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 America, American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, Uncategorized | 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

It’s Here!!! Lost in the Lyon’s Garden: The Lyon’s Den Connected World from Dragonblade Publishing

Posted on March 18, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Was it too late for love, now that she had found it?

Lord Benjamin Thompson and Miss Victoria Whitchurch met quite accidentally under an umbrella on a rainy day in London. They collided as they darted around the corner of a building, but neither realized the ramifications of their meeting. Miss Whitchurch was in London to locate her missing sister, a fallen woman who had cost the Whitchurch family everything. Lord Thompson was concentrating on his family’s lack of clues as to who shot his father. Neither understood how fate had just changed both their lives forever.

After a near fatal encounter outside the infamous Lyon’s Den gaming hell, Thompson could not shake the idea that his family of trained agents for the British government had overlooked something important. There had to be more clues to discover, and, unlike his brothers, men of action, Thompson was a man of reason. Of analysis. Of humanity. He knew them all well, and they had never failed him previously, but when additional encounters with Miss Whitchurch proved the woman was in danger, he turned his sense of reason on ways to protect the lady. Little did Thompson know, their lives had overlapped more than he expected.

Seamstress and former music teacher, Miss Victoria Whitchurch is on a mission to find her sister after Cassandra left her illegitimate son in the room the sisters had once shared, walking away from her responsibilities in typical Cassandra fashion. Yet, London is so large, and Victoria has never known city life beyond Bath. She means to protect the infant boy entrusted to her care.

The tall, sexy English lord may be clueless about her feelings for him, but Victoria knows he is the only one who can keep her and the child safe. As a vengeful killer targets both Thompson’s family and hers, desire and something more draws Victoria and Benjamin closer. Together, can they discover justice for the child and safeguard their newly created family?

Tropes You’ll Love:

  • Friends to Lovers
  • Soul Mates
  • Unrequited Love
  • Dark secrets
  • Emotional scars
  • Honorable Marriage
  • Forced Proximity
  • Suddenly a “Parent”
  • Alpha Hero
  • Damsel in Distress

Read in Kindle Unlimited!

Enjoy book these books in a new series within The Lyon’s Den Connected world by Regina Jeffers.

Book 1 – Lyon in the Way

Book 2 – Lyon’s Obsession

Book 3 – Lyon in Disguise

Book 4 – Lost in the Lyon’s Garden

Book 5 – Lyon on the Inside

Kindle https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GM33R4WQ

Posted in aristocracy, book release, books, British history, Dragonblade Publishers, eBooks, Georgian England, Georgian Era, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Living in the Regency, marriage, medicine, mystery, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, St. Andrew | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Francis Lewis, a founder of the Sons of Liberty and a Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

francis-lewis-1713-1803-granger (Francis Lewis, 1713-1803, Print by Granger, fineartamerica.com)

Frances Lewis was a 63 years old Welshman living in America when the Declaration of Independence was signed. He was a merchant by trade and the father of seven. He was 89 years old when he died in 1802.

Born in Llandaff, Cardiff, Wales on 21 March 1713, Francis Lewis was the only child of the Reverend Morgan Lewis, an Episcopalian minister, and Am Pettingal, the daughter of a clergyman. Unfortunately, he became an orphan at the age of five and was taken in by a maternal maiden aunt. His mother’s family sent Francis to Scotland to school, where he learned Gaelic, and later attended the prestigious Westminster School in London.

Upon graduation, Lewis became an apprentice in a London mercantile business. At age 21, he inherited a bit of property from his father, which he converted to merchandise and saw it to New York City in approximately 1734, where he claimed a new business partner, a man named Edward Annesley. He left half of the merchandise for Annesley to sell and took the other half with him to Philadelphia. Eventually, he made several journeys back across the Atlantic to visit northern Europe, St. Petersburg, northern Scotland, and Africa. According to all tales, Lewis survived two shipwrecks, both off the coast of Ireland. 

