Pride and Prejudice - in the view of 2026 society is Mr. Wickham simply a predator?

Another hearty recommendation for The Other Bennet Sister. Their book was imo dreadful, but the TV series exceptional.

Yes, but I’m not talking about about the education Lizzy describes to Lady Catherine, when she explains that they didn’t have a governess or go away to school, but were encouraged to read and had visiting masters, though ‘those who chose to be idle’ certainly could — I mean the basic reputation/sexual morality/ ‘don’t have sex until you’re married’ stuff.

Which Jane, Elizabeth and Mary seem to have imbibed from somewhere, presumably their mother, but Lydia not at all. I mean, she appears to have literally no consciousness at any point of having done anything wrong, or that she came within a hairsbreadth of wrecking her own life.

Is it simply that when Jane and Elizabeth were young, there were no older, marriageable daughters as distractions, so they got more of their mother’s focus in terms of basic sexual morals and self-preservation etc? But with Jane seven years older than Lydia and Lizzy five, by the time Lydia (and probably Kitty) were at the stage when they should have had that training, Mrs Bennet was already distracted by her eldest daughters being ‘out’ and on the marriage market?

Though I’ve always wondered why the Bennets didn’t employ a governess. On £2000 a year, a governess on c.£20 a year, plus her keep, was entirely affordable, and would probably constitute a good investment across five daughters, especially with a nervous, irritable, uninformed mother not best fitted for teaching the basics of manners and behaviour.

I wonder if Mr Bennet was more involved when the older girls were young, perhaps still retaining some degree of affection for his wife and interest in the life he had chosen. This was probably on the wane all along and by the time Kitty and Lydia came along, had waned altogether and by that stage he'd retreated to his library, his only interest in continuing marital relations with Mrs B.being in pursuit of the elusive son to claim the entail, and having no interest in forming a relationship with his younger daughters and no influence on their education or conduct.

”Though I’ve always wondered why the Bennets didn’t employ a governess. “

Mrs. Bennet did not value formal education or discipline.

Mr Bennet I assume, didn’t want to get involved with hiring a governess. It would have been his responsibility, but he was lacking in that department!

Can't be arsed is an explanation of a lot of Mr Bs behaviour I think.

Yes I think (and to be fair it's speculation, there isn't much in the text), the far superior education and moral sense of the older two Bennet girls comes from Mr B - I imagine he took quite a lot of interest in Jane and Lizzie, maybe their mother taught them their basic ABCs but once they were old enough to read properly it was their father who got them books, encouraged them, talked to them about what they were reading - as today I think it's parental interest and encouragement that makes the difference. I doubt he was having birds and the bees chats with them but he probably directed them to books that covered this directly/indirectly that covered it. By the time of Mary I'm suspecting his interest and energy was waning and she wasn't as quick at learning or interesting as the older two so she probably got a little bit of help but not much (the other Bennett girl was fun but made Mary way too clever, in the book she's not truly a lover of reading and music, just seeming accomplishments for the sake of attention plus pedantic and addicted to 'threadbare morality', just repeating maxims and truisms she's copied out or memorised from books rather than truly enjoying learning, the fact she finds Mr Collins interesting and insightful says it all). Poor old Kitty and Lydia didn't get any of his attention at all, he left them to whatever Mrs B and their older sisters could be bothered to teach them which wasn't much clearly!

And on the governess, although the Longbourn estate was a reasonable one, it is mentioned that they were near constantly exceeding their income as it was, so although a governess' salary wasn't huge and would have been viewed as essential by most mothers of 5 daughters, I suspect Mrs B wasn't prepared to foresake some of her ribbons-and-bonnets budget or give up one of her servants to afford it, and Mr B couldn't be bothered to push the point. It was also often a point of some botheration finding and then having a suitable governess in the house, it was an awkward thing because she occupied a sort of half-servitute position, not a proper servant who would eat meals in the kitchen or servants room like the housekeeper or maids, but not properly one of the family either, so it made difficulties about where she'd have her meals and sit in the evenings and so on, which in a medium sized and already quite full house like Longbourn was no small thing. I can well imagine some half-hearted arguments on the part of the Bennetta about it but the status quo of no governess eventually prevailing!

Absolutely, which would make palming his five daughter’s upbringing off on a governess quite natural!

Imagine elegant, refined, not-very-robust Jane Fairfax being hired to educate Kitty and Lydia! Though she and Mary might find common ground over music, and she’d probably like Jane and Elizabeth…

I suppose that might make sense, too. He’s fond of the two eldest, particularly Elizabeth, but he treats the younger three more or less as he treats their mother — as irritating comic relief that he clearly doesn’t think is much to do with him, or anything he should do anything about.

Though I can’t see Mr Bennet giving them a lecture on the birds and the bees and keeping their knees together till they have a ring on their finger!

This thread has made me think abour this & I think the household was probably happier when J & E were young. Their parents would have been getting on better, the favouritism not so much of a problem (Mrs B favoured J & Mr B E), they were hoping for a son so not so worried about the future & the 2 older girls were easy children (pleasant, hardworking, intelligent (esp E) & caring) with their aunt Gardiner as a clear & interested role model.

Later, this all changed as the younger 3 are more challenging children in their different ways & Lydia is clearly spoilt by her mother. Plus financial worries with both parents disappointed in each other.

Arguably, the household does sound happier at the end of the novel. The financial issues are resolved; Kitty benefits from being with her sisters in the same way that the latter benefitted from being with their aunt; and Mary benefits from being the main focus of her mother’s attention (which might still not be great parenting but is probably exactly what she needs). Even Mr Bennet spends less time in his library if only to go to Pemberley.

Yes I think (and to be fair it's speculation, there isn't much in the text), the far superior education and moral sense of the older two Bennet girls comes from Mr B - I imagine he took quite a lot of interest in Jane and Lizzie, maybe their mother taught them their basic ABCs but once they were old enough to read properly it was their father who got them books, encouraged them, talked to them about what they were reading - as today I think it's parental interest and encouragement that makes the difference. I doubt he was having birds and the bees chats with them but he probably directed them to books that covered this directly/indirectly that covered it. By the time of Mary I'm suspecting his interest and energy was waning and she wasn't as quick at learning or interesting as the older two so she probably got a little bit of help but not much (the other Bennett girl was fun but made Mary way too clever, in the book she's not truly a lover of reading and music, just seeming accomplishments for the sake of attention plus pedantic and addicted to 'threadbare morality', just repeating maxims and truisms she's copied out or memorised from books rather than truly enjoying learning, the fact she finds Mr Collins interesting and insightful says it all). Poor old Kitty and Lydia didn't get any of his attention at all, he left them to whatever Mrs B and their older sisters could be bothered to teach them which wasn't much clearly!

And on the governess, although the Longbourn estate was a reasonable one, it is mentioned that they were near constantly exceeding their income as it was, so although a governess' salary wasn't huge and would have been viewed as essential by most mothers of 5 daughters, I suspect Mrs B wasn't prepared to foresake some of her ribbons-and-bonnets budget or give up one of her servants to afford it, and Mr B couldn't be bothered to push the point. It was also often a point of some botheration finding and then having a suitable governess in the house, it was an awkward thing because she occupied a sort of half-servitute position, not a proper servant who would eat meals in the kitchen or servants room like the housekeeper or maids, but not properly one of the family either, so it made difficulties about where she'd have her meals and sit in the evenings and so on, which in a medium sized and already quite full house like Longbourn was no small thing. I can well imagine some half-hearted arguments on the part of the Bennetta about it but the status quo of no governess eventually prevailing!

Actually, that’s a fair point. Are Jane and Elizabeth partly at fault for not taking the youngest ones in hand themselves when it was clear their parents weren’t going to intervene? They’re not cynical and indolent like their father, or short-sighted and not that bright like their mother, are well aware of how badly brought up their younger sisters are, after all. And they have more to lose from Kitty and Lydia making exhibitions of themselves than anyone.

I’m the eldest of five, like Jane, and while obviously Regency gentry daughters are not going to be doing the feeding and nappy changing work of nursery maids, older daughters being expected to help teach the younger ones was quite usual.

Or is it that Kitty and Lydia have only registered themselves to Jane and Elizabeth as a real, embarrassing problem since they came out and started appearing at Assembly balls etc? Lydia in particular can’t have been out for long if she’s only fifteen.

(Maybe it helps make sense of her boisterous behaviour in public and Lizzy’s mortification at it if it’s all brand new this season. Dancing, men etc are totally novel to Lydia, and Lizzy isn’t used to being mortified by her at balls because it’s only just started to happen?)

Actually, that’s a fair point. Are Jane and Elizabeth partly at fault for not taking the youngest ones in hand themselves when it was clear their parents weren’t going to intervene? They’re not cynical and indolent like their father, or short-sighted and not that bright like their mother, are well aware of how badly brought up their younger sisters are, after all. And they have more to lose from Kitty and Lydia making exhibitions of themselves than anyone.

I’m the eldest of five, like Jane, and while obviously Regency gentry daughters are not going to be doing the feeding and nappy changing work of nursery maids, older daughters being expected to help teach the younger ones was quite usual.

Or is it that Kitty and Lydia have only registered themselves to Jane and Elizabeth as a real, embarrassing problem since they came out and started appearing at Assembly balls etc? Lydia in particular can’t have been out for long if she’s only fifteen.

(Maybe it helps make sense of her boisterous behaviour in public and Lizzy’s mortification at it if it’s all brand new this season. Dancing, men etc are totally novel to Lydia, and Lizzy isn’t used to being mortified by her at balls because it’s only just started to happen?)

Actually, that’s a fair point. Are Jane and Elizabeth partly at fault for not taking the youngest ones in hand themselves when it was clear their parents weren’t going to intervene? They’re not cynical and indolent like their father, or short-sighted and not that bright like their mother, are well aware of how badly brought up their younger sisters are, after all. And they have more to lose from Kitty and Lydia making exhibitions of themselves than anyone.

I’m the eldest of five, like Jane, and while obviously Regency gentry daughters are not going to be doing the feeding and nappy changing work of nursery maids, older daughters being expected to help teach the younger ones was quite usual.

Or is it that Kitty and Lydia have only registered themselves to Jane and Elizabeth as a real, embarrassing problem since they came out and started appearing at Assembly balls etc? Lydia in particular can’t have been out for long if she’s only fifteen.

(Maybe it helps make sense of her boisterous behaviour in public and Lizzy’s mortification at it if it’s all brand new this season. Dancing, men etc are totally novel to Lydia, and Lizzy isn’t used to being mortified by her at balls because it’s only just started to happen?)

”Are Jane and Elizabeth partly at fault for not taking the youngest ones in hand themselves when it was clear their parents weren’t going to intervene?”

It wasn’t their responsibility to educate Kitty and Lydia.

Elizabeth frequently stepped in as a moral compass and voice of reason.

Well, it wasn’t mine to bring up my younger siblings, either, strictly speaking, but our parents weren’t capable of it (they far more children than they could afford, financially or emotionally) so it was on me and to an extent on my next sister!

I suppose I just think that for purely self-interested reasons it might have occurred to Jane and Elizabeth that, when Kitty and Lydia came out, they were likely to make a public show of them and damage their own chances on the marriage market.

As things happened, they both almost lost the men they loved because of Lydia’s behaviour, and if Darcy hadn’t intervened in the Lydia/Wickham situation, it’s possible neither Jane nor Elizabeth would have married at all.

Well, he only lives in ‘Cheapside’, lest we forget Miss Bingley’s comment!

Cheapsie doesn't mean it was a poor area. 'Cheap' comes from an old word for market and the street was an important street in London throughout history. Here's an image of it in 1823. And since Miss Bingley is new money coming from trade there is very much a hint of Hyacinth Bucket about her.

Mary’s got me there. I’d prefer a book to a party, as well.

What did you like about it? I’ve not read the novel, as I nearly always hate contemporary sequels/retellings, but I watched the tv series and found it puzzling — the tone seemed all over the place. Mary’s character seemed to straggle about between being something vaguely recognisable as the Mary of the novel (pedantic, anxious for display, dull, tactless) and an entirely new proto-feminist adventure seeker, and other characters (her ‘suitors’, Lizzy, Jane ) likewise. And I simply didn’t believe for a second in Mrs Bennet being reinvented as such a black and white monster.

Plus I kept getting distracted by that terrible green and red dress, especially as the actress playing Mary looked absolutely lovely in the ‘plain’, pastel Regency dresses.

Plus I think I just stopped believing in any of it when the writer had the Merton optician’s assistant attending the Assembly ball!

Agree that the red and green dress was horrific- like a Christmas tree!

I think I enjoyed it so much because I didn’t view it as P&P, but something entirely itself. I thought the two male leads were great and really liked the portrayal of Caroline Bingley and Mr Collins. I thought the presentation of the latter as somebody who has essentially realised that not only is he a buffoon but that he is also in a loveless marriage to a woman who knows he is a buffoon was quite sweet.

Agree that the presentation of Mary was inconsistent, but I thought the actress did a good job with what she had.

On the whole though, I think my opinion was largely driven by the actor playing the guy she ends up with - I thought he was great and could have happily watched many more hours of him!