Quilting in the Regency

Quilting is an art form that has only just recently been seen as one. It started in ancient times in the East and would eventually spread to the west as communications between the two continents spread. Archaeologists have found quilted objects from Mongolian tombs that date as far back as 100 BCE.[1] Because of the expense of fabric only the wealthiest would have had quilts that remain intact. Others would have needed to repurpose the materials to make new goods when they were no longer needed for the quilt.

When the knowledge of quilting reached England it advanced greatly with the development of textile production.[2]  While the upper classes were the ones that owned the quilts their lower class servants were the ones that created these works of art and some households produced excess quilts to sell to other households.[3]

When North America began to be settled by Europeans they brought their knowledge of quilting with them. As time went on the patterns in the new world mimicked that in England until the American Revolution when the American style of quilting emerged.[4] Therefore Canadian quilts during this period would have been a mixture of both American and European influence.

The International Quilt Study centre and Museum showcases an online exhibit that includes examples of quilts created during the regency period.

http://www.quiltstudy.org/exhibitions/online_exhibitions/mosaic/paper_pieces1.html

To think that these blankets were made completely by hand and that it often took years to finish is astonishing to us. After all we too have taken up quilting, however, we do so with modern convinces like sewing machines. I can attest to the fact that even with all my time saving equipment none of my creations are anywhere as near as perfect as those done by ladies in another era.

It is an aspect of their lives I have romanticized; the thought that one would gather with her friends to make something that she would keep and cherish for many years to come. This sometimes is what brought comfort that made their way in the world a long way off from the family and friends that they grew up with.[5] So I implore everyone to take another look at these beautiful masterpieces in their own right and ponder who put the care into creating them and what they would have meant.

---

[1] Roberts, Elise. The Quilt: A History and Celebration of an American Art Form. (Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2007) 16.

[2] Roberts, Elise. The Quilt: A History and Celebration of an American Art Form. (Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2007) 18-19.

[3] Roberts, Elise. The Quilt: A History and Celebration of an American Art Form. (Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2007) 18-19.

[4] Roberts, Elise. The Quilt: A History and Celebration of an American Art Form. (Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2007) 20.

[5] Roberts, Elise. The Quilt: A History and Celebration of an American Art Form. (Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2007) 28.

The Taxman

The taxman...we dread him today but let’s take a look back in the regency period and see how bad we could have had it.

If you come into the homestead it looks like any nice modern day small house would...on the main floor. The upper level has a very low ceiling. First off the low ceiling keeps the heat in during the winter (works well in the summer too which is why we recently put in ye olde air conditioner). However the low ceilings were also a way to lower taxes. In Laura’s time there was a story tax. For every storey your house was you paid more tax. Laura’s house sits at 1 and ½ stories therefore it was rounded down to one story (imagine that the taxman rounding DOWN!). Twice the floor space half the price... smart woman.

You also won’t find any closets in the home. There was a room tax, four walls and a door counted as a room, meaning a closet would be taxed. The middle classes didn’t have very many clothing options anyway so a trunk or wardrobe would suit them just fine. Preferably cedar as that would keep away the bugs as well. You can see small references to the tax if you look at books like Pride and Prejudice where you see how excited Mr.Collins is to have a closet in the guest room Elizabeth will stay in.

The perfect example in England of a building where smaller windows were made then even those were bricked up later.

Have you ever been on a trip and seen bricked up windows in the old homes? Taxes strike once again! Glass was taxed. At first they would tax on the size of the pane as larger glass was more expense. People became wise to this and got smaller panes for their windows. Not to be outdone the tax changed to cover the number of panes. Feeling defeated the masses began to brick up their windows to avoid the tax. Ever heard the expression a “daylight robbery”?

The income tax we know today in Canada was invented by the British in 1800 to finance their effort in the Napoleonic War. The tax was repealed in 1816 and opponents of the tax, who thought it should only be used to finance wars, wanted all records of the tax destroyed. Records were publicly burned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but copies were kept in the basement of the tax court.¹ The first income tax suggested in the United States was during the War of 1812. The tax was developed in 1814 but was never imposed because the treaty of Ghent was signed in 1815 ending hostilities and the need for additional revenue.

There was a tea tax, a coffee tax, a paper tax, foreign molasses, foreign wine, sugar, newspapers, commercial and legal document tax etc...etc.....there was no escape. No wonder the US went all Boston Tea party on the English.

1.           Adams, Charles 1998 Those Dirty Rotten TAXES, The Free Press, New York NY

Servants

Servants were in vogue during the 19^th century, and even a middle-class family like the Secord’s had two day servants at their disposal: a married couple named Flow (AKA “Fanny”) and George.

            Servants were often hired by families based on personal recommendations from others. In fact, because the turnover rate for servants was so fast (most only served 2-3 years in one household) servants relied on written characters and word of mouth to obtain new jobs.¹ These written characters were so valuable that if a servant were to forge a letter of recommendation “The Servants’ Characters Act of 1792 made it quite clear that he (or she) who is found guilty of making up a reference will ‘be convicted of such offence in manner aforesaid, every such servant … shall thereupon be discharged and … all penalties and punishments to which at the time of such information given.’”²

However, Registry Offices were also developed as places where someone could find and employ a servant without advertising, as advertising could prove to be expensive.³ There were three types of registry offices: an office where both servant and employer paid for the services of the office, where the employer paid, and a registry system for foreign servants.⁴

"Image of a Registry Office taken from “Downstairs in Downtown Abbey.”

Servants were not just a status symbol during the 19^th century, they were a necessity. With 21^st century washing machines and Swiffer mops, it may be difficult to conceive why families during the 19^th century would require the use of servants. But servants were expected to do the laundry, cook, clean and take care of children (just to name some duties), and for families like the Secord’s who had seven children, these tasks could be daunting for just one person. Larger households would have both male and female live-in staffs, and just like the strict social hierarchies found during the Regency period, there were also strict servant hierarchies: The head male servant was termed a “Butler” and was responsible for supervising the footmen, the wine cellar and would be responsible for introducing guests to the man and lady of the house.⁵ A housekeeper was the head of the female staff and was in charge of the house maids, kitchen maids and scullery maids. A housekeeper’s other duties included making preserves, keeping household accounts and washing household linens.⁶ Larger homes would also have outdoor servants like gamekeepers, stable men etc.

Being a servant could be very profitable, as it was possible to work one’s way up this hierarchy, as “a good and reliable servant was a prized commodity.”⁷ But one of the most difficult jobs that faced servants was to remain invisible to the family that employed them, to remain seen and yet unseen because, even though these servants were valuable, they occupied the lower rungs of Regency social and economic hierarchies.⁸ For this reason, most households had a separate entrance for their servants.⁹

There was even a bell system established to call servants, each bell having a different tone to alert the servants which room they were needed in.¹⁰

Obtaining a career of a servant was sometimes a necessity and provided other opportunities for young people. For example, children were often considered “economic burdens,” especially those living in the country.¹¹ Becoming a domestic servant, for example, was often a great way for a female child to earn money for their family and also obtain an education, as often times young girls who were hired as domestic servants would receive the same education as the children of the household they served.

It’s funny to think that often times in historic films and period pieces the servants are often in the background. So much so, that we as viewers may not even register their presence. But hopefully this blog has shed some light onto the very important and interesting roles servants played in the Regency world.

1.     “Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later.”

2.     As cited in “Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later.”

3.     “Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later.”

4.     “Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later.”

5.     Pool, 220.

6.     Pool, 220.

7.     “Downstairs in Downtown Abbey.”

8.     “Downstairs in Downtown Abbey.”

9.     “Downstairs in Downtown Abbey.”

10.  “Downstairs in Downtown Abbey.”

11.  “Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later.”

References

Pool, Daniel. “Servants” In What Jane Austen Ate and What Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox

Hunting to Whist The Facts and Daily Life of 19^th Century England, 218-224. New York:

Simon & Schuster, 1993

“Downstairs in Downtown Abbey,” Jane Austen’s World, January 5, 2011,

http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/downstairs-in-downtoNabbey-the servants/

“Hiring Servants in the Regency Era and Later,” Jane Austen’s World, March 27, 2009,

http://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/hiring-servants-in-the-regency-era

and-late/

Knitting in the Regency

The Regency is a period known for its lavish and elegant lifestyle. Yet this was an extreme that only the wealthiest class would have lived. An advantage to this lifestyle was the ability to go to the store and buy everything premade. The question then rises as to what the middle and lower classes would have done? The simplest answer being that they would have made things by themselves for themselves. These people were the ones that were manufacturing the goods for the upper classes to purchase and therefore they had the know how to do it quickly and well.

In Laura’s day going out and buying all your clothing wasn’t an option for the average North American family. Taking into consideration that she would have had to clothe five children during wartime, meaning there would have been a delay in goods coming from both Europe and the States, it is probable that she would have had to have made goods to supplement the families wardrobe. With this in mind the conclusion that Laura Secord would have made things by hand seams like a safe assumption. At the very least she would have had someone in her life to do it for her.

Most everyone during the Regency would have knitted during this period whether they were man woman or child. Women knitted because it could be done in between all their other household duties. Men knitted when they were in an industry that necessitated a lot of down time like shepherding. In 1820 a family of knitters could earn upwards of 12-20 pounds a year to supplement their income.[i]  This meant more disposable income to spend on things like groceries and raw materials to make goods. It was done with such frequency that spinning wheels and knitting needles were broken in by their owners and soon adopted their groves.[ii] The tools would have been very personal to their owner and would have been made out of steel or fashioned out of wood.[iii]

While stockings were most certainly on the list of Regency Knitted goods, I love to ponder as to what other items would have been created. The problem being that once something had served its purpose it often got taken apart to be reused and therefore, very little survives to us today in it’s original form. There are a few reticules (regency purses) and shawls to pull ideas from, after that it is all up to interpretation. Luckily, however, I am not alone in my musings! Recently a Regency knitting pattern magazine has been released with patterns for socks, mittens, shawls, and capes.

            

As always I find it ironic that what was once a pastime for the lower to middle classes as a means of frugality has become a sought after art that one pays dearly for. While there is no longer a necessity to add to our wardrobes with knitted goods our yearning still needs to be satisfied. At the homestead we satisfy this calling by making goods for donation. Currently we are working on some toys for donation this Christmas.    

---

[i] Craig, Sheryl. “Jane and Knitting.” Interweaves Jane Austen Knits. 2011: 20-23. Electronic.

[ii] Craig, Sheryl. “Jane and Knitting.” Interweaves Jane Austen Knits. 2011: 20-23. Electronic.

[iii] Craig, Sheryl. “Jane and Knitting.” Interweaves Jane Austen Knits. 2011: 20-23. Electronic.

The Cravat....not so simple or sophisticated

       In history it is said that the ancients were “happily unacquainted with the ridiculous and dangerous fashion of confining the throat with linen”1  . The romans however made use of cloths for the protection of neck and throat these were called focalia. Augustus constantly used such a neck cloth when at home or with friends but never out in public. At the time it was considered beneath the dignity of a man to protect a throat in anyway other then the hand.

        The cloths began to take on a more public role as they were brought into fashion by Louis XIII and were then made utterly extravagant by Louis the XIV. The cravats worn by officers were embroidered or trimmed with fine lace. The lower classes had cotton or at best black taffeta tied at the back with two small strings. These strings were later replaced by clasps and the cravat took the name of stock. Stocks later became pieces of leather attached at the back under his majesty Louis the XV. Officers wanting their men to look healthy asked them  to tighten their stocks almost to the point of suffocation to produce a healthy colouring of the face. Their are even accounts of soldier being taken off the field of battle, not caused by injury, but caused by stocks being so tight it cut off air flow.

       One account by Dr. Pizis mentioned how he was making fun of his commanding officers outrageously big cravat only moments before the officer was shot. When running to the officers aid he found that the bullet had been stopped by the very cravat he was poking fun at.

 After reading about the surprising interesting and outrageously funny history of the cravat we decided we needed to give this little piece of cloth a bigger role on our tours. Our one and only male interpreter was all for it and so evolved our Dandy persona.  We would love to experiment with colour and size but we had quite an issue sorting out what a cravat would have said about you. Certain colours meant certain things. Size and even the way you tied it could tell a gentleman apart from a stable boy.

You even had to pay attention not to wear one colour to a particular type of event lest you be escorted out. Our interpreter is seen below in two cravats. The first being an off duty soldier as the colour black was reserved for those in service however white was worn while on duty. The second shows a bit of an extreme. Portraying a personality similar to the infamous Beau Brummel, we are showing a multicolour cravat rarely seen in the time as it was too bold and fashion forward. Nick is a true Dandy now!

1. LBlanc, LE. The Art of Tying the Cravat. London: Effingham Wilson, 1828. Print.

Spinning

Spinning fibre has been around since before language. Originally fibres were collected and then spun around a stick. Give it a try it is harder then it looks

Later a weight was added to the stick and the drop spindle was invented.  This weight  allowed for a quicker and finer spin though you still needed to stop every turn to wind your thread. Drop spindles could be made out of almost everything and children were taught from a very young age. It was something that could be easily kept in a pocket and worked on throughout the day.

   The first wheels came about in India and China. The first illustration showing a wheel was made in 1237. Once the spinning wheel was in use it began to make the spindle obsolete which frightened those who based their income on the spindle. Thus the spinning wheel yarn was banned into the early 1300’s until they could no longer logically make an argument against it. 

The “U” shape of the wheel was added in 1480 and made it possible to spin continuously as you did not have to stop to wind the thread.

In the 1800’s people would have been spinning using one type of fibre they would not have been able to afford or acquire the variety we have now.

Fibres:

Fibers range from ½ inch to 3inches in length. The act of spinning the fibre allows for it to be secured to the next making it strong

Cotton:  Has very short fibres making it harder to spin. Cotton was not used often in earlier times. It had to be brought in from the south and as a crop it was always dependant on the weather. It was one of the most expensive fibres to spin.

Linen: More available in the north however the fibres are long and must be spun when wet. Not only is this messy but it could also compromise wooden wheels. Same as cotton, this crop was dependant on weather and bugs.

Wool: Available in almost all areas, it is renewable, easy to dye and the fibres are a good length. This was a very popular fibre to use for spinning.  Be very careful when choosing your wool. Every variety of sheep has a very different wool texture.  I find corridale spins the best, however others here seem to like merino.

Alpaca: You might see this fibre being used in the southern states but would rarely get to use it this far north. It is decent to spin and gives a soft yarn.  We found out this is a very easy and stretchy fibre to spin...but the lanolin in the fibre does get troublesome.

Silk: Small and very strong fibres. It is hard to separate in the drafting but is excellent for studier jobs. This would have been difficult to come by however the rich would have attempted to get it as the influence of India and the Orient were very big during the late regency.  My personal favourite to spin. It almost drafts itself!

We are just starting to experiment with plant fibres....it hasn’t been pretty.  You almost have to learn to spin all over again. If any of the readers have tips please share!

Note: We just had a beautiful loom donated to the site!  We are very much looking forward to our adventure in learning to weave. Wish us luck.

Note 2: check out how our garden is coming along.

Regency Schooling

With the end of the school year fast approaching, we at the Laura Secord Homestead thought it would be appropriate to share with our readers a short history of the development of 19^th century education. Let us assure you, the school houses in the early and late 19^th century are very unlike the classrooms children occupy today…

            In the early 19^th century, teaching was considered to be an appropriate vocation for women, especially those who were widowed.¹ The types of educations young ladies and men would receive during this period were based largely on their social class. In fact, there was a variety of different organizations meant to educate the young and wealthy women of Canada: “finishing schools, academies and female seminaries” were all available to the wealthy and strove to “produce a lady able to mix in society at home and abroad.”² Many of these institutions would teach “reading, arithmetic, spelling, penmanship, geography and French. Classics were taught on occasions and instead of history or politics, girls red plays, poetry, novels and moral tracts, and learned the skills of music, singing, playing an instrument, dancing, painting, drawing and fine needlework.”³ Even Laura Secord herself became involved in educating the youth of Canada, and ran etiquette class in her home in Chippewa. However, these formal forms of education were mostly reserved for the wealthy. Poor families would receive education from the church, or would be instructed by neighbors, parents etc.⁴ If a young girl from a poor family was lucky, she could land herself a position as a domestic at a wealthier family’s home and hopefully receive the same education as the wealthy children of the household. Boy’s education differed in that there was a larger emphasis on arithmetic, and would often learn through play. 

The equivalent of a gold star, this item would be awarded to school children for “diligence.”

It wasn’t until the mid to late 1800’s that Canada (and Upper Canada especially) began serious educational reforms. Specifically, it is during this time that public schools began to develop. Public education gained support because of “increased immigration and settlement of families, the influx of United Empire Loyalists from the United States, and political and economic threats to Canadian lands and resources.”⁵ For this reason, the aim of public school was to develop “distinctly Canadian identities” by “cultivating new attitudes” in students.⁶ It was during this time that both boys and girls were educated together in a single school house. However, boys were encouraged to seek out more education by attending high school, and wealthy boys would be even encouraged to go to University. Girls were often only educated at the primary level, and at that time would be expected to channel their energies into running a household.⁷

However, the realization of free public education as we know it today was not without problems. For example, there was a serious lack of funding in developing schools which made it difficult to hire teachers, build school houses etc.⁸ Not to mention, the government had to combat the indifference of many parents, as many people felt the introduction of a mandatory public schools was an invasion of private life, and for that reason, attendance at schools was often abysmal.⁹ Attendance was also affected by “regional differences in socio-economic circumstances as well as families’ material conditions and class backgrounds.”¹⁰ The poorer the family, the less likely they were to attend class. Worst of all, it was difficult to find and hire well trained teachers.¹¹ Schools desperately attempted to recruit men as teachers to “legitimize” this new public form of education. However, because these schools had little funding, they had to recruit those who would work for less: women. But as the 19^th century continued, this trend shifted, and as public education became more popular with the public, men became the norm for teachers.

Obviously the development of public education is far more complex then what has just presented. But hopeful, this short summary has given some readers some further insight into the lives of those living in the 19^th century.

1. Graves, 110
2.  Graves, 111
3. Graves, 111
4. Graves, 113.
5. Wotherspoon, 61.
6. Wotherspoon, 61.
7. Kalman, 18.
8. Wotherspoon, 62.
9. Wotherspoon, 62.
10. Wotherspoon, 62.
11.  Wotherspoon, 62.

References

Graves, Dianne. “Gainful in Employment” In In the Midst of Alarms: The Untold Story of

Women and the War of 1812, 102-130.Canada: Robin Brass Studio, 2007.

Kalman, Bobbie. “Children at School” In Colonial Life, 18. Canada: Crabtree Publishing, 1992.

Wotherspoon, Terry. “Historical Dimensions of Canadian Education” In The Sociology of

Education in Canada, 54-74. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

1.