Bridgemont Series - Technical Points

[Enric]

"....the look of amazement when he'd told Broadfield to arrange hunts to share the game in the woods with these poor people. As if he'd rather have them starve than allow them to poach...."

 

hunting was the privilege of the manor owner (except some rare game animals reserved to the king by medieval custom). the owner could use the privilege himself, or invite others to hunt with him. He could invite other gentleman or gentlemen to hunt in his absence, and that other 'gentleman' could be allowed to have other invitees with him, or helpers.

It was quite customary to share portions of the hunted meat with the helpers. Hold village feasts where the owner provided the food. Or to give portions of meat to charity.

 

Poaching is illicit hunting. It is not poaching if the owner has given his permission.

 

Georgie is simply arranging that some other (almost-)gentleman (possibly Broadfield) is allowed to hunt in Georgie's absence, and to use villagers as helpers, and for those helpers to get a share of the hunted meat. That is no poaching.

[Mark Arbour]

"....the look of amazement when he'd told Broadfield to arrange hunts to share the game in the woods with these poor people. As if he'd rather have them starve than allow them to poach...."

 

hunting was the privilege of the manor owner (except some rare game animals reserved to the king by medieval custom). the owner could use the privilege himself, or invite others to hunt with him. He could invite other gentleman or gentlemen to hunt in his absence, and that other 'gentleman' could be allowed to have other invitees with him, or helpers.

It was quite customary to share portions of the hunted meat with the helpers. Hold village feasts where the owner provided the food. Or to give portions of meat to charity.

 

Poaching is illicit hunting. It is not poaching if the owner has given his permission.

 

Georgie is simply arranging that some other (almost-)gentleman (possibly Broadfield) is allowed to hunt in Georgie's absence, and to use villagers as helpers, and for those helpers to get a share of the hunted meat. That is no poaching.

 

You are correct in your definition of poaching. That's why Granger had Broadfield "arrange hunts". Granger's thought process on the topic, though, was more dramatic than his actions. He knows the definition. That being said, I'm glad you raised the point here. It's important to understand how that worked, and I didn't make it clear.

[Enric]

The historical Charles Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, viscount Milton, was only seven years old in April 1794.

 

too bad that an immutable historical fact is twisted to false.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Enric

[Mark Arbour]

Well, I sometimes use historical names and people, but I'm not worried about being too accurate. After all, it's not like they really did any of this. It's like the Comte D'Artois. There is absolutely no evidence to show he ever had a sexual liaison with another man (though he was a horn dog and had lots of liaisons with women) but I put it in anyway. For the story.

[Enric]

by the way, I have all the time sub-consciously wondered how and why would a GENUINE englishman of 1700s, receive the baptismal name Albert.

In other words, the name choice for georgie's wastrel brother, smacks of some relative implausubility or unusualness.

 

The name Albert, really, came to wider use in Britain in wake of the Prince-Consort Albert, gradually after he HAD married to britain in late 1830s. after that, all sorts of people started to baptize their some son as albert.

 

earlier (such as, in our guys' birth range, around the year 1770), Albert was pretty rare.

and most aristocratic families were traditional in a sense that they did not bother to give unprecedented names to their sons, instead they circulated their existing onomastical fund - where the existence of Albert in that century was more like a miracle than anything usual.

 

I am not saying that albert were a totally impossible name in that era, just rare.

The name WAS known in the continent, it was no new concoction in the christendom, instead it had long traditions in Germany.

* it is just that not usually English aristocracy of that time bothered to ape for example Germans.

 

----

 

a more realistic onomastical view for this fictional family, as it is presented,

would be that they would advertise their royal Stuart blood (coming from the Countess, not her hubby the current Earl), by choosing names of ancestral roylty for their kids.

So, if a deviation from earlier Bridgemont namings would occurred for any of the kids of this Countess, it rather would have such names as: James, Charles, Robert, Alexander, Matthew, Alan, David, Henry, Edward, Richard

[Enric]

if and when Georgie ultimately is made a Peer of the Realm, his titles are bound to be: the higher title, of Lammert; and the lower title, of Brentwood.

such as, Viscount of Lammert, Baron of Brentwood.

 

that will mean that he will continue his maternal grandfather's very name (and subsequent generations after him), being known as Lord Lammert.

The heir-apparent in that will be known as Lord Brentwood. But of course there are not always an extant heir apparent.

 

 

-----

 

by the way, the day could be closer than thought: namely, the governor Sir Richard Lammert is in a position (and age) where it's high time that the monarch would create him as a Peer, such as Viscount. Royal Governors and Admirals did tend to receive peerages. Because he has no legitimate male issue, and that fact is obvious at the moment of the creation, the usual practice is that the monarch makes a special remainder clause to the Letters of Patent: naming some others in some order as his heirs to the peerage, usually according to his wishes. It's bound to be that the primary beneficiary named in such a remainder would be Georgie, who thusly becomes heir to the grandfather's new peerage. Bertie would probably be secondary beneficiary (failing heirs of Georgie), and ultimately all the issue of the current Lady Bridgemont (please, not restricted to tail male) would enjoy tertiary remainder.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Enric