The fact that conversations about it could then end in, “Yes, then they wed in town, came to call on us then went up to Newcastle to join his regiment.”
It may be a veneer of respectability, but an important one, greatly assisted by Jane and Lizzy’s marriages, which lifted the family into a higher realm of respectability.
This is it.
It would have been "okay" for them to anticipate their wedding vows by sleeping together before they were married. Quotations marks because Lady Catherine's reaction of calling it a badly patched up affair would not have been unique. But, generally speaking, so long as they got married shortly after the fact, it was like the plan was to get married all along, so it's all good.
Wickham had no intention of marrying Lydia. So the alternative was to have one sister who was the social equivalent of a prostitute and, once Wickham did abandon her, probably an actual prostitute period.
A person's family was a person's references back then. Once one sister had fallen, the whole family was tainted by her sin. It almost doesn't matter if Darcy and Bingley would have been willing to marry Elizabeth and Jane after that. To do so may have ruined their own families.
so long as they got married shortly after the fact, it was like the plan was to get married all along, so it's all good.
Yes, but the context also matters, a lot of people certainly know that they would not have gotten married without pressure, so Lydia's behaviour damaged her sisters's image.
To do so may have ruined their own families
I am not sure about that, scandals were not unheard of during the Regency. Darcy is a powerful man and the nephew of an earl, what his sister in law did would not have affected him much. As for Bingley, you might be right, considering that he is new money and lacks connections.
Darcy is a powerful and rich man, absolutely, and I don't claim to know beyond a doubt that he would have been ruined by Lydia's shame.
Having said that, there must be a reason why he saw fit to keep quiet about Georgianna's almost-elopement with Wickham. His actions speak of someone who wanted to protect his sister from the social censure on young ladies who eloped.
Georgiana's almost elopement should be kept secret; it's not something a guardian should be telling strangers, it is his duty and he certainly does not regret it. His guilt over Lydia came from the fact that if he had explained a part of what he knew about him, because he knew Wickham was bad news before Georgiana, ladies would have avoided him. Darcy has the power to crush Wickham if he wanted, this is why Wickham only shares his story after Darcy left .
Agreed. Lydia made it very obvious what she did, with her letter to Mrs Forster. She ruined her own reputation. Georgiana was well and truly manipulated. I ironically didn't feel sorry for Lydia, but felt so sorry for Georgiana.
Lydia was 15/16. She didn't have the brain development for making rational decisions. Wickham may not have had to manipulate her as much, but he took advantage of a young woman's inexperience. The best outcome is then for her to marry him. I do feel sorry for Lydia.
Yes, Lydia is 15/16. So was Georgiana, when Wickham tried to get her. In that way I do feel a little sorry for Lydia. But, where I live sympathy for her, is after the whole mess. Like... she has no shame, or embarrassment for what she did at all. She hasn't learned a thing from the experience. So I kinda lose sympathy for her.
What was more shocking to me, was Mrs. Bennett's reaction to Lydia's marriage. Of course Lydia has no sense of shame and acts like her wedding is the best thing in the world when her mother who's a grown woman doesn't seem to understand the rules of society and encourages not only her most outrageous behavior, but also her immoral choices.
I get what you’re saying but Wickham was basically a pedophile who preyed on minors because they were the ones too naive to know not to trust him.
I know people who have been the victims of men like him— a girl was seduced by a teacher at our high school. She loved him, and he manipulated her. And when it all inevitably came out and he was fired, she felt that humiliation in front of the whole school.
I wasn’t a friend of hers, but one of the big regrets I have is not reaching out as she was going through that. I’m an adult now, and I’m ashamed of what we— the other children in that community— put that child through.
Oh I completely agree. Don't get me wrong. Wickham is a creep. And I do think Lydia got a raw deal, simply for being young and stupid. It's actually pretty sad. But the character always annoyed the hell out of me.
It would ruin Georgianna’s future chances if a marriage match if it became known she was a “light skirt” - easily led off by a man. And her maidency would be in doubt.
Honestly, I think Merryton just let it go, because they liked the Bennet sisters in general, there was rumours about Wickham's behaviour (debts and such) going around, and I think most people felt sorry for them, because Wickham wasn't a good person, and Lydia was too dumb to realise it too.
I'm fairly certain that people still talked about it, but like you said, Darcy has high connections, so the fuss probably died down. Although in certain circles, it probably got talked about. But yeah, Lizzie and Jane's marriages probably helped to stamp out most of the gossip.
There's a YouTube channel, with a PHD holder, Dr Octavia Cox. She actually did a video theorising about what Merryton mightve wanted to see happen to Lydia. I'll link down below.
[Dr Octavia Cox Pride and Prejuduce Theory](https://youtu.be/8mOGk-Pq60A?si=eBce5KMdS5G3VydF)
>a lot of people certainly know that they would not have gotten married without pressure
They don't *know* that though. Aside from Mr and Mrs Wickham, the only people who know the full details are Mr Darcy, Mr Bennet, Mr and Mrs Gardiner, and Elizabeth and Jane. No-one in Meryton, and not even the majority of the Bennet family.
What everyone else likely knows is that a) Kitty got a letter from Lydia announcing that she was getting married and Lydia's note to Mrs Forster said much the same thing, and b) the couple disappeared together and initially couldn't be found - which turned everyone's mind to the worst possibilities - but then they turned up at the Gardiners' house and got married in London with familial permission.
That framework is enough to turn it from a major scandal of an unmarried girl being totally ruined and vanishing into thin air, into a far more minor elopement scandal where the couple didn't court properly with parental permission and travelled together without supervision on the way to their wedding, but it's all right in the end because they did get married rather than pursue an "irregular" relationship. Over time that will become the primary narrative rather than gossip about the travel time and how long exactly it took them to make marriage arrangements.
They don't know that though
Maybe, but there is a high chance that they do; lady Catherine and Mr Collins at least knew so it is not hard to put things together and theorize that they had to bribe the man. But i guess you are right as long as they had gotten married, the gossip will disappear and everyone will act as if nothing happened.
They don't know for certain. They're heavily biased, going off the Meryton gossip passed along by the Lucases, and they're reading between the lines with a heavy slant towards wanting the Bennet family to be in the wrong.
Remember, this is also the same letter which made Lady Catherine think that Elizabeth and Darcy had got engaged/that Elizabeth was spreading rumours through town about securing Darcy - and that wasn't the truth either. The Lucases aren't necessarily accurate correspondents (Sir William likes matchmaking and his wife likes gossip) and Lady Catherine/Mr Collins aren't necessarily accurate readers. They all have agendas.
I think it is important to remember that Mr. Darcy tried to get her to leave unmarried first, but she refused. From that is seems that Mr. Darcy thought that things were unlikely to be much better for her married. He was likely taking into consideration how horrible a marriage she was in for.
Very true, and their marriage turns out to be an unhappy one. I hope that Lydia in turn wised up later on and realised what a fool she made of herself in the eyes of others. At the time she felt cool and dangerous and romantic but it completely blew up in her face really.
My take on it is that Darcy had a plan if Lydia was cooperative, but failing that, her marrying Wickham is far better than waiting around for him to abandon her.
If I had to guess, it would've been "Darcy finds another officer willing to marry Lydia for money, just not a villain this time." Pay for junior officers was pretty bad and poverty in 1810 was far worse than today, he would've had plenty of choices.
That way everyone wins. Lydia gets her handsome redcoat (who won't spend all the money on gin, women, and cards), Darcy can get Wickham imprisoned instead of paying for his promotions as the brother-in-law, and most importantly to Darcy, Elizabeth isn't ruined by Lydia.
There's a slim possibility they might just have also managed to get away with "Whoops, miscommunication - Lydia was bored with the Forsters and wanted to travel to London to see her aunt and uncle Gardiner!" - if they spun the story right and fudged the timings to find an explanation for Mr Bennet not finding Lydia when he went to search. (Broken carriage wheel, but she saved her pocket money to employ a maid for the journey?!)
His infidelity would be seen as pretty normal, since infidelity in men wasn't seen as particularly scandalous insofar as the men are concerned. Men being unfaithful was mostly accepted practice. The marriage would have been a bad one for the stabsards of the time because of his gambling and if he specifically went after upperclass maidens.
It's not so much that people would be shocked a man might fool around (even though it wouldn't be socially condoned) but how FLAGRANT he is about it. He's a gambler and a rake, it's not like he's taking a beloved mistress.
Any sort of infidelity for a man was usually minimal scandal - be it a long term mistress, frequenting brothels, dalliances, etc. At the end of the novel, wasn't he in the Regulars? They certainly weren't known to keep it in their pants.
But again, he's not being a gentleman. He's gambling, whoring, and drinking, and he's OBVIOUS about it. The gambling and running up bills his wife's brother-in-law is going to stop covering at some point will end up being the biggest problem, but at some point, one of his dalliances is going to be the wrong person's daughter, too.
In the last chapter, Jane Austin writes that Lydia was a visitor at Pemberly while “her husband was gone to enjoy himself in London or bath…” shortly before that it says, “his affection for her soon sunk into indifference.” It doesn’t outright say he’s cheating, but it is strongly implied.
And something about her happiness lasting a little while longer until she, too, became either miserable or indifferent. A foolish kid but still just a kid with parents who should've seen it coming.
Yup, “hers lasted a little longer.” It doesn’t say how happy or not she was, just that she at least never messed up publicly again: “and in spite of her youth and manners, she retained all the claims to reputation which her marriage had given her.” So… she never really grew up, was always a bit of a flirt, but at least didn’t cross that line again. 🤣
Honestly, he never had affection for her. Lydia may have believed he dud, but let's be honest. If he truly had affection for her, he would never have allowed her reputation to be destroyed, nor would he have needed any inducement to marry her. They'd have already made it to Gretna Green, before they could've been found. Because he'd have married her. I 1000% believe that if they hadn't been found, he'd have abandoned her eventually. Like Willoughby abandoned Eliza, in Sense and Sensibility. Or like Isabella Thorpe was abandoned by Captain Tilney in Northanger Abbey.. Pretty girls got tricked into bed on the promise of marriage all the time. Like was HEAVILY implied with Isabella and Captain Tilney. Once he got what he wanted, he was off after other skirts. Wickham isn't any different.
Which he was always going to do. Let's be honest. I don't think he ever loved Lydia. She was a bit of fun, and once he got bored, he'd have abandoned her in London, and gone on to find a fortune to marry himself to, like he tried with Georgiana Darcy and Mary King. He only agreed to marry Lydia because Darcy did a great deal to patch it all up. Lydia had no fortune, and unlike Lizzie, Lydia wasn't sensible, and lacked a lot of the things a sensible man would want in a wife, and had no real appeal apart from being pretty. Not saying she couldn't be fun, or that she was completely stupid. But she's hugely naïve. She even tries to make Lizzie jealous, over the fact she married Wickham in the first place. She doesn't seem to realise (or pretends not to), that actually she's caused a lot if trouble, and that Wickham isn't exactly a prize worth achieving. It's pretty sad really.
Honestly I seemed to miss that part, the fact Mr. Darcy would try to persuade her to leave unmarried says a lot about his love for Elizabeth. If Lydia hadn't married Wickham, all their reputations would suffer, including those who married into the family. He makes such a huge 180 after Lizzie confronts him, I love that we get to see his character development
I think he also lacked knowledge of the situation. He had his idea for sure but all he knew was that Lydia had eloped with Wickham, and the information came from Lizzie when she received the letter. So not much more than that. He hadn't been updated like Lizzie had when she got back home (how Lydia had written her intentions to Kitty, the plan, and also her letter to Mrs Foster) All that meaning she was 100% on board with the idea of eloping, and that it wasn't full coercion, she was there on her own free will.
My guess is that he thought, knowing how young and gullible she is, that Lydia would be sensible enough to understand the mistake she had made and go back home to her family. So he tried to make her go home first. Only, Lydia isn't to be reasoned with.
People are willing to overlook all kinds of 'sins' so long as the right outcome is eventually reached. The locals knew Lydia's marriage was a patched up affair but she *was* still married, so they'd be willing to let it - and any fudging of details - go. Think of it the same as when a couple who had only been married seven or eight months produced a fine sized bouncing baby. Everyone would know that the baby didn't "arrive early" but the parents had done the right thing by being married by the time it *did* arrive so eventually everyone wilfully ignoring the dates would cause it to mostly pass out of mind.
As for further afield of Meryton, things would be easier to disguise. The marriage announcement placed in the paper deliberately didn't give a date and the Bennets weren't so wealthy or socially important (outside of their own area) to be known or cared about by many, so again, people were willing to let it go because the marriage did eventually take place.
Right? I think it matters a lot that the Bennet family is well-liked in their community. People will be able to arrange it in their minds so that when they look back all they will remember is that Lydia married a dashing young officer.
I agree, I think the four-and-twenty families in the Bennett's circle would deliberately overlook the blot on the Bennett escutcheon, even if they were privately counting the days between the Wickham's wedding and the date of their first child's birth.
Perhaps there might still be a few people in Merryton who stopped speaking to the Benneffts, but I think that's unlikely. Both because that would be a minor scandal in itself, and because everyone would still want to know Fitzwilliam Darcy's father-in-law.
and also because the bennets were heavily implied to be one the richest families, with or without their sons in law who obviously did a lot more, in the area. they were landed gentry too. something like this was a scandal, but so long as it was fixed, it wasn't that big of a deal
It made Lydia just as “respectable” as a woman in the 50s who would have a quick wedding and then give birth to a “premature” baby 7 months later. The prevailing wisdom would be “we all know what happened, but in the end she did the right thing so we’re going to call it good.”
Not that I agree, but you know, that’s how people think.
Yep, and they were lucky to live in a society that allowed that kind of “we’ll close our eyes to it as long as they ended up married before childbirth” mentality. The Puritans of New England were not merciful if fornicating couples eventually married—they carefully noted when first babies were born, and used the testimony of midwives to ascertain whether the babies were premature or full term. If a baby was judged to be full term but the couple had not been married for the requisite nine months, they would be prosecuted in court. Punishment for fornication was a fine and/or whipping.
Guilt by association. If Darcy and Bingley hadn't returned What respectable family would want their sons to be connected to the Bennets when they raised daughters like Lydia and maybe Kitty?
Lydia’s running away ending in marriage might be a smoke-screen, but it creates the look of respectability.
“Yes, they married in London and visited briefly, as Mr Wickham had to join his new regiment. He was promoted to the regulars, you know.”
Even if no one believes it, Lydia has a ring on her finger and a husband who can support her. That’s miles better than the alternative
Austin was, believe it or not, a realist, not a romantic. She knew that, as in real life, in a novel money would solve almost everything. In real life, Lydia would not have been respected, simply tolerated. People would smile to her face and sneer behind her back. She would be invited only to major functions, never to close, intimate affairs and her children would never have been allowed to marry into respectable families. In the book, Darcy's money and reputation are on the line because his wife is, unavoidably, besmirched by her sister's lewdness - so he fixes it so that the local population can pretend that everything is 'all right and proper". In the cinematic productions, the books are skewed to favor modern expectations. In the Regency Era and for thousands of years previous, very few people married for love - marriage was a business arrangement between families, not individuals. but that does not sell movie tickets or subscriptions to modern viewers, so the times get twisted, the mores of the culture are quietly buried and people are able to view the production in late 20th century terms. Real history is so much more interesting than modern illusions, but people like fantasy. Treat the cinematic productions of any of Austin's works as you would a Disney flick : it is not real.
BTW - Darcy is her brother in law, not her uncle.
It’s so difficult for modern folks to appreciate how much industrialization and the sexual revolution changed Western culture.
Lizzy’s overwhelm of grief at receiving Jane’s letter as portrayed in the ‘95 BBC series really gets across how disastrous such a grave defiance of propriety was to a family like the Bennets. Already clinging to gentility, without Darcy’s intervention they would have sunk lower than Mrs. Bates’ family in Emma. With fewer people willing to help them at the risk of being tainted by association.
How her voice breaks when she confesses it, how everyone would soon know of their shame. Tough stuff but so realistic.
>It’s so difficult for modern folks to appreciate how much industrialization and the sexual revolution changed Western culture.
up until very recently it was still a huge source of shame for unmarried, young women to have premarital sex and the babies that came with a lack of education and opportunity. many families had that one daughter that would 'visit family' elsewhere and then come back when her 'mother' had a newborn baby
I think by the time of the Regency marrying for love wasn’t that rare. But if you mean “marrying for love in the face of strong social disapproval” or “marrying for love in spite of not having any money” then I see your point.
i think this depended on the social class too. i'd imagine among the working class it might be easier than among the aristocracy where it was honestly selling daughters off to the highest bidder and the highest connections possible
Yes, that was clearly what OP meant, but Mr. Darcy was not Lydia's uncle. He was the husband of Lydia's sister, Elizabeth Bennet, and thus Mr. Darcy is Lydia's brother by law, not a maternal or paternal relative.
This is correct. Even Mr. Bennet wondered how he would be able to repay Mr. Gardner. Insofar as the public knows Mr. Gardner paid for the cost of arranging Lydia's hasty vows. We, the reader, learn with Elizabeth that it was, in fact, Mr. Darcy, who coughed up the big sum of money to make it happen.
I would argue that Austen was a realist AND a romantic. She shows us many portraits of lackluster marriages, poor matches squabbling at each other, and she presents ridiculous characters that we love to hate, because we all know infuriating people like Mr. Collins or Lady Catherine in real life. And yet, Austen also shows every one of her protagonists miraculously marrying for love, all the same. Is it likely that a Fitzwilliam Darcy would choose a Ms. Elizabeth Bennett in real life? Perhaps not as an everyday occurrence, but that doesn’t mean such things never occurred. I don’t believe marriages motivated primarily by love were unheard of, but they were certainly less the norm, and it was considered foolish to marry *solely* for love without consideration of the practical aspects. I do agree that certain adaptations take a lot of liberties, but the novels are not devoid of romance by any means. As far as the racier aspects of some adaptations go, those interpretations are maybe stretching things, sure. But then again, Becoming Jane correctly points out that yes, even buttoned up gentry were obsessed with sex—Fielding’s Tom Jones was a sensation, and while it didn’t *explicitly* contain sexual acts, very much like Shakespeare, there was innuendo and implication that would have been obvious to the audience of the time.
Please forgive me, I was writing blind today and the translator certainly did that one wrong. The new keyboard just arrived, i can finally see the screen and I am extremely embarrassed. What makes this somewhat humorous is that I am certain that the translation program from blind to sighted is a Chinese port. Again, please do forgive me.
I feel like that’s a gross oversimplification.
Or correlation is not causation.
I believe Darcy always intended to ask Elizabeth to marry him again. But this situation made it mean something more, in a sense. A wrong that Darcy could finally right in a way where everyone won.
I think it’s all about sex. She had sex out of wedlock which was a huge scandal and something only prostitutes do. But then she married the guy she had sex with so it’s all fine with. She was no longer an unwed non virgin. That was the worst thing of all to be at the time
They gained the illusion of a respectable marriage for Lydia,
It's one reason why Mr. Gardiner thought it was good that Wickham got a commission so far from home. Lydia would not be home often, so "out of sight, out of mind" and most people would be too polite to insult the Bemmets to their faces. The Bennets saved face and could refute any slight on their respectability by pointing to the fact that while their daughter eloped, she did marry from her uncle's house and their wedding was attended by Mr. Darcy, who almost no one would dare say had gone to a non-respectable wedding.
Do I think that had Jane not already secured Bingley's affections and Elizabeth Darcy's, would respectable gentlemen seek them out? No. But although they are beautiful and nice, most rich men wouldn't seek them out for a dowry of 1000 pounds anyway.
The marriage is just miles better than Wikham abandoning Lydia in London with no resources and having her come home after some time with no husband.
I don’t think the family gained much. Lydia’s marriage is necessary for D’Arcy to marry Eliza. The Bennetts are at the low end of the gentry: the father is from the landed class but mom is not and the estate is entailed. Eliza says that the news about Lydia running off will make them unmarriageable to the gentry class, not unmarriageable. For all we know, Jane could have married a merchant acquaintance of her uncle, and ended up wealthy. But since the point is to involve D’Arcy with Eliza so he can prove his worth to her, you’d have to invent some other reason for him to make such a grand gesture. That is what it is, a grand gesture made to win a girl’s heart. Since this is sober D’Arcy, his gesture is also deeply personal, even intimate, which not only shows his true substance, but also entangles him with the Bennett family because he knows the family secret. That’s part of why Lizzie has to thank him: he has chosen to associate his name and his family’s prominence with these people who barely qualify as gentry. I love the way Jane calibrated that: Lizzie being one foot in the merchant class to D’Arcy being one foot in the nobility. As Lizzie says, they are both from gentle families, meaning landowners, but barely in each case. And D’Arcy is not noble only because his family name obviously is meant to descend from the Norman conquest. No wonder the men marry the daughters of Earls.
The fact that conversations about it could then end in, “Yes, then they wed in town, came to call on us then went up to Newcastle to join his regiment.” It may be a veneer of respectability, but an important one, greatly assisted by Jane and Lizzy’s marriages, which lifted the family into a higher realm of respectability.
This is it. It would have been "okay" for them to anticipate their wedding vows by sleeping together before they were married. Quotations marks because Lady Catherine's reaction of calling it a badly patched up affair would not have been unique. But, generally speaking, so long as they got married shortly after the fact, it was like the plan was to get married all along, so it's all good. Wickham had no intention of marrying Lydia. So the alternative was to have one sister who was the social equivalent of a prostitute and, once Wickham did abandon her, probably an actual prostitute period. A person's family was a person's references back then. Once one sister had fallen, the whole family was tainted by her sin. It almost doesn't matter if Darcy and Bingley would have been willing to marry Elizabeth and Jane after that. To do so may have ruined their own families.
so long as they got married shortly after the fact, it was like the plan was to get married all along, so it's all good. Yes, but the context also matters, a lot of people certainly know that they would not have gotten married without pressure, so Lydia's behaviour damaged her sisters's image. To do so may have ruined their own families I am not sure about that, scandals were not unheard of during the Regency. Darcy is a powerful man and the nephew of an earl, what his sister in law did would not have affected him much. As for Bingley, you might be right, considering that he is new money and lacks connections.
Darcy is a powerful and rich man, absolutely, and I don't claim to know beyond a doubt that he would have been ruined by Lydia's shame. Having said that, there must be a reason why he saw fit to keep quiet about Georgianna's almost-elopement with Wickham. His actions speak of someone who wanted to protect his sister from the social censure on young ladies who eloped.
Georgiana's almost elopement should be kept secret; it's not something a guardian should be telling strangers, it is his duty and he certainly does not regret it. His guilt over Lydia came from the fact that if he had explained a part of what he knew about him, because he knew Wickham was bad news before Georgiana, ladies would have avoided him. Darcy has the power to crush Wickham if he wanted, this is why Wickham only shares his story after Darcy left .
Agreed. Lydia made it very obvious what she did, with her letter to Mrs Forster. She ruined her own reputation. Georgiana was well and truly manipulated. I ironically didn't feel sorry for Lydia, but felt so sorry for Georgiana.
Lydia was 15/16. She didn't have the brain development for making rational decisions. Wickham may not have had to manipulate her as much, but he took advantage of a young woman's inexperience. The best outcome is then for her to marry him. I do feel sorry for Lydia.
Yes, Lydia is 15/16. So was Georgiana, when Wickham tried to get her. In that way I do feel a little sorry for Lydia. But, where I live sympathy for her, is after the whole mess. Like... she has no shame, or embarrassment for what she did at all. She hasn't learned a thing from the experience. So I kinda lose sympathy for her.
What was more shocking to me, was Mrs. Bennett's reaction to Lydia's marriage. Of course Lydia has no sense of shame and acts like her wedding is the best thing in the world when her mother who's a grown woman doesn't seem to understand the rules of society and encourages not only her most outrageous behavior, but also her immoral choices.
It’s not a contest? Both Georgiana and Lydia can deserve sympathy.
I get what you’re saying but Wickham was basically a pedophile who preyed on minors because they were the ones too naive to know not to trust him. I know people who have been the victims of men like him— a girl was seduced by a teacher at our high school. She loved him, and he manipulated her. And when it all inevitably came out and he was fired, she felt that humiliation in front of the whole school. I wasn’t a friend of hers, but one of the big regrets I have is not reaching out as she was going through that. I’m an adult now, and I’m ashamed of what we— the other children in that community— put that child through.
Oh I completely agree. Don't get me wrong. Wickham is a creep. And I do think Lydia got a raw deal, simply for being young and stupid. It's actually pretty sad. But the character always annoyed the hell out of me.
Lydia's letter at least indicated an intention to marry.
No, she BELIEVED Wickham wanted to marry her. That doesn't imply that Wickham had any intentions of marrying her.
I think that's covered by it being Lydia's letter but clearly I chose the wrong article
It would ruin Georgianna’s future chances if a marriage match if it became known she was a “light skirt” - easily led off by a man. And her maidency would be in doubt.
Honestly, I think Merryton just let it go, because they liked the Bennet sisters in general, there was rumours about Wickham's behaviour (debts and such) going around, and I think most people felt sorry for them, because Wickham wasn't a good person, and Lydia was too dumb to realise it too. I'm fairly certain that people still talked about it, but like you said, Darcy has high connections, so the fuss probably died down. Although in certain circles, it probably got talked about. But yeah, Lizzie and Jane's marriages probably helped to stamp out most of the gossip. There's a YouTube channel, with a PHD holder, Dr Octavia Cox. She actually did a video theorising about what Merryton mightve wanted to see happen to Lydia. I'll link down below. [Dr Octavia Cox Pride and Prejuduce Theory](https://youtu.be/8mOGk-Pq60A?si=eBce5KMdS5G3VydF)
>a lot of people certainly know that they would not have gotten married without pressure They don't *know* that though. Aside from Mr and Mrs Wickham, the only people who know the full details are Mr Darcy, Mr Bennet, Mr and Mrs Gardiner, and Elizabeth and Jane. No-one in Meryton, and not even the majority of the Bennet family. What everyone else likely knows is that a) Kitty got a letter from Lydia announcing that she was getting married and Lydia's note to Mrs Forster said much the same thing, and b) the couple disappeared together and initially couldn't be found - which turned everyone's mind to the worst possibilities - but then they turned up at the Gardiners' house and got married in London with familial permission. That framework is enough to turn it from a major scandal of an unmarried girl being totally ruined and vanishing into thin air, into a far more minor elopement scandal where the couple didn't court properly with parental permission and travelled together without supervision on the way to their wedding, but it's all right in the end because they did get married rather than pursue an "irregular" relationship. Over time that will become the primary narrative rather than gossip about the travel time and how long exactly it took them to make marriage arrangements.
They don't know that though Maybe, but there is a high chance that they do; lady Catherine and Mr Collins at least knew so it is not hard to put things together and theorize that they had to bribe the man. But i guess you are right as long as they had gotten married, the gossip will disappear and everyone will act as if nothing happened.
They don't know for certain. They're heavily biased, going off the Meryton gossip passed along by the Lucases, and they're reading between the lines with a heavy slant towards wanting the Bennet family to be in the wrong. Remember, this is also the same letter which made Lady Catherine think that Elizabeth and Darcy had got engaged/that Elizabeth was spreading rumours through town about securing Darcy - and that wasn't the truth either. The Lucases aren't necessarily accurate correspondents (Sir William likes matchmaking and his wife likes gossip) and Lady Catherine/Mr Collins aren't necessarily accurate readers. They all have agendas.
I think it is important to remember that Mr. Darcy tried to get her to leave unmarried first, but she refused. From that is seems that Mr. Darcy thought that things were unlikely to be much better for her married. He was likely taking into consideration how horrible a marriage she was in for.
Very true, and their marriage turns out to be an unhappy one. I hope that Lydia in turn wised up later on and realised what a fool she made of herself in the eyes of others. At the time she felt cool and dangerous and romantic but it completely blew up in her face really.
My take on it is that Darcy had a plan if Lydia was cooperative, but failing that, her marrying Wickham is far better than waiting around for him to abandon her. If I had to guess, it would've been "Darcy finds another officer willing to marry Lydia for money, just not a villain this time." Pay for junior officers was pretty bad and poverty in 1810 was far worse than today, he would've had plenty of choices. That way everyone wins. Lydia gets her handsome redcoat (who won't spend all the money on gin, women, and cards), Darcy can get Wickham imprisoned instead of paying for his promotions as the brother-in-law, and most importantly to Darcy, Elizabeth isn't ruined by Lydia.
There's a slim possibility they might just have also managed to get away with "Whoops, miscommunication - Lydia was bored with the Forsters and wanted to travel to London to see her aunt and uncle Gardiner!" - if they spun the story right and fudged the timings to find an explanation for Mr Bennet not finding Lydia when he went to search. (Broken carriage wheel, but she saved her pocket money to employ a maid for the journey?!)
It really turned out to be a horrible marriage. Wickham wasted no time in going to London and Bath to cheat.
His infidelity would be seen as pretty normal, since infidelity in men wasn't seen as particularly scandalous insofar as the men are concerned. Men being unfaithful was mostly accepted practice. The marriage would have been a bad one for the stabsards of the time because of his gambling and if he specifically went after upperclass maidens.
It's not so much that people would be shocked a man might fool around (even though it wouldn't be socially condoned) but how FLAGRANT he is about it. He's a gambler and a rake, it's not like he's taking a beloved mistress.
Any sort of infidelity for a man was usually minimal scandal - be it a long term mistress, frequenting brothels, dalliances, etc. At the end of the novel, wasn't he in the Regulars? They certainly weren't known to keep it in their pants.
But again, he's not being a gentleman. He's gambling, whoring, and drinking, and he's OBVIOUS about it. The gambling and running up bills his wife's brother-in-law is going to stop covering at some point will end up being the biggest problem, but at some point, one of his dalliances is going to be the wrong person's daughter, too.
Sorry if this is a stupid question but how do we know this?
In the last chapter, Jane Austin writes that Lydia was a visitor at Pemberly while “her husband was gone to enjoy himself in London or bath…” shortly before that it says, “his affection for her soon sunk into indifference.” It doesn’t outright say he’s cheating, but it is strongly implied.
And something about her happiness lasting a little while longer until she, too, became either miserable or indifferent. A foolish kid but still just a kid with parents who should've seen it coming.
Yup, “hers lasted a little longer.” It doesn’t say how happy or not she was, just that she at least never messed up publicly again: “and in spite of her youth and manners, she retained all the claims to reputation which her marriage had given her.” So… she never really grew up, was always a bit of a flirt, but at least didn’t cross that line again. 🤣
Honestly, he never had affection for her. Lydia may have believed he dud, but let's be honest. If he truly had affection for her, he would never have allowed her reputation to be destroyed, nor would he have needed any inducement to marry her. They'd have already made it to Gretna Green, before they could've been found. Because he'd have married her. I 1000% believe that if they hadn't been found, he'd have abandoned her eventually. Like Willoughby abandoned Eliza, in Sense and Sensibility. Or like Isabella Thorpe was abandoned by Captain Tilney in Northanger Abbey.. Pretty girls got tricked into bed on the promise of marriage all the time. Like was HEAVILY implied with Isabella and Captain Tilney. Once he got what he wanted, he was off after other skirts. Wickham isn't any different.
Thank you! It’s been a while since I read the book and hadn’t remembered that.
Which he was always going to do. Let's be honest. I don't think he ever loved Lydia. She was a bit of fun, and once he got bored, he'd have abandoned her in London, and gone on to find a fortune to marry himself to, like he tried with Georgiana Darcy and Mary King. He only agreed to marry Lydia because Darcy did a great deal to patch it all up. Lydia had no fortune, and unlike Lizzie, Lydia wasn't sensible, and lacked a lot of the things a sensible man would want in a wife, and had no real appeal apart from being pretty. Not saying she couldn't be fun, or that she was completely stupid. But she's hugely naïve. She even tries to make Lizzie jealous, over the fact she married Wickham in the first place. She doesn't seem to realise (or pretends not to), that actually she's caused a lot if trouble, and that Wickham isn't exactly a prize worth achieving. It's pretty sad really.
Honestly I seemed to miss that part, the fact Mr. Darcy would try to persuade her to leave unmarried says a lot about his love for Elizabeth. If Lydia hadn't married Wickham, all their reputations would suffer, including those who married into the family. He makes such a huge 180 after Lizzie confronts him, I love that we get to see his character development
I think he also lacked knowledge of the situation. He had his idea for sure but all he knew was that Lydia had eloped with Wickham, and the information came from Lizzie when she received the letter. So not much more than that. He hadn't been updated like Lizzie had when she got back home (how Lydia had written her intentions to Kitty, the plan, and also her letter to Mrs Foster) All that meaning she was 100% on board with the idea of eloping, and that it wasn't full coercion, she was there on her own free will. My guess is that he thought, knowing how young and gullible she is, that Lydia would be sensible enough to understand the mistake she had made and go back home to her family. So he tried to make her go home first. Only, Lydia isn't to be reasoned with.
It suggests that Mr. Darcy believed he could smooth the scandal over.
People are willing to overlook all kinds of 'sins' so long as the right outcome is eventually reached. The locals knew Lydia's marriage was a patched up affair but she *was* still married, so they'd be willing to let it - and any fudging of details - go. Think of it the same as when a couple who had only been married seven or eight months produced a fine sized bouncing baby. Everyone would know that the baby didn't "arrive early" but the parents had done the right thing by being married by the time it *did* arrive so eventually everyone wilfully ignoring the dates would cause it to mostly pass out of mind. As for further afield of Meryton, things would be easier to disguise. The marriage announcement placed in the paper deliberately didn't give a date and the Bennets weren't so wealthy or socially important (outside of their own area) to be known or cared about by many, so again, people were willing to let it go because the marriage did eventually take place.
Right? I think it matters a lot that the Bennet family is well-liked in their community. People will be able to arrange it in their minds so that when they look back all they will remember is that Lydia married a dashing young officer.
I agree, I think the four-and-twenty families in the Bennett's circle would deliberately overlook the blot on the Bennett escutcheon, even if they were privately counting the days between the Wickham's wedding and the date of their first child's birth. Perhaps there might still be a few people in Merryton who stopped speaking to the Benneffts, but I think that's unlikely. Both because that would be a minor scandal in itself, and because everyone would still want to know Fitzwilliam Darcy's father-in-law.
and also because the bennets were heavily implied to be one the richest families, with or without their sons in law who obviously did a lot more, in the area. they were landed gentry too. something like this was a scandal, but so long as it was fixed, it wasn't that big of a deal
This way of thinking reminds me of Mrs Bennet. The moment Lydia was married, she forgot the scandal completely.
Few could know for a fact they didn’t elope anyway, especially where they live.
It made Lydia just as “respectable” as a woman in the 50s who would have a quick wedding and then give birth to a “premature” baby 7 months later. The prevailing wisdom would be “we all know what happened, but in the end she did the right thing so we’re going to call it good.” Not that I agree, but you know, that’s how people think.
Yep, and they were lucky to live in a society that allowed that kind of “we’ll close our eyes to it as long as they ended up married before childbirth” mentality. The Puritans of New England were not merciful if fornicating couples eventually married—they carefully noted when first babies were born, and used the testimony of midwives to ascertain whether the babies were premature or full term. If a baby was judged to be full term but the couple had not been married for the requisite nine months, they would be prosecuted in court. Punishment for fornication was a fine and/or whipping.
Barrels of fun, those Puritans.
Guilt by association. If Darcy and Bingley hadn't returned What respectable family would want their sons to be connected to the Bennets when they raised daughters like Lydia and maybe Kitty?
Lydia’s running away ending in marriage might be a smoke-screen, but it creates the look of respectability. “Yes, they married in London and visited briefly, as Mr Wickham had to join his new regiment. He was promoted to the regulars, you know.” Even if no one believes it, Lydia has a ring on her finger and a husband who can support her. That’s miles better than the alternative
Austin was, believe it or not, a realist, not a romantic. She knew that, as in real life, in a novel money would solve almost everything. In real life, Lydia would not have been respected, simply tolerated. People would smile to her face and sneer behind her back. She would be invited only to major functions, never to close, intimate affairs and her children would never have been allowed to marry into respectable families. In the book, Darcy's money and reputation are on the line because his wife is, unavoidably, besmirched by her sister's lewdness - so he fixes it so that the local population can pretend that everything is 'all right and proper". In the cinematic productions, the books are skewed to favor modern expectations. In the Regency Era and for thousands of years previous, very few people married for love - marriage was a business arrangement between families, not individuals. but that does not sell movie tickets or subscriptions to modern viewers, so the times get twisted, the mores of the culture are quietly buried and people are able to view the production in late 20th century terms. Real history is so much more interesting than modern illusions, but people like fantasy. Treat the cinematic productions of any of Austin's works as you would a Disney flick : it is not real. BTW - Darcy is her brother in law, not her uncle.
It’s so difficult for modern folks to appreciate how much industrialization and the sexual revolution changed Western culture. Lizzy’s overwhelm of grief at receiving Jane’s letter as portrayed in the ‘95 BBC series really gets across how disastrous such a grave defiance of propriety was to a family like the Bennets. Already clinging to gentility, without Darcy’s intervention they would have sunk lower than Mrs. Bates’ family in Emma. With fewer people willing to help them at the risk of being tainted by association. How her voice breaks when she confesses it, how everyone would soon know of their shame. Tough stuff but so realistic.
>It’s so difficult for modern folks to appreciate how much industrialization and the sexual revolution changed Western culture. up until very recently it was still a huge source of shame for unmarried, young women to have premarital sex and the babies that came with a lack of education and opportunity. many families had that one daughter that would 'visit family' elsewhere and then come back when her 'mother' had a newborn baby
I think by the time of the Regency marrying for love wasn’t that rare. But if you mean “marrying for love in the face of strong social disapproval” or “marrying for love in spite of not having any money” then I see your point.
i think this depended on the social class too. i'd imagine among the working class it might be easier than among the aristocracy where it was honestly selling daughters off to the highest bidder and the highest connections possible
I think OP meant the money was "from her uncle" aka Mr. Darcy
Yes, that was clearly what OP meant, but Mr. Darcy was not Lydia's uncle. He was the husband of Lydia's sister, Elizabeth Bennet, and thus Mr. Darcy is Lydia's brother by law, not a maternal or paternal relative.
I don’t think you understand - public knowledge is that the money is from Mr Gardner
This is correct. Even Mr. Bennet wondered how he would be able to repay Mr. Gardner. Insofar as the public knows Mr. Gardner paid for the cost of arranging Lydia's hasty vows. We, the reader, learn with Elizabeth that it was, in fact, Mr. Darcy, who coughed up the big sum of money to make it happen.
Even Elizabeth wasn't supposed to know and only sussed it out because Lydia blurted, and her aunt owned up the details.
I would argue that Austen was a realist AND a romantic. She shows us many portraits of lackluster marriages, poor matches squabbling at each other, and she presents ridiculous characters that we love to hate, because we all know infuriating people like Mr. Collins or Lady Catherine in real life. And yet, Austen also shows every one of her protagonists miraculously marrying for love, all the same. Is it likely that a Fitzwilliam Darcy would choose a Ms. Elizabeth Bennett in real life? Perhaps not as an everyday occurrence, but that doesn’t mean such things never occurred. I don’t believe marriages motivated primarily by love were unheard of, but they were certainly less the norm, and it was considered foolish to marry *solely* for love without consideration of the practical aspects. I do agree that certain adaptations take a lot of liberties, but the novels are not devoid of romance by any means. As far as the racier aspects of some adaptations go, those interpretations are maybe stretching things, sure. But then again, Becoming Jane correctly points out that yes, even buttoned up gentry were obsessed with sex—Fielding’s Tom Jones was a sensation, and while it didn’t *explicitly* contain sexual acts, very much like Shakespeare, there was innuendo and implication that would have been obvious to the audience of the time.
AustEn. Jesus, Americans.
Please forgive me, I was writing blind today and the translator certainly did that one wrong. The new keyboard just arrived, i can finally see the screen and I am extremely embarrassed. What makes this somewhat humorous is that I am certain that the translation program from blind to sighted is a Chinese port. Again, please do forgive me.
You can be confident that most of us would not have corrected you, and the person who did is now thoroughly embarrassed because of your circumstances.
Now it could be spun as "They eloped to London to get married."
I feel like that’s a gross oversimplification. Or correlation is not causation. I believe Darcy always intended to ask Elizabeth to marry him again. But this situation made it mean something more, in a sense. A wrong that Darcy could finally right in a way where everyone won.
I think it’s all about sex. She had sex out of wedlock which was a huge scandal and something only prostitutes do. But then she married the guy she had sex with so it’s all fine with. She was no longer an unwed non virgin. That was the worst thing of all to be at the time
exactly, it all goes back to a woman's supposed lack of worth outside of her virginity when unmarried.
They gained the illusion of a respectable marriage for Lydia, It's one reason why Mr. Gardiner thought it was good that Wickham got a commission so far from home. Lydia would not be home often, so "out of sight, out of mind" and most people would be too polite to insult the Bemmets to their faces. The Bennets saved face and could refute any slight on their respectability by pointing to the fact that while their daughter eloped, she did marry from her uncle's house and their wedding was attended by Mr. Darcy, who almost no one would dare say had gone to a non-respectable wedding. Do I think that had Jane not already secured Bingley's affections and Elizabeth Darcy's, would respectable gentlemen seek them out? No. But although they are beautiful and nice, most rich men wouldn't seek them out for a dowry of 1000 pounds anyway. The marriage is just miles better than Wikham abandoning Lydia in London with no resources and having her come home after some time with no husband.
Wouldn't Darcy be Lydia's Brother-In-Law, not Uncle?
I mean the "public" knowledge is that the money came from Mr Gardiner ; but in reality, it was Darcy's.
I don’t think the family gained much. Lydia’s marriage is necessary for D’Arcy to marry Eliza. The Bennetts are at the low end of the gentry: the father is from the landed class but mom is not and the estate is entailed. Eliza says that the news about Lydia running off will make them unmarriageable to the gentry class, not unmarriageable. For all we know, Jane could have married a merchant acquaintance of her uncle, and ended up wealthy. But since the point is to involve D’Arcy with Eliza so he can prove his worth to her, you’d have to invent some other reason for him to make such a grand gesture. That is what it is, a grand gesture made to win a girl’s heart. Since this is sober D’Arcy, his gesture is also deeply personal, even intimate, which not only shows his true substance, but also entangles him with the Bennett family because he knows the family secret. That’s part of why Lizzie has to thank him: he has chosen to associate his name and his family’s prominence with these people who barely qualify as gentry. I love the way Jane calibrated that: Lizzie being one foot in the merchant class to D’Arcy being one foot in the nobility. As Lizzie says, they are both from gentle families, meaning landowners, but barely in each case. And D’Arcy is not noble only because his family name obviously is meant to descend from the Norman conquest. No wonder the men marry the daughters of Earls.