These days, if a guy is interested in a woman, he walks up to her, says a cheesy pick-up line, and she decides if it’s too corny or not, and then either offers him a seat or gives him the boot. In my day, if you hit it off, the guy would call you the next day to show his continued interest and a second date would generally follow. Today, the guy would probably send me a text message saying something like, “had fun last nite. movie friday?” An invitation I’d probably miss because my phone doesn’t have an on-screen text message alert. So, if I missed the chime, Lord only knows when I’d find the message. Good thing I’m not doing the dating thing. I’d forever wonder why no one ever called me the next day.
The term, dating, as we use it today, did not emerge on the scene until approximately 1925. Before that, a gentleman courted his virginal ladylove with the intent to marry. Of course, there were exceptions. Men had certain needs, as they do today, and there were certain women in the 1800s who would fulfill those needs, as there are today. But I digress. Generally speaking, money, family connections and property were motivating factors when selecting a bride.
For the purposes of this article, I’m going to focus on courtship amongst the upper echelon of British society during the Regency period (early 1800s). Courtship was a very serious matter back in the day. Until 1882, virtually all of a woman’s property became her husband’s upon marriage. So you can see why a woman of marriageable age would be somewhat selective in her beau. That is, if her family allowed such selectivity.
How did a gentleman eager for a lady’s attention garner her notice? Simple. As she strolled by, he would present her with the delicate turn of his Hessian-clad ankle. Talk about temptation. No, no, I kid!
Actually, in Regency times, if a gentleman did not know the lady, he must first be introduced to her before speaking to her. After the appropriate introduction, he might ask her to dance. Dancers beware! High society would have the couple practically engaged if the couple stood up together for more than two or three dances in one evening. The next morning, the gentleman would send his ladylove a beautiful bouquet of flowers, or he would hand deliver them himself during a prescribed 15-minute visit.
And that, my friends, is a first date and a follow-up – Regency style. I have diluted this process greatly, and some historians might argue that if a lady danced more than one dance with a gentleman she would be labeled “fast.” However, for this article, I’m keeping it simple.
For fun, I’ve listed a few more guy etiquette rules.
- When walking or riding horseback, the lady takes the wall side.
- If a gentleman sees a lady on the street or in the park, he must wait for her acknowledgement before he can tip his hat to her. He must wait for her to speak first. (Oh, I could have so much fun with this in the 21st century!)
- The gentleman precedes the lady going up the stairs and follows going down.
- A gentleman never smokes in the presence of a lady.
RU Readers, what have I missed? Care to share some present-day dating nightmares? What do you like and dislike about dating in the 21st century? Are there any old courtship customs you wish were still in place?
Be sure to stop by on Friday to find out what Managing Editor Theresa Stevens has to say about delivering bad news to a fellow writer.
Carrie Spencer, writing romantic comedy and goofy middle-grade, personifies her alter-ego - 
Tracey -
How did these gentlemen decide which woman to woo? Was it all about her property or did her trim ankles and bust line have anything to do with a potential suitor’s interest?
K-
Posted by KelseyBrowning | September 16, 2009, 1:02 amHi Kelsey,
I think a lot of variables came in to play on his decision. Was he well off, or up to his neck in debt? A stick thin debutante with the tiny breasts, or well-rounded brunette with trim ankles, could look mighty good when you’re trying to save your family’s 600 year old home.
In those days, the heir to a large estate(s) carried a great deal of responsibility on his shoulders. He had his immediate and extended family to care for, plus a boatload of servants and tenants.
He needed a lot of capital to keep his estate running smoothly, and sometimes marriage was a way to infuse life back into his coffers.
Thanks for the question!
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | September 16, 2009, 5:28 amHi Tracey,
Greetings from Australia.
I was goggling while filling in time at work when I came upon this. Fascinating stuff. I love it because I am an historical author myself.
Lots of variables would come into it I agree. In those days, in most cases, if an upper class man wanted love he took a mistress. He got married to beget legal heirs and to inherit property/money. Oh boy, and we thought we had problems in the marriage stakes these days.
Posted by Margaret Tanner | October 28, 2009, 1:48 amHi Tracey..
Interesting reading! One of the worst things about dating these days are PDA’s. Public Displays of Affection. I realize not everyone does it, and it’s mostly couples in their mid-twenties. And the holding hands isn’t even so bad. It’s the two people on on side of the booth, hands in each others laps, making out while the waitress is trying to take their order (did I mention I work in a restaurant?) unable to even concentrate on the “Want fries with that?” because they’re tongue wrestling. We have people that I swear would light up a cigarette and say “How was it for you, baby” at the end of meal they’ve done so much groping at the table.
Now how would your average Regency couple feel about that? lol…I can imagine it simply wasn’t done.
carrie
Posted by carrie | September 16, 2009, 8:40 amLOL – Carrie, sounds like you have a lot of fodder for a book!
During the Regency, “couples” had to have a very good reason for touching. PDAs would have caused mass fainting among the society matrons. The men would probably have craned their necks for a better view.
Not unlike our guys today, although exuberant PDA can gross out the most curious of men.
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | September 16, 2009, 12:53 pmGreat post, Tracey. I never knew about the delicate turn of the ankle thing. Very interesting. Here’s my question though. What if the lady missed him turning his ankle? Maybe she didn’t see it as she walked by? Or did all the women walk around staring at the floor?!
Posted by Adrienne Giordano | September 16, 2009, 8:45 amLOL – the ankle comment was my lame attempt at humor. Regency men wore knee breeches and stockings. I’ve read that some men would stuff certain areas to increase, ahem, muscle size.
I suppose that might attract curious ladies. LOL
Posted by Tracey Devlyn | September 16, 2009, 1:29 pmThe male version of a woman stuffing a sock in her bra? LOL.
Posted by Adrienne Giordano | September 16, 2009, 2:03 pmWhat a fun post, Tracey. And we think dating now can be tough. Can’t imagine having to follow all the rules our forebears did.
Posted by Keli Gwyn | September 16, 2009, 5:15 pmHi Keli,
Thanks for stopping by. Too true! And the consequences of breaking those rules were incredible. I’m sure it wouldn’t sure anyone to learn that women had it the hardest. If they broke certain rules, it could ruin their chances for a good match (or any match at all). Whereas, the men would be rapped upside the head with a fan and told to behave.
*Sigh* somethings haven’t changed so much.
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | September 16, 2009, 7:19 pmWhat about bundling? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)
Posted by Wes | September 17, 2009, 1:34 pmHey, great post. Would you mind if I publish it on one of my blogs?
Posted by Grace McLory | September 26, 2009, 8:43 amHi Grace,
Sorry for the late response! I forgot to mark the little box that lets me know when folks comment.
By all means, please publish it on your blogs. We only ask that you cite Romance University as the source.
Thanks for your support!
Tracey
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | October 29, 2009, 8:42 pmHi Tracey,
I think my reply went astray. I’ll post it again. Apologies if it comes out twice.
Greetings from Australia.
Fascinating topic. I was googling at work (a bit slack today), when I stumbled upon this. I loved it, being an historical author myself.
In those days if a man wanted love he took a mistress. He took a wife to beget legal heirs and to acquire some extra money and property. A horrible state of affairs for the woman.
Posted by Margaret Tanner | October 28, 2009, 1:52 amHi Margaret,
As I mentioned to Grace, I forgot to check the little comment notification box, so I didn’t see your comment until now. Sorry!
Yes, the reality of married life (at least for high society) was not as romantic as we read in romance books, although some authors use the awful truth to “torture” her characters.
Thanks for stopping by! We LOVE hearing from different parts of the world.
Tracey
Posted by TraceyDevlyn | October 29, 2009, 8:58 pmHi Tracey,
You are so right, the reality of married life in those times wasn’t anywhere near what we mainly read in the romance books. During research for one of my historicals, I discovered, here in Australia in the 1800′s at least, that a husband could belt his wife up as much as he liked, and as often as he liked, just so long as he didn’t actually kill her. Ain’t romance grand?
Regards
Margaret
Posted by Margaret Tanner | October 30, 2009, 4:06 amGreat post. Enjoyed reading it.
Posted by Gina | November 7, 2009, 4:13 pm