Pride and Prejudice 200 Excerpt: Darcy Realizes He’s Susceptible to Elizabeth Bennet’s Charms

P&P 200 Darcy Realizes He’s Susceptible to Elizabeth Bennet’s Charms

p&p200Pride and Prejudice: Scenes Jane Austen Never Wrote retells Austen’s classic from the view of the other characters in the story line (Mr. Collins, the servants, Charlotte Lucas, Bingley, Darcy, etc.)

“ . . . It is often only carelessness of opinion.”

As was customary, Darcy had risen before the rest of the Bingley household. Sitting alone in the breakfast room at Netherfield had  become a habit. The bitter taste of coffee reminded him of his “distaste” for the previous evening’s entertainment. He had never seen such gaucheness gathered in one place and at one time—from the supercilious Sir William to the many women of little intelligence, few true manners, and disagreeable temperaments. “Their rank, fortune, rights and expectations will always be different,” he reminded himself. A shudder of disgust briefly racked his body before an enigmatic smile and an arched eyebrow played fleetingly across his memory. Placing the cup down hard on the table, Darcy purposely shook his head trying to rid himself of the image. Disturbed by the vision but not knowing why, he rose quickly and strode through the hallways of Netherfield heading toward the stables. He should wait on Bingley, but it would be several hours before his friend came down. At the moment, Darcy needed to be free of the form and free of this feeling of uncertainty. Cerberus, thankfully, stood ready at the mounting block; and without realizing what he did, he turned the horse toward the same hill from which he had seen the flash of color along the road several days prior.2005_pride_and_prejudice_025-150x112
* * *
Having ridden hard, Darcy returned to Netherfield to find the Bingleys relaxing in the morning room. Their foray into Hertfordshire society had, evidently, exhausted them in so many ways. Bingley acknowledged Darcy’s entrance before remarking, “I see our friendship did not impact your decision to ride out without me. I had hoped we could continue our survey of the estate.”

“If you are honest with your reproofs, I beg your pardon most profusely, Bingley. Your hospitality is an honor I cherish.” Darcy gazed steadily at his friend. Fitzwilliam Darcy gauged Charles Bingley’s friendship as more than favorable. After having lost Mr. Wickham’s acquaintance as a result of the man’s perfidy, Darcy had been a long while before accepting the intimacy of a close male friend. Other than his cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, he trusted few people with the details of his life.

“Really, Darcy,” blustered Bingley, unaccustomed to such self-reproach from his friend, “I value your opinions and your company. Although my tone reflects my weariness, my words were meant in jest.” They gave each other a quick bow indicating mutual respect. Bingley emitted a soft laugh to relieve the unanticipated tension while both men moved to the serving tray to partake of the items there. “Did you enjoy your ride, Darcy?” he asked cautiously.

Darcy confessed in perfect truth, “It was an excellent way to clear away last evening’s vestiges.” Turning to Charles’s sister, he said, “Miss Bingley, your refinement and charity were never so appreciated as they were yesterday evening.” He quickly realized the lady wanted to gain Darcy’s approval by denigrating her brother’s successes last evening.

Bingley responded cheerfully, “Yes, my Dear, you and Louisa were much admired. I received so many compliments on your behalf last evening. I am indebted to you for establishing our family’s standing in the community. Your successes are our success.”

Darcy knew Miss Bingley had despised last evening; she had confided as much to him several times during the assembly; yet, she said, “Your attention honors me. We shall endeavor to do our duty, and I pray my contribution to the evening solidified your presence in the neighborhood, Charles.”

“I say, Darcy, would you mind if we took our meal in my study?” Bingley asked anxiously. “I foolishly agreed to meet with Mr. Ashe this afternoon. I would appreciate your further insights regarding Netherfield’s soundness prior to that time.”

“Of course, Bingley. I would be happy to be of service.”mr-darcy-played-by-colin-firth-in-pride-and-prejudice-1995-3-150x120
* * *
Leaving the ladies to their devices, the gentlemen retired to the study to continue their review of the Netherfield books and accounts. Ashe was Bingley’s man of business, and the solicitor would bring with him the final papers for Bingley’s assuming the property at Netherfield Park. Darcy thoroughly enjoyed these hours of withdrawal from the niceties society placed on gentlemen; what transpired behind the study door remained within his control. It held no double-edged expressions to dance around—no prejudices—and no enigmatic smile hauntingly resurfacing in his memory.

However, those hours passed too quickly, and they were forced by good manners to join the ladies for the evening meal. Unfortunately for Darcy and Bingley, Caroline Bingley could control her opinions no longer, and they were required to listen to Charles’s sister decrying his neighbors’ manners; the tirade started at dinner and increased in its vehemence. Darcy watched aghast with contempt. Miss Bingley possessed no empathy for her brother’s feelings. Miserable, Bingley suffered greatly, but Darcy felt far from being agreeable; he sat with a pronounced grimace.

Bingley insisted, “I never met with more pleasant people. Everyone offered their attentions and their kind regards; there was no one putting on airs or posing with false countenances; I was pleased to make the acquaintance of many of my new neighbors.”

“Charles, you lack judiciousness,” Miss Bingley intoned her contempt. “The women may be pretty by your judgment; yet, they lacked conversation and fashion. Were you not aware of their conceit?”

Bingley argued, “Your censure surely cannot be laid at Miss Bennet’s feet. Would you not agree, Darcy?”

Darcy’s honest nature allowed him only to concede that Miss Jane Bennet was attractive, but “she smiles too much.” He authorized the smallest degree of arrogance as acceptable.

“Smiles too much!” Bingley nearly came out of his chair in disbelief. “I can think of no one of my acquaintance more beautiful.”

darcy1001_228x3091-150x203Darcy spoke from principle, as well as pride. “I observed a collection of people who move in circles so distinct from my own. I find no manners and little beauty. I take no interest or pleasure at the prospect of renewing their acquaintances.” Yet, as soon as the words escaped his mouth, Darcy felt a twinge of betrayal. He wondered, for a moment, if a man could afford to cherish his pride so dearly.

Taking pity on their brother, Mrs. Hurst and her sister finally allowed Jane Bennet to be a sweet girl and declared their desire to know her better. They, therefore, established Miss Bennet as someone they admired and liked; Bingley accepted their praise of Miss Bennet, and Darcy watched as his friend, obviously, allowed himself the pleasure of thinking of the lady as someone he too would like to know better.
* * *
Over a fortnight Bingley continued to prefer the company of Jane Bennet to all others in Hertfordshire. Darcy had observed his young friend fall in and out of romantic relationships before, but he had never recalled Bingley to be more besotted. Bingley had danced with Miss Bennet four times at Meryton, had seen her one morning at his house, and had dined in company with her four times.

Unfortunately, as Bingley seemed about to give his heart to a woman clearly below him, Darcy discovered to his horror his own tendencies in that vein becoming more distinct. Every time Bingley sought Miss Bennet’s company, he placed Darcy, as Bingley’s companion, in Elizabeth Bennet’s presence. And each time as he swore to himself he would ignore Miss Elizabeth, Darcy found himself more enticed by her. Unconsciously, he placed himself where he could observe her, where he could listen to her conversations, and where he could interact with her. Although he rarely spoke to strangers, Darcy began to plan ways to afford verbal exchanges with Miss Elizabeth. darcy_large-150x205

When they did converse, however briefly, a verbal swordplay occurred between them; he understood that she desired an apology for his behavior at the assembly; Darcy also assumed Elizabeth Bennet recognized that he had a right to such behavior. His distinct station in life afforded him an air of superiority. Darcy had determined that she purposely flirted with him through these “verbal assaults,” and belatedly, he discovered that they worked remarkably well.

Only last evening, Miss Elizabeth had made inroads on Darcy’s tranquility. In the fullness of his belief, he had accused, “I hope to force you to do justice to your natural powers, Miss Elizabeth.”

With a raised eyebrow, a gesture, which he would never admit to anyone but himself had great power over him, the lady had retorted, “How delightful to feel myself of consequence to you, Mr. Darcy.”

As was her manner, she had stormed away in a huff, but Darcy had taken prodigious delight in the flush upon the lady’s cheeks and the natural sway of Miss Elizabeth’s hips. He would acknowledge to no one that it was an enticing sight–one that had inspired several of his dreams of late. As the days passed, he ascertained that he could offer no culpability to Bingley; he felt in nearly as bad of a position.

As Bingley and Darcy discovered themselves distracted by the Bennet ladies, Miss Bingley’s acute awareness of the changes in her brother and of his esteemed friend increased her fervent rebukes, especially those directed toward the second Bennet daughter. Miss Bingley congratulated herself when Darcy openly expurgated Elizabeth Bennet’s failings. He made observations about Miss Elizabeth’s not having an appealing countenance; he said with a critical eye that her figure lacked any point of symmetry; and he asserted that the lady’s manners showed no knowledge of fashionable acceptance. Yet, as he publicly castigated Miss Elizabeth’s virtues, in private thoughts, he found her face possessed a soul of its own, as her dark green eyes danced with life; he recognized her figure to be light and pleasing; and he had determined that her manners demonstrated a relaxed playfulness. “Not necessarily lovely, but certainly enchanting,” he told his empty chamber.

(This is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Darcy’s Passions, which retells Pride and Prejudice from Mr. Darcy’s point of view. In addition to Darcy’s Passions, the excerpt is featured in Pride and Prejudice: Scenes Jane Austen Never Wrote.) JeffersDP

 

Posted in book excerpts, Jane Austen, language choices, Pride and Prejudice, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Pride and Prejudice 200 Excerpt: Darcy Realizes He’s Susceptible to Elizabeth Bennet’s Charms

Guest Post: Even Royalty Loves Good Literature by Laura Purcell

Today I am happy to bring you a guest post from the fabulous Laura Purcell, who is in the midst of a blog tour for the release of The Queen of Bedlam, a book about Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom. As I live in Charlotte, NC (in Mecklenbury County), the post and novel have struck a chord with me. I hope you enjoy it also.

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

In the early nineteenth-century, novels were often considered light, frivolous things. There was even a suggestion, as Jane Austen humorously portrays in Northanger Abbey, that young ladies might find themselves inflamed or over-stimulated by such works.

Amidst these prejudices, it’s surprising to find a love for novels at the heart of respectable English society: in the household of the Queen herself.

Queen Charlotte was an avid reader, sending her servants out to find books for her on local stalls. She composed her own poems for state occasions and even set up a small printing press at her house in Windsor, Frogmore, for improving tracts. Literature was a hobby that echoed down through to her daughters, especially the youngest two Sophia and Amelia. Even on her deathbed, we hear of Princess Amelia reading from and admiring Richardson’s Clarissa.

Princess Amelia

Princess Amelia

Princess Sophia

Princess Sophia

The French writer Madame de Genlis was a favourite with the family, and sent Charlotte all of her works. The Queen preferred moral or uplifting pieces to the prevalent Gothic romances, but as she told her servant Fanny Burney, “they write so finely now, even for the most silly books, that it makes one read on and one cannot help it.”

Frances Burney

Frances Burney

Burney herself was a novelist, who owed her employment to the Queen’s appreciation of her talents. Although some sources say she had a bishop vet the book first, Charlotte had Burney’s second novel Cecilia read aloud to her and distributed the work amongst her daughters. She clearly found the novelist entertaining and was horrified by Burney’s apparent reluctance to write again. “Shall we have no more?” she urged, “Nothing more?” Charlotte went on to admit she admired the improving nature of Burney’s work. “I think…there is a power to do so much good – and good to young people – which is so good a thing.”

Burney did go on to complete another novel, after leaving the Queen’s service. A contemporary, Mrs Papendeick, suggests removal from the royal household was Burney’s only option as an author. “The queen would not sanction novel writing under her own roof” she writes, as “the pen would be laid down with regret and duty found irksome.” But this is not borne out by Charlotte’s reception of the new book, Camilla. She was delighted to receive the five-volume novel on bended knee from Burney, and asked her to leave another set at the door to the King’s apartments. She invited Burney back the next day to speak with the King and their daughters. Eagerly, Charlotte told the King how Camilla was started there at Windsor Castle, where Burney had drawn up the story skeleton. On talking of the volumes, she said, “Mrs Boscawen is to have the third set, but the first – Your Majesty will excuse me! – is mine.”

Charlotte had a good claim to the first set of volumes: they were dedicated to her. Burney’s sycophantic address starts: ‘That goodness inspires a confidence, which, by divesting respect of terror, excites attachment to greatness, the presentation of this little work to Your Majesty must truly, however humbly evince.’ Going on to apologise for the common nature of her characters, Fanny ends with cringe-worthy flattery: ‘With the deepest gratitude and most heart-felt respect, I am, madam, Your Majesty’s most obedient, most obliged and most dutiful servant.”

This is a stark contrast to another dedication to royalty, some years later. Charlotte’s son George inherited his mother’s taste for literature. He was a particular fan of Jane Austen and invited her to tour his library at Carlton House. Sadly for George, Austen did not return his admiration.

225px-CassandraAusten-JaneAusten(c.1810)_hires Miss Austen was in a particular quandary when the Prince’s librarian, James Stainer Clarke, mentioned she might dedicate her next book to her illustrious admirer. Though Austen was not thrilled, she was unwilling to offend, and wrote to ask Stanier Clarke “whether it is incumbent on me to show my sense of the honour, by inscribing the work now in the press to HRH.” The use of the word incumbent is telling.

In the end, Austen was pressured into dedicating Emma to the Prince Regent. However, her plan was simply to send one set to him, two or three days before the work was generally public, and put on the title page: “Emma, dedicated by permission to HRH The Prince Regent.” This would not do. Her publishers insisted on transforming her dedication into a sycophantic, un-Austen gush. It ended as: “To His Royal Highness the Prince Regent this work is, by His Royal Highness’s permission, most respectfully dedicated, by His Royal Highness’s dutiful and obedient humble servant, the author.”

Austen would have been pleased, though, to find an appreciation of her work dribbled down to the next generation of the royal family. Princess Charlotte, the rising heir and hope of the nation, was much taken with Sense and Sensibility. “I have just finished reading; it certainly is interesting, and you feel quite one of the company. I think Maryanne and me are very like in disposition, that certainly I am not so good, the same imprudence, &c, however remain very like. I must say it interested me much.”

Perhaps Austen would have preferred to dedicate something to this straight-forward and fun-loving princess!

Laura Purcell

Laura Purcell

Connect with Laura on 

Twitter

Facebook

Website

Amazon Link to The Queen of Bedlam
Blurb:
London 1788. The calm order of Queen Charlotte’s court is shattered by screams. The King of England is going mad. Left alone with thirteen children and with the country at war, Charlotte has to fight to hold her husband’s throne. It is a time of unrest and revolutions but most of all Charlotte fears the King himself, someone she can no longer love or trust. She has lost her marriage to madness and there is nothing she can do except continue to do her royal duty. Her six daughters are desperate to escape their palace asylum. Their only chance lies in a good marriage, but no prince wants the daughter of a madman. They are forced to take love wherever they can find it, with devastating consequences. The moving true story of George III’s madness and the women whose lives it destroyed.


51LBy9iAu8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_

Posted in British history, George IV, Great Britain, Industry News/Publishing, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, real life tales, Regency era, Regency personalities, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Do You Remember? When Sophia Loren and Carlo Ponti Committed Bigamy

Sophia-Loren-Carlo-Ponti-Doctor-Zhivago-premiere In February 1965, an Italian court in Rome declared the 1957 nuptials of Sophia Loren and her producer husband, Carlo Ponti, invalid, saying his Mexican divorce from his first wife, Giuliana Fiastri was not legal. Oddly enough, it was not Fiastri who brought the matter to the Italian officials. Instead, it was a Milanese housewife by the name of Luisa Brambilla, who practiced her rights under Italian law, rights which say any Italian citizen may bring criminal charges against any other Italian citizen.

Unknown No divorce existed in Italy at the time. Generally, many ignored the need for divorce and simply co-habitated; however Brambilla thought these two celebrities should be made an example of what was becoming a society of promiscuity. Loren and Ponti were to stand trail on 6 July 1965, but they had “quietly” removed themselves to London to avoid the proceedings.1950-sophia-loren-400

At Fiastri’s suggestion, Ponti them moved to France and took up French citizenship. The first wife suggested with such a move that she and Ponti could have a second divorce, French style. Sophia Loren became the second Mrs. Ponti in a discreet ceremony, officiated over by the mayor of Sévres in April 1966.

220px-TwoWomenPoster Loren first met Carlo Ponti, Sr., in 1950 when she was 15 and he was 37. They married on 17 September 1957. However, Ponti was still officially married to his first wife Giuliana under Italian law because Italy did not recognize divorce at that time. The couple had their marriage annulled in 1962 to escape bigamy charges. In 1965, Ponti obtained a divorce from Giuliana in France, allowing him to marry Loren on 9 April 1966. They became French citizens after their application was approved by then French President Georges Pompidou.

They had two children:

Carlo Ponti, Jr.
born on 29 December 1968 (age 45)
Edoardo Ponti
born on 6 January 1973 (age 41)

Loren remained married to Carlo Ponti until his death on 10 January 2007 of pulmonary complications.

When asked in a November 2009 interview if she were ever likely to marry again, Loren replied “No, never again. It would be impossible to love anyone else.”

In 1962, her sister, Anna Maria Villani Scicolone, married the youngest son of Benito Mussolini, Romano, with whom she had a daughter, the neofascist Italian politician Alessandra Mussolini.

Her daughters-in-law are Sasha Alexander and Andrea Meszaros.Loren has four grandchildren: Lucia Sofia Ponti (born 12 May 2006),Vittorio Leone Ponti (born 3 April 2007). Leonardo Fortunato Ponti (born 20 December 2010) and Beatrice Lara Ponti (born 15 March 2012).

Posted in Do You Remember?, Pop Culture, real life tales | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

From Where Does that Phrase Come?

words.1I am fascinated by the origin of common phrases. Her are some of my favorites, ones I have used repeatedly over the years. Add yours to the list, and we will see if we can find their sources.

the apple of one’s eye – In long ago days, the pupil of one’s eyes was referred to as an “apple” because the learned men of the day thought the pupil was solid, with much of the texture of an apple. By the 9th Century, however, the phrase meant “that which one held most dear.” After all, losing one’s sight was a dear loss, indeed.

to pull the wool over one’s eyes – This one is supposedly an Americanism. That assumption probably comes from the fact it was first used in print in an American newspaper around 1839. We must assume the actual phrase had been around for some time before it was used in print. “Wool” was used to make some wigs of the time. It is assumed some thieves would attack a wealthier man and literally pull the man’s wig over his eyes to blind him temporarily.

6a00d83451d9f869e200e550a2cf4e8834-800wijump on the bandwagon – The phrase has come to mean accepting a popular idea/cause. Often, a parade for a political candidate included a band of musicians. Those who endorsed the candidate who literally jump upon the band’s wagon to tell the crowds of their support. Although the practice was likely much older, the phrase dates to the second presidential campaign of William Jennings Bryan.

up the spout – This phrase has come to mean “plans gone wrong.” “Spout” is slang for a pawnshop. In pawnbrokers’ shops, the hoist which carried the items to the storage area was known as the “spout.” The pawned items went “up the spout.” The phrase was first recorded in A new and comprehensive vocabulary of the flash language by James H. Vaux in 1812. In Dickens’ tale, Mr. Pickwick (in Pickwick Papers) discovered the meaning of the “spout” when Pickwick visited Fleet Prison to see his friend, Mr. Alfred Jingle, who was imprisoned for debt. Jingle had pawned his boots and clothing for money to buy food. Jingle said, “Spout-dear relation-uncle Tom.”

to look a gift horse in the mouth – St. Jerome, one of the Latin Fathers of the Fourth Century, is credited with the origin of the phrase, but it is likely much older. Various proverbs similar to the phrase are found in many languages. People have for centuries used the condition of a horse’s teeth to determine its age. The idea is the receiver of a gift would practice bad manners by examining the gift for defects.

f973385000618eeb589085a13beefee1wet blanket – This phrase can be traced back to Scotland some 175 years prior. Scottish author, John Galt, used the phrase in his 1830 Lawrie Todd, or the Settlers in the Woods.  “I never felt such a wet blanket before or syne.” Galt used the word in its present day meaning of a “damper, especially on joyful situations.” What was so unique about Galt’s story line was it created sketches of the American frontier, which made the phrase take on American overtones.

by the skin of one’s teeth – In Job xix, the preposition “with” is used instead of “by.” “And I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.” Job meant he had escaped with nothing. The current Americanism did not come into fashion until the early 19th Century.The Skin of Our Teeth is a play by Thornton Wilder which won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. It opened on Broadway on November 18, 1942. It was produced by Michael Myerberg and directed by Elia Kazan. The play is a three-part allegory about the life of mankind, centering around the Antrobus family of the fictional town of Excelsior, New Jersey. 160px-Skin_of_Our_Teeth_Handbill

to have an ax to grind – The phrase was once credited to Benjamin Franklin, but, in reality, it comes from an article written for the Wilkesbarre Gleaner in 1811 by Charles Miner. Miner told the tale of an old man using flattery to trick a young boy into using his father’s grindstone to sharpen and an ax. Later, the man called the boy a “sluggard” for missing school in order to do the good deed. Miner closed the tale with this comment, “When I see a merchant over-politie to his customers, begging them to taste a little brandy and throwing half his goods on the counter – thinks I, that man has an ax to grind.” The story was repeated in Essays from the Desk of Poor Robert the Scribe (which was confused with Poor Richard’s Almanac and therefore the Benjamin Franklin mistaken attribution).

to wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve – Shakespeare adapted a common phrase of his day: to pin something upon one’s sleeve. In Love’s Labor Lost, Biron says of Boyet, “This gallant pins the wenches on his sleeve.” Boyet has a great fondness for all the women. In Othello, Iago professes his devotion to Othello, but his actions are a facade.

to fly off the handle – In 1825, John Neal published the novel, Brother Jonathan; or the New Englanders. In it, Neal uses, “How they pulled foot when they seed us commin’. Most off the handle, some o’ the tribe, I guess,” in speaking of a surprise attack upon an Indian settlement. Judge Thomas C. Haliburton was the first to record the phrase in the more modern version of “to fly off the handle.” This was in The Attaché, or Sam Slick in England, which was published in 1844. The phrase means “to lose control.” When the ax head flew off the handle, the axman would definitely lose control. images-1

Posted in language choices, word play, writing | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Appanage: The Custom for Royal Male Child Inheritance

An appanage or apanage is the grant of an estate, titles, offices, or other things of value to the younger male children of a sovereign, who would otherwise have no inheritance under the system of primogeniture. It was common in much of Europe.

The system of appanage has greatly influenced the territorial construction of France and the German states and explains the structure of the flags of many provinces of France.

Appanage also describes the funds given by the state to certain royal families — the annual income, for instance, given to the Swedish and Danish Royal Families. For the Mongols, khubi (share) refers to appanage in the Middle Ages.

Etymology
Late Latin *appanaticum, from appanare or adpanare ‘to give bread’ (panis), a pars pro toto for food and other necessities, hence for a “subsistence” income, notably in kind, as from assigned land.

History of the French Appanage
An appanage was a concession of a fief by the sovereign to his younger sons, while the eldest son became king on the death of his father. Appanages were considered as part of the inheritance transmitted to the puisne (French puis, “later”, + , “born [masc.]”) sons; the word Juveigneur (from the Latin comparative iuvenior, ‘younger [masc.]’; in Brittany’s customary law only the youngest brother) was specifically used for the royal princes holding an appanage. These lands could not be sold, neither hypothetically nor as a dowry, and returned to the royal domain on the extinction of the princely line. Daughters were excluded from the system: a now-archaic interpretation of Salic law generally prohibited daughters from inheriting land and also from acceding to the throne.

The appanage system was used to sweeten the pill of the primogeniture. It has traditionally been used to prevent the revolt of younger sons who would otherwise have no inheritance, while avoiding the weakening of the kingdom. Indeed, according to Frankish custom, the inheritance was to be divided among the surviving sons. The kingdom was considered family property, and so many divisions occurred under the Merovingians (the first following the death of Clovis I in 511), and later under the rule of the Carolingians in which the Treaty of Verdun of 843 gave birth to independent territories.

The consequences of equal division (dismemberment of the kingdom, civil wars, conflicts between heirs, etc.) led to the adoption of the appanage system, which has the advantage of diverting the claim of younger sons to the crown, which was the inheritance of the eldest. In addition, over time, the system guarantees the unity of the royal domain to the senior heir.

HugoKapet_kronika Hugh Capet was elected King of the Franks on the death of Louis V in 987. The Capetian dynasty broke away from the Frankish custom of dividing the kingdom among all the sons. The eldest son alone became King and received the royal domain except for the appanages. Unlike their predecessors, their hold on the crown was initially tenuous. They could not afford to divide the kingdom among all their sons, and the royal domain (the territory directly controlled by the king) was very small. Most of the Capetians endeavored to add to the royal domain by the incorporation of additional fiefs, large or small, and thus gradually obtained the direct lordship over almost all of France.

220px-Karel_V_van_Frankrijk King Charles V tried to remove the appanage system, but in vain. Provinces conceded in appanage tended to become de facto independent and the authority of the king was recognized there reluctantly. In particular the line of Valois Dukes of Burgundy caused considerable trouble to the French crown, with which they were often at war, often in open alliance with the English. Theoretically appanages could be reincorporated into the royal domain, but only if the last lord had no male heirs. Kings tried as much as possible to rid themselves of the most powerful appanages. Louis XI retook the Duchy of Burgundy at the death of its last male duke. Francis I confiscated the Bourbonnais, after the treason in 1523 of his commander in chief, Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, the ‘constable of Bourbon’ (died 1527 in the service of Emperor Charles V).

The first article of the Edict of Moulins (1566) declared that the royal domain (defined in the second article as all the land controlled by the crown for more than ten years) could not be alienated, except in two cases: by interlocking, in the case of financial emergency, with a perpetual option to repurchase the land; and to form an appanage, which must return to the crown in its original state on the extinction of the male line. The apanagist (incumbent) therefore could not separate himself from his appanage in any way.

After Charles V of France, a clear distinction had to be made between titles given as names to children in France, and true appanages. At their birth the French princes received a title independent of an appanage. Thus, the Duke of Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV, never possessed Anjou and never received any revenue from this province. The king waited until the prince had reached adulthood and was about to marry before endowing him with an appanage. The goal of the appanage was to provide him with a sufficient income to maintain his noble rank. The fief given in appanage could be the same as the title given to the prince, but this was not necessarily the case. Only seven appanages were given from 1515 to 1789.

Appanages were abolished in 1792 before the proclamation of the Republic. The youngest princes from then on were to receive a grant of money but no territory.

Appanages were reestablished under the first French empire by Napoleon Bonaparte and confirmed by the Bourbon restoration-king Louis XVIII. The last of the appanages, the Orléanais, was reincorporated to the French crown when the Duke of Orléans, Louis-Philippe, became king of the French in 1830.

The word apanage is still used in French figuratively, in a non-historic sense: “to have appanage over something” is used, often in an ironic and negative sense, to claim exclusive possession over something. For example, “cows have appanage over prions.”

List of Major French Appanages
Louis VI
**The County of Dreux for the king’s third son Robert.

Philip II
**The Counties of Domfront and Mortain for the king’s younger son Philippe Hurepel.

Louis VIII, by his 1225 will, granted
**The County of Artois to his second son Robert. Artois was lost by Robert’s male heirs, passing through a female line, and eventually was inherited by the Dukes of Burgundy. Louis XI seized it upon the death of Charles the Bold in 1477, but his son returned it to Charles’s heirs in preparation for his invasion of Italy in 1493.
**The Counties of Anjou and Maine to his third son John. This title returned to the crown when John died without heirs in 1232.
**The Counties of Poitou and Auvergne to his fourth son Alphonse. This title returned to the crown when Alphonse died without heirs in 1271.

Louis IX endowed
**1246 – The Counties of Anjou and Maine to his youngest brother, Charles. These titles passed to Charles’s granddaughter, who married Charles, Count of Valois, the younger son of Philip III, and thence to their son, Philip. When Philip inherited the throne as Philip VI, the titles merged into the crown.
**The County of Orléans to his eldest son, Philip. This title returned to the crown when he succeeded his father in 1270 as Philip III.
**ca. 1268 – The County of Valois to his second son, Jean Tristan. This title became extinct upon Jean Tristan’s death in 1270.
**1268 – The Counties of Alençon and Perche to his third son, Pierre. This title became extinct on Pierre’s death in 1284.
**1269 – The County of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis to his fourth son, Robert. Robert’s son, Louis, was later given the Duchy of Bourbon, which was treated as an apanage, although it was not technically one. Louis later traded Clermont for La Marche with his cousin Charles, Count of Angoulême, younger brother of King Philip V. These titles remained in the Bourbon family until they were confiscated due to the treason of Charles III, Duke of Bourbon in 1527.

Philip III
**The County of Valois to his second son Charles. Charles was later given the Counties of Alençon, Perche, and Chartres by his brother, Philip IV of France. Valois passed to Charles’s eldest son, Philip upon his death in 1325, and returned to the crown when Philip became King Philip VI in 1328. Alençon and Perche passed to Charles’s younger son, Charles. A descendant was raised to the dignity of Duke of Alençon. These titles returned to the crown upon the extinction of the Alençon line in 1525.
**The County of Beaumont-sur-Oise to his third son Louis. Louis was later given the County of Évreux by his brother Philip IV. These titles returned to the throne upon the death of Queen Blanche of Navarre in 1441.

Philip IV endowed
**the County of Poitou for his second son, Philip. This title returned to the throne when Philip became king in 1316.
**the Counties of La Marche and Angoulême for his third son, Charles IV. Charles later traded La Marche for the County of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis with the Duke of Bourbon. These titles returned to the throne when Charles became king in 1322.

Philip VI endowed the
**the Duchy of Normandy for his elder son John. This title returned to the throne when John succeeded his father in 1350.
**the Duchy of Orléans for his younger son Philip. This title returned to the throne when Philip died without issue in 1375.

