Why Are The Bennet Sisters So Poor? Pride and Prejudice Sparknotes
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 16. 06. 2024
- Have you ever wondered why Elizabeth Bennet and her sisters in Pride and Prejudice are so poor? Why is Mrs Bennet so desperate to marry them off? What would have happened to them had Elizabeth not married Darcy?
These are great questions we'll discuss in this video.
đ° Learn more about Regency Era economics:
Why is Mr Darcy so rich? âą Why is Mr Darcy so ric...
Why is Mr Collins inheriting Longbourn? âą Why is Mr Collins inhe...
đ
INSTAGRAM @elliedashie â / elliedashie
WEBSITE â elliedashwood.com
đ° Watching Guide
00:00 Why are the Bennet sisters so poor? [Intro]
00:50 What is a dowery?
01:44 Where did money for dowries come from?
02:02 Method 1: A Mother's Dowery
02:49 Method 2: The Family Estate
03:18 Method 3: Savings
04:01 How did a girl's effect marriage?
04:32 Dowery examples in Jane Austen's books
05:48 How did a dowery's size effect being an old maid?
06:43 So exactly why are the Bennet sisters so poor?
FTC DISCLAIMER: Links may be affiliate links which means I'll receive a small commission from your purchase at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my channel.
Try Audible: amzn.to/45Uzoqb
đBooks Talked About In This Video
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Novel go.magik.ly/ml/1u43m/
1995 Miniseries (Colin Firth Version): amzn.to/42zFoSm
2005 Movie (Kiera Knightly Version): amzn.to/3qCNVqE
Sense and Sensibility
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u43s/
Miniseries 2008: amzn.to/3oYpweI
Movie 1996: amzn.to/3J7gwe2
Persuasion
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u43y/
Movie 1997: amzn.to/3J6UqZb
Movie 2008: amzn.to/3oX1XTs
Northanger Abbey
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u43z/
BBC Movie 2007: amzn.to/43tyFe4
Emma
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u441/
1996 Movie: amzn.to/43RxXal
2009 Miniseries: amzn.to/3qEJM5f
2020 Movie: amzn.to/45Yl9AM
Mansfield Park
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u446/
Miniseries 2008: amzn.to/467BbbQ
#janeausten #regencyera #doweries #prideandprejudice #classicbooks #senseandsensibility #elizabethbennet #janeaustenemma #mansfieldpark #northangerabbey #dowery
Learn more about the Bennet family's income in my new video "Is The Bennet Family Poor?" Watch now: czcams.com/video/o0vYtSf2iP8/video.html
That video is excellent.
They would have been a lot better off if Mr. Bennett had stepped up. We don't think badly of Mr. Bennett in the books because it is in Elizabeth's perspective and she loves him...but he could have easily controlled his wife's spending who liked to get really nice and expensive food, cut down on his youngest daughter's spending, and made some investments in his brother-in-law's (The Gardner's ) company. He had know for around 15 years that he had no son and the estate was entailed, but instead of preparing for the future he hid in his study from his silly wife and reality...honestly Mrs. Bennett wouldn't be so silly if she didn't have to worry sick about their future because her husband was doing nothing about it.
I couldn't have said it any better
Good points
If she would had been really worried about the future, she wouldn't had spent all that money nor let her daugthers did.
@@DigimonGaara she thought she was doing an investment in her daughters
@@lxrxinbow5413 nah, she wasn't the kind of person who invest in nothing.
She just were to alienated for social events, tbey weren't an invest for her, they were a pleasure.
I think the answer is that their father didnât plan. I think his Plan A was to have a son.
And he didn't have a plan B.
Or a plan C.
@@ennediend2865 đ
Which puts him leagues ahead of the females in the Bennett family!
He said exactly that in the version with Colin Firth.
He didnât plan and he loved books which were a very expensive hobby at the time. He had enough to get dowries together for at least the older two, but he was lazy and you NEVER hear of him trying to improve his estate. Mr Bennet was a neglectful husband and father
Mrs. Bennett wore him down.
@@perdidoatlantic Yes - why did he put up with it? He should have shipped her off to a remote lunatic asylum or brothel. I wonder how her nerves would have coped with having to support herself?
@@billburr5881 If he had done that, his reputation would have been ruined, and he would have been a social pariah. That meant a lot back then. When his youngest daughter ran off, they even would have had to leave town to escape the shaming if Mr. Darcy hadn't arranged & paid for a marriage. Also, her brother would have rescued Mrs. Bennet & probably killed him, as he should have.
@@billburr5881 Maybe--just maybe--he wasn't so utterly lacking in a moral compass as to think that sending his wife to a "remote lunatic asylum or brothel" was an appropriate response to her talking a lot? But I'm just spitballing ideas here.
@@nelsonemily4 People at that time thought little of packing inconvenient relatives off to hell holes of various types - many young women sent their illegitimate children to baby farms, which only the most hardy would survive. Many children were sent to boarding schools, young men were packed off to the navy or sent to the colonies. All sorts of interesting diseases awaited them there! Girls of poorer families would be packed off to brothels, just like happens in the third world today. Factories, mines, hard, grinding lives were the norm then, not the lace and manners that Miss Austin portrays.
i never understood why the mother is condescended to for trying to ensure satisfactory marriages for her daughters. her father seemed to have abdicated that responsibility completely.
Alternative title: Making females like myself relieved that you live in modern times and can support yourself if you dont want to get married.
đ So true! The limited options they had back then are terrifying!
Second sons like Colonel Flitwilliam could also face similar money troubles, and while there were more opportunities to work for men it wasnât easy.
Nah! Not existing at all is way better.
Women back then could also make a living and support themselves. A lot of spinsters worked as seamstress, milliner, cook, nanny, teacher, nurse and so much more.
Not true if youâre disabled. My income is not enough from SSDI and Iâm too disabled to work. I had to marry to survive. Itâs still the Regency Era for us in this way
Itâs useful to remember that the family were landed gentry and in the top 10% of society. So they were comparatively wealthy. They had a mortgage free house and land to grow food on. They had household servants. The real issue was that the estate could only be passed onto a male heir. The lack of a male heir meant that the sisters had no brother whose estate they could continue to live on for free. Society meant that women of their class were not allowed to work.
They were stinking rich - very literally part of the 1%!
The problem was that their wealth would disappear entirely the moment their father died (or, more specifically, the moment their father died and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their mother wasn't pregnant again - everyone, including Austen herself, seems to have forgotten that legal loophole).
@@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co - given that more than 60% lived in dire poverty, being "rich" then meant something different than it does now.
No, they were not rich, it was stated multiple times throughout the book. They weren't poor but as far as their own class went, they lived comfortably while their aging father was alive but after his death they would have ended up like the Dashwoods - too poor to buy their own sugar.
People of that class could work. For men, there were a number of gentle professions such as being a barrister, military officer, or serving in Parliament. For women, they could be Governesses in the households of wealthier gentry.
@@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co Mrs Bennett is presumably of an age where she has gone through menopause.
I would have added the additional point that by even one of the Bennet sisters marrying a rich man, it assured that their mother would always have a place to go upon their father's death since she and any remaining single sisters would have to leave Longbourn once Mr. Collins inherited. Also, by marrying a rich man, that sister and her husband could plump up the dowries of the other girls. The potential husband would not be obligated to do so, but it would not look right if he didn't help at least some. Also, the connection with a rich man who moved with the upper crust of society was in itself an attraction for single men to consider the single Bennet sisters more favorably as the connection could be valuable.
With five daughters, Mr. Bennet did his best to educate them in letters as well as music and dance. That would have cost enough and with an extremely nervy and wooly headed but pretty wife, Bennet couldn't have done better. I am surprised that an aristocrat like Darcy would show any interest to a silly future mum in law. It is Elizabeth Bennet's intelligence, wit and good looks which endeared her in D'arcy 's eyes. She was brilliant.
@@gitachakrabarti1107 Well, he wouldn't let a family member starve. I see him being willing to set her up in a small home somewhere far away from him.
@@jmarie9997 yeah and I'm pretty sure it states in the books that both Elizabeth and Jane tried their best to support Lydia financially until it became burdensome to keep doing so.
A ÂŁ1,000 in 1800 would be worth approximately ÂŁ80,000 (or $97,000) in today's value (X 80). So if Georgiana (Darcy's sister) had a dowry of ÂŁ30,000 that would be worth ÂŁ2,400,000 ( nearly $3,000,000), which is why Wickham was so interested in her.
That is not poor
@@somethingclever8916 true they are still the landed Gentry they were in the same social class as Darcy and Bingley which is the only reason they even had a shot at those marriages in first place
But they were âpoorâ in comparison to someone like Darcy or Bingley the Bennett's weren't poor in how we see it today their father didn't have a regular job to keep a steady income
@@HealthyObbsession poor means no money. Not less money.
That would be like saying the kardashians are poor compared to Elon Musk
The bennets are less rich, less affluent, less privilege than Darcy
But poor.
There is a reason I think volunteering in poor and homeless communities should be a mandatory credit for high school and college.
@@somethingclever8916 yea I get what the term poor actually means I was just explaining in terms of the book
You can also have money and be considered poor there isn't just one meaning for a word
@@HealthyObbsession you cant have money and be poor.
Poor =poverty
Its become a clickbait term sadly and its takes away from the real hardship, struggles, and systemtic oppression of those that live on that live on that poverty line.
No person who has servants, lives on estates, goes to balls with rich and titled gentry would be considered poor.
The Bennets were upper middle class and Darcy was upper class. It wasn't a servant marrying a lord. It was a well off middle class marrying up.
FYI if the CDC doesn't extend the eviction moratorium this week millions will be homeless. Those are the real poor. The people who commit suicide over lack of any money
Those are poor people.
Poor is not a spectrum. There is a huge difference between cant afford and poor.
Also poor/poverty is based off income based off country. In my state, a single person who makes under $19000 a year is in poverty.
Google your state/countries poverty line.
$80,000 is a fortune
As far as I can remember, Mr Bennett was also not great at saving and neither was Mrs Bennett
The Bennetâs were definitely not financially wise like that. đł
Mr.Benett could easily have saved at least 500 pounds and over 20 years not counting interest is 10,000 pounds. At that time 1 pound was 5 American dollars, 50 thousand dollars was quite a large fortune at that time. While a gentleman didn't work he could invest in others businesses, so if Mr.Bennett applied himself instead of hanging out in the library he could have made money. He had Mr. Gardiner in London, he could have been a silent partner in a business venture and made money.
That would've been *trade*, though.
@@acsound Not if he was an investor, the big part of being a gentleman was that one didn't really work. Yes, you could manage an estate like Mr. Darcy, but he never got his hands dirty. There were many peers who invested in businesses as long as they didn't personally run it, they were still gentlemen. That is why I reference it as being a silent partner, it was not common knowledge.
Britain was an industrial and commercial giant at the time. And saving has always been a wise move. He could(and should)have planned from the start on increasing his family's fortune. Forget about having five daughters, what if he had five SONS!!!
@@xhagast At least he would have had the heir would have continued to be the owner of Longborn, who would have had to have helped out his siblings. Likely one of his sons would go in the military, another in the clergy, and likely law as well. But he would have been forced to save something. They are poor with money, since none of the girls had a governess or private schools, so they clearly could have saved some money.
@@mtngrl5859 Yes, but boys could be expected to float somehow, girls would surely sink to the bottom. Even if they had all been boys he would not have saved. Because they were all boys.
For all of you commenting about the spelling, it can actually be either "dowry" or "dowery". Dowry is more common, but dowery is an acceptable spelling.
Thank you! Finally, someone who understands. đ
Mr. Bennet was too busy being a semi-professional Troll to secure his multiplying daughters' future in case there wouldn't ever be any son coming into the picture. He was also not bothered enough to actually make a half-a**ed try to arrange for any of his daughters to marry JUST ABOUT ANYONE, not to mention anyone WORTH MARRYING. Mrs. Bennet, constantly ridiculed and showed in all sort of bad light by the narrator was THE ONLY ONE of the parents that expressed and acted on her concern for her daughters' future. You could judge the success of her actions one way or another, but the fact is: Mrs. Bennet was actively working to secure her daughters' wellbeing. Mr. Bennet DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until it was done FOR HIM.
Good point
Unacceptable.
For upper-class women like the Bennets, dowries of ÂŁ1,000 were very small. On the other hand, for the vast majority of the population ÂŁ1,000 was a great deal of money. For instance, some curates (low ranking members of the clergy) only earned around ÂŁ30 to ÂŁ50 a year. Moreeover, in 1794 Caroline Nesham, who only had a dowry of ÂŁ500, married William Beckwith, a country gentleman with two estates.
Yes , in the lowest ranking parishes , that was a poor salary . but you fail to include their impounds which meant they were entitled to 10 percent of all agricultural produce either the actual wheat sheaves , lambs , ect or whatever or , in kind meaning cash in lieu of which is over and above their " living " ( salary ) . then they could either sell the produce or whatever on the open market at market rate or , in the case if the wheat , have it ground into flour at the local mill ( free of course ) anspd use it for his own baking or sell the flour at market rate which would bring a much higher rate of return than raw wheat ( remember , the milling was FREE as he was gods servant on earth an none wanted to piss him off ) and so triple the rate of return on the income .
Also you have to remember that ÂŁ1,000 isn't a year, that is the total dowry and would be placed in the bank so the interest on it would be the income it brings. With the interest rate at the time around 4% that would mean they only received ÂŁ40 a year from their dowry.
@@Carolinagirl1028 And even clergymen were on the lookout for wives with big dowries, like in Emma, where the clergyman sneered at marrying Emma's friend. He married a woman with ÂŁ30,000. The Bennett girls had ÂŁ1,000 each, which was not enough to tempt a man in their own class. It was a miracle that they met men rich enough not to care about their lack of dowry.
@@howardwayne3974 And clergymen had their housing provided for them. The house came with the position.
When P&P was published in 1813 most families in England lived on less than ÂŁ50 per annum whereas Mr Bennet had an annual income of ÂŁ2,000. It would thus have taken many working-class people 40 years to earn the same amount of money as Mr Bennet received in a year!!! No doubt one reason why people think ÂŁ2,000 was a small sum is because Mrs Bennet states, "if a smart young colonel, with five or six thousand a year, should want one of my girls, I shall not say nay to him." Here, however, she is referring to men whose income mostly came from other sources because at the time of P&P the annual income of a colonel in the Militia was ÂŁ410. (P. Haythornthwaite, The Armies of Wellington, 1994).
The typical interest rate at that time was roughly four per cent, which means that a thousand pounds would return only about forty pounds per year. As a point of reference, the Bennett sisters. while living at home, cost their father about ninety pounds per year.
The Bennettâs do overspend however. Their mother gives stupid of money for Lydia for hats for example. So I think they would have survived with 40 pounds as long as some relative took them in, but there are so many and Mrs Bennet also needs to be taken care of that thatâs the issue. But even one of the girls making a decent marriage would mean the rest would be fine since they could help out.
I calculated a bit for fun for what Maryâs drowry would have been if she remained unmarried and she received it when her father died. Mr Bennett saves 3X90 pounds a years since three of his daughters are now married. I assume Kitty will also eventually marry and it would be 4X90 pounds. Mr Bennet could have started to actually save some additionally by the end of the book so I calculate the money he saved to be the money used on Kitty before she actually married for sake of easier math and because he really should save at least some. So Mr Bennet would save 360 pounds a year. Mr Bennet would probably be in his mid 50s (although he could be younger or older). He should live 10 years at least, so the savings would be 3600 pounds and Mary had 1000 pounds already. I think with 4600 pounds at age of 29? she should been just fine, even if she didnât have now sisters who married rich. And maybe could have even married then too.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Why does Mrs Bennett need to be taken care of? Why can't she support herself? I am sure she could work in a factory, or on a sailing ship or down a mine or any other the hundreds of other jobs men had to do at that time. Perhaps she could be a soldier like Mr Wickham and go and fight Napoleon, risk the cannon and shot!
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Mrs. Bennet had her brother with his wife & children to rely on and a sister, as well. She and her daughters wouldn't have been destitute. They just would have had a much lower standard of living.
@@billburr5881 Mrs. Bennet a soldier? At her age? lol No man would have hired her to do any of those jobs.
Gentlewomen were not trained to work for a living. They were only taught to play music, direct servants, embroider, dance, and other activities that might catch/amuse a husband. They relied on servants to do everything for them. The industrial revolution came decades after 1800, so there weren't actually many factory jobs even if she was fit for them. The only options for a woman were wife, governess, servant, seamstress/spinner, midwife, milkmaid, or prostitute. That was pretty much it, and no one would have hired someone as old and clueless as Mrs. Bennet for a working-class job..
I feel bad for them having to marry to support themselves. Not just in the cases where a woman might not want to get married, but also thinking about instances where a woman has to marry a man she's not attracted to. Like Charlotte having to marry Mr. Collins. Just the notion of having to be intimate with a man you're not attracted to... Cringe!
Not only "cringe". Shudder. Barf.
I kind of wondered how much, if anything, Charlotte actually knew about that bit of married life when she decided to set out for Mr. Collins.
@@thekingsdaughter4233 Mother's advise, "Do what your husband tells you and think of England."
It would get worse in Victorian England.
She undoubtedly closed her eyes and thought of her new home, her new freedoms and the security of never being put into the position of an old aunt one had to put up with and even house and feed because it was the thing to do, not out of love or respect. Would not a few minutes of inattention be worth that?
â@@gisawslonim9716and having children. She might have looked forward to motherhood
I think that this is mainly Mr. Bennet's fault as he didn't think maybe he should save just in case. I get it he expected to have a son at some point, so I can give him a small break when Jane was born as at that point she could have all of her mothers dowry putting her on par even a little above doing okay but after about the second or at worst third daughter one would hope common sense would kick in saying backup plan needed. Even after Lydia they say he felt it was too late but I don't agree with that over the course of about 15 to 16 years or even a few less if they kept trying for a son the first year or two they could have added something to each dowry maybe not tons but something. The good news for everyone is Bingley and Darcy love Jane and Lizzie enough they didn't let the small dowry stop them and would worst case scenario help Marry and or Kitty as well as Mrs. Bennet if needed then again that part might just be how I read the characters.
Yeah, the Bennets' reasoning always drives me crazy. "We thought we'd have a son!" Ok, but what about when you realized you weren't having a son? Heck, even if Mr. Bennet started saving when the book starts, he'd probably get in a couple decades' worth of saving before he dies. He's not that old.
These are so cool! I love how simple and imformative they are!
I remember reading that the actress who played Mrs. Bennett in the 2005 version played her very serious. Because she knows exactly what will happen to her daughters when her husband dies. They have to marry well.
She couldn't pull out sounding silly. It was too serious a matter.
You mentioned 'Sense & Sensibility'. The situation would not have become so bad if their father's uncle had not met John's and Fanny's son. Because before he did he was quite fond of the young and lovely girls. At least this is how I remember the book. But I may be mistaken. It has been a while...
Yes, I was about to write this! The uncle decided to basically give everything to his great-great-nephew.
Hi Ellie - I just discovered your P&P Dashing Notes this year - they have truly been useful in describing the Regency Period background of Austen's England. And I discovered you just in time for our extended remote learning school year! My students have enjoyed these clips. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful! đ
I DO love this video. thorough and thorough. Thank you for this, Ellie.
That's the thing about reading classics, I always learned new thing.
You are so welcome!
fantastic job, Nova!đđ
I thought you were going to address why Mr. Bennett didn't make more money or have more ambition.
Found your channel & love it! :] Love what you did with your last name too ^^
Lots of love from Brazil!
Thank yo so much!
Thank you! Very informative and interesting :)
ÂŁ1000 was a great deal of money at this period. Jane Austen only considered it a small dowry because she wanted to attract a "gentleman" which means he would need to live off it and whatever he had been left by relatives.Remember a good townhouse only cost a few hundred at this period. All of the Bennet sisters could live perfectly comfortable lives if they got husbands with a career, or even a job. Wanting to appear"genteel" was very expensive and caused huge misery-Jane herself was prevented from marrying because her intended worked (he was a naval officer)and therefore not considered suitable by her family.
Mrs. Bennett's 5,000 pounds dowry was quite impressive at the time she married Mr. Bennet 22+ years earlier. That would have grown to 14,000 pounds if they had invested it "in the 5 percents" and not spent it. And, if Mr. Bennet had gotten off his duff and improved productivity on the estate enough to add just 500 additional pounds per year, that would have compounded to about 20,000 pounds. That's a total of $34,000 or almost 7,000 pounds per daughter, which was nothing to sneeze at (unless you were a Bingley sister or Lady CdB). But, then we would have lost much of the drama of our beloved P&P, đ.
Exactly. And I bet plenty of families with less money worked even harder than that, not only for daughters but for extra sons, and their families. But Austen needed a spendthrift family, a histrionic mother and a useless, but loveable father. Better than a diseased rake and gambler with a second family and not even half the income of the Bennets. Plenty of THOSE too. But it would have been too realistic.
Thanks for sharing the analysis and for the subs.
Just a fun (and useless) fact. In German dowry/dowery is Mitgift, which means give something along. But literally translated it means "with poison". Make of that what you will haha
I've been dying to find a comparison of dowries within Jane Austen's literature to figure out what was considered a normal/healthy dowry for the time, so thank you so much for this video! Do you happen to know _when_ the dowry was paid? Was it upon marriage? Or upon the death of the mother or father? Really informative video!
Thatâs a great question! I think it really depends on what the parentâs marriage contract says and on what the new coupleâs marriage contract said. So it probably really depended on each situation. But if a large part of the dowry was coming from the momâs fortune it wouldnât be until after at least the mother was dead. Meanwhile, if it was just sitting in the bank unattached from a saving method, I assume it would be upon marriage. I donât know if that helps at all! đ
@@EllieDashwood It does! Thank you so much!
