They Had Condoms Back Then? The Questions and Answers Thread

[Mirabelle]

Here's a guide to the ranks of the peerage created by romance author Jo Beverley for anyone who has questions on how titles work. 

[meatball77]

A great article about corsets and stays.

 

https://www.themarysue.com/everything-movies-have-told-you-about-corsets-is-wrong/

[Featherhat]

Bernadette Banner is also a good one if you want to fall down a historical fashion vlog hole.  A few Regency ones, including "how did they pee in that thing?!" 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSHtaUm-FjUps090S7crO4Q

Edited January 2, 2021 by Featherhat

[Atlanta]

I'm surprised at how much the queen is interested in society gossip and meddling in it. Would that be normal for a queen?

[Ohiopirate02]

5 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

I'm surprised at how much the queen is interested in society gossip and meddling in it. Would that be normal for a queen?

Queens exist to sire heirs and occasionally step out with the King for the important affairs.   At this point in her life, Queen Charlotte had given birth to 15 kids, lost 3 of them, and her husband was mad.  She needed the gossip to take her mind off of her husband.  

[gutbuster]

15 hours ago, Mirabelle said:

Here's a guide to the ranks of the peerage created by romance author Jo Beverley for anyone who has questions on how titles work. 

That was an interesting and very helpful read!

[Growsonwalls]

For those who wonder if it was realistic that Daphne was that clueless about sexual relations: it was very realistic. Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI took 7 years to figure it out:

https://www.history.com/news/royal-weddings-gone-bad

[Ohiopirate02]

19 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

For those who wonder if it was realistic that Daphne was that clueless about sexual relations: it was very realistic. Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI took 7 years to figure it out:

https://www.history.com/news/royal-weddings-gone-bad

Louis was 16 when they got married and Marie Antoinette was 14.  There was no rush for them to fully consummate the marriage for a few years.   It did take longer because Louis had some issues.   Of course,  MA was blamed.

[Unraveled]

On 12/31/2020 at 7:20 PM, pigs-in-space said:

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

It looks like in an ideal, scientific world, only 4 out of 100 women get pregnant. However, realistically, it's more like 22 out of 100. I wouldn't have minded the introduction of "French Letters" (old style condomed) into the mix.

There's a lot of oral sex in recently written historical romance novels, but people did not bathe often back then (even the aristocrats). 

[Ohiopirate02]

12 minutes ago, Unraveled said:

It looks like in an ideal, scientific world, only 4 out of 100 women get pregnant. However, realistically, it's more like 22 out of 100. I wouldn't have minded the introduction of "French Letters" (old style condomed) into the mix.

There's a lot of oral sex in recently written historical romance novels, but people did not bathe often back then (even the aristocrats). 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that no one poops in a romance novel.  Also, all historical romance heroes are circumcised.  They also have excellent dental habits.

[MartyQui]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that no one poops in a romance novel.  Also, all historical romance heroes are circumcised.  They also have excellent dental habits

Haha...I went to Trim Castle in Ireland years ago (it's partially reconstructed, so you get an idea of what it looked like), and they made a point of showing us the "garderobe"...which was a hole in the corner of the floor.  Once a year the collection point was tented, and everyone's clothes were stuffed inside to let the ammonia "refresh" everything.  I haven't been able to read a medieval romance since!  Since bathing was a *little* more common during the Regency, and they had a little privacy and some receptacles for waste, I can suspend disbelief a little easier.

[shapeshifter]

Stupid question: What is "the Ton"?

[magdalene]

7 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Stupid question: What is "the Ton"?

I am assuming high society?  I know I wouldn't be invited, ha.

Yes, I was right:

""The ton" is a term commonly used to refer to Britain's high society during the late Regency and the reign of George IV, and later. It is a French word meaning (in this sense) "manners" or "style" and is pronounced as in French"

I recall I read the phrase "Good Ton"  before - in Georgette Heyer.

Edited January 6, 2021 by magdalene

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, magdalene said:

I am assuming high society?  I know I wouldn't be invited, ha.

Yes, I was right:

The ton" is a term commonly used to refer to Britain's high society during the late Regency and the reign of George IV, and later. It is a French word meaning (in this sense) "manners" or "style" and is pronounced as in French ([tɔ̃]).

Thanks. That Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_(le_bon_ton)) also has some good stuff about "The Season" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_(le_bon_ton)#The_season), and links to stuff like Regency dance, Regency fashions, and Regency novels.

[Haleth]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:41 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Louis was 16 when they got married and Marie Antoinette was 14.  There was no rush for them to fully consummate the marriage for a few years.   It did take longer because Louis had some issues.   Of course,  MA was blamed.

Same thing with Catherine the Great and Peter III.  They were married as young teenagers but it took 12 years before they consummated their marriage.  It's speculated that Peter didn't mature sexually until much later.  It's also speculated he fathered none of her children.

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Stupid question: What is "the Ton"?

I'd never heard the term before either and I read a lot of history.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 hours ago, MartyQui said:

Haha...I went to Trim Castle in Ireland years ago (it's partially reconstructed, so you get an idea of what it looked like), and they made a point of showing us the "garderobe"...which was a hole in the corner of the floor.  Once a year the collection point was tented, and everyone's clothes were stuffed inside to let the ammonia "refresh" everything.  I haven't been able to read a medieval romance since!  Since bathing was a *little* more common during the Regency, and they had a little privacy and some receptacles for waste, I can suspend disbelief a little easier.

Also, while people in the past were not as fastidious in bathing as us 21st century people, they were not as dirty as we assume.  Bathhouses were a thing in the medieval period in the places the Roman army conquered.  People still took baths pretty regularly, just not full immersion ones after the bathhouses closed.  Hip baths were a thing and almost everyone who had access to clean water washed up daily.  They would also change their underclothes daily as well.  High-born ladies like the Bridgerton women and the Feathingtons also led rather indolent lives.  They weren't working up a sweat on a daily basis.  The men were more active with regular horseback rides or fencing or boxing, but even then they would freshen up afterwards.  

 

Now the streets before indoor plumbing and sewers were a thing are another story.

[Chicago Redshirt]

https://stylecaster.com/leading-strings-bridgerton/

In case you weren't 100 percent sure what they were...

[Growsonwalls]

Ok one question: did they have hair dye back then? Violet seems like she'd be at the age where she'd have a lot of silvers. Eight kids, 4 of whom are pretty much grown. But she doesn't. 

[Scarlett45]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok one question: did they have hair dye back then? Violet seems like she'd be at the age where she'd have a lot of silvers. Eight kids, 4 of whom are pretty much grown. But she doesn't. 

Well she started having kids in her late teens most likely, so if Anthony is 25ish she’s only mid 40s. 
 

Yes they did have hair dye😌. But only actresses and sex workers used it. (Officially) Highborn women wore elaborate wigs though. 

[Growsonwalls]

Ok one thing I wondered about was -- wasn't it cold in those rooms before the days of central heating? Why were the women constantly in those short sleeved frocks? 

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Ok one thing I wondered about was -- wasn't it cold in those rooms before the days of central heating? Why were the women constantly in those short sleeved frocks? 

The short sleeved frocks would be worn in the warmer months.  Also they would be wearing layers under the dress.  If they were cold, then they would use a shawl to cover their arms.  In the winter, they would be wearing long sleeves and dresses made out of warmer fabrics like wool.  

[ouinason]

also there was poor ventilation and shit tons of candles burning and people crammed into small spaces, so things warmed up pretty fast.

[iwantcookies]

Where did they go to the bathroom? 
 

Where did they shower? 
 

I am very thankful for indoor plumbing!

[Umbelina]

55 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Where did they go to the bathroom? 
 

Where did they shower? 
 

I am very thankful for indoor plumbing!

Chamber pots for toilets.  In the olden days there were small castle rooms with low windows, and they just hung their asses out and did their business in the moats.

Showering wasn't a thing.  I believe they had hip baths filled with water warmed on the huge stoves and carried up by servants. 

"In Victorian times the 1800s, those who could afford a bath tub bathed a few times a month, but the poor were likely to bathe only once a year. Doctors advised against bathing believing it had a negative effect on health and on the appearance of the skin."  https://healthfacts.blog/2017/09/25/how-often-did-people-bathe-in-ancient-times/#:~:text=In Victorian times the 1800s,the appearance of the skin.

"Some books on hygiene and beauty towards the end of the Victorian era suggested that people with oily hair should wash their hair every two weeks or so and those with normal hair should wash it once per month. Still other sources recommended washing the hair and scalp one or two times per week. Before shampoo was common, people just used soap, which often left the scalp and hair very dry. Sometimes pure ammonia was used to clean the hair! Is it any wonder then that oily pomades were used so frequently during this era?"

https://dustyoldthing.com/victorian-era-hygiene/

[meatball77]

While many did not bathe frequently that doesn't mean they were dirty.  They would have cleaned themselves several times a day with a wet cloth.  Those who lived in the country would take dips in rivers.  Brushing was how hair was kept clean, distributing the oils throughout the head.

[Andrea1957]

On 12/30/2020 at 4:56 PM, 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.

I thought that the amount of blood shown on the “napkin” was a little too overboard since she realized her courses had started. Plus, if she had that much blood, other clothing would have also been bloodied.  But, I’m sure she went straight home. 

[Umbelina]

On 1/20/2021 at 4:54 AM, meatball77 said:

While many did not bathe frequently that doesn't mean they were dirty.  They would have cleaned themselves several times a day with a wet cloth.  Those who lived in the country would take dips in rivers.  Brushing was how hair was kept clean, distributing the oils throughout the head.

I could brush my hair until doomsday comes, but it still needs to be washed a few times a week.  

Urine to bleach clothes, incredible filth in London from coal dust and smoke, to horse poop in the streets, and open sewers, cuttlefish as toothpaste, no wonder Quinn's books often mentioned "getting away from the smells" in London.  Maybe in the hottest days of summer some would dip into rivers, but it's rarely warm there, and of course, people in the city could never use those polluted rivers. 

That said, the wealthy did try to keep cleaner than the poor, but many of the products they used were hazardous to health.   

[Llywela]

On 1/20/2021 at 7:12 AM, Umbelina said:

Chamber pots for toilets.  In the olden days there were small castle rooms with low windows, and they just hung their asses out and did their business in the moats.

Not quite. Castles had garderobes or privies - small rooms built into the outer wall which basically had a hole in the floor over a drop directly down to the moat, river, or a large pit (which would have to be cleaned out on occasion). They didn't stick their backsides out of a window (even in the middle ages, decorum existed). They had toilets, of a kind.

Source:  my country has more castles per square mile than anywhere else in the world; there are four just within walking distance of my house. I have been in many a garderobe!

ETA I should add, we think there was usually a wooden seat arrangement of some kind, also with a hole, positioned over the hole in the floor to make it easier to use than squatting on the ground! but from medieval times, the small room with the hole in the floor is what has survived.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Llywela

[bijoux]

Wales? 

[Llywela]

27 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Wales? 

Got it in one. 😉

[shapeshifter]

3 minutes ago, Llywela said:

30 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Wales? 

Got it in one. 😉

Screen name was a give away too. 😉

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, Llywela said:

Not quite. Castles had garderobes or privies - small rooms built into the outer wall which basically had a hole in the floor over a drop directly down to the moat, river, or a large pit (which would have to be cleaned out on occasion). They didn't stick their backsides out of a window (even in the middle ages, decorum existed). They had toilets, of a kind.

Source:  my country has more castles per square mile than anywhere else in the world; there are four just within walking distance of my house. I have been in many a garderobe!

ETA I should add, we think there was usually a wooden seat arrangement of some kind, also with a hole, positioned over the hole in the floor to make it easier to use than squatting on the ground! but from medieval times, the small room with the hole in the floor is what has survived.

Thanks!

I have to admit, I read a VERY spooky book long, long ago called THE WISE WOMAN by Phillipa Gregory.  It sent me on an odyssey of discovering more about what life was like back in the 1500's, and then further back a century at a time.  I swear that somewhere in there I read about small window potties, and the moats, which made the "testing witches by drowning them in moats" even more disgusting.  That book gave me the willies and it's one I will never read again because of that.  The day to day life of the poor was horrifying all by itself without the addition of witchcraft or suspected witchcraft.

I don't even know what century I was in when reading about pooping in the moats, but part of me wonders if it was just described poorly, because indeed, this was what I pictured, and should have said, kind of like an enclosed window.  I do wonder if the enclosures were added at some point?

Edited January 26, 2021 by Umbelina
added another photo

[satrunrose]

A lot of palaces and homes did have cesspits. If you had one, you had to hire a gong farmer every so often for the fun job of digging out the cesspit. Cesspits could also crack and leak (because no one but the gong farmer ever went to maintain them) and contaminated the drinking water. The Broad St Cholera epidemic in 1840s London that kicked off modern public health (Thanks, John Snow!) was caused by a cholera infected baby's diaper that leached from the cesspit into the pump water. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by satrunrose

[nodorothyparker]

 

While traditional chamber pots were definitely a thing, this is a bourdaloue. It's what women of a certain class would have been using under those fussy dresses. They'd find a secluded spot and stick this up under their skirts, often with the help of the same maid who would then be tasked with carrying their (full) fancy pee urn away. They were definitely using them in the time of our story and would continue until early water closets made their appearance later in the Victorian era.

[Eri]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Thanks!

I have to admit, I read a VERY spooky book long, long ago called THE WISE WOMAN by Phillipa Gregory.  It sent me on an odyssey of discovering more about what life was like back in the 1500's, and then further back a century at a time.  I swear that somewhere in there I read about small window potties, and the moats, which made the "testing witches by drowning them in moats" even more disgusting.  That book gave me the willies and it's one I will never read again because of that.  The day to day life of the poor was horrifying all by itself without the addition of witchcraft or suspected witchcraft.

I don't even know what century I was in when reading about pooping in the moats, but part of me wonders if it was just described poorly, because indeed, this was what I pictured, and should have said, kind of like an enclosed window.  I do wonder if the enclosures were added at some point?

Now *that's* a sh*thole! 🤣

[Llywela]

16 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Thanks!

I have to admit, I read a VERY spooky book long, long ago called THE WISE WOMAN by Phillipa Gregory.  It sent me on an odyssey of discovering more about what life was like back in the 1500's, and then further back a century at a time.  I swear that somewhere in there I read about small window potties, and the moats, which made the "testing witches by drowning them in moats" even more disgusting.  That book gave me the willies and it's one I will never read again because of that.  The day to day life of the poor was horrifying all by itself without the addition of witchcraft or suspected witchcraft.

I don't even know what century I was in when reading about pooping in the moats, but part of me wonders if it was just described poorly, because indeed, this was what I pictured, and should have said, kind of like an enclosed window.  I do wonder if the enclosures were added at some point?

Yeah, that's a garderobe. It wouldn't have been open to the elements like that when the castle was intact, and it is thought that when in use there would probably have been a wooden structure for the user to sit on rather than just squat over the hole in the floor, although we can't prove that because most of these castles are nigh on their millennium now and the majority were well and truly slighted during the civil war, so mostly all that's left is the stonework, and even that is usually severely damaged. And, of course, there wasn't exactly a standard blueprint, so they were all a bit different anyway, depending on who built them, where and why.

[MartyQui]

This conversation is reminding me of a story about my grandmother and her sisters going to visit the farm where they grew up to put it up for sale (it was in Nova Scotia).  They were in their 80s.  The plumbing in the house wasn't working.  So they dug a hole and put a kitchen chair over it to take care of their "needs" for a couple of days.  Didn't faze them in the least!

[Llywela]

16 hours ago, MartyQui said:

This conversation is reminding me of a story about my grandmother and her sisters going to visit the farm where they grew up to put it up for sale (it was in Nova Scotia).  They were in their 80s.  The plumbing in the house wasn't working.  So they dug a hole and put a kitchen chair over it to take care of their "needs" for a couple of days.  Didn't faze them in the least!

😄 My mum tells the story of being taken as a child to visit an old great-aunt in Norfolk, who was actually more like her 3xgreat-aunt, born in the 1870s and by then almost 90 years old. Aunt Edith lived in a tiny, tiny workman's cottage, at the end of a row of four terraced cottages set a mile or so outside the nearest village - originally built as farm labourer's cottages, part of a larger farm estate. One room and a lean-to kitchen on the ground floor, with just one room upstairs that had been divided into two teeny-tiny bedrooms (Edith and her husband only had one child, who died in his teens). It was the 1960s by the time my mum used to visit, but that cottage had never been modernised. There was no electricity, no gas, no running water. A bare stone floor dressed with rugs. Aunt Edith had an open fire in the hearth for heat and cooking, oil lamps for light, and she collected water every day from a spring about half a mile down the road. When the family visited, the children were always sent to collect water for her, to save her the job. Her toilet was a hole dug in the garden with a small shack over the top of it, which had to be moved from time to time. In the early 1960s, the entire row of cottages was bought out by a young couple, with a life tenancy for Edith included as part of the purchase, since by then she'd lived there for over 70 years as the wife and later widow of a tenant farmer on the estate and it would have been cruel to kick her out. The young couple set about modernising the other three cottages, installing all mod cons, and they offered to do Edith's at the same time, since they were going to have to have plumbing and electricity etc. installed in there eventually anyway, but she refused. She was the daughter of a Victorian farm labourer, she'd married a Victorian farm labourer, this was how she'd always lived and she saw no reason to change at her time of life. She couldn't even imagine living any other way. I'm not sure she thought electricity was entirely safe! Or plumbed water, for that matter, when she'd drawn her water direct from the spring her entire life.

Edith died in 1965 at the age of 91, and I don't think the way she lived then was all that different from how the common folk in Bridgerton (like that young mother Daphne befriended) would have lived, 150 years earlier!

[jrzy]

On 12/31/2020 at 3:50 PM, RachelKM said:

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.  

Great research and explanation,  thank you! 

[Harvey]

Why did Daphne's marriage "set the standard" and "influence the prospects" of the rest of her (I'm assuming only female?) siblings? Why does it matter who she marries when establishing the value of her 3 sisters?

[bijoux]

The presumption is that Daphne being a hit on the marriage mart and bagging a Duke would paint the whole family as a success and attract suitors of a similar ilk for her sisters. We've seen a variation of this with Simon 'faking' interet in Daphne bringing in other suitors in droves.

Of course, the plan could always backfire and the younger girls later being compared to Daphne and found wanting. 

[Scarlett45]

3 hours ago, Harvey said:

Why did Daphne's marriage "set the standard" and "influence the prospects" of the rest of her (I'm assuming only female?) siblings? Why does it matter who she marries when establishing the value of her 3 sisters?

Because marriage in this time was about the social contract and advancing the status of the entire family. Having an older sister with an advantageous marriage would make her sisters more desirable marriage partners because their husbands would be one step closer to the Duke and his sphere of influence.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, Harvey said:

Why did Daphne's marriage "set the standard" and "influence the prospects" of the rest of her (I'm assuming only female?) siblings? Why does it matter who she marries when establishing the value of her 3 sisters?

Marriages for people of their class were business transactions first.  Society was very hierarchical with the royals on top, followed by the nobility, the gentry, and then other rich men.  The nobility then had it's own hierarchy--dukes,  marquises, earls, viscounts, barons.  So Simon as a duke is at the top of the food chain.  He can wield considerable power with his money, connections, and seat in the House of Lords.  Daphne married above her station her father was only a viscount.  Other men of the nobility will view that as there being something special about the Bridgerton girls and take a closer look.  Of course, the considerable dowries of the Bridgerton girls also helps.  Many noblemen were titled and cash poor.  They needed wives with money and good breeding.  

In order for this hierarchy to continue, ranks were strictly observed.  As a woman, your status as a wife trumped your status as a daughter.  If Daphne had failed to marry a nobleman and settled for a man beneath her, then she would be cut off from the Ton, and her sisters would suffer.  As the 19th century continues and the Industrial Revolution happens, these rigid classes begin to break down.  Marrying a rich industrialist no longer carries such a stigma.   

[Harvey]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Because marriage in this time was about the social contract and advancing the status of the entire family. Having an older sister with an advantageous marriage would make her sisters more desirable marriage partners because their husbands would be one step closer to the Duke and his sphere of influence.

 

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Marriages for people of their class were business transactions first.  Society was very hierarchical with the royals on top, followed by the nobility, the gentry, and then other rich men.  The nobility then had it's own hierarchy--dukes,  marquises, earls, viscounts, barons.  So Simon as a duke is at the top of the food chain.  He can wield considerable power with his money, connections, and seat in the House of Lords.  Daphne married above her station her father was only a viscount.  Other men of the nobility will view that as there being something special about the Bridgerton girls and take a closer look.  Of course, the considerable dowries of the Bridgerton girls also helps.  Many noblemen were titled and cash poor.  They needed wives with money and good breeding.  

In order for this hierarchy to continue, ranks were strictly observed.  As a woman, your status as a wife trumped your status as a daughter.  If Daphne had failed to marry a nobleman and settled for a man beneath her, then she would be cut off from the Ton, and her sisters would suffer.  As the 19th century continues and the Industrial Revolution happens, these rigid classes begin to break down.  Marrying a rich industrialist no longer carries such a stigma.   

Thank you ❤️ Great answers.

[Mirabelle]

Here's an article from History.com about the "dollar princesses" from the late 19th and early 20th century. This takes place a few generations later from the time Bridgerton is set. A lot of those marriages weren't particularly happy either. 

[Tyro49]

Were the characters multracial in the books, or is this just a quirk of TV casting? The speech given by Lady Darnley(sp?) to the Duke in episode 4 was so profound.

[Llywela]

2 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

Were the characters multracial in the books, or is this just a quirk of TV casting? The speech given by Lady Darnley(sp?)* to the Duke in episode 4 was so profound.

Not a quirk but a deliberate casting choice made for the show, to portray a world that might have been. The characters are all white in the novels.

*Lady Danbury

Edited March 28, 2021 by Llywela

[PRgal]

On 3/28/2021 at 3:25 PM, Llywela said:

Not a quirk but a deliberate casting choice made for the show, to portray a world that might have been. The characters are all white in the novels.

*Lady Danbury

That, and what Britain looks like NOW.  At least in larger communities.  

[OlderThanDirt]

 I think that given the rules of primogeniture where the eldest son inherited everything, Colin would not have had access to the "family accounts" to invest in Lord Featherington's scheme.  It would have made sense for him to bring Anthony into his plans unless Colin's allowance was enough to finance his "investment."

[quarks]

2 hours ago, OlderThanDirt said:

 I think that given the rules of primogeniture where the eldest son inherited everything, Colin would not have had access to the "family accounts" to invest in Lord Featherington's scheme.  It would have made sense for him to bring Anthony into his plans unless Colin's allowance was enough to finance his "investment."

Yeah, that did seem to be a bit odd?

I know there were cases where younger sons inherited cash or some portion of land that wasn't tied to the estate, and cases where younger siblings received some sort of allowance from the family estates, or inherited funds from another relative (this happened with one of Jane Austen's brothers, for instance) but the idea of Colin being able to dip into the family funds at will did seem odd.