Of Myths and Men

There are a number of myths that crop up in Regency Romance novels that drive me crazy. Mind you, until I became a Regency Research Geek, I was just a reader who didn’t know any better, although I sometimes noticed inconsistencies between stories, but not enough to bother me. Nor did I appreciate how much work it is to do that much research. But now that I've embraced the craze, I do know better. And I think all authors owe it to their readers to do their research. When I began researching the Regency Era for The Stranger She Married,a historical romance that just wouldn't go away no matter how much I dreaded taking the research plunge, I realized what a huge undertaking it was going to be. And I also learned that there are a number of "truths" which are, in fact, false.

I don’t know who started these odd beliefs not based on any fact, unless people are confusing Scottish laws/customs with English, but in Regency England, many of the favorite themes that a reader finds in a Regency Romance novel never happened, could never happen, would never happen. Here are a few of the most common mistakes and misconceptions:

Myth: illegitimate sons could become a lord.
1. No illegitimate son could ever inherit a title of a lord; he (or anyone) could inherit property or money if called out in a will, but never the title or entailed property. Also, a man who had just inherited a title had to prove his parents were married at the time of his birth. He would not be legally recognized as a peer, or sit in the House of the Lords, until his birth was proven unquestionably legitimate and the House of the Lords had summoned him. If there were no legitimate heir, however distant, the title died out or went dormant. It did not go to an illegitimate son. Ever.

Myth: an illegitimate son could be made legitimized and therefore inherit a title.
2. No illegitimate son could ever be legitimized. I don’t care who he was or who his parents were; if his parents were not married at the time of his birth, he/she was considered a . (Notice, I did not say they had to be married when he was conceived – just at the time of his birth.)

Myth: children could inherit land or title from their mother's side of the family.
3. In England, unlike some cases in Scotland, no one could inherit entailed property or a title from their mother’s side of the family. Again, wills were a different story.

Myth: an unwanted marriage could be annulled as long as it wasn't consummated.
4. Failing to consummate a marriage never left it open to be neatly annulled. Having a marriage annulled, for whatever reason, was as messy, difficult and scandalous as getting a divorce. I cringe when I read plots in Regency Romance Novels where the hero and e get married to help one of them out of a tight spot with the understanding that as long as they don’t consummate the marriage, they can just annul it quietly. Marriage was considered a permanent arrangement -- not a convenient quick-fix.

Myth: weddings were lavish; with many bridesmaids, a kiss, a ring exchange and a huge reception.
5. These are fairly modern traditions. In Regency England, weddings did not include bridesmaids in matching gowns carrying bouquets and marching down the line in front of the bride, a ring exchange, and a kiss. The typical wedding was a lot like a church service, with an additional ceremony where the bride and groom would take their vows. Afterward, the bride and groom signed the registry, and then they were legally married. Usually, they went to the wedding breakfast -- as all weddings,by law, had to take place in the morning -- but never to a reception.

Authors have a duty to do our historical research so that the stories are as real as possible. Yes, we write fiction, which is why the heroes are usually tall and hunky, and we fail to mention how BAD most peoples’ body and dental hygiene were, or the state of the open sewage, but the back drop of any historical novel should be researched enough to create a believable historical feel. After all, why read a historical novel if the author has only written a fantasy? If authors want to duck out of research, they should write fantasy novels!

That being said, it’s not possible to get every single fact perfect. However, big things should be done right. And readers trust the author to get it right while providing a lovely, happily-ever-after that transports them into a glittering new world. Hmmm. That sounds a little like fantasy after all, huh?

So, gentle reader, the next time you pick up a historical novel, send good thoughts to the author who probably labored over the research to provide you with a window into the past...mingled with a healthy dose of creativity.

Books or Movies

Being that I'm an avid reader, as well as an author, when given the choice between whether I prefer a book or a movie, I like books better. Often if I see a movie based on a book, I think “the book was better.” But not always. I love the Narnia books and I love the Narnia movies. Not just because the heroes were drop dead gorgeous (albiet too young for me) but they explored character conflicts in the movie that weren’t done in the book.

Still, I love really "geting into the characters' heads" and feeling what they feel and knowing what they think. A good actor can portray this to some degree, but not as deeply as a book can.

I also love Jane Austen movies as well as the books. Even though I write Regencies, and use the Austen books to help me create that believeable Regency feel, the movies are just plain fun and it’s easier to understand the terms of speech when linked with expressions, tones of voice etc. And I, of course, imagine if they ever turned my book “The Stranger She Married” into a movie, who would play the roles. Hugh Jackman might be a good Cole…

Another good thing about movies, the only last an hour or two, whereas books will take all day, or days. And it's hard to go to a book with my husband.

Which do you prefer? Books or movies?

What's Regency???

When I tell people what I write, their response is usually one of two things; “Regency? Oh, I love Regency!” Or “What is Regency?”

To those who ask that second question, Regency is a specific time period in England. It officially began when King George III, who had frequent periods of madness, was finally declared mad. His son, the Prince of Wales, was officially name Regent in his father’s stead, although most historians agree the queen really ran the country. This happened in 1811 and the Prince, sometimes referred to as “Prinny” was Regency until 1820 when King George III died and the prince was crowned King George IV.
The expanded Regency era is often thought of as the time of Jane Austen and the Napoleonic War, until the time Queen Victoria ascended the throne. Some historians believe the growing influence of the non-Anglican churches had more to do with the changing values that became the Victorian ideals. Victoria also had a very serious, possibly even prudish husband who probably affected society.

Clothing fashions underwent a dramatic change. The influence of the charismatic Beau Brummel took men out of bright colors, satins and ruffles that make one think of a peacock, and put them into more subdued colors and styles that evolved into the modern day tuxedo. People lost the powdered wigs and began bathing on a regular basis. The wealthy even had indoor plumbing. Josephine Bonaparte, who was influential in France, created the simpler women’s fashions of flowing, empire-style gowns reminiscent of Greek gowns, which were quickly adopted by the English who, no doubt, were grateful to rid themselves of corsets, panniers, and laughable headdresses.

While images of hedonistic pleasures often come to mind, the Regency era was also steeped in manners, honor, and duty. If a girl was discovered to have been alone with a man, she was instantly considered ruined. The family expected the man to marry her, thus saving her from such a terrible fate. No one considered a ruined girl a good match. People shuddered at the thought of addressing a person to whom they had not yet been properly introduced. It was always best to be introduced by someone who knew them both. And ladies who walked up to a gentleman and addressed him was considered ill-mannered.

The Regency era was also a time of great change. The Industrial revolution was making commoners wealthier than some aristocrats, education became more readily available to the average person, and new churches preached morality to the lower classes. The nobility feared a repeat of the French Revolution because of the riots and the American revolution and, more recently, the War of 1812.

I love Regencies because I love the way they spoke so eloquently. Reading Jane Austen is almost like ready poetry. Each word was carefully chosen for its beautiful wording, imagery and cadence. There was no mauling the language by the upper classes. They also had a great deal of wit. Indeed, wit was prized and they excelled in using the understatement.

Women had more freedom than in the Victorian era. Women, particularly widows, had money, power and fun unlike the Victorian era which turned widows into black-clad hermits expected to mourn all their lives. In the Regency era, men did not keep their wives under their thumb. In fact, they each had their own interests, hobbies, and friends.

Regency men were educated and were taught to dance, read and recite poetry from a young age. They were athletic; they hunted, raced, fenced, rode horses. They were manly. Strong. Noble. Resolute. Honorable. And that is why I love them.