18th Century Anachronisms

[rebecca dewinter]

Okay, so every period drama has some things that are ahead of its time. Obviously we don't really want to see characters living with 18th century hygiene, etc. but some of these things are super relevant to the plot. 

1. The very idea that Ross could divorce Demelza and choose Elizabeth, which is apparently treated as a serious possibility by all the characters. Elizabeth, Demelza, Ross and Aunt Agatha all view his decision as if it's a simple love triangle "who will he choose", and literally no one even brings up the fact that divorce is nearly impossible at this time unless you're super rich and are willing to risk social derision (not to mention airing your dirty laundry in public to obtain an act of parliament). The idea that Elizabeth would hope for this outcome is also weird as hell given how much emphasis she puts on Geoffrey Charles's future - either option of marrying Ross after he somehow manages to divorce his wife or living with him without marriage would've ruined their family reputation. 

2. I'm not a book reader so I don't know whether this is a show only thing, but Demelza banishing Ross to the couch, considering a revenge fuck, threatening to take their son away (legally she has no rights to do so) and pontificating about not wanting to be second best are so out-of-this-world anachronistic to me. Felt like a 90s sitcom honestly.  Hello? Marriage in the 18th century was mostly a contract to secure yourself and your future. I guess, refusing sexual relations and female adultery were some of the few grounds for divorce back then so maybe she was trying to push Ross to a decision? Why does no one even bring up the fact that laws at the time would not have been favorable? 

3. Caroline inheriting her fortune/estate. Is this addressed in the books? Cause in Pride & Prejudice and Downton Abbey, they're literally scouring the earth for distant male cousins to inherit. I find it hard to believe there is not a single male relative in the Penvenen family. Did the whole family die in a fire leaving only Ray and Caroline? 

4. The laxness in regards to inter-class romance and marriage. Most literature of that time that involves romance of people between different stations are mostly about money, yet both members are typically gentility. People give George and Elizabeth shit for being so adamantly against Drake and Morwenna but that's just how things are. The closest comparison I guess is Sybill running off with the chauffeur on Downton Abbey but that was post-WWI when the class structure was crumbling. 

[Llywela]

Some of the anachronisms you mention are specific to the show and are points on which the show has chosen to depart from the books to exaggerate the drama (or melodrama).

1 and 2. Do you mind a book comparison here? I'll put it behind a spoiler cut.

Book!Demelza does banish Ross from her bedroom (not so out of the way for an angry wife in any century, I feel, so long as she could be sure her husband weren't an abusive bastard who would force her - and upper classes often kept separate rooms anyway) and she does consider having an affair of her own - again, this is not an anachronism for any century, really, infidelity has existed for as long as marriage, at all levels of society. And she does reach the point of wanting to leave Ross (in the book, Prudie no longer works for them, so it is to Prudie that Demelza plans to flee, in the first instance, and she never looks further ahead than that). But Book!Demelza knows she cannot take her son with her when she leaves, and the fact that she is prepared to leave him underlines just how desperate and unhappy she has become. And nobody ever suggests for a moment that it would be possible for Ross to divorce her and marry Elizabeth instead. Demelza does think he will leave her and go to Elizabeth, but divorce and re-marriage are never suggested (publicly, if he'd actually done that, he would simply be a concerned relative taking care of his cousin's widow and child - what they did behind closed doors might have been whispered about, but the veneer of respectability was what counted). And the conversations they have about it in the book are far more in keeping with the time - the show modernized it all considerably.

3. Caroline's situation is very different than that of the Bennet family in Pride and Prejudice or the Crowleys in Downton Abbey. In both of those cases, the estate has been entailed away from the female line, meaning that it can only be inherited by a direct male descendant, which is why they have to scour the family tree to find one. There is no entail on Killewarren, which means that Caroline can inherit directly - as plenty of women have, throughout history. Her estate and fortune then, of course, become the property of her husband when she marries, because the law was sexist as all heck, but there is nothing anachronistic about her ability to inherit. Pride and Prejudice might feature an entailed estate, but Jane Austen's works also mention plenty of wealthy heiresses being preyed on by fortune hunters - just like Caroline and the wannabe MP who was courting her so avidly for her fortune. (In the book, Caroline did have another uncle, also a bachelor, who shared responsibility for her when she was growing up, and it was from him she'd inherited the smaller fortune that became hers at 21 and which she initially expected to live on when she planned her elopement with Dwight. And she also has a married aunt who lives in London. But it is a small family, yes).

4. I don't think there has been a great deal of laxness with regard to inter-class marriage. The unusual nature of Ross's marriage to Demelza has, in fact, been commented on regularly as being an extraordinary thing. Dwight and Caroline are technically the same class, the only difference between them is financial. And it has been made very clear in the show, by more people than just George and Elizabeth, that Drake and Morwenna should not have encouraged one another's affections, because the class divide is impossible.

On the whole, though, anything that particularly tweaks your anachronism button will most likely be a show invention and a distortion of what happens in the books.

[Ceindreadh]

1 hour ago, rebecca dewinter said:

Okay, so every period drama has some things that are ahead of its time. Obviously we don't really want to see characters living with 18th century hygiene, etc. but some of these things are super relevant to the plot. 

 

 

3. Caroline inheriting her fortune/estate. Is this addressed in the books? Cause in Pride & Prejudice and Downton Abbey, they're literally scouring the earth for distant male cousins to inherit. I find it hard to believe there is not a single male relative in the Penvenen family. Did the whole family die in a fire leaving only Ray and Caroline? 

 

 

The problems in Pride and Prejudice and Downtown Abbey I'm guessing were that the estate (land and buildings) were entailed, as in they were specifically directed to go to the eldest male heir.  Presumably the Penvenen estates/inheritances weren't entailed and as such could be left to whichever member of the family the testator wanted to leave them to when drawing up the will.  There's no specific bar on women inheriting but of course upon marriage it would all devolve to their husband. 

In the book, I believe that Caroline is the heiress to her parents monies because she's an only child, and as there's no title to deal with there's no need to seek out other heirs. 

[rebecca dewinter]

So I guess this might be more an issue for P&P and DA then but why didn't they just un-entailed the estate and allow the eldest daughter to inherit? Wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble. Or is it just something that's established once and can never be broken?

The thing about Ross & Elizabeth that still confuses me is if he had decided to just live at Trenwith under the appearance of being a concerned cousin, how on earth would they account for any children she might bear? I mean I'm pretty sure he's not just gonna be there to handle her estate and financial matters lol. Maybe there's primitive birth control but that's not going to account for everything and their one night together already led to a baby.

It just seems like such a totally unrealistic option for everyone involved that it surprises me that everyone in the story is like dying to see what Ross will choose? Like clearly it wasn't much of a choice given what was allowed at the time. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by rebecca dewinter

[Llywela]

5 hours ago, rebecca dewinter said:

So I guess this might be more an issue for P&P and DA then but why didn't they just un-entailed the estate and allow the eldest daughter to inherit? Wouldn't it have saved a lot of trouble. Or is it just something that's established once and can never be broken?

The thing about Ross & Elizabeth that still confuses me is if he had decided to just live at Trenwith under the appearance of being a concerned cousin, how on earth would they account for any children she might bear? I mean I'm pretty sure he's not just gonna be there to handle her estate and financial matters lol. Maybe there's primitive birth control but that's not going to account for everything and their one night together already led to a baby.

It just seems like such a totally unrealistic option for everyone involved that it surprises me that everyone in the story is like dying to see what Ross will choose? Like clearly it wasn't much of a choice given what was allowed at the time. 

It was incredibly, incredibly difficult to break an entail - Downton Abbey gave a lot of screentime to discussions of that very issue (if they'd managed it, the title and fortune would have been split, and it would have led to the breakup of the estate, on which many livelihoods depended). In P&P they just accept that it can't be done without question.

The idea of Ross leaving Demelza for Elizabeth is never really a serious option in the book. I mean, Elizabeth is angry that he never comes back after that night, just forces his way in and then leaves her to face the consequences alone (he doesn't know that her baby is his, but he did know she was staring down the barrel of marriage to George, and I honestly don't think Book!Elizabeth ever reasons through exactly what she expected him to do, she just resents what feels like abandonment, once he'd taken what he wanted from her). And Demelza in her anger and depression convinces herself that he wants to leave her for Elizabeth and therefore should be allowed to do just that because anything is better than carrying on the way they are (and Demelza is working class, don't forget - much easier to swap partners in the lower class society in which she grew up). But Ross himself never has the slightest intention of living at Trenwith with Elizabeth. If he hadn't been married they might have found a way to make it work, but as it is, the show creates a huge dilemma where none exists in the book. The book crisis isn't about 'will Ross leave Demelza for Elizabeth?', it's about 'can Ross and Demelza find their way past this and repair their marriage?' and they have to reach breaking point before they manage that.

[rebecca dewinter]

14 minutes ago, Llywela said:

The idea of Ross leaving Demelza for Elizabeth is never really a serious option in the book. I mean, Elizabeth is angry that he never comes back after that night, just forces his way in and then leaves her to face the consequences alone (he doesn't know that her baby is his, but he did know she was staring down the barrel of marriage to George, and I honestly don't think Book!Elizabeth ever reasons through exactly what she expected him to do, she just resents what feels like abandonment, once he'd taken what he wanted from her). And Demelza in her anger and depression convinces herself that he wants to leave her for Elizabeth and therefore should be allowed to do just that because anything is better than carrying on the way they are (and Demelza is working class, don't forget - much easier to swap partners in the lower class society in which she grew up). But Ross himself never has the slightest intention of living at Trenwith with Elizabeth. If he hadn't been married they might have found a way to make it work, but as it is, the show creates a huge dilemma where none exists in the book. The book crisis isn't about 'will Ross leave Demelza for Elizabeth?', it's about 'can Ross and Demelza find their way past this and repair their marriage?' and they have to reach breaking point before they manage that.

Ok, thanks. This makes a lot more sense than what was presented on the show, which I understand needs to show more active plot movement than a book with lots of internal thoughts. The fact that Aunt Agatha expresses out loud that she believes Ross just needs to "put his house in order" and then would be totally free to come to Elizabeth threw me for a loop. And the fact that Elizabeth was waiting by the door for him to show up and do what exactly, I'm not sure. Clearly Ross is still torn up about Elizabeth marrying George in the end but what he could've possibly done about it at that point I have no clue. 

[Llywela]

45 minutes ago, rebecca dewinter said:

Ok, thanks. This makes a lot more sense than what was presented on the show, which I understand needs to show more active plot movement than a book with lots of internal thoughts. The fact that Aunt Agatha expresses out loud that she believes Ross just needs to "put his house in order" and then would be totally free to come to Elizabeth threw me for a loop. And the fact that Elizabeth was waiting by the door for him to show up and do what exactly, I'm not sure. Clearly Ross is still torn up about Elizabeth marrying George in the end but what he could've possibly done about it at that point I have no clue. 

Yeah, the show used Agatha in some unfortunate ways to very clumsily narrate plot direction, which I found a real shame. Book!Agatha would never have suggested that Ross might leave Demelza for Elizabeth - not least because she loved Demelza dearly, her 'little bud'. But as you say, the show needs visual plot movement and drama in each episode, and some of the slower, more internal developments in the book don't translate very well. So they change things to add drama - sometimes sacrificing plausibility (and characterisation) to that end.

[Ceindreadh]

Braking an entailment can be done. How complex would depend on what sort of titles were attached and whether they could be separated. 

My family had an entailed property (a small farm/house) for 4 generations. My father had the entailment broken when he wanted to sell up and none of us kids were interested in farming. I don’t recall it being all that difficult, but it was a relatively ‘new’ one and no title involved, so possibly that simplified matters. 

[kassygreene]

The point of entailment was to keep estates intact, and not split them up if you had many sons and most or all of them survived to adulthood.  The eldest inherited the lot, one would go to the army, perhaps a second to the navy, one to the church, etc.  But the eldest son got it all; his sisters would have dowries and be expected to marry well.

In my grade school history book (in the '60s) I remember specific mention of primogeniture, and how it was considered A Bad Thing in the colonies.  The younger sons came here and established their own great estates, but they pointedly did not practice primogeniture.

[Llywela]

11 hours ago, Ceindreadh said:

Braking an entailment can be done. How complex would depend on what sort of titles were attached and whether they could be separated. 

My family had an entailed property (a small farm/house) for 4 generations. My father had the entailment broken when he wanted to sell up and none of us kids were interested in farming. I don’t recall it being all that difficult, but it was a relatively ‘new’ one and no title involved, so possibly that simplified matters. 

That was within your lifetime, then, under present day law - US law, I'm guessing, rather than British? The position was very different two centuries ago, in Jane Austen's era, and even only a century ago in the Downton era. In the UK, the Fee tail law was abolished in 1925 (just after Downton ended), bringing an end to the kind of entail that provided such plot fodder for Austen and Julian Fellowes and others.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Llywela

[Ceindreadh]

39 minutes ago, Llywela said:

That was within your lifetime, then, under present day law - US law, I'm guessing, rather than British? The position was very different two centuries ago, in Jane Austen's era, and even only a century ago in the Downton era. In the UK, the Fee tail law was abolished in 1925 (just after Downton ended), bringing an end to the kind of entail that provided such plot fodder for Austen and Julian Fellowes and others.

Irish law actually, the original entailment would have been set up in the mid 1800s. 

[LJones41]

Quote

. I mean, Elizabeth is angry that he never comes back after that night, just forces his way in and then leaves her to face the consequences alone (he doesn't know that her baby is his, but he did know she was staring down the barrel of marriage to George, and I honestly don't think Book!Elizabeth ever reasons through exactly what she expected him to do, she just resents what feels like abandonment, once he'd taken what he wanted from her). 

 

Book!Elizabeth was angry that Ross had raped her in the first place.  I think she had expected for him to return and issue an apology and explanation for his behavior.  When they finally discussed the matter in "The Four Swans", Ross' apology and remorse came off as half-assed and Elizabeth noticed.  Her anger turned into a sardonic realization that Ross will always try to make some kind of excuse for what he he had done.