Every Woman Dreams...

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

Posted on September 30, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

Key details regarding its usage include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changeover involved a series of steps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

Posted on September 28, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on September 25, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

Purchase Links:

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

It Will Also BeAvailable to Read on Kindle Unlimited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency Era, Part 2

Auctioning Off Household Goods in the Regency Era, Part 3

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

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

Posted on September 24, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond

Geni

The Pennsylvania Center for the Book

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

U. S. History

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

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

Posted on September 23, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOOK BLURB:

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

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

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

EXCERPT:

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

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

“Darcy!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PURCHASE LINKS:

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

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

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

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

To Learn More, Check these Resources:

The Big Picture

Historic UK

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

Gregor McGregor

What Is Fraud? Cambridge University Press

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

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

Posted on September 22, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

American History from Revolution to Reconstruction

Geni.com “George Read”

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

Wikipedia “George Read”

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

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

Posted on September 21, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOWEVER,

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

Salutation on formal correspondence: My Lord

Announced informally or addressed on social correspondence: The Lord Featherstone

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

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

Signature: Featherstone

Baron’s wife: The Right Honorable, Lady Featherstone

Salutation and formal correspondence: “Madam”

Announced informally or addressed on social correspondence as The Lady Featherstone

Salutation on social correspondence; “Dear Lady Featherstone“

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

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

Signature: Sophia Featherstone

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

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

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

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

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

Arriving 17 June 2026 from Dragonblade Publishing

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

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

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

Immediately Nearby (Part of the Medway Towns)

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

A Short Distance Away (River Medway & Beyond)

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

Hoo Peninsula (North & East)

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

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

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

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

Breaking Regency Myths: A Lesson for Beginning and “Season”ed Writers on What Could and Could Not Happen Regarding a Regency Era Marriage

Posted on September 16, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

I belong to a Facebook Group called Regency Kisses: Lady Catherine’s Salon. Many of those found on the group are authors of Regencies novels (but not necessarily authors of Jane Austen Fan Fiction novels). These are often people who have studied and written in the Regency era exclusively. They are NOT those who learn everything about the Regency by watching a miniseries.

Recently, Nancy Mayer, who likely owns a full Regency library in her home, placed a post or two up, and I asked if I could share them here. These are Regency facts, NOT myths. Read on . . .

These are bits one might find in the novels, beloved by readers, that just were not a part of Regency life.

This first list is on marriages, engagements, etc., and the announcement thereof.

Though marriages were reported in the newspapers, engagements were NOT, that is unless one was Princess Charlotte. I repeat: Announcing an engagement in the newspapers is a popular plot point in romance novels (even used by Georgette Heyer in “The Grand Sophy”, but it was not something that happened in real life.

(Just to keep Jane Austen in the conversation, we find this quote from Chapter 53 as an example: “And one of my own daughters. I suppose you have heard of it; indeed, you must have seen it in the papers. It was in the Times and the Courier, I know; though it was not put in as it ought to be. It was only said, ‘Lately, George Wickham Esq., to Miss Lydia Bennet,’ without there being a syllable said of her father, or the place where she lived, or anything. It was my brother Gardiner’s drawing up too, and I wonder how he came to make such an awkward business of it. Did you see it?”

A country weekly might mention a betrothal if it involved the local peer or his heir or his daughter, but it would be a part of the Society news.

Many newspapers had a small section where births, marriages, and deaths were reported, as well as a section for mentioning the balls and dinners the aristocrats were holding.

More information about local people would be reported in the country weeklies, but usually, it still was balls, dinners, and routs with small notices of births, deaths, and marriages.

The Hardwicke Act was only law in England and Wales. It was not the law in Scotland or Ireland or any of the English colonies.

This act was meant to make marriages more public and regular. Though people had always been encouraged to have the banns called, it now became a requirement that they do so unless the couple obtained a license from the local bishop or the Archbishop of Canterbury. By 1811, the cost of a special license was £5. It was mostly used by the aristocracy and men in the public eye. The standard license from a bishop required a bond for £100 to be forfeit if the couple lied about any allegation as well as a slight fee. This license named the parish in which the wedding would be held. (Not transferrable) This license entailed a wait of seven days. The couple still had to marry between the hours of eight and noon.

Catholic couples in Ireland could be married by a Catholic priest without the banns being called, though the church preferred that the banns be read. A Protestant marrying a Catholic had to be married by a Protestant clergyman. This remained the law for most of the 19th century.

By law the Roman Catholics were supposed to be married first by an Anglican priest before marrying by Catholic rites, but in practice many married in Catholic rites first. [Note: I used this as a plot device in my REALM series, A Touch of Honor (Book 7)]. However, the marriage was not valid until and unless they married according to the law, by a clergyman of the Church of England. For an aristocrat, that could mean his children would be considered illegitimate if he is not married in an Anglican ceremony. [Aha! Now that is where my plot device comes in!]

As the majority of the marriages were by banns, everyone in the parish would hear the banns read for three Sundays. Even if one rarely attended church, word would spread that a couple was planning to marry.

Those who married by regular license had to marry in the parish church between the hours of eight in the morning and noon. Usually, friends, family, and neighbors knew about the upcoming wedding.

Some plots used by novelists were contrary to the laws.

For example, all marriages had to be registered in the parish register even if the couple married in a private house by special license.

Usually, the couple signed the register with their witnesses before leaving the church.

Marriage contracts were no longer enforced. It was an offense against church law for a clergyman to marry anyone who was not a willing participant in the ceremony. [This will be part of my upcoming The Marchioness’s Madness. I am still writing this one, but I am nearly finished.]

Do not believe a story that says a marriage of convenience could be annulled in a year if it was not consummated. Along the same line is the idea that a couple could have a marriage for a year, and if no child was born, they could go their separate ways and marry others. That was not even possible in Scotland, which still permitted a divorce under specific circumstances.

A couple in England would not be married just because they told someone they were. In England, specific things had to occur before a marriage was legal. A couple in Scotland who meant it and had sexual intercourse after saying so, would, however, be married.

Captains of ships were not authorized to perform weddings. No captain of a ship could marry people.

There were no provisions in the law for proxy marriages anywhere in the British Isles. If a marriage by proxy took place in a country or countries where they were permitted, then such a marriage would be valid in England. None of the cases which came before the courts involved men or women who had been born and baptized in England. [Again, I used this as a plot point in my novel, Amending the Shades of Pemberley. How did I manage to marry Elizabeth (in England) and Darcy (in India)? One must read the book to learn how I managed that one.

Any marriage of a minor who married by license without the permission of the father or guardian was not valid.

Annulments were only granted for a few specific reasons such as insanity, bigamy, incest, not being of age, and impotence. The marriages of minors who married by license without permission were never valid, but the couple often could have the court annul it, so they would have a record of the action. If any children had been born, the children were illegitimate. One hopes none of them also married by license thinking they had the proper permission.

Consummation was NOT a requirement for a valid marriage in England, though the Scots did consider it so. The inability to consummate a marriage due to impotence or a physical malformation was cause for an annulment. The court usually wanted the couple claiming impotence to be married for some time to see if the condition reversed itself.

A couple could be married in Scotland by saying they were so and having sexual intercourse, but not in England. Marriage in England needed a license or banns and an ordained clergyman of the Church of England unless the couple marrying were Jewish or Quakers.

Marriages in England had to be conducted by an ordained clergyman of the Church of England unless the bride and groom were both Jews or Quakers.

