Is The Bennet Family Poor? Jane Austen Pride and Prejudice Analysis
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2024
- [Subtitulada en español] Have you ever wondered if Jane Austen's Elizabeth Bennet and her family are poor? They sure seem poor sometimes. Well, in this video we'll delve into a Pride and Prejudice Analysis of the financial and social standing of the Bennet family. We'll also examine what would have happened after Jane Austen's beloved story ended. And what fate Elizabeth would have had if she hadn't married Mr Darcy and ended up an old maid in the Regency Era.
💕
INSTAGRAM @elliedashie ➝ / elliedashie
WEBSITE ➝ elliedashwood.com
📽 Other Videos to Watch:
How to Size Up a Single Man of Large Fortune: • How to Size Up a Singl...
Are Lizzy and Darcy in the Same Social Class? • Are Lizzy and Darcy in...
Why Is Mr Darcy Not a Lord? • Why Is Mr Darcy Not a ...
Is Darcy Actually Rich? • Is Darcy *Actually* Ri...
5 Pride and Prejudice Words to Know • 5 Words Pride and Prej...
Links may be affiliate links which means I'll receive a small commission from your purchase at no extra cost to you. Thank you for supporting my channel.
✨✨ Try Audible: amzn.to/45Uzoqb
📚 Books Mentioned
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Novel go.magik.ly/ml/1u43m/
1940 Movie: amzn.to/43uQwBy
1995 Miniseries (Colin Firth Version): amzn.to/42zFoSm
2005 Movie (Kiera Knightly Version): amzn.to/3qCNVqE
Audiobook read by Rosamund Pike: amzn.to/3MTE1Iy
Emma
Novel: go.magik.ly/ml/1u441/
1996 Movie: amzn.to/43RxXal
2009 Miniseries: amzn.to/3qEJM5f
2020 Movie: amzn.to/45Yl9AM
Audiobook: amzn.to/42xBDNl
🕰 Watching Guide
00:00 Is The Bennet Family Poor? [Intro]
00:54 The Bennets' Income
03:22 The Bennets and Social Currency
08:30 Mr Collins Will Inherit The Estate
09:24 Was Elizabeth Bennet Poor? Dowries
15:02 How Much Should The Bennet Girls Have?
19:31 The Bennets and Mr Darcy
🧐 Learn More
Austen, J., In Kinsley, J., & Lupton, C. 2020). Pride and prejudice.
Hilton, B. (2013). A mad, bad, and dangerous people?: England, 1783-1846. Oxford: Oxford University Press. amzn.to/3J5xtWg
Thompson, F M. L. English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013.
Perkin, J. (2016). Women and Marriage in Nineteenth-Century England. London: Routledge.
💻 RUclips GEAR & TOOLS I USE
✨ Camera, Audio, Lighting, Tech ➝ obsw.it/s/3vyp
Editing Software ➝ adobe.prf.hn/click/camref:110...
Website Hosting ➝ go.shopmy.us/p-1619829
RUclips SEO Tool (CODE: elliedashwood)➝ www.tubebuddy.com/pricing?a=e...
Stock Footage & Images ➝ 1.envato.market/Ea9D7n
Music ➝ www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
#janeaustenprideandprejudice #prideandprejudiceanalysis #elizabethbennet #mrdarcy #mrcollins #regencyera
![Remble - Colors (ft. Mozzy & Stoneda5th) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KF-3AU9g9xg/mqdefault.jpg)
Mrs. B is properly concerned about her future, but too stupid to make a dent, and Mr. B is clever enough to see what’s wrong with his family, but too lazy to make a difference. Truly a match made in heaven.
I wouldn't call him lazy, just cowardly. He never stood up to any of the women's poor behavior as a father should, and probably never stood up to his wife either.
@@BradKandyCroftFamily He wasn't exactly a doormat. He endlessly toyed with his wife and daughters for his own entertainment.
@@BradKandyCroftFamily he also could have saved more for their dowries and he didn't.
He's been too concerned about his own comfort, I think, to make anything about it at any point.
At least because of Mrs B pushing her daughters, they married rich .😂 Mr B didn't even care about that part .
The Bennets are like a modern USA family who have a nice suburban house and new cars, but didn't save any money for the kids to go to college.
Now that's a GREAT comparison!
Great comparison!
Very astute!
Exactly!
I would add that the Mr Bennett doesn't have a retirement plan or significant savings and Mrs Bennett is a stay at home mom, so the day he dies/stop working they would be in trouble
Mr. Colins is literally that guy in your dms who keeps calling you beautiful until you reject him, and then it's "you're ugly anyway"
Your remark would be considered an impertinence by our patroness, Miss Elsinora Dashwood.
He would not
He would lecture on your ingratitude for an hour
@@somethingclever8916 And the TL;DR would be
"You're ugly anyway.''
I would never entertain such a fellow.
I would encourage others to not either.
@@somethingclever8916 Reminding you of all the reasons no one else is interested in you and how lucky you were to be asked out by him
I feel like if Lizzy agreed to marry Mr. Collins the only subject he’d ever bring up is Lizzy’s lack of fortune.
😂😂😂 Good point!
Completely! I mean, he’s already bringing it up *before* they’re married!
OMG, I quite literally laughed out loud. 🤣
Yes, and how he was so generous in lifting her in society.
I wonder if Mr Collins cried Charlotte's name or Lady C's name in the bedroom.
People usually gloss over how big a deal it was for Elizabeth to decline Mr. Darcy's offer of marriage. It should have doomed the entire family if Darcy wasn't so in love with her. In real life, relationships almost never survive a busted proposal.
Disagree. Otherwise my hundreds of proposals to Satomi Ishihara might be doomed, and I just can't go there...
That's because in real (modern) life, the people are already in a relationship before the proposal. They did it differently back then. You found a 'match' and married and made it work. It was less about love and more about survival, particularly for women.
It was insane. I’m sorry but as a heterosexual man if Jeff Bezos asked me to marry him I would say yes and worry about the particulars later. 😅😅
That's why Jane Austen died so young. Her brother supported her until she refused an offer of marriage from a rich man, then he threw his hands up and cut her off. She died just 3 years later.
@@edennis8578 didn’t know that. Wow sad. She died for her principles.
If you have any question about whether 1,000 pounds was a small dowery for daughters of a landed gentleman, remember that Mrs. Bennet, the daughter of a middle-class attorney, came into her marriage with 4,000 (at least)
The Bingleys conveniently forget about their own low connections. The Bennetts are above them in the social order. I think this is an other reason why Miss Bingley despises Lizzie so.
That’s such a good point. I think the hypocrisy of the Bingley sisters is a hallmark of their characterization that gets so lost in modern translation.
@@EllieDashwood And why Mr. Bingley wasn't fazed by Jane's low connections. Towards the end of the book, Austen points out Miss Bingley forces Darcy to say what hurts no one but her. She actually did it throughout the book, like when Darcy said the Bennett's connections would materially affect their marriage prospects. What was going on in her mind, knowing she was not gentry? Lizzie has a better claim, and chance, than she does. That has to sting!
They are textbook nouveau riche.
@@EllieDashwood yes- that’s their purpose in the novel... Austen is satirising this type of snob
@Ellie Dashwood those silly feathers in her hair. So apropos.
Jane Austen was a genius for making the readers love Mr Bennet for his dry wit and support of Lizzie, then flipping the script and showing us how selfish and uncaring he actually was. Longbourn entail could have been broken by applying for it. More money could have been saved for the daughters. And finally, he could have made arrangements for the eldest daughters to travel outside of their small town to try and find husbands. But Mr Bennet was content knowing that even if they ended up dirt poor after his death, HE would live and die in comfort.
The entail could have been broken?
@@FOLIPE yes, it could have been broken, it required hiring lawyers and applying to government, but actually doable. Mr Bennet just wouldn’t bother.
The thing is that for many members of the gentry and nobility at the time (and even today) breaking the entail was out of the question because of tradition and because of a sense of responsibility to the family. Breaking the entail would lead to the breakup of the estate and the loss of the sum of the hard work of generations.
@@JR-ck4fq yes, true for many gentry families at the time. Mr Bennet was mentioned at the beginning of P&P to have wished to end the family entail. However, no son was born and Mr Bennet did not seek alternative methods.
I've been thinking about this a lot and the vibe that i finally get from Mr.Bennet is that he's aloof and nonplussed about every subject Lydia, money, the world around him in general. By his logic if the family is healthy and well there's nothing to worry about. On the other hand as an adult I've come to completely understand Mrs. Bennet and her immense anxiety about the future. Both have their faults but over all their family's well being is a top priority
The Bennet's aren't poor. They're just incredibly bad at handling money. Were Mr. Bennet more cautious, his daughters might have been in a much more comfortable situation.
Good points!
I would sum it up that Mr Bennet is a 1% who married rich middle class and they saved so terribly that their daughters face actual poverty if worst happens and they were unmarried. Although they would also be treated as upper class and could get work as governesses so they would have a bit more money and place to live than just the interest that was on the poverty level of income.
And Mr Darcy if interested could have hustled himself to 0.1% if he had married a lords daughter and maybe become a lord himself too with some connections and work over time.
I suspect it may be Mrs Bennet who is the cause of some of their lack of savings... she doesn’t strike me as prudent or careful!
@@EH23831 Mr B is as bad, he has a serious book habit. Paper was taxed at that time, combine that with hand sewn good quality bindings then books become seriously expensive. I think the original editions of P&P cost around £1.
Also rather unlucky in their children: five daughters and zero sons. Flip one girl to a boy, and the prospects of all of them improve considerably. The son will inherit the property, and the girls will get 25% more each from their mother, and can --sponge off-- rely on their brother for support.
The way you explain it makes me understand how irresponsible Lizzy's father was in not saving more money to add to his daughters' doweries. If he started since they were born, I'm sure he could have bumped it up to 3,000 each. Of course, he'll live a life of luxury and comfort, but once he is gone, his daughters might not unless they marry well :(
That’s such a good point! It’s interesting because the book says that Mrs Bennet liked to live well and it was Mr Bennet restraining them to live within their income. So if he had the power to do that, he could have done so within the limits of saving too. 🤔
But they were playing those Vegas odds on eventually having a boy.
Could you do maybe a video on what future would look to Kitty and Mary if they never marry? How much would Mr Bennet save for them (or would be actually learn to save and bother to do it?). And for Mrs Bennet. Would they get a house together or move between in-laws and other relatives houses?
I think the book implies that Kitty at least could marry since she apparently improves away form Lydia and Mary is more happy to make morning calls with no comparisons to her sisters so maybe she gets more positive attention too in the neighborhood.
But you never know, and they could also end up widowed (in any case my headcanon is that Wickham dies in Waterloo like happened with most of his regiment in real life, and it would fit to me if we consider the date the book is written the date the book is set so it would happen far enough into the future).
He is good at making those sorts of mistakes of judgement. Starting with the woman he married, and culminating in his dismissing Lizzie’s objections to Lydia’s going to Brighton. As long as he can hide in his library and poke fun at his family (instead of managing them)… Basically, it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
He didn’t entirely neglect them financially; he did make sure they had “the usual masters”, such as those who would teach them to dance, plus Lizzie and Mary learned some piano, they probably had some French too. He’s not a great father, but he made sure they learned what they needed to navigate the social scene/marriage market.
So Bennetts were "poor" like Kate Middleton was "middle class". Got it.😆
It always trips me up that "middle class" means extremely wealthy in the UK.
@@Person1865
Ah the British class system. Being middle class in UK is more about aspirations to a certain lifestyle so you can be poor and middle class. Before they launched their business KM's mother was airline cabin crew and some of Prince William's friends commented on this less than politely. Ex friends now I should think!
Being fabulously wealthy doesn't make you upper class either. You pretty much have to be born into it but very few in that bracket these days
@@carolineg3079 so unnecessarily complicated 😂
@@carolineg3079If you are sending your children to Malbourgh you aren’t middle class.
When I lived in the UK in my 20s, I quickly learned that Middle Class has a very different meaning there than in the USA. It's basically wealthy but lacking connections to the old aristocracy. The professional class and business owners.
In the US, I'd considered myself "middle class" as the daughter of an electrician and a teacher, but in the UK I would not have been.
Side note, Jane Austen’s brother was richer in life than fictional Mr. Darcy
@samantha ssmith I’ll be honest, I don’t know what you meant here
@samantha ssmith actually… he’s closer to 100 Billion
One of her brothers was adopted by a wealthy couple who couldn’t have children. Jane, her mother, and her sister lived in a “cottage”he owned at the end of Jane’s life.
Mr Collins is portrayed as an odious creep but now I'm older than when I first read P&P, I can admit that by attempting to marry one of the Bennet daughters he's actually trying to do a decent thing. If he *had* married Lizzie, say, on her father's death he would not only inherit Longbourn but also he'd become responsible for her mother (if living) & any still unmarried siblings. So he's sort of trying to save them from the destitution Mrs Bennet so fears. They'd still be able to live in the house, for example, as Mr Collins has the vicarage that goes with his living. He's still a social climbing little creep but he did at least attempt to do a good thing by the standards of his time. It's just a shame he chose to hit on the wrong daughter! If Mrs B hadn't implied Jane was engaged, I feel sure he would have asked her, and sadly she probably would have felt constrained to accept. And I feel sure that Mary would have been delighted to accept (& probably a good clergyman's wife).
I think it would have been so interesting to see what would have happened if he had proposed to Mary! How would that have changed everything? Something tells me there’s probably an alternate ending spin off someone’s written about this. 😂
With the eldest daughter spoken for, Mr. Collins would have felt obligated to marry the second-eldest (Elizabeth) rather than skipping to the third (Mary). Daughters were usually married off in order back then.
@@sjw5797 Yes, very true; if Mr Collins had proposed to Mary, it would have been seen as a direct slighting of Lizzy, who was also available, but being older than Mary, had therefore had been single for longer. This rule of courtship is referred to by Austen when Lady Catherine criticises the younger Bennet daughters for being "out" while their older sisters are also out, but still unmarried. And Tom Bertram in Mansfield Park jokes about paying public attention to a young woman without realising that she wasn't out, therefby ignoring and insulting her older sister who was both "out" and single.
Everybody wants to pair Mary with Mr. Collins. What did Mary ever do to you people?
Seriously, though, this conversation is so interesting to me and I picked up on none of this as a teenager.
Mr Collins is unlikely to stay in his clerical living once he inherits Longbourn. Gentlemen don’t “work”. He will happily ensconce himself on his estate. Yes, he likes to toady to Lady Catherine but he isn’t going to miss the opportunity to swan around on his estate. The surviving Bennetts still living there will be evicted.
A few years ago I came the conclusion that--financially speaking--Mr. Bennet was the villain of the family and Mr. Collins the hero. Mr. Bennet had, for 20 years, lived the life of landed gentry but was exceedingly irresponsible. The fact that he would lose Longbourne was no secret. And even if he did have a son, he still should have saved for gifts for the daughters when they married. "By the time we gave up hope of having a son, it was too late to start saving." Dude no. Just no. Meanwhile Mr. Collins was ready to marry one of his cousins for the *sole purpose* of being honorable and sensitive to causing them future hardship by inheriting their estate. So if Mr. Bennet predeceased Mrs. Bennet, Mr. Collins could move in to Longbourne, but the rest of the Bennet would not have to quit it. He may not be clever, charming or sensible, but asking Elizabeth to marry him was a stand up classy action.
....and this may be unpopular to say, but I think Mrs. Bennet was justified by being concerned about how flippantly Lizzy rejected Mr. Collins. NOT saying that it's okay to make your child marry someone that they don't like, but Lizzy didn't consider her family's wellbeing at all when she rejected him. Mrs. Bennet could have handled things MUCH better by steering him to Mary, who would have appreciated and honored him.
I really admire your point and the thought you put into it, but damn do I hate Mr. Collins. He probably lived his entire life not recognizing the absolute gem he married.
He's such a boor, tho.
@@sallyjune4109 worse, he's not sexy
Totally true! He's not a pleasant person, but he did have matrimonial options--he seems to be making an okay account of money as a clergyman, with the prospect of someday inheriting a very profitable estate. As Charlotte Lucas proved, there were absolutely ladies out there who would have overlooked his personal defects for the financial stability he offered. That he decided to marry one of his cousins to help out the family was a decent thing to do . . . even if he did go about it in the worst way possible.
To me this really highlights Mr. Bennet's failings as a father. In marrying Mrs. Bennet his daughters were already at a disadvantage due to her connections and the amount of money she brought in to the marriage. Yet he did absolutely nothing to help them overcome that. He didn't save for them, or even bother to ensure they had proper (ladies) educations.
Imagine a world, where having a respected lawyer and a successful businessman as uncles, is something to be ashamed of.
Whereas being an irresponsible, incompetent 'just rich enough, to not have to work' landowner is the height of respectability (baring an actual title).
Me, I would want to be a Darcy. He's famously nice to his sister, who is also a very sweet girl...I'd inherit a nice fortune and could probably pretty much marry, whoever I chose to...what's not to like?
We still live in that world. There is a leisure class, and there always will be. They inherited wealth, don’t work, and look down on those that have to. And the longer their family has been that way, the closer they are to modern aristocracy. They are simply so high up the social scale we don’t even see them. House of Mirth deals with this in America and it’s not much different today IMO.
Bingley sisters wanted Charles to marry well to get them into upper society salons and possibility linked to the aristocracy.
@@drzaius844 Exactly. Successful celebrities and heirs of family fortunes are America's modern nobility. It's the same status and attitude in a new "anyone can do it" package. Except they can't, not really, because most people don't have the kind of resources to have the chance to get there. The only other way is through working yourself to the bone AND having truly phenomenal luck. Most who reach for that status will never get there no matter how hard they try.
@@drzaius844 and in that world old money looks down on new money.
Bingleys were new money and social gatekeeping has been a feminime weapon forever.
The irony is the excluding by the bingley sisters is probably done to them
@@LadySnowfaerie old money verses new money. See the buccaneers for example.
The old wealthy families exclude new money and that includes celebrities and movie stars.
This isn't about how much money you have as much as having the right ancestors, rich friends, rich address, rich connections.
For that 1% so many things have to line up to be accepted in that society
Walls Simpson tried and her husband had to abdicate
Meghan markle tried and she left the country.
For them the insult is they inherited while others in same class worked for it.
Working is the insult
I was watching P&P 2005 two days ago and I noticed that it makes the Bennets seem much poorer than they actually are compared to the 1995 bbc series. In the movie they look like a common countryside farmer family, while in the series they look like an actual upper class family. I guess that makes sense since the series is a much more faithful adaptation of the book, but I still love the movie regardless
I thought the 2005 movie's depiction of farm life was much more true to life. Mr. Bennett laments that he can only use the family carriage when it isn't needed on the farm. That's how close they are to the farm life. I also thought they were going for a Darling Buds Of May aesthetic (it didn't do Catherine Zeta Jones any harm).
@@AdrianColleyAs I recall it wasn’t the carriage that was needed on the farm but the carriage-horse. Wasn’t the occasion the day when Jane was invited to visit Netherfield and her mother insisted that she travel on horseback? I’m relying on memory -so I could be mistaken.
The “home-farm’ as it was usually called,would be situated quite some distance from the family home. Visitors wouldn’t be able to see it - or smell the pigs. Incidentally, the ladies of the family would never, ever visit the kitchens or back premises. The servants would be summoned to the parlour or the morning-room if the Mistress wished to speak to them.
@@AdrianColley They were actually very far from their farm lands. If you remember, when Lizzie visits Jane as she lies sick, and since she walks over through the muddy road, her petticoats get dirty and that's specifically pointed out and made fun off. The 2005 version would make you think that that's what they always looked like.
My university tutor was really appalled by the presence of pigs in a Jane Austen movie 😄
I think the book makes it clear that Mr Bennet is as much a fool as his wife, because he hasn't provided at all and doesn't really rouse himself when he realises. Great video!
The mom gets all the grief, but I blame her father for most of that. He was irresponsible thinking they'd have a boy one day, so never bothered to save at all. Then he hides in his study and only takes delight in zinging jabs at his wife just to watch her go crazy.
@@songsayswhat Which makes it worse because even if he had a son he would still need to provide for his daughters. They son would want to start a family some day and if his sisters were unmarried Longbourn wouldn't have enough room so being able to at least rent somewhere for Mrs Bennet and the girls would be an issue.
Side note, Jane Austen’s brother was richer in life than fictional Mr. Darcy
And he's very much to blame for the Lydia situation
@@samwaters1556 Good point. When Edward inherited the property of the wealthy childless aunt and uncle, in 1809(?) he was worth 15,000 per year.
However Chawton, the stately home near the cottage Edward provided to Jane, Cassandra, Martha Lloyd and his mom, was nowhere near as stately as the Pemberley in the 1995 and 2005 movies.
Interestingly they were not the only wealthy childless relatives, Aunt Leigh, who died in 1836, left her very large estate to James Austen's son.
This reminds me of watching Sense and Sensibility and seeing the Dashwoods having to move into the "cottage" that was bigger than my own home because they were poor. Austen was great for getting people to feel sorry for characters that were richer than 99% of her readers."
Remember a movie has to go with locations that are available. Not sure what the novel says about the Dashwood's cottage, but if Austen used the word 'cottage' I'm sure she meant it, within the definitions of her day.
The fact that they were a family that didn’t work, literally all they did is drink tea, sew and go to dance parties, that is NOT a poor family! Sure they’re not in the top 1%, but for those times they’re definitely still better off than middle class.
If you understood the Regency era, you'd know that country houses parties were crucial to 'making a good' match. Everyone in every class would have been trying to marry someone higher up on the social ladder. It would have been especially brutal for young poor women who couldn't make a suitable match. All those social gatherings served their purpose.
@@mayloo2137 still not needing to work and having a cook and servants was far from being low middle class back then. They were just in a bad position when their father dies since their fortune went to someone else. But while mr Bennet was alive they were very comfortable
@@Keepinitreal55 I can agree with that. I wonder though with how the house looked in the 2005 movie , whether the Bennet parents were not as good with their money as they could have been.
They're in the top 1% according to this video though
@@mayloo2137That movie is badly done. The makers obviously don't understand the context of the original material.
The Bennetts were basically like the modern family that has a regular house in an expensive town and a summer home in another expensive home, and all five girls have their own bedroom and own car, and the driveways fit all their cars, but no college savings... But their neighbors have three houses, a room for every kid plus guest rooms, and ample savings to send all children to college , and this is on top of the boats those families own
(Seriously, I've met people whose parents owned multiple homes in expensive towns that adamantly insisted they were middle class)
I saw an article once where a guy was complaining that it's impossible to make enough money to live on anymore. He and his wife were making more than $200,000 a year, but that was barely enough money to pay for their children's private schools and the hired help required to maintain their massive house. I think I rolled my eyes so hard, I almost sprained something.
That is like a girl who was in my 11th grade history class with me who told everyone she went to France and Italy that summer and was disappointed that she did get to go to Greece that summer I pretty sure financial crisis happened that year in Greece. I was thinking girl my parents never take us on vacation let alone to another country on vacation.
I know your comment is a year old, but it’s like the Bennetts live in Beverley Hills below Sunset, or the Upper East Side but not facing the park.
I would love to see a video about the life of the "old maids" of regency / victorian society! I always felt so sorry for Miss Bates because she is so dependent on her friends and acquaintances.
The first episode of a BBC Documentary series by Lucy Worsley called A Very British Romance deals with women who had to rely on male relatives for money, among other aspects of Georgian love life, such as the rise of the idea of marrying for love. IDK where/whether you might be able to get hold of it though.
@@christopherjohn9869 well one of them did, yeah. But what did the rest of them do?
Mrs. Bates is the daughter of a clergyman, and Miss Bates is their daughter. Church of England clergymen were most often the younger sons of an upper class family - the ones who weren't going to inherit the estate. They were on the just-hanging-on edge of the upper classses. Their position (aka their "living", which was usually literally true) would go to someone else after they died and their wife would have nothing unless she had the remains of her dowry to live on. Their children would have to work for a living and would therefore no longer be part of the gentry.
The English class system was meant to work this way, pruning "excess" children out of the upper classes to keep the large estates on which it depended intact. The oldest son usually inherited the estate property . The younger sons would be helped to find socially acceptable positions - bought a commission in the army or a living as a priest, for example. The daughters were given good dowries so they could marry well. But many of the grandchildren would not become upper class themselves.
I think the series "Cranford", with Judy Dench, fits that bill.
@@rdwright6708 I think you mean Mrs Bates was the *wife* of a clergyman. It would be very disturbing if she was the daughter of a clergyman and Miss Bates was their daughter.
I'd most like to be in the Gardiner family. People with money in the rising middle class.
They’d definitely make more sensible parents too!
I'd want to be in their family too, but not for the money. Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner are great people and sound like good, loving parents.
That’s a good point! And they’re lovely people.
And a very good portion of sense. Gardiners for the win
They sound like decent sensible people...with a respectable income. Despite Mr Gardiner's 'being in trade' making for 'inferior connections', one should have no cause for repine ;)
I love how you pointed out that there was more than 1 type of “poor”. There was actual poverty where people struggled to feed themselves and their families and then there was the “genteel poverty” such as Mrs Bates in Emma who were very poor but not struggling and had come from a good background.
In regards to the Bennetts it does mention how Mrs Bennet had no head for economizing and it was only Mr Bennett’s love of independence that kept them from over spending their income.
The Bingly’s made their fortune from trade and are SOCIALLY not of the same calibre as the Bennets who were landed gentry so technically, despite being richer than the Bennets, Jane married down.
True, but technically the Bingleys would be landed gentry after he bought his land/estate. At some point, every gentry family made their fortune elsewhere before buying land. So the Bingleys could easily move up the social order to gentry especially in the next generations, depending on how many generations you needed to be rich and have land.
@@Tasha9315 But Bingley had no intention of buying. Doesn't it say in the book that he would leave that to his son?
@@misskitty285 Yeah. I meant if he did, he would become gentry. But I think that he did buy a house in the end, didn't he?
Marrying Jane would have lifted his status appreciably because the woman would have been in charge of the social events of the family, and Jane knew how to conduct herself in upper class society. Something the Bingly sisters still had little understanding of, since their goal seemed to be marrying a rich man rather than a gentleman. (Although Darcy had both, of course, but the Bingly sisters were too crass.)
@@Tasha9315 no, I don't think that he did. Actually, that question was unsettled.
The 2005 version really leaned into the idea that their "social poverty" is due in fact to the family members being embarrassing and low class seeming in their actions
I think the 2005 movie really did the Bennets wrong. It gave us viewers the impression that the Bennet family was so poor they were practically farmers.
Yes! I remember seeing that movie in theaters and thinking how ludicrous it was that Darcy (or the Bingleys) is even remotely considering a family who CAN'T EVEN AFFORD A SINGLE SERVANT TO DIG THEIR POTATOES, so the LADY OF THE HOUSE has to do it. Of course, this points to one of the major logical flaws of the movie: to own an estate at all shows that the Bennets ARE rich, so WHY ARE THEY LIVING LIKE TENANTS ON THEIR OWN ESTATE????
If the Bennet's were truly that poor, they should have lost Longbourne already, and thus Mr. Collins's interest in them beyond reproaching them for ruining his future, AND they would have had to leave the neighborhood in search of cheaper housing and assistance from their most prosperous relative, their lawyer uncle, thus making it much harder for them to meet Darcy or the Bingleys, or to make any kind of rich match at all.
In essence, Pride and Prejudice is NOT a rags to riches story. It's a "I was born rich, might lose it, so must save myself while also finding love".
@@StarlitSeafoam Exactly. The opening scene had a pig in the house!!! What were they thinking??
@@StarlitSeafoam Not to mention the table manners. Putting their elbows on the table, licking the jam off their fingers...
WHY would they do that?!
The girls were left mainly to their own devices, but they did get at least the education they WANTED (such as being taught how to play music, and definitely how to dance), and that their mother could provide. She may have been very silly, but at least she had been brought up with good enough manners to land a landed gentleman.
That wasn’t the only thing they got wrong! The movie was nice but it wasn’t Pride and Prejudice for me. Hey made Charles Bingly seem like a dim witted puppy, which made Jane’s affection for him seem wrong. THey made Darcy, who was a intelligent man it’s a large fortune who would have had to deal with a lot of people, seem awkward and nervous. It just didn’t fit their character arcs at all!
You are quite right. This is crucial. The Bennetts belonged to the gentry, a distinct social class. They had immense privileges - rich or not. The gap between them and the farming community was immense.
I would be really interested in a similar analysis of the families of sense and sensibility. So much of the book focuses on money
I think Emma Thompson's script really did a wonderful job of relating the financial budgeting that was needed for them to live within their means.
In other words, yes, I'd love to see a video about this as well!
@@annec8127 Yes! I have been slightly confused as to why they couldn't afford beef but could keep a servant (at least in the movie).
@@susanbutler3102 Same. I'd be interested to know where their $400 pounds a year comes from too.
@@avaboyer9297 if you are talking of Mrs Bennet's likely income once widowed, it comes from a four or five percent return on her portion or dowry (four thousand her portion plus one thousand settled on her or daughters by Mr Bennet or saved later). Five percent on four thousand is two hundred pounds.
For the portionlesd Mrs Dashwood in Sense and Sensibilty, she had seven thousand pounds settled on her by her late husband or left to her. Five percent on that is 350 pounds. Her daughters had an extra three thousand (one thousand each). That gave them an additional 150 pounds. So a total of five hundred pounds as thr sister-in-law Fanny Dashwood calculates.
One point that Austen brought out with her excellent use of irony is that the Bingley siblings were the children of a trade family in the North; once they inherited their money, they moved as fast and as far away as they could from the source of their wealth. They were not landed gentry, but Bingley probably met Darcy at University, which gave him, and thus his sisters a foothold in society that they might not have otherwise had. The Bennet daughters, on the other hand, while poor in the dowry and financial sense, did have a firm enough social footing in the county that their father could call on someone as rich as Darcy and Bingley because they were all landowners. So technically, the Bennet daughters were more socially acceptable at a certain level than Miss Bingley, the merchant's daughter. But then Austen also show the hollowness of such values by having Elizabeth's merchant uncle be a man of education, manners, and intelligence.
Wow, I love this book because everytime I read it I understand a little more about the characters motives but this right here made me understand Mrs. Bennett on a much deeper level. Screw Mr. Bennett's dismissal of her worries she had a reason to worry she not only would have been poor but she her self would have had a tenuous grasp on her social standing at best dragging her beloved daughters down further with her. That would have been a bleak outcome.
Very educational. Thank you. Makes sense that in “Lost in Austen” when the main character said she had £15000 a year no wonder everyone was impressed. When the rumour circulated that her father made his fortune from seafood her social profile dropped like a stone.
If you ever have time, I would love it if you explained why these dowries and incomes are public knowledge within the world of the story. As someone who was raised to believe it crass to discuss personal finances, I find it striking that these upper class people would let it be known what their incomes were or that people wouldn’t be embarrassed to inquire.
The very rich still talk about money amongst themselves. There was a tv series years back where they would take a middle class person and give them lessons in how to blend in with the upper class. One young woman came back from her adventure with the upper class and said she hated it because all they talked about was money.
@@edennis8578 This documentary sounds interesting. Do you remember the name or even who the broadcaster was?
@@abirch3301 I don't know the documentary that they're talking about, but for a similar type of story--taken to the furthest extreme--look up Anna Delvey Sorokin, the con artist in the early 2010's who pretended to be an heiress so well that all sorts of ultra-rich schmucks started paying her bills thinking she was "one of us."
@@cam4636 A guy I used to game with's great aunt did that. Her family all thought she was rich so they'd do things like paying her bills to kiss up to her for a bigger share of the inheritance. They didn't know she was practically broke until she died, just barely enough to cover her funeral.
@@cam4636 Thank you
Dr Octavia Cox has an interesting theory on the Bingleys: they were wealthier than the Bennets, but of lower status. I feel there's so much in the novel that today we're just not 'getting' anymore, like sarcasm and humor.
The bingleys were new money, and their depiction relies on a lot of new money stereotypes we have now and at the time. Caroline is obnoxious, flashy, Mr Bingley is doesn’t know much of the social etiquette (who and how to connect with, who to trust) and Mr Darcy “refined old money” feels the need to protect him and show him the ropes
That's not a theory but a fact
@@emilyb3875 There's something to what you say about Mr. Bingley being mentored by Darcy, but even Elizabeth thinks his manners and bearing are exceedingly gentlemanly. He has no problems with etiquette.
Mr Bennett has for too long been accustomed to a life of inert complacency and a desire to be left in peace to enjoy his sedentary pleasures I.e. Books. He is not accustomed to exerting himself for ANYONE and dislikes noisy emotion- filled confrontations.
Instead of reigning in his wife and boisterous younger daughters, he finds amusement (with an undercurrent of contempt) in their follies... That is until his emotional exhaustion exceeds his amusement and he retires back to his library. He prefers to leave the disciplining to his wife... Who is poorly equipped to do so, having little of it herself.
The overriding inertness of his character is why he allows his 15 and 16 year old daughters to constantly cavort with soldiers and prattle on all day about them. His dislike for emotional outbursts and aversion to having to exert himself to enforce displine is why he opted to bury his head in the sand like an ostrich rather than heed Elizabeth's advice regarding Lydia and the dangers that await her away from home and in such company. He prefers to entrust others to look after his own child... Because he just couldn't be bothered himself.
So Donald Sutherland was the perfect choice for the role. Not.
I haven't heard someone use "Not!" Like that since the 2000s haha! Oh man. I forgot that's a thing. I'm not that old so hearing something that I used to say and don't anymore... Makes me feel old.
You see these "absent fathers" a lot in Jane Austen.
This was very interesting. It reminds me of my own life. I grew up in a very wealthy family, but my parents mismanaged and wasted all their money, never saved for a college education for their children etc. etc. etc. As a young adult I had to work extremely hard just to support myself as I was given no help financially. This makes me like P and P even more!
Good for you! It was unfortunate, but now you have the satisfaction of having done that for yourself.
@@ravent3016 thank you Raven.
I am in a similar situation. AND my father came from a higher social class than my mother, managed money well and lived at the time when the economy was great (e.g.10% on a bank savings account!, investments with larger returns). All my life, my mother has tyrannized us all with being disinherited if we didn't do and act as she required. My mother started gambling and spending lots of money about 7 years ago, when my father survived a heart attack. My father died suddenly just over a year ago, at a time when he was setting up separate funds in each of our names so that our mother could not touch it for gambling, with the intention that each of us would at least have a nice chunk. We all wonder if there will be anything left. My husband died when my eldest was in 1st grade and between caring for them and having a full time job plus free lance work to make ends meet, I never married. Now I am in my 60s and frankly, worn out. I have little prospect of meeting and marrying again, and statistically, not at all.
If no one mentioned it below, a good example for the possible outcome for the Bennet sisters is: "Cranford". The two Jenkyns sisters had a very similar (if not exactly the same income) as the Bennet sisters. They (and several of their friends) lived in "Elegant Economy" - living in a small house off the road and amongst people not of their social sphere. Plus, on top of that, they lived in nearly the correct time period as the Bennet sisters would have lived if they had aged to their late middle-age as spinsters. It is fascinating reading/viewing as a companion piece to Pride and Prejudice.
At this time in society, for the upper 6% of the population, it is still like the regency times (kinda). People still unconsciously marry within their social status and also unconsciously still search for generational economical stability. It is not acceptable to publicly said so, but internally EVERYONE still does and believes these things, only true “rebel” upper class people marry outside their social status. Society has evolved (for the better) in a lot of ways, but the upper 6% is still living… regency like privately.
It is a known rule of thumb in psychology: the best marriages are when you marry someone who has the same cultural experience like you do (similar upbringing, same class) and with different / opposing personality. i learnt this from the Soviet Union textbook for high schoolers on family relations, so this is not something that belongs in 19 or earlier centuries and in capitalist country. it is a universal rule for different societies.
I just realized that Georgiana's dowry is 3 times Darcy's annual income so that 3x rule is fulfilled in her case. I really don't like Mr. Bennet's excuse that it was too late to start saving once he knew he wouldn't have a boy. If they had a boy, was he going to put the burden of the dowries on his son?
And those conversations where Darcy asks Lizzie if she would like to meet his sister holds so much weight
Yes, Mr and Mrs Bennet were going to do just that. But what if their son died before reaching 21?
What if he refused to break the entail while promising to keep his sisters and mother on the estate? Mr and Mrs Bennet trying to take out, say twenty thousand pounds, for his sisters' dowries of three thousand each and his mother's pin money of an extra five thousand might have prejudiced him. That would have reduced the estate income by half immediately. It would have also reduced his own style of living. He might have agreed instead to entail the estate in default of his own heirs male to the (unborn) heirs male of his sisters in order of seniority.
What if this son pulled a William Eliot and married a rich heiress worth six to ten thousand pounds?
He could have lived comfortably but not well on five hundred a year from his wife's portion. More if he had become a clergyman like Mr Collins with a living worth 350 or so.
Yes, you are correct. The Bennets were wealthy and upper class and their home and its estate were well worth inheriting. Consequently, the parents of Charlotte Lucas were delighted that their daughter was going to marry Mr Collins:
‘Sir William and Lady Lucas were speedily applied to for their consent and it was bestowed with a most joyful alacrity . . . . Mr Collins’ . . . prospects of future wealth were exceedingly fair. Lady Lucas began directly to calculate with more interest than the matter had ever excited before, how many years longer Mr Bennet was likely to live.’ Pride and Prejudice, Volume 1, Chapter 22.
The Bates' fate is definitely the best comparison with what could have happened to the Bennet girls I think. Also it really struck me just how negligent the Mr Bennet had been in providing for his family, even without knowing that £40/year breakdown you gave, when I was reading Northanger Abbey and Catherine Morland, a vicar's daughter and one of about 8 or 9 children, has a £3000 dowry when the Bennet girls have £1000 (and that only after their mother dies if I understand it correctly!)
I wonder if the Bates's fate was better than what Mrs Bennet fears? Weren't the Bates the recipients of a great deal of discrete generosity from some very rich families, like the Knightleys, the Woodhouses, and other gentry who were both in a position to be generous, and inclined to be generous?
Would Mrs Bennet, turned poor, be the target of similar generosity, when she had been kind of bossy, and competitive when she was rich? And were there a similar number of wealthy gentry in the vicinity of Meryton as there was in Highbury?
@@geoswan4984 Mrs Bates was given generosity by Knightly and Woodhouse because of their long standing social connections as families, Mrs Bennet who married above her class, didn’t have connections like that. It wouldn’t have been her fault, no one could blame her for being bossy and competitive they would be too if in her stressful situation, but she was born into, and will always be seen as middle class, so people don’t feel the same loyalty to her as they did to Mrs Bates
Mrs Bates was also the widow of a much loved late vicar.
I was struck very hard by the difference in the proposals of Mr. Collin and Darcy. If she thought Darcy was talking down to her, Mr. Collins was debasing her.
Soooo basically like Dan is in gossip girl? “Poor rich”
Literally, he lived in a giant loft in nyc that’s rich
Dan’s situation is more like Mr. Bingley I think.
Have you ever done a video on the cost of living during the Regency era? I would be interested to get an idea about how much of the 2000/year went to essentials (the must-have costs of managing an estate like Longbourn?) vs. how much was used or even wasted on frivolities. That would give an idea for how much Mr. Bennet could have set aside for the girls, at least in general (some of that would depend on how old they were when they got married, etc).
The $5000 just by itself, if invested in full from the moment they were married and never touched, would have been worth around $12,500 after 23 years (how long Jane Austen Wiki says they were married as of P&P). Even if they never put another penny in from the estate, that's still 2.5 times as much for each girl. Not the $6000 you mentioned in this video, but it definitely sounds better than $1000, and the annual interest would be 100 instead of 40, a lot more manageable. Managing to drop another $25 a month into the investment would give a total at the begining of the novel of $24000, and if you round up the length of their marriage to 24 years by the time Lizzy and Darcy marry, just over 25k or 5k per daughter.
But would it be feasible for Bennet to draw $300 a year from the estate, especially if Mrs Bennet isn't getting and spending the $200/year interest from her portion? Was there room to cut $500 out of their spending without severely compromising their social standing and obligations?
Hi. I have enjoyed reading your comment. At the time of P&P many servants were only paid around £10 or so a year. Hence with an annual income of £2,000 (a larger sum than some of Jane Austen's other gentry characters) Mr Bennet could afford to save for his daughters without living in a manner unbecoming a gentleman.
If they spent £1,000 a year on servants (say 5 servants - wages plus cost of food) and lived on £200 a year (over 5 times the average annual salary), that would have left £800 a year. So they could have saved £100 a year per girl - £2,000 in 20 years.
That would be a £4,500 dowry for each daughter if added to 1/5 of the £12,500 you mention, Eric. (12,500/5 = 2,500.)
@@glendodds3824 Hello,
I agree with your comment but there is another parameter to take into account; being an earthly gentleman brings responsibilities towards the land; what I mean is in relation to the cost of operation; for example, Mr. Bennet must pay various taxes such as:
_ the size of your house: the size of a house is measured ... by the number of its windows!
_ your vehicles: know that the tax on a phaeton is not the same as on a convertible or a sedan. And of course you pay for each vehicle.
_ your horses: each animal is a force of work or of locomotion, so you will pay for them.
_ your servants: in addition to feeding-housing-laundering-paying each of your employees, you will pay a tax on it.
_ your gardeners: Your gardeners have done a good job, but they are taxed, too.
_ your clergyman (s): is there a parish on your estate with a Mr. Collins to look after it? All you have to do is pay for the honor of enjoying his sermons.
_ your hunting dogs: So here too you will pay, in order to continue to enjoy this little luxury.
And, just to laugh a little longer, there were other taxes to be paid, not on material possessions but on one's life situation. For example :
_ do you have 1 or 2 girls to marry? You pay a tax (but beyond 2 girls, you are exempt!)
_ are you a single man? You also pay (too bad for you, you just have to get married!)
_ you are a single man and you have a valet? The tax for your servant will cost you more (I told you: you just have to get married!)
I didn't even get around to everything Mr. Bennet had to pay to run the domain. so with £ 2000 a year, it is possible that he was not able to save a large sum, but that did not justify that he did not save any
@@elsadargos Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I was hoping to find. Just goes to show that today, 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago, the government will get it's cut.
a professional might make around 400 pounds a year, white collar worker such as clerks made around 70 to 150 pounds a year. on an income of 400 pounds you could afford two female servants, 3 at 500 pounds. Maids started at ten pounds (but obviously all their living expenses were covered) and a cook might make up 50 pounds if she was very good. A butler between 60 to 80 pounds. You might not have afforded a male servant or carriage because the expense and upkeep of horses was considerable. The Bates in Emma probably had somewhere around 100 to 200 pounds likewise the Dashwoods after their father died. In rural situations where you could raise a lot of your own food there would have been opportunity to save i would have thought.
I just want to say as someone with an economics degree and love Of Austen, I delight in every video you post!
In modern times they would be in the upper middle class.I grew up in that class and the mismanagement of money isn't uncommon.They remind me of people I've known.
The Bennets were landed gentry, and thus belonged to the largest tier of the upper-class.
@@glendodds3824 Ahh. Part of it my American brain and outdated info.Apparently we went up a tier without me realizing it.I was also going with a modern non-landed gentry type set up.
If the Bennet family had economized enough to only use the 2000 pounds from the estate and used Mrs Bennets 5000 pounds for investment without touching the interest after Lydia's birth, at 4% and 15 years there would have been 9000 pounds.
Point is he was a bad planner
And another which is commonly pointed out too many sisters.
If one died before adulthood that means an extra 250 each. And surviving childhood was rare then.
Mrs Bennet’s £5000 would most likely have been in a marriage settlement trust . The settlements usually dictated the financial arrangements for the wife during the marriage and if she became a widow, future children ( provision for dowries, allowances for sons) and what would happen to the capital if there were no surviving children. The capital is held by trustees and doesn’t become the legal property of the husband on marriage . The heir would usually have a legal obligation to provide for his mother from the estate as a widow . This is also why JohnDashwood in S+S isn’t legally obliged to help Mrs Dashwood as she isn’t his mother and she has to fall back on the interest from the marriage settlement monies.
I’ve been watching your channel for several months now, and I’m impressed with how much content you’re able to generate around Jane Austen’s novels in particular! Thank you for enriching my understanding of the era and appreciation of the books with such pleasant and accessible videos!
I figured they were the bottom of the upper class. Interesting that they were actually in the middle of the upper class.
I thought it was clear that they weren't poor. They were well clothed and fed, they own a home, they party with rich people, no one seemed to work they just had full leisure time.
As you mention in the video, the real rich people are insulting people with real jobs. Even what we would consider a really good job like lawyers.
Thank you. I teach this novel in university and most of what my students find on the internet is useless. This video, however, is accurate and nuanced.
Found your channel yesterday and wanted to say that you're so young and apparently knowledgeable on the subject, plus eloquent. So refreshing and a joy to witness. I would expect someone who knows so much about that era and all its intricacies to be a senior who spent their whole life studying the subject.
I loved how accurate you explained everything, it really enriches my experience and understanding of this book !!!
Yay! I’m so glad it was helpful! 😃
This was so informative! Thank you!
Yay! I’m so glad you enjoyed it! 😃
The thing that I note is that it is not so much whether they are poor or not, it is that because they are single women, their status is insecure. In the last movie version where Mrs Bennett is played by Brenda Blethyn I liked her interpretation which instead of simply making her a silly social climber, Brenda gives a sense of her real understanding of the insecurity of their position. Their futures are a bad marriage away from wretched. Her fear for them comes through.
I just found out this channel. See, I'm from Chile, I didn't know anything about european history or their culture back then; so finding channels like this that analysis their social structures and explains to me the behavior of my favorite Austen's books is priceless. So... thank you very much for making this videos. You're really out there trying to be my favorite channel of them all.
Muchas gracias!! Acabo de terminar de leer orgullo y Prejuicio y está información definitivamente ha complementado muchísimo la lectura.
I always thought it was Mr Bennet’s idea about his level of comfort.
The amount of time he spent reading says volumes
Thank you!! I must confess, this got stuck in my "Watch later" for quite a time since while I'm interested in the topic, I was kinda intimidated by a 22 min video.
But it was worth every minute and I'm glad you took the time to really get into it!
Guess while it was, of course, a different era with different rules & priorities, in some terms, we can relate to it since some things didn't change SO much, did they?
I mean, I'm German, not English, so there might be slight differences, but I believe I can more or less speak for the both of us when it comes to this: Even though few people would openly say "I have to marry rich" or "That girl is too low on the social ladder for you", since it would be considered rude and superficial, this social class & "marrying up or marrying down" thing is still an issue.
Like, for example, a guy who works in a supermarket + a woman in management with 5x his salary.
Hardly happens and if so, people would be talking & assuming he's pulling her down.
While the supermarket guy still makes a living wage, but maybe can't afford a brand new car every five years.
And there we're back at "money's relative".
Or the "social income", maybe today education takes that place. We're still not beyond all this.
But I guess that's exactly what makes Jane Austen such a fascinating writer & person, being so witty and questioning about this 200 years ago.
I think the next of your videos for me will be the one about Mr. Collins' heritage :)
Hi Ellie, just wanted to comment that all your videos are really amazing! I just found your channel within the last week and realized I've watched nearly all your videos! I love listening to all your interesting views and topics. Keep up the great work!
This was very informative and interesting! As is you other video about Mr. Collins and the entail. I knew a lot of it already, yet still you managed to surprise me with some new info. I had not really ever thought about how the entail came to be or how much the Bennet girls SHOULD have in dowry. But also, this video finally gave me the push to start my own commentary channel, which I'd been meaning to do for a while but never really knew where to start, so a big thank you for that! You're such an inspiration!
Watching this video helps me understand why Mrs. Bennet was keen to marry all five of her daughters off so quickly. Her social anxiety makes a lot more sense with all that social connections debt weighing down on her.
I do have a question and I'm not sure if you covered this topic or not: Would Mr Bennet have had to duel Wickham if he refused to marry Lydia? If so, why?
Thanks for your entertaining way to explain the financial picture of the Bennet family. Mr. Bennet was a well done example of an intelligent man too lazy and selfish to make the best of the challenges of marrying below his class.
It didn’t take long with a handy calculator to see that the simple discipline of leaving the interest of Mrs. Bennet’s dowry to compound during their daughters’ childhoods would have given each girl about five times the fortune they would be known to receive after their mother died, AND the approximate/original principal amount would still be there for Mrs. B to use. Sure, I made some assumptions as to ages at marriage, etc., and left Lydia out of the largess as punishment for her “way of getting a husband.” And as JA expected her to sponge off her mother and sisters in perpetuity, I thought she’d end up with something after all.
So, not only was Mr. Bennet a cruel husband and father, he really cheated his family of their secure financial future as well. IMHO, It’s the main driver of the novel’s plot.
Hi. I enjoyed your comment.
Your movies are helping me so much in my preparations for my histirical novel. Im so gratefull for your work.
I’m learning so much with your videos and is making a lot of stories make so much more sense.
i just found your channel and i adore these videos. they’re all so enlightening!
I'm so glad! Welcome to the community!
It’s funny that people sometimes see these P&P social things as archaic but in many cultures being “socially rich” and “socially connected” is super important!!! Literally a “bad” last family name can make you un-marriageable
This was super fascinating :) I love books and I love learning more about history and I really appreciated all the nuance you add to this.
Just wanted to drop a comment about how much I enjoy your videos. I'm relatively new to your channel but consider myself to be very knowledgeable about Austen. I really enjoy your insights and they make me think more deeply about the books.
I was always courios about Emma's fortune, she says she would be a rich old maid. Also the Dashwood's income (500 £ a year if I remember correctly) is an interesting question: for how much was it enough for them? Maybe you could make a video of the finances of the Austen main characters.
I love how you break down these aspects, that a modern reader would fly over while reading, but Austen’s contemporary readers would have absolutely „got“ it. We can’t imagine how money/fortune/income was on blast back then because we don’t talk about money like that these days.
We don't need to...or because we have some type or degree of social "safety net", the need becomes dulled. In those times, everyone was completely on their own and if you didn't have it, you were on the street and starving.
@@brendanielsen1857 true. On the streets or in debtor’s prison.
Great analysis and very enjoyable video to watch! The issues you bring up on financial versus social status is why I think this book still fascinates people to this day. I guess human nature hasn't changed in 200 years.
I love your videos. They have done so much toward deepening my understanding of literature of the time. Thank you.
Yay! I’m so glad they’re helpful! Thanks so much for watching. 😃
I don’t recall how often I read Jane Austen’s book but I’m still learning so much from you. Thank you.
I would love to know how much the Dashwood-sisters had.
Another awesome video Elle! I loved your fabulous voice acting 😊
😂😂😂 Thank you! Afterward, I was like, “I sure hope that wasn’t too much or distracting.” 😂
I just found your channel and been bingeing for past week. I never read or watched pride and prejudice but I’m extremely fascinated by 1900s. I actually started reading or well listening to audio book (Unfortunately, I can’t look a small print in books anymore it gives me migraines). I’m quite liking it so far. So, thank you and the whole dowery thing I also grew up with having e.
This isn't 1900s, it's the 1810s, but it is very fascinating either way
These are always so good and answer so many questions!!
Please do more videos about Jane Austen’s other novels 🙏🏻
Love your videos!
I have plans for some! 😃
This reminds me of "Silas Marner" in which the titular charatcer was a linen weaver with a "fortune" of Two hundred and seventy-two pounds, twelve and sixpence before it was stolen.
i think, a pound was a gold coin back then. for a weaver, it is shown to be a very large fortune. i remember there is a sentence where he, after finding the little girl with golden hair, says something about the gold turning into the golden headed child
Great presentation! You figured out some questions that I've had. Thank you so much!
I'm new here, but I absolutely love this video. Probably going to binge all your other videos now.. I would really love to hear your take on the financial situation in Sense and Sensibility. I get so mad at their brother every time I read it. Here it really seems like they struggle with money after the death of their father. And it's just so unreasonable!
Completely fascinating. It is always interesting to think how the story would have been perceived differently by the audience of Austen's time. Mrs Bennet becomes a much more sympathetic figure, where as Mr Bennet comes off very poorly.
I think it would be so fascinating to interview readers back then about what they thought of different aspects of the book! We clearly need time travel. 😂
Could you do a video on the social classes of Mansfield Park? How Fanny's mom married a man who her family viewed as "below" her, and how Fanny's connections with her aunt and uncle helped raise her own social standing? I'd love to hear your take on it!
Second! Fanny Price is one of my favorites, actually.
She's a Steel Magnolia. She has survival skills! Yes, she seems all missish and wishy-washy, and seems to put herself down, but she's actively choosing to do so, in order to survive the abuse and neglect. After all, they could pull the rug out from under her, at any time, and she knows it.
Mrs. Norris actively abuses her, and the others neglect her, except for Edmund. Mostly. She dare not step "above herself," or grasp at attention, because she knows that Mrs. Norris would punish her harshly for it. She forces herself to be as meek and accommodating as possible, so the neglectful ones will at least view her with some kindness. And it does work. Tom gives her a pretty present, now and then. The sisters invite her to join their games, sometimes. Lady Bertram actually decides she cannot do without Fanny, so she has "job security," and that means a comfortable (physically) home.
She would like "to be among equals," with her family, and she misses her family, but she has sense enough to know that her old home was NOT comfortable, and she'd have almost no chance of improving her lot. By submitting to Mrs. Norris, and the Bertrams, she has a chance to marry, at all, and probably decently well.
But she never gives in on her morals. Never.
If Mr. Crawford had maintained his determination to live right and earn her, and just waited long enough for Edmund to marry his sister, he probably would have won Fanny. Once Edmund was certainly, and irrefutably, untouchable, her heart would not allow her to pine for him, as that would have been against her morals. And without his presence in her heart to protect her heart, Mr. Crawford could have shown his redemption, and she would have accepted and loved him, for it.
@@AuntLoopy123 You express yourself very well.
This was so helpful and answered all of the questions that i have while i watch this movie over and over again! thanks thanks thanks!!!
I am so glad RUclips recommended your channel! This is extremely interesting! Definitely subscribing and watching more if your videos! Thanks for making these!! 🥰
They were a mirror for Jane Austen's own life. She was of a middle class upbringing but had access to upper class people, which is why her female protagonists (with the exception of Emma) came from large families with limited financial resources (and lots of daughters to dump off on the marriage market).
It seems that there are a lot of indications in the book that the Bennet estate didn't bring in a lot of income. Lady Cathrine's series of questions when Lizzy first meets her at Rosings Park seems to highlight this. The lack of education, no governess, rarely going to London (town), etc. I suppose some of this could have been neglect on the part of the parents, but it kind of feels like the expense was also an issue.
They had the money, but Mr. Bennet left most of the girls' education to his wife, who was not capable of managing it systematically. Mr. Bennet probably made sure that Lizzie and Jane had whatever they needed, but I do think he lost interest beginning with Mary.
This was a brilliant analysis! I’ve learnt so much. Just subscribed 😁
Thank you for clearing up some issues I've wondered about for over 40 years since reading these books a s a teenager.
This was so interesting to hear explained! I've often wondered which portrayal of the Bennetts was most accurate. Have you done a deep dive into the economics of Sense and Sensibility? That's one of my other favorites. Thank you for this vid!
So THAT'S why Colonel Fitzwilliam and Lizzie weren't a thing! It makes so much more sense now!
Yeah unfortunately for COL Fitzwilliam, he's the spare and therefore only has whatever his father set aside for him from his estate. That's why he's in the Army, it's an acceptable job to have had for the time (that and clergyman). He needs a rich woman so that they're comfortable once he leaves the Army. His connections are very good as the son of an earl, so he shouldn't have much trouble finding a young lady with good fortune.
You do a wonderful job in these videos. They are great fun to watch.
This was so insightful! And one of the most civil and interesting comment sections I've ever come across :)
Well... Mr Collins did say AFTER we marry. In other words, "if you reject me I will bring up the fact you are poor at every chance I get"
The Bennets had 2,000 pounds per year which would be between $150,000-200,000 per year in US money today. That's hardly poor. It would actually put them in the top 10%.
Mr. Bennett just banked on having a son and didn't start putting more and more money aside for dowries as each subsequent daughter was born.
These are all good points.
I those terms, living off of 40 pounds a year would be like living off of 4000 dollars a year. That's insane.
Remembering his youngest child is already 15, he didn't even start setting aside money after it became clear that he'd never have a son. I remember being very disturbed by Mr Bennet's negligence when first reading it as a child.
@@YuniX2 It would be closer to $7300 usd a year, but you're right, still insanely low amount of money
Remember, that's in a world without an income tax!
Great extended explanaition, I really needed It!
Best explanation ever! Thank you so much for this video.
Thanks for your great explanation!!! Super interesting!!! Would you do a video on how marrying up helps one’s siblings in the Regency era? I get how family members would gain social currency by an advantageous marriage but would sisters also be able to have a larger dowry? Would a rich husband give actual money to his sisters-in-law to help the family out? Is there any advantage to the rich husband to do that?
Thanks again for your great vids!!!!! ❤️
I love your videos, I've been binging them lately 😍 I wish you would similar videos about the other Jane Austen novels, one about the finances in Emma would be awesome
Aw, thank you! I’m so glad you’re enjoying the videos. And I have plans to branch out soon! 😃
i have just discovered your channel and you are my new fave
Your content is so great, I love your energy.
Hello Ellie! How interesting view of the story, now who can blame so much Mrs Bennet for desperately want her daughters to get married, before Mr's Bennet passing? The way you explain is very good and I could understand, even being Brazilian :D thumbs up!
Yay! I'm so glad you liked the video. 😃😃😃 And Mrs Bennet definitely had good reason for being desperate!