Darcy is playing billiard by himself Isn't what they call pocket billiard? ;-) An advance notice to the Brit fans: BBC2 TV is preparing a program about 1990s - called "I Love 1990s", in a series usually screened on Saturdays at 9 p.m. - and one of the subjects they are researching for 1995 is Darcymania. Don't know when it will be shown yet.

Ooops again. Please insert "that" where appropriate ;-) .

Yes, I posted a message about this a long time ago, as I was contacted by the BBC. I asked for volunteers to be interviewed for the program. I know at least one has been contacted. Have you been interviewed?

Hi all, am coming out of lurkdom (don't faint Evelyn or Karen)for a few minutes. Was flipping channels and happened upon CNN with Marial Hemingway as guest on Larry King. I didn't see much but I believe she said Londinium is scheduled to be shown on HBO September 2, back to back with other Mike Binder movie ... name of which escapes me right now. They also apparently showed a clip (probably small and possibly just Marial--I didn't see it) of Londinium. Will post quickly in case someone wants to catch the replay of Larry King later tonight and have get more thorough info.

Oops, didn't see your post first, Karen--shoulda known I couldn't beat you to the punch ;-)

*just picked myself off the floor* LOL! So you missed the clip too? I'm setting my VCR for the replay. All they did was talk about her sister and her grandfather that I got antsy and went into the other room. When I went back I heard the movie names and that there had been clips, I speed-dialed Evelyn and she missed it too! ...never thought I'd live to see the day. :-)

WELCOME LYNDA!!!! Dear Buddy ...Now don't go away. You're here now...there's no going back to lurkdom!!

Hey Evelyn, wouldn't you know, in my haste, I posted on wrong board, DUH! Think I will slink back to lurkdom now . . . (anyway, my computer crashed after I posted, maybe that was a sign!)

Oh noooooooooo you don't. Feel like I should've deleted my news posting so you could do it but it's too late.

Just seen the first four episodes(P&P)... and I've come across another Darcy-moment: The look he has when he says:"Yes, I call it a very easy distance", looking down as if he doesn't really dare to meet her eyes... Back to the last two episodes;o)

Stumbled on the Rocker Horror P&P2script, but can't seem to find it again (thought it would be funny to try it out) Could anyone help? continuing congratulating myself on discovering this place...am I in Heaven??(*sigh*) Pocket billiard???*lol* What a thought;oD

K:Have you been interviewed? No, but they have asked Three Deers (firth.com) for some info. Pocket billiard???*lol* What a thought;oD Pulling your leg(s) as Regency trousers had no sufficiently deep pockets... there was a watch pocket, of course, but that's a separate story altogether... ;-)

Yes, that occurred to me afterward that they would've contacted you as well.

Perhaps out of curiosity if nothing else.

I'm beginnig a scrapbook -thought of using some of your lovly comments...hope you don't mind...?? What is to become of us? Sometimes I catch myself in smiling dreamingly, while thinking of that hansome guy..."What is to be done? I know very well that nothing can be done...How are such feelings to be worked on?";oD -well, never mind...I've wouldn't under any circumstances have them altered;o)

CALLING ALL DARCY FANS! BBC TV is URGENTLY seeking Darcy fans - they want to talk to ANYONE who feels they are/have been constant, unshakeable, devoted, super Darcy maniacs. But time is running short! BBC will be filming in New York on Monday and in Los Angeles a little later in the week - if any American Darcymaniac wishes to talk to them, please let Three Deers (at www.firth.com) know so I can put you in touch. British Darcymaniacs are also eagerly sought!!! Interested parties may use the following e-mail address initially (but please HURRY!): threedeers@yahoo.com Unfortunately The Republic of Pemberley is closed until Monday - any ideas where else we may find Darcy fans?

So I rented the video of A&E's production of Emma today. It stars a pre-Pearl Harbour Kate Beckinsdale. I haven't gotten very far into it, coz I keep rewinding back to the P&P trailer that ran at the start of the tape. Oddly enough, it showed a bunch of snippets ( the famous 'Wot, stalking back to Rosings after the first proposal ) in the trailer, that aren't in the A&E broadcast version. I know, coz thats what I have on tape and I'm seeing these bits for the fist time and boy o boy, are they yummy or what ? That angry, tortured look on his face as he leaves Huntsford Parsonage just gets me right here !!!!

Our firth.com and colinfirth.com domains were renewed today though 8/12/2002 and 8/16/2002. They've been active since August 12 and 16 of 1998.

By the way, in this A&E production of Emma, there is a fabulous portrait of Frank Churchill, one of the central characters. It is very life like and doesn't makes its object look stilted at all. So if the producers of Emma,( a aproject with a smaller budget than P&P,) were able to drum up a decent portrait...why, o why wasn't a similar effort put into the portrait of Mr Darcy in P&P ? The Darcy pic is MUCH more important to the P&P storyline and the pic gets much more screen time.....but my goodnes, its absolutley awful. It doesn't even look like him, does it ?

Thanks Terry.We appreciate your efforts. Webmasters: Any updates in the pipeline?

Webmasters: Any updates in the pipeline? Well... can't access cf.com by ftp presently, but I think/hope Terry is already working on it. After that we may consider removing some broken links, and add a pic or two. ;-)

Go to it ;-)

I have been re-watching P&P2 lately, and subsequently felt the urge to check out the continuing adventures of EB and FD (in addition to those at fanfic, of course). Do any of you recommend any of the post-P&P2 "literature", such as "The Diary of Fitzwilliam Darcy", etc. I have been tempted to give a couple of them a try, but wanted to get a little feedback before I do. The reviews on Amazon appear to be mixed.

I've only read The Diary of Henry Fitzwilliam Darcy and thought it was OK. Can't remember too many details however. Weren't there a bunch of mistakes? However, the *good* parts were pretty good as I recall. ;-) There's a gender bender contemporary update that I liked called Lions and Liquorice.

Thanks. I may just give the "Diary" a try, as long as the "good parts" are worth it. I had not heard about the second one. Will check it out.

Louise and Karen, look on #148. I've submitted The Miami Herald's write up (cogle@herald.com)of a book that could be very interesting to fans of Austen (it may have P & P2 tidbits as well). Karen, does the above address enable one to pick up the picture of the book cover that was included? It's very cute and was definitely inspired by P & P2! Sorry I'm not computer literate enough to do it myself.

The above is an email address. I have checked the newspaper site and there isn't any illustration. Actually, the best places to talk about Austen books/sequels are here or on Fan Fic (130).

Book cover from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141001925/qid=996592461/sr=1-3/ref=sc_b_3/107-6849898-0887708

Thanks, Karen. The cover looks so much better in color. It was in B/W and much smaller in the article. I think those are PF Flyers ;-). Why do I feel like Mr. Collins on the dance floor? Can't seem to figure out which way to go when posting...should I put the article over here?

The lady's got very sensible shoes, but what has that man got on his head?

Whoever did that cover should be shot...What creeps. Gaaaaagh...are those red trainers that she's wearing? With a star, makes them Converse.Not even cool Nike's.

I think the artist has a good sense of humor. Lizzie is a walker and a runner and that's what the shoes suggest. It's cute. It's no different than the Bond/Darcy cartoon though that was a combination of two characters. They're slightly exaggerated, that's all. It is also apparently *Jane Austen for the layman* (though written by a college professor). It's interesting, light, beach reading ;-). So I say it's cute.

Lizzie is a walker and a runner and that's what the shoes suggest. That's Lizzie??? Ohmigod...with that face? And so that makes the guy Mr. Darcy? Sense of humor? A kindergartener could have done better. (Lora)So I say it's cute. Cute for *you*...but I'm sticking to my story... "creepy" ...not *my* beach reading.

Yikes that guy in the cartoon looks like Mr Collins

I have the hardcover version of that book, and the book is very good, and fun reading. I must admit I like the HC cover art better, though: http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670874256.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif

(Evelyn) That's Lizzie??? Ohmigod...with that face? Naw, that's Jane. Cool off.

Ooops, I meant Austen, not Bennet.

Evelyn) That's Lizzie??? Ohmigod...with that face? (Karen)Naw, that's Jane. Cool off. Whew!! The HC Jane...Austen looks like a sister to Alfred E.Neuman No? Glad to hear the book is good & funny. Redeems the covers. "Can't judge..." ;-)))

I can't check 'cause I'm at work, but I seem to remember that the HC pic was based on the only extant pic of JA, but they added a smile? So if JA's the one on the PB cover, who's the guy supposed to be?

I've been rewatching P&P2 a lot lately, and have a question about something that has been puzzling me: whenever Bingley and Darcy go to visit Longbourne together, the maid always announces them in that order (Bingley before Darcy). Doesn't she know that FD is the grandson (and cousin) of an Earl? And that he is much more droolworthy in every way? Why then does she introduce him last? Is she a closet pre-Marxist? A strict alphabetarian? A believer in affability before Beauty? For some reason, I would expect that the protocol of the day would put Mr. Darcy before Mr. Bingley (duh) at all times. Do any of you know why they did not in P&P2?

First of all, thank goodness we have some activity at #112 again. It's been awfully dead here of late. Woo Hoo, lets get to it. My take, is that yes, the maid should have announced Darcy first, as he is undoubtidly the social superior of the two. In a strictly formal household, like that of Mr Collins or Lady Catherine, the proper social protocol would definatley be followed and, the Mr Darcys of the world would always be announced first. Any servant who screwed up, would be probably be reprimanded or fired, because of the resulting "insult" to the person of higher rank. However, the Bennett household is not so grand, and matters of that sort are probably treated a bit more casually. The maid is probably a simple country girl and nowhere near as schooled in matters of etiquette as maids in other posher households. She probably doesn't even know which of the two men has the higher social rank, to her a gentleman is just a gentleman. There is also the possibility that sweet, affable Bingley endeared himself to the maid, with a nice smile and that he rememberd her name from his last visit,so she announced him first. Darcy on the other hand, was probably really nervous about meeting Lizzie again and was quiet and withdrawn. The maid may also have been imtimidated by his reputation as a proud, cold man. ( Remember, after all of Wickhams badmouthing of him, all of Meryton turns against him. ) The maid has also had a year of listening to Mrs Bennet rave about how wonderful Bingley is, thus leading her to announce him first, knowing how eager Mrs B. is to have him wooing her daughter again.

Good Lord, where IS everyone ?

Louise and Beth, I believe all your reasons are valid for the maid's error (particularly like the pre-Marxist possibility).;-) My take is that she, along with everyone else in the county, favors Bingley over Darcy. And the second time she knew he is going to marry Jane. Darcy's just a nuisance. Hey, I love discussing this important stuff. It's always bothered me that no one in the Bennet family except Mr. Collins seems to notice that Lizzy is dancing with Darcy. You'd think Mrs. Bennet would have had something to say.

I always thought the reason Hill announced Bingley first was because he had a 'card' (didn't they always present cards back then?) and was still a resident of the county... maybe not. I'm glad you brought it up LouiseJ! (Heide) It's always bothered me that no one in the Bennet family except Mr. Collins seems to notice that Lizzy is dancing with Darcy. You'd think Mrs. Bennet would have had something to say. JA really didn't bring up either, except to say that the by reading her nieghbors looks of amazement that they had noticed. But I agree Heide, perhaps if the general populace didn't think so poorly of Darcy then maybe they would have done more than accept it as compliment to Jane and Bingley... 'cause you know Mrs. B shouted to the entire neighborhood that her Jane was staying at Mr. Bingley's house as his guest and that Lizzy was merely the chaperone...

Hmmmmm....why did the rest of the Bennets not noticing that Lizzie was dancing with Darcy ???? I guess they were all too preoccupied with their own affairs...Jane with Bingley, Lydia and Kitty with the officers, Mary with her music and Mrs B. gossiping with the neighbours. I suppose it IS odd that her father didn't notice who she is dancing with, considering she is his favourite daughter and that only a short while before, Lizzie swore she would never dance with Darcy after he slighted her at the Assembley Rooms. I also don't think Lizzie has a close enough relationship with her younger sisters or her mother, that would warrant them really paying close enough attention to what she gets up to at a ball. The two people who really do care ( Jane and Mr. Bennet ) probably have enough tact and delicacy NOT to make their surprise evident, when they saw her dancing with Darcy.

This is my 2-cents: Why the maid always announces in the order of Bingley before Darcy? 1. Bingley was a prestigious rich resident of Netherfield Park. Darcy was mere a guest of Bingley's. Darcy was only a gentleman not an Earl himself no matter how rich he was ;-) 2. Bingley was a well known husband candidate for Jane in the household. Darcy was believed a proud man who took no interest in the local girls including the Bennet's. why did the rest of the Bennets not noticing that Lizzie was dancing with Darcy ? They did notice it and so did everyone in the Ball, IMO. But the reaction would be a sympathy (and puzzled a little too ;-)) for Lizzy who had to endure such a disagreeable man by dancing with him - poor girl!. This reminds me what Mrs. Bennet said when she suggested Lizzy to take a walk with Darcy: "I am quite sorry, Lizzy, that you should be forced to have that disagreeable man all to yourself. But I hope you will not mind it: it is all for Jane's sake, you know; and there is no occasion for talking to him, except just now and then. So, do not put yourself to inconvenience." You don't mention something that will be a pain to some one, do you? Besides, every one knew that Darcy was a proud man who didn't take a fancy on the inferiors. So dancing with one wouldn't have any consquence. Annie who can't resist any discussion about Mr. Darcy ;-)

Re the maid not acknowledging Darcy first: I still go with the pre-Marxist theory. I thought she had a proletarian gleam in her eye. I remember a great line I once read a great line (from a character in an English book): "I'm just like the proletariat--boring from within." I remember thinking that the latter was an excellent description of Karl Marx and his writings, TSTVL (or at least the part I had to read in political science. Marx might have had some great joke books that I didn't get around to, if Groucho, Harpo and Chico are any indication.) As for the Bennett's maid, for whatever the reason, she obviously saved the best for last.

Bingley was Bennets' "next door" neighbour and Darcy was a guest staying in his house - therefore in that particular situation Bingley took precendence as the more important of the two visitors. When in Netherfield and neighbourhood, Darcy was just someone in Bingley's tow, regardless of his social superiority.

There is an article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education on new Jane Austen scholarship (titled "Sex and Sensibility: Scholars Redefine Jane Austen.") that focuses on the debate as to whether it is appropriate to research the sexual undertones (or lack thereof) in her writings vs. the asexual nature of some of her work. Its a fascinating article. Here's the link: http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i49/49a01001.htm

Wow, that is one heckuva' article. There is almost too much too take in. However, I do feel it would be a shame if too many authors induldge in fanciful conjecturings on Jane Austen's sexuality in her own life and in her books. While its fun for us to ponder on it ( propmpted a lot by mega hunks like Colin Firth ) I think is does JA no favours, by broadcasing these theories to the world at large. I'm all for scholarly exploration of her works. But coming up with and publishing crazy notions, that she and Cassandra were gay is just ridiculous, wrong and very disrespectful of Jane herself. I wonder if these authors ( who may have better qualifications than we do,) truely love her as we do and, if they love her for HERSELF not what THEY want her to be. It seems to me, that in a time when it gets harder and harder to come up with a new angle,( on an author who has been researched in depth for 200 years,) these acedemics are exploiting Jane for their own ends. They get all the publicity/notariety that attends coming up with this bold new theory, but poor Janes name gets dragged thru the mud as a result. I don't think thats fair. I don't want to seem close minded to new ideas on long dead authors. However, Jane Austen is what she is. There are no direct sexual references in her book. Any theories that we come up with, are always going to be the products of our own minds and wishes, and not Jane Austens pen. Ok, phew.....steps down off soap box

Yeah, what a bunch of turkies, trying to turn Jane into a "modern" woman. I think that she just met her "Darcy" when young and lost him. She never got over it (would Elizabeth have gotten over it? would you? I think not!) Your heart would probably bleed for her if you could read the true story. She always gave her characters (well, the good ones, anyway) happy endings to their love affairs. It's too bad she didn't get the same. We love JA just as she is, so don't try to change her into something she's not.

How interesting. The Cambridge set of books sounds like a winner (and a budget-breaker). And they quoted F.R. Leavis. :) Seems like Janet Todd in the last paragraph says it well: "Austen becomes in a sense much funnier and more acute if you put her in context. Because quite often she's satirizing her sisters. She finds them, I think, moving, but also ridiculous." I (personally) think that this is where some of the films fall down. If you take the story out of context, it just doesn't work as powerfully.

I agree with all of your comments. But as a historian, myself, I do have to agree/defend with the comment of Beth: that in a time when it gets harder and harder to come up with a new angle. That's just it. We as academics, are dependent upon getting a new angle on a subject. I don't doubt the scholarship the literary people (mentioned in the article) who have suggested different (or shocking, to some) readings into Jane's work. Nor do I think that they are trying to tarnish her image, per se...but rather, get people discussing her, disagreeing with their ideas, and furthering field. I agree with you, Laura, on the films. Many of them ignore historical context, and concentrate almost too much (if that is possible) on the romantic aspects of the stories. I thought the comments on the 1999 Mansfield Park were dead on. What did everyone think about P&P2 in terms of showing the class relationships? I'm curious to what you all thought.

Liz I thought the depiction of class relationships in P+P2 was almost non-existent - the servants hardly existed as real characters so it wasn't possible to have much of an idea of relationships. One instance where there was a contrast in behaviour, was outside the Meryton assembly where one of the coachmen says something like "I'll show them ..... " and falls in the trough, i.e (to my mind) showing coarse lower class people messing about drinking and falling over while nice upper class ones dance politely and behave properly. mind you having said all that, Mr Hurst appears to be a bit of a drinker and an oaf, although whether this says anything about class I'm not sure? The thing that is striking about P+P2, IMHO, is that it shows how clearly stratified one particular class is - i.e the upper class - Darcy is above Bingley on account of wealth, Bingleys are above Bennets on account of how long it is since their money was aquired in trade; meanwhile Lady C bemoans the fact that although Darcy may be rich he is without title on his father's side, therefore he's a gentleman but no more than that, so Lizzie can claim equity (he is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter). JA, I think, had an exquisite sense of the ridiculous snobbery around at that time, and poked fun at it. all this waffle from a non-scholar! forgive me if I'm wrong.

Mr Hurst appears to be a bit of a drinker and an oaf From what I have gleaned on the subject, that was the more usual appearance of a great many so-called gentlemen of the period in question. But surely Jane Austen did not aim to explore class differences in depth. Her subtle and yet exquisite satirical eye was turned towards the relationship within the society of her immediate acquaintance.

As to the class difference in P&P, I thought the Longbourn house and estate a bit too large, to give the impression that they are only upper middle class, or lowest of the upper classes. I thought it was a tought stretch to view someone who was brought up in such a large, beautiful, old country house, as not worthy of a man like Darcy. Yes, is it nowhere near as palatial as Pemberley or Rosings, but it is still pretty damm spectacular. But maye I'm looking at it from a modern perspective, where it would be seen as a very desirable property. I suppose to the Lady Catherines of the world, it is nothing short of a hovel. Then again, its hard to portray Longbourn as big enought to support a family of 7 and give Mr Bennet the income of a gentleman and, still show that thE Bennets are nowhere near the levels of the Bingley and Darcys. EKelly, I'm sorry if I unintentionally slighted your profession. I really didn't mean that ALL academics looking for new angles on old material, necesarily exploit her. What I meant, was that academics of integrity like youself, study her works to further peoples knowledge and interest in their subject. But a small majority are less interested in accuracy, and more in their own resulting fame, if they can come up with something really juicy or salacious. In these days of the 30 second sound bite, its always gonna be the " Two headed lesbian Alien runs of with corpse of Jane Austen " theory that trickles down to the masses, or appears on Larry King and not the work of more serious, scholarly academics, mores the pity. Maybe I'm just biased. My sister dated a guy for 5 years who was working the supposed definitive history of Silicon Valley, its creation and the impact on computers. It turned out his book was all about Bill Gates sex life and that he was only dating my sister, coz he thought she could get him closer to Bill's ex girlfriends. So maybe I'm just predudiced......now a definitive biography of Fitwilliam Darcy, thats a whole different story....LOL

No offense taken, Beth! Not to worry. But I do enjoy hearing the opinions of those not on a campus day in and out, who are still very connected to Jane's work, through personal interest or otherwise. : ) I would agree with you, definitely, there are people that I come across on a daily basis in a variety of fields, who are "researching" and publishing solely for their own personal gain (read: fame, fortune, etc.), that detract from academe as a whole. I guess, I just don't throw everything out of the realm of possibility, until I have been walked on and taken (which I try not to let happen too often). I've never been to the trust house that they used for Longbourne, but in my own studies of the period (my field is Georgian England, social history), I think its about the right size, for a man of what I'm guessing Mr. Bennet's income was (approx. 2-3,000 1800 currency...can't remember what that equates to in today's money). Echo, I think you picked up on the main issue that Austen's work brings to light. She was of the upper middle/middle class ("middling sorts"), and she, along with other writers of her time (Feilding, Richardson, etc), bring to life for us what they experienced, or witnessed. Another film you all might enjoy, which shows the royal circles of the times, is The Madness of King George. And on the flip side, a bit of contemporary historical fiction, The Secret Wife of George IV. Both show a different, though not so different, class maneuvering, and though the time frame is about 20 years or so before where P&P is dated, it still shows an interesting side of English politics and classes. Sorry about all this. I don't mean to sound so...up-ety; I just get excited talking about this! I don't get to have really open discussions of this in some of my seminar classes...I don't mean to be giving a talk...I just love discussing this particular topic, especially P&P. I use it in practically all my classes, and show clips from P&P2. Although, its pretty hard to justify the pond scene to my dept. chair... ; )

Although, its pretty hard to justify the pond scene to my dept. chair... ; ) An exploration of the ramifications of horse travel on country living in 19th century England.

How about the use of aquatic sports as a metapor for the emotional repression of male 19th century literary heros ? Anyway, you actually get PAID to discuss Fitwilliam Darcy day after day ? Holy Moley, can I come back as you in my next lifetime ?

I thought the depiction of class relationships in P+P2 was almost non-existent I think that maybe what we Americans think of as "class distinction" and what the early 19th century English "gentleman/woman" thought of as "class distinction" are quite different. Jane Austen was only marginally interested in the class distinction between the servants and their masters. She was interested in the subtle ways that "gentlemen/women" distinguished themselves from each other--and she held what she considered bad examples up to ridicule where she considered it necessary. You'll notice that she pokes the most fun at people who think that title and wealth are the most important characteristics that a "gentleman" can have (Lady Catherine and Mr. Collins). She reserves the most praise for those "gentlemen" who treat their servants and dependents kindly and generously, and who consider themselves as stewards of their estates and property for the generations to come (rather than seeking to squander it all on themselves, leaving their heirs penniless). By the end of P&P2, Darcy has been shown to be the former. A man who was considered a "gentleman", but who did not have enough money or property to live on, had to work--he was a soldier, a clergyman, etc. (Only certain professions were considered acceptable for "gentlemen".) Austen obviously doesn't think much of the "military gentleman" who overspent his income and spent his time drinking and gambling (and looking for a rich girl he could convince to elope). They were not "honorable", even though some still considered them "gentlemen". Gentlewomen with money tried to marry gentlemen of equal or greater wealth and status. Woe be to the woman who married beneath her--such as Fanny Price's mother in Mansfield Park. Gentlewomen without money tried to "marry up" (i.e., married to attain greater wealth and status). If they did not, they were doomed to be like Miss Bates in Emma, or worse, governesses or companions. Jane Austen's heroines married "up". Whatever else anyone could say about Elizabeth Bennett--she married spectactularly up. So I think you could say that Jane Austen was extremely interested in depicting class relationships--specifically the relationships of the varying strata of her own "class". Although, its pretty hard to justify the pond scene to my dept. chair... Oh, come now. The pond scene is obviously crucial to the historical and socio-economic perspective of P&P2. . . Mr. Darcy, as the wealthiest man in England, is shown in the pond scene to have such a huge estate that it takes the afternoon to get to the front door, but more importantly, he is the only person in the mini-series who has his own lake! Into which he can dive at will! And he can afford to ruin his clothing by diving in fully clothed! One can only imagine the perturbation of his valet (not to mention the person who washes his clothes--one hopes he tipped her generously). This scene also demonstrated that Darcy was a strong swimmer (as well as skilled horseman, skilled fencer, etc. Pause for drooling at the mental images these conjure up.) He was obviously superior to your run-of-the-mill, garden variety gentleman, who drank himself into a stupor every evening. He should be encouraged to reproduce. He will obviously produce superior children with Elizabeth Bennett. Persons like Lady Cathe ine should not be so encouraged--they produce sickly children of questionable intellect. I will stop now, as I have gone on at length. But I can think of many more reasons supporting showing the pond scene to your classes. It's so very educational. . . ;-)

Wow Louise, you deserve a medal for that, or at least a scholarship to her univerity to sell her chair on the supreme cosmic importance of the pond scene, to the over all stability of our planet. I mean, WE all get it, but obviously there are some heathens out there who need converting.

Echo, I think you picked up on the main issue that Austen's work brings to light Why, thank you, Liz! :-) Since watching P&P I have spent a lot of time studying the period in all its glory. It has become my favourite - late 18th to mid 19th century, the awakening of the modern social and industrial revolutions, the beginning of today's modern world - and I get as excited about it as you... even though I'm just a dilettante, an amateur to your scholar. the trust house that they used for Longbourne I believe this is a strictly private house. (Louise)Jane Austen was only marginally interested in the class distinction between the servants and their masters She didn't have the same perspective as we do today. In her time, it was the accepted and natural state of things, people generally had their "predestined" places and roles in life and the thought of social injustice was still seen as rebellion against the divine law. And an early attempt to reorganize it by force it had just ended in monstrous bloodbath (an a re-emergence of tyranny) across the English Channel! Mr. Darcy, as the wealthiest man in England I think Liz will confirm that Mr Darcy, wealthy though he was, in reality could not be the wealthiest man in England... I think this is another example of Jane Austen's biting wit and irony: it is only in the eyes of the small and isolated society of a provincial town (Meryton) that Darcy was regarded as extremely rich. To them, he was probably the wealthiest man they rubbed their shoulders with - and it all started because he was also evidently bored with high society and curious of Bingley's attempts to settle down.

Oh, and I DO passionately like the scientific justification of the pond scene... but still consider it historically highly unlikely as presented in the TV series... What do you say, Liz?

Hehehe...loved all of your justifications for the pond scene!!! All very plausible.. actually, the scenes I show initially, are the first proposal (FD to EB), where FD is searching around the less-polite areas of London for Wickham, and Lady Catherine's "talk" with EB in the 'pretty-ish little wilderness.' I give my students the option at the end of the semester if there is time, to watch the full versions of some of the films I show clips from (Clarissa, Tom Jones, P&P). They tend to stay away from Clarissa b/c of the rather morose demise of the heronine, and its always a split b/w the other two. Interestingly enough, the male students almost always want Tom Jones, and the women almost always want P&P2! Hmm...Darcy's "wealth." Well, my own personal opinion is that the residents of Merryton, while they probably would have been very impressed with a man of Darcy's consequence, would not have found it too out of the ordinary. There were great estates all over England, with small towns near almost all of them. He certainly would not have been one of the wealthiest men of his time. He was not titled, so that gives a particular distinction from Austen, shows her awareness of the difference (at least I think) b/w the polite classes and the nobility. ok...*steps away from podium* back to writing my article...I'm writing on how women identified themselves (in their diaries, in letters, etc) from 1740-80...need to get another 15 pages done today (out of a total of 80), and only have 3 so far since 9 this morning (its now 11.30)! I'll check in later tonight and see what other comments you all have! I'm enjoying this discussion!!! Thanks for indulging me!

(Liz K.) Hmm...Darcy's "wealth." Well, my own personal opinion is that the residents of Merryton, while they probably would have been very impressed with a man of Darcy's consequence, would not have found it too out of the ordinary. There were great estates all over England, with small towns near almost all of them. He certainly would not have been one of the wealthiest men of his time. He was not titled, so that gives a particular distinction from Austen, shows her awareness of the difference (at least I think) b/w the polite classes and the nobility. By coincidence Iove been reading from: Friendly Jane Austen: A Well-mannered Introduction to a Lady of Sense & Sensibility. by Natalie Tyler Monday, August 20, 2001 Money , pp.86-87 In each of Jane Austen's novels, with the exception of Emma, her heroines have significant economic problems. While Emma is immune from economic worries, her neighbors Mrs. Bates, Miss Bates, and Jane Fairfax are shown struggling financially. Austen usually tells her readers the precise annual incomes of her main characters. The historian Edward Copeland has described the approximate value of income in Austen's novels. One hundred pounds a year is a very low income, typical of very poor curates. Two hundred a year is an uncomfortable income for a family. When Austen's parents tried to live on this amount with their growing number of children, they were very hard pressed and had to devise ways to augment the family income. Three hundred pounds a year: Colonel Brandon, in Sense and Sensibility, claims that this is "comfortable" for a bachelor, though he does not have to live on it himself. Four hundred a year is an income that does not go very far if there is a family to care for. Fanny Price's moth r has this much. Five hundred a year was the amount that Jane, Cassandra, and Mrs. Austen had to live on after the death of Mr. Austen. It is also what the four Dashwood women are going to be left with, much to their anxiety. Seven hundred to one thousand a year is a comfortable living. Elinor Dashwood says that it would make her happy to live on a thousand pounds a year, although Marianne wants about eighteen hundred to two thousand pounds to fulfill her needs. Copeland points out that this was the minimum income that would have perhaps supported a carriage. Austen's father found a carriage too expensive to maintain when he reached the peak of his income at seven hundred pounds a year. Two thousand pounds a year is the amount that Colonel Brandon has in Sense and Sensibility. It is also the income of the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice. But with it they have to provide dowries for five daughters, which would have made domestic economy essential. Four thousand a year is the amount that marks eal wealth. Mr. Bingley has four or five thousand a year and Darcy, the best catch of them all, has ten thousand pounds a year. With such a yearly livelihood comes an enormous amount of discretionary income. No wonder Mrs. Bennet is so giddy when such wealth comes into the neighborhood! Heiresses usually have incomes that are reported as bulk sums. The annual yield would be approximately 5 percent. In the case of Elizabeth Bennet, however, she has one thousand pounds invested at 4 percent. Mr. Collins, in his elegant marriage proposal, reminds her that she can never hope to have more than forty pounds a year on her own, but reassures her that "no ungenerous reproach shall ever pass my lips when we are married." When Darcy writes to Elizabeth he reveals that his sister has a fortune of thirty thousand pounds, which would have yielded fifteen hundred pounds yearly--enough to make even the covetous Wickham happy. Emma Woodhouse also has a fortune of thirty thousand pounds. Mansfield Park commences with a financial report: Miss Maria Ward with only seven thousand pounds "had the good luck to captivate Sir Thomas Bertram." Yet her fortune is considerably greater that that of any of Austen's heroines aside from Emma. Jane Austen herself had a personal annual income of little more that fifty pounds for most of her life. She wished to be above the frugality of "Vulgar Economy," as she wrote to Cassandra, and enjoyed her visits to her prosperous brother, who could afford to provide good wine and exquisite desserts. Average Income, England and Wales, 1803, pp 87-89 So how did the Austen family compare with other families? The following table breaks down the population of England and Wales into numbers of families and their estimated average annual income for 1803: CATEGORY NUMBERS OF FAMILIES ESTIMATED AVE. FAMILY INCOME The King 1 200,000 pounds/yr Peers 287 8,000 pounds/yr Bishops 26 4,000 pounds/yr Baronets 540 3,000 pounds/yr Knights 350 1,500 pounds/yr Esquires 6,000 1,500 pounds/yr Gentlemen 20.000 700 pounds/yr Clergy (higher) 1,000 500 pounds/yr Clergy (lower) 10,000 120 pounds/yr Education (higher) 500 600 pounds/yr Education (lower) 20,000 150 pounds/yr Naval Officers 3,000 149 pounds/yr Army Officers 5,000 139 pounds/yr Theatre People 500 200 pounds/yr Lunatic Keepers 40 500 pounds/yr Farmers 160,000 120 pounds/yr Merchants (higher) 2,000 2,600 pounds/yr Merchants (lower) 13,000 800 pounds/yr Tailors 25,000 150 pounds/yr Shopkeepers 74,500 150 pounds/yr Innkeepers 50,000 100 pounds/yr Clerks 30,000 75 pounds/yr Artisans 445,726 55 pounds/yr Pedlars 800 40 pounds/yr Seamen 38,175 38 pounds/yr Soldiers 50,000 29 pounds/yr Labourers 340,000 31 pounds/yr Lunatics 2,500 30 pounds/yr Pensioners 30,500 20 pounds/yr Paupers 260,179 16.4 pounds/yr Vagrants 220,000 10 pounds/yr Although there were only forty of them, it is surprising to see how much better lunatic keepers, at five hundred pounds' average annual income fared than innkeepers, who averaged one hundred. It is also interesting to see the high numbers of farmers, artisans, laborers, and vagrants compared with the upper classes. For every peer and his family there were almost two thousand paupers and vagrants.

Sorry, hit the "post" button before any explanation... First, these statistics are for 1803, not 1813 when P&P was finally published, but I think it illuminates the fact that Austen tended to circulate her characters in higher circles than one would expect. The Bennets are very well off by these standards as well as Bingley and Darcy. My only frustration with these data was no listing for the lot of the average domestic servant, stable worker, or other type of servant. Maybe it is included under another catagory, like "Labourer", or something. KJ

Thank you KJ. OT: Emma Woodhouse also has a fortune of thirty thousand pounds. Did they say how much Mr. Knightly 's income was?

Must get off now, but in the same book is stuff on Primogeniture and Entailment, How Pemberley demonstrates Darcy's character, What "white soup" and "Syllabub" were, (with recipes) and the Publication history of the book (w. letters). If anyone's interested in any of this, let me know. KJ

These are "estimated" and "average" figures. Statistics often introduces more confusion than illumination. Darcy, Bingley, Bennet, Wickham, were all gentlemen. Also I'd like to know why lunatics are listed as a group receiving income. And how do paupers have 16.4 pounds, while no other group's income specifies any fractions? The problem with domestic servants is that their remuneration usually included housing and food, so it is misleading to compare their cash income with groups who had to pay for these commodities.

Not lunatics, but lunatic keepers. My job. ;-)

Very interesting income breakdown for the 1800's, thanks for sharing. I also agree that while Darcy was indeed a very, very, wealthy man, he was probabaly far from being the wealthiest man in the country. For example, the greatest of the titled landowning families of the day, often had SEVERAL estates....one huge mansion taking up a whole city block in London, an estate near London for quickie get away breaks, another estate in the "real" country that was probably the ancestral family seat, a shooting lodge in Scotland and probably a few lesser, but still grand, country houses for younger sons, ummarried sisters and widows. I recently read a biography of one of the oldest and wealthiest old English families. My goodness, I soon lost track of all their property and estates. Poor Darcy, the poor baby has to make do with just Pemerley. Lets take up a collection.

It's depressing to note that even Jane Austen, as a published author, never earned much above the bottom rungs of the above list. It's a good thing that her brothers were not like the one in "Sense and Sensibility". Imagine the desperation of a "lady" with no income trying to stay out of the poor house. Shudder. Much as I love to imagine living in those times (with Mr. Darcy, of course), when I think of the "reality" of it, it gives me a chill to think how dependent on men the women were. We all love "Pride and Prejudice", but "Tess of the d'Urbervilles" is probably a lot more realistic (gaaah, what a depressing thought). :-( Am off to view lake scene, "look" scene, and 2nd proposal scene to put self in a better frame of mind for good night's sleep.

...lunatic keepers. My job. ;-) Which doesn't necessarily mean you're sane... ;-) Anyway - lunatics as well - look towards the very end of the list. As for the relationship between men and women, despite the tales of horrendous moral decay (which was true), there were also many very happy marriages and liaisons with partners touchingly devoted to each other. Mr Darcy could exist in real life, he was not wholly impossibly good... Sadly, he was not the norm - but when was an ideal partnership a norm, anyway? Women were dependent on men, that is true. The law was changing throughout the 19th century, women were fighting for more personal freedom, but mainly because the working classes were gaining in the size and importance. Upper class ladies were not so unhappy, though.

Ooops, my mistake. Drive on.

(Echo) Also I'd like to know why lunatics are listed as a group receiving income. And how do paupers have 16.4 pounds, while no other group's income specifies any fractions? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry, you'll have to ask Natalie Tyler that one.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The problem with domestic servants is that their remuneration usually included housing and food, so it is misleading to compare their cash income with groups who had to pay for these commodities. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yeh, I thought of that after I asked the question. (but I'm sure statisticians could probably come up with "equivalent" figures. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (LouiseJ) It's depressing to note that even Jane Austen, as a published author, never earned much above the bottom rungs of the above list. It's a good thing that her brothers were not like the one in "Sense and Sensibility". Imagine the desperation of a "lady" with no income trying to stay out of the poor house. Shudder ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yeh, and I had had a vague impression that she'd died before realizing her (potential) popularity. Not so. According to Natalie Tyler -- The Publication history of Pride and Prejudice, pp.115-116. When Austen was twenty-one and had completed First Impressions, the original title of Pride and Prejudice, her supportive father was delighted, as he had been by her juvenilia. He wrote a letter to Cadell & Davies, a major publishing company in London: Sirs I have in my possession a Manuscript Novel, comprised in three Vols. about the length of Miss Burney's Evelina. As I am well aware of what consequence it is that a work of this sort should make its first appearance under a respectable name I apply to you. Shall be much obliged therefore if you will inform me whether you chuse to be concerned in it; what will be the expense of publishing at the Author's risk; & what you will advance for the Property of it, if on a perusal it is approved of? Should your answer give me encouragement I will send you the work. I am, Sirs, Yr. obt. hble. Sevt: GEO AUSTEN Steventon near Overton Hants 1st Novr. 1797 Inscribed on the letter is the legend "declined by Return of Post," which must have been a great disappointment to Jane and her family. However, after the success of Sense and Sensibility, and Austen was able to write to her brother Frank that she had earned 250 pounds--"which only makes me long for more." When the book was published, Jane wrote to Cassandra on January 29, 1813: I want to tell you that I have got my own darling child from London...Miss Benn dined with us on the very day of the books coming & in the evening we set fairly at it, and read half the first vol. to her, prefacing that having intelligence from Henry that such a work would soon appear, we had desired him to send it whenever it came out, and I believe it passed with her unsuspected. She was amused, poor soul! That she could not help, you know, with two people to lead the way, but she really does seem to admire Elizabeth. I must confess that I think her as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print, and how I shall be able to tolerate those who do not like her at least I do not know. There are a few typical errors; and a "said he," or a "said she," would sometimes make the dialogue more immediately clear, but I do not write for such dull elves As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves. [Scott, Marmion (1808) 6.38] The second volume is shorter that I could wish but the difference is not so much in reality as in look, there being a larger proportion of narrative in that part. I have lop't and crop't so successfully, however, that I imagine it must be rather shorter that S&S. altogether............ Certainly Pride and Prejudice was Austen's first immediately successful novel, and she lived to see it go into more that one edition and to be translated into French. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I found it interesting. I hope you did too. KJ

Wouldn't it be wonderful if lost scenes, that JA loped and croped from P&P, were mysteriously discovered ? ( Pauses for the cries of " Well duh !!! " to subside, before continuing ) Shivers with delight at the thought of new Darcy/Lizzie scenes that are the real McCoy. Still, the talented authors at FanFic keep us royally entertained, until these missing scenes are unearthed.

Thanks, KJ, that was very interesting. I'm glad that JA lived to see how popular her books were. But she still made peanuts compared to the joy she's given all of the generations of readers since. There aren't many authors who have lasted 200 years and are still "readable". Of course, it doesn't hurt that in Darcy and Lizzie, she created an ideal couple for the ages. Especially as personified by CF and JE. Sigh. JA's one of those people you just know would be marvelous to meet in person--just like Lizzie. Did JA ever mention Darcy in her letters, I wonder, and if so, what did she say? I'll have to see if I can find any info in our small library.

In a letter to Cassandra, JA mentioned going to see an exhibition of Sir Joshua Reynolds paintings. She found a likeness in a painting to what she imagined Jane to look like, but was disappointed not to find one of Lizzie. Here is what she wrote " We have been both to the Exhibition & Sir J Reynolds - and I am disappointed, for there was nothing like Mrs D at either. I can only imagine that Mr D prizes any Picture of her too much to like it should be exposed to the public eye. I can imagine he would have that sort of feeling, that mixture of Love, Pride & Delicacy. Setting aside this disappointment, I had great amusement among the Pictures " I have always utterly LOVED that inferance that after many years of marrige, Darcy is still so head over heels in love with Lizzie, that he can not bear to have her portrait removed,( from where he can see it every day )even for a famous London exhibition. This is the only instance I know of, where JA refers to Darcy.

Thanks, Bethanne. How wonderful it is to know that JA thought like this about "D". I think she must have had quite a "soft spot" for him, just like we do. If Lizzie ever had to leave him alone (due to visiting her mother, or something), I can picture him reading in the room with her portrait, and giving it longing "looks" as he waits impatiently for her return. What a sweetie he is. No wonder he makes us all swoon. Sigh.

(LouiseJ --But she still made peanuts compared to the joy she's given all of the generations of readers since. There aren't many authors who have lasted 200 years and are still "readable".    After I had time to settle down and read my last post at leisure, was I able to finally notice a huge gap that had opened during transcription in the most important paragraph of the piece!! Mea culpa!! I present the revised paragraph with my apologies�:    Inscribed on the letter is the legend "declined by Return of Post," which must have been a great disappointment to Jane and her family. However, after the success of Sense and Sensibility in 1811, Austen was able to sell Pride and Prejudice, revised from its earlier form as First Impressions, to Egerton for 110 pounds. The success of the novel was considerable enough that Egerton published a second edition along with a second edition of Sense and Sensibility, and Austen was able to write to her brother Frank that she had earned 250 pounds--"which only makes me long for more."    At least she was able to make about 2 -yrs - worth of income on P&P alone and about 5 on the total...    I shall never feel any equanimity towards Cassandra for destroying most of Jane's correspondence at her death. Talk about "the cutting room floor"!! I cringe to think of references to Mr. D that are no longer available to us because of an overdeveloped 'sensibility' on Cassandrs's part. **sob** KJ

I know, I know...the line to smack Cassandra upside 'da head starts here. I know her it was her desire not to see her sisters memory exploited, that motivated her to destroy most of Jane's letters, but it still eats me up. If my memory is correct, there was a scandal regarding the letters of another recently deceased author and that is what motivated her to ensure the same thing would not happen to Jane, but I still have a problem with it. I mean, at the time of her death, Jane's reputation and fame was nothing, compared to this other guy. ( Dangit, I wish I could remember his name. ) So I don't really see why Cassandra just presumed that scandal would arise, if Janes correspondece was made public. After all, its not like Access Hollywood and the National Enquirer would come knocking at the Austens door after Jane died. The access to the private papers of a famous person, can be restricted to just those with a genuine scholarly interest. This goes a long way to protecting the integrity of their works, but gives the world at large, a much better perspective on the author and their works. Why O why couldn't Cassie have thought of this ???? Ok, I'm down off my soap box now.

I get to post so infrequently that my posts are always out of sync. Please pardon. However, I have a questions about Darcy's social standing. At 10,000 pounds a year, he is higher than the 8,000 listed for peers. Wasn't he a peer through his mother, Lady Anne? I always assumed that was why he needed the special license to marry Elizabeth which Mrs. B mentions in the book. Isn't that special license why Lord Wessex was taking Viola to Greenwich in SIL?

I always assumed that was why he needed the special license to marry Elizabeth which Mrs. B mentions in the book. I don't think that was the purpose of a special license. I believe that in England a special license was needed in order to marry without the required waiting period. If I remember correctly, if you wanted to get married, the "banns" were read in church, and you then had to wait several weeks (about three??) before you could get married in that church. With a special license (obtained from a bishop of the Anglican church), you could get married immediately (or in a day or two) without banns and waiting period. You still had to have a clergyman perform the marriage, though. Presumably this was before "civil marriages" came into being. All of you scholars out there, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just going by books I've read that mentioned this subject.

re: Darcy being a peer thru his mother, no he wasn't. His mother was the daughter of an earl, hence her being Lady Anne Darcy. However, titles can only be inheirited be passed down from male realtive to male relative. So Darcy could only have been a peer if his father was titleed too. Mr Darcy Sr was not titled, so consequently, neither is his son. The oldest form of type of title, a baronet, can be passed down thru the female line, but everything above that ( Lord, Earl,Viscount,Marquis,Duke ) can only be passed on thru the male line. So while Darcy came from an old, aristocratic family on his fathers side and had close family connections to an earldom on his mothers, he himself is not a peer.

Doesn't Lady C say something about "although he is not titled on his father's side" - which is why he is Mr Darcy, not Lord, Sir or anything else. Louise is right about a licence being needed in order to marry without waiting for Banns to be read (BTW C of E has just decided to do away with Banns altogether), rather than it being special permission; in SIL Wessex says "the Queen's consent is required when a Wessex takes a wife" which I always assumed to be something to do with Lords needing clearance to make sure they take someone of the required social standing - my guess, anyway.

Ooops, I don't think I explained myself properly. Lady Anne was titled because her father was an earl. The daughters of an earl are always titled. However, her title dies out when she does, she can not pass it on to her son.

LouiseJ -- With a special license (obtained from a bishop of the Anglican church), you could get married immediately (or in a day or two) without banns and waiting period. (Rachael)-- Louise is right about a licence being needed in order to marry without waiting for Banns to be read (BTW C of E has just decided to do away with Banns altogether), rather than it being special permission; I believe the reason that Mrs. Bennett insisted that "they must be married by special license" had more to do with its being a status symbol than anything else. Special licenses were very expensive (and enriched the bishopric enormously) and thus they were only affordable to the very rich. Marrying by Special License demonstrated how rich the licensees were, so Mrs. Bennett wanted that demonstrated... (Beth) -- However, titles can only be ... passed down from male relative to male relative.    ...As is property in most cases. The "maleness" is covered by Primogeniture whereas Entailment was more related to keeping the property as one solid chunk by not giving the inheritor any power or control over its inheritance. According to Natalie ... Primogeniture and Entailment, p. 117    Laws and custom protected landed estates by prohibiting landowners from dividing their holdings among their children. Primogeniture designated the eldest son as heir to the entire estate, including the land. Subsequent sons were lucky to inherit some money, if the estate had been well maintained. Most younger sons had to find a profession, and the ranks of the clergy were swollen with them.    Entailment, along with primogeniture, was the legal way the British aristocracy could maintain its great estates through the generations. An entailed estate was an estate tied up so that its inhabitants, such as the Bennets at Longbourn, would not have rights to sell, mortgage, or dispose of it in any other way than the entailment dictated. Because these laws with few exceptions did not permit female children or their children of either sex to inherit, sometimes a distant cousin would inherit the estate, and any title that might accompany it. Because the Bennets have no sons, Mr. Collins, a cousin, has the right to the entailment, a critical element of the plot to Pride and Prejudice and an additional motivation for the Bennets to hope that their daughters would marry.

Wessex says "the Queen's consent is required when a Wessex takes a wife" I think there were a couple of reasons that the queen's consent was needed when a member of one of the prominent noble families wanted to get married: 1. she wanted to make sure that she approved of the proposed spouse politically speaking, so that two extremely powerful but rebellious families did not unite against her, and 2. if a nobleman was one of her "favorites" at court, she was sometimes reluctant to let him marry someone that she considered to be "competition", romantically speaking (i.e., she expected her good-looking courtiers to be in love with her, not some "other woman"). I seem to remember reading about several cases where she did not approve of the marriage and made life extremely difficult for the offending subject. I think it may even have been "illegal" for some people to marry without her approval. Remember in "Elizabeth" how angry Cate Blanchett was when she found out that Robin was married? Similar thing. I don't know if this was really true about Elizabeth, but it sure has been featured in a lot of movies about her. re: Darcy being a peer thru his mother, no he wasn't. Well, Darcy may not have been a "peer", but as a romantic hero, he is indeed without peer, IMHO. (Not that I'm a bit partial, or anything.)

What a delightful conversation. Thanks, KJ, for initiating it. I enjoyed seeing everyone answering each other's questions. The laws of inheritance are fascinating to me - so orderly yet so ruthless. I'm sure loopholes were to be found everywhere as they are today, yet I feel sorry for the second son. I think of Lydia wrinkling her nose. "Imagine wanting to marry a clergyman. " ;-) Pity the poor souls of the parish too whose source of solace and spiritual wisdom came from disinterested clergy who had nothing better to do than to put on the collar. (Beth) Lady Anne was titled because her father was an earl. The daughters of an earl are always titled. However, her title dies out when she does, she can not pass it on to her son. Lady Catherine was doubly titled then...first her father, then her husband, Sir Lewis de Bourgh. Which makes me wonder. Since Lady C. and A. kept their titles will Ann de Bourgh be Lady Ann when her own mother dies? If so, I'm wondering why she's not titled while her mother is alive. Of course Darcy would have remained untitled even if married to his cousin just as his own father remained Mr. Darcy. Ew, I may just watch P&P tonight (it's been eons) to get the picture of ODD married to Ann out of my head. (Louise) Darcy may not have been a "peer", but as a romantic hero, he is indeed without peer, IMHO. No question. And of course he's also our Lord....and Master too. ;-)

Sorry, but realized my questions about Ann de Bourgh may be misunderstood. I hate to be misunderstood. ;-) Since Ann's father is an Earl (we presume), will she inherit the "Lady" title as well? And why wouldn't she be a Lady now? I suppose she has to wait for the old horse to kick the bucket but am not sure if that's true.

This is how I understand the title, at least for the case of Anne de Bourgh: Anne de Bourgh's father, Sir Louis (Lewis?) de Bourgh, was a knight, a title which was not hereditary. Her mother was known as Lady Catherine Fitzwilliam before her marriage and Lady Catherine de Bourgh after, because she was the daughter of an Earl. If she'd been the daughter of a non-peer, say Mr. Smith, she would have been Catherine Smith before marriage and Lady de Bourgh after (but not Lady Catherine de Bourgh). Anne de Bourgh is not entitled to any courtesy titles like "Lady" for being the granddaughter of an Earl, and since her father's title is not hereditary she will continue to be Miss de Bourgh until she marries. In general, Lady Firstname Lastname indicates the woman in question is the daughter of a Duke, Marquis or Earl and not married to a Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount or Baron. Lady Lastname indicates she's the wife of a knight or baronet, and is not the daughter of a Duke, Marquis or Earl. Lady Title (sometimes Title is the same as the Lastname) indicates she is the wife of a Marquis, Earl, Viscount or Baron, or is a peeress in her own right, meaning she had no brothers and inherited her father's title (not possible with most titles).

Aargh! I could have sworn I closed all the tags! Anyway, here's a website with more about British Titles of Nobility, if you're into the details: http://laura.chinet.com//html/titles01.html It's linked from RoP's Regency Links page.

I think in the book too, Mr Collins in his ususal fawning manner, refers to Lady Catherine as The Honourable Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which is incorect. She has the title "Lady" Catherine twice over ( once from her father and once from her husband ) but she should not be refered to as "Honourable" as well. The appelation of Honourable is another quasi title and, one she is not entitled too. The title of Honourable was given to the younger sons and daughters of peers, who were not in line to inherit a peerage themselves and had no courtesy title either. So while they had to put up with being only a Mr or Miss so and so, the little "Hon" before their name, differentiated them from the common riff raff. Lady already has the title of Lady twice over, so she shouldn't be greedy and try and hog this one too. I wonder if Mr Collins thought it up himself out of pure enthusiasm, or if he does it because thats how SHE refers to herself.

and so, the little "Hon" before their name, differentiated them from the common riff raff. As in the Honourable Blanche Ingram

Isn't Col. Fitzwilliam supposed to be "the Honourable" since he is the second son of an Earl? Can't remember if JA referred to him this way in the book.

I will be offline both tomorrow and Monday (Library closed both days) so wish all our US people an enjoyable Labor Day Holiday now. See you Tuesday. ;-) KJ

Yup, Col Fitzwilliam would be an Hon too if he wasn't a military man. However,I believe when you go into the army, you must forfeit all your other forms of address and tiitles and, you are then known only by your military rank. So that's why JA does not refer to him as the Honourable Col Fitzwilliam. I think the great military men of the day like Lord Nelson, the Duke of Wellington etc or the ones who were raised to the peerage due to their victories in battle, were allowed to keep their titles, but ordinary military men were not....even the well born ones.

when you go into the army, you must forfeit all your other forms of address and tiitles and, you are then known only by your military rank Am not an expert on this, but have seen titles like Major General Sir John Humpty-Dumpty... Would it be a relatively new custom?

Is that used exclusively for military men who sit on walls?