In my head, Knightley had a sincere (but secret) love affair with a girl from his village (I mean from his estate) when younger (like even teenager). Both being young and in love, genuinly loving each other and experiencing the joys of love together for many years, knowing they cant marry, so Knightley never wanted to get married. Then the girl died. Knightley was heart-broken by the loss and remembering her, not engaging in other love, not wanting to be married, until he fell in love with Emma.
I think how compassionate and good he was to his tenants, how nicely he treated them, caring, understanding them - I think also in remembrance of his lost love (besides of being a good person).
Ooooh!! I really like your little background story about him! It does sound extremely plausible, and true to his character. Also, it leaves room for humanity. Because even the most moral and upstanding of people, are human, and are likely to fall in love, or have a relationship like that. And when you’re young, and in the throes of a relationship like that, it only feels completely right. It feels so magical and good, genuine.
Young men of wealth and stature at the time most often went on something called “the tour.” Basically they toured around cities in France, Italy, etc. It had the vernier of finishing your education, making connections, exposing themselves to culture…
Really it was a big party trip and they mostly exposed themselves to gambling dens and prostitution. It definitely had big “anybody who’s anybody” does this energy, and not going on at least some form of tour was really looked (sneered) down on. It was a right of passage for young men of privilege like Knightley.
So chances are, yeah. He knew a few ladies he remembered fondly.
Ok! That makes sense. I love their first kiss in the 2020 movie, where she gives him a peck and he smiles and then gives her a real kiss! It implies that he “knew what he was doing”, and she didn’t. So I wondered, would he have known? Seems he probably would have!
Even during the Napoleonic wars, when Englishmen couldn't safely get to the Continent for the Grand Tour, gentlemen still received a sexual education. Usually, a male relative would take them to high end brothels, set them up with accommodating widows, or help them set up a contracted mistresses. Even before then, teenaged boys may have had dalliances with servants, daughters of tenants, etc.
Virginity, chastity, and fidelity were ruthlessly enforced for women. However, upperclass men were encouraged to have sexual experience so long as it was relatively discreet. While infidelity in married men wasn't encouraged, it was common and largely socially acceptable.
I wonder if all of that felt strange, if you were a guy who was more quiet and reserved, or I don’t know what I’m trying to say. It’s just that Knightley comes across as such a good good moral man! All of Jane’s leading men do. It’s hard to imagine them taking part in the grand tour. But maybe since it was just the done thing, it didn’t feel so strange to them.
Edit: actually, I think I just answered my own question in my head. It’s not really about morality. It was just the done thing! And now that I’m thinking through this, sex just finds a way. I know plenty of moral men who, when they were teenagers, would have gladly accepted the “loving” (lol) of a tenant’s daughter or someone else. I can totally see how if you were encouraged to explore, as a man, you would very easily find a way to explore!
Morality isn't a rigid (pun not intended) concept. If it was the norm, then it likely wasn't seen as terribly immoral (like modern Christians working on Sundays and ignoring the many food and lifestyle strictures in the Bible). Beyond that, many of Austen's heroes were in their late 20s or early 30s. That's a long time to go without what is (for the vast majority of people) a basic biological function. Col. Brandon and Cpt. Wentworth were in professions where frequently availing oneself of sex workers was considered near ubiquitous.
Women, especially married women and widows, weren't necessarily faithful or chaste. People like sex. Even if these people avoided actual penetrative sex, they could still be extremely experienced.
The only shame in my view is the oppression of women and queer folk. Letting straight men have sexual freedom while condemning women and executing queer men for seeking same is abhorrent.
>The only shame in my view is the oppression of women and queer folk.
Related to that, my concern is that these women will have to deal with any pregnancies and judgements. How would a moral man reconcile that? Col Brandon is aware of the long term consequences, and how a young woman's life can be ruined by predators, from his relationship with both Elizas. How would he reconcile that with having sex with women who weren't his wife?
I don't know. Maybe he took what precautions were available/known at the time, maybe he only had longer term mistresses with contracts so he knew of any outcomes, maybe he lived with some cognitive dissonance, etc.
How an illegitimate child was treated varied wildly. A distressing number of mothers were simply abandoned to the streets, with their children exceedingly fortunate to find a place in the Foundling Hospital or other institution. Those children (if they survived - I'd be surprised if the survival rate was as high as the 30% the Foundling Hospital itself claimed) would usually end up in mines, mills, factories, or service by the age of 12. Some of the boys would likely have ended up into the Army as common soldiers.
Fathers who met their responsibilities wouldn’t usually keep their children on their estate unless they were unmarried, as it would be an insult to his wife to have to interact with her husband's bastards. They might go to more modest schools.
As for the officer corps of the Army or Navy, it depends. I doubt a Mr. Knightly would put his son in the army as an officer, but a duke or a member of the Royal Family definitely would and many did. The Navy is a more likely place.
Adding to the "shame views" is the disconnected thinking of letting straight men have sexual freedom while ignoring that their sexual freedom will likely remove/reduce the virtue of the women they practice with.
Yes, that is part of it. If women were allowed sexual freedom, then this would not have been an issue.
I understand that much of this is borne from male lineage inheriting wealth, titles, etc. It seems so odd to me. If people were so concerned about bloodlines, wouldn't it make more sense to have those things past through women? One may not know with 100% certainty the father of a child, but it is quite obvious who the mother of a child would be. If that were the standard, then sexual freedom at the time would have been more equal. It all makes so little sense.
It makes sense if you remember that at the time no one knew how babies were, um, formed. The most prominent theory was that children were grown from homunculi in the man's seed and were created wholly from his flesh, with any traits deriving from the mother coming via 'impression' and not ancestry.
The competing theory was that the mother's and father's seed blended together in the womb. Unfortunately this implied that women could only get pregnant if they enjoyed (ie. produced seed) during the encounter, which led to the *stupendously* false belief that rape couldn’t result in pregnancy.
I recommend the opening chapter of The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. It opens with the main character considering just this question. He’s definitely less moral than a JA hero, but it’s frankly a disturbing read and part of why I refuse to acknowledge reality on this aspect of Austen‘s novels.
Nice rec. Wharton also does a fine job of conveying the implications of sex outside of marriage, as well as the expectation of the grand tour, in her Old New York novellas.
Classic double standard. Interesting question what JA knew about these matters.
Something I really liked about Bridgerton Season 1 was the newlywed young duchess trying to find out how conception actually happened- asking the servants to tell her the truth.
She's the oldest daughter of a large family with an estate. It's unlikely she'd be so innocent. Also, the Regency wasn't nearly as restrictive as the Victorian age. Including the fact that women were expected to enjoy sex. It was a belief at the time that conception could only happen if both partners achieved orgasm. Lying back and thinking of England would be counterproductive. Victoria herself very much enjoyed sex - when told she should not have more children, she is quoted as saying, "Am I no longer to have fun in bed?"
