Who Didn’t Love Lucy?

My bad the age of consent in many states in the Nineteenth Century was 10. Many state legislatiors defend that and we have a past thread or so that discusses that.
So definitely a different mindset back in the day .Today it's between 16 to 18 although South Carolina has one exception for teenagers at 14. If I had daughters even granddaughters not digging South Carolina's law.
Leftyhunter
In an age when the average life expectancy was some 39 years (1860), I think they had different ideas about when to get started. 12-13 is pretty young though, even then I would think.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if she was the standard beauty, was a double chin desirable? Was being chubby considered the "it" body? It seems like she was on the heavier side of things. What was considered a desirable figure?
"Pleasingly Plump" was the ideal then, or so I have heard and if you look at ancient artwork, that held true pretty much until the 20th century. I think some girth and stoutness had more appeal in an age of home births and generally tougher living conditions overall. Can you imagine what the pioneer stock looked like? I would expect much of Lucy's beauty would have been in the form of a combination of her features, charm, wit, intelligence etc and would be better appreciated when animated.
 
"who didn't love Lucy?".... me. I don't find her attractive, and these guys seem desperate. The letters from the 19 year old are unacceptable. And if that was the norm back in the 1800's... then that's unacceptable as well. Although it was a good read, and I enjoyed it.
 
If I had a daughter who was 12 getting love letters from a 19 year old I would be very concerned. That's kind of sick. If Lucy at age 32 married someone seven years older not a big deal but a 19 year old hitting on a 12 year old not good.
Leftyhunter
Consider the times.In that time there were no girls they were already considered ladies who had been very well educated in literature and the skill of diplomacy of being a lady.The ladies where more mature than the girls of today.Consider that she came from a family of very influential position .therefore had a wider range of learning than the average lady,People then did not live as long as today so she would be more mature than the nineteen year old male.At times they would be sent on what was called "The Grand Tour' of Europe to again so to broaden their insight into the world they would enter. Read the history of the Middle ages ,children of the aristocratic where much more ready to take responsibility at twelve than twenty two years old are today.Ladies mature at a higher rate that the male,talk to a thirteen boy and then talk to a eleven year old girl ,the girl is more interesting to discuss issues with.I understand and somewhat agree with your position;however,in history one must consider the time that one is reading of ,you should not place our morals into their time .May I suggest that some of the best bios.today are of women who where of what we refer to as young but were wise and skilled for their position.than the older male they married.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBF
Consider the times.In that time there were no girls they were already considered ladies who had been very well educated in literature and the skill of diplomacy of being a lady.The ladies where more mature than the girls of today.Consider that she came from a family of very influential position .therefore had a wider range of learning than the average lady,People then did not live as long as today so she would be more mature than the nineteen year old male.At times they would be sent on what was called "The Grand Tour' of Europe to again so to broaden their insight into the world they would enter. Read the history of the Middle ages ,children of the aristocratic where much more ready to take responsibility at twelve than twenty two years old are today.Ladies mature at a higher rate that the male,talk to a thirteen boy and then talk to a eleven year old girl ,the girl is more interesting to discuss issues with.I understand and somewhat agree with your position;however,in history one must consider the time that one is reading of ,you should not place our morals into their time .May I suggest that some of the best bios.today are of women who where of what we refer to as young but were wise and skilled for their position.than the older male they married.
Actually modern girls are physically more mature in that they are capable of bearing children much earlier then girls of the Nineteenth Century. I agree that in the Nineteenth Century the concept of a teenager wasn't the same since that concept is much more modern.
Obviously electronic devices didn't exist yet so reading if the family could afford books was far more common then today.
Still a twelve year old girl in the mid Nineteenth Century didn't even have the physical development of a modern 12 year old girl so it's difficult to conceive of how they could even by physically attractive which makes a high yuk factor in trying to woo a twelve year old girl.
Leftyhunter
 
A lot of men courted Lucy Hale, but when i have read of her, I would not call her attractive I am sure her father's money is attractive, and his power also drew people to him, and her by association. The word handsome comes to mind. and I have never seen a younger image of her, only the side view. Why was that? Booth supposedly had a CDV of her he carried. I wonder if it was of the side view. A person posed for a side view for a reason, some defect, or other problem, like being cross-eyed. Her personality also seems like she was a forward girl, who used her physical presence and force of personality to pull men to her. I think she would have been a force to reckon with. I see no beauty in the images. I wonder how many men vacated a room, when she entered it. She had something going for her, and it wasn't her looks.
 
I found this somewhat younger image of Lucy Halen, probably post war. It was sold at an auction site.

cdv8142a (1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBF
Considering her later pictures and her number of early suitors, then checking Facebook versus my high school yearbook, one could theorize that the Lucy Hale Effect might still be going on -- in both directions. But I am not theorizing that, having my real name over there and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBF
Anyone who wants an Exhibit A on royal inbreeding should take a gander at poor Charles II's Hapsburg jaw. :frown:

As a couple of comments in upthread posts might have seeded readers minds with thoughts of the Brit Royal family, can I just make it clear that you are referring to Charles II of Spain (lived 1661-1700), and not to his near-contemporary, Charles II , the "Merry Monarch" of England (lived 1630 - 1685).
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth Custer comes to my mind as a Civil War era femme fatale. And when it comes to the Victorian art of letter writing, the girl could turn a phrase.

John
 
As a couple of comments in upthread posts might have seeded readers minds with thoughts of the Brit Royal family, can I just make it clear that you are referring to Charles II of Spain (lived 1661-1700), and not to his near-contemporary, Charles II , the "Merry Monarch" of England (lived 1630 - 1685).
Well, I figured saying "Hapsburg jaw" made it pretty clear which Charles II was being discussed. I've never noticed anything weird about the Merry Monarch's jawline whereas poor Hapsburg Charles II is a pretty well-known punchline for his inbreeding-induced deformities.
 
Sorry Zella, I realize that you know, and my comments were not directed at you. I just posted my brief explanation for the benefit of others who may not be so well informed about 17th century European royalty !
Google King Charles II and all the hits (up to where I decided to stop counting) are for Charles Stuart.
 
Sorry Zella, I realize that you know, and my comments were not directed at you. I just posted my brief explanation for the benefit of others who may not be so well informed about 17th century European royalty !
Google King Charles II and all the hits (up to where I decided to stop counting) are for Charles Stuart.
No worries! I actually didn't realize that about the Google results. Spanish Charles II has been seared in my brain for quite awhile. Poor guy.
 
Kate_Chase_-_Brady-Handy.jpg

I'm wondering if she was the standard beauty, was a double chin desirable? Was being chubby considered the "it" body? It seems like she was on the heavier side of things. What was considered a desirable figure?
I think it's displayed to advantage by my own personal favorite Civil War beauty, Kate Chase, daughter of Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. Ample bosom (as in singular - it's all a single mass, not two separate parts!), a "wasp waist" (thanks to corsets), and ample hips. As for thighs, lower limbs (NOT "legs!"), etc. they might as well not even exist. Her wartime wedding to Governor Sprague of Rhode island was one of the war's social highlights.
 
Back
Top