Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
Who Is Your Least Favorite Character Lead Or Supporting?
I think the truth is that everything much depended on the particular situation of the woman in question, regarding not only her monetary position, and class, but also the people she was surrounded with. There are plenty of examples of women who lived their own lives and led their own businesses, for example Elinor James who was a printer and a pamphleteer. And even before the Regency period, a man couldn't do just anything he pleased with his wife (see here the trial of the Earl of Castlehaven after he raped his wife in the 17th century). Jenny has a strong and protective father who, after all, funds Adam. She could, if she wished it, exercise more control and assert herself more. She chooses to be subservient. And Georgette Heyer chose to reward her for never standing up for herself, for never expressing an opinion or preference, or even dismay at her husband's indifference towards her and her rights as his wife.
Emily wrote: "I think the truth is that everything much depended on the particular situation of the woman in question, regarding not only her monetary position, and class, but also the people she was surrounded ..."That is what is so unlikeable about the book for me, that Jenny's submissiveness eventually leads to Adam loving her in a way. She is, as you say, rewarded for never standing up for herself.
Susan wrote: "Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was ..."
In 1814, very few people had many rights. But single women with incomes were often quite keen to marry, they wanted husbands and children just like some women still do today. And of course wealthy women from merchant backgrounds like Jenny's were often keen to marry up and get into the aristocracy.
Sometimes it sounds as though we think that all men at that time were monsters, that they wanted to marry so that they could control and enslave their wives (insert evil laugh here) and, thus, have a cold, vicious home life. I don't think that human nature has changed all that much; there were certainly men like that then - and there are men like that now. All the "rights" in the world will not ultimately protect a woman from an evil man.
My comment was sitting around waiting to be finished for so long that it didn't get into the right part of the discussion (dominoes and four year old boys getting into the act), but I do think all of your comments are valuable, especially when they're reminders of what human nature is.
Emily wrote: "...I am not talking about legal rights, which women also had, of course, such as not being stolen from or not being killed or raped. ..."I have to pick you up on the not being raped point. A married woman could not accuse her husband of rape. She had no right of consent or no consent. The Earl of Carnarvon case was different because he held her while someone else raped her.
Moreover, a husband had the right to beat his wife.
Also, on marriage a woman's property became her husband's, unless an elaborate trust had been set up on the marriage. He did not need to steal from her, therefore.
There was a legal presumption that on marriage the two became one legal person. This is why one could not give evidence against the other in a court of law except in special circumstances.
I'm not really sure now why we're discussing women's rights in the Regency period! No one forced Jenny to marry Adam. Her father has noticed that she likes him, and he suggests the marriage to her, but she tells Adam that her father isn't compelling her to marry him, and wouldn't do so. She makes it clear that she does want to marry him. He doesn't realise then that it's because she loves him.Her desire to make him comfortable and to look after him and do what he wants may seem odd to us, but it wouldn't have seemed at all odd at the time. And it's in character for Jenny. She's not docile or stupid, but she wants to make his life as easy as she can because of the way she feels about him.
We are talking technicalities here: the rape issue is about the spouse having to make themselves sexually available to the other spouse, but that went both ways. The husband had to sleep with the wife too, and I believe she could divorce him if he didn't. So that's not really a point about women's rights, it's a point about the logical definition of marriage at the time. The example I gave is not about rape so much, I suppose, but about abuse. The husband can't do just anything he pleases to the wife, clearly - not in the 17th century, and not later either. As to possessions: yes, property and inheritance laws were skewed against women. I am not disputing that. But that's a far cry from saying that women were like slaves. There were ways in which women could secure their fortunes, it happened.But that's beside the point, as you rightly pointed out - the situation with Jenny and Adam is different. I agree with you entirely with what you said in your second post:
HJ wrote: "Her desire to make him comfortable and to look after him and do what he wants may seem odd to us, but it wouldn't have seemed at all odd at the time. And it's in character for Jenny. She's not docile or stupid, but she wants to make his life as easy as she can because of the way she feels about him. "
That's true. But that doesn't disprove my statement that she behaves like a doormat, and that the moral, if such a thing can be derived from a Heyer novel, is unpleasant. Compare this to, say, Hero from Friday's Child. Same situation: she married him for his sake, but she was also in love with him. She made no demands upon him, only wanted him to be happy. She was certainly entirely powerless in this situation, she had no family to speak of who could really help her (certainly none who loved and cared for her like Jenny's father obviously does). But there was a breaking point for her where she would go no further, and she left him. She stood up for herself. Jenny didn't. It's not very satisfying to read of a woman putting up with indifference, intolerance, and other kinds of mean behaviour from a husband, saying nothing, and then having the novel end with a: "see? Now he tolerates her!" Kind of a bummer.
HJ wrote: "I'm not really sure now why we're discussing women's rights in the Regency period! No one forced Jenny to marry Adam. Her father has noticed that she likes him, and he suggests the marriage to her,..."I don't think it odd of a woman to want to make her husband comfortable, I imagine any woman would who is fond of her husband. But for me it doesn't make for a very appealing story to have a heroine whose entire life consists of placating her husband and trying to win his affection by ministering to his every need. And ends by gaining some lukewarm affection as her reward. I like a heroine with more spirit.
Had the marriage been one of convenience on both sides, had she married for social position like he married for money, then it would be a more equal alliance and a more interesting story if they proceeded to fall in love with each other. Also if she had not been friends with the woman he really loved. These things make her unappealing to me.
Louise wrote:Had the marriage been one of convenience on both sides, had she married for social position like he married for money, then it would be a more equal alliance and a more interesting story if they proceeded to fall in love with each other. Also if she had not been friends with the woman he really loved. These things make her unappealing to me.
On the contrary! It would have been exactly like all the run of the mill Regencies. What appeals to me is the interplay between Jenny's practicality and quiet managing ways and Adam's romantic fantasies. While some see her as being a doormat, she is really getting her own way much of the time. Consider her renovation of Fontley with the new stove and draperies as well as bringing their chef from London!
I thought BTW that her reaction to the peacocks was delightful. She would have preferred doves for their manure! Besides, peacocks and a house that is not a stately mansion? How incongruous!
I think too that Adam came to realize that Julia was really just a youthful infatuation and not at all the wife for him. Julia would never have been happy ruralizing while Adam worked to bring his estate in order or making a comfortable home for him.
Happily we are entitled to our own likes and dislikes and have our own reasons for them. GH wrote plenty of the spirited heroines which is why I enjoy jenny and Phoebe, her more realistic creations.
Jacquie wrote: "Louise wrote:Had the marriage been one of convenience on both sides, had she married for social position like he married for money, then it would be a more equal alliance and a more interesting s..."
I don't consider a spirited woman less realistic than a dreary one like Jenny, there were certainly plenty of spirited women in the Regency era. The sparring between the hero and heroine which is usually part of a Heyer novel is one of the most delightful things about them. I like most of her heroines,but not this one. I see no reason why there shouldn't be peacocks in a house that isn't a stately home. No reason why you can't have peacocks and doves. But I imagine Jenny dislikes anything too bright and flamboyant, peacocks don't go with her dull personality. Adam was resigned to being married to Jenny in the end, but he'll never really love her, not the way Jenny wants to be loved. I don't think I know who Phoebe is. I agree people aren't entitled to their own likes and dislikes, I've merely said why I dislike Jenny. That's what this thread is about.
Phoebe from Sylvester? Lol, the Phoebe who made a laughing-stock out of a duke who didn't pay her enough attention? I don't know how you can compare her to the entirely spiritless Jenny. And I agree with Louise - why is Jenny more realistic? I don't understand that at all!
Emily wrote:why is Jenny more realistic? I don't understand that at all!
Jenny quietly MANAGES as much of her life as she can. Julia tries to get her own way with DRAMATICS. Any successful wife knows that there is more to be gained with honey than with fireworks. And even if making up after an argument is sweet there has to be the disagreement first and I don't think Adam would go for a knock down fight.
I suspect that many of us enjoy the fireworks when we read but would not like to live with a firecracker. Give Adam the same comfort as he rebuilds his life after the too exciting army service.
I shall continue to like Adam and Jenny as they continue their quietly satisfying lives. I wish I could follow Mr. Crowley and Adam as they pursue their canal building scheme. A lot of canals were built, transforming the movement of goods before the railroads were built. But that is a later era than GH wrote about.
Remember, we are judging a character in a novel, not an actual wife, Jacquie. Naturally, an actual marriage is a complex thing. Sometimes arguments are necessary. It much depends on the couple and the situation. But Jenny is not a wife, or a person, she's a character in a novel. And as a character in a novel, as you already pointed out, it is more enjoyable to see someone overcome their weaknesses or their troubles, and stand up on their feet and grow and become better and stronger. She doesn't. She is a Milquetoast.
As a friend, I would benefit more from Jenny's calm practicality than Julia's selfish hysterics. Think of all the energy needed to babysit her! As far as Adam, he is def not the ideal man, how on earth can he have two people so taken by him? How does everyone feel about Adam? And at the risk of being dull and boring, peacocks at home are totally tacky and so noisy! Although they do drop their feathers at a nice rate, and the feathers are pretty.
Emily wrote: "Phoebe from Sylvester? Lol, the Phoebe who made a laughing-stock out of a duke who didn't pay her enough attention? I don't know how you can compare her to the entirely spiritless Jenny. And I ag..."
Oh yes, now I remember. I haven't read Sylvester for ages and had forgotten the heroine's name. But I don't remember her being at all like Jenny, I thought she was quite feisty. And she wrote a book, something I could never imagine Jenny doing.
Emily wrote: "Remember, we are judging a character in a novel, not an actual wife, Jacquie. Naturally, an actual marriage is a complex thing. Sometimes arguments are necessary. It much depends on the couple and ..."That's it, someone like Jenny simply doesn't make a very interesting heroine, when you compare her to Heyer's other leading ladies. I think 'Milquetoast' is a good word, sums Jenny up very nicely.
Critterbee wrote: "As a friend, I would benefit more from Jenny's calm practicality than Julia's selfish hysterics. Think of all the energy needed to babysit her! As far as Adam, he is def not the ideal man, how on e..."Good question, about Adam. (I'm amazed at the ire poor Jenny has generated!) I don't like him of course , as a hero he is not nearly heroic enough and is blind to good female qualities to boot . But I always thought he would realise fully what a pearl he has in Jenny , who , though I would love her to be a feminist, is not , but is imbued with a quiet strength. I don't think it will take him too long either . I think the egregious whatshername who faints is his aberration, not Jenny.
But he's far from being my least favourite character . In the Regencies I think Worth is that ,and in the non Regencies/ Georgians it's Penhallow , the worst of any character , almost anywhere .
Barbara wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "As a friend, I would benefit more from Jenny's calm practicality than Julia's selfish hysterics. Think of all the energy needed to babysit her! As far as Adam, he is def not the ..."I think Adam is a poor fish. But he made his bed, and now he'll have to lie in it. I think he's as fond of Jenny as he's going to get by the end of A Civil Contract, she lacks sex appeal and he's never going to be as attracted to her as he was to Julia. But he chose money over love, so he can't complain. It's a passionless marriage, but he seems reasonably satisfied with it. I can't imagine Jenny as a feminist, but then I can't imagine any of Heyer's heroines as feminists.
Interesting. At the risk of lobbing a grenade into this discussion, it was Adam I didn't like in previous reads not Jenny!
Carol ♪ Blinded by the Light ♪ GR Background wrote: "Interesting. At the risk of lobbing a grenade into this discussion, it was Adam I didn't like in previous reads not Jenny!"So funny, all this about Jenny and you didn't even suggest her i the first place! Still, all been interesting .
Louise , I didn't really mean I thought Jenny ( or any other Regency heroine) could have been a feminist, lol.
I keep inserting the egregious Penhallow into the mix, anyone care to hate him here?
I think Carol hinted at voting for Helen from A Blunt Instrument as a LEAST favorite character but I haven't seen it actually posted yet. I couldn't stand Helen. What an idiot.
Amy wrote: "I think Carol hinted at voting for Helen from A Blunt Instrument as a LEAST favorite character but I haven't seen it actually posted yet. I couldn't stand Helen. What an idiot."Oh yes indeedy.
Eugenia is meant to be unlikeable, but I think we are meant to find Helen stupid but sympathetic.
Barbara wrote: " Carol ♪ Blinded by the Light ♪ GR Background wrote: "Interesting. At the risk of lobbing a grenade into this discussion, it was Adam I didn't like in previous reads not Jenny!"So funny, all this..."
I'm with yu on Penhallow -I found nothing redeemable about him. Completely miserable, malicious person. Felt like a Stockholm Syndrome situation when he was mourned by his family.
Amy wrote: "I think Carol hinted at voting for Helen from A Blunt Instrument as a LEAST favorite character but I haven't seen it actually posted yet. I couldn't stand Helen. What an idiot."There's a lot of women like Helen in Heyer's novels, beautiful but dim and needing to have their lives sorted out by their more intelligent sister/cousin/friend etc.
I 'd like to nominate the Vereker brother and sister from Death in the Stocks Ghastly self absorbed upper class twits. I was always sorry they weren't the murder victims...
Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was possible. They..."
As a matter of fact, in 19th century America, the legal status of a married woman differed from that of a slave only in the fact that her husband couldn't sell her, and if he killed her, he'd probably be held accountable. He could abuse her, have sex with her against her will, and separate her from her children. True, few wives actually were so badly treated, but it was legal.
Divorce was possible at that time, but the conditions that would allow a woman to divorce her husband were much narrower than those for the reverse situation. The few GH female characters who are divorced and remarried were divorced by their husbands for having affairs and were then lucky enough that their lovers married them--or some other man did. For a woman to obtain a divorce at that time (and at least a generation or two later), she had to prove not only that her husband had been unfaithful but that he had been unfaithful with either another man or a woman very closely related to him. Lord Byron's wife was able to divorce him because she alleged (and was believed) that he had had an affair with his half sister. Then think of all the GH ladies who can only hold their heads up and their mouths closed when their husbands are carrying on with other women.
Another fictional example occurs in Hardy's The Woodlanders, published in 1886 and taking place not long before then. When the husband of one of the two heroines runs off with another woman, the abandoned wife files for divorce but is told that "His behavior towards her had not been sufficiently cruel." (I'm quoting from memory and am probably not 100% accurate.)
BTW, I mentioned on another thread just a day or two ago that Hardy wrote "five or six" major novels. "The Woodlanders is the sixth.)
Louise wrote: "Amy wrote: "I think Carol hinted at voting for Helen from A Blunt Instrument as a LEAST favorite character but I haven't seen it actually posted yet. I couldn't stand Helen. What an idiot."There'..."
I suppose we should be happy that the pretty but dim girls were being helped by another woman, who was actually intelligent, instead of just relying on a man for help...
MaryC wrote: "Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was ..."
Not too many decent men in Hardy novels?
Either they were so good, like Angel Clare, they were nearly inhuman, or they were womanizers like Sergeant Troy, or they were Jude, who took others with him, or the Mayor of Casterbridge...I think Gabriel Oaks might have been one of the best.
MaryC wrote: "As a matter of fact, in 19th century America, the legal status of a married woman differed from that of a slave only in the fact that her husband couldn't sell her, and if he killed her, he'd probably be held accountable. He could abuse her, have sex with her against her will, and separate her from her children. True, few wives actually were so badly treated, but it was legal. Divorce was possible at that time, but the conditions that would allow a woman to divorce her husband were much narrower than those for the reverse situation. The few GH female characters who are divorced and remarried were divorced by their husbands for having affairs and were then lucky enough that their lovers married them--or some other man did. For a woman to obtain a divorce at that time (and at least a generation or two later), she had to prove not only that her husband had been unfaithful but that he had been unfaithful with either another man or a woman very closely related to him. Lord Byron's wife was able to divorce him because she alleged (and was believed) that he had had an affair with his half sister. Then think of all the GH ladies who can only hold their heads up and their mouths closed when their husbands are carrying on with other women.
"
I genuinely think that a comparison to slavery is not right in this context. A woman chose to marry, no one could force her, and so on that ground alone this is not like slavery. I am not saying divorce was common or easy - of course it was not. But it was possible, which is again more than a slave can say for themselves. I just think that a more accurate representation of how women were treated is not to compare them to slaves but to children. The system was designed in such a way as to 'protect them' and 'care for them' even as it took away much of their power to act independently and for themselves, like an adult would.
But this is still irrelevant to Jenny's situation of course, because she does come with some power into the relationship. She has a rich, caring father, who could have made life unpleasant for Adam if she but chose to complain. Her particular situation is certainly not that of a slave! Especially, as so much depended on the actual husband, and Adam, for all the flaws that we have discussed in him, was not actively cruel and evil. She could have stood up for herself, and negotiated a better position for herself, but she chose not to. And the Heyer chose to reward her for it. That's all I'm saying.
Emily wrote: "MaryC wrote: "As a matter of fact, in 19th century America, the legal status of a married woman differed from that of a slave only in the fact that her husband couldn't sell her, and if he killed h..."The legal status of women was indeed more like that of children than of slaves. Husbands were held responsible for their wives' behaviour,, and were liable for their debts etc. And of course there were many women who managed to rule the roost despite the law. There's that wonderful passage in 'Oliver Twist' where Mr Brownlow points out to Mr Bumble that the law considers him the more guilty of the two, since the law presumes his wife acts under his direction. To which Mr Bumble replies with spirit:
"If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor, and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience."
Yes, it reminds me of Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Women", in which she complains that women are essentially kept in a state of weakness of mind and body, as though they were meant to always be child-like. It's a more insidious thing than slavery in the way that it is so much harder to overthrow (as we can see still today). But it is doing slavery an injustice to compare it to the plight of most women, since there is no dignity, no happiness possible, I don't think, when you are a slave, whereas many women married happily and were comfortable in their marriages - and certainly after the romantic period started, marriages became about romance and mutual understanding and love and comfort for both parties. So I think it is a gross exaggeration to compare the two.
Emily wrote: "Yes, it reminds me of Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Women", in which she complains that women are essentially kept in a state of weakness of mind and body, as though they we..."And of course there were women of the upper classes who had great political influence, even though they had no vote. I'm re-reading 'Perilous Question' by Antonia Fraser at the moment, her fascinating book about the Reform Bill of 1832. Lady Jersey, who is mentioned in several of Georgette Heyer's novels, was still going strong at that time. Antonia Fraser writes of her "The Countess of Jersey was a powerful Tory hostess whose hauteur frightened all but the bravest hearts - Disraeli would introduce her as 'Queen Sarah. in his novel Endymion."
Kim wrote: "Either they were so good, like Angel Clare, they were nearly inhuman, or they were womanizers like Sergeant Troy, or they were Jude, who took others with him, or the Mayor of Casterbridge...I think..."I'm with you about Gabriel Oak! However, I wouldn't blame Jude for what happened with his children, if that's what you meant by taking others with him. I think he was a decent, manly man who got involved with two of the wrong women.
There's also DIggory Venn, in The Return of the Native--once he gets all that reddle washed off! And in The Woodlanders, there's Giles Winterborne--something of a preview of Jude, without bringing much tragedy to anyone else.
I wonder if Angel really was "good." I like your description of him as "nearly inhuman."
Yes, he's a sanctimonious prig, but he does improve. I just wish he had thought to "confess," most likely at the very trial, that HE had killed Alec. He had good reason, since Alec had stolen his wife. Of course, Tess would have insisted on her own guilt, but maybe the jury would have been so moved by their efforts to take the blame for each other that it would have acquitted her. (I actually read, years ago, that when Tess was published, judges and lawyers from all over the UK wrote to Hardy to say that no jury would have convicted her.)
i don't like Angel, but i wouldn't expect him to take the blame for a murder he didn't commit, that would be going too far. unreasonable of him to blame Alec for 'stealing' his wife as well, after all he was the one who dumped her and went off to south America. neither man treats Tess well. But if Angel had any sense, he'd have run off with Tess to south America - no passports in those days, they could have been out of the country before anyone started looking for them.
I thought I was safe from Hardy and Tess of the Durbervilles on a Georgette Heyer site! We had to read this book for A level and I hated it. I couldn't stand Angel Clare, and Tess drove me crazy. I do have to concede that Hardy could write good prose -- I remember his description of an orchard in the early morning was wonderful. But his characters ...We were also reading Persuasion by Jane Austen, and I found the contrast very telling (and in Austen's favour). But to my amazement most of the class preferred Hardy.
An interesting sidelight to women's roles is the example of Elizabeth I, who had to become a virgin to get rid of the manipulations to get a man to marry her (and possibly become king). By creating her own new role, a lot of political problems were avoided.And the differences between classes may be bigger than the differences between genders - at least when royalty is involved.
Louise wrote: "i don't like Angel, but i wouldn't expect him to take the blame for a murder he didn't commit, that would be going too far. unreasonable of him to blame Alec for 'stealing' his wife as well, after ..."True, but it would have made a nice twist to the story! Of course, Hardy moved further and further from happy endings as he progressed! (I read somewhere that he included the marriage of Tamsin Yeobright and Diggory Venn in Return because he felt some pressure to include SOMETHING positive!)
HJ wrote: "I thought I was safe from Hardy and Tess of the Durbervilles on a Georgette Heyer site! We had to read this book for A level and I hated it. I couldn't stand Angel Clare, and Tess drove me crazy. I..."I can't say which one I prefer, because they're so different, but I have to admit that I've never reread a Hardy novel, much as I was engrossed in each one while I was reading it! When I read Tess. I carried it around with me and was riding on a DC Transit bus when I came to the sleepwalking scene, and I think I sat there with tears dripping onto the page.
OK. back to a world where the most that anyone is guilty of is bad manners! :)
Howard wrote: "An interesting sidelight to women's roles is the example of Elizabeth I, who had to become a virgin to get rid of the manipulations to get a man to marry her (and possibly become king). By creating..."Love this, 'become a virgin' ! It was a very clever and politic move and policy of Elizabeth's, and one which I think is not now always understood and one for she is often not given credit , in terms of what she gave upon in order to remain the monarch she thought England deserved .
I wish I were smart enough to link this back to the actual topic, but alas.......
Barbara wrote: "Howard wrote: "An interesting sidelight to women's roles is the example of Elizabeth I, who had to become a virgin to get rid of the manipulations to get a man to marry her (and possibly become kin..."Elizabeth only really embraced the cult of the virgin Queen after she was past marrying age. She never entirely ruled out marriage until she was past it.
On that subject, in her thirties (I think) she was courted by the Duc D'Alencon, son of Henri II of France and Catherine de Medici. Since he was the youngest son, of course he was never going to be King, and In any case, he died young--like all his brothers. If Elizabeth had married him and had a son, that child would have done what the Hundred Years War couldn't and united the two crowns. Now just think what would have gone through Catherine's mind as her older sons died off, childless, and she came to realize that the heir to the throne of France was across the Channel, growing up VERY English!
MaryC wrote: "On that subject, in her thirties (I think) she was courted by the Duc D'Alencon, son of Henri II of France and Catherine de Medici. Since he was the youngest son, of course he was never going to be..."I can't imagine what would have happened in that case. The French would not have accepted a Protestant king, nor the English a Catholic one. It's very difficult to see how that would have worked out.
Jenny quietly MANAGES as much of her life as she can. Julia tries to get her own way with DRAMATICS. Any successful wife..."Thank you, Jacquie. At last someone who likes to speculate on the Lyntons later lives. I will confess that I have written at least 3 or 4 more chapters in my head, usually in the middle of the night when I can't sleep. They are deep in preparations for Lydia's wedding and ,guess what, they are enjoying themselves, talking and planning and playing with their son. I love this book and some of the comments have made me feel as upset as I would if my family was being criticised. And aren't we lucky to be keen readers of such a wonderful author. Think of the poor souls who haven't discovered our fabulous Georgette!
Dianacaroline wrote: "Jenny quietly MANAGES as much of her life as she can. Julia tries to get her own way with DRAMATICS. Any successful wife..."Thank you, Jacquie. At last someone who likes to speculate on the Lynto..."
My favoured scenario is that Jenny dies in childbirth, Julia's husband dies as well, and Julia can marry Adam after all.
Louise wrote: "My favoured scenario is that Jenny dies in childbirth, Julia's husband dies as well, and Julia can marry Adam after all. "Whoa, why do you want Adam to be so unhappy? I know he is a bit of a jerk, but...
I think that their relationship would quickly turn into one much like Mr and Mrs. Bennet's relationship in P&P. Julia is such a future Mrs. Bennet.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Talisman Ring (other topics)Faro's Daughter (other topics)
The Corinthian (other topics)
The Nonesuch (other topics)
The Nonesuch (other topics)
More...
Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, eve..."
There was no social security for anyone in the Regency period, male or female. And some women did have successful careers - Jane Austen was doing very well as writer when she died for instance, she might have become a wealthy woman if she had lived. And Jane Marcet for example had bestselling books like Conversations in Chemistry for instance (Michael Faraday said it was one of the two books that had influenced him the most, the other one being the Encyclopedia Britannica). And being a governess can't always have been that terrible - after all Mrs Weston in Emma was a governess, and she seems to have been happy with Emma, and then have made a good marriage. Real life governesses must sometimes have had happy lives also.
Though none of this is relevent to Jenny anyway, she has plenty of money, her father is a very rich man. She needn't marry anyone if she doesn't want to, and certainly has no need to be a governess, but she can't wait to get her hands on Adam.