AIBU to wonder if Mr Bennet was having an affair?

[Whatsleftnow]

I’m leaning in to Jane Austen to get through a tough time and no one irl understands my desire to obsess over fictional characters, so I’m hoping to find a few kindred spirits online.

Reading P&P as a middle aged, perimenopausal woman has changed my perspective of MrsB. She’s relatively young yet unable to bear more children, and suffers from a nervous disorder. Given that anything to do with women’s health was taboo, reading between the lines as a modern woman, I’m very concerned for her.

Mrs B is clearly unwell, and Mr B just doesn’t give a flying fuck about anyone, with the possible exception of Elizabeth (and even then ignores her entreaties to step in with Lydia). He’s downright nasty to his wife, and negligent towards his dc. It’s a pattern that you see over and over on the relationship board.

Of course, it is a truth universally accepted that any man’s flaws can be laid at the feet of the nearest female relative, and Mrs B’s silliness is the accepted root cause of Mr B being a bastard.

I suspect if she posted on MN we’d suggest he had a bit on the side.

But don’t forget when it was written. Jane Austen would have been brought up to consider men the superior sex (even if she does gently ridicule this at times). So men had to do far less than now to be considered a good father.

Perhaps Mr B had a collection of dirty etchings in his library and that’s why he was always in there and not to be disturbed! He wasn’t bored or disengaged, just exhausted from all day ‘self pleasuring”.

Sorry if I’ve put that thought into everyone’s head. Not sure if the next time I read P&P it will come back to haunt me!

And it seems that obsession with marrying off her daughters did not go so far as to practice economy in the household, as in the text it is stated that Mrs. Bennet had no turn for economy, and her husband’s love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.

His estate entail wasn’t weird, though. It was normal.

His estate, like all estates, simply went to the next available male (thanks, primogeniture).

He, like every other gentleman and person of rank, blithely assumed he would have a son (probably sons), and everyone would be secure.

There is no reason he would marry a lower class woman because he ‘wasn’t a secure financial net’. He was as secure a financial bet as the next man.

The ‘next man’ being, for (just one) example, Lord Grantham. Who found himself in exactly the same predicament by having only girls, and also having to rustle up a cousin to inherit.

I have always had a soft spot for Mrs B. As a youngster, I thought Mr B stepping in to back Lizzie against a marriage to Mr Collins was wonderful. And it was. But now in middle age, I can also see that his complete and utter lack of any sort of plan for his daughters was remiss and selfish, and by leaving it all to how wife to worry about caused her increasingly panicked and inappropriate behaviour.

The very beginning of the book - deliberately winding her up by saying he wouldn’t visit Mr Bingley, knowing full well that of course he would, was pretty unkind. And of course, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

OohMrBingley But what could his alternative plan to not having sons be? (Which was a joint plan, not Mr B's plan alone).

There was nothing he could do about losing the house and estate to the next male heir, so the only finances he could have planned for was from the income the estate generated during his lifetime, and I'm not sure if it's made clear that he definitely didn't plan financially (happy to be corrected) so I don't see that this was made clear to be able to say he was remiss and selfish for not planning.

I feel Mrs B would have been just the way she was anyway re marrying the DDs well, even if he had planned perfectly well with the income and invested it sensibly to provide for them after his death (even without Longbourne and estate). I think JA drew the character of Lydia to show the readers a version of a younger Mrs B. It's highly doubtful Mrs B was a Jane or Lizzie type and turned into the hysterical Mrs B as we know her.

Great thread. I love Mrs B. Don’t like Mr B. No sense of responsibility to his daughters imo.

IIRC Colonel Brandon (Sense & Sensibility) has the same income as Mr B & is considered a great catch for Marianne. I assume the fact that he didn’t have 5 daughters meant he could have saved more.

I'm not sure if it's made clear that he definitely didn't plan financially (happy to be corrected) so I don't see that this was made clear to be able to say he was remiss and selfish for not planning

I seem to think it is, although I can't find anything off hand. But if it's not immediately obvious to us, I think it would have been to contemporary readers, who probably understood entails and the amounts that are spoken about in the book, much better than modern readers.

Then again, realistically what could he do? His money came from the estate, in the years before the Industrial Revolution. He's a gentleman so It's not like he could go out and get a job. I suppose he was torn between marrying his daughters off for money and risking them being unhappy (look at what he's says to Elizabeth after she tells him about Darcy) and leaving them in penury. It's one of those attitudes that's difficult to understand as a modern reader, although of course we judge him, just as we judge Mrs Bennett for being sensible in wanting her daughters to have somewhere to live after Mr B dies, but not really caring about whether the suitor is compatible or not.

This is the passage I was thinking of

MR. BENNET had very often wished, before this period of his life, that, instead of spending his whole income, he had laid by an annual sum for the better provision of his children, and of his wife, if she survived him

Yes I agree with you! Wide Sargasso Sea is a great book but it didn't reveal anything about how Mr Rochester 'really' was in JE. Everyone can interpret it as they like oc. I liked Longbourn too (although the protagonist annoyed me in the end) but again... not the 'real' story of P&P.

(I really liked the adaptation of Death Comes to Pemberley, though, so have decided that Darcy and Elizabeth in that version is canon :))

I loved Longbourne!
I keep meaning to reread it and P&P at the same time.
Same for WSS.
(And I snorted at the idea of Mr B sat self-pleasuring all day long in his library suggested upthread!)

I read TOBS very recently too and I liked it. In fact I think several books have been written about Mary - if anything Kitty is the one who gets overlooked, as she doesn't seem to have any individual characteristics at all, even negative ones.

And not saving is represented as his decision, ultimately, and his fault, even though he’s also credited on the other hand with compelling his wife not to exceed their income.

I tend to think that Mrs B, having married up, thought that practising household economy was a bit infra dig — she’s certainly annoyed when Mr Collins on his first night at Longbourn asks which of the girls was responsible for dinner, and assures him acidly she can afford to keep a good cook. And she makes a snide reference to Charlotte Lucas being needed at home for something to do with cookery — the Lucases are less genteel than the Bennets, Sir William having been in trade before being knighted.

(She’s probably not wrong, though, to think that ‘investing’ in clothes etc for the girls made sense in terms of floating them on the marriage market, though by the sound of things their ‘accomplishments’ are a bit spotty — only Mary and Lizzy apparently can play piano of the five etc).

How old do we think Mr B is? I would have thought early 50s, which would have given him a few years (as a gentleman of the era who has survived infancy) to save from his income after he gave up hoping for a son? Though I suppose all those dresses are adding up!

To be fair, while I think he is at fault for the way he mocks his wife and withdraws from the family, I do love the way he responds to Collins’ proposal.

I’m enjoying Longbourn, thanks PPs for the recommendation. I really didn’t warm to The Wide Sargasso Sea either. I only read it recently and was expecting something quite different - less racist maybe?

I think it's at odds with Mr B's overall character that he didn't keep a sum aside over the years "just in case" to provide for his DDs and wife. He doesn't strike me as being so financially short-sighted or stupid and especially as after 5 daughters in a row it would seem highly likely that a son wasn't going to happen.

I guess that JA had to reference the financial situation for plot purposes, otherwise Mrs B's hysterical anxiety over the DDs not getting married wouldn't have had as much meaning to the plot, if the Bennet women were always going to be comfortably off no matter what marriages occurred. In a way I think Mr B has been sacrificed there for the greater good of the overall plot.

X posts with Gremlin!

Clearly the Bennets are well off, they live in a country house, and have servants and five daughters out in society, which is quite a considerable cost. Compared to most people at the time, they're clearly wealthy. But there's not enough income to bring the daughters out AND save for the future- it's also clear that the Bennets, whilst not in debt, are living at the limit of their income, and it seems like they've been doing so for a while, even before all the daughters were "out".

Realistically, I don't think it's likely Mr Bennet could have saved enough to provide all the daughters with an income indefinitely for their lifetimes, but it's possible that some money could have been put away for each one on their marriage, which would make them more attractive matches.

Marianne Dashwood is essentially a step on from where the Bennet girls are, though- in that her male financial provider has died, and herself and her mother and sisters have been left in straightened circumstances. The economics of Sense and Sensibility don't quite make sense to me- because I think we're supposed to believe that the Dashwoods, on £500 a year, are in really in quite tight financial circumstances, and but for the kindness of Sir John Middleton, they'd be completely stuck.

(In a way, this is what the Bennets are hoping for, I think. Pemberly no doubt has many cottages on the estate where e.g. Mrs Bennet and Mary could live comfortably and rent free)

But later, it seems like Elinor and Edward Ferrars, are going to be able to live comfortably on £850 a year? I'm not sure if it's because Ferrar's role as a vicar comes with a "living", so they won't have to worry about paying rent? Or possibly that £500 is enough to live on, but not enough for the daughters to be "out", which means they have no chance of finding husbands- which then explains why the Bennets are so stretched financially and aren't able to save.

Regardless, I think all these people are actually extremely wealthy by the standards of the time. Without wishing to offend people, it's like people who have family incomes over £100,000 but claim they've got no money because of school fees, etc.

I have always found Mrs B annoying but as I have aged myself I think she just has massive unfiltered anxiety. It is such a clever portrait of how other people's anxiety can be really tedious to be around. And she was legitimately facing a dreadful future if she couldn't pull off a couple of decent marriages for the girls.

I suppose it's implied that the girls were born when they first married- and presumably Mr Bennet also, at the time, wanted to provide his young bride with some treats etc. When it was just, say, Jane and Lizzy, and saving was probably possible, there was every hope of having a boy, and it probably didn't seem like a priority.

Up until Lydia, Mrs Bennet was having babies roughly every two years (Lizzy is 20 at the start of the novel, Kitty is about 17, Mary somewhere in the middle), and every time there's hope for a son, so I suppose it doesn't seem like a priority. And it's probably only 3-4 years after Lydia is born that they are even really aware of the problem, and it may take even longer to acknowledge it- and perhaps this is the sort of point where Mr Bennet is falling out of love with his wife- meanwhile she's probably demanding governesses and tutors etc for the girls.

And then it's not long until Jane is of an age to be coming out, and perhaps they made a financial decision together it's better to invest the money in promoting the girls on the marriage market (presumably Mr Bennet agrees to dresses being bought and paying a maid and all the rest of it). I'd imagine they'd expect her to be married by 23.

So if the novel is viewed by Mrs Bennet starting to become increasingly aware of her precarious situation, which is becoming ever more of a problem, and it's all brought into sharp focus by Mr Collins turning up- whereas even 5 years ago, say, they were a bit more "head in the sand", their behaviour in the novel sort of makes sense?

There were also financial crises in the late 1700s- I wonder if contemporary readers would understand this has impacted on the Bennets ability to save?

Yes to this - I thought this was just wonderful.

I'm not sure if it's because Ferrar's role as a vicar comes with a "living", so they won't have to worry about paying rent?

And that's only while he lives. If he dies, his family will be homeless, which is what happened to JA and her mother and her sister iirc. They had to rent rooms and rely on the charity of her brothers for the rest of her life.

Tbh, I don't think JA thought much about what happened to the characters after the novel ended. Some interesting talk about the finances in S&S and P&P on this blog though

https://janeaustensworld.com/2008/06/09/in-jane-austen%E2%80%99s-own-words-economic-sense-and-sensibility/

https://janeaustensworld.com/2008/02/10/the-economics-of-pride-and-prejudice-or-why-a-single-man-with-a-fortune-of-4000-per-year-is-a-desirable-husband//*

Those links are very interesting. They don't include the value of the £850 a year, but it seems that would be quite low.

If the Bennets income is equivalent to about £68,000 in today's money, we can probably see why they can't save enough- and investing money in the girl's futures by spending it on them being presented well in society actually makes more financial sense.

If we think:

1. Girls were expected to marry, even if they were wealthy- it's not like independently wealthy women usually remained unmarried. The Bennets assumption is that their daughters will marry- the only question is if they marry well or poorly.

2. The amount of money needed to support 6 people (5 of them probably for 40 odd years) in a comfortable manner is going to be hard to accumulate on that sort of income. Whereas, it's possible to pay for the girls' expenses to enable them to find a "better class" of husband than they otherwise might.

Here’s what the text says - they (both of them) very much assumed they’d have a son, and by the time they came to the realisation that wouldn’t happen, it was ‘too late to save’…

When first Mr Bennet had married, economy was held to be perfectly useless; for, of course, they were to have a son. This son was to join in cutting off the entail, as soon as he should be of age, and the widow and younger children would by that means be provided for. Five daughters successively entered the world, but yet the son was to come; and Mrs Bennet, for many years after Lydia’s birth, had been certain that he would. This event had at last been despaired of, but it was then too late to be saving. Mrs Bennet had no turn for economy, and her husband’s love of independence had alone prevented their exceeding their income.

Chapter 50.

Had there been a son, there would have been no entail. The entail only comes into force when there is no son to inherit.

I think if anyone were to have a fling it would have been Mrs Bennett.

Definitely flirting with the infantry at the coast whilst she was stating " a little sea bathing would set me up forever" love that line.

Mr Bennett would have ignored.

How old do we think Mr B is? I would have thought early 50s, which would have given him a few years (as a gentleman of the era who has survived infancy) to save from his income after he gave up hoping for a son? Though I suppose all those dresses are adding up

So the only way this makes sense is if Mr B is more like 60 -65 (Married around 40) and it is he who can't father more children, likely due to ED which started about 10 years before the book begins aged 50-55. Otherwise it makes no sense that Mrs B doesn't conceive again after age 28 max ( only 8 years between Jane and Lydia).

Oh that is interesting @OohMrBingley , I had forgotten or not noticed that. The son is to join in cutting off the entail. An entail could be broken by special Act of Parliament if the men in the succession agreed, I think. So then not only could Mrs B live with the son, but Mr B would be able to provide for her and the daughters in his will. Assuming the son agreed and hadn’t married the younger Mrs Dashwood!

Birth injury which prevents her conceiving again?