Question from a Reader/Writer Regarding the Pump Room in Bath

Question: Somehow, I expect I know the answer to this already. Sigh. In a scene I am writing set in the Pump Room, I have described a marble fountain dispensing the waters, only to go, “Wait a minute, is that more Victorian than Regency in its description?” So . . . in the Regency, would the waters have been dispensed by servers at some kind of bar, instead of from a fountain with spigots?

Answer: I found this quote from Google Books. Hope it helps a little.

The Early Days of the Nineteenth Century in England, 1800-1820, Volume 1 – By William Connor Sydney

An interesting glance at the Bath of 1811 is afforded by a letter of a Canadian traveller: “On one side is the pump, where a woman stands and distributes old King Bladud’s waters to old and young, sick and ill. An old duchess of eighty and a child of four were both drinking the waters while I was there. I had ‘a glass; it is very hot and tastes very mineral. At one end of the room is an orchestra, where bands of music are continually playing. The company at the same time walking up and down in crowds, minding the music, but buzzing like merchants on-‘change.”

Also, I have a “volume” of notes on a variety of subjects (some 800+ pages), but I do not know from whom or which source this quotes comes: “In the centre of the south side is a marble vase from which issue the water with a fire-place on each side.”

In addition, I have read multiple novels where the author describes that the water was distributed from a fountain. Now, that does not necessary mean they were correct. It could be a Georgette Heyer kind of thing where some of what the author made up is now considered part of the “legend of the Regency.”

For a novel with detailed descriptions of bathing in Bath (which I have not seen elsewhere), try Carolyn Korsmeyer’s Charlotte’s Story, originally published TouchPoint Press in 2021. It is an Austenesque story about Charlotte Lucas, I have not tracked down the author’s sources, but she is a meticulous researcher and an editor, so I am confident she has completed her search for facts. There are quite a few descriptions of Charlotte Lucas involved with the water in Bath, not just the Pump Room.

Charlotte Lucas, a character first appearing in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, has made an unfortunate marriage to the loquacious William Collins, reckoning that his tedious conversation is a small price to pay for a prosperous home and family. However, trouble brews within the first few months of marriage.

To ease the strain of their relationship, Charlotte leaves her husband to visit the fashionable city of Bath with several women companions. The weeks there prove to be a time for self-discovery and freedom, and the marital frost begins to thaw. However, events in Bath result in an unfortunate, even calamitous, consequence.

Charlotte devises an audacious solution that combines bold connivance and compassionate duplicity, pursuing her hope of happiness with the wit and courage to seek it.

The ever fabulous Shannon Donnelly once shared this link: There are a couple of images that show the lady distributing the waters from behind a counter, some sort of actual pump behind her:

1795 – https://www.alamy.com/pump-room-bath-built-in-1795-british-library-image268847264.html?imageid=AE5593D2-E873-46F3-B985-24EA3C82B3FE&p=868092&pn=1&searchId=5ff0de4acb93610a997a0157814a93f4&searchtype=0

1798 –

1825 – https://bathartandarchitecture.blogspot.com/2018/08/beau-nash-statue-in-pump-rooms-bath-by.html

Jane Austen’s World has a wonderful piece on The Pump Room’s Little Known Facts

Posted in aristocracy, British history, buildings and structures, England, fashion, Georgian Era, history, Jane Austen, legacy, legends | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What Did the Term “Half-Pay Officers” Mean During the Regency? And What of “Honor”?

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.

A Light Infantryman with Wellington: The Letters of Captain George Ulrich Barlow 52nd and 69th Foot 1808-15 (From Reason to Revolution) ~ This series of letters was written by a light infantry officer on campaign, as a lieutenant with the 52nd Foot in Spain and a captain with the 69th Foot in Belgium and France. George Ulrich Barlow saw action at Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Vitoria, San Sebastian, Nivelle, Nive and Orthez. He transferred to the 69th Foot as a captain and served with them in Belgium at the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo and then remained with the Army of Occupation in France until 1818. His involvement in the fighting and his honest views of some of the famous characters he met during his service are enlightening, including his first audience with Wellington at Freineda in Portugal. There are also interesting asides in his correspondence including his father’s difficulties over his governorship of Madras and his brother’s involvement in a major mutiny at the Royal Military College. ~ https://www.amazon.com/Light-Infantryman-Wellington-Letters-Revolution/dp/1911628100

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. 

Posted in aristocracy, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, history, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, military, Napoleonic Wars, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, Regency era, research, terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Anthony William Hall, the Man Who Would Be King

In 1931, a former Shropshire police inspector claimed to the rightful heir to the British throne. He was determined to be King Anthony and to displace King George V. His declaration provoked panic at the palace when two doctors refused to silence him by quietly certifying him insane. Hall claimed to have explosive evidence capable of overthrowing the Royal Family in the biggest shake-up in British history. If he had been successful, King George V would have been beheaded while the descendant of a common police inspector would be occupying the throne today. King Anthony I would have been known as a former export trader and author of a vehicle law manual.

imgres-1.jpg King George V of Great Britain was born on June 3, 1865, the unpromising second son of Edward VII. Initially, he sought a career in the British Navy, but the untimely death of his brother, Albert, placed him on the throne. He became king in 1910 (serving until 1936) and played an active role supporting the troops during World War I. Though lackluster in personality, he won the loyalty of the middle class and many in Great Britain with his steadfast dedication to his country.

Anthony Hall caused widespread panic amongst the authorities, stretching to the King himself.  A Special Branch of the British government tracked Hall as the man toured cities with his claim to be the rightful heir to the throne as the descendant of an illegitimate love-child by Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn before they wed. Hall even wrote directly to King George V in February 2, 1931, accusing him of being a German with no claim to the Crown. He wrote: ‘The whole world has been hoodwinked for 328 years. You have no connection with the British Royal Family. You are an outsider.
Therefore leave the country. I claim the Crown.’

He threatened to arrest the King for treason, saying that even if he went to the Prime Minister and ‘pulled his beard,’ King George V would still be chucked out of Britain.
Astonishingly, his scurrilous claims were not only taken seriously by the public, but also the police, Home Office and the King himself.

HALL_344x450.jpg “Details have emerged from the National Archive of the royal family’s anxiety at the way Anthony Hall, who was said to be tall and always impeccably dressed, drew crowds of up to 800 people to hear his claims of direct lineage from Henry VIII. Across the West Midlands, he used his 1931 campaign meetings to denounce King George, the Queen’s grandfather, as a ‘pure blooded German’ with no right to rule Britain. According to a Home Office file, Hall traced his ancestry back to Thomas Hall, a ‘bastard son’ of Henry VIII who died in 1534. To add to his claim to the throne he argued that the real James I of England had been murdered as an infant and his remains lay in a coffin in Edinburgh Castle. His place was taken by an ‘impostor and changeling,’ James Erskine, whom he dubbed ‘goggle-eyed Jim.’ Hall argued that Erskine could not have been the rightful heir, not only because he was goggle-eyed but also his head was too large for his body and his rickety legs meant he couldn’t ride a horse. ‘Having proved he is an impostor it is obvious that all the kings who claim and have claimed to be descendants of his are not entitled to their jobs and are not part of the blood royal,’ he thundered to one large crowd.

“At the height of the great depression, his nightly rants at open air meetings in the Bull Ring, Birmingham, and other West Midlands towns, against the German occupants of Buckingham Palace drew large, approving crowds. But they left the police alarmed. However, King Anthony, a nephew of the high sheriff of Herefordshire, blew hot and cold in his strategy to win back the throne. In one speech he calmly argued that he did not want to start a rebellion or fight a new civil war and the whole matter could be settled in the courts. King George knew that he was an outsider without any connection with the British royal family, Hall claimed, and therefore should face facts and leave the country.

“But Hall, who had driven an ambulance on the Somme during the first world war, occasionally took a far stronger, more violent, line, telling one of his meetings in Birmingham that he would have no hesitation in shooting the king as he would shoot a dog. ‘The King is a German, a pure bred German … I want to become the first policeman to cut off the King’s head.’

“Buckingham Palace asked for him to be declared insane. ‘Would it not to be possible to keep him under observation with a view to his final detention in an institution without actually putting him in prison,’ King George’s private secretary, Sir Clive Wigram, asked the Home Office. So King Anthony was remanded in custody and two doctors called in to examine him. But both refused to certify him as insane. Dr Walter Jordan, a member of the Birmingham public assistance committee and an expert on lunacy, said, to the disappointment of the police and the Home Office: ‘His claim that he is entitled to the kingship of this country is not the mere autogenic delusion of the usual man who says ‘I am king’ but is a case of a sort.’

“At the palace, Sir Clive lamented that locking Hall away in an institution was no longer going to be a practical or effective way of dealing with him: ‘It is true that he is eccentric and wrong-headed, but he is not so obviously demented or insane that he could be dealt with without recourse to court proceedings.’ Sir Clive was convinced that unless something was done Hall would ‘continue with his scurrilous campaign.’ King George was consulted. He agreed that the full force of the law should be used to ‘put a stop to the effusions of the impostor,’ as long as the monarch’s involvement was kept secret and it did not end in Hall’s imprisonment. Buckingham Palace told the Home Office to go ahead ‘so long as it is quite understood that His Majesty is in no way responsible for the initiation of them.’ Hall was arrested and tried for using ‘quarrelsome and scandalous language.’ He was fined £10 and bound over to keep the peace with a surety of £25 or the alternative of two months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The chief constable of Birmingham reported to the palace that, after a swan song meeting in the Bull Ring, Hall finally left the city, ending the public campaign of the last Tudor claimant to the throne. Hall is believed to have died in 1947 leaving no male heirs.

Resources: 

BritRoyals

The Daily Mail 

The Guardian 

Wikipedia 

Posted in British history, kings and queens | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

During the Georgian Era, Would a Vicar or Clergyman Take an Oath?

Question from a Reader: Is there a term for when a man becomes a vicar, such as getting sworn in or taking his vows, making an oath or something?

Answer: The man is appointed to the position by the one who owns the advowson—the right of presenting the living to someone. The Bishop of that Seat has to approve the appointment and then they “read ” the man in. Not so much a “they” as “who.” The archdeacon of that See, a cleric having a defined administrative authority delegated to him by the bishop in the whole or part of the diocese, is the one who does the job. The office has often been described metaphorically as oculus episcopi, the “bishop’s eye.” He comes and with congregation watching, puts the man’s hand on the key in the door or on the door, or the wall. Then he says, “By virtue of this mandate, I do induct you into the real, actual, and corporal possessions of this church of (name of church and location) with all the rights, profits, and appurtenances thereto belonging.”  Then the archdeacon leads the new clergyman inside. He fills out a certificate and the men of the church, the patron, and the vestry or other witnesses sign it. It is formally called an induction: The man is inducted into that church. But I have seen it called reading him in. Once a man has been read in he cannot be fired.

In the Regency period, a man entering the church usually went to university. There were few courses specifically for clergymen. A “seminary” during those day might very well be a girls’ school, not a place to study one’s religious beliefs or prepare one for tending a church. Prospective clergymen took the same courses as others for the most part with a study plan laid out by tutors. They attended some special lectures on theology and read the writings of St. Augustine, as well as Plato. There were complaints that the course of study was too secular. The tutor could also have them reading various works of theologians of the reformation as well .

They were supposed to use printed sermons and the prayers in the book of Common Prayer at first, anyway. 

After they graduated they might stay on as a tutor. They could not be ordained until age 24 and often required a position to hold them over until they found a church of their own. So, those of you who are Austen fans now know that Mr. Collins was likely around five and twenty or even older.

If they had the money and hoped to become a bishop one day, they might take courses in Civil law which was the law used in the church courts (English courts used Common law).  Most references to “Doctors,” such as Doctors’ Commons meant Doctor of Divinity (not medicine)  Doctors’ Commons was a place where Doctors of Divinity gathered. It was also where the Archbishop had an office and the site of the church court.

 As to how a man found a living, families and friends looked about for open livings. Those who stayed on as tutors had a chance at one of the livings where the university owned the right of presentation.

The man could be ordained at any time the bishop agreed to it but only after he was 24 years of age and had the offer of a position. After ordination, the man would be read into or inducted into the specific church.

In some churches the man would be rector and receive the major tithes. In others he would be vicar and receive the lesser tithes. Some times he might be a curate, which meant that he was paid a wage and could be sent home at any time. This was usually the case when the owner of the presentation had a young son he intended for the church and required a place holder until the boy turned 24. [See my Greater and Lesser Tithes and Who Received Them for more information.]

Jane Austen and the Clergy has some good information.

What I have described above is not the ordination which the bishop does in his cathedral. Taking orders or ordination is when the man—those in some denominations—places himself before the altar. The induction is the formal placing a man into a specific church to serve as the incumbent. The induction or “reading in” takes place in the church where the man will serve. According to the book of ecclesiastical law, the paragraph I provided earlier is what the arch deacon says.

He starts off with a warrant which is the formal, legal appointment which lays out the terms, the tithes, and the responsibilities.

Within 56 days the man is to read the 37 articles of religion to the congregation and affirm his whole hearted support of such.

There are 37 articles in the Book of Common prayer. The example is from the Province of the Archbishop of York, but the form is pretty much the same for both provinces. One resource as to the actual words would be a period copy of the Book of Common prayer.  

The Book of Common Prayer 1800 is online in Google Books 

The Clergyman’s Manual 1842, by Robert Simpson

Posted in British history, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Regency era, religion, research, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on During the Georgian Era, Would a Vicar or Clergyman Take an Oath?

When You Discover One of Your Great Grandfather’s Has a Town Named After Him

Welcome to Marlinton, West Virginia.

Historic Depot and the Greenbrier River Trail in Marlinton. ~ Wikipedia ~ CC BY 2.5

What might you ask would have me writing about a small town in rural West Virginia? Well, the truth of it is I have once again been updating my Ancestry.com files. This town is named after my 7th Great Grandfather, Jacob Marlin.

Marlinton is a town in and the county seat of Pocahontas County, West Virginia, United States. The population was 998 at the 2020 census. Located along the Greenbrier River, it is known for its scenery.

Marlinton is named for Jacob Marlin, who, along with Stephen Sewell, became the first non-native settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains, in the Greenbrier Valley in 1749. They were discovered living there by surveyors John Lewis and his son, Andrew, in 1751. New Englanders Marlin and Sewell built a cabin in what would become Marlinton, but after various religious disputes, Sewell moved into a nearby hollowed-out sycamore tree. Sewell eventually settled on the eastern side of what is now called Sewell Mountain, near present-day Rainelle.

Jacob Marlin was born in April 1689 in Talbot County, Maryland. He married Sarah Armstrong in 1710. His daughter Susan, who is my 6th Great-Grandmother was the first of his children, followed by a son named Archibald and, later, another daughter named Eleanor. Those children were well spaced out, for he was gone for long stretches of time in exploration.

Greenbrier Pioneers and Their Homes by Ruth Woods Dayton tells us,

Marlin and Sewell were the first white settlers to reach the upper part of the valley. The year was 1749. Later, Sewell struck out on his own, moving farther west. He was killed by Indians, apparently at the cabin site and probably in 1756 during the French and Indian War. Marlin, who returned to the East, survived the Indian wars.

As a result of its rural location and proximity to the facilities of the United States National Radio Quiet Zone, the town has been a late adopter of broadband Internet. A 2018 article in Motherboard explains that the nearby Snowshoe Mountain ski resort has been able to provide fast internet, WiFi, and cell phone coverage by having a custom system built which is specially designed so as not to interfere with radio telescopes.

It is my understanding that the men had strong disagreements about religion, one being a Protestant and the other a Catholic.

Luke Bauserman in an article entitled “Giant Trees of Appalachia and the People Who Lived in Them,” tells us: “According to the Encyclopedia of West Virginia, the largest trees ever documented in the eastern states were three sycamores documented by George Washington in 1771 on the Three Brothers Islands in the Ohio River. [Google Books] Washington was amazed at the size of these trees and estimated in his diary that one of them was 61 feet in circumference at its base!
It turns out that my brother and I weren’t the first settlers to take up residence in a hollow tree either, not by a long shot:
• In 1750, explorers Jacob Marlin and Stephen Sewell headed westward across the Allegheny range and found there way to where the mouth of Knapps Creek empties into the Greenbrier River in what is now Pocahontas County, WV. The two men decided to settle in the area. They built a cabin for themselves, but ended up having a falling-out. Their quarrel eventually reached a point where they were not speaking to each other. So Sewell moved to a large hollow sycamore tree which stood a short distance from the cabin and lived there for a period of time.
• The following year, when surveyors for the Greenbrier Land Company entered the area, they found Marlin and Sewell living quite happily in their separate dwelling places. It was also reported that each morning the two men greeted each other with pleasant salutations. After Sewell moved on farther west where he was later killed by Indians, his former sycamore tree house served as a temporary dwelling place for many others who passed that way in subsequent years and remained as a landmark until 1930.”

Medium ~ The largest tree logged in the State of West Virginia, near Lead Mine, Tucker County, 1913. This white oak, as large as any California Sequoia, was probably well over 1,000 years old. It measured 13 feet in diameter 16 feet from the base, and 10 feet in diameter 31 feet from the base. © McClain Printing Company. ~ http://www.patc.us/history/archive/virg_fst.html
Smoky Mountains Hiking Club rests at a large chestnut tree. ~ Medium ~ http://therevivalist.info/win-a-blight-resistant-chestnut-tree/

“Marlin and Sewell.” e-WV: The West Virginia Encyclopedia. 08 February 2024. Web. Accessed: 07 April 2025.

Posted in America, American History, Appalachia, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

What Did It Mean to Be a “Gentleman” in Jane Austen’s England?

The word “genteel” is an adjective, meaning polite, refined, or respectable, often in an affected or ostentatious way. Its roots can be found in the late 16th century (in the sense ‘fashionable, stylish’): from French gentil ‘well-born’. From the 17th century to the 19th century the word was used in such senses as ‘of good social position’, ‘having the manners of a well-born person’, ‘well bred’. The ironic or derogatory implication dates from the 19th century, in which the Regency era lies. (Dictionary.com)

Meanwhile, “gentleman” is a noun, meaning a chivalrous, courteous, or honorable man, as in “He behaved like a perfect gentleman.” The word can also mean a man of good social position, especially one of wealth and leisure, or, as used in the United Kingdom, a man of noble birth attached to a royal household. The term comes from Middle English (in the sense ‘man of noble birth’): from gentle + man, translating Old French gentilz hom . In later use the term denoted a man of a good family (especially one entitled to a coat of arms) but not of the nobility. (Dictionary.com)

Most of us believe we know how the word is defined, and, I imagine, for many, your personal definition of a “gentleman” is based on behavior. However, that was not always the case during the Regency era. A man could be a “rake” or womanizer, but still be considered a gentleman. Our modern day definition of a “gentleman” does not take in those ranked as gentlemen in the order of precedence, right under “esquire,” which was not a term only used by lawyers of that day. If you wonder what I mean by Order of Precedence, check out this table on Wikipedia. We must remember that during the aristocracy only included those with a peerage. I often emphasize in my Austen-inspired books that Colonel Fitzwilliam is the younger son of an earl, but he is still a commoner, as is Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bennet, and even Mr. Collins. Only the colonel’s father is part of the peerage. Even the gentleman’s mother’s place in society depends upon her husband’s position. However, although the colonel, Darcy, Bennet, and Collins are all “equally” gentlemen by use of the term during the Regency, no one would think them equal otherwise. 

Therefore, when Elizabeth Bennet argues her point regarding Lady Catherine’s objections of Elizabeth setting her sights too high on the “order of precedence” by aspiring to marry Mr. Darcy, her ladyship’s response appears to make more sense. Elizabeth’s father was part of the landed gentry, but Mrs. Bennet’s roots lies in trade, as does Mrs. Bennet’s brother, Mr. Gardiner, and her sister, Mrs. Phillips. 

Elizabeth: “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.”

Lady Catherine: “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.”

The good colonel’s father, an earl, had enough money to purchase him a position of rank in the Army. He is commissioned as an “officer and a gentleman.” His rank has nothing to do with whether Colonel Fitzwilliam truly behaved as a “gentleman,” as the modern term indicates. He could have been a rascal of a man, but still hold the term “gentleman” as part of his recognition in society. In these cases the definition has more connection to being of gentle birth than giving up a chair to a lady. The two definitions are connected because being genteel, or of the gentry, meaning of gentle birth also came with rules for expected behavior. It is hard to describe the meaning of Gentleman, specially to those who have no idea of the  milieu in which Jane Austen was raised. It is a quite tricky question. How about we sat instead: “A gentleman is one who has never had to work for a living and comes from a land-owning family”? The church, the law, and the army were considered suitable occupations for a gentleman during the Regency, but in practice, some were more equal than others. No one would have taken Mr. Collins for Mr. Darcy’s equal, though both would be called gentlemen.

The term “gentleman” during the Regency is a fascinating conundrum, basically because the idea and legal aspects of being a ‘gentleman’ was in flux, in transition, under attack, so to say, as was the entire upper class. Gentleman was a legal term and inheritable title according to long-standing laws. New ideas such as Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man,” a book published in two parts, March 1791 and February 1792, and containing 31 articles, posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard the natural rights of its people. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke’s attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Once must understand that the French Revolution presented real threats to legitimacy of the hereditary ruling classes.

The growing wealth of the middle class purchasing their way into the gentry was another threat. Mr. Bingley in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is a prime example of this situation.  Jane Austen’s books all deal with that question: “What is a true gentleman?” But because of the laws where only the first son inherited, second sons, ostensibly part of the upper class and a gentleman, had to have something to live on Again, I return to Colonel Fitzwilliam in the same book.

“Do you certainly leave Kent on Saturday?” said she.

“Yes—if Darcy does not put it off again. But I am at his disposal. He arranges the business just as he pleases.”

“And if not able to please himself in the arrangement, he has at least pleasure in the great power of choice. I do not know anybody who seems more to enjoy the power of doing what he likes than Mr. Darcy.”

“He likes to have his own way very well,” replied Colonel Fitzwilliam. “But so we all do. It is only that he has better means of having it than many others, because he is rich, and many others are poor. I speak feelingly. A younger son, you know, must be inured to self-denial and dependence.”

“In my opinion, the younger son of an earl can know very little of either. Now seriously, what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever you chose, or procuring anything you had a fancy for?”

“These are home questions—and perhaps I cannot say that I have experienced many hardships of that nature. But in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from want of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like.”

Without forfeiting his rank, a landless gentleman could be a barrister because a barrister was presented an honorarium, not a salary for his services, but not he could not become a solicitor because a solicitor received a salary or fee for work.  A vicar was given a ‘living’, possibly several, which was not considered a salary. He often did not work, per se, generally hiring others to do any work. A military officer was another story with its own issues, and one of the more serious threats to the gentry during the Napoleonic era. There were far more officers needed during the twenty years of war than could be supplied by the upper classes. After a fashion, buying a commission or earning a position of authority in the Royal Navy was seen as an entry into the gentry. Do you not recall Sir Walter’s objections to Frederick Wentworth in Austen’s novel, Persuasion? Wentworth has more value when he returns as a “Captain” and has a fortune of £30,000.

Gronow’s wonderful book is a great illustration of an officer being among the upper classes, but as a war-minted gentleman without much money, he was not fully accepted.

For those of you seeking more information on this topic, there is an interesting 200+ page thesis by Ailwood, Sarah, “What Men Ought to be: Masculinities in Jane Austen novels.” University of Woolongong Theses Collection 2008 that can be downloaded at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/124/ It addresses Austen’s ideas of Masculinity, which pretty much targets the society of gentlemen.

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, customs and tradiitons, film adaptations, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage customs, Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on What Did It Mean to Be a “Gentleman” in Jane Austen’s England?

Giraffes in London During the Regency Era

I had a recent question from a reader who came across a book by my fellow North Carolina author, Deb Marlowe, called An Unexpected Encounter. In it, the heroine encounters stuffed giraffes, and she asked me (why she did not ask Deb, I have no idea) if there was some truth in the tale. Perhaps she was too embarrassed to send something to Deb, while she contacts me with some regularity. First off, Deb Marlowe has a promo post about the book. You can find it at the link above. Ms. Marlowe tells us, “In An Unexpected Encounter, our heroine Lisbeth meets a young girl, come to visit the giraffes–and her memories.  She also meets the girl’s guardian, Lord Cotwell, and so begins a story that features laughter, tears, automatons, insect collectors, a tryst in Hyde Park and of course, the subtle matchmaking efforts of Hestia Wright!” She even provides us with an image of the giraffes, which is shown below.

I possess a smattering of information on the giraffes. The reader above wondered if the giraffes would have still been installed at Montague House towards the end of the George IV’s reign.

From my research on this one, this display all started with one giraffe, and it was a diplomatic gift to George IV in 1827 from Mohammed Ali, a pasha and viceroy of Egypt. He presented Charles X of France with a different giraffe, presumably it was a half-sibling of George IV’s giraffe.

Although exotic wild animals and birds had been around in European menageries since the Middle Ages, giraffes proved to be the most elusive and unusual of wild animals. France and England allegedly drew lots as to who would get which giraffe, with the taller one going to France.

The giraffe bound for England was younger, smaller, and had probably suffered greatly on her trek, as it was later noted by vets who carried out a post mortem that she had arrived in England with already deformed limbs. The sibling giraffes parted ways in Alexandria but had two Egyptian milk cows, two Egyptian keepers, several other African mammals and a translator each for company for the rest of their journey.

George’s giraffe, already weaker and crippled, was sent by ship to Malta, where she spent the winter. In May 1827 she boarded the Penelope Malta Trader. A hole was cut into the deck of the ship to accommodate her.

She arrived at London’s Waterloo Bridge, on 11 August 1827 and was put up in a warehouse, before being moved in a large container to Windsor, where George had been eagerly awaiting his new toy.

By 1827, the king had become a recluse, spending most of his time at the Royal Lodge and Virginia Water Fishing Temple in Windsor Great Park, away from the public eye. With his health declining, he devoted himself to his mistress Lady Conyngham and was often seen riding in his pony-chaise to his menagerie of “gentle animals” at Sandpit Gate.

George added the giraffe to this menagerie, and it probably caused him great excitement, given his interest in anything exotic.

Sadly, though, neither the poor giraffe nor George lasted very long thereafter.

The giraffe suffered badly from the injuries sustained on her long journey from deepest Africa to Windsor. Like many of the animals at the Tower of London’s menagerie/zoo, the giraffe was probably given an inappropriate diet in England, and she finally died in 1829. [Tower of London’s Menagerie]

There are a whole raft of satirical prints that tell the story of the demise of the giraffe, clearly associating her with George IV who was greatly ridiculed in these drawings. One print shows Lady Conyngham and George hoisting the giraffe, now unable to stand unaided, up to a specially built frame. The images of the giraffe are mostly satirical, unsparing, and attack her owner through ridiculing the creature.

In this satirical print, William Heath irreverently links the novelty of having a pet giraffe with having a new mistress. King George IV sits on the back of a high stepping giraffe with Lady Conyngham (the King’s mistress) shown with an exaggerated rear-end and feathered headdress, sitting sidewise on the animal behind him. ~ https://emuseum.ringling.org/objects/50076/the-camelopard-or-a-new-hobby

The giraffe appears again in John Doyle’s Le Mort, lying dead, being mourned by George, his mistress and Lord Eldon. And even after George’s death in June 1830 the satirists did not leave the giraffe alone: in Heath’s “Packing Up!!!”, Lady Conyngham is grabbing valuables when she is kicked out of Windsor Castle. Among the treasures is the skeleton of the giraffe.

