Regency Reader Questions: Supper Courses

Thanks for the question, Elizabeth, and for being a Regency Reader!

I share in my book Masquerade Balls in Regency Britain about the extravagances with upper class suppers during the Regency, including the large amount of wasted food following an event like a masquerade. I found one article that mentioned the piles leftover in a tone of both awe and a little disgust. Even as much of Britain’s population suffered rolling famines, food shortages, and resulting protests and riots, food served for the upper classes was served in enormous quantities that often produced piles of food waste.

I get the sense that aside from the showy suppers and meals, where the delicacies of the season were on offer to showcase wealth, that many folks only made as much as could be eaten. Alternatively, I could also see some leftovers be transformed into other meals like soups or stews (and some recipes reference this). Food preservation was a focus of scientific inquiry and invention (Encyclopaedia Britannica: Supplement to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions … With Preliminary Dissertations on the History of the Sciences. (1824). United Kingdom: (n.p.).) during the long Regency, including with the invention of the tin can, but a lot of that research and practice was focused on preserving fresh foods or meats rather than leftovers. The concept of leftovers didn’t really exist until the advent of the refrigerator, although there were known methods to pickle, cure, or salt any food remains – but typically still in their ingredient form rather than as a meal (The Curious History of Leftovers). I really think The New London Family Cook (1818) has some great information about seasonal meals, food preservation, markets, and how long food could last if you are interested in a deep dive.  However, this cookbook was likely for more middle-class or economizing households. The very wealthy would have considered most of these methods of watching waste gauche, at least according to everything I have read.

As the middle class population increased and broad sweeping reforms began to impact most facets of life toward the Victorian era, you would see more focus on charitable donations. Prior to this, much of feeding the poor was the responsibility of the parish. It would have been common for wealthier homes, particularly the estates, to gift food stuffs to dependents, but again more of the whole ingredients or fresh prepared foods rather than leftovers. I haven’t seen any evidence of regular or consistent feeding of others from the leavings of upper class extravagance, but I would guess that it happened.  I could easily see servants, workers, and even the poor feasting on the remains but generally that would have been thought insulting to a good household manager:

tions their mistress ought sometimes to read to them It is the fault of many cooks to give servants their meals cold or in a slovenly manner This always brings disgrace upon the management of a house and is attend ed with much waste as in such cases the servants generally take all they can lay their hands on L. (1827). Domestic Economy, and Cookery: For Rich and Poor; Containing an Account of the Best English, Scotch, French, Oriental, and Other Foreign Dishes; Preparations of Broths and Milks for Consumption; Receipts for Sea-faring Men, Travellers, and Children’s Food : Together with Estimates and Comparisons of Dinners and Dishes …. United Kingdom: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green.

Consumption of Provisions There is one cause of the general salubrity of London that leads us to its consumption of food Perhaps no city exists in the world where the labouring people and
certainly none where the middling classes enjoy so large a share in the necessaries and inferior comforts life as in this metropolis and that liberality of condi tion is no doubt a powerful agent in the health as as the happiness of a people The great quantity animal food consumed in London is proof of the liberal condition of the bulk of the inhabitants for though there are wealthy persons who waste a great deal of animal food in the composition of certain dishes yet their number is so small that the waste is not to be taken for much in a comparison with the whole con sumption Feltham, J. (1802). The Picture of London, for 1803: Being a Correct Guide to All the Curiosities, Amusements, Exhibitions, Public Establishments, and Remarkable Objects, in and Near London; with a Collection of Appropriate Tables. For the Use of Strangers, Foreigners, and All Persons who are Not Intimately Acquainted with British Metropolis. United Kingdom: Lewis & Company.

I think this is a really interesting topic, so let me know if you would like to learn more about a particular aspect.

Thanks again for the question!


Discover more from Regency Reader

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Regency Reader Questions: Supper Courses

  1. Nancy Mayer says:

    I have always thought that the food that couldn’t be saved and served again or served in a different dish was fed to the servants. Some things could be saved and served at supper or at luncheon the next day. The servants have to eat, The roasts could be saved for other meals in different dishes. The servant would have different beverages and wouldn’t have delicacies or many of the pudding. Many of the foods we consider food for the rich like oysters and lobster were actually pretty cheap. I don’t know if any of the household books mention feeding servants. If one only has one or two, they usually ate pretty much the same thing as the family without the more elaborate desserts or other foods.