Nick and Ginny - free spirits of the Regency world

 "When life is easy and carefree, nothing seems impossible. Not the grand, passionate affair. Not the halcyon days of pleasure. Not the love that cannot be.

Nicolas Forrester and Virginia Sinclair had their glorious moment. Their sunburst. Their stars. Now they have ashes."

The fourth installment in the Infamous Forresters is getting close. I'm at 40,000 words and the chapters are tumbling out. I can barely keep up.

There are no secrets to be revealed, only tragic hurt that may be too difficult to overcome.

Let me introduce you to the Forresters

Hi everyone! I am finishing up the second book in the Infamous Forresters' series. I introduced you to Adam in the novella All A Mistress Wants. The rest of the family wasn't clear to me when I was writing that story but in the second book, about the third son named Joshua, the family is coming into clear focus.

The second son, Roman, is the heir to Sterling and Adam's confidant. Roman is a bit of a mystery to his family. He is a gambler but he is so much more.

Joshua is a traveler and an introvert. He loves his books, his maps, his history. And he has a great weakness when it comes to women in trouble. He can't save everyone but he does try. I haven't titled this book yet. It currently has the original title of "Joshua's story."

Nicolas, the fourth son, is off on an adventure in Hudson Bay, Canada. He is a sportsman and a hunter. On a return trip to London he becomes involved with a metis - an American Indian/French woman with an unquenchable spirit.

And then there is Oliver. The youngest son. A military man. Assigned to the HMS Victorious, Oliver's adventures leave him clinging to life, one wild adventure at a time.

The Forresters also have a married sister. I haven't made any decisions to write her story but she will be around.

The next story will be out in March 2016 in the Seven Nights of Sin Anthology. Like this page so you can keep up all the latest for this release.

The Clubs of London, Vol II

I'm reading a tome from 1828 titled The Clubs of London with anecdotes of their members, sketches of character and conversations.

I never tire of the British sense of humor - subtle, dry and observational.

Here's a little ditty certain card players might appreciate:

Sir Francis Burdett one evening was speaking most affectionately of his grandfather; and, among other agreeable recollections of the days of his boyhood, he stated that his progenitor had been also in the habit of playing a game at whist every night.

“And it is curious,” he said, “that one night, just as he had said, ‘Clubs were trumps!’ and won the game, he fell back in his chair and expired!”

Curran, who had not been yet, said a good thing, instantly observed, “Baronet, you surely have made a mistake: he must have said ‘Spades were trumps,’” and pointed significantly towards the ground, as if in the act of digging.

The Reform Club, London

 

 

Regency: Two Hundred Years Later

Writers love reviews. We absolutely adore fans and readers who write great reviews and we appreciate fans who write poor reviews, if they explain what it was they didn’t like, get or appreciate. Just so you know, I hate hit and run reviews. It’s like a kick in the groin. A thief in the night. A head fake. Like did you really read my book?

I read all of my reviews. The thrill of it hasn’t grown old yet. Maybe someday.

I also tend to read reviews of books by other writers and that is really what this blog is about. I have a cadre of historical writers I consider stellar and read everything they put out. I’m especially interested in their bad reviews. I’m always astounded by this. Writer X got a “1” for that book? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Firstly, this caliber of writing is always top notch. Most of these women are best sellers, multi-published and vastly more experienced then I will ever be - probably. So, I think, by default, they should get a 3. Yes, there may be beefs with plot or characterization and I’m okay with that but the writing itself is usually outstanding. Good word choices and grammar are consistent. The edits good. The typos limited.

I very much disagree with a writer receiving a one because the reviewer didn’t like the topic of the book. Why I find this unfair is because blurbs and plot summaries will reveal this ahead of time. Even knowing the publisher is a big clue as to what you might be about to read. There are one or two topics that I absolutely can’t stand reading and if it is revealed, I won’t read the book, even if it is a favorite author. No, torture will not reveal this information.

So, why was I compelled to write a blog about reviews? I read a recent one where the reviewer starts off by proclaiming that she is a Jane Austen and Regency fan and this book is not what she expected from the genre. Again, not my book, but an author I enjoy immensely.

There are writers who can mimic Jane Austen with some degree of accuracy. This author has never claimed to do so – only that she writes titillating Regency tales. I guess I’m miffed for this writer to be slammed because she wasn’t Jane Austen-ish enough. Most modern day Regency writers aren’t trying to mimic Miss Austen. They are trying to find their own voice and write the story that is living in their heart and brain.

That’s the story that should be judged - the story that lives in us because we love the history and romance and dreams that only Regency can give us.

Miss Austen’s stories are painted with the broad stroke of her actual existence. Ours are painted with the whispy strand of what we see as a possibility.

Gentleman's Pocket Book of Etiquette

Servants

There are a few things that denote the gentleman more than the manner of speaking to a servant; decision without haughtiness, condescension without familiarity, kindness with dignity, will always characterize the address of a gentleman to his dependents.

Never speak superciliously or passionately to a servant; commands given with mildness will be cheerfully obeyed; and especially avoid an imperative style of speaking to the servants of another.  In requesting them to hand you anything, preface the desire with “I will thank you for so and so.” Your tone and manner must indicate that the deference is paid to your sense of propriety, and that the request is to be complied with as a matter of course.

If during a party, your servant is peculiarly awkward, do not scold or speak harshly; but if his conduct requires reproof, reserve it to a more convenient opportunity.

Servants should wait at table in white gloves.

Hiring Servants

Lady's Maid

Etiquette for Gentlemen 1840 England: Dueling

I really do need to write a novel with a smashing duel scene!

Page 73:

It has been suggested to me that as Duel is essentially a matter of Etiquette, it should not be unnoticed, and that as ignorance is the parent of mischief, in other cases, it is likely to prove so in this. I am aware, however, that on this subject, so strong is the prejudice of some minds, that is admission to these pages may be condemned. After however maturely weighing the for and against, I have resolved on devoting a chapter thereto, being convinced from much observation and many opportunities, that more meetings arise out of ignorance in this particular than from any other cause. I must now most unqualifiedly protest against the practice of DUEL, even while I fear it cannot be abolished, except by the legislature.

Page 77:

A gentleman is always cool, or rather, never appears in passion in the society of ladies. A man of courage is always collected, and if accustomed to good society will never outrage its feelings, unless brutally attacked; then of course he may be allowed to repel brute force, by the like, the same as he would resist the attack of a highwayman in the presence of ladies, however alarmed they might be; he however who could calmly receive a blow, with the cool determination of clearing the disgrace at the proper opportunity, would undoubtedly the most entitled to the appellation of a perfect gentleman.

Well, more to come later on the proper etiquette or dueling. 

This is all from Wikipedia on some famous British and Irish Duels during the early 19th Century.

• 1803: Captain James Macnamara and Colonel Montgomery; over a dispute between their dogs fighting in Hyde Park. Both were wounded, Montgomery mortally. Macnamara was tried for manslaughter at the Old Bailey but was acquitted.^[13]
• 1804: Captain Best fatally wounded Thomas Pitt, 2nd Baron Camelford. He died three days later.^[14]
• 1807: Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet and James Pauli; both men were wounded.
• 1808: Major Campbell and Captain Boyd; Major Campbell was tried and executed for killing Captain Boyd.
• 1809: George Canning and Lord Castlereagh; Canning was slightly wounded.
• 1815: Daniel O'Connell and Captain John Norcot d'Esterre; d'Esterre was killed.^[15]
• 1821: John Scott and Jonathon Henry Christie. Scott was the founder and editor of the London Magazine. The duel was born out of the Cockney School controversy. John Gibson Lockhart had been abusing many of Scott's contributors in Blackwood's Magazine (under a pseudonym (Z), as was then common). In May 1820, Scott began a series of counter-articles, which provoked Lockhart into calling him "a liar and a scoundrel". In February 1820, Lockhart's London agent, J.H. Christie, made a provocative statement, and Scott challenged him. They met on 16 February 1821, at a farm between Camden Town and Hampstead. Christie did not fire in the first round, but there was a misunderstanding between the seconds, resulting in a second round. Scott was hit in the abdomen, and died 11 days later. Christie and his second were tried for willful murder and acquitted; the collection for Scott's family was a notable radical cause.
• 1822: Richard Temple-Grenville, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos and Francis Russell, 7th Duke of Bedford.^[12]
• 1824: The 3rd Marquess of Londonderry and Ensign Battier; Battier was a cornet in the Marquess' regiment. When Battier's pistol misfired, he declined the offer of another shot and left. He was later horsewhipped by the Marquess' second Sir Henry Hardinge.
• 1826: David Landale, a linen merchant from Kirkcaldy, duelled with his bank manager, George Morgan, who had slandered his business reputation. This was the last duel to be fought on Scottish soil; George Morgan, a trained soldier, was shot through the chest and mortally wounded by Landale, who had never before held a pistol. Landale was tried for murder but found not guilty. The subject of a book "Duel" by his descendant James Landale.
• 1829: The Duke of Wellington and the 10th Earl of Winchilsea; both aimed wide.
• 1835: Mr Roebuck and Mr Black, editor of the Morning Chronicle
• 1835: William Arden, 2nd Baron Alvanley and Morgan O'Connell, son of Daniel O'Connell. Alvanley asserted that Morgan's father had been "purchased" by William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne on his accession to the office of Prime Minister, O'Connell retorted by calling Alvanley "a bloated buffoon".
• 1839: The 3rd Marquess of Londonderry and Henry Gratton
• 1840: James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan and Captain Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett; Captain Tuckett was wounded. Cardigan was arrested, tried in the House of Lords and was acquitted.^[16]
• 1840: Prince Louis Napoleon and Charles, Count Léon; Police arrived to prevent the duel; both men were arrested and taken to Bow Street Prison.
• 1843: Colonel Fawcett and Lieutenant Monro, in Camden; Colonel Fawcett was killed.
• 1845: Lieutenant Henry Hawkey, Royal Marines, and Captain James Alexander Seton, British Army ; Captain Seton died on 2 June. This was the last recorded fatal duel fought in England. This is recorded in other sites as having taken place at Browndown Camp, Gosport, Hampshire.