Actually, Elizabeth declined to play cards because "she suspected them playing high," which means she couldn't afford to play cards with them.

@Mybpeterson

4 жыл бұрын

The narrator lost me when he said "they are technically superior to her and her family." The Bennets are above the Bingley's station by rank. The Bennets are part of the gentry, while the Bingley fortune was made in trade. Caroline will never be able to claim she is a gentleman's daughter. A distinction that their society values above money.

@Padmepotter4986

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mybpeterson This is the second Pride and Prejudice video I've watched where the creator seems to think the Bingleys are part of the gentry. That mistake is probably made because the Bingley sisters are so dismissive of the Bennets' relations who are in trade so they assume that the Bingleys are part of the gentry rather than simply being hypocrites. There's a reason Caroline Bingley is pursing Mr. Darcy for herself and Miss Darcy for her brother.

@bosyber

4 жыл бұрын

@@Padmepotter4986 Exactly, and in the earlier bit about the Bingley sisters showing contempt when Mrs. Bennet behaves improperly, note how Darcy won't join - that's his breeding (sign of superior class), showing open contempt of someone is very bad manners, and it's one way (apart from describing their, perhaps overly, ostentatious clothing) Austen shows them not to be better at all, just richer. Bingley himself though, by being always well mannered, having gained Darcy's friendship, shows himself to be worthy of marrying a gentleman's daughter in Jane, instead of buying his influence (see other books by her as well where people are 'new money' and do not know how to behave - it's almost as pathetic as being a poor, old, maid.)

@cherilynlarsen8104

4 жыл бұрын

@Coconut Pal Chuckles, it means betting too much money...which I bet you know.

@cherilynlarsen8104

4 жыл бұрын

@Coconut Pal Yes.

The Bingley sisters als showed bad manners and poor breeding when they laughed at Mrs Bennett

@SlideRulePirate

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed. There's a great deal of push-pull in human affairs. The acquisition and promotion of 'good manners' to facilitate and regulate inclusion is mirrored by the rise of cliques to filter and limit it. Despite impeccable manners and breeding one may still be deemed 'not our sort' when judged strategically necessary.

@brontewcat

4 жыл бұрын

Etiquette and good manners are not the same thing, Good manners are about making another person feel comfortable.

@julijakeit

4 жыл бұрын

Bingley sister could 'afford' such manners, as indeed, Mr. Darcy. They could slight other people with back-handed compliments, snide remarks or laughter. They, however, never were vulgar to the person they might despise and that is a sign of good breeding. Among their social equals, among themselves, they could gossip openly.

@brontewcat

4 жыл бұрын

julijakeit. I think this is confusing good manners and etiquette. While one could laugh and gossip it was still poor manners - particularly in front of the other person.

@brontewcat

4 жыл бұрын

I have heard a story about Edward VII or George V entertaining a group of men to tea. One of the men was a rich self made man from the country. He poured his tea into his saucer to drink it. The other men sniggered until the King seeing their behaviour poured his tea into his saucer and started drinking it that way also. That is what I meant I said the Bingley sisters’ behaviour showed poor manners, and what is the difference between good manners and etiquette.

"Do not boast or be pretentious it was considered vulgar.". By some of us, it still is.

@howardwayne3974

3 жыл бұрын

It should be by ALL of us . still . always .

The Bingley sisters criticize and make fun of the Bennet family and relations for being in trade when their own father was as well.

@brontewcat

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. It shows such hypocrisy. I think the difference (from their point of view) was their father became very rich and so became acceptable.

@DRush76

4 жыл бұрын

The Bennets did not come from trade. Only Mrs. Bennet, whose father was an lawyer.

@chamqual6480

4 жыл бұрын

@@DRush76 true! It is the Gardeners, Elizabeth's Maternal uncle who is in trade. It never says if the Gardener grandparents where gentry or trade, but the Bennetts are definitely considered of a gentleman's family.

@krystalswan

3 жыл бұрын

@Kathy Edens. Regarding the Bingley sisters, this is precisely where their lack of education and manners shows.

@fallionwater117

3 жыл бұрын

They likewise commented after Jane and Elizabeth departed how great it was to "have one's house to oneself again", not even taking into account that they themselves were sponging off their brother Charle's generosity. Unfathomable. And the married sister's husband ate like a pig and layed around which was considered to be very unbecoming, not only in that time, but also in today's.

The Bingleys were most certainly not superior to the Bennets. They were from trade seeking to become landed gentry, whereas the Bennets were already long established landowners. In class rules Elizabeth Bennet would be generally considered superior to Caroline Bingley regardless of the size of her dowry and her low connections. If indeed she had a large dowry the consideration of her relatives in trade would be minor as she would still be considered genteel and good society. She may not have been of the Bon Tonne, of even the Beau Monde, but she would not have been considered low society. If you think Lady Catherine's reaction to Elizabeth was extreme, it would have been far worse for Caroline Bingley. She was a tradesmans daughter who happened to have a lot of money. By marrying Bingley, Jane was actually marrying down. And while in regards to connections Lizzy would have been marrying up she was still in the same sphere as Darcy who was a landed gentry. The only difference was he was connected to an Earldom, whereas she was connected to trade.

@shadowfox009x

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you. I just wanted to point this out and you did it much better than I could have done.

@jgw5491

4 жыл бұрын

As Elizabeth said, Darcy was a gentleman and she was a gentleman's daughter therefore equal.

@OGimouse1

4 жыл бұрын

I think Darcy was pretty clear that his association with Charles Bingley had more to do with the fact his family could adhere to social mores and that his refusal to be adhered to the Bennets was that they could not. He never said any of those things. What he said was title or no title, her family didn't act as if they came from privilege.

@MandyJMaddison

4 жыл бұрын

Caroline Bingley has airs and graces. She, her sister, and her sister's husband all show themselves up as being rude and ignorant. Charles Bingley is a gentleman because he behaves like a gentleman.

@jgw5491

4 жыл бұрын

@@MandyJMaddison I think Darcy put up with the Bingley sisters because he liked their brother, just as he ultimately put up with Elizabeth's sillier relatives because he loved her. As to marrying money, as fortunes are sometimes fluid, some upper-class gentry would marry a bit down socially for an inflow of cash as the somewhat lower class but wealthier spouse would marry to raise their rank.

It is incorrect to say women were not allowed to own property. Women could and did own property, however it went to their husband on marriage

@julijakeit

4 жыл бұрын

yes, such dilemma was addressed in another Austen's novel, Emma.

@jasamkojajesam6108

4 жыл бұрын

So ..no, they couldn't.

@brontewcat

4 жыл бұрын

Malu Trevejo Lives It may have been limited to land being passed to husband. Actually this is where the concept of trusts came from. To prevent the property passing to husbands - in the Middle Ages fathers would make property, they intended their daughter to retain, over to a trusted friend “for the use of” their daughter. Complicated history, but this developed into the modern trust. I also think that women retained certain income and wealth on the death of their husband (or in the case of Anne of Cleves on her divorce from Henry VIII - although Anne was an exception because Henry was desperate to get rid of her. Most women were left with very little after divorce.

@DavidMacDowellBlue

3 жыл бұрын

@@jasamkojajesam6108 You are absolutely incorrect. Anne Lister, for example, owned a large estate. So did her paramour Ann Walker. Both real people. Real women. Who owned a lot of property. There were hardly the only ones.

@jackbrennan3468

3 жыл бұрын

Lady Catherine de Bourgh owns property. Elizabeth declined cards because the stakes are too high. Emma is an heiress etc

I agree with The222726. Many of these ‘rules’ do still hold good. It is polite to excuse yourself when leaving a table and in some circumstances to stand up when being introduced to someone. Making silly faces is often very rude. Good manners are still very important.

@2308sophia

4 жыл бұрын

Good manners make our life better and beautiful !

I love how videos like this reliably start with pointing out how important ettiquette used to be. Like we wouldn't have our own ettiquette today, and walking up to your boss and discussing your personal life with him wouldn't come back to bite you.

"Manners maketh man."

@clincpb8903

4 жыл бұрын

Still true today.

@rosiepestel7836

3 жыл бұрын

True...

Women could inherit property through fathers or husbands if there were no male heirs. Many daughters of wealthy men became wealthy heiresses if they had no brothers or the estates were not entailed, like Longbourne. Widows often owned property, as well. Some were bequeathed property even if they had brothers, sometimes property their mothers brought to their marriages. Yes, women were expected to marry and their husbands gained control over whatever wealth their wives owned, but some women in some circumstances did own property and other resources.

@OGimouse1

4 жыл бұрын

They didn't own the property--they couldn't sell the estate until well into the 1900s. They could sell the items on the estate and partition it but they had life estates

@saffronjay3903

4 жыл бұрын

Yes some wives did own and control the property they bought into the marriage. It depened on the contracts that were draw up before the marriage took place. It also stated how much money the wive was to recieve during yhe marriage and after the death of her husband. It all depended on the contract jow much control a women had over her property

@Lumosnight

4 жыл бұрын

Ashley S. MacKenzie in Thomas Hardy’s novel Far from the Madding Crowd, a young woman inherits her male relative’s estate. So yes, women could inherit if there were no other male relatives. But she loses it all when she gets married.

@JessCausey

4 жыл бұрын

Not if the property were entailed

@JPKnapp-ro6xm

4 жыл бұрын

A woman's father provided her with a dowry (if he could afford it) and this was often put in the 19th Century equivalent of a trust fund. The income was paid to the wife during her lifetime, so that if her husband were ruined or abandoned her, she would still have some income. Upon the wife's death, this fund passed to her children other than the oldest son. For example, you will sometimes see a younger son say something like "I receive about 200 pounds a year as a barrister, but I also get 300 pounds through my [deceased] mother."

The two Bingley sisters might be rich and part of the upper class but they are totally tacky.

@DRush76

4 жыл бұрын

The Bingley sisters were not part of the upper class. They came from trade . . . noveau riche.

@notnek202

4 жыл бұрын

Dee Rush So Mr & Mrs Bennet allow their daughter Jane to marry someone who got rich from trade? SHOCKING!!!!!

@notnek202

4 жыл бұрын

Dee Rush that explains why the Bennet girls are much more proper and polite while the Bingley sisters are vulgar and rude.

@wjgmspeedy

4 жыл бұрын

The Bennetts were of higher class then the Bingleys. Remember that Mr. Bingley didn't own an estate like the Bennetts.

@mtngrl5859

4 жыл бұрын

@@notnek202 Bingley's father made money from trade, Bingley has inherited wealth.

Technically the Bennett’s outranked the Bingleys as they were landed gentry. The Bingleys were wealthier to be sure as their father was a wealthy tradesman. The irony was in the Bingley girls attitude of snobbery when they themselves came from hard earned money not old money. They gave Jane a hard time when they had a less “respectable “ background.

Apart from bowing on meeting, pretty all the first described manners I was brought up with before the disaster of the 1960's.

@catblack4091

3 жыл бұрын

Same here. I was born in the late 60s, but I was raised in the rural south so these manners were very much my upbringing.

These rules still exist in the corporate world

Although the 1995 BBC miniseries is my favorite of all adaptations, one scene irks me every time I see it: the scene that shows Jane knocking on the Bingleys' door in London by herself. No well bred lady would have ventured out without an older female companion or a servant to protect her, and if the servant was there, he would have done the knocking and have inquired whether Miss Bingley would accept Miss Bennet's call.

The characters are soooo loud and you are so ᵠᵘᶦᵉᵗ. I gave up and didn't watch it. Sad because I was interested in what you had to say.

@tj843

4 жыл бұрын

Saame

Very interesting! Thanks for uploading!

At 1:41 your narration becomes too quiet to hear what you are pointing out about this scene. Please turn it up, I would really like to hear it.

Time flies.. Things change. The common rule back then had altered a great deal to fit with modern world. Nowadays young generation pays more attention on what you are "working" not what you had inherited. This provides more hope for talented people to change their social class. Nevertheless, what you are "behaving" still as important as it were in the old days.

Maybe it was the patriarchal society, but Lizzy was really independent. Even more! She was "leading" the situation many times. From the first appointment "the alpha male" Darcy is forced by her to change himself and to conform to her. The matriarchat inside the patriarchat? Something like that. The king of Prussia, Fridericus The Second sayd once: "This man who shall understend women will rule the world." And that's the secret of those societies: Nothing was like it seemed. It was the hunting ground for both of sex: Women hunted men, and man hunted women. Each method was appropriate if it was successful. And all these "good manners" were a lure. Sometimes it was better hunting with beaters. Sometimes the bait was better. At last but not least Elizabeth's hunting finesse was in the champion level, so "a deer "Darcy didn't stand a chance!

Wish you listened to your levels before uploading can't hear you somethimes.

@Olive-uu1vt

3 жыл бұрын

I agree!

With the whole talk of etiquette and all I think it was still so rude for a person of superior class to not politely hear out an "inferior" person despite their breaking of propriety.

@GitanAnimex

4 жыл бұрын

Definitely

@jgw5491

4 жыл бұрын

@@treesoul00 Mr. Collins would not take the hint that Darcy was finished with him. Collins would have trapped him for hours.

Very informative, most are outdated but I was raised to use some of them.

There was some interesting commentary here but I have a few nitpicks. One: everything you've said is about the upper-middle and upper class. Two: it's not exactly accurate. Women in Regency England didn't have the right to vote, and wealthier women were certainly often expected to marry or become a burden. However, working and lower-middle class women often worked and some of them owned property. Many women worked as domestic servants, but others as farmers, laborers, factory workers, and even business owners. Even a poorer woman who didn't have an official trade may well create and sell goods locally: lacemaking, selling produce, knitting garments, etc. An upper class woman could absolutely inherit if there were no male relatives who could take right of primogeniture. The Bennetts' problem isn't that the daughters can't inherit the estate. It's that Mr Collins has the legal right, and Mr Bennett doesn't think for a moment that Mr Collins will provide for his daughters. Hence why Mrs Bennett initially tries to convince Lizzie to marry him, even though he's their cousin and he's foul. As the female head of his household she'd have some say on what happened to her sisters.

@DavidBrowningBYD

2 жыл бұрын

You had me until "Hence why"

@e.s.r5809

2 жыл бұрын

@@DavidBrowningBYD Fair enough. What's your interpretation?

How you behave and what manners you have reflect either positively or negatively still today though sadly many don't have manners any more.

Thank you fo much for compiling this video on the etiquette of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in England. It was well done and those who are correcting you have too much time on their hands and should waft off to other videos to voice their objections. Again, I thank you. :)

Another commentary on this time period’s etiquette said that deliberately talking to be overheard was often done.

Lady Katherine has shockingly bad manners. She was noble so it was overlooked by others. Class trumped manners.

@mariar3767

7 ай бұрын

She was nobility and super rich 😅 so they had to endure . Even her nephews

The sound volume is messed up in this vid, too loud or too quiet at varying points.

Thanks

What I find interesting is that in Regency England everybody knew how much money everybody else had and it wasn't rude to talk about it, but in modern western societies it's considered rude to talk about money like that. "Oh, that's Roger Fitzwealthy. He makes $3 million a year!" Or "That's Trudy Pennypincher. Poor as a church mouse. She only has $231.53."

@giovana4121

3 жыл бұрын

Oh that was pretty rude, but that doesn't mean people didn't... But notice that in P&P most people who talk openly about money are the ones with bad manners.

@OcarinaSapphr-

11 ай бұрын

@@giovana4121 Jane Austen herself referred to it as 'vulgar economy' in her letters - people were obsessed with their money, how much their estates & bank balances & investments generated; it's remarkable that a lot of the time, people were only living off the interest generated- between 4% & 5%, depending on whether it was a small or large deposit. Like 1000 pounds (Elizabeth's portion) wasn't considered 'large', because Mr Collins says she'll only have 40 pounds a year, rather than 50 - I wonder what kind of sum you had to deposit, to have it kick over into the higher bracket; Darcy's 10,000 for sure would make the 5%, as would his sister's 30,000 dowry...

@giovana4121

11 ай бұрын

@@OcarinaSapphr- We cannot blame them, really. If the main goal was to spend their whole lives without having to work, no effort to maintain/incrrase their fortunes would be enough. I meant only that it was rude to talk openly about it, unless it was with people they were close with... But even the most refined person will ignore social rules if the need arise. Now, about Lizzy's dowry, I don't think it would make a great difference if it was invested in the 5% instead of the 4%. Considering her father's situation in life (but also the number os sisters she had), I think a "proper" amount for her would be at least three thousand pounds.

@OcarinaSapphr-

11 ай бұрын

@@giovana4121 I saw a calculation done- where her 'ideal' portion from her father, was meant to be equivalent to her share of her mother's dowry (1000 pounds), or her father's income for one year. Which is why I never understood why he only contributed 100 pounds- it's not like all the girls were going to get married at once; it'd make more sense to focus on Jane & Lizzy - like you say, 2000-3000 pounds would be a respectable inducement for quality gentlemen- I guess it's just lucky they found love... PS- I don't know about not working; managing an estate the sizes of Pemberly or Netherfield would be full time jobs; handling the servants, purchasing linens, anything the estate doesn't grow- looking after the tenants- after all, Lizzy & Jane aren't tacky _nouveau riche_ like Caroline Bingley & Mrs Hurst- they understood the duty of _noblesse oblige_ ...

@mariar3767

7 ай бұрын

​​@@OcarinaSapphr-they did had a housekeeper and an estate manager , probably a butler too. These people were the managers .

Please fix audio :) :)

You didn't come down to breakfast in pajamas?? Ok, forget about the time machine.... I'm out!

"Women could not own property" - Wrong. Think about Georgiana and her 30k pounds, or Lady Catherine and her large estate. If a woman married, the husband would manage the property, but it stayed in her name and he was expected to run it carefully for her benefit and her heirs (perhaps her children from a prior marriage, not his).

@jeffcarty3292

4 жыл бұрын

@Jonathan Parks I stated it more accurately. Wickham would manage the 30k pounds and enjoy its income; that is why he wanted to marry her. And he could probably loot it, by mismanagement (e.g., loaning it out to his name). But that would be thought dishonorable, and any remainder would go to her heirs - which might or might not be him and/or their children together, depending on the exact circumstances and prior legal agreements.

@davidwright7193

4 жыл бұрын

Jeff Carty no the capital would have gone entirely to Wickham on marriage. On marriage the property of both parties was merged and they became a single legal entity, responsible for example for each other’s debts. For men this didn’t matter too much provided the wife didn’t squander money they didn’t have (one of Mrs Bennet’s faults) as they assumed the new joint identity entirely but the woman legally vanished unless or until her husband died. Forget about divorce at this time that requires cause (I.e the wife’s adultery) publicly proven and an act of Parliament. Then the money and property would in default go to the eldest son with a fixed proportion set aside to support the widow in her lifetime however if, not bound in other ways it could go to the widow via her husband’s will or in the absence of surviving children. The only way to avoid this is via the use of marriage articles (requiring a planned and agreed match) which could set aside the dowery and/or other funds in trust for the wife and what was to be done with the money on inheritance (usually income in the wife’s life time after her husdands death and equal shares to daughters and/or younger sons on the death of the longest surviving party). That legal contracts of this kind similar to those used to establish business partnerships were used for marriages shows how the institution was viewed at the time.

Too bad the volume fluctuates...other then that, it was informative.

"This was a patriarchal society. Men ran everything". Hear, hear ! Two of the most important English/British monarchs were Queen Elizabeth (some 200 years before the events shown in that movie) and Queen Victoria (some decades after the times of the novel). And in the movie itself Lady Catherine de Bourgh is not exactly some quiet subdued creature passing her time with drawing, reading books and cultivating "a pleasant tone of voice", is she ? I am afraid you have no idea about general history. Human society was and is far more complex than you naively think.

@andy99ish

3 жыл бұрын

@Lisa Perkett The very existence of wealthy, titled and influential women is abolishing that naive notion of an exclusively patriarchal society. And please be informed, that in working class families of the industrial age patriarchal structures were absent for the simple reason that both husband and wife (and children) had to work out of dire necessity.

There's a strange background whistle sound in this video. 🙄

@OGimouse1

4 жыл бұрын

Can't hear it

Why noone points out that Caroline Bingley is wearing an engagement ring at the card table? One of the biggest mistake in this movie.

@angie44551

4 жыл бұрын

Actually, engagement rings weren't a thing as they are today (they had previously been, but after the Protestant Reformation, the practise was abandoned up until the Victorian era). I'm sure some grooms-to-be would give their fiances rings as a gift to mark their engagement, but it didn't necessarily had to be a ring (and if it was, it wasn't worn on the left hand ring finger). A necklace or some other piece of jewlery would do the trick just the same. The closest thing to what we see today with engagement rings was the ring the groom would give to his bride on their wedding. That ring could be plain gold (like today's wedding bands) or if the groom was wealthy, it could have any gem that was in fashion during those days (garnet, peridot, pearls, diamonds, etc). Also, only the bride would usually wear a wedding ring, though there's probably exceptions to the rule. Caroline's ring is just that, a ring. There's no other significance to it according to the period's context.

One thing I hve never understood, if women were not allowed to own property, explain Lady Catherine DeBois

Women could own property. Lady Catherine owns property as will her daughter Anne.

@aislingyngaio

4 жыл бұрын

Lady Catherine is not explicitly stated to own property. As Anne is named sole heiress of the de Bourgh properties, Lady Catherine is very likely only holding Rosings Park in trust for her daughter, depending on what age Sir Lewis, in his will, names as his daughter's age of inheritance.

Well, looks like introverts would not function well in that society.

Women could indeed own property. Lady Catherine owned Rosings Park. Mrs. Bennett laments the special condition of the Bennett ancestor who entailed inheritance of Longbourn away from female children It was also vital to know how to behave towards others given their social station relative to one’s own. A person of lower status could also speak to his or her “better” if introduced by someone who had already met the more illustrious person. Mrs. Bennett commits a faux pas of speaking to Mr. Darcy before Mr. Bingly introduces him. The Bingley sisters are hypocritical scoffing at the Bennett’s relatives in trade,since their own father made his fortune in trade. But there is often no one snobbier than the nouveau riche. It is ironic that Caroline Bingley should be pontificating on what determines a. fine, accomplished lady, when she had her elbows on the card table. It’s also hypocritical the Caroline should say that Elizabeth is “severe upon your sex”, since Caroline and her sister are incredible catty. It is Ironic to me that though Lady Catherine is nobility, her behavior towards those less exalted than she is far from that of a lady and good hostess.

.

It's not true that women were not allowed to own property. However, a married woman's property became her husband's and until a woman came of age her property and person were very much under the control of her most senior male relative, i.e. her father if he was alive or even her brother if her father was dead. Once of age it was common for male relations to still exercise control over unmarried females but this was not usually exercised so stringently if they were deemed sensible females and/or well and truly spinsters.

@aislingyngaio

4 жыл бұрын

A married woman's property doesn't always automatically become her husband's. That's why marriage articles (i.e. what would be called pre-nups today) are signed, and why elopements are frowned upon (if the couple eloped and married before any articles are signed, the woman's property does indeed automatically become her husband's, making the woman very financially vulnerable if her husband turns out to be a fortune-hunting cad). The Bennets themselves were only saved 5000 pounds from the entail precisely because the marriage articles set aside the said amount from the estate (likely to be Mrs Bennet's dowry money) to be equally divided between the surviving children. It was imprudent of the Bennets of not including more, but then of course, when they first married they never thought they wouldn't have a son to cut off the entail. If Mr and Mrs Bennet never signed any marriage articles, they wouldn't even have five thousand pounds set aside to be divided amongst the girls for their dowries.

What glaring contradictions(of the regency era) that rob the word regency of its inherent dignity and exhibit obvious caste discrimination in word and deed!

First of all, your description of a patriarchal society is misleading. The restrictions on women and what they were permitted to do as a lady was determined by her class in society. A woman in trades could own a business and make her own money, but she was in trades and not a member of the gentry class or the nobility. A woman in trades even if she was unmarried could make a living for herself without an husband.

Problems with sound. Frequently couldn't hear your narration.

Why do you keep referring to the United Kingdom as England. ?

@candyclews4047

6 жыл бұрын

ooh there lies a huge question! England was at the top of the tree, Scotland passable, pesky Irish did not exist and the Welsh probably didn't exist either.... at the time, I stress!

@Tatiana_Palii

6 жыл бұрын

Probably because the book in question is set in England? :)

@Salmaelhouri1999

5 жыл бұрын

Candy Clews 😂

@larrytucker627

5 жыл бұрын

shell c Do you know your history because it was ENGLAND before it was UNITED KINGDOM AND NOTHERN IRELAND

@methvenarundell3057

4 жыл бұрын

@@larrytucker627 That's right dear, there was no Scotland. Sheesh, you ignoramus.

I cant believe Elizabeth couldn't afford to play cards

@JPKnapp-ro6xm

4 жыл бұрын

She could probably afford to play for low stakes, but aristocrats often paid for ruinously high stakes--- sometimes enough to bankrupt a man.

@JPKnapp-ro6xm

4 жыл бұрын

In Emily Post's book of etiquette (1943) she advises people to very firmly, but politely, decline to play cards if they can't afford the stakes.

You're funny you say you don't come down to breakfast when your pajamas😂😂

I wish I was back then I would talk with people meet other guys like the dancing thing you were saying.. in my world I have to work like everybody else that's the only way he has to work in this world if you don't work how are you going to be able to buy your own things..

@ucfeet1

6 жыл бұрын

You obviously have not heard of people with TRUST FUNDS or INVESTMENT INCOME.

@whatevergoesforme5129

6 жыл бұрын

They did not belong to the working class. They were all from the landed gentry and aristocracy. The Bennets, the Bingleys, the Darcys and the other families had estates so they did not work for a living and had maids and other servants. The difference lay in the size of their estates and number of servants. Pride and Prejudice is not a romance novel of the rich man falling in love with a poor girl from a different social class.

@jgw5491

4 жыл бұрын

Most people back then had to work to live. Most were not like the main characters of Austin's books who had independent incomes.

Yeah I do imagine with out TV and phone when you lose the payment goodbye WiFi TV cell phone Netflix or Game the play without those things it's a sad world this generation... maybe back then people were used to those kind of lame stuff talking to strangers the proper way

Well I'm not that social with people am I staying by myself doing things by myself watching TV watching KZread or washing my Facebook by myself I'm not so sure I social person

@ucfeet1

6 жыл бұрын

Since you claim to spend so much time alone by yourself perhaps you might consider taking an English composition class. Your command of the English language and sentence structure is abhorrent and speaks volumes to you certainly not being overburdened by education.

@sonnyroy497

5 жыл бұрын

Ouch!

@colabama

5 жыл бұрын

Aholibama's thoughts were PERFECTLY clear in his statement.UNKINDNESS though,is the greatest fault in criticism.

05:41 Women were allowed to own property. This is flatly wrong. Consider Anne Lister of Halifax, and likewise Ann Walker. They both owned huge estates. Neither ever married, not legally. In fact you don't have to do more than a tiny bit of research to learn this piece of "knowledge" is absurd and inaccurate.

@glennonpoirier2530

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks. I’m an English teacher. I made this in my free time to try to help my students better understand a novel. I’m very sorry my history of English property law in the 1800’s was incorrect. Unfortunately, it wasn’t my specialty,. In fact, I did attempt to do research, but mostly from sources mostly concerned with analyzing literature rather than history. Again, I’m sorry I failed to be completely accurate. I prioritized helping kids have an idea of why Elizabeth might feel pressured to marry someone rich. My students wouldn’t be tested on property law of any time period. I hope you weren’t too inconvenienced by my inaccuracy.

Really I never done that go to my neighbor's house like nothing just to talk not this generation is not normal a polite to do that go to their house..? maybe back then

@jgw5491

4 жыл бұрын

What are you going to do if you don't have Instagram or Facebook?

@OGimouse1

4 жыл бұрын

Wut

@pat4005

4 жыл бұрын

Aholibama Hernandez In that time period, people knew their neighbors. When new people moved into the neighborhood, they went at some point to introduce themselves and welcome the new neighbor. Then, after introductions, the new neighbor could feel free to pay visits and invite their neighbors to over visit and socialize. Since there were no telephones back then, you had to write a note or letter and send that or go in person to communicate with friends, family and neighbors, so it wasn’t considered wrong to go visit someone at their home (unless you did it at inappropriate hours, like at dinnertime or at night, etc.).

@elaineschoepf8024

4 жыл бұрын

There were certain times of day when people either went calling or stayed at home to receive callers.

@faithlesshound5621

4 жыл бұрын

Before everyone had a telephone in their home, it was common for people in England to go visiting without warning (and just as common to find the other family were out). That was the norm up to the 1950s, and some older people carried on doing that. For the upper classes, there was a whole rigmarole of being "at home," or servants saying they were "not at home" if they were unready, and a ritual of leaving printed visiting cards with the names of accompanying family members inked in to encourage return visits or invitations.

Unwatchable. Or rather, unhearable. Audio is very low.

Bruh what is this

Too many obnoxious commercials. I stopped watching.

@elaineschoepf8024

4 жыл бұрын

DCFunBud it's the price of not subscribing.

@DCFunBud

4 жыл бұрын

@@elaineschoepf8024 No, that's the price of greed.

We came a long way... in worse direction.

Very bad sound quality, I'm out of here, too much effort to try to hear the narrator., could have been interesting...