As is tradition with Dracula Daily, let me give you today’s Cultural Lesson Based On Today’s Entry. Let’s talk about money.
See, if you’re thinking Dracula and the characters are handling what we see today as British money, don’t be fooled! Dracula is set in the 1890s, and they use an entirely different money system to what we use now, it just seems on the surface that it’s the same.
For context, if you didn’t know, Britain uses pounds (£) and pence (p) as the currency now, with 100p to £1. This is called decimalisation, and has been in practice since the 1970s. Before then, we were the last country in the world to still use the Roman monetary system.
In the Victorian era, there were 3 used measurements of currency: Pounds (L), Shillings (s) and pence (d), which was written in that order: l.s.d, so a sink in a shop may list the price as 1.7.2, which would be 1 pound, 7 shillings and 2 pence.
Now lets break those down a little more. There are 240 pennies to the pound, and 12 pence to the shilling. That makes 20 shillings to the pound. Most working class laborers would be using shillings as their highest coin in day-to-day living. You could get a pint of beer for a couple of pence. A pound was an incredible amount of money to your average person (maybe less so to the fancy characters of Dracula).
But I want to talk about the coins.
See, a penny was not the lowest coin in circulation. That was a farthing, which was worth ¼ (a quarter) of a penny. Then next was a half penny (or ha’penny if you prefer). Of course there was the penny. Then there was a two pence (tuppence) and a three pence (thrupence) piece. Then you had your half shilling (sixpence, pronounced more like sixpunce, with a ‘u’ rather than an ‘e’), and the shilling itself (twelve pence, remember? Also known colloquially as ‘bob’). Then you had the florin, which was 2 shillings exactly (24 pence). From there you had your half crown, which was worth 2 shillings and six pence, for a total of 30 pence (though you’d never call it that), and then a crown, which was 5 shillings. From there the next step is the half-sovereign, worth half a pound (120 pence, or 10 shillings), and finally the gold sovereign coin, worth £1, or 240 pennys, or 20 shillings.
Yes, that’s genuinely the method of money these characters are using. Some old people insist it was easier than the current system.
Here’s some more fun money facts in case they come up later!
A guinea is a pound and a shilling (1.1.0, or 252 pence), and was used to make things seem a little cheaper to wealthy buyers. It’s used from time to time in Victorian books so it’s worth knowing.
The correct way to read out prices is ‘[x] and [y]’, so say you were selling something and wanted a shilling and fivepence for it, you’d ask for “1 and 5”. This is often used for the stereotypical cost of a half a crown, so when someone in a period drama asks for “2 and 6”, what they’re asking for is 2 shillings and sixpence.
There is a fairly obscure coin that I’m not sure was in circulation at this time which was nicknamed ‘The Barmaid’s grief’, it was only used for a few years. This was worth 4 shillings and was the same shape and (very nearly) size as a crown (5 shillings). So people would buy a pint of beer, the barmaid would pick up the coin in a hurry and not realise that it wasn’t a crown, and give 4 shillings back along with change from a shilling for the beer. So people made money from buying beer. It was not a good time to be a barmaid.
4K notes
·
View notes
From an iHeart Britain article about old British money: https://www.iheartbritain.com/understanding-british-money-whats-a-quid-a-shilling/
Before decimalisation, British money was made up of pounds, shillings, and pence as follows:
1 pound = 20 shillings
1 shilling = 12 pence
Logically, it follows that you'd have 240 pence to a pound. The symbol for a penny was a “d” (for the Latin denarius), and for a shilling, it was “s” (the Latin solidus). The solidus and denarius were Roman coins, and of course the £ comes from libra. The Romans left more than roads 🙂
Historically, pounds came in either paper bills called notes or a quid, or gold coins called sovereigns. Granted, this was a pretty substantial sum of money, so it's not something an average person would be carrying around until the fairly recent past.
It would be pretty simple if it was just pounds, shillings, and pence, but that would be too easy.
1 mite = 1/8 penny
1 farthing = 1/4 penny
2 farthings = 1 halfpenny (pronounced more like “haypenny”)
2 halfpence = 1 penny (or a ‘copper')
2 pence = 1 tuppence or a half-groat
3 pence = 1 thruppence
4 pence = 1 groat
6 pence = 1 sixpence (a ‘tanner')
12 pence = 1 shilling (a bob)
2 shillings = 1 florin ( a ‘two bob bit')
2 shillings and 6 pence = 1 half crown
5 shillings = 1 Crown
And what about guineas? You've probably heard someone talk about guineas at some point, and that's something a little different. A guinea was a gold coin worth 1 pound, 1 shilling. Often referred to as a “yellowboy”, they were typically used for more professional transactions (such as to pay a barrister or artist). That extra shilling made it somehow more gentlemanly.