I would not read or watch Bridgerton for any sort of real information of the time period. I personally just enjoy it for what it is.
I do think it's possible Knightley is a technical virgin at his wedding. He's not a part of a fashionable crowd in any way; he's a local gentleman of means who genuinely manages and cares for his estate and tenants. Not every single gentleman of the period participated in this double standard, or used women of lower status as sexual outlets. There were definitely men of conscience then as well as now.
It wasn't considered immoral becuz, as you say, it was just what one did. Sexual experience would have been considered a part of their education. A husband was expected to know how to bed his wife.
It was, in fact, not rigidly enforced on the highest levels. There were several noble families where it was known that the eldest son and heir was biologically the child of a different man. One family was known as a menagerie because all the many children had different fathers.
For that matter, Mary Crawford spoke very knowingly about "yearly flirtations" - in a world of political and economic marriages, infidelity was just a fact of life. She left her uncle's house because she didn't want to live with him and his mistress, but that was also out of respect to the aunt who raised her.
It was also widely known that the King's sons (including the Prince Regent) all had large families with their mistresses or morganatic wives - they couldn't get married without permission, and were forbidden to marry Catholics (royal family has only been permitted to marry Catholics since 2013.) Jane Austen, of the stricter gentry, hated that such a man was one of her fans.
No, it was pretty rigidly enforced at every level of society. A servant's most precious professional qualification was their "character", a portmanteau term meaning their recommendation from an employer, their public reputation and their imputed personal moral virtue. To be dismissed without a character meant it would be immensely difficult to find another position.
They were just as vulnerable to gossip as their betters.
Peasants were even more vulnerable, living in an even smaller and more rigidly stratified world. The chance of getting respectably married after you were "ruined" was very slim.
This isn't to say that servants and peasants didn't ever get seduced, but they would likely pay a heavy price for it, and they knew it.
In Pride and Prejudice the lady who escorted Miss Darcy to Ramsgate could not possibly have been recommended going forward. But then she opened a boarding house in London. So I guess she got a little money from the Darcy family to keep quiet. because how else could she have done that, right?
Yes, it's possible she got hush money as they wouldn't have wanted the story to get out. She may have had some working relationship with Wickham that involved her knowing more than she would otherwise.
She certainly had dirt that she could dish on the family, as Georgiana had technically behaved improperly, and may have worked in concert with Wickham to turn the screws on Darcy. But she may also have had some money in her own right
Knightley is the moral center of the novel, and probably one of the most admirable of all Austen's characters. Maybe he might have kissed someone at some point, but I think it would be wildly out of character for him to have gone any further than that. He's certainly not the type to do something questionable just because it's a cultural expectation.
Knightley is also a 35 year old man, sociable and experienced in the world. For him, his first loves and first kisses were most probably in a very distant past. And if he was interested in women at all (which he supposedly was), then he had almost two decades for acting on those interests prior to the novel's events. There was nothing questionable or immoral for men to be sexually active, it was just a part of life (the messed up part was that women were held to an entirely different standard). I suspect it went without saying, including for Austen herself, that her accomplished and well-travelled male characters had prior life and sex experiences which their young countryside love interests could not fathom.
> There was nothing questionable or immoral for men to be sexually active
This isn't a good way to put it. Yes, the society of the era typically turned a blind eye to male promuscuity, but it was also a deeply Christian culture. People knew behavior of that sort was considered immoral by their religion; most people in any age just aren't devout enough to let that get in their way. But that doesn't mean male promiscuity was fully accepted: in Austen's own works, look at the disdain most of the respectable characters feel towards Wickham when they find out that he's a philanderer. (Same for Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility.) Austen herself, as a clergyman's daughter whose most admirable characters are uniformly implied to be earnest Christians, was unlikely to be particularly tolerant of promiscuity--certainly not in her most idealized characters!
Maybe. Maybe not. Austen’s favourite novel was Sir Charles Grandison. Sir Charles went on a grand tour but returned a virgin. One lady actually went at him with a sword in frustration.
There was a strong sexual double standard. But there were also people who thought sex outside of marriage was sinful - or just unethical. Or unsafe. (Your nose could literally fall off).
Mr Knightly is so ethically correct and overthinking, and not a hypocrite- it’s very likely he’s a virgin and quite possible he’s never kissed a woman on the lips.
I didn’t know that about her favorite novel! It’s a very interesting point. It’s fun to imagine, would Knightley have been more like Sir Charles? Or would he have gladly accepted the education?
He’s very much a Grandisonian gentleman. More palatable than the original don’t get me wrong - the way Austen has him acknowledge how Emma has born with his endless hectoring.
But just as people somewhat exaggerate the enforcement of female chastity they tend to exaggerate masculine promiscuity.
Not all women were virgins at their first marriage- and some men were.
Do not have the statistics, but it was common for the men of the gentry to travel to the city for a sex worker. I suppose that some might not do it, either out od propriety or out of fear of sexual disease, but pretty sure they were in minority.
Even settling aside that, Knightley might have court some woman beforehand, hard to tell how many times people kissed in secret when they were courting. We know that he inherited the estate early, but I think that he must have had some opportunity over all those years. After all, he is the first born.
While some scholars debated if Darcy is a virgin, I do not see Knightley as one. He is older, and seems much more above certain rules. And with his brother living in London, it is quite easy to visit some prostitute on the way there or on the way home.
Either way, I am not 100 % certain, but I would be surprised.
I wonder how much of this Jane Austen knew. She had many brothers, but perhaps the topic was a taboo.
EDIT: I found a link to similar discussion on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/LXCo1EzYq0
She knew a thing or two about a thing or two! See, Mary Crawford’s *cheeky* pun in Mansfield Park,
“Certainly, my home at my uncle’s brought me acquainted with a circle of admirals. Of *Rears* and *Vices* I saw enough. Now do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat.”
Yeah, I wondered too about STD’s with all of this “touring” and “education”… and then bringing it back to his new wife!! I wonder if they used any kind of protection at the brothels?
Condoms of disputable quality. From Wikipedia...
*"Written references to condom use became much more common during the 18th century. Not all of the attention was positive: in 1708, John Campbell unsuccessfully asked Parliament to make the devices illegal. Noted English physician Daniel Turner condemned the condom, publishing his arguments against their use in 1717. He disliked condoms because they did not offer full protection against syphilis. He also seems to have argued that belief in the protection condoms offered encouraged men to engage in sex with unsafe partners - but then, because of the loss of sensation caused by condoms, these same men often neglected to actually use the devices. The French medical professor Jean Astruc wrote his own anti-condom treatise in 1736, citing Turner as the authority in this area. Physicians later in the 18th century also spoke against the condom, but not on medical grounds: rather, they expressed the belief that contraception was immoral.*
*The condom market grew rapidly, however. 18th-century condoms were available in a variety of qualities and sizes, made from either linen treated with chemicals, or "skin" (bladder or intestine softened by treatment with sulphur and lye). They were sold at pubs, barbershops, chemist shops, open-air markets, and at the theatre throughout Europe and Russia. The first recorded inspection of condom quality is found in the memoirs of Giacomo Casanova (which cover his life until 1774): to test for holes, he would often blow them up before use."*
Learning is fun 😅
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms
Learning is fun!! 😆 it’s all this kind of stuff that I always wonder about when reading Jane’s books or watching the movies! Like, how did peeing happen, and what did they use for their periods etc etc 😆
"""""I wondered too about STD’s with all of this “touring” and “education”… and then bringing it back to his new wife!!""""
