Imagine you were transported back to Regency England. What would you want to be? A commoner? Peerage? Royalty? Why? 

Susan Karsten:

I would want to be in the merchant class. I do believe the women of this class had less societal strictures and could also sometimes help in the family business. Of course, let my fantasy be that of a successful merchant! 🙂

Ruth Axtell:

I would want to be what I am today in my own era: a romance writer. I’ve been researching the popular novels of the Regency, and it seems that women authors were quite numerous and prolific. The “Minerva novels” were gobbled up by women readers. They specialized in inexpensive romances and gothic novels, which reader could purchase or take out from “circulating” libraries. Mary Russel Mitford and Fanny Burney were two popular authors who made their living writing romantic novels.

Kristi Ann Hunter:

I’m gonna have to go with the peerage, or at least gentry, on this one, for several reason. One, I’m lazy. The idea that someone else would cook my meals and do my laundry has a certain appeal, I must confess. But also, with a higher rank you had the power, time, and money to change things. I would like to have the influence and ability to run a charity or work with the underprivileged. The glitzy parties wouldn’t be bad either.

Kristy Cambron:

I am not sure I would have been a proper member of the peerage (or royalty, for that matter) in Regency England. I find too much pleasure in the vocation of writing, I enjoy the modern comforts of jeans and coffee shops, and I value the rights women have to cote and pursue our dreams in modern society. I also wouldn’t know the first thing about having a service staff attend to my every whim, so I’d have been a poor member of the aristocracy. I’d rather have been a commoner with some means (so I wouldn’t have to stress about where the next meal is coming from), perhaps a friend that was invited into Jane Austen’s parlor from time to time, so we could write our next novel together? I know one thing for sure – I’d adore the clothes more than anything!

Laurie Alice Eakes:

Given the choice, I’d like to be a peeress in my own right like Diana in the Malloren series by Jo Beverley. It was rare and it did happen. The woman had lots of freedom and power other women did not enjoy, even after they married.

Vanessa Riley:

I’d have to be peerage or have enough rank and wealth to assure my family’s position and a suitable match for my daughter. A house in the country and a townhouse in the city, large enough to host a ball.

Naomi Rawlings:

I’d prefer to be a commoner. It’s a hard choice to make, because when I think of peerage, they had such a posh life full of luxuries, beautiful clothes, and the best that money could afford them. But so very little of their wealth was earned. Most of it was handed down generation to generation. Plus the upper class wielded so much power on the back of regular, every day people. I couldn’t live with the guilt of spending a year’s salary on a dress. So I pick commoner. Boring and ordinary, yes. Harder style of living, yes. But they were still the backbone of the country.

What about you? What would you want to be? 

Originally posted 2012-11-21 10:00:00.

Today Regency Reflections welcomes Dina Sleiman. Dina is stopping by to show just how much influence the Regency era had beyond the shores of England.  

Although my new historical romance, Love in Three-Quarter Time, is set near the American frontier, it is also set during what would be considered the Regency period in England. And because American culture was so influenced by Britain, I think any Regency fan will enjoy reading about those influences in my book. Most of my characters come from an English background. In fact, several minor characters are directly from England. And my heroine, little trouble maker that she is at times, decides to fake a Yorkshire accent to try to impress her potential employers with her European background. The story takes place in Charlottesville, Virginia, home of Thomas Jefferson and many other members of the “planter elite class,” which gives it a sophisticated touch reminiscent of Regency England. But it’s also situated not far from the Shenandoah mountain range, which was still considered the frontier in 1817.

Let’s look at some of the elements associated with Regency culture that are seen in my book.

Fashion 

Fashionable Americans wore the same styles as their European counterparts, and made every effort to keep up with the latest trends. In 1817, for ladies this meant higher waists than ever before and sculpted bodices. Hemlines were also higher than ever and skirts were wider and more frilled than during other times in the Regency Era. I especially give a close up look at the ball gowns of that day since my heroine’s mother is a seamstress. You’ll also see plenty of the hats, gloves, and fans that this era is known for. In men’s fashion the style had moved to trousers rather than breeches, and Hessian boots had grown passé. Although, you’ll still see these boots on some of my less fashion conscious characters.

Science

Of course scientific advances are the same in both the United States and England. The US could boast several impressive universities at that time, and plans for building the University of Virginia in Charlottesville were already underway. Let’s not forget that Benjamin Franklin had been an American innovator in science not long ago. My heroine’s sister, Patience Cavendish, has a love for science and a penchant for discussing the latest theories of heat and sound. Like her former president, Thomas Jefferson, she is very influenced by Enlightenment thinking.

Politics

Both England and America were still recovering from the War of 1812. In addition, the abolitionist movement was active in both countries. Britain had abolished all slave trade at this time, although not slavery itself. America had recently abolished international slave trade but not domestic. Of course, my abolitionist characters hope that America will keep the momentum moving toward freedom, but I’m concerned that unlike in England, it will take drastic measures to put an end to slavery in the American South.

Economics 

Both countries were still recovering from the devastating effects of the “Year without a Summer” of 1816, which was reportedly caused by a volcano in Indonesia. Virginia itself was far enough south to escape the worst of the famine, but it did affect the economy throughout the US and earned several mentions in my book. It comes into play as my hero, Robert Montgomery, makes some important business decisions about his plantation.

Arts and Architecture 

The Romantic Movement was fashionable in art at this time throughout Europe and the US. My artistic character, Felicity Cavendish, is a fan of this movement. In architecture the style was called “Regency” in England and “Federalist” in America, but both were heavily influenced by the Neo-classical style. This can be seen in Jefferson’s Greek Revival architecture at Monticello and my own fictional creation, White Willow Hall.

Music and Dance

While Americans enjoyed the same cultured composers as their British counterparts, they each had their own unique folk music as well. For high society balls, the dances were nearly identical at this time. England beat us to the “scandalous” waltz, however, when the Prince Regent introduced it in 1816. The waltz coming to America is a primary focus of my book, so you’ll get to enjoy many details of the waltz and other ballroom dances, as well as a peek at the world of ballet. In fact, my heroine Constance Cavendish, turned to teaching dance to support her family after her father died, leaving them destitute. Since men were highly sought as dance masters at the time, Constance must move to the frontier in search of better employment.

Religion

A few weeks ago Reagan Walker shared an in depth article on this blog about the religion of this time in England. I loved this quote she shared from an Anglican minister about other Anglican ministers of this time. “[With few exceptions] the clergy held and taught a negative and cold Protestantism deadening to the imagination, studiously repressive to the emotions, and based on principles which found little sanction either in reason or in history. The laity willingly accepted it, as it made so little demand upon their conscience, so little claim upon their life.” My heroine’s spiritual journey is moving from this type of thinking to a warm and vibrant evangelical sort of faith, also typical of this time, thanks to my handsome circuit riding preacher, Lorimer.

Naturally, some elements in the book are purely American including Thomas Jefferson, the Monacan Indians, the tobacco plantations, and the frontiersmen in buckskin clothing, but I think you’ll find plenty of European influence to please even the most Regency-loving soul. In fact, my characters enjoy a good Austen novel as well as anyone, although the author is still anonymous at this time. I call this my “Scarlett O’Hara meets Jane Austen novel,” and I included plenty of Austen-like twist and turns for a fun, romantic read you’ll be sure to enjoy.

Originally posted 2012-11-16 10:00:00.

In Romans 13, Paul warns his flock to obey the rulers over them, saying, “But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain . . .”

These days, “the sword” of the government is usually jail time or fines or community service, and only occasionally the death penalty. But in the Regency, it was different.

Criminals were still sent to prisons then. But in the Regency, prisons weren’t nearly as regulated as they are now. Some prisons didn’t provide enough of food or other necessities for the prisoners. Some were workhouses. Worst of all, some were “hulks”: old ships moored in the Thames, where hundreds of men were locked below deck, in the dark, doomed to fight and starve and probably die long before they were granted the dubious opportunity of transportation to the colonies.

And it wasn’t just men in the prisons or hulks: children convicted of crimes were sent there, too. While men and women were generally separated in prison, adults and children were not. You can just imagine the fate of those children.

If you weren’t sent to prison, you might be sent off to the colonies, on the theory that if you couldn’t commit any more crimes in England if . . . well, if you weren’t in England anymore.

But perhaps the biggest difference between the way our government punishes crime and the way crime was punished by the government of Regency England was the death penalty. We still have it, yes, but it’s rarely used, and generally only for very serious and violent crimes. Moreover, these days, attempts are made to administer it humanely. But in the Regency, not only were hundreds of crimes were punishable by death,  if you were sentenced to death, you were going to die publicly and probably not painlessly, by hanging.

However, reform of the penal code was beginning – and ongoing – in the Regency. According to Donald Low in his book The Regency Underworld, in 1816 Sir Samuel Romilly succeeded in getting pickpocketing to be no longer punishable by the death penalty. In a time when over two hundred crimes could be punished by death, this was a notable success. Other reformers began trying to implement corrective programs in the prisons or, at the very least, to separate serious criminals from the less serious, instead of having them all mill about together, the worse corrupting the better (see Peel’s Prison Act of 1823).

This post isn’t anywhere near exhaustive – the people of the Regency were inventive, and the nuances of the penal code numerous and arcane. It’s a rich field for research, but one that requires a strong stomach.

But even with all these differences between then and now, prison still isn’t a good place to be, and not even always a safe place. The spirit of the reform work and the concern for prisoners that began in the Regency are still carried out today by ministries like Prison Fellowship. And then as now, children still feel the pain imposed by the penal system. With Christmas coming, Angel Tree is a great place to start if you feel a call to ministering to the children of those in prison in this day and age. And just about every city has a prison with people in it who can use visitors and books and Bibles. Things might be better now, but they’re far from perfect. The light of Christ still needs to be taken to the darkest of places.

Peace of Christ to you,

Jessica

Originally posted 2012-11-12 10:00:00.

Whenever I read a Regency novel set during the Napoleonic Wars, I’m interested to see how the war and France are portrayed. Of course France was hated. They were, after all, the bad guys, trying to invade England, take over Europe, and end the world in with some sort of nuclear holocaust (well, maybe not quite that extreme, but you get the picture). And then after you look at France the country, there’s it’s leader: Napoleon Bonaparte, the Corsican Monster , tyrant, etc.

Yet as the British are sitting on their nice little island, thinking of names to call France’s new ruler, they quite happily forget that Napoleon was much less of a tyrant to the French people than King Louis XVI. Or King Louis XV. Or King Louis XIV. In fact, the average Frenchman and Frenchwoman had a much better life under Napoleon’s rule than under Louis XVI’s.

(Heaven forbid we actually let the French people choose their own ruler rather than foist another wasteful, birth-ordained monarch on them.)

French citizens aside, anyone familiar with the Napoleonic Wars will tell you Napoleon had a lust for power. Though he never claimed to be a king, he did aim to conquer much of Europe.  And so, it stands to reason that we’re all lucky England was around to protect the rest of the world from the big, bad Mr. Bonaparte. Correct?

Not exactly.

At the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars, England was much more of a big, bad bully than France. In fact, England—with all its outrage against the Corsican Monster—was the one to start the Napoleonic Wars.

Yes, that’s right. England picked a war with France, not the other way around.

England and France had been enjoying a tenuous peace, as delineated in the Treaty of Amiens, which lasted from the spring of 1802 to 1803. Neither France nor England was doing any of the things it promised to do in that treaty. In fact, England was much more aggressive than France, gathering another coalition of nations to fight France. Napoleon, however, withdrew troops from certain territories he’d agreed to evacuate. In all fairness, both countries signed a treaty that neither intended to honor.

When this finally became clear to England, the country did what it was so very fond of doing two hundred years ago. It declared war. Then the British navy promptly captured two French ships within a matter of days. I can just imagine the conversation between the British and French soldiers as the French were once again losing two of their ships to the Brits.

Frenchman: “But you can’t capture our ship. We’re at peace. Remember that treaty our countries signed last spring?”

Brit: (Laughs cruelly) “We decided to call off the treaty and declare war two days ago. Hadn’t you heard?”

Frenchman: “No! We’ve been at sea for the past three months.”

Brit: “Oh well, we’re taking your ship anyway, and you’ll need to come with us. I’m sure you’ll have a nice time moldering in one of our prison hulks until you die in about three months time.”

Ah yes, England was quite the picture of benevolence two hundred years ago.

So in retaliation, Napoleon rounded up all the Brits visiting France on holiday and interned them in a citadel located in northwestern France.

England was outraged, of course. How dare Napoleon actually fight back!

And so there you have it, the story of how England started the Napoleonic Wars.

Originally posted 2012-11-02 13:10:49.