Check it out: Wikipedia does not have a page defining “Regency novel.”
Shall we write one? Submit your best definition, explanation, and examples in the comments!
Categorized:
Comments are Closed
Comments are closed.
By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.
I’ve been thinking about this and thinking about this and I’ve got nothin’ beyond the necessity for a Regency book to mention: Almacks (and vouchers to), Lady Jersey (with Beau Brummel as an option), the Napelonic Wars, the Season, the phrase “trodding the boards”, and cravats with intricate knots. Oh, I suppose kid slippers, horseflesh, the hells, ratafia, and the ton are also requirements.
Hmmm, that came out looking more like a Regency mad lib than a genre description: Anne drank ____ (Regency beverage) while dodging the dancers at ____ (Regency place where dances were held), but bumped into ____ (famous real-life Regency person who must be named in all books set in Regency England) and thus ruined her chances at obtaining further vouchers and a chance to snag a dashing husband who had returned from Waterloo with nary a scratch and who was also good with taming ____ (Regency word for horses).
I think I’ll just come back later and see what everyone else has come up with…bound to be miles better than anything I can think up.
The Regency age was a historical period when Britain (which consisted of London, Brighton and Bath) was overrun by a plague of Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Corinthians whose principal concerns were ensuring that their Hessian boots had an immaculate shine and marrying beautiful but spirited and independent women who had spent at least some of the courtship dressed very convincingly as boys. The Regency began in about 1750, and was characterised by War with France, but no other historical events of note. It ended in 1837 when everybody suddenly became Victorians working below stairs.
Stephen, I can’t wait for your book.
Regency novel: (Ree-jen-see Nah-vull) Romances set in Jolly Old England back in the days before cars and zippers – but after the Middle Ages where knights rescued damsels in distress. Women evolved from vapid princesses running from barbarian invadors to spirited virgins intent on seducing rakes and avoiding arranged marriages. Clothed in sprigged muslin, Paisley and poplin, most of their time was spent running from tutors or their guardians, learning etiquette, and how to handle a six in hand with flair.
The Regency age was a historical period when Britain (which consisted of London, Brighton and Bath)
you forgot Gretna Green, which was somewhere on the North Road.
Stephen, I can’t wait for your book.
Nor can I. It’s nearly finished, I promise.
you forgot Gretna Green
I am not sure that Gretna Green actually existed in the Regency period. People talked a great deal about it, but I don’t know that anybody ever made it all the way there. In that respect it was a lot like the Regency female orgasm. Of course they didn’t use the actual expression “female orgasm” during the Regency period; the correct contemporary term was “reticule”.
I meant to say earlier that while Regency London was overrun with Dukes, there was only one cake shop, Gunters, and only two gentlemen’s tailors, Weston (whom everybody patronised in the “bought stuff from him” sense), and Schulz (whom everybody patronised in the “jolly good sewing, for a foreigner” sense).
Hot damn. If Stephen’s definition doesn’t make it to Wikipedia, I vote for it to be made an official Smart Bitch definition of Regency romances.
With permission from Mr. Bowden, of course.
Stephen, thanks for giving me the biggest laugh of the evening. It’s so spot on that I almost believed it. I’m with MarianneMcA – I can’t wait to read your book.
I am not sure that Gretna Green actually existed in the Regency period. People talked a great deal about it, but I don’t know that anybody ever made it all the way there.
You really don’t know? It’s a fact that heroes always manage to find kidnapped heroines. No matter how hard a villain would try, the hero always knows where they are. No number of inns, hills, roads, miles, regions and horses can stop him from finding the heroine within a few hours.
With permission from Mr. Bowden, of course
Candy and Sarah, you have my permission to do anything you like with any of my comments on your excellent blog, just so long as you mop up afterwards.
I have posted a link from Wenlock to this discussion, so if you see any slightly bemused Brits wandering around and wondering whether they’re in the right place, you’ll know where they came from. Just offer them a nice cup of tea (or gin) and claim that the pepto-bismol pink borders are in fact coquelicot.
I hope you’ll excuse me, but I have to go and make some cruel and unusual suggestions about what should be done with Hero Wantage.
But there is a definition for Regency Romance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_romance
Anyway, fwiw, there you go. And other ending platitudes.
>>. Of course they didn’t use the actual expression “female orgasm†during the Regency period; the correct contemporary term was “reticuleâ€.<<
Stephen, you’ve got my vote for best definition of the Regency! I love it!
First, not related, but yes, I live in Memphis and I’ve seen Elvis.
Second, the Wiki definition of “Regency Romance” that Megan posted can’t possibly be right. Very little, if any sex? Wha—??!! Have they read Lisa Valdez’s PASSION?!! It made me go hunt up the happy silicone beaver! Then jump my husband!
Little to no sex? Ha! Whaever!
The wikipedia definition for Regency Romance is for traditional Regency romances, the kind published by Signet and, previously, by Zebra. They usually don’t have sex, at least not graphic sex, and the language and writing stems directly from Heyer and Austen. So books like “Passion” wouldn’t fall under this definition. Those are Regency-set historicals. Although that distinction should be clarified in the definition, but I’m too intimidated to go update wikipedia myself.
Don’t forget that the Corinthians were primarily concerned with displaying to advantage (which probably explains why the ladies had reticules).
At least the gentlemen had tailors with names. The women had nameless modistes, instead.
The wikipedia definition for Regency Romance is for traditional Regency romances, the kind published by Signet and, previously, by Zebra.
Ah, my mistake. I tend to lump any romance with a setting in the Regency period as “Regency Romance.”
And, okay, I findi it hard to separate the two, since some authors who have written in the Signet line have since reprinted those same books in the historical set. Jo Beverley and Mary Jo Putney, for instance. So where’s the line/distinction there? (Granted, I haven’t checked to see if there was a re-write involved!)
My definition is this:
The Regency is a time period conveniently far back in the past, yet safely close to the present in its standards for male beauty.
Romance novelists set their works in the Regency period primarily so that their heroes can have acceptable-looking hair, a clean-shaven face, and cool-looking, polished black leather boots. In short, they can plausibly achieve that Ralph Lauren, guy-in-riding clothes look, which resonates with women through the ages.
If you set your novel LATER than the Regency, your hero can wear trousers (good), but might have too much weird, out-of-control facial hair, which will give some readers flashbacks to 1972 (bad). Besides, he will be a Victorian (which popular opinion condemns as Sexually Repressed, despite all research to the contrary). Also, you will have to do more research, rather than simply reading other people’s Regency novels.
If you set your novel EARLIER than the Regency, your hero will have to wear powdered hair, beauty patches, stockings and high-heeled shoes (all bad, bad, bad). This was a fine look for John Malkovich in “Dangerous Liaisons,” but it might remind the more conservative or history-challenged readers of a cross-dresser, and thus would frighten the bejesus out of the RWA.
The choice of time period is thus a no-brainer.
Regency rules.
Though … doesn’t the first sex scene in “Passion” take place at the Crystal Palace? That would be 1851. Victoria’s reigning by then. “Passion” is really a Victorian novel—- who knew?
“Besides, he will be a Victorian (which popular opinion condemns as Sexually Repressed, despite all research to the contrary).”
I won’t say I’m puzzled by the fact that this myth persists, since I think that the so-called Victorian sensibility serves the present more than the past to which it refers, but it is frustrating.
“Though … doesn’t the first sex scene in “Passion†take place at the Crystal Palace? That would be 1851. Victoria’s reigning by then. “Passion†is really a Victorian novel—- who knew?”
Yes, in fact the date startging the first chapter is 1851, landing it firmly within the Victorian period. When you think about it, the themes of the novel are very Victorian, as well, at least in terms of our contemporary sense of the Victorians (as are the names of the sisters). Lisa Kleypas’ Secrets of a Summer Night is also mistaken for a Regency, when it’s definitely early Victorian.
My understanding is that the Regency period started in like 1811 and ended by around 1820, and that it was sort of tucked into the middle of the Georgian era. Can anyone fill in the vast blanks in my knowledge here?
Don’t forget the allure of Regency romance traditional-type romances, and Regency-set historicals: watching the hero and heroine navigate a very specific set of social rules in order to spend time together when they really aren’t supposed to.
Pepper liberally with “pelisse” “musicale” “Hyde Park” “Almack’s” “the Season,” and if there’s been any research outside of social conventions, some mention of the war going on. And also that dude. Whatshisname. The one with the beef dish named after him.
Wellington! Thanks Google.
My understanding is that the Regency period started in like 1811 and ended by around 1820, and that it was sort of tucked into the middle of the Georgian era. Can anyone fill in the vast blanks in my knowledge here?
Strictly speaking you are right, Robin, in that the Regency ought to be limited to the time between the Prince of Wales being made Prince Regent in 1811 due to George III’s growing ill health (let’s not use the M word here) and the King’s death in 1820. But if you are going to insist on Regencies being set in the Regency, then I will insist on Romances being written in Romance languages, which include French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian, but not, as far as I am aware, English….
Whatshisname. The one with the beef dish named after him.
That would be the Earl of Sandwich, after whom the Salt Beef on Rye is named.
Also, I’m not sure about the pelisse, Sarah – I think that they were called Bow Street Runners at this point.
>>Bow Street Runners<<
Stephen—you are an evil, evil man.
And we’re all glad of it.
“Also, I’m not sure about the pelisse, Sarah – I think that they were called Bow Street Runners at this point.”
That was a terrible pun.
OK, I laughed. But still.
“But if you are going to insist on Regencies being set in the Regency, then I will insist on Romances being written in Romance languages, which include French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian, but not, as far as I am aware, English….”
Now, see, I would have just gone for the requirement that a Regency novel actually be a novel/Roman. That definitely would have satisfied me—I hear the nouvelle romaine is both crispier and tastier than whatever they can toss together in Latin anyway.
“I hear the nouvelle romaine is both crispier and tastier than whatever they can toss together in Latin anyway.”
Although, on second thought, if you don’t read The Satyricon in Latin, you really do miss all the best jokes, even if they aren’t in the least romantic (of course they’re not exactly elevated, either, so I don’t know what that means vis a vis the Romance).
“At least the gentlemen had tailors with names. The women had nameless modistes, instead.”
Didn’t most modistes have names like Mme. Francoise, Helene, or Renee and were French, or English pretending to be French, ex – courtesans? They would talk in flamboyant tones about the clothes to anyone but the heroine, who would always be standing there like a loon going on about navy blue serge or pastel muslin. Then she’d force the heroine to undress, thus offending her virginal sensibilities. She would proceed to jab the heroine with pins and offer sexual advice under the under the guise of measuring her. If the hero was present at the consultation, he always peeks at the undressed heroine, always! And all modistes can be bribed with huge amounts of money to make a whole wardrobe in two days, complete with flounces and embroidered scandalous chemises!
Because of my abiding love for both the Regency and N.W.A., my screensaver says “F*ck Tha Pelisse.”
Of course, the number of people who would get both references is probably limited to people visiting here, but it always makes me laugh.
“F*ck tha Pelisee?”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously. That gives me all kinds of crazy ass ideas about a time travel Regency.
No one so far has noted the existence of the county of Cartlandshire, whose inhabitants recreated a miniature version of the Regency England as accurately described by Stephen. This had the advantage of allowing the residents to avoid dull journeys in a coach-and-six. Where a long journey was demanded by the plot, a large coach bearing the sign “London-Brighton-Bath” was driven around the same copse of oak trees for the required period of time. It would periodically stop, at which point a small potboy was paid to rush out with tankards and indicate the name of the appropriate location in traditional regional dialect.
Initial census work suggested that at the time in question, Cartlandshire was populated by 2,531 Dukes of marriageable age, 497 Earls (same) and 5 Viscounts who were very naughty boys indeed.
The original figure of 3,028 fair young damsels has recently been brought into question. An investigation was prompted by the lack of obvious occupational, social or viral triggers for the predominance of respiratory ailments among young women of the area. This suggested a common genetic factor. However, the striking similarity in the lexical stress assignment patterns of both Syringa in “The Ruthless Rake” and Prunella in “The Prude and the Prodigal” led to a wide-ranging computational analysis of verbatim records in the extant texts. Coupled with detailed handwriting analysis of church registries, this has revealed a statistical 98.39% probability that all maidens of the county were in fact the same woman in cunning disguise. A detailed search of written evidence has led to the conclusion that when not required, her wigs frequently masqueraded as small dogs, and on at least one notable occasion, in “Ola and the Sea-Wolf”, were cunningly concealed in the false bottoms of caskets of smuggled brandy.
A similar analysis of the demographics of male nobility of marriageable age in the county has been proposed. This would take as its starting-point certain common physiological markers (square jaws) and mild psychological dysfunctionalities (arrogance, lack of open communication for 117 pages) to determine actual numbers. Since this could lead to charges of tax fraud, such a study is highly controversial and has been opposed in certain quarters.
In addition to the above numbers, the following occupational distribution has been determined: 32 wise old vicars, 19 kindly uncles, 47 sweet aging female relatives, 3 roving gypsy tribes of no fixed abode (numbers undetermined), 798 machinating females of dubious virtue, 46 cousins (evil), 62 guardians (sinister) and an unknown number of retainers who can be roughly subdivided amongst the following categories: 56.34% faithful and adoring, 43.29% in league with sinister forces and ultimately ineffectual and 0.37% neutral. This is most easily determined by number and condition of teeth. Research into dialect differences among this group in order to determine economic migration patterns into Cartlandshire has so far been indeterminate. This has led to a tentative hypothesis that the dialect of the area, while having traits from all parts of the British Isles and even the Antipodes, was unique to the area.
Interestingly, it appears that some of the inhabitants of Cartlandshire would often pass the colder time of year in an as yet unestablished part of North Africa. This provided the opportunity for the men to indulge in their favoured pastimes of star-gazing, maiden-napping and wearing of loose-fitting comfortable robes.* After it was discovered that the dry sandy climate exacerbated the ladies’ bronchial disorders, they chose to spend winters eating takeaway curry in one of their estate’s large glasshouses, affectionately referred to as “India”. Here they passed the time by touring a half-size model of the Taj Mahal. Other entertainment was provided by a small peasant child in a monkey suit leaping out from behind the potted palms.
*The theory proposed by M C. d’Eon III that the robes in question were more akin to an embroidered frock and that these sojourns abroad allowed the inhabitants of Cartlandshire to escape the restrictive moral codes of their society, although attractive, is as yet unsubstantiated by documentary evidence.
EAP, you are KILLING me. People are asking me if I’m ok because I am wheezing with laughter over here with my head under my desk.
Coupled with detailed handwriting
analysis of church registries, this has revealed a statistical 98.39%
probability that all maidens of the county were in fact the same woman in
cunning disguise.
One question: did she have amnesia?!
A careful examination into incidents of mental trauma in the county of Cartlandshire has been hampered by the lack of detailed writted records kept by the mysterious old gypsy women and illiterate motherly midwives who were the principal providers of emergency medical care in the region. However, my own informal analysis of the motives of the woman’s masquerade breaks down as follows:
32.4% Amnesia or other illness
16.9% Blackmail by low & depraved person or persons
14.7% Switch or abandonment at birth or during early childhood
11.7% Protection of weaker relatives or persons of acquaintance
8.6% Informal investigation of another character
8.4% Hiding from malevolent organisations, or secret pelisse.
5.2% Other
2.1% Gypsy curse
I am now attempting to ascertain her true identity, but suspect I lack the necessary data on birthmarks and family heirlooms to ever reach a satisfactory conclusion.
AH, I’d forgotten the other factors. Perhaps she also had a secret identical twin she knew nothing about? It’s been known to happen – frequently! That may account for some adjustment in the statistical analysis.
PS. And Sarah, this is merely my petty revenge on you guys for making me embarrass myself with the bizarre noises of suppressed hysteria most days. I sit next to my boss, dammit, and he keeps asking if I need first aid. So: Take that you fiends in SB shape, ha!
Curses! Forgot about the twin factor. To say nothing of the evil twin…
…back to the calculator, big graph-thingy and baptismal records of St. Aethelburga’s Church of the unwashed, Lower Piddletrenthide, Cartlandshire.
Wheeze….HA…..Wheeze….Ha Ha
Cartlandhsire may have only had six horses in its livery stable as well. There’s the pair of matched highstepping greys, the pair of stockinged chestnuts,the aggressive dark (sometimes described as black, sometimes as chestnut) stallion suitable only for His Lord, and the docile, although very fast, bay mare for the lady of the day.
Many hours of intensive training went into ensuring that these horses immediately started to graze whenever their reins were dropped and to wander only a few steps away from their riders. They were also trained, although the methods are now lost to modern man, never to wipe their green foamy mouths on His Lord’s coat sleeve when he retrieved them from their grazing.
Evil Auntie Peril: I’m laughing so hard that I’m sniffling and snorting. People are looking at me worriedly and asking me if I’m all right.
Good luck on your search through the church records. ‘Ware the deacon; I hear he might be the head of a nefarious smuggling ring. How do his teeth look?
Oh, EvilAuntiePeril, I have fallen sideways in my chair laughing at Cartlandshire. Oh, that is worth its own Web site.
It was all one heroine, as I’m sure the parish records will show. I can describe her well enough for an artist’s rendering. She was diminutive—it was always pointed out that she had a child-like stature. Generally, she stood as high as the hero’s heart and always had to tilt her head back to look up at him. Her face was heart-shaped. She invariably had a small, pointed chin. Her eyes were described as enormous or oversized. Her hair was glorious, whether golden or red-gold or dark as a raven’s wing. (To get a good idea of her, think of one of those old Keane illustrations, with a single teardrop trailing down the cheek, or the “Love Is …” statuettes sold in gift shops.)
Don’t forget!
Her waste is small enough that the hero can get both hands around them!
Ok, I know this is a typo, but “her waste!” Hee! Gives me evil thoughts!
I would give ANYTHING for a Regency romance wherein the heroine’s crap was not only lovingly picked up by the hero, but was remarked upon as smelling distinctly of roses.
Oh gods, take away my BA in English. Her “waste” indeed!
There is an excellent parody of a romance out there called Love’s Reckless Rash by Rosemary Cartwheel. I think it’s hard to find, but it sent me into paroxysms of mad laughter and chortling. Assuming I chortled. I don’t know what a chortle is.