Every Woman Dreams...

Sudden Awakenings, a New JAFF from Amanda Kai + an Excerpt + a Giveaway

Posted on November 4, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

Thank you, Regina, for taking time out of your hectic schedule to host me today on Every Woman Dreams. So exciting to hear about your upcoming Regency Romances for Dragonblade mystery series associated with the Lyon’s Den Realm and your new Jane Austen variation, Leave Her Wild, coming out in February! I hope one day to be as prolific as you are.

Today, I’m celebrating the release of my newest Pride and Prejudice variation “Sudden Awakenings”, which is third standalone P&P variation in The Other Paths Collection. Each book operates in its own “universe” and featuring a different path to Happily Ever After for Darcy and Elizabeth, so you can enjoy them in any order.

In this twist, Elizabeth’s sleepwalking condition puts her in a bind when she accidentally wanders into Mr. Darcy’s room while they are guests at Netherfield Park, forcing them to get married to save Elizabeth’s reputation. Enemies to lovers is one of my very favorite tropes, especially when combined with forced marriage or arranged marriage situations, so it was a lot of fun to write this story, and I hope you will all enjoy it.

Blurb:

What could be worse than awakening in the bed of the man you hate?

Elizabeth Bennet, haunted by a family history of sleepwalking, has spent her life navigating the challenges and eccentricities of her condition.

A sudden encounter during a sleepwalking episode forces her and Mr. Darcy into a marriage of convenience. As they navigate their newfound relationship, their initial prejudices give way to unexpected feelings.

However, Darcy’s formidable aunt, Lady Catherine, opposes the match and schemes to break them apart. Can Elizabeth and Darcy overcome the obstacles placed before them and awaken to the realization of the love between them?

This clean, heartwarming romance will leave you captivated and yearning for more. A unique Pride and Prejudice variation culminating in a happily ever after for Our Dear Couple.

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Sudden Awakenings

Mr. Bingley returned to Netherfield Park the following week, accompanied by Miss Bingley, along with his elder sister and her husband, the Hursts. During his absence, the servants set up the house for him. The rooms were cleaned and readied, the larder stocked, and Bingley’s own possessions unpacked. He had little in the way of furniture or decorations, having lived the life of a bachelor for some time now, so it was fortunate the owners had left the house furnished and in good condition.

The quality was not up to Miss Bingley’s standards, however. “When you purchase a house, Charles, I hope you shall let me decorate it. This house is positively ancient, and these furnishings are at least ten years out of date. I suppose it is to be expected in this rustic neighborhood.”

“I find no fault with the furnishings, Caroline,” he retorted, plopping himself onto the sofa and stretching himself out comfortably. He was the sort of man who could be comfortable in any environment, whereas Caroline loved to criticize at every turn. In her eyes, their abode, no matter whether in London or the countryside, always appeared to be too poor, too shabby, too outdated. The exception was when they were guests at the home of someone far wealthier than them. There, no room could go without praise or exclamation from her; she must comment on its size and proportion, the colors of the decor, the comfort and style of the furnishings, and the excellent taste of the art.

“I positively dread giving a dinner here,” Miss Bingley continued. “Did you see how small the dining table is? We can hardly fit six couples. Such a large dining room could easily accommodate a table twice that size. What a pity the owners did not think to purchase a larger one before they vacated the house.”

“Perhaps they could not afford to,” Mr. Bingley suggested.

Mrs. Hurst quipped, “As you have no acquaintances in the neighborhood yet, I do not think you must worry about having too little room at your table to accommodate them. Your worry lies in filling the seats you already possess.”

Miss Bingley glared at her sister over this remark, prompting a chuckle from their brother.

***

Mr. Bennet’s call on Mr. Bingley was paid, despite all his assurances (and Mrs. Bennet’s fears) that it would not, and the connection formed. Mr. Bingley, having heard of Mr. Bennet’s beautiful daughters from Sir William Lucas, and finding Mr. Bennet to be an agreeable man, was keen to return the visit at the earliest convenient time.

Miss Bingley and Mrs. Hurst accompanied him to visit the Bennet family. Though themselves not anxious to develop acquaintances in that region, they wished to form an opinion of the people with whom they would be forced to mingle during their stay. Mr. Hurst, who cared for nothing that did not relate to his victuals, his sleep, or his recreation, saw no advantage to paying calls and chose to remain behind for an afternoon nap.

Mr. Bingley thought all of the Bennet sisters to be beautiful, but he was especially taken with the eldest. Miss Bennet’s fair features and sweet disposition would have been enough to make him declare her an angel, but when coupled with her pert lips and her perfectly-proportioned figure, accentuated by the empire waist of her crisp, white, morning gown, he found himself quite entranced.

Mrs. Bennet noticed his immediate attraction towards her daughter and insisted that Jane exchange seats with her to be nearer to their guests. From then on, she took pains to promote Jane’s finer qualities at every opportunity.

Mrs. Bennet’s forward inquiries about Mr. Bingley’s business, his prospects, and his intention to remain in the neighborhood were not lost on his sisters. It became equally apparent to them that the family’s connections were nothing; no ties to the nobility, not even a baronet. Mrs. Bennet had a brother in trade and a sister whose husband was a country solicitor. Such a decidedly low situation was compounded by the estate being entailed on a cousin, the husband of one daughter. While she might expect a good life as the mistress of Longbourn, the others could have precious little in the way of a dowry. The fact of the matter was, the remaining sisters must depend on making good matches, and it was plain by Mrs. Bennet’s vulgar attention to Mr. Bingley’s fortune that she saw him as an advantageous prospect.

Mr. Bingley, however, was all too ready to be taken advantage of. Having beheld his ideal woman, he was eager to further his acquaintance with her.

“Will you be at the assembly this month, Miss Bennet?” he asked, his eyes dilating at the prospect of seeing her in an evening gown.

Jane nodded, an alluring smile forming on her lips. “Indeed, I shall. My sisters and I always attend, for we dearly love to dance.”

“Excellent! Then I shall look forward to the pleasure of dancing with you–with all of you, that is,” he added, nodding at her sisters in turn.

“Does your brother-in-law dance too, Mr. Bingley?” Miss Elizabeth asked him eagerly. “For gentlemen are scarce in these parts, and we are often short on partners.”

Mr. Bingley shook his head. “Mr. Hurst does not dance, I am afraid. Now that he is married, he spends all his time in the card room at such gatherings. But do not despair; I have it on good authority that my dear friend, Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, will be coming down in time for the assembly. He has accepted my invitation to stay at Netherfield this season, and was only delayed in coming by some pressing business.”

“How delightful!” Mrs. Bennet exclaimed. “Where does your friend hail from?”

“Mr. Darcy’s home is in Derbyshire, ma’am. At Pemberley.”

Mrs. Bennet leaned closer in eager attention. “I confess, I have not heard of it. Is it a very large place?”

“To be sure!” Mr. Bingley nodded. “One of the finest estates in all of Derbyshire. And Mr. Darcy is an excellent fellow. I have known him long. I am certain he will make a welcome addition to all our parties.”

“Oh, no doubt about it!” Mrs. Bennet said. “We shall be pleased to meet him.”

The notion of having yet another eligible man added to their gatherings was a most delightful one, and before the guests had departed, Mrs. Bennet was already envisioning two of her daughters happily settled; one at Netherfield, and one at this Pemberley place. With her limited knowledge of geography, she knew not how far Derbyshire might be from Hertfordshire, but the distance could be of no consequence if the man were as rich as he seemed. She formed a mental note to begin making inquiries about him.

That Jane should be one of the two brides was a given; but which of her other daughters might also be chosen would depend on the gentlemen’s preferences, she supposed.

Continue reading Sudden Awakenings on Amazon and Kindle Unlimited

About the Author:

Amanda Kai’s love of period dramas and classic literature inspires her historical and contemporary romances. She is the author of several stories inspired by Jane Austen, including Not In Want of a Wife, Elizabeth’s Secret Admirer, and Swipe Right for Mr. Darcy. Prior to becoming an author, Amanda enjoyed a career as a professional harpist, and danced ballet for twenty years. When she’s not diving into the realm of her imagination, Amanda lives out her own happily ever after in Texas with her husband and three children.

Game:

Each day during my blog tour, you’ll find a different game or puzzle to play. Today’s game is a memory-match, featuring covers from my books. Enjoy!

Giveaway:

To celebrate the release of Sudden Awakenings, Amanda is giving away some fabulous prizes. Thank you, Regina, for taking time out of your hectic schedule to host me today on Every Woman Dreams. So exciting to hear about your upcoming Regency Romances for Dragonblade mystery series associated with the Lyon’s Den Realm and your new Jane Austen variation, Leave Her Wild, coming out in February! I hope one day to be as prolific as you are.

Blurb:

What could be worse than awakening in the bed of the man you hate?

Elizabeth Bennet, haunted by a family history of sleepwalking, has spent her life navigating the challenges and eccentricities of her condition.

This clean, heartwarming romance will leave you captivated and yearning for more. A unique Pride and Prejudice variation culminating in a happily ever after for Our Dear Couple.

Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Sudden Awakenings

“Perhaps they could not afford to,” Mr. Bingley suggested.

Miss Bingley glared at her sister over this remark, prompting a chuckle from their brother.

***

Mr. Bingley, however, was all too ready to be taken advantage of. Having beheld his ideal woman, he was eager to further his acquaintance with her.

“Will you be at the assembly this month, Miss Bennet?” he asked, his eyes dilating at the prospect of seeing her in an evening gown.

Jane nodded, an alluring smile forming on her lips. “Indeed, I shall. My sisters and I always attend, for we dearly love to dance.”

“Excellent! Then I shall look forward to the pleasure of dancing with you–with all of you, that is,” he added, nodding at her sisters in turn.

“Does your brother-in-law dance too, Mr. Bingley?” Miss Elizabeth asked him eagerly. “For gentlemen are scarce in these parts, and we are often short on partners.”

“How delightful!” Mrs. Bennet exclaimed. “Where does your friend hail from?”

“Mr. Darcy’s home is in Derbyshire, ma’am. At Pemberley.”

Mrs. Bennet leaned closer in eager attention. “I confess, I have not heard of it. Is it a very large place?”

“Oh, no doubt about it!” Mrs. Bennet said. “We shall be pleased to meet him.”

That Jane should be one of the two brides was a given; but which of her other daughters might also be chosen would depend on the gentlemen’s preferences, she supposed.

Continue reading Sudden Awakenings on Amazon and Kindle Unlimited

About the Author:

Game:

Each day during my blog tour, you’ll find a different game or puzzle to play. Today’s game is a memory-match, featuring covers from my books. Enjoy!

Giveaway:

To celebrate the release of Sudden Awakenings, Amanda is giving away some fabulous prizes. Click here to enter. Giveaway ends Dec. 1, 2024.

Posted in book excerpts, book release, books, eBooks, excerpt, Georgian Era, Guest Blog, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, reading, Regency era, Regency romance, Vagary, writing | Tagged book excerpt, book release, eBooks, except, Georgian Era, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Regency Era, Regency romance, sleep walking, writing | Comments Off

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson: The Man. The Myth.

Posted on November 1, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

As this coming Tuesday is election day, I thought I might share something of the man who largely wrote our country’s “Declaration of Independence.” I found this most agreeable as Jefferson’s holds a place on my family tree. Moreover, this is about as political as I ever hope to be on social media.

Thomas Jefferson: The Man. The Myth.
This is amazing. There are two parts. I dare you to read the quotes from the 2nd part and not think he is talking about modern day politics.

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very
early in life and never stopped.
> At 5, began studying under his cousin’s tutor.
> At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
> At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
> At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
> At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
> At 23, started his own law practice.
> At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
> At 31, wrote the widely circulated “Summary View of the Rights of
British America” and retired from his law practice.
> At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
> At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
> At 33, took three years to revise Virginia’s legal code and wrote a
Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
> At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia, succeeding Patrick
> Henry.
> At 40, served in Congress for two years.
> At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial
treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
> At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
> At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the
American Philosophical Society.
> At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of
Republican Party.
> At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
> At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the nation’s size.
> At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
> At 65, retired to Monticello.
> At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
> At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and
served as its first president.
> At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration
of Independence, along with John Adams

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:
“This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Here are some of Jefferson’s quotes. Do any strike a bell for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below, find an easier version of the document to read. When I taught Advanced Placement Language courses, I used The Declaration of Independence as the perfect example of an argumentative essay.

For those who have not studied this form (meaning many of today’s politicians) the 4 parts of an argumentative essay are the claim, counterclaim, reasoning, and evidence. The claim is the author’s argument that they are attempting to prove in the essay. The counterclaim is the opposite argument which the author addresses in order provide a rebuttal. The reasoning is the logic used to prove a claim. The evidence is the facts, data, and quoted experts used to provide support for the reasoning.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Georgia:]

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

[North Carolina:]

William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

[South Carolina:]

Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

[Maryland:]

Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

[Virginia:]

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

[Pennsylvania:]

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

[Delaware:]

Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

[New York:]

William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

[New Jersey:]

Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

[New Hampshire:]

Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton

[Massachusetts:]

John Hancock
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

[Rhode Island:]

Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

[Connecticut:]

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Posted in America, American History, British history, Declaration of Independence, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Regency era, research, world history | Tagged American history, British history, Declaration of Independence, Georgian Era, research, Thomas Jefferson | Comments Off

All Hallow’s Eve During the Regency

Posted on October 30, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

For this piece, I pulled together bits of information on All Hallow’s Eve from a variety of sources, all of which are cited within the post. I hope you enjoy learning of some of Halloween’s traditions.

All Hallow’s Eve (Halloween or Hallowe’en) comes to us via the Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sów-en, and meaning “end of summer”), which was a Druid “bonfire” festival. November 1 is half way between the autumn and the winter solstices, and it was believe to be the start of a new year during these times. Harvests were in and winter approached. The belief was that spirits could slip through the crack between the end of one year and the beginning of the next. As October 31 was the eve of the “new year,” with spirits about – good or bad – the day began to take on a superstitious overtone. Priests and villagers often staged ceremonies where they “led” the spirits back to their resting place, a walk often ending in the community grave yard. Far from being a burning Hell, the Celtic “underworld” was a place of light and feasting, much more akin to the Christian ideal of Heaven.

A bonfire was traditionally set by the local priests, who offered up blessings. Villagers would permit the fire in their hearth to burn out, and, then, they would relit the hearth fire with a flame from the community one, symbolizing their unity. People would also light “neeps,” lanterns made from beets, turnips, mangelwurzel, and rutabagas, to welcome home good spirits and drive away bad ones. (Remember: Pumpkins were not brought to England until the 1600s.) Pranks and mischief were also common on All Hallow’s Eve.

The Jane Austen Centre tells us, “When the Romans conquered Britain in AD 43 they drove the Celts to Scotland and Ireland, building Hadrian’s Wall across Britannia in order to protect their settlements from raiders, officially dividing the two countries. Though they brought with them their own polytheistic religion, they were not above incorporating the holidays already in place in the land, adding a celebration to their goddess of fruit trees, Pomona, to the revelries, forever linking apples and feasting to Halloween.

“The result of the Roman invasion and subsequent adoption of the Julian Calendar, which moved New Year’s Day to January 1st, was that for some, the entire period between October 31st (the Old New Year) and January 1st became a time when Ghosts were free to wander the earth and meddle in the affairs of mortals. It was with this in mind that, in 1843, Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol as a ghost story. A vivid picture of this kind of nocturnal wandering can be found in Ebenezer Scrooge’s first meeting Marley’s Ghost. ‘The air was filled with phantoms, wandering hither and thither in restless haste, and moaning as they went. Every one of them wore chains like Marley’s Ghost; some few (they might be guilty governments) were linked together; none were free. Many had been personally known to Scrooge in their lives. He had been quite familiar with one old ghost, in a white waistcoat, with a monstrous iron safe attached to its ankle, who cried piteously at being unable to assist a wretched woman with an infant, whom it saw below, upon a door-step. The misery with them all was, clearly, that they sought to interfere, for good, in human matters, and had lost the power for ever.’

“Such was the power of tradition begun by the Druids. With the spread of Christianity in the 7th-10th centuries came the desire by the church to wipe out pagan rituals and holidays and replace them with festivals of Christian significance. Accordingly, Pope Gregory III (731–741) moved All Saints Day (originally celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost, signaling the official end of Easter) from May to November 1, followed by All Souls Day on November 2. All Saints Day, which involves a vigil kept the night before (October 31) was set aside to commemorate all saints too numerous to be given their own feast day. With the far reaching influence of the Catholic church, the day was soon celebrated across Europe and later the Americas.”

Regency Reader explains: “In England we celebrate all hallows eve or nutcrack night as this vigil is called by eating apples and cracking nuts; we disclaim and reject all worship of saints but as they never did us any harm if the apples are good and the nuts sound and we feel inclined to eat them we indulge our taste and kindly suffer the departed worthies to take whatever credit they may think redounds to them from the due performances of these ceremonies.” –The London Magazine, 1826

In an annotated version of Burn’s Halloween, Hamilton Paul (1819) describes Halloween as “thought to be a night when witches, devils, and other mischiefmaking beings, are all abroad on their baneful, midnight errands; particularly those a’e’rial people-, the Fairies, are said on that night to hold a grand anniversary”

So, what parts of this ancient tradition were still popular during the Regency era? In truth, not many, as Guy Fawkes’s Day proved more popular. However, fortune-telling would be a sensible choice for a Regency author, particularly, if the story is set in Ireland or Scotland. Having the cards reveal a potential spouse would be an acceptable plot point. Regency Redingote tells us, “One of the most popular of these fortune-telling games was played in both Ireland and Scotland well into the twentieth century. In Ireland, the game was played with cabbages, and in Scotland with kale. Though there were many variations on these games, most required that the person seeking to know their fortune enter the field where the vegetable of choice grew, either backwards or blind-folded and select one of the plants without seeing it. Once the kale or cabbage was pulled from the soil, it was examined for telling details about the harvester’s future mate. A straight or crooked stalk indicated the future spouse’s character, while the taste of it, whether sweet or sour, would indicated that future spouse’s nature.

“Another popular fortune-telling ritual, especially in Scotland, was the burning of nuts. Again, there were several variations. A pair of lovers might each throw a nut into the fire, in which case, the future of their relationship was to be indicated by whether the two nuts burned together into ash side by side, or if one jumped away from the other. Or, a woman or a man with multiple potential mates might name a nut for each of them, throwing all the nuts into the fire at once. The nut which burned the brightest and the longest was considered to be a sign of the truest mate. The most commonly used nuts for these fortune-telling games were chestnuts, hazelnuts and walnuts. It was due to this fortune-telling ritual that Halloween was also known as ‘Nutcrack Night’ in some parts of Scotland and the far north of England.” [Also check out this site for information on other traditions, such as “bobbing for apples.”]

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/original-irish-jack-o-lanterns-halloween-turnip

The Historical Hussies: Regency Halloween explains about “carving pumpkins.” “Carving jack o’ lanterns was another custom. Believing the “head” of a vegetable its most potent part, the Celts carved vegetables into heads with faces to scare away supernatural beings. By Regency times, these lighted vegetables were called jack o’ lanterns from the seventeenth century Irish legend of Shifty, or Stingy, Jack. Shifty Jack, so evil neither Heaven or Hell would take him, was doomed forever to wander the earth while carrying a lantern.”

Back to The Jane Austen Centre and Austen, in particular, we learn: “The Celts who populated Scotland and Ireland, however, were loathe to relinquish their old ways in favor of Christian feast days or lack there of. Instead, they incorporated these new rites into the old celebration. It is clear from Scottish poet Robert Burns’ 1786 work, Halloween, that by Georgian times, the holiday was still alive and well, with much of its superstitious symbolism intact. The poem describes the tricks (such as eating an apple in front of a mirror in hopes of seeing your beloved) and treats (Flummery and Barmbrack) of the season to which most Scots or Irishmen would have been familiar.

‘The extended Regency was an era fascinated by the mysterious and horrible. Frightening gothic romances, such as The Mysteries of Udolpho, were being written and were read by all. Some of the more familiar icons of modern Halloween such as Frankenstein (1816) and The Headless Horseman (brought to life in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, 1820) were created during this era.

“Jane Austen, an avid reader with a taste for novels was no doubt familiar many of these gothic masterpieces as well as with the work of Robert Burns. She would have been aware of these celebrations and divination rites; however, as the daughter of an Anglican clergyman, it is doubtful that she would have partaken in such goings on. Surely, growing up in a houseful of boys, she would have celebrated with a bonfire on Guy Fawkes night, but we nowhere find that she dabbled in any of the occultic practices of the more ancient holidays still celebrated by the local villages. She mentions neither of these holidays or her feelings towards them. The trappings of Halloween which we now so regularly employ would have been foreign to her, even if their roots lay deep in the English history, of which she was so fond.”

Sources:

Halloween in the Regency

Original Irish Jack-o-Lanterns were truly terrifying and made of turnips

Regency Reader: All Hallows Eve and Nutcrack Night

Regency Reader: Regency Culture and Society: All Hallow’s Eve, Part II

Posted in British history, history, holidays, Ireland, Jane Austen, legends, legends and myths, medieval, Northanger Abbey, real life tales, religion, Scotland, Wales | Tagged All Hallow's Eve, British history, Celtic, Halloween, holidays, Jane Austen, medieval, real life tales, religion, superstitions, traditions | Comments Off

Condemned by the Church of England and the Catholic Church, Yet … Famous Suicides in the Regency Era

Posted on October 28, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

Suicide was condemned by the Church of England, as well as the Catholic church during the Regency. In the late Georgian Era, one who was named as having committed suicide was to be buried naked, at the crossroads with a stake through his/her heart and his goods and money forfeited to the King for a year. Suicide was more a crime against God. It was more a religious thing about not being buried in consecrated ground. Supposedly, from some accounts, before the Reformation, after the suicide, the man’s goods went to the Church, and it was only after the Reformation that they went to the King.

Felo de se, Lating for “felon of him- or herself,” was applied against the personal estates (assets) of adults who committed suicide. Early on, English Common Law considered suicide a crime. Although dead, a person found guilty of the crime would have penalties, including forfeiture of property to the monarch and a shameful burial. Beginning in the 1600s, precedent and coroners’ custom gradually labeled “suicide” more of a temporary insanity than a crime against nature. In the 17th and 18th centuries in England, as suicides came to be seen more and more as an act of temporary insanity, many coroner’s juries began declaring more suicide victims as non compos mentis (temporarily insane) instead. As such the perpetrator’s property was not forfeit (given to the Crown). MacDonald and Murphy write that “By the 1710s and 1720s, over 90 per cent of all suicides were judged insane, and after a period of more rigorous enforcement of the law, non compos mentis became in the last three decades of the century the only suicide verdict that Norwich Coroners returned. …Non compos mentis had become the usual verdict in cases of suicide by the last third of the century.” [Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England by Michael MacDonald and Terence R. Murphy (1990). Chapter 4.]

Eventually, that period of “payment” was reduced to a year. After the year, the man’s property reverted to his heirs, but his family remained tainted by the act. Like the public hangings, the treatment of suicides was supposed to strike terror in the people, as well as show how the act would leave the family poor for a year to act as a deterrent. In England and Wales, the offense of felo de se was abolished by section 1 of the Suicide Act 1961

The burying at the crossroads with a stake through the heart was a bit of superstition left over from previous ages where it was thought the ghost of suicides would haunt people and places unless pegged in place. Evil spirits could be made to stay in one place and not haunt people if a stake pinned them to the ground. A crossroads would misdirect the spirit, and it could no longer find its way home.

This punishment could be avoided if the verdict was “while balance of the mind was disturbed,” or the equivalent statement related to mental stability. Generally, the more prominent the man, the more likely it was that the verdict would be “balance of the mind was disturbed.”

Samuel Whitbread II by John Opie ~ Public Domain

In 1815, a Member of Parliament (MP), Samuel Whitbread, shocked society by committing suicide. The Coroner said that the heavy responsibility of being an MP at that time was too much for him. Whitbread was an MP for Bedford, a post he held for 23 years. He was a reformer—a champion of religious and civil rights and for the abolition of slavery. He was a proponent of a national education system, and, in 1795, sponsored an unsuccessful bill for the introduction of a minimum wage for workers. He was a close colleague of Charles James Fox, and became the leader of the Whigs upon Fox’s death. In 1805, he led the campaign to remove Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, from office.

What most do not know of Whitbread was his admiration for Napoleon and French leader’s reforms in France and Europe. Whitbread strongly advocated for Britain’s withdrawal from the Continent during the war years. Napoleon’s abdication in 1814 was a devastating blow to Whitbread’s beliefs. He began to suffer from depression, and on the morning of 6 July 185, he committed suicide by cutting his throat with a razor.

In 1818, Sir Richard Croft, 6th Baronet, the English physician to the British Royal family, who had attended Princess Charlotte and became famous due to his role in “the triple obstetrical tragedy,” killed himself when another patient died.

When Princess Charlotte conceived in February 1817, Croft was chosen to attend her. Following medical dogma, Croft restricted her diet and bled her during the pregnancy. Her membranes broke on 3 November 1817. The first stage of labor lasted 26 hours. At the beginning of the second stage of labour, Croft sent for Dr. John Sims, who arrived 7 hours later. The second stage of labour lasted 24 hours. He had correctly diagnosed a transverse lie of the baby during labor; however, forceps were not used as they had fallen into disfavor in the British medical community. Eventually Princess Charlotte delivered a stillborn 9-pound male. Five hours later she died. An autopsy ruled that Croft “had done his best.” However, the death of the Princess continued to weigh heavily on Croft, and on 13 February 1818, at age 56, he killed himself with a gun. Near his body a copy of Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost was found open with the passage (Act V, Scene II): “Fair Sir, God save you! Where is the Princess?”

The website Prinny’s Taylor lays out more than one version of Sir Richard Croft’s death, including several conflicting reports in the Times and the inquest findings. If interested, you may read that report HERE.

Both Croft and his wife are buried at St. James’s Church, Piccadilly. A memorial to them is found within the church.

CC BY-SA 4.0
File:A memorial to Sir Richard Croft, 6th Baronet, in St James’s Church, Piccadilly.jpg
Created: 31 January 2019

November 1818, Sir Samuel Romilly, a British lawyer, politician and legal reformer, died by cutting his throat. It was said that he was despondent over the death of his wife. From a background in the commercial world, he became well-connected, and rose to public office and a prominent position in Parliament. After an early interest in radical politics, he built a career in chancery cases, and then turned to amelioration of the British criminal law.

Sir Samuel Romilly by Sir Thomas Lawrence, painting, circa 1806-1810 ~ Public Domain

Romilly worked to reform the criminal law. He spent a dozen years of his life on the passage through Parliament of legislative reforms. In 1808, Romilly managed to repeal the Elizabethan statute which made it a capital offense to steal from the person. Successful prosecutions of pickpockets then rose. In 1809, three bills for repealing draconian statutes were thrown out by the House of Lords. Romilly saw further bills rejected; but in March 1812 he had repealed a statute of Elizabeth I making it a capital offense for a soldier or a mariner to beg without a pass from a magistrate or his commanding officer. Romilly failed to pass a law which would have abolished corruption of blood for all crimes, but in the following year he tried again and succeeded (except for treason and murder). Also in 1814, he succeeded in abolishing hanging, as well as drawing and quartering.

On 29 October 1818 Lady Romilly died in the Isle of Wight. A few days later, on 2 November 1818, Romilly cut his throat, and died in a few minutes, in his house on Russell Square in London. His nephew Peter Mark Roget attended him in his final moments. His last words were written: My dear, I wish … presumably regarding his late wife.

Lord Byron was not at all kind to Romilly’s memory because of the part Romilly played in Byron’s separation from his wife. Though Byron’s solicitor had engaged Romily to act for Byron, Romilly and Lushington had acted for Lady Byron. The case never went to court and Byron never forgave Romilly. When Romilly died, Byron did not mourn him. He said something to the effect that it was ironic that after separating Byron from his wife, Romilly cut his own throat when he lost his own wife.

As was the custom of the time, he was given a proper burial. Romilly was buried on 11 November 1818 at the parish church of St Michael and All Angels, Knill, Herefordshire, along with his wife Ann.

Marble bust of Castlereagh by Joseph Nollekens, 1821. Yale Center for British Art ~ Public Domain

Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, usually known as Lord Castlereagh, derived from the courtesy title Viscount Castlereagh was an Anglo-Irish statesman and another high-ranking person Lord Byron “skinned” in his poetry.

Posterity will ne’er survey

A nobler grave than this:

Here lie the bones of Castlereagh:

Stop, traveller, and piss.

Beginning in 1812, Castlereagh served as the British Foreign Secretary. He played a key role in managing the coalition that eventually defeated Napoleon. He was the principal British diplomat at the Congress of Vienna. He was also leader of the British House of Commons for the Liverpool government.

Despite his contributions to Napoleon’s defeat, Castlereagh was extremely unpopular in the country he served. His critics disliked how he constructed peace, allowing reactionary governments on the Continent to suppress dissent. He was also called out for his association with the Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth’s repressive measures at home. Castlereagh chose to support the infamous Six Acts, which suppressed any meetings advocating political reform in order to remain in cabinet and diplomatic work.

The suicides who died due to “unbalance of the mind” were often buried in a separate section of the church yard or family plots on their own grounds. They were not buried in “holy” ground.

For these reasons, Castlereagh appears with other members of Lord Liverpool’s Cabinet in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem The Masque of Anarchy, which was inspired by and heavily critical of the Peterloo Massacre:

I met Murder on the way –

He had a mask like Castlereagh –

Very smooth he looked, yet grim;

Seven bloodhounds followed him

All were fat; and well they might

Be in admirable plight,

For one by one, and two by two,

He tossed them human hearts to chew

Which from his wide cloak he drew.

In 1822, he began to suffer from a form of a nervous breakdown. He was severely overworked with both his responsibilities in leading the government in the House and the never-ending diplomacy required to manage conflicts among the other major powers. At the time, he said “My mind, is, as it were, gone.” Towards the end of his life, there are increasing reports, both contemporaneous and in later memoirs, of exceptionally powerful rages and sudden bouts of uncharacteristic forgetfulness. He surprised his friends by admitting his belief in ghosts and other supernatural beings, in particular the “radiant boy”, a figure which emerges from fire and is supposed to foretell death, which he claimed he had seen as a young man in Ireland.

He is said to have told the King during a meeting on August 9 that he was being watched by a servant who was tailing him everywhere. It is also reported that he told the King, “I am accused of the same crime as the Bishop of Clogher,” referring to Percy Jocelyn, the Bishop of Clogher who had been accused of homosexuality the previous month. Many later thought, after the suicide, that Castlereagh was being blackmailed.

The King surmised that Castlereagh believed he was being blackmailed for the same reason. It remains unclear whether there was some sort of extortion attempt, and if so, whether such attempt represented a real threat of exposure, or whether the purported blackmail was a symptom of paranoia. His friends and family were alarmed and hid his razor. Unfortunately, on 12 August, Castlereagh managed in the three to four minutes he was left alone to find a small knife with which he cut his own throat.

“A retrospective speculative diagnosis has linked various instances of (at the time) little explained illness to syphilis, possibly contracted at Cambridge. Stewart’s undergraduate studies were interrupted by a mysterious illness first apparent during the closing months of 1787, and which kept him away from Cambridge through the summer of 1788. Later, there were unexplained illnesses in 1801 and 1807, the first described by a contemporary as ‘brain fever”‘which would be consistent with syphilitic meningitis.” (Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh)

The Suicide of Lord Castlereagh by George Cruikshank, 1822 ~ Public Domain

The temporary insanity decree allowed Lady Londonderry to bury her husband in Westminster Abbey. The pallbearers included Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, Lord Sidmouth, the former Prime Minister, and two future Prime Ministers, the Duke of Wellington and Frederick Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich. Many viewed the verdict and Castlereagh’s public funeral as a damning indictment of the elitism and privilege of the unreformed electoral system. His funeral on 20 August was greeted with jeering and insults along the processional route, although not to the level of unanimity projected in the radical press. A funeral monument was not erected until 1850.

Soon there after, a carpenter or such who committed suicide and was to be buried naked at the cross roads with a stake in his heart.

“Crossroads burials ended with the increasing understanding of mental illness and depression, particularly after the suicide of Lord Castlereagh in 1822. Many Londoners were also shocked in 1823 at the crossroads burial of Abel Griffiths – a disturbed young man who had killed his father – at the junction of Eaton Street, Grosvenor Place and the King’s Road. Crossroads burials were abolished by an act of parliament the same year. Few objected, although one argument against abolition was that the disgrace of crossroads burial was a ‘deterrent’ to suicide.” [History Extra]

Even so, for the common man, the suicides who died due to “unbalance of the mind” were often buried in a separate section of the church yard or family plots on their own grounds. They were not buried in “holy” ground.

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, Church of England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, political stance, Regency era, religion | Tagged British history, Church of England, death, Georgian Era, history, Member of Parliament, Regency Era, religion, Robert Stewart, Samuel Whitbread II, Sir Richard Croft, Sir Samuel Romilly, suicide, superstition | 4 Comments

Just for Halloween: the Witchcraft Acts in Great Britain

Posted on October 21, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

The UK Parliament website tells us, “In 1542 Parliament passed the Witchcraft Act which defined witchcraft as a crime punishable by death. It was repealed five years later, but restored by a new Act in 1562.

“A further law was passed in 1604 during the reign of James I who took a keen interest in demonology and even published a book on it. The 1562 and 1604 Acts transferred the trial of ‘witches’ from the Church to the ordinary courts.”

These laws affected England, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. As mentioned above, the first of these laws came in 1542 during the reign of King Henry VIII. The law made witchcraft a felony with a punishment of death for the accused.

Those convicted would be required to forfeit all goods and chattels to the government. The act forbid all citizens to “use devise practise or exercise, or cause to be devysed practised or exercised, any Invovacons or cojuracons of Sprites witchecraftes enchauntementes or sorceries to thentent to fynde money or treasure or to waste consume or destroy any persone in his bodie membres, or to pvoke [provoke] any persone to unlawfull love, or for any other unlawfull intente or purpose … or for dispite of Cryste, or for lucre of money, dygge up or pull downe any Crosse or Crosses or by such Invovacons or cojuracons of Sprites witchecraftes enchauntementes or sorceries or any of them take upon them to tell or declare where goodes stollen or lost shall become.”

Moreover, the act also removed the “benefit of clergy” right for the individual convicted of witchcraft. This legal maneuvering spared anyone from hanging who could read a passage from the Bible. Henry VIII’s son, Edward VI, repealed this statute in 1547.

Britannica tells us: “Benefit of clergy, formerly a useful device for avoiding the death penalty in English and American criminal law. In England, in the late 12th century, the church succeeded in compelling Henry II and the royal courts to grant every clericus, or “clerk” (i.e., a member of the clergy below a priest), accused of a capital offense immunity from trial or punishment in the secular courts. On producing letters of ordination, the accused clerk was turned over to the local bishop for trial in the bishop’s court, which never inflicted the death penalty and frequently moved for acquittal. Later, anyone having the remotest relationship to the church could also claim benefit of clergy. In the 14th century, the royal judges turned this clerical immunity into a discretionary device for mitigating the harsh criminal law by holding that a layman, convicted of a capital offense, might be deemed a clerk and obtain clerical immunity if he could show that he could read, usually the 51st Psalm. Later, a layman was allowed to claim benefit of clergy only once.

“From the 16th century on, however, a long series of statutes made certain crimes punishable by death “without benefit of clergy.” The importance of this device was further diminished by the 18th-century practice of transporting persons convicted of capital crimes to the colonies, whether they were entitled to benefit of clergy or not, and it was finally abolished in the early 19th century.”

An Act Against Conjurations, Enchantments and Witchcraft was passed in 1562, during the reign of Elizabeth I. It showed a bit of mercy by demanding the death penalty only when the accused caused harm to another. Lesser offenses resulted in imprisonment. The Act said that anyone who should “use, practise, or exercise any Witchcraft, Enchantment, Charm, or Sorcery, whereby any person shall happen to be killed or destroyed, was guilty of a felony without benefit of clergy, and was to be put to death.”

The Scottish Witchcraft Act of 1563 spoke to the practice of witchcraft and consulting with witches. Both were considered capital offenses. The Act was on the Scottish law books until 1735.

Francisco Goya: *El conjuro* or *Las brujas* (“The Conjuring” or “The Witches”)
*El conjuro* or *Las brujas* (“The Conjuring” or “The Witches”), oil on canvas by Francisco Goya, 1797–98; in the Museo Lázaro Galdiano, Madrid.(less)
SCALA/Art Resource, New York ~ via Britannica

With James’ accession to the English throne, the Elizabethan Act was broadened to bring the penalty of death without benefit of clergy to any one who practiced the black arts or who consorted with familiars. The act’s official name was An Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft and dealing with evil and wicked spirits. The self-styled Witch-Finder General, Matthew Hopkins, used the act freely to accuse his victims.

The practice of witchcraft became a felony with the installation of Elizabeth’s and James’s acts. As a felony, the accused was removed from the ecclesiastical courts’ jurisdiction and placed under the judgment of the common court. Burning at the stake was eliminated, except in cases of witchcraft that were also petty treason. As a criminal court proceeding, most convicted were hanged. If a witch was found guilty of a minor offense (punishable by one year in prison) and then committed a second one, he/she was sentenced to death.

The Witchcraft Act of 1735 saw a change in the manner in which “witches” were treated. The change came in the attitude of the educated electorate, who assumed that witchcraft was nothing more than superstition and an impossibility to actually perform. Instead, the punishment was for the pretense of witchcraft. Those who claimed magical powers were punished as vagrants and were subject to fines and imprisonment. The Act applied to the whole of Great Britain, repealing both the 1563 Scottish Act and the 1604 English Act.

Northern Ireland still has the Witchcraft Act on the books as a crime, though it has never been applied to a case brought before judges.

To the best of my knowledge, the Act is still in force in Israel, having been introduced into the legal system of the British Mandate over Palestine; Israel gained its independence before the law was repealed in Britain in 1951. Article 417 of the Israeli penal code of 1977, incorporating much legislation inherited from British and Ottoman reigns, sets two years’ imprisonment as the punishment for witchcraft, fortune telling, or magic. The law in Israel applies only to practitioners of witchcraft who charge a fee.

UK Parliament tells us, “Formal accusations against witches – who were usually poor, elderly women – reached a peak in the late 16th century, particularly in south-east England.

“513 ‘witches’ were put on trial there between 1560 and 1700, though only 112 were executed. The last known execution took place in Devon in 1685.

“The last trials were held in Leicester in 1717. Overall, some 500 people in England are believed to have been executed for witchcraft.”

Other Resources You Might Find interesting:

Witchcraft: Eight Myths and Misconceptions

Witchcraft: Facts or Fiction?

Five Witchcraft Myths Debunked by an Expert

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, Church of England, gothic and paranormal, legends and myths, Regency era | Tagged British history, Great Britain, paranormal, punishment for witchcraft, witchcraft acts | Comments Off

A Closer Look at “Vampire Darcy’s Desire”

Posted on October 18, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

In late 2009, at the height of the Twilight mania, Ulysses Press approached me regarding my writing a vampiric version of Pride and Prejudice. [Each book in the Twilight series was inspired by and loosely based on a different literary classic: Twilight on Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, New Moon on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Eclipse on Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights (which is ironic because most critics consider Heathcliff’s digging up Catherine’s grave a form of vampirism), and Breaking Dawn on a second Shakespeare play, A Midsummer Night’s Dream [with a bit of A Merchant of Venice).] I will tell you upfront I lodged my initial objection to the idea of mixing my Jane Austen with the paranormal. Eventually, though, I succumbed to my friends’ advice. If you know anything of me, you know I jumped into the research of vampires with both feet.

The problem with writing about vampires in the Regency is the idea of vampirism was still much in legend rather than in literature. One must recall Dracula was not released until 1897, some 80+ years after the tale found in Pride and Prejudice.

Therefore in my version, I depended heavily on the legends of vampires, Celtic gods, and the baobhan sith (Scottish female vampires). I mixed those with a traditional Scottish ballad, the tale of Lord Thomas and Fair Ellender. The story dates back at least to the time of Charles II and the ballad probably dates back further. It is still popular in England, Ireland and Scotland. There are similar stories in Norse and other European ballads. It is also found in the Appalachian Mountain region.

Unfortunately, the original book I wrote for Ulysses Press is now out of print. When a book goes out of print with a traditional publisher, there is a procedure in getting one’s rights to the book returned. The contract customarily reads something to the effect of… “If after the expiration of two years from the date of the first publication the WORK the PUBLISHER may terminate this Agreement and give the AUTHOR the option to purchase, at fair market value, all volumes on hand and all materials used in the printing of the WORK.” (and) “If the WORK remains out of print for longer than 180 days and PUBLISHER does not agree to reprint WORK with 180 days of receipt of written notice/request from AUTHOR to reprint the WORK, this Agreement shall terminate.”

So, while I waited for rights to be returned to me, what was I to do? My contracts with Ulysses also hold a non-competition clause. It essentially says I cannot sell the rights to my books to other traditional publishing houses, but “AUTHOR may continue to self-publish such works, but under no circumstances may AUTHOR publish a competing work with a traditional publisher that sells into the brick-and-mortar retail book trade.”

Problem Resolved. I could self publish the book without being in violation of my contract. Since those days of fighting for my rights back, Ulysses Press has finally returned the rights to all 12 of my titles with them. So I have rereleased Vampire Darcy’s Desire with a flashy new cover from Chris Kudi and SKC Design. The story is essentially the same as the one from before. However, if you have never read it, what better month than October and Halloween to take on a paranormal version that includes our favorite couple?

Book Blurb: Vampire Darcy’s Desire presents Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice as a heart-pounding vampire romance filled with passion and danger.

Tormented by a 200-year-old curse and his fate as a half human/half vampire dhampir, Fitzwilliam Darcy vows to live a solitary life rather than inflict the horrors of his life upon an innocent wife and his first born son. However, when he encounters the captivating Elizabeth Bennet, his will is sorely tested.

As a man, Darcy yearns for Elizabeth, but as a vampire, he is also driven to possess her. Uncontrollably drawn to each other, they are forced to confront a different kind of “pride” and his enemy’s “prejudice,” while wrestling with the seductive power of forbidden love. Evil forces, led by George Wickham, the purveyor of the curse, attack from all sides, and Darcy learns his only hope to survive is to align himself with Elizabeth, who is uncannily astute is how to defeat Wickham, a demon determined to destroy each generation of Darcys.

Vampire Darcy’s Desire retells Austen’s greatest love story in a hauntingly compelling tale. Can love be the only thing that can change him?

vdd-ebook-cover Check out these Reviews: JustJane1813 and The Royal Reviews

Excerpt:

Elizabeth thumbed through the book she found on the floor as the clerk totaled her purchases and prepared them for shipping to Derbyshire. She noted references to the crucifix, the rosary, and holy water, as well as beliefs regarding mirrors. She remembered Wickham’s blurry reflection in the window in Meryton, and suddenly things made sense. Darcy told her of using the vial of holy water when Wickham approached Georgiana at Ramsgate. On another page, she discovered that Germans believed the head should be buried between the feet to release the soul. It seems as though Darcy was right on that point, she thought.

Flipping the page again, her eyes fell on a sketch of a woman holding a crucifix and a vampire retreating. She thought how foolish the drawing appeared until she read the caption: “Say the vampire’s name backwards as you bring forth the crucifix.” Well, she thought, I wonder if that would do the trick? Elizabeth closed the book and slid it toward the clerk.

“This is quite an agglomerate,” the old man said with amusement.

“My father reads everything having to do with Scottish beliefs, folklore, and customs,” she declared. “I thought to share these with him after I learn more about the beginnings of the well-dressing ceremonies. I understand them to be based on ancient pagan customs. Mr. Darcy and I only recently married, and I have yet to see his estate. I do not want the villagers to judge my ignorance on such traditions as being a poor reflection on my husband. Moreover, I have a cousin who leaves for Jamaica soon. I thought he would find the books on spirits and such amusing.”

“Your thoughtfulness is admirable, Mrs. Darcy,” the man observed as he stacked the items. The shopkeeper picked up the last two books. “And these are to be delivered to Darcy House?”

“Yes, that is exactly what I require.”

* * *

Stepping from the bookstore, Elizabeth found neither her husband nor the carriage. “Where can they be?” she mused aloud. “Surely Georgiana and Belton are at the coach by now.” Impatient, as usual, she paced along the walkway. It was not like Darcy to be late. Never had she known him to be tardy for anything. Agitated, she searched both sides of the street for her husband, Georgiana, or even one of the servants in the Darcy livery. Reaching the alley, a flash of color along a row of boxes caught her eye, and, intuitively, Elizabeth turned toward the bright object. It is Georgiana’s slipper! How did it get there? And where is she? Impulsively, she rushed forward to retrieve it.

The overhang of the buildings blocked the little winter sun the day offered, and the alley itself, although not totally black, was heavily draped in shadows. “Georgiana?” she called, and then listened before stepping further into the opening. Nothing moved, and Elizabeth turned to leave, but then a muffled whimper froze her in place.

“Georgiana!” she yelled louder, before charging into the dusky obscurity.

As if a theatrical light were thrown on the scene, Elizabeth stared in horror at the tableau playing out before her. Georgiana, wide-eyed, stood in the narrow, gloom-filled street. Wickham held one hand over her mouth and the other wrapped around her waist, and her hands were tied behind her back. Georgiana struggled to free herself, but Wickham’s mouth remained poised above the indentation of her neck.

“Step away, Wickham!” Elizabeth’s voice rebounded off the brick walls.

“Mrs. Darcy.” He raised his head but did not release his captive. “You may be next, but you must wait your turn, my dear. Your lovely sister is ahead of you.”

Elizabeth squared her shoulders. If she could delay the wretched creature who was hovering over Georgiana, mayhap Darcy would arrive in time to assist her. She spoke slowly and loudly: “I said to release her!”

“If you insist, Elizabeth,” Wickham said with a laugh, but he did not slacken his hold on Georgiana. “You may go first.”

“I am not Elizabeth to you,” she insisted. She lifted the chain from about her neck, exposing the jeweled cross. “You will release Mr. Darcy’s sister.”

He challenged, “Do you think that pitiful crucifix has any effect on me?”

“Actually, I believe it does,” she asserted. “If not, you would have claimed me at the Netherfield Manor House.” She extended the cross before her for protection. “I think, Mr. Wickham, the reason Georgiana is still alive is because she wears a similar crucifix.”

“This thing?” Wickham used his hand to flick at the chain, but Elizabeth noted he did not touch the cross.

Realizing Georgiana required hope if they stood a chance of surviving this encounter, Elizabeth addressed Darcy’s sister directly: “Georgiana, you must believe in your brother. The crucifix protects you as long as you wear it.” She watched with satisfaction as the terror on the girl’s face diminished. “Your brother does all to protect you. Continue to believe in him.”

Wickham jerked Georgiana closer, but Elizabeth noted a bit of confusion cross his expression.

“Why do you care if I take her?” Wickham countered. “Why not claim the freedom you will earn with her death?”

“Because we all swore to end the curse that our ancestors began,” Elizabeth said coolly.

“Our ancestors?” Wickham repeated sneeringly.

Elizabeth smiled. “Do you really not know that Arawn Benning, the Lord Thomas of the tale, was my ancestor, just as Ellender D’Arcy was William’s? How ignorant you are! It is Fate that brings my dear husband and me together. You cannot defeat us, Wickham,” she insisted.

“Yet I can still exact my revenge.”

Elizabeth attempted to think of something to frighten Wickham away. She still clutched the crucifix before her. Then she thought of the diagram from the book. “Wickham George!” she called out as she took a step forward.

Wickham did not turn a hair. “My followers call me My lord. You may do so when you join me.”

“Pigs will sprout wings first.” Elizabeth’s mind raced. If Darcy were coming, he would be here. Reverse the letters. Visualize Wickham’s name and reverse the letters. It was a silly thought, but she was desperate. “Mahkicw Egroeg!” she tried.

“Gibberish, Mrs. Darcy?” Wickham inquired mockingly. “You are grasping at straws, my dear.” He lowered his voice and spoke in an intimate tone, “Taking you will double my pleasure. Revenge on both the D’Arcys and the Bennings in one fell swoop.”

Purchase Links:

Kindle https://www.amazon.com/Vampire-Darcys-Desire-Prejudice-Paranormal-ebook/dp/B01LXG0NJB/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1475700131&sr=8-2&keywords=vampire+darcy%27s+desire

Kobo https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/ebook/vampire-darcy-s-desire-1

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Vampire-Darcys-Desire-Prejudice-Paranormal/dp/1539344657/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1475839165&sr=8-2&keywords=vampire+darcy%27s+desire

Nook http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/vampire-darcys-desire-regina-jeffers/1124778221?ean=2940157104719

BTW, this book was featured at the Smithsonian along with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. Here’s the promo from the Smithsonian Program.

Posted in gothic and paranormal, Jane Austen, paranormal, Pride and Prejudice, reading habits, romance, Scotland, vampires | Tagged dhampir, excerpt, giveaway, Jane Austen, paranormal, Pride and Prejudice, Vampire Darcy's Desire, vampires | 20 Comments

John Francis Attempted to Kill Queen Victoria Twice

Posted on October 16, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

On May 29, 1842, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria were returning to their home at Buckingham Palace from Sunday morning services at the royal chapel at St. James’s Palace when what Albert later described as “a little, swarthy, ill-looking radical” attempted to shoot the Queen. John Francis, a 20-year-old cabinetmaker, reportedly stood astride along the Mall and pointed a small flintlock pistol in the royal couple’s direction. Unfortunately for Francis, but, fortunately, for Her Majesty, the weapon failed to fire. Francis turned quickly away and disappeared into the crowd and across Green Park.

John Francis’s attempt: “The Cowardly and Disgraceful Attempt on the Life of Her Majesty.” The Illustrated London News, 4 June 1842. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/victoria/murphy.html

One would think after the attempt by Edward Oxford in June 1840 and the growing unrest and the number of dissidents that the Queen would be afforded more security, but no extra precautions had been instigated. Albert, in a letter to his father, wrote: “[I] saw a man step out from the crowd and present a pistol fully at me. He was some two paces from us….” John Francis was close enough to the Queen for Prince Albert to report that he heard the trigger click.

https://www.history.com/news/eight-times-queen-victoria-survived-attempted-assassinations

Prime Minister Robert Peel agreed to a plan to identify the Queen’s attacker. Victoria and Albert rode out again the following day, Monday, May 30. Only Colonel Charles Arbuthnot and Lieutenant Colonel William Wylde escorted them to and from Hampstead as outrider equerries. John Francis foolishly attempted a second attack upon the Royals’ return.

Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy by Paul Thomas Murphy

History.com tells us, “While Prince Albert informed the royal security forces that a gunman was on the loose in London, Queen Victoria insisted she would not confine herself to Buckingham Palace until he was caught. Believing that the best way to flush out the would-be assassin was for the royal couple to leave the palace again the following day, Victoria and Albert were nervous as they circled London for an evening drive in an open barouche. “You may imagine that our minds were not very easy,” Albert wrote to his father. “We looked behind every tree, and I cast my eyes round in search of the rascal’s face.” While plain-clothed officers with a description of the suspect scoured the crowd, a shot suddenly rang out just five paces from the carriage. Police tackled the suspect who missed his mark. Once again, it was Francis….”

Francis was imprisoned at Newgate. He was tried and found guilty of high treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Queen Victoria commuted his sentence to Transportation for Life to Norfolk Island. Francis was eventually released on “ticket-of-leave” in 1867.

Kill the Queen!: The Eight Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria by Barrie Charles

Posted in British history, history, political stance, real life tales | Tagged assassination, British history, John Francis, political stance, Queen Victoria, real life tales, Victoria Era | Comments Off

The “Hunchback’s” Attempt to Kill Queen Victoria

Posted on October 14, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

Kill the Queen!: The Eight Assassination Attempts on Queen Victoria by Barrie Charles

Two weeks after John Francis’s second attack on Queen Victoria, the 16-year-old John William Bean made an attempt to assassinate the Queen. “In 19th century Britain, treason had its own special rules of evidence and procedure, which made it difficult to prosecute traitors successfully, such as the requirement that the prosecution produce two witnesses to the same overt act, or that three judges preside at the trial. The Treason Act 1800 relaxed these rules in relation to attempts on the King’s life, bringing the rules in such cases in line with the less restrictive rules which then existed in ordinary murder cases. Section 1 of the 1842 Act went further, removing the special rules in all cases of treason involving any attempt to wound or maim the Queen.” (Treason Act 1842) Section 2 of this act is still in place. It created a new offense (less serious than treason) of assaulting the Queen, or of having a firearm or offensive weapon in her presence with intent to injure or alarm her or to cause a breach of the peace.

John William Bean’s attack came on Sunday, July 3, 1842. Queen Victoria was in a carriage with King Leopold I of Belgium. They were traveling along the Mall from the Chapel Royal. Bean had waited for the procession to leave Buckingham Palace. When the Queen’s carriage neared, Bean pushed his way to front of the crowd lining the Mall before pulling his gun from beneath his coat. Someone in the crowd knocked the weapon from Bean’s hand, grabbing Bean’s wrist. The gun failed to fire because it contained a mixture of paper, tobacco, and gunpowder. Even so, Bean managed to escape into the crowd.

Shooting Victoria: Madness, Mayhem, and the Rebirth of the British Monarchy by Paul Thomas Murphy

Unfortunately for him, he was readily identified because he suffered from a spinal deformity and was said to be barely four feet tall. “Unhappy with his existence, the depressed Bean wanted a change—any kind of change—and hoped that threatening the queen would be a chance for a new life, even one in prison. When he pulled the trigger, however, the gun failed to fire. A bystander grabbed Bean’s wrist, but he managed to escape into the crowd. That night, London police rounded up the city’s hunchbacks before discovering Bean at his family home. Bean said the queen’s life was never endangered as his pistol was loaded with more tobacco than gunpowder and pointed to the ground.” (History.com)

Neither Edward Oxford, John Francis, nor John William Bean had been political assassins. Rather, they were what we would likely now term as “publicity seekers.” The Treason Act of 1842, support by Robert Peel, provided for “the further protection and security of Her Majesty’s person.’ It was no longer considered high treason to attack the monarch. Instead, the crime was considered as a “high misdemeanor.” The punishment was up to 7 years’ transportation or imprisonment. Addition time could be added or the person sentenced to hard labor or even a birching.

John William Bean was sentenced to 18 months of hard labor.

The Social Historian fills in other information on the event: “… a humpbacked boy dressed in a long brown coat pushed his way to the front of the standing crowd and pulled out a pistol. Standing near him, sixteen-year-old Charles Edward Dassett seized his wrist. Seeing two policemen walking on the opposite side of the mall, Dassett took the boy over, showed them the pistol and told them that he had been trying to shoot the Queen. They laughed and told Dassett that there was no charge to be made and he was forced to let the boy go.

“Not long after, Dassett was apprehended in Green Park for having a pistol in his hand. He was taken to the station house where he told his story about the humpbacked boy who had tried to shoot the Queen. Witnesses were called and the story was collaborated upon which point the two police constables, Hearn and Calxton were called in and reprimanded for not taking the accusation seriously. They were suspended from further duty for the present time.

“From Dassett’s description, it was determined that the accused boy was William Bean, the son of a jeweler in Clerkenwell. The police proceeded to the Bean house and took the lad into custody.

“Bean declared that he had not intended to hurt the Queen but that he had committed the act only to be taken up. He said he had put nothing in the pistol but powder and paper and had been in the park for three days waiting for his opportunity. He said that he was tired of his life and wanted to be transported and added that he had pointed the pistol at the ground and not at the Queen.

“On Thursday, 25 August 1842, John William Bean was indicted for a misdemeanour in assaulting the Queen. After witnesses were called and testimony was heard as to the boy’s good character, the jury did not even leave the box, but quickly returned a verdict of guilty. Lord Abinger told the court that he would be passing sentence upon the prisoner.

“Lord Abinger said, he should be doing a violence to his own feelings, and to the feelings all who heard him, if he did not pass upon him the heaviest sentence the common law of the land allows, and that sentence was, that you, John William Bean, imprisoned in her Majesty’s gaol of Newgate for the term of 18 calendar months. The prisoner was then removed from the bar, and the vast crowd which had been in court during the day, shortly afterwards left. The trial occupied six hours.The Suffolk Chronicle; or Weekly General Advertiser & County Express. – Saturday 27 August 1842″

https://www.history.com/news/eight-times-queen-victoria-survived-attempted-assassinations

Paul Thomas Murphy, author of Shooting Victoria, tells us, “Of the seven, John William Bean—the only one who was born, lived, and died in London—might have seemed the easiest to trace to his death. But John William Bean, too, faded into obscurity, clearly preferring that the world forget him and his 3 July 1842 assault upon the Queen. English censuses every ten years from 1841 on give us glimpses of him—giving up his employment as a gold-chaser and taking up as a newsvendor, marrying twice, raising his son Samuel in the family business. Bean last appeared in the 1881 census. I could find no death record after that. And so I spent hours—days—scouring British newspapers for any reference to Bean’s death. Finally, thankfully, I found it: not as I expected in a local or metropolitan daily newspaper, but rather in a national weekly journal. Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 30 July 1882, presents a vivid portrait of Bean’s sad mental state in 1882—and obviously for some time before. Clearly, the depression that the nervous 17-year-old felt as he pointed a pistol at his Queen lived on in him for forty more years, until John William Bean, always tired of life, finally swallowed enough opium to end it all.” (Shooting Victoria)

http://shootingvictoria.com/post/45917649468/the-unhappy-death-of-john-william-bean

Posted in British history, history, kings and queens, real life tales, research, Victorian era | Tagged assassination attempt, British history, John William Bean, kings and queens, Queen Victoria, Treason Act of 1842, Victoria Era | Comments Off

Did Edward Oxford Really Shoot Prince Albert?

Posted on October 11, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

Edward_Oxford's_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840

Edward Oxford shooting at Queen Victoria, June 10, 1840; the Queen and Prince Consort driving in a phaeton with four horses towards Constitution Hill; Oxford standing in front of the Green Park railings pointing a pistol in an attempt to assassinate the Queen, while a policeman runs towards him, one of the Queen’s attendants on horse at left. By G. H> Miles, 1840, British Museum. Watercolour, strengthened with gum This image is either reversed horizontally or inaccurate, as the carriage had the railings of the park on its right at the time of the attempt. ~ public domain ~ G. H.Miles (Life time: 1840) – Original publication: June-Dec, 1840 Immediate source: British Museum ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Oxford#/media/File:Edward_Oxford%27s_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg

On Monday of this week, I added a post to the blog regarding Edward Oxford, the man who was the first to make an attempt on Queen Victoria’s life. However, afterwards, I was wondering if Oxford was the one who shot Prince Albert. After all, I have watched the movie Young Victoria many times, and I have witnessed Albert’s love for his wife and hers for him. Right? Even the TV show Victoria has included a like scene (without Albert being shot). Surely, the screenwriter and the director and the producer did not play havoc with history. (Smirk!!!)

In both the film and the television version of Queen Victoria’s life, when Oxford’s assassination attempt happens, Albert throws himself across his wife to protect her. In the film, he is hit by a bullet, sending Victoria into fits of worry.

from Young Victoria ~ https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/movies/13ferguson.html

First, I wish to repeat a quote from Monday’s post.. “In a letter from Prince Albert to his brother, Prince Ernest of Saxe-Coburg, Albert explains what happened:

12 June 1840: I saw a most disagreeable looking man leaning against the rail of Green Park only six paces from us, holding something toward us. Before I could see what it was, a shot cracked out. It was so dreadfully loud that we were both quite stunned. Victoria, who had been looking to the left, towards a rider, did not know the cause of the noise. My first thought was that, in her present state, the fright might harm her. I put both arms around her and asked her how she felt, but she only laughed. Then I turned round to look at the man (the horses were frightened and the carriage stopped). The man stood there in a theatrical position, a pistol in each hand. It seemed ridiculous. Suddenly he stooped, put a pistol on his arm, aimed at us and fired, the bullet must have gone over our heads judging by the hole made where it hit the garden wall. [Raymond Lamont-Brown, How Fat Was Henry VIII, The History Press, ©2008, page 147]

Julian Fellowes, Emily Blunt, and Rupert Friend ~ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1159788/Screenwriter-reveals-How-I-Young-Victoria-throne.html

Notice, there is no words of his being wounded or his doing more that putting his arms about Victoria. According the website History House, this was the way things transpired:

“The Times newspaper reported that Oxford,

“… presented a pistol and fired it directly, either at Her Majesty or Prince Albert, there being no person between him and the carriage. The Prince who, it would seem, had heard the whistling of the ball, turned his head in the direction from which the report came, and Her Majesty at the same instant rose up in the carriage, but Prince Albert as suddenly pulled her down by his side. The man then drew from behind his back a second pistol, which he discharged after the carriage, which proceeding at the ordinary pace, had … passed him a little.”
The Times 11 June 1840, page 4.

“The day after the attempted assassination, The Times reported that Oxford was giving a different account saying that the Prince was even trying to get out of the carriage.

“Oh, I know to the contrary; for when I fired the first pistol, Albert was about to jump from the carriage and put his foot out, but when he saw me present the second pistol, he immediately drew back.”
The Times, 12 June 1840, page 6.

“However, a witness at the later trial testified that Prince Albert had indeed pushed the Queen down,

“…the flash of the pistol came almost immediately over the Queen’s head – the Queen was crouching – she rather crouched, and the Prince stood – I think, to the best of my knowledge, the Queen first rose, and by what I observed, the Prince rather pressed her down; and it was immediately before the second pistol was fired that her Majesty crouched – it was the second flash which appeared to come over the Queen’s head.” [The Proceedings of Old Bailey: Edward Oxford]

“There is no evidence that Prince Albert received any injury. The scriptwriter for the film, Julian Fellowes, has admitted that the injury has been added to the film’s story for dramatic effect.”

https://interactive.wttw.com/playlist/2018/02/23/did-really-happen-victoria-edition

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/history-in-images-victoria-episode-5/#

From The Daily Mail, this is Julian Fellowes take on the scene:

“Fellowes immediately recognised he had been given a tremendous responsibility in having to recreate the story of a young Queen coming to the throne at 18, against considerable family plotting, as well as having to capture the manners, snobbery and strict class confines of Victorian England.

“‘I’ve tried to be truthful,’ he says. ‘I’ve only changed two elements of fact for the screen.’

“The first was an assassination attempt made on the young Queen as Victoria and her husband Prince Albert were riding in an open carriage up Constitution Hill. Spotting the gunman raise his pistol in the crowd, Albert immediately pushed his young wife down into the well of the carriage to protect her. By doing so the bullet injured Albert. But did it?

“Fellowes agrees there are differing accounts of what really happened. ‘One is that the bullet was fired, but missed him, and the other is that the gun jammed. But the event itself certainly happened.

“‘I felt that this was fantastically brave of Prince Albert and that if the gun had jammed, we would lose how brave his action was. I believe Victoria was so impressed that he was prepared literally to take the bullet, that it changed something in her.

“‘She realised how much Albert truly loved her. You see this change in her immediately after the assassination attempt, with her moving his desk into her own study at the Palace so they could be side-by-side throughout each day.

“‘I know I will be criticised, but in the end a movie has to deliver the right emotions. And I felt it would not be possible to represent that as the act of bravery and selflessness that it was, without showing the gun going off.'”

Posted in British history, film adaptations, Great Britain, historical fiction, history, kings and queens, marriage, Victorian era, weaponry | Tagged assassination, British history, Edward Oxford, Julian Fellowes, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria, Victorian era | 6 Comments

Edward Oxford, the First to Attempt to Assassinate Queen Victoria

Posted on October 9, 2024 by Regina Jeffers

There was a total of eight attempts to assassinate Great Britain’s Queen Victoria. The first came at the hands of Edward Oxford, a man who was considered to be a half-wit. On 10 June 1840, Prince Albert and Queen Victoria had called upon her mother, the Duchess of Kent. They were in a low carriage making their way along London’s Constitution Hill when the attack occurred.

Edward Oxford shooting at Queen Victoria, June 10, 1840; the Queen and Prince Consort driving in a phaeton with four horses towards Constitution Hill; Oxford standing in front of the Green Park railings pointing a pistol in an attempt to assassinate the Queen, while a policeman runs towards him, one of the Queen’s attendants on horse at left. By G. H> Miles, 1840, British Museum. Watercolour, strengthened with gum This image is either reversed horizontally or inaccurate, as the carriage had the railings of the park on its right at the time of the attempt. ~ public domain ~ G. H.Miles (Life time: 1840) – Original publication: June-Dec, 1840 Immediate source: British Museum ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Oxford#/media/File:Edward_Oxford%27s_ assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_ G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg

Born in 1822, Edward Oxford was the third of seven children. His father, George Oxford, made his living as a gold chaser, [While repoussé is used to work on the reverse of the metal to form a raised design on the front, chasing is used to refine the design on the front of the work by sinking the metal.] After attending school, Edward worked in a bar owned by his aunt and was later employed as a pot boy in other public houses. At the time of the attack he was barely eighteen years old, unemployed and living with his mother and sister in lodgings in Camberwell, having recently quit his job at the Hog-in-the-Pound in Oxford Street. Since his mother had returned to Birmingham on a regular trip to see family over a month before, Oxford was, in effect, living alone at the time of the event. [Edward Oxford]

It turned out that Oxford’s attempt was not a spur-of-the-moment lark. He had purchased two guns and a gunpowder flask the week prior to the attempt. He had even practiced shooting the weapons in a variety of shooting galleries. He purchased 50 copper percussion caps from a former classmate named Gray and asked where he might purchase gunpowder and bullets. Gray sold Oxford the gunpowder and recommended another establishment for the bullets. [The Newgate Calendar: Edward Oxford]

As the Queen, who was four months pregnant at the time, and Prince Albert had developed a habit of riding about in a phaeton in the late afternoon and early evening, and without proper protection from dissidents, and the like, it was not difficult to know something of their route on this particular evening. Oxford simply waited for their return from the Duchess’s residence. He fired both pistols, thankfully missing both times. He was immediately seized on by onlookers and taken into custody. Oxford openly declared: “It was I, it was me that did it.” [Edward Oxford]

In a letter from Prince Albert to his brother, Prince Ernest of Saxe-Coburg, Albert explains what happened:

When the authorities searched his room, after Oxford’s arrest, not only did they find more ammunition and other weapons, but they discovered the rules and regulations for a made-up martial society in which Oxford created officers and correspondence. The members were to be armed with a brace of pistols, a sword, and a dagger. [ The Proceedings of Old Bailey: Edward Oxford]

Because no spent bullets were found at the scene, the Crown could not prove that Oxford could actually harm another. Later, Oxford claimed there were no bullets in the pistols, only gunpowder. “Oxford appeared to be oblivious for most of the proceedings. The prosecution presented much eyewitness evidence, while the defence case consisted of various family members and friends who testified that Oxford had always seemed of unsound mind, and that both his grandfather and father were alcoholics who had exhibited signs of mental illness. This carried a great deal of weight, as it was thought during this time that both drink and hereditary influence were strong causal factors for insanity. Oxford’s mother testified her late husband had been violent and intimidating, and that her son was not only prone to fits of hysterical laughter and emitting strange noises, he had been obsessed with firearms since he was a child. Various eminent pathologists and physicians testified that due to “brain disease” or other factors, such as the shape of his head, Oxford was either a mental imbecile or simply incapable of controlling himself.” [Edward Oxford]

Oxford was imprisoned at Newgate and tried on a charge of high treason at the Central Criminal Court before Lord Chief Justice Thomas Denman. Sidney Taylor defended Oxford, and the man was found guilty, but was declared insane. Oxford was ordered to Bethlehem Hospital (Bedlam) for the insane at Moorfields. He spent 35 years in the facility. At age 52, he was released to travel to Australia.

Henry Hering, photographer (1814-1893) – Bethlem hospital museum ~ public domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Oxford#/media/File:Edward_Oxford_c_1856.jpg

“Central Criminal Court, to wit.– The jurors for our lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that Edward Oxford, late of Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, labourer, being a subject of our lady the Queen, heretofore, to wit on the 10th of June, in the year of our Lord 1840, within the jurisdiction of the said court, as a false traitor to our lady the Queen, maliciously and traitorously, with force and arms, &c., did compass, imagine, and intend to bring and put our said lady the Queen to death. And to fulfil, perfect, and bring to effect his most evil and wicked treason, and treasonable compassing and imagination aforesaid, he the said Edward Oxford, as such false traitor as aforesaid, to wit, on the said 10th day of June, in the year of our Lord, 1840, aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, with force and arms, maliciously and traitorously did shoot off and discharge a certain pistol, the same then and there being loaded with gunpowder and a certain bullet, and which pistol he the said Edward Oxford then and there had and held in one of his hands at the person of our said lady the Queen, with intent thereby and therewith maliciously and traitorously to shoot, assassinate, kill, and put to death our said lady the Queen. And further, to fulfil, perfect, and bring to effect his most evil and wicked treason and treasonable compassing and imagination aforesaid, he the said Edward Oxford, as such false traitor as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the said 10th day of June, in the year of our lord 1840, aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, with force and arms maliciously and traitorously did shoot off and discharge a certain other pistol, the same then and there being loaded with gunpowder and a certain bullet, and which pistol he the said Edward Oxford then and there had and held in one of his hands, at the person of our said lady the Queen, with intent thereby and therewith maliciously and traitorously to shoot, assassinate, kill, and put to death our said lady the Queen, and thereby then and there traitorously made a direct attempt against the life of our said lady the Queen, against the duty of the allegiance of him the said Edward Oxford, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown, and dignity.” [The Newgate Calendar: Edward Oxford]

Wikipedia tells us, “Oxford lived out the rest of his life in Melbourne, Australia. Oxford landed in Melbourne with a new alias, John Freeman. Setting out to reform himself and become a respectable citizen, Freeman became a house painter and joined the West Melbourne Mutual Improvement Society. In 1881 he married a widow with two children, and became a church warden a St Paul’s Cathedral. Under the pseudonym “Liber” he wrote articles for The Argus about the city’s slums, markets and racetracks, and these became the basis for an 1888 book, Lights and Shadows of Melbourne Life. Freeman died in 1900.

“His patient record at Broadmoor includes a letter sent in 1883 by George Haydon, a Steward at Bethlem, to Dr. David Nicolson. It includes an article from The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, which reports that on 4 May 1880, a “John” Oxford, identified as the man who shot at the Queen many years ago, and who had subsequently been a patient in an asylum before he was discharged to Australia, had recently been convicted of stealing a shirt and spent a week in jail. Upon his release, the prison governor requested the police to keep an eye on him, “in consequence of the old man’s eccentric conduct”. The police subsequently arrested Oxford for vagrancy, and he was reportedly remanded for further medical examination. There were no further updates to the record. It is not certain that this person was Edward Oxford.

“The connection between Oxford and “John Freeman” was established by F. B. Smith’s 1987 article “Lights and Shadows in the Life of John Freeman”. Freeman wrote several letters to Haydon, beginning in 1888 and apparently ceasing on Haydon’s death in 1889. Freeman’s wife and stepchildren appear to have been totally ignorant that he might be anyone other than John Freeman. Additionally, a photograph of John Freeman taken for the 1888 Centennial Exhibition in Melbourne matches a portrait of Oxford held in the archives of the Bethlem aslyum. Freeman’s correspondence to Haydon was donated to the National Library in the 1950s by the family. Stevens points out that the former Steward contributed nothing more to Oxford’s Broadmoor record about his progress beyond the troubling report published in the newspaper, and never confirmed that Oxford was the author of Freeman’s book. This may have been because Haydon was departing Bethlem at the time he began receiving the letters.”

Posted in British history, history, political stance, research, Victorian era, weaponry | Tagged assassination, Bedlam, British history, Edward Oxford, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria, transportation, treason, Victorian era | 1 Comment

	Regina Jeffers on What is the Meaning of “…
	collinshemingway on What is the Meaning of “…
	Regina Jeffers on Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating…
	Kevin Lindsey on Traitor Tuesday ~ Celebrating…
	Regina Jeffers on Four-Crop Rotation System, a M…

Every Woman Dreams…

Sudden Awakenings, a New JAFF from Amanda Kai + an Excerpt + a Giveaway

The Amazing Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson: The Man. The Myth.

All Hallow’s Eve During the Regency

Condemned by the Church of England and the Catholic Church, Yet … Famous Suicides in the Regency Era

Just for Halloween: the Witchcraft Acts in Great Britain

A Closer Look at “Vampire Darcy’s Desire”

John Francis Attempted to Kill Queen Victoria Twice

The “Hunchback’s” Attempt to Kill Queen Victoria

Did Edward Oxford Really Shoot Prince Albert?

Edward Oxford, the First to Attempt to Assassinate Queen Victoria

Follow Me!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta