Lady Sarah Jersey
Gentle Readers: In my sidebar I call myself an amateur historian, an apt term as this post will attest. I try to quote from older sources, but this can sometimes backfire. Captain Gronow, for example, whose words I quoted for this post via John Ashton (1890) and Lewis Saul Benjamin (1909), wrote down his memories about the Regency era in 1863, a half century after the events occurred. Gronow’s memory, unfortunately, was faulty in a few particulars, especially in recalling the names of the patronesses of Almack’s in 1814, and why they turned the Duke of Wellington away. I have placed a number of updates in the original post.
Any individual who has read a novel set in Regency England knows about the assembly rooms at Almack’s and the club’s exclusivity. While Almack’s was notorious for its stale refreshments and thin lemonade in the supper room, the Beau Monde never minded, for the idea was to hob nob with the right people, trot out one’s eligible daughters, and make the best marriages possible given their dowries and family connections. Looks and a personality had very little to do with a young lady’s success in her first season OUT, but a pleasing countenance matched with a fortune would swiftly speed up the unification of great estates or the purchase of a worthy title.
Almack's, Pall Mall, opened in 1765
The Patronesses of Almack’s guarded entry to the club like Valkeries prepared to do battle. No one, not even the Duke of Wellington, would dare to step a foot inside the establishment without a proper voucher, and, indeed, he was turned away once for wearing *gasp* trousers instead of knee breeches. But is this true? Please keep on reading.
This passage from Social England Under the Regency by John Ashton (p 383) is quite telling:
*The Duke of Wellington
Of course the Creme de la creme went to Almack’s, but numberless were the Peris who sighed to enter that Paradise, and could not. Capt. Gronow, writing of 1814, says: “At the present time one can hardly conceive the importance which was attached to getting admission to Almack’s, the seventh heaven of the fashionable world. Of the three hundred officers of the Foot Guards, not more than half a dozen were honoured with vouchers of admission to this exclusive temple of the beau monde, the gates of which were guarded by lady patronesses whose smiles or frowns consigned men and women to happiness or despair. These lady patronesses were the Ladies Castlereagh, Jersey, Cowper, and Sefton; … and the Countess Lieven.” (Note: At that time, two other patronesses included Lady Downshire and Lady Bathurst.)
Cruikshank, Longitude (Countess Lieven) and Latitude (in capri-length pantaloons) at Almack's.
In a Newspaper of May 12, 1817, we read – “The rigorous rule of entry established at Almack’s Rooms produced a curious incident at the last Ball – The Marquis and Marchioness of W__r, the Marchioness of T__, Lady Charlotte C__ and her daughter, had all been so imprudent as to come to the rooms without tickets, and though so intimately known to the Lady Managers, and so perfectly unexceptionable, they were politely requested to withdraw, and accordingly they all submitted to the injunction. Again at the beginning of the season of 1819, we find these female tyrants issuing the following ukase: “An order has been issued, we understand, by the Lady Patronesses of Almack’s, to prevent the admission of Gentlemen in Trowsers and Cossacks to the balls on Wednesdays, at the same time allowing an exception to those Gentlemen who may be knock kneed or otherwise deformed.” But the male sex were equal to the occasion as we find in the following lines: –
TO THE LADY PATRONESSES OF ALMACK’S
Tired of our trousers are ye grown?
But since to them your anger reaches,
Is it because tis so well known
You always love to wear the breeches.
*Image from Highest Life in London: Tom and Jerry Sporting a Toe among the Corinthians at Almack's in the West, by I. Robert and George Cruikshank, 1821
Update: Regency Researcher, Nancy Mayer, was kind enough to contact me and set a few facts straight. I have placed her explanations in the update/update below. In the above image, the young bucks are wearing dark suits with dark, close-fitted trousers (Beau Brummel’s influence), while the older men are still in buff-colored knee breeches.
If anyone knows the true story about the Duke and his trousers, please contact me. One conjecture is that Wellington was turned away for arriving after midnight. (Read more about the Patronesses’ edict on trousers in this link to The Beaux of the Regency, Vol. 1.)
Update/Update: Pantaloons, which fitted snug to the leg, came in two lengths: capri and long. A strap under the foot kept long pantaloons in place. (The image below shows the strap.) Thus, the men in the image above were wearing tight pantaloons, for trousers at the time were slightly looser and would have sported gussets that extended the fabric low over the shoe.
Pantaloons with straps, 1821. Image @Republic of Pemberley
In 1814, the date Gronow recollected, trousers (below) were acceptable for day wear only. Pantaloons were worn as evening wear.
Nancy Mayer, a Regency researcher who provided much of the updated information, wrote in a second note: “Luttrell’s poem on Almack’s was published around 1819. According to the verse about the “trowsers”, I think trousers didn’t become an issue until after 1817, at least. Sometimes it is hard to tell if the men are wearing trousers or the longer pantaloons with the strap under the foot. Most of the Lords in the picture of the Trial of Queen Caroline 1820 are wearing trousers or the long pantaloons.”
Trouser with gussets, day wear, 1813
More on the topic:
Jane Austen's World 
Fascinating as always !
I love your blog, Vic, and this one is so interesting!
The story about Wellington and his trousers does appear in REMINISCENCES OF CAPTAIN GRONOW (in the section titled “Society In London in 1814” on P. 20 of my copy published by IndyPublish.com McLean VA ISBN 1-4043-2792-4). Gronow did not provide a date to the episode-it is entirely possible that it occurred before 1814, when trousers were still considered somewhat shocking and before he was his grace the Duke (since Wellington became a duke in 1814). Loved your article. Gronow seems to be the main source for the story in many books and articles that refer to the incident.
However, I also found this:
“In addition, the rules were strictly adhered to, with the Duke of Wellington himself being turned away when he arrived at the Rooms in trousers, rather than the required knee breeches. Or was it because, as another story goes, he arrived after the hour of midnight? Appropos of this singular event, George Ticknor wrote that he and Lord and Lady Downshire, on their way to Almack’s, stopped off at Lady Mornington’s, where they met the Duke of Wellington. They asked him if he were going to Almack’s and the Duke replied that “he thought he should look in by and by,” upon which his mother told him that he’d better get there in good time as Lady Jersey would make no allowances for him. The Duke dawdled, Ticknor and the rest going on to Almack’s without him. Later that evening, Ticknor was standing with Lady Jersey when an attendant told her, “Lady Jersey, the Duke of Wellington is at the door, and desires to be admitted.” “What o’clock is it?” she asked. “Seven minutes after eleven, your ladyship.” She paused, then said with emphasis and distinctness, “Give my compliments to the Duke of Wellington, and say she is very glad that the first enforcement of the rule of exclusion is such that hereafter no one can complain of its application. He cannot be admitted.” ” on
http://onelondonone.blogspot.com/2010/02/almacks-assembly-rooms.html Ticknor’s version indicates that it was the lateness of his arrival and not the trousers that kept him out. There is a published version of George Ticknor’s memoirs, THE LIFE, LETTERS AND JOURNALS OF GEORGE TICKNOR, but I have not actually read it. Based on this, since he was supposedly there, Ticknor’s version would be the more reliable, I think. (Ticknor’s memoirs are available on Google Books, for download, or can be purchased.)
I hope this helps!
Wow, good information on Almack’s. I first read about in Jane Austen, but I didn’t realize quite how exclusive and snobby it was.
I also read it was because Wellington was late. They had such an interesting code. Once the ladies had an heir and a spare, they could cheat on their husbands. But goodness me, don’t wear trousers to Almack’s!
Hi,
Gronow’s list of patronesses for 1814 is always being quoted but it is incorrect. Princess Esterhazy wasn’t in London in 1814. He doesn’t mention Lady Downshire or lady Bathurst– both of whom were patronesses in 1816, and earlier.
Almack’s assemblies were held on either Tuesday or Thursday about 5 times a season. It wasn’t until 1815 or 1816 that they started being held regularly on Wednesday evenings.
The picture of the men in trousers is later than 1810 as it is an illustration for Tom and Jerry or Life in London . Egan’s book wasn’t published until 1821. I think that the 1 is a 3 and that the date is actually 1830.
Quote
The book referred to was Pierce Egan’s Life in London; or, The Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorn, Esq. and his elegant friend Corinthian Tom, accompanied by Bob Logic, The Oxonian, in their Rambles and Sprees through the Metropolis, a work which was issued in and after July, 1821, in shilling numbers. Of Pierce Egan, the author of this work, more will be said in connection with books on sport. A journalist, and a well-known character in his day, he wrote nothing so popular as this Life in London. Indeed, the taste for it amounted to a craze. For his illustrations, Egan went to two brothers, Isaac Robert and George Cruikshank, sons of a Scottish artist who had settled in London. George Cruikshank, the younger and abler brother, had already maintained the succession from Gillray and Rowlandson as a political caricaturist.
http://www.bartleby.com/224/0609.html
Trousers were generally worn after 1820 except for court. If one looks at the picture of the trial of Queen Caroline one sees that most of the men were wearing trousers.
I enjoy your site.
Nancy Mayer
http://www.susannaives.com/nancyregencyresearcher/
Loved this! I always thought it was because he was in trousers. Your posts are always illuminating.
I think of Jane exclaiming in a letter to Cassandra about Henry going to White’s. ‘Oh what a Henry!’ she said and I love that.
I don’t think that he ever got as far as Almack’s, though.
[…] The Great Metropolis, by James Grant, Chapter 1 – Almack’s (1837) Almack’s and its Snobbish Patronesses Voucher to Almack’s Almack’s Assembly Rooms This entry was posted in Regency and […]
[…] Almack’s and its Snobbish Patronesses […]