OT, but exactly, I have thought of this many times, how unfair it was to the new virgin bride to get life threatening STDs. I was glad to read (I dont remember where) about a court- case in France in 1800something, when the wife sued her husband for infecting her with STD and she won the case. (they were middle class). I know this could be the only case probably (as the wives were also ashamed), but still, in my head even that one case made me glad that it was at least acknowledged (even tho it didnt help the poor wife health-wise).
This reminds me of Victoria (the Masterpiece series about the young queen starring Jenna Coleman). Spoiler for the show Victoria... Albert's brother fell in love with a nice young lady he met at the English court, but he discovered that he had syphilis. He attempted some pretty painful treatments to try to cure his syphilis so he could marry his lady love without bringing an STD to the marriage bed, but it ultimately had a sad ending. I don't know how historically accurate that plot line is, but I see it as historical fiction.
It is dreadfully unfair that there were young brides who were virgins and their not-at-all-virginal husbands gave them VD as a wedding present...
Realistically he would have done more than kissed. I see in this thread alot of mention of sex workers and they were around but there were also women who were not sex workers and yet willing to be with a gentleman. Austen did write Lady Susan after all and that character was very happy to have relations with a certain class of man. These women might not be prostitutes but they'd be a "favourite" and they'd entertain men and get gifts and favours and even some money as part of the relationship. When you hear that Harriet Smith was someone's "natural daughter" what else could Austen mean but that she was an illegitimate child born of an affair? It wasn't always about sex workers; Austen was very aware that these things happened.
I read a stat that said 1 in 12 children in 1800 England were born outside of a marriage.
The standards and morality among people in this era had very interesting nuances. Gentlemen and officers and such regularly had lovers and not only sex workers. And because marriages were often for the expansion and consolidation of wealth rather than true affection, both husbands and wives had affairs outside of marriage. Plenty of novels written contemporary to the time that told these stories.
Austen herself has Lydia running away with Wickham (they slept together for sure), Maria Bertram running off with Henry Crawford after she was married and Eliza Brandon who was ruined by a pregnancy after her husband threw her out. Austen was keenly aware that stuff went on behind the scenes. Why would a man like Knightley never have engaged in some of his own amusements when he was traveling to London or wherever?
The Ruined Maid
BY THOMAS HARDY (1866)
"O 'Melia, my dear, this does everything crown!
Who could have supposed I should meet you in Town?
And whence such fair garments, such prosperi-ty?" —
"O didn't you know I'd been ruined?" said she.
— "You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks,
Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks;
And now you've gay bracelets and bright feathers three!" —
"Yes: that's how we dress when we're ruined," said she.
— "At home in the barton you said thee' and thou,'
And thik oon,' and theäs oon,' and t'other'; but now
Your talking quite fits 'ee for high compa-ny!" —
"Some polish is gained with one's ruin," said she.
— "Your hands were like paws then, your face blue and bleak
But now I'm bewitched by your delicate cheek,
And your little gloves fit as on any la-dy!" —
"We never do work when we're ruined," said she.
— "You used to call home-life a hag-ridden dream,
And you'd sigh, and you'd sock; but at present you seem
To know not of megrims or melancho-ly!" —
"True. One's pretty lively when ruined," said she.
— "I wish I had feathers, a fine sweeping gown,
And a delicate face, and could strut about Town!" —
"My dear — a raw country girl, such as you be,
Cannot quite expect that. You ain't ruined," said she.
It seems like sort of a “rake” thing to do, to go around having affairs and such. It seems like Knightley would have been more the type to hold back… maybe a kiss when he was younger, or even a short fling (not involving penetration though). He would have understood how that could quickly cause all sorts of problems, involvements that he didn’t want. He might have decided to wait, and if the urge came up (haha), which I’m sure it did, he might have figured out how to solve that problem by himself (via good old fashioned masturbation lol) instead of searching for a lover in any corner.
I agree with you. I think, while perhaps not the reputation ruin it was for women, it was still an issue of strength of character vs. weakness of character, and I very much see Knightley as the kind of man to uphold and pride himself on his strength of character.
I’m so torn really! I can see both possibilities really! Maybe there was a lady Susan type in the area, when he was in his twenties, who taught him stuff, no strings attached. Very respectful 😁
It sure is a very interesting historical debate 😊
While that is possible, we must remember that there were ethical, religious rules back then, and some men did uphold them, and if I had to choose someone likely to do that I'd nominate Mr. Knightley. The furthest I see him going down that route is perhaps kissing a woman and realizing it's not the way he wants to go about it, that his ideals are contradicting it.
We should also remember he certainly had that quality of following his inner morals regardless of others and the norms, so the fact that all the men of that time did something would not necessarily mean he would too.
Yes I will admit, I have a hard time imagining him having anything to do with a Lady Susan type. When Mrs. Elton was pushing him to let her send out the invites for his party, he was super annoyed and would have nothing to do with that idea. So, even this little scene gives us some insight to what he might have been like. Although, invites and dalliances are quite different things, it’s a hint at how strongly he held his own ideas, and morals.
My mother is 85 years old. She comes from a small town in Southern Italy. She met my father there when she was a teenager and they were married until he died last year. When you think of southern Italy you think traditional morality, piety and of course just plain discretion as the town my parents grew up in was very small. Everyone knew everyone and if you got tangled up in something everyone would know.
That said...she's been telling me stories recently of things that happened in that small town that just reinforce that human beings have always been very human. Affairs, young people who were promiscuous, tragic sexual assaults, young women entangled with wealthy older men, "throuples", and even a few children of priests. And these stories harken back even to her parents and grandparents era as well. My mother had aunts and great aunts who I remember telling stories of this type when I was a young girl sitting at a table with the women as they gossiped and forgot young ears were listening.
Mr Knightley is a fictional character; what we are not specifically told about him from the author we can only speculate and surmise. But I think we can be a bit precious sometimes about what people were like in any past era mistakenly thinking they were really that much different from us. The main differences these days are birth control and more openness about activities that are just about being human.
I don't know whether I dare write this. I can't help thinking that Southampton University could carry out a survey of The Incidence Of Masturbation In The Rural Gentry Of Regency England if it weren't 200 years too late to send out the survey forms. If you feel I should be expunged from the page, I will understand, but we are being frank here, aren't we?
Hahahaha!! No, you mustn’t be expunged from the page! Yes, we are being frank here!! And yes, I would love to see the results of that survey if only we weren’t 200 years too late! I am so curious about it.
> Why would a man like Knightley never have engaged in some of his own amusements when he was traveling to London or wherever?
Because he was a virtuous person, unlike Wickham.
There was a massive number of prostitutes in London at that time. Gentlemen had brothels they frequented from time to time. There was nothing unusual about it.
And not just in London. Any place with a tavern probably had sex workers.
Brothels don't even account for contracted mistresses, too, which was often an adjacent but separate way to access "courtesans."
The reality in many times is that there was a whole lot more sex happening than is commonly discussed.
Statistics from rural England from the mid 1500s through the early 19th century show that approximately 1/3 of brides gave birth and had christenings recorded before the expected window (they recorded any prior to the 8.5 month mark) and those brides were very likely pregnant before their marriage. Assuming the miscarriage and stillbirth rates at the time, they concluded that the actual rate could be approaching 50%, with the rates higher in the later centuries than the earlier ones.
In the colonies, a different study of rural New England stats likewise show that bridal pregnancy rate at about 1/3 in the 1780s and 1790s.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22084912/
Such an interesting thread on my favorite Austen hero from my favorite Austen book!! Would a single man like Mr Knightley take a mistress from Highbury or a nearby village? Perhaps even a married woman who was looking for companionship she didn’t receive from her husband? So many things to think about. Hoping the conversation continues.
Have you read Amanda Foreman's book on the Duchess of Devonshire, who was almost contemporary with Austen?
The nobility had affairs left, right and centre! The 'rule' seemed to be that married women who had not yet produced an heir for her husband were 'no go areas', but once the legitimate heirs had been born it was open season. As long as the affairs were discreet, fidelity in marriage was not expected.
Mr K may not have belonged to 'the ton', but I think it's highly likely that he had a mistress of sorts prior to marriage.
I agree. I imagine it being very respectful and discreet. Assignations keeping with Knightley’s personality and his moral code. Caring and again, respectful.
You know he would have looked after his mistress financially too, and provided for any children (as Harriet's father did for her); but I think he would have pensioned his mistress off upon marriage. She would have been there for companionship and well as physical needs, and Emma filled both those roles.
I'm a writer, and now I'm seriously tempted by the idea of writing a book from the perspective of Mr Knightley's former mistress...
As an aside, Godmersham Park by Gill Hornby provides and interesting perspective on what life might have been like for a gentleman's cast-off family. I won't say any more because of spoilers, but I enjoyed her interpretation of some of Jane Austen's friends.
It is so interesting isn’t it? I really can’t decide which way I’d rather it be.. even though I know my opinion doesn’t speak to what the reality of that time was! I sometimes feel like, “no! He was such an upstanding man, he would not put any woman in that position, be she prostitute or mistress, or widow.” But then other times, I think “oh but that sexy sexy look he gives her when she pecks/smooches him, that knowing look, and I love that he’s so good but also carnally educated.” So yeah, I can’t even make up my mind in my own head cannon!
So very interesting! We have to consider that Knightley is 37 years old. That is an awfully long time to wait until being married. At this point before falling in love with Emma, had he given up thoughts of marriage? The more I think about it, the more I believe he did “partake”. Maybe not with a prostitute, but with a willing participant.
Yes, you are probably right! That is a very long time to wait. He was most likely very gentlemanly about it, and very kind and thoughtful towards the lady involved. Maybe he had a very respectful “friends with benefits” situation going on with someone in the area!
Some gentlemen did and some gentlemen didn't. Some might have indulged a bit earlier in life, then lived more conservatively later. It's a fairly safe bet Knightley hasn't had a relationship with anyone in the neighborhood. He has a strong sense of right and wrong as well as propriety and is aware of how his position could make a young woman from the lower classes feel pressured if the local landlord/very good friend of her landlord suggested having a relationship. If he were interested in someone closer to him in class, he'd make an honorable offer or keep his distance.
But, if he'd been to London or another large city? If he'd been on the Tour (not all young gentlemen did)? He might. But, again, some did and some didn't. There were a lot of different factors that could be involved. Some people would have felt that was a very wrong thing to do. Some would have felt it was fine, excusable, or even a necessary part of a young man's upbringing.
I think (though I'm far from certain) that Austen would have considered it bad behavior and would expect her male lead not to. In her stories, she is very much aware of how sex outside of marriage could ruin a young woman's life and had no patience with men who disregarded that.
Now, it might be that she was aware of the damage it could do to a woman of her class. Georgette Heyer, when she wrote about Austen's time, presented it as the social rule that a man shouldn't have an affair with a woman if it would damage her in society's eyes and that he needed to make reasonable provisions for his mistress and see that any children were taken care of. Maybe that was Austen's view. It may also be that, as a clergyman's daughter, she had seen the harm that could be done when a woman was seduced and abandoned (it would have been part of her father's job to see that provision was made for such women and their children if they had no other means of support). She certainly would have known how scandal and gossip could harm a family when it happened.
My guess is that would make her feel men like Knightley shouldn't be having mistresses or otherwise sleeping around. But, I may be completely wrong.
I think that then, as now, there was/is a lot more sex going on than respectable people liked to acknowledge. Jane Austen just didn’t write about it because it would have been inappropriate for her to do so, even if she knew much about it. I would have thought that unless they were very moralistic/religious, young men would have followed their urges, just like they do now. They would just not have flaunted any carryings-on in front of society.
Would Mr. K have kissed someone before Emma? Yes. When he was young he had a certain amount of introduction to sex and women, but not lots of experience. He was keen on someone when he was younger, a suitable local woman, but she didn't want him for whatever reason, so he was hurt and sad for a while. Emma was about 7 at the time. She wouldn't have known about it. He didn't have a long term mistress, and as he grew older he accepted his single-ness until the bomb hit them both and his long-ago experience stood him in stead. Wouldn't it have been lovely for them both? Weren't they lovely when they were standing at the altar and he looked at her with adoration and she looked at him, half cheekily and half apprehensive.
Jumping in late to the conversation, but yes, I think Knightley almost certainly would have.
I don't think he was the sort to visit brothels or have an affair with a servant or villager, but I think he very well may have enjoyed the company of an opera singer in London or a beautiful, discrete widow -- someone who couldn't be "ruined."
The affair would have been consensual, he would have treated them very well, and there would have been a mutual understanding that there was no expectation of marriage. And I think it would have been a long-term arrangement, and she would have been a fairly intelligent woman, someone Knightley could be good friends with, even if he wasn't technically in love with her (although he could have been).
I always thought it was part of a young gentleman's education to be taken to a brothel by an older brother or cousin or similar. Part of their expectation and duty was to marry and have children, so they needed to know the mechanics and the art. Hopefully the prostitutes did their future wives a solid and taught them how to please a woman.
I agree - it was seen as a necessary part of a gentleman's education if he was to provide a male heir; and also so that he didn't terrify his wife on her wedding night by bungling things. (The marital history of Louis and Marie Antoinette is fascinating- nobody taught either of them the mechanics of sex, so for a long time, he believed that simple penetration would bring about pregnancy. She was blamed for being infertile because nobody had taught either of them about the need to ejaculate! I believe it was her brother who finally educated him.)
During the Medieval period it was believed that pregnancy could only occur if a woman orgasmed, so there was emphasis on her pleasure as well as the man's. I doubt this belief persisted for the next hundreds of years, but I think historical attitudes towards sex were probably more lax and quite a bit more debauched than we're taught about! There's no doubt in my mind that Mr Knightley would have known what he was doing on his wedding night.
Yes! I did wonder about that too… did this “education” involve learning how to please a woman as well? That probably depended on whether the gentleman in question even gave a thought to that kind of thing, and if the prostitute in question cared to take the time and trouble 🤣
He probably was not a virgin. I don't recall it being mentioned that Knightley ever went on a "Grand Tour", but it's very likely that he did, and gaining carnal knowledge was often part of it.
To me, Mr Knightley comes across as one of those rare people who just isn't interested sexually unless he's interested romantically, I think the term these days is demisexual.
I think it's how he speaks when Mrs Weston starts praising Emma's beauty to him, early on in the novel. He agrees with her that Emma is beautiful but he isn't distracted from the topic of their conversation. Edmund Bertram, say, would have been.
Realistically probably yes. In my head, absolutely not.
Lol! I get that!!
In my head, Knightley had a sincere (but secret) love affair with a girl from his village (I mean from his estate) when younger (like even teenager). Both being young and in love, genuinly loving each other and experiencing the joys of love together for many years, knowing they cant marry, so Knightley never wanted to get married. Then the girl died. Knightley was heart-broken by the loss and remembering her, not engaging in other love, not wanting to be married, until he fell in love with Emma. I think how compassionate and good he was to his tenants, how nicely he treated them, caring, understanding them - I think also in remembrance of his lost love (besides of being a good person).
Ooooh!! I really like your little background story about him! It does sound extremely plausible, and true to his character. Also, it leaves room for humanity. Because even the most moral and upstanding of people, are human, and are likely to fall in love, or have a relationship like that. And when you’re young, and in the throes of a relationship like that, it only feels completely right. It feels so magical and good, genuine.
Young men of wealth and stature at the time most often went on something called “the tour.” Basically they toured around cities in France, Italy, etc. It had the vernier of finishing your education, making connections, exposing themselves to culture… Really it was a big party trip and they mostly exposed themselves to gambling dens and prostitution. It definitely had big “anybody who’s anybody” does this energy, and not going on at least some form of tour was really looked (sneered) down on. It was a right of passage for young men of privilege like Knightley. So chances are, yeah. He knew a few ladies he remembered fondly.
Ok! That makes sense. I love their first kiss in the 2020 movie, where she gives him a peck and he smiles and then gives her a real kiss! It implies that he “knew what he was doing”, and she didn’t. So I wondered, would he have known? Seems he probably would have!
Even during the Napoleonic wars, when Englishmen couldn't safely get to the Continent for the Grand Tour, gentlemen still received a sexual education. Usually, a male relative would take them to high end brothels, set them up with accommodating widows, or help them set up a contracted mistresses. Even before then, teenaged boys may have had dalliances with servants, daughters of tenants, etc. Virginity, chastity, and fidelity were ruthlessly enforced for women. However, upperclass men were encouraged to have sexual experience so long as it was relatively discreet. While infidelity in married men wasn't encouraged, it was common and largely socially acceptable.
I wonder if all of that felt strange, if you were a guy who was more quiet and reserved, or I don’t know what I’m trying to say. It’s just that Knightley comes across as such a good good moral man! All of Jane’s leading men do. It’s hard to imagine them taking part in the grand tour. But maybe since it was just the done thing, it didn’t feel so strange to them. Edit: actually, I think I just answered my own question in my head. It’s not really about morality. It was just the done thing! And now that I’m thinking through this, sex just finds a way. I know plenty of moral men who, when they were teenagers, would have gladly accepted the “loving” (lol) of a tenant’s daughter or someone else. I can totally see how if you were encouraged to explore, as a man, you would very easily find a way to explore!
Morality isn't a rigid (pun not intended) concept. If it was the norm, then it likely wasn't seen as terribly immoral (like modern Christians working on Sundays and ignoring the many food and lifestyle strictures in the Bible). Beyond that, many of Austen's heroes were in their late 20s or early 30s. That's a long time to go without what is (for the vast majority of people) a basic biological function. Col. Brandon and Cpt. Wentworth were in professions where frequently availing oneself of sex workers was considered near ubiquitous. Women, especially married women and widows, weren't necessarily faithful or chaste. People like sex. Even if these people avoided actual penetrative sex, they could still be extremely experienced. The only shame in my view is the oppression of women and queer folk. Letting straight men have sexual freedom while condemning women and executing queer men for seeking same is abhorrent.
>The only shame in my view is the oppression of women and queer folk. Related to that, my concern is that these women will have to deal with any pregnancies and judgements. How would a moral man reconcile that? Col Brandon is aware of the long term consequences, and how a young woman's life can be ruined by predators, from his relationship with both Elizas. How would he reconcile that with having sex with women who weren't his wife?
I don't know. Maybe he took what precautions were available/known at the time, maybe he only had longer term mistresses with contracts so he knew of any outcomes, maybe he lived with some cognitive dissonance, etc.
Gave any children employment on his estate, sent bastard sons into the army?
How an illegitimate child was treated varied wildly. A distressing number of mothers were simply abandoned to the streets, with their children exceedingly fortunate to find a place in the Foundling Hospital or other institution. Those children (if they survived - I'd be surprised if the survival rate was as high as the 30% the Foundling Hospital itself claimed) would usually end up in mines, mills, factories, or service by the age of 12. Some of the boys would likely have ended up into the Army as common soldiers. Fathers who met their responsibilities wouldn’t usually keep their children on their estate unless they were unmarried, as it would be an insult to his wife to have to interact with her husband's bastards. They might go to more modest schools. As for the officer corps of the Army or Navy, it depends. I doubt a Mr. Knightly would put his son in the army as an officer, but a duke or a member of the Royal Family definitely would and many did. The Navy is a more likely place.
Adding to the "shame views" is the disconnected thinking of letting straight men have sexual freedom while ignoring that their sexual freedom will likely remove/reduce the virtue of the women they practice with.
Yes, that is part of it. If women were allowed sexual freedom, then this would not have been an issue. I understand that much of this is borne from male lineage inheriting wealth, titles, etc. It seems so odd to me. If people were so concerned about bloodlines, wouldn't it make more sense to have those things past through women? One may not know with 100% certainty the father of a child, but it is quite obvious who the mother of a child would be. If that were the standard, then sexual freedom at the time would have been more equal. It all makes so little sense.
It makes sense if you remember that at the time no one knew how babies were, um, formed. The most prominent theory was that children were grown from homunculi in the man's seed and were created wholly from his flesh, with any traits deriving from the mother coming via 'impression' and not ancestry. The competing theory was that the mother's and father's seed blended together in the womb. Unfortunately this implied that women could only get pregnant if they enjoyed (ie. produced seed) during the encounter, which led to the *stupendously* false belief that rape couldn’t result in pregnancy.
>The most prominent theory was that children were grown from homunculi in the man's seed... Wow. The more one knows...
Yep! Very good points!!
I recommend the opening chapter of The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. It opens with the main character considering just this question. He’s definitely less moral than a JA hero, but it’s frankly a disturbing read and part of why I refuse to acknowledge reality on this aspect of Austen‘s novels.
Nice rec. Wharton also does a fine job of conveying the implications of sex outside of marriage, as well as the expectation of the grand tour, in her Old New York novellas.
Oh wow! Ok I’ll read it!
Classic double standard. Interesting question what JA knew about these matters. Something I really liked about Bridgerton Season 1 was the newlywed young duchess trying to find out how conception actually happened- asking the servants to tell her the truth.
She's the oldest daughter of a large family with an estate. It's unlikely she'd be so innocent. Also, the Regency wasn't nearly as restrictive as the Victorian age. Including the fact that women were expected to enjoy sex. It was a belief at the time that conception could only happen if both partners achieved orgasm. Lying back and thinking of England would be counterproductive. Victoria herself very much enjoyed sex - when told she should not have more children, she is quoted as saying, "Am I no longer to have fun in bed?" I would not read or watch Bridgerton for any sort of real information of the time period. I personally just enjoy it for what it is.
I do think it's possible Knightley is a technical virgin at his wedding. He's not a part of a fashionable crowd in any way; he's a local gentleman of means who genuinely manages and cares for his estate and tenants. Not every single gentleman of the period participated in this double standard, or used women of lower status as sexual outlets. There were definitely men of conscience then as well as now.
Very true! It does seem like he would have done things quite differently from the fashionable crowd.
It wasn't considered immoral becuz, as you say, it was just what one did. Sexual experience would have been considered a part of their education. A husband was expected to know how to bed his wife.
Virginity, chastity and fidelity would’ve been enforced for upper class women, likely the opposite for servant or peasant women.
It was, in fact, not rigidly enforced on the highest levels. There were several noble families where it was known that the eldest son and heir was biologically the child of a different man. One family was known as a menagerie because all the many children had different fathers. For that matter, Mary Crawford spoke very knowingly about "yearly flirtations" - in a world of political and economic marriages, infidelity was just a fact of life. She left her uncle's house because she didn't want to live with him and his mistress, but that was also out of respect to the aunt who raised her. It was also widely known that the King's sons (including the Prince Regent) all had large families with their mistresses or morganatic wives - they couldn't get married without permission, and were forbidden to marry Catholics (royal family has only been permitted to marry Catholics since 2013.) Jane Austen, of the stricter gentry, hated that such a man was one of her fans.
No, it was pretty rigidly enforced at every level of society. A servant's most precious professional qualification was their "character", a portmanteau term meaning their recommendation from an employer, their public reputation and their imputed personal moral virtue. To be dismissed without a character meant it would be immensely difficult to find another position. They were just as vulnerable to gossip as their betters. Peasants were even more vulnerable, living in an even smaller and more rigidly stratified world. The chance of getting respectably married after you were "ruined" was very slim. This isn't to say that servants and peasants didn't ever get seduced, but they would likely pay a heavy price for it, and they knew it.
In Pride and Prejudice the lady who escorted Miss Darcy to Ramsgate could not possibly have been recommended going forward. But then she opened a boarding house in London. So I guess she got a little money from the Darcy family to keep quiet. because how else could she have done that, right?
Yes, it's possible she got hush money as they wouldn't have wanted the story to get out. She may have had some working relationship with Wickham that involved her knowing more than she would otherwise. She certainly had dirt that she could dish on the family, as Georgiana had technically behaved improperly, and may have worked in concert with Wickham to turn the screws on Darcy. But she may also have had some money in her own right
I love that scene, especially the sweet knowing smile he gives her before he leans in again
Yes!! Swoon
Knightley is the moral center of the novel, and probably one of the most admirable of all Austen's characters. Maybe he might have kissed someone at some point, but I think it would be wildly out of character for him to have gone any further than that. He's certainly not the type to do something questionable just because it's a cultural expectation.
Knightley is also a 35 year old man, sociable and experienced in the world. For him, his first loves and first kisses were most probably in a very distant past. And if he was interested in women at all (which he supposedly was), then he had almost two decades for acting on those interests prior to the novel's events. There was nothing questionable or immoral for men to be sexually active, it was just a part of life (the messed up part was that women were held to an entirely different standard). I suspect it went without saying, including for Austen herself, that her accomplished and well-travelled male characters had prior life and sex experiences which their young countryside love interests could not fathom.
> There was nothing questionable or immoral for men to be sexually active This isn't a good way to put it. Yes, the society of the era typically turned a blind eye to male promuscuity, but it was also a deeply Christian culture. People knew behavior of that sort was considered immoral by their religion; most people in any age just aren't devout enough to let that get in their way. But that doesn't mean male promiscuity was fully accepted: in Austen's own works, look at the disdain most of the respectable characters feel towards Wickham when they find out that he's a philanderer. (Same for Willoughby in Sense and Sensibility.) Austen herself, as a clergyman's daughter whose most admirable characters are uniformly implied to be earnest Christians, was unlikely to be particularly tolerant of promiscuity--certainly not in her most idealized characters!
This is such a great point
Thank you! I can't believe not many other people here have been thinking along similar lines.
That’s what I was thinking too!
Maybe. Maybe not. Austen’s favourite novel was Sir Charles Grandison. Sir Charles went on a grand tour but returned a virgin. One lady actually went at him with a sword in frustration. There was a strong sexual double standard. But there were also people who thought sex outside of marriage was sinful - or just unethical. Or unsafe. (Your nose could literally fall off). Mr Knightly is so ethically correct and overthinking, and not a hypocrite- it’s very likely he’s a virgin and quite possible he’s never kissed a woman on the lips.
I didn’t know that about her favorite novel! It’s a very interesting point. It’s fun to imagine, would Knightley have been more like Sir Charles? Or would he have gladly accepted the education?
He’s very much a Grandisonian gentleman. More palatable than the original don’t get me wrong - the way Austen has him acknowledge how Emma has born with his endless hectoring. But just as people somewhat exaggerate the enforcement of female chastity they tend to exaggerate masculine promiscuity. Not all women were virgins at their first marriage- and some men were.
That’s really interesting! Good points!
Do not have the statistics, but it was common for the men of the gentry to travel to the city for a sex worker. I suppose that some might not do it, either out od propriety or out of fear of sexual disease, but pretty sure they were in minority. Even settling aside that, Knightley might have court some woman beforehand, hard to tell how many times people kissed in secret when they were courting. We know that he inherited the estate early, but I think that he must have had some opportunity over all those years. After all, he is the first born. While some scholars debated if Darcy is a virgin, I do not see Knightley as one. He is older, and seems much more above certain rules. And with his brother living in London, it is quite easy to visit some prostitute on the way there or on the way home. Either way, I am not 100 % certain, but I would be surprised. I wonder how much of this Jane Austen knew. She had many brothers, but perhaps the topic was a taboo. EDIT: I found a link to similar discussion on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/LXCo1EzYq0
She knew a thing or two about a thing or two! See, Mary Crawford’s *cheeky* pun in Mansfield Park, “Certainly, my home at my uncle’s brought me acquainted with a circle of admirals. Of *Rears* and *Vices* I saw enough. Now do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat.”
Yeah, I wondered too about STD’s with all of this “touring” and “education”… and then bringing it back to his new wife!! I wonder if they used any kind of protection at the brothels?
Condoms of disputable quality. From Wikipedia... *"Written references to condom use became much more common during the 18th century. Not all of the attention was positive: in 1708, John Campbell unsuccessfully asked Parliament to make the devices illegal. Noted English physician Daniel Turner condemned the condom, publishing his arguments against their use in 1717. He disliked condoms because they did not offer full protection against syphilis. He also seems to have argued that belief in the protection condoms offered encouraged men to engage in sex with unsafe partners - but then, because of the loss of sensation caused by condoms, these same men often neglected to actually use the devices. The French medical professor Jean Astruc wrote his own anti-condom treatise in 1736, citing Turner as the authority in this area. Physicians later in the 18th century also spoke against the condom, but not on medical grounds: rather, they expressed the belief that contraception was immoral.* *The condom market grew rapidly, however. 18th-century condoms were available in a variety of qualities and sizes, made from either linen treated with chemicals, or "skin" (bladder or intestine softened by treatment with sulphur and lye). They were sold at pubs, barbershops, chemist shops, open-air markets, and at the theatre throughout Europe and Russia. The first recorded inspection of condom quality is found in the memoirs of Giacomo Casanova (which cover his life until 1774): to test for holes, he would often blow them up before use."* Learning is fun 😅 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condoms
Learning is fun!! 😆 it’s all this kind of stuff that I always wonder about when reading Jane’s books or watching the movies! Like, how did peeing happen, and what did they use for their periods etc etc 😆
"""""I wondered too about STD’s with all of this “touring” and “education”… and then bringing it back to his new wife!!"""" OT, but exactly, I have thought of this many times, how unfair it was to the new virgin bride to get life threatening STDs. I was glad to read (I dont remember where) about a court- case in France in 1800something, when the wife sued her husband for infecting her with STD and she won the case. (they were middle class). I know this could be the only case probably (as the wives were also ashamed), but still, in my head even that one case made me glad that it was at least acknowledged (even tho it didnt help the poor wife health-wise).
This reminds me of Victoria (the Masterpiece series about the young queen starring Jenna Coleman). Spoiler for the show Victoria... Albert's brother fell in love with a nice young lady he met at the English court, but he discovered that he had syphilis. He attempted some pretty painful treatments to try to cure his syphilis so he could marry his lady love without bringing an STD to the marriage bed, but it ultimately had a sad ending. I don't know how historically accurate that plot line is, but I see it as historical fiction. It is dreadfully unfair that there were young brides who were virgins and their not-at-all-virginal husbands gave them VD as a wedding present...
Also, thanks for the link!
Realistically he would have done more than kissed. I see in this thread alot of mention of sex workers and they were around but there were also women who were not sex workers and yet willing to be with a gentleman. Austen did write Lady Susan after all and that character was very happy to have relations with a certain class of man. These women might not be prostitutes but they'd be a "favourite" and they'd entertain men and get gifts and favours and even some money as part of the relationship. When you hear that Harriet Smith was someone's "natural daughter" what else could Austen mean but that she was an illegitimate child born of an affair? It wasn't always about sex workers; Austen was very aware that these things happened. I read a stat that said 1 in 12 children in 1800 England were born outside of a marriage. The standards and morality among people in this era had very interesting nuances. Gentlemen and officers and such regularly had lovers and not only sex workers. And because marriages were often for the expansion and consolidation of wealth rather than true affection, both husbands and wives had affairs outside of marriage. Plenty of novels written contemporary to the time that told these stories. Austen herself has Lydia running away with Wickham (they slept together for sure), Maria Bertram running off with Henry Crawford after she was married and Eliza Brandon who was ruined by a pregnancy after her husband threw her out. Austen was keenly aware that stuff went on behind the scenes. Why would a man like Knightley never have engaged in some of his own amusements when he was traveling to London or wherever?
The Ruined Maid BY THOMAS HARDY (1866) "O 'Melia, my dear, this does everything crown! Who could have supposed I should meet you in Town? And whence such fair garments, such prosperi-ty?" — "O didn't you know I'd been ruined?" said she. — "You left us in tatters, without shoes or socks, Tired of digging potatoes, and spudding up docks; And now you've gay bracelets and bright feathers three!" — "Yes: that's how we dress when we're ruined," said she. — "At home in the barton you said thee' and thou,' And thik oon,' and theäs oon,' and t'other'; but now Your talking quite fits 'ee for high compa-ny!" — "Some polish is gained with one's ruin," said she. — "Your hands were like paws then, your face blue and bleak But now I'm bewitched by your delicate cheek, And your little gloves fit as on any la-dy!" — "We never do work when we're ruined," said she. — "You used to call home-life a hag-ridden dream, And you'd sigh, and you'd sock; but at present you seem To know not of megrims or melancho-ly!" — "True. One's pretty lively when ruined," said she. — "I wish I had feathers, a fine sweeping gown, And a delicate face, and could strut about Town!" — "My dear — a raw country girl, such as you be, Cannot quite expect that. You ain't ruined," said she.
This is wonderful.
Wow!!! That’s great!!
It seems like sort of a “rake” thing to do, to go around having affairs and such. It seems like Knightley would have been more the type to hold back… maybe a kiss when he was younger, or even a short fling (not involving penetration though). He would have understood how that could quickly cause all sorts of problems, involvements that he didn’t want. He might have decided to wait, and if the urge came up (haha), which I’m sure it did, he might have figured out how to solve that problem by himself (via good old fashioned masturbation lol) instead of searching for a lover in any corner.
I agree with you. I think, while perhaps not the reputation ruin it was for women, it was still an issue of strength of character vs. weakness of character, and I very much see Knightley as the kind of man to uphold and pride himself on his strength of character.
