More than “several,” I would suggest. As used in Jane Austen and other writers of the same period, the word “living” almost always means an ecclesiastical office (i.e., a priest or vicar) for which the office holder receives a certain income, derived from the revenues of church property. The more official term for such an office is “benefice,” but calling it a “living” was common.
I’m not sure why - or how - someone might keep their income a secret. Others have already mentioned various ways by which a person’s wealth might be estimated. But the most important thing to me is that wealth was linked to status, and marriages were financial alliances. A person would want to advertise their wealth as a way of securing their place in society and obtaining a partner.
I can’t think of what advantage there would be to keep it secret, nor to publically claim less income than one actually had. There might be an advantage in falsely claiming you had greater income, but if a person did try this they would have a hard time maintaining the expenses necessary for the deception to work.
True. Guess it would be a short-term tactic to snag a richer spouse (for yourself or your child) that could provide support in the long-term.
I don’t know about real life, but it was common in Trollope’s novels for aristocrats to have gone heavily into debt in order to keep up appearances, though. If memory serves, the title character in Ralph the Heir almost marries the daughter of his boot supplier in order to get him to waive his balance owed. The local squire in Doctor Thorne has to sell parts of his land because he went into hock with a rich merchant to pay for his daughter’s marriage.
The percentage of landed people was always very small. And they intermarried, mixed socially, did business with each other, etc. Combine that with basically no rules on a local barrister or tax clerk blabbing to friends, among that tiny group general knowledge of others wealth would be common knowledge.
Wealth did not directly mean status. This was a key difference that separated the 13 colonies and England. In the US a some people grew up poor and became successful which usually provided high status. Benjamin Franklin was one of ten kids, a runaway apprentice who was a self started businessman and scholar. Became internationally renowned and respected. That sort of thing didn’t happen often in England (and is still considered unusual).
So a rich merchant was far down the ladder compared to a baron up to his neck in debt.
OTOH, with wealth one could acquire a title thru various means. But it could be tricky and might take a generation or two to get a worthy title.
Plus consider that any bank or other such institution would need details on the customers’ income. (sort of like today). And confidentiality was always less of an issue before it became a formal legal requirement. As mentioned, the social circles were quite small, especially in the more rural settings - so like any small town, noble, merchant or peasant, everyone knew everyone else’s business. If somebody did not pay his boot-maker or his grocer, everyone else would hear of it. If Bob got paid before Charley, Charley would hear about it and grumble. Staff would gossip that his lordliness had gone to London on urgent business to try and settle debts and get a cash advance with this banker.
Plus, this is small town society gossip. Accuracy was never necessarily a strong suit for this information. A person might try to set the record straight, but then would need to produce evidence, at least by deed. If the bills were never paid, eventually everyone would know, no matter how much he claimed.
Since “how rich are you?” was a major source of status, it was of course a major source of gossip too… as is evident from the mentions in those novels.
The opening pages of Vanity Fair are all about this sort of speculation.
Why would we even be asking this? Didn’t nearly all Victorian fiction have omniscient third party narrators?
Yes, but frequently information about a character’s property and/or income is imputed to other characters in the book. We know that Mr. Bingley has “four or five thousand a year” because Mrs. Bennet tells us so.
Because, as the OP states, ‘In novels such as Jane Austen’s, characters often say things like, “He has 6000 pounds a year…”’
Also, Jane Austen wasn’t Victorian, and while the books are written in the third person, her narrators are not omniscient, eg the Fairfax/Churchill surprise or Marianne not understanding why Willoughby was ignoring her.
Hmm - hadn’t thought of that. Guess most are 3d party. But the one I just finished - Tenant of Wildfell Hall - definitely 1st.
(No explicit references to other characters’ income in that book either, tho.)
Even if there were not many references to specific income, I believe there are quite common references to impoverished gentility needing to marry someone of wealth. And I believe there are many mentions of pre-engagement “negotiations?,” during which a woman’s father would say how much he would settle on her. I guess if that was written as a contract, there would be plenty of disclosure and opportunity for people to blab/brag/complain.
It was indeed written as a contract or, rather, a trust - a “marriage settlement”. But, while those directly involved would know the details of the marriage settlement, they weren’t public unless one or other party chose to publicise them.
But his aunt was a Lady (an Earl’s daughter, as well as being married to a Sir) and was therefore considered titled. Remember what a big deal she made about that to Elizabeth near the end, to which Elizabeth replied that “Mr. Darcy is a gentleman, and I am the daughter of a gentleman, so we are of the same rank” or words to that effect. Of course, Elizabeth’s mother was another story altogether, I always thought she must have been a (very pretty) barmaid or tenant farmer’s daughter before Mr. Bennett raised her up.
Mr. Darcy’s mother, Lady Catherine’s sister, was also a Lady, as the daughter of an earl, but Darcy’s father was not titled, and so neither was he. But he was the grandson of an Earl (not even an Honorable?)
In “The Importance of Being Earnest” (1895) Cecily Cardew has 150,000 pounds “in the funds.” We know this because Jack Worthing is her guardian and so is privy to her financial status. I’ve never known why “the funds” were particularly wonderful, but Lady Bracknell certainly seems to think so. I assume it means something like rock solid blue chip stocks with high dividends.
Mrs Bennet’s Brother is a wealthy merchant, and her sister is married to an attorney. This points to a middle class status for her family.
Darcy is the grandson of an earl, but through the female line. That doesn’t count. Similarly Lady Catherine’s daughter, also the grandchild of an earl through the female line, is also plain Miss de Bourgh.
As the grandson of an earl, wouldn’t Darcy still have had his name in Debrett?
On the continent, where the untitled gentry (like the Bennets) were generally considered to be of the nobility along with the titled lords and ladies, it was sometimes just those untitled families that had the oldest pedigrees with regard to their noble status, and as such they sometimes enjoyed greater status more status than ducal or baronial families having been ennobled only a century or so earlier.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
While the contract wouldn’t be a public document, the terms necessarily had to be consistent with the very public process where the bride and groom and their ‘prospects’ had been marketed widely since birth. Everyone was keen that their families’ wealth be recognised, and marriages were the time when the facts were proved. Either your daughter came with £3,000 a year or she didn’t. Your son’s prospects would be a bit vaguer, but his prospective wife’s family would need to be provided with hard evidence of your claims.
And having acquired a new son or daughter-in-law, the assets they brought into your family need to be made known, as context for marrying off your other children.
It seems to me too, that when the alternatives are grubbing in actual work for a living, or mooching off the relatives (and friends) - it was important for status that you make known, at least discreetly, what assets or “funds” you have available for your life of leisure. Presumably some occupations - military commissions, lawyers, elected positions - held a bit more prestige than actually working for a living. (Did a commissioned officer pull in a wage also?)
I do wonder too whether this sort of knowledge was important to those who supplied the lordly class, and therefore part of their social gossip - after all, even the ones who had decent funds were often notorious for taking their time paying their tailor’s bill. What was their equivalent of a credit check on a client?
I’m reading a book right now titled Behemoth - about the development of giant factories.
Started w/ cloth mills in England around 1820. Yesterday I read a line that said something like, “In England most wealthy people had the majority of their wealth in land or government bonds.” I was wondering about merchants and folk in shipping…
I think trusts and various corporate structures developed around about that time.
One thing this book commented on was the shortage of circulating cash. Large commercial schemes apparently had difficulty coming up with sufficient cash for payroll.
In the absence of any kind of financial regulation, your word was indeed, your bond, as there was no other way of your creditor getting his money. Which was why rumouring that your antagonist was not good for his bond was a duelling matter, if your creditworthiness in the market was being attacked (the last fatal duel in Scotland was over this.) Of course this option was not open to tradesmen. They just had to be shrewd at judging a client’s worth.
Army commissions did carry a salary, but it usually wasn’t enough to support the lifestyle they were required to lead.