Decline of Arranged Marriage

Throughout history, parents used their children, both daughters and sons, in arranged marriages as assets in their efforts to gain and maintain wealth, connections, and power. Growing up knowing your destiny is to be a pawn in your parents machinations is such a great foundation for marriage, isn’t it?

Luckily for all of us, the Age of Enlightenment (18^th century) brought a radical shift in attitudes toward marriage. Ideas of human freedom and equality meant that marriage should be a matter of individual choice, not parental mandate.

The idea that a daughter would marry according to her father’s choice fell out of fashion, and a man who would force a young woman into a disagreeable partnership was deemed contemptible. The new way of the world was for young people to make their own marriage choices with parents left with (hopefully) the right to veto socially or economically unsuitable candidates. Or at least that was the theory.

Arranged marriage lingered longest among the upper classes, who had the most at stake with respect to money, property and rank in society. Within this group, it was assumed a young woman would learn to love, or at least tolerate, the husband chosen by her father, since after all, he was the best suited to make such a decision for her. This attitude is reflected in Jane Austen’s Lady Catherine as she and her sister decide that their eldest offspring should wed even while they are still babes in arms.

 Even so, few high society parents contrived totally mercenary alliances for their children. Conversely, not all gentry families permitted their offspring to marry as they chose. Eldest sons, who were set to inherit family lands and fortunes (and who would likely be the ones to provide for his parents in their dotage), found themselves subject to more parental sanctions than younger siblings. Young women with unmarried sisters or mothers who anticipated an impoverished widowhood might also encounter greater amounts of parental intrusion in their marital choices. Without social programs like welfare or social security, unmarried females in need of support would turn first to brothers and sons, including in-laws, for support. Hence the pressure upon Pride and Prejudice’s Bennet sisters that one of them had to marry very well indeed.

In the midst of all these changes, society at large recognized that marriages based on compatibility, affection, and even love, were more likely to stand the test of time than marriages arranged purely for material gain. Score one for love, right?

This new attitude complicated matters for parents–or perhaps sent them into all out panic. Now they had to engineer circumstances for their daughters to meet the right sort of eligible men. The perceived rarity of such men encouraged something of a husband-hunting hysteria among parents eager to see their daughters well-settled. (Not to mention financially stable in an establishment of their own.)

These perceptions were not entirely unfounded. The ravages of war (thanks, Napoleon) and higher male infant mortality rates during the latter part of the eighteenth century and early nineteenth resulted in an imbalance in the numbers of males and females. Moreover, the high cost of maintaining a household and the antics of avid man-hunters put young men off the notion of marriage, further reducing the pool of available bachelors.  

The Duty of Virgins

Despite the new attitudes of the Enlightenment, one overarching truth remained unchanged. A woman was nothing without a husband. (In truth she was legally nothing WITH a husband, but that’s another post.)

It was the duty of a young woman to marry. The Whole Duty of a Woman suggested that there were three acceptable ‘States and Conditions’ of womanhood: the virgin, the married and the widowed. Woe to she who remained unmarried: “An old Maid is now thought such a Curse as no Poetic Fury can exceed, look’d on as the most calamitous Creature in Nature.”

To avoid that dreaded state of spinsterhood, a girl needed to make a sensible match. What constituted a sensible match? In short, one which provided three key qualities: connections, cash and compatibility.

Connections

During the late Georgian and Regency eras, everyone knew their rank in society and where they stood in relation to everyone else in their social circles. Unions between equals were expected, and in many families required, hence the desirability for the match between William Elliot and Elizabeth Elliot (or Anne Elliot for that matter) in  Persuasion. 

Perish the thought of allowing an individual of inferior social standing into the family circle, and thus the social circle. Such an act was considered no less than a betrayal of those within their strata. In Pride and Prejudice, Charles Bingley’s sisters and his friend, Mr. Darcy tried to use this argument to dissuade him away from Jane Bennet.

Consequently, particularly among the upper classes people often married partners with whom their family enjoyed alliances, or to whom they were related. Marriage between first cousins, neither forbidden by the church nor law, were common. (Aren’t we all glad that’s changed?)

Misalliances were considered base. A girl should marry to increase her social consequence and thereby her family’s. A good match satisfied a range of criteria, including family advancement, the ideal of parity, character and affection.

A young woman should never marry beneath her. Matches between men and women of unequal social standing were threats to the rigid structure of society. This was the mistake of Fanny Price’s mother in Mansfield Park.

Cash

Connections were not the only criteria. Many titled and influential families were plagued by declining fortune. The lure of pedigree lost some of its luster when tarnished by debt. Consequently many young men with connections were searching for heiresses to shore up failing family finances. Austen’s Georgiana Darcy, Caroline Bingley and Emma would all have been prey for such a suitor.

If a young man’s family was facing financial ruin or hardship, it was his duty to marry money no matter how unattractive the package that wrapped it. Can’t you see the lonely-hearts advert now: Single gentleman seeking young lady with at least ten thousand pounds. Willing to provide an elegant array of connections. How romantic.

This explains some of General Tilney’s rage at his discovery of Catherine Morland’s lack of fortune in Northanger Abby. No doubt he was already eyeing the potential contributions she could make to the family coffers when he invited her to visit with them.

Not surprisingly, young people of both genders were actively warned away from fortune-hunters.

The more money and property one had, the greater the burden to make a ‘convenient’ match. So the pressure was greatest on eldest sons to marry a woman with appropriate assets. A young lady of a similarly great family might decide to sacrifice herself on the altar of family duty to help pay off family debts (gambling or otherwise) or establish favorable connections. In Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine asserts that her nephew, Mr. Darcy, should marry her daughter Anne to unite the two grand estates into something even grander.

As in most things, there was some flexibility in the rules. A wealthy man might be excused for marrying a poorer woman, particularly if she were pretty and had good manners.  Hence, in Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, Col. Brandon’s seeking Marianne is considered a smart match by the Middletons.

Woe to the plain girl with little fortune, like Pride and Prejudice’s Charlotte Lucas. She was among the least desirable of creatures. Despite her connections, her father’s financial situation puts Anne Elliot of Persuasion in a similar condition.

However, a wealthy woman of any age would be thought to have thrown herself away to marry a man of lesser means. Thus, in Pride and Prejudice, Mary King’s family sends her away to keep her from throwing herself away on Wickham, and Darcy works to prevent his sister Georgiana from doing the same. 

Compatibility

 Why might a woman ‘throw herself away?’ Often, because she fancied herself in love.

Corbould (1834) wrote:

Most women are inclined to romance. This tendency is not confined to the young or to the beautiful; to the intellectual, or to the refined.— Every woman capable of strong feeling is susceptible of romance; and though its degree may depend on external circumstances, or education, or station, or excitement, it generally exists, and requires only a stimulus for its development.

 Romance is, indeed, the charm of female character. …(but)  It is associated in the minds of many with folly alone. 

The idea of marrying for love had gained ground by this era, possibly fueled by the increase in novel reading, horror of horrors.

However, showing too much passion for one’s spouse was considered in poor taste. A marriage decision based on passion alone was not expected to be a correct one. Young people were advised to pursue friendship and domestic compatibility instead.

 Choosing Wisely

“How wretched must be a woman, united to a man whom she does not prefer to every other in the world. What secret preferences must steal into her heart! What unquiet thoughts take possession of her fancy! And what can men of principle call such an act, but legal prostitution.” Bennett (1811)

“Marriage enlarges the scene of our happiness and miseries. A marriage of love is pleasant; a marriage of interest easy; and a marriage where both meet, happy. A happy marriage has in it all the pleasures of friendship, all the enjoyments of sense and reason; and, indeed, all the sweets of life.” The Young Husband’s Book (1839)

Since divorce was virtually unavailable, marrying the wrong person could lead to a life of misery for both partners. Advice for choosing well abounded.

The Young Husband’s Book (1839) cautioned young men to avoid women of bad reputation, low status, those who loved money, or were stupid. 

John Bennett (1811) in his  Letters to a Young Lady offered more detailed advice:

 

(T)here are a few general principles of most essential consequence to regulate your choice…Fortune surely should be considered. It were absurd to think of love, where there is not some prospect of a decent provision for your probable descendants. That decency depends on birth, habit and education. But if you can compass the other requisites, be as moderate as possible, in your demands of fortune…

Never suffer yourself to think of a person, who has not religious principle. A good man alone is capable of true attachment, fidelity and affection. …  

The next thing you should look for is a person of a domestic cast. This will, most frequently, be found in men of the most virtuous hearts and improved understandings. …

The last thing, though I do not mention it, as absolutely necessary, yet highly desirable in a person, with whom you must spend all your days, is sentiment and taste. …

Though a woman, before this union, may be admired for her accomplishments … yet after it, we expect her character to display something more substantial. To a man, who must spend his days in her company, all these little superficial decorations will speedily become insipid and unimportant. Love must be preserved by the qualities of the heart, and esteem secured by the domestic virtues… He wants a person who will kindly divide and alleviate his cares, and prudently arrange his household concerns. He seeks not a coquette, a fashionist, a flirt, but a comfortable assistant, companion and friend.

But how did one meet and win such a partner? Unfortunately, the Enlightenment provided little direction as to managing the practicalities of this new way of marriage. New rules evolved to assist parents and their marriage-ready offspring navigate the difficult process of meeting potential partners.