AN Elegant Madness: High Society in Regency England [ペーパーバック]

Errors are continually repeated.

She seems to have a permanant state of confusion with the Spencer (Earl Spencer) family and the Cavendish family (the Duke's of Devonshire). The 1st Earl Spencer had two daughters, Georgiana and Henrietta. Georgiana married the 5th Duke of Devonshire and had two daughters, Georgiana and Harriet. Murray consistently and continually confuses these two generations and families despite listing seven separate books on the family in her bibliography and a number of other associated books that would provide information on them. I am starting to wonder if she read the books at all - if she read that many surely she wouldn't have made those mistakes.

She calls the Marquis of Queensbury "Old Q" in fact, 'Old Q' was the Duke of Queensbury, a completely different person.

Her description of Beau Brummell is based on entirely apocryphal and disproved events. She places their first meeting on a salacious and since disproved story by Captain Gronow. She says that the Prince and Brummell fell out at an event in 1814 when Brummell insulted the Prince by asking his companion, "Who is your far friend'. This was not the case. Not only did this even actually occur a year earlier in 1813, but it was probably at least a year after the Prince and Brummell fell out. She also fails to show the influence of Brummell on clothing. She says his dress was 'leather breeches for daytime' in actual fact this was the common dress in the 1790's and not at all what Brummell introduced. No one was admitted into his dressing room either - they were entertained in his drawing room while he put on his neck cloths in the dressing room next door with the doors open.

She misdates the arrival of gas in London as 1816 - it came in 1808 and was in common use by 1815.

She continually misnames people - Lord William Pitt-Lennox for the Duke of Richmonds son Lord William Lennox. She calls James Wedderburn Webster, James Webster Wedderburn.

She confuses the Duke of Kent's mutiny in Gibralter (undated in her book but occuring in 1802) with a mutinous incident a few years earlier in Canada. She also says the Duke sentenced the man to 900 lashes, it was actually 999. But the mutiny in Gibralter was not over his cruelty, it was over his excessive regulations which prevented the men from drinking on Christmas Day.

She blandly uses 'after the war' as a statement - but doesn't state what war - one must assume she means after Waterloo. In which case it would be after the 'wars'. Given that the Napoleonic Wars dominated all but a few years of the 1788-1830 she chooses as the scope for her book she has almost no information of the effect of these wars on the country.

She quotes many things out of context to - the list of her errors, omissions and flat out misconstructions could go on.

Frankly while I am interested in much of the information she brings up, those things that I know about or have researched further have shown that she has very little discipline either in her note taking or her ability to put it into its correct context.

She jumps around her chosen 50 year period with little regard to the development of society, London or social mores. So she states with certainty it was a violent age and people were mugged etc. Yet the difference in London in the 1780's when people were robbed in the carriages in broad daylight in London streets, and in 1810 when this was extremely uncommon, is not developed at all.

It is not like Murray has put new interpretations on facts - she has taken too many events and given them incorrect dates, people or information.

This is an exceptionally sloppy book, littered with errors and should be read with extreme caution. I have only listed some of the errors in the book here.

Firstly, this book is indeed entertaining, with some very good sketches and with lots of interesting little snippets about the lives of the richest and noblest members of British society in the first decades of the 19th century. It makes for a good read from that point of view, especially if you are more interested in the feel of how the "ton" or high society lived than in historical accuracy.

The book is not meant to be a history of the entire Regency period, and nor is it meant to be a political history. On the other hand, I would have liked to have seen a little more reference to the major political figures of the day, given that politics was as important as economics to the aristocrats of the Regency period - even if they often chose to ignore both. It is certainly a pity that there is little discussion of the Prince Regent's association with Fox and the Whigs, or for that matter on what was happening politically. Even for a mostly social history of the elite, the omission of some major political events and trends is surprising.

I do have the same problems with the book that have been so elegantly expressed by others. One of the things that shocked me was that Miss Murray claimed to have done all her research with first-hand sources and in fact thanks the staff at the Windsor Castle library and so forth. The second thing that shocked me even more were the enconiums paid her by several eminent personages who should have noted some of the problems. Yes, she collected a vast array of data and an equally vast stock of anecdote and wove them into a light-hearted look at the Regency era. But all the same, she makes some remarkable mistakes for someone who claims to have done all her research.

I found the index to be very frustrating, because everytime I tried to look up someone, that reference was useless. Someone obviously slipped up here. The author's references to peers and peeresses were also frequently inaccurate. It may be pedantic of me to demand that she correctly identify a certain peer as Lord Yarmouth as the heir of the 2nd Marquess of Hertford. But for those not conversant with the peerage (and even for some who are), such explanations are vital. I also find it frustrating when an author casually mixes up two countesses of Jersey who are mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, with the elder being the royal mistress and the younger being the noted society hostess and arbiter of fashion. Finally, in a book so strewn with names and references to this peer and that, an appendix with a list of the main personages who are mentioned in the book would have helped greatly. [Or a detailed index]. For a good example of both, see the recent collection of the Churchill letters edited by his daughter Mary Soames.

What are the merits of this book? First, it is easy reading. Second, it is still in print and relatively inexpensive. Third, it includes several anecdotes about various peers, aristocratic ladies, and courtesans which certainly makes for interesting reading. On the other hand, it is not the book to read if you really want to understand what was going on in high society or for that matter in the rest of English society. Some other reviewers have recommended Stella Margetson, but her books are not easy to locate outside large university libraries. J.B. Priestly's The Prince of Pleasure (not the eponymous Saul David book) is a good start but there are probably even better books. For the gossip, I strongly recommend the originals (Creevey, Gronow, Greville and so forth), if you have the interest and the patience. Why not get the gossip from the source after all?

I didn't really know much about the Regency times and would have quite happily accepted the rave reviews - it is after all a pretty book. I was very interested in the detail in some of the reviews here which cited specific problems with Murray's sources - so I checked out the books. Its pretty easy to get hold of Roger Fulford's book "the Royal Dukes" - which Murray says she used as a source for her book - and lo and behold she has misrepresented events.

I then had a look at the a few Brummell biographies in my library including the one she has in her bibliography - and again - Murray misrepresented and misdated events.

What other events has she misdated or mis-represented in this book? I guess I could continue looking - but I have since thrown the book out in disgust.

I guess I just prefer authors who are accurate.