One more random old money thing – if you watched the British TV series Goodnight Sweetheart, you'll remember there were a lot of mentions of “white fivers”. They're a particularly interesting note because they were first issued in 1793 when they made the first £5 note. They remained in circulation with relatively few changes until 1956. Unlike modern fivers, they were printed on white paper with blank ink, roughly half the size of a modern A4 page.
Condensed format:
1 mite = 1/8 penny
1 farthing = 1/4 penny
2 farthings = 1 halfpenny (pronounced more like “haypenny”)
2 halfpence = 1 penny (or a ‘copper')
2 pence = 1 tuppence or a half-groat
3 pence = 1 thruppence
4 pence = 1 groat
6 pence = 1 sixpence (a ‘tanner')
12 pence = 1 shilling (a bob)
2 shillings = 1 florin ( a ‘two bob bit')
5 shillings = 1 Crown
20 shillings or 240 pence = 1 pound
1 guinea = 1 pound + 1 shilling
1 note
·
View note
i have Thoughts about how a lot of the things I see people talk about being the good parts of adulthood are just... not applicable to me because I'm disabled. like I saw a post talking about children's oppression (important!) and it pointed out how so many issues are easily solvable once you are an adult with autonomy.
But I can't drive, I can't cook, I have major issues with self care and cleaning, I struggle with a lot of skills you need to get a job. Being disabled also means I've had to deal with a lot of self-hatred around feeling childish & stupid for not being able to do "adult" activities. A lot of adult privilege is only relevant if you are able to access adult autonomy & respect. This is a nuanced issue of course but I've seen a few posts from people talking about how they were able to escape abusers and toxic environments once they turned 18, but I literally cannot leave mine because I am fully dependent on them. And that's extremely demoralizing. I hope abled people keep this in mind when talking about growing up & adult privilege, especially because hearing stuff like "when you're an adult you'll be able to leave your family and be free" really hurts when you. can't do that and don't know when or if you will be able to do that.
1K notes
·
View notes
Locke wholeheartedly promoted colonial domination (and denial of the right to self-government) in England’s American colonies and in Ireland. In fact, Locke’s commitment to both colonialism and slavery extended back to at least 1669, when he served as secretary to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, in which capacity he ardently recommended slavery for the new colony—perhaps unsurprising in light of his personal investments in the trade in enslaved Africans. Members of the Locke party were also among the most fervent supporters of England’s wars for imperial power, whose finance was the very raison d’être of the Bank of England—itself effectively a Whig institution, and one in which Locke was also an early investor. Here again we return to the integral link between money and blood. If capital does indeed come into the world “dripping in blood and dirt,” as Marx urged, then so did its intellectual companion, liberalism, in the form of its most famous English exponent. And this Lockean nexus of money–slavery–colonialism was at the heart of liberal political philosophy in England.
David McNally, Blood and Money: War, Slavery, Finance, and Empire
436 notes
·
View notes
i cannot for the life of me remember who made that post with the headcanon about the black family losing a lot of their wealth.
but i've been thinking about it a lot. and in england from early to mid 1900s, the aristocracy changed fundamentally as a class, they lost a lot of their previous held power as well as a lot of their money. and because of this, they either had to get a job (the aristocracy is the leisure class. they don't work), which means leaving behind the traditions of your class and your family in order to modernise and keep your money/power, or they could sell off their large estates/lands/artworks in order to keep tradition of the aristocracy as much as they could, but it meant losing a lot of money/power.
there's this quote describing this change in the aristocracy actually- "less power, more prestige". in staying with the traditions of old money, they lose the power they had in government/economy/whatever, but gain lots of admiration and respect from society- like they still have honour and integrity despite losing their money and power, which then becomes their primary tool in still being seen as an influential family.
and with the black family being known as "the noble and most ancient house of black", that definitely could show they chose that pathway. they're clinging onto their lineage of nobility in a time when the aristocracy as a class and the idea of high society is very much falling apart. and unlike quite a lot of these families, they don't modernise but instead keep their heads high and very much make it known that they are nobility and an ancient family, and have no intentions of disrupting this and losing the meaning of what being an aristocrat and a noble used to mean.
37 notes
·
View notes