It wasn't simply the fact that Collins just started a conversation with Darcy, it also that he had done-so Without even having been introduced to Darcy beforehand, first.

Where the book becomes a romance is when Darcy proposes to Elizabeth DESPITE the fact that she is poor, his relations would consider it a bad match and Elizabeth’s family on a personal level are objectionable to him. He admits that he loves her and can’t live without her even though logically he knows it’s a foolish match from a practical standpoint. It’s hardly romantic to Elizabeth to hear this, which, aside from her not liking his personality to begin with, is why she refuses him at first, but we can see the extent of Darcy’s feelings when such a normally traditional man who’s a stickler for convention could propose to a woman he would otherwise consider unsuitable.

This sheds a whole new light on the Bingley sisters. They had more money, but they were of the third class tier while the Bennet girls were of the second.

Very interesting to watch. I do need to point out though that the Bingley's were 3rd class aspiring to be 2nd class. They were children of trade merchants but were rich enough to rent Netherfield to pass as landed gentry. The fact that Mr. Bingley was renting it means he didn't own the land so didn't qualify as 2nd class yet. At the end of the novel it's mentioned he has moved closer to Pemberley so has moved up a class by buying property and land but is still 'new money'. Even though Jane was marrying up in terms of money she was marrying down in social standing.

And in Sense and Sensibility, we see what happens to the daughters when the father dies. they are cast out into the world but with no way of generating any income.

How I always thought of the money thing: Jane Eyre, in 1847, was paid 15 pounds A YEAR, to teach at Lowood, and 30 pounds A YEAR to be a governess. This would be a very low-end salary for an educated person, since even today teachers aren't paid that much and she's female, though she did receive all of her meals and rent included. Pride and Prejudice was in 1813, so there was probably some inflation happening between the books. Even doubled to 50-60 pounds per year for being a guy, Bingley is bringing in 83-100 times an educated person's yearly salary, and Darcy 166-200 times that salary *solely in profit*. Since business and estate expenses wouldn't be included in that amount. Mr. Bennet should have had enough to set aside some dowries for the daughters, but it seems like a combination of needing to do so for 5 daughters, his wife's frivolous silliness, and Mr. Bennet's total lack of caring outside of what it takes to get people to leave him alone with the stuff he likes, all point to their household living quite paycheck to paycheck and getting an ugly wake up call late in life. He's like a modern man approaching retirement with no savings, just as his 5 kids are reaching college age and needing tuition, and realizing, "oh crap" he probably shouldn't have spent all those years holed up in his man cave, ignoring stuff.

Important caveat: mr Bingley is not landed. He has to rent Netherfield bc his family doesn’t have an estate. They’re nouveau riche, their money comes from their fathers merchant trade. Which is why Miss Bingley is so desperate to marry Mr Darcy. Not only is he more wealthy, but he also would give her family the respectibility of land and titled connections. It’s also why it’s so ironic when she objects to Jane Bennet’s Aunt and uncle in trade. Miss Bingleys own money comes from trade, making her a hypocrite

In my opinion, the entailment rule was absolutely outrageous, and I'm pretty sure Austen thought so too. We may be laughing now at Mrs Bennett, but she was right; in the event of Mr Bennett's sudden death, she and her daughters would be destitute.

Bingley's were not landed gentry. Their father was a wealthy merchant which is why we see him at Netherfield looking for a place to settle. Bingley specifically mentions that "a man must find a house if he cannot have his father's".

You haven’t quite got the Collins thing correct here. The faux pas is that it was customary for introductions to be made through third parties. The proper thing would have been for Mr Collins to be introduced to Mr Darcy by one of the Bennets, and only if Mr Darcy had assented to meet him. For him to introduce himself without a third party was contrary to all social convention.

It is romantic though bc Mr. Darcy was willing to love her for her mind vs what she could bring to the marriage and even willing to risk being laughed at by society for marrying “down” when he could’ve married almost any woman in England. And Lizzie is worthy of that love bc she’s willing to give up marrying a man who would secure not only her but her whole family in order to marry for love. In the end, they both realize how much they hit the jackpot in each other.

Love doesn’t have to be explained nor explicitly shown by kisses or sex scene.

Lady Catherine de Bourgh is in the top class by birth, as the daughter of an earl, but not by marriage -- her husband, Sir Lewis de Bourgh, was a baronet.

Shame Austen’s work is often reduced to love stories. That’s part of it, but in my mind her books are comparable to Balzac’s in that they serve as observations of English society. And not only that, they also serve as clever character studies. Austen captures so well all of the awkwardness, the impertinence, and the contractions that make us human beings.

Of course it's a romance! Not on our 21st-century terms with overt physical displays of affection, but on early 19th-century terms, with plenty of discussions about "attachments." Our heroine Elizabeth Bennet dares to proclaim that love *and* wealth are important in a marriage, not just wealth.

Cross reference Sense and Sensibility where the step mother and half sisters ARE left without money and are cast out by their half brother. P&P resolves their fate prior to their father dying while S&S resolves it after.

Me: I wonder what class I would have been in Also me: *remembers I’m Irish* hmm

Colonel Fitzwilliam was of the first class as the second son of an Earl. Bingley was of the 3rd class because his money comes from trade.

Yes, Austen wrote about how money drives our behavior. She was a keen observer of society. The use of the romance plot seems to have the effect of distracting us from how harshly she is criticizing our shallow, selfish impulses.

Even Georgian and Regency England was more socially mobile than you are making out. "Aristocracy" doesn't mean the same as "upper gentry", that is, people who had serious wealth in land, for at least two or three generations. It means titled families - those whose heads, at least, carried a title of nobility - barons, viscounts, marquises, earls and dukes, in that ascending order. There were ways even into the aristocracy, although it was rare. But no character in P&P is an aristocrat, or from the first class in the table. But there are examples of social mobility among the characters, in all other classes depicted. Mr Darcy, wealthy as he is, and in land, and of a gentry family, is a commoner - but he is friends with Mr Bingley, who is also wealthy, but is not "landed", and only in his own generation come into the gentry - which is upward mobility. Of course, as Mr Bingley demonstrates, all that was required to become landed, was money. Money, in fact, is all that Bingley inherited - but five thousand a year is a "large income", so he fits into the second class, like Mr Darcy and Mr Bennett. However, his sisters have not improved the family's status. One is unmarried, though quite, er, mature; the other has married Mr Hurst, a rather heavy gentleman of at best modest means. If the family is to rise further, then, it will be up to Mr Bingley himself. But that was possible. So was mobility downward. Lady Catherine de Burgh is the daughter of an Earl - which means that the style "Lady" is for courtesy. She is actually a commoner. Not only that, but she and her sister both married below their rank. Their husbands should also have been aristocrats, but Lady Catherine's late husband was a knight (knights are commoners) and her sister Anne's was a country gentleman, Mr Darcy's father. Reading between the lines, quite possibly Lady Catherine's noble father had come down somewhat in the world, and had had to marry his daughters off to money. Mr Collins is a beneficed clergyman of the Church of England, with a substantial parsonage and a glebe - the land attached to the benefice. This is a considerable improvement on his paternal heritage, at least. However, even his eldest son, if any, will have to make his own way. Mrs Bennet, nee Gardiner, has married somewhat upwards - from the fourth class into the second. Mr Gardiner, her brother, has also risen, from being the son of a country attorney to being a substantial London merchant. Mr Wickham is even more mobile. The son of the late Mr Darcy's steward, he would be of the fifth class, but has the airs of a gentleman because of his father's master's generosity. If he had made the most of his opportunities, he might have become a clergyman, a lawyer or a doctor - the third class. Being a wastrel and a rake, he will inevitably sink under his debts. He has a commission in the regular army, but there is no reason to suppose that he will be able to live on his income there, either. If he does not, his commission will not be worth a straw. There's another novel in that, though. In short, while social class was crucially vital in that society, below the absolute top class it was all dependent on money. With it, the ranks of the gentry could be, and were, stormed. If it was maintained, so was class. If it was lost, social class rapidly fell. It was money, only money, all money. Land was money. Interest on investment was money. The only other consideration was occupation. If you made your own living with work of mind or hands, you could not be "gentry". But to attain that status, all you needed was enough money.

Mr. Collins commits a second faux pas in speaking to Mr. Darcy first, the same one that Mrs. Bennet committed with Darcy at the assembly. They both spoke to Mr. Darcy without first having been introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. Mr. Bingley hastens to make introductions between them to cover the lapse. This seems like nothing to us today, but back then it was extremely bad manners and a sign of poor breeding. There is a flouting of societal conventions of marrying within one’s class, one’s station in life, long before the book begins. It is actually a far greater affront to social rules than Elizabeth and Darcy’s marriage. Landed gentleman Mr. Bennett married Miss Gardiner, who was of the merchant class. This is demonstrated by the Bingley sisters’ snotty comments about the girls’ uncle Mr. Gardiner being in trade. This is ironic, because IIRC, the Bingleys are only a generation or so removed from the merchant class themselves. Miss Bingley is being as presumptuous in setting her cap for Mr Darcy, as she implies the Bennet girls are. She is perhaps even more so, as at least the Bennets are landowners. This bears out the saying that there’s no one snobbier than the nouveau riche.

This was a pretty good introduction to the British class system (as it was two centuries ago) for an American audience and it was a good clear exposition of the drivers in the plot. Good job. Thank you also for not making a hash of it and equating class with money (see G.B. Shaw, the barrister and the mechanic).

what do you mean "tricked into thinking P&P is some sort of early romance novel." It clearly is. The whole point of the book is marrying for love. There mere fact that Darcy and Elizabeth as well as Bingley and Jane got married in the end despite the social etiquette of the time certainly would have been considered to be very romantic by the contemporary reader. Besides if there were any love scenes in the book it probably wouldn't have been published in the first place.

I don't quite agree that this is not a romantic novel. Eventhough Elizabeth portrays the rational and not the romantic character, she does in the end demand to marry for love. Love vs. Rationalität is one of the main topics of most of austens novels and love usually wins at least for the main characters. Those who do marry for money are usually villified.

This sheds some light on two things.. everyone's insistence that Elizabeth is poor.. when she is in fact the daughter of a gentleman her social status is far better and others are simply being snobbish. Have to wonder if this is a hidden comment on society by Austen that escapes us but would have been seen at the time.

As I got older, I realized that Persuasion is my favorite of Miss Austen's books.

All though I do agree that Pride & Prejudice is about wealth/stature/class and all daughters fighting through marriage to keep or to get better stature. Because that is also what the title of the book implies. But as the the title can be read as a look on class it is also about the way matrimonies were looked at to combine family wealth and land. The whole book is about finding love in spite of pride and prejudice. Jane & Elisabeth both explain how they love their future husbands with great passion and have to be brave to hold steady against Bingley's sister, Catherine the Bourgh and also Darcy himself. In the end Bingley and Darcy both go beyond what is requested of their class and choose for love. How is this book not about love?

I am glad that this video discusses what class really means. That is why we have the noveau rich or new money and the old rich or old money. The old rich look down on the new rich because they know that the latter have the wealth but not the proper lineage that can be traced back centuries ago. Some aristocrats actually also lost their wealth as new industries brought by the industrial revolution replaced the traditional way of building wealth by having land. In Persuasion, the Elliots, who were aristocrats, were no longer as rich as they were before and had to downsize much to their chagrin.

A few comments along the way: 4:55 - It's perhaps notable that, for all her airs, Lady Catherine actually married below her station, and to a greater degree than Mr. Darcy may be considered to have done in marrying Elizabeth. She was the daughter of an earl and is called "Lady" as a courtesy title in her own right. Her husband was _Sir_ Lewis de Bourgh, a baronet, from an older, prestigious family and very wealthy but still not aristocracy. For all his ancestry it's also hinted he was _nouveau riche:_ Rosings was a new house and not an ancestral family seat. (That's why Mr. Collins has all the details on the cost of its construction.) The difference between Mr Darcy and Elizabeth is mostly in wealth, and in her mother's background; both the Darcys and Bennets are landed gentry. So in objecting to Mr Darcy's marriage to Elizabeth, she's being just a bit hypocritical. 6:25 - Further exposing what you're calling irony but what I'm calling hypocrisy, Mr Bingley was NOT landed gentry until the denouement when we are told he purchases an estate. He only leased Netherfield; it's not the source of his income as you suggest at 7:05. He's actually of the third class: his father made the family's fortune by trade. Yet no one sees the slightest impropriety in Mr Bingley associating with Darcy simply on the basis of his wealth - or in Caroline Bingley's pursuit of Mr Darcy. The characters may speak in terms of class, but it's really all about the money. 7:30 - I'd think it more useful to look at what lifestyle an income supports rather than try to figure out equivalents in modern money. On my own income in the neighborhood of what you attribute to the Bennets I could hardly afford their lifestyle. I might own appliances, but I have no servants and have to mow my own lawn and cook my own meals, and supporting 5 daughters (at least two of whom seem to be recreational shoppers) would be a considerable strain. I'd put their income equivalent considerably higher than mine. Mr Darcy is thought of as fabulously wealthy, and $800k/year seems on the low side for the status it brings him. 12:00 - It might be worth mentioning that entailment wasn't done just to be nasty. The purpose in cases like this was to keep estates, especially smaller ones, from being split up among multiple heirs to the point where they can no longer provide a living to the family. (It's not true that the oldest son must inherit all. That was the default should an estate owner die intestate, but without an entail he could will his estate however he chose.) And also, in this case, limited to male heirs to keep it independent and not joined to the estate of the husband of a female heir. The plan we were told about, that had a son arrived he'd have been expected to join with Mr Bennet in breaking the entail and so provide for the daughters, solves the immediate problem of their livings, but creates the generational problem that the Bennets would no longer be landed gentry after that point and would have to re-make their position by other means. For that reason, this entirely theoretical son might have chosen not to cooperate.

Only a man could read Pride and Prejudice and conclude that it wasn't a romance.

It’s not about a multiplied figure, but about buying power regarding historical annual incomes.

I was with you all the way to the end. Hollywood has not convinced me personally of anything at all about P&P...I’ve seen every adaptation and believe Austen would reject-trenchantly-each one. However, using only the evidence of no kissing scene, I don’t agree if you are saying Austen thinks money is more important than “romance”. She would not have used the word romance (too modern), but she rejects soundly the marriage for money without compatibility (Charlotte). I think one of Austen’s main contributions to the Great Dialogue is every time two people manage to break through the financial and social strata (that you discuss so well here) it is another human miracle to be celebrated. In 2019, we just happen to call that kind of mural attraction “romantic”.

My cat is called Mr Darcy, and I live in Russia 🧐

The reason the oldest son inherited was to keep the estate intact. If it was divided equally among all the children, it would dissipate in a few generations, and they would all be poor. So, the oldest son inherited and was expected to support the others, especially females, which was one reason why the Bennets wanted a son for any unwed Bennet sisters to depend on. Gentlemen who refused to follow these social norms were ostracized, and that was enough of a deterrent to keep most of them supporting dependents. This explains why Mr. Collins was going to choose a wife from the Bennet sisters, and why Mr. Darcy would have given Mr. Wickham a living as minister on his estate. It also explains why John Dashwood was considered a villain in Sense and Sensibility. He was supposed to take care of his stepmother and half sisters after he inherited upon the death of his Father, but didn't.

Only watched about halfway but there are several factual errors. For instance, Mr. Bingley's income and fortune don't come from land, but from trade.

If the Bennett girls didn’t marry well they would’ve ended up like Ms. Bates in Emma.

13:13. I do not recall any language that suggested that Bingley 'wanted' a wife...merely that any single man of large fortune "must be in want of a wife" which is not the same at all. Nonethless, I did enjoy the exploration of money and class in the era. TY!

My senior lit teacher gave me this book for graduation. She wrote a lovely note in it and I treasure it.

The social classes in this era, and later, were not impermeable. "Commoners" were regularly "Ennobled" for a variety of reasons, sometimes wealth - or what wealth enabled them to do. Also, marriages between higher social class and richer lower class (but not too low) were not uncommon, even in the time of Elizabeth I. They were looked down on and the "lower rank" partner was often never fully accepted, but such unions were not uncommon. I'd also like to say that I 100% agree with your view that this novel is about rich people and VERY rich people, and that we see little or nothing of the real world of working people and the poor. I'm not sure how different we are now, in our entertainments. Anyone watching TV or the movies we make would think we live in a world of comfort, full of beautiful, interesting people who never go hungry.

As you also see in Austen's Persuasion, a low-level baronet has to rent his property out, because he cannot fully pay his debts. And other families with no peerage are more wealthier through their business. And naval officers become wealthy by capturing ships and are entitled to 1/4 the value of the goods captured. Also, you will see in later nineteenth century novels, that the Industrial Age means that land alone is not enough to sustain wealth. If you watch the Downton Abbey series, you see how the Crawley's try to work the land, to make more money off of it, while other aristocratic families are going bankrupt. It would be interesting to see what the great-grandchildren of Darcy, and Lizzie would be like with their land at Pemberley.

Loved the analysis and it cleared up a lot of questions I’ve had about the book! Thanks you!

Thanks a lot. I got to understand more of the books. I watched the movie before reading the books. And I found so much distinctions between reading and watching. The movie was much easier to understand for non-native speakers. While the books spent a lot of lines describing the conflicting discussion and the awkwardness of social interaction between people in different classes.

Classification in literature is not based so much on the minutiae of content, but rather on themes or, more importantly, structure. A smart/quirky/in whatever way unusual woman meets attractive/mercurial/taciturn/mysterious man with whom she tentatively starts some kind of relationship, which slowly progresses until some event/misunderstanding causes a seemingly insurrmountable rupture, which is resolved by him galantly/heroically rescuing her from some grave peril/crisis she got caught up in/has gotten herself into, and they live happily after after. Sound familiar? It's Twilight. It's 50 shades. It's the Sheikh.The fact Austen's work is 2 billion classes higher up than those examples doesn't change the fact that said work, at its core, consists or romance novels.

This is an excellent analysis. Thanks!

Important to remember, the families of the Landed Gentry were often older than the families of the aristocracy. Another point, families descended fro the Norman families were very aware of it. Catherine Fitz William De Bourgh and the Bennett's would both have been of Norman descent and I'm sure Jane Austen was aware of it.

What I think was the REAL discrepancy is that Jane Austen HAD to sell the rights to that book way before it became “popular” and lost out on all that money, class and clout as an author. She died young and as a pauper

I get what he's getting at with people thinking that Pride and Prejudice was just some early romance novel. This is less to do with the actual genre of the book and more to do with the contemporary views on romance novels. A general view could be seen as romance novels are trashy, girly, not put a lot of thought into it, all about drama and boys, and purely fantasy wish fulfillment. Which can easily be the case for many books. So when people are surprised, they're actually surprised that it's well written and has engaging and realistic characters, as opposed the generally bad reputation of modern romance novels. People forget that its a classic for a reason. In fact, I'd say most historical romance books and modern romances are living off the legacy of Pride and Prejudice (tropes such as rich and/or snobby man falls for intelligent free spirited commoner, haters to lovers, and gentleman (title) = gentle (verb) man, comes to mind). That's what I love about Pride and Prejudice, not only does it prove that just because its a romance doesn't mean its not intelligent, but also that you can have all the romance tropes you want and still do it in a believable and not over the top cheesy way. Bad boy turns good: Think criminal/player/general bad boy/red flag character whose more likely to break your heart or on the extreme be abusive to you. In real life, bad boys aren't changed by love, they just end up being abusive boyfriends. It looks really good in a romantically but in the end they don't have any attraction to each other outside from danger and/or lust. Mr Darcy is a real character, swayed by realistic emotions. He's not a bad boy but he is a bit of an asshole, which satisfies that bad boy turning good trope. His worst crimes were being mean to Wickham (a lie), stopping Mr Bingley's relationship with Jane (a misunderstanding), being rude (bad first impression due social awkwardness) and being snobby which he gets over in satisfying character development, in part for his love for Elizabeth and other due to general goodnatured-ness. Aristocrat marries a commoner: This one's popular in fairy tales and other old timey folk tales. This ones less problematic but just more unrealistic. Princes aren't going to marry fair maidens they meet in the woods, they're going to have affairs with them. Neither will Kings let their daughters marry woodcutters, they'll also have affairs. Mr Darcy and Elizabeth are both of the genteel class, so it's not going to ruin their standing that much to get married, although due to disparity in wealth it will feel like you're marrying a prince. Not like others girls, girl whose caught the attention of usually indifferent guy because of her uniqueness, attention that she initially doesn't want: Pride and Prejudice helped invent this trope. Most stories that use this trope their really is nothing that special about the heroine. Elizabeth's character is unique because her lively nature and wit makes her stand out. She's not better than other girls for this but it's enough to grab Darcy's attention and most importantly we see these characteristics displayed in the book. That and she's like the only one not intimidated or swayed by Darcy in the book at all. (Georgiana and Bingley but him on this high moral pedestal and let him decide for them, Colonel Fitzwilliam comes and goes with Darcy when Darcy decides, Wickham outright avoids him, Mr Collins puts him up beside Lady Catherine, the Gardiners expect him to turn them out of his estate at one point ,Mr Bennet admits he wouldn't say no to anything Darcy asked for, Mrs Bennet isn't her usual awful self once she learns he'll be her son in law and everyone else is intimidated by his wealth and silent temper). Romantic gesture of Love: Most romances have some kind of big romantic gesture. It can be a big sacrifice or just be saying "I love you" sincerely. Darcy's was impressive on many different levels. It was a lot of time and money, but that would be kind of thin if it was just that on its own (looking at you Unleashing Mr Darcy, awful adaption, wonderful story), it was a sacrifice to Darcy because he knew he was giving Wickham what he wanted. Also he did it knowing if by some miracle he did marry Elizabeth, Wickham would become his step-brother. He did it knowing he probably wouldn't marry Elizabeth, so it can't be seen as a selfish ploy to keep her name reputable so he could marry her. He did it out of genuine concern for her. He did it after Elizabeth refused him, which means he still loved her even after being rejected (which is a nice sentiment on its own). He did it knowing that Lydia had disgraced her family which means Darcy has long given up his prejudices against marrying into the Bennet family (character growth). And most importantly of all, he did it all without intending anyone to find out, even Elizabeth, so it was out of complete selflessness. Also its a lot more reasonable a romantic gesture than slaying dragons or running through airports. Teenagers being forced to read it for school although shown it as a classic, the book holds all the negative stereotype of a classic. Boring and very wordy. But just like all classics it will appeal to readers who specifically like that book, to like something only because its status as a classic is very shallow. People who love Pride and Prejudice like me marvel in its excellence writing or who knows what other reason. Someone might loves well written stories but romances aren't their cup of tea. This is perfectly okay but its sad to think just because something is a romance is to suppose its bad. God this is longer than anything I've ever written for anything I've ever written for a book in English class. That says a lot.

Wonderful! As an avid romance novel reader, I never realized that most regency romances deal with a different class altogether than Austen did -- it never occurred to me that, of course, none of her characters is a "lady" or "lord" or higher, except for de Burgh. Whereas today's regency romance novels deal almost exclusively with titled 1st class folks. Take Bridgerton, in which every member of the family (I think?) marries a duke or a viscount or lady or whatever.

I like the map of English society graph, definitely puts the difference between Anne and Wentworth into perspective at the start of their relationship in Persuasion.

The rules of inheritance from the Regency period are still in practice today, see estates such as Chatsworth

About income. Income was a combination of two things: income from rent of farms on their estate (about 1pound per acre) and the investments of their fortune. safe ones were either governement "funds" that produced around 5% but did wobble a little and more stable "consols" that gave 3%. so whilst bingley's income, who didn't own land was entirely from interest on his inheritance, Darcy's and Bennets's was a hybrid, and their fortune couldn't be determined without knowing the size of their estate (my research was for early victorian period but i don't think it makes much difference. changes in upper clas started when industrial relovution was at it's fullest, i.e. when money was moving from farms to cities but sped up only after WWI )

The Regency really ended in 1820 and Austen was already dead. The real Mr. Darcy would have had a string of mistresses among the servant class before he met Lizzie.

I loved this video, I've learned so much in just 13 minutes!! Thank you so very much!

It was Mrs Bennett's background that was the problem.

Your narrative style is top notch. The topic and the explanation is excellent no doubt, but the way you have narrated it is soothing to the ear.

Well done! This video was awesome, and despite my having read the book and watched many adaptations, I learned a lot!

I mean, on some level, we still uphold some of these social class structures. We find it more acceptable for a celebrity to approach an average citizen than the other way around. And it's definitely seen as more acceptable for anyone to approach someone homeless than the other way around. Certainly we're not creating as severe punishments for those who disrupt these social expectations, but approachability is still governed by the class structures I think we're afraid to even acknowledge exist.

I would literally watch a whole semester of this! Really!

If you multiply the incomes by 80, you get 160,000 pounds a year for the Bennets and 800,000 pounds a year for Mr Darcy. This is not the equivalent in dollars (a pedant writes...)

Even today there are special funds, trusts and housing arrangements for "widowers" and for "chaste women who do not have a husband" here in Norway. You can then apply for these funds, and depending on your story - or how well-connected you are - you can get some of that. I'm pretty sure there are similar arrangements in the rest of Europe.

What an amazing video! Thank you!

What an excellent summary! Thank you!

There is a noticeable difference in American classes versus European and especially British class. Obviously, because of the different history and way social structure was built in America. But there are some commonality in the way class is perceived. Money carries much more weight in America yet, education, dress and conduct can also say what your background is and to what class you were born just as it is for British class. It's is just far more mobile and fluid in America as you can pretty much buy your way to almost any opportunity. Despite that there are always opportunities based on simply class (that means it's more likely you'll move within your own class) Americans are far more concerned with money and influence than your lineage. Still, you can usually tell if someone was born upper middle class or upper class simply because of subtle behaviors and other class norms. This is also in the novel. Ms. Bingley (actually not landed gentry but of a merchant background) and others show that wealth does not buy breeding as Elizabeth's more educated and nuanced social understanding and education is in juxtaposition to hers. This is character, of course, but it is also class. Jane and Elizabeth are well bred which many wealthier gentry comment on in the novel as particularly unfortunate. It's interesting to observe how different foolish and ignorant characters are treated differently simply because of their wealth and status. Jane Austen often contrasted how behavior was tolerated based on your class, Lady Catherine de Burgh's interactions with Elizabeth was a good example of this too.

I love the way explained it.

Thank you! I actually purchased the combination book of all her novels in one book. (recently ) ....so I could read them for leisure.

I had more or less gathered as much when I read the book, and I've also picked up a few things from Anne Perry's Thomas Pitt novels, even though they're set later in the Victorian era. It's still one of my favorite books though!

Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Reynolds, and Mr. Bennett’s manservant all have brief speaking roles.

Excellent explanation. Thank you.

I really enjoyed this video. Although also written by Austen, I’d love to hear a comparative video about wealth and social structure from Sense and Sensibility. That story seems even a bit more complicated in regards to this topic.

Birth is NOT the only way to become a peer, If you do something important enough you CAN be elevated to the aristocracy by the queen (or go up ranks Earl to Duke etc). For example, George VI made Philip of Greece and Denmark a Duke of England and later his wife (The QUEEN) made him a Prince of England. A man born as the Hon. Arthur Wesley, the fourth son of an Earl, was made a Viscount after winning a battle ( Viscount Wellington of Talavera and of Wellington, in the County of Somerset, with the subsidiary title of Baron Douro of Wellesley) and later elevated further to Duke after winning the Peninsula War (Duke of Wellington, in the county of Somerset, together with the subsidiary title of Marquess Douro, in the said County). Nelson was the son of a revered but was made a viscount after winning the battle of the Nile.

Not entirely true that you could not change your social.class. The Bingleys have for instance. They made their money in trade, but have raised themselves to the gentry.

Social climbing is still a subject in romantic fiction, Notting Hill is an excellent example. Also, the wish to become a princess is probably still the ambition of about half of all five-year old girls.

160.000 for seven people means about 22.857,00 per Person per year. ...now I see why the Bennets didn't invested in a governess.

Thank you for this analysis

Very interesting! Thanks for uploading!

excellent and fascinating. Great video

Thanks for the great explanation!

This was really helpful!! Thanks a lot

9:10 This is like reading the power level discussions from a shonen anime.

This insight was really good, thank you 🙂🙂🙂!

Thank you for this video. The information is really interesting.

My dad still wasn't allowed to play with the kids from the lowly merchant families in his neighbourhood when he was a kid in the 50's. Only shipping magnates or factory owners were approved. In that day and age I'd be Fourth Class, as a teacher, but today I'm more like Sixth Class lol. The family wealth was all lost in a stock market crash... I'm of course sorry for that personally, but on a societal level it's a good thing, because it means everyone can make it in today's world, and the rich aren't as safe and set-for-life as the nobility.

Some book or the other about colonial America, mentioned the salary for the town clergy was to be L60 plus firewood etc., and that this was a substantial sum for the area. Of course, the colonies were rich in resources but short on currency money.

Interesting thought, that a person with a guaranteed income of a 1'000'000 pound a year would not be free to marry whom he wanted, and actually felt obliged to marry into money... I feel richer than Mr. Darcy, somehow :-)

Well made, and definitely helps me understand the character's motives better. Thank you

This explanation is exactly why it annoyed me in the Keira Knightley version that the Bennet family is portrayed as poor. Were they rich? No. But they were comfortable.

You omit the officers (and note that senior sergeants) constitute a class with the Bennets interact. The officers generally come from the other classes, but the inclusion of senior NCOs is definitely a source of advancement by merit.

what a wonderful video, thank you

This is very interesting thank you!

This was interesting and informative.. Thanks !

Brilliant! Thank you!

I was interested to recently find out that Jane Austen herself was in a somewhat similar situation to the Bennet daughters. She did have brothers, but though from the higher class, she and her sister didn‘t marry, and they were forced to rely on their brother‘s help, as far as living expenses went. They moved often, and though from probably what you call here the 3rd class, were basically poor, without enough to live on.

Many thanks for creating this video. I studied English studies and history in university and remember how so e girls always said that Pride&Prejudices was their favourite book in a dreamy voice. When I personally found it a rather boring read which might have been because I couldn't find much romantic about marrying due to money even though I knew that this was a former (and needed) habit of societies.

This was really interesting!

Remember, until the industrial revolution (1840+) this was an agricultural economy - as was all of Europe. Hence land = wealth, and hence wars over land. If someone made money from another means (e.g. trade) they were weird and looked down on. Only after around 1840, when everything changed, was this societal model disrupted. One of the consequences of the agricultural/landed model, was that land was rarely sold, and the estates and their staff looked after themselves. So the income (surplus) was everything. And, BTW, there were still vast numbers of agricultural workers in 1914: if you go to any small country village you will find a memorial to the locals who died in WW1 and there will be over 100 even from tiny villages...

I like “ Pride and prejudice “ very much!!! Mr Darcy my favourite hero in the classic literature. I like Darcy only performed by Colin Firth!Only he is!

Brilliantly described. Thankyou 😊

Excellent video. Very well put.

Everyone else here: Yes, the social class of the family’s last income... Me: DiD aNyOnE eLsE nOtIcE tHe LiZzIe BeNnEt DiArIeS rEfErEnCe!?

It must've been hell living in this age of England unless you were the first son. What a terrible society that was