Eventually in 1745, he settled down in New York and married Elizabeth Annesley, the younger sister of his business partner. Together, they had seven children, four of whom died in infancy. His wife’s family held strong business connections in England, and Lewis earned a contract as clothing provider for the British soldiers during the French and Indian War. In August 1756, he was at Fort Oswego when the French and their Indian allies attacked. In fact, he was standing beside Colonel Mersey, the fort’s commander, when Mersey was killed. “The fort surrendered to Montcalm under assurance of safety, but he then allowed his Indian allies to select 30 prisoners to do with as they pleased. Lewis was among the 30 chosen, facing either death or captivity. Fortunately, Lewis found the Native Americans’ language similar to the native language of Wales and was able to speak with them. Their chief treated Lewis kindly and returned him to Montreal, requesting that he be returned to his family. Instead, Lewis was sent to France as a prisoner. He eventually returned to the colonies in a prisoner exchange in 1763, and the British government granted him 5,000 acres of land in New York by way of compensation for the seven lost years of his life.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

Lewis used the grant to reestablish himself in business and was extremely successful, retiring at the age of 52 in 1761. According to the Encyclopedia of American Wealth, Lewis was ranked fifth among all signers of the Declaration of Independence. 

“Lewis now became active in public life. The issue of taxation without representation turned his loyalties from the Crown to the Revolutionary movement, and he became known as one of New York City’s leading radicals. He attended the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 and became a founding member of the Sons of Liberty. The Committee of Fifty, which was formed in New York in 1774 to protest the closing of the port of Boston, became the Committee of Fifty-One when Lewis became the 51st member on May 16. He attended the New York provincial convention and helped set up the colony’s new government.

“In 1771 Francis Lewis helped his son, Francis, Jr., set up a dry goods business called Francis Lewis & Son., and turned the management over to him as it became successful. In 1775 Lewis moved his family and their belongings to an estate he acquired in Whitestone, New York.

“Lewis was elected a representative in the First and Second Continental Congresses, and in 1775 he signed the Olive Branch Petition pledging American loyalty and seeking to resolve the colonies’ disputes with the British government. Lewis rarely participated in the general debates in Congress but was very effective in committee work. His financial experience and business talent made him a valued member of the committees on which he served in Congress, and the wealth that he had acquired was freely expended in the service of his country. Letters dating from the winter of 1775 with other merchants (including Jabez Huntington of Norwich, Connecticut, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., of Philadelphia, Robert Morris of Baltimore, and Robert Treat Paine of New York) reveal the particulars of his involvement in procuring clothing such as felt hats, buckskin breeches and coats for General Schuyler’s continental army.

“His letters exhibit a strong concern for precise detail, accurate accounting and fair cost in procuring these supplies. Francis Lewis, John Alsop of New York City, and Philip Livingston of Albany contracted with the Secret Committee on October 9 to supply arms and ammunition to the colonies. Benjamin Rush called Lewis “a very honest man and very useful in executive business.”

“The year 1776 saw momentum growing for American independence. On July 2, 1776, Lewis Morris and his fellow New York delegates sent an urgent message to the New York Provincial Congress asking for instructions with regard to American independence: ‘The important Question of Independency was agitated yesterday in a Committee of the whole Congress, and this Day will be finally determined in the House. We know the Line of our Conduct on this Occasion; we have your Instructions, and will faithfully pursue them. New Doubts and Difficulties however will arise should Independency be declared…………We wish therefore for your earliest Advice and Instructions whether we are to consider our Colony bound by the Vote of the Majority in Favour of Independency, and vote at large on such Questions as may arise in Consequence thereof, or only concur in such Measures as may be absolutely necessary for the Common safety and defence of America exclusive of the Idea of Independency. We fear it will be difficult to draw the Line; but once possessed of your Instructions we will use our best Endeavours to follow them.’

150px-Francis_Lewis_signature“Without clear instructions Francis Lewis and the other members of the New York delegation were compelled to abstain from the votes for independence on July 2 and the Declaration of Independence on July 4. Both votes were carried by a unanimous vote of the other colonies, 12 to 0. Within a few days the New York delegation received authorization to join with the other 12 colonies, and on August 2, Francis Lewis joined with most of the other delegates of Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence.