John II the Good, on his departure to England in 1360, granted
**the Duchies of Anjou and of Maine to his second son Louis. This title returned to the throne upon the death of duke Charles IV, Louis I’s great-grandson, in 1481.
**the Duchies of Berry and of Auvergne to his third son John. These titles returned to the throne upon John’s death without male issue in 1416.
**In 1363, John II granted the Duchy of Burgundy to his fourth son Philip. Upon the death of Philip’s great-grandson Charles the Bold in 1477, King Louis XI claimed the reversion of Burgundy and seized the territory. It continued to be claimed, however, by Charles’s daughter Mary and her heirs. When Mary’s grandson Emperor Charles V defeated and captured Francis I at the Battle of Pavia in 1525, he forced Francis to sign a treaty recognizing him as Duke of Burgundy, but Francis disavowed the treaty when he was released, and the cession was revoked by the Treaty of Cambrai four years later. Charles and his heirs reserved their claims, however, and this reservation was repeated as late as the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, when Philip IV of Spain continued to reserve his rights to the Duchy.

Charles VI granted
**the Duchy of Orléans and the County of Angoulême to his brother Louis in 1392. The Duchy of Orléans returned to the crown when Louis I’s grandson became Louis XII of France in 1498. The County of Angoulême returned to the crown when Louis I’s great-grandon became Francis I of France in 1515.

Louis XI granted
**the Duchies of Normandy, Berry, and Guyenne to his younger brother Charles. These titles returned to the crown when Charles died in 1472.

**Francis I granted
the Duchies of Orléans, Angoulême, and Châtellerault and the Counties of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis and La Marche to his second surviving son, Charles in 1540. To this was added the Duchy of Bourbon in 1544. These titles returned to the crown when Charles died without issue in 1545.

Charles IX granted
**the Duchies of Anjou and Bourbonnais and the County of Forez to the older of his two brothers, Henry, in 1566. He added the Duchy of Auvergne to these holdings in 1569. The titles returned to the crown when Henry succeeded his brother in 1574.
the Duchies of Alençon and Château-Thierry and the Counties of Perche, Mantes, and Meulan to his youngest brother, Francis in 1566. To this he later added the Duchy of Évreux and the County of Dreux in 1569. Francis’s other brother, Henry III, increased his holdings still further in 1576, granting him the Duchies of Anjou, Touraine, and Berry and the County of Maine. All these titles returned to the crown upon Francis’s death without issue in 1584.

Louis XIII granted
**The Duchies of Orléans and Chartres and the County of Blois to his younger brother Gaston in 1626. To this was added the Duchy of Valois in 1630. These titles returned to the crown on Gaston’s death without male issue in 1660.

Louis XIV granted
**The Duchies of Orléans, Chartres, and Valois to his brother, Philippe in 1661. To this was added the Duchy of Nemours in 1672. These titles passed to his descendants and were abolished during the Revolution in 1790. They were restored to the heir at the time of the Restoration in 1814. The heir, Louis Philippe III, duc d’Orléans, took the throne (usurping it in Legitimist theory, legitimately ascending by popular will under Orléanist theory) in 1830 following the July Revolution, and the titles may at this point be considered to have merged in the crown; given the extinction of the line of Louis XV with the death of Henri, comte de Chambord (Henri IV by Legitimist reckoning) and the forfeiture of the junior line of Louis XIV, most Legitimists would accept the merger of the duchy into the (defunct) crown in 1883.
**The Duchies of Alençon and Angoulême and the County of Ponthieu to his third grandson, Charles, duc de Berry in 1710. These titles returned to the crown upon his death without surviving issue in 1714

Louis XV granted
**The Duchy of Anjou and the Counties of Maine, Perche, and Senonches to his second surviving grandson, Louis Stanislas, comte de Provence in 1771. Louis was further given the Duchy of Alençon by his brother Louis XVI in 1774. These titles were abolished during the Revolution in 1790. When the monarchy and apanages were restored in 1814, Louis had inherited the throne as Louis XVIII, and his titles merged into the crown.
**The Duchies of Auvergne, Angoulême and Mercœur and the Viscounty of Limoges to his youngest grandson Charles, comte d’Artois in 1773. To this was added in 1774 by his brother, Louis XVI the Marquisate of Pompadour and the Viscounty of Turenne. In 1776, Louis XVI deprived Charles of Limoges, Pompadour, and Turenne, and gave him in exchange the Duchies of Berry and Châteauroux, the Counties of Argenton and Ponthieu, and the Lordship of Henrichemont. In 1778, the apanage was further reshaped, with Auvergne and Mercœur removed and replaced with the County of Poitou, leaving Charles with a final apanage consisting of the Duchies of Angoulême, Berry, and Châteauroux, the Counties of Argenton, Ponthieu, and Poitou, and the Lordship of Henrichemont. These titles were abolished during the Revolution in 1790, but were restored at the time of the Restoration in 1814. They merged into the crown when Charles became king in 1824.

Although Napoleon restored the idea of apanage in 1810 for his sons, none were ever granted, nor were any new apanages created by the restoration monarchs.

Western fFeudal Appanages Outside France
Appanages Within the British Isles

English and British monarchs frequently granted appanages to younger sons of the monarch. Most famously, the Houses of York and Lancaster, whose feuding over the succession to the English throne after the end of the main line of the House of Plantagenet caused the Wars of the Roses, were both established when the Duchies of York and Lancaster were given as appanages for Edmund of Langley and John of Gaunt, the younger sons of King Edward III.220px-Edward_III_of_England_(Order_of_the_Garter)

In modern times, the Duchy of Cornwall is the permanent statutory appanage of the monarch’s eldest son. Other titles have continued to be granted to junior members of the royal family, but without associated grants of land directly connected with those titles, or any territorial rights over the places named in the titles.

Scotland
DavidIofScotlandThe defunct Kingdom of Strathclyde was granted as an appanage to the future David I of Scotland by his brother William the Lion. Remnants of this can be found within the patrimony of the Prince of Scotland, currently Charles, Duke of Rothesay.

Kingdom of Jerusalem
In the only crusader state of equal rank in protocol to the states of Western Europe, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Jaffa and Ascalon was often granted as an appanage.

Brigantine Portugal
With the installation of the House of Braganza on the Portuguese throne, in 1640, an official appanage was created for the second eldest son of the monarch, the House of the Infantado. The Infantado included several land grants and palaces, along with a heightened royal pension.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, Great Britain, Living in the UK, real life tales, royalty, Scotland | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Great Thunderstorm of Widecombe-in-the-Moor, an Early Incident of Ball Lightning

Wood carving representing the Great Storm

Wood carving representing the Great Storm

The Great Thunderstorm of Widecombe-in-the-Moor in Dartmoor, Kingdom of England, took place on Sunday, 21 October 1638, when the church of St Pancras was apparently struck by ball lightning during a severe thunderstorm. An afternoon service was taking place at the time, and the building was packed with approximately 300 worshippers. Four of them were killed, around 60 injured, and the building severely damaged.

Eyewitness Accounts

The tower of Widecombe church today

The tower of Widecombe church today

Written accounts by eyewitnesses, apparently published within months of the catastrophe, tell of a strange darkness, powerful thunder, and “a great ball of fire” ripping through a window and tearing part of the roof open. It is said to have rebounded through the church, killing some members of the congregation and burning many others. This is considered by some to be one of the earliest recorded instances of ball lightning.

The priest, George Lyde, was unhurt, but his wife “had her ruff and the linen next her body, and her body, burnt in a very pitiful manner.” The head of local warrener Robert Mead struck a pillar so hard the blow left an indentation; his skull was shattered, and his brain hurled to the ground. A “one Master Hill a Gentleman of good account in the Parish” was thrown violently against a wall and died “that night.” His son, sitting next to him, was unhurt.

Some are said to have suffered burns to their bodies, but not their clothes. A dog is reported to have run from the door, been hurled around as if by a small tornado, and fallen dead to the ground.

The village schoolmaster of the time, a gentleman called Roger Hill, and brother of the deceased “Master Hill,” recorded the incident in a rhyming testament which is still displayed on boards (originals replaced in 1786) in the church.

The Legend
According to local legend, the thunderstorm was the result of a visit by the devil who had made a pact with a local card player and gambler called Jan Reynolds (or Bobby Read, according to the tale recorded at the Tavistock Inn, Poundsgate). The deal was if the devil ever found him asleep in church, the Devil could have Reynolds’ soul. Jan was said to have nodded off during the service that particular day, with his pack of cards in his hand. Another version of the legend states the Devil arrived to collect the souls of four people playing cards during the church service.

The Devil headed for Widecombe via the Tavistock Inn, in nearby Poundsgate, where he stopped for directions and refreshment. The landlady reported a visit by a man in black with cloven feet riding a jet black horse. The stranger ordered a mug of ale, and it hissed as it went down his throat. He finished his drink, put the mug down on the bar where it left a scorch mark, and left some money. After the stranger had ridden away, the landlady found the coins had turned to dried leaves.

The Devil tethered his horse to one of the pinnacles at Widecombe Church, captured the sleeping Jan Reynolds, and rode away into the storm. As they flew over nearby Birch Tor, the four aces from Jan’s pack of cards fell to the ground, and today, if you stand at Warren House Inn, you can still see four ancient field enclosures, each shaped like the symbols from a pack of cards.

Posted in British history, gothic and paranormal, Great Britain, Living in the UK, mystery | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Love Vanquishes Everything ~ ~ Meet and Greet: Author, Anna Belfrage + Excerpt from “Revenge and Retribution”

R&R webstampIt is with great pleasure I welcome author Anna Belfrage to “Every Woman Dreams.” Anna is releasing the sixth book in her highly acclaimed The Graham Saga. Today,  Anna brings us a short reflection on love and how it assists us in facing life’s many trials. She has also included an excerpt from “Revenge and Retribution.”

Love is king!
I am a sucker for love. As a consequence, I cannot imagine writing a book that does not contain a sizeable portion of love – albeit I generally avoid the mandatory complications of a romance as it drives me CRAZY when he and she are torn apart, both of them believing the other no longer cares for them. (This is when I will peek at the ending, needing reassurance. Idiotic, I know, as a romance also should have a happy ending, but just in case, I check) My characters are often torn away from each other, but at least they have the comfort of knowing somewhere their man/woman still loves them, will do anything to see them safe.

When I began writing The Graham Saga – years ago – I had in my head a laughing young woman named Alex Lind, a woman with short curly hair and deep blue eyes. She was wearing jeans and red Converse – which was a major problem, as my novel was set in the 17th century.  Hmm. Maybe I should save this apparition for another book.  The shadowy man who was to be the protagonist of the series, Matthew Graham, shook his head. His eyes were glued to the laughing woman, at present dancing on the spot to “It’s Raining Men.”

“I want her,” he said.

“But she’s not from your time,” I protested, looking at him. 
Matthew was leaning against the wall, arms crossed over his chest. His hitherto so vague form was suddenly fleshing out, bright hazel eyes meeting mine as he jerked his dark head in the direction of the woman.

“It’s her or no one.”

He went back to staring at her, a smile tugging at his long mouth.  No matter his linen shirt was worn and dirty, his breeches had seen far better days, and he was in serious need of a bath and a shave, he looked quite mouth-watering – but unfortunately (or not: after all, I am happily married, and Matthew Graham doesn’t exist except in my VERY active imagination) his attention was riveted on her, this as yet unknown Alex.

“But…”

“You heard me,” he said, beginning to fade away, all six feet and plus of him.

“Stop!” I yelled. “I’ll think of something.”

“You do that.” He gave me an encouraging smile.
Obviously, Matthew was smitten. A serious case of what the French call a coup de foudre, love at first sight. Some people scoff at the idea of something as ridiculous as immediate love, but personally I am not that certain. I believe some of us are lucky enough to meet the one and only, and the moment our eyes connect, we are done for.

As all of us know, there’s a major difference between saying “I’m in love with you” and saying “I love you.” The first statement describes a heady phase, no more, but if we’re lucky it morphs into the permanence exuded by the last statement, a commitment that extends – potentially – over a lifetime.  It requires guts to love with all your heart. It leaves you very vulnerable, which is why wounds to the heart take such a long time to heal.  But there is nothing as wonderful, as empowering and as liberating as to love someone unconditionally. It gives us strength when we need it the most, it gives us wings and allows us to soar. No wonder I’m a sucker for love…

One day, Alex-in-my-head caught sight of Matthew. At the time, he was fleeing for his life, scrambling up a dilapidated ladder to hide behind a crumbling chimney.  Dogs bayed, horses snorted, and the loud voice of the officer called his men to order, instructing them to find the fugitive and apprehend him.

“Fugitive?” Alex whispered, leaning forward.

“He’s just escaped from prison,” I explained, throwing a worried look at one of the soldiers who was studying the ladder.

“Is he a criminal?” She didn’t seem too bothered by the notion, incapable of tearing her eyes away from Matthew’s crouched body.

“No. But I’ll let him explain it to you in person.”

“You will?” She gave me a brilliant smile. “Now?”

“He’s sort of busy at present,” I pointed out. To my horror, the roof gave way, and a surprised Matthew was sucked into the house.

“Fix it,” Alex told me. “Make sure he makes it out okay.” Blue eyes hovered uncomfortably close to mine. “It’s him or no one.”

“He’s in the 17th century!” I protested.

“Well then put me there as well. He needs me!” Her face softened. “And I need him,” she added in an undertone, “I’ve needed him since well before I was born.”
Turns out Matthew and Alex were right. They were born three centuries apart, they should never have met, and yet they are each other’s missing half. Without her, he would be diminished. Without him, she wouldn’t quite know how to breathe. And no matter that by now they are well past their youth, the fire between them still burns, still scorches their hearts – as can be proved by the excerpt below from Revenge and Retribution, the recently released sixth book in The Graham Saga.

EXCERPT:

“And you are surprised?” Matthew blew into her nape, tickling her.

“She was pretty harsh,” Alex said, “and Betty generally isn’t.”

“Except when it comes to Ian. Surely you’ve noticed how protective she is of him?”

“Protective? She was flamingly jealous!”

“And you wouldn’t be?”

“You know I would,” she grumbled. She still was, a wave of puce green washing over her whenever she thought of Matthew and his first wife, Ian’s mother.  “Are you?” she asked, pummeling at her pillow. Occasionally, she wanted to claw Kate Jones’ eyes out as well, she reflected, in particular when Matthew was too attentive to her.

“Am I what?”

“Jealous.” She could feel him laughing behind her.

“Is it William Hancock that has caught your eye?”

“William?” Alex twisted round to see him. “What would I see in William?”

“I don’t know,” Matthew said, “but he, I think, is overly fond of you.”

“He is? Oh, don’t be silly. He looks at me with mild disapproval most of the time.”

“I know, aye? I see it in how his eyes follow you around, and how he lets his gaze linger a wee bit too long on your bosom and your arse.” It came out in a very dark voice, and Alex smiled.

“So you are jealous.”

“Not as such,” he replied with a yawn. “Not of him.” He sounded very dismissive.

“So who?” she said, now very wide awake.

Matthew groaned and pulled her down to lie against his chest. “Sleep, aye?”

“Who?” she repeated.

“Of John,” Matthew admitted sulkily. “I don’t like it that I wasn’t your first.”

Alex rubbed her face against his chest. “Idiot. I was twenty-six when we met.”

“Aye, and I still don’t like it. I would that no one but me had ever touched you, taken you, loved you.”

Alex struggled up to sit, making the whole bed sway.

“I’m glad that you weren’t.” She smiled at the way his eyes narrowed. “Otherwise, how would I have known just how lucky I was?” She kissed him: a long kiss. “Very lucky,” she said, licking her lips.

“Very,” he agreed huskily.

All of Anna’s books are available on Amazon US and Amazon UK.

For more information about Anna Belfrage and her books, visit her website!
For a somewhat more visual presentation of The Graham Saga, why not watch the book trailer?

You Tube Link and Anna’s website

From Anna Belfrage’s Website: The Graham Saga…

This is the story of Alex and Matthew, two people who should never have met – not when she was born three hundred years after him.

It all began the day Alex Lind got caught in a thunderstorm. Not your ordinary storm, no this was the mother of all storms, causing a most unusual rift in the fabric of time. Alex was dragged three centuries backwards in time, landing more or less at the feet of a very surprised Matthew Graham.

In a series of books we follow the life and adventures of the expanding Graham family, both in Scotland and in the New World – and let me tell you it is quite an exciting life, at times excessively so in Alex’ opinion.

Sometimes people ask me why Alex had to be born in the twentieth century, why not make her a woman born and bred in the seventeenth century where the story is set? The answer to that is I have no idea. Alex Lind is an insistent, vibrant character that sprung into my head one morning and simply wouldn’t let go.

Seductively she whispered about terrible thunderstorms, about a gorgeous man with magic, hazel eyes, about loss and sorrow, about love – always this love, for her man and her children, for the people she lives with. With a throaty chuckle she shared insights into a life very far removed from mine, now and then stopping to shake her head and tell me that it probably hadn’t been easy for Matthew, to have such an outspoken, strange and independent woman at his side.

At this point Matthew groaned into life. Nay, he sighed, this woman of his was at times far too obstinate, with no notion of how a wife should be, meek and dutiful. But, he added with a laugh, he wouldn’t want her any different, for all that she was half heathen and a right hand-full. No, he said, stretching to his full length, if truth be told not a day went by without him offering fervent thanks for his marvelous wife, a gift from God no less, how else to explain the propitious circumstances that had her landing at his feet that long gone August day?

Still, dear reader, it isn’t always easy. At times Alex thinks he’s an overbearing bastard, at others he’s sorely tempted to belt her. But the moment their fingertips graze against each other, the moment their eyes meet, the electrical current that always buzzes between them peaks and surges, it rushes through their veins, it makes their breathing hitch and … She is his woman, he is her man. That’s how it is, that’s how it always will be.

Other Books in the Graham Saga Series: scale_180_2147483647;donotenlarge-1scale_180_2147483647;donotenlargescale_180_2147483647;donotenlargescale_180_289;donotenlargescale_180_2147483647;donotenlarge

 

Posted in book excerpts, writing | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

The Westminster Paving Act: Setting London’s Roads Aright

In doing research for a recent release, THE MYSTERIIOUS DEATH OF MR. DARCY, which is set in Dorset, I came across the Purbek marble, a fossiliferous limestone found on the Isle of Purbeck, a peninsula in southeast Dorset, England. That discovery led to one thing and then another, and finally, I came across the Westminster Paving Act of 1762, a dramatic step forward on behalf of London’s dwellers.

maltonchThe Westminster Paving Act removed the responsibility of paving the streets from the individuals to a governmental type commission. Before the act, occupants were responsible for paving and cleaning a specified area before their residences.

From John Wood’s Description of Bath (1749), we discover:

But previous to the Duty of these Officers, every Housekeeper, inhabiting and residing within the City, Liberties, and Precincts thereof, is enjoined, Thrice in every Week at the least, that is to say, on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, to sweep and cleanse, or cause to be swept and cleansed, all the Streets, Lanes, Alleys, and Public Places, before their respective Houses, Buildings, and Walls, and all other Public Places, to the End that the Filth, Ashes, Dirt, Dust, Rubble, and Rubbish may be ready to be carried away by the Scavengers, upon Pain to forfeit Three Shillings and Four-Pence for every Offence and Neglect. They are moreover Prohibited from throwing, casting, or laying; or from permitting any Person to throw, cast, or lay, any Ashes, Filth, Duff, Dirt, Rubbish, Dung, or other Annoyances, in any open Street, Lane, or Alley, within the said City, Liberties, Precincts, or Places aforesaid, before his or their own Dwelling-House, Buildings, or other Public Places within the said City; but, on the Contrary, are Required to keep, or cause the fame to be kept, in their respective Houses, Yards, or Backsides, until such Time as the Scavenger shall come by to receive and take the fame entirely away, under the Penalty of Five Shillings for every Offense.

Again, if any person or persons shall have any Straw or Hay, brought and thrown down for the Use or any Inn, or any other House, in any of the Streets, Lanes, Alleys, and other Public Places, within the said City, the Liberties, and Precincts thereof, and shall not carry the same into their Yards, Backsides, or Stables, sweep and clean the Place where such Straw or Hay was thrown down, and carry away the Rubbish occasioned thereby, within one Hour after such Straw or Hay shall be unloaded, he or they so neglecting is to forfeit Five Shillings for every Offense, to be levied by Distress and Sale of the Offender’s Goods, by Warrant, under the Hands of Two or more of the said Commissioners.

Now as to the Paving of the Streets, Lanes, Alleys, and Public Places of the City, every Occupier or Owner of any House, Houses, or Lands, next adjoining to such Street, Lane, Alley, or Public Place within the said City, Liberties or Precincts thereof, is Required, from Time to Time, within ten Days next after Notice given by the Surveyor, or Surveyors, to be appointed as above, well and sufficiently to pitch or pave, or cause to be pitched and paved, the Street, Alley, or Lane before his or their Houses, Habitations, Lands, and Public Places respectively, into the Middle of the Street, Lane, or Alley, except in the Market Place, and there only eight Feet in Width, under the Penalty of Ten Shillings for each Perch not so pitched; and so in Proportion for any greater or lesser Quantity or Space of Ground; and under the like Penalty for every Month, ‘till the same shall be pitched or paved; which Penalty is to be levied by Distress and Sale of the Offender’s Goods, and to be applied towards Maintaining one or more of the Scavengers to be appointed as aforesaid.

In London, the responsibility of paving and cleaning the streets was normally written into the building lease/sale. The problem with the London streets in the early 18th Century was the lack of consistency. The paving stones were round and fit to walk upon, but in a carriage the ride was quite rough. The wide flat stones, which were perfect underfoot, created a bumpy ride for they were raised above the flat of the road.

The 1762 Act specified that Purbeck stone should replace the previous stone. The act also called for the replacement of the drainage kennel, which was normally placed in the street’s middle, with kerbside gutters. This standard of the Purbeck stone remained in place throughout the late Georgian Period. Eventually, gravel was added between the stones to level out the road.

The act also required a system of street cleaning. As a side benefit of working as a Scavenger (those paid to clean the street by at a parish rate) grew, the streets became cleaner. For example, discarded ashes were collected to be sold to manufactures of inferior place bricks. Eventually, carts carrying water (barrels pierced with holes) kept the dust down on the road.

In the early 19th Century, the occupant was responsible for sweeping the pavement before his house. The parish scavenger removed the dirt from the street and that on the carriageway.

Unfortunately, all the laws of the land could not force those who occupied single rooms in lodge houses or those who frequented houses of ill repute or beer houses. There were some who simply did not care for the condition of the streets upon which they walked or rode.Jeffers-TMDOMD

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Georgian Era, Great Britain, Living in the UK, real life tales | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Life of the Gentry During the Regency Period…

Caroline of Brunswick

Caroline of Brunswick

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.

To be part of the landed gentry, the family had to own 300+ acres of property. The Reverend George Austen was part of the gentry, but he came from the lower end of the class distinction, while Jane’s mother came from a wealthier background. When one reads Austen, the person meets the gentry. A member of the gentry was known as a gentleman, but not all members of the gentry acted as a gentleman.

Good manners defined a person during the era. Loosely based on Renaissance Italy and 17th Century French customs, the “rules” of engagement during the Regency Period were strictly enforced by members of the “ton.” One who did not adhere to the rules would be shunned by Society. york_1804_hale

A gentleman, for example, was expected to speak properly and to avoid vulgarity; to be dressed appropriately; to dance well; to be well versed on a variety of subjects and to have a university education or above; and to practice condescion to those of a lower class.

When addressing women the eldest daughter in a family would be referred to as “Miss” + her last name (i.e, Miss Elliot or Miss Bennet). The younger sisters would be “Miss” + the woman’s given name (i.e, Miss Anne or Miss Elizabeth). Addressing males followed a similar form. The eldest son was “Mister” + last name (i.e, Mr. Ferras or Mr. Wentworth). The younger sons used both given name and surname (i.e., Mr. Robert Ferras or Mr. Frederick Wentworth).

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.

Derby from a Field Adjoining Abbey Barnes

Derby from a Field Adjoining Abbey Barnes

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, dancing, fashion, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, Regency era, Regency personalities | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Life of the Gentry During the Regency Period…

Why Austen’s Works Easily Translate into Modern Adaptations

600full-pride-and-prejudice-2005 Jane Austen’s works are often classified as “romances.” The assumption comes from the premise that if the heroine meets a handsome man in Chapter One, he must be the hero. Fitzwilliam Darcy is the romantic hero of Pride and Prejudice, and although he does not appear in Chapter One, he does make an appearance by Chapter Three, and Austen’s chapters are short in comparison to contemporary writers. However, if you know nothing of the story line nor do you have sweet dreams of Colin Firth emerging dripping wet from a placid lake (Sigh!) or of Matthew Macfadyen walking through the morning mist with an open shirt and lots of chest hair (Sigh!), you may not think much of the infamous Mr. Darcy.

Quite frankly, upon our first meeting of this wonderful character, he is a jerk. He makes a horrendous “first impression.” But that is the thing with Austen. Her original title of the novel and her theme are one and the same: first impressions are misleading. From the first line of Pride and Prejudice, “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife,” Austen plays a merry game with her readers. “First impressions” are misleading. Repeat that phrase with me: First impressions are misleading. First impressions are misleading.

In truth, Darcy does not come to Hertfordshire seeking a wife; Wickham is not the perfect mate for Elizabeth; Jane might be more beautiful than Elizabeth, but she lacks her sister’s depth of character; Darcy’s best quality is not his wealth, nor is his worst quality his pride. Austen’s theme permeates every line, and, generally, the reader does not recognize that our favorite “Lady” hits us over the head with it. Readers simply sense the resonance found within Austen’s works. Theme explains why Austen’s works are considered “classics.” When I taught school, I used a thematic approach to the literature we covered in class. During the 15 years I spent at the middle school level, we identified common (and not so common) themes, which would tie the many novels we had available for our students together (humor, the Holocaust, science fiction which can become science fact, coming of age, etc.) Theme, well done, brings us universal truths, and discerning readers seek truth well told. Austen writes about the truths of a flawed society in which she was born.

What we find in Austen, as well as in the Brontes, Dickens, Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, etc., is how easily her stories are transferred to the present. Critics of “remaking” the classics refer to the phenomenon as “nostalgia.” We who love these types of stories are accused of wanting to go back to a less complicated time. In reality, I disagree with the idea that the Regency was “less complicated,” but I understand their objections. Yet, it is much more than a longing for an easier time. If it is “nostalgia,” then what is missing from our current time that brings us to seek out another? emma-and-knightley-dancing It is more than an “escape” into the past.

Readers and viewers return again and again to these tales. What parts of these remakes of the classics speak to our contemporary needs and fantasies? I believe, we often use a magnifying lens to view the world. This lens has a filter known as the “past.” We view contemporary society by reinventing the past. Some people would disagree with this idea, but I am of the persuasion we “soften” the difficulties of the Regency.

Early romance writers have set the standard for the times. In contrast, I often write of the prejudice in society, the lack of rights of women, the devastation of being born second or third, the perils of being born first in a wealthy family, the prospects of the servant class, etc., but I can tell you, my works are received with mixed views, because some readers do not wish to know of the seedier side of the Regency.

Parts of the past survive, while others fade away. From the perspective of current cultural and social ambitions, politics, and historiography, the past is remade. Do not our grandparents tell us of a simpler time? Do we not look back and see with our “selected” memory a past in which life moved as an easier pace? Yet, in truth, those easier times had issues similar to those of which we deal every day. Death, famine, disease, betrayal, corruption, war, etc., exist in each era. ecd1

As a writer of Austen-inspired novels, I strongly feel that I “hold” the past in waiting for my readers to cherish, but I also believe my novels, as well as those of other writers of remakes, reshape the past in the current styles and fashions. Remakes (whether sequels, adaptations, what ifs, different genres with Austen’s characters, etc.) appeal to both our need for the classics and our need for popular culture. As a teacher for 40 years, I repeatedly asked my students to read and view and analyze – to imagine themselves in relation to a past and an ever-changing present.

As a writer, I reimagine Jane Austen’s works as a portal through which the reader can consider what we were, what we are, and what we want to be. In doing so, I emphasized the importance of permitting the canon and its past to be complemented by, and in some sense removed by, the tools and technologies of our contemporary culture and popular media. Often when I submit an Austenesque novel for a contest, I am told by a judge (who has never read such a novel) that I “cheated” because I used readily recognizable characters. I am “punished” by the score I am presented. I attempt to take the constructive criticism and use it, while ignoring the chastisements for my choice of characters. Despite the insinuations of my character for choosing Austen’s most famous couples, I say I have  upped my writing because not only must I tell an engaging story, but I must also keep Darcy and Elizabeth and Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth true to the nature set for me by Jane Austen. persuasion-2007-persuasion-5251162-1024-576

In such adaptations, those of us who delve into these remakes, retain the specifics of the context and the historical setting, while highlighting and exploring current issues. As I mentioned above, in my many Austen sequels/adaptations, I have used political intrigue, issues of race, women’s rights, the plight of the poor, post traumatic stress syndrome, childbirth, governmental spies, etc. These issues fit the historical setting, but they also speak to modern times.

So, how popular are these remakes? How easily have Jane Austen and others made the journey into contemporary times? In 1995, A&E Network aired an Andrew Davies’ retelling of Pride and Prejudice. It earned the network its highest rating ever in the U.S. In England, 21% of British viewers watched the last episode of this series, which starred Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. Sales of Pride and Prejudice hit 35,00 copies per week during the broadcast.

In the past twenty years, there have been more than 30 films and TV adaptations of Austen’s works, as well as over 500 continuations and sequels based on Austen’s six simple novels. Multiple markets have grown up around the love of Jane Austen: music to read Austen by; boutiques; guidebooks; cookbooks; dolls; advice books; organized tours, etc.

 

Book Blurb:hhcovercrop Liz Bennet’s flirtatious nature acerbates Will Darcy’s controlling tendencies, sending him into despair when she fiercely demands her independence from him. How could she repeatedly turn him down? Darcy has it all: good looks, a pro football career, intelligence, and wealth. Pulled together by a passionate desire, which neither time nor distance can quench, they are destined to love, as well as misunderstand, each other until Fate deals them a blow from which they can no longer escape. Set against the backdrop of professional sports and the North Carolina wine country, Honor and Hope offers a modern romance loosely based on Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

Posted in film, Jane Austen, language choices, Living in the Regency, Napoleonic Wars, Pop Culture, Pride and Prejudice, Regency era, Regency personalities, word play, writing | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment