Leave a comment

Comments 28

sollersuk May 30 2016, 14:39:39 UTC
Even on £400 a year she wouldn't need to do anything to earn a living; she could think in terms of not necessarily remunerative occupations like painting (there were more successful women artists than is generally realised).

If she had some sort of female companion, that would lighten the load of running the household; even a small one such as you mention was more like running a small business than a modern home, particularly before the great explosion of bottled sauces etc in the mid 19th century - she would, for example, have to prepare any medicines needed; I'm not sure about soap at that date, but a lot of cleaning materials would need to be made, and that's quite apart from supervising the servants (orders would need to be given to the cook for meals each day, for example)

Reply

reynardo May 31 2016, 08:33:41 UTC
Painting and such - excellent idea. And yes, household management is always a huge task. I have a reproduction "Mrs Beetons" from 1850 (mine printed about 1985) and oh the huge amount of work involved!

Reply

orthent June 11 2016, 04:04:04 UTC
It's worth pointing out in this connection that Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall has Helen Graham leaving her dissolute husband and fleeing to her childhood home in Yorkshire, where she supports herself by painting. This is happening circa 1827-1828, not too far from your time frame. So at least there is some literary precedent for women's painting as more than just a genteel hobby.

Also, apropos of the suggestions you've received that Miss L. could be a naturalist: some women combined art and the natural sciences quite successfully--even before your era. So if you like both ideas, you don't have to choose! Consider Maria Sybilla Merian, botanist, entomologist, and scientific illustrator:

http://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/maria-sibylla-merian

Reply

reynardo June 13 2016, 03:47:12 UTC
Botany! Of course! I do hope you realise how many bloody plot bunnies you've just let loose...

Reply


sushidog May 30 2016, 14:58:47 UTC
It will depend a bit on exactly what her social class is. The rules for an aristocrat, even a fairly impoverished (by the standards of the aristocracy) one, will be rather different from those applied to the daughter of a businessman, for example. It also depends on the type of "decent company" you're talking about; if the people around her are largely working people they will be much less shocked by a woman with servants but no chaperone than if they themselves are landed gentry or aristocracy.

I agree with sollersuk that with a decent income on which to live, she probably won't seek to earn her living, but might pursue an artistic or perhaps even scientific pursuit; she might be a very early fossil-collector (like Mary Annings), or a writer (like Mary Lamb but without the murdering bit) or a political activist (like Elizabeth Fry). It's not impossible that she would profit from whatever occupation she pursued (writing, painting, and fossil-hunting could all be reasonable lucrative), but it will be considered somewhat more genteel to treat ( ... )

Reply

reynardo May 31 2016, 08:12:44 UTC
Good point. Her father was a middling merchant in Jamaica, so she's middle-class.

Also, how long between when her mother died and when she really *ought* to have a companion, if indeed she must?

Reply

sushidog May 31 2016, 14:56:42 UTC
I think this has been fairly comprehensively answered below, but basically if she wants to start receiving guests other than close (female) friends and/or family members, or paying visits, she'll need a companion. A recent bereavement will prevent her from doing so for a few months, but not much longer.

From the sound of it, she needs her companion to be one of two sorts; either someone who will do the bare minimum and not interfere (because she's elderly and infirm, or just someone who keeps to herself), or someone who actively shares her interests and attitudes, and wants a certain measure of independence for herself too.

I read a lovely article recently, which I now can't find, about two women in the 19th century who basically stuck their middle fingers up at society and set up home together (as companions, it was assumed, but probably actually as a relationship); they were seen as eccentric but basically respectable because there were the two of them, so there could be no thought of impropriety.

Reply

hyarrowen May 31 2016, 20:37:54 UTC
The two women were the Ladies of Llangollen, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies_of_Llangollen

Reply


mmebahorel May 30 2016, 16:02:42 UTC
I'd also consider social work, partly because "giving charity to the needy" was one of the things women were expected to do with their free time/free resources (generally connected through the local church) and partly because it gives scope for expansion into whatever her real interests are - scientific, political, etc.

Depending on her scientific interests, possibly also gardening as an extensive hobby - botany was considered a suitable occupation for a woman's scientific mind.

She will likely be most socially comfortable in a place where other newcomers are common: a city or cathedral town or port. Her social life is likely to centre on the local church, regardless of where she ends up.

Reply

marycatelli May 30 2016, 17:14:15 UTC
Yes. Looking after the poor was serious business for the gentry. Witness that one thing Anne Eliot observed when Kellylynch Hall was let, that

She could have said more on the subject; for she had in fact so high an opinion of the Crofts, and considered her father so very fortunate in his tenants, felt the parish to be so sure of a good example, and the poor of the best attention and relief, that however sorry and ashamed for the necessity of the removal, she could not but in conscience feel that they were gone who deserved not to stay, and that Kellynch Hall had passed into better hands than its owners.

Reply

reynardo May 31 2016, 08:14:00 UTC
Oh nice point! Thank you mmebahorel and marycatelli - and of course it doesn't need to be giving them money. Distributing used clothes, jars of cow's-foot jelly...

Reply


elenbarathi May 30 2016, 21:36:39 UTC
At the very minimum, she'd need a cook, housekeeper, gardener, maid-of-all-work, and lady's maid. A companion isn't a servant, and doesn't do menial work, but she might act as a personal secretary. Without a chaperone, a young single lady could not properly have male company, nor go to many public places; it would have made life awkward.

As others have said, the church and charity work would be the most obvious outlet for your lady's energy, and would also enhance her social standing in the community.

Reply

reynardo May 31 2016, 08:16:59 UTC
Church and charity indeed. I'm thinking she would only have a small home, but you're right about wanting to go out to public places. Thank you.

I've asked above, but what sort of time interval between the death of her mother and when she really ought to have a companion?

Reply


nineveh_uk May 30 2016, 22:13:05 UTC
I think that the question is why doesn't she want an older companion when it would make life so much easier? Secure herself with an older widow or a woman who e.g. has been a governess and is well-educated herself, and she can live comfortably and go into society. Without that and she's going to be far, far more restricted in her life. 80 years later her situation could be very different, but in 1812 she's seriously hampered. A companion can also do some household management.

One option would be to set up a school. She is young to do it on her own, but she could go into partnership with an older teacher who has experience, but lacks capital. She's well-educated herself, perhaps she wants to offer girls a serious education. If she's of an academic frame of mind she could pursue scientific ideas and publish them, study history, or translate. But at 22, life would be a lot easier with a companion.

Reply

reynardo May 31 2016, 08:19:51 UTC
She's not too keen on a school herself, otherwise I'd go that way. The wish not to have a companion is more that she's enjoying the freedom of not being supervised or her actions reflecting back on anyone. So she may well have to end up having one, but what time frame would you suggest is the maximum from her mother's death to when she really *ought* to have a companion?

Reply

syntinen_laulu May 31 2016, 12:27:42 UTC
But if she's employing a companion, that companion really isn't in a position to 'supervise' her at all; she's just a fig-leaf.

A companion or chaperone had to be a woman who was or had been married (the idea being that she knew about things that a Young Lady Ought Not to Know) unless she were unequivocally 'old'. If your character can find a youngish widow who shares her interests, she can employ her officially as her companion even though she actually fulfils the function of secretary, research assistant, whatever.

Reply

nineveh_uk May 31 2016, 13:03:32 UTC
Exactly! A companion that she herself employs is someone who makes life easier, not the same as e.g. a governess or companion that her parent or husband employs. And if she doesn't like her, then she can sack her and find someone else.

Georgette Heyer plays with the need for a companion to be either old or formerly married in Bath Tangle, in which after her father's death, the heroine sets up house in Bath with her stepmother. In fact, the heroine is two years older than her stepmother and far more competent at living alone, but because she's a widow it's the stepmother who has the social position that allows them to live independently as two young women.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up