Question from a Reader Regarding Dance Sets in the Regency Era

Posted on April 6, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Question: I think I understand the idea of the dance set, but could you elaborate on the subject. My understanding is that in balls, dances were done in sets of two different style dances. If that’s true, were they the same kind of dance, or two different kinds of dances, such a country dance and then a quadrille? Also, did people follow that same format in less formal settings such as a country ball or dancing after a dinner party or during a house party? 

The general custom was to have dances in sets of two. They were usually the same type of dances. After every two sets there would be a fast single dance like a boulanger, jig, etc. Local assemblies could be more informal.

Either the Master of Ceremony in the local assemblies or one of the women decided which kind of dances would be included.

Formal balls and court balls still opened with the minuet, but that was otherwise forgotten by the end of the Regency.

I think dancing at a house party would be noticeably more informal than anything held in a public assembly room, even a very small assembly room like that in Jane Austen’s “The Watsons.”  One must consider how large is the house party?  If it is small enough, and the folks all know each other, I think you can do anything you want there;  ditto with impromptu dancing after a dinner party (again, if it is small and the people all pretty much know each other.)

Here is an excerpt from a period source showing that the “paired dances” thing existed outside public dances. It is a passage from Jane Austen’s “Emma,” in which Frank Churchill tells Emma that the small dance party he has been planning (which is to be hosted by his father, Mr Weston) has been moved to an inn because of its larger rooms:

     Before the middle of the next day, he [Frank Churchill] was at Hartfield; and he entered the room with such an agreeable smile as certified the continuance of the scheme.  It soon appeared that he came to announce an improvement.

    “Well, Miss Woodhouse,” he almost immediately began, “your inclination for dancing has not been quite frightened away, I hope, by the terrors of my father’s little rooms.  I bring a new proposal on the subject: — a thought of my father’s, which waits only your approbation to be acted upon.  May I hope for the honour of your hand for the two first dances of this little projected ball, to be given, not at Randalls, but at the Crown Inn?”

So there it is — a pair of dances, at a private ball! 

I will note, though, that it’s clear that the entire time that no one is dancing anything but country dances. So my other suspicion, that the “paired dances” thing only applies to country dances, is still in effect. 

Oh, and if anyone is interested, chapters 28-29 of Emma have quite a nice lot of details about planning a small private ball (particularly in regard to the dancing).

Regency Dance, the Late 18th and Early Nineteenth Century tells us, “British social dancing of the 1770s had been greatly influenced by France. The Allemande and Cotillion dances were introduced to England from the late 1760s, the French Cotillion proved particularly popular, especially amongst visitors to the spa town of Bath. The Cotillion was arranged in a square format for four couples to dance a sequence of choreographed figures. A new Cotillion dancing vocabulary was absorbed into English Country Dancing from around this date; figure names such as the “Allemande”, “Pousette” and “Promenade” became common in English dances of the mid to late 1770s. A renewed interest in steps and timing accompanied this shift, dancing masters of the 1810s wrote of the perfection of the “science” of country dancing as though it was a recent phenomenon. The 1790s saw the rise of the Reel as a dance form in London, and the 1800s saw the introduction of the Waltz, especially at the Royal party town of Brighton.

“The Regency was a period of diverse dancing experiences. Strict etiquette rules were used to coordinate the dancing at the elite Assembly Rooms patronised by the rich, but riotous dancing parties might be enjoyed by a different class of dancer at a Tavern next door. Controversial dances such as the Waltz might be danced in a very different style at one such venue compared to the other.

“Cotillion dancing fell out of fashion in the early 19th century, but returned in the form of the Quadrille from the mid 1810s. The Quadrille was typically danced by four couples to a memorised sequence of figures; a great variety of choreographed routines were published from the late 1810s, but only a few major sequences survived beyond the mid 1820s: namely the First Set, the Lancers and the Caledonians.

“English Country Dancing fell out of favour with Britain’s elite social dancers towards the end of the 1810s, it was the Waltz and the Quadrille that became the preferred dances into the 1820s and beyond. A medley of minor dance formats were also invented and promoted, including Waltz Country Dances, Circular dances (Sicillian, Chivonian, etc.), Sixdrilles, and the like. The next major dancing trend to sweep the British ballrooms arrived from around the year 1830 in the form of the Gallopade and Mazurka dances; the Polka then arrived in the 1840s, a dance closely associated with the reign of Queen Victoria.”

Posted in aristocracy, British history, dancing, Emma, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In History, “False Teeth” Were Not So False

Posted on April 3, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

 waterloo_teeth.jpg What we refer to as “false” teeth are not false, for most dentures in history contained real teeth, either from another human or from an animal. Some of the oldest finding regarding false teeth come to us from Mexico. They date to around 2500 BC, and excavators confirm the use of wolf molars in the denture. Original dentures had difficulties with fit, attachment, comfort, and durability, but became a necessary evil as tooth decay became more prevalent with dietary changes, especially the consumption of sugar. 

Around the 7th Century, the Etruscans developed a method that led to what we now think of as dentures. They used gold wire to secure a false tooth to those around it, creating a new tooth for the missing one.

During the 16th Century, the Japanese invented wooden dentures. They made a beeswax impression of the person’s teeth, before an artisan would carve teeth to match the impression, setting the new teeth on a soft mouth guard, again made of beeswax. 

Pierre_Fauchard_-_Le_Chirurgien_Dentiste_-_dentures

Pierre Fauchard described the construction of dentures using a metal frame, animal bone teeth, and leaf springs in 1728. – Public Domain – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentures#/media/File:Pierre_Fauchard_-_Le_Chirurgien_Dentiste_-_dentures.png

This practice ended with their civilization, but had a upsurge during the 1700s when “dentures” were made. It was a time when it was rare for an adult to reach middle age without having lost one or more teeth. Dr. Natalie Harrison tells us, “In 1728, Pierre Fauchard wrote about crafting false teeth from wire brackets and hand-carved animal bone. In 1774, Alexis Duchâteau made the first porcelain dentures. While they looked aesthetically pleasing, the pure porcelain was prone to chipping and cracking. In 1820, a [Westminster] jeweler and goldsmith named Claudius Ash made a huge advancement in denture knowledge and craftsmanship. He decided to mount porcelain on 18-karat gold plates with gold springs and swivels. This reinforced the porcelain, and resulted in dentures that work well and looked natural.”

The True History of False Teeth also speaks to the materials used in early dentures: “Ivory was one of the earliest materials used to replace lost teeth. Ivory came from animals like the hippopotamus, walrus, or elephant. These teeth tended to decay and rarely looked natural, but got the job done. Ivory was still used for the base of dentures, even after quality human teeth became more available near the end of the 18th century. [Still improving, from the 1850s onward, dentures were made of Vulcanite, a form of hardened rubber into which porcelain teeth were set. Claudius Ash’s company was the leading European manufacturer of dental Vulcanite.]

“The best dentures were made from human teeth. The source of these teeth ranged from robbed graves, peasants looking to make a quick buck, and even dentists’ collections. Understandably, these sources provided poor quality teeth. Their poor quality meant that dentures were mostly cosmetic and needed to be removed for eating.

Carved_ivory_upper_and_lower_denture_Wellcome_L0003910

Carved ivory dentures from the 18th century. Left is lower/mandibular; upper/maxillary is at right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentures#/media/File:Carved_ivory_upper_and_lower_denture_Wellcome_L0003910.jpg

“The death of 50,000 men at the battle of Waterloo in 1815 soon diminished the lack of quality human teeth. Soldiers marching at Waterloo were young and healthy, so their teeth were ideal for denture making. “Waterloo teeth” became the fashion in Britain and were often worn as a trophy despite the impossibility of knowing their direct origin.[Waterloo teeth were riveted into the base of animal ivory.] This practice of using human teeth for dentures continued on into the late 1860s. The American Civil War provided one source to these later versions of ‘Waterloo teeth.’ 

“Luckily, such ghastly techniques lessened after 1843 when Charles Goodyear discovered how to make flexible rubber. Charles’s brother Nelson named the new material vulcanite and patented it in 1851. It turns out that vulcanite makes a more comfortable base for false teeth. Because other versions of false teeth were more expensive, the market for vulcanite teeth flourished. For the first time ever, middle class people bought and wore false teeth along with the rich and wealthy.

“Porcelain false teeth were invented in the late 1700s in France. However, their tendency to crack and grate against each other made them unpopular choices. It wasn’t until after many improvements in strength and texture in the late 1800s that porcelain teeth because a popular choice for dentures and bridges and replaced human teeth, ivory, and bone. Porcelain is still a popular choice for many dental applications.”

Alan Taylor on British History Georgian Lives provides a bit more information on “Waterloo Teeth.” – “This will really set your (real) teeth on edge -‘Waterloo teeth’
In 18th Century. Britain there was a burgeoning market for false teeth – the advert below dated 1792 asked for Continental teeth only ( better quality than the average discoloured British teeth?). Once received by ‘dental technicians’ such as jewellers, ivory turners or even blacksmiths. they would usually be set in ivory and sold for about £100 (an enormous sum for those times). Because demand was so high soldiers and scavengers from England extracted the teeth from bodies on the field of Waterloo and sold them on at a good profit. Generally molars were less easy to pullout than front teeth so commanded a higher price. Later in the 19th Century, vulcanite was used as the base.” 

32079553_936423556518557_2839919791584575488_n.jpg

32081328_936424793185100_5896213996817612800_n.jpg

Did Your Know?

Queen Elizabeth I stuffed bits of cloth in her mouth to hide her missing teeth during public appearances. 

Despite popular tales to the contrary, George Washington’s teeth were not made of wood. A partial denture made of ivory was created by Dr. John Baker for Washington during the general’s Revolutionary War years. When he was inaugurated in 1789 as the U.S. first President, Washington wore a denture made from hippopotamus ivory, into which human teeth (along with parts of both horse and donkey teeth) were fitted, a creation of Dr. John Greenwood. [Hippopotamus, walrus, and elephant ivory were all popular choices for dentures in the 1700s.] The dentures attached to Washington’s final remaining tooth. 

Sources: 

Edentulous: A Brief History of Dentures

Silverado Family Dental 

The Weird History of False Teeth 

Posted in American History, British history, Elizabeth I, fashion, history, inventions, medicine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Literary Origins and April Fool’s Day

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Unknown
 April Fools’ Day (alternatively April Fool’s Day, sometimes All Fools’ Day) is celebrated on 1 April every year. 1 April is not a national holiday, but is widely recognized and celebrated in various countries as a day when people play practical jokes and hoaxes on each other called April fools.

In parts of Europe, children and adults tack paper fishes on each other’s back as a trick and shout “April fish!” These late 19th to early 20th Century postcards reflect this tradition. 

Transparent Language tells us, “It is thought that April Fool’s Day is the result of the Ancient Roman festival Hilaria and the Medieval festival known as the Feast of Fools. The Feast of Fools, also known as festum fatuorum,( feast of fools) festum stultorum (feast of the silly or simple), was celebrated during the months of December or January. The Medieval festival,  Feast of Fools, finds its roots within the Roman festival known as Saturnalia. You can learn more about the Saturnalia here. So like the Saturnalia, the Feast of Fool sought to overturn the societal norms of status and class.

” Feast of Fools and the Church ~ In the festival, young people would chose to play a mock pope, archbishop, bishop, or abbot to reign as Lord of Misrule.  Participants of the festival would then “consecrate” him with many ridiculous ceremonies in the nearest main church, giving names such as Archbishop of Dolts, Abbot of Unreason, or Pope of Fools.  This consecration ceremony often mocked the performance of the highest offices of the church. While other participants dressed a sundry of masks and disguises, engaged in songs and dances and practiced all manner of revelry within the church building. The Feast of Fools was eventually discontinued and forbidden 1431 for its blasphemous manner.

 “April Fool’s Day and Hilaria ~ The ancient festival known as Hilaria (Latin for cheerful, merry, joyful) was celebrated on the vernal (spring) equinox in honor of the goddess Cybele. The goddess Cybele has a long and extended history from Anatolia to Rome. The Romans celebrated Hilaria, as a feria stativa (a set free day [i.e no work]), on March 25 in honor of Cybele, the mother of the gods. The days of the festival were devoted to general rejoicings and public sacrifices (hence its name), and no one was allowed to show any symptoms of grief or sorrow( unless it was the “Day of Mourning”).

“According to the historian Herodian, there was a procession and a statue of the goddess was carried. Before this statue, the most costly works of art belonging either to wealthy Romans or to the emperors themselves proceeded. All kinds of games and amusements were allowed on this day; masquerades were the most prominent among them, and everyone might, in his disguise, imitate whomsoever he liked, and even magistrates.”

The earliest recorded association between 1 April and foolishness is an ambiguous reference in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1392). Many writers suggest that the restoration of 1 January by Pope Gregory XIII as New Year’s Day of the Gregorian Calendar in the 16th century was responsible for the creation of the holiday, sometimes questioned for earlier references.

In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1392), the “Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is set Syn March bigan thritty dayes and two. Modern scholars believe there is a copying error in the extant manuscripts and that Chaucer actually wrote, Syn March was gon. Thus, the passage originally meant 32 days after April, i.e. 2 May, the anniversary of the engagement of King Richard II of England to Anne of Bohemia, which took place in 1381. Readers apparently misunderstood this line to mean “March 32,” i.e. 1 April. In Chaucer’s tale, the vain cock Chauntecleer is tricked by a fox.

In the late 17th Century, Francis Osborne mentions the “impertinent errands, as the Dutch youth do fools on the second of April,” in his Deductions from the History of the Earl of Essex (1659). In 1686, John Aubrey mentions a “Fooles holy day. We observe it on ye first of April. And so it is kept in Germany everywhere” in his Remains of Gentilism and Judaism. 

Hoaxes.org tells us, “The French term for ‘April Fool’ is ‘poisson d’Avril.’ It translates literally as ‘April Fish.’ The term appears in several late-medieval French poems — first in the work of Pierre Michault (1466) and next in La Livre de la Deablerie (1508), by Eloy d’Amerval. This has led some to suggest, quite reasonably, that these may be early April Fool’s Day references. However, etymologists believe that the phrase ‘poisson d’Avril’ originally referred to a matchmaker, or to someone who delivered messages between two lovers. It was only in the late 17th century that the phrase acquired its modern association with April Fool’s Day. And if we examine these late-medieval poems, we see that this is the case. For example, Michault’s poem describes the advice being given to a page, who is being told how to deliver messages between a lord and lady to further their illicit affair, and how to do this to his own advantage. Michault writes:

Now you should say to the Lord, ah, sir, I know of a fine and pleasing advantage, by which for a doublet I shall bring you together; truthfully, carnal love is a proper desire, and thus there is no danger or peril, but still, I shall be your ‘poisson d’avril’.

