Once a man proposed to a woman, he was expected to go through with the marriage unless he suddenly uncovered a flaw in the morals of the lady. Sometimes engagements were called off when the fathers and guardians couldn’t agree on the settlements. If a man jilted one to whom he had proposed, he was thought to have found out something like she was unchaste. The only way to save the female’s reputation was for him to marry another quickly–or even before she knew she was jilted. The Hardwicke Marriage Act took the teeth out of betrothals in that they did nor already have a couple half married. If of age, the jilted person had the right to sue for breach of promise. Because betrothals and engagements were no longer enforced by the church, they were considered to rest on a man”s honor. The man can get away with jilting a female better than a girl could get away with being jilted. The couple often tried to make it appear that the woman changed her mind. More gossip and scandal stuck to her name; there was less blame attributed to him unless the girl’s family entered into a counter attack to shift the blame to him or to make it appear she broke the engagement. The appeal to honor was very strong. Both Wellington and Byron married women they didn’t want because they had once made the mistake of showing interest or of discussing marriage with her.

In Regency England, breaking an engagement was a serious affair, particularly for the man, who faced potential legal action and social repercussions if he broke it off. While a woman had more freedom to end the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation. 

For the Man:

• Breach of Promise:I f a man broke an engagement, he could be sued for “breach of promise” by the woman. 
• Social Consequences: Breaking off an engagement was considered dishonorable and could damage a man’s reputation, making it difficult for him to find another suitable match. 
• Legal Action: A man could be taken to court for breach of promise, and the damages awarded could be substantial, especially if the woman’s reputation had been damaged. 
• Limited Exceptions: While a man could not break an engagement without legal or social repercussions, a woman could cry off (end the engagement) without legal penalty. 
• Circumstances: If a man discovered a woman was of bad character or had behaved improperly, he could potentially break the engagement, but this was not common and often required proof. 

For the Woman:

• Greater Freedom to Break Engagement: A woman had more freedom to end an engagement than a man. 
• Social Consequences: Even though a woman could break the engagement, doing so could still damage her reputation, especially if she was seen as fickle or “a jilt”. 
• Reasons for Breaking: If a woman broke an engagement, it was often for reasons like the man’s bad character, financial instability, or her own change of heart. 
• Seeking Redress: If a woman broke off an engagement, she might seek compensation for the damage to her reputation, even if she was not legally obligated to do so. 

Overall:

• Engagement as a Binding Contract: In the Regency era, an engagement was a serious commitment, often treated as a near-marriage contract. 
• Social Expectations: Social expectations and the desire to maintain one’s reputation heavily influenced how engagements were handled, according to a blog post. 
• Impact on Reputation:Breaking an engagement, especially for a man, could have long-lasting and detrimental effects on his social standing and prospects. 

That is the bare bones of it–the woman generally paid the price unless they could successfully claim she felt they wouldn’t suit–however, how society reacted depended on the woman’s dowry, her family position, and the same for the man. If a great heiress was jilted people would be careful not to blame her too much because they would want a chance for a son or nephew to marry her. A rich peer or a rich young man was always a good catch and a father or guardian of the next young lady to catch his eye would make certain he made it to the altar.

To summarize, a woman could cry off, but she had to beware being labeled a “jilt.”  (1670s, “loose, unchaste woman; harlot;” also “woman who gives hope then dashes it;” probably a contraction of jillet, gillet, from Middle English gille “lass, wench,”)

A man who promised marriage and cried off could be sued for breach of promise (particularly if the promise was in writing – you had to prove the promise and damages). Or he might just be labeled as bad ton. There were a few cases of men winning breach of promise suits. Good reference for you on that: Broken Engagements: The Action for Breach of Promise of Marriage…By Saskia Lettmaier. Not everyone would sue for breach of promise–it involved there being damages (to the daughter, leaving her unable to marry), so upper class might be inclined to sweep the whole thing aside as soon as possible so the social stain might be forgotten. Either way, it was poor form. You weren’t supposed to accept unless you really meant to go through with it.