Susan Johnson (57 page)

Court proceedings against the clandestine marriage began almost immediately, and legal wrangling continued for years. The heiress in this case never did regain her freedom from the marriage and died six years later.

9
. In order to be legally binding, English marriages before 1753 did not have to be performed in church by a clergyman of the Church of England, according to the rites laid down in the Book of Common Prayer.

A valid and binding marriage was created by a mere verbal contract, performed by an exchange of vows to this effect between a man and a woman over the age of consent (fourteen and twelve), witnessed by two persons, and expressed in the present tense. A promise in the future tense, however, was binding only if it was followed by consummation.

A marriage performed by a clergyman, however, offered further advantages over a mere contract marriage. The first was the participation of the clergyman, whose presence gave it the appearance of respectability. The second was that the ceremony was recognized by both the canon law and the common law as legally binding and as carrying with it full property rights. The third was that it was easier to prove, since there were witnesses, usually a written entry in a marriage register, and often a written certificate.

In Scotland from 1560–1834, there were two essentials of a regular marriage: the proclamation of the intended marriage in the parish church and the celebration of the ceremony by a minister of the established church. But for the price of a fine, those who preferred home marriages were accommodated and, by several seventeenth century acts, a scale of fines and penalties were imposed on clandestine and irregular marriages.

10
. The idea for this plot element came from a real-life story that illustrates the power of the profit motive over politics.

Andrew Russell, the second son of a well-to-do Stirling merchant, went to the Low Countries in 1668. Settling in Rotterdam with his wife and family, he served as factor for many Scottish traders until shortly before his death in 1697. He became a wealthy man brokering goods for Scottish merchants, and the importance of Russell’s factorial business in Scotland’s trade was thrown into sharp relief during the dramatic events of 1683.

In 1679 Archbishop Sharp of Saint Andrews, Lord Primate of Scotland, had been assassinated by Covenanting fanatics. On January 11, 1683, the Privy Council ordered a process of treason to be raised against Andrew Russell for complicity in the murder and commanded him to appear before the Lords of Justiciary in Edinburgh. On February 8 his brother-in-law sent him a copy of the libel and warned him that a few days earlier William Blackwood had been sentenced to death for “naked concourse with the rebels,” although he had only been seen talking to them. On March 31 another merchant wrote of further arrests, remarking that “your friends are not apprehending to sie [see] you here.” In these circumstances it’s not surprising that Russell declined to appear.

His decision, though expected, caused a remarkable panic amoung Scottish merchants. On March 21 a group of nine, including three bailies of Edinburgh and men from Stirling, Perth, and Aberdeen, presented an urgent petition to the Privy Council “for themselves and on behalf of the merchants of these burghs.” They began by reciting that “the most considerable trade and commerce of the product of this nation consists for the most part with the provinces of the Low Countreyes, and without able and experienced factors there the trade here will certainly perish.” They then pointed out that the accused Russell, “who has a considerable business in management from this as only factor there,” was at that moment in possession of very considerable quantities of money and goods entrusted to him by the merchants of “most of the trading tounes of this country.” Since their exports were sold on account, it would be virtually impossible to recover these debts from him at short notice; they begged, therefore, that his trial and the embargo might be postponed until he could satisfy his employers. Otherwise, “it will not only tend to the discouragement of the trade of his kingdome in generall but to the irreparable ruine of these who have the greatest part if not all their stock in his hand.”

The Privy Countil wavered and decided to write to the Conservator of Trade, asking him to confirm whether Andrew Russell was “such a person as the merchants here generallie represent him to be.” The Conservator declared Russell to be “a sober loyall persone” and “seeing the said Russell manadges the wholl trade allmost not only of this citty but also of a great part of the natione, and is a great encourager of the trade of the steple port,” the process was finally declared abandoned.

11
. Although smallpox was a dread disease with a high mortality rate, there was little understanding of contagion. So Roxane’s presence at social engagements wouldn’t have been considered dangerous to other guests.

Lord Lovat writes to his agent in Edinburgh in the early eighteenth century, “My house has been all the week full of company as well as the last and my child’s lying in the small pox makes me unfit to answer such a letter of business as yours.” The very survival of the letter shows that the agent worried no more about it than did the company who went on staying in the house. And diaries show that mothers carrying their own children would often visit relatives sick with smallpox, not realizing they were exposing their children to the disease.

On the other hand, some people seemed to understand the possibility of transmission, because when the Duke of Marlborough’s only son, Jack, contracted smallpox at Cambridge in 1704, his mother and two sisters immediately set off for Cambridge as fast as horses could pull a heavy coach.

The Duke of Marlborough, who had
not
had the disease, stayed in London, waiting in trepidation for the news. He writes to his wife:

“I hope Dr Haines and Dr Coladon got to you this morning. I am so troubled at the sad condition this poor child seems to be in, that I know not what to do. I pray God to give you some comfort in this great affliction. If you think anything under heaven can be done, pray let me know it; or if you think my coming can be of least use, let me know it. I beg I may hear as often as possible, for I have no thought but what is at Cambridge. Medicines are sent by the doctors. I shall be impatient to the last degree until I hear from you.”

But there was no hope. Jack died on February 20, 1704, just as his father, who had been sent for by Sarah, finally arrived from London. He came when his son was dying, despite the possibility of contracting the disease.

Dear Reader,

I hope you enjoyed this story of early eighteenth-century Scotland. It was a pleasure to research the time period, to see all the beautiful countryside of Scotland, and, as always happens, my characters take over my life during the writing process. Johnnie Carre and Elizabeth Graham exist as real people in my mind … bring on the therapists!

When I first began researching Scotland, I read some general histories to introduce myself to the era. It wasn’t until I was reading more specifically on the events leading up to the Union of 1707 that I became conscious of the distinct differences in viewpoint between English and Scottish authors. From that point I always checked provenance of both author and publisher; it mattered. Doesn’t it always, in politics?

A further illustration of that clear division was brought to my attention when I was in Scotland later doing more research. My husband and I were checking into a lovely old hotel in Edinburgh that would be hosting the European Economic Community Conference. Although the conference was still two months off, the police were interviewing all guests. We were questioned by an elegantly dressed young detective with a wonderful Scottish accent, and my husband asked him whether the police were concerned with possible IRA bombings during the conference; we’d just come from London, where there had been several bombings in the last three weeks.

The detective said, “They never bother us. Their argument is with England.” I found his contemporary comment fascinating. Even after almost three hundred years of Union, Scotland is perceived as distinctly separate from England.

So in a way Johnnie Carre’s aspirations for Scotland were achieved.

Best wishes,

P.S. I enjoy hearing from readers. If you have any questions or comments, I’d be pleased to answer them. Visit my website at
www.susanjohnsonauthor.net
.

The Kuzan Dynasty Trilogy
SEIZED BY LOVE
LOVE STORM
SWEET LOVE, SURVIVE

The Braddock-Black Series
BLAZE
SILVER FLAME
FORBIDDEN
BRAZEN

The St. John–Duras Series
SINFUL
WICKED
TABOO
A TOUCH OF SIN
and
SEDUCTION IN MIND
TEMPORARY MISTRESS
LEGENDARY LOVER
TO PLEASE A LADY
OUTLAW
PURE SIN
BLONDE HEAT

Available wherever
Bantam Books are sold

Susan Johnson, award-winning author of nationally bestselling novels, lives in the country near North Branch, Minnesota. A former art historian, she considers the life of a writer the best of all possible worlds.

Researching her novels takes her to past and distant places, and bringing characters to life allows her imagination full rein, while creative process offers occasional fascinating glimpses into complicated machinery of the mind.

But perhaps most important … writing stories is fun.