By Erastes
When you write romance, particularly historical romance, you need to know a lot about the clothes. For me, part of the sensuous and pleasurable aspects of writing in eras other than our own is to picture exactly what my characters are wearing, what those clothes are made of, how they are created, dyed, woven, etc. A historical writer has to be partly geek, and would fit right in with any society of living history buffs.
When you write books which are going to have the protagonists stripping off, then you need to know what's under those clothes, and when--like me--you write about homosexual men, you need a good grounding in what men wear under those breeches, those kilts (if anything) and those dandified trousers. And how they go on. And how they come off!
So I'd like to share a little with you about things I have learned about men's undergarments whilst researching for my books. Here I cover up to the Elizabethan age, I'll share later eras perhaps in another month.
Loincloths might still be around (roll on global warming!!), but they have been found in burial sites on the bodies of men living over 7,000 years ago. Who knows what sparked man to start covering his bits--it would hardly be warmth, after all. It would offer some level of protection from thistles I suppose, but not if a sabre toothed-tiger was coming at you at groin level.
Tutankhamun was buried with 145 loincloths. This seems either a lot, or not enough, depending on your point of view of how long the afterlife is going to be. Of course by this time, the loincloth was worn under a skirt. Still--roll on global warming!
The Ancient Greeks obviously didn't have to worry about sabre-toothed tigers, and consequently didn't wear any underwear at all. Good for them! Φοβάμαι τους Έλληνες όταν είναι πηγαίνοντας καταδρομέας!*
The Romans did, though00big sissies. Possibly because their empire stretched into chillier areas. They'd wear something called a subligaculum, which in modern terms means a pair of shorts or a loincloth and was worn under a toga or tunic.
Pull-on undergarments were invented around the 13th century, large baggy drawers called "braies" made from linen were worn by men under their clothes. This style of undergarment did not really change in design for 500 years--Plus ca change...I know some men who change them about as frequently--other than to be fashioned from better, finer fabrics and to have ornamentation.
These knickers shrank considerable during the Renaissance as the familiar image of cod-piece and hose emerged. The hose themselves were an open garment--not like our tights or hose of today. Tight on the legs and open at the front and back which could not be worn openly as the privities hung lose. As the doublet became shorter clearly something else was needed! The braies shrank to show off the hose, and the codpiece was developed to protect the wearer's modesty.
Or at least at first.
Gradually the codpiece evolved, became padded, shaped to fit and as some clearly showed were frankly showing off--and obviously exaggerating. Some of the most "impressive" are those belonging to Henry 8th and shown at the Tower of London.
What is interesting about fashion today is that of showing off one's designer underwear is not a new thing at all. The rich would commission the most exquisite undershirts, and underwear, fabulously expensive fabrics and meticulously embroidered. Why, they reasoned, am I paying for such incredible work that will never be seen? Well, partly because Sumptuary Laws came into force in many European countries, restricting the sumptuousness of dress in order to curb extravagance, protect fortunes, and make clear the necessary and appropriate distinctions between levels of society.
This led to the "slashing" fashions that we see in the Elizabethan period, where the overclothes had slits, the better to show off the gorgeous clothes being worn beneath, and thus bypassing the laws.
After these excesses calmed down, and waistcoat shirt and breeches took the place of doublet and hose, men returned to wearing braies or "strossers." During the English Civil War the only difference between undergarments and overgarments were the weight of the wool they were made from.
*I fear the Greeks when they go commando.
Sources:
A history of Men's Underwear
Revival Clothing
Vintage Skivvies
By Lisa Marie Wilkinson
Centuries before the first issue of GQ magazine hit the stands, and before Mr. Blackwell published his inaugural "Worst-Dressed List," another young man of taste staked his claim on history as the arbiter of male fashion during the Regency era in England.
George Bryan Brummel, (1778-1840), known as "Beau" Brummel, is believed to be responsible for creating the slave to fashion known as the "dandy," for introducing the modern man's suit, complete with tie, and for breeches giving way to full length trousers.
Although not of noble birth, Brummel was attracted to the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and as a young man, dressed accordingly. Following his studies at Oriel College he embarked upon a military career, which brought him to the attention of Prince George, the Prince of Wales. Brummel's more sober style of dress, featuring darker colors and cleaner lines, gradually overtook the current men's fashion of high heels and peacock-bright colors, largely as a result of Brummel's friendship with--and influence over--Prince George, who grew to view Brummel as the absolute authority on all things having to do with fashion and personal care. Many aspects of Brummel's personal hygiene habits caught on as popular fashion, and to this day we can credit him with introducing the concept of daily bathing and tooth-brushing.
The following pictures illustrate the evolution of style from fop to dandy:
Brummel resigned his military commission at the advent of the Napoleonic Wars in 1798 and soon came into a sizable inheritance upon the death of his father. He installed himself in the fashionable district of Mayfair (London) and began spending money and gambling extravagantly while in the company of friends whose wealth and means far exceeded his own. Eventually, lenders refused to extend Brummel the credit needed to support his lifestyle, and he fell out of favor with his wealthy, influential friends, including the Prince Regent.
Brummel was forced to flee to France in 1816 to avoid debtor's prison, but struggled with debt in France as well, eventually spending some time in a French prison as punishment for his indebtedness. He died an insane pauper in Caen, France in 1840.
By Jean Adams
The second son of Amunhotep III and Tiye, Amunhotep IV, was probably not the first choice of the pharaoh, but would have fallen to his older brother, Thutmose, who died under unknown circumstances at an early age (Aldred, 1988).
Amunhotep IV's story begins at a time when the brave new dynasty of warrior pharaohs was beginning to become stagnant. The forging of a new empire, started by the pharaoh Ahmose at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, had raised the god Amun to a position of unprecedented power.
Nothing much is known of the early life of Prince Amunhotep IV. His father's reign rarely mentions him. Amunhotep IV's age upon becoming pharaoh is a matter of guesswork because his age is never specified in ancient texts. But Prince Amunhotep must have been of an age to be able to sire children, since he had at least one daughter by the first year of his reign. This could place him at as young as eleven or twelve.
