I thought addressing this recent question from a reader appropriate for the Memorial Day Weekend.

Question from a reader: I am confused about what it meant to be an officer on half-pay. Can you shed any light on this topic?

Specifically, I’ve often wondered about the term “half-pay officer.” Does an officer who sells out still receive half pay or only officers who retire without selling their commissions (if there is such a thing). My question concerns a major who sold out after Waterloo. Does he still receive half-pay?

Basically, if an officer bought his commission and sold it upon retiring, he was paying for his own retirement. Then, if he died, what happened to that money? A pretty good deal for the Army. It sounds like the military didn’t actually pay any pension, they just gave you back what you paid them for the honor of fighting and possibly dying.

Answer: Officers of the day, at least up to the late 1700s, were from the gentry; therefore, they were considered to be gentlemen. As gentlemen, they did not require the payment for their service that did those of the lower classes. They were doing what most of us would call their “civic duty” by purchasing a commission and supporting themselves while they served.

We must remember that early on Colonels ran their regiments as if they were a business. One purchased a commission in a regiment, NOT in the army. Those of the upper crust of society assuredly did not expect to be paid by the government for their service. [Well, I expect some did, but no one spoke of such on record.] They . . .

(1) were expected to buy their uniforms and all equipment

(2) were paid a quarterly salary that simply did not cover the expenses of being an officer in the army at any rank.

(3) There was no need for pensions or much in the way of compensation for serving. The officer was a part of a rich family.

This slowly changed during the multiple wars of the early 1800s, because of the 20 year length of the Napoleonic War and that so many officers were needed, the middle class, and in some cases [about 5%] enlisted men were commissioned without buying a commission.

Follow-Up Question: Did someone who paid for their commission receive an additional pension as well? From your response it does not sound like that was the situation. So the paid commission officer paid for his own retirement and the free commission officer did not?

I see that I did not explain this well. There was no pension for a purchased commission for the reason I repeated above. The wealthy aristocracy and gentry supposedly did not require the money to do their civic duty.

The families were expected to support their sons monetarily while in the army.  I just read “A Light Infantryman with Wellington,”the letters of Captain George Ulrich Barlow. Throughout his service, Barlow was getting money from his family, not just father, but uncles and cousins too.

In truth, the incentive of the “free commission” was a good decision: One does not have to pay for one’s pension (outside of the bribe fee), and there was an improved social status which was otherwise impossible to attain in Regency England? i.e., It was very difficult to improve one’s social status in this era. Even making money was frowned upon (the merchant class) – think Mr. Bingley from Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. But the new status only went so far? Many were shunned later by one’s equal in military rank if not in birth. So how far did the “officer” status really go socially?

How far did the status go ‘socially’? 

During the war, pretty far, particularly if you could move up the ranks. Everyone was equal in the regimental Mess. After the war? Not as much, which created some resentment among the middle class officers who were now again seen as less that socially acceptable among the gentry. Obviously, retiring as a colonel was much better than as a captain. I would suggest if you want more on that concept that you read “The Reminiscences and Recollections of Captain Gronow, being anecdotes of the camp, court, clubs and society 1810-1860”  He gives great descriptions of the social relationships and social movement of war and post-war officers.

Third Question: I understood that officers never fraternized with soldiers, that it was an unwritten code. Is this true?

True. It was an unwritten rule that gentlemen did not ‘fraternize’ with the lower classes. As a military brat and military wife, I can say with some accuracy that there has always been a certain class structure in the military. Same social structure: Officers=upper class  NCOs=Middle Class  Enlisted=Lower classes.  Officers communicated with NCOs [Who actually did all the professional work], but rarely with the enlisted men.  

Personal Soapbox Coming, so if you do not wish to read it, stop HERE.

Many send me message about the topic of honor. What did it mean and why is no longer applicable to our society?

If honor is so removed from our culture (people question why anyone would do anything if it does not serve himself. A person is assuredly thought to be “stupid” and we praise those who get away with something. His actions are considered as revered and as clever instead of dishonorable. It makes those of us who write about honor a bit out of step, for it is no longer a subject that readers can relate to and understand.

When we watch a film and someone fights a duel of honor, the modern viewer wonders why anyone would risk his life for his perceived “honor.” They often label the character as foolish and naive. I can understand that perspective, but having character, knowing the difference between right and wrong, and putting someone else before oneself does not seem to be revered and is even ridiculed. If honor is defined as one’s reputation and one’s character, how is honor defined if none of that matters? i.e., if the only thing that matters is what one can get for oneself?

I am not meaning to go on a diatribe, but I’m trying to come to terms with what honor used to mean, what it means today, and how to write a novel from the perspective of a different culture and make it sympathetic to the modern reader.

The self-serving and self-sacrificing parts of Regency Honor is not that hard to understand.

1. Only the Gentry and Upper Class were seen as having or concerned with ‘Honor’ as they understood it.

2. Honor was the reputation both an individual AND his family practiced. So often duels were fought to ‘preserve one’s honor’ which was one’s social reputation. Honor was part of an upper class family’s duty to the Crown, to serve and support the government and the running of society.

3. Winning ‘glory’ was in part garnering more honor for you and the family. All this goes way back to the Sun King and earlier where the main responsibility or goal of a prince was to win glory and honor for the family . . . either through war or extravagant spending . . . or both.

4. Saving face, personal pride, winning social acceptance or more acceptance today is not all that different from the Regency period honor. It was just seen as being achieved differently at times.

The wars and the infusion of middle class officers widened and generalized the ideals of honor and what it meant to be a gentleman, actions slowly superseded the notions of family honor and rank. One can see this conflict in Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Darcy feels that to be a “gentleman” he must make and enforce social distinctions, where Elizabeth Bennet sees the concept more as an issue of proper behavior. In the end, Elizabeth must still argue with Lady Catherine de Bourgh about whether as a gentleman’s daughter she is equal to Darcy in social status, while her ladyship is operating on the older distinctions. (You knew I would bring my discussion of honor back to Austen, did you not?)

from Chapter 56 of Pride and Prejudice…

Yes, and I had heard it before. But what is that to me? If there is no other objection to my marrying your nephew, I shall certainly not be kept from it by knowing that his mother and aunt wished him to marry Miss De Bourgh. You both did as much as you could in planning the marriage. Its completion depended on others. If Mr. Darcy is neither by honour nor inclination confined to his cousin, why is not he to make another choice? And if I am that choice, why may not I accept him?”

“Because honour, decorum, prudence, nay, interest, forbid it. Yes, Miss Bennet, interest; for do not expect to be noticed by his family or friends, if you wilfully act against the inclinations of all. You will be censured, slighted, and despised, by every one connected with him. Your alliance will be a disgrace; your name will never even be mentioned by any of us.”

“These are heavy misfortunes,” replied Elizabeth. “But the wife of Mr. Darcy must have such extraordinary sources of happiness necessarily attached to her situation, that she could, upon the whole, have no cause to repine.”

(and)

“In marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman’s daughter; so far we are equal.”

“True. You are a gentleman’s daughter. But who was your mother? Who are your uncles and aunts? Do not imagine me ignorant of their condition.”

“Whatever my connections may be,” said Elizabeth, “if your nephew does not object to them, they can be nothing to you.”

During the Regency there were deep social changes going on and Jane Austen captures them in her tales. In each of her books she contrasts class and rank against behavior and ethics. During the Regency, being a Gentleman went from being a specific social rank to being primarily a code of behavior.