Don’t you just love that phrase, “How to …”? How-to books, advice columns, lists of do’s and don’ts abound. God’s word has much great advice, and “secrets” abound, especially about loving. For example, Ephesians 4:32:

     Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. 

Since this one passage is so rich with gems for loving our husbands, let’s go no further.

Be kind to him. Choose kindness, even when he doesn’t earn or deserve it. Think back to how you both showed each other your best during courtship and engagement, were you ever sour, moody, or impatient then?

Be tenderhearted toward him and his failings. Love covers a multitude of sins (failings), so “put on the love cover”(1Peter 4:8) when your husband’s weaknesses affect you. An unexpected smile can go a long way toward softening hearts.

A forgiving attitude will bring peace of mind and peace in your marriage. Try forgiving in advance and not even entering into a dispute or criticism though you are in the right. He will be so relieved that you “let him off the hook”. You will be amazed at the peace that will dwell in your relationship. This forgiving in advance is sometimes called forbearance. God’s forbearing love chose us to be his children, and we should not aspire to anything less.

… This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. Romans 3: 25b

Just touching on scripture’s rich words on forbearing love can inspire us to imitate Christ’s love toward our God-given husbands. Forgiving in advance is a mighty tool from God to improve our marriages.

Praising God for all His Blessings, Susan

Originally posted 2012-06-08 10:00:00.

Welcome to the month of June, that most favored time of year for weddings. With that in mind, we at Regency Reflections thought it would be fitting to run a few posts regarding marriage during the Regency.

Marriage is a big thing, of course, but today we are brought up with the idea that it is only one big thing out of many. If you make a mistake, people know they can always get a divorce. Statistics show that even in the church, divorce, unfortunately, is a well-used option. If you can try to imagine the lives of women in the early 19th century, for them marriage wasn’t “a” big thing–it was THE biggest thing that could happen, setting the course for their lives and futures in ways we only have an inkling of, today.

Marriage Among the Ton

During the regency, fashionable couples often got married at St. George’s Church in Mayfair. Located right at the edge of Hanover Square and only steps from Bond Street, St. George’s was an icon of the fashionable West End.  In my book, The House in Grosvenor Square, Ariana Forsythe’s wedding to the Paragon, the handsome but temperamental Mr. Mornay, is planned for St. George’s.

St. George’s Hanover Square, Parish Church

In 1816 (a banner year) there were 1,063 weddings, including nine on Christmas Day! Yet the aristocracy often chose to forego St. George’s in favor of the chapel on their own estates; or sometimes they married in their home in a small, private affair with just a few witnesses. Even Lord Byron was married in such a way.

A few infamous weddings are detailed on this page of St. George’s website, where, by the way, you can find contact info. to schedule your own wedding if you happen to live in London and wish to be married! (You’d also have to be Anglican, I suppose.)

Celebrating

There seems to have been little protocol regarding how to celebrate a wedding during the regency, at least in the fashionable world. People might hold a breakfast, lunch or supper for their friends and family, or they might not. Church weddings were “open to the public” but unless the individuals getting married were celebrities (though never called such in that day) most people wouldn’t dream of bothering to attend the ceremony. Likewise, wedding invitations were hardly thought of. Getting married was most often a simpler, more private affair than it is today, and reading that Miss so-and-so had married Lord X in the Morning Post was deemed sufficient.

The poorer classes, on the other hand, were likely to celebrate with parties before, during, and after the nuptials took place. In Scotland, the “penny wedding” could include the whole town, and at least two days of revelry.

A White Gown?

The white dress for women was not in vogue specifically for weddings, likely because white gowns had long been popular evening-wear for any formal occasion.  According to English Women’s Clothing in the Nineteenth Century, “The  symbolic significance of white is well known and of great antiquity; we may note, however, that while a girl’s first ball gown was generally white, the bridal dress was by no means invariably so.”

For the year 1816 it states,”Note: Wedding dresses appear indistinguishable from evening dresses.”

Women of means would wear the fanciest fabric they could afford for their weddings, and not only in white. The custom of putting away the gown after the ceremony didn’t exist, and so wedding gowns were chosen with future use in mind. For regency men, by 1820 a proper “wedding suit” would be “a blue dress coat with gilt buttons, white waistcoat, and black or dark gray breeches.”* Again, it was a costume one could use over and over.

(Strange that today we put so much emphasis on a special gown and suit for the wedding, when the marriages themselves are so often treated as less sanctified?)

To Veil or Not to Veil?

There was no custom of veiling the face for a wedding, although veils were popular. A short lace veil might be part of a bonnet for walking dress, for example. Likewise, trains were used for evening dress, assuredly not the domain of weddings. Perhaps the most telling feature of historical costume concerning weddings during this period is that while you can find multitudinous examples of morning, walking, evening, full, promenade, half-dress, riding, carriage and even opera, etc., one never comes across a category for wedding dress. It simply did not exist. (In English Women’s Clothing it is found as a category by 1851.)

This ought to be good news for authors of regency romance, like me: instead we yearn to find the “right” way to portray a bride, when in fact there was no truly “right” way.

To show how many of the ball gowns of the day look suspiciously like wedding dresses to our modern eyes, take a look at some of the illustrations  below, for example.

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING ARE WEDDING GOWNS

left– Comptesse–1810

Above, and right, 1816

The first bridal dress portrayed in English Women’s Clothing is dated 1848 and is of white satin, very ornamental, and with a veil that falls down the back, not over the face.

Are you interested in more details on wedding costume during the regency? On actual weddings that took place, or exactly how the marriage banns were worded? If you think you might purchase my upcoming ebook,  The Making of A Match: A Regency Wedding Compendium, please take this short survey and let me know! It will help me gauge interest, and know exactly what to include in the ebook.  Thank you!

Linore

http://www.LinoreBurkard.com    Linore (at) LinoreBurkard (dot) com

Originally posted 2012-06-04 13:48:48.

Sex Trafficking in Victorian London

                Victorian London can be a wonderful place to visit, if you enter into the realm where balls and routs are common place. There is another setting not often disclosed. In the poorer element of the city, life was quite different. Young women from the country came to London to better themselves by taking jobs in the homes of the rich. Unscrupulous people enticed them with such offers and when they arrived in the teeming bustle of the strange city instead of positions as scullery maids or chambermaids, they were sold into sexual slavery.

               Virgins were in high demand during this era because it was a common belief that having intercourse with them would cure venereal diseases. Once the young girls were sold to the highest bidder for anywhere from 5 to 25 Lire they would then be turned out to work as common doxies. The shame of their experiences deterred them from returning home. Likely they would have been turned away as outcasts. Newly arrived in a busy city without the presence of family protection left them with nowhere to turn. They were trapped in the miserable circumstances wherein they landed.

Many of the young women turned to alcohol to deaden the hopelessness surrounding them. I would venture to guess they needed the anesthetic effect of the strong spirits to be able to bear the atrocities expected of them.  It is said in one of the brothels the Madame kept a room set aside with torture instruments for those inclined to S & M. The expected life span of these young women was four to seven years. Venereal disease was rampant. In 1850 half of the outpatients in the main hospital in London suffered from syphilis. Parliament passed the Contagious Disease Act in 1864 in an attempt to regulate prostitution in six garrison towns and ports. Their assumption was soldiers and sailors needed prostitutes. The female population of that day had to exercise caution in their daily treks, for any woman found within a certain area around the garrisons could be arrested and physically examined for sexually transmitted diseases.

                William Gladstone, a liberal politician and Prime Minister was an angel of mercy for some of these young women. He would walk the streets of London at night and encourage the prostitutes he found to come home with him where he and his wife would provide them a meal and shelter with the offer of help to change their lives. He assisted the sisters at the House of Mercy at Clewer near Windsor. The women were housed there until respectable employment could be arranged for them.

Today sex trafficking remains a growing problem in the United States. Horror stories of young girls being sold to slavers who use them as prostitutes are rampant. One young woman told her story of being molested by her father at the age of five and sold to a stranger by him when she became too old. She was twelve. There are Christian facilities today who, like William Gladstone are trying to help these women recover from their painful past. It is not a quick fix. They must be deprogrammed and taught how important they are and how much Jesus loves them. Sometimes this can take years.

Originally posted 2012-05-07 10:00:00.

Teach Us, Lord, to Count Our Days

by Susan Karsten

As those interested in bygone societies, particularly Regency-era England, we can profit by comparing the circumstances of mothers.  Are we appropriately thankful for the full cup of days most of us enjoy from our Lord in the 21^stcentury?

Life Expectancy:  In the early 1800s, the life expectancy was around 40 years. Today, we can expect, Lord willing, 81 years (women), 77 years (men). One reason among several for this disparity is the high rate of infant mortality in the Regency.

Infant Mortality:  As best as can be figured (since un-baptized babies weren’t counted in the parish registers which are the source for most data of this nature), an estimated 15% of infants died before the age of one during the Regency era. The United States has a rate of .68% (early 2000s).

Being Thankful: The crushing blow of losing a child soon after carrying it for nine months is a sorrow for the ages. It is much easier to quantify the statistics than the grief. We mothers who are blessed with living children must give praise and thanks for God’s mercy on us. We do not have the fearsome specter of early death hanging over us. Praise Him!

 Psalm 90, a versification*

O teach Thou us to count our days

And set our hearts on wisdom’s ways;

Turn, Lord, to us in our distress,

In pity now Thy servants bless;

 Let mercy’s dawn dispel our night,

And all our day with joy be bright.

O send the day of joy and light,

For long haas been our sorrow’s night;

Afflicted through the weary years,

We wait until Thy help appears;

With us and with our sons abide,

In us let God be glorified,

In us let God be glorified.

So let there be on us bestowed

The beauty of the Lord our God;

The work accomplished by our hand

Establish Thou, and make it stand;

Yea, let our hopeful labor be

Established evermore by Thee.

*Blue Psalter Hymnal #174

Originally posted 2012-05-04 10:00:00.

by Linore Rose Burkard

Let’s take a look at some fabulous fashion plates from that most-regency of publications, Ackermann’s Repository.(Most of the following comes directly from my latest newsletter. If you’re not yet subscribed, sign up in seconds on my website. It’s free!)

Rudolph Ackermann’s Repository of Arts, Literature, Fashions, Manufactures, &c. was a much-enjoyed magazine for people of the regency, second only in importance to women of fashion after “La Belle Assemblee.”

Above:  Walking Dress 1819. Note that each of the illustrations here are from SPRING publications of Ackermann’s for the year designated. Seems that England (or France, in some cases) must have been rather chilly, even up to June.

      Walking Dress, Jaconet Muslin (“Round Dress”) 1819

                                  Morning Dress, 1819

                  French Dress, 1819

               1819 Evening Dress

                   1819 Evening Dress

                  1829 Evening Dress

Strictly speaking, 1829 is post-Regency (George, Prince of
Wales, became Regent in 1811 and then King in 1820. Since he reigned until 1830, I include his reign in my definition of the “regency”. Society was distinct beneath his regency and reign.)

           Walking or Carriage Dress, 1829.

Muffs were popular since Georgian days. I had a fluffy white muff when I was in first grade and still remember it with fond affection. (sigh)

            English Dinner Dress 1829

The bonnets during this period were amazing concoctions, weren’t they? I saw a spoof about bonnets in an old periodical recently. I’ll have to try and dig it up. (Editorials of the day often included commentary about current fashions, and more often than not, they were critical.)

      May 1829, English Morning Dress

In some cases, morning dress seems to have referred to something a lady would wear only in her home, such as the earlier pics (above) of 1819 morning gowns. In this case, the designation of “morning” appears to mean a day-dress (walking dress) which is obviously meant for outdoors, while emphasizing that it isn’t dinner or promenade or evening attire. The head-dress is much simpler in style also.

                    1829 Dinner Dress

Notice how the 1829 fashions are almost Victorian in appearance? Think about this: Victoria didn’t take the throne until 1837–not for another 8 years! In this and the next illustration, you can clearly see that the lower waist had  returned to women’s clothing long before the young Victoria was crowned.Nevertheless, most people would look at the above and think “Victorian.” (But now you know better.) : )

                 March 1829 Opera Dress 

Hasn’t this been fun? The contrast between 1819 and 1829 fashions is very evident. It’s not always so easy to tell different decades apart!

Linore Rose Burkard.com
Inspirational Romance to Warm the Soul
Coach and Four: Allisandra’s Tale
Inspirational Regency Romance
Woman of Faith Blog

Originally posted 2012-04-30 06:00:00.