or how loaded was Darcy, really?
We know that Bingley was doing quite well with about half that much - but in moderner terms, are we talking 6 figures/year? very well off? Rich-rich? Bill Gates?
I’ve no idea the conversion or inflation rates during the time, but my impression was that he didn’t actually ever have to work for a living, so not quite Bill Gates but I would guess a Kennedy grandchild’s worth of funds. Because, remember, to be his wife would really “be something” so it’s got to be a nice living.
Practically no one in the Bennet’s social circle had to work, as I recall. Mr Gardiner, Elizabeth’s uncle, was in trade, and Miss Bingley snickered about it. That was what being a landed gentleman meant, really- no work.
Darcy is estimated to be twice as rich as Bingley, and Bingley has lots of cash to throw around. I don’t know the conversion rates, but I’d guess that both of them are at least equivalent to multi-millionaires.
Found this link which speculates that Darcy had about equivalent to $6,000,000 in disposable income. Stuff was more expensive then, though, so his actual modern-type buying power may have been closer to $300,000. Interesting.
According to this website:
Not Bill Gates, but not bad either.
According to a book I read (it might have been ‘What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew’), 10,000 pounds was a round figure that people used to descibe a vast income. Like a modern American referring to a millionaire, when that could mean a person has between one million and 999 million dollars.
By way of comparison: from novels written at the time, I understand that one could live off an income of fifty pounds a year without having to get a job. Most women in this situation would get extra cash by painting lampshades or doing other crafty things and then selling them.