In Search of Northanger Abbey: Farleigh Hungerford Castle

By Nancy Bilyeau

Jane Austen is revered for the characters she created, for her wit, and for how she fuses an acerbic, unblinking view of human nature with deep stores of empathy.  I believe that, among her arsenal of gifts, also lies a talent for writing "place." Austen mixed descriptions of her most iconic creations—Pemberley, Mansfield Park, Kellynch Hall—with those of "real" places she visited and knew well, from London's West End to Lyme Regis to Bath.

When it comes to Northanger Abbey, that talent is on full display. As in Persuasion, Austen brings Bath vividly to life. She also creates an imposing country house in Northanger Abbey, the manor house of the Tilney family located in Gloucestershire.

When reading the novel closely — and writing my sequel, The Heiress of Northanger Abbey — I admired the evocative, if not precise, description of Northanger Abbey, a product of Austen's imagination. The novel tells us it was once an abbey for nuns. Based on the usual trajectory, we can assume that, after Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries, the abbey was closed to religious life. Maybe the nuns received adequate pensions, or perhaps they starved. But as for the building itself, it's logical to think it was sold to a courtier friendly to King Henry or Thomas Cromwell.  

In Austen's novel, the Tilney family did not enter into it until much later, perhaps two centuries later. In the early18th century, a Tilney purchased the manor house and modernized it: Northanger Abbey was a massive quadrangle that retains its Gothic arches and heavy stone walls. But in the story, General Tilney, the family patriarch, is proud of the "modern" kitchen he installed. The house also features smooth parquet floors, modern sash windows, elegant carpets, and "Rumford" fireplaces, invented in the 1790s. The house has a modern "bell system," General Tilney's pride and joy.

So we know that Northanger Abbey has been made comfortable and stylish in line with Regency ideals.

What a disappointment for Catherine Morland, the novel's heroine! She was thrilled to receive an invitation to Northanger Abbey, not only because it's the home of Henry Tilney, whom she is falling in love with, but because abbeys are supposed to be spooky ruins, filled with dark, dusty corridors, secret passageways, and cobwebs. This belief supposedly stems from Catherine's passion for Gothic literature.

I'd like to pause here and say that Catherine Morland is not the only one who lets her Gothic imagination run away with her. Here are four different book covers of Northanger Abbey, two of which seem to be fairly accurate renditions of the house in the novel; one is more like Dracula's castle, hanging off a cliff; and one is such a fragile ruin that nobody could spend the night there, much less live there!

But to the point of this column, I was curious about why Catherine is so convinced that Northanger Abbey will be a shabby ruin and a place filled with frightening and dangerous possibilities. The other characters attribute it to her fixation on Gothic novels. When Jane Austen wrote this novel, Sir Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto and Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho were popular, along with many imitators. But in those books, the castles are in Europe, and the stories are from the past. Catherine is seventeen and naive, but would she really expect Northanger Abbey to resemble an Italian castle from centuries ago, as described in a clearly fictional tale?

I wondered whether this belief was more common in the 1790s, when Northanger Abbey was written, than we might assume. Did people in the Regency have ideas similar to Catherine Morland's about English castle ruins and former abbeys as repositories of fear and violence, independent of fashionable Gothic fiction? 

I believe the answer is yes, and one such place that may have inspired the darker possibilities of an old castle or abbey is Farleigh Hungerford Castle.

"A Place of Solemn and Romantic Solitude"

Farleigh Hungerford Castle is today a ruin on a hillside, overlooking the rolling Somerset countryside. Owned by English Heritage, it is a much-visited site. Parts of the complex remain roofed and structurally intact, though no one has lived there for centuries, apart from the Priest’s House in the Outer Court, which was repurposed into a tenant farmhouse and was continuously occupied by farm managers into the mid-20th century.

Eastern gatehouse of Farleigh Hungerford Castle. Source: Wikipedia.

The original property was a manor house built before the Norman Conquest, as William the Conqueror gave it to a Norman "companion," Roger de Courcelles, in the 11th century. It passed between various owners until the Hungerford family took over in the 14th century and built a massive quadrangle castle on the site.

I knew of the Hungerfords because, while writing my Joanna Stafford trilogy set in Tudor England, I stumbled upon the bizarre life of Sir Walter Hungerford in my research. It's little known that Cromwell did not die alone--he was executed on Tower Hill after Hungerford, convicted of "high treason, sorcery, and buggery." 

Sir Walter Hungerford seems to have gone insane while imprisoned in the Tower of London, much like Jane Boleyn did two years later. An observer said that on execution day Hungerford "seemed so unquiet that many judged him rather in a frenzy than otherwise." In fact, one report says that Cromwell tried to steady Hungerford, saying, "There is no cause for you to fear. If you repent and be heartily sorry for what you have done, there is for you mercy enough for the Lord, who for Christ's sake will forgive you. Therefore be not dismayed, and though the breakfast we are going to be sharp, yet, trusting in the mercy of the Lord, we shall have a joyous dinner."

What gives Hungerford even more fame than his death — and provides fodder for stories told centuries later — is his treatment of his wives. James Tunstall, in a 19th-century guidebook, identified Hungerford as “something of a Bluebeard.” Three wives in succession complained of his cruel treatment. He imprisoned his third wife, Elizabeth, in the castle for nearly four years and frequently attempted to poison her. She is said to have survived only by drinking her own urine and eating food secretly supplied by local women.

After Cromwell's arrest, among all the letters found was one by Elizabeth accusing Lord Hungerford:

"Here I have been for three or four years past, without comfort of any creature, and under custody of my lord's chaplain, which hath once or twice poisoned me, as he will not deny under examination. He hath promised my lord that he 'would soon rid him of me,' and I am sure he intendeth to keep his promise."

(In case you're wondering, Elizabeth Hungerford survived her husband and remarried.)

The Hungerfords held Farleigh Hungerford Castle for another century, though the family remained problematic. According to the English Heritage site for the castle, Sir Edward Hungerford was known as "the Spendthrift," legendary both for his extravagance – allegedly paying 500 guineas for a wig – and for his debts. He sold the castle in 1686 to the Baynton family, who lived there until about 1702.

A watercolor sketch of the castle from the early 18th century

The once-proud medieval stronghold was sold for salvage in 1705. Over the following decades, the castle was systematically plundered for its materials and fittings.

In the 18th century, as it continued to fall apart, Farleigh Hungerford Castle became a popular place to visit. It was seen as noteworthy for “its antiquity, its importance, and the beautiful romantic scenery with which it is encompassed."

John Collinson, in The History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, published in 1791, wrote:

"The remains of this castle stand in one of the most rural and picturesque spots within a wide radius of Bath... [The site] displays a scene of fallen grandeur, where overgrown towers and ivy-bound walls awaken the mingled sentiments of pleasure and melancholy."

Did Jane Austen Visit the Castle?

The key to this question is Collinson's writing that Farleigh Hungerford stood "within a wide radius of Bath." It was seven miles away. Jane Austen lived in Bath during two periods of her life. According to Professor Janine Barchas,  "Farleigh (or Farley) Hungerford Castle features prominently in a Bath guidebook owned by the Austen family."

So we have no proof of an Austen visit, but it seems very possible, even likely. If she and her family had gone day-tripping, they would have heard the story of the "Lady Tower," where Lady Elizabeth was said to have been confined by her husband.

The Lady Tower, where Elizabeth Hungerford was allegedly kept prisoner

In the plot of Northanger Abbey, Catherine Morland becomes fixated on stories about the dead mother of Henry Tilney. Her rooms in the abbey are kept separate, and Eleanor, Henry's sister, is very upset that her mother died while she was away. Catherine begins to wonder if there is something cruel about General Tilney, the dominating father of the family, and whether his wife was confined to her room or even if she died of natural causes.

Catherine cannot resist exploring the dead mother's room. While snooping, she is caught by a surprised Henry Tilney. She eventually explains that she feared his father "had not been very fond of" the late Mrs. Tilney.

Henry scolds her for her suspicions. The death was of a "malady," and the General's "value of her was sincere."

Embarrassed, Catherine flees the room in tears.

However, and Austen scholars find this interesting, Henry does tell Catherine that his mother "had much to bear" from General Tilney. And Catherine herself is mistreated when the General, who mistakenly thinks she is an heiress, orders her put out of the house when he discovers she is not.

Is General Tilney a "Bluebeard" guilty of imprisoning wives in his crumbling castle and trying to poison at least one? No. But he is not an admirable man either. 

These complexities are part of what makes Northanger Abbey, and Jane Austen's other novels, so cherished.

This is the first part in a series of articles I am writing about the inspiration for Northanger Abbey, the place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Learn more:

The Real Bluebeard of Bath:A Historical Model for Northanger Abbey, written by Professor Janine Barchas

The Thing About Austen podcast: General Tilney's bell system and other Northanger episodes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Heiress of Northanger Abbey will be published on September 1st in paperback, hardcover, and ebook. Real Simple magazine put the novel on its list of "Perfect Fall Reads," saying, “You’ll get a touch of that Austen spirit, with a Gothic mystery mixed in.”

"A thrilling mystery for everyone who wishes the Abbey really did have deep Gothic secrets--including some more dangerous than Catherine Morland ever dreamed!" -- Claudia Gray, NYT bestselling author of the Mr. Darcy and Miss Tilney series

To learn more, go to Nancy Bilyeau's website.

The Marriage Drama of Frances Vane Stewart, 3rd Marchioness of Londonderry

  By Lauren Gilbert

Lady Frances Anne Emily Vane-Tempest, Marchioness of Londonderry (1800-1865) and her Son George Henry Robert Charles William Vane-Tempest, Viscount Seaham, later 5th Marquess of Londonderry (1821-1884) by Thomas Lawrence, public domain

The Hon. Frances Anne Vane Tempest was born January 17, 1800, in St. James’s Square, London. Frances Anne was admired and respected for her successes as a political and a society hostess, her business acumen, and her position in society. She capably ran estates in England and Ireland, and was known for being strong minded. Her background certainly prepared her to think for herself, to trust her own judgment, and to stand her ground. Her parents were fascinating people in their own rights.

Her father was Sir Henry Vane-Tempest of Long Newton, County Durham, 2nd Bearonet. He was born with the last name of Vane, and added Tempest by royal patent, after he inherited his late maternal uncle John Tempest’s estates in County Durham and Wynyard in 1793. This inheritance made him very wealthy, as the estates included significant coal mines. His uncle’s will required that the name Tempest be adopted. He replaced his uncle as M.P. for the City of Durham 1794-1800 and for County Durham 1807-1813. Also a sportsman, he owned a successful racing stable, including a horse named Hambletonian. (Henry gambled, and won, 3000 pounds on this horse to win at Newmarket in March 1799.) Sir Henry had a bad reputation as womaniser, and was known for having a bad temper. Henry Vane-Tempest’s father died in 1794, and he inherited the title, becoming 2nd Baronet. He had one sibling, his sister Frances, who married Michael Angelo Taylor, M. P. for the City of Durham. Frances’s marriage to Mr. Taylor caused an estrangement, but brother and sister eventually reconciled. Sir Henry also had an illegitimate son, named John, born about 1792, who apparently remained in County Durham. In April 1799, he married Anne Catherine McDonnell, Countess of Antrim.

Anne Catherine MacDonnell was born in 1775 in County Durham to Randal MacDonnell, 6th Earl of Antrim and 1st Marquis of Antrim and Viscount Dunluce, and his wife Letitia Morres. The Marquis and his lady left no sons. When he died in 1791, the Marquisate became extinct. However, the Earldom had a remainder which allowed it to pass on to daughters if there were no sons. As the eldest surviving daughter, Anne Catherine became Countess of Antrim and Viscountess Dunluce in her own right. She also inherited significant property in Northern Ireland. She met Sir Henry when she was about 18 years old, and her family tried to discourage the match, to no avail. Lady Anne and Sir Henry were married at her home in Hanover Square, London.

Although it seemed a good match, both being young, good looking and wealthy, unfortunately, it was not. Sir Henry was bad tempered and neglectful; both were extravagant and fond of partying. Lady Anne and Sir Henry alienated her family, and Lady Anne did not like Sir Henry’s sister, Frances Taylor, who visited frequently. Frances Anne, the only surviving child of the marriage, was born at Sir Henry’s estate of Long Newton, in County Durham. According to her own account, her parents were by turns neglectful and harsh, leaving her to form a close attachment to her aunt Mrs. Taylor, who was kind and paid attention to her. She also became scheming and independent.

Frances Anne was allowed to visit her aunt and formed a friendship with her half-brother. Sir Henry at least showed her affection, gave her money, and wrote his daughter affectionate notes when she was away. She formed a great attachment to him, although she and her mother never seemed to become close. Sir Henry’s death on August 1, 1813, was a serious blow to Frances Anne. She was 13 years old and a significant heiress.

The power structure changed. Frances Anne was now the owner of her father’s estates. Her father’s will left Frances Anne to the joint guardianship of her mother and her aunt. Her mother kept her own fortune and inherited personal property from Sir Henry, as well. Disagreements between Lady Anne and Mrs. Taylor flared up, and the result was that Frances Anne became a Ward in Chancery. Before leaving Wynyard, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor made sure that Frances Anne understood her position fully, and incited Frances Anne to oppose her mother. Frances Anne also had a temper and quarrelled with her mother. After a quarrel, in the heat of her anger, Frances Anne wrote to her aunt appealing for rescue. She was then about 14 years old. Her aunt responded by appealing to the Count of Chancery. The Countess of Antrim and Mrs. Taylor duly pursued the case in London.

In the process of the case, the Countess of Antrim consulted with John Beckett, Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Mr. Beckett, a friend of the late Sir Henry, offered her advice and (apparently) a flirtation. During this period, because no one could seem to handle her, Frances Anne was set up, in the care of her governess Mrs. Cade, in her own establishment, a house in Portman Square, London. Frances Anne, who was basically on her own, without effective supervision, made the acquaintance of Mr. Beckett’s younger brother, Edmund, who was about 24 and engaged to be married. Thus, drama began.

Frances Anne and Edmund began a relationship where they spent time together during the days and engaged in a clandestine correspondence. He even gave her a ring. This situation lasted about 4 months until Mrs. Cade came across their correspondence. Unbelievably, neither her mother nor her governess, nor Edmund’s brother (nor apparently Edmund’s betrothed) noticed this very shocking situation until this point. Frances had to give back the ring he had given her and his letters; Edmund returned the letters she had written to him. The whole affair remarkably seemed to have occurred without notice by society, and did not generate a scandal.

Marriage was an unavoidable issue for a major heiress of the time, and Frances Anne was no exception, despite her youth. Even though she was a minor and had guardians, she had no hesitation in speaking for herself and turned down more than one proposal. She was looking forward to being presented at court at age 17, but this plan was derailed by a marriage, this time by her mother. The Countess of Antrim remarried on June 27, 1817, to a singer named Edmund Phelps. She had met Mr. Phelps approximately a month or so previously. A wedding after such a brief acquaintance would have been surprising enough, but Mr. Phelps was a singer, a man of no fortune or connections of his own. The fact that he took his wife’s name, MacDonnell, afterwards did little to mask the state of affairs. Frances Anne did not attend, and the marriage was considered undignified, to say the least. Frances Anne’s presentation was postponed until 1818.

The newspapers reported Frances Anne’s presentation at court in February 1818. The Queen held a drawing room for the celebration of her birthday, which was attended by the Prince Regent and other members of the royal family. Frances Anne was presented by her mother, the Countess of Antrim. Following her presentation, she no was longer under her governess’s watch and, at 18, was maturing into a woman of some stature. Her mother and her aunt took her about to different society events. (Not together; they each accompanied her to separate events.) According to her biography, written by Edith, Marchioness of Londonderry, based on Frances Anne’s memoir, she met Lord Charles Stewart at her mother’s home early in February 1818.

Lord Charles Stewart was over 20 years older than she, a widower with a son, and she was not overly impressed, even though he was related to the Foreign Secretary, and was serving as Ambassador to Austria. Despite the slow start, she saw more of him at her mother’s home and at court. Mrs. Taylor did not care for the connection for various reasons, but the Countess of Antrim was completely supportive. As Frances Anne and Lord Charles saw more of each other, they became attached, and, in April of 1818, she accepted his proposal, without discussing the matter with either her mother or aunt. Although the Countess of Antrim approved, her aunt and uncle Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were quite angry. As one of her guardians, with Frances Anne being a ward in Chancery, Mrs. Taylor was not a force to be ignored.

The Countess of Antrim requested that the Lord Chancellor’s Court refer her daughter’s case to a Master to determine an appropriate settlement for daughter in relation to her impending marriage to Lord Stewart. Her mother’s petition was reported in the newspapers, including The Commercial Chronicle (London) of Saturday, April 25, 1818. Mrs. Taylor responded with a request of her own, asking that the Countess of Antrim denied contact with her daughter unless Frances Anne was accompanied by her governess. She accused the countess of promoting the match without the consent of either the Court or the co-guardian. She also included a memo detailing her reasons for opposing the marriage of Frances Anne and Lord Charles Stewart. Mrs. Taylor’s petition was also widely reported in great detail. The fireworks began, especially after the Lord Chancellor granted the injunction requiring that no one see Frances Anne without her governess being present.

Mrs. Taylor’s reasons for disapproving of the marriage included the facts that she considered Lord Stewart to be after Frances for her money, that he was too old for her, that he had a bad reputation, that insanity ran in his family, that his title would descend to his son by his previous marriage and Frances’s children would be disadvantaged, and that the marriage was improper for her. As the case went on, Lord Stewart refuted her charges. Although Frances’s fortune surpassed his, he had a respectable fortune and income of his own; he was willing to make settlements for Frances and any children; in his capacity as a soldier and ambassador, he was not a man of ill repute (although he had acquired a reputation of a ladies’ man and a drinker); the charge of insanity in his family was not proved. (He could not refute the age difference.)

The case went on for some months, and the Master ruled that the marriage would not be improper; it might not be the most advantageous marriage, but Lord Stewart had successfully established his situation, and Mr. and Mrs. Taylor had presented no evidence supporting Mrs. Taylor’s claims. In July 1818, although the Lord Chancellor sympathised with Mrs. Taylor, and had talked to Frances Anne himself, he felt he could not overrule the Master’s report, and found the marriage to be not improper. He commented specifically on Frances Anne’s determination to proceed with the marriage. He did, however stipulate that the couple could not celebrate the marriage until after the appeal to the House of Lords was resolved. (Data indicates that there was nothing preventing the settlement negotiations during the appeal.) Mrs. Taylor expressed her determination to appeal. Interestingly, newspaper reports indicate that a house was taken in Putney for Frances Anne and her governess Mrs. Cade in August. Lord Stewart returned to Vienna, where he indicated he planned to stay until the appeal was finished.

Newspaper accounts in November 1818 show that Frances Anne and Mrs. Cade were still in Putney. In January 1819, the Countess of Antrim was not yet in London, but Frances Anne had returned to London and was living in Norfolk Street. Although Mrs. Taylor had expressed her intent to appeal, newspaper accounts indicate she had apparently failed to pursue it vigorously, as the court questioned her about her intentions and ultimately dismissed the application in late January 1819. The Countess of Antrim held a dinner where she entertained Lord Stewart, Frances Anne and others at her home in Bruton Street in mid-February. Mrs. Taylor did try again to have the marriage blocked, but was unsuccessful. In late March 1819, the Order of Restraint preventing their marriage was finally discharged.

Lord Charles and Frances Anne were finally married at her mother’s house in Bruton Street, by special licence, on April 3, 1819. In accordance with Sir Henry’s will, Lord Charles Stewart and his wife took the last name of Vane by Royal Warrant. The entire affair was a cause célèbre. The case was covered extensively by newspapers across the United Kingdom and abroad. A romantic poem, called THE COUNTESS OF CARRICK, dedicated to Frances Anne by name, was widely advertised for sale in February 1819. The whole situation effectively destroyed her relationship with her aunt and uncle. The circumstances had to have been intensely uncomfortable and embarrassing for the couple themselves and their extended family, to have so much attention focused on such personal matters.

Charles William Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry (1778-1854) by James Godsell Middleton, photo by BotMultiChill, July 5, 2020-public domain

Fortunately, the couple enjoyed a long and prosperous marriage and had 6 children. She became a noted hostess. They purchased properties, including Holdernesse House (later renamed Londonderry House) in London and Seaham Hall in County Durham. Upon the suicide of Lord Charles’s half-brother in 1822, Charles became the 3rd Marquis of Londonderry. Subsequently, he was also granted the titles Earl Vane and Viscount Seaham, both of which were remaindered to heirs from his marriage to Frances Anne (an answer to Mrs. Taylor’s concern). They expanded the coal industry on their estates and developed a port at Seaham to facilitate shipping. Already quite affluent, they became even wealthier. Frances Anne was quite interested and active in these concerns and, before Charles died, their family was among the wealthiest in the UK. When Charles died in 1854, the title of Marquis of Londonderry went to his oldest son Frederick by his first wife, and the titles of Earl Vane and Viscount Seaham to his son George, his oldest son with Frances Anne. She ran the businesses herself. Sadly, Frederick died without an heir and Frances Anne’s son George became the 5th Marquis of Londonderry. Frances Anne died on January 20, 1865, at Seaham.

Sources include:

FRANCES ANNE The Life and Times of Frances Anne Marchioness of Londonderry and her husband Charles Third Marquess of Londonderry, by Edith, Marchioness of Londonderry, D. B. E. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd. 1958.

THE LADIES OF LONDONDERRY Women and Political Patronage, by Diane Urquhart. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020 (1st published by I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. in 2007).

Christening record: City of West Minster Archives, Westminster Baptisms, transcriptions, via FindMyPast showing birthdate January 17, 1800, and baptism date February 14, 1800, in St. James, Piccadilly, Parish.

Marriage Record: Westminster, London, England, Church of England Marriages and Bans, 1754-1935; St. George, Hanover Square, 1798-1802, p. 132 of 616, showing marriage by special license at the home in Bruton Street by special license on the 3rd day of April 1819, via Ancestry .

Various newspaper articles from multiple cities, via BritishNewspaperArchive , including THE GLOBE, Friday, February 27, 1818, p. 2, London, England, one of many which covered her presentation; COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE, Saturday, April 25, 1818, p. 4, London, England, among those which discussed her mother’s petition regarding a settlement; BELL’S WEEKLY MESSENGER, April 26, 1818, p. 6-7, London, England, one of those which addressed Mrs. Taylor’s counter petition; BALDWIN’S WEEKLY JOURNAL, Saturday, July 18, 1818, p. 3, London, England which discussed the judgement; THE DURHAM COUNTY ADVERTISER, Saturday, August 29, 1818, p. 2, which mentioned her sojourn in Putney; MORNING POST, Saturday, February 6, 1819, p. 2, London, England, which contained the advertisement for THE COUNTESS OF CARRICK; EXETER FLYING POST, Thursday, April 9, 1819, p. 4, Devon, England, one of those which reported that the order of restraint was lifted; and the SUSSEX ADVERTISER, Monday, April 12, 1819, p. 4, Sussex, England, among the many which reported their wedding. THE LONDON GAZETTE, published May 26, 1819, issue: 17480, p. 906, found at TheGazette, reported the name change to Vane (as did other papers).

Images: Wikimedia Commons

Lauren Gilbert is fascinated with English literature and history, particularly the Regency era.  Lauren has a BA degree in liberal arts English and Art History.  A long-time member of JASNA, she delivered a breakout session at the Annual General Meeting in 2001.  She was keynote speaker for Jane Austen Fest in Mt Dora, FL in 2022.  A RATIONAL ATTACHMENT is her second novel.  Her essays appear in both volumes of CASTLES, CUSTOMS AND KINGS: True Tales by English Historical Fiction Authors. Her current project is a non-fiction book.  Visit her Amazon Author Page, her Facebook author page or  her website for more information.  

Club London in the Georgian and Regency Eras

By Lauren Gilbert

PAUL FARMER / White's Club St James's Street / CC BY-SA 2.0

During this time of social distancing and staying home, people miss socialising with friends. Just as we do, people in the Georgian and Regency eras enjoyed associating with others who shared their interests, a comfortable place to stay when traveling to another city to take care of business or for entertainment, and sharing a meal with friends or colleagues. For men during the Georgian and Regency eras, these activities frequently included a club.

In their earliest form, clubs were focused on providing food and drink. Some evolved from cocoa and coffee shops and taverns in the late 16th and early 17th century. Men visiting from the country wanted a comfortable place to sleep, eat a good dinner, and meet with friends or associates. Other men, living in town, wanted a place to go when they did not want to be at home (or somewhere else). Many clubs were formed with a political bent. Clubs began as a commercial enterprise. Then members’ clubs came into being. Membership became structured, with dues and rules. Some limited membership to a specific number. Membership criteria could be strict, good breeding and connections in some cases counting for more than money.

Gambling seemed to be a chief attraction of many of the clubs. Historical novels set in these eras frequently reference Brooks, Whites and Boodles, with excesses at the gambling tables (dissipated young men whose fortunes and properties were won or lost at the turn of a card; callow youths involved with frivolous bets, such as a race between raindrops on windows, cockroach races, etc.; the betting book at White’s, which could cause notoriety if one’s name (especially that of a woman) appeared). Jane Austen’s brother Henry Austen (the banker) was known to have visited White’s, although it does not appear he was a member. While some clubs did support, if not encourage, high stakes gambling, not all clubs were focused on gambling exclusively. We will take a look at some of the clubs that catered to people in particular groups or specific interests.

The Sublime Society of Beef Steaks got its start about 1735 when an actor named Henry Rich, in his private room at Covent Garden Theatre, used to fix himself a steak in his private room at 2:00. One Saturday, Mordaunt, Earl of Peterborough happened to be there when Rich laid his steak on his gridiron to cook. It smelled so delicious, according to the story, the earl invited himself to share Rich’s meal. Thereafter, a group formed for dinner on Saturdays, where they enjoyed steak, toasted cheese and a variety of beverages including port, whisky toddy and porter. The membership was limited to 24 persons; a person desiring to join had to wait until a vacancy occurred. (George III’s son, George, Prince of Wales, supposedly was one who had to wait.) The Covent Garden Theatre burned down, so the group met at the old Lyceum Theatre. When that burned down, they met at the Bedford Coffee House until the new Lyceum was built, and they returned there. Rich’s original gridiron decorated the ceiling. The members sported blue coats over buff waistcoats adorned with gold buttons embellished with a design of a gridiron and the motto “Beef and Liberty.” They met at 5:00 each Saturday from November to June at the Lyceum, until the club dissolved in 1867.

The Guards’ Club was formed in 1810, and was the first members’ club in London, established to be a non-profit entity. The Prince Regent and the Duke of Wellington felt that Guards officers, returning from the Peninsula, needed a place that was affordable, yet with better surroundings than chophouses and taverns. The goal was comfortable but not luxurious accommodation. The club moved from location to location, depending on rents and funding. For a period of time, they occupied a house across the street from White’s on St. James’s Street and offered good food, decent wine and cards played for low stakes. They moved again, and finally built their own premises in Pall Mall. They were able to remain at that location until the end of World War I. A large increase in membership after World War I required larger accommodation, so that house was sold, and the club moved to a larger building in Brook Street. After World War II ended, they moved again to a different property, that (unfortunately) had been damaged and needed expensive renovation. Financial problems resulted and they finally merged with the Cavalry Club on January 1, 1976.

The Roxburghe Club  was a club for book lovers established after the sale of the library of the Duke of Roxburghe, which was one of the great libraries of the day, which concluded June 17, 1812. Its membership was men who loved and who could afford books, comprised of a mixed group of aristocrats, businessmen and academics. The original group dined together on the night of June 17, 1812 at the Saint Alban’s Club. Thereafter, they met annually on June 17 for dinner. The dinners became a feature of the club, and were held at various locations, including Grillion’s, the Clarendon and Albion House. These dinners became known as the Roxburghe Revels, not least because of the quantity of alcoholic beverages consumed.

The members of the Roxburghe Club were (and still are) known for producing facsimile editions of rare books and publishing medieval texts. The membership was, and still is, limited to 40 members. They still dine every year on or near the date of June 17. Although originally made up of men, women are now included in the membership. You can visit their website  to see the membership list from 1812 to present, and what books are being produced, which are available for purchase.

A final example of a club established for a particular group was the Royal Society Club. As its name suggests, this club was a social club established in 1743 for members of the Royal Society, where the scientists and philosophers met for dinner every Thursday before the Royal Society meetings. The President of the Royal Society was the president of the club. Eventually, Membership was fixed at 40 members. Initially, most of the members were Fellows of the Royal Society. Members paid a fee of  one shilling six pence per dinner. Members also contributed a sum of 6 shillings into a fund, intended to cover any excess needed if the members’ 1 shilling 6 pence fees were not sufficient to cover the charges for a meal. Visitors were welcome, although not for 2 consecutive Thursdays. Available data indicates the Royal Society Club actually came into existence much earlier, possibly as early as 1731, as The Club of the Royal Philosophers. Some earlier form of this group may have existed as early as 1709. There appears to be no record of when or why the name changed, but it appears the shorter name was in use in 1786.

Royal Society Club members were elected, and there were usually more applicants than vacancies. Dinners were held at various locations, and records were kept of what was consumed. (Black pudding was apparently a popular side.) Gifts of food to the club were apparently fairly common; there were special rules established. Venison, beef, a turtle, and salmon are all among foods listed as comestibles given to the club. Discussions of science, the arts and other matters over dinner were apparently lively. Because there were applicants who were rejected, a new club was formed in 1847 called The Philosophical Club, made up Fellows actively involved in the natural sciences. Although they also met for dinner, they seemed to have a more serious intent. The two clubs merged in 1901. A history THE ANNALS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLUB OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY was published in 1919.

Clubs in London provided their members the comfort of a home away from home and the society, in many cases, of individuals with similar interests and tastes. A common thread is the pleasure of a shared meal, good food and drink, in company. One cannot help imaging the conversations that must have taken place around some of these tables.

Sources include:

Chancellor, E. Beresford. MEMORIALS OF ST. JAMES’S STREET. 1922: New York, Brentano’s.

LeJeune, Anthony. THE GENTLEMEN’S CLUBS OF LONDON. 1984: Dorset Press, New York. Photographs by Malcolm Lewis.

Archive.org Bonney, T. G. ANNALS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CLUB OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY. 1919: Macmillan & Co., London HERE. 

GoogleBooks. Timbs, John. CLUBS AND CLUB LIFE IN LONDON. 1872: Chatto and Windus, London HERE ; THE NATIONAL REVIEW Vol. VIII September to February 1886-7. 1887: W. H. Allen & Co., London. “Club Sketches of Old London” by H. W. Hoare, pp. 225-241 HERE.

Royalsocietypublishing.org THE ROYAL SOCIETY JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE. “The Thursday’s Club Called the Club of the Royal Philosophers, And Its Relation To The Royal Society Club.” By T. E. Allibone, F.R.S. pp. 73-80. June 1, 1971 HERE.

(All online sources accessed July 19-20, 2020.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lauren Gilbert was introduced to English authors as a child. Lauren has a Bachelor of Arts degree in liberal arts English with a minor in Art History. A long time member of JASNA, she has presented a number of programs. She lives in Florida with her husband. Her first book, HEYERWOOD A Novel, is available. A RATIONAL ATTACHMENT is her second novel, recently released. A long-time contributor to the English Historical Fiction Authors blog, her work is included in both volumes of CASTLES, CUSTOMS AND KINGS: True Tales by English Historical Fiction Authors. She is also writing a book about seven powerful women in Regency Europe. For more information, visit her website.

Entailment in English Inheritance Laws during the Regency Era

By Josi Kilpack

Rosings Park in Pride and Prejudice 1995 

Have you ever found yourself looking sideways at a plot element in an historical fiction novel or period drama movie or television show and wondered—but why? Why did Mr. John Dashwood kick out his stepmother and half-sisters after their father Henry Dashwood died in Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility? Why would Anne de Bourgh inherit Rosings Park after her mother dies, and why wouldn’t Mrs. Bennet inherit Longbourn, thus securing a living for her and her daughters in Pride and Prejudice?

Jane Austen uses English inheritance laws as a plot element in many of her novels. It can be very confusing to the modern reader. Entailments feature prominently. The word gets batted around often enough that it is easy to believe that all estates are entailed, all entailments are bad, and the English inheritance laws hate women. I’m not a historian or an expert, but I have researched this and believe I’ve got it right. If I didn’t, please let me know if the comments.

What an Entailment is:

An entailment is essentially a clause in a will that extended beyond the life of the person who made the will. The clause, therefore, survives the grantor of the entailment for a certain number of generations. Usually, three or four. So Bob Sr. draws up his will with an entailment that settles the estate he’s worked so hard to build on the next male heir for four generations, which means Bob Jr. becomes the automatic owner when Bob Sr. dies, Bob III becomes the automatic owner when Bob Jr. dies, and Bob IV becomes the automatic owner when Bob III dies. When Bob IV inherits, the entailment is satisfied. He can do whatever he wants with it—divide it, sell it, turn it into a killer skate park, and leave it to whoever he wants to.

Sounds terribly controlling to make such a big decision for four generations of Bob’s, right? But there is method to the madness and there are legal remedies. The purpose of entailments was not to be egomaniacs (well, for most people that wasn’t the purpose) it was to assure that estates were not broken up, which divided the necessary income to sustain the houses and buildings. Keeping estates intact also assured those making the entailments that the status of their family line would remain strong. Land was power—still is—and it can’t be too hard on the man for looking at the twelve-year-old heir apparent and thinking “I have to protect him from himself.” Creating an entailment that didn’t let an owner ruin everything prior generations had built ensured that the status and wealth could continue.

Entailments were also not only reserved for the first-born son, or a son at all. If someone owned property not bound by an existing entailment, they could entail it on whoever they wanted. The second born son, the youngest son, the eldest daughter. The entailment usually ran with a position in the family, but there was no restriction on what position and what gender that position had to be in order to receive the entailed property. That we see it so often entailed on the oldest son was due mostly to the cultural adherence to primogeniture—first born sons inheriting, which is based upon inheritance laws that the courts used to determine who inherited if someone died without a will. This type of inheritance law still exists for intestate persons in most developed countries, though in most developed countries it would be equally split between all children (I think.)

David Bamber as the odious Mr Collins in the television series of Pride
and Prejudice (1995). Because of the entailment of Mr Bennet's estate,
he is the heir to Longbourn, not his wife and daughters

It was also possible to break an entailment. Let’s say that Bob Jr. thinks this whole entailment thing is a bad deal—it’s not fair that “his” property has already been decided for him. He can’t sell it, he can’t divide it, he’s limited in the way he uses it all because Dad made these decisions. He can break the entailment by getting Bob III—the next generation of direct male heir entitled to the entailment—to agree with him and together they can submit affidavits or something of the sort saying they want the entail broken. If Bob III goes along with this, he will be forgoing his inheritance of the land and allowing Bob Jr. to make his own decisions. This is a little risky for Bob III. Maybe Bob Jr. is a drunk, maybe he’s a gambler. Surely they make some decision so that Bob III isn’t cut out—otherwise why would Bob III go along with breaking the entailment at all—but if Bob Jr. in some way messes things up, Bob III could end up with nothing. 

In the case of Mr. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, Longbourn was entailed on the next male heir in line to receive—probably the first born. Mr. Bennet only had daughters, which meant there was no direct heir—heir apparent—for the entailment to pass to. The entailment then went sideways in the family tree to the next male heir, a cousin of Mr. Bennet, Mr. Collins who is the lucky guy. The option of getting Mr. Collins to break the entailment is not available because an entailment can only be broken by the heir apparent and Mr. Collins is the heir presumptive—presumptive because there is still a chance that should Mrs. Bennet die, Mr. Bennet could sire a son with his next wife who would then be a direct heir to Mr. Bennet and the entailment would settle on him. Until Mr. Bennet’s death there is still a chance for an heir apparent. The entailment, therefore, can’t be broken by a “possible” heir. Mr. Collins will inherit, leaving Mrs. Bennet and the five Miss Bennets without financial security.

What an Entailment is not:

Infinite. The grantor determines a number of generations, but it can’t go on forever. Back to our Bobs—Bob IV would have been the last to receive the entailed property. He could then decide if he wanted to create a new entailment or take the chance of the estate being broken up by future generations. He’s going to spend his life taking care of it—does he want to risk the chance of Bob V undoing it?

Entailments were not the only way a person inherited. People could will things however they wanted. Entailments were usually reserved for large estates and plenty of inheritances had nothing to do with entailments. If a person in an entailed position purchased additional lands or houses or whatever, those items would be outside of the entailment and he could leave them to whomever he wished however he wished to.

Maggie Smith as Lady Violet Crawley, the Dowager Countess of Grantham
in the television series Downton Abbey (2010-2015). The first season revolved around
her desire to break the entailment set up by previous generations of the Crawley family
so that her granddaughter Lady Mary Crawley could inherit the estate.

A men’s only club?:

So, then, how does it work out for women? Women could have entailments settled on them as well—Lady Catherine de Bourgh from Pride and Prejudice and Mrs. Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility were probably recipients of entailments—one way or another they both controlled their own fortunes out right. Things got tricky, however, when a woman married because anything she owned would legally become her husband’s on marriage. This was viewed as a process of simplification for a government who viewed a married couple as one legal person. The reason women didn’t have the right to vote during this time was because it was assumed that the husband and wife would agree on an issue and therefore the husband’s vote represented them both. Granted, there were a lot of people talking about women having smaller brains and less capacity that makes us struggle to give the benefit of the doubt on this issue, but this was the law’s defense.

Women were also not always left out in the cold when their husband died and the entailed heir took possession. Most men created a settlement for their wife when they married as part of the marriage contract for this exact reason, often investing a portion of his wife’s dowry to ensure she was cared for in case of his death. Mr. Bennet explains that he should have done this, and he didn’t because he assumed, he would have a male heir. It was lazy and irresponsible on his part but made for a good plot devise. A husband could also create a jointure at any point in his marriage, which was money set aside to provide for his wife upon her death—this money could not be part of the entailment, however.

The defense on the male-centric trickle down of wealth during the Regency era was the same defense that had been reflected in most societies over time—men would take care of women. And most of them did. But when they didn’t, the cultural limitations on women put them in a very disadvantaged position. A woman could not vote, so she could not vote for any candidate who might champion her cause politically. She could not hold office, which meant the positions were always held by men and voted in by men—women’s rights were likely not very high on their list of concerns in need of being addressed.

A widow could inherit from her husband if he chose for her to be the beneficiary. She could also tie up her property in what was called a separate estate before marriage which appointed a trustee to manage her holdings so that her husband couldn’t get it. This sort of arrangement did not happen often, and certain factors would have to line up just right for it to work, but it did happen. Many estates had “Dowager Cottages” which was a house set up for the widow to live in for the rest of her life. The Dowager Lady Grantham from Downton Abby lived in the Dowager House after her husband’s death. Sons commonly did look after their mother and sisters after they inherited which caused little change in living situations and secured women’s futures for them.

Am I grateful that inheritance laws provide for equality these days? Absolutely, but it was somewhat of a relief to understand that the reasons behind the inequality of the Regency era wasn’t “necessarily” due to meanness, it was cultural ideals translated into law that usually worked for the good of everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~

Josi S. Kilpack is the bestselling author of several Proper Romance and Proper Romance Historical series and a Cozy Culinary Mystery series. Her new Regency romance novel, Rakes and Roses, was published by Shadow Mountain Press on May 05, 2020.  A Heart Revealed and Lord Fenton's Folly were Publishers Weekly Best Romance Books of the Year. She and her husband, Lee, are the parents of four children.
WEBSITE | FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM | GOODREADS |

AMAZON

Sea Bathing in the Regency Era

By Megan Walker

Regency era physicians had unique ways of treating various ailments and physical conditions in addition to prescribing herbal remedies and routine care such as exercise, nutrition, etc. Sea bathing is one such treatment prescribed by eighteenth century physicians who believed the water, even the cold temperature of the sea, could be a remedy for certain ailments. Because of this new interest in the medicinal properties of seawater, attitudes about the sea shifted from those of fear and uncertainty to excitement and enthusiasm.

Bathing at Bridlington, Yorkshire

Eighteenth century physicians also prescribed drinking seawater, sometimes mixed with honey or sugar, to their patients in addition to bathing in the sea. This fact is proven in an excerpt from an article published in The Atlantic entitled, The Historic Healing Power of the Beach: "In 1750 Dr. Richard Russell published a treatise, A Dissertation on the Use of Seawater in the Diseases of the Glands, Particularly, the Scurvy, Jaundice, King’s Evil, Leprosy and the Glandular Consumption, in which he advocated using seawater for bathing and drinking. In one case, Russell describes a man suffering from leprosy; a “most troublesome case.” The patient’s head and entire body was “sprinkled over with leprous spots.” But after being prescribed to “drink a pint of sea water every morning during nine months, without any intervals” the patient recovered. The regimens also usually involved bathing in seawater to strengthen and invigorate the body. As seawater drinking became more popular, these kinds of case studies proliferated. The miracle of the sea seemed to provide infinite therapies."

Though there were many sea towns on the coasts of England, the first of which is thought to be a resort in Scarborough, in Yorkshire. I mainly researched Brighton, a fascinating town with a history of the Royal Pavilion and plenty of tourism. While people of various ailments, including the Prince Regent himself, flocked to the sea for whatever medicinal benefits they believed they'd receive, later, many people came simply for the enjoyment of bathing or dipping in the sea.

Sea Bathing at Scarborough

In order to experience the waters fully, men and women often, if not most of the time, attended separate or opposite ends of beaches for the purpose of maintaining privacy and modesty, since some bathed naked. Careful distance was always rendered in the event that this was not the case. "Bathing" doesn't necessarily mean swimming, though we know from paintings and depictions that both men and women in some respects seemed to know how to swim well. An attendant was always nearby to help the person into the water, and would stay with them if needed. Oftentimes bathing in the sea meant a quick, cold dip in the waters, even in freezing temperatures. Jane Austen's cousin said in a letter to her, "I still continue bathing notwithstanding the severity of the Weather & Frost & Snow which is I think somewhat courageous."

Men’s wardrobes while sea bathing were less of a special event, as many did not require anything new or noteworthy, oftentimes bathing in the nude. Women, on the other hand, often wore flannel dresses, even sometimes with weights sewn into the hems of their skirts so as to keep them from floating up, but some women also enjoyed a private nude dip as well. Some women even had special hairstyles and commissioned dresses that were adorned with frills and lace instead of the typical blue costume many wore.

The new BBC drama Sanditon depicts well what a typical bathing experience would look like. A small wheeled carriage house called a bathing machine would be driven out into the water with person or persons inside. Once changed or unrobed in the tight little room, attendants would be waiting. The person would be assisted down into the waters, or a brave person might jump right on in if they were experienced. How long someone bathed was, as far as I found, entirely up to them. These same practices that were used in sea towns were also used out in the country in lakes or ponds for families and friends. The question of how many people actually knew how to float or swim, especially women, is debated, though it seems likely that more men than women took up the sport.

What little we know about sea bathing comes from paintings, drawings, diaries and other writings. Though the sea was first feared, medicinal beliefs changed the minds of many who saw the waters as a miraculous experience, and even further an enjoyable time. Were the waters of Brighton healing for the people and physicians who believed? As much as there are different people in the world, there are different opinions. Some people believed firmly in the healing powers of sea water. Others thought it a foolish notion. Even Jane Austen had her doubts.

Jane Austen's cousin letter can be found in this article: https://www.janeausten.co.uk/tag/sea-bathing/
The Atlantic article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/279175/
More reading on sea towns: http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/number19/sutherland.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~

Megan Walker was raised on a berry farm in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, where her imagination took her to times past and worlds away. While earning her degree in Early Childhood Education, she married her one true love and started a family. But her imaginings of Regency England wouldn’t leave her alone, so she picked up a pen. And the rest is history. She lives in St. Louis, Missouri, with her husband and three children.


Book Purchase links:

https://shadowmountain.com/product/lakeshire-park/

https://www.amazon.com/Lakeshire-Park

facebook.com/authormeganwalker

Instagram: @authormeganwalker

www.authormeganwalker.com

British Amazons

by Maria Grace

As the Georgian period drew to a close, an increasing fascination with the medieval past led to a revival of the English archery tradition. (Sounds nothing like what we do today, does it? SCA friends, I’m looking at you!) The privileged gentry class, not required to work for their living, had time to indulge in pastimes like sporting activities. And indulge they did.

While most sporting activities effectively barred women from participation—exertion, sweating, running and all the odd postures that might be necessary were decidedly unladylike— archery was not only considered an acceptable pastime, but an activity where women could show off their grace and ‘feminine form’ without risk of being considered vulgar. (Vulgarity was considered the kiss of death in polite society.)

 “The acceptability of women practicing and watching archery was rooted in their presence adding to the pastime’s aesthetics. This was something frequently remarked upon by observers: ‘The beauties in the circle of carriages which surrounded the enclosure upon the Heath, out-numbered and out-shone those of any assembly we ever saw.’ … As one writer put it, archery could not fail to display ‘the graces of the female form, in a considerable degree’. …

The male archers no doubt admired and enjoyed such elegant and graceful female forms. Parallels can be drawn here with the new public cultural venues that were being built in many towns of the period and which were notorious as forums for sexual spectatorship and courtship. Indeed, this was part of the very raison d’être of the assembly rooms, pleasure gardens, theatres and halls.…

Archery, complete with the romantic associations of Cupid and his bow and arrows, offered men and women an opportunity to meet, view and enjoy their social equals.”  (Johnes, 2004)

Archery Societies

Against this backdrop, in 1781 Sir Ashton Lever and Thomas Waring formed the influential Toxophilite Society in London. The organization was dedicated to the sport of archery and to socializing. The society would later gain royal patronage in 1787 with the attention of the Prince Regent (ultimately King George IV), becoming the Royal Toxophilite society, which still exists today.

 The success of this society inspired the development of other archery organizations throughout England.  Initially, the societies were male-only clubs.  Some permitted female guests of members to visit to shoot. One thing led to another and soon many had female members. In 1787, the Royal British Bowmen became the first archery society to allow women as full members. Interestingly, the Royal Bowmen had a reputation for being one of the most serious archery clubs of the period. They saw archery was a sport to be mastered, not an excuse to party.

Other societies were a bit less serious and more social. The clubs, like modern leisure organizations, had their own rules, and uniforms, and often used their common interest as an excuse to throw lavish parties and socialize among their peers. (Since club dues, uniforms, and equipment were expensive, the lower orders were effectively barred admission.) “In 1787, ‘several young ladies’ who shot with the Royal British Bowmen were said to have ‘added to their conquests the hearts of young gentlemen of honor and fortune’ and thus the society was responsible for the marriage of ‘not a few happy couples’.” (Johnes, 2004)

(Pride and Prejudice fans may find it interesting to note that in the late 1700’s Hertfordshire had an archery club that did admit women. Derbyshire had a club as well, but it is not clear whether or not it included ladies.)

“Female archers in Lewisham even organized a club of their own in 1788, called The British Amazons, the name referring to the mythic female archer-warriors of antiquity, mentioned by Homer in ancient Greece. A news-cutting from 1789 refers to:
"The elegant and beauteous assemblage of Ladies Archers established last Summer at Blackheath under the name BRITISH AMAZONS, on Saturday last gave a splendid supper and Ball to a Society of Gentlemen who practice the science in the vicinity. Not much is known about The British Amazons as they have no preserved records or regulations.” The society seems have been connected to The Kentish Bowmen. (Arnstad, 2019)

Women Archers in practice

When shooting with their societies, women wore the uniform associated with their group. The Hainault Foresters’ uniform as described in their rules:

Nankeen great coat, black silk collar, dark green silk cape; lappels, cuffs, and pockets, bound with black; full green sleeves down to the elbow, tied with black ribbon in the middle of the arm; a single row of uniform but¬tons, the front of the coat bound with green: black beaver hat, plain green band round the crown, buttoned up on the right side with uniform button and gold twisted loop, with green cockade and feathers. (Arnstad, 2019)

A brace to protect the arm from the bow string and a three fingered shooting glove were worn by participants. A belt to hold a tassel for cleaning arrows, a grease box to anoint the glove and brace and a pouch for arrow also made up the uniform. A quiver was not used for target shooting.
Ladies usually shot at a distance of about fifty yards, men often shot at distances up to one hundred yards. Two targets are placed opposite each other and the archers would then shoot from one to the other. When all the group finished shooting at one target, they would walk up to it, gather their arrows, and shoot back to the one they came from, minimizing the effort spent in retrieving their arrows.

Score was kept with printed cards where hits and their location were registered with a pin instead of pen and ink which would have been difficult to manage on the archery ground. Prizes were often awarded based on scores for where the arrows hit and for the hit nearest the center of the bullseye. (The young lady’s book, 1829)

Despite the acceptance of women in archery societies, including Princess Victoria, who later ascended to the throne as queen, it is noteworthy that the birth of the Olympic movement and modern sports in the 1900s suddenly made women’s participation in the sport controversial.

References

Arnstad, Henrik. The Amazon Archers of England: Longbows, Gender and English Nationalism 1780–1845. Master's thesis, Stockholm University, 2019. Accessed May 10, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/39147585/The_Amazon_Archers_of_England_Longbows_gender_and_English_nationalism_1780_1845

Beard, J.A. Mr. Beard’s Regency Tour Day 3: The Ghosts of Agincourt and the English Artemis, Archery in Regency England. J.A. Beard’s Unnecessary Musings. October 8, 2011. Accessed June 13, 2019, http://riftwatcher.blogspot.com/2011/10/mr-beards-regency-tour-day-3-ghosts-of.html

Beard, J.A. Robin Hood, Agincourt, and Gender Equality? Archery in late Georgian England. English Historical Fiction Authors. August 30, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2019. https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2012/08/robin-hood-agincourt-and-gender.html

Johnes, Martin. Archery, Romance and Elite Culture in England and Wales, c .1780–1840. St Martin’s College, Lancaster. 2004. The Hstorical Associatioin and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.  Accessed May 10, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/203053/Archery_Romance_and_Elite_Culture_in_England_and_Wales_c._1780-1840

The Young Ladys Book: A Manual of Elegant Recreations, Exercises, and Pursuits. London: Vizetelly, Branston, and, Fleet Street, 1829.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though Maria Grace has been writing fiction since she was ten years old, those early efforts happily reside in a file drawer and are unlikely to see the light of day again, for which many are grateful. 

After penning five file-drawer novels in high school, she took a break from writing to pursue college and earn her doctorate. After 16 years of university teaching, she returned to her first love, fiction writing.

Click here to find her books on Amazon. For more on her writing and other Random Bits of Fascination, visit her website. You can also like her on Facebook, or follow on Twitter.

Home Theatricals: A Tarnished Image

by Maria Grace

Jane Austen and home theatricals

While play acting was decidedly a diversion of the wealthy, less affluent members of the gentry participated as well, including Jane Austen and her family. From 1782-1789, while living at the Steventon Rectory, Austen and her family performed modern and classic plays in the family dining parlor and barn. She would have been very familiar with the challenges of putting on such an entertainment: choosing an appropriate play which suited the space available for the performance, the actors available and their relative abilities; setting up the space, crafting the scenery, costumes and props; inviting guests and handling the publicity.

Often participants in amateur theatricals such as these learned the basics of stagecraft at boarding school. There, acting was considered a tool in training elocution and grace of movement. (Performing plays had been part of the public-school curriculum in England since the sixteenth century. (Haugen, 2014))

Scenery for the theatricals offered young people an opportunity to show off their skills in painting the backdrops—flat boards that would be brought in from the side of the stage or dropped down from above. If there was no one artistic in the party, a scene painter might be hired. Costumes and props might be especially made for the event, or repurposed from what was already on hand, depending in no small part, upon the pocketbook of the family hosting the event.

All it all, especially done on a small and modest scale, home theatricals was considered an acceptable activity for young people in search of something to alleviate their boredom. Minimal publicity, a small audience, a suitable play and senior family members en constume put the stamp of innocent diversions on family play-acting. (Vickery, 1998)

On Shaky Moral Grounds

Even so, there many possibly pitfalls for the participants, including issues that the modern observer would not readily recognize.

Jane Austen’s bother James (who along with Henry appeared to be the primary instigators of the theatricals) wrote prologues and epilogues for the plays they performed. In both professional and private theater, these additions, performed before and after the play, creating transitional spaces for the audience to shift into the world of the play and back out into the afterpiece or the real world if there was not afterpiece. (Oftentimes these also contained political and philosophic elements that could make them contentious.) Newspapers and magazines often printed these pieces, both from the public and private stage.

“On the public stage, one of the lead actresses customarily spoke the epilogue, and cultural stereotypes regarding the “loose morals” of women who acted professionally certainly colored the audience’s experience of the epilogue with sexual innuendo. … The private stages did attempt to differentiate themselves from the public stages in one notable way: their prologues and epilogues were spoken by either women or men. Uncoupling both prologue and epilogue from their conventional gendered connotations may have been one way to make them better suited for domestic entertainment, particularly with respectable women’s reputations at stake.” (Haugen, 2014) So simply utilizing the convention of the epilogue already put a home theatrical on shaky moral ground.

Home Theatricals in Novels

Maria Edgeworth

With something so fraught with ambiguity and danger, it is not surprising that Austen and other authors used the home theatrical as a literary means to expose less savory aspects of their characters and their worlds. Three 1814 novels by Jane Austen, Maria Edgeworth and Francis Burney portray theatricals as not only as threats to female virtue, conducive to dangerous entanglements, but having the potential to unleash unacceptable desires and unveil unwelcome personal and social truths. (Just a side note, all three authors had participated in family and home theatricals themselves.)

Francis Burney

All three authors use theatricals to reveal underlying truths about their characters. In Austen’s Mansfield Park, Fanny’s virtue is revealed in her opposition to the entire affair which also reveals the character weakness in Henry Crawford and Maria Bertram. Maria is later ruined by what was begun under the guise of the theatrical.

In Edgeworth’s Patronage the focus in on what a talent for acting might indicate about sincerity and integrity, especially if the actor is female. Being on stage ultimately exhibits the true character of her Georgiana, whose acting prowess reveals her to be essentially vain and insincere, someone for whom all of life is a performance.

Burney’s The Wanderer uses the private theatrical to question and disrupt the established hierarchies of class and gender. As the characters participate in the play, they, along with the readers question identities and categories that are usually clear and well understood. Although by the end of the novel all necessary proprieties have been reestablished, the theatrical provides a space for disorder and uncertainty essentially uncomfortable to the established social status quo.

The treatment of the home theatrical in these novels is different than that found in earlier work, which portrayed the events in a more positive light. This shift reflects an increased concern and discomfort with these performances.

Raising a Little Theater

In the 1790’s attitudes toward home theatricals began to change.

“In large part, this can be attributed to the profound changes taking place in the political and cultural milieu due to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and its aftermath. In such a climate of fear and hostility, extravagant private theatres with lavish displays of opulence became easy targets. While, to a great extent, the press continued to follow the developments at such theatres with avid interest and publish flattering—often to the point of being sycophantic—reviews, the circulation of several pernicious polemical publications and a series of exceptionally scathing caricatures by James Gilray started to have a detrimental effect on public perception.” (Haugen, 2014)

The Pic-Nic Society, principally organized by the Countess of Buckinghamshire, began holding plays in 1802. The society, who utilized a private theatre on Tottenham Street did nothing to improve the public opinion of amateur theater. The group not only performed plays, but hosted an entire evening of entertainments: dancing, singing, card playing and a pic-nic supper—rather like a modern potluck, where all attendees contributed to the meal. With the Countess’ reputation as an inveterate faro player and compulsive gambler, her reputation for aristocratic excess tainted the Pic-Nic Society. With accusations of decadence and debauchery abounding and pointed derogatory caricatures by Gilray (Dilettanti theatricals and blowing up the pic nic society) circulating widely, the Pic-Nic Society folded under the weight of public censure.

“Raising a Little Theater”

Aristocratic excess was hardly the only concern regarding the ‘safety’ and propriety of home theatricals. In Austen’s Mansfield Park, Tom talks about ‘raising a little theater’ paralleling it to the idea of raising a little hell; for him a theatrical provided an opportunity to say and do things that were normally off limits in polite society.

“Acting, by its very nature, involves putting on different gestures, behaviors, manners, and emotions, fashioning and re-fashioning characters and identities in a process that, to the spectator, appears almost as quick and easy as changing costumes. But when this role playing takes place on a private stage, the mutability of the boundaries that defined and identified 250 categories of everyday life in the eighteenth century—gender, class, social status, rank, race, national allegiance—is laid bare, for the distinction between actor and role is blurred in such a setting where the close connections of family and friendship between actors and audience delimit any objectivity or distance.” (Haugen, 2014) The blurring of these all-important lines posed a danger to the vulnerable in society—particularly the children and young women—who needed to be protected from these disquieting and potentially ruinous effects.

Home Theatricals: A Tarnished Image

Casting off Proper Restraint

Moreover, acting often demanded the players suspend polite behavior for the sake of the play. At the end of the Georgian era, the demonstration of ‘polite behavior’ had reached almost cultish proportions. Deviating from it could spell social ruin, particularly for young unmarried ladies. Proper, polite behavior required definite emotional restraint for both men and women. One was not to display emotion openly in front of others. (The one exception for ladies: they could swoon when faced with an extremely distressing or vulgar situation.) Stage conventions of the time encouraged actresses to swoon excessively and male actors to rant and rail expressively. (Can we say overacting? But I digress.)

Moreover, audiences were expected to respond to these displays with sighs, weeping and groaning. So much emotion! What is a proper household to do?

If this were not enough, theatricals also were likely to involve active physical contact between the actors and actresses during the performance. While acceptable for the professional actress (who was not considered a proper gentlewoman by any stretch), that kind of behavior was most improper for a gentleman's daughter with a reputation and marriage prospects to consider. Doing it under the guise of a theatrical performance offered only a thin veneer of protection.

Reverend Thomas Gisbourne (1797) summed up the situation:

For some years past the custom of acting in plays in private theatres, fitted up by individuals of fortune, had occasionally prevailed…. Take the benefit of all these favourable circumstances; yet what is even then the tendency of such an amusement? To encourage vanity; to excite a thirst of applause and admiration of attainments which, if they are to be thus exhibited, it would commonly have been far better for the individual not to possess; to destroy diffidence, by the unrestrained familiarity with the persons of the other sex, which inevitably results from being joined with them in the drama; to create a general fondness for the perusal of plays, of which so many are unfit to be read; and for attending dramatic representations, of which so many are unfit to be witnessed”

Austen’s Personal Observations

On the recommendation of her sister Cassandra, Jane Austen read Gisbourne’s work in 1805. Apparently, Austen surprised herself by approving with the reverend’s writing. While there is no way to know Austen approved, it is not a far stretch to imagine that her own experiences with home theatricals might have contributed to her response.

In 1787, her cousin Eliza Hancock stayed with the Austens, and the young people performed The Wonder. Austen family tradition suggests Eliza flirted openly with both James and Henry (who were the instigators of the family theatricals.) She played the heroine of that play while Henry played the hero. The play offered many opportunities for ‘stage business’ between the two players. (Austen Only, 2010)

Some suggest Eliza Hancock was Austen’s inspiration in several pieces of Austen’s juvenilia, particularly Henry and Eliza and Lady Susan. She is also thought to be the model for Mary Crawford in Mansfield Park. Eventually Eliza and Henry married, in 1797 the two married, after her first husband was guillotined in 1794.

One cannot help but wonder if Austen was putting a bit of herself into the character of Fanny Price who saw quickly how the young lovers of the party could turn the circumstance of the theatrical to their momentary advantage—and eventual ruin.

References

Baer, Marc. Theatre and Disorder in Late Georgian London. Clarendon Press. 1992

Byrne, Paula. Jane Austen and the Theatre. Bloomsbury Academic. 2007

Collins, Irene. Jane Austen, the Parson's Daughter. London: Hambledon Press, 1998.

Fullerton, Susannah. Jane Austen and Crime. Sydney: Jane Austen Society of Australia, 2004.

Gisborne, Thomas. An Enquiry into the Duties of the Female Sex. London: Cadell and Davies, 1797.

Haugen, Janine Marie, “The Mimic Stage: Private Theatricals in Georgian Britain.” (2014). English Graduate Theses & Dissertations. 68. https://scholar.colorado.edu/engl_gradetds/68

Hudson, Chuck. “Theater in Georgian England.” The Historic Interpreter. March, 16, 2015. Accessed July, 2, 2019. https://historicinterpreter.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/theatre-in-georgian-england/

Laudermilk, Sharon H., and Teresa L. Hamlin. The Regency Companion. New York: Garland, 1989.

Selwyn, David. Jane Austen and Leisure. London: Hambledon Press, 1999.

Vickery, Amanda. The Gentleman's Daughter: Women's Lives in Georgian England. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998.

Wakefield, J. F., “Jane Austen: Fanny Price and Private Theatricals.” Austen Only. June 6, 2010. Accessed June, 2, 2019. http://austenonly.com/2010/06/06/jane-austen-fanny-price-and-private-theatricals/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though Maria Grace has been writing fiction since she was ten years old, those early efforts happily reside in a file drawer and are unlikely to see the light of day again, for which many are grateful. 

After penning five file-drawer novels in high school, she took a break from writing to pursue college and earn her doctorate. After 16 years of university teaching, she returned to her first love, fiction writing.

Click here to find her books on Amazon. For more on her writing and other Random Bits of Fascination, visit her website. You can also like her on Facebook, or follow on Twitter.