It’s new to me: Regency House Party review

If you hate reality television, resent your emotions being manipulated or think you’re already well versed in the Regency, you will probably assume that you will dislike Regency House Party, a 2004 Channel 4 production that was shown in the U.S. on PBS Masterpiece in 2006. I might have been one of those prepared to dislike this four episode mini-series (eight episodes in the U.K.) were it not that I was writing a house party scene and was grateful for any information. And I also enjoyed the series Edwardian House and 1940s House, also produced by Wall to Wall Television, a production company that has made a speciality of documentary/reality television shows including 1900s House and The High Street.

If you’re unfamiliar with this type of programming, you should know that the gimmick is to hire interesting, usually photogenic, usually young people, to live and work as if it were the time period being examined, usually for a long enough period and far enough removed geographically from modern society that the characters are immersed in the fiction. Immersing yourself in the fiction in these series usually means doing without modern conveniences, like toilet paper or cellphones or feminine hygiene products or regular bathing.

For Regency House Party, five men, ranging in age from 29 to 41, and five women, aged 21 to 34, make up a two-month long house party at Kentchurch Court, Herefordshire. Although the men and women played characters of different rank and status, they used their real names and one woman Larushka Ivan-Zadeh, retained her real-life title of Countess Griaznov, although she admitted the title didn’t mean much except as a way to impress boyfriends. Because of her title, she was the highest ranking woman in the party, while 21-year-old Francesca Martin, playing the role of a ladies companion was at the bottom of the ladder. Click here to view all the biographies, saved as a PDF from the Thirteen/WNET website.

The intent of the party is matrimony and furthering that goal are four older women who will act as chaperones for the women. In the historical Regency, these women, unless they were related to or familiar with their charges, would have been paid to see their charges married (and possibly might not have been paid had they failed).

Chris Gorell Barnes played the role of the master of the house, although as an eligible bachelor he has arranged for Mrs. Fiona Rogers, the chaperone for Countess Griaznov, to act as hostess for the party. Her role as hostess gives her considerable power for she theoretically could tell any of the guests to leave, although presumably that power really rests with the production company. (Incidentally, I don’t know whether in real life the chaperones were or are married; that is, are the characters called Mrs. Rogers and Mrs. Hammond in the same way that all Regency housekeepers were called Mrs. Something?)

Actually, this is a good point to mention my only real difficulty with enjoying Regency House Party: how to tell reality from “reality.” Could Mrs. Rogers really have sent a guest packing? Are any of the romances, especially the May-September romance, real? Did Mrs. Rosemary Enright, chaperone to Miss Hayley Conick, actually smash a plate during an argument with Mrs. Rogers? And if so, was it as the request of the producers to liven things up? According to this interview — “I smelt like a badger the whole time” — Mrs. Rogers really did lose her temper. So perhaps I am too critical of this aspect of the series, but you must know I’m the sort of person who gets angry when I find myself crying over a sappy commercial about remembering to call your mom on Mother’s Day. I do not enjoy being manipulated through fake sentimentality.

My other objection to the series involved the boorish behavior of the young gentleman, especially in the first episode, and you could easily dismiss this as the crotchetiness of a 50-something reviewer, although I was crotchety when I was 25. Of course, narrator Richard E. Grant suggested that some of that behavior was caused by supplying the young men with too much alcohol, because as any Regency scholar knows, you couldn’t trust the water, unless it was boiled for tea or coffee. Realistically, of course, a Regency buck probably did drink a lot and most young rich men of the time probably did not act with the propriety of a Mr. Darcy. Fortunately the men’s behavior improved once the chaperone’s and ladies arrived, although there were still many drunken confessions caught on grainy night time footage (apparently there were cameras in the Regency but not light stands).

One could also criticize that the ladies and gentlemen were unable to maintain the fiction that they were at the party to marry not for love, but for position, but how can I, a fervent Jane Austen fan, find fault with that? And I’m sure you could find many other things to criticize. Real Regency experts, I am sure, found many problems with the customs and manner of the series; fortunately I am not hobbled by any such wealth of knowledge.

And despite the characters not really living up to their roles, I found a wealth of information in the four episodes that allowed me to see how the Regency really worked (or at least how the researcher think it worked). The producers provided a string of events and situations that presumably added verisimilitude to the party, like the fireworks, en suite hermit, physical contests, intellectual pursuits and politics of the era. It was fun to see what I had either read about in Jane Austen or had never even contemplated before. In upcoming installments, I’ll add examine each episode in detail.

In closing, I’ll admit to tearing up several times during the last episode and not worrying too much about being manipulated. Treat Regency House Party as an enjoyable fiction that includes historical information and I think you will also enjoy it.

Regency House Party is available for sale at Barnes&Noble (click the picture above) and at Amazon. It’s also available at Netflix (my source) and on YouTube.