Back to Top

Evil, Evil TEA


William Cobbett, round about 1821, wrote:

The drink, which has come to supply the place of beer has, in general, been tea. It is notorious, that tea has no useful strength in it; that it contains nothing nutricious; that it, besides being good for nothing, has badness in it, because it is well known to produce want of sleep in many cases, and in all cases to shake and weaken the nerves.

Okay, so far, I slightly agree with Cobbett. Lack of sleep — yeah, if you drink more than you’re used to, or you drink late in the day, it can cause insomnia! But “shake and weaken the nerves”?

Cobbett continues:

It is, in fact, a weaker kind of laudanum, which enlivens for a moment and deadens afterwards.

Laudanum, which is opium dissolved in alcohol, being compared to tea??? Dude, what have YOU been drinking???

It is impossible to make a fire, boil water, make the tea, drink it, wash up the things, sweep up the fire-place and put all to rights again in a less space of time, upon an average, than two hours. . . . Needs there any thing more to make us cease to wonder at seeing labourers’ children with dirty linen and holes in the heels of their stockings?

There you have it, kiddies! The poor are wretched not for any of the commonly held reasons (e.g. because they are poor, or because they are lazy, or because no one who labours in the fields from dawn to dusk has time or energy to darn stockings) but because they drink too much TEA!!!!

You heard it here first.

Cara
Cara King, Tea Drinker Extraordinaire
for more weird period details, see www.caraking.com

Ladies in Waiting Part Deux

Since I found so much interesting info (interesting to me, anyway!) on the lives of Georgian ladies-in-waiting, I decided to do a Part Two this week, continuing from last Monday.

The Countess of Harcourt became a Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte in 1784, and she also became one of the Queen’s few friends, staying with her until her (Charlotte’s) death in 1818. Lady H. recalled one occasion when she said to the Queen, “I should like to tell YOU something, but pray promise never to let the QUEEN know it.” The Queen laughed and answered, “Oh, no, SHE can have no business with what passes between us in our private unreserved conversation.” But these lighthearted moments were an exception in what was considered a very dull Court indeed.

The Queen would receive at Court only women of unblemished reputation, “proscribing from her society all females of bankrupt or even ambiguous character” (Anne Somerset, from “Ladies in Waiting”). I don’t think ladies of, shall we say, a more risky disposition could care too much about this exclusion. The Court was no longer a center of fashion, as it had once been, since the values espoused by the King and Queen were so far from those set by the leaders of fashion.

The Court was also bound by rigid, uncomfortable etiquette. Fanny Burney, the novelist and sometime lady-in-waiting, wrote after first visiting Court, “In the first place you must not cough…In the second place you must not sneeze. In the third place, you must not, upon any account, stir either hand or foot. If, by chance, a black pin runs into your head, you must not take it out. If the pain is very great you must be sure to bear it without wincing; if it brings the tears into your eyes, you must not wipe them off…”

Other rules include one forbidding anyone to initiate a conversation with the King or Queen, or to eat in their presence. Ladies could not leave the Queen’s presence of their own accord, and when they did leave they had to back smoothly out of the room (with a train!). No one could sit in the Queen’s presence, even if faint or pregnant.

Of course, their duties could have been worse. The Ladies of the Bedchamber didn’t have to wait on the Queen at meals or assist with her toilette, aside from ceremonial; duties such as fastening her necklace. There were six of these ladies, drawn from the highest reaches of Society, each on call for two months of the year, usually only for formal occasions. The more day-to-day duties were now divided between the two Keepers of the Robes and their assistants, the wardrobe women (a whole ‘nother article, I think!). Ladies of the Bedchamber were paid 500 pounds a year (rather unfairly, the hardworking Keepers got only 200, but they did have free accomadations). Though the King and Queen were always eager to reduce their domestic budget, the Queen, despite a reputation for parsimony, would never permit savings at the expense of her ladies. She even fought the Government’s efforts to reorganize financial arrangements in 1812, condemning their proposed cuts as “shabby.”

Now, last week I asked if YOU would make a good lady-in-waiting. This week I wonder would your own heroine (or the heroine of your favorite books) do well at Court? Or would they be too rebellious? 🙂

Congratulations…!

Congratulations to the Regency RITA finalists for best Regency of 2005!

Drumroll…..

 

 

  • A Reputable Rake by Diane Gaston–Harlequin Mills & Boon Limited – Linda Fildew, editor
  • Miss Whitlow’s Turn by Jenna Mindel–NAL – Rose Hilliard, editor
  • Just Say Yes by Myretta Robens– Kensington Books – Hilary Sares, editor
  • The House Party by Jeanne Savery–Kensington Books – John Scognamiglio, editor

I particularly want to congratulate my friend Jenna Mindel, a critique partner before she moved away from central New York to the boonies of Michegan (smile!). Jenna, I know how much this means to you, and I know how hard you’ve worked for this. A nicer person couldn’t be made happy!

And for those who did not final–keep doing what you do. We are all winners, doing what we love, writing romances for the best readers in the world.

Viva the Regency!

Laurie
Lord Ryburn’s Apprentice
Signet, January 2006

RITA-Mania!


Today is the day the Romance Writers of America announce the list of finalists for the Golden Heart and RITA awards. RWA says, “The purpose of the RWA contests–RITA and Golden Heart–is to promote excellence in the romance genre by recognizing outstanding romance books and manuscripts.” These two contests are the big fish in the little pond of romance writing.

Or, as I explain to my non-romance friends, it’s like the Oscars, but for romance books. Finaling in either contest is a huge honor, at least among romance authors. I wonder, however, how important that “Golden Heart Winner!” or “RITA Award Winner!” emblazoned across the top of the book is important to readers (and no, I am not just saying that because I am doubtful of finaling myself). Reviewing the list of past RITA winners is impressive; reviewing the list of past Golden Heart winners is just as fun, especially since some of those authors have since been published.

But does it mean anything? I don’t know, but I am still hoping against hope I get a phone call today from the RWA office in Texas. Barring that, I hope one or more of my fellow Riskies get the call.

So–have you ever been more interested in a book because it’s won an award? If you’re a published author, do you enter these kinds of contests? What do you get out of them? If you’re unpublished, have you found contests to be helpful in forwarding your career?

And–before you answer any of that–wish us luck!

Megan
www.meganframpton.com

(Late) happy birthday, Bach!


Bach’s birthday was actually on March 21, so I’m taking the liberty of celebrating a couple of days late. Also earlier this month, on March 11, we celebrated–or didn’t, unless you’re a very unusual person, the anniversary of Mendelssohn’s revival of the St. Matthew Passion in 1829.

Yes, Bach was out of fashion bigtime in the Regency. Professional musicians appreciated his music–Beethoven, in a ponderously Teutonic joke (sorry, I just don’t see Ludwig sporting a squirting flower and a whoopie cushion), reputedly said “he should not be called Brook, but Ocean.” (Bach is German for brook. Get it? Whew.)

However, the revered Johann Reichardt–funnily enough, no longer a household name, or at least not in my household–in 1782 sniffed: Had Bach possessed the high integrity and the deep expressive feeling that inspired Handel, he would have been much greater even than Handel; but as it is he was only more painstaking and technically skillful. Ouch.

But back to Mendelssohn, boy genius. He was twenty when he rediscovered, rehearsed and conducted the St. Matthew Passion in Berlin, in collaboration with his friend the actor Eduard Devrient. The sold-out concert was attended by the King of Prussia, and such notables as Heine, Hegel and Paganini, and hundreds of people were turned away. Mendelssohn reputedly made the comment that it took and actor and a Jew to restore the greatest of Christian works to the world.

So…I guess I should have posted a picture of Jeremy Northam to spur on the conversation…any deep thoughts you’d like to share? Embarrassing public/musical experiences? I went to hear the St. Matthew Passion at the Proms once, and sat on the floor–a mistake since my leg went to sleep and at the end I stood up to applaud and fell flat on my face…

Janet

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