Most people were dirt poor so a 'normal' dowry was near zero.
Please , forgive my english which is not my native language. As I saw in an other episode of Dashie Notes, the daughters of Gentry without any fortune were intended to become old maids or governesses, because they had received the right education. In the case of the Bennett's sisters, who weren't raised by a governess at home, what would have been their "chances" to become governesses ? Without Darcy and Bingley, they would have been very poor, for sure.
Thank you for your very good work and greetings from France.
We actually do not know that they were not raised by a governess at home...it does not say so in the novel and when we meet them they are already too old to have a governess and are "out" or almost "out". They must have been taught by someone as they are all able to read and write, understand financial matters (certainly those pertaining to themselves) and they know full well that by not marrying they would be putting paid to their lives.
Elizabeth and Jane would have been alright. The rest had better hope for kind relatives if they didn't marry
Interesting. Well done. Thumbs up. Keep creating.
Thank you, I will! đ
A dowry is a bribe to the husband-to-be to marry the daughter to get her off the family budget.
Yes, I know, it sounds cynical.
I'm wondering though, how a married woman could have used her dowry to provide for her daughters, when, to my knowledge, the women's fortune would end up as their husbands', and she would not be able to use it as she liked?
When a man and a woman get married, the womanâs father, the manâs father and maybe the man will be signing a marriage settlement. This is basically a prenup. It will detailed how the womanâs dowry will be use. Either to the manâs estate or for the use of their children in the future or anything.
Loved this story especially as I share my surname of Dashwood with the characters.
I enjoyed this video, good jobđ
Thank you! đ
But...ARE they so poor? I mean, they are not servants, they are gentry and they still have a dowry. Nobody ships them off to become governesses?
Mr Bennet makes enough money to support the family at the time of the book, but once he dies they inherit nothing. The property and therefore the income goes to Mr Collins, who isn't inclined to financially care for five distant cousins he's never met until the book (unlike a brother who would support his sisters). Mr Bennet saved no money for them either so if they don't marry, they will be dependent on charity or forced to take up work (which would have been beneath their station and very humiliating, not to mention they have no training or even proper education).
Thank you. Good video.
Glad you liked it!
Bank interest rates were 3%. Sometimes interest rates were higher but more risky. 3% of ÂŁ1000 is ÂŁ30 a year. To be a proper genteel woman you needed ÂŁ150.
Edit: I see interest rates were 5% in the early 1800s and late 1700s. Mr Bennet really needs his arse kicked, because his wife's dowry of ÂŁ5000 would have become ÂŁ15000 after 23 years. That's ÂŁ3000 for each daughter. That's ÂŁ150 a year, which is enough to lead a genteel life for a single woman - see Cranford. Interest rates went down to 4% in the 1820s and 30s, then down as low as 2.5% in the 1840s.
Was annual interest their only income? Could or did Mr Bennet not invest to make more money? Also, could they not save up from the annual interest to add it to their family capital? My last question for now is, could Mr Bennet not save his heritage from going to Mr Collins by simply taking his ÂŁ50.000 from the bank and split it up among his wife & daughters? In case he had suddenly gotten sick, he could even have sold his estate and given the money to his wife and offspring, leaving them behind with ÂŁ8-9.000 per capita or more, producing ÂŁ3-400 a year, allowing for a decent living. Thanks for the answers!
@@bottocs Mr Bennet had an estate. He would have tenant farmers who paid him rent. The estate might have included cottages, and he would get rent for those. Mr Bennet's estate was entailed by one of his ancestors. He does not have full ownership, only a life-lease. He cannot sell it. Any money Mr Bennet has in the bank or any other investments he has he can leave to his wife and daughters, but he does not have very much.
And that is not counting that he was rich enough to have saved a third of his income AND invest it. At least another 10,000 after just 15 years. So he could have given 6000 to each daughter easy.
Wow. I got married to another student during college when I was 19, having only $68 in my bank account, maybe $200 between us. Weâve been married 14 years, both graduated from college, he also earned a masterâs degree, we just purchased our 3rd home, and we have a baby. Itâs so sad to realize back then (and in places today), Young women couldnât even hope for a good future in less they were wealthy.
You still got lucky. But you are right.
Okay, I haven't watched the video yet, but my theory is...
Because their father is shortsighted and self absorbed, but is portrayed as loveable and long suffering. He said it was because he assumed they'd have a son, but that's no excuse for not saving for her daughters' doweries.
Okay, now let's watch the video.
Post Video: The points you make definitely show that the situation is slightly more complicated, but it does boil down to lack of foresight. The comparison to college funds is very insightful. Many otherwise loving parents just don't think ahead to their children's education early enough. The Bennets would have had to lower their standards of living in order to save for so many daughters, and they probably felt it just wasn't feasible.
A lot of the people commenting forget that these novels were written before the industrial revolution began. Mr Bennett's best path to wealth was to acquire land as the businesses that were available were labor intensive and would have required him to mix with the lower classes to supervise as corruption was rife in these times. As we all know mixing with the lower classes was a good way to lower your social standing.
My point of reference for this age is Poldark. A modern novel with no qualms about mixing with the lower classes.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the worse Mr Bennet gets.
Let's assume Lydia is indeed a son. So what? He still has 4 sisters and a mother to support after Mr Bennet's death. And maybe he would like a family of his own? So that adds a wife and a few children as well.
You know, assuming the Bennet sisters don't marry. And they had slim chances with 1250 pounds dowry anyway. (Divided by 4 now, since Lydia is the male heir.)
So, in conclusion, Mr Bennet knew perfectly well that a male heir doesn't solve the problem at all. The girls still need dowry.
there is a book, it mentions a record from pre-renaissance Italy. A free woman, wanted to marry an indentured servant. To do so, she sold herself to the master of her intended for X amount. The contract had a clause that allowed any of her daughters to buy their freedom for some set amount.
The Bennets aren't poor, the problem is their father's estate is entailed, and will go to Mr, Collins after Mr Bennet's death, and he hasn't save for his daughters dowry
Quite a lit addict. Very cool video !! :)
Heads up - it's spelled "dowry".
Thank you for another fab episode đđżđź
Aw, thank you! You know, itâs really interesting but both spellings are correct. And growing up I always saw it spelt with an e. So I wonder if itâs a regional variation. Whatever the case, thanks for watching! đ
@@EllieDashwood Thank you so much for replying Ellie. I've never seen it spelled with an "'e" and I googled it to see if maybe it was an alternate spelling and it didn't come up in the first few hits; fair enough, I learned something đđŸđ
I think what you do is really important. Valuing women's writing, and looking at the past, and people writing in quite different contexts informs the present. I think we tend to be an ahistorical society, being such a young one, and being an experiment, and an immigrant country, so what you do is directly helpful in general, and specifically to Americans I think.
The other thing I wanted to say is in The Pride and Prejudice 1995 versus 2005, I had never thought about the decisions they made to make the characters "more accessible" to us, like Mr Bennett for instance, and what a difference that makes in distorting the intention of the author.
Thank you for all your work đđżâšđ
It's funny, I always saw them as 'rich', because of their fancy stuff (in comparison to most average people's estates today). Even though they were always worrying about money. I just figured, rich people problems.
Miss Dashwood, may I have the honour of linking some of your excellent Austen videos here to a playlist in my channel? đ Its an Austen-themed channel named 'Mistress of Pemberley'. I mostly add some clips from Austen adaptations, scene comparisons etc.
I would be highly honored! Thank you! Also, Iâve seen your channel and love it! đ
@@EllieDashwood Glad to hear that! Thank you! âșïž
I just realized something strange. If the Bennett estate was entailed in the male line shouldnât Mr.Collins actually be a Mr. Bennett instead? As why would he have a different surname if passing on the male line would also mean passing the Bennett name to offspring?
He was the only male relative alive, so he was the only option.
He or an ancestor might have changed their name since branching off the main Bennet line, or Collins was the original family name and they changed it to Bennet.
Or a male ancestor of Mr Collins may have married a Collins woman of higher social status and changed his surname instead of hers.
I can understand a poor man or not-so-rich man wanting a wife with a dowry. But, why would a very rich man, like Mr Darcy, require or want a woman to bring a dowry with her?
more money sounds good even in todayâs time
He wouldn't. That is the point of the story.
Were they really poor though? Pride and Prejudice takes place during the early 1800s late 1700s, 1000 pounds then was equivalent to around 100k pounds now. Imagine marrying someone with 100k pounds already saved upđ€Ł
100k now and no chance or earning any more- it has to last you the rest of your life
@@siramea Exactly. Even 300k would not be too much. 500k would be nice but hubby would still need to earn a living.
Could an entailment be rerouted to, for example The Bennets, if they adopted a boy? Was adoption legal then?
The entail could be lifted by an act of Parliament.
There are three equally likely possibilities that may have prevented it
1) Mr Bennet wished to keep the estate in his family line rather than giving it to his daughter's husband and so left the entail alone.
2) Mr Bennet may have considered or attempted to close the entail but been prevented by the Collins branch of the family. Perhaps this was the cause of the disagreement between Mr Bennet and the late Mr Collins.
3) Mr Bennet never got around to closing the entail. He wasn't very influential and so this may have been a lot of effort.
Mrs Bennet's dowry was actually ÂŁ4,000 as per ch7. The ÂŁ5,000 mentioned is what the marriage articles, aka pre-nup between her and Mr Bennet, agreed would be settled on the widow and children on event of his death as per ch50.
Yes, this is so true! I noticed this too after making the video. But alas, one can edit old videos. đ
And no one can fault you for it .đđđđđđđyou did a great job and I enjoyed it .
If one of the sisters has a son before their father dies, wouldn't he inherit over Mr. Collins? Surely a grandson would outrank a distant cousin.
Is your last name actually Dashwood? Like Marianne and Eleanor Dashwood? If so what a nice thing
the legacy of the gentry is fascinating as they lived off the good work of their ancestors. they basically made being lazy excusable despite the fact that their legacy and/or nobility came from hard work, nefarious or otherwise.
hello Ellie
Mrs. Bennett has Hystrionic Personality Disorder. She prob wasnât so out of control younger but once it became clear there would be no son Mr. Bennett checked out leaving the field to Mrs. Bennett and her HPD was let loose.
đ
I would love to know what lifestyle 2000 pounds a year could afford Bennet family today and, more interestingly, how much should someone earn today to be able to afford the same things. I know that a governess would earn below 20 pounds a year in Austen's time and today in UK they earn below 35.000 a year. 2000 pounds in early 1800s translates to 80.000 pounds a year now but inflation doesn't do justice when it comes to cost of living. With 2000 a year a family could afford a 100 governesses while with 80.000 one could only afford 2. Of course, nobody needs 100 governesses but the rich at that time had much more staff that people who earn 80.000 pounds a year now, probably no permanently employed staff at all! If we follow the 'logic of hiring governesses', today one needs to earn 3,5 million per year ! to afford the same level of comfort that 2000 pounds a year afforded the Bennets.
A lot of people wish they were thatâs poor. They have a nice house and nice clothes and servants.
And 2000 a year until daddy croaks. Which could be another 10 years. Or 20. Boo hoo.
I thought Mrs. Bennet was poor and didn't have a dowry. I just watch the miniseries so I didn't get all the details but all it says on the miniseries is that Mrs. Bennet was a handsome woman and that's why Mr Benmett married, her nothing about a dowry. Been a long time since I've watched it too so maybe I should go back and look at it again.
They are NOT poor, just comparatively poor compared to rich landowners. They eat well, they have servants (Hill, Hill!!), they are decently dressed, and they have a good roof over their heads.
Yes, IF Mr. Bennet had fathered a son they could have kicked the strict settlement (his life tenant status) down the road, OR if he had done a better job managing 2K pounds a year (a LOT of money) and set something aside, they would be much better off, but theyâd hardly be destitute even if MB suddenly keeled over.
One of the two older, handsome girls would have landed some fish, even if not Darcy, and Mrs. Bennetâs brother would have insured that a roof and some chow would be there for his sister and her remainders. Jane could have married a clergyman, and Lizzie could have been a spinster-governess if sheâd decided to be too picky, and Lydia always COULD BE a strumpet.
They dodged a more prosaic and likely fate, however, and Lizzie hit the jackpot, and well deservedly so. Everyone lived happily ever after (except Lydia?), or so we assume.
Weâre there morganistic marriages where the gent just had to have this girl money or no money?
This is more confusing because whatâs the point of marrying rich if the money is just for future offspring? So if the Bennetâs had only one daughter who got the full 5000 đ· would she be rich? Was Mrs. Bennett a catch at the time because of the dowry? Also, it seems like any fortune could be dwindled down based on how many kids you have. Especially if youâre living off the money as opposed to just saving it for your kids. Georgianaâs 30000 becomes six with five daughters. Very similar to what Ames Bennet came into her marriage with. đ€·
if women want to marry rich men, but need money to lure them, and men want to marry rich (or heavily dowried) women, then it seems like everyone will pretty much stick with their financial equals (i guess modified by miscellaneous things like looks and personality :-)) and if the woman keeps her dowry to pass on to her future daughters, does the husband really gain much money from it? well, i guess he'd avoid having to pay for his daughters dowries completely by himself, so maybe it's all relative, but it shouldn't seem like he could just party because he got a wife who was of similar wealth.
I find it tough to afford a good 'brideprice' ...for a prospective good 'dowry '.
What's a boy to do ?â
Mr. Bennett was a bad manager of finances obviously he never saved but was there ever another way he could Expanded his finances during this time that genteel men could earn ?
Thatâs a great question. I think the hardest part for him was that doing any sort of occupation was out of the question because that would lower the whole status of his family. I talk about this in my video How to Be a Gentleman or Lady in Regency Times.
Which would leave a man like him only a few options. One would be to marry rich (but he was married already). I talk about this in my video Why is Mr Darcy so rich?
Or he could try to invest money in some sort of venture to earn interest or dividends (but he doesnât have money to invest because heâs not good at saving). Or he could see if there was some way to mine or otherwise utilize the land he had like selling lumber (which he couldnât legally do either because the entail prevented him).
So basically Mr Bennet really was stuck in a corner financially. đ
He was a gentleman farmer (they had plowhorses). He didn't save money before the children were born and by the time he realized that he wouldn't have a male heir, his wife was too used to spending lots of money. He fell down there, too. He should've insisted that they economize. He was in control of the household money because men had all of the legal control back then. It was totally up to him, but he was too weak.
Yes, Mr Bennet farmed part of his estate and Mr Knightley (one of Jane Austen's other fictional country gentlemen) also farmed some of his land. In real life, members of the aristocracy, including the Duke of Bedford, also farmed part of their estates. Doing so was not considered beneath a gentleman's dignity.
You could have explained 'entailment' better. I'm willing to bet most people don't understand it. Especially Americans who got rid of the practice a good while ago.
Well then go ahead and explain it so everyone else doesnât have to google it
@@heyhorinshi All right. Back in the high days of English feudalism, long before this story was written, the nobility established a legal right (called 'the entail' of 'fee tail') to limit how their large holdings in land could be inherited by later generations. It meant that real estate (= property in land) inherited in this manner could not be sold off, either in whole or in pieces and parcels, but had to be handed entire onto a heir, most particularly a male heir and even more particularly a legitimate male heir 'of the body', meaning no adopted children either. In the case of the Bennetts, there being no brother to Jane and Lizzie and the rest, the estate passes to their cousin Mr Collins.
This custom had its good side in ensuring that a substantial family holding stayed unified rather than being broken up. Its bad side was that it froze large parcels of land and prevented the gradual forces of the market from putting land to the most efficient use. And the entailed land could come so encumbered with requirements that the non-inheriting family, especially female members, be provided for that it was of no profit to the inheritor at all.
(In contrast the custom of countries like early medieval Wales and post Code Napoleon France ensured inefficiency in the opposite direction. There all the sons of a family had a right to inherit a share of the land which led to ever tinier and tinier holdings rendering the land harder and harder to work. This is what the British imposed on Irish Catholics under the penal laws.)
So Mr Bennett is stuck with a parcel of land that will provide for him and his family while he lives and unable to either sell it or leave it to any or all of his daughters. Later in the 19th Century the laws started to be reformed. They were finally abolished in 1925 though this being England a few traces of it still remain in confusing ways doubtless profitable to lawyers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_tail
And you could have just pointed to your own answer on the matter, you know. czcams.com/video/Q_YOozTkEbI/video.html
Capital Lydia! Capital!
But if you were a rich man, wouldnât you have more than enough to make up for a wifeâs small dowry?
Anyway, I think one of the Bennet sisters is Kate Winslet ...so she doesn't need a dowry to attract a husband.
Doesn't just getting wet in the rain do it ?â
đ I think you're thinking of Sense and Sensibility.
I would never say they bennets are poor.
They live in the fashionable world and have servants.
They are upper middle class.
Im just above the poverty rate (aka poor)
Fanny price is poor
The Bennett sisters would be poor, too, when their father died. The estate doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the male line. They're living on borrowed time. If they didn't get married, they and their mother would be thrown out of the house as soon as their father died, with no way to make money and almost nothing to live on. No social safety net, either - no welfare system except the poor house, and as Dickens said, many would rather die than go there. No subsidized housing, no money from the government for food, nothing.
@@edennis3202 Yes, but they had other family that could help, but they would have stepped down a class. They easily could have married successful merchants.
E Dennis A lot of women in that position became governesses to the children of better off families.......a fate worse than death in most cases, I guess!
Poor is relative.
Heaven forbid the man get a job and earn his own income
society meant that he could not work and still be a gentleman- there was very little socially acceptable roles for gentlemen- military or clergy was pretty much your only choice- unless he 'lowered' himself to trade, and then he would lose his position in society, losing some of his relationships with family and relative and friends and possible chances of inheritance from others
Never knew that a woman Paula dowery!!!! This is news to međź
Being genteel meant being unemployed đđđ
I'm glad I'm born in 20th century đ
Ps is your surname truly a Dashwood?
As another poster so ewhat states, thank goodness we are allowed to have a career and not gravel, settle for the only offer that might never come or sucumb to awfulness of men we wouldnt like.
Were they poor. Roof, food, clothes, Family, Church. There were many who didn't have that.
Iâm our society they would have been upper middle class but at that time you were very rich or poor there and as no middle class
Hi. There was a middle class in Jane Austen's day, the doctors, lawyers etc. The Bennets, on the other hand, were upper class because they were landed gentry.
So if a guy was poor, like he is a farmer or something like that, would he be able to marry someone like Georgiana.
No. Absolutely not. In fact I doubt Georgiana would ever have a chance to meet someone poor. Marrying across class lines, especially when you were as wealthy as she was just not done.
Because they think it's somehow cute & endearing. Something to do with "spunky" nobility of character. â
Cute outfit
I wonder what Charlotte had to offer??
She made a respectable wife. Charlotte Lucas fit the requirements of Lady Catherine for a wife for Mr. Collins, to a T. đ€·
Were they poor?
Their dowries were poor. Their fatherâs income at the time was very rich indeed. He should have saved better so that their dowries werenât poor. But he didnât.
One crucial point, a wife did not own property, so on marriage, ALL she had became her husband's property.
In conclusion: the Bennett sisters are poor because they donât have enough money.
One thousand pounds would be like 100,000 pounds in today's money. Not a small amount.
đ§ Money is so very relative depending on what we need it for.
Yeah. But imagine you can only live off the interest of those 100,000 pounds, since you are not allowed to work.
In today's world, yeah, would be cool if your parents just gave you 100,000 as a nice starter money, so you can expand upon it.
But in 1800s that is all you get, ever, period. You can't make a single penny more.
Girls were like easily screwed over in the regency
dowry
Why are they so poor? "Because they don't have a lot of money." How incredibly insightful! Thanks for sharing.
Yeah but .... Elizabeth and Jane made it ... were Mary and KItty doomed to be old maids.?
z
Says at the end of the book that Mary found a nice clergyman and Kitty settled down with a nice fellow too..
â@@robinkern3298not in the original Pride and Prejudice book, though. But entirely possible. They were still young when the official story ended. đđ
Are they poor? They keep a cook. :)
They do keep a cook! They're not actually poor as a family. The daughters have very poor fortunes for their social class. Aka, they're poor rich people.
The Bennet family is not THAT poor...are you trying to make your readers think that they are going around begging for pennies? They have a very nice house, a very nice (and large) farm, they have servants and carriages. What they do not have is security that all of this will continue to be theirs until the daughters are married and the parents old because the property will pass on to a silly, conceited clergyman, who is the nearest living male heir of the Bennet family (since only males could inherit, nothing of course could be left to Mrs. Collins or her daughters).
Why are they poor? Because they don't have much money. I just saved you 7 minutes.
IOW they are poor because they donât have much money...just like everyone!!!
The sad part? They arenât actually poor. They will be poor if they don't marry well, but at the time of the book they're rich!
The Bennet family were rich. Richer in their society than anyone you or I probably know in our society. Most people around 1800 owned the clothes on their back, a handful of small possesions, perhaps a spare set of clothes and that was it. They did not own the place where they lived, the furniture they used, they could not afford education for their children or not to work. Think about the slums of the third world today, that was the reality for the vast majority of people in the early 1800s. This is why men were prepared to risk their lives in the mines, ships, wars and factories of the day.
Ah yes fellow peasants
It is spelled âdowryâ so you may want to correct that.
It seems that it can be spelt both ways. I specifically have looked in to that. đ§
FYI, it's dowry, not dowery!
It can be either, "dowry" is just more common.
So...theyâre poor because they donât have a lot of money? đ