|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:41 pm
The Regency Era: A Question & Answer Thread Have you ever wondered what would happen when a widowed man with a son and an significant amount of property which would be inherited by his heir remarried and had children with his new wife? How about a widowed woman who had a son and a significant family inheritance that was to be settled on her heir who then remarried and had children with her new husband? Well, in the Regency Era, despite the fact that the only difference between these two scenarios is the gender of the widow, these two scenarios had vastly different outcomes, in the first, the first child of the widowed man would receive the large inheritance and in the second, he would receive nothing, in fact, he could very well be tossed out with nothing but the clothes on his back since his mother's new husband had no responsibility to provide for him and his mother had no means to provide for him. The only respite the son could have in the second scenario would come from complicated legal conditions that were unlikely to have existed in such a highly patriarchal society.
Do you want to know why this is and how little changes in each scenario could play out? Do you have questions of your own that you can't find answers to in your quest for historical accuracy? Do you just have little things that you want to have clarified?
If you do, this is the place for you! In this thread, you can ask questions about the Regency Era and I'll find the answer for you! You can also ask for me to read through your journal for historical consistency and I'll go into as in-depth as you want explanations of why certain places are inconsistent with the Regency Era and what your different options are for tweaking these little parts to create a character history that is both coherent and historically accurate!
This thread is not for fact-checking Sunderland related facts, all Sunderland related questions should still be directed to Umbro or Harper who will be able to tell you much better than I, and with a lot more certainty, what is and is not happening in Sunderland.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:43 pm
Questions & Their Answers I'll be posting all the questions asked and their answers in this post and the following posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:10 pm
What sorts of jobs do regency era nobles have in this setting? What are some examples of how the higher class has obtained its wealth?
Regency era nobles who have a title in their own right (meaning they are the current holder of the title and the previous holder, their father or another male relative, is now dead) would generally simply manage the estate. For the nobility, having a job is unthinkable because that means you are involved in trade, which is bad enough for those of the landed gentry (who also only work on managing estates), but far worse for a noble. A peer (a noble) simply runs the estate (generally with the help of an estate manager) and sits in the House of Lords during sessions of Parliament. Children of nobles, who aren't considered nobles until they inherit the title but will be treated as nobles and have the use of courtesy titles (lesser titles that also belong to their father but aren't used because they have a greater title that trumps these other titles, though if their father is lower nobility, they might not have any other titles), are generally receiving an education and getting ready for their duties as a peer. Also, it needs to be noted that only the first born male child will be a noble after the death of his father. The other children will be demoted to the level of landed gentry and will not be considered a noble though it is still a huge status symbol to be the child of a noble or related to one.
Generally, wealth that also has respect associated with it, by the Regency Era was accumulated a LONG time ago. The peerage gained their titles when they did something of merit that allowed them recognition from the reigning monarch who would also gift them with a giant hunk of land which they manage. Those living on their land contribute to their wealth and land owners generally made their money through what could be best analogized as an investment of sorts. I can't recall the exact percentage of the investment at the time but I think it's something low like 2 or 3 percent, so for someone, say, Mr. Darcy, to be making 10,000 a year, means that he is incredibly wealthy because that means he has a wealth of 500,000 being invested upon that yields him 10,000 a year. This wealth comes from land, so agriculturally based that is worked on by tenants and also trade that tenants engage in.
Basically, to sum that up, they didn't have jobs, other than making sure that the people on their land were making money which in turn means they are making money.
Those new to the landed gentry who may be incredibly wealthy likely came from trade, so they were merchants and entrepreneurs who accumulated a great deal of wealth which they used to buy an estate, which becomes the sole source of income since in order to be in the landed gentry, you must cut your ties to trade. It might take at least ten generations for the "stench of trade" to be lessened enough to be truly accepted in the ranks of the higher gentry though a good marriage of a daughter to a higher class gentry man who in this case must be having money issues who can afford to marry a woman who carries the stench of trade because his position in society is solid enough.
It must be also noted that not all nobility or landed gentry are wealthy. They can be extremely poor and everything they have on the verge of falling apart due to poor estate managing and still have an extremely high social status because of their family name.
Taking Pride and Prejudice in example again, technically, the Bennets were actually socially ranked higher than the Bingleys despite the Bingleys' greater wealth, though they are still looked down upon because of their lack of wealth and participation in the ton (fashionable society occupied by the landed gentry and nobility) by other more established members of the landed gentry, such as Mr. Darcy, but the Bingley sisters were completely out of line in their derogation of the Bennet family because regardless of their wealth they're still the daughters of a tradesman and their brother had yet to enter the landed gentry by buying an estate.
The term commoners refers to any non-nobles, even if these commoners are more wealthy than them.
Nobility generally accepted the gentry who looked down on tradesmen (which included lawyers and doctors) who looked down on the other self-employed (store and innkeepers) who looked down on servants and manual laborers who looked down of gypsies, paupers, and criminals.
Do any libraries exist in this time frame/setting or is it more book shops?
Book shop owners often times sold and lent books, so those were the libraries of the day. Though if you had the money to buy books you would definitely buy them because they were a status symbol regardless of whether or not you read them. The literacy rate was improving, but the vast majority of commoners who weren't part of the gentry or a wealthy tradesman probably couldn't read.
How respected would a high-ranking officer be? Could an officer serving in the army be granted an estate through exemplary service and achievements?
Fairly respected, they're kind of a class in of themselves, members of the army that is. Higher ranking officers would definitely have a lot of respect among commoners and more country folk, but amongst the ton (fashionable society) the respect they command would come larger from their family background. So I guess, you would be respected but not socially high on the ladder unless you're up there regardless of your status as an army officer.
Yes, but only by doing enough to earn a title. Otherwise, only an award of valor or what have you. So it would have to be some incredible service to the crown and it was incredibly rare to be given a title during the Regency era. Actually, there were no peers created during the Regency era, though that doesn't bar you from creating a character that is given a title during the era, though it would have to be something pretty amazing, but given the fact that there are no major battles, maybe little skirmishes happening in Sunderland, it would be unlikely for a Sunderlandian soldier to earn a title through military service during this current era of Sunderlandian history.
I realize people of different skin color would be heavily biased against, but would a person with such skin color be accepted in high society through some amazing service to the Crown? If not, what is the highest status a man of color can achieve?
Highly unlikely, they could become incredibly rich, but no one would sell them an estate and without an estate, they would never be able to enter high society. At best, they could become very wealthy tradesmen who might command some influence among lower commoners but they would never be anything more than a colored person to high society and even to lower commoners, that is until you hit the seventh and lowest class, which includes the gypsies and criminals, which is probably the only people who wouldn't look at them with contempt because of the skin color but would probably still dislike them because of their wealth.
Would being a tutor be an acceptable position for a second son of a Marquess?
No, it would not be. Not even the child of a gentleman would become a tutor.
Only the daughter of a gentleman could respectably be a governess and tutor of sorts.
Are there any boarding schools for noble children in Sunderland, like in England of the day? If yes, are they sought after?
Boarding schools, at least under that name, were mainly for women who could afford it. Men were tutored at home until they were old enough to enter public schools, called as such because they were run separate from the government and open to anyone who had the money to attend. Feel free to create the Sunderlandian version of public schools such as Eton, Oxford, Winchester, or Harrow.
How prestigious would being a headmaster of such a school be?
Of the very prestigious schools, the headmaster would have a great deal of respect in his role as an educator and probably has connections through blood to great families of noble or gentry blood. A headmaster of a new school would have none of that distinction, though he could still be part of high society by birth.
What about sexuality, were homosexuals exiled/penalized for being open? Or would most be closeted/secretive about their lives?
Answer from Umbro: For Sunderland-specific info I figured it's relevant that Wardwood's version of Christianity is a fairly recent import to the country, having arrived only perhaps 3-5 centuries ago, and as a result Christian morals regarding certain topics do not have quite as powerful of an influence in society. For stuff like this I tend to take a "similar but less harsh" approach, so instead of being punishable by death in Sunderland, homosexuality, though still considered a serious offense, is more a matter of jail time and varyingly deleterious social stigma. I imagine things are going to become VERY interesting if and when mainstream society discovers that same-sex guardian pairs reproduce all the time, haha!
Historical answer: They would be convicted of 'buggery' and sentenced to death (most likely by hanging) which was a huge public affair where people came out to watch them be executed.
On the man's side:
They would likely be closeted their whole life because it is engrained in them since their childhood that it is their duty to have children, that other than maintaining the family estate, the most valuable, most respected, most desirable man is one who settled down early, took a beautiful accomplished wife, and has many children. They wouldn't be able to stay in London (in Sunderland, Palisade) because they would be under far too much scrutiny and engaging in a relationship would be highly stressful and duty to your family came before anything so even if one man could afford to be in a relationship, the other could be potentially drawn away by a advantageous marriage at any time.
On the woman's side:
Just like with men, since their childhood, women are told their only goals in life are to become accomplished to attract a good husband and to have children with these good husbands. A woman's primary value is as a walking womb who also functions as a trophy and thus would also be closeted because otherwise they would lose any value they had as a human being. Women of lower standing who could escape the expectation of marriage could potentially get away with having a homosexual relationship as long as they kept it hidden, though it must be kept in mind that most people didn't even believe that lesbians existed and therefore it doesn't carry the same criminal offense because you don't ban something that never happens. Unfortunately for a higher class woman, even one of middling class, they would probably be forced into a marriage.
Also, what social ranking would a banker have, assuming Sunderland has financial institutions?
They're of the third class, below the nobility and landed gentry. So they aren't upper class, but they can benefit from associations with those in the upper class, generally the less wealthy, and rank amongst the higher up tradesmen, though upper clergy, well known and respected doctors, and large scale merchants and manufacturers may outrank them in some cases depending on their familial connections and personal wealth.
Would a lawyer be an acceptable profession during this time period?
If so, how respectable with that position be?
Would someone be able to make a decent living/even be granted an estate if they've performed very well during their career or helped put away numerous criminals (if they really exist in Sunderland)?
Being a lawyer would be an acceptable position. They would rank similar to merchants and doctors on the social ladder, though that would also depend heavily on wealth. They would still be considered tradesmen and therefore are looked down upon by the landed gentry and the peerage. They could make a decent living, depending on who they worked for. The choice employer would, of course, be members of the landed gentry who would pay a hefty fee and would therefore afford their lawyer(s) a potentially lavish lifestyle. They would be unlikely to be granted an estate due to the fact that that is usually reserved for those families close to the crown and who also do some extraordinary service or those who just do something so amazing in service to the crown that it can't be ignored. Also, most lawyers would be practicing civil, rather than criminal, law simply because there was a lack of a police force to investigate crimes and most crimes went unpunished. Societal transgressions were punished as were major crimes that were caught immediately, such as getting caught murdering a wealthy land owner, however most other crimes, even murders of commoners, would go ignored, as was the way with the Regency Era. The Regency Era had a kind of, if we ignore it, it didn't happen attitude to the crime.
If not, what would be some professions that would be viable for someone who isn't necessarily Sunderland nobility? Considering that I've planned Antoine to have come from Wardwood's equivalent of France, he's probably not accepted as true nobility unless his name is very famous, right? Would he get special treatment if his father was someone very important in this "France"?
They could potentially serve as companions to Sunderlandian peerage or wealthy landed gentry. Most nobles visiting other countries during the Regency era were sent to wait on the other country's court, so they were still recognized as nobility and were guests of the crown. However, if they were to become permanent residents/weren't sent by their crown, then they would lose their title as nobility. With a famous name, he might get respect, but he still wouldn't be considered true nobility. Also, if his father is still alive, he would wouldn't have the title in his own right, so technically he's not even a noble since he's essentially title-less. He'd probably still get special treatment by families that have ties to his or have met his family before, but under the eyes of the law and if anyone wanted to get technical about it, he would just be a wealthy commoner. That is, unless he managed to buy an estate, then he would be a part of Sunderland's landed gentry.
How was divorce handled?
Divorce, or probably a little bit easier annulment (but not really, since both are complicated), was a very, very prolonged and extremely expensive process. It wasn't restricted to the extremely wealthy, but the costs associated with divorce and annulment made it impossible for those who didn't have extreme wealth to go through with a divorce. Additionally, women were highly unlikely to be granted divorce from their husbands because not only did they need to prove one of the grounds, but also other aggravating offenses by their husbands.
Divorces and annulments were tried by bishops as the laws that bind marriages are ecclesiastical law and therefore were under the jurisdiction of the church.
Here are the grounds for annulment:
1) Fraud: One or both of the parties used a name on the marriage banns/registration that wasn't their real name. However, if it was a name they were commonly known by, the marriage wouldn't be annulled. Also, if the bishop decided it was just a mistake, it wouldn't be annulled. OR Wedding promises weren't kept (ie promising to house your wife on an estate you sold, or a promised dowry not being provided), this was exceedingly rare OR the person officiating the wedding made a mistake/didn't follow the rules, also exceedingly rare
2) Incompetency: If you were 21, you could enter a marriage without parental consent, however if you were underage, a marriage is annulled if parents don't give consent. OR One or both of the parties is legally insane. That person would be locked up for life and possessions taken away if a man, though he retains his titles (and a guardian is appointed). If a woman, they were locked away and forgotten. Being legally insane taints the entire family, even the ex-spouse, so this was a terrible grounds of annulment.
3) Impotence: This must be something that one party new of at the time of the marriage, but the other was not informed. It involves proving impotency through medical exams of both parties and the man must bed his wife for three years and then prove she is still a virgin. He must not bed anyone else. And then after those three years is up, then he must prove he can't... uh... get it going even in the presence of highly skilled courtesans...
There were four grounds for divorce:
1) Adultery: A man could bring suit against his wife's lover in civil court where it must be proved that she had an affair with that lover and committed adultery. The lover must be judged guilty and then is dealt a huge fine for getting between the marriage. Then the case is taken to ecclesiastical court which was the actual divorce proceedings where using the civil court decision as evidence, a man could file for divorce. This is where the husband charged his wife (rather than her lover) with adultery and use that to request a divorce. This works for a man since it's important for a man to have a legitimate heir. It doesn't work for women because a) women just didn't have that standing in society and b) society had a 'what did it matter if a man slept around?' attitude towards men carrying on affairs since there would be no question of heirs. Therefore, only under circumstances where the man was having an affair with her sister would this be a way for a women to gain divorce, OR if she could prove extreme physical cruelty on part of her husband in conjunction to adultery (though this is extremely difficult in a society that tends to look the other way when women are being abused). Additionally, women were seen as the legal property of their husbands, so divorce tended not to be granted or even considered.
2) Impotency: This is grounds for divorce if impotency occurs after marriage. The same process is carried out as for annulment.
3) Cruelty: This would be the grounds used by women to obtain divorce, but unfortunately, it was exceedingly rare that they would even attempt to bring the case to court, let alone be able to prove their case.
4) Entering religion: If one or both of the parties intended to become a monk or nun, that was grounds for divorce, but this is also very rare because most people who enter religion tend to do so before marriage and this involves the renunciation of your physical properties and titles so it wasn't a good grounds for divorce unless you really did intend to go into religion.
There are generally three steps to divorce, mostly because the only divorces that went through were for adultery by men, so the first two were described about. The first was charging the lover with adultery, or better known as 'Criminal Conversation' or CrimCon, which was just a nice euphemism for sleeping with my wife. Then there was the bishop granting separation/"divorce" which removed all of the husband's responsibilities to his wife. The third was another really, really lengthy trial that would allow the man to remarry to produce a legitimate heir. This bill must be passed by a bishop to allow remarriage. The woman would never be able to remarry.
In both annulments and divorces, both parties would become ostracized by society and looked down upon, the woman more so than the man. Annulments and divorces brought shame on the entire family. The divorcees would be social outcasts.
Another factor, other than cost, that made divorces or annulment exceedingly rare was that bishops oversaw these proceedings and they had a vested interest in maintaining the sanctity of marriage and upholding the values of the church by refusing annulments and divorces.
For those who weren't rich, legal annulments or divorces were not an option because of the lengthy process and huge price. Therefore they had a practice called "wife-selling" which is quite literally the practice of selling your wife to the highest bidder. General lower society would recognize this as being the equivalent of divorce, but it wasn't legal under the state or church. Additionally, you wouldn't be able to legally remarry. The husband would publicly parade his wife around with a halter around her neck, waist, or arms and then would publicly auction her off. Later on, this practice would become a prosecutable crime, but during the Regency era, magistrates tended to look the other way.
But keeping in mind that Naturism is not as entrenched in Sunderland as Christianity was in England, it would be fair to say that while the cost would be prohibitive, the religious factor probably wouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
