HomeRegency LifeIt’s a (church) living…

Comments

It’s a (church) living… — 10 Comments

  1. Once again, you exceed my expectation of learning something in fine style. Excellent work. Since the advowson was considered property, would it also be subject to the entail laws? If so, that would complicate matters further in how, when, and to whom those livings were given.
    Keep up the great work.

    Matt

  2. Maria:

    I really enjoyed your post. It is fascinating to think about how livings were given out in those days. Not denominational hierarchy or elaborate search committees involved. Just the decision of a family, or most likely one member of a family, often.

    But as you said, WHY did Lady Catherine chose Mr. Collins! Because he begat upon her such lovely delicacies of compliments and humbled before her in an adequate state of condescension. Either that, or she was very bored and needed him to make her laugh (when he was not in the room of course.)

  3. Perhaps she chose him because he was such a brown-noser that she knew he would never complain about her lack of charity to her poor tenants.

  4. Pingback:The Regency Interpreter tackles Mansfield Park pt.2 - Random Bits of Fascination

  5. So the Kympton living would have been worth between 430 to 500 pounds, depending on whether Darcy used the five times or seven times multiplier for the value. It was obviously a wealthy parish. Either value would have been enough for Wickham to have had a gentleman’s life.

  6. Pingback:Regency Christmas Traditions: Mumpers, Mummers and Sword Dancers - Random Bits of Fascination

  7. I would like to thank you for your work! I am always glad to learn more about the world of Jane Austen and her time.
    I was wondering what would happen if a lucky incumbent died after let’s say just a year or two. Do his wife or family somehow get the money reimbursed (at least partially) that the late incumbent had to pay in order to receive the living? I mean, the living could be for a lifetime but if that lifetime was very short it would sound very strange to me if the owner of the parish could keep the whole(for example 3000,-€ pounds) amount that the man payed in order to receive a lifetime post if he could only make use of it for a couple of years. I mean, as the widow supposedly could neither stay in the parish house nor receive her late husbands income of the 10% tithes any longer, she would have basically nothing left if she didn’t receive at least that sum back. Is there any information you found about these cases?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>