Le bon ton is a French phrase meaning “the good style” or “good form.” One could be said to have good ton–meaning good style. So one could be part of the Ton, if one had the style for it–which is why Beau Brummell could be a leader of fashion and society despite not having much of a background (very middle class). The term beau monde came into use in the early 1700s; it literally means fine world. It is used for the fashionable world or high society.
Ton (le bon ton) tells us, “The ton” is a term commonly used to refer to Britain’s high society during the late Regency and the reign of George IV, and later. It is a French word meaning (in this sense) “manners” or “style” and is pronounced as in French. The full phrase is le bon ton meaning “good manners” or “good form” – characteristics held as ideal by the British beau monde. The term le beau monde, literally meaning “the beautiful world” (but here meaning “fashionable people,” or “fashionable society”), was similar to le bon ton during the nineteenth century. “The ton” has also been used to refer to the Upper Ten Thousand of later 19th-century society, including most of the peerage, aristocracy and wealthy merchants or bankers of the City (of London).
The ton might be expanded to include the “upper ten thousand” (not just the upper four hundred). [Upper Ten Thousand, or simply, The Upper Ten, is a phrase coined in 1852 by American poet Nathaniel Parker Willis to describe the upper circles of New York, and hence of other major cities.] All things considered, a duke might have poor ton, while a mere mister might have le bon ton (as in with the Brummel, again, who had no title). Needless to say, money/wealth could make a difference, but not without a sense of style or good form performed by the individual. And a title could matter, but if one had poor manners with that title, Society might well turn its back for displaying poor form.
John Mullan in a 2013 article for The Guardian tells us, “Toffs have always seemed to know how to keep the best things for themselves, especially when everyone is sure that their power is waning. It has long been conventional to see the 18th century as the period in which Britain passed out of the control of the court and the aristocracy. Commerce became the power in the land; new codes of politeness welded the propertied classes together, and these included more and more of ‘the middling sort.’ The patrons and philanthropists of this self-consciously modern society were the merchants and men of trade whose portraits were painted by Hogarth. Many of its cultural heroes – Samuel Richardson, David Garrick, Hogarth himself – came from humble backgrounds. The ancient régime was gone.
“[The] study of high society in the period corrects this impression. [The] 18th‑century aristocracy used fashion – and the willingness of the classes immediately below them to be dazzled by fashion – to assert their influence anew…. One small triumph of the ever-adaptable English upper class was to get this term, with its unmistakable tone of self-applause, accepted. There was a cluster of other words for those who embodied style and inhabited the rapidly spreading West End of London: ‘people of fashion,’ ‘the great world’ and, best of all, ‘the ton.’ The press stoked the public fascination with the most glittering members of this class.”
The word ton was not used to refer to people as a whole in the Regency period, but for discussing people of good taste. I am not certain, but perhaps it was Georgette Heyer who started calling the whole group of aristocrats the Ton.
Although the term referred to fashionable sect, that does mean the actual members of the “ton” used the word to stipulate members of their group. It is more likely that they would speak of those without manners or those who preened too much as the dandy set or fops. Then might consider a person of poor manners as “not of our sort.” Needless to say, they also thought that only the members of the upperclass, the well bred among them, could possess good taste. Beau Brummell, for example, would not have had any influence if he had not been a member of the Prince of Wales’ coterie and taken up by the Whigs. Though Brummell’s downfall is often spoken of as having started with his bad ton of arguing with and then insulting the Prince Regent, but the timing also coincides with the Whigs’ disenchantment with the Regent and the switching of sides by many on many issues. [For more on the Rise and Fall of Beau Brummell, visit Rachel Knowles’ Regency History.]
While the Prince and the Whigs were aligned, the Whigs castigated Prince George’s wife. However, when the Whigs discovered that the Prince had gone back on his promise to them, they started supporting Princess Caroline, while the Tories, who once had supported her now turned their backs on her. Who was in and who was out was not simply a person who broke the unspoken rules. Politics had much more to do with things than we sometimes assumed.
The Ton were aristocrats and upper level gentry who attended the London Season and Little Season. This was much like an awards program with an A-list of celebrities. To be on the “list,” one must possess proper family connections, be wealthy, own land, and appear untouched by trade or by the need to earn a living. Young ladies presented to the Court were A-list, those who were not presented, but otherwise met the criteria to be invited to Almack’s were the B-list, etc. People advanced and grew richer through connections more than anything else at this time.)
What do y’all think about using James Gillray’s print “Following the Fashion, St. James’s Giving the Ton a Soul Without a Body” from 1796 as documentation of the ton? (One can find the image at Draw Paint Print)
A quick glance through some of my reference books revealed there are also publications that use bon ton as a descriptor in their titles. The New Bon Ton Magazine (Telescope of the Times) that was published from 1818-1821.
Slang: A Dictionary of the Turf, the Ring, the Chase, the Pit, of Bon Ton and the Varieties of Life by John Bee in 1823.
Playwright David Garrick’s comedy Bon Ton; or High Life Above Stairs was performed at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane on March 18, 1775.
The Cambridge Companion to British Theatre 1730-1830 documents dramatist Hannah Cowley referencing the bon ton society.
I particularly like Hannah Greig’s The Beau Monde: Fashionable Society in Georgian London from Oxford University Press. The book contains…
- The story of the world’s first fashion-obsessed society in eighteenth century London
- A tale of dazzling excess, intrigue, vanity and glamour in a world re-made
- Takes us on a tour from court and Parliament to Georgian London’s parks, pleasure grounds and private homes, meeting a rich and colourful cast of contemporary characters along the way
- Reveals the secrets of how membership in the new elite was won, maintained – and sometimes lost
- Shows how being a Fashionable was the key to power and exclusivity in a new social order
(Image via Wikipedia) The first use of the phrase as we now know it is from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, 1596: 
“The English comic actor, the late Sid James, typified the type both on and off stage and was typecast in such roles; for example, he played Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond in the Ealing comedy Carry On Up The Khyber. That was particularly appropriate as it turns out – Sid James worked in a diamond mine in South Africa before becoming an actor.”
(Image by Kelly Gunn, https://www.elance.com/samples/cack-handed-image-font-pen-ink-fontlab/76521237/) 
From the 
Congratulations go out to
St Michael Paternoster Royal is a church in the London proper. The original building, which was first recorded in the 13th century, was destroyed in the Great Fire in 1666. The church was rebuilt under the aegis of Sir Christopher Wren. However St Michael’s was severely damaged during the London in WWII. It was restored between 1966 and 1968. In 1423 Richard “Dick” Whittington, the fabled Lord Mayor of London, was buried within its precincts; although the tomb is now lost. The earliest record of St Michael’s is as St Michael of Paternosterchierch and is dated 1219. Richard Whittington, four time Lord Mayor of London, founded the College of St Spirit and St Mary within the church, so that St Michael’s became a collegiate church, i.e. it was administered by a college of priests, in this case five, instead of a rector. It was commonly known as Whittington’s College, or Whittington College. Adjacent to the Church, Whittington also founded an almshouse. The College was dissolved by Edward VI in 1548; but was re-established in a new entity a few years later under Queen Mary. The title seems in any case to have persisted for the church, giving the names of College Street, and College Hill. The almshouses moved to Highgate in 1808 and later to their present location in East Grinstead in 1966. (
From 
Whittington College is a Gothic almshouse built around three sides of a quadrangle. The chapel is the center point of the structure. The Whittington charity called College Hill home, but eventually moved to the another site near the Whittington Stone in 1822. “St Michael’s is rectangular in plan, with only the west front on College Hill being slightly out of true. Before the Second World War the south front was hemmed in by buildings. Following bomb damage, these buildings were cleared and Whittington Garden laid out on their site, so that St Michael’s main façade is now on the south, along Upper Thames Street. The south front is faced with Portland stone and has six round-headed windows with cherub keystones. The less prominent north and east fronts are of brick. The roof is balustraded.
The English aristocrat often lived beyond his means. Maintaining country houses (often several of them) and a large Georgian town house in Mayfair took its toll on his purse strings. In addition to owning the property, Society forced him to maintain an extensive staff, which would see to his family’s needs.
Even a modest staff was costly. Characteristically, a land owner maintained 40-50 servants. A large number of male servants was an indication of a man’s wealth. Employing males, instead of females, created a greater expense because a tax on male servants was introduced by Lord North in 1777. The tax was to be used for the cost of fighting the Americans and the war with the French. It cost a landowner £7 for each male servant if there were eleven or more in the household. Although it was gradually reduced over the years, the tax continued until 1937.
Footmen and other male servants were provided tailored livery. In the mid 1800s, it would cost 3 guineas for a footman’s uniform. Typically, a footman received 2-3 suits per year. Only the wealthiest aristocrat could afford to employ a house steward, groom of the chambers, valet, cook, butler, under-butler, footmen, footboy, usher, page, “tiger,” coachmen, grooms, a man-of-all-work, gardeners, etc.
The valet was usually at least 30 years of age. He was expected to have a superficial air of aristocracy about him. He saw to his master’s dress and was expected to be abreast of social gossip to aid his master in social engagements, etc. He did not wear livery. He would rise before his master. The aristocrat’s clothes were prepared, a bath drawn, and everything his master required for his ablutions prepared. He might also be required to dress the master, or he might need to know how to load a gun quickly so that his master could shoot with his friends.
During the Regency Period, wealth and social class separated the English citizenry. Beginning with the Royals, citizens found their place based on birthright and wealth. The nobility stood above the gentry, who stood above the clergy, who stood above the working class, etc. As part of the gentry, Jane Austen’s family held certain privileges, but also lacked political power. Although he was a rector, the Reverend George Austen was a “gentleman,” meaning man of the gentry class. Austen’s novels are populated with those of the gentry. Occasionally, her readers encounter the nobility, as in Lady Catherine De Bourgh and the Dowager Viscountess Dalrymple or the clergy as with Mr. Collins or Mr. Elton.
People of lower rank were expected to wait to be introduced to someone of a higher rank. (Do you recall Catherine Morland and Mrs. Allen at Bath? They must wait for an introduction to Henry Tilney, who calls upon the evening’s master of ceremonies to do the deed.) Women of the period were to be obedient to their fathers and husbands, docile and without opinions, have refined qualities, and attendant to their families. Education was not a prerequisite for women. In Austen’s stories, her heroines often shun these predisposed qualities. One must remember that Darcy admires Elizabeth Bennet’s desire to improve her mind by extensive reading.
