Every Woman Dreams...

Fencibles, Defending the Homeland

Posted on October 5, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Based on the word “defencible,” fencibles were the British forces raised for a specific war, not just war, in general, as we think of our National Guard in the United States, who are available for war, but also for civic duties during national disasters.

Acting as local military units, each of which was composed of residents from a particular area of the county and commanded by officers from the British Regulars, they were called up to defend against an outside attack/invasion during the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, the French Revolutionary Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, and the War of 1812.

They were enlisted or enrolled to perform duties that would free up the Regular Army to take on offensive operations outside the county. None of those enrolled in the “fencibles” saw action overseas. They aided in the protection of the coastline and served as a “peace keeping” group if riots broke out at home. Customarily, a wealthy landowner or member of the aristocracy would form the “unit.” He would be made “colonel,” for his efforts. They served at home for the duration of whatever war for which they signed up. When that particular war ended, their service also ended.

The time between 1793 and the peace at Amiens in 1802 was where one might find the use of the Fencible Regiments the most, but, as one can see from the list of wars mentioned above, the practice did not go away until about 1815. The regiments which formed after 1802 were actually sent abroad to serve with the British during the wars taking place in North America.

[Engraved portrait of Sir James Grant with a view the Strathspey Grant Fencibles ~ Public Domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencibles#/media/File:+Sir_James_Grant_by_John_Kay.jpg]

In England, county/shire militia regiments were raised for internal defense in the absence of the regular army, but those in Scotland, at least in the opinion of many, were more volatile and were not “encouraged” to form such military units. People worried for insurrection. That does not mean Scottish units did not exist, for the first regiments were raised in Scotland in 1759.

[1790 Oil on Canvas from John Singleton Copley – Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton, 1739 – 1819. Soldier; Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire ~ Public Domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Montgomerie,12th_Earl_of_Eglinton#/media/File:John_Singleton_Copley–Hugh_Montgomerie,_12th_Earl_of_Eglinton,_1739–1819._Soldier;_Lord_Lieutenant_of_Ayrshire-_Google_Art_Project.jpg]

For example, Lord Hugh Montgomerie, 12th Earl of Eglinton, entered the army in 1756. Serving first as a captain in the 78th Foot in the war with America and later as a major in the Argyll or Western fencibles (formed jointly by both the Argyll and Eglinton families and led by Colonel Lord Frederick Campbell, he was twice elected to parliament as member for Ayrshire. If we may trust the testimony of Burns, in his ‘Earnest Cry and Prayer,’ Montgomerie’s oratorical power was less conspicuous than his courage: —

⁠I ken, if that your sword were wanted,
⁠⁠Ye’d lend a hand;
⁠But when there’s ought to say anent it,
⁠⁠Ye’re at a stand.

(Dictionary of National Biography)

Montgomerie served in the 77th (1st Highland Regiment) from 1757-1763 and was senior Major of the Argyll Fencibles during the American Revolutionary War. He raised the West Lowland Fencibles in 1793, which was made up of the West Lowland Fencibles from Ayshire, as well as other lowland areas. Ironically, at Montgomerie’s insistence, they wore highland dress.

“Most fencible regiments had no liability for overseas service however there were exceptions. Ireland while not united with the Kingdom of Great Britain until 1801 was the destination for several British fencible regiments during the Rebellion of 1798 where they fought in some minor pitched battles. The 3rd Argyllshire Regiment, who like some other fencible regiments had terms of service that extended to any part of Europe, garrisoned Gibraltar (as did Banffshire Fencibles, 2nd Argllshire Fencibles, and the Prince of Wales Own Fencibles) The Dumbarton Fencibles Regiment was raised in Scotland, garrisoned Guernsey, fought in Ireland, and detachment escorted prisoners to Prussia.The Ancient Irish Fencibles were sent to Egypt where they took part in the operations against the French in 1801.

“Fencible regiments were less effective than regular troops for military duties, with problems of lack of education and disease. In Ireland the regiment troops would take part in inter-regimental brawls and attacks on army soldiers. Some regiments of Fencibles, however, were noted for exceptional service.” (Fencibles)

From “The Forgotten Army: Fencible Regiments of Great Britain 1793 – 1816“ on the Napoleon Series website, we find…

Below is an example of a Royal Warrant to raise a Fencible Regiment:

Warrant for the Raising of a Regiment of Fencible Men under the Command of Col. M. H. Baillie, [signed George R]

Whereas we have thought fit to order a Regiment of Fencible men, to be forthwith raised under your command, which is to consist of ten companies, of 4 sergeants, 5 corporals, 2 drummers, and 95 men in each, with 2 fifers to the Grenadier Company, besides a sergeant-major and quartermaster-sergeant, together with the usual commissioned officers; which men are to serve in Great Britain and Ireland only.

Given at our Court at St. James, the 24th day of October 1794, in the 34th year of our reign.

By His Majesty’s Command (signed) W. Windham

To our trusty and well-beloved M. H. Baillie, Esq., Colonel of a Regiment of Fencible men to be forthwith raised or to the officer appointed by him to raise men for our said regiment.

Other Sources:

Musteen, Jason R. (2011), Nelson’s Refuge: Gibraltar in the Age of Napoleon, Naval Institute Press, p. 218.

Scobie, Ian Hamilton Mackay (1914), An old highland fencible corps : the history of the Reay Fencible Highland Regiment of Foot, or Mackay’s Highlanders, 1794–1802, with an account of its services in Ireland during the rebellion of 1798, Edinburgh: Blackwood, pp. 353.

Posted in British history, British Navy, customs and tradiitons, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, military, real life tales, Regency era, research, writing | Tagged British history, England, Georgian Era, military, Regency Era, research, United Kingdom, writing | 2 Comments

When and Where Not to Wear Boots in the Regency Era

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

During the Regency, a fashionable gentleman could be found wearing a blue coat, beige pantaloons and boots, or, at least, such was so according to fashion plates of the era. Because of this, many authors seem to think such an outfit was suitable for all occasions.

However, one must recall, boots were not meant to be worn everywhere. The aristocrats possessed many faults, but they knew how to dress for the occasion.

For example, generally, a gentleman would not be caught dead wearing boots to church or dinner or to a wedding or to a ball. They also would not wear boots to call on a lady, unless he meant to take her riding or driving. It may be we authors feel boots are more period/era appropriate, or we do not like the idea of saying a man wore “pumps.” “Pumps,” after all, would make our hero less “masculine,” because, in modern times, women’s shoes are often referred to as “pumps.”

Just an FYI: “A “pump” is defined as a shoe or boot style with flat or low heels. The heel can be non-existent, or it can be as high as one to one and one-half inch heel. The overall heel is wider and chunkier.”
Read more: Difference Between High Heels and Pumps | Difference Between

H. Eldridge’s 1802 painting of Thomas, Earl of Haddington. Public Domain

Jessamyn Reeves Brown is an historian of Regency Fashion. Her research into Regency footwear shows that “prior to the Regency, both women and men wore what we now call ‘court shoes’: high-throated pumps with curved heels and side pieces that tied or buckled elaborately at the throat. As dresses became less structured and suits less elaborate, shoes did too. Heels dropped rapidly through the 1790s and by 1800 were very small indeed, while material was pared away to a minimum from the uppers. Men’s dress shoes lost their heels even before women’s did, but some retained the fine buckles of the 18th century for the most formal of occasions. Men’s shoes also became basic black quite early in the century – almost no other color is seen after 1800. Both men’s and women’s shoes of the 18th century had flaps attached at the instep and outstep that came up over the throat and were held in place with a buckle (most commonly) or were tied in place with bows. These flaps were called ‘latchets,’ and they did not entirely disappear in the Regency.” Discover more fascinating details of men’s footwear on her Regency Companion Page.

I previously read a book (cannot recall its name) where there was an interruption of the wedding ceremony, and the narrative remarked on the sound of boots of wedding guests. As I am certain it was meant to be for storytelling purposes, the sound tapped away in my brain as I read this passage. It was truly very jarring.

I could be in error, but I seem to recall it was the House of Lords that said no visitors were allowed in wearing boots. Boots were not allowed at Almacks’. Even military officers had dress shoes.Most officers wore shoes as part of their dress uniform. One reason was it was thought boots would be harder on dance floors. They also hurt more if they landed on a lady’s foot clad only in a slight evening slipper (something similar to a ballet shoe). Most evening shoes were soft soled, Boots were hard soled and hard on floors.

I do not deny I have seen a few paintings of public assemblies in which military men are shown wearing boots. I do not know if those were painted from a real-life memory or imagination. I do know that at most local assemblies attendance was by payment of a fee, and all manner of people could join. Such was one of the reasons Almacks was founded. The “rich and famous” wanted to restrict attendance at the assembly to vet out people of lower classes. The assemblies at Almacks were designed so the sons and daughters of those “rich and famous families” could meet eligible people to marry.

Painting of George, Duke of Argyll, by H. Eldridge, 1801. Public Domain

There are those stories which say the Duke of Wellington was refused admittance to Almacks because he was NOT DRESSED properly. Some say His Grace showed up wearing boots and was turned away. There are also stories he arrived a few seconds after 11:00 P. M. and was turned away.

In Captain Gronow’s account the problem was Wellington was wearing trousers instead of breeches. According to Gronow, when Wellington was turned away, he pronounce the ruling by Almacks’s hostesses to be proper and completely understandable, and he, most assuredly knew the importance of a correct uniform.

I love Gronow, but we do have to consider he was writing his “Reminiscences” decades after the fact, and it was unlikely he was standing by the door and had heard the exchange at the time. So we’ll probably never know exactly what happened.

That being said, Gronow does have other wrong details in Captain Gronow: His Reminiscences of Regency and Victorian Life, 1810-1860. For example, according to one account of his life, Gronow was only stationed in Town (meaning London) during 1814. The women he lists as patronesses of Almacks for 1814 were incorrect. Also, one edition of his book was published with an illustration of dances from France and, ever since, it has been used to illustrate the fashions and the dance in England.

The Napoleon Series tells us something of Gronow. “Gronow, what can I say? Approach him with caution, even with Christopher Hibbert’s very helpful editing and annotations. R. H. Gronow (1794-1865) was one of those shadowy figures that drifted through the Regency and Victorian times. He rarely features in letters and diaries — but his memoirs, written in the 1860’s, seem to indicate he knew all the right people. Perhaps this was because he spent much of his time observing life around him, a commentator rather than a participant in events himself.

“There are three problems I have with Gronow. He wrote up to 40 years after events; he clearly wrote entirely for money; and there is no way of knowing if he was actually present at events that he writes about, or merely heard about them later. All in all, Gronow published four volumes of his reminiscences between 1862 and 1866, and they cover his life from 1810 to 1860. By the end of it he was rather scraping the barrel for suitably gossipy tittle-tattle to share with an avid public. Yes, the audience of the day lapped them up, and there lies some of the problems I have with Gronow. Clearly much of what he said is inaccurate, misdated, or just plain salacious gossip garnered from other sources such as Captain Jesse.”

Jane Austen’s World tells us: “The Patronesses of Almack’s guarded entry to the club like Valkeries prepared to do battle. No one, not even the Duke of Wellington, would dare to step a foot inside the establishment without a proper voucher, and, indeed, he was turned away once for wearing *gasp* trousers instead of knee breeches. But is this true? Please keep on reading.

“This passage from Social England Under the Regency by John Ashton (p 383) is quite telling:

The Duke of Wellington

Of course the Creme de la creme went to Almack’s, but numberless were the Peris who sighed to enter that Paradise, and could not. Capt. Gronow, writing of 1814, says: “At the present time one can hardly conceive the importance which was attached to getting admission to Almack’s, the seventh heaven of the fashionable world. Of the three hundred officers of the Foot Guards, not more than half a dozen were honoured with vouchers of admission to this exclusive temple of the beau monde, the gates of which were guarded by lady patronesses whose smiles or frowns consigned men and women to happiness or despair. These lady patronesses were the Ladies Castlereagh, Jersey, Cowper, and Sefton; … and the Countess Lieven.” (Note: At that time, two other patronesses included Lady Downshire and Lady Bathurst.) from Jane Austen’s World

Two major points on the issue of Boots: (1) So many of us are accustomed to informal clothes in practically any milieu, it is difficult for us to remember how boots were the sneakers of the day. (2) Also, when one is wealthy, one can afford to have different outfits for different activities. The ladies were said to have changed at least 3 times in a day, even if they never left the house.

Posted in aristocracy, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Regency era, research, writing | Tagged aristocracy, British history, clothing, customs and traditions, Georgian Era, manners, Regency Era, research, writing | Leave a comment

When Was a Birthday, Not Really the Day One Was Born? Or Another Meaning for “Double Dating”

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Recently, I was attempting to explain this concept to my grandchildren, who watched the new film, Young Washington, with me over the weekend. However, they did not know that George Washington was actually born on February 11, 1731, and NOT on February 22, 1732, as we in the United States celebrate. How is that possible? I know it is a bit befuddling. The actual birthday of February 11, 1731, (Julian calendar), was at a time when the new year in the British colonies did not start until March 25 or Lady’s Day. In Britain, that was the beginning of the new year, and America, at the time of Washington’s birth was a British colony.

First, let us look at the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar was the primary calendar in Western civilization for over 1600 years, introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE [Before Common Era or Before Current/Christian Era) and refers to the time period before year 1 in the Gregorian calendar, serving as a secular, neutral alternative to BC (Before Christ). It is identical to BC in numerical value, counting backward from year 1 (e.g., 500 BCE is 500 years before the Common Era). (taking effect in 45 BCE) and used until 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII introduced the Gregorian calendar. While many countries adopted the reform later—some as late as the 20th century—it is still used today by some Orthodox churches.

Key details regarding its usage include:

Initial Adoption: Implemented in 45 BCE, the Julian calendar corrected the earlier Roman, lunisolar system by establishing a 365.25-day year with a leap day every four years.

The Switch: By 1582, the Julian calendar was 10 days out of sync with the seasons, prompting the switch to the more accurate Gregorian calendar, which reduced the drift to one day in 3,226 years.

Delayed Adoption: While Catholic countries adopted the new calendar in 1582, Protestant Britain did not switch until 1752, and Russia did not adopt it until 1918.

Continued Usage: Some Eastern Orthodox churches continue to use the original Julian calendar for determining liturgical dates and fixed holidays.

Because the Julian calendar gained one day every 128 years, by the 20th century, it was 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar.

According to the CT State Library, “During the Middle Ages, it began to become apparent that the Julian leap year formula had overcompensated for the actual length of a solar year, having added an extra day every 128 years. However, no adjustments were made to compensate. By 1582, seasonal equinoxes were falling 10 days ‘too early,’ and some church holidays, such as Easter, did not always fall in the proper seasons. In that year, Pope Gregory XIII authorized, and most Roman Catholic countries adopted, the ‘Gregorian’ or ‘New Style Calendar. As part of the change, ten days were dropped from the month of October, and the formula for determining leap years was revised so that only years divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000) at the end of a century would be leap years. January 1 was established as the first day of the new year. Protestant countries, including England and its colonies, not recognizing the authority of the Pope, continued to use the Julian Calendar.

“Double Dating
Between 1582 and 1752, not only were two calendars in use in Europe (and in European colonies), but two different starts of the year were in use in England. Although the ‘Legal’ year began on March 25, the use of the Gregorian calendar by other European countries led to January 1 becoming commonly celebrated as ‘New Year’s Day’ and given as the first day of the year in almanacs.

“To avoid misinterpretation, both the ‘Old Style’ and ‘New Style’ year was often used in English and colonial records for dates falling between the new New Year (January 1) and old New Year (March 25), a system known as ‘double dating.’ Such dates are usually identified by a slash mark [/] breaking the ‘Old Style’ and ‘New Style’ year, for example, March 19, 1631/2. Occasionally, writers would express the double date with a hyphen, for example, March 19, 1631-32. In general, double dating was more common in civil than church and ecclesiastical records.

“Changes of 1752
In accordance with a 1750 act of Parliament, England and its colonies changed calendars in 1752. By that time, the discrepancy between a solar year and the Julian Calendar had grown by an additional day, so that the calendar used in England and its colonies was 11 days out-of-sync with the Gregorian Calendar in use in most other parts of Europe.

England’s calendar change included three major components. The Julian Calendar was replaced by the Gregorian Calendar, changing the formula for calculating leap years. The beginning of the legal new year was moved from March 25 to January 1. Remember that March 25 is now one of the Quarter Days in England. March 25th in England is historically known as Lady Day (Feast of the Annunciation), marking the Christian celebration of Gabriel visiting Mary. Formerly the legal New Year’s Day and a major “Quarter Day” for rents and contracts, it remains a traditional date, though no longer a public holiday.

Keeping all this in mind, January 1 became the beginning of the years, and, initially, 11 days were dropped from the month of September 1752. As my birthday is in September, I would NOT have approved. I would be like Lady Catherine de Bourgh and be “most displeased.”

The changeover involved a series of steps:

Step 1: September 2, 1752, was followed by September 14, 1752, (dropping 11 days to conform to the Gregorian calendar)

Step 2: December 31, 1750, was followed by January 1, 1750 (under the “Old Style” calendar, December was the 10th month and January the 11th)

Step 3: March 24, 1750, was followed by March 25, 1751 (March 25 was the first day of the “Old Style” year)

Step 4: December 31, 1751, was followed by January 1, 1752 (the switch from March 25 to January 1 as the first day of the year)

Therefore, George Washington, the first American president’s birthday moved from February 11, 1731, to February 22, 1732.

King George III, who was on the throne when Austen was writing her novels was born on June 4, 1738, which was already recognized under the New Style (Gregorian) dating convention, as Britain adopted it in 1752. Unlike earlier figures, his birth date did not require a retrospective “Old Style” conversion, and he celebrated on June 4th throughout his life.

The same cannot be said of his father, King George II. Over the course of George’s life, two calendars were used: the Old Style Julian calendar and the New Style Gregorian calendar. Before 1700, the two calendars were 10 days apart. Hanover switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar on 19 February (O.S.) / 1 March (N.S.) 1700. Great Britain switched on 3/14 September 1752. George was born on 30 October Old Style, which was 9 November New Style, but because the calendar shifted forward a further day in 1700, the date is occasionally miscalculated as 10 November. [Huberty, Michel; Giraud, Alain; Magdelaine, F. et B. (1981) L’Allemagne Dynastique. Volume 3: Brunswick-Nassau-Schwarzbourg. Le Perreux-sur-Marne: Giraud, page 108.]

If you are like me and very interested in your ancestry, these types of discrepancies are important to you. For example, one of my grandfather’s was a jeweler to the king. Some reports say George II and some say George III. He had a shop in Richmond, and you will often read a reference to him in my stories when a jeweller is required.

But who was Francis Grose? Born about 1731, at Greenford, Middlesex, Francis Grose was the eldest son of Francis Grose (Sr.) or (Esquire) and his wife Ann Bennett (or Bennet), daughter of one Thomas Bennett [you JAFF fans will know I smiled when I saw this name] of Kingston, Oxfordshire, who happens to be my 6th Great-Grandfather and Great-Grandmother. Francis Sr. was born in Berne, Switzerland, an immigrant who came to England in the early 18th Century, with a pedigree in the College of Arms. He was a jeweller of some renown living at Richmond in Surrey. He fitted up the coronation crown of George III (some accounts say George II, but either way he was a jeweller to a king). He was also a collector of prints and shells, which were sold around 1770. His son, Francis, Jr. is the author of The Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue 1811.

Anyway, with giving dates, one must recall the change over from one calendar to the other. Old Style. New Style.

Posted in Act of Parliament, American History, British history, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, terminology, tradtions, world history | Tagged Act of Parliament, American history, British history, customs and traditions, Georgian England, history, laws of the land, research, world history, writing | 2 Comments

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

Posted on September 28, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson Rembrandt Peale 1800 — Portrait of Thomas Jefferson
Rembrandt Peale 1800

I found this most agreeable as Jefferson’s holds a place of reference on my family tree.
Thomas Jefferson (April 13 [O.S. April 2] 1743 – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the third President of the United States (1801–1809). He was a spokesman for democracy, and embraced the principles of republicanism and the rights of the individual with worldwide influence. In opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalism, Jefferson and his close friend, James Madison, organized the Democratic-Republican Party, and later resigned from Washington’s cabinet. Elected Vice President in 1796, Jefferson opposed Adams, and with Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts.

A leader in the Enlightenment, Jefferson was a polymath in the arts, sciences, and politics. Considered an important architect in the classical tradition, he designed his home Monticello and other notable buildings. Jefferson was keenly interested in science, invention, architecture, religion, and philosophy; he was an active member and eventual president of the American Philosophical Society. He was conversant in French, Greek, Italian, Latin, and Spanish, and studied other languages and linguistics, interests which led him to found the University of Virginia after his presidency. Although not a notable orator, Jefferson was a skilled writer and corresponded with many influential people in America and Europe throughout his adult life. After Martha Jefferson, his wife of eleven years, died in 1782, Jefferson kept his promise to her that he would never remarry. Their marriage had produced six children, of whom two survived to adulthood.

So, let’s be more specific as to Jefferson’s accomplishments. This is amazing. There are two parts. Be sure to read the 2nd part.

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia’s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia, succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France, and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions, and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the nation’s size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia, and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:
“This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not..” — Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” — Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” — Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Posted in America, American History, Declaration of Independence, Do You Remember?, Georgian England, history, inventions, legacy, political stance, presidents, real life tales, research | Tagged America, American history, brilliant mind, Declaration of Independence, Georgian England, inventions, legacy, political stance, presidents, real life tales, research, Thomas Jefferson | 3 Comments

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency, and How I Used the Task as a Plot Point in “Amending the Shades of Pemberley”

Posted on September 25, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

In myAusten title Amending the Shades of Pemberley, the story begins with Elizabeth and Mary overseeing the auction of the household goods of Longbourn to pay an outstanding debt belonging to their father. How feasible was this? How would things proceed?

Actually, it occurred more often than we would like to think.

Purchase Links:

Kindle https://www.amazon.com/Amending-Shades-Pemberley-Prejudice-Vagary-ebook/dp/B0C1HLTW2M/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

It Will Also BeAvailable to Read on Kindle Unlimited

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C1J2GT3F/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

BookBub https://www.bookbub.com/books/amending-the-shades-of-pemberley-a-pride-and-prejudice-vagary-by-regina-jeffers

To tempt your curiosity and in case you missed it originally, you may read Chapter One HERE.

To tempt your curiosity further, you may read Chapter Two HERE.

As we can all well imagine, the influx of the nouveau riche (people who have recently acquired wealth, typically those perceived as ostentatious or lacking in good taste) changed the dynamics of how the aristocracy and the gentry went about their daily lives. Jane Austen was aware of the possibilities, for Mr. Charles Bingley in Pride and Prejudice is one such character. Mr. Bingley has an income of somewhere around four thousand pounds per year; yet, it is his marriage to Jane Bennet which elevates him in society, despite Mr. Bennet – a “gentleman” in all the ways the term was practiced in the Georgian era – has an income of only around two thousand per year, but he has the all important estate of Longbourn.

Bingley had a larger income than Mr. Collins; yet, Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s clergyman, who depended upon her ladyship for ever morsel of his daily life, outranked the tradesman, Charles Bingley. Following his father’s wish for wanting more for his family, Bingley sought out a country life in the form of letting Netherfield Park. We readers assume Netherfield Park came furnished, for nothing is mentioned of the need for furniture and the like in Austen’s classic, but what if it was an empty house and must be furnished? Where might one acquire such items? (Remember: If one wished not to appear a “newby,” so to speak, all new furniture would be a dead giveaway.) What one required was the “used” furniture from the “rich and famous” to dress one’s home.

Moreover, by the late Georgian era, the availability of goods had greatly increased. The middling sort often purchased used goods through auctions. These public auctions “redistributed” goods, allowing those with new wealth to claim the articles while blurring social distinctions. New money came to rub elbows, so to speak, with the establishment. We know that to be a “possibility” for Austen writes of how Charles Bingley, a man whose money came from trade, is a dear friend of Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, whose family includes earls and strong ancestral roots back to the Norman conquest.

As the 1800s passed and led into the early 1900s, the sale of goods from country houses became common. Do you recall in Season 6 of Downton Abbey when in a development that would have been unthinkable back in Season 1, Robert and his wife, Cora, the Countess of Grantham, find themselves attending an auction of a nearby estate (the aristo inhabitants are downsizing to a London-only lifestyle). Of course, this episode were set in 1925, but these necessary needs for economy were just as poignant in the early 1800s. As it was in the Downton episode, many houses held a “walk through” for people to come a few days ahead of the actual auction to view what was available.

Image from “Did I Make the Most of Loving My Stuff” ~ Billfold

I know the contents of Lady Blessington’s house was auctioned in that manner. The auctioneers held an open house before the auction where serious buyers and curious people could tour the house, and the serious could choose what they wanted to buy before the auction started. I imagine that the auction house had people stationed all through the house who listened to comments and upped the reserve on the items that garnered the most interest.

1822 Painting by Thomas Lawrence ~ Marguerite Gardiner, Countess of Blessington ~ Public Domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Gardiner,_Countess_of_Blessington#/media/File:Maguerite,_Countess_of_Blessington.jpg

From Encyclopeida.com “Marguerite, Countess of Blessington (1789 – 1849) Irish author who published a number of popular novels of fashionable life and for many years presided over the most brilliant salon in London. Name variations: Marguerite Gardiner; Marguerite Power; Lady Blessington; Margaret, Sally. Born Marguerite Power on September 1, 1789, at Knockbrit, near Clonmel, County Tipperary, Ireland; died in Paris, France, on June 4, 1849; daughter of Edward (or Edmund) Power (a landowner, magistrate and newspaper editor) and Ellen (Sheehy) Power; educated at home and for a short period at boarding school; married Captain Maurice St. Leger Farmer, in 1804 (died 1817); married Charles John Gardiner, 1st earl of Blessington, in 1817 (died 1829); no children.

“However melodramatic the plots of Lady Blessington’s novels, few could have been more unlikely than the story of her own life. Born in poverty and obscurity in the Irish countryside, she was a plain child who became a dazzling beauty. Married against her will at 14 to a vicious husband, whom she left after just a few months, she went on to marry into the aristocracy and to become London’s most celebrated hostess. Despite her scandalous reputation, her wit, intelligence and generosity made her the confidante of many of the most eminent men of her day, and her close friends included the poet Lord, George Gordon Byron, the novelist Charles Dickens, and the future prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Renowned for the extravagance of her lifestyle, she was also an indefatigable worker, who supported herself and her establishment by a constant stream of literary works, which included novels, travel books, and memoirs, as well as journalism. Nevertheless, it is clear that the disruption and unhappiness of her early years left an indelible mark on her, in her unconventional private life, in her improvidence and compulsive generosity, and in her need for admiration and attention. Ultimately, she was to find herself bankrupt and ignored by many of those whom she had regarded as her friends. Even in that final disaster, however, she retained the courage, optimism, and sense of style which had enabled her to make her first, unlikely escape, to reshape her identity, and to shine for so many years as ‘the gorgeous Lady Blessington.'”

During the 18th and 19th centuries, one must recall the sale of the actual land/estates was greatly restricted by entails, etc., but, for those in dire straits financially, a person could generally sell the contents of a house. Valuable paintings. Furnishings. Silver. Imported wine collections. Etc. The only restriction would be particular items listed in a will, meant for a loved one or designed to settle debts.

Any number of reasons could cause need for such an auction: family neglect, the need to what we now call “downsize” to a different property, failure to produce an heir, etc. In fact, the new heir may not have liked his predecessor’s “taste” in furnishings and decided to earn some money to furnish the estate as he wished by holding an auction to be rid of the items.

Most assuredly, those in London had their up-scale auction houses, but those in the country increasingly depended upon those not part of the fashionable sect. These “would be” country gentlemen and ladies were much more accustomed to bargaining at a variety of venues from artisan shops to market stalls. (In chapter one of my tale, Elizabeth is appalled by how her parents’ friends and neighbors attempt to bargain down the price of some of the items. She is injured by their lack of compassion.)

Newspapers of the day, especially those in the countryside, carried advertisements for auctions of household goods. Now, this is not to say all such sales were restricted to the homes of the aristocracy. It would be equally possible to find one being conducted in the home of a wealthy tradesman. One thing we discover is more money could be raised by selling the items directly from the house itself, rather than moving them into a large auction house in London or one of the larger municipalities for the sell.

Those of you who have ever purchased a new house totally understand the concept. You look at a home you think to purchase, and it has been staged by the realtor. However, when you move your own things in, it does not look so well organized.

The items in a country house would be likewise. The grandeur. The elegance. The ambiance. All would be part of the sale.

One thing we rarely mention in such scenarios is what these sales did for the house’s future, as well as its history. A once-in-a-lifetime type sale might not decrease the value of the home, but what if there were repeated sales over a matter of years. Such happened more often than we would like to think.

Take, for example, the three sales of goods from Kirby Hall in Northamptonshire. These sales took place in 1772, 1824, and then again 1831. After that, Kirby Hall died a slow death, left to rot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_Hall

From Wikipedia, we have a quick overview of the house. “Kirby Hall is an Elizabethan country house, located near Gretton, Northamptonshire, England. The nearest main town is Corby. One of the great Elizabethan houses of England, Kirby Hall was built for Sir Humphrey Stafford of Blatherwick, beginning in 1570. In 1575 the property was purchased by Sir Christopher Hatton of Holdenby, Lord Chancellor to Queen Elizabeth I. It is a leading and early example of the Elizabethan prodigy house. Construction on the building began in 1570, based on the designs in French architectural pattern books and expanded in the Classical style over the course of the following decades. The house is now in a semi-ruined state with many parts roof-less although the Great Hall and state rooms remain intact.”

If you have an interest in such auctions, you may find these posts on my personal blog of interest:

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency Era, Part 2

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency Era, Part 3

Posted in books, British history, buildings and structures, customs and tradiitons, England, estates, Georgian England, Georgian Era, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Inheritance, Jane Austen, laws of the land, literature, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, real life tales, Regency era, Regency romance, research, tradtions, world history | Tagged auctioning off the property, British history, buildings and structures, financial, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Publishing, Regency Era, research, writing | Leave a comment

“Bonus” Traitor Thursday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: James Wilson, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence Who Spent Time in Debtor’s Prison

Posted on September 24, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

James Wilson was one of five signers of the Declaration of Independence that was not born in what would become the United States of America. He was one of two Scots. He was said to be a lawyer by trade, but there is a “?” next to his name when it comes to occupations. Wilson married twice and was father to seven children. He died in 1798 at the age of 55/.

Wilson was born on 14 September 1742 at Carskerdo, near St. Andrews, Scotland, and educated at the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. There is some speculation that he did not finish his studies for he emigrated to America, arriving in the midst of the Stamp Act agitations in 1765. Early the next year, he accepted a position as Latin tutor at the College of Philadelphia (later part of the University of Pennsylvania) but almost immediately abandoned it to study law under John Dickinson, a Quaker who famously refused to vote for independence or sign the declaration and the author of “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies.”

In 1768, the year after his admission to the Philadelphia bar, Wilson set up practice at Reading, Pennsylvania. Two years later, he moved westward to the Scotch-Irish settlement of Carlisle and set up a lucrative practice, and the following year he took a bride, Rachel Bird. He specialized in land law and built up a broad clientele. These dealings provided him privileged information regarding land parcels. On borrowed capital, Wilson also began to speculate in land. In some way he managed, too, to lecture on English literature at the College of Philadelphia, which had awarded him an honorary master of arts degree in 1766.

In 1774, Wilson attended a provincial meeting, as a representative of Carlisle, and was elected a member of the local Committee of Correspondence. He wrote a pamphlet titled Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. In it, he argued that the Parliament had no authority to pass laws for the colonies. It was published, and later found its way to the Continental Congress, where it was widely read and commented on.

He termed the British Parliament’s decision to close the port of Boston “unconstitutional.” Wilson reasoned that if the colonists had no say in Parliament, the move was unconstitutional. Wilson’s words were forward thinking. He was saying that judges should hold legislators accountable. “Judicial review” would become a central tenet of the U. S. Constitution.

In 1775 he was elected to the Continental Congress, where he assumed a position with the most radical members-a demand for separation from Britain. James Wilson’s powers of oration, the passion of his delivery and the logic he employed in debate, were commented on favorably by many members of the Congress. He was, however, in a bind. Pennsylvania was divided on the issue of separation, and Wilson refused to vote against the will of his constituents. Many members felt that it was hypocritical to have argued so forcefully and so long for Independence, only to vote against it when the occasion came. Wilson, with the support of three other members who were sympathetic to his position, managed a delay of three weeks, so that he could consult with people back home. When the vote came, he was able to affirm Pennsylvania’s wish for Independence.

The next year, Wilson was elected to both the provincial assembly and the Continental Congress, where he sat mainly on military and Indian affairs committees. In 1776, reflecting the wishes of his constituents, he joined the moderates in Congress voting for a 3-week delay in considering Richard Henry Lee’s resolution of June 7 for independence. On the July 1 and 2 ballots on the issue, however, he voted in the affirmative (along with Ben Franklin and John Morton) and signed the Declaration of Independence on August 2. Later, he attacked Pennsylvania’s state constitution that present power to the citizens. Eventually, such wavering made Wilson unpopular and he was not returned to Congress in 1777.

There is a legend that the British attacked Wilson’s home while he was holed up in it. In truth, his fellow citizens attacked the house. According to Denise KIernan and Joseph D’Agnest in Signing Their Lives Away (page 114), “In the years following the signing of the Declaration, Wilson transformed himself from a frontier lawyer into a slime ball corporate attorney. He switched from being a Whig to a Conservative. He changed his religion from a traditional Scottish Presbyterian to an Episcopalian. He bout a nice townhouse in Philly, kept buying land, and defended beleaguered Tory merchants in court. Philadelphia’s patriots grew to detest him. In fall 1779, when inflation was at an all-time high and food was scarce, a mob of angry citizens and militiamen swarmed Wilson’s townhouse at Third and Walnut Streets, hoping to tear him to pieces. Wilson and his cronies barricaded themselves inside until another group of militia could rescue them. Some people were injured or killed during the skirmish, and Wilson left town for a while to let emotions cool. The following spring, the legislature pardoned everyone involved in what was sarcastically called the ‘Fort Wilson’ incident.”

Wilson’s strenuous opposition to the republican Pennsylvania constitution of 1776, besides indicating a switch to conservatism on his part, led to his removal from Congress the following year. To avoid the clamor among his frontier constituents, he repaired to Annapolis during the winter of 1777-78 and then took up residence in Philadelphia.

Wilson affirmed his newly assumed political stance by closely identifying with the aristocratic and conservative republican groups, multiplying his business interests, and accelerating his land speculation. He also took a position as Advocate General for France in America (1779-83), dealing with commercial and maritime matters, and legally defended Loyalists and their sympathizers.

During 1781 Congress appointed Wilson as one of the directors of the Bank of North America, newly founded by his close associate and legal client Robert Morris. In 1782, by which time the conservatives had regained some of their power, the former was reelected to Congress, and he also served in the period 1785-87.

Wilson reached the apex of his career in the Constitutional Convention (1787), where his influence was probably second only to that of Madison. Rarely missing a session, he sat on the Committee of Detail and in many other ways applied his excellent knowledge of political theory to convention problems. Only Governor Morris delivered more speeches.

That same year, overcoming powerful opposition, Wilson led the drive for ratification in Pennsylvania of the U. S. Constitution, the second state to endorse the instrument. The new commonwealth constitution, drafted in 1789-90 along the lines of the U. S. Constitution, was primarily Wilson’s work. Although James Madison is credited as being the Father of the U. S. Constitution, Wilson did contribute a draft of the document. Many of his ideas became part of the “American conscience,” for example, the power of government emanates from the people and a system of checks and balances ensures that power cannot be abused.

For his services in the formation of the federal government, though Wilson expected to be appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1789 President Washington named him as an associate justice. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was chosen that same year as the first law professor at the College of Philadelphia. Two years later he began an official digest of the laws of Pennsylvania, a project he never completed, though he carried on for a while after funds ran out.

Wilson, who wrote only a few opinions, did not achieve the success on the Supreme Court that his capabilities and experience promised. Indeed, during those years he was the object of much criticism and barely escaped impeachment. For one thing, he attempted to influence the enactment of legislation in Pennsylvania favorable to land speculators. Between 1792 and 1795 he also made huge but unwise land investments in western New York and Pennsylvania, as well as in Georgia. This did not stop him from conceiving a grandiose but ill-fated scheme, involving vast sums of European capital, for the recruitment of European colonists and their settlement in the West.

Meantime, in 1793, as a widower with six children, he remarried to Hannah Gray; their one son died in infancy.

Four years later, to avoid arrest for debt, the distraught Wilson moved from Philadelphia to Burlington, New Jersey. He owned hundreds of thousands of dollars. He also spent time in North Carolina, but his debts followed him. While still serving on the nation’s highest court, he was arrested and several times placed in debtor’s prison in both New Jersey and North Carolina.

In 1798, Wilson was released from a stay in debtor’s prison. He sought the counsel and protection of fellow justice James Iredell from North Carolina. The years of staying one step ahead of his creditors caused Wilson’s mind to snap. He fell ill. He died a few months, just short of his fifty-sixth birthday. Although first buried at Hayes Plantation near Edenton, North Carolina, his remains were later reinterred in the yard of Christ Church at Philadelphia.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=1682&PIpi=28157457

Resources:

American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond

Geni

The Pennsylvania Center for the Book

The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence

U. S. History

Posted in American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history | Tagged American history, British history, James Wilson, King George III, Parliament, Pennsylvania, signer of the Declaration of Independence | 6 Comments

Gregor McGregor, an Extraordinary Regency Era Con Man + an Excerpt from “Mr. Darcy’s Bargain”

Posted on September 23, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

In writing my Austen-inspired vagary, Mr. Darcy’s Bargain, I researched LOTS of scams occurring during the Regency era. We are peppered with them every day, and A/I is making it harder and harder to tell what is real and what is not.

One of the most efficient of those who practiced schemes in days gone by and in order to defraud others was a late Georgian era swindler. A Scot, McGregor profited at the hands of his many investors. More than a bit narcissistic, even going so far as presenting himself the title of “Sir” and, later, of Grand Cazique (Prince) of Poyais, McGregor proved himself to be perfect pitch man.

How did he manage to do what he did – separating a fool from his money?

The answer is simple, or perhaps not so simple: He persuaded people to invest in a country that did not exist.

According to website, The Big Picture, McGregor joined the British Royal Navy in 1803. He fought under Simon Bolivar in Florida in 1817. “During the Napoleonic Wars, Spanish control over its South American colonies weakened and the colonists in those countries fought for their independence. Between 1809 (Ecuador) and 1825 (Uruguay), all of the South American countries gained their independence from Portugal and Spain. However, countries need money, and the local tax base was limited. Most of the South American countries had mines that produced gold and silver, so in the early 1820s, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and other countries issued bonds that were backed by their new governments. Local mines issued stocks making promises of large profits to investors. This led to one of three bubbles on the London Stock Exchange in the early half of the 1800s: the Canal Bubble of the 1810s, the South American Bubble of the 1820s, and the Railroad Bubble of the 1840s. In the midst of this investment mania came Gregor McGregor who sold bonds and anything else he could muster in his mythical country of Poyais.”

When McGregor returned to London in 1820, he spread the tale of his being made a Prince of Poyais. He told all who would listen how the “made up” 12,500 square miles’ country was located on the Bay of Hondoras and was given to him by a native chief, King Fredric Augustus I of the Mosquito Shore and Nation. In truth, during a night of heavy drink, King Frederic Augustus signed over a piece of land surrounded by uninhabitable jungles and no fertile land, gold or silver mines, etc.

So, how did McGregor convince his investors that this land was everything that it was not? McGregor wrote and published a book under the name of Captain Thomas Strangeways. In the book, Sketch of the Mosquito Shore, the fictitious Strangeways describes a land of “milk and honey”: gold mines, fertile land, a country with a democratic government, natives willing to work for a fair day’s pay, a capital called St. Joseph (supposed founded by English settlers in the 1730s), small towns with banks and mercantiles, and a small military force for defense. [The book can be found on Google for a free download.]

“For the rich he offered 2000 bonds at £100 each on October 23, 1822, which resulted in £200,000 in sales. The bonds were offered at 80 and paid 3% interest. For the poor, he offered land for sale at the rate of 3 shillings, 3 pence per acre (later 4 shillings), which was about a day’s wages in 1822, therefore it appeared to be a very attractive investment. He sold places in his military, the right to be shoemaker to the Princess, a jeweler, teacher, clerk or other craftsmen in his non-existent government and country. In fact, he even issued his own currency which the settlers could use once they arrived in Gregor McGregor’s El Dorado.

“The Poyaisian Legation to Britain opened offices in London, and land offices were opened in Glasgow, Stirling and Edinburgh to sell land to his fellow Scots. Gregor McGregor had a group of people who promoted and sold all the land and other Poyaisian goods, sharing the profits with McGregor. By 1823, Gregor McGregor was a multi-millionaire in today’s terms.” (The Big Picture)

BOOK BLURB:

Mr. Darcy’s Bargain: A Pride and Prejudice Vagary

Darcy and Elizabeth are about to learn how “necessity” never makes a fair bargain.

When ELIZABETH BENNET appears on his doorstep some ten months after her refusal of his hand in marriage, FITZWILLIAM DARCY uses the opportunity to “bargain” for her acceptance of a renewal of his proposal in exchange for his assistance in bringing Mr. George Wickham to justice. In Darcy’s absence from Hertfordshire, Wickham has executed a scam to defraud the citizens of Meryton, including her father, of their hard-earned funds. All have invested in Wickham’s Ten Percent Annuity scheme. Her family and friends are in dire circumstances, and more importantly, Mr. Bennet’s heart has taken an ill turn. Elizabeth will risk everything to bring her father to health again and to save her friends from destitution; yet, is she willing to risk her heart? She places her trust in Darcy’s ability to thwart Wickham’s manipulations, but she is not aware that Darcy wishes more than her acquiescence. He desires her love. Neither considers what will happen if he does not succeed in bringing Mr. Wickham before a magistrate. Will his failure bring an end to their “bargain”? Or will true love prevail?

EXCERPT:

As they entered the sinfully luxurious theatre lobby, Darcy could not disguise the smile of satisfaction upon his lips. Elizabeth Bennet was on his arm, clinging to him as if she feared exposure as a fraud. Soon, he thought. As my wife, Elizabeth will know the respect of all.

When he called upon the Gardiner household for the evening’s entertainment, her relations greeted him cordially, but it was Elizabeth who fascinated him. She wore the same gown as she wore at the Netherfield Ball, but somehow she no longer appeared as a fetching girl, but rather a woman in full bloom. His body recognized her in a purely male manner. Mine, it announced. It was all he could do not to flip Elizabeth over his shoulder and carry her off to some place private. As they crossed the lobby, he noted more than one head turned in their direction. He rarely was seen about Town with any lady in his protection, and Darcy knew tongues would be wagging on the morrow. For a change, he was glad of it. Having Elizabeth connected to him was what he desired.

“Darcy!”

He turned to observe the approach of his aunt and uncle. If he had known the Matlocks were in London, he would have chosen a different venue for the evening’s entertainment.

“Your lordship.” He led his party in proper acknowledgements. “Countess. I did not realize you were in London. If so, I would have left my card.”

“Matlock held business with his solicitor,” Darcy’s aunt explained, “and I took advantage of the colonel being at the family Town house to usher me about Bond Street.”

“I am certain my cousin enjoys the additional company,” Darcy said judiciously.

When the conversation began, he nudged Elizabeth closer so she could not bolt. He noted the hitch in her breathing and the quickness of her pulse at the base of her neck, but her chin rose to meet the Matlocks’ close scrutiny. She possessed a sort of vulnerable temerity that fascinated him.

The earl’s eyebrow rose in curiosity. “Perhaps you might make the introductions.”

Darcy noted the stiffness in Elizabeth’s shoulders. “Certainly,” he said while cupping her hand on his arm with his free one. “Your lordship. Countess. Permit me to give you the acquaintance of Miss Elizabeth Bennet and her aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner.”

“Miss Bennet?” The countess rolled the name about as if to taste its familiarity. “The colonel spoke of a Miss Bennet who was a visitor at Hunsford Cottage some months removed. Are you one and the same?”

Elizabeth’s voice held her apprehension, but she managed a sensible response. “Yes, your ladyship. I had the pleasure of taking Colonel Fitzwilliam’s acquaintance when he and Mr. Darcy shared the quarter days with Lady Catherine and Miss De Bourgh.”

“I did not know you continued the acquaintance, Darcy,” Lord Matlock remarked in chariness.

“I took Miss Bennet’s acquaintance several months prior to her sojourn with her cousin, Mr. Collins. The lady’s father is a gentleman from Hertfordshire and holds the nearest estate to the one Mr. Bingley means to purchase. At present, I am conducting business with Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Bennet.”

“I see,” Matlock pronounced suspiciously before changing his tone. “We should not keep you from your seats.”

Darcy executed a bow of respect. “Georgiana will join me at Darcy House tomorrow. Please feel free to make Miss Darcy part of your next outing to Bond Street. It would do my sister good to spend more time with our mother’s family. Miss Darcy has excelled at school this term. You will find my sister’s progress exemplary.” More than speaking the truth of his sister’s accomplishments, Darcy meant to draw attention from Elizabeth.

“I will send a note around tomorrow,” the countess announced.

With another bow of respect, Darcy directed his party toward the staircase.

“No mention of our bargain, Mr. Darcy?” Elizabeth inquired softly.

“We agreed to a measure of secrecy for the time being,” he replied in hushed tones. “If I announced our betrothal to Lord and Lady Matlock, every household in London would be abuzz with the news tomorrow. But know that I mean to have you to wife, Elizabeth. If you have not done so previously, it might behoove you to use this time together to acclimate your thoughts to the idea.”

PURCHASE LINKS:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1540317218/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479045960&sr=8-1&keywords=mr.+Darcy%27s+Bargain

Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N3VELUT/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1479045960&sr=8-2&keywords=mr.+Darcy%27s+Bargain

Kindle Unlimited https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/hz/subscribe/ku?passThroughAsin=1540317218&_encoding=UTF8&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Book Bub https://www.bookbub.com/books/mr-darcy-s-bargain-a-pride-and-prejudice-vagary-by-regina-jeffers-and-a-lady

To Learn More, Check these Resources:

The Big Picture

Historic UK

The Fraud of the Prince of Poyais on the London Stock Exchange

Gregor McGregor

What Is Fraud? Cambridge University Press

Posted in American History, books, British history, business, excerpt, finance, Georgian England, Georgian Era, hero, heroines, historical fiction, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, Regency romance, research, writing | Tagged British history, business, excerpt, finance, Georgian Era, historical fiction, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Publishing, Regency Era, Regency romance, research, writing | Leave a comment

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: George Read, the Only Signer Who Voted Against the Declaration of Independence, But Still Signed It

Posted on September 22, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

George Read was a 42 years old lawyer from the northeastern part of Maryland when he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was married and the father of five. Read died in 1798 at the age of 65.

Born on September 18, 1733, on a family estate at North East, Cecil County,Maryland, George Read was the eldest son of Colonel John Read of Maryland and Delaware. His father, the Colonel, was born in Dublin, Ireland, on January 15, 1688, and was descended from Sir Thomas Read who was one of the knights who accompanied King Henry VI when the king held his Parliament at Reading in 1439. Read’s mother was the daughter of a Welsh planter.

He attended a school in Chester, Pennsylvania, then the Philadelphia Academy under Doctor Francis Allison at New London. At fifteen he graduated and proceeded to study law at the office of John Moland in Philadelphia. He was admitted to the Philadelphia Bar in 1753 at the age of nineteen. He moved to New Castle, Delaware, in 1754. He enlisted a clientele that extended into Maryland. During this period he resided in New Castle, but maintained Stonum, a country retreat near the city. He established quite a reputation in New Castle and was appointed Attorney General to three Delaware counties, an office which he resigned in 1774 when he was elected to the First Continental Congress. In 1764, the period leading up to the Stamp Act protests, Read joined the Delaware Committee of Correspondence and was active in the patriot movement. A moderate Whig, he supported nonimportation measures and dignified protests. At the Continental Congress he found Lee’s Resolution for Independence to be too hasty and voted against it, the only signer of the Declaration to do so, apparently either bowing to the strong Tory sentiment in Delaware, or believing reconciliation with Britain was still possible.. When it was adopted, however, he joined the majority in working toward independence.

Read could be called a “moralist.” But when the chips were down, Read took up the cause. He even helped raise funds to aid those in Boston who lost business because of the Boston Tea Party.

In reality, Read was not the only delegate who voted against the resolution for independence on 2 July 1776, but as he was the only delegate from Delaware to do so, his “voice” took on special importance. Read had become friends with John Dickinson from Pennsylvania. Dickinson was outspoken advocate for caution. Dickinson thought independence was a premature step. Of the three Delaware representatives, Caesar Rodney did not arrive in Philadelphia in time to vote on 2 July, which left Read, who asked for the delegates to “wait,” set against pro-independence delegate Thomas McKean. Without Rodney’s vote, Delaware’s part in the independence movement would be thrown out as a draw. Therefore, McKean sent a courier to Rodney, who reportedly rode all night to reach Philadelphia in time. It was an 80-mile journey from Dover, Delaware, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Rodney arrived in time to keep Read’s “nay” vote from hurting the independence movement.

Others who opposed independence abstained from voting. Some voted against the move for independence and later refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. It was only Read who voted against the measure, but still signed the document. It was never that Read supported the British, he just worried for a fledgling country with no army. Even so, after the vote, Read raised money for troops and supplies. He also became part of the militia.

On January 11, 1763, Read married Gertrude Ross Till, daughter of the Rev. George Ross rector of the Emmanuel Church of New Castle. Gertrude was a widow. The marriage was a powerful union, as the Ross family was prominent and esteemed in the community. In fact, her brother George Ross was an eminent judge and was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Gertrude bore Read fours sons and a daughter.

In 1776, Read was called upon to join the Constitutional Convention in Delaware, where he served as president of the committee that drafted the document. In 1777 the British captured Delaware governor John McKinly, and Read (then vice governor of the state) took over as governor in the emergency. He lead the state through the crisis of the war, raising money, troops, and supplies for the defense of his state.

in 1784, Read had served on a commission that adjusted New York-Massachusetts land claims. In 1786 he attended the Annapolis Convention. The next year, he participated in the Constitutional Convention, where he missed few if any sessions and championed the rights of the small states. Otherwise, he adopted a Hamiltonian stance, favoring a strong executive. He later led the ratification movement in Delaware, the first state to ratify.

In 1779 he suffered a bout of poor health and had to retire from official duties. He recovered, however, and was appointed Judge in Court of Appeals in admiralty cases three years later. Read went on to be twice elected State Senator under the new constitution, and later still was appointed Chief Justice of the State of Delaware. He held the office until his death at New Castle 5 years later, just 3 days after he celebrated his 65th birthday. His grave is there in the Immanuel Episcopal Churchyard.

Resources:

American History from Revolution to Reconstruction

Geni.com “George Read”

U. S. History “Signers of the Declaration of Independence”

Wikipedia “George Read”

Posted in Act of Parliament, American History, British history, Declaration of Independence | Tagged American history, British history, Delaware, George Read, signer of the Declaration of Independence | 3 Comments

A “Baron” By Any Other Name, May Not Be As Correct As One Assumes…

Posted on September 21, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Being a “baron” means a man holds a title of the nobility. In the British system, he is below a viscount (baron, viscount, earl, marquess, duke). In those countries without “viscounts,” a baron is below a “count,” which is the same as an earl in Britain. In feudal times, a baron swore loyalty to a “superior” in return for goods and, hopefully, land to pass on to his heirs. It might sound a big confusing, but this “superior” was likely the sovereign in the baron’s principality. He held lands which he could present to the baron as his tenant-in-chief. In what is called “subinfeudation,” this baron may have his own barons assisting him as his subordinates. This practice was discontinued when King Edward I (Edward Longshanks) was on the throne of England. Edward I did much to strengthen the Crown in the feudal hierarchy through a series of statutes.

“Edward reluctantly accepted the Provisions of Oxford (1258), which gave effective government to the barons at the expense of the king. On the other hand, he intervened dramatically to support the radical Provisions of Westminster (October 1259), which ordered the barons to accept reforms demanded by their tenants. Shrewdly realistic, Edward understood the value of the ‘parliaments,’ which since 1254 had distinguished English government and which Montfort had deliberately employed to publicize government policy and to enlist widespread, active support by summoning representatives of shires and boroughs to the council to decide important matters. Edward developed this practice swiftly, not to share royal power with his subjects but to strengthen royal authority with the support of rising national consciousness. From 1275 to 1307 he summoned knights and burgesses to his parliaments in varying manners. The Parliament of 1295, which included representatives of shires, boroughs, and the lesser clergy, is usually styled the Model Parliament, but the pattern varied from assembly to assembly, as Edward decided. By 1307, Parliament, thus broadly constituted, had become the distinctive feature of English politics, though its powers were still undefined and its organization embryonic.” (Edward I)

Anyway, back to being a “baron.” A baron is defined as the lowest rank of nobility in the British peerage system. It is a title of honor and customarily a hereditary one. That being said, the sticking point of this post is the fact the term “Baron” is not used as a form of address in Britain, barons are usually referred to as “Lord.” I know some of you who read JAFF (Jane Austen Fan Fiction) with some degree of regularity in which either Mr. Bennet or the elder Mr. Darcy or some other prominent character in one of Austen’s novels becomes a baron in the “What If…” story being told. I have read a few of those also. What sends me out of the story is when the author has not done his/her research even enough to know how to address the character properly. Therefore, if Mr. Bennet is made a baron, he is no longer “Mr. Bennet.” He is Lord Bennet, or, if there is more than one Lord Bennet, he is Lord Bennet of Longbourn or, possibly, Lord Bennet of Hertfordshire. He is NEVER Baron Bennet.

In direct address, a baron is referred to as my lord or your lordship. Husband(s) of a Baroness in her own right are not conferred any elevated style in their right. If the woman is Baroness Whatshername, her husband is NOT Baron Whatshername. He is simply Mister [Forename] [Surname]. Children of Barons and Baronesses in their own right, whether hereditary or for one lifetime, have the style The Honourable [Forename] [Surname], as in The Honourable Mr. John Smith. After the death of the father or mother, the child may continue to use the style The Honourable. I know this is surprising for many of you. It was for me when I realized how often I had misused this in my novels.

“In the England, the medieval Latin word bario, baronis was used originally to denote a tenant-in-chief of the early Norman kings who held his lands by the feudal tenure of “barony” (in Latin per baroniam), and who was entitled to attend the Great Council, which by the 13th century had developed into the Parliament of England. Feudal baronies (or “baronies by tenure”) are now obsolete in England and without any legal force but any such historical titles are held in gross, that is to say are deemed to be enveloped within a more modern extant peerage title also held by the holder, sometimes along with vestigial manorial rights and tenures by grand serjeanty.” (Baron)

According to all of the reference books on titles I researched, the word Baron is used only in peerage books, patents of peerages, and in Parliament where certain seats are designated for barons. A man might be a baron, but he is never addressed or referred to as such. The aristocracy believed if a person was one of them, then he or she would practice this styling. Using Baron incorrectly proved the person was no one of the elite aristocratic group.

When a woman is named a Baroness that means that she holds her title in her own right. A Baroness in her own right can be addressed either as Baroness or lady title. The wife of a baron is address Lady [Title Name].

A bit of confusion arises for many of us because the judges of the court of the Exchequer are called Barons. This is even more confusing because the men are Sirs.

Most barons use their family name as their title so the two are the same. But in some cases they are different. In my Regency romance A Touch of Honor, John Swenton is Lord Swenton. He is a baron. However, it is possible I could have styled him as John Swenton, Lord Monroe. Obviously, in an 8-book series, one more name would have been confusing to my readers, but it was an option. More confusion could arise because sometimes there are two barons with the same title name, so if there were two Lord Swentons, one would be Lord Swenton of Swenton Hall, while the other would be Lord Swenton of Nash Manor (or some such made up place). In other words, they become known as Lord XXXX of (some place name at or near their seat) to differentiate them, though the ‘of’ is merely a way to keep them straight than an actual part of their title.

Though one can say “Lord Byron is a baron,” one would never call him Baron Byron. He would always be “Lord Byron.” One did not say “Baron and Baroness Byron” arrived, entertained, etc. The fact Byron was a baron was noted in the book of peerage, in his seat in the House of Lords, and when one had to rank men by precedence. Otherwise he is always Lord Byron. His wife is Lady Byron. He would have been styled as The Right Honourable Lord Byron.

“In the twentieth-century Britain introduced the concept of non-hereditary life peers. All appointees to this distinction have (thus far) been at the rank of baron. In accordance with the tradition applied to hereditary peers they too are formally addressed in parliament by their peers as ‘The Noble Lord.’

“In addition, baronies are often used by their holders as subsidiary titles, for example as courtesy titles for the son and heir of an Earl or higher-ranked peer. The Scottish baronial title tends to be used when a landed family is not in possession of any United Kingdom peerage title of higher rank, subsequently granted, or has been created a knight of the realm.

“Several members of the royal family with the style of Royal Highness are also titled Barons. For example, Charles, when he was still Prince of Wales was also The Baron of Renfew. His eldest son Prince William, then Duke of Cambridge, was also The Baron Carrickfergus.” (Baron) In April 2011, William was created Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus were announced in anticipation of his wedding.

If a woman is introduced or known as Baroness XXXX, for instance, such means she held the title in her own right. That is why it is correct to call female life peers “baroness,” but not to do call the wife of a baron “baroness.”

“Scottish barons style their surnames similarly to Clan Chiefs, with the name of their barony following their name, as in John Smith of Edinburgh orJohn Smith, Baron of Edinburgh. Most formally, and in writing, they are styled as The Much Honoured Baron of Edinburgh. Their wives are styled Lady Edinburgh, or The Baroness of Edinburgh. The phrase Lady of Edinburgh is wrong if the lady in question does not hold a Scottish barony in her own right. Orally, Scottish barons may be addressed with the name of their barony, as in Edinburgh or else as Baron without anything else following, which if present would suggest a peerage barony. Informally, when referring to a Scots feudal baron in the third person, the name Baron of [X] is used or simply [X].

“The United Kingdom policy of using titles on passports requires that the applicant provides evidence that the Lord XXXX has been recognised with a feudal barony, or the title is included in Burke’s Peerage. If accepted (and if the applicant wishes to include the title), the correct form is for the applicant to include the territorial designation as part of their surname ([surname] of [territorial designation]; e.g. Smith of Inverglen). The Observation would then show the holder’s full name, followed by their feudal title e.g. The holder is Brian Smith, Baron of Inverglen.” (Baron)

Foreign barons can be called Baron. Customarily when one was introduced to a man called Baron YYYY it meant he was of foreign extraction, because, in England, he would be “Lord YYYY”.

The only other baron called “baron” was a judge of the Exchequer, who was called a baron of the Exchequer — meaning a judge of that court.

This guide from British Titles and Orders of Precedence may assist you. It is from http://www.chinet.com/-laura/html/titles12.html

A baron is the lowest rank to the British peerage. A baron is “Right Honorable” and is styled “My Lord”. All children of a baron are: “Honorable.”

HOWEVER,

Announced formally or in formal correspondence: The Right Honorable Lord Featherstone

Salutation on formal correspondence: My Lord

Announced informally or addressed on social correspondence: The Lord Featherstone

Salutation on social correspondence: “Dear Lord Featherstone” or more familiarity: “Dear Featherstone”

Addressed in speech as: “Lord Featherstone” (the first time in conversation, followed by “my lord” (or more familiarity, “Featherstone”

Signature: Featherstone

Baron’s wife: The Right Honorable, Lady Featherstone

Salutation and formal correspondence: “Madam”

Announced informally or addressed on social correspondence as The Lady Featherstone

Salutation on social correspondence; “Dear Lady Featherstone“

Addressed in speech as ”Lady Featherstone” the first time in conversation, followed by “my lady”

Referred to in speech as (The) Lady Featherstone (or more familiarly “Sophia Featherstone”

Signature: Sophia Featherstone

Posted in aristocracy, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Inheritance, laws of the land, primogenture, Regency era, research, writing | Tagged British history, customs and traditions, Georgian Era, inheritance, laws of the land, primogenture, Regency Era, research, titles of the aristocracy, writing | Comments Off

Rochester Cathedral and the Villages Surrounding It During the Regency Era and How They Fit Into My Writing Process

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

I wrote this post on New Year’s Eve 2025, with the idea I would need this information for the release of the 5th book in my Dragonblade mystery/romantic suspense series, which officially released 17 June 2026.

Yes, I know that sounds laborious. It is, but, as I am in my late 70s, and, therefore, I find I compose my ideas better on a piece of paper, with a black ink pen, and with lines going up and down the page to move paragraphs around, marking such as “sp” [check spelling, the word “conundrum” is never correct, and though I know the difference, when I am writing, “lie, lay” as well as “sit, set, sat” sometimes the difference gets past me in those first few rounds of composing]. I use “origin” to remind myself to check whether the word was used in the Regency era, etc. I compose better this way than I do on a computer. [Note: As a former school teacher, I mark my first round of edits with a red ink pen. Old habits never die, they just become more ingrained, and as I am close to having written 80 books in this manner, it seems foolish to change what is working.] Such is the way my brain is wired, and I am too “West Virginia stubborn” to convert.

Arriving 17 June 2026 from Dragonblade Publishing

Anyway, I was looking for the names of the villages in and around Rochester in Kent, for much of the actions of that last book takes place there. I was searching for actual names of villages, for I, generally, like to include real places for my readers like seeing that authencity, but the Google A/I search kept giving me everything but what I wanted.

This is what my search told me. Note, I only used A/I as a starting point, never for my actual writing. I knew how far from the cathedral the village must be to make the action of the tale work. Once I found a list, I researched each individually to learn which ones worked best for me. I wanted two villages in close proximity, about a mile or so apart. I planned to put one of my heroes in the series in the manor house on the estate close to the first of the villages and the heroine in the vicarage, visiting her aunt and uncle, in the other. There would be an estate supporting each vicar and village.

This is the A/I Summary: During the Regency Era (roughly 1811-1820), villages close to Rochester Cathedral, located in Kent, included nearby settlements like Chatham, Brompton, Borstall (Borstal), and Wouldham, as well as slightly further afield but well-known locales such as Aylesford, Gillingham, and those on the Hoo Peninsula like Cliffe and Grain, offering a mix of working communities and more rural Kentish life, often connected by river or early roads.

Immediately Nearby (Part of the Medway Towns)

Chatham & Brompton: These were integral parts of the Medway conurbation with Rochester, serving as naval dockyard areas and bustling settlements, featuring military presence and associated trades, with Brompton being a significant village adjacent to the cathedral.
Borstall (Borstal): A smaller village just to the south, known even then for its rural character and proximity.

A Short Distance Away (River Medway & Beyond)

Wouldham: A village south of the river, offering a more traditional rural setting.
Cuxton: West of Rochester, in the Medway Valley, a small village on the railway line (though the railway was just developing in the era).
Aylesford: A larger, historic village further along the Medway, known for its church and ancient history, offering a charming, established community feel.

Hoo Peninsula (North & East)

Cliffe: An historic village on the Hoo Peninsula, with views over the Thames marshes, known for its white-boarded houses.
Grain (Isle of Grain): A small community at the tip of the peninsula where the Medway meets the Thames.
Gillingham: Located to the east, growing as a significant settlement near the coast.

These villages provided varied living environments, from the busy naval atmosphere of Chatham to the quieter, agricultural lanes around Cuxton and Wouldham, all within easy reach of the cathedral and the burgeoning town of Rochester.

UNFORTUNATELY, none of these worked, so I took my dramatic license and created two villages, gave them names, etc. Though I prefer real places and names in my stories, sometimes, it is just not possible, and I was not going to move my hero and heroine further apart than a bit over a mile. My hero has an injured leg, something left over from childhood, so walking long distances would be difficult for him. Moreover, it would be harder for the H/h [hero/heroine] “accidentally” to bump into each other on a regular basis.

Posted in architecture, British history, buildings and structures, Church of England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, religion, research | Tagged architecture, British history, buildings and structures, Church of England, Georgian Era, Regency Era, religion, research | Comments Off

	Regina Jeffers on Fencibles, Defending the …
	collinshemingway on Fencibles, Defending the …
	Regina Jeffers on When Was a Birthday, Not Reall…
	Jennifer Redlarczyk on When Was a Birthday, Not Reall…
	Regina Jeffers on “Mirror, Mirror on the W…

Every Woman Dreams…

Fencibles, Defending the Homeland

When and Where Not to Wear Boots in the Regency Era

When Was a Birthday, Not Really the Day One Was Born? Or Another Meaning for “Double Dating”

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency, and How I Used the Task as a Plot Point in “Amending the Shades of Pemberley”

“Bonus” Traitor Thursday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: James Wilson, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence Who Spent Time in Debtor’s Prison

Gregor McGregor, an Extraordinary Regency Era Con Man + an Excerpt from “Mr. Darcy’s Bargain”

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: George Read, the Only Signer Who Voted Against the Declaration of Independence, But Still Signed It

A “Baron” By Any Other Name, May Not Be As Correct As One Assumes…

Rochester Cathedral and the Villages Surrounding It During the Regency Era and How They Fit Into My Writing Process

Follow Me!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta