I was thinking that! When Ellie said "he could go run for parliament and do a lot of kissing-up etc." I thought "oh Darcy is *way* too socially awkward for that! After all, he "has not the talent for conversing easily with people he has never met before" (slightly paraphrased there)
Literally, he could buy one. And I’m not even exaggerating. Baronetcies were invented to be bought. They weren’t and aren’t peerages, but they are a title, and they are hereditary. Man’s just has to drop a little bit of cash 🤣
I find it hilarious that the original novel makes it very clear that Darcy has no title and neither he, nor Elizabeth, are terribly preoccupied with titles, while half of the P&P fanfics out there give Darcy three dukedoms and make Elizabeth the secret heiress of another three.
Ecuadorian Chocolate 🍫🍫 they do! Hit over the Jane Austen Fanfiction Index and see just how big of the “The-Bennets-Are-Secretly-Nobility” fics there are! Not sure about Darcy being titled though but it probably does exist.
That is hilarious. Though, must admit, I love the idea of Elizabeth going up to Lady Catherine and waving the title that she inherited in her own right in Lady C's face. Not going to worry about logistics where Elizabeth inherited before Jane, either. Or that Mr. Collins should have inherited any title through the dad.
I've read some of those... And you have too! But, did you like them? Would you read one where he's an Earl? I found out that there was an Earldom till mid 1700s where the family was named Darcy. It was cut cause the two sons died as babies. The only one to survive was a girl, and she married a future Duke. Divorced him, married again, and guess to whom? To Lord Byron's future dad. Once that Lady dies, he marries again and ta-da! Lord Byron...
I find it hilarious that Americans think that the Bennetts are poor. Mr Bennett has an annual income of £2,000. Colonel Brandon’s annual income in Sense and Sensibility is also £2,000, and he is considered a fine catch. At the time, an income of £250 a year was the average for a person in the professional class (middle class): doctor, bank manager, lawyer etc... The Bennetts were rich landed gentry. In Jane Austen’s time, about £1,000 a year was enough for a family to afford “three female servants, a coachman and footman, a chariot or coach, phaeton or other four-wheeled carriage, and a pair of horses” (Nottingham). The cause of the Bennets’ financial difficulties is lack of a male heir. They will lose their income when Mr. Bennet dies, and in addition, Mr. Bennet lacks savings: “Mr. Bennet had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum, for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him” . The Bennets are not poor: poor money management has left the daughters without dowries. They are of the same social class as Darcy. They just don't have as much money.
I think it is a great point that Darcy and Elizabeth are social equals. Jane Austen is not writing about women yearning for a prince to raise them up in society. She is writing about women of character whose own worth cannot be measured merely by their titles or income.
@@khalraesh3176 It would have been boring. This story showed the aristocracy fighting each other, scandals, nobles about to lose all and a heroine clawing her way up. Amusing enough for those of the lower 99 percenters who could read.
Jane Austen was noted for writing only about the kind of people she knew. Her contact with the nobility was limited, so she didn't write about them. Also, of course, unlike most modern writers of Regency stories (mostly American), she knew that Dukes and Earls were not to be found around every corner.
Her brother Edward Knight married a baronet's daughter. Her Leigh mother was related to the dukes of Chandos and the future lords Leigh. In the neighborhood of Chawton, the Wallop earls of Portsmouth lived nearby. Some other peers as well. But the Austen family socialized with the gentry and clergy families. Rev George Austen got his living through his uncle Francis Austen. The local squire was Thomas Knight (II) who fostered, then adopted, his third son Edward. I found out recently that Rev George Austen and Cassandra (parents) married on 200 pounds a year plus income from the glebe (farmland attached to the living). This wasn't enough for a growing family so George and Cassandra took in boy pupils to prepare for school or college. This 200 pounds per annum is what income Edward Ferrars is promised at Delaford (Sense & Sensibility) when food prices were higher some decades later. He also gets ten thousand pounds from his mother eventually, and Elinor's one thousand pounds when they marry. So about 400-500 pounds more annually. But at their marriage they have about 350 pounds annually.
In my opinion, the critical factor is making readers imagine the story could happen to them ( or their children). There were many gentle people, and many who aspired to being gentle, but peerage did not make a profitable audience.
@@TomLeg, also she was writing a story that was believable - it would have been unbelievable for a peer of the realm to marry someone of Elizabeth's social standing. She was the same social standing as Darcy, although the families were unequal in wealth - he was a gentleman and she was a gentleman's daughter.
There's a great irony in Mr. Darcy not having a title for the same reason that the Bennetts are in their predicament in the first place- the inability to produce a male heir.
My hypothesis is that industrialization - meaning smog - caused XY chromosomes to be suppressed, suggesting that, at least in the UK, women are the future.
I think there must be a male heir to the title. I believe Colonel Fitzwilliam is supposed to be the younger son of the present earl (who would be the brother of Lady Catherine and Darcy's mother, hence Mr. Darcy's uncle.) Jane Austen just wasn't interested in writing about the nobility. As the daughter of a vicar she knew the gentry well, and was following the excellent rule of "write what you know."
I think it’s just as likely because there were too many males produced. Depending on the family and the entailments usually the titles all went to the oldest son. The younger sons of peerages would have courtesy titles like Lady Catherine did but everyone after them was untitled, and if the family was wealthy enough, they might have unentailed lands given to them. It’s very possible that a few generations ago he is descended from a 2nd or 3rd son of a lord and they were given the lands of Pemberly for their living because the family had so much that they could afford that without beggaring the title.
@@marthawolfsen5809 That wouldn’t be the Darcy line though. Fitzwilliam is related to Darcy via the maternal side. Darcy’s name comes from his fathers side.
Yes I think Austen liked the irony of Darcy not being so above Elisabeth in social class as he makes it out to be during the first proposal ("so decidedly beneath my own"). Him being best friends with a son of a tradesman (!) strengthens this irony further. And if he were titled, Elisabeth would not have been able to retort to Lady Catherine about being equal ("and I am a gentleman's daughter"), which I also feel was signifcant, since it shows Elisabeth is not so different from Darcy, she shares some of his pride and they would be a good match. Jane would not have been so defiant and she is a better match with pliable Bingley.
It’s funny when you consider that someone who might be snobbish about “status” like Lady Catherine in the scene which she confronts Elizabeth...declares that her daughter and Darcy were intended for each other...but he is only a “Gentleman”. So it’s actually a downward marriage for her daughter in that regard. Not that I think she was as hypocritical or snobbish as the Bingley sisters.
An option you didn’t mention: The Darcy and de Bourgh families could be descended from Normans who came over with William the Conqueror (hence the ancient lineages). In all those centuries the Darcys could have gotten on a king’s wrong side, especially if they took opposite sides from Charles I, Charles II or Henry VIII. They could have lost both a title and the right to build a castle.
@@DizzyBusy No, but Miss Austen's readers would definitely have understood the name "Darcy" as most likely hinting at Norman lordly origins from "D'Arcy". Not only that, but his first name is Fitzwilliam, which is also Norman French by way of Scottish connections ("Fitz" was from "fils," meaning "son of"). He's one of these "first name is a family surname" fellows, where they want to keep a family name, usually from the maternal line, going in some form, or they want to link to the mother's line, so they name a son with the surname as a first name.
I agree with everything you say. Whether they had a title in the past and it died out or not, Mr. Darcy has too much Proper Pride to maneuver for a title. Remember, even Sir Walter Elliot, the biggest snob in Austen, admits there are some plain Mr.'s whose names do not require explanation. Mr. Darcy considers himself one of these.
Oh, Sir Walter Eliot...definitely the biggest snob in Jane Austen. But have you seen Dr Octavia Cox's dissection of Sir Walter? ruclips.net/video/dQpVqNyrsBI/видео.html If Sir Walter wasn't fictional, he'd be going to the burn unit...and most of the burn is 100% Jane Austen
@@Hugin-N-Munin I love Dr. Cox's videos! It's like being back in a graduate seminar at UCLA! I love her close readings and interpretations. I agree, she uses Austen's own text to skewer Sir Walter completely.
I think that she is missing out on the chance that they are untitled as they are descended from a second son a few generations back. Those second and third sons would also have untitled children like Lady Catherine did. It’s absolutely conceivable that THAT line could eventually Just like Mr. Collins is inheriting the Bennet estate as a distant cousin. It’s very possible that Darcy could inherit from the titled wing of the Darcy family of their male line dies out.
@@sallycinnamon5370 I looked up the real Darcy family, and they did have a title, a Barony, Lord Darcy of Aston, but it became extinct in 1635. Probably Mr. Darcy could get it revived for him if he were willing to spend the money, but I doubt he's that interested.
I think Jane Austen wasn't interested in writing about the nobility is one factor in my opinion. Also, If Darcy was a lord and Lizzie was simply a gentleman's daughter, it would come off as 19th century version of a "bodice ripper" and therefore scandalous, and Jane wanted to be taken seriously as a writer.
There is Darcy family in real life. The title of "baron Darcy de Knyath" goes back to that family. You might want to look up Lady Amelia Osborne née Darcy. Her biography is some pretty spicy stuff and would have been all over the news. Pride and Prejudice was written a couple of decades later, but even so the name "Darcy" would have come with associations to her audience; a present day equivalent would be someone writing a novel about scandalous love affairs in the upper crust featuring a character by the name of "Al Fayed".
I think that is very true. She is writes romance…not ridiculous wish fulfillment. It’s conceivable that a country gentleman’s daughter, with wit and intelligence and beauty, could win over a wealthier gentleman than her father if they came to stay in their town. But to think that they would woo the heir to a title and fortune is much less believable.
@@MrAranton When I looked up the Darcy family I found Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy of Darcy (1467-1537) and his descendants. The title had its ups and downs and finally became extinct for lack of male issue in 1635
There is a group of aristocrats in the UK who don't have titles. They are called "The Landed Gentry". That's because their wealth & status derives from all the lands they own. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's family & Sarah, Duchess of York's family come from this group. Some of these families have owned the same estates since they were entered in The Domesday Book in 1086 as a survey for William the Conqueror.
It's interesting looking back at the Regency era, because we know how much less valuable a noble title would have been by the time Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth's kids had grown up in industrial England. We're hitting the time when wealth began mattering a lot more than bloodline and those with money and intelligence could make a LOT more money than those with merely a title. But I think, also, that Mr. Darcy is not a lord precisely because Austin wanted him to be "above" Elizabeth, but still "attainable". If he had been a peer, his marrying Elizabeth would have been as great a scandal as the youngest daughter of a nobody, country English gentleman running away with an army officer. His position as a _very_ rich gentleman with connections to the nobility makes the social distance between them an obstacle to overcome (as he explains when he first proposes to Elizabeth) but not an insurmountable one. Her audience would not have bought the possibility of their romance and marriage (nor, very likely approved of it) if he had been titled. (Literally, they wouldn't have bought the book, and Austin would be a virtual unknown today.) And, though Miss Austen seems to not mind poking at the way English's law and custom overlooked daughters, she doesn't seem to have been nearly so willing to poke at the idea of aristocracy.
There is also Attainder- where a family holds a noble title. Then they back the wrong king on the wrong side - say during / after in the War of the Roses - one could lose that title, basically the new king that replaced the previous one can say "you had a title, but instead of chopping off your head as a traitor, I am just taking it away from you and never letting you have it again."
I like the idea that the family didn't go in for bribes as a set up for his innate nobility, and why Wickham's extortions were as tough for them to deal with as they were...
Why would he be a Lord? There’s no need for it in the story. He’s wealthier than the Bennet’s but still the same social class as them. Elizabeth moving from poorer gentry to having the title Lady would probably have been viewed negatively in the regency era as it would have been viewed as moving above her station and social climbing. Making a good marriage where the heroine gains financial stability, a respectable place in society and hopefully a loving husband is the aim in Austen’s novels as that was a young woman’s main concern if she wasn’t independently wealthy. Having a title was no guarantee of financial stability or being respectable. It’s only in the modern era of historical romance fiction that this obsession with titles seems to come in and a lot of it from American authors. Gaelen Foley and Amanda Quick are obsessed with titles- every male protagonist must be a sir, lord, earl or duke. The majority of the main characters seem to have a title of some sort. I think it must come from the perceived mystique of aristocracy as they don’t have titles in America and wanting to give every story a cinderella look where the poorer upper middle class or upper class girl gains the heart of an aristocrat and becomes a lady/countess/duchess by the end of the book. That’s a fairytale type story whereas Jane Austen was writing a more realistic, contemporary fiction about relationships within her strata of society.
People don't talk much about the "landed gentry" anymore, but to this day there are families who fit the description. They probably no longer live off the income of their lands, but I've read that if the family's last name is the same as the village they live in, that's a dead giveaway that their ancestors have been the gentry landowners for generations. Such families still exist.
There is a man that owns an entire village in Devon, right on the coast. His family has owned it for centuries. All the residents of the town rent their houses/shops with no option to buy. He would definitely be considered part of the modern landed gentry.
That’s the story of my family. The Slingsby family was a baronetcy in York until there was one generation without a male heir. And the family home, Scriven Hall burned down. That didn’t help apparently 😂 I guess they didn’t have home & contents insurance back then?
Winston's grandfather was the 7th Duke of Marlborough. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a second son. Winston was a commoner, and a member of the House of Commons. He was offered a peerage, but declined.
Totally, although usually the elder son got all the money with the title, that's why second sons like colonel fitzwilliam were sent the get a profession like the military or the clergy and weren't so free in their choice of wives as he makes very clear to Elizabeth.
@@dewrock2622 This doesn't preclude the second son from being wealthy and growing in wealth. Darcy is a French name, suggesting he's descended from the Norman Conquest. If that second son branched off in 1400, 400 years later it's perfectly feasible that the branch grew independently wealthy. Example, the Howards. You have the main branch, the Dukes of Norfolk. Then you have cadet branches in Suffolk, Penrith, Effingham, and Carlisle. The only thing that makes me think otherwise is the amount of land he has, if it were like Mr Knightley that would be reasonable. Half of Derbyshire though seems like a medieval fiefdom. That much land suggests it was managed on behalf of the King and that comes with a title.
I played an online game once called "Hundred Years War" where, along side military campaigns, the main thing was to have children to keep your family going, along with your title. In the game, it was extremely hard to do. That was the time of the Black Plague as well as the war so people died. It also was very common for a couple to be barren or to produce only daughters. At least half the time I played it, my line died out. I got to appreciate the problem that Henry VIII had. :)
I feel like Darcy not having a title is part of what defines him and the story being told. Much revolves around Elizabeth and him looking down their respective noses at each other snarkily from their respective societal niches, then abruptly feeling unworthy of eachother by turns, based on behavior and growing understanding of one another. They start off different enough social circles that it's easy enough for them to judge one another, without a title into the mix, but both turn out to be focused on themselves and their families leading secure, happy, wealthy lives, rather than in trivial attempts to increase their outside societal status or impress others. We can compare that altruistic focus on maintaining reasonable life stability to Lidia and Kitty who pursue Wickham and the officers purely for selfishness and self-importance, endangering the Bennett family reputation disastrously, or to Wickham, Lady Cathern and Mr. Collins, each of whom use others as means for social climbing and wealth accumulation. The person who cares most about the value of title in this book is either Lady Cathern or Mr. Collin's ,and both, while their shallow singular focus on wielding social correctness is mercilessly made mock of, can be dangerously manipulative and easy to manipulate. Neither Elizabeth nor Mr. Darcy enjoy this kind of social rat race, and, given how they fumble communication, first impression and such with eachother, neither would do very well at it. Indeed, My Darcy is willing to help uplift people less socially enabled than himself which is why he previously fell prey to Wickham and also why he was willing to support Elizabeth and her family when Wickham threatened to ruin their family reputation irrepairably; these choices aren't radical, but they do privilege judgement of the welfare and general human merit of others over their usefulness for one's own self-advancement.
Does Mr Darcy have no title because Jane Austin didn't want to" jump the shark"? Would it have been to much of a stretch for readers of the time to accept that a girl with no dowry could marry the most eligible Lord in the land but could marry a kind awkward wealthy man?
The Mills and Boon Cinderella romance was not the norm of that era and eras past and would make Jane Austen a romance novelist the likes of Barbara Cartland. Jane Austen most probably wanted to be taken seriously as an author. Elizabeth had social status being part of the gentry but did not have enough dowry to attract men of status like Darcy (and he was actually a catch and not an awkward man since he was used to the London scene), but at least being part of the gentry, her marriage to Darcy would be socially acceptable during that time since despite his noble lineage, Darcy would be relegated to the upper ranks of the gentry; therefore, still from the gentry class (so no eyebrows would be raised) . And daughters of wealthy tradesmen could marry into the gentry because of their financial status. So Miss Bingley could marry Darcy as well. This social structure was explained well by Dr. Octavia Cox using historical data. However, it was not that easy to penetrate the nobility and only later on did cash-poor titled heirs of large estates married rich American heiresses to maintain their estates as depicted in novels by Edith Wharton and the series Downton Abbey.
@Jonathan Parks Yes, I thought that Wharton's novels dealt with American, specifically New York high society. Surely the snobbery and insulated nature of "The Four Hundred" was equally difficult to break into, but there was no real nobility or noble titles or entailments - which are real, legal entities. Two separate ponds of exclusive fish.
@Jonathan Parks The Buccaneers directly depicted it. Others indirectly hinted at it. That is why in Age of Innocence you have the character Countess Ellen Olenska because it was not only the British aristocracy who married rich American heiresses but also other European aristocrats.
@Jonathan Parks Look, I mentioned the Buccaneers as the one directly dealing with the cash poor British aristocracy marrying rich American heiresses. Olenska came from high society so she couldn't be poor, and of course her dowry was already given to her husband as part of the deal (marriage). She was threatened that she would get nothing (so that meant she had something) if she would not reconcile with her husband because of the scandal of divorce(frowned upon at that time). Anyone from rich families could be disinherited. Heirs and heiresses inherit money and the ones holding the purse strings will be their living parents or another living relative who holds the money in trust (just like what is happening to Prince Harry's inheritance, except the one he got from Diana). So just read the Buccaneers so you get the idea of how cash-poor British aristocrats tried to save their estate by marrying rich American women, although one of the noblemen in the story was not cash-poor but married an American heiress because he thought she was not like the other girls who was just after his title and money. And there was another cash-poor English nobleman in the same novel who opted to go to South America to raise money to save his family's estate instead of marrying an American heiress. Edith Wharton also wrote short stories showing indirectly this phenomenon of European cash-poor aristocrats becoming part of American high society through marriage, not usually the main characters but portraying American high society as it was during the Gilded Age.
There were/are many “lords” who didn’t have a pot to peep in. Hence the Golden Age “dollar duchesses”...wildly wealthy American heiresses who married penniless English nobles.
That’s later on for their decendants with inheritance and inventment issues and world changed a great deal so that the land wasn’t as important. Not for the initial title holders, which is what Ellie was talking about.
That came later. The way taxes were levied on inherited lands changed in the later 19th Century, and it caused many families that were 'land rich, cash poor' serious problems. Large estates slowly became uneconomical. Which led to the situation that you are referencing, where the heirs of cash poor aristocratic families began searching for wealthy heiresses to marry.
@@patric4401 It wasn't just taxes. It was because many European aristocrats had squandered their wealth through gambling and other wasteful practices. And industrialization had caused many Americans to become many titled individuals who many owned land. So there was a wealth imbalance in favor of the American daughters of the rich.
Yes, there were a few titles, mainly VERY old Scottish (& maybe Irish?) baronies, that could pass to a daughter before a cousin/nephew. I remember a YT post mentioning one of the (Plantagenet-era?) men who was ennobled & had only a daughter, so he had the paperwork specifically written so that she (or her son) could inherit the title.
Great video. Sometimes the algorithm sends you very good surprises. Pretty much agree with what I've seen in the comments: Elizabeth would've been too junior to Darcy if he was a lord- and the reading public would have not believed the fiction. Also, someone like Darcy (in history) might have completely disregarded Elizabeth if the class gap was wider.
Thanks for your amazing content. One of the likely reasons for the lack of a title is that Mr Darcey was descended from a younger son of a title holder, while the title passed down through the senior line. Example - Winston Churchill had no title. His father, ‘Lord’ Randolph Churchill, had the ‘courtesy title’ of ‘Lord (first name) Churchill’, being a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough. He could not pass this on - hence plain Mr Winston Churchill, until he was knighted to become Sir Winston. Interestingly he was offered the title of Duke of London by King George VI after WW2, but declined as he wished to remain in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, the title of Duke of Marlborough descended to the elder brother, of Lord Randolph, and his descendants. Theoretically, if there was a big die-off of the senior line of the Churchill family, Winston’s male descendants - though not his descendants through his daughters, could become the Dukes of Marlborough. But if the seniors remain alive, they will simply be - “Mr Churchill”. Probably similar to Mr Darcey.
But if he was descended from a younger son, their family estate would have also gone to the older son along with the title. I think it's safe to assume Darcy is the senior male line at least dating back to the original estate owner.
@@Tasha9315Great familys had more than one estate, not all land was entitled, as Elli explained. Second sons often married heiresses, either because there was no fidei commis or they were of trade background...If this happened some generations before, the estate would be considered the Darcy familys estate.
@@juliar1225 True, Darcy could have been descended from a younger son of a nobility who married a woman with an estate or inherited one of the family's multiple estates. But I personally feel like if that were the case, Jane Austen would have brought it up in the book or made Lady Catherine bring it up. But that's just what I assume. You could be right.
@@Tasha9315 Not necessarily. The mother's property was not tied to the title property and often got divided among children. Not all the father's property was tied to the title either. Also as in Winston Churchill's example, his father, the younger son of the duke, married a very wealthy heiress and so Winston Churchill inherited great wealth w/o any title to his name.
There's another possibility: In the English peerage titles are not given to families but to individuals. If I were a lord, I could pass the lordship on to my oldest son. Any younger sons would be given courtesy titles, but they would not be considered members of the peerage. And the sons of my junior sons would be commoners and not be given courtesy titles either. If Mr Darcy's great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was a business savvy junior son of a lord, he could used his inheritance/appange to lay the groundwork for his not-counting-the-greats-son's fabulous wealth without being able to pass down a title. There was a Darcy family in real life. Members of that family held titles for six centuries. Norman D'Arcy - the first member of the family on record - would have plenty of living descendents in Jane Austen's time (and event today) that still have the Darcy name but would have been too removed from the Earldom of Holderness to inherit that title, when Robert Darcy died without a son in 1778.
It would have been really interesting if Elizabeth had met the current Earl. We know Lady Anne and Catherine must have had a brother who was the father of Colonel Fitzwilliam, who may or may not be still alive. Darcy had the same first name as his maternal cousin's last name. Suggesting that he was named after his mothers maiden name. But Colonel Fitzwilliam is a second son because he has little fortune so he must have an older brother who will inherit that Earldom. In fact I really like how Pride and Prejudice has a story within a story because a lot of things happen in the story that we only hear about after they've happened.
Ultimately, as Darcy's wife you'd have to assume she would. Earl ___ has less motivation to be snobbish about his Nephew's wife than Lady Catherine as he had no ambitions to marry him to his daughter.
Honestly, I'm just glad we don't live in the alternate timeline where everyone calls Mr. Darcy "Fitzwilliam." ^.^ I think making Mr. Darcy a lord would complicate what Miss Austen was doing with the Bingleys as a respectable old family whose wealth was acquired by trade (a fact Mr. Bingley's sisters are quite eager to forget). This story plays very heavily on the difference between material wealth and social respectability, and in some ways she relies on the proximity of mercantile and landed wealth to say what she wishes to say about the importance of personal characteristics and good breeding. If they are of equal formal standing, then any judgment against Elizabeth and her family is either grounded in their behavior or their money. If Darcy were a lord, that line would be muddled. Plus, it might have been a step too far to put him in familiar contact with the Bingleys and have anyone still think him proud.
Wasn't the Fitz prefix often used for illegitimate sons of great families. Sort of an asterix for life? An ancestor could have been the illegitimate son of a noble family.
@@kathrynimhoff344 FItzWilliam means "son of William". The usage sometimes indicated an illegitimate birth in an earlier age, but I'm not sure that was still true by the 18th century.
I love your videos. I enjoy the lightness and novelty of your channel, your deep understanding of that era, Jane Austen's motivations for writing, and you've got like an aristocratic vibe, but along the same vein, break character and mention dating apps or other modern tropes. You're cool. You should have more subscribers.
Another way to get a title: join the Navy (as an officer, of course), amass a fortune by taking enemy prizes (merchant ships preferable, but a good stout warship has its monetary as well as martial value), preferably work your way up to captain or admiral, win a great battle with valor and cunning, be celebrated by the British public, and return home to be peered. Or to mary Anne Elliot. We can't all be peers, after all.
I think there were at least a few cases where men requested the peerage go to their father or grandfather so they could be the second or third Lord Whoever and make the title look at least a little older, though I'm not sure how often such requests were granted.
Yep you could amass wealth and gain a title by joining the Royal Navy, but you could not generally join the navy as an officer. Children of aristocrats could expect to be promoted, but they still had to pass the lieutenant exam and demonstrate skill. Some might be passed over for promotion and never become captains.
I think having Mr. Darcy be untitled sets up a more equal groundwork. The Landed Gentry being their own sub culture/category, I think it adds more nuance to the matches that they were making and how naturally they mention how much income their estates generated vs their rank in the peerage system. As we see in Downton abbey, (since you mentioned it) that the titles ended up meaning less when they were marrying newly rich American woman for money, since they had a titles and less income and again after WWI when many of the great houses ended up shutting down because of the expense and the changing world.
I am a descendant of Thomas Lefroy who is famously considered to be the blueprint for Mr Darcy. The reason why he didn't have a title is because he was descended from (relatively recent) Hugenot immigrants from France and he lived in Ireland.
While it’s not a peerage title, a great example of a title dying out is in Pride and Prejudice. Upon Lady Catherine’s death, Anne de Bourgh will inherit her baronet father’s estate but will most likely not become Dame Anne; she will remain plain Miss De Bourgh.
I think a critical point is that Darcy is of an ancient family. From the 1660s there were a lot of families that became ennobled who might not be considered "noble" like the mistresses of Charles II whose desendents were the height of the ton in Jane's time. Also with William of Orange and then the Hanoverian kings you had other upstarts rising in the ranks. Thus being of an ancient family but untitled is a kind of reverse snobbery. I remember when Diana married Charles it was pointed out that she was more of an aristocrat than he was. He had, in effect, married up. I always thought it interesting that in Persuasion the Elliots received their baronetcy in the time of Charles II when he probably handed them out like candy to pay off those who supported him but the family hadnt risen in the 150 years since. I always felt this was a kind of dig that Austen's audience of the time would have understood. Austen seems to have little patience for status conferred solely on the basis of birth.
I think Mr. Darcy was plenty proud and pleased with his status in society and didn't feel any need to kiss butt to get higher. He's wealthy and respected, getting a title wouldn't do much for him.
Very interesting video again! :) I also think Jane Austen chose him not to be a Lord, so that she could better convey to the audience how arrogant and dismissive he was at the beginning. Her audience was the people of her time, who also were used to the class system. If they had read about a Lord behaving that way, they might have been more forgiving, like "oh, he's a Lord, he has the right to be a bit excentric and to look down on others". But when Darcy does it, he's "only" landed gentry, like a part of her readers or their aquaintances. So the audience back then probaby shook their head at his behaviour, because it just didn't fit his role. They would have also known that Darcy and Elisabeth were in the same social class. Also, maybe the reason why Jane Austen never chose members of the nobility as her protagonists or for her love triangles, is simply that she was worried that the nobility would disapprove. As an unmarried woman, financially dependent on her brother and other family, with some connections to nobility, maybe she needed to tread carefully, if she wanted to sell books and stay in the good books of her aquaintances. Maybe she just didn't want to mess with the wrong people.
I think all of your reasons are very valid and possible!!! But also, Darcy (or D’arcy) sounds like a pretty Norman or Anglo-Norman name which means his ancestors would have come over at the time of William the Conquerer. Hence the reference to “ancient,” and their titles and land grants may also have stemmed from service to the Norman conquest. Rather than more recent ennoblement. In fact, like you said, many more ancient lines died out. Few modern aristocrats can trace their lines back to the Middle Ages. Hell, the royal family is largely German. So from Darcy’s perspective, having an ancient Anglo Norman name and estate could have been more respectable than being “new nobility.” While Pemberley seems modeled on Chatsworth and is often depicted as a Palladian house, we don’t actually know that it’s not partly some ancient Norman keep or castle. And I think some of the distinction of rank was also inflated in later years centuries. For example, Henry VIII literally started using Majesty instead of “your Grace” because of a fragile male ego thing with Charles V visiting. Anywho, people probably thought the Marlboroughs were crass and new titles at one point. So the Darcys not having a peerage may not have been seen as less prestigious until centuries later, and then their pedigree and “ancient” credentials would have stood on their own. I think as Americans, we often get fixated on an outsiders view of straight hierarchy and rank/precedence without considerations for how Austen’s contemporaries would have honored pedigree and lineage. Darcy would have likely not felt remotely out of place at court (other than his personal dislike of the frippery).
I just discovered your channel yesterday and I think I could listen to you talk all day! You have such a great voice and you really convey information so smoothly! (also, I liked the video and am eagerly awaiting my earldom, thank you)
I love seeing how your channel has progressed over the years. Always so informative and interesting, but it feels like you've become so much more relaxed in front of the camera. Thanks for the great content! Please start sharing what you're wearing ect (and be sure to make them affiliate links for yourself, so your viewers can support you!). You are often is such cute and unique outfits 😊
I doubt Darcy would’ve done what was necessary to become a member of the peerage. Social networking definitely does not sound like his style. The only way he could ever obtain it is if he did some important service for the crown, but in that case he probably would just be knighted.
Jane Austen did write about people with titles in persuasion and it showed her real thoughts of them. Lord Elliott is the most pompous creature there is, and his daughters Elizabeth and Mary are so proud and and obnoxious and even lady Russell that is Anne's friend, sins on the sin of pride, when she doesn't see mr. Elliott for who he is and wants Anne to marry him just so she could replace her "dear mother " as lady Elliott...
Her portrayal of Sir Walter in Persuasion is super interesting. And she does have quite a few baronets like Sir Walter Elliot in her novels. But the title of baronet is actually not a title of noble peerage. It’s below that level. I meant that none of her primary characters have titles of peerage.
Lady Russell is of much higher status than Sir Elliott who's just a baronet - hardly a titled man but not noble peer. It's funny that Jane loves to poke at the least 'titled' as most pompous. Lady Russell is a humble nun compared to Sir Elliott and his other daughters.
@@hyrulesarnian932thank you. I winced several times. Even my favourite author (a fellow Aussie with whom I’ve established an email friendship) has her knighted charactersbeing referred to as Sir Kemsley instead of Sir Benjamin. By someone who should have known better, if I remember correctly.
Could you do a video about the Gardiners some time? I really love their dynamic but I'd love to learn more about their position in society, how wealthy were they compared to the others etc. There's not much info about them sadly.
@Jonathan Parks Thats something that confuses me. If they are so rich, why does it sound like they live in a bad neighborhood (?) in London? Why do the Bingley sisters look down on then so much? Their own father was in ttade and earned his (and therefore their own) wealth this way. Wouldn't Mr. Gardiner be in more or less the same position as their own father then? And Mr. Bingley hadn't bought land yet and was not part of the landed gentry. But he was rich and therefore everyone acted like he was. Why wouldn't that apply (even if maybe to a bit lesser extend, since he was still working) to Mr. Gardiner if he was richer than Mr. Bennet?
@@0FynnFish0 Cheapside was where the Bank of England and the Royal Exchange were located, as well as the residence of the Lord Mayor of London. In spite of our modern-day associations with the word "cheap" it was part of the financial center of London, not a fashionable residence but hardly a slum.
@@0FynnFish0I think that’s a feature of P&P that we modern readers can miss. The Gardiners and the Bingleys were indeed practically the same, but Miss Bingley tried to ignore her humble origins. It was one of the reasons she was interested in Darcy, true landed gentry.
@0FynnFish0 The Bingley sisters were insecure, empty hypocrites. That is why they looked down on the Gardners. The Gardners seemed emotionally balanced, stable and kind.
Very interesting how this works! I know something about this having lived in England for several years now, and a few times per year my wife and I drive down to Devon from Sussex to visit her sister. On the way we pass by an estate in Dorset which is owned by Richard Drax: Charborough Park. Mr. Drax's full name is Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax! He owns over 13,000 acres, and is the largest individual landowner in Dorset -- but he's not a Lord, either, though he could be! His inherited wealth comes from the fact that he is descended from the second son of the 17th Baron of Dunsany, John Plunkett, who died in 1899. But he doesn't have the peerage because he isn't descended from John Plunkett's eldest son. However, he is "in remainder" to the title. This means that if his cousin, Oliver Plunkett, the current heir to the barony, dies without a legitimate son, then Richard Drax or one of his sons will inherit the barony and be a Lord.
@@judithstrachan9399 - If you read my comment, you will have seen that Drax is only one of his surnames, which include Plunkett. Things can be other than they seem. The eldest son of John William Plunkett, the 17th Baron Dunsany, was Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett. Drax was a family name of John Plunkett's wife, Ernle Elizabeth Louisa Maria Grosvenor Burton (later, in 1906, by Royal Licence, Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax). Because Richard Drax does descend along the male line from the second son of the 17th Baron Dunsany. He gets his rather complicated name by virtue of his mother. That second son was Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. Read the Wikipedia article on the 17th baron to get a view of how these complex names evolved. Search on the article title: "John Plunkett, 17th Baron of Dunsany".
Ah, so the surnames are just arranged differently from what I expected. I did think the husband’s family name would be the last one, but not in this case. Multi-surnames are complicated..
Re your question abt Darcy having a title vs being Mr Darcy -- him being titled would have added a whole additional layer to the dance between Darcy & Lizzir
I imagine Pride and Prejudice as a comedy of class with the tension possible because Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are and are not of the same class. A titled Mr. Darcy breaks the story structure and makes it social commentary or... Different from the gentle critique that it is.
I think Austen wrote about what she knew. This is why she doesn't write from the POV of the servants or from the nobility, or try to portray conversations among gentlemen alone among themselves.
Awesome video as always! I'd love to see more content about Persuasion, if you're interested in it. I'd like to learn more about the relationships and statuses of Mary's in-laws, as well as the military side of Capt. Wentworth's career.
It probably wasn't economically sound for them to pursue a peerage, 'cause you had to pay a different set of taxes, and the upkeep of the entitlement and it put more restrictions on what your daughters and second sons could inherit, and they also would have to be even more involved in the politics of it all, and couldn't just sit back and enjoy their magnificent state.
Peers didn't have to pay a different set of taxes; upkeep of entitlement for a peerage was minimal after the initial costs of registering a coast of arms and buying the regalia; a peerage put no restrictions on what your daughters or second sons could inherit - some older titles have requirements that the estate go with the title, but by the nineteenth century there was no need for this to be the case for a new creation, and as generally speaking eldest sons inherited the estate anyway the difference would only arise if a holder of the title other than the first holder died with daughters but no sons (if the first holder died without sons, without a special remainder entitling a daughter to inherit, the title would be extinguished for want of heirs male of the body of the first holder, as only a descendant can be an heir of the body, not a sibling or cousin). They would be expected to become more involved in politics, as they would have had a seat in the House of Lords, but not required to do so. They would have been tried by the House of Lords if they committed a crime rather than by a jury of commoners, though (as you're entitled to be judged by a jury of your peers, and if you're a Peer of the Realm then the other Peers are your peers). That rule was only done away with in the 20th century.
Great video ! Can you do Northangwr Abbey next . Like a bit more on the 'Gothic novels' and ideal and / or popular reading for regency era women and all .
I'm really enjoying your videos, it's a little bit like I'm exploring classical literature in a uni lecture - you have a most excellent name for it too!
"Darcy" definitely sounds like an old family name from the Norman Conquest, since you could associate the etymology for that name to the French name "D'Arcy". Lady Catherine and Lady Anne's maiden names being "Fitzwilliam" also implies they're the legitimized descendants of an illegitimate son of a very high ranking noble - maybe not a King since the name usually used for royal bastards is "Fitzroy", but maybe a brother, cousin or nephew of a King called William.
I wondered about that too when reading the novel! Which introduces another possible way they could have lost a title, which Ellie hasn't mentioned so far in the vid? That's a bill of attainder i.e. being on the wrong side of whichever civil conflict is going on in England at the time - perhaps Stephen & Maud's fight for the crown, for example. You'd be stripped of your family title as a result, and generally any property would've been seized by the crown. However if the estate had instead been bestowed on a cousin who chose the "right" side, or if it was long enough ago & the family had numerous enough subsidiary branches to help them recover their position, they could still have conceivably ended up wealthy again by the Regency era? They wouldn't have necessarily lost any prestige along the way, either, particularly if the political situation later reversed.
Only problem with this... Fitz as a prefix DOESN'T mean bastard. -it means "son of". Henry VIII is the reason any modern person makes this leap in logic because as the literal golden child of his family he was incredibly proud but hidden deep inside, insecure. He didn't want a child not born of his lawful wife to be in the line of succession over his legitimate children. On the other hand, though unwilling to give his son Henry his dynastic name "Tudor" he was also loathe to not claim a healthy son... you know... just in case. So, in order for EVERYONE to know and never mistake the boy's identity as the son of the king of England, he named his son Henry Fitzroy. Fitz being the Norman-French derived word for "son of" and roy being the anglicized French "roi" meaning king. Before and since, the prefix Fitz has remained merely "son of". Henry giving his bastard such an obvious name was his way of laying out a plan B. If Edward had never been born, the king's final will and raiment would have legitimized the Fitzroy son Henry, making him Henry Tudor, aka -King Henry IX. All that to say that Fitzwilliam being a legitimized bastard name is historically not a sound conclusion.
"Fitz" just is Norman for "son of". Yes, it was used for illegitimate sons of kinds, but also it just means "son of William" in Norman French by way of Scotland.
@@thebuttermilkyway687 Gosh! I've never heard it explained as anything except a patronymic prefix indicating illegitimacy, so from one linguistic enthusiast to another: that is really interesting to hear, thank you! 🙂
Hey Ellie, I heard there was a thing called ‘going into abeyance’, where a title could be ‘put on the shelf’, as it were- to later be given to a grandson, or even a great-grandson, but I don’t know if that could always happen - I would have thought that there would be more effort to preserve noble heritage- I mean, I get that the entails had a purpose of preserving an estate, but there does not seem to be the same level of consideration for titles I’m also curious about ‘co-heiresses’/ ‘co-heirs’, & what had to happen for them...?
Abeyance and co-heiresses were part of the traditional Norman way of doing things. By the late middle ages new titles were all being created with documentation that overrode these rules (generally by excluding women altogether), so by the 1800s they only applied to the very oldest titles. If the holder of one of these titles died without a son the title could be passed on to a female heir, but there was no rule saying that the eldest daughter took precedence over her younger siblings. If there was more than one daughter then they would all have equal claim to the title, which would temporarily cease to exist. The title would only re-appear once only one sister had any living descendants. So a title with two co-heiresses might stay in abeyance for just a couple of years if one sister dies soon after, or if both sisters have descendants then it could disappear for centuries.
It's so refreshing to read about this era from someone living at that time and in the social circles too... as much as I enjoy the Bridgerton series is very unrealistic that all those lords and ladies were marrying each other out of love. Jane didn't do that and I'm now appreciating this perspective
I suspect the Darcy family preferred to remain untitled. Antiquity of the name mattered as did number of years holding an estate. Getting/buying a seat in the House of Commons was very very expensive. Plus, Mr Darcy was not sociable except with a few people. He would have hated the schmoozing and networking at court or with the government to get even a knighthood. Buying a baronetcy was also expensive.
A middle class girl marrying into the aristocracy isn’t a very good plot and wouldn’t be a well received book in Miss Austen’s day. These are fictional characters, and their social equality drives the plot. This is a new idea - both the French and American Revolutions have shaken the world hard. P&P reflects a changing social order in the wake of political revolution and the beginning of industrial Revolution.
Jane Austen has sometimes been criticised for not reflecting or even mentioning the upheavals of the time. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars for example. We know she had a connection with the Royal Navy.
I really enjoyed this analysis. Note also that the surname "Darcy" is derived from a Norman name, "D'Arcy," which itself may have denoted Norman nobility of some degree. Seems as though Miss Austen left us a clue or at least a soupcon of past nobility whose title (as suggested in the video) may have died out although the surname persisted.
Hello, just wanted to say sy i just found your channel this week and have been bingeing all your videos (i’m even pacing myself to make them last longer hahaha). Love your vids!
I found it fascinating in a book by C S Lewis where he discusses the usage of the word gentleman. It meant they had land or other means. It was in effect a title, which he illustrated by saying you could call someone a gentleman and a scoundrel. The word slowly became merely a synonym for a good man, so we no longer understand the actual original meaning.
4:34 A remainder is "a property interest that becomes effective in possession only when a prior interest (created at the same time) ends". It comes from Latin "remanere", which means "to stay behind" (after someone has departed), which naturally lends itself to talk of inheritance.
I am an expert on exactly this subject and very respected and important and therefore I can confirm that to become a Lord historically required liking all Ellie Dashwood videos.
Agree & also think it tells us a bit about the Darcy family’s priorities. Like the housekeeper says, Mr Darcy (& his father before him) is the best landlord & best master. That is where he puts his attention, doing the work of running the estate. If he were spending his time sucking up to the right people to get to be a lord, he wouldn’t be the character of integrity that Lizzie falls for.
It's also possible that some people consider their family name to be so great that a title would not enhance it. Also, it wasn't only very wealthy people who changed names on marriage. I had an ancestor called Mr Dodge, who married a Miss Noquet from a silkweaving family. The name had such cachet that Mr Dodge changed his name to Noquet.
England is a bit unusual as being one of the only countries where Nobility was not a general legal social class but instead restricted only to direct holders of patents where even your children were legally commoners. Pretty much everywhere else like France, nobility was a general class, that all descendants belonged to regardless of if they possessed any specific patent. This ironically had the effect of making nobility or attaining title less important socially; because their was only like 1000 or so titles, the overwhelming majority of the 10K-20K "gentry" could never be nobles. Most people usually think of the french system though.
I really enjoyed listening to the various plausible explanations you discussed for Mr Darcy not having a title. Another reason may be due to the fact that the untitled landed gentry in the UK did not have a sort of differentiating particle in front of their surnames, unlike their counterparts on the European mainland. If Mr Darcy had been French, for example, he would probably have been Monsieur de Darcy. In a German context, he would have been Herr von Darcy ( but no actual further title in each case). Although Jane Austen doesn't mention it and Mr Darcy would not have referred to it and taken it for granted as part of owning his estate, Mr Darcy presumably had the feudal title Lord of the Manor of .....(maybe not Pemberley, but the name of the village or local district historically connected with his estate). And perhaps, if French, before the French Revolution, the title Seigneur de....
So interesting about the whole 'titles dying out' thing. That never occurred to me in regards to P&P, even though it should have been on my radar, having watched Downtown Abbey at least 3 times. But yes...between high child mortality, the possibility for men to die in combat or from random injuries and, of course, the whole 'only male heirs can inherit' (mostly) thingy...it's certainly a valid theory. Or maybe one of his male ancestors was simply the younger son of a nobel family? If the title always goes to the eldest male heir, wouldn't you get lots of lineages descended from younger sons, who don't hold titles? Although I guess, Lady Catherine would have pointed it out, if there was nobility on Darcy's father's lineage in more recent times. And there would have had to be a noble family with the surname 'Darcy' somewhere then, no matter how distantly related. In any case...considering how important these issues were in these stories, I'm surprised, it isn't adressed in some way. It's so much fun, digging deeper into all these layers of what one initially reads as a 'fun romance novel' as a teen, isn't it?
Hi! Question for you: Does Sir Lucas outrank Darcy in title, despite being in a much lower economic bracket? The Bingley sisters balk at the idea of ever needing him to social climb, since economic standing was a more relevant factor, but does he technically outrank both Darcy and the Bingleys? Thanks for the enjoyable videos!
Possibly. Sir William (not Sir Lucas!) as a knight or baronet wasn’t true nobility, and I seem to remember that Mrs Bennet, as gentry, outranked Lady Lucas. If so, Mr Darcy would also outrank her. I THINK she’d outrank Mr Bingley, not gentry, but I’m not sure she’d insist, because of his fortune.
Oh totally agree, if they have to be together in the end of the story, a title would make it unreal. If we think in a perspective, if Mr Darcy was already a Lord, maybe he even would not have this personality and would never fall for Lizzie, because he would be so important, that he could be possibly be as Lady Catherine, thinking he is the World's owner. Probably Jane Austen wanted to keep her characters more realistic. In fact, if we see the other characters, Edward in Mansfield is not goig to be a Baronet, his brother is going, right? That way, the couples sounds very realistic, without putting their personalities in risk. Idk, maybe Jane thought that being Lords and Ladys were not what she wanted for her main characters, once this could refrain their liberty of action and destroy the poor girl -rich man relationship.
One of my ancestors received a title for raising and paying for a regiment during the Boer War. He was a wealthy merchant who had purchased a country estate and who was socially active with the wealthy and ennobled. (His father and grandfather had made the lion's share of the family's money and the son who received the title had gone to some of the better schools.)
I was looking at the peerages that were created around this time to see what a potential path to nobility would look like and found an interesting quote about Baron Delamere by one of his descendants. "[The 1st Baron Delamere] was an idiot who decided it would be impressive to have a peerage. He thought he had a bargain when he paid 5,000 for it. The only problem was that the going rate was 1,200." He had previously served 16 years in the House of Commons without doing much of note and, like Mr Darcy, was the relative of an Earl.
I think Mr. Darcy not having a title is SUCH good and subtle characterization. Austen definitely did it on purpose, and not only because as an author she was not interested in writing about Lords, but because by having Mr. Darcy be untitled, it tells us SO MUCH about his character, who he is as a person and what he truly values, without us even realizing it at first. The more you read about Mr. Darcy, about his riches, his connections, his social status, the more you realize how EASILY he could obtain a title if he wanted to. The thing is, he doesn't want to. And that's it. He doesn't have a title because he's not the type of person to be interested in such a thing. As a person, he does not like to dwell on the past. That's why he avoids talking about Wickham and Georgiana, not only to spare her the shame, but also (in my opinion) because he thinks that what is done is done, and there's no reason to keep thinking about it and despair or feel shame over it. Lizzy hated his pride and conceit? Let's strive to do better in the future, even if he might never see Lizzy again. His family had a title in the past and lost it? So be it. There's no reason to cling to a title, to an idea of grandeur, when he already lives a rich life and has the means to take care of the people he loves. At the end of the day, Darcy cares about his family and friends more than he cares about anything else. What is a title going to add to his life? Only anxiety/pressure at the prospect of not producing a male heir and his family losing the title again. Not worth it. The more I think about it, the more I find his friendship with the Bingley sisters improbable 😂 I'm convinced that Louisa just married the first Mister that came her way, a gentleman in name only ("a man of more fashion than fortune") with a property in Grosvenor Square. Mrs. Hurst took one for the team and got their foot in the social sphere that the sisters had always aspired to be part of. Now all that's left to do is for Bingley to become a landowner and for Caroline to marry well. Even their protectiveness of Mr. Bingley manifests in such different ways, because it's born from such different places. The sisters want Bingley to settle and marry well to establish themselves among the landed gentry even more. Meanwhile Darcy is truly concerned about Bingley's heart being played with. Darcy tries to keep Bingley safe from women like his sisters. If Mr. Darcy doesn't like to dwell on the past, the Bingley sisters straight up repudiate their own, even making fun of Elizabeth's uncle for living in Cheapside aka the financial and TRADING centre of London... when their own fortune comes from their late father's trading ventures. If Caroline had managed to marry Darcy, I think she would have definitely pressured him into obtaining a title. Maybe not immediately, but definitely in the future. Especially after meeting Lady Catherine (who would've hated her even more than she hates Lizzy, as Caroline isn't even the daughter of a gentleman). Mr. Darcy not having a title despite being in a situation where he could easily obtain one is * chef's kiss * subtle characterization.
There's a couple things I have noticed in modern life. First is that there are two kinds of social status, one based on family history and one based on money. These two don't always go hand in hand. Secondly, Americans are crazier about titles than the British are. We don't have lords so meeting one is a big deal. It's much more common having people with titles living in normal neighborhoods in the UK. Titles are just that. In the US nearly all men are called Mr because we don't have much else to choose from. In the UK there's several more options. I've had British friends that thought the American excitement over meeting a Lord or someone with Sir in front of their name was hilarious. Therefore, I think the real reason Darcy is not a Lord is because Jane Austen didn't think it added anything to the story. It might not have even entered her mind to make him a Lord because what is important to the plot is his money.
@@EllieDashwood today's video reminded me of a conversation I had back in the 90's. A man moved here from Canada but his accent was British. Someone said, "Do you know he's a lord?" Sounded farfetched so I asked him and he was. He told me about the village he grew up in. He lived in one house and Sir Such-n-such lived right down the street. Anytime American tourists showed up somebody would point out the lord or the knight and they would take off after him. It got to be a village prank. One day at the market someone said, "So you're the Lord now?" Some Americans got excited and congratulated him. The speaker continued, "I'm sorry about your father," who of course had just died. The poor knight was a retired farmer who had invented some kind of farming thing that Queen Elizabeth had liked and she decided to give him an OBE. He accepted because he didn't want to be rude. It blew my mind that people can decline an OBE or even want to. The lord laughed and said that it's not as great as it sounds.
I am most likely an older subscriber and admirer of yours. I have been reading Jane Austin and re-reading, but just for pleasure. Why I never questioned the title was the simple but maybe mistaken assumption that he was the product of a second son. The younger brother's descendants were very successful.
" it would seem that his father did not serve in Parliament, the military, or the law. For this reason he was never in a position to be recognized for service to his King or country, was not elevated to the peerage, and had no title to pass on to his son."
Darcy signs his name FitzWilliam Darcy, Esq. The "esquire" indicates he is decended from nobility through the male line, although he still would have been called Mister. Justices of the peace are also entitled to put "Esq." after their names, but in their cases it is followed by the initials J.P.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If getting a title requires social networking then Darcy's definitely not doing it
I was thinking that! When Ellie said "he could go run for parliament and do a lot of kissing-up etc." I thought "oh Darcy is *way* too socially awkward for that!
After all, he "has not the talent for conversing easily with people he has never met before" (slightly paraphrased there)
Where's the "😹😹😹" button?! I'm dying over here. But it's so true.
Literally, he could buy one. And I’m not even exaggerating. Baronetcies were invented to be bought. They weren’t and aren’t peerages, but they are a title, and they are hereditary. Man’s just has to drop a little bit of cash 🤣
@samantha ssmith Sort of, they did that in the German nobility 25 years before they ever gained the Trig Park baronetcy
agree🤣
I find it hilarious that the original novel makes it very clear that Darcy has no title and neither he, nor Elizabeth, are terribly preoccupied with titles, while half of the P&P fanfics out there give Darcy three dukedoms and make Elizabeth the secret heiress of another three.
Does those fics exist? I have never seen one
Ecuadorian Chocolate 🍫🍫 they do! Hit over the Jane Austen Fanfiction Index and see just how big of the “The-Bennets-Are-Secretly-Nobility” fics there are! Not sure about Darcy being titled though but it probably does exist.
That is hilarious. Though, must admit, I love the idea of Elizabeth going up to Lady Catherine and waving the title that she inherited in her own right in Lady C's face. Not going to worry about logistics where Elizabeth inherited before Jane, either. Or that Mr. Collins should have inherited any title through the dad.
I've read some of those... And you have too! But, did you like them? Would you read one where he's an Earl? I found out that there was an Earldom till mid 1700s where the family was named Darcy. It was cut cause the two sons died as babies. The only one to survive was a girl, and she married a future Duke. Divorced him, married again, and guess to whom? To Lord Byron's future dad. Once that Lady dies, he marries again and ta-da! Lord Byron...
I find it hilarious that Americans think that the Bennetts are poor.
Mr Bennett has an annual income of £2,000.
Colonel Brandon’s annual income in Sense and Sensibility is also £2,000, and he is considered a fine catch. At the time, an income of £250 a year was the average for a person in the professional class (middle class): doctor, bank manager, lawyer etc... The Bennetts were rich landed gentry.
In Jane Austen’s time, about £1,000 a year was enough for a family to afford “three female servants, a coachman and footman, a chariot or coach, phaeton or other four-wheeled carriage, and a pair of horses” (Nottingham). The cause of the Bennets’ financial difficulties is lack of a male heir. They will lose their income when Mr. Bennet dies, and in addition, Mr. Bennet lacks savings: “Mr. Bennet had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum, for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him” . The Bennets are not poor: poor money management has left the daughters without dowries.
They are of the same social class as Darcy. They just don't have as much money.
I think it is a great point that Darcy and Elizabeth are social equals. Jane Austen is not writing about women yearning for a prince to raise them up in society. She is writing about women of character whose own worth cannot be measured merely by their titles or income.
Yes. Absolutely. A rare point of view unfortunately.
@@belindamay8063 Elisabeth AND Austen were praised for this by critics.
its funny how we root for 1 percenters and their idiocy... Austen could have put in some rags to riches people
Also isn't the entire story about austen and her dalliance with a judge and the bachelor duke of devonshire
@@khalraesh3176 It would have been boring. This story showed the aristocracy fighting each other, scandals, nobles about to lose all and a heroine clawing her way up. Amusing enough for those of the lower 99 percenters who could read.
Jane Austen was noted for writing only about the kind of people she knew. Her contact with the nobility was limited, so she didn't write about them. Also, of course, unlike most modern writers of Regency stories (mostly American), she knew that Dukes and Earls were not to be found around every corner.
Her brother Edward Knight married a baronet's daughter. Her Leigh mother was related to the dukes of Chandos and the future lords Leigh.
In the neighborhood of Chawton, the Wallop earls of Portsmouth lived nearby. Some other peers as well. But the Austen family socialized with the gentry and clergy families.
Rev George Austen got his living through his uncle Francis Austen. The local squire was Thomas Knight (II) who fostered, then adopted, his third son Edward.
I found out recently that Rev George Austen and Cassandra (parents) married on 200 pounds a year plus income from the glebe (farmland attached to the living). This wasn't enough for a growing family so George and Cassandra took in boy pupils to prepare for school or college.
This 200 pounds per annum is what income Edward Ferrars is promised at Delaford (Sense & Sensibility) when food prices were higher some decades later. He also gets ten thousand pounds from his mother eventually, and Elinor's one thousand pounds when they marry. So about 400-500 pounds more annually. But at their marriage they have about 350 pounds annually.
In my opinion, the critical factor is making readers imagine the story could happen to them ( or their children). There were many gentle people, and many who aspired to being gentle, but peerage did not make a profitable audience.
@@TomLeg, also she was writing a story that was believable - it would have been unbelievable for a peer of the realm to marry someone of Elizabeth's social standing.
She was the same social standing as Darcy, although the families were unequal in wealth - he was a gentleman and she was a gentleman's daughter.
@@gillianrimmer7733 agreed
Austen skewered the aristocracy in her portrayal of Lady Catherine, she didn't exalt them.
There's a great irony in Mr. Darcy not having a title for the same reason that the Bennetts are in their predicament in the first place- the inability to produce a male heir.
My hypothesis is that industrialization - meaning smog - caused XY chromosomes to be suppressed, suggesting that, at least in the UK, women are the future.
I think there must be a male heir to the title. I believe Colonel Fitzwilliam is supposed to be the younger son of the present earl (who would be the brother of Lady Catherine and Darcy's mother, hence Mr. Darcy's uncle.) Jane Austen just wasn't interested in writing about the nobility. As the daughter of a vicar she knew the gentry well, and was following the excellent rule of "write what you know."
I think it’s just as likely because there were too many males produced. Depending on the family and the entailments usually the titles all went to the oldest son. The younger sons of peerages would have courtesy titles like Lady Catherine did but everyone after them was untitled, and if the family was wealthy enough, they might have unentailed lands given to them. It’s very possible that a few generations ago he is descended from a 2nd or 3rd son of a lord and they were given the lands of Pemberly for their living because the family had so much that they could afford that without beggaring the title.
@@marthawolfsen5809 That wouldn’t be the Darcy line though. Fitzwilliam is related to Darcy via the maternal side. Darcy’s name comes from his fathers side.
But did Darcy have an entailment on his estate? 🤔
The first thing is, I think, if Darcy was a lord, marriage with Lizzie'd be even more inappropriate, she'd be even more below him.
Yes I think Austen liked the irony of Darcy not being so above Elisabeth in social class as he makes it out to be during the first proposal ("so decidedly beneath my own"). Him being best friends with a son of a tradesman (!) strengthens this irony further. And if he were titled, Elisabeth would not have been able to retort to Lady Catherine about being equal ("and I am a gentleman's daughter"), which I also feel was signifcant, since it shows Elisabeth is not so different from Darcy, she shares some of his pride and they would be a good match. Jane would not have been so defiant and she is a better match with pliable Bingley.
It would definitely mess more with their dynamics for sure!
@@EllieDashwood I love that it's a bit of a putdown of Lady Catherine's delusions of grandeur.
It’s funny when you consider that someone who might be snobbish about “status” like Lady Catherine in the scene which she confronts Elizabeth...declares that her daughter and Darcy were intended for each other...but he is only a “Gentleman”. So it’s actually a downward marriage for her daughter in that regard. Not that I think she was as hypocritical or snobbish as the Bingley sisters.
@@thijssiebeling5165 that's a very good point!
An option you didn’t mention: The Darcy and de Bourgh families could be descended from Normans who came over with William the Conqueror (hence the ancient lineages). In all those centuries the Darcys could have gotten on a king’s wrong side, especially if they took opposite sides from Charles I, Charles II or Henry VIII. They could have lost both a title and the right to build a castle.
that's how I always understood it,, especially since the etymology of Darcy is d'Arcy, from Arcy in France.
@@dochka This. Isn't it mentioned in the novel, that he has an "old Normandic name"? I can't check, don't currently have it at hand
That literally did happen. One of the Darcy Lords lost his head and the family lost the title.
Either that, or his line could have been from several generations of younger sons, some of whom did end up getting some money.
@@DizzyBusy No, but Miss Austen's readers would definitely have understood the name "Darcy" as most likely hinting at Norman lordly origins from "D'Arcy". Not only that, but his first name is Fitzwilliam, which is also Norman French by way of Scottish connections ("Fitz" was from "fils," meaning "son of"). He's one of these "first name is a family surname" fellows, where they want to keep a family name, usually from the maternal line, going in some form, or they want to link to the mother's line, so they name a son with the surname as a first name.
I agree with everything you say. Whether they had a title in the past and it died out or not, Mr. Darcy has too much Proper Pride to maneuver for a title. Remember, even Sir Walter Elliot, the biggest snob in Austen, admits there are some plain Mr.'s whose names do not require explanation. Mr. Darcy considers himself one of these.
Good point!
Oh, Sir Walter Eliot...definitely the biggest snob in Jane Austen. But have you seen Dr Octavia Cox's dissection of Sir Walter?
ruclips.net/video/dQpVqNyrsBI/видео.html
If Sir Walter wasn't fictional, he'd be going to the burn unit...and most of the burn is 100% Jane Austen
@@Hugin-N-Munin I love Dr. Cox's videos! It's like being back in a graduate seminar at UCLA! I love her close readings and interpretations. I agree, she uses Austen's own text to skewer Sir Walter completely.
I think that she is missing out on the chance that they are untitled as they are descended from a second son a few generations back. Those second and third sons would also have untitled children like Lady Catherine did. It’s absolutely conceivable that THAT line could eventually
Just like Mr. Collins is inheriting the Bennet estate as a distant cousin. It’s very possible that Darcy could inherit from the titled wing of the Darcy family of their male line dies out.
@@sallycinnamon5370 I looked up the real Darcy family, and they did have a title, a Barony, Lord Darcy of Aston, but it became extinct in 1635. Probably Mr. Darcy could get it revived for him if he were willing to spend the money, but I doubt he's that interested.
I think Jane Austen wasn't interested in writing about the nobility is one factor in my opinion. Also, If Darcy was a lord and Lizzie was simply a gentleman's daughter, it would come off as 19th century version of a "bodice ripper" and therefore scandalous, and Jane wanted to be taken seriously as a writer.
There is Darcy family in real life. The title of "baron Darcy de Knyath" goes back to that family. You might want to look up Lady Amelia Osborne née Darcy. Her biography is some pretty spicy stuff and would have been all over the news. Pride and Prejudice was written a couple of decades later, but even so the name "Darcy" would have come with associations to her audience; a present day equivalent would be someone writing a novel about scandalous love affairs in the upper crust featuring a character by the name of "Al Fayed".
Good point
I think that is very true. She is writes romance…not ridiculous wish fulfillment.
It’s conceivable that a country gentleman’s daughter, with wit and intelligence and beauty, could win over a wealthier gentleman than her father if they came to stay in their town. But to think that they would woo the heir to a title and fortune is much less believable.
@@MrAranton When I looked up the Darcy family I found Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy of Darcy (1467-1537) and his descendants. The title had its ups and downs and finally became extinct for lack of male issue in 1635
😄😄😄 bodice ripper!!!
There is a group of aristocrats in the UK who don't have titles. They are called "The Landed Gentry". That's because their wealth & status derives from all the lands they own. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall's family & Sarah, Duchess of York's family come from this group. Some of these families have owned the same estates since they were entered in The Domesday Book in 1086 as a survey for William the Conqueror.
It's interesting looking back at the Regency era, because we know how much less valuable a noble title would have been by the time Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth's kids had grown up in industrial England. We're hitting the time when wealth began mattering a lot more than bloodline and those with money and intelligence could make a LOT more money than those with merely a title.
But I think, also, that Mr. Darcy is not a lord precisely because Austin wanted him to be "above" Elizabeth, but still "attainable". If he had been a peer, his marrying Elizabeth would have been as great a scandal as the youngest daughter of a nobody, country English gentleman running away with an army officer. His position as a _very_ rich gentleman with connections to the nobility makes the social distance between them an obstacle to overcome (as he explains when he first proposes to Elizabeth) but not an insurmountable one. Her audience would not have bought the possibility of their romance and marriage (nor, very likely approved of it) if he had been titled. (Literally, they wouldn't have bought the book, and Austin would be a virtual unknown today.) And, though Miss Austen seems to not mind poking at the way English's law and custom overlooked daughters, she doesn't seem to have been nearly so willing to poke at the idea of aristocracy.
Well, even nowadays some people are ready for big scandal, lies and trashing relatives to keep thier titles.
This explanation makes sense
There is also Attainder- where a family holds a noble title. Then they back the wrong king on the wrong side - say during / after in the War of the Roses - one could lose that title, basically the new king that replaced the previous one can say "you had a title, but instead of chopping off your head as a traitor, I am just taking it away from you and never letting you have it again."
I like the idea that the family didn't go in for bribes as a set up for his innate nobility, and why Wickham's extortions were as tough for them to deal with as they were...
That’s such a good point about their nobility and Wickham’s extortion!
It juxtaposes nicely against Caroline Bingley, also.
Why would he be a Lord? There’s no need for it in the story. He’s wealthier than the Bennet’s but still the same social class as them. Elizabeth moving from poorer gentry to having the title Lady would probably have been viewed negatively in the regency era as it would have been viewed as moving above her station and social climbing. Making a good marriage where the heroine gains financial stability, a respectable place in society and hopefully a loving husband is the aim in Austen’s novels as that was a young woman’s main concern if she wasn’t independently wealthy. Having a title was no guarantee of financial stability or being respectable. It’s only in the modern era of historical romance fiction that this obsession with titles seems to come in and a lot of it from American authors. Gaelen Foley and Amanda Quick are obsessed with titles- every male protagonist must be a sir, lord, earl or duke. The majority of the main characters seem to have a title of some sort. I think it must come from the perceived mystique of aristocracy as they don’t have titles in America and wanting to give every story a cinderella look where the poorer upper middle class or upper class girl gains the heart of an aristocrat and becomes a lady/countess/duchess by the end of the book. That’s a fairytale type story whereas Jane Austen was writing a more realistic, contemporary fiction about relationships within her strata of society.
People don't talk much about the "landed gentry" anymore, but to this day there are families who fit the description. They probably no longer live off the income of their lands, but I've read that if the family's last name is the same as the village they live in, that's a dead giveaway that their ancestors have been the gentry landowners for generations. Such families still exist.
There is a man that owns an entire village in Devon, right on the coast. His family has owned it for centuries. All the residents of the town rent their houses/shops with no option to buy. He would definitely be considered part of the modern landed gentry.
@@chelseareeder4079 You're talking about Clovelly, aren't you? A really neat place to visit.
Probably Jane Austen just did not want to write about a titled man. That said, having a lost family title could be an interesting backstory.
That’s the story of my family. The Slingsby family was a baronetcy in York until there was one generation without a male heir. And the family home, Scriven Hall burned down. That didn’t help apparently 😂 I guess they didn’t have home & contents insurance back then?
Winston's grandfather was the 7th Duke of Marlborough. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a second son.
Winston was a commoner, and a member of the House of Commons. He was offered a peerage, but declined.
Could it be that Mr. Darcy was a descendant from a younger son? Meaning he would have the ancient respectable name without the title?
Totally, although usually the elder son got all the money with the title, that's why second sons like colonel fitzwilliam were sent the get a profession like the military or the clergy and weren't so free in their choice of wives as he makes very clear to Elizabeth.
That is such a good point! In fact, it was on my list of possible reasons but it just didn’t make it into the video. 👍🏻
@@dewrock2622 This doesn't preclude the second son from being wealthy and growing in wealth. Darcy is a French name, suggesting he's descended from the Norman Conquest. If that second son branched off in 1400, 400 years later it's perfectly feasible that the branch grew independently wealthy. Example, the Howards. You have the main branch, the Dukes of Norfolk. Then you have cadet branches in Suffolk, Penrith, Effingham, and Carlisle.
The only thing that makes me think otherwise is the amount of land he has, if it were like Mr Knightley that would be reasonable. Half of Derbyshire though seems like a medieval fiefdom. That much land suggests it was managed on behalf of the King and that comes with a title.
Bear in mind a younger son in the navy could make a fortune in prize money.
He could also be a descendant of a younger son who married a rich heiress
I played an online game once called "Hundred Years War" where, along side military campaigns, the main thing was to have children to keep your family going, along with your title. In the game, it was extremely hard to do. That was the time of the Black Plague as well as the war so people died. It also was very common for a couple to be barren or to produce only daughters. At least half the time I played it, my line died out.
I got to appreciate the problem that Henry VIII had. :)
and Henry Tudor NEEDED a son to hold up the Tudors stolen throne. legitimizing regicide if you will.
Crusader Kings is another game that focuses on passing titles and having an heir!
I feel like Darcy not having a title is part of what defines him and the story being told. Much revolves around Elizabeth and him looking down their respective noses at each other snarkily from their respective societal niches, then abruptly feeling unworthy of eachother by turns, based on behavior and growing understanding of one another. They start off different enough social circles that it's easy enough for them to judge one another, without a title into the mix, but both turn out to be focused on themselves and their families leading secure, happy, wealthy lives, rather than in trivial attempts to increase their outside societal status or impress others.
We can compare that altruistic focus on maintaining reasonable life stability to Lidia and Kitty who pursue Wickham and the officers purely for selfishness and self-importance, endangering the Bennett family reputation disastrously, or to Wickham, Lady Cathern and Mr. Collins, each of whom use others as means for social climbing and wealth accumulation.
The person who cares most about the value of title in this book is either Lady Cathern or Mr. Collin's ,and both, while their shallow singular focus on wielding social correctness is mercilessly made mock of, can be dangerously manipulative and easy to manipulate. Neither Elizabeth nor Mr. Darcy enjoy this kind of social rat race, and, given how they fumble communication, first impression and such with eachother, neither would do very well at it. Indeed, My Darcy is willing to help uplift people less socially enabled than himself which is why he previously fell prey to Wickham and also why he was willing to support Elizabeth and her family when Wickham threatened to ruin their family reputation irrepairably; these choices aren't radical, but they do privilege judgement of the welfare and general human merit of others over their usefulness for one's own self-advancement.
Does Mr Darcy have no title because Jane Austin didn't want to" jump the shark"? Would it have been to much of a stretch for readers of the time to accept that a girl with no dowry could marry the most eligible Lord in the land but could marry a kind awkward wealthy man?
The Mills and Boon Cinderella romance was not the norm of that era and eras past and would make Jane Austen a romance novelist the likes of Barbara Cartland. Jane Austen most probably wanted to be taken seriously as an author.
Elizabeth had social status being part of the gentry but did not have enough dowry to attract men of status like Darcy (and he was actually a catch and not an awkward man since he was used to the London scene), but at least being part of the gentry, her marriage to Darcy would be socially acceptable during that time since despite his noble lineage, Darcy would be relegated to the upper ranks of the gentry; therefore, still from the gentry class (so no eyebrows would be raised) . And daughters of wealthy tradesmen could marry into the gentry because of their financial status. So Miss Bingley could marry Darcy as well. This social structure was explained well by Dr. Octavia Cox using historical data.
However, it was not that easy to penetrate the nobility and only later on did cash-poor titled heirs of large estates married rich American heiresses to maintain their estates as depicted in novels by Edith Wharton and the series Downton Abbey.
@Jonathan Parks Yes, I thought that Wharton's novels dealt with American, specifically New York high society. Surely the snobbery and insulated nature of "The Four Hundred" was equally difficult to break into, but there was no real nobility or noble titles or entailments - which are real, legal entities. Two separate ponds of exclusive fish.
@Jonathan Parks The Buccaneers directly depicted it. Others indirectly hinted at it. That is why in Age of Innocence you have the character Countess Ellen Olenska because it was not only the British aristocracy who married rich American heiresses but also other European aristocrats.
@Jonathan Parks Look, I mentioned the Buccaneers as the one directly dealing with the cash poor British aristocracy marrying rich American heiresses. Olenska came from high society so she couldn't be poor, and of course her dowry was already given to her husband as part of the deal (marriage). She was threatened that she would get nothing (so that meant she had something) if she would not reconcile with her husband because of the scandal of divorce(frowned upon at that time). Anyone from rich families could be disinherited. Heirs and heiresses inherit money and the ones holding the purse strings will be their living parents or another living relative who holds the money in trust (just like what is happening to Prince Harry's inheritance, except the one he got from Diana). So just read the Buccaneers so you get the idea of how cash-poor British aristocrats tried to save their estate by marrying rich American women, although one of the noblemen in the story was not cash-poor but married an American heiress because he thought she was not like the other girls who was just after his title and money. And there was another cash-poor English nobleman in the same novel who opted to go to South America to raise money to save his family's estate instead of marrying an American heiress. Edith Wharton also wrote short stories showing indirectly this phenomenon of European cash-poor aristocrats becoming part of American high society through marriage, not usually the main characters but portraying American high society as it was during the Gilded Age.
@Jonathan Parks The Buccaneers. Her last novel. She died before she finished it, but she left an outline and it has been finished by other writers.
There were/are many “lords” who didn’t have a pot to peep in. Hence the Golden Age “dollar duchesses”...wildly wealthy American heiresses who married penniless English nobles.
That’s later on for their decendants with inheritance and inventment issues and world changed a great deal so that the land wasn’t as important. Not for the initial title holders, which is what Ellie was talking about.
So Cora from Downton abbey in a nutshell ...
Or married industrialists. Like the binghleys
That came later. The way taxes were levied on inherited lands changed in the later 19th Century, and it caused many families that were 'land rich, cash poor' serious problems. Large estates slowly became uneconomical. Which led to the situation that you are referencing, where the heirs of cash poor aristocratic families began searching for wealthy heiresses to marry.
@@patric4401 It wasn't just taxes. It was because many European aristocrats had squandered their wealth through gambling and other wasteful practices. And industrialization had caused many Americans to become many titled individuals who many owned land. So there was a wealth imbalance in favor of the American daughters of the rich.
The nobility is from his maternal side, and women can’t pass that down.
That's a good point!
Not true - depends on the nature of the title. Some noble women can absolutely pass a title down.
(except in exceptional circumstances)
Yes, there were a few titles, mainly VERY old Scottish (& maybe Irish?) baronies, that could pass to a daughter before a cousin/nephew.
I remember a YT post mentioning one of the (Plantagenet-era?) men who was ennobled & had only a daughter, so he had the paperwork specifically written so that she (or her son) could inherit the title.
Great video. Sometimes the algorithm sends you very good surprises.
Pretty much agree with what I've seen in the comments: Elizabeth would've been too junior to Darcy if he was a lord- and the reading public would have not believed the fiction.
Also, someone like Darcy (in history) might have completely disregarded Elizabeth if the class gap was wider.
Thanks for your amazing content. One of the likely reasons for the lack of a title is that Mr Darcey was descended from a younger son of a title holder, while the title passed down through the senior line. Example - Winston Churchill had no title. His father, ‘Lord’ Randolph Churchill, had the ‘courtesy title’ of ‘Lord (first name) Churchill’, being a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough. He could not pass this on - hence plain Mr Winston Churchill, until he was knighted to become Sir Winston. Interestingly he was offered the title of Duke of London by King George VI after WW2, but declined as he wished to remain in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, the title of Duke of Marlborough descended to the elder brother, of Lord Randolph, and his descendants. Theoretically, if there was a big die-off of the senior line of the Churchill family, Winston’s male descendants - though not his descendants through his daughters, could become the Dukes of Marlborough. But if the seniors remain alive, they will simply be - “Mr Churchill”. Probably similar to Mr Darcey.
But if he was descended from a younger son, their family estate would have also gone to the older son along with the title. I think it's safe to assume Darcy is the senior male line at least dating back to the original estate owner.
@@Tasha9315 Fair point!
@@Tasha9315Great familys had more than one estate, not all land was entitled, as Elli explained. Second sons often married heiresses, either because there was no fidei commis or they were of trade background...If this happened some generations before, the estate would be considered the Darcy familys estate.
@@juliar1225 True, Darcy could have been descended from a younger son of a nobility who married a woman with an estate or inherited one of the family's multiple estates. But I personally feel like if that were the case, Jane Austen would have brought it up in the book or made Lady Catherine bring it up. But that's just what I assume. You could be right.
@@Tasha9315 Not necessarily. The mother's property was not tied to the title property and often got divided among children. Not all the father's property was tied to the title either. Also as in Winston Churchill's example, his father, the younger son of the duke, married a very wealthy heiress and so Winston Churchill inherited great wealth w/o any title to his name.
There's another possibility: In the English peerage titles are not given to families but to individuals. If I were a lord, I could pass the lordship on to my oldest son. Any younger sons would be given courtesy titles, but they would not be considered members of the peerage. And the sons of my junior sons would be commoners and not be given courtesy titles either. If Mr Darcy's great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was a business savvy junior son of a lord, he could used his inheritance/appange to lay the groundwork for his not-counting-the-greats-son's fabulous wealth without being able to pass down a title.
There was a Darcy family in real life. Members of that family held titles for six centuries. Norman D'Arcy - the first member of the family on record - would have plenty of living descendents in Jane Austen's time (and event today) that still have the Darcy name but would have been too removed from the Earldom of Holderness to inherit that title, when Robert Darcy died without a son in 1778.
It would have been really interesting if Elizabeth had met the current Earl. We know Lady Anne and Catherine must have had a brother who was the father of Colonel Fitzwilliam, who may or may not be still alive. Darcy had the same first name as his maternal cousin's last name. Suggesting that he was named after his mothers maiden name. But Colonel Fitzwilliam is a second son because he has little fortune so he must have an older brother who will inherit that Earldom.
In fact I really like how Pride and Prejudice has a story within a story because a lot of things happen in the story that we only hear about after they've happened.
Ultimately, as Darcy's wife you'd have to assume she would. Earl ___ has less motivation to be snobbish about his Nephew's wife than Lady Catherine as he had no ambitions to marry him to his daughter.
I'm so glad I found this channel. Your comment section is my tribe! Thank you.
Aw! I’m so glad you found my channel too!!! 💕 Welcome to our community. 😃
Jane... Austen?
Honestly, I'm just glad we don't live in the alternate timeline where everyone calls Mr. Darcy "Fitzwilliam." ^.^ I think making Mr. Darcy a lord would complicate what Miss Austen was doing with the Bingleys as a respectable old family whose wealth was acquired by trade (a fact Mr. Bingley's sisters are quite eager to forget). This story plays very heavily on the difference between material wealth and social respectability, and in some ways she relies on the proximity of mercantile and landed wealth to say what she wishes to say about the importance of personal characteristics and good breeding. If they are of equal formal standing, then any judgment against Elizabeth and her family is either grounded in their behavior or their money. If Darcy were a lord, that line would be muddled. Plus, it might have been a step too far to put him in familiar contact with the Bingleys and have anyone still think him proud.
100% in fact 115%
The “ Darcy” lastname oozes of nobility that they doesn’t need the title itself.. 😇😇 Long live the Darcies😎
Wasn't the Fitz prefix often used for illegitimate sons of great families. Sort of an asterix for life? An ancestor could have been the illegitimate son of a noble family.
@@kathrynimhoff344 FItzWilliam means "son of William". The usage sometimes indicated an illegitimate birth in an earlier age, but I'm not sure that was still true by the 18th century.
@@kathrynimhoff344 Fitz is just Norman for "son of" -- was not necessarily used just for illegitimacy.
@@kathrynimhoff344you’re probably thinking of all the FitzClarence royal ba***rad’s who were quite infamous at that time.
I love your videos.
I enjoy the lightness and novelty of your channel, your deep understanding of that era, Jane Austen's motivations for writing, and you've got like an aristocratic vibe, but along the same vein, break character and mention dating apps or other modern tropes.
You're cool. You should have more subscribers.
Aw! You’re too sweet! Thank you!
Another way to get a title: join the Navy (as an officer, of course), amass a fortune by taking enemy prizes (merchant ships preferable, but a good stout warship has its monetary as well as martial value), preferably work your way up to captain or admiral, win a great battle with valor and cunning, be celebrated by the British public, and return home to be peered.
Or to mary Anne Elliot. We can't all be peers, after all.
😂 I like the plan
I think there were at least a few cases where men requested the peerage go to their father or grandfather so they could be the second or third Lord Whoever and make the title look at least a little older, though I'm not sure how often such requests were granted.
Yep you could amass wealth and gain a title by joining the Royal Navy, but you could not generally join the navy as an officer. Children of aristocrats could expect to be promoted, but they still had to pass the lieutenant exam and demonstrate skill. Some might be passed over for promotion and never become captains.
If I recall correctly, _Regency House Party_ had the Naval officer figure purchase a baronetcy, with his matured prize money...
@Jonathan Parks I think you are right about that.
I think having Mr. Darcy be untitled sets up a more equal groundwork. The Landed Gentry being their own sub culture/category, I think it adds more nuance to the matches that they were making and how naturally they mention how much income their estates generated vs their rank in the peerage system.
As we see in Downton abbey, (since you mentioned it) that the titles ended up meaning less when they were marrying newly rich American woman for money, since they had a titles and less income and again after WWI when many of the great houses ended up shutting down because of the expense and the changing world.
I am a descendant of Thomas Lefroy who is famously considered to be the blueprint for Mr Darcy. The reason why he didn't have a title is because he was descended from (relatively recent) Hugenot immigrants from France and he lived in Ireland.
While it’s not a peerage title, a great example of a title dying out is in Pride and Prejudice. Upon Lady Catherine’s death, Anne de Bourgh will inherit her baronet father’s estate but will most likely not become Dame Anne; she will remain plain Miss De Bourgh.
Hadn’t thought about that. Imagine Lady Catherine gone and Anne has to entertain Mr.
Collins at Rosings!
I think a critical point is that Darcy is of an ancient family. From the 1660s there were a lot of families that became ennobled who might not be considered "noble" like the mistresses of Charles II whose desendents were the height of the ton in Jane's time. Also with William of Orange and then the Hanoverian kings you had other upstarts rising in the ranks. Thus being of an ancient family but untitled is a kind of reverse snobbery.
I remember when Diana married Charles it was pointed out that she was more of an aristocrat than he was. He had, in effect, married up.
I always thought it interesting that in Persuasion the Elliots received their baronetcy in the time of Charles II when he probably handed them out like candy to pay off those who supported him but the family hadnt risen in the 150 years since. I always felt this was a kind of dig that Austen's audience of the time would have understood.
Austen seems to have little patience for status conferred solely on the basis of birth.
I think Mr. Darcy was plenty proud and pleased with his status in society and didn't feel any need to kiss butt to get higher. He's wealthy and respected, getting a title wouldn't do much for him.
Very interesting video again! :) I also think Jane Austen chose him not to be a Lord, so that she could better convey to the audience how arrogant and dismissive he was at the beginning. Her audience was the people of her time, who also were used to the class system. If they had read about a Lord behaving that way, they might have been more forgiving, like "oh, he's a Lord, he has the right to be a bit excentric and to look down on others". But when Darcy does it, he's "only" landed gentry, like a part of her readers or their aquaintances. So the audience back then probaby shook their head at his behaviour, because it just didn't fit his role. They would have also known that Darcy and Elisabeth were in the same social class.
Also, maybe the reason why Jane Austen never chose members of the nobility as her protagonists or for her love triangles, is simply that she was worried that the nobility would disapprove. As an unmarried woman, financially dependent on her brother and other family, with some connections to nobility, maybe she needed to tread carefully, if she wanted to sell books and stay in the good books of her aquaintances. Maybe she just didn't want to mess with the wrong people.
I think all of your reasons are very valid and possible!!! But also, Darcy (or D’arcy) sounds like a pretty Norman or Anglo-Norman name which means his ancestors would have come over at the time of William the Conquerer. Hence the reference to “ancient,” and their titles and land grants may also have stemmed from service to the Norman conquest. Rather than more recent ennoblement. In fact, like you said, many more ancient lines died out. Few modern aristocrats can trace their lines back to the Middle Ages. Hell, the royal family is largely German. So from Darcy’s perspective, having an ancient Anglo Norman name and estate could have been more respectable than being “new nobility.” While Pemberley seems modeled on Chatsworth and is often depicted as a Palladian house, we don’t actually know that it’s not partly some ancient Norman keep or castle. And I think some of the distinction of rank was also inflated in later years centuries. For example, Henry VIII literally started using Majesty instead of “your Grace” because of a fragile male ego thing with Charles V visiting. Anywho, people probably thought the Marlboroughs were crass and new titles at one point. So the Darcys not having a peerage may not have been seen as less prestigious until centuries later, and then their pedigree and “ancient” credentials would have stood on their own.
I think as Americans, we often get fixated on an outsiders view of straight hierarchy and rank/precedence without considerations for how Austen’s contemporaries would have honored pedigree and lineage. Darcy would have likely not felt remotely out of place at court (other than his personal dislike of the frippery).
Same as Disney old Norman D'isigny or Tess D'Urberville . Old norman family names are very reconazable by educated people
I just discovered your channel yesterday and I think I could listen to you talk all day! You have such a great voice and you really convey information so smoothly! (also, I liked the video and am eagerly awaiting my earldom, thank you)
Welcome to the channel!!! 😃😃😃 and thank you so much. 😃☺️ I’m sure the Queen is planning your earldom now. 😂
I love seeing how your channel has progressed over the years. Always so informative and interesting, but it feels like you've become so much more relaxed in front of the camera. Thanks for the great content! Please start sharing what you're wearing ect (and be sure to make them affiliate links for yourself, so your viewers can support you!). You are often is such cute and unique outfits 😊
I doubt Darcy would’ve done what was necessary to become a member of the peerage. Social networking definitely does not sound like his style. The only way he could ever obtain it is if he did some important service for the crown, but in that case he probably would just be knighted.
Jane Austen did write about people with titles in persuasion and it showed her real thoughts of them. Lord Elliott is the most pompous creature there is, and his daughters Elizabeth and Mary are so proud and and obnoxious and even lady Russell that is Anne's friend, sins on the sin of pride, when she doesn't see mr. Elliott for who he is and wants Anne to marry him just so she could replace her "dear mother " as lady Elliott...
Her portrayal of Sir Walter in Persuasion is super interesting. And she does have quite a few baronets like Sir Walter Elliot in her novels. But the title of baronet is actually not a title of noble peerage. It’s below that level. I meant that none of her primary characters have titles of peerage.
Lady Russell is of much higher status than Sir Elliott who's just a baronet - hardly a titled man but not noble peer. It's funny that Jane loves to poke at the least 'titled' as most pompous. Lady Russell is a humble nun compared to Sir Elliott and his other daughters.
Julia I believe Lady Russell is the widow of a knight.
@@julijakeit Sir Walter, not Sir Elliot. "Sir" attaches to the first name, not the last name.
@@hyrulesarnian932thank you. I winced several times.
Even my favourite author (a fellow Aussie with whom I’ve established an email friendship) has her knighted charactersbeing referred to as Sir Kemsley instead of Sir Benjamin. By someone who should have known better, if I remember correctly.
Could you do a video about the Gardiners some time? I really love their dynamic but I'd love to learn more about their position in society, how wealthy were they compared to the others etc. There's not much info about them sadly.
@Jonathan Parks Thats something that confuses me. If they are so rich, why does it sound like they live in a bad neighborhood (?) in London? Why do the Bingley sisters look down on then so much? Their own father was in ttade and earned his (and therefore their own) wealth this way. Wouldn't Mr. Gardiner be in more or less the same position as their own father then? And Mr. Bingley hadn't bought land yet and was not part of the landed gentry. But he was rich and therefore everyone acted like he was. Why wouldn't that apply (even if maybe to a bit lesser extend, since he was still working) to Mr. Gardiner if he was richer than Mr. Bennet?
@@0FynnFish0 Cheapside was where the Bank of England and the Royal Exchange were located, as well as the residence of the Lord Mayor of London. In spite of our modern-day associations with the word "cheap" it was part of the financial center of London, not a fashionable residence but hardly a slum.
@@0FynnFish0I think that’s a feature of P&P that we modern readers can miss. The Gardiners and the Bingleys were indeed practically the same, but Miss Bingley tried to ignore her humble origins. It was one of the reasons she was interested in Darcy, true landed gentry.
@0FynnFish0 The Bingley sisters were insecure, empty hypocrites. That is why they looked down on the Gardners. The Gardners seemed emotionally balanced, stable and kind.
Very interesting how this works! I know something about this having lived in England for several years now, and a few times per year my wife and I drive down to Devon from Sussex to visit her sister. On the way we pass by an estate in Dorset which is owned by Richard Drax: Charborough Park. Mr. Drax's full name is Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax! He owns over 13,000 acres, and is the largest individual landowner in Dorset -- but he's not a Lord, either, though he could be! His inherited wealth comes from the fact that he is descended from the second son of the 17th Baron of Dunsany, John Plunkett, who died in 1899. But he doesn't have the peerage because he isn't descended from John Plunkett's eldest son. However, he is "in remainder" to the title. This means that if his cousin, Oliver Plunkett, the current heir to the barony, dies without a legitimate son, then Richard Drax or one of his sons will inherit the barony and be a Lord.
So why is his surname Drax instead of Plunkett? If he isn’t descended through the male line, he can’t inherit the barony.
@@judithstrachan9399 - If you read my comment, you will have seen that Drax is only one of his surnames, which include Plunkett.
Things can be other than they seem. The eldest son of John William Plunkett, the 17th Baron Dunsany, was Edward John Moreton Drax Plunkett. Drax was a family name of John Plunkett's wife, Ernle Elizabeth Louisa Maria Grosvenor Burton (later, in 1906, by Royal Licence, Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax).
Because Richard Drax does descend along the male line from the second son of the 17th Baron Dunsany. He gets his rather complicated name by virtue of his mother. That second son was Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax.
Read the Wikipedia article on the 17th baron to get a view of how these complex names evolved. Search on the article title: "John Plunkett, 17th Baron of Dunsany".
Ah, so the surnames are just arranged differently from what I expected. I did think the husband’s family name would be the last one, but not in this case. Multi-surnames are complicated..
Re your question abt Darcy having a title vs being Mr Darcy -- him being titled would have added a whole additional layer to the dance between Darcy & Lizzir
Augh! As I was saying, adding a title would have made the story abt class as well as money/fortunes, expanding & complicating things too much.
Great point!
I imagine Pride and Prejudice as a comedy of class with the tension possible because Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are and are not of the same class. A titled Mr. Darcy breaks the story structure and makes it social commentary or... Different from the gentle critique that it is.
I think Austen wrote about what she knew. This is why she doesn't write from the POV of the servants or from the nobility, or try to portray conversations among gentlemen alone among themselves.
As a stuffy Brit I thought you'd stuff this explanation up but you didn't. Spot on. Well done.
I don't always remember to like videos. But the way you said it made me laugh, so I paused the video to like it. 😉
Aw! Thank you for the like 👍🏻😃😃😃
Awesome video as always!
I'd love to see more content about Persuasion, if you're interested in it. I'd like to learn more about the relationships and statuses of Mary's in-laws, as well as the military side of Capt. Wentworth's career.
I have no problem with Lord Pemberly. Love it:+) God bless~
It probably wasn't economically sound for them to pursue a peerage, 'cause you had to pay a different set of taxes, and the upkeep of the entitlement and it put more restrictions on what your daughters and second sons could inherit, and they also would have to be even more involved in the politics of it all, and couldn't just sit back and enjoy their magnificent state.
Peers didn't have to pay a different set of taxes; upkeep of entitlement for a peerage was minimal after the initial costs of registering a coast of arms and buying the regalia; a peerage put no restrictions on what your daughters or second sons could inherit - some older titles have requirements that the estate go with the title, but by the nineteenth century there was no need for this to be the case for a new creation, and as generally speaking eldest sons inherited the estate anyway the difference would only arise if a holder of the title other than the first holder died with daughters but no sons (if the first holder died without sons, without a special remainder entitling a daughter to inherit, the title would be extinguished for want of heirs male of the body of the first holder, as only a descendant can be an heir of the body, not a sibling or cousin).
They would be expected to become more involved in politics, as they would have had a seat in the House of Lords, but not required to do so.
They would have been tried by the House of Lords if they committed a crime rather than by a jury of commoners, though (as you're entitled to be judged by a jury of your peers, and if you're a Peer of the Realm then the other Peers are your peers). That rule was only done away with in the 20th century.
Great video ! Can you do Northangwr Abbey next . Like a bit more on the 'Gothic novels' and ideal and / or popular reading for regency era women and all .
Omg just yesterday I was commenting pride and prejudice in a reading club and this topic came out !!
Wow! That’s so cool!
now we're asking the real questions.... this is the type of content i came to youtube to watch
Already had hit the like button, but had to double check when you mentioned the possibility of loosing my Title! Thanks for the heads up! 🧐😘
I'm really enjoying your videos, it's a little bit like I'm exploring classical literature in a uni lecture - you have a most excellent name for it too!
"Darcy" definitely sounds like an old family name from the Norman Conquest, since you could associate the etymology for that name to the French name "D'Arcy".
Lady Catherine and Lady Anne's maiden names being "Fitzwilliam" also implies they're the legitimized descendants of an illegitimate son of a very high ranking noble - maybe not a King since the name usually used for royal bastards is "Fitzroy", but maybe a brother, cousin or nephew of a King called William.
I wondered about that too when reading the novel! Which introduces another possible way they could have lost a title, which Ellie hasn't mentioned so far in the vid? That's a bill of attainder i.e. being on the wrong side of whichever civil conflict is going on in England at the time - perhaps Stephen & Maud's fight for the crown, for example.
You'd be stripped of your family title as a result, and generally any property would've been seized by the crown. However if the estate had instead been bestowed on a cousin who chose the "right" side, or if it was long enough ago & the family had numerous enough subsidiary branches to help them recover their position, they could still have conceivably ended up wealthy again by the Regency era?
They wouldn't have necessarily lost any prestige along the way, either, particularly if the political situation later reversed.
Irina, 100%! I found this to be true.
Only problem with this... Fitz as a prefix DOESN'T mean bastard. -it means "son of". Henry VIII is the reason any modern person makes this leap in logic because as the literal golden child of his family he was incredibly proud but hidden deep inside, insecure. He didn't want a child not born of his lawful wife to be in the line of succession over his legitimate children. On the other hand, though unwilling to give his son Henry his dynastic name "Tudor" he was also loathe to not claim a healthy son... you know... just in case. So, in order for EVERYONE to know and never mistake the boy's identity as the son of the king of England, he named his son Henry Fitzroy. Fitz being the Norman-French derived word for "son of" and roy being the anglicized French "roi" meaning king. Before and since, the prefix Fitz has remained merely "son of". Henry giving his bastard such an obvious name was his way of laying out a plan B. If Edward had never been born, the king's final will and raiment would have legitimized the Fitzroy son Henry, making him Henry Tudor, aka -King Henry IX. All that to say that Fitzwilliam being a legitimized bastard name is historically not a sound conclusion.
"Fitz" just is Norman for "son of". Yes, it was used for illegitimate sons of kinds, but also it just means "son of William" in Norman French by way of Scotland.
@@thebuttermilkyway687 Gosh! I've never heard it explained as anything except a patronymic prefix indicating illegitimacy, so from one linguistic enthusiast to another: that is really interesting to hear, thank you! 🙂
Thank you for addressing this. Its been a question of mine for some time after learning about titles from your other videos.
Yay! I’m so glad the video was helpful! 😃😃😃
Hey Ellie,
I heard there was a thing called ‘going into abeyance’, where a title could be ‘put on the shelf’, as it were- to later be given to a grandson, or even a great-grandson, but I don’t know if that could always happen - I would have thought that there would be more effort to preserve noble heritage- I mean, I get that the entails had a purpose of preserving an estate, but there does not seem to be the same level of consideration for titles
I’m also curious about ‘co-heiresses’/ ‘co-heirs’, & what had to happen for them...?
Abeyance and co-heiresses were part of the traditional Norman way of doing things. By the late middle ages new titles were all being created with documentation that overrode these rules (generally by excluding women altogether), so by the 1800s they only applied to the very oldest titles.
If the holder of one of these titles died without a son the title could be passed on to a female heir, but there was no rule saying that the eldest daughter took precedence over her younger siblings. If there was more than one daughter then they would all have equal claim to the title, which would temporarily cease to exist. The title would only re-appear once only one sister had any living descendants. So a title with two co-heiresses might stay in abeyance for just a couple of years if one sister dies soon after, or if both sisters have descendants then it could disappear for centuries.
@@matthewbarratt6145
Thank you so much for all of that!
I love your channel so much!! Thank you for making such beautiful videos!!
It's so refreshing to read about this era from someone living at that time and in the social circles too... as much as I enjoy the Bridgerton series is very unrealistic that all those lords and ladies were marrying each other out of love. Jane didn't do that and I'm now appreciating this perspective
Thank god.. an American who knows her stuff when it comes to the complex issues of English class and social perspective.
I suspect the Darcy family preferred to remain untitled. Antiquity of the name mattered as did number of years holding an estate.
Getting/buying a seat in the House of Commons was very very expensive.
Plus, Mr Darcy was not sociable except with a few people. He would have hated the schmoozing and networking at court or with the government to get even a knighthood. Buying a baronetcy was also expensive.
A middle class girl marrying into the aristocracy isn’t a very good plot and wouldn’t be a well received book in Miss Austen’s day. These are fictional characters, and their social equality drives the plot. This is a new idea - both the French and American Revolutions have shaken the world hard. P&P reflects a changing social order in the wake of political revolution and the beginning of industrial Revolution.
Jane Austen has sometimes been criticised for not reflecting or even mentioning the upheavals of the time. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars for example. We know she had a connection with the Royal Navy.
I really enjoyed this analysis. Note also that the surname "Darcy" is derived from a Norman name, "D'Arcy," which itself may have denoted Norman nobility of some degree. Seems as though Miss Austen left us a clue or at least a soupcon of past nobility whose title (as suggested in the video) may have died out although the surname persisted.
Hello, just wanted to say sy i just found your channel this week and have been bingeing all your videos (i’m even pacing myself to make them last longer hahaha). Love your vids!
Aw! Welcome to the channel! Thank you so much!
ellie: mr. darcy would have to do a lot of social networking
me: pfft yeah, like that's gonna happen
I found it fascinating in a book by C S Lewis where he discusses the usage of the word gentleman. It meant they had land or other means. It was in effect a title, which he illustrated by saying you could call someone a gentleman and a scoundrel. The word slowly became merely a synonym for a good man, so we no longer understand the actual original meaning.
Yes, it was _Mere Christianity._ I finished reading it a few weeks ago. Good book.
4:34 A remainder is "a property interest that becomes effective in possession only when a prior interest (created at the same time) ends". It comes from Latin "remanere", which means "to stay behind" (after someone has departed), which naturally lends itself to talk of inheritance.
One of Mr. Darcy's grandfathers was a younger son. He inherited Pemberly, but not the title or the main estate.
YES! A list of references at the end! Thank you!
I am an expert on exactly this subject and very respected and important and therefore I can confirm that to become a Lord historically required liking all Ellie Dashwood videos.
Agree & also think it tells us a bit about the Darcy family’s priorities. Like the housekeeper says, Mr Darcy (& his father before him) is the best landlord & best master. That is where he puts his attention, doing the work of running the estate. If he were spending his time sucking up to the right people to get to be a lord, he wouldn’t be the character of integrity that Lizzie falls for.
Omg I almost lost my title. I liked the video right away
It's also possible that some people consider their family name to be so great that a title would not enhance it. Also, it wasn't only very wealthy people who changed names on marriage. I had an ancestor called Mr Dodge, who married a Miss Noquet from a silkweaving family. The name had such cachet that Mr Dodge changed his name to Noquet.
I'm on a P&P trip. I can't get enough and looking for any information on it. Thx
This is so interesting !!! Thanks so much for explaining it
Thank you so much for this amazing video! You have just such a sweet personality, it s a great pleasure watching you!
Yay! I’m so glad you enjoyed the video! 😃😃😃 Also, you’re too sweet! Thank you. 😃☺️
England is a bit unusual as being one of the only countries where Nobility was not a general legal social class but instead restricted only to direct holders of patents where even your children were legally commoners. Pretty much everywhere else like France, nobility was a general class, that all descendants belonged to regardless of if they possessed any specific patent.
This ironically had the effect of making nobility or attaining title less important socially; because their was only like 1000 or so titles, the overwhelming majority of the 10K-20K "gentry" could never be nobles.
Most people usually think of the french system though.
You look a little extra glamorous today Ellie! Great vid!
Aw, thank you!!!
I really enjoyed listening to the various plausible explanations you discussed for Mr Darcy not having a title.
Another reason may be due to the fact that the untitled landed gentry in the UK did not have a sort of differentiating particle in front of their surnames, unlike their counterparts on the European mainland. If Mr Darcy had been French, for example, he would probably have been Monsieur de Darcy. In a German context, he would have been Herr von Darcy ( but no actual further title in each case).
Although Jane Austen doesn't mention it and Mr Darcy would not have referred to it and taken it for granted as part of owning his estate, Mr Darcy presumably had the feudal title Lord of the Manor of .....(maybe not Pemberley, but the name of the village or local district historically connected with his estate). And perhaps, if French, before the French Revolution, the title Seigneur de....
So interesting about the whole 'titles dying out' thing.
That never occurred to me in regards to P&P, even though it should have been on my radar, having watched Downtown Abbey at least 3 times.
But yes...between high child mortality, the possibility for men to die in combat or from random injuries and, of course, the whole 'only male heirs can inherit' (mostly) thingy...it's certainly a valid theory.
Or maybe one of his male ancestors was simply the younger son of a nobel family? If the title always goes to the eldest male heir, wouldn't you get lots of lineages descended from younger sons, who don't hold titles? Although I guess, Lady Catherine would have pointed it out, if there was nobility on Darcy's father's lineage in more recent times. And there would have had to be a noble family with the surname 'Darcy' somewhere then, no matter how distantly related.
In any case...considering how important these issues were in these stories, I'm surprised, it isn't adressed in some way.
It's so much fun, digging deeper into all these layers of what one initially reads as a 'fun romance novel' as a teen, isn't it?
Hi! Question for you: Does Sir Lucas outrank Darcy in title, despite being in a much lower economic bracket? The Bingley sisters balk at the idea of ever needing him to social climb, since economic standing was a more relevant factor, but does he technically outrank both Darcy and the Bingleys?
Thanks for the enjoyable videos!
Possibly. Sir William (not Sir Lucas!) as a knight or baronet wasn’t true nobility, and I seem to remember that Mrs Bennet, as gentry, outranked Lady Lucas. If so, Mr Darcy would also outrank her. I THINK she’d outrank Mr Bingley, not gentry, but I’m not sure she’d insist, because of his fortune.
Extremely informative! Thanks 😊
Oh totally agree, if they have to be together in the end of the story, a title would make it unreal. If we think in a perspective, if Mr Darcy was already a Lord, maybe he even would not have this personality and would never fall for Lizzie, because he would be so important, that he could be possibly be as Lady Catherine, thinking he is the World's owner. Probably Jane Austen wanted to keep her characters more realistic. In fact, if we see the other characters, Edward in Mansfield is not goig to be a Baronet, his brother is going, right? That way, the couples sounds very realistic, without putting their personalities in risk. Idk, maybe Jane thought that being Lords and Ladys were not what she wanted for her main characters, once this could refrain their liberty of action and destroy the poor girl -rich man relationship.
I do believe the Darcys were too secure in their own respectably and somewhat modest, so they wouldn't have aspired to get a title.
One of my ancestors received a title for raising and paying for a regiment during the Boer War.
He was a wealthy merchant who had purchased a country estate and who was socially active
with the wealthy and ennobled. (His father and grandfather had made the lion's share of the
family's money and the son who received the title had gone to some of the better schools.)
I was looking at the peerages that were created around this time to see what a potential path to nobility would look like and found an interesting quote about Baron Delamere by one of his descendants.
"[The 1st Baron Delamere] was an idiot who decided it would be impressive to have a peerage. He thought he had a bargain when he paid 5,000 for it. The only problem was that the going rate was 1,200."
He had previously served 16 years in the House of Commons without doing much of note and, like Mr Darcy, was the relative of an Earl.
I just voted "thumbs up." Now, my future title is secure!
This is excellent, especially since I've been thinking about this subject for a couple days now.
I think Mr. Darcy not having a title is SUCH good and subtle characterization. Austen definitely did it on purpose, and not only because as an author she was not interested in writing about Lords, but because by having Mr. Darcy be untitled, it tells us SO MUCH about his character, who he is as a person and what he truly values, without us even realizing it at first.
The more you read about Mr. Darcy, about his riches, his connections, his social status, the more you realize how EASILY he could obtain a title if he wanted to. The thing is, he doesn't want to. And that's it. He doesn't have a title because he's not the type of person to be interested in such a thing.
As a person, he does not like to dwell on the past. That's why he avoids talking about Wickham and Georgiana, not only to spare her the shame, but also (in my opinion) because he thinks that what is done is done, and there's no reason to keep thinking about it and despair or feel shame over it. Lizzy hated his pride and conceit? Let's strive to do better in the future, even if he might never see Lizzy again. His family had a title in the past and lost it? So be it. There's no reason to cling to a title, to an idea of grandeur, when he already lives a rich life and has the means to take care of the people he loves.
At the end of the day, Darcy cares about his family and friends more than he cares about anything else. What is a title going to add to his life? Only anxiety/pressure at the prospect of not producing a male heir and his family losing the title again. Not worth it.
The more I think about it, the more I find his friendship with the Bingley sisters improbable 😂 I'm convinced that Louisa just married the first Mister that came her way, a gentleman in name only ("a man of more fashion than fortune") with a property in Grosvenor Square. Mrs. Hurst took one for the team and got their foot in the social sphere that the sisters had always aspired to be part of. Now all that's left to do is for Bingley to become a landowner and for Caroline to marry well.
Even their protectiveness of Mr. Bingley manifests in such different ways, because it's born from such different places. The sisters want Bingley to settle and marry well to establish themselves among the landed gentry even more. Meanwhile Darcy is truly concerned about Bingley's heart being played with.
Darcy tries to keep Bingley safe from women like his sisters.
If Mr. Darcy doesn't like to dwell on the past, the Bingley sisters straight up repudiate their own, even making fun of Elizabeth's uncle for living in Cheapside aka the financial and TRADING centre of London... when their own fortune comes from their late father's trading ventures.
If Caroline had managed to marry Darcy, I think she would have definitely pressured him into obtaining a title. Maybe not immediately, but definitely in the future. Especially after meeting Lady Catherine (who would've hated her even more than she hates Lizzy, as Caroline isn't even the daughter of a gentleman).
Mr. Darcy not having a title despite being in a situation where he could easily obtain one is * chef's kiss * subtle characterization.
There's a couple things I have noticed in modern life. First is that there are two kinds of social status, one based on family history and one based on money. These two don't always go hand in hand. Secondly, Americans are crazier about titles than the British are. We don't have lords so meeting one is a big deal. It's much more common having people with titles living in normal neighborhoods in the UK. Titles are just that. In the US nearly all men are called Mr because we don't have much else to choose from. In the UK there's several more options. I've had British friends that thought the American excitement over meeting a Lord or someone with Sir in front of their name was hilarious. Therefore, I think the real reason Darcy is not a Lord is because Jane Austen didn't think it added anything to the story. It might not have even entered her mind to make him a Lord because what is important to the plot is his money.
That’s such an interesting perspective!
@@EllieDashwood today's video reminded me of a conversation I had back in the 90's. A man moved here from Canada but his accent was British. Someone said, "Do you know he's a lord?" Sounded farfetched so I asked him and he was. He told me about the village he grew up in. He lived in one house and Sir Such-n-such lived right down the street. Anytime American tourists showed up somebody would point out the lord or the knight and they would take off after him. It got to be a village prank. One day at the market someone said, "So you're the Lord now?" Some Americans got excited and congratulated him. The speaker continued, "I'm sorry about your father," who of course had just died. The poor knight was a retired farmer who had invented some kind of farming thing that Queen Elizabeth had liked and she decided to give him an OBE. He accepted because he didn't want to be rude. It blew my mind that people can decline an OBE or even want to. The lord laughed and said that it's not as great as it sounds.
I am most likely an older subscriber and admirer of yours. I have been reading Jane Austin and re-reading, but just for pleasure. Why I never questioned the title was the simple but maybe mistaken assumption that he was the product of a second son. The younger brother's descendants were very successful.
Mr Darcy is of aristocratic descent, through his mother Lady Anne Darcy (née Fitzwilliam). But clearly hss father had no title.
I'm finally caught up. Darcy seems a bit too honest/proud to get a title by cozening up to others.
So true!
" it would seem that his father did not serve in Parliament, the military, or the law. For this reason he was
never in a position to be recognized for service to his King or country, was not elevated to the peerage,
and had no title to pass on to his son."
Thank you for this quality material!
Darcy signs his name FitzWilliam Darcy, Esq. The "esquire" indicates he is decended from nobility through the male line, although he still would have been called Mister.
Justices of the peace are also entitled to put "Esq." after their names, but in their cases it is followed by the initials J.P.