“A Rose by Any Other Name” Might Not Be Rosy at All + the Upcoming Release of “Lyon in Disguise” from Dragonblade Publishing (Arriving 17 December 2025)

Posted on October 20, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

The quote “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is from William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet. It means that the name of something is not as important as the thing itself. The quote suggests that a rose would still be a rose, regardless of what it was called. I beg to differ with Shakespeare in the naming of characters. I am often known to search out the meaning of a name to liken the character’s strength and his/her weaknesses.

On 17 December 2025, Dragonblade Publishing will release Book 3 of my mystery/romantic series. It is called Lyon in Disguise.

The hero of this tale is named Lord Navan Beaufort. Lord Beaufort is Irish, but he also holds an English barony, where he is Baron Shaw. He has dark hair and brown eyes. He is the tallest of Lord Duncan’s sons, as well as the most handsome of them, his features considered to be “perfection.” His name means “beautiful fort,”and he proves himself over and over again as a protector.

The Beaufort family descended from John of Gaunt, the first Duke of Lancaster. Navan Beaufort possesses a Norman French air of sophistication. He is often called upon to explain his relationship to John of Gaunt and the man’s liasion with Catherine Swynford, which Navan finds tiresome. Even Mrs. Dove Lyon mentions that her family tree also has some Beauforts in it. The children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were legitimized after their parents’ marriage but were excluded from the royal succession. The Beaufort family played a significant role in English history, particularly during the Wars of the Roses. Margaret Beaufort, a descendant, became the mother of King Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch. 

Navan loves to tease others, but does not enjoy being teased. He is an expert with a variety of weapons, and, like his brothers, an agent for the Home Office, which he finds problematic at times, for he is often called upon to take a number of Irishmen into custody. The United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798 occured three years after Navan is brought to live with Lord Macdonald Duncan when he is not quite ten, and Navan is constantly questioning where his loyalties should lie, even after the 1800 Act of Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Though his accent has mellowed and he has performed brilliantly in assisting the English government, he is often snubbed.

One version says he was presented the name “Navan” by his father, who spent time with British forces in India, where the name means “new” or “brilliant” and comes from Sanskrit. Despite this possibility, the name “Navan” originates from the Irish name “An Uaimh,” which means “the cave.” This name is associated with the town of Navan in County Meath, Ireland, and is believed to be linked to a cave located on the east bank of the River Boyne. The name may also be connected to the prehistoric burial mound, An Odhbha, which was later misunderstood and associated with the word for “cave”. Some other theories suggest the name is derived from the prehistoric burial mound An Odhbha, named after a figure in Irish mythology, and later confused with “uaimh” (cave). Some sources suggest the name might be related to the surname Nevin or Mac Cnáimhín, with possible meanings of “Little saint” or a reference to a “bony man”. Well, my Navan is assuredly not a “saint” nor would one call him “bony.”


Navan’s love interest in the tale is named “Annalise,” which is also my eldest granddaughter’s name, and the Annalise in my book has many of my granddaughter’s qualities. She is sweet natured, but she still has a backbone and a bit of stubbornness. She also has a mind for learning and exploring, while being athletic. Annalise in the book is the missing sister of one of Navan’s brothers, Lord Alexander Marksman, which should make her off limits to Navan, but in any good romance, when the hero knows the girl is the one, she is.

The name Annalise is of German origin and is a combination of the names Anna and Liese, a diminutive of Elisabeth. Anna is derived from the Hebrew name Hannah, meaning “grace” or “favor”. In our family, our Annalise is Annalise Joy, for the child always has a smile on her face.

Elisabeth, in turn, comes from the Hebrew Elisheba, meaning “God is my oath” or “God is abundance”. Therefore, Annalise can be interpreted to mean “graced with God’s oath” or “favored by God’s promise”. She is well versed in a variety of weapons, especially a sword.

The Annalise in my story is red-headed, my granddaughter is not. Navan often comments that she looks more Irish than he does. Her stubbornness and desire to survive are always on display, as is her loyalty. If you have read book 2 of this series, you already know something of her and how she came to be a part of the Lord Macdonald Duncan family.

Lyon in Disguise: Lyon’s Den Connected World 

A handsome rake meets his match in a red-headed enchantress who is his enemy!

They may be on different sides of the law, but Lord Navan Beaufort is not going to permit that to stop him from protecting Miss Audrey Moreau. Navan has never thought truly to love anyone, but when he laid eyes on the red-headed beauty, his world shifted. Unfortunately, the lady appears to prefer Lord Alexander Dutton to him, though Navan has rarely had the opportunity to speak to her privately. That is, until he saves her from a fire one miraculous night. From there forward, she is his hope. His future.

Miss Audrey Moreau depends exclusively on her Uncle Jacobi for a home and protection. The man rescued her from a bayman’s plantation in the West Indies when she was five; yet, she well knows the “Marquis of Honfleur’s” schemes. She thought once Jacobi was caught, all would be well, but even from his jail, the man means to rain down harm upon her.

Can two lost souls find happiness together, when everyone in whom they had previously placed their trust have left them alone in the world?

Tropes You’ll Love:

  • Enemies to lovers
  • Self-declared bachelor
  • Friends to lovers
  • Adversaries
  • Damsel in distress
  • Best friend’s sister
  • Different worlds/experiences
  • Soul mates
  • Emotional scars
  • Fish out of water

Read in Kindle Unlimited!

Enjoy book one in a new series within The Lyon’s Den Connected world by Regina Jeffers.

Book 1 – Lyon in the Way

Book 2 – Lyon’s Obsession

Book 3 – Lyon in Disguise

Book 4 – Lost in the Lyon’s Garden

Book 5 – Lyon on the Inside

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0G1V963YZ

Please Note: The price of this book will increase to $3.99 on 11/26/2025.

Posted in aristocracy, book release, books, British history, Dragonblade Publishers, eBooks, etymology, Georgian England, Georgian Era, hero, heroines, historical fiction, Ireland, legacy, mystery, peerage, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, research, romance, suspense, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “A Rose by Any Other Name” Might Not Be Rosy at All + the Upcoming Release of “Lyon in Disguise” from Dragonblade Publishing (Arriving 17 December 2025)

What the Heck is “Deodand”?

Posted on October 17, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

The Shifting Sands at Trade Cards Online www.tradecardsonline.com

The Shifting Sands at Trade Cards Online
http://www.tradecardsonline.com

“In 1336, a drunken sailor climbed the mast of his ship at anchor in the Thames by means of a rope, presumably part of the rigging. When he tried to descend the same way he fell and died. A coroner’s jury decided that the rope was the cause of death and that it should be forfeited to the Crown. The rope was the inanimate casualty of an already ancient principle called deodand.” (World Wide Words)

Legal History Miscellany tells us, “On 28 Nov. 1313, chancery issued a royal mandate to the bishop of Ely requesting that he deliver a sum of £50 sterling to Nicholas du Vual, a merchant from Caen. The mandate was responding to a complaint lodged by the merchant. He was in England on business accompanied by his servant, Simon Basil, selling wares in the markets of Boston (Lincs.). Nicholas planned to stay on in the country, but wanted the profits sent home directly to his wife, so he sewed the money into the lining of a linen shirt. Per instruction, Simon donned the shirt and then set off for Caen. Traveling by night, presumably in the interest of speed, he made a miscalculation in his footing and drowned in the river Little (today known as the Little Ouse) at Littleport (Cambs.) in the liberty of the bishop of Ely. The bailiffs of the liberty discovered the money sewn into the shirt while performing an inquest into cause of death. The money was immediately declared deodand – and because the bishop asserted the privilege to collect all deodands in his liberty, the money was deposited directly into the bishop’s coffers. Regardless of its status, Nicholas wanted the money back, so he petitioned the king. An inquest was held in the city of London to prove that the money in fact belonged to him (as opposed to his now deceased servant). As a result, the king was asking the bishop to return it to Nicholas, so that the merchant would not have to suffer “great loss and manifest impoverishment.” [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216-1509, 55 vols. (London: HMSO, 1891-1916), Edward II, vol. 2, 52.] Acknowledgment that the bishop had indeed surrendered the money appears in another letter patent dated to 28 Jan. 1314, a letter which includes a promise from the king for compensation for his loss. [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1216-1509, 55 vols. (London: HMSO, 1891-1916), Edward II, vol. 2, 80-81.]

A coroner of the Regency period and before did more than hold inquests on dead bodies.  All buried treasure had to be reported to him. Also, he could profit by the seizure and sale of a deodand [[dee-uh-dand] . A deodand was any item of property, which caused the death of a human. If a hay stack tumbled over and smothered a man, it was the cause of death and could be claimed as property of the Crown. A tree topples over and kills someone, it is deodand. A runaway horse and carriage? You got it, deodand. Juries often decided on the spot whether the “property” was to be forfeited. Supposedly in one recorded the case, a pot of boiling water caused a death: the water was not deodand, but the pot was. (World Wide Words)

Whatever item caused a person’s death was forfeit to the Crown, and the coroner had part of the value of it. So, if a sword was used to kill someone, the sword was forfeit and sold. If the family really wanted that sword because it was a family heirloom, they had to pay a fine equal to its value. Needless to say, rocks and tree limbs, boards and bricks had no value for the coroner so were often ignored. However, if a person was killed — accidentally or on purpose– by a runaway horse or a horse and carriage or a dray, the vehicle was forfeit. So, an expensive carriage and  team injures a man so that he dies. The carriage and horses would be forfeited to the Crown– and eventually earn the inspector a tidy sum.

According to Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1894, “Deodand means something “given to God” (deo-dandum). This was the case when a man met with his death through injuries inflicted by some chattel, as by the fall of a ladder, the toss of a bull, or the kick of a horse. In such cases the cause of death was sold, and the proceeds given to the Church. The custom was based on the doctrine of purgatory. As the person was sent to his account without the sacrament of extreme unction, the money thus raised served to pay for masses for his repose. Deodands were abolished September 1st, 1846.” (Infoplease)

“Strictly speaking, a deodand is something that has been forfeited to God, from Latin deo dandum. [1520-30; < Medieval Latin deōdandum (a thing) to be given to God < Latin deō to God (dative singular of deus) + dandum to be given (neuter gerund of dare to give)] In practice in medieval England it meant being given up to the Crown to be put to some pious use such as alms. As a stone or haystack was an inconvenient item to deal with in this way, in practice the coroner’s jury decided the value of the item and its owner was required to pay that instead. (In the case of the rope, the jury appraised it as worth 10 shillings, a considerable sum at the time, roughly the price of a good horse.)” (World Wide Words)

katecrawford: Capitalism Killed the Deodand #TtW15 #k2 http://t.co/PWoGSgMQlk

katecrawford: Capitalism Killed the Deodand #TtW15 #k2 http://t.co/PWoGSgMQlk

This law remained on the books for years. It wasn’t repealed until sometime in  the Victorian age and the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Why was it repealed?  A person or persons were killed in an accident with a train, an expensive piece of property to forfeit to the Crown under the law. The railroad company blanched at the idea of forfeiting their railroad, but neither could they afford to pay a commensurate fee. As a result, a law in 1846 abolished the concept of deodand. 

Posted in Age of Chaucer, Anglo-Normans, British history, Great Britain, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Uncategorized, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Scheele’s Green and Arsenic and the Green Death in the Georgian Era

Posted on October 15, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

For those of you who are interested in using or avoiding the use of this deadly yet popular shade of green, here is an interesting article from an art magazine.

The Paris Review tells us a bit to the history of the color in its article, “Scheele’s Green, the Color of Fake Foliage and Death.”

“Invented in 1775 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, the artificial colorant was made through a process of heating sodium carbonate, adding arsenious oxide, stirring until the mixture was dissolved, and then adding a copper sulfate to the final solution. According to the color historian Victoria Finlay, Scheele invented this green “almost accidentally.” It wasn’t his first trip around the color wheel either; in the 1770s, Scheele created a bright-yellow paint from chlorine and oxygen that was later named Turner’s patent yellow after the British manufacturer who stole the patent. I can only assume Scheele was thrilled to have discovered yet another bright hue (one that he could name after himself, no less), but “there was something that troubled him,” Finlay writes. A year before the color went into production, he wrote to a friend that he thought users might want to know about its poisonous nature. “But what’s a little arsenic when you’ve got a great new color to sell?” Finlay quips.

“Despite its character flaws, Scheele’s green was striking and profitable. The color was not only cheap to produce, it accurately mimicked the hues found in nature. It wasn’t too yellow, nor was it too teal. It was a middle green with full saturation—no gray tints, no underlying hint of brown. It was a vegetal green, the color of fiddleheads and ivy vines. It was a garden color, and for city dwellers, the allure of Scheele’s green was impossible to resist (even though the Victorians were well aware of the toxic effects of ingesting arsenic). This was a time when Londoners and Parisians alike were concerned with the dandification of modern society. The Industrial Revolution had turned their streets ugly and gray with smog. It had also (supposedly) turned their men into simpering weenies who didn’t do God’s honest work, like toiling in the fields, but instead hung out around bars and smoked and worked white-collar positions. Some Victorians (those with the most selective memories or a rather tenuous grasp of recent history) longed to return to that fabled pastoral Eden where men were men and women wore wreaths of fragrant flowers. And since fresh flowers didn’t last long enough for multiple wears, cloth reproductions would have to do. (Unsurprisingly, this was also a time when the English—and their counterparts in Europe—became very interested in protecting green spaces within the urban landscapes. Many of London’s finest public gardens date back to this era.)”

As to rumors of Napoleon’s exposure to the pigment, it has already been established that there were high levels of arsenic in his remains. Scientists can not determine, however, whether that was due to Napoleon’s exposure to the pigment on St. Helena, or whether it might have been the result of efforts to preserve his body.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoricalRomance/comments/1be5rv1/scheeles_green_was_the_most_fashionable_colour/

An Overview:

Scheele’s green is a bright, yellowish-green pigment made from copper arsenite. It was invented in 1775 by Carl Wilhelm Scheele and became popular in the 19th century, particularly in Europe. While prized for its vibrant color and cheap production, it gained notoriety for its toxicity due to the arsenic content. 

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

  • Composition: Scheele’s green is chemically known as cupric hydrogen arsenite, CuHAsO3. It is a compound of copper and arsenic. 
  • History: It was invented by Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1775 and became widely used in the 19th century. It replaced older green pigments based on copper carbonate. 
  • Uses: Scheele’s green was used in various applications, including paints, wallpapers, textiles (including clothing), and even children’s toys. 
  • Toxicity: The presence of arsenic in Scheele’s green made it a hazardous material. It could cause skin irritation, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and other severe health issues. 
  • Decline in Use:By the late 19th century, the toxicity of Scheele’s green became widely known, leading to its gradual phasing out. 

Now to another article…

Green Death | The Art History of Arsenic

“As to the arsenic scare a greater folly is hardly possible to imagine: the doctors were bitten as people bitten by witch fever.”  ~William Morris, The Collected Letters of William Morris, Vol. 2

The discovery of a deep, vivid green by Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele in 1775 led to a fashion craze lasting for more than a century. From the start, Scheele knew that the pigment he had developed was highly poisonous. But he also realized it was unlike any other green pigment available on the market. The lucrative lure of bringing this deadly hue to manufacturers, cloth dyers, artists, and more worldwide proved irresistible to Scheele.

Scheele’s Green became incredibly popular. It all but completely replaced older green pigments based on copper carbonate that had been used up until Scheele’s discovery. So popular was the hue that even after it became common knowledge that the paint was toxic, it was still used.

“Its vibrant color could be found in clothing, wallpaper, toys, candles, dyes and more through the end of the 19th century. Gowns, hats, gloves and socks were dyed with it, sometimes making the wearer ill through touch alone. Children in green rooms were documented as “wasting away.” Women in green dresses were struck ill, swooning in droves. The ingredient that made the color in Scheele’s Green so vibrant was also responsible for its deadliness: Arsenic.”

 Arsenic green 19th century wallpaper designed by William Morris

“

Posted in British history, fashion, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the Regency, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dower Vs. Dowry, Do You Know the Difference?

Posted on October 13, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Lets do a quick breakdown before we discuss specifics.

The key difference between “dower” and “dowry” lies in who provides the wealth and when it is given. Dowry is the property a bride brings to her marriage, typically from her family to the groom’s family. Dower, on the other hand, is a widow’s right to a portion of her deceased husband’s estate, traditionally ensuring her financial support after his death. 

Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

Dowry:

  • Definition: Property or wealth transferred from the bride’s family to the groom’s family at the time of marriage. 
  • Purpose: Originally, it was seen as a way to support the newlywed couple and their future family. In some cultures, it’s also associated with the social status of the families involved. 
  • Current status: In some places, like India, dowry is illegal and punishable by law. 

Dower:

  • Definition: A widow’s right to a portion of her deceased husband’s property, traditionally a life estate (meaning she could use it, but not sell it). 
  • Purpose: To provide financial security for a widow after her husband’s death, as she traditionally had limited rights to property. 
  • Current status: The concept of dower is largely outdated and replaced by modern inheritance laws and spousal rights. 

In common law, a widow who had been married for at least 2 years was entitled to one third of her husband’s property on his death. This was her dower.

Aussteuerschrank – a dowry cabinet, currently in a German museum in Hauenstein. CC BY-SA 3.0

That is not dowry. Dowry is what she brought to the marriage and dower was what she was supposed to receive when the husband died.

The dowry was usually invested in Bank Funds.  After the wedding, the  husband took proof of the marriage – a certificate from the clergyman who married them or a notarized copy of the parish register page, or a letter from the girl’s father or guardian – to the  bank that handled these funds and had the  money changed to  his name. If the man was not desperate for money, it remained in the bank, and he received the interest every quarter. Or he could take it all or what he needed.

If property was involved in a dowry, the owner of the property and the husband would have to get together to have a deed executed in the husband’s name. Quite often in these cases the marriage settlement  directed whether the dowry was to go ultimately to daughters [think Mrs. Bennet and her daughters from Austen’s Pride and Prejudice] or some such limitation. With an unexpected, hurried wedding, there probably was no protection for the wife in a  marriage settlement. In such cases, I do hope she was over 21 or had her father’s written permission.

No one handed over thousands of pounds in cash.

Sometimes in times of wars and plagues and epidemics, there could be several widows in a family. A man would be left with a very small piece of property if each was entitled to a third as a widow. Sometimes the woman took this to a second husband as her dowry though it was supposed to return to the first husband’s family on her death.The fear of a widow taking the property to a second husband and the way dower cut up  property made men look for alternatives. They decided on a jointure. This was an annuity based on the income  of a specific piece of property or a sum of money. This was paid to her in lieu of any other  inheritance. Quite often payment ceased on remarriage. Women were often cheated because she was deprived of her right of dower even if the sum of money left to her was less tan £100 a year. Also, if all the land was entailed or settled on another, she had trouble receiving her dower.

Lady Blessington’s husband first gave her a jointure of around 4 or 5000 £. He changed that later to 2000 while increasing the amount of money for the man he forced his daughter to marry. Lady Blessington’s  jointures was to be from the income of one of hisIrish estates. She received this money for several years until the potato famine hit. The income from that estate  shrank until there was none. As Lady Blessington wasn’t entitled  to any money from any other source, she felt the pinch. She had  to sell all her belongings  and go live abroad where she died shortly there after.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, family, finance, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Inheritance, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, marriage, real life tales, Regency era, research, terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dower Vs. Dowry, Do You Know the Difference?

Excommunication and the Order of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Regency England

Posted on October 10, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

First, let us define “excommunication” in general terms. Excommunication is an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular those of being in communion with other members of the congregation, and of receiving the sacraments.

It is practiced by all of the ancient churches (such as the Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox churches and the Eastern Orthodox churches) as well as by other Christian denominations; however, it is also used more generally to refer to similar types of institutional religious exclusionary practices and shunning among other religious groups.

The word excommunication means putting a specific individual or group out of communion. In some denominations, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group. Excommunication may involve banishment, shunning, and shaming, depending on the group, the offense that caused excommunication, or the rules or norms of the religious community. The grave act is often revoked in response to manifest repentance.

In the Regency era, there were two types of excommunication: Lesser and greater.

In religious contexts, particularly within Catholicism, “greater” and “lesser” excommunication refer to different degrees of separation from the church. Lesser excommunication primarily restricts an individual from receiving sacraments, while greater excommunication entails a more severe exclusion from the church and its community. 

Lesser Excommunication: 

  • Restriction: Individuals are barred from participating in sacraments, especially the Eucharist (communion).
  • Remaining Connection: They may still be part of the church community, attending services, and receiving income from the church.
  • Purpose: It serves as a disciplinary measure, encouraging repentance and reconciliation. 

Greater Excommunication: 

  • Exclusion: Individuals are completely excluded from the church, its sacraments, and its community.
  • Symbolic Ritual: In some cases, a formal ceremony with candles may be involved.
  • Purpose: A more severe penalty, often for grave offenses, aiming to restore order and deter further transgressions. 

Some changes to practices were made in 1813 to permit the ecclesiastical courts to send people to the secular courts for contempt, instead of excommunicating them. Also, offenses involving church rites and tithes were to be sent to the secular courts, instead of through excommunication. One just deprives the offender of church services and sacraments–including marriage. This is pronounced in those who are obstinate and disobedient, such as not appearing at church court when summoned, not submitting to a penance, or not obeying another injunction of the court.

Lady Ferrers went to the House of Lords to request a separation from her husband the earl. She told them that her husband had no fear of the church courts or of being excommunicated so she feared he would not allow her to live in peace apart from him.

The greater excommunication deprived the man of church services and published his name abroad so that no church members who wanted to stay in good standing would have any communication or business with him. Those members were not to patronize his shop if he was a tradesman, for instance. He was not to be invited to dine or to visit or to attend a ball. Any member of the church in good standing was supposed to shun his society until he repent.

One could be excommunicated for refusing to have a child baptized, or for refusing to participate in the Lord’s Supper, or for idolatry, usury, simony, or perjury in the ecclesiastical courts. One could be excommunicated for fighting in church. Though the clergyman was to say that the person was excommunicated right then and there, it was truly necessary to have the bishop endorse the sentence to have any true effect. If a plaintiff is excommunicated, a defendant can tell the court so. He must do this before he answers the plaintiff. If he can prove the excommunication, he need not answer the plaintiff in court until the plaintiff has been admitted back into the good graces of the church.

All excommunicated persons were not to step into the church.

Obviously, anyone who pronounced himself an atheist and spoke out against the church could be excommunicated.

Other Sources:

The Steps for Excommunication

What Is Excommunication and Should Churches Practice It?

Why and How One is Excommunicated

One who refused to pay his tithes or who shortchanged the rector and vicar of their tithes could be excommunicated but after 1813 were likely to be sued in a secular court.

One guilty of defamation could be excommunicated.

One could also be excommunicated for refusing to go to church.

Those who socialize with a excommunicated person or trade with him can be excommunicated as well.

An excommunicated person could not be a witness in a court.

He could not be buried in church grounds. He could not have the burial service read over his body.

If a person be obstinate in refusing to answer or attend a church court, the church could ask the High Court of Chancery to sue out a writ which was to be answered in the Court of Kings’ bench. The writ is to be opened in King’s bench with all the justices present and handed to the sheriff to enforce. The Bench of Kings Court can put out notices to all and every sheriff and assize that the person is to be summoned if not found at the usual address. If it takes all these people and writs 

to find the person, he can be put into prison. he can be fined for not obeying.

If arrested he can’t have bail.

Posted in British history, Church of England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, laws of the land, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, real life tales, Regency era, religion | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Excommunication and the Order of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Regency England

Seeking a Military Furlough During the Regency Era

Posted on October 8, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

First, what is a “furlough”? A military furlough is a temporary, approved leave from active military service for a set period, typically without pay and often for reasons like an approved break, awaiting new orders, or returning to civilian life for a limited time. While on furlough, service members are still technically employed but are not receiving their regular compensation. The concept of furlough is an old one, originating as a way to grant soldiers permission to be absent from duty. 

During the British Regency era (1811–1820), military furlough was a privilege largely available to officers rather than enlisted soldiers. Requesting and receiving leave was heavily dependent on rank, social connections, and whether the regiment was on active campaign or garrison duty. 

“British Army during the Napoleonic Wars period saw rapid change. Up to 1790 the army was relatively small. At the beginning of 1793 it had barely 40,000 men but by the end of 1813 the regular army had grown to over 200,000 men but it contracted in subsequent years. However, vast numbers of men made up the Victorian army. Over 150,000 in 1851, over 200,000 in 1861 and 1871.” [Service in the British Army – see link below]

Leave for illness or wounds were assuredly given, as were general leaves or furloughs. For an officer, he could request it at any time, and the commander had to give it to him. Generally, for the common soldier, it was at the commander’s discretion. It was fairly useless when the soldier was in Spain or the colonies as he could nor go home. A common soldier had no money and no time usually for such a long journey. The commander would also have to believe the soldier was likely to come back… which was not necessarily a sure thing overseas. 

Such furloughs were not given out to enlisted men often. Those that received furlough would more than likely be:

  1. Older soldiers, long time enlisted men.
  2. Those the colonel specifically liked and/or trusted
  3. Those who would be traveling with an officer to the same village or location [Such as a Batman or soldier under the officer’s command—and the officer was willing to take responsibility for the soldier’s return.
  4. An official request from the military offices in England for court proceedings or such official business. The officer who delivered Wellington’s report of Waterloo with captured flags was not given furlough. He was on official business. The enlisted man who accompanied him was.

A death in the family, a birth of a child, inheritance or family distress was not in and of itself a promise of furlough, even in Great Britain proper.

OFFICERS

For gentlemen who had purchased their commissions, obtaining leave was a common practice, but it was not guaranteed. 

  • Procedure: A request would be submitted up the chain of command, often to the commanding officer of the regiment, who had the final say. For an officer with the right social or political connections, a request for a leave of absence was routinely approved, even to avoid going abroad with a regiment.
  • Circumstances for leave: Officers might request leave for personal business, to recover from illness, or simply for an extended holiday. Those serving in the militia, in particular, had a great deal of leave.
  • During wartime: During periods of intense fighting, like the Napoleonic Wars, an officer’s ability to take leave was far more limited than during peacetime garrison duty. 

ENLISTED SOLDIERS:

For the common soldier, the concept of a furlough to visit home was almost nonexistent. Enlistments were for long terms, sometimes for life, and regiments were often stationed far from their recruitment areas to discourage desertion. 

  • No guaranteed home leave: A private soldier would typically not return home until their enlistment expired or they were invalided out of the service due to age or injury. For a regiment serving overseas for a decade or more, a soldier might go many years without seeing family.
  • Some short-term leave: While stationed on garrison duty, a soldier might be given a few days’ leave to attend a local event. During overseas deployments, some limited furlough might be granted, particularly for soldiers serving in India who were accustomed to longer terms of service.
  • Harsh consequences for desertion: Leaving a regiment without permission was considered desertion, a crime with severe penalties, including flogging or even execution. High desertion rates during the Napoleonic Wars reflect the widespread desire to escape the harsh realities of military life. 

FOR AUTHORS TO WRITE SUCH SCENES THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASON BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR A FURLOUGH:

To create a plausible scenario for requesting military leave during the Regency era, consider these details:

  • Identify the rank: Determine if the character is an officer or a common soldier, as this is the single most important factor.
  • Establish a reason: Provide a specific, justifiable reason for the request, such as family illness, handling an inheritance, or recovering from a wound.
  • Consider the location: The regiment’s location and whether it is at war or peace are crucial. A request is far more likely to be granted if the regiment is at home rather than on a campaign in Spain or Belgium.
  • Leverage social standing: For an officer, emphasize the role of social influence. A request might go directly to a sympathetic commanding officer, especially if the officer has a reputation for competence. For a private, it is less about a formal request and more about desperation, a last resort, or even an act of desertion. 

Other Sources:

Did Napoleon’s troops get home leave during the Napoleonic Wars or did they just not see their homes for many years?

Gentlemen’s Occupations

Military Officers During the Regency

Service in the British Army 1800-1900

The Regency Army Officer

To Be an Officer and a Gentleman

What Exactly Did It Mean to Be an Officer on Half Pay

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, military, Napoleonic Wars, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Seeking a Military Furlough During the Regency Era

Freshening Up at a Regency Party? Or When Is It Appropriate to Use the “Facilities”?

Posted on October 6, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

If we were in need of using the facilities at a modern day party, we might excuse ourselves to the bathroom/restroom/or whatever one wishes to call it. No need to explain. No need to wait.

However, that was not always proper etiquette in Regency times. What excuse might a guest offer to use the water closet – the facility – the chamberpot? What would one say to one’s host and in front of everyone at the table? Moreover, where did one go? I have heard/read many stories where after the ladies excuse themselves from the table and the gentlemen are free to smoke, etc., that there were chamberpots behind screens where they might relieve themselves, but I always wondered would not said chamberpots STINK?

In my opinion, a man would be equally as inconvenience as a lady in such a situation. It reminds me of my days as a school teacher. School teachers are known to suffer from kidney problems for they must wait until lunch or their planning period to seek the restroom facilities.

If any one left the table, a footman would be sent to escort them to the proper facility.

Now, I probably have you wondering … if a lady had to “go” at some point while at the party, would simply say, “Please excuse me.” Is that right? What does one say in such situations? Even in modern times, we are often put in the most awkward situations because of the call of nature. LOL!

Ladies still do not want to draw attention to themselves leaving the table to go to the toilet. As to the Regency, I think most waited until the ladies left the room and then went. The men often used the pot  in the room, so we have heard, as soon as the ladies left. Yet, when planning a plot point, this whole slipping away is problematic. A writer wants to do it accurately, BUT …

Do you know the tale of the astromer Tycho Brahe who died after a dinner party where he would not leave the table because manners would not permit him to do so? Tycho suddenly contracted a bladder or kidney ailment after attending a banquet in Prague. He died eleven days later, on 24 October 1601, at the age of 54. According to Kepler’s first-hand account, Tycho had refused to leave the banquet to relieve himself because it would have been a breach of etiquette. Some accounts of Brahe dead say his bladder burst. I imagine that is the extreme. Even having to hold one’s bladder for say an hour to an hour and a half should not cause someone death, that is, unless there was a pattern of one doing so. [Back to the school teacher tales again!!!!]

How Tycho Brahe Really Died?

Tycho Brahe: Stellarum octavi orbis inerrantium accurata restitutio, 1598. Author’s portrait in this book. ~ Public Domain

We have come to believe that in Georgian England, it was one of those strict codes of behaviour that dictated not leaving the table once the meal was served, and that is why men and ladies separated right after the meal, not just for cigars and port, but also for that all-important chamber pot hidden in the cupboard. I assume the ladies had a somewhat more delicate solution. 

Bathroom etiquette is strange and interesting, even at the Royal Court. Apparently ladies in the Georgian courts were not allowed to leave the royal presence unless dismissed, which could take a very long time. They supposedly wore cups strapped under their gowns so they could go while standing in place. It kind of explains those hooped skirts. Still, think how carefully one must have moved so one’s cup did not, as they say, “runneth over,” I wonder how true this is. I am not, however, going down that research rabbit hole. I will permit another to correct or confirm that assumption on his own.

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Freshening Up at a Regency Party? Or When Is It Appropriate to Use the “Facilities”?

Sending Letters in the Regency Era. What of Envelopes?

Posted on October 3, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Question from a Reader: I have seen a few images of letters from what is supposed to from the Regency Era, but none have envelopes. Why is that?

Answer: First, let me say you should check out this site. As 2025 is the 250th Anniversary of Jane Austen’s birthday, this piece from the Postal Museum on How Did Jane Austen Write Her Letters is perfect for both the anniversary celebration and this post.

I learned a great deal of this information from Author, Shannon Donnelly. I have this piece from Shannon’s blog earmarked: The Regency Post: A Pity We’ve Lost Letters.

https://www.postalmuseum.org/blog/how-did-jane-austen-write-her-letters/

Prior to the introduction of uniform penny postage in 1840 hardly any letters were sent in envelopes as they counted as an additional sheet and were charged as such. By 1855 however, it was estimated that 93% of domestic letters were sent in envelopes, allowing the development of curious addresses along with it.

I have seen a few pre-1840 “envelopes,” but they are very difficult to find. As best as I can tell in looking at the images, these are simply a sheet of paper folded in a manner to contain another sheet and then sealed with wax. A person can tell these are the envelopes because they will have a direction on one side and no letter written on the reverse side of the sheet. In the Georgian era, which includes the Regency, whoever wrote the letter was charged for the number of sheets he/she sent, so most folks only sent one sheet and would simply write, turn it and write across it again, turn it again and cross again diagonally. A good example of this is here: http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/4002-cross-writing-text-scarce-paper-used-in I cannot imagine how difficult this would have been to read. Once, another reader asked me why the writer did not simply write smaller. I told her I believe it would be difficult to write smaller, especially with the pens used and the dipping in ink, etc.

When searching out samples of correspondence in the Regency and Georgian era (or even before), a person would likely only find examples from the aristocracy and the gentry, for they could afford the cost of the letter. There are some examples from merchants and what was called a “man of business” (meaning an something similar to an accountant in modern speak).

Before there was the penny stamp required on letters after 1840, it was possible for a person to send a letter and the one receiving it had to pay for it, though it might be sent back if unpaid. Prisoners sometimes took advantage of this or those in the work houses.

An MP could frank a letter, but the idea of franking a letter was not in the same manner as we find in many Regency novels. Heck, I am guilty of having my hero able to frank his own letters in a few of my nearly 80 books.

In reality, those in Parliament were supposed to restrict their correspondence to business for the Crown. Obviously, why should the British government pay for letters not dealing with governmental business? Yet, it was seen as a privilege of those Members of Parliament, meaning those in the House of Commons, to pre-frank sheets and give them to friends and family to use.

And, yes, an MP could frank a letter so it went free, but this was supposed to be restricted to crown business (as in why should the crown pay itself for letters sent on it’s own business). But it was also common to leave pre-franked sheets with a friend for their use so the system was widely abused.

Posted in Act of Parliament, aristocracy, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Living in the UK, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sending Letters in the Regency Era. What of Envelopes?

Broken Engagements in the Regency Era

Posted on October 1, 2025 by Regina Jeffers

Once a man proposed to a woman, he was expected to go through with the marriage unless he suddenly uncovered a flaw in the morals of the lady. Sometimes engagements were called off when the fathers and guardians couldn’t agree on the settlements. If a man jilted one to whom he had proposed, he was thought to have found out something like she was unchaste. The only way to save the female’s reputation was for him to marry another quickly–or even before she knew she was jilted. The Hardwicke Marriage Act took the teeth out of betrothals in that they did nor already have a couple half married. If of age, the jilted person had the right to sue for breach of promise. Because betrothals and engagements were no longer enforced by the church, they were considered to rest on a man”s honor. The man can get away with jilting a female better than a girl could get away with being jilted. The couple often tried to make it appear that the woman changed her mind. More gossip and scandal stuck to her name; there was less blame attributed to him unless the girl’s family entered into a counter attack to shift the blame to him or to make it appear she broke the engagement. The appeal to honor was very strong. Both Wellington and Byron married women they didn’t want because they had once made the mistake of showing interest or of discussing marriage with her.

In Regency England, breaking an engagement was a serious affair, particularly for the man, who faced potential legal action and social repercussions if he broke it off. While a woman had more freedom to end the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation. 

For the Man:

  • Breach of Promise:I f a man broke an engagement, he could be sued for “breach of promise” by the woman. 
  • Social Consequences: Breaking off an engagement was considered dishonorable and could damage a man’s reputation, making it difficult for him to find another suitable match. 
  • Legal Action: A man could be taken to court for breach of promise, and the damages awarded could be substantial, especially if the woman’s reputation had been damaged. 
  • Limited Exceptions: While a man could not break an engagement without legal or social repercussions, a woman could cry off (end the engagement) without legal penalty. 
  • Circumstances: If a man discovered a woman was of bad character or had behaved improperly, he could potentially break the engagement, but this was not common and often required proof. 

For the Woman:

  • Greater Freedom to Break Engagement: A woman had more freedom to end an engagement than a man. 
  • Social Consequences: Even though a woman could break the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation, especially if she was seen as fickle or “a jilt”. 
  • Reasons for Breaking: If a woman broke an engagement, it was often for reasons like the man’s bad character, financial instability, or her own change of heart. 
  • Seeking Redress: If a woman broke off an engagement, she might seek compensation for the damage to her reputation, even if she was not legally obligated to do so. 

Overall:

  • Engagement as a Binding Contract: In the Regency era, an engagement was a serious commitment, often treated as a near-marriage contract. 
  • Social Expectations: Social expectations and the desire to maintain one’s reputation heavily influenced how engagements were handled, according to a blog post. 
  • Impact on Reputation:Breaking an engagement, especially for a man, could have long-lasting and detrimental effects on his social standing and prospects. 
Broken Engagements: The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage and the Feminine Ideal, 1800-1940 (Oxford Studies in Modern Legal History)
by Saskia Lettmaier 

That is the bare bones of it–the woman generally paid the price unless they could successfully claim she felt they wouldn’t suit–however, how society reacted depended on the woman’s dowry, her family position, and the same for the man. If a great heiress was jilted people would be careful not to blame her too much because they would want a chance for a son or nephew to marry her. A rich peer or a rich young man was always a good catch and a father or guardian of the next young lady to catch his eye would make certain he made it to the altar.

To summarize, a woman could cry off, but she had to beware being labeled a “jilt.”  (1670s, “loose, unchaste woman; harlot;” also “woman who gives hope then dashes it;” probably a contraction of jillet, gillet, from Middle English gille “lass, wench,”)

A man who promised marriage and cried off could be sued for breach of promise (particularly if the promise was in writing – you had to prove the promise and damages). Or he might just be labeled as bad ton. There were a few cases of men winning breach of promise suits. Good reference for you on that: Broken Engagements: The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage…By Saskia Lettmaier. Not everyone would sue for breach of promise–it involved there being damages (to the daughter, leaving her unable to marry), so upper class might be inclined to sweep the whole thing aside as soon as possible so the social stain might be forgotten. Either way, it was poor form. You weren’t supposed to accept unless you really meant to go through with it.

Posted in British history, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Jane Austen, laws of the land, marriage, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

When Would the New Peer Be Addressed as Such? How Can One Prove Himself the Next Peer?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Regina Jeffers
Wax impression of the Great Seal of the Realm which is affixed to all letters patent creating new peerages ~ Public Domain

Question: When is the new peer properly addressed by his title after the death of the previous title holder?

The man is the peer immediately,  and servants, solicitors and such might address him by his new title, but it was a matter of courtesy to the widow and any children to wait until after the funeral. It wasn’t a legal matter but more a matter of etiquette. Because it wasn’t a matter of law but of custom, there was a wide variation in observance.

The British nobility in the narrow sense consists of Peers. Members of the peerage carry the titles of duke, marquess, earl, viscount or baron (in Scotland historically lord of parliament). British peers are sometimes referred to generically as lords, although individual dukes are not so styled when addressed or by reference, and those holding some offices are afford the title “Lord” by courtesy.

All modern British peerage dignities are created directly by the Crown and take effect when letters patent are issued, affixed with the Great Seal of the Realm. The Sovereign is considered to be the fount of honour and, as “the fountain and source of all dignities cannot hold a dignity from himself”, [Opinion of the House of Lords in the Buckhurst Peerage Case] cannot hold a British peerage. Peerages inherited by the Crown, for example those held by the Prince of Wales upon the demise of the monarch, merge with it and can be regranted to a new individual.

Membership in the Peerage is strictly personal and for life (life peerages) though often heritable (hereditary peerages) primarily by agnatic primogeniture with some exceptions. All British subjects who are not themselves Peers of the Realm are technically commoners, regardless of ancestry, wealth, or other social factors. This includes Princes of the United Kingdom who have not yet been granted a Peerage. The term “Commoner” does not imply that the person is not noble in the Continental sense, but rather that he is not a Peer and is therefore entitled to be elected to the House of Commons.

Unlike the feudal titles they replaced, peerages are personal title that cannot be transferred, bought, or sold by the title holder. Historically monarchs sold peerage titles under limited circumstances. This was often done to raise funds. For example, in the early Stuart period, King James I sold peerages, adding sixty-two peers to a body that had included just fifty-nine members at the commencement of his reign. Some governments through history also sold peerages to fund government activities, or more controversially, party activities. The selling of peerage grants by a government was made illegal in 1925 with the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The act was the result of the administration of David Lloyd George selling a high number of controversial peerages. The Blair administration was later accused of trying to skirt this law in 2006 in the so called “Cash-for-Honours scandal”, as was an aide of Prince Charles in the 2021 Cash-for-Favours scandal.

Question: So if the heir had an honorary title of viscount, they might call him to the house under that title?

No. He would only be called to the House of Lords in his father’s barony– if the father had one.

He would be a Viscount socially but a baron in Parliament.

Question: Along the lines of a guardian being assigned for insanity, what about physical incapacity like chronic illness or stroke? Would an earl’s heir have to take over House duties, or would that seat just remain empty?

No one could attend the House of Lords in a peer’s place while he is alive. What could be done, if the peer is an earl or higher, is to call the heir to the House of Lords on an accelerated writ in one of his father’s baronies. Otherwise, the seat remains empty during his lifetime.

That happened when the Earl of Portsmouth was officially declared mentally incompetent.  He was still earl even though he was not sent a writ to attend the House of Parliament.

Question: Does the next in line need to get hold of the title? If the son is crazy or otherwise incapacitated, perhaps the next in line could be made his guardian and manage the affairs of the earldom. In other words, be the earl in all but name.

If a peer is “crazy” a commission is appointed to see to his affairs and a guardian is appointed to care for his person. This would not be the person who could inherit if he died.

However, the heir could be appointed to care for the lands and property under the umbrella of the commission set by the court in Chancery.

Though the peer is unable to attend Parliament or marry, he is still the peer and no one can take his seat or have his privileges until he dies.

Once a person has been accepted as the new peer and has received his writ of summons to the House of Lords, any who wants to unseat him are unlikely. Parliament does not readily, or perhaps, ever, admit to mistakes so if a person is sent a writ of summons, that means the person is a peer.

All questions of legitimacy or who is the heir has to be determined after the death of the current peer and before the reception of a writ by the applicant, whether the next peer is the son or some distant cousin.

Two men claiming as cousins to a recently deceased peer put forth their claims to a peerage. Both presented  boxes of documentation. After much deliberation, one of the men was declared to be the rightful heir and was seated as the peer. The loser came back with a document he said proved that the other man was actually illegitimate. He was told “Too bad. Sorry, but the evidence should have been presented earlier.”  

Take as one example the dispute between Shedden v. Patrick, a lengthy and complex legal dispute concerning a Scottish peerage and questions of legitimacy. 

  • Contesting Claims: Two individuals (cousins) vying for a peerage, each presenting extensive documentation to support their claim.
  • Illegitimacy as a Key Issue: The central point of contention revolved around the legitimacy of William Shedden’s children, and their right to inherit properties in Scotland.
  • Differing Interpretations of Law: The claimants’ arguments were based on contrasting legal interpretations regarding the legitimation of children: Scots law (legitimation upon marriage of parents) versus English common law (children born illegitimate not legitimated by subsequent marriage).
  • Late or Undiscovered Evidence: The consequences of late evidence submission in such cases is apparent in this situation. The Shedden v. Patrick litigation dragged on for decades, highlighting the difficulty of altering established legal decisions based on new information. 

This case exemplifies the intricate legal and societal considerations surrounding peerage succession, particularly when questions of legitimacy and differing legal systems were involved. 

For another example, look at the Sussex Peerage Case of 1844. In a claim of Peerage, where the question was whether the deceased Peer, the father of the claimant, had been married or not, a Prayer-book, found after the death of the claimant’s mother among her papers, was received, and an entry made in her handwriting, declaring the tact of the marriage, read from it, not as conclusively proving that fact, but as a declaration of it made by one of the parties at the time.  

Posted in Act of Parliament, aristocracy, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian Era, Great Britain, heraldry, history, laws of the land, peerage, primogenture, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When Would the New Peer Be Addressed as Such? How Can One Prove Himself the Next Peer?