Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘#historicalromance’

Marriage was a truly life changing event for a lady during the Regency. Here are at least some of the ways life changed.

When you went for a walk you could go with just a friend, or even a gentleman who was not your husband without benefit of a maid or footman. Although, going alone in London, even Mayfair, was not well advised.

You were allowed in a closed coach alone, with a coachman with a gentleman who was not your husband or close relative.

You could wear any color you wanted.

You did not have to dance with a man just because he asked you to dance.

You could have a gentleman escort you to a ball or other event, and he didn’t have to be your husband or a close relative.

You were privy to scandalous conversations the other matrons and widows were having.

You could take a lover (although, most husbands like discretion).

You could spend time in the card room.

You could speak with a gentleman without a “proper” introduction.

You were no longer asked to show your proficiency on a musical instrument.

Unless your husband was really unreasonable, no one read your correspondence.

You were in charge of your own household and household staff (except for the butler who always worked for the master if there was one)

You could hire your own lady’s maid if you didn’t like the one your mother selected for you.

Matrons 1matrons 2matrons 4

 

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency #Historical

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

This video is mostly accurate as it pertains to dressing during the Regency. The one part that stands out as inaccurate is the term palettes for drawers. The OED dates the US word to 1843. One almost must remember that Mary Shelley was a scandalous young woman.
 

Read Full Post »

When this question was asked I thought I’d addressed the subject previously, but apparently not. During the Regency, a child was a child of the marriage as long the child was born during the marriage, and the husband did not disclaim it. That is to say the child was the husband’s lawful and legitimate child—also known in the case of sons—as the heir of his body. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s that a man could dispute the legitimacy of a child born during the marriage, and it wasn’t until the 1990s that the biological father of the child could make a legal claim to be recognized as the child’s father when the mother was married to another man at the time of the child’s birth. All of this very helpfully came about as DNA started to be used in the courts to determine paternity. Although, DNA had been around since the 1960s, courts are notoriously slow to recognize new scientific methods.

Babiesfamily

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency #

Read Full Post »

I am going to assume this question is in regards to an unmarried lady who is not betrothed to the gentleman. This is probably not a complete list, but here goes:

A lady cannot be alone with a gentleman who is not either a very close relative (father, grandfather, brother, uncle) or guardian in a closed room or a closed carriage, or a carriage that either the lady or the gentleman is not driving.

A lady must have a chaperone of some sort (friend, maid, footman) when she is walking with a gentleman.

A lady may not speak with a gentleman if he has not been properly introduced to her.

A lady who must accept a dance offer from a gentleman if she has an open set left. If she does not, she cannot dance that set with another gentleman. Unless, of course, a gentleman strolls up and says, “My dance I believe.” Thus saving her from the man she doesn’t wish to stand up with.

A lady may not dance more than twice in one evening with a gentleman. This could get interesting as there could be as many as four entertainments in one evening.

A lady may ride in a sporting carriage with a gentleman without a chaperone to some place like the Park. She may not take off to Richmond (for example) alone with him.

She must have a groom with her when she goes horseback riding with a gentleman.

A lady may not accept jewelry or clothing from a gentleman. She may accept trifles such as flowers, poems, a fan, etc.

at a ballridingDancing 2

 

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency

Read Full Post »

I did address this in my post on marriage, but I’ll go into more depth based on the question I received.

There were two ways a minor could marry, with permission of her parent or guardian or fleeing to Gretna Green (one could have bans posted, but they’d probably be caught). If a minor was an orphan, he or she would most likely have a guardian. In fact, it would be very unusual for the minor not to have a guardian. A guardian was appointed by a will made by the father, or, if the mother had guardianship, by her. However, if there was no guardian, or the guardian has disappeared, then the minor would either have to wait until his or her majority (at 21 years of age), or go to Scotland to wed. The mere permission of the closest male relative would not be sufficient. The guardian would have to be appointed by either a will or a court.

gretna green 2proposal 2

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency

Read Full Post »

You’ve all read about the private parlors in inns. Most inns catering to the gentry and aristocracy had at least one or more private parlors. The reason for private parlors is so that ladies were not in the common room where they could be exposed to swearing, bad manners, drunks, etc. And for gentlemen who did not wish to rub shoulders with the common man to have some privacy. Private parlors were quieter, cleaner, and warmer in winter.

So how did one rent a private parlor? One could reserve the parlor a head of time by writing the inn, or one could walk in and ask for a private parlor. If all the inn’s private parlors were occupied, a traveler could ask if they could share the room. The occupant did not have to allow it. The room was either reserved a head of time or it was first come first serve.

The pictures below give you an idea of the difference.

Private parlorCommon Room

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency

Read Full Post »

Someone asked if the English had a fear of a French style revolution taking place in England. The answer is yes. Among many of the gentry and the aristocracy there was a real fear that a rebellion happening in England. This is a short description of some of the things that prompted the fear.

The first murmurings took place in the late 18th century around the time of the French rebellion. However, it wasn’t until 1811, when the economic situation in England was fairly dire, especially for the lower and working classes, that one saw actual armed protests. This was also the time that weaving machines were introduced reducing the man power required for weaving cloth. Creating a fear that jobs would be lost. This fear gave rise to The Luddites, a radical group of English weavers and textile workers who destroyed weaving machinery as a form of protest. Mill owners hired men to shoot the protesters. By 1816, the military was called in to put down the rebellion.

Adding to the discontent in the country side, parliament passed the Corn Laws (for the Americans in the group, corn refers to all grains. Corn as we know is it called maize). The Corn Laws which kept the prices of grain artificially high and imposed tariffs that made importing grain too expensive, thus exacerbating wide spread hunger in parts of the country. Another problem was roving bands of soldiers who had come back from the war and had no work. The Tory government’s response to all of this was to crack down on all rebellions using force.

LudditesCorn laws 1

#RegencyTrivia #HistoricalRomance #ReadaRegency

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: