Welcome to Gaia! ::

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.

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.

Okay, one at a time.

Army Questions
Is there even an army in Sunderland?! ;A;
Yes, but for future reference, any questions about Sunderland should be posed in the main thread, this thread is purely for questions about the Regency and not Sunderland.


Quoting, the powers that be for this one, though I'm going to tentatively say yes, the structure of the Sunderlandian army would be the same as a Regency army. Though, keep in mind the Sunderland army would probably be smaller than the English Regency army because Sunderland is not involved with any wars at the moment while the English army of the Regency was involved with the Napoleonic Wars at the time.

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 have no idea, help me lovely Umbro and Harper! But again, this would be a question better asked in the main thread.

Bias Questions
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.


*howls and calls pack*

Nobility Questions
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?
I'm going to assume that there are simply because the culture of Sunderland is based on Regency England. Umbro or Harper, feel free to redact my answer.
Boarding schools, at least under that name, were mainly for women who could afford. 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.

No easy way of saying this, but:

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.

This is all extremely harsh, but that's the Regency era for you, fantastically shiny on the outside, rotten and filled with oppression and bigotry on the inside, but that was all glazed over with a lovely veneer until we hit the Victorian era which is when some reforms took place, mostly regarding child and women laborers.

As for bankers, 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.

(Sorry Woofer for answering these question first, these questions are a little easier to answer? I'm probably going to ramble A LOT when answering your questions~♥)