Jane Austen and Women’s History for Financial Independence, a Guest Post from E.M. Storm-Smith

Posted on April 11, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

A Celebration for Women’s History Month and Some Thoughts on Women’s Financial Independence

As a place to start, I’d like to ask how many people saw the twitter account Gender Pay Gap Bot (@PayGapApp) on International Women’s Day? Epic, right!?

For those who are not addicted to your twitter feed, this is an account that was set up to do exactly one thing – troll twitter for UK registered companies who made some post about how great their company is for women on International Women’s Day, and reply with that company’s gender pay gap. The information they used to make these tweets is public record in the UK. Starting in 2017, any company registered to do business in the UK with more than 250 employees is required to calculate their raw gender pay gap and report it annually to the UK Government Equalities Office. It is literally just what is the average salary paid to women and the average salary paid to men, no context, no questions, nothing but the raw numbers. There is a lot of good that has come from the gender pay gap reporting and also some legitimate criticism, but to solve a problem, we have to know the extent of the problem.

No matter your position on the policy of the gender pay gap reporting scheme in the UK, you have to go see the absolute chaos crated by the Gender Pay Gap Bot. At least one company deleted their entire social media account on multiple platforms after the bot tweeted out that their PUBLISHED gender pay gap was more that 80%. My biggest question is HOW? How in all that is holy can a company with at least 250 employees have a pay gap that big? This isn’t some small mom and pop shop with a handful of employees. These companies have to have at least 250 employees.

So, what has me thinking about all of this? Well, March is Women’s History Month, and I am currently sitting in my hotel room during a break at a professional conference and retreat for women with a large group of like-minded female colleagues acclaiming women’s accomplishments and encouraging each other for another year of kicking butt in a predominantly male field. It’s been inspiring and exhausting at the same time. While there is a lot to celebrate and seeing the successes of my fellow women is a huge boon to my mental health, there’s also a familiarity to the state of women in the workplace which feels stagnate. We seem to sit here every year and talk about the same problems: being silenced in the work place, sexual harassment, having to share credit with male counterparts/bosses, being paid less for the same work, having employers and colleagues ask when we’re going to be having the next baby, being passed over for promotions, not getting invited to the golf weekend, few to no women in positions of power in our communities and workplaces …….

Fifteen years after I entered the professional ranks, I don’t know if we can say that we’ve really moved the needle.

Sure, a lot has changed for women in the last couple generations. My life and opportunity as a 30-something working mom is drastically different than my mother’s and my grandmother’s. But somedays feel like we’re not moving nearly fast enough. I don’t want the next generation to still be watching whatever the equivalent of a twitter bot will be shame companies for empty proclamations of support for marginalized groups without doing any of the work necessary to reduce the harms caused by such marginalization.

So, here’s my work. I want to take this platform which has been shared with me by the women (and a couple of guys) who came before me, women who have done their part raising the voices of new, mostly female, writers, and talk about how the stigma of women’s work affected Jane Austen and continues to affect women writers today.

How many times have you heard someone say something derogatory about romance novels? That they aren’t “real books” or that they create unrealistic expectations for men in relationships, “chick-lit”, “word-porn”, “vapid”, “frivolous”. So many negative connections to romance. It’s very popular in intellectual circles to be seen as above reading such “drivel”. I’ve even seen it on social media. Some #bookstagram accounts are solely about the latest literary fiction and excludes anything that looks like an easy read women’s fiction novel. Of course, there are plenty of account that are solely dedicated to romance and erotica, but the bookish accounts with 10K+ followers tend to be really curated away from romance. Fantasy is fine, mystery and sci-fi is fine, but romance is still considered as lesser from the literary critics.

Forget the fact that, according to the Alliance of Independent Authors (https://selfpublishingadvice.org/what-readers-want-2022/ ), romance and erotica is the #1 selling genre in the world. Well over a billion dollars in just 2021. That’s more than Crime/Mystery PLUS Sci-Fi/Fantasy PLUS Horror.

Why do we deride romance? I think it’s a lot like McDonalds. Everyone wants to be seen as above eating at McDonalds. However, it’s painfully obvious that they sell billions of hamburgers each year. So, either they have a philosopher’s stone and can turn rocks into gold, or everyone is lying. I’m going to raise my hand right now and say, I eat at McDonalds. Not every day, not even every week, but if I’ve had a really bad day, chicken McNuggets are probably going to make an appearance in my life.

This opinion, that romance was beneath the serious intellectual, has its roots in the late 18th and early 19th century. Exactly the time that Jane Austen was writing her novels.

While there are earlier examples of female writers and novelists (see Love in Excess by Eliza Hayward), Jane Austen is one of the very first women to write in the style of realistic romance. The defining characteristics of realistic romance are a story centered on the development of the relationship between two or more people without the interference of fantastical or magical elements. It may seem like a simplistic definition, but it was very new at the time Austen was writing. Most of the popular romance novels at the turn of the 19th century centered on gothic elements (ex: Mrs. Radcliff’s The Mysteries of Udolpho) or followed the main character – most often a man – through some harrowing life journey while trying to get back to his faithful love in the style of Homer’s Odyssey. Stories about women, their lives, and their struggles, were virtually nonexistent when Austen started writing.

One significant reason for this was that a woman with a profession was seen as vulgar. Women were supposed to be wives and mothers, not working outside the home. Having a woman in your family as a published writer would have been scandalous. During her lifetime, all of Austen’s novels were published anonymously. It was only after her untimely death in 1817, when her brother Henry published her last two completed novels together, that he wrote a “Biographical Note” at the end of the book naming his sister as the author of all six published novels. As we have learned over and over again, representation matters. If you keep an entire group of people from telling their story, it will never be told correctly. Men cannot tell women’s stories.

Austen’s writings are riddled with references to the state of women’s opportunities and education in her own time. Not overtly, but just peppered into her novels every now and again. Take this exchange between Anne Elliott and Captain Harville at the end of Persuasion:

“I do not think I ever opened a book in my life which had not something to say upon woman’s inconstancy. Songs and proverbs, all talk of woman’s fickleness. But perhaps you will say, these were all written by men.” (Captain Harville)

“Perhaps I shall. Yes, yes, if you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything.” (Anne Elliott, emphasis added)

Austen’s novels, like romance novels today, were significantly more popular with women of the time than men. The stories, which centered women’s lives and lived experiences, resonated with the educated upper class women of the 18th century. There was something of every lady in an Austen heroine. Therefore, Austen’s novels were largely ignored by reviewers at the time and if given any publicity at all, typically lauded as good reading for young women with strong moral value. This stigma, that women’s romance novels are just fluffy tripe, continues into today.

Even the circumstances surrounding how Austen was able to sell and publish her books tells an interesting story that highlights how stories about women were belittled. Her first finished novel, Northanger Abbey – which was originally titled Susan, was sold to a London publisher for only £10. Though there were promises made, it was never printed and distributed. She had to buy back the copyright in 1816, well after the 4 novels published in her lifetime had seen success. Her second novel, the first to be actually published, Sense and Sensibility, was taken on commission, where the publishers would advance the costs of publication, repay themselves as books were sold and then charge a 10% commission for each book sold, paying the rest to the author. If a novel did not recover its costs through sales, the author was responsible for them. It is not well documented whether Austen preferred this method after her experience with Susan, but we do know that the Austen family was not very well off, especially after her father’s death. It would have been a hardship had the book failed.

After Sense and Sensibility was profitable, the publisher then purchased the copyright for Pride and Prejudice outright, paying Austen a whopping £110. As a comparison, S&S, again published at Austen’s peril, was produced using “expensive paper and sold for 15 shillings”. However, P&P, published using the publisher’s money, was produced using “cheap paper and sold for 18 shillings.” Austen could have made nearly £500 if she had been given a commission on P&P.  (see: Irvine, Robert; Jane Austen. London: Routledge, 2005. ISBN 0-415-31435-6)

Austen was popular in her own time, but never made significant money from her works. The number of copies printed was small compared to other contemporary popular authors, and reprintings were not common at the time. She was known in some circles for her work, but hardly respected. Never able to do anything without one of her brothers playing the intermediary.

A funny, but all too familiar for women today, example of never gaining true respect is the advice (mansplaining) offered to her by the Prince Regent’s librarian, James Stanier Clarke. In November 1815, Austen was invited to visit the Prince’s London residence as he was a fan of her novels. She felt she could not refuse the invitation though she disapproved of Prinny’s licentious lifestyle. Shortly after her visit, Austen wrote a diatribe called Plan of a Novel, according to Hints from Various Quarters (https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/plannovl.html). This satiric outline of the “perfect novel” was based on the Clarke’s many suggestions for a future Austen novel. My favorite bit goes as follows:

“Wherever [the heroine] goes, somebody falls in love with her, and she receives repeated offers of Marriage — which she refers wholly to her Father, exceedingly angry that he should not be first applied to.”

It’s clear in these words that Austen was completely fed up with the feminine ideal created by men of her class and era. Unfortunately, this is a sentiment that many women today are still bemoaning.

Though our world continues to show signs that women are not viewed universally as equal to men, and the struggle for advancement is real, I want to end this post on a positive note.

Women all over the world are making ourselves heard. Most women toady can own property, open bank accounts, and make a really good living without the approval of any father, husband or brother. The advance of careers like self-publishing romance novels has given freedom to countless women. The ability to make money from our own artistic pursuits cuts out the power dynamics of the traditional workplace. More women are taking on “side-hustles” which turn into full time careers and lead to financial independence. Financial independence of women is the number one metric of social mobility according to the UN. When women begin earning a living wage, communities start to see rapid growth in healthcare infrastructure, access to education, and decreases in childhood mortality from food instability.

Maybe it doesn’t matter that “serious literary critics” call romance novels trash. As long as women continue to write our own stories, we will eventually silence the naysayers. One book at a time, we will command billions of dollars and leave a better world for our daughters.

My first novel is still available if you haven’t gotten your copy yet! Available wherever books are sold. Click Here to purchase. And do not forget to shop around. I have more books available.

I’d love to connect with you! Come find me in all the usual places:

Posted in Austen Authors, British currency, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jane Austen and Women’s History for Financial Independence, a Guest Post from E.M. Storm-Smith

Playing Cards in Jane Austen’s England, Pleasant Pastime, as Well as Gambling + an Excerpt from “The Jewel Thief and the Earl”

Posted on April 10, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

A recent question from a reader asked of card playing at balls and gaming hells: I know many books mention card playing going on in designated rooms at balls, but I haven’t heard what they were playing? Would they be gambling and playing games for money like 21 (apparently one of the most popular games of the day, even among families) or would they stick to games like Whist (I know they played this for stakes, too)? Would there be a person who would play the bank, as there was at the various clubs or hells?

I read somewhere about Fox and how much he and his brother lost even at supposedly staid places like Almack’s.

Jane Austen’s World tells us this of Charles Fox: “The politician Charles Fox, able to play for long periods without sleep, lost his fortune at the gaming tables. Horace Walpole described one of Fox’s marathon gambling sessions:

“He had sat up playing Hazard at Almack’s from Tuesday evening, 4th February [1778], till five in the afternoon of Wednesday 5th. An hour before he had recovered £12,000 that he had lost, and by dinner, which was at five o’clock, he had ended losing £11,000. On Thursday he spoke, went to dinner at past eleven at night; from thence to White’s, where he drank till seven the next morning; thence to Almack’s, where he won £6,000; and between three and four in the afternoon he set out for Newmarket. His brother Stephen lost £11,000 two nights after, and Charles £10,000 more on the 13th; so that in three nights the two brothers, the eldest not twenty-five, lost £32,000. – Lowe, p 129.

“Fox’s father, Lord Holland, paid off his son’s debt to the princely tune of £140,000. (In today’s terms this sum would be astronomical – depending on the inflation converter you used, you would multiply the sum by 97 to get at the value of 1780 money today.) The Prince of Wales, in rebellion against his frugal father, modeled his own conduct after that of Fox. Known for his extravagant lifestyle, Prinny set the pace for hedonistic living as Regent and King.”

Charles James Fox from Historical and Posthumous Memoirs of Wraxall 1884 1a.jpg Supposedly, Charles James Fox, Whig MP and leader of the Opposition to William Pitt the Younger’s Tory government, and close personal friend of George, Prince of Wales, along with Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, and Fox’s brother lost large sums even at supposedly staid places like Brooks’s. Please note that some accounts of Fox’s losses refer to his doing so at Almack’s. However, we must remember that Brooks’s, at one time was called “Almack’s,” in the late 1700s. So the place where Fox lost a large fortune was the gentleman’s club Almack’s, later called Brooks’s. (Absolutely confusing for those of us who are trying to keep our facts straight!!!)

The establishment most of us read about in Regency romances— Almack’s—was where couples met in the “Marriage Mart,” although this idea appears to be more of a early Victorian concept than Regency. It was run by the four Patronesses and was later called Willis’s Rooms. Moreover, the “Regency romance” Almack’s was not as staid as Georgette Heyer and many Regency romances make out:  It was not just a “marriage mart,” but also a club where the wheelers and dealers of Parliament “wheeled their deals (and dealt their wheels?”), and where one would meet everyone of importance on a Wednesday night.  So I expect there was some significant money lost and won at our Almack’s, too, upon occasion.

As I said above, the Almack’s of Regency fame was eventually called the Willis’s Rooms (somewhere in the late 1820s, I believe).

However, I will say that Almack’s was not as staid as Georgette Heyer and most Regency romances make out: it was not just a “marriage mart,” but also a club where the wheelers and dealers of Parliament made political alliances, etc., and where one could meet everyone of importance on a Wednesday night.  So I expect there was some significant money lost and won at our Almack’s, too, upon occasion. Almack’s also sometimes served as a gambling house that rented out rooms for private events and the assembly.

 

… the undeniably romantic allure of the richly decorated gaming clubs or the reckless gambling of dynastic fortunes [which] rather trump[s] the dingy and dull penny games played against street walls or in alehouses. (Arthur Pitt, MA dissertation, A Study Of Gamblers And Gaming Culture In London, c. 1780-1844)

5023327c90cc85e024e3715f00ed19ff.jpg

The idea of playing cards is one often explored in Regency Era-based books and novels. What type of games? Were these purely for passing time in pleasurable company? Or were they more for those, like Mr. George Wickham in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, who attempted to win his fortune? Or foolishly lose one’s inheritance? We hear mention of playing cards after suffer within families and playing cards at balls, a separate room set aside for those who wish to indulge in sometime more sedate than dancing a country dance. Card parties were a common way to while away an evening. Whether as a small group in a private home, or as an alternative to dancing at an assembly or ball, they were an acceptable pastime for anyone in any station. 

First, let us address the playing of cards outside the home. Many who indulged in this activity were serious gamesters, often times placing their families in ruin and “putting a period to his existence.” Naturally, such is not to say all men lost their fortunes, nor does the idea of “gaming hells” eliminate the fact that men (and some women) regularly bet on cock fights, bear baiting, horse races, fisticuffs, etc. Moreover, it was not necessary for the gentleman to go to a “gaming hell” to place his bet, for every gentleman’s club (White’s Brooks’s, Boodle’s, Watier’s, etc.) had a card room, and as mentioned above, every ball and house party hosted a game room. In those, the player could have reasonable hopes of an honest game of cards. The gaming hells were not so reputable as that. There, “Captain Sharps” often won huge fortunes. 

In Georgette Heyer’s Faro’s Daughter, the family has a gambling house where Faro [or Pharoah – or Basset] was played. It was a game with a bank that people played against the house. They had a bouncer and usually had people learned of the game and its location by word-of-mouth, because it was illegal to have a Faro bank. In other words, faro is not really a card game, but a game of chance using cards. Nowadays, it is played at a green baize table displaying pictures of playing cards. However, during the Regency, the dealer takes cards from a special wooden box and lays them face up on the table. One suit of the cards is pasted to the table in numerical order, and players place their bets by putting what they want to stake on one or more cards. Various rules decide whether a card drawn from the box wins for a player with a stake on the same number, or loses. Basically though, the player bets on whether a certain card will be dealt from the wooden box.

In the late 1700s, fashionable ladies set up Faro banks in their homes, but this practice fell out of favor by the Regency. Such did not mean they stopped completely. Some ladies supplemented their income by ‘holding the bank’ in private card parties held in their houses. As long as they retained the appearance of merely being a hostess, and not in business, such a venture would dent their reputation but might not ruin it.

The Jewel Thief and the Earl

Grandison Franklyn, 8th Earl Harlow, has earned the moniker “Grandison, the Great” for a variety of reasons: his well-honed attitude of superiority; his appearance; and a string of mistresses, most notably Lady Jenest, who created a “great” row when he cut her loose.

Miss Colleen Everley is the daughter of England’s most notorious thief, a man called “Brook’s Crook.” Colleen has been taught many of her father’s skills, along with an eye for the value of each item in a room. Unfortunately, the lady does not possess Thomas Everley’s daring.

Lord Harlow and Miss Everley must combine forces to return Queen Charlotte’s sapphire necklace before Her Majesty learns it is missing. Toss in a healthy sprinkling of quirky characters and missteps in the investigation, and the reader will find a delightful tale that goes beyond the “Cinderella” effect and opposites attract.

Kindle https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09Y9DWVGV?ref_=pe_3052080_276849420

Available to Read on Kindle Unlimited

BookBub https://www.bookbub.com/books/the-jewel-thief-and-the-earl-by-regina-jeffers

I used an in-home gaming situation in The Jewel Thief and the Earl. Enjoy this excerpt. 

Colleen still did not feel like keeping company with anyone, especially not Lionel Dostoff, but Lord Liverpool had sent his plans for the possible recovery of the necklace, and so, she had not sent her apologies to Dostoff and informing him that he would call upon her for their walk in Hyde Park. Instead, when he called upon her, she had greeted the man with a smile of welcome, although her heart said otherwise.

“You appear more than a bit pensive, my dear,” Mr. Dostoff said as they strolled together along one of the less used paths of the park.

“I am just spent. After leaving your establishment, I did not sleep until the following night. I spent my day at the Ever-Rising Home.”

“I admire the program you have established. It takes a special type of woman to give to those who are less fortunate than she, even accepting women others would shun without a second look at them. Hopefully, someday, your idea will become the model for charities assisting the downtrodden. If you wish to expand it, I would be willing to speak to a variety of possible investors in your behalf. Many among the ton are willing to purchase the moniker of being charitable by placing their money in the hands of those willing to do the work for them.”

“That would be truly spectacular, sir. I can only accommodate two dozen women with children at a time. As each woman must remain with me for a minimum of six months or until she can be placed in suitable employment, my numbers remain constant, but our waiting list increasing rapidly. As quickly as one is placed into a more proper environment, another is at the door to claim the empty space. It would be good for all if we had more than one facility available.”

Mr. Dostoff patted the back of her hand. “I will speak to my parents. They are known for their charitable work. If they lead, others will follow.”

Colleen had never asked the question she had wondered upon since she had taken Mr. Dostoff’s acquaintance. “Do your parents sanction the role you play for the British government?”

“My father is aware of the sacrifices I make for our great nation, and, although he cannot openly congratulate me, he has refused to turn me out, as many would have done in similar circumstances. My mother is not one to keep secrets, so my father and I have not explained it all to her. She simply loves me as a mother should, even with my so-called faults.”

“Then you are blessed,” she said softly, attempting to disguise how she wished her parents had made different choices. Colleen realized he wished to ask of her parents; therefore, she quickly changed the subject. “As we are to appear together this evening, we should discuss how best to proceed.”

“Naturally,” he said, lowering his voice. “We are to attend an at-home betting parlor.”

“I thought they were illegal,” she said innocently.

“They are,” he verified. “There has been a variety of legislation over the last fifty years or so against gaming hells such as the Red Hawk, as well as the more luxurious establishments; yet, enforcement is sporadic, at best. Several Society widows have chosen to open their homes a few times each month to those wishing to play faro, hazard, quinze-et-la-va, basset, and trente-et-la-va. Although some openly criticize such practices, Lady Jenest ignores the naysayers.”

“Lady Jenest?” Colleen gasped. “Lord Harlow’s former mistress?” Although she would never admit the facts to others, Colleen knew something of each of Harlow’s mistresses, including his current one: Susana Wisley, a former opera singer, who had caught his lordship’s eye, a year or so back.

“You are familiar with Lady Jenest?” Mr. Dostoff asked.

“Only what the newsprints provided,” she confessed.

“Obviously, Lord Harlow could not attend this evening’s event,” Dostoff explained. “Such is the reason Lord Liverpool arranged for you and I to attend together. I will play, while you will use your skills to learn something of the missing necklace.”

“How is Lady Jenest involved?” Colleen’s mind raced to place the missing pieces to the puzzle troubling her for several days.

Mr. Dostoff asked, “Did not Lord Harlow explain the situation?”

Colleen knew her brow furrowed in confusion. “When I asked, Lord Harlow repeatedly said he was not at liberty to say.”

Mr. Dostoff also frowned. “I suppose his lordship simply followed protocol.” The gentleman was quiet for several elongated moments before he said, “I imagine Lord Liverpool insisted on secrecy before the Prime Minister had made inroads into the investigation. As I understand it, the necklace disappeared from Lady Jenest’s home safe.”

“The the necklace belonged to her ladyship?” Colleen questioned.

“Like Lord Harlow, I have been instructed not to disclose the name of the owner of the necklace, but it was not the property of Lady Jenest or any of her inner circle.”

“How did it come to be in her ladyship’s safe?”

“As I understand it, the owner was deep in his cups when he called upon Lady Jenest. Her ladyship made the suggestion to secure the necklace once she was made aware of its presence on the gentleman. Reportedly, it was placed in the safe in the evening, but it was not within the safe in the morning.”

“Was this during one of her ladyship’s at-home gatherings?” she asked.

“Yes, which unfortunately leaves us with as many as fifty suspects, but, first, we must determine if Lady Jenest has placed the necklace away in order to sell it. According to all reports, her ladyship’s debts rise despite her efforts to produce more money with her gaming ‘business.’”

Colleen asked, “What role am I to play this evening?”

“Nothing too dangerous. Simply wander through the rooms. Determine how easily one could have accessed Lady Jenest’s private quarters and her safe.”

“And, I suppose, use my skills to learn whether Lady Jenest has stashed the necklace away for her own purposes once others have forgotten of its value?” she inquired with a lift of her brows.

“Despite what may first appear evident, Lady Jenest is not a suspect, for most doubt she would be so foolish as to set herself against the owner of the necklace—a man who could bring the authorities to her door with a simple flick of his wrist; yet, who is to say the reality of a desperate woman’s mind.”

* * *

Earlier, Colleen had begged off when Mr. Dostoff had suggested they enjoy tea at a nearby tea room. Now, she was again on the gentleman’s arm as they entered Lady Jenest’s lavish Town house. She had chosen a gown her father had ordered for her when they had been on the Continent. Ironically, although several years old, the cut of the gown was currently in fashion in England. A bit of lace had presented it new life.

In reality, despite wishing to look her best in order to play her role in this farce, she chose a gown with a fuller skirt than those with an empire waist so she might move more freely. She feared she would be required to escape detection in a hurry.

“Mr. Dostoff,” Lady Jenest said with a tip of her fan against Lionel’s sleeve. “I was so pleased you sent around a card today. Do you wish to play faro?”

Lionel frowned. “I was thinking I might choose hazard or basset for a hand or two.”

“Then you will wish to join those in the blue drawing room,” her ladyship said with another touch of Mr. Dostoff’s sleeve, obviously flirting with the man and completely ignoring Colleen’s presence beside the gentleman. Colleen knew she should be outraged by the woman’s audacity; however, she was not. First, she felt nothing romantic when it came to Lionel Dostoff, and, secondly, it was a sad business that Lady Jenest with a grown son would be required to hope for another patron’s protection.

“And you, my dear,” Lionel said looking down on Colleen and drawing her ladyship’s attention to the fact he had another woman on his arm.

“Oh, do forgive me, Miss—” Lady Jenest said around a well-placed, but most assuredly, fake smile.

Lionel answered for Colleen. “Miss Snowden. I should have realized you had not been properly introduced, my lady. With your permission, Lady Jenest, I would give you the acquaintance of Miss Snowden.”

“Are you new to London, Miss Snowden?” Lady Jenest asked.

“Not so terribly new, my lady,” Colleen responded evasively. “I simply possess a much smaller circle than does someone of your exalted position.”

“And what of your acquaintance with Mr. Dostoff?” Lady Jenest persisted, although other guests stood behind them waiting to be received.

Lionel placed his free hand over hers as it rested upon his arm to indicate he would respond. “I hold an acquaintance with Miss Snowden’s father.”

“And who is Mr. Snowden?” Lady Jenest inquired as people edged forward to have their share of the conversation.

“Just the younger son and brother of a gentleman from the southern shires,” Colleen said softly, very conscious that more than one of those behind her listened for her response. She had not wanted any notoriety, but she should have known London society thrived on every tidbit of gossip.

Lionel took the lead. “We should not keep you longer, Lady Jenest. I can see many wish a few minutes of your time. “With a brief bow on his part and a curtsey from Colleen, he led her away, but, first, he made certain she could move from room to room without censure by saying, “I know you prefer whist to basset, but I insist you keep me company for a little while before you seek your own entertainment, my dear.”

* * *

From a place in Lady Jenest’s garden, Grandison had watched her ladyship interact with Dostoff and Miss Everley. He was already hiding in the bushes when the lady had stepped down from Dostoff’s carriage. Grand refused to admit, even to himself, how his eyes drank in the simple beauty of the woman. Even without the jewels and ornamentation others wore, Miss Everley outshone all of the society ladies entering Lady Jenest’s home.

It went against all he held holy to stay hidden when he knew it should be he by Miss Everley’s side, rather than Lionel Dostoff. Unfortunately, Grand would have a high price to pay if Lord Liverpool learned of this bit of subterfuge that Grand had chosen to practice. He knew Lady Jenest’s house and grounds nearly as well as her ladyship did, and so, he placed himself nearby in order to be in a position to assist Miss Everley if the lady required his protection. Miss Everley may possess some of her father’s techniques, but Grand doubted she held even one-tenth of Thomas Everley’s bravado.

As Dostoff led the lady toward the blue sitting room, Grand paralleled their movements to a position outside the large open window where he could watch Miss Everley through the silky drapes and wait. His instincts told him this operation would not go as smoothly as the Prime Minister had hoped. Grand would make certain Miss Everley would not be destroyed by their country’s need to correct Prince George’s mistake in trusting the wrong people. She had paid a high enough price for her father’s mistakes. One of her own making would likely destroy her.

* * *

Colleen carefully watched Lionel’s skillful play. She held no doubt the man had the ability to memorize the cards as they were turned. She had seen such men when she had lived on the Continent, but this game was her first time in viewing a “master” up close. No wonder the man was so successful as an agent of the Crown and his current position at the Red Hawk, which she knew was a place where many involved in London’s more profitable crimes took refuge.

Mesmerized by his play, it took her a few minutes to recall the role she portrayed in this charade. She leaned forward to say softly, “I believe I shall join the other ladies in the room set aside for whist.”

Without looking away from the game, Mr. Dostoff said, “I will join you soon, my dear.” He caught the hand she had placed on his shoulder and brought it to his lips. Even through her gloves, Colleen could feel the heat of his mouth upon her skin. The feeling was not unpleasant; yet, she wished he did not play his role so well, for, although she enjoyed Mr. Dostoff’s company, she would not place a claim on the man. Doing so would betray her heart, which, if she were honest with herself, had been given away to a young man who had greeted her all those years prior with a simple, “Good day.” No one would ever take Grandison Franklyn’s place in her soul. His presence had been ingrained upon her heart years prior.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Mansfield Park, Northanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice, quotes, Regency era, Regency romance, research, Sense & Sensibility, Whigs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Playing Cards in Jane Austen’s England, Pleasant Pastime, as Well as Gambling + an Excerpt from “The Jewel Thief and the Earl”

When Might the Heir Style Himself With His New Title in Regency Romances?

Posted on April 7, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

First, for legal purposes, the man must present himself to the House of Lords to claim the title officially. After the will has been read and its stipulations executed, the new peer must petition the Lord Chancellor for a writ of summon to the House of Lords to be seated in the current or in the next session of Parliament. The new peer will be expected to prove that his parents were legally married, and he is the legal son and heir produced by that marriage. He must prove he has reached his majority (twenty-one years or older) and a member of the Church of England. No matter, whether the man is the heir apparent or the heir presumptive, he must prove how he is related to the deceased and prove that his father and all others with a claim to the peerage who preceded him are deceased and were legitimate children of the marriage of their parents.

If the proofs are accepted the new peer is issued a writ of summons to appear before the House of Lords, where he participates in an elaborate ceremony before accepting his seat in the Lords. 

However, all this pomp and ceremony is not necessary before the man is styled (addressed as) by his new title. In reality, this “tradition” is a matter of how the man chooses to style himself until the title is officially conferred. In romance novels, it often can be used to address the person’s true character. If he possesses a solid claim to the peerage, and everyone knows it, he might well assume the title at once as a form of address. He could do so to secure another’s security or protect the peerage from an unscrupulous outside force. Naturally, he would not have access to any of the estate or funds or rights of the title until it is legally confirmed, but he can conduct business in the name of the peerage. If his claim is a bit shaky, he or others might want to avoid that until it is proven.

For more on the ceremony, fees, etc., check out Nancy Regency Researcher. 

If he is a stickler for legal protocols, he might not assume it at once–but others might. And, naturally, one must keep in mind the author should avoid confusing the reader with references to both the title and his surname, which might seem like two different characters, so that becomes a bit tricky.

When a father dies, the transfer of power and title happens automatically.  The father’s will might require some wait for probate of some items, but usually the executor and a solicitor see to all of it. 

Notice of the death of the previous peer is customarily sent to the College of Arms and the name of the new peer recorded by them. All is straightforward and usually goes without a hitch.

Sometimes the process is excessively easy. For example, when Lord Byron succeeded to his great uncle’s peerage at age 10, he did nothing, and all simply assumed he  was entitled to the peerage. He was not brought up in aristocratic circles so he became very angry when he was told that in order to take his seat in the House of Lords he had to prove he was the rightful successor. This meant he had to show his father’s relationship to the previous peer and that his father was born of a valid marriage and that he was born in a valid marriage and that his great uncle’s sons were dead and without issue. As one might expect that process involved fees. Fortunately Byron only had to show proof of a couple of generations Sometimes the proofs had proof must go back six generations.

Wyllie, William Morrison; The House of Lords; Parliamentary Art Collection; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/the-house-of-lords-214311

When the Frederick Berkeley, 5th Earl of Berkley died, his oldest son applied for a Writ of Summons to the House of Lords. Berkeley and Mary Cole (who also passed under the name of Tudor), the daughter of a local publican and butcher, had seven sons and five daughters, but the disputed date of their marriage prevented their elder sons from succeeding as Earl of Berkeley and Baron Berkeley. The pair asserted their marriage had taken place on 30 March 1785, but the earliest ceremony of which there is incontrovertible proof was a wedding in Lambeth Church, Surrey, on 16 May 1796, at which date Mary was pregnant with their seventh child. Berkeley settled Berkeley Castle upon their eldest son, William FitzHardinge Berkeley, but William’s attempt to assume his father’s honours were disallowed by the House of Lords, who considered him illegitimate.

Therefore, the Committee on Privilege turned down the eldest’s request, saying he and the other brothers born before 1795 were illegitimate, and the earldom had fallen to the 16-year-old born in 1796. Berkeley’s titles devolved as a matter of law upon his fifth but first legitimate son, Thomas Morton Fitzhardinge Berkeley (1796–1882), but were never used by him and he did not take his seat in the House of Lords. Per his father’s will, he would have lost his small inheritance had he disputed his eldest brother’s claim to the titles. The boy was too young, for he had not reached his majority, to do anything about the matter, and his oldest brother and mother ran things. When he came of age, he still never put forth a claim to the earldom. However, he was, by right and law, the earl, so anything requiring the signature of the earl had to be signed by him. He signed responsibility over to his oldest brother, but the title itself went dormant until he died. The title was dormant for most of the  century. The oldest son was created a peer by William IV who also created his own eldest son a peer.

Other Sources: 

The Skinny on Abdicating a Title During the Regency Era 

What is the Difference Between a Peerage that is Dormant, Extinct or in Abeyance?

 

 

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, buildings and structures, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, peerage, titles of aristocracy, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When Might the Heir Style Himself With His New Title in Regency Romances?

Kilts and Tartans and the Wearing of the Plaid (as we say in the U.S.)

Posted on April 5, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

More than 40% of my DNA is listed as Scottish, and I have always held a fascination with all things from Scotland. When my son was younger, we took a road trip to Fergus, Ontario, Canada, so he might experience a bit of the Scottish traditions. (I was married to a second-generation Italian-American at the time, and we regularly celebrated those traditions, but I wanted my son to view some things of the Scottish side first hand.) This year, the Fergus games will be held in August. You may find more information HERE. In North Carolina, where I currently live, we have a number of Highland style games to visit. If you have never attended one of these events, I highly recommend them.

Guess who is my favorite Disney princess.

The idea of identification of one tartan to a clan is fairly recent in a historical perspective.  Those of us who write Regency era based stories have a more difficult time than others historical periods to discover an actual clan name and its supporting colors. Most of the tartans identified to a clan came about in Victorian times, so just had to be careful. They were created by tailors during that time period.

Sam Heughan and Graham McTavis in kilts

Though we do not know the exact time period (reports vary from anywhere between the 6th C to 16th C), the philabeg, or what we now call a “kilt,” evolved from what was then known as a “belted plaid.” The belted plaid was a full length garment, also referred to in some documents as the “great kilt,” which was worn with the top half draped over the shoulder as a cloak. This long plaid was known in Gaelic as the feileadh mor.

Generally, it is believed, this belted plaid was made up of two large pieces of material, sewn together. The person would put it on by first placing the material on the ground with a belt underneath and pleating it in that manner into two “aprons.” He would then lie down on the aprons, which were at either end of the material, fold over the aprons and fasten the belt about his waist. When he stood again, he adjusted the “unpleated” sections about his body to protect himself from the weather, but leaving the part around his arm of preference for fighting free from being pinned in place.

The term “kilt” itself actually means to tuck up clothing around the body and is a derivation of an old Norse word kjilt.

Celtic Life tells us, “Actually one of the earliest references to the Scottish kilt came from Ireland. In 1594 a group of Scottish soldiers from the Hebridean islands had gone over to Ireland to fight for Red Hugh O’Donnell.

“They were recognized among the Irish Soldiers by the distinction of their arms and clothing, their habits and language, for their exterior dress was mottled cloaks of many colours (breacbhrait ioldathacha) with a fringe to their shins and calves, their belts over their loins outside their cloaks.

Many of them had swords with hafts of horn, large and warlike, over their shoulders. It was necessary for the soldier to grip the very haft of his sword with both hands when he would strike a blow with it. Others of them had bows of carved wood strong for use, with well-seasoned strings of hemp, and arrows sharp-pointed whizzing in flight.” (McClintock, Old Highland Dress, The Life of Aodh Ruadh O Domhnaill)

The first kilt with sewn in pleats, rather than folded ones, did not come about until 1792. Also, the brightly colored tartans we know today were typically black and white or a muddy brown and, if lucky, a green, for dying techniques were not developed to offer such varieties as we see today. Those developments came about through the 1800s (such is why it was the time of Queen Victoria before the modern tartan was available.

The tartan system as we now think of it was part of Sir Walter Scott’s vision, and it was the State visit of King George IV (the one we Regency writers often refer to as “Prinny” and for whom the “Regency” was named) which brought it to life.

“King George IV made a royal visit to Edinburgh in 1822. It was the first time a monarch had come to Scotland since 1641 and his tour was stage-managed by Sir Walter Scott. Scott engineered an image of Scotland similar to the country in his romantic novels for the visit. Highland Games were re-introduced, including at that time ‘twisting the four legs from a cow’, and Niel Gow entertained the King with his legendary fiddle playing. In the period approaching the visit, the wearing of kilts, trews and all other Highland garb became the height of fashion, accompanied by families finding historical reasons for claiming the various setts as their own.” [ScotClans]

Ironically, it had George IV’s grandfather, George II, who had outlawed the wearing of kilts. “King George II, imposed the dress act in 1746, primarily to suppress Highland culture. This act in essence outlawed the wearing of any items of Highland dress, which included the kilt. The Highland regiments were the only ones excluded from the act’s repression.

“… no man or boy within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as Officers and soldiers in His Majesty’s Forces, shall, … wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland Clothes …”

“This marked a period during which the kilt was generally worn as a fashionable item by Scottish romantics and also as a form of protest against the English based government’s repression. Penalties for those who defied the ban included six months imprisonment, if it was a first offence or for those who re-offended, seven years transportation to the far off colonies.” [Celtic Life]

After Culloden (1745), wearing the kilt was banned by the government as part of the suppression of Scottish culture (no gaelic, no bagpipes, etc.). The law was repealed about 40 years later, and by then the great kilt had largely given way to a short, easier to work in kilt. After George IV’s appearance in Edinburg, Scotland stood proud again, and such is why there are so many kilt shops on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile doing a land-office business to this very day.  LOL!

As a footnote: For those of you who love Braveheart (yes, I am talking to you Wendy O.) one can see William Wallace and Robert the Bruce and others depicted as wearing kilts. Each clan had always worn certain colours to identify them. The intensity of or the arrangement of colors changed slightly with whatever dyes were available, or the skill of the weaver, or the price of the cloth. Clansmen in those days were not purchasing tartans/kilts for an evening out at some big event for charity or the arts. They were dressing for the weather in whatever garb they could afford, often made of rough wool. They did not worry about matching colors with their chief. Their belted plaid was designed to protect them from the weather and served as a blanket. They either word “brogues” without socks or went barefoot.

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, fashion, film, Georgian England, history, Living in the Regency, medieval, military, Regency era, research, Scotland | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Post Office Annual Directory of 1814, Great Resource Find

Posted on April 3, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

Earlier in March, my sweet granddaughter (the youngest, who is barely age 6) decided she wanted to mail me a picture she had colored. First, please understand, we live a little over 6 miles apart. Anyway, without the knowledge of her parents, she colored me a beautiful picture of a flower, placed it in an envelope, sealed the envelope, and addressed it to “Grandma” and wrote “from Em.” Then she proceeded to carry it out to the mailbox, place it inside, and put up the flag, just as she had seen her parents do on multiple occasions.

Fortunately, my son received a Ring camera notice while he was picking up the weekly grocery order, so when he arrived home, he investigated. Miss Em was angry when he took it out, saying “Grandma needed a picture from her.” So, he brought it inside and assisted her in writing my address on the envelope, put a stamp on it, and placed it back in the mailbox. Two days later in the email from USPS telling me what to expect for the day was a letter, not with my given name on it, but one prominently written in six-year-old printing, stating it was to go to “Grandma.” If you other grandmothers are reading this, you know where this letter is going in my cherished stash.

Anyway, the idea came to me I had not shared anything on the British Postal System.

There is a great resource I discovered some time back in the Google Books Project.  

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=L9Q9AAAAcAAJ

That is the link direct to it.  You can download it for free as a PDF.

It is also available on Amazon, but costs some $35. The print copy has one advantage over the free one, it is easier to search, for flipping back and forth through pages easier to manage than it is to scroll.

It is the British Post Office Directory for ‘London and Parts Adjacent’.  It contains a list of over 17000 merchants, traders and significant people in London, with their addresses, trades and other details, as well as information on postage costs and schedules, where the post inns where, the mail coach schedules, the councillors, the banks, the newspapers, the insurance offices, army and navy offices, the East India Company and other major trading company offices, and more!  

It is obviously a source every historical writer of Regency, Georgian, or Victorian stories should have at his/her fingertips, but maybe it is only me who can become lost for hours in such interesting tidbits.

There is over 500 pages of the scanned original dealing with the street view of London in 1814. It is by far the most comprehensive insight into what existed and where it was that I have ever found. However, as I mentioned above, wading through it can be a challenge, as, due to the printing conventions of the day, the lower case ‘s’ looks almost the same as a lower case ‘f’ so it is pretty much impossible to use optical character recognition to transfer it into a Word doc or other easily searchable format. Even in the PDF, with all of the clever things Acrobat can do now, you still cannot really search it. So be ready to spend hours reading or cough up the $35 for the print book!

Perhaps, it might be best to keep in mind the Amazon “warning”: “This work is in the public domain in the United States of America and possibly other nations. . . . As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.”

There are a couple of other equally amazing resources in google books library, which are equally capable of swallowing a person for days, but this is the most useful for answering questions like mine about tea shops, banks, warehouses, etc.

Posted in books, British history, business, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Caroline Norton, a True Case of a Competency Hearing

Posted on March 31, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

My piece on Wednesday to answer a question about competency hearings during the Georgian era reminded me of the one in the series Victoria, where Duchess Sophie, one of Queen Victoria’s Mistresses of the Robes (ladies-in-waiting) is to be placed in an institution because she has fallen in love with and is having an affair with a footman at the palace. The character of Sophie is based on a true event.

In season three of Victoria, a lady in waiting called Sophie, Duchess of Monmouth has an affair with a footman, knowledge of which is used against her by her husband. This is the true story behind that devastating plot line. https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/victoria-season-3-jenna-coleman-true-story-caroline-norton-sophie-duchess-monmouth/265041

Caroline Norton, born Caroline Elizabeth Sarah Sheridan, on 22 March 1808, in London (died 15 June 1877, London), was an English poet and novelist whose matrimonial difficulties prompted successful efforts to secure legal protection for married women.

Caroline’s father was Thomas Sheridan and her mother the novelist Caroline Henrietta Callander. Her father was an actor, soldier and colonial administrator, the son of the prominent Irish playwright and Whig statesman Richard Brinsley Sheridan and his wife Elizabeth Ann Linley. Caroline’s Scottish mother was the daughter of a landed gentleman, Col. Sir James Callander of Craigforth and Lady Elizabeth MacDonnell, sister of an Irish peer, the 1st Marquess of Antrim. Mrs. Sheridan authored three short novels described by one of her daughter’s biographers as “rather stiff with the style of the eighteenth century, but none without a certain charm and wit….”

She also began to write while in her teens. The Sorrows of Rosalie (1829) and The Undying One (1830) caused her to be hailed as a female Byron. In 1827 she made an unfortunate marriage to the Honourable George Norton, a barrister and politician, whom she left in 1835.

George Norton was reportedly prone to jealousy, which was exasperated by the social circle Caroline kept that included such “celebs” as Benjamin Disraeli, Fanny Kemble, and Mary Shelley. Caroline earned enough money from her writing poems and books to support herself and her three sons.

Caroline left her husband in 1836 and no recourse could be found. As I mentioned above, Caroline was able to earn enough money to support herself and her children. Bitter to the core and embarrassed by her action (and perhaps a bit jealous of her popularity), George Norton sued his wife in court, saying as she was his “property,” any money she earned or items of worth she had accumulated was rightfully his. Therefore, Norton abducted their sons and hid them away with relatives, first in Scotland and then in Yorkshire. He then accused Caroline of having an affair with a close friend, Lord Melbourne (yes, the same “Lord M” of Victoria PBS show fame), who was then Prime Minister, representing the Whig party. Norton demanded £10,000 from Melbourne, but Melbourne refused to be blackmailed and George instead took the Prime Minister to court.

Lord Melbourne wrote to Lord Holland, “The fact is [George] a stupid brute, and [Caroline] had not temper nor dissimulation enough to enable her to manage him.” Even so, initially, Melbourne pleaded with Caroline to return to Norton, but a few days later he made a public statement of sympathy for her decision.

This conduct upon his part seems perfectly unaccountable…You know that I have always counselled you to bear everything and remain to the last. I thought it for the best. I am afraid it is no longer possible. Open breaches of this kind are always to be lamented, but you have the consolation that you have done your utmost to stave this extremity off as long as possible. [Joan Perkin, Women and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century England. Routledge, 1989, pp. 83-84.]

The trial, which lasted for nine days, was settled on the side of Melbourne, but the scandal brought down his government. Quite soon society was on to the next bit of “gossip,” but, by then, Caroline’s reputation was ruined, and she could no longer count Lord Melbourne among her friends.

In spite for his loss in court, Norton still kept Caroline away from her children and even refused her a divorce. Under English law in 1836, children were the legal property of their father and there was little Caroline could do to regain custody

Caroline, however, did not take to her bed in fear of her husband. Instead, she used what we nowadays would call her “platform” to campaign for a change in English law, which presented the children to the father and never to the mother. She actually petitioned Queen Victoria for changes for woman.

Her protest letters to Queen Victoria (English Laws for Women in the Nineteenth Century, 1854; A Letter to the Queen on Lord Chancellor Cranworth’s Marriage and Divorce Bill, 1857) had great influence on the Marriage and Divorce Act of 1857, which abolished some of the inequities to which married women were subject. (Caroline Norton)

When Parliament debated divorce reform in 1855, Caroline submitted to members a detailed account of her own marriage, and described the difficulties faced by women as the result of existing laws.

An English wife may not leave her husband’s house. Not only can he sue her for restitution of “conjugal rights,” but he has a right to enter the house of any friend or relation with whom she may take refuge…and carry her away by force…

If her husband take proceedings for a divorce, she is not, in the first instance, allowed to defend herself…She is not represented by attorney, nor permitted to be considered a party to the suit between him and her supposed lover, for “damages.”

If an English wife be guilty of infidelity, her husband can divorce her so as to marry again; but she cannot divorce the husband, a vinculo, however profligate he may be….

Those dear children, the loss of whose pattering steps and sweet occasional voices made the silence of [my] new home intolerable as the anguish of death…what I suffered respecting those children, God knows … under the evil law which suffered any man, for vengeance or for interest, to take baby children from the mother.

Lawrence Stone, Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987. Oxford University Press, 1990, page 178.

Stylist.co.uk tells us, “It was because of Caroline’s protests, writings and petitions that vital changes to divorce and custody laws were passed in the mid-1800s. In 1839, the Custody of Infants Act was passed, which overruled the idea that parental rights over children of divorce would ultimately fall to the father. Then, in 1857, came the Matrimonial Causes Act, which allowed for a civil court to regulate on divorce. Finally, the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870 gave women the right to being their own legal entity and ruled that her wages and property were her own and not the domain of her husband’s.

“These were all vital pieces of legal reform that gave women in the UK many of the rights that had previously been denied them. And without Caroline Norton, they might not have happened when they did.”

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, family, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the UK, marriage, political stance, real life tales, research, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Caroline Norton, a True Case of a Competency Hearing

Lease and Release as a Plot Point in “Where There’s a FitzWILLiam Darcy, There’s a Way”

Posted on March 27, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

In one of my Austen-inspired pieces, I use a legal property term referred to as Lease and Release. The legal definition of Lease and Release says, it is a species of conveyance, invented by Serjeant Moore, soon after the enactment of the Statue of Uses. It is thus contrived; a lease, or rather bargain and sale, upon some pecuniary consideration, for one year, is made by the tenant of the freehold to the lessee or bargainee. This without any enrollment, makes the bargainer stand seised to the use of the barginee, and vests in the bargainee the use of the term for one year, and then the statue immediately annexes the possession. Being this in possess, he is capable of receiving a release of the freehold and reversion, which must be made to the tenant in possession; and, accordingly, the next day a release is granted to him.”

National_Archives___C54_Close_Rolls_group-1

Legal records were kept in long rolls.Close Rolls group (reproduced courtesy ofThe National Archives C54) https://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/subjects/crime/surreys_jps/1_keepers/national_archives___c54_close_rolls_group-jpg/

 If I lost you, with all the legalese, bear with me for a few moments more. First the Serjeant Moore mentioned in this definition is Sir Francis Moore, a prominent Jacobean barrister and Member of Parliament. In parliament he was a frequent speaker, and is supposed to have drawn the well-known statute of Charitable Uses which was passed in 1601. The conveyance known as lease and release was his invention which remains one of two main ways to extend a lease, each with financial and physical demise advantages and disadvantages. [Goodwin, Gordon (1894).  “Moore, Francis (1558-1621)”. In Sidney, Lee. Dictionary of National Biography. 38. London, Smith, Elder & Co.]

For Lease and Release to work, two agreements were required. First, a bargain (sale) contract was executed by the seller to convey a lease on the land… (Unlike an outright sale, short leases did not require enrollment in a public registry.) The seller then separately executed a release to grant to the buyer (who was now his tenant) the seller’s remaining interest. [This transfers] title to the buyer, since he now owned both the current and future interests in the land. [“A Bit of Deed History,” Bob’s Genealogy Filing Cabinet] 

In writing this story, I took some dramatic license by making a property in Cornwall on the Rame Peninsula available to the Bennets, after Mr. Bennet’s unexpected death. I set up the terms of the property as a combination of lease and release (with no option to purchase the land, for, obviously, the Bennets could not afford it) and a leasehold, which customarily involves the owner of the property “leasing” it to a potential buyer for a period of time, generally 99 years in the western shires of England, during the early 1800s, but only 21 in the eastern shires. 

************************************

Book Blurb for Where There’s a Fitzwilliam Darcy, There’s a Way 

ELIZABETH BENNET’s world has turned upon its head. Not only is her family about to be banished to the hedgerows after her father’s sudden death, but Mr. Darcy has appeared upon Longbourn’s threshold, not to renew his proposal, as she first feared, but, rather, to serve as Mr. Collins’s agent in taking an accounting of Longbourn’s “treasures” before her father’s cousin steals away all her memories of the place.

FITZWILLIAM DARCY certainly has no desire to encounter Elizabeth Bennet again so soon after her mordant refusal of his hand in marriage, but when his aunt, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, strikes a bargain in which her ladyship agrees to provide his Cousin Anne a London Season if Darcy will become Mr. Collins’s agent in Hertfordshire, Darcy accepts in hopes he can convince Miss Elizabeth to think better of him than she, obviously, does. Yet, how can he persuade the woman to recognize his inherent sense of honor, when his inventory of Longbourn’s entailed land and real properties announces the date she and her family will be homeless?

WTaFD eBook Cover-01.jpg

Permit Mr. Darcy, in an excerpt from Chapter 11, to explain it to you as he did to the three eldest Bennet sisters and Mr. Gardiner in Where There’s a FitzWILLiam Darcy, There’s a Way: 

Their days became routine. There was no more talk of her experiencing the presence of Mr. Bennet during her quiet hours, nor of what plans she had made for her future. Instead, they spoke of favorite books and music. They shared tales of their childhood days. Often other members of her family joined them, adding their versions of what were now, for him, familiar tales. They had completed her father’s study and library, the essentials in the dining room, and two small cupboards, where brooms and such were stored. Unfortunately, they had yet to discover another clue, which by all appearances, played havoc with Elizabeth’s disposition.

Therefore, he had been elated when he received the letter from Mr. Tapapses, who had been approached by Darcy’s agent in Devon. It turned out Eugenia Gardiner’s property was located near the twin villages of Kingsand and Caswand on the border between Cornwall and Devon, near Rame Head.

“You wished to speak to me, Mr. Darcy?” Gardiner asked when Mrs. Hill had shown Darcy into Mr. Bennet’s former study. Elizabeth’s uncle was to survey her father’s legal papers and ledgers for clues to the man’s will.

“I did, sir.” Darcy glanced about the room. It had been polished properly for Mr. Collins’s eventual arrival. Gardiner gestured to a nearby chair. When Darcy was settled, he launched into the business he had with the gentleman. “When I discovered the piece on your great-grandmother’s bequest, I took the liberty of making some inquiries.”

Mr. Gardiner’s eyebrows lifted in surprise. “Is Elizabeth aware of your doing so?”

“We discussed my offer. Miss Elizabeth did not wish to impose on me, but Miss Mary thought my doing so a fine idea. As no one forbid me to act, I chose to proceed.”

“You realize, of course, Lizzy will chastise you properly,” Gardiner said with a sly grin.

“It will not be the first time,” Darcy admitted.

Gardiner folded his hands together and rested them on the desk. “Your remark to the effect that she was only tolerable and not tempting enough for you was poorly done, sir.”

Darcy forced himself not to squirm under the man’s steady gaze. “I had been dealing with a troubling family situation and was preoccupied with my own misery, but you are correct: My actions were unforgivable. I demonstrated a lack of regard for your niece’s feelings. I did not perform as a gentleman should.”

“I am certain, with Elizabeth’s nature, she has seized upon the opportunity to speak to your insensitivity. I shan’t reprimand you further,” Gardiner assured. “Instead, speak to me of what you have discovered.”

Darcy reached into his pocket to remove Mr. Tapapses’s letter. “I wrote to contacts I hold in Cornwall. That was a little over a week past. This morning an express brought me this response.” He handed Gardiner the letter.

“How did you know to whom to write?” Gardiner questioned.

“There were a series of numbers at the bottom of the page Mr. Bennet hid in the book on hunting. I held the suspicion the numbers designated points on a map or were related to the recording of a deed. Perhaps a date or the jurisdiction’s means of distinguishing one claim from another.” He would not mention the tidy sum he had offered for a quick reply.

Within the half hour, Darcy and Mr. Gardiner discussed Darcy’s findings with the Misses Bennet, Elizabeth, and Mary.

“I am accustomed to examining deeds to property,” he explained when Elizabeth asked him the same question as had her uncle. “According to my contacts, it appears Eugenia Gardiner’s transition to property owner was from parent to child, in the manner of a freehold property passing to the lawful heir; yet, in this case, the property passed upon the maternal side, from mother to daughter. I am assuming it was originally part of Mrs. Sommers’s marriage settlements, and the lady and her husband permitted it to pass to Eugenia, or Mrs. Sommers passed first, and Mr. Sommers claimed it in a tenant of the curtesy situation, and then it passed to Eugenia upon his death. However, it does not matter how the property came into Eugenia’s possession, but, rather, if you have any claims to it.”

“It was very fortunate you thought the numbers at the bottom of the page were significant to the search.” Miss Bennet continued to study the letter.

“In truth, I was not certain whether they indicated the collection of taxes, church tithes, the hearth tax, or land tax assessments,” he admitted. “All have been known to be used to identify property claims. It turns out the numbers indicate markings related to turnpike maps. The property has been properly registered by law with a Clerk of Peace in the appropriate shire. It was originally recorded in Chancery on Close Rolls.”

“Close Rolls?” Miss Mary questioned.

He explained, “Close rolls are grants of land by the Crown to private individuals. In the 1300s, a large number of deeds between private citizens were enrolled on the payment of fees on the back of Close Rolls. The practice continued to the beginning of the last century, which would make sense in the disposition of the land given to the late Mrs. Gardiner. I am not certain how the property came to the late Mrs. Gardiner’s mother, but, after the 1730s, it became a popular practice to transfer properties once on Close Rolls to others to be used for charitable purposes. Many were converted to schools or burial grounds or some such purpose.”

“So this property could be one of these charitable ones?” Miss Elizabeth asked.

Darcy reminded her, “I cannot speak with assurance until I read the latest registration addressing the land’s use.” He spoke directly to the woman he loved. It was important to him for her to understand that Eugenia Gardiner’s property would not resolve all of her family’s problems. “It appears whoever set up the property’s use employed some form of a Lease and Release option.”

Her uncle explained, “With every exchange of property between individuals there is a legal obligation for the deed to be recorded, but this requirement can be evaded by granting a lease for a year on the land meant to be sold, thus avoiding the need to enroll, and then, a few days later, presenting the lessee the right of future possession of the land by a reversion of the lease. However, this property is unique, for although the lease and release is in effect, the person taking possession of the property is not purchasing it, but rather is leasing it for a specific time period. In truth, I would think this a challengeable condition, but as it has been effect, without complaints, for three generations, it could prove a precedence if a court case would be brought against Eugenia’s estate. Surely if the property was not so remote, someone would have brought it to the attention of the authorities before now. Then again, the property is not available to just anyone who wishes to lease, but rather only to Eugenia’s relations, and that may be the clause that protects it.”

Darcy was quick to add, “England has no standard means of recording deeds. Even within a shire the method differs. Various forms of tax records and church tithes are customarily used. I know the property was originally deeded to your great-great-grandmother. I am assuming it is still in her name, and the use of the land is still at her disposal. I imagine when we view her actual will, it will say something to the effect that the land cannot be sold until a certain year far in the future.”

“What Mr. Darcy says makes sense,” Gardiner affirmed. “The property is under the control of Eugenia Gardiner’s trust and controlled by the firm she employed some eighty years removed., one similar to the firm we recently employed to oversee your family’s incomes. The trust would be responsible for any disputes to the validity of our claim, and although I do not expect any, you must be made aware of this possibility.”

“This particular property,” Darcy continued, “employs what could only be termed as a modified lease for three lives, which is a practice popular in the west of England, and it does not surprise me to view it being used here. However, the modification comes in the form of the number of years one family can have use of the lease. Customarily, in England’s western shires, such a lease is good for ninety-nine years, but this one ends after twenty-one years, which is a practice generally found in land documents in the east of England. I suspect the use of ‘twenty-one‘ is employed as a means of permitting a family to know the house’s use and then move on, likely with the females marrying or passing away. That being said, there is a point of legal stability in that at the end of the twenty-one years, the terms may be cancelled, or there can be a change of terms or a simple renewal for an additional twenty-one years.”

“Then the lease would be made out in my name, along with Jane’s and Mary’s, as we are the three oldest and would be the ‘three lives’ you say are required for our acceptance of the lease. Am I understanding this correctly?” Elizabeth asked. She appeared quite pale, and so Darcy reached beneath the table to squeeze the back of her hand, and she rewarded him with a tremulous smile. Reality of what she meant to do to protect her family had, apparently, caught up to her.

“Names of your younger sisters may be added to the lease on the payment of a fee,” Mr. Gardiner told his nieces. “We can decide what is best in that manner if this proves to be how we wish to proceed.”

“The terms appear more reasonable than I first thought,” Miss Bennet observed.

“Except the stipulation that if one of the younger sisters marries before the elders, then the lease will be terminated immediately and without redress,” Miss Mary voiced her obvious concerns. Her plans not to marry would keep Miss Kitty and Miss Lydia from doing so. The girl would need to rethink her future.

“Such terms might force Mrs. Bennet into having second thoughts on permitting Kitty and Lydia so much freedom,” Mr. Gardiner remarked.

Darcy was glad there was, at least, temporary hope of salvation for Elizabeth’s family, but the terms of the agreement presented him an answer his heart openly rejected. Miss Elizabeth would never accept him until Miss Bennet married, and Miss Mary reached her majority.

Miss Bennet, with her customarily quiet acceptance, said, “As long as Lydia and Kitty can be brought in line, we could name our home for the immediate future. Mayhap, by then, one of us three, or all of us, will be in a position to see to our mother’s future.”

Miss Elizabeth added, “I suppose we should explain what Mr. Darcy has uncovered to our mother and sisters. We should set plans to remove to Cornwall as quickly as one of our uncles can approach those who oversee the Gardiner property.”

Posted in book excerpts, book release, British history, estates, family, Georgian Era, historical fiction, Inheritance, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, Vagary, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Historical Aspects of the Word “Cuckold”

Posted on March 24, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

I recently received a question on a sensitive subject.

Question: I have a question about cuckolding during the late Georgian era. I know for the most part that a woman who was brazen about her affairs could/would suffer public censure (and perhaps be subjected to divorce proceedings or a suit by her husband), and that the husband might also suffer public embarrassment over the whole ordeal, but is anyone aware of a situation historically where being cuckolded or publicly disgraced might have impacted the husband’s reputation at “work” or with his peers, particularly if he were an MP or part of the government (working in Whitehall, for example, or as a governmental minister)?

This was a bit unusual, for most of the stories and accounts I have found in the historical context are centered around the women offenders and the effect on them. A few have mentioned the men, but those men have been as reckless as their adulterous wives. The general sense I am getting is the practice was not “okay” for women, but definitely “okay” for men. The word specifically indicates a “a man whose wife is unfaithful and he meets with derision as a result of her actions.” [Middle English (as cukeweld ), from Old French cucuault, from cucu ‘cuckoo’ (from the cuckoo’s habit of laying its egg in another bird’s nest). The equivalent words in French and other languages applied to both the bird and the adulterer; however, cuckold has never been applied to the bird in English.]

Fan-tailed Cuckoo (Cacomantis flabelliformis), Bruny Island, Tasmania, Australia ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo#/media/File:Cacomantis_flabelliformis.jpg

As far as I can tell, being cuckold by one’s wife did not seem to have resulted in more than personal embarrassment for the man. It does not seem to have kept either the husband or the lover from  performing in a governmental or political positions. Husbands might be scorned personally for not restraining their wives or for not initiating divorce, as well as being dropped from some visiting lists, but those public shunnings were more on account of the erring wife than his inaction.

On the whole, he would still be allowed into Almacks, and the patronesses there were known for refusing many on a variety of reasons.

As far as the Regency goes . . . Look to Lady Caroline Lamb and William Lamb when she was having her very public affair with Lord Byron. No doubt others than his family wondered why he did not rein Lady Caroline in, but they were still invited places, etc.

**********

From the 16th century forward, the idea of cuckoldry was often spoken of, for most so-called “learned men” believed a woman’s womb, sometimes referred to as a “wandering womb” controlled the female’s lustful spirit. Women were considered more “lustful” than men. Crazy as we know it now, it was believed a woman’s womb could move around in her body and cause her to forget herself, i.e., lose control of her senses. Essentially, this meant ALL women cheated on their husbands because they could not help themselves.

Males during the Renaissance were chiefly concerned with their honor and their reputation in society. These men feared being cuckolded. Shakespeare speaks fluently of cuckolding in both Othello and Desdemona’s relationships in Othello and that of Claudio and Hero in Much Ado About Nothing. Cuckoldry was represented in literature through “horns,” a phallic symbol of a man’s virility. According to Elizabeth Falconer in “My Life Upon Her Faith”: Love Relationships and Cuckoldry in Othello and Much Ado, “Men had three defenses against cuckoldry. The Renaissance man would either deny the existence of cuckoldry by objectifying women, expect female infidelity due to misogyny, or change the commonly outcast cuckold into a phallic symbol through horn imagery. These defenses allowed men to experience cuckoldry as a male bond and to view marriage as a community of potential cuckolds.”

French engraving of a cuckolded husband wearing horns entitled "The Unhappy Fruits of the Horns".
A French engraving depicting a cuckolded, horn-wearing husband.(Supplied: University of Victoria) ~ The History of Insult ‘Cuckold’

“This infidelity would cause the poor husband to grow invisible horns, the ultimate symbol of cuckoldry, and the comic figure of the horned cuckold made its way into fictional songs, engravings, and theatre. It eventually became so ubiquitous as to give the impression of a ‘brotherhood of cuckoldry’ wherein all wives were adulterous, and all husbands their hapless fools.” [From the 16th Century to Men’s Rights Activists: The History of the Insult Cuckold.]

Another Source:

Regency Lexicon: Cuckoid

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, quotes, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Historical Aspects of the Word “Cuckold”

Happy Sixth Book Birthday to “A Dance With Mr. Darcy: A Pride and Prejudice Vagary”

Posted on March 22, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

This novel came to me when I admit to being quite depressed. I wrote it over the 2016 Christmas holidays, and we all know how those can sometimes catch us off guard. I am customarily sad over the Thanksgiving break because my mother’s birthday lands smack in the middle of the long Thanksgiving weekend ever year, and I do no miss my mother’s wise voice whispering in my ear. However, I am not customarily sad over Christmas. In fact, I deal with the hoopla of it all relatively well. Perhaps, it was because we had a tense situation going on in the family during that particular Christmas. My youngest granddaughter arrived in the world on some two weeks before the child’s due date. Then she spent five days in the hospital wrapped in a Biliblanket to control neonatal jaundice.

Perhaps it was because I am customarily alone over the actual Christmas to New Year’s holiday, and because of the baby’s early delivery, I found myself with children under foot and meals to cook and kitchens to clean. I pray I am not that selfish, but I admit at age 69 (which I was then) to enjoying my solitude when I have it.

Perhaps it was because I learned over the holidays of the passing of an my ex-husband. Although he practiced deplorable acts, ones no wife could ever forgive, there had been a time—in my naïve mind—I had loved him.  

Why do I preface my introduction of the book with this knowledge? It is because I find it one of the saddest and one of the happiest books I have ever written. I understood the losses Darcy, Elizabeth, and even Lydia felt. 

The book incorporates a bit about the history handfasting in Scotland, the traditions surrounding St Agnes Eve, the possibility of having a marriage annulled in the church courts, something of the East India Company, etc.—my usual array of historical research mixed into the story line—but its strength is the deep emotional connection between Darcy and Elizabeth. Your heart will ache for them. You will cheer their successes and bemoan the obstacles still keeping them apart. 

Book Blurb: 

The reason fairy tales end with a wedding is no one wishes to view what happens next.

Five years earlier, Darcy had raced to Hertfordshire to soothe Elizabeth Bennet’s qualms after Lady Catherine’s venomous attack, but a devastating carriage accident left him near death for months and cost him his chance at happiness with the lady. Now, they meet again upon the Scottish side of the border, but can they forgive all that has transpired in those years? They are widow and widower; however, such does not mean they can take up where they left off. They are damaged people, and healing is not an easy path. To know happiness they must fall in love with the same person all over again.

a-dance-with-mr-darcy-copy.jpg

Book Excerpt: 

Although he did not think it possible for anyone to alter Elizabeth’s decision, Darcy was thankful to have his sister in residence at Alpin Hall, for Georgiana made a concerted effort to keep his mind off the misery that awaited him at Pemberley when he returned to Derbyshire. Despite his cousin’s objections, she had sent Colonel Fitzwilliam riding for Newcastle in search of information on Mr. Wickham’s disappearance.

“It has been five years, Georgiana,” the colonel protested. “I can learn more by addressing letters to the scoundrel’s former commanding officers.”

“You will do both,” she insisted. “Those in London overseeing the war’s end will simply examine their files on Mr. Wickham, while those remaining in Newcastle area will possess a more personal story to share, and you must be there to learn their tales. No one can deny such an imposing figure as my husband,” she added with a genuine smile.

Fitzwilliam sighed good-naturedly. “It is a good thing, Mrs. Fitzwilliam, that your husband holds you in affection.”

“It is an excellent thing, sir,” she responded with a blush to her cheeks. Darcy watched the pair with envy lodging in his heart. He would never know such contentment. Even if he could learn Wickham’s fate, it would not ensure Elizabeth would reconsider his proposal.

In Fitzwilliam’s absence, Georgiana accompanied him as Darcy called in upon Daven Hall each day to learn more of the estate. While he examined the books and the various structures upon the property, his sister met with the housekeeper and toured the various rooms to note necessary repairs and required refurbishing. He was grateful for Georgiana’s presence. It was good to be with family. His hours alone at Pemberley had only added to his compounded sorrow.

“Dance with me, William,” his sister pleaded one evening, as she rose from the bench before the pianoforte. She had entertained him after supper with a variety of musical pieces. He always knew such pride when she performed, for he recalled the exact date when Georgiana claimed confidence in her performance. It was the evening at Pemberley when Elizabeth and her relations joined him and the Bingleys. Elizabeth encouraged Georgiana’s playing and remained by his sister’s side throughout the evening.

“I believe my dancing days are over,” he replied.

“Nonsense.” Georgiana caught his hand and attempted to tug him to his feet. “Perhaps you can no longer hop about in a reel or do a quickstep in a country dance, but surely you can manage a minuet or a waltz. Now, stand for me, William.”

“Georgiana, this is ridiculous,” he protested, but he permitted her to pull him upward.

Once he stood stiffly before her, she placed a hand upon his shoulder and waited for his hand to claim her waist. “Should I hum a tune?”

“I will likely send us tumbling to the floor,” he grumbled as he positioned his hand at her side.

Georgiana giggled. “It has been too many years since we took a tumble together.”  She nudged him into a slow step forward while continuing her tale. “I loved it when you would come home from school on holiday, for you would spend hours entertaining me. Do you recall how often I soiled my dress attempting to keep up with you and Fitzwilliam and Lindale or you and George Wickham? I was often quite clumsy and would tumble down the hill, but you always took the blame and Father’s punishments.”

“You were but a babe and always so thin. I could not permit you to know an evening without your supper,” he said in serious tones.

Georgiana’s cheeks dimpled with an impish smile. “You would sneak into the schoolroom and teach me something of how to swing a cricket bat or how to block a thrust from an opponent’s sword.”

“We destroyed a good many of your parasols. Your governess was never happy when you and I were about a new adventure,” he repeated in tenderness.

“Then you would sprawl upon the floor while I showed you my dolls or the new letters I had learned or a drawing. You would praise my efforts,” she said in contentment. “You were always so patient with me. I could not have asked for a better brother.”

Darcy halted their progress to place a kiss upon her forehead. It was only then he realized they had made a full turn and then some about the room. “You have played me with your compliments,” he said in a tease. “You still have the means to divert me.”

She rose on her toes to place a gentle kiss upon his cheek. “I wish you to know happiness, William, but first you must again believe in your dream.”

Darcy attempted to keep the frown from his features. “I do not know whether I dare. Her husband passed two months after I married Amelia. If I had waited—had rejected Lady Matlock’s manipulations—if I had made it my business to learn more of Elizabeth’s life, things could now be different. She admitted to loving me, Georgiana; yet, she still sent me away. How can I keep hope alive when so much has changed between us? Sometimes, love is not enough.”

“Love is always enough,” Georgiana countered. “It must be, for the world would turn upon its head without love. You must simply trust Mrs. McCaffney knows your heart. The lady is the complementary part of your soul. She will support you upon your journey in the same manner as I supported your steps in our waltz.”

Posted in book release, George Wickham, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, Vagary | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Regency Etiquette for Men and Women

Posted on March 20, 2023 by Regina Jeffers

I have never found an etiquette book publish during the Regency. The book named Regency Etiquette is not an etiquette book as we might think of it. The closest I once came was an etiquette book published in 1827. The “Etiquette of the Ballroom” in Thos. Wilson’s COMPANION TO THE BALLROOM deals with the etiquette of public assemblies. Thos. Wilson says the manners and practice of the aristocracy were often different and his rules would not necessarily apply. 

All that being said, I have just order this book on Amazon. Elegant Etiquette in the Nineteenth Century. Hopefully, it will live up to its book blurb, which says:

“A scholarly guide to etiquette as entertaining and amusing as a work of fiction” (Jane Austen’s Regency World Magazine).
 
Have you ever wondered what it would have been like to live in the nineteenth century? How would you have gotten a partner in a ballroom? What would you have done with a letter of introduction? And where would you have sat in a carriage?
 
Covering all these nineteenth-century dilemmas and more, this book is your must-have guide to the etiquette of our well-heeled forebears. As it takes you through the intricacies of rank, the niceties of the street, the good conduct that was desired in the ballroom, and the awkward blunders that a lady or gentleman would have wanted to avoid, you will discover an abundance of etiquette advice from across the century, and a lively, occasionally tongue-in-cheek, and thoroughly detailed history of nineteenth-century manners and conduct.
 
This well-researched book is enjoyable, compelling reading for anyone with an interest in this period. In exploring the expectations of behavior and etiquette, it brings the world of the nineteenth century to life.

In the 1830s and 1840s there was a man who published etiquette books using the names of different people as authors. I have one from 1843 attributed to Alfred D’Orsay. [For those of you unfamiliar with the name, Alfred Guillaume Gabriel Grimod d’Orsay, comte d’Orsay (4 September 1801 – 4 August 1852) was a French amateur artist, dandy, and man of fashion in the early-to mid-19th century.

Alfred Guillaume Gabriel, Comte d’Orsay by George Hayter ~ Public Domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org

Etiquette books were NOT written for aristocrats. They were written for those who would be called middle class and the noveau riche (new rich or rising rich), who wanted to know how to behave in a manner that would permit them to move among the aristocrats and upper class without embarrassing themselves. 

The earlier etiquette books of the 16th and 17th centuries were aimed at the aristocrats, or, I suppose I should say those who could read. The books concentrated mostly on behavior at the table. For example, one of the rules was not to eat with one’s knife. [I know you have seen bits in film where some aristocrat balanced his peas on a knife at the table while eating.] Rather, most diners had a spoon and a knife, while forks were only used to hold the meat steady while it was carved/sliced.

As a side note, if one is looking for something more modern, he might look to an “old” standard. Debrett’s has been recording everything pertinent to the aristocracy for years (births, marriages, deaths, titles, etc.) It offers Debrett’s New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners.

Combining traditional standards of conduct with modern innovations, this guide to etiquette covers everything from basic table manners to precedence at the State Opening of Parliament.

There is no better time than now for a definitive guide to contemporary civilized living. As traditional codes of behavior have given way to an increasingly informal society, many people are disconcerted by the current lack of guidelines. The established rules are as important as ever, but need adaptation for the complications and developments of the twenty-first century. The Debrett’s New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners cuts through the confusion to combine the very best of traditional standards of conduct with acceptable modern innovations. Packed with no-nonsense step-by-step advice, it covers everything from basic table manners to how to equip yourself at the grandest royal and diplomatic gatherings. Written with clarity and wit, this book celebrates the charm, beauty, and fascination of classic good manners, and their enduring role in a civilized society.

Now, back to the Georgian era: There was a man named Beau Nash in Bath. He was the Master of Ceremonies overseeing the assembly rooms in Bath.

The Historic Interpreter tells us, “. . . the Master of Ceremonies controlled the ballroom.  He was responsible for introductions, instructing the musicians, deciding which dances to do and in what sequence, maintaining order and settling any disputes.

“In addition, other items kept the Master of Ceremonies busy throughout the evening. For instance, there were rules that no gentleman could enter the ballroom in half boots or boots, nor carrying a cane, nor could any military man enter carrying his sword; and that no two ladies could dance together without his express permission. (It is doubtful how often this was enforced outside of the major venues such as Bath and London. This was a period where England’s Army and Navy were busy reigning in Bonaparte’s activities on the Continent and at sea so, there was a shortage of young, eligible men at many of the balls. It was apparently so prevalent, that Jane Austen remarks on it in her letters.)”

Basically, aristocratic children were supposed to learn from parents and tutors and governesses.

In Fanny Burney’s Evelina, which was first published in 1778 and was a HUGE hit, the whole point is that females are on display. They were the commodities, not the shoppers. Essentially, as a female one was not permitted to turn down a man who had asked you to dance unless you were so incapacitated you could not dance for an entire evening. This rule was so strict a chaperone would have enforced it upon a young lady if the girl had been inclined to hesitate. (Lots of people say Burney made up the rule, for they have not seen it anywhere else, except maybe Georgette Heyer, but that is another rabbit hole I am avoiding, at this time.) Personally, as an author I like the rule. How else could Jane Austen force Elizabeth Bennet to dance with Mr. Darcy at the Netherfied Ball and have them fight over Mr. Wickham, which is a major plot point in the story of Pride and Prejudice?)

Having said that, some of the current romance novels do not stay as close to historical accuracy as I would prefer, so one may find a very cunning heroine and a dull chaperone to which these manners mean nothing. I was reading a novel recently where the heroine was strolling by herself around Mayfair because she “needed to think” and then visiting a man by herself in the evening “because she had something to say.” The historical part was dreadful, but the romance part — Had conflict! Drama! Danger! — It was pretty well done. If I were asked for a rating, I would have presented the book a 3 out 5. While I enjoyed it, the loss of the “history,” though not convenient for the author was most inconvenient for me. I could not quite remove it from my mind. So maybe it worked for Jane Austen (assuming Burney made up the rules of etiquette), but not for a modern day author who took the “liberty” a bit too far. Just saying.

Cover of Volume 2 of Evelina – Public Domain ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelina#/media/File:Evelina_vol_II_1779.jpg

Evelina, or the History of a Young Lady’s Entrance into the World is a novel written by English author Fanny Burney and first published in 1778. In this 3-volume epistolary novel, the title character Evelina is the unacknowledged, but legitimate daughter, of a dissipated English aristocrat, and thus raised in rural seclusion until her 17th year. Through a series of humorous events that take place in London and the resort town of Hotwells, near Bristol, Evelina learns to navigate the complex layers of 18th-century society and come under the eye of a distinguished nobleman with whom a romantic relationship is formed in the latter part of the novel. This sentimental novel, which has notions of sensibility and early romanticism, satirizes the society in which it is set and is a significant precursor to the work of Jane Austen and Maria Edgeworth, whose novels explore many of the same issues.

There were etiquette books published in the 18th century for men and some published later in the 19th century for men, but one will have difficulty finding any for females until late Victorian time. What they had in the Georgian era were many conduct books. Regency Etiquette (a book published 1811) Is more deportment and decorum than etiquette. There were many books about conduct and female education. I  guess their mothers would have taught them which fork to use, or not to use, before they were out, while the etiquette books were for the men moving up in society or the courtiers who still ate their peas with a knife. (See my explanation above…)

We, as Regency romance readers and writers, know those who lived through the period, had ways of handling calling cards and dinner invitations, etc., for they have come down to us from writers such as Georgette Heyer, but did Heyer make up “rules,” as did Burney. Some say she did. In truth, it is difficult to find any books of the period which address some of the things we have come to accept in historical romances. For example, we read how the patronesses of Almacks prohibited any young lady to dance the waltz (after 1816) without permission from one of the patronesses, but so far nothing of the period says such. We find this “rule” only in Georgette Heyer. Period literature does not mention these restrictions.

Other Possibilities for Research for Those Interested:

The Gentlemen’s Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness Being a Complete Guide for a Gentleman’s Conduct in all his Relations Towards Society by Cecil B. Hartley (Kindle version is free on Amazon)

 A System of Etiquette and a manual of politeness by John Trusler. One in Google books was published in 1804, but it was of an earlier date I believe. It is for young men.

The Mirror Of The Graces Or The English Lady’s Costume: Containing General Instructions For Combining Elegance, Simplicity, And Economy With Fashion In Dress (1830)

This book, entitled The Mirror of the Graces, is a guide to ladies’ fashion and etiquette, first published in 1811.

As the title page outlines, the book combines ‘taste and judgment, elegance and grace, modesty, simplicity and economy, with fashion in dress; and adapting the various articles of female embellishments to different ages, forms, and complexions; to the seasons of the year, rank, and situation in life: with useful advice on female accomplishments, politeness, and manners; the cultivation of the mind and the disposition and carriage of the body: offering also the most efficacious means of preserving beauty, health, and loveliness. The whole according with the general principles of nature and rules of propriety.’ The author is described as a ‘LADY OF DISTINCTION, who has witnessed and attentively studies what is esteemed truly graceful and elegant amongst the most refined Nations of Europe’.

Says it is etiquette, but not like our etiquette books. It has beauty tips and warnings about not romping about on the dance floor.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, dancing, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, marriage customs, peerage, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, Regency romance, research, romance, tradtions, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments