Heeeeeeere's Jo! Okay, I'm late again. Getting into the Saturday Girl job is proving a bit sticky.
I'm not unemployed, thank heavens, but I'm not exactly employed either. They call it self-employed, but that's not quite right either because it implies that SELF might be watching the clock, scolding if I'm not writing or doing writing-related tasks at certain hours, and even -- what a thought -- giving me days off and paid holidays.
No, what I am is "freelance." Free of the shackles of day-to-day routine but still obliged, by inclination and commitments freely entered into, to produce saleable goods in my own eccentric way.
Which sort of makes me like an aristocrat, I think. I'll get back to that.
My husband is also unemployed, though I employ him as business manager and resident tech wizard. Most of the time he, too, is free of the shackles of day-to-day routine, though still obliged etc etc.
The point is? The point is that days of the week and weekends mean little to us and it's really easy to lose track of them. I've even started moving a little pink dot along the days to help me keep track. I've now written my blog day on the calendar -- on Friday, because that's when a west coaster needs to do it to get it online in a reasonable way.
Which brings me back to aristocrats.
Most historical novels, especially romances, are about aristocrats, but I find I'm often annoyed by the way their lifestyle is constructed. All too often they either have jobs --- estate manager, soldier, doctor, music teacher, spy, even though they have title, land, and no need of money. This is because in romanceland, not having a job means you're an idle wastrel.
Too rarely do we see the peer of the realm who has many demands on his time. No, he doesn't have an employer dictating his days, nor does he have set hours to do this or that (though I like to see him spending a good bit of time in the House of Lords helping to run his country, if only as an aside.) But he, like the freelance writer, has many things that have to get done or there are consequences. Often portraits, as with this one, show them with some "tools of the trade" such as books, ledgers, globes etc.
This applies particularly to heroines. For some reason I don't come across many governesses and companions in historical romance today, perhaps because those seem feeble occupations, but they are the most realistic. Instead, many heroines are busy at jobs more suited to the 20th if not the 21st century. Simply being a peer's daughter and looking to marry doesn't quite fit the bill?
Shame, because I write that a lot. It certainly doesn't mean she has to be an idle wastrel. Even if a portrait shows her reading, which is common, it may be something more substantial than a novel, as here. 
What she's more likely to be is a freelance social worker and in training to be a high-level household manager and hostess. Beiing a free-lance social worker has a bad rap these days, especially if one is rich and aiding the very poor, but in the past very, very few people were employed to look after the less fortunate in society. It was all volunteer work. If Lady Lala is busily setting up her business, or even writing novels, who's making sure the orphans get cared for?
So, what do you think about this? Do you prefer your historical heroine to have a job? Does preparing to be the wife of a powerful man and mother of his children not cut it anymore? What about that "Duke of Lust?" Do you want him to be obviously paying attention to his vast land holdings, his many dependents and responsibilities, his high position of power in the land? Or would that spoil the fun for you?
You can see where I am on this, but there are no right answers. This is fiction. Often this is fantasy. It's certainly supposed to be entertainment. What's your cup of tea?
(Got to mention that Thea in Lady Beware has no job, no hint of one. But she's always been in training to be like her mother, the Duchess of Yeovil, the indefatigable manager of a vast range of efficient, focussed, benevolence. My sort of gal. Both of them.)
Jo