December 2025, Persuasion, Volume 1 or Chapters 1-12, Spoiler Thread > Likes and Comments

This discussion thread is for Volume 1, chapters 1-12 ONLY. No spoilers or discussion of topics from the second half of the book.

Why does Austen start the novel with Sir Walter Elliot?

☯Emily wrote: "Why does Austen start the novel with Sir Walter Elliot?"

such a funny start.

I think so it's to show how different Anne is.

The Harvard/Belknap annotated edition edited by Robert Morrison has an extraordinarily interesting essay about the opening. I agree, it shows how different Anne is from her family, but it’s a whole lot more.

(1) For an author notoriously cagey about dates, the first chapter is chock-full of dates, and they aren’t random.
(a) It starts in the summer of 1814, the “false peace”—Napoleon had been captured and people thought the war was over, but in the spring of 1815 (the same week that the story ends) he escaped and the fighting began again.
(b) 1789, the date of Sir Walter Elliot’s son’s birth, was the date the French Revolution began with the storming of the Bastille; and the specific day, November 5, is Guy Fawkes Day—a failed Stuart plot. So this fictional date is associated with violent upheaval and change.
(c) Charles and Mary Musgrove’s wedding date, December 16, is a family joke—it’s Jane Austen’s birthday.
(d) August 9, Anne Elliot’s birthday, is another insider reference—the date of Austen’s friend Jane Cooper died.

(2) Speaking of the failed Stuart plot: There’s a whole historico-political subtext here. The Elliots got their title under the Stuarts and many of their given names—Charles, Elizabeth, Mary, Anne, James, William—are associated with the Stuarts. So they’re strongly associated with an extinct dynasty. By contrast, the name Wentworth is associated with anti-Stuarts: the Earl of Strafford (family name Wentworth) was tried and executed under Charles I; and the given names in the family (Frederick and Sophia) are names used in the Hanoverian dynasty that replaced the Stuarts.

So the whole opening can be seen as carrying echoes of British history, with the old guard becoming attentuated and dying out, along with its hidebound notions of privilege, and being replaced by a meritocracy of those who earn good fortune through their deeds. As Anne reflects when her family leave Kellynch, “They were gone who deserved not to stay.”

One other brief note about the opening—it’s hard to tell who will be the heroine for many pages. Anne does not even speak until, I believe, chapter 3—a marker of her zero status within the family.

Abigail wrote: "The Harvard/Belknap annotated edition edited by Robert Morrison has an extraodinarily interesting essay about the opening. I agree, it shows how different Anne is from her family, but it’s a whole ..."

what a treat that you shared this. thanks!

Abigail wrote: "The Elliots got their title under the Stuarts ."

The title of "baronet" was in fact invented and sold - to raise money for the Crown, a very modern approach, one is tempted to say. Octavia Cox did a video about Austen's satire on titles in general and Sir Walter in particular - not to forget Lady Russell, whose late husband was 'only' a knight, i.e. a non-hereditary title, and who therefore looks up to the (hereditary) baronet Sir Walter. (btw: Sir Lucas of Pride & Prejudice is another knight who is exposed to Austen's satire, poor guy)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQpVq...

Carol wrote: "Abigail wrote: "The Harvard/Belknap annotated edition edited by Robert Morrison has an extraodinarily interesting essay about the opening. I agree, it shows how different Anne is from her family, b..."

That edition of the book is spendy but it’s crammed with interesting information! Glad you enjoyed the little peek into Austen’s hidden agenda.

i did! and I was also delighted to come home and pick up my Penguin version which has most excellent endnotes. they’re well worth the inconvenience of flipping back and forth. The Kindle version with which I started lacks them, alas. without them I would not have caught on that Sir Walter and Elizabeth are in London, leaving Anne alone in the country. !!

Sir Walter is quite the insufferable pill. The machinations Mr. Shepherd must go to in order to persuade him to lease a house he cannot afford to maintain are … something.

I'm both confused and puzzled. Anne actually accepts a proposal of marriage from Captain Wentworth, and then breaks it off? The novel glosses pretty quickly over what happened, but that's what I understand and I find it strange/confusing that she didn't do all of her thinking about it before accepting. She's not a silly goose. If one wants the opinion of elders, it's no shame to defer for a day and obtain it.

I am again puzzled that Anne and Lady Russell don't ever discuss the engagement and yet Anne breaks it off ostensibly because she perceives Lady Russell's opinion/lack of approval. When we discussed P&P, the group thinking was that letters rather than conversations made sense, but here we have two women living locally if not in the same home, and they don't have a heart-to-heart on some level where LR expresses the basis of her wisdom and her recommended course of action, and Anne also doesn't ask her what she thinks, but still breaks off an engagement with a man she then-loved? Even the SparkNotes version says LR convinces Anne to break it off because he's not a suitable match, but where in the book is that convincing event?

Abigail wrote: "The Harvard/Belknap annotated edition edited by Robert Morrison has an extraordinarily interesting essay about the opening. I agree, it shows how different Anne is from her family, but it’s a whole..."

this is fascinating, I'm going to find out more about this,


Carol wrote: "I'm both confused and puzzled. Anne actually accepts a proposal of marriage from Captain Wentworth, and then breaks it off? The novel glosses pretty quickly over what happened, but that's what I un..."

It becomes clearer in the chapters that follow.

Carol wrote: "I'm both confused and puzzled. Anne actually accepts a proposal of marriage from Captain Wentworth, and then breaks it off? The novel glosses pretty quickly over what happened, but that's what I un..."

For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary. We never get to see their compatibility or what they saw in each other at that younger age. Just a scene or two would have helped. It’s one of the reasons I believe Austen would have revised and expanded the book had her health allowed. She didn’t have time. (There are also some later plot points that get short shrift.)

Bear in mind that at the time Wentworth proposed to her, she was only nineteen, and motherless; Lady Russell stood in the place of a mother to her. We see her now at a mature twenty-seven with her values formed: she’s clear in her mind that the things her family care about, rank and status, don’t matter to her. But at nineteen, she may not have been so free from the values that surrounded her. Lady Russell was also protective of her, the one person who actually cared about her, and she worried about Anne marrying a man who couldn’t really support her at that point and whose profession was extremely dangerous. (view spoiler)[For her part, Anne worried about being a burden and a distraction to Wentworth. (hide spoiler)]

As for Anne’s accepting him and then changing her mind after persuasion: there’s an interesting echo of an event in Jane Austen’s own life. In 1802 I think it was, the brother of some close friends of hers proposed to her and she accepted him. Then, after a night of reflection and maybe consultation with her sister, she changed her mind and backed out of the engagement. So for Austen this would not necessarily seem like an improbable plot point since she had done it herself.

Abigail wrote: "Carol wrote: "For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary. ... "

I thought that too in the first couple of reads but now wonder if the focus is more on Anne's own journey to decide for herself ???

Abigail wrote: "For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary."

For me, that is one of its strengths. I think JA chose very consciously to leave out - or to leave to the readers' imagination - the whole business of flirting and courting and proposing of young and immature people. Even if her readers might have wanted romance stuff, it is not what she was after.

Abigail wrote: "Carol wrote: "I'm both confused and puzzled. Anne actually accepts a proposal of marriage from Captain Wentworth, and then breaks it off? The novel glosses pretty quickly over what happened, but th..."

I agree that it's a gap and she would have added at least something from the past to give us a sense of that initial relationship. Otherwise, it's challenging for the reader to simply accept the tension, etc. It's a case of being told and not shown.

All of the reasons make sense, e.g., there's nothing for me to bear in mind; I'm solely puzzled that Anne and LR don't once discuss the matter given what's at stake.

On a different topic, we are informed that Wentworth cleared 20,000 pounds from his aggregate voyages making him a wealthy man. The Penguin footnote (from 2019 think) says, multiple that amount by 4 for a sense of current value. Based on what we know from JA about allowances and the like, and what makes for a comfortable life in the country vs. the ability to afford a couple of horses and carriages or a country home and a second London residence, is 20K pounds at the time JA wrote Persuasion enough to set Wentworth up for life or is it merely an indicator that he's ambitious and he'll invest wisely and earn more, so for a title-less man, he's a decent prospect?

Anisha Inkspill wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Carol wrote: "For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary. ... "

I thought tha..."

But are we getting that journey? I feel like I'm getting a snapshot of her interior views today, not how she arrived here, combined with an unvarnished view of what her unmarried life is like with her family of origin and how it is likely to continue. They are horrid in so many ways. Her best sister is the needy hypochondriac she's staying with in chapters 3+ - 10 (maybe further) and she doesn't hesitate to leave Anne home with her own child so she can go dancing. Readers can see Anne's future right there. The convenient auntie.

sabagrey wrote: "Abigail wrote: "For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary."

For me, that is one of its stren..."

I think the omission limits our understanding of Captain Wentworth, but I’ll wait till the second thread to talk about that.

Carol wrote: "On a different topic, we are informed that Wentworth cleared 20,000 pounds ..."

Invested in the 4 percents, Captain Wentworth’s £20,000 would give him an income of £800 a year. In The Watsons, Tom Musgrave has this income and he lives like a gentleman and is thought by the poorer Watson sisters to be well-off.

But I would say, not really. That seems like enough to lead a quiet life in the country but not enough to cut a dash in London (at least, not for long). He could have a horse and a lower-end carriage but not hunters, for instance.

If he has not sold out of the Navy—and contrary to one of the TV adaptations I believe he has not—he would be on half-pay, which would bring in some more. Full pay for a naval captain would be between £284 and £802 per year—or so AI informs me. So maybe he’s earning half that over the course of the story—but after Napoleon escapes, he would be reactivated pretty quickly. Even half-pay would take his annual income up over £1,000, which is not bad. Presumably at his age he has prospects of earning more in his career; since he’s not injured, he would be unlikely to sell out.

So all in all, he’s a pretty good catch for a woman without high social aspirations.

In chapter 2, Lady Russell demonstrates the "art of persuasion" and her influence on Anne with the arguments for moving to Bath. We can almost hear her argue in Austen's particular 'free indirect discourse'. Austen never mentions the 8 year old drama of Anne's broken engagement, and LR's influence in that event, but after "hearing" her going on about Bath, we can imagine very well how it could have happened.

It is also interesting that her art of persuasion fails completely with Elizabeth. - She loves Anne, the biddable, most: which tells me that she loves a certain kind of power.

In chapter 4, where the old story with Wentworth is summarized, the longest part is again the voice of Lady Russell arguing, persuading, manipulating. It goes so far that I ask myself if it was really Anne herself who thought that her rejection would be for his own good, or if LR has manipulated her into believing it.

chapter 6: Austen writing about the Musgroves' son Richard:

the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twentieth year;

I mean: good fortune that he died? - Austen can be very satirical and sharp, but this sounds to me uncharacteristically merciless, even cruel. Did she really share the presumably common belief of her time that there are "naturally" bad people, inexplicable and irredeemable, who somehow do not deserve a chance?

I've found this section discussed in none of the comments on JA or the book. Maybe because it sheds a not-so-rosy light on her character, at least from our modern point of view.

sabagrey wrote: "chapter 6: Austen writing about the Musgroves' son Richard:

the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twent..."

I found this entire discussion of the Musgroves' son to be simply awful, as you note. It starts with this, but continues on and does indeed support the view that they were better off because he died, a breathtakingly abominable point of view. It troubled me no matter how many times she reinforced it.

I’ve seen it discussed before, as well as the comment about Mrs. Musgrove’s “large fat sighings” in the same context. The tone is closer to the way Austen writes in her letters; usually she smooths over that level of sharpness in her fiction.

I’m not sure she thought there were naturally bad people: most commonly, when a character behaves badly she faults their education. Since Dick is not an “on-screen” character, she seems to be using him as a means to an end—a way of showing the shallowness of the Musgroves’ affections, their unserious family culture, versus the more serious and realistic Wentworth (and Anne).

Pretending the Musgroves are real for a moment, if they had a particularly difficult son who acted out a lot, sending him to sea during wartime was pretty much guaranteeing that harm would come to him. Naval service, especially for crew and midshipmen, was rife with hazards. If he didn’t get killed in action or by an on-deck accident, he would certainly be flogged for misconduct. In the context of male honor, death in combat would be preferable to being flogged. Wentworth’s grimace was probably Austen saying, you Musgroves are clueless about the reality of naval service.

Making a joke about death: even as a person living in a culture where death was much more commonplace, including among young people, Austen had trouble throughout her life finding the right tone when referring to it. As a person whose natural bent was toward satire, she tended to seesaw between unfeeling humor like the passage cited here and stiff attempts at propriety that sound forced. My central example of the latter is a sentence she wrote to one of her brothers when her father died: “The serenity of the corpse was delightful.” Facing death seems to have stripped her of that strong sense of self that shines through her normal wit.

Carol wrote: "But are we getting that journey? I feel like I'm getting a snapshot of her interior views today, not how she arrived here, combined with an unvarnished view of what her unmarried life is like with her family of origin and how it is likely to continue."

yeah, not disagreeing that's what I thought for the couple reads, I wanted to know how she got there and her family is truly frustrating, but Anne deals with them all so wonderfully.

There's a quiet resilience about Anne.

Anisha Inkspill wrote: "Carol wrote: "But are we getting that journey? I feel like I'm getting a snapshot of her interior views today, not how she arrived here, combined with an unvarnished view of what her unmarried life..."

There is - isn't there? She is resilient and gracious without ever once getting on one's nerves as "too perfect."

I wonder what Austen's intention was when she included the rather long scene in chapter 8 about women on board navy vessels. What does it say about Wentworth that he is so vividly opposed? Anne is the silent listener to Sophia's speech - what does she hear? Does she approve of Sophia Croft? What is the meaning of the scene in the framework of the story and themes of the book?

I have an e-book edition with some annotations, and summaries of middling quality. The unknown editor's main line of interpretation is the conflict between the declining "old" class of the gentry and the rising "new" class of bourgeois professionals, exemplified by the navy. Old aristocracy vs. new meritocracy. It is just one line of thought, of course, but I find it an interesting exercise to follow it through in this re-reading - together with some more questions about the main characters and their development. So I have to ask myself how the "navy women" speech of Sophia Croft, and her brother's contradiction, fit into the larger social theme - and I am going to speculate a little.

It is possible that Austen introduces us to the "new woman" who goes together with the newly risisng professional. This woman is a very unusual, revolutionary being for the period (and, I might say, Jane Austen's powerful legacy to a century of profound change in women's roles) . It is possible that Austen knew or heard about such a woman in the navy, and was impressed. (I wish we had a journal, or letters, of such a woman ...) Lifestyle on board a man-of-war must be nearly unimaginable for the withdrawing room ladies of the time, scandalous for many yet saved from scandal by the respect due to the victorious navy. The new woman chooses deprivation, discomfort, danger to be a companion to her husband. She is no more the mild, sweet, fragile lady who stays at home, needs care and protection, and is rather remotely adored and cherished by the man. (not in real life, as we know)

But where is Wentworth in this dichotomy between the new and the old? - Eight years ago, he fell in love with a woman from the landed gentry, who embodies the values of the "old" woman - mild, warm-hearted, quiet, understanding, docile ... but she falls short of the one "new" quality he wants, namely the strong will needed to stand up against tradition and family and to take risks at his side. But the fact remains that he wanted such an old-school woman, and now forcefully opposes the new woman as described by his sister. He is, I conclude, old-school himself with half (or more) of his heart.

Does he follow the other half of his heart when he courts the Misses Musgrove? - In many respects, they are the exact opposite of Anne: young, pretty, easy-going, extrovert, strong-willed, merry. But they are far from what he really wants: “A strong mind, with sweetness of manner,” (p. 71). He is at a point where he is ready to settle with the second or third best. What he really wants seems to be a woman who reconciles "old-school" with "new-school" qualities, and he has given up on it.

sabagrey wrote: "I wonder what Austen's intention was when she included the rather long scene in chapter 8 about women on board navy vessels. What does it say about Wentworth that he is so vividly opposed? Anne is ..."

I love this analysis. I was also intrigued by the amount of real estate this conversation got, but didn't get to the "what does it mean" action. I found Wentworth's response to be a bit stuffy, but many interpretations are defensible and he might have thought he was being chivalrous rather than retrograde.

Very interesting thoughts, Sabagrey! Personally, I’ve never looked beyond Wentworth’s resentment in that passage—always saw it in the context of his anger against Anne. It is odd to say those things in front of his sister, who has traveled all over the oceans with her husband. He makes an exception only for short-distance transport of a colleague’s loved ones—a grace extended to them only for the sake of their husbands.

This is one of the passages that helps me build my thesis (to be discussed more freely in the thread for the back half of the book) that his unhappy romance with Anne has left him bitter about women in general. He seems to be wanting to protect his “man’s world” aboard ship from intrusion by the disturbing element of femininity. He appears reluctant to see good in women, or be obliged to take them seriously. They’re fine as objects to flirt with in an idle moment, they’re okay as objects for other people to love, but he doesn’t want them to touch his finer feelings, such as those he has for his fellow naval officers.

In short, I find him a bit of a misogynist, with a nasty streak. Not a fan.

sabagrey wrote: "It is possible that Austen introduces us to the "new woman" who goes together with the newly risisng professional."

yes, that was my impression sabagrey.

sabagrey wrote: "But where is Wentworth in this dichotomy between the new and the old?"

This is such an interesting scene, where I also wondered when the admiral (I think, I am doing this from memory as I am not currently reading this) who tells Wentworth that he feels like this because he is not married. Is this foreshadowing of what will happen and how Wentworth will change ?


Abigail wrote: "He appears reluctant to see good in women, or be obliged to take them seriously."

I'm not too sure about this Abigail, with the scenes yet to come (especially in the second half of the book) so it will be interesting to see what you think.

Jane Austen' had a sister-in-law who went to sea. Her name was Fanny Palmer Austen, the wife of her youngest brother, Captain Charles Austen. She was born in Bermuda and accompanied Charles on his naval assignments, spending time in places like Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the Napoleonic Wars. Fanny lived with Charles aboard his ship for parts of two years, an experience that was likely an inspiration for characters like Mrs. Croft in Persuasion.

Jane had a great relationship with her sister-in-law.

There's a recent book written about Fanny: https://sarahemsley.com/2017/10/27/ja...

oh thank you! - the book goes to my TBR list right away. Here's Fanny's portrait as a whole, and I like it/her:

https://thedockyard.co.uk/news/fanny-...

sabagrey wrote: "oh thank you! - the book goes to my TBR list right away. Here's Fanny's portrait as a whole, and I like it/her:

https://thedockyard.co.uk/news/fanny-......"

Thanks for the portrait.

So this article provides some additional information pertinent to the 8-year gap between Anne and Wentworth as a couple and his return, which I found pertinent to understanding what they're thinking upon initial reconnection. Plus photos of newspaper artifacts! more Charles! More Fanny!

https://www.jasna.org/publications-2/...

☯Emily wrote:

https://thedockyard.co.uk/news/fanny-...-...

Thanks for the portrait.

Having finished reading, I'm just re-watching the 1995 movie, and I can't help thinking that they actually took this portrait as a model for Mrs. Croft.

chapter 12: there is a blunder that irks me every time. For me, it is totally unbelievable that captains of the victorious British navy, just returned from the Napoleonic wars, who are used to command hundreds of men in storms, battles, and crises of every sort, are helpless and behave like beheaded chickens when confronted with 1 woman who has taken a fall.

sabagrey wrote: "chapter 12: there is a blunder that irks me every time. For me, it is totally unbelievable that captains of the victorious British navy, just returned from the Napoleonic wars, who are used to comm..."

Yes! One of a number of improbabilities in this story.

Just got the pink screen of death - lets see if I can post this time.

I found a site that gave the worth of 20,000 pounds in today's money;

https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/infl...

So Wentworth is quite a wealthy man!

How did he make his money? Looting?

I get Anne being so sheltered that she would listen to the only person (that she is aware of) who truly cares about her. Interesting that she overheard Musgrove's sisters say they preferred her to Mary! Anne's lack of self esteem & gentle personality leads to her undervaluing herself.

He got his money from legal piracy. Naval vessels (from whatever country) were encouraged to overhaul and take control of both privately owned vessels and the naval vessels of other countries. If they brought them safely home, the officers and crew would be awarded “prize money” according to an established scale.

Abigail wrote: "He got his money from legal piracy. Naval vessels (from whatever country) were encouraged to overhaul and take control of both privately owned vessels and the naval vessels of other countries. If t..."

The lion's share of the prize money went to the captain, of course. But officers also got a share - it is mentioned somewhere that Benwick, when still lieutenant, also made prize money.

I think the word "prize" in this sense has its origins in the French "prise" (= taken), because in German the captured ship is called "Prise".

Interesting. Thank you both.

sabagrey wrote: "Abigail wrote: "He got his money from legal piracy. Naval vessels (from whatever country) were encouraged to overhaul and take control of both privately owned vessels and the naval vessels of other..."

I didn’t know that about “prise,” Sabagrey! Thank you for that.

Abigail wrote: "I didn’t know that about “prise,” "

I looked it up in etymonline:

"something taken by force," mid-13c., prise "a taking, holding," from Old French prise "a taking, seizing, holding," noun use of fem. past participle of prendre "to take, seize," from Latin prendere, contraction of prehendere "lay hold of, grasp, seize, catch" (from prae- "before," see pre-, + -hendere, from PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take").

Especially of a ship captured legally at sea (1510s). The spelling with -z- is from late 16c.

A video called Persuasion | A video about Austen’s Naval Men | Were Naval Fortunes Built on Piracy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55dp...

Abigail wrote: "Very interesting thoughts, Sabagrey! Personally, I’ve never looked beyond Wentworth’s resentment in that passage—always saw it in the context of his anger against Anne. It is odd to say those thing..."

I just started reading it, and I'm only on Chapter 3, so much of what I know - or think I know - comes from memory. I do not know if I've ever noticed the misogyny in Wentworth before, but that is probably because I focused on other things in this story when I was younger. I'm looking forward to see what I'll see this time round.

Happy birthday, Jane!

Abigail wrote: "The Harvard/Belknap annotated edition edited by Robert Morrison has an extraordinarily interesting essay about the opening. I agree, it shows how different Anne is from her family, but it’s a whole..."

Interesting notes

Anisha Inkspill wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Carol wrote: "For me, one of the flaws in this novel is that it treats the past history (eight years earlier) between Wentworth and Anne Elliot only in summary. ... "

I thought tha..."

It is a book of second chances so I do not think it is necessary to have a lot of detail about the past.

Carol wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "chapter 6: Austen writing about the Musgroves' son Richard:

the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he ..."

"who had never done anything to entitle himself to more than the abbreviation of his name, living or dead" There is even a joke about his name. Apparently he was a dick. He must have been a jerk to one and all.

Jan wrote: ”It is a book of second chances..."

My concern is that we never get to see Captain Wentworth’s good qualities, or what the outlines of their relationship were, which for me at least reduces my ability to invest in the outcome.

I am currently reading Ch. 7 when Mary and Charles Musgroove's oldest son falls and injures himself. Although, I am not very fond of Mary (I dislike hypochondriacs, for personal reasons), it is interesting how she mentions that "if there is anything disagreeable going on, men are always sure to get out of it" when Charles comes to a conclusion that taking care of a sick child is "quite a female case, and it would be highly absurd of him, who could be of no use at home,to shut himself up". Of course, Mary then manages to "excuse" herself from her motherly duties, too, and leaves all the care to her sister Anne.

I like how Austen is openly and boldly speaking about what are even today very sensitive topics in our society, that of women's mental and physical load in a relationship/family, and well as of the fact that not everyone is fit to be a parent (here I'm talking about Mary).

Poor kids. Neither parent was good at care taking or the mental load.

My mother was a hypochondriac so I have little patience for them.

Abigail wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "chapter 12: there is a blunder that irks me every time. For me, it is totally unbelievable that captains of the victorious British navy, just returned from the Napoleonic wars, who..."

Anne did note that taking care of sick was a woman's job.