By the late 18th century, private balls, public assemblies and impromptu dances after dinner were at the heart of social life for the upper classes. But more than that, dancing was a source of true pleasure for them, and it was a pleasure shared by our working-class ancestors too. Their opportunities to dance were rarer – reserved to high days and holidays – but they enjoyed it no less.

But why did our Georgian ancestors love to dance so much? And why was it such a big part of their lives? The answer lies primarily in the fact that dancing brought people together. It was a pastime that could be shared with family, friends and neighbours, and was one of very few that men and women could enjoy together. For that reason, dancing also played an incredibly important role in courtship. The ballroom was, without doubt, the best place for our Georgian ancestors to begin a romance.

In London, and in fashionable resorts such as Bath and Brighton, public and private balls alike were notorious for the crowds they attracted – there might be as many as 800 willing dancers trying to squeeze into the ballroom on any one night. That meant they were easily the best place to meet new people, particularly those guaranteed to be of a similar background and social standing.

It was just the same in the provinces, albeit on a smaller scale. The assembly balls which were held regularly in county towns throughout the winter season would attract young people from 20 or 30 miles distant, so they were the best way for country residents to broaden their social horizons beyond the handful of families they would socialise with on a day-to-day basis. These provincial gatherings tended to be slightly more socially inclusive too, patronised not only by the local landed gentry but by some of the growing middle classes: the clergy, lawyers, soldiers and merchants, all wanting to spend their leisure time in the ballroom.

The dancing itself was just as conducive to romance. By taking part in one of the period’s fashionable country dances, young people would have plenty of opportunity to talk – flirt, even – and all away from the sharp eyes and ears of their chaperones.

By the late 18th century, the English country dances had become the mainstay of any large ball. The name derives from the French ‘contra-danse’, referring to the way in which partners stand facing one another, in two lines formed long-ways down the room, gentlemen in one line, ladies in the other. If you’re not familiar with the workings of a country dance, it can be hard to appreciate how incredibly social the experience was. In most of the dances, all of the couples would meet each other at least once, so you would be mixing with everyone who was dancing. There was also a period of standing still while the other couples in the line (known as a set) performed. The more couples there were in the set, the longer the dance went on, and the longer you would literally be ‘standing up’ with your partner, either after you’d danced or as you waited for your turn. Since a single country dance would usually last around 30 minutes, this meant there was ample time to flirt with your partner, or strike up a conversation with the other couples standing either side of you.

In terms of courtship this time was very important – through a dance-floor conversation a young lady could discover the opinions and manners, intelligence even, of her prospective beau, something she might not have the chance to do while sitting in the drawing room under her mother’s chaperonage. For the men, too, this was the perfect opportunity to roll out their gallant compliments and watch their partner blush with becoming modesty.

The famously strict etiquette of the ballroom was all aimed at increasing the sociability of dancing too. Propriety dictated, for example, that a man and woman should not dance more than two dances together. Although this rule must have curtailed the enjoyment of some love-struck young couples, it helped to ensure that as many people as possible got to dance, particularly when there were fewer males than females in the room. Dancing was seen very much as a community affair and it was important not to neglect other members of the community, nor to sit out for too long, as a small set meant a dance was over very quickly.

So dancing was sociable, but for women it was valued just as much for its health benefits: it was one of the few socially acceptable ways for them to exercise. Walking was permissible, but only at a gentle pace, and unmarried girls couldn’t stray too far from home. The same went for horse-riding. But in the ballroom, young girls with no other outlet for their excess energy could spend an evening hopping, skipping and jumping without censure. Provided they weren’t too enthusiastic that is. John Gregory’s popular conduct book was not alone in advising girls to ‘dance with spirit; but never allow yourselves to be so far transported with mirth, as to forget the delicacy of your sex’. To dance without a certain restraint risked unfavourable comparisons with the professionals on stage, usually women of ‘easy virtue’!

Despite that, dancing really was a great workout. For a start, the crush of people and the blazing candles made the ballroom stifling hot. And then you’d be dancing for hours on end – a ball starting at eight or nine in the evening generally thronged with dancers for at least six hours. Eighteenth-century diarist and parson James Woodforde regularly recorded staying out dancing until 2am, sometimes even 4am! With just an hour or so spent resting at the supper table, you really did need to have a good standard of fitness if you wanted to dance every dance, as many young people did.

The after-effects of the exercise would probably be felt for a day or so and, for just as long, ladies would take an extra pleasure in talking about a ball. Dance partners, their competence or ineptitude on the dance floor and local gossip all provided food for conversation, morning calls and letters. In lives that could be rather repetitive – dull, even – balls and dances were gifts that kept on giving for women.

The attractions of dancing for men were somewhat less innocent. Many went to a ball with the express purpose of ogling the young beauties, decked out in their finery. The dancing itself was a means of standing close to a pretty woman, holding her hands and watching as she moved gracefully about the floor.

Still, a man did need to be an accomplished dancer himself. Dancing was a passport for entry to women’s social circles, and nothing could be more socially ostracising, or off-putting to prospective brides, than two left feet. Men and women of the leisured classes usually took lessons from dancing masters in their youth, but constant practice was needed thereafter to maintain their dancing prowess.

There was in fact just the one skipping step to master for all the popular country dances of the Georgian period, but it was the different patterns and figures which the dancers traced across the floor in each specific dance, and the combinations of taking hands, crossing hands, rising on tiptoes, twirling and clapping, that made learning to dance a more complicated venture. New dances were constantly being invented to new tunes; some 27,000 new dances were created in England alone between 1730 and the end of George IV’s reign in 1830. Although that kept the assemblies fun and fresh, it could cause a headache for those who found it hard to pick up the moves.

Dancing was naturally a simpler pleasure for the working classes. Despite having less time and energy for dancing, it was still a very popular recreational activity. Public houses with sufficient space might host dances for local servants and labourers occasionally, but more commonly dancing was reserved for fairs, festivals and feast days – the harvest festival, or May Day, for example – when large numbers of people gathered together in celebration.

Since these celebrations provided opportunities to meet new people, as well as to make merry with existing acquaintances, they were an arena for courtship every bit as much as the ballroom. Here though, there were no tricky points of etiquette to navigate; behaviour was much more free and uninhibited. The poet John Clare, himself from a rural, working-class community, depicted their social customs in his poetry, describing a young ‘swain’ leading a ‘sun tann’d lass’ down the dance, ‘squeezing her hands or catching at her gloves and stealing kisses as chance prompts the while’.

The style of dancing was much less formal, too. The working classes were not afraid to dance with energy and enthusiasm, nor to show off flushed cheeks, or even a little tipsiness. Although they also enjoyed the formation country dances, couples would readily jig, with their arms entwined round each other’s waist.

When ‘couples’ dancing invaded the upper-class ballrooms, it came as a shock. The waltz was brought over from Europe in around 1812, and was quickly declared to be scandalous. It wasn’t quite the waltz you’ll see on Strictly Come Dancing, but a slower-paced version, with a hold that wasn’t quite so close – but even that level of physical contact and intimacy was hard for chaperones to swallow. Even Lord Byron, himself no paragon of virtue, found fault with the waltz, for allowing ‘hands [to] freely range in public sight where ne’er before’.

In other ways too, the waltz was strikingly different to the country dances which had been popular for so long. The couple dancing were now a solitary unit, focused only on each other – the dancing was much less sociable and no longer a community affair. Nonetheless, by the closing years of George IV’s reign the waltz was not just accepted, but mainstream.

Its incredible popularity helped to reinvigorate dancing as a social pastime, so that by the time Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837, it remained a central part of both social life and the ritual of courtship. That said, although they loved ‘couples’ dances, such as the waltz and the fast-paced polka, the Victorians didn’t have quite the same enthusiasm for dancing as their Georgian forebears. After the mid-19th century, dancing would never occupy such a big part of our ancestors’ social lives again – until the inter-war years of the 20th century, that is. But that’s a topic for another day!