…an increase in the affective content of family life meant that young women remained emotionally tied to their families of birth even years after they had married.
Judith Schneid Lewis1
For centuries, scientists and psychologists have attempted to determine to what extent upbringing and family involvement can influence a child’s behaviour and their future personality. The nature v. nurture debate has raged for hundreds of years and continues to, to this day. The theory was originally developed by John Locke in 1690 who believed in a ‘blank slate’ status of being when a person was born. That person would then become a certain personality, successful or a failure, depending on what was written onto their slate during the course of their life. Such beliefs were then vehemently opposed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when researchers believed that genetics held the key to personality and behaviour. It was during this time that the term ‘nature v. nurture’ was coined and subsequent decades of research continued to work on the extent to which one or the other was more influential.
It is now commonly recognised that upbringing and genetics are both involved in the shaping of a child’s personality and behaviour in the early years of their life, and both have an impact on the adult life of an individual. It is an argument that still rages today and which is important in investigating the lives of the women featured in this study who acted independently from their families, whilst still being shaped by them. When thinking about child development in the nineteenth century, it is important to look at the different roles for children across society because life for children in poverty could differ vastly from those with wealth.
It will come as little surprise that in the nineteenth century the role of a working-class child and the expectations of childhood began to change drastically. Up to the time of the industrial revolution, most children primarily lived a life free of responsibility. If they came from the lower, working classes they would find themselves helping out at home, where most ‘work’ was based, assuming more work-like responsibilities, but they were not treated as an adult capable of working an adult’s hours. The industrial revolution however, saw an increase in poor children beginning to lead proper working lives; mill shifts that ran to twelve or fourteen hours a day with little or no breaks. Children as young as 8 worked within the mills and mines of the time, a role which robbed them of their youthful freedom.
But what of richer children? It is true that for the most part, the lives of children from privileged homes did not change much during this period, and certainly their expectations within an adult world were not altered. Wealthy children born in the late eighteenth century would have had a rather similar upbringing to those born throughout the nineteenth century. Georgiana Spencer, future Duchess of Devonshire, had a similar upbringing to her grandchildren by Harriet and Granville Leveson Gower, despite a gap of almost fifty years. Both were raised in a nursery within large country estates or in London, often travelling with the family when they moved and sometimes accompanying their parents when they travelled to Europe to places such as Paris and Italy. Children of this period did not have worries or responsibilities, but were free to be children, playing and learning. Still, it was a period of change, and children born during this time would see the world become a completely different place during their lifetime. Women would have stronger roles and voices in society, a new industrial-born upper class would have greater financial influence over the country, the role of the aristocracy would be greatly reduced and the country house would see a boom unlike any before or afterwards.
The first ten years of the life of a child born into the gentry was relatively similar whether they were boy or girl; subtle differences might be included in terms of how they were treated by the family (boys, especially heirs, were often aware of their importance in the family dynasty from a young age and so developed strong, sometimes arrogant characters), and there may be some subtle differences in the education that they received; although generally they would have shared a school room in those early years, where they would be taught together by a governess or tutor how to read, write, do basic arithmetic and to speak a secondary language, usually French.
There have been many depictions in popular culture, both in books and films, of childhood in the Victorian period being very closed off from one’s parents, the obligatory evening ‘talk with mama and papa’ being a symbol of a child’s separation from their parents, however this was not the rule for all families and the family unit was not quite so separated in the decades preceding Queen Victoria’s reign. Whilst children had separate lives in terms of their education, their games and often their own staff to care for them, they also spent a lot of time in the company of their parents, learning about their role in society as well as socialising with them. Due to the nature of genteel and aristocratic families, parents would often need to be separated from their children whilst at social events or political events, sometimes leaving their children in the country whilst they travelled to London for example; however, we also know that many families also moved together as a unit. We also know that in the move from public to private lives, which will be discussed in subsequent chapters, the family unit became much closer and parents were more involved in the lives of their children, focusing more on the individual and nurturing the emotional attachment.
For young boys and girls, the differences would begin to be more apparent as they reached the age of 10. Boys would sometimes be separated from their sisters for the hours of education, being taught by a tutor they would learn science, history, geography, languages and many more practical subjects. Girls would continue to be taught by a governess but would begin to learn other practical skills such as needlework, playing a piano or harp, dancing, and the preparation of a household, including how to host society events. These two very different educations prepared the children for their different roles in society and yet they were not always so separated. Some families chose to educate their daughters to a higher level, and research shows that it came mainly down to the decisions and experiences of the parent as to the educational arrangements for their children.
