Yes and no! Yes in the sense that titles were quite rare (and sometimes people had titles but not a lot of money), so Darcy being rich but not having a title isn't atypical, but no in the sense that anyone (titled or not) of Darcy's level of wealth was rare. So it's not unusual to see someone that wealthy be untitled, but also, anyone of that level of wealth is in the 99th percentile and therefore uncommonly wealthy. We hope that helps!
How delightful to hear you quote Ed Copeland. I took his Austen class in college-we gathered in his office and had tea for it! I was an economics major and he wanted me to write about that, but I didn’t.
You say mention that signals around Darcy being old money--would it be common for him to be old money, that rich, and not titled (still Mr. Darcy)?
Yes and no! Yes in the sense that titles were quite rare (and sometimes people had titles but not a lot of money), so Darcy being rich but not having a title isn't atypical, but no in the sense that anyone (titled or not) of Darcy's level of wealth was rare. So it's not unusual to see someone that wealthy be untitled, but also, anyone of that level of wealth is in the 99th percentile and therefore uncommonly wealthy. We hope that helps!
How delightful to hear you quote Ed Copeland. I took his Austen class in college-we gathered in his office and had tea for it! I was an economics major and he wanted me to write about that, but I didn’t.
How absolutely delightful! It sounds like an amazing class.
A fascinating topic! And further evidence that Mrs. Bennet is actually trying to do right by her girls, even if she isn't super effective.
Whenever I teach historical novels, I assign one student to be the "money manager" and convert all the financials into modern terms. It's super fun!