“In a 1776 correspondence with Elizabeth Gates, the wife of General Horatio Gates of Philadelphia, Lewis reported that her son, then in New York, was healthy and applying himself to his studies. He also shared his distress for his family in Whitestone.

“This concern was well founded. Elizabeth Lewis was described as a woman of high character with an undaunted spirit. Elizabeth took up residence at Whitestone in 1765 and remained there despite long absences by her husband and sons. After the Battle of Brooklyn in August, 1776, British Captain Birtch was sent with a troop of light horse to destroy the Lewis home. Elizabeth remained calm as the soldiers advanced and a British warship opened fire on the house. A soldier tore the glittering buckles from her shoes that looked to him like gold but were really just pinchbeck. ‘All that glitters is not gold,’ she remarked to the discomfited young man. The soldiers destroyed books from his valuable library, papers, and pictures, and ruthlessly broke up furniture. After thoroughly pillaging the house they took Elizabeth captive and threw her into prison without a bed or a change of clothing, and with scant food. When this was brought to the attention of General Washington, he ordered the arrest of Mrs. Barren, wife of the British Paymaster-General and Mrs. Kempe, wife of the Attorney-General of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He made it known that his captives would receive the same treatment as Mrs. Lewis unless an exchange was made. The exchange was arranged, but Elizabeth’s health was seriously impaired by her captivity and imprisonment. She joined Francis in Philadelphia in broken health and died in June 1779 with Francis at her side.

“During the winter at Valley Forge, Lewis was a strong supporter of George Washington when the Conway Cabal agitated to replace Washington with General Gates. In November 1778, Francis Lewis signed the Articles of Confederation, one of just 16 signers of the Declaration to do so.

220px-0031TIARA_P1000455 (Memorial to Francis Lewis at Trinity Church Cemetery,  New York City, Wikipedia) “Lewis retired from public service in 1781. He served for a time as vestryman of Trinity Church from 1784-1786. The old age of Francis Lewis was happy and cheerful–literature was an unfailing resource, and he enjoyed the society of his children and grandchildren, who provided him with much amusement. Twenty one years after his retirement, Lewis died on December 31, 1802, at the age of 89. He was buried in an unmarked grave in the churchyard of Trinity Church, one of New York City’s oldest and most famous Episcopal churches. A granite marker and bronze plaque were installed there in his memory in 1947 by the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence.” (Society of the Descendants of the Declaration of Independence)

Posted in America, American History, British history, business, Declaration of Independence, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Putney Heath + the Release of “Lost in the Lyon’s Garden” from Dragonblade Publishing [Arriving 18 March 2026]

Posted on March 16, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

The heath is at the top of Putney Hill, 148ft above sea level. Manor Fields tells us, “The area was a rendezvous for highwaymen. One of the most notorious, Jeremiah Abershaw, was arrested in 1795 in the Green Man. He was executed at Kennington and his body was hung in a chain gibbet on the heath as a warning to others. Dick Turpin is rumoured to have hidden his guns in an upstairs room at the Green Man and other highwaymen used the old tap room to weigh up their intended victims before setting off to waylay them.The heath became popular in the 17th century among gentry with a score to settle and many duels were fought near the Green Man. The Duke of Buckingham killed the Earl of Shrewsbury in 1667 with one stroke of his sword, leaving the duke free to continue to lavish his affections on Lady Shrewsbury. In 1798, William Pitt the Younger, when he was Prime Minister, and William Tierney MP chose to resolve a disagreement over a Parliamentary Bill by facing each other with pistols on the heath. Both missed their targets and survived, perhaps to settle their differences over a stiff drink in the Green Man or the Telegraph, another pub on the heath that became popular with duellists.”

It was not unusual for kings to review their forces upon the Heath. Charles II did so in 1684, and George II did, likewise, in 1799. Beginning in 1770, one could find a stone and brick obelisk on the heath. It marked the 110th anniversary of the Great Fire of London, there. The obelisk’s unveiling coincided with the invention of the Hartley fire plates by David Hartley, the Younger, near a spot where his fireproof house was built. The lower part of this house was repeatedly set on fire in the presence, among others, of King George III and Queen Charlotte, the members of Parliament, the Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen. [Geikie, J. C. (1903). The Fascination of London: Hammersmith, Fulham and Putney. London: A & C Black, p. 84.]

Many duels were undertaken on Putney Heath. In May 1652, George Brydges, 6th Baron Chandos, and Colonel Henry Compton fought with Compton being killed in the encounter. On a Sunday afternoon in May 1798 William Pitt, the then Prime Minister, who lived in Bowling-Green House on the heath, fought a bloodless battle with William Tierney, MP. The house derived its name from the bowling-green formerly attached to it, and for more than sixty years (1690–1750) was the most famous green in the neighbourhood of London. The house had large rooms for public breakfasts and assemblies, was a fashionable place of entertainment, and noted for “deep play.” Pitt died in the house in 1806. It was later owned by Henry Lewis Doulton, son of Henry Doulton of pottery fame. It was demolished and an art deco style residence rebuilt on the site in 1933. Putney Heath, near the Telegraph pub, was also the venue for the September 1809 duel between Cabinet ministers George Canning and Lord Castlereagh. [Geikie, J. C. (1903), The Fascination of London: Hammersmith, Fulham and Putney. London: A & C Black, pp. 84–86.]

Putney Heath was for many years a noted rendezvous for highwaymen. In 1795, the notorious highwayman Jeremiah Abershaw – also known as Jerry Avershaw – was caught in the Green Man pub (now owned by Wandsworth pub company Young’s, [“Green Man – youngs.co.uk”] on the northside of the heath where Putney Hill meets Tibbet’s Ride. After execution his body was hung in chains on the heath as a warning to others. [ Harper, Charles G (1895). “The Portsmouth Road and its Tributaries: To-day and in days of old”. London: Chapman & Hall. p. 69.] An ancient wood fence cattle pound is located opposite the Green Man, adjacent to two huge plane trees, near the bus terminus. This simple wood fence structure, used historically to contain lost livestock, has been listed as a Grade II listed structure since 1983. [Good Stuff. “Village Pond – Wandsworth – Greater London – England – British Listed Buildings”. britishlistedbuildings.co.uk.]

Posted in aristocracy, book release, British history, customs and tradiitons, Dragonblade Publishers, dueling, eBooks, Georgian England, Georgian Era, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Living in the Regency, quotes, real life tales, Regency era, Regency romance, research, suspense, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Declaring an “Unknown” Someone Dead in the Regency + the Upcoming Release of “Lost in the Lyon’s Garden” from Dragonblade Publishing [Arriving 18 March 2026]

Posted on March 13, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

In this tale, our father figure, Lord Macdonald Duncan, goes to great lengths to have Miss Cassandra Whitchurch declared dead, along with a fictional husband to create a story for the child Cassandra left behind and to protect his son Benjamin and the woman Benjamin’s wishes to marry, Miss Victoria Whitchurch. But why was all the manipulation necessary?

In the Regency period, though some things still carried over into today, declaring a person missing and presumed dead does not make them so. Cassandra’s husband is declared one of the men who died upon the battlefields of Europe.

We have all heard tales of how the person must be missing for seven years to be accounted as dead, though, it was not a statutory limit. Each case was looked at and decided on its own facts.

Even today, Lord Bingham had to wait some time before the courts would declare his father as presumed dead and then that applied only to his estate. This was the case of Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (born 18 December 1934 – disappeared 8 November 1974, who was declared dead on 27 October 1999). Bingham was commonly known as Lord Lucan. He was a British peer and gambler who vanished in 1974 after being suspected of killing his children’s nanny and attempting to murder his wife. It was only recently that the House of Lords accepted that Lord Lucan was probably dead and allowed his son to succeed to the earldom. 

Any matter of someone dying in war or elsewhere would be looked at concerning the age of the man who had disappeared and how many years it had been since then, and whether a man of his age would likely still be alive. As in the Lucan case, the peer already had a son and  a decision could finally be made. If a young man disappeared, the peerage went dormant  because it was possible that the man had been alive, married and had a legitimate son.

Naturally, to avoid all these entanglements, I wrote the child’s “pretend” father as a man of the gentry who was lost in war. No entanglements necessary for the story to progress. The child will be raised by his aunt and her new husband. He will be given a gentleman’s education and assisted with an occupation when he is old enough to make his way in the world.

The courts were never very quick to hand down peerages. It did not much matter to the world at large if a man were an earl or not. One could not touch or hold a peerage and whether or not someone held one was unimportant in the general scheme of things. What was important in the world was property.

Other than the laws against murder, most laws started out as laws to protect property.

In some ways, the earlier laws against killing a human were property laws because most people belonged to someone — some family patriarch, chief, Lord, overlord, King, emperor.

It is best if property has an owner. So the courts were more willing to declare a man presumed dead so that his estate could be passed along.

A distribution of a man’s property, according to his will and the succession according to deeds and entail could take place because all distributions were accompanied by the information that the property would have to be returned if the man returned. If it became necessary to sell a piece of property, permission would sometimes have to be sought from the court system, and, at times, even from parliament for a private bill.

Married women were in a suspended state when the husband went missing. If he had set up power of attorney, that prevailed especially if there was a son who was the natural and legal heir.

A problem arose if a woman wanted to marry again. Some had the husband declared missing and presumed dead to enable the woman to remarry. In 99 cases out of 100, there was no problem because the man was dead. In that one case (the ones we read about and devour on our Kindles), he returns. When he returns, the supposed widow is still married to the first husband and the second marriage is bigamous and the children are now illegitimate.  However, having had the man declared dead, protects the woman from being charged with bigamy and adultery. The returned husband cannot charge her with adultery no matter how many children she has had by the other man.

Of course, the other man finds his sons illegitimate. Even if the first husband dies or divorces his wife, the children can never be made legitimate in England.

Posted in Act of Parliament, book release, books, British history, Church of England, Dragonblade Publishers, eBooks, family, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, mystery, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, research, romance, series, suspense, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mourning and Mourning Clothes in the Regency + the Upcoming Release of “Lost in the Lyon’s Garden” from Dragonblade Publishing [Arriving 18 March 2026]

Posted on March 11, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

The issue of how long to mourn a loved one plays out in Lost in the Lyon’s Garden. What we often find in dealing with deaths in a Regency novel is that Victorian era practices show up.

In a large sense, one’s mourning had as much to do with what those in one’s circle thought proper and what one felt like attempting. It also seems to me that customs in the country were different from those in Town. Unless one’s main home was in the urban area, one would usually be at home in the country during mourning. Yet, such does not apply to Lord Benjamin Thompson and those who are a part of Lord Macdonald Duncan’s family. Moreover, the death happens while Parliament is in session and the aristocracy was required in Town to deal with the aftermath of the assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval. If one came to Town, it was assumed that one was ready to partake of all the entertainments offered by Town, but if one is already in Town, the rules were not so exact. A widowed duchess, for example, would be least likely to be attending balls unless she had a granddaughter to launch during the season. Of course, it depended on her age and physical health but while the parents and grandparents did dance at balls, it seems that grandmothers were usually gossiping in the chaperone’s corner and the grandfathers were playing cards. A wife of childbearing age was supposed to mourn for a year in case she was pregnant.

In The Rise of the Egalitarian Family: Aristocratic Friendships and Domestic Relations in Eighteenth Century England, Randolph Trumbach gives the following data for mourning (which would apply to the Georgian era, including the Regency):

Trumbach guessed at this. The Royal Household had a regular schedule of mourning and those who attended court had to abide by it – usually by wearing the prescribed mourning clothes. Most charts for mourning periods in this time period were based on the Royal one. The only one that was really important to society was the one for a widow of child bearing age,

* 12 months for a husband or wife

* 6 months for parents or parents-in-law However, weddings planned for this period could go forward with NO wearing of mourning.

* 3 months for a sister or brother, uncle or aunt, father’s and mother’s siblings

* 6 weeks for a sister-in-law or uncle or aunt in law

* 2 weeks for first cousin

* 1 week for second cousin or husband’s or stepmother’s sister.

For some the mourning was from the date of hearing of the death until a week or two after the funeral. One set one’s personal mourning as one felt necessary.

