Queen Charlotte was a loyal and devoted wife but she often disapproved of her pleasure-loving eldest son.
A peer could have more than one title but generally used that of highest rank. Most peers earned a lower ranking title first and then added the higher titles to their name as they were conferred. Dukes, for instance, could also hold the titles of Marquis (or Marquess), Earl, Viscount and Baron with each title having its own separate name and style if desired—as in the ‘Most Noble Adolphus Gillespie Vernon Ware, Duke of Sale and Marquis of Ormesby; Earl of Sale; Baron Ware of Thame; Baron Ware of Stoven; and Baron Ware of Rufford’. Titles were hereditary through the male line and, as heir, the eldest son of a duke, marquis or earl could use his father’s secondary title as a courtesy title: thus a son of the Duke of Sale would be styled Marquis of Ormesby until he succeeded to the dukedom. Younger sons and daughters of a duke or marquis used their given names preceded by Lord or Lady, while the son of an earl was styled the Honourable (in writing only) and a daughter used Lady followed by her given name. The male and female children of a viscount or baron were also styled Honourable followed by their name and surname but, again, only in writing as Jonathan Chawleigh in A Civil Contract was chagrined to discover on the birth of his grandson Giles Jonathan Deveril. Mr Chawleigh thought poorly of ‘Honourables’ and was disappointed to learn that the son of a viscount had no title of his own.
Duke or duchess was the highest rank in the British peerage outside the royal family. The title was conferred by the sovereign in gratitude for great service to the Crown and always included the words ‘of’ followed by a place—usually one which had relevance to the duke’s seat or history, hence the Duke of Salford. A ducal couple were addressed as Duke or Duchess, Your Grace, His Grace the Duke of Salford or Her Grace, the Duchess of Salford or, more formally, Most Noble.
Dating from the fourteenth century, the title of marquis denoted a man second in rank to a duke. As with a duke’s title, that of the marquis was also followed by a place-name, although this was not used in speech. A marquis’s wife was a marchioness. He would be the Most Honourable the Marquis of Alverstoke in writing, and together they would be Lord and Lady Alverstoke in speech.
Earl was the oldest title in the peerage, usually followed by a county or city name. The earl would be styled the Right Honourable the Earl of St Erth in correspondence, and he and his countess would be addressed as Lord and Lady St Erth in person.
The title of viscount was created in 1440 and was the fourth ranking title in the peerage. It was followed only by a name and did not use ‘of’ after the title—as in the Right Honourable the Viscount and Viscountess Lynton or, simply, Lord and Lady Lynton.
Dating from Norman times, the rank of baron was the most commonly held rank in the peerage and the title Baron was always followed by a place-name or other name. ‘Of’ may or may not be used—as in Baron Carlyon or Baron of Beauvallet. The wife of a baron was a baroness. In writing he would be styled the Right Honourable the Lord Carlyon and in speech he and his wife would be addressed as Lord and Lady Carlyon.
THE GENTRY
The ‘Quality’ was a generic reference used by the middle and lower classes to describe anyone deemed to be a member of the upper class. Members of the peerage were automatically included as was anyone recognised as one of the gentry although, unlike the peerage, they might not necessarily retain a title as was the case with the well-to-do Squire in Sylvester, Mr Orde, and the impecunious but well-born Stacy Calverleigh of Black Sheep. Recognition of the Quality by those further down the social scale was usually immediate although, as Amanda Smith discovered in Sprig Muslin, a young lady of good birth travelling alone might not be treated by innkeepers or middle-class women with the degree of deference usually accorded to those of her class. Only the fortuitous arrival of the obviously aristocratic Sir Gareth Ludlow saved Miss Smith from the humiliation of being sent to a much less genteel hostelry down the road. As a group the gentry was less easily defined than the peerage (whose titles clearly set them apart) but it included wealthy landowners who held no title, baronets and knights, esquires and gentlemen. The latter two titles were slightly tricky in that the difficulties associated with determining who held authentic rights to them, together with the changing definition of the word ‘gentleman’, meant that many more people used the term than the upper class was willing to accept as one of themselves.
Baronet was the sixth ranking title after the five degrees of the peerage and the honour was established in 1611 by James I. A baronetcy was conferred by the sovereign and the title was hereditary in the male line (in Scotland it could pass to a female). The title enabled the holder to call himself Sir followed by his full name and his wife Lady followed only by the surname as in Sir Waldo Hawkridge and Lady Hawkridge.
Although lower in rank than a baronet, a knighthood conferred a similar right of title to that of the baronet and enabled the knight to call himself Sir followed by his full name and his wife Lady followed only by the surname, as in Sir Harry Smith. In speech he would be addressed as Sir Harry and she would be Lady Smith. Originally a medieval rank of chivalry, by the time of the Regency a knighthood could be bestowed on a man for a wide variety of services to the Crown or State.
In medieval times the rank of esquire had carried with it a degree of honour almost equal to that of a knight. Over the centuries, however, the title had lost much of its meaning as more and more males outside the gentry attached it to their names in an effort to attain a higher level of respectability. In writing a man could style himself Fred Merriville, Esq., but in speech he was addressed simply as Mr Merriville.
The rank of gentleman was not conferred but rather applied to those who were obviously genteel or not ignoble but who held no other rank or title. By the time of the Regency a gentleman could be almost any man who did not have to work for a living and the term was often assumed by ambitious men or those with pretensions to class. Although there was no formal title for a gentleman it was not uncommon for a man with social ambition to style himself in his correspondence as, for example, ‘Swithin Liversedge, gentleman’, although in speech there was no distinction and he would be addressed simply as Mr Liversedge.
THE NEW MIDDLE CLASS, NABOBS AND ‘CITS’
Many clergymen enjoyed a comfortable life while administering to the needs of their aristocratic patrons or their parish.
The term ‘middle class(es)’ was not actually used until 1832, well after the Regency, but the group of people it came to include were an important and growing force in the early nineteenth century. Those in the middle classes ranged from professionals such as financiers, bankers, prominent doctors, engineers and lawyers, government place-holders and bureaucrats, factory owners, wealthy merchants, nabobs and the well-endowed clergy at the upper end of the scale; to teachers, innkeepers, artists, master craftsmen, smaller merchants, shopkeepers, lesser clergy, and small freeholders at the lower end; while the doctors, lawyers and merchants of moderate means, yeoman farmers, prosperous builders, small manufacturers, chicken-nabobs and university dons took their places somewhere in the middle. A more elastic entity than the upper class, the middle class was forever shifting and changing, its boundaries and inner distinctions difficult to define. The vulgar but endearing Mrs Floore in Bath Tangle clearly belonged to the new middle class for, although her fortune was large and she had married above her station, her birth was humble and her manners would never be genteel.
From the late eighteenth century, men returning from India or the Far East with a large fortune made abroad began to be referred to as ‘nabobs’. During the Regency, nabobs were known for buying estates or a seat in parliament, or marrying their daughters into the aristocracy in a (frequently successful) attempt to enter society at a higher level than may have been open to them when they had left England. Unless they were of acceptable birth, like Miles Calverleigh in Black Sheep, most nabobs would climb only as high as the upper reaches of the middle class, and remain there, watching t
heir children and grandchildren eventually become accepted as part of the aristocracy—as was the case with Jonathan Chawleigh of A Civil Contract. Chicken-nabobs were the much less well-heeled adventurers whose exploits in foreign parts had earned them a minor fortune—usually no more than fifty or sixty thousand pounds—or at least a competence, while overseas. They were called ‘chicken’ nabobs because their fortunes were smaller than those of the nabobs who returned home with enormous wealth.
Wealthy merchants, such as Jonathan Chawleigh in A Civil Contract, often aspired to see their children marry into the upper class.
The term ‘cit’ referred to the citizens of the City of London—those who ran or worked in the financial heart of the City and who were often of plebeian origins like Hannah Plymstock’s brother who so strongly disapproved of the aristocracy in Cotillion. Cits were also the merchants and shopkeepers who lived in the City, necessary individuals, but generally kept at arm’s length from the ton unless they were extremely wealthy.
FURTHER DOWN THE LADDER
Artisans and tradespeople were skilled workers who had a high level of expertise as well as labour to offer in return for an income. Some artisans were descended from a long line of master craftsmen and used their skills to build successful businesses, make their fortune and climb their way up the social ladder. By the time of the Regency it was not unknown for newly established peers of the realm to have had grandfathers (or even fathers) who had started life as artisans. Not all artisans were well off, however, and many managed to earn little more than the most successful among the labouring poor.
Maids were among the hardest working of all domestic servants.
Servants could be difficult to place in the overall class hierarchy as there was great variation in earnings and living conditions depending on their role, the attitude and status of their employer, their wage and board arrangement, the opportunity for promotion or, in some cases, for lining their own pockets. A minority—mainly butlers, chefs, stewards and head gardeners working for royalty or the upper ranks of the nobility—earned large salaries, often at the rate of £100 or more per year. Most servants, however, earned from as little as £6 a year (scullery maids, maids-of-all-work, and stable boys) to approximately £40 a year for a Groom of the Chambers or a butler.
A rigid hierarchy was strictly observed within the servant class and its proprieties were often more closely adhered to by its members than was the case among their employers. Domestic servants were classed as either upper or lower servants and in large households the two groups ate separately, sitting in strict order of rank around the meal-table:
THE UPPER SERVANTS
Steward
Housekeeper
Groom of the Chambers
Head Housemaid
Butler
Lady’s Maid
Valet
THE LOWER SERVANTS
Footman
Housemaid
Coachman
Kitchen maid
Groom
Scullery maid
Stable boy
Laundry maid
The cook (or male chef in a great house) was usually employed directly by the master or mistress of the house and paid more than the steward, and as such was often regarded as separate from the rest of the domestic staff. In False Colours, the great hedonist and gourmand Sir Bonamy Ripple had three cooks—headed by his French chef Alphonse—all of whom were ‘indispensable to his comfort’.
A servant’s standing was determined by his or her role in the household and the place of the master or mistress both in the family line and in society—a position which could change instantly in the event of a birth, death or marriage. The heir’s valet, for example, took precedence over a younger son’s valet. A family reunion in The Unknown Ajax brought two mature valets to Darracott Place, their places at table in the servants’ hall determined by their masters’ positions in the family line. When the new heir arrived at the house his youthful and inexperienced valet automatically took precedence over the two older men for, despite his young age, as the heir’s valet he outranked them both. A servant’s social position and standing were often jealously guarded and it was not uncommon for the upper servants to hold themselves aloof from the lesser servants or even to be snobbish about their employers’ guests or relatives deemed to be socially inferior. Miss Clara Crowle, as dresser to Lady Bridlington in Arabella, was allowed a good deal of licence with her mistress but when she dared to criticise her mistress’s young guest she stepped over the line and was chastised by her employer.
THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER
The largest of all social classes during the Regency, the labouring poor, were those who struggled on a daily basis to survive, from labourers to pedlars, chimney sweeps and climbing boys, ordinary soldiers and naval men, vagrants, paupers and those too old, too sick or too unlucky to find work. Although some found employment as itinerant or seasonal workers many among the labouring poor were driven to crime, prostitution or an early grave. Young Ben Breane, the gatekeeper’s son in The Toll-Gate, having found himself without relatives to care for him, was terrified of being thrown on the parish or sent to work in the foundries in Sheffield; while the urchin rescued by Patience Chartley in The Nonesuch was one of many who eked out an existence among the dyeing-houses and manufactories in the back-slums of Leeds.
CLIMBING THE SOCIAL LADDER
The quickest way up the social ladder was through marriage and, failing that, by the accumulation of great wealth, a landed estate, and the acquisition of a title. In Frederica it was the heroine’s great ambition to see her beautiful sister, Charis, successfully launched into the ton in the hope that she might contract a good marriage—for with only their brother’s small estate to support them this was the best hope for seeing Charis and her younger siblings comfortably and independently established for the rest of their lives. In the middle and lower classes—where hierarchy was not distinguished by title, and birth and money were often merely indicators rather than deciding factors in determining an individual’s position on the social scale—knowing one’s exact place depended on a number of things. In A Civil Contract a potential feud between the housekeeper, Mrs Dawes, and her mistress’s personal maid, Miss Pinhoe, was averted once it was discovered that the two women were from the same county and the social pecking order was made clear from Mrs Dawes’s superior standing as the daughter of a prosperous farmer. The myriad of levels within each degree of class and the subtle distinctions that pushed one person ahead of another constantly shifted as people jostled for a better social position, and overt signs of superiority such as clothing, manners, speech, dwelling, income, personal property and numbers of servants (if any) became increasingly available to a growing number of people. In general, however, most people knew their place and, accordingly, showed deference or a marked superiority in their dealings with others. For those already titled, gaining a higher title was the most obvious means of social advancement.
For some families, scaling the social heights was a climb which could take several generations. A man might make his way in the world of trade or commerce, gain financial independence, buy an estate and earn himself a baronetcy or a seat in the House of Commons. From there he could aspire to the lowest rank of the peerage (baron) or marry his daughter (or, less likely, his son) to a member of the nobility. If he could not himself rise through the ranks, his children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren might well achieve such honour through marriage, increased wealth, political influence or great service to the State. Although the aristocracy could be ruthless in excluding from its ranks those new entrants deemed to be of inferior birth, the passage of time was an effective panacea and it usually took, at most, two generations before the descendant of a commoner became an accepted member of the upper class.
2
At Home in Town and Country
MAYFAIR
Mayfair, that fashionable district in the West End of London that housed most of Georgette Heyer’s
London characters, was bounded by Park Lane to the west, Piccadilly to the south, Bond Street to the east and Oxford Street to the north. The original May Fair, for which the area was named, began in 1689 and was an annual fête, hugely popular but so riotous that, by 1720, land developers had started planning the construction of ‘a large square and several fine streets and houses’. Grosvenor Square was the centrepiece of a planned eight-acre estate with Brook Street and Grosvenor Street as the two main east–west arteries. Green Street, Duke Street, South Audley Street and Mount Street, among others, were all part of the development with many fine houses and mews (stables) constructed there in the first half of the eighteenth century. Throughout the 1700s other streets and squares were also built in the increasingly exclusive area as more and more of the upper classes sought to rent or buy impressive residences west of the City, away from the fumes and foul air of the ‘easterly pile’, and closer to Hyde Park, Westminster and the Court of St James. By the time of the Regency many of the newly constructed mansions, classically inspired villas and rows of tall, elegant town houses in such desirable locations as Berkeley Square, Half Moon Street and Curzon Street had become home to the titled, rich and fashionable. Mayfair was for ever established as the place to live in London.
A London town house was the place to live during the Season.
THE LONDON HOUSE
Although upper-class houses varied in architecture, size and style, they shared several common elements which offered their wealthy owners or leaseholders grand, spacious living in elegantly appointed, well-lit rooms and as many of the modern conveniences as possible—depending on the age and design of the house. Most quality London houses of the Georgian period were made of stone and during the Regency were often rendered with stucco and painted. The majority of these houses were constructed with at least four floors plus a basement, cellars and an attic. On finding the grand family mansion in Grosvenor Square too large and dreary for their taste, the newly married Lord and Lady Sheringham in Friday’s Child decided they needed a ‘snug little house’ in Mayfair and eventually found a suitable town house in Half Moon Street. In the early nineteenth century, increased prosperity enabled many among the wealthy classes to extend and enlarge their London houses or build entirely new ones with five, and sometimes six, storeys.