (though not Anglo-Catholic), with a somewhat relaxed attitude to Religion (which was also part of the aristocratic ideal).

Iolo

It was the time of big strikes and demonstrations, the rise of the new mass unskilled Trade Unions, the Co-operative movement, of the Social Democratic Federation, the Fabian Society and the Socialist League, all leading towards the Independent Labour Party and the Labour Representation Committee/Labour Party Labour.

Iolo

Agreed, though there were of course some exceptions.