It was fun to see that June's Journey was a sponsor of your channel. I have been playing for over 4 years now, most every day. And i enjoy the challenges in solving mysteries. Just as you solve these mysteries of Pride and Prejudice. And I do think that Jane Austen did visit Chatsworth, and base Pemberley on that great house. Drawing from her experience and research, as well as her visits to other great houses in England. They always say that it's best to write what you know.
The question, "Could Mr. Darcy afford Chatsworth/Pemberley?" strikes me as being based on very modern ideas of property ownership and wealth. Mr. Darcy could afford Pemberley (Chatsworth) because he owned Pemberley. He didn't buy Pemberley, he inherited it, along with a bunch of land. And that land provided a lot of his income. It's not like now, where most people buy their own house with their own money they earn from working and the land the house is on is limited and doesn't really earn them any extra income.
Except that those big houses have, and had, very high maintenance costs. How much did Mr Collins say Lady Catherine spent replacing the glass in the windows of Rosings Park? I watched a documentary on the titled family living in one of the surviving big old houses Most of the space has been turned over to the visiting public, while the family itself confines themselves to a relatively small private apartment up on the top floor. Because it had been added to, over multiple generations, the seams between the lead rooves of the various sections was going to cost a stunning among to replace. Yet, it is the kind of maintenance that can't be avoided, if the interior is to be kept liveable.
@@geoswan4984 The costs associated with running such a house now are not generally comparable to what they were then. There's a reason these houses stopped being built eventually and why the remaining ones usually require being turned into full time museums/tourist destinations to keep going. Costs for heating increased, costs for electricity (obviously not an issue in Austen's time), the cost of staff and services provided all went up a lot starting in the mid to late 19th century. In the regency period, goods were expensive, but services and the people who performed them were relatively cheap (which is why in that period even a middle class household could employ a couple of servants).
@@luminousmoon86 It now costs an unbelievable £16-17 million to run Chatsworth each “year”! That also doesn’t even factor in separate restoration works.
I always got the impression that the houses in JAs novels were like her characters: inspired by really people, places, and events but never a 1:1 comparison
about mr. darcy not being able to afford chatsworth: even if pemberley is based on chatsworth house, a real place, it's still a fictional place. as a product of fiction, it can be whatever you want, smaller, cheaper... so, yes, based on this video i think pemberley is inspired by chatsworth. awesome video!
It's like literally every TV show or movie where the people complain about being poor but have a huge house where everyone has their own room. Like some character who works as a barista and can afford a spacious apartment with BIG windows in New York city.
Darcy’s home was of course much grander than Longbourn House, the home of the Bennet family, but I am sure that in Jane Austen’s imagination the Bennet home was more impressive than it is portrayed in film and TV adaptations. After all, Mr Bennet was a country gentleman with an annual income of £2,000, a very large sum of money at the time. Consequently, in the BBC’s 1980 adaptation the house used for Longbourn is too small. It is a former dower house and gives the impression that the Bennets were on the bottom rung of the gentry when in fact Mr Bennet’s income was double the sum the Ferrars family received from an estate in Norfolk in Sense and Sensibility and more than double the income of Mr John Willoughby of Combe Magna in the same novel. Hence the house chosen for Longbourn in the BBC’s classic 1995 adaptation is almost certainly too modest as well. Finally, in the 2005 film the house chosen for the Bennets is more suitable in scale but, sadly, it is portrayed as shabby, an image not conveyed by Jane Austen. Indeed, in her novel we are told that when Lady Catherine de Bourgh was at Longbourn she ‘opened the doors into the dining-parlour and drawing room, and pronounced them, after a short survey, to be decent looking rooms.’
In the 2005 movie the bennets house being smaller and shabbier was intentional. The director wanted it to be more accessible to people, not just Jane Austen fans. He had an hour to make you feel bad for this family's position in life and to a modern viewer it's hard to feel bad for someone rich. I just watched dominic noble's lost in adaptation of the show and the movie and it lead me here
Further to my previous comment, in the BBC's generally excellent 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice the interior of the Lucas family home is grander and more sumptuous than Longbourn. Whether Jane Austen thought that, however, is uncertain. In Volume 1, Chapter 5, she merely tells us that Sir William had made a 'tolerable fortune' through trade at Meryton and had thus retired 'with his family to a house about a mile from Meryton, denominated from that period Lucas Lodge.' Evidently, the house had less extensive parkland than the Bennet home, for when Lady Catherine de Bourgh haughtily said that the Bennets had a "very small park", Mrs Bennet replied: “It is nothing in comparison of Rosings, my lady, I dare say; but I assure you it is much larger than Sir William Lucas’s.” (Volume 3, Chapter 14.)
@@jessbeingme8155 yeah, it was to accentuate the wealth disparity between the Bennets and Mr Darcy. It's not that they are poor, they definitely aren't. (Their father was just neglectful in putting money aside for them) It's that Mr Darcy is SO MUCH richer! And having them in a smaller but still sumptuous house wouldn't have convey that well enough to modern audiences.
He does care about maintaining and improving what he was given...especially the library. Darcy will bow to Lizzy's advice on parties and Lizzy would not do anything crazy to cross the line (as in her boundaries with Lydia in the end) . He will continue to grow and she will not ask too much.
Jane Austin wrote Darcy to be one of the Richest men in England. Thus his idea he can act, take up persons as friends as he chooses. He also has many responsibilities and persons relying on him. His low key lifestyle means he’s not well known, he’s not a notorious person.
Your comment about the fact that Darcy would not have bought everything in Pemberley House reminded me of something that Lady Mary says in Downton Abbey when her fiancé of the time, Sir Richard Carlisle, is looking to buy an estate. She asks how they are going to furnish this huge mansion, and he says that they just have to buy everything. She then replies: “Your lot buys it, our lot inherits it.” So, my guess is that Darcy probably didn't have to pay for much in terms of furniture and decor. :D
I always liked the theory that Pemberley was Wentworth Woodhouse in South Yorkshire , mainly because I used to live nearby and often walked in the grounds . You should check it out it is absolutely massive and largely unknown compared to Chatsworth. It was home to the Earls Fitzwilliam , which is of course the christian name of Darcy .
it's beautiful and reminds me of the 1995's Pemberley, Lyme park, but the only thing which makes it slightly less credible as Chatsworth is the lack of the large "stream of natural importance" from the book as from what I saw from the online maps, there isn't any stream at all, of course, it still could be an inspiration for authors do tend to pull inspiration from several different sources, and I think its really cool, maybe if I come to Yorkshire I'll have to visit.
Austen was probably aware of the Fitzwilliam family. Another rival branch of the Wentworth family lived a few miles away at Wentworh Castle which is also a stately home, but was eclipsed by the grandeur of Wentworth Woodhouse. It was home to the Earls of Strafford who are mentioned by Sir Walter Elliot in the second chapter of Persuasion.
@@michaelrooke2544 oh yes, no doubt of the inspiration, but the description of the grounds sound much more like Chatsworth. so it's my belief that she used both, that she loved the names of the Wentworth Woodhouse estate but visited Chatsworth and adored the grounds, also Chatsworth has a trout stream, yet another thing that coincides with the book! , remember when Mr Darcy offers to let Mr Gardiner come and fish in his streams!
I feel that Austen probably would've taken multiple houses as inspiration for all the properties she wrote about. There used to be a lot more grand houses around 200 years ago, but sadly so many were demolished. So much potential inspiration for Austen that we don't know about! Also, I went to a talk by an architecture historian at the Jane Austen Festival last month and she wasn't convinced that Chatsworth was an accurate Pemberley. Some features work, some don't. Ultimately though, it's fiction and so we can speculate back and forth forever! P.S. Lyme Park ('95 Pemberley) is also a lovely house if you ever get a chance to visit.
I was so sad that we didn’t have time to go to Lyme when I was in that area! And it’s a good point that Jane could have combined from multiple sources!
I agree, the interiors of Chatsworth (well the 1680s-1690s square half) are far too Baroque to be Pemberley. I think the exterior and grounds were her inspiration, and the interiors taken from another English stately home.
Have only seen 2005 once. Gotham City is based on NYC, but is not NYC. Canonically it is located in New Jersey. Metropolis, Superman's City, is in Delaware and within driving distance of Gotham. Yeah, my nerd-dom spans multiple genres.
Frank Shuster, the weird guy who invented Superman, when he was a teenage boy, is from Toronto. The Toronto newspaper with the highest circulation is the Daily Star. It is accepted by many people who live in Toronto, and care about such things, that Clark Kent's Daily Planet is based on Toronto Daily Star, and that Metropolis is based on Toronto. I called him weird. He didn't actually make a lot of money from Superman. Among the things he did afterwards? Comics with a strong BDSM flavour. He had a cousin who was half of a comedy duo. My favourite joke of theirs.... One of them is playing a bully, trying to make the other guy feel stupid. Q: Oh yeah? I bet you can't tell me the difference between ignorance and apathy! A: I don't know, and I don't care!
Gotham City is based on New York City below 14th Street at night. Metropolis is based on New York City between 14th and 100 Streets during the daytime.
Brilliant video, thank you Ellie! Small Brit tip here: Chiswick is pronounced “Chisick” without the “w” (don’t ask me why you don’t pronounce the w in Chiswick but you do in Hardwick… our place names make no sense)
Thank you for that, Ellie! Takes me back to the time when my mother was organizing a WI event at Chatsworth in the late 70s. I went to help, so the 11th Duchess of Devonshire gave us both a personal tour around the house. She was very involved in the organization herself (Women’s Institute). I’ve always loved visiting as I’m Derbyshire born and bred. I now live in the US.
Re: whether Mr Darcy could afford Chatsworth on £10,000 a year. I think you made another video once where you explained that his income may actually exceed this. So yep-sounds like could definitely afford it!
What she taught: There are many arguments for and against Chatsworth being the inspiration for Pemberly and evidence to back up both claims. What I learned: Pemberly is basically Gotham City, and Mr. Darcy is Batman.
Super interesting video. In the 1995 version they used Lyme Hall, near where I grew up, for Pemberly(we couldn't visit the park for a while when I was a kid because they were filming there) . Mr Darcy's pond is real, though its kind of murky and gross in real life - don't dive in there unless you want to get covered in slime and pond weed! The part where Darcy rides up a hill past a stone tower thingy (Lyme Cage, a hunting lodge) is funny because if they'd changed the camera angle even slightly you'd have been able to see the modern houses and reservoir visible from the hill.
@@EllieDashwood I think a few people tried 🤣. The park staff I spoke to years after the fact were taking pains to stress how much you don't wanna do that!
@@Roseliptillgirl @Ellie Dashwood I have read that the stunt actor who portrayed 1995 Darcy diving in and swimming got a nasty infection from some kind of protozoan parasite that specializes in living in yucky country ponds.
I have it in my head that Pemberley, out of all the pretty estates from Jane's books, could have a major "Chadswick house" vibe, but is an amalgamation of that plus her idea of a perfect estate. From what I remember (and I could be wrong) it is her most detailed house in the books. The other great houses are in persuasion and Mansfield Park, (maybe Emma, but I couldn't go through that one), and yet neither mansfield park nor kellynch have as detailed descriptions as Pemberley. Also more detailed than northanger abbey. Based on what you said, I imagine the other great houses are either more ambiguous descriptions of places she visited, but Pemberley is her favorite place plus everything her dream big house would be. After all, Elizabeth is the one heroine that stays in the great house; Elinor, Catherine and Fanny live in parish houses, Marianne lives in a big house but not a great house, Emma stays at her father's house, and Anne likely travels as a salior's wife. As the ultimate dreamhouse, it fits as the place for her main to live in.
Your use of the Scholastic version of Pride and Prejudice warms my heart. That version was my first version and while I no longer own my copy, it brings me back to when I first read Austen and how much I love her works.
Thank you for this video! Another possibility, why Pemberley sounds much like Chatsworth, without her having been there: Her friends, she stayed with, described it to her or she read about it somewhere? I mean, the Gardiners knew about all the great houses, they wanted to see as tourists, apart from Chatsworth/Pemberley (because Mrs Gardiner grew up near it), because they’ve heard/read about it? Not like today’s magazines but in a very tasteful and discreet way maybe? And about the income, apart from the duke’s other houses, their station was still different. A lot more parties would have been required of the Duke and meeting the royal family etc and chaise and 6 instead of 4 (horses) maybe, and Darcy was comparatively secluded, as he told Sir William that he didn’t go out much in London etc. ?
I’m a Batman comic fan as well as an Austen fan; you’ve made my day! And you are absolutely correct about NY and Gotham existing in the same universe. After the first Robin grew up into Nightwing, he moved to NY at one point. And that doesn’t even count the crossover comic where Batman worked with Daredevil in NY. So I agree with and like the idea that Pemberly was based on Chatsworth, but that they still exist in the same universe. ❤️
The whole argument doesn't stand cause there is also Metropolis that is based on New-York... So, there is actually 3 New York Cities in the DCCU (DC comics universe?)
@@miss1of2 I think it’s a case of comic book writers really need to look at past work/talk to each other. Apparently now in-universe Gotham City and Bludhaven are in NJ, but maybe in-universe Metropolis is another New York city that is not THE New York City? Because otherwise it makes no sense in-universe for them to explicitly state that Nightwing went to New York City vs just saying that he went to Metropolis (plus, the NYC is not presented as Metropolis in these comics). Comics are a wonderful cluster of a mess.(sigh)
Chiswick may be written with a doubleyou, but it isn't spoken with one. If Mr Darcy was from a family that had owned a Chatsworth sized pile for generations, he would likely be aristocracy not gentry. A family with the money to run that sort of house, and to have done so for generations, that family would have been absorbed into the aristocracy. Of course if Pride and Prejudice really is fictional, then why not have Mr Darcy own a clone of it? It doesn't have to have been in his family for generations, even if much of the contents were.
Muchas gracias por los subtitulos en español, me encantan tus videos. Soy nueva en tú canal pero, Wow ahora entiendo mucho más estas historias con la información q nos proporcionas. Saludos de Tlaquepaque, Jalisco. México 👍👍
Some people (including those who run Peak District online) say that Jane Austen visited Bakewell, Bakewell is only about 5 miles away from Chatsworth house. So if Jane did visit CH it may have only taken about an hour from Bakewell. Indeed Peak District online says Lambton in Pride and Prejudice is based on Bakewell Also quick pronunciation note, when you say Chiswick you don't pronounce the w
Whilst I definitely believe Chatsworth to be the inspiration behind Pemberley, the only thing that doesn’t quite fit would be the interiors… You see, the “1680s” part of the house [8:29] is extremely baroque (i.e. extravagant frescos across the walls and ceilings in most rooms; richly carved and gilded furnishings/ ceiling/ wall decorations; an interior centred around an enfilade design; a colour palette of deep reds, purples and golds - heck, even the windows themselves are encased in gold leaf)! It therefore doesn’t really fit the depiction of Pemberley in Pride and Prejudice; like your quote at 9:47 suggests, the furniture “was neither gaudy nor uselessly fine”. Well the furniture within the ‘square’ half of Chatsworth certainly would have been described as “gaudy” in the eyes of ‘neoclassical loving’ late Georgian/ early Regency England. Of course it’s all absolutely gorgeous to us in 2021, but during Jane Austen’s time, fashions were the exact opposite of what they would have been in ‘Baroque loving’ late 17th century England (i.e. simplicity/ order/ elegance [neoclassicism] vs richness/ grandeur/ drama [Baroque]). Perhaps she was inspired by another grand English stately home’s interiors? Also, I know you mention that perhaps a load of the furnishings seen in Chatsworth today were not actually there during Jane Austen’s visit (and were instead taken from Devonshire House after it was demolished), but that also doesn’t make much sense. Devonshire House was the epitome of London fashion at the time, and that meant they certainly would not have wanted room after room of ‘old fashioned’ (for the early 1800s); richly carved and gilded Baroque furnishings, but a much more understated, yet extremely fine, neoclassical alternative (many of which can now viewed within the newer 1820s extension at Chatsworth). The fact the Devonshire family had such a grand London mansion in the first place, actually allowed the survival of important interiors within many of their other notable estates; including the late 16th century Elizabethan interiors at Hardwick Hall, the early 18th century Palladian interiors at Chiswick House, and of course the late 17th Baroque half of Chatsworth. Anyway, thank you for another wonderful video!
Perhaps Austen thought a combination of the two houses -- Chatsworth and Wentworth Woodhouse -- would prevent anyone from thinking she meant either in particular. I think it is the description of the approach to the house and the stream that flows in front that keep people in favor of Chatsworth. I have visited Chatsworth, and the approach is just as Austen described the approach to Pemberley! I wonder if there is a record of her visiting Wentworth Woodhouse. It is obvious Austen found the place a gold mine for names!
I really love your channel. 😍 You have probably seen the guide to Regency England called "What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew.," Not only does it include an order of precedence chart, but it also tells you how to play whist. So bonus? Anyway, keep up the good work!
Honestly as somebody who majored in creative writing and literature at College I can honestly say that I feel like it probably was and any changes have either happened over the last 200 years or she changed to fit her story better. I mean based on doesn't mean it has to be identical an author's take literary license all the time
Lovely Ellie Dashwood, what an interesting topic you picked today! Just today I was trying to convince a young pal of mine to show some interest in Jane Austen, and I told him how you were my favourite Jane Austen commentator, and told him how often I thought the authors of Jane Austen related fiction got Pemberley wrong. More on that in a followup comment. I've watched some video about Chawton, not just the cottage, where Jane, Cassandra, their mother, and family friend Martha Lloyd lived, but the big house associated with the Chawton estate. I was surprised to read, earlier this year, that when Jane's brother Edward inherited the estate from the childless cousins, he was worth 15,000 pounds per year. 1.5 times Darcy's income. Yet the Chawton big house seems much more modest than Chatsworth House. Mind you, as you noted, the Dukes of Devonshire had spent many generations managing their estates - probably more than Jane's Knight cousins. Lucy Worsley did a BBC documentary on Jane Austen. In it she rides in a carraige approaching another great house, and describes how Jane and her mother and some other relatives rode up to that house on the occasion of the death of the wealthy cousin who had lived there, and died without any direct heirs. It seemed comparable in size to Chatsworth, and bigger than Chawton. So, Chatsworth would have cost over 5,000 pounds to staff and run, in style? Hmmm. I wonder how much of that was for the staff's salaries, food and uniforms? You mentioned 60 staff? I wonder how many gardiners a park 10 miles in circumference requires? Presumably the portions of the estate that the Dukes managed themselves, rather than leased to tenant farmers, required employing additional farm workers. I think you made another excellent point about the expenses of living in style, in London. One expense I imagine Mr Darcy would have avoided, even if he lived in London... Gambling. It wasn't just disreputable guys like Wickham who gambled. Do you know how the sandwich got its name? The Earl of Sandwich was so heavily committed to gambling he would not take time to leave the gambling table to have a civilized meal. He directed his servants to bring him a food, between to slices of bread, something he could eat with one hand while he continued gambling. Another expense of living in style? Maintaining a stylish mistress, if you were than kind of guy. I think the Mr Darcy that Jane Austen created would not keep a mistress. I noticed that a few of the authors of some Jane Austen related fiction do give Darcy a mistress - a mistress who gets kicked to the curb when Elizabeth comes along. I am going to make a followup comment with what I know about mistresses in general, and the Duke of Wellington's mistresses in particular. Thanks again Ellie Dashwood!
Yes, JAFF authors often get the Pemberly estate wrong! In Pride and Prejudice we read that the Park at Pemberly was 10 miles in circumference - and Charlotte Lucas says Darcy "owns half of Derbyshire". Half of Derbyshire? She probably just meant he owned the largest set of properties in Derbyshire. A surprising number of authors of Jane Austen related fiction don't seem to understand that the Park is merely the recreational part of the estate, the portion not devoted to barns, grazing pastures and fields of crops. Just as you said there were guides on how much a great house cost to maintain, there may well have been guides to how much of your estate you should set aside for recreation, and showing off. A surprising number of authors of Jane Austen related fiction don't seem to understand the difference between circumference, and area, and state, in their books, that Darcy's Pemberly estate is 10 square miles. I just pulled out my calculator, and if I did the math right, the area of a circle 10 miles in diameter is about 7.9 square miles. How big were the Longbourn and Netherfield estates? Well, they were 3 miles apart, and they bordered one another. Pi r squared, where r is 1.5 miles, would make the area something like 7 square miles. Mr Bennet's Longbourn earns one fifth Darcy's Pemberley. Does that imply Mr Darcy's properties total to something like 35 square miles. Do you think when Austen names Longbourn and Pemberly's incomes that is the income AFTER deducting the expenses of running the estate? I think it is likely it is. Anyhow, Ellie Dashwood, thanks again for picking this interesting topic!
How expensive was it to keep a stylish mistress? Some of the great men of era seemed to have had extramarital affairs with widows, with their own income, so the only costs would have been tasteful gifts, and the costs of excursions, etc. Other mistresses had no income, and relied upon their lovers to maintain them. I read Elizabeth Longford's biography of the Duke of Wellington. Like Winston Churchill, Wellington was a character, and there are stories about him that are so entertaining that I suspect people will keep telling them, even if they weren't true. One of the stories has to do with the memoirs of a notorious serial mistress. Longford explained that some of the great men of the time maintained mistresses that were intelligent, and projected an air of class, and that these guys would have discrete parties where they would take their trophy mistresses, not their wives. When one of these great men died, or went broke, or just lost interest, she would truy to go under the protection of one of his buddies, who she had flirted with, during those parties. Maybe even one of those buddies would offer her a bigger household, a bigger allowance, and she would defect to the new guy. If a mistress's protector really loved her, he might pension her off, when he moved on to a younger mistress. But former mistresses, who couldn't hook up with another guy had one more card they could play. The tell-all memoir. Apparently, the real money to be made from a tell-all memoir was not in the royalties it earned, but in the blackmail potential. The former mistress would get out her little black book, and write a nice letter to her former lovers, describing their single state, their lack of funds, their decision to write a memoir, and then drop a hint that, in return for a gift of some kind, they would be happy to leave out the chapter devoted to their time together. And, according to Longford, if you were a notorious former mistress, down on her luck, why stop with the men who had been your former lovers? Why not write to their friends, who you met at those parties, telling them your plans to include a chapter in your book of the time you spent as their mistress. If your former lovers were all afraid of scandal, the former mistress could collect her payday, without having to actually write anything beyond those letters. Longford described Wellington receiving one of those letters from a woman who had once been a famous serial mistress, and that he told her "publish and be damned!" The rest of Longford's biography was so complimentary to Wellington I assumed, at the time, that he was someone classy enough to not indulge in any kind of adultery. Recently I learned I was wrong. I read about a woman named Georgina Fane. She met Wellington shortly after the Battle of Waterloo. He was 47, she was 14 years old. She pursued him for the rest of her life. Sometime between when they met, and the his wife died, they did sleep with one another. His wife's death complicated things for him, because a bunch of former mistresses, including Fane seem to have thought it was obvious that, once the first Lady Wellington died they would become the second Lady Wellington. Fane received marriage proposals from eligible bachelors, but her love for Wellington made her turn them all down. A letter survives, from Wellington, to Fane's mother, pleading with her to do what she could to keep Fane from stalking him. So, I wonder how much it cost to maintain a stylish trophy mistress, in style? I think, f she insists on a carriage, a stylish address, and a constantly up to date fashionable set of dresses, it might cost over a thousand pounds a year. Mind you, if your mistress isn't a trophy mistress, you maintain a simple cottage for her, somewhere on your estate, no carriage, maybe it only costs 50 to 100 pounds a year. I haven't read Lady Susan, only seen the film. From the film I think she would be more like the first kind of mistress. Wellington didn't make any of his former lover the second Lady Wellington. He lived the last years of his life with the guy who had been married to a woman he seems to have actually loved, who died tragically young.
@@geoswan4984 Hi. I have enjoyed reading your comments. As you say people often make mistakes when they discuss the social history of Austen's day. For example, in Mansfield Park Jane tells us that Mr Rushworth had an income of £12,000 and a very large estate. However, Austen devotees and indeed Austen scholars sometimes say that his large estate comprised 700 acres. However, the 700 acres refers to his grounds, the parkland and not the entire estate. Furthermore, it is commonplace for Austen scholars to refer to baronets in a pejorative manner, using phrases such as "mere baronets" and "only a baronet" etc and so a lot of fans of Austen think they were small fry shunned by dukes and marquesses etc. It is thus ironic that a daughter of the first Duke of Devonshire married a baronet and that a daughter of the second duke did likewise and members of other very grand families have also done so.
I wish the BBC sitcom “Black Adder” had a series of episodes taking place in the confines of Jane Austen’s P&P masterpiece. Including Mr Darcy, Lady Catherine, Mr Wickham, Elizabeth ... and Baldrick playing the role of Mr Collins. It might lose some romantic appeal, but it sure would be funny. And I would love if Ellie played a major role in it (or a script writer, she’s got the talent).
What a fun video. Also, my husband is pretty much -obsessed with Batman- a Batman expert and he says that New York City exists in the DC universe that Batman lives in!
Another great analysis, Ellie, thank you again. I really like your insights. One little quibble (and I apologize for quibbling at all). Chiswick is pronounced “Chizzick”. Just FYI.
I love your videos! This is another great one! The images you choose to add are so appropriate and helpful in understanding the times and social ways. IF you ever take "requests" -- I would love it if you would possibly be able to create a talk on the related topic of great-house tourism -- like how the gentry would go and "apply to the housekeeper" to be shown around fancy people's houses. You would be the perfect interpreter to help us understand why the owners may have found it in their interest to permit this, how the tradition development, how it maybe evolved into historic-home tourism today (one supposes), and whatnot.
Ditto on that. Your end product comes together so well! Clearly you go the extra mile in research, and you must come up with really interesting research questions. And to continue the gush, you're so comfortable on camera, have a very expressive voice, and good pacing. I love when there's a new ED video!
I think y'all get too fixated on Austen actually intending a clone of Chatsworth to become Pemberley... I mean, she of course can have taken Chatsworth as a reference: the location, the style, etc. But she didn't go in so much detail as to give the square-footage or the number of windows, or how many £ were spent on each of the fireplaces (wink-wink). She just says it is "appropriate for a gentleman of his status". So it will probably be, as - inspired or not by Chatsworth - it is still fictional. What I object to, frankly, is using in films and miniseries a house that - nowadays, as it is furnished, decorated and expanded beyond what you described Austen probably saw - is simply disproportionately grand. I mean, it is all very well to use the park, the (older) prospects, etc. But I would have toned down the interiors.
I wouldn't expect that Mr Darcy would have managed most of the servants directly. He probably mostly dealt with the top of the hierarchy who managed the rest. He might might have known who they all were in a general way, but I doubt he directly managed the scullery maids and stable boys.
He didn't manage them, that was the work of Mr. Whickan, Sr. (The steward). He oversaw that (think the earl in Downton abbey and the shock when Mary started managing that estate a hundred years later)
@@gullinvarg the bottom tier servants only lasted a few years before they would have gotten a character reference to move up to a higher post at another house. I doubt anyone except the other servants would have ever seen them.
What many people don’t know is that Kick Kennedy (JFK’s sister) was married to the heir of the Duke of Devonshire and the later on in her life she was engaged to Peter FitzWilliam, owner of WentWorth WoodHouse. Her favorite book was also pride and prejudice and was obsessed with it before she ever met the heir to the Duke of Devonshire.
This is a great video! I agree with you completely. It's highly likely that Chatsworth House is the inspiration of Pemberly. I'm convinced of it. You are so great at what you do. I'm so glad I came across your channel. You are a lovely person & have a great personality. You have now become one of my favorite youtube channel's ever.
Would love a video on the economics of wickham’s situation. Much like you did for comparing Darcy’s wealth to modern times. Just diving into what it meant for him to get the multiple payouts and what the living would have been worth etc. how wasteful it must have been to squander that money and opportunity.
Hi Ellie! love your discussions. Forgive me if you've already covered this elsewhere (I haven't got through all your videos yet) but there's one question which has always bugged me in every single Austen novel: how do the characters always KNOW how much money complete strangers possess? its the very first attribute they mention when the name of a single person, male or female, whom they have never seen or met is mentioned for the first time. I understand that, for Regency people, knowing a single person's income was essential information for a marriage decision, and that they would naturally make an educated guess on a figure -- but how could they name an income figure with such certainty? Was this information freely available in print somewhere, like Debrett's? was there some publication where sons' and daughters' inheritances were listed? Mrs Bennett is notoriously indiscreet about absolutely everything, and Nurse Rooke knows how to leech information out of her employers, but SURELY the gentry, as a whole, did not discuss their personal finances with their servants (only the estate's accountant would be privy to the full picture of the family finances) -- so the servants would not have been able to put an accurate figure on their master/mistress's income, should they be inclined to gossip. And SURELY the British gentry and nobles didn't go around saying " delighted to make your acquaintance, my daughters have 10,000 pounds a year". I understand that the British have always considered it very ill-mannered to mention one's income in polite conversation, and that it's equally ill-mannered to ask that question of another person. In short I am mystified by the certainty and confidence which Austen's characters bring up these figures-- and how no other character EVER challenges their accuracy. It seems that other characters trust how the figures are obtained, and also trust the source. I'm glad Austen never wastes readers' time with tedious details on subjects she assumes every intelligent reader will know -- but I'm stumped on this one. Can you enlighten us? As a side note, to be honest I am a bit jealous of Regency openness and upfront talk about money, as in modern times there is no source you can go to independently find out a prospective partner's income. I remember my grandmother (born in 1895) telling me that right after she was married, she asked her new husband (my grandfather), exactly how much money he earned. He had a steady job as a bookkeeper and she thought that now she was his wife, she had a right to know. He, a typical male of his era, replied that it was "none of her business". And still today, a single person relies entirely on what their date is willing to reveal about their finances, and there is no way of checking their truthfulness. Couples talk freely about sex, yet directly asking the person you are dating about their income is still taboo.
io penso l abbia visitata Jane Austen Chatsworth House . Sono svizzera di madrelingua italiana , i tuoi video li vedo con i sottotitoli per capire meglio. sono iscritta al tuo canale da qualche settimana e già ho visto tutti i tuoi video, tutti stupendi e interessanti
Ellie I love your videos and am only writing this out of excitement that I know something relevant! Chiswick is pronounced Chiz-ick by the people who live there. Your way is beautiful, I am not telling you are wrong I just wanted to share. X
Yes, English names (and place names in particular) are often tricky. Hardwick (as in Hardwick Hall) is pronounced Hardwick, but Chiswick is pronounced Chizik. Also FYI, the man who was later to become the 4th Duke of Devonshire married the heiress Lady Charlotte Boyle, and that is how the Cavendish family acquired Chiswick House and other estates, including Lismore Castle in Ireland. The 5th Duke of Devonshire (who died in 1811) and the 6th Duke both spent huge amounts of money into the Irish castle, and the 12th Duke still owns it.
This was such an interesting analysis! I'm leaning heavily towards Chatsworth being the secret inspiration for Pemberley, but I certainly wouldn't discredit the arguments against it. :)
Makes me wonder if the grounds today actually resemble what was there 200 years ago. A lot could have changed on the outside, too. But cool dive into the topic. Thanks for sharing!
They are almost exactly the same as they would have been for Jane Austen. The grounds at Chatsworth were completely redesigned in the mid-18th century by the famed Capability Brown; turning what was an old fashioned collection of rigid French Parterres, into a classical and naturalistic English landscaped garden. Even though everything looks 100% natural, it actually took decades (and an absolute FORTUNE) to carefully construct literally everything we see today.
Lol, Batman wiki - I did not know there was such a thing! Newspapers and toothpicks :P I totally concur with you that Jane visited Chatsworth. Brilliant evaluation once again.
I put my faith in you and Jane Austen, the woman knew her business, and I was thinking many of the things you listed because I learned them on your videos. You're past videos have dealt with the comparative wealth and what meant wealth at the time the book was written; how far above most Mr Darcy was at far as wealth went. Your last point especially was dinging in my head during your video - and how you explained in another video on why Mr Darcy was not a Lord - but how his family moved in that world and had done for generations past - according to his Aunt - so he didn't have to buy everything all at once. He was also the sort of fellow who enjoyed intimate parties - he had a large group of friends come visit when Elizabeth met him accidentally at Pemberley; however, I've read a little about how the great houses were kept by their owners over the time and they seemed to almost turn them into hotels - with many visitors staying for extended periods of time - and then more visitors joining the house party for meals or balls or day events - while Mr Darcy seemed more content to enjoy his close friends and family - which again falls into your point on how much more the Duke who owned Chatsworth at the time would have had a much greater budget needed. I'm definitely agree with you in believing Pemberley is based on Chatsworth.
Very interesting and well reasoned. It also think there is a problem looking at it from a modern point of view. In the 21st century most people earn money at their job and then spend it on their house while a country estate was a working business. The house itself would mostly entail expense though a lot of the food would be grown in the gardens or provided by local farmers and with a posse of servants most DIY and repairs would not require calling in someone from the outside. Most importantly the estate would provide an income from the farmers' rents, also possibly from farming and timber. Darcy would certainly earn some income from investments but how does his income compare to the actual income from the Chatsworth Estate in the early 19th century?
Fun fact the 5th duke was married to Georgiana and she was born lady Georgiana Spencer her father was the first Earl Spencer and Princess Diana was the daughter of the 8th Earl Spencher and older sister to the 9th. Ironically enough Kira Knightley played the 5th Duchess of Devonshire in the movie The Duchess
Good video. I wondered why they changed it from the novel in 2005 P&P to Lizzie viewing sculptures instead of paintings. Now I know it was an anachronism (at least that one sculpture was). Maybe the director was trying to be different. But in the novel it's paintings she's seeing at Pemberley.
I think it has more options for filming to have her viewing a statue. You can use one moving shot to show both the statue and lizzys reaction to it. Rather than a picture which involves more cuts of frames to bit clearly show the painting and the reaction.
Let's not forget that both Pemberley and the Chatsworth estate are income producing properties! Darcy would have derived a great deal of his wealth from rents and farming, etc. on his extensive lands.
The end of wealthy country families’ second home in London (such as Devonshire House) has a literary tie in to Brideshead Revisited where the lead character’s artistic talents provide for his living most successfully by painting the interiors of these doomed residences before they are sold to developers! Death taxes and reduced revenue from the agricultural basis of the country estates reduced many of these families’ income post-WWI.
THIS IS THE CRAZIEST THING I VISITED CHATSWORTH LITERALLY THE DAY BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS! In my head I can't imagine Pemberley as anywhere but Chatsworth when I read the book because the descriptions match up so perfectly, so imo it totally fits as Jane Austen's inspiration 🤍
I don't see why Chatsworth House should be ruled out. It is also possible other houses inspired Austen. Also, if Jane Austen's library or she had access to a book on the fine houses of England, she might well have read about Chatsworth without having to visit it. BTW, if the great houses of England interests you, Amazon Prime has a series on its channel called that and I would guess there are others.
I just found your channel, and I had just been wondering about this very thing a few days ago. I had forgotten to take into account that Chatsworth was a lot smaller then. I wonder if it was less opulent as well? Also, good point about the Duke having so many other residences. I just did a reread if P&P and Darcy definitely had a house in town, but I also noticed that in his letter to Elizabeth after the first proposal he says "Mr Wickham is the son of a very respectable man, who had for many years the management of all the Pemberley estateS." I added the capital to the end of estates just for emphasis. I wonder what JA meant by the Pemberley estates.
Netherfield I believe was inspired by Chawton house in Hertfordshire less than half a mile from where Jane Austen actually lived. We have visited it, and It was like ,any of her novel's coming to life. Also Jane spent many days there writing letters. Chawton house and its beautiful little church, Is what I personally believe, inspired many of the large house's featured in Jane Austen's works.
Has anybody done a "survey" of the Great Houses of the era? Could a "generic" great house be postulated or could a "formula" for characterizing a great house be applied? I know precious little about the era, but it seems that many basic criteria could be applied and many similarities found. This thread leads me to the question of whether Pemberley was an author's construct based upon then-current expectations rather than a copy of an existing instance. Other structures, churches in particular, have long-standing general design formulas. Fortifications, prisons, etc. also have design formulas, but these have evolved with relevant technology (religion not being subject to the disruption of advancing science, the design of houses of worship remains relatively static). I imagine that the design of great houses is influenced by the culture's societal structure, the owner's position in that society, wealth, overall social stability, functions served by the structure, current fashion, and current construction technology (position and wealth being significant elements of that illusive thing called "Power"). The specific mention of Chatsworth House in the book could be an effort to influence the readers' imaginations: One the one hand, the mention provides a basis for comparison. If the reader has seen (or seen pictures of) Chatsworth House, then a comparative image for Pemberley is formed. That image includes both visual and social aspects. On the other hand, the reader is encouraged to believe that Pemberley is a place other than Chatsworth House. These could be simultaneous intentions on the part of the author. (Yes... the entire book is an effort by the author to influence the readers' imaginations... I refer explicitly to the motivations behind applying that manipulation to the topic of "Great House.")
I actually have a tattoo of Chatsworth because I'm such a big Pride an Prejudice fan and I was convinced that Chatsworth was Pemberly. Even if it's not, I love the idea that this was a place Austin could've seen
Lyme Park which was used for the 1995 TV adaptation I think might technically be in Derbyshire and it belonged to the Leigh family which Jane was related to ....just sayin'.
Ohhhh, I loved👌🏻 that you put yourself "in the mix" next to 🏴 actor Matthew Ryhs😍 aka 'Mr. Darcy' in the 2013 BBC Adaptation of 😍'Death Comes to Pemberley'😍. You look the 🤩spitting image of Jenna Coleman, aka 'Lydia Wickham-Bennet' (though you💖 are NOTHING 😉 like that particular character 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻). Now I need to watch my 'Death comes to Pemberley' 💿 again!! Ohhh boy😅✌🏻.
I have never watched P&P 2005, but I have no doubt that Chatsworth was the inspiration for Pemberley. Austen either visited there or read someone's detailed account very carefully. Regency Chatsworth was very different from Chatsworth now, and I think you did a wonderful job of explaining that and explaining how a Chatsworth-based Pemberley is very probable. Another great video!
Regency Chatsworth was not very different at all to the Chatsworth we see today (aside from the gigantic 1820s extension that certainly would not have been there during Jane Austen’s visit). The original 1680s and 1690s square half is pretty much unchanged (at least within the state rooms) from when it was constructed over 300 years ago. Notice how tourists during Jane Austen’s time called it “unfashionable” because it could not keep up with modern regency tastes; that is certainly true seeing as everything is so very Baroque (i.e. extravagant painted frescos across the walls and ceilings in most rooms; richly carved and gilded furnishings/ ceiling/ wall decorations; an interior centred around an enfilade design; a colour palette of deep reds, purples and golds - even the windows themselves are encased in gold leaf)! All of which was the height of fashion in 17th century England, but firmly cast out by the late 18th/ early 19th century (favouring simplicity, order and elegance over richness, grandeur and drama). The grounds are also mostly unchanged from when they were created in the 18th century (redesigned from intricate and formal 17th century French parterres, to naturalistic and classical English landscaped parkland), as well as, of course, the exterior (bar the extension).
@@tamaracarter1836 I consider that enormous 1820s extension a major change. It makes the place look very different IMO. There are also many changes in the garden since Jane Austen might have seen it. As Ellie points out, the house was not really used a great deal until the 6th duke got to work on it. Before then it probably looked a great deal as I imagine Pemberley, especially from a distance.
@@dorothywillis1 I think you might be missing the point I’m trying to make. When Jane Austen visited the building in 1806[?], all she would have seen was the Baroque 1680-90s house [8:29]; *this part of Chatsworth has changed very little since it’s construction over 300 years ago.* The extension however is of course an alteration, but it’s irrelevant to this particular discussion: 1. it was added after Jane Austen’s death, and 2. it does not alter the interiors or external structure of the older building [8:29] that Jane Austen would have seen/ we can still see today. The fact Chatsworth was not used as much until after Austen’s passing also backs this up. Here’s an explanation: - As we know, the Devonshire family had a very grand London mansion that they used as their principle residence (i.e. the one they used the most). Because of this, many architecturally important interiors/ exteriors from their other estates (that were otherwise unfashionable during the time), were able to be preserved; including the late 16th century Elizabethan interiors/ exterior at Hardwick Hall, the early 18th century Palladian interiors/ exterior at Chiswick House, and of course the late 17th century Baroque interiors/ exterior at Chatsworth. If Chatsworth had been their only/ most used residence, it would have almost certainly undergone major alterations (throughout the ‘entire’ house), to ensure the family kept up with changing fashions. Their main London home - Devonshire House - was remodelled countless times for this very reason, and where they held the vast majority of their parties. All of this results in (THANKFULLY) no need to touch Chatsworth. - Similarly, if the 6th Duke of Devonshire hadn’t been nearly as wealthy as he was when inheriting the title in 1811, he would never have been able to construct that enormous extension during the early 19th century; doubling the size of the property. It would have been much cheaper, and easier, to simply redesign the existing Baroque building as opposed to creating another in a different style right beside it… again, thankfully that did not happen, and they both exist today side by side. So in effect, the later extension at Chatsworth, and the fact the family used Devonshire House more, actually ‘preserved’ the building Jane Austen would have seen/ we see in 2021. Also, I realise Ellie suggests [at 9:34] that perhaps a load of the furnishings seen in Chatsworth today were not actually there during Jane Austen’s visit (and were instead taken from Devonshire House after it was demolished), but that doesn’t really make much sense. Like I said, Devonshire House was the epitome of London fashion at the time, and that meant they certainly would not have wanted room after room of ‘old fashioned’ (for the early 1800s); richly carved and gilded Baroque furnishings, but a much more understated, yet extremely fine, neoclassical alternative (many of which can now viewed within the newer 1820s extension at Chatsworth). Of course it’s all absolutely gorgeous to us in 2021, but during the ‘neoclassical obsessed’ Regency Era, fashions were the exact opposite of what they would have been for ‘Baroque obsessed’ late 17th century England (i.e. simplicity/ order/ elegance [neoclassicism] vs richness/ grandeur/ drama [Baroque]). The gardens have definitely had several additions throughout the years (like the Emperor Fountain Ellie describes at 9:07), but the vast majority of things were there around the time of Austen’s visit: the approach, the 18th century landscaped parkland, the stream, the bridges, the follies, the Cascade (actually one of the only surviving parts of the original 17th century design) etc etc etc. So the few things that have changed are far outweighed by those that have not.
@@dorothywillis1 What are you talking about “you give up”? We’re having a conversation… I’m just trying to put across my point (seeing as I have a lot of knowledge on this particular subject). *If you’re not being sarcastic, then please ignore this response.
Jane Austen visited Derbyshire and Chatsworth House when she was writing P&P. The description of the surroundings of Pemberly match the surroundings of Chatsworth House. The village of Lampton is Bakewell 🤗 Derbyshire is my home county, I know Chatsworth very well.
My first apartment in New York City SHOULD have been the inspiration for Pemberley even though it was tiny and the water came out of the tap a light brown color. In all other respects they were pretty much the same.
Can you do a video on travel during Regency times? I am writing a P&P variation book where Wickham does actually study law and somewhat reforms, so he isn't as bad. I'm finding it hard to come up with good sources on how long different journeys would take, how far they could travel in a day, how often they would change horses, how many times they would change horses before the people would just be DONE, if there were some sort of lanterns on the carriages for night travel, if there were rules of the road such as what to do when coming to an intersection, etc. I see some fanfiction having Mr. and Mrs Darcy travelling to Pemberley from Netherfield in like a day, whereas other books and sources have it taking 3-6 days.
@@EllieDashwood Bruce Wayne is the richest man in Gothamshire. Also, I think Batman would've found Mr Wickham and poor Lydia in two seconds, probably, so Elizabeth should've a hard time choosing between them.
Download June's Journey for free here: pixly.go2cloud.org/SH2hu
It was fun to see that June's Journey was a sponsor of your channel. I have been playing for over 4 years now, most every day. And i enjoy the challenges in solving mysteries. Just as you solve these mysteries of Pride and Prejudice. And I do think that Jane Austen did visit Chatsworth, and base Pemberley on that great house. Drawing from her experience and research, as well as her visits to other great houses in England. They always say that it's best to write what you know.
What about the BBC Pemberley
The question, "Could Mr. Darcy afford Chatsworth/Pemberley?" strikes me as being based on very modern ideas of property ownership and wealth. Mr. Darcy could afford Pemberley (Chatsworth) because he owned Pemberley. He didn't buy Pemberley, he inherited it, along with a bunch of land. And that land provided a lot of his income. It's not like now, where most people buy their own house with their own money they earn from working and the land the house is on is limited and doesn't really earn them any extra income.
This is such a good point!
My thoughts exactly!
Except that those big houses have, and had, very high maintenance costs. How much did Mr Collins say Lady Catherine spent replacing the glass in the windows of Rosings Park?
I watched a documentary on the titled family living in one of the surviving big old houses Most of the space has been turned over to the visiting public, while the family itself confines themselves to a relatively small private apartment up on the top floor.
Because it had been added to, over multiple generations, the seams between the lead rooves of the various sections was going to cost a stunning among to replace. Yet, it is the kind of maintenance that can't be avoided, if the interior is to be kept liveable.
@@geoswan4984 The costs associated with running such a house now are not generally comparable to what they were then. There's a reason these houses stopped being built eventually and why the remaining ones usually require being turned into full time museums/tourist destinations to keep going. Costs for heating increased, costs for electricity (obviously not an issue in Austen's time), the cost of staff and services provided all went up a lot starting in the mid to late 19th century. In the regency period, goods were expensive, but services and the people who performed them were relatively cheap (which is why in that period even a middle class household could employ a couple of servants).
@@luminousmoon86 It now costs an unbelievable £16-17 million to run Chatsworth each “year”! That also doesn’t even factor in separate restoration works.
The moral of the story is that Jane Austen invented Gotham before Gotham.
😂😂😂
Sounds about right! 🤣
Gotham is a village in Nottinghamshire and there are many legends about the foolishness of its citizens!
@@ibidthefrog It's also properly pronounced "Goat 'em."
I always got the impression that the houses in JAs novels were like her characters: inspired by really people, places, and events but never a 1:1 comparison
This. Also, this is a work of fiction. Pemberley doesn't actually exist. So why not have Chatsworth and Pemberley exist in the same made-up universe?
about mr. darcy not being able to afford chatsworth: even if pemberley is based on chatsworth house, a real place, it's still a fictional place. as a product of fiction, it can be whatever you want, smaller, cheaper...
so, yes, based on this video i think pemberley is inspired by chatsworth. awesome video!
Aw, thanks so much! And that’s such a good point. A fictional place can be whatever it’s author wants it to be!
I agree. It's a bit like the modest house at Top Withins being turned into the large house in Emily Bronte's imagination
It's like literally every TV show or movie where the people complain about being poor but have a huge house where everyone has their own room. Like some character who works as a barista and can afford a spacious apartment with BIG windows in New York city.
Darcy’s home was of course much grander than Longbourn House, the home of the Bennet family, but I am sure that in Jane Austen’s imagination the Bennet home was more impressive than it is portrayed in film and TV adaptations. After all, Mr Bennet was a country gentleman with an annual income of £2,000, a very large sum of money at the time. Consequently, in the BBC’s 1980 adaptation the house used for Longbourn is too small. It is a former dower house and gives the impression that the Bennets were on the bottom rung of the gentry when in fact Mr Bennet’s income was double the sum the Ferrars family received from an estate in Norfolk in Sense and Sensibility and more than double the income of Mr John Willoughby of Combe Magna in the same novel. Hence the house chosen for Longbourn in the BBC’s classic 1995 adaptation is almost certainly too modest as well. Finally, in the 2005 film the house chosen for the Bennets is more suitable in scale but, sadly, it is portrayed as shabby, an image not conveyed by Jane Austen. Indeed, in her novel we are told that when Lady Catherine de Bourgh was at Longbourn she ‘opened the doors into the dining-parlour and drawing room, and pronounced them, after a short survey, to be decent looking rooms.’
In the 2005 movie the bennets house being smaller and shabbier was intentional. The director wanted it to be more accessible to people, not just Jane Austen fans. He had an hour to make you feel bad for this family's position in life and to a modern viewer it's hard to feel bad for someone rich. I just watched dominic noble's lost in adaptation of the show and the movie and it lead me here
Further to my previous comment, in the BBC's generally excellent 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice the interior of the Lucas family home is grander and more sumptuous than Longbourn. Whether Jane Austen thought that, however, is uncertain. In Volume 1, Chapter 5, she merely tells us that Sir William had made a 'tolerable fortune' through trade at Meryton and had thus retired 'with his family to a house about a mile from Meryton, denominated from that period Lucas Lodge.'
Evidently, the house had less extensive parkland than the Bennet home, for when Lady Catherine de Bourgh haughtily said that the Bennets had a "very small park", Mrs Bennet replied: “It is nothing in comparison of Rosings, my lady, I dare say; but I assure you it is much larger than Sir William Lucas’s.” (Volume 3, Chapter 14.)
@@jessbeingme8155 yeah, it was to accentuate the wealth disparity between the Bennets and Mr Darcy.
It's not that they are poor, they definitely aren't. (Their father was just neglectful in putting money aside for them) It's that Mr Darcy is SO MUCH richer! And having them in a smaller but still sumptuous house wouldn't have convey that well enough to modern audiences.
@@glendodds3824the blue Room was so beautiful and pretty large
the 2005 house didn't look shabby to me whatsoever
Darcy just doesn't have the personality to be "fashionable".
So true!
That's what I was thinking. Just don't see Darcy throwing wild expensive parties.
He does care about maintaining and improving what he was given...especially the library. Darcy will bow to Lizzy's advice on parties and Lizzy would not do anything crazy to cross the line (as in her boundaries with Lydia in the end) . He will continue to grow and she will not ask too much.
Jane Austin wrote Darcy to be one of the Richest men in England. Thus his idea he can act, take up persons as friends as he chooses. He also has many responsibilities and persons relying on him. His low key lifestyle means he’s not well known, he’s not a notorious person.
Your comment about the fact that Darcy would not have bought everything in Pemberley House reminded me of something that Lady Mary says in Downton Abbey when her fiancé of the time, Sir Richard Carlisle, is looking to buy an estate. She asks how they are going to furnish this huge mansion, and he says that they just have to buy everything. She then replies: “Your lot buys it, our lot inherits it.” So, my guess is that Darcy probably didn't have to pay for much in terms of furniture and decor. :D
Love this video but now I'm worried that Bruce Wayne could not have afforded the Batcave and Alfred, the butler.
😂😂😂
He could have. Bruce Wayne is a modern billionaire. He is even richer then Mr Darcy...
I always liked the theory that Pemberley was Wentworth Woodhouse in South Yorkshire , mainly because I used to live nearby and often walked in the grounds . You should check it out it is absolutely massive and largely unknown compared to Chatsworth. It was home to the Earls Fitzwilliam , which is of course the christian name of Darcy .
I’ve heard of that house! It is so huge. That’s awesome that you used to live by there!!! 😃 The Fitzwilliam connection is interesting. 🧐
it's beautiful and reminds me of the 1995's Pemberley, Lyme park, but the only thing which makes it slightly less credible as Chatsworth is the lack of the large "stream of natural importance" from the book as from what I saw from the online maps, there isn't any stream at all, of course, it still could be an inspiration for authors do tend to pull inspiration from several different sources, and I think its really cool, maybe if I come to Yorkshire I'll have to visit.
Wait, there's a Wentworth Woodhouse, home to the earls of Fitzwilliam, and there's doubt that it could have been inspiration for Austen ?
Austen was probably aware of the Fitzwilliam family. Another rival branch of the Wentworth family lived a few miles away at Wentworh Castle which is also a stately home, but was eclipsed by the grandeur of Wentworth Woodhouse. It was home to the Earls of Strafford who are mentioned by Sir Walter Elliot in the second chapter of Persuasion.
@@michaelrooke2544 oh yes, no doubt of the inspiration, but the description of the grounds sound much more like Chatsworth. so it's my belief that she used both, that she loved the names of the Wentworth Woodhouse estate but visited Chatsworth and adored the grounds, also Chatsworth has a trout stream, yet another thing that coincides with the book! , remember when Mr Darcy offers to let Mr Gardiner come and fish in his streams!
I feel that Austen probably would've taken multiple houses as inspiration for all the properties she wrote about. There used to be a lot more grand houses around 200 years ago, but sadly so many were demolished. So much potential inspiration for Austen that we don't know about!
Also, I went to a talk by an architecture historian at the Jane Austen Festival last month and she wasn't convinced that Chatsworth was an accurate Pemberley. Some features work, some don't.
Ultimately though, it's fiction and so we can speculate back and forth forever!
P.S. Lyme Park ('95 Pemberley) is also a lovely house if you ever get a chance to visit.
I was so sad that we didn’t have time to go to Lyme when I was in that area! And it’s a good point that Jane could have combined from multiple sources!
@@EllieDashwoodSave it for next time! They even have a dressing up room for you to borrow costumes and wander around the house and gardens :)
I agree, the interiors of Chatsworth (well the 1680s-1690s square half) are far too Baroque to be Pemberley. I think the exterior and grounds were her inspiration, and the interiors taken from another English stately home.
Have only seen 2005 once. Gotham City is based on NYC, but is not NYC. Canonically it is located in New Jersey. Metropolis, Superman's City, is in Delaware and within driving distance of Gotham. Yeah, my nerd-dom spans multiple genres.
Great points!
I was just about to comment that!
Frank Shuster, the weird guy who invented Superman, when he was a teenage boy, is from Toronto. The Toronto newspaper with the highest circulation is the Daily Star. It is accepted by many people who live in Toronto, and care about such things, that Clark Kent's Daily Planet is based on Toronto Daily Star, and that Metropolis is based on Toronto.
I called him weird. He didn't actually make a lot of money from Superman. Among the things he did afterwards? Comics with a strong BDSM flavour.
He had a cousin who was half of a comedy duo. My favourite joke of theirs.... One of them is playing a bully, trying to make the other guy feel stupid.
Q: Oh yeah? I bet you can't tell me the difference between ignorance and apathy!
A: I don't know, and I don't care!
I have only ever heard that it was based on Chicago? But maybe it’s like NYC’s landscape with Chicago’s politics.
Gotham City is based on New York City below 14th Street at night. Metropolis is based on New York City between 14th and 100 Streets during the daytime.
Brilliant video, thank you Ellie! Small Brit tip here: Chiswick is pronounced “Chisick” without the “w” (don’t ask me why you don’t pronounce the w in Chiswick but you do in Hardwick… our place names make no sense)
Thank you for that, Ellie! Takes me back to the time when my mother was organizing a WI event at Chatsworth in the late 70s. I went to help, so the 11th Duchess of Devonshire gave us both a personal tour around the house. She was very involved in the organization herself (Women’s Institute). I’ve always loved visiting as I’m Derbyshire born and bred. I now live in the US.
That is so cool!!!!!!
Channels like these is what inspired me to pursue my art history minor! I absolutely love your videos!!
Art history is such a cool minor! That is awesome!!!
Re: whether Mr Darcy could afford Chatsworth on £10,000 a year. I think you made another video once where you explained that his income may actually exceed this. So yep-sounds like could definitely afford it!
no he couldn't
Yes He could
What she taught: There are many arguments for and against Chatsworth being the inspiration for Pemberly and evidence to back up both claims.
What I learned: Pemberly is basically Gotham City, and Mr. Darcy is Batman.
Super interesting video. In the 1995 version they used Lyme Hall, near where I grew up, for Pemberly(we couldn't visit the park for a while when I was a kid because they were filming there) . Mr Darcy's pond is real, though its kind of murky and gross in real life - don't dive in there unless you want to get covered in slime and pond weed! The part where Darcy rides up a hill past a stone tower thingy (Lyme Cage, a hunting lodge) is funny because if they'd changed the camera angle even slightly you'd have been able to see the modern houses and reservoir visible from the hill.
That’s so interesting! I wonder if anyone has dived in there trying to just be like Darcy before. 😃😂
@@EllieDashwood I think a few people tried 🤣. The park staff I spoke to years after the fact were taking pains to stress how much you don't wanna do that!
@@Roseliptillgirl @Ellie Dashwood I have read that the stunt actor who portrayed 1995 Darcy diving in and swimming got a nasty infection from some kind of protozoan parasite that specializes in living in yucky country ponds.
Darcy's swim was filmed in a pool. The insurance company wouldn't cover Colin if he'd dived in the real lake.
Oh my gosh, Ellie!!! Look at that freaking awesome bibliography!!!
I have it in my head that Pemberley, out of all the pretty estates from Jane's books, could have a major "Chadswick house" vibe, but is an amalgamation of that plus her idea of a perfect estate. From what I remember (and I could be wrong) it is her most detailed house in the books. The other great houses are in persuasion and Mansfield Park, (maybe Emma, but I couldn't go through that one), and yet neither mansfield park nor kellynch have as detailed descriptions as Pemberley. Also more detailed than northanger abbey.
Based on what you said, I imagine the other great houses are either more ambiguous descriptions of places she visited, but Pemberley is her favorite place plus everything her dream big house would be. After all, Elizabeth is the one heroine that stays in the great house; Elinor, Catherine and Fanny live in parish houses, Marianne lives in a big house but not a great house, Emma stays at her father's house, and Anne likely travels as a salior's wife. As the ultimate dreamhouse, it fits as the place for her main to live in.
Happy to see you had a vid today!!! Thank You. Take care and have fun!!! 😷😎😷
Aw! Thank you so much for watching!!!
I dunno about Chatsworth, but my idea of a smart nice friend is inspired by Ellie!
Aw!!! That’s so sweet! 😭💕
I’ve been loving all of your Pride and Prejudice videos!
Hope you are feeling better Ellie!
Aw! Thank you! I am feeling quite a bit better. 😃😃😃
Your use of the Scholastic version of Pride and Prejudice warms my heart. That version was my first version and while I no longer own my copy, it brings me back to when I first read Austen and how much I love her works.
Thank you for this video! Another possibility, why Pemberley sounds much like Chatsworth, without her having been there: Her friends, she stayed with, described it to her or she read about it somewhere? I mean, the Gardiners knew about all the great houses, they wanted to see as tourists, apart from Chatsworth/Pemberley (because Mrs Gardiner grew up near it), because they’ve heard/read about it? Not like today’s magazines but in a very tasteful and discreet way maybe?
And about the income, apart from the duke’s other houses, their station was still different. A lot more parties would have been required of the Duke and meeting the royal family etc and chaise and 6 instead of 4 (horses) maybe, and Darcy was comparatively secluded, as he told Sir William that he didn’t go out much in London etc. ?
In any video I watch of you it comes to my mind how well researched your videos are! They are awesome and structured so well. You are really talented!
I’m a Batman comic fan as well as an Austen fan; you’ve made my day! And you are absolutely correct about NY and Gotham existing in the same universe. After the first Robin grew up into Nightwing, he moved to NY at one point. And that doesn’t even count the crossover comic where Batman worked with Daredevil in NY.
So I agree with and like the idea that Pemberly was based on Chatsworth, but that they still exist in the same universe. ❤️
That’s so cool!!! That’s so interesting about Robin!
The whole argument doesn't stand cause there is also Metropolis that is based on New-York... So, there is actually 3 New York Cities in the DCCU (DC comics universe?)
@@miss1of2 I think it’s a case of comic book writers really need to look at past work/talk to each other. Apparently now in-universe Gotham City and Bludhaven are in NJ, but maybe in-universe Metropolis is another New York city that is not THE New York City? Because otherwise it makes no sense in-universe for them to explicitly state that Nightwing went to New York City vs just saying that he went to Metropolis (plus, the NYC is not presented as Metropolis in these comics). Comics are a wonderful cluster of a mess.(sigh)
Chiswick may be written with a doubleyou, but it isn't spoken with one.
If Mr Darcy was from a family that had owned a Chatsworth sized pile for generations, he would likely be aristocracy not gentry. A family with the money to run that sort of house, and to have done so for generations, that family would have been absorbed into the aristocracy. Of course if Pride and Prejudice really is fictional, then why not have Mr Darcy own a clone of it? It doesn't have to have been in his family for generations, even if much of the contents were.
Muchas gracias por los subtitulos en español, me encantan tus videos.
Soy nueva en tú canal pero, Wow ahora entiendo mucho más estas historias con la información q nos proporcionas. Saludos de Tlaquepaque, Jalisco. México 👍👍
¡¡¡gracias!!! 😃😃😃
@@EllieDashwood do you speak spanish? hahahah
As someone who loves DC and Jane Austen I appreciate this!
Yay!!!
Some people (including those who run Peak District online) say that Jane Austen visited Bakewell, Bakewell is only about 5 miles away from Chatsworth house. So if Jane did visit CH it may have only taken about an hour from Bakewell. Indeed Peak District online says Lambton in Pride and Prejudice is based on Bakewell
Also quick pronunciation note, when you say Chiswick you don't pronounce the w
Whilst I definitely believe Chatsworth to be the inspiration behind Pemberley, the only thing that doesn’t quite fit would be the interiors… You see, the “1680s” part of the house [8:29] is extremely baroque (i.e. extravagant frescos across the walls and ceilings in most rooms; richly carved and gilded furnishings/ ceiling/ wall decorations; an interior centred around an enfilade design; a colour palette of deep reds, purples and golds - heck, even the windows themselves are encased in gold leaf)! It therefore doesn’t really fit the depiction of Pemberley in Pride and Prejudice; like your quote at 9:47 suggests, the furniture “was neither gaudy nor uselessly fine”. Well the furniture within the ‘square’ half of Chatsworth certainly would have been described as “gaudy” in the eyes of ‘neoclassical loving’ late Georgian/ early Regency England. Of course it’s all absolutely gorgeous to us in 2021, but during Jane Austen’s time, fashions were the exact opposite of what they would have been in ‘Baroque loving’ late 17th century England (i.e. simplicity/ order/ elegance [neoclassicism] vs richness/ grandeur/ drama [Baroque]). Perhaps she was inspired by another grand English stately home’s interiors?
Also, I know you mention that perhaps a load of the furnishings seen in Chatsworth today were not actually there during Jane Austen’s visit (and were instead taken from Devonshire House after it was demolished), but that also doesn’t make much sense. Devonshire House was the epitome of London fashion at the time, and that meant they certainly would not have wanted room after room of ‘old fashioned’ (for the early 1800s); richly carved and gilded Baroque furnishings, but a much more understated, yet extremely fine, neoclassical alternative (many of which can now viewed within the newer 1820s extension at Chatsworth). The fact the Devonshire family had such a grand London mansion in the first place, actually allowed the survival of important interiors within many of their other notable estates; including the late 16th century Elizabethan interiors at Hardwick Hall, the early 18th century Palladian interiors at Chiswick House, and of course the late 17th Baroque half of Chatsworth.
Anyway, thank you for another wonderful video!
I enjoyed reading your excellent comment.
@@glendodds3824 Thank you.
Perhaps Austen thought a combination of the two houses -- Chatsworth and Wentworth Woodhouse -- would prevent anyone from thinking she meant either in particular. I think it is the description of the approach to the house and the stream that flows in front that keep people in favor of Chatsworth. I have visited Chatsworth, and the approach is just as Austen described the approach to Pemberley! I wonder if there is a record of her visiting Wentworth Woodhouse. It is obvious Austen found the place a gold mine for names!
I really love your channel. 😍 You have probably seen the guide to Regency England called "What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew.," Not only does it include an order of precedence chart, but it also tells you how to play whist. So bonus? Anyway, keep up the good work!
Well, now I just watch the longer video on Chatsworth house. That was lovely!
Honestly as somebody who majored in creative writing and literature at College I can honestly say that I feel like it probably was and any changes have either happened over the last 200 years or she changed to fit her story better. I mean based on doesn't mean it has to be identical an author's take literary license all the time
Another of your very informative, but also cheeky and interesting videos. Thanks!
Lovely Ellie Dashwood, what an interesting topic you picked today! Just today I was trying to convince a young pal of mine to show some interest in Jane Austen, and I told him how you were my favourite Jane Austen commentator, and told him how often I thought the authors of Jane Austen related fiction got Pemberley wrong. More on that in a followup comment.
I've watched some video about Chawton, not just the cottage, where Jane, Cassandra, their mother, and family friend Martha Lloyd lived, but the big house associated with the Chawton estate.
I was surprised to read, earlier this year, that when Jane's brother Edward inherited the estate from the childless cousins, he was worth 15,000 pounds per year. 1.5 times Darcy's income. Yet the Chawton big house seems much more modest than Chatsworth House.
Mind you, as you noted, the Dukes of Devonshire had spent many generations managing their estates - probably more than Jane's Knight cousins.
Lucy Worsley did a BBC documentary on Jane Austen. In it she rides in a carraige approaching another great house, and describes how Jane and her mother and some other relatives rode up to that house on the occasion of the death of the wealthy cousin who had lived there, and died without any direct heirs. It seemed comparable in size to Chatsworth, and bigger than Chawton.
So, Chatsworth would have cost over 5,000 pounds to staff and run, in style? Hmmm. I wonder how much of that was for the staff's salaries, food and uniforms? You mentioned 60 staff? I wonder how many gardiners a park 10 miles in circumference requires? Presumably the portions of the estate that the Dukes managed themselves, rather than leased to tenant farmers, required employing additional farm workers.
I think you made another excellent point about the expenses of living in style, in London. One expense I imagine Mr Darcy would have avoided, even if he lived in London... Gambling. It wasn't just disreputable guys like Wickham who gambled. Do you know how the sandwich got its name? The Earl of Sandwich was so heavily committed to gambling he would not take time to leave the gambling table to have a civilized meal. He directed his servants to bring him a food, between to slices of bread, something he could eat with one hand while he continued gambling.
Another expense of living in style? Maintaining a stylish mistress, if you were than kind of guy.
I think the Mr Darcy that Jane Austen created would not keep a mistress. I noticed that a few of the authors of some Jane Austen related fiction do give Darcy a mistress - a mistress who gets kicked to the curb when Elizabeth comes along.
I am going to make a followup comment with what I know about mistresses in general, and the Duke of Wellington's mistresses in particular.
Thanks again Ellie Dashwood!
Yes, JAFF authors often get the Pemberly estate wrong! In Pride and Prejudice we read that the Park at Pemberly was 10 miles in circumference - and Charlotte Lucas says Darcy "owns half of Derbyshire".
Half of Derbyshire? She probably just meant he owned the largest set of properties in Derbyshire.
A surprising number of authors of Jane Austen related fiction don't seem to understand that the Park is merely the recreational part of the estate, the portion not devoted to barns, grazing pastures and fields of crops. Just as you said there were guides on how much a great house cost to maintain, there may well have been guides to how much of your estate you should set aside for recreation, and showing off.
A surprising number of authors of Jane Austen related fiction don't seem to understand the difference between circumference, and area, and state, in their books, that Darcy's Pemberly estate is 10 square miles. I just pulled out my calculator, and if I did the math right, the area of a circle 10 miles in diameter is about 7.9 square miles.
How big were the Longbourn and Netherfield estates? Well, they were 3 miles apart, and they bordered one another. Pi r squared, where r is 1.5 miles, would make the area something like 7 square miles.
Mr Bennet's Longbourn earns one fifth Darcy's Pemberley. Does that imply Mr Darcy's properties total to something like 35 square miles.
Do you think when Austen names Longbourn and Pemberly's incomes that is the income AFTER deducting the expenses of running the estate? I think it is likely it is.
Anyhow, Ellie Dashwood, thanks again for picking this interesting topic!
How expensive was it to keep a stylish mistress?
Some of the great men of era seemed to have had extramarital affairs with widows, with their own income, so the only costs would have been tasteful gifts, and the costs of excursions, etc.
Other mistresses had no income, and relied upon their lovers to maintain them.
I read Elizabeth Longford's biography of the Duke of Wellington. Like Winston Churchill, Wellington was a character, and there are stories about him that are so entertaining that I suspect people will keep telling them, even if they weren't true.
One of the stories has to do with the memoirs of a notorious serial mistress. Longford explained that some of the great men of the time maintained mistresses that were intelligent, and projected an air of class, and that these guys would have discrete parties where they would take their trophy mistresses, not their wives.
When one of these great men died, or went broke, or just lost interest, she would truy to go under the protection of one of his buddies, who she had flirted with, during those parties. Maybe even one of those buddies would offer her a bigger household, a bigger allowance, and she would defect to the new guy.
If a mistress's protector really loved her, he might pension her off, when he moved on to a younger mistress. But former mistresses, who couldn't hook up with another guy had one more card they could play.
The tell-all memoir. Apparently, the real money to be made from a tell-all memoir was not in the royalties it earned, but in the blackmail potential.
The former mistress would get out her little black book, and write a nice letter to her former lovers, describing their single state, their lack of funds, their decision to write a memoir, and then drop a hint that, in return for a gift of some kind, they would be happy to leave out the chapter devoted to their time together.
And, according to Longford, if you were a notorious former mistress, down on her luck, why stop with the men who had been your former lovers? Why not write to their friends, who you met at those parties, telling them your plans to include a chapter in your book of the time you spent as their mistress.
If your former lovers were all afraid of scandal, the former mistress could collect her payday, without having to actually write anything beyond those letters.
Longford described Wellington receiving one of those letters from a woman who had once been a famous serial mistress, and that he told her "publish and be damned!"
The rest of Longford's biography was so complimentary to Wellington I assumed, at the time, that he was someone classy enough to not indulge in any kind of adultery.
Recently I learned I was wrong. I read about a woman named Georgina Fane. She met Wellington shortly after the Battle of Waterloo. He was 47, she was 14 years old.
She pursued him for the rest of her life. Sometime between when they met, and the his wife died, they did sleep with one another.
His wife's death complicated things for him, because a bunch of former mistresses, including Fane seem to have thought it was obvious that, once the first Lady Wellington died they would become the second Lady Wellington.
Fane received marriage proposals from eligible bachelors, but her love for Wellington made her turn them all down.
A letter survives, from Wellington, to Fane's mother, pleading with her to do what she could to keep Fane from stalking him.
So, I wonder how much it cost to maintain a stylish trophy mistress, in style? I think, f she insists on a carriage, a stylish address, and a constantly up to date fashionable set of dresses, it might cost over a thousand pounds a year.
Mind you, if your mistress isn't a trophy mistress, you maintain a simple cottage for her, somewhere on your estate, no carriage, maybe it only costs 50 to 100 pounds a year.
I haven't read Lady Susan, only seen the film. From the film I think she would be more like the first kind of mistress.
Wellington didn't make any of his former lover the second Lady Wellington. He lived the last years of his life with the guy who had been married to a woman he seems to have actually loved, who died tragically young.
I meant circumference, and wrote diameter, above. My bad.
@@geoswan4984 Hi. I have enjoyed reading your comments. As you say people often make mistakes when they discuss the social history of Austen's day. For example, in Mansfield Park Jane tells us that Mr Rushworth had an income of £12,000 and a very large estate. However, Austen devotees and indeed Austen scholars sometimes say that his large estate comprised 700 acres. However, the 700 acres refers to his grounds, the parkland and not the entire estate. Furthermore, it is commonplace for Austen scholars to refer to baronets in a pejorative manner, using phrases such as "mere baronets" and "only a baronet" etc and so a lot of fans of Austen think they were small fry shunned by dukes and marquesses etc. It is thus ironic that a daughter of the first Duke of Devonshire married a baronet and that a daughter of the second duke did likewise and members of other very grand families have also done so.
I love your videos so much! Thank you for creating Jane Austen content 💖
Aw! Thank you!!!!!!
I wish the BBC sitcom “Black Adder” had a series of episodes taking place in the confines of Jane Austen’s P&P masterpiece. Including Mr Darcy, Lady Catherine, Mr Wickham, Elizabeth ... and Baldrick playing the role of Mr Collins. It might lose some romantic appeal, but it sure would be funny. And I would love if Ellie played a major role in it (or a script writer, she’s got the talent).
Ask and you shall almost receive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_a_Joke_(Red_Dwarf)
What a fun video.
Also, my husband is pretty much -obsessed with Batman- a Batman expert and he says that New York City exists in the DC universe that Batman lives in!
Batman experts to the rescue with important facts! 😂
Another great analysis, Ellie, thank you again. I really like your insights. One little quibble (and I apologize for quibbling at all). Chiswick is pronounced “Chizzick”. Just FYI.
Amazing video Ellie!!!
I love your videos! This is another great one! The images you choose to add are so appropriate and helpful in understanding the times and social ways.
IF you ever take "requests" -- I would love it if you would possibly be able to create a talk on the related topic of great-house tourism -- like how the gentry would go and "apply to the housekeeper" to be shown around fancy people's houses.
You would be the perfect interpreter to help us understand why the owners may have found it in their interest to permit this, how the tradition development, how it maybe evolved into historic-home tourism today (one supposes), and whatnot.
I always look forward to your videos! I would love one on how you go about your research in general. You explain things so well!
Aw! Thank you so much! And I’m noting down that video idea. Thanks 😃
Ditto on that. Your end product comes together so well! Clearly you go the extra mile in research, and you must come up with really interesting research questions. And to continue the gush, you're so comfortable on camera, have a very expressive voice, and good pacing. I love when there's a new ED video!
I think y'all get too fixated on Austen actually intending a clone of Chatsworth to become Pemberley... I mean, she of course can have taken Chatsworth as a reference: the location, the style, etc. But she didn't go in so much detail as to give the square-footage or the number of windows, or how many £ were spent on each of the fireplaces (wink-wink). She just says it is "appropriate for a gentleman of his status". So it will probably be, as - inspired or not by Chatsworth - it is still fictional.
What I object to, frankly, is using in films and miniseries a house that - nowadays, as it is furnished, decorated and expanded beyond what you described Austen probably saw - is simply disproportionately grand. I mean, it is all very well to use the park, the (older) prospects, etc. But I would have toned down the interiors.
That's a lot of newspapers and toothpicks.
Love the channel and all the interdisciplinary knowledge you bring to this topic. Many thanks!
So interesting. 60 servants is a lot to manage. Saying they didn't work is silly. If you had a business with 60 employees we would say you worked!
That is such a good point! It was a lot to oversee servants!
I wouldn't expect that Mr Darcy would have managed most of the servants directly. He probably mostly dealt with the top of the hierarchy who managed the rest. He might might have known who they all were in a general way, but I doubt he directly managed the scullery maids and stable boys.
He didn't manage them, that was the work of Mr. Whickan, Sr. (The steward). He oversaw that (think the earl in Downton abbey and the shock when Mary started managing that estate a hundred years later)
@@gullinvarg the bottom tier servants only lasted a few years before they would have gotten a character reference to move up to a higher post at another house. I doubt anyone except the other servants would have ever seen them.
What many people don’t know is that Kick Kennedy (JFK’s sister) was married to the heir of the Duke of Devonshire and the later on in her life she was engaged to Peter FitzWilliam, owner of WentWorth WoodHouse.
Her favorite book was also pride and prejudice and was obsessed with it before she ever met the heir to the Duke of Devonshire.
This is a great video! I agree with you completely. It's highly likely that Chatsworth House is the inspiration of Pemberly. I'm convinced of it. You are so great at what you do. I'm so glad I came across your channel. You are a lovely person & have a great personality. You have now become one of my favorite youtube channel's ever.
Your energy and enthusiasm is so infectious! Thanks for the video!
Would love a video on the economics of wickham’s situation. Much like you did for comparing Darcy’s wealth to modern times. Just diving into what it meant for him to get the multiple payouts and what the living would have been worth etc. how wasteful it must have been to squander that money and opportunity.
This is the best argument I’ve heard for pemberly being chatsworth. I’m with you on this.
Hi Ellie! love your discussions. Forgive me if you've already covered this elsewhere (I haven't got through all your videos yet) but there's one question which has always bugged me in every single Austen novel: how do the characters always KNOW how much money complete strangers possess? its the very first attribute they mention when the name of a single person, male or female, whom they have never seen or met is mentioned for the first time. I understand that, for Regency people, knowing a single person's income was essential information for a marriage decision, and that they would naturally make an educated guess on a figure -- but how could they name an income figure with such certainty? Was this information freely available in print somewhere, like Debrett's? was there some publication where sons' and daughters' inheritances were listed? Mrs Bennett is notoriously indiscreet about absolutely everything, and Nurse Rooke knows how to leech information out of her employers, but SURELY the gentry, as a whole, did not discuss their personal finances with their servants (only the estate's accountant would be privy to the full picture of the family finances) -- so the servants would not have been able to put an accurate figure on their master/mistress's income, should they be inclined to gossip. And SURELY the British gentry and nobles didn't go around saying " delighted to make your acquaintance, my daughters have 10,000 pounds a year". I understand that the British have always considered it very ill-mannered to mention one's income in polite conversation, and that it's equally ill-mannered to ask that question of another person.
In short I am mystified by the certainty and confidence which Austen's characters bring up these figures-- and how no other character EVER challenges their accuracy. It seems that other characters trust how the figures are obtained, and also trust the source. I'm glad Austen never wastes readers' time with tedious details on subjects she assumes every intelligent reader will know -- but I'm stumped on this one. Can you enlighten us?
As a side note, to be honest I am a bit jealous of Regency openness and upfront talk about money, as in modern times there is no source you can go to independently find out a prospective partner's income. I remember my grandmother (born in 1895) telling me that right after she was married, she asked her new husband (my grandfather), exactly how much money he earned. He had a steady job as a bookkeeper and she thought that now she was his wife, she had a right to know. He, a typical male of his era, replied that it was "none of her business". And still today, a single person relies entirely on what their date is willing to reveal about their finances, and there is no way of checking their truthfulness. Couples talk freely about sex, yet directly asking the person you are dating about their income is still taboo.
io penso l abbia visitata Jane Austen Chatsworth House . Sono svizzera di madrelingua italiana , i tuoi video li vedo con i sottotitoli per capire meglio. sono iscritta al tuo canale da qualche settimana e già ho visto tutti i tuoi video, tutti stupendi e interessanti
Ellie I love your videos and am only writing this out of excitement that I know something relevant! Chiswick is pronounced Chiz-ick by the people who live there. Your way is beautiful, I am not telling you are wrong I just wanted to share. X
I've nothing to add about the topic so... I love the red today!!!
Aw! Thank you!!!
Another great video Ellie. FYI, Chiswick (and Chiswick House) is pronounced CHIZ-ik.
That’s so interesting! Place names are always tricky!
Yes, English names (and place names in particular) are often tricky. Hardwick (as in Hardwick Hall) is pronounced Hardwick, but Chiswick is pronounced Chizik. Also FYI, the man who was later to become the 4th Duke of Devonshire married the heiress Lady Charlotte Boyle, and that is how the Cavendish family acquired Chiswick House and other estates, including Lismore Castle in Ireland. The 5th Duke of Devonshire (who died in 1811) and the 6th Duke both spent huge amounts of money into the Irish castle, and the 12th Duke still owns it.
This was such an interesting analysis! I'm leaning heavily towards Chatsworth being the secret inspiration for Pemberley, but I certainly wouldn't discredit the arguments against it. :)
Wow, that was fascinating! I had no idea!
Makes me wonder if the grounds today actually resemble what was there 200 years ago. A lot could have changed on the outside, too. But cool dive into the topic. Thanks for sharing!
I feel like it has changed a lot with it’s garden designs! Thanks so much for watching! 😃✨
They are almost exactly the same as they would have been for Jane Austen. The grounds at Chatsworth were completely redesigned in the mid-18th century by the famed Capability Brown; turning what was an old fashioned collection of rigid French Parterres, into a classical and naturalistic English landscaped garden. Even though everything looks 100% natural, it actually took decades (and an absolute FORTUNE) to carefully construct literally everything we see today.
Lol, Batman wiki - I did not know there was such a thing! Newspapers and toothpicks :P I totally concur with you that Jane visited Chatsworth. Brilliant evaluation once again.
I put my faith in you and Jane Austen, the woman knew her business, and I was thinking many of the things you listed because I learned them on your videos. You're past videos have dealt with the comparative wealth and what meant wealth at the time the book was written; how far above most Mr Darcy was at far as wealth went. Your last point especially was dinging in my head during your video - and how you explained in another video on why Mr Darcy was not a Lord - but how his family moved in that world and had done for generations past - according to his Aunt - so he didn't have to buy everything all at once. He was also the sort of fellow who enjoyed intimate parties - he had a large group of friends come visit when Elizabeth met him accidentally at Pemberley; however, I've read a little about how the great houses were kept by their owners over the time and they seemed to almost turn them into hotels - with many visitors staying for extended periods of time - and then more visitors joining the house party for meals or balls or day events - while Mr Darcy seemed more content to enjoy his close friends and family - which again falls into your point on how much more the Duke who owned Chatsworth at the time would have had a much greater budget needed. I'm definitely agree with you in believing Pemberley is based on Chatsworth.
Thanks for your analysis : it makes sense!
Aw! Thank you for watching! 😃
Very interesting and well reasoned.
It also think there is a problem looking at it from a modern point of view. In the 21st century most people earn money at their job and then spend it on their house while a country estate was a working business.
The house itself would mostly entail expense though a lot of the food would be grown in the gardens or provided by local farmers and with a posse of servants most DIY and repairs would not require calling in someone from the outside.
Most importantly the estate would provide an income from the farmers' rents, also possibly from farming and timber.
Darcy would certainly earn some income from investments but how does his income compare to the actual income from the Chatsworth Estate in the early 19th century?
My new fav channel!!🥰
Your content is so great! For real, you are sooo good, you make 20 minutes feel like 5 ❤️❤️❤️
"If" Mr Darcy didn't have a lavish lifestyle and throw a lot of parties. Lol, I bet he had one cleaning lady and did most of his own cooking.
😂😂😂
Your argument makes perfect sense....to me.
😃😃😃
Fun fact the 5th duke was married to Georgiana and she was born lady Georgiana Spencer her father was the first Earl Spencer and Princess Diana was the daughter of the 8th Earl Spencher and older sister to the 9th. Ironically enough Kira Knightley played the 5th Duchess of Devonshire in the movie The Duchess
That’s so interesting!
@@EllieDashwood You might also be interested to know that the eldest son of the 10th Duke of Devonshire was killed in action in World War Two.
Good video. I wondered why they changed it from the novel in 2005 P&P to Lizzie viewing sculptures instead of paintings. Now I know it was an anachronism (at least that one sculpture was). Maybe the director was trying to be different. But in the novel it's paintings she's seeing at Pemberley.
That’s a good point! I wonder if it had to do partially with the aesthetic (the Chatsworth sculpture gallery is so pretty). 🧐
I think it has more options for filming to have her viewing a statue. You can use one moving shot to show both the statue and lizzys reaction to it. Rather than a picture which involves more cuts of frames to bit clearly show the painting and the reaction.
You had me at "this is the other thing that Batman Wiki told me" 😂
I think the mentioning of chatsworth is a fun artistic cameo type appearance Jane did to pay tribute to the actual inspiration behind pemberley.
Let's not forget that both Pemberley and the Chatsworth estate are income producing properties! Darcy would have derived a great deal of his wealth from rents and farming, etc. on his extensive lands.
The end of wealthy country families’ second home in London (such as Devonshire House) has a literary tie in to Brideshead Revisited where the lead character’s artistic talents provide for his living most successfully by painting the interiors of these doomed residences before they are sold to developers! Death taxes and reduced revenue from the agricultural basis of the country estates reduced many of these families’ income post-WWI.
Thank you for another great talk, I really enjoy them alot.
You've inspired me to insist my next significant other have your passion for Jane Austen's novels. :)
Great analysis I’m with you on it all
I now know where to go for all my Batman questions.
I did not expect the Batman tangent in this video, but I'm here for more Batman/Austen crossovers 😀
THIS IS THE CRAZIEST THING I VISITED CHATSWORTH LITERALLY THE DAY BEFORE YOU POSTED THIS! In my head I can't imagine Pemberley as anywhere but Chatsworth when I read the book because the descriptions match up so perfectly, so imo it totally fits as Jane Austen's inspiration 🤍
That is so cool that you were just there!!!!!
I don't see why Chatsworth House should be ruled out. It is also possible other houses inspired Austen. Also, if Jane Austen's library or she had access to a book on the fine houses of England, she might well have read about Chatsworth without having to visit it. BTW, if the great houses of England interests you, Amazon Prime has a series on its channel called that and I would guess there are others.
I just found your channel, and I had just been wondering about this very thing a few days ago. I had forgotten to take into account that Chatsworth was a lot smaller then. I wonder if it was less opulent as well? Also, good point about the Duke having so many other residences. I just did a reread if P&P and Darcy definitely had a house in town, but I also noticed that in his letter to Elizabeth after the first proposal he says "Mr Wickham is the son of a very respectable man, who had for many years the management of all the Pemberley estateS." I added the capital to the end of estates just for emphasis. I wonder what JA meant by the Pemberley estates.
Netherfield I believe was inspired by Chawton house in Hertfordshire less than half a mile from where Jane Austen actually lived. We have visited it, and It was like ,any of her novel's coming to life. Also Jane spent many days there writing letters. Chawton house and its beautiful little church, Is what I personally believe, inspired many of the large house's featured in Jane Austen's works.
I have a watercolor of Chatsworth House framed . I love it so! I’ll never get to see it as I’m too old to travel. 😢
Has anybody done a "survey" of the Great Houses of the era? Could a "generic" great house be postulated or could a "formula" for characterizing a great house be applied? I know precious little about the era, but it seems that many basic criteria could be applied and many similarities found. This thread leads me to the question of whether Pemberley was an author's construct based upon then-current expectations rather than a copy of an existing instance.
Other structures, churches in particular, have long-standing general design formulas. Fortifications, prisons, etc. also have design formulas, but these have evolved with relevant technology (religion not being subject to the disruption of advancing science, the design of houses of worship remains relatively static). I imagine that the design of great houses is influenced by the culture's societal structure, the owner's position in that society, wealth, overall social stability, functions served by the structure, current fashion, and current construction technology (position and wealth being significant elements of that illusive thing called "Power").
The specific mention of Chatsworth House in the book could be an effort to influence the readers' imaginations: One the one hand, the mention provides a basis for comparison. If the reader has seen (or seen pictures of) Chatsworth House, then a comparative image for Pemberley is formed. That image includes both visual and social aspects. On the other hand, the reader is encouraged to believe that Pemberley is a place other than Chatsworth House. These could be simultaneous intentions on the part of the author. (Yes... the entire book is an effort by the author to influence the readers' imaginations... I refer explicitly to the motivations behind applying that manipulation to the topic of "Great House.")
I actually have a tattoo of Chatsworth because I'm such a big Pride an Prejudice fan and I was convinced that Chatsworth was Pemberly. Even if it's not, I love the idea that this was a place Austin could've seen
Totally agree this is Darcy's house!! Great job, as usual!!❤
I think it could well be. Your arguments make a lot of sense. I wonder where Mr Darcy's townhouse in London would be? Darcy house in London?
Lyme Park which was used for the 1995 TV adaptation I think might technically be in Derbyshire and it belonged to the Leigh family which Jane was related to ....just sayin'.
Lyme Park was totally beautiful in 1995!
Ohhhh, I loved👌🏻 that you put yourself "in the mix" next to 🏴 actor Matthew Ryhs😍 aka 'Mr. Darcy' in the 2013 BBC Adaptation of 😍'Death Comes to Pemberley'😍. You look the 🤩spitting image of Jenna Coleman, aka 'Lydia Wickham-Bennet' (though you💖 are NOTHING 😉 like that particular character 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻).
Now I need to watch my 'Death comes to Pemberley' 💿 again!! Ohhh boy😅✌🏻.
Chatsworth house and estate is beautiful. Well worth a visit.
I have never watched P&P 2005, but I have no doubt that Chatsworth was the inspiration for Pemberley. Austen either visited there or read someone's detailed account very carefully. Regency Chatsworth was very different from Chatsworth now, and I think you did a wonderful job of explaining that and explaining how a Chatsworth-based Pemberley is very probable. Another great video!
Regency Chatsworth was not very different at all to the Chatsworth we see today (aside from the gigantic 1820s extension that certainly would not have been there during Jane Austen’s visit). The original 1680s and 1690s square half is pretty much unchanged (at least within the state rooms) from when it was constructed over 300 years ago. Notice how tourists during Jane Austen’s time called it “unfashionable” because it could not keep up with modern regency tastes; that is certainly true seeing as everything is so very Baroque (i.e. extravagant painted frescos across the walls and ceilings in most rooms; richly carved and gilded furnishings/ ceiling/ wall decorations; an interior centred around an enfilade design; a colour palette of deep reds, purples and golds - even the windows themselves are encased in gold leaf)! All of which was the height of fashion in 17th century England, but firmly cast out by the late 18th/ early 19th century (favouring simplicity, order and elegance over richness, grandeur and drama). The grounds are also mostly unchanged from when they were created in the 18th century (redesigned from intricate and formal 17th century French parterres, to naturalistic and classical English landscaped parkland), as well as, of course, the exterior (bar the extension).
@@tamaracarter1836 I consider that enormous 1820s extension a major change. It makes the place look very different IMO. There are also many changes in the garden since Jane Austen might have seen it. As Ellie points out, the house was not really used a great deal until the 6th duke got to work on it. Before then it probably looked a great deal as I imagine Pemberley, especially from a distance.
@@dorothywillis1 I think you might be missing the point I’m trying to make. When Jane Austen visited the building in 1806[?], all she would have seen was the Baroque 1680-90s house [8:29]; *this part of Chatsworth has changed very little since it’s construction over 300 years ago.* The extension however is of course an alteration, but it’s irrelevant to this particular discussion: 1. it was added after Jane Austen’s death, and 2. it does not alter the interiors or external structure of the older building [8:29] that Jane Austen would have seen/ we can still see today. The fact Chatsworth was not used as much until after Austen’s passing also backs this up. Here’s an explanation:
- As we know, the Devonshire family had a very grand London mansion that they used as their principle residence (i.e. the one they used the most). Because of this, many architecturally important interiors/ exteriors from their other estates (that were otherwise unfashionable during the time), were able to be preserved; including the late 16th century Elizabethan interiors/ exterior at Hardwick Hall, the early 18th century Palladian interiors/ exterior at Chiswick House, and of course the late 17th century Baroque interiors/ exterior at Chatsworth. If Chatsworth had been their only/ most used residence, it would have almost certainly undergone major alterations (throughout the ‘entire’ house), to ensure the family kept up with changing fashions. Their main London home - Devonshire House - was remodelled countless times for this very reason, and where they held the vast majority of their parties. All of this results in (THANKFULLY) no need to touch Chatsworth.
- Similarly, if the 6th Duke of Devonshire hadn’t been nearly as wealthy as he was when inheriting the title in 1811, he would never have been able to construct that enormous extension during the early 19th century; doubling the size of the property. It would have been much cheaper, and easier, to simply redesign the existing Baroque building as opposed to creating another in a different style right beside it… again, thankfully that did not happen, and they both exist today side by side.
So in effect, the later extension at Chatsworth, and the fact the family used Devonshire House more, actually ‘preserved’ the building Jane Austen would have seen/ we see in 2021.
Also, I realise Ellie suggests [at 9:34] that perhaps a load of the furnishings seen in Chatsworth today were not actually there during Jane Austen’s visit (and were instead taken from Devonshire House after it was demolished), but that doesn’t really make much sense. Like I said, Devonshire House was the epitome of London fashion at the time, and that meant they certainly would not have wanted room after room of ‘old fashioned’ (for the early 1800s); richly carved and gilded Baroque furnishings, but a much more understated, yet extremely fine, neoclassical alternative (many of which can now viewed within the newer 1820s extension at Chatsworth). Of course it’s all absolutely gorgeous to us in 2021, but during the ‘neoclassical obsessed’ Regency Era, fashions were the exact opposite of what they would have been for ‘Baroque obsessed’ late 17th century England (i.e. simplicity/ order/ elegance [neoclassicism] vs richness/ grandeur/ drama [Baroque]).
The gardens have definitely had several additions throughout the years (like the Emperor Fountain Ellie describes at 9:07), but the vast majority of things were there around the time of Austen’s visit: the approach, the 18th century landscaped parkland, the stream, the bridges, the follies, the Cascade (actually one of the only surviving parts of the original 17th century design) etc etc etc. So the few things that have changed are far outweighed by those that have not.
@@tamaracarter1836 I give up. You obviously are right.
@@dorothywillis1 What are you talking about “you give up”? We’re having a conversation… I’m just trying to put across my point (seeing as I have a lot of knowledge on this particular subject). *If you’re not being sarcastic, then please ignore this response.
Jane Austen visited Derbyshire and Chatsworth House when she was writing P&P. The description of the surroundings of Pemberly match the surroundings of Chatsworth House. The village of Lampton is Bakewell 🤗
Derbyshire is my home county, I know Chatsworth very well.
My first apartment in New York City SHOULD have been the inspiration for Pemberley even though it was tiny and the water came out of the tap a light brown color. In all other respects they were pretty much the same.
I heard elsewhere that Jane Austin had visited a large English country house and this inspired her writing.
Chatsworth is well worth a visit, I've been a number of times.
Can you do a video on travel during Regency times? I am writing a P&P variation book where Wickham does actually study law and somewhat reforms, so he isn't as bad. I'm finding it hard to come up with good sources on how long different journeys would take, how far they could travel in a day, how often they would change horses, how many times they would change horses before the people would just be DONE, if there were some sort of lanterns on the carriages for night travel, if there were rules of the road such as what to do when coming to an intersection, etc. I see some fanfiction having Mr. and Mrs Darcy travelling to Pemberley from Netherfield in like a day, whereas other books and sources have it taking 3-6 days.
Next movie in the Pride & Prejudice Cinematic Universe (PPCU): Pride & Prejudice & Batman
😂😂😂 This needs to be a thing! Mr Darcy is rich… Bruce Wayne is rich…
@@EllieDashwood Bruce Wayne is the richest man in Gothamshire. Also, I think Batman would've found Mr Wickham and poor Lydia in two seconds, probably, so Elizabeth should've a hard time choosing between them.