Amunhotep IV's reign began with building projects including with a large sandstone quarry. He also took on the job of decorating the pylons his father had erected in the great Karnak temple complex. The decoration of these pylons gives us the first glimpse of things to come. We see the beginnings of the drastic changes the pharaoh would impose on official artwork starting to emerge (Redford, 1984).
In the third or fourth year of Amunhotep's reign, close to the time of his decision to change his name to Akhenaten, the king decided to have a royal jubilee, known as a Sed-festival. Such festivals were usually celebrated on the 30th year of a pharaoh's coronation, and thus a celebration so early in Akhenaten's reign would have been unusual. The Sed-festival's purpose was to reinforce his divine powers of kingship.
The festival marked a major turning point in Akhenaten's reign. Official art developed into the "early Amarna" style, which so exaggerated the unusual features of the king that it led some scholars to believe that Akhenaten may have suffered from some sort of medical condition.
In the fifth year of his reign, Akhenaten undertook another major project. In perhaps his most dramatic effort, he abandoned the old capital city of Thebes and set out to create a new one in central Egypt in a previously uninhabited spot. He called his new city Akhetaten, or "The Horizon of the Sun-disc."
The site of Akhetaten, now called Amarna, is a barren place surrounded by cliffs. The place resembles the symbolic horizon, and because it is located in the center of Egypt, may have been significant in Akhenaten's choice of this particular spot. Akhenaten laid out his plans for the city in great detail in a place he claimed to have been instructed by Aten to build.
A large cache of clay tablets, known as the Amarna letters, was found in the city. In these letters, we see the disintegration of the massive Egyptian empire taking place. Despite continual requests for gold, which the king apparently ignored, Akhenaten continued to build his city, and further suppressed the traditional array of Egyptian gods. He began a campaign to erase the name of Amun from as many texts and monuments as possible. He even changed aspects of the written language, in one example altering the spelling of the word "mut" (mother) so that it no longer made reference to the goddess of the same name (Redford, 1999).
In year twelve of his reign, Akhenaten held a large festival in which foreign dignitaries from all across the Egyptian empire visited and presented large quantities of tribute. The festival marked the beginning of the end of the reign of the "heretic king." In the years that followed, the situation at Akhetaten rapidly disintegrated. A spiral into tragedy started with the death of Akhenaten's second daughter, Meketaten (Aldred, 1988).
Akhenaten's mother, Tiye, disappeared at about the same time as Meketaten, probably both having fallen victim to the plague that had by now spread into Egypt (1984). Nefertiti faded quietly into the background (what happened to her is not known), and princess Meritaten was soon elevated to the position of Chief Queen and married to a mysterious figure called Smenkhkare, who co-ruled with Akhenaten for a few years (Redford, 1984; Aldred, 1988).
The last reference to Akhenaten appears on a wine jar docket dated "Year 17." He presumably died in Akhetaten of natural causes. Upon its rediscovery and exploration in the 19th century, Akhenaten's tomb lay empty save for some debris and the smashed remains of the king's red granite sarcophagus. 
The city of Akhetaten was abandoned and in left ruins. Akhenaten's experiment ended as abruptly as it had begun. After a brief occupation of the city by Pharaoh Tutankhaten, the successors of Akhenaten left the city and attempted to destroy all traces of this most mysterious and dramatic interlude Egypt's history.
The story is told against a background of danger and intrigue, and condensed for space purposes, in my latest novel, a time travel, ETERNAL HEARTS, due soon from Highland Press.
By Jeannie Lin
I've always been fascinated by warrior culture and the social rules that tie them together. There is something exciting and sexy about an elite group of fighting men. Modern day warriors within the armed forces carry on these traditions and their influence continues to resonate with us.
It makes me wonder, what elements do these groups have in common that pique our interest? And it's not all about big swords and cutting off heads.
The Warrior Code
"Come home with your shield or on it."
Every warrior culture adheres to its own code of conduct which values honor, loyalty and courage. In effect, every group has its own "Man Rules".
The Japanese samurai called it Bushido. Chinese swordsmen called it the code of the xia. The US Marine Corps sums up their code in their motto "Semper Fi". In medieval Europe, knights followed the code of chivalry.
Whatever the code may be called, the principle was the same. Death before dishonor. A warrior would die for this brothers. He understands the meaning of sacrifice and honor. In some unfathomable way, these men are bonded together and belong to something greater than themselves.
Few Against Many
We love cheering for the underdog, especially if the underdog is a magnificent fighting machine. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than how King Leonidas led a force of 300 Spartans (and 700 Thespians) held off a Persian army a million strong at Thermopylae.
What about a small, highly specialized unit, trained to get in, accomplish the mission impossible, and then get out? Modern day Navy SEALs and SWAT teams are well-known for their specialized training. I went to search for a historical equivalent--perhaps the specialized units of the Knights Templar that were dispatched to fight in the Holy Land, surrounding by hostile territory?
On the other side of the world, the Shinobi were Japanese warriors trained in covert tactics. The samurai were all about displays of honor, but the shinobi were all about stealth. They were the Black Ops of medieval Japan. Or perhaps such special tactics groups were so covert that there were plenty throughout time that we've never even heard about. Which leads into my last point.
The Mystery
"The first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is, you DO NOT talk about Fight Club."
The brotherhood is a tight society only open to those who have proven themselves. This secrecy lends an air of the mystery around these groups. These are warriors with a hidden past, one that can never truly be revealed.
The poster child for this has to be the Knights Templar, famous for their secret codes, security measures and ancient rituals. What were these secret relics they hid so carefully and where are they now? A secret treasure trove, the bones of saints, the Holy Grail?
For other groups, there may not be an explicit vow of secrecy, but the existence of the group itself creates the mystery. There is a darkness to being a soldier and a warrior. These men are forced to make choices between life and death. They are protectors as well as destroyers.
Only these bands of warriors can truly understand what they've been through. It's a secret handshake, an unspoken bond of fighting men. The rest of us seek to uncover these secrets, even centuries later--forever on the outside, looking in.
By Jennifer Linforth
"For several days after my first book was published, I carried it about in my pocket and took surreptitious peeps at it to make sure the ink had not faded." ~ J. M. Barrie
When Unusual Historicals asked us to blog on men, my mind went to little boys and the one little boy who unlocked a world every adult should explore. There is no doubt that authors are imaginative creatures, and we must exercise that imagination daily. Every author should, on occasion, crack open a book by J.M. Barrie, a literary giant who turned the 19th century on its ear with his never-ending world of make-believe.
With his enduring and timeless Neverland....
What births imagination? For Barrie I believe it was death. Barrie said that his mother, distraught after the death of his brother just short of age 14, wandered around the house pleased that she would have one son who remained a boy forever. Barrie, in shock as well over losing his brother, would dress as his older sibling in order to comfort his mother. This death shaped Barrie in a way he would never forget--it birthed his imagination as he and his mother entertained each other with stories from her childhood in order to keep his brother's childhood alive.
Like many writers you find, he was not encouraged to write by his family. They wished to have him in the ministry. Following their desires, he enrolled in the University of Edinburgh. As he attempted to follow course, he ended up writing more and more. Short stories based on those he shared with his mother landed him acclaim for local papers, and established him as a respected writer. Eventually his attention turned toward works of the theater, reviewing and writing for the stage.
The ministry was forgotten.
There is a long list of works that found Barrie success in the early 1900’s. But in the United States it was his serial, The Little White Bird, which we should identify with, for in that work first appeared Peter Pan. It was not until 1904 that Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up appeared on stage. Come 1911 his novel, Peter Pan and Wendy, would endure as a timeless classic. His Neverland would become the iconic place where morality is undecided. Peter Pan has long been billed as a book for children, but is in reality more a story for grown ups that, far too often, lose site of the dreams within and forget what it is like to simply--believe.
My imagination is where I would retreat as a girl when I needed a spot to be alone. Now as a writer I offer that retreat to others. I still find far too many people in the world that don't believe in make-believe so I pose this question to the readers of Unusual Historicals. What births imagination? Where in life is your J.M. Barrie?
Remember Barrie's words: "Every time a child says 'I don't believe in fairies' there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead..."
I have already discussed this with my two year old and believe me, she claps to bring that fairy back to life.
How will you make imagination endure?
By Anita Davison
George and Francis Villiers by Van Dyck
The son of the murdered 1st Duke, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham is often judged as ostentatious, licentious, and unscrupulous, but even his critics agreed he was also good-humoured, good-natured, generous, an unsurpassed mimic, and the leader of fashion. His good looks and wit made him irresistible to his contemporaries, in spite of his lack of morality, and even his crimes. John Reresby called him "the first gentleman of person and wit I think I ever saw," and Dean Lockier, after alluding to his unrivalled skill in riding, dancing and fencing, added, "When he came into the presence-chamber it was impossible for you not to follow him with your eye as he went along, he moved so gracefully." According to Gilbert Burnet, "He gave himself up, to a monstrous course of studied immoralities."
When their father was murdered by John Felton, George was only seven and his brother Francis, two years younger. Under the care of the Earl of Northumberland, their early childhood was spent in Florence and Rome. At fourteen, George attended Trinity College, Cambridge, where he obtained the degree of Master of Arts. When the Second Civil War broke out, the Villiers boys joined Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland in Surrey. Francis was killed near Kingston-upon-Thames, at the age of twenty. Buckingham escaped to the Netherlands and joined Charles II in exile, while his lands were confiscated and given to Thomas, Lord Fairfax.
Buckingham was given the Order of the Garter (KG) and admitted to the Privy Council by Charles II. A sworn enemy of Edward Hyde, Buckingham supported the alliance with the Scottish Presbyterians and accompanied Charles to Scotland in June 1650. Allying himself with the Marquess of Argyll, he fought at the Battle of Worcester in September 1651, and escaped the field to arrive in Rotterdam and re-joined Charles II in exile.
A fervent supporter of religious toleration, Buckingham's negotiations with Oliver Cromwell's government, and his readiness to sacrifice the interests of the church, separated him from the rest of Charles's advisers. This estrangement was compounded by his audacious courtship of the king's widowed sister Mary, Princess of Orange, and by a money dispute with Charles.
Tired of exile and determined to regain his estates, Buckingham argued with Charles II and returned to England and went to court Lord Fairfax. Uneasy with certain Protestant excesses, Fairfax hadn't supported Charles I's execution, and the retired general quickly became a friend of the handsome, and charming Buckingham. Whether by accident or design, knowing Buckingham it was probably the latter, the general's daughter, Mary, fell in love with him although the banns of her intended marriage with the Earl of Chesterfield had been twice called in church. They were married at the Fairfax estate in Yorkshire and as a wedding gift, Lord Fairfax signed the two Villiers properties back to his son-in-law.
When news of the wedding reached London, the Lord Protector was furious. Suspicious that Buckingham might be secretly working with royalists to undermine the republic, Cromwell saw the marriage as a potentially treasonous alliance with the power to turn the army against him. Buckingham was arrested and held at York House, from where he escaped. Re-arrested, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and again his properties confiscated.
Buckingham lived for months with a traitor's death of being hanged, drawn and quartered hanging over him, but in 1658, Cromwell fell ill. Through the window of his cell in September, Buckingham heard the cannons boom to announce the dictator's death. He wrote later: "If Oliver had lived for three more days, I would surely have been put to death."
Freed in February 1659 on Fairfax's security of £20,000, having promised not to assist the enemies of the government, Buckingham joined Fairfax in his march against General John Lambert in January 1660, and claimed to have persuaded Fairfax to the cause of the Restoration.
In May 1660, King Charles II was restored to his throne. Theaters and inns opened again. Boys were allowed to play football on Sunday, and Charles legalized horse racing in the first week of his reign. Meeting him at Dover, the king received Buckingham coldly for his desertion, but the Villiers charm soon did its work, and he was appointed a Gentleman of the Bedchamber, made him a member of the Privy Council a year later, and George carried the Sovereign's Orb at the coronation on 23 April 1661. He accompanied Princess Henrietta Anne to Paris to marry the Duke of Orleans, but made such shameless advances to her, that he was recalled. Admitted to the Privy Council, Buckingham’s confiscated estates, amounting to £26,000 a year, were restored to him, and he was said to be the king's richest subject.
An advocate of religious tolerance, George was horrified by the trend of Catholics being barred from public office. As a Freemason, he had progressive views on most issues, and contempt for the established church. But he was sympathetic to the Quakers, who were being imprisoned, tortured and hung for their refusal to conform to Anglican demands. William Penn was a fellow Yorkshireman and friend of George's.
For about 15 years, Charles II was attended by the 'Merrie Gang,' a posse of young nobles and gentry, many of whom were clearly gay or bisexual. Naturally their leader was Buckingham, who according to Rousseau, "The king himself was accused of engaging in overt 'sodomitical liaisons' with the Duke of Buckingham."
The permissive atmosphere of Restoration high society meant that George made no secret of his liking for both men and women. From childhood he would have been aware of his father's relationship with King James I. Sodomy laws were still on the books in England, but Restoration liberality had reduced punishment from death to a day in the stocks.
Being an amateur playwright, George often dallied with actors--and rumours spread that he was intimate with young Edward Kynaston, famed for playing female roles. Playwright George Etheredge. Known as "Gentle George" to his friends, ('gentle' was a euphemism for gay in the Restoration court), Etheredge was fair-haired and slender, beautifully dressed, and wrote some of the era’s most sparkling comedy. Buckingham mentioned Etheredge in a poem, saying that Apollo had his eye on gentle George--an allusion to the Greek god's fondness for handsome mortal men.
Yet another "gentle" favorite was poet Abraham Cowley, with whom Buckingham was a student at Cambridge. It was said that Cowley never spoke a word of love to a woman in his life. Many conventional biographies of Buckingham refrain from mentioning that he was bisexual, but historian Howard Love says flatly in his English Clandestine Satire, 1660-1702, that Buckingham "was a bisexual rake who was prosecuted for sodomy."
George's closest cohort was another civil war hero, John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, who was known to write witty gay erotica and was clearly bisexual. According to Wilmot, the ‘Merrie Gang’ rose at ten, breakfasted at two, and were drunk by five. Wilmot once admitted to being drunk for five years. Their drink of choice was imported wine spiked with opium--which was making its debut in England thanks to trade with China. On occasion, George had dinner at 2 AM, washed down with a French drink he had introduced to English high society, called champagne. While drunk, Villiers and Wilmot loved to disguise themselves, and pull off mad escapades and practical jokes.
With most of his pre-war property retrieved, and a vast income, George lived well. In 1666, he built a vast mansion at Cliveden on the Thames where he installed his mistress, the Countess of Shrewsbury. This affair with Anna Maria Brudenell, led to a duel with her husband at Barn Elms in January 1668 that turned into a massacre with two deaths and several injuries. It was rumoured, but unsubstantiated, that the Countess of Shrewsbury held her lover's horse, in the dress of a page during the duel. The Earl of Shrewsbury was fatally wounded, and subsequently, Buckingham provoked an outrage when he installed the "widow of his own creation" in his own and his wife's house.
Pepys’ reference to this 'duell,' says, ....it was all 'about my Lady Shrewsbury, at that time, and for a great while before, a mistress to the Duke of Buckingham; and so her husband challenged him, and they met; and my Lord Shrewsbury was run through the body, from the right breast through the shoulder; and Sir John Talbot all along up one of his arms; and Jenkins killed upon the place, and the rest all in a little measure wounded.'
George was not the only sexual nonconformist in his family. Mary Villiers, his sister, was an influential writer and early feminist, who kept the court buzzing with gossip about her swordsmanship, duelling, fondness for men’s clothes, and the erotic lesbian tinges in her poetry.
When the 'Merrie Gang' weren't getting high, drinking and womanising, they raced horses. Charles' grandfather, the gay King James I, had first developed a court and racecourse at Newmarket. Charles II built a huge stable there so racers could board horses there--"the oldest training establishment in the world,"* In 1665 the king established the Newmarket Town Plate, an annual race over a 4-mile course, in several heats, the first race run under written rules. Riders had to be a gentleman. Each horse to carry 12 stone (168 pounds). No whipping each other by the riders. No cruelty to the horses. The first horse to win three heats was the victor. Wagering on all races reached preposterous levels, so King Charles II, alarmed by bankruptcies of titled bettors, issued a royal decree limiting the size of bets. On Sunday evenings, Buckingham would often entertain the court with what he called a 'sermon'--a bawdy stand-up comedy monologue that had their audience screaming with laughter.
Well into the 1670s, the 'Merrie Gang' continued, until Buckingham was devastated by the death of Abraham Cowley in 1667, and by 1679, the Earl of Rochester was fading horribly from the effects of alcoholism and venereal disease, and died in 1680.
Years of abuse left Buckingham with rheumatism, liver problems, and his sex life became a national issue. The Earl of Clarendon took the position that George was a godless monster. Parliament debate was noisy and at one point, Buckingham fought with another peer and they yanked off each other's wigs. Both were thrown in the Tower to cool off.
In 1667 Clarendon got George disbarred from the Privy Council, but Buckingham fought back with icy ruthlessness, and engineered the Earl’s downfall. Arrested and dismissed from all his offices, Buckingham evaded capture but he gave himself up and was imprisoned in the Tower. Restored to favour and his appointments three months later, Buckingham took an active part in the prosecution of Clarendon. When Clarendon fell, he became the chief minister, even though he had previously held no high office except that of Master of the Horse, bought from the Duke of Albermarle in 1668.
Buckingham was accused of: the instigation of the idea of a divorce from Queen Catherine of Braganza for her childlessness, plotting against James, Duke of York, the Duke of Ormonde, and Sir William Coventry--whose fall Buckingham procured by provoking him to send him a challenge to a duel.
Through it all, King Charles stayed supportive, and re-appointed George to high office in 1670. But in 1674, Buckingham was openly attacked in Parliament over his relationship with Lady Shrewsbury. In the Lords, the trustees of the young Earl of Shrewsbury complained that Buckingham publicly continued his affair with the Countess, and that a son of theirs had been buried in Westminster Abbey with the title of Earl of Coventry; Buckingham and the countess were required to apologize and give security for £10,000 not to cohabit together again.
By 1678, England veered into panic over Titus Oates and the "Popish plot." Half the country was sure that Catholic enemies were planning the King’s murder and the downfall of government. A series of ludicrous state trials resulted in some public executions of innocent men caught up in the hysteria. Buckingham's enemies tried to implicate him in the conspiracy, charging that he had engaged in sodomy with a young conspirator named Philip Le Mar. Buckingham was put through a state trial by Parliament, spent more time in the Tower, and defended himself with savage wit. Eventually charges were dropped. On May 21, 1680, George was freed from the Tower for the last time.
In 1681, at age 53, Villiers left public life in disgust. He paid off some of his debts by selling Cliveden and other properties. But he held onto Helmsley, in Yorkshire, making it his home for the first time. Income from tenant farmers provided some cash flow, and his old retainers stayed loyal, so under the shadow of the half-ruined castle, he and Mary lived a recluse life in the antiquated manor house.
The once-athletic, handsome cavalier was now a hefty country squire with a few wooden teeth, chugging ale with other squires at the Cock and Bottle Inn. He founded the Bilsdale Hunt, put together the first pack of hounds, and went fox-hunting with his new cronies. The odd mistress still came and went from Helmsley, along with a boyfriend or two, including George Etheredge. Finally his long-suffering wife Mary moved out.
In February 1685, King Charles died, and in April 1687, while the aging Duke was out hunting, he fell ill or had a riding accident-accounts vary. Carried to the home of a tenant in Kirkbymoorside, six miles from Helmsley, he lingered for several days until on April 16, George Villiers died. He was 59.
Buckingham was buried on 7 June 1687 in Henry VII's chapel in Westminster Abbey, with greater splendour than the late king. After his death, all his property, which had been deeply mortgaged, was sold, and did not realize sufficient to pay his debts. George and Mary had no children, so his titles became extinct. The family line continued through the 1st Duke's siblings. The Villiers' most famous descendent is Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales, whose ancestry goes back to the Duke of Grafton, Charles II's illegitimate son with George's cousin Barbara Villiers.
* Newmarket historian John Sutton.
By Isabel Roman
It's a universal cry when women are frustrated. It's also the universal cry when writers are annoyed. Men are tricky little devils; their thought processes can be very foreign to some of us women. There is a reason for the outstanding success of books like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus or He Said, She Said. Men think fundamentally different from women.
We could talk for hours about the major and minor differences in the way men and women approach different problems or aspects of life, but today's blog is going to center on the difference between the Alpha Male and the sadistic jerk as pertains to romantic fiction.
I once attended a writer's workshop were the speaker proposed that men in fiction are actually one dimensional. That they are simple, visual reactors of what is around them. And while I agree to a point--men do react visually--I disagree that men do not have the same depth in personality women do. They do, they just express it differently. As writers, our job is to find out how our characters will express their depths. Some do so quietly through small actions while others do so violently through intense conflict.
The typical Alpha Male character is considered to be the strong leader of the group. His reactions can range from the quiet but intense stare to the over the top violent outburst. What all Alpha Males have in common is their steadfast determination to solve the problem at hand. They don't wait for someone else to find a solution, are generally proactive, however, a good one sees the value in the opinions/actions/contributions of those around him.
In relation to his romantic life, an Alpha Male determines what he wants and goes after it--oftentimes full force. However, he is not going to force relations, but he'll be persistent. He'll also soften for the woman in his life, differ to her wishes when possible. Not a pushover, he is willing to hear the other opinions. When you are dealing with the Alpha Male and the Alpha Female you develop this mutually respectful, but sometimes vicious, tug of war between them. Two strong personalities vying for dominance. It can be a very exciting interchange to write.
A strong Alpha Male is not a sadistic jerk. The sadistic jerk will cause pain for his own amusement--and lose your reader's respect at the same time. A sadistic jerk will stalk your heroine, frighten her, keep her in an uneasy state. Sometimes there is a fine line between what an Alpha will do and a jerk. For instance, an Alpha will never arbitrarily kill someone, even if they try to kill him. He'll do so out of self defense, but always after the killer attacks.
None of that makes a good Alpha Male. The classic anti-hero is often meant to be an Alpha Male but unintentionally twisted into a sadistic jerk. We need to be careful of this trap: an anti-hero may skirt the law, be forceful with his minions but he'll never take advantage of his woman. He also will not commit violence for violence's sake. When an Alpha Male commits violence there is always a good reason for it.
Let's take a favorite movie of mine, Captain Blood. (I just read they're remaking...as a space movie...*shudder* *gasp* the horror!) Peter Blood is the classic alpha hero: he's strong, determined, gathers loyal men to him, fights the bad guys, and wins the day. In the book, there's a scene where Captain Levasseur captures a (I think, going from memory here!) Dutch ship on which his 'love' is traveling. When the captain of that ship tries to protect the woman, Levasseur pushes him away, stabbing him with his sword.
Why? Because he was between he and the woman Levasseur wanted. This opened the woman's eyes and she rejected Levasseur. Faced with this interference, Levasseur murdered a man he needn't. The sadistic jerk.
Peter Blood, faced with interference from his Arabella's uncle, Colonel Bishop, leaves him alive. Bishop wanted Peter dead for a variety of reasons, the latest because he was a pirate. But Peter left him alive on more than one occasion. Why? Because he knew killing Bishop, even in a battle, would devastate Arabella.
Peter Blood is the Alpha Male. Levasseur is the sadistic jerk. Plain and simple.
By Lorelie Brown
First off, let me just say I'm stoked to be here at Unusual Historicals, for more than one reason. My ability to be included here means my debut, currently titled JAZZ BABY, is going to be published (Samhain; Spring 2010). This is the culmination of a life-long dream--and the first step on a long journey, I hope. Secondly, Unusual Historicals is such an awesome place to be a part of, considering I get hot for history. (What, too much?) So me, my irreverence, and my over-use of parenthesis will hopefully be around for a good long while.
Oh, bad boys. We romance readers have such a love for them, no? From the Black Knight who gets the girl anyway, to the rake who strides through ballrooms in his gleaming boots and seduces women left and right (but never touches a virgin!), the bad boy gets his sexy on. Yum.
And who's more bad than gangsters? The modern day notion of gangsters started in the 1920s, when US Prohibition laws made alcohol forbidden. (Little known fact: it was not illegal to drink booze, just to buy or make it. So if a pint of rum just fell from the heavens at your feet, feel free to get blotto.) Gangsters had boatloads of money, most of their business was done in clubs and bars, and really, that whole Prohibition idea was kinda crazy. So breaking laws about it was looking out for the common man who just wanted to get his drink on.
Makes sense that gangsters would be great fodder for bad boys. Heck, Hollywood caught on a long time ago.
How about Al Capone:
Hmm. I don't know about you, but he's not really doing it for me in the looks department. He had a bulletproof car, though, that was later used as President Franklin Roosevelt's personal limo after it was seized--that's pretty cool.
Unfortunately, there's that whole St. Valentine’s Day Massacre thing. An attempt to get back at Bugs Moran in the increasingly violent Chicago mob wars, Capone had seven men lined up against a wall and assassinated. Each victim ended up with somewhere between 15 to 20 bullets in them. Gruesome stuff. And he died of syphilis. That sucks. I'm not thinking Capone's redeemable.
Well, OK, how about George "Bugs" Moran, who ran the North-Side gang in Chicago and was Capone's mortal enemy?
Now he's a pretty decent looking guy. He still doesn't do it for me, but I can get the appeal. He supposedly dug monogamy, so yay, no syphilis! One problem--that nickname. He got the name "Bugs" from being bat-shit crazy. Plus he was super-murderous.
Moving right along, now, we've got John Dillinger:
The guy certainly had charisma, that's for damned sure. And there's that whole Robin Hood-like aura that hangs around him. He stole primarily from banks during the 1930s Depression, and the people could get behind that, all things considered. (By 1933, a third of the banks had failed, and there was no FDIC at the time to back deposits. So imagine if you woke up one morning and found out your entire savings/retirement account was simply gone.)
By many sources, Dillinger only ever killed one man--Officer Patrick O'Malley--and some people even swear up and down that Dillinger didn't even kill him. But...well...he still hung out with killers. The whole Robin Hood image isn't quite right, either. He stole from the rich alright, but the only poor who got a cut of the loot was Dillinger himself. And one account has him leading a gang-rape at thirteen. Gah.
So, alrightie then. Maybe the real bad boys aren't quite where it's at. The heart of gold? Usually stolen. I think I'll stick to my fiction.
Just to rinse the pallet, I'll leave y'all with a picture of the most recent spiffed-up Dillinger incarnation. Now there's a bad boy I wouldn't mind spending some time with:
By Michelle Styles
Because of the two Eddas, poetic and prose, it is possible to understand more about the way the Vikings thought and acted--in particular how they viewed themselves and what traits they held to be important.
The so-called List of Rig, which only exists in an incomplete form. is probably the best saga to shows which traits were considered to desirable.
Rig most likely comes from the Irish word for king, or ri. This saga is supposed to be about the god Heimdall's creation of mankind and Viking society.
It explains the basic structure of society, dividing it into three parts: labourer, farmer and finally lord. In each segment certain traits are praised.
For example, the labourer is praised for making strong baskets, being able to work with swine, look after goats and dig turf. When his future partner arrives, they talk and whisper together then go to bed together. The farmer or thane is supposed to be able to build houses, make carts and ploughs, and tame oxen. It is also notable that the farmer gets married properly to his wife rather than simply setting up house like the labourer does. They also spread the bed coverlets before going to bed. The farmer is also constantly working and has no time for leisure pursuits. He whittles and works with wood.
For the lord, the making of bow strings and arrows is important as is the ability to hunt with hounds, to ride horses, to wield a sword and to swim as well as being able to play tafl. In short, he has leisure time and knows how to use it wisely.The lord also has to know how to use his wealth--offering his followers treasure and gifts. He also takes time out for romance as the list mentions looking into one another's eyes--something that is missing from the labourer's or the farmer's list.
When the lord marries, it is mentioned that Erna, the wife is radiant and wise and that they loved one another. Erna the wife brings embroidered coverlets rather than simply woven ones, again implying that she is not just spinning the entire time and has some time for leisure pursuits. It is also mentioned that lords drink wine rather than drinking ale.
Finally, anyone marked out for kingship must know their runes, as well as how to deaden sword blades and quiet oceans, only then will he be considered worthy.
What is clear from this particular saga is that it is not simply the arts of war that are prized for Vikings but also other traits such as being able to play strategy games, conduct a romance, help in childbirth (the mention of a man helping out in childbirth surprised me know end, but I suspect it also might be a reference to the practice of exposing sickly babies) and knowing how to correctly interpret signs and riddles.
Anyway, reading the List of Rig helped give me insight into those qualities that the Vikings considered important for their men to have.
Michelle Styles has written three historical romances about the Vikings. The third one, THE VIKING'S CAPTIVE PRINCESS, will published in North America in December 2009.
By Anna C. Bowling
What is it that makes the historical hero special? Yes, you in the front. He lives in another time? Well, yes, that is important to the definition. Let's get some other opinions on that. Over there in the frock coat? A sense of honor? Very good. Someone else? Yes, there in the ah, what sort of fur is that loincloth? That is a loincloth, isn't it? Survival instinct and a pioneering spirit? Yes, those are very useful. Third row, in the cravat? No, no, the one with the emerald stickpin. Manners and breeding? Yes, sometimes, or a self-made man with rougher edges. Hush, hush, please, or we could be here all day listing heroic qualities.
Why ask this sort of question at all, some might wonder? Isn't a historical hero merely a hero who lived in a previous time? Couldn't any of the above qualities reflect in contemporary gentlemen as well? Of course they do, and apart from time travels, all historical heroes do their derring-do in previous eras, but strip them down and put them beside their contemporary counterparts and there's still something different.
The German word for it is "zeitgeist" In short, the spirit of the age and society. The time in which a hero lives will shape him and what he views as heroic. True, the inspirations for our fictional heroes can come from sources as diverse as the latest blockbuster film, a favorite soap opera, the new trainer at the gym, a dusty history tome or a random thought that meandered through the daily chores, but heroes, whatever their era, are not interchangeable. Knowing what a potential hero looks like is only the beginning.
Imagine taking a Victorian nobleman and swapping him with a Viking jarl or a Spanish grandee from the seventeenth century. For that matter, an Iroquois warrior or Moorish scholar. Not only would each gentleman find the costume and social climate strange compared to what he's lived with all his life, but imagine the gents filling out the same questionnaire regarding heroic attributes. Education, tastes in food and leisure activities, even what they would find attractive in a potential mate, all vary vastly across the years and the globe.
For those wondering why the gentlemen in the opening paragraph are gathered together in the first place, other than to beautify the scenery, take a good look at the heroes depicted by Unusual Historicals authors. They come from places as diverse as Africa and Germany, France and the New World. Hm, yes, even England in various eras. They stretch from the ancient world to the modern day, and perhaps a tad beyond. We have alphas, betas, and the elusive gamma (who may or may not exist, depending on whom one asks, but if he does, he combines the qualities of the other two) and a few who refuse to be categorized at all.
Were we to collect the above-mentioned questionnaires, the variety of responses on most questions would astound us, but the answers to the most important questions would be the same. What would they give for their beloved? Everything. Certainly, there would be disagreements on exactly how one might best accomplish that, and I can't guarantee there wouldn't be a few fisticuffs, but when it absolutely, positively has to be happily ever after, there are no odds over which a historical hero can't triumph with his beloved by his side.
By Zoe Archer
The years between 1875 and 1915 have often been referred to as the Age of Empire. Many nations sought to expand their sphere of power and wealth by slicing the world up into colonial regions. Of all the nations involved in this "imperialism," as the term came to be known--the United States, Russia, Belgium, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, France--the most nation with the largest empire was Great Britain.
Queen Victoria celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897, and at that time, one quarter of the world's entire population lived within the confines of her Empire.
How was it that Great Britain came to dominate the global political landscape? There are many answers, yet one factor cannot be ignored: the British soldier.
If a young Englishman wanted to see the world, he had no better option than to either purchase a commission for or enlist in one of two branches of the British military: the Army and the Navy. In some cases, as (somewhat disastrously) in India, soldiers might be recruited from the indigenous population, but many of the soldiers came from Great Britain.
Most men who served spent the majority of their service outside of England. They might be posted to India, Egypt, Fiji, Sierra Leone, Canada or the Virgin Islands. But no matter where a British soldier might find himself, he was taught above all that Britain, and the British way of life, far surpassed anything any other country or populace had to offer. Military posts recreated enclaves of Englishness, particularly in the officers' quarters, and discouraged soldiers from "going native" and mixing with indigenous cultures and people.
Officers held the most glamorous positions within the imperial army. Commissions were purchased--often for younger sons of the aristocracy--and the price varied depending on the regiment. A cavalry posting ran up to £800 and could include overseas duty as well as short sojourns in England. If an officer was ambitious, he would request a regimental posting in some hazardous and unstable part of the Empire. This ensured he would be promoted far more quickly, and cheaply, than buying a promotion.
But officers comprised a small percentage of the British military. Enlisted men provided Great Britain with the necessary manpower to maintain its massive Empire. In 1870, the basic period of enlistment was twelve years. A young man might join a regiment at eighteen, but boy-soldiers were not uncommon, signing on at age fifteen and then formally joining three years later.
Enlisted men were not a respected group, often disdained by the general British public. They were drawn from the ranks of the rural poor, and sometimes criminals were offered the choice between gaol or military service. A soldier's life meant hardship: poor pay, little privacy, severe discipline, endless drills, occasional hostile natives and exposure to exotic ailments. Still, for many men, "taking the shilling" offered more opportunity than struggling to eke out a living in an increasingly industrialized England.
Not all enlisted soldiers suffered. Some rose in the ranks through exemplary service and learning skills such as telegraphy--an important ability when the British Empire relied heavily on telegraphs to keep abreast of latest developments. Small numbers of enlisted men were permitted to take a wife, and noncommissioned sergeants could also marry. Children of these marriages frequently became soldiers themselves.
Two British soldiers appear in my upcoming "Blades of the Rose" series. In "The Undying Heart," part of the HALF PAST DEAD anthology (Brava; 01/2010), Major Samuel Reed is a veteran of the Crimea. Gabriel Huntley, the hero of WARRIOR (Zebra; 09/2010), is a rare officer who rises through the ranks, posted in both India and what would be known as Ethiopia. Both of these men are profoundly shaped by their experiences serving in Queen Victoria's army. I was fascinated to discover their stories, as well as the stories of the thousands and thousands of military men who helped create the massive and powerful British Empire.
By Erastes
Yankee Doodle came to London, riding on a pony,
Stuck a feather in his cap and called it Macaroni.
When I was a child, I used to sing this song, thinking that Yankee Doodle either called his feather, his cap, or his pony Macaroni. It was a subject of some debate among the kids, at some time or other.
The truth is rather blurred in myth. Popular misconception says that it's a song by the English jeering at the unsophisticated colonial Americans, but this verse of the rather long song wasn't added until the mid-19th century. Another theory is that it refers to Oliver Cromwell--and comes from an almost identical stanza in a song called "Roundheads and Cavaliers."
However, whichever is true, a macaroni was a slang term denoting a fop, but it's even more than that.
A macaroni, or maccaroni, was a man of fashion; in fact he was what we'd refer to today as a fashion victim. The sort of person who buys Zandra Rhodes or wears tinfoil dresses just because they are the hot fashion item. They were famous for going too far in their slavish devotion to looking good, and even though men were--in centuries before our own--much more decorative than they are today, the macaronis took it twenty stages further, becoming so outrageous in their display that they became a bit of a laughing stock for being so effeminate that it was often difficult to tell their sex.
An informal club, "The Macaroni Club," was formed, and Horace Walpole wrote to a friend in 1764: "The Macaroni Club, which is composed of all the traveled young men who wear long curls and spying-glasses."
Naturally, it was the rich men who followed the fashion, and after Charles II's restoration, following years of Puritan repression, fashion exploded once more, travel became fashionable, men started to do The Grand Tour, and wigs proliferated in fashionable circles becoming ridiculously huge by the late 1600s. So much so that most older men became more conservative in their wig taste, leading to the youthful revolution that was the Macaronis.
Their clothes were so outrageous and restrictive: tightly-fitting coats and short waistcoats with enormous buttons, and exquisitely thin shoes with huge buckles of silver or gold--so thin that they even adopted a particular mincing gait. Together with the habit of carrying nosegays, they were not widely accepted by other gentlemen of the day and were continually lampooned in the press.
Perhaps the first real gender benders, in fact.
.jpg)
By Carrie Lofty
I love the miniseries "Band of Brothers". From the acting, production and historical detail to the fantastic battle recreations, it's an amazing blend of personal stories within the overall drama of WWII. But aside from a few minor roles, very few women are featured. I grew up craving female role models, so my fascination with "Band of Brothers," Saving Private Ryan and other WWII films puzzled me. The men are delicious, certainly, but I've finally identified the source of my interest: these dramas are windows into the male world.
Because men behave hierarchically--a tendency that is compounded in military service where rank is codified--the forms of address used between soldiers can be very revealing. I'm going to reference three characters from "Band of Brothers," all based on real individuals, to demonstrate what I mean: Maj. Richard Winters (portrayed by Damian Lewis), Cpl. Eugene Roe, a medic (portrayed by Shane Taylor), and SSgt. William Guarnere (portrayed by Frank John Hughes).
Maj. Winters was an officer, and thus the possibilities for how he could address his men were much wider than those available to a private. He used surnames most commonly, combining formality with an admission of familiarity. Rank alone was used for newcomers or strangers. He reserved "sir" for addressing superior officers, and referred to them in conversation by rank and surname together. When addressing a subordinate officer in the presence of enlisted men, he used both rank and surname.
The only person he consistently referred to by a given name or nickname was Capt. Lewis Nixon. Winters' use of "Nix" and "Lou" were ubiquitous--a testament to their similar status, education, and friendship. But we can assume that when referring to his friend in the presence of others, he would've called him Capt. Nixon.
The use of given names and nicknames, both of which evoke closeness or familiarity, is complicated territory in the male hierarchy. As the war progressed and more of the original Toccoa men with whom he'd trained were lost, Winters began to refer to those remaining few by their given names--but only when he addressed them directly, and generally to draw authority from their sense of shared experience.
For example, when Sgt. Frank Perconte is unable to explain his squad's discovery of the Landsberg concentration camp, Winters slows him down with the simple use of his first name. That subtle gesture implied a trust born of their shared experiences across three years of training and war: I will trust you no matter what you have to say. Later, during a baseball game, he uses Perconte's nickname, Perco, because the situation was informal and relaxed.
As another example, Winters commands Cpl. Joseph Liebgott to make sure a batch of POWs arrive alive and well back at camp. He uses the name "Joe" to reinforce the personal nature of his his request...and his authority. Liebgott's disobedience would not only violate a direct order, it would be a personal insult to their long history.
Medics during WWII had the unenviable task of patching up fallen comrades during the heat of battle. Because they didn't carry weapons, they didn't exactly experience combat the same way their comrades did, instead occupying a strange middle ground between combatant and non-combatant.
Medic Eugene Roe kept to himself, and his eventual attempts to break down personal walls met with mixed results. First he tried referring to Pvt. Edward Heffron by his surname. But no one else in the company did so. Then he tried Heffron's given name, once again finding that he'd misjudged: "Edward? Only the nuns call me that!" Eventually, as their friendship became more genuine, Doc Roe used Heffron's name of choice among friends: Babe.
Insults and dirty or unwanted nicknames make up the final category in this brief survey--as far away from formal rank as possible. William "Wild Bill" Guarnere was also known by the less appealing nickname "Gonorrhea". But what had been intended as an insult morphed into a term of affection among the original Toccoa men with whom he'd trained. Only those among his inner circle could refer to him as Gonorrhea; others risked a punch to the mouth.
However, respect could be earned by using the derogatory nickname in an appropriate, man-approved context. For example, Guarnere called an untested newcomer "Cowboy," much to the soldier's constant annoyance. This hazing only ended when the man learned to give as good as he got: "Shut your Guinea trap, Gonorrhea." To which Guarnere replied, "I like this kid."
Variations in forms of address among men are different through the ages, but I believe they reflect one common behavioral trait: men respond instinctively to the hierarchical structure that frames their relationships with other men. I've presented very particular examples, but I'm curious to see what your research has turned up. Can you share examples of male forms of address from Roman, medieval Regency, or other eras?
When you write books which are going to have the protagonists stripping off, then you need to know what's under those clothes, and when--like me--you write about homosexual men, you need a good grounding in what men wear under those breeches, those kilts (if anything) and those dandified trousers. And how they go on. And how they come off!
