(Thank you very much for Carlton books for sending me this.)
I was reading this somewhat ironically the other day-a little book, informed by books of a few hundred years ago (more on that in a minute); can it really assert what is the apparent ‘lost’ way of being a ‘lady’?
Surely, that would depend on what you’d class as a ‘lady’? To modern readers, the picture probably differs for each individual-and doesn’t involve being presented at court, or how to serve up a sea-turtle for tea.
(Best read ironically,then.)
If you read it that way, then you’d probably find it an amusing read; the book even includes a few references to where the content has been adapted from. The writing style also will probably gain a few giggles, here and there, as well as the advice-How to use arsenic (?!) to How to identify a challenging child.
From a historic viewpoint, I have a problem with it being called a ‘Victorian self-help guide’. (Queen Victoria-born 1819, died 1901, was Queen from 1837.) Some inter-textual references take inspiration from the years 1774,1910,1711…That seems a little misleading.
Read it for the gaffes, and a sense of the ridiculous, yet not the historical accuracy. It’ll make you smile.