Back to Top

Category: Weddings

I am very excited to announce that the fourth book in my Tales of Little Macclow series, His Lady to Love, releases this coming Sunday, September 15th! After the year+ long detour I took to co-author Writing Regency England, I’m so happy to be back to my little Derbyshire village and the fiction stories of my heart.

Here’s the link (it’s also going to be in KU): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DDRKCFH3

Book cover for Gail's new release His Lady to LoveThe heroine of His Lady to Love, Ailis Murray (known to her intimate friends as “Lissie”), is a young Scottish widow. Many of the widowed heroines we meet in romance fiction have not enjoyed a happy first marriage. I think the reason is simply that the heroine’s lack of previous emotional engagement makes the new romance easier to have the “first love” depth and intensity readers enjoy. But I always like a challenge and frequently prefer to swim against the current. What if our heroine doesn’t fit that mold?

Lissie loved her first husband deeply and after a year is still grappling to some extent with her grief. She is very resistant to falling in love again. She believes that she has “had her one great love” and isn’t willing to settle for a less satisfying relationship. She doesn’t want to wed again. (Naturally I hope the reader will be rooting for her to be proven wrong!) But the emotional risk is not her only reason for not wanting another marriage.

To understand the potential benefits of widowhood in the Regency, we need to take a quick look at what it meant for women to be married.

Black & white woodcut engraving of a Regency couple. She is seated, wiht one hand on her breast, looking excoted, while he kneels in front of her and is kissing her hand. Very romantic!

Regency lovers, woodcut 1815

Marriage in Georgian and Regency society was considered the ultimate point of womanhood. Procreation was necessary for the continuation of society. In the upper classes, children meant maintaining the structure of the ruling strata of society, while in the lower classes, they meant maintaining the supply of workers in the laboring strata. But also, in these periods, the alternatives for women were few. Being married meant survival and sustenance—being protected and provided for by a man.

I think it is very hard for us in this modern age to fully grasp how different things were for women back then in an entirely male-dominated world! The trade-off for the life-long sustenance and (assumed) safety of marriage was that wives had no rights of their own. Legally, marriage was seen as unifying the couple into a single entity. Once married, everything a woman owned, earned, or was given belonged to her husband (unless protected in some way, such as a trust). A wife was legally dependent on her husband for everything, seen as essentially a sub-unit of the man she is attached to.

Obviously, there were women who defied the system, but they were the rare cases. And if widows hadn’t adequate means of support from some source after their husbands died, marrying again was the necessary alternative to suffering in severe poverty. But widows who had an income source, having fulfilled society’s expectations by marrying, could enjoy a freedom that no wives, spinsters, or younger unwed misses were granted. For widows, marrying again meant giving up their freedom and submitting themselves back into the legal invisibility of being a wife.

Lissie is a wealthy widow. Her late husband, who owned multiple properties including estates, undeveloped land, shipping interests, and even a woolen mill, left everything to her. And immediately, despite her mourning, suitors flocked to her. The wealth attracted them but also society assumed a woman had not the skill or intelligence needed to manage such assets. Except Lissie has already been managing all of it, for her husband was ill the last two years of their marriage and trained her in the job.

If she marries, all of her husband’s legacy goes to her new husband. Lissie has dreams and ambitions of her own, ones she expects a husband would not support. So she has practical as well as emotional reasons for resisting our lovely story hero.

I hope you’ll want to see how this romance works out! Our hero has dreams of his own and marriage is not a good fit in his immediate future, although this is a romance where he falls first. How does Scottish Lissie come to be in the English village of Little Macclow, anyway? And how does our hero entice her away from the solitary existence she seeks to get her involved with the affairs of the village?

The books in my series follow a continuing chronology and characters from the earlier books pop up again in later ones, but each book is written to stand alone, so you don’t need to have read the earlier ones to enjoy His Lady to Love even though it is Book #4. I am releasing it in Kindle Unlimited (temporarily). This release is the first time I’ve done that for any of my books, so if you’ve never read one and want to give my work a try, this is a good opportunity! I hope you will.

Do you have any favorite stories with widowed heroines? Did they have good first marriages? Or after bad ones, are they either hoping for a better second chance or soured on the idea of marriage entirely? Have you had experience with any of these outcomes yourself?

 

Did they or did they not have chocolate sweets in the Regency period? (I have seen authors fight over this!) What kind of sweets DID they have? In my new book, Her Perfect Gentleman, the heroine conceives the idea (wisely or not) to involve much of the village of Little Macclow in a project to make sweets for the wedding everyone has come there to attend. Researching this part of the story was an interesting rabbit hole!

I found a great resource to help me, a “confectionary” cookbook from 1789 with newer editions in 1807 and 1809. It is called The Complete Confectioner (Or, the Whole Art of Confectionary with Receipts for Liqueures, Home-made Wines, etc. the Result of Many Years Experience with the Celebrated Negri and Witten, by Frederic Nutt, Esq.

This remarkable tome (available in Google Books) includes 38 recipes for biscuits—that’s cookies, to us Americans—including chocolate ones made of chocolate, egg whites and powdered sugar, like meringues. No flour, which interests me to try them since I have allergies and must stay gluten-free.

There are also six types of wafers, and ten flavors of drops—including chocolate, so there WAS a type of chocolate candy in period, just not the kind we think of as “chocolates” today. Filled chocolate candies such as we eat today were first displayed to the world in 1851 at the Great Exhibition in London at the Crystal Palace, well past the Regency decades.

The Regency chocolate drops were just like the “chocolate nonpareils” you can still get today, named for the white sugar beads that coat them. Have you eaten chocolate nonpareils? Wikipedia says: “a round flat chocolate drop with the upper surface coated with nonpareils. Ferrero makes a variety marketed as Sno-Caps. In Australia, these confections are commonly known as “chocolate freckles“, or simply “freckles“. Nonpareils are also sold in the United Kingdom as “Jazzies“, “Jazzles“, “Jazz drops” and “Snowies” (the latter being of the white chocolate variety). The coating of nonpareils is often referred to as “hundreds and thousands” in South Africa and the UK. The Canadian company Mondoux sells them as “Yummies“. So if you want Regency sweets and don’t want to make them, buy yourself some of these!

The book also covers eight kinds of jelly (and six jams), essences for ices, seventeen flavors of “waters” to serve at routs (including lemonade), 32 flavors of ice cream (including chocolate, but also “burnt almond” and “parmesan”), plus a whole section on “water ices” (I think similar to sherbert?), all sorts of fruits preserved in brandy, and a large section on preserved fruit both wet, candied, or dry. Beyond all this yumminess, Nutt also offers the promised recipes for liqueurs and wines, along with a small number of cakes and sweet puddings, plus illustrations for laying out a dessert course on tables for different numbers of guests.

Nutt’s book also has a whole section on “Prawlongs.” I read it with interest, having no idea what they were. I soon discovered other mentions spelled “prawlins” and guessed that perhaps it was an alternate spelling of pralines. According to an article on the history of the famous New Orleans pecan praline (here), the Praline is named after the 17th century French diplomat César duc de Choiseul, Comte du Plessis-Praslin (1598 or 1602-1675). One theory is that Plessis-Praslin’s personal chef Clement Lassagne was the actual inventor, and the sweets were gifts for the duc’s lovers. If you consider the French pronunciation of Praslin, I think Nutt’s spelling “prawlong” may have been phonetic.

These first pralines were made with a combination of caramel and almonds. However, Nutt’s recipes include pistachios, filberts, or almonds covered with caramelized sugar syrup, AND he also used the method with slivered lemon and orange peels, orange flowers, and chunks of Seville oranges!! So it may mean in the 18th century, at least in England, pralines (however you want to spell them) may have meant caramel-coated whatever-you-want! And the practical early settlers of New Orleans adapted the French recipe to pecans, since that’s what they had.

I have to say, without the aid of candy thermometers that are so helpful for today’s cooks, I am in awe of how period cooks managed to turn out sweets without always burning the mixture or undercooking it. Would you be brave enough to try a recipe from 1809? Have you ever tried to recreate an authentic period dish?

Her Perfect Gentleman releases on Thursday (Dec 15th)! Can we wish my characters, Christopher and Honoria, a happy book birthday?

Why write another post about Regency weddings? If you search this site, you’ll find a whole collection of fun & fact-filled wedding-related posts written by various Riskies over the years. But the book I’m currently working on is set against the background of a Regency wedding, and I’m reviewing everything I know about such events. I’m looking at how we know what we know as much as the “what we know” both in this post and in my research. As a former journalist, I always remember to “consider the source” when collecting information.

Pride & Prejudice Wedding

As romance writers, we authors can find it a bit disappointing to hear that Regency weddings were not as big and special as they tend to be today. It’s true that many of our revered traditions developed during Victoria’s reign or later. One of the oft-cited sources for documenting the “low-key” Regency approach is a remembrance by Jane Austen’s niece Caroline (b. 1805), describing her half-sister Anna’s marriage to Benjamin Lefroy on November 8, 1814.

Note the following from her recollection: “The season of the year, the unfrequented road to the church, the grey light within… no stove to give warmth, no flowers to give colour and brightness, no friends, high or low, to offer their good wishes, and so to claim some interest in the great event of the day – all these circumstances and deficiencies must, I think, have given a gloomy air to the wedding…” She adds, “Weddings were then usually very quiet. The old fashion of festivity and publicity had quite gone by, and was universally condemned as showing the bad taste of all former generations…. This was the order of the day.” (my added emphasis)

Genre painting by Henry G. Schlesinger

I haven’t found the date when Caroline wrote this reminiscence, but I note that she was all of nine years old at the time of the actual wedding. I find her insistence that “this was the order of the day” a bit suspect. How would she know this? She was not then at an age to be attending any other weddings. Also, it was November. I’m sure hothouse flowers were not in the budget!

She continues: “No one was in the church but ourselves (she had listed six men and four females, all relatives in the two families), and no one was asked to the breakfast, to which we sat down as soon as we got back…The breakfast was such as best breakfasts then were. Some variety of bread, hot rolls, buttered toast, tongue, ham and eggs. The addition of chocolate at one end of the table and the wedding-cake in the middle marked the speciality of the day.”

Isn’t it possible that, looking back in her later life, she might have been tempted to justify the extreme austerity of this family wedding by claiming it was the norm? Both Anna and Ben Lefroy were the offspring of clerics, and the groom was a cleric himself, as yet without a living. An expensive wedding was doubtless not an option for the family (and probably not considered suitable for clerics, anyway). A longer version of the same quote begins, “My sister’s wedding was certainly in the extreme of quietness: yet not so much as to be in any way censured or remarked upon….”  Caroline sounds defensive to me, as if she feared people would judge her family against the more elaborate Victorian wedding customs that became the fashion later in the century when she was looking back.

The Village Wedding by Fildes

Just eight years before Anna Austen’s minimalist wedding, we have another oft-quoted wedding example from the opposite end of the continuum that I propose existed as much then as now. The Annual Register for 1806 includes this description of a very elaborate wedding clearly designed to show off the extreme wealth of the bride:

“Sept. 9.  This day was married at Slinsford Church, Dorset, Viscount Marsham, son of Earl Romney, to Miss Pitt, only daughter and heiress of William Morton Pitt, esq., with a fortune of 60,000 pounds and an estate of 12,000 pounds per annum, independent of the estates of her father.” (There follows a list of the witnesses, seven of whom were prominent enough to be named, in addition to the bride & groom and family members, plus one “officiating” attendant each for bride and groom.)

The astronomical expense lavished on this wedding would be almost unimaginable if you didn’t take into account that the ultra-wealthy aristocrats were the rock star celebs of their day. “In the early part of the morning the whole of the unmarried female branches of the neighbouring tenantry and villages attended at Kingston-house, the seat of W.M. Pitt, esq., each female attired in an elegant white muslin dress, provided for them, as a present on the occasion, by Miss Pitt. After refreshments, about 40 couples proceeded, two and two, before the procession to the church, strewing the way (before the happy couple), in the ancient style, with flowers of every description. After the ceremony they returned in the same order, attended by nearly 300 spectators, where a dinner, consisting of English hospitality, was provided on the occasion in booths on the lawn; and the festive eve concluded with a ball on the green, in which the nobility present shared in the mirth. At an early hour in the evening, the happy couple and suit set off in post chaises to pass the honey-moon at the lady’s own seat, Enchcome-house, Dorset.”

Health to the Bride, genre painting by Sadler

It makes me a little bit crazy when I hear people now try to characterize the behavior of people in the past as being all one particular way. I’m not saying fashions and trends didn’t exist, but individual people and families still followed their own traditions and were limited (or not) by their incomes and situations, just as we are today.

Knowing this makes me comfortable designing the wedding in my new book the way that fits my characters and their specific situations, within a good grounding in what we do know about Regency weddings. Since they’re not using a Special License, the wedding has to be in the morning, and at church. This was a matter of law, not choice, as was the presence of an officiating clergyman and a clerk to record the proceedings. There will be no white dress, veil, or assemblage of bridesmaids. Her dress could be white, but since in this period it could be any color, I think it’s more fun to go there. And while fashion prints start to show veils in the late Regency (see an interesting post here), my 1814 wedding is too early for that. A wedding “breakfast” will follow, as was customary. It makes sense that you need to feed your guests! As my groom’s family is wealthy, the breakfast will be more elaborate than the one Caroline Austen described, but nothing so grand as Miss Pitt’s! And as my bride has almost no family near her, her relatives will travel a distance to attend.

If you married, how big or small was your wedding? Or weddings you’ve attended? How big or small is your family? I’ve been to intimate weddings with less than 30 people and one huge wedding with 500 guests where I didn’t even know the bride or groom.

It’s just one more very sad ripple effect of the Coronavirus pandemic that weddings since March of 2020, if happening at all, have to be small, intimate celebrations, and preferably held out-of-doors. Circumstances require adaptation. That was as true back in the Regency as it is now, so I think assuming Regency weddings were only done in one particular way is a false view of the times. Sorry, Caroline Austen!

Wedding Couple, 1826

I can recall reading somewhere (a long time ago) that, sociologically, the happiest population group are widows. The logic of this argument was that a widow had experienced a happy married life, possibly with children and now grandchildren, and with widowhood was now able to live a life of independence in decisions about spending, where to live, activities, friends. I presume the statistics assume the widow has an adequate income for her needs because poverty certainly spoils everything.

I’m not certain how true this conclusion is in today’s world, but I can say that widowhood in the Regency had its advantages, especially for those Regency ladies who entered into loveless marriages of convenience or for status and wealth.

When a Regency lady married, she, in effect, became the property of her husband. She lost all identity as a person; she was not considered separate from her husband. He existed legally; she did not. Of course, that meant that she could rack up debts, like the exorbitant gambling debts incurred by the Duchess of Devonshire, and her husband must pay them. He might even be held responsible for any illegal acts she engaged in. On the other hand, marriage meant all the wife’s property became her husband’s.

Her only protection was her dower rights, that is, the rights to one third the income of her deceased husband’s estates, which could be a lot or very little, depending. Most aristocratic wives had marriage settlements negotiated by their fathers or guardians before marriage which would stipulate how much she would get if her husband died. This settlement would include the dowry she brought into the marriage. Her husband’s will could also bequeath her money and property. In Sense and Sensibility, Mr. Dashwood did not provide a will to protect his wife and daughters. Thus the income Mrs. Dashwood had to live of was the income from her dowry.

A widow could also inherit her personal belongings-her clothing, jewelry, personal furniture, and other personal adornments. So it benefited a wife to encourage her husband to buy her jewels. She even retained her husband’s status, keeping her title, albeit with Dowager placed before it.

So an aristocratic widow who had a generous marriage settlement, a large dowry, and lots of expensive personal belongings could live a very comfortable life.

Even more, though, she could live a comfortable life of vastly increased independence. She could spend her money as she chose. She could pursue whatever interested her. She could run a business, if she liked. And, unlike the unmarried, closely chaperoned ingenue she once was, she could love whomever she liked. Regency widows were permitted their love affairs without scandal as long as they were discreet.

If the widow remarried, she’d lose all those advantages.

But in our books, we want our widow heroines to remarry, don’t we? We want them to find true love and a happily ever after.

Do you like widow heroines in your Regencies? What are the advantages to the author in using them?

“Mr. Collins to be sure was neither sensible nor agreeable; his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary.  But still he would be her husband.  Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want.  This preservative she had now obtained; and at the age of twenty-seven, without having ever been handsome, she felt all the good luck of it.”

on Charlotte Lucas’s marrying Mr. Collins
Pride & Prejudice, Volume 1, Chapter 22

1_MG_9842Last week, at 6:30 on a Friday evening, I married my sweetheart (and future romance novel inspiration), Kyle!  It was nothing like Charlotte Lucas’s pragmatic arrangement, really nothing like a small church Regency wedding at all (except that it was small!  We married in the garden of a hotel in Taos, New Mexico, with 10 people there including us, and a lovely dinner with cake and champagne after).  There were no grand spectacles, a la Marie Antoinette’s great crush or the Cambridges’ regalness, but it was beautiful and romantic, and exactly what we wanted.  It was a day I never thought would come for me–walking down the aisle toward a man I am madly, romance novel-style in love with, my best friend and partner in a crime.  And now we’ve stared a new life together, which I find to be amazing (and scary as heck, natch).

1 IMG_1054My dress was a pale pink silk and soft white organza, with a pleated bodice and pearl-beaded satin belt, strapless with a pleated bodice, and I told the salon I wanted a “fairytale” look for the hairstyle and makeup, which I think they did so well with long curls and soft lipstick.  The vows were tailored just toward us, how we met, how we share a love of music and theater and creativity, and my best friend and her husband read a lovely poem that perfectly depicts “us.”  (see it at the end of this post!).  The rain held off until just after we finished the photos and went in to dinner, so all went off perfectly. 🙂

 

 

1 IMG_1059Next year we’d like to renew our views in England, maybe Bath in Regency attire at the Pump Room, or Tudor garb at Hever Castle.  Or maybe I’ll be crazy, get a Kate lookalike gown and parade around Westminster Abbey!!!  With him, the adventure is endless.

What was your wedding like?  What would you have done differently/the same?  Where would you have a wedding now?  And whos had your very favorite wedding ever (in books, in history, or in real life!).  We have wedding fever here today….in fact, I will give away a signed copy of my book “Betrayed By His Kiss” (not out til October!) to one commenter on the subject of weddings….

“I Like You” by Sandol Stoddard Warburg

I like you and I know why.
I like you because you are a good person to like.
I like you because when I tell you something special, you know it’s special
And you remember it a long, long time.
You say, “Remember when you told me something special?”
And both of us remember

When I think something is important
you think it’s important too
We have good ideas
When I say something funny, you laugh
I think I’m funny and you think I’m funny too

I like you because you know where I’m ticklish
And you don’t tickle me there except just a little tiny bit sometimes
But if you do, then I know where to tickle you too

You know how to be silly
That’s why I like you
Boy are you ever silly
I never met anybody sillier than me till I met you
I like you because you know when it’s time to stop being silly
Maybe day after tomorrow
Maybe never
Too late, it’s a quarter past silly!

That’s because you really like me
You really like me, don’t you?
And I really like you back
And you like me back and I like you back
And that’s the way we keep on going every day

If you go away, then I go away too
or if I stay home, you send me a postcard
You don’t just say “Well see you around sometime, bye”
I like you a lot because of that
If I go away, I send you a postcard too
And I like you because if we go away together
And if we are in Grand Central Station
And if I get lost
Then you are the one that is yelling for me

I like you because I don’t know why but
Everything that happens is nicer with you
I can’t remember when I didn’t like you
It must have been lonesome then
I like you because because because
I forget why I like you but I do

So many reasons
On the 4th of July I like you because it’s the 4th of July
On the fifth of July, I like you too
If you and I had some drums and some horns and some horses
If we had some hats and some flags and some fire engines
We could be a HOLIDAY
We could be a CELEBRATION
We could be a WHOLE PARADE

See what I mean?
Even if it was the 999th of July
Even if it was August
Even if it was way down at the bottom of November
Even if it was no place particular in January
I would go on choosing you
And you would go on choosing me
Over and over again

That’s how it would happen every time
I don’t know why
I guess I don’t know why I really like you
Why do I like you
I guess I just like you
I guess I just like you because I like you.

Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com