The Stranger She Married
An Excerpt by Donna Hatch, Regency Romance Author
Available on Amazon
Mrs. Hancock beamed as Alicia reached her side, put an arm around Alicia, and brought her into their circle. “Miss Alicia Palmer, allow me to introduce Lord Amesbury.”
Even more devastating up close, Lord Amesbury turned to her. His piercing blue eyes threatened the strength in her knees. Though taller than most ladies, Alicia still had to look up to meet his gaze. No other color existed in those eyes; no green or gray, only deep, dark blue, like the fathomless depths of the ocean.
All the other men she had met lately, namely those her uncle insisted she consider for a husband, had taken careful note of her figure. But this gentleman only looked into her eyes. Very deeply.
Lord Amesbury inclined his head. “Miss Palmer.” His resonant, bass voice touched her very soul.
Alicia met his frank gaze and a sensation she did not quite understand stirred within her until breathing became a conscious effort. Mrs. Hancock discreetly coughed, and Alicia realized she’d been locked in eye contact with the Viscount much longer than appropriate.
Unable to pull her eyes away, Alicia sank into a curtsey. “My lord.”
No longer merely polite, his smile broadened, warmed, transforming an already handsome face into a perfectly stunning visage. Sensuality radiated off him, not in a manner that left her feeling threatened, but in a way that left her breathless for more. More of what, she did not know. But she wanted to find out.
“Miss Palmer,” Lord Amesbury said, “May I have the next dance?”
Alicia blinked. She looked back at Elizabeth who smiled encouragingly. Mrs. Hancock also smiled and nodded, but a touch of disappointment tainted her approval, reminding Alicia the dear lady had hoped her own daughter would attract the attention of the very eligible Lord Amesbury. That he’d singled out Alicia seemed a dream.
She squelched all hope that she might hold his interest. Surely only politeness motivated him to dance with the plainest girl first. He’d soon turn his attention to the beautiful ladies.
Finding her voice, Alicia replied, “I would be delighted, my lord.”
As the final notes of the current dance ended and the next began, Lord Amesbury offered his arm. She took it, an unfamiliar quiver beginning in her stomach. The art of dancing, she found as the set began, had not abandoned her as completely as her wits. The handsome viscount danced with athletic grace, his attention focused upon her. The warmth of his hand seeped through their kidskin gloves. He held her gently, firmly.
A playful glint touched his sapphire eyes. “I must warn you. Now that we’ve danced, my aunt will take it upon herself to ask you your opinion of me. She will most certainly interrogate me regarding you.”
She met those probing eyes and her mouth curved. “Oh? Has your aunt become your self-proclaimed matchmaker?”
A wry smile touched his lips. “Of course. I’m thirty and not yet married. She feels it her duty to ensure I produce an heir before I’m too old. Despite my efforts to delay that obligation, she persists.”
Alicia nodded, her smile deepening at his indelicate statement. “That is a dilemma.”
“Since you and I have only just met, it will be difficult to offer a fair assessment of your character. And if I say anything positive about you, she’ll plan the wedding.” His smile brightened, lighting up his stunning face.
Alicia missed her step. Even while dancing with the very handsome Duke of Suttenberg two Seasons ago, such a keen attraction for a man had never overcome her as it did tonight. Yet she was nearly twenty, for heaven’s sake, not a missish schoolgirl!
“Your aunt is a strong woman and a kind lady, my lord. I am sure you can reason with her.”
“I suppose she possesses a good heart deep, deep down inside, but be truthful; she’s sharp-tongued and outspoken.”
She laughed and then clapped her hand over her mouth. “My lord! She might hear you.”
He chuckled. “Fear not. We needle each other as frequently as possible. I say worse things to her face. I enjoy watching her squirm and plot a counter- attack.”
That reminded her of the playful banter she shared with her cousin Robert. “I don’t recall her ever mentioning you, my lord.”
His smile turned self-deprecating. “I’m one of those relations no one mentions.”
Hi Donna
One thing I always wanted to know better, but I was never able to find a complete answer is about changing horses when a character travels for several days in a carriage.
How did it happen? Where were the horses left? Were they returned to their rightful owners on the return trip or were employees going to fetch the animal?
Thanks
That could be done many ways. If this is a route the person travels frequently, they boarded their own horses at the posting inns along the way in intervals that horses could easily travel. If they traveled a less-frequented route, they rented horses from the first inn. The next time they changed horses, they left the horses at that second posting inn to rest. Then the first inn sent a rider to retrieve the horses. Or if the posting inns had an agreement, they simply sent the horses home the next time someone traveled the opposite direction.
I have a blog about this here: https://donnahatch.com/coach-travel-in-regency-england-stage-and-mail-coaches/
I’ve always wondered if women in regency (Or other eras) times shaved their arm pits. I can’t imagine a fancy ball gown with hair sticking out from the short sleeves. Legs could be hidden but arms??
As far as I have been able to determine, women in England or America didn’t shave their armpits. Most gowns had sleeves that were long enough to cover the armpit area so hair wouldn’t have been seen. However, showing their armpit hairs probably wouldn’t have mattered. A lot of European and other countries still don’t have the tradition of shaving armpits. They think we, in the US, are strange for doing it.
Thank you for answering! In my mind the thought of seeing arm pit hair peeking out of a ball gown just ruins my picture of a regency dance. Oh well….
Here’s your challenge, I have several questions: The first: what would really happen to a young woman whose reputation was destroyed? I read an anecdote about a woman who fell out of a carriage the wrong way and ruined her reputation but can find no mention of what became of her. I can’t seem to find any true stories about young women who were seduced into premarital sex and what became of them during the Regency, and I am very interested. It had to have happened, no society is that perfect!
Secondly, i just read Whitney, My Love, and I know it’s not very historically accurate but I have to wonder, could such a nasty arranged marriage have happened? The father loses the family’s fortune including his daughter’s dowry, and in waltzes Duke Scumlord with 100,000 pounds and purchases a marriage contract without Hapless Heroine’s consent and if she doesn’t follow through, her family estate gets confiscated to pay the debt and her father gets sent to debtor’s prison. What would happen to such a woman, in Regency society, were she to blatantly refuse, allow the land to be taken and her father sent to prison. Would it be a terrible scandal or would she be regarded as a moral hero of sorts?
I apologize to taking so long to reply. I didn’t see your comment until just now. What became of a ruined young lady depended on her circumstances. If her family was supportive, they might just lay low and hope the scandal passes. She might be sent to live with a relative in the country and hope people in her hometown eventually forget. If her family is hard core, she might be disowned and discarded and left to make her own way in the world. If that happened, she’d have to work, possibly in a shop or factory, and might very well end up as a mistress or even a prostitute. She wouldn’t be considered respectable enough to work as a nanny or governess unless she lied about her upbringing and forged a letter of recommendations–or maybe a sympathetic friend or family member would write one. Lots of possibilities but most not pleasant.
As to your second question, I have not read that book, however, what you’re asking about is called a Bride Price. It was common in earlier eras but not so much by the Regency. I used that same plot in my first book, The Stranger She Married, but the horrible baron turned out to be the love of her life. It was highly uncommon and kinda scandalous for a father to do that, but if she refused to save her family, she would likely be shunned and it would be a great scandal. She might have a sympathetic friend, but most of society would disapprove. If her father went to prison and all their properties confiscated, she would have to go live as a poor relation with family, or she would be left alone and penniless–basically the same fate as the ruined lady in the previous example. However, she would be eligible to work as a governess — until her employer learned that she had a chance to save her family but didn’t. Then he’d probably horrified and dismiss her because he wouldn’t want his children taught by someone who was so willful and disloyal to her family. Debtor’s prison was a horrible place. IMHO, no heroine who allowed that to happen to family would be admirable or likable. If you want to do this, I suggest you make the Duke truly horrible and have her come up with a plan to save her father from prison, or to work her fingers to the bone to pay his debts as soon as possible so he can be freed pretty quickly. A lot of people simply died in debtor’s prison so she wouldn’t have a lot of time. One thing to keep in mind: most properties were entailed so they couldn’t be confiscated to pay debts.
In the story Emma a number of characters had departed for heaven before the story begins.
Mr and Mrs Fairfax, Mrs Woodhouse, Mrs Weston the first, Mr Bates, Mr and Mrs Knightley… might there have been some epidemic sweeping some of these people towards their maker?
I’m not aware of a major epidemic during the Regency but there were several outbreaks of influenza that affected a few villages here and there. But death was so common due to poor understanding of nutrition and sanitation practices, as well as barbaric medical practices that no one really would have batted an eye at so many literary characters dying.
As a dramatic author’s device-in the JA Novels…the rich young ‘heroes’ are all fatherless.
In P&P, Darcy has no real world complication of parents to stop the marriage by threats of disinheritance…
Nor does Bingley..also marrying a penniless girl.
How coincidental…LOL….
Yes, isn’t it convenient that Darcy and Bingley have no living parents to discourage them from marrying beneath them? Of course, Binglry has Darcy to fulfill that role but poor Darcy has no one to protect him from himself and marrying a penniless girl with a gauche family. 🙂
I have a question about Dowagers. Earl X dies, his son inherits, his wife becomes “Dowager Countess X”. Simple enough. Now, the twist. Two years later, the son dies, and the title passes to a cousin. Is she still “Dowager Countess”?
Yes, she’s still dowager because of her late husband’d title. The current title holder doesn’t effect her status or title.
I have two very unrelated questions. First, were household servants expected to remain unmarried? Would this vary depending on the type of servant, like valet/ladies maid vs. butler/housekeeper vs. footman/parlor maid vs. cook or stable hand or gardener? If they did marry, and particularly have children, how would that affect their duties? Second question is about mail/post. Would a neighborhood receive mail from different areas throughout the day as various coaches arrived? Would this depend on how close they were to a major roadway? How long would it take to receive letters from people in different counties?
Hi Susan, thanks so much for stopping by and I appreciate the questions.
1. Household servants were usually expected to be married to their jobs. There could be exceptions to a husband and wife both working for the same employer, but usually only if their children were no longer living at home. It could depend on the preferences of the employer so I’m sure there were exceptions. Outdoor servants (stable hands, gardeners, etc) usually could and did have families, and sometimes their positions came with a cottage for their use as long as they were employed by that employer. Servants who were mothers of young children were such a rare exception that I’ve never heard of one–outside of fictional stories. Usually, if a female servant got married she gave notice because she was expected to turn her full attention to her husband and future children. If a female servant got pregnant, she was dismissed as soon as the employer found out. There were exceptions, of course, but these are generalities.
2. The mail coach ran rain or shine, not on Sundays, but I don’t know if they ran Saturdays or not. The frequency of the arrival depended on the area. Also, severe weather, broken wheels, lame horses, etc. could impact the frequency, but they were usually very vigilant about keeping their coaches in good repair and their horses healthy, changing teams frequently to keep their horses fresh. As to time it would take to get a letter, I really haven’t researched that but it could vary depending on the aforementioned causes of delay, and how remote the town/village is.
Does that help?
What, if any responsibilities or benefits would a gentleman leasing an estate in Regency Era England expect to have?
Hello,
My questions pertain to Regency Era England, although if anyone has information about this topic in a different time period I would still be interested to hear. I enjoyed reading Pride and Prejudice but have many questions about the monetary and legal realities of that time.
What, if any responsibilities or benefits would a gentleman leasing an estate expect to have?
I know that a landowner would, either in person or through an agent, collect rents, make decisions on agricultural matters, negotiate leases, settle disputes, organize improvements and see to the well being of their tenants.
I am also aware that the landowner had a right to the rent money and a portion of the tithes raised. He might also, if specific qualifications are met, be entitled to keep hounds for hunting and to hunt, or invite others to hunt specific game at various times of the year.
In Pride and Prejudice it is said that Mr. Bingley lets Netherfield, and later that he hunts. My own research suggests that a renter would have the same hunting rights as a landowner, with slightly different qualifications. It also seems that the duration of Mr. Bingley’s time at Netherfield was only a few months between his arrival and subsequent return to London, however as he was able to quickly return, perhaps he maintained the lease in his absence.
Specifically I want to know-
How long would a lease for a great house be? I have read that farmers’ leases could range from 7-20 years. Considering the cycle of the agricultural year and the time (years) required to see through improvements it seems sensible to have long leases. It is similar for gentlemen renting an estate?
What duties would a renter have in the lease agreement? I assume that Bingley would be responsible for the basic upkeep during his stay. Would he be responsible for larger maintenance issues such as repairing a roof? Suppose a disaster occurred, would Bingley be liable for repairs?
What responsibilities would a renter have towards the estate and the tenants? Did the lease for Netherfield even include the tenant farms? I do not believe that there is any mention of Bingley writing letters of business as there is for Darcy which leads me to believe that he does not do so, as his character is something of a foil for Darcy. Is it possible that Bingley simply rents a mansion, enjoys the park and the land owner or an agent of the landowner handles these duties?
I cannot imagine that a short term rental, as Bingley’s taking of Netherfield seems to be, would grant the renter the ability to make significant changes to the tenants farms or to the park itself. Am I correct in assuming that a renter such as Bingley would not have the authority to enclose the commons, clear cut a woodland, sell the estate’s livestock, tear down a portion of the house etc?
Was leasing out one’s estate as simple as leasing out a house? Or did the rights and responsibilities of the landowner transfer to the renter? Did the renter collect rents and tithes in the place of the landowner, or was this income still the property of the landowner? Did the renter accept responsibility for the taxes of the property they rented, or did this remain the responsibility of the landowner? I have read articles on the window tax that imply, but did not directly state, that the owner of the property was responsible for the taxes, but I am unclear.
Would the agricultural and domestic staff on the estate be in the employ of the landowner, the renter, or a combination of the two? Would either the landowner or the renter have the power to override the wishes of the other concerning matters of pay, employment or termination?
Thank you
Hi Hilary. Thanks so much for visiting my site and for all your questions. First off, I must make this disclaimer that I have not delved deeply into the legal aspects of renting a home. However, from what I do know, the owner had all the same obligations to his land and tenants whether he lived there or not, and whether or not the house was let out. The homeowner paid for all normal expenses such as repairs, improvements, taxes, the salary of his house staff, steward, stablehands, etc.
The renter’s rights, restrictions, and responsibilities were not that different from today’s renter, i.e.; no major changes to the property without express consent from the owner.
The renter would not collect the tenants’ rent. The land steward did that and usually managed any repairs or tenants’ needs.
I haven’t found a set rule about lease duration; it seems it could be whatever they agreed to do.
Usually, the servants at the house served the renter (it was their livelihood, after all) although most fine people brought their own ladies’ maid and valet.
Of course, any of this could change if both of them agreed to it.
Does that help?
Yes, thank you
Hi! Wonderful service you’re providing here! I have two questions:
1. In pride and prejudice the Dowager seems to live alone in the main residence, with no male around. How would that happen, or did I miss a detail? My reading says the dowager would be relegated to another estate separate from the main, or at least the new title holder would be roaming around.
2. Could a young unmarried woman be alone with a male doctor? Would this be routine, frowned on, or a full scandal?
Thank you!
Hi Nichol, thanks for stopping by!
1. Whether or not the dowager lived in the main house or the dower house depended on a lot of factors. If the new lord of the house and his wife were not in residence, I would be surprised if the dowager moved out of her home and into the dower house. If they were living there too, she might–if she wanted to have a place of her own or a change of scenery, or if she didn’t have a great relationship with them, or if they asked her to move out.
2. A woman could be alone with a doctor if he were visiting her in a professional capacity. It was expected that she’d want privacy to discuss sensitive medical issues with him. No one would be surprised by this. Now, if she were caught alone with him in a romantic situation or in a compromising position, that would be just as scandalous as if she were caught alone with any man.
Does that help?
In rea life in the Austen family….(adopted Edward Austen-) when his adopted father died(Mr.Thomas Lloyd) the Dowager wife-lived at Godmersham a couple of years..and then left to a dowager dwelling in another town(forgot what town)-she assigned Gosmershamover to Edward. He was living at Rowling.
(Probably she was tired of handling some the affairs,(as legal owner)- of the Estate.))
As mentioned in a relative’s Letter-Edward paid her a ‘hefty(yearly) sum” while she had retirement in another town that she had chosen to move to.
So she had an income to live on, I assume..
Hi Donna, thank you so much for answering our questions!
I have one about Land Stewards and how they might fit into the societal hierarchy. I’ve read that the position of steward was of a higher rank, and that often the steward of a property was considered a gentleman. If this is the case, would a steward ever have been permitted to marry the daughter of a landowner in the regency era?
A land steward could go either way but generally, yes, he would be considered a gentleman–especially if he was born a gentleman and is a friend or family member of the property owner, was invited by his employer to dinner or other social events, then yes, he would have the status as gentleman. Other research suggests that land steward was a highly respected position regardless of the man’s birth because his work was vital. He might even rank above provincial solicitors or physicians.
However, if he was low born and his employer who owned the local Great House never invited him to social events or dinner, then the locals would probably not view him too highly. Does that help?