Interesting rules on dancing

Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map

View thread | Previous message | Next message

Interesting rules on dancing Written by Mary Ellen (4/6/2006 1:22 p.m.) in consequence of the missive, Rules of Conduct at the Upper Rooms circa 1813, penned by JulieW

I thought it was interesting "That ladies to be considered perfectly free in regard to accepting or declining partners". Does this mean that a lady might refuse a partner just because she doesn't like the look of him? Whereas at a private ball, or a more rural public ball, where all the attendees would be neighbors, a lady would be expected to dance with everyone who asked unless she had decided not to dance for the rest of the evening? This makes some sense to me since people from all over would be mixed together.

I noted in the book James remarked that it was not considered shocking for a woman to dance with a single partner more than twice. Perhaps the same reason holds as above? If the lady in question does not have a wide acquaintance and is shy of strangers, perhaps it would be acceptable to dance with one or two gentlemen most of the evening. Also, if you don't have a wide acquaintance, who would notice that you were dancing with the same fellow all night anyway?

Previous message | Next message | Board index

Rules of Conduct at the Upper Rooms circa 1813 JulieW (4/6/2006 10:36 a.m.)

ladies Bettina (4/7/2006 3:46 a.m.)
A question Pennie (4/6/2006 10:29 p.m.)
- Some more... Reeba (4/7/2006 2:20 p.m.)
  - Also... Nicki (4/8/2006 9:09 a.m.)
    - I didn't think.. Reeba (4/8/2006 9:28 a.m.)
      - Not sure Nicki (4/8/2006 1:17 p.m.)
        
        I think you are right, Nicki. Reeba (4/8/2006 2:10 p.m.)
  - Two things I can think of: Kelley B (4/7/2006 4:12 p.m.)
    - That makes sense. Thanks, Kelly. :-) *nfm* Reeba (4/7/2006 4:14 p.m.)
- A guess Heather L (4/7/2006 10:14 a.m.)
- I noitced that too.......... JulieW (4/7/2006 5:29 a.m.)
  - Pardon me for this liberty… Robbin (4/7/2006 11:01 a.m.)
    - My guess too Melissa (4/7/2006 8:05 p.m.)
    - Whoa , ladies! JulieW (4/7/2006 2:32 p.m.)
      - Why was the rule for the ladies and not the gents? nfm   Jan (4/7/2006 3:10 p.m.)
        
        I dont know,Jan   JulieW (4/7/2006 3:34 p.m.)
        
        Ah.... is it about precedence?   Jan (4/7/2006 8:22 p.m.)
        
        Good point Jan! nfm :D   Robbin (4/8/2006 10:00 a.m.)
        
        LOL! A cat fight in regency dress - how elegant! nfm   Jan (4/7/2006 4:09 p.m.)
Interesting rules on dancing Mary Ellen (4/6/2006 1:22 p.m.)
- Possible context to one quirky rule *spoilers* for "Evelina& Catherine Anna (4/8/2006 9:35 p.m.)
- I think your distinction JulieW (4/6/2006 2:29 p.m.)
I have been longing to read these. Reeba (4/6/2006 11:15 a.m.)
- Dacning was only JulieW (4/6/2006 11:38 a.m.)

Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.

View thread | Previous message | Next message Board index

- Jane Austen | Republic of Pemberley -

Quick Index

Home

Site Map

JAInfo