Jane Austen discussion

I've added a new blog post continuing my series on the characters in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park focusing on The Ward Sisters: Lady Bertram, Mrs. Norris and Mrs. Price. You can find it here:

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

I'd love to know your thoughts on these fascinating characters.

Thank you - I look forward to checking it out. Cheers.

Fascinating article, Amelia, thank you, and much food for thought.

I wonder if Mrs Norris were notably less pretty than her sisters when she was young? It would make sense of her jealousy, her attitude of being hard done by, in that she then takes everythign she can lay her hands on, and simultaneously tries to stop anyone else getting anything they might want.

She's the typical 'petty tyrant', sucking up to anyone 'better off' than she is (mostly the Bertrams), and being spiteful and mean to anyone 'worse off' (Fanny, the boy she prevented having a free meal, etc).

I suspect she wanted to move Fanny to MP simply to show her sister Fanny Price that she 'could', ie, that she had the power to do so because she was 'in' with Sir Thomas.

As for Lady Bertram, she obviously must have been very pretty to 'captivate' Sir Thomas (as, in P and P, Mrs B must have been pretty to do similar with Mr B - I think Mr B says somethign flattering in that vein to Mrs B, about her being as pretty as her daughters).

Unlike Mr Bennet, Sir Thomas doesn't show any signs of despising his wife, so maybe he's still in love with her, or just has a less critical character than Mr Bennet?

Lady Bertram is what we might all these days an 'air head' - all face and figure and nothing else. Her indolence is both comic, and irresponsible (eg, not bothering to bring her daughters up., etc).

My all time favourite depiction is in the Sylvestra La Touzel version of MP, with Lady B played by Angela Pleasance, and it is absolutely unforgettable!

Interesting thoughts! For me, Mrs. Norris is the ultimate “virtue signaler”—she is constantly reframing her self-serving behavior as serving others.

Amelia, thank you for another great post on Mansfield Park.

I just love this quote about Mrs. Norris: Mrs. Norris is a middle manager, a factory floor shift supervisor despised by both the owner (Sir Thomas) and the workers (Dick Jackson and his family). Not to mention that she is hated by Baddeley (Mansfield Park's Carson), by Tom Bertram who thinks she's meddlesome, and, ironically, by Julia and Maria too.

The greatest thing about Mrs. Norris is that her dialogue is full of ironic phrases. In the middle of a wall of text, she says I am a woman of few words and professions. Or when she says: I hate such encroaching people (the Jacksons are very encroaching, I have always said so: just the sort of people to get all they can)

Lady Bertram and Mrs. Norris have an interesting dynamic: for example, when Edmund notices that Fanny has a headache, Mrs. Norris blames it on Fanny's cutting roses for Lady Bertram, but she casually remarks: "She has had it [aromatic vinegar] ever since she came back from your house the second time." Edmund flips out and Lady Bertram goes on trying to deflect the blame for having Fanny cutting roses in the heat all day: "I was afraid it would be too much for her," said Lady Bertram; "but when the roses were gathered, your aunt wished to have them, and then you know they must be taken home...they were to be put into the spare room to dry; and, unluckily, Fanny forgot to lock the door of the room and bring away the key, so she was obliged to go again." She succeeds in getting Edmund foaming at the mouth at Mrs. Norris -- or at least the Edmund Bertram version of foaming at the mouth. Mrs. Norris isn't going down without a fight and in turn blames Edmund himself: "If Fanny would be more regular in her exercise, she would not be knocked up so soon. She has not been out on horseback now this long while, and I am persuaded that, when she does not ride, she ought to walk." Looking over to Lady Bertram, Mrs. Norris says in a low voice that everyone can hear: "Between ourselves, Edmund, it was cutting the roses, and dawdling about in the flower-garden, that did the mischief." Lady Bertram of course couldn't care less, but she has some last words that are full of comic exaggeration: "I am afraid it was, indeed," said the more candid Lady Bertram, who had overheard her; "I am very much afraid she caught the headache there, for the heat was enough to kill anybody. It was as much as I could bear myself. Sitting and calling to Pug, and trying to keep him from the flower-beds, was almost too much for me."

What a passive aggressive family.

I wonder what it says about Mrs. Cassandra Austen that she liked Mrs. Norris and disliked Fanny Price?

Beth:

I agree the 1986 MP adaptation is the only good one ... and that's not saying much!

It's interesting what you say about Mrs. Norris not being as pretty as her sisters. It makes perfect sense! She is definitely more preoccupied with money and Lady Bertram with beauty. I love your characterization of her as a "petty tyrant" so true!

Sir Thomas does seem to be a good husband. He has to notice how vacuous his wife is but he seems to take it in stride. He doesn't have Mr. Bennet's inclination for mockery, he's very serious and has strict ideas about duty and morality.

Abigail:

Interesting thoughts! For me, Mrs. Norris is the ultimate “virtue signaler”—she is constantly reframing her self-serving behavior as serving others.

Yes! I don't think she's fooling anyone though!

Juan Manuel:

I love your take on the various conversations. Yes, Mrs. Norris is full of self-contradiction (like Caroline Bingley).

Everyone in the novel does seem to despise her. I wonder how Mr. Norris felt. Perhaps their being childless tells the story! Too bad we never hear from him. She is just a horrid person all around and even her two nieces who she indulges and flatters despise her, as you point out!

I wonder what it says about Mrs. Cassandra Austen that she liked Mrs. Norris and disliked Fanny Price?

I wasn't aware of this. Maybe she meant she likes Mrs. N as a character, surely not as a person.

I wonder how Mrs Norris and Mrs Fanny Dashwood would have got on? I suspect they are 'soul sisters'!!!

Mind you, the latter is so 'tight' that even Mrs N would have been hard pushed to lever any 'freebies' out of her!!!!!!!

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I wonder how Mrs Norris and Mrs Fanny Dashwood would have got on? I suspect they are 'soul sisters'!!!

They would have hated each other! Precisely because they are so similar. Their attributes are not the type that lead to harmony among people who possess them.

Mind you, the latter is so 'tight' that even Mrs N would have been hard pushed to lever any 'freebies' out of her!!!!!!!

LOL! Now there's a story! Now I want to write about Mrs. Norris visiting Norland Park and Fanny Dashwood stopping her on the way out to take the silver out of her pocket!

Elizabeth, Maria and Frances Ward are a type of single young woman that Jane Austen depicted often in her novels: middle class heiresses who had a big inheritance (Maria Ward had 7000l) but that don't have old money status. And some of them marry into the gentry -- or like in the case of Lady Bertram into the lower echelons of the titled nobility.

They are all over the place in Jane Austen's novels: Mrs. Jennings and her daughters, Lucy Steele, Mrs. Bennet and Lady Lucas, Caroline and Louisa Bingley, Augusta and Selina Hawkins, Penelope Shepherd.

I love Abigail Bok’s comment about Mrs. Norris being a Regency era virtue signaler. It’s so apropos for today!

Sorry my phone won’t let me make my reply on the original comment.

Juan Manuel,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'heiress'. A father who wanted to provide for daughters would (might) provide a dowry. The dowry went to the husband on her marriage. (The bulk of the estate would go to the first-born male heir.)

Less often, a woman would have an estate of her own (example: hubby dies and there is no male heir) and she would be an heiress in the contemporary meaning.

See Sense and Sensibility for an example of how shabbily the female survivors could be treated.

I think, within limits, the Ward sisters could be considered 'heiresses' in that they came with a quite generous 'lump sump' of £7k - OK, not huge at all, but seven times what the Bennet sisters would get when their father died.

Of course, it depends just how rich you had to be to be considered an heiress - there was discussion earlier about just how big an heiress Colonel Fitzwilliam would 'need' to marry.

As well as the sheer size of the 'lump sum' was the consideration that it was in cash, not land. Presumably held in government stock?? Or maybe just 'cash in the bank'???

'Cash' would probably be the most useful to the husband (who definitely took it over!!!) as it would just be a nice capital sum for him to draw on, or use to invest with, or add to his own lands etc. Mind you, if he were upwardly mobile himself, he would probably prefer the wealth to be in land, so that he could become 'landed gentry' courtesy of his wife??

I'm not sure the Bertram money is 'that old' is it? Sir Thomas seems chuffed that his daughter Maria is to become chatelaine of Sotherton, and everyone goes on about how ancient and grand it is.

Also, we know that he has substantial financial interests in the Caribbean, when he heads off to sort things out in Antigua, so that might be an indicator that his money is fairly 'new'???

Do we know how old his baronetcy is? Is he the first baronet, or have there been previous, nor how old Mansfield Park itself is or how long the estate has been in the Bertram family??

We never find our in Emma, do we, where the Woodhouse money comes from?

The Bingley money seems to have been made by the grandfather (or earlier?)

I wonder how 'long ago' the new money had to have been made before it was considered no longer 'new', and for any 'taint' of trade to dissipate?

Considering that just about the entire English aristocracy was not older than the Tudors (I think a few noble families, maybe the Norfolks?) predate the Tudors, in a way 'all' the aristocracy was derived from fortunes made in trade, or, perhaps more 'respectably' (!!!) by men who sucked up to the Tudors and did their dirty work for them, and helped themselves to monastery lands, etc etc.

Mind you, some of the 'landed gentry' might have been actually older in descent than the nobles (high attrition rate in the Wars of the Roses maybe???)

Beth:

There are definitely degrees of "heiresses." Mary King only had 10,000 pounds and Lizzy thought Wickham's ambitions very modest when she liked him and after she changed her mind about him reflected that he was willing to "grasp at anything" so in P&P 10,000 pounds (which would yield an income of about 500 per year) was pretty modest. This adds a little perspective to the 7,000 pounds in MP. And Austen refers to Miss Maria Ward as having "only seven thousand pounds." So it's more than all the Bennet girls had together but less than Mary Crawford, Caroline Bingley, Georgiana Darcy, or even Mary King had.

When a woman married her money became her husband's by operation of law. That's why women of the gentry class (who Austen wrote about) typically had marriage settlements to protect their money. So unless the young heiress married without a contract (which is what Wickham tried with Georgiana) the husband would not get control of her money as a lump sum. He would be entitled to the income from the money but typically the principal was protected for her children, by her marriage contract.

Amelia wrote: "I've added a new blog post continuing my series on the characters in Jane Austen's Mansfield Park focusing on The Ward Sisters: Lady Bertram, Mrs. Norris and Mrs. Price. You can find it here:

http..."
It's fabulous Amelia. You write with authority and obvious passion without coming across as condescending as many Austen fans tend to be. Any references to TV adaptions or films are usually met with many with derision in spite of this being a way many are first introduced to the wonderful books, for example, you said it quite politely when MP was not portrayed well which I agree with but it was still fun to watch.
Thank you; I love it!

Helene wrote: "It's fabulous Amelia."

Thanks Helene! I'm glad you are enjoying the blog posts. Only two more to go in the series, I think.

"You write with authority and obvious passion without coming across as condescending"

Thanks! That's such a great compliment. :)

I completely agree with Helene!!!!!!

Now I want to write about Mrs. Norris visiting Norland Park and Fanny Dashwood stopping her on the way out to take the silver out of her pocket!

**

That would be a good read indeed!!!!

I wonder what a novel would look like comprised of all Austen's most repellent characters???!!!

Speaking of which, I wonder who they all are? If one excludes 'villains', such as Willoughby (and should one?), but just people whom we are clearly invited to dislike (like Mrs N and Fanny Dashwood), who might they all be?

Lady C de Burgh is an obvious one, as is Caroline Bingley. Who else, I wonder??

Beth-In-UK wrote: "I think, within limits, the Ward sisters could be considered 'heiresses' in that they came with a quite generous 'lump sump' of £7k - OK, not huge at all, but seven times what the Bennet sisters wo..."

Hi Beth,
I always thought the negotiations of the marriage articles must have been very interesting! To be a fly on the wall! I mean they are basically early versions of today's prenuptial agreements. In one of my books, Lizzy insists on sitting in on the negotiation with Darcy, her father, and the lawyer. Darcy is arguing for more generous terms on behalf of his betrothed and Lizzy is arguing for less. Mr. Bennet of course is delighted with the absurdity of the reversed negotiation and the lawyer is all astonishment!

The custom at the time was to assume the bride would outlive her groom by about ten years. So if the bride's father was negotiating a jointure on her behalf, he would negotiate the annual amount to be one tenth of the size of her dowry. In essence, it would likely return most of her dowry to her over time during her widowhood.

As always the transfer of wealth is a central issue. And the old entail can take center stage! But in addition to the sex of the children of the marriage, the other matter of significant importance is how many children survive the marriage. This issue is found throughout P&P, of course we have Mrs. Bennet's husband hunting for five daughters. But in my mind it is part of the scenery rather than being the actual plot. The five thousand pounds set aside for Mr. Bennet's widow and children would have been close to sufficient if there had only been one daughter. But part of the precarious nature of the family's situation is that there are five daughters to split this money amongst and five husbands to find in a little backwater town like Meryton. The plot doesn't turn on this issue, but the story takes place with this backdrop.

Back to the Ward sisters, with seven thousand for each daughter, their father must have had a sizeable income or their mother brought a sizeable dowry to the marriage. Twenty-one thousand pounds was a 'tolerable fortune'. I always felt that anything above five thousand pounds for an individual bride entitled her to be thought of as rich, but I have nothing on which to base this.

Fun stuff,
Shana

Beth-In-UK:

Caroline Bingley as villain?

I think we need another category here. Caroline is pitiable, or... Poor girl. So into Darcy and so thoroughly shot down. Darcy mends his own pens, thank you.

But certainly not the character to inspire our hatred (Mrs. Norris, Wickham, Willoughby,...)

About Sir Thomas Bertram:

It's perfectly compatible Sir Thomas Bertram's being in some way part of an old gentry family (after all his last name is strikingly Anglo-Norman) and his having gained a baronetcy after having made a fortune in the West Indies. Hundreds of baronetcies were granted in the second half of the 18th century, when Sir Thomas Bertram would have been a young man.

Primogeniture imposed a kind of downward mobility on younger sons of there happened to be any surviving, and some of them were involved in colonial ventures. "Hacer la América" as the Spanish phrase says.

I remember reading David Hackett Fischer's book Albion's Seed (about British settlement of the Thirteen Colonies) and Colin Woodard's American Nations -- that the British West Indies, the Carolinas (with Georgia and Tennessee), and Virginia were in part settled by these very younger sons who established themselves as plantation owners and staple crop merchants. A lot of money was made, naturally on the basis of exploiting African and Native slaves and white indentured servants. Not all planters stayed on the islands, and some returned to England, purchased land there and became absentee planters. There's a trace, they claim, of this in the state flag of South Carolina (settled from the Caribbean after the Restoration): you can see that it has a crescent moon, a heraldic symbol for younger sons.

Martin, Thank you for today’s laugh out loud moment; Darcy mends his own pens thank you very much!

But as for Caroline not inspiring any hatred, I have to assume it is not you and your heart’s desire that were being separated in P&P. Caroline Bingley inspires hatred just fine, thank you.

Cheers,
Shana

Shana,

I don't get it. Mrs. Norris was vicious to Fanny (on camera). Wickham failed to seduce Georgiana (off camera) but succeeded with Lydia (near on camera). Willoughby (... on with Marianne, off with Brandon's ward).

What was poor Caroline's sin? Excess flattery? Certainly she was no threat to Elizabeth. (Darcy and I both thought not.)

Martin wrote: "Beth-In-UK: Caroline Bingley as villain? I think we need another category here."

Marin, I agree. I think Caroline has been over-villainized by Jane Austen fanfiction. (I actually wrote a story making fun of her over-villainization called "Carrie-Sue") She was just doing what a lot of women did at the time, grasping upward. Darcy saw right through her and was never tempted, so she was never a threat to Lizzy who also saw through her and kind of laughed at her.

That being said, I don't want to speak for Beth, but I don't think she was classing Caroline as a villain. She was distinguishing her from someone like Willoughby as someone we are "invited to dislike;" although I wouldn't put her in the same class as Mrs. N who is perhaps the greatest villain in Austen.

Austen's villians is actually the topic for my region's next JASNA meeting! should be a fun talk.

Martin wrote: "Shana,

I don't get it. Mrs. Norris was vicious to Fanny (on camera). Wickham failed to seduce Georgiana (off camera) but succeeded with Lydia (near on camera). Willoughby (... on with Marianne, of..."

I am talking about Jane and Bingley. Caroline packed up the Netherfield household as soon as Bingley had to dash to town for a few days and followed him there. Who knows what story she concocted to keep him in London. She lied to Jane (in two letters) about her brother's attachment to Georgiana. It is implied that she lied to her brother about Jane not really caring for him. She concealed from her brother that Jane was in town for months. Did Darcy participate in some of this? Yes, he did, though not the letter writing, but he confessed to it to Elizabeth and Bingley. I am not minimizing the other villains, though I would add Lucy Steele to your list, the ultimate frenemy, just as I would add Caroline Bingley for the above reasons.

This is what makes Austen so fun, we all have our favourites that we love and love to hate!

Cheers,
Shana

You've almost persuaded me, Shana.

Re CB 'lying' to Jane about her brother. Lying or wishful thinking? Marrying her brother to Georgiana would certainly help her chances with Darcy. (Did she have any chance with Darcy? I bet her opinion on that subject differed from Darcy's opinion.)

Abigail wrote: "Interesting thoughts! For me, Mrs. Norris is the ultimate “virtue signaler”—she is constantly reframing her self-serving behavior as serving others."

I think there are two sterling examples of this, Abigail. First, where Norris tells Sir T about 'all the advantages you and I have given to [Fanny]' and then telling Fanny how grateful she should be for Lady B and herself including Fanny on the trip to Sotherton (when Mrs. N had done everything she could to prevent Fanny from going).

Then there is the lack of fire in Fanny's room. Surely Norris would be proud of herself for saving Sir T's money. And even more surely, Sir T would have (and did, on his return) had a fire for Fanny. This one stands out as a symbol from a novelist who didn't do symbols.

Yes, I was thinking of Caroline Bingley more as repellent than villainous, - the kind of woman other women almost instinctively dislike! - but as Shana points out, her behaviour once she realises her brother has fallen for Jane Bennet is really pretty despicable, and she actively plots to make their romance fail. So that is pretty villainous I guess?

Lucy Steele is an interesting case - I'm not sure she is villainous (I can see why she clung on to poor Edward, he's her best chance of lifting her out of her lower-middle-class background), but how dislikeable is she? Probably quite a lot I suppose. Her treatment of Elinor is absolutely masterly - a game theory coup!

Deliberately 'confiding' to Elinor about her 'so secret' engagement to Edward, knowing perfectly well she was doing so specifically to get Elinor to back off....it's a very, very clever move.

I think Lucy will do very well as Mrs Robert Steele, and I daresay she will outmanouvre both Fanny Dashwood and her mother in law. Quite a formidable young lady (or, 'not quite' lady perhaps?!!!!)

I don't think Caroline Bingley is as clever as Lucy by a long chalk. We see her make a real mistake in over-criticising Lizzie Bennet to Darcy (the bit about the 'her, a beauty, I would sooner call her mother a wit' titter titter etc), because all it does is entrench Darcy's fancying of Lizzie ('I have long thought her the handsomest woman of my acquaintence' or whatever it is ripostes to Caroline.)

Martin wrote: "Juan Manuel,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'heiress'. A father who wanted to provide for daughters would (might) provide a dowry. The dowry went to the husband on her marriage. (The bulk of the es..."

I've been unclear about the term heiress, too. In P&P, Miss de Bourgh is described as the heiress of Rosings, and of very considerable property. In Emma, Emma is described as the heiress of thirty thousand pounds. So it doesn't seem like a woman had to inherit an estate or land to be considered an heiress; a woman with a sizeable dowry would be considered one as well. But the whole idea of two becoming one (the husband) at the time of the marriage is really murky to me. The woman, as a wife, becomes a legal non-entity. In the case of the dowry, it is simply made over to her husband and she never actually 'owns' it. That's not much of an inheritance! I mean, sure, it benefits your household hopefully, but what if your husband is a spendthrift? And I know, the money could be moved into a trust before the wedding, for the wife's 'sole and separate use' but I don't think this happened very often. In the case of a woman inheriting an estate, if she inherits before she marries it works just like a dowry. I'm not sure what happens if she marries first then inherits an estate. If I had to guess, I'd say the estate automatically reverts to her husband, but I don't know that for sure.

Beth-In-UK wrote: "Yes, I was thinking of Caroline Bingley more as repellent than villainous, - the kind of woman other women almost instinctively dislike! - but as Shana points out, her behaviour once she realises h..."

Beth,

I love the game theory reference!

Caroline and Lucy are certainly different women. I think of them both as villains, thought their situations are unique and they select their strategies to take maximum advantage of their situation.

Caroline has the apparent advantage. She has a twenty thousand pound dowry, she has no entail to contend with, her brother has already inherited (in cash presumably), and she attended an eminent seminary for girls. She is accomplished. The downside is that her family fortune came from trade. Not to mention that her brother is a procrastinator and is taking his time about buying or building a house in the country as well as buying land. If her brother had an estate, Caroline's place in the social hierarchy would improve. He is also not yet married, though a brilliant alliance for Charles would certainly improve Caroline's life as well. Another disadvantage for Caroline is that her sister HAS married and Mr. Hurst seems to be no great catch. Yes, he has a bit of money and a house in town, but he is a lump of coal personality-wise.

Lucy seems to be at a real disadvantage to Caroline. She is hardly educated properly. Even her poor grammar attracts attention to her lower upbringing. She has no brother to offer any advantages. And her sister is not even genteel, much less elegant. She has no dowry. And without a few affluent friends, she would not even mix with the better classes of society. Lucy's one and only advantage is that she has managed to sucker--er-- I mean entice - a good man into engaging himself to her; an eldest son with the expectation of an inheritance.

So it is quite impressive that at the end of each character's respective novel, Caroline's situation is almost unchanged; she is still unmarried and without prospects for a husband, though her brother has married and bought an estate in the north. But Lucy!, Lucy is actually married to the heir holding the fortune she was expecting, even if she had to change brothers to do it!

Like you, I think Mrs Ferrars, Fanny, and Mr. John Dashwood don't know what they are in for! Though the book describes the period immediately after the wedding as just a lot of quarreling.

Cheers,
Shana

Martin wrote: "You've almost persuaded me, Shana.

Re CB 'lying' to Jane about her brother. Lying or wishful thinking? Marrying her brother to Georgiana would certainly help her chances with Darcy. (Did she have ..."

Martin,

Don't let me sway you, you have very good opinions and have clearly done a rigorous study of all of Austen's novels as well as other period literature. I really enjoy hearing about everyone else's views in this group and I have learned a lot. Mrs. Norris' Villainy Score™ rises every time she is mentioned here!

I only meant that Jane and Bingley's suffering seemed very real and in the style of Elinor, Anne Elliot, or Fanny Price. They certainly did not glory in their heartbreak as did Marianne. I always thought that was one of Austen's tenets, that suffering in silence was no less painful than suffering as performance art. In fact oftentimes it was more painful as the sufferers tried to spare others from knowing their pain.

To answer your question though, I thought Caroline lied to Jane about Charles' preference for Georgiana. And the only reason I say that is the moment that Elizabeth sees Charles and Georgiana together at the inn at Lambton she looks for any symptoms of regard between them and sees absolutely nothing. It's the first moment Charles has seen a member of the Bennet family in roughly six months, he has no reason to hide a regard for Georgiana if he indeed has one. It's just not there. In fact he appears to eager for news of Jane ("are all your sisters still at Longbourn?").

I never thought Caroline had a chance with Darcy, I'm guessing that is your view, too. Of all the P&P variations I've read, and there have been a lot, I've never encountered one where Caroline snags Mr. Darcy. I wonder if that is a good idea for a book? I can imagine the book reviews already.....

Cheers,
Shana

Ooh, lots of fascinating thoughts in all the posts above!

Interesting observation that Lucy ends up 'successful' and Caroline Bingley just as she was at the start of the novel. I don't doubt she will successfully marry (as in, rich and very possibly titled - I think she'd make a good wife for Maria Bertram's ex maybe??). She'll be even keener to do so now that Lizzie is Mrs Darcy....

In a way, I wish Lucy Steele well, in that her sister in law and mother in law are SO repellent that they deserve everything Lucy will dish out to them, or extract from them! Her husband seems a bit 'hapless' but I think she will manage him superbly, and he probably will be happy enough designing his cottages ornee or whatever it was he was keen on (he's none too bright, I gather?)

Shana,

Should we ever meet, may I suggest a bottle of your favorite wine and a debate on exactly when wishful thinking becomes lying?

On the issue of 'heiresses' I've always assumed they came in three types - landed, monied, both!

For a social climbing man I guess having an heiress wife that comes with a landed estate (eg, Anne de Burgh) is an advantage as it gives him a ready made 'place in society', as well as the wealth to enjoy it.

If the man had his own estate, but it was run down, or needed investment, then just getting hold of a wife with a cash dowry would be better, as he could then just put her money into his estate.

A 'fortune hunter' type husband would, of course, simply spend his wife's money on his own pleasures.

An heiress didn't really inherit anything at all if her father were still alive. If she were an orphan, there were probably trustees around as well, limiting her access to the cash, (she would probably have an allowance?), and quite possibly limiting what she could do with her estate (eg, if she wanted to invest her cash in improving it etc)

She simply 'came with wealth' that belonged legally to her father/brother/trustees (or, at the least, was controlled by them), and then it promptly became the legal property of her husband once she was married.

There are dreadful examples of 'heiresses' who married appalling men who not only spent all their money but treated them abusively as well.

Really, for a woman, the only way to be rich and have control over your money was to remain a spinster or become a widow....

I think the whole issue of money is actually what makes Austen's books so, so, so much more than what they are often belittled as, ie, just being about 'girls falling in LURVE' etc.

She makes it absolutely crystal clear that the choice of husband is THE most critical choice a female can make, as it will determine the entire course of her life. A bad or foolish choice will blight her 'for ever' (unless she is widowed, and that will most likely impoverish her more).

Although we smile when Emma announces she will never marry, it's the rational choice for her - she's seen poor Miss Bates, and makes those unkind but sapient remarks about how spinsters so often tend to be poor, but she knows, and says, that she will never be pitied as a spinster because she will be rich.

We see Frances Ward make a 'bad' choice in Mr Price, and suffer for it all her life.

We see Charlotte Lucas make what I would say in Austen is the most judged-by-the-author marriage, leading to the famous question 'Where does prudence end and avarice begin?' which I always feel comes from Austen's own (impoverished!) circumstances.

The other pressure on women was that they only had a few years in which to make the decision as to who to marry (and get suitors in the first place!). A very short window in which to grab the best deal they could.

It's also game theory again - do they snap up the first half decent offer they are made at 18, or turn them down and hope a better one arrives later, but then, rather like Elizabeth Eliot, see the years slip by and realise that their chances are dwindling all the time. For Austen herself, I wonder when the realisation dawned that she was not going to marry....it must have been really quite oppressive to make that realisation.

I know she turned down the 'late offer' than came her way, and one reason, other than she just couldn't face the chap, was that she had by then become hopeful that she could bootstrap herself and Cassandra (and their mother) out of genteel poverty, dependent on her brothers' generosity/sense of family duty etc, by her writing income. Had she lived longer, hopefully she'd have succeeded, and turned herself into a middle aged version of Emma perhaps (not as rich, but 'comfortably off.')

Martin wrote: "Shana,

Should we ever meet, may I suggest a bottle of your favorite wine and a debate on exactly when wishful thinking becomes lying?"

Martin,

I'm in, but I think we should do an open invite to the group. And I have to insist we meet in Britain. I'm 51 and running out of time to get there!

I'm stealing this from Beth-In-UK's nearby comment, but I want to add this question: 'Where does prudence end and avarice begin?' which came up between Elizabeth and her aunt Gardiner as they discussed Wickham's defection to Miss King.

I like cabernets, but I love to try new wines. And I'm going to kick things off by pouring myself one right now. But to your original question; wishful thinking involves thought and may even rise to the level of self-delusion, but lying is an action. Maybe they can become tricky to distinguish because both are self-serving and ultimately it comes down to what a person believes (deluded or not).

Cheers,
Shana

Beth-In-UK wrote: "The other pressure on women was that they only had a few years in which to make the decision as to who to marry (and get suitors in the first place!). A very short window in which to grab the best ..."

The inequity of that system is enough to make one cry. 200 million copies of P&P sold is enough to make one believe. And cry because Jane did not survive to see it.

I see Caroline Bingley acting much as Lucy Steele does - ie, warning off rivals!

CB deliberately tells the Bennet sisters that her brother is likely to marry Georgiana Darcy, both to 'warn off' Jane, but also, I think, to indicate to Lizzy how therefore 'close' she herself will become to Darcy - ie, back off Lizzie Bennet, I saw him first!!

I think CB sees her brother being 'smitten' and wants to nip it in the bud by saying about Georgiana Darcy, but then, later, seeing how intent her brother is (I don't think she and Darcy actively collude in removing Bingley from Netherfield, but she must surely have been relieved that they have, and keen for them to go away from the 'danger' that Jane Bennet represents), she, as you say, takes action in London to ensure Jane doesn't get 'hold' of her brother again.

I wonder, if, say, Caroline had managed to become engaged to Darcy herself, would she have still been so keen on her brother marrying Georgiana, and therefore been more relaxed about him marrying Jane? I doubt she'd ever have welcomed the match, and in a way, as Bingley's sister, and knowing him to be 'malleable' she must have been on guard for him against scheming hussies (er, the likes of Lucy Steele indeed???) all her life.

I do have some sympathy for CB not wanting Jane Bennet to join the family, not just because CB has her own sights set on Darcy, but also because, sad but true, Jane and Lizzie, and possibly the father, are the only 'respectable' members of the Bennet family. Even if Mr Collins is respectable, he's also a fool.

Austen makes much of Lizzie feeling hugely relieved about her Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, that they are relatives she need not blush for.

As an aside, I wonder, had the Gardiners not lived in London, but in Meryton, would they have been able to check Mrs Bennet's excesses, and help stop Lydia being such a hoyden?

Or is Lydia just 'unredeemable' in her wilful vanity and irresponsibility (and stupidity).

I suppose, to her reluctant credit, at least Lydia is not a 'schemer' like Lucy Steele (probably doesn't have the brains for it....)

I'm in, but I think we should do an open invite to the group. And I have to insist we meet in Britain. I'm 51 and running out of time to get there!
**

Loads of time to go gallivanting in your fifties - an ideal decade in many ways. Go for it!

Back on the topic of Mrs Norris, there must be a novel in her adventures 'up north' looking after Maria. I'm sure she'll have a wonderful time telling all the neighbourhood that Maria is 'not' a fallen woman!!!!!!!!

Shana wrote: "Martin wrote: "Shana,

Should we ever meet, may I suggest a bottle of your favorite wine and a debate on exactly when wishful thinking becomes lying?"

Martin,

I'm in, but I think we should do an ..."

Actually, Shana, I've been married to the same woman since 1975. But I'm still young enough to flirt.

And cabernet is said to help protect against Alzheimers. One has to worry about that at my age.

If we do a stay-at-home JA friends party, we can all drink native cabernets. Bordeaux and Napa, Chianti, Australia, ...

Shana: I will meeet you in Britain anytime! I went in 2019 -- so glad I did!

Martin: "stay-at-home JA friends party" is totally doable via zoom or some other platform. I'm in for that! It would be best on a weekend as I work full time. I do not drink wine, but will happily pour my diet coke into a stemware glass! :)