Richard Bertie’s Attempt to Become Lord Willoughby d’Eresby ~ Part I

Posted on September 3, 2018 by Regina Jeffers
800px-Catherine,_Duchess_of_Suffolk_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger

Catherine, Duchess of Suffolk (Wikipedia)

Like Barry Lyndon (see post on November 27, 2017), Richard Bertie was born of humble origins, but aspired to claim a peerage through marriage. Bertie (ca. 1517 – 9 April 1582) made an astounding marriage to the widowed Duchess of Suffolk, a peeress in her own right, the heiress of an important family, and a proud bluestocking. Bertie was Catherine Willoughby’s, 12th Baroness Willoughby d’Eresby, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, and a woman Henry VIII was considering as his seventh wife shortly before his death, second husband. She was also known to have received a proposal from the King of Poland. Catherine Willoughby was the daughter and heiress of William, 11th Lord Willoughby and the widow of Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk.

After the marriage, Bertie wished to be recognized as the holder of the ancient feudal title, Lord Willoughby d’Eresby. Unfortunately, his claim to the peerage brought out a search of Richard Bertie’s humble origins. Richard Bertie was from an unusually undistinguished beginnings for the connections he made. He was the son of Thomas Bertie (ca. 1480 – bef. 5 June 1555), Captain of Hurst Castle and a master mason, and Aline Say. His paternal grandfather Robert Bertie (died 1501/2) was also a stonemason at Bearsted, Kent, and was married to one Marion, by whom he had two more children, a daughter Joan Bertie and a son William Bertie, born after 1480. Richard matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, on 17 February 1533/1534 and succeeded his father in 1555.

The claim Bertie made was a landmark one in peerage law. It raised the question of peerage jure uxoris. In European property law, jure uxoris (Latin for “by right of (his) wife”) is a title of nobility held by a man because his wife holds it suo jure (“in her own right”). Similarly, the husband of an heiress could become the legal possessor of her lands. In England, until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, married women were legally incapable of owning real estate. The thing was the question of the legality of jure uxoris for it had never been addressed by the House of Lords. Other cases that brought forth the right of nobility by jure uxoris included the Fitzgerald v. Fauconberg case in 1730 and the Earl of Norfolk in 1906, for starters.

images-1.jpg220px-Portrait_of_William_Stubbs_by_Hubert_von_Herkomer.jpg “The older Baronies descended to heiresses who, although they could not take their place in the assembly of the estates, conveyed to their husbands a presumptive right to receive a summons. Of the countless examples of this practice, which applied anciently to the earldoms also, etc., and although some royal act of summons, or creation or both was necessary to complete their status, the usage was not materially broken down until the system of creation with limitation to heirs male was established.” [The English Historical Review, No. CXIX – July 1915, “The House of Lords and the Model Parliament.” quoting Dr. William Stubbs’s Constitutional History of England (1873)]

images-2.jpg Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas in his The Historic Peerage of England, Exhibiting Under Alphabetical Arrangement, the Origin, Descent, and Present State of Every Title of Peerage which Has Existed in This Country Since the Conquest; Being a New Edition of the Synopsis of the Peerage of England [London, John Murray (1857)], purports, “At a very early period the same law (sic) was applied to Baronies of Writ that pertained more especially to Earldoms and Baronies by tenure, and the husbands of heirs female are summoned jure uxoris, when, having issue by their said wives, they had obtained an interest in law in the wife’s inheritance whixh was considered to entitle them to such summons; the practice, however, clearly partook more of the nature of barony by tenure, and was not in accordance with the personal dignity of a Barony of Writ.”

The Berties had married for love around 1553, after Bertie had for several years served her as her Master of the Horse and Gentleman Usher. The pair fled to the continent during the reign of the Catholic Mary I and the Counter-Reformation. They ignored commands to return, and their estates were sequestered. They travelled first to Cleves and then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, despite the Duchess, a strong Protestant, being one of the richest and most powerful women in England. They returned in 1559 soon after the accession of the more Protestant Elizabeth I and had their lands restored to them. Their story is recorded in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. 

Richard was the father of Susan Bertie, Countess of Kent and Peregrine Bertie, 13th Baron Willoughby d’Eresby, prominent Protestants during Elizabeth I’s reign. Bertie became a Member of Parliament (MP) for Lincolnshire from 1562 to 1567. In 1564, he attended Elizabeth I during her visit to Cambridge University, from which he was granted a MA. In 1570, he unsuccessfully claimed the Barony Willoughby de Eresby in right of his wife. He was appointed a Justice of the Peace for Lindsey in 1564 and High Sheriff of Lincolnshire from 1564-1565.

Tomorrow, we will have a closer look at Bertie’s failed attempt to become Lord Willoughby. 

Resources: 

Bertie, Richard. Dictionary of National Biography

Richard Bertie (courtier) 

Posted in Act of Parliament, British history, Elizabeth I, family, history, Inheritance, marriage, peerage, primogenture, real life tales | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Richard Bertie’s Attempt to Become Lord Willoughby d’Eresby ~ Part I

Letters from Jane, a Guest Post from Georgina Young-Ellis

Posted on August 31, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

Do you remember when we used to send and receive letters? Actual, physical letters? Were you a person like me who used to sit down with a feeling of relish at the blank paper in front of you, in anticipation of what you would write to your friend, mother, sister, dad, brother, boyfriend, or girlfriend, while always conscious that either the amount of paper you could use was limited (because maybe it was a from a nice stationery set) or because you knew your hand would grow too tired at some point to continue? And then, oh then, the happiness of receiving that long awaited reply! I’m not the first one to observe that some specialness has been lost in the rapidity and conciseness of exchanging emails instead of “snail mail.” To me, it’s just not the same. But though I still send cards, I very rarely write a physical letter anymore. How awe-inspiring it is then, to think of the immense amount of letter writing Jane Austen did in her day. I think I read somewhere that she wrote in excess of 400 letters in her lifetime, though it is a fact that only 160 of those have been preserved.

One of the most memorable experiences of my life was going to an exhibit of Jane’s letters and early published copies of her books at the Morgan Library in New York in 2010. Some of you may have seen some of these treasures in person, and will know how truly incredible it is to stand there in front of a letter written in Jane’s own script that you know she touched with her own quill, ink, and hands. At one point I became so overwhelmed I had to go to the ladies room and cry. This was back when I was still writing my first novel, The Time Baroness, in which the main character time travels back in time to Regency England, and I was steeped in research on the period. It was also before people were writing much in the way of JAFF, or at least I wasn’t connected to them, and didn’t have all the helpful blog posts and things that we have now for quick research. One of my pieces of research was a book of all surviving letters to and from Jane, many exchanged between her and sister Cassandra. The minutiae of her thoughts fascinate me.

It’s because of that trip to the Morgan Library, as a matter of fact, that I have the book, an anniversary gift from my husband. Here is part of the inscription he wrote in it. Please excuse me for a moment as I swoon over the man who, after thirty years of marriage, can still make me weak in the knees. (He’s such a dude that you’d never know he harbored such a flare for the poetical.) Anyway, in the inscription he spends a few paragraphs rhapsodizing over the expression on my face the day we got married, and again when my son was born, and then goes on to say: “…So it is then, on this occasion, that I wish to acknowledge the moment when recently that expression of warmth, radiance, and love swept across your face once again. It was when you stood, motionless, transfixed, and mute before the display of the letters of Ms. Jane Austen. That expression led me to purchase this book, to write this note, to express my admiration and love for you, and to remind you that the expression I speak of is always there, reflected back to you in my eyes across years, months and days to this eternal moment. It is the expression of my heart.” He doesn’t really get Jane Austen, but he obviously gets that I get her.darcy writing letter.jpg

Mr-Darcy-jane-austens-heroes-9589809-2560-1664.jpg

Inspired by the letters in that book, I included in The Time Baroness a scene in which the main character, whose name is also Cassandra, takes a trip to Steventon to see the home where Jane grew up. In my book, Jane has been three years dead, Cassandra having particular reasons for going back in time after Jane has passed, which I won’t go into now. Anyway, one of Jane’s brothers still lived at Steventon Parsonage at the time, and was raising his family there. Cassandra is kind of snooping around, and discovers a young woman out behind the house, burning something over a fire. She goes to talk to her, and discovers that it is Jane’s niece, Fanny, burning her aunt’s letters, which both she and Jane’s sister did apparently do. Cassandra freaks out and begs her to stop, asking if she can have one of the letters, explaining that she’s a fan of the still not well-known author. Fanny reluctantly agrees, and Cassandra returns to the future with a priceless relic that will always remain her own.

ddc42449d49faa5d37df3c0e13dace6c.jpg

Having been to that library exhibit, I could well imagine how my character felt, and, of course, that’s why I wrote the scene. To touch something that Jane touched is almost unimaginable. That is also why many of us try to take the pilgrimage to Bath, Chawton House, or Lyme Regis, so that we can tread where Jane trod…see what she saw with her own eyes.

I still have many letters from special people in my life from over the years – some dating back to when I was a child. I culled them out when I moved a couple of years ago, but I tried to keep those that I knew would remain meaningful. I may not look at them often, but they’re there for when I want to remember, for whatever reason, the people who sent them. Even though the collection doesn’t include letters I wrote, maybe someday readers of my books will value those too. Hey, an author can dream, can’t she?

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, customs and tradiitons, Georgian England, Guest Post | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Letters from Jane, a Guest Post from Georgina Young-Ellis

English Drama and the Origins of Censorship

Posted on August 22, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

Of late, on social media we have been bombarded with what is termed “obscenities.” We writers are often accused by “reviewers” of writing obscenities or sexually explicit scenes when in our estimations, we are writing PG scenes. The problem is often in the “view of the beholder,” so to speak. What one person thinks to be too explicit signifies as nothing to another, and so it was with the efforts of early English playwrights. 

Our modern concept of “obscenity” is heavily nestled in history—the history of Charles II, to be exact. Charles II was king of England, Scotland and Ireland. He was king of Scotland from 1649 until his deposition in 1651, and king of England, Scotland and Ireland from the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 until his death in February 1685. Before we discuss Charles II’s influence upon English drama, let us have a look at one of Charles II’s close associates, Sir Charles Sedley, 5th Baronet (March 1639 – 20 August 1701), an English noble, dramatist, and politician. Sedley is famous as a patron of literature in the Restoration period, and was the Francophile Lisideius of  Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy.  Sedley was reputed as a notorious rake and libertine, part of the “Merry Gang” gang of courtiers which included the Earl of Rochester and Lord Buckhurst.  Sedley was principally remembered for his wit and profligacy, or lack thereof in a particular incident that occurred in 1663.

Along with Charles Sackville, 6th Earl of Dorset and 1st Earl of Middlesex (Lord Buckhurst), and Sir Thomas Ogle [some accounts say the third member of the group was John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester], Sedley spent a lovely afternoon drinking heavily in a tavern near Covent Garden on Bow Street. Young men being foolish, they began to boast of their sexual prowess. Sedley went so far as to claim that women chased after him because of his stamina in the bedroom. Inebriation drove them to a balcony overlooking a busy street, where they undressed and pantomimed a series of sexual acts. They finished off their performances by urinating in bottles and throwing said bottles at those who had gathered below to gawk at them in amazement. The crowd responded by throwing stones at the fools until the drunkards fled the scene. [Why is it, with this description, that I think of drunken frat parties or college spring break shenanigans?]

Unlike today, self expression at the time was not considered unlawful, no matter how lascivious or pornographic, unless doing so was an act of sedition, heretical, or blasphemous. Sedley, therefore, was arrested, tried and convicted. He was made to pay “2000 mark, committed without bail for a week, and bound to his good behaviour for a year, on his confession of information against him, for shewing himself naked in a balcony, and throwing down bottles (pist in) vi et armis among the people in Covent Garden, contra pacem and to the scandal of the government.” [Nussbaum, Martha C., and Alison L. Lacroix, eds. Subversion and Sympathy: Gender, Law and the British Novel. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013, page 70] In other words, Sedley was convicted for inciting a riot, not for public nudity and profanity. 

According to Samuel Pepys, Sedley `showed his nakedness – and abusing of scripture and as it were from thence preaching a mountebank sermon from the pulpit, saying that there he had to sell such a pouder as should make all the cunts in town run after him, 1000 people standing underneath to see and hear him, and that being done he took a glass of wine and washed his prick in it and then drank it off, and then took another and drank the King’s health.’. This behaviour provoked a riot amongst the onlookers and condemnation in the courts, where the Lord Chief Justice gave his opinion that it was because of wretches like him “that God’s anger and judgement hang over us”.

The first true “obscenity” prosecution occurred in 1708. In a reaction to Puritanical rule, the English theatre had chipped away at what was considered good taste for public performances until the point when the English public out for a form of censorship—”pure” expressive obscenity. At the start of the English Civil War (1642) theatres were closed, and in 1647, a law was passed to punish anyone who participated in or viewed drama. After the war, and during the English Interregnum, the Puritans, under Oliver Cromwell,  had control of most of the English government. They placed heavy restrictions on entertainment and entertainment venues that were perceived as being pagan or immoral. In the English Restoration (1660), playwrights reacted against the Puritanical restrictions with much more decadent plays. The plays produced in the Restoration drew comparisons to the great Elizabethan dramas by critics of the day. However, these plays were considered vulgar because they mocked and disrespected marriage, morals, and the clergy. Furthermore, King Charles II allowed women to act on stage; some of the first actresses were of ill-repute.

Therefore, the Lord Chamberlain in 1696 instructed that those overseeing the production of plays to be “very careful in correcting all obscenities and other scandalous matters and such as any ways offend against ye laws of God and good manners or the known statutes of the kingdom.” (Nussbaum and Lacroix, page 70] 

Societies for the censorship of immorality were formed, and the Reverend Jeremy Collier took a bold step. Collier was an English theatre critic, non-juror bishop and theologian, who, in the history of English drama, launched an attack on the comedy of the 1690s in his Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage (1698), which draws for its ammunition mostly on the plays of William Congreve, John Vanbrugh, John Dryden, and Thomas D’Urfey. Unfortunately for Collier, his pamphlets rekindled the Puritans’ outcries against the theatres and brought forth a desire to again ban all performances or to return to Restoration drama. 

Collier’s work spoke out against what he considered to be profane in the productions of the era. He also addressed what would be called the impact on the moral degeneration of the populace as a whole. His works ranged from general attacks on the morality of Restoration theatre to very specific indictments of playwrights of the day. Collier argued that a venue as influential as the theatre—it was believed then that the theatre should be providing moral instruction—should not have content that is morally detrimental.

A Pamphlet war broke out between Collier and several of the playwrights, especially Vanbrugh. Many of the playwrights responded with equally vehement attacks, but some were so deeply affected, they withdrew from theatre permanently or substantially changed their approach to writing comedies, William Congreve amongst them. Although the theatre styles of the Restoration lasted a while even after Collier’s pamphlets, a new and more restrained theatre began to develop due, in part, to Collier’s critiques. Due to the strict morals of the Puritans, as well as others such as Collier, neoclassicism drama began to emerge even while Restoration drama was still flourishing. During Collier’s time, Societies for the Reformation of Manners dedicated themselves to maintaining honour in playhouses.

Resources: 

Freeman, Arthur, ed. (1973). The English Stage: Attack and Defense 1577-1730, Garland Publishing. New York and London.

“Jeremy Collier,” Wikipedia

Linnane, Fergus (2006). The Lives of the English Rakes. London, Portrait: 24-5

Lowerre, Katherine (2014). The Lively Arts of the London Stage 1675-1725. Performance in the Long Eighteenth Century: Studies in Theatre, Music, Dance Series. Taylor and Francis. New York. 

Parks, Edd Winfield and Richmond Croom Beatty (1935). The English Drama: An Anthology, 900 -1642. W. W. Norton. New York. 

“Sir Charles Sedley, 5th Baronet,” Wikipedia

Westlake, E. J. (2005). Drama: Drama and Religion. Encyclopedia of Religion. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 2435–2440.

Posted in Age of Chaucer, British history, Church of England, drama, kings and queens, playwrights, religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on English Drama and the Origins of Censorship

A Young Man of Good Fortune, Mr. Charles Bingley ~ Guest Post by Nancy Lawrence

Posted on August 17, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

Nancy Lawrence is one of our newest members of Austen Authors, and I so glad she decided to bring her knowledge to our group site. Have a look at a “model tale” for Jane Austen’s “Mr. Bingley.” I am certain you will find it as fascinating as I did. Enjoy! 

“A young man of large fortune.” That’s how Mrs. Bennet described Charles Bingley when she learned he had leased a neighboring estate in Jane Austen’s classic novel, Pride and Prejudice.

As the mother of five unmarried daughters, Mrs. Bennet didn’t feel the need to know how Charles came into possession of such a fortune; her only concern was that he marry one of her daughters.

I, on the other hand, want to learn as much as I can about Charles Bingley’s background, because Charles makes an appearance in the JAFF story I’m currently writing. Piecing together Charles’ history (and that of his sisters) will give me insight into how—and why—he will take certain actions in my novel.

Charles Bingley with his sisters, Caroline and Luisa, as depicted in the 1995 BBC production of Pride and Prejudice.

Jane Austen gives us some hints about Charles’ origins. The Bingley fortune had been “acquired by trade.” Charles himself had a fortune of £100,000, which gave him an annual income of about £4,000. (In today’s money that’s £186,100 or $241,930 U.S. dollars.)

The Bingleys were “respectable.” They came “from the north of England,” an area of the country where the manufacture of textiles was a booming business at the time the story was written.

Whirring spools of threads and fibers in an old mill.

Given those hints, it’s probable that Charles, Luisa, and Caroline Bingley’s father owned one of the textile mills that sprang up across the north during the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century. As children, they were most likely raised in a house that was either next door to, or very near, the mill their father owned.

Mule spinning machine at the Quarry Bank Mill.

In most mills of that era, the people who worked there were seen not as people, but as extensions of the machinery. They were given pitiful wages for 12 or 13 hour work days. They lived in unsanitary conditions and worked in unsafe environments. Poet William Blake described the mills of the 19th century as “satanic.”

But considering what we know about the Bingley siblings—particularly Charles, who was described as amiable, lively, unreserved, sensible, and good-humoured—it’s hard for me (looking through my 21st century lens) to imagine they were raised by a father capable of such draconian treatment of the people in his employ.

So I have to wonder . . .

What if, like Charles Bingley, the father had a disposition to be kind and friendly by nature?

What if, like Charles, the elder Mr. Bingley treated everyone respectfully, regardless of their rank or privilege?

And what if the elder Mr. Bingley was among a small group of enlightened mill owners? What if he treated his workers humanely and did what he could to set apart his mill from the dark, grim places we tend to associate with the Regency Era?

I can give you a real-life example of what I mean. In 1784 a man named Samuel Greg founded a mill not far from Manchester, England. He named it Quarry Bank Mill.

Quarry Bank Mill, near Manchester.

The great thing about Quarry Bank Mill is that it’s still in existence. Now owned by England’s National Trust, Quarry Bank Mill stands as a real-life working model of the kind of business I think Charles Bingley’s father would have run.

Originally powered by an enormous iron waterwheel, Quarry Bank Mill boasted five floors of cotton textile production. Those five floors were filled with hundreds of employees ginning and weaving cotton.

Quarry Bank Mill employees outside their homes, circa 1900.

Each of those employees needed a place to live, so, adjacent to the mill, Greg built a village of row-houses and cottages for his workers.

Workers homes at Quarry Bank Mill, as they appear today.

Many of his workers were children—orphans from workhouses and children who previously lived on the streets. He called them “apprentices,” and he built a communal home to house them.

Apprentice House at Quarry Bank Mill.

The children attended school and worked in the community garden, which provided fresh vegetables and fruit for their diets.

The kitchen at Apprentice House.

Greg also built churches for his workers and gave them Sundays off so they could attend services.

Norcliffe Chapel, one of the churches Samuel Greg built for Quarry Bank workers

And when his workers fell ill or were injured, Greg ensured he had a doctor on hand for their care.

Samuel Greg created a community and a way of life for his workers that was superior to any that could be had by farm workers and other laborers of the lower-class. Many of the apprentices who grew up working in his mill stayed on to work at Quarry Bank as adults.

This photo shows the immense size of the mill building. The light yellow building on the left is where the Greg family lived. The white building on the right is Apprentice House.

Mr. Greg operated his mill in a much more humane fashion than his competitors, and doing so earned him a handsome fortune. He built a respectable and well-appointed home next to the mill for his wife and children.

The Greg family home next to Quarry Bank Mill.

Since I first learned about Quarry Bank Mill, I’ve often wondered if Charles Bingley’s father earned his fortune in the same way. I wonder, too, if Charles and his sisters grew up in a fine house within a few yards of the workers’ cottages and mill works, just as Samuel Greg’s children did.

I think it’s possible that, coming into every-day contact with mill workers would explain how Charles learned to be gracious and respectful to everyone he met, regardless of their station in life.

And it would explain why his manner was relaxed and amiable, why he never uttered a critical word about anyone, and why his behavior at the Meryton Assembly earned everyone’s good opinion. As Jane Austen wrote:

There had been no formality, no stiffness; he had soon felt acquainted with all the room.

What do you think? Do you think it’s possible Charles Bingley’s kind disposition and good humor were traits he inherited from his father?

Had Charles elected to follow in his father’s footsteps, what kind of mill owner do you think he would have made?

Charles’ sisters Caroline and Luisa each inherited £20,000 from their father. Would you like to know how much that would be in today’s money?

Click here to visit The U.K.’s National Archives Currency Converter.

Then, select a year: Try 1810, which is close to the year P&P was first published (1813).

Enter the amount: 20,000

Click on the “Show Purchasing Power” button, and you’ll see how much their inheritance was worth in today’s money.

For Americans, don’t forget to multiply the converted amount by 1.3—that’s today’s average rate of exchange rate for British Pound to U.S. Dollar.

You can use this tool to calculate all financial sums mentioned in Jane Austen’s novels—from the Dashwood’s £500 a year to Georgiana Darcy’s £30,000 marriage portion.

Nancy-Lawrence-portfolio-pic-326x435.jpg Meet Nancy Lawrence: 

Nancy Lawrence writes traditional Regency romances, where the heroes are gentlemen, the heroines are ladies, and there’s always a fancy-dress ball to attend. Nancy lives with her family in Aurora, Colorado, “the best city in the world if you can’t live in Bath, England.” 

You can learn more about Nancy, her books, and her writing progress at:
http://NancyLawrenceRegency.com

And follow Nancy on social media at: https://austenauthors.net/nancy-lawrence/
http://twitter.com/NLawrenceAuthor 
http://www.facebook.com/nancy.lawrence.712

A few of Nancy’s books…

51FBlOnXmkL._SY346_.jpg 51fM9bS9ADL._SY346_.jpg 512M7tDykPL._SY346_.jpg 51I6NIsqTOL._SY346_.jpg

 

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, commerce, family, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, Inheritance, Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, Vagary | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Early Origins of the Novel

Posted on August 15, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

In the mid to late 1700s, the novel, as a means of literary expression developed to an art form. In many of the Regency-based romances that I read, it speaks of the “novel” being something females might read, rather than a male. However, I doubt that many of my contemporary writer understand how “debased” those early tales were. Most of the stories dealt with fornication, rape, incest, adultery, seduction, polygamy, and voyeurism. Some of the early novels were Defoe’s Moll Flanders (1722), Richardson’s Clarrisa, Fielding’s Tom Jones, and Sterne’s Tristram Shandy.

One of the greatest writers of all times, Jane Austen, read Richardson quite often. According to her nephew, James-Edward Austen-Leigh, her knowledge of Samuel Richardson “was such as no one is likely again to acquire . . . Every circumstance narrated in Sir Charles Grandison, all that was said or done in the cedar parlour, was familiar to her; and the wedding days of [characters like] Lady L. and Lady G. were as well remembered as if they had been living friends.” But what was the context of Richardson’s writing? 

pamela_set11.jpgLaurel Ann at Austenprose tells us: “Richardson is a literary hero of mine, too, and I always think it’s sad that so few people read him nowadays. Not only because Clarissa, in particular, is one of the great masterpieces of European literature, but because it’s only by reading Richardson that you really understand the tradition Austen was writing in, and where she got some of the inspiration for her books. Pamela is a novel-in-letters, written by a young serving-maid to her parents, in which she describes her master’s attempts to seduce her. But as the subtitle (‘Virtue Rewarded’) suggests, all’s well that ends with a wedding. It sounds pretty standard stuff now, but at the time it was a publishing sensation.  There were 5 editions by the end of 1741, with an estimated 20,000 copies sold. It was also the first book to have what we would now call a ‘promotional campaign’. As a printer himself, Richardson employed all the tricks of the book-trade, including newspaper leaders and celebrity endorsement, and may even have encouraged the publication of a pamphlet that denounced the novel as pornographic, which certainly had a predictably healthy effect on sales! But if it was Pamela that was ground-breaking, Richardson’s next novel, Clarissa, is the one that really established a new kind of prose fiction in English. This, like all Richardson’s books, is an epistolary novel, and it’s worth remembering that when Austen first put pen to paper seriously herself, she chose exactly this form – first in Lady Susan, and then in Elinor & Marianne, the first version of Sense & Sensibility. Clarissa is the story of a young woman who’s tricked away from her family by the libertine, Robert Lovelace, and eventually raped. The story evolves through two parallel correspondences – Clarissa’s with her friend Anna, and Lovelace’s with his confidant Belford. The depth and subtlety of the psychological characterization is extraordinary, and you can see immediately why Henry Austen says his sister was such an admirer of ‘Richardson’s power of creating, and preserving, the consistency of his characters.'”

JnZmxvYTrqAXGAvqo5AqbzKURU_x-slu_640x360_53945923852.jpg 

Do you recall the scene in Becoming Jane, a biographical portrait of a pre-fame Jane Austen (portrayed by Anne Hathaway) and her romance with a young Irishman (played by James Mcavoy), where Tom Lefroy’s character tempts Jane by suggesting that she read Tom Jones? His suggestion is more than one of presenting a young lady with a piece of literary greatness. It is part of his romantic “seduction” of Miss Jane Austen. 

An awareness of sexuality was never far from the surface in these early novels. One of the major forces of the time was John Cleland, an administrator for the East India Company. Reportedly Cleland made a bet that he could write the “dirtiest book in the English language” without using ANY “dirty words.” His Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (better known as Fanny Hill) provided readers with the story of a country girl who experiences lesbianism, group sex, masturbation, flagellation, etc. For his efforts, Cleland was arraigned before the Privy Council. The Earl of Granville, the president of the Council, suggested that Cleland be awarded a pension of £100 a year, with the guarantee that he would not repeat the exercise. Cleland foolishly sold the copyright of the book to a publisher for a mere £20. The publisher raked in more than £10,000 in book sells. 

John Wilkes, a strong political activist, who spoke out regularly against George III and who supported the American colonies’ push for independence, is said to have written Essay on Woman, a parody of Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man. Whether Wilkes actually penned the piece is debatable, but it was the perfect instrument for his political opponents to use against him. It did not help Wilkes’s defense that he was reportedly a member of the Medmenham monks, or Hell-Fire Club, a secret society known to take pleasure in sexual activities. According to The Montague Millennium, “The Hell-Fire Club was sort of a cross between the Dead Poets Society and a risque Playboy club. John Montagu (Lord Sandwich) was a principal, and apparently Lady Mary Wortley Montagu attended. The club formally styled itself the Monks of Medmenham, and originally occupied the caves beneath the ancient Abbey of Medmenham. Its members could reach the Abbey by boat from the river at night and thus not be bothered by `paparazzi’.”

If Wilkes was a member of this group, I find it odd that Lord Sandwich was the one who read the scandalous poem to the House of Lords, which termed the poem as “a gross profanation of many parts of the Holy Scriptures.” Before the House of Lords could have Wilkes arrested, the man escaped to America, never to stand in answer to the charges against him. In absentia, he was fined £300.

images.jpgAccording to Nussbaum, Martha C., and Alison L. Lacroix, eds., of Subversion and Sympathy: Gender, Law and the British Novel. [New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013, pages 78-79], “For more than a century. . . English law yielded nothing at all definitive about the concept of literary obscenity. There was no definition of the concept, no rationale for its regulation, and only sporadic skirmishes over the issue. The historian Peter Wagner has aptly characterized the “Age of Enlightenment” as the “Age of Eros.” The proliferation of writing about sex in the eighteenth century led to ‘a sort of downward osmosis’ through which an upper-class ‘libertine philosophy’ was, at least, for a time, dispersed and then absorbed by a larger culture. By the 1780s, when the United States was contemplating its Constitution, London was awash with all sorts of sexually explicit material, including lewd novels, racy poems, bawdy songs, erotic prints, and licentious newspapers and magazines. Throughout this era, neither influential citizens or public authorities made any serious effort ‘to curb this sexual Eden,’ though occasional prosecutions were brought when individual libel was involved or ‘when there were personal axes to grind, as in the prosecution of Wilkes. It was against this background that the United States enacted the First Amendment.“

Posted in American History, book excerpts, British history, Georgian Era, Great Britain, history, Jane Austen, publishing, reading habits, writing | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A Marriage of Convenience as a Plot Point in Jane Austen’s Novels

Posted on August 13, 2018 by Regina Jeffers
cm-capture-3

Mr. and Mrs. Collins austenonly.com

What hope was there for the dowerless daughters of the middle class during Jane Austen’s lifetime? Such is a topic Austen explored repeatedly in her novels. Elizabeth and Jane Bennet sought men of a like mind. The Dashwood sisters found their choices limited by their financial situation. Fanny Harville and Captain Benwick could not marry until he earned his future. General Tilney drove Catherine Morland from his home because of the lady’s lack of funds. Charlotte Lucas accepted Mr. Collins as her last opportunity for a respectable match. The intricacies and tedium of high society, particularly of partner selection, and the conflicts of marriage for love and marriage for property are repeated themes.

200_sMarriage provided women with financial security. Henry Tilney in Northanger Abbey explains, “… in both [marriage and a country dance], man has the advantage of choice, woman only the power of refusal: that in both, it is an engagement between man and woman, formed for the advantage of each.” Women of Austen’s gentry class had no legal identity. No matter how clever the woman might be, finding a husband was the only option. A woman could not buy property or write a will without her husband’s approval. If a woman was fortunate, she would bring to her marriage a settlement – money secured for her when she came of age – usually an inheritance from her mother. The oldest son or male heir received the family estate, and the unmarried or widowed females lived on his kindness.

arts-graphics-2008_1182989aThe ladies of Sense and Sensibility have this reality thrust upon them when Uncle Dashwood changes his will and leaves Norland to his grandnephew. In Uncle Dashwood’s thinking, this change will keep Norland in the Dashwood family. However, the four Dashwood ladies suddenly find themselves living in a modest cottage with an income of £500 annually. As such, they have no occasion for visits to London unless someone else assumes the expenses. Their social circle shrinks, and the opportunities to meet eligible suitors becomes nearly non-existent. With dowries of £1000 each, the Dashwood sisters are not likely to attract a man who will improve their lots.

Jane Austen, herself, lived quite modestly. The Austens lived frugally among the country gentry. The Austen sisters were well educated by the standards of the day, but without chances for dowries, Jane and Cassandra possessed limited prospects. Jane met a Mr. Blackall the year Cassandra lost her Mr. Fowle. In a letter, Blackall expressed to Mrs. Lefroy a desire to know Jane better; yet, he confided, “But at present I cannot indulge any expectation of it.” To which, Jane Austen responded, “This is rational enough. There is less love and more sense in it than sometimes appeared before, and I am very well satisfied.” Imperfect opportunities were Jane Austen’s reality. In 1802, Jane Austen accepted an offer of marriage from Harris Bigg-Wither. With this marriage, Jane would have become the mistress of Manydown.

200px-CassandraAusten-JaneAusten(c.1810)_hiresYet, despite her affection for the family, Austen could not deceive Bigg-Wither. The following morning, she refused the man’s proposal. Whether she thought to some day find another or whether Austen accepted the fact that her refusal doomed her to a life as a spinster, we shall never know. In the “limited” world in which Jane Austen lived, she could not have known her eventual influence on the literary canon.

Austen held personal knowledge of young women seeking husbands in one of the British colonies. Reverend Austen’s sister, Philadelphia, traveled to India in 1752, where she married an English surgeon Tysoe Hancock, a man twenty years her senior. When the Hancocks returned to England a decade later, Reverend Austen traveled to London to greet his sister. However, Philadelphia and Tysoe were not to live “happily ever after.” Unable to support his family in proper English style, Tysoe returned to India to make his living. He never saw his wife and child again. Despite its tragic ending, this “marriage” secured Philadelphia’s future and the lady’s place in Society. Only marriage could offer a woman respectability.

In Jane Austen for Dummies (page 134), Joan Klingel Ray breaks down the financial prospects of the Dashwood sisters. Converting the £500 to a modern equivalent, Ray comes out with a figure of $46,875. For the gentry, supporting four women, two maids, a man servant, paying rent, buying clothes, food, coal, etc., that sum would have meant a poor existence. I find in reading Sense and Sensibility that I am often disappointed with the eventual choices of the Dashwood sisters. Edward Ferras and Colonel Brandon have less of the “glitz and the glamour” that my innate Cinderella syndrome requires in a love match. However, if any affection did exist between the couples, then Marianne and Elinor, under the circumstances and the times, made brilliant matches.

Posted in customs and tradiitons, dancing, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Living in the UK, marriage customs, Regency era, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Ireland and the Irish in Jane Austen Novels, a Guest Post from Eliza Shearer

Posted on August 10, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

This post originally appeared on Austen Authors on 16 June 2018. Enjoy!

A couple of weekends ago I was fortunate enough to spend a few days in Dublin. I had visited the capital of Ireland on several occasions, but for some reason – possibly the beautiful weather and clear blue skies – this time I paid a great deal of attention to its Georgian architecture. The fluted Greek columns, the refined and delicately moulded cornices, the elegant windows are just outstanding, and such a particular feature of the city that the Dublin Regency doors alone are famous enough to warrant posters and fridge magnets.

A Perfect Regency Town

In Dublin, the spirit of the Regency is everywhere, and no wonder. It was a time of economic bounty for a privileged few, with money from trade pouring into the city, and the local elite opting to expand and beautify their capital rather than eventually have to send it to London. Walking in the wide cobbled streets, contemplating the fine ironwork and majestic bow windows, I inevitably felt transported to Jane Austen’s times.

There are traces of Ireland in Jane Austen’s novels. At the time, it was the second biggest British city outside London, after the 1800 Acts of the Union created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so it is no wonder that the country and its people and customs make several appearances. In most cases, the mentions are in passing, but they give a fascinating insight into the way English regarded their neighbours across the Irish sea.

Music, Landscapes and Craic

The Irish have a reputation for being musically inclined, and Irish music makes several appearances in Jane Austen’s novels. In Pride and Prejudice, Mary Bennet, to the mortification of her sister Elisabeth, plays Irish airs at the piano during a gathering at Sir William Lucas’. In Emma, Jane Fairfax’s new pianoforte, of mysterious provenance, comes with a new set of Irish melodies, which were often played during her Weymouth stay, when she becomes secretly engaged to Frank Churchill.

Moreover, Jane’s skills at the pianoforte are much admired by Mr Dixon, the Irishman courting her particular friend Miss Campbell, who often asks both ladies to play together. It is an unusual request, and one that Frank Churchill suggests is proof of Jane’s proficiency, for Dixon is “a very musical man, and in love with another woman”. (Emma, needless to say, thinks otherwise).

Ireland is also known for its breathtaking scenery. No surprise, then, that Mr Dixon often talks about the beauty of his home country when talking to Miss Campbell, with Jane often also present. The wish to see her parents and best friend enjoy the Irish countryside are one of the reasons why the lady, once married and settled in Ireland, insists on their visiting her. And she must be onto something, for once the Campbells are there, they postpone their return, not once, but twice, spending the best part of half a year at their son-in-law’s seat.

No mention of the Irish is complete without talking about their gift for friendly, witty and entertaining conversation, and Jane Austen seems to agree. In Mansfield Park, when the party of young people accompanied by Mrs Norris travel to Sotherton, Maria Bertram is bitter that it is her sister Julia and not her the lucky lady to accompany Mr Crawford in the barouche-box. Maria observes to him later that they seemed to laugh a great deal, and Mr Crawford attributes it to the fact that he “was relating to her some ridiculous stories of an old Irish groom of (his) uncle’s”.

The Irish Charm

In her personal life, Jane Austen indeed met several Irish individuals, but as all Janeites will know, one, in particular, stood out from the rest. Tom Lefroy was a nephew of Mrs Lefroy, an older friend of Jane’s. Tom and Jane appeared to have courted, or at least have engaged in some serious flirting, for the best part of a year, and she refers to him as “my Irish friend” in a letter to Cassandra.

Their love, sadly, was not to be. Tom was ambitious and had a large number of siblings to support, so the logical step for him was to marry a wealthy woman, which he went on to do. Some scholars say that Jane was brokenhearted, others that her pragmatic approach made the disappointment much easier to bear. In any case, she certainly appreciated the charm of the young Irishman.

Many years later, when penning Persuasion, perhaps she thought of Tom when writing the concert scene that takes place in the Octagon Room in Bath, with Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth as protagonists. Anne overhears her father remark to his cousin, Lady Dalrymple, that the Captain is “a very well-looking man”. Lady Dalrymple who also happens to be a member of the Irish nobility, could not agree more:

“A very fine young man indeed!” said Lady Dalrymple. “More air than one often sees in Bath. Irish, I dare say.”

Persuasion, Chaapter 20

Whether the sentence was intended as a secret message for Jane’s former love, we will never know.

 

51ZCMhjyFnL.jpg If you would like to immerse yourself in Bath and meet Anne Elliot, Lady Dalrymple and many other well-loved Austen characters in the company of Georgiana Darcy, check out Miss Darcy’s Beaux, a Persuasion, Mansfield Park and Pride and Prejudice Continuation.

A Jane Austen variation featuring Georgiana Darcy, Lady Catherine de Bourgh and many other characters from Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park and Persuasion.

Fitzwilliam Darcy’s beloved sister Georgiana is now a woman of twenty. After living in the enclosed safety of Pemberley for years, she is sent to London for the season with Lady Catherine de Bourgh as her chaperone. Lady Catherine is determined that her niece shall make a splendid match. But will Georgiana allow her domineering aunt to decide for her? Or will she do as her brother did, and marry for love? 

What readers are saying about Miss Darcy’s Beaux:

“… a wonderful debut…”

“… a journey of discovery for Georgiana to find herself and what really matters in life…” 

“There is deception, mystery, jealousy, backstabbing, romance and true love.” 

“… the sort of story that makes you care for the characters; the kind of book that stays with you long after you finish reading it.” 

“I loved how the story includes appearances by characters from three different Jane Austen novels.”

“Eliza Shearer’s delightful Pride and Prejudice sequel is packed with surprises for the fans.” 

“Romantic, sensitive and faithful to the spirit of Jane Austen’s work.”

ElizaShearer-283x435.jpgMeet Eliza Shearer: 

Posted in Austen Authors, book release, British history, eBooks, Georgian England, Georgian Era, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, publishing, Regency era, Regency romance, Vagary, writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Wilkin & Sons, Jam Making Extraordinaire

Posted on August 6, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

Arthur Charles Wilkin took over his family farm, located in Tiptree, Essex, England,  in his late 20s. The family had owned the farm since the early 1700s. Arthur had a vision for the farm, which was not producing as well as it could. He was determined to specialize in growing fruits to market to the London jam-makers of the mid 1800s. Originally, he thought to ship his fruit via the Kelvedon and Tollesbury Light Railway, which operated in Essex at that time (and did so until 1962). But reliable transportation of his fragile product forced Wilkin into the jam making business himself. He was introduced to an Australian merchant who agreed to take as much strawberry jam as Wilkin could produce. This Australian did not want the jam that was being produced in London at the time. He wanted jam that was glucose free, as well as free of preservatives and added colouring. It was decided to call this new product “conserves” to distinguish it as a higher-quality product. Moreover, the name Britannia Fruit Preserving Company was chosen because that name would be more marketable in Australia than would the Wilkin & Sons Limited. Since 1885, the Wilkin family has made some of the finest preserves, marmalades, etc., marketed to the public. William Gladstone, the British Prime Minister from 1868 to 1894 praised Wilkin’s product.

Wilkin used his wife’s recipe and her kitchen to make the first jam. Three boiling pots and tractor engines were required to make that jam. Mechanisation came about in the 1890s. Nowadays, the company produces 90 different conserves, chutneys, honeys, marmalades, and preserves. The Tiptree trademark was set in place in 1905, when the company became Wikin and Sons, Ltd. 

download

Arthur Charles Wilkin

 As the business grew, Wilkin & Sons leased other farms to meet the demand for the company’s product. By 1900, 100 tons of fruit was needed to make jams and preserves. “By 1906, the company owned 800 acres (320 ha) of land on farms in Tiptree, Tollesbury, and Goldhanger, producing 300 tons of fruit per year, and feeding a factory capable at peak production of making 10 tons of strawberry jam per day. The company has held a Royal Warrant for preserves and marmalades continuously since 1911.” (History Timeline)

81tkqaX3KeL._SL1500_.jpg

91s4wf+dmrL._SL1500_.jpg0499019.jpg

“With the need for a pound of sugar to a pound of fruit to produce 2 lb of preserves, production was halted during World War I due to a lack of essential supplies. But by 1922, and now owning 1,000 acres (400 ha) of farmland across eight farms, the company was creating new record outputs of fruit and preserves. An integrated production facility, the company also owned 100 houses, the village’s windmill and blacksmith’s forge, the Factory Club and the freehold of the Salvation Army hall. During World War II, the company and factory came under the control of the Ministry of Food, and kept producing its preserves alongside other essential food products. In 2010, the company celebrated its 125th anniversary, highlighted by a visit from Her Majesty Elizabeth II.” (Wilkin & Sons)

The company also owns a chain of tea rooms in Essex, as well as a specialty bakery and patisserie.

Resources:

“History Timeline: 1885 – The First Jam,” Tiptree https://www.tiptree.com/index.php/ourcompany/history-timeline.html

“No Additives or Secrets, Just Fruity Jams,” The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1985/07/03/garden/no-additives-or-secrets-just-fruity-jams.html

Wilin & Sons Celebrate Their 125th Anniversary, Essex Life http://www.essexlifemag.co.uk/people/wilkin-sons-celebrate-their-125th-anniversary-on-25th-june-1-1638654

Posted in British history, business, commerce, customs and tradiitons, England | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Wilkin & Sons, Jam Making Extraordinaire

A Closer Look at MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs: A Pride and Prejudice Vagary

Posted on August 3, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

In my book, MR. DARCY’s BRIDEs, by mistake Elizabeth disrupts Mr. Darcy’s marriage to his cousin, Anne De Bourgh. Our daring heroine is in disguise (NOTE: I drape her with a heavy veil attached to her bonnet, which would not be likely in the Regency era, but it was not forbidden. No one can say for certain; therefore, I took some “liberty” in this case because it made a nice plot point.) and does not realize she is at the wrong wedding until it is too late. Afterwards, the legality of the wedding in which she participated with Darcy comes into place. If it is legal, in the Regency, that meant FOREVER unless one wished to seek a annulment. But, in truth, that legal statute was not so easily achieved.

So how did one go about earning an annulment? Annulments were only granted if (1) one or both of the couple were not of age, (2) were too closely related (Remember first cousins could marry, but a man could not marry the sister of his late wife, so “related” was not always as clear cut as we might think in modern times.), (3) the gentleman was impotent at the time of marriage (hard to prove unless the marriage was consummated), (4) one of the pair had committed fraud, (5) one or both could be considered insane at the time of marriage, (6) or one of the pair was already married to another. Even if one of the couple was not of age, if they did not stop living together when they became of age (12 for women and 14 for men), then they were still considered married.

I think it’s worth mentioning that the fraud, force, or lunacy had to have occurred during the wedding ceremony (or before, if it pertained to the permission granted to a minor), NOT after the couple were lawfully wed. One could not claim coercion after he had pronounced his vows. Even wealthy peers were stuck with a spouse if problems arose only after the ceremony. For example, both the 11th Duke of Norfolk and the 4th Earl of Sandwich were stuck in unfortunate marriages when their wives went insane. In the Duke of Norfolk’s case, his wife was locked up before giving him an heir, so that the dukedom eventually passed to his cousin.

In the Regency period, fraud as a means to voiding the marriage rested in the question of parental permission. The fraud was not the type where a person misrepresented himself by saying he owned property that he did not own or held a title that he did not possess. Lying about circumstances was not fraud. Being drunk at the wedding was not a cause as long as one knew what he was doing. And insanity had to previous to the wedding–simplemindedness came under that category as well. 

Also the idea of forcing someone into a marriage changed over the 19th century. At first, force was considered physical force only as more than a reasonable man could withstand. Over the period of time, the courts acknowledged that women were weaker and less physical force was necessary to overpower them. One had to run, literally, away or protest at the ceremony or at the signing of the register or in some other way express one’s denial of acceptance to void a marriage. Witnesses to one’s refusal were required as proof. The court did not take into consideration such things as a threat as being “forced” into a marriage.

Marriages could be annulled if the spouse was a previous in-law or if one was impotent. I know you have seen in numerous romance novels where the man and woman decide not to consummate their marriage so they can later get an annulment and marry another, but non-consummation was not grounds for an annulment. Consummation could strengthen a claim of marriage in Scotland and could throw doubt over a claim of being forced into marriage, but non-consummation was not grounds. The church always assumed that the couple would get around to it sooner or later if they were able.

Impotence and real frigidity, on the other hand, were grounds as was a physical deformity of the necessary parts. An impenetrable hymen was also grounds, though that could be fixed by a surgeon.

Invalid marriages were those by minors by license without proper permission or the situation involved bigamy.

English law did not require consummation. Scottish law used it as proof in clandestine marriages, but only if the other forms were not followed. The Consistory court of the Church of England handled annulments. This was located in London. The Courts within Doctors Commons were very much associated in the public mind with the making and unmaking of marriage from the 17th Century forward. Gradually the London Consistory Court assumed a virtual monopoly in matrimonial suits and became the most important matrimonial court for the whole of the country. It became the court of first instance for most matrimonial cases.

MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs…

I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.

ELIZABETH BENNET is determined that she will put a stop to her mother’s plans to marry off the eldest Bennet daughter to Mr. Collins, the Longbourn heir, but a man that Mr. Bennet considers an annoying dimwit. Hence, Elizabeth disguises herself as Jane and repeats her vows to the supercilious rector as if she is her sister, thereby voiding the nuptials and saving Jane from a life of drudgery. Yet, even the “best laid plans” can often go awry.

FITZWILLIAM DARCY is desperate to find a woman who will assist him in leading his sister back to Society after Georgiana’s failed elopement with Darcy’s old enemy George Wickham. He is so desperate that he agrees to Lady Catherine De Bourgh’s suggestion that Darcy marry her ladyship’s “sickly” daughter Anne. Unfortunately, as he waits for his bride to join him at the altar, he realizes he has made a terrible error in judgement, but there is no means to right the wrong without ruining his cousin’s reputation. Yet, even as he weighs his options, the touch of “Anne’s” hand upon his sends an unusual “zing” of awareness shooting up Darcy’s arm. It is only when he realizes the “zing” is arrives at the hand of a stranger, who has disrupted his nuptials, that he breathes both a sigh of relief and a groan of frustration, for the question remains: Is Darcy’s marriage to the woman legal?

What if Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet met under different circumstances than those we know from Jane Austen’s classic tale: Circumstances that did not include the voices of vanity and pride and prejudice and doubt that we find in the original story? Their road to happily ever after may not, even then, be an easy one, but with the expectations of others removed from their relationship, can they learn to trust each other long enough to carve out a path to true happiness?

Excerpt from chapter 1 of MR. DARCY’S BRIDEs…

Elizabeth knew she would not be able to see much from behind the veil draping the curve of her bonnet, and she held no doubt that her head would itch from the scraps of a cut up wig she had attached to the straw bonnet. Before she left her childhood home, she had discovered the wig in the attic at Longbourn. Mr. Hill, her father’s man servant, seemed to think it had belonged to her paternal grandfather, a man of “peculiar tendencies,” Mr. Hill had said with diplomacy.

“It does not matter if the wig were nicer,” she had assured her sister. “It will be enough to provide the impression that my hair is blonde, and the veil will cover my face until it is too late for Mama to realize it is not you who has married Mr. Collins. The morning shadows in the church will do the rest. If we are fortunate, it will be cloudy on the day of the ceremony.”

“Are you certain this is best?” Jane pleaded with tears forming in her eyes. “As much as I have no desire to marry the man, neither do I wish you to be attached to Papa’s cousin.”

The fact that Jane had participated willingly in this charade spoke a great deal of her sister’s dismay at their mother’s ultimatum that Jane marry Mr. Bennet’s heir, Mr. Collins, a man none of them knew by countenance.

“I am certain.” Elizabeth squeezed the back of Jane’s hand to comfort her sister’s growing anxiousness. “Even if Mr. Collins would suddenly switch his promise to marry one of the Bennet sisters from you to me, grounds for an annulment would still remain, for I shall take my vows as Jane Bennet. The marriage will be void. You must simply escape to Aunt Gardiner’s relations in Derbyshire. I will stall as long as possible so you may be several hours upon the road before anyone discovers our deception. As only you and I and Aunt Gardiner know of your whereabouts, you should be safe until Mama’s vengeance has wained.”

“More likely, the devil’s disciples will be wearing nothing but their unmentionables before our mother’s ire dissipates.”

Elizabeth agreed, but she would not give voice to her concerns. Jane’s agreement to escape to the northern shires was uncharacteristic enough. “The only thing that worries me is that you will travel so far and alone.”

“I assure you, in these circumstances, I can be as strong as is required, but do not fret of my traveling unchaperoned, for Aunt Gardiner will send a maid with me. But what of Papa? How shall Mr. Bennet react when he discovers what we have done to thwart Mama’s plans?”

After his horse had thrown him during a thunder storm, their father had experienced a long bout of consumption, which had turned into lung fever. Such was the reason Mrs. Bennet had decided that Jane must marry their father’s heir presumptive in order to save the family. It was almost as if their mother had decided that Mr. Bennet would leave them at the mercy of the “odious” Mr. Collins, as Mrs. Bennet was fond of calling the man. As Jane was considered one of the prettiest ladies in the Hertfordshire, their mother had thought that Mr. Collins would accept a comely wife immediately. Their mother assumed that if Mr. Bennet passed from his afflictions, Collins could drive the Bennet family from Longbourn. Therefore, Mrs. Bennet meant to secure Mr. Collins’s patronage by marrying off her eldest daughter to the man.

“Papa is improving, but he is not yet well enough to bring a halt to Mama’s manipulations, and, in truth, I feared speaking to him of this matter. He would insist upon leaving his bed before Doctor French says it is safe. However, I have recruited Mary to watch over him, and I have made some bit of explanation to our sister. She has promised her silence unless we meet difficulties.”

“You realize our mother will be enraged by our actions?” Jane asked in tentative tones.

“I shall be viewed as the architect of this plan,” Elizabeth said with a shrug of resignation. She often knew her mother’s disfavor. Fanny Bennet rarely had a kind word for her second daughter. “But better Mrs. Bennet’s temper than a lifetime of drudgery with Mr. Collins in a cottage in Kent, bowing and scraping to know the pleasure of his benefactor. Papa calls the man an obvious twit. I am not certain Mr. Bennet has ever met the man, but Papa considered Mr. Collins’s father a candidate for Bedlam. Naturally, he would transfer his opinion of the late Mr. Collins to his son.”

Posted in Austen Authors, British history, Church of England, eBooks, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, marriage, marriage customs, marriage licenses, Pride and Prejudice, Regency era, Regency romance, Scotland, Vagary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Pride and Prejudice Locations, a Guest Post from Catherine Bilson

Posted on August 1, 2018 by Regina Jeffers

On May 24, 2018, Catherine Bilson became one of our new authors on the Austen Authors’ blog. I thought I would share her debut post here, mainly because of the lovely images she includes and because of her connections to Jane Austen. Enjoy! 

I’m extremely honoured to be invited to join the Austen Authors, and dithered for ages on what to write in my first blog post. In the end, I decided to go with one of my personal connections to Jane Austen’s works; the fact that I lived, for a while in the 90’s, in Hertfordshire.

I lived in one of the new parts of Stevenage, a town conceived and designed as a ‘dormitory town’ to accommodate London commuters, and rather soulless in its modernity and plethora of roundabouts. However, Stevenage was also possessed of an Old Town, which most certainly existed in Jane Austen’s day. The 1801 Census recorded Stevenage as having 1,430 residents, and its position on the Great North Road (now the A1(M)) had twenty or more stage coaches passing through each day. The Bowling Green was the most popular meeting place for people in Stevenage for over 800 years, where people came to hear proclamations, to celebrate, or to remember the dead. Famous writer and MP Samuel Pepys visited to play bowls in 1664, one of the many times that he visited Stevenage.

In 1861, Charles Dickens visited Stevenage and wrote “The village street was like most other village streets: wide for its height, silent for its size, and drowsy in the dullest degree. The quietest little dwellings with the largest of window-shutters to shut up nothing as if it were the Mint or the Bank of England.” Which, at least in the drowsiness, sounds very much as I have always imagined Meryton.

What fixed Stevenage Old Town as Meryton in my headcanon, however, was its proximity to the gorgeous Knebworth House.

 

Who could possibly look at Knebworth and not imagine it as Netherfield, Charles Bingley and Mr Darcy cantering across that expanse of green lawn on their horses? Described by Sir Henry Chauncy in 1700 as ‘a large pile of brick with a fair quadrangle in the middle of it, seated upon a dry hill, in a fair large park, stocked with the best deer in the country, excellent timber and well wooded and from thence you may behold a most lovely prospect to the East.’

Really, those words could have been said by Mrs Bennet herself, waxing lyrical about the house of which she hoped her eldest daughter would one day be mistress.

If you watched the film Victoria & Abdul you would have seen some of the rooms from Knebworth House. It doubled as Balmoral and bits of Windsor in the film, and has also been filmed as Balmoral in the Netflix series The Crown.

Just imagine that awkward meeting between Darcy and Lizzy in that library!

However, Knebworth House didn’t look quite like the picture above in the early 1800s. It was ‘improved’ and vastly enlarged in the Victorian era. I did find a pencil sketch c. 1829 which still shows it as a spectacular house of which any lady would be delighted to find herself mistress. Perhaps Jane and Bingley were even the ‘improvers’…

So, we have Meryton and Netherfield; what about Longbourn?

Well, it’s a touch further from Knebworth than I’d care to walk at 6.7 miles (according to Google Maps) but the 14th century Hitchin Priory certainly looks the part, both inside and out. (It’s now a lovely country house hotel and conference venue).

Did Jane Austen use these places as inspiration for her fictional locations in Hertfordshire? Unless new notes or letters come to light, we will probably never know. In my writings, however, I’ll always have these beautiful houses in mind when writing Netherfield or Longbourn, and I certainly used Old Town Stevenage’s location in A Christmas Miracle At Longbourn when calculating the time it would take to drive to Hatfield or ride there from London. A Christmas Miracle At Longbourn was released in late May, and I do hope my fellow Austen devotees will enjoy the read! Exclusive to Amazon, it’s available in Kindle Unlimited.

Do you have any favourite English country houses in mind which could double as the locations in Austen novels? Of course, Chatsworth will always be Pemberley to most of us (though Lyme Park was a beautiful stand-in in the 1995 TV version), but I’d love to hear if you have any alternatives for Longbourn, Netherfield, Rosings, Northanger Abbey, Hartfield, Donwell, Mansfield Park or Sanditon!

chatsworth-house.jpg

Posted in British history, buildings and structures, Guest Post, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, Pride and Prejudice, Regency romance, Vagary, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pride and Prejudice Locations, a Guest Post from Catherine Bilson