In Britain during the Pride & Prejudice/Napoleonic Era, which parts of the British Isles were the nicest to live in? Are there specific cities and towns we can look to from history for an answer?
If we take for example Portsmouth, we know it's an important dockyard city historically. From this, can we tell whether it was a lavish one or a dross one? I remember in Hornblower there was some scenes there, but it looked like only an ok place to be and nothing special.
London I can imagine had all types of classes ranging from the poorest paupers to the richest nobles (like Wellington and of course the King George III). Naturally any city has this divide, as most cities today do too - however perhaps in that period the economic divide may be a bit more clear cut?
What of the middle of England farm areas and small towns and cities? What of say the Isle of Wight, Cornwall, or Manchester? Were these areas known for having certain economic attributes or person stereotypes during the period?
What a shitty thread.
>>1216308
Bath. There's a huge amount of high-end housing left from the period
>>1216316
at least OP has genuine curiosity about a specific subject area
Areas designated as "royal towns" mostly. Sutton coldfield/tamworth for instance.
>>1216323
Oh wow, yes, even a google image search shows that off very much so.
Can you think of any other areas, towns, or cities?
What was the Isle of Wight like back then, I wonder?
>>1216336
Those look very comfy. Are they still home to lots of rich people?
![Royal.crescent.aerial.bath.arp[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BV0GNMU.jpg "Royal.crescent.aerial.bath.arp[1].jpg")
Bath was probably your best shot. It was close to becoming the fastest-growing city of pre-industrial Britain and had a high standard of living compared to the medieval cities of Bristol, London and York.
The rural areas were incredibly poor (though there was't the wealth disparity found in urban centres) and often had low areas of literacy due to non-standardised schooling.
Most of our perceptions of Regency-era Britain are through middle-class or upper-middle class writers so we only see the rich and affluent parts of society, but it was definitely there.
As a personal aside, old Bath is one of my favourite places in the British isles architecture-wise (the people there are a little pretentious nowadays) and the view as you go into the city by train is gorgeous.
>>1216308
>during the Pride and Prejudice Era
stopped reading.
>>1216355
Great answer, thanks!
Didn't most rural areas have the huge super rich manor of the Lord, and all the people worked for him on his lands? I can't imagine they were all super poor, but I'm sure many must've been.
The Home Counties, North Yorkshire, Dorset, Devon, Oxford, Gloucestershire and so on. Places that are nice today.
>>1216370
>/Napoleonic
Cunt.
What's wrong with giving some contextual literature time-frame?
>>1216372
Yes, in about 1000 AD.
>>1216391
You're retarded.
>>1216400
>thinks victorian england was some feudalist country where bumpkins worked for a baron picking vegetables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenures_Abolition_Act_1660
>>1216436
So you think there weren't massive estates owned by superbly rich lords, and they didn't have anyone working on them c. 1800? Evictions of tenancy by the lords was one of the many reasons so many left the UK for her colonies.
You're so retarded you also think we're talking Victorian. Fucknut.
>>1216308
>london
>nice
>before the 1850s when the sewers were built
Mate the only reason they set money off to build those pipes was 'cos the Thames stank so bad, they couldn't hold meetings in Parliament no more.
To the west of London along the thames there were various retreats for the rich and establishments like Eton and Oxford university, going further you eventually get to the Cotswolds with its cosy limestone villages and nearby Bath which someone mentioned.
I'm just glad that we live today, during the Big Bang Theory/ISIS Era.
>>1216585
The world isn't what the mainstream media says it is.
>>1216454
>So you think there weren't massive estates owned by superbly rich lords, and they didn't have anyone working on them c. 1800?
Let's go back again
>Didn't most rural areas have the huge super rich manor of the Lord, and all the people worked for him on his lands?
No. Not most rural areas. Not even a few. Staff were at a minimum and had been for hundreds of years. These landowners owned the land, but they were not a law unto themselves and did not employ anything like a majority of local people.
Why are you so angry? England in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had an established middle class, arguably the least powerful upper class out of the European powers and more social mobility. This, for whatever reason, has made you foam at the mouth.
>>1216308
The middle class quite like Bath.
>>1216628
>No. Not most rural areas. Not even a few
Yeah ok. Here's one I dug up. One of many. http://www.countywicklowheritage.org/page/the_surplus_people?path=0p2p36p
>Comprising over 85,000 acres, it covered one-fifth of the entire county of Wicklow and had more than 20,000 tenants.
