4 Common Misconceptions About the Regency Era

It’s easy to define the Victorian era—it basically just coincides with the reign of Queen Victoria. Defining the Regency era is a lot trickier.

It was a short but wildly influential period in British history. It’s remembered for its glamour and art, its fashionable balls and fads, its pursuit of pleasure and romance. Basically Bridgerton.

But that picture doesn’t tell the whole story. Let’s look at some major myths and misconceptions about the Regency era, from the king’s alleged military career to popular undergarments, as adapted from the above episode of Misconceptions on YouTube.

1. Misconception: The Regency Era only occurred during the actual Regency.
2. Misconception: The Regency era was pretty much like a Jane Austen novel.
3. Misconception: George IV fought for Britain against Napoleon.
4. Misconception: Women in the Regency era didn’t wear corsets.

Misconception: The Regency Era only occurred during the actual Regency.

The actual Regency was a period from 1811 to 1820 when the Prince of Wales, the eldest son of King George III, acted as prince regent while the king was incapacitated by illness.

Most historians agree that the Regency era extended beyond the Regency itself, but the timeframe is debated. Some argue that the Regency era overlaps with a portion of the Georgian Era, which began way back in 1714 with George I, the first monarch of the House of Hanover. Though he sat on the British throne, George I was born in present-day Germany, couldn't speak English fluently, and became the British monarch only through a quirk of genealogy and religious affiliation at age 54. He was succeeded in 1727 by his son, George II, who had also been born in Hanover, and whose reign lasted until 1760. 

Other historians begin the Regency era during the reign of George III, the first of the Hanoverians born in England. His 59-year tenure coincided with the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, and if that weren’t enough, an explosion of art, literature, and commerce—the kinds of things that now characterize the Georgian and Regency periods.

By 1788, though, the king’s spells of derangement were growing worse. The British public was generally unaware of the extent of the king’s illness, and when he briefly recovered, his subjects grew even more fond of their longtime monarch. Yet, behind closed doors, discussions were had about a regency in the years before it actually began. Some scholars pinpoint the aftermath of this episode as the beginning of the Regency era, when the Prince of Wales started more or less running things, though he didn’t formally sign the paperwork until 1811.

George III died in 1820, making the prince regent King George IV. The new king set the tone of the times: he loved eating, drinking, and entertaining; he built royal pleasure palaces like the Brighton Pavilion, and had multiple affairs while not always paying super-close attention to politics. 

Perhaps thanks to his hedonistic habits, George IV died in 1830, and over the next couple years, the bon-vivant vibes of the Regency era would suffer the same fate. He was succeeded by his younger brother, William IV, who, despite not being named George, continued the Georgian era until 1837 as its last monarch. 

You May Also Like ...

• A Rundown on English and British Royal Eras
• 11 Romantic Bits of Dating Advice from the Regency Era
• Can You Decipher the Playful 1817 Letter Jane Austen Sent to Her Niece in Code?

Add Mental Floss as a preferred news source!

Misconception: The Regency era was pretty much like a Jane Austen novel.

Mannered flirting with eligible bachelors, games of croquet at the manor house, matronly match-making … Jane Austen’s time seems exquisitely genteel. And, sure, it was for a particular slice of wealthy Britons. But that definitely isn’t the whole picture.

The Regency era, especially from 1815 to 1837, was riven with social and political upheavals that didn’t make it into Austen’s drawing rooms. For example, Britain had been at war with France since 1803, fighting Napoleon’s attempted takeover of Europe. The decade-plus conflict didn’t end until Britain and its allies crushed Napoleon’s army at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815. The victory, ironically, enabled a drawdown in the UK government’s spending and led to an economic recession.

Parliament also passed the Corn Laws in 1815, a series of unpopular regulations that imposed high tariffs on grain imports to protect landed farmers. But the restrictions actually led to grain shortages in England, which made bread prices skyrocket [PDF]. Riots ensued in London and in other cities, with protesters denouncing the high price of food as well as their lack of representation in government—because, at this time, only a fraction of Britain’s population could vote. Mostly, rich landowners.

Tensions were high in fast-growing industrial cities like Manchester and Birmingham. In 1819, about thousands of protesters gathered peacefully in St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester to demand parliamentary reform. They were attacked by a saber-wielding militia paid for by wealthy locals. About a dozen people were killed, hundreds were injured, and the Peterloo massacre (which was an ironic reference to Waterloo) became a rallying point for the British working class. The movement paved the way for the Reform Laws in 1832. Among other things, the bills extended the franchise and reorganized Parliament to better represent more industrial towns.

The political strife in the Regency era also coincided with a major climate crisis. Harvests across Europe failed from constant rain and cold throughout the summer of 1816, a lasting effect of the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia the year before. But it wasn’t all doom and gloom; directly or indirectly, the so-called Year Without a Summer gave us Frankenstein, Mormonism, and bicycles. 

The Regency also coincided with concerted efforts to outlaw slavery in Britain. The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807, which banned the buying and selling of human beings throughout the British Empire, but allowed enslavers to continue controlling the people already enslaved. Not until 1838 was slavery abolished and enslaved people fully emancipated. 

Even today, scholars still debate the realism in Austen’s novels. The author herself employed irony and parody to expose social hypocrisy, and mock social conventions. So when you think of the era’s pastoral estates and comedies of manners, remember what was really going on behind the scenes.

Misconception: George IV fought for Britain against Napoleon.

Many portraits of George IV show him in military regalia. He’s often standing against a dark background scene that highlights his uniform’s gleaming gold trim and his lustrous hair. He even commissioned paintings of himself in martial poses as though he was about to go once more unto the breach. The portraits were displayed at a popular seasonal exhibition in London, and the crowds of viewers would have naturally assumed that their king had bravely defended Britain against the French and returned home a war hero. That was the idea—but none of that story is actually true.

George IV was not permitted to go to war, because he was, at the time, the heir apparent. Securing his safety—and the monarchy’s line of succession—was of utmost importance. But he must have noticed that the celebrities of the time, the most admired and fancily dressed figures in society, were military heroes. Like Admiral Horatio Nelson, who achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, and whose death in that battle set off an orgy of mourning. Or Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, the dashing victor at the Battle of Waterloo, who inspired the classic rubber boot as well as the name of a dish of beef in puff pastry.

The king had long been at the receiving end of Britain’s merciless cartoonists as well. The drawings, posted in coffee houses and shop windows, mocked his girth, his love of wine, his fashion sense, and generally compared him unfavorably in every way to his father. Who could blame George IV for wanting to recapture some control over his image through portraits that showed him as he wanted to be seen? The military-styled paintings conveyed a heroic and flamboyant air that was right at home among Regency celebrities.

The pictures served another purpose besides stroking George’s ego. His appearance in military uniforms projected the strength and grandeur of the British monarchy itself. It was a calculated message meant to counteract the anti-royal sentiments then roiling France. He wanted to inspire awe and loyalty to the Crown and nip any thoughts of revolution in Britain at the bud. After all, the populist uprisings in France put Louis XVI’s neck on the guillotine—and George didn’t want his future subjects to get any ideas.

Misconception: Women in the Regency era didn’t wear corsets.

As a matter of fact, women and men of the Regency era wore corsets—but not to achieve that Victorian look you’re probably thinking of.

Women’s Regency fashion was pretty different from the ornate costumes of the 18th century. Dresses seemed to be more relaxed and unstructured. Waistlines went up to right under the breasts, known as an “empire waist,” and skirts became column-like. Necklines widened and sleeves got shorter, exposing a little more skin. 

While women’s fashions loosened up, menswear got a bit more frou-frou. The lace and embroidery of the 18th century were gone, but the silhouette became more pronounced and exaggerated in men’s costumes, with broad shoulders and hips and a narrower torso emphasized by high-waisted clothes. The typical middle-class Regency costume featured tight knee-length breeches or tapered pantaloons, short vests, and shirts adorned with a silk scarf tied around a popped collar. Over that outfit, men wore cut-away topcoats—again emphasizing the narrow waist—with longer tails in the back. Fine fabrics and precise tailoring were hallmarks of the look.

Underneath it all, both women and men wore corsets to corral their figures. For women, corsets changed from the hard, boob-flattening funnel shape of the 18th century into a softer, more realistic support garment. Most importantly, they had two separate cups to keep a woman’s breasts in check. The whole purpose of the corsets was to offer bra-like support under empire waists, but not cinch the torso into an unnatural shape. 

Regency dandies, on the other hand, did want a slim and cinched look that took its vibe from military uniforms. According to some satirical cartoons of the time, not only did fashion-forward men wear corsets, but they also used strategically placed shoulder or thigh pads to achieve an hourglass shape. Military officers and manual laborers sometimes wore corsets for back support while riding horses or lifting heavy objects. And still others just wanted to disguise those extra helpings of boiled beef tongue and potato pudding.