Tempest in a teapot

Jane Austen is delightful. Tea parties are lovely. Raising money for college scholarships is admirable.

So I’m ninety percent happy that volunteer fundraisers for Freed-Hardeman University, a Christian college in western Tennessee, are throwing a Jane Austen 250-themed tea party on Saturday afternoon to help students pay for their schooling. I’m even on board with the corny names on the menu (Sense and SensibiliTEA, Fanny’s Fig Butter), if only because Mango Persuasion sounds like a promising iced tea flavor. There will be games, costumes, crafts, and opportunities to learn about Jane Austen. What's not to like?

Here's what: They’ve called this event a Victorian Tea Party. Argh.

We’ve been over this before. Victorian means “occurring during the reign of Queen Victoria of England.” Queen Victoria ruled from 1837 to 1901. Jane Austen lived during the reign of George III (1760-1820), and all her books were published during the nine-year period (1811-20) known as the Regency, when the future George IV served as acting king (regent) during his father’s disabling illness. This makes her a Georgian author. Or a Regency author! Your choice!

Repeat after me: Jane Austen died in 1817. The future Queen Victoria wasn’t even born until 1819. Ergo, Jane Austen was not a Victorian.

Someone involved with the Tennessee tea party may understand all this, since the event includes opportunities for children to “design their own Regency fashions.” And to be fair, they’ve been throwing this Victorian Tea Party fundraiser for twenty-three years, so perhaps they feared confusing locals familiar with the brand.

Still, for us T-shirt-wearing Pedantic Janeite Killjoys, the fundamental, though oft-overlooked, fact remains: Jane Austen was not a Victorian. By all means, go ahead and honor Jane Austen's 250th anniversary--but throw a Regency Tea Party, please.