Late Regency/Early Victorian terms of endearment, professions for a former aristocrat

May 25, 2010 13:58

Setting/Notes: I'm writing a story set in 1840's London (so late Regency/early Victorian era). It's slightly AU in that magic exists, though has not effected history all that much (think Sorcery and Cecelia), so while I'm wiling to play a little fast and loose with making things slightly outdated or ahead of their time, I'd rather they weren't ( Read more... )

~victorian era, uk: history: regency period, 1840-1849, uk: history: victorian era

Leave a comment

Comments 22

ammonite7 May 25 2010, 23:55:22 UTC
I don't know much about professions, which I expect it was particularly difficult for a noble person to acquire at the time. I expect any profession that required only reading, writing and factoring might be a possibility--some sort of clerk's position, possibly, or secretarial, as women didn't have such jobs in those days ( ... )

Reply

chibirhm May 26 2010, 06:47:53 UTC
Huh, that's interesting - I never knew that about sodomy. So... blowjobs aren't gay, but anal sex is? Will wonders never cease.

Reply

felis_ultharus May 26 2010, 22:49:11 UTC
.Most people did not even consider men loving other men physically and, even men who did, generally didn't consider m/m eros exceptionally taboo unless it included sodomy. Sodomy at the time was only penis penetration of animals or another human (male or female) in the behind, which was considered "unnatural." All this began to change near the end of the nineteenth century.

Not taboo? Does this book seriously claim that? Not technically illegal, true, and sodomy was hard to prove without witnesses. But homosexuals (and we did exist before the term was coined) were quite despised, and had been getting killed off in Europe since the mid-12th century ( ... )

Reply

ammonite7 November 27 2012, 18:52:07 UTC
Jonathan Ned Katz is actually pretty well known in academic circles. His work is seminal in framing the medicalization of gays. He goes hand in hand with Michel Foucault in talking about how homosexuality was criminalized and medicalized in the 1800s and that this was not common throughout most of history.

Reply


jayb111 May 26 2010, 00:18:48 UTC
Two points: The 1840s is a long way from the Regency period. And someone can't be a 'former aristocrat.' You either are or you aren't.

How much is his inheritance from his mother? I think he'd most likely invest it in land or property and live on the rental income. Or, given that it's the 1840s, he might invest in railways. If he was willing to take a bit of a gamble, he might buy up land ahead of a rumoured railway line, and hope to sell it at a large profit to the railway company. Or buy up land at the edge of a growing town and sell it to a property developer.

'Well-paying profession' in the situation you describe is a bit of an oxymoron. About the only one that didn't require specific training or qualifications was schoolmaster, and that wasn't well paid and was usually only available to single men of good character.

Reply

carey_pontmercy May 26 2010, 02:41:40 UTC
Exactly. The actual Regency was from 1811 to 1820, although I've seen the term used for 1800-1837 and even the 18th century. This bothers me, because there's a big difference between the 1750s and the 1820s.

Reply

chibirhm May 26 2010, 06:52:14 UTC
He's smart and university-trained, so per another commenter's suggestion, I chose to have him employed by the East India Company, and the investment is a good idea.

I am aware it's not Regency period - Victoria was married, by then, and she was queen for a bit before her marriage, but I figured that there could be some hardcore Austen/Heyer fans who would know these sorts of things, and since it's not meant to be terribly historically accurate (at least, in this universe...), I figured I could fudge, you know, a little. Since I'm already fudging that magic exists, after all.

Reply


orthent May 26 2010, 01:32:14 UTC
If he has literary leanings, your ex-aristocrat could go in for journalism; he could even use his small inheritance to buy into a magazine. Or he could try what Quincey, when he was starving and homeless in London, considered doing--supporting himself as a "corrector of Greek proofs." De Quincey couldn't do that, lacking a letter of introduction to a respectable publisher, but maybe your ex-aristocrat might get one.

Reply


duckodeath May 26 2010, 02:57:12 UTC
I would think if his mother left him anything it would already be invested and the interest would probably be enough to live on if he wasn't too extravagant. People could and did live fairly well on what seems to our modern eyes ridiculously tiny sums of money.

One thing that could complicate matters would be if your guy is not yet of age (i.e. younger than 21) when daddy cuts him off. In that case, I believe his father would still be considered his legal guardian (whatever the proper term is) and could possibly prevent your guy from accessing his mother's money until he's is 21. Also, if your guy is the eldest son and there's a title involved or entailed property, I don't know if evil daddy can prevent your guy from inheriting when he (daddy) snuffs it even is he (daddy) has disowned him.

Someone who is more up on Victorian property law may want to clarify that.

Reply

nineveh_uk May 26 2010, 10:22:26 UTC
You can't prevent a son inheriting a title - the present DUke of Marlborough has disinherited his son as far as property goes (which can be done today), but he still gets the title.

I don't think you could break an entail without the agreement of the heir in the Victorian period. There might be an option to tie stuff up in trusts, though.

Reply


dragonbat2006 May 26 2010, 02:58:49 UTC
Does he have any other relatives who might acknowledge/vouch for him?

The British East India Company might be a possibility. According to http://www.honeastindiaco.com/, they did have staff in London.

Many British families became involved with the East India Company, often for several generations. Applicants tended to be younger members of British upper middle class families. Entry into the Company often depended upon influence and recommendation from family members already holding senior positions within the Company. The main types of employment were: The Mercantile Marine, Factors and Civil Service, Supracagoes, Soliders, and staff in London. Employment within the East India Company, affectionately known as "John Company," was highly sought after because of the opportunities it afforded to become wealthy. Although the salaries were not high, employees were allowed to trade on their own account. Many employees, in particular senior traders (Factors) and sea captains, ( ... )

Reply

chibirhm May 26 2010, 06:53:10 UTC
That's perfect! I'm definitely using this.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up