The first pound coin...
was issued by Henry VII.
'The gold sovereign came into existence in 1489 under King Henry VII.
The pound sterling had been a unit of account for centuries, as had the mark. Now for the first time a coin denomination was issued with a value of one pound sterling. This new coin weighed 240 grains which equals 0.5 troy ounces or 15.55 grams, and was made using the standard gold coinage alloy of 23 carat, equal to 95.83% fine.'
'One of the reasons for the issue of the sovereign was to imitate similar large gold coins being produced on the Continent, another was to impress Europe with the power, prestige and success of the new Tudor dynasty.'
'During the long reign of Elizabeth I, "fine" gold sovereigns, with a very high (99.4%) gold content, continued to be issued with a value of thirty shillings. A separate one pound gold coin was also issued, obviously with a value of twenty shillings.'
'In the first coinage of James I, from 1603 to 1604, sovereigns of twenty shillings were issued before being discontinued, the previous pound coin was made lighter and renamed as a "unite".' (To commemorate the unification of Scotland and England) 'So after 115 years, this was the last sovereign to be issued until the emergence of the modern gold sovereign in 1817.'
The British Mint
I have never said that pounds and guineas did not exist side by side in the 1800s. But there are a large number of intangibles that are part of this debate which were ignored or not understood.
For example, people's attitudes to the paper notes and the guinea. And according to the Bank of England they did not issue pound notes to be used as every day currency until the problems caused by the 1st World War. (Sort that one out!)
I have also been extremely frustrated during this debate, especially by the inability of people to actually read my posts and respond to them. The sudden appearance of people who had not been part of the debate, but simple wanted to patronise or score points did not help, especially as they clearly had not read previous posts. It is the points of a debate that needed clarifying, and resorting to anything less than civil questions and answers on a public board isn't pleasant for the many interested people who want to follow a debate.
As for Marlys' comment:
'ignoring the fact that, well, she's talking to authors who write historicals set in the period 1800-1840, some of whom are or have been professional researchers themselves. '
I'm sorry you took it that way, it explains the tone of your posts. However the people I talked to are not American, they are British, they grew up in the culture and because they live in the country and have far more research resources available I would listen to them first.
job says it in her post:
I think you have to be English to be mentally comfy with this. (meaning crazy British currency)
job also said:
... but I suspect there is a world of nuance and shade I am missing.
Yes, and that is what we all have to be chary of when researching. One example in the historical novels I review written by Americans, is that so many of the writers have great difficulty with the British Class System, and it shows very clearly in errors which grate on British readers who grew up with it, learn about it historically at school, and see a lot of very good BBC drama portraying it historically!
If we can end this debate in a civilised fashion, then perhaps we can all take from it that comment of job's, and try hard in our novels to remember that ...world of nuance and shade....