Steampunk: Victorian or Post-Apocalyptic?

Based on my limited knowledge of the subject of steampunk as a subculture, I believe that there are two distinct versions of steampunk. One of them takes place in an alternate past, in mid-to-late 19th Century Europe. In this version of the past, advances in science took place that never occurred in our real past, leading to a predominance of airships, steam-powered robots, and other engineering marvels. The other takes place in a possible future, one in which people have run out of or are unable to get to more usual sources of energy such as oil and nuclear power, and are therefore forced to turn back to steam power as a way to fuel their devices. I suppose there might be another take on this, in which people voluntarily give up other forms of fuel in favor of the simpler, more abundant alternative that coal provides.

If you know me, you know which group I stand with. To me, it is not truly steampunk unless it's Victorian. A large part of what I like about steampunk is the British and Victorian sensibility of it. That's not to say that it absolutely has to happen in England; after all, Jules Verne was hardly British, was he? You could even have Oriental adventures, perhaps with clockwork geishas made of wood and paper. But it's important that, somewhere, Queen Vic is sitting on her throne (or speaking to an advisor, or strolling the garden, or inspecting the thousand-foot-long airship that bears her name, or...)

If you're a fan of the postapocalyptic setting, you might suggest that, in the future, people decide to go back to Victorian modes of dress, speech, and culture. This just doesn't work for me. It's implausible, for one, and it's not genuine. Why have people recreating Victorian things when you can simply set your story in Victorian times?

So there you go. That's just my take on it, of course. In any case, it was something I felt like addressing. As usual, I welcome any ideas you might like to share.