Overall, the early 19th Century novels were those that expressed society in realistic terms. Austen’s novels, as well as others of her time, immerse the reader in the various levels of society, the social strata, so to speak. Austen does not spend much time in addressing the issues of the lower classes, for she likely knew little of their struggles. Like her most popular character, Elizabeth Bennet, Austen was a “gentleman’s daughter.” She was also a writer of satire. She looks at her world by employing humor, exaggeration, irony and a bit of ridicule in the context of what she knew. Why is that? Does the life she must lead frustrate her? Isolate her? Malign her? Is Austen concerned with politics? Other contemporary social issues?
Social class and money and a good marriage and rules of propriety controlled Austen’s world. She is part of the English landed gentry, and all the “very” essential characters of her novels are from that class. There are few mentions of the aristocracy. Fitzwilliam Darcy, for example, is the nephew of an earl, and we meet Sir William Lucas, who has been knighted, and Sir Thomas Bertram, who is a baronet, but Austen’s characters do not, as a rule, interact with the aristocracy. Austen’s characters are creatures of their surrounding. They live in rural England. They do not work. They have more money at their disposal than does the working class or the peasants, but they are not usually wealthy.
Richard Posner in Subversion and Sympathy (edited by Martha Nussbaum and Alison LaCroix, Oxford Press, 2013, p. 86) tells us “Their incomes consist of rent paid by tenant farmers, but some of them also own bonds. They are remarkably candid, by our standards, about their incomes, with the result that everyone seems to know everyone else’s income almost to the shilling. It appears that ‘fortunes,’ whether in land or in bonds, yield about 5 percent annually, so that if you know the size of a person’s fortune you know his income, and vice versa. A fortune of £200,000, yielding an income of £10,000 a year, would be immense; that is the lower-bound estimate of Fitzwilliam Darcy’s fortune in Pride and Prejudice. In the same novel Mr. Bennet’s fortune of £40,000, which yields an income of £2,000 a year, is adequate—it is the average income of a baronet—but not princely. (Colonel Brandon, in Sense and Sensibility, lives very comfortably on £2,000 a year, but he is a bachelor, whereas Mr. Bennet has six dependents.) Adequacy is relative; a laborer or farmer would have earned only about £15 to £20 a year, a servant less (and even the least affluent members of the landed gentry have servants). It is impossible to estimate a modern equivalent of any of these incomes.
“The fact that members of the landed gentry cannot work without sacrificing their position in society has enormous consequences. It means that if your fortune (plus any confident expectation of an inheritance) is inadequate to enable you to sustain the standard of living expected of a person of your social standing, your only, or at least your main (I am about to note an alternative), recourse is marriage. A poor man (poor by the standard of the gentry, though wealthy, as we have just seen, by the standards of the wider English society at the time) must marry a rich woman, and a poor woman a rich man. A poor man who cannot find a rich woman to marry will have to get a job—which will spell expulsion from his class, though, if he prospers he may be able upon retirement to buy his way back into his former social class, as Captain Wentworth, having obtained prize money as a naval officer, does in Persuasion. That option was not open to a poor woman because so few occupations were open to women. A poor woman who failed to land a rich husband would either have to work as a teacher or as a governess (the fate narrowly avoided by Jane Fairfax in Emma) for negligible wages, or live at home with her parents—often just the widowed mother—becoming an ‘old maid’ and imposing upon them (or her) what might be an intolerable expense.”
In our last posting of the Line of Succession, we made note that Princess Alexandrina Victoria made an appearance into the world on 24 May 1819, three days before her cousin, Prince George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus (Prince George of Cumberland), giving her precedence in the line of succession. When she was but eight months of age, her father passed; therefore, the opportunity for Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent, to sire a son who would usurp Victoria’s claim to the throne did not occur. Six days after Kent died, his father King George III, finally passed. Prince George came to the throne as George IV.
(Image of Frederick, Duke of York) In 1827, Frederick, Duke of York, was the second son of George III and Queen Charlotte. He became heir presumptive to the British throne on the death of his father in 1820 but never became king because he died before his older brother, George IV. Frederick died of dropsy and apparent cardio-vascular disease. Three years later, George IV died. George IV (George Augustus Frederick; 12 August 1762 – 26 June 1830) was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of Hanover following the death of his father, George III on 29 January 1820 until his own death in 1830.
“George’s heavy drinking and indulgent lifestyle had taken their toll on his health by the late 1820s. Through huge banquets and copious amounts of alcohol, he had become obese, making him the target of ridicule on the rare occasions that he appeared in public. By 1797 his weight had reached 17 stone 7 pounds (111 kg; 245 lb),and by 1824 his corset was made for a waist of 50 inches (130 cm). He suffered from gout, arteriosclerosis, peripheral edema (‘dropsy’), and possibly porphyria. In his last years, he spent whole days in bed and suffered spasms of breathlessness that would leave him half-asphyxiated.
(Image of George III) “By December 1828, like his father, he was almost completely blind from cataracts, and was suffering from such severe gout in his right hand and arm that he could no longer sign documents. In mid-1829, Sir David Wilkie reported the King ‘was wasting away frightfully day after day,’ and had become so obese that he looked ‘like a great sausage stuffed into the covering.’ The King took laudanum to counteract severe bladder pains, which left him in a drugged and mentally handicapped state for days on end. In 1830 his weight was recorded to be 20 stone (130 kg; 280 lb).
“By the spring of 1830, George’s imminent end was apparent. Attacks of breathlessness due to dropsy forced him to sleep upright in a chair, and doctors frequently tapped his abdomen to drain excess fluid. He was admired for clinging doggedly to life despite his obvious decline. He dictated his will in May and became very devout in his final months, confessing to an archdeacon that he repented of his early dissolute life, but hoped mercy would be shown to him as he had always tried to do the best for his subjects. At about half-past three in the morning of 26 June 1830 at Windsor Castle, he reportedly called out ‘Good God, what is this?’, clasped his page’s hand and said ‘my boy, this is death,’ after which he died. An autopsy conducted by his physicians revealed he had died from upper gastrointestinal bleeding resulting from the rupture of a blood vessel in his stomach (gastric varices). A large tumour “the size of an orange” was found attached to his bladder, and he had an enlarged heart surrounded by a large fat deposit and heavily calcified heart valves.” (George IV of the United Kingdom)
(Image of William IV) George III’s third son followed his older brother to the throne on 26 June 1830 until his death on 20 June 1837. He was the last king and penultimate monarch of Britain’s House of Hanover. By the time that Clarence came to the throne, it was not likely that his Queen Adelaide would produce more children. His children were Princess Charlotte Augusta Louisa of Clarence (who died a few hours after being baptised on 27 March 1819); a stillborn child on 5 September 1819; Princess Elizabeth Georgiana Adelaide of Clarence (10 December 1820 to 4 March 1821); stillborn twin boys (8 April 1822). Ironically, many of Clarence’s illegitimate children survived and thrived.
With William IV’s passing in 1837, Victoria’s path to the throne opened before her. Victoria was the first sovereign queen in over 120 years – not since Anne Stuart. There were concerns for Victoria’s future as queen. It was thought that her mother, Victorie, Duchess of Kent, kept a lover, her “adviser,” Sir John Conroy. The fear was that the two would control Victoria until she turned eighteen.
According to the law of the land, a monarch at age 18 could rule alone without a supplementary regent required for a minor child. The very ill William IV set his sights on surviving until May 1837 in order to keep Victorie, the Duchess of Kent (who was named regent-designate for her minor daughter), and Conroy from exercising power over Kent’s daughter.
Thankfully, William lived long enough for Victoria to turn 18. Her accession came only days after her birthday. Moreover, Victoria had no care for Conroy, and she forbid Conroy any say in how she would conduct herself as Britain’s sovereign.
In my quest to learn more about Lady Catherine de Bourgh for my current work-in-progress, I’ve decided to make a character study of her. While some of the minor characters in Pride and Prejudice get no more than a line or two (indeed, if you look for information about Lady Anne Darcy or Sir Lewis de Bourgh, you’ll find next to nothing about them), in the case of Lady Catherine, there is actually a wealth of detail. Long before we ever meet her in the story, her reputation precedes her in the form of Mr. Collins’ lavish praise and Charlotte’s letters to Lizzy, and even a few lines from Mr. Wickham. Once she enters the stage, we begin to see other sides of her as she is presented from Lizzy’s point of view and we see her in action. Finally, she goes from a humorous side-character to an antagonist when she verbally assaults Lizzy and tries to extract a promise from her that Lizzy will never try to get married to Mr. Darcy. But her efforts to keep the two of them apart end up having the opposite effect. Lady Catherine is then left to decide: hold a grudge forever, or make amends with her nephew.
Background
Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine, P&P 1995
Lady Catherine is the daughter of an earl. We know this from several clues in the text. One, Lady Catherine is never referred to as “Lady de Bourgh”. It is always her full name, or “Lady Catherine”. This courtesy title signifies she is the daughter of a peer, and because she married beneath her station, she is allowed to continue using her birth title rather than their husband’s title. Why an earl? In the text, we are told that Lady Catherine’s nephew Colonel Fitzwilliam is the younger son of an earl, whose title is only given as Lord _____. We can presume that the colonel’s father is the brother of both Lady Catherine and her sister Lady Anne, and therefore, their father (whom this brother inherited his title from) was also an earl.
Her maiden name, we can presume, was Fitzwilliam. Why, you may ask? Again, it comes down to clues in the text. While we may not know the earl’s title, the family name is given to us directly as it is Colonel Fitzwilliam’s last name. It cannot be his title, since younger sons would use the family name and would not have a courtesy title. Further confirmation on Lady Catherine’s family name: it was common practice for women to name their son after their family name. What first name did her sister Lady Anne give to her son? You guessed it– Fitzwilliam!
Reputation
Edna May Oliver as Lady Catherine, P&P 1940
The first mention of Lady Catherine comes through one of Mr. Collins’ letters, where he tells the Bennets that her “bounty and beneficence has preferred me to the valuable rectory of this parish” (chapter 13). It is immediately clear that Mr. Collins considers her to be a generous person, since she could have bestowed the Hunsford rectory on anyone, but she chose to give it to Mr. Collins.
When Mr. Collins arrives at the Bennets house, his praise continues. “Lady Catherine was reckoned proud by many people he knew, but he had never seen anything but affability in her. She had always spoken to him as she would to any other gentleman; she made not the smallest objection to his joining in the society of the neighbourhood nor to his leaving the parish occasionally for a week or two, to visit his relations.” (chapter 14). Here, we see that she does have a reputation for being proud, but she appears to treat Mr. Collins as a gentleman and includes him in her society. He also describes her as displaying “affability”, or having friendly and obliging nature. Not what we might usually think about Lady Catherine, huh?
We get a different picture of Lady Catherine from the conversation between Elizabeth and Mr. Wickham.
“Mr. Collins,” said she, “speaks highly both of Lady Catherine and her daughter; but from some particulars that he has related of her ladyship, I suspect his gratitude misleads him, and that in spite of her being his patroness, she is an arrogant, conceited woman.”
“I believe her to be both in a great degree,” replied Wickham; “I have not seen her for many years, but I very well remember that I never liked her, and that her manners were dictatorial and insolent. She has the reputation of being remarkably sensible and clever; but I rather believe she derives part of her abilities from her rank and fortune, part from her authoritative manner, and the rest from the pride of her nephew, who chooses that everyone connected with him should have an understanding of the first class.” (chapter 16).
But we know that Mr. Wickham’s opinion of anyone is not to be trusted, right? 😉 Let’s see if Charlotte has anything different to say about her.
Charlotte writes to Lizzy that “Lady Catherine’s behaviour was most friendly and obliging.” (vol. 1, Chapter 26) When Lizzy comes to visit, Charlotte also tells her that “Lady Catherine is a very respectable, sensible woman indeed,” added Charlotte, “and a most attentive neighbour.” It sounds like Lady Catherine has the capacity to be friendly and nice when she wants to be!
This, of course, is on the heels of Mr. Collins telling Lizzy that “She is all affability and condescension, and I doubt not but you will be honoured with some portion of her notice when service is over. I have scarcely any hesitation in saying she will include you and my sister Maria in every invitation with which she honours us during your stay here. Her behaviour to my dear Charlotte is charming. We dine at Rosings twice every week, and are never allowed to walk home. Her ladyship’s carriage is regularly ordered for us. I should say, one of her ladyship’s carriages, for she has several.” (Chapter 28)
Mr. Collins’ hopes are realized: his cousin and his wife’s family are invited to join Lady Catherine for dinner and they will get to see Lady Catherine in all her splendour.
As the guests prepare for this meeting, we are given a few more insights into Lady Catherine’s character.
“Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us which becomes herself and her daughter. I would advise you merely to put on whatever of your clothes is superior to the rest—there is no occasion for anything more. Lady Catherine will not think the worse of you for being simply dressed. She likes to have the distinction of rank preserved.”
“While they were dressing, he came two or three times to their different doors, to recommend their being quick, as Lady Catherine very much objected to be kept waiting for her dinner. Such formidable accounts of her ladyship, and her manner of living, quite frightened Maria Lucas who had been little used to company, and she looked forward to her introduction at Rosings with as much apprehension as her father had done to his presentation at St. James’s.”
So it seems that despite Mr. Collins’ admiration of her, she has some classist attitudes and impatience, and Mr. Collins makes her out to be a bit formidable.
Lady Catherine, in the flesh
Judi Dench as Lady Catherine, P&P 2005
At long last, Elizabeth meets the woman whose reputation has preceded her.
“Lady Catherine was a tall, large woman, with strongly-marked features, which might once have been handsome. Her air was not conciliating, nor was her manner of receiving them such as to make her visitors forget their inferior rank. She was not rendered formidable by silence; but whatever she said was spoken in so authoritative a tone, as marked her self-importance, and brought Mr. Wickham immediately to Elizabeth’s mind; and from the observation of the day altogether, she believed Lady Catherine to be exactly what he represented.” (Chapter 29)
So, Lady Catherine does not come across as warm and friendly, and this reception confirms to Elizabeth the suppositions she has made about her based on her conversation with Wickham.
We also learn that she seems to enjoy the gratuitous behaviour of Mr. Collins and Sir William Lucas. “ But Lady Catherine seemed gratified by their excessive admiration, and gave most gracious smiles, especially when any dish on the table proved a novelty to them.”
After dinner, she displays her propensity to talk and to give advice on every matter. “When the ladies returned to the drawing-room, there was little to be done but to hear Lady Catherine talk, which she did without any intermission till coffee came in, delivering her opinion on every subject in so decisive a manner, as proved that she was not used to have her judgement controverted. She enquired into Charlotte’s domestic concerns familiarly and minutely, gave her a great deal of advice as to the management of them all; told her how everything ought to be regulated in so small a family as hers, and instructed her as to the care of her cows and her poultry. Elizabeth found that nothing was beneath this great lady’s attention, which could furnish her with an occasion of dictating to others.”
In the drawing room, Lady Catherine asks Elizabeth a series of questions about her family, growing more impertinent all the time, to the point that she insists on knowing Elizabeth’s age (and we all know it’s rude to ask a lady her age, no matter how young she is!). She is rather astonished that Elizabeth would trifle with her by giving her evasive answers.
Even when the men rejoin the ladies and they play cards, Lady Catherine seems to dominate the scene. “Lady Catherine was generally speaking—stating the mistakes of the three others, or relating some anecdote of herself.”
Lena Heady as Lady Catherine, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
There are more meetings that take place over the next few weeks, but Elizabeth manages to avoid them for the most part. That is, until the arrival of Mr. Darcy and Colonel Fitzwilliam. Then, Elizabeth has no choice but to accept the invitation to dine again at Rosings, and it is here that we get another cameo of Lady Catherine. Colonel Fitzwilliam and Elizabeth are having a lively conversation about music, which catches the attention of Lady Catherine across the room, and she demands to know what they are talking about. When they answer, she says, “Of music! Then pray speak aloud. It is of all subjects my delight. I must have my share in the conversation if you are speaking of music. There are few people in England, I suppose, who have more true enjoyment of music than myself, or a better natural taste. If I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient. And so would Anne, if her health had allowed her to apply. I am confident that she would have performed delightfully.” (Chapter 31)
Despite her admittance that she never learned to play any instrument, she then offers a great deal of advice about practicing.
“I am very glad to hear such a good account of her,” said Lady Catherine; “and pray tell her from me, that she cannot expect to excel if she does not practice a good deal.”
“I assure you, madam,” he replied, “that she does not need such advice. She practises very constantly.”
“So much the better. It cannot be done too much; and when I next write to her, I shall charge her not to neglect it on any account. I often tell young ladies that no excellence in music is to be acquired without constant practice. I have told Miss Bennet several times, that she will never play really well unless she practises more; and though Mrs. Collins has no instrument, she is very welcome, as I have often told her, to come to Rosings every day, and play on the pianoforte in Mrs. Jenkinson’s room. She would be in nobody’s way, you know, in that part of the house.”
And later in the conversation, she says, “Miss Bennet would not play at all amiss if she practised more, and could have the advantage of a London master. She has a very good notion of fingering, though her taste is not equal to Anne’s. Anne would have been a delightful performer, had her health allowed her to learn.” It also tells us that “Lady Catherine continued her remarks on Elizabeth’s performance, mixing with them many instructions on execution and taste. Elizabeth received them with all the forbearance of civility, and, at the request of the gentlemen, remained at the instrument till her ladyship’s carriage was ready to take them all home.”
Lindsay Duncan as Lady Catherine, Lost in Austen
Lady Catherine does not appear in person again until Chapter 37, after Darcy and Fitzwilliam have left, and it is towards the end of Elizabeth’s stay in Hunsford. She sees that Elizabeth is downcast, and without asking the reason, assumes that it must be that Elizabeth is sad to return home. In the course of her attempts to persuade Elizabeth to remain longer, we are given a revealing statement about her relationship with her own father. “Oh! your father of course may spare you, if your mother can. Daughters are never of so much consequence to a father.” This strongly suggests that Lady Catherine was not regarded with much importance by her father in her own youth.
Here also, we are given another glimpse at Lady Catherine’s attempts to appear generous, when she is actually being a bit selfish.
“And if you will stay another month complete, it will be in my power to take one of you as far as London, for I am going there early in June, for a week; and as Dawson does not object to the barouche-box, there will be very good room for one of you—and indeed, if the weather should happen to be cool, I should not object to taking you both, as you are neither of you large.”
An offer to go back to London, but only for one, either Elizabeth or Maria. She’ll only take both if it’s not going to be too stuffy in the carriage and because neither one of them is fat. That’s rich! Either way, she’s making her servant Dawson (who I presume to be her lady’s maid) ride outside next to the driver to accommodate. Real classy, Lady C!
At least Lady Catherine seems to have good intentions most of the time.
“Mrs. Collins, you must send a servant with them. You know I always speak my mind, and I cannot bear the idea of two young women travelling post by themselves. It is highly improper. You must contrive to send somebody. I have the greatest dislike in the world to that sort of thing. Young women should always be properly guarded and attended, according to their situation in life. When my niece Georgiana went to Ramsgate last summer, I made a point of her having two men-servants go with her. Miss Darcy, the daughter of Mr. Darcy, of Pemberley, and Lady Anne, could not have appeared with propriety in a different manner. I am excessively attentive to all those things. You must send John with the young ladies, Mrs. Collins. I am glad it occurred to me to mention it; for it would really be discreditable to you to let them go alone.”
“My uncle is to send a servant for us.”
“Oh! Your uncle! He keeps a man-servant, does he? I am very glad you have somebody who thinks of these things. Where shall you change horses? Oh! Bromley, of course. If you mention my name at the Bell, you will be attended to.”
She seems to be the sort of person that usually means well, but is oblivious to the fact that she is coming across as a busybody and a know-it-all. Also, she is apparently unaware of what danger almost befell Georgiana on that trip to Ramsgate, when she was supposedly so well-attended.
On the final night of Lizzy’s stay in Hunsford, Lady Catherine puts her busybody ways to good use once more.
“The very last evening was spent there; and her ladyship again enquired minutely into the particulars of their journey, gave them directions as to the best method of packing, and was so urgent on the necessity of placing gowns in the only right way, that Maria thought herself obliged, on her return, to undo all the work of the morning, and pack her trunk afresh. (Chapter 37)
“When they parted, Lady Catherine, with great condescension, wished them a good journey, and invited them to come to Hunsford again next year”
Well! If Elizabeth ever wished to go back to Lady Catherine’s house, at least she would know she was welcome to. A nice gesture, but I doubt that it would have been honored after what happened a few months down the road.
From Caricature to Antagonist
Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine, P&P 1980
From our first introduction to her, Lady Catherine is drawn as a caricature of a “great lady”; a well-meaning busybody who has a great deal of pride and self-importance and makes herself look ridiculous by attempting to be an expert on every subject. It is not until the final act of the book in Chapter 56 that she becomes one of the novel’s antagonists.
Rumors spread quickly among those who have nothing better to do than gossip, and it is by this means that a rumor reaches Lady Catherine’s ears that Darcy and Elizabeth will be imminently engaged. This infuriates her, because she had big plans to keep all the money in the family by having Darcy marry her daughter. To stop her nephew from making a big mistake, she goes to Elizabeth’s house to deal with the matter in person. After putting up a show of the usual pleasantries she takes Elizabeth out for a walk and begins her verbal assault.
She declares the rumor to be a “scandalous falsehood”, and expects that Elizabeth will contradict it. But when Elizabeth refuses to confirm that there is no foundation, Lady Catherine accuses Elizabeth of trying to draw in Mr. Darcy and entrap him.
Lady Catherine is incensed.
“Obstinate, headstrong girl! I am ashamed of you! Is this your gratitude for my attentions to you last spring? Is nothing due to me on that score?” (Chapter 56)
Barbara Leigh-Hunt as Lady Catherine, P&P 1995
But Elizabeth is resilient, and Lady Catherine does not get her way, which apparently is quite out of the norm.
“I have not been used to submit to any person’s whims. I have not been in the habit of brooking disappointment.”
Their argument continues, as Lady Catherine attempts to insist that Mr. Darcy is engaged to his cousin, brags about how the two of them are formed for each other, and disparages Elizabeth’s family.
“The upstart pretensions of a young woman without family, connections, or fortune. Is this to be endured!”
“But who was your mother? Who are your uncles and aunts? Do not imagine me ignorant of their condition.”
When Elizabeth finally gives in and admits that she and Mr. Darcy are not engaged, Lady Catherine tries to extract a promise from her that she will never do so. This, of course, is also refused. That brings Lady Catherine to declare the real reason she objects to Elizabeth’s family– the scandal brought on by Lydia and Wickham’s elopement.
“Not so hasty, if you please. I have by no means done. To all the objections I have already urged, I have still another to add. I am no stranger to the particulars of your youngest sister’s infamous elopement. I know it all; that the young man’s marrying her was a patched-up business, at the expence of your father and uncles. And is such a girl to be my nephew’s sister? Is her husband, who is the son of his late father’s steward, to be his brother? Heaven and earth!—of what are you thinking? Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?”
Finally, having had enough of Lady Catherine’s insults and attempts to stop her from marrying Mr. Darcy (even though such a thing is not even a real possibility at the moment), Elizabeth shows her to her carriage.
Lady Catherine drives straight to London, where she gives a repeat performance of this behavior to her nephew, who also refuses to comply. Though we are not told the exact words she said, it is through this conversation that Darcy learns that Elizabeth refused to promise that there could never be anything between her and Darcy– a fact which gives him enough hope that her feelings might have changed for him to take another chance at proposing to her.
Lady Catherine has played the antagonist well, but in doing so, has unwittingly been the means of exposing Elizabeth and Darcy’s feelings to each other. As Darcy says of her, “Lady Catherine has been of infinite use, which ought to make her happy, for she loves to be of use.” (Chapter 60)
Epilogue
Penelope Keith as Lady Catherine, Death Comes to Pemberley
As we all know by now, Elizabeth and Darcy do get engaged, and Darcy is not remiss in letting his dear old aunt know straight away. Her fury is so strong that even Mr. and Mrs. Collins flee to Hertfordshire to escape it.
“The reason of this sudden removal was soon evident. Lady Catherine had been rendered so exceedingly angry by the contents of her nephew’s letter, that Charlotte, really rejoicing in the match, was anxious to get away till the storm was blown over.” (Chapter 60)
Lady Catherine’s reply to Darcy’s engagement announcement was no less insulting than her visits had been.
“Lady Catherine was extremely indignant on the marriage of her nephew; and as she gave way to all the genuine frankness of her character in her reply to the letter which announced its arrangement, she sent him language so very abusive, especially of Elizabeth, that for some time all intercourse was at an end. But at length, by Elizabeth’s persuasion, he was prevailed on to overlook the offence, and seek a reconciliation; and, after a little further resistance on the part of his aunt, her resentment gave way, either to her affection for him, or her curiosity to see how his wife conducted herself; and she condescended to wait on them at Pemberley, in spite of that pollution which its woods had received, not merely from the presence of such a mistress, but the visits of her uncle and aunt from the city.”
Well, I guess after all is said and done, Lady Catherine, bad as she may be, is still able to let go of a grudge. Maybe she does have a little bit of good in her after all.
She’s an interesting character, to say the least. A strong mixture of the laughable and the despicable who, through her role as an antagonist, becomes the plot device that brings the hero and heroine together.
TheEncyclopedia Britannica defines the Salic Law of Succession as “the rule by which, in certain sovereign dynasties, persons descended from a previous sovereign only through a woman were excluded from succession to the throne. Gradually formulated in France, the rule takes its name from the code of the Salian Franks, the Lex Salica (Salic Law).”
In France the line of succession faced no problem of the male successor until King Louis X’s death in 1316. Although Louis’ wife delivered a male heir after the king’s death, the child passed within a week. Louis’ brother, Philip V, convened the Estates-General, which adopted a resolution that women would not be part of the line of succession to the French throne. The corollary principle also came into effect. With it, the children of a daughter of a French king could not make a claim to the throne. Salic law was used as reason to rebuff a claim to the French throne by England’s King Henry IV in 1410. The premise of Salic Law officially denied the infanta Isabella of Spain, the granddaughter of Henry II of France, her claim to the throne. Napoleon accepted the fundamental right of the practice, and it was applied to succession as late as the latter part of the 19th Century.
Succession to the English throne was different. It occurred in this precise manner: (1) Sons of the sovereign in the order of their birth and (2) Daughters of the sovereign in order of their birth. At the time of George III’s death, in order of succession we have George, the Prince of Wales, followed by the dukes of York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex, and Cambridge. The legitimate children of the heir (presumably the first born son) followed the rules likewise. There was, however, the stipulation that the daughters of the higher heir took precedence over any child of the heir’s sibling(s).
George III’s daughters produced no heirs to the throne, and his sons were well into their prime before they considered the family obligation of an heir to the throne. After Princess Charlotte’s death, George IV made no effort to produce another child with his wife Princess Caroline. York’s (next in line) marriage to Princess Frederica of Prussia produced no issue. William, Duke of Clarence, married (1818) Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, but had no surviving issue. He did produce ten children with his mistress Dorothea Jordan, but they could have no claim upon the throne.
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was next line of succession. Replacing his long-standing mistress, one of 27 years, he married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Queen Victoria was his daughter.
. Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, was next in line. “He was the fifth son and eighth child of George III, who eleven years before Ernest’s birth had inherited the thrones of two kingdoms, Great Britain and Ireland, and also that of the Electorate of Hanover, still part of the Holy Roman Empire. As a fifth son, initially Ernest seemed unlikely to become a monarch, but Semi-Salic Law, applied to the succession in Hanover, and none of his elder brothers had any legitimate sons. Therefore, when in 1837 his niece, Victoria, became Queen of England and Ireland, ending the personal union between the British Isles and Hanover that had existed since 1714, Ernest became King of Hanover, which had been raised to a kingdom after the end of the Holy Roman Empire.” (Ernest Augustus I of Hanover)
Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, to Lady Augusta Murray with whom he had issue. As this action eliminated him from the line of succession, the marriage was annulled in 1794. In 1831, he married Lady Cecilia Buggin, the Duchess of Inverness, but they had no issue.
Prince Aldolphus, Duke of Cambridge married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel. They produced children.
Ironically, 1819 saw the birth of four children in the royal line. Clarence became a father legitimately in March. Neither that daughter, nor her sister two years later, survived. Clarence’s brother, Prince Aldolphus, produced a son born that month also, but the boy was well down the line of succession. On 27 May, Cumberland also greeted a son, who in other circumstances would have been the future ruler of both Hanover and the United Kingdom, except for the fact that Kent’s daughter Victoria came into this world three days before Prince George of Cumberland on 24 May 1819.Before long, any claims of her rivals to Victoria’s rise to the queendom dissipated.
Ironically, the Salic Law of Succession was applied when Victoria, who was from the House of Hanover, became queen of England in 1837 but was barred from succession to the Hanover crown, which went to her uncle Cumberland, whose son she usurped.
The lovely Jennifer Duke is attempting to bring her fabulous novel, Back to the Bonnet, out in audiobook format, but, as many of you know, or perhaps you have no idea, it is quite expensive for a self-published or small press author to make the transition to other formats. Jennifer has set a goal of a little over 4500 pounds. She has set up a GoFundMe page to accept donations. I told her I would share this information with you all, and if you wish to participate, please do.
What is very special about this project, and the reason I agreed to promote it was the involvement of Lucy Briers who played Mary Bennet in BBC’s 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. She enjoyed Back to the Bonnet and said if it were to be made into an audiobook, she’d love to narrate it. Moreover, Lucy Briers’ friend and audiobook director Tamsin Collison, who directed the relatively recent Mansfield Park for Audible, and her colleague Tshari King, who is a sound editor, have all agreed to work on the project.
Lucy Briers as Mary Bennet
Lucy Briers
‘Mary Bennet takes matters into her own hands in this hilarious and enjoyable time traveling version of Pride and Prejudice.’ — Cressida Downing, The Book Analyst’ This is a sweet treat of a book: exciting, insightful and enormous fun.’— Jane Austen’s Regency World Uncover the secret life of Mary Bennet and the extraordinary adventures you had no idea were hidden between the lines of Jane Austen’s classic tale. Matrimony is not a destiny that attracts plain, but clever ,Miss Mary Bennet. With her family’s fortunes threatened by their own foolish mistakes, deceptive rogues and the inconvenience of male heirs to her family home, the future looks unstable, even bleak. But Mary possesses a secret weapon . . . a bonnet that allows her to travel in time. In orchestrating events according to her own inclinations, Mary takes an unconventional route to protect her family from ruin. However, she is unprepared for the dark path down which duty and power will lead her.
10% of the author’s net royalties go to UK registered charity TreeSisters.
[Image: Engraving of Princess Caroline
from La Belle Assemblée (1806)] Much to the surprise and relief of George III’s England, his son George, Prince of Wales, fulfilled his duty by marrying Princess Caroline of Brunswick on 8 April 1795. Although they were first cousins (Caroline’s mother was George III’s sister), George and Caroline had never met before their marriage arrangement. Prince George was in his thirties when he took Caroline to wife.
Earlier, George had married the widowed Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert, but their marriage could not be recognized for the lady was a practicing Roman Catholic. The marriage was a poorly kept secret and many consider Mrs. Fitzherbert as Prince George’s “mistress.” The law at the time said that a marriage between any heir to the British throne to a Catholic removed said heir from the line of succession.
“In the context of royalty, a morganatic marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband’s titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage. Now rare, it is also known as a left-handed marriage because in the wedding ceremony the groom held his bride’s hand with his left hand instead of his right.
“Generally, this is a marriage between a man of high birth (such as from a reigning, deposed or mediatised dynasty) and a woman of lesser status (such as a daughter of a low-ranked noble family or a commoner). Usually, neither the bride nor any children of the marriage have a claim on the bridegroom’s succession rights, titles, precedence, or entailed property. The children are considered legitimate for all other purposes and the prohibition against bigamy applies. In some countries, a woman could marry a man of lower rank morganatically.” (Morgantic Marriage)
Desperate for money to allay his debts, Prince George began to search for a bride that would secure his purse and his right to the throne upon his father’s death. He supposedly took the recommendation of one of his mistresses, Lady Jersey, and overtures were sent to Brunswick. When Caroline arrived in England in 1795, Prince George’s worst nightmare came true. Caroline’s non-regal appearance and her lack of hygiene when against everything Prince George considered essential in life.
Despite his distaste for his new bride, Prince George (with a lot of alcohol in his system) managed to perform his conjugal duties, the result begin a daughter, named Princess Charlotte (after his mother). Princess Charlotte was George IV’s only heir for he avoided his wife as if Princess Caroline had the plague. He abandoned Caroline after she conceived Charlotte, and Prince George’s wife never spent another night with her husband.
When Princess Charlotte came of age, she chose Leopold of Coburg as her husband. Leopold, the younger son of the reigning duke of a German duchy, had served in the Russian army during the Napoleonic War. Leopold and Charlotte were a picture in contrast. Princess Charlotte was known to be outspoken and a bit of a romantic, while Leopold was consider precise and somber. Nevertheless, they married in May 1816. Charlotte readily became pregnant only to miscarry their first child. She conceived a second time, and on 3 November 1817, Charlotte went into labor.
Charlotte’s delivery, literally, changed the world. Sir Richard Croft, her physician examined Charlotte and terming her in labor dutifully summoned the customary officers of state to observe the birth – a long-standing tradition to prevent the substitution of a baby into the royal line by those who wished to usurp the throne. Unfortunately, Charlotte’s delivery was a difficult one. First, she was three weeks past her due date. She spent a whole day in labor, but still she was unable to deliver the child. For one thing, her physician had bled her several times leading up to the delivery. This would seem bizarre by today’s standards, but an accepted treatment during this time. Being medically induced anemic, Princess Charlotte was too weak to push the baby out.
Another four and twenty hours passed with the same results. Croft refused to apply forceps for there’s the line in Shakespeare’s Macbeth that says, “Despair thy charm, / And let the angel whom thou still hast served / Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb / Untimely ripped” (Act V, scene 8).
After fifty hours of labor, Princess Charlotte delivered a stillborn son. Charlotte’s excessive loss of blood left her weak. Princess Charlotte died from anemia and a likely pulmonary embolism. There are some also who think she suffered from a porphyria episode, like the madness that consumed her grandfather King George III. She passed in the night’s middle on 6 November 1817 and so ended the Hanoverian line of British succession.
The word salon has been around since at least 1664, derived from the Italian salone or French sala, meaning “a reception room or great hall.” The indication was for a particular part of a house, a room or several rooms, where people gathered together. The English equivalent would be the drawing room or parlor.
The word Salon gradually became synonymous with the Paris assemblies of elites and intellectuals that had been popular since the early 1600s. Initially there were many names for these gatherings and almost all were based on the name of whatever room or building where the meeting took place, such as cabinet, rèduit, ruelle, and alcôve. However, with casual intimacy a main component, a common destination was the comfortable rooms inside private homes of the fabulously wealthy. Hence, salon as an in-home reception room became the title for the gathering itself, or perhaps it was the other way around since the activity appears to pre-date the room. Hmmm…..
Molière reading Tartuffe at Ninon de Lenclos’ Salon in Paris, 1802
The Salon ideal, as begun by the French and Italians, dates back to the 16th century and probably far before. Initially, this was an intimate gathering, almost always around a woman of royalty, who held court with select individuals versed in the arts, literature, philosophies, sciences, and so on. Formal education was limited for women during this time, so the salon provided an acceptable way to educate oneself. Until the end of the 17th century, these intellectual conclaves often took place in the lady’s bedroom and required a formal invitation. The importance to these gatherings would grow during these decades, and the power and influence wielded by these beautiful, educated patronesses was extreme.
Catherine de Vivonne, the Marquess de Rambouillet (1588-1665)
One of the most famous early salon hosts, called a salonière, in France in the first decades of 1600 was Catherine de Vivonne, the Marquess de Rambouillet. Hailing originally from Italy, she found the French Court not to her taste so she used her home – called the Hotel de Rambouillet – as a place for the educated to meet. She made it warm and welcoming, a place for visitors to speak intimately and openly.
Following Madame de Rambouillet’s model, Madeleine de Scudéry was the second French salon pioneer. Known for creating her own ideal of a feminist utopia within her salon, she strictly forbade romantic and sexual love, as she herself was devoutly celibate. An invitation to her salon was a rite of passage into Parisian aristocracy.
These two women and their competing salons were the original assemblages of the les bas-bleues, or Blue Stockings, an informal society of women that eventually spread throughout all of Europe whose influence on education and society was unparalleled. The nickname would continue to mean “intellectual woman” for the next three hundred years. They also came to be known as les precieuses, translated “preciousness,” and refined the courtly tone of romance and elegant French language.
“Salon of ladies” by Abraham Bosse, 1636
As the prestige of the salon grew, so did the momentum. A salon became THE place to discuss everything from the arts to politics. An extraordinary aspect of the early French salons was that they brought people from different economic classes together. Always the driving force was intellectual discussion for the betterment of one’s education and culture. The Enlightenment period during the 1700s into the early 1800s was a time when free-thinking flourished. Having one’s own point of view, to be listening and learning and debating ideas, was celebrated. Additionally, being dumb was severely frowned upon amongst the fashionable, the French believing that an educated and enlightened society was for the good of all.
It should be obvious that a salon was starkly different than balls or any other amusement based soirees. The numerous salons varied, depending upon the characteristic and motivation of the hosting female, but with few exceptions they were of a morally upright, edification based nature with entertainment and frivolity not an objective. To be fair, not all salons held to such high standards, many no more than a cover for vice with morals dubious. Again, the persona of the hostess pervaded how the salon was operated and depravity has existed throughout the entirety of human existence.
This excerpt is from the 1808 memoirs of Jean-François Marmontel regarding the Parisian Salon of Julie de Lespinasse:
The circle was formed of persons who were not bound together. She had taken them here and there in society, but so well assorted were they that once there they fell into harmony like the strings of an instrument touched by an able hand. Following out that comparison, I may say that she played the instrument with an art that came of genius; she seemed to know what tone each string would yield before she touched it; I mean to say that our minds and our natures were so well known to her that in order to bring them into play she had but to say a word. Nowhere was conversation more lively, more brilliant, or better regulated than at her house. It was a rare phenomenon indeed, the degree of tempered, equable heat which she knew so well how to maintain, sometimes by moderating it, sometimes by quickening it. The continual activity of her soul was communicated to our souls, but measurably; her imagination was the mainspring, her reason the regulator … Her talent for casting out a thought and giving it for discussion to men of that class, her own talent in discussing it with precision, sometimes with eloquence, her talent for bringing forward new ideas and varying the topic always with the facility and ease of a fairy, who, with one touch of her wand, can change the scene of her enchantment-these talents, I say, were not those of an ordinary woman.”
“Reading of Voltaire’s Tragedy L’orphelin de la Chine in Madame Geoffrin’s Salon” by Lemonnier, 1812
Although never as popular elsewhere as they were in Paris, salons did spread to all of Europe. By the mid-1700s into the early 1800s, it was considered a fashionable and esteemed occupation for a woman of eminence. The Countess de Lieven was one of several dozen women who opened their homes to the glittering literary and artistic luminaries of English Society, who shared gossip and philosophies. The salons hosted by Elizabeth Montagu are where the expression “bluestocking” originated, and it was she who created the Blue Stockings Society in 1750.
As the 1800s drew to a close, salons lost their previous fervor. Assemblies of like minded artists continued in various forms, still do to this day, but the age of salon as an influence upon Society and culture waned. Rather sad, don’t you think?
Alexandrina Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India (1819 – 1901) +Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel, Prince Albert of Saxe-Colburg and Gotha, Prince Consort(1819 – 1861)
Victoria, Princess Royal of England and Crown Princess of Prussia, German Empress(1840 – 1901) + Frederick III (Fritz), HIM Emperor of Germany (1831 – 1888), who bore these children…
William II, Prince of Prussia(1859 – 1941) + Augusta Victoria (Dona) of princess of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbury-Augustenburg; German Empress to William II (1858 – 1921)
Charlotte, Princess of Prussia (1860 – 1919) + Bernhard, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen (1851 – 1928)
Henry, Prince of Prussia (1862 – 1929) + Irene, Princess of Hesse (1866-1953), daughter of Alice
Sigismund, Prince of Prussia (1864 – 1866)
Victoria, Princess of Prussia(1866 – 1929) + (1) Adolf, Prince of Schamburg-Lippe (1859 – 1916); (2) Alexander Zovelove (1900 – 1936)
Waldemar, Prince of Prussia (1868 – 1879)
Sophie, Princess of Prussia (1870 – 1932) + Constantine, King of Greece (1868 – 1923)
Margaret, Princess of Prussia (1872 – 1954) + Frederick Charles of Hesse-Cassel (1868 – 1940)
Albert Edward known as Edward VII (Bertie), King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India(1841 – 1910) + Alexandra Caroline Marie Charlotte Louise Julia, Princess of Denmark, and later Queen Consort of the United Kingdom of Greet Britain and Ireland and Empress Consort of India (1844 – 1925), who bore these children…
Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward, Duke of Clarence and Avondale(1864 – 1892) – died before he could marry Princess Mary of Teck
George Frederick Ernest Albert, Duke of York and Prince of Wales and later George V, King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Emperor of India (1865 – 1936) [Grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II] + Princess Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes of Teck in the Kingdom of Wurttemberg, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Empress Consort of India (1867 – 1953) [Great-granddaughter of King George III, who was Queen Victoria’s grandfather]
Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife(1867 – 1931) + Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife and Marquess of Macduff (1849 – 1912)
Princess Victoria Alexandra Olga Mary of Wales (1868 – 1935)
Maud Charlotte Mary Victoria of Wales, Queen of Norway (1869 – 1938) + Christian Frederik Carl Georg Valdemar Axel, King Haakon VII of Norway (1872 – 1957)
Princess Alice Maud Mary of the United Kingdom and later Princess Louis of Hesse (1843) + Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Karl, Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt (1837 – 1892). who bore these children…
Victoria Alberta Elisabeth Mathilde Marie, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine,laterVictoria Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven (1863 – 1950) + Admiral of the Fleet Louis Alexander Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, formerly Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg (1854 – 1921)
Grand Duchess Elisabeth of Russia (1864 – 1918) + Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia (1857 -1905)
Irene Louise Marie Anne, Princess of Hesse and by Rhine (1866 – 1953) + Albert Wilhelm Heinrich von Preußen, Prince Henry of Prussia (1862 – 1929)
Ernst Louis Charles Albert William, Grand Duke of Hesse (1868 – 1937) + (1) Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1876 – 1936) [divorced in 1901]; (2) Eleonore, Princess of Solms-Hohensolms-Lich (1871- 1937)
Frederick William Augustus Victor Leopold Louis (1870 – 1873)
Victoria Helena Louise Beatrice, later Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix), Tsarina of Russia (1872 – 1918) + Alexandrovich Romanov, Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, Grand Duke of Finland, and titular King of Poland (1868 – 1918)
Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha(1844 – 1900) + Maria Alexandrovna, Grand Duchess of Russia (1853 – 1920), who bore these children…
Alfred Alexander William Ernest Albert, Prince Alfred of Edinburgh (1874 – 1899), later Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (failed engagement to Duchess Elsa Mathild Marie in 1895)
Princess Marie Alexandra Victoria of Edinburgh, more commonly known as Marie of Romania, last Queen Consort of Romania as wife of King Ferdinand I (1875 – 1938) + Ferdinand Viktor Albert Meinrad, King of Romania (1865 – 1927)
Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Grand Duchess Viktoria Feodorovna of Russia(1876 – 1936) + (1) Ernest Louis Charles Albert William Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine (1868 – 1918) [divorced 1901]; (2) Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich of Russia (1876 – 1938)
Princess Alexandra Louise Olga Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1878 -1942) + Ernst II, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (1863 -1950)
Princess Beatrice Leopoldine Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha(1884 – 1966) + Alfonso de Orleans y Borbón, Infante of Spain, Duke of Galliera (1866 – 1975)
Princess Helena Augusta Victoria of the United Kingdom (Lenchen), known as Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein(1846 – 1923) + Frederick Christian Charles Augustus, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Ausgustenburg (1831 – 1917), who bore these children…
Christian Victor Albert Louis Ernst Anton, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein(1867 -1900)
Albert John Charles Frederick Alfred George, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (1869 – 1931)
Princess Victoria Louise Sophia Augusta Amelia Helena known as Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein (1870 – 1948)
Princess Franziska Josepha Louise Augusta Marie Christina Helena, known as Princess Marie Louise (1872 – 1957) + Aribert, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau (1864 – 1933) [divorced 1900]
Prince Frederick Harald (lived but 8 days in May 1876)
Princess Louise Caroline Alberta, Duchess of Argyll (1848 – 1939) + John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll (customarily known by his courtesy title of Marquess Of Lorne) (1845 – 1914); there was no issue from this match.
Arthur William Patrick Albert, Duke of Connaught and Stratheam and Earl of Sussex+ Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes, Princess of Prussia, and later known as the Duchess of Connaught and Strathearn (1860 – 1917), who bore these children…
Margaret Victoria Charlotte Augusta Norah, Princess Margaret of Connaught and Crown Princess of Sweden and Duchess of Skåne as the first wife of the future Oscar Fredrik Wilhelm Olaf Gustaf Adolf, King Gustaf VI Adolf in July 1905 (1882 – 1920)
Arthur Frederick Patrick Albert, Prince Arthur of Connaught (1883 – 1938) + Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina Louise (née Duff)Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, later known as Princess Arthur of Connaught (1891 – 1959)
Victoria Patricia Helena Elizabeth, Princess of Patricia of Connaught, later Lady Patricia Ramsey (1886 – 1974) + Naval Commander (later Admiral) The Hon. Alexander Ramsay (1881 – 1972)
Leopold George Duncan Albert, Prince Leopold(laterDuke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, andBaron Arklow) (1853 – 1884) + Helene Friederike Auguste, Princess of Waldeck-Pyrmont (and later Duchess of Albany) (1861 – 1922), who bore these children…
Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (née Princess Alice of Albany (1883 – 1981) + Major-General Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone (born Prince Alexander of Teck) (1874 – 1957)
Leopold Charles Edward George Albert, known as Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha(1884 – 1954) + Viktoria Adelheid Helene Luise Marie Friederike, Princess Victoria Adelaide of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (1885 – 1970)
Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore, Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom (later Princess Henry of Battenberg) (1857 – 1944) + Henry Maurice (Liko), Prince Henry of Battenberg (1858 – 1896), who bore these children…
Alexander Albert Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Carisbrooke (born Prince Alexander Albert of Battenberg) (1886- 1960) + Lady Irene Francis Adza Denison, Marchioness of Carisbrooke (1890 – 1956)
Victoria Eurgenie Julia Ena of Battenberg, Queen Consort of Spain (1887 – 1969) + Alphonse Leon Ferdinand Mary James Isidore Pascal Anthony of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, known as Alfonso XIII, King of Spain (1886 – 1941) [Grandfather of Juan Carlos, who became King of Spain when the monarchy was reinstated in 1975.]
Prince Leopold of Battenberg, known as Lord Leopold Mountbatten( (1889 – 1922)
Maurice Victor Donald, Prince of Battenberg (1891 – 1914)
Austen’s novels speak loudly with society’s obsession with money and connections. Money and status was obtained through marriage. What we soon come to accept as a reader of Jane Austen’s novels is that her heroines marry for love (and a bit money). It is not ironic that Austen’s heroines marry within their class. It was expected that a woman do so. Harriet Smith in Emma is criticized for she aspires to wed into the landed gentry. The hero gentlemen in Austen’s books have money, which they generally earn by being a the owner of an estate and collecting rents, as in Fitzwilliam Darcy’s case in Pride and Prejudice or Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility, or from a living bestowed upon the man by a land owner, as in the case of Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility or Henry Tilney, in Northanger Abbey, who is comfortably placed as a beneficed clergyman on his father’s estate.
When we learn of Sir Walter Elliot’s nod of acceptance to Captain Wentworth in Persuasion or of Darcy’s acceptance of the Gardiners’s and Mr. Bingley’s connections to trade, we “praise” the men. These actions are examples of Jane Austen’s values. The fact they more rightly fit the values of the current century is pure happenstance.
Austen’s feelings as applied to silly girls such as Lydia Bennet and Harriet Smith are obvious. She also disapproves of snobs and women who pursue rich men, as in the case of Caroline Bingley in Pride and Prejudice, Lucy Steele in Sense and Sensibility, Elizabeth Elliot in Persuasion, Mrs. Elton in Emma, and Maria Bertram in Mansfield Park. Rakes are often found upon Austen’s page. Mr. George Wickham in Pride and Prejudice woos half of Meryton with his lies. He has no intention of marrying Lydia Bennet until his hand is forced by Mr. Darcy. Mr. Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility is equally as vile. Frank Church plays Emma against Jane Fairfax. Tom Bertram in Mansfield Park has both his good points and his bad ones. He starts off the novel as Mary Crawford’s love interest, and he’s instrumental in getting the “Mansfield theatricals” off the ground. Tom is also responsible for a lot of the major plot points that dominate the start of the novel. His gambling debts are part of the reason why Sir Thomas has to go to Antigua to take care of his financial problems. Tom’s debts also mean that Edmund won’t be able to move into the Parsonage at Mansfield Park when he’s ordained, which of course results in the Grants and the Crawfords moving in. And Tom introduces Mr. Yates, Julia’s future husband, to the Bertrams. Mr. Elliot in Persuasion not only attempts to seduce Anne, but we discover he has much to do with the poor conditions in which Mrs. Smith must live.
Austen’s pages are also full of the ridiculous: Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, and Sir William Lucas in Pride and Prejudice; Lady Bertram in Mansfield Park; Mary Musgrove and Mrs. Musgrove in Persuasion; Mr. and Mrs. Allen in Northanger Abbey; and Mrs. Jennings in Sense and Sensibility.
Austen’s heroines are intelligent females, as was she. Her family permitted Austen much latitude. She discussed politics and religion and society’s issues with her brothers and her father. One can easily imagine Austen arguing with her brothers over important issues in the same manner as her heroines do with the heroes of her books. The difference in Austen and her heroines is that she never married. Many take these “liberties” that she presents her characters as being a “women’s liberation” sort of thing. I beg to differ on that opinion. Although Austen may have hoped for more freedoms for women, she is accepting of what many thought could not be changed. She is no Mary Wollstonecraft writing A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Austen was writing fiction based on what she knew of society. In John Wiltshire’s essay (found in The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, edited by Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster, Cambridge University, 14 February 2011), Wiltshire suggests that Emma and Knightley are the most compatible couple in Austen’s works, for the pair are comparable in intelligence, wit, empathy, and confidence. Darcy and Elizabeth trail in Wiltshire’s estimation, especially because of a lack of confidence in their relationship found in both Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet.
Austen began writing Elinor and Marianne as an epistolary novel in 1795. It was published as Sense and Sensibility in 1811. The novel set the tone for many of Austen’s titles: defiance of the social and economic barriers to marriage and the desire of women to marry for love. In the novel, Elinor and Marianne possess parallel experiences: They both fall in love with men who cannot commit to them. Needless to say, Elinor Dashwood epitomizes the concept of “sense” in her dealings with with the world, while her sister Marianne models the concept of “sensibility.” In the novel, Elinor displays reason and propriety, while Marianne purports spontaneity, self indulgence, and a lack of decorum.
One thing that is often confused by the modern reader is the contextual meaning of “sensibility” during Jane Austen’s time. “Sensibility” was a 15th Century word. Instead of meaning “an understanding of or ability to decide about what is good or valuable,” as we use it today, the word took on the meaning of a “peculiar susceptibility to a pleasurable or painful impression” or “refined or excessive sensitiveness in emotion and taste with especial responsiveness to the pathetic.” (Merriam-Webster)
Austen’s novels criticized the novels of sensibility of the late 1700s. “The sentimental novel or the novel of sensibility is an 18th-century literary genre which celebrates the emotional and intellectual concepts of sentiment, sentimentalism, and sensibility. Sentimentalism, which is to be distinguished from sensibility, was a fashion in both poetry and prose fiction beginning in the eighteenth century in reaction to the rationalism of the Augustan Age.
Austen wrote her novel at the turn of the 19th Century between what is known as Classicism and Romanticism. Austen was always aware of those who came before her, and she acknowledges the 18th Century novels she read voraciously as having a distinct influence on her generation. The novel reflects the change in the literary landscape with the turn of the 19th Century.Austen does not draw the characters of Marianne and Elinor in straight lines. Elinor expresses reserve, but she has her passionate moments. Marianne is headstrong, but not totally lacking in sense. It is as if Austen is arguing for a balance of sense and sensibility in our lives and that being too much of one is an error. Elinor and Marianne learn from each other and achieve happiness in that manner.
“Sentimental novels relied on emotional response, both from their readers and characters. They feature scenes of distress and tenderness, and the plot is arranged to advance emotions rather than action. The result is a valorization of “fine feeling,” displaying the characters as a model for refined, sensitive emotional effect. The ability to display feelings was thought to show character and experience, and to shape social life and relations.” (Wikipedia)
Generally speaking, readers and film adaptations accept Elinor as displaying the acceptable manners of the time. In modern terms, some feel Marianne’s open expression of her feelings is healthier than Elinor’s suppression of emotions. One thing that REALLY drives me nuts in this novel is Elinor remains a static character throughout. As a teacher of English for some four decades, I taught my students that the main character is a dynamic one. It is almost as if Austen provides a bit of overkill of the concept of “sense” in the form of Elinor’s character.
I know many remain interested in Elinor’s struggles to know happiness, but I find myself more concerned with Colonel Brandon’s “stuffiness.” When I first read the book (long after I read Pride and Prejudice), I was as irritated as Marianne with Elinor’s evaluation of Edward Ferrars.
Sense and Sensibility (2008 miniseries) – en.wikipedia.org
“What a pity it is, Elinor”, said Marianne, “that Edward should have no taste for drawing.”
“No taste for drawing,” replied Elinor; “why should you think so? He does not draw himself, indeed, but he has great pleasure in seeing the performance of other people, and I assure you he is by no means deficient in natural taste, though he has not had opportunities of improving it. Had he ever been in the way of learning, I think he would have drawn very well. He distrusts his own judgment in such matters so much, that he is always unwilling to give his opinion on any picture; but he has an innate propriety and simplicity of taste, which in general direct him perfectly right.”
Marianne was afraid of offending, and said no more on the subject; but the kind of approbation which Elinor described as excited in him by the drawings of other people, was very far from that rapturous delight, which, in her opinion, could alone be called taste. Yet, though smiling within herself at the mistake, she honoured her sister for that blind partiality to Edward which produced it.
“I hope, Marianne,” continued Elinor, “you do not consider him as deficient in general taste. Indeed, I think I may say that you cannot, for your behaviour to him is perfectly cordial, and if that were your opinion, I am sure you could never be civil to him.”
Marianne hardly knew what to say. She would not wound the feelings of her sister on any account, and yet to say what she did not believe was impossible. At length she replied —
“Do not be offended, Elinor, if my praise of him is not in everything equal to your sense of his merits. I have not had so many opportunities of estimating the minuter propensities of his mind, his inclinations and tastes as you have; but I have the highest opinion in the world of his goodness and sense. I think him everything that is worthy and amiable.”
“I am sure,” replied Elinor with a smile, “that his dearest friends could not be dissatisfied with such commendation as that. I do not perceive how you could express yourself more warmly.”
Marianne was rejoiced to find her sister so easily pleased.
“Of his sense and his goodness,” continued Elinor, “no one can, I think, be in doubt, who has seen him often enough to engage him in unreserved conversation. The excellence of his understanding and his principles can be concealed only by that shyness which too often keeps him silent. You know enough of him to do justice to his solid worth. But of his minuter propensities, as you call them, you have from peculiar circumstances been kept more ignorant than myself. He and I have been at times thrown a good deal together, while you have been wholly engrossed on the most affectionate principle by my mother. I have seen a great deal of him, have studied his sentiments and heard his opinion on subjects of literature and taste; and, upon the whole, I venture to pronounce that his mind is well-informed, his enjoyment of books exceedingly great, his imagination lively, his observation just and correct, and his taste delicate and pure. His abilities in every respect improve as much upon acquaintance as his manners and person. At first sight, his address is certainly not striking; and his person can hardly be called handsome, till the expression of his eyes, which are uncommonly good, and the general sweetness of his countenance, is perceived. At present, I know him so well, that I think him really handsome; or, at least, almost so. What say you, Marianne?”
“I shall very soon think him handsome, Elinor, if I do not now. When you tell me to love him as a brother, I shall no more see imperfection in his face, than I now do in his heart.”
Elinor started at this declaration, and was sorry for the warmth she had been betrayed into, in speaking of him. She felt that Edward stood very high in her opinion. She believed the regard to be mutual; but she required greater certainty of it to make Marianne’s conviction of their attachment agreeable to her. She knew that what Marianne and her mother conjectured one moment, they believed the next — that with them, to wish was to hope, and to hope was to expect. She tried to explain the real state of the case to her sister.
“I do not attempt to deny,” said she, “that I think very highly of him — that I greatly esteem, that I like him.”
Marianne here burst forth with indignation —
“Esteem him! Like him! Cold-hearted Elinor! Oh! worse than cold-hearted! Ashamed of being otherwise. Use those words again and I will leave the room this moment.” Elinor could not help laughing.
There is a bit of Elizabeth Bennet in this passage. Elinor does not admit to be in love with Edward; she also does not permit herself to think she is in love with anyone. Edward is equally as reserved as is Elinor. Being reserved in nature is a subject Austen returns to in Emma. What the reader discovers is the “reserved” displayed by Elinor and Edward and by Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill is not real.
Despite her vow not to love a man who does not love her in return, Elinor convinces herself that the ring he wears contains a lock of her hair. She does not openly mourn Edward’s loss, but she does think upon him often.
Lucy Steele’s revelation that Lucy and Edward are engaged is enough to shake Elinor from her delusions of marriage to Edward. Elinor is wise enough to see through Lucy’s manipulations. Elinor continues to hide her feelings for Edward from all, especially Lucy, who would celebrate Elinor’s hopes being dashed.
Unlike Marianne who openly flaunts her interest in John Willoughby by writing the man letters, Elinor hides her disappointment and devotes her attentions to Marianne’s misery.
Marianne chastises Elinor for the expectation of Marianne’s “sense.” Marianne claims her own despair superior to anything Elinor might feel for Edward’s betrayal. “Always resignation and acceptance! Always prudence and honor and duty! Elinor, where is your heart?”
Richard Posner in Subversion and Sympathy (edited by Martha Nussbaum and Alison LaCroix, Oxford Press, 2013, p. 86) tells us “Their incomes consist of rent paid by tenant farmers, but some of them also own bonds. They are remarkably candid, by our standards, about their incomes, with the result that everyone seems to know everyone else’s income almost to the shilling. It appears that ‘fortunes,’ whether in land or in bonds, yield about 5 percent annually, so that if you know the size of a person’s fortune you know his income, and vice versa. A fortune of £200,000, yielding an income of £10,000 a year, would be immense; that is the lower-bound estimate of Fitzwilliam Darcy’s fortune in Pride and Prejudice. In the same novel Mr. Bennet’s fortune of £40,000, which yields an income of £2,000 a year, is adequate—it is the average income of a baronet—but not princely. (Colonel Brandon, in Sense and Sensibility, lives very comfortably on £2,000 a year, but he is a bachelor, whereas Mr. Bennet has six dependents.) Adequacy is relative; a laborer or farmer would have earned only about £15 to £20 a year, a servant less (and even the least affluent members of the landed gentry have servants). It is impossible to estimate a modern equivalent of any of these incomes.
(Image of 
(Image of 
(Image of 
In France the line of succession faced no problem of the male successor until King Louis X’s death in 1316. Although Louis’ wife delivered a male heir after the king’s death, the child passed within a week. Louis’ brother, Philip V, convened the Estates-General, which adopted a resolution that women would not be part of the line of succession to the French throne. The corollary principle also came into effect. With it, the children of a daughter of a French king could not make a claim to the throne. Salic law was used as reason to rebuff a claim to the French throne by England’s King Henry IV in 1410. The premise of Salic Law officially denied the infanta Isabella of Spain, the granddaughter of Henry II of France, her claim to the throne. Napoleon accepted the fundamental right of the practice, and it was applied to succession as late as the latter part of the 19th Century.
William, Duke of Clarence, married (1818) Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, but had no surviving issue. He did produce ten children with his mistress Dorothea Jordan, but they could have no claim upon the throne. 
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was next line of succession. Replacing his long-standing mistress, one of 27 years, he married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Queen Victoria was his daughter.
Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, was next in line. “He was the fifth son and eighth child of George III, who eleven years before Ernest’s birth had inherited the thrones of two kingdoms, Great Britain and Ireland, and also that of the Electorate of Hanover, still part of the Holy Roman Empire. As a fifth son, initially Ernest seemed unlikely to become a monarch, but Semi-Salic Law, applied to the succession in Hanover, and none of his elder brothers had any legitimate sons. Therefore, when in 1837 his niece, Victoria, became Queen of England and Ireland, ending the personal union between the British Isles and Hanover that had existed since 1714, Ernest became King of Hanover, which had been raised to a kingdom after the end of the Holy Roman Empire.” (
Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, to Lady Augusta Murray with whom he had issue. As this action eliminated him from the line of succession, the marriage was annulled in 1794. In 1831, he married Lady Cecilia Buggin, the Duchess of Inverness, but they had no issue. 
[Image: Engraving of Princess Caroline
Austen’s novels speak loudly with society’s obsession with money and connections. Money and status was obtained through marriage. What we soon come to accept as a reader of Jane Austen’s novels is that her heroines marry for love (and a bit money). It is not ironic that Austen’s heroines marry within their class. It was expected that a woman do so. Harriet Smith in Emma is criticized for she aspires to wed into the landed gentry. The hero gentlemen in Austen’s books have money, which they generally earn by being a the owner of an estate and collecting rents, as in Fitzwilliam Darcy’s case in Pride and Prejudice or Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility, or from a living bestowed upon the man by a land owner, as in the case of Edward Ferrars in Sense and Sensibility or Henry Tilney, in Northanger Abbey, who is comfortably placed as a beneficed clergyman on his father’s estate.
Austen’s feelings as applied to silly girls such as Lydia Bennet and Harriet Smith are obvious. She also disapproves of snobs and women who pursue rich men, as in the case of Caroline Bingley in Pride and Prejudice, Lucy Steele in Sense and Sensibility, Elizabeth Elliot in Persuasion, Mrs. Elton in Emma, and Maria Bertram in Mansfield Park. Rakes are often found upon Austen’s page. Mr. George Wickham in Pride and Prejudice woos half of Meryton with his lies. He has no intention of marrying Lydia Bennet until his hand is forced by Mr. Darcy. Mr. Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility is equally as vile. Frank Church plays Emma against Jane Fairfax. Tom Bertram in Mansfield Park has both his good points and his bad ones. He starts off the novel as Mary Crawford’s love interest, and he’s instrumental in getting the “Mansfield theatricals” off the ground. Tom is also responsible for a lot of the major plot points that dominate the start of the novel. His gambling debts are part of the reason why Sir Thomas has to go to Antigua to take care of his financial problems. Tom’s debts also mean that Edmund won’t be able to move into the Parsonage at Mansfield Park when he’s ordained, which of course results in the Grants and the Crawfords moving in. And Tom introduces Mr. Yates, Julia’s future husband, to the Bertrams. Mr. Elliot in Persuasion not only attempts to seduce Anne, but we discover he has much to do with the poor conditions in which Mrs. Smith must live. 
Austen’s heroines are intelligent females, as was she. Her family permitted Austen much latitude. She discussed politics and religion and society’s issues with her brothers and her father. One can easily imagine Austen arguing with her brothers over important issues in the same manner as her heroines do with the heroes of her books. The difference in Austen and her heroines is that she never married. Many take these “liberties” that she presents her characters as being a “women’s liberation” sort of thing. I beg to differ on that opinion. Although Austen may have hoped for more freedoms for women, she is accepting of what many thought could not be changed. She is no Mary Wollstonecraft writing A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Austen was writing fiction based on what she knew of society. In John Wiltshire’s essay (found in The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen, edited by Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster, Cambridge University, 14 February 2011), Wiltshire suggests that Emma and Knightley are the most compatible couple in Austen’s works, for the pair are comparable in intelligence, wit, empathy, and confidence. Darcy and Elizabeth trail in Wiltshire’s estimation, especially because of a lack of confidence in their relationship found in both Fitzwilliam Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet. 
Every Woman Dreams... 