

Ethel Lang, the last Victorian, has died - pepys
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/18/ethel-lang-last-victorian-dies-victorian-values-live-on

======
schappim
I know some Australian Victorians that would feel different...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28Australia%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28Australia%29)

------
blackbagboys
My favorite anecdote in this vein is that John Tyler, President from
1841-1845, has two living grandsons (although I think one may have passed on
in the last year).

[http://www.snopes.com/history/american/tylergrandsons.asp](http://www.snopes.com/history/american/tylergrandsons.asp)

------
arbuge
It sounds like a long time ago but there are some surprisingly good pictures
of Queen Victoria out there as photography came into its own in the late
1880s. Here's one of her smiling in a carriage:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria#mediaviewer/File...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria#mediaviewer/File:Her_Majesty%27s_Gracious_Smile_by_Charles_Knight.JPG)

~~~
cbd1984
A working link:

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Her_Majes...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Her_Majesty%27s_Gracious_Smile_by_Charles_Knight.JPG)

------
eCa
This is a bit like the last widow of a soldier in the American civil war dying
in 2008 [1]. History is not as far away as it appears.

[1]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maudie_Hopkins](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maudie_Hopkins)

~~~
skuhn
True, although she didn't personally live through the civil war. Missed it by
50 years.

------
beloch
As a Canadian who doesn't have much patience to spare for what passes for
British royalty these days, it's fascinating to think of a time, just one
human lifetime ago, when Canada was a part of an empire ruled by a monarch who
actually _mattered_. There is much fault to be found in Victorian values, but
those values and Queen Victoria herself did much to free the British empire
from rule by British despots. Victoria's rule, and the values she promulgated,
paved the way for the Commonwealth of today. Even though Britain typically
acted with rapacious greed in exploiting its colonies, somehow most of them
achieved independence peacefully and, in most cases, are today better off than
neighboring countries that were not a part of the empire. Victorian values are
largely to thank for this implausible bit of history.

~~~
brc
I think the best frame of reference is to look at colonisation by British in
comparison to other countries. The difference is that the British tended to
leave behind a system of governance wbased on English common law, which
stretches back a millennia. That also leads to functioning institutions.

So while some see colonisation as exploitation - certainly by the standards of
today it is unthinkable - in other cases you can see the bequeathed laws and
institutions have made up for that over time, leaving those countries able to
stand on their own feet. The peaceful transitions are by design with the
promotion of the rule of law and creation of Houses of Parliament and courts
and separated church, government and armed forces.

Interestingly the school of thought I have read says that the commonwealth
independent model has everything to do with American independence - better to
have a stake in something than lose everything.

~~~
eaurouge
You're rewriting history (both of you are). Colonialism in Africa was
certainly detrimental and exploitative, and not just by standards of today.
The "peaceful transitions" you speak of, included borders and methods of
government that were set up for the benefit of the colonial powers, the
ramifications of which continue to this day. And while independence was
achieved peacefully in some cases, colonization itself was a violent process.

[http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&...](http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=utk_chanhonoproj)

[http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-
colonization-o...](http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/essay-colonization-
of-africa.html)

~~~
Normati
Not every case was bad. It was extremely successful in New Zealand with hardly
anyone killed (relatively speaking), a peace treaty quickly signed and the
quality of life brought up to modern standards, ending 1000 years of murderous
tribal warfare. The natives didn't have their own country before it was
colonized because they were fractured into tribes. So it was absolutely a good
thing to save them from themselves.

~~~
jonathanyc
"Save them from themselves" is quite possibly the most dangerous mentality to
have ever existed on the face of the Earth. The Belgians thought they were
saving the Congolese from themselves. Totalitarian states thought they were
saving the people from themselves. As soon as you take it upon yourself to
decide what is good for someone else, you have decided to become a god with
the knowledge of a man. I am quite disappointed to see such ideas supported
here.

~~~
lmm
The Belgians knew they were in it for the money - the main reason it went so
wrong there is that they really needed the money now, and so were willing to
inflict long-term damage for short-term profit.

Yes, it's very easy to get helping other people wrong, but the answer isn't to
give up on doing so entirely.

