The heroine, Miss Victoria Whitchurch, of Lost in the Lyon’s Garden, has left her position in a girls’ school in Bath to come to London to assist her sister. There, purely by accident, she meets the hero, Lord Benjamin Thompson, and their paths continue to cross until they are PERFECT together. LOL! This is a mystery series, but that does not mean there cannot also have a bit of romance, and our hero was not raised to be an earl. Rather he was a vicar’s son, and with a bit of irony only an author can inject into a story, Miss Whitchurch is a vicar’s daughter. I said it was PERFECT, but you were skeptical, weren’t you?
Exactly what type of education might a student in an all girls school in the Regency expect to gain and who might be their teachers?
Let us first have a quick look at the kind of education available. Jane Austen in Pride and Prejudice tells us Caroline Bingley was educated at “one of the first private seminaries” in London during the Regency era, a type of institution that focused on “accomplishments” like music, drawing, dancing, and modern languages rather than deep academic learning. While the Bingley family’s new wealth allowed for such schooling, the curriculum was seen as somewhat outdated, emphasizing etiquette and social graces over intellectual pursuits, which contrasted with the more practical and modern approach to education some families of the gentry and aristocracy adopted.
Austen describes Bingley’s sisters as such: “They were in fact very fine ladies; not deficient in good-humour when they were pleased, nor in the power of being agreeable where they chose it, but proud and conceited. They were rather handsome, had been educated in one of the first private seminaries in town, had a fortune of twenty thousand pounds, were in the habit of spending more than they ought, and of associating with people of rank, and were therefore in every respect entitled to think well of themselves, and meanly of others. “
“Decorum … was the imperative law of a lady’s inner life as well as her outer habits; … nothing that was not decorous was for a moment admitted. Every movement of the body in entering and quitting a room, in taking a seat and rising from it, was duly criticized.” (From a firsthand account, quoted in Wives and Daughters by Joanna Martin) Education of Upper-Class Women in the Regency
In the Regency era (roughly 1811-1820), female teachers were primarily employed as governesses or schoolmistresses in private academies and seminaries for girls. Governesses lived with families to teach their children, offering security but often little independence or social standing, while schoolmistresses ran independent schools, which could lead to more financial freedom but were less secure. Both roles were among the few professional options for educated women and required a solid education, sometimes gained by boarding at a school itself.
A governess was an educated woman who lived in a family’s home and taught the children in the household, who were often of the same social class as the governess, but more affluent than her family. Governesses were in a “no man’s land” in the household, neither fully part of the family nor the servants. They, therefore, often faced social isolation, as well as jealousy, if the men of the household began to show the woman favor. They were, generally, provided with room and board and a steady salary, but the job was very demanding, especially if there was a large number of children, and there was little to no opportunity for saving enough to escape one’s station, nor a retirement plan, nor a chance to marry elsewhere.
A schoolmistress ran a private boarding school for the daughters of the middle or upper class. These schools could be called “Ladies’ Seminaries.” Competition grew during the late Georgian era, for more and more middle class and gentry recognized the advantage of also educating their daughters. For the young women involved, it was an opportunity to see part of the world. The schools offered a degree of independence, often for the girls moving from boarder at the school to teaching within one.
Qualifications and Background
Education: Women seeking these positions typically had a good, though sometimes questionable, boarding school education.
Social Standing: Often were impoverished gentlewomen, poor relatives of the clergy, or intelligent former students who needed an income.
Family Connections: Some schools were family affairs, with daughters inheriting the position from their mothers or aunts.
Limited Options
Teaching, either as a governess or schoolmistress, was one of the very few professions deemed respectable for women in the Regency era.
The emphasis on “accomplishments” like music, drawing, and languages in girls’ education was a way to display family status and make a woman suitable for marriage, which was the primary goal for most women.
John Jackson, a celebrated English pugilist was born in either 1768 or 1769 (records vary). He came from a middle class family from Worcestershire. In an era where most prizefighters of the time came from working-class origins, Jackson’s middle-class background led to his nickname of “Gentleman” John Jackson. For me, coming from an era of such great as Cassius Clay [who had 61 professional fights in his career, with a record of 56 wins, 5 losses, and 0 draws] and George Foreman [who had a total of 81 professional fights during his boxing career, finishing with a record of 76 wins and 5 losses], I find John Jackson’s record of 3 fights underwhelming, but my opinion is not the purpose of this post.
Jackson is often celebrated as being “the bare-knuckle boxing champion of England in 1795, having defeated Daniel Mendoza, a Sephardim Portguese Jew, who played a significant role in advancing the scientific technique in boxing by publishing two books on the subject (The Art of Boxing and The Modern Art of Boxing) and by conducting frequent public exhibitions. While modern sources often portray Mendoza as the English Prizefighting Champion from 1792 to 1795, contemporary sources from the late 18th and early 19th century do not describe Mendoza in this manner. Likewise, Jackson is not described as a champion of England.
Regency Reader tells us, “The science of boxing was systematized by Jack Broughton and consisted of the following rules:
outlawed hitting below the belt
prohibited hitting an opponent that was down, on the knees, was considered down.
Wrestling holds were allowed only above the waist.
drew a 3-foot square in the center of the ring and when a fighter was knocked down, his handlers had 30 seconds to pick him up and position him on one side of the square ready to reenter the fray. If they failed, or the fighter signaled resignation, the fight was over.
“Eventually, the 19th Century saw the inclusion of boxing gloves rather than bare knuckles, but generally these rules were common practice. Although Broughton invented boxing gloves, Jackson is often credited with introducing gloves to the sport as he often recommended their use.”
One of the older authorities on bareknuckle boxing history is Pugilistica by Henry Downes Miles. It is a lot of information, but separates pre-Regency, Regency, and Victorian so a researcher can be era-specific. The book is archived in photo form at the link below:
After this infamous fight with Mendoza, Jackson opened a boxing academy at 13 Bond Street. It was designed to cater to “gentlemen.” Jackson resided above the establishment. It is noted in Henry Downes Miles’s Pugilistica, the History of British Boxing, volume 1, that Jackson was highly thought of boxer as well as an instructor. The venture proved a great success. Pugilistica, volume 1, pages 97-99 recommends Jackson’s training. “Not to have had lessons of Jackson was a reproach. To attempt a list of his pupils would be to copy one-third of the then peerage.”
One such pupil was the poet, Lord Byron. Byron related in his diary that he regularly received instruction in boxing from Jackson, and even mentioned him in a note to the 11th Canto of his poem Don Juan. Most of the instruction at Jackson’s academy seems to have taken place with the students wearing ‘mufflers’ (i.e. gloves).
Another helpful book on the subject is Writing the Prizefight, Pierce Egan’s Boxiana World by David Snowdon.
This book won the Lord Aberdare Literary Prize for Sports History (2013)
This book focuses on the literary contribution made by the pugilistic writing of Pierce Egan (c. 1772-1849), identifying the elements that rendered Egan’s style distinctive and examining the ways his writing invigorated the sporting narrative. In particular, the author analyses Egan’s blend of inventive imagery and linguistic exuberance within the commentaries of the Boxiana series (1812-29). The book explores the metropolitan and sporting jargon used by the diverse range of characters that inhabited Egan’s ‘Pugilistic Hemisphere’ and looks at Egan’s exploitation of prizefighting’s theatricality. Another significant theme is the role of pugilistic reporting in perpetuating stereotypical notions relating to British national identity, military readiness and morality. Consideration of Egan’s metropolitan rambles is complemented by discussion of the heterogeneity, spectacle and social dynamics of the prize ring and its reportage. The book traces Egan’s impact during the nineteenth century and, importantly, evaluates his influence on the subsequent development of sporting journalism.
It is very London specific and really more about 1811-1830. Also, there are four volumes of Pierce Egan’s Boxiana available on POD, of which, the first is really all most Regency writers need. (NOTE: Pierce did not write the fourth one in the series, an ex-friend of his did). But there is a forward that discusses training methods, etc.
Philip Livingston was one of the older of the signer. A merchant, he represented New York. He was 60 years of age at the time he signed the document. He was dead by age 62.
Born to a wealthy family of the Hudson River Valley of New York (like 160,000 acres on the eastern side of Hudson River wealthy), Philip Livingston was a merchant and a philanthropist. The Livingston family’s wealth provided them with political power. They were presented with the concept of a “manor,” meaning they were given one seat in the New York royal legislature, and they could act as judges within the territory. Like many of his family, Philip settled in New York City and took up the import business. Residing on Duke Street in Manhattan, he also spent time on a 40-acre estate in Brooklyn Heights. He married Christina Broeck in 1740. They had nine children (Philip, Richard, Catherine, Margaret, Peter, Sarah, Abraham, Alida, and Henry), his youngest son Henry serving with George Washington during the War. He was one of the two Dutch American signers of the Declaration of Independence.
“Philip Livingston was born in the well-to-do and prominent Albany Livingston family. His family controlled a large landholding grant, called Livingston Manor. Philip had the benefit of a good education and graduated from Yale College in 1737. He became prominent as a merchant, and was elected an alderman of New York City in 1754. Livingston became active as a promoter of efforts to fund and raise troops for the War of Independence. In 1759, he was elected to the New York [then a colony] House ofRepresentatives. In October 1765, he attended the Stamp Act Congress, which was a prelude to the American Revolution. When New York established a rebel government in 1775, Livingston became the President of the Provincial Convention, and a delegate to the Continental Congress. In the Continental Congress, he strongly supported separation from Britain, and in 1776 he joined other Continental Congress delegates in signing the Declaration of Independence.” (The New Netherland Institute)
In the early days of the “revolution,” Livingston was considered a moderate. He was conscious of his import business and the large market the British connections brought to the American colony. Reportedly, he was a privateer during the French and Indian War. He wished to be an Englishman first and foremost. Even so, he opposed the taxes imposed by the English government. In Congress, Livingston came to heads with John Adams, for Livingston often “stonewalled” the more radical ideas of independence. Livingston was of the belief that without England’s guidance that America would become warring civil states. Eventually, his stance mellowed, but was not totally abandoned.
“He was born January 15, 1716 at Albany, NY, the son of Philip Livingston (the second Lord of the Manor described below) and Catharine Van Brugh. Catharine was the daughter of Captain Peter Van Brugh, a mayor of Albany. Philip “the Signer” was one of three Livingstons who were members of the Continental Congress at the time of the great deliberations concerning the future of the 13 colonies. Although Philip was the only one who actually signed the Declaration of Independence, his brother William of New Jersey, and his first cousin once removed Robert R. Livingston, later the Chancellor of New York, were very active Continental Congress contributors. In addition, at least twenty other members of the larger Livingston family served during the Revolutionary War as officers, either by Congressional or State Legislature appointments.
“Just who were these Livingstons who risked so much in terms of their families, their fortunes, and their very lives in the cause of freedom from the oppression by their mother country. In America, they all trace their lineage back to Robert Livingston, a native of Scotland who immigrated to the New World. His father, Reverend John Livingston had been exiled with his family to the Netherlands in 1663 for refusing to take an oath of allegiance to King Charles II. Nine years later, his father having died, he returned to Scotland. He decided a career in the New World appealed to him and in 1673, he set sail. Fluent in both English and Dutch, Robert decided that Albany in the colony of New York was the place for him to settle, and a wise decision it was. He soon established himself in the fur trade and ingratiated himself to both the old Dutch families and their new English masters. Many important political appointments followed, including Secretary for Indian Affairs, town clerk, collector of customs, and clerk to the colony’s largest private landholding, the Patroonship of Rensselaerwyck. He eventually married the widow of the owner of Rensselaerwyck, Alida Schuyler Van Rensselaer. Thus established into the aristocracy of colonial New York, he was granted ownership of the ‘Lordship and Manor of Livingston’ by the English Royal Governor, Thomas Dongan, in 1687. The manor consisted of 160,000 acres on the east side of the Hudson River about forty miles south of Albany. Robert preferred to be known as the “first proprietor” of the Manor of Livingston, but he and his two successors were later referred to as ‘Lords of the Manor.’ Two of Robert’s sons had large families, which multiplied through the first several generations. A son Philip became the second Lord, and his oldest son Robert became the third and last Lord of the Manor when the property was sub-divided and much of it eventually disbursed. The Lords of the Manor are buried beneath the Livingston Memorial Church near where the original Manor House had been in the Town of Livingston.
“The Livingston’s ancestry in Scotland through Rev. John Livingston is quite impressive. In one genealogy, the family traces its roots to Egbert, the first Saxon King of all England. Included in this genealogy are Alfred the Great and other Anglo-Saxon kings, Edward the Elder, Robert the Bruce, Robert Stuart, and other kings of Scotland. Another genealogy focuses on the Livingston name, and carries it back to Sir Andrew de Livingston, Knight, who was sheriff of Lanark in 1296. This genealogy carries the name down through Rev. John Livingston, and includes the six Lord Livingstons of Callendar. Sir Alexander de Livingston, Lord of Callendar, Knight, was the guardian of King James II. The fifth Lord Livingston of Callendar was the guardian of Mary, Queen of Scots at Linlithgow Palace. The magnificent Callendar House exists today and is a museum under the Scottish Trust near Edinburgh. Linlithgow Palace is a ruins, but is extensively used for performances, tours, and other public events.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
When the British attacked New York, Livingston’s family abandoned their home, taking refuge in Kingston, the temporary capital of New York. The British used his property in Brooklyn Heights as a “hospital,” but later burned it. Livingston was forced to sell off some of his smaller properties to sustain him until the War’s end. Even so, the combined Livingston family built 40 houses along the Hudson and built up their wealth to include land holdings larger than the state of Rhode Island. (Denise Kiernan and Joseph D’Agnest, Signing Their Lives Away, Quirk Books) After signing the Declaration, Livingston was elected to the New York State Senate in 1777. Unfortunately, his health deteriorated, and he passed at the age of 62 on 12 June 1778. He is buried at Prospect Hill Cemetery in York County, Pennsylvania. Part of his legacy includes the founding of King’s College, which later became Columbia University.
If you have been a steady reader of my Dragonblade mystery series (and if you have not, why not?), you will recall that Lord Macdonald Duncan has been shot by an unknown man, who carried a gun not like those generally available in England at the time. Often, I have one of the characters remark how it looked like one a person might find on the American frontier.
Each of the five books in this series (Lyon in the Way, Lyon’s Obsession, Lyon in Disguise, Lost in the Lyon’s Garden, and Lyon on the Inside) start with the same scene: the shooting of Lord Macdonald Duncan by an unknown assailant outside of the Lyon’s Den, an infamous gaming hell. The scene is told from a different character’s point of view (the hero of that particular book), and the reader learns more details regarding the shooting – reasons for the attack, a description of the shooter, how he escaped, etc., etc., etc. It is a technique I also used in my award-winning REALM series.
One thing each of the heroes believe to be true was the gun used in the attack was likely one adapted from those used on the American frontier during the early 1800s. In my mind’s eyes, when I was writing the tale, I saw something more like the Hawkens Plains Rifle. I have a dear friend, actually my journalism professor from when I was an undergraduate. He lives some twenty miles from me, and we occasionally share a meal, etc. He also writes novels, but he prefers Westerns. Therefore, I sought out some of the sites he had suggested years ago when I, too, dallied with the idea of writing a family style saga on the American frontier. So, such is where I came across this information.
Such is not to say that there were no such rifles or guns that fit the description given in my series. In fact, initially, the long firearm of choice on the frontier was the smoothbore musket, or trade gun, built in factories in England and France and shipped to the colonies for purchase. Gradually, long rifles became more popular due to their longer effective range. While the smooth bore musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards, a rifleman could hit a man-sized target at a range of 200 yards or more. The price for this accuracy was that the long rifle took significantly longer to reload than the approximately 20 seconds of the musket.
Though I had something in mind more to the idea of a holster pistol (see image below) or the half-stock muzzleloader, when reading this article, I set my sights on the Colt Paterson Revolver. “Despite not being a successful business venture for Samuel Colt, this five-shot, cap and ball single-action became the first practical “revolving pistol.” Although only around 2,850 revolvers were made, this was the handgun that revolutionized revolvers for all time. The Paterson (its name comes from the city in New Jersey where it was manufactured) was produced in a number of small calibers and model variations ranging from pocket-sized ‘Baby’ Patersons, to larger mid-powered belt revolvers. However, it was the long-barreled .36 caliber Texas Paterson version of this first Colt that was put to such deadly use against the Comanches by the early Texas Rangers.” [Top 12 Guns That Tamed the West]
by Ole Erekson, Engraver, c1876, Library of Congress www/ushistory.org/declaration/signers/hewes.htm
Joseph Hewes was born in Princeton,New Jersey, but he amassed his fortune in a shipping business located in Wilmington, North Carolina. He was 46 years of age when he signed The Declaration of Independence. He died three years later.
When the revolution broke out, Hewes placed his ships at the service of the Continental Army. Unfortunately because Hewes had no direct line descendants his contributions are sometimes overlooked.
Hewes was the son of Quaker farmers whose ancestors came to America from England in 1735. They settled in the Connecticut Colony. Aaron and Providence Hewes left Connecticut because of religious intolerance, as well as an upswing of Indian attacks. Settling at Maybury Hill, an estate outside of Princeton, where they remained for some 25 years. Little is known of Hewes’ life prior to his attending Princeton College and his apprenticeship in a counting house. In North Carolina, he founded a prosperous shipping business. He was engaged to Isabella Johnston, sister to Samuel Johnston, who served as a governor of North Carolina. Regrettably, she died before the wedding date, and Hewes remained a bachelor for the remainder of his days. (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
Hewes represented North Carolina in the Continental Congress and helped developed the “Halifax Resolves,” which chronicled North Carolina’s grievances against English rule, and he helped form a plan of non-importation for the colonies. As a Quaker, Hewes was under pressure to denounce the colonial efforts for independence, but he stood strong. Moreover, he shunned other teachings of Quakers by attending socials and dances and enjoying the company of women. “On the advice of the committee appointed October 5, 1775, Congress voted to fit out four vessels, A committee of seven was formed by Congress for the defense of the United Colonies. By this vote, Congress was fully committed to the policy of maintaining a naval armament. This committee was the first executive body for the management of naval affairs. It was known as the “Naval Committee” and the members were John Langdon of New Hampshire, John Adams of Massachusetts, Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island, Silas Deane of Connecticut, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Joseph Hewes of North Carolina and Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina. Hewes chaired the committee that was responsible for fitting out the first American Warships. He also put his entire fleet at the disposal of the Continental Armed Forces. The disbursements of the Naval Committee were under his special charge, and eight armed vessels were fitted out with the Funds placed at his disposal.” (The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
“Joseph Hewes was a friend and benefactor of John Paul (alias Jones). John Paul was a ship boy on a merchantman from Scotland, and at twenty one was master of a Brigantine. He arrived in America in 1773. and became a friend of Joseph Hewes. When the time came to appoint the Nation’s first Naval captains, Hewes and John Adams clashed for one of the positions. Hewes nominated his friend John Paul Jones. John Adams maintained that all the captaincies should be filled by New Englanders, and stubbornly protested. New England had yielded to the South in the selection of a commander in chief of the Continental Army and Adams had fostered the selection of the able Virginian George Washington, so he was not now about to make a concession on the Navy. Hewes, sensing the futility of argument, reluctantly submitted. John Paul Jones, was to become the most honored Naval hero of the Revolution, but he received only a Lieutenant’s commission. Jones never forgot his patron and sponsor and many letters are extant telling of the great gratitude he felt for Hewes’ interest in him. The following is an excerpt from one of the letters: ‘You are the angel of my happiness; since to your friendship I owe my present enjoyments, as well as my future prospects. You more than any other person have labored to place the instruments of success in my hands.’ (John Paul Jones)” (The Society for the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence)
From North Carolina History, we learn “North Carolinians were pleased with Hewes’s representation and elected him to Congress for a second time in 1775. He stayed until its adjournment in July. He continued to serve the state of North Carolina, almost entirely uninterrupted, for the next four years. His final appearance in Congress came on October 29, 1779. Hewes struggled with an illness for sometime and remained confined in his chamber from October until his death on November 10, 1779. His funeral took place the following day. Congress, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, the President and Supreme Executive Council, the Minister Plenipotentiary of France, and a number of citizens came to pay their respects to a great man who dedicated so many years to the Patriot cause. To honor the memory of Hewes, members of Congress wore a crape around their left arms for one month.”
To those of means during the Regency Era, charitable causes were considered a social obligation deriving from the parishes. Churches throughout the land supported the poor and those in need.
The Voluntary Action History Society site tells us, “Looking at the mass of visual and printed material produced on the subject of charity during the 1700s, there were clearly resemblances between what people were concerned about then and what we are still debating today. To be sure, there were important differences. For instance, the Georgians had inherited the medieval tradition of almsgiving which the Henrician Reformation and subsequent Elizabethan legislation had effectively secularised.
“The ‘New Poor Law’ (officially the Poor Law Amendment Act) of 1834 was designed to make provision for the poor fairer for society as a whole, although it was regularly accused of inflicting inhuman cruelty, as the novels of Charles Dickens and others were at pains to show. This system, which was intended to clear away the detritus of ages and which arguably paved the way for the modern welfare state, has caused us to forget the Georgian idea of charity which was much more ad hoc and more dependent on the generosity of private individuals.”
A poor tax was levied on owners of land and buildings. This tax funded the workhouses and other efforts to assist the poor. The churches involvement was engrained in society from medieval times forward. Giving to the church meant giving to the orphanages and to the elderly and to the poor, in general.
“Philanthropy in the 19th century was based on religious tradition that was centuries in the making. Historically, wealthy people in society gave to the poor as a Christian duty. Charity was seen as a way of saving one’s own soul while also helping those in need. Protestants, especially those with strong evangelical leanings, believed that social conscience demanded social action. They held that by coming into contact with human nature, particularly with those in need, that they were able to come in contact with Christ.[5] Religious philanthropists believed that by helping the needy, they were helping their own kin because everyone was a child of God. Good works were, and are part of the foundation of Christianity, and pave the way to salvation. Through the 19th century, the church increasingly became the vehicle of private and public social work. However, it should be noted that though philanthropy was rooted in religious and church tradition, it also spread outside the church. Philanthropy and religion are intertwined throughout history, but are not necessarily dependent on each other.” [Philanthropy]
The middle class took on the task with “gusto.” Women, in particular, stepped up to the task, but, not always for the reasons one might expect. Certainly, charity was an admirable trait. However, “working outside the home,” even in a charitable manner, provided these women a sense of worth beyond tending to their husband’s homes. Charitable work seemed to be an extension of their “natural” maternal instincts, but it also allowed women to meet and socialize with other women of like minds and education, opening them up to new experiences and ideas. “Charity begins at home” took on a whole different meaning.
Evangelism placed service to one’s fellow man above doctrine, and its rise to “popularity” as the 19th century progressed changed the look of charities from purely the work of the church to the work of society, as a whole. Non-church organizations, such as guilds, also could be supported without one considering himself or herself “not a Christian.” Women also created other means to support their favorite charities with organizing bazaars and dinner parties and collection boxes. Men still supported the organizations with the purse strings, but it was the women who made them work.
Some years back, another Regency-based author shared a list of actual charities during the Georgian and Victorian eras. I thought including the names might provide those interested in the scope of charitable work better insights.
The Society for Organising Charitable Relief and Repressing Mendicity (aka Charity Organisation Society or COS (this one took the position that most charities were being “hoodwinked by the cunning poor,”)
Manchester and Salford District Provident Society (DPS)
Liverpool Central Relief Society
Brightelmston Provident Institution
Brighton Provident and District Society
Liverpool Provident District Society
Central Relief SocietySociety for the Relief of Distressed Travellers and Others (1814)
Oxford Charity Organisation Committee
Anti-Mendicity Society
Oxford Anti-Mendicity and Charity Organisation Association
Society for the Relief of Distress (1860)
Invalid Children’s Aid Association (1888)
Barnardo Evangelical Trustees
Manchester and Salford Provident Dispensary Association
Edgbaston Mendicity Society
Brighton, Hove and Preston Charity Organisation Society
Leamington Charity Organisation and Relief Society
Vigilance Association (noted to be unpopular)
Birkhead Provident and Benevolent Society (later became the Birkhead Association for Organising Charitable Relief and Repressing Mendicity)
Ladies’ Sanitary Society- goal to promote habits of cleanliness among the working classes
[City Name] Relief Fund
Toxteth Relief Society
Brighton Jubilee and Accident Fund
Provident Dispensary Association
Oxford Working Women’s Benefit Society- basically a pool, women paid a small amount weekly and could claim benefits if they became sick.
Croydon Charitable Society
Reading Destitute Children Aid Committee- provided footwear with insistence on weekly repayments
Sick Relief Fund
Penny Savings Bank
London Ethical Society
Lock Hospital
Foundling Hospital
General Lying-In Hospital (also British Lying-In Hospital, Lying-In Charity, etc.)
Marine Society
Philanthropic Society
Magdalen House
St. Thomas’s Hospita
Asylum for Orphaned Girls (also Asylum for the Reception of Orphaned Girls at Lambeth)
London Hospital
Society for the Discharge and Relief of Persons Imprisoned for Small Debts
Salters Guild
Smallpox Hospital
Society for Improving the Comfort and Bettering the Conditions of the Poor
Middlesex Hospital
Ladies Society for Employing the Female Poor
London Female Penitentiary
Lambeth Refuge for the Destitute
Dorking Provident Institution
The Church of England Waifs and Strays Society
Crutch & Kindness League (for ‘cripples’)
Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants
Church Missionary Society
Society for Promoting the Religious Instruction of Youth
Female Friendly Society for the Relief of Poor, Infirm, Aged Widows and Single Women of Good Character, Who Have Seen Better Days
In book 4 of my mystery/romantic suspense series, the heroine’s sister has an illegitimate child, and many wish Miss Victoria Whitchurch to send her nephew to one of the foundling hospitals or an orphanage, but Miss Whitchurch refuses. Read all about the adorable bit of delight that is the child and the two adults who come to love him dearly.
Lost in the Lyon’s Garden not only has an analytical and caring hero and an over the top brave heroine, it has a newborn babe who will steal your heart away. Not the child of the hero and heroine, for they are both the children of vicars, but that of a close relative, and the child requires their protection and their love. In the story they mention the child’s blue eyes and marvel whether they will always be blue. So are all children born with blue eyes?
No, not all babies are born with blue eyes. While many babies, especially those of European descent, may appear to have blue eyes at birth, this is often due to a lack of melanin (a pigment that provides color) in the iris at that time. As babies are exposed to light, their eyes may darken to green, hazel, or brown as melanin production increases. Studies show that a significant percentage of newborns, particularly those of Asian, Black, and Hispanic descent, are born with brown eyes. VSP Direct
Here’s why:
Melanin, produced by melanocytes, is the pigment responsible for eye color.
Melanocytes respond to light, and at birth, babies are in a relatively dark environment (the womb). As they are exposed to light, melanin production increases, potentially changing eye color.
While melanin plays a role, genetics also determine the potential for eye color. Babies inherit genes from their parents that influence how much melanin their melanocytes produce.
The idea that all babies are born with blue eyes is a myth. Many babies of color are born with brown or hazel eyes.
Eye color can change in the first few years of life, but brown eyes are less likely to change than blue or green eyes.
Healthline tells us, “Before the phrase “baby blues” came to refer to postpartum sadness (which is not the same as postpartum depression), it was actually a common synonym for “eyes.” Why? Well, because all babies are born with blue eyes, right?Wrong. Feast your baby blues upon this fun fact: Worldwide, more newborns have brown eyes than blue. And while it’s true that many babies have blue or gray eyes at first, it’s important to know that eye color can change for months after birth. And there are plenty of infants gazing out at their new surroundings with hazel and brown eyes, too. In fact, a 2016 Stanford University study involving 192 newborns found that nearly two-thirds of themTrusted Source were born with brown eyes, while only about 1 in 5 babies arrived with blue eyes. The Stanford researchers also noted, however, that the majority of babies in the study born with blue eyes were Caucasian. Those of other ethnic groups, including Asian and Hispanic, were more often born with brown eyes.”
Back in 2011, London’s Foundling Hospital Museum had a somewhat tender and somewhat heartbreaking display of what was called “Threads of Feeling.” You see, beginning in the mid-18th Century, thousands of poor women who could no longer care for their children made the difficult decision to leave their babies with the London Foundling Home. Most likely thought it would be only a temporary decision. In fact, when writing Lost in the Lyon’s Garden, I thought, for a time, to have Miss Whitchurch search for her nephew there, but then I recalled “the threads of feeling” concept in place at the Foundling Hospital. Victoria would not know what her sister had chosen for the child.
Here is how the Threads of Feeling worked. Those distraught mothers were made to leave some kind of identifying piece pinned to the child in the event that sometime in the future the woman was in a position to return for the child. No name of the child was recorded. No name of the mother was recorded. It was essential that the token be distinctive. Be memorable. The hospital essentially erased the mother from the child’s life in order to give the child a chance to succeed in its world. A new name was presented to the child. It was provided with basic schooling, perhaps an apprenticeship, so it could make its way through the world.
If the mother’s circumstances changed, she would need to be able to identify in detail the object left as the child’s existence. The hospital made a vow to preserve the object.
The hospital, which was located Bloombury, soon took on many of the fashionable sect.
In describing the 2011 exhibition, The Guardian tells us, “Admission policy varied over time – at one point the hospital took only 200 babies a year, at another 4,000 – but from 1741 to 1760 16,282 babies entered the institution anonymously. The vast majority of mothers failed to heed the instruction to leave an identifying token, perhaps because they were too beaten down by rotten lives to imagine a time when they would be able to provide a warm, clean home for their baby. All the same, 5,000 of the infants deposited came with some kind of token attached. And by some lucky chance these tokens, mostly comprising bits of fabric carefully pinned to the baby’s admission billet, have survived. Over the past few decades they have been stored not at the museum itself but at London Metropolitan Archives where they have tended to languish, overlooked. Now, these slivers of everyday Georgian life are making a triumphant return to their original home where they will form the basis of the museum’s new exhibition, Threads of Feeling.
“The exhibition’s curator, Professor John Styles of Hertfordshire University, is emphatic about the significance of these 5,000 scraps of fabric, mundane and beautiful, lumpy and sheer. They comprise, he explains, nothing less than the biggest archive of 18th-century materials surviving in Britain, probably in the world. Historians who have tried to investigate the dress of the common people in the Georgian period – including Styles himself – have always fallen into a black hole where the evidence ought to be. The clothing of elite groups – fashionable merchants’ wives, duchesses with an eye for style – have survived in countless stately homes and museums. You can feast your eyes on silk and velvet, on silver buckles and pearl buttons, but you will search in vain for evidence of what ordinary working people wore to keep themselves dry and more-or-less warm.
“There are hints, of course, in paintings and cartoons, including those drawn by Hogarth (who was a governor of the hospital), but it is impossible to know whether these are strictly accurate. The prostitutes and fishwives who tumble through the satirist’s street scenes may well be based on close observation, but they are also exaggerations and fantasies, caricatures held up for the viewer’s pity, mirth and scorn. It is the Foundling tokens, snipped from either the mother’s or baby’s garments, that provide our only solid evidence of what ordinary clothing looked and felt like.
“To examine these samples is to enter a world of dizzying names and textures. Some are familiar – calico, flannel, gingham and satin – although the relationship between the 18th-century fabric and its modern equivalent often turns out to be stretched pretty thin. Other textiles boast names utterly mysterious to us, opening up a lost world of camblet and fustian, susy and cherryderry, calimanco and linsey-woolsey. What stands out is the high proportion – almost a third – of printed cottons and linens among the Foundling collection.”
Just as a point of reference for those knowing me as a Regency writer, The Foundling Hospital (formally the Hospital for the Maintenance and Education of Exposed and Deserted Young Children) was a children’s home in London, England, founded in 1739 by the philanthropic sea captain, Thomas Coram.
Richard Henry Lee – Colonial Williamsburg – http://www.history.org/ almanack/people/ bios/biolee.cfm
Richard Henry Lee was both a merchant and a plantation owner from Virginia. He was married twice and the father of six children. He was 44 when he signed the document. He died at the age of 62.
Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence, was born on 20 January 1732 in Westmoreland County, Virginia. He was the seventh of eleven children of Thomas and Hannah Lee and a descendant of Colonel Richard Lee, the first of the Lees to arrive in America. Colonel Lee was a lawyer and planter and the largest landholder in Virginia with some 13,000 acres.
“Today the different branches of the Lee family are known as: “Cobb’s Hall”, “Mount Pleasant”, “Ditchley”, “Lee Hall”, “Blenheim”, “Leesylvania”, “Dividing Creek”, and “Stratford”. These were the estate names of the descendants of Richard Lee I that are still referred to today when talking of Lee descendancy. An interesting note is that Lee had patented somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 acres (61 km²) on both sides of the Potomac, in Maryland and in Virginia. Part of this land later became George Washington’s Mount Vernon. When he divided his estate among his children, he also left them the products of the several plantations including white indentured servants, Negro slaves, livestock, household furnishings, silver, and many other luxuries.
“Notable descendants of Richard Lee I include signers of the Declaration of Independence Francis Lightfoot Lee and Richard Henry Lee, Revolutionary War general Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, Confederate Civil War generals Robert E. Lee, Richard Taylor, William Henry Fitzhugh Lee, Stephen D. Lee, and George Washington Custis Lee, Richard L. T. Beale, Richard Lucian Page; President of the United States Zachary Taylor, Chief Justice of the United States Edward Douglass White, Governor of Maryland Thomas Sim Lee.” (Colonel Richard Lee) To those interested in the NFL, we can even make a connection to Eli and Peyton Manning, the quarterbacks for the New York Giants and the Denver Broncos, respectively. Captain Charles Lee Sr., who was one of Colonel Lee’s ten children of the “Cobbs Hall” sector, married Elizabeth Medstand, the daughter of Thomas Medstand and one of the Manning family’s ancestors. (Colonel Richard Lee)
Richard Henry Lee attended Wakefield Academy in England before returning to America. In 1757, he married Anne Aylett and set up residence at Chantilly. He also became a justice of the peace in 1757 and joined the Virginia House of Burgess in 1758. He quickly became a great defender of colonial rights, a not-so-popular stance in the early days of the “revolution.”
He led a group of “gentlemen” in confronting the British-appointed collector of stamps, and in 1766, he and many of his neighbors formed a boycott against British goods until the Stamp Act was repealed. His wife died in 1768, but he was not widowed long. In 1769, he married another Anne: Anne Pinckard. For the years between this second marriage and the beginning of the Revolutionary War, he built up his shipping business, specifically shipping tobacco to his brother William in London.
File:Richard Henry Lee Signature2.svg – Wikimedia Commons commons.wikimedia.org
From the Stratford Hall website, we learn, “Tall, thin and aristocratic in appearance, Richard Henry Lee was a born orator. He used his hand, always wrapped in black silk due to a hunting accident, to emphasize the cadences in his remarkably musical voice. His oratory was legend – ‘That fine polish of language which that gentleman united with thatharmonious voice so as to make me sometimes fancy that I was listening to some being inspired with more than mortal powers of embellishment’ was how one observer described him.
“Confrontational by nature, Richard Henry possessed a fiery, rebellious spirit. These same qualities brought him fame as a leading patriot of the day and incited the wrath of his enemies. At one point, he was‘outlawed’ by a proclamation of English Governor Dunmore.
“As a member of Virginia’s House of Burgesses, Richard Henry’s first bill boldly proposed ‘to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.’ Africans, he wrote, were ‘equally entitled to liberty and freedom by the great law of nature.’ Such words, coming as they didin 1759, have been called ‘the most extreme anti-slavery statements made before the nineteenth century.'”
According to Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, “Lee remained involved in politics. He was appointed delegate to the Continental Congress in 1775, and was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He served next in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1777, 1780, and 1785.
“When the Constitution was laid before Congress, Lee led the opposition to it. His chief concern was that the Convention, called only to amend the Articles of Confederation, had exceeded its powers.
“He worried also that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights; that it was a consolidated, rather than a federal, government and therefore opened the way to despotism; and that the lower house was not sufficiently democratic. He insisted upon amendments before adoption. His arguments were set forth in a series of ‘Letters of the Federal Farmer’ which became a textbook for the opposition.” (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation)
“By 1774, the flames of the Revolution, so faithfully fanned by the Lees, ignited the reluctant southern colonies. The call for an inter-colonial congress was made, and Richard Henry was chosen as one of the seven-man Virginia delegation to the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Once there, he was able to bridge the gap between the vastly different worlds of New England and the South. At the house of his sister, Alice Lee Shippen, he strengthened the bond with John and Samuel Adams and created a long-lasting friendship that transcended divisive regionalism and helped to unite the colonies as one nation.
“In the spring of 1776, Richard Henry, now joined by his brother Francis Lightfoot, took his seat in the second Continental Congress. Sensing what lay ahead, he wrote confidently to his brother William, ‘There never appeared more perfect unanimity among any sett of men, than among the delegates.’
“In three months as delegate, Richard Henry served on 18 different committees – none as important as his appointment to frame the Declaration of Rights of the Colonies, which led directly to the writing of the Declaration of Independence. On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry was accorded the well-deserved honor of introducing the bill before Congress: …that these united Colonies are, and ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance from the British crown, and than all political connection between America and State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved…” (Stratford Hall)
In my latest Dragonblade book, Lost in the Lyon’s Garden, I deal with the removal of a loved one of the heroine from a pauper’s grave. What were they? What were the regulations for such burials in the Regency era?
William Thomas Smedley – Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, May 1885, October 1885, Vol. XXX “I COME TO CLAIM MY DEAD.” sketch by artist
First, let us look at the terms often used for such a burial place: Potter’s field. Potter’s field is a term of Biblical origin, a place dedicated for the burial of the bodies of unknown, unclaimed or indigent people. In addition to such dedicated cemeteries, most places have provision for pauper’s funerals to pay for basic respectful treatment of dead people without family or others able to pay, without a special place for interment.
The term “potter’s field” comes from Matthew 27:3–27:8 in the New Testament of the Bible, in which Jewish priests take 30 pieces of silver returned by a remorseful Judas:
Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” But they said: “What is that to us? Look thou to it.” And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself with a halter. But the chief priests, having taken the pieces of silver, said: “It is not lawful to put them into the corbona [A poor box, alms box, offertory box, or mite box is a box that is used to collect coins for charitable purposes.], because it is the price of blood.” And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter’s field, to be a burying place for strangers. For this the field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day. — Douay–Rheims Bible
The site referred to in these verses is traditionally known as Akeldama, in the valley of Hinnom, which was a source of potters’ clay. After the clay was removed, such a site would be left unusable for agriculture, being full of trenches and holes, thus becoming a graveyard for those who could not be buried in an orthodox cemetery.
“Buried in a pauper’s grave” refers to the burial of a deceased person, unable to afford a funeral, in an unmarked or common grave, often called a potter’s field. These graves are for the indigent, unknown, or unclaimed, where bodies are placed when families cannot cover burial costs or identify the deceased. The term can also be used metaphorically to describe someone who is financially reckless and likely to die destitute.
What it means literally
A pauper’s grave is reserved for people who die without the financial means to pay for a traditional burial or who are unclaimed by family.
These burial grounds are also known as potter’s fields, a term with a Biblical origin describing a place where strangers, criminals, and the poor were buried.
Graves in potter’s fields are often unmarked or have simple, low-quality markers, making it difficult to identify the specific individuals buried there.
Why it happens
The primary reason is the deceased’s or their family’s inability to afford a private burial, leading to a public or indigence burial service.
Sometimes, the deceased has no known relatives to claim the body and make burial arrangements.
Historical context
In early history of both England and the eastern U.S., a pauper’s burial was considered a great disgrace and a lasting blow to a family’s reputation.
The coffins used in pauper burials were of poor quality and could crack, sometimes even causing bodies to fall out.
Enjoy this scene from Lost in the Lyon’s Garden where Lord Benjamin Thompson and Lord Aaran Graham attempt to learn whether Miss Victoria Whitchurch’s sister now lies in a pauper’s grave.
Benjamin had known relief when he rode into the circle in the middle of the street upon which he lived. He could see the open door on Miss Whitchurch’s side of the house, and, for the briefest of seconds he thought perhaps she had anticipated his return.
Then he noted the unfamiliar carriage before the house and was immediately alarmed. Benjamin edged the horse closer and dismounted, only to hear a squeal that sounded very much as if it was Miss Whitchurch, as well as cries of alarm.
Without considering the consequences, he charged up the steps. A man stood over Miss Whitchurch, and Benjamin no longer saw reason. She was sprawled at the man’s feet, and he appeared to be prepared to kick her.
Benjamin caught the man from behind, pulling him upward and off the floor to slam the fellow down hard on the brick tiles. Heaving in anger, he lorded over the fellow who was attempting to rise to his knees.
“I advise you to stay down,” he growled, as two women assisted Miss Whitchurch from the floor. “Better yet,” he hissed. “Crawl your way out of my house and never darken my door again.”
“My lord,” Miss Whitchurch rushed to his side, her hand resting on Benjamin’s back, and that flicker of hope had arrived again in his chest. “It is Mr. Betts. He wishes to see the boy.”
“Conceiving a child does not make a man a father,” Benjamin declared in hard tones. “Nor does it make a woman a mother. If you wish to visit the child, find Miss Cassandra and bring her here. Miss Whitchurch would gladly provide her sister access to the child. Otherwise, you should be gone from my home before I count to ten. Never cross over my portal again. One . . . two . . .”
Mr. Betts struggled to his feet as Benjamin continued to count, “Five . . . six . . .” Betts lifted his chin in defiance. “I cannot bring Cassandra here.”
“Eight . . .” Benjamin said over the man’s protests, while Miss Whitchurch demanded, “Why?”
“Because your sister has been dead since early June!”
Benjamin caught Miss Whitchurch when she swooned, scooping her into his arms to carry her to the nearest arm chair, where he sat and cradled her on his lap. Behind him, he knew Patterson and the others escorted Mr. Betts and the women outside. He heard Patterson instruct one of the footmen to accompany the women home safely, while the butler and Brunswick led Mr. Betts to the fellow’s carriage.
Meanwhile, Benjamin held the woman who owned his heart upon his lap. He rocked her as he might have rocked the child. “I have you, love,” he whispered close to her ear.
She moaned and snuggled closer to him. “Cold,” she sighed.
“A blanket, Mr. Patterson,” Benjamin ordered as his butler locked the outside door.
Within less than a minute, Patterson returned with a covering. “Here, my lord.” His man spread a small blanket over Miss Whitchurch’s shoulders and back. “Poor dear,” Patterson murmured.
“See the others, including Mrs. Sullivan and the boy, into the main part of the house and send someone to tend my horse. Miss Whitchurch has had a shock. We will join everyone later.”
“Assuredly, my lord.” Mr. Patterson gently tucked the blanket about the lady before he ushered everyone who was looking on in concern from the room.
“Just rest as long as you need,” he told her. “I will not leave you,” he whispered as he kissed the top of her head. “You are safe with me.”
How long they remained as such, Benjamin did not know nor did he care. The lady required someone she could trust, and, like it or not, he wanted to be that person in her life. Darkness had filled the room before she did more than trace the outline of his stick pin. “Could Mr. Betts have told the truth?” she asked at last.
“I cannot say with confidence,” he replied. “We know your sister did not apply for the cook’s position at The Red Rooster, but we do not know if she found work elsewhere, Now, with Mrs. Taylor’s demise, even if Miss Cassandra searched you out at your former quarters, she would not learn of your directions unless she called at Sustar’s.”
“I thought I heard her that morning in the close when you pulled me into your arms,” she reasoned aloud.
Benjamin did not deny her hopes, though he knew she likely heard what she wanted to hear, as the mind sometimes plays such tricks upon a person. Instead, he said, “With all that has happened of late, I am confident Duncan has not completed his inquiries on your behalf. Lord Liverpool has demanded Duncan’s constant attention, but only a day ago, Lord Graham volunteered to take up the cause. Graham performs often in a covert manner. He has many connections that others do not.”
“Do you think he could discover Cassandra?” she asked softly.
“I will send a message around to him and accept his assistance,” Benjamin assured. “You must understand, if Betts’s words prove true . . .”
“He was likely with her when Cassandra died. Perhaps he had something to do with her death.”
<<<>>>
“Thank you for coming so quickly, Graham,” Benjamin said as he shook his brother’s hand.
“Your message said there was some urgency.”
Benjamin poured them both a drink before he explained his purpose. “I wish to accept your offer to assist Miss Whitchurch in locating her sister.” He motioned Graham to a nearby chair.
“Of course, but what has brought on your heightened concerns?” Graham asked as he lowered his weight into the chair.
Benjamin sat heavily. “God was guiding my steps today. I arrived home to find Mr. Jonas Betts harassing Miss Whitchurch. He had forced himself into the house.”
Graham grinned, his scar puckering his lips on one side. “I pray you kicked his arse into the street. Betts is a prat of the first realm.”
Benjamin sighed heavily. “I was too busy slamming him into the tiled floor to kick his arse. He put his filthy hand on Miss Whitchurch.”
“Next time, remember, we all know permanent ways to be rid of a body.” Graham’s smile widened.
Benjamin permitted Graham’s easy manner to calm his frustration. “Next time,” he said, “I will follow your advice. Yet, what was worse was the dastard said something that I must investigate, but I have no idea where to begin.”
“As I have said previously, I am your servant,” Graham assured. “Do you possess a starting point for our search? What has been done previously?’
“Unfortunately, I have failed the lady in that manner. I have become accustomed to her presence in my house, and I fear I have unconsciously not pursued any leads because I did not wish for Miss Whitchurch to leave. Moreover, it has taken the lady longer than it should have to trust me,” Benjamin admitted. He sighed again. “While I was ordering Mr. Betts from my home, Miss Whitchurch was begging him to bring Miss Cassandra to see the child, to which Betts responded that Cassandra Whitchurch was dead. Has been dead since early June.”
“How would Betts know that?” Graham asked with a frown.
“Betts could have been performing in a purposeful manner to harm Miss Whitchurch, for she repeatedly rejected his advances, even going so far as to take up a position as a teacher in a girls’ school in Bath to avoid him, while the younger sister encouraged Betts’s advances,” Benjamin confided.
“And you came by this information how?” Graham asked with a lift of his brows in apparent amusement.
Benjamin found himself grinning. “I asked what those from Hampshire in Duncan’s office knew of Lord Betts and his son.”
Graham nodded his approval. “Always best to speak to those close to the source.”
Benjamin continued. “Miss Whitchurch has heard nothing from her sister since she left the child in Miss Whitchurch’s room at the boarding house, which is exactly what has Betts’s assertions making more sense—that Miss Cassandra has been dead since early June. As best as we can derive, that was when Titan sent Cassandra Whitchurch to The Red Rooster, though, as I mentioned previously, Duncan and I confirmed the woman never applied for the position as cook at the inn. Since she left the child with her sister, Miss Cassandra has made no attempt to contact Miss Whitchurch. Never even presented her sister one pence for the care of the boy. Though I would not say so to the lady, Betts’s assertion holds more merit than I would like to present it.”
“If Miss Cassandra is dead, without money or identity, she would be likely to be found in a pauper’s grave,” Graham warned. “I can begin there, but I believe it would do me well to speak to Titan and, perhaps, Mrs. Dove-Lyon. To learn more about the young woman. Do you object?”
“Whatever it takes,” Benjamin assured. “We can no longer dance around this craziness. Miss Whitchurch refuses to have the boy christened, though Miss Cassandra told her in the note she left for her sister, to name the child, which sounds to me as if the woman had no desire to face her mistakes every day for the rest of her life. Yet, I cannot say that to Miss Whitchurch. She requires closure before she can claim her own life.”
“Does Miss Cassandra resemble Miss Whitchurch? I will be required to describe her to those I ask.” Graham asked.
Benjamin handed Graham a sketch of Miss Cassandra. It was between two sheets of card stock and tied off with a ribbon. “Miss Whitchurch drew this to show the boy something of his mother as he grew older. She had it put away with the things she brought from the boarding house. I did not ask if she performed so to keep her sister’s memory equally alive for herself, but it may be useful to whoever might have prepared the body for interment, especially if all roads lead to a pauper’s grave as you suggested. For identity purposes.”
“Is it a true likeness?” Graham asked.
“I did not view it, but I have seen several others of Miss Whitchurch’s drawings. She has sketched the child twice, and those were quite good.”
Graham nodded his head in understanding before asking, “I suppose if I find the girl’s grave, you mean to have her exhumed and . . .”
“And buried again on my Kent estate. Her parents cannot accept the girl in their home shire, and I plan to marry Miss Whitchurch, and she and the boy will want to honor Miss Cassandra and remember her. No one in Kent will know more than what I tell them. The child will be an orphan raised by his aunt. I will see to the boy’s schooling and assist him as best I can. Miss Whitchurch and I will present the child the legitimacy his own parents refused.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Pauper’s Graves
Every Woman Dreams... 