- So when Mr. Bingley shows up at the beginning of "Pride and Prejudice," everybody's so excited, why? Because he's a single
man of large fortune. Yup, he has money. And during the Regency era
money was essential to marriage. In fact, it was one of the
most important factors to weigh when choosing a marriage mate. In today's video, we're
going to be delving into how much money was needed in order to get married
in the Regency era? And people's different approach to money when it comes to marriage. So if you're interested in
learning more about that, then definitely stay
tuned for today's video. So my name is Ellie Dashwood and this is my channel
where we talk about history and literature and Regency era economics, actually a lot for some reason, I guess money really was
important in the Regency era. But if you are interested
in any of those things, then please subscribe. So in today's video,
we're going to be talking about the two very important purposes money in marriage served. One was survival and comfort and the other was social standing. And at the end of this video, we're also going to be
addressing this question that's come up of
whether Elizabeth Bennett was ultimately selfish when
she turned down Mr. Collins because Mr. Collins had
great prospects of money. So that should be an
interesting conversation. Anyway, first up, when it comes to money and marriage in the
Georgian and Regency era, one of the most important
things to remember is that romance during this time
period often gets hugely, hugely oversimplified. I've heard a lot of this concept that essentially says that
people only married for money, especially among the wealthy it was just the merging
of two family fortunes. And while there were
definitely some families that viewed marriage that
way, and we're gonna talk about them in a little bit, the vast majority of the upper class still wanted to marry someone they liked. The big difference here is they obviously needed to make sure that they only ended up liking somebody that had enough money. And this was done through
several different ways. One is by limiting the social sphere that especially young ladies
of money were introduced to. So for example, a young
lady in the upper class would only go to bowls with
young men of the upper class and her parents would be screaming any potential suitors for
their financial background. So that way that when their
daughter did fall in love, because she was only exposed
to young men of wealth, she would naturally fall in
love with a young man of money, which if you've seen my video on the Victorian era marriage season, this was a concept that
was held through even then, because that's the entire
point of the marriage season was to get all of the
rich young people together so that they could fall in love under acceptable circumstances. And of course the vast
majority of parents did this, not because they were money hungry, but because they cared their children, they wanted their children
to have the first important aspect of money in marriage, which is a survival and comfort. So let's listen to what
Elizabeth Bennett has to say on this topic when she's
talking about Mr. Wickham hitting on Ms. King with her £10,000 and how exactly Lydia and
Kitty are responding to that. It says, "They're young
in the ways of the world, and not yet open to the
mortifying conviction that handsome young men must
have something to live on as well as the plain." So as Elizabeth Bennett points out, everybody needs something to live on. And I mean, this is still true today. When a young couple gets married, it's like, "Okay, how are you
gonna pay for the apartment? How are you gonna pay for food?" And so just as marrying
today without being able to support a family would be ridiculous, marrying without money in the Regency era was seen as ludicrous and just foolish. Not only that, but they
thought it was a sure way to end up in marital
unhappiness because of course, marital bliss left the second
that deprivation set in, and this was a viewpoint that
we even see Jane Austen hold, for example, in one of her letters, when she's gossiping with her sister about a young man they know
that married a penniless girl, and now they're living quite poor. Well, this is what she
has to say about them. "Earle and his wife live in the most private manner
imaginable at Portsmouth, without keeping a servant of any kind. What a prodigious innate
love of virtue she must have to marry under such circumstances!" That's right, this family
couldn't even keep one servant, which for the class they
were from was pretty serious. So here we see definitely a
couple needing enough money to marry on, but exactly
how much money was that? Well, the absolute minimum to maintain any sort of claim to
gentility would be £200 to £250 a year. Though obviously most
people would be shooting for far above that. For example, in Northanger Abbey, Isabella Thorpe claims that £400 is "Income hardly enough to find one in the common necessaries of life." Meanwhile, in "Sense and Sensibility" when Mary Anne says that she
hopes to have £2,000 a year when she marries, she says that that is
quite a moderate income. We definitely see there's
a range of opinions on how much money was actually necessary. And there is a pretty simple
equation to find out exactly how much a couple would need for their personal circumstance. And that was figuring out how
much money they would need in order to maintain a
lifestyle they were raised to. And to learn more about that, let's listen to what Colonel Fitzwilliam, Mr. Darcy's cousin has to
say to Elizabeth Bennett about this while they're walking
in the Gardens of Rosings. So Elizabeth says to him, "In my opinion, the younger son of an earl can
know very little of either. Now seriously, what have you known of self-denial independence? When have you been
prevented by one of money from going wherever you choose or procuring anything
you had a fancy for?" Then he says, "These are home questions. And perhaps I can not say that I've experienced many
hardships of that nature, but in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from want type of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like. Unless where they like women of fortune, which I think they very often do. Our habits of expense
make us too dependent, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without
some attention to money." So do you see the part where it says, "Our habits of expense?" Here he's talking about the fact that he's used to living this
expensive lifestyle. His lifestyle has to be
maintained by his wife's fortune whenever he marries, but
the most basic thing to know about where money did come from
in marriage during this era is the fact that most
families had dual incomes, which is a very important
point to remember this need for dual
incomes in most families in order to maintain that lifestyle. So I think often we think of dual incomes as a more modern concept, but
of course, back in this era, they were the standard among the rich. Here we have the husband
bringing in some sort of income, perhaps from an estate,
if he's a land owner, from a profession possibly such as his pay in the Navy or Army, if he's an officer, what he gets from tithes as a clergyman. So that is where the husband
is bringing in money from. The wife also usually brought in money in the form of her fortune or dowry. And that dowry could
literally be invested money that's earning interest. Some families gave their daughters land, or also some daughters
were actually heiresses. For example, Ms. Anne de
Bourgh in "Pride and Prejudice" is going to inherit Rosings
which means she is bringing a lot of money into the marriage. So then this comes down to
a very simple math equation to figure out if a young couple
has enough money to marry, which is where they add the income the husband is bringing in plus the income that
the wife is bringing in, they add them together
and they ask the question, "Can we live to the
lifestyle we're accustomed to on this amount of money?" And if the answer is
yes, then green light, like they are good financially. However, if the answer is no, that is where some problems come in. Either one of them is
going to have to take a hit in lifestyle, or they might have to wait. For example, for the
husband, if he's a clergyman to be able to take on additional
parishes, earn more tithes and have a larger income that then he may be able to marry on. So some young couples did
wait quite a few years to be able to marry so that
they would have enough money. And we see in Jane Austen's novels, this consistently happening, none of her heroines marry into poverty. Rather many of them actually
marry up financially or at least maintain their own lifestyle. So Jane Austen's works are
definitely upholding this level of comfort and survival
when it comes to money, which makes sense because
she obviously did not approve of people marrying
without enough to live on. So now let's talk about the second factor that some families used marriage for, which was social standing
and social climbing. Just like today, how rich
can never get rich enough back then, the rich also never
felt they were rich enough and they always wanted to get more money. And one way for the upper
class to do this in an era where they also didn't
actually want to work was by marrying money. And while all families
would love for their child to fall in love with
someone with a lot of money, some families took this to
the next extreme of saying, "You know what? I don't
care if you love the person. You're marrying them anyway
'cause they got money." And I think a perfect example of this we see in Jane Austen's works is the Ferrars Family in
"Sense and Sensibility" and how they're always trying
to push Edward to marry rich, like they don't want him to marry Elinor, even though he certainly has enough money for them to live a comfortable
lifestyle together. They would meet the survival
and comfort equation standard. However, they want him to marry for money. They want him to marry
for social standing, whether he loves Ms. Morton or not. Now, like I said, there were
definitely some families that viewed marriage this way, but that was just what they were. There were some families, I
feel like the more average view was the one of, "Yes, money's important. Make sure to only fall in love with money, but also fall in love, love is important." And I think it's the
difference between saying, "Eat green leafy
vegetables for your health and only eat green leafy vegetables." There's a big difference between saying, "Don't marry without money
and marry only for money." And those families that
promoted marrying only for money were of course, satirized in the press. And also just generally seen as mercenary by the ideals of the day,
which when we're talking about these mercenary
versus romantic ideals, I think this is a perfect lead
into, was Elizabeth selfish when she turned down Mr. Collins? And I think this is a
question one of you guys asked in the comments a while ago. So I do see where the idea is coming from. Like she could have
totally helped her family by marrying Collins,
but she turned him down. So Regency society must have
thought She was selfish. But again, that's going back to this idea that the Georgian era was all about money. Because really Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Prejudice" in general, holds up so many of the ideals of society. Of course, does everyone
live up to ideals? No, but that doesn't mean that they're still not the
standard to which people in society hope to aspire or
judge people's behavior by. So from a Regency perspective, Elizabeth and Mr. Collins were
a horrible personality match. She did not love or esteem him at all. If she had accepted him, that
would have actually been seen as a very mercenary and
in a negative light. In fact, a popular conduct
guide of the time period said this about marrying
without love, "Far be it for me to advise you to marry
where you do not love; a mercenary marriage is
detestable prostitution." That is right, even in 1806, they were calling mercenary marriages, detestable prostitution. And even on top of this, when "Pride and Prejudice" came out, it was a very popular book and it was reviewed by a
major reviewer at the time. And they actually praised Elizabeth Bennett's characterization and how she handled herself. In fact, they had to say this about her, "Elizabeth sense in conduct
are of a superior order to those of the common heroines of novels. From her independence of character, which is kept within the
proper lines of decorum and her well-timed sprightliness, she teaches the man of
Family-Pride to know himself." So here we see that
Elizabeth has kept within the proper lines of decorum and that she's generally
praised as a good heroine. And in fact, Jane Austen's
overall sentiments when it comes to romance, are also met with approval in this review. They have to say about
her, "The sentiments, which are dispersed over
the work, do great credit to the sense and sensibility
of the authoress. The line she draws between
the prudent and the mercenary and matrimonial concerns, may be useful to our fair readers." So here we see them even
specifically praising how Jane Austen drew that line
between prudent and mercenary when it comes to marriage. And also when it comes down to Elizabeth turning down Collins
on a financial aspect, I've heard a lot of people say like, "Oh, well, Elizabeth is just so brave to do that during the time." And it's true that takes so
much bravery and courage, but I think sometimes people
take it to this next level of like, "Oh, she was setting
this whole new precedent. Nobody turned down guys before her." And that is definitely not the case. Plenty of women were turning down matches that would have been
financially good, but loveless long before Elizabeth Bennett did. As somebody who does
research this time a lot, I do see it quite often. Sometimes young women were even
at this point in their life where they had to choose
marry this guy I don't love for financial security or
go and become a governess. And they would pick, go
and become a governess over marry this guy they don't love. And yes, Elizabeth was totally courageous in the stand she took there, however, she wasn't revolutionary
in any sense of the word. Instead, she was behaving as a young lady of Georgian era would. So basically to sum all of
this up, they wanted love, but they made sure to only
fall in love with someone who had enough money to help them maintain the lifestyle
they were raised to. And also some families
totally wanted to social climb regardless of love,
but they were satirized and condemned as mercenary, of course, some of them
still did it anyway, 'cause people, no matter the era are gonna do what they want. And Elizabeth Bennett
was doing a great job of living up to all of the
romantic ideals of society. Anyway, let me know in the comments below, if you lived during this era,
how much money do you think you would need to be able
to maintain your lifestyle? Would you need £200 a year, £2,000, £10,000 and a beautiful estate at Pemberley? Hmm, I might have to opt for the beautiful estate of Pemberley. Yeah, anyway, I hope you have
enjoyed watching this video and keep having an awesome day, 'cause you're awesome. Bye. (jazz music)
I love her videos!! she gives a lot of great information as to the social class and general living of the regency era.
edit: another good video she has was about marrying up and social climbs. gives great insight how rigid social classes are to break into.
the fl won`t marry you if you are not the most powerfull man in the empire
Great one! I watched a similar video talking about how rich the characters in Pride and Prejudice actually were. Looking at it in both monetary terms and social terms