It wasn't simply the fact that Collins just started a conversation with Darcy, it also that he had done-so Without even having been introduced to Darcy beforehand, first.
Right? If I remember correctly, this is actually laid out in the book, by having Elizabeth trying to talk Mr. Collins out of approaching Mr. Darcy, because of the the difference in social class/status by wealth. That being the reason he wasn't formally introduced to Mr. Darcy apart from being politely included in the invitation by Mr. Bingley in the first place. However Mr. Collins somehow deems himself on par with Darcy, bc. of being a clergyman, however low of rank, esp. because of serving god (which is wierd in its own way).
That's certainly part of it, but she emphasizes "it was not in the least necessary there should be any notice on either side; and that if it were, it must belong to Mr. Darcy, the superior in consequence, to begin the acquaintance."
@@pathvain1 My point is is that Collins should have known better, but there he goes, claiming that, as Lady C.'s clergyman, he and Darcy are 'practically family'... 'Wonder what Lady C. would make of that if she ever heard about it?
Where the book becomes a romance is when Darcy proposes to Elizabeth DESPITE the fact that she is poor, his relations would consider it a bad match and Elizabeth’s family on a personal level are objectionable to him. He admits that he loves her and can’t live without her even though logically he knows it’s a foolish match from a practical standpoint. It’s hardly romantic to Elizabeth to hear this, which, aside from her not liking his personality to begin with, is why she refuses him at first, but we can see the extent of Darcy’s feelings when such a normally traditional man who’s a stickler for convention could propose to a woman he would otherwise consider unsuitable.
The story of Cinderella (though I'm not sure I ever read the original) is also a story that is transformed in modern retellings...they always find a way for Cinderella to meet the prince before the ball, fall in love with him beforehand, because of the ideals of today's society (true love as opposed to arranged marriages, or marriages for interest - incidentally, there is something in an anthropology book about arranged marriage in India being more successful than the typical American one, though that's probably psychology...I wonder why that's not the case for the marriages of nobles in the middle ages, noblewomen were more likely to be used as pawns for position, etc, than the ones of the commoners, and they cite that as a negative aspect of the nobility of the time - even if they weren't those of the times (hell, the ideals today are different from the ideals of the earlier 20th century are different from those of these days...there's a mysoginistic way women are portrayed in early Disney films, they try to rectify that nowadays...the mock the fragile way they were shown back then even in modern Disney films...and they also often add in LGBT characters, haha)...anyway, I didn't know the novel was less romantic than the film made it all look...
I mean...why would arranged marriages work in India and not in medieval Europe?...I mean, they didn't have divorce back then, annulment was difficult, but we often hear about miserable matches, attempted murders, haha, etc...
Many arranged marriages did work throughout history. Marriage has more often has been for alliance (even if not arranged) than for love. People have needed to band together for survival.
I suppose that depends on how we define "work", haha...I mean...what *I* meant was that the people in the arranged marriage were genuinely in love...that seems to happen, according to an anthropology book I have, in some (arranged) Indian marriages...moreover, they're less likely to stop being fond of each other than for, say, American marriages, a large percentage of which end in divorce, etc...even if American marriages don't tend to be arranged...
@@archangecamilien1879 I think that has more to do with culture. It is not frowned upon in many western cultures to divorce if the people are no longer in love and it's unlikely they'll receive a lot of social repercussions/judgment because of it. I doubt this is the same in India where people are still much more influenced by social rules in this regard and pressure to stay in unhappy marriages will be much greater.
Very interesting to watch. I do need to point out though that the Bingley's were 3rd class aspiring to be 2nd class. They were children of trade merchants but were rich enough to rent Netherfield to pass as landed gentry. The fact that Mr. Bingley was renting it means he didn't own the land so didn't qualify as 2nd class yet. At the end of the novel it's mentioned he has moved closer to Pemberley so has moved up a class by buying property and land but is still 'new money'. Even though Jane was marrying up in terms of money she was marrying down in social standing.
Since Mr. Bingley had already inherited enough money to buy the estate, I think he fits into the "others with large incomes" part of Category 2, even before he bought his own estate. But his family were recent arrivals.
But Lizzy married up in terms of money and and stayed on the same level but probably up, as well, in social standing? I mean Darcy was way up, right!? A lot higher than Bennets.
@@elanorallmann Yes, Lizzy married up. Not just money-wise. Darcy was the grandson of an Earl and his uncle (Colonel Fitzwilliam's father) was the current earl, so he had connections to the peerage.
nicbooful - Oh that horrible Miss Bingley thinking she could compromise Mr. Darcy into marrying her because she wanted to be the mistress of Pemberly... I totally could not stand her. Yes, she wanted to climb the ladder so she could look down her long nose at everybody. Also I never understood why when she insulted people they didn’t tell her to shut up but maybe that wasn’t allowed then.
This sheds a whole new light on the Bingley sisters. They had more money, but they were of the third class tier while the Bennet girls were of the second.
Yes, their behaviour is truly pretty crass and while this is not necessarily dependent on their status (and more their own personality flaws), the majority of the "lower classes" would not have had access to proper upbringing / stature as the richer ones did. Therefore their conduct in public too, was just as objectionable.
I think they had a better chance for upward mobility though bc they were one of those few rich women. They provide the money, and the husband provides the class. But the Bennett sisters didn’t bring much money or good connections to the marriage and were therefore bottom of the rung. That’s why Collins thought he could have his pick and was doing them a great favor.
@@BlankCanvas88 It depends on what you mean by bottom of the rung. They were gentlewomen, but gentlewomen who were doomed to impoverishment when their father died because they couldn't inherit - Mr. Collins was the heir. In class, they were second rung, but they weren't desirable marriage partners for men in their own class because of their poor dowries. Impoverished gentlefolk were not uncommon, and their children, unless they married men of means, were doomed to loose status. If they had inherited the estate instead of Mr. Collins, their respective situations would have been much different.
If you look at her book Emma, you very clearly see what happened to impoverished gentlewomen. Take the Bates. They were once well off, the late Mr. Bates was the former curate of the village. When he died they were left with very little income , only a pension. Therefore Jane was sent away to be educated as a governess, while her aunt and grandmother were living in poverty. As this is Austen, Jane did get married at the end though. This could have been the fate of all the Bennet sisters, and in reality it would most likely be their fate. As gentlewomen they would not have had an education that would have positioned them to work, so without the income of a man they would be forced to live on the father’s pension along whatever else he left.They would have slipped deeper and deeper into poverty like Ms. Bates. This is actually a theme that goes throughout almost all of her books. How easy it is for well born women to become destitute following the death of a father or husband. This shows just how tenuous a woman’s position was. She had to rely solely on her husband and father to provide for her. That is also why Wickham is perceived by all, but Lizzie at first, to be such a villain when he pursues a woman who has more money than him. If he squanders all her money she will have nothing and no way of bettering herself.
It's a bit more complicated than that. "He is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter," Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine in Chapter 56, speaking about Darcy, "So far we are equal." "True," replies Lady Catherine, "but who was your mother? Who are your uncles and aunts?" The Bennett sisters are, indeed, of the landed gentry, but only through their father. Their mother is of the fourth class; her brother, Mr. Gardener, for all that he's one of the most reasonable and pleasant of the male characters, is "in trade", meaning that he works, himself, with his own two hands. Given the amount of money and freedom he has, and the address in Cheapside, he's probably a financial gentleman, and the closest he gets to work is probably a ledger book, but it doesn't matter. He works for a living, maybe even (horrors!) for Someone Else. Mrs. Bennett's social standing may change superficially by her marriage, but not functionally, and that social standing is passed on to her daughters. The Bingleys background is pretty solidly third class pushing middle second; Mr. Bingley has a 100,000 pound inheritance from his father, who is described as being of "respectable family from the north of England" who got his money "from trade". 5000 pounds a year makes Bingley quite wealthy for the time; he lacks only land to consolidate that wealth and put him and his sisters neatly into a second-class bracket, and not a shallow one at that.
How I always thought of the money thing: Jane Eyre, in 1847, was paid 15 pounds A YEAR, to teach at Lowood, and 30 pounds A YEAR to be a governess. This would be a very low-end salary for an educated person, since even today teachers aren't paid that much and she's female, though she did receive all of her meals and rent included. Pride and Prejudice was in 1813, so there was probably some inflation happening between the books. Even doubled to 50-60 pounds per year for being a guy, Bingley is bringing in 83-100 times an educated person's yearly salary, and Darcy 166-200 times that salary *solely in profit*. Since business and estate expenses wouldn't be included in that amount. Mr. Bennet should have had enough to set aside some dowries for the daughters, but it seems like a combination of needing to do so for 5 daughters, his wife's frivolous silliness, and Mr. Bennet's total lack of caring outside of what it takes to get people to leave him alone with the stuff he likes, all point to their household living quite paycheck to paycheck and getting an ugly wake up call late in life. He's like a modern man approaching retirement with no savings, just as his 5 kids are reaching college age and needing tuition, and realizing, "oh crap" he probably shouldn't have spent all those years holed up in his man cave, ignoring stuff.
It says in the novel that he didn't lay money aside for the daughters because "he meant to sire a son" and after admitting "defeat" (after Lydia's birth) it seemed too late to do anything about it... Mrs Norris would be appalled by him
@@zhualex8587 to be fair, with 5 daughters he did have quite a demand on his money. It doesn't excuse his lack of action and economy, but it is an explanation
to be fair, teachers today don't earn much higher than a minimum salary in many parts of the world. inflation isn't the only way to calculate the living back then, we should look at the prices of food, services and availability of them. indeed, servants would have earned even less. the gap between rich and the poor was so insane that i like to compare it with having to pay 30 000 - 60 000 euros or dollars for a single day dress for an upper class lady in today's money.
@@annejeppesen160 But that was an exceptionally imprudent plan as well. After breaking the entail and dividing up the estate, the Bennets would no longer be landed gentry. Preservation of this status was the whole point of the entail. Alli is more correct that the main problem is Mr Bennet's indolence and lack of foresight, and his habit of hiding from problems rather than facing them. And also, as he admits late in the book, a poor choice of wife, which the narrator informs us was based solely on physical attraction. A less frivolous partner who did not suffer from "no turn for economy" would have helped salvage matters as well.
And in Sense and Sensibility, we see what happens to the daughters when the father dies. they are cast out into the world but with no way of generating any income.
They could become lady’s companions or governesses, but that means their marriage prospects take a sharp dive- though they aren’t necessarily lost altogether. I’m actually working on a story with a similar premise to Sense & Sensibility, but with two changes; one- the above of not having anyone else’s generosity to fall back on, & two- the sisters move to Australia & support their mother & younger sister that way (in the colonies, one could double or even treble their salary; eg. a bog-standard maid of the mid-19th c, c. 1840’s-50’s earnt a mere £6/ year- in Australia, NZ, Canada or India it was like £30, or the equivalent).
Important caveat: mr Bingley is not landed. He has to rent Netherfield bc his family doesn’t have an estate. They’re nouveau riche, their money comes from their fathers merchant trade. Which is why Miss Bingley is so desperate to marry Mr Darcy. Not only is he more wealthy, but he also would give her family the respectibility of land and titled connections. It’s also why it’s so ironic when she objects to Jane Bennet’s Aunt and uncle in trade. Miss Bingleys own money comes from trade, making her a hypocrite
It's interesting that you brought the subject of, "Trade!" Sir William Lucas was involved in trade and in fact that's how he made his fortune and in the 1995 BBC TV series, the Bingley sisters also show their snobbery to Sir Lucas! I had read somewhere that if Sir William Lucas, had stayed in trade, then he and his family would have been more wealthy and in fact might have been on par with the Bingleys'!? Had her father remained in trade, Charlotte Lucas would have had a better chance of making a rich marriage as she would have had a bigger dowry!?
Just like on "Frasier", Maris Crane's family fortune comes from urinal cakes. When Niles finds out, he knows that that secret will give him leverage in his divorce from Maris.
@@ajp2223 Yes but Sir William Lucas found it beneath him now that he had been knighted and even moved his estate out of Meryton to preserve his reputation away from the means that brought him his status
Bingley's were not landed gentry. Their father was a wealthy merchant which is why we see him at Netherfield looking for a place to settle. Bingley specifically mentions that "a man must find a house if he cannot have his father's".
@Belinda Garza, good catch. Fortunately for me I never read Jane Austen for any reading assignment, English. Lit. Or plot and character analysis. School assignments took the enjoyment out of many good books for High School friends of mine. When C. Dickens was assigned to read/study I skipped it. I read Oliver Twist on my own impulse and curiosity. Shakespeare I listened to in school(on vinyl) before trying to read as assigned. That helped a good bit. Pride and Prejudice can be hard to read in places. Sentence structure complicated. Fortunately I saw Pride and Prejudice before reading it same on Sense and Sensibilities. Keep reading. From comic strip characters to The classics.
@@mamlas9494 the Bingleys had a house in London, what they didn't have was a country estate, which was a symbol of social status and wealth. Bingley could certainly have married without having a country estate, and in the novel it is explained by Austen that he wanted a country estate because his father intended to buy one but died before he could, not because he needed to have one in order to get married.
I was gonna comment about this too ! That's what made Jane Austen Movies so amazing to me is the way they portray love without those unnecessary things to happen
In my opinion, the entailment rule was absolutely outrageous, and I'm pretty sure Austen thought so too. We may be laughing now at Mrs Bennett, but she was right; in the event of Mr Bennett's sudden death, she and her daughters would be destitute.
Austen's novels all critique the plight of women in her society (and class; rules for the working class were completely different) and that marriage was an economic necessity for women. She objected strongly to the idea that women had to marry because they weren't allowed to earn their own way in the world (except as a governess, a miserable fate that she addresses in Emma), and that marrying Mr Collins to save herself from being dependent on her brother was an unhappy necessity for Charlotte Lucas. That Elizabeth turned down proposals from both Mr Collins and Mr Darcy, eminently respectable economic choices, because she didn't love them, makes her very progressively independent - and the character was not well received by women readers of the time because of it.
Yeah, I have to say, listening to that part made me reflect on what a horrible system this was for most people in it (let alone the 18+ million trapped in the lower classes!).
I think Jane Austen was subject to an entailment herself. I think her dad died, & they had to fend for themselves. She also never married & lived with her brother...or maybe back & forth between a brother & a sister.
It is romantic though bc Mr. Darcy was willing to love her for her mind vs what she could bring to the marriage and even willing to risk being laughed at by society for marrying “down” when he could’ve married almost any woman in England. And Lizzie is worthy of that love bc she’s willing to give up marrying a man who would secure not only her but her whole family in order to marry for love. In the end, they both realize how much they hit the jackpot in each other.
@Rosamund Powell man, it's so funny to me to what extent Caroline Bingley had zero chance with Darcy, both from a class angle and a...personality one 😂
@@sweetpeabee4983 Half true. Before Bingley fell in love with Jane, Darcy did have an eye on Bingley as his prospective brother-in-law. That wasn't just something Miss Bingley thought up in her attempt to make a double wedding happen.
@See Min Lim It was in the scene where she and her aunt visits Miss Darcy and Miss Bingley brought up Wickham. There was a line where the author confirms Elizabeth's suspicions that Darcy did hope that Bingley's relations will hereafter be her own (meaning Georgiana's). Also, considering her dowry has already attracted the attention of one fortune hunter AT FIFTEEN, I wouldn't be surprised that Darcy is trying to bring his sister out in society so she can marry quickly, otherwise with a dowry so large, she might be susceptible not only to seductions but to kidnapping as well. It might also just be some sort of forward planning - once Georgiana is easier with Bingley she might be persuaded to marry him in a year or two.
@@aislingyngaio no, that was in the letter Caroline Bingley wrote Jane. She implies her brother would marry Darcy’s sister and she’d marry Darcy, but it’s a lie. It doesn’t reflect Bingley or Darcy’s actual intentions. She’s just trying to make Jane Bennett give up by telling her indirectly that Bingley doesn’t love her.
@@ladiebug395 From chapter 45: "Not a syllable had ever reached her [Miss Bingley] of Miss Darcy's meditated elopement. To no creature had it been revealed, where secresy was possible, except to Elizabeth; and from all Bingley's connections, her brother [Darcy] was particularly anxious to conceal it, from that very wish which Elizabeth had long ago attributed to him [Darcy], of their [the Bingleys] becoming hereafter her [Miss Darcy's] own [connections]. He [Darcy] had certainly formed such a plan, and without meaning that it should affect his [Darcy's] endeavour to separate him [Bingley] from Miss [Jane] Bennet, it is probable that it might add something to his [Darcy's] lively concern for the welfare of his friend. [Bingley]."
Lady Catherine de Bourgh is in the top class by birth, as the daughter of an earl, but not by marriage -- her husband, Sir Lewis de Bourgh, was a baronet.
@@marisolsuarez818 It suggests she didn't have to compete for a mate by mastering a collection of "accomplishments" because she could attract a good husband by virtue of wealth and social status alone.
You haven’t quite got the Collins thing correct here. The faux pas is that it was customary for introductions to be made through third parties. The proper thing would have been for Mr Collins to be introduced to Mr Darcy by one of the Bennets, and only if Mr Darcy had assented to meet him. For him to introduce himself without a third party was contrary to all social convention.
It doesn't necessarily have to be made through a third party, though that is the most common and certainly the more polite route, as long as the one initiating the connection is the one of higher rank.
I would be third class, up from 7th in my paternal grandparents generation, because my paternal grandfather was a street child, abandoned by his parents. On my mom's side they were all landowning farmers, though poor, so that at least would be a couple of tiers higher? My dad was a well-off merchant, though, and kudos to him for it. Then, I married into a wealthier merchant family, 🤣🤣🤣. Put like that I look like a bit of an upstart.
Shame Austen’s work is often reduced to love stories. That’s part of it, but in my mind her books are comparable to Balzac’s in that they serve as observations of English society. And not only that, they also serve as clever character studies. Austen captures so well all of the awkwardness, the impertinence, and the contractions that make us human beings.
Of course it's a romance! Not on our 21st-century terms with overt physical displays of affection, but on early 19th-century terms, with plenty of discussions about "attachments." Our heroine Elizabeth Bennet dares to proclaim that love *and* wealth are important in a marriage, not just wealth.
The idea of marrying for love is far more of a 20th century notion. Jane Austen's novels are about how society works, about social heirarchy. Marriage was far more of a practical arrangement, for a woman it made the difference between an acceptable and safe quality of life or poverty, even destitution, even homelessness and prostitution at worst. This fate is alluded to with reference to Lydia's elopement. Had Darcy not intervened, Wickham wouldn't have married her, it would have been a disgrace to the entire Bennett family. In order to salvage the family and for the other Bennett sisters to stand any chance of marrying at all well, Lydia would have had to be disowned. She would have been vulnerable, would have had to find a husband from the lowest class, live hand to mouth, or survive by her own wits, getting any work at all then would have been largely down to who you knew. Even to be able to work as a servant you would have had to be recommended by someone. The family you came from, whatever class you lived in, was vital, Social connections were everything. Marriage was nothing to do with love and everything to do with basic survival. You largely stayed in the social class you were born into. If you were lower class your life chances and life path were grim. You would get married, live hand to mouth, spend most of your fertile years pregnant if female, work long hours at hard back breaking and risky work with no healthcare or insurance. If you were healthy you worked, if you couldn't work you starved. If people didn't know you or where you came from they wouldn't employ you. They would employ people who someone could vouch for. Life was hard and if you lost your place on the social ladder you were sunk. It was a constant struggle hence the rigid social rules and heirarchical social networks to maintain your place and improve it if you were very lucky! Social disgrace was a fate to be avoided at all costs. Mr Collins letter to Mr Bennet about news of Lydia, his saying that it would have been better if she had died, sounds harsh to us. And it is harsh! But Collins was being realistic to the standards of the day. Better dead than socially disgraced and vulnerable to poverty, plus dragging everyone you were connected to down with you. It was harsh. Hence a good marriage being so important. It was make or break. If someone loved the person they married it would have been fortuitous, to even have liked the person would be a blessing. You married the person who could give you the best standard of living if you were poor and the best social standing if you were high enough on the scale to be even noticed.
Cross reference Sense and Sensibility where the step mother and half sisters ARE left without money and are cast out by their half brother. P&P resolves their fate prior to their father dying while S&S resolves it after.
In S&S it was the wife who wanted them out. The son was happy to fulfil his late father's wishes and treat them better. His wife was scheming and greedy.
Even Georgian and Regency England was more socially mobile than you are making out. "Aristocracy" doesn't mean the same as "upper gentry", that is, people who had serious wealth in land, for at least two or three generations. It means titled families - those whose heads, at least, carried a title of nobility - barons, viscounts, marquises, earls and dukes, in that ascending order. There were ways even into the aristocracy, although it was rare. But no character in P&P is an aristocrat, or from the first class in the table. But there are examples of social mobility among the characters, in all other classes depicted. Mr Darcy, wealthy as he is, and in land, and of a gentry family, is a commoner - but he is friends with Mr Bingley, who is also wealthy, but is not "landed", and only in his own generation come into the gentry - which is upward mobility. Of course, as Mr Bingley demonstrates, all that was required to become landed, was money. Money, in fact, is all that Bingley inherited - but five thousand a year is a "large income", so he fits into the second class, like Mr Darcy and Mr Bennett. However, his sisters have not improved the family's status. One is unmarried, though quite, er, mature; the other has married Mr Hurst, a rather heavy gentleman of at best modest means. If the family is to rise further, then, it will be up to Mr Bingley himself. But that was possible. So was mobility downward. Lady Catherine de Burgh is the daughter of an Earl - which means that the style "Lady" is for courtesy. She is actually a commoner. Not only that, but she and her sister both married below their rank. Their husbands should also have been aristocrats, but Lady Catherine's late husband was a knight (knights are commoners) and her sister Anne's was a country gentleman, Mr Darcy's father. Reading between the lines, quite possibly Lady Catherine's noble father had come down somewhat in the world, and had had to marry his daughters off to money. Mr Collins is a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England, with a substantial parsonage and a glebe - the land attached to the benefice. This is a considerable improvement on his paternal heritage, at least. However, even his eldest son, if any, will have to make his own way. Mrs Bennet, nee Gardiner, has married somewhat upwards - from the fourth class into the second. Mr Gardiner, her brother, has also risen, from being the son of a country attorney to being a substantial London merchant. Mr Wickham is even more mobile. The son of the late Mr Darcy's steward, he would be of the fifth class, but has the airs of a gentleman because of his father's master's generosity. If he had made the most of his opportunities, he might have become a clergyman, a lawyer or a doctor - the third class. Being a wastrel and a rake, he will inevitably sink under his debts. He has a commission in the regular army, but there is no reason to suppose that he will be able to live on his income there, either. If he does not, his commission will not be worth a straw. There's another novel in that, though. In short, while social class was crucially vital in that society, below the absolute top class it was all dependent on money. With it, the ranks of the gentry could be, and were, stormed. If it was maintained, so was class. If it was lost, social class rapidly fell. It was money, only money, all money. Land was money. Interest on investment was money. The only other consideration was occupation. If you made your own living with work of mind or hands, you could not be "gentry". But to attain that status, all you needed was enough money.
Mr Collins will inherit the Bennet’s estate (which is why Mrs Bennet was so keen on him marrying one of the daughters and he was initially willing to do so).So his first son would have an estate.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Yes, of course. I forgot that. It would move Mr Collins further up the social ladder. I should have mentioned that, as a further example of what I was saying. Of course it would ill-become his office if he were then to evict his own cousins, not to mention that it would certainly attract the ire of the rich men two of them have by that time married, so it is unlikely that Mr Collins would himself enjoy the occupancy of Longbourne.
Barons =/= Baronets. Baronets carry the title "sir" and is not a part of the aristocracy but the upper gentry. Barons carry the title "lord" and is a part of the aristocracy. The order of titles are, from highest to lowest: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, baron, and then baronets (inherited and titled "sir") and knights (also titled "sir" but NOT inherited).
Yes, Austen wrote about how money drives our behavior. She was a keen observer of society. The use of the romance plot seems to have the effect of distracting us from how harshly she is criticizing our shallow, selfish impulses.
Mr. Collins commits a second faux pas in speaking to Mr. Darcy first, the same one that Mrs. Bennet committed with Darcy at the assembly. They both spoke to Mr. Darcy without first having been introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. Mr. Bingley hastens to make introductions between them to cover the lapse. This seems like nothing to us today, but back then it was extremely bad manners and a sign of poor breeding. There is a flouting of societal conventions of marrying within one’s class, one’s station in life, long before the book begins. It is actually a far greater affront to social rules than Elizabeth and Darcy’s marriage. Landed gentleman Mr. Bennett married Miss Gardiner, who was of the merchant class. This is demonstrated by the Bingley sisters’ snotty comments about the girls’ uncle Mr. Gardiner being in trade. This is ironic, because IIRC, the Bingleys are only a generation or so removed from the merchant class themselves. Miss Bingley is being as presumptuous in setting her cap for Mr Darcy, as she implies the Bennet girls are. She is perhaps even more so, as at least the Bennets are landowners. This bears out the saying that there’s no one snobbier than the nouveau riche.
what do you mean "tricked into thinking P&P is some sort of early romance novel." It clearly is. The whole point of the book is marrying for love. There mere fact that Darcy and Elizabeth as well as Bingley and Jane got married in the end despite the social etiquette of the time certainly would have been considered to be very romantic by the contemporary reader. Besides if there were any love scenes in the book it probably wouldn't have been published in the first place.
This was a pretty good introduction to the British class system (as it was two centuries ago) for an American audience and it was a good clear exposition of the drivers in the plot. Good job. Thank you also for not making a hash of it and equating class with money (see G.B. Shaw, the barrister and the mechanic).
This sheds some light on two things.. everyone's insistence that Elizabeth is poor.. when she is in fact the daughter of a gentleman her social status is far better and others are simply being snobbish. Have to wonder if this is a hidden comment on society by Austen that escapes us but would have been seen at the time.
At the time this would have been satire so obvious that writing it in capital letters would have made it more subtle. Poverty, however could mean many things in the era and the comments tend to carry with them connotations of precarious position. Without entitlement, Liza Bennett's position could have changed very quickly indeed.
I think the recent adaptaion made the Bennett's look much more poor than the BBC series. Most people I would guess watch then read the story and the visuals of Elizabeth walking around in the mud with pigs creates a larger disparity in the imagination than if one read the book then watched the movie.
@@TheMissjaneperry I agree. The Keira Knightley version shocked me, to be honest. The family would never have comported themselves in such shabby ways if they wanted any chance of marrying men of means within their own class, or even men of means who wanted to move up in class. Such men would want wives who were well bred, not dirt farmers. For example, in the book, Mrs. Bennett is shocked at the suggestion that her daughters would have anything to do with the kitchen, since their station in life was better than that; the KK version doesn't make it seem that way at all. The filmmakers turned the Bennett women into ordinary yeoman type farm women, not the family of a gentleman at all.
@@edennis8578 I've watched the Keira Knightley version several times but it's been a while since I did so correct me if I'm forgetting. I don't remember them doing any housework or manual labour. I remember she walks in the yard among the livestock, but I remember her just reading, not doing any work. They have a cook and are served dinner, from what I remember. I think walking among the pigs is not that strange, it shows Elizabeth's character as being carefree and energetic (like the part where she walks to Pemberly in the rain to see Jane while she's sick and her skirts get all dirty and the Bingley sisters are appalled but Darcy admires her for it)
Mr Bennet isn't poor, but the Bennet daughters' future prospects were grim with Longbourne being entailed away from the female line. They had no dowry but an equal share in their mother's dowry of 5000 pounds, so 1000 pounds each, invested to give an annual income of 40 pounds. So while they were considered genteel and had relatively high social status, the girls themselves were poor in terms of what income and connections they could bring to a potential suitor.
I don't quite agree that this is not a romantic novel. Eventhough Elizabeth portrays the rational and not the romantic character, she does in the end demand to marry for love. Love vs. Rationalität is one of the main topics of most of austens novels and love usually wins at least for the main characters. Those who do marry for money are usually villified.
"Romantic" is sometimes a genre classification, not necessarily attached to what we think of as "romance". (Think "romance language"; those languages classified as such aren't inherently romantic to hear, speak or read, they're descended from Latin, the language of the Romans.) Hopefully that makes sense.
@@tracy4290 I am aware of that but if I can remember my lessons correctly, romantic literature ment praising humans who were governed by feeling. This genre developed as a reaction to enlightenment which according to romantics placed too much emphasis on rational reasoning.
But most Austen characters end up marrying rich. In fact, some have made the observation that in P&P the happiest couple is the richest while Lydia and whatshisname end up miserable and finantially dependent. So while Austen is saying "make your own choices" She's also saying "make *smart* choices"
sergio vela definitely. Charlotte is both looked down on for marrying someone like Collins and given happiness and a chance to explain herself. She is pitied in a way but it is acknowledged that that was the smart choice and gets a good ending
@@sergiovela7686 you're right. I guess you could say austens point is that you need both feeling and rationality. As kio pointed out Lydia is an example of the folly of feeling without cleverness. There are quite a few characters that suffer due to there lack of rationality.
I am glad that this video discusses what class really means. That is why we have the noveau rich or new money and the old rich or old money. The old rich look down on the new rich because they know that the latter have the wealth but not the proper lineage that can be traced back centuries ago. Some aristocrats actually also lost their wealth as new industries brought by the industrial revolution replaced the traditional way of building wealth by having land. In Persuasion, the Elliots, who were aristocrats, were no longer as rich as they were before and had to downsize much to their chagrin.
In addition, I like how this explained why the Bennets could mingle with the likes of Darcy because their social classes were quite near to each other. I said in another thread that the Bennets can be likened to lower to middle middle class of today (who can own cars and a house) while the Bingleys are like the upper middle class like Kate Middleton and Darcy is upper class or maybe lower upper class. I do not like how many believe that the Bennets are seen as poor because if they were then how come they had maids and a carriage and piano lessons, etc. It is just that they were not as liquid as Bingley and Darcy who had bigger estates.
In point of fact (or perhaps, in point of fiction)), Sir Walter Elliot was a baronet, which is a degree of hereditary knighthood created during the reign of James I. The title was granted in exchange for a substantial financial contribution to the crown, and ranked between a knight and a baron. Baronets did not serve in the Houle of Lords, which was and is the hereditary upper house of Parliament. Baron was the lowest order of nobility (followed by viscount, earl, marquess, and duke) ,who served in the House of Lords, which defined the aristocracy. The fact that Sir Walter's took so much pride in a title that had been purchased is one of the reasons the author thought him contemptible.
WHATEVER GOES FOR ME , I think you may have missed some of the subtleties of P&P. Darcy and Mr. Bennett are at the extremes of the landed gentry, owners of estates of varying sizes with enough in the way of income that it was not necessary for them to work at ordinary occupations, which made them "gentlemen." Remember Elizabeth saying, "Mr. Darcy is a gentleman, I am the daughter of a gentleman, so far, we are equal," in her confrontation with Lady Catherine in Book 3. However, Darcy is at the top of the scale, he owns a large estate, his aunt is "Lady Catherine" the widow of a baronet or a member of the aristocracy, and Darcy's cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, is the younger son of an earl, and Darcy's sister will inherit 30,000 pounds. In contrast, the Bennets barely get by on their income, their carriage horses are also used on the farm, and Mrs Bennet is the daughter of a country lawyer, her sister is married to a country lawyer, and her brother is "in trade" as a merchant in London. The Bingleys are in between, their father was the son a rich tradesman, nut they are wealthy enough for Me. Bingley to be a country gentleman, and for his sisters to have inherited enough money to be ladies of leisure. Lady Catherine's daughter outranks all the others. She is the daughter of a titled person, is an only child, and will presumably inherit her mother's wealth and estate, or at least any part of it that is not entailed to the closest male heir.
G Kelly, I am very much aware that Darcy was way above the Bennets in wealth and status. However, they all belonged to the landed gentry and actually Darcy seemed nearer the nobility. If I remember right, the upper class of that era was divided as the landed gentry, the nobility, and royalty. The gentry had no titles but were considered well-bred families of high social class despite being deemed as lower in status by the nobility. Hence, you have a country squire, a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquess, a duke, a prince, a king and all their female counterparts. I am not that sure of the order but ranking existed and still exists within this social millieu. These people move in the same circles but proper introductions were needed if one of lower rank or status from the same social circle wanted to meet the higher ups.The reason they were able to mingle with one an other was because of the similar social class, more or less. One could not mix with the peasantry socially if one belonged to the upper class. However, belonging to the upper class doesn't mean one has the same amount of money, then and today. In fact, in Persuasion, the Elliots had been losing money, though they still had their titles. Some landed gentry who did not have titles had more money than the titled nobility (not the Bennets, though). . Historically, the merchants had been gaining economic power while some of the aristocrats were in debt. Hence, many English aristocrats married American heiresses in the past. The English aristocrats (and other European aristocrats) gained money while the American heiresses gained prestige and titles. This phenomenon was depicted in the novels of Edith Wharton. It has happened also in feudal Japan, for example. When the socio-economic system had changed, the old impoverished samurais had to rent out their lands or even sell them to Japanese merchants/tradesmen. Societies as a rule have rankings or caste system and there are rules to follow even today. Of course, some aristocrats who were financially savvy were able to retain their old wealth but not all were able to do that. Darcy may have married someone considered beneath him in rank and status but it was still palatable since he did not marry a peasant but a daughter of a small-time landed gentleman who did not need to work for a living because the income came from owning land rented out to tenants. My comment about the old money vs new money was not really about Pride and Prejudice. Hence, I did not really mention Darcy or the Bennets in my original post but mentioned Persuasion and the Elliots since Jane Austen wrote about this particular social class to which she actually belonged. All the novels of Austen revolved around this particular upper-class milieu where rankings and status were measured according to one's estate, money, title/lineage, education, and trade/employment. I just tried to make the rankings similiar to today's socio-economic mindset when I added my other comment to show the disparity between the wealth of Darcy and that of Mr. Bennet's.
William Smith doesn't pretend P&P is not a romance novel. He only says: issues of money and class always trump romance. „always“ may be exaggerating. P&P is much more than a romance novel.
The reason the oldest son inherited was to keep the estate intact. If it was divided equally among all the children, it would dissipate in a few generations, and they would all be poor. So, the oldest son inherited and was expected to support the others, especially females, which was one reason why the Bennets wanted a son for any unwed Bennet sisters to depend on. Gentlemen who refused to follow these social norms were ostracized, and that was enough of a deterrent to keep most of them supporting dependents. This explains why Mr. Collins was going to choose a wife from the Bennet sisters, and why Mr. Darcy would have given Mr. Wickham a living as minister on his estate. It also explains why John Dashwood was considered a villain in Sense and Sensibility. He was supposed to take care of his stepmother and half sisters after he inherited upon the death of his Father, but didn't.
A few comments along the way: 4:55 - It's perhaps notable that, for all her airs, Lady Catherine actually married below her station, and to a greater degree than Mr. Darcy may be considered to have done in marrying Elizabeth. She was the daughter of an earl and is called "Lady" as a courtesy title in her own right. Her husband was _Sir_ Lewis de Bourgh, a baronet, from an older, prestigious family and very wealthy but still not aristocracy. For all his ancestry it's also hinted he was _nouveau riche:_ Rosings was a new house and not an ancestral family seat. (That's why Mr. Collins has all the details on the cost of its construction.) The difference between Mr Darcy and Elizabeth is mostly in wealth, and in her mother's background; both the Darcys and Bennets are landed gentry. So in objecting to Mr Darcy's marriage to Elizabeth, she's being just a bit hypocritical. 6:25 - Further exposing what you're calling irony but what I'm calling hypocrisy, Mr Bingley was NOT landed gentry until the denouement when we are told he purchases an estate. He only leased Netherfield; it's not the source of his income as you suggest at 7:05. He's actually of the third class: his father made the family's fortune by trade. Yet no one sees the slightest impropriety in Mr Bingley associating with Darcy simply on the basis of his wealth - or in Caroline Bingley's pursuit of Mr Darcy. The characters may speak in terms of class, but it's really all about the money. 7:30 - I'd think it more useful to look at what lifestyle an income supports rather than try to figure out equivalents in modern money. On my own income in the neighborhood of what you attribute to the Bennets I could hardly afford their lifestyle. I might own appliances, but I have no servants and have to mow my own lawn and cook my own meals, and supporting 5 daughters (at least two of whom seem to be recreational shoppers) would be a considerable strain. I'd put their income equivalent considerably higher than mine. Mr Darcy is thought of as fabulously wealthy, and $800k/year seems on the low side for the status it brings him. 12:00 - It might be worth mentioning that entailment wasn't done just to be nasty. The purpose in cases like this was to keep estates, especially smaller ones, from being split up among multiple heirs to the point where they can no longer provide a living to the family. (It's not true that the oldest son must inherit all. That was the default should an estate owner die intestate, but without an entail he could will his estate however he chose.) And also, in this case, limited to male heirs to keep it independent and not joined to the estate of the husband of a female heir. The plan we were told about, that had a son arrived he'd have been expected to join with Mr Bennet in breaking the entail and so provide for the daughters, solves the immediate problem of their livings, but creates the generational problem that the Bennets would no longer be landed gentry after that point and would have to re-make their position by other means. For that reason, this entirely theoretical son might have chosen not to cooperate.
Chris C great post. Also in any case if a Bennet son had born any unmarried daughters and Mrs Bennet would have had a safety net in case Mr Bennet dies first (which is quite likely and with 5 daughters is also quite unlikely with limited drowry that all will marry) . Any son would not kick his mother and sisters out even if he was unwilling to split the estate.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 I don't think you can assume any brother would be dutiful in an Austen book. Sense and Sensibility revolves around a half-brother completely abandoning his sisters' financial needs despite a promise to his father, for instance. It would be improper, but one of Austen's most consistent themes is that if you've got money, and especially if you're male, impropriety is something you can afford.
@@kitwhitfield7169 Indeed. Although, with Mrs. Bennet's habit of spiraling into histrionics at the drop of a pin, perhaps more forgivable than in some other cases.
All though I do agree that Pride & Prejudice is about wealth/stature/class and all daughters fighting through marriage to keep or to get better stature. Because that is also what the title of the book implies. But as the the title can be read as a look on class it is also about the way matrimonies were looked at to combine family wealth and land. The whole book is about finding love in spite of pride and prejudice. Jane & Elisabeth both explain how they love their future husbands with great passion and have to be brave to hold steady against Bingley's sister, Catherine the Bourgh and also Darcy himself. In the end Bingley and Darcy both go beyond what is requested of their class and choose for love. How is this book not about love?
I was with you all the way to the end. Hollywood has not convinced me personally of anything at all about P&P...I’ve seen every adaptation and believe Austen would reject-trenchantly-each one. However, using only the evidence of no kissing scene, I don’t agree if you are saying Austen thinks money is more important than “romance”. She would not have used the word romance (too modern), but she rejects soundly the marriage for money without compatibility (Charlotte). I think one of Austen’s main contributions to the Great Dialogue is every time two people manage to break through the financial and social strata (that you discuss so well here) it is another human miracle to be celebrated. In 2019, we just happen to call that kind of mural attraction “romantic”.
true but Bingley is of a higher class than his father (assuming it I his father who made the money) as he has never had to work for the money himself. His income is presumably coming from investments.
@@molybdomancer195 Actually, Bingley is in the same class as his father until he bought his estate at the very end of the book, after he married Jane. That's why in the beginning of the book he's not described as a "gentleman" but as a "gentleman-like man". An academic difference to us today, but in those days, it meant a lot in terms of social difference.
@@molybdomancer195 I think it’s safe to say it was their father. It makes the Bingley sister’s «forgettfulness» about where their money came form a bit more beliavable, if their brother isn’t still in trade. They would be second generation new money then and have started to think of themselves no longer as of the new rich, even though of course they still are.
13:13. I do not recall any language that suggested that Bingley 'wanted' a wife...merely that any single man of large fortune "must be in want of a wife" which is not the same at all. Nonethless, I did enjoy the exploration of money and class in the era. TY!
Thanks a lot. I got to understand more of the books. I watched the movie before reading the books. And I found so much distinctions between reading and watching. The movie was much easier to understand for non-native speakers. While the books spent a lot of lines describing the conflicting discussion and the awkwardness of social interaction between people in different classes.
The book is difficult for native speakers too. Our language has changed over two centuries, our society is very different and the social interaction between classes is an example of these differences.
The social classes in this era, and later, were not impermeable. "Commoners" were regularly "Ennobled" for a variety of reasons, sometimes wealth - or what wealth enabled them to do. Also, marriages between higher social class and richer lower class (but not too low) were not uncommon, even in the time of Elizabeth I. They were looked down on and the "lower rank" partner was often never fully accepted, but such unions were not uncommon. I'd also like to say that I 100% agree with your view that this novel is about rich people and VERY rich people, and that we see little or nothing of the real world of working people and the poor. I'm not sure how different we are now, in our entertainments. Anyone watching TV or the movies we make would think we live in a world of comfort, full of beautiful, interesting people who never go hungry.
What I think was the REAL discrepancy is that Jane Austen HAD to sell the rights to that book way before it became “popular” and lost out on all that money, class and clout as an author. She died young and as a pauper
She didn't die a pauper. Maybe not rich but a pauper is a very poor person without enough money for food or clothing, let alone paper and quill to write with and trips to the sea in search of health.
Even though she didn't gain as much as she should've with her novels, she wasn't a pauper -- she did gain enough money to do as she liked and even go to where she pleased. But yes, she did die so young :( If she lived a longer life, she would've been able to publish more excellent books.
As you also see in Austen's Persuasion, a low-level baronet has to rent his property out, because he cannot fully pay his debts. And other families with no peerage are more wealthier through their business. And naval officers become wealthy by capturing ships and are entitled to 1/4 the value of the goods captured. Also, you will see in later nineteenth century novels, that the Industrial Age means that land alone is not enough to sustain wealth. If you watch the Downton Abbey series, you see how the Crawley's try to work the land, to make more money off of it, while other aristocratic families are going bankrupt. It would be interesting to see what the great-grandchildren of Darcy, and Lizzie would be like with their land at Pemberley.
Terence Begley In the era of Downton Abbey the big issue was death duties. When the owner of an estate died it would have to pay 40% tax on its value. This was often difficult when the value was tied up in fixed assets such as a house and land which couldn’t be easily sold without risking the integrity and future financial stability of the estate.
I get what he's getting at with people thinking that Pride and Prejudice was just some early romance novel. This is less to do with the actual genre of the book and more to do with the contemporary views on romance novels. A general view could be seen as romance novels are trashy, girly, not put a lot of thought into it, all about drama and boys, and purely fantasy wish fulfillment. Which can easily be the case for many books. So when people are surprised, they're actually surprised that it's well written and has engaging and realistic characters, as opposed the generally bad reputation of modern romance novels. People forget that its a classic for a reason. In fact, I'd say most historical romance books and modern romances are living off the legacy of Pride and Prejudice (tropes such as rich and/or snobby man falls for intelligent free spirited commoner, haters to lovers, and gentleman (title) = gentle (verb) man, comes to mind). That's what I love about Pride and Prejudice, not only does it prove that just because its a romance doesn't mean its not intelligent, but also that you can have all the romance tropes you want and still do it in a believable and not over the top cheesy way. Bad boy turns good: Think criminal/player/general bad boy/red flag character whose more likely to break your heart or on the extreme be abusive to you. In real life, bad boys aren't changed by love, they just end up being abusive boyfriends. It looks really good in a romantically but in the end they don't have any attraction to each other outside from danger and/or lust. Mr Darcy is a real character, swayed by realistic emotions. He's not a bad boy but he is a bit of an asshole, which satisfies that bad boy turning good trope. His worst crimes were being mean to Wickham (a lie), stopping Mr Bingley's relationship with Jane (a misunderstanding), being rude (bad first impression due social awkwardness) and being snobby which he gets over in satisfying character development, in part for his love for Elizabeth and other due to general goodnatured-ness. Aristocrat marries a commoner: This one's popular in fairy tales and other old timey folk tales. This ones less problematic but just more unrealistic. Princes aren't going to marry fair maidens they meet in the woods, they're going to have affairs with them. Neither will Kings let their daughters marry woodcutters, they'll also have affairs. Mr Darcy and Elizabeth are both of the genteel class, so it's not going to ruin their standing that much to get married, although due to disparity in wealth it will feel like you're marrying a prince. Not like others girls, girl whose caught the attention of usually indifferent guy because of her uniqueness, attention that she initially doesn't want: Pride and Prejudice helped invent this trope. Most stories that use this trope their really is nothing that special about the heroine. Elizabeth's character is unique because her lively nature and wit makes her stand out. She's not better than other girls for this but it's enough to grab Darcy's attention and most importantly we see these characteristics displayed in the book. That and she's like the only one not intimidated or swayed by Darcy in the book at all. (Georgiana and Bingley but him on this high moral pedestal and let him decide for them, Colonel Fitzwilliam comes and goes with Darcy when Darcy decides, Wickham outright avoids him, Mr Collins puts him up beside Lady Catherine, the Gardiners expect him to turn them out of his estate at one point ,Mr Bennet admits he wouldn't say no to anything Darcy asked for, Mrs Bennet isn't her usual awful self once she learns he'll be her son in law and everyone else is intimidated by his wealth and silent temper). Romantic gesture of Love: Most romances have some kind of big romantic gesture. It can be a big sacrifice or just be saying "I love you" sincerely. Darcy's was impressive on many different levels. It was a lot of time and money, but that would be kind of thin if it was just that on its own (looking at you Unleashing Mr Darcy, awful adaption, wonderful story), it was a sacrifice to Darcy because he knew he was giving Wickham what he wanted. Also he did it knowing if by some miracle he did marry Elizabeth, Wickham would become his step-brother. He did it knowing he probably wouldn't marry Elizabeth, so it can't be seen as a selfish ploy to keep her name reputable so he could marry her. He did it out of genuine concern for her. He did it after Elizabeth refused him, which means he still loved her even after being rejected (which is a nice sentiment on its own). He did it knowing that Lydia had disgraced her family which means Darcy has long given up his prejudices against marrying into the Bennet family (character growth). And most importantly of all, he did it all without intending anyone to find out, even Elizabeth, so it was out of complete selflessness. Also its a lot more reasonable a romantic gesture than slaying dragons or running through airports. Teenagers being forced to read it for school although shown it as a classic, the book holds all the negative stereotype of a classic. Boring and very wordy. But just like all classics it will appeal to readers who specifically like that book, to like something only because its status as a classic is very shallow. People who love Pride and Prejudice like me marvel in its excellence writing or who knows what other reason. Someone might loves well written stories but romances aren't their cup of tea. This is perfectly okay but its sad to think just because something is a romance is to suppose its bad. God this is longer than anything I've ever written for anything I've ever written for a book in English class. That says a lot.
Classification in literature is not based so much on the minutiae of content, but rather on themes or, more importantly, structure. A smart/quirky/in whatever way unusual woman meets attractive/mercurial/taciturn/mysterious man with whom she tentatively starts some kind of relationship, which slowly progresses until some event/misunderstanding causes a seemingly insurrmountable rupture, which is resolved by him galantly/heroically rescuing her from some grave peril/crisis she got caught up in/has gotten herself into, and they live happily after after. Sound familiar? It's Twilight. It's 50 shades. It's the Sheikh.The fact Austen's work is 2 billion classes higher up than those examples doesn't change the fact that said work, at its core, consists or romance novels.
Austen's works were generally romantic and can be read as romances but that is not the only way to read them. Austen wrote, as did many authors of her time, about a moral society and its ideal form. She looked at how people can disrupt the moral and social balance and how this balance can be restored. Even though she pricks at the moral and personal absurdities she saw in her live and her characters, her novels usually end with order restored and the class disrupting individuals either punished in some way or removed from the tiny worlds she is documenting. To describe her works as elevated young adult (Twilight) or bland adult themed (50 Shades) novels is too simplistic for me to accept. There is resemblance but the differences are more than merely the writing quality.
Wonderful! As an avid romance novel reader, I never realized that most regency romances deal with a different class altogether than Austen did -- it never occurred to me that, of course, none of her characters is a "lady" or "lord" or higher, except for de Burgh. Whereas today's regency romance novels deal almost exclusively with titled 1st class folks. Take Bridgerton, in which every member of the family (I think?) marries a duke or a viscount or lady or whatever.
I like the map of English society graph, definitely puts the difference between Anne and Wentworth into perspective at the start of their relationship in Persuasion.
I mean, on some level, we still uphold some of these social class structures. We find it more acceptable for a celebrity to approach an average citizen than the other way around. And it's definitely seen as more acceptable for anyone to approach someone homeless than the other way around. Certainly we're not creating as severe punishments for those who disrupt these social expectations, but approachability is still governed by the class structures I think we're afraid to even acknowledge exist.
That's what gets me about Austen's novels. They highlight the abundant similarities between present day society and Regency England rather than the differences.
The Regency really ended in 1820 and Austen was already dead. The real Mr. Darcy would have had a string of mistresses among the servant class before he met Lizzie.
Important to remember, the families of the Landed Gentry were often older than the families of the aristocracy. Another point, families descended fro the Norman families were very aware of it. Catherine Fitz William De Bourgh and the Bennett's would both have been of Norman descent and I'm sure Jane Austen was aware of it.
About income. Income was a combination of two things: income from rent of farms on their estate (about 1pound per acre) and the investments of their fortune. safe ones were either governement "funds" that produced around 5% but did wobble a little and more stable "consols" that gave 3%. so whilst bingley's income, who didn't own land was entirely from interest on his inheritance, Darcy's and Bennets's was a hybrid, and their fortune couldn't be determined without knowing the size of their estate (my research was for early victorian period but i don't think it makes much difference. changes in upper clas started when industrial relovution was at it's fullest, i.e. when money was moving from farms to cities but sped up only after WWI )
There is a noticeable difference in American classes versus European and especially British class. Obviously, because of the different history and way social structure was built in America. But there are some commonality in the way class is perceived. Money carries much more weight in America yet, education, dress and conduct can also say what your background is and to what class you were born just as it is for British class. It's is just far more mobile and fluid in America as you can pretty much buy your way to almost any opportunity. Despite that there are always opportunities based on simply class (that means it's more likely you'll move within your own class) Americans are far more concerned with money and influence than your lineage. Still, you can usually tell if someone was born upper middle class or upper class simply because of subtle behaviors and other class norms. This is also in the novel. Ms. Bingley (actually not landed gentry but of a merchant background) and others show that wealth does not buy breeding as Elizabeth's more educated and nuanced social understanding and education is in juxtaposition to hers. This is character, of course, but it is also class. Jane and Elizabeth are well bred which many wealthier gentry comment on in the novel as particularly unfortunate. It's interesting to observe how different foolish and ignorant characters are treated differently simply because of their wealth and status. Jane Austen often contrasted how behavior was tolerated based on your class, Lady Catherine de Burgh's interactions with Elizabeth was a good example of this too.
The oppression and exploitation of the lower classes, which was common in Europe, in the colonies and post-colonial societies was replaced by oppression and exploitation of other races, which were always prevented from rising in social hierarchy
Many thanks for creating this video. I studied English studies and history in university and remember how so e girls always said that Pride&Prejudices was their favourite book in a dreamy voice. When I personally found it a rather boring read which might have been because I couldn't find much romantic about marrying due to money even though I knew that this was a former (and needed) habit of societies.
I really enjoyed this video. Although also written by Austen, I’d love to hear a comparative video about wealth and social structure from Sense and Sensibility. That story seems even a bit more complicated in regards to this topic.
If you multiply the incomes by 80, you get 160,000 pounds a year for the Bennets and 800,000 pounds a year for Mr Darcy. This is not the equivalent in dollars (a pedant writes...)
I had more or less gathered as much when I read the book, and I've also picked up a few things from Anne Perry's Thomas Pitt novels, even though they're set later in the Victorian era. It's still one of my favorite books though!
Ah yes. The policeman must go to the backdoor or the servants door. And Charlotte having to learn how to do housework and mend clothing. Love those books as well.
Even today there are special funds, trusts and housing arrangements for "widowers" and for "chaste women who do not have a husband" here in Norway. You can then apply for these funds, and depending on your story - or how well-connected you are - you can get some of that. I'm pretty sure there are similar arrangements in the rest of Europe.
Social climbing is still a subject in romantic fiction, Notting Hill is an excellent example. Also, the wish to become a princess is probably still the ambition of about half of all five-year old girls.
I've always resented the fact that American culture equates little girls as princesses to being pampered, pink fru fru and always getting your way. In actuality royalty is alot of responsibility. Instead we're teaching little girls that everything be handed to them because they're wearing a glitter encrusted tiara.
@@tjp2109 nah girls just like pretty dresses and horses and dressing up and cute girl characters because its neat, little girls dont read into the historical and social context and connotation and societal implications of what they watch they just want an image of it on their backpack
@@tjp2109 American 5 year old girls know nothing of social responsibility, nor should they. At 5, they just want to twirl in sparkly dresses and ride ponies. The likelihood that an American girl will become a "real" princess is infinitesimal at best, so the whole princess thing in America is a fantasy. Now, you might be talking about the children who participate in pageants, but that's just a modern version of the "Shirley Temple" syndrome and again, what responsibility is there?? I don't see anything wrong with letting children imagine different roles for themselves. The issue becomes a problem when BOYS AND GIRLS alike are not taught to support themselves personally and financially.
This explanation is exactly why it annoyed me in the Keira Knightley version that the Bennet family is portrayed as poor. Were they rich? No. But they were comfortable.
Yes in the book. But in the Keira Knightely movie version, Longbourne is in shambles with peeling paint and the house and estate in disrepair. The girls’ dresses likewise are shabby. Perhaps the film makers wanted to make a point of the disparity of incomes between the Bennett Family and Darcy. But the level of shabbiness and disrepair portrayed in the film was not true to the novel. In the 1995 film version, it’s obvious there is a disparity in wealth and standing. But they don’t make the Bennetts shabby or show their estate in disrepair.
Mr. Bennet's estate earned two thousand pounds per year. The family was moderately wealthy, like Colonel Brandon in "Sense and Sensibility". However, Mr. Bennet had failed to set up dowries for his daughters, because he had assumed that he and Mrs. Bennet would have a son . . . until it was too late. His daughters' marital chances were threatened by his laziness.
Interesting thought, that a person with a guaranteed income of a 1'000'000 pound a year would not be free to marry whom he wanted, and actually felt obliged to marry into money... I feel richer than Mr. Darcy, somehow :-)
There was (and, as far as I know, for some, still is) a strong obligation in the aristocracy to perpetuate the position of the family by making sure you didn't end up as poor as curate's cook. In the aristocracy of the time, marrying someone of equal status or better wealth ensured that power and money accumulated and increased. There are still families extant that owe their enhanced position to generations of this practice.
@@marcowen1506 This practice was probably what caused everyone in the aristocracy to be related lol. As only someone of equal or more status was enough for marriage for aristocracy like you said. A great example would be Lady Catherine's daughter (forgot her name) and Darcy's betrothal being planned since they were born despite them being first cousins. As their mothers were daughters of an Earl, they didn't want their children marrying "downwards" into society despite them only being gentry and not aristocracy from their husbands' line. So I.e. why Darcy's mother and Catherine wanted their children married to ensure they would keep their class and wealth. Even so, they were still first cousins. Imagine the children they would have had yikes
Birth is NOT the only way to become a peer, If you do something important enough you CAN be elevated to the aristocracy by the queen (or go up ranks Earl to Duke etc). For example, George VI made Philip of Greece and Denmark a Duke of England and later his wife (The QUEEN) made him a Prince of England. A man born as the Hon. Arthur Wesley, the fourth son of an Earl, was made a Viscount after winning a battle ( Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington, in the County of Somerset, with the subsidiary title of Baron Douro of Wellesley) and later elevated further to Duke after winning the Peninsula War (Duke of Wellington, in the county of Somerset, together with the subsidiary title of Marquess Douro, in the said County). Nelson was the son of a revered but was made a viscount after winning the battle of the Nile.
I like “ Pride and prejudice “ very much!!! Mr Darcy my favourite hero in the classic literature. I like Darcy only performed by Colin Firth!Only he is!
You omit the officers (and note that senior sergeants) constitute a class with the Bennets interact. The officers generally come from the other classes, but the inclusion of senior NCOs is definitely a source of advancement by merit.
Some book or the other about colonial America, mentioned the salary for the town clergy was to be L60 plus firewood etc., and that this was a substantial sum for the area. Of course, the colonies were rich in resources but short on currency money.
It wasn't simply the fact that Collins just started a conversation with Darcy, it also that he had done-so Without even having been introduced to Darcy beforehand, first.
Right? If I remember correctly, this is actually laid out in the book, by having Elizabeth trying to talk Mr. Collins out of approaching Mr. Darcy, because of the the difference in social class/status by wealth. That being the reason he wasn't formally introduced to Mr. Darcy apart from being politely included in the invitation by Mr. Bingley in the first place. However Mr. Collins somehow deems himself on par with Darcy, bc. of being a clergyman, however low of rank, esp. because of serving god (which is wierd in its own way).
That's certainly part of it, but she emphasizes "it was not in the least necessary there should be any notice on either side; and that if it were, it must belong to Mr. Darcy, the superior in consequence, to begin the acquaintance."
@@pathvain1 My point is is that Collins should have known better, but there he goes, claiming that, as Lady C.'s clergyman, he and Darcy are 'practically family'... 'Wonder what Lady C. would make of that if she ever heard about it?
Bingley's family is "in trade.". Not landed, not hereditary.
@@alexandriacollins7119 have a heart attack l dare say 😂 😂 😂 😂
Where the book becomes a romance is when Darcy proposes to Elizabeth DESPITE the fact that she is poor, his relations would consider it a bad match and Elizabeth’s family on a personal level are objectionable to him. He admits that he loves her and can’t live without her even though logically he knows it’s a foolish match from a practical standpoint. It’s hardly romantic to Elizabeth to hear this, which, aside from her not liking his personality to begin with, is why she refuses him at first, but we can see the extent of Darcy’s feelings when such a normally traditional man who’s a stickler for convention could propose to a woman he would otherwise consider unsuitable.
The story of Cinderella (though I'm not sure I ever read the original) is also a story that is transformed in modern retellings...they always find a way for Cinderella to meet the prince before the ball, fall in love with him beforehand, because of the ideals of today's society (true love as opposed to arranged marriages, or marriages for interest - incidentally, there is something in an anthropology book about arranged marriage in India being more successful than the typical American one, though that's probably psychology...I wonder why that's not the case for the marriages of nobles in the middle ages, noblewomen were more likely to be used as pawns for position, etc, than the ones of the commoners, and they cite that as a negative aspect of the nobility of the time - even if they weren't those of the times (hell, the ideals today are different from the ideals of the earlier 20th century are different from those of these days...there's a mysoginistic way women are portrayed in early Disney films, they try to rectify that nowadays...the mock the fragile way they were shown back then even in modern Disney films...and they also often add in LGBT characters, haha)...anyway, I didn't know the novel was less romantic than the film made it all look...
I mean...why would arranged marriages work in India and not in medieval Europe?...I mean, they didn't have divorce back then, annulment was difficult, but we often hear about miserable matches, attempted murders, haha, etc...
Many arranged marriages did work throughout history. Marriage has more often has been for alliance (even if not arranged) than for love. People have needed to band together for survival.
I suppose that depends on how we define "work", haha...I mean...what *I* meant was that the people in the arranged marriage were genuinely in love...that seems to happen, according to an anthropology book I have, in some (arranged) Indian marriages...moreover, they're less likely to stop being fond of each other than for, say, American marriages, a large percentage of which end in divorce, etc...even if American marriages don't tend to be arranged...
@@archangecamilien1879 I think that has more to do with culture. It is not frowned upon in many western cultures to divorce if the people are no longer in love and it's unlikely they'll receive a lot of social repercussions/judgment because of it. I doubt this is the same in India where people are still much more influenced by social rules in this regard and pressure to stay in unhappy marriages will be much greater.
Very interesting to watch. I do need to point out though that the Bingley's were 3rd class aspiring to be 2nd class. They were children of trade merchants but were rich enough to rent Netherfield to pass as landed gentry. The fact that Mr. Bingley was renting it means he didn't own the land so didn't qualify as 2nd class yet. At the end of the novel it's mentioned he has moved closer to Pemberley so has moved up a class by buying property and land but is still 'new money'.
Even though Jane was marrying up in terms of money she was marrying down in social standing.
Since Mr. Bingley had already inherited enough money to buy the estate, I think he fits into the "others with large incomes" part of Category 2, even before he bought his own estate. But his family were recent arrivals.
But Lizzy married up in terms of money and and stayed on the same level but probably up, as well, in social standing? I mean Darcy was way up, right!? A lot higher than Bennets.
@@elanorallmann Yes, Lizzy married up. Not just money-wise. Darcy was the grandson of an Earl and his uncle (Colonel Fitzwilliam's father) was the current earl, so he had connections to the peerage.
It also goes a long way to explain why Miss Bingley was trying so hard to land Mr. Darcy. She was trying to marry up.
nicbooful - Oh that horrible Miss Bingley thinking she could compromise Mr. Darcy into marrying her because she wanted to be the mistress of Pemberly... I totally could not stand her. Yes, she wanted to climb the ladder so she could look down her long nose at everybody. Also I never understood why when she insulted people they didn’t tell her to shut up but maybe that wasn’t allowed then.
This sheds a whole new light on the Bingley sisters. They had more money, but they were of the third class tier while the Bennet girls were of the second.
Yes, their behaviour is truly pretty crass and while this is not necessarily dependent on their status (and more their own personality flaws), the majority of the "lower classes" would not have had access to proper upbringing / stature as the richer ones did. Therefore their conduct in public too, was just as objectionable.
I think they had a better chance for upward mobility though bc they were one of those few rich women. They provide the money, and the husband provides the class. But the Bennett sisters didn’t bring much money or good connections to the marriage and were therefore bottom of the rung. That’s why Collins thought he could have his pick and was doing them a great favor.
@@BlankCanvas88 It depends on what you mean by bottom of the rung. They were gentlewomen, but gentlewomen who were doomed to impoverishment when their father died because they couldn't inherit - Mr. Collins was the heir. In class, they were second rung, but they weren't desirable marriage partners for men in their own class because of their poor dowries. Impoverished gentlefolk were not uncommon, and their children, unless they married men of means, were doomed to loose status. If they had inherited the estate instead of Mr. Collins, their respective situations would have been much different.
If you look at her book Emma, you very clearly see what happened to impoverished gentlewomen. Take the Bates. They were once well off, the late Mr. Bates was the former curate of the village. When he died they were left with very little income , only a pension. Therefore Jane was sent away to be educated as a governess, while her aunt and grandmother were living in poverty.
As this is Austen, Jane did get married at the end though.
This could have been the fate of all the Bennet sisters, and in reality it would most likely be their fate. As gentlewomen they would not have had an education that would have positioned them to work, so without the income of a man they would be forced to live on the father’s pension along whatever else he left.They would have slipped deeper and deeper into poverty like Ms. Bates.
This is actually a theme that goes throughout almost all of her books. How easy it is for well born women to become destitute following the death of a father or husband. This shows just how tenuous a woman’s position was. She had to rely solely on her husband and father to provide for her. That is also why Wickham is perceived by all, but Lizzie at first, to be such a villain when he pursues a woman who has more money than him. If he squanders all her money she will have nothing and no way of bettering herself.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
"He is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter," Elizabeth tells Lady Catherine in Chapter 56, speaking about Darcy, "So far we are equal."
"True," replies Lady Catherine, "but who was your mother? Who are your uncles and aunts?"
The Bennett sisters are, indeed, of the landed gentry, but only through their father. Their mother is of the fourth class; her brother, Mr. Gardener, for all that he's one of the most reasonable and pleasant of the male characters, is "in trade", meaning that he works, himself, with his own two hands. Given the amount of money and freedom he has, and the address in Cheapside, he's probably a financial gentleman, and the closest he gets to work is probably a ledger book, but it doesn't matter. He works for a living, maybe even (horrors!) for Someone Else. Mrs. Bennett's social standing may change superficially by her marriage, but not functionally, and that social standing is passed on to her daughters.
The Bingleys background is pretty solidly third class pushing middle second; Mr. Bingley has a 100,000 pound inheritance from his father, who is described as being of "respectable family from the north of England" who got his money "from trade". 5000 pounds a year makes Bingley quite wealthy for the time; he lacks only land to consolidate that wealth and put him and his sisters neatly into a second-class bracket, and not a shallow one at that.
How I always thought of the money thing: Jane Eyre, in 1847, was paid 15 pounds A YEAR, to teach at Lowood, and 30 pounds A YEAR to be a governess. This would be a very low-end salary for an educated person, since even today teachers aren't paid that much and she's female, though she did receive all of her meals and rent included. Pride and Prejudice was in 1813, so there was probably some inflation happening between the books. Even doubled to 50-60 pounds per year for being a guy, Bingley is bringing in 83-100 times an educated person's yearly salary, and Darcy 166-200 times that salary *solely in profit*. Since business and estate expenses wouldn't be included in that amount.
Mr. Bennet should have had enough to set aside some dowries for the daughters, but it seems like a combination of needing to do so for 5 daughters, his wife's frivolous silliness, and Mr. Bennet's total lack of caring outside of what it takes to get people to leave him alone with the stuff he likes, all point to their household living quite paycheck to paycheck and getting an ugly wake up call late in life. He's like a modern man approaching retirement with no savings, just as his 5 kids are reaching college age and needing tuition, and realizing, "oh crap" he probably shouldn't have spent all those years holed up in his man cave, ignoring stuff.
It says in the novel that he didn't lay money aside for the daughters because "he meant to sire a son" and after admitting "defeat" (after Lydia's birth) it seemed too late to do anything about it... Mrs Norris would be appalled by him
@@annejeppesen160 but even the youngest daughter of mr bonnet was 14 in the book. so, i think mr bonnet really had got a hole in his pocket.
@@zhualex8587 to be fair, with 5 daughters he did have quite a demand on his money. It doesn't excuse his lack of action and economy, but it is an explanation
to be fair, teachers today don't earn much higher than a minimum salary in many parts of the world. inflation isn't the only way to calculate the living back then, we should look at the prices of food, services and availability of them. indeed, servants would have earned even less. the gap between rich and the poor was so insane that i like to compare it with having to pay 30 000 - 60 000 euros or dollars for a single day dress for an upper class lady in today's money.
@@annejeppesen160 But that was an exceptionally imprudent plan as well. After breaking the entail and dividing up the estate, the Bennets would no longer be landed gentry. Preservation of this status was the whole point of the entail. Alli is more correct that the main problem is Mr Bennet's indolence and lack of foresight, and his habit of hiding from problems rather than facing them. And also, as he admits late in the book, a poor choice of wife, which the narrator informs us was based solely on physical attraction. A less frivolous partner who did not suffer from "no turn for economy" would have helped salvage matters as well.
And in Sense and Sensibility, we see what happens to the daughters when the father dies. they are cast out into the world but with no way of generating any income.
They could become lady’s companions or governesses, but that means their marriage prospects take a sharp dive- though they aren’t necessarily lost altogether.
I’m actually working on a story with a similar premise to Sense & Sensibility, but with two changes; one- the above of not having anyone else’s generosity to fall back on, & two- the sisters move to Australia & support their mother & younger sister that way (in the colonies, one could double or even treble their salary; eg. a bog-standard maid of the mid-19th c, c. 1840’s-50’s earnt a mere £6/ year- in Australia, NZ, Canada or India it was like £30, or the equivalent).
@Campari Soda
Oh, thank you!
Important caveat: mr Bingley is not landed. He has to rent Netherfield bc his family doesn’t have an estate. They’re nouveau riche, their money comes from their fathers merchant trade. Which is why Miss Bingley is so desperate to marry Mr Darcy. Not only is he more wealthy, but he also would give her family the respectibility of land and titled connections. It’s also why it’s so ironic when she objects to Jane Bennet’s Aunt and uncle in trade. Miss Bingleys own money comes from trade, making her a hypocrite
Yeah! Ha, ha. That is part of the reason we love to hate her.
It's interesting that you brought the subject of, "Trade!" Sir William Lucas was involved in trade and in fact that's how he made his fortune and in the 1995 BBC TV series, the Bingley sisters also show their snobbery to Sir Lucas! I had read somewhere that if Sir William Lucas, had stayed in trade, then he and his family would have been more wealthy and in fact might have been on par with the Bingleys'!? Had her father remained in trade, Charlotte Lucas would have had a better chance of making a rich marriage as she would have had a bigger dowry!?
Just like on "Frasier", Maris Crane's family fortune comes from urinal cakes. When Niles finds out, he knows that that secret will give him leverage in his divorce from Maris.
True.
@@ajp2223 Yes but Sir William Lucas found it beneath him now that he had been knighted and even moved his estate out of Meryton to preserve his reputation away from the means that brought him his status
Bingley's were not landed gentry. Their father was a wealthy merchant which is why we see him at Netherfield looking for a place to settle. Bingley specifically mentions that "a man must find a house if he cannot have his father's".
@Belinda Garza, good catch. Fortunately for me I never read Jane Austen for any reading assignment, English. Lit. Or plot and character analysis. School assignments took the enjoyment out of many good books for High School friends of mine. When C. Dickens was assigned to read/study I skipped it. I read Oliver Twist on my own impulse and curiosity. Shakespeare I listened to in school(on vinyl) before trying to read as assigned. That helped a good bit. Pride and Prejudice can be hard to read in places. Sentence structure complicated. Fortunately I saw Pride and Prejudice before reading it same on Sense and Sensibilities. Keep reading. From comic strip characters to The classics.
@@mamlas9494 the Bingleys had a house in London, what they didn't have was a country estate, which was a symbol of social status and wealth. Bingley could certainly have married without having a country estate, and in the novel it is explained by Austen that he wanted a country estate because his father intended to buy one but died before he could, not because he needed to have one in order to get married.
Love doesn’t have to be explained nor explicitly shown by kisses or sex scene.
I was gonna comment about this too !
That's what made Jane Austen Movies so amazing to me is the way they portray love without those unnecessary things to happen
you are right
Yeah, sometimes it's really embarrassing to see, since we know it's fake, especially if the cast don't have chemistry to each other at all. Just skip.
I agree. Did you know that the actors who played Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy were in a relationship?
In my opinion, the entailment rule was absolutely outrageous, and I'm pretty sure Austen thought so too. We may be laughing now at Mrs Bennett, but she was right; in the event of Mr Bennett's sudden death, she and her daughters would be destitute.
Thank God for modern femenism
I believe it was in Lady Catherine's mouth that she put her disapproval
Austen's novels all critique the plight of women in her society (and class; rules for the working class were completely different) and that marriage was an economic necessity for women. She objected strongly to the idea that women had to marry because they weren't allowed to earn their own way in the world (except as a governess, a miserable fate that she addresses in Emma), and that marrying Mr Collins to save herself from being dependent on her brother was an unhappy necessity for Charlotte Lucas. That Elizabeth turned down proposals from both Mr Collins and Mr Darcy, eminently respectable economic choices, because she didn't love them, makes her very progressively independent - and the character was not well received by women readers of the time because of it.
Yeah, I have to say, listening to that part made me reflect on what a horrible system this was for most people in it (let alone the 18+ million trapped in the lower classes!).
I think Jane Austen was subject to an entailment herself. I think her dad died, & they had to fend for themselves. She also never married & lived with her brother...or maybe back & forth between a brother & a sister.
It is romantic though bc Mr. Darcy was willing to love her for her mind vs what she could bring to the marriage and even willing to risk being laughed at by society for marrying “down” when he could’ve married almost any woman in England. And Lizzie is worthy of that love bc she’s willing to give up marrying a man who would secure not only her but her whole family in order to marry for love. In the end, they both realize how much they hit the jackpot in each other.
@Rosamund Powell man, it's so funny to me to what extent Caroline Bingley had zero chance with Darcy, both from a class angle and a...personality one 😂
@@sweetpeabee4983 Half true. Before Bingley fell in love with Jane, Darcy did have an eye on Bingley as his prospective brother-in-law. That wasn't just something Miss Bingley thought up in her attempt to make a double wedding happen.
@See Min Lim It was in the scene where she and her aunt visits Miss Darcy and Miss Bingley brought up Wickham. There was a line where the author confirms Elizabeth's suspicions that Darcy did hope that Bingley's relations will hereafter be her own (meaning Georgiana's).
Also, considering her dowry has already attracted the attention of one fortune hunter AT FIFTEEN, I wouldn't be surprised that Darcy is trying to bring his sister out in society so she can marry quickly, otherwise with a dowry so large, she might be susceptible not only to seductions but to kidnapping as well. It might also just be some sort of forward planning - once Georgiana is easier with Bingley she might be persuaded to marry him in a year or two.
@@aislingyngaio no, that was in the letter Caroline Bingley wrote Jane. She implies her brother would marry Darcy’s sister and she’d marry Darcy, but it’s a lie. It doesn’t reflect Bingley or Darcy’s actual intentions. She’s just trying to make Jane Bennett give up by telling her indirectly that Bingley doesn’t love her.
@@ladiebug395 From chapter 45: "Not a syllable had ever reached her [Miss Bingley] of Miss Darcy's meditated elopement. To no creature had it been revealed, where secresy was possible, except to Elizabeth; and from all Bingley's connections, her brother [Darcy] was particularly anxious to conceal it, from that very wish which Elizabeth had long ago attributed to him [Darcy], of their [the Bingleys] becoming hereafter her [Miss Darcy's] own [connections]. He [Darcy] had certainly formed such a plan, and without meaning that it should affect his [Darcy's] endeavour to separate him [Bingley] from Miss [Jane] Bennet, it is probable that it might add something to his [Darcy's] lively concern for the welfare of his friend. [Bingley]."
Lady Catherine de Bourgh is in the top class by birth, as the daughter of an earl, but not by marriage -- her husband, Sir Lewis de Bourgh, was a baronet.
I just don't understand how Lady Catherine never learned to play the piano forte if she was so high up in class...can anyone explain?
@@marisolsuarez818 Good point!
@@marisolsuarez818 perhaps she wasn´t a good student, or had no talent, but didn´t want to admit it
@@vilwarin5635 Probably something like that. 😉
@@marisolsuarez818 It suggests she didn't have to compete for a mate by mastering a collection of "accomplishments" because she could attract a good husband by virtue of wealth and social status alone.
You haven’t quite got the Collins thing correct here. The faux pas is that it was customary for introductions to be made through third parties. The proper thing would have been for Mr Collins to be introduced to Mr Darcy by one of the Bennets, and only if Mr Darcy had assented to meet him. For him to introduce himself without a third party was contrary to all social convention.
And random people trying to ingratiate themselves with rich people were given 'the cut direct '
Like in northanger Abbey when mr. Tilney goes to find a common acquaintance to introduce him to Catherine
It doesn't necessarily have to be made through a third party, though that is the most common and certainly the more polite route, as long as the one initiating the connection is the one of higher rank.
