Herding Historical Author Cats: An Interview with the Founder of the English Historical Fiction Authors Blog Debra Brown

1) Please tell us a bit what the English Historical Fictions Authors blog is all about. What sort of content is present on the blog?

The blog has a daily British history post written by one of many historical fiction authors. The eras and topics range widely from Roman Britain to World War II, and from warfare and weapons to tea, food, and dance.

2) What sort of other web presence does the group have other than the blog?
As a group we have a public Facebook page, English Historical Fiction Authors, where we chat on history and historical fiction with other authors, reviewers, and readers. Each member has their own web presence as well, book sites, blogs, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc. We interact frequently everywhere.

3) What motivated you to start the blog?

I was making an effort to market my first book and felt fairly alone in the jungle. I wanted to blog about England, but had very little background in history and had to do an overwhelming amount of research. I felt that there must be other people like myself who wanted to learn more about British history in small bites, and that we could have a steady stream of information if we had enough people to produce one daily post, so I invited people who had obviously done their homework to share what they had learned.

4) What's your goal with this group?

I hope we will continue as we have been for over two years now with a daily post and friendly conversations on Facebook. I believe it has been informative, fun, and helpful to us all.

5) What originally made you interested in English history?

As a child, I had a seven volume set of books called My Book House. They were captivating, with bits from great writers such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Keats. They also had detailed drawings and paintings that introduced me to castles, cliffs, land divided by hedgerows, fashions from past eras, and many things that I hardly understood from old English culture. I loved it, and over the decades to come I picked up information and began to better understand what I had seen.


6) A recent collection of essays from the blog came out, Castles, Customs, and Kings came out. Please tell us about that.

After we celebrated the first anniversary of the blog, one of our authors, Deborah Swift, suggested we put together a book from some of the first year's posts. After a year of sorting, editing, and proofreading, we have, with the help of Madison Street Publishing, released Castles, Customs, and Kings: True Tales by English Historical Fiction Authors—a large, thick book of topics just a few pages long. The subjects are organized chronologically so the book flows nicely over the passing of centuries. A person can pick it up and start at any point, however, and have a satisfying read during a coffee break. It would be a good waiting room book or a nice gift for someone who loves Britain or history. We also kept the price below $20 USD, so hopefully everyone who wanted a copy in print could have it.

7) Please tell us a bit about your work.

My first novel is The Companion of Lady Holmeshire, the early Victorian story of a former servant girl who receives a rude reception in polite society. It is an Austen type of story with surprising twists and turns. I have also started a Victorian novel I call For the Skylark, the story of adult twins who were raised isolated on an estate by their wealthy, reclusive mother. Evangeline cannot cope when she “loses” Dante, her brother and only friend, to love.

8) There is a lot of content on the blog. Please tell us about a few of your favorite entries.

I especially enjoy Richard Denning's post, Old English—The Language of the Anglo Saxons, in which he has a YouTube video of the Lord's Prayer read in the old tongue to eerie music. Though there are countless other fascinating topics, there have been a few by different authors on the Bayeaux Tapestry that stand out in my mind. It is a story of the Norman conquest of England told in complex, coded needlework on a long stretch of linen that has lasted for nearly a thousand years. The age of it alone is awe-inspiring, but I love the explanations given for the symbols sewn in above and below the actual stitched story itself.

----


Thanks, Debra.

The books mentioned are available at the following links:

Castles, Customs, and Kings:

Amazon US
Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble
Kobo

Companion of Lady Holmeshire at Amazon.

From Rome to Napoleon: Portchester Castle and the Castles, Customs, and Kings Blog Hop

As many of you know, I occasionally pen historical essays over at the EFHA blog.

In an effort to provide an interesting not-so-little book of bits of English history, the powers that be from that blog (particularly Debra Brown and M.M. Bennetts) gathered up and edited a collection of the essays from the blog and did a bang up of organizing them by period. The result is a nice collection of English history from well, before there was an England all the way to modern times:

 

As part of celebration of the release of the book, there's a blog hop going on focused on castles (though, just to be clear, the book subject matters covers a lot of different aspects of English history, even beyond just the customs and kings of the title). There are many fine people discussing many fine bits (and giving things away as well), and you can find their blogs here:

For my part, I decided to discuss Portchester Castle, a castle that links the ancient past of England with the perhaps more familiar to many medieval and later period.

Our fine defensive fortification tale begins before there even was an England, in the 3rd century AD. At that time, the Romans, those ancient masters of defensive positions themselves, established a fort at the location of modern day Portchester, in Hampshire along the southern England coast. The area's access to the sea allowed the Romans to use the fort as a naval base, in particular in their attempts to deal with local pirates.

Once the Romans mostly withdrew from the area, the prime location of the fort still made it useful for later groups to use for similar reasons, such as the Saxons dealing with Viking pirates. The Saxons added some additional buildings and towers in the area, and the evidence suggests continual occupation from the 4th century on, even after the departure of the Romans.

Of course, 1066 and all that brought Norman domination of England. In the 11th and 12th century, Norman lords controlled and helped fortify the area even more by adding such features as additional defensive ditches, timber palisades, and additional towers.

The castle would move from mere nobles to royalty by the end of the 12th century. Three different England kings (John, Edward II, and Richard II) would occupy that castle at various points between the 12th and 15th century, and Henry V spent some time in the castle in 1415. Every new occupant brought new fortification, expansions (e.g., royal apartments), and remodeling of the area. Other important royal leaders from English history, including Queen Elizabeth I, would also grace its halls.

Ownership shifted back from royals to "mere" aristocracy in 1632, when one Sir William Uvedale (his descendants the Thistlethwaites still retain ownership of the castle) purchased the castle from Charles I. The shift from royalty also resulted in a shift from focus, as the castle was often used as a prison for prisoners of war in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries. During this time, although the defensive fortifications of the castle were not strongly upgraded compared to earlier periods, many additional wooden houses were built to house prisoners.

Coalition victories in the Napoleonic Wars would lead to less necessity for military prison in the early 19th century, with the last prisoners of the war gone from the location by 1814. The military itself would leave in 1819.

Though I am not personally one who is inclined to believe in ghosts, the long history of the castle, combined with things like the deaths of prisoners there, may have contributed to Portchester Castle's reputation as one of England's more haunted castles.

Thanks for stopping by. I encourage you to stop by and visit the various other blog hop participants listed above.

In addition, as part of the celebration,  I'm giving away an eBook copy (available in Kindle/Mobi, ePub, and PDF) of my Regency paranormal romance, A Woman of Proper Accomplishments, which doesn't feature any castles, but does reference the Napoleonic War. If you're interested, just leave a comment with a contact e-mail, and I'll pick someone next week at random.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 21: Gambling, The Profitable (and Costly) Vice

Although I covered some of this material when I discussed whist, I've written an article for the EFHA blog with a slightly more expansive discussion of gambling in Regency England.

Please check it out at the EFHA blog.

God Save The King: An interview with historical fiction author Laura Purcell

1) Tell us about your work in progress.

I’m working on a series of books about the Hanoverian monarchs – that’s George I through to William IV – and the amazing women in their lives. My aim when I set out was to become a Philippa Gregory for the Jane Austen era. That’s a pretty high goal!

I’m currently preparing the first of the novels, God Save the King, for publication in September 2012. The story charts the progress of George III’s famed madness,showing how it affected his family. My focus is on his wife, Queen Charlotte, who had to cope with an unstable husband and a large brood of children. She was an incredible person with so much strength.

I also follow Charlotte’s courageous daughters, who were practically entombed in Windsor Castle. All six try to escape, but I concentrate on Royal and Sophia.Royal was a gauche Princess who never quite fitted her role. The world saw Sophia as a reclusive invalid, but rebellion was brewing behind her sick room door…

2) Tell us about some of the challenges involved.

I had to work hard to represent each character fairly. I was painfully aware that I was writing about real people who had to be treated with respect. It was just asdifficult to show the bad parts of the characters I loved as the good parts of those I detested!

Other than that, my main challenge was ruthless self-editing. I was fascinated by George III’s family and a bit in love with each of them. I wanted to include every detail, but I had to make sure I didn’t overburden the reader. I also had to simplify the family dynamics. Some of the Princesses’ many brothers had to be removed from the mix. When your heroine has fifteen children, life starts to get complicated…

3) Tell us a little about yourself?

As I’m sure you have guessed, I’m a bit of a history nut. I belong to a Medieval re-enactment group and Tudor dancing society, so you might see me around the country doing a pavane in full costume!

I live in Colchester, Britain’s oldest recorded town, with my husband and nine guinea pigs. Yes, nine. We’re big animal lovers.

I adore reading, obviously. The house is full of bookshelves with all genres stacked up. One day I’d like to have my very own library room.

Oh, and I drink lots of coffee. I mean a lot.

4) What is your next work?

I’m researching and planning A Forbidden Crown, about George IV and his bigamous marriages to Queen Caroline and Maria Fitzherbert. I can’t wait to start writing! They are all vivid characters who survived a turbulent period in English history.

George was the ultimate playboy, but he certainly met his match in his two wives. Maria was a confident, driven woman who knew her worth. She certainly wasn’t going to let George mess her around if she could help it. As for Caroline, she went on to become one of the most notorious – although forgotten – Queens in history. She was a free spirit, wild and mischievous. No wonder George was afraid of her influence rubbing off on their young daughter, Charlotte.

Charlotte herself is one of my favourite historical figures of all time. I hope by the end of A Forbidden Crown, you’ll come to love her as much as I do!

5) Who do you read?

I try to read as many authors as possible, because I feel it helps my artistic development. I like to absorb many voices, finding out what works and what doesn’t. My favourites at the moment are Kate Morton, Philippa Gregory and Sarah Waters. I also like to read classics when I get the chance; anything from Shakespeare to Fitzgerald.

6) Where should we look for your work?

I will keep you regularly updated about the progress of God Save the King on my website, laurapurcell.com. You can also get a sneak peek at the opening of the book here. I hope to publish on 8 September 2012, which is George III and Queen Charlotte’s wedding anniversary. The book will be available through Kindle on Amazon and other select distributors. Watch this space!

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 19: Steal a book, seven-years' hard labor overseas: Transportation as punishment in the 17th-19th centuries

This is part of my continuing series on Regency England and Georgian England. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please check out my archive here.

-----

As England gained colonial holdings, the country also gained a new option for punishment: transportation to an overseas colony.

Over at the English Historical Fiction Authors Blog, I discuss this form of punishment that many considered "merciful" compared to others at the time.

England Before the Norman Conquest: An interview with historical fiction author Paula Lofting

Today I'm talking to Paula Lofting about her upcoming novel that follows one family's saga up to the world-changing Battle of Hastings, SONS OF THE WOLF.

-----

1) Tell us about your book.

SONS OF THE WOLF is the first in a series of novels set in 11th-century England in the years running up to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Against a backdrop of historical events, the story unfolds as Wulfhere, the main character, is returning home south with his servant, Esegar, after fighting a great war in the North. Wulfhere is a king’s thegn who holds lands in the county of Sussex and the book follows him and his family as it weaves their saga into the tapestry of life as it was before the Domesday Book. 

When Wulfhere’s daughter, Freyda, enters into a forbidden relationship with the son of his enemy, he is forced by Earl Harold to agree to a betrothal that will bring peace to the warring families. Urged on by his beautiful but demanding wife Ealdgytha, Wulfhere has to think of a way to break the bargain without incurring the wrath of his lord, Earl Harold. In the meantime, there are battles to be fought in the countryside, but Wulfhere realises that sometimes, the enemy is closer to home.

2) What inspired you to write this book?

Having had a dream to write a historical novel all my life, various circumstances took me to other paths before I was finally in a place where I could crack on with it. At the time I was ready to undertake such a mission, my subjects of interest seemed to already be taken by other authors and so I waited for inspiration and the first glimmer of it was when I attended a re-enactment of the Battle of Hastings and I started to get a feeling for the era. I had been interested at some time or another in my life, in most periods of medieval existence and the pre-conquest era had fallen to the back of my mind somewhat. 

Attending the event awakened that old interest. I was incensed by what happened that day and wanted to know more. Before I knew it I was back in the 11th century, reading every non-fictional book I could lay my hands on and I also bought a great novel about Harold Godwinson by Helen Hollick. But there it was again, that same dilemma, someone had got there before me and written about my hero. What was I to do? And then I found David Howarth’s 1066: The year of the Conquest in which he identifies the man Wulfhere as the thegn of Horstede from the Domesday Book. 

Mr Howarth’s charming non-fictional account became the inspiration for Wulfhere’s story because it gave me the idea that I could write a book about an ‘ordinary’ man and his family and they were there, just waiting for me to create them, their lives and what life would have been like for the middle classes before and after the conquest. So SONS OF THE WOLF began to unfold in my head and went from my mind to the keyboard. Essentially, SONS wrote itself. I just let it happen.

3) Can you tell us about what went into developing your lead characters? 

Well, for Wulfhere, I had an idea about what I wanted him to be like, a sort of skeleton of him if you like and then as the book progressed, his character developed naturally into his framework. He is a warrior, but he is also a father, husband, lover, friend, enemy, servant, lord and landowner and so I had to make him multidimensional. 

I had to remember all these facets of him when he interacts with his co-characters and I have to decide which role would take precedent over the others in the current circumstances. For Ealdgytha, his wife, she was a little more complex because I think the reader will empathise with her one minute and hate her the next! She is less multidimensional than Wulfhere, but a very emotionally charged character which makes her so wonderful to write for. 

As for the other characters I have endeavoured to make each and every one of them as real as possible and the historical non-fictional characters such as the Godwinson family and King Edward etc, I have tried to portray them as they may have been with what little we know about them. I do think sometimes however that you can get a glimmer of a persona when you look at what deeds they performed and what they have achieved in history.

 I mean, what do you say about a man like King Edward, who kept the whole of England, Normandy and Denmark in a state of anxiety, waiting with baited breath as to who was to be his successor? That one thing was to cause so much heartache and injustice to his subjects. If I could go back in time I would have told him what for!

4) What is one of the most surprising things you learned about Anglo-Saxon England during the course of your research for this book? 

It really surprised me how well women were regarded in pre-conquest England. I think that their Wergild (the amount of money they were worth) was almost the same as a man who was the same status. She was able to own property and keep it upon her marriage. She had the right to attend court and pursue claims. She was not to be forced into a marriage (although this no doubt happened frequently) and had the right to a divorce if she wished with good reason. She was allowed to leave her property to whomever she pleased in her will. 

Much of that changed after the Normans came. Women lost their right to keep their lands she and all her property became that of her husband’s. It was still very much a patriarch society, but there was a lot to be said for being an Anglo-Saxon woman as opposed to a Norman woman.

5) Excluding the obvious, such as language, what sort of cultural changes did the Norman conquest bring that most people might not think about?

I think that perhaps not a lot of people realise that this is where the feudal system as we know it started. Okay so there was some element of it before the conquest, with men owing certain services for their land to their immediate overlord according to their statums, but the Norman system wiped out all the rights that these poor farmers had, the right to have their say in their local moot and at the shire moot was one of the things they lost. They were downgraded even further to almost that of a slave, who was bound to his new Norman master by his tenement. He was not free to go elsewhere if he did not like his master, as he had been before.

Life in England for the peasantry must have been pretty comforting, England had been a wealthy country and each thegn would have had it in their interest to treat his people well otherwise they could take their loyalty elsewhere. And for the peasantry, it was the thegn who would look out for them, speak for them in court and feast with them and listen to their troubles. He was duty bound to them. With the advent of castles, their new Norman rulers could throw a man in prison if he dared to complain or not do as he was told. 

After the Battle of Hastings and the various rebellions that followed for around five years or more, the middle nobility, the thegns, were virtually wiped out or downgraded. Those men were the ones who mediated for the peasantry and lorded it with the wealthier earls and thegns. They had been a buffer between the lower classes and the nobility. 

Now they were gone and it must have been a terrible time for the beleaguered farming community who had seen their villages decimated, their crops and animals and their farming equipment destroyed. And to compound their woes, the very men they had looked to were also destroyed.

6) How do you think English history would have unfolded had the Normans been defeated at the Battle of Hastings? 

Ha, this is a good one. Well if he had the chance, I think Harold might not have wanted William to be put to death, however who knows what a man might do if they are faced with this decision and this was quite an extreme circumstance for Harold. Historically, Harold had always been quite lenient with his enemies. He let Alfgar, the rebellious Earl of Mercia off many a time and Gruffydd the Welsh King who plagued the borders along Hereford. 

But yet his own brother Tostig had been killed at the Battle of Stamford Bridge only a few weeks before. Whether or not Harold had anything to do with that we do not know, but it might have had an effect on how he would have treated William if he had been alive after a defeat at Hastings. 

We do know that Harald Hardrada’s son Olaf was permitted to leave after Stamford Bridge with a promise to stay away and not cause trouble for England again. Anyway, I think probably Norman/English relations would have soured even further; William, had he been permitted to return back to Normandy, would have tried again and if he had not survived, his sons would have made a claim for the throne thus drawing Harold’s sons into a feud with them. If the conquest had not happened when it did, I think at some point it would have happened later, either with William’s successors or perhaps peacefully through marriage.

7) Can you tell us about some of your other planned projects? 

Whilst I am waiting for SONS OF THE WOLF to be published in August, I am working on the sequel THE WOLF BANNER, which has been written. It just needs to be edited. It was written as part of SONS, but I had no idea how much I’d written when it was finished and was advised to make it into two books. 

There were 250000 words in all and the whole project had taken me six years. I plan there to be about four books in the series. Also, I have been working on a modern day drama/thriller called KILLING THE SANDMAN about a young lad’s struggle to survive living with an alcoholic mother and an abusive stepfather. I hope to have this published with SilverWood Books also. 

I have also a project in mind for writing a novel based on Aethelflaed, Lady of the Mercians. She was Alfred the Great’s daughter, a great woman, who carried on her father’s fight to rid England of the Danes with her brother Edward. Then I was thinking about something in the First World War, for my Grandad who was in the 17th Lancers. I’ve got lots of ideas in my head but I think I am a long way off giving up the day job yet. Hopefully if things take off I can realise my dream of being an author. 

-----

Thanks, Paula.

You can read more from Paula at:

http://paulalofting-sonsofthewolf.blogspot.co.uk/
http://threadstothepast.blogspot.co.uk/
http://paulaperuses.blogspot.co.uk/

SONS OF THE WOLF will be released this August.

The Death of a Dynasty: An interview with historical fiction author Judith Arnopp

Today I'm talking with Judith Arnopp about her novel of Anglo-Saxon England, THE SONG OF HELEDD.

1) Please tell us about your book.

THE SONG OF HELEDD is the story of Heledd and her sister, Ffreur, celtic princesses at the hall of their brother, Cynddylan. When Heledd forms an infatuation for a travelling player, a man far beneath her, she triggers a chain of events that will bring down two kings and destroy a dynasty. The tale is a harsh one and terribly sad, a box of tissues highly recommended.

2) What inspired this book?

I studied Anglo-Saxon and medieval poetry at university and during the course of my research I stumbled across fragments of a 9th century poem, Canu Heledd, which forms part of The Red Book of Hergest. The Red Book was put together sometime in the 14-15th centuries, but the poems themselves are believed to have been written down in the 9th century but set in the 7th. As you probably know, poetry was originally an oral tradition, providing entertainment for long winter nights and it is quite possible that Heledd’s song was passed down from that early date. What makes Canu Heledd distinctive is that the narrator is a woman. Heledd is the only woman to feature prominently in the saga tradition where females are scarcely mentioned. And not only does Heledd narrate the tale but she is the sole survivor of a dynastic disaster and she blames herself for it. This dispensing with tradition suggests to me that Heledd’s story is perhaps a true one, a historical event passed down through the oral tradition to become legend. All the time I was working toward my Master’s degree, Heledd was singing her song in the back of my head. I knew then that I would have to write a story for her one day.

3) How has your background in medieval studies influenced your writing?

My first degree was in English Literature and Creative Writing. I knew I would write books, I’d been writing all my life, but I wanted to progress to longer pieces and knew I lacked the skills to do so. I majored in Anglo-Saxon and Medieval poetry and by the time I’d finished my Bachelor’s degree I realised I wanted to write historical fiction so I signed up for an M.A. in Medieval history to help achieve that goal.

4) One of the reasons British Isles historical fiction set in periods such as the Tudor or Georgian era is so popular is that it's easier for authors to research those periods because of rich documentation. You're hitting a period and area where that's not quite the case. Can you tell us a bit about the research that went into your story?

Oh, I never choose the easiest route - lol. First of all, I knew the poem, but I didn’t just want to replicate that; I write fiction. I am interested in how a person thinks, their motivations and excuses for breaking rules, making mistakes. The poem is full of triggers for the imagination, Cyndyylan’s purple cloak, his high hall, his fame for hospitality and throughout, a strong heroic tradition that is similar to the Anglo-Saxon. Then we have Heledd, lost and alone although we know she was once influential, strong and affluent. She is also absolutely tortured with guilt. She has lost her sister but she doesn’t mourn her. Why? I racked my brains trying to figure out why one would ever stop grieving for a sister who had obviously been greatly loved. I began to come up with a few ideas. Then, I read the recorded history of the period and was able to fit the poem into context. As you say the historical record for this period is sketchy and totally male orientated. The wars between Northumbria and Penda and the Kings of Powy are recorded but there are plenty of lovely gaps that provide perfect fodder for a fiction writer. I had terrific fun filling them in.

5) Accuracy in historical fiction is always a big debate, but, in your case you have less continuity of evidence than you'd probably prefer. How did you go about deciding how to fill the "holes" in the historical record and depicted some of figures in your work?


I think, if you will excuse me saying so, but there is an awful lot of hot air wasted over discussing accuracy in historical fiction. As soon as we put words into a historical character’s mouth we are crossing the boundary between history and fiction. And what is accurate anyway? There is no real truth, only opinion. My stories are about human beings in a historical world that cannot be replicated and never will be totally accurately represented. If you set out to produce an authentic historical world you are setting yourself up for failure. I try to be as accurate as I can but never lose sight of the fact that I am a woman from the 7th century communicating with the twenty first century. You have to tread a delicate line between the two worlds. I think it is quite dangerous to read fiction as history, if people want history they should read a proper history book. That is why all my novels have an author’s note pointing out, quite clearly, where my imagination takes over from the record and urging them to read around the subject further. I also write in the first person. I find that if I can step into my character’s shoes and ‘become’ them, my writing has more passion. You won’t find detailed descriptions of dresses or interiors because those things detract from the story I am telling. Heledd is standing alone on a stark mountain top, confessing her crimes, ripping aside her shame to tell us exactly where she went wrong. She isn’t interested in telling us how she tied her shoelaces or what colour her favourite frock was. Heledd will tell you about the realities of her world, the mud and the blood and the pain of being a woman in her time. It is sometimes uncomfortable to listen to her story but she grows from a thoughtless child into a broken woman who has learned many lessons and is striving to make peace with her god.

6) People write and consume historical fiction for a variety of reasons. What do you hope, fundamentally, to accomplish with your work?


I’ve written since I was a little girl and my main aim is to get better and better. I am not a bestselling author by any means but I do have a small band of followers. When I receive an email or a facebook message on my wall saying how much a reader has enjoyed one of my books then I know I have succeeded. I don’t expect to make a fortune from my writing, it isnt about that. I have a whole heap of stories in my head. It gives me huge satisfaction to write them down and even greater pleasure when my readers appreciate them. As long as I earn enough to continue to afford the ink and paper and to upgrade my PC once in a while, I will continue to write.

7) Do you have a favorite historical period?

I have always loved to read historical novels; they led me into studying history seriously. I will anything that is well written and credible. I often spot inaccuracies but they don’t really bother me, as long as it isn’t something silly like Guyfawks night in the 13th century or an Anglo Saxon peeling potatoes. I do prefer British history, but that is probably because it’s what I know best. Having said that, one of my all time favourites is Gone With the Wind, not because it is particularly accurate but because it is told by the losing side and speaks of the people’s emotion rather than the events. That is what interests me. Oh dear, I have strayed from your question, I am sorry. My favourite historical period is early medieval: King Alfred and Aethelflaed, The Wars of the Roses. I am a big Richard the III fan and, although I detest Henry VII and VIII, no one can help being fascinated by the Tudors.

8) Can you tell us about any of your other projects?

I am currently working on a Tudor novel. It is my first foray into a long piece in that period but my collection of short Tudor stories, Dear Henry: Confessions of the Queens is doing very well on Kindle and several readers have asked if I’ve done a full length novel. I thought I would oblige. It is very different in mood to The Song of Heledd and is called The Winchester Goose. The protagonists are Joan Toogood, a prostitute in Southwark, Francis Wareham,a male spy in the pay of Cromwell and two sisters, Bella and Eve Bourne, who are waiting women to Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard. Again, it is fiction with a few historical figures here and there. I am about three quarters of a way through the first draft and it is going very well. Of course, the hardest part will be the rewrites and edits, which always take the longest time, apart from the initial research of course.

Other works include:

Peaceweaver
The Forest Dwellers
Dear Henry: Confessions of the Queens
A Tapestry of Time

All available on Kindle.

----

Thanks, Judith.

If you'd like to see more from Judith, you can find her at  http://www.juditharnopp.com/.

You can purchase THE SONG OF HELEDD at:

Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk 
Direct from the publisher

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 18: Guerrillas and the Peninsular War: What's the French Word for Ulcer?

This is part of my continuing series on Regency England and Georgian England. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please check out my archive here.

-----

Napoleon's failures in Russia are well-known, but even before that invasion, the "unstoppable" French Imperial Army struggled in the Peninsular War against another set of foes that weren't helped nearly as much by the weather.

Over at the English Historical Fiction Authors Blog, I discuss the guerrilla forces that gave Napoleon such trouble.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 17: Smooth Roads and Criminals: The Turnpike System

This is part of my continuing series on Regency England and Georgian England. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please check out my archive here.

A modified form of this entry originally appeared on the English Historical Fiction Authors Blog where I am now an official contributing member. Although I focus on Regency and later Georgian England, the EHFA blog covers the entirety of English history. I encourage you to check it out.

-----

Everybody likes to complain about roads. When I moved from Arizona to Wisconsin, the first thing I did was complain about the "horrid bumpy roads" of the Midwest. Sure, it's a bit unfair to be too critical given climate conditions of my current home region, but we all need something to complain about, right? I, like many people, just take it for granted that quality roads should be available to me.

Perhaps quality roads and easy of transport seem not all that worthy of special attention. Many ancient civilizations, after all, had developed fine road networks. At the dawn of the Georgian age, however, the quality of many roads in England left much to be desired.

First, let's take a step back and consider many roads prior to the 18th century. During this period, the resources and funds for road maintenance were maintained mostly at the parish level. Paving of any form certainly was limited outside of most cities. 

The mostly parish-level support system was adequate for making sure various local roads were decent, but the system didn't do much to maintain the quality of distant roads and the intermediate roads connecting various far-flung locales. The net result was a haphazard system of road improvements of varying quality. A sort of transportation-centered tragedy of the commons. Wheeled travel was often unpleasant and dangerous. Rugged road conditions and holes could easily lead to accidents. As my fellow EFHA compatriot Katherine Pym noted recently, there were reported cases where holes on some roads were large enough to swallow up a cart. That's a rather severe pot hole!

Inclement weather only made things worse and England is far from an arid country. It was somewhat difficult to drive a coach through a muddied mess. Riding a horse was more practical, but not necessarily comfortable or practical depending on one's circumstances. Horses don't like huge wagon-sized holes either.

Ironically, economic improvements, along with the accompanying transportation of heavier amounts of goods, also contributed to wear and tear on many a poor-quality road. Even if the Georgian-era traveler ignored the poor quality of the roads and the difficulties associated with weather, there also was the unpleasant issue of highwaymen. The increase in traffic and trade travel, particularly in the environs of London, hadn't been lost on the criminal element. The lack of an organized police force, let alone anything akin to a highway patrol, only contributed to the problem. A swift, mounted criminal could waive a pistol and demand that someone, “Stand and deliver!” often with impunity despite the threat of execution or transportation to Australia.

Things began to turn around for the often poor, sad, and unsafe roads of England at the beginning of the 18th century because of the Turnpike Acts. Following up on earlier parliamentary acts, in 1696, the first Turnpike Act was enacted, the first of many to follow.

So what were these Turnpike Acts, why did they have to pass so many, and what did they have to do with road quality and highwaymen? These acts established Turnpike Trusts. These trusts were granted the responsibility of taking care of a certain portion of a road, but also granted them several legal tools to do this, including two of particular importance: the right to collect tools and to control access on roads through the use of both gates and men. The name itself comes from gates’ designs that involved pike-like constructions on crossbars that could be rotated, though not every tollgate necessarily had such a design, and now, of course, the turn has evolved into just a general term for toll room.

The trusts each could handle their various roads and road sections as they saw fit, so many would farm out the actual administration of the trusts to other enterprising people. These sort of trust subcontractors, as it were, could then do their best to efficiently run the trusts for a profit.

In the early years of the system, the various turnpike roads weren’t necessarily all that better maintained than before, but techniques advances lead to general quality improvements, particularly in the latter half of the 18th century, which, in turn, fueled a massive expansion of the system, with a general slowing of expansion with the coming of the 19thcentury. Although there were nearly one thousand trusts in place by the end of the Regency, and thus the tail end of the Georgian era, in 1820, it’s important to note that the majority of roads in England were still maintained by parishes and other local entities. That being said, many major important roads were under the control of turnpike trusts.

While the trusts, in general, contributed to road improvements that helped reduce transport times and the general quality and safety of travel, they also improved general security. Although there were other contributory factors, the rise of the turnpike system, particularly on high traffic roads, greatly contributed to the decline of highwaymen. The presence of so many guarded gates made post-robbery escapes far more difficult. It wasn't as if they couldn't avoid the gates, but a combination of inconvenience and just more watchful people being about helped complicate the logistics of the crime and escape.

Although, like so many things, the decline of the turnpike system was multi-factorial, the most fundamental contributory factor was the rise of a more efficient and swift means of mass transit: the railroads. By the end of the 19th century, a stronger central government, municipalities, and county councils took down the gates and took over the responsibility of maintaining the roads. Only a smattering of smaller private roads, tolled bridges, tolled tunnels, and the newer M6 Toll remain as the descendants, direct and indirect, of the extensive system that once covered tens of thousands of kilometers.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 15: What's a Little War Between Fashionable Friends? English respect for the French during the Regency

Welcome to my continuing series on late Georgian/Regency England. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, please check out this post.

-----

Large swaths of British and French history are defined by the two nations, in various forms, waging war against each other. The latter Georgian period was no different. The political shockwave of the French Revolution lead to war with the French Revolutionary forces; wars that England participated in.

Though the 1802 of Treaty of Amiens temporarily ended hostilities between Great Britain and France, 1803 brought the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars, which would rage, in one form or another until 1815.

In 1805, Emperor Napoleon's dreams of quickly invading and smashing the British were thwarted by stalwart sailors under the command of Vice Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson. The dramatic Battle of Trafalgar cost Nelson and many sailors their lives but ensured the nearly 200,000-man army Napoleon had gathered would never be delivered to the English coast.

At the start of the Regency, Napoleon was bogged down in the Peninsular Campaign (the so-called "Spanish Ulcer"), a struggle against Spanish and Portuguese forces (making heavy use of guerrilla tactics) and aided by regular support from the British under Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington. The British government poured large amounts off money both into military efforts and espionage. Temporary defeat in 1813 sent the French emperor into exile for a short period. His final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 ended his dream of a unified Europe under his control.

With all the wars leading into the Regency and the wars persisting for a good chunk of the period, one might assume that the Regency English despised all things French. The truth, however, is more complicated.

The bulk of English citizenry were rather anti-French even though there was some debate about how much the country should be involved in the war. There was some concern, even after Trafalgar, about how much blood and treasure it was worth to fight Napoleon. The Royal Navy dominated the seas, and helped disrupt Napoleon's attempts at economic blockade. There was not a significant concern about another French invasion plan.

A perhaps more unexpected attitude, though, prevailed among many fashionable sorts of the upper-aristocracy. France, even as the nation rampaging across Europe, was still seen as a center of fashion and culture. The ability to speak French was considered both fashionable and a sign of respectable education, and not a mark of suspicion.

French fashions and foods remained  popular. Even as Napoleon attempted to strangle trade into Great Britain, the upper-classes still managed to import (or smuggle in) French goods. French fashions continued to influence the English.

Of course, depending on one's perspective that may not seem that odd until you consider it'd be roughly equivalent to the aristocratic elites during World War I and World War II spending a lot of time speaking German at parties, decorating their homes with German objects, being influenced by German fashion, et cetera (insert your own joke about Edward VIII here). The war, for this fashionable elite, was a mere inconvenience.

In the short interval between the Treaty of Amiens and the restoration of hostilities, the fashionable elite did their best to travel to Paris to enjoy its glories before the two nations began shooting each other again. Even after the aborted invasion of England, there was no serious turn by many in the upper-classes against all things fashionably French even if they were limited in their ability to go to France and attempt to hob-nob with top French officials, Napoleon, and the Empress Josephine.

Of course, to many sons of the aristocracy serving as officers either in the Army or the Royal Navy, France was not a source of fashion and fine food, but instead the lead being blasted at them on the battlefield.

Now, as noted earlier, the vast bulk of the citizenry took a dim view of France and all things French, fashionable or not. Love of French culture wasn't universal either among aristocrats, but it still was significant enough that even the Prince Regent himself publicly partook of all things French.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 14: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: Enclosure

"Not so large, I dare say, as many people suppose. I do not mean to complain, however; it is undoubtedly a comfortable one, and I hope, will in time be better. The inclosure of Norland Common, now carrying on, is a most serious drain. And then I have made a little purchase within this half year -- East Kingham Farm, you must remember the place, where old Gibson used to live. The land was so very desirable for me in every respect, so immediately adjoining my own property, that I felt it my duty to buy it. I could not have answered it to my conscience to let it fall into any other hands. A man must pay for his convenience, and it has cost me a vast deal of money."

-- John Dashwood, Sense and Sensibility, Chapter 33

Mr. Dashwood's comments, on the surface, don't seem to have all that great an importance in the grander discussion of the nature of socio-economic disparity and economic realignment in Georgian and Regency England. His off-hand mention of "the inclosure of Norland Common", however, touches upon a rather significant series of land reforms that had major an impact on the rural lower classes in England.


Enclosure (inclosure was just the older way of spelling it) is the process by which land was consolidated, separated from neighboring properties, and deeded to private owners. The name comes from the way  these lands were marked off from others: enclosure with a wall, hedge, fence, or other obvious marker of division. Much of this process involved consolidation of irregular areas into more contiguous lands, but there were also cases of just simple conversion from common-use to private use. The combination of consolidation, demarcation of borders, and simple ownership assignment eliminated any ambiguity about who owned what and effectively eliminated most common-use land.

For a good chunk of English history, an open system was in place in many areas where peasants could make use of common land for grazing, small-scale planting, small-scale forestry, and similar subsistence activities. Although various minor cases of enclosure occurred throughout the centuries,  the process really picked up speed during the Georgian era with a many Enclosure Acts being passed by Parliament between the mid-18th century to the mid-19th century. While this was a act passed by the legislature, it should be noted that the process of acquiring enclosed land during most of the Georgian era involved a private citizen petitioning Parliament (until the mid-19th century at least), and so many of these Parliamentary acts were the culmination, in a sense, of private concerns and petitions rather than autonomous top-down decisions by the government. Even excluding the major Enclosure Acts, many smaller-scale private acts were passed by Parliament at the direct petition request of individuals.


It should be noted that in some cases enclosure was done to basically cut down on what amounted to illegal use of private property. A man might own a swath of land, but a lack of clear borders allowed people to come in certain areas, pick berries, graze their live stock, et cetera. That being said, in other cases there were centuries-old common areas that were destroyed by enclosure.


The act of enclosure, given that it removed many economic/food-related rights from peasants in local villages and nearby areas, had wide-spread  secondary effects. Once land was controlled by an owner, usage, if allowed, would require rent, which poorer families may have not been able to afford. Whereas previously they could potentially get by making limited use of common land, many now how to seek out employment. Arguably, without the Enclosure Acts, the huge number of cheap laborers necessary to help fuel the Industrial Revolution in England would not have been available.

Even if one is not particularly politically inclined, it's easy to see how these acts might be viewed with suspicion by some.  A person (and many have) could make the argument that formerly self-sufficient people were forced to go seek out work, sometimes far from home (thus disrupting village life), whereas a small percentage of individuals found themselves in a stronger economic position.

The often unpleasant labor conditions of the early Industrial Revolution or the low-security life that accompanied service were arguably tolerated because of the flood of workers desperate for new means to sustain themselves. Was enclosure nothing more than people of superior means consolidating resources and land at the expense of people of lesser means? Some argue that rather strenuously.

On the other hand, the ostensible logic behind enclosure was in some cases simple protection of property rights and in other cases was about improving efficiency of the land. Some historians suggest that by pushing people out of low-level subsistence farming, enclosure may have ultimately contributed to greater social mobility potential in the long-run. General improved economic efficiency combined with the slowly eroding social resistance to things like trade and investment among gentry arguably led to a consolidation, enrichment, and investment cycle that benefited the nation as a whole. Under this argument, the workers flooding into the factories of the Industrial Revolution, in turn, expanded the economy and helped shift the poorer English away from having effectively zero chance at social mobility.

It's also undeniable that in many areas, over-use and agricultural inefficiency was a legitimate motivation for enclosure. This is the so-called "tragedy of the commons". In such a situation, as no one involved in the use of land/resource has true ownership, they will not take special measures to conserve it because others using the resources may not. This cycle of use and self-interest leads to the depletion of the resource.  The various people who supported enclosure often based their argument on economic reasons (fencing associated with enclosure allowed high-value pasturage), agricultural efficiency, and land restoration.

Did this mean that every enclosed area was actually some horribly depleted over-farmed and over-logged deadland that needed the help of the gentry to rescue it? Doubtful. While there were  areas where this was the case, it's not as if during the process of enclosure, the government first did some sort of complicated land-use analysis. Mostly they were responding to petitions filed by people with enough wealth to hire lawyers to file petitions.

Many enclosed area had been successfully maintained for centuries. Though, as noted above, in some cases enclosure was about making property borders more concrete rather than a more active attempt to expand land holdings. The nature and appropriateness (depending on one's point of view) of enclosure likely varied by case.

Given this is a tremendously controversial topic among historians and economists (of which I'm neither), I think I'll stop here and just note that regardless if you feel enclosure was some sort of land-grab by the elite or if it was a painful but necessary part of an economically maturing England that  benefited everyone, it played a role in changing the nature of the English countryside and working classes.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 13: Married Over The Anvil: Gretna Green

Welcome to my continuing series on late Georgian/Regency England. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, please check out this post.

-----

It's a story as old as marriage itself: a young couple falls in love, but their parents don't approve. They rush off to find a friendly clergyman and tie the knot in secret. Under the watchful eye of God's representative, the couple is joined in holy matrimony. For all the emphasis on protocol and social etiquette, eloping Regency couples were hardly unknown.

Prior to 1753, that basic scenario above could pretty much work out in England and Wales. In theory, people were supposed to also have a license or a marriage bann (public posted announcements of the upcoming marriage to give people a chance to come forward if they knew a reason to object). In addition, the marriage was supposed to be celebrated in a parish of either the bride or the groom. The actual legal nitty-gritty, though, only truly required the aforementioned friendly clergyman. Where there are legal loop-holes, of course, there are people who take advantage of them. Young couples, and various other sorts who might otherwise have some difficulties getting married, took advantage of these opportunities.

In an effort to tighten down on these sort of clandestine marriages, the Marriage Act of 1753 was introduced. For couples under the age of 21, parents could potentially object, though there were ways around that. Technically a couple getting married with a bann, and, as long as their parents didn't register active dissent, the marriage was valid. This could still be tricky though, as it required some potential subterfuge and banns typically were posted for a period upping the risk of discovery.

The act also helped legally formalize the rules many people were previously bypassing and so helped reduce the number of clandestine marriages (though obviously didn't eliminate them all). It, however, had a number of important exceptions. Among one of the more notable was that the act only applied in England and Wales. It didn't apply to overseas marriages or marriages in Scotland. While the latter could potentially create some marriage legal issues for couples, the lack of standing in Scotland actually created a window of opportunity.

Scottish marriage law during the Regency period had much lower age requirements than the act established in England or Wales: 14 for boys, 12 for girls. It also didn't require parental consent for those of age. In addition, under Scottish law, a publicly witnessed promise and subsequent consummation was enough. So, if 18-year old Jane and William wanted to get married despite their parent's objections, if they could make it over the border, it was a simple matter of finding a willing public witness. Blacksmiths (so-called anvil priests or blacksmith priests) were popular choices, as they were distinct, known individuals of the community.

While a number of border villages and towns became stop for the occasional eloping couple, the village of Gretna Green was the first that would be encountered along the path from London to Edinburgh. This made it a popular destination for eloping English couples during the Regency.

Royalists, Democracy, and the Sword of the Apocalypse: an interview with historical fiction author Katherine Ashe

Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with historical fiction Katherine Ashe. She's spent over thirty years researching Simon de Montford, a man who played an important, but little known, role in the history of Western democracy.

-----

1) Please tell us about your book.

The Montfort series is the four-volume product of my 34 years of research (some might call that obsessive) into the life of the little known, maligned man who established modern democracy.

2) You've been researching Simon de Monfort for decades. What is it about this man and the period around his life that has inspired such interest?

Principally it was dismay at the lack of knowledge about him, and the astonishingly negative attitude of what little there was.

3) Given that your primary subject lived over 750 years ago, there are obviously going to be a lot more historical holes for you to take advantage of than for someone writing a book on someone from a more recent period. Did you view these holes as an opportunity or were they more a challenge?

There are a lot of holes indeed, but, worse, the material that survives is written from two points of view: that Simon was the Angel of the Apocalypse and that Simon was the agent of Satan. Actually, the chronicler Matthew Paris, who is the finest general source of information during most of Simon’s lifetime, begins merely disliking Simon as a foreign interloper, but he becomes Simon’s friend and supporter as the years go on.

I wrote Montfort in novel form because of the necessity to use extensive speculation to bridge from one recorded event to the next with a reasonable thread of causality. Events often were mutually contradictory: in a surviving letter, the Christian lords of Palestine are begging the Emperor Frederic to name Simon their viceroy; then, according to the chronicles, Simon has joined King Louis’s army in France to fight King Henry of England; then he's leading 100 English knights against Louis’ 30,000. These are chronically successive events! You get the picture.

What happened during those “holes”? Certainly they provide a challenge requiring a broad knowledge of the period, the mindset of the time and the background of each of the major participants in each event. What has “seen print” in “Montfort” is the tip of the iceberg. Discussions in the Historical Context at the end of each volume can only give a sketched explanation of the sources and the reasons for my interpretations, or the work would be considerably more than its 1585 pages.

4) Related to the above, the mere existence of historical holes and interpretation by authors can potentially be a source of controversy. Is this anything you've had to deal with?

Oh, yes. Montfort The Early Years, or rather a blurb that mentioned my view that Simon was the natural father of Edward I, has raised a lot of controversy, some of it quite nasty. However, no one who has actually read Montfort has any problem with my research and interpretation of the material, though they may differ from my conclusions – fair enough. Many scholars think very highly of my work and find in it justification of Henry IV’s seizure of the throne – a return to the legitimate line. But some readers of historical novels have been deeply offended by the blurb because I obviously differ from another novelist who has written about Simon.

5) What has been the most interesting aspect of developing this series of novels?

Exploring the reasons for the advent of elective government so early. And its failure to stick. As well, of course, as the astonishing life of the man who made the first modern democracy a reality.

6) What has been the most challenging aspect of developing this series of novel? One of the things I've mentioned above or something else entirely?

I suppose the greatest challenge has been grasping the 13the century mindset of Simon de Montfort and the other people I write about, and conveying it to the modern reader. One must not only make the physical world of a time long past seem immediate and familiar, but must also make the mental world of these people in their time a part of the reader’s equipment in understanding the characters’ motivations. Too often I find novelists, and even historians, neglect this or feel it necessary to interpret the past according to modern habits of thinking. This modernizing, I believe, makes it impossible to validly explore the motivations of actual people in the past.

7) Francis Fukuyama's pronouncements about liberal democracy being the "end of history" may have been a bit premature, but it's hard to deny that around the world, democratic government is seen as the most desirable form of rule. Thus you'd figure a man involved in the creation of the first directly elected parliament would be better known, but, arguably, he's become somewhat obscure. Do you agree that Simon de Montfort doesn't quite have the historical profile that might be warranted? If so, why do you think that is?

What an excellent question! Simon de Montfort is indeed unconsciounably obscure and was made so deliberately.

During his last years, Simon was thought by many to be the Angel with the Sword of the Apocalypse, bringing in a New Millennium in which kingship and the Church would collapse and a world-wide government would gradually take form, guided by general, free elections. The thousand years since 1258 are not yet completed. We may be in a fair way to fulfilling those expectations, despite a 500 year hiatus caused by the rise of Thomas Aquinas’ theology of immutable hierarchy and divinely granted dominance by kings. Aquinas was deliberately embraced by Pope and kings in the 1260’s in a specific effort to counter the rising democratic/millennial theology of which Montfort was considered the earthly champion.

Apart from religious issues, Simon was guilty of lese majeste, seizing his king and establishing a government in despite of the king’s wishes. An added fillip is that Simon not only established elective government, but attempted to extend full suffrage to the commons. And he appears to have toyed with the idea of the redistribution of wealth and the instituting of a proto-socialism that was being promoted by the Franciscans.

Apparently most English historians of the Middle Ages are staunch royalists. Even to this day most of the few works about Montfort published in England are based on the writings of his enemies and are very critical of him. It was Queen Elizabeth II who signaled an acceptable change in attitude by mounting a celebration of Simon on the 1965 centennial of the battle of Evesham. Yet the latest scholarly work, from Cambridge University, portrays Simon as a Yuppie who accomplished nothing!

Why the silence, relieved by occasional attacks? The 13th century Chronicle of William Rishanger is devoted solely to enumerating the miracles that Simon accomplished AFTER his death. Fearing the rapidly spreading millennial religious movement that centered upon him, and its consequences, King Henry III declared it a capital crime to so much as speak the name Simon de Montfort.

Apart from the Chronicles and surviving documents of the period, the tales of Robin Hood are thought to be a means by which memory of Simon was kept alive among his followers (who did hold out in Sherwood Forest for two years after his death.) But printed versions replace the name Montfort with Richard the Lion Hearted – whose return was definitely not longed for by his over-taxed subjects in England. Even the statue to commemorate Simon, erected in front of the Houses of Parliament, still bears the bogus identity: Richard Coeur de Lion.

This sort of obliteration is a large part of what's driven me. It's unacceptable that most people know nothing of the man who did more than anyone else to give modern government its  form world-wide: Simon de Montfort.

-----

Thanks, Katherine.

If you'd like to read more from Katherine, please check out her Montford blog at  http://simon-de-montfort.com/ or her personal blog at http://www.katherineashe.com/.

Montfort: The Founder of Parliament: The Early Years, can be purchased in physical or ebook format at Amazon, along with the other volumes of the series.

Mr. Beard's Regency Tour Day 12: How about a rubber of the popular Regency card game, whist?

Welcome to my continuing series on late Georgian/Regency England. If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, please check out this post.

-----


"As soon as a whist party was formed, and a round table threatened, I made my mother an excuse and came away, leaving just as many for their round table as there were at Mrs. Grant's."

Jane Austen, in a letter to her sister Cassandra, February, 1811.

There were a number of entertainment choices we take for granted that were noticeably absent in the Regency periods: television, computers, and the internet. Even good old-fashioned radio still lie many decades in the future. Of course, the fine people of the Regency had many fine ways to amuse themselves. While things obviously might vary depending on class and background, these various recreational activities ranged from very individual activities such as reading a novel or poetry (which, I suppose, could be done in groups, too) to many types of outdoor and indoor group diversions from balls (of course, those often had other social functions a well) to even things such as co-ed archery.

One popular pastime, though, that many enjoyed was playing cards. Although there were a variety of card games enjoyed during the Regency period, today I want to focus on a particularly popular one: whist.

Whist arose in the 1600s, a descendant of earlier trick-taking card games of the previous century. Although there are many variants and traditions that developed over the years,the core game itself isn't all that complex. It is played with a standard 52-card deck by four players in teams of two. The suits are ranked from highest to lowest with the ace being higher than the king. The dealer deals out cards until each player has thirteen. The final card, which goes to the dealer, is turned-up to indicate the trump suit.

The first player (usually the one to the dealer's left) can lead with any card to open the trick. Each player then plays their own card but must follow suit if possible. The entire trick is won by the by the highest trump played, or if no trump was played, the highest card. After the trick is over, the cards are turned face-down. When all thirteen tricks are played, the partners get one point for each trick won past the first six. The partnership that gets to five points first, wins.

As noted above, there are various traditions and elaborations, but that's the basic game. Not too complex in design, but the challenge comes in trying to remember and adapt to which cards have already been played, particularly between tricks. By the Regency era, it was fairly common to play whist in a set of best two out three "rubbers". These rubbers, in term, comprised three games/hands.

Early on after the development of whist, the game was something somewhat sneered at by the more respectable classes, but by the middle of the 18th-century it had become fashionable and respectable for all levels of society. Whist parties became common, and it was played in many clubs (which may or may not have been respectable).

Many people liked to spice up their whist games with a bit with gambling. As this was well before the later Victorian-era push-back against gambling, many respectable men and women felt quite comfortable with gambling, and arguably excessive gambling was even more rampant among the upper classes (and particularly, but not exclusively, younger aristocratic men). The big issue with gambling, rather than gambling itself, was more excessive gambling and not paying one's debts (e.g., the popular master of Society Beau Brummell had to flee to France over his gambling debts) Something as minor as the occasional exchange of money over the card table was really no big deal.

"On entering the drawing room she [Elizabeth] found the whole party at loo, and was immediately invited to join them; but suspecting them to be playing high she declined it, and making her sister the excuse, said she would amuse herself for the short time she could stay below with a book."

Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 8.

Loo is different than whist, but just as many people gambled at whist, whether at private parties or at men's clubs. Note that Elizabeth's concern here isn't that they're gambling but rather that they are playing for high stakes.

Of course, the mere existence of gambling around whist didn't mean that people couldn't just enjoy a good game of cards, as one American traveler notes:


"In the evening we joined the ladies above stairs, and tea being over, I was invited to join several of the reverend masters and professors, in, what do you think?--A disquistion concerning the Hebrew points,k the quadrature of the circle, or the possibility of perpetual motion?--No--I was invited to join them in a rubber at whist!--not a gambling match, but a pastime."


A Journal of Travels in England, Holland and Scotland, And of Two Passages Over the Atlantic in the Years 1805 and 1806, Benjamin Silliman, 1810

Incidentally, although modern trick-taking games like bridge have overshadowed whist, the game is still played today.