An Author’s Quandary

The Usage of Words, Issues of Inheritance

&

Forms of Address

When setting out to write a historical novel, a number of challenges confronted me above and beyond simply getting the clothing and carriages correct. My first stumbling block was the very words themselves. Many of the words that I normally would use; chemise, bun (hair), bosoms, wink, climax, orgasm, gorgeous, foreplay, fiancée, pub, sex—and on and on, simply were not in use in 1814 or had a different definition entirely from the meaning we ascribe to them in present times. For example, “gorgeous” did not mean beautiful or handsome. It meant “extravagant or highly colorful” and was strictly applied to inanimate objects, never people.  It was rather startling for me to discover that I could not use the word “bosoms” or “climax” because they didn’t exist at the time of my story and to use them would be an anachronistic blunder. It was also curious to see words that I consider modern like “to come” (to indicate orgasm or ejaculation) or “dildo” (the type without batteries!) are, in fact, very old and have been in use for centuries. (“Come” originating around 1659 and “dildo” in 1593.)

So! Hi-ho, hi-ho, to the Oxford Dictionary I go. It was fascinating to see the origins of words and phrases but frustrating as I had to eliminate half of my vocabulary. Nevertheless, I have tried to the best of my ability to stay with the appropriate dress, social morays, and language of the time—or at least keep the anachronistic blunders to within the same decade. For example, indoor plumbing wasn’t introduced to upper-income houses until the late 1800s; therefore, the wealthy estate house of Rutledge is still using chamber pots and having hot water brought up by maids. This story also adheres to the prevailing belief that “natural order” as established by the Creator, decrees the male has authority over the female in all things. Unapologetic sexism was the order of the day in the 1800s. A striking example of codified misogyny can be found in the fact that a husband could not be accused of marital rape as once a woman married, she ipso facto granted a blanket acceptance of all sexual intimacy between she and her husband.

And now I come to the second issue that tripped me up—forms of address for aristocrats and how aristocrats of the time addressed each other. The Regency society of 1814 was very formal. Unless you grew up with someone—knew them from childhood—you did not use a person’s first name. Ever. It was considered immensely rude and lacking in respect. Being raised a southern belle, I can vouch for the fact that I was taught never to address another person who was older than me by their first name. Ever. It simply isn’t “done” in better society. I’m still taken aback when total strangers (usually service personnel trying to be friendly) address me by my first name. The well-bred men and women of 1814 took it a degree further—even husbands and wives did not usually refer to each other by their first names.

In A Husband For Hire, Eleanor’s father is properly announced as, The Right Honourable The Earl of Rutledge or simply, the Earl of Rutledge, and Eleanor’s mother is The Right Honourable The Countess of Rutledge or Countess Rutledge. However, Rutledge is a place name and not a surname, therefore it is entirely appropriate for the Earl’s wife to call him “Rutledge.” Eleanor’s family surname is Russell, therefore, Eleanor’s name, as a single woman and daughter to an earl, is Lady Eleanor Constance Russell. Quite confusing. Wherever possible, I defaulted to “Madam” or “my lady”.

Not using a person’s first name presented a problem for me as my heroine’s married name is properly Lady Miles Everleigh and she would be referred to as Lady Miles. Rather confusing to a modern reader when the heroine goes from Lady Eleanor Russell to Lady Miles Everleigh and her father is the Earl of Rutledge and her mother the Countess of Rutledge with nary a Russell in sight!

So…I took some liberties and had Miles occasionally refer to Eleanor by her first name and with the title that she was born with as the daughter of an earl. He calls her Lady Eleanor or Lady Miles and very rarely in moments of great intimacy, or when specifically requested, Eleanor. Upon occasion, a “my lady” or a “madam” will slip in. As the story progresses, you will see an occasional “dear” or “dearest.” For people at the time, this would be an indication of great love or affection and an intimate acquaintance with the person addressed. For example, Miles first uses the word “dearest” to address his mother whom he loves dearly.

Another problem was the issue of the British rules of inheritance during the Regency period, and here I fudged rather significantly. In point of fact, Eleanor, as either a single or married woman, would never have inherited the entailed properties of Rutledge. She stood a much better chance of her husband being awarded the entailed properties because, lacking a male heir, her father, the Earl of Rutledge, could petition for a waiver or “Act of Lords” by “adopting” Eleanor’s husband as his legal male heir (normal custom banned adopted children from inheriting) whereupon Miles would inherit the entailed properties and the title. As his wife, Eleanor would be totally dependent upon his administration of the estate. Barring a waiver such as that, Eleanor could petition for an exception to allow her firstborn son to inherit Rutledge. (Indeed, this is what she thought Elsington was filing on her behalf. He wasn’t.) Her husband, Miles, would be trustee of the property and guardian of her child until such time as her firstborn son came of age. In this case, her son would not inherit the title of Earl unless it was conveyed by the Crown in a separate action.

Eleanor could inherit the personal or freehold properties of her father and administer them in her own name unless her father willed them to someone else—which he did.

Phew. I think I got that right. 

There you have it, gentle reader. You can see some of the issues that writing historical romance brings with it, above and beyond getting the clothing and colloquialisms correct. To the extent that I thought the modern reader will understand, I have tried to stay true to the proper forms of address as existed in 1814. In some places, I have strayed from true accuracy and conformed to the modern norms so as not to confuse my reader.

I hope you enjoyed the sweet love story that is A Husband For Hire. I’ve made it as historically accurate as I knew how, but I’m sure I slipped up many times, sometimes intentionally, sometimes through ignorance. Book Two, The Destitute Duke (working title and subject to change) will follow with the story of Lord Duncan Everleigh and Lady Florence Lloyd-Smyth. There will also be a love interest for the Dowager Duchess of Chelsony—much to the consternation of the Everleigh men. Ned will also get his own story when the Everleighs have traveled some years into the future, and he has matured.

Warm regards,

Patricia A. Knight