The Star of Israel, Mendoza the Jew, Regency Era Boxing Great

Posted on August 7, 2026 by Regina Jeffers
Daniel Mendoza

Daniel Mendoza

Daniel Mendoza was the first Jewish prize fighter to become Champion of England from 1792 to 1795. Mendoza stood but 5’7”, but he was a scrapper. Weighing in a 11.5 stone (160 pounds), he was billed as “Mendoza the Jew.” Mendoza was the only middleweight boxer to win the Heavyweight Championship of the World.

It was Mendoza who brought changes to boxing. Before he became popular, men simply stood still and slugged it out. Mendoza introduced the idea of “defense.” Many criticized Mendoza’s tactics, but soon all boxers were using the techniques. He opened his own boxing academy in 1789, which was known as the Mendoza School or the Jewish School. Mendoza also published The Art of Boxing, a book that described his techniques.

Mendoza’s first win came over an opponent known as Harry the Coalheaver, whom he beat in 40 rounds. In a 1787 professional fight, Mendoza won both the bout and the patronage of the Prince of Wales (later George IV). Mendoza was the first Jew to have an audience with England’s King George III, which both elevated the Jew in London’s population, but also a vicious tide of anti-Semitism.

From 29 March 1787 edition of The Times, we see a bit of the secrecy behind the English Sport of Boxing. Generally, only a few knew of the site for a match until the last moment. Prize fights were against the law. Most of the clergy and many of the middle class thought the bare knuckles bouts brutal. That being said, the brutality did not keep the throngs from enjoying the matches. “The boxing match between Martin the Bath Butcher, and Mendoza the Jew, which has been the subject of every blackguard’s conversation for some days, was put a stop to on Tuesday, by the prudent and praise-worthy interference of the civil poser. The parties met on Ealing Common, attended by a great concourse of people (among whom was the Prince – whether accidental or otherwise, we know not – we may, however, reasonably suppose the former – and some other personages of note) when a Justice of the Peace, and a posse comitatus, assisted by a party of the Light Dragoons, made their appearance, and prevented the decision of the combat. In justice to the high personage, whose name we are sorry to mention on this occasion, he was the first to shew respect to the civil authority, by retiring with his party, as soon as the Magistrate made his appearance. The riot act was read, and the mob, in number perhaps ten thousand, dispersed quietly.”

The fight was rescheduled for Barnet Racegroun on 17 April. The crowd numbered some 5000. Mendoza easily defeated Martin in 30 minutes. He won a prize of £500 from the Prince.

In 1788, 1789, and 1790, Mendoza fought storied matches against Richard Humphries, Mendoza’s mentor. He lost the first bout in 29 rounds, but managed to win the other two in 52 and 15 rounds, respectively. The 1789 match was the first time spectators were charged an entry payment to a sporting event. The fights were hyped by a series of combative letters in the press between Humphries and Mendoza.

Mendoza laid claim to the English Championship when Benjamin Brain retired in 1791, but Bill Warr challenged Mendoza’s claim. The two met in Croydon in May 1792. Mendoza’s claim to the title prevailed in 23 rounds. The two met again in 1794. Mendoza dispensed with Warr in a little over a quarter hour.

Gentleman John Jackson

Gentleman John Jackson

In 1795, Mendoza fought “Gentleman” John Jackson for the championship at Hornchurch in Essex. Jackson was five years younger, 4 inches taller, and 3 stone (42 pounds) heavier. Jackson won in nine rounds. Reportedly, Jackson caught Mendoza long hair, holding Mendoza in place where Jackson could pummel him into submission in ten minutes. Jackson used the win to propel him into Society. Jackson’s Rooms opened at 13 Bond Street, along with the Fives Court off Jermyn Street, where public sparring took place.

Born in Aldgate in July 1764, Mendoza, a descendant of Spanish Marranos (Jews coerced into conversion to Christianity) who had lived in London for nearly a century, became such a popular figure in England that songs were written about him, and his name appeared in scripts of numerous plays. His personal appearances would fill theaters, portraits of him and his fights were popular subjects for artists, and commemorative medals were struck in his honor.

At age 13, he was apprenticed to a glasscutter, but he fought with the employer’s son and was forced from the position. Later, he apprenticed to a Jewish greengrocer and still later to a tea dealer. His fortune rested in his fists.

In his 72 years, Mendoza made and spent a fortune. His memoirs were finally published in 1818. After his glory days, he spent time as a pub owner, teaching boxing, and even was hired by the theatre manager John Philip Kemble in an attempt to suppress the Old Price Riots; the resulting poor publicity probably cost Mendoza much of his popular support, as he was seen to be fighting on the side of the privileged. He even spent time in King’s Bench prison for his debts.

Mendoza made his last public appearance as a boxer in 1820 at Banstead Downs in a grudge match against Tom Owen; he was defeated after 12 rounds. He died on 3 September 1836. By then, the thrill of the boxing ring had waned. Mendoza left his family of 11 children in poverty. One of Mendoza’s descendants, Rufus Daniel Issacs, became Lord Chief Justice and 1st Marquess of Reading.

Peter Sellers

Peter Sellers

Another of Mendoza’s descendants, the actor Peter Sellers of Pink Panther fame, bears a resemblance to his great-great-grandfather. Perhaps, Sellers used some of the lessons he learned from his relative in those zany scenes of Cato attacking Inspector Clouseau. A print of Mendoza fighting Humphries can be seen on the wall of Clouseau’s office in the films.

Mendoza features as a character in Rodney Stone, a Gothic mystery novel by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and one of his fights is mentioned in the 1934 The Scarlet Pimpernel film. A play about Mendoza, “The Punishing Blow” by Randy Cohen debuted in 2009.

Daniel Mendoza was one of the inaugural group elected in 1954 to the Boxing Hall of Fame and of the inaugural class of the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1990.

 

Also, there was a 2013 film regarding his life. “Nan-Tom Film Arts International [brought] to the screen the amazing and inspirational story of Daniel Mendoza in a compelling documentary tour de force: Mendoza the Magnificent: The Man Who Revolutionized Boxing. Through the dark streets, gaming parlors, and treacherous social circles of Regency London, our guide will be the opinionated Mr. Pierce Egan. In the 1790s, this charismatic young sportswriter was boxing’s earliest impresario. The articles that he published in the manly “turf and ring” journals of the day provide immediate, eyewitness accounts of the Mendoza fights and an insider’s view of the high-stakes sports bets being staked every night in gentlemen’s clubs. Egan later collected and republished his boxing articles as Boxiana: Sketches of Ancient and Modern Pugilism (1813), and then launched his own monthly journal of popular sports culture, the hugely successful Life in London (1821-1828), for an upper-class readership of sports fans and gamblers.

“Two hundred years later, Daniel Mendoza and Pierce Egan spring from the screen in Mendoza the Magnificent, brought back to life by a sportswriter in the 21st century whose compelling interest resurrects the grit and the excitement of these two gloriously intertwined lives.” [The National Center for Jewish Film]

Excellent Resources on Daniel Mendoza:

International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame  

Jewish Quarterly (Includes specifics of each fight and wonderful primary sources)

 

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Fitzwilliam Darcy, Esq. (Esquire). . . Correct or Not?

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

According to etymonline.com, the work “Esquire” is a noun. It came to use “in the late 14C., from Middle French esquier “squire,” literally “shield-bearer” (for a knight), from Old French escuier “shield-bearer (attendant young man in training to be a knight), groom” (Modern French écuyer), from Medieval Latin scutarius “shield-bearer, guardsman” (in classical Latin, “shield-maker”), from scutum “shield” (see escutcheon). For initial e-, see e-. Compare squire (n.). Originally the feudal rank below knight, sense broadened 16c. to a general title of courtesy or respect for the educated and professional class, especially, later, in U.S., regarded as belonging especially to lawyers.

In our own dear title-bearing, democratic land, the title of esquire, officially and by courtesy, has come to include pretty much everybody. Of course everybody in office is an esquire, and all who have been in office enjoy and glory in the title. And what with a standing army of legislators, an elective and ever-changing magistracy, and almost a whole population of militia officers, present and past, all named as esquires in their commissions, the title is nearly universal. [N.Y. Commercial Advertiser newspaper, quoted in Bartlett, 1859]

Meanwhile, Wikiquote tells us: “Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) is a term of British origin (ultimately from Latin scutarius in the sense of shield bearer via Old French “esquier”). In Britain, it is an unofficial title of respect, having no precise significance, which is used to denote a high but indeterminate social status. Esquire is cognate with the word squire, which originally meant an apprentice or assistant to a knight. Relics of this origin can still be found today associated with the word esquire. For example in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, “Esquire” is today the most junior grade of membership. In the United States, the suffix Esq. most commonly designates individuals licensed to practice law, and applies to both men and women (in more modern times).”

Historically, in the UK, “esquire” was a title of respect, sometimes referred to as a courtesy title, accorded men of higher social rank, especially those members of the landed gentry who were above the rank of “gentleman,” but below the rank of “knight.” William Blackstone, a renown judge and jurist and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England said of the subject, “The title should be limited to those only who bear an office or trust under the Crown and who are styled ‘esquires’ by the king in their commissions and appointments; and all, I conceive, who are once honoured by the king with the title of ‘esquire’ have a right to that distinction for life.”

The Complete English Gentleman (1630), by Richard Brathwait, shows the exemplary qualities of a gentleman.

A gentleman was considered to be any man of good and courteous conduct. Originally, it was the lowest rant of the landed gentry of England, ranking below both “esquire” and “yeoman.” The rank of gentleman was comprised of the younger sons of the younger sons of peers and the sons of a baronet, a knight, and an esquire, in what is known as perpetual succession. A gentleman was not only courteous and law abiding, but he could display a coat of arms, which was a right he shared with members of the peerage, as well as some of the gentry. These groups equaled the British nobility.

In the 17th century, in Titles of Honour (1614), the jurist John Selden said that the title gentleman likewise speaks of ‘our English use of it’ as convertible with nobilis (nobility by rank or personal quality) [Selden, John (1614). Titles of Honour (1st ed.). London: William Stansby for Iohn Helme] and describes the forms of a man’s elevation to the nobility in European monarchies. In 1827, James Henry Lawrence explained and discussed the concepts, particulars, and functions of social rank in a monarchy, in the book On the Nobility of the British Gentry, or the Political Ranks and Dignities of the British Empire, Compared with those on the Continent. [Lawrence, Sir James Henry (1827) [1824]. The Nobility of the British Gentry or the Political Ranks and Dignities of the British Empire Compared with those on the Continent (2nd ed.). London: T.Hookham — Simpkin and Marshall.]

Esquire was not in general use for solicitors. More likely to be used by barristers. It was the form used by all those grandsons of peers without any other titles.

The rules of precedence of the Regency period put “esquire” and “gentlemen” in different categories. Landed men, especially those related to peers, like Fitzwilliam Darcy in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” would be an “esquire.” He was the grandson of an earl. All the sons of younger sons of the peerage would be an “esquire” as would be sons of knights and baronets. Their sons would be gentlemen as would those with the king’s commission as an officer and a gentleman. The lines between esquire and gentleman were often hard to distinguish for all except the College of Heralds, and they charged a fee to make the decision.

“Esquire” was a status on the table of precedence.

An “esquire” was also a barrister or a judge who had not been given a peerage or even a knighthood. Younger sons of younger sons of dukes and marquesses or sons of earls, viscounts, and barons might be presented “esquire” after their names. Professors usually used their academic degrees, but would probably be seated with the esquires. The sons of a baronet ranked there.

A knight is a title senior to “esquire” for a barrister, for example. William Garrow was both. He was Sir William Garrow, PC, KC, FRS. (No “esquire.) Once knighted, he would be called Sir William. [On a side note and of interest to me with 40% of my ancestral DNA being from Scotland, Garrow was descended from the Garriochs of Kinstair, a Scottish royal line.]

“Esquire” was not used in speech, but, more so, perhaps, in addressing a formal letter.

If this topic interests you, please consider reading In Britain, who is entitled to the suffix of “Esquire” (“Esq.”)? It is MUCH more detailed than what I have attempted to cover here.

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, Regency era, titles of aristocracy, word play | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Thomas Lynch, Jr., the Youngest of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence to Meet His Death

Posted on August 4, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

lynch

Thomas Lynch, Jr., was one of the youngest men to attend the Continental Congress. He was only 26 years of age when he signed the Declaration of Independence. A lawyer, he represented Prince George Parish in South Carolina. He was married, but he had no children, for Lynch died in 1779 at the age of 30.

Thomas Lynch, Jr., was born at Hopseewee Plantation in Prince George’s Parish, Winyah, South Carolina, on August 5, 1749. [This handsome home exists today on 58 acres on the Santee River on the gateway to Georgetown city and the Santee River delta. It is not a “restored” colonial property, but rather it has been preserved largely intact by the several private owner families.] The family was an ancient one, and is said to have originally emigrated from Austria to England, where they settled in the county of Kent; sometime after which, a branch passed over to Ireland, and thence some of the descendants removed to South Carolina. Jonack Lynch, the great grandfather of Thomas Lynch, emigrated from Ireland to America. At his death, he left his son Thomas (Sr.) a slender patrimony, which Thomas’s father turned to substantial legacy. The rice fields were its source of income until the Civil War. At one time there were about 13,000 acres owned by the family. This fortune, at Thomas Sr.’s death, was left to Thomas, Jr.

imagesThomas Lynch, Sr., was married to Elizabeth Allston, of Brookgreen Plantation, another Georgetown prominent and wealthy family, and they had daughters Sabina (b.1747) and Esther (b.1748) and one son, Thomas Jr. (b.1749). After Elizabeth Allston died (c.1755), Mr. Lynch Sr. married Hannah Motte, and they had a daughter, Elizabeth (b.1755).

Thomas, Sr., was a distinguished public servant and one of the most important Santee River planters. He was the first President of the Winyah Indigo Society, and was elected as a delegate to the Commons House of Assembly by the people of Prince George, Winyah Parish, where he served until his death(1776). Having early espoused the cause of the colonists, in 1774, he was elected to the First Continental Congress. He was highly esteemed by the founding fathers, who in October, 1775, appointed him along with Benjamin Franklin and Colonel Benjamin Harrison as advisors to General Washington. In February, 1776, he was paralyzed from a cerebral hemorrhage while in Philadelphia, and never recovered his health.

 At an early age, young Thomas Jr. was sent to a flourishing school, at that time maintained at Georgetown, South Carolina. Before he had reached his thirteenth year, his father removed him and sent him to England to continue his education. Thomas Jr. entered Eton and eventually made his way to Cambridge. He graduated with honors at Cambridge and studied law in London and then, after some nine years, returned home in 1772. 

Thomas_Lynch_JrHe soon after married, on May 13, 1772, a beautiful young lady he had known since childhood, Elizabeth Shubrick, daughter of Thomas and Mary Baker Shubrick, of Charleston, SC. They had no children. Interestingly, Elizabeth’s sister, Mary, married Edward Rutledge, and her sister, Hannah, married William Heyward, brother of Thomas Heyward, Jr. Rutledge and Thomas Heyward, Jr., were also signers of the Declaration. Thomas Jr. quickly became much sought after for public service, becoming a member of the colony’s first and second Provincial Congress (1774-1776) and the Constitutional Committee for South Carolina, where he helped draft the state constitution.

 In 1775, on the raising of the first South Carolina regiment of provincial regulars, he was appointed to the command of a company. Having received his commission, he soon enlisted his quota of men, in some of the neighboring counties, and at the head of them took up his march for Charleston. Unfortunately, during the march he was attacked by a violent bilious fever, likely via malaria mosquitoes, which greatly injured his constitution, and from the effects of which he never afterwards entirely recovered. He raised his company and they joined his regiment, only to learn a few days later of the sudden and incapacitating illness of his father from a paralyzing stroke in Philadelphia, which caused the father to resign his seat in Congress. The Provincial Assembly elected young Lynch to fill it, and he hastened to Philadelphia to take his seat in 1776. Lynch and his father thus had the unique distinction of being the only father-son team of representatives to the Congress.

When Thomas Lynch, Jr. returned home from Philadelphia, he was a sick man. He retired from public life and lived on at Peachtree Plantation on the Santee River with his wife. The malingering fever contracted from his time in the military service continued wracking his body into worsening health. Upon the advice of his doctors, in 1779 he and his wife decided to travel to France with the hope that therapeutic help there may restore his health. The war, with the possibility of his capture, made ocean travel ever more dangerous, so they embarked for St. Eustatius in the West Indies, to seek out a vessel to transport them to France. On this first leg of the long journey, their ship was last seen when it was but a few days out at sea. Presumably it foundered during a storm and they both drowned, no one survived; ship and passengers and crew all simply disappeared, another mystery of the fabled “Bermuda Triangle” area. At age 26, he was among the youngest to sign the Declaration; at age 30, he was the youngest of the Signers at their deaths.

Having had no children, this Signer has no direct descendants. Interestingly, his will made before the fateful journey includes provisions for his sisters and step-mother, but requires that no one would inherit Lynch land unless “they shall take and use the Surname Lynch and no other…it having been my father’s intention and it being my meaning to limit a part of his estate as far as the law will permit to such of his family as shall use the surname ‘Lynch’….”. Mr. Lynch’s nephew, John Lynch Bowman later changed his name to John Bowman Lynch, he was the only son of the Signer’s sister, Sabina. John Bowman Lynch had three sons and four daughters, all three sons were killed in Confederate service during the Civil War, and left no descendants.

Resources: 

Colonial Hall

Find a Grave 

Geni

Signers of the Declaration of Independence

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

Wikipedia 

Posted in American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, world history | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Question from a Reader Regarding the Thames River Police During the Regency Era

Posted on August 3, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Question: What can you tell me of the Thames River Police? How active were they in the Regency era? Etc.

Response: When I was writing The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery LOTS of research was required, especially information about the policing practices in Regency Era London. One of my discoveries was the River Thames Police.

John Harriott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org
John Harriott – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org

In the 18th Century, importers docking along the River Thames in London had lost £500.000 annually as cargoes were unloaded on the unprotected River Thames. In 1797, an Essex Justice of the Peace, farmer, and inventor from Great Stanbridge, Mr John Harriott, came up with a plan to change all that. Mr Patrick Colquhoun, LLD. (the principle magistrate of Queens Square Police Office), advocated for Harriott’s plan with the West India Merchants and the West India Planters Committees to finance preventative policing of the central shipping area of the Thames. The government approved the establishment of the Marine Police on 2 July 1798 in Wapping High Street. Originally, the West India Merchants Company Marine Police Institute was to operate for just one year, but as the Government was involved with the war with France, the time was extended.

A Surveyor (equivalent rank of an Inspector, by today’s standards) and three waterman Constables under the direction of a Superintending Surveyor manned each of the rowing galleys. The Superintending Surveyor also had a supervision galley with a crew of four. The Surveyors had taken an oath to the Crown and were issued an excise warrant by the Customs and Excise Service.

In addition, ship and quay guards were employed on a part-time basis. They were only employed when the West India fleets were on the river. Otherwise, they were dismissed until needed again. These “guards” were supervised by the boat patrols, which eventually became the first River Police Special Constables. Initially, it cost £4.200 to set up the force (hires and premises), but , by all  estimates, they had saved £122.000 in cargo and had saved a dozen individuals.

Only numbering in the low 50s, these Officers were expected to control some 30.000 + people who made their living on the river. One must realize a large portion (some 25-35%) of that 30.000 were likely criminals. Unfortunately, during the first six months, a riot took place outside the Office, and a crowd of 2000+ threatened to burn the building to the ground, with officers and magistrates inside. Harriott managed to quell the riot. Sadly, Gabriel Franks (Master Lumper) was shot and killed – the first recorded police death. “After a year, Harriott was able to give his first report to the Home Office stating ‘instead of many waterman’s boats hovering nearby while ships unloaded, the river now appears quiet and peaceful, except for those going about their lawful business.” (River Thames Police – History – Establishment)

Ship owners convinced the government of the value of the Marine Police. Letters from importers, shipmasters, and wharf owners praised the deterrent tactics of the boat patrols and quay guards. On 28 July 1800, Parliament passed the Marine Police Bill making the river police a public domain. The bill also increased the number of officers to 88. “They were taken with the Magistrate John Harriott to be directly under the control of the Home Secretary, who used their hard won experience throughout the whole of the Metropolis until such times as the Metropolitan Police were formed.” In 1800, Patrick Colquhoun released a book entitled The Commerce and Policing of the River Thames. “As the only police body extant whole chapters were included about criminals of the Thames, its policing and the effect. The book was widely read and approved of, so much so that many other police forces were formed throughout the world on his principles, the most famous being Dublin, New York and Sydney, Australia.” (River Thames Police – History – Government Support)

By the time the Metropolitan Police began in 1829, the River Thames Police had grown in numbers and in stations. They had extended their jurisdiction to above Chelsea and down to Woolwich and had acquired two old naval vessels to patrol the extent of the Thames. “In 1817 an excise “Cutter” was purchased to patrol the lower reaches as far as the Downs, firstly to protect the Kings stores at Sheerness, a Magistrate with powers in the surrounding counties was then essential to empower the River Police to prevent such crimes and in particular crimping. Winter for the officers patrolling in open boats was most rigorous.” (River Thames Police: History) 

By 1839, the Metropolitan Police, under Commissioners Sir Richard Mayne and Sir Charles Rowan, who operated with the Home Secretary’s permission, had unified other police bodies in London, including the Bow Street Runners, Horse patrols, and the River Police. The only exception was the City of London Police force, which was founded in 1834 and remains a separate entity even today.

With this unification, the Thames Magistrate Office was moved to Arbour Square and renamed the Thames Magistrates Court. “Thames Division of the Metropolitan Police was built on the officers and experience of its earlier force. It was always that the land police were formed (and indeed their uniform suggests it) on the pattern of an army regiment and the River Police on the pattern of a Royal Navy ‘man of war’ (Hence their reefer jackets and naval boaters.).

Thames Police rowing galley around 1900. http://www.thamespolicemuseum.org.uk/h_police_3.html
Thames Police rowing galley around 1900. http://www.thamespolicemuseum.org.uk/h_police_3.html

For the next forty years the rowing galleys and sailing patrols continued and were found adequate, while the river trades slowly became merchandised and to a large extent iron replaced wood. In 1878 the loss of over 600 lives in the disastrous collision between the paddle steamer “Princess Alice” and the collier “Bywell Castle” made it obvious that at least some powered craft were necessary. In 1884, two steam launches were purchased for supervisory purposes and later a third was found necessary.” (River Thames Police: History)

Something else one might want to consider, if it matters to the story being written, is how long it would take from the time a person, or a body, went into the river to the time it was found. The Thames is a tidal river, which means that at high tide, the water actually flows upstream, as far as Teddington, while at low tide it flows downstream, as one would expect. Since the lower reaches of the Thames are tidal, there is more salt in the water, which would make anything thrown into it more bouyant than something thrown into fresh water.

Previous I read the book,  Thames: A Biography, by Peter Ackroyd. It is a fascinating read, and one thing he has noted is the vagaries of the currents in the Thames. Some tests were done which show clearly that something which was tossed in the river in the vicinity of London could take from three to six weeks to travel downstream to the area known as the Port of London.

Charles Dickens has a character (Gaffer Hexham) in Our Mutual Friend who scours the Thames in a boat for dead bodies, and anything else of value that he can turn up. It has been a long time since I read Dickens’s tale, so I do not recall if he turned in the bodies for money or if he just kept what valuables he found on them. Before Dickens’s time, the bodies had value at medical schools, but, otherwise, they were useless, meaning in a Regency based tale, one could steal a body and not be arrested, but stealing the “Sunday best” the person wore could have you arrested and jailed or even transported.

The Thames river police were the ones who were supposed to be notified if bodies were found in the river. Accidental drownings and suicides were the most frequent causes of death.

Bodies were found elsewhere, for instance, in the Serpentine and other rivers and bodies of water as well. In those cases the nearest magistrate was notified. He was supposed to notify the coroner. The Coroner had to be informed of all deaths occurring without the presence of a physician/surgeon.

PoMDC Cover-2-2

The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery
(Mystery/Suspense/Thriller; Fiction/Historical Fiction) – currently out of print, but I hope to bring this back out near the end of 2026 – PLEASE do not purchase this title if you come across it on Amazon. Someone hacked it, and I am waiting on Amazon’s investigation to take it down. If you want a print copy, contact me. I have copies here and would be happy to send you out one (cost $8.00 + shipping). 

Fitzwilliam Darcy is enjoying his marital bliss. His wife, the former Elizabeth Bennet, presented him two sons and a world of contentment. All is well until Darcy receives a note of urgency from his sister Georgiana. In truth, Darcy never fully approved of Georgiana’s joining with their cousin. Major General Edward Fitzwilliam for Darcy assumed the major general held Georgiana at arm’s length, dooming Darcy’s sister to a life of unhappiness.

Forced to seek his cousin in the slews of London’s underbelly, at length, Darcy discovers the major general and returns Fitzwilliam to his family. Even so, the Darcy’s troubles are far from over. During the major general’s absence from home, witnesses note Fitzwilliam’s presence in the area of two horrific murders. When Edward Fitzwilliam is arrested for the crimes, Darcy must discover the real culprit before his cousin is hanged for the crimes and the Fitzwilliam name is marked by shame.

Posted in British history, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Uncategorized, Victorian era | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

The First to Purchase Austen’s “Sense and Sensibility” Was Prince George IV, a Man For Whom Austen Held Little Respect

Posted on July 31, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

I am relatively confident that many of you who read this blog already know this: The New York Times in 2018 had this interesting piece on the discovery by a University of Pennsylvania Ph.D student, which has thrilled Austen scholars. (I also liked the aside that Austen’s publisher made her “punch up” her terse book dedication to the Prince.) However, as we just celebrated the 250th Anniversary of Austen’s birth last year, I thought many of you might still be on an “Austen high.”

Full story is this LINK.

Jane Austen’s novels may epitomize Regency England, but she did not think much of the man for whom the period was named. This purchase, made on October 28, 1811, predated the novel’s public advertisement by two days. The discovery of this transaction, documented in a bill of sale, was made in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle. Nick Foretek’s discovery in the Georgian Papers Programme archives that the likely first purchaser of Austen’s first novel was none other than the Prince Regent. 

You can actually see a copy of the bill of sale on Penn Today. The Smithsonian Magazine also has a lovely article on the Prince Regent’s purchase.

Like many of her compatriots, Austen loathed the Prince Regent, once railing in an 1813 letter against the man whose gluttony, profligacy and infidelities scandalized the nation. In 1815, when she was strong-armed into dedicating her fourth novel, “Emma,” to the future George IV, she produced a tribute so strained that a scholar called it “one of the worst sentences she ever committed to print.”

But now, in a delicious irony that Austen herself might have appreciated, it turns out that the man who was counted among her most reviled readers might also have been one of her very first.

In the article above, a graduate student working in the Royal Archives in Windsor Castle came across a previously unknown 1811 bill of sale from a London bookseller, charging the Prince Regent 15 shillings for a copy of “Sense and Sensibility,” Austen’s first novel. Oddly, as mentioned above, the transaction took place two days before the book’s first public advertisement — making it what scholars believe to be the first documented sale of an Austen book.

A man on the Janeite list discovered that Princess Charlotte wrote to her friend some time after this praising Sense and Sensibility. The question was asked perhaps whether the books were bought for his daughter. Some Gothic novels were also purchased at that time which do seem more to the taste of Princess Charlotte than her father.

The same man, as mentioned above, also remembered that Princess Charlotte praised the novel to a friend shortly after the book was published. She compared herself to Marianne.

It could be that this set and the horror novels, also purchased, were for Charlotte and not himself.

Posted in British history, George IV, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, publishing, real life tales, Regency era, research, royalty, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Bonus” Traitor Thursday: Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Robert Morris, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and America’s First True Capitalist

Posted on July 30, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Robert Morris was a merchant and a land speculator. He was 42 years of age when he signed the Declaration of Independence and 72 when he passed. He was the father of seven children, and one of 5 signers not born in the American colonies.

Born to an ironworker from Liverpool, England, Robert Morris’s childhood was anything but quiet. His mother died when he was two. His father, Robert Morris, Sr., came to Maryland in 1738 as an agent for Foster, Cunliffe, and Sons for whom he purchased and shipped tobacco to England.  “He was the originator of the tobacco inspection law, and had it passed over powerful opposition. He was considered a mercantile genius, and was the first to keep his accounts in money rather than in gallons, pounds, yards, etc. In 1750 Robert Morris, Sr., gave a dinner party on board one of the ships of the company. As he left the ship in a small boat, a farewell salute was fired from the ship and wadding from the shot burst through the side of the boat and severely injured him. As a result of the accident, he died of blood poisoning on July 12, 1750.” (The Society for the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

Raised by his maternal grandmother, Robert Morris, Jr., did not arrive in America until 1748. Unlike many of his fellow signers, Morris had little formal education. He apprenticed at Charles Willing & Co. as a clerk, but when his father died, he was 16 and alone in a country he knew little of. Eventually, Morris saved enough to open the London Coffee House in Philadelphia. During the Seven Years War (1756-1763) he captained a ship on a trade mission to Jamaica, where French Privateers took him and his crew captive. Eventually, he was able to escape and made it to Cuba, where he remained until an American ship returned him to Philadelphia. 

After Charles Willing’s retirement, Morris and Thomas William began a partnership. Their ships traveled to the West Indies and England, importing and exporting goods. They also banking interests. “At the height of his success, he was ranked by the Encyclopedia of American Wealth, along with Charles Carroll of Carrollton, as the two wealthiest signers among the 56 signers of the Declaration.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence) Robert is known to have led a street protest agains the 1765 Stamp Act. He and Willing organized the first non-importation of slaves agreement in 1769.

After he married Mary White in 1769, Morris purchased 80 acres on the eastern bank of the Schuylkill River, a beautiful estate he named “The Hills.” As the warden of the port of Philadelphia, Morris stopped the chaos that was the Boston Tea Party by convincing tea ships to return to England. He and Willing furnished the militia with weapons and powder. So many supplies arrived at Morris’ wharfs that Congress placed special guards there to protect the colonial supply line. Although he supported the colonial efforts, Morris was not sold upon the idea of separation from England. He did think the colonies were prepared for self rule and that anarchy would ensue. (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence) It is reported that Morris excused himself from the room when the vote for independence came on 2 July 1776. 

http://www.npr.org/2010/ 12/20/132051519/-robert-morris-america-s- founding-capitalist

http://www.npr.org/2010/
12/20/132051519/-robert-morris-america-s-
founding-capitalist

In Charles Rappleye’s Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster), we learn that “Morris was thinking in terms of global commerce at the same time the Scottish economist Adam Smith was describing it in The Wealth of Nations. The primary [means of finance] for the international traders [were] called ‘bills of exchange,’ which were debts and foreign currencies that you could then buy and sell in foreign capitals, and in your own country, to other traders who needed capital. A lot of it was based on personal relationships, so correspondence was critical and reputation was fundamental. During the Revolution, Morris use chis reputation and business connections to effectively bankroll American forces. He was active in supplying Washington’s army with gunpowder, which he smuggled in under the noses of British authorities in Europe and the Caribbean.

“‘He was getting the cattle from Connecticut, he was getting the flour from Pennsylvania and Virginia, and he was getting it all to the soldiers on the road.’ Before Yorktown, the United States’ fledgling new currency had all but failed, and the only medium of exchange with which to finance to revolution was Morris’ own personal credit. So four years after opposing the Revolution, Morris had effective become America’s treasury and banker.” [Note: When Ken Burns’s “The American Revolution” spoke of Morris’s efforts to pay the American soldiers, I was already screaming these facts at the screen. He had truly been a traitor to the British. Keep in mind I wrote these pieces nearly ten years ago, I was not copying others, as some have suggested.]

According to The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, “In 1779 Thomas Paine and Henry Laurens delivered charges of fraudulent transactions against Willing and Morris. Morris demanded that a congressional committee examine his books, and he was exonerated. The committee reported ‘that (Robert Morris)…has acted with fidelity and integrity and an honorable zeal for the happiness of his country.’

“The Continental Congress called Morris to service again, in 1781, appointing him the Superintendent of Finance. This was the first executive office in American history.

“Faced with a serious governmental financial crisis, Morris submitted the first national funding proposal, On Public Credit, which served as the basis for Hamilton’s plan submitted a decade later during the Washington Administration. Morris established the Bank of North America with the help of two other signers—James Wilson and George Clymer. Morris slashed governmental and military expenditures, personally purchased Army and Navy supplies, tightened accounting procedures, and pleaded with the states to contribute, a process he likened to ‘preaching to the dead.’ Before he left office he used over a million dollars in his own notes to feed and pay the troops, with most of those notes to be repaid with loans from France. At the end of the war he took on the mission of repaying the debt to France, but circumstances made that impossible and he lost a fortune in the effort.”

“He personally put up 1.4 million dollars for the effort and coordinated with the French to get French ships into the Chesapeake, which made the planned evacuation of the British army impossible.

“Robert Morris sent the first American ship to China in 1784 which began the country’s China Trade. At one point he had ships going as far as the Levant and India. Morris confided to an old friend that he had lost over 150 ships during the Revolution, but had managed to come out “about even.” This was mostly due to privateering, and selling American goods to the French and Spanish islands in the Caribbean.

“Robert Morris had become a strong advocate of a more powerful government and attended the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to discuss amending the Articles of Confederation. In 1787 he hosted George Washington as they both attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and it was Morris who nominated Washington to be Chairman of the Convention. Morris signed the new U. S. Constitution, one of only two signers of the Declaration of Independence to sign all three basic founding documents—the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. (The other signer of all three documents was Roger Sherman of Connecticut.)”

Posted in American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, Great Britain, real life tales | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Who Ruled on the Incompetence of a Titled Peer?

Posted on July 29, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Question from a Reader: Who ruled on the incompetence or insanity of a titled peer? What is the general procedure, and were there ways to keep preliminary hearings on it discreet?

Also, I am seeing from research that insanity could be grounds to invalidate a marriage (in the case of my story, by secret elopement). Am I understanding that correctly? Friends and family were already expressing their concerns at the time of the elopement and there were rumors of it among the locals around his estate, if that helps.

This is kind of tricky. Generally speaking, the family would try to keep him under control themselves or tuck him into a private hospital. Nobody actually did anything about Earl Ferrars until he murdered his valet, but I expect his family was relieved to see him hanged. But that information will not help you if you are attempting to have a marriage dissolved as part of the plot line. I think that before 1845 it was the Lord Chancellor who would have to appoint a commission to determine that the peer in question was too insane to marry, etc. 

Arms of Wallop, Earls of Portsmouth: Argent, a bend wavy sable

Lord Portsmouth was married to an older woman and did very well until she died. Then he was married to the daughter of his solicitor. The brother wanted the marriage annulled because the earl did not have the sense to know what marriage was.

The “madness” of the 3rd Earl of Portsmouth refers to a famous and scandalous 1823 insanity trial where his own family sought to have him declared legally insane. The trial became a sensation due to the Earl’s eccentric behavior, his high social standing, and the involvement of prominent figures like Lord Byron. While some considered him a harmless eccentric, others, including his family, presented evidence of bizarre and sadistic behavior, leading to a lengthy and expensive legal battle. 

The 3rd Earl of Portsmouth, John Charles Wallop, was a wealthy aristocrat with connections to notable figures like Jane Austen and Lord Byron. While seemingly normal in some social settings, he engaged in bizarre and disturbing behavior behind closed doors, such as whipping servants, attending funerals obsessively, and even bleeding horses. 

His family, particularly his nephew, Henry Wallop Fellowes, initiated the 1823 trial, alleging that his actions stemmed from a dangerous and immoral nature, not just eccentricity. The trial was a major public event, packed with spectators and covered by newspapers. It became the longest and most costly insanity trial in British history, lasting for weeks and costing a fortune. 

At first the Lord Chancellor who deals with  the insane, infants, and rich orphans–refused to consider the matter, but the brother kept pushing. First a commission was appointed to investigate his mental health. No health privacy laws so the investigation and witnesses were heard in a public room of a pub.

Despite Lord Byron’s defense of the Earl, the court ultimately declared him insane, backdated to 1809. This led to the annulment of his second marriage and the disinheritance of his children from that marriage. The Earl lived for many years after the trial, though he was confined to a section of his estate and believed himself to be a king. 

It took more than 5 years for the commission to declare that the earl had no more idea of marriage than his dog did.

The church annulled the marriage. A commission was set up as guardian of the person. His wife and two children (she was living with her lover in their bed.) The earl was physically incapable of fathering children and a nephew cared for the property. The earl was allowed to live on his property with just a cadre of guards — he lived many years. His brother was earl for a year before he also died.

The wife was not a wife and the children were not legitimate. They went to Canada. She married the lover who was father of the children. She died in poverty, but that might be relative property. The nephew — second in line of succession for the earldom– took care of property, etc. Not an easy job.

The murder mentioned above for Lord Ferras would have required a coroner’s inquest and then a proper trial. Unless the person is raving at the time so that he/she could not be tried, it is the judge and jury  that would have to declare him/her innocent by reason of insanity. 

Then fees would be paid to a private asylum to take the person. The person would have to be guarded so most would have a house they owned turned into a prison/asylum with guards and attendants they paid and hired to care for the person.

The  government did not really have a decent place for the criminally insane.

Sanitariums were a later development.

The person’s rank is not important. What the family can afford is the primary issue. An honsest man would not want his wife in Bedlam, for example, where the treatment was terrible.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-Ann-Lamb ~ Mary Ann Lamb, detail of an oil painting by Francis Stephen Cary, 1834; in the National Portrait Gallery, London.

 When Mary Lamb [an English writer, known for Tales from Shakespear, written with her brother Charles] killed her mother and wounded her father one hot September day, she was declared  innocent by reason of insanity. Her father would not have her in the house so she was placed in a private asylum until he died and then she went to live with her brother. They lived together until he died. They wrote books together and fostered a child together. If she felt an attack of madness coming on, she would return to the asylum for  a short stay.

Generally, a coroner’s inquest had to be held over all dead bodies that presented as other than normal — a man on his sick bed with doctor in attendance – even if it was an accident. 

Most  crimes had to be prosecuted by the individual victim or the family. Murder would be a Crown case. If a peer was dead and murder was suspected, all the government agencies would be urging investigation.   

Hiding away because of rumors is a good way to feed the rumor mill.

Posted in British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Button Gwinnett, A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Who Died in a Duel

Posted on July 28, 2026 by Regina Jeffers
Button-Gwinnett-picture-252x300Button Gwinnett was a Gloucester, England, born signer of the Declaration of Independence. At the time of the American Revolution he was a 41 years old merchant and plantation owner. He was the father of three. Tragically, he died before viewing what he helped to create, for he passed in May 1777.

Button Gwinnett was one of three Georgia signers of the Declaration of Independence. He served in Georgia’s colonial legislature in the Second Continental Congress, and as president of Georgia’s Revolutionary Council of Safety. Born in April 1735 in Down Hatherly, Gloucestershire, England (baptized in Gloucester in 1735), the son of Anne and the Reverend Samuel Gwinnett, Button Gwinnett came to America, first briefly residing in Charleston, South Carolina, a route frequently traveled by Georgia settlers in the 1760’s, but in 1765, Gwinnett acquired a large tract of land in Savannah, Georgia.While still in England (in 1757), he married and began a career in trading. Ann Bourne presented him three children—Amelia, Ann, and Elizabeth Ann. Unfortunately in his new American venture, he knew little success in farming or business, but found a footing in the revolutionary politics of his adopted colony.

Gwinnett arrived in Savannah in 1765 and became a merchant, but soon became disillusioned while running a store in town. After this venture failed, he purchased St. Catherine’s Island and set himself up as a planter. When Gwinnett purchased the island (actually a thirty-six sq. mile tract of land including St. Catherine’s) he tried to raise cattle and farm with limited success. He became active in local politics, winning election to the Commons House of Assembly in 1769. His politics were deeply influenced by his contempt for the wealthy and powerful city Whigs of Savannah. Gwinnett’s political base of country Whigs consisted of less prosperous coastal dwellers like himself and backcountry farmers. By 1773 Gwinnett was again in financial straits; he sold most of his personal property and possessions and withdrew from the political scene.

His lack of success at farming forced Gwinnett to withdraw from politics and he struggled to pay off his debt. St. Catherine’s was sold to the highest bidder along with other personal property. Still an active member in both the community of Sunbury and St. John’s Parish, Gwinnett came in contact with Lyman Hall, the Midway-based physician who would heavily influence Gwinnett’s Radical mindset. At first Gwinnett was uncommitted to the cause of the Patriots, but by 1774 he became an outspoken Radical. Gwinnett was present at the meeting at Peter Tondee’s Tavern in Savannah on 24 July 1774 that debated the right of England to impose the “Intolerable Acts” on the colonies.

The Revolutionary crisis brought him back into politics. Over the next two years Gwinnett rose quickly and played a pivotal role in Georgia politics, although he was disliked by a number of factions within the state. When Lyman Hall journeyed to the Second Continental Congress, Gwinnett became the de facto leader of the radical faction. Button saw two enemies to battle: England and the so-called “city party,” a more conservative element of the radicals that represented the wealthier merchants and shipping interests in Savannah including Lachlan McIntosh and his brother George. Gwinnett rallied the opponents of the Christ Church Parish–led Whig Party, which until that time had dominated the leadership in the emerging dispute with the British crown.

On  23 January 1777, South Carolina representatives made public a long-whispered rumor — South Carolina wanted to annex the state of Georgia for the common welfare of both states. Gwinnett organized and led the opposition to the proposal, voting it down in the Assembly. It then became apparent that merely voting down the proposal was not enough. Georgia needed a constitution, not the Rules and Regulations it had been governed under for almost a year.

Borrowing heavily from John Adams, Gwinnett and others drew up the state constitution and presented it to the assembly, which adopted it on 5 February 1777. One of the most critical of the new state constitution was Lachlan McIntosh, who complained that it gave “power…to irresponsible and avaricious individuals and groups.” Two weeks later Archibald Bulloch was elected governor and commander-in-chief under this document, but he died under suspicious circumstances on the day he became head of the executive branch. Gwinnett was tapped to finish Bulloch’s term until a new election could be held.

He succeeded in uniting coastal and rural dissidents into a loose coalition that demonstrated its strength by electing Gwinnett commander of Georgia’s Continental battalion when the state’s Provincial Congress met in early 1776. He was engaged in a long-standing political rivalry with Lachlan McIntosh, a soldier and leader who would attain highest rank in the Georgia militia and in state politics. Gwinnett was respected figure, however. When Gwinnett’s election proved controversial (a post that he was forced to decline, owing to political faction), he stepped aside and accepted instead an appointment to the Continental Congress, then meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lachlan McIntosh commanded the battalion in Gwinnett’s stead, and these two would become bitter enemies.
In Philadelphia, Gwinnett served on a number of committees and supported separation from England. He voted for independence in July, signed the Declaration of Independence in August (along with other Georgians George Walton and Lyman Hall), and soon afterward returned to Georgia, where he became embroiled in political controversy. Quite soon after he signed the Declaration, he returned home, where he hoped to gain appointment, once again, to the leadership of the Georgia militia. The appointment went instead to his rival. Gwinnett served in the Georgia legislature where he was involved in drafting a constitution for the new state, but also in strenuous efforts to destroy the office of McIntosh. 
gwinnettDisappointed in his military ambitions, Gwinnett continued to lead the opposition to the Christ Church Parish coalition, and when his followers gained control of Georgia’s Provincial Congress, they succeeded in electing him Speaker. He played a key role in the passage of the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and began to purge the military of officers whom he and his followers deemed less than zealous in their enthusiasm for the Whig cause. This brought him into conflict with Lachlan McIntosh. After the death of Georgia’s president and commander-in-chief, Archibald Bulloch, in February 1777, the Council of Safety appointed Gwinnett to succeed him.
Gwinnett proposed a military foray into British East Florida, a defensive measure that he argued would secure Georgia’s southern border. McIntosh and his brother George (who had opposed Gwinnett’s election as president ,and subsequently had been arrested for treason, condemned the scheme as politically motivated. The expedition failed, and though he was not elected governor when the new legislature met in the spring of 1777, Gwinnett was exonerated of any misconduct in carrying out the campaign.
McIntosh was furious. He publicly denounced Gwinnett in the harshest terms, and Gwinnett challenged him to a duel. Though each man shot the other, only Gwinnett’s wound proved fatal. He died on May 19, 1777, and was buried in Savannah’s Colonial Park Cemetery, though the exact location of his grave is unknown. Gwinnett County was named for him when it was established in 1818.
BUBCXKQZPOGwinnett’s signature is one of the rarest and most valuable of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1979 a letter signed by Gwinnett brought $100,000 at a New York auction; its value was estimated in 1983 to be up to $250,000.
Sources: 
Button Gwinnett, About North Georgia.
Button Gwinnett, Georgia Encyclopedia.
Button Gwinnett, U. S. History: Signers of the Declaration of Independence.
This Day in History.
Posted in American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

What is the Cost to Refurbish a House in the Regency Era?

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

I am often asked the cost of a multiple of items in the Regency era. I do not know from where the idea came that I might know these things. However, in this case I do have a bit of information. You see, I keep a very large file of “Regency Tidbits” on my computer. When I come across something that might be of use to me in writing my novels, I copy and paste it there. Sometimes, it is a paragraph or two. Most of the time there are links to similar bits of information.

Therefore, when a reader asked about what I knew of refurbishing a house, I knew where to look. I have placed a bunch of tidbits together in the file and had used some of it when I wrote Amending the Shades of Pemberley. In that book, the Bennet family property and the belongings in the house are to be put up for sale, so I had completed my homework on that matter.


“You have willfully misunderstood me, Miss Bennet. You have no worry of my releasing you, for I do not wish you to perform as a governess to my daughter, but rather as my wife and the mistress of my hereditary estate.”  
Elizabeth Bennet had thought the stranger quite handsome; yet, she had ignored those first tendrils of interest, for she was in no position for the gentleman to pursue her. She and her sister Mary were all who remained of their family. Moreover, Longbourn and its furnishings were to be sold. They were destitute, and, if fortunate, headed for service in some stranger’s household. 
Fitzwilliam Darcy’s proposal of marriage would save both Mary and her, for her sister had agreed to assist with the gentleman’s young daughter. But what of the man’s tale of having corresponded with her father and of Mr. Bennet having purported a marriage between this stranger and her? Elizabeth knew nothing of the arrangement nor of the man’s existence. Though their marriage would solve all her troubles, what if the man’s tale was not completely truthful? Would Mr. Darcy become her enemy or a man she could learn to love? 

So, back to the question at hand. What does it cost to refurbish a house during the Regency?

My information was shared by another Regency author on what was once the Romance Writers of America website. I apologize for not knowing the person’s name. When I copied and pasted the information, I foolishly assumed RWA would be around for a long time. Wrong! The person referenced Brunswick Square in Brighton in the 1820’s. For a wealth of info on this, please look at Regency Town House info here: https://www.rth.org.uk/building-regency-houses Fabulous info!!!

Also, if you can find the book, Brighton and Hove (Yale University Press, 2008), it is a goldmine on building homes, squares, churches and more in Brighton from approximately 1800 through the late Victorian period. I have used the book to “build” and “furnish” many houses in Brighton and other places in a few of my novels. I bought this in Brighton a few years ago and it has been invaluable:

Antam and Morice, BRIGHTON AND HOVE. Yale University Press, 2008.

This book is the first comprehensive guide to the historic heart of Brighton and Hove, the greatest of England’s seaside resorts. A series of walks trace its development from late medieval fishing settlement to the “Queen of the Watering Places,” with a lively and critical commentary on its unique architectural character. Few cities can boast such an exotic diversity of buildings, from the outlandish Pavilion, playground of the Prince Regent, to genteel squares and terraces, Victorian architecture both serious and whimsical and landmarks of twentieth century modernism. This guide will delight resident and visitor alike.

As I recall a Regency Town House in Brighton, a new townhouse in the Square (without drapes, chandeliers, paint to order, plastering etc.) would cost approximately 3000 Pounds. 

Of course, a very good guide would be if you subscribe to BRITISH NEWSPAPERS of the time where one can find houses for sale, land, others at auction with and without furnishings and cost of drapers, cabinet makers, etc.

Here is an article you can read online from the Economic History Review: “How Much did the English Country House Cost to Build, 1660-1880?”

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2599140?seq=1

This website has some of that kind of information:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/stamford/lxiv-lxix

I have a note among my bits of inforamtion that says the following and might apply, taken from The Georgian London Town House: Building, Collecting and Display:

In 1805, 2nd Earl of Grosvenor bought Gloucester House in Upper Grosvenor Street for £20,000. Alterations to the interior cost him £17,000 and the new furniture £7,000. 

So the year is a little off, and this is a town house vs. a country house, but it was larger than the “standard” town house, and the decorations were some of the most impressive/expensive in London at the time. So it will depend on how large and fancy you want your country house to be. I would find £3,000 plausible for a certain level of remodel, but if it is huge and it is going to be completely redone to the latest fashion, it seems like the number would be higher. 

Also, there are other things to consider. Does the roof need replacing or repairing? That is one of the most expensive parts of re-doing a house. Your character probably would want to include some indoor plumbing and restore the well and the ice house. £3000 is too little if any of these things has to be done. If the place is just to be cleaned and painted and a window or two replaced, £3000 would cover it, along with new mattresses for the beds.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

24 July 1817: The Burial of Jane Austen at Winchester Cathedral, a Guest Post from Collins Hemingway

Posted on July 24, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

 Today, I have chosen to repeat one of Collins Hemingway’s beautiful pieces speaking to the burial of Jane Austen at Winchester Cathedral. 

via http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10199138/Jane-Austen-unveiled-as-face-of-new-10-note.html


July 18, 2017, marked the 200th anniversary of the death of Jane Austen. With that date, the official commemoration begins. Tributes will flow through any number of activities, readings, evensongs, and events, leading to July 24, the date of her funeral. In the UK, public benches are being dedicated to Austen, and the “Rain Jane” program will have Austen’s words appear in public places throughout Hampshire whenever there is precipitation. These are just a few of the many events scheduled throughout the year.

Winchester Cathedral, where she is interred, will be the focus of many of the activities. One of these will be the unveiling of the £10 note graced with her face (above). As she is also on the £2 coin, Austen will be the first person, other than a monarch, to appear on more than one form of British currency at the same time. Cathedral bells will toll 41 times to mark each of her years on this earth.

Her burial raises an interesting question: Why, when this comparatively obscure spinster died in 1817, was she buried in a cathedral which houses the bones of Saxon kings and saints? This, in fact, is the subject of a talk scheduled by Professor Michael Wheeler at the cathedral on July 21.

It seems highly unusual for an ordinary citizen to be buried in a place normally reserved for secular and religious leaders. According to Jo Bartholomew, curator and librarian at the cathedral, the mortuary chests hold such dignitaries as: Cynigils and Cenwalh, two Christian kings from the seventh century; Kings Egbert and Ethelwulf (grandfather and father of King Alfred); King Cnut (Canute) and his Queen Emma; two bishops, Alwyn and Stigand; and king William Rufus. Most had been originally buried in Old Minster, the predecessor to Winchester Cathedral, which was just to the north and partially beneath it.

Was it common for an ordinary citizen to be buried there in 1817, or was this an extraordinary honor? In those days, not so extraordinary after all. Indeed, Jane was the third and last person buried there that year. Cost, rather than rank, may have been the limiting factor for a cathedral interment. Jane’s funeral expenses came to £92, a significant amount for someone of her means. Clearly, she or her family was determined to make a statement—after all, none of her brothers, including Frank, who died the highest-ranking naval officer in England, received such a burial.

Elizabeth Proudman, vice chairman of the Jane Austen Society and an expert on Jane Austen, said in a letter that the location was likely Austen’s choice: “I believe that she is buried there, because she wanted to be. It was up to the Dean in those days to decide who could and who could not be buried in the Cathedral. Usually it was enough to be respectable and ‘gentry.’ This, of course, she was as her late father and two of her brothers were in the church.”

Jane’s father, George, had been the rector at Steventon, fourteen miles away, until he retired in 1801. He was succeeded by James, his oldest son, who still held that position in 1817. Henry, who had taken up the cloth after his bank collapsed in the recession of 1816, also had a clerical position nearby. It probably did not hurt that Jane’s brother Edward was the wealthy inheritor of the Knight estate, with extensive holdings in Steventon and Chawton, which was sixteen miles away. From his recent ordination, Henry knew the Bishop, according to Claire Tomalin; and the Dean, Thomas Rennell, was a friend of the important Chute family who were relatives of the Austens.

Having lived at Chawton for nine years, where she wrote or significantly revised her oeuvre, Jane was taken to Winchester for unsuccessful medical treatment. “She had been ill in Winchester for about two months, and I think her burial must have been discussed,” Proudman says. “I like to think that her family would have talked about it with her, and that they followed her wishes. … It may be that she had no particular attachment to the village [of Chawton]. We know that she admired Winchester Cathedral, and she knew several of the clergy. When she died she had some money from her writing, and her funeral expenses were paid from her estate. It was a tiny funeral, only 3 brothers and a nephew attended, and it had to be over before the daily business of the Cathedral began at 10.00 am.”

In fact, most funerals were relatively small in those days, and women did not attend. Cassandra, with their friend Martha Lloyd (James’ sister-in-law), “watched the little mournful procession the length of the street & when it turned from my sight I had lost her for ever.” In a letter to their niece Fanny in the days after Jane’s death, Cass added: “I have lost a treasure, such a Sister, such a friend as can never be surpassed,—She was the sun of my life, the gilder of every pleasure, the soother of every sorrow, I had not a thought concealed from her, & it is as if I have lost a part of myself. … Never was [a] human being more sincerely mourned … than was this dear creature.”

Edward, Francis, and Henry were the brothers who attended. Charles was too far away to come. James was ill (he died two years later), but his son, James Edward, rode from Steventon to Winchester for the service. Thomas Watkins, the Precentor (a member of a church who facilitates worship), read the service. Jane was interred in a brick-lined vault on the north side of the nave.

Tomalin believes it was Henry who “surely sought permission for their sister to be buried in the cathedral; splendid as it is, she might have preferred the open churchyard at Steventon or Chawton.” One suspects it was Henry who pushed for the cathedral, and Jane would have been happy to be at rest anywhere. Yet, modest as she was in many ways, she understood the worth of her writing. She may have made the decision with a view to posterity. In any event, Cassandra was pleased with the decision. “It is a satisfaction to me,” she said, that Jane’s remains were “to lie in a building she admired so much—her precious soul I presume to hope reposes in a far superior mansion.”

Henry arranged for a plaque to be installed in the cathedral to commemorate Jane’s benevolence, sweetness, and intellect—but curiously enough, not her writing. As the popularity of her novels grew over time, officials were baffled by the pilgrims coming to visit the crypt of a woman the church knew not as a brilliant novelist but only as the daughter of a rural clergyman.

Meet Collins Hemingway: Whether his subject is literature, history, or science, Collins Hemingway has a passion for the art of creative investigation. Hemingway’s fiction is shaped by the language of the heart and an abiding regard for courage in the face of adversity.

For him, the most compelling fiction deeply explores the heart and soul of its characters, while also engaging them in the complex and often dangerous world in which they have a stake. He wants to explore all that goes into people’s lives, to creatively investigate everything that makes them what they are as complete but fallible human beings.

His approach is to dive as deeply into a character’s heart and soul as possible, to address the root causes of their behavior rather than to describe superficial attitudes and beliefs. This treatment, he believes, is at the heart of all good fiction, for it provides the only way to draw a complete, complex portrait of a human being that is rewarding to readers.

As a nonfiction book author, Hemingway has investigated topics as diverse as corporate culture and ethics; the Internet and mobile technology; the ins and outs of the retail trade; and the cognitive potential of the brain. Best known for the #1 best-selling book on business and technology, Business @ the Speed of Thought, which he coauthored with Bill Gates, he has earned a reputation for tackling challenging topics with clarity and insight, writing for the nontechnical but intelligent reader. His shorter nonfiction has won awards for topics ranging from general interest to business to computer technology to medicine.

 

 

Posted in British currency, British history, Georgian England, Guest Post, Jane Austen, kings and queens, Regency era, Regency personalities, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments