There were likely multiple concauses. The non-aristocrats winning parliament seats in that period were typically people who had made a lot of money in industry and commerce (or someone directly sponsored by such). Those individuals were very strong-willed; it's entirely possible that they wrestled control from the weakened aristocrats in many ways, and probably gossiping about "disgraced" young women was just one easy tool. Once elected, these people supported education reforms because they needed it: their businesses required a cheap but educated workforce. Not unlike what Google and friends need now (hence the big push to "learn to code").
There's a big conflator here with the industrial revolution then. Note that the 1860s and early 1870s was also a transition decade from an agrarian hereditary nobility to industrial capitalist nationalism in many other countries (notably: U.S. Civil War 1861-1865, German war of unification 1871, Italian war of unification 1871, Meiji restoration in Japan 1868). It's more likely that the economic development leading from the railroad, the oil well, the steel foundry, and the steamship led to capitalists winning seats in Parliament and pushing for policies to benefit their workforce, rather than the Queen's mourning leading to missing debutante balls and the peerage losing their influence.
Let us also admit the repeal of the corn laws and the great agricultural depression to the discussion, with the result that land became much less valuable and rents for great aristocratic estates cratered to the discussion. Lest we find ourselves struck with the obdurate ignorance that has cursed the person who wrote the article.
