A War of Words Preceded the Treaty of Ghent, Marking the End of the War of 1812 between the U.S. and Great Britain

During April of 1814, American representatives were permitted to come to England to continue negotiations with their British counterparts in hopes of coming to a resolution of the issues upon which the War of 1812 were based. However, the attempt proved futile, for, by that time, England had brought Napoleon to heel for the first time, and the British were in no mood to negotiate with the Americans, who they thought to be nothing more than a nuisance.

One can have a look at the newsprints of the day to determine some of what the general populace thought of Lord Castlereagh extending a hand to support the negotiations. The British ministers publicly declared a “wish for peace,” but, privately, they were very wishy-washy, allowing the London Times, which was not a ministerial journal, rather being an independent newspaper, to take its own course and to demand an annihilation of the United States in war. The Times had not previously presented its opinions as such, but, when it came to the United States, they displayed a Federalist position.

Therefore, in addition to a hatred for Napoleon, one formed for the American President James Madison. In truth, although Madison, upon appearances, had a calm demeanor, he was known to rub people the wrong way. The American press often criticized their President, but the Times carried the cries of disdain to new levels. For example, they wrote, “The lunatic ravings of the philosophic statesman of Washington,” (The Times, Feb. 4 and 10, 1814) which could be ranked along side of “his spaniel-like fawning on the Emperor of Russia . . . The most abject of the tools of the deposed tyrant; . . . doubtless he expected to be named Prince of the Potomack or Grand Duke of Virginia.” (The Times, April 23, 1814) With some regularity, the Times spoke of Madison as a liar and an imposter.

The Times went on to say on April 15, 1814: “Let us have no cant of moderation. . . There is no public feeling in the country stronger than that of indignation against the Americans; . . . conduct so base, so loathsome, so hateful . . . As we urged the principle, No peace with Bonaparte! so we must maintain the doctrine of, No peace with James Madison!” Later, on April 27 of the same year, they would continue their campaign of criticism: “Mr. Madison’s dirty, swindling manœuvres in respect to Louisiana and the Floridas remain to be published.”

Then on May 17, 1814, the Times declared, “He must fall a victim to the just vengeance of the Federalists. Let us persevere. Let us unmask the imposter. . . . Who cares about the impudence which they call a doctrine? . . . We shall demand indemnity. . . . We shall insist on the security for Canada . . . We shall inquire a little into the American title to Louisiana; and we shall not permit the base attack on Florida to go unpunished.” [Remember, at the time, British West Florida, which was comprised of the modern U. S. states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, was a colony of Kingdom of Great Britain from 1763 to 1783, when it was ceded to Spain as part of the Peace of Paris. The territory subsequently became a colony of Spain, parts of which were gradually annexed piecemeal by the United States, beginning in 1810.]

On May 18, the Times called Madison a “liar in the cause of his Corsican master.” The went on to say, “He has lived as an imposter, and he deserves to meet the fate of a traitor. That fate now stares him in the face.”

May 24 saw the smear campaign continuing. “They are struck to the heart with terror for their impending punishment; and oh, may no false liberality, no mistaken lenity, no weak and cowardly policy, interpose to save them from the blow! Strike! chastise the savages, for such they are! . . . With Madison and his perjured set no treaty can be made, for no oath can bind them.”

On June 2, 1814, British ambassadors left England for Ghent to begin negotiations with the U.S. The Times proclaimed, “Our demands may be couched in a single word, — Submission!”

Meanwhile, the Sun, which was never quite as abusive as the Times said of Madison, “that contemptible wretch Madison and his gang . . ..” (The Sun, August 4, 1814)

Yet, the Morning Post, also an independent papter, took up the cause purported by the Times. As early as 18 January 1814, they said to have discovered more damaging evidence against Madison. “. . . a new trait in the character of the American government. Enjoying the reputation of being the most unprincipled and the most contemptible on the face of the earth, they were already known to be impervious to any noble sentiment; but it is only of late that we find them insensible of the shame of defeat even of the brutish quality of becoming beaten into a sense of their unworthiness and their incapacity.” Of Madison himself, the Morning Post (1 February 1814) called the American President “a despot in disguise; a miniature imitation” and tool of Bonaparte.

The Courier, on the other hand, was seen as a “voice” of the government and customarily received information directly from the ministers. On 31 March 1814, with the surrender of Paris, the Ministry decided to turn the full brunt of the British forces on America. The Courier, therefore, on 15 April, announced that 20,000 men were being sent from Europe to the American front. That number of men was equal to two-thirds of Wellington’s forces. The natural assumption was made that such a force would make easy pickings of the Americans.

Beyond the Times’ call for Submission, the Courier listed the terms for agreement as: (1) The right of impressment must be expressly conceded, anything short of this would be unwise and a disappointment. (2) The U. S. were to be interdicted the fisheries. (3) Spain was to be supported in recovering Louisiana.

Information for this piece is chiefly derived from History of the United States of America: The second administration of James Madison 1813-1817 by Henry James.

Captain Stanwick’s Bride: Tragic Characters in Classic Lit Series Novel [Arriving February 19, 2021]

“Happiness consists more in conveniences of pleasure that occur everyday than in great pieces of good fortune that happen but seldom.” – Benjamin Franklin

Captain Whittaker Stanwick has a successful military career and a respectable home farm in Lancashire. What he does not have in his life is felicity. Therefore, when the opportunity arrives, following his wife’s death, Stanwick sets out to know a bit of happiness, at last—finally to claim a woman who stirs his soul. Yet, he foolishly commits himself to one woman only weeks before he has found a woman, though shunned by her people and his, who touches his heart. Will he deny the strictures placed upon him by society in order learn the secret of happiness is freedom: Freedom to love and freedom to know courage?

Loosely based on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish” and set against the final battles of the War of 1812, this tale shows the length a man will go to in order to claim a remarkable woman as his.

Kindle      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W9GW1M8

Kindle Unlimited https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/hz/subscribe/ku?passThroughAsin=B08W9GW1M8&_encoding=UTF8&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W7JV2RR

Posted in American History, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, military, Napoleonic Wars, real life tales, Regency era, research, War of 1812 | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A War of Words Preceded the Treaty of Ghent, Marking the End of the War of 1812 between the U.S. and Great Britain

Celebrating the Release of “Captain Stanwick’s Bride” with The Real Myles Standish

What do we know of the real Myles Standish of Mayflower fame? In truth, not as much as one might think. Much of his life before he traveled to America with the Pilgrims is laced with speculation. For example, where was Standish born? We believe he was born somewhere between 1584 and 1587 and likely in Lancashire, England, (OR) on the Isle of Man. We make the assumption he had at least a basic education, for he signed several documents sent to the Bay and must have been conversant with figures to be colony treasurer. His inventory included several dozen books, valued at £9 3s.; although there were three Bibles and a number of other theological volumes, Standish also owned such titles as Homer’s Iliad and Caesar’s Commentaries.

http://mayflowerhistory.com/standish-myles ~ This modern portrait of Myles Standish by Mike Haywood. It is based off a portrait that was purported to have been done in London in 1626. Prints of this portrait can be obtained in the MayflowerHistory.com Store.

Those who purport the idea he was from Lancashire point to Nathaniel Morton’s book New England’s Memorial (1669), which lists Lancashire as Standish’s birthplace. Morton claims Standish owned a book from the head of the Rivington Grammar School in Lancashire. He also logically claims that the town that Standish help found and his residence there was named “Duxbury” because Standish was part of the Standishes of Duxbury Hall in Lancashire. According to the tales told, Standish was an heir to a fairly sizable estate in Lancashire, but his lands were lost during the English Civil War, and neither he nor his son Alexander were ever able legally to regain control of the estate.

Yet, his last will and testament speaks of lands “surreptitiously detained” from him. These lands were on the Isle of Man and, at one time, were owned by Thomas Standish, of the Standishes of the Isle of Man.

“In his will, dated 7 March 1655[/6] and proved 4 May 1657, “Myles Standish Senior of Duxburrow” asked that “if I die at Duxburrow my body to be laid as near as conveniently may be to my two daughters Lora Standish my daughter and Mary Standish my daughter-in-law” and bequeathed to “my dear and loving wife Barbara Standish” one-third of his estate after all debts are paid; to “my son Josias Standish upon his marriage” cattle to the value of £40 (if possible), and “that every one of my four sons viz: Allexander Standish, Myles Standish, Josias Standish and Charles Standish may have forty pounds apiece,” to “my eldest son Allexaner … a double share in land,” and “so long as they live single that the whole be in partnership betwixt them”; “my dearly beloved wife Bar­bara Standish, Allexander Standish, Myles Standish and Josias Standish” to be joint executors; “my loving friends Mr. Timothy Hatherley and Capt. James Cudworth” to be supervisors; to “Marcye Robinson whom I tenderly love for her grandfather’s sake” £3; to “my servant John Irish Jr.” 40s. beyond what is due him by covenant; and to “my son & heir apparent Allexander Standish all my lands as heir apparent by lawful descent in Ormistick, Borsconge, Wrightington, Maudsley, Newburrow, Crawston and the Isle of Man and given to me as right heir by lawful descent but surruptuously [sic] detained from me my great-grandfather being a second or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish” [MD 3:153-55, citing PCPR 2:1:37-38].” [Miles Standish Biography]

Unfortunately, a document that recorded something of his military career was lost in the 1920s and never stood up for accuracy. We do know he was part of Queen Elizabeth’s army and was stationed in Holland, where he became acquainted with John Robinson and the Pilgrims living in Leiden. The Pilgrims hired him to be their military “captain” and establish the defensive lines to protect the colony against the French, Dutch, and Spanish, as well as the Native Americans.

It was Standish’s job to lead exploratory missions of the area about the Pilgrims’ settlement. He oversaw the construction of the fort at Plymouth and the placement of the cannons brought along for a defense in a “savage” country. Along with his military duties, he was charged with trading expeditions, for the Pilgrims required supplies and food. “He made several trips to England to bring trading goods back and to negotiate with the Merchant Adventurers who had financially sponsored the joint-stock company that funded the Pilgrims’ voyage.” [Mayflower History]

During the first winter at Plymouth, many of the Pilgrims took sick and died, including his wife Ruth, who had traveled to America with him. It is said he assisted in tending many of the sick and won praise for his kindness.

Yet, Standish was not known to be exceptionally kind. He led attacks on the Indians in the Massachusetts Bay area after learning they planned to attack and destroy the Plymouth and the Wessagussett colonies. Those captured were executed in what was termed “heavy-handed” ways.

He was charged with assisting to keep the law of the community. “He was on the receiving end of John Billington’s verbal wrath in 1621 (Billington refused to follow the captain’s orders), and was called a ‘silly boy’ in a letter that was sent out during the Oldham-Lyford scandal of 1624, and was noted for his short stature and for his quick temper. He was sent to arrest Thomas Morton in 1628, for which he received the nickname ‘Captain Shrimp’ from Morton. William Hubbard reported Standish’s temper was like a ‘chimney soon fired.'” [Mayflower History]

17th century image of a man in armor with musket. Myles Standish would have worn similar armor, clothing and used similar weapons to those seen here.
17th century image of a man in armor with musket. Myles Standish would have worn similar armor, clothing and used similar weapons to those seen here. ~ http://mayflowerhistory.com/standish-myles

Even so, he held many positions of authority over the years. He married Barbara, a woman who arrived on the second ship to land at Plymouth Rock the Anne, in 1623, Together they helped to found the town of Duxbury. They had seven children:

  1. CHARLES, b. say 1624; living 1627; d. by about 1635.
  2. ALEXANDER, b. say 1626 (died 6 July 1702 “being about 76 years of age” [NEHGR 87:153]); m. (1) by about 1660 Sarah Alden, daughter of JOHN ALDEN; m. (2) by 1689 as her third husband Desire (Doty) (Sherman) Holmes, daughter of EDWARD DOTY [PM 177].
  3. JOHN, b. say 1627; no further record.
  4. MYLES, b. say 1629; m. Boston 19 July 1660 Sarah Winslow, daughter of JOHN WINSLOW [PM 511; BVR 76].
  5. LORA, b. say 1631; d. by 7 March 1655[/6], unm. (from father’s will).
  6. JOSIAS, b. say 1633; m. (1) Marshfield 19 December 1654 Mary Dingley [MarVR l]; m. (2) after 1655 Sarah Allen, daughter of Samuel Allen (in his will of 2 August 1669 Samuel Allen bequeathed to “my son-in-law Josiah Standish” [SPR 6:27]).
  7. CHARLES, b. say 1635; living 7 March 1655[/6] (named in father’s will); no further record.

“On 1 July 1633 through 20 March 1636/7 Captain Standish was allowed to mow land he had formerly mowed [PCR 1:14, 40, 56]. On 4 December 1637 Captain Myles Standish was granted the surplusage of land on “Ducksborrow side” in consideration of the “want of lands he should have had to his proportion [PCR 1:70]. On 2 July 1638 Captain Myles Standish received three hundred acres of uplands [PCR 1:91]. On 1 October 1638 he was granted a garden place at Duxborrow side, which was formerly laid forth for him [PCR 1 :99]. On 4 March 1650/1 “whereas Captain Miles Standish hath been at much trouble and pains, and hath gone sundry journeys into Yarmouth aforesaid in the said town’s business, and likely to have more in that behalf, in respect whereunto the Court have granted unto the said Captain Standish” about forty or fifty acres [PCR 2:164].” [Miles Standish Biography]

Standish lived out his later years in Duxbury, dying in 1656 “after his suffering of much dolorous pain,” apparently from kidney stones.

Resources:

Britannica

Miles Standish Biography

“Myles Standish, Born Where?”, Mayflower Quarterly 72:133-159.

_______________________________________

Captain Stanwick’s Bride: Tragic Characters in Classic Lit Series Novel [Arriving February 19, 2021]

“Happiness consists more in conveniences of pleasure that occur everyday than in great pieces of good fortune that happen but seldom.” – Benjamin Franklin

Captain Whittaker Stanwick has a successful military career and a respectable home farm in Lancashire. What he does not have in his life is felicity. Therefore, when the opportunity arrives, following his wife’s death, Stanwick sets out to know a bit of happiness, at last—finally to claim a woman who stirs his soul. Yet, he foolishly commits himself to one woman only weeks before he has found a woman, though shunned by her people and his, who touches his heart. Will he deny the strictures placed upon him by society in order learn the secret of happiness is freedom: Freedom to love and freedom to know courage?

Loosely based on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish” and set against the final battles of the War of 1812, this tale shows the length a man will go to in order to claim a remarkable woman as his.

Purchase Links:

Kindle      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W9GW1M8

Kindle Unlimited https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/hz/subscribe/ku?passThroughAsin=B08W9GW1M8&_encoding=UTF8&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W7JV2RR

Posted in America, American History, book release, British history, eBooks, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, history, military, publishing, real life tales, Regency era, Regency romance, research, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Battle of the Thames’s Role in “Captain Stanwick’s Bride”

Engraved portrait of William Henry Harrison, by R.W. Dodson from an original portrait by J.R. Lambdin painted for the National Portrait Gallery. ~ https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Battle_of_the_Thames

The Battle of the Thames during the War of 1812 proved to be an important American victory in what was known, at the time, as Upper Canada, for it allowed the Americans to combine its control of the Northwest territory.

General William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory and later President of the United States, led an army of 3500 American troops and militia men against a British force of one-hald their size at Moraviantown, along the Thames River in what is now Ontario, Canada. The British forces were joined by an “Indian Confederation” led by the Shawnee war chief Tecumseh. Major General Henry Procter, who had made several mistakes leading up to the battle that greatly influenced the British forces ability to win directed the British response. This fact plays out repeatedly in my new novel, Captain Stanwick’s Bride. The mention of a real person in the book is rare on my part, and I do not mean the tale as a condemnation of Procter’s choices. However, the mistakes made do assist in enriching the tale and are part of the history of The Battle of the Thames. Procter is regarded by many as an inept leader who relied heavily on textbook procedure. His “going by the book” is attributed to his lack of any combat experience before coming to Canada.

According to sources, “Procter was born in Ireland. His father, Richard Procter, was a surgeon in the British Army. Henry Procter began his military career at the age of 18 as an ensign in the 43rd Regiment of Foot in April 1781. He served as a lieutenant in New York in the final months of the American War of Independence. His promotion was slow, probably indicating a lack of means, since commissions were usually obtained by purchase [rather than ability]. Procter became a captain in November 1792. He was promoted to major three years later in May 1795, and on 9 October 1800 became a lieutenant colonel in command of the 1st battalion of the 41st Regiment of Foot. Procter joined his new regiment in Lower Canada in 1802. He served in Canada for the next ten years. Inspecting officers, including Major-General Isaac Brock, noted that Procter’s regiment was ‘very sharp’, indicating a good standard of drill and discipline, and that this was due to Procter’s ‘indefatigable industry.'” [Hyatt, A. M. J. (1987). “Procter, Henry”. In Halpenny, Francess G (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. VI (1821–1835) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press.]

At the time of the battle the British army was retreating from Fort Malden, Ontario, after Oliver Hazard Perry’s victory in the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813. The British, faced with the lack of any naval support, abandoned Fort Detroit and retreated back across Burlington Heights in Upper Canada.

Johnson, Col. Richard; TecumsehArtist’s re-creation of the death of Shawnee Chief Tecumseh at the Battle of the Thames, Oct. 5, 1813, lithograph 1833.
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. ~ https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Thames

The British Army, meaning Procter thought to leave their Native American allies behind. Tecumseh considered Procter’s actions and the army’s hasty retreat as an act of cowardice and of betrayal. Although he had one thousand warriors, the Indian Confederation was not as well supplied as were the American forces. Procter’s orders to abandon Fort Detroit very much announced the campaign’s doom. The retreat was poorly organized, with the British leaving their breakfasts on the fire in order to meet Harrison’s forces. Much of their equipment was left behind in their rush inward from Fort Detroit, and, supposedly, they had but one cannon when Harrison arrived to face them. Moreover, the area into which they retreated had a sparse population and not enough food supplies to fee an army of 1800. The British were put on half rations, and morale was low. Tecumseh attempted to rally both his men and the British officers, but to no avail, for an American raiding party managed to capture the last supply boat of ammunition and food rations spelling the British forces’ doom along the Thames River.

ARRIVING FEBRUARY 19, 2021

CAPTAIN STANWICK’S BRIDE: TRAGIC CHARACTERS IN CLASSIC LIT SERIES NOVEL

“Happiness consists more in conveniences of pleasure that occur everyday than in great pieces of good fortune that happen but seldom.” – Benjamin Franklin

Captain Whittaker Stanwick has a successful military career and a respectable home farm in Lancashire. What he does not have in his life is felicity. Therefore, when the opportunity arrives, following his wife’s death, Stanwick sets out to know a bit of happiness, at last—finally to claim a woman who stirs his soul. Yet, he foolishly commits himself to one woman only weeks before he has found a woman, though shunned by her people and his, who touches his heart. Will he deny the strictures placed upon him by society in order learn the secret of happiness is freedom: Freedom to love and freedom to know courage?

Loosely based on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish” and set against the final battles of the War of 1812, this tale shows the length a man will go to in order to claim a remarkable woman as his.

————————————–

How does this battle play out in Captain Stanwick’s Bride? First, a reader should know this book is one in the Tragic Characters in Classic Lit Series and is inspired by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s narrative poem, “The Courtship of Miles Standish.” In Longfellow’s tale, Captain Miles Standish of Mayflower fame asks his friend, John Alden, to court Miss Priscilla Mullins for him. Standish was the Plymouth Colony’s military leader, and he had lost his wife during the first hard winter at Plymouth, Massachusetts. Priscilla prefers Alden to Standish, meaning the “good captain” does not achieve his Happily Ever After.

The purpose of the series is to take such “tragic characters” and move them into Regency England and provide them a happier ending.

Here is the opening scene that takes place at the Battle of the Thames. Captain Stanwick (purposeful change in the spelling of the name) is serving under Procter.

Chapter One 

5 October 1813

Upper Canada, near Chatham 

“Hold your ground!” Captain Whittaker Myles Stanwick ordered his men. The British forces of which he was a part had been pursued by some thirty-five hundred American militia and regular army across the Ontario peninsula. This action was certainly not what Stanwick had thought he would be doing when he had joined the British Army some fifteen years prior. He most assuredly had not expected to be serving shoulder-to-shoulder with allies from a confederation of Indian tribes, lead by a Shawnee war chief by the name of Tecumseh and a Wyandott war chief called Roundhead.

Stankwick instinctively knew when the British had “drawn cuts” regarding the upcoming battle, the British had chosen the shorter straw. Therefore, he had decided, if push came to shove, he would order his men to surrender rather than to view another massacre. 

“Keep your eyes trained on the road,” he instructed. 

From his vantage point, Whit studied where Chief Tecumseh made his way along the line of British soldiers, shaking hands with each British officer. Even so, Stanwick wondered how loyal their Indian colleagues would be once this war of American aggression was over. The Shawnee warrior chief had worked miracles in organizing an Indian confederacy, but, essentially, the Indians had only agreed to join forces with the British so they could stop white settlements in what was called the “Northwest Territory.” Whit wondered what would happen if the British interests prevailed in this matter. Would the tribes expect the British to walk away from such vast resources? They would be sorely disappointed if that were the case.

He sighed heavily, a habit of which he came been made aware of late. He was not certain he could break the gesture as long as he was asked to follow the orders of an incompetent, as he was just now. 

His country had not sent him to the Canadian front to be a diplomat: Rather he was a soldier, the only occupation he had known for more than a decade. “I am the fighter of battles, a lover and wooer of dangers,” he thought. He owned a farm, had inherited it from his father, but he had been a soldier since he was nineteen years of age. He swallowed another deep breath as he took in the scene forming before his eyes. Whit supposed it was important for Tecumseh to boost morale, but even with one thousand Indian warriors and six hundred British troops, their alliance was outnumbered more than two to one. 

He reflected on his first impressions of the Indian tribes when he had arrived in Canada. The Indian encampment, which was pitched on the edge of a meadow, between the lake and the forest, set close to one of the villages in this part of Upper Canada. Women worked by the tents, and the warriors, some of them quite frightening to behold, sat beside a fire and smoked and talked together. Odd as it would sound to some of his fellow Englishman, Whit thought the scene, though primitive in its own right, could have been found in the history of England. He knew something of the Carvetii, the Brigantes, and the Novantae who ruled parts of Celtic Britain, and these so-called “savages” reminded him of those. Braves of the tribes were those who marched with the British Army. Some were quite spectacular specimens: gigantic in stature. Whit’s father would have called them “huge as Goliath of Gath, or the terrible Og, king of Bashan.” One he recognized on sight was called Pecksout, who worked his knives in scabbards of wampum suspended about his neck. Two-edged trenchant knives, with points as sharp as a needle.

“Might have had a chance,” he murmured, “if Procter had held Detroit.” In truth, Whit possessed little respect for Major General Henry Procter. “Untenable position,” he grumbled. If he could prevent it, he would not see his men shot down to protect Procter’s reputation. 

Whit was well aware, despite what his superiors declared, the British loss of Detroit had pronounced their doom. William Henry Harrison’s forces and the American navy had, most assuredly, outmaneuvered Procter. The British position had depended upon maintaining command of Lake Erie, for the area, which they now occupied was sparsely populated, with insufficient crops and livestock to feed Procter’s troops, the British sailors on the lake, and the Indians and their families gathered at Amherstburg under Tecumseh. Supplies could only reach them by ship, and with the Americans in control of the lake and its tributaries, Stanwick and his men were quite literally starving. 

“Of all the idiocy,” Whit continued to grumble. “One small oversight after another. Now we are ducks lined up for the easy shot.” 

Previously, British Commander Robert Barclay had failed to maintain the defense of Preque Isle while British forces received supplies. Therefore, the Americans had had a relatively easy means to capture control of the lake, leading to their current situation. 

“One demme mistake after another,” he had told the junior officers serving under him. “Could not believe Procter meant to defend Fort Amhertsburg without guns.” When they had reached the fortification, thinking they had achieved a strong defense against their enemy, they had learned the fort’s guns had been removed and mounted on Robert Heriot Barclay’s ships. “Guns the British commander of the lake had failed to use against the Americans.” The irony of their situation drove Whit a bit crazy with disgust. 

“You do not believe we will know success?” Lieutenant Persile had asked in a shaky voice.

On this particular morning, shortly after daybreak, Procter had ordered Stanwick and the other troops to abandon their half-cooked meals and retreat another two miles to form a line of defense with only a single six-pounder cannon available to them. Procter planned to trap Harrison on the banks of the Thames to drive the Americans off the road with cannon fire, but the fool had made no attempt to fortify their position by creating an abatis with fallen trees or throwing up earthworks. Even a halfwit, and Stanwick was no dolt, would realize the area they were to defend would prove no obstacle to the Americans. Major General Harrison, an artful strategist, had brought together a group of men who had proven themselves excellent horsemen and willful fighters.

“I suppose anything is possible,” Whit told Persile. “Stranger things have happened. All we can do is our best. God will decide the rest.” 

Resources:

American Battlefield Trust

Britannica

The Canadian Encyclopedia

Ohio History Central

Purchase Links:

Kindle      https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W9GW1M8

Kindle Unlimited https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/hz/subscribe/ku?passThroughAsin=B08W9GW1M8&_encoding=UTF8&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08W7JV2RR

Posted in American History, book release, British history, excerpt, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, historical fiction, Living in the Regency, military, reading habits, real life tales, Regency romance, research, War of 1812, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Battle of the Thames’s Role in “Captain Stanwick’s Bride”

A Character Study of Kitty Bennet, a Guest Post from Lelia Eye

(For those who think many Jane Austen fan fiction writers do not study the author’s work, I give you this post from Lelia Eye on combing Austen’s words in order to delineate characterization. It first appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on 19 November 2020. Enjoy!)

I would first like to apologize for the length of this post. I hemmed and hawed over how to handle a character study of Kitty Bennet before finally deciding to aim for comprehensive and include every mention of her in Pride and Prejudice in this blog post. This comes with a sort of caveat, though. There are some instances in which she is lumped in with a group of others, and I am not including those sorts of indirect references unless it seems necessary for character explanation. In addition, it’s always possible that I missed an instance where her name was not specifically given. But I can confidently say that I have collected most of the references to Kitty.

The name “Kitty” appears seventy-one times in Pride and Prejudice. Of course, you also have to look for “Catherine.” When you exclude the name “Lady Catherine,” you will find that the name “Catherine” occurs ten times in Pride and Prejudice. Interestingly, seven of those times is in conjunction with Lydia’s name (“Catherine and Lydia”), one instance occurs with Elizabeth’s name (“Elizabeth and Catherine”), and two instances occur in which the name is not used with a sister’s name. Of note, there are also seven occurrences of “Kitty and Lydia” to be found, which only further solidifies Kitty’s connection to Lydia. Oddly, there is no occurrence of “Miss Kitty” or “Miss Catherine” to be found, which makes it a bit difficult when one tries to determine what non-family members call her. I am inclined to think that new acquaintances call her “Miss Catherine,” but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts! I haven’t especially found a rhyme or reason for those ten mentions of “Catherine” – unless it’s just to emphasize that “Kitty” is a nickname.

I have long held an interest in Kitty due to the possibilities inherent in her character. My general impression of her has always been that she is a muted Lydia – but one for whom there is ultimately some hope. It has always seemed strange to me that she is older than Lydia, yet Lydia is the leader. Perhaps it can be attributed to Mrs. Bennet’s treatment of Lydia. Since Lydia is the baby of the family, that may be why Mrs. Bennet favors her. Kitty’s options for a sister to “buddy up” with include her two intelligent older sisters (who are already best buds), the moralizing Mary, or the headstrong but fun-seeking Lydia. I suppose she cannot be entirely blamed for wanting to have fun!

Her parents certainly do not think especially well of her:

  • “They have none of them much to recommend them,” replied [Mr. Bennet]; “they are all silly and ignorant like other girls; but Lizzy has something more of quickness than her sisters.” 
  • Mrs. Bennet deigned not to make any reply, but, unable to contain herself, began scolding one of her daughters.
    “Don’t keep coughing so, Kitty, for Heaven’s sake! Have a little compassion on my nerves. You tear them to pieces.”
    “Kitty has no discretion in her coughs,” said her father; “she times them ill.”
    “I do not cough for my own amusement,” replied Kitty fretfully. “When is your next ball to be, Lizzy?” 
  • “Now, Kitty, you may cough as much as you choose,” said Mr. Bennet; and, as he spoke, he left the room, fatigued with the raptures of his wife. 
  • [Mrs. Bennet speaking about Jane and disparaging her other daughters:] “I am sure,” she added, “if it was not for such good friends I do not know what would become of her, for she is very ill indeed, and suffers a vast deal, though with the greatest patience in the world, which is always the way with her, for she has, without exception, the sweetest temper I have ever met with. I often tell my other girls they are nothing to her. . . . “
  • But their father, though very laconic in his expressions of pleasure, was really glad to see [Jane and Elizabeth]; he had felt their importance in the family circle. The evening conversation, when they were all assembled, had lost much of its animation, and almost all its sense by the absence of Jane and Elizabeth.
  • [Mr. Bennet to Elizabeth:] “Do not make yourself uneasy, my love. Wherever you and Jane are known you must be respected and valued; and you will not appear to less advantage for having a couple of—or I may say, three—very silly sisters . . . .”
  • “We will be down as soon as we can,” said Jane; “but I dare say Kitty is forwarder than either of us, for she went up stairs half an hour ago.”
    “Oh! hang Kitty! what has she to do with it? Come be quick, be quick! Where is your sash, my dear?”
  • Happy for all her maternal feelings was the day on which Mrs. Bennet got rid of her two most deserving daughters. [Note: Kitty isn’t one of them.]

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Bingley’s sisters do not think well of Kitty either:

  • Miss Bennet’s pleasing manners grew on the goodwill of Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley; and though the mother was found to be intolerable, and the younger sisters not worth speaking to, a wish of being better acquainted with them was expressed towards the two eldest.
  • “I hope,” said [Mrs. Bingley to Mr. Darcy], as they were walking together in the shrubbery the next day, “you will give your mother-in-law a few hints, when this desirable event takes place, as to the advantage of holding her tongue; and if you can compass it, do cure the younger girls of running after officers. . . .”

Darcy naturally has his own protests about Kitty:

  • “ . . . The situation of your mother’s family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison to that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father.”
  • The compliment to herself and her sister was not unfelt. It soothed, but it could not console her for the contempt which had thus been self-attracted by the rest of her family; and as she considered that Jane’s disappointment had in fact been the work of her nearest relations, and reflected how materially the credit of both must be hurt by such impropriety of conduct, she felt depressed beyond anything she had ever known before.

Even Elizabeth does not seem especially thrilled about hanging out with her younger sisters in the absence of Jane:

  • Absence had increased her desire of seeing Charlotte again, and weakened her disgust of Mr. Collins. There was novelty in the scheme, and as, with such a mother and such uncompanionable sisters, home could not be faultless, a little change was not unwelcome for its own sake.

However, it may be said that Elizabeth does seem to feel a bit for Kitty and Lydia:

  • “ . . . Kitty and Lydia take [Mr. Wickham’s] defection much more to heart than I do. They are young in the ways of the world, and not yet open to the mortifying conviction that handsome young men must have something to live on as well as the plain.”

As for Kitty’s preferences in a general sense, she seems to be more concerned with dancing than with the characters of her dance partners (and especially concerned with the notion of having a ball): 

  • Mary had heard herself mentioned to Miss Bingley as the most accomplished girl in the neighbourhood; and Catherine and Lydia had been fortunate enough never to be without partners, which was all that they had yet learnt to care for at a ball. 
  • [In this passage, Lydia is to step forward to speak, but it is after consultation with Kitty:] . . . Mrs. Bennet was satisfied, and soon afterwards ordered her carriage. Upon this signal, the youngest of her daughters put herself forward. The two girls had been whispering to each other during the whole visit, and the result of it was, that the youngest should tax Mr. Bingley with having promised on his first coming into the country to give a ball at Netherfield. 
  • The happiness anticipated by Catherine and Lydia depended less on any single event, or any particular person, for though they each, like Elizabeth, meant to dance half the evening with Mr. Wickham, he was by no means the only partner who could satisfy them, and a ball was, at any rate, a ball.
  • If there had not been a Netherfield ball to prepare for and talk of, the younger Miss Bennets would have been in a very pitiable state at this time, for from the day of the invitation, to the day of the ball, there was such a succession of rain as prevented their walking to Meryton once. No aunt, no officers, no news could be sought after—the very shoe-roses for Netherfield were got by proxy. Even Elizabeth might have found some trial of her patience in weather which totally suspended the improvement of her acquaintance with Mr. Wickham; and nothing less than a dance on Tuesday, could have made such a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday endurable to Kitty and Lydia.
  • Wickham, Lydia, were all forgotten. Jane was beyond competition her favourite child. At that moment, she cared for no other. Her younger sisters soon began to make interest with her for objects of happiness which she might in future be able to dispense.
    Mary petitioned for the use of the library at Netherfield; and Kitty begged very hard for a few balls there every winter.

Kitty is also highly concerned with obtaining gossip, particularly as pertains to the milia regiment (but not limited to it):

  • Catherine and Lydia had information for them of a different sort. Much had been done and much had been said in the regiment since the preceding Wednesday; several of the officers had dined lately with their uncle, a private had been flogged, and it had actually been hinted that Colonel Forster was going to be married. 
  • Charlotte hardly had time to answer, before they were joined by Kitty, who came to tell the same news; and no sooner had they entered the breakfast-room, where Mrs. Bennet was alone, than she likewise began on the subject, calling on Miss Lucas for her compassion, and entreating her to persuade her friend Lizzy to comply with the wishes of all her family. 
  • Kitty and Lydia were far from envying Miss Lucas, for Mr. Collins was only a clergyman; and it affected them in no other way than as a piece of news to spread at Meryton. 
  • The village of Longbourn was only one mile from Meryton; a most convenient distance for the young ladies, who were usually tempted thither three or four times a week, to pay their duty to their aunt and to a milliner’s shop just over the way. The two youngest of the family, Catherine and Lydia, were particularly frequent in these attentions; their minds were more vacant than their sisters’, and when nothing better offered, a walk to Meryton was necessary to amuse their morning hours and furnish conversation for the evening; and however bare of news the country in general might be, they always contrived to learn some from their aunt. At present, indeed, they were well supplied both with news and happiness by the recent arrival of a militia regiment in the neighbourhood; it was to remain the whole winter, and Meryton was the headquarters.
    Their visits to Mrs. Phillips were now productive of the most interesting intelligence. Every day added something to their knowledge of the officers’ names and connections. Their lodgings were not long a secret, and at length they began to know the officers themselves. Mr. Phillips visited them all, and this opened to his nieces a store of felicity unknown before. They could talk of nothing but officers; and Mr. Bingley’s large fortune, the mention of which gave animation to their mother, was worthless in their eyes when opposed to the regimentals of an ensign.
    After listening one morning to their effusions on this subject, Mr. Bennet coolly observed:
    “From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it some time, but I am now convinced.”
    Catherine was disconcerted, and made no answer; but Lydia, with perfect indifference, continued to express her admiration of Captain Carter, and her hope of seeing him in the course of the day, as he was going the next morning to London.

What I find interesting with regard to Mr. Bennet’s comment above concerning Kitty and Lydia’s silliness is Mrs. Bennet’s subsequent defense of her children, as is seen below (note: I think her reference to their age is not truly unreasonable, nor is her astonishment that Mr. Bennet would disparage his own children):

  • “I am astonished, my dear,” said Mrs. Bennet, “that you should be so ready to think your own children silly. If I wished to think slightingly of anybody’s children, it should not be of my own, however.”
    “If my children are silly, I must hope to be always sensible of it.”
    “Yes—but as it happens, they are all of them very clever.”
    “This is the only point, I flatter myself, on which we do not agree. I had hoped that our sentiments coincided in every particular, but I must so far differ from you as to think our two youngest daughters uncommonly foolish.”
    “My dear Mr. Bennet, you must not expect such girls to have the sense of their father and mother. When they get to our age, I dare say they will not think about officers any more than we do. . . .”

Here is further evidence of Kitty’s redcoat obsession (with a strong emphasis on Mr. Wickham when he appears as a new acquaintance, which trumps even the other redcoats):

  • In Meryton they parted; the two youngest repaired to the lodgings of one of the officers’ wives, and Elizabeth continued her walk alone . . . . 
  • To Catherine and Lydia, neither the letter nor its writer were in any degree interesting. It was next to impossible that their cousin should come in a scarlet coat, and it was now some weeks since they had received pleasure from the society of a man in any other colour.
  • All were struck with the stranger’s air, all wondered who he could be; and Kitty and Lydia, determined if possible to find out, led the way across the street, under pretense of wanting something in an opposite shop, and fortunately had just gained the pavement when the two gentlemen, turning back, had reached the same spot. Mr. Denny addressed them directly, and entreated permission to introduce his friend, Mr. Wickham, who had returned with him the day before from town, and he was happy to say had accepted a commission in their corps. This was exactly as it should be; for the young man wanted only regimentals to make him completely charming.
  • She had been watching him the last hour, she said, as he walked up and down the street, and had Mr. Wickham appeared, Kitty and Lydia would certainly have continued the occupation, but unluckily no one passed windows now except a few of the officers, who, in comparison with the stranger, were become “stupid, disagreeable fellows.” 
  • After breakfast, the girls walked to Meryton to inquire if Mr. Wickham were returned, and to lament over his absence from the Netherfield ball. He joined them on their entering the town, and attended them to their aunt’s where his regret and vexation, and the concern of everybody, was well talked over. 
  • In the afternoon Lydia was urgent with the rest of the girls to walk to Meryton, and to see how everybody went on; but Elizabeth steadily opposed the scheme. It should not be said that the Miss Bennets could not be at home half a day before they were in pursuit of the officers.
  • [When the redcoats leave:] The elder Miss Bennets alone were still able to eat, drink, and sleep, and pursue the usual course of their employments. Very frequently were they reproached for this insensibility by Kitty and Lydia, whose own misery was extreme, and who could not comprehend such hard-heartedness in any of the family.
    “Good Heaven! what is to become of us? What are we to do?” would they often exclaim in the bitterness of woe. “How can you be smiling so, Lizzy?”
    Their affectionate mother shared all their grief; she remembered what she had herself endured on a similar occasion, five-and-twenty years ago.
    “I am sure,” said she, “I cried for two days together when Colonel Miller’s regiment went away. I thought I should have broken my heart.”
    “I am sure I shall break mine,” said Lydia.
    “If one could but go to Brighton!” observed Mrs. Bennet.
    “Oh, yes!—if one could but go to Brighton! But papa is so disagreeable.”
    “A little sea-bathing would set me up forever.”
    “And my aunt Phillips is sure it would do me a great deal of good,” added Kitty.
    Such were the kind of lamentations resounding perpetually through Longbourn House.
  • When Elizabeth had rejoiced over Wickham’s departure she found little other cause for satisfaction in the loss of the regiment. Their parties abroad were less varied than before, and at home she had a mother and sister whose constant repinings at the dullness of everything around them threw a real gloom over their domestic circle; and, though Kitty might in time regain her natural degree of sense, since the disturbers of her brain were removed, her other sister, from whose disposition greater evil might be apprehended, was likely to be hardened in all her folly and assurance by a situation of such double danger as a watering-place and a camp. 
  • Her tour to the Lakes was now the object of her happiest thoughts; it was her best consolation for all the uncomfortable hours which the discontentedness of her mother and Kitty made inevitable; and could she have included Jane in the scheme, every part of it would have been perfect.

I think part of what hurts Kitty’s development into an adult is the lack of expectations for just about anything, whether it is helping out with matters related to food (which Charlotte has to do) or trying to become involved in some “accomplishments” to preoccupy herself:

  • “Did Charlotte dine with you?”
    “No, she would go home. I fancy she was wanted about the mince-pies. For my part, Mr. Bingley, I always keep servants that can do their own work; my daughters are brought up very differently. . . .” 
  • The dinner too in its turn was highly admired; and he begged to know to which of his fair cousins the excellency of its cooking was owing. But he was set right there by Mrs. Bennet, who assured him with some asperity that they were very well able to keep a good cook, and that her daughters had nothing to do in the kitchen.
  • “Oh! then—some time or other we shall be happy to hear you. Our instrument is a capital one, probably superior to——You shall try it some day. Do your sisters play and sing?”
    “One of them does.”
  • “Why did not you all learn? You ought all to have learned. The Miss Webbs all play, and their father has not so good an income as yours. Do you draw?”
    “No, not at all.”
    “What, none of you?”
    “Not one.”
  • “Compared with some families, I believe we were; but such of us as wished to learn never wanted the means. We were always encouraged to read, and had all the masters that were necessary. Those who chose to be idle, certainly might.”

Only Mr. Collins seems to really have anything good to say about Kitty, and even then, it is indirect:

  • He had not been long seated before he complimented Mrs. Bennet on having so fine a family of daughters; said he had heard much of their beauty, but that in this instance fame had fallen short of the truth; and added, that he did not doubt her seeing them all in due time disposed of in marriage.

Kitty certainly has no good feelings toward Mr. Collins (which is of course justified):

  • Mr. Collins readily assented, and a book was produced; but, on beholding it (for everything announced it to be from a circulating library), he started back, and begging pardon, protested that he never read novels. Kitty stared at him, and Lydia exclaimed.
  • In pompous nothings on his side, and civil assents on that of his cousins, their time passed till they entered Meryton. The attention of the younger ones was then no longer to be gained by him. Their eyes were immediately wandering up in the street in quest of the officers, and nothing less than a very smart bonnet indeed, or a really new muslin in a shop window, could recall them.

Though Elizabeth is our heroine, it may have been better if Kitty and Lydia had been restricted from being “out” in spite of what Elizabeth thinks:

  • “All! What, all five out at once? Very odd! And you only the second. The younger ones out before the elder ones are married! Your younger sisters must be very young?”
    “Yes, my youngest is not sixteen. Perhaps she is full young to be much in company. But really, ma’am, I think it would be very hard upon younger sisters, that they should not have their share of society and amusement, because the elder may not have the means or inclination to marry early. The last-born has as good a right to the pleasures of youth at the first. And to be kept back on such a motive! I think it would not be very likely to promote sisterly affection or delicacy of mind.”

One thing that is to be said about Kitty is that she does not push things as far into the realm of “improper” as Lydia does:

  • Elizabeth passed quietly out of the room, Jane and Kitty followed, but Lydia stood her ground, determined to hear all she could; and Charlotte, detained first by the civility of Mr. Collins, whose inquiries after herself and all her family were very minute, and then by a little curiosity, satisfied herself with walking to the window and pretending not to hear. 
  • Elizabeth was sitting with her mother and sisters, reflecting on what she had heard, and doubting whether she was authorised to mention it, when Sir William Lucas himself appeared, sent by his daughter, to announce her engagement to the family. With many compliments to them, and much self-gratulation on the prospect of a connection between the houses, he unfolded the matter—to an audience not merely wondering, but incredulous; for Mrs. Bennet, with more perseverance than politeness, protested he must be entirely mistaken; and Lydia, always unguarded and often uncivil, boisterously exclaimed:
    “Good Lord! Sir William, how can you tell such a story? Do not you know that Mr. Collins wants to marry Lizzy?”
    Nothing less than the complaisance of a courtier could have borne without anger such treatment; but Sir William’s good breeding carried him through it all; and though he begged leave to be positive as to the truth of his information, he listened to all their impertinence with the most forbearing courtesy.
    Elizabeth, feeling it incumbent on her to relieve him from so unpleasant a situation, now put herself forward to confirm his account, by mentioning her prior knowledge of it from Charlotte herself; and endeavoured to put a stop to the exclamations of her mother and sisters by the earnestness of her congratulations to Sir William, in which she was readily joined by Jane, and by making a variety of remarks on the happiness that might be expected from the match, the excellent character of Mr. Collins, and the convenient distance of Hunsford from London.

These are some of the best descriptions of Kitty (and Lydia), if a bit scathing:

  • Her father, contented with laughing at them, would never exert himself to restrain the wild giddiness of his youngest daughters; and her mother, with manners so far from right herself, was entirely insensible of the evil. Elizabeth had frequently united with Jane in an endeavour to check the imprudence of Catherine and Lydia; but while they were supported by their mother’s indulgence, what chance could there be of improvement? Catherine, weak-spirited, irritable, and completely under Lydia’s guidance, had been always affronted by their advice; and Lydia, self-willed and careless, would scarcely give them a hearing. They were ignorant, idle, and vain. While there was an officer in Meryton, they would flirt with him; and while Meryton was within a walk of Longbourn, they would be going there forever. 
  • [Elizabeth talking first about Lydia:] “ . . . Her character will be fixed, and she will, at sixteen, be the most determined flirt that ever made herself or her family ridiculous; a flirt, too, in the worst and meanest degree of flirtation; without any attraction beyond youth and a tolerable person; and, from the ignorance and emptiness of her mind, wholly unable to ward off any portion of that universal contempt which her rage for admiration will excite. In this danger Kitty also is comprehended. She will follow wherever Lydia leads. Vain, ignorant, idle, and absolutely uncontrolled! Oh! my dear father, can you suppose it possible that they will not be censured and despised wherever they are known, and that their sisters will not be often involved in the disgrace?

I think this is one of the silliest showings of Lydia and Kitty–acting as though they are going to be giving their sisters a huge treat, only to have to borrow money because they just spent it all shopping (and then later causing the carriage to be crammed because they purchased too much):

  • [A]s they drew near the appointed inn where Mr. Bennet’s carriage was to meet them, they quickly perceived, in token of the coachman’s punctuality, both Kitty and Lydia looking out of a dining-room upstairs. These two girls had been above an hour in the place, happily employed in visiting an opposite milliner, watching the sentinel on guard, and dressing a salad and cucumber.
    After welcoming their sisters, they triumphantly displayed a table set out with such cold meat as an inn larder usually affords, exclaiming, “Is not this nice? Is not this an agreeable surprise?”
    “And we mean to treat you all,” added Lydia, “but you must lend us the money, for we have just spent ours at the shop out there.”
  • As soon as all had ate, and the elder ones paid, the carriage was ordered; and after some contrivance, the whole party, with all their boxes, work-bags, and parcels, and the unwelcome addition of Kitty’s and Lydia’s purchases, were seated in it.

Of course, there are other silly things done by Lydia and Kitty, as described in the below instances by Lydia:

  • “ . . . Dear me! we had such a good piece of fun the other day at Colonel Forster’s. Kitty and me were to spend the day there, and Mrs. Forster promised to have a little dance in the evening; (by the bye, Mrs. Forster and me are such friends!) and so she asked the two Harringtons to come, but Harriet was ill, and so Pen was forced to come by herself; and then, what do you think we did? We dressed up Chamberlayne in woman’s clothes on purpose to pass for a lady, only think what fun! Not a soul knew of it, but Colonel and Mrs. Forster, and Kitty and me, except my aunt, for we were forced to borrow one of her gowns; and you cannot imagine how well he looked! When Denny, and Wickham, and Pratt, and two or three more of the men came in, they did not know him in the least. Lord! how I laughed! and so did Mrs. Forster. I thought I should have died. And that made the men suspect something, and then they soon found out what was the matter.”
    With such kinds of histories of their parties and good jokes, did Lydia, assisted by Kitty’s hints and additions, endeavour to amuse her companions all the way to Longbourn.
  • “Oh! Mary,” said she, “I wish you had gone with us, for we had such fun! As we went along, Kitty and I drew up the blinds, and pretended there was nobody in the coach; and I should have gone so all the way, if Kitty had not been sick; and when we got to the George, I do think we behaved very handsomely, for we treated the other three with the nicest cold luncheon in the world, and if you would have gone, we would have treated you too. And then when we came away it was such fun! I thought we never should have got into the coach. I was ready to die of laughter. And then we were so merry all the way home! we talked and laughed so loud, that anybody might have heard us ten miles off!”

Whenever Lydia has something that Kitty does not, it makes Kitty become rather childish:

  • The rapture of Lydia on this occasion, her adoration of Mrs. Forster, the delight of Mrs. Bennet, and the mortification of Kitty, are scarcely to be described. Wholly inattentive to her sister’s feelings, Lydia flew about the house in restless ecstasy, calling for everyone’s congratulations, and laughing and talking with more violence than ever; whilst the luckless Kitty continued in the parlour repined at her fate in terms as unreasonable as her accent was peevish.
    “I cannot see why Mrs. Forster should not ask me as well as Lydia,” said she, “Though I am not her particular friend. I have just as much right to be asked as she has, and more too, for I am two years older.”
    In vain did Elizabeth attempt to make her reasonable, and Jane to make her resigned.
  • Kitty was the only one who shed tears [when Lydia left for Brighton]; but she did weep from vexation and envy. Mrs. Bennet was diffuse in her good wishes for the felicity of her daughter, and impressive in her injunctions that she should not miss the opportunity of enjoying herself as much as possible—advice which there was every reason to believe would be well attended to; and in the clamorous happiness of Lydia herself in bidding farewell, the more gentle adieus of her sisters were uttered without being heard.

But Kitty does enjoy being part of Lydia’s “secrets,” even to her detriment:

  • “Since writing the above, dearest Lizzy, something has occurred of a most unexpected and serious nature; but I am afraid of alarming you—be assured that we are all well. What I have to say relates to poor Lydia. An express came at twelve last night, just as we were all gone to bed, from Colonel Forster, to inform us that she was gone off to Scotland with one of his officers; to own the truth, with Wickham! Imagine our surprise. To Kitty, however, it does not seem so wholly unexpected. I am very, very sorry. So imprudent a match on both sides! . . .”
  • “ . . . And as to my father, I never in my life saw him so affected. Poor Kitty has anger for having concealed their attachment; but as it was a matter of confidence, one cannot wonder. . . .”
  • ” . . . Kitty then owned, with a very natural triumph on knowing more than the rest of us, that in Lydia’s last letter she had prepared her for such a step. She had known, it seems, of their being in love with each other, many weeks.”
    “But not before they went to Brighton?”
    “No, I believe not.”
  • “Do you suppose them to be in London?”
    “Yes; where else can they be so well concealed?”
    “And Lydia used to want to go to London,” added Kitty.
    “She is happy then,” said her father drily; “and her residence there will probably be of some duration.”

Without Lydia around, Kitty seems less confident and a bit fearful, but she also seems to start to come out from under Lydia’s shadow a bit:

  • They lagged behind, while Elizabeth, Kitty, and Darcy were to entertain each other. Very little was said by either; Kitty was too much afraid of him to talk; Elizabeth was secretly forming a desperate resolution; and perhaps he might be doing the same.
    They walked towards the Lucases, because Kitty wished to call upon Maria; and as Elizabeth saw no occasion for making it a general concern, when Kitty left them she went boldly on with him alone.
  • “I advise Mr. Darcy, and Lizzy, and Kitty,” said Mrs. Bennet, “to walk to Oakham Mount this morning. It is a nice long walk, and Mr. Darcy has never seen the view.”
    “It may do very well for the others,” replied Mr. Bingley; “but I am sure it will be too much for Kitty. Won’t it, Kitty?” Kitty owned that she had rather stay at home. Darcy professed a great curiosity to see the view from the Mount, and Elizabeth silently consented.
  • When Lydia went away she promised to write very often and very minutely to her mother and Kitty; but her letters were always long expected, and always very short. Those to her mother contained little else than that they were just returned from the library, where such and such officers had attended them, and where she had seen such beautiful ornaments as made her quite wild; that she had a new gown, or a new parasol, which she would have described more fully, but was obliged to leave off in a violent hurry, as Mrs. Forster called her, and they were going off to the camp; and from her correspondence with her sister, there was still less to be learnt—for her letters to Kitty, though rather longer, were much too full of lines under the words to be made public.After the first fortnight or three weeks of her absence, health, good humour, and cheerfulness began to reappear at Longbourn. Everything wore a happier aspect. The families who had been in town for the winter came back again, and summer finery and summer engagements arose. Mrs. Bennet was restored to her usual querulous serenity; and, by the middle of June, Kitty was so much recovered as to be able to enter Meryton without tears; an event of such happy promise as to make Elizabeth hope that by the following Christmas she might be so tolerably reasonable as not to mention an officer above once a day, unless, by some cruel and malicious arrangement at the War Office, another regiment should be quartered in Meryton.
  • In the dining-room they were soon joined by Mary and Kitty, who had been too busily engaged in their separate apartments to make their appearance before. One came from her books, and the other from her toilette. The faces of both, however, were tolerably calm; and no change was visible in either, except that the loss of her favourite sister, or the anger which she had herself incurred in this business, had given more of fretfulness than usual to the accents of Kitty.
  • “Mary and Kitty have been very kind, and would have shared in every fatigue, I am sure; but I did not think it right for either of them. Kitty is slight and delicate; and Mary studies so much, that her hours of repose should not be broken in on. . . .”
  • “This is a parade,” he cried, “which does one good; it gives such an elegance to misfortune! Another day I will do the same; I will sit in my library, in my nightcap and powdering gown, and give as much trouble as I can; or, perhaps, I may defer it till Kitty runs away.”
    “I am not going to run away, papa,” said Kitty fretfully. “If I should ever go to Brighton, I would behave better than Lydia.”
    You go to Brighton. I would not trust you so near it as Eastbourne for fifty pounds! No, Kitty, I have at last learnt to be cautious, and you will feel the effects of it. No officer is ever to enter into my house again, nor even to pass through the village. Balls will be absolutely prohibited, unless you stand up with one of your sisters. And you are never to stir out of doors till you can prove that you have spent ten minutes of every day in a rational manner.”
    Kitty, who took all these threats in a serious light, began to cry.
    “Well, well,” said he, “do not make yourself unhappy. If you are a good girl for the next ten years, I will take you to a review at the end of them.”
  • [When Lydia and Wickham come as a married couple.] The family were assembled in the breakfast room to receive them. Smiles decked the face of Mrs. Bennet as the carriage drove up to the door; her husband looked impenetrably grave; her daughters, alarmed, anxious, uneasy.

Indeed, a Kitty without Lydia seems sort of innocent but more aware than she was previously:

  • “There is a gentleman with him, mamma,” said Kitty; “who can it be?”
    “Some acquaintance or other, my dear, I suppose; I am sure I do not know.”
    “La!” replied Kitty, “it looks just like that man that used to be with him before. Mr. what’s-his-name. That tall, proud man.”
  • Two obstacles of the five being thus removed, Mrs. Bennet sat looking and winking at Elizabeth and Catherine for a considerable time, without making any impression on them. Elizabeth would not observe her; and when at last Kitty did, she very innocently said, “What is the matter mamma? What do you keep winking at me for? What am I to do?”
    “Nothing child, nothing. I did not wink at you.” She then sat still five minutes longer; but unable to waste such a precious occasion, she suddenly got up, and saying to Kitty, “Come here, my love, I want to speak to you,” took her out of the room. Jane instantly gave a look at Elizabeth which spoke her distress at such premeditation, and her entreaty that she would not give in to it. In a few minutes, Mrs. Bennet half-opened the door and called out:
    “Lizzy, my dear, I want to speak with you.”
    Elizabeth was forced to go.
    “We may as well leave them by themselves you know;” said her mother, as soon as she was in the hall. “Kitty and I are going upstairs to sit in my dressing-room.”
    Elizabeth made no attempt to reason with her mother, but remained quietly in the hall, till she and Kitty were out of sight, then returned into the drawing-room.
  • It was an evening of no common delight to them all; the satisfaction of Miss Bennet’s mind gave a glow of such sweet animation to her face, as made her look handsomer than ever. Kitty simpered and smiled, and hoped her turn was coming soon.

Through the work of her family, Kitty is able to grow into a much better person:

  • Kitty, to her very material advantage, spent the chief of her time with her two elder sisters. In society so superior to what she had generally known, her improvement was great. She was not of so ungovernable a temper as Lydia; and, removed from the influence of Lydia’s example, she became, by proper attention and management, less irritable, less ignorant, and less insipid. From the further disadvantage of Lydia’s society she was of course carefully kept, and though Mrs. Wickham frequently invited her to come and stay with her, with the promise of balls and young men, her father would never consent to her going.

Here is a collection of the bits and pieces pertaining to Kitty that I do not think have much significance to them in comparison to the other bits – but I did want to include everything so we could make sure to view her character in a complete sense:

  • “We will go as far as Meryton with you,” said Catherine and Lydia. Elizabeth accepted their company, and the three young ladies set off together.
  • Before Elizabeth had time for anything but a blush of surprise, Mrs. Bennet answered instantly, “Oh dear!—yes—certainly. I am sure Lizzy will be very happy—I am sure she can have no objection. Come, Kitty, I want you upstairs.” And, gathering her work together, she was hastening away, when Elizabeth called out:
    “Dear madam, do not go. I beg you will not go. Mr. Collins must excuse me. He can have nothing to say to me that anybody need not hear. I am going away myself.”
    “No, no, nonsense, Lizzy. I desire you to stay where you are.” And upon Elizabeth’s seeming really, with vexed and embarrassed looks, about to escape, she added: “Lizzy, I insist upon your staying and hearing Mr. Collins.”
    Elizabeth would not oppose such an injunction—and a moment’s consideration making her also sensible that it would be wisest to get it over as soon and as quietly as possible, she sat down again and tried to conceal, by incessant employment the feelings which were divided between distress and diversion. Mrs. Bennet and Kitty walked off, and as soon as they were gone, Mr. Collins began.
  • Elizabeth took the letter from his writing-table, and they went upstairs together. Mary and Kitty were both with Mrs. Bennet: one communication would, therefore, do for all.
  • She then hastened away to her mother, who had purposely broken up the card party, and was sitting up stairs with Kitty.
  • [When Lady Catherine appears at Longbourn:] They were of course all intending to be surprised; but their astonishment was beyond their expectation; and on the part of Mrs. Bennet and Kitty, though she was perfectly unknown to them, even inferior to what Elizabeth felt.
  • “And that I suppose is one of your sisters.”
    “Yes, madam,” said Mrs. Bennet, delighted to speak to Lady Catherine. “She is my youngest girl but one. My youngest of all is lately married, and my eldest is somewhere about the grounds, walking with a young man who, I believe, will soon become a part of the family.”
  • In a few minutes he approached the table where she was sitting with Kitty; and, while pretending to admire her work said in a whisper, “Go to your father, he wants you in the library.”
  • He then recollected her embarrassment a few days before, on his reading Mr. Collins’s letter; and after laughing at her some time, allowed her at last to go—saying, as she quitted the room, “If any young men come for Mary or Kitty, send them in, for I am quite at leisure.”
  • “My mother is tolerably well, I trust; though her spirits are greatly shaken. She is upstairs and will have great satisfaction in seeing you all. She does not yet leave her dressing-room. Mary and Kitty, thank Heaven, are quite well.”
  • [Mrs. Bennet, excited:] “ . . . Lizzy, my dear, run down to your father, and ask him how much he will give her. Stay, stay, I will go myself. Ring the bell, Kitty, for Hill. I will put on my things in a moment. My dear, dear Lydia! How merry we shall be together when we meet!”
  • [Mrs. Bennet, excited:] “ . . . Kitty, run down and order the carriage. An airing would do me a great deal of good, I am sure. Girls, can I do anything for you in Meryton? Oh! Here comes Hill! My dear Hill, have you heard the good news? Miss Lydia is going to be married; and you shall all have a bowl of punch to make merry at her wedding.”

And there you have the various pieces of text pertaining to Kitty! I think these pieces seem to indicate that Kitty is an unsure and sensitive girl who just wants someone to hold on to. Though she appears to be an extrovert because of her association with Lydia, Lydia actually does a lot of the talking. It seems to me more as if Kitty is an introvert trying to copy an extrovert. She is not especially appreciated by her family, and though Lydia has fun with her, Lydia does not seem to particularly care about tending to Kitty’s feelings.

I think this makes Kitty a rather sympathetic character. She seems to be a typical teenager in some ways–self-doubting and uncertain about the world around her.

What are your general thoughts about Kitty? Do you like seeing her play a bigger role in Pride and Prejudice variations?

As a sort of side note, I would like to announce the recent publication of my Pride and Prejudice variation, A Sister’s Sacrifice. While Elizabeth and Darcy are the main characters, I do give Kitty a bigger role than Mary and Lydia.

I view Kitty as someone who has a lot of potential because she’s a wild card. To use Lydia in a story, you will have to go through quite a bit of work to make her anything other than what she is. But with Kitty, she can follow in Lydia’s footsteps or Elizabeth’s footsteps. Whose footsteps do you think I chose in A Sister’s Sacrifice? (Insert Cheshire grin here.)

I would love to hear your thoughts about Kitty!

Posted in Austen Authors, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Peerage Law in Georgian England

TITLES (IN DISPUTE):

One could not renounce an English title. 

In the mid 20th century,  a law was passed allowing a man to disclaim a title he had not yet taken up. However, the title became “dormant,” and no one could have it until the man who disclaimed it died. It had to be disclaimed within a year of succession. 

At one time, Scottish peers could turn in their titles to be reissued to them with a new heir, not a new holder. However, that was not possible with English titles. I know of no case where a man could step down from a title and present it to someone else.

The King, the Home Secretary and the House of Lords’ Committee on Privilege, plus, the College of Arms would be involved in all questions of peerage titles. Ordinary courts could deal with property and other questions, but they had no jurisdiction over peerage questions.

Before the law was passed allowing one to disclaim an inherited title (and the heir had to wait until the man was dead to take it up), the most a man could do was refuse to use the title or to take his seat in the Lords under the title.

 The title would be dormant. Some have been dormant for a hundred years or more and others for a mere twenty.  This is not the same thing as a title in abeyance.

Such an event would not have been contested in court. It might have been contested in the Committee for Privileges, which decided upon such claims. I’m not sure about specific Regency cases, but there are a TON of cases in the Peerage Law Handbook that one can get for free on Google Books: 

Peerage Law in England: A Practical Treatise for Lawyers and Laymen; With an Appendix of Peerage Charters and Letters Patent; (In English)

https://books.google.com/books?id=1GIWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

The History Hoydens group has a couple of blog posts that cover the basics and have links to specific cases:

http://historyhoydens.blogspot.com/2012/04/inheriting-english-peerage.html

http://historyhoydens.blogspot.com/2012/04/challenging-claim-to-peerage.html

A title with no apparent “taker” would go dormant, if there was a chance that the heir had had a legitimate son.  However, the property attached to the title could pass to another, because property could be given back to the rightful owner, but a peerage could not (This is a minor plot line in my Regency romantic suspense entitled, The Earl Claims His Comfort.)

Property and Peerage operated with different rules.

When a peer died, his heir or a claimant to the title put in a petition, a request for a writ of summons to Parliament. That was the time when one had to bring forth objections and other claims. That was what happened when the oldest son of the Earl of Berkley put in his claim. An objection was voiced about his legitimacy. After a thorough investigation, the fifth son was declared the earl and the older four became illegitimate.

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

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

In another case, two cousins fought over a peerage in front of the Committee One was finally chosen. Later the loser came forward with proof, he said, that the chosen one was actually illegitimate. “Sorry,” he was told. You had your chance and lost. Once a choice was made it was not undone. Sorry, once it is decided which one has the title, the other one is out of luck.

Many times in Regency-based novels we have the situation where for one reason or another, the hero refused the title he has inherited and “abdicates” his new peerage. The question is whether this is a viable plot line. 

The answer is a bit more complicated than we might expect. Let us say we have an earl who wishes to abdicate his title. He would have the option of refusing the title, the properties, and the money, but he would still technically be the earl until he dies and another secedes him. To have the full title and the honors accompanying it, the man would need to be confirmed before Parliament. [In my release, “Courting Lord Whitmire,”  there is a lengthy scene where Lord Andrew Whitmire appears before Parliament to claim the viscountcy after his father’s death.] Parliament demands that the person making the claim to the title present evidence of his right to it. If the man wishes to be styled as an earl, he must claim the title. He does not need to send in the Writ of Summons to the House of Lords, and he can refuse to use the title, but someone must care for the property, and no one else can have the title while he is alive.

If he wished to claim the privileges of the peerage, which included: Peers had some special privileges. The main one was the right to sit in the House of Lords, unless they were Roman Catholic, a minor, a female or a lunatic. They could not be arrested for debts. They had to advance the peerage as an affirmative defense. They did not have to sit on juries.  (This made sense as the House of Lords was in effect the supreme court and the last court of appeal). If arrested for a crime, they were allowed to be tried by the House of Peers. Their wives also claimed these privileges, except for sitting in the House of Lords. It was against the law to libel or slander a peer or to strike him. It was not until 1963 that anyone could walk away from a title.

A man could be stripped of his title by the Crown if he committed treason, but not only would be tried and executed for his action, but his family would also be held “guilty.” The University of Michigan‘s website refers to Blackstone’s summary of the laws: 

“Since High Treason was, and arguably remains, the most serious capital crime, testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act was required to convict, and the punishment in the Eighteenth century was severe. Blackstone states that ‘the punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible’:

  1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not carried or walk: though usually (by connivance length ripened by humanity into law) a sledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement 
  2. That he be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive
  3. That his entrails be taken out and burned, while he is yet alive
  4. That his head be cut off 
  5. That his body be divided in four parts 
  6. That his head and quarters be at the King’s disposal. [Blackstone, Wm., Knight. Chase, George, ed. Chase’s Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1936. p889.]

“The punishment did not end with the personal suffering of the offender: the punishment extended to his or her family. The law states that a person who is found guilty of treason must also undergo “forfeiture” and “corruption of blood.” In forfeiture, the person is force to give all their lands and property to the Crown. Corruption of blood prevents the person’s immediate family and hereditary heirs from owning property or conducting business—in effect ruining the offender’s family forever.”

On the other hand, if the peer committed suicide, nothing happened to the title. The son inherited as usual. It would be a rare man of that time who did not want a title just because his father had disgraced it. He was not required to claim it, but he could not sit in the House of Lords if he did not. He could change his name either by sign manual, deed poll, or just by doing it. However, those are extreme measures, and he would be compounding the failure of his father by not attending to the estate, the workers, the servants and all the others who depend on the family in one way or another. [I use all this legal rigamarole in my book, The Heartless Earl, which is available on Amazon and KU. The earl is accused of a crime that puts not only his life, but the earldom, in jeopardy.]

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Inheritance, peerage, primogenture, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Peerage Law in Georgian England

Enlisting in the British Army During the Regency Era

Being an officer in the British Army was considered a “suitable” occupation for sons of peers and wealthy families of the gentry. Generally, the head of the family (father, uncle, brother, etc. would purchase commissions for his relation. We often hear of second sons in Regency romances being the one to join the Army. Such is Colonel Fitzwilliam’s position in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

After 1795, the minimum age requirement to join the Army was 16. Before that time, it was common for family to buy their son commissions at young ages. Thomas John Cochrane of Navy fame found at fifteen that his father had purchased a petty officer’s commission for him when he was twelve. He was always destined to go to sea, and was entered into the navy at the age of seven. Cochrane began his naval career in 1796 when enlisted at the age of seven and was promoted to lieutenant at the age of 16. His rise quickly in the ranks was considered by many to be blatant patronage because of his father’s influence. Cochrane first commanded HMS Forte.

Later, his uncle purchased an ensign’s commission in the Army for him when he was thirteen. He earned pay from both positions, gaining seniority while never actually serving. This was 1790 though. Such practices were eventually eliminated in both the Navy and, afterwards, in 1795, the Army. One must also recall that during the Regency, an Army officer was considered to be higher in Society’s rank than a naval officer. 

A man had to be between 16 and 21 years of age to purchase a commission. He had to demonstrate the ability to read and write with a degree of proficiency and have the connections to pay for the position he desired. Again, think of how long Colonel Fitzwilliam must have been serving England. When Elizabeth Bennet meets Darcy, he is 28 years of age, and the colonel was several years Darcy’s senior, which means he had likely been in the Army for, at least, ten years—perhaps longer. A candidate for an officer’s commission also had to present a recommendation from an existing officer, of, at a minimum, the rank of major, warranting the man’s education, character, and physical stability to assume leadership positions in the British Army.

One could only purchase a commission with a cavalry or infantry regiment. Other commissions were presented by organizations such as the Royal Engineers or the Royal Artillery, meaning one had to attend the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich to be presented a commission beyond infantry or cavalry. Promotions from the Royal Military Academy were based on experience and length of service.

The purchasing of commissions was a custom from the early days of war in England when men of rank formed armies to fight along or against the King. By the early 19th Century, people had come to believe paying for a commission guaranteed a certain “quality” of officers. No one considered the fact that those not of the peerage or the gentry had the ability to be an equally capable officer.

If a man died in battle, the purchase price of the commission was not refundable. If a man died in an heroic manner, his widow MIGHT be gifted a sum equal to the value of his commission, but this was not a guaranteed practice.

Commissions were expensive – at approximately £450 – and usually only the wealthy could afford them, with landed families purchasing commissions for their sons. It can be assumed that serving with the Army did command a certain respect, and those men that became the holder of an office “could lay claim to the title of [being a] gentleman.” Therefore, self-interest, respect and status were enticing prospects for many who were to join the army. Despite what the Regency romances say, in reality, only a small proportion of officers were from the nobility; in 1809, only 140 officers were peers or peers’ sons. A large proportion of officers came from the Militia, and a small number were gentlemen volunteers, who trained and fought as private soldiers but messed (ate) with the officers and remained as such until vacancies (without purchase) for commissions became available.

The Duke of York oversaw a reform of the sale of commissions, making it necessary for officers to serve two full years before either promotion or purchase to captain and six years before becoming a major, improving the quality of the officers through the experience gained.

If a man enlisted before 1809, his service to his country was considered “a life sentence.” He could be pensioned off when his battalion disbanded or he was wounded or placed in the invalid corp and remain in the army.  But those were the only alternatives and the enlisted man did not make the choice. After 1809, this was changed. The government finally realized that a life enlistment could discourage volunteers.  So enlistment could be for seven or twenty years. With the twenty year enlistment one received a pension when one “retired.”  

“Crying out” is what an officer who did not pay for his commission would do. If he bought his commission, he would “sell out.'”  In either case, giving up his commission means the man is no longer in the army; he becomes a civilian again. And yes, he would have to be an officer to do that.  If he has spent 14 years in the military as an officer, the odds are that he would be a captain or better by then, even at 26. 

There were very few opportunities for an enlisted man to “better” himself, other than to gain a higher rank. Only a few men from the ranks became an officer. From listings in the Gazette, it appears about 5% of officers came from the ranks. They could be identified in the Gazette because they were termed as being “a gentleman of private means,” but officer records also identified their past occupations, such as laborer or dock worker.

 There was little chance of an enlisted man to better himself by choosing the military as his occupation. Achieving an officer’s rank, such as ensign or lieutenant was usually done with exemplary service, sergeant’s rank AND some act of heroism that was noticed by those who could do something about it. Conduct medals were reserved for officers. The other way an “ordinary man” might better himself was through war booty/prize money.  Soldiers would be given a portion of the value of war materials or valuables, just as sailors could gain prize money.  The soldiers that ”captured” Louis XVIII’s war chest and carriage after Vittoria did well for themselves.  

Anyway, becoming an officer was a better way of ‘bettering himself’ if he was a gentleman at all. He could volunteer [at his own expense] and go with a regiment overseas in the hopes of filling a vacancy there, which was easier for the commander than waiting months for a possible replacement from home. 

The cheapest entry grade was that of ENSIGN in a marching Regiment of Foot. That would cost a man £400. If he wanted a like position in the Foot Guards, he would need to shell out £900. A CORNET was the Cavalry equivalent of an ensign. It would cost £1,102 to purchase a Cornetcy in the Dragoon Guards and £1600 in the Horse Guards. Men could only purchase ranks up to the position of COLONEL. However, to purchase a promotion, one had to wait for the position to become available due to death, severe injury or pensioned out. A man had to have served for three years, for example, to become a CAPTAIN.

A man could go on half-pay, but he was still officially in the Army and could be called up again, not that such would necessarily be required. Pensions were for officers who did not buy their commissions [meaning about two-thirds of the officers throughout the wars] and that is when they left the army, not half-pay. An officer who bought his commission, only got the price of his rank when he ‘cried out’, which could run from £400 for a Lieutenant to a thousand or more for a full colonel, depending on whether he was cavalry or infantry, guard or regulars.  

An officer in the Army received an “honorarium,” rather than pay. This was done because a “gentleman” was NEVER employed. “The daily pay of a British soldier differed with respect to his position within the army. A sergeant could expect to be paid between 1s 6d (7.5 pence) and 2s 6d (12.5 pence) depending on whether he served with a foot regiment or the dragoons respectively. A trumpeter could be paid up to 2s 8d (14 pence), while a drummer may have been paid 3s (15 pence) if he served with the cavalry. A normal private soldier may have been paid 8d if serving with a Regiment of Foot, but received almost 2s 6d if enlisted with the cavalry. In comparison, a labourer in the mid-18th century would have earned a daily wage of 2s (10 pence).

“A soldier would have to pay for food and forage beyond the supplied rations  – and for any other extras such as beer – out of his wage. A loaf of bread usually cost around 5d (2 pence), while a dragoon soldier, earning 1s 6d daily, would have paid 6d for a ration of forage consisting of 18 lb (8 kg) of hay and one peck (16 dry pints) of oats. From 1800 onwards, soldiers received a daily beer money allowance in addition to their regular wages. The practice was started on the orders of The Duke of York.

“Considering the prices of camp necessaries during this period, many items cost a few shillings: a haversack could be purchased for 3s 6d (17.5 pence) while leather powder bags could be found for 7s (35 pence). Dragoons may have purchased a nose bag for the sum of 2s (10 pence) and a drum case would be worth 10s (50 pence). The larger items such as tents would obviously cost more; it cost approximately £4 10s for a complete round tent and £2 12s for a bell tent for arms. Normally, the tents would be provided by the Board of Ordnance, but other necessities may have been purchased by the colonel of the regiment who would later be reimbursed.” (British Soldiers in the eighteenth century)

______________________________

Resources:

Bois, Mark (November 2008). “Leadership and experience: British Officers at Waterloo”. Napoleon Series.

British Soldiers in the Eighteenth Century

Gentlemen’s Occupations: Army and Navy

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Living in the Regency, military, real life tales, Regency era, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

A Widow’s Stipend, Jointures, Dower, Settlements, and Dowry. Which is Which in the Regency?

Fra Angelico’s painting: The Story of St Nicholas – Giving Dowry to Three Poor Girls. The 15th-century painting relates to the story of a poor man with three daughters. In those days a young woman’s father
had to offer prospective
husbands a dowry. Without a dowry, a woman was unlikely to marry. Mysteriously, on three occasions,
so goes the story,
a bag of gold appeared in their home, for the dowries, courtesy of St Nicholas. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry#/media/File:Angelico,_san_nicola_done_tre_palle_d’oro_a_tre_fanciulle_
poverer_farle_maritare,_vaticano.jpg

 

English Common Law provided a widow a life interest in one-third of the freehold lands her husband owned at the time of their marriage. She could not be denied these rights unless she was found guilty of treason, felony, or adultery. The law of dower gave a wife one-third of any property a man held on his death. That excluded entailed property, for the most part. However, the husband could defeat dower by leaving his wife as little as £50. The Court of Chancery did rectify such lapses if the widow had the resources or the  friends to help her bring suit and there was any property or money to be had. The court looked to the amount of the dowry and the position the widow had held as wife. Obviously, the court would see that a countess was provided for better than the widow of a vicar. Unfortunately in this cases, the countess had had a father or guardian who made sure iron-clad settlements were drawn up, whereas the vicar’s wife might not have been so lucky.

Even if the father did not bother to arrange the marriage settlements before the actual marriage (i.e., an elopement), and the husband did not leave his widow anything in his will, she was, as previously explained, supposedly entitled to one-third of his own estate. This is called her dower. She was to ask the sheriff to see that this was arranged properly. However, quite often the husband had no property he owned outright, as it was all entailed. Then, she would have to petition the Court of Chancery for a sum upon which to live.

It was difficult for a husband to set up a trust for his wife during his lifetime, other than in a will, if doing so was not accomplished before the marriage. Because a husband and wife, under law, were considered one, he could not legally give himself his own money. There were cases where a husband did give the wife money and wrote it out that this money was to be hers to do with as she would. However, in such one case where the woman took that money and purchased houses, she lost the property without recompense when her husband died, and the heir sued to have the houses declared part of the estate. Other situations that were deemed illegal included where the husband gave his wife money in a trust and then raided the trust, presented her property and then sold it for his profit, etc.

The Oxford Reference defines the Statue of Uses as, “The use was a legal device whereby property could be held by one person for the benefit of another, e.g. when a landowner was absent on crusade. But, by extension, it might be employed to evade or avoid obligations, defraud creditors, or escape legislation against mortmain. Henry VIII pressed strongly that uses should be restricted, arguing that his revenue was affected, but the Parliament of 1532 was unwilling to legislate and was told sharply ‘not to contend with me’. In 1535 Parliament accepted 27 Hen. VIII c. 10, which complained of ‘subtle inventions and practices’ and restored obligations to the beneficiary.” The “jointure” came into practice with the Statue of Uses. It was a settlement on a bride by her future husband of a freehold piece of property to be used to secure her widowhood. The bride was required to surrender her dower (not her “dowry,” although the terms can be confusing). 

Later in the 19th Century, wives lost their right to inherit, meaning in the 1830s, if the woman had no jointure rights recorded in her husband’s will, the widow could be left without anything upon which to survive. She could also lose the right to the property if she remarried. It would automatically revert back to his heir. 

Jointures were usually payable be the heir of the estate as an annual payment, which was equal to one-tenth of the dowry she brought to the marriage. This number was established because it was assumed that the wife would outlive her husband by ten years, for that was often the difference in their ages when they married. She would receive this payment for the remaining days of her lifetime. Thereafter, the principle would be allotted to her children. Providing the widow one-tenth of what she brought into the marriage meant she received back her dowry. The percentages were per year. The amounts were generally paid quarterly. The formula generally followed this plan: pin money was 2% of the dowry, while jointure was 10%.

As stated above, the jointure is usually set forth in the marriage settlements, which is a prenuptial or ante nuptial agreement. These funds are supposed to come to the widow without let or hindrance. However, it is often set up to be the income from some piece of land. If there is no income from said land, she is out of luck.

Yet, if the husband had not set up a jointure (her annual annuity), but, rather, left her a small sum in his will, that was all she would receive. Or if the heir was not her son, and the estate was encumbered by a mortgage, she might have a problem receiving either the jointure or the dower.

She was supposed to receive a sum large enough to allow her to live decently according to her rank, but not all knew equality under the law. There were even cases where the man left most of his cash to a grandson of a child by his first wife. In a few such cases, the courts felt the widow should have the return of most of her dowry, if nothing else.

A dowry was provided as compensation to the husband for taking on the care of the woman for the remainder of his and her days. Interest from the dowries equalled what the woman would have a spending money or pin money. It played a part in how much income she had readily available once she became a widow (See the formula mentioned above.), and determined the distributions made to the children of the marriage once she, too, died. The problem was that often a dowry could only be used as a “dowry,” and the widow would only  have the interest upon which to live.

Exceptions were often made if the marriage lasted less than a year and the woman was not pregnant nor had she borne a child in that time. The law of Scotland, for example, set it out as a definite thing that in such cases the dowry was returned. One of the reasons elopements were frowned upon was that the wife usually had no protection  except the goodwill of the husband and his heir upon which to make a claim, if she did not bear a son.

To determine the settlement agreed upon before the exchange of marriage vows, one took the total amount of funds set aside for the dowries of the daughters and divide by the number of daughter in the family. To guarantee fairness, one would think the amount would be divided equally, but there was no written guidelines or laws that made this method official. The father could add to the sum during his lifetime, but, again, he was not compelled to do so by law.

Other issues that complicated the situation were numerous. For example, if she was  under 21, she would still require a guardian, though she could remarry without permission. The guardianship often reverted back to the widow’s father or brother .

Widows of aristocrats and the upper gentry were seldom left destitute, but they could be left with very little income. Usually the widow was also given the use of the Dower House or another house owned by the husband.

If the marriage settlements or the will left her money, the executor of the will was supposed to see that she received it. Unless she was still a minor, no one was supposed to keep it from her.

If her father was a peer, it was unlikely that the heir’s family would attempt to keep her money from her. However, if he were a clergyman, or, if her father was dead, they might try to withhold the money.The solicitor and executor would have to be complicit in such behaviour.

If she is young, but without children, though she is of age, it is likely that her father or brother, if father is dead, would attempt to take over her finances.

If the woman had no money set aside for her widowhood in a settlement or a will, the courts gave her her dower of one third of the man’s property– but it is possible for her not to know this, or if she knows it, she doesn’t know how to approach the court, and she needs a place to live so, youngish, childless widows were expected to go back home. What the law says and what people do are often at odds.

Jane Austen often speaks of dowries, dower, jointures, and settlements in her tales. For example, in Sense and Sensibility, Mrs. Dashwood is not the mother of the heir, for Mr. John Dashwood is the only son of Mr. Henry Dashwood and his first wife. The estate has passed to John Dashwood’s hands, and he holds no obligation to provide for his step-mother or his half sisters. They are made to live, instead, on the income supplied by the jointure. The amount is £500, which means Mrs. Dashwood likely brought £5000 to the marriage in the form of her dowry. The Dashwood ladies’ lifestyle is greatly reduced. The £500 will allow for a servant or two, but no carriage and, likely, a tougher cut of meat. 

Mrs. Bennet’s dowry of £5000 in Pride and Prejudice would provide each of her five daughters only £1000, if it is divided equally. Mr. Darcy is taking a large loss of funds when he chooses to marry Elizabeth Bennet because Elizabeth’s dowry certainly does not offset the £30,000 dowry that will be an outlay when Georgiana Darcy marries. 

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, estates, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Inheritance, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, Pride and Prejudice, real life tales, Regency era, Regency romance, Sense & Sensibility, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Vicars and Rectors and Livings, a Guest Post from Elaine Owen

(As there was much interest on my recent post on the Clergy during the Regency era, I thought this perspective from Elaine Owen might also assist in clarifying the differences. It first appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on 3 December 2020. Enjoy!)

Last month I discussed the aristocracy of England, a system that was so pervasive in Jane Austen’s time that she had no need to explain it to her readers. Today I’d like to talk about another system that she could assume her readers understood: the clergy of the Church of England.

The Church of England, of course, was the official church in Austen’s day. Though there were Catholics, Evangelicals, Quakers, and other groups in the country, the majority of people belonged to the state church, which we now call the Anglican church.

The most basic unit in the Anglican church was the parish, which usually consisted of a church and the community that built up around it. The clergyman in charge of a parish church was usually a vicar, and along with the responsibilities of a vicar he received a salary or stipend.  But sometimes the parish church was filled by a rector, who was.supported by the tithes from the parish. Confusingly, sometimes a church was overseen by both a rector and a vicar, but in that case the usual work of the parish would still be carried out by the vicar. It’s safe to say that being a vicar was the most common career in the Anglican church.

Vicars were not necessarily financially well off, as Jane Austen’s life shows. If the parish was large and the parishioners were generous, then they might make a decent living. But there were many poor parishes, and some parishes offered such a small salary that they had a difficult time attracting any clergyman at all. Jane Austen’s father was a vicar in a parish with a respectable income, but he also had a large family to support. He therefore found it necessary to tutor students and farm some of his own land in order to make ends meet.

Below the level of rector or vicar was a curate. A curate was the pastor of a church that was not associated with a parish. These churches were smaller than parish churches and usually could not afford to pay their pastor a living wage. So the poor man who got stuck in a curacy would have to find some other source of income and work at that even as he called on parishioners, prepared sermons, and did all the work that his more prosperous brothers in parish churches carried out.

It was possible for a curate to be promoted to a parish church and become a vicar, and for a vicar to be promoted to a rector. Above these levels a man could also be promoted to archdeacon, deacon, bishop, or even archbishop. But the vast majority of the ordained clergy occupied one of these three lowest ranks.

A living was therefore a valuable commodity. A man with an appointment to a parish church could count on the income from that parish for as long as they kept their position, which was presumed to be for life. It was possible to buy and sell livings based on the projected income to be made from that parish, just as we invest in annuities or bonds today. This flies in the face of how we think about pastors, but in Austen’s time, a clergyman did not necessarily  need a spiritual calling from God. For many people it was simply a job, something that would provide security and an income once a man was lucky enough to get into it.

How did a man become a rector, vicar or curate? In most cases the right to appoint the pastor of a church belonged to the family who owned the nearby estate. If they had more than one son then they might very well give the living to one of the younger sons. Other times they might sell it to another family who was trying to provide for their own son’s future. And in some cases, such as that of George Wickham or Mr. Collins, the living was given outright by the family who owned it.  It is no wonder that Collins was so careful to keep on Lady Catherine’s good side, since his own income depended on her good will. (And Elizabeth thought that Lady Catherine might have other livings to give away, too. Perhaps Sir William didn’t visit Rosings just to check on Charlotte!)

There were far more ordained clergymen than there were livings of any sort, even just a curacy. Some unlucky clergy had to wait ten years or more for a living to open up for them!

With all of this as a background, we can understand the story Wickham and the Darcy family living much better. Wickham was the son of an estate steward, a nobody in the regency world. He grew up on the estate and was intimate with the Darcy family, but as an adult he had no way to make a living. He could only go into the military or perhaps learn a trade, which would have been a step down the social ladder. So the old Mr. Darcy left him a “valuable family living.” This would have supported him for life, or at least given him a huge head start. Instead Wickham sold the living to someone else for three thousand pounds, squandered all of that money, and afterwards had the audacity to come back to Darcy and ask for the living again. No wonder Darcy sends him packing.

I hope this helps you understand a little about how the system of livings and patronages worked. For more details or further reading you can follow these links:

Clergy in the Regency

Vicar vs Rector – What’s the Difference?

Jane Austen and the Clergy – How the System Worked

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, Church of England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vicars and Rectors and Livings, a Guest Post from Elaine Owen

“Murder of a Bastard Child,” an Historical Crime Against Children

In the 18th Century in England, what was the fate of a child born to a young woman pregnant out of wedlock? Alan Taylor in the British History Georgian Lives Facebook Group tells us, “The most common capital offence for women in the 18th Century was ‘murdering a bastard’- 98 women were hanged for this between 1735 and 1834! The vast majority of these women were in extreme poverty, had been abandoned by their partners and had no where to find shelter and food. Society at that time was very harsh in its judgement to these women condemning them for their immorality and even sending the mother and baby away and therefore denying them poor relief. The story of Elizabeth Harrard is one heartbreaking example. On December 21st 1739 she and nine other condemned men were transported From Newgate prison to Tyburn and there hanged. Her crime was that she had murdered her new born baby and thrown the body into a river. If you read her story in the accompanying article (see link below under NOTE), you will perhaps realise what drove her to this act and how little pity was shown to her in her condition.” 

Romulus-and-Remus

The most famous account of attempted infanticide, in which babies were left exposed to the elements, is the story of Romulus and Remus (Wikimedia Commons)

The Greeks considered infanticide barbaric, but instead of outright killing their babies, they practiced exposure. Exposure would be just leaving the child.it was not considered murder because a passerby or a God could take pity on the child and save it. 
In Rome, exposure was common, in a letter from a man to his wife during 1 BC he says:  “I am still in Alexandria. … I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.” Another option would be to take the child to the family patriarch and they would decide whether the child should be killed or left to exposure. Usually babies with birth defects were killed. By 374 AD infanticide was illegal in Rome, but offenders were rarely ever prosecuted. Pagan German tribes also practiced a similar exposure to unwanted children. Many were left in the forest without food….this was especially common for children born out of wedlock.

Meanwhile, Christianity abhorred infanticide. In Apostles it was written, “You shall not kill that which is born”. In 318 AD Constantine I felt that infanticide was a crime. In 374 AD Valentinian stated that people must rear all children. The Council of Constantinople issued that infanticide was murder and in 589 AD the Third Council of Toledo worked on ending the Spanish custom of killing their children .

Child sacrifice was common among the Gauls, Celts, and Irish during the Middle Ages. “They would kill their piteous wretched offspring with much wailing and peril, to pour their blood around Crom Cruaich”, a deity of pre-Christian IrelandBut soon abandoning children on the doorsteps of churches and abbeys became more common than exposure. This gave birth to the world’s first orphanages. (History of Infanticide)

For many women delivering an unwanted baby, infanticide was the answer. Humanian speaks to the modern version of this heinous act. “Infanticide is the act of deliberately causing the death of a very young child (under 1 year old). In the past, and in many societies, it was a widespread practice, permitted by different cultures around the world. Nowadays, it is considered to be an unethical crime; however, it is still performed. In some cultures, children are not considered to be human beings until certain ceremonies have been performed (name-giving ceremonies or haircuts for example). Infanticide occurs rarely once those ceremonies have taken place but killing a child before them is not seen as a homicide. Infanticide is usually difficult to report, because in most cases these deaths are covered as stillbirths or children are just not registered at the civil registry after the birth. Indirect or passive infanticide begins with inadequate nutrition, neglect or careless parenting, especially when the baby gets sick. In many societies, especially in the past, infanticide was routinely used as a way to control and regulate the population. As such, it particularly affected female children, since having fewer women meant having a lower rate of reproduction (fewer children).

“Female infanticide is the most common form of infanticide, both nowadays and in the past. This practice is mainly due to the fact that, in some cultures, males are considered to be socially more valuable than women. Moreover, female infanticide is sometimes related to the control of the population. For example, the UN World Report on Violence Against Children conducted among 1,000 women in India revealed that infanticide was the cause of 41% of deaths among newborn girls.

“In China, infanticide is also practiced, mainly due to the one-child policy (even though it existed before), which states that each couple can have only one child. Many parents prefer to have an abortion before the birth, if they know that the child is a girl. However, among people who do not have this possibility, infanticide at birth can be performed. Female infanticide and abortions have caused a great imbalance between the sexes in some regions. In 2007, a UN report estimated that approximately 100 million girls worldwide had disappeared, 80 million of them in China and India. In the future, this could lead to an increase in girls trafficking or to forcing women to marry more than one man.”

A common capital crime in the 1700s in England was that of the murder of a bastard child. These were generally not still births or deaths from disease or some other natural cause. These were purposeful deaths: ones to rid a woman of the child she had never wanted in the first place. We must remember that contraception was not readily available or dependable to the majority of the population. Women accused of the crime had gotten rid of their infant children in a variety of manners: beaten to death, drowned, buried alive, poisoned, cutting their throats, etc. Women of the time, especially those living in poverty, had few resources available to them, and so many took drastic measures to survive. 

 Capital Punishment UK tells us, “Some seventy nine women were hanged for this crime between 1735 and 1799 and a further nineteen between 1800 and 1834.  The last being twenty four year old Mary Smith who went to the gallows at Stafford on the 19th of March 1834. It is not always possible from surviving records to know whether a child murder fell into this category or not.  Large numbers of women and girls continued to be sentenced to death between 1840 and 1922 for killing their infant children but were all reprieved. It wasn’t until the Infanticide Act of 1922 that the killing of a newborn baby by its mother was no longer classed as a capital crime and factors such as the disturbed mental state of a new mother were permitted to provide a partial defence to a murder charge.  The Infanticide Act of 1938 removed the death penalty altogether for women who killed their babies in their first year of life, stating ‘at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child.’ In some cases it was possible to show that a baby had not been born alive and the mother could then be charged with concealment of the birth but this did not carry the death penalty.”

 NOTE: The Capital Punishment UK site also discusses four cases of the murder of bastard children, those of Elizabeth Harrard, Sarah Jones, Ann Statham and Hannah Halley, if you are interested in how the law treated such cases.  I chose not to detail the cruelty here. 

The Encyclopedia of Death and Dying tells us, “Most societies agree that the drive to protect and nurture one’s infant is a basic human trait. Yet infanticide—the killing of an infant at the hands of a parent—has been an accepted practice for disposing of unwanted or deformed children since prehistoric times. Despite human repugnance for the act, most societies, both ancient and contemporary, have practiced infanticide. Based upon both historical and contemporary data, as many as 10 to 15 percent of all babies were killed by their parents. The anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that infanticide has been practiced by nearly all civilizations. Williamson concludes that infanticide must represent a common human trait, perhaps genetically encoded to promote self-survival.

“Neonaticide is generally defined as ‘the homicide of an infant aged one week or less.’ The psychiatrist Phillip Resnick further limits neonaticide to the killing of an infant on the day of its birth. Infanticide in general usage is defined as ‘the homicide of a person older than one week but less than one year of age.’ Filicide is defined as ‘the homicide of a child (less than eighteen years of age) by his or her parent or stepparent.'”

Read more: http://www.deathreference.com/Ho-Ka/Infanticide.html#ixzz59MQ3SoxS

The Discovery of a Mass Baby Grave Under a Roman Bathhouse 

Posted in British history, family, history, medicine, medieval, world history | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “Murder of a Bastard Child,” an Historical Crime Against Children

And the Winners Are…

The winners of an eBook copy of “The Mistress of Rosings Park” from my recent giveaways are . . .

Glynis

Glenda M

bn100

Sharon

Ginna

kayelem

Emails have been sent to each in order to claim the eBook. Check your inboxes.

Posted in giveaway | Tagged | Comments Off on And the Winners Are…