“There’s no indication that this has anything to do with April Fool’s Day. Likewise, d’Amerval wrote, “le chief des ruffyens, Houlier, putier, macquereau infame De maint homme et de mainte fame, Poisson d’Apvril.” Loosely translated, this means something like, “chief ruffian, whore-monger, pimp of many a man and many a woman, panderer (April fish).” The way d’Amerval is using the phrase doesn’t suggest any connection with April Fool’s Day.

” Therefore, these early uses of the phrase ‘poisson d’Avril,’ although intriguing, do not appear to be references to April Fool’s Day. [Meanwhile, there is] Verzenderkensdag. In 1561, the Flemish poet Eduard De Dene, who lived in the city of Bruges, published his Testament Rhetoricael. The book consisted of a large collection of poems and songs, and ‘published’ is perhaps not the right word to describe its debut, since it was entirely handwritten. But on page 358, the book included a poem titled “Refereyn vp verzendekens dach / Twelck den eersten April te zyne plach.” This is late-medieval Dutch meaning (approximately) “Refrain on fool’s errand-day / which is the first of April.” The poem described a nobleman who sent his servant back and forth on various absurd errands on April 1st, ostensibly to help prepare for a wedding feast.


De Dene’s Testament Rhetoricael, page 358.
The ‘April Fool’ poem begins on the bottom of the right-hand page. (Detail below)

“There’s no doubt that the poem is about April Fool’s Day. In fact, in Belgium April 1 is still referred to as “Verzenderkensdag”. So this poem is the earliest unambiguous reference to April Fool’s Day that we currently know of. Its existence establishes that the Dutch have been playing pranks on April 1 since at least the mid-sixteenth century. Given that De Dene assumes his readers are familiar with “verzendekens dach,” it’s probable that the custom is much older than the 1560s. But exactly how much older, we don’t know.

Many writers suggest that April Fools Day began because those who celebrated the beginning of the year on 1 January made fun of those who celebrated it on 1 April. Unfortunately, this simple explanation does not take into account of the spread of the holiday in parts of Europe. The Gregorian calendar was not adopted in England until 1752, but a “Fools” day held roots dating back to Medieval times. 

An 1857 ticket to "Washing the Lions" at the Tower of London in London. No such event ever took place.

An 1857 ticket to “Washing the Lions” at the Tower of London in London. No such event ever took place.

There is also no historical evidence, only conjecture as to how the change from the Julian to the Georgian calendar affected this holiday’s origin.

The use of 1 January as New Year’s Day was common in France by the mid-16th century, and this date was adopted officially in 1564 by the Edict of Roussillon.

A study in the 1950s, by folklorists Iona and Peter Opie, found that in the UK, and in countries whose traditions derived from the UK, the joking ceased at midday. A person playing a joke after midday is the “April fool” themselves. But this practice appears to have lapsed in more recent years.

In Scotland, April Fools’ Day is traditionally called Hunt-the-Gowk Day (“gowk” is Scots for a cuckoo or a foolish person), although this name has fallen into disuse. The traditional prank is to ask someone to deliver a sealed message requesting help of some sort. In fact, the message reads “Dinna laugh, dinna smile. Hunt the gowk another mile.” The recipient, upon reading it, will explain he can only help if he first contacts another person, and sends the victim to this person with an identical message, with the same result.

The 1 April tradition in France, Romandy and French-speaking Canada includes poisson d’avril (literally “April’s fish”), attempting to attach a paper fish to the victim’s back without being noticed. This is also widespread in other nations, such as Italy, where the term Pesce d’aprile (literally “April’s fish”) is also used to refer to any jokes done during the day. This custom also exists in certain areas of Belgium, including the province of Antwerp. The Flemish tradition is for children to lock out their parents or teachers, only letting them in if they promise to bring treats the same evening or the next day.

In Poland, prima aprilis (“April 1” in Latin) is a day full of jokes; various hoaxes are prepared by people, media (which sometimes cooperate to make the “information” more credible) and even public institutions. Serious activities are usually avoided. This conviction is so strong that the anti-Turkish alliance with Leopold I signed on 1 April 1683, was backdated to 31 March.

The Official April Fool’s Day FAQ

Posted in customs and tradiitons, history, holidays, legends, legends and myths | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Robert Treat Paine, “The Objection Maker” and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

paine

Robert Treat Paine was 45 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was both a lawyer and a scientist. Married and the father of 8 children, he, too, saw the end of the War of 1812, where a stance against the British was also necessary. He died at the age of 83 in May 1814.

“Robert Treat Paine was a native of Massachusetts, born in 1731. He was expected, by family tradition, to become a Minister. He got high marks at the Boston Latin School and was admitted to Harvard College, where he graduated in 1749. He taught school for a while and then began the study of theology. Because of his frail health, Paine set out to build up his strength by working on the sea. He spent some years as a merchant marine visiting the southern colonies, Spain, the Azores, and England. When he returned home he decided to pursue the law. He was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts in 1757. He first set up office in Portland, Maine (then part of Massachusetts) and later relocated to Taunton, Massachusetts. In the trials of British soldiers following the Boston Massacre, Paine served as associate prosecuting attorney.” (Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

“Unusual in his generation in New England for having a middle name, Robert Treat Paine was the namesake of Robert Treat, father of Samuel, who was governor of Connecticut for many years and a founder of Newark, New Jersey. Paine’s great grandfather, Reverend Samuel Willard, Harvard College 1659, had been the second minister of the Old South Church and vice president as well as acting president of Harvard College. Paine was a sixth-generation descendant of Stephen Hopkins, the only passenger on the Mayflower who had also lived in Jamestown, Virginia, and a signer of the Mayflower Compact.

Paine has an impressive family history in the old world as well as the new. Through his great-grandmother Rebecca Winslow he was reportedly descended from William the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Alfred the Great and Magna Carta Baron Saire de Quincy. It is now believed that Robert Treat Paine’s great grandfather Thomas Paine of Yarmouth and Eastham, Cape Cod, a millwright prominent in community and colony affairs and born in 1612, emigrated from England in 1635 with his wife Elizabeth and was the son of Queens College Cambridge-educated vicar Thomas Payne of Hernhill, Kent, whose family hailed from Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, in East Anglia.

“Reverend Thomas Paine had left full-time ministry in 1730 when he moved the family to Boston and eventually entered business as a merchant. He continued to preach from time to time in Weymouth until 1734. In his new calling as a merchant, he initially prospered.

“Finishing Boston Latin School at the top of his class, Robert Treat Paine entered Harvard College at the age of fourteen. Besides forming a literary club with friends, he had a great interest in scientific matters, went “to see the Electricity” and became interested in clock making. Paine lived with the college chaplain, Reverend Nathaniel Appleton. Unfortunately, just as he was graduating from college in 1749, his father lost his fortune, and he was left to make his own way in life.

“After teaching school for a year in Lunenburg, Massachusetts, and then in Boston, he made three voyages to North Carolina in 1751-54, acting as master, and in the last sailed as far as Fayal and Cadiz. In Philadelphia between voyages he met many influential people and was particularly intimate with the Franklins. While in North Carolina he wrote President Holyoke of Harvard asking to be awarded the Masters of Arts degree in absentia; his request was granted. In 1754, as Captain of the Seaflower, he led a whaling expedition from Cape Cod to Greenland and left behind what is believed to be the earliest illustrated log of a whaling venture kept by an American. Unfortunately, none of his mercantile ventures proved to be rewarding.

“In 1755, he commenced reading law with his relative Judge Samuel Willard in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and while pursuing his studies preached at Shirley. When Willard was appointed Colonel for the Crown Point (New York) expedition during the French and Indian War, Robert Treat Paine served as a chaplain of the regiment and encamped at Lake George for three months at the end of 1755.

images“In early 1756 Paine visited his father in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in August went to Connecticut on family business, and by the fall moved to Boston to resume study of the law under Benjamin Prat, later chief justice in New York. In 1757, Paine was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar, the same month that his father died, leaving behind debts to collect from Nova Scotia and the West Indies and heavy family responsibilities. At first he considered establishing his law practice in Portland, Maine (then Massachusetts), but settled in Boston. He frequently rode the circuit attending court sessions in Cambridge, Plymouth, Barnstable and Worcester, York and Portsmouth. Pushing himself at some cost to his health, Paine qualified for practicing before the Superior Court in 1758. He and fellow lawyer John Adams were already keen rivals.

“In 1761 Paine moved to Taunton, Massachusetts, where he almost immediately became a leading citizen, justice of the peace in 1763, barrister in 1764. There he resided for twenty years. His attendance of regional court sessions on the circuit continued unabated. He was respected as a fair man with an admirable dedication to his profession and devotion to his community, which repeatedly elected him Town Moderator. Paine was tall in stature, blessed with a deep voice and a serious and frank manner. His great powers of mind, profound knowledge of the law and habits of thorough investigation quickly brought him a large practice, with important clients, among them the painter John Singleton Copley.

“In 1766 at age thirty-five he ‘began to visit Sally Cobb’ of Taunton, then twenty-two. Born on May 15, 1744, Sally was the daughter of Thomas Cobb, Esq., an iron manufacturer, tavern keeper and former sea captain, and Lydia (Leonard) Cobb, and a sister of David Cobb, who was later a General and aide on the staff of George Washington. After seeing each other for four years, on March 15, 1770 the couple married at the octagonal Cobb family house called ‘the Chapel’ in Attleborough. They subsequently lived across from Taunton Green in a house built in 1771. The couple were the parents of eight children.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

787_128527462460_medium“In 1768 he was a delegate to the provincial convention which was called to meet in Boston and along with Samuel Quincy conducted the prosecution of Captain Thomas Preston and his British soldiers following the Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. John Adams was opposing counsel, and his arguments won the jury’s sway, and most of the troops were let off.” (Robert Treat Paine) No match for Adams, Paine argued for the legal duty to respond to the provocation. Captain Preston and six of his 8 men were acquitted. Two were convicted of manslaughter. They were not hanged but rather branded with an “M” on their thumbs. Bostonians used the loss as further proof of the Crown’s subjugation. Paine was considered a hero for his stance against the British government.

“Paine served in the Massachusetts General Court from 1773 to 1774, in the Provincial Congress from 1774 to 1775, and represented Massachusetts at the Continental Congress from 1774 through 1776. In Congress, he signed the final appeal to the king (the Olive Branch Petition of 1775), and helped frame the rules of debate and acquire gunpowder for the coming war, and in 1776 was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.” (Robert Treat Paine) His fellow Congressmen thought him jovial, but Paine was criticized for not putting forth new ideas. He was often heard opposing other’s ideas, to the point he was given the nickname of “The Objection Maker.” Benjamin Rush wrote of him: “He had a certain obliquity of understanding which prevented his seeing public objects in the same light in which whey were seen by other people.” (Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnest, Signing Their Lives Away, Quirk Books, 2009, page 44)

Statue_of_Robert_Treat_Paine_(by_Richard_E._Brooks,_1904) (Statue of Robert Treat Paine (1904), Taunton, Massachusetts ~ Public Domain) “He returned to Massachusetts at the end of December 1776 and was speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1777, a member of the executive council in 1779, a member of the committee that drafted the state constitution in 1780. He was Massachusetts Attorney General from 1777 to 1790 and prosecuted the treason trials following Shay’s Rebellion. In 1780, He was a charter member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He later served as a justice of the state supreme court from 1790 to 1804 when he retired. When he died at the age of 83 in 1814 he was buried in Boston’s Granary Burying Ground. A statue to commemorate him was erected in the Church Green area of Taunton.” (Robert Treat Paine) 01-stonehurst-robert-treat-paine-estate (earlchristie.com)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Question from a Reader About Debrett’s Information

Posted on March 30, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Question from Reader: During the early 1800’s, did Debrett’s list marriages? I have a hero who is the younger son to an earl. He married quite young as part of an arranged marriage, then took off leaving his wife behind. So far I have him playing the rake around London, but he does not tell anybody that he’s married and has been so for ten years. Would others know of his marriage even if he doesn’t mention it?

Debrett gathered their information from the deaths, births, and marriage columns in the newspaper and from announcements sent to it so if no one reported the marriage, it would not necessarily be included. The 1802 Debrett did not know that Lord Byron had died in 1798 and been succeeded by a 10-yearold great grandson, for example.

Your hero can be addressed by whichever epithet he prefers:  Captain Lord Pennyworth or just Lord Pennyworth.

From Debrett’s 1816 – 

If an officer has a title, or a courtesy title or style, he is addressed in the opening of a letter and in speech in exactly the same way as any other title-holder. It should be noted, however, that some titled officers prefer to be addressed by their Service rank.

If Admiral Sir Guy Jones expresses his preference to be addressed ‘Dear Admiral Jones’ instead of ‘Dear Sir Guy’, this should of course be observed.

On an envelope the service rank appears before the title, except ‘His Excellency’.

The one aspect of Debrett’s that has to be taken into account (in the historical sense as far as authoring historical novels goes), is that Debrett’s has continually updated its etiquette in relation to modern day rules of engagement. Take medieval and early post medieval forms of address – verbal and written – and one can see a differing theme in respect of titles. After all, a prince was referred to as his grace, so too monarchs who were also referred to as Sire/Majesty, et al.) Slowly changes came about as medieval squires (servants) seemingly vanished somewhere along the way and county squires (landowners) who had their own servants are the only reference to squires. What a turn-around in social standing that is? 

Prior, during, and post English Civil War and stretching to the Georgian era, names came before title and in many aristocratic circles remained thus until the reign of William IV & the Victorian era, i.e. Charles Standish, Duke of Wherever. Letters were thus addressed to the duke by a fellow aristocrats as Charles Standish, The Duke of Wherever. Whilst lesser persons in society (knowing their place) would address a letter to The Duke of Wherever, and head the letter with Dear Duke. On the other hand, in private letters between aristocrats, one may address the duke as Dear Standish, and if close or related another may use, Dear Charles, or plain Charles. 

By the Georgian era, Squires (county gentlemen) would become magistrates wielding lesser judicial power than county court circuit judges, but nonetheless, these squire magistrates were greatly feared by poachers and livestock rustlers. I do not think I need to enlighten any of you as to why that was so, except local knowledge added greatly to a squire’s intelligence networking. What other interesting aspects of Historical Britain post English Civil War strikes a note with you?

Debrett’s was a publishing books with another before 1800. In 1803 Debrett put out its first Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland.  The books were not with a red binding as you see in the image above. They were the size of a regular paperback book with the peerage of each country in a separate volume.

Burke’s Peerage was started after the Debrett’s. Before either there were other publishers who published the information Dods and Lodge. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/28/death-blue-bloods-red-book-debretts-moves-online/?fbclid=IwAR0Pvf8Pp9z4h2C8x4Sl0EC0oayl6v1ap753vleqMi88-QS4X3Po6nxwZzI

In the past, peerage dictionaries have appeared frequently, not only from the publishers of Burke and Debrett’s, but under such editorial names as Collins, Dod, Foster, Lodge and Whitaker, and any of these will include details of peerages extant at the time of their publication; however, the Second World War brought all but the first famous pair to an end, and even Burke and Debrett’s appear on an occasional rather than an annual basis nowadays. Apart from these two, the editors of the great ‘Complete Peerage’ make reference to a number of other printed peerage works which, in view of this usage, might be considered of more than average authenticity: 

  1. Collins’ Peerage of England, edited by Sir E. Brydes, 9 volumes (1812). – The first edition, edited by Arthur Colins was published in one volume in 1709. 
  2. Compendium English Peerage, 1718-69, 13 volumes; Compendium Scottish Peerage 1720-64, 7 editions; Compendium Irish Peerage, 1722*-56, 5 editions 
  3. Crawfurd’s Peerage of Scotland, 1716 (with 2nd and 3rd editions in 17190.
  4. Crossley’s Peerage of Ireland, 1725.
  5. Douglas’s Peerage of Scotland, 2nd edition, ed. J. P. Wood, 2 volumes, 1813 (The 1st edition, in one volume, was published in 1764).
  6. Dugdale’s Baronage of Scotland, 2 volumes, 1675-76*.
  7. Hewlett’s Dignities in the Peerage of Scotland which are dormant or forfeited, 1882.
  8. Lodge’s Peerage of Ireland, 2nd edition, ed. M. Archdall, 7 volumes, 1789, (The 1st edition in 4 volumes was published in 1752.)
  9. Selden’s Titles of Honour, 3rd edition, 1672 (The 1st edition was published in 1614).

Ranks and Privileges of the Peerage

Image of Nancy Lawrence’s website from English Peerage,

This is what Debrett’s say it handles nowadays, but I cannot guarantee such was so for the Regency Era.

A Debrett’s entry for a peerage provides comprehensive genealogical and biographical details for a peer, including the current title holder, their family, and the history of the peerage itself. It is considered a definitive record of the British aristocracy and includes information concerning all living members of a titled family in the male line. 

Information on the current peer

For the current holder of a peerage, an entry typically includes: 

  • Full name: The peer’s complete name, including all forenames.
  • Rank of dignity: Specifies the rank of the peerage, such as duke, marquess, earl, viscount, or baron.
  • Birth date: The date of the peer’s birth.
  • Personal and professional life: Information about the peer’s career, education, and social activities, such as club memberships.
  • Correct style of address: Guidance on the proper formal etiquette for addressing the peer in correspondence or conversation. 

Genealogical information

Debrett’s provides a detailed family history for the peerage, including: 

  • Spouse: The name of the peer’s wife or husband.
  • Children: Names of all children in the male line, along with their birth dates and details of any marriages.
  • Other relatives: Information on collateral branches of the family, such as siblings, nephews, and nieces in the male line.
  • Hereditary succession: Details about the heir apparent or heir presumptive to the title.
  • Adoption and parentage: Listings may also include adopted and illegitimate children of a surviving parent. 

Information on the peerage itself

The entry also includes the history and particulars of the title: 

  • Place and date of creation: The specific Peerage (e.g., England, Scotland, Great Britain) in which the dignity was created and the date of its creation.
  • Status of the title: Mentions if the peerage has become extinct, dormant, abeyant, or disclaimed.
  • Armorial bearings: Many entries are illustrated with the armorial bearings (coat of arms) of the title-holding family. 

Posted in aristocracy, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Inheritance, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Might the New Heir Style Himself with His Title?

Posted on March 27, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Question from a Reader: When might the new heir style himself with his title?

To the best of my knowledge he could do so immediately. The reality of your question has to do with when the title is officially bestowed upon him by the House of Lords. In truth, he could be called by his new title upon hearing of his relation’s passing. The question is more when “should” he do so rather than when “could” he do so.

This is a matter of how he chooses to style himself until the title is officially conferred. It is a point that actually also reveals something of character.

If the gentleman holds a solid claim and everyone knows it, he might assume the title at once as a form of address. His servants and all about him would begin calling him by his new title. Naturally, he would not have access to any of the estates or funds or rights of the title until it is legally confirmed by the House of Lords. If his claim is a bit shaky, he or others might want to avoid that until it is proven.

If he is a stickler for legal protocols, he might not assume the title at once, though others might begin to do so.

Of course, as an author, one must keep in mind not to confuse the reader with references to both the title and his surname, which might seem like two different characters, so that becomes a bit tricky.

When a father dies, the transfer of power and title happens  automatically.  The father’s will might require some wait for probate of some items but usually the executor and a solicitor see to all of it. 

Notice of the death of the previous peer is usually sent to the College of Arms and the name of the new peer recorded by them. All is straightforward and customarily goes without a hitch.

When Lord Byron succeeded to his great uncle’s peerage at age 10, he did nothing and all assumed he  was entitled to the peerage. He was not brought up in aristocratic circles so became very angry when he was told that in order to take his seat in the House of Lords he had to prove he was the rightful successor. This meant he had to show his father’s relationship to the previous peer and that his father was born of a valid marriage and that he [meaning Byron] was also born in a valid marriage and that his great uncle’s sons were dead and without issue. Of course that involved fees. Fortunately for Byron, he only had to  show a couple of generations. Some times the proofs had to go back six generations.

When the Earl of Berkeley died in 1811, he left something like 10 children. His oldest son was known as a viscount.

However, a marquess brought up the fact to the HoLs that when the boy/heir was born, he was listed as  the son of the earl and his mistress. Fearing this might be an issue, Earl Berkeley publicly married his mistress [again?] in 1795, saying that it was just a reaffirmation of their vows because the place they had originally married had burned and the files were lost.

Several people were called as witnesses. Each reluctantly had to say that the old earl had spoken of  the woman as a mistress and not as a wife for the first years of the oldest son’s life.  The oldest son had been left the castle in the father’s will and all the children had been left nice fortunes, as long as they did not dispute the  earl’s story that all the children were legitimate.

A 16 year old was named earl, but he never claimed the title. His mother and older brother told him where to sign as they effectively handled the property. He never even  married. I often thought he did not marry because he doubted he could find a wife who would be willing to be plain Mrs. Berkeley and not The Countess of Berkeley.

The title was dormant for most of the century.

The oldest son was created a peer by William IV, who also created his own eldest son a peer.

Berkeley Family Tree

Ancestry of the Berkeley Family

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Question from a Reader? Do You Have Any Insights on Stud Farms in the Regency Era?

Posted on March 25, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

QUESTION: What do you know about horses and stud farms that might assist me in writing my story?

In truth, when I have a question on horses or riding, my editor is quite helpful. She owns several horses and can usually find what I need quicker than I do.

Since you did not center in on one particular aspect, below you will find some information that might assist in your search.

image via Sharon Lathan, Novelist website

The Duke of Rutland and the earl of Jersey, both present in the Regency era, had much to do with racing. I think the Duke had a stud farm. Some of his horses won races. See if the Sporting Magazine is in Google books or stud books. Warning: Watch when searching for “stud records” because of the pornographers 

Regency Reticle has a piece entitled “Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Horse and Stable Management” and Jane Austen’s World has “A Grim Reality: The Life of a Coach Horse in the Regency Era,” but those do not speak to stud farms.

Some of the web pages about the Foundation horses in England have information about the breeders and then one can cross check with other media.

I do know some basics that should prove true in any era. Race horses are actually a great way to spend money (not so good at making money). The Prince Regent was said to have spent 30,000 pounds on his stud in one year. There’s a tremendous amount of capital that must go into breeding operations–not just the land and stables, but staff to care for the horse and the horses themselves. And, if you’re taking race horses, they have to be raced–you can’t get the stud feeds for unproven sires (or unproven dams). That means the expense of transport for the horse to various racing meets, the training, the jockeys, the entry fees, feed because a race horse must be grained, shoes, equipment, stabling, and on and on.

Then there is the purchase of breeding stock–you do need mares and lots of them, and it is going to take years to get foals on the ground and running (most breeding programs are the work of a lifetime). You might get other folks to pay for stud fees and bring their mares to your stallions, but the foal belongs to the mare’s owner (not to you), so it will not advance any breeding program you have. And stud fees will not cover costs unless you have a name sire–that proven stallion with a great reputation. That means you have to pay to buy that stud unless someone gifts you that horse.

There’s also the heartache of the two-year-old who breaks down, the three-year-old hopeful who ends up not winning any races, and the mares who have colic or lose their foals for other reasons. On top of that you have to add in the mares who end up barren and studs that prove a disappointment in that they do not pass along their success or whose bloodlines fall out of fashion.

More specifically to the Regency era, stud farms in the Regency era were large, privately owned estates for breeding horses, particularly for racing, with some of the most elaborate belonging to the nobility and royalty. These farms were complex operations, featuring elaborate stables, separate buildings for feed and equipment, and living quarters for staff, while most working horses were stabled in individual stalls, and breeding stock was kept at pasture. 

Key features of Regency stud farms

While most were private, monastic institutions also played a role in horse breeding, particularly before the Regency era, and some, like the Einsiedeln Abbey stud in Switzerland, still exist today. 

Cost

The most impressive studs were for the wealthy and aristocratic classes, who could afford to build large, multi-building complexes. Some even had ornate features and decorations, with stables comparable in grandeur to the main house.

A major focus was breeding horses for the lucrative sport of horse racing. The Prince Regent, for example, reportedly had a racing stud that cost him a fortune annually.

Stables and housing:

Stables were often housed in large, courtyard-style buildings. Housing included individual stalls, with a log and rope system, while loose boxes were less common and reserved for stallions or mares about to foal. Above the stables, haylofts stored fodder, and living quarters for grooms and other staff were often located. Areas for washing down horses and storing tack and carriages were also included.

Support staff and infrastructure: 

A large staff of grooms and other workers was essential for the upkeep of the horses, which included feeding, grooming, and general care to keep the animals in prime condition.

Pasture and exercise: 

Breeding stock was kept at pasture, but most working horses spent their time stabled, returning to pasture when needed for exercise.

If the person is lucky, and he has the right stallion with a great reputation (not just for racing, but for also breeding winners), and then the person has the right mare to breed as well, and all goes well, then in two years, he might get a yearling that will fetch a really good price at auction, say at Tattersalls:

http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/london/tattersalls-in-the-edwardian-era/

However, it’s unlikely the huge prices will go for an unknown stable with unproven stock. And this is not a short-term investment. You need that capital to put down to start that breeding program, and if that luck is with you, you might start seeing really good success in something more like five to ten years.

Some good reference books:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Thomas McKean, The “Last” Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Posted on March 24, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

ThomasMcKean-228x300

Thomas McKean http://www.dsdi1776.com/ signers-by-state/thomas-mckean/

Thomas McKean was 42 years of age when he signed the Declaration of Independence. A lawyer by trade, McKean had married twice and had 11 children. He died in June of 1817, meaning he also saw the War of 1812, also against the British. He was 83 years old then.

The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence tells us something of Thomas McKean’s lineage, “The McKean family ancestry shows an interesting progression, from Scotland to Ireland to America. Thomas McKean’s great-great-great grandfather, William McKean, of Argyleshire, Scotland sought refuge in Ireland in the late 1600s because of religious and political persecution. His son, John McKean, a loyal defender of Londonderry in 1668-1669, died at Ballymony, Ireland. Thomas McKean’s grandfather, William McKean, came with his wife Susannah and family from Londonderry and Ballymony in 1725, and settled on a 300 acre plantation in Chester County.”

Thomas McKean (19 Mar. 1734 – 24 June 1817) was born in Chester County, Pennsylvania, the son of William McKean, an innkeeper and farmer, and Letitia Finney. He studied at Francis Alison’s  New London Academy (1742-1750), then left to study law (1750-1754) with his cousin David Finney of New Castle, Delaware. He joined the Delaware bar in 1754 and expanded his practice into Pennsylvania (1755) and New Jersey (1765). Following his admittance to practice before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1757, he gained admission to the Society of the Middle Temple in London as a specialiter, which permitted him to earn certification in 1758 as a barrister without attending.

“McKean’s ability and drive brought him numerous appointments, including deputy prothonotary and recorder for the probate of wills for New Castle County (1752), deputy attorney general (1756), trustee of the New Castle Loan Office (1764-1772), justice of the peace (1765), and despite his criticism of English policies, collector of customs for New Castle (1771). A proponent of public education, he acted as a sponsor of the New London Academy, became a trustee of the Newark Academy, and in 1779 served as a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. McKean was a longtime member of the Society for Promotion of Agriculture, the American Philosophical Society (which he served as a counselor), and the Order of the Cincinnati. To provide relief for needy Irish immigrants he helped found the Hibernian Society (1790) and served as its president. (American National Biography Online)

“By the time he reached his majority Thomas McKean was over six feet tall. Frequently he was see wearing a large cocked hat, fashionable at the time and was never without his gold-headed cane. It is said that he had a quick temper and a vigorous personality. He had a thin face, hawk’s nose and his eyes would be described by some as ‘hot’. Some wondered at his popularity with his clients as he was known for a “lofty and often tactless manner that antagonized many people”. He tended to be, what some might describe as a loner, seldom mixing with others except on public occasions. John Adams described him as ‘one of the three men in the Continental Congress who appeared to me to see more clearly to the end of the business than any others in the body.’

“Both as Chief Justice and later as Governor of Pennsylvania he could be found at the center of a number of controversies. Not wanting to be over burdened with his studies Thomas on December 28, 1757 elected to join the Richard Williams company of foot. He would later rise to the rank of Colonel in the militia. At this time most officer ranks were voted on by the individual militia members and not necessarily by military accomplishments.” (Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

McKean married twice. First he exchanged vows with Mary Borden of Bordentown, New Jersey, in 1763. Together they had six children before her death a decade later. (Yes, that is six children in ten years!)  McKean’s second marriage was to Sarah Armitage of New Castle County (1774). With Sarah, he sired five children. In 1773, McKean moved to Philadelphia. There, he was named to the Committee of Inspection and Observation (1776), colonel of the City’s Fourth Battalion of Associators, and president of the Provincial Conference called to lay the groundwork for a state constitutional convention (18-25 June 1776).

An important Presbyterian voice in the opposition to English policies after 1763, McKean represented Delaware in the Stamp Act Congress (1765), where he argued for a strong statement of American rights. He carried out judicial proceedings on unstamped paper while serving as a county judge, and he encouraged others to do likewise. “McKean also helped to orchestrate Delaware’s resistance to the Townshend Duties (1767-1769) and served in the First and Second Continental Congresses. In the months before independence he sat on five standing congressional committees, including the important Secret Committee. He served in Congress from 1774 to 1783. There he saved Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) from removal as American representative to France (1779), signed the Articles of Confederation (1781), and briefly acted as its president (1781).

“McKean embraced the radical position early. On 10 June 1776 he and his battalion of associators announced publicly that they favored independence. And it was he who on 14 June placed before the Delaware Assembly an official copy of Congress’s 10-15 May resolve and successfully urged its acceptance and the suspension of the proprietary government. In Congress on 1 July 1776 McKean voted for independence; but finding Delaware’s vote split between his positive vote and George Read’s negative position, he urgently sent for the absent Rodney, who arrived on 2 July to cast Delaware’s deciding vote for independence. McKean then participated in the discussion and acceptance of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence on 4 July. (In later years he correctly disputed the growing assumption that delegates had signed the Declaration on 4 July. When McKean himself signed the Declaration remains a matter of debate. It doubtless was sometime in 1777, but it could have been as late as 1781.) McKean chaired a meeting on 5 July to discuss common strategy for the defense of the middle states and means to correlate congressional and state military efforts before accompanying his battalion to Perth Amboy, where it saw limited action.” (American National Biography Online)

225px-ThomasMcKean2During the last day of the First Continental Congress, several members of the body refused to sign the memorial of rights and grievances. McKean rose to ask President, Timothy Ruggles why the man refused to sign the document. In the ensuing debate, Ruggles said, “… it was against his conscious.” McKean argued against Ruggles’ use of the word ‘conscious’. McKean then issued a challenge to Ruggles, and a duel was accepted and witnessed by the whole body. However, no duel ever took place as Ruggles left early the next morning. A disgraced Ruggles fled to Massachusetts where he became a leading Tory. He later moved to Nova Scotia.

After the war, McKean served as governor of Delaware, while serving as a chief justice in Pennsylvania. There was controversy regarding his actual signing of the Declaration of Independence. Some sources list McKean as the last signer, claiming he did not sign until right before he died at the age of 83. The official version of the Declaration (released in 1777) does not include his name. Some historians believe he did not sign the document until 1781. 

One of McKean’s descendants writes, “But there is contrary evidence. The original copy of the document was deposited with the Delaware secretary of state but when the printed copy was released, McKean’s signature was found to be missing, in both the 1777 and 1800 editions. I would now like to refer you, good reader, to a letter written in Thomas McKean’s own hand to Mr. Alexander J. Dallas of Pennsylvania. The letter is dated 26th September, 1796 and was subsequently published in ‘Sanderson’s Lives’. I quote in part-

images“My name is not in the printed journals of congress, as a party to the Declaration of Independence, as this, like an error in the first concoction, has vitiated most of the subsequent publications; and yet the fact is, that I was a member of congress for the state of Delaware, was personally present in congress, and voted in favor of independence on the 4th of July 1776, and signed the declaration after it had been engrossed on parchment, where my name, in my own hand writing, still appears. It continues, ‘… that on the 19th day of July, 1776, the congress directed that it should be engrossed on parchment, and signed by every member, and that it was so produced on the 2nd of August, and signed. This is interlined in the secret journal, in the hand of Charles Thompson, the secretary. The present secretary of state of the United States, and myself, have lately inspected the journals, and seen this. The journal was first printed by Mr. John Dunlap, in 1778, and probably copies, with the names then signed to it, were printed in August, 1776, and that Mr. Dunlap printed the names from one of them. In this, McKean seems to have been mistaken, since most historians believe that only 50 delegates signed the Declaration on August 2, with documented evidence that the remaining six signed in the months following, and is so stated in the history of the period by the National Archives.” (Thomas McKean)

mckgrave

http://www.dsdi1776.com/ signers-by-state/thomas-mckean/

In Signing Their Lives Away, Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnest (page 147) write, “Further complicating McKean’s case was the fact that Rhomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams all referred to July 4 as the day of the signing, cementing that day into the national psyche. In a posthumously published statement, McKean in effect said: No one signed the Declaration on July 4, 1776. If you do your homework, you’ll discover that at least seven of the signers were not even elected to Congress until after July 4, 1776. Shockingly, in 1819, seventy-six-year-old Jefferson dismissed McKean’s claims that no one signed on the fourth, writing ‘Mr. McKean was very old, and his memory much decayed when he gave his statement.’ Ironically, historians today say they are more persuaded by McKean’s statement than by Jefferson’s.”

Posted in Uncategorized, British history, America, American History, Declaration of Independence | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Handfasting as a Plot Point in Regency Romances

Posted on March 23, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Okay, I have used this as a plot point of a couple of my Regency romances, most notably in Lady Chandler’s Sister and A Dance with Mr. Darcy, but in each book, the actual marriage did not occur with a handfasting situation.

Basically, it is hard to find evidence that the ceremony called handfasting ever existed. Some do say it was something that was practiced in earlier earlier days in remote sections of Scotland. Others say it is just a sort of “myth” or confused with old style of betrothal.

In some accounts the hands of the man and woman are bound together with some sort of scarf or ribbon. In others, they hold hands and make a declaration that they were hand fasted.

This was actually the equivalent of a very “public affair” for a year. The couple announced they were essentially doing what modern times call “shacking up.” At the end of the year or anytime before that, the couple can separate and go handfast with another or marry another.

However, the couple were considered firmly married if the woman became pregnant.

A couple of things are wrong with this:

Scotland had marriage by declaration. If two people claimed they were married and lived together as married, they were considered married and required a divorce to  marry another. You will read something similar in the last book of my Dragonblade mystery series, Lyon on the Inside, but with a slight twist.

Most of the Scots disapproved of couples living together outside of marriage. They disapproved of marriage by declaration and wanted banns and a church service and disliked the casual marriage by declaration of a “Over the Anvil” priest.

There is nothing at all in the laws of Scotland or England to make one believe either country or church would tolerate such a temporary situation.

I think the idea of living together for a year-and-a-day came from the law that said a woman had to be married for a year and a day in order to be considered as a “widow” if the husband died— that is, unless, a child was born.

Anyway, an author can have a man and woman meeting up again after some years. Then the story gets complicated. The couple can say they were hand fasted. Well if they were handfasted, the child made it a marriage, and they were married so the child was legitimate. If they were not married in Scotland—even if they later marry, the child is illegitimate. If they aren’t married because they were not really handfasted, then they have to marry in Scotland and the boy can be legitimate.

As I don’t believe hand fasting existed then, the child is illegitimate. If the child were born in Scotland and the couple marry in Scotland, the law there allows the child to be legitimate.

 I know this explanation is probably more confusing than clarifying. Part of that is due, I claim, to the fact that the the author had some parts of handfasting process wrong. Even if it never existed, the points of action about it should be correct.

Handfasting could not work if the couple is marrying in England. There are varying views on Handfasting. Definitely it is a Scottish “tradition” and not an English one. Some say the union is consummated and some say not.

Sir Walter Scott described it as “When we are handfasted, as we term it, we are man and wife for a year and a day; that space gone by, each may choose another mate, or, at their pleasure, may call the priest to marry them for life; and this we call handfasting.”

Sir Walter Scott did do research into practices of Scotland and write about them, but he was looking more for romantical items. He presented a romantical (ROMANCE ERA POETS) view of history. Historians cannot find that handfasting took place in lowlands or were considered legal. To me, hat makes sense, especially the highland/lowland difference. The Highlanders held to their Celtic roots, while lowlanders eased towards the same practices as the English. Of course, I have to defend that the highlanders handfasted in the 13th Century and not all the way to the 19th Century. Helps, though, that there is so little research at the time. Fictional license helps too, but only if the readers allow/accept it.

There was no need for the handfasting if the couple did not live together as man and wife and no need to say that the union became a marriage if a child was conceived if the marriage was not consummated. It does appear sometimes that those who who did not like irregular marriages accepting handfasting.

In any event, often in a book I am reading that has a handfasting scene, my head swims not because the act may never had existed, but all the restrictions the author places on it. That is my complaint, not so much as that the author had a couple who had been handfasted years before, but stick to the “accepted” rules of the tale.

**The other thing  is that the handfasting took place between two people of the aristocracy around the 19th century. The 13th century was an entirely different place.

There is enough material suggesting that someone practiced it to make it legitimate for a novelist.

Posted in books, British Navy, Church of England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Living in the Regency, reading habits, Regency era, Regency romance, research, romance, Scotland, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Handfasting as a Plot Point in Regency Romances

Kissing a Woman’s Hand, a Jane Austen Perspective

Posted on March 20, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

References to hand-kissing in Jane Austen’s novels, particularly as a gesture of respect and affection can be found in four of her novels. While not a daily occurrence, kissing of the back of the hand was a recognized form of greeting and a way for gentlemen to show deference to certain ladies. However, Austen also subtly critiques this practice, suggesting it could be a superficial display of manners, especially when compared to genuine feeling. 

In Pride and Prejudice, the absence of open displays of affection, like hand-kissing between Elizabeth and Darcy, emphasizes the depth of their connection built on shared understanding and mutual respect. The focus shifts from the superficial to a deeper appreciation of each other’s character. 

From the very end of Chapter 52 of Pride and Prejudice: (Elizabeth and Mr. Wickham)

She held out her hand; he kissed it with affectionate gallantry, though he hardly knew how to look, and they entered the house.

In Chapter 31 of Sense and Sensibility, we find Elinor and Colonel Brandon. This is after he has made his very personal disclosure to Elinor.

He could say no more, and rising hastily walked for a few minutes about the room. Elinor, affected by his relation, and still more by his distress, could not speak. He saw her concern, and coming to her, took her hand, pressed it, and kissed it with grateful respect. 

Austen’s characters sometimes engage in hand-kissing, but the author also uses these moments to explore deeper themes of genuine emotion versus superficial displays of etiquette. For example, in Emma, Mr. Knightley almost kisses Emma’s hand, but she questions whether his hesitation is due to a sudden scruple or if she misinterpreted the situation. 

In both cases, the gentlemen were not the love interest of the lady whose hand they kissed, and the kiss on the hand was one of brotherly affection/regard. Because Jane Austen only used the kiss on the hand twice, and in both cases to signify the familial regard (and in those days, when one married into the family, you became family) we might therefore always interpreted the almost-kiss-on-the-hand from Knightley (for Emma) as being a strong indicator that he, at that point, no longer feels brotherly towards Emma. And because of that, from Knightley’s perspective, to kiss her hand as he would no doubt have done in earlier times, would be to deny the true character of his feelings toward her. 

There are two more references to kissing of hands in Jane Austen’s works, but they are observations/comments made of or by minor characters in passing.  One of them, where another character kisses his own hand towards a lady, takes place during a conversation between the Admiral Croft when he’s speaking to Anne as they walk along Milsom Street (Chapter 18) in Persuasion.  

“…There comes old Sir Archibald Drew and his grandson. Look, he sees us; he kisses his hand to you; he takes you for my wife…” 

The fourth and final instance in which a gentleman kisses a lady’s hand is not a gentleman at all. It is when Harriet Smith, and it is not a lover’s kiss either or in any way flirtatious. This kiss expresses Harriet’s gratitude and deep admiration for Emma’s friendship and influence.

But it was the character of all four instances in JA’s stories that persuaded me that all the hand kissing in modern Regencies is a modern-day invention. I don’t know about anyone else, but I can’t help but feel that a man, who is not family by blood or marriage, who kisses a lady’s hand in public breaks so many of the rules of acceptable behaviour, and would embarrass the hell of out any 18th/early 19th century miss on the receiving end of it. She would be horrified/mortified to have been so singled out in front of everyone, to have gossip-greedy people avidly speculating about what she may have been up to to attract such behaviour.

I did find something from Jane Austen about hand kissing. It is from “Jane Austen’s Guide to Good Manners.” It is a book compiled from Jane Austen’s letters to her niece Anna Austen who was writing her own novel in 1814, ‘it is a point of English decorum that they should do so; flamboyances and flourishes, such as kissing hands &c., are best left to other nationalities. The lack of ostentation does not indicate any lack of feelings. Between sisters, or ladies of equal age, or rand, within family, a kiss on the cheek is acceptable; gentlemen and lades on affectionate terms may exchange a cordial handshake.In almost every circumstance, a gentleman will make a slight bow, a lady, a restrained curtsey, on meeting. The depth and duration of these gestures should be in proportion to the honour they are intended to confer. A slight inclination of the head, a swift bob of the knee, will suffice. A more exaggerated gesture, such s the twist of the head, which is a sign of foppery, rather than good manners; and the constant ‘low bows’ are ill-judged and obsequious. 

Though hand-kissing is mentioned, it is not a constant element in her novels, suggesting it was a specific, purposeful gesture rather than a common occurrence. 

For Other Perspectives Try:

Intimacy Direction and Regency Era Direction

Kisses and Embraces in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice by Rachel Dodge

Thank Goodness We Don’t Have to Do That Anymore: Hand Kissing

Posted in book excerpts, customs and tradiitons, Emma, George Wickham, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments