- 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)