Back to Top

Monthly Archives: June 2010

A week ago, I told you what Wellington and Napoleon were doing on that date 195 years ago. Today 195 years ago, a young Nathan Rothschild, who had been instrumental in providing and delivering gold to pay for the war, stood by a pillar in the Stock Exchange. His efficient network of communication had delivered to him news of the Allied Victory at Waterloo. Legend has it that he deliberately gave the impression that Wellington had lost the battle, by looking gloomy and selling Consols (bonds) precipitating a panic of selling. Then he supposedly bought up the Consols at a depressed price, knowing their value would soar when Wellington’s courier finally reached London. If I’m remembering correctly, Heyer used this version of events in A Civil Contract.

But the truth of Rothschild’s involvement was somewhat different, as you can see in this YouTube video:

The Rothschilds assumed, as did everyone else, that England and its allies were facing a protracted war once again. Nathan Rothschild had bought up gold to provide to Wellington to pay for the war effort, but after the surprising decisive victory, the price of gold would plummet and Rothschild would suffer a great loss. Instead he gambled on the rise of the bond market. He bought up bonds and sold them two years later at a whopping 40 per cent profit. So he did make money, but he’d taken a great risk and had not exploited the country. His provision of gold, after all, financed the war effort. Of course he made a profit from that, too, originally.

Wellington’s dispatch arrived forty hours later than Rothschild’s. Here’s an account from The Telegraph’s review of Peter Hofschröer’s book, Wellington’s Smallest Victory:

News of the Battle of Waterloo was rushed to London by Harry Percy, Wellington’s only surviving unwounded ADC. He carried the despatch in a velvet handkerchief sachet an admirer had thrust into his hand as he hurried from the Duchess of Richmond’s famous Brussels ball on the eve of battle. He had no sleep that night, nor the five nights following, and had to row himself ashore from the middle of the Channel. His scarlet and gold tunic was still torn, dirty and blood-stained when he burst into a St James’s ballroom, a captured French standard in each hand, and dropped to one knee before the Prince Regent. It was Shakespearean.

Think of how instantaneously information reaches us today!

I really do hate to think about investments and bonds and profiteering now or in the Regency, although I think the sending of information so quickly, like Rothschild arranged, would make for an interesting episode in a book. That would be exciting!

I’m not sure I’d find banking in the Regency the stuff of Romance. Would you?


Come join the conversation on Diane’s blog on Thursday when Mary Blayney and I talk about the Regency and her new release (as of tomorrow, June 22) Courtesan’s Kiss. Mary will be our guest here at Risky Regencies on July 18.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 8 Replies


It should surprise no-one that my first introduction to the concept of Waterloo was from Abba:

My my, at Waterloo Napoleon did surrender
Oh yeah, and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way
The history book on the shelf
Is always repeating itself

Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo – finally facing my Waterloo

My my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger
Oh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight
And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you

And how could I ever refuse
I feel like I win when I lose

Waterloo – I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo – promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo – couldn’t escape if I wanted to
Waterloo – knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo – finally facing my Waterloo

The extended etymological sense of “a final, crushing defeat” was first referenced in an 1816 letter of Lord Byron. And yes, it was a final, crushing defeat, but as Janet so eloquently posted yesterday, one in four soldiers died.

Meeting one’s Waterloo is something to be avoided. I’ve had a few near misses, but thus far have dodged any final, crushing defeats (although temporary ones are in abundance).

In books, the potential ‘final, crushing defeat’ is what is more normally called the Black Moment–that time in the book when neither the author nor the reader sees a possible way out of the situation that won’t result in misery, loss of love, loss of life, or eternal heartbreak. What makes our books so revelatory is that we do always find a way out, a way to vanquish that defeat with love, or a compromise, or a sacrifice. Literary fiction doesn’t always give us the Happy Ending, at least not the unabashed Happy Ending; romantic fiction does, thank goodness, so we can see hope amidst the fighting.

Have you ever had your own Waterloo? What happened? Are you a fan of the ‘gasp, clutch your chest and wonder how they’ll get out of it’ books, like I am? Who’s your favorite Black Moment author?

Megan

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 9 Replies

It’s the eve of the Battle of Waterloo and we Riskies have been discussing offlist whether we should the battle again or not. The topic is both finite and infinite; there is so much material but for me it comes down to one fact that I wrote about here a couple of years ago here

Today I’m talking about the ordinary soldiers, the kids who signed up for the king’s shilling out of patriotism, were fooled by unscrupulous recruiters, or because they had so few options … One in four soldiers died that June day in 1815. Read more

Forget the ball and the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon and the dashing uniforms. One in four.

And that got me thinking about how we distill and sort historical information as writers and readers. What does the Regency represent to us?

For instance it’s a period of fashion and elegance, fabulous clothes, gorgeous architecture and interior design. Yet the simplicity and gorgeous drape we associate with gowns of the period really belongs to an earlier era, well before the Regency proper (1811-1820), as does most of the classic Georgian architecture. Consider the evolution of fashion from this 1795 gown (right) to the fussiness of the 1822 one (left).

We also associate the period with a certain amount of freedom and glamor and the Romantics–except by the 18-teens it wasn’t a great time to be a poet, particularly a poet of radical leanings. Shelley and Byron fled the country, but more because of their scandalous personal lives than their writing (except their lives and writing and political beliefs were bound together).

Their friend Leigh Hunt, journalist and co-founder of the Examiner, a periodical that mixed radical politics and the arts, was imprisoned for two years in 1813 for saying rude, if true, things about Prinny.

In addition, Lord Liverpool’s government passed some extraordinarily repressive legislation cutting down on civil liberties as a result of the uproar that followed the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, when local militia cut down a peaceful demonstration in Manchester. As a sidenote, the city is seeking a more permanent tribute on the site, as reported by the Guardian:

One of the lasting memorials of Peterloo crosses the former site of St Peter’s Fields daily, tucked under the arms of passers-by or downloaded to their computers and iPods.

It is the Guardian itself, which was founded by a group of moderate Manchester reformers as a direct result of the massacre, when it became clear that demonstrations and direct action were not going to change the government’s mind on widening the vote.

The government’s reaction was to pass legislation in addition to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Six Acts of 1819:

  • Training Prevention Act or Unlawful Drilling limited any sort of military training to local jurisdictions, punishable by transportation.
  • Seizure of Arms Act gave local magistrates the authority to search any private property for weapons and to arrest the owners.
  • Misdemeanors Act reduced opportunities for bail and allowed for speedier court processing.
  • Seditious Meetings Prevention Act made meetings of fifty or more people illegal unless authorized by a sheriff or magistrate.
  • Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act. If Hunt had libeled Prinny in 1819 he could have been sentenced to fourteen years transportation.
  • Newspaper and Stamp Duties Act imposed taxes on publications that published opinion in addition to those that published news, and publishers were required to post a bond for their behavior.

Yikes. Not exactly the land of the free.

How do you reconcile the historical truth with the fantasy when you’re reading or writing?

I’m blogging today at Supernatural Underground and giving away ARCs of Jane and the Damned as prizes, and there’s a Damned Good Contest on my site, plus various excerpts etc. Check it out!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 6 Replies

This week marks the 195th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, a battle that figures prominently in history and also in our Regency Historicals. The first book in my Three Soldiers Series, Gallant Officer, Forbidden Lady, ends at Waterloo. Book number two, Chivalrous Captain, Rebel Mistress, begins there, smack in the middle of the battle.

I wondered what the two men whose names are nearly synonymous with the battle were doing on June 14, 1815. Both, I discovered, were writing dispatches.


Napoleon’s was in the form a a proclamation to his troops.

“Soldiers: This day is the anniversary of Marengo and Friedland, which twice
decided the destiny of Europe. Then, as after the battles of Austerlitz and
Wagram, we were too generous. We believed in the protestations and oaths of
princes to whom we left their thrones. Now, however, leagued together, they
strike at the independence and sacred rights of France…After having swallowed up twelve millions of Poles, twelve millions of Italians, one million Saxons, and six
millions of Belgians, they now wish to devour the States of the second order
among the Germans. Madmen! one moment of prosperity has bewildered them. To
oppress and humble the people of France is out of their power; once entering our
territory, there they will find their doom. Soldiers: We have forced marches
before us, battles to fight, and dangers to encounter; but firm in resolution,
victory must be ours. The honor and happiness of our country are at stake! and,
in short, Frenchmen, the moment is arrived when we must conquer or die!”

Napoleon knew he was days away from engaging the Prussians and one can understand his need to inspire his troops. Still, his words are brimming with arrogance, of the certainty of his superiority.

Napoleon had the advantage. He knew he was on the attack. The Allies knew only that engagement was imminent; at this point, they did not know where or when Napoleon would meet them.

Because of this, Wellington’s dispatches of June 14, 1815, deal with more practical matters. On this day he wrote to other Allied leaders, including Prince Metternich. In his dispatch to Metternich, Wellington, like Napoleon, is looking forward in time and planning for the occupation of France. He proposes a plan that will increase the cooperation of the conquered people, ceding control to Louis XVIII. He also reiterates his characteristic policy of reimbursing the citizenry of any property the army may need to take from him.


Wellington writes:

…It tends to make partisans instead of enemies of those who shall have
given their property for the subsistence of the several armies. Every man who
shall have in his possession a voucher or receipt on the part of the officers of
Louis XVIII. will feel an interest in the success of the cause, in proportion as
he shall value the property taken from him.
…It will put an end to very disagreeable discussions between the Commanders of the several armies, myself particularly, and Louis XVIII. His Majesty…will naturally claim to take possession of the country which shall fall into the hands of the Allies… His Majesty Louis XVIII. and the Allies, will appoint officers to govern that country….By adopting this system, which is the most simple and, as I have above shown, the most beneficial to the allied armies, we should at the same time hold out something to France to which the public opinion might attach itself….We should avoid the evil of seizing the public treasures in France; an evil which it will be very difficult to avoid under any other system, and which will be fatal to the discipline and reputation of the allied armies, and will give but too much reason to the French people to believe that the Allies have forgotten, or have omitted to act upon, the system laid down in their public declarations and their
treaties.

It appears that Wellington had no intention for the Allies to “swallow up” France, but rather to restore the country to the monarchy.

Neither Napoleon nor Wellington could have known the outcome of the ultimate battle. Moreover, neither one could have known that this battle would take a prominent place in history as one of the greatest battles of all time.

My friends Kristine Hughes and Victoria Hinshaw are attending this year’s Waterloo reinactment and I’m so envious I could just…..something. Check out their activities on Number One London blog.

So…what are you writing today? Any dispatches or proclamations?

Don’t forget to visit me at Diane’s blog on Thursday when I’ll give away another signed copy of Gallant Officer, Forbidden Lady. I’ll announce last week’s winner there tomorrow.

Blogging at DianeGaston.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 6 Replies

Don’t Stand So/
Don’t Stand So/
Don’t Stand So Close To Me.

The Framptons have all been engaged recently in watching the new Doctor Who, and it’s a fascinating exercise in sexual tension and relationship-building.

Each Doctor has a companion, a human person who helps them in the whole Saving The World thing. This season, Doctor Who’s companion is Amy Pond, a feisty Scot who thinks nothing of dashing after vampires and facing danger in the teeth (so to speak) and all that.

And there’s sexual tension; after all, the Doctor is a young, smart, witty, handsome, tall guy who has all the answers; she’s young, smart, witty, beautiful and although she doesn’t have all the answers, she does ask questions. Which is, of course, intriguing to our Doctor.

But one interesting direction of the series is how close the two stand to one another. So close, in fact, that if it were in real life, you would think they were invading each other’s personal spaces. The doctor likes to speak rapidly into Amy’s ear, and she often leans up (he’s TALL!) to bite out some question to him.

Much, in fact, like our heroes and heroines, who are constantly getting in one another’s faces. As someone who visualizes the action in her head as she writes, this is really helpful to imagine what it feels like to be sparring with the object of one’s affection (even if you haven’t acknowledged him or her as such). Standing too close, invading the space around a person, makes the person feel “discomfort, anger, or anxiety.” Although it doesn’t lead to those feelings unless it then leads to warmth in certain regions and a desire to kiss the other person. In our books, at least (and in Doctor Who, where there was a KISS! Swoony!)

Have you ever deliberately shortened or lengthened someone else’s personal space? How does invasion of personal space make you feel? Which author has written the best demonstration of how personal space can affect the love story, in your opinion?

Megan

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 9 Replies