Education throughout the centuries in England developed slowly and has only existed in its current form since the Education Act of 1918, when education between the ages of 5 and 14 years old became compulsory, and following that, the Education Act of 1944 where the modern system of schooling, with a split between primary and secondary schools, was formally recognised throughout the country. In the 200 years prior to the Act, education developed from being a perk of the wealthy, to being available for all. Initially, in the early modern period, formal education was reserved for boys who were either from wealthy backgrounds, or were planning a career within the church. This was due to the fact that the church was solely responsible for education and the supply of education at this time. It wasn’t until the early 1800s when education for all poorer children was considered and implemented. It started with the Sunday school which allowed children to learn to read and write whilst avoiding education during the week when most poor children, should the opportunity arise, were employed and bringing extra income into their homes.
In 1833 education became more formalised, with parliament taking an active hand in the provision of education to the children of England. In August of that year, government voted that taxes should provide for free schools for poor children and this gradually developed over the next seventy years into formal, compulsory education for all children in Britain.
Whilst education for poor children, as it developed, provided for both boys and girls, education for the elite still focused very much on the education of sons rather than daughters. The education of sons and daughters will be looked at in further detail in chapter five when we explore the educational choices of our women, but we do know that whilst sons were usually sent away to school, sometimes from as young as 8 or 9, daughters remained at home and continued with their education under the instruction of both their governess and their mother, who would do their best to establish an educated and yet malleable young woman who was perfectly prepared to be a wife and mother in the future.
Young women would also gain practical experience in the way to behave and the expectations of their adult life through their social interactions. As children they would have very little connection to the adult world but as they approached their middle-teen years and were increasingly prepared for their ‘coming out’ into society, they would become more involved in the social activities of their parents, attending lunches, charity events and other suitable occasions. This would give them practical knowledge that they could recall when married and attending these events alone, or even when hosting events themselves. The London Season provided the perfect stage for young women to emerge into society and put their practised skills to good use.
Whilst there certainly was an expected process for the life and upbringing of an aristocratic child in the nineteenth century, the actuality of life could differ greatly depending on the circumstances of the aristocratic family. If a family had suffered the loss of a wife and mother, the children would grow up without a maternal figure in their lives. Also, an only child, especially if it was the son and heir, would be raised much differently to a family where the nursery was full of children.
The story of Harriet Cavendish has been largely ignored by major historians who have preferred to concentrate on the life of her illustrious mother Georgiana Devonshire and her elder sister Georgiana Howard. What we do have are excellent records of Harriet’s letters throughout her life which have been meticulously collated together in two volumes, the first by her grandson George Leveson Gower which document the years up to her marriage, and the second volume is by Virginia Surtees who collated letters from Harriet’s marriage until the death of her husband Granville in 1846. In these letters, we get an insight into her life and thoughts, however it should be kept in mind that these books have been edited by family members and so whilst we do know that the language and layout in the letters has been kept authentic, we do not know how many of Harriet’s letters have been intentionally left out to change the perspective, and so they cannot be viewed as a wholly objective view of Harriet’s life. There is also a biography of Harriet’s life by Betty Askwith which is the most modern interpretation of her life as it was written in 1982. This combination of letters and biography has been invaluable when it comes to getting to know Harriet as an individual.
To fully understand the person Harriet Cavendish became, it is important to look briefly at her mother and the life she led which influenced the life and personality of her daughter. This is a story often told and so we shall not linger over it, but merely set the scene.
Georgiana Spencer was born on 7 June 1757 at the Spencer family home Althorp in Northamptonshire. She was the eldest child of John Spencer, (later 1st Earl Spencer) and Margaret Georgiana Poyntz, Countess Spencer, and her early upbringing is very informative for showing how Georgiana would parent her own children in later years. Amanda Foreman, Georgiana historian, states that ‘the special bond between Georgiana and her mother endured throughout her childhood and beyond. They loved each other with a rare intensity. “you are my best and dearest friend,” Georgiana told her when she was seventeen.’2 Georgiana’s mother breastfed her two youngest daughters Charlotte and Louise and whilst tragically both girls died in infancy, Georgiana was old enough to witness her mother hand rearing her little sisters and so this would have had a profound impact on her own decisions when she had children. She was married in June 1774 to William Cavendish, the 5th Duke of Devonshire.
In 1783, Georgiana gave birth to her first daughter, also named Georgiana, although she was affectionately referred to by her mother as Little G and so we shall also refer to her thus in this chapter so that we can separate the names out. Rather than using a wet nurse, Georgiana insisted on breast-feeding Little G herself, perhaps because she had seen her mother feed her younger siblings. Foreman states that ‘the Cavendish’s were annoyed and tried to bully her into changing her mind. As far as they were concerned, there was no good reason why she should not employ a healthy country girl whilst she got on with the business of producing an heir.’3 A letter to Georgiana written by Little G later in her life, when she herself was a mother, noted what she felt had been an exceptional upbringing: ‘one cannot know till one has separated from you how different you are from everyone else, how superior to all mothers, even good ones!’4 Whilst Georgiana ignored her family and continued to breastfeed and hand rear Little G, she was also ‘getting on with the business’ of producing another child and this time she hoped it was the longed-for boy. It wasn’t.
On 29 August 1785, Georgiana gave birth again to a healthy baby girl, Harriet or Harryo as she would be known within the family, and there was decidedly less excitement within the Cavendish household. Little G had been received with raptures, due to the fact that Georgiana had been trying to get pregnant for the previous nine years. A healthy baby girl was at last a positive sign of fertility and so nothing was too good for her. However, when Harriet was born, it was a second blow to the Duke who only wanted a son and heir and as a result ‘she was the preferred child of neither parent [and] her relationship with her father was always slightly uneasy’.5 Her relationship with her mother was better and although they would have periods where they struggled to understand one another, ‘she grew almost to worship her mother and was able to confide in her’6 in later life.
Despite the disappointment felt over another baby girl in the Cavendish household, Georgiana relished those early years with her two little girls, as well as a third child, Charlotte Williams, who had been brought into the Cavendish household at some point before the birth of Little G. Charlotte Williams was the duke’s illegitimate daughter for whom the duke took responsibility upon the death of her mother. Whilst it was a shock to Georgiana to discover the existence of the little girl, evidence shows that she treated Charlotte as a child of her own in those early years.7 The infamous and unusual Cavendish nursery had begun.
Finally, on 21 May 1790, the longed-for son and heir, William George Spencer Cavendish (‘Hart’, as he was known within the family) was born and the Cavendish trio was complete. Georgiana, again breastfed her infant son and this time she breastfed for a prolonged period of time, from May to November. This could have been defiance against her husband’s family, who were finally silenced upon the production of an heir, although as the duke had demanded a full list of all Georgiana’s debts upon her weaning of the child, it is possible that Georgiana drew out the breastfeeding for as long as possible so she didn’t have to face up to her financial difficulties.
Harriet’s upbringing alongside her sister and brother was quite unconventional, even by modern standards, as she grew up in a marriage which included three people and a nursery which included children from various marriages and relationships. Having children from different branches of the family sharing the nursery was not an uncommon concept in the nineteenth-century country house, especially when several adults were visiting the same house or where cousins were fostered in the same household. However, it was more unusual to have both one’s legitimate and illegitimate children in the same nursery and living under the same roof. What was truly unusual was the ménage à trois between the duke, Georgiana and the duke’s mistress, Lady Elizabeth Foster, who lived with the Devonshire’s. Within the Devonshire household
the three Cavendish children were not the only inhabitants of the schoolroom; their first cousin, Caroline Ponsonby, Lord & Lady Bessborough’s daughter was much with them. She too was born in 1785, and though delicate and often in the country she and Harryo were the closest friends. There were also Caroline St. Jules and Clifford, natural children of Lady Elizabeth Foster and the Duke of Devonshire.8
In later life Hart described the nursery at Chatsworth thus: ‘that old smoky place our sitting room looking over the court, and seeing nothing but the smoky backs of those busts that now decorate the roof of the old greenhouse. There sat Selina – mild and good.’9 Selina Trimmer was the Devonshire governess who had been selected by the Dowager Lady Spencer, Georgiana’s mother. Betty Askwith in her biography of Harriet states,
among [the Dowager Duchess’s] Evangelical friends was the celebrated Mrs Trimmer, who wrote a best seller called ‘The Story of the Robins’ which remained a nursery classic for many years. Its style may be judged by the following extract:
‘Pecksy [one of the Robins] came up with a fine fat spider in her mouth which she laid down at her mother’s feet, and thus addressed her: Accept, my dearest parent, the first tribute of gratitude which I have ever been able to offer you. How have I formerly longed to ease those toils which you and my dear father endured for our sakes … I am still a poor creature and must continue to take shelter under your wing. I will hope however as long as I am able to provide food for the family.’10
The moral lesson, to respect and honour ones parents is clear in this story, and so Selina Trimmer, the daughter of this excellent moral writer, was a clear choice for Lady Spencer who wanted to ensure her grandchildren gained a steady and moral upbringing. The addition of Selina Trimmer into the children’s lives meant they had not only exceptional education, but also a continuity of affection and a stable environment which they were so lacking in the Devonshire household. She also taught her charges more domestic skills such as cooking and Harriet notes in one of her earliest letters ‘I was very busy yesterday making a batter pudding.’11 Selina Trimmer would be a constant guiding force in Harriet’s life – a secondary mother figure who she relied upon for practical and spiritual guidance.
From her childhood to her late teen years, Harriet’s letters are sporadic and talk mostly of what books she was reading, what her siblings, cousins and other members of the nursery were doing and other youthful remarks, however a significant event during childhood may have affected Harriet’s personality in later life. In 1791 Georgiana Devonshire had become pregnant to her lover Charles Grey. She was sent to France to give birth to the child and was told by the duke that unless she gave up her lover and the child, she would never see her three legitimate children again. Whilst it broke her heart to give up the only true male affection she had ever had, as well as her beloved daughter, she could not imagine being separated from her three other children and so she gave the little girl, whom she named Eliza Courtenay, to her lover Charles Grey’s family soon after giving birth. Despite a more difficult birth, Georgiana was soon ready to return home but the duke, furious at being cuckolded, told her she should stay in France until he said she could return. The children were very upset by their mother’s absence and they did not see anything of their father either, being left totally to the care of Selina Trimmer at Devonshire House.
Georgiana, desperately missing her children, ‘had formed a plan to follow her children’s lessons so that she would be able to share in whatever they were learning, and perhaps even help them a little. She filled her letter journals to the children with colourful maps and sketches of the places she visited, enlivened with individual accounts of their social and political histories.’12 Georgiana was in exile for two years and when she returned to London she found her children quite changed. Little G was now a very nervous child who did not want to be separated from Georgiana and 3 year-old Hart, simply didn’t recognise Georgiana and so screamed whenever she held him. Harriet however, appeared to be the least affected by her mother’s absence. This may be due to the fact that she was probably the last child in order of affection and therefore would have felt less of a loss than her siblings. Amanda Foreman notes that ‘eight-year-old Harryo […] had become reserved and prickly towards other people,’13 and this is a personality trait that would follow throughout her life; in situations of great difficulty and tragedy she would turn her emotions inwards and not speak or write, even to those closest to her.
Very little occurred during the intervening years from childhood to adulthood with the exception, in 1796, of the addition of Lady Elizabeth Foster’s two eldest children to the Devonshire household. Bess’s husband, who had initially withheld access to her sons upon their separation, died and so the two teenage boys came to Devonshire House and joined their mother. ‘Little G and Harry-o, thirteen and eleven respectively, did not share their mother’s satisfaction and rather resented the intrusion of two shy and gauche Irishmen in their midst. No one would explain why the Fosters did not have their own home.’14 How odd it must have been for the two young ladies, to be outnumbered by all these illegitimate children without explanation of why they lived with them.
Just four years later, Little G, turned 17 and was presented at court and her mother arranged a lavish coming out ball where she made a great impression on the young men of London, one of which was George Howard, Viscount Morpeth, heir to Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle. They married in 1801. It was a great match and the two young people seemed very much in love. Betty Askwith comments that ‘it was presumably a sad moment for Harriet. Though she liked Morpeth and felt that her sister would be happy, the severance of the closest tie she had ever known, the loss of daily companionship would have been hard to bear.’15
The marriage of Georgiana and Lord Morpeth did however present Harriet with one pleasure, the ability to leave the strained atmosphere of home and to travel to Castle Howard where her sister now lived, and to enjoy the freedom, as well as the company of her sister and a new extended family.
The early life of Elizabeth Howard would have been, to some extent very similar to that of Harriet Cavendish as they were both children born to high status, aristocratic families, Harriet the daughter of a duke and Elizabeth the daughter of an earl. Life as a youngster at Castle Howard would have been one of the most privileged upbringings a young woman could have at the time and yet Elizabeth was not party to the same strange motley upbringing that Harriet had suffered and so in some ways had been even more privileged.
She was born on 13 November 1870 at Castle Howard, her parents were Margaret Caroline Leveson Gower, Countess of Carlisle and Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle. Margaret and Granville Leveson Gower (who would feature in Harriet’s story later) were half siblings; Margaret was one of the eldest children of the 1st Marquess of Stafford, being born to his first wife, whereas Granville was the last child to be born to the family, by the marquess’s third wife. Due to the age gap between Margaret and Granville, Elizabeth, Margaret’s daughter was closer in age to Granville, her uncle, with only seven years between them. Whilst aristocratic families are often confusing to unravel, this connection does show us how the Howards, Cavendish’s and Manners families were very closely connected through marriages and friendships throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Elizabeth was the sixth child and fifth daughter born to the Earl and Countess, and was to be an elder sibling to four further children. Whilst Elizabeth’s parents were to have ten children, tragedy struck the house more than once and they lost three of their children, one in infancy and two in childhood – Lady Charlotte Howard who was born and died in 1774; Lady Susan Maria Howard who was born in 1776 and died in 1783 at the age of 7; and Lady Louisa Howard who was born in 1778 and died in 1881 less than a year after Elizabeth was born. There is no indication of what these children died from, but we can assume that due to their ages that either illness or a general weakness from birth is the reason for their young deaths.
The environment at Castle Howard, whilst privileged, would have been quite formal and regimented for Elizabeth. Her father, Frederick Howard, the 5th Earl of Carlisle had a reputation for sternness and an almost obsessive preoccupation with time. The house ran to a series of clocks around the home and those who were late for meals or other events throughout the day would receive the sharp side of his tongue. Judith Schneid Lewis states:
when Lady Georgiana Cavendish married George, Lord Morpeth in 1801 and moved to his home Castle Howard, she immediately encountered a clash of values. Castle Howard, she discovered, enclosed a world in which parents were treated with awe and respect, and where honest affection, of the kind Lady Georgiana had enjoyed since childhood, was virtually unknown.’16
In a letter to her mother in 1804, upon her first visit to Castle Howard following Georgiana’s marriage, Harriet wrote the following:
We are all quite well and in the most perfect peace and harmony. Lord C. is in better spirits and better humour than he has been for some days, and of course so are we, for he is par force [by force] the mainspring of every smile and frown that publickly [sic] appear upon our faces. This I think, the great inconvenience and fault of the system here. Il règne en despote [he reigns in tyranny]; his gloom or gaiety are not, as in other individuals, ‘en particulier’ [usual] and one is, of course, almost always stifling a laugh or forcing one. […] The regularity I am now accustomed to (through the clock in the hall being put on five minutes)
and again just a few days later she says:
Lady Julia [Lord Carlisle’s daughter and Elizabeth’s sister] is quite a clock, and her regularity and rapidity are wonderful. Lord C. has very gloomy fits, mais au milieu de la tempête on peut entrevoir des beaux jours, [but in the middle of the storm, one can glimpse the beautiful days], during which he is pleasant and tells some funny stories17
Elizabeth would have been privy to a regimented and formal upbringing that would have circulated around the satisfaction of her father. Harriet later notes in her letters about how talkative Elizabeth is and so I might suggest that this came about perhaps because of a lack of being able to talk freely when at home as a child; when she married and became chatelaine of her own household, she was more freely able to talk and be herself.
We can also trace Elizabeth’s architectural passions back to her childhood and adolescence at Castle Howard as it was built, developed, remodelled and decorated over almost the entirety of the eighteenth century. When Elizabeth was born in 1780 many of the major building works had been completed, however many of the interiors were not finished. Over the next forty years the house was completed stage by stage and so Elizabeth would have observed her parents’ management of the interior decoration and remodelling works and therefore become familiar with all of the processes that were involved. This experience was invaluable when it came to her own developments at Belvoir Castle.
The life of Mary Close was different to Harriet and Elizabeth in terms of social standing, but also similar in many ways. She was born in 1788 at her family home Elm Park in the County of Armagh, Ireland. Her parents were the respected Reverend Samuel Close and Deborah de Robillard Champagne. She was of French/Irish origin, the eldest daughter and fifth child of her parents, and it is clear from correspondence of the time that Mary was doted upon by her parents.
An avid journal keeper, Mary documented her childhood from around the age of 8 and kept succinct but informative journals of key events in her life from this time until her death in 1878. From these diaries, we can conclude that Mary had a childhood and upbringing perfectly usual for a daughter of an upper-class clergyman. She mentions in her diary and letters to her mother of an advancement in needlework and the movements of members of her family as they visit her and she them. Her brothers appear to have been very well travelled, going abroad as she mentions in some of the earliest diary entries such as 1801, ‘my brother Robert Close sailed for India’, and 1804, ‘my brother Maxwell Close returned from Egypt, after Alexandria was taken.’18
This shows the family clearly had both money and the freedom to allow their children the opportunity to travel. It is not recorded as to what reason her brothers had for going abroad but it can be assumed that it would have been for working opportunities as the Close family were not so wealthy to be able to support all their sons as gentlemen. More likely, they worked for the army or the navy. It is noted in her memoranda journal that her uncle, Barry Close, had lived in India for thirty years. He served in the Madras Army where he rose through the ranks and was so successful that in 1811 he was created a baronet. It is possible that Mary’s brother Robert travelled to India to join the Madras army also – or to join her uncle and work for him over there. As a young woman in a large family, Mary would have seen her brothers leave to travel and may have felt some eagerness to embark on an adventure like theirs.
For Mary Close, we do not have any records as to what kind of education she received at home in Armagh, but it is most likely that this was supervised by a governess and overseen by her mother. She would have learned reading and writing, some basic arithmetic, history and at least one language, and other than that she would have learned practical home-keeping skills such as basic accounts, needlework and other practical skills. In all, a normal education for a young gentlewoman.
In 1806 when she was 19, Mary travelled to Bath with her mother and father to stay with her grandmother. It is not clear whether she went to Bath with the intention of a prolonged visit, or whether the decision was made some time during her stay. It is certain however, that there would have been more opportunity for Mary to meet eligible young men and young ladies from suitable backgrounds whilst she was in Bath, who would provide her with important connections and help her improve her chances of a good marriage.
Mary’s parents returned to Armagh after a number of weeks, but Mary stayed for a year, living with her grandmother and presumably spending time visiting the pump rooms and drinking the natural spring water, which was supposed to have beneficial properties to one’s health. Or she may have visited the Assembly Rooms in Bath where there were regular balls, parties, music events and much more. The Pump Room and Assembly Rooms were also good places for socialising and meeting new people in a proper, respectable way and so, rather than being confined in a country house in Ireland where she wouldn’t be seen by the right people, her stay in Bath broadened her social circle and presumably gave her some space to grow up away from the eyes of her parents.
Sadly, just a year later in 1807, Mary’s grandmother, also called Mary Close, died, the first of a number of losses that Mary would witness in her lifetime, and so she found herself without a chaperone in Bath which meant she could no longer stay there. In her journal, she mentions that in June 1807 ‘I went from Bath to London to visit Lord and Lady Uxbridge.’19 The Lord Uxbridge that Mary refers to is most likely to be Henry Paget (18 June 1744 – 13 March 1812) who was married to Jane, the daughter of Very Reverend Arthur Champagné, Dean of Clonmacnoise in Ireland. Jane Paget was Mary’s aunt (her mother’s sister), so it would not have been unusual for Mary to have spent time with the Paget family. Henry and Jane had twelve children, of which the eldest, another Henry, would have been in his forties at the time Mary visited the family in London and was already married with eight children. Whilst Mary could be referring to this younger Henry who is closer to her age, she distinctly says she is visiting Lord and Lady Uxbridge and the younger Henry did not inherit this title until 1812. Therefore, we can assume that in 1807 Mary is visiting the elder Henry and her aunt, but would most likely have also spent time with her youngest cousins who were closer to her own age.
Again, in London, she would have experienced a life which was more varied and cultural than at her country home in Armagh and would have allowed her to meet yet more new people. She stayed with the Paget family at their London townhouse, Uxbridge House on Saville Row, and from this central location she would have been able to involve herself in many of the attractions that London offered to a young lady just out in society. We do not know from her journals if she was presented at court. It is likely that she was, and this may even have been part of the reason for her trip to London, but even if she was not, the social scene in London would have been sufficient for her to be accepted into different social occasions. As Valerie Grosvenor Myer states in her biography of Jane Austen, ‘It was a commonplace of the time that what was openly known as “the marriage market” was overstocked with well-dressed spinsters, trapped at home with their parents with no hope of escape until an offer of marriage turned up.’20 So to go to London for the season would have been a great opportunity for Mary to avoid the state of spinsterhood.
The London Season refers to a period of time every year when aristocratic and gentry families would travel from their country houses to reside in London, socialising and visiting friends and family. The London season itself first came into being as wives and families of members of parliament accompanied their husbands to London for the parliamentary session and needed events and things to do to keep them occupied during this time. The parliamentary session ran roughly from October or November, to May or June (it changed over the decades) and so families would find themselves in London for half of the year.
Visiting friends, family and acquaintances, visiting the opera and the ballet, walking in the numerous parks, attending an exhibition or visiting a museum, and of course public and private balls and assemblies were all diversions for the aristocracy and gentry to take part in whilst in London; as the season became more popular, more and more social events were available. As this habit became a regular occurrence each year, the popularity of the season began to grow and soon it became a fashionable thing to do as well as practical. For one to remain popular within society circles and indeed in order to broaden one’s social circle, you had to travel to London for ‘the season.’
Mothers began to recognise that by coming to London and attending a range of public and private events, eligible bachelors were more accessible for their daughters to meet than when they were sequestered away at their country estates. Therefore, the London season became known as a ‘marriage market’ as well as, and perhaps more so than, a parliamentary event and young women who were eligible to marry planned their ‘coming out’ into society balls during this period, knowing they would be able to attract more bachelors and therefore increase their chances of meeting their future husband.
‘Coming out’ in society marked a change from child to adult and would mean a daughter could take part in more social events, would be able to go out on an evening to social events, and of course would be able to find a husband and be married. A young lady ‘coming out’ into society was marked by a ceremony where the young woman would be presented to the monarch at Court. This tradition is still upheld to this day with young women from some families still being presented at court.
However, Valerie Grosvenor Myer also states that London could be an unsafe place to be adding that ‘it was estimated that there were 100,000 criminals in London alone. Highwaymen lurked on Hounslow Heath. Thieves were hanged in public. On 23 February 1807, a triple hanging in London attracted a crowd of 40,000 people.’21 So whilst it would have been an exciting place for Mary to visit and would have opened many doors to many opportunities, it may also have been quite a culture shock for the young woman who had lived predominantly in the sheltered countryside in Armagh, Ireland.
From London, she mentions that she ‘went with them to Beaudessert and Plasnewydd.’22 The house as Beaudesert (note this is the actual spelling – Mary appears to have written it incorrect in her diary entry) was one of two large estates belonging to Mary’s aunt and uncle. Parts of the house date from the mid 1500s when Thomas Paget, 3rd Baron Paget and ancestor of Henry, built an Elizabethan manor house, however many changes were made in the 1770s when Henry employed James Wyatt to make changes to the house and estate. When Mary stayed in 1807 the house would have been at the height of its occupation and use, and most likely her aunt and uncle would have spoken about the changes and alterations previously made to the house. Plasnewydd (meaning New Hall in Welsh) in North Wales, was another palatial country seat of the Paget family and Henry had also made significant changes to the house, employing James Wyatt again between 1793 and 1799, so the changes here would have been even more recent. Mary therefore may have been privy to lots of conversations surrounding the process of engaging an architect, making changes to a house and would have seen the end results. We know that in 1805 part of her childhood home, Elm Park, was ‘taken down and rebuilt’23 so she was surrounded by changing country houses as well as most likely being involved in conversations about country house architecture. This clearly made an impression upon the young Mary as she would go on to be deeply involved in architectural changes at Lamport Hall, her marital home in Northamptonshire.
The upbringing, childhood and education that these young ladies received was designed to prepare them for life as a wife, mother and chatelaine of their own estates. In some ways, we can say they were trapped within this framework, but the education they received alongside their mothers would have shown them that even within the role of wife and mother, one could still have a degree of power, responsibility and fulfilment. The different upbringings that our ladies received, Elizabeth in a strict household of the highest privilege, Harriet in an unusual household of marriage and adultery, and Mary in a more modest but still elite household shows that it is not simply just the initial years of a child’s life that can influence their future personality and choices. There must be something more that builds upon this foundation to create the remarkable lives of these women.