Bonhams to Auction Bentley Edition of Jane Austen’s Novels

Bonhams, one of the few surviving Georgian-era auction houses in London has listed a stunning set of Bentley’s five volume edition of Jane Austen’s novels for auction on June 08, 2010 at its New Bond street location. We usually see her earlier editions circa 1811-1818 published by Thomas Egerton and John Murray offered through the big auction houses, so it is interesting to see this later edition offered so prominently. Since the earlier editions are rare, and very, very dear, are the Bentley editions now the hot Austen auction item in a cooler economy? Here is the description from the online catalog.

Works, Bentley’s Standard Novel edition], 6 vol. in 5, 5 engraved frontispieces and additional titles, some light spotting to first and final few leaves, small corner tear to printed title “Pride and Prejudice”, without half-titles, ownership inscription of Eularia E. Burnaby (1856) on printed titles, bookplate of Henry Vincent, bookseller’s label of H.M. Gilbert, Southampton, uniform contemporary half calf, red and dark green morocco labels, extremities lightly rubbed [Gilson D1-D5], 8vo, R. Bentley, 1833

Estimate: £2,000 – 3,000

This edition of Jane Austen’s novels is significant for several reasons. After the publication of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey by John Murray in 1818, there is a twelve year gap where no English reissues of Austen’s novels were available for purchase. In 1818 sales of John Murray’s editions of her last two novels had started off briskly, then interest waned and the final 282 copies of the 1750 print run were remaindered and some exported to Australia in 1821. The thought of a Jane Austen first edition being offered at reduced prices to dispose of the inventory is quite startling. Today they fetch close to £40,000, or more!

When the enterprising publisher Richard Bentley of London paid £40.00 for the bargain priced copyright of Pride and Prejudice from Austen’s first publisher Thomas Egerton and £210.00 for the five other copyrights to Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion and Northanger Abbey from Cassandra Austen in 1832, no one could have foreseen that a renaissance was looming for Austen’s works. Bentley would cleverly re-issue Austen six major novels into a low priced Bentley’s Standard Novels Series representing many firsts for Austen in print.

  1. Her full name is listed on the title page instead of “By A Lady” in S&S and “By the Author of Sense and Sensibility” and various combinations for her first editions.
  2. Illustrations are included of Austen’s characters and scenes with steel-engraved frontispiece’s and a second title page vignette’s engraved by William Greatbatch after George Pickering.
  3. Quotes of scenes from the novels are used to place the illustrations in context to the text.
  4. Book buyers could purchase the editions singularly or as a set of five.

The series was a success and Bentley continued to reissue them from 1836 – 1866 culminating in his grand finale, Jane Austen’s Works Steventon Edition published in 1882 which included the six major novels, her novella Lady Susan and her nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh’s A Memoir of Jane Austen that had previously been published by Bentley in 1869.

This set offered by Bonhams is not only beautifully bound it has an interesting provenance connected to Jane Austen’s life in Southampton that they have not mentioned in the description or may not be aware of. Two previous owner’s names are listed in the books piquing my curiosity to uncover who those individuals may have been. Putting on my genealogy research hat I went sleuthing through my Austen research books and UK historical records. With a name as unique as Eularia E. Burnaby, (1856) inscribed on the printed titles and a bookplate of Henry Vincent I had my clues. This is what I discovered:

Eularia Elizabeth Burnaby was born on 3 February 1836 in Woolwich, Kent the eldest daughter of Richard Beaumont Burnaby (1793-1871), a Captain in the Royal Artillery and Eliza his wife, daughter of Major-General Sir Alexander Dickson. K.C.B (1777-1840). Her father would remain in the military his entire career and retire as a Lieutenant-General in the Royal Artillery. Her two brothers Alexander Dickson Burnaby and Eustace Beaumont Burnaby would also serve in the Royal Army obtaining the ranks of Major and Major-General respectively. Eularia was twenty years old and living in Southampton, Hampshire when she signed her name and the date on the title pages of her five volume set. She remained unmarried and would live at her parent’s house at 32 Carlton Crescent until her death there in 1925 at age 89.

