Historical Accuracy....Important or just too nerdy?

In my on-line writing group for Regency Writers, some of us were bemoaning the fact that so many novels labeled historicals are historically inaccurate. In the 80’s, historicals were pretty much anything goes. A few authors did a great job of blending a great story with historical accuracy, but many best-selling authors just wrote whatever they wanted and didn’t worry about too much about. Unfortunately, publishers let them get away with it and readers swallowed it. Now don't get me wrong, they crafted wonderful stories with wonderful characters, but they created their own rules which many readers accepted as fact but were, in fact, myth.

A prime example of this is the myth that marriage could be quietly annulled if it wasn’t consummated. I don’t know who started that, but it is unarguably false. There was an ancient Scottish tradition that allowed for annulment in certain circumstances if the marriage was not consummated, but for all intents and purposes, marriage was permanent especially in England. Furthermore, in England, annulment was messy and scandalous and never, ever happened quietly. It also socially ruined both the husband and the wife. Even divorce was difficult to obtain until King Henry VII legalized divorce in England, and even then, never became an easy thing to do until late in the 20th century.

Today, more and more publishers are looking for historical accuracy, but still not enough to satisfy many history geeks. The winner of a nationally recognized historical contest began her Regency novel with a grand wedding full of descriptions that are modern inventions which never happened in that era. Why did she win? Probably because it was a lovely fantasy that blended history with modern-day traditions, and she was a good writer. Too bad the judges overlooked the fact that it was historically inaccurate. A few hours spent in research would have won her not only the contest, but the respect of other Regency romance authors and the well-informed readers who know better. However, she probably understood that readers have a certain expectation and wanted to meet that instead of rely upon historical accuracy. Balancing reader expectation with historical accuracy can be like walking a tight rope.

Why do we care about historical accuracy? Several reasons.

First, it’s true. The fiction comes from the plot and the characters, not the setting.

Second, it helps preserve our heritage.

Third, we can learn from the past and see that maybe the good old days weren’t all that good, which helps us appreciate our day....or that the good old days really were wonderful and should be treasured--and remembered.

Fourth, many readers (and writers) are fascinated with that era and want sources to guide them through it.

Fifth, keeping an accurate backdrop helps shape the characters. Research is more than just learning about what the clothing looked like, or what kind of carriages they drove; it’s about society and people, how they behaved and what their expectations and frustrations were. It’s a realm long gone and our only doorway back is through painstaking research.

Some say, “Oh, well, it’s the story we want and the fantasy that entertains us.” To that I say, “Well, fine, then label it a fantasy, not a historical.” If you’re going to call a novel Historical, or Historical Fiction, do the research. I know it's a pain. A few years ago, I had characters nagging me to write their stories but I resisted because I didn't want to do the amount of research that would be required. Finally, when they wouldn't leave me alone, I broke down and began researching. It's hard, and frustrating, and very time consuming. But it was worth it. The fruits of my labor became the Rogue Hearts series, beginning with The Stranger She Married and The Guise of a Gentleman. Are they 100% accurate? Well, I thought so at the time, but since they were published, I have uncovered research which spells minor inaccuracies. The point is, I tried, and none of my errors are glaring. No, I'm not fessing up as to what was wrong. :-)

Because I get asked this a lot, here are some of my favorite Regency research sources:
Jane Austen is without a doubt the most reliable source since she wrote her books while living during that time.
Anything written by Dee Hendrickson is outstanding and carefully researched -- her Regency Reader is a resource I turn to over an over, and it's on CD so it's easily searchable.
Also Georgette Heyer was very careful, especially considering she didn't have the internet to aid her.
Here are some others:
Our Tempestuous Day by Carolly Erickson
The Half Mad Lord by Thomas Pitt
Georgette Heyer’s Regency World
Regency Etiquette: The Mirror of Graces, 1811, by a Lady of Distinction
The Regency Companion, Sharon Laudermilk and Teresa L Hamlin

In the midst of the on-line ranting, one of the published authors in my group shared with us her philosophy:

As a writer, my job is threefold:

1) do my homework well enough to please my fellow history geeks,

2) make the story compelling enough to hook readers who don't care whether or not it's accurate, and

3) don’t stress over writers/readers who prefer the fairytale.

It resonated within me. I hope it helps you, too.

Regency Marriages and Annulments

Despite what you’ve no doubt read in many historical novels, annulments in Regency England were not easy to obtain.

The old fictitious “we can get our marriage annulled if we don’t consummate it” did not apply in Regency England, nor to my knowledge, at any time in England. Annulments were never easy, quick or painless. Marriages that could be annulled were invalid from the beginning; when either person was already married, when one was under the permitted age, when a minor married by license without proper permission (this included any illegitimate child marrying by license without permission from a guardian appointed by chancery court), or if a person was insane or so feebleminded s/he did not know what she was doing. Then there were annulments granted because of errors in names when people married by banns, because the couple was within prohibited degrees of relationships (i.e. consanguinity), and when one of the couple was impotent (but this have to be proven by a medical examination). A marriage could also be annulled if one party was incapable of sexual intercourse, or absolutely refused to consummate. The absolute refusal was considered the same as impotency, especially that when the person refused to state the reason(s) why.

All questions of validity of marriages were handled by the church courts in England.

Marriages were either valid, void, or voidable. A void marriage is a marriage that never was or had claim to validity. If someone has a spouse living and marries another without obtaining a divorce, the second marriage is void. If a minor married by license without permission, the marriage was void by the Hardwick act. Most void able marriages were marriages between persons within the prohibited decree of affinity and consanguinity. These had to be challenged while the couple was alive. Voidable marriages could not be voided after death of one of the couple.

If a woman’s marriage was annulled, she was reduced from wife to concubine, and her children were illegitimate. Nice, huh? The one time husband was not required to support her or pay her alimony as he had to do if they were separated or had a parliamentary divorce. Despite this, sometimes the wife was the one who instituted the suit in order to be free of the marriage. I asssume the marriage had to be pretty bad to be willing to be reduced to a concubine!

However, if neither sued for annulment, the marriage was valid. Again, consummation was not a requirement.

In my book, the Stranger She Married, the hero hinted that they could have their marriage annulled if she was truly unhappy. The reason for this is because his face was hidden from her and which might have been considered a kind of deception. I found historical precident for it, but I don't know if it really would have worked. Still, since they didn't use it, it didn't really matter. ;-)