Customer Reviews

An Elegant Madness: High Society in Regency England

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

While very interesting and raising some interesting points Venetia Murray's book "An Elegant Madness" is shockingly badly researched and very sloppily edited. Do not rely on this book if you are not familiar with the Regency period - and do not quote from this book as truth, always use a secondary source to back up anything read in this book.

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.

Why does this book have such contradictory reviews from newspapers and magazines, compared to some of the readers? I read this book last year, and again this year when I finally decided to acquire my own copy despite all the problems I had with the book.

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?

Wow - this book as elicited quite a few reviews hasn't it? I was really interested in reading it as I love this period, but I read the reviews here carefully and wondered about the seeming huge polarity in popularity of the book.

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.

If people want a good book on the life and times of the Regency I would strongly suggest something like Amanda Foreman's excellent book 'Georgiana' or Stella Margeton's 'Regency London' or Priestly's "Prince of Pleasure". But don't read this book.

Venetia Murray is clearly cashing in on the popularity of the Regency Market. She doesn't seem to know or understand the period so while the book might sparkle with good prose it is flat on fact. Now shouldn't that be what a non-fiction book should have as its primary concern? Fact? Sure make them nice to read, but they should be factual.

I see someone in a previous review has suggested that people who have written negative reviews must have some kind of agenda - or be amateur historians. Well there is that. I mean how do you know what reviewers backgrounds really are?

Well, unless you know the period well I would suggest that Murray's book is quite convincing. But it is her attention to detail that lets her down - and has caused her to make so many mistakes and to misinterpret events. I would suggest that the easiest way to confirm this for yourselves is a quick look through the index at the back of An Elegant Madness.

There are people that she hasn't fully named - they are just surnames - if she knows who these people are, why hasn't she fully named them. Check an index on a Hibbert book, or Amanda Foreman or any other reputable author and you will see a full name entry - with title and often with dates of birth and death.

Murray hasn't even bothered to match the correct pages in numerous cases - so looking for 'Hazlitt' she claims in the index that he is mentioned on pages 19, 24, 112, 128, and 277. Well a check through the book only shows him appearing on page 19. For the Earl of Barrymore she has two pages noted - but the Earl doesn't turn up on page '52' as she says - but I stumbled across him on page 42.

For one entry in her index where she mentions two pages - on one page the person is said to be the Duke of Wellington's nephew - on another he is the Duke's brother. Well he wasn't both...they are in fact two different people she is referring too.

Yes, I know, everyone is saying 'but this is a readable why worry about the index?'

Well the index is so bad....so very very bad....it is an easily demonstrable indication of just how terrible Murray's standards really are. This standard of workmanship and attention to detail is evident throughout her whole book and reflects the level of attention she gave to her own research.

I just think there are so many really good Regency Books out there that there is no need to waste reading time on something that is just going to mislead. Another excellent read apart from the one's mentioned above is Christopher Hibbert's "George III".

Read something else - not this. I have left my email address on this message and people are welcome to contact me further if they have any questions - or wish to discuss with me the plethora of errors that litter this book.

I enjoyed the book. Venetia Murray writes well and is a great story teller. However, I have a number of books on the Regency period and in cross-referencing her "facts" with other more notable and period sources, her book contains a number of errors. People are misidentified and major events are recounted differently. In addition, I had difficulty with the index--in some cases events and people could not be found on the pages cited. Altogether I enjoyed the book but if I were an historian I would not use it as a resource.

If one reads this, they might do it with one of those foam collars about their necks that people use for whiplash, because that is precisely how you will feel when you finish this work. It's not bad enough the writer gets SO many facts wrong, out of order or does about faces on her own statement - it's a marathon of WRONG - she actually and consistently contradicts herself! One can write a small book on the errors this author carelessly makes.

Take this as TOTAL FICTION and you MIGHT enjoy it. If you are looking for a feel for the period, look elsewhere. Save your money - and the headache! To see a writer do so much research and get it ALL so wrong, jumping around in chronological order with the consistency of a ping pong ball, had to be a fine madness.

I don't think someone could deliberately set out to get something so wrong and do half a thorough job as Murray did.

What an enjoyable piece of fluff! I have read some of the negative reviews by other Amazonians, so I suppose it depends on what you are looking for in this book. I wasn't looking for a serious and scholarly historical work. I wanted to be entertained with some light social history and this is what I got. If you want to know what the upper classes ate and how they dressed and how they kept themselves occupied (I won't say in their "spare time" as they had nothing but!) you will find this book very interesting. Ah, those were certainly the days! A young dandy would get up in the morning and spend a good 2-3 hours at his toilette. (It took a lot of work to get that cravat looking just right!) If you went out to a nice restaurant they would have an area where live turtles were on display, similar to the way that restaurants in our time have live lobsters on exhibit, as back then they were crazy for turtles and couldn't get enough of them. Rich people would spend their summers traveling to the country estates of other rich people. As a welcome guest you would be entertained at no cost to yourself for a weekend or a week and all you were expected to do was to provide some interesting conversation. You would travel with your maids and valets and other servants and they would be provided for as well. The meals were enormous and the ladies especially had to make sure to bring plenty of clothing as you would need to change 4-5 times in a day. If you were one of the members of the nobility who had either gambled or just overspent yourself into debt, these country trips would be especially nice for the free room and board you would receive. Unfortunately, you would merely put off the day of reckoning when you would either go to debtor's prison or have to flee to the continent to remain a free man! Some aristocrats would gamble away fortunes in one evening and spend more on throwing a party than a laborer would make in a lifetime. When you think of all the money that these people just threw away without making any contribution to society whatsoever it makes you shake your head and laugh out loud at the folly of human nature.

I was so disappointed with this book. It might be gossipy but has all the accuracy of gossip.

You know there have been so many more high-profile fakes sold to the breathless press and public as authentic - just think of the Hitler diaries which were reprinted. It is much easier to pull a swifty on the public and reviewers when the subject is more obscure.

The information Murray used is easily available in the public sphere. Christopher Hibbert has done a great job editing Gronow's works, it is easily available too, Lesley Blanch did a wonderful job on both Julia Jones and Harriette Wilson's memoirs. There are endless copies of the Creevey papers too.

All these books are marvellously gossipy, have great detail- they also have editors that understand their subjects and are able to shed light on their lives which Murray is incapable of doing.

If it were possible to give this book half a star I would. The book is fluff. It would be an enjoyable time waster if it were not supposed to be fact. The chapters are littered with errors of fact, misidentified people,mistaken identies,and misdated events. There is a general absent of dates. None of these deficinecies would matter if this were a work of fiction. Unfortunately the book is promoted as non-fiction. If all you want is a cotton candy introduction to a fascinating period of English history, this book will do as well as any other novel; however, if you want a solid meal of fact, look elsewhere. It is a shame for the book is easy to read.

"~Venetia Murray shows again and again that she neither understands nor has properly researched the Regency period. She is just cashing in on the interest in the period and I find it insulting."~ researched"~ make this a good read - as she clearly didn't understand it in the first place - if she had she would have at least got the names and dates correctly.