In the Regency era it was extremely popular to have portraits taken. It was, for a society without photography, the only way to capture likenesses. If you are lucky enough to visit a fine art museum, you will probably see lots of different types of portraits of regency era people, from portraits of men, dangling their swords and guns suggestively, well-to-do families posing together in front of their houses or gardens, and beautiful women sitting in a variety of poses meant to symbolize their beauty, rank, virtue and or their purity before marriage, among other things—or a combination of all these.

These informal portraits were very common, for the middle class were still of the leisure class and had to fill in their many afternoons and evenings with some hobby or other. Sitting for your portrait or being the ‘artist’ filled the long spaces of time if you didn’t want to read or play cards or go for long walks. But if you were wealthy enough and had a motive for getting a proper portrait done by a real artist, you would commission a portrait and pay big dollars for it, too.

I must point out here that almost never would a woman commission her own portrait. A wife would have her portrait commissioned by her husband. A female who was not a wife would have her portrait commissioned by a male in her family—her father, brother or other relative. Women in the Regency eras and before it, had almost no real agency of their own, including how they were depicted in paintings, although we could argue that she had some ability to subvert the ‘text’ of a painting of herself by the look on her face or the way she cooperated with the artist or not, the clothing she may or may not be given leave to choose, or the pose she was to assume. In most cases, all of these would also be dictated by the male who was commissioning the artwork, whether or not she was in agreement with these details. I am sure that many women were happy to have the portrait taken and were not upset with the process or the results, but there would have been many who did not agree and had to suck it up as the saying goes.

At any rate, depending on how rich your family was, your stage of life, your rank, and your intention, portraits of women were commissioned to depict various combinations of things. Have a look at some of these reasons:

Rank and Importance: Those families of the aristocracy or royal lines, or high-ranking families, would commission portraits of themselves, including of their wives or daughters, to emphasize this link, to remind the household members, servants, and all their visitors, of this link to royalty, aristocracy or important blood lines and families of high rank. Royalty and aristocracy were frequently depicted in portraits that emphasized their regal stature or high status. Women in these portraits were often adorned in luxurious attire, wearing sumptuous dresses, jewels, and elaborate hairstyles. The portraits often conveyed a sense of opulence and grandeur, symbolizing their high social standing. Having one’s portrait taken, or having your wife’s portrait taken, was a way of projecting your own social standing, and I suppose a case may be made that in some ways it allowed women in these portraits to be considered as important, by way of association usually, although sometimes for their own status, although the tropes of beauty and innocence usually pervade even the most regal of portraits.

 Of course, the Regency era was a time where they idealized Greek civilization. Neoclassicism became all the rage, and this is when gowns became higher waisted and more flowing in order to emulate Greek styles, with their beautiful naturally flowing fabrics and draping. Finally you see she is posing in a garden, a very common place to have ones portrait taken, because it depicts the regency era fascination with the natural world. Women and children were seen as ‘closer to nature’ and to be depicted in a natural setting was saying that the sitter, in this case the young woman, was innocent, natural and to be compared with the natural beauty of the garden. Look closely at the base of the plinth and you will see the artist’s signature.

The Maternal Figure: For women of the Regency era and prior, motherhood and familial duties were paramount. Portraits often depicted women in their roles as mothers, surrounded by their children, or nursing a child. Portraits of women nursing or holding a child on their knee were a common trope used by artists. They were meant to be ‘read’ by the observer as emulating those paintings of ‘Mary and Child’, sometimes called Maestas (pronounced My-a-star) In this way, they were subtly implying the piety of the woman, her role as mother (the Christian Mary, supposed mother of God/Christ is considered the universal mother figure) and her purity and Christianity. The trope of ‘mother with child’ used in this domestic setting also highlighted the nurturing and maternal aspects of women, reinforcing the idea of the domestic sphere as the primary realm for women's activities.

Below is a real Maesta from the 15th century to compare with a regency portrait of a woman suckling a child. You will see the similarities, and how the mother is represented in both depictions as the embodiment of nurturing. These ideals are perpetuated by art work of women as mothers, as we see below right and centre.

Of course, mother and son portraits were favourite commissions to commemorate the birth of an heir. In these portraits, mother and son were commemorated, although the star of the show was well and truly the baby, and his birth was immortalized on the walls of his ancestral home for future generations.

As Creatures of Leisure and Therefore of Class: As seemingly informal as these scenes were, and no matter how happy the participants sometimes seem, these types of art works which depict their womenfolk at leisure was a way to confer status on the family—an observer reads the message as “Here you see our daughter/wife/sister engaged in reading, playing a musical instrument or walking, by which activity you will see that we are middle to upper class and don’t need to work” is what they are saying.

I really enjoy these portraits because the woman is a little active rather passively sitting—a huge change from the previous century’s depiction of women just sitting passively with no agency of her own, but still, even though they are now a little more active in these portraits, they are not given too much agency—they can read, they can sew, they can play the pianoforte, but still they are confined to a drawing room, a house, or a garden

The Idealized Beauty: Regency era female portraits frequently showcased women as embodiments of idealized beauty. Artists used techniques to enhance their subjects' features, emphasizing flawless skin, delicate features, and graceful poses. These portraits idealized femininity, reinforcing and contributing to the creation of contemporary cultural standards of beauty. Beauty was important, for the more good-looking a girl was, the more she was to find a husband. Likewise, beauty was prized, and therefore, if you daughters or wife or sister was had good looks, you would want to show your pride by having a portrait taken.
It is interesting to note the changes to cultural ideals around what constituted beauty by looking at different portraits over the centuries, but in the regency era, beauty was idealized as pure, and so a woman who had her portrait taken would have certain features played up or painted in, and those which were considered less pretty, painted out or downplayed. White skin, rosy cheeks and lips, plumpness (which again indicated wealth) and fine clothing were all common features attributed to the sitter, allowing of course for personality and strong features to also shine through where permitted, as per the instructions of the commission.

Note the above portraits; upper left has an almost heavy-lidded, wonton look about her, and her clothing is deliberately twisted and flowing, as if in a controlled chaos—did the artist try to represent the personality of his subject as closely as he could without giving the game away? The middle portrait by Arthur Williams circa 1810, is called ‘A Saucy Regency Lady’. Here the playfulness of her look and pose is echoed in the playful look of the dog beneath her arm—she is pure, chaste—the white of the dress tells us she is a lady—but her personality has been captured here despite the trope of the white dress as pure symbolism. Note too, the hint of wild natural work in the background, meant also to give us a hint into the personality of the sitter. The lovely portrait of Selina Meade, Countess Clam-Martinics, by Sir Thomas Lawrence on the right is one of my favorites—in fact I used it as a book cover for my novel Beauty and Beast of Thornleigh. In this painting, she has the appearance of sedate, calm loveliness, but there is a look in her eyes which is eloquent—‘I am not all that I appear, there is more to me than meets the eye in this portrait,’ she seems to be saying to the viewer. Her painter, Sir Thomas Lawrence, purportedly said of her, “in beauty and interesting character, one of the most distinguished persons in Vienna.” She looks full of supressed fun—I’d love to have known her as a friend!

The tradition of portrait sitting during the Regency era was used for various different purposes. While there were many differing types of representation, and we can allow for the personal requirements of the commissions to dictate certain aspects of them, we can learn a lot from the women by looking at how they were represented. These portraits captured the essence of women’s lives in a complex society where women lived primarily a domestic life. Through these portraits, women’s beauty, roles, and family status were documented and immortalized. While many portraits reflected the prevailing gender norms and societal expectations, they also contained nuances that hinted at women's spirit and desire for agency.
Next time you come across a portrait from the regency era, take a moment to reflect on this lovely and interesting tradition of portraiture and the very real women behind the oil paint!

In researching this topic, there was, not surprisingly, very little information about what women did when ‘Aunt Flo’ came to visit. Women would have had to rely on mothers, sisters or female relations to guide them through the process, and those conversations would have always occurred behind the closed door of the bedroom, using euphemisms similar to those we have today.

During the 18th and early 19th centuries, women lacked the modern sanitary products we have today. Instead, they used a variety of materials to manage their periods. Fabric strips, folded pieces of cloth made into homemade pads were commonly used to absorb menstrual flow. These rudimentary products were washable and reusable, as of course disposable products were not yet available. We can guess that the euphemism for having one’s period as being ‘on the rag’ most likely originated from this practice of using rags

It may surprise you to discover that tampons are not a recent development, but their rudimentary form was used even since the ancient civilizations. Historians believed that tampons were commonly used in ancient Egypt, Greece, and looking at this practice might help us to guess at what Georgian era women might have been able to create at home.

The earliest information we have about homemade tampons comes from ancient times and speaks of ‘suppositories’ for the ‘privy place’. These suppositories were in fact early tampons. Their core could be made from a smoothed stick and were about the ‘length of a little finger.’ These were then bound in absorbent linen rags and securely stitched. A long cord was sewn in and could be tied about the leg if desired. These were made at home and I assume were washable or disposable as needed. Hieroglyphics interpreted by historians reveal that in Egypt they also made their own tampons using rolled-up cotton, or softened papyrus. These home-made tampons were cheap to make and so individuals of different socioeconomic backgrounds were able to benefit. Women in ancient Greece also used tampons by wrapping bits of wood together with lint, and others used sea sponges as tampons, which interestingly, is still in practice today! Romans were also known to use pads as well as tampons made of wool. Other tampons were made from small drawstring bags filled with wadding or sponge which could be replaced

When Georgian era women got their periods, they typically avoided social gatherings, attributing it to various reasons such as illness or personal reasons. Politeness and modesty were paramount, since during this era there were strict social expectations for women, which extended to their behaviour during menstruation. Menstruation was shrouded in secrecy and deemed a private matter. Because there was no overt discussion of periods in public spaces, women found ways to communicate their needs and experiences discreetly, and just like we do today, they had euphemisms such as being visited by ‘a friend’ to infer that they were indisposed, and the family or their acquaintance would be told that they were simply ‘unwell’ or ‘indisposed.’

As the 18th century gave way to the 19th, social and scientific advancements began to shape new attitudes towards women's health. The advent of medical knowledge and the gradual spread of women's education enabled a more informed understanding of menstruation. This, in turn, contributed to the development of improved sanitary products and a shift in societal perceptions.
So if you are a woman who is still visited by ‘Aunt Flo’, as annoying and inconvenient as periods are, just be thankful that things are so much easier these days than they were for a woman in the Regency era!

To begin with, giving birth to a child was a life-threatening event, and the mortality rates of both mother and infants was high. Records are hazy as data wasn’t kept at that time, but based on historical records and estimates, it is believed that the maternal mortality rate for mothers during the Georgian era was between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per 100,000 live births, and for babies it is supposed to be somewhere near 150-200 deaths per 1,000 live births. I would assume that this is only the counted data, as many families of poorer status would not have bothered to record the death, so the actual rate could be much higher.

If birth did not kill them, many babies died in their first year of life. This was due to a number of factors, including poor sanitation, inadequate medical care, and a lack of understanding of the causes of disease. 

Jane Austen and her siblings were all supposedly sent away to a local village and raised there by an acquaintance of the family. Middle class families like Austen’s could afford to do this, but not all incomes could support this cost. Those more impoverished families would simply employ a nurse to give babies and toddlers the most basic care, keep them out of sight in the upstairs areas, wait for them to gain the age they could behave themselves at the dinner table.

Occasionally, if the mother had too many children to have time to teach her older girls, and they had the means to do so, girls might also be sent away to school for the most basic educations. Then they were expected to come home, help around the house, and wait to be married. Jane Austen and her sister Cassandra were sent away to school for a few years, where they received the most basic instruction. Skills commonly taught females were skills that would help around the home—embroidery, sewing and darning, and basic accounting or math. Some girls might receive extra classes in painting, music and French if they were lucky.

Discipline was strict in Georgian households, with parents using physical punishment as a means of correcting misbehaviour. This included spanking with a cane or switch, and even locking children in dark closets as a form of punishment. Despite these harsh methods, Georgian parents were also as affectionate towards their children as we are today, and to a great extent, parenting was as good or bad as it is today, depending much upon the temperaments of the adults and the children. Georgian life placed a great deal of importance on family relationships. Children were expected to show deference and respect towards their parents and elders, and were taught to value hard work and good behaviour.

Georgian era children played a variety of games and pastimes, many of which would be recognizable today. However, the types of games and activities that were popular varied depending on the child's social class and location. In wealthier households, children might have had access to toys such as dolls, stuffed animals, and board games. They might have played games of skill such as jacks, marbles, or card games, or participated in group games such as hide-and-seek, blindman's buff, or tag. They might also have had access to books, musical instruments, and other forms of entertainment.

Children from less affluent backgrounds might have had fewer toys and less elaborate games to play. They might have spent more time outdoors, playing games of skill and chance such as hopscotch, skipping, or ball games. They might also have engaged in simple crafts or creative activities, such as making dolls or paper boats.

Regardless of their social class, Georgian era children were often expected to help with household chores and other duties as they grew older. They might have been expected to help with cooking, cleaning, or caring for younger siblings. This would have varied depending on the family's circumstances, but would have been a common expectation for children in both cases.

In many ways raising a child in the regency era posed no greater challenges than raising one in the twenty first century, give or take a few variations in child-raising methods and social mores. Even these differences changed depending on social status of the families. Both eras have different challenges, both for parents and children! I will leave you to judge if you would rather raise—or be—a child in the regency era, or a child in 2023!

Now I know not everyone admires cats quite in this same way, but anyone who is a cat-admirer will admit, if you are looking for beauty, companionship and comfort, you might find them all bundled up together—in the soft fur and regal lines of a cat. In this month’s blog, I look at how were cats viewed in the Georgian and Regency eras. Were they as beloved as companions back then as they are today? We'll explore the role of cats as pets during the Georgian era in England and take a look at some famous cat owners of the time, as well as how cats were depicted in art of the period.

During the Georgian era in England (1714-1830), it may not surprise some cat-loving readers to know that cats were widely kept as pets. Well, of course! Although these feline companions were popular for their ability to catch mice and rats, which were common pests in households at the time, they were also often beloved pets. Although previous centuries had viewed cats as associated with witchcraft, and having to earn their keep by hunting mice and vermin, this view began to change in the 18th century, and cats became more accepted as pets and even a status symbol.

The poet Christopher Smart was also known to have a cat named Jeoffry, whom he wrote about in his poem "Jubilate Agno". Jeoffry was Smart's loyal companion and comforted him during his periods of mental illness.

Cats were often portrayed in art and literature of the period, and these images tell us a lot about the different relationships between owners and pets, as well as how they were viewed by society on the whole. These beautiful animals, with their elegant appearance and playful nature made them a popular subject for portraits and sketches. Cats were often depicted as pets or as part of domestic scenes, and in many of these images, cats were shown as valued companions and beloved members of the household. A common motif was the depiction of young girls with kittens as we see below:

Here the kittens paired with young girls are meant to symbolize the tender relationship between the two as well as implying that the young girl is as fragile and innocent as the kitten. These images make me think of today’s photographic portraits of toddlers in flowerpots and other cute scenarios, that adoring parents have done of their children—these images are meant to remind proud parents of the sweetness and innocence of children…at least in the pictures!

As time passed from the 1700s through to the 1800s, there were some differences in the way that cats were viewed and treated during the Regency era. One notable change was the increasing popularity of purebred cats, which were bred for their specific physical characteristics and temperament. This led to the creation of many new breeds of cats, including the Siamese, Persian, and British Shorthair, which were highly prized for their beauty and elegance.

As time passed from the 1700s through to the 1800s, there were some differences in the way that cats were viewed and treated during the Regency era. One notable change was the increasing popularity of purebred cats, which were bred for their specific physical characteristics and temperament. This led to the creation of many new breeds of cats, including the Siamese, Persian, and British Shorthair, which were highly prized for their beauty and elegance.

Additionally, there was a growing interest in animal welfare during the Regency era, which led to increased concern for the health and well-being of pets, including cats. This can be seen in the work of animal rights activists such as William Wilberforce and the founding of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in 1824.

If you are an Austen fan you may wonder if Jane herself had a cat? We cannot know for sure but in a letter dated September 23, 1811, Austen wrote to her sister Cassandra about a cat that had taken up residence at a friend's house: "We have got a new cat; a black kitten, almost as large as a full grown cat, very cunning & wild." In another letter dated January 23, 1801, Austen described a cat that belonged to one of her acquaintances as "a fine large cat, black and white, who appeared highly pleased with her situation."

Needless to say that cats were, then, often a favourite pet in the Georgian era, and some were very highly regarded by their owners. Nothing much has changed in two hundred odd years! I shall finish with my favourite cat quote, although it is not from the Georgian era, but from recent times:

Generally, the poorer and lower middle class households first referred to textbooks such as Buchan’s Domestic medicine or the family physician (1769). Buchan wrote Domestic Medicine not as a medical text book exactly, but more like a home remedy book, which families could refer to. It described various different ailments, and their treatments, clearly enough that untrained people could diagnose and ‘cure’ (perhaps) whatever it was that ailed the family member. Jane Austen’s family supposedly had a copy.

But what if the ailment or injury was too difficult to cure by home remedies, or that applying leeches to little Sarah for three days merely exacerbated her symptoms? What to do?
Then people had the option to summon an apothecary, a surgeon, (and many times the apothecary doubled up as a surgeon if there was no skilled surgeon in the area, as in rural locations) or if you had enough money, a physician.

None of this means that his medical attention was efficacious or that richer people got a better quality of expertise. In their education, never did would-be doctors practice on actual patients. All their learning was done by listening to lectures on medicine. A website called ‘Pen and Pension’ has a really interesting page on medicine in Georgian era England, and it seems that medical practice in England in the Georgian era was pretty much a free-for-all, and that there were just as many, if not more, ‘quacks’ than men with a genuine idea of how to go about things.

‘It was far from unknown for people in need to turn to the local ‘horse doctor.’ One traveller needing medical help was told …that there was no one who could do it, but a Man that lived three miles off, who was a good Physician, bled every Man, and Calf, in the neighbourhood, and was a pretty good Surgeon, for he had been originally a Sow gelder.’

Just because you could afford a physician, didn’t mean you got a treatment that worked. Nothing worked all of the time, and sometimes, less was more, as in the case of blood-letting and use of narcotics and opiates!

Heyer’s regencies were inspired by Austen’s, but she brought to the genre a new life and a much less ‘serious’ feel than Austen did. Heyer was, however, a stickler for accuracy, which I presume must have come about from a fascination with the Georgian and Regency eras, and which anyone who loves Regency writing can sympathize with—Heyer collected references, books and historic documents, and kept detailed notes on all aspects of regency life. She is, for example, well known for her use of ‘regency cant’ the vernacular of the day, and which she sprinkled liberally throughout her novels. It is generally accepted that she made up some of these words herself, but even if she did, they lend an authentic feeling to her writing. For example, phrases such as ‘doing it too much brown’ (flattery), ‘to become a tenant for life’ (marriage) and ‘to be in damned low water’ (poor). These lend sparkle and life to her sentences and characters—the sparkle which draws us to her writing and which is unlike any other writer then or now. (For more on her regency ‘cant’, here is a great website which catalogues many of her turns of phrase, authentic or made up.)

That was not the only instance of plagiarism. In 1961, another reader wrote of similarities found in the works of another female novelist. These novels borrowed plot points, characters, surnames, and plentiful Regency slang. Apparently, her fans accused Heyer of "publishing shoddy stuff under a pseudonym". In response, Heyer made a complete list of the plagiarisms, including the historical mistakes in the books. Among the phrases that writer ‘borrowed’ were repeated use of the phrase "to make a cake of oneself", which Heyer had discovered in a privately printed memoir unavailable to the public. In another case, the author referenced a supposedly historical incident that Heyer had actually invented, in an earlier novel—a dead give-away for plagiarism, and I read somewhere a long time ago now, that Heyer claimed she had invented some of the phrases herself, and was able to catch out the offending novelist by pointing out the use of the same phrases in the plagiarised novels.

Perhaps these events make her more interesting to a reader—I certainly found her books fascinating because of it, and one can see why Heyer was so wildly successful enough to have other writers attempt to plagiarize her work. She writes with wit, certainly with a sense of the comedy of life, with an eye to detail and makes use of intricately woven plots, and most of all, she is funny…all of which make for the best reading.

Now if you have read my blogs, you will probably know that Regency food fascinates me and brings me closer to Jane and her Georgian era peers. So, when I wrote ‘A Bath Affair,’ I have my heroine’s family regularly having Bath buns for breakfast, as this was generally when they were eaten. So, what are Bath buns?

I am sure you have heard of the Sally Lunn bun—well, it seems Bath buns were the cousin of this sweet doughy delight. The Lunn was a brioche, and lighter, while Bath buns are more dense, and have the delightful addition of caraway seeds. When they first appeared in English cooking, Bath buns often were sprinkled with sugared caraways, known as comfits, rather than just plain. To make caraway comfits, I have included the method below the recipe for the buns.

Although you can still eat Bath buns in the many tea houses in Bath geared to tourists and Jane Austen fans, you might like to try making them at home if you cannot, like me, get to Bath any time soon!

This is Jamie Oliver’s recipe (thank you Jamie!) for Bath buns: