Pride and Prejudice - Book vs Movie

We know the book is always better than the movie, but how faithful is the movie to the book? How faithful is the 2005 movie to the book "Pride and Prejudice?" This is a love story for the ages. Several movies and TV series have been made from the book. In this video, I compare the book to what I think is the best movie version.
The book was written in 1813 by Jane Austen. She published the book anonymously, as so many women writers did at that time. It was a popular book when it was published. It sold out the first edition in the first year. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the book never went out of print.
The movie stars Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. It was well received and was nominated for four Academy Awards. The movie didn't win though.

[@annikabjornson998]

As much as I enjoy this movie, it’s basically the Reader’s Digest condensed version of the story. So many conversations, meetings and events are completely left out because of it time limitations for a theatrical release. The 1995 version with Jennifer and Colin tells pretty much the whole thing and he’s yummy gazing at Lizzy while she plays the piano. Not that that incident is in the book iirc.

[@wordsarethings1537]

That’s a good description of the movie.

[@Crimsonblushag]

About the scene you mentioned, fairly lot is left out for readers imagination in the book. I always think that's the true genius of Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen. ❤❤❤ Sometimes JA just says it, that we should go figure what happened; in others she just breezes through the event and we have all the freedom to get into the characters and think what we like about what they would've said and done. In this particular scene, I've imagined they would've sneaked a lot of peeks at each other, sought a lot of chances to be close to each other or exchange a word or two coz both were curious to know what the other was feeling.

[@bubblesbubbly8525]

If I may - the book does explain why Mr. Collins will inherit the estate, right in the first chapter or two. Kind of genius move on Jane Austen's part, because it bridges the time gap for those who really don't know. Upon marrying Mrs. Bennett, his father wanted to continue a generations-long entail which passes to the next qualifying male in the family. He allowed this because he assumed he would have a son, and together they would abolish the entail and allow the estate to pass much more freely through the coming generations. They of course never had a son, and so the whole book unfolds. Usually, when Mrs. Bennett and the others mention being "poor", it really means to point to the daughters. Of course, the parents have a comfortable higher income from the estate being landed gentry.... But because of the entail on the property, all of that will go to Mr. Collins upon Mr. Bennett's death. Each girl has (what the gentry consider) a very small sum that will act as their dowry - certainly not enough to live off the interest in their current sphere. So they have to marry well if they want to have anywhere near their lifelong standard of living. The girls are fine as long as they're home and their father is alive, but looking ahead is the concern. Mrs. Bennett's main motivation in life is to ensure that her girls marry well because the estate is going away when her husband dies, even if she is still alive! Mrs. Bennett will need a place to live as a dependent of her daughters because her own dowry sum isn't that large, but her daughters' are even a fraction of that. This is also why it's such a big deal that Lizzy refuses Mr. Collins! He put in front of them a way to keep Longbourn Estate intact and in the family. The estate provides enough money for all of them to continue living as they do when Mr. Bennett passes, and Lizzy decided not to take that sacrifice for the family because she deeply values marrying for love. Of course, it all turns out in the end, but that's why Mrs. Bennett is so adamant to remind them that they have no money of their own.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Thanks for the comment. You are right about the explanation of the estate. I didn't recall that passage when I made the video. I agree. Mrs. Bennett is concerned for her daughter's future. All of her actions were intended to ensure her daughters had the best future and, as you point out, also to take care of her if she outlives Mr. Bennett. That's also why Charlotte married Mr. Collins. She had no other prospects and so she feared for her future. I understood all of this from the book. I just wonder if the movie made it as clear. I felt like Mrs. Bennett came across as more concerned with money than she really was. I don't know if you got the same impression from the movie. When talking about them being "poor," I was really trying to add in a little information as to what their place in society was at that time in relation to Bingley and Darcy. I was also attempting a little humor. You've clearly read the book and I'm glad because it is so much better than any of the movies.

[@bubblesbubbly8525]

@@wordsarethings1537 Oh, I agree with all you said, and thanks for making the video to highlight a lot of the differences! I guess it's not said whether the Lucas family has a similar entail in place, but setting the stage with how common that was (by showing the Bennett family situation) would make it seem likely. From the context of the book, it's fair to assume that Lady Catherine's family (leaving the estate open to the female line if needed) was more the exception than the rule. Totally agree that Mrs. Bennett doesn't come across quite right in the movie! She seems obsessed with money, but also not very shrewd considering that interest. The one moment I'd give her is stranding Jane at Netherfield in the rain. I know she's not a wit in the novel either, but in the movie she runs around like a chicken with its head missing... Maybe it's meant to showcase how the parents' marriage was unequal, since they didn't have many lines exploring that.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I don't think Austen wrote about an entail for the Lucas'. I may have assumed that. She doesn't seem to have a terribly good opinion of marriage, though. I agree that it was shrewd of Mrs. Bennett to strand Jane at Netherfield. I'd do a lot for my kids, but I'm not sure I would strand one at a virtual stranger's house. Although... if I were a mom in 1813, I may go to extremes like that to ensure they have the best life possible. The relationship between the parents is an interesting one and it's too bad the movie didn't explore it. I don't know if they didn't because they wanted to focus only on Lizzy and Darcy or they didn't think they could push the length of the movie to go into anything more.

[@julielevinge266]

In reality one of the daughters would have married Mr Collins.

[@bubblesbubbly8525]

@@julielevinge266 I think Mary would have been a decent candidate for Mr. Collins from what little we know of her. However, I think the situation with Lizzy and seeing the family might have made him reconsider pursuing another Bennett girl. Considering Lydia's disrespect while Mr. Collins was reading along with Lizzy's animated (stubborn) refusal probably contributed to him looking elsewhere. I even consider his choice of Charlotte Lucas to be in some way an act of revenge. Because, well.... Who the heck gets rejected by someone and then immediately decides to marry her best friend? Charlotte wasn't in any position to turn down an offer, especially in such a secure situation. The current Longbourn family has had their chance and disappointed him sorely. He provided a way to keep the estate, it didn't go the way he wanted, and that informed how he behaved moving forward.

[@lastchancemonicam3948]

I'm glad someone did this b/c I have a personal qualm with all the movies. They constantly omit something from the book- something I think is extremely important. They omit the dinners! After the first ball but before Jane gets sick, the books mention that the Bennets, Darcy, and Bingley are all invited to many different dinners together. It's at these dinners that Darcy begins to see Elizabeth in a new light and learns to start loving her.

[@wordsarethings1537]

The movie omits a lot of events that would have been good. It's a complicated story. Not complicated in that it is hard to understand, but complicated in telling it through a movie. To adapt the book to a movie format would take extraordinary effort. Though I think this movie did an adequate job at times, it still fails to capture the true transformation from pride/prejudice to acceptance and love.

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

​​​@@wordsarethings1537 find this with many victorian book to films; I understand that it would be tedious in a film to see them at dinner getting to know each other, unless it drives the plot forward of course. I became fascinated with the victorian era through films - BBC's mini series being in my humble opinion the best (God bless Andrew Davies) - and always marvelled at how quickly love/marriage developed then. It wasn't until I began reading the classics that I realised these blossoming romances have to be 'skipped' in terms of tv adaptation. Maybe conveying it in dialogue, ie Jane talking to Lizzie, "we have dined several times together, and.... Blah blah" might have worked? Some tv adaptations feel 'top heavy' or rushed for this reason, but I personally love this version. Just wish it had a more intimate ending between MacFayden and Knightley. (That 'almost' kiss is a sizzler!) Colin Firth's Darcy is equally excellent too. Vanity Fair in my opinion is incredibly versatile and also easily adaptable to tv. One film adaptation I personally think always fails is Northangar Abbey; a crying shame really, because the plot is devillish. Sorry for the essay. I get a little enthusiastic! Enjoyed your analysis very much, thank you.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I’m glad you enjoyed my analysis. I like the BBC miniseries I’ve managed to watch. I haven’t seen many as I’ve only recently gotten Britbox. The consensus in the chat is the BBC miniseries for P&P is the best. I plan on watching it, but I haven’t found the time yet. I still like this adaptation. I like Northanger Abbey as well. I think it’s overlooked a lot. Many of the people I know who’ve read it, though, say they don’t like it.

[@Crimsonblushag]

I honestly believe what we truly lack in the movie is the social etiquette that's inherent to that era. The movie is like a modern adoption, or rather modern, unrestrained youth spirit packed into the bodies of a different era. Such a mismatch

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

@@wordsarethings1537 Emma with Jonny Lee Miller 😎

[@kellywhitaker3483]

"the other cast really doesn't matter" lol

[@maggiemay70]

I know. The other cast was full of fine actors!

[@christinemason2938]

Those other actors did a fantastic job and were integral to the plot and feel of the story.

[@niamnpisxy00j]

😂💕💕💕 i LOL too!!!

[@johntubbs6617]

Pride and Prejudice is actually a comedy, That's why Lizzy 's mother is so over the top and Mr Collins is such a nerd. Jane Austin was a observer of society and had many diaries. of all that she knew. Her sister burned them after Jane died to hide the sources of her stories etc. Most of her ideas came from Bath, England which was like Las Vegas in that time Her brothers estate was a inspiration of the rich folk as well. Very advanced story for Janrs era - great novel even today/

[@wordsarethings1537]

It is such a great novel even today. There are few stories that are truly timeless and this is definitely one of them. It certainly has a number of comedic elements. I suspect part of the reason Mr. Collins was such a goof was so that the reader would also agree with Lizzy's decision to decline his proposal.

[@maggiemay70]

I enjoyed the comparisons between the book vs. the movie. The movie is full of good actors and feels current without letting us forget it is a period piece. It cannot be compared to the amazing 1995 lush production with Colin Firth and Jenifer Ehle. For one it was truer to the book and much much longer letting the viewer linger over the scenery and the everyday life details. I also felt that as lovely as Keira Nightly is, I can't imagine her as Elizabeth.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I’m glad you enjoyed the comparison. I hear the 1995 series is much better. I’m going to have to watch it.

[@pricegrisham2998]

She would have been considered severely undernourished in 1812, haha.

[@pricegrisham2998]

As an Austen scholar, I did not like the movie. The mini-series from 1995 is far better.

[@wordsarethings1537]

That seems to be the consensus of this chat as well.

[@lesliematteis8010]

Amen!

[@kathypryor2477]

I enjoyed the BBC production with Colin Frith as Mr D'Arcy MUCH MORE than the 2005 Hollywood movie

[@wordsarethings1537]

That does seem to be the consensus. Unfortunately for me, I haven’t seen it yet. It’s clear I need to watch it.

[@erldagerl9826]

That version has the advantage of being a miniseries, so they don’t try to cram everything into two hours.

[@nolan1640]

I have rarely seen a movie that exactly follows the book, this no really no different. It conveys the heart of the book and these differences don’t take away from that. The most serious of the omissions are leaving out the many times Darcy and Elizabeth cross paths, making it difficult, if you haven’t read the book, how Darcy comes to be so ardently in love with Elizabeth…he barely knows her. For those who have not read the book, these differences do not matter. I think the movie is great and I have read the book at least four times over the years. The added dialogue and condensed scenes are important to convey the story in a shorter period of time. That what movies typically do.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Agreed. Movies don’t follow books exactly. If they did, all movies would wind up being trilogies or something. I also agree the many times Darcy and Elizabeth meeting in the book missing from the movie makes it difficult to see why Darcy is in love with Elizabeth. Overall, I like the movie. I know most on here say it is inferior to the BBC miniseries, but I think it is still a good representation of the book.

[@carolmeindl9508]

However poor someone was at that time, there was always someone poorer and in need of support. Even a poor family could afford to hire a young girl to help in the kitchen or with the kids. It may have only been pennies for hard work but it was better than starvation

[@julielevinge266]

They are regarded as poor because they have 5 daughters. As women cannot inherit, then that means on Mr Bennett’s death the entire estate will go to the nearest male relation. So in comparison to the rest of that class, yes they are pretty poor.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Agreed. I think Mrs. Bennett is comparing themselves to the wealth she wants her daughters to marry into.

[@julielevinge266]

But if they don’t marry well, they’ll all be reliant on the charity of Mr Collins as they don’t have a brother & women couldn’t inherit property.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Yes, they were in trouble if they had not married, and married well, before Mr. Bennett died. Lizzy would get like 50 pounds a year after her father's death. If my calculations are correct, that's somewhere around $5,000 today. That means a pretty bleak future for her. I agree with your interpretation of how they are poor from the book's description of their situation. But I would disagree that Mrs. Bennett meant it that way in the movie. To say to her servant to order a sirloin but just for one night because they are "not made of money," I think is meant to give the impression that she sees them as financially poor. It's one of many issues I have with the way the movie is altered to make it more palatable for a modern audience and, as a result, alter the meaning from the book (though Mrs. Bennett never said this in the book at all).

[@koho]

This seems like a weird critique. So many times complaining that the movie compresses several chapters and multiple walks into a scene or two. I read the book a few times, and if the task is to compress this into 2 hours, IMO it did an admirable job. I'd take the critique more seriously if an attempt was made to suggest how the movie might have done better in particular scenes. Still, I did get a lot out of the comparison of particular scenes with what was in the book.

[@bowenarrows7819]

I agree. I love both versions. And its hard to have not everything included in the film, but like you said. It's only two hours I feel like some nuance or satire was missed in this review. The whole thing with Jane, Elizabeth, and Mrs. Bennet was supposed to be a little silly. Showing just how obsessed, a bit delusional and a somehow magical matchmaker Mrs. Bennet was in trying to get her girls married. She made Jane walk because she knew it was going to rain and keep her there. The punchlines were Jane sneezing right away, Elizabeth saying "this is ridiculous" in regards to her mother somehow managing to make her plan happen, and Mrs. Bennet saying Mr. Bingley is already in love with her as another thing she magically made happen, and also that she's delusional. No idea how the Elizabeth x Wickham thing was missed. It's very obvious they're flirting with each other. No idea how the internal conflicts and changes of hearts Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth were going through were missed, either. The awkward merchant stopping Mrs. Bennet makes sense because everyone in town knows she's a busybody and trying to find husbands. The romance and slow burn in the book is so fun and so good, and I can see how that is missed here. But, Jane Austen is also very satirical and funny, and the little jokes added in the movie are fun. I also don't think it'd be very entertaining to watch a whole movie mostly comprised of dinner conversations and walking.

[@4JeanT]

English isn't my mother language but I have my final oral exam (Dutch) tomorrow and my topic is this book. Eventhough the exam isn't in English this still helped a great deal to do a school project, thanks!

[@wordsarethings1537]

Thank you. I'm glad the video helped. Good luck on your exam!

[@jannejeannejane2192]

@@wordsarethings1537 Sorry this is my other account I didn't realize hehe

[@wordsarethings1537]

Hehehe. :)

[@avalangrin4904]

I hate the 2005 version. The director changed plot, characters, and dialogue. These changes diminish Jane Austen’s great novel. I actually prefer the BBC 1995 version that is more faithful to the novel. 🤨

[@epiphoney]

Thanks. I like this kind of video. I just love the movie at the end though, when Darcy is walking to her in the dawn, and she's giving an intense laser-like stare.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I’m glad you liked the video. I thought it was a good movie. It has its faults, but it’s a good summary of the main points in the story. I know some don’t like the ending, but as I said in the video, I think it was a more satisfying one than the book.

[@barbara5920]

To be fair, would anyone actually want to sit through a movie long enough to capture every chapter of the book?

[@wordsarethings1537]

True. That would be a rather long movie.

[@sophiajurisch]

I love the 2005 movie. Watched it many times ❤️. It doesn't need to cover the book to the letter. Most movies are not exactly like the books since novels are many chapters long and movies are only about 2 hrs long . P&P is a strong inspiration of the book, with some minor adjustments for modern viewers. And I appreciate the additional explanation of socioeconomic status .

[@wordsarethings1537]

I’ve watched the movie several times as well, although a couple were so I could make the video. I think the movie hit the major plot points and I liked the casting for Elizabeth and Darcy, maybe not some of the other cast though, which is usually good enough for a movie.

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

I too love it. It's refreshing and real. I really don't think Ehrle suited the role of Lizzie; she wasn't girlish and wilful as Austen portrays her.

[@ninaklein8154]

I really enjoyed your comparisons between the novel and the movie. I never liked that version of P & P. I said it was Jane Austen on speed, flying through events at a heartbreaking pace. Of course, nothing compares to the BBC's with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.

[@wordsarethings1537]

That movie does move very quickly through the story. The movie could have been better. I haven't seen the BBC version. I'll have to take a look at it.

[@maryann7619]

@@wordsarethings1537 Jaw dropping. How can you possibly comment on a film version of P&P without seeing the BBC version? Although, to be fair BBC is a series and not a movie. Still, it is the gold standard.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I shall have to hang my head in shame. Although, as you wrote, I was comparing the movie to the novel. Now that you have brought my failure to my attention, maybe I could do a video on the comparison to the series someday. Hopefully that can help me redeem myself.

[@BJSull56]

@Words Are Things YES!! .I thought so too..the BBC version let's me savor the story, instead of rush ,rush,rush..and nothing personal yo anyone but I always think Keria Knightley sounds like she has a mouth full of marbles to me( but maybe it's just me🤔

[@wordsarethings1537]

Ha! I’ve thought Keira Knightley sounded odd. Recently, I saw her in a non-period price and heard her real voice. I was surprised because I didn’t realize she was actually British (I know I should have known that but I’ve only watched two of her movies and they were both period prices). I thought her speech in P&P was fake.

[@DidSg6]

Aslo miss darcy is said to have been extremely shy which contradicts her behaviour in the movie and I was shocked at how they completely omitted certain characters like mrs hurst, mr and mrs phillips

[@minnauyeda7339]

I’ve read the book many times over, and have watched the movie several times as well. I love the score, the soaring piano and orchestral lines fantastic with the setting. The discrepancies have annoyed me, such as the lacking characters, and Mr, Collins’ description. I greatly missed the scenes of walks at the Collins’ and the entire courtship between Jayne, Bingley as well as Elizabeth and Darcy. But truthfully, I like the movie, it’s entertaining . I’ll never tire of reading Austen.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I feel exactly the same way.

[@melissakalloway1916]

The only movie version of "Pride and Prejudice" worth watching is the one done in 1995 With Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.

[@crivsmum4820]

that wasn't a movie it was a tv mini series with much more time

[@melissakalloway1916]

@@crivsmum4820 You are correct. But it's still the only version worth watching. 😊

[@nicoleackerman205]

In the book it was more like they had money but no saving account and that because Mrs. Bennett want to live beyond their means.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Mrs. Bennett definitely came across and not terribly smart and a little frivolous, but I don't think I got the impression that she was financially frivolous. I may have to go back and reread the story with a focus on that.

[@ginafromcologne9281]

That was a great video and very interesting with all the details! Pride and Prejudice is surely one of the best love stories. :) I'm not a huge fan of Keira Knightley, I like the mini series with Jennifer Ehle much better, but I liked the movie too (and mother Bennet as well as Lady Catherine are cast much better than in the series, in my view). I think you mentioned as a reply to a comment that you haven't watched the series with Ehle and Firth yet, I'm curious how you like it. :)

[@wordsarethings1537]

I’m glad you liked the video. I agree that Pride and Prejudice is a great love story. I love reading the story. I still haven’t watched the 1995 series. I guess I need to carve out some time to watch it. I think it’s on Britbox. I’ll let you know what I think of it once I watch it.

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

I love the Colin Firth mini series of P&P, but I'm not keen on Jennifer Ehle!! Lol.

[@wordsarethings1537]

I like Colin Firth in other things he's been in. I don't think I've seen anything Jennifer Ehle has been in.

[@cathyfrederick5073]

@@thehangingparsiple5692 I feel the same! It is why I just do not like the mini series. I feel she was mis-cast in the role. I have tried to watch it several times and cannot get past Jennifer Ehle

[@beckihayes220]

The final scene in the movie Which isn't in the book Is in the American version of the film As the makers thought it was what the American audience wanted The British version has a different ending And on the dvd Also has a little bit entitled the American ending

[@wordsarethings1537]

Interesting how they thought the two audiences would be that different.

[@barbaracurtis3801]

You also forget that Mary says words that Elisabeth was saying in the book.

[@wordsarethings1537]

Yrs. Mary did say some things that were Elizabeth's in the book.

[@barbaracurtis3801]

@Words Are Things that's the reason I hated the movie. I felt it strayed too far from the book itself. I guess I'm a book snob, but when I see things that are not in the book that was in the movie, I end up yelling at the TV like one does when watching football. They shouldn'tuse artistic liscense to butcher good literature. .

[@wordsarethings1537]

It's hard to enjoy a movie if you've already read the book. Sometimes the movie makers do a good job adapting the movie from the book, but most of the time they don't. Pride and Prejudice is a long book so a lot would have to be left out, but they did make some changes that didn't really make sense to me.

[@lesliematteis8010]

Sorry. This movie can’t light a candle to the 1995 miniseries. It’s pretty to look at. That’s all. Kiera knightly’s Elizabeth is merely an imitation of Jennifer Ehle’s portrayal.

[@stephanie._.cepeda]

Thank you very much

[@wordsarethings1537]

Thank you. Sorry, somehow I missed your comment.

[@tonywise198]

The 1995 BBC TV version is more faithful to the book. But then it was a far longer production. As for the final scene in the movie, this was in the US version, not the UK version.

[@wordsarethings1537]

That’s odd that the final scene is different. What is the ending in the UK?

[@ninaklein8154]

Or obviously the novel itself.

[@koho]

Claps back - please, nooooooo!

[@MsGuppie2010]

This movie was a great disappointment. The BBC series was outstanding. Did Jane Austen's book total justice

[@wordsarethings1537]

I can understand your disappointment in the movie. Your opinion of the BBC version seems to be the consensus of the commenters. BBC should feel good about that version since so many people love that version.

[@AllenMorris3]

Why was there a pig in the kitchen?

[@wordsarethings1537]

It did seem a bit odd. The look on Mrs. Bennet’s face as the pig’s… um… manhood trotted by may have been the purpose.

[@TrixiLovesYou]

Once you've read the book, you realize the 2005 movie is a rushed hack job. Having read the novel afterwards made this goofy adaptation unwatchable and I cringe just thinking about how the dialogue has been cut and pasted and how the actors race through their lines. Waste of a partly good cast, budget, production value.

[@wordsarethings1537]

It is hard to watch a movie after reading the book. I'm curious, since you watched the movie and then read the book. What was your opinion of the movie before reading the book. I wonder how your opinion might have changed.

[@minimaker5600]

I saw this version of P&P with my teenage granddaughter, both of us big fans of Austen. When the last scene came up, we both looked at each other and said "WHAT?" The scene was soooo corny, and I read later that it was put in to appeal to American audiences. . . what an insult! I like to watch this version for a short "fix", since the 1995 version is so long.

[@wordsarethings1537]

It doesn't surprise me they dumbed down the ending for American audiences. They don't have a good opinion of American audiences. I very much like the way Austen ended the story. I think it was the perfect way to end it. Having said that, the people changed the story enough for the movie, that Austen's ending may not have fully worked. I wish they had kept the dialog the way it was written in the book because it sounded so much better than the silly words in the movie.

[@paulwalshaw1155]

neither!!!! the bbc series is much better !!!!6 hours so MORE story !!!

[@wordsarethings1537]

I haven’t seen the series yet, but others say it is so much better.

[@sorscha1308]

Sorry, i'm finding it hard to listen, so i'm going to stop now. It just sounds like complaints about lack of accuracy in the adaptation but if you accurately redo a book on screen a) you'd need about 15 hours and b) it would be deathly dull. There also seems to be big misunderstandings of the way of life at the time. The Bennetts ARE poor by the standards of gentry at the time. They ARE gentry but of the very lowest order. No man can consider any of the Bennett girls if he has any monetary needs from an advantageous marriage. They wouldn't even consider marrying below their station, that's why their mother is so desperate to marry someone off to Mr Collins and they would only consider 'neighbours' to be people of their own station (gentry), which is why they consider Netherfield as neighbours. The film concentrates on quickly getting over the impressions and feelings you should have about the characters and story and thst's fine with me.

[@thehangingparsiple5692]

✌️👍👍

[@jonathanparks207]

Sorry but you are just flat out wrong about the Bennets being poor by the standards of the gentry. I would say at 2000 pounds a year would put them right at average for those who were landed gentry or knights. Frankly that puts them well above the average person living in England at the time. They were certainly not of the lowest order which was generally designated for those who were members of the clergy, law, or military officers. Elizabeth had it right: "He is a gentleman; I am a gentleman's daughter; so far we are equal.''.

[@samanthafox3124]

Why does she speak as if scolding?😮

[@wordsarethings1537]

Who speaks as if scolding? Elizabeth? She is supposed to be a bit judgemental, so maybe Knightly thought it would be good to speak in a kind of judgemental tone.