St. Vincent

[Mark Arbour]

I agree, Calvert needs to be the one to deal with his Lt... Granger could have done something since he was disrespectful to him as a superior officer but part of that was the fact that Calvert had let the Lt get that familiar with him. The fact that Calvert and the Lt were so obviously involved allowed the Lt to believe he could take such liberties. This is a mess of Calvert's own making and he is the one that has to clean it up... That is one of the issues that I have always had with Calvert, he allows his heart and emotions to overrun his head. In the British navy of that time, that would never have been a good idea...

 

Exactly. And isn't it ironic that Granger fails to remember that he came to a similar conclusion about Darby not too very long ago? Our blond cherub can be all too fallible at times.

[ricky]

Exactly. And isn't it ironic that Granger fails to remember that he came to a similar conclusion about Darby not too very long ago? Our blond cherub can be all too fallible at times.

 

I'm still in favor of Fish basting and dumping his butt overboard just after chumming for sharks. I don't think this one will bring anything but grief to Calvert AND Granger.

[centexhairysub]

I'm still in favor of Fish basting and dumping his butt overboard just after chumming for sharks. I don't think this one will bring anything but grief to Calvert AND Granger.

 

I just don't see Calvert having the stomach for anything like that. At that time it was quite easy to make an accusation of sodomy against someone but quite hard to prove. The accusation was enough to often ruin someone. My understanding is you either had to have someone witness the act itself or there had to be obvious signs of penetration and discharge. I could see the Lt trying to cause problems because he appears to be besotted by Calvert, but often the accusation would just as often tar the accuser as the accusee.

[Mark Arbour]

I just don't see Calvert having the stomach for anything like that. At that time it was quite easy to make an accusation of sodomy against someone but quite hard to prove. The accusation was enough to often ruin someone. My understanding is you either had to have someone witness the act itself or there had to be obvious signs of penetration and discharge. I could see the Lt trying to cause problems because he appears to be besotted by Calvert, but often the accusation would just as often tar the accuser as the accusee.

 

Well said; it's the reputation thing that can be the most damaging. It's hard to reconstruct exactly what must have been the circumstances of that day and age, but I would suspect that despite what we commonly think now, back in those days, unless it was problematic, I think it would have largely been ignored.

[Andrew Q Gordon]

Mark, I assume you saw this post, but just in case you didn't, this is so perfect for George and his 'boys.'

 

http://www.gayauthor...76-gay-pirates/

 

I can't take credit for posting which is why I give you a link and not an embedded video.

[Andrew Q Gordon]

So I usually do most of my 'talking' in a review but I wanted to weigh in on a couple things.

 

First the idea of George and Winkler - I am SO glad you are so obviously opposed to that. It would feel icky. Winkler - for all that he was so sweet and innocent at first is nothing of the kind we find out now that he and Jeffers are nothing but mammals and doing it like they do . . . . BUT that aside, he is - despite being George's valet - something like a child/brother/cousin to George. I mean George saved him, and for a time he worshiped George and perhaps still does, but there is too much history/connection. Having them be together would feel like George had no morals whatsoever.

 

Then there is the Calver/Granger thingy. This dynamic is SO interesting. I mean there is/was the obvious love the two share(d) but I sense it is waning. George loves him, obviously, but he seems to be gravitating toward Freddy and maybe even Peter. There is almost a sense that George has grown up so much more now that he is Captain and Calvert is gone. What I mean is that when they were together it was easy to just let it happen. They were good together and they had each other and didn't have to worry so much because they were so good at being together etc. George didn't really consider his position or that of his family.

 

Then once separated he grew up - he matured a bit but still had Freddy. Freddy who didn't need to be reminded of status - who understood the need for decorum etc. That relationship helped him to realize how to have a relationship within the boundaries of discretion.

 

Then along comes Calvert again and Calvert has shown no signs he understands. Worse, HE- Calvert - is the person who is 'in charge' he is the one who is supposed to be the older wiser, more mature half. And in that role, the one that Granger held in their tryst - he fails miserably.

 

George still cares for him but it seems obvious that he is starting to rethink his ability to be with him, jealous as he might be that Calvert has a new lover. Quite the dynamic.

 

Now to see the triple threat match between The Earl, the Captain and the Wanna be Earl.

 

One dumb question. What is granddad's title? The one he hopes to give to George??

[centexhairysub]

One dumb question. What is granddad's title? The one he hopes to give to George??

 

 

I don't believe Granger's maternal grandfather has a title to leave him exactly. I believe the Admiral is a Sir or Lord based on the fact that he was the third son of a Duke but didn't get a landed title himself. My supposition on what he was leaving George is his money and holdings not a title. He will support George with his influence and power while he lives and then leave his money and any property to George when he dies. I can't find where the maternal grandfather actually held a title other than honorary as the third son of a Duke and then the title of Admiral that he earned in the navy...

 

Did anyone else find or remember anything different????

[Mark Arbour]

So I usually do most of my 'talking' in a review but I wanted to weigh in on a couple things.

 

First the idea of George and Winkler - I am SO glad you are so obviously opposed to that. It would feel icky. Winkler - for all that he was so sweet and innocent at first is nothing of the kind we find out now that he and Jeffers are nothing but mammals and doing it like they do . . . . BUT that aside, he is - despite being George's valet - something like a child/brother/cousin to George. I mean George saved him, and for a time he worshiped George and perhaps still does, but there is too much history/connection. Having them be together would feel like George had no morals whatsoever.

 

Then there is the Calver/Granger thingy. This dynamic is SO interesting. I mean there is/was the obvious love the two share(d) but I sense it is waning. George loves him, obviously, but he seems to be gravitating toward Freddy and maybe even Peter. There is almost a sense that George has grown up so much more now that he is Captain and Calvert is gone. What I mean is that when they were together it was easy to just let it happen. They were good together and they had each other and didn't have to worry so much because they were so good at being together etc. George didn't really consider his position or that of his family.

 

Then once separated he grew up - he matured a bit but still had Freddy. Freddy who didn't need to be reminded of status - who understood the need for decorum etc. That relationship helped him to realize how to have a relationship within the boundaries of discretion.

 

Then along comes Calvert again and Calvert has shown no signs he understands. Worse, HE- Calvert - is the person who is 'in charge' he is the one who is supposed to be the older wiser, more mature half. And in that role, the one that Granger held in their tryst - he fails miserably.

 

George still cares for him but it seems obvious that he is starting to rethink his ability to be with him, jealous as he might be that Calvert has a new lover. Quite the dynamic.

 

Now to see the triple threat match between The Earl, the Captain and the Wanna be Earl.

 

One dumb question. What is granddad's title? The one he hopes to give to George??

 

Ever date someone who was fun, alive, and just set your body on fire? But they were so passionate, you fought a lot, or they did things that embarrassed you, or they didn't fit in? In other words, when it was just the two of you, things were amazing...unbelievable...orgasmic... but when others were involved, this other person was a constant source of embarrassment and/or issues? That's what I visualize with Calvert and Granger. I bet if Granger were shipwrecked on an island and could have one person to be with him, I think he'd pick Calvert.

 

 

I don't believe Granger's maternal grandfather has a title to leave him exactly. I believe the Admiral is a Sir or Lord based on the fact that he was the third son of a Duke but didn't get a landed title himself. My supposition on what he was leaving George is his money and holdings not a title. He will support George with his influence and power while he lives and then leave his money and any property to George when he dies. I can't find where the maternal grandfather actually held a title other than honorary as the third son of a Duke and then the title of Admiral that he earned in the navy...

 

Did anyone else find or remember anything different????

 

You stated it better than I did. Sir Richard Lambert is rich, and was knighted (which is not hereditary), but is not a peer. Even if he were, it is unusual for a peerage to pass through a female.

[Westie]

You stated it better than I did. Sir Richard Lambert is rich, and was knighted (which is not hereditary), but is not a peer. Even if he were, it is unusual for a peerage to pass through a female.

 

Actually, the title "sir" does not necessarily denote a knighthood (although since you are the author, I will assume you are correct that Lambert is a knight). a "sir" can also denote a baronetcy (not to be confused with being a "baron"). Baronetcies ARE hereditary, and confer the title of "sir".

 

 

In history, it isnt particularly rare for a title to "skip" through the female line to a grandson. It simply requires letters patent from the King, which could be obtained by petition and were almost universally granted. However it WOULD be unusual for the title to be remaindered on the THIRD grandson. it would either be allowed to be assumed into the Bridgewater titles, or it would be remaindered on the second grandson - certainly not George.

 

What interests me most is that Mark has written this story where an Earl, a member of the third ranking order of nobility, is married to someone so much further below his own rank and station. now THAT is incredibly rare. I would be very interested to know about the Lambert lineage, because unless there were some very good reason. it would have created quite a scandal for the Earl to marry a woman without rank (i.e. without the right blood in her veins).

 

 

[Mark Arbour]

Actually, the title "sir" does not necessarily denote a knighthood (although since you are the author, I will assume you are correct that Lambert is a knight). a "sir" can also denote a baronetcy (not to be confused with being a "baron"). Baronetcies ARE hereditary, and confer the title of "sir".

 

 

In history, it isnt particularly rare for a title to "skip" through the female line to a grandson. It simply requires letters patent from the King, which could be obtained by petition and were almost universally granted. However it WOULD be unusual for the title to be remaindered on the THIRD grandson. it would either be allowed to be assumed into the Bridgewater titles, or it would be remaindered on the second grandson - certainly not George.

 

What interests me most is that Mark has written this story where an Earl, a member of the third ranking order of nobility, is married to someone so much further below his own rank and station. now THAT is incredibly rare. I would be very interested to know about the Lambert lineage, because unless there were some very good reason. it would have created quite a scandal for the Earl to marry a woman without rank (i.e. without the right blood in her veins).

 

 

 

Ah yes, the ancient art of marrying well. What I have said in the stories is that the Lammert's are descendants of royal bastards, and this line in particular came from a younger son of a duke. I think the lineage would be acceptable, despite the lack of a title. I also noted that the dowry was quite large, so that would have brushed off many concerns regarding lineage. That's a time-honored trait for the aristocracy...marrying into a more bourgeois family to replenish the family coffers. Having said that, the Lammerts certainly aren't bourgeois.

[Westie]

Ah yes, the ancient art of marrying well. What I have said in the stories is that the Lammert's are descendants of royal bastards, and this line in particular came from a younger son of a duke. I think the lineage would be acceptable, despite the lack of a title. I also noted that the dowry was quite large, so that would have brushed off many concerns regarding lineage. That's a time-honored trait for the aristocracy...marrying into a more bourgeois family to replenish the family coffers. Having said that, the Lammerts certainly aren't bourgeois.

 

Well, if you say so. However, if this were a bastard Royal line, for that to carry any Kudos, it would have had to have been a recognised bastard, in which case the surname would not have been Lammert, but Fitz-(something) as was the custom. For example, the line of FitzClarence are the bastard decedents of HRH the Duke of Clarence.

 

 

The other thing to point out is that Lammert must be at the very least, the son of the younger son of a duke, because if his father was a Duke he would have the courtesy title of Lord. This means that the Countess Bridgewater is the Daughter-of-the-son-of-a-younger-son-of-a-Duke - which is three degrees of separation.

 

Regardless of the wealth of the Lammerts (which traveling through Younger sons is unlikely to be vast enough to interest an Earl, or they would have bought a title of their very own in their own right), I think it would have caused somewhat of a scandal. which of course could be overcome - but I very much doubt that Countess Bridgewater could command such a pre-eminant position as she seems to have. A quarrell with Lady Jersey and still welcome at court? (though Actually at this point, Lady Jersey was not at the height of her powers, since the prince of Wales had just Married Caroline of Brunswick - which, I think in the story has also been missed?, i might be wrong on that)

 

Anyway - apologies for being a pedantic brit on this

 

 

[ricky]

Ok, you guys have taken all the fun of it. :king: Can we just get back to fish-basting the fitz-troublemaker and dropping him in shark chummed waters? I still think that's the best solution. No muss, no fuss.

 

Don't like that? Keel haul his butt!

[Mark Arbour]

Well, if you say so. However, if this were a bastard Royal line, for that to carry any Kudos, it would have had to have been a recognised bastard, in which case the surname would not have been Lammert, but Fitz-(something) as was the custom. For example, the line of FitzClarence are the bastard decedents of HRH the Duke of Clarence.

 

 

The other thing to point out is that Lammert must be at the very least, the son of the younger son of a duke, because if his father was a Duke he would have the courtesy title of Lord. This means that the Countess Bridgewater is the Daughter-of-the-son-of-a-younger-son-of-a-Duke - which is three degrees of separation.

 

Regardless of the wealth of the Lammerts (which traveling through Younger sons is unlikely to be vast enough to interest an Earl, or they would have bought a title of their very own in their own right), I think it would have caused somewhat of a scandal. which of course could be overcome - but I very much doubt that Countess Bridgewater could command such a pre-eminant position as she seems to have. A quarrell with Lady Jersey and still welcome at court? (though Actually at this point, Lady Jersey was not at the height of her powers, since the prince of Wales had just Married Caroline of Brunswick - which, I think in the story has also been missed?, i might be wrong on that)

 

Anyway - apologies for being a pedantic brit on this

 

 

 

You see, the beauty of writing a story like this is that if you are vague, should you encounter a pedantic Brit, you can go back in and backfill.

I did mention Caroline of Brunswick, but only briefly, as the Prince of Wales certainly wouldn't have wanted to talk about her. That seems to be a nastier replay of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves.

[Westie]

You see, the beauty of writing a story like this is that if you are vague, should you encounter a pedantic Brit, you can go back in and backfill.

I did mention Caroline of Brunswick, but only briefly, as the Prince of Wales certainly wouldn't have wanted to talk about her. That seems to be a nastier replay of Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves.

 

Well, Caroline of Brunswick may have been subjected to terrible treatment, but looking at the dates.... At this point in history, Caroline and the Prince of Wales were still maintaining a public facade (regardless of their private hatred).... indeed their daughter Charlotte Augusta had just been born in the January 1796.

[Mark Arbour]

Well, Caroline of Brunswick may have been subjected to terrible treatment, but looking at the dates.... At this point in history, Caroline and the Prince of Wales were still maintaining a public facade (regardless of their private hatred).... indeed their daughter Charlotte Augusta had just been born in the January 1796.

 

I'm not sure that Caroline of Brunswick was subjected to terrible treatment. It seems that there are different schools of thought on that. I thought the Wiki article on her was interesting. Here's an excerpt:

 

 

Caroline and George were married on 8 April 1795 at the Chapel Royal, St. James's Palace in London. At the ceremony, George was drunk.^[14] He regarded Caroline as unattractive and unhygienic, and told Malmesbury that he suspected that she was not a virgin when they married.^[15] He, of course, was not. He had himself already secretly married Maria Fitzherbert; however, his marriage to Fitzherbert violated the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and thus was not legally valid.^[16]

 

In a letter to a friend, the prince claimed that the couple only had sexual intercourse three times: twice the first night of the marriage, and once the second night.^[17] He wrote, "it required no small [effort] to conquer my aversion and overcome the disgust of her person."^[18] Caroline claimed George was so drunk that he "passed the greatest part of his bridal night under the grate, where he fell, and where I left him".^[19]

 

Nine months after the wedding, Caroline gave birth to Princess Charlotte Augusta, George's only legitimate child, at Carlton House on 7 January 1796. Charlotte was second in the line of succession to the British throne, after her father. Just three days after Charlotte's birth, George made out a new will. He left all his property to "Maria Fitzherbert, my wife", while to Caroline he left one shilling.^[20]

 

Gossip about Caroline and George's troubled marriage was already circulating.^[21] The newspapers claimed that Lady Jersey opened, read and distributed the contents of Caroline's private letters.^[22] She despised Lady Jersey and could not visit or travel anywhere without George's permission.^[23] The press vilified George for his extravagance and luxury at a time of war and portrayed Caroline as a wronged wife.^[24] She was cheered in public and gained plaudits for her "winning familiarity" and easy, open nature.^[18] George was dismayed at her popularity and his own unpopularity, and felt trapped in a loveless marriage with a woman he loathed. He wanted a separation.^[25]

 

In April 1796, George wrote to Caroline, "We have unfortunately been oblig'd to acknowledge to each other that we cannot find happiness in our union. ... Let me therefore beg you to make the best of a situation unfortunate for us both."^[26] In June, Lady Jersey resigned as Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber.^[27] George and Caroline were already living separately, and in August 1797 Caroline moved to a private residence: The Vicarage or Old Rectory in Charlton, London.^[28] Later, she moved to Montagu House in Blackheath. No longer constrained by her husband, or according to rumour her marital vows, she entertained whomever she pleased.^[29] She flirted with Admiral Sir Sidney Smith and Captain Thomas Manby, and may have had a fling with the politician George Canning.^[30]

 

Detail of a portrait of Caroline by Sir Thomas Lawrence, 1804

Her daughter Charlotte was placed in the care of a governess, in a mansion near Montagu House in the summers, and Caroline visited her often.^[31] It seems that a single daughter was not sufficient to sate Caroline's maternal instincts, and she adopted eight or nine poor children, who were fostered out to people in the district.^[32] In 1802, she adopted a three-month old boy, William Austin, and took him into her home. By 1805, Caroline had fallen out with her near neighbours, Sir John and Lady Douglas, who claimed that Caroline had sent them obscene and harassing letters. Lady Douglas accused Caroline of infidelity, and alleged that William Austin was Caroline's illegitimate son.^[33]

 

 

 

 

 

What I found most interesting about that whole thing, though, was that the dashing "Swedish Knight", Sir William Sydney Smith was one of her lovers. We met him at the Siege of Toulon.

[centexhairysub]

A couple of thoughts on this latest line of post...

 

I have a friend that is more of an email and letter friend, we have only met in person twice... She is a member of the British aristocracy from a family that pre-dates the current Royal family. I sent her an email asking a few questions and just got her reply.

 

She says the use of Fitz has not always been used for Royal bastards. It's use goes back to when Henry II used it as part of his title to honor his mother Empress Matilda. She says that Fitz as an acknowledgment of being a Royal bastard was actually rarely used. Henry VIII used it for his bastard son and a few others did but most did not. Often a Royal bastard was simply acknowledged by the creation of a new title or peerage. She also indicates that the Royal family in power each had different views and takes on how to handle the situation.

 

On the issue of marriage between an Earl and an untitled lady, she indicates that even the great grand daughter of a Duke would have been a good match for an Earl, especially if there was enough money added to the mix. Assuming that Admiral Sir Richard Lammert was the untitled grandson of a Duke, his daughter would still have been considered a good match for an Earl. She says it could have also helped if Admiral Sir Richard Lammert's wife was from a titled family. We don't know anything about her but that she was socially prominent and politically astute.

 

If Admiral Sir Richard Lambert had either inherited or through his skill taken enough prizes to have secured a large enough fortune, the dowry could have been enough with good bloodlines to induce a heir to an Earldom to marry his daughter. She says it would be actually would be a bigger deal today than in the timeframe of this story. She says at that time it was not at all unusual for even a ducal family to use marriage to a wealthy suitor or daughter of a wealthy man to rebuild the family wealth. She says that if the Earldom was old enough and the Lammert bloodline good enough, plus throw some wealth into the mix, the current Countess could easily have been a social and political powerhouse.

 

In addition, she says that Caroline of Brunswick was generally treated quite well. Her husband treated her badly but she was actually well liked by George III and well liked by the Britsh people in general. After the death of her daughter, Princess Charlotte from complications of childbirth, she did come in to some blame for not being there during the delivery but it was said that Princess Charlotte wanted neither of her parents nearby.

 

Just as a postscript, my friend as her PPE from Oxford.

[Westie]

A couple of thoughts on this latest line of post...

 

I have a friend that is more of an email and letter friend, we have only met in person twice... She is a member of the British aristocracy from a family that pre-dates the current Royal family. I sent her an email asking a few questions and just got her reply.

 

She says the use of Fitz has not always been used for Royal bastards. It's use goes back to when Henry II used it as part of his title to honor his mother Empress Matilda. She says that Fitz as an acknowledgment of being a Royal bastard was actually rarely used. Henry VIII used it for his bastard son and a few others did but most did not. Often a Royal bastard was simply acknowledged by the creation of a new title or peerage. She also indicates that the Royal family in power each had different views and takes on how to handle the situation.

 

On the issue of marriage between an Earl and an untitled lady, she indicates that even the great grand daughter of a Duke would have been a good match for an Earl, especially if there was enough money added to the mix. Assuming that Admiral Sir Richard Lammert was the untitled grandson of a Duke, his daughter would still have been considered a good match for an Earl. She says it could have also helped if Admiral Sir Richard Lammert's wife was from a titled family. We don't know anything about her but that she was socially prominent and politically astute.

 

If Admiral Sir Richard Lambert had either inherited or through his skill taken enough prizes to have secured a large enough fortune, the dowry could have been enough with good bloodlines to induce a heir to an Earldom to marry his daughter. She says it would be actually would be a bigger deal today than in the timeframe of this story. She says at that time it was not at all unusual for even a ducal family to use marriage to a wealthy suitor or daughter of a wealthy man to rebuild the family wealth. She says that if the Earldom was old enough and the Lammert bloodline good enough, plus throw some wealth into the mix, the current Countess could easily have been a social and political powerhouse.

 

In addition, she says that Caroline of Brunswick was generally treated quite well. Her husband treated her badly but she was actually well liked by George III and well liked by the Britsh people in general. After the death of her daughter, Princess Charlotte from complications of childbirth, she did come in to some blame for not being there during the delivery but it was said that Princess Charlotte wanted neither of her parents nearby.

 

Just as a postscript, my friend as her PPE from Oxford.

 

I really appreciate the context here. Just to take your points one by one. While royal bastards did NOT always use the Fitz prefix, it was common in this particular era. Henry II was a good few centuries before this, so by this point it had become more customary. Charles II, in particular used this practice, as did the future William IV who is contemporary to this story (with the Fitz-Clarance surname). You are right that titles would usually be created, but even titled families maintain surnames.

 

 

With regards to aristocratic marriage - I disagree strongly with your friend here. I certainly disagree that it would be a bigger deal today - because in fact there are far too many examples of this not being the case. None more so than the recent wedding between the son of a Prince and the daughter of an airline pilot. This is a period when position and breeding was everything.

 

With regards to Caroline of Brunswick, I do think she was treated badly. Yes, she had the affection of George III, but most of the time he knew her, he was considered mad and was confined to Windsor. Caroline was deprived of both financial freedom and many personal liberties, which im sure popularity didnt make up for.

 

Congratulations to your friend though on the PPE from Oxford - its not an easy degree, though i'm not sure that Politics, Philosophy and Economics has much to teach us about history.

 

 

[centexhairysub]

I really appreciate the context here. Just to take your points one by one. While royal bastards did NOT always use the Fitz prefix, it was common in this particular era. Henry II was a good few centuries before this, so by this point it had become more customary. Charles II, in particular used this practice, as did the future William IV who is contemporary to this story (with the Fitz-Clarance surname). You are right that titles would usually be created, but even titled families maintain surnames.

 

 

With regards to aristocratic marriage - I disagree strongly with your friend here. I certainly disagree that it would be a bigger deal today - because in fact there are far too many examples of this not being the case. None more so than the recent wedding between the son of a Prince and the daughter of an airline pilot. This is a period when position and breeding was everything.

 

With regards to Caroline of Brunswick, I do think she was treated badly. Yes, she had the affection of George III, but most of the time he knew her, he was considered mad and was confined to Windsor. Caroline was deprived of both financial freedom and many personal liberties, which im sure popularity didnt make up for.

 

Congratulations to your friend though on the PPE from Oxford - its not an easy degree, though i'm not sure that Politics, Philosophy and Economics has much to teach us about history.

 

 

Yes, I know that Henry II was several centuries before this timeframe but that is still when the practice originated and had nothing at all to do with being a Royal bastard. As far as I can tell, neither the Plantagents, the Lancastrians, or the Yorkist followed this pattern. Of the Tudors, only one Royal bastard of Henry VIII was given a surname with Fitz attached. Now with the Stuart family both Charles II and James II did use this with some of their illegitemate children but not all. Arguably the most noted of Charles II illigetimate children was Charles Lennox Duke of Richmond. Diana, Princess of Wales and her son's are direct descendents of this Royal bastard. Of the Hanoverians, really only George IV and William IV used the practice. In the end all Fitz means is son of, it is actually Norman in origin... I guess my deal is that more of the Royals did not use Fitz as a surname for their bastards than did, so the Lammerts could have been an acknowledged Royal bastard.

 

As far as the recent Royal wedding, the Prince has much more of an historic or regal family through the Spencers than the Windsors. Much of the old aristocracy really do view the current Royal family as new comers and see them as beneath them socially. My friend's family can trace their title and lineage back almost 800 years so for them the Windsors really are late comers to the scene... She is really adamant that from the mid 1700's through the early 1900's that it was more commonplace to marry for money than you seem to think. I think she bases this more on old family diaries and histories but like me she has always been a history buff. Now, she does say you would not have married a total nobody for money but an untitled son or daughter with good bloodlines and some money would have worked really well... I think the way she is looking at this is you have the grandson of a Duke and say the third daughter of an Earl, they produce a child that has not title but really good bloodlines. This child has money behind her or him and could make a match into a titled family without many issues...

 

Now as to Caroline of Brunswick, from the late 1790's to 1810 when George III begin his final bout with madness, he was quite fond of and did quite a bit for Caroline of Brunswick. I do agree after her father in laws incapacitation and death her husband did treat her badly but she traveled extensively in Europe for a number of years and by all accounts had a string of lovers that almost matched her husbands in number. I do think some of her problems were her own creation but there is no doubt that George IV treated her badly and there is some historical evidence to suggest her death wasn't entirely accidental.

 

I do acknowledge that sometimes we get to bogged down in details that really have nothing to do with the story but trying to figure out the backdrop of a drama like this can be half the fun.....

[centexhairysub]

Westie,

 

You seem to know a great deal about English history. Is there any books that you are using for refrence in paticular? I love anything and everything history. Any recommendations that you could make?

 

 

:read:

[Canuk]

back to a comment made by Mark a few entries ago about Graingers knighthood. I would have thought it was exceedingly rare to get a life peerage in the late 18th/early 19th c. As I understood it life peerages before 1860s were generallly given to women. Therefore would not Grainger's knighthood have been a baronetcy? Very low rank in the scheme of things, but still hereditary... Just a thought....

[Mark Arbour]

back to a comment made by Mark a few entries ago about Graingers knighthood. I would have thought it was exceedingly rare to get a life peerage in the late 18th/early 19th c. As I understood it life peerages before 1860s were generallly given to women. Therefore would not Grainger's knighthood have been a baronetcy? Very low rank in the scheme of things, but still hereditary... Just a thought....

 

No. You're confusing orders of chivalry (Knighthood) with the peerage. I think it's important to remember that while titles are important, the family was much more important. Consider this. For Granger to achieve what he has ( a knighthood and promotion to post captain at such a young age) would be unthinkable if he did not have influence. If Granger receives his own peerage, it will probably raise few eyebrow, because he's already an aristocrat. For someone who isn't to achieve that goal (such as Nelson, Jervis, etc), it's a stunning achievement.

[Westie]

Westie,

 

You seem to know a great deal about English history. Is there any books that you are using for refrence in paticular? I love anything and everything history. Any recommendations that you could make?

 

 

:read:

 

I Tend to use very Little in terms of reference books, but Simon Schema does a good general british history. Specific to the particular discussion we have been having, you might try "high Society in the Regency Period" by Venetia Murray - she also wrote a number of other books about this period and its social history that you may find rewarding. Unfortunately, the fails to discuss sodomy in the british navy in anywhere near the detail Mr Arbour portrays

 

No. You're confusing orders of chivalry (Knighthood) with the peerage. I think it's important to remember that while titles are important, the family was much more important. Consider this. For Granger to achieve what he has ( a knighthood and promotion to post captain at such a young age) would be unthinkable if he did not have influence. If Granger receives his own peerage, it will probably raise few eyebrow, because he's already an aristocrat. For someone who isn't to achieve that goal (such as Nelson, Jervis, etc), it's a stunning achievement.

 

As a youngest son, Granger is technically a commonor (in the same way as Lady Diana Spencer was a commonor before her marriage, despite being the daughter of an Earl). It would not have been particularly unusual if Granger accumulated enough wealth and influence to become a peer in his own right. There are examples of this from the Blandford titles, as well as somerset and Norfolk. His father may have enough influence to gain this for him, particularly if he provides some form of personal service to the crown.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "for someone who isnt to achieve that goal" - both the examples you give DID receive a peerage? or am i misreading your comments?

 

 

[Mark Arbour]

I Tend to use very Little in terms of reference books, but Simon Schema does a good general british history. Specific to the particular discussion we have been having, you might try "high Society in the Regency Period" by Venetia Murray - she also wrote a number of other books about this period and its social history that you may find rewarding. Unfortunately, the fails to discuss sodomy in the british navy in anywhere near the detail Mr Arbour portrays

 

 

 

As a youngest son, Granger is technically a commonor (in the same way as Lady Diana Spencer was a commonor before her marriage, despite being the daughter of an Earl). It would not have been particularly unusual if Granger accumulated enough wealth and influence to become a peer in his own right. There are examples of this from the Blandford titles, as well as somerset and Norfolk. His father may have enough influence to gain this for him, particularly if he provides some form of personal service to the crown.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "for someone who isnt to achieve that goal" - both the examples you give DID receive a peerage? or am i misreading your comments?

 

 

 

I meant that it would be harder for them to rise to the peerage... a much greater leap. I read an interesting book (of course I can't remember the title) about the aristocracy of the Georgian era, and while they could vie for power and influence, if their class as a whole was threatened, they would band together and fight like banshees. That makes sense, a normal reaction, but the implication was that their position at the top of the social heap was pre-ordained and indisputable, something that modern American Moguls can relate to. So my point was poorly made, but it was that since Granger is already part of that caste, if only because it's his milieu, then having him rise to the peerage would be less of a leap as someone who came from a more humble background, such as Nelson or Jervis.

[centexhairysub]

I would be very suprised to find that in the future Granger doesn't get a peerage... I doubt he could score an Earldom or higher but maybe a Viscount or more likely a Baron or Baronet. He has breeding, family, wealth, an envious record of achievement, and most importantly; he has Caroline... I do believe that a Baronet is considered a commoner not a peer but the title in that time would have been heredietary.

 

This is all moot if some terrible accident were to befall Freddie and then Bertie didn't take the title; then Granger could be and Earl or if the current attempt suceedes a Marquis.

Edited June 30, 2011 by centexhairysub

[Mark Arbour]

I would be very suprised to find that in the future Granger doesn't get a peerage... I doubt he could score an Earldom or higher but maybe a Viscount or more likely a Baron or Baronet. He has breeding, family, wealth, an envious record of achievement, and most importantly; he has Caroline... I do believe that a Baronet is considered a commoner not a peer but the title in that time would have been heredietary.

 

This is all moot if some terrible accident were to befall Freddie and then Bertie didn't take the title; then Granger could be and Earl or if the current attempt suceedes a Marquis.

 

Just to clarify, the Bridgemont title will pass (at the Earl's death) first to Freddie, then to any of his sons. If Freddie dies with no sons, the title (and estate) passes to Bertie, then to his sons. If he dies with no sons, then it will pass to George.