Jane Austen discussion

I have been reading Persuasion again and I started wondering, why does Jane Austen begin and close Persuasion with the baronetage (Sir Walter's favourite book.) I think I have an idea why, check out my blog post!

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

It shows how vain and pretentious Sir Walter is. Jane reportedly hated living in Bath. By the time she lived there, and especially by the time the story takes place, Bath was full of stupid pretentious people like Sir Walter. I can see why Jane had little patience for that sort of thing when her own family was on the brink of sliding way down the social ladder into real extreme poverty through no fault of their own. Silly rich people who wasted their money and waste their time trying to get in the good graces of people who still had money interested her less than people who worked for a living like her brothers or helping people who genuinely needed help as Anne helps Mrs. Smith. She would prefer to admire a Ross Poldark type man.

QNPoohBear wrote: "It shows how vain and pretentious Sir Walter is. Jane reportedly hated living in Bath. By the time she lived there, and especially by the time the story takes place, Bath was full of stupid pretent..."

Yes, I agree with you. I like that she brings it back at the end though, to create this interesting contrast between Sir Walter and Wentworth. Wentworth made the book!

I wonder if Sir Walter would have been less wasteful had he had a son to inherit the title and estate? One does wonder why he didn't marry again - not Lady Russel though!

Mrs Clay was trolling for him until she ran of with his heir.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I wonder if Sir Walter would have been less wasteful had he had a son to inherit the title and estate? One does wonder why he didn't marry again - not Lady Russel though!"

It says why he doesn't marry Lady Russell. I forget the excuse I'd have to look it up but she's beneath him socially. Her house is on his estate indicating her husband was knighted for some reason like Sir William Lucas in Pride and Prejudice. Sir Walter sets more store on hereditary titles. Plus I think Lady Russell is too smart to want to give up her small fortune to marry her friend's pompous widower.

QNPoohBear wrote: "Beth-In-UK wrote: "I wonder if Sir Walter would have been less wasteful had he had a son to inherit the title and estate? One does wonder why he didn't marry again - not Lady Russel though!"

It sa..."

It strongly implies in the book that Lady Russell would not have HIM. She's widowed and rich and she doesn't need to deal with that, lol!

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I wonder if Sir Walter would have been less wasteful had he had a son to inherit the title and estate? One does wonder why he didn't marry again - not Lady Russel though!"

I don't think having an heir would make him less wasteful, he is maintinaing the lifestyle that he thinks is due to him, it might even be worse if he had a son because he'd be outfitting the son with all the finery that he and Elizabeth indulge in.

I do wonder why he never remarried, I think the implication from the book is that he aimed way to high, like proposed to a duchess or something, and then gave up.

I don't know that Sir Walter would have been less wasteful if he had a son, but a son might have more success in attracting a wealthy wife than Sir Walter did with his "unreasonable applications."
Of course, at age 54, Sir Walter was probably still able to produce a son, which is a strong motive for William to lure Mrs. Clay away from the attachment that's forming between her and Sir Walter. Austen, with characteristic sense of irony proposes the theory that Mrs. Clay, not with abilities, might be "Lady" in the end.

I agree a son would not have changed him. Perhaps if the son were to be sensible like Anne, that might influence him a bit.

J. wrote: "I don't know that Sir Walter would have been less wasteful if he had a son, but a son might have more success in attracting a wealthy wife than Sir Walter did with his "unreasonable applications."
..."

I personally think that Sir Walter could have married a very rich wife if he tried, he'd just have to target someone down the social class, like a tradesman's daughter perhaps? That's the premise of my book, Prideful and Persuaded. It actually seems odd to me whenever I read persuasion that he didn't marry for money to get out of debt.

If the son was intelligent, he would probably be able to curb the waste, but I don't think merely having a son would improve Sir Walter, he's still very proud of the estate that he's running into the ground, lol.

I agree I don't think Sir Walter would have 'stooped' to marry a woman he considered beneath him socially, however rich she was.

I love that William seduces Mrs Clay away from Sir Walter, and Jane Austen is very wry about saying at the end that it was still up for grabs whether Mrs Clay would end up as Mrs William Eliot (and then, as you say, Lady Eliot....)

I don't mind her as a character - she's only looking out for herself after all, and she'd probably have made Sir Walter a good wife, and not let him waste his money?

I think Elizabeth though, would have thrown a totally wobbly hissy fit if her father had married Mrs Clay. Like the one Mrs Ferrars throws when Lucy Steele tells her she's engaged to her son!!!!!

I've always got the impression that Sir Walter always considered money 'beneath him' - as in, being concerned about it in any way was 'unposh', so he just ignored it, and went on his spendthrift way.

Sir Walter Elliot defines himself as two things: 1) a baronet and 2) a handsome man. I think that a point is made about the baronetage because much like his looks, Sir Watler Elliot's rank gives him social and economic advantages that he could not have enjoyed otherwise, that is, with reference to any acquired merit of his own (Sir Walter is, after all, a very unworthy man and also a very not-so-intelligent man).

In the novel it is stated that Sir Walter's title was granted to an ancestor of his as a thanks from Charles II when he was restored as king of England for the Elliot family's support for the Royalist cause in the English Civil War. But the action of Persuasion takes place in 1814, when the Stuart dynasty was long gone, and whatever merit the Elliots had that earned them their baronetcy were irrelevant by the time Sir Walter himself came along. Sir Walter is a man whose support in a war would be less than useless (he has neither money nor is there any indication that he would be a good figher). Unlike Captain Wentworth's.

That is an obvious point, but I think that the fact Sir Walter Elliot is a baronet and not some other hereditary title serves emphasize the fact that even when Sir Walter Elliot does enjoy a lot of privileges as a result of his being baronet, even those privileges are not really that big of a deal anyway (they did not prevent Sir Walter Elliot from going broke, for example).

Let me explain. The title of baronet had fallen into disuse by the 17th century when the Stuart monarchs (James I, Charles I, and also Charles II) revived it and created a lot of baronets. Sometimes (not ALL of the times, of course), the King would uniletarally grant a baronetcy to a person, and this person had to pay the King a sum of money (or some other service) to "thank" His Majesty for the honor. Baronetcies were used, in short, to raise revenue independently of Parliament (you see why the Stuart kings would use baronetcies that much). The baronetcy had an additional advantage for the King, because while the title IS hereditary, it is nonetheless NOT a peerage (unlike a real Baron): granting someone a baronetcy does not mean that such a gentleman gets any additional political power than he might otherwise have had. Today baronetcies are given very sparingly and mostly as a reward for long or outstanding service.

The point is that while a baronet is the highest rank among the gentry, baronets are still gentlemen and not of the higher nobility. You can observe with what cowering deference the normally-haughty Sir Walter Elliot behaves towards his Vicountess relative and her daughter (two very silly women, BTW). So, Sir Walter Elliot is handsome, but he is ageing; he is theoretically rich, but he is broke; he has a hereditary title, but none that would give elevate him to same rank as the highest circles of the aristocracy (even when he is related to them) nor give him any automatic power, even though he is an MP (probably a backbencher for whom Parliament is more of a social club than the most powerful political organ in Britain). Contrasts.

Sir Walter Elliot is a man who thinks that the whole world is watching him, while in reality nobody is watching him nor would really care to watch him.

Your last paragraph reminds me of teenagers. They are too busy worrying about what others think about them to really watch the others.

I cannot disagree with anything you said there!

The title of baronet had fallen into disuse by the 17th century when the Stuart monarchs (James I, Charles I, and also Charles II) revived it and created a lot of baronets.
**

That's interesting. I thought James I invented hereditary knighthoods (ie, a baronet) for the reason you said - ie, he 'sold' them to raise revenue for himself. (Helped him avoid having to go cap in hand to Parliament to ask for yet more money - though)) I've no idea how much revenue he did manage to raise by selling baronetcies,)

So were hereditary knighthoods around beforehand??

Jane Austen pretty much stuck to the world she knew, and I would think that peers were socially beyond her, so she stuck to baronets to be, as you say, the top of the gentry level which was her specialitty.

I 'think' (????) Lady Catherine de Burgh is the only character that has a peerage-related title, isn't she??? Are there others (who are mentioned in more than 'just passing' - ie, real characters.)

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Jane Austen pretty much stuck to the world she knew, and I would think that peers were socially beyond her, so she stuck to baronets to be, as you say, the top of the gentry level which was her spe..."

Lady Dalyremple and the honourable Miss Carteret

Mr. Yates is the son of a lord (we don't know his father's rank, but clearly a peer)

Are only peers Lord?
US raised Catholic here. Lord is only for God. I have some of the nobility stuff down but not all the finer points. I know why Lady Catherine is better than Lady Lucas and why she was not properly called Princess Diana.
In a related matter, Happy Birthday to QE II.

Not a religious lecture above. Explanation of my understanding of the word Lord. Not sure how it fits in the world of royals and nobles.

I'm not British but I read a LOT of Regency and Victorian set books and non-fiction books about the times.

The peerage
Debrett's Peerage and
Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage: 107th Edition
https://debretts.com/peerage/ranks-an...

Lord is reserved for the upper levels of nobility.
Duke: the Duke of (place name) i.e. The Duke of Devonshire
William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire
Lord Devonshire

Then you have Marquess
The Marquess of Steyne
Lord Steyne

Then comes Earl
The Earl of
Robert Crawley, 7th Earl of Grantham
Lord Crawley

Their sons may have courtesy titles as well making them Lords.

After that is Baron Byron
Lord Byron
George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron

or Alfred Lord Tennyson
Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson

or Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber

Finally you have Viscount
The Viscount Falmouth
George Boscawen, 3rd Viscount Falmouth
Lord Falmouth

There are a few-very few-ladies as well. Only men could take a seat in Parliament in Jane Austen's day. The House of Lords is hereditary and only peers can sit in Lords.

So who is not a lord but has a titlr?

title?

Baronets like Anne's father are known as sir. They fall under the category of hereditary knight. Knights, like Sir William Lucas in Pride and Prejudice, are also known as Sir. I believe they're both considered commoners and not entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Only higher nobility are known as Lords. It's my understanding, most of the higher nobility of the time descended from the Normans and from Charles II and royalists during the Civil War. Later on some men were given titles in exchange for money or services to the crown like William Waldorf Astor, 1st Baron Astor, who was American! (His famous cousin was John Jacob Astor who died on the Titanic).

I'll let someone else explain the whys and hows better.

I recommend reading
What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England to begin with and browse Debrett's. It's now online!

https://debretts.com/peerage/ranks-an...

Thanks. I will have to check it out.

Here is a link that explains titles and forms of address.

https://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/ti...

So very complicated. Much easier being a Yankee mutt. And one that scoffs at VIP.

Hi, joining this a bit late! Yes, much easier in the USA - it's why, of course, famously, you address your head of state as plain 'Mr', as in 'Mr President'. Quite deliberately so by the founding fathers. (When will there be a Mrs President I wonder?!) (Not too long I would think!) (Hopefully she'll be addressed as 'Madam President' which sounds a bit more polite to my mind, but I guess she'll decide when she gets there, whoever she turns out to be!)

European aristocracy (UK included) is famously complicated - and in a way it's purposely so, in order that only those 'in' that elevated world are familiar with all the ins and outs of it all, and who takes precedence over who. It can get REALLY picky when it comes to the children and grandchildren of peers, with all sorts of rules about precedence and rank. By and large, when it comes to the peers themselves, at each rank (eg, earls), precedence goes to whoever has the older title, ie, the date of creation of the title.

Dukes are only addressed as 'Lord' from what I recall (or have learnt by reading regency romances!!!!!), when they are being referred to as 'My lord duke' (very formal), but mostly they are called 'your grace' and then very informally (by personal friends) as 'Duke'. That last can sound almost American to my mind!!!!! :)

I think in Downton Abbey, where Hugh Bonneville plays the earl, he's always referred to as Lord Grantham (ie, by his title, not his family surname of Crawley). His wife is Lady Grantham (NOT 'Lady Cora Grantham' as listings and reviews sometimes call her), and his daughters are Lady Mary and Lady Edith.

Their surnames are either Crawley when they are unmarried (Lady Mary Crawley), or, say, Talbot, Lady Mary Talbot when Mary marries. (When she was married to her cousin, Matthew Crawley, she stayed Lady Mary Crawley of course.) However, when Edith marries the Marquess of Hexam, she is called Lady Hexam (ie, the Marchioness of Hexam), as that takes precedence over her own title of Lady Edith.

When you are a 'Lady Firstname' your name on marriage depends on the status of your husband. Lady Mary's husbands were both untitled, so she keeps her own 'Lady Mary', but Edith's is titled, so she takes his title instead (Lady Hexam). (She still 'is' Lady Edith, but is not referred to as that any longer.)

However, in the case of 'Lady Mary' marrying, say, either a knight ('sir' bestowed upon an individual, and his children don't inherit it) or a baronet ('sir' bestowed upon an individual, but it's hereditary - like Sir Walter Eliot - so his oldest son/heir will inherit it), then Lady Mary would become Lady Mary Eliot. BUT, if - as mostly happens! - a 'Miss Crawley' married a knight or baronet like Sir Walter, she would become Lady Eliot - she would NEVER be Lady Firstname Eliot.

That latter mistake is seen all the time now in newspapers etc.

It's why Alfred Lord Tennyson is NOT Lord Alfred Tennyson! To be 'Lord Alfred', or 'Lady Mary' you have to be the son/daughter of an earl or peer of higher degree.

Mind you, if Lady Mary Crawley, the daughter of an earl, married a baron (the lowest rank of the peerage - a basic 'lord' if you like!), I'm not sure if she would 'outrank' her husband in her own right (as she is the daughter of an earl, which is two peer levels over a baron)(baron, viscount, earl, marquis, duke), or whether her husband would outrank her. If the former, then she stays Lady Mary, and if the latter then she becomes Lady Husband's-Title. But I don't know!!

You can see from all I've said, and it's only a fraction of what's in Debretts etc, just how complicated it all is!

The House of Lords is hereditary and only peers can sit in Lords.

**

These days, since, I think, the end of World War II, there are also 'life peers'. These are folk (very often politicans, but they can be business people, sports people, etc) who have been raised to the peerage as an individual. It's sort of like being 'knighted' but 'higher'.

A life peer takes a title, and is known as 'Lord', and maybe (???) his wife is known as Lady (???), but his children never inherit and I don't believe they have any courtesy title (eg, they are not 'Hons', which the children of hereditary peers are, unless they are Lord/Lady Firstname of higher peers).

Crucially, women can be life peers too, in their own right, if they are created as such. They are usually Baronesses, and are known as 'Lady'.... I don't think their husbands get to be 'Lord' however!

(Similarly, if a woman is 'knighted', and becomes a 'Dame', then her husband just stays 'Mr', whereas the wife of a man who is knighted, and becomes a 'Sir' , does become 'Lady'.)

With the increasing move to reform, even more, the House of Lords, not only have quite a few of the hereditary peers lost their seats (they still remain peers of the realm, and will turn up for things like coronations!, but they are no longer Members of Parliament), may eventually move to being Life Peers only, as a kind of half-way house towards having an elected upper chamber.

Intriguingly, I read recently in a newspaper that those hereditary peers who didn't get chosen to stay in the House of Lords could, technically, now stand for election to the Lower Chamber, ie, the House of Commons. But it's a moot point probably!!! I daresay there would be a lot of debate if such a peer did stand for election to the Commons!

or Alfred Lord Tennyson
Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson

or Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, Baron Lloyd-Webber
**

Just to be picky ....(!!!!!)

Andrew LW is treated like Alfred Tennyson - he should, strictly, be Andrew Lord Lloyd Webber....

QNPoohBear wrote: "Baronets like Anne's father are known as sir. They fall under the category of hereditary knight. Knights, like Sir William Lucas in Pride and Prejudice, are also known as Sir. I believe they're bot..."

I completely agree. Glad you included the 'hereditary' part of Sir Walter's 'knighthood'. Sir Walter gets to pass his title to his heir, William Walter Elliot. Sir William Lucas, an actual knight, which is lower than a baronet, does not get to pass his title to his heir (in his case his eldest son).

Like anything else, researching the topic makes all the difference. But one thing I can say, as an American, the idea of being born with a title, or the promise of inheriting one, just by virtue of your birth is antithetical to how I was brought up. Anyone can be President. Everyone has an opportunity to best use their natural gifts. We are not all the same, but we are all equal under the law. This used to be taught very well in schools but I'm not sure that is the case any longer. It is an important ideal, but in practice our system sometimes fall short.

The US should be better apreciated by a large portioned of its citizens all equal under law and oppurtunity for all even to be elected to congress

Thnks to the British for trying to explain but really I could never repeat it correctly In other words I am still confused

In what situation would a peer lose his seat in the house of Lords also what powers do they have in todays political scene

I have so many questions about British history and education does anyone know of a link or maybe I could reach Beth alone? I dont think my quuuuuestions are of general interest on the goodreads links

Mrs wrote: "In what situation would a peer lose his seat in the house of Lords also what powers do they have in todays political scene"

They wouldn't in Jane's day, I don't think, unless they committed treason. Peers could only be tried by a jury of their peers (elite, White men) and in the novels anyway, they mostly get away with a lot. Just scarper off to the Continent for a bit until the scandal dies down OR if they did something really bad, they just shot themselves in the head. Titles sometimes go into abeyance in the absence of an heir, like in the case of Downton Abbey if Matthew had been killed in the war. Sometimes the title can be recreated later on, sometimes it passes through the female line which is really what I would be pushing for if I were Lady Mary Crawley! I'm not sure how often that happens.

I've picked most of this up from reading novels and author blogs! There are so many good ones like Jane Austen's World, Two Nerdy History Girls, NineteenTeen, Risky Regencies... just about every Regency romance author has a blog these days. Then there's the incomparable Georgette Heyer and her biographers Georgette Heyer's Regency World is a useful reference.

That's an intreresting point about a peer losing his seat in the Lords in historical times. If he was sent to prison, would he be able to resume his seat once his prison sentence had expired? I genuinely don't know!

These days, as I say, the recent reforms of the House of Lords has resulted in many, many peers no longer having a seat in the Lords - ie, as pointed out, they are no longer Members of Parliament (which is why there is a question about whether they could then stand for election to the House of Commons!).

As an aside to that, something that can cause confusion (ie, even more confusion!) is that sometimes it seems that, historically, a peer seemed to be member of the House of Commons.

Lord Castlereagh, the Foreign Secretary (I think?) during some of Austen's lifetime, was in the House of Commons, which looks odd. BUT, the explanation is that actually, that title is a courtesy title - his father was still alive and was (I think) the Marquis of Londonderry. It was the Marquis, therefore, who was the peer of the realm, and sat in the House of Lords. His son and heir (ie, his oldest son), used his 'second' title, ie, Lord Castlereagh (probably fan earl or viscount), but technically he was still a 'commoner', ie, not a peer of the realm, so could stand for election to the House of Commons.

Later in the 19th Century one of the younger sons of the then Duke of Bedord, Lord John Russell, who, though he could use the handle 'Lord' in front of his first name, was, again, not himself a peer of the realm (that was the Duke, his father), so could stand for election to the House of Commons. I think he was Prime Minister briefly at some point in the mid century. (?)

Right up until the 20th C the Prime Minister could be a Member of the House of Lords (ie, a peer of the realm.). I think the last one was Lord Salisbury. Sometime after that the law changed so that only Commoners could be prime minister. However, when there was a Lord who was PM, then he had to have a one of the Members of the House of Commons to 'represent' him in the Commons - he wasn't allowed in to give his own speeches etc!

Traditionally, the members of the House of Commons only refer to the House of Lords (which is linked by a corridor in the Parliament Building) (it's why it's called the HouseS of Parliament - ie, plural!), as 'The Other Place'.

We see the link between the two best at the State Opening of Parliament. It's just taken place - the Queen, for the first time (other than when she was heavily pregnant apparently) did not attend (Prince Charles was her 'sub' - he sat, literaly, next to a throne with the crown plonked on it!).

Again, traditionally, the Queen sitting in the House of Lords (amongst her peers of the realm), then 'summons' the Members of the House of Commons to attend her and listen to her give the Queen's Speech (which is a list, written by the PM, of all the things 'her government' is going to do that year). She sends her special messanger, who is called Black Rod (because he had a 'black rod'!)(interestingly, for the very first time again, BR is a woman!), to summon the members of the House of Commons.

BR marches up to the door of the H of C, and knocks on it (with his/her black rod!), which opens, and he/she 'summons' the members to attend Her Majesty.

At which point the door is slammed in BR's face! It's quite deliberate, and the reason is that in the reign of Charles I, in the 17th C, the monarch challenged the power of the elected House of Commons, and 'demanded' they attend him. Their refusal was a sign they would not 'give in' to the demands of an absolute monarch.

So ever since, the monarch can only 'invite' the elected representatives of the people, he/she has no right to 'demand' their presence.

BR knocks again, and this time the members of the Commons all file out and come down to listen, with the Lords, to the Queen giving her speech.

It sounds archaic, and a bit 'daft' but there is a very important political principle there - that the Head of State (the monarch) has NO right to demand things of the ELECTED representatives of 'the people'. It's an important sign and symbol of British democracy.... and, by 'inheritance' of American democracy as well.

Titles sometimes go into abeyance in the absence of an heir, like in the case of Downton Abbey if Matthew had been killed in the war. Sometimes the title can be recreated later on, sometimes it passes through the female line which is really what I would be pushing for if I were Lady Mary Crawley! I'm not sure how often that happens.
**

Yes, I don't think DA makes any mention of any other cousins other than Matthew (apart from the original cousin who was drowned on the Titantic, hence triggering the summons to the 'next' cousin, ie, Matthew)(I think the one that drowned was a first cousin, but Matthew is a second cousin??)

Interestingly, the thing about a title passing through the female line (Lady Mary I'm sure would definitely have had a go!!!!), is that exactly that was attempted by the wife of Julian Fellowes, the DA author, She is the daughter of Earl Kitchener, but has no brothers, and there were no male heirs - not even cousins. She applied to have the title pass to her son, through her, but was turned down, so the title has gone into abeyance.

As for the remaining powers of the House of Lords, they don't have any powers to STOP the House of Commons insisting on passing laws, but they do discuss and debate them, and can recommend amendments which then go back to the Commons for more discussion and debate etc.

Again, it's an important political principle. It used to be, in historic times, that the Lords could veto bills (laws that are not yet 'Act's, ie, only 'putative'), often indefinitely. This restricted the power of the elected House of Commons.

Increasingly, the H of C took more and more power, including veto, away from the H of L.

Sometimes the H of C had to invoke the power of the monarch.

In the Great Reform Act of 1832, which reformed drastically the basis of the electorate (widening the franchise - at the time, it wasn't one man one vote at all, only those with a certain degree of wealth could elect their member of parliament) (eventually it widened so much that it was one man, one vote, and then of course extended to women as well).....the House of Lords, being very conservative, was dead against widening the franchise.

So they kept throwing out/vetoing, the Bill (it's a 'bill' when it's being debated, and becomes an 'act' when it passes into law). This caused riots in the country, and repeated elections, but such was the pressure to get the Reform Act into law, that in the end the Prime Minister went to the king, saying there was going to be a revolution if it was held back any longer, so the king, Wiliam IV, used his power as king to threaten to create as many pro-reform peers as it would take to outvote the anti-reform peers.

Knowing they would then be outvoted 'for ever', the anti-reform peers then, very grudgingly, passed the Reform Bill into law.

So complicated. Do most Brits still feel titles are important? Megan Markle was in a snit about Archie not being a prince but neither are anybody else's except for William's. Not even Anne's or Edward's and they are the Queen's grandchildren.

I think some do, some don't! I guess if I had a title, I'd think it important?? Or maybe not?

There's a lot of affection for tradition, which is, after all, one of the key reasons we're still a monarchy.

That said, for all the now limited (very limited) powers the monarch has, one of the key things they do is prevent ANYONE ELSE being head of state.

The government, elected (so far!), is the government 'of the monarch', and the monarch IS the Head of State.

It's therefore not so much the power the monarch has that is politically important, it's the power they DENY anyone else - eg, a wannabe dictator!!!!

The monarch is always strictly politically neutral, which is another particular strength and protection.

MM seems to have got into a snit about a lot of things!

They are dwindling into nonentities now. Quite sad really. The whole thing is sad.

I just don't think she had any idea of the reality of what she was doing. She just thought of it as a fairytake, and herself as some kind of 'instant star'.

She muffed it completely to my mind. Sad. Especially for poor old Prince Harry. I hope they (and he) are happy in what they've chosen. Maybe he is.

Another strenght of the monarch/monarchy is that the monarch usuallky has a much longer time scale than politicans who 'come and go'. The queen has a very long perspective (14 prime ministers I think??) and that means a lot of accumulated experience - she's 'seen it all before' in many ways.

She - and the Crown, ie, the Institution of Monarchy - are here 'for the long haul', which all too many politicians are not. She provides continuity and 'security' in a way.

The longest haul ever!

WOW thanks Beth I actually understand your explanations. How can I ask my other questions on Britian which are not connected to JA and not of general intrest here can you send me your E mail or isnt that allowed?

What riots was Mary Crawford aluding to?

Mrs B - you're more than welcome. Yes, not sure if emails are allowed here, but if you and I become 'friends' then I think we can exchange privately here? Do others know if that is possible?

I don't mind keeping it public though, if others don't mind either?

Not sure about the riots? There were quite a lot at this period, in a way, post French Revolution, because a lot of the lower classes were, originally at least, quite keen on the revolution! Also, as the country was starting to industrialise, there were protests and riots even over working conditions and unemployment (so many were put out of work by industrial innovations like factory weaving/spinning etc.). A lot of unrest too from political protest - the poor wanted the vote! The rich didn't want them to have it. So when the poor petitioned, or protested, the rich were quite keen to 'read the Riot Act' and so have an excuse to disperse the crowds 'by force' (often using, I think, the militia, eg, like the kind of soldier that Wyckham was.)

The most famous (infamous!) riot was in 1819 (just after Austen had died in 1817), at St Peter's Field in Manchester, where a very large, but very peaceful crowd of political protesters (wanting the vote) were sent packing by militia, and quite a few were killed. It caused a huge outrage, and was mocked as 'Peterloo' - (ie, from 'Waterloo'). It is still regarded as a 'turning point' in British left-wing circles.

Earlier, in the 1780s I think, before the French Revolution, there were some very wild rioting in London which were 'anti-Catholic'. I think they were the Gordon Riots, but I don't know anything more. Others here might??

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Hi, joining this a bit late! Yes, much easier in the USA - it's why, of course, famously, you address your head of state as plain 'Mr', as in 'Mr President'. Quite deliberately so by the founding f..."

https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/363331

Curously enough, there was a debate during the very first Congress -- in the Senate -- after the United States Constitution was ratified (George Washington was and John Adams was Vice President then) elected on this very issue of appropriate presidential etiquette -- this was the eighteenth century and these men, though they were rebellious colonials, they also were, for the most part, armigerous gentlemen who sported breeches and powdered wigs -- on how officially to address the President of the United States.

This debate took place in the newly formed United States' first political capital, the Tory and Loyalist stronghold of New York City. For all the hilarity that ensued from the debate in the Senate (e.g. it was suggested that the President be addressed as "His Exalted Highness", "His Mightiness", "His Elective Majesty" or "His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties", to which soon-to-be Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was then in France, observing and even taking place in the early events of the so-called "French Revolution", reacted by calling the proposed titles "the most superlatively ridiculous thing[s]" he had ever heard of, and earned John Adams, the Vice President who was perhaps too insistent on exalting the presidency with outré titles, the nicknames of "His Superflous Excellency" and "His Rotundity, the Duke of Braintree"), the question of titles and presidential protocol was to a large extent a question of shoring up and stengthening the truly unprecedented office of a (relatively) democratically elected head of state and head of government that had just then been created in the United States.

During the whole of the Washington and Adams administrations, a rather elaborate protocol around the president was created which was completely set aside by the third president, Thomas Jefferson. Some might say that Jefferson erred too much on the side of informality: Jefferson's infamous reception of the British Minister may have unnecessarily strained relations between the United Kingdom and the United States, which strain, combined with Jefferson's and Madison's well-known pro-French and anti-British stances, would actually lead to a war between the United States and Britain. Jefferson's demotic style of democratic leadership is now universal, so universal, in fact, that even the British Monarchy has tried to adopt it (with varying degrees of failure).