In a letter to Cassandra Austen dated January 7, 1807 from Southampton, Jane Austen briefly mentions a Mrs. Dickson and again a month later on 9 February. On page 516 of the biographical index of Jane Austen’s Letters edited by Deidre Le Faye, Mrs. Dickson is listed as the wife of Admiral Archibald Dickson RN (1772-1836). Mrs. Dickson is Jane nee Dickson who married her first cousin Archibald. She was the daughter of Admiral William Dickinson RN of Sydenham House, Roxburghshire, Scotland, and Archibald was the son of Lieutenant-General John Dickson RA. They share the same grandfather, Sir Archibald Dickson of Pontefract, Yorkshire. Jane Dickson’s brother was Major-General Sir Alexander Dickson. (Are you lost yet?) His daughter was Eliza Dickson who married Richard Beaumont Burnaby. They are Eularia E. Burnaby’s parents. In a nut shell, Eularia’s great aunt was the Mrs. Dickson mentioned in Jane Austen’s letters. The books are inscribed with the date of 1856, even though Bonhams has them listed as 1833 first editions. The Mrs. Jane Dickson who knew Jane Austen personally in Southampton died there in 1856. I like to imagine that they were a bequest of Jane Dickson to her grand niece Eularia who inscribed them that same year. I would need to read Jane Dickson’s will to verify that fanciful thought, but it still makes me smile at the connection through history.

Even without this interesting Austen provenance, these volumes are a wonderful example of an important first edition set of the Bentley edition of Jane Austen’s novels. I just wish I was independently wealthy enough to afford them.

37 thoughts on “Bonhams to Auction Bentley Edition of Jane Austen’s Novels

Add yours

  1. wow, very interesting!
    when investigated you this, and how the idea came to you? Nevertheless, the name Euralia Elizabeth Burnaby offered nobody point for the name Jane Dickson …, I have been surprised very much.
    I had to draw a family tree to understand it. I must say, I have lost the thread. Eularias grandpas name is a major general Sir Alexander Dickson K.C.B. , but some lines later you wrote: Jane Dickson’s brother was Major-General Sir Archibald Dickson. (Are you lost yet?) His daughter was Eliza Dickson…
    Yes, I am lost yet ;-)


    1. Ah, Anika you caught my error. Thank you. You are right. Alexander Dickson is Eularia’s grandfather. The Dickson family was such a challenge because many married their cousins and the first names were repeated.

      I started with the known facts: Eularia’s name, the date of 1856 and the booksellers label from Southampton. I knew that Austen had lived in Southampton from 1806-1809.

      I found Eularia on the 1871 UK census living with her parent’s in Southampton. Her father Richard Beaumont Burnaby was listed as a retired Lieutenant-General of the Royal Artillery. I found a military biography of him that listed his wife as Eliza, daughter of Major-General Alexander Dickson. Next I looked in the index of the Le Faye edition of Jane Austen’s Letters and no Burnaby’s were listed, but there was a Mrs. Dickson mentioned in a letter written by Austen from Southampton in 1807. In the biographical index Le Faye states the Mrs. Dickson is “possiby Jane Dickson, who married 1801 her cousin Capt. (later Admiral) Archibald Dickson RN (1772-1836) and died 1856.” I now needed to prove if there was a connection between Eularia’s grandfather Alexander Dickson and the husband of Mrs. Dickson, Archibald Dickson.

      I located a Dickson family tree in Burke’s Peerage that listed Admiral Archibald (1772-1836) and the fact that he married his first cousin Jane Dickson. There was also a solid match to Major-General Alexander (1777-1840), and his wife was listed as Eularia Briones and their daughter Eliza.

      Dickson family tree

      Sir Archibald Dickson of Pontefract, Yorkshire

      I. 1st son = Admiral William Dickson of Sydenham House, Kelso, Roxburghshire, Scotland d. 1803
      >3rd son = Major-General Alexander Dickson (1777-1840)
      married Eularia Briones of Minorca
      >dau Eliza Dickson
      married Lieutenant-General Richard Beaumont Burnaby
      >***dau Eularia Elizabeth Burnaby (1836-1925)***
      >1st dau = Jane Dickson (Mrs. Dickson in Austen’s letter of 1807)
      married first cousin Admiral Archibald Dickson (1772-1836)
      III 3rd son = Lieutenant-General John Dickson RA
      >1st son = Admiral Archibald Dickson (1772-1836)
      married first cousin Jane dau of Admiral William Dickson. d. 1856

      I hope that makes it more clear.


      1. this is really a great search, Bonham’s should really raise the Estimate – with these ownership inscription and matching information…
        or as RegencyRomantic suggests, pay to you a commission ;-)


      2. This is brilliant research but I think I may be able to help here with the genealogy as Jane Dickson, the daughter of Admiral William Dickson married her cousin ( as you say) but he wasn’t an admiral – I’m afraid – he was a post captain and stayed at that rank until he died in 1836. I hope that makes it a little more clear. He is my 4xgreat grandfather and when I received a copy of his daughter Ann Eliza”s marriage certificate from 1841 he is still described as a captain ( royal navy) I


        1. Hi Helen, thanks for the genealogy corrections. If my memory serves after many year, there were so many Archibald Dickinson’s in this family that it was confusing. I just hope that the Mrs. Dickinson that Austen mentions is connected to this family.


          1. I hope she does too, as she is my 4 x great grandmother and the connection would be fabulous. Many thanks again for all your hard work connecting all the family members up – it is a really confusing family tree !! Love helen


      3. I entered this conversation because I Googled Eularia Burnaby in connection with research I am doing on a bound volume of sheet music that I found among some family papers. One of the pieces is “The Arrow & The Song” – words by Longfellow, music by “Dolores”, composed and dedicated to Miss Eularia E. Burnaby. My guess is she had some reputation as a vocalist. The volume dates from some time between 1854 and 1890, and was owned by (assembled for?) Isabella F. Stabb. I do not know how it came into my family’s possession, but my best guess is that it came through my paternal grandmother, who played piano and sang well enough to be offered a contract by the Metropolitan Opera (she decided to marry my grandfather, instead.) Her father emigrated from England to Philadelphia ca. 1860, and may have brought this bound volume with him. I Googled Isabella – she lived in England in the mid-19th C.
        Just thought these details might be of interest.


        1. Thank you for the additional information, Stephen. How interesting that Eularia is a relative. Since she was a spinster with no issue, there was no one to tell her life story. She left her inscription in her books and music, and now we can only wonder about her.

          There is an imaginary Mr. Burbury in the play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. I am beginning to think that Eularia was my personal Bunbury. I am glad to know that someone else thinks she is real.

          Best wishes with your research.


  2. Hi Laurel.
    H.M Gilberts was a well known book shop in Carlton Place until recent years.It is now a solicitors office I think.Carlton Place is a road comprising regency buildings. It is actually lucky the road still survives today. Southampton, especially the centre and around the docks area, was very badly bombed during the war. Much of Southampton that surrounds Carlton Place was flattened. I remember as an enthusiastic teenager, being born and brought up in Southampton, clambering all over Gilbert’s. I say clamber, because the shop was located in a Georgian building comprising small rooms and very steep, winding, creeking, wooden staircases.There were about four floors. I remember the place smelling of old books.

    H. M Gilbert’s is still a going concern. The family, as well as their bookshop in Southampton, also had and still do, a book shop located in the precincts of Winchester Cathedral, very close to where Jane Austen is buried. If anything H.W.Gilberts in Winchester is in a building older than the Georgian Building in Southampton. It could be Tudor.

    Next time you are visiting Jane’s grave in the cathedral have a look out for Gilbert’s. You might find that treasure of a book you are looking for.
    All the best,


  3. I made a mistake.

    Here is a link to the Google Street view of Portland Street, Southampton.,-0.292339&sspn=0.011145,0.03253&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Southampton,+Hampshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.904633,-1.404987&spn=0,0.002033&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=50.904657,-1.404823&panoid=5aO9jp3j5HjTfoWOIOOFVQ&cbp=12,313.38,,0,8.44

    Gilberts was in Portland Street not Carlton Crescent. This view of the shop with an awning is the old Gilbert’s premises.

    I got confused with the Carlton Crescent area of Southampton which is a short walk north of Portland Street.
    Portland Street, like the Carlton Crescent area is a Georgian part of Southampton and it too escaped the Blitz.

    My son had lodgings in one of the georgian houses in Carlton Crescent when he was a student at Southampton University.


  4. One of these is probably 32 Carlton Crescent Southampton where Euralia lived. They don’t all have their numbers on. However, the house to the right of this picture is number 30.

    34 Carlton Crescent, Southampton SO15 2, UK


  5. Actually the edition is not that ‘rare’ in the market place, at least 8 sets have been sold at auction since 1975 and the Bonham’s estimate is consistent with past sale results. The last copy sold was at Swann Galleries, NY ( Lot 155 April 14th 2005) in a ‘rubbed and discolored’ calf binding, it brought $1,100.


    1. Hi Michael, thanks for the additional auction sales info on Bentley editions. I mentioned that Jane Austen first editions are rare and expensive, so I apologize if you misunderstood me. The first editions of Austen were produced in smaller numbers than this set which was considered a mass market item in its day. This handsome Bentley set is a bargain in comparison to paying $40,000 to $300,000 for a first edition. I do think the opening bid is low because of the Austen connection. I hope someone wins them that will display them to the public.


  6. I would never describe Austen a rare author, simply an expensive one; there are very many novels of her predecessors, contemporaries and successors where the Anglo American institutional holdings are in the low single digits but when copies appear they sell in the low thousands of dollars. With Austen there is a huge differential between auction and dealer prices also — all prices I am quoting are hammer and do not include the ‘buyer’s premium — the most expensive Austen ‘first’ sold at auction is the following:

    Emma. L, 1816 – 1st Ed – 3 vols. 8vo, contemporary half calf; rubbed, 2 joints cracked, light foxing & staining; few corners creased; few paper flaws – Inscribed to Anne Sharp – Bonham’s, June 24, 2008, lot 107, £150,000 ($298,500) – Gilson A8.
    This copy was offered about repeatedly at various increasing prices privately by various vendors, and on occasion at more than the price for which it sold, to the same small group of people. In March it moved for £325,000.

    An ‘ordinary’ copy of Emma, in desirable orig boards, labels rubbed, library stamp on front free endpapers of Vols I & II – Library stamp on tp of Vol III; Vol I half-title misbound – tipped-in before tp; some spotting. sold subsequently for $85,000 (Christie’s New York, Dec 4, 2009, lot 4) The prior ‘record for Emma had been £22,000 ($41,800) (Sotheby’s, Lon. Mar 23, 2005 lot 24). The book has been sold at auction 97 times since 1975.

    I am aware of three copies of copies of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ 1813 available at present in the trade for between +/- $600,000 and $750,00 (exchange rates depending) – it is worth comparing this with the last price reached for the same when sold publicly in the rooms:
    Pride and Prejudice. L, 1813 – 1st Ed – 3 vols. 12mo, – contemporary half calf gilt, edges & corners worn. Sotheby’s, Dec 19, 2000, lot 72, £48,000 ($69,600) Gilson A3. Bookplates of 14th Lord Gray, 1765-1858
    In the first edition Pride and Prejudice is far from rare, it has appeared for sale at auction at least 69 times since 1975.

    This, the Bentley, set would appear to be an order of magnitude less rare in the market place, only 8 sets sold since 1975. In my experience prices are all supply and demand and absolute rarity has very little to do with them. Collecting of English literature in breadth and depth really ceased a generation ago and there appears to be smaller and smaller group of desirable titles in first edition that are regarded as ‘trophies’ and so the price differential between the very few trophy titles by a few trophy authors and the rest has widened considerably, quite regardless of the absolute number of physical survivals.


  7. Laurel Ann – I am just catching up with your posts – this sleuthing of yours is fabulous! – and yes, one gets dizzy with any genealogical research, who begat who, etc…! you’ve done a superb job – and what’s amazing is how much of all this is accessible on the internet [though in the past a nice trip to the UK would have been much more fun!]

    As Michael Robinson says, the use of the word “rare” needs to be qualified – as he says – it is all supply and demand – and terms of “rare”, “scarce” or “uncommon” need to be defined, and as he shows, one needs to research the auction records to know how a particular book should be classed. Austen sells well and high because she has such a rabid following – again, supply and demand. It is all fashion and can change over night – though any of us of the “rabid’ class cannot imagine this ever happening – though it would be nice to have the prices a little more approachable!
    Thanks again Laurel Ann – wonderful post, terrific research!


    1. Thanks for your praise on the research Deb. I hope this edition goes to a good home. Wish it was mine!

      Regarding the ‘rare’ or ‘scarce’ or’ uncommon’ distinctions, I am not an antiquarian book dealer like you, but one would think that if only 8 Bentley sets have been sold since 1975, that they would qualify it as ‘rare’. Isn’t this like the longstanding Janeite debate of calling Mr. Darcy arrogant or shy? There are arguments on both sides. ;-) (Laurel Ann who tries to get this stuff right so readers don’t think I’m nuts.)


  8. I can speak only for myself, but I would not think of this an ‘association copy’ even with the term used in the broadest of senses or, myself, really see any meaningful direct connection to Austen or her family financially or otherwise — ‘people whose great aunt was mentioned by Austen in a letter’ would not be small set; it is a posthumous edition, Burlaby the first known owner was born near two decades after Austen’s death and is not a member of JA’s immediate family or is in any other way distinguished. [It is quite possible that this is a later issue of the 1833 sheets; given that Bentley reprinted the individual volumes of his standard novels only when his stock of sheets was short it would seem that the 1833 sheets were about for quite some years, ‘mixed’ runs of his ‘standard novels’ are not uncommon with the sheets coming from various printings; the binding on this set is definitely not from the 1830’s and, from the photograph only, would appear to be consistent with a date in the 1850’s; absent a personal examination I cannot tell you if there is evidence of any prior binding or one of Bentley’s issue cloth binding in its various forms over the years.] It’s always interesting to know who the prior owner of a volume or set is, but in this instance I can not see this making a difference to the price.

    Absent a very close association that explains the wear — for example the copy of ‘Imitatio Christi’ scruffy and rebound in limp vellum that TE Lawrence said he carried in his desert campaigns & with his ownership label — for me, and for many, the most significant factor in determining price is condition and the ‘feel’ of a particular copy. This can only really be determined in person or with an examination by someone whose opinion and judgment one trusts.

    Personally I avoid the word ‘rare’ and stick to stating the number of copies recorded as extant in a particular relevant and authoritative source, when that number is five or fewer. Of course given the occasional vagaries of bibliography and bibliographers this can give a spurious appearance of precision and there is always the chance of a discovery, in at least two instances in the past twenty years I have come across small caches of multiple copies of a work from the 1830 – 40’s, previously known in less than a handful of copies, sitting on the shelves of a descendant of the author and I cannot be the only one to have made such finds. There is a good discussion of the various dangers, uses and abuses of ‘rare’ by booksellers in John Carter’s celebrated ‘ABC for Book Collectors.’ Unfortunately a direct link is not possible but the entire text is down-loadable, free, as a PDF from the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers, or can be ordered as a hard copy from Oak Knoll via:


    1. Mr. Robinson, from your information I will certainly look at the classifications of antiquarian books in a new light in the future, abstain from using the word ‘rare’ or posting speculative personal research. In my uneducated opinion, I would still purchase them if I had the funds. They are at the very least older Jane Austen editions and very appealing to look at even if they have no associated collector value. Thank you for your opinion/input.


  9. Yes, Mr. Robinson, the Carter book has an in-depth definition of “rarity” [his whole book is a must-read for anyone with an interest in book collecting and, as you noted, is now online at ILAB] – I especially like his references to bookseller / bibliographer descriptions in elaborating on “rare” : “they may run from ‘scarce’ to ‘very rare’ to ‘exceedingly’ or ‘notoriously rare’ to ‘unrecorded and apparently unique’ – and later his statement “It will be clear that ‘rarity’, like matrimony, “is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly”! – and he says of the slogan of the W.H. Robinson [any relation?] “The Rarest Books, the Finest Manuscripts” –“ It was quite clear that both adjectives meant expensive.” [p.183] It is also interesting to note, since this IS an Austen-related blog, that the study of “comparative scarcities was pioneered by Michael Sadleir” – an Austen scholar and author of the “The Northanger Novels” [he was the first to show that Austen’s references in Northanger Abbey were real works of fiction and not her imagination run amok.] His own collection of Victorian fiction is [I think] in UCLA’s Special Collections.

    The point of this Laurel Ann, being that 1.) you can study this stuff for years and still be a novice, and 2.) it all comes back to Austen no matter where you start!


  10. I’ve been following this discussion.
    So, have I got this right. The definition of a word such as , “rare,”when used to describe a book, is all in the mind of the person who is using it and therefore really doesn’t mean anything to anybody else?

    How can you tell what criteria they are using when using the word? And….(sorry, I could go on.)

    Just love this discussion.

    All the best,


    1. Hi Tony, I feel your puzzlement. The word rare to me is much different than to a professional antiquarian book collector. I had no idea of the differences. It does seem to be quite subjective and driven by an individual opinion. Interesting to learn that Jane Austen editions are considered trophy books by collectors. That has a bit of a marginalizing affect on her, like she is not really worthy of the price she demands. One thinks of the word trophy wife, and rolls one’s eyes. Jane might think it quite ironic that she is now an arm piece in the book collecting world. Something to brag about and show off to fellow collectors and impress neophytes. “Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.”


  11. Actually any adjective is subjective used almost in any context. Unless it’s a colour. But if you are colour blind or have difficulties with some colours that could be a problem too.

    Oh the English language is wonderful!!!!!!!!


  12. Hello Tony and Laurel Ann, – well the “rare” term and other terms used to define rarity [scarce, uncommon, etc] are fairly strictly defined – like anything you need to consider the source – if the person who is calling something “rare” is a known bookseller or auctioneer, then you can assume they have done their homework in researching auction records, publication history, etc. – but when you see the term used, say on “Abebooks” or Amazon, referring to a book as “rare” when there are 85 listed, then you know that that lister does not know what they are talking about -there are many sources to determine scarcity, and certainly the wide-spread use of the internet has had a leveling effect on much in the book world – a book once considered rare can now be seen to be much more common because we have access to public records and materials in private hands and copies all over the world – and likewise the reverse – books not known to exist, or no one cared about are found to be unique – and their prices can sky rocket – but again, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. And of course the most important factor in determining price is condition, condition, condition…

    Laurel Ann, I do not think that Austen books are trophy books – people collect books for a variety of reasons – some for the bindings, some for the content, some to be a completest about a particular author, some to show off their collections, some to hoard them – all this is the same for anything collected – art, coins, stamps, buttons [my son collects sneakers…!]- and once you start collecting, you find you have to focus – only first editions, or only books with jackets, etc [the list is endless – you start with one thing and end up elsewhere – I collect books on London – but have to focus or buy a bigger house with only bookshelves in it and nothing else – over the years I have changed how I collect, what I look for and how much I will be willing to spend on any given title – now I just look for children’s books on London or London of the Georgian / Regency or Elizabethan periods – how I got here I do not know!] – but as for Austen, I believe most people collecting Austen do so because they love Austen, not just because of the value of the work – prices are high because there are alot of people who want these books and not enough of them to go around – but they are out there and do turn up at auction as you have seen – and as Mr. Robinson and I have said ad nauseum, any work is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it – I think you should feel confident that those buying these Austen books, if not institutions, are people like Pierpont Morgan or the Burkes, and many others who collected and then gave their collections to be preserved for the future – people do this because they LOVE what they collect…

    As for your research on the Bonham’s set and its provenance of belonging to someone with a direct Austen connection – [this is called an association copy] – it will be added to the description in the auction or catalogue sale and will be important only to someone who is interested in that, say a relative of the family whose name is in the book, etc. – so that is arbitrary – because what would be important to you might not be so for another. If, however, the association person is important in their own right – [say Mark Twain’s copy of Pride & Prejudice, his favorite book, as well we know!] then the value will increase, sometimes off the charts…

    There is so much to convey here and it is late and I am beginning to babble – I should make a list of the best books to have to understand book collecting – think I might do that … [someday…]

    Thanks again Laurel Ann for bringing this all up – anxious to see what happens on Tuesday!



  13. Final Sale Result:

    Bonham’s, Sale 17809
    New Bond Street, Printed Books, Maps and Manuscripts, 8 Jun 2010

    Lot 117 Estimate £2,000 – 3,000
    Sold £2,800 (hammer) [£3,360, inc. 15% premium & VAT]


  14. Hello Laurel Anne,

    I found your posting about Jane Dickson being mentioned in Jane Austen’s letters. Jane Dickson is my 6xGreat Aunty. Her mummy is Jane Collingwood (my 6x Great Grandma). Jane Collingwood is some how connected to the Great Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood who is burried in St Paul’s Cathedral, London.

    People may not think much of this, but it shows the types of people Jane Austen was mixing with. Or it shows me the type of people my relatives were mixing with.

    Back to Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood. Jane Collingwood’s daddy is Alexander Collingwood from Unthank they are from the Little Ryle line. Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood is from the Eslington Line. We can’t go back far enough to make the connection, but papers on the web say they are ‘definately related’ – which doesn’t mean much really.

    I hope you find this interesting even if you have already sold the book.

    Daniel age 11


    1. Hi Daniel,
      You are quite right about the relationship between the Collingwoods but the connection goes back to about 1450 when two brothers married – one became the Little Rye line and the other became the Eslington line. So Jane Collingwood and Cuthbert Collingwood were eighth or ninth cousins.

      The Jane Dickson mentioned here is my 5 x great grandmother and she married her cousin Captain Archibald Dickson, my 5 x great grandfather,

      His father was Lieutenant General John Dickson ( the brother of Admiral William Dickson, and Admiral Sir Archibald Dickson) and his mother was Elizabeth Collingwood, the sister of Jane Collingwood.


Please join in and have your share of the conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Website Built with

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: