Darcy and Lizzy had a prenup? Jane Austen, Women, Money & Marriage Settlements + Stealing an Heiress

[@EllieDashwood]

The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/elliedashwood12211

[@luiseveigel849]

A question I often wondered about is that of how many servants each income class would hire. Could you answer that one?

[@ageofechochambers9469]

You really need to stop talking nonsense about legal issues, women could take their husband's to court . And not everything a woman had became the husband's property it all depended on the marriage agreement. Plus there are countless cases were large sums were settled on widows even after someone else inherited her husband's estate . Stop inserting the modern feminist narrative into regency times . FYI there are many female aristocrats who married commoners and the man didn't get anything.

[@edennis8578]

Considering how generous (and rich) Darcy was, I don't see Darcy making a peep about getting Elizabeth's tiny dowry. It's laughable after the sums he shelled out to get Lydia's situation straightened out. Darcy's sister's dowry was £30,000, as you pointed out; I don't see Darcy's daughters getting less unless they had an enormous number of daughters. In fact, I would be surprised if Darcy and Elizabeth didn't increase her own two unmarried sisters' dowries/fortunes to ensure their ability to marry, or their security in case they didn't marry.

[@glendodds3824]

Elizabeth's dowry was certainly very small for someone of her class. Mr Bennet, of course, did not have the vast income of the Darcys of this world but he should have saved to give his daughters better prospects. After all, his income was £2,000 a year and as Professor Mullan (an expert on Jane Austen comments) that was "huge, huge wealth." kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6apoKJphb96h9k

[@giovana4121]

Mr. Bennet has fewer children and probably a little more money than Mr. Morland, but Cathy's dowry is three times that of the Bennett girls! There is really no excuse to Mr. Bennet's incompetence...

[@LusiaEyre]

I am not sure if Darcy would top up Mary and Kitty's dowries from his own pocket after shelling out so much on Lydia, but I always thought that both Elizabeth and Jane would consider forgoing their share for the benefit of their sisters. Neither Bingley nor Darcy need £50 a year at some time in the future and this way Mary and Kitty could get £2000 a piece. Or £1666.67 if Lydia got another top up too. We know Lizzie was sending Lydia money when she could from her pin money. Unless they still got their share on principle to say they had a dowry? But then still it's likely the meager income was being funneled to youner sisters.

[@aislingyngaio]

In Darcy and Elizabeth's case, I fancy the marriage settlement will be less about protecting her meager dowry and more about providing for her pin money, widow's jointure and settlements for their younger children, so marriage articles are still useful in this sense. In her own mother's case, Mrs Bennet brought 4000 pounds into the marriage, but the marriage articles settled 5000 pounds on her and the surviving children upon Mr Bennet's death.

[@AuntLoopy123]

I always figured Darcy would say, "You know what? Keep those thousand pounds to share amongst Mary and Kitty. They will need it. I can give my wife and her children everything she needs, and I'll specify that, right up front in the marriage settlements, that she gets (a very large X) upon my death, and that ALL of our children get Y upon reaching maturity or marriage, as well as Z upon my death." But then, this is Mr. Darcy, Super Hero talking here.

[@tracey5324]

Pin money just seems smart in any relationship. No matter the gender or situation, if both parties have non negotiable spending money to do what they want with, it would save arguments over all the little things that normally get put on the credit card.

[@SarahElisabethJoyal]

A later book called "The Semi-Detached House" has a depiction of a pin-money negotiation. The husband-to-be says that they don't need to set up pin money, he'll always be happy to give her some money whenever she needs it. But the bride's uncle who is negotiating on her behalf (she's an orphan) says that that's no good. As he puts it, every husband starts out thinking that way, but after a few years they inevitably throw a fit over the outrageous price of milliners' bills. This actually annoys the husband so much that in a fit of pique he throws out a higher figure than they had even intended to ask for 😂

[@cmm5542]

That is so funny 😂. And I'll bet this sort of situation came up a lot! It always pleased me to read about Elizabeth practicing 'economy in her own private expenses' to help Lydia after her marriage, because that showed that even though it wasn't like she had a lot of prior experience managing her own money, Darcy still respected her enough to ensure she had her own money and equal responsibility rather than just giving her money 'when she needed it' like a dependent.

[@themisheika]

@@cmm5542 actually, a lot of a girls' educations IS household management. "Accomplishments" are of course important to attract a groom, but household management is a girl's basic education since that's what they're basically expected to do. In the book this is shown when the girls are given an "allowance" by their father, with Lydia being mentioned as asking to borrow money off Lizzy and Jane to pay for the cold luncheon at one point, and also Mr Bennet mentioning Mrs Bennet often giving Lydia extra pocket money as a signal that Lydia is really bad at money management in a way the rest of her sisters (even Kitty) weren't. The daughters will often also learn from their mothers on how to deal with servants, how to price their household expenses etc. It wasn't always just piano or drawing or whatever. That's why even Miss Bingley, who was most likely younger than Elizabeth, was old enough to "keep house" for her brother before his own marriage. In Persuasion, Elizabeth Elliott started running her father's household at 16 on her mother's death. Granted, Miss Elliott didn't run her father's household very well, but that was more from her vanity and arrogance than lack of ability, as her younger sister Anne was as accomplished at running the household as her sister (alas, Anne's opinions didn't counted at all for her father and sister, which is why Sir Walter's debts mounted horribly). And of course in Sense and Sensibility, Eleanor at 17 was actually more sensible than her ~35yo mother at household management because she's more practical than her romantic minded mother.

[@jacky3580]

Women had no property rights. Brides family had to see to it her private expenses and widows’ pensions. These settlements could also include “portion for issue”. Which is how much money would be in dowries, private wealth, allowances etc. This would protect children in remarriage situation. Remember David Copperfield? In P& P it’s rumored Mr. Darcy has an annual income of £14,000. Which would’ve made him one of the richest men in England.

[@sarahnelson8836]

I wonder how these things were enforced? Like it’s all well and good to have some things in writing and it would hold some people to their word but without enforcement then it seems like the woman would still be entirely reliant on her husband

[@pillbugm8914]

This video is great but a bitter reminder of how women only began having basic rights until very recently. Grateful to be born in the time I am.

[@peterjackson4763]

Widows had lot more rights. A widow with four young sons in Oldham around the Regency period took over the ironworks her husband had founded and expanded the business, which became Hannah Lees and Sons. A descendant of hers help re-found my school and one of the houses was named after the family. One member of the family was still a governor of the school when I started. She had been one for over 60 years.

[@rubybuttons668]

I’m in the UK and my Gran, who is in her 80’s now, still uses the term, ‘pin money,’ when she talked about the money my grandpa would give her to treat herself and the kids. I didn’t realise pin money was such an old term lol.

[@tanyamckenzie8853]

Yes, I was going to say it's still a term used today...

[@gillianrimmer7733]

It comes from Medieval times when women's clothes were pinned together.

[@lilykep]

I've heard it used and still occasionally use it when referring to extra cash spent on frivolous things for personal use.

[@peterjackson4763]

I some communities the husband would turn over his wage packet and then she would give him some beer money to treat himself. These would generally be working class communities though.

[@sophiezhang2485]

​@@peterjackson4763 I've heard it's quite common in Japan

[@anotheronlineperson]

somehow seeing this laid out and the breakdown of how lydia and willougby's settlement played out makes me appreciate darcy even more. He did this even without elizabeth knowing and without expectation that she'll ever come to know about it. The nuace around the whole was vastly understated to my modern eyes!

[@TheDimensionOfGames]

You should do a podcast reading through Jane Austen’s novels line by line and commenting what is really going on (like Corey Olsen’s Exploring Lord of the Rings) you have so much knowledge I would love to just listen to all the little details you know!!! I’m sure you have so many insights into it that I (and others) miss~

[@Mutable1]

I would watch this. I already stream your videos on repeat.

[@brideykloti4690]

Yes please! Ellie's Footnotes!!

[@midnightblack07]

I would love this!

[@FortheBudgies]

Is it really that hard?

[@WomanRoaring]

She's kind of doing that now ❤, I'm a member and I see the videos of her reading each chapter but I think you have to be a member to see them

[@penultimateh766]

I can see how the short life expectancies and illnesses of that era made this necessary. You just don't want the whole family fortune going by default to some second or third spouse who you've never met. And thanks to our lovely and erudite hostess for another great analysis!

[@JaneHornsby-iz9ob]

I read somewhere that the average duration of a marriage in Regency Engkand was only 10 years. Some people lived long lives, but many died young. Death in childbirth was the most common cause of death for women. About 1 in six, I seem to recall reading somewhere. (Read the section on "The Churching of Women" in old *Book of Common Prayer*, a special service of Thanksgiving after birth, not for the baby, but for the fact that the mother survived. You were expected to make a donation to be used for " the relief of poor women in childbed*)

[@maishaahmed915]

Hi Ellie!!! 👋 Hearing about regency property laws, I am so grateful for women's rights today 🙏

[@EllieDashwood]

Hiiiii! 👋👋👋

[@anna_in_aotearoa3166]

Absolutely! It's pretty dang terrifying reading about how common law worked at that time 😳 Really emphasizes the catch22 women faced, unless they were truly well off? Stay single and incur the social stigma and economic uncertainties that entailed...or take this huge gamble on your economic, emotional & physical welfare by marrying a guy who you've usually only seen in strictly supervised circumstances. Ouch. I really hope people who fall in love with Regencycore aesthetics & wish themselves back in that era also stumble across resources like this video, Ellie? Learning about the actual socioeconomic & political life at the time is a pretty great antidote against over-romanticising the past!

[@chrissiek8706]

Yep, I'd rather stay in this century 😁 we have our own problems sure, but at least i am no one's "property", can own property and also wear empire waist dresses when i want 😁

[@karaamundson3964]

In Cleopatra's time, women could own businesses and property, initiate divorces, have custody of their children, manage their own finances, and much more. All this collapsed, and then in roughly the 1970s (U.S.) gradually resumed as the rights we women enjoy today. But don't hold your breath; it could be snatched away in a red second.

[@AuntLoopy123]

OMG, yes! I used to dabble in writing Regency Romances (NaNoWriMo), but the older I get, the more feminist my heroines become, until they refuse marriage, on the basis of "I love you, but I'm not giving up my own financial freedom just so you can legally squander it all." I mean, a woman became a man's property upon marriage, and he could do LITERALLY ANYTHING SHORT OF MURDER to her, by law. Abuse? Sure, the good people of the world would poo-poo it, look askance, and maybe even shun him from their parties. But they wouldn't DO anything about it, because IT WAS HIS RIGHT. So, interfering to help her was a CRIME. Stopping him was a CRIME. Doing ANYTHING other than "disapproving" was a CRIME, and they couldn't do that! It would be sinful to come to her aid! But they could invite her over for tea and sympathy, or they could cut the entire couple off (because cutting one meant cutting the other, and HE deserved cutting), in the hopes that he'd be shamed into changing his ways. Ugh. I wouldn't want to be a woman at the time and place. As they sang in Mary Poppins, "Well done! Sister Suffragettes!"

[@JohnSmith-zq9mo]

I once read some very interesting letters between some of the men in Charles Darwin's family when one of his daughters is getting married. They wanted to make sure that her money was safe from her husband wasting them. So they wanted to avoid the husband getting legal control of it, but they were also worried that if the wife got the legal control of her own money she might let her husband access it, so they set up a trust instead.

[@cmm5542]

Yes, I always found this interesting. I read something similar where the family members were complaining that their cousin's late husband had left her his fortune unconditionally, on the basis that her second husband 'might get hold of it.' It puzzles me a bit though I confess, because if it's legally in the wife's name, the husband couldn't exactly access it without her permission, and why would a wife give her husband her money if she thought he was going to squander it? I've certainly read of husbands TRYING to get their wives to lend them money, and the wives just refusing because they know he'll waste it

[@annaivanova-galitsina5409]

Seeing my own marriage and divorce in Russia, I would have loved to have a pre-nup and dowry and so forth. I also really liked the idea of not having to ask the husband for the money every time but having an allocation for the whole year.

[@dorothywillis1]

In many states in the United States in the 19th century there were laws requiring that before a property belonging to a married man was sold the wife was to be spoken to privately by the person recording the sale. This person was required to explain to the woman exactly what was going on and to find out if she approved of the sale. This was described in several sources as a law to protect a woman "So her husband couldn't kiss or kick her into signing."

[@JaneHornsby-iz9ob]

Yep. I've reviewed some old deeds here in North Carolina where it states that the notary "examined" the wife "separately and apart from her husband".

[@dorothywillis1]

@@JaneHornsby-iz9ob It shows that some people were trying to protect women.

[@MiljaHahto]

In Finland, to this date, if the home is owned by only one of those being married, it cannot be sold without the spouse agreeing to it.

[@dorothywillis1]

@@MiljaHahto So essentially a married person can't hold single title to a piece of property? Is this true for other property? Interesting.

[@MiljaHahto]

@@dorothywillis1 No, you understood wrong. Married people do have their own properties, but you cannot sell the home without both spouses agreeing to it, even if it's owned by just one of them. Home has a special protection in that way. That ends with divorce though.

[@lillybolduc]

Loved this video! Miss Taylor's life story is so interesting. Imagine getting tricked into marriage at 15, going through the legal process of reversing that marriage, and then going on to marry into Lyme Park instead!

[@confusedwhale]

If you are curious, her name was Ellen Turner, and she married the illegitimate child of a MP at the age of 17 when he was 35. She then died in child birth at the age of 19 a year after the guys who kidnapped her were released.

[@leahnichol6665]

@@confusedwhaleoh, ick!

[@StarlitSeafoam]

WAIT I didn't realize Darcy bought Wickham a commission! Goodness, if we imagine Pride and Prejudice to be happening around the time Jane Austen published the book (Jan 1813), that means Wickham has a very good chance of being shipped off to join Wellington's Spanish Campaign, maybe even being killed before he and Lydia were married a year! My word, I had no idea...

[@AuntLoopy123]

But consider, also, that military OFFICERS could make a fortune in war, by "taking prizes," and that it could be extremely lucrative, if you lived. Look at Captain Wentworth. He started out "poor," with just enough money to buy the commission, but then wound up with a fortune worth of any one of Charles Musgrove's sisters, because of all the prize money he got, and the fact that he didn't waste it all away at ports. Wickham, with good luck and skill and courage, could turn that commission into a huge fortune. Although I think that happened a bit more at sea than on land, because of the ships being larger prizes. Still, capture the right enemy officer, and get the ransom, and you have a fortune.

[@azurephoenix9546]

@@AuntLoopy123 I could totally see Wickham capturing an officer to ransom him and make a fortune. I hadn't really considered that as a means of gaining wealth, but now that I have could definitely see him doing that.

[@mirjanbouma]

@@azurephoenix9546 it wouldn't last, he was a gambler. No Bounty would be big enough to offset that.

[@williamcarter1993]

@@AuntLoopy123 taking prizes was a naval thing. capturing a ship and selling it to the admiralty prize court gets naval officers and men a certain percentage. Soldiers made their fortune from good old pillagine and stealing

[@angelwhispers2060]

Actually most people conclude that Pride and Prejudice takes place in 1811. But here's the problem in 1792 or 3 I forget which but I've read that in the 1790s The Taking of prizes and prize money for the officers of a Navy ship was stopped and the prize money started going into a general fund for the care of all naval officers and sailors after their retirement or if they got wounded. It's sort of became a disability fund versus a way to make a crap ton of money. Personally I always thought the idea of Darcy buying Wickham's Commission in the Army specifically was basically a way to give him an income that wasn't dependent solely on Darcy's own wallet. If he happened to capture some enemy officers ( the Army would continue to get a percentage of the ransom for captured officers up until 1817 if my sources are correct) and get the ransom and be a hero great. But if he got himself conveniently killed in battle Lydia would at least get a Widow's pension. Which would mean all Darcy would have to do is put her up in one of the little cottages on Pemberley so he's technically losing the income from one Cottage to give Lydia a place to live until she has gone through the two-year widowhood before she can be put back on the marriage market and try again for a better husband. Between the widows pension and Darcy's ability to give her a little cottage to live in during her widowhood she's way less of a financial burden at that point. Because her pin money and food can all be paid out of her widow's pension. She could get by on one or two servants because she never learned to cook. Or Darcy could just constantly have one of his servants taking her food from pemberley and she's basically getting the leftovers of whatever they're eating. I'm currently writing a fanfiction about Lydia and Wickham from 1815 forward under the assumption that P&P takes place between late 1810 and 1811. Most websites I've seen about it say that Pride & Prejudice takes between 12 and 14 months to take place.

[@that_dam_baka]

I'm Indian and i realise people aren't kidding when it was said that we took on too many British traits. To this day, arranged marriages frequently get cancelled due to disagreements between parents.

[@MiljaHahto]

You forgot to update some traits, then....

[@Sillyalways]

This was a truly awesome video. So much detail that helps us understand the books that we love! This video helped me to understand how truly ruinous is to run away and marry without your parents consent in those times. It's not only gambling with your reputation, but also with the family money and your financial future, and even your children's future! We like to make fun of those times' social conventions but we have to remember that some of them were there to protect people. If I was living in that era, I would for sure want an advantageous marriage settlement.

[@laulutar]

This is really interesting, because regency marriage settlements make me think of a mix of wills and prenups in modern Finnish law. Finnish prenups can be written before a couple gets married, but they can't be filed/ aren't valid until after the marriage takes place. At the same time, a nuptial agreement can be made at pretty much any point in a marriage (up until the death of a spouse or the onset of divorce proceedings IIRC), so it's relatively common for couples to draw up one if one of them is going to inherit a large chunk of money, or a family cottage, or something like that. At the same time, a child's parents can write up a will, stating that the child's spouse does not have the standard marital right to any gifts or inheritances that child receives.

[@Roseliptillgirl]

The thing with Henry Tilney is interesting when you compare the book and the film. In the book, he's financially secure, the issue is that his defiance means his dad is withholding consent(and Catherine's parents won't agree unless he consents) . In the movie, the issue is he's likely going to be disinherited but Catherine accepts him anyway and the issue of parental consent never comes up as a major sticking point. Why? Because a modern audience values romance, and what's more romantic than the man giving up wealth for love and the woman accepting him anyway! That, and rejecting a romantic partner because your parents object isn't seen as admirable - in most Western cultures, anyway. It's the same reason why book!Henry proposes first then tells her about his dad objecting , but movie!Henry does it the other way around (book!Catherine would be honour bound to refuse him if she knew beforehand). I've always thought its an interesting cultural comparison. Honour vs romance. Or, you could say, sense vs sensibility 😉

[@dorothywillis1]

As usual, the book is more subtle than the film.

[@ellynneg.6926]

Darling, I love you so much, of course, I'm going to let you give up everything you have and dive into a life of poverty when you have no job experience or means to support yourself. People starve to death all the time. Why shouldn't we be among them?

[@AuntLoopy123]

Which movie are you referring? I remember him leading with, "You know I do not need my father's consent to marry. I already have property, from my mother." I'm thinking of the one that came out about two decades ago, I guess. Or was it three? Dang, how time flies. I suppose you mean the one that came out just during this last decade? Yeah, Catherine Moreland would have refused, if she knew that consent was not given, because she had such regard for her own parents, she could not conceive of going against another's parents.

[@TrulyMadlyShallowly]

@@ellynneg.6926 Which puts a different light on Willoughby's choice to leave Marianne after being disinherited. Would she have known, it would be quite irresponsible for Marianne to marry him. So Willoughby's biggest sin is actually his character - the seduction of Eliza, his dishonesty - not the fact that he is left penniless and then breaks with her.

[@staphaniebakar]

@@TrulyMadlyShallowly he's penniless condition is only because of his character and seduction

[@dianesawyerdooley4424]

FYI, it's called "pin money" because it was meant as petty cash for women to buy the pins that, in previous decades, were used to hold their clothes in place. It ended up being allowances or small bits of disposable income.

[@Helgatwb]

Pin money would also be used to buy actual pins - straight pins - because quite a lot of clothing was held together by pins. The making and selling of pins was big business back then, and you could even pay people in pins. It wasn't uncommon for tips to be given in pins or for the actual money to be given as "for your wife's pin money."

[@justarandomgothamite5466]

Reminds me of being able to pay in bullets in the time of the "wild west".

[@lida7529]

Thanks for another awesome video! I would really like to see a video about modes of transport/travel in Jane Austen’s time. - Why would it reflect so poorly on Charlotte Collins if she let her sister and friend travel post without a man servant? - How did travelling by post work? (Did Catrine have to change several times, but did it in the end take her door-to-door from Northanger Abbey to her parents’ house?) - Why was Lidia and Wickham changing from one kind of vehicle to another such a big clue that they weren’t actually going to Scotland? I feel that there is so much that the reader is just supposed to know, but living in modern times, doesn’t.

[@katehurstfamilyhistory]

If I understand it correctly, travelling by post was a bit like going on a "fast" train route today. (Where a normal train service might stop at every single station, no matter how small, the "fast" service might only stop at six or seven major ones.) I think it's like the Regency equivalent of getting a train/coach/bus - so where your own car/carriage will get you from door-to-door, you might have to be driven to the nearest town by a servant to "catch" the next post coach. (In fact, if I remember correctly, the whole reason why they're called post coaches is because they literally were carrying bags of letters and parcels - so it would make sense for them to only stop at the main towns where there was some kind of post office, collect the post bags and get moving again, because people ultimately wanted their letters to get to their destination in a fairly timely manner!) I've just looked the section about Lydia and Wickham up, and it says that they moved from the chaise they'd travelled in (a chaise is like the equivalent of a family car, so it sounds as though they had "borrowed" it from the army camp and needed to send it back!) into a hackney-coach. A hackney-coach is the equivalent of a taxi or minicab today (a lot of UK taxis are still referred to as Hackney cabs, although they are now cars) so making that swap actually means Lydia and Wickham become free to travel as far as their money can take them, and - effectively - they disappear into the night. (In fact, had they done the same thing today, unless there was some good CCTV footage in the area where they changed vehicle, you might well need to make a note of the hackney cab's registration number to stand any chance of tracing them.)

[@lida7529]

@@katehurstfamilyhistory Thanks :-)

[@lbebko9154]

For the manservant question, I think it’s more one of propriety than anything else. It would be unseemly and likely unsafe for a gentle woman to travel unaccompanied on what is essentially public transit. Traveling by post was literally traveling on the carriages used to transport mail from one town to the next. They travelled on main roads and stopped in towns for deliveries and pickups. My understanding is that you could also flag one down on a main road if it had room to carry you. You’d probably have to change coaches a few times to get to a town near where you were going and then hire someone to take you the em rest of the way. As for Lydia and whickham, I think it’s the fact that if they were traveling on to Scotland, a very long journey, they wouldn’t have gotten off the post and hired a hackney cab, which were used for much shorter trips. Think switching from a coach bus to a taxi. The transport change indicated they weren’t going any further than London.

[@AuntLoopy123]

I would also love to see that! Please do it! When you talked about Charlotte Collins' sister and friend traveling, I was reminded of Lady Catherine de Bourgh commanding, "Mention my name at the inn and they will attend you." Every time, EVERY TIME, I read or heard that, my mind ALWAYS popped to, "Don't mention me, and they will completely ignore you, no matter how much money you are willing to spend." I mean, seriously, if people with money, who look like they'll spend well and tip well, show up, THEY WILL ATTEND YOU.

[@laurensteenkamp7693]

Most wealthy family's did encourage their daughters to have several seasons in London before she married in a way to stop her from marrying a fortune hunter in her coming out (first) year, I believe 2 or 3 years before settling on a suitor was fairly common. Also, pin money was often given quarterly not annually. A lady must be properly (and fashionably, befitting their husband's station of course) attired for each season you know, Jane Austen likely didn't mention this 12 weekly ritual because she thought it was obvious (ah the past, a simpler time)

[@aislingyngaio]

Incorrect. Not only were seasons ruinously expensive to be unnecessarily repeated, but a daughter still needs her parents' approval to marry (esp since she's legally considered her father's property before marriage), and if she attempts to elope with a fortune hunter, the family can disinherit her, which means her husband will get nothing anyway. Waiting 2 or 3 years before settling on a suitor is not for the benefit of the woman, but because of the scarcity of eligible male suitors during war years (since so many men went abroad to fight and most of them died) lets the men have more bride options to choose from while the women have to wait patiently to be noticed. Remember, it is still the men who must choose to propose, and the women can only accept or reject. The women can be put on the marriage market and pursue/entice gentlemen, but cannot actually choose which gentlemen to marry unless he makes an offer of marriage first.

[@shinjineesen400]

@@aislingyngaio In the Napoleonic war era (1799-1815) it was actually a mix of both. Not enough eligible men around, including well-off second and third sons. And a reluctance to marry in or after a first season. I looked at several families and founf that daughters of dukes or earls (and marquesses) did not invariably marry at 18 or 19. Lady Harriet Cavendish, not a beauty but a rich duke's daughter, married a younger son Lord Granville Leveson-Gower. Her dowry was also much less than her elder sister Lady Morpeth and her illegitimate sister Caroline St Jules (also married to a younger son). I think it was 10,000 to their 30,000. The source didn't speculate on why. I think it was Foreman's biography of Georgiana Devonshire but I no longer have the hard copy.

[@sallycathcart]

I find this really interesting, because it explains why the Dashwood girls had so little after Mrs. Dashwood was widowed.

[@sanjivjhangiani3243]

The whole point of the early part of that story was that the older man had left the money to Mr. Dashwood only in his lifetime, leaving it to the half-brother, John Dashwood, after Dashwood Sr.'s death. If the original will had been fair, the young ladies would have had good fortunes, although they then would not have met the men they actually married 😊

[@myskaplaysgames6081]

Wow, it’s so interesting to hear about “pin money”. Our family call it “pocket” money, which probably is an abbreviation of pocketbook money 💰

[@GeoEstes]

Very sensible. Every marriage should have such arrangements specified.

[@brooke3312]

There’s a movie called “The Abduction Club” from 2002 based on men stealing heiresses in order to get their money. Setting is 17th century Ireland.

[@pastelhorte]

Actually, my life turned like that. My husband married me without telling his family to avoid their intervention...I was the unwanted! Now, I have a great relationship with my in laws...

[@kelvina7927]

this video is SO important....taking this specific topic and fleshing it out to really make the context pop is amazing. I have read P&P so many times and right now I'm ready to re-read it with the full import and context of this video discussion. Wickham - wow! - I'm ready to hate him more, and give Lydia an extremely good telling off!!! 😅WTF!! Well done Ellie 💌💌💌

[@s.v.2796]

I'm 71. I grew up with "pin" money. My husband called it"walk around" money. 😊

[@lynnetorres9148]

I wanted to thank you for the book recommendations you gave us in a video a while back. I was able to get “the secret of Pembrooke Park and “Only to Deceive”. Both excellent books. The other one is stuck in shipping somewhere. I am hoping to get it eventually. I found two really good authors (Tasha Alexander and Julie Klassen). Thank you so much!

[@EllieDashwood]

Yay!!! I’m so glad you enjoyed them!!! 😃😃😃

[@MarleneHen]

Julie Klassen is a favorite of mine. 🙂

[@constancapages]

do you remember which video it was? I'd like to see her recommendations too

This connected a couple of pieces in my brain to draw a far more nuanced picture of the regency era, and how important it was for britain as is... why Robin Hood is the 'Avenger of Widows and Orphans' and the person you rent your accomodations from, is known as 'the landlord'...

[@sinogarcon]

2:06, in legal terms, money and physical objects apart from land are called chattels.

[@loveandcupcakes100]

This video helps put into perspective how shady eloping was. One of my favorite movies Crimson Peak is about a family that habitually preys on heiresses with a good fortune and shaky family backgrounds. it's unclear if they did that through elope or there was an agreement, but regardless they would manage to steal the family's money. After watching this, I wonder what kind of marriage settlement was made to keep the Sharpe family afloat with a substantial fortune to target another heiress?

[@nedmerrill5705]

This business of marriage contracts/settlements had pivotal influence on the plot of Wilkie Collins' _The Woman in White._

[@peachamf]

There is a wedding scene in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Sorcerer (1877). The lyrics are: All is prepared for sealing and for signing, The contract has been drafted as agreed. Approach the table, oh, ye lovers pining, With hand and seal now execute the deed!

[@TheOtherChosenOnes]

1:45 I remember writing a paper about the Victorian era (and prostitutes?). I don’t remember the specific question, but I do remember a case where one man sued another man for property damages because the first man’s wife had an affair with the second man. Also the man could get a divorce if his wife cheated, but a woman wasn’t automatically entitled to one. 3:20 I would say that for the working class, the wages being only the man’s wasn’t as much as an issue (if their relationship worked). Often they pulled their wages together, and the woman (as the child raiser) might have doled out how much the husband would get/how much would be spend on the house/kids. Although, that wasn’t a guarantee. There was generally less of a sexist attitude towards sex/sexual propriety in general as well.

[@frankupton5821]

I love the word 'triffle'. It sounds like a frivolous Regency clothing accessory. "Mr Henderson proved to be a gentleman of the foppish persuasion, over-fond of bedecking his stock with triffles."

[@EllieDashwood]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@confusedwhale]

20:52 So, it seems that this is about "Ellen Turner" not Miss Taylor. Her kidnapping was called the "Shrigley abduction". The kidnappers were a 30 year old that became a politician in Australia and his brother a 25 year old that helped with the founding of Wellington, New Zealand. The 30 year old had done this 10 years before and got $70,000 for his efforts and 2 kids (one of which died at 18 from TB). When Ellen Turner was brought back and 2 years later, she married the oldest illegitimate child of a MP from a "rotten borough", which is a place that has fallen on hard times and those that would vote for the MP are highly likely to be dependent upon the person elected, who was 18 years her senior. So, she (17) married a man (35) of poor standing. She then died in child birth at the age of 19. She died just a year after the guys who kidnapped her were released, and they went on to have a long and fulfilling life in Australia and New Zealand... While she was rotting in the ground. Oh, and the guy that kidnapped and married her, who did that before, his first wife also died from child birth.

[@oxoelfoxo]

wow, to think of Lydia being better off financially than Kitty or Mary because of Darcy's love for Lizzy

[@danielniffenegger7698]

I learned about some of this in family law (as part of paralegal school). Obviously we only covered what was relevant to US Law as of 2016 as historical context. The fact rga you are so fluent in this without any formal legal training (as far as I can tell) suggests genius or passion

[@dorothywillis1]

Another excellent video! I always thought marriage settlements were a very reasonable and practical way to protect the interests of both parties in a marriage. As they were usually arranged by lawyers hired by each side, the families could both pretend they were completely unaware of the negotiations -- at least until and unless there was a serious disagreement.

[@amybee40]

@Ellie Dashwood I love your commentaries because each time I re-read an Austen novel, I understand more of what is going on behind the scenes. These complexities that she sometimes just mentions in passing, they go right over the heads of modern readers without analysis of this sort. Thanks for enriching my life!

[@susanmercurio1060]

6:25 I put my money on Mr Gardiner arranging the marriage settlement because Mr Bennett wouldn't want to be bothered. And Mr Gardiner would be better at it anyway.

[@InThisEssayIWill...]

I wonder what proportion of Darcy's assistance is due to love for Lizzy and what amounts to guilt (either knowing this absolutely could have been Georgiana, or thinking he should have exposed Wickham) I'm sure it's a mixture of all since we know Mrs Gardner took it as a sign of his feelings for Lizzy but I wonder how we were supposed to interpret his motives reading as contemporaries of the time.

[@you_already_have_it]

I think it's both for sake of Bennett family pride and social standing as his love for Lizzy + guilt.

[@maryparker3028]

My understanding was that Darcy sorted things out for Lydia because if she lived with Wickham without marrying him, the whole family would be disgraced, so none of the other sisters, including Lizzie, would be acceptable in 'polite society' or able to marry. So he did it for love of Lizzie, there was no way he would be able to marry her if the family were disgraced, he was already considering marrying 'below him'. Social standing was very important at that time. If he'd married a disgraced woman, it would probably also reflect onto Georgiana so completely impossible for him

[@thebuttermilkyway687]

It seems to me, very much for both reasons. Guilt -- at least self-reproach and self-reflection: Throughout the second half of the book (starting with the visit to Charlotte at the parsonage) we see Darcy encountering his own rude/foolish/naive/obnoxious relations and he reflects on how his own flawed family members compare to Lizzy's "low connections". For example: - The foolishness and boorishness of Lady Catherine who dominates every conversation despite her resounding lack of talent must make him cringe. - He sees how any girl of 15 INCLUDING HIS OWN SISTER might be taken in by a charming ne'er-do-well such as Wickham. - The hauteur of his mother which he decries in his conversation to Lizzy (once they have reached an understanding at the end of the book) -- he must have often thought of how she and Lady Catherine would reflect as badly as Mrs. Bennett if they were not the daughters of an earl. So yes there is a lot of self-reflection and I suppose one could also say he may feel "guilt" for not warning people about Wickham since he needed to keep his sister Georgiana's near-elopement quiet in order to protect her reputation and avoid scandal. Not guilt exactly but a sense of some responsibility for Lizzie's family's difficult situation. Ultimately thought it's about how he will go to ANY LENGTH IN HIS POWER (within the rules of morality and respect and law) to get the girl he really loves and who he sees clearly is a jewel of intelligence, wit, and self-restraint. And that's why women LOVE THIS BOOK

[@LusiaEyre]

​@maryparker3028 bringing comfort and ease to Elizabeth was his main motive, I think he even admits that much, but at that point, he didn't think he would get to marry her, after her previous rebuke. He didn't bring that good deed with him instead of an engagement ring to ask Lizzie agin. Frankly, if it wasn't for Lydia's blabbing and Lady Catherine's impolite attempt at interference, they could've stayed apart.

[@LikesLimes]

On some level I have to wonder if Darcy also felt he was carrying out his father’s will re: Wickham. His father had willed Wickham a commission in the church. Darcy ended up purchasing him a commission in the military.

[@alexandraanderson6740]

I am so curious about Mrs Dashwood (Elinors mother) and her parents negotiating her settlement, because it is so bad for her and her daughters. S&S would definitely never have happened if it had been adequate

[@dsr8223]

Henry Dashwood had "only 7,000 pounds at his disposal" when he married Elinor and Marianne's mother, and she DID inherit all of that. (She "had nothing" at the time of the marriage.) Henry did not inherit Norland until 20+ years after the marriage. (Of course, he should have been saving money, especially during the 10 years they all lived at Norland with the uncle before he died, but he was too much like Mr. Bennett...) A marriage settlement would have had no effect on how the wealthy uncle eventually decided to write his will. A marriage settlement also wouldn't change the fact that Henry's sizeable income from his first wife's estate automatically reverted to John upon his death. (First Wife obviously didn't want some future Second Wife and children to eventually get her money, lol!)

[@AuntLoopy123]

And she's reasonably young, but has no relatives on her own side, except this distant cousin, she never even met. I get the feeling that her father was dead when she got engaged, and the settlement was either not done at all (leaving only common law? She ought to get 1/3, but he was only an inheritor for life, so he couldn't GIVE her a third of something he did not ACTUALLY OWN, so maybe?), or else it was done by someone who simply didn't care about her very much. At least we know that, among the four of them, they got $500 per year to live upon, which was enough for a small, quiet, country cottage and small, quiet social life. It could be that it was actually all that she brought to the marriage, and the family just hoped the father would live long enough to marry off all of the children. Once they were established, she'd be able to live alone, or more likely, live with one of them. Fortunately, she had her cousin, who may be vulgar, but has the warmest heart.

[@dsr8223]

@@AuntLoopy123 True. Effusively crass (and friendly) Sir John and his wife's mother Mrs. Jennings ("good-humoured,, merry, fat, ... very happy, and rather vulgar" lol!) are two of my favorite secondary Austin characters. Sir John's generous offer of the cottage "on very easy terms" to relatives he had never met was a beyond generous. And, in some yet-to-be-written Austin fan fiction novel, those two might find a loving husband for Mrs. Dashwood, too!

[@chriscarson7384]

@@dsr8223 Excellent summation!

[@CharpyTheHedgehog]

I'm just about to make my dinner and I was thinking "damn it, I've got nothing to watch while I eat it!" but then you uploaded!! Thanks Ellie! I always enjoy your videos :)

[@EllieDashwood]

Awww!!! Yay!!! I hope you enjoy your dinner to!!! 😃

[@Lizzy-e8b]

Same! I so needed this for my lunch break. Thanks Ellie!

[@bonniechance2357]

An interesting fact is that English common law of the time carried over to the eastern US. There was a famous case where the husband kicked out his wife and installed his mistress in her place. The husband also kept the couple's infant child. The wife was left destitute, without contact with her child. A truly horrible event, which was one of the motivators of the women's suffrage movement.

[@zenamorgan1754]

I have often wondered if they were such things as prenups back in Jane Austen’s regency era. You are often read about poor widows and their children being thrown into the streets to survive, so I was very curious. This was another amazing and informative video.

[@meng2976]

I may be a *wee* bit drunk right now but I just wanted to say how much I and many others appreciate your videos right now. Really - your videos bring a lot of joy, and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that. Thank you so much 💖

[@angelcollina]

Based on my income now… I’d be a very poor waif in regency era. If I was very very lucky I might end up in a situation like Elinor Dashwood, but never having a grand estate ever… probably not.

[@src4409]

I've never read the books for fear that i would just be wasting my time trying to understand what's happening because of the era they were written. I have to say that I'm so grateful that you've put these videos out.

[@mery5989]

thank you so much, this video was so cool!❤️ I had never realised that on top of paying the debts and buying the army commission Darcy had given Lydia another 1000£ so now she has 2000£! it really shows how Lizzy's dowry was completely symbolic as he spent so much more just to do her a favour with Lydia's marriage. it feels like Elizabeth won't have to worry too much about pin money as Darcy wouldn't hesitate to share for her wellbeing :)

[@christinehood3916]

I am so glad I found this channel. Ellie Dashwood's presentations are fun, humorous, and superbly interesting. History and classics are especially enjoyable when they are taught by Ellie. Maybe she channels a little bit of Jane Austen herself.

[@StarlitSeafoam]

You know, this explains a situation I read about in the notes of The Bounty (a non-fiction account of the famous mutiny) where this rich heiress married a man who claimed to be madly in love with her, only to have him TURN HER OUT OF THE HOUSE upon their marriage. She ended up having to beg in the streets. It was quite horrible. But this explains how it was possible, and why a settlement was so important.

[@thebuttermilkyway687]

It's odd because this would actually be a violation of his legal duty to his wife to house and provide for her. It was a basic duty and failure to provide for her was "abandonment" and grounds for a divorce -- which carried its own possibility of a financial settlement to support the woman (although at the time, divorce was incredibly difficult to obtain, and neither spouse would be able to marry again, unless their ex died) (plus the man got any children of the union that may have been born -- the woman would only have custody of her children while they were of a "tender age" meaning still breastfeeding -- as soon as they were weaned they had to go into the custody of the ex-husband!! Can you imagine the circumstances where a woman would sue for divorce knowing that her children would not be with her??)

[@intergalacticalcommiteeofp9807]

Maybe I missed it, but what if the husband did not abide by the settlement? Like obviously you can put checks into place that he cannot touch her money, but like what if he does not give her pin-money or decides that his children will make do without inheritance? Maybe squanders his wealth and literally can't abide by the terms? Who would be seen as the injured party? Her, when she has no legal right to sue her husband? Her family, as it is them who the contract was signed with? What if ther're dead and cannot sue? Also about children, what resources they had to get that inheritance from their parents' marriage settlement, especially daughters?

[@emilybarclay8831]

She’d likely have a male relative do the suing on her behalf

[@catherinewood948]

Very interesting about Miss Taylor. I'd never heard this story.

[@RonJohn63]

21:17 This same scam happens now against old people. "Your grandson is in the hospital, and needs $10K in gift cards to pay his bills!"

[@mariepelerin6701]

Both Lydia and Wickham lived beyond their means because later it was revealed that they frequently had to move and she asked Liszt for handouts

[@anasd6312]

The best way to start friday is with Ellie! Sending love from Mexico!

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw!!!! Hi to Mexico!!! 👋👋👋

[@AuntLoopy123]

When I was young, I probably would have gone ahead with the elopement, secure in the knowledge that true love conquers all, and that my man loved me, and would NEVER EVER take advantage of me or squander all my money. Now that I'm a middle-aged woman, I have seen WAY too much to ever believe that. Sure, some men are wonderful and trustworthy. And some men are not. And they look exactly alike. The risk of the man I love doing me dirty may be small, as a percentage chance of it happening, but the sheer amount of damage he could do to me is catastrophic, so, like washing my melons before I slice them, to avoid listeria, I would have the settlement signed, or I would not marry.

[@sophiadc]

This was so helpful! Suddenly half of Pride and Prejudice (and other books) make more sense!

[@tessat338]

We talked about all this in my class on "The Legal Status of Women" at the University of Maryland. My teacher was excellent, but she had a lyrical, Southern American accent that sounded like Baily White. I sometimes found myself listening more to the music of her cadence and less to the content. I had to take the class over to get the substance. I then went on to take her Constitutional Law class which was also excellent. That class has inoculated me against a lot of the illogical stupidity that some political candidates spout.

[@EllieDashwood]

Those sound like such interesting classes!!! Also like an interesting teacher! 😂

[@penultimateh766]

Remember it's only precisely half the politicians who spout stupidity. The other half are dynamic, sensible geniuses.

[@dorothywillis1]

@@penultimateh766 LOL! Good one!

[@chantalsnelder2423]

As a law student (albeit in the Netherlands), this was very interesting!

[@nicholasjohnfranklin7397]

Thank you for this. Two things: 1. I read somewhere that one of the reasons that novel writing was such an attractive employment for so many women in the 18th Century was that, unlike other income, royalties from published books were the wife's property, not the husbands. You seem to contradict this. 2. I would be fascinated to know how all this legal framework for marriage settlements interacts with secret legal instruments that protect the money that the wife brings to the marriage from the husband. I am thinking specifically of Arabella Fainall's instrument drawn up by Mirabell in Congreve's The Way of the World, which takes Mr Fainall completely but surprise at the end of the play. I know this was a century earlier but I wonder if the law was so different in 1700 from that at the end of the century.

[@RMatt2016]

Royalties were definitely not under the full control of the wife until 1882 in the UK when the Married women's property act was passed. The act allowed full control of all money they earned but there were restrictions on inheritances and immovable assets. Writing was still a popular occupation amongst the middle class and those women born to the upper class that faced financial issues. Jane Austen herself was a middle class women and generated significant income.

[@PokhrajRoy.]

I love Ellie is hinting at a Fanfic of ‘Pride and Prejudice’ dealing with how they would’ve gotten married.

[@you_already_have_it]

Ohh? O_o About Lizzy and Darcy marriage? Or Lidiya'? Title and author or link, please?

[@ecuadorianchocolate5950]

I also need the link 😅

[@Sabrina-gw8lv]

Does she mention a specific fanfic?

[@PokhrajRoy.]

@@Sabrina-gw8lv No. I was just kidding.

[@heathermatthies3638]

Best post for regency details that are not commonly come by. TY

[@nco1970]

In France, between the 16th and the 18th centuries, the marriageable age was 14 for men and 12 for women, but the parental consent was required until 30 for men and 25 for women. It was specifically meant to prevent inheritance misappropriation through abduction, seduction,...

[@delphinidin]

My parents set aside a certain amount of money for my mom (I don't know if they do this for my dad?) as her own to buy what she wants and her own clothes. They refer to it as her "allowance" or "mad money"!

[@angelwhispers2060]

Honestly I think the idea of pin money is super cool and is something we should bring back wherever possible. No wife wants to go begging her husband for pocket money when she just wants to take the kids to the movies or whatever. This is why some kind of trust or separate account that they agree how much goes into it each year but is totally under the wife's management is just better for happy homes and Families. Good way to prevent Financial abuse actually. As much as I love my home state of Texas this is one of the reasons that I know if I ever find my own Mr Darcy in the real world that I'm going to have to establish residents somewhere else that accepts prenups so that I can have a very very solid prenup to prevent any nonsense.

[@wendyclcl]

That is very interesting. Thanks for your knowledge and research. The English culture is so fascinating for a Chinese Jane Austen Fan like me.

[@aeolia80]

There is technically something similar to this still in France, but of course it's been updated a but for modern times, but not by much. Before you get married in France to a French citizen, you sign a marriage contract with a notary that's more like an estate lawyer. There are I think 3 different kinds, but some examples are 1: your assets are always kept separate, everything before that was yours stays yours and everything you payed for during technically is still yours. This one could get a little complicated because there are some larger assets like a house that might fall under "community of life" meaning they kinda belonged to the marriage and not to the individual so splitting it could get murky. 2: everything before your marriage and everything during marriage are joint. 3: everything before marriage stays yours and everything during marriage becomes joint. The last 2 it's usually 50/50 and/or negotiated after a divorce. But here's the kicker that really bothers me a bit, especially if you have no kids and/or both you and your spouse have no relationship with your families, even if there is a death of a spouse, the marriage contract ends just like a divorce, meaning the surviving spouse only gets half of the assets, while the rest goes to either legal children or immediate family of the deceased. I feel it's a bit infair especially if the surviving spouse made less money in the marriage and did most of the domestic work this law might make them become destitute, stay at home moms and dads obviously get hurt the worst since there is no pension program in France for those groups, not anymore I don't think. And if you do have kids, by French law you are not allowed to disown them. These laws cause a lot of problems sometimes, like the most famous one in France has to do with a singer called Johnny Hallyday (stage name of course).

[@aeolia80]

As for surviving spouses that brought little money and/or assets into the marriage or during marriage, sometimes, if there is a good relationship with any children or the immediate that would be inheriting, those inheritors might let the surviving spouse live off of the total (or give them a stipend off of there half) until the surviving spouse dies themselves, but a lot of people would only do this if they thought the surviving spouse didn't have much longer to live. Or another scenario would be if the children are still young, the surviving spouse would use the second half that goes to the children to help with raising the children, though I've heard that money could go into a trust fund instead so the surviving spouse could never touch it.

[@portlandrestaurants]

It's still a good idea for each partner to have a budget for stuff they want to buy and not clear with the other person IMO.

[@lucianeedgington9421]

I absolutely loved your videos. I wish you talk about Edward and Eleanor situation .

[@billharm6006]

Yet somehow some think of this era as being romantic. On a more positive note, I do think you explanations to be most excellent and well researched.

[@lanav3730]

How did entails affect the provisions for widows (of "tenants for life")? Could there even be any provisions for such future widows? Though I would guess from the cases of Mrs. Henry Dashwood and Mrs. Bennet the answer is no...

[@archervine8064]

Was rewatching, and had a question come up… how were these enforced if, say, the husband didn’t give the wife the pin money agreed on? Presumably some male relative of hers would sue on her behalf, if a reminder of the obligation didn’t suffice?

[@DOSBoxMom]

Pre-nups seem to be more differentiated from trusts nowadays, perhaps because it's far easier for married women to control funds in their own name outside of the marital finances. My attorney husband does not like trust agreements at all, because usually by the time a trustee dies, there are funds and property both inside and outside the trust, and that complicates handling the estate a LOT.

[@eveywrens]

Ellie, always appreciate your indepth research, references to Austen's texts and well-structured explanations of the intricacies of regency relationships 🙂

[@chriscarson7384]

I know there are people today who balk at the idea of a prenuptial agreement, but I believe a lot of couples would be much better off if they ironed out their finances before the wedding. Here in the US, laws on marital property differ by state. So having a clear-headed discussion beforehand is essential.

[@iamweaver2]

This is perhaps the most interesting JA video I've ever seen. I ran into your channel recently and am really enjoying them. THanks!

[@IlovTrunks16]

I absolutely love your videos! Thank you for making these! I know they must take a lot of time to research and create!

[@KR-ue1gd]

Re: your final question... The "true love - no pre-nup" marriage is more appealing for the man than the woman. It would take a more than normal amount of loving trust for a woman to choose a husband knowing that she became his chattel, if she had a family willing to stand by her side and negotiate for a husband who wouldn't completely own her.

[@rdelamadrid]

Parental influence is still a big deal today. My friend disapproved of his daughter's love interest and, when the guy proposed to her, my friend told her that he thought she was making a huge mistake, that he thought she was smarter than to get involved with a man like that guy and that he would not go to her wedding if she chose to marry him. She broke off the engagement.

[@cmlspencer273]

Just read my way through 8 books 😓 and what impresses me of financial settlements is that although women's financial security seems precarious to our modern eyes there was also the concept of 'honour' or propriety of actions which governed every area of life including settlement and this was rigid and powerful... So it behoved anyone settling to behave with the highest ethical standards or they would be failing, dishonouring themselves and the family and could lose social status by disgraceful behaviour. Scoundrels may carry out their wicked deeds but would be cast out as social pariahs (like Henry Crawford).

[@thebuttermilkyway687]

At least in theory. In practice, money covered for a lot of dishonor.

[@themisheika]

Except Henry Crawford wasn't cast out as social pariah, only Maria Rushworth was. Henry was forced to break off his friendship with the Bertrams but he was still accepted socially and his sister still marriageable. That's what Jane Austen meant when she wrote in Mansfield Park, "That punishment, the public punishment of disgrace, should in a just measure attend his share of the offence, is, we know, not one of the barriers, which society gives to virtue. In this world, the penalty is less equal than could be wished [...]"

[@_winniehui_]

this is a very interesting and helpful video! the more i'm into it, the more i'm wowed away by mr darcy. i mean, i've always loved him, but goodness, that is a LOT done for lydia. he is so generous and truly loves lizzy so so much

[@susanmercurio1060]

According to Georgette Heyer, marriage settlements weren't just about the money the girl brought into the marriage. If a girl from a poorer family married a wealthy man, her parents could get him to agree to the amount of money that he would "settle" on her. Read 'April Lady.'

[@gibbersking6575]

You've explained titles, nobility, social class and financial strata. Thank you! Another subject that I just can't seem to get a handle on is the whole hierarchy of the religious leadership. Vicar, rector, priest, deacon, etc. And what about Anglican versus Episcopal? Church of England? Are they actually one and the same?

[@luiseveigel849]

A question I often wondered about is that of how many servants each income class would hire. Could you answer that one?

[@christrites4251]

I think most people would opt for the financial security over love, in those days there weren’t any social benefits and you could literally starve to death…and end up destitute. The people in that time would know this instinctively and react accordingly IMO. Good video, thx.

[@giovana4121]

"Is looking fancy a right or a duty?" is my new favorite pointless discussion.

[@thebuttermilkyway687]

It had a big point in Georgian England: If a wife had a duty to spend up to her position, that meant she legally wouldn't be allowed to be thrifty in order to save up money that she could spend the way she wanted to. Thus, it WOULD be a big topic of legal discussion -- for this reason: if the law found that a woman could spend the pin money as she wished, she might be able to leave her husband and live on some money she had set aside; escape an abusive or simply unwanted relationship; spend the money on something that was against her husband's particular wishes; etc. All very important questions in a patriarchal legal system. The degree to which the law would allow men, as a class, to preserve their near-total power over women was very much the real point of this question.

[@karenroya2378]

Ah so Wickham’s planned elopement with Georgiana would have bypassed this marriage settlement and given him access to all her money? I might be confused but if so that would be such a blow and an even greater revenge than I realized. Edited to add: finished watching the video, thanks for pointing that out!

[@cvde95]

This is so helpful and solves a lot of little niggles I have when reading regency novels! Thank you!

[@timunderwood9]

No new information for me, but I still loved the video :D -- thanks for making it. A very good overview of the marriage settlement system. Also apparently spending literally more than a decade closely involved with Pride and Prejudice fan fiction has left me with some amount of actual knowledge :P

[@heathergagnon5125]

As you point out Lydia is basically the luckiest person ever in regards to her settlement and yet she's still so clueless to just how lucky she got and how much Darcy already did for her that she still feels okay asking for/ getting sent money by Elizabeth though she likely suckers more out of Jane than her, which I assume comes out of pin money in at least Elizabeth's case if not both. I know she's young but still wow.

[@shinjineesen400]

Lydia is just the sane selfish, self-centered, thoughtless Lydia that she is at 15. The Lydia whPO tells her sisters she dreams of being married first, who thinks only of bonnets and silly pranks with young officers, who is loud and boisterous. That Lydia never changes. She continues to beg her well-married siaters for money all her life.

[@amandaenser1887]

So question about "wedding clothes" - it's mentioned a few times in P&P and I was always curious if this refered to the actual outfit the bride wore or if this was a set of clothing the bride ordered to take into her married life?

[@irishlady5051]

It would be a whole set of clothing, sometimes called her trousseau.

[@angelwhispers2060]

Because the clothing of an unmarried woman and a married woman Were Meant To Be significantly different to show her new Social Status none of her clothes from being unmarried would be usable. That's why it's so abominable to Mrs Bennett that Mr Bennett won't give a single Guinea to buy his daughter's wedding clothes so that she can have the clothing of a married woman. I assume that either Mr Darcy or her uncle bought her something for wedding clothes just so that she could dress appropriately as a married woman. Because a woman wearing a marriage ring and walking around in the clothes of an unmarried woman was basically proof that her husband was pimping her out. That's why Mrs Bennett rants and Raves about the marriage not seeming valid if her daughter doesn't have wedding clothes.

[@sophie7780]

i always love your videos on regency era law lol you explain such complicated legal things so well and make them so easy to understand!!

[@isabella7704]

your videos are so absolutely good aaaaa

[@ellynneg.6926]

There was this one story set in the 19th century where the stepmother is trying to get rid of the child from the first marriage who unexpectedly turns up alive. I kept wishing the story had gone a bit more into her financial motive. At best, her daughter has just lost half the money she would have expected to inherit, and it could have been much more.

[@jcpndn]

I’m so early! Hi Ellie! 😻

[@EllieDashwood]

You are!!! Hi there!!! 😃😻✨✨✨