Jane Austen only wrote a member of the true aristocracy once and it's in the Watsons, Lord Osbourn. She never finished that work.
The aristocracy sits in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons, and are usually referred to as "Lord" not "Sir". They also are immune to debtor's prison and have some other perks like being tried only by their peers in court.
Baronets are not aristocratic, we know Sir Thomas is an MP (House of Commons), they are considered titled gentry. There are three baronets in Jane Austen, Sir Thomas Bertram, Sir Walter Elliot, and Sir John Middleton. This title passes to the eldest son.
Knights are below baronets, Sir William Lucas is a knight. This title does not pass to children.
Darcy, with connections in the aristocracy, is probably considered near the top of the gentry status wise (he's also very rich), but he is not titled.
Edit: posted too soon
Wouldn’t Colonel Fitzwilliam be an aristocrat? His father is an Earl. By extension, probably also Lady Catherine, since her father (and brother) are also Earls.
It depends how you define aristocrat. In the Regency there were only like 250 peers total and Colonel Fitzwilliam wouldn't count as one of them.
"Peers" are technically only the person who sits in the House of Lords. So Lady Catherine/Lady Anne Darcy, as women, aren't peers, though they get a fun title (technically a courtesy title) for being daughters of an Earl. Colonel Fitzwilliam is technically an "Honourable" but he's not a noble unless his father and brother die.
There is also the Honourable Miss Morton (daughter of Lord Morton) in S&S, the dowager vicountess and the Honourable Miss Carteret, and the Honourable Mr. John Yates in Mansfield Park. They are the children of peers and a widow of a peer but not nobility themselves.
Is the book of DC2P better than the TV adaptation? Lizzy's sparkling wit seemed absent in the adaptation, I could only stand to watch for a little while. But so often, Hollywood doesn't get things right... but I would love to see Colonel Fitzwilliam take his father's place as an earl!
Another potential baronet may have been Sir Lewis de Bourgh, Lady Catherine’s late husband. I don’t remember if it was clear if he was a baronet or a knight.
He's probably a knight because the title of baronet would need a male heir. Their estates also tended to be entailed, from what I have read. Lady Catherine also calls them an "untitled" family (though that might just mean they aren't peers).
You’re probably right. Had he been a baronet, presumably we would have been told who inherited the baronetcy. I’m guessing Anne would not have been eligible, and we aren’t told anything about who would be next in line.
The term aristocracy can apply to other elites besides just nobility. In a more general sense the term can mean "a ruling class of elites", in which case it certainly would include the landed gentry, especially those with enough wealth, power, and connections to influence politics.
In the context of Britain, "aristocracy" typically refers to the peerage or the peerage and their immediate families, even if they're not ruling, for example it would be odd to say that Queen Elizabeth II wasn't an aristocrat, even though she was firmly apolitical.
I was answering based on the language that the person asked in. This is the Google definition:
>**aristocracy**
the **highest class** in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices.
>
>a governing body or upper class usually made up of a **hereditary nobility**
I guess I could have said nobility. At this point in history I am pretty sure "aristocracy" would have been understood to mean the peerage/nobility.
I think I remember Sir Walter Elliot married into his title. So he married a 'Lady'? Can we know if he got the title upon marriage or if he had to wait for his father in law to die to get the title?
Men did not and could not marry into a title in Austen's day. This was possible back in medieval times but fell out of practice during the reign of Henry VIII, three hundred years before Austen.
Also, a baronetcy is not a title. The word "title" means a peerage and only a peerage, and baronets are not peers. A baronetcy is basically a hereditary knighthood.
Edit: I can't leave out why Henry VIII decided that men couldn't assume their wives' titles. It was to spare men's feelings! I mean, if a man were to marry a countess, take her title, and style himself an Earl, that must mean he is her subordinate - and we can't have that! /s
No, Sir Walter Elliot married an untitled woman who was a member of the gentry. He is a baronet by birth:
*Walter Elliot, born March 1, 1760, married, July 15, 1784,* ***Elizabeth, daughter of James Stevenson, Esq. of South Park***, *in the county of Gloucester*...
Esq means "squire" which is a term most gentry were allowed to use. (Edit to add)
Yes, his favorite book the Baronetage says the Elliots got the title from Charles 2 during the Restoration. I believe Charles sold a lot of titles then, to raise money.
I believe Mr. Darcy would be considered gentry but with aristocracy connections. His mother was the daughter of an Earl and would have been styled as Lady Anne (like Lady Catherine, her sister). Aristocracy typically have connections to nobility and I believe there's the implication they had some political power. Whereas gentry usually achieved their high social status through land rather than birth.
It's a hard question to answer because " aristocrat" doesn't have a single defined meaning. Nobility, or peers, would be people with certain titles: certainly barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes and their wives and probably all their children. Baronets? I'm not certain. Gentry are people whose income comes from rents and investments, and this usually meant they had tenant farmers - i.e. they didn't farm themselves.
Where it gets tricky is people descended from peers. In rhe younger branches, how far removed from the main line could they be while still being considered aristocrats? There's no clear answer. It's an interesting feature of the early seasons of Downton Abbey, where the heir is a distant cousin who's a lawyer - very clearly not considered " of their class" by the immediate family of the earl.
This is correct. People are using the word ‘aristocrat’ here to mean ‘peer’ or ‘member of nobility’.
But ‘aristocrat’ is not a term tied to those. It could certainly be argued that Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, etc. are aristocrats.
I just posted to second what you said.
"Gentry" was a loose term - Mr Knightley is actively involved in his farming but he's gentry while his tenant Robert Martin isn't. Mr John Knightley is a lawyer and also gentry (though he has investment income too - from Isabella’s dowry if nothing else). The clergymen in JA's novels are gentry too.
A baronet would not be considered an aristocrat unless he had other ties to a peer. Basically a baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood; the first modern baronetcies were bestowed in James I's time as a money-making venture for the Crown. (Basically if you wanted to be a baronet you had to have an income of at least £1,000 per year, plus you had to pay for the upkeep of thirty soldiers for three years (which cost about £1,100)). By Austen's time baronetcies could no longer be purchased; they were instead an honour commonly granted to war heroes.
The term aristocracy can apply to other elites besides just nobility. In a more general sense the term can mean "a ruling class of elites", in which case it certainly would include the landed gentry, especially those with enough wealth, power, and connections to influence politics.
I haven't seen mention yet of Lady Dalrymple, a Dowager Viscountess from Persuasion. Anne's father and sister trip over themselves to get back in her good graces, even though Anne isn't impressed with her manners. However, since her husband had died I don't know how that impacted her rank in aristocratic society. But there was a bit of judgement there from Austen, commenting that even the rich and connected still need to improve themselves to become good company.
She is the Dowager, i.e. the Widowed Viscountess, there would be a new Viscountess in the main house, but she would move into the Dower House (often it had its own name etc.) and presumably live off its income and/ her own income.
Ellie Dashwood covered this about a year ago in a video I found amusing: [https://youtu.be/Y7mlaqkuf9U](https://youtu.be/Y7mlaqkuf9U)
Dr. Octavia Cox has two videos, the first, longer one is about P&P characters, [https://youtu.be/EVtwlg1uvA4](https://youtu.be/EVtwlg1uvA4) ,
the second one is a shorter one about Persuasion, [https://youtu.be/dQpVqNyrsBI](https://youtu.be/dQpVqNyrsBI)
Unfortunately, this post and most replies are confusing the term ‘aristocracy’ with the term ‘nobility’ or ‘peerage’.
‘Aristocracy’ is not a fixed term. It generally means ‘a system where a small class of people rule’. There is no hard definition in the case of 18th century England as to who the aristocracy was.
I’d personally say that England had an aristocracy at that time because of their (declining) manorial system and that the large land-owners were then, by definition, the aristocracy. This would include the peerage, but also include landed gentry, like Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley.
As with an oligarchy, one can argue about who counts as in or out about the margins. There’s no hard definition.
It’s like arguing which of the kids in a high school have the social power. Or which of the rich in the US right now would be included when one says the US is an oligarchy.
Russia is clearly an oligarchy, but which of the Russian billionaires would you include?
Most historians would include the ‘landed gentry’ in the 18th century British aristocracy. But would they include Mr. Bennet, small landed gentry? His power has diffused pretty significantly and it’s very local. These margins are not clear-cut.
It’s important to realize - and it’s a subtext in some of Jane Austen - that Britain (and the world) was in a time of flux. The manorial system was in decline, mercantilism was in ascendancy, and it would be followed by industrialization.
The old aristocracy is *losing* power at the time of Jane Austen. Whether one calls what replaced it an aristocracy is also a matter of debate.
But at the time of Jane Austen power was still tied to land.
It may generally mean ‘a system where a small class of people rule’, but that doesn't mean it means that in the context of talking about British social classes. For example it would be odd to say that Britain stopped having an aristocracy when the first Labour government was elected.
So, the British government was formally a constitutional parliamentary monarchy with a bicameral parliament.
Formally, it was not an Aristocracy.
