• Chaperones
• Conversation
• A Few Good Reasons
• So what do you think? Were the reasons for the rules solid? Tell me in the comments.
• To Read more articles on weddings, click here.
• To read more articles on courtship click here.
• To read more articles on marriage click here.

Many courtship rules helped to squelch the possibilities of romantic passion. These included forbidding the use of Christian names, paying compliments, driving in carriages alone together, correspondence, and any kind of intimate contact.  If a couple was observed violating any of them, onlookers would immediately assume a proposal had been offered and accepted. Even mild displays of friendliness could inspire speculations about a possible offer of marriage. Thus, in Sense and Sensibility, many assumed Marianne and Willoughby engaged because of their very open affectionate behavior.

Chaperones

Young, unmarried women were never alone in the company of a gentleman (save family and close family friends) or at any social event, without a chaperone. (Who knew what kind of ideas she or he could get!) Except for a walk to church or a park in the early morning, a lady could not even walk without an appropriate companion. (Of course a potential suitor would not be appropriate!)  Though a lady might drive her own carriage or ride horseback, if she left the family estate, a groom must attend her.  Under no circumstances could a lady call upon a gentleman alone unless consulting him on a business matters and she never forced herself upon a man’s notice.

In Emma, we see the ‘close friend or family’ clause invoked. Mr. Knightly is brother-in-law to Emma and has been a family friend for at least a decade. He and Emma are allowed liberties to walk and talk and keep company together because of the closeness of their connections. In Mansfield Park, Edmund is also permitted the same liberties with Fanny Price for the same reasons, she is family (and not considered a marriageable partner in any case.) Edward shares unchaperoned moments with Elinor inSense and Sensibility because his is considered a family connection. In contrast, Elizabeth walking in the woods at Rosings Park with Mr. Darcy or Col. Fitzwilliam in Pride and Prejudice is really poor behavior.

Naturally, all forms of touching were kept to a minimum. Sakes alive, what kind of unrestrained behavior might that lead to?  Putting a lady’s shawl about her shoulders, or assisting her to mount a horse, enter a carriage or climb stairs were acceptable. A gentleman might take a lady’s arm through his, to support her while out walking. But he must never try to take her hand, even to shake it friendly-like. If he did, she must immediately withdraw it with a strong air of disapproval, whether she felt it or not.  When Marianne tried to shake Willoughby’s hand in public in Sense and Sensibility it was really quite forward and even shocking public behavior.

Conversation

Courtship rules required conversations be extremely discreet, leaving much to be interpreted from facial expressions alone. Even those were proscribed by many advice writers.

There is another Character not quite so criminal, yet not less ridiculous; which is, that of a good humour’d Woman, one who thinketh me must always be in a Laugh, or a broad Smile, because Good-Humour is an obliging Quality… . (The Whole Duty of a Woman, 1737)

A Few Good Reasons

But there were some genuinely good reasons for all of the restrictions. While philosophy did alter some perspectives about marriage, some things did not change. At the core, marriage was still a business arrangement, men and women each bringing their part to the matter. Real property, dowries and fortunes, trades, skills (including those of keeping house), social connections (of course those might be good or bad, just saying… ) and the provision of heirs were all very real commodities in the transaction.  One needed to make sure that arrangements offered equitable compensation as it were, for all involved and no one, including the extended families, was being shorted in the exchange.

If this weren’t enough reason for anxiety, add to it that divorce was nearly impossible to obtain. It was entirely possible that one might have only one opportunity to ‘get it right’ as it were.  No wonder parents were in a dither that their children might make a tragic mistake choosing a marriage partner. With so much on the line, can you really blame them for supporting rules designed to keep runaway passions at bay and encourage level-headed decision making?

Once engaged, couples were expected to proclaim that fact clearly, in part ensuring that neither could back out without serious social repercussions.

So what do you think? Were the reasons for the rules solid? 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: