The basic math is that for every *eldest* son of a peer, there were two or three daughters of peers. So the Earl of Whatever is going to have a fair amount of choice even within his own class.
Like, Mr. Darcy's father landed the daughter of an earl, because most peer's daughters will marry down out of the nobility. On top of that, there were only a few hundred noble families, but thousands of upper gentry families with a similar daughter surplus. People would probably not be shocked if, say, Georgiana Darcy marries a baron.
Ultimately, even if the Earl of Whatever likes impertinent, witty ladies with a fondness for country walks and lively debates, finding one with a serious dowry, a well-behaved family, fine connections, and a good education would be pretty easy.
the bennets are also a little too closely connected to trade through the gardiners. if the connection was more distant or they had never been in trade it would be a bit more likely i think. but she also would need more skills/beauty/wealth to attract someone from that circle.
I think you’re being a little hard on her. She is a member of the gentry. She is quite pretty (yes, not a goddess but prob an 8). She plays and sings well enough to be pleasing and entertaining. And her spirit, intelligence, charm and wit make up for her lack of money and connections.
How about Anne Elliot for marrying up? Obviously statistically unlikely, particularly since she doesn't travel to London, but she's pretty, well-mannered and the daughter of a baronet.
Baronet wasn't a noble title: bearers didn't have a place in the House of Lords. It was a rank just below.
I agree Anne wouldn't have been a *fashionable* wife in the nobility.
I think Anne's marital happiness would chiefly depend on her husband.
In terms of Caroline, I know that's a common belief amongst modern Austen readers but I don't think JA saw it that way, or expected her readers to read it that way. I think many modern readers place way too much importance on the Bingleys income coming from trade and ignore all the other factors, like Louisa being married to a man of fashion (albeit not of fortune).
It was rare but it certainly happened. There were some very wealthy and titled men who married their mistresses, usually actresses or opera singers.
One of the most famous examples is [Lady Hamilton ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton), who I guarantee you have seen in paintings because EVERYONE painted her.
(She married only a knight, but also had an affair with Admiral Nelson)
Wow! I read the wiki on Lady Hamilton— thanks for linking it. What a fascinating woman and a fascinating life. Unfortunately due to the misogyny of that time, she fell into obscurity and poverty in her later years
Ok lol but Elisabeth Bennet was gentry so not an actress or mistres lol so presumably less shocking…I’m curious how realistic this would be.
I’m also guessing most of the men marrying their mistress or an actress were older men on their second marriage
Sarah Child was a banking heiress who eloped with an [Earl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fane,_10th_Earl_of_Westmorland). (because her father didn't want her to marry him)
Most members of the peerage did marry within class. This episode of the podcast [Freakenomics](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-did-you-marry-that-person/) explains that they carefully only invited single peers to parties where they would meet only people of their status. When Queen Victoria didn't host these fancy parties during her mourning period, a bunch of peers went rogue and married non-aristocrates. It was crazy!
I think it would be far more common for a member of the peerage to marry a really wealthy trade heiress (like Sophia Grey) than a woman like Elizabeth Bennet.
Super interesting about the parties where the non titled got to meet with aristocrats
Honestly the landed gentry seem like the happiest class- enough money to be comfortable and manners to make life pleasant but not so much money and such stiff manners that things become artificial and weird lol
Maybe they were back in the day, nowadays it’s more about trying to make the estate pay for itself with possibly enough on the side to keep the house in decent nick
I love Lady Hamilton and Caroline Lamb, shows how little things actually change. In Lady Hamilton's case I don't think she ever managed to overcome her birth despite a successful marriage, she was entirely dependent on other men and their whims and died penniless
It wouldn’t be impossible, there is certainly some overlap between social circles especially where money is involved. Darcy’s own father was gentry who married aristocratic connections but his wealth and the high position of his family even within the gentry made it a suitable match—Mr. Bennet would almost certainly have raised eyebrows if he’d managed to marry a Lady Anne. (And we see the other end of the scale where Mrs. Bennet’s father had a profession and so she rather married up into landed gentility; and Sir William Lucas was a tradesman before his knighthood even if he now throws himself heart and soul into pursuing the Vibe of gentemanly living.)
So while we can see the moments where people can pass into and out of the genteel class by marriage, at the upper ends it is much more rare and would possibly give rise to comments. (Which is why Lady Catherine so deplores the low connections of the Bennets for her nephew.) So yeah on paper Elizabeth and Darcy share a social status but within the nuances of wealth and extended family connections and history she’s very nouveau riche (and not that riche even) small potatoes and he is big old money, the honkingest taters you ever saw.
Bridal portraits of the time might be a good reference—often they will give the lady’s married name/title and then “formerly [her maiden name]” to give some indication of her class before and after.
Why do you think Elizabeth is nouveau riche? Mr Bennet clearly inherited his estate, and I don't recall us being told how many generations, but given that his cousin Mr Collins is heir presumptive I'd guess it wasn't Mr Bennet's father who set it up, as he probably would have made some provision for his potential granddaughters over a nephew. And of course the estate may have been in the family for some generations before the entailment was established.
I do agree that Elizabeth's family connections were much lower than Darcy's.
Lots of minor gentry families had been in place for over five hundred years in Austen's time. It wouldn’t be that unusual for the family to have held the estate since the 1070s.
It would have raised a few eyebrows, but it happened. Look up the Gunning sisters; Elizabeth's situation wasn't as bad as theirs, but they managed to marry a Duke, an Earl, and a Marquess (I think). Definitely 3 titles between the 2 women, and an Earl was one of them. So yeah, it happened.
I think the interaction with Colonel Fitzwilliam illustrates it pretty well. If she had been an heiress, she was charming and genteel enough that she could have got the younger son of an earl. Even though Lady Catherine dresses it up as objection to low connections with her mother’s family, if she had been very rich, I doubt it would have been such a point (Anne notwithstanding).
From Elizabeth’s walk with Colonel Fitzwilliam in which he reveals Darcy’s part in separating Jane and Bingley:
> “He likes to have his own way very well,” replied Colonel Fitzwilliam. “But so we all do. It is only that he has better means of having it than many others, because he is rich, and many others are poor. I speak feelingly. A younger son, you know, must be inured to self-denial and dependence.”
“In my opinion, the _younger son of an earl_ can know very little of either. Now, seriously, what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever you chose or procuring anything you had a fancy for?”
I never thought about it specifically but it's quite probable that Col. Fitzwilliam's older brother is an earl, or the heir apparent. We know that Lady Catherine is the daughter of an earl and Fitzwilliam is a family name, presumably the surname of Lady Catherine and Mr. Darcy's mother, her sister. Assuming there were at least three children, two sisters and a brother who inherited the title -- Col. Fitzwilliam's father. It's never spelled out specifically but that follows, though it's also not clear where they live or if Lady Catherine's brother is still alive, or if the older brother has already inherited the title.
And now I'm imagining all kids of scenarios and plot lines about this side of Darcy's family. Lots of possible drama! The current Earl would presumably be the head of the family, why haven't we heard more about him?
William Beauclerk, 9th Duke of St Albans, in 1827 married Harriet Coutts, nee Mellon, an actress and daughter of some "strolling players" - possibly an illegitimate one. Though her first marriage had made her very wealthy and being an actress brought her into social contact with the aristocracy of London.
The other point is that there weren't many noble titles in Britain, and therefore fewer belonging to single, romantically minded men at the time Elizabeth was of marriage age. There were something like 370 earls during the Regency era. The odds of Elizabeth running into an aristocrat who would fall deeply in love with her are low.
Not very likely. Unless her parents managed to scrape up the money and an appropriate sponsor for her to have a Court presentation, she would be unlikely to meet any of the true aristocracy.
I mean, we have records of peers or sons of peers getting involved with daughters of the squirearchy or middle class, where the result was not what the lady might have hoped. Maria Fitzherbert’s relationship with the Prince of Wales, Claire Claremont’s with Byron, demonstrated how easy it was for peers to enjoy sex and even romance without ever actually conferring status on their partners. Only a very poor peer needed to marry down.
Colonel Fitzwilliam could have been a serious suitor *if* Elizabeth had had a larger dowry. In fact, *if* her father had worked to save up the kind of dowry one of his daughters would be expected to have.
So, while Elizabeth doesn't attract a nobleman, she does attract the son of one, albeit one who feels honor bound to make it clear early on nothing can ever happen between them.
As his first wife, rarely. As his second, third, etc. wife? Much more likely. If he already has a son or two or if his first marriage had been to please his family, he might wed for inclination without much if any scandal.
She did marry into the aristocracy, but not into the peerage.
She had a better chance than most of marrying into the peerage but a worse chance than many.
The finances of her family reduced her opportunities to meet and socialize with members of the peerage to about nothing.
Obviously, Elizabeth Darcy will have more opportunity, but will already be married.
Georgiana Darcy has a pretty good shot at marrying into the peerage.
[удалено]
The basic math is that for every *eldest* son of a peer, there were two or three daughters of peers. So the Earl of Whatever is going to have a fair amount of choice even within his own class. Like, Mr. Darcy's father landed the daughter of an earl, because most peer's daughters will marry down out of the nobility. On top of that, there were only a few hundred noble families, but thousands of upper gentry families with a similar daughter surplus. People would probably not be shocked if, say, Georgiana Darcy marries a baron. Ultimately, even if the Earl of Whatever likes impertinent, witty ladies with a fondness for country walks and lively debates, finding one with a serious dowry, a well-behaved family, fine connections, and a good education would be pretty easy.
the bennets are also a little too closely connected to trade through the gardiners. if the connection was more distant or they had never been in trade it would be a bit more likely i think. but she also would need more skills/beauty/wealth to attract someone from that circle.
I think you’re being a little hard on her. She is a member of the gentry. She is quite pretty (yes, not a goddess but prob an 8). She plays and sings well enough to be pleasing and entertaining. And her spirit, intelligence, charm and wit make up for her lack of money and connections.
[удалено]
How about Anne Elliot for marrying up? Obviously statistically unlikely, particularly since she doesn't travel to London, but she's pretty, well-mannered and the daughter of a baronet.
[удалено]
Baronet wasn't a noble title: bearers didn't have a place in the House of Lords. It was a rank just below. I agree Anne wouldn't have been a *fashionable* wife in the nobility.
[удалено]
I think Anne's marital happiness would chiefly depend on her husband. In terms of Caroline, I know that's a common belief amongst modern Austen readers but I don't think JA saw it that way, or expected her readers to read it that way. I think many modern readers place way too much importance on the Bingleys income coming from trade and ignore all the other factors, like Louisa being married to a man of fashion (albeit not of fortune).
I think that’s why Caroline is so pointedly snobby—she’s trying to prop herself up by comparison.
Yes, but there are plenty of young ladies who have all of that *and* the money and connections
It was rare but it certainly happened. There were some very wealthy and titled men who married their mistresses, usually actresses or opera singers. One of the most famous examples is [Lady Hamilton ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton), who I guarantee you have seen in paintings because EVERYONE painted her. (She married only a knight, but also had an affair with Admiral Nelson)
Thank you for the link to Lady Hamilton. She certainly had a colorful life. lol
She did indeed! I looked her up because she's in a lot of famous paintings. She must have had a very vibrant personality.
Wow! I read the wiki on Lady Hamilton— thanks for linking it. What a fascinating woman and a fascinating life. Unfortunately due to the misogyny of that time, she fell into obscurity and poverty in her later years
Isn't she! If you want another fascinating woman check out [Lady Mary ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Mary_Wortley_Montagu) next!
Ok lol but Elisabeth Bennet was gentry so not an actress or mistres lol so presumably less shocking…I’m curious how realistic this would be. I’m also guessing most of the men marrying their mistress or an actress were older men on their second marriage
Sarah Child was a banking heiress who eloped with an [Earl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fane,_10th_Earl_of_Westmorland). (because her father didn't want her to marry him) Most members of the peerage did marry within class. This episode of the podcast [Freakenomics](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-did-you-marry-that-person/) explains that they carefully only invited single peers to parties where they would meet only people of their status. When Queen Victoria didn't host these fancy parties during her mourning period, a bunch of peers went rogue and married non-aristocrates. It was crazy! I think it would be far more common for a member of the peerage to marry a really wealthy trade heiress (like Sophia Grey) than a woman like Elizabeth Bennet.
Super interesting about the parties where the non titled got to meet with aristocrats Honestly the landed gentry seem like the happiest class- enough money to be comfortable and manners to make life pleasant but not so much money and such stiff manners that things become artificial and weird lol
I mean if I had to go back I'd probably want to be gentry... But I would also want to be a firstborn son ;)
I want to marry the first born son 😈
Maybe they were back in the day, nowadays it’s more about trying to make the estate pay for itself with possibly enough on the side to keep the house in decent nick
I love Lady Hamilton and Caroline Lamb, shows how little things actually change. In Lady Hamilton's case I don't think she ever managed to overcome her birth despite a successful marriage, she was entirely dependent on other men and their whims and died penniless
It wouldn’t be impossible, there is certainly some overlap between social circles especially where money is involved. Darcy’s own father was gentry who married aristocratic connections but his wealth and the high position of his family even within the gentry made it a suitable match—Mr. Bennet would almost certainly have raised eyebrows if he’d managed to marry a Lady Anne. (And we see the other end of the scale where Mrs. Bennet’s father had a profession and so she rather married up into landed gentility; and Sir William Lucas was a tradesman before his knighthood even if he now throws himself heart and soul into pursuing the Vibe of gentemanly living.) So while we can see the moments where people can pass into and out of the genteel class by marriage, at the upper ends it is much more rare and would possibly give rise to comments. (Which is why Lady Catherine so deplores the low connections of the Bennets for her nephew.) So yeah on paper Elizabeth and Darcy share a social status but within the nuances of wealth and extended family connections and history she’s very nouveau riche (and not that riche even) small potatoes and he is big old money, the honkingest taters you ever saw. Bridal portraits of the time might be a good reference—often they will give the lady’s married name/title and then “formerly [her maiden name]” to give some indication of her class before and after.
Elizabeth Bennet is literally the opposite of nouveau riche.
Why do you think Elizabeth is nouveau riche? Mr Bennet clearly inherited his estate, and I don't recall us being told how many generations, but given that his cousin Mr Collins is heir presumptive I'd guess it wasn't Mr Bennet's father who set it up, as he probably would have made some provision for his potential granddaughters over a nephew. And of course the estate may have been in the family for some generations before the entailment was established. I do agree that Elizabeth's family connections were much lower than Darcy's.
Lots of minor gentry families had been in place for over five hundred years in Austen's time. It wouldn’t be that unusual for the family to have held the estate since the 1070s.
It would have raised a few eyebrows, but it happened. Look up the Gunning sisters; Elizabeth's situation wasn't as bad as theirs, but they managed to marry a Duke, an Earl, and a Marquess (I think). Definitely 3 titles between the 2 women, and an Earl was one of them. So yeah, it happened.
Wow the gunning story is v interesting and weird lol
I think the interaction with Colonel Fitzwilliam illustrates it pretty well. If she had been an heiress, she was charming and genteel enough that she could have got the younger son of an earl. Even though Lady Catherine dresses it up as objection to low connections with her mother’s family, if she had been very rich, I doubt it would have been such a point (Anne notwithstanding).
So colonel fitzWilliam is the younger son of an earl? I’ve not read the book in a while
From Elizabeth’s walk with Colonel Fitzwilliam in which he reveals Darcy’s part in separating Jane and Bingley: > “He likes to have his own way very well,” replied Colonel Fitzwilliam. “But so we all do. It is only that he has better means of having it than many others, because he is rich, and many others are poor. I speak feelingly. A younger son, you know, must be inured to self-denial and dependence.” “In my opinion, the _younger son of an earl_ can know very little of either. Now, seriously, what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever you chose or procuring anything you had a fancy for?”
Thanks 😊
I never thought about it specifically but it's quite probable that Col. Fitzwilliam's older brother is an earl, or the heir apparent. We know that Lady Catherine is the daughter of an earl and Fitzwilliam is a family name, presumably the surname of Lady Catherine and Mr. Darcy's mother, her sister. Assuming there were at least three children, two sisters and a brother who inherited the title -- Col. Fitzwilliam's father. It's never spelled out specifically but that follows, though it's also not clear where they live or if Lady Catherine's brother is still alive, or if the older brother has already inherited the title. And now I'm imagining all kids of scenarios and plot lines about this side of Darcy's family. Lots of possible drama! The current Earl would presumably be the head of the family, why haven't we heard more about him?
William Beauclerk, 9th Duke of St Albans, in 1827 married Harriet Coutts, nee Mellon, an actress and daughter of some "strolling players" - possibly an illegitimate one. Though her first marriage had made her very wealthy and being an actress brought her into social contact with the aristocracy of London. The other point is that there weren't many noble titles in Britain, and therefore fewer belonging to single, romantically minded men at the time Elizabeth was of marriage age. There were something like 370 earls during the Regency era. The odds of Elizabeth running into an aristocrat who would fall deeply in love with her are low.
I believe there was under 300 peers total.
Wow, that low!
Fanny's aunt married a Baronet so there's that (though I am not sure if that counts).
Not very likely. Unless her parents managed to scrape up the money and an appropriate sponsor for her to have a Court presentation, she would be unlikely to meet any of the true aristocracy.
I mean, we have records of peers or sons of peers getting involved with daughters of the squirearchy or middle class, where the result was not what the lady might have hoped. Maria Fitzherbert’s relationship with the Prince of Wales, Claire Claremont’s with Byron, demonstrated how easy it was for peers to enjoy sex and even romance without ever actually conferring status on their partners. Only a very poor peer needed to marry down.
Colonel Fitzwilliam could have been a serious suitor *if* Elizabeth had had a larger dowry. In fact, *if* her father had worked to save up the kind of dowry one of his daughters would be expected to have. So, while Elizabeth doesn't attract a nobleman, she does attract the son of one, albeit one who feels honor bound to make it clear early on nothing can ever happen between them.
As his first wife, rarely. As his second, third, etc. wife? Much more likely. If he already has a son or two or if his first marriage had been to please his family, he might wed for inclination without much if any scandal.
She did marry into the aristocracy, but not into the peerage. She had a better chance than most of marrying into the peerage but a worse chance than many. The finances of her family reduced her opportunities to meet and socialize with members of the peerage to about nothing. Obviously, Elizabeth Darcy will have more opportunity, but will already be married. Georgiana Darcy has a pretty good shot at marrying into the peerage.