Donna Hatch cites Trumbach’s book in a blog post about mourning and includes other facts about clothing, etc.: https://donnahatch.com/mourning-customs-in-regency-england/

People often used mourning as an opportunity to show their distain for someone –i n other words, they intentionally did not go into mourning for someone they disliked. As far as society was concerned, it was all about showing the world what you thought of someone.

Posted in aristocracy, book release, books, British history, customs and tradiitons, Dragonblade Publishers, eBooks, film, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Living in the Regency, mystery, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, research, suspense, tradtions, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Stephen Hopkins, Surveyor, Astronomer, and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Posted on March 10, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

search

Stephen Hopkins was 69 years of age when signed the Declaration of Independence. He had been married twice and had fathered seven children. He died in 1785 at the age of 78.

Stephen Hopkins was born on 7 March 1707 in Providence, Rhode Island, the son of William Hopkins and Ruth (Wilkinson) Hopkins. He was a colonial governor, educator, judge, merchant ship owner, surveyor, patriot and cousin to Benedict Arnold. “Hopkins’ great grandfather, Thomas Hopkins, was born in 1616 and came to Providence in 1641, having followed Roger Williams there from Plymouth, England. In 1651 he moved to Newport and was appointed a member of the town committee in 1661. His mother, Ruth Wilkinson, was the granddaughter of Lawrence Wilkinson, a lieutenant in the army of Charles I, who was taken prisoner October 22, 1644 by the Scots and parliamentary troops at the surrender of Newcastle-on-Tyne. Deprived of his property, he came to New England sometime between 1645 and 1647 and was at Providence in 1652. He became a freeman in 1658, was chosen deputy to the General Court, was a soldier in the Indian wars, and became a member of the Colonial Assembly in 1659.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

Growing up in Scituate, Rhode Island, Hopkins had little formal education and his mother taught him his first lessons. His grandfather and uncle instructed him in elementary mathematics, and he read the English classics in his grandfather’s small but well-selected library. As a child Stephen Hopkins was a voracious reader, becoming a serious student of the sciences, mathematics, and literature. He became a surveyor and astronomer, and was involved in taking measurements during the 1769 transit of Venus across the sun. (Stephen Hopkins) Hopkins married Sarah Scott on October 9, 1726, when they were both just 19, and they had five sons and two daughters. Sarah was the youngest daughter of Major Sylvanus Scott and Joanna Jenks.” (SDSDI)

“Besides reading, Hopkins also gained skills in surveying from his grandfather, Samuel Wilkinson. He used his surveying skills to revise the streets and create a map of Scituate, and later did the same for Providence. Because of his responsibility as a youth, at the age of 19 Hopkins was given 70 acres (28 ha) of land by his father, after which his grandfather Hopkins bestowed an additional 90 acres (36 ha) upon him. Hopkins’ interest in surveying spilled over into an interest in astronomy and other scientific endeavors as well, which was illustrated by an event when he was much older. Before the American Revolutionary War, on June 3, 1769, Hopkins was involved in the observation of a rare astronomical event, the transit of Venus across the face of the sun. This event was used to determine the distance of the earth from the sun, and also in this case to improve the measure of the latitude of Providence. Joseph Brown noted for his scientific accomplishments as well as his commercial enterprise, was able to obtain a complete set of necessary instruments, including a reflecting telescope, a micrometer, and a sextant.  An observatory was erected on a hill in Providence where a street, later named ‘Transit Street’ in honor of the event, was laid out. Brown was assisted by a group of individuals, including Hopkins, Dr. Benjamin West, and others who were also interested in science. The observation was able to very accurately determine the latitude of Providence (to the nearest second of arc), after which the longitude was determined by comparing observations of the moons of Jupiter with similar observations made in Cambridge, England.” (Stephen Hopkins)

At age 24, Hopkins became a surveyor. In 1732 he became the Scituate town clerk. Later, he president of the Town Council. In 1742, he was named Speaker of the Rhode Island General Assembly. He joined his brother Esek Hopkins in shipping firm and moved to Providence in 1742. They built and fit out vessels. Stephen served in the General Assembly from 1744 to 1751, was assistant justice of the Rhode Island Superior Court from 1747 to 1749, and became Chief Justice in 1751.

Stephen_Hopkins_House_2014 (Governor Stephens Hopkins House, 15 Hopkins Street, Providence, via Wikipedia) “Hopkins was largely responsible for transforming Providence from a small village with muddy streets to a thriving commercial center. He was also instrumental in establishing Rhode Island’s present day boundaries. Besides his political and civic interest, Hopkins had interested in education and science. About 1754 he was influential in establishing a public subscription library, and he was the first chancellor of Rhode Island College, which was to become Brown University. He helped found the Providence Gazette and Country Journal in 1762, held membership in the American Philosophical Society of Newport, and was involved in erecting a telescope in Providence for observing the transit of Venus, which occurred in June 1769.

“Stephen Hopkins won the governorship of Rhode Island in 1755, and was governor several times through 1766, competing with Samuel Ward for the annual election for the governorship. Hopkins attended the Albany Congress of 1754 where he first met Benjamin Franklin, who promoted the Albany Plan for uniting the colonies. The plan failed, but Stephen and Benjamin became friends and were to become the two most elderly signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

RightsColoniesExamined.cropped ( image via Stephen Hopkins) “After the passage of the hated Stamp Act by Parliament, Hopkins wrote The Rights of Colonies Examined, published in 1764, a pamphlet in which he attacked the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, stating: ‘British subjects are to be governed only agreeable to laws which they themselves have in some way consented.’ It predated John Dickinson’s more widely distributed Letters from a Farmer by three years.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

“Stephen Hopkins voted to approve the Declaration of Independence on July 4 and signed the engrossed copy on August 2. He suffered from the “shaking palsy” which caused his signature on the Declaration to appear unsteady, and he used his left hand to steady his right. He stated at the signing, ‘My hand trembles, but my heart does not.’ Hopkins’ palsy affliction was of long standing, causing him to rely upon a clerk to write for him in his businesses and public life.

“In June of the same year Hopkins was appointed to the 13 member committee (one from each state) to draft the country’s first constitution, The Articles of Confederation. His health failing, he returned to Rhode Island soon thereafter.

“Hopkins died on July 13, 1785 and is buried in the North Burying Ground at Providence. An extensive cortege and assembly of notable persons followed the funeral procession of Hopkins to the cemetery, including court judges, the President, professors and students of the College, citizens of the town and inhabitants of the state. The Rhode Island legislature dedicated a special monument at his gravesite in his honor, and it provides an elaborate testimony to the life of the patriot.

“On the west side the inscription says, ‘Sacred to the memory of the illustrious Stephen Hopkins, of revolutionary fame, attested by his signature to the Declaration of our National Independence, Great in Council from sagacity of mind; Magnanimous in sentiment, firm in purpose, and good, as great, from benevolence of heart; He stood in the front rank of statesmen and patriots. Self-educated, yet among the most learned of men; His vast treasury of useful knowledge, his great retentive and reflective powers, combined with his social nature, made him the most interesting of companions in private life.

“On the south side the inscription continues: ‘His name is engraved on the immortal records of the Revolution, and can never die: His titles to that distinction are engraved on this monument, reared by the grateful admiration of his native state, in honor of her favorite son.’

“And on the east side: ‘Hopkins, born March 7, 1707, Died July 13, 1785.’

“And on the north side: ‘Here lies the man in fateful hour,
Who boldly stemm’d tyrannic pow’r,
And held his hand in the decree,
which bade America BE FREE!'” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)

Stephen_Hopkins_signatureThe signature of Mr. Hopkins is remarkable, and appears as if written by one greatly agitated by fear. But fea was no part of Mr. Hopkins’ character. The cause of the tremulous appearance of his signature, was a bodily infirmity, called “shaking palsy,” with which he had been afflicted many years, and which obliged him to employ an amanuensis to do his writing… (Adherents)

Posted in American History, British history, buildings and structures, commerce, Declaration of Independence, Great Britain, history, real life tales | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Stephen Hopkins, Surveyor, Astronomer, and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Question from a Reader: What Happened to Someone Who Stole Cloth from a Shopkeeper?

Posted on March 9, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

I am glad you asked this question. It made me think again of book I have started where the heroine is accused of stealing cloth, though she is innocent. I have it drafted with main points, but have yet to find time to write it.

To answer your question, first, you should know how the name of such a person might identified to the public. How will others know that someone they thought respectable is an actual thief? How would others find out about the crime? One could, for example, sometimes find the names of those caught stealing in the Hue and Cry. However, that publication was mostly used to tell others of wanted criminals but could possibly have also been used to list stolen items of value. This newspaper later became the Police Gazette so be aware of the year in which your story is placed.

QUESTION 1: Did merchants mark a “whole bolt of cloth.”?

If the cloth was commissioned for that Merchant, from the weavers who made it, then it could have the merchant’s name woven into the selvedge, repeating for the entire length of the bolt.  You can see bolts of cloth today that have that sort of marking.  When the cloth is used, that quarter inch or so on the edge is either cut off or turned into a hem or seam, so the final product is not affected by its existence.

QUESTION 2: I couldn’t think of a way to mark the cloth other than an ink blot on the edge or something or a thread could be pulled loose. Any suggestions?

The first thing a thief would do would be to throw away the board or roll on which it was wrapped if he had taken that. Pictures of drapers of the time show most of the material on large rolls on the wall.

I think there will be problems convicting unless the pattern was woven specifically for that merchant. That would be a very expensive roll of cloth. More value equals more substantial charges against the person. Unless the thief was caught red handed within feet of the shop or where there was no possibility of his having gone into another draper’s shop and bought the cloth, it would be difficult to make a charge of theft stick.

A person could be hanged for stealing goods worth forty shillings, meaning approximately 2 pounds, which was quite a bit in the Regency era. Jurors and barristers often  brought the value down to something like 38 shillings so that the man was transported instead of hanged. They did not like convicting a person for stealing. Even children were hanged for stealing food, though usually  an attempt was made to lower the value of the item.

Back to your idea of marking the cloth in some manner, if you want to be able to identify a bolt of linen cloth, the weaver may have put a couple of coloured threads into the selvedge. Though I would suggest that you tread carefully, for I recall reading something about some sort of legislation, at least, in regards to wool cloth, something regarding selvedge indications as to what was for export. I will see if I can find the exact legislation, but you may want to look out for the information. Another alternative to recognize the cloth is have it be a particular pattern. This could be for linen damask, which would be very expensive or for a simpler weave used for toweling, not terry toweling as we think of it today, or table linen, although there were not so many varieties of patterns for those. Alternatively, there may be some identifying merchant’s mark on the board that the fabric is wrapped around.

Unfortunately, as I was doing something similar for the Regency era, I doubt this would be the case with linen cloth then. I really liked the tale I had concocted in my head, sort of a follow up book to my The Road to Understanding, but I needed to find something a bit more realistic to proceed. Most linen at this time would be woven on 2 or 4 shaft looms, and you cannot weave a name into the selvedge with that few shafts, without doing a special and complicated pick up on every throw of the shuttle, which would make the weaving at least 4 times as slow. You technically could do it with a draw loom or Jacquard loom, but draw looms were very expensive and Jacquard looms were not invented until about 1803 and did not spread to the UK for, at least, a decade or so afterwards, and would only have been used for weaving linen damasks, not everyday linens. I am happy to be corrected by someone with more knowledge than I, but I just cannot see how it would be possible given the looms being used at the time for anything but a damask.

If you want to be able to identify a bolt of linen cloth and have the weaver put a couple of coloured threads into the selvedge, you should do more research first. If I recall correctly, there was some legislation, at least for wool cloth, regarding selvedge indications as to what was for export.

QUESTION 3: Do you know how many feet or ells were usually on a bolt?

One source I have describes cloth for dresses as being an ell long by 27 inches wide. An ell was 45 inches. Jane Austen uses “ells” in a poem to describe the amount of lace on a wrist: “And twelve ells of lace on my wrist …”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Question from a Reader: What Happened to Someone Who Stole Cloth from a Shopkeeper?