Okay, hold onto your hats for this one: There was no “You may kiss the bride” line in the church ceremony! The couple sometimes kissed when they signed the register which was part of the ceremony, though the register was in a different room. The marriage ceremony was as written in the Book of Common Prayer. No double ring ceremonies, no special words, and no KISS THE BRIDE. Some bishops did complain about couples kissing at the end of the ceremony, so I think it had to have happened sometime, but it was not a part of the service.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Gretna-Green

Gretna Green was one of the nearest Scottish towns where marriages could be conducted, and, therefore, it was quite popular. However, do not forget how long it would take for the hero and heroine to travel from London to Scotland by coach, at say 7-10 miles per hour, not counting all the stops for tolls, etc. Gretna was one of the nearest, and made quite a business of it. BUT IT WAS NOT THE ONLY PLACE TO MARRY IN SCOTLAND. I have used numerous Scottish towns/villages along the border for several of my plot points. Also, remember, since it took several days to travel that far, the girl would be “ruined,” but if the couple could be caught in time, the matter could be hushed up.

Dissolving a marriage

“A marriage could be dissolved by death, annulment, or divorce.

“Annulments were not easy. One couldn’t just decide to marry and get an annulment in a year for either the marriage was valid or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t valid the couple were never married, and if the marriage is valid they can’t get it annulled.

“Marriages were null and void if minors married by license without the proper permission, if either of the couple had a living spouse, or if either was considered too young to marry. Shocking to our sensibilities, the age which was considered too young was before age seven. Children could be married off between the ages of seven and twelve, if female, and seven to fourteen, if male. However, when the female reached the age of twelve or the male reached the age of fourteen, the child could repudiate the marriage or decide to stay with it.

“Fortunately, by the late eighteenth century, public opinion shifted so that most people disapproved of marrying children off at such tender ages. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the attitude had shifted to allowing girls to wait until they were seventeen or older before declaring them of an age to marry. Despite tales of girls being considered on the shelf if not married by age nineteen, quite a few Regency young ladies didn’t marry until they were twenty or even older.

“Marriages were also void if one of the couple did not have a proper understanding of what he or she was doing. The church insisted on willing and informed consent, or at least as much informed consent as might be expected of a twelve year old girl.

“Marriages could be annulled if one of the couple, usually the male, was impotent.

“Marriages did not have to be consummated in England to be valid. The ability to consummate had to be present.”

For more information on marriage or the Regency, in general, check out Nancy Regency Researcher.

This was so much fun, I think I will continue with a few more of these types of posts. Let me know what you think.

If you are looking for a resource to aid in either your writing or your reading, I might suggest Writing Regency England: A Resource for Authors by Jayne Davis and Gail Eastwood.

From pitfalls to perfection – your essential Regency writing companion

Are you writing stories set in Regency England? Do you want your characters and settings to feel authentic? Then this is the book to help you escape common pitfalls and breathe authenticity into your writing.

Writing Regency England is the only guidebook tailored specifically to help you to avoid the most commonly seen errors in Regency fiction. All historical authors face the challenge of not having lived during the time they are describing, and also share the problem of “you don’t know what you don’t know.” No one gets everything right! But non-British authors writing about England also have the disadvantage of not being steeped in the language, geography, culture and history of the country from living there. While some readers don’t care about accuracy as long as a story is good, others do and if you get too many things wrong, they may leave bad reviews and put you on their ‘authors to avoid’ list.

British author Jayne Davis and American author Gail Eastwood combine their perspectives and meticulous research to offer invaluable insights into language, setting, and society. This indispensable guide illuminates common pitfalls but also can spark creative ideas rooted in the authentic details of Regency life and offers a great starting point for further research.

The book covers:

Part 1: Language

The value of historical flavor and period-appropriate language, and research tips; tables listing American or anachronistic words to avoid in many categories; aspects of character voices including class and speech, grammar, word choice, and variations by location; a look at period given names (including minority groups) with ways to create authentic variety, creating or finding appropriate surnames, and valuable advice on title names.

Part 2: Setting

Flora and fauna found (and not found) in the UK, with tips on using them in your story, including animals, insects, birds, wild plants and garden plants; landscapes of Britain including general topography, varied inland and coastal landscapes, and how weather factors in and affects these; the “built” landscape including building styles and materials, transport, and historical structures; advice on naming places and features, plus a chapter on travel covering both land and sea journeys, examining the factors affecting these, plus maps, guidebooks, and how long journeys took.

Part 3: Society

Easily a book unto itself, this sections covers: money and incomes, different branches of the military, the peerage, courtesy titles, forms of address, precedence and privileges of rank; inheritance and entails, guardianship, plus inheritance of titles; a thorough examination of marriage in multiple aspects, as well as ending marriages; a few selected social activities (letters, the postal system and dancing), and finally, hunting, shooting, and weapons (including military).

Amazon

Posted in books, British history, buildings and structures, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, finance, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, hero, heroines, historical fiction, history, Inheritance, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, marriage licenses, medicine, military, political stance, real life tales, Regency era, Regency romance, research, servant life, toys and games, travel, writing | Tagged British history, Georgian Era, Regency Era, Regency romance, research, writing | Comments Off

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the Last of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence to Pass

Posted on September 15, 2026 by Regina Jeffers

Charles Carroll was a 38 years old merchant and plantation owner when he signed the Declaration of Independence. The father of 7 children, Carroll lived longer than any of his fellow signers. He passed in November 1832 at the age of 95, meaning he also lived through the War of 1812. John Adams, William Ellery, and George Clymer also lived into their 90s. Francis Lewis and Matthew Thornton made it to age 89. Such facts always fascinate me when I think of how small pox and other diseases nearly wiped out the American army, especially in those early days of the war.

Charles Carroll was born on September 19, 1737, into a prominent Roman Catholic family in Annapolis, Maryland. Charles Carroll of Annapolis, the father of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was born in 1703, and died in 1783. He was a wealthy landowner and bitterly opposed the political disabilities under which the Catholics of Maryland suffered. The mother of Charles Carroll of Carrollton was Elizabeth Brooke, the daughter of Clement Brooke and Jane Sewall, and was a near relation of her husband.

As the only child, Charles was not only heir to the largest fortune in colonial Maryland but to the ancestral legacy and traditions of defending family and faith passed on by the Carroll generations. Young Charles Carroll, known as “Charley” to his parents, was sent in 1747, at the age of ten, to Maryland’s eastern shore, along with his cousin John Carroll, to study secretly at the Jesuit school at Bohemia Manor in Cecil County. By 1749, Charley and John, who would later become the first American Catholic Bishop, were sent to study at St. Omers in French Flanders. [Jesuits’ College at St. Omar, France; seminary in Rheims; Graduate, College of Louis the Grande; Bourges; studies in Paris; Studies, apprenticeship in London. (Scholar, Lawyer)] Charles was instructed in classical studies in Paris and by 1760 was studying English law at the Inner Temple in London. Though his mother died before his return, a refined and well-educated Charles arrived home after 16 years abroad.

In 1765, at the age of 28, he returned to Maryland, a highly refined gentleman with all of the education and experience that might be expected of an emissary of the finest courts in Europe, to take the reins of the family estate, which was one of the largest in the American colonies. On his return to Maryland in 1765, Charles Carroll was given a 10,000 acre land tract called Carrollton, located in Frederick County. He also added “of Carrollton” to his name (he appears as “Charles Carroll of Carrollton” in certain sources) to distinguish himself from his father and cousins, all of whom had similar names. In 1768, he married his cousin, Mary “Molly” Darnall, and began major improvements to his family urban home and gardens in Annapolis. They had seven children, only three of whom lived to adulthood. Charles, their only son, would later live at Homewood, now located on the Baltimore campus of Johns Hopkins University.

Charles Carroll is said to have identified with the radical cause at once, and he proceeded to work in the circles of American patriots. In 1772 he anonymously engaged the secretary of the colony of Maryland in a series of Newspaper articles protesting the right of the British government to tax the colonies without representation. Because he was a Catholic, Carroll was not allowed to participate in politics, practice law (despite years of study) or vote, but he became known in important circles in a roundabout way by writing various anti-tax/tariff tracts (essentially, early protestations against “taxation without representation”) in the Maryland Gazette under the pseudonym “First Citizen.” He publicly debated “Antilon,” the powerful provincial official and jurist, Daniel Dulaney, on freedom of conscience and the rights of the elected assembly versus the powers of appointed government. Carroll gained public acclaim for embracing the principle that the people are the true foundation of government and emerged as the citizens’ “patriot.”

In 1774, Carroll was elected with six others by the citizens of Anne Arundel County and of Annapolis, with full power to represent them in the provincial convention. Catholics had been disfranchised and declared ineligible to a seat in the Assembly, but by this ac the prejudice against them was swept away. Carroll was an early advocate for armed resistance with the object of separation from Great Britain. However, his native colony was less certain in this matter and did not even send a representative to the first Continental Congress. He served on the first Committee of Safety, at Annapolis, in 1775, and also in the Provincial Congress. He visited the Continental Congress in 1776, and was enlisted in a diplomatic mission to Canada, along with Franklin and Chase. Shortly after his return, the Maryland Convention decided to join in support for the Revolution. Carroll was elected to represent Maryland on the 4th of July, and though he was too late to vote for the Declaration, he did sign it.

At the time he signed the Declaration, it was against the law for a Catholic to hold public office or to vote. Although Maryland was founded by and for Catholics in 1634, in 1649 and, later, in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution placed severe restrictions on Catholics in England, the laws were changed in Maryland, and Catholicism was repressed. Catholics could no longer hold office, exercise the franchise, educate their children in their faith, or worship in public.

He served in the Continental Congress, on the Board of War, through much of the War of Independence, and simultaneously participated in the framing of a constitution for Maryland. In 1778 he returned to Maryland to participate in the formation of the state government. He was elected to the Maryland Senate in 1781, and to the first Federal Congress in 1788. He returned again to the State Senate in 1790 and served there for 10 years. He retired from that post in 1800. In 1789, he became one of Maryland’s first two U.S. Senators. Carroll continued to improve and enlarge his Annapolis home and gardens along with Doughoregan Manor (Carroll family country seat in Howard County).

By 1800, Carroll had retired from politics to concentrate on his business affairs. Considered the largest slaveholder at the time of the Revolution, and owning nearly 400-500 blacks, he became president of the American Colonization Society (1828-1831) seeking to solve America’s slave problem by resettling them in Africa. Carroll became one of the founders of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company and invested in the Bank of Maryland, the Bank of Baltimore and the First and Second Bank of the United States. He held many shares in canal, turnpike, bridge and water companies in the Washington-Baltimore regional area. He purchased $40,000 of state-backed securities to build the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, serving on its first board of directors.

Charles Carroll leased his Annapolis house in 1821 and moved to his daughter (Mary Caton) and son-in-law’s home on Lombard Street in Baltimore (now known as the Carroll Mansion of the Baltimore City Life Museums). By 1822, the first sanctioned Catholic Church in Annapolis, St. Mary’s, was erected and built on the Carroll property. In 1826, Charles Carroll of Carrollton became the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence with the deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams on July 4th. Two years later at the age of 91, Carroll laid the cornerstone for the B&O Railroad. He died at age 95 on November 14, 1832, at the Caton home. Following a national day of mourning, he was interred at the family country seat, Doughoregan Manor.

Charles Carroll House of Annapolis

Resources:

Catholic Founding Fathers – The Carroll Family

“Charles Carroll,” Biography

“Charles Carroll,” Catholic Encyclopedia

“Charles Carroll,” Charles Carroll House

“Charles Carroll,” U. S. History

Posted in Anglo-Saxons, British history, Declaration of Independence, Georgian England | Tagged American history, British history, Catholic, Charles Carroll, Maryland, signers of the Declaration of Independence | 4 Comments

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

Every Woman Dreams…

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

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking Regency Myths: A Lesson for Beginning and “Season”ed Writers on What Could and Could Not Happen Regarding a Regency Era Marriage

From pitfalls to perfection – your essential Regency writing companion

Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating 250 Years of the United States as a Separate Nation: Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the Last of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence to Pass

Follow Me!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta