Under Queens Elizabeth I and II we have been Elizabethan. Under Victoria, Victorian. Under Edrward, Edwardian etc. So if we had a King Brian, what would we become? Does someone decide the term or is it left to popular culture to decide?
2007-07-29 07:39:52 · 8 answers · asked by mikey2000uk 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Reigns don't always get a monicker - Alfred's reign doesn't have a name as such (apart from "in the time of King Alfred").
These terms arise from journalism originally and then some historians use them as short-hand to describe a period of history.
King Brian's time would be Brionian if a group of historians fell into line calling it that. Of course in republics historians don't use regal terms at all. In France the Victorian age is the belle epoch.
2007-07-29 07:53:10 · answer #1 · answered by HonestTom 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Generally such classificatiion is termed after the name of the reigning monarch. Naturally it is rather erroneous and silly. When Victoria died all the 'Victorians' became Edwardians' overnight but nothing changed. They didn;'t become different people. At the moment were 'Elizabethans' again although they were also so called when Elizabeth I was on the throne. No doubt when Charles becomes king we'll all be real 'Charlies'.
2007-07-29 09:09:14 · answer #2 · answered by quatt47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice question, if there was a King Brian, then Brianian is the term I suppose, but I would imagine that the era name is established by historians rather than popular culture
2007-07-29 07:44:32 · answer #3 · answered by superliftboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
King Brian? I like the sound of that, though I would still rather we had a president than a monarch. I would never vote for a King, even if it WAS Brian.
2007-07-29 07:48:10 · answer #4 · answered by undercover elephant 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I presume the historians and the press usually concoct these terms, and some of them are really rather ridiculous - like "Henrician". "In the time of King Henry" makes a lot more sense, even if it is longer.
2007-07-29 10:34:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its odd, because with king James, Charles and Henry they don't have terms named after them, but we also have it with king george - Georgian. Good question to which I don't have an answer.
2007-07-29 07:55:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theyve all got 'ian' at the end - thats it decided. Unless of course you consider Stuart or Tudor which are just Stuart and Tudor mainly because adding 'ian' at the end would sound rubbish.
2007-07-29 07:52:49 · answer #7 · answered by Lauren 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. Nobody talked about Georgian for George V and George VI.
I doubt if they will talk about Georgian when Charles becomes king (his title of choice is George VII).
2007-07-29 07:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