Here’s another of my resources. I use it for slang, particularly around matters of intimate congress. Do not read if you are offended by profanity! But if you want to know period-appropriate terms for all kinds of rude and inappropriate things, check out Jonathon Green’s Timelines of Slang.
I was trying to work out the length of a sea journey from the borderlands with Scotland on the east coast to near Bristol in the west, and I came across a modern sailing distance calculator, which was just the thing. It allows you to plot your course, and then tells you the nautical miles. From there, it’s a simple (hah!) matter of working out the likely speed of your craft, taking into account the season (and therefore the weather and the prevailing winds and currents), the likelihood of pirates and storms, and any time in port along the way. And there you have it.
You’re welcome.
https://plainsailing.com/sailing-distance-calculator
See also my other posts on this perennial topic:
Average travelling times in the Regency
Travel times from port to port in the Mediterranean in the Regency
The case of the meowing nuns is one of the more bizarre cases of mass hysteria recorded in history. In the 14th century, a nun in northern France began meowing like a cat. Within a week, the rest of the nuns had picked up the practice, and they would spend hours together meowing and purring, sometimes for hours. In the sixteenth century, hundreds of people in Strasburg, also in France, were subject to a dancing frenzy so prolonged that some died of heart attacks and strokes. In both cases, the official explanation was possession by the devil, and the sufferers were forced to pray until they were cured.
In the 17th century, over 19 counties in England organised militias to defenced against ‘Wild marauding Irishmen’, who they believed to be on their way, despite a complete lack of evidence (and Irishmen). That’s a pretty impressive misinformation campaign, and completely without the benefit of the Internet.
The persecution of witches in one place after another over a period of around 500 years is another example of how easily people believe something that isn’t true and not only twist the facts to fit but also see, hear, and otherwise sense things that didn’t happen. Likewise the rash of ghost and monster sightings of the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, police in a number of countries spent weeks, even months, investigating non-existent crimes because of a whole group of witnesses sincerely believed they had seen them happen, or even been victims.
The Satanist ritual abuse scare of the 1980s and 90s was another widespread phenomenon that has been thoroughly exploded in investigation.
We are creatures of our environment, affected by the beliefs and practices of those near to us. If there is a lesson to learned from this, it is be careful who you listen to.
Print or electronic for research? When a period, place, event, or individual is crucial to my story, and I want to immerse myself in accurate historical research and accounts contemporary to the time, I prefer print. I can bookmark passages that are particularly relevant, and have several books on my desk so that I can cross-reference between them to check particular details as I write.
When I want a quick fact, I love the internet. Yesterday, I wanted to get my protagonists from Birmingham to London by mail coach. They were in a hurry. They had the money. I needed to know
The internet, with a bit of hunting around, mainly in old digitised memoirs and books by early twentieth century coaching enthusiasts, told me.
For a daily service in each direction the operators needed:
- 4 stage-coaches, (at any one time, one coach was travelling south, another travelling north, and a spare coach was kept at each end of the route to allow for maintenance, breakdowns, etc.)
- 188 horses, (a team of four every eight miles, horses rested every other day, a simple equation that works out at one horse per mile of route.)
- 8 coachmen (drivers, 50 miles each per day)
- 4 guards (each did 24 hours on-duty then 24 hours off)
- Payment of stage-coach tax (a sum per mile)
- Payment of road tolls (substantial sums)
A full load was 5 passengers on a mail coach, 4 or 6 on a post-coach, and 16 on an ordinary stage-coach. [The Stagecoach Industry: http://www.carlscam.com/coachindustry.htm]
These days, we’re becoming very aware of the negatives of the internet. It can be a time waster and an emotions vampire. Misinformation abounds, and research requires disciplined checking of credibility. But for purposes like mine, it is wonderful. And okay. Maybe nobody who reads the resultant book will know or care that the Coventry Assizes is in the correct month, or that I moved my Coventry action forward two hours to give my protagonists time to catch the coach. But detail matters to me. So there you go.
Oh. And now I want to write a character who is a mailcoach driver or a guard with a family at each end of his run.
(By the way, I do want to write about the Assizes. Some other time.)
Beyond a doubt, many people used to drink a lot of alcohol in the Regency era, often to the point of being falling down drunk. But it turns out that it took a larger number of bottles and glasses than you might think.
We read of a gentleman consuming two bottles of brandy in an evening, or having seven or eight glasses of wine at a meal, and still standing upright at the end of it. When the bride in one book rapidly drank four glasses of wine, and then passed out before the startled eyes of the groom, I didn’t question how strong a head she had for her liquor. I should have.
Both bottles and glasses have grown in size since the Regency. The alcohol content of wine and other drinks might also have increased.
At that time, a bottle was the size of the breath that could be expelled by a single glassblower. Even when produced in large glass blowing manufacturies by skilled craftsmen working with specified quantities, no two bottles were exactly the same, but that would make it between 350 and 500 ml — or perhaps as large as 700 ml, or just under one and a half pints.
Glasses, too, were much smaller. They had started to grow from around 70 ml (under 2 and a half ounces) that had been the standard to the mid-18th century, but not with any speed. The bride in question had consumed a little under two modern standard glasses.
And then there’s the alcohol content. It varied, of course, according to the fermentation time and process. But there’s good evidence that it was less than today, with wine at about 5% (average today, 11%) , fortified wines such as port and sherry at about 15% (average today 18%), and perhaps 25% for brandy (average today, 50%).
So in terms of alcohol, assuming a 500 ml bottle, our gentleman had the modern equivalent of half a 1 litre bottle in an evening. Quite a bit, but spread out over a long evening by an large man who is an accustomed drinker, he’ll be drunk, but probably able to walk home without any difficulty. And the soused bride? She passed out after the equivalent of less than one modern glass of champagne. Someone must have spiked it!
Who knew? I am writing a wedding at the moment, and I wondered whether brides carried a bridal bouquet in the Regency. They did, but not as we know it. The fashion for carrying only flowers began after the Regency. The original bridal bouquet comprised herbs – especially smelly herbs, or herbs that were considered to have a beneficial impact on the married couple. Garlic, dill, thistles, and ivy, anyone?
Dill was particularly important at a wedding. It was considered to – let us say – heat the humours. Particularly useful on the wedding night; both bride and groom ate the dill from the bouquet at the wedding breakfast.
By the Regency, garden flowers were being poked into the bouquet among the herbs, and in Victorian times, they (mostly) dropped the herbs.
***
Here’s my wedding, or, rather, Arial’s and Peter’s.
This was an evening of firsts for Arial. Dressing with the help of her new sisters. Examining her own reflection in the mirror and being pleased with what she saw. Making her appearance at the top of the stairs and seeing awe and admiration in the eyes of Peter and his friend, Captain Forsythe. And a darker emotion on the faces of the Weatherall ladies, but one she’d never expected to attract.
Perhaps it was bad of her, but their jealousy pleased rather than bothered her. If anyone had told her a week ago that she would look good enough to cause a petty-minded Society beauty to regard her with envy, she would not have believed them.
She smiled at them as she walked slowly past them on her way to where Peter stood before the vicar. They had come prepared to bestow pity, of course. How disappointed they must be.
With them behind her, she put them out of her mind. This was her evening, and she would not allow the Weatheralls to spoil it for her.
Her heart warmed and a lump came to her throat as Peter stepped to one side and held his hand out for her. His left hand. Her sighted side. She handed her wedding bouquet—made for her by her new sisters with herbs and flowers from the market—to Angelica, and gave her right hand to Peter.
Another first. Her wedding. She had been damaged too young to have begun to dream of one, and had been too realistic to allow such dreams to take root as she became a woman. And since Mr Richards had proposed his scheme, she had been focused on selecting a candidate and on reaching an agreement that gave her the best chance of a reasonable life. The wedding had not been a consideration.
But here she was. Exchanging smiles with the most beautiful man she had ever seen, and about to join her life to his forever.
“Who giveth this woman to be married to this man?” asked the vicar.
“I give myself,” Arial declared, and Peter’s grip firmed as his smile widened.
Miss Weatherall whispered loudly, “Is that even legal?” and Captain Forsythe shushed her.
The vicar looked a little disconcerted for a moment, and then nodded
In among painting door frames and resorting cupboards so we can organise the garage, I’ve been doing a job I’ve had in mind for a while: writing a list of the types of article to be found in Regency newspapers, which I access through British newsletter archive. It’s an initiative between the British Library and Find My Past to digitise the British Library’s vast collection of newspapers, and I can spend hours reading news items, classified advertising, theatre reviews, market reports, Court news, and Society gossip. It’s a time suck, but it is also fascinating.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/
I’m currently reading newspapers from the week beginning 15 November 1815, when they report the news from Paris: Marshall Ney successfully argued that the Council of War had no status to try him for treason, and his case was referred to the Council of Peers. Also, the fashion leaders of Paris prescribed turbans for evening wear. White or Black, with perhaps a feather.
In the Regency, supporting charitable causes was a social obligation. For a start, it was a religious obligation, and parishes were one of the mechanisms through which people supported those in need. Owners of land and buildings were subject to a poor rate tax, collected and administered by the parishes. This funded the workhouses and other support to the poor of the parish. Your local minister would also present causes from the pulpit, or during visits to parishioners, and ask for support.
The involvement of the church was a legacy of medieval times, when institutionalised giving meant giving to the church, since the church ran the orphanages, hospitals, homes or other support for elderly pensioners, the medieval equivalent of soup kitchens, and so on and so on.
The dissolution of the monasteries removed the vast array of religious orders through which these many services to the poor were delivered. Nonetheless, the new Church of England did its best to pick up the strands, and certainly continued to collect tithes, donations and bequests.
Whereas Catholic doctrine had focused on the act of giving itself and the role it played in securing the donor’s immortal soul, Protestant teaching focussed far more on what was actually achieved with donations. This meant a new focus on understanding the actual issues of the day and trying to address their underlying causes. [Rhodri Davies, https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/blog-home/giving-thought/the-role-of-giving/the-history-of-civic-philanthropy-in-the-uk-what-can-we-learn ]
From the Middle Ages to the middle of the eighteenth century, church and state struggled ‘for control of the substantial financial resources involved in the act of giving’ [Sherwin, David, ‘The Great Charity Debate in Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa’, Journal of Church and State, 2000]
Slowly, the emphasis moved from supporting the church’s charitable ventures to supporting philanthropic ventures set up by a non-church organisation such as a guild, or by a group of interested people. And, while men fronted many of the organisation, an army of women made them work.
By the Regency era, the role of private philanthropic associations was firmly established. The characters in my books and those of the Bluestocking Belles who are actively involved in fund raising for good causes are firmly rooted in history. And The Ladies’ Society for the Care of the Widows and Orphans of Fallen Heroes and the Children of Wounded Veterans, which we invented for the Bluestocking Belles collection Frost Fair (and which some of our characters mock as The Society for Brats) would not be out of the ordinary in an age that gave us The Female Friendly Society for the Relief of Poor, Infirm, Aged Widows and Single Women of Good Character Who Have Seen Better Days.
A Rake’s Progress, Hogarth (1732-33). This progress was a series of eight paintings by William Hogarth showing the decline and fall of a man who wastes his money on luxurious living, sex, and gambling.
In modern historical romantic fiction, the hero is often described as a rake. Frequently, he has the reputation but not the behaviour. He is either misunderstood, or he is deliberately hiding his true nature under a mask, perhaps for reasons of state.
Even the genuine player is not what they would have called a rakehell back in the day. He cats around, sleeping with multiple lovers (either sequentially or concurrently) or keeping a series of mistresses, or both. But when he falls in love with the heroine he puts all of that behind him, and—after undergoing various trials—becomes a faithful husband and devoted family man.
Yesterday’s rakehell was a sexual predator
John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester was part of the Merry Gang, the original Restoration rakes who surrounded Charles II. He is known for his lovers, his poetry, his profligate behavior, and an unending stream of scandal. He is said to have been constantly drunk for five years, and died at only 33 years of age.
The Georgian and Regency rakehell was a far less benign figure. Back then, a rakehell was defined as a person who was lewd, debauched, and womanising. Rakes gambled, partied and drank hard, and they pursued their pleasures with cold calculation. To earn the name of rake or rakehell meant doing something outrageous—seducing innocents, conducting orgies in public, waving a public flag of corrupt behaviour under the noses of the keepers of moral outrage. For example, two of those who defined the term back in Restoration England simulated sex with one another while preaching naked to the crowd from an alehouse balcony.
Then, as now, rakes were self-centred narcissists who acknowledged no moral code, and no external restraint either. Their position in Society and their wealth meant they could ignore the law, and they didn’t care about public opinion. What they wanted, they took. A French tourist, writing towards the end of the 19th century said:
“What a character! How very English! . . . Unyielding pride, the desire to subjugate others, the provocative love of battle, the need for ascendency, these are his predominant features. Sensuality is but of secondary importance. . . In France libertines were frivolous fellows, whereas here they were mean brutes. . .”
Real rakehells were sexual predators and morally bankrupt, seducing innocents and partying their estates into debt and themselves into early graves. Not at all befitting a romantic hero!
Most 18th and early 19th century aristocrats (1700 to 1830) would not have called themselves rakes
Francis Dashwood, 11th Baron le Despencer, fount time between his political duties and his promiscuous sexual activities to found and run the Hellfire Club, whose members included some of the most powerful men of the day. They gathered to share their interests: sex, drink, food, dressing up, politics, blasphemy, and the occult.
Historians have commented that we see the long Georgian century through the lens of the Victorian era, and our impressions about moral behaviour are coloured by Victorian attitudes. The Georgians expected men to be sexually active, and where women were concerned, they worked on the philosophy that if no one knew about it, it wasn’t happening. If visiting brothels, taking a lover, or keeping a mistress, was all it took to be defined as a rake, most of the male half of Polite Society would be so called. And a fair percentage of the female half.
Drunkenness certainly didn’t make a man a rake—the consumption of alcohol recorded in diaries of the time is staggering. (Even taking into account that both glasses and bottles were smaller.) Fornication and adultery weren’t enough either, at least when conducted with a modicum of discretion (which meant in private or, if in public, then with other people who were doing the same thing).
In the late 18th and early 19th century, one in five women in London earned their living from the sex trade, guide books to the charms, locations, and prices of various sex workers were best-selling publications, men vied for the attention of the reigning courtesans of the day and of leading actresses, and both men and women chose their spouses for pedigree and social advantage then sought love elsewhere. The number of children born out of wedlock rose from four in 100 to seven (and dropped again in the Victorian). And many women had children who looked suspiciously unlike their husbands.
The more things change, the more they remain the same
Lord Byron. Described as mad, bad, and dangerous to know, Byron was admired for his poetry and derided for his lifestyle. When a series of love affairs turned sour, he married, but within a year his wife could no longer take his drinking, increased debt, and lustful ways (with men and women).
Some of today’s sports and entertainment stars, and spoilt sons of the wealthy, certainly deserve to be called rakehells in the original sense of the word. And just as the posted videos and images of today show how much the serial conquests are about showing off to the rake’s mates, the betting books that are often a feature of historical romances performed the same function back then.
Given access to social media, yesterday’s rakehell would be on Tinder.
Lord Byron earned the appellation ‘rake’ with many sexual escapades, including—so rumour had it—an affair with his sister. His drinking and gambling didn’t help, either. But none of these would have been particularly notable if they had not been carried out in public.
The Italian adventurer Giacomo Casanova mixed in the highest circles, and did not become notorious until he wrote the story of his life.
On the other hand, William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, lived with his wife and his mistress, who was his wife’s best friend. The three did not share the details of their relationship with the wider world, so there was gossip, but not condemnation. Devonshire is also rumoured to have been one of Lady Jersey’s lovers (the mother of the Lady Jersey of Almack fame). He was not, at the time, regarded as a rake.
(This is an update of a post I wrote in 2016, when I published A Baron for Becky, in which an actual rake hires a mistress, falls in love with her, falls out of love with her, and arranges for her to marry his best friend. This year, I’m publishing the book in which he finally is the romantic hero.)
Also see a couple of posts on some of the consequences of the lifestyle:
I read the reviews of my books, though most pundits advise authors never to do that. A good review can give me a lift for days. I’m grateful for the ones that pick up a mistake (such as the fact that To Wed a Proper Lady still has chapter 22 and 23 transposed even though I loaded a new file for it months ago–will fix again! And check afterwards to see if it is right.) And people who just don’t like the kind of books I write don’t bother me. There’s stuff I don’t like, too, and I can only wish them happy reading.
Every now and then, though, there’s a review I steam over. The only ones that upset me are examples of what has been called the Tiffany Effect. The Tiffany Effect is named after the idea that Tiffany is a modern name, when it was common in the thirteenth century and achieved the modern spelling in the seventeenth. Here’s more about the Tiffany Effect and other names that seem modern but have actually been around for a while.
Lady Hester Stanhope was a famous woman explorer.
Another idea I hear quite a bit is that my women are too strong-minded for the Regency era. Really? It is, of course, true that the dominant (male) opinion of women in Regency times saw them as adjuncts to their husbands; meek creatures who needed to be protected from the harsh realities of life, and who did not have a thought their husbands didn’t put there. Women lacked the physical strength or mental capacity, so such men said, to understand anything outside of the domestic sphere. Some women undoubtedly accepted their assigned role. Some did not.
Here’s an article about Regency business women, including the owners of two highly successful banks. And here’s another about Georgian and early Victorian women who didn’t so much as break the mould as refuse to even get into it. And yes, a woman — or at least a lady — who refused to conform faced consequences. How serious those were depended on how much power she held. If she was wealthy and single or a widow, or if her marriage settlement gave her control of her own finances, people might gossip behind her back, but that would be it.
Those further down the social scale faced less of a barrier to independence, at least in terms of income-earning. Women still commonly worked alongside their men in the family trade, though this would change in more successful merchant families in the Victorian era. And women, since they were cheaper than men, filled many positions that required deftness rather than strength in industries as diverse as cotton mills, mines, and china painting.
Many people believe that, in the past, marriage was the only option for women, and that unmarried women were to be pitied. Certainly, men wrote this way during the Regency era, and especially in the Victorian era that followed. I write romance, so marriage tends to be on the table as reasonable choice. But research suggests one third of all women never married. Shortage of men during the Napoleonic Wars might be one reason. Loss of independence and the risks of childbirth were right up there, too, as I’ve written in an earlier post. And the frequent incidence of two close female friends who set up house together and are fond companions may well include many platonic relationships, but we have some rather frank diaries that witness to what today would be same-sex marriages.
Kyz Saikal, a woman warrior from Turkish history, as featured on a Turkish stamp
The Victorian era, was also responsible for removing the glamour of woman as warrior.
Women played an important role in the British military, performing a wide range of services until the mid-nineteenth century. In the eighteenth-century stories, songs and ballads about female soldiers — women who in real life dressed as their male counterparts to go to war or sea — enjoyed an enormous popularity and serve to challenge our contemporary notion that Florence Nightingale was the first woman to work in a modern combat situation. The Amazons’ stories, however, changed over time and by the nineteenth century had to be sanitized to conform to a more genteel and fixed concept of femininity. Gender had increasingly become identified as a biological entity rather than a social and external construction. Thus the female soldiers came to be regarded as aberrations of nature rather than slightly risqué heroines and military historians rewrote earlier armies into all-male institutions. [Julia Wheelwright. “Amazons and Military Maids” in Women’s Studies International Forum: Volume 10, Issue 5, 1987, Pages 489-502]
As for military sports, archery was popular with both genders, and we have evidence of women fencers in the Georgian and the Victorian eras, so presumably in the Regency too. The participants were ladies, who had the leisure for such sports. Women boxers were of the lower sort, but a popular drawcard. My own women warriors are outliers, being foreign-born, in an imaginary Central Asian kingdom headed by a non-traditional woman and her supportive husband. Iran and Central Asia have an ancient tradition of female warriors, which certainly would have been legendary by the end of the eighteenth century, when my Mahzad was kagana in Para-Daisa Vada, east of the Caspian Sea. But Mahzad had the stories there to build on as she raised her own daughters and their female bodyguards.
Dr James Barry trained in Edinburgh, performed the first Caesarian in which both woman and child lived in around 1820, and was discovered to be a woman after his/her death in 1860.
A recent review assured the world that my female healer in To Mend the Broken-Hearted was anachronistic in her insistence on cleanliness in her sick room. The reviewer claimed special knowledge because of her profession, and pointed out that the relationship between hygiene and patient health depended on developing a germ theory of health, and even after that, was established only with great difficulty between the end of the nineteenth century and first part of the twentieth century. Which is true, as far as received wisdom passed on in the medical training of Western physicians. It is an incomplete truth, however. Established medicine fought vigorously to resist the idea that doctors were killing their patients by refusing to wash their hands.
But as early as the mid eighteenth century, James Lind (the same man who introduced citrus fruit to naval vessels to reduce scurvy) observed that patients in clean sickrooms were more likely to get well than patients in dirty conditions. He later practiced as a physician in Edinburgh, and Edinburgh-trained doctors have been prominent in the history of medical hygiene. I’ve mentioned Alexander Graham, another Edinburg man, in my article on hand-washing and puerperal fever. Doctors continued to resist the idea that they carried disease from sick people to the birthing chamber for a long time after Graham proposed it.
Meanwhile, though, the navy continued Lind’s prescription of clean sickrooms, and a number of others practiced cleanliness as part of the more general idea of disinfection, a custom that goes back to at least the Greeks, if not earlier. Without a proper theory of the causes of illness, our ancestors could still see that cleanliness and disinfection made a difference.
The practice of keeping women sequestered in their own quarters made medical practice by women essential in the Eastern world.
Add to this, my female healer was trained in Persian and Arabic medical practice. Persian treatises on cleanliness in the sickroom go back into ancient history. The holy texts of both Islam and Judaism command hygiene as a response to illness.
Islamic medicine developed further through many translations from the East and West in the Abbasid Period. Muslim and non-Muslim physicians combined early Indian and Greek medicine and systemised it further. Some works during this period are devoted to hygiene (hifz al-sihha), while the maintenance of health is included in general medical books as well. For example, Ibn Sīnā (or Avicenna; d. 1037) discussed hygiene in his Canon of Medicine (Al-Qānûn fi’t-tıb). In his system of medicine, medical practice was combined with physical and psychological factors, drugs and diets — or “holistic” medicine. [Hakan Coruh, Theology, Health, and Hygiene]
My reviewer’s knowledge of the history of her profession is undoubtedly excellent, but only as far as it relates to main-stream Western medical training in the past 150 years.
Another reviewer was scathing about my villainous vicar’s misappropriation of funds in Lord Calne’s Christmas Ruby. The bishop gets the tithe, not the rector, she said. In the Regency era, the tithes went straight to the rector, and there was such abuse of the system that it led to legislation a few years later. I’ve written about the regency system here.
Ah well. If I’m going to continue resisting the whole author’s note idea, I suppose I’m going to see more reviews where I’m wrongly accused of poor research. And I’m still not intending to have a character called Tiffany, because truth is stranger than fiction.