A Regency Guide to Courtship
Courtship and marriage were serious steps for middle class men and women, usually not embarked upon until their middle to late twenties, older for men and younger for women.
As in most things in society in that era, men played the active role in the prescribed procedures for proper courtship. Moreover, “the scarcity value of men in Jane Austen’s lifetime, together with women’s dependence on husbands for status and financial security, gave eligible bachelors the power to act as connoisseurs.” (Jones, 2009) Hence, Austen’s Mr. Collins’ belief in Price and Prejudice, that Elizabeth Bennet would be unlikely to ever receive another offer of marriage besides his.
Women had to wait for pursuit by a suitor. Siblings and friends could be recruited as messengers to alert a potential suitor of a young lady’s inclinations, but she could take no further initiative. Even if a suitor made the first move, courtship rules insisted she behave with considerable reserve and not openly encourage a man’s suit. This explains some of the scandal of Marianne Dashwood’s behavior with Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility.
Ironically, the one area in courtship where the lady might have an active role was in refusing unwanted attentions. This restricted her choices from among those who made advances toward her. It was not uncommon for a woman to feel pressured to accept the first reasonable offer they received, since another might never come their way again. Mr .Knightley expressed this sentiment to Emma over Harriet Smith’s refusal of Robert Martin’s first proposal, in Austen’s Emma.
Compatibility, not Passion
Arguably, the cardinal courtship rule insisted one should seek compatibility and friendship rather than romance, since the former might stand the test of time and could provide far more enduring and stable relationships than fleeting passion. Young men were counseled not to embark upon courtship lightly, and young women not to give affections too easily.
I cannot even understand how it is flattering to a man’s vanity, to gain the affections of a deserving and too credulous woman, whom he never intends to marry. He ought to lose more in his character for integrity, than he can gain as one successful in courtship. His manner of address, consisting of a visible attachment. While his heart is not engaged, is most detestable hypocrisy. And to say that he is not bound in honour, because he has subjected himself to no specific promise, is the highest aggravation of his guilt. Were he to act in the same manner in his common transactions with mankind, his character would be forever blasted. (Gener, 1812.)
A woman is often placed in a very delicate situation. She may be distinguished by a kind of attention which is calculated to gain her affections, while it is impossible to know whether the addresses of her pretended lover will end in a serious declaration. (Gener, 1812)
What do you think of this advice in finding a prospective mate? Tell me in the comments.
Find References Here!
To Read more articles on weddings, click here.
To read more articles on courtship click here.
To read more articles on marriage click here.
If you enjoyed this post, you might enjoy this book:
Perhaps today’s current idea of courtship could be improved on if people thought of their potential marriage partners as friends or best friends so that they could stand the test of time as well!
Then, as now, there is too great an emphasis on “feeling in love.” Love is actually a VERB, not a noun. Feelings change, but actions can stand.
The underlying essential for marriage is respect. It is very possible to build a good, strong, marriage on respect for the other person (person; not money, position, or connections), even without “being in love,” but nearly impossible to build a marriage while “in love” with someone you don’t respect. (More likely, don’t yet know well enough to know if you can respect them.) Mr Bennett did not respect his wife, although he was at least infatuated with her when they married, and his regret was obvious. Charlotte Collins could respect Mr Collins’ position and profession, but not him as a person; she was prone eventually to know regret as strong as that of Mr Bennett. At least one was certain, back then, that there would be no religious or cultural issues to add more stumbling blocks. People did not marry outside their own faith, and the culture was as stratified as society – no mixing there, either. People today think “love can conquer all” only to find that many of the “minor differences” turn into insurmountable problems after marriage, and especially after children.
The mores of the time certainly made it far harder than it need be to find a decent mate. No substantive conversations allowed; meaningless small talk only. Entire crucial topics like finance, attitude towards children and child-rearing, and more, completely forbidden. The “impropriety” for a woman to express interest in a man. The dearth of men, due to the wars with Napoleon. The disparagement of the honest professions of younger sons while lauding dissolute behavior among their eldest brothers. While I love historical fiction it often seems to me that ONE good, forthright conversation would resolve most if not all of the conflicts in the stories. Yet having those very conversations is not permitted among “respectable” people.
“Even if a suitor made the first move…” [hello, Mr. Bingley] … while poor Jane was expected to act with “considerable reserve and not openly encourage a man’s suit.” So then why was Darcy so against her for NOT showing her feelings? I think it was because of the fear of his increasing feelings for Elizabeth. He was going against propriety for women in casting Jane as the problem. He needed to get away and this was his excuse to leave and take Bingley with him. NOT cool, Darcy.
Refusing unwanted attention: Mr. Collins had the nerve to suggest that Elizabeth might not have another offer of marriage. He could only hope.
I love your posts.
I am just so happy to live in modern times…not only because of the courtship rules but all the modern conveniences and freedoms AND modern medicine. Your articles are always so educational. Thanks for sharing.