@@EllieDashwood The versions of Cinderella I've been exposed to tended to make her the daughter of a wealthy merchant which would change the class dynamics a fair bit but still meant that she was rich by birth and not really "meant" to be working for a living. I guess they are more bourgeois versions of the story while a Regency era version would make her landed gentry.
Cinderella -it was actually very common for second wives to get rid of the first children -either through boarding school, service, arranged marriage at an early age, convents
Modern fan interpretations focus a lot on the escaping abusive family aspects (and if people identify with that and it helps them then great) but I think historically people would have had different values and have been more invested in Cinderella being unjustly knocked down from the middle of the class structure to the bottom and then making a meteoric rise to the top. But I can appreciate why that aspect has fallen out of favour in modern versions, since (most of us) no longer believe that aristocracy = goodness. It's natural for stories to evolve over time, just as long as we appreciate that they *have* evolved.
Mrs. Bennet is actually a good example of someone who moved into another sphere. Her father was an attorney, a kind of lawyer that was not considered genteel, and would class him as a tradesman. But by marrying Mr. Bennet, a landed gentleman, she moved upwards into another sphere. Of course, this wasn't without consequences. One of the reasons that some people might look askance at Darcy marrying Elizabeth, even though technically they were in the same social class, was that her mother's origins were from another sphere. By marrying Elizabeth, Darcy immediately connects himself with a bunch of people that are not from their sphere of the landed gentry/aristocracy. Indeed, this was probably one of the reasons that Darcy tried to resist his attraction to Elizabeth initially. In the end, he just has to overlook this, and he shows this by being friendly and willing to socialize with Elizabeth's Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, who are her mother's relatives, and are in the tradespeople/middling class.
The Bingley children are just one generation out from trade. Mr. Bingley hasn't even settled on an estate for most of the novel. Arguably, he and his sisters benefit greatly from his friendship with Mr. Darcy, who is solidly upper class and so people who hold Darcy in esteem assume that Bingley must have the suitable qualities to be seen as a gentleman rather than a tradesman. Likewise, if Mr. Gardiner continues to grow his fortune, and his family keeps getting invited to Pemberley for vacations and holidays, then eventually his children might also ascend into the upper class by association. A lot depends on behavior and decorum. Mrs. Bennet is looked down upon largely because of her silliness and hysterics. She doesn't *act* like a proper gentleman's wife and so nobody regards her as one (not even her husband).
@@X3nophiliaci doubt that Darcy wouldn’t know, since class is like the most basic thing to know about someone. And anyway, it would be fairly easy information to verify through gossip/casual conversation. by just looking at their properties, if they owned land, and finding out who/how theyre related to Lizzie’s family . But since theyre so well mannered and liked by Darcy and Lizzie, i dont think it would have mattered to him that much 😊
@@X3nophiliacIt’s worth noting that all these people are wealthy by any standard. There are just different social castes with in the upper set. Darcy represents the elite class due to the size of his fortune, the impressiveness of his estate, being from an ancient family and having noble family connections. The Bennet’s and Gardiners are definitely on the lowest rung of this hierarchy, with the Bingley’s being only one step above them.
Dr Octavia Cox recently did a great talk on classes and Jane/Bingley marriage. Because one could argue that Bingley married up in terms of class and then purchased an estate to seal his own upward mobility. Which makes Miss Bingley's objections laughable.
No, it's more complicated than that. Mr. Bennett owned land but was not a connected to nobility, while Mr. Darcy owned land, did not have a title, but was connected to nobility.
@@ConstantiaVerted Mr. Bennett fell into the social class of gentry. This made him a gentleman. Even if he'd been poorly educated and had terribly bad manners, he would still have been regarded as a gentleman. He owned land and drew income from his rents. Mr. Darcy was a very rich gentleman, Mr. Bennett was an affluent gentleman.
I want to remind Emma's reluctance from a marriage between harriet and a farmer , and she said that this marriage would make a friendship between her and harriet impossible. She says there that if they were poor they were worth her notice because of her charity work but a farmer is too up for her notice for charity but too low for her notice as a friend.
and she was totally sure that Harriet was a gentleman's daughter, which in her opinion and knowledge of her world, make it a downgrade for Harriet for marrying below her supposed station in life.
@Get `em! Get `em! Emma was pretty, outgoing, accomplished-- and thought she could never marry because she couldn't leave her father, who was a boring, demanding hypochondriac. She had just had her best friend leave her for marriage, and got another best friend-- who was about to leave her for marriage. What Emma did to Harriet and Robert wasn't fair, but given that absolutely everybody including Mr. Knightly was willing to overlook how really trapped she was, I very much think Emma deserves points for trying to live a happy life in a miserable situation. Emma was very much aware that her money was not going to keep her warm on cold winter nights listening to her father whine about the texture of his gruel.
@@marthawolfsen5809 But that's still no reason for being selfish and keeping her "best friend" from marrying the guy she wants. I get that she panicked and was scared of losing another person close to her. But that's just wrong. And I always imagined Austen writing Emma in a way that you would find those faults in her and question the choices she makes and look at her through the eyes of Knightly. That's kind of amazing having a protagonist who isn't that perfect doll of a woman.
@@tunatofu63 but look at Edward in Sense and Sensibility or Tilney in Northanger. They came from a very rich family but became clergymen. They didn't sink in society I guess. I think it always mattered where you came from. And Tilney said he usually would look for a rich woman to marry.
I think the big complication is that Lizzie's mother married up whilst Darcy's mother married down. Their fathers are both Gentlemen Landowners (to different degrees, but ultimately the same class). Mrs Bennet was born middle class (lawyers and judges), whereas Lady Anne was born into a titled family but married the untitled Mr Darcy Senior.
As Sir Walter says in Persuasion,' "I have let my house to Admiral Croft," would sound extremely well; very much better than to any mere Mr._______; a Mr. (save perhaps some half dozen in the nation) always needs a note of explanation." ' Mr. Darcy, was definitely among the half dozen plain Mr's in the nation so illustrious and wealthy that he ranks with a lord. I don't think Lady Anne married down.
@@edithengel2284wealthy or not, she absolutely did marry down. She is the daughter of an Earl, she should have married a marquess or even a non-royal duke. Diana Spencer was the daughter of an Earl. Her children are the children of a titleless rich man. Georgiana would likely struggle to find an Earl who’s mother would be willing to allow her to marry her son despite her wealth. Women at the time were supposed to marry either horizontally or up, marrying down, even for wealth, was a massive blow, which is why Lady Catherine is so obsessed with flaunting her status as a lady: her and her sister married down and it’s not a good look
@@emilybarclay8831 Naturally, marrying within the ranks of the nobility was the goal of daughters of earls and other nobles. However, daughters of the nobility married untitled gentlemen about 50% of the time at this period. (There were not enough titled men to provide husbands for every such lady, for one thing. There were perhaps only a dozen dukes in the country, for example.) Mr. Darcy Senior would have been an excellent choice for a young woman in Lady Anne's position. Lady Catherine is indeed obsessively proud about her descent, but she did marry a very wealthy individual who at least, if not noble, was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Bourgh. Few earl's mamas would have complained about the entrance of a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of an earl into their family, especially since itis also the case that noblemen's sons had more latitude to marry outside their rank than did their sisters. In short, the marriages of Lady Anne and Lady Catherine were not out of the ordinary, nor did they present bad optics.
@@emilybarclay8831 While it was naturally the goal of the daughters of noblemen to marry within the nobility, at the period in question, only about 50% of them did so. For one thing, there were not sufficient noblemen to provide spouses for all these ladies; there were only about a dozen dukes, for example. There were under 60 marquesses. It was also the case that it was typically the daughters of dukes and marquesses, rather than those of the lower ranks of the nobility who had the most success at marrying a nobleman. Considering that Anne and Catherine were "only" earl's daughters, it's not surprising that they didn't find husbands among the nobility. But they did find husbands of high lineage who were quite wealthy. Lady Catherine was indeed obsessively proud of her lineage. But it is also true that, while her husband was not noble, he was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Burgh. It was also the case that noblemen's sons at this period were freer to marry outside their rank, and more purely for money, than their sisters. So no earl's mama would have objected to a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of earls entering their family--au contraire. In short, the Ladies Anne and Catherine made good marriages in a very ordinary pattern for ladies of their rank.
@@emilybarclay8831 While it was naturally the goal of the daughters of noblemen to marry within the nobility, at the period in question, only about 50% of them did so. For one thing, there were not sufficient noblemen to provide spouses for all these ladies; there were only about a dozen dukes, for example. There were 32 marquesses in 1818.. It was also the case that it was typically the daughters of dukes and marquesses, rather than those of the lower ranks of the nobility like who had the most success at marrying a nobleman. Considering that Anne and Catherine were "only" earl's daughters, it's not surprising that they didn't find husbands among the nobility. But they did find husbands of high lineage who were quite wealthy. Lady Catherine was indeed obsessively proud of her lineage. But it is also true that, while her husband was not noble, he was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Burgh. It was also the case that noblemen's sons at this period were freer to marry outside their rank, and more purely for money, than their sisters. So no earl's mama would have objected to a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of earls entering their family--au contraire. In short, the Ladies Anne and Catherine made good marriages in a very ordinary pattern for ladies of their rank.
One of the chief ironies of P&P, which is often glossed over in the screen adaptations, is that the Bingleys are only one or two generations removed from trade themselves. As a result the sisters are more judgmental of people with links to trade than "old money" families might be. In fact, they mock Sir William Lucas: "I"m sure he is a very good man." "And I'm sure he kept a very good shop before being elevated to the knighthood!"
@@somethingclever8916 Even though knighthood was the lowest form of nobility and could not be passed down to the son, unlike a baronet, which could be passed. Both of those titles could be awarded to landed people.
I agree with you about the Bingleys and Sir William. I think there's such a huge amount of tension in Austen's novels about people attempting to literally jump class: Sir William Lucas who was knighted for being a mayor and giving a speech; Mrs Jennings' daughters who have their past erased through a private seminary; the prizewinning officers of _Persuasion_; the very genteel Gardiners who are accepted into the Pemberley family party despite Mr Gardiner's job; even Mr Martin from _Emma_ who reads elegant extracts and an agricultural newspaper, and can afford to send his sisters to a boarding school... And then you get the markers of going down class as well: the Bennets with their attorney and merchant uncles lose points; Sir Walter Eliot has to move out of his ancestral seat. She has a lot of value judgements about who deserves to jump up or fall down, I think.
This hasn't really changed, it's just understood rather than spoken about. It's why there was such a big deal made over middle-class Kate Middleton. Her parents are multi-millionaires, how are they, middle class? Because they were born that way.
Yes, I remember not really understanding what the big deal was about Kate being “common.” This really helps put it into perspective. It also perhaps helps explain why there seemed to be so much pressure for Charles to marry Diana (daughter of an Earl) even though they were clearly not compatible.
If Mr. Darcy was making 10,000 per year, and was an equivalent of a modern-day billionaire, then the Bennets who might be making 1,000 per year would be millionaires. They were hardly poor.
I got the impression that they had a fairly expensive lifestyle (relative to their income), so they didn't have much discretionary disposable income left - given that servants, residence maintenance and an occasional ball weren't really optional. Someone with much lower income could "get away with" a much more frugal lifestyle, but Bennets had to live up to a certain expected standard, whether they wanted or not. All of it is just an impression, with next to no research into the subject...
@@slavkovalsky1671 that's true, but I get the impression that the text itself condemns the Bennets for not even trying. The text points out that Mr Bennet made no effort to save for her daughters, and that Mrs Bennet had no talent for economy, and we see her bragging that girls don't have to do anything at home and kind of condemning the Lucases because Charlotte needs to be involved with domestic issues somehow... I imagine they could try to save money here and there, but I don't know if that would represent a substantial change having to split the amount to five daughters.
@@giovana4121 upper class people do not do housework. Housework then was nothing like you think of it, it was drudge labor. Just the calluses on the hands would make those girls unmarriagable to anyone.
An extra: many poor people also considered learning to write and read as unnecessary or a waste of time, because they did not see those skills as useful and they considered that it was better for their children to learn the family trade. something they knew would be useful. my grandfather, who was the first alphabet in his family, told me that story.
@@EllieDashwood This is partly why in more modern times school became compulsory by law (in my country). Many families found it more profitable for their children to work at home than to study more intellectual subjects. In other cases they simply couldn't
Yep - it was definitely, in the minds of the paternalistic rich - a very fine line. You didn't want The Poor to fall into vice for want of the Scriptures, or not know their duties, and there were some roles where they might be a better servant if they could read,, but really being scholars…. Oh my!
Just for your information : the word you are looking for is literate , not Alphabet . The alphabet is you abc , literate is someone that can read and write . What would have described your father’s family would be illiterate .
Let's not forget that Mrs. Bennet moved upwards between spheres, which would make the Bennet family even more outrageous to some people back in the day
I think that Mr. Collins has also moved upwards, but without the confidence and manners expected of his new gentility. He gets no respect because he shows excessive deference (which is a sign of being socialized in a lower class) and oblivious arrogance (which is a sign of being nouveau riche). By contrast, the first impression of Mr. Darcy is the opposite: aloof and expecting deference; and old-fashioned etiquette. As Elizabeth's suitors, Mr. Collins would be as far a step down as Mr. Darcy would be as far a step up. But they're both in the gentry.
@@AdrianColley And an even bigger jump would be Wickham going to law school. From nothing to rubbing elbows with the movers and shakers only with the help of the Darcy family and he still messed it up. Not many poor folks got chances like that.
@@perdidoatlantic Wickham's stituation really shows how high Mr. Darcy's father thought of him. This is the treatment younger sons got back in the day - which also shows how much of a bastard he was for refusing the oportunity to assimilate into the gentry just to get some money instead.
Nitpick here: "inter-sphere" mobility would be moving between two spheres-out of one sphere and into another, which is the opposite of what you're talking about. Moving within a sphere is INTRA-sphere mobility.
Thank you for saying that Grimm’s added to the Perrault Cinderella story the gruesome aspects (or more like they collected their own version from Oran tradition in Germany). People so often say that Grimms version is the original when there are so many Ciderella versions (in my country she goes to ball 3 times with different dresses for example. And Disney adapted Perrault not Grimm.
I feel like most countries have a Cinderella-esque fairytale, because it contains a topic/ morale that everybody in every culture can understand. I myself have heard several versions, containing a fairy godmother, hazelnuts, pigeons, a magical tree, one or two step-sisters, father being alive or dead,... the important part is fundamentally the same but every version has their own something about it that makes it unique.
@@mamadeb1963 I've usually heard it portrayed as a very wealthy merchant - usually the catalyst that get's the father into Beast's castle is that a ship he thought was lost makes it to port.
I love how your videos overlap with Dr Octavia Cox's close reading RUclips Channel. Last week she studied the fluidity of the class system in Pride and Prejudice and how it shows us how Caroline and Louisa are desperate to assimilate into the gentry class.
Remember - the recent revolutions in America and then France were reverberating through English society. They had zero interest in the poor getting ideas. So, education was an outrageous idea. This is not a class system, it’s a caste system.
A prince marrying a barmaid? Unheard, therefore said prince created the story of how he fought dragons, climbed briars, or other such adventures to rescue a princess who's been asleep for 100 years. Excuse her manners--they are 100 years out of date.
Or you are Peter the Great and doesn't give a crap and make a prostitute/officers kept woman Tzarina of Russia. She actually did good taking over as regent after Peters death for a short time.
No one would have believed any of that dragon stuff in real life. Some kings did marry commoners. It was just a matter of whether they had the political power to get away with it. Emperor Justinian married Theodora, and she was a prostitute. She was also a very good empress. www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/10/theodora-empress-from-the-brothel
I remember watching downtown Abby and absolutely shocked at how a character said his mother was proud of him being a footman. And how another maid said her mother warned her against moving upwards in life by becoming a secretary. As an American, it was hard to wrap my head around.
I remember a promotional spot for the BBC Pride and Prejudice on PBS (yes, this was years ago) touting the fact that Darcy was super rich and Elizabeth was 'middle class'. It just dawned on me they were using the American version of 'class'.
This is a super informative and enjoyable video. I thought I kind of understood class, but so many things were clarified for me by this video including the role of religion in the structure and oppression of the class system. It made me think about Downton Abbey and how Tom Branson, the chauffeur married Lady Sybil. Perhaps this relationship occurred around the time that the formal class system was crumbling. That cultural shift would be interesting to learn more about.
It was indeed crumbling. War especially was making people see who they really are, minus their fancy class and clothes, though class played role in there too
@@chrissiek8706 Yes, I just watched Ellie's video "What Happened to the Aristocracy" where she talks about the changes that took place in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
It's not Regency era literature, but a good example of a woman jumping social spheres and the social eyebrows it raises is Demelza in the Poldark series.
In Poldark, George Warleggan is also moving up spheres by marrying Elizabeth, who is an gentlewoman, then years later by marrying Lady Harriet (an duke's sister). Both women are socially superior to him however, they are both impoverished, whilst he is extremely rich but is a blacksmith's grandson and a tradesman.
The class system in Austen's novels is one of the few things that prevents me from idealizing the Regency period. The vast majority of England's population would have been poor commoners and would have struggled with getting by day by day. I love Jane Austen, but basically they depict the top 5% of their society at the time.
True, but to be fair, Jane Austen herself was from the upper class. Hence she wrote about her own society and class which was what she knew about the most.
Great commentary! It actually made me wonder if there is another example hidden in the novel - Wickham. His backstory is that his father was a solicitor and steward of Pemberley (i.e. middle class). But the elder Mr. Darcy provided Wickham an upbringing comparable to what many sons of gentlemen (i.e. upper class) get due to his fondness for the boy. Except that Wickham wasn't headed for an adulthood as a landed gentleman like the younger Mr. Darcy was. So, as an adult, he set his goal of marrying an upper class heiress (ideally Georgiana Darcy) in order to attain status above the class he was born into. As Austen depicts him as a villain (and a loathsome one at that), it feels like one of these ambition-is-evil/going-against-God situations.
Your videos are so good and it's so clear you put a lot of effort into them. I love the way you explain everything, and that you manage to make these topics so interesting even though they could easily be very boring.
@@EllieDashwood please include all the upwards and downwards mobility of the sisters in the beginning of Mansfield Park (Lady Bertram, Mrs Norris and Mrs Price). I think it's so fascinating.
Note, however, that Jane, who is the daughter of a gentleman, marries someone who, since he has NOT bought Netherfield or any other estate, is not "landed gentry" but actually from "trade," which is how his father made his money. So she could be seen as going down the social hierarchy, but that is not emphasized in the novel, although the reality is presented. Note that Mrs. Bennett is very happy to have Jane marry Bingley because of his money and what his money can buy, which seems to include access to a wonderful home and friendship with a person, Darcy, who IS "landed gentry." What is also interesting is that Lady Catherine is really not operating from the perspective of class at all, but from the perspective of cold hard cash, which is not something Jane Austen would have thought highly of.
This is a thought provoking note! It’s interesting to think of Mrs. Bennett’s ideals of money for her daughters. Not necessarily that she is underwhelmed by her daughters’ counterparts and their social standing …but more so that her daughters’ standing is secured by birthright but Mr Bennett’s assumed “mismanagement” of the dowry funds is the real flaw. Do you think perhaps Mrs Bennett is much more thoughtful than we think and was anticipating a future (and possibly present) where money would be (or is) more influential than rank?
MrsBennet did not produce a son and heir so this makes the situation unstable. When Mr Bennet dies she and her daughters will lose their home as it will be inherited by Mr Collins. If Mr Bennet has not made good provision for his wife, and good dowries for his daughters, the future will find them living in genteel poverty.
I have to say I recently found your channel and have been binge watching. Now I'm watching the 1995 miniseries again and everything just makes so much more sense! I'll have to re-read the book now with all the knowledge I've gained from your channel.
It never set up with me how Cinderella could really start as uneducated servant and then marry a prince just like that... True love and everything, but girl should've had at least some competences and experience in dealing with nobility to become future queen. Perrault's version, as well as "Ever after" adaptation just make more sense. Overall, great video! Keep up the good work!
@@missquinberly It says that in all the traditional versions, including Disney. Cinderella was forced to be a servant in her own Father's mansion, because her stepmother wanted to humiliate her & save money on servants. She wasn't royalty, but she wasn't a peasant, either.
Those sleeves are TOTALLY TOPICAL! Can't you hear Mrs. Bennet right now? "Your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves!"
Im posting to say that I found your channel yesterday and have been binging your videos all evening. You are so charismatic and engaging! Such a great addition to the typically male-dominated HistoryTube
Great video! It's hard to step out of our own modern mindset and really think about how things worked in the past. It's even harder to do that without passing judgement. I am sure if people from the past, or from the future, could look at how things are done now they would probably think "it must be terrible to live in those days!" 😄 I could imagine there were lots of people who found the social system difficult. I can also imagine that there were just as many who found it comforting because I might be rich or poor or whatever "at least I know who I am and where I belong." That is something that we don't have in modern society. You can climb as high as you want, but there is nothing to stop you from falling all the way to the very bottom either. People come and go out of our lives all the time. It's not the same as having a circle of people that you will always be a part of. Not saying one is better than the other. Just saying I could imagine some people found security and stability in that idea. And I doubt that it was just rich people who felt that way. I would think that mobility in classes would seem alien and frightening to poorer people too. Not that anyone enjoys being destitute, but I'm sure the idea of jumping classes would feel dangerous and scary in a lot of ways. It is possible, most poor people of that time didn't aspire to be rich, but just less destitute within their own circles.
These are such great points! People do tend to feel secure within the culture they are born in. Meanwhile, our society would probably scare them all in so many ways if they were suddenly transported into it.
Every time I watch a video like this or read a nonfiction book about Jane Austen's books and the society in which she lived, it gives me a deeper insight into her novels. Each time I read one of her books, I catch stuff that I missed in the past. Especially , with " Pride and Prejudice." Every time I read it, I find myself cackling over something hilarious that I missed before. Thank you for the information. I always appreciate your videos. :)
Huh, that's anew perspective for me to take a look at classical fairy tales. A lot I can think of right now do keep the happy couple in the same sphere. Thank you.
Society was rapidly changing however and it had started before regency and continued later (but in England not as much as in some places). You should do some generational overview at some time about what things in society and fashion would be different if Austen lived to write about the children of her main characters.
Your excitement over sleeves makes me think of Mrs. Bennet talking to Mrs. Gardiner ["However, your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves.'']. That was also a bit off topic to their conversation about Lizzie turning down Mr. Collins, but sometimes you just have to take a second to appreciate new fashions!
I'm tempted to go totally tangential and wonder how a completely different franchise's and time period's character, Anne Shirley, would have viewed these "bell bottom" sleeves as opposed to her beloved "puffed sleeves"!
I've been reading a FASCINATING book about the mutiny on the Bounty, which occured in the 1790s, and this video touches on a fascinating angle of the mutiny that rarely gets discussed. Fletcher Christian and most of the other young gentleman "officers in training" were from titled families who had lost their fortunes; they had status but no money. These young men did not get along well with two of their number who were from merchant class families with large fortunes. These fortunes-without-connections seem to have really galled Fletcher Christian, who specifically singled out these two to join Capt. Bligh in being set adrift in a small boat, and at least one of whom he was not on speaking terms with by the time of the mutiny, in part because when Christian petulently refused Capt. Bligh's invitation to dinner, this young man went instead. They, along with the Captain and his second in command, were the only people forced into the boat, which shows just how much Christian and the other Mids disliked them. It is interesting to note that they had been given the two available Midshipman ratings in the books (because their one connection, Sir Joseph Banks, was Bligh's patron) while all the other young gentleman were listed as only Able Seaman (but in practice treated just like Midshipman, with all the powers and privileges of the rank). Christian was acting-Lt. for most of the voyage, so it seems unlikely to have bothered him as much, but some of the others may have taken offence at two mere merchant-class fellows being given preferential treatment over their poor-but-well-connected-and-ancient-family-ed selves.
It is interesting that a friend of mine from the UK absolutely hates the showrunner of Downton Abbey because said showrunner is apparently really enamored with this type of class system, and the whole show is his love letter to it. I don't know if it is true (altho I have seen him speak about it in some making-of video and definitely feels that way), but that is my friend's interpretation 😆
Am very much finding your depth of research and understanding absolutely fascinating, opening up the books of the era in a new way for me. The sleeves are also first-rate.
I think you can see this "sphere moving shunning" very clearly when they talk about the first Mrs Eliott in Persuasion, and how they need to justify the marriage.
@@robinlillian9471 Which is in itself strange. At the time she would have lived she'd have control over the taxes in Coventry (I think that's the location). She could have just lowered them herself.
Oh my goodness, I have always loved this era in history (literature and movies). I stumbled across this channel recently and I’m really enjoying it! I have been binging,and I’m learning so many things, I’m ashamed, that I didn’t know. This video is really helpful in understanding the relationships that were seen in Jane Austin’s books, and in series such as Brigerton, or the story of Cinderella. Knowing about how spheres worked brings so much clarity to these magnificent books! Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge 🙏!
Would Wickham and Lydia be in the same social class? Was his father not working for Darcy's father, or does his army status work in his favour here? Absolutely love the channel, great video!
Thank you so much! So Lydia definitely married down into the upper middle class. His army status does work in his favor in making him of a more acceptable match, since being an officer in the military was considered a more genteel profession. So as an officer’s wife and with her birth status, Lydia can appear at better advantage in society than if he had been in trade or something. But overall, she married down.
@@EllieDashwood With Mary, did she marry down as well? Based on the comments from Miss Bingley, I can't see her lawyer uncle's clerk ever becoming something like a barister.
@@EllieDashwood Adding, marrying up or down one microclass, ie for elizabeth to marry Darcy, or Lydia/Jane marrying down, was acceptable for the most part unless you were really stuck up/royality.
@@Luciachan23 Even a reasonably wealthy lawyer like Mr Gardiner would be classed as marrying down. However, due to the low wealth of the Bennets, it isnt a shocking marrying down. Had Mr Darcy married the daughter of a lawyer, that would be shocking. Basically, for people near the edges of their class the sphere had overlaps with the other classes.
Not Jane Austin, but an example of a class-crossing marriage that shocked everyone was when Captain VonTrap proposed to and married Maria, his children's nanny, instead of the Baroness...
Your comment inspired me to read about Maria von Trapp on Wikipedia. It is super interesting to read that in real life she was not really in love with Captain von Trapp, but that the "mother abbess" from whom she sought counsel when he proposed told her that it was "God's will" that she marry him. She was actually angry on their wedding day because she really wanted to be a nun! She did love the children though, and eventually fell in love with her husband, too. Anyway, just thought that was interesting and a bit different from the movie version.
@@aksez2u The oldest daughter also wrote her own version of events and a movie was made from her account. There are considerable differences from The Sound of Music. Very interesting to have different perspectives!
This is fascinating! Thank you. In your next before where you talk about marriage outside of their social spheres, can you mention Princess Diana and Dutchess Megan? I have never understood the problems with these. Thanks so much!
There was no problem with Princess Diana,from the point of view of class,and we Brits were delighted to have Megan.But Megan clearly didnt want to be a classy person.Disappointing !
Princess Diana was Lady Diana before marriage. She was a member of the nobility. Her father was Earl Spencer. Her family has been members of the nobility longer than the Windosors. They've held the title of Earl for over 600 years.
Britain was in the middle of the industrial revolution at this time. The landed gentry lived in their own little world and still do so to some extent. They did not get invoved in business or travel to the empire. Jane Austen also lived in a bubble and in rural England. There were plenty of self-made men and rich industrialists at this time. People were also getting rich from the empire. Austen's world did not really reflect society.
Jane Austen was a little before all of that. This was Regency England and not Victorian. The industrial revolution was only just getting started at the turn of the 19th century. The Robber Barons were later.
@@robinlillian9471 Not true. The industrial revolution started in Britain in the. 1760s. You must be American. The spinning Jenny was invented in 1764. The steam engine was invented in the 1760s. The power loom was invented in 1784. These inventions transformed the British economy and made people rich. The East India Company was also making people rich. These people were not members of the landed gentry. They would spend time in India or the Caribbean and then return with pots of money. Robert Clive was a typical example, he started out as an office clerk.he left India in 1760 with an estimated fortune of £46 billion in 2019 money. Austen rarely mentions the Napoleonic wars which ended in 1815. She lived in a bubble.
Of course it reflected society. Rural England society. Not the entire country, but there were drastic differences between the reality she lived in and the reality of those people (as you said). Would you say they lived in a bubble and their work didn't reflect society when people involved with the newly formed industries wrote about their world and their society because it doesn't encompass the reality of other parts of the country, such as the ones Jane austen writes about?
Jane Austen was very aware of the "Empire" as you say because many of her brothers were in the navy. Those brothers had wives in England and she visited them often according to her letters that have survived. They would often send or bring back fabric and clothes from over seas to their families back in England.
I once watched a documentary about workhouses in which they stated that not only you were supposed to accept your station in life, social rank-wise. At a certain time period being poor was also considered an actual crime by law. If you were poor the blame was totally on you and you were supposed to endure it. So insane!
I absolutely celebrate your comparison to the classic Cinderella story by Perrault - it is so important to consider Cinderella's actual status as daughter of a nobleman and therefore her social rank, which was taken from her by the malicious decision of her stepmother to let her work as a servant in her own house. Therefore, the stepmom took social capital from Cinderella, who's in fact an upper class daughter. Thanks a lot for pointing on that, it gives the story and the concept of the tale ("Cinderella effect" etc.) a completely different notion and versa-position to the American Dream! Your video is brillant, thanks a lot for your great work!!
How would you view the marriage of Harriet, in Emma, to Robert Martin? Harriet is confusing because her parents are unknown, so we don’t know if she is or is not a part of the Gentry. She is also confused about her “class,” given that she even thinks about Mr. Knightley as a possible mate. I think there is more focus on class in Emma than in any of the completed novels. I think that makes it hard for people in our world to connect to it; note that it has not been done on TV or in film as often.
I don't know if you discussed this in any of your videos, but there is one clear case in Austen where (presumably) a lady married down from her social sphere. That is in "Mansfield Park," in which Fanny Price's mother has married a common sailor, removing herself completely from the genteel class----abd her children as well. Fanny is taken in by her wealthy, titled uncle and aunt as a kind of token charity, but it is made clear that she is "not a Miss Bertram," like her cousins who were born into gentility. She would certainly not be considered a fit match for their son.
I was a literature major in college. Your show reminds me of what we do in literature tearing things apart. By any chance did you read middle march by George Elliot? That’s all about the rising of the middle class when are used to be a lower class and the aristocracy. I love the classics it of course Charlotte Brontë and Jade Austin are a lot of fun. Well Geneaire is not fun but there are a lot ofTypes and shadows behind the things we read. I did one of my final papers on Jane Eyre.
Omg Ellie, this idea about spheres and your example of a duke marrying a dairy maid creating complete and utter shock and condemnation, explains to me why in Poldark, Ross Poldark marries Demelza his scullery maid and everyone freaks OUT so much!!!!! I started watching that show and I understood that they were not in the same social class and I understood that is why Demelza talks about how Ross raised her up, however I did not understand until watching your video this idea of spheres of society impacting on who you married so strongly and even how your social class was ordained by God! The illustration of spheres definitely helped to illustrate this point and in fact made things much clearer. Thank you so so much for this video, it is excellent as always and clearly educational for me. My mind is blown. Lol. :) :)
Great video. If we apply this to Emma, it's also interesting to note that Knightley's disagreement with Emma about Harriet related to their differing views about the extent to which Harriet could be expected to "marry up". Emma initially couldn't regard Robert Martin as a good match for Harriet, and thought Mr. Elton would be suitable. Both Knightley and Elton himself strongly disagreed. Emma also went on to consider a Harriet and Frank Churchill marriage to be possible, although she did seem to realise it was ambitious. But the idea of Knightley and Harriet was too extreme (aside from Emma's own feelings for him).
Binge watching your videos for the last three days now and I absolutely love your insights and explanations - I can literally feel brain cells growing! 🤩 And I love your shirt 😍 Bell-bottoms rock
A quick point of clarification. A Prince is in a rather unique class of nobi.ity with the individual being part of Royalty. Traditionally, especially during the Regency era, a Royal was expected to marry another Royal of at least the status of Duke. Marrying one of the lesser nobility, including someone such as an Earl, was considered marrying beneath one's station. This situation loosened after the Edwardian Era.
Wonderful video! I didn't realize the clergy was also within the highest social sphere, but I guess it makes sense, since younger sons were often clergy. I'm surprised you didn't mention Mrs. Bennet. She was a tradesman's daughter. An extremely wealthy businessman who bestowed a generous dowry, no doubt. That's one of Lady Catherine's biggest complaints. "You're mother was a social climber!" And interestingly, despite Lizzy and Jane having social graces, their mother and younger sisters did not. Mrs.Bennet wasn't born a lady, and frankly, it showed. Keep making awesome content! I'm loving this channel 😁!
English social classes have been mobile since the 1300's/1400's. William Cecil (Elizabeth I) became a major advisor and the first Queen Elizabeth's prime minister in the later 1600's. He came from a family of connected and upwardly mobile family. He was the founder of the Cecil dynasty. The current and 7th Marquess of Salisbury is Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. His family is a great example of how people can move upward in society. William Cecil's father was a minor courtier in the court of Henry VIII, who was father of Elizabeth I. This is a GREAT video and you explained mobility within classes PERFECTLY.
Well, if the monarch bestows favor on you, that counts more than anything else, since ALL power flowed from the monarch at that time, and the monarch was the bestower of honor, period. Everything else flowed downward from that.
Thank you Professor Ms./Miss Dashwood for a most enlightening explanation. 1) Mobility WITHIN a sphere/ class is called. INTRA-- class, while BETWEEN spheres/classes is called. INTER-- sphere/ class 2) In mid and late 19th c. ?fiction ( and fact??) stories appeared that focused on inter class relations, such as Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester, and a few others in UK and other countries,, especially US and Horatio Alger rags to riches stories..Even in Mid E, origin of Islam features a similar inter class marriage relation.
Thank you for making this video to explain the world of Jane Austin and the social class of her time, I'm sure it gets even more complicated at times and can get somewhat blurry, though in modern times it is not so much followed in the USA I'm sure it still stands in most of Europe, maybe it still has some relevance in the USA but I'm not in any of those spheres, it would be interesting to learn how the social classes changed over time as they colonized America from Europe or did they cling to the old social classes belief system and how it is compared to modern times
To those who are interested in a "real" Cinderella story, look up King Eric XIV of Sweden who married the peasant girl Karin Månsdotter. (Spoiler alert for the life of a man and woman who lived in the 1500s: it did not end well for them after that marriage.)
Hey! Great video :3 thank you very much I have one question left though. I remember from your previous videos that there was a nobility (guys with fancy titles) vs gentry (guys who gain money from land and basically don't work) division. Then how come that a gentleman's daughter (gentry) can marry a lord (nobility) without leaving her sphere? Or am I getting something wrong?
Basically, they were in the same greater sphere. Those were just distinctions of hierarchy within the same sphere. So people in the same sphere could and did outrank each other, but they still socially were in that same group that intermarried, etc.
@@EllieDashwood oh, I think I get it now. Thank you so much! Love your content. It's actually shocking how many sides there are to P&P. Masterpiece indeed
When it came to micro-social status chambers, mobility was pretty easy for a woman to move up or down one micro-sphere. That is where things like social connections and how the family acts come really into play. Now at times there were some limits, depending on inheritances etc. But a lot came down to how classly the lady herself is. Its more fiction, but bridgerton shows it with Daphne's suitors. In title hierarchy, it goes Prince, Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Lord. Daphne's father was a Viscount, placing her solidly in the middle. But her main suitors were a Duke, Prince, and a Baron. And all three were ok for her to marry. Now a wealthy landed gentrey could marry into the royal hierarchy if the situation was right. Like Anne de bourgh, could reasonably marry into a title, but with lydia it would have been a scandal.
@@emilylewis5373 Bridgerton is a modern fantasy work, very much at odds with social reality. It is unrealistically executed fanfic, not a good source for legitimate comparisons
The "Cinderella story we all have been fed is inherently not the 'Rags to Riches' story that we were all lead to believe" was not the hot take I was expecting...................... But definitely one I think we all needed to hear.
Hi Ellie, can you do a video on Mr Bingley. If he’s so rich and from aristocracy, how come he had to rent a house, why didn’t he just have one as part of the family estate? I’m also curious about Mr and Mrs Hurst. Thank you 🙂
Reminds me of the Feudal System of China and Japan- top dog was the lords who owned land, then the farmers who planted and produced rice, , followed by artisan/craftsman and lowest on the totem pole, the merchants, because they produced nothing. However towards the late 18 and 19th century, the merchants became so rich and powerful and able to control the price of rice and all things. And farmers and lords became poor and indebted to merchants
She was lower level gentry and he was topmost level gentry- but still the gentry class- nonaristocratic people who didn’t have to work for their incomes, incomes that almost always came from the land (rents/agriculture). This is why there’s subtle recognition that the Bingleys had more money than the Bennets but were probably technically slightly lower socially due to their fortune’s basis in mercantilism. It was a realistic-ish Cinderella trope in that Darcy raised her up but they truly fell in love. Edit: wrote this before you mentioned Cinderella! Glad to see others who acknowledge that that narrative doesn’t really have a class divide :)
Wow that's really interesting about Cinderella, I'd always though the Grimm version was the original, and Disney etc has taken gigantuous liberties with it. Wow, there was an earlier version than Grimm which more closely resembles Disney!? (~mind being blown~)
THANK YOU for addressing class in Cinderella. It's not about rising out of your "intended" sphere, it's about recovering your birthright!
So true! I think that gets so lost in modern readings of it.
@@EllieDashwood The versions of Cinderella I've been exposed to tended to make her the daughter of a wealthy merchant which would change the class dynamics a fair bit but still meant that she was rich by birth and not really "meant" to be working for a living. I guess they are more bourgeois versions of the story while a Regency era version would make her landed gentry.
Cinderella -it was actually very common for second wives to get rid of the first children -either through boarding school, service, arranged marriage at an early age, convents
Modern fan interpretations focus a lot on the escaping abusive family aspects (and if people identify with that and it helps them then great) but I think historically people would have had different values and have been more invested in Cinderella being unjustly knocked down from the middle of the class structure to the bottom and then making a meteoric rise to the top.
But I can appreciate why that aspect has fallen out of favour in modern versions, since (most of us) no longer believe that aristocracy = goodness. It's natural for stories to evolve over time, just as long as we appreciate that they *have* evolved.
My mind has been blown, seriously
Mrs. Bennet is actually a good example of someone who moved into another sphere. Her father was an attorney, a kind of lawyer that was not considered genteel, and would class him as a tradesman. But by marrying Mr. Bennet, a landed gentleman, she moved upwards into another sphere. Of course, this wasn't without consequences. One of the reasons that some people might look askance at Darcy marrying Elizabeth, even though technically they were in the same social class, was that her mother's origins were from another sphere. By marrying Elizabeth, Darcy immediately connects himself with a bunch of people that are not from their sphere of the landed gentry/aristocracy. Indeed, this was probably one of the reasons that Darcy tried to resist his attraction to Elizabeth initially. In the end, he just has to overlook this, and he shows this by being friendly and willing to socialize with Elizabeth's Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, who are her mother's relatives, and are in the tradespeople/middling class.
The Bingley children are just one generation out from trade. Mr. Bingley hasn't even settled on an estate for most of the novel. Arguably, he and his sisters benefit greatly from his friendship with Mr. Darcy, who is solidly upper class and so people who hold Darcy in esteem assume that Bingley must have the suitable qualities to be seen as a gentleman rather than a tradesman. Likewise, if Mr. Gardiner continues to grow his fortune, and his family keeps getting invited to Pemberley for vacations and holidays, then eventually his children might also ascend into the upper class by association. A lot depends on behavior and decorum. Mrs. Bennet is looked down upon largely because of her silliness and hysterics. She doesn't *act* like a proper gentleman's wife and so nobody regards her as one (not even her husband).
As in most periods, it was far easier for women to move social spheres, either up or down, via marriage
tho to be honest, in the book it was unknown if Darcy KNEW that the Gardiners were lower class or not, as they dressed and acted very genteel.
@@X3nophiliaci doubt that Darcy wouldn’t know, since class is like the most basic thing to know about someone. And anyway, it would be fairly easy information to verify through gossip/casual conversation. by just looking at their properties, if they owned land, and finding out who/how theyre related to Lizzie’s family . But since theyre so well mannered and liked by Darcy and Lizzie, i dont think it would have mattered to him that much 😊
@@X3nophiliacIt’s worth noting that all these people are wealthy by any standard. There are just different social castes with in the upper set. Darcy represents the elite class due to the size of his fortune, the impressiveness of his estate, being from an ancient family and having noble family connections. The Bennet’s and Gardiners are definitely on the lowest rung of this hierarchy, with the Bingley’s being only one step above them.
Dr Octavia Cox recently did a great talk on classes and Jane/Bingley marriage. Because one could argue that Bingley married up in terms of class and then purchased an estate to seal his own upward mobility. Which makes Miss Bingley's objections laughable.
That is so true about the Bingleys!
I love her channel so much! Have you seen the latest video on the dubious dignity of Sir Walter's baronetcy in Persuasion?
@@JacquelineViana I did! I was like, "Well, well, well.... I can truly see you now, Sir Walter...."
The upward mobility was made possible with Bingley's marriage to Jane Bennett. He didn't purchase an estate, it was rented.
@@jospenner9503 she was talking about the end of the book, when the Bingleys bought their estate, thus cementing their assimilation into the gentry.
As she herself says, Elizabeth is a gentleman's daughter, Darcy is a gentleman, which makes them equals. To conflate class with money is a mistake.
She calls her dad a gentleman, she's not going to say he's not, is she? :)
No, it's more complicated than that. Mr. Bennett owned land but was not a connected to nobility, while Mr. Darcy owned land, did not have a title, but was connected to nobility.
@@ConstantiaVerted Mr. Bennett fell into the social class of gentry. This made him a gentleman. Even if he'd been poorly educated and had terribly bad manners, he would still have been regarded as a gentleman. He owned land and drew income from his rents. Mr. Darcy was a very rich gentleman, Mr. Bennett was an affluent gentleman.
@@SuzanneU I thought Mr. Bennet was a vicar or something, not a landowner.
@@penultimateh766 Jane Austen's father was a vicar.
I want to remind Emma's reluctance from a marriage between harriet and a farmer , and she said that this marriage would make a friendship between her and harriet impossible. She says there that if they were poor they were worth her notice because of her charity work but a farmer is too up for her notice for charity but too low for her notice as a friend.
and she was totally sure that Harriet was a gentleman's daughter, which in her opinion and knowledge of her world, make it a downgrade for Harriet for marrying below her supposed station in life.
@Get `em! Get `em! Emma was pretty, outgoing, accomplished-- and thought she could never marry because she couldn't leave her father, who was a boring, demanding hypochondriac. She had just had her best friend leave her for marriage, and got another best friend-- who was about to leave her for marriage. What Emma did to Harriet and Robert wasn't fair, but given that absolutely everybody including Mr. Knightly was willing to overlook how really trapped she was, I very much think Emma deserves points for trying to live a happy life in a miserable situation. Emma was very much aware that her money was not going to keep her warm on cold winter nights listening to her father whine about the texture of his gruel.
@@marthawolfsen5809 But that's still no reason for being selfish and keeping her "best friend" from marrying the guy she wants. I get that she panicked and was scared of losing another person close to her. But that's just wrong. And I always imagined Austen writing Emma in a way that you would find those faults in her and question the choices she makes and look at her through the eyes of Knightly. That's kind of amazing having a protagonist who isn't that perfect doll of a woman.
Mr Elton was punching so above his weight though just a vicker after a gentleman's daughter.
@@tunatofu63 but look at Edward in Sense and Sensibility or Tilney in Northanger. They came from a very rich family but became clergymen. They didn't sink in society I guess. I think it always mattered where you came from. And Tilney said he usually would look for a rich woman to marry.
I think the big complication is that Lizzie's mother married up whilst Darcy's mother married down. Their fathers are both Gentlemen Landowners (to different degrees, but ultimately the same class). Mrs Bennet was born middle class (lawyers and judges), whereas Lady Anne was born into a titled family but married the untitled Mr Darcy Senior.
As Sir Walter says in Persuasion,' "I have let my house to Admiral Croft," would sound extremely well; very much better than to any mere Mr._______; a Mr. (save perhaps some half dozen in the nation) always needs a note of explanation." ' Mr. Darcy, was definitely among the half dozen plain Mr's in the nation so illustrious and wealthy that he ranks with a lord. I don't think Lady Anne married down.
@@edithengel2284wealthy or not, she absolutely did marry down. She is the daughter of an Earl, she should have married a marquess or even a non-royal duke. Diana Spencer was the daughter of an Earl.
Her children are the children of a titleless rich man. Georgiana would likely struggle to find an Earl who’s mother would be willing to allow her to marry her son despite her wealth. Women at the time were supposed to marry either horizontally or up, marrying down, even for wealth, was a massive blow, which is why Lady Catherine is so obsessed with flaunting her status as a lady: her and her sister married down and it’s not a good look
@@emilybarclay8831 Naturally, marrying within the ranks of the nobility was the goal of daughters of earls and other nobles. However, daughters of the nobility married untitled gentlemen about 50% of the time at this period. (There were not enough titled men to provide husbands for every such lady, for one thing. There were perhaps only a dozen dukes in the country, for example.) Mr. Darcy Senior would have been an excellent choice for a young woman in Lady Anne's position.
Lady Catherine is indeed obsessively proud about her descent, but she did marry a very wealthy individual who at least, if not noble, was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Bourgh.
Few earl's mamas would have complained about the entrance of a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of an earl into their family, especially since itis also the case that noblemen's sons had more latitude to marry outside their rank than did their sisters.
In short, the marriages of Lady Anne and Lady Catherine were not out of the ordinary, nor did they present bad optics.
@@emilybarclay8831 While it was naturally the goal of the daughters of noblemen to marry within the nobility, at the period in question, only about 50% of them did so. For one thing, there were not sufficient noblemen to provide spouses for all these ladies; there were only about a dozen dukes, for example. There were under 60 marquesses.
It was also the case that it was typically the daughters of dukes and marquesses, rather than those of the lower ranks of the nobility who had the most success at marrying a nobleman. Considering that Anne and Catherine were "only" earl's daughters, it's not surprising that they didn't find husbands among the nobility. But they did find husbands of high lineage who were quite wealthy.
Lady Catherine was indeed obsessively proud of her lineage. But it is also true that, while her husband was not noble, he was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Burgh.
It was also the case that noblemen's sons at this period were freer to marry outside their rank, and more purely for money, than their sisters. So no earl's mama would have objected to a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of earls entering their family--au contraire.
In short, the Ladies Anne and Catherine made good marriages in a very ordinary pattern for ladies of their rank.
@@emilybarclay8831 While it was naturally the goal of the daughters of noblemen to marry within the nobility, at the period in question, only about 50% of them did so. For one thing, there were not sufficient noblemen to provide spouses for all these ladies; there were only about a dozen dukes, for example. There were 32 marquesses in 1818..
It was also the case that it was typically the daughters of dukes and marquesses, rather than those of the lower ranks of the nobility like who had the most success at marrying a nobleman. Considering that Anne and Catherine were "only" earl's daughters, it's not surprising that they didn't find husbands among the nobility. But they did find husbands of high lineage who were quite wealthy.
Lady Catherine was indeed obsessively proud of her lineage. But it is also true that, while her husband was not noble, he was a baronet. Had she not had her own courtesy title, she would still have been Lady de Burgh.
It was also the case that noblemen's sons at this period were freer to marry outside their rank, and more purely for money, than their sisters. So no earl's mama would have objected to a very rich and pretty granddaughter and niece of earls entering their family--au contraire.
In short, the Ladies Anne and Catherine made good marriages in a very ordinary pattern for ladies of their rank.
One of the chief ironies of P&P, which is often glossed over in the screen adaptations, is that the Bingleys are only one or two generations removed from trade themselves. As a result the sisters are more judgmental of people with links to trade than "old money" families might be. In fact, they mock Sir William Lucas: "I"m sure he is a very good man." "And I'm sure he kept a very good shop before being elevated to the knighthood!"
Yes! Their father was in trade, wasn't he?
Snobbery was real.
@@somethingclever8916 Even though knighthood was the lowest form of nobility and could not be passed down to the son, unlike a baronet, which could be passed. Both of those titles could be awarded to landed people.
I agree with you about the Bingleys and Sir William. I think there's such a huge amount of tension in Austen's novels about people attempting to literally jump class: Sir William Lucas who was knighted for being a mayor and giving a speech; Mrs Jennings' daughters who have their past erased through a private seminary; the prizewinning officers of _Persuasion_; the very genteel Gardiners who are accepted into the Pemberley family party despite Mr Gardiner's job; even Mr Martin from _Emma_ who reads elegant extracts and an agricultural newspaper, and can afford to send his sisters to a boarding school... And then you get the markers of going down class as well: the Bennets with their attorney and merchant uncles lose points; Sir Walter Eliot has to move out of his ancestral seat. She has a lot of value judgements about who deserves to jump up or fall down, I think.
The Bingley sisters are covering up their own insecurities.
This hasn't really changed, it's just understood rather than spoken about. It's why there was such a big deal made over middle-class Kate Middleton. Her parents are multi-millionaires, how are they, middle class? Because they were born that way.
That is such a good point about Kate!
Class and money are only connected in the US.
Yes, I remember not really understanding what the big deal was about Kate being “common.” This really helps put it into perspective. It also perhaps helps explain why there seemed to be so much pressure for Charles to marry Diana (daughter of an Earl) even though they were clearly not compatible.
Middle class by British standards.
No one would say billionaire author JK Rowling is middle class in the US - but she is in British definition
@@somethingclever8916 and if we're talking about decorum I'd say she is low class lol
If Mr. Darcy was making 10,000 per year, and was an equivalent of a modern-day billionaire, then the Bennets who might be making 1,000 per year would be millionaires. They were hardly poor.
They definitely an amazing income!
I got the impression that they had a fairly expensive lifestyle (relative to their income), so they didn't have much discretionary disposable income left - given that servants, residence maintenance and an occasional ball weren't really optional. Someone with much lower income could "get away with" a much more frugal lifestyle, but Bennets had to live up to a certain expected standard, whether they wanted or not. All of it is just an impression, with next to no research into the subject...
@@slavkovalsky1671 that's true, but I get the impression that the text itself condemns the Bennets for not even trying. The text points out that Mr Bennet made no effort to save for her daughters, and that Mrs Bennet had no talent for economy, and we see her bragging that girls don't have to do anything at home and kind of condemning the Lucases because Charlotte needs to be involved with domestic issues somehow... I imagine they could try to save money here and there, but I don't know if that would represent a substantial change having to split the amount to five daughters.
@@slavkovalsky1671 Miss Dashwood would certainly be shocked with their expenses considering their income.
@@giovana4121 upper class people do not do housework. Housework then was nothing like you think of it, it was drudge labor. Just the calluses on the hands would make those girls unmarriagable to anyone.
An extra: many poor people also considered learning to write and read as unnecessary or a waste of time, because they did not see those skills as useful and they considered that it was better for their children to learn the family trade. something they knew would be useful. my grandfather, who was the first alphabet in his family, told me that story.
That is so interesting!!!
@@EllieDashwood This is partly why in more modern times school became compulsory by law (in my country). Many families found it more profitable for their children to work at home than to study more intellectual subjects. In other cases they simply couldn't
I imagine (but I'm no expert) that one reason for teaching the poor to read would have been so they could read the Bible.
Yep - it was definitely, in the minds of the paternalistic rich - a very fine line. You didn't want The Poor to fall into vice for want of the Scriptures, or not know their duties, and there were some roles where they might be a better servant if they could read,, but really being scholars…. Oh my!
Just for your information : the word you are looking for is literate , not Alphabet . The alphabet is you abc , literate is someone that can read and write . What would have described your father’s family would be illiterate .
Let's not forget that Mrs. Bennet moved upwards between spheres, which would make the Bennet family even more outrageous to some people back in the day
Good point! 👍🏻I might be talking about this in an upcoming video. 😏😃
I think that Mr. Collins has also moved upwards, but without the confidence and manners expected of his new gentility. He gets no respect because he shows excessive deference (which is a sign of being socialized in a lower class) and oblivious arrogance (which is a sign of being nouveau riche). By contrast, the first impression of Mr. Darcy is the opposite: aloof and expecting deference; and old-fashioned etiquette. As Elizabeth's suitors, Mr. Collins would be as far a step down as Mr. Darcy would be as far a step up. But they're both in the gentry.
@@AdrianColley
And an even bigger jump would be Wickham going to law school. From nothing to rubbing elbows with the movers and shakers only with the help of the Darcy family and he still messed it up. Not many poor folks got chances like that.
@@perdidoatlantic Wickham's stituation really shows how high Mr. Darcy's father thought of him. This is the treatment younger sons got back in the day - which also shows how much of a bastard he was for refusing the oportunity to assimilate into the gentry just to get some money instead.
@@EllieDashwood Oh yes please!
Nitpick here: "inter-sphere" mobility would be moving between two spheres-out of one sphere and into another, which is the opposite of what you're talking about. Moving within a sphere is INTRA-sphere mobility.
And marrying beneath would be infra, like "infra dig".
Thank you for saying that Grimm’s added to the Perrault Cinderella story the gruesome aspects (or more like they collected their own version from Oran tradition in Germany). People so often say that Grimms version is the original when there are so many Ciderella versions (in my country she goes to ball 3 times with different dresses for example. And Disney adapted Perrault not Grimm.
I feel like most countries have a Cinderella-esque fairytale, because it contains a topic/ morale that everybody in every culture can understand.
I myself have heard several versions, containing a fairy godmother, hazelnuts, pigeons, a magical tree, one or two step-sisters, father being alive or dead,... the important part is fundamentally the same but every version has their own something about it that makes it unique.
So Belle from Beauty and the Beast has a more cinderella story than Cinderella herself, how interesting! I love your videos!
In the stories, as opposed to the film, Beauty is the daughter of a wealthy, upper class man who loses all of his money.
@@mamadeb1963 I've usually heard it portrayed as a very wealthy merchant - usually the catalyst that get's the father into Beast's castle is that a ship he thought was lost makes it to port.
Is that news….？
@@Estarile In some versions, Beauty is revealed to be a princess herself. It's very version-dependent
Fun fact : The glass slippers (verre in french) are actually in fur from a now extinct animal called vair (same sound as verre)
Interesting! Thank you for sharing that ☺️
The Eurasian Red Squirrel isn't extinct?
I love how your videos overlap with Dr Octavia Cox's close reading RUclips Channel. Last week she studied the fluidity of the class system in Pride and Prejudice and how it shows us how Caroline and Louisa are desperate to assimilate into the gentry class.
That’s so interesting! And yes, they were some seriously desperate sisters!
I love both channels--this one and Octavia Cox's channel. Different styles of speaking about very similar subjects.
@@EllieDashwood for real, why else would Louisa marry Mr.Hurst?
Remember - the recent revolutions in America and then France were reverberating through English society. They had zero interest in the poor getting ideas. So, education was an outrageous idea. This is not a class system, it’s a caste system.
A prince marrying a barmaid? Unheard, therefore said prince created the story of how he fought dragons, climbed briars, or other such adventures to rescue a princess who's been asleep for 100 years. Excuse her manners--they are 100 years out of date.
Or you are Peter the Great and doesn't give a crap and make a prostitute/officers kept woman Tzarina of Russia. She actually did good taking over as regent after Peters death for a short time.
No one would have believed any of that dragon stuff in real life. Some kings did marry commoners. It was just a matter of whether they had the political power to get away with it. Emperor Justinian married Theodora, and she was a prostitute. She was also a very good empress.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/10/theodora-empress-from-the-brothel
I remember watching downtown Abby and absolutely shocked at how a character said his mother was proud of him being a footman. And how another maid said her mother warned her against moving upwards in life by becoming a secretary. As an American, it was hard to wrap my head around.
To be in service was a secure position ,and senior servants often became friends with their employers,and still do.
I remember a promotional spot for the BBC Pride and Prejudice on PBS (yes, this was years ago) touting the fact that Darcy was super rich and Elizabeth was 'middle class'. It just dawned on me they were using the American version of 'class'.
This is a super informative and enjoyable video. I thought I kind of understood class, but so many things were clarified for me by this video including the role of religion in the structure and oppression of the class system. It made me think about Downton Abbey and how Tom Branson, the chauffeur married Lady Sybil. Perhaps this relationship occurred around the time that the formal class system was crumbling. That cultural shift would be interesting to learn more about.
It was indeed crumbling. War especially was making people see who they really are, minus their fancy class and clothes, though class played role in there too
@@chrissiek8706 Yes, I just watched Ellie's video "What Happened to the Aristocracy" where she talks about the changes that took place in the late 1800's/early 1900's.
It's not Regency era literature, but a good example of a woman jumping social spheres and the social eyebrows it raises is Demelza in the Poldark series.
In Poldark, George Warleggan is also moving up spheres by marrying Elizabeth, who is an gentlewoman, then years later by marrying Lady Harriet (an duke's sister). Both women are socially superior to him however, they are both impoverished, whilst he is extremely rich but is a blacksmith's grandson and a tradesman.
I just came here to post the same. 😀
Yes Demelza was well beneath Ross.
But Ross was a poor relation and his social ties was his last name
Yes, but Poldark was written very recently. It is set in the late 1700, but it is hardly a historic novel.
[Edited]
@@andreare7766 "It's not Regency era literature..."
The class system in Austen's novels is one of the few things that prevents me from idealizing the Regency period. The vast majority of England's population would have been poor commoners and would have struggled with getting by day by day. I love Jane Austen, but basically they depict the top 5% of their society at the time.
you dont see a lot of commoners spending considerable amounts of time writing books tho like aint that sorta super obvious
True, but to be fair, Jane Austen herself was from the upper class. Hence she wrote about her own society and class which was what she knew about the most.
Great commentary! It actually made me wonder if there is another example hidden in the novel - Wickham. His backstory is that his father was a solicitor and steward of Pemberley (i.e. middle class). But the elder Mr. Darcy provided Wickham an upbringing comparable to what many sons of gentlemen (i.e. upper class) get due to his fondness for the boy. Except that Wickham wasn't headed for an adulthood as a landed gentleman like the younger Mr. Darcy was. So, as an adult, he set his goal of marrying an upper class heiress (ideally Georgiana Darcy) in order to attain status above the class he was born into. As Austen depicts him as a villain (and a loathsome one at that), it feels like one of these ambition-is-evil/going-against-God situations.
Also your channel and Dr. Olivia Cox's channel compliment each other quite nicely.
Aw, thank you!
Your videos are so good and it's so clear you put a lot of effort into them. I love the way you explain everything, and that you manage to make these topics so interesting even though they could easily be very boring.
I'm very much looking forward to your next video about those who broke the class barrier.
Yay! I am too!
@@EllieDashwood please include all the upwards and downwards mobility of the sisters in the beginning of Mansfield Park (Lady Bertram, Mrs Norris and Mrs Price). I think it's so fascinating.
@@EllieDashwood I hope you talk about the late Mrs. William Elliot
Note, however, that Jane, who is the daughter of a gentleman, marries someone who, since he has NOT bought Netherfield or any other estate, is not "landed gentry" but actually from "trade," which is how his father made his money. So she could be seen as going down the social hierarchy, but that is not emphasized in the novel, although the reality is presented. Note that Mrs. Bennett is very happy to have Jane marry Bingley because of his money and what his money can buy, which seems to include access to a wonderful home and friendship with a person, Darcy, who IS "landed gentry." What is also interesting is that Lady Catherine is really not operating from the perspective of class at all, but from the perspective of cold hard cash, which is not something Jane Austen would have thought highly of.
This is a thought provoking note! It’s interesting to think of Mrs. Bennett’s ideals of money for her daughters. Not necessarily that she is underwhelmed by her daughters’ counterparts and their social standing …but more so that her daughters’ standing is secured by birthright but Mr Bennett’s assumed “mismanagement” of the dowry funds is the real flaw. Do you think perhaps Mrs Bennett is much more thoughtful than we think and was anticipating a future (and possibly present) where money would be (or is) more influential than rank?
@Get `em! Get `em! what do you mean?
MrsBennet did not produce a son and heir so this makes the situation unstable. When Mr Bennet dies she and her daughters will lose their home as it will be inherited by Mr Collins. If Mr Bennet has not made good provision for his wife, and good dowries for his daughters, the future will find them living in genteel poverty.
I have to say I recently found your channel and have been binge watching. Now I'm watching the 1995 miniseries again and everything just makes so much more sense! I'll have to re-read the book now with all the knowledge I've gained from your channel.
It never set up with me how Cinderella could really start as uneducated servant and then marry a prince just like that... True love and everything, but girl should've had at least some competences and experience in dealing with nobility to become future queen. Perrault's version, as well as "Ever after" adaptation just make more sense.
Overall, great video! Keep up the good work!
Actually, Cinderella was a noblewoman who's father had remarried another noblewoman (who had daughters) who hated her stepdaughter and hid her away.
@@MsJPA79 yeah that's the version he's talking about as making more sense...
@@missquinberly It says that in all the traditional versions, including Disney. Cinderella was forced to be a servant in her own Father's mansion, because her stepmother wanted to humiliate her & save money on servants. She wasn't royalty, but she wasn't a peasant, either.
Those sleeves are TOTALLY TOPICAL! Can't you hear Mrs. Bennet right now?
"Your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves!"
I commented something similar! It's so obviously connected, I'm amazed more people haven't pointed it out!
Im posting to say that I found your channel yesterday and have been binging your videos all evening. You are so charismatic and engaging! Such a great addition to the typically male-dominated HistoryTube
Great video! It's hard to step out of our own modern mindset and really think about how things worked in the past. It's even harder to do that without passing judgement. I am sure if people from the past, or from the future, could look at how things are done now they would probably think "it must be terrible to live in those days!" 😄 I could imagine there were lots of people who found the social system difficult. I can also imagine that there were just as many who found it comforting because I might be rich or poor or whatever "at least I know who I am and where I belong." That is something that we don't have in modern society. You can climb as high as you want, but there is nothing to stop you from falling all the way to the very bottom either. People come and go out of our lives all the time. It's not the same as having a circle of people that you will always be a part of. Not saying one is better than the other. Just saying I could imagine some people found security and stability in that idea. And I doubt that it was just rich people who felt that way. I would think that mobility in classes would seem alien and frightening to poorer people too. Not that anyone enjoys being destitute, but I'm sure the idea of jumping classes would feel dangerous and scary in a lot of ways. It is possible, most poor people of that time didn't aspire to be rich, but just less destitute within their own circles.
These are such great points! People do tend to feel secure within the culture they are born in. Meanwhile, our society would probably scare them all in so many ways if they were suddenly transported into it.
Every time I watch a video like this or read a nonfiction book about Jane Austen's books and the society in which she lived, it gives me a deeper insight into her novels. Each time I read one of her books, I catch stuff that I missed in the past. Especially , with " Pride and Prejudice." Every time I read it, I find myself cackling over something hilarious that I missed before. Thank you for the information. I always appreciate your videos. :)
You are an AMAZING teacher and story teller/ way of explaining history. I am so happy I stumbled upon your channel!
Huh, that's anew perspective for me to take a look at classical fairy tales.
A lot I can think of right now do keep the happy couple in the same sphere.
Thank you.
Unlike In Poldark in which Ross marries his servant - Demelza It was written, however in 1946 - a time when the social class structure had changed
I'm so happy to have found your channel! Absolutely love the content, and I also find your videos very calming to watch 💗
Aw! Welcome to the channel! I’m so glad you found our community too!
I feel the same way,👒
I love that you brought up Cinderella! It's so true and I hadn't ever considered it.
Society was rapidly changing however and it had started before regency and continued later (but in England not as much as in some places). You should do some generational overview at some time about what things in society and fashion would be different if Austen lived to write about the children of her main characters.
Your excitement over sleeves makes me think of Mrs. Bennet talking to Mrs. Gardiner ["However, your coming just at this time is the greatest of comforts, and I am very glad to hear what you tell us, of long sleeves.'']. That was also a bit off topic to their conversation about Lizzie turning down Mr. Collins, but sometimes you just have to take a second to appreciate new fashions!
I'm tempted to go totally tangential and wonder how a completely different franchise's and time period's character, Anne Shirley, would have viewed these "bell bottom" sleeves as opposed to her beloved "puffed sleeves"!
@@KaironQDI thought of Anne, as well.
I've been reading a FASCINATING book about the mutiny on the Bounty, which occured in the 1790s, and this video touches on a fascinating angle of the mutiny that rarely gets discussed. Fletcher Christian and most of the other young gentleman "officers in training" were from titled families who had lost their fortunes; they had status but no money. These young men did not get along well with two of their number who were from merchant class families with large fortunes. These fortunes-without-connections seem to have really galled Fletcher Christian, who specifically singled out these two to join Capt. Bligh in being set adrift in a small boat, and at least one of whom he was not on speaking terms with by the time of the mutiny, in part because when Christian petulently refused Capt. Bligh's invitation to dinner, this young man went instead. They, along with the Captain and his second in command, were the only people forced into the boat, which shows just how much Christian and the other Mids disliked them. It is interesting to note that they had been given the two available Midshipman ratings in the books (because their one connection, Sir Joseph Banks, was Bligh's patron) while all the other young gentleman were listed as only Able Seaman (but in practice treated just like Midshipman, with all the powers and privileges of the rank). Christian was acting-Lt. for most of the voyage, so it seems unlikely to have bothered him as much, but some of the others may have taken offence at two mere merchant-class fellows being given preferential treatment over their poor-but-well-connected-and-ancient-family-ed selves.
It is interesting that a friend of mine from the UK absolutely hates the showrunner of Downton Abbey because said showrunner is apparently really enamored with this type of class system, and the whole show is his love letter to it. I don't know if it is true (altho I have seen him speak about it in some making-of video and definitely feels that way), but that is my friend's interpretation 😆
The writer of the series, Julian Fellows, does indeed love this class system of the past.
Am very much finding your depth of research and understanding absolutely fascinating, opening up the books of the era in a new way for me. The sleeves are also first-rate.
Excellent, and a fine clarity of Cinderella. Thanks.
Thank you!!!
I think you can see this "sphere moving shunning" very clearly when they talk about the first Mrs Eliott in Persuasion, and how they need to justify the marriage.
Cinderella is usually at least implied to be a gentleman's daughter. Lady Godiva, on the other hand, at least in one version is a cobbler's daughter.
Godiva also rode naked through the town. Not exactly comparable. Godiva was a social activist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Godiva
@@robinlillian9471 Which is in itself strange. At the time she would have lived she'd have control over the taxes in Coventry (I think that's the location). She could have just lowered them herself.
@@Estarile Her husband was raising the taxes on the place he inherited. He had control and only agreed to lower them if she rode naked.
Very interesting. This not only helps me understand these novels but also my family history.
Oh my goodness, I have always loved this era in history (literature and movies). I stumbled across this channel recently and I’m really enjoying it! I have been binging,and I’m learning so many things, I’m ashamed, that I didn’t know. This video is really helpful in understanding the relationships that were seen in Jane Austin’s books, and in series such as Brigerton, or the story of Cinderella. Knowing about how spheres worked brings so much clarity to these magnificent books!
Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge 🙏!
Really great content as usual.
Thank you so much!
Would Wickham and Lydia be in the same social class? Was his father not working for Darcy's father, or does his army status work in his favour here? Absolutely love the channel, great video!
Thank you so much! So Lydia definitely married down into the upper middle class. His army status does work in his favor in making him of a more acceptable match, since being an officer in the military was considered a more genteel profession. So as an officer’s wife and with her birth status, Lydia can appear at better advantage in society than if he had been in trade or something. But overall, she married down.
@@EllieDashwood Also, the elder Mr. Darcy treated Wickham as a son and meant for him a clerical living, another gentleman's career.
@@EllieDashwood With Mary, did she marry down as well? Based on the comments from Miss Bingley, I can't see her lawyer uncle's clerk ever becoming something like a barister.
@@EllieDashwood Adding, marrying up or down one microclass, ie for elizabeth to marry Darcy, or Lydia/Jane marrying down, was acceptable for the most part unless you were really stuck up/royality.
@@Luciachan23 Even a reasonably wealthy lawyer like Mr Gardiner would be classed as marrying down. However, due to the low wealth of the Bennets, it isnt a shocking marrying down. Had Mr Darcy married the daughter of a lawyer, that would be shocking. Basically, for people near the edges of their class the sphere had overlaps with the other classes.
Not Jane Austin, but an example of a class-crossing marriage that shocked everyone was when Captain VonTrap proposed to and married Maria, his children's nanny, instead of the Baroness...
Your comment inspired me to read about Maria von Trapp on Wikipedia. It is super interesting to read that in real life she was not really in love with Captain von Trapp, but that the "mother abbess" from whom she sought counsel when he proposed told her that it was "God's will" that she marry him. She was actually angry on their wedding day because she really wanted to be a nun! She did love the children though, and eventually fell in love with her husband, too. Anyway, just thought that was interesting and a bit different from the movie version.
It's Austen, not Austin, which is a car. And Maria von Trapp wrote an autobiography...not fiction.
@@sulaganabiswas OH! Excuse me! What a gaffe!
And I didn't say it was fiction, just an example.
@@aksez2u The oldest daughter also wrote her own version of events and a movie was made from her account. There are considerable differences from The Sound of Music. Very interesting to have different perspectives!
@@sulaganabiswas We sure do appreciate you taking your time to correct everyone LOL
THAT was so interesting!!! Where were you in my history or Literature class in 1977?? 😂 thanks for the video.☺️
This is fascinating! Thank you. In your next before where you talk about marriage outside of their social spheres, can you mention Princess Diana and Dutchess Megan? I have never understood the problems with these. Thanks so much!
There was no problem with Princess Diana,from the point of view of class,and we Brits were delighted to have Megan.But Megan clearly didnt want to be a classy person.Disappointing !
Princess Diana was Lady Diana before marriage. She was a member of the nobility. Her father was Earl Spencer. Her family has been members of the nobility longer than the Windosors. They've held the title of Earl for over 600 years.
Britain was in the middle of the industrial revolution at this time. The landed gentry lived in their own little world and still do so to some extent. They did not get invoved in business or travel to the empire. Jane Austen also lived in a bubble and in rural England. There were plenty of self-made men and rich industrialists at this time. People were also getting rich from the empire. Austen's world did not really reflect society.
Jane Austen was a little before all of that. This was Regency England and not Victorian. The industrial revolution was only just getting started at the turn of the 19th century. The Robber Barons were later.
@@robinlillian9471 Not true. The industrial revolution started in Britain in the. 1760s. You must be American. The spinning Jenny was invented in 1764. The steam engine was invented in the 1760s. The power loom was invented in 1784. These inventions transformed the British economy and made people rich. The East India Company was also making people rich. These people were not members of the landed gentry. They would spend time in India or the Caribbean and then return with pots of money. Robert Clive was a typical example, he started out as an office clerk.he left India in 1760 with an estimated fortune of £46 billion in 2019 money. Austen rarely mentions the Napoleonic wars which ended in 1815. She lived in a bubble.
Of course it reflected society. Rural England society. Not the entire country, but there were drastic differences between the reality she lived in and the reality of those people (as you said). Would you say they lived in a bubble and their work didn't reflect society when people involved with the newly formed industries wrote about their world and their society because it doesn't encompass the reality of other parts of the country, such as the ones Jane austen writes about?
Jane Austen was very aware of the "Empire" as you say because many of her brothers were in the navy. Those brothers had wives in England and she visited them often according to her letters that have survived. They would often send or bring back fabric and clothes from over seas to their families back in England.
I once watched a documentary about workhouses in which they stated that not only you were supposed to accept your station in life, social rank-wise. At a certain time period being poor was also considered an actual crime by law. If you were poor the blame was totally on you and you were supposed to endure it. So insane!
😳 That sounds so scary! Workhouses were the thing of nightmares by the Victorian Era. 😭
You read about such views and are not surprised how brutal French revolution was... Just that people waited so long
Adoro su pronunciación del idioma. No me canso de escucharla, lo mejor es que amo Orgullo & Prejuicio y esto es magnífico!
Thank you. The Scots, Irish, Welch, ... Rebels, scoundrels, and always teaching people to read!
