They Had Condoms Back Then? The Questions and Answers Thread

[Door County Cherry]

Do you have questions and need answers? Do you have answers even if no one is asking a question? Would you like to share your knowledge of social mores of the regency era?

Then this is the thread for you.  

While book questions should go in the book thread, if you do reference the books (differences or future plot points), please use spoiler tags.  

[Growsonwalls]

I actually do need answers for this one. How did those girls wear all those pale dresses if it was that time of the month? It's 2020 and I still avoid wearing light colored clothing during that time of the month for fear of ... leakage. 

[RachelKM]

21 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I actually do need answers for this one. How did those girls wear all those pale dresses if it was that time of the month? It's 2020 and I still avoid wearing light colored clothing during that time of the month for fear of ... leakage. 

I don't have a complete answer for this.  They did use rags and towels made from cotton (functioning like pads/panty liners).  then there are three to four layers under the their clothes.  Layer one - drawers or a chemise (in theory you could wear both), petticoat (one during warm weather, possibly two if cool), under gown, gown, muslin overlay.  

They also changed their clothes multiple times per day - morning dress, day/walking dress, dressing for dinner even if they went no where all day.  If they were attending an evening event there would also be evening wear, which was separate from dinner dress.  And then there were riding habits and if you went riding, you would put on a different day dress after returning.*

It's quite likely the also limited some of their outings, but this part I don't know.

*My costumer friend (who helped me remember the layers - yes, I have a working costumer in my home - no I don't get free costumes... or any costumes.  She doesn't have time) joked "You changed your clothes every time you changed your activity.... like a baby, and sometimes for the same reasons - spilled something or soiled something.

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by RachelKM
egregious typos.

[Featherhat]

30 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I actually do need answers for this one. How did those girls wear all those pale dresses if it was that time of the month? It's 2020 and I still avoid wearing light colored clothing during that time of the month for fear of ... leakage. 

There seems to be no clear answer for this period in history except general theories about rags. I remember looking into it for a Jane Austen thing years ago. Here's an author's quest for answers which comes up with a pad thing from the 1880s. 

http://susannaives.com/wordpress/2015/09/tidbits-on-mid-victorian-era-menstrual-hygiene/

And as this points out underwear for ladies wasn't common: 

https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/ladies-underdrawers-in-regency-times/

The link shows contemporary paintings depicting ladies falling down the stairs with bare bottoms. 

[Growsonwalls]

I actually wonder that for ladies of a certain station they'd have a maid to discreetly wipe up the messes if they dripped on the floor. 

I know courtesans used to wear red flowers to indicate that they were, uh, not open for business. 

Another thing I wonder about is armpit hair in those pale, off-the shoulder dresses with those tiny sleeves. I assume they must have cut some of it off to give a more elegant look.

[Scarlett45]

22 minutes ago, RachelKM said:

I don't have a complete answer for this.  They did use rages and towels made from cotton (functioning like pads/panty liners).  then there are three to four layers under the their clothes.  Layer one - drawers or a chemise (in theory you could where both), petticoat (one during warm weather, possibly two if cool), under gown, gown, muslin overlay.  

They are also changed their clothes multiple times per day - morning dress, day/walking dress, dressing for dinner even if you go no where all day.  If they were attending an evening event there would also be evening wear, which was separate from dinner dress.  And there there are riding habits and if you went riding, you would put on a different day dress after returning.*

It's quite likely the also limited some of their outings, but this part I don't know.

*My costumer friend (who helped me remember the layers - yes, I have a working costumer in my home - no I don't get free consumes... or any costumes.  She doesn't have time) joked "You changed your clothes every time you changed your activity.... like a baby, and sometimes for the same reasons - spilled something or soiled something.

 

Yes. Gentle women of this period wore a LOT of layers. A lot a lot. Rags and cotton were used to absorb menstrual blood.

[Atlanta]

38 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I actually wonder that for ladies of a certain station they'd have a maid to discreetly wipe up the messes if they dripped on the floor. 

I know courtesans used to wear red flowers to indicate that they were, uh, not open for business. 

Another thing I wonder about is armpit hair in those pale, off-the shoulder dresses with those tiny sleeves. I assume they must have cut some of it off to give a more elegant look.

Wasn't waxing available then?

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Growsonwalls said:

I actually wonder that for ladies of a certain station they'd have a maid to discreetly wipe up the messes if they dripped on the floor. 

I know courtesans used to wear red flowers to indicate that they were, uh, not open for business. 

Another thing I wonder about is armpit hair in those pale, off-the shoulder dresses with those tiny sleeves. I assume they must have cut some of it off to give a more elegant look.

Their sleeves were not as tiny as the costumes used here.  If you look at portraits from the Regency, you will see sleeves that extend almost to the elbow.  Women also wore shifts with short sleeves under their dresses.  Also, beauty ideals change over time.  Smooth underarms is a more recent development.   

[DearEvette]

Hair removal for women was actually a very ancient grooming practice.  Believe it or not the ancient Egyptians waxed and sugared.  Methods we use today.  Women in the Middle east empires (the Ottoman empires etc.) always depilated.  Hair on the body was considered unclean per their religion*.  Ancient Roman civilizations also saw women who removed body hair.  Basically being hairless (on the body) in ancient Rome and Egypt was a sign of civilization and high society.

In Medieval England, ladies of the upper classes removed their eyebrows and hair at the front of their head.  They believed it a high forehead was more aristocratic and a lack of eyebrows aided in that illusion.

But it really wasn't until the very late 1800s and early 1900s that hair removal for women became a thing.  So the time period this is in armpit hair removal would not have been a regular thing.

 

*BTW, I first learned that in romance novels as well.  One author, Bertrice Small ,always had her heroines in almost every book she wrote kidnapped by Sultans and there were always these scenes of body hair removal and being rubbed with perfumed oils.

Edited December 31, 2020 by DearEvette

[OlderThanDirt]

Was Marina the only character in sleeveless dresses? I wonder why the costumers did that?  I may need to pay more attention in my second viewing but it seemed like most characters had sleeves. 

[Growsonwalls]

I'm finding the fact that Simon and Daphne only bone in two positions (man on top and woman on top) totally annoying. You'd think with all the shagging they do that they would have heard of doggy style or spooning. 

[bubble sparkly]

Okay, so if creepy Nigel was able to nearly get away with blackmailing Daphne into marriage by threatening to tell people he was alone with her, and thus ruining her reputation and possibly the whole family based on heresay, does that mean than any man could do the same thing to get a woman he wanted? Or would only powerful nobility be able to do this?

Like, if a random merchant or footman etc. decided that marrying Eloise and claiming her dowry would advance his position in life, could he just threaten to do the same thing and try to force the Bridgertons to agree to marry her off to him?  Or would a "lesser" man not be believed by the general public so his threat would hold no weight?

Also, can women try to use this to their advantage to land a wealthy dude who would be compelled to do the right thing and marry them?  Like, given the Fs live in close proximity to the Bs, if Mrs F was able to scheme to get one of her girls alone with Anthony in a room or on the street etc., could she then pop out of a bush and demand he marry daughter X to save her honour (even if nothing happened)?  And when Pen found Colin in the empty corridor of his house to try and convince him to ditch Marina, would have this been grounds to ruin her since they were alone in a secluded place, and could she have tried the "marry me or I'll be ruined" thing?

Edited December 31, 2020 by bubble sparkly

[Door County Cherry]

2 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'm finding the fact that Simon and Daphne only bone in two positions (man on top and woman on top) totally annoying. You'd think with all the shagging they do that they would have heard of doggy style or spooning. 

He does go down on her a few times.

[meatball77]

1 hour ago, bubble sparkly said:

Okay, so if creepy Nigel was able to nearly get away with blackmailing Daphne into marriage by threatening to tell people he was alone with her, and thus ruining her reputation and possibly the whole family based on heresay, does that mean than any man could do the same thing to get a woman he wanted? Or would only powerful nobility be able to do this?

Like, if a random merchant or footman etc. decided that marrying Eloise and claiming her dowry would advance his position in life, could he just threaten to do the same thing and try to force the Bridgertons to agree to marry her off to him?  Or would a "lesser" man not be believed by the general public so his threat would hold no weight?

Also, can women try to use this to their advantage to land a wealthy dude who would be compelled to do the right thing and marry them?  Like, given the Fs live in close proximity to the Bs, if Mrs F was able to scheme to get one of her girls alone with Anthony in a room or on the street etc., could she then pop out of a bush and demand he marry daughter X to save her honour (even if nothing happened)?  And when Pen found Colin in the empty corridor of his house to try and convince him to ditch Marina, would have this been grounds to ruin her since they were alone in a secluded place, and could she have tried the "marry me or I'll be ruined" thing?

That's why young unmarried women were always accompanied by a maid or a chaperone.  If you notice while Eloise and Penn are walking down the street they are being trailed by two maids.

Being trapped into marriage was a worry for an eligible gentlemen and it's a frequent plot in romance novels.  A woman would arrange to be caught in an office in a compromising position with the door closed.

[Mellowyellow]

Great thread!!!

My question is in relation to inheritance. It confuses the heck out of me!!!

So if girls are not able to inherit from their father, why do some books talk of "heiresses"?

Do they ALWAYS lose all their money if they don't have a boy to inherit the title, money etc?

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Mellowyellow said:

Great thread!!!

My question is in relation to inheritance. It confuses the heck out of me!!!

So if girls are not able to inherit from their father, why do some books talk of "heiresses"?

Do they ALWAYS lose all their money if they don't have a boy to inherit the title, money etc?

It depended on what you inherited. Your father could always leave you cash and unentailed property, but property with an entail had to follow the inheritance rules attached to it. 
 

So if your Dad was very rich and had lots of cash and other property, and only had a daughters (or one daughter) it was less of an issue than if your father only had an entailed estate (and/or a title attached to it)- think Pride and Prejudice. Mr Bennet had a house to live in and the income the land produced, but he couldn’t leave the land to his daughters. 

[quarks]

1 hour ago, Mellowyellow said:

Great thread!!!

My question is in relation to inheritance. It confuses the heck out of me!!!

So if girls are not able to inherit from their father, why do some books talk of "heiresses"?

Do they ALWAYS lose all their money if they don't have a boy to inherit the title, money etc?

With a few exceptions, girls couldn't and didn't inherit the title or the estate. But the family could set aside money earned from the estate and leave that to their daughters, or to younger sons. And in some cases, the estate owner and the heir could legally break up portions of the estate and provide for the daughters.

This comes up in Pride and Prejudice - Mr. Bennet initially assumes that he will have a son who will help him break up the estate and provide for the girls, so he just keeps spending money instead of saving it for them. Mr. Darcy's much wealthier father, on the other hand, is able to leave fairly substantial savings to his daughter, Georgiana, and Mr. Bingley's father was also able to leave small fortunes to Mrs. Hurst and Miss Bingley.  And over at Rosings, Lady Catherine de Bourgh (who is the daughter of an earl) has managed to ensure that Rosings is not entailed, thus her daughter Anne can and will inherit the estate. 

[Mellowyellow]

Thanks guys!!!

So I assume Emma's father had looooots of cash? Because she had so much freedom and money was never a worry for her in the future.

[Ohiopirate02]

10 minutes ago, Mellowyellow said:

Thanks guys!!!

So I assume Emma's father had looooots of cash? Because she had so much freedom and money was never a worry for her in the future.

Mr. Woodhouse was loaded and set up in a way that Emma never has to marry.  

 

26 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

It depended on what you inherited. Your father could always leave you cash and unentailed property, but property with an entail had to follow the inheritance rules attached to it. 
 

So if your Dad was very rich and had lots of cash and other property, and only had a daughters (or one daughter) it was less of an issue than if your father only had an entailed estate (and/or a title attached to it)- think Pride and Prejudice. Mr Bennet had a house to live in and the income the land produced, but he couldn’t leave the land to his daughters. 

I also wanted to add that usually daughters received their mother's dowry as their dowry.  We see this in sense and Sensibility where the late Mr. Dashwood cannot give his daughters their due and he extracts a promise from his son John to help them.  The Dashwood girls barely have enough money to live off of and no dowry, since John's wife Fanny is a bitch who manipulates him down to the occasional side of beef as being enough to fulfill his promise.  

[Featherhat]

1 hour ago, Mellowyellow said:

Thanks guys!!!

So I assume Emma's father had looooots of cash? Because she had so much freedom and money was never a worry for her in the future.

Yes her father had a lot of money and indulged her, As the book begins: 

"Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and a happy disposition... and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her."

She's rich has a loving father who doesn't want her to get married and leave him, is beautiful, powerful within the village and think she's much more interested in making matches than getting married herself. And better at it than anyone, else which is also wrong. She doesn't see the disadvantages someone like Harriet has because she has never had to deal with them herself  (thus causing chaos) and that's also why Knightly yells at her about her treatment of Miss Bates who's life might well only get worse the longer she lives. 

[meatball77]

2 hours ago, Mellowyellow said:

Great thread!!!

My question is in relation to inheritance. It confuses the heck out of me!!!

So if girls are not able to inherit from their father, why do some books talk of "heiresses"?

Do they ALWAYS lose all their money if they don't have a boy to inherit the title, money etc?

The Heiresses aren't getting their money when Dad dies.  They have massive dowries which can include property and trusts which are part of the marriage settlement which designates how much money is going and where (that money is often designated to go to her younger sons and/or a widows portion).  If your estate is in trouble (like the Earl of Grantham) you have to find yourself a rich girl to marry (possibly even an American) to save your estate.

The only thing that is required to directly go to the direct Heir is the entailed properties that are attached to the title.  Those also can't be lost (they can gamble everything else away).

[DearEvette]

During the Regency women could and did own their own property and money.  They could be willed money outright by their fathers or mothers just like today.  So there were heiresses. They just didn't have the right to the entailed property.  And Societal norms and entrenched ideas that women couldn't handle money often made that a rarity.

But.... if they got married all that money and property became their husbands unless 1) the husband set up a separate trust of her money for her sole use or 2) the original bequest of the money/property was held in trust for her or her heirs.

This is what SImon did for Daphne.  Normally her dowry went to her husband or husband's family for them to use as they wish there was no requirement for her to have access to the money.  But Simon told Anthony that Daphne's money should be held in trust for her.  So depending on whatever else was in the marriage settlements, if Simon died then Daph's dowry was hers to do with whatever she wanted even if she were to remarry.

Edited December 31, 2020 by DearEvette

[ouinason]

Marriage contracts were a huge deal then for that reason.

[DearEvette]

9 minutes ago, ouinason said:

Marriage contracts were a huge deal then for that reason.

Correct.  Also they were a legally binding even before the marriage took place.  It is also one the reasons women could break engagements but men could not.  Legally if a man did, the woman (or her family) had the right to sue him for breach of promise.  It could be really ruinous both socially and financially for him.  The reverse was not true.  Women were held to be the one to have the prerogative to change her mind.  And oftentimes, even if the contracts have not been signed, it was still a huge social stigma for a man to break it off.

[Featherhat]

8 hours ago, bubble sparkly said:

Okay, so if creepy Nigel was able to nearly get away with blackmailing Daphne into marriage by threatening to tell people he was alone with her, and thus ruining her reputation and possibly the whole family based on heresay, does that mean than any man could do the same thing to get a woman he wanted? Or would only powerful nobility be able to do this?

Like, if a random merchant or footman etc. decided that marrying Eloise and claiming her dowry would advance his position in life, could he just threaten to do the same thing and try to force the Bridgertons to agree to marry her off to him?  Or would a "lesser" man not be believed by the general public so his threat would hold no weight?

Also, can women try to use this to their advantage to land a wealthy dude who would be compelled to do the right thing and marry them?  Like, given the Fs live in close proximity to the Bs, if Mrs F was able to scheme to get one of her girls alone with Anthony in a room or on the street etc., could she then pop out of a bush and demand he marry daughter X to save her honour (even if nothing happened)?  And when Pen found Colin in the empty corridor of his house to try and convince him to ditch Marina, would have this been grounds to ruin her since they were alone in a secluded place, and could she have tried the "marry me or I'll be ruined" thing?

It would have to be a credible threat, not just a footman who told his master that he's slept with his daughter. That would just get him fired or worse beaten up or quietly done away with even if it was true.  If true or believed by her father/brother/uncle the daughter would either be sent to the country in disgrace or hastily married off to someone who wouldn't ask questions too many about her virginity. 

As for the other way around. It really depends on what sort of family the girl came from. IF she came from a wealthy, connected or powerful family then yes a man might be "trapped" into marriage by a young woman or they could insist that he married her if they had slept together. So many romance novels start with the premise that two people accidentally find themselves alone and must get married to protect her honour and/or because the man is honourable enough to follow through. 

However most of the time he was under no obligation to marry the young woman even if he had slept with her, although there could be some societal/family pressure. He could easily claim he wasn't even her first or that it wasn't his problem that she was ruined, that her father/brothers/chaperone should have taken more care of her virtue and she clearly was a slut who wouldn't make anyone a good wife. He might have to also deal with being a cad and possibly disinherited by his family (Willoughby in S&S but he then marries an heiress)  if it got out but nowhere near what she and her family would deal with. See also Lydia and Wickham in P&P Lizzie was worried there would be nothing to tempt Wickham to do the right thing by Lydia and he would just abandon her until Darcy intervened. 

 

[chaifan]

Was it ever stated how Lady Danbury had gained her estate & wealth?  She doesn't have children of her own, right?  So where does her estate and fortune pass down to?

 

[bijoux]

Does she explicitly mention not having children? I can't remember and unless she said so, I wouldn't assume that she had no children. 

[ouinason]

Lady Danbury is a widow, so her money and property were left to her by her deceased husband and/or her family at some point along the way.  You can only be "Lady (last name here)" through marriage except in some pretty weird and extreme circumstances, from what I understand.  She would be "Lady (first name)" otherwise.

Also, depending on what her husband's actual title was, that might not even be her last name, just the name of the title.  Like the Duke of Wellington's actual family name was Wellesley and not Wellington.  So his widow would have been Duchess/Lady Wellington, even though that wouldn't have been her last name.

Edited December 31, 2020 by ouinason

[Chicago Redshirt]

What precisely is an "entailmant"?

Also, can a widow like Lady Danbury will and transfer property as though she were a man? What happen to the titles associated with such a person after their passing?

[Growsonwalls]

I'm trying to research this and have read conflicting things: was Queen Charlotte really of African ancestry? I know in that era many people of mixed race ancestry 'passed' but without photographs it's hard to tell.

[bijoux]

5 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'm trying to research this and have read conflicting things: was Queen Charlotte really of African ancestry? I know in that era many people of mixed race ancestry 'passed' but without photographs it's hard to tell.

As far as I know, there's dispute if one of her distant ancestors was black, but there's pushback against it. 

[Ohiopirate02]

26 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

What precisely is an "entailmant"?

Also, can a widow like Lady Danbury will and transfer property as though she were a man? What happen to the titles associated with such a person after their passing?

Entailments were a legal way to keep estates intact through generations.   They prevented the current owner from selling off the estate leaving future generations of the family with nothing.   

Lady Danbury would have her own property from her marriage settlement to do as she pleases.  The bulk of her husbands estate would pass to his heir though.  The show gas not gone into detail about what is hers and what is the estate.  These are extremely wealthy people who own multiple homes.  She could be living in her own home or the heir is permitting her to live in one of his London homes.  The current Lord Danbury could be a 4 year old living in the country for all we know.

[Katsullivan]

If the Featheringtons's home was entailed, how could Lord Featherington gamble with the deed?

[PRgal]

4 hours ago, DearEvette said:

 And Societal norms and entrenched ideas that women couldn't handle money often made that a rarity.

 

This is an issue even today.  I recently heard a podcast where the guest (a woman) said it STILL isn't uncommon for financial advisors to speak to the husband rather than the wife.  Even as we talk about getting girls more interested in STEM careers, we are less likely to encourage a future in finance (venture capitalism is still very much male dominated, which is one reason why women-founded businesses (especially those whose businesses target women's interests) often get less funding.  The guys just don't "get it" as much.  

Also, how do things work if the title is inherited by a minor?  Who decides who to appoint as regent?  

[Ohiopirate02]

23 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

If the Featheringtons's home was entailed, how could Lord Featherington gamble with the deed?

Not every property is included in the entail though the family's main London residence usually is.  Lord F used the deed on a property that he couldn't give away because he had fixed the match.  He was banking on the bookie not having the time or resources to verify his bet before the fight.  

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, PRgal said:

 

Also, how do things work if the title is inherited by a minor?  Who decides who to appoint as regent?  

Men would appoint a male guardian for their children in their wills. The guardian would take care of the estate while mom would raise the children.   If both parents are deceased,  then a grandparent or sibling would step up to take care of the children.   If dad dies without appointing a guardian,  then the courts got involved which was not ideal.  

 

[Growsonwalls]

11 minutes ago, PRgal said:

This is an issue even today.  I recently heard a podcast where the guest (a woman) said it STILL isn't uncommon for financial advisors to speak to the husband rather than the wife.  Even as we talk about getting girls more interested in STEM careers, we are less likely to encourage a future in finance (venture capitalism is still very much male dominated, which is one reason why women-founded businesses (especially those whose businesses target women's interests) often get less funding.  The guys just don't "get it" as much.  

Also, how do things work if the title is inherited by a minor?  Who decides who to appoint as regent?  

They are usually given a custodian of their affairs. When they come of age they inherit the land or money. 

As for this idea that women shouldn't handle money, I once knew a woman who thought that the "greatest shame" for a woman was to have her own bank account. She said that if a woman had her own bank account, it meant she had to "work" for a living and didn't have a husband providing for her every need. Yeah.

[quarks]

7 minutes ago, PRgal said:

This is an issue even today.  I recently heard a podcast where the guest (a woman) said it STILL isn't uncommon for financial advisors to speak to the husband rather than the wife.  Even as we talk about getting girls more interested in STEM careers, we are less likely to encourage a future in finance (venture capitalism is still very much male dominated, which is one reason why women-founded businesses (especially those whose businesses target women's interests) often get less funding.  The guys just don't "get it" as much.  

Also, how do things work if the title is inherited by a minor?  Who decides who to appoint as regent?  

When the title or estate was inherited by a minor, it would usually be run by a trustee or trustees. The trustees were usually but not always named in a will. When Lord Byron's great-uncle died, for instance, leaving the title and what very little remained of the estate to Lord Byron, a trustee was not named - so Lord Byron's mother stepped in as the default trustee, which, depending upon who you choose to believe, was either great for Lord Byron or one of the worst tragedies of his life. (The entire family was kinda dramatic.) In his mother's defense, her entire fortune had gone to pay the debts of Lord Byron's father. (The entire family also tended to spend a lot of money and drink a lot of booze.)

Lord Byron's much suffering wife, Lady Byron, was one of the few women who did inherit a barony in her own right. That barony was eventually left to a granddaughter, Anne Blunt, who became the 15th Baron Wentworth.

 

[Growsonwalls]

Did England have laws against miscegeny laws in the Regency era? In the United States there were anti-miscegeny laws that remained on the books until 1969 (!!!). 

[bijoux]

I think interracial marriage was always legal in the UK. Social acceptability being another matter, naturally. 

[RachelKM]

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

What precisely is an "entailmant"?

Also, can a widow like Lady Danbury will and transfer property as though she were a man? What happen to the titles associated with such a person after their passing?

As noted above, an entailment was a property rights provision that dictated the terms of the passing of certain properties.  If a property was entailed, it was similar to an irrevocable trust that passed for the benefit of the specified heir until his* death and then the entailed properties passed to the next person in line for the entailment.  The current holder of the entail had no legal right to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the property.  (Though it might be possible to rent out an entailed property for extra income).

Many wealthy families had some properties which were owned outright and not part of the entail.  If so, these properties were sometimes left to second sons or could be sold for debts.  Income from non-entailed property and some portion of earnings from the entail were own by the holder to do with as he pleased.  (See Mr. Bennett's comment in P&P that he wished he set aside some funds to bribe men to marry his daughters (dowries)).  But at least some of the income was directed to the entailment to prevent a man from purposely bankrupting the entail before it passed out of his immediate family.  

 The moneys earned and non-entailed property could be left at the man's discretion.  Frequently it was disbursed to daughters through dowries and sons through inheritance.   However, if a wealthy man chose to, he could leave any wealth not entailed to a daughter.  This generally only happened if he had no sons.

Property of women as heiresses was frequently held by men.  When a woman married, her husband would control any money or properties she held unless - and you can imagine how often this happened - the husband expressly contracted to allow her to maintain control of some or all of her money.  In many cases, a section of the the marriage contract would specify that some portion of her dowry was to be provided to her children other than the heir.  There would also likely be an income specified for providing for the wife upon her husband's death or a return of a portion of her dowry or both depending on the marriage contracts.

In the case of a title, the widow was a call the dowager.  For instance, Violet Bridgeton was the Dowager Viscountess Bridgeton. The title entail itself generally included a widow's allowance or pension and there was often a "dower house" on the property of the main country seat.  She would essentially have a "life-estate" in the property and a allowance that was (supposed to be) at least sufficient to pay for her basic expenses of running a household. 

And that, my friends, is a faithful narrative of all I can recall off hand from a combination of extensive regency literature (of varying quality), nerdy research - I actually look shit up when I read period novels, and first year property.

*In theory an entailment could be created for a female line, but I've never heard of anything as such.  Even the monarch, which allows for female inheritance, was still male preference primogeniture (i.e. females could inherit if there were no direct lineage sons) until literally this decade.  

Edited December 31, 2020 by RachelKM

[pigs-in-space]

15 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

He does go down on her a few times.

And comes away with his mouth completely dry! Someone call Ben Shapiro's doctor wife!

From another thread, if you're wondering about the effectiveness of the pull-out method, Planned Parenthood's got you covered.

[meatball77]

7 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'm trying to research this and have read conflicting things: was Queen Charlotte really of African ancestry? I know in that era many people of mixed race ancestry 'passed' but without photographs it's hard to tell.

She may have had a distant relative who was a moor.  So she may have been like 1/64th black. 

 

4 hours ago, bijoux said:

I think interracial marriage was always legal in the UK. Social acceptability being another matter, naturally. 

The UK is a bit different because of all of their colonies.  The second or third sons would go work with the East India Company and may marry although obviously that wasn't preferred sending unmarriagable women to India to find British spouses was done for quite a long time.

4 hours ago, RachelKM said:

In the case of a title, the widow was a call the dowager.  For instance, Violet Bridgeton was the Dowager Viscountess Bridgeton. The title entail itself generally included a widow's allowance or pension and there was often a "dower house" on the property of the main country seat.  She would essentially have a "life-estate" in the property and a allowance that was (supposed to be) at least sufficient to pay for her basic expenses of running a household. 

And that, my friends, is a faithful narrative of all I can recall off hand from a combination of extensive regency literature (of varying quality), nerdy research - I actually look shit up when I read period novels, and first year property.

 

 

The widow doesn't become a dowager until their oldest son marries and there's a younger Countess or Duchess to take the title.  So the wealthy widow they showed with the toddler son, she was still the countess until her son marries.  If she had had a girl and her husband's married brother had inherited then she would become the dowager already.

I also have become an expert due to my regency lit habit and googling while reading when something is interesting, this happens a lot with clothes, I have to picture something so I look at the year and then see what the dresses looked like.  They change drastically during the time around the regency period.  Going from absurd side hoops with wigs and makeup to basically transparent nightgowns to dresses with sleeves so big that they needed supports to keep them in shape.
This video is facinating

 

[RachelKM]

1 minute ago, meatball77 said:

The widow doesn't become a dowager until their oldest son marries and there's a younger Countess or Duchess to take the title.  So the wealthy widow they showed with the toddler son, she was still the countess until her son marries.  If she had had a girl and her husband's married brother had inherited then she would become the dowager already.

You're right.  I blew right past it in my head when I was typing.  

[DearEvette]

6 hours ago, bijoux said:

I think interracial marriage was always legal in the UK. Social acceptability being another matter, naturally. 

There is an historical romance author, Vanessa Riley who writes interracial historical romances.  She has a website where she has amassed some primary and secondary source material that talks a lot about the presence of black people in 1800s England -- census numbers, professions, marriages etc.  I believe that IR marriages were obviously not common, but more common and a little bit more socially acceptable amongst the commoner or merchant class or amongst members of the armed forces. 

[Kim0820]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:03 AM, Mellowyellow said:

Great thread!!!

My question is in relation to inheritance. It confuses the heck out of me!!!

So if girls are not able to inherit from their father, why do some books talk of "heiresses"?

Do they ALWAYS lose all their money if they don't have a boy to inherit the title, money etc?

They could, as not every estate was entailed.  Lady Catherine, in Pride and Prejudice, has only one daughter and she will inherit the estate. 

On 12/31/2020 at 1:27 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

What precisely is an "entailmant"?

Also, can a widow like Lady Danbury will and transfer property as though she were a man? What happen to the titles associated with such a person after their passing?

Entailment was a "fee tail" where instead of just passing the estate to a named heir, it was to go to the oldest son.  It was in theory possible to make an entail female, so only females could inherit.  If there was no entailment, then the current owner could pass it to whoever they wanted to.  

I think it would depend on Lady Danbury's particular situation - if her husband left her property, if she got it out of a marriage settlement, and whether any part of it was given to her in trust, where someone else would handle it.  So it appears she is in charge of it.  She may not have complete control of where it goes on her death, depending on how much she has outside her rights in her husband's estate - dower rights, the right to remain living on the estate for her lifetime or a Jointure, things that would have been considered in the marriage settlement.  

[PRgal]

Would Pen have been considered attractive/beautiful in the (real) Regency period?  While the "ideal" was much curvier than today, women in paintings from the period are depicted with slim faces, so my guess would be no?  Or was she "too round" (since there were comments about her being heavy on the show)?  Also, wouldn't wearing a corset actually make one NOT want to...eat so much?  

[Artsda]

On 12/31/2020 at 11:29 AM, chaifan said:

Was it ever stated how Lady Danbury had gained her estate & wealth?  She doesn't have children of her own, right?  So where does her estate and fortune pass down to?

 

Spoiler

Book Spoiler - She has children and also grandchildren.

 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, PRgal said:

Would Pen have been considered attractive/beautiful in the (real) Regency period?  While the "ideal" was much curvier than today, women in paintings from the period are depicted with slim faces, so my guess would be no?  Or was she "too round" (since there were comments about her being heavy on the show)?  Also, wouldn't wearing a corset actually make one NOT want to...eat so much?  

Women in the Regency period wore stays and not corsets.   Stays were used to keep the girls in place and not to shape the waist.  Corsets are from later in the 19th century and even then were not as restricting as you think.  Very few women wore them so tight that they found eating difficult. 

[Growsonwalls]

2 hours ago, PRgal said:

Would Pen have been considered attractive/beautiful in the (real) Regency period?  While the "ideal" was much curvier than today, women in paintings from the period are depicted with slim faces, so my guess would be no?  Or was she "too round" (since there were comments about her being heavy on the show)?  Also, wouldn't wearing a corset actually make one NOT want to...eat so much?  

Regency era women were considered attractive if they were curvy around the bosom but had a slim face. The ringlets of curls and bangs were meant to frame the face. Pen would not have been considered attractive in that era.

Also well-bred women were told never to eat in public. It was considered poor self-control. So women as round as Pen would have been gossiped as having unhealthy "appetites" for sweets and that was considered unladylike.