Back to Top

Author Archives: diane

About diane

Diane Gaston is the RITA award-winning author of Historical Romance for Harlequin Historical and Mills and Boon, with books that feature the darker side of the Regency. Formerly a mental health social worker, she is happiest now when deep in the psyches of soldiers, rakes and women who don’t always act like ladies.

One of the challenges of writing in the Regency era is getting the titles correct, or more specifically the terms of address. What were people called in the early nineteenth century? It is so confusing. When is our hero Lord Lastname and when is he Lord Firstname? When would he be simply called by his first name? What about his wife? His children? And what are the differences with what we are used to today?

Here is a website that tells it all: Correct Forms of Address

Bookmark this site, because it really has all the answers to any question you might have about titles and names.

The problem is, do readers, especially North American readers, understand or care about titles? Or is being correct just be too darn confusing?

Consider my hero in Scandalizing the Ton. His given name is Adrian Pomroy and in Innocence & Impropriety and The Vanishing Viscountess, Tanner, his friend from childhood, calls him “Pomroy.” In Scandalizing the Ton, however, Adrian’s father has just inherited a title from an uncle and becomes the Earl of Varcourt. Adrian is given his father’s lesser title, Viscount Cavanley, but it is a courtesy title, meaning he’s not really a viscount; he can’t sit in the House of Lords like a viscount. The real title still belongs to his father as well as his father’s new title.

Aren’t all these names confusing? Adrian Pomroy is Viscount Cavanley by courtesy and his father is Earl of Varcourt. Adrian. Pomroy. Cavanley. Varcourt. Four names connected to one person.

Wait, though, there is more to confuse.

When his father was merely a viscount, Adrian would have been called Mr. Pomroy, but when his father becomes an earl, Adrian is now Lord Cavanley. The friends who called him Pomroy will now call him Cavanley. (Except Tanner. Tanner still calls him Pomroy).

In the Regency, though, no one probably would have called him Adrian. First names were rarely used except by close family or school friends. Even spouses typically did not use first names.

In Scandalizing the Ton, my heroine, Lydia, does use Adrian’s first name soon after their meeting. Why would I deliberately choose to be incorrect?

I wanted to signal an intimacy between Lydia and Adrian and I used the terms of address to do that. It will make sense to North American readers, I think, but it really is not the way it would have been.

So my question is, what do you prefer? Accuracy or something that feels more familiar?

In the Historicals you’ve read, have you spotted mistakes in titles that bother you? Have you found the use of titles confusing? Does any of this matter to you?

This is one of those issues that I really don’t know if it matters to anyone but me!

Hey, I have a book video! Check it out on my website. Scandalizing the Ton is available now from eHarlequin and will be in bookstores in October.

I’m still working on the Unleash Your Story challenge to raise money for Cystic Fibrosis. Please consider making a small donation here.

In the September issue of The Romance Writers Report, the monthly magazine of The Romance Writers of America) there is an article by Eric Maisel about Beating the Writer’s Blues.

Eric Maisel is a renowned author of 30 books, most about creativity and writing. He’s a psychotherapist, who now confines his practice to creativity coaching. He has an impressive resume and I liked a lot of what he said about dealing with the depressive feelings that often plague writers.

Maisel is careful to advise a medical evaluation for depression that continues or seems severe, and that is good. He acknowledges the existence of depression that his biologically based and the efficacy of antidepressant medication.

Before I became a romance author, I was a mental health therapist in a County mental health program for senior adults. Statistics show that nearly 25 per cent of people over age 60 experience some sort of depression, so I had quite a bit of exposure to depression and its treatment. I am certainly not putting myself forward as an expert on depression but I did have enough experience to develop my own point of view on the subject.

Maisel says: “(Creative people) experience depression simply because we are caught up in a struggle to make life meaningful to us. People for whom meaning is no problem are less likely to experience depression.” Maisel suggests that creative people–writers–are different; their depressions are rooted in “meaning” problems. I just don’t agree with this. I don’t think that writers are “special.” I think we have special skills, the skill of story-telling, but so do mechanics have special skills. I don’t think that only creative people search for the meaning of life.

How can I say that a mechanic does not have problems with the meaning of his life? Why would a mechanic not have a journey similar to the example Maisel gives of an author whose crisis of meaning tumbles him into depression? I’ll bet I could come up with a scenario for a mechanic that would mirror that example. Or a salesclerk. Or a factory worker.

I’m not fond of hearing authors (mostly literary) speak as if their creativity somehow makes them different from the rest of the world. I see that tone a lot in the daily literary quotes that show up on my Google page. On the other hand, I understand this feeling, this need to be special, and to value the skills that are perhaps only shared by a minority of mankind. It’s just that I believe that there are many ways to be special and writing is only one of them. If I were a mechanic, I would hope to feel very proud of my mechanical skills.

In 1946 Viktor Frankl, one of the early thinkers in existential psychology, wrote Man’s Search for Meaning, a work that came from his experiences in a Concentration Camp. Frankl observed that all people search for meaning in their lives, and that even in that hellish, hopeless environment, people still had choices. They could still choose their attitude, how they thought about what they experienced, the meaning they attributed to their life. He quotes Nietzsche’s words, “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.”

So I’m with Frankl. We all search for meaning in our lives.

Nor do I believe that being a creative person, like a writer, means that one is more prone to depression than the general population. I went looking on the internet to see what the current thinking is on this and especially to see what research has found. Apparently some studies link creativity and bipolar illness (manic-depressive illness; one of the depressive illnesses), but there appears to be no clear link between other forms of depression and creativity.

I do suspect that the creative writer is better able–and more likely–to describe his or her experience.

One thing was clear in the articles I read. Treatment enhanced creativity in depressed creative persons. I think it would be a treat to have a creativity coach like Maisel, but, really, a good psychotherapist should be able to help.

I promise I won’t “talk psychology” a lot on this blog but this was a topic I could not resist.

So….what do you think? Do you think that creative persons’ depressions are a crisis of meaning that is different than what other people experience? (Or dare you disagree with Diane???) Do you have any theories or beliefs about depression?

Remember to check out my website which has been updated for September.

And please visit my Unleash Your Story homepage and make a small donation for Cystic Fibrosis. Every little bit will help!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 14 Replies

This month I’m participating in the Unleash Your Story Challenge. Unleash Your Story is an effort by the authors of Romance Unleashed to raise money for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. This is a writing challenge. I’ve pledged to write at least 20,000 words this month of September and to raise $150. But I can’t do this alone. I need your help. If you think you can donate even a small amount, just click on this icon and click on the donation button.



Support my efforts!

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited chronic disease that affects the lungs and digestive system. It affects about 30,000 children and adults in the U.S. and 70,000 worldwide. A defective gene and its protein product cause the body to produce unusually thick, sticky mucus that clogs the lungs and leads to life-threatening lung infections. The disease was defined in the 1930s but elements of the disease were known even in the 1700s.

There was an 18th century German saying that associated the salt loss in CF with a child’s early death: “Woe is the child kissed on the brow who tastes salty, for he is cursed and soon must die.”

A Regency child would have died in infancy.

Medical knowledge was limited during the Regency. Louis Pasteur had yet to discover pasteurization. There was no knowledge of germs or anticeptic. Nitrous Oxide as anesthetic was just first used. Vaccination was a new concept; the vaccination of smallpox using puss from cowpox had just been introduced by Edward Jenner (Although Lady Mary Wortley Montequ brought a version of smallpox vaccine from Turkey in 1721). The stethescope was just invented in 1816, and the first blood transfusion was accomplished in 1818.

In the first part of the nineteenth century life expectancy in the UK was age 37 compared to 80 today. For a child with Cystic Fibrosis the life expectancy was only age 4 in the 1960s. Today it is 40 years.

On January 4, 2007 the Riskies interviewed Wet Noodle Posse member Colleen Gleason, author of the Gardella Vampire series (Colleen’s 4th Gardella book, When Twilight Burns, was released August 2008). Colleen’s ten year old son has Cystic Fibrosis. So this challenge isn’t only important, it’s personal.



Help if you can!

Share your knowledge of Regency medicine. What surprises you most of what they did or did not know about illness or the human body?

Come to see what is new on my website, to be updated tomorrow!

I was quite impressed that so many of our Risky friends expressed an interest in the history behind our books. Gee. I’m glad we asked. Reading Regency Romance gave me my interest in history. Writing it made it more of an abiding passion.

Scandalizing the Ton, my October book, is what I call my “Regency Paparazzi” story. It was inspired by our present day obsession with celebrities, but we didn’t invent an interest in the rich and famous. Nor did we invent a press willing to do almost anything for some good gossip about them.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries abounded with newspapers. Some of them even reported important news, like what was happening in Parliament, social issues, important events. It was during this period that some of journalism’s standards and ethics were beginning to be established, things like not revealing sources, acting as society’s social conscience, which was not always a good idea.

James Leigh Hunt and his brother, John, published serious news in their London newspaper, The Examiner, including calling the government to task for the heavy taxes levied on the people. In 1812, they printed an article criticizing the Prince Regent for his gambling and womanizing and running up huge debts while not doing anything to better the lives of the citizenry. Although what they printed was true, the Hunts were sued for libel and imprisoned for two years. Leigh Hunt continued to edit The Examiner from his prison cell.

In contrast to the responsible and ethical journalism of the Hunts were the newspapers that flourished by reporting the scandals and peccadilloes of the wealthy, the political elite, and the aristocracy. In his wonderful book, Scandal: A Scurrilous History of Gossip, Roger Wilkes gives examples of the eighteenth and nineteenth century love of gossip, and how the newspaper reporters purchased the juicy tidbits from loose-lipped servants and gentlemen and ladies willing to expose their friends. Not only did newspapers purchase gossip, they also blackmailed their potential victims, taking money to not print some embarrassing incident.

They also just made up stories. In Punch Thackeray and his colleague Jerrod parodied that sort of newspaper with their creation of the reporter, Jenkins, who rarely left his humble abode, preferring to invent his stories about the latest shocking antics of important people.

In my opinion the worst of them all was Theodore Hook, a charming and pleasing fellow who came into the Regent’s favor as a very young man, winning a government job at the ocean paradise of Mauritius. Hook lived an idyllic life for four years until a clerk embezzled lots of money that was Hook’s responsibility. He returned to London under a cloud and, in 1820, to make back the income he lost with his government job he started the Sunday newspaper, The John Bull.

Unlike the Hunt brothers, Hook allied himself with the Prince Regent and whipped up scandal and gossip about prominent Whigs. Favorite targets included The Regent’s estranged wife Queen Caroline and the ladies who attended her. One he branded as ‘strangely susceptible to the charms of her own sex’ ; another he accused of having “criminal affection” for a menial servant (Wilkes, 2002).

Hook had no qualms about paying servants to betray their employers, but most of what he learned was through his own ears. Hook succeeded in keeping it secret that he was the editor of The John Bull. Because he was well-connected enough to move in high circles, he dug his dirt in anonymity, from the very people who extended him their hospitality. Such inside information had huge appeal and the newspaper flourished.

In this secret position of power, Hook mercilessly pilloried those who crossed him. When suspicion grew that he was the editor of the Bull, Hook even wrote a letter to the editor (himself), protesting that he was not the editor. He was a known prankster. In his most famous prank, The Berners Street Hoax, he wrote 4000 letters calling for tradesmen, delivery men, professional men such as physicians and dentists, potential empoyers, wig-makers, dressmakers, members of Parliament and of the aristocracy, all to descend upon the house of an innocent middle-class woman, Mrs. Tottenham. While the street became clogged with people, Hook and his friend stood by and laughed. All I can think of is what a cruelty this was to all those people who were only going about their ordinary lives. He cost them all time and money and dignity.

When Queen Caroline died The John Bull turned to more serious journalism. Eventually Hook was made to pay for the embezzlement, a huge amount that took all his assets and landed him in debtor’s prison for two years. After prison he turned to writing novels, none of which were particularly distinguished. He continued his high living until his liver gave out and he died at age 53.

What do you think of today’s paparazzi? ‘Fess up. Do you like to read about celebrities?
What is the worst prank that was played on you? What is the best prank you ever pulled off?

In Scandalizing the Ton there isn’t any journalist quite as reprehensible as Theodore Hook, but the shady tactics and irresponsible journalism of the Regency are depicted.

Watch my website for more news about this new release!

Thanks to Scandal: A Scurillous History of Gossip by Roger Wilkes, Atlantic Books, 2002, for most of this information


Here are our Birthday Week Winners!

All Winners please email us your contact information at riskies@yahoo.com

Diane’s Winner……Santa!

Santa wins the special Mills & Boon Centenary edition of The Vanishing Viscountess, the one that includes the bonus story of The Mysterious Miss M AND a Risky Regency button.

Cara’s Winner……Maya Rodale!

Maya wins ONE of the following three prizes:
(1) three Signet Regencies: THE ABDUCTED BRIDE by Dorothy Mack; TWIN PERIL by Susannah Carleton; and MY LADY GAMESTER (signed, natch) by Cara King.
(2) a Region One (i.e. US & Canada) DVD of the 1985 miniseries of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE starring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul.
(3) Guidebook to the Museum of Costume & Assembly Rooms in Bath (with lots of full color pictures.)

Elena’s Winner……Caffey!

Caffey wins – a copy of LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE; – plus her choice of one of Elena’s earliest releases, either LORD LANGDON’S KISS or HIS BLUSHING BRIDE (an anthology with Regina Scott and Alice Holden).

Janet’s Winner…….Susan Wilbanks!

Susan wins a signed copy of each of Janet’s books, Dedication, The Rules of Gentility, and Forbidden Shores (the last written as Jane Lockwood) or a critique.

Megan’s Winner……Lois!
Lois wins a copy of Megan’s book, A Singular Lady, as well as a copy of the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue.

Amanda’s Winner……Kammie!

Kammie wins copies of both Amanda’s Renaissance books, A Notorious Woman and A Sinful Alliance (or, if you have already won these, a copy of one of Amanda’s out-of-print Signet Regencies!), plus a silver Brighton bookmark!

Ladies, email us at riskies@yahoo.com with your addresses and, if you need to make a choice, what choice you’ve made.

And thank you all for being a part of Risky Regencies!