Divorce Jane Austen Style | Regency Era Criminal Conversation in Mansfield Park, Sense & Sensibility

[@EllieDashwood]

Get $20 off your Brooklinen order over $100! Just click here bit.ly/YTEllieDashwood and enter my promo code EllieDashie. This video is kindly sponsored by Brooklinen. 💕

[@ameliecarre4783]

I think it's in Anne of Avonlea by LM Montgomery that school children are asked to tell what they want to be in the future, and one girl answers that she wants to become a widow. Because spinsters are viewed with pity, and married women are under their husband's thumb, but a widow is both free and respected. I think she made a valid point.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Yep. I once wrote a Regency novel (NaNoWriMo, not published) in which the heroine is SO GLAD to become a widow! Not that she hated her husband, but because she was finally FREE. It didn't occur to her that she could have had the marriage annulled, on the grounds of being forced into it, but then again, that would hardly have helped her, since it would have made her a spinster again, with the same father who had FORCED her to marry his buddy, to settle a gambling debt. So, FREEDOM from the oppression of men is a BIG THING for her. She LOVES being a widow, even though her husband actually was SUPER-KIND to her, because he truly did love her, just not romantically. He was romantically involved with her governess. The hero of the novel has to work REALLY HARD to convince her to give up her widow status and become a wife, again. I may have to go back and find it and rewrite it and see if I can get it published, because I certainly enjoyed it.

[@nerdisaur]

LMM didn’t get married until she was over 35, and didnt have the best relationship with her husband, so I think there’s a bit more truth to that than you’d think!

[@swymaj02]

@@nerdisaur her husband being a clergyman or something relating to the church, and also going through some mental stuff, it was a bit of a surprise it didn't end in any way other than death.

[@tracey5324]

With poisons lying around unlabelled and people just accepting that they didnt understand much about medicine...you begin to wonder how many abused spouses had a direct hand in becoming widows and widowers.

[@mikaylaeager7942]

@@tracey5324 It also helped that much of society at the time actually believed it was impossible for a woman to murder her husband. After all they were one person. How could she even conceive of doing such a thing?!

[@Nariasan]

My father's marriage was annulled (he was married before he met my mother). He hadn't been living with his wife for the last 7 years. When he went to the bishop to get permission for an annulment, he was informed that the marriage was already annulled. The bishop (supposedly) added: "but you don't look insane, sir." Turns out, my father's ex requested an annulment behind my father's back. She claimed insanity as her excuse. My grandmother hated the woman so much that she went to testify that my father was *indeed* insane, just to get this woman out of his life. My father had no idea about this 😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@vilwarin5635]

Lucy Worsley mention a very interesting case in which a wife was granted a divorce in grounds of cruelty because her husband didn't allow her to decor her house and invite her friends. This was based on the fact that the home was the wife's realm and they were supposed to be in charge of the feminine roles. But her husband didn't gave her any spending money, didn't allowed her to decor her home as she liked (and as was socially expected from her) and socially isolated her, because she was forbidden from inviting family and friends (and couldn't go alone to visit without a chaperone). Of course, this worked because they were rich, but I'm glad she go out of that situation

[@mariesabine2385]

How interesting!

[@dorothywillis1]

You can never know how a court case will go. Sometimes it is in very strange directions.

[@MissMarie1377]

So it looks like women weren’t as “oppressed” as people liked to pretend.

[@2xcrzkxk]

Oh good, that guy sounds like he was isolating her on purpose, very controlling. I'm glad that she got out.

[@katyb2793]

Yes that would be considered coercive control these days. Particularly the points of having no access to money, family or friends, and no freedom to go out as she pleased. In some Australian states they're making it illegal. It's recognised as a method of abuse. Some people are just 🤮 the way they treat their supposed loved ones 😔

[@AuntLoopy123]

Maria HATES Henry Crawford, because he literally ruined her life, with his seduction. He made her THINK that he loved her, so she was willing to risk it all to be with him, on the understanding that after the divorce, Henry would marry her. And then, he didn't, because he was actually, truly, in love with the woman who would NEVER have him, after he had the affair with Maria, and he blamed Maria for the affair, because, "She's a married woman, and should have kept to her vows. SHE ruined my hopes for me, by saying yes to my seduction! It's HER fault for loving me! Not my fault for engaging in a harmless flirtation, just as I've done all my adult life." Which just goes to show what an absolute SCOUNDREL he really was. And if he had married Fanny, he likely would have had his flings, with the only difference being that he'd keep them a secret FROM HER.

[@courtneym75]

Even if he didn't keep it a secret from her, there wasn't much she could do about it unless her Aunt and Uncle Bertram were willing to drag the family name through the mud to sue him. I think he knew this full well trying to marry Fanny; I also don't think he was "in love" with her, even if he'd persuaded himself he was.

[@dunyazade]

@@courtneym75 " I also don't think he was "in love" with her, even if he'd persuaded himself he was" - I agree. Oh my god, I hated him. Honestly, imho, no man was good enough for Fanny.

[@aliciaflood2908]

It’s so interesting how they all dug their own graves. Austen doesn’t blame just one party. Maria had the chance not to enter a loveless marriage. Her father explicitly tried to dissuade her but she stood by her choice, and STILL went and cheated on her husband a few months in. I do believe that Henry Crawford was honest in his attempt to change. He was trying to be a better person. But Fanny was right to wait. Old habits die hard and when faced with temptation, he simply went along with. The moment Maria went for him was the make-or-break moment for him, and he went with his old habits. Fanny didn’t try to change him. She left him room to change, and he failed to do so. I think that’s why Thomas Bertram is such an interesting character. He’s the only one who looks back on this whole mess and recognizes his own fault in it. He realizes that had he been a better father and more open man, Maria might have felt safe to tell him her true feelings and would have trusted him to take care of things and break off the engagement. Everyone else tries to play the blame game and point at someone else for being at fault, while he steps back, looks at his kids, looks at his own actions and realizes his failures as a father.

[@jacky3580]

Both Maria and Henry were victims of their own egos and Maria’s thwarted desire. Maria was marrying Rushworth for money and status but her true object desire is Henry. But Henry doesn’t want a permanent relationship with her. She’s too vain and spoiled. Just like he is. She marries Rushworth, who’s an idiot.

[@RonJohn63]

"she was willing to risk it all to be with him, on the understanding that after the divorce, Henry would marry her". I never realized this scam is so old. The fact that women believe it is 100% proof that they are, in fact, not to be trusted with power.

[@paolina7612]

In France, at that time, a wife could divorce her husband for adultery, but only if the adultery happened at the married couple's house. The idea was indeed that it was OK for a man to be unfaithfull, but that he must be discreet, so no mistress at home

[@Lady_Blade_WarAngel]

That law was actually created by Napoleon Bonaparte, I believe. He also created a law, that stated that inheritance be split between ALL children, not just given to the eldest son. Ironically, the dude was fairly forward thinking.

[@bernadmanny]

@@Lady_Blade_WarAngel Actually the whole equal division of inheritance is a classic move to weaken the monied classes.

[@ameliecarre4783]

@@Lady_Blade_WarAngel He was strategising according to his own interests, and the interest of his policies. Whenever he pushed for something we'd qualify as "modern", it was accidentally so. He wasn't thinking in terms of equality of rights between men and women. He even moved backwards on some gains from the 1789 Revolution. And he reinstated slavery, which had been abolished. So no, he was not forward thinking.

[@NouriaDiallo]

You could also obtain divorce in case of (provable) violence, as happened to Flora Tristan.

[@AuntLoopy123]

HEY! If my grandparents were in France at the time, she could have divorced him! He actually brought his more-pregnant-than-his-wife mistress into their home, "To take care of his pregnant wife." Did I mention that the mistress was further along in her pregnancy, and needed MORE HELP that the wife?! Also, she was SUPPOSED to cook for the field hands, but she couldn't make a peanut butter sandwich, according to my aunt, who was about 9 at the time, and old enough to notice these things. So, she became in charge of childcare for the older kids, while my Grandmother, an excellent cook, did the job that the mistress was technically brought in to do. Of course, this happened in America, in the 20th century, so she got her divorce, no problem. But, if they had been in France during the English Regency, she could have gotten the divorce, too! So, YAY! Good to know. It just goes to show you, though, how far a man had to go before the people in power would deem it BAD ENOUGH for the wife to be free of him. It's HORRIBLE. And then, the idea that if he was a bad husband, in the first place, he brought the adultery on himself, so "No divorce for you! We recognize that you were SO AWFUL that the wife sought comfort elsewhere (and possibly sought a divorce, by instigating adultery, just to give him grounds to divorce her), so we're going to FORCE YOU AND YOUR POOR, PUT-UPON WIFE TO STAY MARRIED, FOREVER." How unfair and awful is that?! You'd think that, if she proved he was an awful husband before the affair, and that was WHY she had the affair, they ought to say, "Oh, you poor thing. Here, have your freedom." Honestly, it's as if they HATED women, but they CLAIMED that it was all because they LOVED and RESPECTED women SO MUCH that they had NO CHOICE but to keep women under their thumbs, "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD." UGH! I LOVE Regency romances, mostly because the first I ever read was Jane Austen, and I love the real romance and love stories therein (Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy!!!!!), but DANG! I HATE the way women were FORCED to live in that time. Honestly, the best thing a young woman could do is to get married to a very old and sickly man, WITH A GOOD PRE-NUP, and then wait for him to die, so that she could then finally be FREE, financially and legally. She would, of course, face social censure, if she ever had sex again, as a widow and not as a new wife, but if she could keep things discreet and child-free, she could have a happier life that way.

[@justincheng5241]

I think Mansfield Park is a good case of explaining to some people that Jane Austen does not blindly celebrate or glamorize Regency culture which many people wrongfully think.

[@Cat_Woods]

It's too bad that so many Austen fans _do_ glamorize that culture.

[@cmm5542]

I don't think many writers glamorize their own culture. And historical fiction is split about fifty-fifty between glamorizing past cultures and critiquing them.

[@justincheng5241]

@@cmm5542 *cough* Bridgerton, how many people say "I would love to live in the Regency Period" and I would like to say "If you were not rich, white, or male, the regency period is not fun."

[@cmm5542]

@@justincheng5241 It was more complex than that. Women had a lot more power than people give them credit for. We live in such a legalistic society that we can't understand how you can be safe without legal protection. But there was a lot of social protection and prestige for women back then we don't have today. Men were expected to show chivalry - frankly, males had a lot less fun when you look at the way they were often used by women, especially their lady-loves who could demand a lot while giving nothing back. Elizabeth can get away with being a LOT ruder to Darcy than he can to her; in the proposal scene, he had to control his anger at her (later revealed to be unfounded) accusations because a man is not allowed to express anger towards a woman; Elizabeth did not have to hide her anger with him. Servants may have been poor but had a surprising level of control over their employers lives. So it was more about how clever you were in working with your social circumstances, than about what those circumstances actually were.

[@rpaafourever7908]

@@cmm5542 I think it's hard to look at the way men were used by women in those times, when you think of the other way around which left women in a much more dire situation. The marriage and divorce laws, the constant childbearing that married women were subjected to and more often than not affected their lifespan. The lack of control over own's decisions, vocation and future. The only thing a woman could do was refuse a marriage proposal, and many could not do even that or they would be left in a state of penury unless their male relatives provided for them (a la Charlotte Lucas). Against this backdrop, I'll take rudeness any day.. sticks and stones..

[@margaretgerdes8328]

The insanity before marriage explains a lot of what happened in Jane Eyre

[@EllieDashwood]

So true. 😂

[@katiehamilton3915]

I 100% thought of Jane Eyre when she started talking about that point!

[@Daphattack]

@@katiehamilton3915 yup! Thats why he was so angry cause she was insane but he couldnt prove it cause the family hid it so well BEFORE the marriage. Man and she was a danger to herself and others too!

[@christina1wilson]

@@katiehamilton3915 So did I.

[@frankupton5821]

It shows Mr Rochester in a slightly better light that he has not attempted to annul his marriage to Bertha Mason.

[@iulia3914]

So what you’re telling me is in regency times “intercourse” meant conversation but “conversation” meant sex

[@limlaith]

Bwahaha Yes, this is what she is saying. I love it. In French, one of the earliest things we learned was that as easy as it would be to declare "je suis excitée" (that's the feminine adjective, only one E when it's boys) when we want to say that we feel excited ... that's not exactly what that means. Remember Princess Bride: "I do not think it means what you think it means." Saying it that way means you are really horny. Try announcing that to a crowded room when all you wanted to say is that you're excited to see the new James Bond movie. 🤣🤣

[@l.jagilamplighterwright9211]

I was wondering when that switched.

[@edennis8578]

It might put a whole new meaning to Shakespeare for you!

[@mobabyhomeslice]

I just recently watched "The Last Duel" with Adam Driver, Matt Damon, & Ben Affleck. Around the middle point, this was stated: "A rape isn't a crime against a woman. It's a property crime committed by a man against another man." I legit had to pause the movie and collect myself for a couple minutes. That is SO MESSED UP!!! And here they are 500 years later, and women are STILL treated like a man's property!

[@maudline]

Also interesting that you don’t mention the name of the actress in the leading role..

[@Waimapu_Wahine]

✨️🤌Jodie Comer🤌✨️

[@mouseketeery]

I think you missed something regarding the requirement for cruelty to accompany adultery for a woman to have a case against her husband. Cruelty did not have to be physical, but could be emotional. For instance, an adulterous husband who was indiscreet would be considered cruel in making no attempt to guard his wife against feeling hurt and betrayed. If he was seriously indiscreet, he'd also be possibly exposing her to humiliation or ridicule amongst their social circle or local community. That would be considered very cruel indeed. Men being unkind to their wives was not approved of, either morally, socially, or legally.

[@cmm5542]

Yes, it's very interesting how society took it upon themselves to defend others without necessarily resorting to legal redress. It was a very different world.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Yeah, he could beat her to a pulp, and that was OK, because "A husband has the right to discipline his wife," but publicly humiliating her? That was cruelty, indeed.

[@cmm5542]

@@AuntLoopy123 Actually there were laws against beating wives to the point of any physical injury. It doesn't sound sufficient to us today, but they didn't have the police forces and infrastructure we do today. It simply wasn't possible to jail every man who hit his wife while drunk. A wife either hit back - in the lower classes at least, a girl didn't have a 'lady' status to lose by reciprocal violence - blamed it on 'demon rum' instead of her husband and dealt with it that way, or social pressure against 'cowards who beat their wives' came into play. It obviously wasn't enough to guard against every case of domestic violence, which was why they gradually developed the laws and support systems we have today (which even yet aren't enough to guard against every case of domestic violence). One of the things I find most eye-opening in studying history is uncovering whether something wasn't illegal because they simply didn't have the resources to stop it yet, or because they didn't want it to be illegal. It takes a lot of research to work out which one it was.

[@LilacDaisy2]

@@AuntLoopy123 I very much doubt it was common, and even that that they would have been forceful, given that a) women were viewed as fragile and precious. b) there were no violent movies & games. c) reputation was EVERYTHING, and servants could walk into rooms of a house. d) most feared God, who said to love your wife as Christ loves the church. e) chivalry was also EVERYTHING.

[@mrsnatural2368]

​@@LilacDaisy2 you do know people have been violent long before the invention of violent movies and video games, yeah?

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

Parliament is looking out for husbands and wives conniving to get a divorce. However, there is another possibility, that a husband connives with his male buddy to get a divorce. He sues his buddy for criminal conversion, his buddy admits to the charge, the husband does not collect the damages, and proceeds to the next steps. Nowhere in this sequence is it required that adultery actually have happened, or opportunity for the wife to dispute the claim, as she is not party to the suit. I dimly recall that a case like this was part of the background to the divorce laws being rewritten.

[@charleskramer8995]

There is great line from Downton Abbey which is placed about a century later in history than when Austin placed her novels. The Dowager Countess says to the Earl, "People like us are never unhappily married. They simply don't see as much of each other as they would like."

[@tinamcguire3660]

Holy moly, that was way more complicated than I thought it would be. I feel sorry for anyone who ended up in the crim con gazette. Though gossip can be entertaining it also can ruin people's lives. Suffering people should be left alone in my opinion.

[@midnightblack07]

No wonder so few couples divorced during this era! Not only was it incredibly complicated and only really open to the upper classes, but the amount of scandal it wrought upon the family involved seems like it would have been horrible to endure. I love the way you explore these legal/social issues through the lens of Jane Austen; it really makes it all so much more accessible. :)

[@lexicornix7530]

Why would a couple scheme a divorce?

[@jhopq]

As much as I adore Pride and Prejudice and all its grandeur and romanticism, I wouldn't thrive and survive in the Regency Era as I would probably be locked up in prison or asylum for murdering my husband. The utter lack of women's rights as in "the husband has a "legal right" to hit his wife" and double standards are enough to drive me insane...biologically, legally and ecclesiastically. Thanks for this video, very insightful. ❤👍

[@Hi-jw7oq]

And its funny how so many cultures especially during that time all over the world allowed for men to marry or have many wives father many children and beat their wives if they didnt make their dinner on time. But even now .any men throughout the world believe its justifiable to beat their wives if the women burn their dinners

[@sweetdaydreamer8868]

you wouldn't have known any better so it wouldn't bother you that much

[@102483989]

I think that even if it was "legal" to hit your spouse it doesn't mean that you would marry someone who would do that. Regardless of this being legal, it is definitely not biblically acceptable.

[@LilacDaisy2]

I very much doubt it was common, and even that that they would have been forceful, given that a) women were viewed as fragile and precious. b) there were no violent movies & games. c) reputation was EVERYTHING, and servants could walk into rooms of a house. d) most feared God, who said to love your wife as Christ loves the church. e) chivalry was also EVERYTHING.

[@miss1of2]

@@LilacDaisy2 but women were treated like children and the Bible says "whoever spares the rod hates his son".... So, if you don't discipline your children you don't love them... If a husband thinks his wife needs to be disciplined, it was absolutely biblically acceptable for him to hit her... Let's not forget also that marital rape was NOT a thing... A wife could not say no to her husband... They didn't have violent movies and games but they literally had public executions... So, state sanctioned murder as entertainment... So, yes, domestic violence was probably a lot more common then you think...

[@qienna6677]

I find it interesting the theological reasons people had for not marrying their dead spouse's sister as the Old Testament for Jewish culture actually said a son should marry his dead brother's spouse so his dead brother's line would be continued. Spiritually and symbolically, any children would have been considered belonging to the dead brother.

[@yasminefathalah7042]

The ban on marrying a brother's widow or a sister's widower was probably because of ban from the catholic church and since the church of England was catholic is all but name they followed the same rule However even the Canon law of the catholic church now allows this Form of marriage because they acknowledge that the ban comes from an ecclesiastical law not natural law

[@cmm5542]

It was a huge debate in the English Reformation. For all that I studied it in university, I never could find out EXACTLY how they justified King Henry's desires from the text. One of the questions my professors learned to dodge skillfully when I got started . . . 😄 I finally concluded they just wanted to keep their heads! Most continental theologians, Catholic or Protestant, upheld the Jewish interpretation in this. It was part of the reason Elizabeth the First could never find anyone to marry; no one really approved of the English church back then.

[@KevTheImpaler]

The Sadducees asked Jesus about this, because they did not believe in an afterlife. If a woman's husband died, the husband's brother was supposed to marry her. They asked Jesus if seven brothers died one after the other, which brother was she married to in the afterlife. I cannot remember what the reply was.

[@er6730]

@@KevTheImpaler He said that people will be "like angels" in heaven with no marriage, meaning no genders, families, etc.

[@cmm5542]

@@KevTheImpaler He said that marriage did not apply to angels and the afterlife (because it's a social contract for human life in this world) and then changed the subject to what the Sadducees were REALLY talking about, which as you said was the question of whether an afterlife could exist consistent with the Jewish faith. Jesus did that a lot, getting at the subject BEHIND the question. It was my favourite discovery when I started reading the actual Bible rather than Sunday School stories.

[@cookiemocher388]

29:55 actually I think it makes perfect sense, people tend to write about things that don't happen that often, like how often you get chased by a killer with a chain saw in your everyday life

[@sweb23879]

I love these videos where you deep dive into some aspect of social history through the window of the Austen books. This was super interesting! Thank you 💕

[@kareneramo8639]

I always appreciate your in-depth analysis. Excellent video on an interesting topic.

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you! I’m so glad you enjoyed it!!

[@andreavalle3987]

Yeeees 🙌🏻 I’ve been literally talking about you and your channel to my sister these past few days since she’s becoming more interested in Austen books and the old eras, thank you 🥰🥰 also, cute shirt btw 💕

[@EllieDashwood]

Awww!!! Thank you!!! And that's so awesome that your sister is getting into the world of Austen! 😃✨💕

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

I know it’s a little outside your wheel-house, Ellie- but I’d love to know your thoughts... It was in the previous century, but the divorce/ criminal conversation case of Lady Worsely was one of the most infamous non-Royal divorces in pre-20th c history; her husband was only awarded a single shilling, because- as far as I can tell- he essentially pimped his wife out, for social benefit- which didn’t help him all that much, when several of the men she’d slept with, were on her side. I believe there was also a movie or mini-series- I’m sure I saw a trailer for it somewhere...

[@wja.nielsen17]

I had never heard of that case before your comment and I have to say…wow. Thank you for bringing it up, it was fascinating to read about.

[@OcarinaSapphr-]

@@wja.nielsen17 No worries! I found it really interesting, too.

[@Natalie_11188]

Yes there was a movie with Natalie Dormer. It’s hard to view in the states.

[@AnastaciaInCleveland]

I found the movie, The Scandalous Lady Worsely, here on YT. It has Portuguese subtitles but still has the original English dialogue. It was very good! ~ Anastacia in Cleveland

[@Natalie_11188]

@@AnastaciaInCleveland yes when I watched it, it was on KZbin as well!

[@SarahElisabethJoyal]

Couple of things: 1. Separated wives inheriting their husbands' titles reminds me of a story involving one of the King Georges (I forget which). He had been separated from his wife for many years, but when his coronation was announced she arrived at the church with the intention of (rightfully) being crowned queen. They literally shut the doors in her face and if I remember properly she died of a broken heart over it not long after. 2. So. The Rushworth case goes to Parliament. We know that Sir Thomas is an MP. Was he allowed to remove himself from the discussion of this particular case? I can't really imagine much worse humiliation for a gentleman than having to be party to the public airing of his own daughter's dirty laundry.

[@Natalie_11188]

George IV and Caroline of Brunswick.

[@SarahElisabethJoyal]

@@Natalie_11188 thank you yes, their whole marriage really was a miserable time wasn't it

[@MissMarie1377]

But Caroline did NOT die of a broken heart. She HATED him just as much as he despised her. She did die soon after but it had ZERO to do with George.

[@SarahElisabethJoyal]

@@MissMarie1377 certainly not a broken heart at losing her husband, but quite possibly a broken heart at losing her crown

[@ladykatietx]

Laughed out loud around 4:50! "Heiress" "Might get kidnapped" 😆😂😂

[@procopiusaugustus6231]

A lot of the grounds for annulment still exist in the US today. I obtained an annulment (I’m a lawyer) for a wife on the grounds that the marriage was fraudulent in that her husband didn’t intend to be married. Another time the reason was an undisclosed felony conviction. Generally it’s just a lot easier to just get a divorce.

[@jeffreywoosley960]

Now I need to go and re-read ‘Mansfield Park’. Also, can’t wait to hear your thoughts on the trailer to the upcoming Netflix version of ‘Persuasion’.

[@EllieDashwood]

Mansfield Park is always a great re-read! 😃 And I have so many thoughts on this trailer. 😅😂

[@sofian8999]

@@EllieDashwood I find myself disappointed with the way Dakota Johnson has portrayed Anne Elliot to be another sassy Elizabeth Bennet. I relate so much to Elliot’s character, she’s very timid, introverted and easily swayed and the overall mood of Persuasion is quite serious and mature, a tone that was non existent in the Netflix trailer. I’m trying to keep an open mind but as far as I know I’ll be sticking to the 1995 version 😌

[@cuthbertallgood7781]

I just watched the trailer. Did I really just see Anne Elliot say the phrase, "Now we're worse than exes, we're friends!" Did Netflix really just have an early 19th century character use the modern slang term "exes"? What is wrong with the people at Netflix?

[@lori3056]

@@cuthbertallgood7781 And that slang term stood in for such a deep, heartfelt line in the book. So sad.

[@Youknowwhoyounopoo]

"we're worse than exes, we're friends." 😖🤮

[@lorisewsstuff1607]

I think I probably would read the Crim Con Gazette. It was so easy to accidentally fall into scandal that probably a lot of people read the Gazette just to find out who to avoid. Being involved in a scandal by association was almost as bad as being an active participant.

[@Morna777]

I mean trashy tabloids are basically the same thing.

[@monicaspoor2993]

It's kind of like Jane Austen is using Maria's marriage as an example of why companionship is important and how much it is valued in the Regency period. Sir Thomas, when meeting Mr Rushworth, even tells Maria that he thinks Mr Rushworth is an idiot (well, not in those words) and is she really sure they can have this companionable marriage? Because if not, if Maria has doubts, even though it's an inconvenience and it's financially a very good match, he'll end the engagement.

[@ThanksHermione]

Yes, but then we see the contrast in how he treats Fanny. He berates her for refusing to marry Mr. Crawford and attempts to coerce her into accepting him. At least Fanny's judgment is proven to be correct.

[@monicaspoor2993]

@@ThanksHermione True, but at that time Mr Crawford still appeared to be a gentleman of forture and Sir Thomas didn't yet know any real evil of him. It must have appeared to be a very good match to him. A rich man, clearly head over heels in love with Fanny. He was wrong in trying to coerce her, but at that particular time he must've had a much higher opinion of Mr Crawford than of Mr Rushworth. Fanny's judgment was the more sound, of course.

[@FootSoldier4Christ]

I would love it if you would do a video on Georgiana (Princess Diana's great great grandmother), and the novel Anna Karenina, and the similarities in their marriages, affairs and having to give up their children if they divorced.

[@jldisme]

I loved your video! Thank you.I think it's important to note that when a woman cheated on her husband, it would actually put the paternity of the man's heir under question. This could be disastrous for a family. A man could have an affair, but it would do nothing to effect the legitimacy of his heir.

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you so much! 😃💕 And that was definitely a main argument they used to justify their double standard! 🧐

[@angelicasmodel]

That sounds like an argument for a matriarchy to me :-)

[@cmm5542]

Yes, it took me several years to figure out how they justified it. I wouldn't have put up with it! Pretty sure I would have been left a spinster back then - oh, wait, that's not much of a change 😂

[@archervine8064]

Curious… divorce was definitely rare, but do we have any figures on how many marriages resulted in a official or unofficial separation?

[@cmm5542]

Absolutely brilliant video! I thought I already knew a lot about divorce in this era, and prided myself on my superior education in breach of promise cases lol, but there was so much in this I had never heard before, like the criminal conversation cases and the role of Paliament! I also never knew about the interpretation of becoming one flesh making you technically related to each other's siblings. That explains a lot, including King Henry the Eighth 😅. I had one question: what happened in the cases of extreme cruelty WITHOUT adultery on the part of the husband? I once read a letter, predating the Georgian Era by about two centuries to be sure, where John Calvin advises one of his parishioners, whose husband was abusing her due to religious differences, to make one more attempt to get him to respect her rights to believe as she wished, and if he would not, 'all have the right to flee ravenous wolves.' But I was never sure whether that meant she could get a full divorce and marry again, or just a separation where she could be protected from him? Do you know how those situations would have been handled in the Regency Era? I also really liked how you showed the complex differences between the power of the law and the power of social stigma in this era - something that is so hard to really understand nowadays. The definition of adultery may well have applied the same to both men and women, but in practice society condoned this complete double standard. I was actually talking about another issue with the same sort of social/legal imbalance with my friends just the other day! In Othello, when Othello hits his wife Desdemona, his friends are shocked and disgusted. Such behaviour is unworthy of a gentleman. But as you pointed out, it wasn't illegal. And as I said to my friends, it would take over three centuries for people to work out that social requirements aren't necessarily enough to ensure gentlemanly behaviour without laws!

[@emilylewis5373]

Henry the 8th started that concept, it’s the grounds for his divorce. So he wrote it into the Church of England beliefs. Elizabeth the first, who really cemented the Church of England, kept it in because without his divorce she would be considered a bastard.

[@cmm5542]

@@emilylewis5373 Yes, that's quite true.

[@josephinedykstra3383]

Anne Bronte's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (couple decades late) is about this issue! (though there is adultery on the part of the husband, too) Basically, it winds up being a separation, not a divorce, but with no paperwork or allowance, and the fear that a) he would find you b) he had every right to custody of any children if you took them with you and he wanted them back.

[@cmm5542]

@@josephinedykstra3383 I'll need to read that now!

[@The84336]

The whole thing about one's in-laws being considered the same as one's own siblings got me thinking, would that have caused problems for Emma and Mr. Knightley? Or even Elinor and Edward in S&S? It's not exactly marrying your dead sibling's spouse, but both couples were already in-laws because they had (half-)siblings that were married to each other.

[@adorabell4253]

Siblings of siblings weren’t really considered relations in the same way. We see that in how Knightley and Emma refer to one another, they never call each other brother and sister. Same same with Charlotte and Eliza, they don’t call each other cousin when Charlotte married Mr Collins.

[@saraa3418]

It was also a matter of debate and consideration whether those who had been previously married should remarry at all! There was a lot of discussion about this in Sense and Sensibility with Marianne being of the opinion (at first) that one shouldn't remarry if one was in love with one's spouse because what could compare. Her mother even points out to her that if her father hadn't remarried, she wouldn't exist and Marianne sticks to her guns. Crimcon cases feels like an elaborate way to pimp one's wife.

[@mery5989]

yes, it's funny because she firmly believed that it was impossible for one person to ever be in love with more than one other person over the course of their life. but of course she's pretty much forced by circumstances to experience the opposite herself

[@cmm5542]

I guess that was Jane Austen's way of sharing her views on a prominent issue of the day!

[@MsJubjubbird]

@@mery5989 I feel Austen is questioning the romantic notion of one true love. Edward and Marianne- the two most opposite characters, as well as Brandon- experience falling in love and then doing it all over again.

[@vilwarin5635]

She also had a very funny line in Persuasion about lady Russel not keeping everyone happy because she chooses not to marry again

[@PokhrajRoy.]

A society with double standards for women and where divorce is rare and even taboo, maybe considered a rich people thing? As an Indian, of course I wouldn't know anything about it 🌝

[@Ru136]

As a Sri Lankan, I second that

[@peregrinearc]

This was fascinating. Thank you for all of your research.

[@EllieDashwood]

Yay! I’m so glad you enjoyed it!!! 😃

[@janedoefamily6458]

I would love to read the Crim-Con Gazette. I think I'll do a search and see if I can find any online. I've enjoyed your excellent video. After watching it, I don't despise Edward Ferrars like I used to. I always thought him weak and wishy-washy. Now, I can understand the predicament he was in. 🌹

[@angelicasmodel]

Knowing about breach of contract, my issue with Edward becomes that he shouldn't have gotten to know Elinor as well as he did, knowing that he was engaged. On the other hand, everything works out in the end :-)

[@Cat_Woods]

@@angelicasmodel I think he should have told her about the engagement. It would have made her life much easier to endure while he was trying to figure it out.

[@mery5989]

he was kind of silly because he thought Lucy really loved him. that's why he didn't leave her, also he felt he owed her his money and social standing as agreed

[@cmm5542]

@@angelicasmodel I always felt Edward didn't realise his feelings for Elinor went deeper than friendship at first, precisely because he was already engaged and wasn't thinking along those lines. Once he realized he was in love with Elinor, it was a bit late to explain. I suppose he could have thought of some honourable way if he had put his mind to it, but then we wouldn't have a book to read! 😄

[@angelicasmodel]

@@cmm5542 yes, it's not the worst flaw to have!

[@angelicasmodel]

Thanks for all of this info. I'd seen some of it before, but not in the one place. Watching this, I have some questions about Eliza Sr's divorce. 1) since she was coerced / forced into marriage, wouldn't that have been grounds for annulment? Or was the issue that she didn't have the means, or a sympathetic man to act on her behalf? 2) her husband was very cruel to her. Would that have been grounds to prevent the divorce, or for her to divorce him instead, and get a better settlement? Or once again, was it not practical for her to do so?

[@cathipalmer8217]

She had no male relatives to act for her and back her financially. Her guardian was her skeevy father-in-law, and he and her husband had control of all her money.

[@PokhrajRoy.]

Jane Eyre' told us about how there's a loophole with the condition of "Insanity' in a marriage.

[@EllieDashwood]

I did so much research on the Jane Eyre thing. 😂 It might have to be a follow-up video.

[@PokhrajRoy.]

@@EllieDashwood Yes, it does.

[@dsr8223]

The amount of research you do is amazing, and this video was extra fascinating. Thank you! (I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I'd probably subscribe to the Crim. Con. Gazzette -- or at least send my lady's maid out to bring me home a copy.)

[@EllieDashwood]

That is an excellent use of a Lady’s Maid!!! 😂

[@cmm5542]

But she might read it herself first! 😂

[@angelwhispers2060]

@@cmm5542 that seems like a fair compensation to be so used.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Looks like the "Lady Whistledown" part of Bridgerton, unlike SO MUCH of the rest of it, actually has some basis in historical fact, doesn't it? I like Bridgerton, but I really have to put my knowledge aside, and just enjoy it as a TOTALLY INACCURATE guilty pleasure.

[@emilystout772]

I only yesterday finished a book (Georgette Heyer) that mentioned crim cons so the clarity this gives is greatly appreciated!

[@madlass3093]

Thank you so much for this interesting video! It also came right at the perfect moment, since I'm investigating Lord and Lady Byron's divorce, and it helped me so much🧐🧐🧐

[@EllieDashwood]

Yay! I’m so glad it was helpful!!! 😃

[@rachellesch8681]

I’m curious how similar the customs surrounding divorce and “crim-con” were in America. Roughly around the same time, Alexander Hamilton was blackmailed by his mistress’s husband, James Reynolds who used the “you took my wife so you owe me financial compensation” justification.

[@putalaweamala7191]

Yees, and Maria herself would end up divorcing James Reynolds with the help of Aaron Burr

[@rachellesch8681]

@@putalaweamala7191 and Aaron Burr’s second wife would divorce him and her lawyer was Alexander Hamilton jr. Geeze, small world

[@putalaweamala7191]

@@rachellesch8681 Yees, indeed

[@rachellesch8681]

@@putalaweamala7191 I have a theory that early American history is pretty much six degrees of Aaron Burr

[@putalaweamala7191]

@@rachellesch8681 Yees, he's a pretty interesting figure! He was vicepresident of the US and after that he tried to establish Texas as a country.

[@jmarie9997]

I've read biographies of people in the 1700's and 1800's. I was surprised how many people in France and the Continent divorced (some more than once). Also the number of people who lived together without being married, or more or less openly carried on while married to someone else.

[@cmm5542]

Yes, in fact that was why more permissive standards were frequently referred to euphemistically as 'French' by the British and Americans even well into the 20th century. Everybody expected different moral views based on country. Germany was fairly similar to the Anglophone world in strict marital expectations, Russia awkwardly balanced between standards (as explored in Anna Karenina), and France WAY more relaxed. Of course this is the standards expressed in the literature I've read; there may have been some variation in reality, but your findings would seem to indicate the novelists were expressing the state of affairs fairly accurately.

[@louiseoliver3453]

Interesting stuff, however I think you could have covered another solution which was not covered by Jane Austen but was noted in The Mayor of Casterbridge, namely wife sales, it seems these quicky makeshift divorces were usually agreed on by the husband and wife and no doubt separation was pretty common among working class people as well

[@AuntLoopy123]

Yes, but it would NEVER have happened in the upper classes. Jane Austen was the daughter of a gentleman, albeit a poor one, and she wrote about her own class. I think the idea behind wife sales was "We cannot possibly afford all the legal fees to get a divorce, so we'll agree to never prosecute, and just pretend it's all OK." Sort of a "gentleman's agreement," as they say, only they weren't gentlemen.

[@mirandacoenen3823]

Thank you,always happy to lurn about my favorite era

[@EllieDashwood]

😃😃😃 I hope you enjoy it!

[@axari]

The CrimCon Gazette sounds like Gossip Girl :) I wonder, since entering into engagement was such serious business, did people have prospective partners investigated beforehand? Was there such a thing as a detective at the time? I imagine someone going around looking in all the church books to see if so-and-so was already married, for example.

[@dorothywillis1]

Thanks for the clear explanation. I already knew most of it, but I had never had it really explained to me. At first I was surprised by insanity as a reason for an annulment thinking , "But what about Mrs. Rochester?" But when you explained the person had to be insane on the day of the marriage, it made sense.

[@sarahgoetz1170]

Hey Ellie thanks for brightening up my work day. I think this is one of your best recent videos - so interesting learning more about the difference in attitudes and perspectives of the time.

[@ΜαρίαΜαρουλάκη]

Question: what would Maria’s last name be after the divorce? She would still be a Mrs or back to Miss? Grat video thanks

[@SometimesPerplexed]

I’m not usually a fan of novels that take up further adventures of characters from classic literature long after their creators have died, but I would try one about the post divorce life of Maria Bertram. I for one do NOT think she would spend years hanging out with Aunt Norris. I think she would figure her reputation was shot and her family had rejected her, so the first man she met who was rich AND attractive (lesson learned) would be her ticket out regardless of his marital status or reputability.

[@sarasamaletdin4574]

I red Tenant of Wildfeld Hall by Anne Bronte last year, and while it’s written in 1848 it’s a period piece set in 1827 so this video does explain a bit about the legal background before the laws changed (at least I don’t think they had by late 20s).

[@AuntLoopy123]

Every girl should read the Tenant of Wildfell Hall! Honestly, Anne is my favorite of the Bronte sisters. The others were all about dark, brooding, PROBLEMATIC heroes, and sure, they get the heart pumping, and make it SEEM like it's "true love" and a good thing to emulate, but DANG! DO NOT MARRY THOSE MEN! Anne's heroes, in both Tenant of Wildfell Hall and in Agnes Grey, are GOOD MEN. Some would even call them dull. But they are GOOD MEN and will be GOOD HUSBANDS. And in an age where a wife's happiness depended almost completely on the quality of her husband, that MATTERS.

[@delphinidin]

Great video! Thank you for all the details! It might be interesting to see a video on the marriage act of the 1850s--or also the marriage act of the 1750s, the one that made eloping to Gretna Green a Thing! BTW, have you read Evelina by Fanny Burney?

[@KevTheImpaler]

I am reading Clarissa, written 1748, which surely Austen would have read. Robert Lovelace is a libertine and a rake, but he is notorious throughout England, and all good people despise him. A gentleman could not entirely get away with it. Henry Crawford's reputation would suffer for what he did to Maria.

[@mtngrl5859]

Not many gentlewomen would have married him after his affair with Maria.

[@cmm5542]

Very true. And 'seducers' were generally seen as unmarriageble by any respectable young lady's family.

[@mtngrl5859]

@@cmm5542 Yes, that is true. It's been years since I read Mansfield Park, but if I remember correctly, JA succinctly sums up Henry Crawford and his sister as being one of those Regency people who have rather loose morals. JA was quite aware that there was a sub group of regency types a la Lord Byron who carried on with all sorts of people. Also, the Prince Regent and all of his mistresses were a common joke. I've read some of Jane's letters and she was keenly aware of the foibles of some of the aristocracy. If I remember correctly the Countess of Jersey who was one of the mistresses of the Prince Regent, claimed that only 1 of her many children was the actual offspring of her husband. Then as now, the people at the highest level of society had more latitude with respect to not losing their " respectability" due to their position in society. Jane is quite clear that a marriage without affection is not to be embarked upon but is equally clear that there also needs to be some financial backing as well,

[@slothcorgi3988]

Interestingly, there are cases of divorce on the grounds of husband’s adultery. One is Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey, when he eloped with the married Lady Charlotte Cadogan who was a sister in law to the Duke of Wellington. Another case is the 8th Duke of Hamilton and his wife Elizabeth Burrell who applied for a divorce on the grounds of her husbands adultery with an actress and an unnamed woman.

[@lesleighrenee2322]

Sooooo happy to see something new from you Ellie! Hop you are feeling better these days!

[@Youknowwhoyounopoo]

The brother sister thing, ahhh so that's why Emma and Mr Knightley had to justify that after all, they not brother and sister, when they danced. Also, Col. Brandon was probably so devastated when his dad made Eliza marry his brother, because they could really never get married if situations changed. Private separation: like what Angel did with Tess in Tess of the D'Urbervilles Crim Con: Is this the inspiration for Lady Whistledown? Lol

[@AuntLoopy123]

Looks like they were only able to marry because their siblings had not died, yet? Or something? Or maybe, because they figured nobody would actually press charges or whatever.

[@vilwarin5635]

I don't remember how col. Brandon brother was able to formally separate, if she wasn't unfaithful. Did the book give more details?

[@vbrown6445]

@@vilwarin5635 He was so cruel to her that it pushed her into the arms of another man (she had an affair) and that's when he divorced her and took all her money, leaving her destitute and desperate enough to fall into selling herself.

[@haileys657]

I don’t think the brother/sister thing is a problem for two sets of siblings marrying, just you marrying your former spouse’s sibling. The one flesh thing only applies to the couple that did the do and mixed the blood. since the siblings on either side didn’t, they don’t share blood yet. In P&P Miss Bingley wants her brother to marry Georgiana hoping one connection with that family would lead to another-her marrying Darcy.

[@Natilra]

There's a BBC show, Garrow's Law, which has a criminal conversation case in S02E04 The premise of the whole show is looking at the innovation of accused people having a right to a defence in the mid- to late 18th century. Plus, the cast is fantastic.

[@DipityS]

Yes, I'd be ashamed, but I'd probably be nosy enough to want to read it. We do take our current time and place for granted and to take a look back to what was common sense only a couple of hundred years back is an eye-opener and not overly pleasant to contemplate.

[@Amcsae]

Regarding the marrying the sibling of your spouse thing- Would that have extended to Emma and Mr. Knightley, as their siblings were married?

[@cmm5542]

No, because they weren't related to each other's siblings until they were married and 'one flesh.' If Mr Knightley and Isabella both died, however, Emma could not have married Mr John Knightley as they were technically brother and sister from the time he married Isabella. Not that she would have wanted to anyway 😁

[@Books_Anime_92]

Makes you thankful to be living in modern times. Living in the Regency period was not great for women and legal matters regarding women’s rights.

[@Ms.Mushroom-ei4cj]

20:44 the SHADE. Poor Widow Bert and her daughter 😢

[@LaLayla99]

I'm curious about a real-life marriage- the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire. If the movie "The Duchess" is to be believed, he was very cruel to her, but she wasn't able to get a divorce, even though his mistress was living in the same house. Wouldn't that have fallen under those rules?

[@joannshupe9333]

Yes, the Duke took the Duchess' bff as his mistress, but she had invited her into the home as her friend and companion first.

[@megc1981]

My understanding is they had come to terms (initially) to live separate lives but then she had her affair and when she got pregnant he was pissed. But at that point suing for divorce would lead to him countersuing her and her lover which would’ve hurt her now former lover (ruin him financially and politically) which she didn’t want to do. So she basically lived with it feeling she didn’t have much choice.

[@phadenswandemil4345]

Just a note on the timeline. Regency era is around 1795 and 1837. Bess started living in Devonshire around 1784. Regency law only comes into play after Bess has lived 10 years living with the duke and duchess.

[@ClariceH]

That's an excellent video! I'm researching the subject for my Phd, and you sum up all the layers and intricacies brilliantly. Plus, I love the visuals, they're really fresh! 😊💕💕 Bottom line: you just got yourself a subscriber.

[@annapijanska407]

20:28 i want their archives soooo much

[@dsr8223]

I do, too! I think it would be fascinating.

[@jennieeveleighlamond]

Ohmigosh, I want copies of all the crimcon gazette! How did I not know that this existed? Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I shall now scour the internet for it. I hope it's not inappropriate or weird of me to say, but I really love your blouse in this video. It's very becoming!

[@KevTheImpaler]

Another incredible lecture. Maria Bertram was the only character in Jane Austen's books I would have been interested to find out what happened to next.

[@angelicasmodel]

There has been some fan fic :-) My head canon is that after one of the redemption arcs in fan fic, that she finds a nice country farmer, has a happy family life with him.

[@haveaballcrafting8686]

I read somewhere about a totally unrelated act of parliament that ended with a cheeky “and the clerk x’s marriage is hereby annulled” - he was writing out the act ready to sign and just added in a quick annulment for himself!

[@PokhrajRoy.]

There should be a Part 2 of this for Victorian England.

[@yasminefathalah7042]

In Victorian England it became easier since divorce became legal on three fault ground in 1857 and adultary was discriminalized so parlamantary act no longer needed Still double standard concerning sex still existed an English wife coundn't sue for a divorce on ground on adultary until the 1920s or 30s

[@dianakulish3620]

Hey Elli! Thanks for your videos! They are really so entertaining, I’ve been watching you for long while! I’m currently in Ukraine in the middle of war. All those guys who were officers in Jane Austin’s books, did they actually go to war? Was there any in the regency era?

[@faithful2thecall]

The regency era was the tail end of the Napoleonic era, so there was plenty of war in Europe. Plus the English also came over to North America to pick another fight with their former colonies in 1812.

[@angelicasmodel]

Stay safe! The naval officers in persuasion have many discussions about going to war, and one actively hopes for the good fortune of another. William Price in Mansfield Park also discusses his experiences. Col Brandon is deployed with the army after Eliza sr's marriage.

[@dianakulish3620]

@@angelicasmodel @faithful2thecall thanks for your replies! And thanks, Pennie!💙💛

[@angelicasmodel]

@@dianakulish3620 you're welcome!

[@nellebolton7910]

Yes. Mainly with France but we did have a bit of a war with America in 1812.

[@WhiTiger]

I greatly appreciate your insights into Jane Austen's world. One thing I have wondered about for years was why Wickham went through with the wedding. He had already left debts all over the place some of which were debts of honor. So if he still had intended to marry into money why did he not bail on the wedding plans after Darcy went back to Pemberly? I would think he would have no scruples about leaving London now that Lydia was staying with her aunt and uncle. The only reason I can think of why he stuck around and went through with it was because of some legal issue that kept him there. Can you shed some light on this subject?

[@mitnehmerrippe]

The text states that his debts were so pressing that he wasn’t immune against immediate financial relief - he was bribed into it, and i’m very sure that Darcy wouldn’t have paid out anything (money wise or in terms of his new military patent in the north of England, which only started 14 days after the wedding, so ample time to cancel it out of the wedding failed) if wickham had not showed up. The letter to Lizzy by Mrs. Gardiner also states that wickham, while still intending to marry rich at first, and definitively wanting to bail, had no clue where to bail to nor how to work out his next steps (“as to his future situation, he could conjecture very little about it. He must go somewhere, but he didn’t know where”), meaning no contacts to bail him out, no new con lined up, no new job lined up to help him keep his respectable appearances (which was expensive, but required if you wanted to scam a rich heiress into marrying you - they’re not gonna marry a plebeian!). Also note how that letter by Mrs. Gardiner mentions that a) Wickham had “full admission to the [Gardiner’s] house” after the settlement was hashed out between Darcy and him, meaning that everyone would have noticed if he had disappeared suddenly because he was expected to be there all the time, how b) Darcy himself is a witness to the wedding, likely to ensure that his conditions for his side of the deal have indeed been met. Also how c) Darcy knew his London contacts because that’s how he tracked Wickham down, so no way Wickham would have gotten far in a sudden bailing attempt that way, either. He must know that because how else would Darcy have found him in this metropole? The issue holding him back was that his immediate relief was more important than long term prospects of uncertain, unplanned quality in the face of dire and urgent financial distress. The legal issue holding him back was that this immediate relief was contingent on going through with the marriage. Wickham was bribed into marrying Lydia and there was no better option for him to get out of it, while also not really being possible under the circumstances of constant supervision by the Gardiners, and his network being found out by Darcy. Lydia was kept under house arrest at the Gardiners’ house as well, to ensure that she wouldn’t attempt to run away with Wickham, either (and she’s very upset in the book that she wasn’t allowed to leave the house, so we know the Gardiners kept her under constant supervision). By the time the contract between Darcy and Wickham is made, Wickham also shows up as his usual, charming self at the Gardiner household - meaning that he has likely noticed that it would be more in his financial interest of having no better plan to appear agreeable to his future close relations in order to gain a good standing so they will keep on feeling financially obligated to their niece.

[@dorothywillis1]

I am sure Darcy didn't pay out a nickel until AFTER the wedding! And I am sure he had a solicitor looking after Lydia's interests.

[@vbrown6445]

@@dorothywillis1 Darcy didn't directly send the Wickhams money after that, but Lizzy did send Lydia money from her own money/allowance, Darcy helped Wickham further in his career, and the Bingleys frequently hosted them in their home. A pretty sweet deal for a freeloader like Wickham. Having two rich brothers-in-law was a boon for him. "Such relief, however, as it was in her [Elizabeth's] power to afford, by the practice of what might be called economy in her own private expences, she frequently sent them [the Wickhams]...Though Darcy could never receive him at Pemberley, yet, for Elizabeth’s sake, he assisted him further in his profession. Lydia was occasionally a visitor there, when her husband was gone to enjoy himself in London or Bath; and with the Bingleys they both of them frequently staid so long, that even Bingley’s good humour was overcome, and he proceeded so far as to talk of giving them a hint to be gone."

[@dorothywillis1]

@@vbrown6445 I don't understand how what you are saying is different from what I said. Darcy made a deal with Wickham and made sure W. fulfilled his side of the bargain before any payment was made. The help to Wickham's career IMO probably didn't involve cash, but were a matter of using influence.

[@vbrown6445]

@@dorothywillis1 Yep. We are saying the say thing. But in a way it IS Darcy's money, because Lizzy's money comes from Darcy.

[@k2990j]

I stopped reading Mansfield Park bc I thought the plot was obvious but wow I was wrong! Have to go read it now

[@gixmonster]

Thanks for your very insightful and interesting video, Ellie! I am wondering if you have also done one on what life, social standing, etc., would have been like for the mistresses? I've heard quite a few times that it was prevalent/acceptable for men to have mistresses, but I've never heard who they would have been and what their lives would have been like.

[@cmm5542]

Very isolated. Anna Karenina illustrates this: it was not loss of Vronsky's love that drove Anna to suicide; it was her complete ostrcization from all society. Poorer women might have thought the luxury their lovers provided them was worth it. The ultra upper class 'rakes' and artistic 'bohemian' circles had it a little better, but no one outside that circle would acknowledge them. Unless she was notorious enough to become famous and wealthy and clever enough to become a business woman in later life; that did sometimes happen.

[@gixmonster]

@@cmm5542 thanks for your response and the helpful example!

[@cmm5542]

@@gixmonster Awww . . . You are so welcome!

[@vickytaspartan]

I thought Victorian times were the peak of double morality, but after watching this... Just damn...

[@BekFarry]

Interesting!! I live in Tasmania which was known as Van Diemen’s Land during the Regency. Many horrified families sent their Black Sheep here to ‘live in disgrace’. Many of them however, became cornerstones of the new colony. I like to think that Maria may have been one of those

[@LindsWinns]

Off topic, but I love Brooklinen! Will deffo be using your code. Thanks!

[@einahsirro1488]

In Samuel Richardson's CLARISSA, at one point Clarissa runs away from her captor, Lovelace, who simply advertises her as a runaway wife, and everyone he meets pretty much helps return her to him even though they aren't married. No one seems to expect him to prove it. He just says she's his wife, and everyone's like, "Oh, okay."

[@juliegunderson6974]

You always have so much great info! I'd love to see a video about how you research and prepare for the different topics you delve into!

[@riam3906]

Very interesting information also for readers of the tennant of wildfell hall!

[@riam3906]

Which features divorce as well as separation

[@nriamond8010]

In Germany, it is still the case that you can sue someone who breaks an engagement (for compensation for wedding expenses you already had). An engagement still is a contract today, at least here.

[@airshipswashbuckler6420]

You break this down so well I feel like you could explain even algebra to me! 😅

[@luannnelson2825]

When an engagement occurred, it was normal for there to be a marriage bond - a contract that stated that if the marriage did not occur, the prospective groom would owe X dollars in compensation. So an engagement likely was a written contract, not only a verbal one.

[@Sirena101]

Darcy’s reluctance to marry Elizabeth is more justified to me. The thought of willingly becoming Lydia & Kitty’s older brother….

[@S070-g8q]

It is. He still has to continually bail out Wickham, to keep his wife's family unspotted. This will probably be a continuous thing.

[@marthawolfsen5809]

@@S070-g8q At the end of P&P Austen writes that Darcy helped Wickham in his career, presumably by buying him an army promotion, but never allowed him to come to Pemberley. Lydia was only occasionally there. But Kitty spent most of her time either at Pemberley or with the Bingleys and "her improvement was great."

[@S070-g8q]

@@marthawolfsen5809 Yes, what a relief for poor Kitty. She was the least silly of Mr. Bennet's "Three Silly Daughters" and it was not really her fault. Her mother (Bless her soul) was the silliest of all, her father gave up before she was even born, and she was sandwiched between the worst of them, with Lydia being her mother's favorite. I am glad the two eldest took her under their wings and helped her along, and I hope that she married well and had a happy life.

[@lexicornix7530]

How could Emma then marry Mr. Knightley?

[@screamingseal1137]

​@@S070-g8q this is extremely unkind to Mary

[@ameliecarre4783]

Imagine living in times where you can actually choose to opt out of being inform of the latest gossips about folks you don't know or care about ? And even after avoiding conversations on the topic and having removed the risk of accidentally reading about it in your house by not having gossip rags lying about, you know it's not gonna jump at you anyway like it does for us now every time we turn internet on on our phone or computer ? Sounds heavenly.

[@jamestown8398]

The crim com gazette was mercifully limited in it's reach by the technology of the time.

[@katiehamilton3915]

aagghhh! this was SUUUCCHHH a great and SUPER interesting video! I had never thought about this much at all, but it was ALL SO FASCINATING to listen to! I am going to have to rewatch with a paper and pencil and comment again bc I have sooo many thoughts XD

[@aazhie]

This is a really great deep dive, thanks!!

[@kaybonette]

Wouldn't the laws you described cause a wife whose husband was cheating on her to pay someone to kill him and make it look like an accident? Seems like his death would be her only way out.

[@FunSizeSpamberguesa]

A lot of desperate women cut out the middle man and just poisoned their husbands. The symptoms of arsenic poisoning are identical to those of typhoid, which was rampant in the 19th century, and until the second half of the century there wasn't any way to tell the difference post-mortem. Some got caught, but there had to be a lot more who didn't -- especially if the husband died in the middle of a general epidemic.

[@kaybonette]

@@FunSizeSpamberguesa Sounds reasonable

[@cmm5542]

Of course, not all wives would have felt the same about cheating husbands. It's easy to forget that social standards would have been ingrained in those they did not benefit as well. I don't think I would have ever tolerated having my husband cheat on me, because I was brought up to question and critique the society I live in; I see no reason I would not have been the same back then. But a lot of people accept what society tells them blindly, today and back then, even if it's not a good thing. So there were a lot of wives who, influenced by social standards, still thought their cheating husbands were good men and continued to love them. If it came to that, a cheating husband may well have been very kind to his wife in other ways and not realized his own hypocrisy because society didn't. I've read of so many instances of this, in both real-life accounts and literature - I actually just learned the other day about the relationship between Edward VII and his mistress and his wife Queen Alexandra. I've forgotten the mistress' name, but she and Queen Alexandra were like friends! Neither of them seemed bothered by the fact that the king was double-timing them. From all accounts, he highly respected his wife and they had an excellent relationship; I simply cannot understand, with my very different social views and morals, how any of them were okay with this. But apparently they were.

[@vickiamundsen2933]

that's actually the premise of many, many murder mysteries!

[@Dandelionsinthesky]

​@@cmm5542Alice Keppel(I think)?

[@mojosbigsticks]

I love the phrase 'mensa et thoro'.

[@ma_niz]

I just found your channel and am obsessed!!

[@PokhrajRoy.]

You know women were treated like property when you’re legally allowed to sue a lover for ‘financial damages’.

[@cmm5542]

Actually, women could sue men for financial damages in breach of promise cases. Men couldn't. So it cut both ways.

[@rpaafourever7908]

@@cmm5542 Women could only sue if there was an actual breach of promise, they wouldn't do so otherwise since they couldn't work and their livelihood depended on their spouse. Men, on the other hand, could initiate a divorce to exit the marriage and often did so after falsely accusing and maligning their wife's character, all they needed was two 'reliable' witnesses.

[@cmm5542]

@@rpaafourever7908 Yes. Men had it easier for getting out of a marriage; but women had it easier for preventing a marriage they had decided they didn't want. Probably your upbringing reflected this; I've read about how much more cautious women were about jumping into marriage than men were back then, doubtless because they were aware they couldn't get out of it after, but they COULD break engagements while the men couldn't. If I were a young socialite back then, I'm afraid that would have given me quite a sense of superiority!

[@rpaafourever7908]

@@cmm5542 Breaking off an engagement vs breaking up a marriage is not on the same level. Wanting to back out of a thing you agreed to and proposed in the first place but not being able to, is not the same as wanting to but not being able to propose such a thing in the first place and worse, once in it, never having the option to back out. The risk factor was lower for men because the worst-case scenario actually wasn't that bad for them. Worse comes to worst, they could always file a false case. Men always had the loophole in the form of biased divorce laws which essentially stemmed from viewing women as the property of men.

[@cmm5542]

@@rpaafourever7908 Back then breaking an engagement had pretty much the same level of social consequence as breaking up a marriage. Also, I would like to clear up a point about the 'women as property.' They were never thought of that way. The property issue was that a woman's control of HER property went to her husband, because of the whole one flesh understanding. There were no longer seen to be two people owning the property, but one. In theory the wife also owned all her husband's property; it's in the marriage contract. Of course it did not usually work out that way in practice. But the idea that husbands 'owned' their wives is historically unsubstantiated. They did control their wives' property, and that was what caused most of the problems.

[@k.s.k.7721]

A major legal concern over a wife's infidelity vs a husband's, was that there was no sure way to prove a child was the husband's, and not the child of a lover if she was unfaithful. Since property transfer through the generations and between families was a main reason for marriage, it was economically vital that a man maintained his bloodline. Before DNA tests, there were few ways to assure a child was related to the husband. Legally punishing straying wives and eliminating a woman's legal & financial autonomy were methods used to control female reproductive options.

[@melodyclark1944]

So it's better for the woman to have sex before getting married so she has no husband who's bloodline needs to be maintained?

[@erikagehm2805]

I have a question what are good resources for learning about Late Victorian and Early Edwardian slang, culture, and historical events.

[@EllieDashwood]

That is a good question! It would depend on what you want to know exactly and how much/in-depth you want to know it. 🧐 I will add this to my list of future video ideas!

[@erikagehm2805]

@@EllieDashwood I'm mostly interested in deep about culture and slang more of a time-line for the history.

[@jxlol1]

Amazing video! Very informative and interesting! Thank you!

[@Lady_Blade_WarAngel]

The double standard was worse with Royalty. Even more recently, Prince Charles actually said people should accept that he was publicly sleeping with Camilla Parker Bowles, as kings and princes had frequent public mistresses. It’s such a terrible double standard.

[@mery5989]

wow he really said that?😂I mean I guess people can accept it or not but the problem is he should have married someone who wanted an open marriage instead of lying and cheating his partner, that's really what's considered wrong today, the lack of consent, more than the public shaming

[@mtngrl5859]

I remember he had a flippant quote when he said he wouldn't be the first Prince of Wales that didn't have a mistress.

[@Amcsae]

@@mery5989 it would have been better if he'd just been allowed to marry Camilla in the first place. But then we wouldn't have William or Harry. I guess everything happened for a reason.

[@jamestown8398]

If I recall correctly, Prince Charles got a lot more negative backlash for his affair than Princess Diana did for hers (with many unaware that Princess Diana cheated at all). I'm surprised he brought this up at all, as it would be in his best interest to let that scandal fade with time.

[@AuntLoopy123]

Question: I have read Sense and Sensibility multiple times, but I never did see Colonel Brandon dueling Willoughby. Is it one of those "It's between the lines; you have to know the culture of the period" things? If so, would you please do a video on that? I'd love to see the proof of it. Thanks! I love your videos!

[@dianehutchinson9257]

It is pretty subtle, but Colonel Brandon tells Elinor about it when he's relating what Willoughby did: "we met by appointment, he to defend, I to punish his conduct". (Neither of them gets hurt, so the fact that it happened stays quiet.)

[@Eloraurora]

@@dianehutchinson9257 It's such a weirdly anticlimactic image. All the ominous lead-up to a duel, they shoot, miss completely, and... then what? Glare for a bit and stalk away? Not very impressive aim for a soldier and a man whose favorite hobby is hunting.

[@131alexa]

This is an interesting question. I would guess there's probably an implication that they deliberately shot to miss.

[@edithengel2284]

@@Eloraurora I'm not sure the colonel really wished to kill Willoughby. Perhaps he thought, how would Marianne feel about him if he killed or wounded her great love?

[@Eloraurora]

@@edithengel2284 That does make sense, but it also makes me wonder what the protocol was for a duel that _did_ result in a death or injury. Everyone present is complicit; if they reported it, they'd presumably also get in trouble. So did they pretend it was an accident, or what?

[@caiteliza11]

Great vid! So Maria can never visit her family or attend Balls/social functions ever again unless she marries? She is doomed to be an old maid essentially? Also, I know its a taboo topic, and was briefly mentioned, but if a pregnancy resulted either by consent or not, what does that do to the girl and to the man?

[@vbrown6445]

The baby may end up like Harriet Smith in Emma-- the bastard child of an unknown gentleman and woman, who is raised in boarding schools. Her expenses are paid for, but she is not acknowledged by any family.

[@edithengel2284]

She would likely not be admitted to a ball or social function of any respectable family or organization, even if married. She would be deemed likely to "taint" the respectable ladies attending. As to an illegitimate child, I suppose it would depend a great deal on the parents' circumstances. These two were in favorable circumstances. I assume that in Maria's case, if she had been pregnant, her father would still have supported her, and the child fostered out, and perhaps sent to a boarding school, as Harriet Smith was in Emma. I suppose Sir Thomas might have tried to compel Crawford to support the child, but he might have felt he didn't want to deal with any publicity which might have accompanied such an effort, or not want any further obligation to Crawford. And perhaps Crawford would have offered financial support for the child. I'm sure that if it were known that Crawford had sired an illegitimate child on a young woman of good family, it would not have enhanced his reputation, and he would not have been welcome in some houses, but he had money and an estate, and probably would have survived quite nicely.

[@KajaKamisama]

This is an extremely well made and informative video. Thank you ♥

[@GisyAngel]

This was super interesting. Thank you!

[@melodyclark1944]

You're talking about me! Her inheritance should be hers to keep, but they were openly misogynistic back then. Surely her parents wouldn't give her any more inheritance after she disgraced herself. So they don't get a divorce when she cheats on him if he was distant or really cruel except he can beat her. No way are these women really cheating on their wonderful husbands and risking a shameful divorce. I have to wonder how much terrible behavior the husbands got away with that the wives would try so hard to leave them.

[@ellewelle401]

You have brought up several interesting points about separation and annulment, it was fascinating to learn. I especially was surprised about the ineligibility of siblings of the dead spouse. I have a couple questions regarding that - were they only regarded as becoming like blood siblings to the married couple or were the siblings of both also unable to court each other? like, could a brother of a husband marry the sister of the wife? The other is - couldn't they have acquired a special dispensation, if they were not actually related? (Though I wouldn't even know who would give such a dispensation - court or church. And I thought I knew quite a bit about regency period, haha). But also - I was delighted to learn the expression "criminal conversation" and I am plotting for possibilities to use it.