I absolutely celebrate your comparison to the classic Cinderella story by Perrault - it is so important to consider Cinderella's actual status as daughter of a nobleman and therefore her social rank, which was taken from her by the malicious decision of her stepmother to let her work as a servant in her own house. Therefore, the stepmom took social capital from Cinderella, who's in fact an upper class daughter. Thanks a lot for pointing on that, it gives the story and the concept of the tale ("Cinderella effect" etc.) a completely different notion and versa-position to the American Dream! Your video is brillant, thanks a lot for your great work!!
Yes! And great point about Cinderella as well!
Thank you! 😃
Actually, Cinderella was a noblewoman who's father had remarried another noblewoman (who had daughters) who hated her stepdaughter and hid her away.
Your social commentaries are sooooo good
super interesting! you explained so much and so clearly!
These videos are completely excellent and I am binging my guts out on them. Thank you!!!
How interesting about Cinderella. What a wonderful example and way to translate this!
Strangely enough, I too am excited by your sleeves 😏 lol. History is never a simple thing. Thanks for posting and shining a little light.
your videos are so good!! I'm always impressed by how much I learn.
How would you view the marriage of Harriet, in Emma, to Robert Martin? Harriet is confusing because her parents are unknown, so we don’t know if she is or is not a part of the Gentry. She is also confused about her “class,” given that she even thinks about Mr. Knightley as a possible mate. I think there is more focus on class in Emma than in any of the completed novels. I think that makes it hard for people in our world to connect to it; note that it has not been done on TV or in film as often.
Love your presentation-you are gifted, girl. 😘
Aw! That’s so sweet! Thank you!
I don't know if you discussed this in any of your videos, but there is one clear case in Austen where (presumably) a lady married down from her social sphere. That is in "Mansfield Park," in which Fanny Price's mother has married a common sailor, removing herself completely from the genteel class----abd her children as well. Fanny is taken in by her wealthy, titled uncle and aunt as a kind of token charity, but it is made clear that she is "not a Miss Bertram," like her cousins who were born into gentility. She would certainly not be considered a fit match for their son.
Terrific story and comparison with cinderella. Could you please do a video on how much Austen was influenced by the french revolution?
That’s a great video idea! I’ll definitely note it down for the future!
I was a literature major in college. Your show reminds me of what we do in literature tearing things apart. By any chance did you read middle march by George Elliot? That’s all about the rising of the middle class when are used to be a lower class and the aristocracy. I love the classics it of course Charlotte Brontë and Jade Austin are a lot of fun. Well Geneaire is not fun but there are a lot ofTypes and shadows behind the things we read. I did one of my final papers on Jane Eyre.
Omg Ellie, this idea about spheres and your example of a duke marrying a dairy maid creating complete and utter shock and condemnation, explains to me why in Poldark, Ross Poldark marries Demelza his scullery maid and everyone freaks OUT so much!!!!! I started watching that show and I understood that they were not in the same social class and I understood that is why Demelza talks about how Ross raised her up, however I did not understand until watching your video this idea of spheres of society impacting on who you married so strongly and even how your social class was ordained by God! The illustration of spheres definitely helped to illustrate this point and in fact made things much clearer.
Thank you so so much for this video, it is excellent as always and clearly educational for me. My mind is blown. Lol. :) :)
Those sleeves are soooo cute. I love wearing shirts with sleeves like that, it's nice seeing someone as excited by them as me ^^
OMG you just blew my mind by pointing out that Cinderella TOTALLY maintained conservative class boundaries!!! 😮
Could you make a video on what the peerage/class spheres look like today in England? How they evolved from the Regency Period.
Great video. If we apply this to Emma, it's also interesting to note that Knightley's disagreement with Emma about Harriet related to their differing views about the extent to which Harriet could be expected to "marry up". Emma initially couldn't regard Robert Martin as a good match for Harriet, and thought Mr. Elton would be suitable. Both Knightley and Elton himself strongly disagreed. Emma also went on to consider a Harriet and Frank Churchill marriage to be possible, although she did seem to realise it was ambitious. But the idea of Knightley and Harriet was too extreme (aside from Emma's own feelings for him).
A breakdown of class for Mansfield park would be fascinating!
Super interesting, thank you Ellie. I think your channel is really going to explode soon.
Could you do book recommendations and tv shows recommendations? 😬 and more of your content! It’s amazing.
you are so good at explaining these concepts. i love your videos!
This was very enlightening! Thank you!
I really enjoy your videos. I learn so much through them. Thank you and have a lovely day.
Binge watching your videos for the last three days now and I absolutely love your insights and explanations - I can literally feel brain cells growing! 🤩
And I love your shirt 😍 Bell-bottoms rock
A quick point of clarification. A Prince is in a rather unique class of nobi.ity with the individual being part of Royalty. Traditionally, especially during the Regency era, a Royal was expected to marry another Royal of at least the status of Duke. Marrying one of the lesser nobility, including someone such as an Earl, was considered marrying beneath one's station. This situation loosened after the Edwardian Era.
You are doing a great job, young lady! I enjoy every topic you cover! 😊💕
This is an awesome video! Thanks for the content Ellie. I found your channel a few days ago and have been watching your videos everyday! 🥰
Wonderful video! I didn't realize the clergy was also within the highest social sphere, but I guess it makes sense, since younger sons were often clergy. I'm surprised you didn't mention Mrs. Bennet. She was a tradesman's daughter. An extremely wealthy businessman who bestowed a generous dowry, no doubt. That's one of Lady Catherine's biggest complaints. "You're mother was a social climber!" And interestingly, despite Lizzy and Jane having social graces, their mother and younger sisters did not. Mrs.Bennet wasn't born a lady, and frankly, it showed.
Keep making awesome content! I'm loving this channel 😁!
Mrs. Bennet’s father (Mr. Gardiner Sr) was an attorney, though. It’s her brother, Mr. Gardiner, who is a tradesman.
English social classes have been mobile since the 1300's/1400's. William Cecil (Elizabeth I) became a major advisor and the first Queen Elizabeth's prime minister in the later 1600's. He came from a family of connected and upwardly mobile family. He was the founder of the Cecil dynasty. The current and 7th Marquess of Salisbury is Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. His family is a great example of how people can move upward in society. William Cecil's father was a minor courtier in the court of Henry VIII, who was father of Elizabeth I. This is a GREAT video and you explained mobility within classes PERFECTLY.
Well, if the monarch bestows favor on you, that counts more than anything else, since ALL power flowed from the monarch at that time, and the monarch was the bestower of honor, period. Everything else flowed downward from that.
Thank you Professor Ms./Miss Dashwood for a most enlightening
explanation.
1) Mobility WITHIN a sphere/ class is
called. INTRA-- class, while BETWEEN
spheres/classes is called. INTER--
sphere/ class
2) In mid and late 19th c. ?fiction ( and
fact??) stories appeared that focused
on inter class relations, such as Jane
Eyre and Edward Rochester, and a few
others in UK and other countries,, especially US and Horatio Alger rags to
riches stories..Even in Mid E, origin of Islam features a similar inter class
marriage relation.
Thank you for making this video to explain the world of Jane Austin and the social class of her time, I'm sure it gets even more complicated at times and can get somewhat blurry, though in modern times it is not so much followed in the USA I'm sure it still stands in most of Europe, maybe it still has some relevance in the USA but I'm not in any of those spheres, it would be interesting to learn how the social classes changed over time as they colonized America from Europe or did they cling to the old social classes belief system and how it is compared to modern times
To those who are interested in a "real" Cinderella story, look up King Eric XIV of Sweden who married the peasant girl Karin Månsdotter. (Spoiler alert for the life of a man and woman who lived in the 1500s: it did not end well for them after that marriage.)
Hey! Great video :3 thank you very much
I have one question left though. I remember from your previous videos that there was a nobility (guys with fancy titles) vs gentry (guys who gain money from land and basically don't work) division. Then how come that a gentleman's daughter (gentry) can marry a lord (nobility) without leaving her sphere? Or am I getting something wrong?
Basically, they were in the same greater sphere. Those were just distinctions of hierarchy within the same sphere. So people in the same sphere could and did outrank each other, but they still socially were in that same group that intermarried, etc.
@@EllieDashwood oh, I think I get it now. Thank you so much! Love your content. It's actually shocking how many sides there are to P&P. Masterpiece indeed
When it came to micro-social status chambers, mobility was pretty easy for a woman to move up or down one micro-sphere. That is where things like social connections and how the family acts come really into play. Now at times there were some limits, depending on inheritances etc. But a lot came down to how classly the lady herself is. Its more fiction, but bridgerton shows it with Daphne's suitors. In title hierarchy, it goes Prince, Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Lord. Daphne's father was a Viscount, placing her solidly in the middle. But her main suitors were a Duke, Prince, and a Baron. And all three were ok for her to marry. Now a wealthy landed gentrey could marry into the royal hierarchy if the situation was right. Like Anne de bourgh, could reasonably marry into a title, but with lydia it would have been a scandal.
@@emilylewis5373 Bridgerton is a modern fantasy work, very much at odds with social reality. It is unrealistically executed fanfic, not a good source for legitimate comparisons
The "Cinderella story we all have been fed is inherently not the 'Rags to Riches' story that we were all lead to believe" was not the hot take I was expecting...................... But definitely one I think we all needed to hear.
Hi Ellie, can you do a video on Mr Bingley. If he’s so rich and from aristocracy, how come he had to rent a house, why didn’t he just have one as part of the family estate? I’m also curious about Mr and Mrs Hurst. Thank you 🙂
You deserve to have millions of subscribers
Reminds me of the Feudal System of China and Japan- top dog was the lords who owned land, then the farmers who planted and produced rice, , followed by artisan/craftsman and lowest on the totem pole, the merchants, because they produced nothing.
However towards the late 18 and 19th century, the merchants became so rich and powerful and able to control the price of rice and all things. And farmers and lords became poor and indebted to merchants
She was lower level gentry and he was topmost level gentry- but still the gentry class- nonaristocratic people who didn’t have to work for their incomes, incomes that almost always came from the land (rents/agriculture).
This is why there’s subtle recognition that the Bingleys had more money than the Bennets but were probably technically slightly lower socially due to their fortune’s basis in mercantilism.
It was a realistic-ish Cinderella trope in that Darcy raised her up but they truly fell in love.
Edit: wrote this before you mentioned Cinderella! Glad to see others who acknowledge that that narrative doesn’t really have a class divide :)
Wow that's really interesting about Cinderella, I'd always though the Grimm version was the original, and Disney etc has taken gigantuous liberties with it. Wow, there was an earlier version than Grimm which more closely resembles Disney!? (~mind being blown~)
Thank you for the enlightening video 🥰
Hopefully the follow up video talks about the middle class as the third sphere.