Since I just turned in my book, I’ve been in a movie-watching mood. I’m sort of distracted by catching up on episodes of True Blood right now, but after I finish those, I think I’m going on a historical movie binge. Last week, for my Fun Fridays contest, I asked you what your favorite historical movie was. I’ve seen a great majority of them, but some of them are brand-new to me, and I can’t wait to get started.

It was interesting–one movie got probably 10x the response of any of the others. Any guess what that one was? It was GONE WITH THE WIND! Ahh, yes, I can see why!

Here is the exhaustive list of all the movies that were listed by the entrants of the contest. If you entered, thanks so much for these! I’m keeping this list!

Gone With the Wind
Pride & Prejudice (Kiera Knightley Version)
Pride & Prejudice (Colin Firth Version)
The Three Musketeers (which version, I wonder?)
The Scarlet Pimpernel (I’ve never seen this one! Putting it on my Netflix!)
The Princess Bride
Ladyhawke (ooh, another one to add to my Netflix queue!)
Jane Eyre
Scarlett
Titanic
Dances With Wolves
Braveheart
The Last of the Mohicans
300
The Great Gatsby
Marie Antoinette
Pirates of the Caribbean
Poseidon
La Reine Margot (Queen Margot) (another one I haven’t seen, I’m intrigued!)
Wuthering Heights with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (with Gary Oldman)
Troy
The Color Purple
North And South
Sense and Sensibility
Forever Amber (another one I need to look up)
A Room with a View
Unconquered
Little Women
Elizabeth
Lonesome Dove
Cold Mountain
Children of the Dust (another new-to-me!)
Lawrence of Arabia
Dr. Zhivago
Shogun
The Duchess
The Last Mistress
The Patriot
Gladiator
Pearl Harbor

Isn’t that a great list? What do you think? Some of these I love so much I want to watch them again, but I think I’m going to hit the new-to-me ones first! Thanks, everyone!

I’m researching the eating habits of the 1820′s. It’s easy to find massive amounts of information on breakfasts and social dinners, but lunch seems to be the ignored meal, and I think I’m figuring out why. It’s because lunch is for ladies! Its purpose is to provide a light meal. Heh…here’s a description of this “light” meal:

London persons breakfast at nine, ten, eleven, and even twelve o’clock and dine at eight or nine. Between these meals comes the luncheon composed generally of cold meats such as pates, fowls, pheasants, partridges, ham, beef, veal, brawn, and generally whatever is left fit to be introduced, part of which is to be placed on a side table. On the table is to be served a little hashed fowl and some mutton cutlets broiled plainly with mashed potatoes. The repast itself is insignificant…

Insignificant? LOL! I love it…

But, you see, real men don’t eat lunch! The true purpose of lunch is to give the ladies something to eat so that they’re not so hungry at dinner they make piggies of themselves:

[Luncheon] is only taken by certain young ladies who wish to preserve the elegance of their figures, the beauty of their complexions, and above all the becoming manners of good society which interdict as vulgar eating at table like gluttons. For unless frequent meals are taken too much must be eaten at once.

So there you go. Lunch was invented so ladies could pretend to eat like birds and hence carry forth the image of being elegant and beautiful (basically, so that nobody would see them truly eat with a healthy appetite…).

Sigh.

FROM: THE FRENCH COOK, A SYSTEM OF FASHIONABLE AND ECONOMICAL COOKERY ADAPTED TO THE USE OF ENGLISH FAMILIES By Louis Eustache Ude, 1829

I’m researching scandalous marriages today and came across a lecture entitled “On Woman” delivered by Colonel Willyams at the Cornwall Literary and Philosophical Society in 1819.

The good colonel spends some time extolling the virtues of women, but then turns to their more despicable qualities. Then he says he’s set up some “rules and regulations” for women that he intends to get passed as an act of parliament. For women who break these rules, he suggests a “female court martial” made up of “gentlewomen of tried candour.”

What are the proposed rules, you ask? Well, here they are. I have to chuckle when I relate this to the writing community/blogs/etc. Most of us would be in big trouble!

ARTICLE 1st:

RULE: All ladies must diligently attend holy services.

PUNISHMENT: If a lady goes to church and behaves improperly, if married, she will be brought before the court martial to be “publicly and severely reprimanded.” If she’s not married, she must forfeit twelve pence.

ARTICLE 2nd:

RULE: Ladies must never speak in a disrespectful manner towards their superiors.

PUNISHMENT: Any lady to use “treacherous or disrespectful” words against her superior in rank or reputation must be rejected by her own society and “put to the bottom of the list.”

ARTICLE 3rd:

RULE: A lady can’t be mean to anyone who’s prettier or more accomplished than her, and she can’t hurt their feelings or dishonor them.

PUNISHMENT: “Any married unmarried or widow lady who shall behave herself contemptuously or spitefully towards her superior in beauty or accomplishment or shall speak words tending to her hurt or dishonour shall be punished accordingto the nature of her offence by the judgment of a female court martial.”

(Yep, I hurt your feelings, so I must PAY!!!!)

ARTICLE 4th:

RULE: No lady can cause or join in any scandal.

PUNISHMENT: If a lady is found guilty, she must “suffer silence, or such other punishment as by a female court martial shall be awarded.”

(Yeah, “silence” was italicized. What is “silence,” I wonder? She’s not allowed to talk at all?)

ARTICLE 5th:

RULE: Any lady present at a scandal must immediately “impart the information to her husband, father, brother, or other commanding officer.”

PUNISHMENT: Those who break this rule shall suffer the same punishment as article 4th.

(‘Cause, you know, the guys MUST know all the gossip, too….)

Here is the lecture (from Ackerman’s Repository) in full from Google books:


Sometimes, we’ve just got to appreciate the fact that we don’t live in the 19th century!

I just found this while doing my endless research about servants’ lives.

It has been frequently observed by travellers and men of experience that comfort is a term only understood in England and scarcely applicable to the habits of any other nation.

From:

The Servant’s Guide and Family Manual

By Katherine Golden Bitting
Collection on Gastronomy (Library of Congress, 1831)

I have to say, I love the vanity of the English during this period!
So…hmmm. What do you think? Was she right?

Though my books generally are more about characters than they are about actual historical events, I spend a great deal of time researching the historical backdrop. When I researched A HINT OF WICKED, I spent a lot of time neck-deep in divorce and separation laws of the period, and I read some really interesting case studies! I blogged about one of them today:

My Book Addiction and More

Come by to read the wild story of the 3rd Duke and Duchess of Beaufort’s nasty divorce and comment to win a copy of A HINT OF WICKED!

Also, just a reminder, through June, the publisher is offering A HINT OF WICKED in ebook format for just $1.99 (or even less). Check the Sony eBook store, Books on Board, the Kindle store, the iPhone App store, Fictionwise (where it’s only $0.85 for club members! WOW!), or anywhere ebooks are sold.

In my two visits to London since I started writing A HINT OF WICKED, I spent lots of time staring at the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Only slightly intimidated by the guards bearing gigantic automatic weapons and casting suspicious looks in my direction, I’ve paced back and forth in front of the place for hours, studying it from all angles. The embassy is located at Crewe House, built in 1730 and one of the few remaining old mansions standing in Mayfair.

The Saudi government purchased Crewe House for 37 million pounds in 1984, but in my imagination, it’s the home of Sophie, Garrett, and Tristan from A HINT OF WICKED.

If it was worth 37 million pounds in 1984, I wonder how much it’s worth now? I’d sure like to make the Saudis an offer…

Here it is on a dreary London day. Sigh. Pretty, no?

I’m studying the 18th-century economy of Scotland (a topic I find fascinating–yes I am a nerd!). I came across this interesting snipped from a book written in 1715. According to this book, whales were one of Scotland’s primary trade products. Huh!

(Whale meat) is better boiled than roast’d to be eat with Vinegar, Wine, Parsly, Hyssop, Savoiry, Fennel, Organy, Anet, Onions, Leeks, and Pepper. The Fat is good against the Itch. The Liver smells like Violets, tastes pleasantly, and is very nourishing being salted.

–The present state of Great-Britain and Ireland In three parts.
By Guy Miege

All I can say is that it’s no wonder the Scottish economy suffered during that time period…

And who knew whale liver smelled like violets!

So I just finished researching marriage traditions of the 18th century. There are actually two marriages in this book…ahhh, but no spoilers today!

As usual, I ended up getting distracted–this time by marriage rites of various cultures during that same century, and I came across a description of the marriage ceremony of the Hotentots:

The Suri, or master of religious ceremonies, pisses on the bridegroom, who receives the stream with eagerness and rubs it into the furrows of the fat with which he is covered. He performs the same ceremony on the bride, who is equally respectful.

Sketches of the History of Man By Henry Home Kames, 1813

Um….yeah.
Just makes me happy I write romances that take place in the United Kingdom! The culture and society was different from ours…but rather easier to portray as romantic, in my opinion.

One of my favorite romance blogs is Risky Regencies, where they’re talking today about “The First Time,” i.e. the virginal heroine and how she is portrayed in historical romance.

Kate, the heroine of my current book, is my very first virginal heroine. Kate is a woman whose rampant curiosity nearly overwhelms the entire experience of her deflowering. So I find this topic particularly interesting, because they’re talking about what makes and breaks a “first” sex scene in historical romance (particularly Regencies).

Along a similar vein, I’ve been reading about women’s ideals of romance and maidenhood, and how they were viewed by writers in the 19th century. Here’s one opinion:

Madame St. Henry was as sweet and amiable a woman as I have ever known. She bore her husband’s ill-treatment as saints do their earthly injuries, and made him such a wife as all men desire but few deserve.

She had one–fault, shall I call it? No; it was a weakness: her sensibility of disposition was the grave of her happiness. In the days of her romantic maidenhood she had indulged this passion so fatal to the serenity of human life; so that when the blast of the world came she had no strength to resist it. She had formed an idea of the happiness of married life, such as all women of refined and sensible dispositions will form; and she was disappointed, as all such women assuredly will be.

So highly wrought had been her feelings that she found no fortitude within herself to sustain this cruel shock. Soon after having given birth to the subject of this memoir she died, and was perhaps glad to get to her grave.

–The London Magazine By John Scott, John Taylor, 1824

So much for romanticism, huh? Sigh…

The heroine of the book I’m currently writing, A Touch of Scandal, is a lady’s maid. In A Touch of Scandal, Kate has just been upgraded to the position, and unfortunately, she’s not very good at it.

So off I ventured into Google Books, looking for more information about lady’s maids. And look what I found! Perhaps if Kate took some advice from Punch, she’d fare better. For example:

“…you should pocket any trifle that is left carelessly out of its place. I do not mean to say you should become a thief, for if found out you would lose your place … but you may take care of a thing till it is missed … It is then time enough for you to find it in some hole or corner into which it has of course got by accident.”

(Very wily…hmm…perhaps Kate can “find” something her mistress is searching for…something ever-so critical…)

“You should endeavour at all times to save your mistress trouble by acting for her as much as you can … dress as much like her as possible. Order about other servants just as she would herself and talk to tradespeople exactly as if they were being spoken to by your mistress…”

(Of course! If Kate acts in this way, then it won’t surprise a soul when she marries a man with a title!)

“Manners form an essential part of the qualities of a lady’s maid, and making one’s self agreeable is the best mannered thing one can possibly accomplish. This is to be done by praise, for nothing is more agreeable to a lady than flattery. However sensible your mistress may be, she is sure to have a share of female vanity; and even if she knows herself to be ugly altogether, she will fancy she has some redeeming feature. If she squints, praise her complexion; if that is bad, tell her she has beautiful eyes; if she has a dumpty figure, praise her face; and if her countenance is as ugly as sin, tell her that her shape is exquisite.”

(Yet another way for my Kate to win her mistress’s favor…isn’t Punch brilliant?)

These are excerpts from an article entitled “The Lady’s Maid” from a Punch Magazine dated 1845: Punch By Mark Lemon, Henry Mayhew, Tom Taylor, Shirley Brooks, Francis Cowley Burnand, Owen Seaman.

Too bad it was written a good 20+ years after Kate’s lady’s maid dilemmas are solved, or I might actually have her consult Punch for advice at some point.