tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855534673018568344.post9101515781024610247..comments2024-03-11T17:11:49.118-04:00Comments on Regency Ramble: What Did the Aristocracy Do for A Living?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17257897245553446481noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855534673018568344.post-75268478473004638532008-11-18T22:30:00.000-05:002008-11-18T22:30:00.000-05:00Hi Mrs. Young, You said that a man if he was titl...Hi Mrs. Young,<br><br> You said that a man if he was titled could take a seat in the House of Lords. Now, Darcy was never referred to as an Earl, Duke, Bishop, etc. so I presume that he and Bingley would not have had a seat in the House of Lords but would have most likely held a postion in the House of Commons. Would this assumption be correct from your view? In contrast, the deceased spouse of Lady Catherine would have probably been in the House of Lords because he would have been an Earl correct? Lastly, I've encountered what seem to be conflicting statements on this. Does the Peerage include any other members of high society that aren't titled, like Darcy. On the Jane Austen site you linked me to, (which was excellent) there was a picture of Colin Firth in the description of the Gentry and in that passage it mentioned Darcy. So I inferred he was a member of that class, but the descriptions of the Gentry seemed somewhat below his level of life and your descriptions of the Peerage in this post seemed to match him which leads me to think he would be in a lower designation of the Peerage. If I am asking to many questions, don't hesitate to let me know. :) And I promise that I'm not going to become a barnacle to your site here and overload you with tons of questions after every post! I respect and appreciate your time and won't consume it in the future. :)<br>O.K. that's all for now,<br>RyanRyan D. Turnewitschnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855534673018568344.post-62810203695149454192008-11-19T09:49:00.000-05:002008-11-19T09:49:00.000-05:00Ryan, I'm pleased that you ask such great question...Ryan, I'm pleased that you ask such great questions. It sounds like you are having fun with this, and that is important, because History is fun.<br><br>To answer some of your questions, Darcy was not titled, although he was certainly related to titled families, which gave him access to all of those titled families as an equal, in my opinion.<br><br>Since Mr. Darcy is fictional, we only know what Miss Austen tells us. But with regards to the Commons, he would be eligible to be elected. Yes, they had elections and if you look at the new post, you will see that the electoral boroughs did not represent numbers of people, since they were established before the cities began to grow. Only landowners were eligible to vote, which disenfranchised a great number of people as you can imagine. <br><br>And moving to the present day democracy was not without its growing pains, to put it mildly.<br><br>I doubt if a landowner like Darcy would actually sit in the Commons. --He would be too busy. But he would support a man in his electoral borough who represented his views. And the views of the great landowners were not always conservative, it is owing to them-- don't forget they were the educated men, (and in many cases women, for their wives while not having the vote would have influence on their husbands)-- that reforms took place.<br><br>As educated men and as thinkers many of them saw the rightness of extending rights and privileges to all. And many of them did not.<br><br>If you want to look at a female liberal political influences of the time, look at Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, or Mary Wollstonecraft.<br><br>On the issue of gentry, like everything else, there were degrees of status.<br><br>A Peer of the Realm holds a title. No one else can be called a peer. You can be related to one, you can be considered of a noble family if you are related to one, but not a Peer.<br><br>Hope that helps.Michele Ann Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014331460819358895noreply@blogger.com