A Painting Inspired by a Jane Austen Novel? a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Posted on April 9, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

This post originally appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on 2 February 2021.

About year ago, on a visit to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow, I came across a delightful painting that immediately set my imagination flying. 

The 1887 painting, titled Two Strings to Her Bow, shows a cheerful young woman walking with her arms around two supposed suitors, neither of whom seem too pleased with the situation. 

With its coquettish female central figure in an Empire-line muslin dress and the men in breeches, the scene was a lovely depiction of Regency times. More specifically, to me the scene looked straight out of a Jane Austen novel.  

Two Strings to her Bow, by John Pettie, 1887.JPG ~ WikiCommons

A Victorian Throwback

Although Two Strings to Her Bow was painted 70 years after her death, the timing was no coincidence. The artist, John Pettie (1839-1893), was born in Edinburgh and had a successful career in England, which in Victorian times meant keeping an eye on what the market wanted.

The fact is that, towards the end of the 19th century, Austen underwent a bit of a revival. It all kicked off with the publication of A Memoir of Jane Austen in 1869. Written by Austen’s nephew’s James Edward Austen-Leigh’s, the biography presented her as a respectable writer whose work was perfect for Victorian sensibilities. 

(You may remember that, as part of the publicity campaign around A Memoir of Jane Austen, Austen-Leigh also commissioned a portrait of his aunt with a much-softened image, which is the same one that now appears in the 10 pound note today).

The Rise of “Austenolatry”

The reissue of Austen’s novels in the following years drove a renewed interest in Austen. More than the lavishly illustrated collectors’ sets, however, it was the cheap, “popular” editions of the books that made the writer a household name. 

Austen became so popular in the 1880s that some talk about a veritable Austen-mania, or “Austenolatry”. (The backlash in certain circles was to belittle the literary merit of Austen’s novels, and writers like Henry James, Mark Twain and Charlotte Brontë openly criticised her work.)

Given the growing interest in Austen, the subject of Pettie’s painting makes perfect sense. Intriguingly, it is part of a series featuring the same characters in different configurations. I wonder where the rest of the paintings have ended up and the story they tell.

The Girl in the Painting

But back to Two Strings in Her Bow. Who might the young lady be? She certainly looks like the cat who got the cream, confident of her allure and boosted by the clear rivalry of the two men hankering for her affections. Ask for the gentlemen, they couldn’t be more different…

If you ask me, she is no other than Miss Lydia Bennet in one of her flirting sprees, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise! 

What do you think? What Austen character(s) does the painting bring to your mind? And who would be your preferred suitor if you were the woman in the painting?

Posted in art, Austen Authors, British history, Guest Post, Jane Austen | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Mont Blanc Tragedy During World War I

Posted on April 7, 2021 by Regina Jeffers
Halifax explosion of 1917The damaged Exposition building in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, after the 1917 explosion.
George Grantham Bain Collection/Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (Digital file no. LC-DIG-ggbain-25897)

Any historical fiction writer worth her salt spends a great deal of time doing research. I was specifically looking for tunnel fires for a plot line I was envisioning. I found a great deal on the Mont Blanc tunnel fire in March 1999, but that was too modern. However, what caught my eye was a different tragedy with “Mont Blanc,” and I am not speaking of mountain climbing.

This tragedy occurred on 6 December 1917 in Nova Scotia, specifically in the harbor of Halifax. This was pre-atomic days, but the devastation was still quite unbelievable.

Halifax was a bustling port during WWI. Ships carrying troops, supplies and munitions often left the harbor for the European continent. On this particular day, the Norwegian vessel Imo set out for New York City. About the same time, the French freighter Mont Blanc also set out. The Mont Blanc‘s cargo included 5000 pounds of explosives, specifically 2300 tons of picric acid, 200 tons of TNT, 35 tons of high-octane gasoline, and 10 tones of gun cotton. The Mont Blanc was to join a military convoy in the Atlantic.

The tragedy began with a navigation error combined with large crowds gathered along the shore, who gathered to watch what they thought was a mere shipwreck.

The two ships collided about 8:45 A.M. According to History.com, “The Mont Blanc was propelled toward the shore by its collision with the Imo, and the crew rapidly abandoned the ship, attempting without success to alert the harbor of the peril of the burning ship. Spectators gathered along the waterfront to witness the spectacle of the blazing ship, and minutes later it brushed by a harbor pier, setting it ablaze. The Halifax Fire Department responded quickly and was positioning its engine next to the nearest hydrant when the Mont Blanc exploded at 9:05 a.m. in a blinding white flash.” The French ship caught fire after several drums of benzol—a highly combustible motor fuel derived from coke-oven gases—tipped over on the deck, spilling their contents, which ignited, and the vessel drifted into the pier.

The Mont Blanc exploded, sending a giant mushroom cloud over the town. More than 1800 were instantly killed. Thousands more were injured. The entire northern part of the city was destroyed, including 1600 homes. Many people were blinded from the glass and shrapnel that rained down upon Halifax and Dartmouth. Schools, homes, factories, and churches were set ablaze, and many more were flattened by the shock wave.

A large portion of the waterfront was swept away by a 30-foot tidal wave. Initial survivors were drowned and the other ships in the harbor were swept away. Pieces of the Mont Blanc were later discovered as far removed as 3 miles. A tugboat in the harbor ended up on the Dartmouth shore. The shock wave shattered glass windows in Charlottetown some 120 miles away, and the explosion could be heard hundreds of miles away.

The shock wave washed away the settlement of an indigenous tribe called the Mimac.

The man-made explosion was not eclipsed until the devastation of the atomic bomb was finally acknowledged.

“Military and naval personnel worked with civilians in the relief effort. Nearby cities like Truro took in the homeless. Eaton stores donated furniture. The Canadian and British governments donated millions for reconstruction, while the United States organized a relief train filled with supplies, doctors, and nurses, some of whom were on the scene and working before shocked Canadian officials had fully recovered. More than 90 years later, the province of Nova Scotia each year still sends a Christmas tree to the city of Boston, Massachusetts as a token of friendship for the aid Bostonians rendered in December 1917.” (War Museum)

To Learn More…

A Harbour Collision Destroys Halifax

The Great Halifax Explosion

Halifax Explosion

Halifax Explosion

Wartime Tragedies

Posted in history, real life tales, research | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Traveling by Stagecoach During the Regency Era

Posted on March 29, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

Stage and mail coaches traveled much faster than a private coach would do. They did not have to wait for changes, did not spend the night anywhere, and had relief drivers.

Stage coaches also used their own horses, or horses under contract purely for their use.  They had their own drivers, not postilions, so they did not have to adhere to the speed limits put on private hires. Stage coaches did stop at night unless they were express routes, which operated only between a few large towns. There were night coach routes, too, that operated only at night, but theses used the worst vehicles, worst horses, and worst drivers, so passengers usually avoided them. They carried mostly packages between towns without going through London. Stage coaches averaged about 7 miles per hour on the turnpikes, much slower on secondary roads, which they traversed often since they were the only real public transportation connecting smaller towns or that operated across the country instead of always radiating from London, like the mail coaches did. They pushed their horses hard and carried a LOT of passengers, so the horses rarely lasted even three years in service, being sold to farmers as plow horses afterwards. Stage coaches did have to stop at tollgates, but their horses were ready at each stop so changes were fast. They used a shorter distance between changes than private job horses did, meaning they were changed out every 10-15 miles.  

Mail coaches were the fastest form of transportation, averaging 9 miles per hour.  However, they only operated on the turnpikes and only on turnpikes in good condition.  They actually dropped one route during the Regency because the road surface was too destructive to their safe passage. They did not stop for anything except changes of horses, which happened very quickly and very often (5-7 mile stages usually).  Again, the horses were under contract strictly to the post office, so they were unavailable to travelers. Mail coaches carried, at most, 7 passengers — 4 inside, three outside. Their coaches were smaller and lighter than the stage coaches, which added to their speed.

When I figure how long it might take a character in one of my books to travel from point A to point B, I estimate an average of 5 to 7 miles per hour on the turnpikes, less on secondary roads. That means one needs to hire horses every 15-20 miles if the character is to make good time. I often get a rough estimate of how long it takes by using a Google search for the distance between two cities if traveling by bicycle. Then, I make adjustments for the better roads, straighter routes, etc. It is a good starting point, though.

Many traveled with postilions who have a speed limit of 7 miles per hour.  But they have to stop at all toll gates, slow for all the numerous villages, and give way whenever a mail coach comes up behind them. One must also consider the season of the year and daylight available for travel. By the 1830s, the average speed was doubled due to macadamization, meaning better paved roads, but that process did not start in 1814. (See John Loudon McAdam)

The men who changed the horses for the mail or stage coaches might be thought of in terms of a NASCAR team – certainly not as fast, but comparable, and equally efficient. They could do it for under 5 minutes. However, some timed the change of horses to a meal time and gave the passengers twenty minutes.

Some stage coaches and mail coaches ran 365 days per year. Meanwhile, some lines never ran on Sunday. Whether there was more than one stage or mail going out a day depended on the route.

Travel was delayed and the coaches stopped during blizzards and when the snow blocked the roads. In a couple of cases, outside passengers froze to death because of the cold. The destination determined whether the next coach out would be in two hours or the next day.

Keep in mind, there were different coaches.

There is the Royal Mail. This ran over specific routes, usually only once a day in either direction. They did not travel on Sundays or religious holidays, so no Christmas Day travel. Their schedules were very tight, and horses were changed in about 15 to 20 minutes, or less–one traveling on those coaches barely had time to use the facilities or get some tea. Their purpose was to deliver the mail, and passengers were secondary, and the coachman very strict on times.

Then there were various stages owned by private companies. These ran on their own schedules and were more or less dependable, and also often more crowded. They, too, were not supposed to run on Sundays or religious holidays, but some did–it was about a profit. Times to change horses might be a touch more relaxed in that some stops were worked into their schedules, including changes of horses. Some of these coaches might have a team of six, and so a change would take longer (more horses = more time). They would also generally run only once a day in one direction–or possibly even less. Yet, all those “possibilities” depended on the route and traffic.

In determining the frequency of coaches, one must remember there were never several coaches going all the same way, with the same exact destination. There the modern choices of whether to fly, take a train, travel by bus, or drive oneself was not available. We are talking about a much less populous world than the one we live in; therefore, the choices were limited. Coaching companies carved out their own routes and few overlapped. Between large cities, naturally, one must expect more need, and less need the further one was removed London. One might have several coaches all using the same road: for example, they might all use parts of the London to Bristol road, but they split off for various end destinations.

To claim a seat on a coach could be difficult, for most tended to be packed and sold out, so not easy to “catch” a ride. One bought his ticket at the origin point for the mail or stage. One might be able to bribe a coachman on a stage to stuff you in or give you an outside seat, but it was not always possible. Horses can only pull so much weight.

As I briefly mentioned above, what one really need is to research the route one characters will be required to travel. I recommend Cary’s Itinerary or Patterson’s. Look up the route to discover what coaches actually traveled through the setting. These travel guides are possible to find online, and as used books, and are not that expensive.

Here’s the online link to Cary Itinerary (second edition, 1802). I hope this helps those who are writing during this period.  https://books.google.com/books?id=cg4QAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=carys&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ozn1VIaWHcWMNon8gogC&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=carys&f=false

Have a look at one of my previous posts on Stagecoach Travel.

Other Sources:

Coach Travel in Regency England

A Grim Reality: The Life of a Coach Horse in the Regency Era

How Far Did Our Ancestors Travel

The Stagecoach

Posted in British history, England, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, real life tales, Regency era, travel | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Traveling by Stagecoach During the Regency Era

Thomas Tompion, “The Father of English Clockmaking”

Posted on March 26, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

thomas-tompion.jpgI have a dear friend who is really into antiques, and I must tell you that she is a wealth of knowledge — a tap I often go to for just that special touch in a story, but I will admit I knew nothing of Thomas Tompion until this friend was on an internet search for a particular style of clock, known to represent Tompion’s style. 

So, what of you? Are you as ignorant of Thomas Tompion as was I? It is not easy to learn much of Tompion’s early years. He was born, the son of the local blacksmith, in Ickwell Green, Northill, near Biggleswade in Bedfordshire. He was baptized in July 1639, which is the mark of his birth in the records of the time. Keeping in mind that blacksmiths were the experts in metalworking trades at the time, we assume Thomas learned much within his father’s shop. Precision was the mark of much of Thomas’s work in later life. He was an English maker of clocks, watches, and scientific instruments who was a pioneer of improvements in timekeeping mechanisms that set new standards for the quality of their workmanship.

Around 1671, Thomas agreed to spend several years as an apprentice (a “brother”) in the Worshipful Company of Clockmakers before obtaining his freedom as a journeyman in 1674. Two years later, he was appointed clockmaker for the new Royal Greenwich Observatory, having been commissioned by Charles II to make two clocks that were accurate enough by which astronomers could use them to make calculations and that they only needed to wound once a year. It is said that John Flamsteed, Astronomer Royal, was able to prove his theory that the earth spins on its axis at a uniform rate with the use of Tompion’s clocks.

11096s1010011-thomas-tompion.jpg

Elected to the livery of the Clockmakers’ Company in 1691, Tompion served as junior warden in 1700 and rose to master in 1703. About 1707 Tompion was made a freeman of the city of Bath, where he is believed to have sought relief for an ailment, and he presented the city with a month-going timepiece still in use at the Pump Room.

According to an article by Jeremy L. Evans for Encyclopedia Britannica, “Tompion was among the first to apply Christiaan Huygen’s invention of the balance spring to watches. In particular, he is credited with inventing the Tompion regulation (1674–75), and he was the first (1695) to construct watches with a practical form of horizontal escapement. In clockwork, Tompion used early forms of dead-beat escapement (1675–76), and he introduced pendulum spring-suspension for table clocks and Barlow’s rack-striking mechanism (both about 1680). He was one of the first to use efficiently profiled machine-cut gearing and to protect movements from dust.

“Tompion’s practical skills enabled him to supply any type of horological item, and his versatility is displayed by his earliest known commissions: a church bell of more than one hundredweight (8 stone, 112 pounds, or about 51 kg) in 1671, a turret clock for the Tower of London, a quadrant of 3-foot (1-metre) radius for the Royal Society in 1674, and a balance-spring watch, under physicist Robert Hooke’s instruction, for King Charles II  in 1675. 

5c6ebb8e130d16071cd9847d90bbc948

Mostyn Tompion, year-going clock, table clock, striking clock, spring-

“By this time, Tompion was established in business in Fleet Street, where he traded for the rest of his life at the sign of the Dial and Three Crowns. Remarkably, within just a few years of his arrival in London’s horological community, he had become its most renowned member, and, with sound business acumen, he capitalized on the demand for his work and was soon the leading retailer. In 1690 ,he was employing as many as 20 people at his establishment. His customers were chiefly from the wealthiest classes—royalty and the aristocracy of England and other European countries. He also supplied items for presentation as diplomatic gifts. Some of his finest work, possibly in collaboration with the designer Daniel Marot, was for King William III and Queen Mary II; examples include an outstanding year-going spring clock and a highly complicated traveling clock. Two year-going equation longcase clocks still in the royal collections were made for William III and Prince George of Denmark.

Thomas_Tompion_George_Graham_plaque_London.jpg“About 1701 Tompion took into partnership Edward Banger, who had been trained in the business and had married his niece, but Banger was apparently dismissed from the premises about 1707, and for the next few years items were retailed with Tompion’s name alone. About 1712, Tompion took into partnership George Graham, who had married another niece, and Graham succeeded to the business on Tompion’s death. (Graham also shares the distinction of being buried in the same plot and covered by the same stone in Westminster Abbey.) During his life, Tompion retailed about 700 clocks and 5,500 watches—including about 400 complicated repeating watches, as well as a small number of scientific instruments such as barometers, dials, and even a lunarium. He was one of the first to number his items in series.”

Tompion was also known for his mantel and grandfather clocks. His father’s old smithy has been restored and is used by the local football club as a changing room. 

 
Posted in British history, inventions, real life tales, research, world history | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Catholic – Protestant Marriages During the late Georgian Era

Posted on March 22, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

When discussing Catholic emancipation, etc., the year makes a difference. George III’s era was far stricter against Catholics having any kind of power. That was one reason why many members of parliament quit in 1801, including Pitt the Younger and Lord Grenville. Such tidbits of information are important to clarify if one is writing a book that places the hero and heroine in a “mixed” marriage.

There were mixed marriages, some very well known. In fact, the Prince Regent himself married a Catholic, though without permission. The children in this case will be raised Protestant.

Prince George knew the marriage was invalid because it had not been approved according to the Royal Marriage Act. This was essential  for him because another law said anyone who married a Catholic gave up his/her place in the line of succession to the throne. Mrs. Fitzherbert considered herself married to him, though it had been by a Protestant clergyman. (See Regency History for more on this joining.)

However, one must realize this was not simply a Georgian era point of contention. The rules against “mixed marriages” continued into the latter part of the 1800s. For example, much later in the century, a case was contested between Maria Theresa Longworth and Major William Charles Yelverton who married in a Catholic Church near Rostrevor on 15 August 1857. They had previously married in Edinburgh on or about 13 April 1857 according to Scottish law; however, Theresa refused to cohabit with Major Yelverton until they were married according to her own Catholic religion. Whether the marriage was legal or not came into the public eye when Major Yelverton married a rich widow, Emily Marianne Ashworth Forbes, in Edinburgh, reportedly some time after Mari had a miscarriage. Maria claimed Yelverton committed bigamy. The major was arrested, but the charges were dropped. Afterwards, Yelverton sought out a declaration in court that he was not married to Maria.

“Meanwhile, Theresa went to the English Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes to petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. At this time, she lived in England and Major Yelverton resided in Edinburgh. Since Major Yelverton was not domiciled in England, the court said it did not have jurisdiction, stating that the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes was “…a court for England, not for the United Kingdom, or for Great Britain; and for the purposes of this question of jurisdiction Ireland and Scotland are to be deemed foreign countries equally with France or Spain”. On 7 December 1859, the court held that there was nothing to get rid of the maxim actor sequitur forum rei, and dismissed Major Yelverton.

“By 1861, Theresa had been living with a Mr and Mrs Thelwall in England, who brought a claim against Major Yelverton to the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland to recover the money owed for her board and lodgings. Their application was on the basis that Theresa was Major Yelverton’s wife, so the real purpose of the petition was to establish that they were indeed married. In February 1860, Major Yelverton had become the Baron of Avonmore; therefore, there was no question of his domicile in Ireland. The ten-day trial was a sensation which received daily coverage in newspapers all over Great Britain and Ireland; Major Yelverton’s “own defence proclaimed him a treacherous, a heartless libertine”, and so public opinion fell firmly in Theresa’s favour. (Matthias McDonnell Bodkin, Famous Irish Trials (Maunsel & Co 1918)

“A 1746 statute became central to the trial, in which it was stated that “every marriage which shall be celebrated … between a Papist and any person who had been or professed him or herself to be a Protestant any time within twelve months before such celebration of marriage, or between two Protestants if celebrated by a popish priest shall be and is hereby proclaimed absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes…”. (Statute 10, George II, Chapter 13 Section I)

“The jury found that there was a Scottish marriage and an Irish marriage, and at the time Major Yelverton had professed to be a Roman Catholic…. In Edinburgh, the outcome of Theresa’s 1858 petition was not so fortunate. In July 1862, the Lord Ordinary, Lord Ardmillan, found in Major Yelverton’s favour – a decision which was overturned in December 1862 when the Inner House found that Theresa and Major Yelverton were lawfully married persons.

“Finally, in July 1864, the House of Lords found that Major Yelverton was a Protestant within the meaning of the Act, and therefore the marriage was null and void. The Yelverton saga ultimately resulted in the laws of marriages being reformed, with the enactment of the Marriage Causes and Marriage Law (Ireland) Amendment Act of 1870 legalising marriages between Catholics and Protestants before a Catholic priest.” [Our Legal Heritage: A bigamist’s mixed-marriage declared null and void]

Yelverton showed records of his family being Protestant for generations and the fact that he had attended the “right schools,” etc. as proof for his case.

Maria Theresa Longworth Yelverton

The case infuriated the Catholics all over again, and not many parliaments passed before  the law was changed allowing mixed marriages by Catholic priests or Anglican, Methodists, Presbyterian or other clergymen. 

The Law was clear. In England, everyone including Catholics, with the exception of Quakers or Jews had to be married in the local parish church or by a Church of England clergyman. NO other exceptions. Catholics in England who married only in their own rites were not considered legally married under English law. They had to be married  by a Protestant minister to be legally married. The Catholics found this legislation vile and prejudicial; yet, most married in their church first and then almost immediately in the Protestant church. If they had not married in the Protestant church their children were considered illegitimate, etc., under the law of the land. 

In fact, a Catholic priest faced fines and other sanctions for marrying a Protestant to a Catholic unless they had already been married by a Protestant.

In Ireland, the Catholics didn’t need to be married by a Protestant at all, but the clergy was still forbidden to celebrate at a mixed marriage unless there had already been a Protestant one. 

All through the 19th century, the restrictions against other religious groups were eased and there even was a provision for a civil marriage, but a Catholic and a Protestant still could not marry in the Catholic Church unless already married by civil or Protestant ceremony. Rules against Catholics lasted longer than rules against other religions. Any marriage of a Protestant to a Catholic by Catholic ritual alone was invalid. 

Legally, there had to be a Church of England ceremony first for the marriage to be legal in England. If the bride wanted to be married by a priest afterward, it would not be impossible to find a priest to perform the ceremony. Confession before marriage has never been a requirement, especially if the marriage ceremony does not include a Mass, which it would not if the groom is not Catholic.

Though the laws against Catholics had been somewhat weakened by the Regency period,  there was still much feeling against Catholics in general. In 1780 there were riots when Parliament discussed a bill to remove some of the disabilities against Catholics.

George III greatly objected to his prime minister attempt to include Catholic emancipation with the bill making Ireland a part of the United Kingdom. This despite the fact that it had been promised.

Catholic emancipation was the subject of political debate in the United Kingdom which intensified in the 19th Century after the Act of Union in 1801. “Catholics were not allowed to sit in Parliament. and, therefore, were represented by Protestants. Catholic emancipation — Catholic relief — was designed to give Catholics the right to sit in Parliament.

“The Act of Union unified Ireland with Great Britain and disbanded the mainly Protestant and ineffective Irish Parliament. Catholic emancipation was informally promised to the Catholics of Ireland, which would allow them to stand for election and represent their country in Parliament. Catholics had previously been barred from political office by the Oath of Supremacy, which required them to disavow the supremacy of the Pope and the act of transubstantiation and swear loyalty to the Anglican Church of England. William Pitt [the Prime Minister] was unable to grant Catholic emancipation after the Act of Union because George III believed that it was unconstitutional and that allowing it would violate his oath to the Church of England. Pitt and his government did not want to push him [George III] further into ‘madness.’ Furthermore, Britain was engaged in the French Wars and could not afford political instability. Catholic emancipation was shelved.” [The Catholic Relief Act (1829)]

Ironically, it was the Napoleonic wars with an increased need for men in the army and navy that allowed Catholics to be officers.

They still could not vote nor attend university or schools, such as Eton, Harrow, Westminster, etc. Before the war, Catholic children were often sent to the Continent to Catholic schools. The Duke of Norfolk came from a prominent Catholic family. He had a hereditary position as Earl marshal, but had to allow a Protestant to fulfill many of his official duties. He was supposed to allow the churches to which he held the livings to be handled by the universities, but he refused to hand them over and had a Protestant make the formal approach to the Bishop regarding his refusal.

Shortly after the Regency, Parliament granted him the right to act in his won stead, no matter his professed religion. After McConnell’s election to Parliament  and other reforms, Roman Catholics were allowed to take their seats in the House of Lords. Suddenly the number of Catholic peers increased. The families had often been bringing up the heir to the title as a Protestant so he might inherit, while the rest of the children were raised as Catholic. 

Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk by Thomas Gainsborough ~ Public Domain ~ 1746-1815

Norfolk renounced his Catholicism to start his political life, but remained a staunch supporter of Catholic Emancipation. He sat in Parliament from 1780 to 1784 and served as a lord of the treasury under the Portland administration in 1783. Howard became a staunch Whig. However, at the great political dinner at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Arundel Street, Strand, on 24 Jan. 1798, at which nearly two thousand persons attended, the duke gave a toast, `Our sovereign’s health—the majesty of the people.’ The king, highly offended, caused him to be removed from his lord-lieutenancy and colonelcy of militia in the following February. The news reached the duke on the evening of 31 Jan., when he was entertaining the prince regent at Norfolk House (Lonsdale, Worthies of Cumberland, v. 57–64). The prince and the duke were for a time fast friends, and were the first to bring into fashion the late hours of dining. They subsequently quarrelled, but after some reconciliation, the prince invited Norfolk, then an old man, to dine and sleep at the Pavilion at Brighton, and with the aid of his brothers, the Dukes of Clarence and York, reduced him to a helpless condition of drunkenness (Thackeray, Four Georges).[Dictionary of National Biography]

He left no issue, and was succeeded in the dukedom by his third cousin, Bernard Edward Howard (1765–1842) Unlike Charles Howard, Bernard Howard was a staunch Roman Catholic, but by act of parliament passed 24 June 1824, he was allowed to act as earl-marshal. He was made a councillor of the university of London in 1825, was admitted to a seat in the House of Lords, after the Roman Catholic Relief Bill of 1829, was nominated a privy councillor 1830, and was elected K.G. 1834.

The Twelfth Duke of Norfolk, portrait of Bernard Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk (1765-1842) – via Wikipedia

An ardent Roman Catholic, like most of his family, he strongly supported Catholic Emancipation, and gave offense to his Protestant neighbors by hosting a large banquet to celebrate the passage of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.  

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, Church of England, customs and tradiitons, family, Georgian England, Georgian Era, history, Inheritance, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, political stance, real life tales, Regency era, religion, research | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Catholic – Protestant Marriages During the late Georgian Era

Book Review – The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery

Posted on March 17, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

(by Kelly Yanke Deltenar of www.examiner.com)

The Phantom of Pemberley by Regina Jeffers is a sequel to Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice with a murder mystery twist. And although I’ve read Jeffers before (all of her other books, as a matter of fact) I was skeptical. Extremely skeptical. I was skeptical to the point of being afraid of reading the book because I had very high expectations.

Well, dear reader, I am happy to report that not only does Jeffers deliver for the Austen fan; she delivers for the “cozy” crowd as well.

Jeffers begins the book by dropping us into Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam’s lives a little over a year after they’ve been married. Things are going well, even an impending visit from Lydia Wickham can’t ruin their idyllic setting until a winter squall strikes and several travelers are forced to stay at Pemberley for a duration to ride the storm out.

Characters both from the original book by Austen and new characters created by Jeffers are presented and fleshed out for us to enjoy. Happily (or unhappily for the Darcy’s) Lady Catherine and Anne de Bourgh are part of the refugees when the storm strikes so the tension is set at a fever pitch.

In a very deliberate fashion, each of the guests has some relation to each other, although all are thought to be strangers other than those of direct relation to the Darcys. It is a wonderful set up and the tension builds as you turn the pages.

Almost immediately the mystery begins when a shadow figure appears to be stalking the grounds. Then the bodies start piling up. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the murders which leads the guest to believe there may be more than one killer on the loose.

Trapped because of the storm and impassable roads, the guests are forced to remain at Pemberley. Because help can’t reach Pemberley, Darcy and Elizabeth are forced to discover who the murderer is before another victim is taken.

Interwoven with the mystery and intrigue are genuine love stories, courtship and even some play acting presented by the guests. Jeffers had me convinced I was in an Austen novel, even if it was in another universe.

4 out of 5 stars!

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

The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Murder Mystery

[originally released by Ulysses Press on July 1, 2010]

[ReReleased March 19, 2021]

HAPPILY MARRIED for over a year and more in love than ever, Darcy and Elizabeth can’t imagine anything interrupting their bliss-filled days. Then an intense snowstorm strands a group of travelers at Pemberley, and terrifying accidents and mysterious deaths begin to plague the manor. Everyone seems convinced that it is the work of a phantom—a Shadow Man who is haunting the Darcy family’s grand estate.

Darcy and Elizabeth believe the truth is much more menacing and that someone is attempting to murder them. But Pemberley is filled with family guests as well as the unexpected travelers—any one of whom could be the culprit—so unraveling the mystery of the murderer’s identity forces the newlyweds to trust each other’s strengths and work together.

Written in the style of the era and including Austen’s romantic playfulness and sardonic humor, this suspense-packed sequel to Pride and Prejudice recasts Darcy and Elizabeth as a husband-and-wife detective team who must solve the mystery at Pemberley and catch the murderer—before it’s too late.

Posted in Austen Authors, book release, books, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, historical fiction, history, Jane Austen, legends and myths, Living in the Regency, paranormal, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, reading habits, Regency era, Regency romance, research, spooky tales, suspense | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Book Review – The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery

Cozy Up to an Austen-Inspired Mystery with the ReRelease of “The Phantom of Pemberley”

Posted on March 15, 2021 by Regina Jeffers
The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery was my sixth Jane Austen book. It was originally released in 2010 by Ulysses Press. As Ulysses no longer publishes fiction stories, I had my rights to the book returned to me. I am re-releasing it to a new audience of Austen fans with a new cover and a bit of updating.
 
As with many of my author friends, I am more than a bit of a “Jane Austen geek.” I have loved Jane Austen’s works since I was a pre-teen. I also love mystery and suspense. To mix the two was fun. 
 

If he has to kill a thousand men, the Phantom will kill and kill again!

 

The Phantom of Pemberley is what is known as a “cozy mystery,” along the lines of what one would find with Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes. A “cozy” has very specific characteristics: (1) The setting is a country house or small town, customarily without a detective or police or sheriff to assist in discovering the culprit. (2) The murder mystery is a domestic crime, one close to home rather than having far-reaching implications. (3) There is always a gifted amateur who cross examines the suspects and after a clever explanation discloses the guilty person, a person along the lines of mystery writer Jessica Fletcher in the television show “Murder She Wrote.” (4) It generally focuses on solving the mental aspects of the crime (without the assistance of CSI). (5) The “murder” happens off-screen, so to speak. It is spoken of but the reader experiences the violence after the event, rather than reading all the graphic details. (6) Sex and offensive language is kept to a minimum. 
 
So, we open The Phantom of Pemberley to find Darcy and Elizabeth, married for a year and blissfully happy with plans for the future of the Pemberley estate and their marriage. However, we know what happens when we tell God our plans. He has a hearty laugh and sends us a good dose of humility. Enter that humility in the form of the worst snowstorm in a decade. Add the appearances of Lydia Bennet Wickham for a planned visit and of Lady Catherine and Anne de Bourgh, both making an unexpected call at Pemberley, the first since Darcy and Elizabeth’s wedding. Obviously, an eclectic mix requires a bit more than the Austen standard fare. Because of the storm, Lydia invites her fellow traveling companions from the public coach to stay at Pemberley. As readers we meet Nigel Worth, a country solicitor, and Evelyn Williams, a naval widow. Compound the mix of guests at Pemberley with a friend of Colonel Fitzwilliam, Adam Lawrence, the future Earl of Greenwall, who also finds himself stranded in Derbyshire with no place to stay. Therefore, against his better judgment, Darcy accepts Lawrence and Lawrence’s mistress, Cathleen Donnel, at the estate.
 
You will curse the day you did not do all that the Phantom asked of you!
 
Snowed in for, at least, a week, Darcy and Elizabeth set about entertaining so varied a guest list, but entertainment becomes a minor problem. First, Elizabeth sees an unknown stranger along one of the fields surrounding the manor house, then Georgiana spots a like figure close to the cottagers’ huts. The Pemberley staff think it the Shadow Man, but even that legend does not explain the unusual thefts about the house, the appearance of a disembodied ghost in Georgiana’s room, a staged accident on the stairs, and a series of what appears to be unconnected murders. What Darcy finds at Pemberley is a “phantom,” who is obviously set on revenge.
 
Shadow-Man-orig-opt-200.jpg One of the things I enjoy when I write is exploring history and incorporating it into the story line. First, for The Phantom of Pemberley, I used the legend of the Shadow Man or Hat Man, as he is sometimes called. Most cultures have a variation on this legend. The easiest way to explain a Shadow Person is when one thinks he sees someone from the corner of his eye and then turns his head to find nothing. I found it very interesting that Wes Craven spoke of a scary experience with a shadowy creature as a young boy. Some suggest this incident was the inspiration for Freddy Krueger. To read more of Craven’s story and Shadow People go HERE. 
 
Next, discovering creative ways to dispose of the chosen victims was essential. I was very lucky in that women of the Regency era, quite literally poisoned themselves with their beauty products. During this era, white skin signified a life of leisure while skin exposed to the sun indicated a life of outdoor labor. In order to maintain a pale complexion, women wore bonnets, carried parasols, and covered all visible parts of their bodies with whiteners and blemish removers. Unfortunately, more than a few of these remedies were lethal. Into the nineteenth century, ladies used a whitening agent composed of carbonate, hydroxide, and lead oxide, which the body stored with each use, resulting in muscle paralysis or death. By the nineteenth century zinc oxide became widely used as a facial powder, replacing this more deadly mixture. Even in the early 1800s, we must ask the question: What price beauty? (Ideals of Female Beauty in the 1700 and 1800s from Geri Walton)
 
Hopefully, the red herring is not too obvious for those of you who devour mysteries. I have planned some twists and turns to the story, which I pray will keep it interesting. For example, in The Phantom of Pemberley, I play a bit more with the character of Anne de Bourgh. In Darcy’s Temptations, I gave Anne de Bourgh a life after Darcy’s desertion, but I found I did not like her much afterwards; and I wanted to like Anne. Therefore, in this one Anne finally discovers she has a spine and seeks love in all the wrong places before finding what is important in a relationship: a apt lesson for a woman well on the shelf by Regency standards.
 
One of the things I found in writing this book is I became quite interested in the character of Adam Lawrence, a very “major” minor character in The Phantom of Pemberley. Lawrence has developed into what Francis Henning is to author Victoria Alexander. He makes an appearance in eleven other of my works.  (Visit Adam’s #SupportingRole post HERE.) Therefore, I have written Adam’s story (His Irish Eve) about what happens to Lawrence in the future, six years after the close of The Phantom of Pemberley. 
 
In dreams, that voice calls to me and speaks my name. And do I dream again? For now I find the Phantom is there, inside my mind.
 JeffersPhantom
 
“It is far harder to kill a phantom than a reality.” (Virginia Woolf)
 

The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Murder Mystery

[Originally Released July 1, 2010]

[ReReleased March 19, 2021]

HAPPILY MARRIED for over a year and more in love than ever, Darcy and Elizabeth can’t imagine anything interrupting their bliss-filled days. Then an intense snowstorm strands a group of travelers at Pemberley, and terrifying accidents and mysterious deaths begin to plague the manor. Everyone seems convinced that it is the work of a phantom—a Shadow Man who is haunting the Darcy family’s grand estate.

Darcy and Elizabeth believe the truth is much more menacing and that someone is attempting to murder them. But Pemberley is filled with family guests as well as the unexpected travelers—any one of whom could be the culprit—so unraveling the mystery of the murderer’s identity forces the newlyweds to trust each other’s strengths and work together.

Written in the style of the era and including Austen’s romantic playfulness and sardonic humor, this suspense-packed sequel to Pride and Prejudice recasts Darcy and Elizabeth as a husband-and-wife detective team who must solve the mystery at Pemberley and catch the murderer—before it’s too late.

 

Posted in book release, British history, Georgian England, gothic and paranormal, Great Britain, historical fiction, history, Jane Austen, language choices, legends and myths, Living in the Regency, mystery, Regency era, Ulysses Press | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Thief and Murderer. Why I Write What I Do …

Posted on March 12, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

In 2008, I took the plunge in the publishing world when one of my AP students challenged me with “If you know how to do this, do it yourself.” Publishing was not on my radar. I was 37 years into a teaching career and counting down to 40. Even so, I grabbed the “golden apple” when it was dangled before me. My self published book rose quickly upon the Amazon sales list, and I was offered a publishing contract with Ulysses Press.

The one thing I forgot to mention in this process is the fact that I am more than a writer who kills, I am also an unrepentant thief. How so? Permit me to explain.

My writing career began with a retelling of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice from Mr. Darcy’s point of view. Since that time, I have written 50+ novels, about half of which are Austen related retellings, sequels, variations, and mysteries. In the dark hours of early evening, I regularly creep into the land of Austen and make away with our  dearest Jane’s special treasures.

I was told by another writer recently on Twitter that I should STOP writing Austen-inspired stories—that the tropes are overused. In other words, I should ignore my Austen readers, those who I have carefully cultivated for some twelve years. I should abandon a source of income. As a retired school teacher, I am not rolling in money.  

JeffersDP copy 3 So, why does a customarily law abiding citizen “borrow” someone else’s brilliant body of work? If someone had asked me that question before I wrote Darcy’s Passions, I would have told him that I had no intention of making a career from publishing; therefore, if all I was to do was to dabble in writing a novel in order to answer the challenge of all-too-smart student, why not choose a plot I dearly loved.

I ignored many other works within the realm of public domain to choose Jane Austen because Miss Austen is the friend I always wished I possessed. Jane would understand me; she would cheer for my success. Austen provides her readers a familiar starting point. So, I did not only “borrow” a plot, I also encouraged a plethora of favorite characters to follow me into a “second” life. With plot and characters in my bag, why not slip in a bit of tone and syntax. Although I initially thought only to manipulate the plot, I found some of the less famous of Austen’s characters demanded an introduction to modern audiences.

But why Austen? In Ian Watt’s Rise of the Novel, the author says that Austen combines the internal and external approaches to character. Austen possesses authenticity without diffuseness or trickery. Austen creates a sense of social order, which is not achieved at the expense of individuality and autonomy of the characters. Personally, I believe Austen to be an expert in plot-driven fiction. More than simply telling a story, Austen builds vivid worlds that capture the truths of an imperfect humanity.

Austen serves as both my bane and my salvation. I would not have a writing career without her, but because I write stories with familiar characters, some experts and reviewers look upon my stories as “cheating.” What these so-called experts do not realize is how many hours of study I have completed on Austen’s works. When I create a story line around Austen’s most famous characters, Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet, not only must I develop a believable story from my own imagination, but I must also maintain Austen’s “mastery” in the new plot.

In other words, I remain conscious of the canon and the past while I create new situations for familiar characters. I attempt to retain the specifics of the context and the historical setting, while highlighting and exploring current   issues. I am in good company with well-known crime writer Phyllis Dorothy James (P.D. James), Baroness James of Holland Park, who released Death Comes to Pemberley in  2013, a year before her death.

JeffersPhantom2 copyJeffersDofGD copyJeffers-TMDOMD My first mystery The Phantom of Pemberley came out in 2010. (It will be rereleased in February 2020) In it, I explore multiple personality disorders in history. The Mysterious Death of Mr. Darcy is a twisted tale of grave robbers and resurrectionists. It will rerelease on August 10, 2020. The Disappearance of Georgiana Darcy is based on the legend of Sawney Bean, a 14th Century Scottish cannibal. It, like the others, has seen a rerelease because I have now received back the rights to my books, originally published by Ulysses Press. Another Pride and Prejudice mystery is The Prosecution of Mr. Darcy’s Cousin, which explores the effects of PTSD long before it was a recognized ailment. But more than a mystery, each of these books views our contemporary world through a narrow lens buried deep in the past. What I write is more than nostalgia. My novels analyze the social, cultural, and pedagogical conditions that reshape Austen’s story into mine. The past is, for all intents and purposes, always being reinvented.

The Disappearance of Georgiana Darcy: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery 

A THRILLING NOVEL OF MALICIOUS VILLAINS, DRAMATIC REVELATIONS, AND HEROIC GESTURES THAT STAYS TRUE TO AUSTEN’S STYLE

SHACKLED IN THE DUNGEON of a macabre castle with no recollection of her past, a young woman finds herself falling in love with her captor—the estate’s master. Trusting him before she regains her memory and unravels the castle’s wicked truths would be a catastrophe.

Far away at Pemberley, the Darcys happily gather to celebrate the marriage of Kitty Bennet. But a dark cloud sweeps through the festivities: Georgiana has disappeared without a trace. Upon receiving word of his sister’s likely demise, Darcy and his wife, Elizabeth, set off across the English countryside, seeking answers in the unfamiliar and menacing Scottish moors.

How can Darcy keep his sister safe from the most sinister threat she has ever faced when he doesn’t even know if she’s alive? True to Austen’s style and rife with malicious villains, dramatic revelations and heroic gestures, this suspense-packed mystery places Darcy and Elizabeth in the most harrowing situation they have ever faced— finding Georgiana before it’s too late.

Read for FREE on Kindle Unlimited

Kindle

Amazon

Audible

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

The Mysterious Death of Mr. Darcy: A Pride and Prejudice Mystery [mystery, suspense, historical fiction, Regency, thriller] [February 18, 2013] – rereleased August 11, 2020

A THRILLING STORY OF MURDER AND BETRAYAL FILLED WITH THE SCANDAL, WIT AND INTRIGUE CHARACTERISTIC OF AUSTEN’S CLASSIC NOVELS

Fitzwilliam Darcy is devastated. The joy of his recent wedding has been cut short by the news of the sudden death of his father’s beloved cousin, Samuel Darcy. Elizabeth and Darcy travel to Dorset, a popular Regency resort area, to pay their respects to the well-traveled and eccentric Samuel. But this is no summer holiday. Danger bubbles beneath Dorset’s peaceful surface as strange and foreboding events begin to occur. Several of Samuel’s ancient treasures go missing, and then his body itself disappears. As Darcy and Elizabeth investigate this mystery and unravel its tangled ties to the haunting legends of Dark Dorset, the legendary couple’s love is put to the test when sinister forces strike close to home. Some secrets should remain secrets, but Darcy will do all he can to find answers—even if it means meeting his own end in the damp depths of a newly dug grave.

With malicious villains, dramatic revelations and heroic gestures, The Mysterious Death of Mr. Darcy will keep Austen fans and mystery readers turning the pages right up until its dramatic conclusion.

Kindle

Nook

Kobo

Amazon

Audible

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

The Phantom of Pemberley: A Pride and Prejudice Murder Mystery

HAPPILY MARRIED for over a year and more in love than ever, Darcy and Elizabeth can’t imagine anything interrupting their bliss-filled days. Then an intense snowstorm strands a group of travelers at Pemberley, and terrifying accidents and mysterious deaths begin to plague the manor. Everyone seems convinced that it is the work of a phantom—a Shadow Man who is haunting the Darcy family’s grand estate.

Darcy and Elizabeth believe the truth is much more menacing and that someone is attempting to murder them. But Pemberley is filled with family guests as well as the unexpected travelers—any one of whom could be the culprit—so unraveling the mystery of the murderer’s identity forces the newlyweds to trust each other’s strengths and work together.

Written in the style of the era and including Austen’s romantic playfulness and sardonic humor, this suspense-packed sequel to Pride and Prejudice recasts Darcy and Elizabeth as a husband-and-wife detective team who must solve the mystery at Pemberley and catch the murderer—before it’s too late.

Posted in book release, British history, Georgian England, Georgian Era, historical fiction, history, Jane Austen, legends and myths, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, reading habits, real life tales, Regency era, suspense, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Unfortunate Choices in the Jane Austen Ten Pound Note, a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Posted on March 5, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

(This post originally appeared on the Austen Authors’ blog on 10 November 2020. Enjoy!)

On 14 September 2017, a £10 banknote featuring Jane Austen entered circulation. 

The launch coincided with the 200th anniversary of the death of the writer, who passed away prematurely on 18 July 1817. It’s a recognition conveyed to very few individuals (and a tiny number of women). All in all, an incredible honour.

Janeites celebrated the arrival of the new note with much jubilation, and I was elated when I got hold of my first Jane Austen note. However, a second look at it left me bewildered. 

The choices of the Bank of England for the note seemed, at best, rather unfortunate – and at worst, a positive boycott of what should have been a poignant remembrance of the author. 

Here’s why:

1. The portrait

The note, as you would expect, features a portrait of the author. The slight problem is that it is based on a watercolour painted over 50 years after Jane Austen’s death by someone who had never met her. The painting was a commission by Austen’s nephew, James Edward Austen-Leigh, who wanted it to illustrate the biography he wrote of his famous aunt. 

The portrait is loosely based on Cassandra Austen’s sketch of her sister – the only verified likeness we have of Austen. However, the similarities are remarkably few. The painter took many liberties to “beautify” his subject; it was Victorian Photoshop at its best,  fuelling the idea that Austen was a gentle and harmless writer of sugary romances. It’s not something she would have appreciated.  

2. The see-through window

The see-through window at the front and back of the note features Winchester Cathedral, Jane Austen’s resting place. It’s a pretty metallic image, and the foil is gold on the front window, silver on the back.

My objection to this choice is that Jane’s life in Winchester wasn’t particularly happy. She moved there to undergo medical treatment, but she passed away after just over two months. I find it a rather gloomy memento to put on a note supposedly celebrating Austen’s life and oeuvre. 

3. The heroine

In the back of the note, there’s a picture showing a young woman, said to be Elizabeth Bennet. The spirited protagonist of Pride and Prejudice is one of Austen’s most loved heroines, which makes her an excellent choice. But wait, what is Lizzie doing? Well… she is sitting down at a desk, quietly penning a letter. 

Really? Wasn’t there a better way to portray such a lively and witty character? Here are some ideas that would have worked better: showing her in a bracing countryside walk with her sister Jane; engaging in some verbal sparring with Mr Darcy; or marvelling at the grandiosity of Pemberley. Which brings me to the next point…

4. The house

The back of the note features Godmersham Park House, the estate of Austen’s brother Edward, who was adopted by the wealthy Knight family. Austen visited Godmersham Park regularly, but not exactly as a guest: as a spinster sister, she was expected to “make herself useful” and help with the many nieces and nephews. 

A much better choice would have been the cottage at Chawton. After years of wandering from place to place, Austen finally found stability in Chawton, where was at her most productive. There, she wrote Mansfield Park, Emma and most of Persuasion. It’s also where she most likely revised Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Northanger Abbey. I think it deserved a place in the note.

5. The quote

Jane Austen, famous for her witty remarks and acute observations about every aspect of life and death, is eminently quotable. So who had the unhappy idea to feature the famously insincere “I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading” quote on the £10 note?

Does anybody really think that Austen would have liked one of her Mean Girls to have that honour?

Don’t get me wrong. Caroline Bingley is one of my favourite Austen characters. Her hypocrisy, selfishness and rudeness towards Elizabeth only make her fate more delicious. I like her so much that I even gave her a second chance in Miss Price’s Decision. 

Nevertheless, having this quote on the Jane Austen note makes no sense. 

6. The amount

Ten is a nice, round number, but in the context of Jane Austen’s life, it has bittersweet connotations. £10 is exactly the sum paid by publisher Crosby & Co in 1803 for Austen’s Susan, thought to be an early version of Northanger Abbey. Happy days!

The problem, of course, is that the manuscript remained unpublished. In the years that followed the sale, Jane experienced varying degrees of hope, disappointment and anxiety over the manuscript until she bought it back 13 years later. Perhaps £10 wasn’t the most appropriate note amount for Austen, considering what we know about her life.    

7. The signature

Jane Austen was a prolific letter writer. Even after Cassandra’s heavy editing, we still have dozens of her letters, many of which feature her famous signature. However, out of all the possibilities available, guess which one the Bank of England chose for the note? 

Yes, the signature that Austen stamped on her will.

Something tells me that there are no Janeites in the ranks of the Bank of England.

In the meantime, I rest my case….

What are your thoughts on the above? Have you managed to get hold of a £10 note featuring Jane Austen? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Unfortunate Choices in the Jane Austen Ten Pound Note, a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Catholic Peers in Georgian England

Posted on March 3, 2021 by Regina Jeffers

download.jpg Over the centuries, the English people saw first Catholicism in favor, which was replaced by Protestantism, to be replaced by Catholicism again, and finally a return to Protestantism. The reigns of Henry VIII and his children brought a time of unrest for Catholics, where many were forced to either accept Henry VIII’s “reforms” or to lose their heads on the block. Sir Thomas More, for example, refused to accept Henry VIII as Head of the Anglican Church and was convicted of treason and beheaded. Henry’s reign was followed first by Mary, a devout Catholic, and then by Elizabeth I, who abolished Catholicism and replaced it with Protestant teachings.

The fact that Charles II had a Catholic wife saw a lessening of the persecution against Catholics during his reign, but not an end to the practice. During the late 1700s, Catholics were permitted to worship in the embassies of Catholic nations in London, meaning those in the country and spread about London, could not worship in public. It was not until 1791 that they could have mass in a Catholic church. Before that time, many Catholics conducted secret religious services in their homes. During this time of restrictions, priests were trained in European countries, and if they were caught, the priest would be executed, as would be those who aided him. In many houses, their were secret hiding places called “priest holes,” to protect the priest and disguise his actions. I use one of these secret places in my latest Regency romantic suspense, The Earl Claims His Comfort, for Lord Remmington’s (the book’s hero) ancestors were Scottish Catholics.

Prinny and Maria 01.jpgDuring the 1700s, Catholics were not permitted to attend universities, act in governmental offices, including Parliament and being magistrates or sheriffs. Nor could they purchase military commissions. In 1785, the future George IV secretly married a Catholic, one Maria Fitzherbert. She was a commoner, six years his elder, twice widowed, and a Roman Catholic. Despite her complete unsuitability, the prince was determined to marry her. This was in spite of the Act of Settlement 1701, which barred the spouse of a Catholic from succeeding to the throne, and the Royal Marriage Act 1772, which prohibited his marriage without the King’s consent, which would never have been granted. Eventually, to become King and to settle his many debts, Prince George abandoned the idea of claiming Mrs. Fitzherbert as his wife. 

Changes came in the early 1800s. Catholics were, at length, permitted to become officers in the Royal Navy, as well as in the Army. However, they could still not hold a seat in Parliament.

51itwdjj5xl-_sx331_bo1204203200_ 51nvWRZSzpL._UY250_ A marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic had first to be held in an Anglican church before a Catholic ceremony could be conducted. In my A Touch of Honor, Lord and Lady Swenton are first married in a Catholic church, but they spoke their vows in Ireland, rather than in England. When they returned to Yorkshire, they were remarried in the Protestant church. Likewise, I had a Protestant/Catholic marriage in The Earl Claims His Comfort. In this one, the Earl and Countess of Remmington follow the rules of marriage of the time, being first married in the Protestant church and then a few days later in the Catholic one. Note that if one did not follow this procedure, he left himself open to fine and public shunning. In both of these books, the husband is Protestant and the wife is Catholic, an easier task that if the husband was Catholic and the wife Protestant. Although all children of the marriage would be expected to be brought up as Protestants, for certain, all the males would be expected to be Protestant. In both my books mentioned above, the husband is Protestant and the wife is Catholic, an easier task to write than if the husband was Catholic and the wife Protestant. Most Protestant families blocked their daughters from marrying a Catholic. [Keep in mind that Catholics were equally prejudiced in this manner when it came to mixed marriages, a fact that plays out in both of my books, for the wives of each peer are cousins.]

As to the peerage, there were several dozen Catholic peers the persecution began, but that number dwindled throughout the 1700s. Recusancy referred to those Catholics in England, Wales, and Ireland who refused to attend Anglican services. Specifically, these citizens of the United Kingdom were known as Recusants, referring to those who remained loyal to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church and who did not attend the Anglican services provided by the Church of England. [Magee, Brian (1938). The English Recusants: A Study of the Post-Reformation Catholic Survival and the Operation of the Recusancy Laws. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne.]

The Act Against Recusants 1593, read in part: “For the better discovering and avoiding of all such traitorous and most dangerous conspiracies and attempts as are daily devised and practised against our most gracious sovereign lady the queen’s majesty and the happy estate of this commonweal, by sundry wicked and seditious persons, who, terming themselves Catholics, and being indeed spies and intelligencers, not only for her majesty’s foreign enemies, but also for rebellious and traitorous subjects born within her highness’s realms and dominions, and hiding their most detestable and devilish purposes under a false pretext of religion and conscience, do secretly wander and shift from place to place within this realm, to corrupt and seduce her majesty’s subjects, and to stir them to sedition and rebellion… 

“And be it also enacted by the authority aforesaid, that every person above the age of sixteen years, born within any her majesty’s realms or dominions, not having any certain place of dwelling and abode within this realm, and being a popish recusant, not usually repairing to some church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, but forbearing the same, contrary to the same laws and statutes in that behalf made, shall within forty days next after the end of this session of Parliament (if they be then within this realm, and not imprisoned, restrained, or stayed as aforesaid, and in such case of absence out of the realm, imprisonment, restraint, or stay, then within twenty days next after they shall return into the realm, and be enlarged of such imprisonment or restraint, and shall be able to travel) repair to the place where such person was born, or where the father or mother of such person shall then be dwelling, and shall not at any time after remove or pass above five miles from thence; upon pain that every person and persons which shall offend against the tenor and intent of this Act in anything before mentioned, shall lose and forfeit all his and their goods and chattels, and shall also forfeit to the queen’s majesty all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and all the rents and annuities of every such person so doing or offending, during the life of the same person…

“And if any such offender, which by the tenor and intent of this Act is to be abjured as is aforesaid, shall refuse to make such abjuration as is aforesaid, or after such abjuration made shall not go to such haven, and within such time as is before appointed, and from thence depart out of this realm, according to this present Act, or after such his departure shall return or come again into any her majesty’s realms or dominions, without her majesty’s special licence in that behalf first had and obtained; that then, in every such case, the person so offending shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer and lose as in case of felony without benefit of clergy.” A number of English and Welsh Catholics, who were executed in the 16th and 17th centuries were canonized by the Catholic Church as martyrs of the English Reformation. Restrictions against Roman Catholics were not set aside until full Catholic Emancipation in 1829. 

This piece on Recusancy lists prominent historical families in the United Kingdom, both Recusant families and those who converted. (Recusancy) 

800px-Charles_Howard,_11th_Duke_of_Norfolk_by_Thomas_Gainsborough.jpgDuring the Regency period there were less than a dozen Catholic peers. The most notable was the Duke of Norfolk. The Duke of Norfolk is the premier duke in the peerage of England, and also, as Earl of Arundel, the premier earl. The Duke of Norfolk is, moreover, the Earl Marshal and Hereditary Marshal of England.  The dukes have historically been Catholic. As Earl Marshal, the duke has the duty of organizing state occasions such as the state opening of Parliament. For the last five centuries, save some periods when it was under attainder, both the Dukedom and the Earl-Marshalship have been in the hands of the Howard family. 

The duke is the titular head of the College of Heralds and  has long had ceremonial and other positions in the country. During the times when Catholics could not take part in much that was his hereditary right because he was a practicing Catholic, Norfolk employed a Protestant Vice marshal to handle his duties.  The Duke of Norfolk, at one time, had two dozen or more livings in which he could place Protestant clergymen. He was supposed to turn these over to the Universities to handle the appointment of  clergymen, but he never did that.  He had a Protestant be his mouthpiece, but Norfolk  actually made the appointments.

Lord Petre was another Catholic. Robert Edward Petre, 9th Baron Petre was a member of the English Roman Catholic nobility, a philanthropist and responsible for employing James Paine to design a new Thorndon Hall and a house in Mayfair.  Robert also brought an energetic enthusiasm to his family life and married well. His first wife, whom he married on 19 April 1762, was Anne Howard (29 August 1742 – 15 January 1787), granddaughter to Henry Howard, 6th Duke of Norfolk. When Edward Howard, 9th Duke of Norfolk died without issue, his niece, Anne, became co-heir with his sister Winifred to various baronies. The couple had three children: Robert Edward Petre, 10th Baron Petre, George William Petre, and Anne Catherine Petre. 

“Robert and Anne evidently held themselves aloof from politics and the Court, for at the time of the War of American Independence, when France was threatening to aid the Americans by invading Ireland, Horace Walpole noted that the Roman Catholics professed much loyalty, both in Ireland and England, and Lord and Lady Petre went to Court for the first time. Horace Walpole specially remarks on the visit of George III and Queen Charlotte to Lord Petre at Thorndon Hall, after a review of the troops on Warley Common on 19 October 1779.” (Robert Petre, 9th Baron Petre)

Anne died in 1787, and Robert married again a year later, on 16 January 1788 in London. His second wife was Juliana Barbara Howard was the sister of the future Bernard Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk. Juliana was 19 years old, 27 years younger than Robert, and, indeed, Robert’s son had himself married her older sister two years previously. Juliana and Lord Petre had three children: Julia Maria Petre, Catherine Anne Petre, and Robert Edward Petre. 

George_Romney_-_Robert,_9th_Baron_Petre_demonstrating_the_use_of_an_écorché_figure_to_his_son,_Robert_Edward

George Romney (English, 1734–1802), Robert, 9th Baron Petre, Demonstrating the Use of an Écorché Figure to His Son, Robert Edward c. 1775 – 1776, 76 x 63.2 cm, Oil on canvas, Levy Bequest Purchase, Collection of McMaster Museum of Art, McMaster University ~ public domain ~ via Wikipedia

“Robert was a leading figure in the movement for Catholic emancipation, for example Dr. Alexander Geddes, protégé of Robert, was a Catholic theologian, writer and scholar who was an honorary graduate of the University of Aberdeen and an early Roman Catholic pioneer of biblical criticism and originator of the “fragment hypothesis” of the composition of the Pentateuch. Between the accession of ElizabethI and the early years of George I, thirty separate statutes that either forbade Roman Catholics the practice of their religion or deprived them of their rights and freedoms had been enacted. It is true that, by this time, the emphasis had changed; Roman Catholics could at least adhere to their beliefs and even worship discreetly without undue risk to their life or liberty but the legislation, particularly to exclude them from any public office or profession, was still in place and Roman Catholics remained effectively second class citizens. How it was that at least some ‘treacherous’ Roman Catholics were left relatively unmolested by the draconian legislation laid against them cannot be considered in detail here but the Petre family was not unique in this respect. In fact Mark Bence-Jones, in his recent book The Catholic Families, even goes so far as to suggest that the effects of the Penal Laws were not entirely disadvantageous to Roman Catholic gentry. Barred as they were from all public office, they were at least spared the risks associated with such ambitions – the heavy cost of ‘electioneering expenses’ (or, bluntly, bribes) and the dire consequences of a fall from favour – and could concentrate their energies on the management of their estates, which accordingly prospered.

“The principal factor, however, which, over the years, helped to protect some Roman Catholic families from the worst effects of the legislation was the simple matter of the personal loyalty and support extended to them by their local community, even by those who might particularly have been expected to point an accusing finger. Indeed, in some places under the patronage of Roman Catholic gentry, there had been an increase in the number of their co-religionists; in the 27 parishes between Brentwood and Chelmsford that were under the aegis of the Petre and the Roman Catholic Wrights of Kelvedon Hall, the population of Roman Catholics rose from 106 in 1625 to 202 in 1706. Even among the common people, loyalty to Rome was not entirely extinct; a national census of 1767 identifies, out of a total population of seven to eight million, 67,916 Roman Catholics, and there is good reason to suppose that this was a considerable underestimate.

“Many did defect, of course, but, at the time of the first Relief Act (1778), there were still eight peers, nineteen baronets and 150 gentlemen of substantial property who remained Roman Catholics. In 1766, Thomas Newman, the Vicar of West Horndon, in whose parish Thorndon Hall lay, was required by the Bishop of London to respond to a questionnaire on the number of Roman Catholics in his parish. He reported:

from the best advice I can collect there are about fifty persons who are reputed to be Papists; Ld. Petre is supposed to be of that persuasion.

“The truth of the matter was that Thorndon Hall contained a private chapel consecrated by Robert’s cousin, Bishop Benjamin Petre in 1739, and the Visitation of Essex conducted by the Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Challoner in 1754 discovered a congregation of 260 there: indeed, in that year alone, 41 had received the sacrament of Confirmation.

“The most practical contribution that Robert made to the cause of Catholic Emancipation  was his chairmanship of the two successive committees of Roman Catholic laymen formed to lobby government and negotiate means by which the disabilities enshrined in the Penal Laws might be swept away. It fell to Robert to take the role as senior Roman Catholic layman in this way since, of the two Roman Catholic noblemen who outranked him, Charles Howard, 10th Duke of Norfolk was a scholarly recluse who rarely left his garden at Greystoke Castle in Cumberland and the 14th Earl of Shrewsbury also had no taste for public life – even though two of the four Apostolic Vicars, who administered the Church in England were his brothers. It would nevertheless have been a disappointment to Robert that he did not live to see more far-reaching emancipation for Roman Catholics. The trend towards it had become irreversible but it was still a long time coming. It was over a quarter of a century later that the Emancipation Act of 1829 removed the bulk of the restrictions that continued to beset Roman Catholics. Even then, some survived. It was only in 1974 that it was formally enacted that a Roman Catholic may hold the office of Lord Chancellor and, to this day, it is only Roman Catholics who are barred, on religious grounds, from ascending the Throne.” (Robert Petre, 9th Baron Petre)

Posted in British history, customs and tradiitons, family, George IV, Georgian England, history, Living in the UK, real life tales, royalty, titles of aristocracy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Catholic Peers in Georgian England