That Old Time Religion

Wdesklady2ma137574990003
Pat here, having forgotten I’m supposed to post today and not Wednesday…

I’m drowning in revisions and about to go under, so I’ll grab a question from our readers to expound upon today. The question I chose is obviously a favorite of mine—religion—but we’re coming out it from a different angle today.  I hope Gretchen Fucio isn’t too disappointed that it took me six months to answer, but she’s due a Patricia Rice book of her choice.
:
“… would anyone feel comfortable blogging about the religious beliefs of the time? How likely were our heroes and heroines to attend church? What percentage of families in English society were Catholic?  Jewish? What were the restrictions on education, military service, marriage, etc. for those who were not C of E? Did such restrictions apply to other Protestant groups? “

I’ll happily take on any topic, be it touchy or not.  I won’t guarantee I’ll get it right, but I love to share my point of view. Of course, my prevailing opinion is that base human nature isn’t desperately different now than in the past, and that history never strays too far from the people who make it—which is why we’re doomed to repeat ourselves.  It’s the shallow societal factors that are most noticeably different from one era to another.

Also, bear in mind that I can’t speak of all of the 1700s or 1800s as if they’re the same.  Compare the 1960s to the 2000s and you’ll see the difficulty of comparing 1760 to 1810. While human nature may remain unchanged, laws and culture are constantly evolving. Methodism emerged as a huge factor of Wesley
change during that time. 

Very much in general—the 1700s were not a time of strict religious belief in England. The Church of England had become a political arm of the government, and as such, people treated it with the same indifference as they treated Parliament.  The church was rather a thing one did because everyone else did it.  In general. As I said, people are people and we’re all different.  The “Catholic” problem became a political problem, and the law simply banned anyone of any religion other than C of E from political office.  It would probably take two blogs to explain how a religion became politics and not a matter of faith, and I’m not up to the dialog.  As the century waned, more and more politicians attempted to change this policy, but too many were invested in it for change to come easily. By 1793, Catholics and Dissenters were allowed to vote but still could not sit in Parliament.

I did a quick Google and searched through my texts but couldn’t find any statistics on the numbers of people in each religion at this time.  The numbers of Quakers were dwindling, probably because they found the United States a more suitable alternative for their middle-class morals and lifestyles.  England was Catholic until ‘Enery the Aighth came along, so even by the 1700s, it would be hard to measure who was publicly Catholic and who was privately Catholic.  Since the overall percentage of Jews in the world was minimal compared to other religions, they would be a very small percentage of the English population as well. 

The interesting story during this period is John Wesley (that’s his picture above) and his evangelical organization and all the groups that developed from his original theories. Essentially, until John Wesley recognized the poor as needing spiritual support, they had been left out of religious life. They couldn’t read the Bible or the C of E prayer book. They couldn’t afford to dress up and see and be seen on Sundays. The church treated them with pragmatism, as a burden on society that had to be fed and taught, not as humans who needed to know that God was in their lives.   

John Wesley started out as a thoroughly conservative C of E Tory, and so he taught his followers.  But what he gave them was spiritual support and self respect and means of pulling themselves out of poverty.  The C of E, unfortunately, being of political nature, lived in fear of large gatherings of the poor and downtrodden, so conflict was inevitable. Eventually, the Methodists were forced to break away.  All the different evangelical churches that formed during this time could be roughly compared to our current squabbling Southern Baptists, I suppose.  But in this case, because they began with miners and laborers, the evangelical churches did not often include the wealthy.

CathedralSo if one is writing about England around 1800, it would be necessary to have your aristocrats acknowledge the vicar’s presence in society, have your respectable town folk attend church on Sunday or people wondering why, and your slum folk still working for pennies as if it’s any day of the week. Out in the hinterlands, the laborers will be gathering in the fields to listen to itinerant preachers.  In general.  Then as now, a drunken rake, no matter how aristocratic, is unlikely to sit inside a church, and a pious starving seamstress might easily take comfort in the vast beauty of the cathedral. 

But what might be interesting is to parallel how the immoral Georgians evolved into the pious Victorians over a space of a century or so.  Did the evangelicals force aristocrats to recognize their immorality? (or their mortality?) Did the gradual separation of church and state produce a different religious outlook?  Or did people just get more nervous and uptight with the political and religious conservatism of the new queen compared to the old kings?  Anyone want to take a whack at it?  Or the more learned among us, speak up!Mysticrider

And to justify the time I spend on here–remember, MYSTIC RIDER is on the shelves now.  The religion I spoke of above was English–in the setting for RIDER, the French Catholic church had been disbanded
and only patriotic priests allowed to preach, so that’s an entirely different set of circumstances!

90 thoughts on “That Old Time Religion”

  1. All this on a Monday morning! Wow. I watched Amazing Grace the other day (yum, Ioan) and was reminded that the slavery issue was so twinned with religion. I think social justice should be at the heart of all people of faith, and of course those who are skeptical as well.
    Society seems to veer from one extreme to the other.Finding the balance is difficult. My parents told me to never discuss politics or religion (and I didn’t listen *g*), but they have been inexorably tied together for centuries. The abuse of power by by both has led to some horrific history.
    I appreciate the freedom we have now to vote, consider alternatives and worship when and where we will, but others in the world are not so lucky. I can tell you the last time I went to a C of E church in England, there was only a handful of people present and I was probably the youngest. Not a good sign.

    Reply
  2. All this on a Monday morning! Wow. I watched Amazing Grace the other day (yum, Ioan) and was reminded that the slavery issue was so twinned with religion. I think social justice should be at the heart of all people of faith, and of course those who are skeptical as well.
    Society seems to veer from one extreme to the other.Finding the balance is difficult. My parents told me to never discuss politics or religion (and I didn’t listen *g*), but they have been inexorably tied together for centuries. The abuse of power by by both has led to some horrific history.
    I appreciate the freedom we have now to vote, consider alternatives and worship when and where we will, but others in the world are not so lucky. I can tell you the last time I went to a C of E church in England, there was only a handful of people present and I was probably the youngest. Not a good sign.

    Reply
  3. All this on a Monday morning! Wow. I watched Amazing Grace the other day (yum, Ioan) and was reminded that the slavery issue was so twinned with religion. I think social justice should be at the heart of all people of faith, and of course those who are skeptical as well.
    Society seems to veer from one extreme to the other.Finding the balance is difficult. My parents told me to never discuss politics or religion (and I didn’t listen *g*), but they have been inexorably tied together for centuries. The abuse of power by by both has led to some horrific history.
    I appreciate the freedom we have now to vote, consider alternatives and worship when and where we will, but others in the world are not so lucky. I can tell you the last time I went to a C of E church in England, there was only a handful of people present and I was probably the youngest. Not a good sign.

    Reply
  4. All this on a Monday morning! Wow. I watched Amazing Grace the other day (yum, Ioan) and was reminded that the slavery issue was so twinned with religion. I think social justice should be at the heart of all people of faith, and of course those who are skeptical as well.
    Society seems to veer from one extreme to the other.Finding the balance is difficult. My parents told me to never discuss politics or religion (and I didn’t listen *g*), but they have been inexorably tied together for centuries. The abuse of power by by both has led to some horrific history.
    I appreciate the freedom we have now to vote, consider alternatives and worship when and where we will, but others in the world are not so lucky. I can tell you the last time I went to a C of E church in England, there was only a handful of people present and I was probably the youngest. Not a good sign.

    Reply
  5. All this on a Monday morning! Wow. I watched Amazing Grace the other day (yum, Ioan) and was reminded that the slavery issue was so twinned with religion. I think social justice should be at the heart of all people of faith, and of course those who are skeptical as well.
    Society seems to veer from one extreme to the other.Finding the balance is difficult. My parents told me to never discuss politics or religion (and I didn’t listen *g*), but they have been inexorably tied together for centuries. The abuse of power by by both has led to some horrific history.
    I appreciate the freedom we have now to vote, consider alternatives and worship when and where we will, but others in the world are not so lucky. I can tell you the last time I went to a C of E church in England, there was only a handful of people present and I was probably the youngest. Not a good sign.

    Reply
  6. I know, a lot to digest after a holiday weekend. “G” I hastily drafted it last week and when I belatedly discovered the 7th was today (who knew?), didn’t have time to edit. Sorry! Really, when I dive into revisions, my mind is two hundred years away.
    Religion and society have gone hand in hand since the first man thanked the heavens for fire, I imagine. Religion ‘r Us, which is what makes it so fascinating.

    Reply
  7. I know, a lot to digest after a holiday weekend. “G” I hastily drafted it last week and when I belatedly discovered the 7th was today (who knew?), didn’t have time to edit. Sorry! Really, when I dive into revisions, my mind is two hundred years away.
    Religion and society have gone hand in hand since the first man thanked the heavens for fire, I imagine. Religion ‘r Us, which is what makes it so fascinating.

    Reply
  8. I know, a lot to digest after a holiday weekend. “G” I hastily drafted it last week and when I belatedly discovered the 7th was today (who knew?), didn’t have time to edit. Sorry! Really, when I dive into revisions, my mind is two hundred years away.
    Religion and society have gone hand in hand since the first man thanked the heavens for fire, I imagine. Religion ‘r Us, which is what makes it so fascinating.

    Reply
  9. I know, a lot to digest after a holiday weekend. “G” I hastily drafted it last week and when I belatedly discovered the 7th was today (who knew?), didn’t have time to edit. Sorry! Really, when I dive into revisions, my mind is two hundred years away.
    Religion and society have gone hand in hand since the first man thanked the heavens for fire, I imagine. Religion ‘r Us, which is what makes it so fascinating.

    Reply
  10. I know, a lot to digest after a holiday weekend. “G” I hastily drafted it last week and when I belatedly discovered the 7th was today (who knew?), didn’t have time to edit. Sorry! Really, when I dive into revisions, my mind is two hundred years away.
    Religion and society have gone hand in hand since the first man thanked the heavens for fire, I imagine. Religion ‘r Us, which is what makes it so fascinating.

    Reply
  11. I have hopes that a history book I bought – but alas, haven’t read yet – will answer the question of how Georgian England became Victorian over a couple of generations. It’s Ben Wilson’s The Making of Victorian Values: Decency and Dissent in Britain, 1789 – 1837. Has anyone read it?

    Reply
  12. I have hopes that a history book I bought – but alas, haven’t read yet – will answer the question of how Georgian England became Victorian over a couple of generations. It’s Ben Wilson’s The Making of Victorian Values: Decency and Dissent in Britain, 1789 – 1837. Has anyone read it?

    Reply
  13. I have hopes that a history book I bought – but alas, haven’t read yet – will answer the question of how Georgian England became Victorian over a couple of generations. It’s Ben Wilson’s The Making of Victorian Values: Decency and Dissent in Britain, 1789 – 1837. Has anyone read it?

    Reply
  14. I have hopes that a history book I bought – but alas, haven’t read yet – will answer the question of how Georgian England became Victorian over a couple of generations. It’s Ben Wilson’s The Making of Victorian Values: Decency and Dissent in Britain, 1789 – 1837. Has anyone read it?

    Reply
  15. I have hopes that a history book I bought – but alas, haven’t read yet – will answer the question of how Georgian England became Victorian over a couple of generations. It’s Ben Wilson’s The Making of Victorian Values: Decency and Dissent in Britain, 1789 – 1837. Has anyone read it?

    Reply
  16. Just a couple of comments —
    1. On the political front, since James II and his heirs were Catholic, during the 18th century Catholics were suspected of being Jacobites and hence distrusted, That’s one reason the anti-Catholic laws lasted so long.
    2. The First Great Awakening, which encompassed the Wesleys and the rise of Methodism and the Evengelical branch of the Church of England, emphasized personal moral reform, opposing fashionable vices like drinking and gambling. The Evengelicals were active in the anti-slavery movement and prison reform but were not necessarily interested in political reform like the abolition of rotten buroughs and the extension of the franchise. Hence someone like Wilberforce could be a staunch Tory, and a Whig reformer like Brougham could be pretty much indifferent to religion.
    3. And oh yes, religion was very much tied to class. A situation, one might add, that can still be seen today.

    Reply
  17. Just a couple of comments —
    1. On the political front, since James II and his heirs were Catholic, during the 18th century Catholics were suspected of being Jacobites and hence distrusted, That’s one reason the anti-Catholic laws lasted so long.
    2. The First Great Awakening, which encompassed the Wesleys and the rise of Methodism and the Evengelical branch of the Church of England, emphasized personal moral reform, opposing fashionable vices like drinking and gambling. The Evengelicals were active in the anti-slavery movement and prison reform but were not necessarily interested in political reform like the abolition of rotten buroughs and the extension of the franchise. Hence someone like Wilberforce could be a staunch Tory, and a Whig reformer like Brougham could be pretty much indifferent to religion.
    3. And oh yes, religion was very much tied to class. A situation, one might add, that can still be seen today.

    Reply
  18. Just a couple of comments —
    1. On the political front, since James II and his heirs were Catholic, during the 18th century Catholics were suspected of being Jacobites and hence distrusted, That’s one reason the anti-Catholic laws lasted so long.
    2. The First Great Awakening, which encompassed the Wesleys and the rise of Methodism and the Evengelical branch of the Church of England, emphasized personal moral reform, opposing fashionable vices like drinking and gambling. The Evengelicals were active in the anti-slavery movement and prison reform but were not necessarily interested in political reform like the abolition of rotten buroughs and the extension of the franchise. Hence someone like Wilberforce could be a staunch Tory, and a Whig reformer like Brougham could be pretty much indifferent to religion.
    3. And oh yes, religion was very much tied to class. A situation, one might add, that can still be seen today.

    Reply
  19. Just a couple of comments —
    1. On the political front, since James II and his heirs were Catholic, during the 18th century Catholics were suspected of being Jacobites and hence distrusted, That’s one reason the anti-Catholic laws lasted so long.
    2. The First Great Awakening, which encompassed the Wesleys and the rise of Methodism and the Evengelical branch of the Church of England, emphasized personal moral reform, opposing fashionable vices like drinking and gambling. The Evengelicals were active in the anti-slavery movement and prison reform but were not necessarily interested in political reform like the abolition of rotten buroughs and the extension of the franchise. Hence someone like Wilberforce could be a staunch Tory, and a Whig reformer like Brougham could be pretty much indifferent to religion.
    3. And oh yes, religion was very much tied to class. A situation, one might add, that can still be seen today.

    Reply
  20. Just a couple of comments —
    1. On the political front, since James II and his heirs were Catholic, during the 18th century Catholics were suspected of being Jacobites and hence distrusted, That’s one reason the anti-Catholic laws lasted so long.
    2. The First Great Awakening, which encompassed the Wesleys and the rise of Methodism and the Evengelical branch of the Church of England, emphasized personal moral reform, opposing fashionable vices like drinking and gambling. The Evengelicals were active in the anti-slavery movement and prison reform but were not necessarily interested in political reform like the abolition of rotten buroughs and the extension of the franchise. Hence someone like Wilberforce could be a staunch Tory, and a Whig reformer like Brougham could be pretty much indifferent to religion.
    3. And oh yes, religion was very much tied to class. A situation, one might add, that can still be seen today.

    Reply
  21. A nice riff on John Wesley, Pat! I researched the early Methodist church for a book (in pre-internet days, when it was a lot more work!), and it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed.
    And they didn’t just preach a personal relationship with God They set up literacy classes and helped prostitutes get off the streets and build better lives. As you say, most of the dissident groups were similar.
    I’m not sure that intellectual secularism was widespread during the Georgian era, though it was very influential. It was the combination of Enlightenment humanist values and evangelical reformism that tackled and abolished the slave trade, made education more widespread, and created the world we know now. (Wilberforce was a founder of the SPCA.) It was those Enlightenment thinkers we call the Founding Fathers who laid the foundation of the America we live in now.
    Mary Jo, who should be working.

    Reply
  22. A nice riff on John Wesley, Pat! I researched the early Methodist church for a book (in pre-internet days, when it was a lot more work!), and it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed.
    And they didn’t just preach a personal relationship with God They set up literacy classes and helped prostitutes get off the streets and build better lives. As you say, most of the dissident groups were similar.
    I’m not sure that intellectual secularism was widespread during the Georgian era, though it was very influential. It was the combination of Enlightenment humanist values and evangelical reformism that tackled and abolished the slave trade, made education more widespread, and created the world we know now. (Wilberforce was a founder of the SPCA.) It was those Enlightenment thinkers we call the Founding Fathers who laid the foundation of the America we live in now.
    Mary Jo, who should be working.

    Reply
  23. A nice riff on John Wesley, Pat! I researched the early Methodist church for a book (in pre-internet days, when it was a lot more work!), and it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed.
    And they didn’t just preach a personal relationship with God They set up literacy classes and helped prostitutes get off the streets and build better lives. As you say, most of the dissident groups were similar.
    I’m not sure that intellectual secularism was widespread during the Georgian era, though it was very influential. It was the combination of Enlightenment humanist values and evangelical reformism that tackled and abolished the slave trade, made education more widespread, and created the world we know now. (Wilberforce was a founder of the SPCA.) It was those Enlightenment thinkers we call the Founding Fathers who laid the foundation of the America we live in now.
    Mary Jo, who should be working.

    Reply
  24. A nice riff on John Wesley, Pat! I researched the early Methodist church for a book (in pre-internet days, when it was a lot more work!), and it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed.
    And they didn’t just preach a personal relationship with God They set up literacy classes and helped prostitutes get off the streets and build better lives. As you say, most of the dissident groups were similar.
    I’m not sure that intellectual secularism was widespread during the Georgian era, though it was very influential. It was the combination of Enlightenment humanist values and evangelical reformism that tackled and abolished the slave trade, made education more widespread, and created the world we know now. (Wilberforce was a founder of the SPCA.) It was those Enlightenment thinkers we call the Founding Fathers who laid the foundation of the America we live in now.
    Mary Jo, who should be working.

    Reply
  25. A nice riff on John Wesley, Pat! I researched the early Methodist church for a book (in pre-internet days, when it was a lot more work!), and it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed.
    And they didn’t just preach a personal relationship with God They set up literacy classes and helped prostitutes get off the streets and build better lives. As you say, most of the dissident groups were similar.
    I’m not sure that intellectual secularism was widespread during the Georgian era, though it was very influential. It was the combination of Enlightenment humanist values and evangelical reformism that tackled and abolished the slave trade, made education more widespread, and created the world we know now. (Wilberforce was a founder of the SPCA.) It was those Enlightenment thinkers we call the Founding Fathers who laid the foundation of the America we live in now.
    Mary Jo, who should be working.

    Reply
  26. If you look up “Catholic Emancipation” on Wikipedia, you will find lots of useful links and information about the later developments.
    Basically, the political and the theological were inextricably entwined. Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled; but the Spanish monarchy had far more influence with the Pope–and he had married her by Papal dispensation, anyway. So he broke the ties to Rome (and getting to keep the Church revenues didn’t hurt) but didn’t change the church significantly.
    The Pope declared him a heretic, and his children illegitimate, as they still regarded Catherine as his wife. They declared Philip II of Spain the rightful king after the death of Bloody Mary; and then Mary Queen of Scots. . The Pope supported all sorts of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, which is why the Jesuits were persecuted. One had to pay a fine if one failed to attend an Anglican church on Sunday; and unless one took an oath of loyalty to King and Church, one could not be granted a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. A very good fact-based historical novel set in the reign of James I, Robert Neill’s THE ELEGANT WITCH (aka MIST OVER PENDLE), about the Lancashire witch trials, has a good deal about the religious conflicts of the time.
    The rules eased over the years (more quickly for Protestant Dissenters than for Catholics), until all restrictions were abolished in the 19th century (except for the Royal Succession).
    One reason that the Dissenters made progress is because they were the ones who mainly profited from the Industrial Revolution, so they gained a lot of power and influence.
    As for Regency rowdiness vs. Victorian prudery, it’s a natural cycle: ages of license are followed by ages of morality. The Middle Ages (including the Black Death) gave us the Renaissance, which eventually led to Cromwell and the Puritans, which were followed by the Restoration, then the prudery of George III’s court, then the Regency, then Victorian morality.
    The sacrifices of WWI were followed by the Roaring Twenties, then the Depression, and so on.

    Reply
  27. If you look up “Catholic Emancipation” on Wikipedia, you will find lots of useful links and information about the later developments.
    Basically, the political and the theological were inextricably entwined. Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled; but the Spanish monarchy had far more influence with the Pope–and he had married her by Papal dispensation, anyway. So he broke the ties to Rome (and getting to keep the Church revenues didn’t hurt) but didn’t change the church significantly.
    The Pope declared him a heretic, and his children illegitimate, as they still regarded Catherine as his wife. They declared Philip II of Spain the rightful king after the death of Bloody Mary; and then Mary Queen of Scots. . The Pope supported all sorts of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, which is why the Jesuits were persecuted. One had to pay a fine if one failed to attend an Anglican church on Sunday; and unless one took an oath of loyalty to King and Church, one could not be granted a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. A very good fact-based historical novel set in the reign of James I, Robert Neill’s THE ELEGANT WITCH (aka MIST OVER PENDLE), about the Lancashire witch trials, has a good deal about the religious conflicts of the time.
    The rules eased over the years (more quickly for Protestant Dissenters than for Catholics), until all restrictions were abolished in the 19th century (except for the Royal Succession).
    One reason that the Dissenters made progress is because they were the ones who mainly profited from the Industrial Revolution, so they gained a lot of power and influence.
    As for Regency rowdiness vs. Victorian prudery, it’s a natural cycle: ages of license are followed by ages of morality. The Middle Ages (including the Black Death) gave us the Renaissance, which eventually led to Cromwell and the Puritans, which were followed by the Restoration, then the prudery of George III’s court, then the Regency, then Victorian morality.
    The sacrifices of WWI were followed by the Roaring Twenties, then the Depression, and so on.

    Reply
  28. If you look up “Catholic Emancipation” on Wikipedia, you will find lots of useful links and information about the later developments.
    Basically, the political and the theological were inextricably entwined. Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled; but the Spanish monarchy had far more influence with the Pope–and he had married her by Papal dispensation, anyway. So he broke the ties to Rome (and getting to keep the Church revenues didn’t hurt) but didn’t change the church significantly.
    The Pope declared him a heretic, and his children illegitimate, as they still regarded Catherine as his wife. They declared Philip II of Spain the rightful king after the death of Bloody Mary; and then Mary Queen of Scots. . The Pope supported all sorts of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, which is why the Jesuits were persecuted. One had to pay a fine if one failed to attend an Anglican church on Sunday; and unless one took an oath of loyalty to King and Church, one could not be granted a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. A very good fact-based historical novel set in the reign of James I, Robert Neill’s THE ELEGANT WITCH (aka MIST OVER PENDLE), about the Lancashire witch trials, has a good deal about the religious conflicts of the time.
    The rules eased over the years (more quickly for Protestant Dissenters than for Catholics), until all restrictions were abolished in the 19th century (except for the Royal Succession).
    One reason that the Dissenters made progress is because they were the ones who mainly profited from the Industrial Revolution, so they gained a lot of power and influence.
    As for Regency rowdiness vs. Victorian prudery, it’s a natural cycle: ages of license are followed by ages of morality. The Middle Ages (including the Black Death) gave us the Renaissance, which eventually led to Cromwell and the Puritans, which were followed by the Restoration, then the prudery of George III’s court, then the Regency, then Victorian morality.
    The sacrifices of WWI were followed by the Roaring Twenties, then the Depression, and so on.

    Reply
  29. If you look up “Catholic Emancipation” on Wikipedia, you will find lots of useful links and information about the later developments.
    Basically, the political and the theological were inextricably entwined. Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled; but the Spanish monarchy had far more influence with the Pope–and he had married her by Papal dispensation, anyway. So he broke the ties to Rome (and getting to keep the Church revenues didn’t hurt) but didn’t change the church significantly.
    The Pope declared him a heretic, and his children illegitimate, as they still regarded Catherine as his wife. They declared Philip II of Spain the rightful king after the death of Bloody Mary; and then Mary Queen of Scots. . The Pope supported all sorts of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, which is why the Jesuits were persecuted. One had to pay a fine if one failed to attend an Anglican church on Sunday; and unless one took an oath of loyalty to King and Church, one could not be granted a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. A very good fact-based historical novel set in the reign of James I, Robert Neill’s THE ELEGANT WITCH (aka MIST OVER PENDLE), about the Lancashire witch trials, has a good deal about the religious conflicts of the time.
    The rules eased over the years (more quickly for Protestant Dissenters than for Catholics), until all restrictions were abolished in the 19th century (except for the Royal Succession).
    One reason that the Dissenters made progress is because they were the ones who mainly profited from the Industrial Revolution, so they gained a lot of power and influence.
    As for Regency rowdiness vs. Victorian prudery, it’s a natural cycle: ages of license are followed by ages of morality. The Middle Ages (including the Black Death) gave us the Renaissance, which eventually led to Cromwell and the Puritans, which were followed by the Restoration, then the prudery of George III’s court, then the Regency, then Victorian morality.
    The sacrifices of WWI were followed by the Roaring Twenties, then the Depression, and so on.

    Reply
  30. If you look up “Catholic Emancipation” on Wikipedia, you will find lots of useful links and information about the later developments.
    Basically, the political and the theological were inextricably entwined. Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled; but the Spanish monarchy had far more influence with the Pope–and he had married her by Papal dispensation, anyway. So he broke the ties to Rome (and getting to keep the Church revenues didn’t hurt) but didn’t change the church significantly.
    The Pope declared him a heretic, and his children illegitimate, as they still regarded Catherine as his wife. They declared Philip II of Spain the rightful king after the death of Bloody Mary; and then Mary Queen of Scots. . The Pope supported all sorts of Catholic plots against Elizabeth, which is why the Jesuits were persecuted. One had to pay a fine if one failed to attend an Anglican church on Sunday; and unless one took an oath of loyalty to King and Church, one could not be granted a degree from Oxford or Cambridge. A very good fact-based historical novel set in the reign of James I, Robert Neill’s THE ELEGANT WITCH (aka MIST OVER PENDLE), about the Lancashire witch trials, has a good deal about the religious conflicts of the time.
    The rules eased over the years (more quickly for Protestant Dissenters than for Catholics), until all restrictions were abolished in the 19th century (except for the Royal Succession).
    One reason that the Dissenters made progress is because they were the ones who mainly profited from the Industrial Revolution, so they gained a lot of power and influence.
    As for Regency rowdiness vs. Victorian prudery, it’s a natural cycle: ages of license are followed by ages of morality. The Middle Ages (including the Black Death) gave us the Renaissance, which eventually led to Cromwell and the Puritans, which were followed by the Restoration, then the prudery of George III’s court, then the Regency, then Victorian morality.
    The sacrifices of WWI were followed by the Roaring Twenties, then the Depression, and so on.

    Reply
  31. Pat–on my Victorian listserv, we speculated that the rise in morality after 1848 could have roots in the rapidly declining concept of absolutism in post-Napoleonic England (if not Europe–with the exception of very mystic Russia). The hypothesis I proposed was the aristocratic and then middle-class fussiness over wanting to appear moral before the masses below was to retain their “God-like” status their predecessors had maintained. The separation of church and state especially after the Divorce Bill of the 1850s lessened the religious power the upper classes had over the “lower orders”–which is why Queen Victoria was so adamant that the royal family and its retinue be a shining example to their subjects. Public failure would tarnish the cult of the monarchy–which is what makes the divergent lifestyles led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and his set so important.
    I’m rambling (can you tell I love dissecting history?, but the Regency era wasn’t as licentious as we think it is. The Victorian era had its roots in the Regency (many of our Victorian novelists were born and bred in the Regency era, by Regency era parents after all).

    Reply
  32. Pat–on my Victorian listserv, we speculated that the rise in morality after 1848 could have roots in the rapidly declining concept of absolutism in post-Napoleonic England (if not Europe–with the exception of very mystic Russia). The hypothesis I proposed was the aristocratic and then middle-class fussiness over wanting to appear moral before the masses below was to retain their “God-like” status their predecessors had maintained. The separation of church and state especially after the Divorce Bill of the 1850s lessened the religious power the upper classes had over the “lower orders”–which is why Queen Victoria was so adamant that the royal family and its retinue be a shining example to their subjects. Public failure would tarnish the cult of the monarchy–which is what makes the divergent lifestyles led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and his set so important.
    I’m rambling (can you tell I love dissecting history?, but the Regency era wasn’t as licentious as we think it is. The Victorian era had its roots in the Regency (many of our Victorian novelists were born and bred in the Regency era, by Regency era parents after all).

    Reply
  33. Pat–on my Victorian listserv, we speculated that the rise in morality after 1848 could have roots in the rapidly declining concept of absolutism in post-Napoleonic England (if not Europe–with the exception of very mystic Russia). The hypothesis I proposed was the aristocratic and then middle-class fussiness over wanting to appear moral before the masses below was to retain their “God-like” status their predecessors had maintained. The separation of church and state especially after the Divorce Bill of the 1850s lessened the religious power the upper classes had over the “lower orders”–which is why Queen Victoria was so adamant that the royal family and its retinue be a shining example to their subjects. Public failure would tarnish the cult of the monarchy–which is what makes the divergent lifestyles led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and his set so important.
    I’m rambling (can you tell I love dissecting history?, but the Regency era wasn’t as licentious as we think it is. The Victorian era had its roots in the Regency (many of our Victorian novelists were born and bred in the Regency era, by Regency era parents after all).

    Reply
  34. Pat–on my Victorian listserv, we speculated that the rise in morality after 1848 could have roots in the rapidly declining concept of absolutism in post-Napoleonic England (if not Europe–with the exception of very mystic Russia). The hypothesis I proposed was the aristocratic and then middle-class fussiness over wanting to appear moral before the masses below was to retain their “God-like” status their predecessors had maintained. The separation of church and state especially after the Divorce Bill of the 1850s lessened the religious power the upper classes had over the “lower orders”–which is why Queen Victoria was so adamant that the royal family and its retinue be a shining example to their subjects. Public failure would tarnish the cult of the monarchy–which is what makes the divergent lifestyles led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and his set so important.
    I’m rambling (can you tell I love dissecting history?, but the Regency era wasn’t as licentious as we think it is. The Victorian era had its roots in the Regency (many of our Victorian novelists were born and bred in the Regency era, by Regency era parents after all).

    Reply
  35. Pat–on my Victorian listserv, we speculated that the rise in morality after 1848 could have roots in the rapidly declining concept of absolutism in post-Napoleonic England (if not Europe–with the exception of very mystic Russia). The hypothesis I proposed was the aristocratic and then middle-class fussiness over wanting to appear moral before the masses below was to retain their “God-like” status their predecessors had maintained. The separation of church and state especially after the Divorce Bill of the 1850s lessened the religious power the upper classes had over the “lower orders”–which is why Queen Victoria was so adamant that the royal family and its retinue be a shining example to their subjects. Public failure would tarnish the cult of the monarchy–which is what makes the divergent lifestyles led by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and his set so important.
    I’m rambling (can you tell I love dissecting history?, but the Regency era wasn’t as licentious as we think it is. The Victorian era had its roots in the Regency (many of our Victorian novelists were born and bred in the Regency era, by Regency era parents after all).

    Reply
  36. Ah, so many lovely thoughts to play with! I could waste time arguing religion forever and never finish my book. “G”
    Michelle, I haven’t read that book because so far I haven’t found a good way to write a romance that involves religious argument. “G” Let us know what it says when you get to it.
    I’ve read Wesley’s biographies and am familiar with his work, but this post was long enough as it is! Same with the Catholic problem (I’m part Irish and well versed!)–thank you for adding the material I didn’t have room to add. I really ought to write a book…
    And Evangeline, ramble on, please! I doubt that any one thing can pinpoint how immorality and lawlessness (and the Regency wasn’t immoral, but the earlier Georgian eras allowed people to literally get away with murder) evolve into piety, but knowing the various parameters makes for fascinating discussion and hopefully, we learn from what passed before.
    Ooo, and the Royal Succession laws! I’ve been researching the sons of the various Georges and wow, I can see why they needed laws to regulate those clowns. Prinny was not the first to “marry” when it wasn’t legal. Fascinating psychology working there–although whether it was moral or immoral may be debatable.

    Reply
  37. Ah, so many lovely thoughts to play with! I could waste time arguing religion forever and never finish my book. “G”
    Michelle, I haven’t read that book because so far I haven’t found a good way to write a romance that involves religious argument. “G” Let us know what it says when you get to it.
    I’ve read Wesley’s biographies and am familiar with his work, but this post was long enough as it is! Same with the Catholic problem (I’m part Irish and well versed!)–thank you for adding the material I didn’t have room to add. I really ought to write a book…
    And Evangeline, ramble on, please! I doubt that any one thing can pinpoint how immorality and lawlessness (and the Regency wasn’t immoral, but the earlier Georgian eras allowed people to literally get away with murder) evolve into piety, but knowing the various parameters makes for fascinating discussion and hopefully, we learn from what passed before.
    Ooo, and the Royal Succession laws! I’ve been researching the sons of the various Georges and wow, I can see why they needed laws to regulate those clowns. Prinny was not the first to “marry” when it wasn’t legal. Fascinating psychology working there–although whether it was moral or immoral may be debatable.

    Reply
  38. Ah, so many lovely thoughts to play with! I could waste time arguing religion forever and never finish my book. “G”
    Michelle, I haven’t read that book because so far I haven’t found a good way to write a romance that involves religious argument. “G” Let us know what it says when you get to it.
    I’ve read Wesley’s biographies and am familiar with his work, but this post was long enough as it is! Same with the Catholic problem (I’m part Irish and well versed!)–thank you for adding the material I didn’t have room to add. I really ought to write a book…
    And Evangeline, ramble on, please! I doubt that any one thing can pinpoint how immorality and lawlessness (and the Regency wasn’t immoral, but the earlier Georgian eras allowed people to literally get away with murder) evolve into piety, but knowing the various parameters makes for fascinating discussion and hopefully, we learn from what passed before.
    Ooo, and the Royal Succession laws! I’ve been researching the sons of the various Georges and wow, I can see why they needed laws to regulate those clowns. Prinny was not the first to “marry” when it wasn’t legal. Fascinating psychology working there–although whether it was moral or immoral may be debatable.

    Reply
  39. Ah, so many lovely thoughts to play with! I could waste time arguing religion forever and never finish my book. “G”
    Michelle, I haven’t read that book because so far I haven’t found a good way to write a romance that involves religious argument. “G” Let us know what it says when you get to it.
    I’ve read Wesley’s biographies and am familiar with his work, but this post was long enough as it is! Same with the Catholic problem (I’m part Irish and well versed!)–thank you for adding the material I didn’t have room to add. I really ought to write a book…
    And Evangeline, ramble on, please! I doubt that any one thing can pinpoint how immorality and lawlessness (and the Regency wasn’t immoral, but the earlier Georgian eras allowed people to literally get away with murder) evolve into piety, but knowing the various parameters makes for fascinating discussion and hopefully, we learn from what passed before.
    Ooo, and the Royal Succession laws! I’ve been researching the sons of the various Georges and wow, I can see why they needed laws to regulate those clowns. Prinny was not the first to “marry” when it wasn’t legal. Fascinating psychology working there–although whether it was moral or immoral may be debatable.

    Reply
  40. Ah, so many lovely thoughts to play with! I could waste time arguing religion forever and never finish my book. “G”
    Michelle, I haven’t read that book because so far I haven’t found a good way to write a romance that involves religious argument. “G” Let us know what it says when you get to it.
    I’ve read Wesley’s biographies and am familiar with his work, but this post was long enough as it is! Same with the Catholic problem (I’m part Irish and well versed!)–thank you for adding the material I didn’t have room to add. I really ought to write a book…
    And Evangeline, ramble on, please! I doubt that any one thing can pinpoint how immorality and lawlessness (and the Regency wasn’t immoral, but the earlier Georgian eras allowed people to literally get away with murder) evolve into piety, but knowing the various parameters makes for fascinating discussion and hopefully, we learn from what passed before.
    Ooo, and the Royal Succession laws! I’ve been researching the sons of the various Georges and wow, I can see why they needed laws to regulate those clowns. Prinny was not the first to “marry” when it wasn’t legal. Fascinating psychology working there–although whether it was moral or immoral may be debatable.

    Reply
  41. Pat, I have some recent articles from the Daily Telegraph on the laws of succession, which I can forward if you wish.
    I’ve always thought that Prinny’s situation was interesting: He married Mrs. Fitzherbert in a proper Roman Catholic ceremony, but the marriage was illegal for several reasons under English law. So they were married in the sight of God but not in the sight of man!
    A.N. Wilson’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR provides some lively tidbits, including the family curse that might be the cause of it all….

    Reply
  42. Pat, I have some recent articles from the Daily Telegraph on the laws of succession, which I can forward if you wish.
    I’ve always thought that Prinny’s situation was interesting: He married Mrs. Fitzherbert in a proper Roman Catholic ceremony, but the marriage was illegal for several reasons under English law. So they were married in the sight of God but not in the sight of man!
    A.N. Wilson’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR provides some lively tidbits, including the family curse that might be the cause of it all….

    Reply
  43. Pat, I have some recent articles from the Daily Telegraph on the laws of succession, which I can forward if you wish.
    I’ve always thought that Prinny’s situation was interesting: He married Mrs. Fitzherbert in a proper Roman Catholic ceremony, but the marriage was illegal for several reasons under English law. So they were married in the sight of God but not in the sight of man!
    A.N. Wilson’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR provides some lively tidbits, including the family curse that might be the cause of it all….

    Reply
  44. Pat, I have some recent articles from the Daily Telegraph on the laws of succession, which I can forward if you wish.
    I’ve always thought that Prinny’s situation was interesting: He married Mrs. Fitzherbert in a proper Roman Catholic ceremony, but the marriage was illegal for several reasons under English law. So they were married in the sight of God but not in the sight of man!
    A.N. Wilson’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR provides some lively tidbits, including the family curse that might be the cause of it all….

    Reply
  45. Pat, I have some recent articles from the Daily Telegraph on the laws of succession, which I can forward if you wish.
    I’ve always thought that Prinny’s situation was interesting: He married Mrs. Fitzherbert in a proper Roman Catholic ceremony, but the marriage was illegal for several reasons under English law. So they were married in the sight of God but not in the sight of man!
    A.N. Wilson’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE HOUSE OF WINDSOR provides some lively tidbits, including the family curse that might be the cause of it all….

    Reply
  46. I’ve been really enjoying this whole discussion, though I try very hard not to get involved in religion or politicts, (religion, anytime and politics, what’s currently going on) but tal!! You CANNOT mention family curses and leave things like that!!
    Must tell!!

    Reply
  47. I’ve been really enjoying this whole discussion, though I try very hard not to get involved in religion or politicts, (religion, anytime and politics, what’s currently going on) but tal!! You CANNOT mention family curses and leave things like that!!
    Must tell!!

    Reply
  48. I’ve been really enjoying this whole discussion, though I try very hard not to get involved in religion or politicts, (religion, anytime and politics, what’s currently going on) but tal!! You CANNOT mention family curses and leave things like that!!
    Must tell!!

    Reply
  49. I’ve been really enjoying this whole discussion, though I try very hard not to get involved in religion or politicts, (religion, anytime and politics, what’s currently going on) but tal!! You CANNOT mention family curses and leave things like that!!
    Must tell!!

    Reply
  50. I’ve been really enjoying this whole discussion, though I try very hard not to get involved in religion or politicts, (religion, anytime and politics, what’s currently going on) but tal!! You CANNOT mention family curses and leave things like that!!
    Must tell!!

    Reply
  51. What Theo said! Must I go out and buy Wilson to read it myself?
    Prinny only followed the examples of his uncles. You have to wonder if he knew he could have his cake and eat it too when he married her, because precedent had already been set for having such marriages declared null. I’m not sure how deep I want to dig into that nest of worms.

    Reply
  52. What Theo said! Must I go out and buy Wilson to read it myself?
    Prinny only followed the examples of his uncles. You have to wonder if he knew he could have his cake and eat it too when he married her, because precedent had already been set for having such marriages declared null. I’m not sure how deep I want to dig into that nest of worms.

    Reply
  53. What Theo said! Must I go out and buy Wilson to read it myself?
    Prinny only followed the examples of his uncles. You have to wonder if he knew he could have his cake and eat it too when he married her, because precedent had already been set for having such marriages declared null. I’m not sure how deep I want to dig into that nest of worms.

    Reply
  54. What Theo said! Must I go out and buy Wilson to read it myself?
    Prinny only followed the examples of his uncles. You have to wonder if he knew he could have his cake and eat it too when he married her, because precedent had already been set for having such marriages declared null. I’m not sure how deep I want to dig into that nest of worms.

    Reply
  55. What Theo said! Must I go out and buy Wilson to read it myself?
    Prinny only followed the examples of his uncles. You have to wonder if he knew he could have his cake and eat it too when he married her, because precedent had already been set for having such marriages declared null. I’m not sure how deep I want to dig into that nest of worms.

    Reply
  56. I like several things that were said:
    ages of license are followed by ages of morality.(from talpianna)
    it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed. (from Mary Jo)
    My spin on Victoria was that she was disgusted by the immorality at court and when she became queen, she took steps to change the mood. George III’s early court had a family atmosphere, but with a woman in charge, court became much more domestic. Even women’s dress became less figure revealing from the beginning of her reign.
    Anyway, I think that this atmosphere was contributory to the public appearance of morality, piety and sobriety of the Victorian era, esp after the death of Prince Albert.
    Of course, the emphasis is public appearance because we know of the rampant prostitution and horrific factory conditions including child labor. The missionary societies did good work but they were often mistrusted by the poor. Even today, there is a disconnect between the volunteer and those served…unless the volunteers/leaders are members of the same community/neighborhood base. That is part of the reason the Wesleys were so successful, they understood their congregations/constituents. And they helped lead the movement of literacy for the poor to better themselves (and read the Bible).
    I’ll kick back my soapbox and let someone else speak.

    Reply
  57. I like several things that were said:
    ages of license are followed by ages of morality.(from talpianna)
    it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed. (from Mary Jo)
    My spin on Victoria was that she was disgusted by the immorality at court and when she became queen, she took steps to change the mood. George III’s early court had a family atmosphere, but with a woman in charge, court became much more domestic. Even women’s dress became less figure revealing from the beginning of her reign.
    Anyway, I think that this atmosphere was contributory to the public appearance of morality, piety and sobriety of the Victorian era, esp after the death of Prince Albert.
    Of course, the emphasis is public appearance because we know of the rampant prostitution and horrific factory conditions including child labor. The missionary societies did good work but they were often mistrusted by the poor. Even today, there is a disconnect between the volunteer and those served…unless the volunteers/leaders are members of the same community/neighborhood base. That is part of the reason the Wesleys were so successful, they understood their congregations/constituents. And they helped lead the movement of literacy for the poor to better themselves (and read the Bible).
    I’ll kick back my soapbox and let someone else speak.

    Reply
  58. I like several things that were said:
    ages of license are followed by ages of morality.(from talpianna)
    it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed. (from Mary Jo)
    My spin on Victoria was that she was disgusted by the immorality at court and when she became queen, she took steps to change the mood. George III’s early court had a family atmosphere, but with a woman in charge, court became much more domestic. Even women’s dress became less figure revealing from the beginning of her reign.
    Anyway, I think that this atmosphere was contributory to the public appearance of morality, piety and sobriety of the Victorian era, esp after the death of Prince Albert.
    Of course, the emphasis is public appearance because we know of the rampant prostitution and horrific factory conditions including child labor. The missionary societies did good work but they were often mistrusted by the poor. Even today, there is a disconnect between the volunteer and those served…unless the volunteers/leaders are members of the same community/neighborhood base. That is part of the reason the Wesleys were so successful, they understood their congregations/constituents. And they helped lead the movement of literacy for the poor to better themselves (and read the Bible).
    I’ll kick back my soapbox and let someone else speak.

    Reply
  59. I like several things that were said:
    ages of license are followed by ages of morality.(from talpianna)
    it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed. (from Mary Jo)
    My spin on Victoria was that she was disgusted by the immorality at court and when she became queen, she took steps to change the mood. George III’s early court had a family atmosphere, but with a woman in charge, court became much more domestic. Even women’s dress became less figure revealing from the beginning of her reign.
    Anyway, I think that this atmosphere was contributory to the public appearance of morality, piety and sobriety of the Victorian era, esp after the death of Prince Albert.
    Of course, the emphasis is public appearance because we know of the rampant prostitution and horrific factory conditions including child labor. The missionary societies did good work but they were often mistrusted by the poor. Even today, there is a disconnect between the volunteer and those served…unless the volunteers/leaders are members of the same community/neighborhood base. That is part of the reason the Wesleys were so successful, they understood their congregations/constituents. And they helped lead the movement of literacy for the poor to better themselves (and read the Bible).
    I’ll kick back my soapbox and let someone else speak.

    Reply
  60. I like several things that were said:
    ages of license are followed by ages of morality.(from talpianna)
    it was fascinating to see how Wesley and his followers reached out to the poor and dispossessed. (from Mary Jo)
    My spin on Victoria was that she was disgusted by the immorality at court and when she became queen, she took steps to change the mood. George III’s early court had a family atmosphere, but with a woman in charge, court became much more domestic. Even women’s dress became less figure revealing from the beginning of her reign.
    Anyway, I think that this atmosphere was contributory to the public appearance of morality, piety and sobriety of the Victorian era, esp after the death of Prince Albert.
    Of course, the emphasis is public appearance because we know of the rampant prostitution and horrific factory conditions including child labor. The missionary societies did good work but they were often mistrusted by the poor. Even today, there is a disconnect between the volunteer and those served…unless the volunteers/leaders are members of the same community/neighborhood base. That is part of the reason the Wesleys were so successful, they understood their congregations/constituents. And they helped lead the movement of literacy for the poor to better themselves (and read the Bible).
    I’ll kick back my soapbox and let someone else speak.

    Reply
  61. I can’t remember the details of the curse, and the Shelve Elves did not put my books in any sort of order–except size. Anyway, the curse was put on the House of Hanover, IIRC, a generation or so before the Elector became George I.

    Reply
  62. I can’t remember the details of the curse, and the Shelve Elves did not put my books in any sort of order–except size. Anyway, the curse was put on the House of Hanover, IIRC, a generation or so before the Elector became George I.

    Reply
  63. I can’t remember the details of the curse, and the Shelve Elves did not put my books in any sort of order–except size. Anyway, the curse was put on the House of Hanover, IIRC, a generation or so before the Elector became George I.

    Reply
  64. I can’t remember the details of the curse, and the Shelve Elves did not put my books in any sort of order–except size. Anyway, the curse was put on the House of Hanover, IIRC, a generation or so before the Elector became George I.

    Reply
  65. I can’t remember the details of the curse, and the Shelve Elves did not put my books in any sort of order–except size. Anyway, the curse was put on the House of Hanover, IIRC, a generation or so before the Elector became George I.

    Reply
  66. For statistics, try the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (new as of 1953, but it takes in the relevant periods of time). 13 vols.

    Reply
  67. For statistics, try the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (new as of 1953, but it takes in the relevant periods of time). 13 vols.

    Reply
  68. For statistics, try the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (new as of 1953, but it takes in the relevant periods of time). 13 vols.

    Reply
  69. For statistics, try the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (new as of 1953, but it takes in the relevant periods of time). 13 vols.

    Reply
  70. For statistics, try the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (new as of 1953, but it takes in the relevant periods of time). 13 vols.

    Reply
  71. Victoria was not allowed at court; she was brought up at Kensington Palace under the thumbs of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Fitzroy, who may have been the Duchess’s lover. The strongest influence on Victoria’s character as a child and young woman was her governess, Baroness Lehzen, who was a pastor’s daughter and rather sternly moral.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Lehzen
    Here’s some interesting rumors and urban legends about the House of Hanover/Windsor, including the bit about the Duke of Clarence being Jack the Ripper:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty_and_urban_legends

    Reply
  72. Victoria was not allowed at court; she was brought up at Kensington Palace under the thumbs of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Fitzroy, who may have been the Duchess’s lover. The strongest influence on Victoria’s character as a child and young woman was her governess, Baroness Lehzen, who was a pastor’s daughter and rather sternly moral.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Lehzen
    Here’s some interesting rumors and urban legends about the House of Hanover/Windsor, including the bit about the Duke of Clarence being Jack the Ripper:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty_and_urban_legends

    Reply
  73. Victoria was not allowed at court; she was brought up at Kensington Palace under the thumbs of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Fitzroy, who may have been the Duchess’s lover. The strongest influence on Victoria’s character as a child and young woman was her governess, Baroness Lehzen, who was a pastor’s daughter and rather sternly moral.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Lehzen
    Here’s some interesting rumors and urban legends about the House of Hanover/Windsor, including the bit about the Duke of Clarence being Jack the Ripper:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty_and_urban_legends

    Reply
  74. Victoria was not allowed at court; she was brought up at Kensington Palace under the thumbs of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Fitzroy, who may have been the Duchess’s lover. The strongest influence on Victoria’s character as a child and young woman was her governess, Baroness Lehzen, who was a pastor’s daughter and rather sternly moral.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Lehzen
    Here’s some interesting rumors and urban legends about the House of Hanover/Windsor, including the bit about the Duke of Clarence being Jack the Ripper:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty_and_urban_legends

    Reply
  75. Victoria was not allowed at court; she was brought up at Kensington Palace under the thumbs of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Fitzroy, who may have been the Duchess’s lover. The strongest influence on Victoria’s character as a child and young woman was her governess, Baroness Lehzen, who was a pastor’s daughter and rather sternly moral.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Lehzen
    Here’s some interesting rumors and urban legends about the House of Hanover/Windsor, including the bit about the Duke of Clarence being Jack the Ripper:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_royalty_and_urban_legends

    Reply
  76. Tal!! For heaven’s sake! At least give us a hint!!! I can wait for the details but what’s the general gist of the curse?
    I love stuff like this, can you tell??
    😀

    Reply
  77. Tal!! For heaven’s sake! At least give us a hint!!! I can wait for the details but what’s the general gist of the curse?
    I love stuff like this, can you tell??
    😀

    Reply
  78. Tal!! For heaven’s sake! At least give us a hint!!! I can wait for the details but what’s the general gist of the curse?
    I love stuff like this, can you tell??
    😀

    Reply
  79. Tal!! For heaven’s sake! At least give us a hint!!! I can wait for the details but what’s the general gist of the curse?
    I love stuff like this, can you tell??
    😀

    Reply
  80. Tal!! For heaven’s sake! At least give us a hint!!! I can wait for the details but what’s the general gist of the curse?
    I love stuff like this, can you tell??
    😀

    Reply
  81. This is a truly fascinating discussion, nudging my curiosity to dig more into an era where I really have no right to drift into! The dualism of Victorian society has always repelled me, but it does lead to some fascinating stories.
    Thanks for the stats reference!
    Now must go hunt curses…

    Reply
  82. This is a truly fascinating discussion, nudging my curiosity to dig more into an era where I really have no right to drift into! The dualism of Victorian society has always repelled me, but it does lead to some fascinating stories.
    Thanks for the stats reference!
    Now must go hunt curses…

    Reply
  83. This is a truly fascinating discussion, nudging my curiosity to dig more into an era where I really have no right to drift into! The dualism of Victorian society has always repelled me, but it does lead to some fascinating stories.
    Thanks for the stats reference!
    Now must go hunt curses…

    Reply
  84. This is a truly fascinating discussion, nudging my curiosity to dig more into an era where I really have no right to drift into! The dualism of Victorian society has always repelled me, but it does lead to some fascinating stories.
    Thanks for the stats reference!
    Now must go hunt curses…

    Reply
  85. This is a truly fascinating discussion, nudging my curiosity to dig more into an era where I really have no right to drift into! The dualism of Victorian society has always repelled me, but it does lead to some fascinating stories.
    Thanks for the stats reference!
    Now must go hunt curses…

    Reply
  86. OOOPS!!! That should have been Sir John CONROY!!! These things happen when you’ve been reading a lot of Tanya Huff!
    The Kohary blood curse was the one I was thinking of:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-3/body_vds-3.html
    But there’s also this one:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-10/body_vds-10.html
    I found these on a website called VICTORIA’S DARK SECRETS–I don’t vouch for the authenticity:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html

    Reply
  87. OOOPS!!! That should have been Sir John CONROY!!! These things happen when you’ve been reading a lot of Tanya Huff!
    The Kohary blood curse was the one I was thinking of:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-3/body_vds-3.html
    But there’s also this one:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-10/body_vds-10.html
    I found these on a website called VICTORIA’S DARK SECRETS–I don’t vouch for the authenticity:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html

    Reply
  88. OOOPS!!! That should have been Sir John CONROY!!! These things happen when you’ve been reading a lot of Tanya Huff!
    The Kohary blood curse was the one I was thinking of:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-3/body_vds-3.html
    But there’s also this one:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-10/body_vds-10.html
    I found these on a website called VICTORIA’S DARK SECRETS–I don’t vouch for the authenticity:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html

    Reply
  89. OOOPS!!! That should have been Sir John CONROY!!! These things happen when you’ve been reading a lot of Tanya Huff!
    The Kohary blood curse was the one I was thinking of:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-3/body_vds-3.html
    But there’s also this one:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-10/body_vds-10.html
    I found these on a website called VICTORIA’S DARK SECRETS–I don’t vouch for the authenticity:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html

    Reply
  90. OOOPS!!! That should have been Sir John CONROY!!! These things happen when you’ve been reading a lot of Tanya Huff!
    The Kohary blood curse was the one I was thinking of:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-3/body_vds-3.html
    But there’s also this one:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/VDS-10/body_vds-10.html
    I found these on a website called VICTORIA’S DARK SECRETS–I don’t vouch for the authenticity:
    http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html

    Reply

Leave a Comment