That was how women engaged in conversation with men, not men to other men. Gender plays a role in this as much as class and wealth.
@@lilyandrose8557 . . . and still are !
Me: I wonder what class I would have been in
Also me: *remembers I’m Irish* hmm
em forde you are a peasant lol
em forde Not necessarily. Remember the fancy Irish cousins from Persuasion, they had lady Catherine- like status.
devildog1982z Interesting, thanks !
I would be third class, up from 7th in my paternal grandparents generation, because my paternal grandfather was a street child, abandoned by his parents. On my mom's side they were all landowning farmers, though poor, so that at least would be a couple of tiers higher? My dad was a well-off merchant, though, and kudos to him for it. Then, I married into a wealthier merchant family, 🤣🤣🤣. Put like that I look like a bit of an upstart.
@devildog1982z And this is why my family moved to Canada. lol
Shame Austen’s work is often reduced to love stories. That’s part of it, but in my mind her books are comparable to Balzac’s in that they serve as observations of English society. And not only that, they also serve as clever character studies. Austen captures so well all of the awkwardness, the impertinence, and the contractions that make us human beings.
Of course it's a romance! Not on our 21st-century terms with overt physical displays of affection, but on early 19th-century terms, with plenty of discussions about "attachments." Our heroine Elizabeth Bennet dares to proclaim that love *and* wealth are important in a marriage, not just wealth.
This.
Yeah, that was kind of a silly comment. Love the rest of the video, though!
The idea of marrying for love is far more of a 20th century notion.
Jane Austen's novels are about how society works, about social heirarchy.
Marriage was far more of a practical arrangement, for a woman it made the difference between an acceptable and safe quality of life or poverty, even destitution, even homelessness and prostitution at worst.
This fate is alluded to with reference to Lydia's elopement.
Had Darcy not intervened, Wickham wouldn't have married her, it would have been a disgrace to the entire Bennett family.
In order to salvage the family and for the other Bennett sisters to stand any chance of marrying at all well, Lydia would have had to be disowned.
She would have been vulnerable, would have had to find a husband from the lowest class, live hand to mouth, or survive by her own wits, getting any work at all then would have been largely down to who you knew.
Even to be able to work as a servant you would have had to be recommended by someone. The family you came from, whatever class you lived in, was vital, Social connections were everything.
Marriage was nothing to do with love and everything to do with basic survival. You largely stayed in the social class you were born into. If you were lower class your life chances and life path were grim. You would get married, live hand to mouth, spend most of your fertile years pregnant if female, work long hours at hard back breaking and risky work with no healthcare or insurance. If you were healthy you worked, if you couldn't work you starved.
If people didn't know you or where you came from they wouldn't employ you. They would employ people who someone could vouch for.
Life was hard and if you lost your place on the social ladder you were sunk. It was a constant struggle hence the rigid social rules and heirarchical social networks to maintain your place and improve it if you were very lucky!
Social disgrace was a fate to be avoided at all costs. Mr Collins letter to Mr Bennet about news of Lydia, his saying that it would have been better if she had died, sounds harsh to us. And it is harsh! But Collins was being realistic to the standards of the day. Better dead than socially disgraced and vulnerable to poverty, plus dragging everyone you were connected to down with you.
It was harsh. Hence a good marriage being so important. It was make or break.
If someone loved the person they married it would have been fortuitous, to even have liked the person would be a blessing.
You married the person who could give you the best standard of living if you were poor and the best social standing if you were high enough on the scale to be even noticed.
Cross reference Sense and Sensibility where the step mother and half sisters ARE left without money and are cast out by their half brother.
P&P resolves their fate prior to their father dying while S&S resolves it after.
In S&S it was the wife who wanted them out. The son was happy to fulfil his late father's wishes and treat them better. His wife was scheming and greedy.
Rhianalanthula the son was spineless.
@@dsatt57 Yes! Totally spineless!
Colonel Fitzwilliam was of the first class as the second son of an Earl. Bingley was of the 3rd class because his money comes from trade.
Even Georgian and Regency England was more socially mobile than you are making out. "Aristocracy" doesn't mean the same as "upper gentry", that is, people who had serious wealth in land, for at least two or three generations. It means titled families - those whose heads, at least, carried a title of nobility - barons, viscounts, marquises, earls and dukes, in that ascending order. There were ways even into the aristocracy, although it was rare. But no character in P&P is an aristocrat, or from the first class in the table. But there are examples of social mobility among the characters, in all other classes depicted.
Mr Darcy, wealthy as he is, and in land, and of a gentry family, is a commoner - but he is friends with Mr Bingley, who is also wealthy, but is not "landed", and only in his own generation come into the gentry - which is upward mobility. Of course, as Mr Bingley demonstrates, all that was required to become landed, was money. Money, in fact, is all that Bingley inherited - but five thousand a year is a "large income", so he fits into the second class, like Mr Darcy and Mr Bennett. However, his sisters have not improved the family's status. One is unmarried, though quite, er, mature; the other has married Mr Hurst, a rather heavy gentleman of at best modest means. If the family is to rise further, then, it will be up to Mr Bingley himself. But that was possible.
So was mobility downward. Lady Catherine de Burgh is the daughter of an Earl - which means that the style "Lady" is for courtesy. She is actually a commoner. Not only that, but she and her sister both married below their rank. Their husbands should also have been aristocrats, but Lady Catherine's late husband was a knight (knights are commoners) and her sister Anne's was a country gentleman, Mr Darcy's father. Reading between the lines, quite possibly Lady Catherine's noble father had come down somewhat in the world, and had had to marry his daughters off to money.
Mr Collins is a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England, with a substantial parsonage and a glebe - the land attached to the benefice. This is a considerable improvement on his paternal heritage, at least. However, even his eldest son, if any, will have to make his own way. Mrs Bennet, nee Gardiner, has married somewhat upwards - from the fourth class into the second. Mr Gardiner, her brother, has also risen, from being the son of a country attorney to being a substantial London merchant.
Mr Wickham is even more mobile. The son of the late Mr Darcy's steward, he would be of the fifth class, but has the airs of a gentleman because of his father's master's generosity. If he had made the most of his opportunities, he might have become a clergyman, a lawyer or a doctor - the third class. Being a wastrel and a rake, he will inevitably sink under his debts. He has a commission in the regular army, but there is no reason to suppose that he will be able to live on his income there, either. If he does not, his commission will not be worth a straw. There's another novel in that, though.
In short, while social class was crucially vital in that society, below the absolute top class it was all dependent on money. With it, the ranks of the gentry could be, and were, stormed. If it was maintained, so was class. If it was lost, social class rapidly fell. It was money, only money, all money. Land was money. Interest on investment was money. The only other consideration was occupation. If you made your own living with work of mind or hands, you could not be "gentry". But to attain that status, all you needed was enough money.
This is really insightful
Mr Collins will inherit the Bennet’s estate (which is why Mrs Bennet was so keen on him marrying one of the daughters and he was initially willing to do so).So his first son would have an estate.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Yes, of course. I forgot that. It would move Mr Collins further up the social ladder. I should have mentioned that, as a further example of what I was saying. Of course it would ill-become his office if he were then to evict his own cousins, not to mention that it would certainly attract the ire of the rich men two of them have by that time married, so it is unlikely that Mr Collins would himself enjoy the occupancy of Longbourne.
Loved your insights on this! I particularly liked your commentary on Lady Catherine's class - I hadn't thought about that! ☺️
Barons =/= Baronets. Baronets carry the title "sir" and is not a part of the aristocracy but the upper gentry. Barons carry the title "lord" and is a part of the aristocracy. The order of titles are, from highest to lowest: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, baron, and then baronets (inherited and titled "sir") and knights (also titled "sir" but NOT inherited).
Yes, Austen wrote about how money drives our behavior. She was a keen observer of society. The use of the romance plot seems to have the effect of distracting us from how harshly she is criticizing our shallow, selfish impulses.
Mr. Collins commits a second faux pas in speaking to Mr. Darcy first, the same one that Mrs. Bennet committed with Darcy at the assembly. They both spoke to Mr. Darcy without first having been introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. Mr. Bingley hastens to make introductions between them to cover the lapse. This seems like nothing to us today, but back then it was extremely bad manners and a sign of poor breeding.
There is a flouting of societal conventions of marrying within one’s class, one’s station in life, long before the book begins. It is actually a far greater affront to social rules than Elizabeth and Darcy’s marriage. Landed gentleman Mr. Bennett married Miss Gardiner, who was of the merchant class. This is demonstrated by the Bingley sisters’ snotty comments about the girls’ uncle Mr. Gardiner being in trade.
This is ironic, because IIRC, the Bingleys are only a generation or so removed from the merchant class themselves. Miss Bingley is being as presumptuous in setting her cap for Mr Darcy, as she implies the Bennet girls are. She is perhaps even more so, as at least the Bennets are landowners. This bears out the saying that there’s no one snobbier than the nouveau riche.
My cat is called Mr Darcy, and I live in Russia 🧐
😂
What social class is your cat in?
@@EllieCopterFTW a Cat Mr Darcy is of course a gentleman of the highest order!
@@sisuguillam5109 I'm glad to hear it, there is nothing worse than a poor working cat impersonating a gentleman! 😂🐈
@@EllieCopterFTW 😂
what do you mean "tricked into thinking P&P is some sort of early romance novel." It clearly is. The whole point of the book is marrying for love. There mere fact that Darcy and Elizabeth as well as Bingley and Jane got married in the end despite the social etiquette of the time certainly would have been considered to be very romantic by the contemporary reader. Besides if there were any love scenes in the book it probably wouldn't have been published in the first place.
He doesn't know what a romance novel is, clearly. He probably thinks Romeo and Juliet is a romance because they bone. 🙄
This was a pretty good introduction to the British class system (as it was two centuries ago) for an American audience and it was a good clear exposition of the drivers in the plot. Good job. Thank you also for not making a hash of it and equating class with money (see G.B. Shaw, the barrister and the mechanic).
This sheds some light on two things.. everyone's insistence that Elizabeth is poor.. when she is in fact the daughter of a gentleman her social status is far better and others are simply being snobbish. Have to wonder if this is a hidden comment on society by Austen that escapes us but would have been seen at the time.
At the time this would have been satire so obvious that writing it in capital letters would have made it more subtle. Poverty, however could mean many things in the era and the comments tend to carry with them connotations of precarious position. Without entitlement, Liza Bennett's position could have changed very quickly indeed.
I think the recent adaptaion made the Bennett's look much more poor than the BBC series. Most people I would guess watch then read the story and the visuals of Elizabeth walking around in the mud with pigs creates a larger disparity in the imagination than if one read the book then watched the movie.
@@TheMissjaneperry I agree. The Keira Knightley version shocked me, to be honest. The family would never have comported themselves in such shabby ways if they wanted any chance of marrying men of means within their own class, or even men of means who wanted to move up in class. Such men would want wives who were well bred, not dirt farmers. For example, in the book, Mrs. Bennett is shocked at the suggestion that her daughters would have anything to do with the kitchen, since their station in life was better than that; the KK version doesn't make it seem that way at all. The filmmakers turned the Bennett women into ordinary yeoman type farm women, not the family of a gentleman at all.
@@edennis8578 I've watched the Keira Knightley version several times but it's been a while since I did so correct me if I'm forgetting. I don't remember them doing any housework or manual labour. I remember she walks in the yard among the livestock, but I remember her just reading, not doing any work. They have a cook and are served dinner, from what I remember. I think walking among the pigs is not that strange, it shows Elizabeth's character as being carefree and energetic (like the part where she walks to Pemberly in the rain to see Jane while she's sick and her skirts get all dirty and the Bingley sisters are appalled but Darcy admires her for it)
Mr Bennet isn't poor, but the Bennet daughters' future prospects were grim with Longbourne being entailed away from the female line. They had no dowry but an equal share in their mother's dowry of 5000 pounds, so 1000 pounds each, invested to give an annual income of 40 pounds. So while they were considered genteel and had relatively high social status, the girls themselves were poor in terms of what income and connections they could bring to a potential suitor.
I don't quite agree that this is not a romantic novel. Eventhough Elizabeth portrays the rational and not the romantic character, she does in the end demand to marry for love. Love vs. Rationalität is one of the main topics of most of austens novels and love usually wins at least for the main characters. Those who do marry for money are usually villified.
"Romantic" is sometimes a genre classification, not necessarily attached to what we think of as "romance". (Think "romance language"; those languages classified as such aren't inherently romantic to hear, speak or read, they're descended from Latin, the language of the Romans.) Hopefully that makes sense.
@@tracy4290 I am aware of that but if I can remember my lessons correctly, romantic literature ment praising humans who were governed by feeling. This genre developed as a reaction to enlightenment which according to romantics placed too much emphasis on rational reasoning.
But most Austen characters end up marrying rich. In fact, some have made the observation that in P&P the happiest couple is the richest while Lydia and whatshisname end up miserable and finantially dependent.
So while Austen is saying "make your own choices" She's also saying "make *smart* choices"
sergio vela definitely. Charlotte is both looked down on for marrying someone like Collins and given happiness and a chance to explain herself. She is pitied in a way but it is acknowledged that that was the smart choice and gets a good ending
@@sergiovela7686 you're right. I guess you could say austens point is that you need both feeling and rationality. As kio pointed out Lydia is an example of the folly of feeling without cleverness. There are quite a few characters that suffer due to there lack of rationality.
I am glad that this video discusses what class really means. That is why we have the noveau rich or new money and the old rich or old money. The old rich look down on the new rich because they know that the latter have the wealth but not the proper lineage that can be traced back centuries ago. Some aristocrats actually also lost their wealth as new industries brought by the industrial revolution replaced the traditional way of building wealth by having land. In Persuasion, the Elliots, who were aristocrats, were no longer as rich as they were before and had to downsize much to their chagrin.
In addition, I like how this explained why the Bennets could mingle with the likes of Darcy because their social classes were quite near to each other. I said in another thread that the Bennets can be likened to lower to middle middle class of today (who can own cars and a house) while the Bingleys are like the upper middle class like Kate Middleton and Darcy is upper class or maybe lower upper class. I do not like how many believe that the Bennets are seen as poor because if they were then how come they had maids and a carriage and piano lessons, etc. It is just that they were not as liquid as Bingley and Darcy who had bigger estates.
In point of fact (or perhaps, in point of fiction)), Sir Walter Elliot was a baronet, which is a degree of hereditary knighthood created during the reign of James I. The title was granted in exchange for a substantial financial contribution to the crown, and ranked between a knight and a baron. Baronets did not serve in the Houle of Lords, which was and is the hereditary upper house of Parliament. Baron was the lowest order of nobility (followed by viscount, earl, marquess, and duke) ,who served in the House of Lords, which defined the aristocracy. The fact that Sir Walter's took so much pride in a title that had been purchased is one of the reasons the author thought him contemptible.
WHATEVER GOES FOR ME , I think you may have missed some of the subtleties of P&P. Darcy and Mr. Bennett are at the extremes of the landed gentry, owners of estates of varying sizes with enough in the way of income that it was not necessary for them to work at ordinary occupations, which made them "gentlemen." Remember Elizabeth saying, "Mr. Darcy is a gentleman, I am the daughter of a gentleman, so far, we are equal," in her confrontation with Lady Catherine in Book 3. However, Darcy is at the top of the scale, he owns a large estate, his aunt is "Lady Catherine" the widow of a baronet or a member of the aristocracy, and Darcy's cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, is the younger son of an earl, and Darcy's sister will inherit 30,000 pounds. In contrast, the Bennets barely get by on their income, their carriage horses are also used on the farm, and Mrs Bennet is the daughter of a country lawyer, her sister is married to a country lawyer, and her brother is "in trade" as a merchant in London. The Bingleys are in between, their father was the son a rich tradesman, nut they are wealthy enough for Me. Bingley to be a country gentleman, and for his sisters to have inherited enough money to be ladies of leisure. Lady Catherine's daughter outranks all the others. She is the daughter of a titled person, is an only child, and will presumably inherit her mother's wealth and estate, or at least any part of it that is not entailed to the closest male heir.
G Kelly, I am very much aware that Darcy was way above the Bennets in wealth and status. However, they all belonged to the landed gentry and actually Darcy seemed nearer the nobility. If I remember right, the upper class of that era was divided as the landed gentry, the nobility, and royalty. The gentry had no titles but were considered well-bred families of high social class despite being deemed as lower in status by the nobility. Hence, you have a country squire, a baron, a viscount, an earl, a marquess, a duke, a prince, a king and all their female counterparts. I am not that sure of the order but ranking existed and still exists within this social millieu. These people move in the same circles but proper introductions were needed if one of lower rank or status from the same social circle wanted to meet the higher ups.The reason they were able to mingle with one an other was because of the similar social class, more or less. One could not mix with the peasantry socially if one belonged to the upper class. However, belonging to the upper class doesn't mean one has the same amount of money, then and today. In fact, in Persuasion, the Elliots had been losing money, though they still had their titles. Some landed gentry who did not have titles had more money than the titled nobility (not the Bennets, though). . Historically, the merchants had been gaining economic power while some of the aristocrats were in debt. Hence, many English aristocrats married American heiresses in the past. The English aristocrats (and other European aristocrats) gained money while the American heiresses gained prestige and titles. This phenomenon was depicted in the novels of Edith Wharton. It has happened also in feudal Japan, for example. When the socio-economic system had changed, the old impoverished samurais had to rent out their lands or even sell them to Japanese merchants/tradesmen. Societies as a rule have rankings or caste system and there are rules to follow even today. Of course, some aristocrats who were financially savvy were able to retain their old wealth but not all were able to do that. Darcy may have married someone considered beneath him in rank and status but it was still palatable since he did not marry a peasant but a daughter of a small-time landed gentleman who did not need to work for a living because the income came from owning land rented out to tenants. My comment about the old money vs new money was not really about Pride and Prejudice. Hence, I did not really mention Darcy or the Bennets in my original post but mentioned Persuasion and the Elliots since Jane Austen wrote about this particular social class to which she actually belonged. All the novels of Austen revolved around this particular upper-class milieu where rankings and status were measured according to one's estate, money, title/lineage, education, and trade/employment. I just tried to make the rankings similiar to today's socio-economic mindset when I added my other comment to show the disparity between the wealth of Darcy and that of Mr. Bennet's.
Very interesting
Only a man could read Pride and Prejudice and conclude that it wasn't a romance.
Only men think Jane Austen's books are romances
William Smith doesn't pretend P&P is not a romance novel. He only says: issues of money and class always trump romance. „always“ may be exaggerating. P&P is much more than a romance novel.
As I got older, I realized that Persuasion is my favorite of Miss Austen's books.
It’s not about a multiplied figure, but about buying power regarding historical annual incomes.
The reason the oldest son inherited was to keep the estate intact. If it was divided equally among all the children, it would dissipate in a few generations, and they would all be poor. So, the oldest son inherited and was expected to support the others, especially females, which was one reason why the Bennets wanted a son for any unwed Bennet sisters to depend on. Gentlemen who refused to follow these social norms were ostracized, and that was enough of a deterrent to keep most of them supporting dependents. This explains why Mr. Collins was going to choose a wife from the Bennet sisters, and why Mr. Darcy would have given Mr. Wickham a living as minister on his estate. It also explains why John Dashwood was considered a villain in Sense and Sensibility. He was supposed to take care of his stepmother and half sisters after he inherited upon the death of his Father, but didn't.
A few comments along the way:
4:55 - It's perhaps notable that, for all her airs, Lady Catherine actually married below her station, and to a greater degree than Mr. Darcy may be considered to have done in marrying Elizabeth. She was the daughter of an earl and is called "Lady" as a courtesy title in her own right. Her husband was _Sir_ Lewis de Bourgh, a baronet, from an older, prestigious family and very wealthy but still not aristocracy. For all his ancestry it's also hinted he was _nouveau riche:_ Rosings was a new house and not an ancestral family seat. (That's why Mr. Collins has all the details on the cost of its construction.) The difference between Mr Darcy and Elizabeth is mostly in wealth, and in her mother's background; both the Darcys and Bennets are landed gentry. So in objecting to Mr Darcy's marriage to Elizabeth, she's being just a bit hypocritical.
6:25 - Further exposing what you're calling irony but what I'm calling hypocrisy, Mr Bingley was NOT landed gentry until the denouement when we are told he purchases an estate. He only leased Netherfield; it's not the source of his income as you suggest at 7:05. He's actually of the third class: his father made the family's fortune by trade. Yet no one sees the slightest impropriety in Mr Bingley associating with Darcy simply on the basis of his wealth - or in Caroline Bingley's pursuit of Mr Darcy. The characters may speak in terms of class, but it's really all about the money.
7:30 - I'd think it more useful to look at what lifestyle an income supports rather than try to figure out equivalents in modern money. On my own income in the neighborhood of what you attribute to the Bennets I could hardly afford their lifestyle. I might own appliances, but I have no servants and have to mow my own lawn and cook my own meals, and supporting 5 daughters (at least two of whom seem to be recreational shoppers) would be a considerable strain. I'd put their income equivalent considerably higher than mine. Mr Darcy is thought of as fabulously wealthy, and $800k/year seems on the low side for the status it brings him.
12:00 - It might be worth mentioning that entailment wasn't done just to be nasty. The purpose in cases like this was to keep estates, especially smaller ones, from being split up among multiple heirs to the point where they can no longer provide a living to the family. (It's not true that the oldest son must inherit all. That was the default should an estate owner die intestate, but without an entail he could will his estate however he chose.) And also, in this case, limited to male heirs to keep it independent and not joined to the estate of the husband of a female heir. The plan we were told about, that had a son arrived he'd have been expected to join with Mr Bennet in breaking the entail and so provide for the daughters, solves the immediate problem of their livings, but creates the generational problem that the Bennets would no longer be landed gentry after that point and would have to re-make their position by other means. For that reason, this entirely theoretical son might have chosen not to cooperate.
Chris C great post. Also in any case if a Bennet son had born any unmarried daughters and Mrs Bennet would have had a safety net in case Mr Bennet dies first (which is quite likely and with 5 daughters is also quite unlikely with limited drowry that all will marry) . Any son would not kick his mother and sisters out even if he was unwilling to split the estate.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 I don't think you can assume any brother would be dutiful in an Austen book. Sense and Sensibility revolves around a half-brother completely abandoning his sisters' financial needs despite a promise to his father, for instance. It would be improper, but one of Austen's most consistent themes is that if you've got money, and especially if you're male, impropriety is something you can afford.
@@kitwhitfield7169 Indeed. Although, with Mrs. Bennet's habit of spiraling into histrionics at the drop of a pin, perhaps more forgivable than in some other cases.
Thank you for making the point about the entail - I was going to comment on it, but I see you have it well covered 😊
The wife of a knight or baronet will also be addressed as lady so and so
All though I do agree that Pride & Prejudice is about wealth/stature/class and all daughters fighting through marriage to keep or to get better stature. Because that is also what the title of the book implies. But as the the title can be read as a look on class it is also about the way matrimonies were looked at to combine family wealth and land. The whole book is about finding love in spite of pride and prejudice. Jane & Elisabeth both explain how they love their future husbands with great passion and have to be brave to hold steady against Bingley's sister, Catherine the Bourgh and also Darcy himself. In the end Bingley and Darcy both go beyond what is requested of their class and choose for love. How is this book not about love?
I was with you all the way to the end. Hollywood has not convinced me personally of anything at all about P&P...I’ve seen every adaptation and believe Austen would reject-trenchantly-each one. However, using only the evidence of no kissing scene, I don’t agree if you are saying Austen thinks money is more important than “romance”. She would not have used the word romance (too modern), but she rejects soundly the marriage for money without compatibility (Charlotte). I think one of Austen’s main contributions to the Great Dialogue is every time two people manage to break through the financial and social strata (that you discuss so well here) it is another human miracle to be celebrated. In 2019, we just happen to call that kind of mural attraction “romantic”.
If the Bennett girls didn’t marry well they would’ve ended up like Ms. Bates in Emma.
@alison webster Jane Austen had talent, and it lifts her over the situation. I hope. But you are absolutely correct.
My senior lit teacher gave me this book for graduation. She wrote a lovely note in it and I treasure it.
Only watched about halfway but there are several factual errors. For instance, Mr. Bingley's income and fortune don't come from land, but from trade.
true but Bingley is of a higher class than his father (assuming it I his father who made the money) as he has never had to work for the money himself. His income is presumably coming from investments.
@@molybdomancer195 Actually, Bingley is in the same class as his father until he bought his estate at the very end of the book, after he married Jane. That's why in the beginning of the book he's not described as a "gentleman" but as a "gentleman-like man". An academic difference to us today, but in those days, it meant a lot in terms of social difference.
@@molybdomancer195 I think it’s safe to say it was their father. It makes the Bingley sister’s «forgettfulness» about where their money came form a bit more beliavable, if their brother isn’t still in trade. They would be second generation new money then and have started to think of themselves no longer as of the new rich, even though of course they still are.
13:13. I do not recall any language that suggested that Bingley 'wanted' a wife...merely that any single man of large fortune "must be in want of a wife" which is not the same at all. Nonethless, I did enjoy the exploration of money and class in the era. TY!
Loved the analysis and it cleared up a lot of questions I’ve had about the book!
Thanks you!
Thanks a lot. I got to understand more of the books. I watched the movie before reading the books. And I found so much distinctions between reading and watching. The movie was much easier to understand for non-native speakers. While the books spent a lot of lines describing the conflicting discussion and the awkwardness of social interaction between people in different classes.
The book is difficult for native speakers too. Our language has changed over two centuries, our society is very different and the social interaction between classes is an example of these differences.
This is an excellent analysis. Thanks!
The social classes in this era, and later, were not impermeable. "Commoners" were regularly "Ennobled" for a variety of reasons, sometimes wealth - or what wealth enabled them to do. Also, marriages between higher social class and richer lower class (but not too low) were not uncommon, even in the time of Elizabeth I. They were looked down on and the "lower rank" partner was often never fully accepted, but such unions were not uncommon.
I'd also like to say that I 100% agree with your view that this novel is about rich people and VERY rich people, and that we see little or nothing of the real world of working people and the poor. I'm not sure how different we are now, in our entertainments. Anyone watching TV or the movies we make would think we live in a world of comfort, full of beautiful, interesting people who never go hungry.
Your narrative style is top notch. The topic and the explanation is excellent no doubt, but the way you have narrated it is soothing to the ear.
What I think was the REAL discrepancy is that Jane Austen HAD to sell the rights to that book way before it became “popular” and lost out on all that money, class and clout as an author. She died young and as a pauper
Is that right? I seem to remember from one of her letters to her sister "do not worry, I am quite rich" when Austen had sent her a bolt of cloth.
She didn't die a pauper. Maybe not rich but a pauper is a very poor person without enough money for food or clothing, let alone paper and quill to write with and trips to the sea in search of health.
Even though she didn't gain as much as she should've with her novels, she wasn't a pauper -- she did gain enough money to do as she liked and even go to where she pleased. But yes, she did die so young :( If she lived a longer life, she would've been able to publish more excellent books.
As you also see in Austen's Persuasion, a low-level baronet has to rent his property out, because he cannot fully pay his debts. And other families with no peerage are more wealthier through their business. And naval officers become wealthy by capturing ships and are entitled to 1/4 the value of the goods captured. Also, you will see in later nineteenth century novels, that the Industrial Age means that land alone is not enough to sustain wealth. If you watch the Downton Abbey series, you see how the Crawley's try to work the land, to make more money off of it, while other aristocratic families are going bankrupt. It would be interesting to see what the great-grandchildren of Darcy, and Lizzie would be like with their land at Pemberley.
Terence Begley In the era of Downton Abbey the big issue was death duties. When the owner of an estate died it would have to pay 40% tax on its value. This was often difficult when the value was tied up in fixed assets such as a house and land which couldn’t be easily sold without risking the integrity and future financial stability of the estate.
Pemberly would be intact, but the land around it would be all gated condo communities.
I get what he's getting at with people thinking that Pride and Prejudice was just some early romance novel. This is less to do with the actual genre of the book and more to do with the contemporary views on romance novels. A general view could be seen as romance novels are trashy, girly, not put a lot of thought into it, all about drama and boys, and purely fantasy wish fulfillment. Which can easily be the case for many books. So when people are surprised, they're actually surprised that it's well written and has engaging and realistic characters, as opposed the generally bad reputation of modern romance novels. People forget that its a classic for a reason. In fact, I'd say most historical romance books and modern romances are living off the legacy of Pride and Prejudice (tropes such as rich and/or snobby man falls for intelligent free spirited commoner, haters to lovers, and gentleman (title) = gentle (verb) man, comes to mind). That's what I love about Pride and Prejudice, not only does it prove that just because its a romance doesn't mean its not intelligent, but also that you can have all the romance tropes you want and still do it in a believable and not over the top cheesy way.
Bad boy turns good: Think criminal/player/general bad boy/red flag character whose more likely to break your heart or on the extreme be abusive to you. In real life, bad boys aren't changed by love, they just end up being abusive boyfriends. It looks really good in a romantically but in the end they don't have any attraction to each other outside from danger and/or lust.
Mr Darcy is a real character, swayed by realistic emotions. He's not a bad boy but he is a bit of an asshole, which satisfies that bad boy turning good trope. His worst crimes were being mean to Wickham (a lie), stopping Mr Bingley's relationship with Jane (a misunderstanding), being rude (bad first impression due social awkwardness) and being snobby which he gets over in satisfying character development, in part for his love for Elizabeth and other due to general goodnatured-ness.
Aristocrat marries a commoner: This one's popular in fairy tales and other old timey folk tales. This ones less problematic but just more unrealistic. Princes aren't going to marry fair maidens they meet in the woods, they're going to have affairs with them. Neither will Kings let their daughters marry woodcutters, they'll also have affairs.
Mr Darcy and Elizabeth are both of the genteel class, so it's not going to ruin their standing that much to get married, although due to disparity in wealth it will feel like you're marrying a prince.
Not like others girls, girl whose caught the attention of usually indifferent guy because of her uniqueness, attention that she initially doesn't want: Pride and Prejudice helped invent this trope. Most stories that use this trope their really is nothing that special about the heroine. Elizabeth's character is unique because her lively nature and wit makes her stand out. She's not better than other girls for this but it's enough to grab Darcy's attention and most importantly we see these characteristics displayed in the book. That and she's like the only one not intimidated or swayed by Darcy in the book at all. (Georgiana and Bingley but him on this high moral pedestal and let him decide for them, Colonel Fitzwilliam comes and goes with Darcy when Darcy decides, Wickham outright avoids him, Mr Collins puts him up beside Lady Catherine, the Gardiners expect him to turn them out of his estate at one point ,Mr Bennet admits he wouldn't say no to anything Darcy asked for, Mrs Bennet isn't her usual awful self once she learns he'll be her son in law and everyone else is intimidated by his wealth and silent temper).
Romantic gesture of Love: Most romances have some kind of big romantic gesture. It can be a big sacrifice or just be saying "I love you" sincerely. Darcy's was impressive on many different levels. It was a lot of time and money, but that would be kind of thin if it was just that on its own (looking at you Unleashing Mr Darcy, awful adaption, wonderful story), it was a sacrifice to Darcy because he knew he was giving Wickham what he wanted. Also he did it knowing if by some miracle he did marry Elizabeth, Wickham would become his step-brother. He did it knowing he probably wouldn't marry Elizabeth, so it can't be seen as a selfish ploy to keep her name reputable so he could marry her. He did it out of genuine concern for her. He did it after Elizabeth refused him, which means he still loved her even after being rejected (which is a nice sentiment on its own). He did it knowing that Lydia had disgraced her family which means Darcy has long given up his prejudices against marrying into the Bennet family (character growth). And most importantly of all, he did it all without intending anyone to find out, even Elizabeth, so it was out of complete selflessness. Also its a lot more reasonable a romantic gesture than slaying dragons or running through airports.
Teenagers being forced to read it for school although shown it as a classic, the book holds all the negative stereotype of a classic. Boring and very wordy. But just like all classics it will appeal to readers who specifically like that book, to like something only because its status as a classic is very shallow. People who love Pride and Prejudice like me marvel in its excellence writing or who knows what other reason. Someone might loves well written stories but romances aren't their cup of tea. This is perfectly okay but its sad to think just because something is a romance is to suppose its bad.
God this is longer than anything I've ever written for anything I've ever written for a book in English class. That says a lot.
You must allow me to say how much I love and respect this comment. :)))
Wow, you've written a whole essay 😁
Well done! This video was awesome, and despite my having read the book and watched many adaptations, I learned a lot!
Classification in literature is not based so much on the minutiae of content, but rather on themes or, more importantly, structure.
A smart/quirky/in whatever way unusual woman meets attractive/mercurial/taciturn/mysterious man with whom she tentatively starts some kind of relationship, which slowly progresses until some event/misunderstanding causes a seemingly insurrmountable rupture, which is resolved by him galantly/heroically rescuing her from some grave peril/crisis she got caught up in/has gotten herself into, and they live happily after after.
Sound familiar?
It's Twilight. It's 50 shades. It's the Sheikh.The fact Austen's work is 2 billion classes higher up than those examples doesn't change the fact that said work, at its core, consists or romance novels.
Austen's works were generally romantic and can be read as romances but that is not the only way to read them.
Austen wrote, as did many authors of her time, about a moral society and its ideal form. She looked at how people can disrupt the moral and social balance and how this balance can be restored.
Even though she pricks at the moral and personal absurdities she saw in her live and her characters, her novels usually end with order restored and the class disrupting individuals either punished in some way or removed from the tiny worlds she is documenting.
To describe her works as elevated young adult (Twilight) or bland adult themed (50 Shades) novels is too simplistic for me to accept. There is resemblance but the differences are more than merely the writing quality.
The rules of inheritance from the Regency period are still in practice today, see estates such as Chatsworth
I loved this video, I've learned so much in just 13 minutes!! Thank you so very much!
Wonderful! As an avid romance novel reader, I never realized that most regency romances deal with a different class altogether than Austen did -- it never occurred to me that, of course, none of her characters is a "lady" or "lord" or higher, except for de Burgh. Whereas today's regency romance novels deal almost exclusively with titled 1st class folks. Take Bridgerton, in which every member of the family (I think?) marries a duke or a viscount or lady or whatever.
I like the map of English society graph, definitely puts the difference between Anne and Wentworth into perspective at the start of their relationship in Persuasion.
I would literally watch a whole semester of this! Really!
I mean, on some level, we still uphold some of these social class structures. We find it more acceptable for a celebrity to approach an average citizen than the other way around. And it's definitely seen as more acceptable for anyone to approach someone homeless than the other way around. Certainly we're not creating as severe punishments for those who disrupt these social expectations, but approachability is still governed by the class structures I think we're afraid to even acknowledge exist.
That's what gets me about Austen's novels. They highlight the abundant similarities between present day society and Regency England rather than the differences.
The Regency really ended in 1820 and Austen was already dead. The real Mr. Darcy would have had a string of mistresses among the servant class before he met Lizzie.
What an amazing video! Thank you!
Important to remember, the families of the Landed Gentry were often older than the families of the aristocracy. Another point, families descended fro the Norman families were very aware of it. Catherine Fitz William De Bourgh and the Bennett's would both have been of Norman descent and I'm sure Jane Austen was aware of it.
About income. Income was a combination of two things: income from rent of farms on their estate (about 1pound per acre) and the investments of their fortune. safe ones were either governement "funds" that produced around 5% but did wobble a little and more stable "consols" that gave 3%. so whilst bingley's income, who didn't own land was entirely from interest on his inheritance, Darcy's and Bennets's was a hybrid, and their fortune couldn't be determined without knowing the size of their estate (my research was for early victorian period but i don't think it makes much difference. changes in upper clas started when industrial relovution was at it's fullest, i.e. when money was moving from farms to cities but sped up only after WWI )
Well made, and definitely helps me understand the character's motives better. Thank you
I love the way explained it.
It was Mrs Bennett's background that was the problem.
Excellent explanation. Thank you.
What an excellent summary! Thank you!
Thank you for this video. The information is really interesting.
excellent and fascinating.
Great video
There is a noticeable difference in American classes versus European and especially British class. Obviously, because of the different history and way social structure was built in America. But there are some commonality in the way class is perceived. Money carries much more weight in America yet, education, dress and conduct can also say what your background is and to what class you were born just as it is for British class. It's is just far more mobile and fluid in America as you can pretty much buy your way to almost any opportunity. Despite that there are always opportunities based on simply class (that means it's more likely you'll move within your own class) Americans are far more concerned with money and influence than your lineage. Still, you can usually tell if someone was born upper middle class or upper class simply because of subtle behaviors and other class norms.
This is also in the novel. Ms. Bingley (actually not landed gentry but of a merchant background) and others show that wealth does not buy breeding as Elizabeth's more educated and nuanced social understanding and education is in juxtaposition to hers. This is character, of course, but it is also class. Jane and Elizabeth are well bred which many wealthier gentry comment on in the novel as particularly unfortunate. It's interesting to observe how different foolish and ignorant characters are treated differently simply because of their wealth and status. Jane Austen often contrasted how behavior was tolerated based on your class, Lady Catherine de Burgh's interactions with Elizabeth was a good example of this too.
The oppression and exploitation of the lower classes, which was common in Europe, in the colonies and post-colonial societies was replaced by oppression and exploitation of other races, which were always prevented from rising in social hierarchy
This was really helpful!! Thanks a lot
Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Reynolds, and Mr. Bennett’s manservant all have brief speaking roles.
Thank you! I actually purchased the combination book of all her novels in one book.
(recently ) ....so I could read them for leisure.
This was really interesting!
Very interesting! Thanks for uploading!
Thanks for the great explanation!
Many thanks for creating this video. I studied English studies and history in university and remember how so e girls always said that Pride&Prejudices was their favourite book in a dreamy voice. When I personally found it a rather boring read which might have been because I couldn't find much romantic about marrying due to money even though I knew that this was a former (and needed) habit of societies.
I really enjoyed this video. Although also written by Austen, I’d love to hear a comparative video about wealth and social structure from Sense and Sensibility. That story seems even a bit more complicated in regards to this topic.
This is very interesting thank you!
If you multiply the incomes by 80, you get 160,000 pounds a year for the Bennets and 800,000 pounds a year for Mr Darcy. This is not the equivalent in dollars (a pedant writes...)
In rounded off numbers that’s about $200,000/year for the Bennets and over $1,000,000/year for Mr. Darcy.
and 5 children vs just Darcy, and Georgianna.
no wonder Mr. Wickham was a turd.
Unless that calculation also includes a conversion into modern dollars? 🤷
JayDJ91 n
John Craske I’ve been looking for this! Thanks 😄
I had more or less gathered as much when I read the book, and I've also picked up a few things from Anne Perry's Thomas Pitt novels, even though they're set later in the Victorian era. It's still one of my favorite books though!
Ah yes. The policeman must go to the backdoor or the servants door. And Charlotte having to learn how to do housework and mend clothing. Love those books as well.
Even today there are special funds, trusts and housing arrangements for "widowers" and for "chaste women who do not have a husband" here in Norway. You can then apply for these funds, and depending on your story - or how well-connected you are - you can get some of that. I'm pretty sure there are similar arrangements in the rest of Europe.
Why not just give such arrangement on the basis on poverty and homelessness and disability rather than marriage status?
@@KateeAngel Because they're private trusts with very spesific and archaic rules. For most others there is regular welfare.
This insight was really good, thank you 🙂🙂🙂!
Social climbing is still a subject in romantic fiction, Notting Hill is an excellent example.
Also, the wish to become a princess is probably still the ambition of about half of all five-year old girls.
I've always resented the fact that American culture equates little girls as princesses to being pampered, pink fru fru and always getting your way. In actuality royalty is alot of responsibility. Instead we're teaching little girls that everything be handed to them because they're wearing a glitter encrusted tiara.
@@tjp2109 nah girls just like pretty dresses and horses and dressing up and cute girl characters because its neat, little girls dont read into the historical and social context and connotation and societal implications of what they watch they just want an image of it on their backpack
Some of us little American girls wanted to be knights. Why be a damsel in distress when you can tame (not slay) the dragon yourself? :-)
@@gusmonster59 Maybe that's the difference then: boys want to slay the dragon and girls want to tame it 😉
@@tjp2109 American 5 year old girls know nothing of social responsibility, nor should they. At 5, they just want to twirl in sparkly dresses and ride ponies. The likelihood that an American girl will become a "real" princess is infinitesimal at best, so the whole princess thing in America is a fantasy.
Now, you might be talking about the children who participate in pageants, but that's just a modern version of the "Shirley Temple" syndrome and again, what responsibility is there??
I don't see anything wrong with letting children imagine different roles for themselves. The issue becomes a problem when BOYS AND GIRLS alike are not taught to support themselves personally and financially.
This explanation is exactly why it annoyed me in the Keira Knightley version that the Bennet family is portrayed as poor. Were they rich? No. But they were comfortable.
Yes in the book. But in the Keira Knightely movie version, Longbourne is in shambles with peeling paint and the house and estate in disrepair. The girls’ dresses likewise are shabby. Perhaps the film makers wanted to make a point of the disparity of incomes between the Bennett Family and Darcy. But the level of shabbiness and disrepair portrayed in the film was not true to the novel.
In the 1995 film version, it’s obvious there is a disparity in wealth and standing. But they don’t make the Bennetts shabby or show their estate in disrepair.
Mr. Bennet's estate earned two thousand pounds per year. The family was moderately wealthy, like Colonel Brandon in "Sense and Sensibility". However, Mr. Bennet had failed to set up dowries for his daughters, because he had assumed that he and Mrs. Bennet would have a son . . . until it was too late. His daughters' marital chances were threatened by his laziness.
Thank you for this analysis
Interesting thought, that a person with a guaranteed income of a 1'000'000 pound a year would not be free to marry whom he wanted, and actually felt obliged to marry into money... I feel richer than Mr. Darcy, somehow :-)
There was (and, as far as I know, for some, still is) a strong obligation in the aristocracy to perpetuate the position of the family by making sure you didn't end up as poor as curate's cook. In the aristocracy of the time, marrying someone of equal status or better wealth ensured that power and money accumulated and increased. There are still families extant that owe their enhanced position to generations of this practice.
historically marriage was an economic decision, not a lovematch
@@marcowen1506 This practice was probably what caused everyone in the aristocracy to be related lol. As only someone of equal or more status was enough for marriage for aristocracy like you said. A great example would be Lady Catherine's daughter (forgot her name) and Darcy's betrothal being planned since they were born despite them being first cousins. As their mothers were daughters of an Earl, they didn't want their children marrying "downwards" into society despite them only being gentry and not aristocracy from their husbands' line. So I.e. why Darcy's mother and Catherine wanted their children married to ensure they would keep their class and wealth. Even so, they were still first cousins. Imagine the children they would have had yikes
Birth is NOT the only way to become a peer, If you do something important enough you CAN be elevated to the aristocracy by the queen (or go up ranks Earl to Duke etc). For example, George VI made Philip of Greece and Denmark a Duke of England and later his wife (The QUEEN) made him a Prince of England. A man born as the Hon. Arthur Wesley, the fourth son of an Earl, was made a Viscount after winning a battle ( Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington, in the County of Somerset, with the subsidiary title of Baron Douro of Wellesley) and later elevated further to Duke after winning the Peninsula War (Duke of Wellington, in the county of Somerset, together with the subsidiary title of Marquess Douro, in the said County). Nelson was the son of a revered but was made a viscount after winning the battle of the Nile.
The lower peerage could be bought as well. Annually, an honors list was published, plus there could be special occasions for awarding honors.
wasn´t sir Lucas elevated by the king too?
Thank u for this great vid 👏
This was interesting and informative.. Thanks !
Excellent video. Very well put.
9:10 This is like reading the power level discussions from a shonen anime.
160.000 for seven people means about 22.857,00 per Person per year. ...now I see why the Bennets didn't invested in a governess.
Thanks for this video. It was very enlightening, and I appreciate your thoughts about it. :)
what a wonderful video, thank you
I like “ Pride and prejudice “ very much!!! Mr Darcy my favourite hero in the classic literature. I like Darcy only performed by Colin Firth!Only he is!
Everyone else here: Yes, the social class of the family’s last income... Me: DiD aNyOnE eLsE nOtIcE tHe LiZzIe BeNnEt DiArIeS rEfErEnCe!?
Great explanation! Thanks!
"Idle persons supported by criminal activity?"
Sounds like a perfect description of Royalty and the Aristocracy to me!
Brilliant! Thank you!
Good.! I enjoyed that.
You omit the officers (and note that senior sergeants) constitute a class with the Bennets interact. The officers generally come from the other classes, but the inclusion of senior NCOs is definitely a source of advancement by merit.
Brilliantly described. Thankyou 😊
Some book or the other about colonial America, mentioned the salary for the town clergy was to be L60 plus firewood etc., and that this was a substantial sum for the area. Of course, the colonies were rich in resources but short on currency money.