Royal Collection Trust – https://www.rct.uk/collection/751282/packing-up ~ A satire depicting Lady Conyngham, the mistress of George IV, and her family plundering the possessions of the late King. One object, the skeleton of a giraffe refers to one of George IV’s pets.

There are, though, a number of serious depictions of the English giraffe, mostly commissioned by George and, but sadly they are in private collections. Two of these are in the Royal Collection, of which one, an exquisite oil painting by the animal painter Jacques-Laurent Agasse, is usually on display at the Queen’s Gallery in Buckingham Palace.

After the death the George’s giraffe, the animal was stuffed by a talented taxidermist, John Gould. It is uncertain what happened to the stuffed giraffe and her skeleton – they could well have been used for research purposes by the newly founded Zoological society.

But it was actually in the early 1840s that three stuffed giraffes were first displayed on the landing of the first British Museum in Montagu House. A senior curator of the British Museum shared this information a couple of years ago – but even he said there was no way to be confident whether one of them was George IV’s giraffe.

Other Information on Stuffed Animals, Etc.

1813 The Companion to the Bullocks Museum described a giraffe  in the museum.  

The specimen was a stuffed, as were all of Bullocks’ animals.

<https://books.google.com/books?id=WqJbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bullock%27s+museum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Tx_vVKbDOIXNgwTmmoHYBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=giraffe&f=false>

Egyptian Hall or Bullocks Museum

http://www.georgianindex.net/Bullocks/Egyptian_Hall.html

As to the three giraffes pictured above, it depends on when in 1817 they were taken up as a task and how fast taxidermists worked. The male and female giraffe were donated by W. J. Burchell, Esquire (A Visit to the Bristish Museum, 1838), I believe as part of 43 skins given to the museum in 1817; the third, smaller giraffe was given in 1835. I believe the rhinoceros was a later addition, as Burchell first described the white rhinoceros in 1817, but only brought back “teeth, some horns and the horn-bearing epinasal skin” from Africa. Source: William J. Burchell’s South African Mammal Collection, 1810-1815

Source: William J. Burchell’s South African Mammal Collection, 1810-1815

William John Burchell (23 July 1781 – 23 March 1863) was an English explorer, naturalist, traveller, artist, and author. His thousands of plant specimens, as well as field journals from his South African expedition, are held by Kew Gardens, and his insect collection by the Oxford University Museum.

Portrait of Burchell by John Russell (1800).

According to some of the ledgers at the British Museum, Sir George Shaw (Keeper of Zoology 1806-13) sold many of the zoological specimens (larger skeletons and hides. etc.) to the Royal College of Surgeons because the British Museum could not stop them from rotting. and they had so many rotting carcasses in the basements that the place was infested with vermin.

His successor William Elford Leach made periodical bonfires in the grounds of the museum. In 1833. the Annual Report states that of the 5,500 insects alone listed in the Sloane catalogue, none remained.

One lady I read about spoke of a furless giraffe. This would not be uncommon during the early years of the British Museum, for it had an appalling reputation for ill-preserved specimens, with surrounding residents bitterly complaining about the infestation of vermin in the district and the smell of burning carcasses from the bonfires to destroy rotting specimens. Even after 1840s, the inability of the natural history departments to conserve its specimens became so notorious that the Treasury refused to entrust it with specimens collected at the government’s expense. Appointments of staff were sprinkled thoroughly with gentlemanly favoritism. In 1862, a nephew of the mistress of a Trustee was appointed Entomological Assistant despite not knowing the difference between a butterfly and a moth.

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, England, fashion, George IV, Georgian, Georgian England, Georgian Era, kings and queens, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Giraffes in London During the Regency Era

Regency Romance Plot Point: Betrothal Announcement in the Newspapers ~ Real or NOT!!!

I have seen and read some copies of actual newspapers of the Regency period which had been digitalized. Naturally, it is possible that there were no marriages of importance to share with the public on those particular dates, but I have screen shots of a few copies of the Times, the Morning Chronicle and the Morning Post, with varying dates. In none of them is there a betrothal announcement.

In fact, I have only seen an announcement of a forthcoming wedding three times in all the Georgian era documents I have encountered, and, with each, it was more of gossip section of the paper rather than the a legitimate report. Though I cannot recall the exact wording at this time, it went something like this:

It is said among those at last evening fête that Lord Salanger is to marry Miss Theodora Thompson, who has a fortune of £20,000. Lord T is 42 and Miss T is 21.

Just remember that gossip is just that: GOSSIP. It has a chance of being accurate, but a larger chance of inaccuracy.

Angelyn’s Blog provides us some more humorous ones:

“And now for some various Regency-era nuptial announcements from La Belle Assemblée or, Bell’s Court and Fashionable Magazine Addressed Particularly to the Ladies .

“From the March, 1817 issue of the aforesaid Magazine:

“At Ringwood, Mr. T. Bloomfield, aged 70, to Mrs. Mooren, aged 40. So decrepit and helpless was the old man that it was with the greatest difficulty that he could be taken from the chaise which brought him from the church; and when in the church he was obliged to be drawn to the altar in a cart.”

“Another singular notification appeared in the September issue of that same year:

“At Rothwell Church, Mr. Thomas Craven, of the Leeds Pottery, to Miss Coultare, both of Leeds, after a tedious courtship of twenty-eight years, six months and six days.”

I found this example on a Reddit chat group, so I cannot speak to its legitimacy, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

“I was just reading a historic newspaper from a few years before Austen was born.

“There is this announcement in the paper

“On Thursday last was married, the Rev. Mr Sutcliffe of Halifax* to Miss Garforth, only daughter of Samuel Garforth of Warley, a most amiable and accomplished young lady possessed of every accomplishment to render the marriage state happy, with a fortune of 1000 l” (l standing for pounds here).”

None of the other papers mention forth coming weddings at all. The vital statistics column reported births, death, and weddings but only after they had taken place. These same statistics were reported in the Annual Register.

I know many authors have built plots around having betrothals announced in the newspaper, but I just have not found any except for Princess Charlotte’s.

The ever-fabulous Cheryl Bolen tells us, “Love matches were definitely the norm in the Regency but were not the same as today’s. A significant difference in so-called love matches was that the upper class had to pick potential spouses from a select pool. Aristocrats wed other aristocrats or persons who shared their social sphere.

“A title holder could (but rarely did) marry beneath him. In 1812 the lecherous 42-year-old Lord Berwick married the 15-year-old courtesan who was sister to the famed courtesan Harriette Wilson. And the Duke of St. Albans married a former actress in 1827. Younger aristocratic sons, however, could be cut off completely if they married a woman from the lower classes.

“Genteel young ladies almost never engaged in premarital sex. They were shielded from sex and not permitted to be alone with gentlemen. Even Lady Caroline Lamb, who later became famous for her adultery with Lord Byron (and others), was a complete innocent when she married William Lamb (later Prime Minister Lord Melbourne) at age 19. She was shocked and unhappy over the action that robbed her virginity, and it took her some time to recover.”

Many newspapers had accounts of balls, routs, dinners, and other fashionable gatherings so there was a place where such announcements could appear, BUT did not, at least, with some regularity.

 So, despite the fact that many an announcement of a forthcoming marriage is sent to a fictional newspaper, it did not, generally, happen in real life.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, heroines, historical fiction, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, research, romance, tradtions, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Regency Romance Plot Point: Betrothal Announcement in the Newspapers ~ Real or NOT!!!

Boot Polish in Regency England + “Never Contradict a Lady” and the Release of “Regency Summer Melodies” + a Giveaway

Those of us who read Regency romances and write Regency romances surely have read of the high polish on a gentleman’s boots, but what exactly did that entail?

First, let us define the terms of “boot polish.” It is a waxy paste, cream, or, nowadays, liquid, used not only to polish but waterproof leather shoes or boots. Many of the techniques and mixtures used have been around since the Middle Ages. Original shoes polish was made with dubbin.

Dubbin is a greasy or waxy product used to soften, condition, and waterproof leather. [Waterer, John William (1981). Leather and the warrior : an account of the importance of leather to the fighting man from the time of the ancient Greeks to World War II. Northampton, England: The Museum of Leathercraft. p. 61.]

It has been used since medieval times to waterproof and soften leather goods. It differs from saddle soap used to clean and lightly condition leather, or shoe polish, which is used to impart shine and color to it. It consists primarily of various waxes and oils. Commercial dubbin contains petroleum jelly (petrolatum), paraffin wax, neatsfoot oil, and naphtha (C10-12 alkane/cycloalkane). More traditional dubbin can be made with beeswax, fish oil and lard. [“Mad Madam Mel: A recipe for Dubbin”madmadammel.com.]

The name dubbin is a contraction of the gerund dubbing, describing the action of applying the wax to leather.

As leather with a high natural veneer became popular in the 18th century, a high glossy finish became important, particularly on shoes and boots. In most cases, homemade polishes were used to provide this finish, often with lanolin or beeswax as a base.[2]

English Army Blacking from 1895 ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_polish

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the term used was not “shoe polish,” but rather “blacking.” This was true when mixed with lampblack (also called carbon black, lamp black, furnace black, etc., and still used in making tires – Carbon black also helps conduct heat away from the tread and belt area of the tire, reducing thermal damage and increasing tire life. Its low cost makes it a common addition to cathodes and anodes and is considered a safe replacement to lithium metal in lithium-ion batteries). It was still referred to a dubbin. Tallow ws used to manufacture a simple shoe polish used at the time. Such is why Chicago (known for its stock yards and processed meat) became a major shoe polish producing area.

Thomas and Jonathan Warren started making blacking in London around 1795–98. On a side note, Jonathan Warren’s Blacking company is noted as the first employer of Charles Dickens, aged 12 in 1823. [Charles Dickens and the Blacking Factory by Michael Allen. 201] The Warren company’s chief competitor was the Day & Martin company formed in 1801. [Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History]

A site called Blanco and Bill tells us, “Since medieval times dubbin, made from natural wax, oil and tallow, was used to soften and waterproof leather. However, its purpose was not to impart a shine. As leather with a high natural veneer became popular in the 18th century, a high glossy finish cleaner became important, particularly on shoes and boots. In most cases, a variety of homemade polishes were used to provide this finish, often with lanolin or beeswax as a base.

“In the 19th century, many forms of shoe polish became available, yet were rarely referred to as shoe polish or boot polish. Instead, they were often called blacking (usually soot mixed with beeswax or lanolin) or simply continued to be referred to as dubbin. The first commercial shoe polish was a mixture of sugar, vinegar, black dye and water, the problem was that this substance, as with the ‘blacking’, came off on peoples clothes. Tallow, an animal by-product, was used to manufacture a simple form of shoe polish at this time. Chicago, Illinois, where 82 percent of the meat consumed in the United States was processed, became a major shoe polish producing area for this reason.

“Prior to 1903, shoe polish was not well known as a purchasable product, nor was it particularly sophisticated. While sales were not especially high, a few brands, like Nugget, were available in England during the 1800s. The practice of shining people’s shoes gradually caught on and soon many shoeshine boys in the city streets were offering shoe shines using a basic form of shoe polish along with a polishing cloth.”

Story Blurb: Ballerinas were never ladies in Regency London, but Miss Marian Cooper was different. She was a woman of substance, the type of female a miserable example of English “quality” required to make him man enough to inherit the title of Marquess of Coulter.

Giveaway: I have 6 eBook copies of Regency Summer Melodies available to those who comment on theses posts. Winners will be chosen on 7 July 2025 and contacted by email address.

Regency Summer Melodies ~ releasing 5 July 2025 ~ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FD8FT6C4/

Posted in aristocracy, blog hop, book release, British history, customs and tradiitons, Dreamstone Publishing, eBooks, Georgian Era, giveaway, Great Britain, hero, heroines, historical fiction, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boot Polish in Regency England + “Never Contradict a Lady” and the Release of “Regency Summer Melodies” + a Giveaway

Dueling in the Georgian Era + “Never Contradict a Lady” and the Release of “Regency Summer Melodies” + a Giveaway

If one reads enough Regency romance, he comes across a scene where a duel is to proceed between two individuals. In the 1600s and early 1700s, duels were fought with, originally a rapier, later with a smallsword, and, later still, with a French foil. “A sword is a lever with a sharp edge. A rapier’s blade is lighter than a longsword’s, making it easier to feint and redirect in the midst of a swing. That’s the tradeoff, mechanically, over the heavier blade’s momentum.

“Even though the slender blade of a rapier enables the user to launch a quick attack at a fairly long and advantaged distance between the user and the opponent, and the protective hilt can deflect the opponent’s blade, the thrust-oriented weapon is weakened by its bated cutting power and relatively low maneuverability at a closer distance, where the opponent has safely passed the reach of the rapier’s deadly point.” [Burgess, Colin; Gerloff, Sabine (1981). The Dirks and Rapiers of Great Britain and Ireland. Beck. pp. 32–33.]

“The small sword or smallsword (also court sword, Gaelic: claidheamh beag or claybeg, French: épée de cour, lit. “Sword of the court”) is a light one-handed sword designed for thrusting which evolved out of the longer and heavier rapier (espada ropera) of the late Renaissance. The height of the small sword’s popularity was during the 18th century, when any civilian or soldier with pretensions to gentlemanly status would have worn a small sword daily. The blade of a small sword is comparatively short at around 0.6 to 0.85 metres (24 to 33 in), though some reach over 1 metre (39 in). It usually tapers to a sharp point but may lack a cutting edge. It is typically triangular in cross-section, although some of the early examples still have the rhombic and spindle-shaped cross-sections inherited from older weapons, like the rapier. This triangular cross-section may be hollow ground for additional lightness. Many small swords of the period between the 17th and 18th centuries were found with colichemarde blades.” [Small Sword]

Sword of Napoléon, carried at the Battle of Austerlitz ~ CC BY-SA 3.0 fr ~ via Wikipedia

The modern foil is the training weapon for the small-sword, the common sidearm of 18th century gentleman. Rapier and even longsword foils are also known to have been used, but their weight and use were very different. [“THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOIL (Part 1) / LeonPaul.com”http://www.leonpaul.com.] The foil is what most of us would imagine if we were to think upon a duel.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, duels were more commonly fought with pistols, designed for the event. The actions of the duel were based on a code of honour. Duels were not designed to “kill” someone, but to know “satisfaction”- to restore one’s honour by accepting the idea of the duel and going forward with it. Generally, this was a MAN’s way of restoring his self-esteem.

In the Regency, duels in England, as well as many European countries, were illegal. By the early 1800s, duels in England meant pistols, not blades. Another major change was the naming of one’s “second,” who jobs included, first, attempting to come to a reconciliation before the duel took place. If that was not possible, the second examined the weapons and knew confident both guns were equal in cleanliness, trigger action, etc. The person being challenged had his choice of weapons when they were presented to him, as well as the side of the field he would defend. Both men could retain their honour if they deloped, meaning shooting up in the air rather than at each other. “Delope” (a French word meaning “throwing away”) is the practice of deliberately wasting one’s first shot in a pistol duel in an attempt to abort the conflict.

“By this time the values of the duel had spread into the broader and emerging society of gentlemen. Research shows that much the largest group of later duellists were military officers, followed by the young sons of the metropolitan elite. Duelling was also popular for a time amongst doctors and, in particular, amongst the legal professions.

“Quantifying the number of duels in Britain is difficult, but there are about 1,000 attested between 1785 and 1845 with fatality rates running at at least 15% and probably somewhat higher. The last duel in England was fought in 1852. In 1862, in an article entitled Dead (and gone) Shots, Charles Dickens recalled the rules and myths of Irish duelling in his periodical All the Year Round. Under the United Kingdom law, to kill in the course of a duel was formally murder, but for much of the history of the duel the courts were very lax in applying the law, since the legal professions were themselves sympathetic to the culture of honour. The Anglican Church was generally hostile to duelling, although some clergymen duelled, but non-conformist sects were relentlessly hostile. The sovereigns generally opposed duelling but rarely were active in suppressing it.” [ [https://janeausten.co.uk/blogs/regency-history/to-punish-or-defend-the-regency-duel]

Story Blurb: Ballerinas were never ladies in Regency London, but Miss Marian Cooper was different. She was a woman of substance, the type of female a miserable example of English “quality” required to make him man enough to inherit the title of Marquess of Coulter.

Giveaway: I have 6 eBook copies of Regency Summer Melodies for those who comment on any or all of the posts regarding this release. Winners will be chosen on July 7, 2025, and contacted by email.

Regency Summer Melodies ~ releasing 5 July 2025 ~ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FD8FT6C4/

Posted in book release, British history, dancing, Dreamstone Publishing, dueling, eBooks, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, Realm series, Regency era, Regency romance, research, romance, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment