To think that most Jane Austen's heroines didn't find happiness in marriage?

[bgmama]

I am a big fan and I must have read the books a hundred times, but I am starting to realize that most heroes in her books are either assholes or idiots and towards the end of the book they stop being assholes or idiots and become worthy of marrying the heroine. I am not talking only of Mr Darcy here, but most others too. AIBU to think that this transformation didn't last very long and they went back to their usual ways shortly after the marriage was consummated? And that the heroines were miserable and were told to LTB at some point during their lives?

Minges - Just read the article you linked too. Very illuminating - thank you!

I think the Bennett’s has an age gap relationship.

I think Mrs b was 24 and pregnant when she married then had her dcs from 25-32. She then had multiple miscarriages (like Catherine of Aragon) of boy babies, probably caused by her dH’s age. I think he’s 20 years older than her hence why they have given up now she’s 47 and he 67. This also explains the urgency of their situation. The 5 Girls have to get married ASAP because mr b very well might not last another 5 years. Why else have the comment from Catherine de burgh about all 5 being out at once?

It is assumed that mr b will die first which wouldn’t have been the case unless he was much older.

The shotgun wedding also explains why Mrs b is so forgiving of Lydia- she’s a chip off the old block, getting a man into bed to get a ring on her finger. Mrs b practically pimped her to wickham.

I feel sorry for Lydia too. These days we'd say she was targeted by a predator who exploited her family's inability to protect her.

Schadenfreude - you've hit the nail on the head re Lydia. She was too young to know better and trashed herself, nearly taking her family down with her, because Mrs B an idiot and encouraged her.

Bad Parents are a huge theme in Jane Austen. There are loads of them - JA makes the point that being in a position of responsibility doesn't automatically mean you are responsible. Silliness is as bad as outright cruelty in some cases - eg Mrs B. Also neglect - Mr B should have put his foot down but he read farming manuals instead.

JA's best and biggest point (well, the one I love the most) is that people's everyday slips and teeny trivial errors can have catastrophic results. And that silly can be very serious.

Can't agree with that Seven.

Mrs B would be VERY unlikely to have had intercourse before she was married - her parents would have seen to that. She would also have been most likely married very young by our standards (the age of consent in those times was about 12, I think). One of the reasons that women tended to be married off so young was that it reduced the likelihood of illegitimate pregnancy. Also - there's no way Mr B would have married her if she'd been up the duff. He was a gentleman (something defined by income and social status, not be nice manners) and has obviously "lowered" himself to marry Mrs B who is obviously so far beneath him (family in trade). If he could have kept her as a mistress he most probably would have done.

Also - her family would have disowned her. As can be seen from the reactions to Lydia's elopement in P + P, "loose" morals reflect on all of the girls in the family. they would all be considered tainted. This is why Mr Collins was so relieved that he hadn't married Lizzie himself - as a clergyman, to have been associated, even by marriage, to a woman like Lydia would have been the end of his ambitions. No wonder he congratulate himself on Charlotte.

D'Arcy's involvement in Lydia's marriage was more than just a kindness. There's no way he could have married Lizzie if her sister was a "loose woman". They and their children would not have been welcome in society anywhere. He forced Wickam to marry Lydia so that he (D'Arcy) would be able to associate with her sister.

Can I ask what makes you think there was a big age gap between Mr and Mrs Bennet? I've never picked up on this myself, but I miss lots of stuff.

Lydia really just tries to follow the rules of the time. The fact that she's too naive to have any judgement means that it ends in disaster. But she's trying to do the right thing - catch a man & get hitched.

Why she's shown less sympathetically than Marianne? Because she's not the best friend of the main character. Marianne is slightly less selfish, can be guided by Elinor, and does mature to see her own mistakes. Lydia just blunders on blindly, refusing to reflect on her behaviour or listen to advice. She's actually far more grasping than Marianne. M may be an addle-headed fool, but she wants pure love & romance. Lydia's after sex, wealth & position. M is slightly aware of the need to keep the family name unsullied, but Lydia doesn't care what happens to her sisters.

Good point re:Lydia/predator, Minges.

Lana - also like your comment that small, seemingly harmless actions can have huge and catastrophic consequences. JA does use this often in her narratives, but it's something I'd never even thought of until you pointed it out.

I think JA also argues strongly for getting to know someone before you marry, rather than getting swept up by romance. It isn't just a plot device to draw out the story that means the wooing stage of a romance is rather protracted. AFAIK all the happy marriages are ones of slightly older people who knew each other properly before marriage. The unhappy ones are the Lydia's of the world, rushing headlong after the first good looking man who shows an interest.

I wonder how much of that is a reflection what she saw in RL. I also think that the Brontes write a lot about abusive men, and wonder what their father was like to live with.

Actually, it wasn't the case that girls typically married as teens in Regency times:

historyhoydens.blogspot.com/2012/01/teen-brides-other-age-related.html

The "married at 12" thing was some very wealthy aristocratic/royal families in the middle ages - but even then, marriage that young wasn't typical among the population as a whole.

Pre-contraception, holding off marriage till you were financially secure (coupled with strict moral injunctions against pre-marital sex) was common among most classes, especially what would eventually become the middle classes. Also people used a mixture of the late marriage, the rhythm method, extended lactation, quite effectively to limit family size at some periods in history - for instance at the time of the English Civil War, average family size was just over 3 kids.

This idea that historically girls were married off in their early teens then had 10 kids isn't actually correct.

I don't think it's ever stated but it's likely, because the driver for the girls needing to marry is Mr B dying, at which point they become homeless. In those days widows' pensions and housing didn't exist, even in the C of E. And people died younger and more suddenly.

The second DH died, you were out on your ear with no money and nowhere to go with your six hundred kids. Only in 1834 did things start to change a little bit.

This still applies in some circles; when Princess Di's father died, her stepmother was given 24 hours to leave Althorp, their family home, as it was now the residence of the new earl, D's brother. Raine Spencer had a vast 3-million house in Belgravia (which I think she scored from her first divorce) so she was fine, incidentally/

'Dowry' is short for 'widowry' ie the provision made for women if their financial support - DH - died. That's why women came with money on marriage - it was to be invested to protect them. Naturally the system was vigorously abused by men who could steal the cash, and this was only stopped in 1854 (I think).

I'm not convinced that Marianne listens to advice until the end, but you're right, although she's wrapped up and selfish she does love her sisters and mother. But yes, I suppose the judgement comes from their ultimate fate, rather than their behaviour.

I think there are similarities between Marianne and Lydia's behaviour but Marianne is more intelligent and much less shallow than Lydia. She seemed genuinely very fond of Elenor while Lydia wasn't especially kind or respectful to her sisters. Also Lydia showed no remorse whatsoever over her behaviour, which, for the times, was pretty disgraceful.

Fermat - x-post, apols, I was replying to the age-gap question not your fascinating post on how many children who survived to adulthood women produced.

You're absolutely spot on Lanaor - the entailment of the house is absolutely the driver for trying to get the girls married off. And Mrs Bennett is facing an uphill struggle on that one because they're poor as church mouse, so the girls will have next to no dowry.

(And yes, the dowry was meant to be ring-fenced for the woman if she was widowed. The history of the various changes to married women's rights to hold property are fascinating. My dad, who's a major history buff, spent an evening digging through his extensive collection of history books for me tracking this one when I got interested in the question for a short story I was trying to write. Things were actually better for women in the middle ages, went down hill, and reached their low point, if memory serves me right, round about the middle of the 19th century at which point women had next to no right to hold any property in their own name.)

The "married at 12" thing was some very wealthy aristocratic/royal families in the middle ages - but even then, marriage that young wasn't typical among the population as a whole

I stand corrected Fermat - though I wasn't trying to imply Mrs B was married when still a child, more that she was unlikely to have been pregnant when she married Mr B, even though the age of consent was low. Families guarded their daughters' virginity then - it was a terrible thing to be a "fallen woman".

average family size was just over 3 kids

This would have been the result of high infant mortality as well as the other factors you mention, though Fermat. And until comparatively recently, dumping unwanted children was quite common.

There are huge similarities between Lydia and Marianne - JA's pointing out that for women who follow their beating heart, or beating crotch, it won't end well.

Lydia's sin is busting social rules, Marianne's is falling for the 18th-cent belief that passion is the be-all of life. Both are guilty of the same shame - laying their lives on the line for men who they don't know well enough. Their ultimate crime is putting themselves at risk in a world that ain't nice to women who display their feelings.

I don't think JA is that interested in Wickham and she certainly isn't bothered much about Willoughby - she saw them as beneath contempt, which she could never do about a woman.

This has got to be the most interesting thread I've read here for a long time- it's so wonderful to be able to discuss something in such detail (and with wit!) without idiots derailing it.

'Dowry' is short for 'widowry' ie the provision made for women if their financial support - DH - died

That's interesting. I know that in ancient Israel a woman brought a sum of money to the marriage ("ketubah") which served the same function - if she was widowed or cast aside, that was for her to live off.

Fermat - yessssssss! It's a huge mistake to think the farther back you go the worse it got in any area of history - partic women's rights.

Women's rights were fucked over in the late 18th and 19th cent - and we're coming out of that still, now. Not sure why they were so screwed and the misogyny got so bad - I would die to know. Children's rights too - no idea where the idea that children belonged to the father came from, it never used to.

One of the things that drives me nuts about our very own 21st C is that so many people parrot the most appalling, exceptional instances of abuse of women claiming it was 'normal in the old days'. Thereby normalising, untruthfully, horrifying historical anomalies and lowering the bar for women's rights now. Not helpful.

This is a great thread. I've learned lots and there have been some fascinating insights and theories.

Doesn't matter whether ideas are right or wrong - they get us all thinking and exploring the topic.

Just pitching back in to say I love this thread. Thank you OP!

I'm finding the origin of the dowry fascinating. So Mrs Bennett and Mrs Dashwood both having a small sum (mentioned in passing in the relative book) to live off of following demise of spouse, that was the money that they originally brought with them?

I suppose in the world where women have few or no rights, it's actually a very good idea in theory, as it does offer some form of protection (although I much prefer my actual legal protection of the 21st c UK).
I'm always appalled at the way women were treated by the time 19th century rolls round. Once married, they technically cease to exist as an entity in their own right?

Although if the dowry was not intended for the future husbands use, why should it be an attraction? How would the money be ringfenced? And as women were required to obey their husbands, would said husband not have to just demand the money and bye bye dowry? (I'm hoping someone has the answer to my rambling questions as I'm finding it all really interesting!!)

Schaden you've just motivated me to get off my arse and check... it is as I thought (this is for the 17th rather than early 19th century, admittedly) - it's birth rate, not surviving children. I too was gobsmacked when I first read this - I really hadn't realised that the birth rate was so low. And like you I'd always assumed "lots of births, but lots then died in infancy", but it seems this wasn't actually the case.

"The rate of population growth was in fact kept rather low by the English custom of late marriage. In all social groups, marriage was usually deferred until both partners were in their mid-twenties and the wife only had twelve to fifteen childbearing years before her. The reason for this pattern of late marriage seems to be the firm convention that the couple save up enough money to launch themselves as an independent household before they wed... This pattern continued into the late seventeenth century with even later marriage... At any rate the average age of first marriage seems to have risen by a further two years to over twenty-six, with a consequent effect on fertility. More dramatic still is the evidence of a will to restrict family size. Steps were clearly taken in families with three or more children to prevent or inhibit further conceptions. For example, mothers would breast feed third or subsequent children for many more months than they would their first or second child... Crude contraceptive devices and sexual prudence... even suggest that celibacy became much more common... while the average number of children per marriage declined from five to two and a half (which given the high rate of child mortality, meant that a high proportion of those families died out)" [I think that last bit is geographically limited to South Wales].

Source: "The Stuarts", John Morrill, in the Oxford Illustrated History of Britain.

I'll see if I can dig out any facts about Jane Austen's time!

Very interesting thread - thanks OP!

I would like to see some sources for ‘dowry’ being connected with ‘widow’, though. Etymologically I can’t find this and have not heard of it before this thread. It’s true that sometimes dowry/property was sort of held in trust or rights retained by the woman’s family if she was divorced etc in some societies. However the two words derive from different words and I’m not convinced by the connection so far.