Arietta Richmond - Author

Immerse Yourself in Regency Historical Romance

Author: Arietta Richmond (Page 1 of 5)

The Importance of Almack’s Assembly Rooms: Marriage and Society

August 31, 2025 / / 0 Comments
A pencil drawing of Regency building.

Almack’s Assembly Room

Almack’s Assembly Rooms, located in London’s St. James’s district, were the epicentre of Regency high society. Known as the “‘Marriage Mart,“‘ Almack’s was where the elite gathered to see and be seen, and where marriage prospects were made or broken. The venue’s strict rules and exclusive guest list made it a symbol of social status and aspiration. 

The Rise of Almack’s 

Almack’s opened in 1765 and quickly became the most fashionable venue in London. By the Regency era, it was under the control of a group of influential patronesses, including Lady Jersey and Lady Cowper, who wielded immense power over who was admitted. Entry was by voucher only, and even the wealthiest and most titled individuals could be denied access if they failed to meet the patronesses’ exacting standards. 

The Voucher System 

The voucher system was the key to Almack’s exclusivity. Each patroness had a limited number of vouchers to distribute, and obtaining one was a mark of social approval. The process was highly subjective, with factors such as family connections, reputation, and even personal appearance playing a role. Once inside, guests were expected to adhere to strict rules, including a dress code that required men to wear knee breeches and women to wear white gloves. 

The Marriage Mart 

A picture of Regency people dancing in the hall.

Almack’s was not just a social venue; it was a marketplace for marriage. Young debutantes were presented to society at Almack’s, where they hoped to attract the attention of eligible bachelors. The Wednesday night balls were particularly important, as they provided an opportunity for couples to dance and socialise under the watchful eyes of chaperones. These were only held for 12 consecutive Wednesdays over the Season. 

The stakes were high, as a successful match could secure a family’s social standing and financial future. Conversely, a misstep at Almack’s could lead to social ruin. The pressure to conform to the venue’s rigid etiquette was immense, and many young women found the experience overwhelming. 

The Decline of Almack’s 

By the mid-19th century, Almack’s had lost its lustre. Changes in society, including the rise of new venues and more relaxed social norms, made the Assembly Rooms seem outdated. However, its legacy endures as a symbol of the exclusivity and ambition of Regency high society. 

Conclusion 

Almack’s Assembly Rooms were more than just a venue; they were a microcosm of Regency society. The strict rules and exclusive guest list reflected the era’s obsession with status and propriety, while the Marriage Mart highlighted the importance of marriage as a social and economic institution.

References for Further Reading: 

The Scandal of Ankle-Baring Dresses: Regency Fashion Revolution

August 24, 2025 / / 0 Comments

The Regency era marked a dramatic shift in women’s fashion, particularly with the rise of the high-waisted, thin muslin dress. These garments, inspired by classical Greek and Roman styles, were a stark departure from the heavy, structured gowns of the 18th century. While they symbolised elegance and simplicity, they also sparked controversy, as they often revealed more of the female form than older generations deemed proper — most notably, the scandalous glimpse of an ankle. 

The Influence of Neoclassicism 

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars brought a wave of neoclassical influence to European fashion. Women’s dresses began to emulate the flowing lines of ancient Greek and Roman attire, with high waistlines just below the bust, lightweight fabrics like muslin, and minimal ornamentation. This style was popularized by figures such as Empress Joséphine of France, whose wardrobe became a template for fashionable women across Europe. 

The simplicity of these dresses was a reaction against the excesses of the ancien régime, but it also reflected the era’s fascination with antiquity and the ideals of democracy and natural beauty. However, this new fashion was not without its critics. 

The Ankle Controversy 

An image of three Regency ladies in flowing ankle-length dresses.

One of the most shocking aspects of Regency dresses was their length. Unlike the floor-length gowns of the previous century, Regency dresses often ended just above the ankle, exposing the wearer’s feet and sometimes even her stockings. This was considered scandalous, as ankles were seen as a highly private part of the body. Older generations viewed the trend as immodest and a sign of moral decline. 

The lightweight fabric of muslin added to the controversy. Unlike the heavy silks and brocades of earlier decades, muslin was semi-transparent when wet, leading to concerns about propriety. Women often dampened their dresses to make them cling to their figures, a practice that further scandalized conservative observers. 

The Role of Undergarments 

A drawing of a white corset used during the Regency era.

The shift in fashion also led to changes in undergarments. The restrictive stays of the 18th century were replaced by softer corsets or even abandoned altogether in favour of simple shifts. This newfound freedom of movement was liberating for women but added to the perception that Regency fashion was overly revealing. 

The Legacy of Regency Fashion 

Despite the controversy, the Regency style had a lasting impact on fashion. Its emphasis on simplicity and natural beauty paved the way for future trends, and the high-waisted silhouette remains a timeless classic. The era’s fashion also reflected broader social changes, as women began to assert more independence and reject the rigid constraints of the past. 

Conclusion 

The scandal of ankle-baring dresses highlights the tension between tradition and innovation in Regency society. While some saw the new fashion as a symbol of moral decay, others embraced it as a celebration of freedom and natural beauty. Either way, it marked a turning point in the history of fashion. 

 References for Further Reading: 

The Rise of the Dandy: Beau Brummell and Male Fashion

August 17, 2025 / / 0 Comments

The Regency era saw the rise of the dandy, epitomised by Beau Brummell, whose obsession with fashion revolutionised men’s clothing. Brummell’s emphasis on simplicity, fit, and cleanliness marked a departure from the ostentatious styles of the previous century. His influence extended beyond fashion, shaping the ideals      of masculinity and social behaviour in Regency England. 

Beau Brummell: The Original Dandy 

A painting of a regency man in a tailored dark suit and tall black boots holding a hat in his right hand.

George ‘Beau’ Brummell (1778–1840) was a former army officer who became the arbiter of men’s fashion in Regency London. Unlike the flamboyant styles of the 18th century, which featured elaborate embroidery, bright colours, and powdered wigs, Brummell championed a more understated aesthetic. His signature look included a dark tailcoat, perfectly fitted trousers, a crisp white shirt, and an immaculately tied cravat. He believed that true elegance lay in simplicity and attention to detail. 

Brummell’s influence was so profound that even the Prince Regent (later George IV) sought his advice on matters of dress. His daily routine, which reportedly included hours of grooming and multiple changes of clothing, set a new standard for male elegance. Brummell’s mantra, ‘If people turn to look at you in the street, you are not well dressed’, encapsulated his philosophy of understated sophistication. 

The Dandy Movement 

The rise of the dandy was not just about fashion; it was a cultural phenomenon that reflected broader social changes. The dandy represented a new ideal of masculinity — one that valued refinement, wit, and self-control over brute strength or inherited privilege. This was particularly appealing in a society where social mobility was becoming increasingly possible. 

Dandies like Brummell were also known for their sharp wit and social acumen. They frequented exclusive clubs like White’s and Brooks’, where they engaged in witty banter and high-stakes gambling. Their ability to navigate the complexities of high society was as important as their sartorial choices. 

The Legacy of the Dandy 

A painting of a curly Regency man in a tailored peach coat with holding a black hat in his left hand.

Brummell’s influence extended far beyond his lifetime. His emphasis on fit and tailoring laid the groundwork for modern menswear. The dark suit, white shirt, and necktie that he popularised remain staples of men’s fashion to this day. The dandy movement also paved the way for later fashion icons, from Oscar Wilde to Tom Ford. 

However, Brummell’s life was not without tragedy. His extravagant lifestyle eventually led to financial ruin, and he spent his final years in exile in France, suffering from syphilis. Despite his downfall, his legacy endures as a symbol of elegance and refinement. 

Conclusion 

The rise of the dandy, epitomized by Beau Brummell, was a defining feature of Regency society. It represented a shift in ideals of masculinity and social behaviour, emphasising refinement and self-presentation over ostentation. Brummell’s influence on fashion and culture remains evident today, reminding us of the enduring power of style. 

 References for Further Reading: 

The Art of the Calling Card: Strict Etiquette and Social Interactions

August 10, 2025 / / 1 Comment

In Regency England, the exchange of calling cards was a meticulously choreographed ritual that dictated social interactions. These small, elegantly printed cards were more than just a means of introduction — they were a reflection of one’s status, intentions, and adherence to societal norms. The practice of using calling cards, or visiting cards, was an essential part of the social fabric, governing who could visit whom, when, and under what circumstances. 

The Origins of Calling Cards 

A golden round tray containing a bunch of calling cards

Calling cards originated in 17th-century Europe, particularly in France, where they were used by aristocrats to announce their arrival at social gatherings. By the Regency era, the practice had become firmly entrenched in British high society. The cards themselves were often made of high-quality paper, embossed with the owner’s name and sometimes a family crest. For women, the cards might also include their husband’s name and title, reflecting their marital status and social standing. 

The Etiquette of Exchange 

A calling card inscribed with the name Mr. Sebastian Melmoth

The rules surrounding calling cards were strict and unforgiving. A misstep in etiquette could lead to social ostracism, making the process both a privilege and a minefield. Here are some key aspects of the etiquette: 

  • Timing: Calls were only made during specific hours, usually in the afternoon. Morning visits were reserved for close friends and family, while evening calls were considered improper. 
  • Presentation: Cards were presented to the servant at the door, who would then deliver them to the lady of the house. The servant would also note the caller’s name and the time of the visit in a ledger. 
  • Folding: The corners of the card could be folded to convey specific messages. For example, a folded top-left corner might signify a personal visit, while a folded bottom-right corner could indicate condolences. 

Social Implications 

The exchange of calling cards was a way to navigate the complex social hierarchy of Regency England. A rejected card could signify social ostracism, while a warmly received one could open doors to prestigious gatherings. The practice also reinforced gender roles, as women were often the gatekeepers of these social interactions. A lady’s ability to manage her calling card list was seen as a reflection of her social acumen and standing. 

The Role of the ‘At Home’ Day 

One of the most important aspects of calling card etiquette was the concept of the ‘At Home’ day. Ladies of the house would designate specific days when they would be available to receive visitors. These days were often published in social calendars, and failing to adhere to them could result in social embarrassment. The ‘At Home’ day was a way to manage the influx of visitors and ensure that social interactions remained orderly. 

The Decline of Calling Cards 

As society evolved, the rigid etiquette of calling cards gave way to more informal modes of communication. The rise of the telephone and the increasing pace of life in the late 19th and early 20th centuries made the practice seem outdated. However, their legacy remains in modern business cards and the enduring importance of first impressions. 

Conclusion 

The art of the calling card offers a fascinating glimpse into the complexities of Regency society. It was a world where even the smallest details — like the fold of a card or the timing of a visit — could have significant social implications. The practice underscores the importance of etiquette and the lengths to which people went to maintain their social standing. 

 References for Further Reading: 

The Language of Fans: How Women Used Fans to Communicate Secret Messages

August 3, 2025 / / 0 Comments

In the Regency era, where societal norms often restricted direct communication, especially between men and women, the fan became more than just a            fashionable accessory—it was a tool of subtle expression. Known as “fanology”          or the “language of fans,” this intricate system of gestures allowed women to convey messages discreetly, navigating the rigid etiquette of the time with        grace and ingenuity. 

The Origins of Fan Language 

The use of fans as a means of communication dates back to ancient civilizations, but it reached its peak in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. In Regency England, fans were not only a symbol of status but also a covert method of expression. Women, constrained by societal expectations, used fans to flirt, reject suitors, or signal their marital status without uttering a word.  

The Secret Code of Gestures 

A regency lady hiding the lower part of her right face behind a black fan spread out in front of her.

The language of fans was built on a series of gestures, each with a specific meaning. For example: 

  • Drawing the fan across the cheek: “I love you.” 
  • Twirling the fan in the left hand: “We are being watched.” 
  • Dropping the fan: “Let’s just be friends.” 
  • Fanning slowly: “I am married.” 
  • Fanning quickly: “I am engaged.” 

These gestures allowed women to communicate their feelings and intentions in a society where overt expressions of emotion were frowned upon. The fan became a silent yet powerful tool for navigating courtship and social interactions. 

The Role of Fan Makers 

The popularity of fan language was partly fueled by fan makers like Jean-Pierre Duvelleroy, who published leaflets detailing the gestures to boost sales. While some historians argue that the “language of fans” was more of a marketing gimmick than a widely understood code, it nonetheless became a cultural phenomenon, immortalized in literature and art. 

Fans in Literature and Society 

A sideway image of a regency lady in a formal attire holding a fan pointed toward her.

The fan’s role in Regency society was romanticized in works like Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windermere’s Fan and Jane Austen’s novels. It symbolized elegance, mystery, and the art of subtle communication. Fans were also used in games like “Fanology,” where participants would use printed questions and answers on fans to engage in playful conversations. 

The Decline of Fan Language 

By the late 19th century, as societal norms relaxed and women gained more freedom of expression, the language of fans fell out of favour. However, its legacy endures as a fascinating example of how people adapted to the constraints of their time, using creativity and ingenuity to communicate. 

Conclusion 

The language of fans offers a glimpse into the complexities of Regency society, where even the flutter of a fan could speak volumes. It reminds us of the power of subtlety and the enduring human desire to connect, even in the most restrictive circumstances.  

Supporting Links 

12 Things That did not Exist Yet in the Regency Era

July 30, 2019 / / 4 Comments

There are lots of things in our daily lives that we don’t even think about – we just take them for granted – we assume, subconsciously, that they have always
existed, even though, academically, we know that’s not true. here are twelve things that did not exist yet in the Regency era – some that were just being invented, some that were more than a hundred years away!  See if any of
them surprise you!

1.     Street lights as we know them
For the most part, there were no street lights at all.  Building owners might
hang out lanterns above their doors (and at some stages, there were laws requiring that in London), but mostly streets were dark at night, except for a small number of areas in London where gas streetlamps (which had each to be lit by hand each night) had been installed. Wider gas lamp use on streets did not occur until the 1830s at least.

2.    Headlights
For a start, there were no cars, only carriages, and no electricity, so if a person wanted to drive their carriage at night, the only option they had was what was called ‘carriage lamps’. These were oil lamps, which sat in holders on the outside of the carriage, near the front at each side. they had mirrored interiors to create as much light as possible from the one small flame. But…. not much reach at all – basically, if you drove your carriage at night, you were relying on the fact that horses have rather good night vision.

3.    Baby carriages/ prams
Oddly enough, no one had thought to create a wheeled vehicle for moving small children about yet. people were just beginning to consider it. In the mid 1700s, the first ‘child transporting devices’ (other than carrying a child in a sling against your body) were invented, and were basically miniature carriages, designed to be pulled by a dog, goat or very small pony. It wasn’t until the 1830s that models designed to be pushed by a human were made, and they did not take off in England until Queen Victoria used them for her children in the 1840s. So in the Regency era, all of those poor Nannies had to either carry the children, or somehow get them to walk with them, even when they were tiny.

4.    Photographs
Whilst the concept of photographs was coming into existence, and it it thought that some images had been made on light sensitized paper before 1820, the first known photograph was in 1826, in France, and photos of people did not begin to happen until the late 1830s. So in the Regency era, if you wanted a picture of someone to carry with you, you had a painter paint a miniature portrait.

5.    Refrigeration
In the Regency era, refrigeration was still almost entirely by the creation of ice houses. Huge blocks of ice were cut from high mountain areas, or from frozen rivers during winter, and stacked around the walls of cellars dug into the earth in cool, often damp, places (like close to rivers), then food and the like was stored in there. By the end of Summer, most of the ice would have melted, and there would be no cold storage until winter set in again, unless huge sums were paid to transport ice blocks from mountain areas. Scientists were, from the late 1700s, experimenting with chemical and mechanical refrigeration techniques, but they were not widely known or available.  It would be the mid 1800s before that became possible.  In my upcoming novel, ‘A Bluestocking for a Baron’, the hero owns ice houses as a business, and he, and the heroine, are investigating the new discoveries.

6.    Antibiotics, painkillers and anaesthetics
Antibiotics were not discovered, as such, until the early 1900s, although it was known from long before that, that putting mouldy bread on a wound often improved the chance of the person healing. (that was, of course, because the mould on the bread was a penicillin mould). The people who knew this, however, tended to be battlefield surgeons, or women who were traditional healers – both of whose opinions were ignore by the famous physicians of the time. So getting injured, even in a seemingly minor way, was very dangerous, if infection set in. To add to the situation, there were no painkillers as we know them today. traditional healers used things like ground willow-bark (which we now know contains salicylic acid, which is the compound from which aspirin is made) to help with pain, but again, physicians spurned the traditional remedies. Anaesthetics did not exist yet either, although ether had been used experimentally for the purpose, but was not acknowledged for that use until 1846.  So any operation had to be done with nothing to stop the pain (usually alcohol was given to the person, so that when the pain hit, they passed out rapidly.).  Imagine how painful an amputation would be, or the removal of a bullet or arrow from a wound, with nothing for anaesthetic at all! And… nothing to ease the pains of childbirth at all…

7.    Flush toilets (there were the first few…)
Whilst the concept of the flush toilet, and how one might be built, was described as early as 1596, it required water plumbed from an overhead cistern 0 which most houses did not have. It did not take as a concept, although some royal residences had early versions. Then, in 1775, an Englishman, Alexander Cumming, patented the idea of the S curve pipe on the outflow of such a device (which cut down the smells that could flow back out of the sewer. between that, and the expansion of the existence of actual sewer drains (rather than just a channel in the middle of the street), flush toilets were possible in the Regency Era – if you were fabulously wealthy and willing to risk such an odd new invention. So very few existed until the mid to late 1800s. Generally, during the regency era, toilets were either a seat over a hole that dropped into a pit in the earth, a chamber pot, which the maids had to empty and clean, or what was called a ‘close stool’ – which was a seat, in which a chamber pot was enclosed, which had a lid you could shut after you had used it.  The maid still had to clean it out later…

8.    Hay bales
The square bale of hay (and in the last 30 to 40 years, the round bale of hay), bound together by twine or wire, did not exist in the regency era. the machine that made the creation of such bales possible was not invented until the 1830s. During the regency, hay was still collected by hand, bound or stacked in ‘stooks’ and haystacks, and pitchforked onto wagons to transport it to either haybarns (barns were only for hay – stables were for horses, byres for cows, and pens for pigs) or to stables, where it would be again moved with pitchforks to where it was needed.

9.    Trains (the first steam driven ones had just been invented)
The first steam train was actually used in 1804 in Wales, moving coal and the like for an ironworks. passenger and freight trains, near London and throughout Britain, did not start to become frequent until 1828. But the potential had been recognised. During the regency era, there were many companies working to put railways in place, and shares in those companies were a popular investment for the wealthy.

10.   Any kind of air craft (even hot air balloons were just experimental then)
Most people know that airplanes were not created until the early 1900s. but we tend to think of hot air balloons as being around long before that. It is true that the first hot air balloon flight was in France, in 1783, but they were not used as transport, or in any regular way, for a long time after that. they were rather dangerous – no easy way to steer them, at the mercy of the winds etc. So during the regency, whilst they were known about, and there were even a couple of times when one was launched from the royal parks in London (with a great crowd watching on to see the amazing thing), they were not common at all for many decades after that.

11.   Sewing machines
The first sewing machine was invented in 1790 – but it was a heavy device, designed for sewing leather and heavy canvas, not for sewing as we know it today. It was not until the 1830s that the first sewing machines designed for sewing clothing were made. Even though the industrial revolution had brought mechanical looms to the weaving industry by the regency era, the mechanisation had not stretched to the actual sewing of the fabric created yet. So all of the clothes made in the regency era were sewn by hand, by tailors and seamstresses, whose skill was remarkable, as was the speed with which they could create a garment. This meant, pretty much, that every garment was tailor made to exactly fit the person who ordered it. Some businesses had begun to ‘premake’ some garments for the lower classes (who did not care if they did not fit perfectly, so long as they could afford them), but those were still all hand sewn.

12.   Washing machines
Washing machines are one of those things we don’t think about – but they were not invented, as we know them today, until the late 1800s. Even the metal washboard (a metal sheet with lots of bumps and slots to let water through, which the person washing rubbed their clothes up and down on, with some water and soap added to the garment) was not invented until the 1830s.  There were wooden equivalents before that, and in large houses and laundries (which did exist as commercial things in some places) they had huge wooden or metal tubs, which were sometimes heated, and had water piped to them from overhead cisterns. The laundry maids either moved the clothes about in those with big wooden paddles, or occasionally they had a paddle on an axle, and it could be turned by a crank handle. But it was all driven by people. Most clothes were rarely washed (undergarments got washed the most, as they were usually plainer fabric, and would not be seen as they wore and stained), and many fabrics used for aristocratic clothing could not be washed, without the colour running, the garment going completely out of shape, or similar. So, if a dress got mud stained around the hem, it might be given to a maid, or sent for rags (rags were in demand, as paper was made from rags). This also meant that, especially in summer, clothing became rather strongly scented with the sweat of its wearer…

So… there we are, twelve things you probably did not know about the Regency era (and may not have wanted to know….). Did any of this surprise you?  Let me know your thoughts.

What did the parts of London where the aristocracy lived look like in the Regency Era?

May 3, 2019 / / 1 Comment

In my books, I don’t often describe the outside of the homes of my characters much, when it is their London houses (the country houses usually get more description). But having recently been in London, I thought I’d talk about that today.  We tend to think of the houses of very wealthy people as being
separate houses – large things, with extensive gardens around them. But that
was not the case, mostly, in Regency London.

There were large estates on the outskirts of London (in areas that are now regarded as almost in the heart of the city….) but most of the houses in the Mayfair area, where the bulk of the aristocracy lived, were what can be called ‘row houses’ – they had adjoining walls, mostly, and every so often, there might be a tiny gap between two houses. Each house was four to five stories above ground, and a semi below ground basement level, with another level of cellars below that.

The streets were laid out such that there were open squares, in which there were fenced gardens, and houses surrounded those on all four sides. Behind the houses there would be a lane, which gave rear access to each house, and was where stables were located (sometimes called mews). Each house might also have a private garden area behind it, separating it from the laneway.  Some examples of this sort of structure still exist in London today.


This is the Google maps satellite view of Manchester Square.  The area circled in red is a mews / laneway in the middle of a block (likely accessed via an archway under part of a building. This is still named a mews today.  The area circled in green is a single stately home (its enormous) which is a museum today, and is beautifully preserved. (we will talk about that, with pictures, in the next newsletter) The area circled in blue shows tall ‘row house’ type homes, and you can still see the laneways and private gardens behind them – whilst other areas of the square show evidence of original buildings having been replaced by more modern blocky buildings, this area is a good indicator of what the homes might have looked like.  Have aplay with this on Google maps yourself, and use street view to see those buildings from ground level, to get an idea of their size.

 

The servants entrance was either through the back lane, or by a separate set of stairs which went down to the basement level from the street, through a gate in the fence near the steps to the main entrance.  In the picture below, which is from Google street view, you can see the top of a window of the basement level, through the fence, just above where I have drawn a red arrow. There was a gap between the footpath and the house, to allow the stairs going down, and to let some natural light into the windows of the servants basement level.

So all of the windows of the upper floors looked out onto the fenced garden in the centre of the square. The fenced gardens were often locked, and only the residents of the street had keys.  Manchester Square is still like that today.

So – there you are – now, when I talk about the characters going into their London townhomes, or looking out of their windows there, you have a picture of what it might look like (less the modern cars etc that you see above, of course!).

The City of London – Why were merchants referred to as ‘Cits’?

April 13, 2019 / / 1 Comment

If you have read all of the His Majesty’s Hounds books, you will likely remember that Raphael, as a merchant, was referred to by the ton as a ‘Cit’ – a term which was, in a way, derogatory.  So today I thought that I would give you some of the history behind how that appellation for merchants came about.

It all has to do with where merchants lived, and did business, compared to
where the upper classes lived, in the metropolis of London. London was
founded, as a city by (almost) that name, by the Romans – they called it
Londinium. The Romans built strong city walls around the town, in the second century AD – those walls enclosed an area of about 1.2 square miles.

Inside the walls, lived the important people of the time – the wealthy and the wealthy merchants. After Roman rule, the city came to be ruled by a council of merchant and craft guilds – by the City of London Corporation, whose privileges and rights where enshrined in the Magna Carta.

Over time, suburbs grew up outside the City walls, as the city expanded. Soon, the crowded original city was too small, noisy and dirty for the aristocracy to want to live there.  So suburbs designed for the wealthy grew in areas nearby, but with more space, more greenery, and less exposure to the ‘dirty business of trade’.

The wealthy merchants, however, continued to live in the largest and best houses in the original City, as that meant they were close to their business premises, closer to the docks, and better placed to continue to make money.

To distinguish themselves from the merchants (who were, in many cases, wealthier than the aristocracy), and to assert their superiority, the ton came to actively look down on the merchants – investing in a business was suitable, doing actual work in a business was seen as extremely lower class and completely unsuitable for a gentleman. This view also came from the fact that most aristocrats got their money from the produce of their estates – their tenant farmers did the work, an estate manager ran things for them, and the gentleman never had to do any of it.

So to make that distinction clear, the ton came up with the term ‘a Cit’ to refer to someone who worked and lived within the official bounds of the original City of London.

So – next time you see the term in a book, consider ll of the prejudice and upper class superiority of attitude that went into its creation, over a period of centuries!

Duels

February 20, 2019 / / 0 Comments

As a duel is the thing that set off all of the important things in ‘Restoring the Earl’s Honour’ (and, in fact, the very same duel also set off all of the important things in Book 7, Finding the Duke’s Heir), I thought that I would provide some
information on duels today.

A duel makes a great plot device for a book – but what were they really like?
From today’s perspective, they seem a rather crazy idea, but in the Regency
era, they were regarded as still reasonable, under some conditions. So – lets
look at some facts.

  • Duels were illegal – completely so, but that didn’t stop hot headed young men.
  • Duels might be fought with swords, rapiers or guns
  • The minimum number of people who were supposed to be at a duel for it to be regarded as correctly done was 6 – the two contenders, a man to support each of them (called a ‘Second’), a man to count the paces and call for them to fire or have at each other, depending on the weapon type, and a doctor, who was supposed to patch up any damage done (assuming that it was not fought to the death….) there might be others present, but not often, unless, as in my story, there was a group of young men who were all friends of the combatants.
  • Generally, duels were to first blood drawn, and that was enough to satisfy honour. With a sword or rapier, that was fairly simply to do in a way that was not too damaging – a scratch was enough. But with guns, it depended on whether both men thought that the other intended their death or not. If one feared that the opponent wanted you dead, shooting him first was your only option – if you were quick and accurate enough. If you were a good shot, you could attempt to shoot him in the arm or leg such that he had a good chance of survival unless he got a bad infection.
  • Duels happened when one man challenged another, because either his own, his family’s or a woman’s honour had been besmirched by something that the other man had done or said, which the speaker would not apologise for.
  • If a man had sufficiently badly impugned someone’s honour, and the insulted party (or closest related or attached male to the insulted party if it was a woman insulted) did not challenge them, or at least threaten to, then that person was seen as being weak and not honourable themselves – so it was rather a trap situation for all concerned.
  • In theory, women never witnessed duels, even if their honour was what the duel was about. In practice, it is highly likely that sometimes they did manage to get to where they could see it.
  • Duels were usually held at dawn, or just before dawn, so that there was half light to see by, but very few people were likely to be around to interrupt or call a law enforcement person of any kind to stop it. For the ton, who often went to bed at 3 or 4 in the morning after Balls etc, and did not get up until midday, dawn was the time when a person was least likely to be seen by anyone else.
  • If a man did kill another in a duel, it was legally murder, and the wisest thing to do was to leave the country. Whilst the aristocracy had a solid level of protection from arrest, murder was going a bit far, and the dead man’s family might well pursue the case. In cases where someone died, and it was believed (whether that was true or not – perception is everything) that the man killed had actually had the right of whatever the dispute was, the Second was often wisest to leave the country as well, at least for some years.
  • Duels were becoming rare in the Regency as the world moved more away from swords and more towards guns (with their greater risk of death), and as the concepts of honour were shifting in some ways.
  • Women over whom a duel was fought tended to feel both flattered and horrified. There were, however, known to have been a few women who encouraged such things, getting a twisted thrill out of it – I guess that there are people like that in any era.

So – is any of that a surprise to you? Have you read any books that feature  a duel, where you now think that it was presented incorrectly? Imagine living in a time when your man was expected to defend you against insults and harsh words in such a way – I think it would actually be rather tedious, myself.

What were all those servants called????

September 7, 2018 / / 3 Comments

In my books, I strive for good historical accuracy (allowing for a little artistic licence here and there), and one of the challenges at the start was making sure that I got the names of things right, where those things don’t really exist today.  One of the things in that category is the plethora of servant roles. So this post
is all about that.

Any story set in the Regency period will, of necessity, feature lots of servants –
because the nobility / aristocracy of the time had huge numbers of servants.

Having servants was not simply ostentation – it was actually a requirement of having a title or a lot of wealth – all of those servant roles were the main employment of the era – it was a wealthy person’s responsibility to keeping the economy of the country afloat, to employ as many people as possible.

But from our point of view toady, it seems a bit overwhelming, and confusing – who did what? What were the names of each of those roles? (and note – names of things back then did not have to be politically correct – they were gendered, and to the point.)

So – here is a glossary of servant roles in the Regency period.

In the house

Butler

The senior servant in the house, responsible for oversight of all other male servants (except in some cases, where a Lord might have a steward who was responsible for all of their estates, in which case the Butler also answered to the Steward, as the Butler was only for a single house). Butlers also were not necessarily responsible for managing tutors, who might come in each day just to teach.  Responsible for making everything run smoothly, for the security of the silverware and other valuables, and for the quality of service.

Housekeeper

The senior female servant in the House, responsible for oversight of all other female staff (except for the Companion or Governess, if there is one). Responsible for ensuring that the linens, draperies etc are maintained in good order, that the rooms are cleaned as needed, that the items needed for the kitchens (as specified by the Cook) are available, and that the female servants are cared for and protected from abuse.

Cook / Chef

Responsible for the kitchen for that establishment. Manages the scullery maids and any kitchen boys. Responsible for food ordering, and for planning menus, in consultation with the mistress of the house and the housekeeper. Also manages the storage of food and avoids waste.  In a big house, there may be second cooks, who answer to the senior cook.

Scullery maids

Work in the kitchen, under the Cook’s direction. Scrub benches, tables, pots and keep things clean, also may be called upon to cut up food and help with other prep work.

Kitchen Boys

Do the dirty work in the kitchens – keep the fires going, cart coal or wood, cart away the rubbish, take the food scraps out to the compost heap. Turn the spit if there is a spit to cook whole animals, carry water where there is no running water.

House maids

Responsible for keeping the house clean and tidy. Each maid will be allocated certain rooms to keep clean – dust and mess free, with everything in its place, and making sure that there is always coal in the coal scuttle beside each fire place, ready to go. The larger the house, and the wealthier the owner, the smaller number of rooms that each maid will likely have to look after, and the more maids there will be.

Ladies maids

Generally, each lady living in the house would have a dedicated Lady’s maid, to help her dress, to do her hair, and generally to look after her in any way that was needed.  Sometimes, two sisters might share a maid. The maid was expected to have sewing / clothing repair skills, cleaning skills, hairdressing skills, skill with cosmetics and more.

The Lady’s maid was the top of the hierarchy of maids, with greater privileges, including often receiving her mistresses cast off dresses – which, even when they were ‘too old and unfashionable’ for the Lady, could easily be reworked into higher quality dresses than the maid might ever have otherwise.

Footmen

Footmen were the ubiquitous method of getting anything done.  They might be tasked with staying in the foyer, ready to open the door, or might each have a section of the house where they simply waited in the halls, ready to run errands or do whatever was needed.  There was a hierarchy here as well – some tasks were more desirable than others. Footmen might also accompany a lady when she went shopping, ready to carry her parcels. Pretty much any time that someone pulled the bell rope to summon a servant to get something done, the one who answered was a footman, even if the task then required action by someone else.

Nanny

If the household had young children, there was usually a nanny. The Nanny was the senior childcare servant and might have nursery maids to help her – the more children, the more nursery maids. The nanny was also usually responsible for the children’s first, very basic, education – in manners, and in simple reading and numbers.

Nursery maid

Nursery maids did the tedious bits of childcare – from changing nappies, to being the one up at all hours of the night, to providing entertainment for teething children. They took children out for walks in the park (note, early baby carriages barely existed yet, so often they carried the children), and amused the children. They also had to deal with washing all of those nappies….

Valet

The Valet, like the Lady’s maid, was a role with status.  The valet was the gentleman’s personal servant, responsible for helping him dress, caring for his clothes, shaving him, polishing his boots and more.  A good valet could tie a perfect cravat in multiple styles and could dress a man’s hair in the fashion of the day. He was also likely to receive the gentleman’s cast off clothes, and was expected to be very discreet about the gentleman’s day to day affairs, which he was almost always aware of.

Governess

A Governess was employed to teach younger children – usually girls, but sometimes also very young boys. A Governess was an odd position, hallway between a normal servant, and a gently born lady. Often, women of the upper classes, whose families had fallen on hard times, would take employment as a governess. It was regarded as one of the only acceptable roles for a well born lady, if she had to work. The governess taught young girls manners, ladylike skills (painting, music, singing, dancing, languages and more) and prepared them for their role in society.

Companion

A Companion was employed to keep an older woman, or a single woman, company – this provided a layer of propriety, as well as giving an older widow (for example) someone to talk to, in their daily life. Companions, like governesses, were in that grey area between servant and the nobly born. They were often from good families fallen on hard times, or they were distant cousins from the poor side of the family.

Tutor

A Tutor was employed to teach boys, before they reached the age where they were sent off to boarding schools. The Tutor taught languages, maths, science and potentially other subjects which were regarded as suitable for boys. Like governesses, tutors might be of gentle birth, but from a poorer family, but they might also be from a commoner family, but be  a man who had done well for himself and become learned. They might live with the family, or come in each day to teach, and live elsewhere.

In the stables / outside the house

Stable master

The Stable master was responsible for all staff based in the stable area. He was also responsible for ensuring that the horses, carriages and equipment were maintained in excellent condition. He was responsible for ordering feed supplies and making certain that the quality received was good.

Groom

A groom looks after horses.  That means ensuring that they are fed and watered correctly, that they are groomed (brushed, washed if needed etc), that they are shod (the groom takes them to the farrier, who, in a small town, may also be the blacksmith), that their feet are cleaned out and kept in good condition, that they are brought to wherever the owner needs them, that they are walked to cool down after working and more.  Each groom may be responsible for one or more horses, depending on the scale of the establishment.  Grooms also rode and were responsible for keeping the horses exercised if the owner did not use them often. (A horse not exercise becomes bored, and often then fractious when next ridden). When ladies went out for a ride, a groom would accompany them – for propriety, and to help them if needed.  Many women could not mount up onto a sidesaddle without a mounting block or a hand up from a groom.

Stablehands

Stablehands did the dirty work of the stables (although the worst of it was often left to the stableboys, if there were any working there.).  This includes cleaning out the stalls, carting the manure away to the manure pile, laying fresh straw, hauling large amounts of hay in and out of the hayloft, lugging bags of grain about, cleaning harness, saddles etc, washing saddlecloths and horse rugs, cleaning and polishing carriages and generally helping to get everything done. They rarely, if ever, rode.

Stableboys

Stableboys were the bottom of the pecking order in the stables.  They were usually young, and hoping to move up over time (a bit like an apprenticeship). They got the worst jobs of the lots – whatever the grooms and stablehands didn’t want to do. They were the ones who got to stand out in the cold, waiting for the master to come home, so that they could be there to take his horse, they got to shovel the manure pile onto the waste cart when it came to collect it, and to be up first in the cold winter mornings, to break the ice on water troughs etc.

Tiger

A Tiger was a young boy, fairly small, who went with the Lord when he was using a carriage which he drove himself.  The boy travelled on a small step or seat on the rear of the carriage and was therefore available when the Lord stopped somewhere to jump down and hold the horses. Tigers often learnt to drive the carriages, so that they could move them if needed while the owner was off doing whatever he had come to do.

Coachman

The coachman drove the carriages. This was a well respected position, requiring considerable skill, especially for the larger vehicles.  If a family was wealthy, they might have many carriages, and a number of coachmen, one of whom would be the senior one and who would manage the others. The coachman was responsible for ensuring that the coaches were well maintained and that the carriage horses were well cared for by the other stable staff.

Studmaster

If the Lord chose to breed horses, he would have a Studmaster, who was responsible for all breeding related activities on the Lord’s estates. This included choosing horses to buy, choosing which mares to breed to which stallion, overseeing the breaking to saddle of the horses, overseeing the choice of which foals to sell and which to keep and more.

Farrier

A farrier specialises in making horse shoes and fitting them to horses, as well as in the science of trimming and shaping the horses hoof so that the horse is comfortable, and his stride is also smoother for the rider. Farriers also often dealt with the necessary horse dentistry. In small towns, the blacksmith might also be the farrier. In a larger town they would be separate.  A lord with a very large estate and lots of horses might employ his own farrier.

Estate manager

A Lord might have an estate manager, who managed a single country estate for him. Occasionally, the estate manager might manage more than one property, but generally the steward did that, overseeing estate managers on each location. The estate manager was responsible for ensuring that the property was well run, the tenants cottages well cared for, the farms well run, and the harvests profitable.

Gardener

Every estate or house (even London townhouses which had smallish gardens) had at least one gardener, usually more. The gardeners not only cared for the formal gardens of ‘pretty flowers’ but they cared for the kitchen gardens, which provided much of the fresh produce used by each household, and for the herb and scent gardens, which provided the herbs for cooking, healing and providing pleasant scents (like lavender to put in a lady’s dressing room, to keep her clothes smelling good). There was a hierarchy of gardeners – a head gardener, and others that he managed.

Groundsman

A Groundsman had a wider remit than a gardener. He might also be responsible (mainly on country estates) for the state of the gravel on the driveway, the state of fences, of gates and of other structures, as well as coordinating any forestry activity required.

Gatekeeper

On large country estates, the driveway might be long – often, a small cottage was built near the gate, and a gatekeeper employed to live there, and open and close the gates as required.

Elsewhere

Jarvey

Jarvey was a term for a man who drove a hackney cab. It was also sometimes used to indicate any coachman who drove a hired coach.

Doorman

A Doorman was a servant employed at establishments such as gentleman’s clubs, to mind the door, welcome approved guests, and turn away those not welcome.

Usher

An Usher was a role performed at large functions, where there were many guests (such as at a large Ball). There might be a person employed just for that, but it was more likely that a footman was appointed to the task for the event. The Usher announced the guests to the people already present, as they entered the room.

Messenger boy

Messengers were everywhere. With no telephones, and no way to communicate other then in writing, huge numbers of short letters were sent every day. Within cities, there were children who earned their living delivering messages for people of all stations.  Whilst an aristocratic family might send one of their own footmen with a message, others had no choice but to use whatever messenger boy they could find, lurking about in hope of work.

Crossing sweeper

Because of the literally hundreds of thousands of horses in London (carriages, ridden, pulling delivery carts etc etc), the streets were perpetually littered with manure, among other rubbish. In areas where the wealthy went to shop, or go to the theatre etc, there were enterprising urchins who made brooms out of straw and sticks, and who swept the road in front of the pedestrians, in exchange for a coin. This allowed the wealthy to keep their shoes and hems clean. In winter, when there was snow, the snow rapidly became filthy, and crossing sweepers did a good trade.

Steward

The Steward was a very high ranking man within the Lord’s employ. He managed all of the Lord’s estates as an entity, making sure that the Lord’s holdings were profitable overall, and that resources were used where needed, to balance out any issues that might occur in a single location. He generally worked closely with the Lord’s man of business.

Man of Business

The Lord’s man of business was similar to your family Solicitor or Lawyer today. He kept legal records for the Lord, assisted with investment and banking, drew up contracts, dealt with any legal issues and more. He was usually very trusted and had the deepest knowledge of the actual state of the Lord’s accounts.

Modiste

Modistes were the highly expensive upper-class version of a seamstress – the equivalent of French haute couture brands today. Generally, they ran a business, and created gowns for multiple clients (gentleman’s outfitters were a separate thing). Occasionally, a wealthy lady might employ a modiste exclusively, but that was rare.

Names never to be used

Groomsman

This is not a job title from the era! It is a male attendant at a twentieth century or later wedding, but has nothing to do with Regency (or horses).

Attendant

This is a modern, gender neutral term that we use for people performing service roles at events etc now. It is not a term that was ever used in that way in the Regency era. Job roles then were very gendered, and this was not a term used in that way.

Servant

This is not a specific job role. Servant is a generic term for anyone in service. So using it to describe a person in a Lord’s household tells you nothing about what they do – use the specific terms instead.

 

I hope that you found that interesting (and useful).

« Older posts
The Romance Reviews

© 2025 Arietta Richmond – Author

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