What Courting In Regency England Was Actually Like

As the novels of Jane Austen make clear, Regency-era social customs left little room for error

Finding a partner involved a strict adherence to courting etiquette, and wooing the right or wrong person could make or break fortunes and reputations

So, today we're going to take a look at what courting in Regency England was actually like

Okay, time to put on the latest chamber music from Lord Marvin of Gaye

Strictly speaking, the Regency era in Great Britain lasted from 1811 to 1820

But in truth, it was part of the larger social and cultural era of the late 18th and early 19th

centuries. The period had a reputation for steamy passion, as evidenced by several decades of romance

novel artwork. But it was also an era of politeness and gentility. You couldn't simply bump into

someone at the club and ask for their digits, and not just because nobody had phones yet

Strict rules govern how high society couples should interact with one another

and courtship was a serious business. For the fashionable ladies and gentlemen of the Regency

the best time to begin a courtship was during the so-called season, when the most important people in the land came to London for court and parliament

and to bump the uglies. Being something of a marriage market, the season allowed the sons and daughters of the privileged classes

to mingle during a seemingly endless parade of assemblies, dinners, and parties

It also served a practical purpose by ensuring that the members of the upper classes met the right people and found the right matches to keep money and power in the right hands

Regency folks were encouraged to marry within their class. This meant that members of high society tended to take wealthy spouses

You don't want to screw that up by falling in love with a poor person. London's social season of exclusive parties and balls was an exercise in controlling the pool of suitors

Elite young men and women could dance and flirt, safe in the knowledge that they were meeting suitable potential spouses

without any dirty poor slipping into the mix. Adhering to class distinctions didn't just apply to the elite

Even non-titled and middle-class mingling singles were expected to find class-appropriate matches

For instance, in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy is significantly wealthier than Elizabeth Bennet's family

But both are members of the gentry. When Darcy's aristocratic aunt, Lady Catherine de Bourgh

argues that Elizabeth's social standing is too far beneath her nephew's, the young lady replies rightly

he is a gentleman. I'm a gentleman's daughter. So far, we are equal. This was basically the

Regency equivalent of telling Lady Catherine to jog on, but it also exemplifies the dating rules

of the time People weren only looking for spouses with the biggest bank account Finding harmony and compatibility in a marriage

was also important, because the belief was that couples who had things in common

would have a more stable marriage. Wonder if matching Lord Byron tattoos

counted as a shared interest. On the matter of finding the right partner, one manual for young women advised

sobriety, prudence, and good nature, a virtuous disposition, and a prospect of being above the reach of want ought never to be dispensed with when choosing a husband

Whether a man is defective in any of these, the woman is to be pitied. 200 years later, advice columns are still warning against defective men

But there was also room for love in a Regency marriage. One Regency-era father, for example, wrote to his daughter's potential fiancé that he

believed happiness consists only in reciprocal affection. In other words, you better both like each other or else this whole thing's going to suck

However, this is 19th century London we're talking about. Money was not irrelevant

Financial matters often factored into whether or not a potential partner was suitable

stable, and worthy of marriage. According to historian Amanda Vickery, even perfectly matched couples had to wait through

tedious financial negotiations by their legal guardians before they could tie the knot

kind of like organizing a trade in the NFL. Young women who wished to find a suitable husband were expected to display their accomplishments

which were usually talents designed to show off their femininity and virtue

Top-tier accomplishments included the ability to sing, dance, play an instrument, and hold interesting conversation

Kind of sounds like a theater major, except for the interesting conversation part. These accomplishments were markers of class

A young lady needed to be from a family with the means to hire dancing masters or music instructors

and provide her with enough time to polish those skills. Instead of sliding into each other's DMs, Regency couples sent each other letters

Love letters represented a serious stage in courtship when couples could declare their

intentions and express their emotions in the written record. This practice also allowed couples to get to know each other better and start to share

their visions for the future. According to historian Sally Holloway, to correspond was to build a commitment before matrimony

Men strove to impress their would-be wives when writing them, though etiquette dictated

that courtship correspondence should be tasteful and rated G, unless you're James Joyce

As historian Amanda Vickery explains, it was a moment when the balance of power in the relationship

shifted slightly in the woman's favor. Men coaxed in petition, while women sat in judgment

All he could do was cross his fingers and hope she wouldn't swipe left. In the stratified world of the Regency social hierarchies were reinforced through the use of formal titles and last names To refer to someone by their first name was an intimate privilege reserved for family members

or the closest of friends. Madonna and Cher would have blown people's minds

Regency-era couples would have to speak to each other using the correct formal forms of address

during the entire courting process. This is why Pride and Prejudice's Elizabeth Bennett

always refers to the object of her affections as Mr. Darcy rather than Fitzwilliam or Fitzy or Fitzcrieg

or Juicy Manslad. It wasn't until couples became officially engaged that they could refer to each other by their first names

but only when out of the public eye. Speaking of the public eye, couples

were forbidden to see each other in private without a chaperone, the idea being that constant surveillance

would protect a young lady's reputation. After all, the stakes of these courtships were high

and women were expected to abide by different moral codes than men. According to historian Amanda Vickery, chastity, modesty, and obedience were the preeminent female virtues

Her sexual virtue had to appear unimpeachable, or she would be ruined on the marriage market

Regency ladies and gentlemen were bombarded with advice about who would be a suitable person to court and marry

That part of dating hasn't changed much. But suitability wasn't just about class or temperament

It was also about family ties. For instance, in-laws were off-limits, meaning if your partner croaked, a common occurrence

in the 19th century, you could not marry one of their siblings. And while the idea of remarrying back into the same family is still somewhat taboo today

its forbidden status during Regency-era courtship seems a little strange when you consider that

marriage between cousins was A-OK. Why were they so cool about kissing cousins

Well, marriage between cousins checked a lot of the right boxes, even if it sprung a permanent

leak in the family gene pool. For example, a cousin likely grew up with a similar worldview, and their family background

wouldn't contain any surprises. Most importantly, marriage between cousins in the aristocracy ensured generational wealth

stayed in the family. Of course, marrying your brother-in-law would probably check a lot of those boxes without

the whole blood relative thing. But what would the knightlies think? For a high-profile example of married cousins, we need to look no further than Winston Churchill's

Regency-era great-grandparents, the sixth Duke and Duchess of Marlborough. They were first cousins before they got married in 1819

And after they got married, they were still first cousins. While we're on the subject of uncomfortable rules

the age of consent during the Regency period was a little on the young side, to put it mildly

Bridegrooms could be just 14 years old when they tie the knot And brides could be potentially as young as 12 Luckily 14 and 12 do not necessarily represent the average age when most people got married in this period Most Regency brides and bridegrooms especially those among the so lower class

were in their 20s when they tied the knot, not horribly different than today. While all of these

rules were well-intended, they had at least one unforeseen consequence. There was a lot of secret

marriages and a good deal of bigamy. In an attempt to curb those practices throughout the kingdom

Lord Hardwick pushed through the Marriage Act of 1753, which went into effect a year later

The law required all weddings in England to go through the Church of England and proclaim of the marriage three Sundays in a row

before the ceremony could happen. It also required underage brides and bridegrooms

those younger than 21, to have their parents' permission to marry. However, there was a loophole

The act didn't apply to Scotland, so many English couples simply eloped there

It was basically Vegas, with less slot machines. Plus, you could get married in a kilt

That's pretty neat. Of course, just because there were strict rules governing courtship didn't mean people

always followed them. Women were expected to be celibate before marriage, but plenty of unmarried women became pregnant

It was such a problem, the legislature had to step in and pass the ly Act of 1733

which stated single, pregnant women had to identify the man who had impregnated them

Not to be confused with the ly act of last Saturday, which is why you probably don't want to go back to Dave and Buster's

Unmarried mothers in the early 19th century did not have a lot of great options, especially given that society worked pretty hard to shame them for their situation

Many women chose to leave their children at London's Foundling Hospital, which took in children whose parents couldn't support them

As if finding a match wasn't already complicated enough, elite Britons in the Regency era tended to watch one another's courtships with great interest

because marriages tended to move a whole lot of money around. After all, when a couple was officially courting

it was understood to be a public acknowledgement of their intentions, sort of like the national anthem signaling that it's time to play ball

Like modern celebrities, the elite were especially vulnerable to this. Unmarried men and women who were seen in public together

could be the subject of gossip, scathing letters, and scandal sheets. High society noticed courtships and often jumped

to conclusions whenever unmarried aristocratic men and women were together. According to historian Hannah Greig

people would notice a couple together and assume that they were engaged to be married

Consequently, marriage wasn't just a private contract. It was also about your public image

And like today, you always had to be mindful of what Lord Perez Hilton might say about you