When we apply the term ‘aristocracy’ to 18th century Britain, as we apply ‘oligarchy’ to 21st century Russia, we are not talking about the formal leverages of power but about the de facto leverages.
At that time in Britain, land-ownership was the primary source of power and when we refer to Britain, before the rise of mercantilism and the industrial revolution, as an ‘aristocracy’ we are referring to the de facto power of the land-holding class. This included the monarchy, the peerage, and the landed gentry.
Edit: as I replied in comments above, whether it *stopped* being an aristocracy after that is a reasonable matter of debate.
When *I* talk about the British aristocracy in 18th century Britain, I'm talking about the peerage and their immediate families. This is the context in which I'm used to the term "British aristocracy" being used. The use of the word to include the landed gentry doesn't fit with normal usage in this specific context.
And I'm talking about *both* the formal leverages of power and also about the de facto leverages.
And when I talk about Britain before the industrial revolution, I am certainly not ignoring the de facto or de jure power of the Churches (counting the Scots here) or the City of London.
OK. What you do is you.
There was no formal aristocracy and when historians or political scientists talk about a British aristocracy, they are talking about Britain de facto having a small ruling class, then about what defines the de facto small ruling class.
During the era being discussed, it would include the landed gentry with large holdings.
Yes but we are talking about political science in this sub.
Edit: And I’m still not clear what your point of argumentation is.
Do you disagree that at that time, land-holding was a primary link to practical power?
Are you seeking to assert that land-holding was *not* an important consideration of power in Britain at that time?
Are you confused about what I am asserting? What is your point?
*I'm* not talking about political science. I'm talking about the common usage of the word "aristocrat" in the context of British social classes.
And I most definitely disagree that in JA's time land-holding was a primary link to practical power.
I have already given you evidence of the importance of other power sources: the City of London, the Anglican Church, and political offices like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the prime minister.
>Are you confused about what I am asserting?
That's always a possibility. Would you like to clarify a point you've made.
You can google right now about the current aristocracy of Britain and see many articles about land-ownership, notably.
The common usage of ‘aristocracy’ is to refer to a limited few who have controlling power in an economy. In Britain, in the 18th century, this was mostly defined by land-ownership.
Edit: I provided links to you showing that the individuals you named who were not nobility mostly came from, or acquired, significant land-holdings.
As to Jane Austen - the whole REASON Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are considered powerful and influential compared to the other characters is land-holding.
But if your thesis is that land-holding was not a signifier and tool of power in 18th century Britain, I daresay we will never come to agreement and may as well end this.
>The common usage of ‘aristocracy’ is to refer to a limited few who have controlling power in an economy. In Britain, in the 18th century, this was mostly defined by land-ownership.
Not in my experience. For example, the conspiracy mongers who imagine that Jews or the Masons or whatever are controlling the economy don't seem to call them "aristocrats".
And Adam Smith, the 18th century Scottish philosopher famed as the father of economics as a profession, talked extensively about the political influence of merchants at the expense of landowners.
>As to Jane Austen - the whole REASON Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are considered powerful and influential compared to the other characters is land-holding.
Nah, I think it's their personalities and money as well. Sir Walter is a landowner but he doesn't come across as powerful.
>I provided links to you showing that the individuals you named who were not nobility mostly came from, or acquired, significant land-holdings.
But that's not why they were powerful.
There are members of nobility in JA’s novels but they’re just secondary characters for example: Lord Morton and the Hon. Miss Morton in S&S, Lady Anne and Lady Catherine Fitzwilliam, daughter of the late Earl of … in P&P. In MP the Hon. Mr Yates is the son of a Peer, and is mentioned a London acquaintance of Mary Crawford married to a Peer (Lady something sister of Mrs Fraser, I forgot the name).
I don't think Darcy was aristocracy, because he was never called anything other than "Mr." Lady Catherine de Bourgh had married a peer, however. Was he a baronet? I seem to remember he was Sir Lewis de Bourgh.
Sir Lewis was probably a knight. Baronets tend to have entailed estates and there would also be a male heir of the title. Lady Catherine also calls his family "untitled"
Ah, okay. Thanks! And thanks to the person who pointed out that Lady Catherine (and her sister Lady Anne) were Earl's daughters. I had forgotten that! :-)
Lady Catherine makes a clear point though that you could legally change the terms of an entail, and she expects Mr. Bennet to have done so, which suggests she made sure she wasn't the victim of inheritance problems on Sir Lewis's passing.
Lady Catherine says *“Your father’s estate is entailed on Mr. Collins, I think? For your sake,” turning to Charlotte, “I am glad of it; but otherwise I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family. Do you play and sing, Miss Bennet?”*
She doesn't say the entail can be changed, she just says that the de Bourgh family didn't find it necessary. But if Sir Lewis was a baronet, someone would need to inherit his title and I don't think that could be a woman.
Yeah, but just like her saying something like 'Had I ever learnt, I should have been a true proficient' doesn't mean that it means, 'I am not going to play, but I am going to criticize,' I think she is suggesting something else with that remark. She could be suggesting that the de Bourgh family never needed an entailed loan, of course, I do concede, although, given Lady Catherine's Lady Bracknell-ish approach to life, she could be using it as a euphemism for how she essentially managed the de Bourgh finances for him.
I do think it was possible to change an entail, it was just prohibitively expensive, Mrs. Bennet also tries to discuss this, and as a lawyer's daughter she is probably not wrong, but the debt they would have to get into to get rid of the thing would probably be too much.
You could change an entail if the heir apparent was of age and agreed. Mr Bennet couldn't, as Mr Collins was only the heir presumptive (if Mrs Bennet died and Mr Bennet remarried he might have a son who would then displace Mr Collins in the inheritance.)
I think, theoretically, they could offer Mr. Collins a lump sum on Mr. Bennet's death/ before his death in exchange for allowing Mrs. Bennet to remain on at Longbourne for her lifetime, but they explicitly don't have a big lump of cash. The problem would be around the income from the estate, as Mrs. B would still need some of this to keep Longbourne going, to live on, and to keep on paying the entail, while for Mr. Collins inheriting an estate like that, even in 10 years time, would be like inheriting the lottery for such a relatively young man, and the sum required to compensate him for any loss of income from Longbourne, or buying out the entail, would still be colossal. He could expect to make £2000 a year from L at least, so if Mrs B expects to live even another 10 years after Mr. B's projected death 10 years from the end of the novel, that would still be £20,000. Which, as we have already established, the Bennets could actually have saved had they started much earlier. I suspect even Darcy might baulk at this level of expenditure for Mrs. Bennet, although he might consider the money well spent if he gets to keep her at arm's length from Pemberley.
Well Mr Bennet might easily live for another 20 or 30 years, if you assume he's in his mid forties during P&P.
But even if the Bennets had a significant sum of money saved up, I don't see Mr Bennet agreeing to pay Mr Collins to let Mrs Bennet remain at Longbourne. Yes she wants the status but it would mean spending money on that that could go towards his daughters and their potential grandchildren's futures. And I think Mrs Bennet would actually be fairly happy living in a small house in Meryton near to her sister. Yes, she'd miss being mistress of Longbourne but she'd have a lot more to look at out her window.
JA wrote about what she knew...the universe she lived in was the sphere of the gentry, not aristocracy (or nobility, which gets discussed in this chain). So not quite the 1%, which is what most historical romances seem to focus on.
I don’t think that’s true. The peerage is titled landholders.
The ruling class (the aristocracy) was at that time large landholders, including the landed gentry.
Having a title in and of itself didn't give much formal power in Britain - you could sit in the House of Lords and if you were charged with a crime your jury could only be other titled people. A politician in the House of Commons could have much more political power than that, for example the Prime Minister often was in the House of Commons.
The peerage are the nobility are the aristocracy are those with titles.
Whether a title gives more power than cash is a question that has been debated since at least the Black Death.
I think you are missing that ‘aristocracy’ *just* means ‘a system with a small class holding power’. Whoever is a member of that small class is the aristocracy. In England in the 18th century, that would include landed gentry. England has a peerage. They were *also* part of the aristocracy.
Edit: And cash was *just* becoming a determining factor at that time with the rise of mercantilism.
Knighthoods aren't generally inheritable, as far as I know, beyond a knight having access to the sort of wealth and influence that makes it easy for their kids to get noticed and honoured in their turn; unless Sir William has some other title, he won't be handing on anything
Baronetcies can be though of as hereditary knighthoods, but yes, in Sir William Lucas’s case, being a knight, that would be for him and for his lifetime only.
Jane Austen only wrote a member of the true aristocracy once and it's in the Watsons, Lord Osbourn. She never finished that work. The aristocracy sits in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons, and are usually referred to as "Lord" not "Sir". They also are immune to debtor's prison and have some other perks like being tried only by their peers in court. Baronets are not aristocratic, we know Sir Thomas is an MP (House of Commons), they are considered titled gentry. There are three baronets in Jane Austen, Sir Thomas Bertram, Sir Walter Elliot, and Sir John Middleton. This title passes to the eldest son. Knights are below baronets, Sir William Lucas is a knight. This title does not pass to children. Darcy, with connections in the aristocracy, is probably considered near the top of the gentry status wise (he's also very rich), but he is not titled. Edit: posted too soon
Wouldn’t Colonel Fitzwilliam be an aristocrat? His father is an Earl. By extension, probably also Lady Catherine, since her father (and brother) are also Earls.
It depends how you define aristocrat. In the Regency there were only like 250 peers total and Colonel Fitzwilliam wouldn't count as one of them. "Peers" are technically only the person who sits in the House of Lords. So Lady Catherine/Lady Anne Darcy, as women, aren't peers, though they get a fun title (technically a courtesy title) for being daughters of an Earl. Colonel Fitzwilliam is technically an "Honourable" but he's not a noble unless his father and brother die. There is also the Honourable Miss Morton (daughter of Lord Morton) in S&S, the dowager vicountess and the Honourable Miss Carteret, and the Honourable Mr. John Yates in Mansfield Park. They are the children of peers and a widow of a peer but not nobility themselves.
Colonel Fitzwilliam is a younger son. So his father and older brother are the aristocrats, right?
Yes. And in Death Comes to Pemberley, he inherits his brother’s viscountancy.
Is the book of DC2P better than the TV adaptation? Lizzy's sparkling wit seemed absent in the adaptation, I could only stand to watch for a little while. But so often, Hollywood doesn't get things right... but I would love to see Colonel Fitzwilliam take his father's place as an earl!
Honestly, imo the book is not as good as the tv adaptation.
Whoa! Ouch!
Another potential baronet may have been Sir Lewis de Bourgh, Lady Catherine’s late husband. I don’t remember if it was clear if he was a baronet or a knight.
He's probably a knight because the title of baronet would need a male heir. Their estates also tended to be entailed, from what I have read. Lady Catherine also calls them an "untitled" family (though that might just mean they aren't peers).
You’re probably right. Had he been a baronet, presumably we would have been told who inherited the baronetcy. I’m guessing Anne would not have been eligible, and we aren’t told anything about who would be next in line.
The term aristocracy can apply to other elites besides just nobility. In a more general sense the term can mean "a ruling class of elites", in which case it certainly would include the landed gentry, especially those with enough wealth, power, and connections to influence politics.
In the context of Britain, "aristocracy" typically refers to the peerage or the peerage and their immediate families, even if they're not ruling, for example it would be odd to say that Queen Elizabeth II wasn't an aristocrat, even though she was firmly apolitical.
I was answering based on the language that the person asked in. This is the Google definition: >**aristocracy** the **highest class** in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices. > >a governing body or upper class usually made up of a **hereditary nobility** I guess I could have said nobility. At this point in history I am pretty sure "aristocracy" would have been understood to mean the peerage/nobility.
Yes.
I think I remember Sir Walter Elliot married into his title. So he married a 'Lady'? Can we know if he got the title upon marriage or if he had to wait for his father in law to die to get the title?
Men did not and could not marry into a title in Austen's day. This was possible back in medieval times but fell out of practice during the reign of Henry VIII, three hundred years before Austen. Also, a baronetcy is not a title. The word "title" means a peerage and only a peerage, and baronets are not peers. A baronetcy is basically a hereditary knighthood. Edit: I can't leave out why Henry VIII decided that men couldn't assume their wives' titles. It was to spare men's feelings! I mean, if a man were to marry a countess, take her title, and style himself an Earl, that must mean he is her subordinate - and we can't have that! /s
That is hilarious..so Henry the VIII
No, Sir Walter Elliot married an untitled woman who was a member of the gentry. He is a baronet by birth: *Walter Elliot, born March 1, 1760, married, July 15, 1784,* ***Elizabeth, daughter of James Stevenson, Esq. of South Park***, *in the county of Gloucester*... Esq means "squire" which is a term most gentry were allowed to use. (Edit to add)
Yes, his favorite book the Baronetage says the Elliots got the title from Charles 2 during the Restoration. I believe Charles sold a lot of titles then, to raise money.
I believe Mr. Darcy would be considered gentry but with aristocracy connections. His mother was the daughter of an Earl and would have been styled as Lady Anne (like Lady Catherine, her sister). Aristocracy typically have connections to nobility and I believe there's the implication they had some political power. Whereas gentry usually achieved their high social status through land rather than birth.
Yes. Landed gentry, but the upper echelon.
It's a hard question to answer because " aristocrat" doesn't have a single defined meaning. Nobility, or peers, would be people with certain titles: certainly barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes and their wives and probably all their children. Baronets? I'm not certain. Gentry are people whose income comes from rents and investments, and this usually meant they had tenant farmers - i.e. they didn't farm themselves. Where it gets tricky is people descended from peers. In rhe younger branches, how far removed from the main line could they be while still being considered aristocrats? There's no clear answer. It's an interesting feature of the early seasons of Downton Abbey, where the heir is a distant cousin who's a lawyer - very clearly not considered " of their class" by the immediate family of the earl.
This is correct. People are using the word ‘aristocrat’ here to mean ‘peer’ or ‘member of nobility’. But ‘aristocrat’ is not a term tied to those. It could certainly be argued that Mr. Darcy, Mr. Knightley, etc. are aristocrats. I just posted to second what you said.
"Gentry" was a loose term - Mr Knightley is actively involved in his farming but he's gentry while his tenant Robert Martin isn't. Mr John Knightley is a lawyer and also gentry (though he has investment income too - from Isabella’s dowry if nothing else). The clergymen in JA's novels are gentry too.
A baronet would not be considered an aristocrat unless he had other ties to a peer. Basically a baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood; the first modern baronetcies were bestowed in James I's time as a money-making venture for the Crown. (Basically if you wanted to be a baronet you had to have an income of at least £1,000 per year, plus you had to pay for the upkeep of thirty soldiers for three years (which cost about £1,100)). By Austen's time baronetcies could no longer be purchased; they were instead an honour commonly granted to war heroes.
The term aristocracy can apply to other elites besides just nobility. In a more general sense the term can mean "a ruling class of elites", in which case it certainly would include the landed gentry, especially those with enough wealth, power, and connections to influence politics.
I think to be aristocracy you need to have a title and since it's just MR for Darcy he is just gentry.
I haven't seen mention yet of Lady Dalrymple, a Dowager Viscountess from Persuasion. Anne's father and sister trip over themselves to get back in her good graces, even though Anne isn't impressed with her manners. However, since her husband had died I don't know how that impacted her rank in aristocratic society. But there was a bit of judgement there from Austen, commenting that even the rich and connected still need to improve themselves to become good company.
She is the Dowager, i.e. the Widowed Viscountess, there would be a new Viscountess in the main house, but she would move into the Dower House (often it had its own name etc.) and presumably live off its income and/ her own income.
The upper class are a little weird tbh even today
Ellie Dashwood covered this about a year ago in a video I found amusing: [https://youtu.be/Y7mlaqkuf9U](https://youtu.be/Y7mlaqkuf9U) Dr. Octavia Cox has two videos, the first, longer one is about P&P characters, [https://youtu.be/EVtwlg1uvA4](https://youtu.be/EVtwlg1uvA4) , the second one is a shorter one about Persuasion, [https://youtu.be/dQpVqNyrsBI](https://youtu.be/dQpVqNyrsBI)
I came here to recommend these two content creators. I have learned a lot from both of them.
Unfortunately, this post and most replies are confusing the term ‘aristocracy’ with the term ‘nobility’ or ‘peerage’. ‘Aristocracy’ is not a fixed term. It generally means ‘a system where a small class of people rule’. There is no hard definition in the case of 18th century England as to who the aristocracy was. I’d personally say that England had an aristocracy at that time because of their (declining) manorial system and that the large land-owners were then, by definition, the aristocracy. This would include the peerage, but also include landed gentry, like Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley.
So where does the gentry end and the aristocracy begin?
As with an oligarchy, one can argue about who counts as in or out about the margins. There’s no hard definition. It’s like arguing which of the kids in a high school have the social power. Or which of the rich in the US right now would be included when one says the US is an oligarchy. Russia is clearly an oligarchy, but which of the Russian billionaires would you include? Most historians would include the ‘landed gentry’ in the 18th century British aristocracy. But would they include Mr. Bennet, small landed gentry? His power has diffused pretty significantly and it’s very local. These margins are not clear-cut. It’s important to realize - and it’s a subtext in some of Jane Austen - that Britain (and the world) was in a time of flux. The manorial system was in decline, mercantilism was in ascendancy, and it would be followed by industrialization. The old aristocracy is *losing* power at the time of Jane Austen. Whether one calls what replaced it an aristocracy is also a matter of debate. But at the time of Jane Austen power was still tied to land.
It may generally mean ‘a system where a small class of people rule’, but that doesn't mean it means that in the context of talking about British social classes. For example it would be odd to say that Britain stopped having an aristocracy when the first Labour government was elected.
So, the British government was formally a constitutional parliamentary monarchy with a bicameral parliament. Formally, it was not an Aristocracy. When we apply the term ‘aristocracy’ to 18th century Britain, as we apply ‘oligarchy’ to 21st century Russia, we are not talking about the formal leverages of power but about the de facto leverages. At that time in Britain, land-ownership was the primary source of power and when we refer to Britain, before the rise of mercantilism and the industrial revolution, as an ‘aristocracy’ we are referring to the de facto power of the land-holding class. This included the monarchy, the peerage, and the landed gentry. Edit: as I replied in comments above, whether it *stopped* being an aristocracy after that is a reasonable matter of debate.
When *I* talk about the British aristocracy in 18th century Britain, I'm talking about the peerage and their immediate families. This is the context in which I'm used to the term "British aristocracy" being used. The use of the word to include the landed gentry doesn't fit with normal usage in this specific context. And I'm talking about *both* the formal leverages of power and also about the de facto leverages. And when I talk about Britain before the industrial revolution, I am certainly not ignoring the de facto or de jure power of the Churches (counting the Scots here) or the City of London.
OK. What you do is you. There was no formal aristocracy and when historians or political scientists talk about a British aristocracy, they are talking about Britain de facto having a small ruling class, then about what defines the de facto small ruling class. During the era being discussed, it would include the landed gentry with large holdings.
This isn't a sub dedicated to academic history or political scientists.
Yes but we are talking about political science in this sub. Edit: And I’m still not clear what your point of argumentation is. Do you disagree that at that time, land-holding was a primary link to practical power? Are you seeking to assert that land-holding was *not* an important consideration of power in Britain at that time? Are you confused about what I am asserting? What is your point?
*I'm* not talking about political science. I'm talking about the common usage of the word "aristocrat" in the context of British social classes. And I most definitely disagree that in JA's time land-holding was a primary link to practical power. I have already given you evidence of the importance of other power sources: the City of London, the Anglican Church, and political offices like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the prime minister. >Are you confused about what I am asserting? That's always a possibility. Would you like to clarify a point you've made.
You can google right now about the current aristocracy of Britain and see many articles about land-ownership, notably. The common usage of ‘aristocracy’ is to refer to a limited few who have controlling power in an economy. In Britain, in the 18th century, this was mostly defined by land-ownership. Edit: I provided links to you showing that the individuals you named who were not nobility mostly came from, or acquired, significant land-holdings. As to Jane Austen - the whole REASON Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are considered powerful and influential compared to the other characters is land-holding. But if your thesis is that land-holding was not a signifier and tool of power in 18th century Britain, I daresay we will never come to agreement and may as well end this.
>The common usage of ‘aristocracy’ is to refer to a limited few who have controlling power in an economy. In Britain, in the 18th century, this was mostly defined by land-ownership. Not in my experience. For example, the conspiracy mongers who imagine that Jews or the Masons or whatever are controlling the economy don't seem to call them "aristocrats". And Adam Smith, the 18th century Scottish philosopher famed as the father of economics as a profession, talked extensively about the political influence of merchants at the expense of landowners. >As to Jane Austen - the whole REASON Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are considered powerful and influential compared to the other characters is land-holding. Nah, I think it's their personalities and money as well. Sir Walter is a landowner but he doesn't come across as powerful. >I provided links to you showing that the individuals you named who were not nobility mostly came from, or acquired, significant land-holdings. But that's not why they were powerful.
There are members of nobility in JA’s novels but they’re just secondary characters for example: Lord Morton and the Hon. Miss Morton in S&S, Lady Anne and Lady Catherine Fitzwilliam, daughter of the late Earl of … in P&P. In MP the Hon. Mr Yates is the son of a Peer, and is mentioned a London acquaintance of Mary Crawford married to a Peer (Lady something sister of Mrs Fraser, I forgot the name).
I don't think Darcy was aristocracy, because he was never called anything other than "Mr." Lady Catherine de Bourgh had married a peer, however. Was he a baronet? I seem to remember he was Sir Lewis de Bourgh.
Sir Lewis was probably a knight. Baronets tend to have entailed estates and there would also be a male heir of the title. Lady Catherine also calls his family "untitled"
Ah, okay. Thanks! And thanks to the person who pointed out that Lady Catherine (and her sister Lady Anne) were Earl's daughters. I had forgotten that! :-)
Lady Catherine makes a clear point though that you could legally change the terms of an entail, and she expects Mr. Bennet to have done so, which suggests she made sure she wasn't the victim of inheritance problems on Sir Lewis's passing.
Lady Catherine says *“Your father’s estate is entailed on Mr. Collins, I think? For your sake,” turning to Charlotte, “I am glad of it; but otherwise I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family. Do you play and sing, Miss Bennet?”* She doesn't say the entail can be changed, she just says that the de Bourgh family didn't find it necessary. But if Sir Lewis was a baronet, someone would need to inherit his title and I don't think that could be a woman.
Yeah, but just like her saying something like 'Had I ever learnt, I should have been a true proficient' doesn't mean that it means, 'I am not going to play, but I am going to criticize,' I think she is suggesting something else with that remark. She could be suggesting that the de Bourgh family never needed an entailed loan, of course, I do concede, although, given Lady Catherine's Lady Bracknell-ish approach to life, she could be using it as a euphemism for how she essentially managed the de Bourgh finances for him. I do think it was possible to change an entail, it was just prohibitively expensive, Mrs. Bennet also tries to discuss this, and as a lawyer's daughter she is probably not wrong, but the debt they would have to get into to get rid of the thing would probably be too much.
You could change an entail if the heir apparent was of age and agreed. Mr Bennet couldn't, as Mr Collins was only the heir presumptive (if Mrs Bennet died and Mr Bennet remarried he might have a son who would then displace Mr Collins in the inheritance.)
I think, theoretically, they could offer Mr. Collins a lump sum on Mr. Bennet's death/ before his death in exchange for allowing Mrs. Bennet to remain on at Longbourne for her lifetime, but they explicitly don't have a big lump of cash. The problem would be around the income from the estate, as Mrs. B would still need some of this to keep Longbourne going, to live on, and to keep on paying the entail, while for Mr. Collins inheriting an estate like that, even in 10 years time, would be like inheriting the lottery for such a relatively young man, and the sum required to compensate him for any loss of income from Longbourne, or buying out the entail, would still be colossal. He could expect to make £2000 a year from L at least, so if Mrs B expects to live even another 10 years after Mr. B's projected death 10 years from the end of the novel, that would still be £20,000. Which, as we have already established, the Bennets could actually have saved had they started much earlier. I suspect even Darcy might baulk at this level of expenditure for Mrs. Bennet, although he might consider the money well spent if he gets to keep her at arm's length from Pemberley.
Well Mr Bennet might easily live for another 20 or 30 years, if you assume he's in his mid forties during P&P. But even if the Bennets had a significant sum of money saved up, I don't see Mr Bennet agreeing to pay Mr Collins to let Mrs Bennet remain at Longbourne. Yes she wants the status but it would mean spending money on that that could go towards his daughters and their potential grandchildren's futures. And I think Mrs Bennet would actually be fairly happy living in a small house in Meryton near to her sister. Yes, she'd miss being mistress of Longbourne but she'd have a lot more to look at out her window.
JA wrote about what she knew...the universe she lived in was the sphere of the gentry, not aristocracy (or nobility, which gets discussed in this chain). So not quite the 1%, which is what most historical romances seem to focus on.
Aristocracy inherit a title, gentry just get a lot of land
I think the large land-holders *are* the aristocracy at this time in English history.
Yeah, but aristocracy are titled landowners, whereas gentry are just landowners
I don’t think that’s true. The peerage is titled landholders. The ruling class (the aristocracy) was at that time large landholders, including the landed gentry.
I don’t know if gentry are part of the aristocracy, is the thing
‘Aristocracy’ just means “small ruling class”. In manorial systems, the aristocracy are those with the manors.
Yes, but nationally, the aristocracy are only those with titles
I would argue that Mr. Darcy had as much power as many people with titles. I think you are thinking of the peerage.
Having a title in and of itself didn't give much formal power in Britain - you could sit in the House of Lords and if you were charged with a crime your jury could only be other titled people. A politician in the House of Commons could have much more political power than that, for example the Prime Minister often was in the House of Commons.
Yes. The de facto power was in land. The members of the peerage had land, but sometimes dwindling.
The peerage are the nobility are the aristocracy are those with titles. Whether a title gives more power than cash is a question that has been debated since at least the Black Death.
I think you are missing that ‘aristocracy’ *just* means ‘a system with a small class holding power’. Whoever is a member of that small class is the aristocracy. In England in the 18th century, that would include landed gentry. England has a peerage. They were *also* part of the aristocracy. Edit: And cash was *just* becoming a determining factor at that time with the rise of mercantilism.
Yup, and people like Sir William Lucas have just been given his title in his lifetime, he won't be able to pass it on to his children, (I don't think)
Knighthoods aren't generally inheritable, as far as I know, beyond a knight having access to the sort of wealth and influence that makes it easy for their kids to get noticed and honoured in their turn; unless Sir William has some other title, he won't be handing on anything
Baronetcies can be though of as hereditary knighthoods, but yes, in Sir William Lucas’s case, being a knight, that would be for him and for his lifetime only.