Honeymooning with your mother-in-law? The truths of Regency romance

While period dramas enchant us with their sweeping romances, they often gloss over some of the unexpected – and occasionally absurd – truths about love and marriage in Regency Britain, from mothers joining newlyweds on their honeymoon to proposed taxes aimed at “old maids” (women in their late twenties!)

• Read more | Did women have good friendships in Regency Britain?

Parental pressure vs personal choice

“A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!” exclaims Mrs Bennet in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (1813) upon hearing of the eligible Mr Bingley’s arrival. It’s a quintessential scene of the meddling Regency mother determined to secure an advantageous match for her daughters. But how accurate is this portrayal?

• Read more | Love and lust: 7 of the most shocking romantic royal scandals from British history

While parents undoubtedly had a vested interest in their children marrying well – particularly among the upper classes, where economic and social advantages were at stake – the Age of Enlightenment had begun to shift societal norms. Individual choice became more valued, and the practice of strictly arranged marriages began to wane. Young people, while still guided by their parents, were beginning to enjoy greater freedom to make their own decisions.

As historian Rory Muir, author of Love and Marriage in the Age of Jane Austen, explains on the HistoryExtra podcast: “By this time, parents were becoming a little way about trying to set up their children, because children would sometimes resent it. Or the marriage might not be happy, and the parents would feel a degree of guilt”.

Age gaps in marriage: a two-way street

One of the most enduring truths about Regency marriages is the prevalence of age gaps; for purely practical reasons, it was often the case that women would marry older men. In a time where men were relied upon for the household income, many needed time to establish themselves financially before taking on the responsibilities of a wife and family.

This economic reality, as Muir explains, meant that “quite often couples might be 10, 15, 20 – even 25 years apart”. One example is Thomas Coutts, a wealthy banker, who married actress Harriot Mellon – a woman 32 years his junior – after the death of his first wife. By all accounts, Harriott’s affection for her husband and stepdaughters was genuine, despite their vast difference in age.

Though, occasionally older women did marry younger men. “The Duchess of Leicester’s second husband, William Ogilvie, was – I think – nine younger than her,” says Muir. “And Lady Anne Barnard’s husband, Andrew Barnard, was a good deal younger than her.”

Not everyone said ‘I do'

In a society so fixated on marriage, it might be surprising to learn that as many as 25 per cent of upper-class women in the Regency period never tied the knot.

This would have been particularly challenging for women, as they were expected to follow what was considered the ‘natural order’ – to become wives and mothers. By their late twenties, unmarried women were considered past their prime, and might begin to wear a mob cap. It was also at this age that they wouldn’t enter the dancefloor at assemblies.

Some proposals even sought to penalise women who didn’t enter matrimony. In the London Magazine (1777), a man suggested a tax on women over 27, requiring them to register their assets and declare their “old maidship” – a cruel reminder of the pressure upon women to conform to social expectations.

• Read more | From getting down ‘on one knee’ to the leap year proposal: a brief history of proposing marriage

Though, not all single women were unfulfilled. Jane Austen, who famously remained unmarried, found happiness living with her family and pursing her literary ambitions. As Muir points out, there were some “who lived an independent life, and who were quite well off and had very good lives”.

Of course, pleasant situations like this weren’t often shared. “There was a lot of propaganda at the time,” explains Muir. “A lot of moralists liked to write about the plight of unmarried women. I think young people at the time thought that they would get married.

“I think it was an expectation, but a rather unrealistic one that everyone will get married.”

• Read more | The real reason Jane Austen never married

No ring, no reception

Modern period dramas might proposals of extreme passion followed by lavish ceremonies, but Regency weddings were far more modest affairs.

Grand proposals weren’t the norm – and neither were engagement rings. These were not the custom in the period, and women only wore a wedding band after the ceremony. And weddings themselves were typically low-key and attended only by close family members. Unless a couple could afford a special license, ceremonies had to take place before noon in a church. Wealthier couples might hold a ceremony in the drawing room of a family home but, even then, the celebrations were restrained.

As Muir explains: “A lot of rumbustious carrying on at a wedding was, in Jane Austen’s day, was regarded as quite old-fashioned and undignified – and slightly improper amongst the gentry classes.”

This reserved approach is evident in Pride and Prejudice, where Charlotte Lucas and Mr Collins leave for Kent directly from the church door, skipping any suggestion of a reception afterwards.

Honeymooning – with a twist

The concept of a honeymoon did exist in the Regency period – but it might baffle modern newlyweds. Rather than jetting off to an exotic destination, couples often stayed in Britain due to financial constraints – or the ongoing French Revolutionary Wars, which made continental travel more dangerous.

A common alternative was, as Muir explains, to “go and stay in a friend's house in the country”.

But there’s a bigger twist: couples were often accompanied by a chaperone, usually a relative or close friend of the bride. Muir notes, “her [the bride’s] mother or her sister would be with them for at least part of the time.”

The reason for this was that, due to social conventions, couples hadn’t typically spent much time alone before marriage, and the presence of a familiar face was thought to ease the transition into married life.