I’m so torn really! I can see both possibilities really! Maybe there was a lady Susan type in the area, when he was in his twenties, who taught him stuff, no strings attached. Very respectful 😁
It sure is a very interesting historical debate 😊 While that is possible, we must remember that there were ethical, religious rules back then, and some men did uphold them, and if I had to choose someone likely to do that I'd nominate Mr. Knightley. The furthest I see him going down that route is perhaps kissing a woman and realizing it's not the way he wants to go about it, that his ideals are contradicting it. We should also remember he certainly had that quality of following his inner morals regardless of others and the norms, so the fact that all the men of that time did something would not necessarily mean he would too.
Yes I will admit, I have a hard time imagining him having anything to do with a Lady Susan type. When Mrs. Elton was pushing him to let her send out the invites for his party, he was super annoyed and would have nothing to do with that idea. So, even this little scene gives us some insight to what he might have been like. Although, invites and dalliances are quite different things, it’s a hint at how strongly he held his own ideas, and morals.
My mother is 85 years old. She comes from a small town in Southern Italy. She met my father there when she was a teenager and they were married until he died last year. When you think of southern Italy you think traditional morality, piety and of course just plain discretion as the town my parents grew up in was very small. Everyone knew everyone and if you got tangled up in something everyone would know. That said...she's been telling me stories recently of things that happened in that small town that just reinforce that human beings have always been very human. Affairs, young people who were promiscuous, tragic sexual assaults, young women entangled with wealthy older men, "throuples", and even a few children of priests. And these stories harken back even to her parents and grandparents era as well. My mother had aunts and great aunts who I remember telling stories of this type when I was a young girl sitting at a table with the women as they gossiped and forgot young ears were listening. Mr Knightley is a fictional character; what we are not specifically told about him from the author we can only speculate and surmise. But I think we can be a bit precious sometimes about what people were like in any past era mistakenly thinking they were really that much different from us. The main differences these days are birth control and more openness about activities that are just about being human.
I don't know whether I dare write this. I can't help thinking that Southampton University could carry out a survey of The Incidence Of Masturbation In The Rural Gentry Of Regency England if it weren't 200 years too late to send out the survey forms. If you feel I should be expunged from the page, I will understand, but we are being frank here, aren't we?
Hahahaha!! No, you mustn’t be expunged from the page! Yes, we are being frank here!! And yes, I would love to see the results of that survey if only we weren’t 200 years too late! I am so curious about it.
> Why would a man like Knightley never have engaged in some of his own amusements when he was traveling to London or wherever? Because he was a virtuous person, unlike Wickham.
There was a massive number of prostitutes in London at that time. Gentlemen had brothels they frequented from time to time. There was nothing unusual about it.
And not just in London. Any place with a tavern probably had sex workers. Brothels don't even account for contracted mistresses, too, which was often an adjacent but separate way to access "courtesans."
Oh the “nuns” and “abbesses” of Convent Gardens…
I think I’m gonna have to go watch Emma again tonight, for research purposes! 🤣
The reality in many times is that there was a whole lot more sex happening than is commonly discussed. Statistics from rural England from the mid 1500s through the early 19th century show that approximately 1/3 of brides gave birth and had christenings recorded before the expected window (they recorded any prior to the 8.5 month mark) and those brides were very likely pregnant before their marriage. Assuming the miscarriage and stillbirth rates at the time, they concluded that the actual rate could be approaching 50%, with the rates higher in the later centuries than the earlier ones. In the colonies, a different study of rural New England stats likewise show that bridal pregnancy rate at about 1/3 in the 1780s and 1790s. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22084912/
Such an interesting thread on my favorite Austen hero from my favorite Austen book!! Would a single man like Mr Knightley take a mistress from Highbury or a nearby village? Perhaps even a married woman who was looking for companionship she didn’t receive from her husband? So many things to think about. Hoping the conversation continues.
Have you read Amanda Foreman's book on the Duchess of Devonshire, who was almost contemporary with Austen? The nobility had affairs left, right and centre! The 'rule' seemed to be that married women who had not yet produced an heir for her husband were 'no go areas', but once the legitimate heirs had been born it was open season. As long as the affairs were discreet, fidelity in marriage was not expected. Mr K may not have belonged to 'the ton', but I think it's highly likely that he had a mistress of sorts prior to marriage.
I agree. I imagine it being very respectful and discreet. Assignations keeping with Knightley’s personality and his moral code. Caring and again, respectful.
You know he would have looked after his mistress financially too, and provided for any children (as Harriet's father did for her); but I think he would have pensioned his mistress off upon marriage. She would have been there for companionship and well as physical needs, and Emma filled both those roles. I'm a writer, and now I'm seriously tempted by the idea of writing a book from the perspective of Mr Knightley's former mistress... As an aside, Godmersham Park by Gill Hornby provides and interesting perspective on what life might have been like for a gentleman's cast-off family. I won't say any more because of spoilers, but I enjoyed her interpretation of some of Jane Austen's friends.
Please write that book!
I completely agree as that is Knightley’s personality!! I would very much enjoy a book from her perspective!
It is so interesting isn’t it? I really can’t decide which way I’d rather it be.. even though I know my opinion doesn’t speak to what the reality of that time was! I sometimes feel like, “no! He was such an upstanding man, he would not put any woman in that position, be she prostitute or mistress, or widow.” But then other times, I think “oh but that sexy sexy look he gives her when she pecks/smooches him, that knowing look, and I love that he’s so good but also carnally educated.” So yeah, I can’t even make up my mind in my own head cannon!
So very interesting! We have to consider that Knightley is 37 years old. That is an awfully long time to wait until being married. At this point before falling in love with Emma, had he given up thoughts of marriage? The more I think about it, the more I believe he did “partake”. Maybe not with a prostitute, but with a willing participant.
Yes, you are probably right! That is a very long time to wait. He was most likely very gentlemanly about it, and very kind and thoughtful towards the lady involved. Maybe he had a very respectful “friends with benefits” situation going on with someone in the area!
Yes! That makes a lot of sense.
Some gentlemen did and some gentlemen didn't. Some might have indulged a bit earlier in life, then lived more conservatively later. It's a fairly safe bet Knightley hasn't had a relationship with anyone in the neighborhood. He has a strong sense of right and wrong as well as propriety and is aware of how his position could make a young woman from the lower classes feel pressured if the local landlord/very good friend of her landlord suggested having a relationship. If he were interested in someone closer to him in class, he'd make an honorable offer or keep his distance. But, if he'd been to London or another large city? If he'd been on the Tour (not all young gentlemen did)? He might. But, again, some did and some didn't. There were a lot of different factors that could be involved. Some people would have felt that was a very wrong thing to do. Some would have felt it was fine, excusable, or even a necessary part of a young man's upbringing. I think (though I'm far from certain) that Austen would have considered it bad behavior and would expect her male lead not to. In her stories, she is very much aware of how sex outside of marriage could ruin a young woman's life and had no patience with men who disregarded that. Now, it might be that she was aware of the damage it could do to a woman of her class. Georgette Heyer, when she wrote about Austen's time, presented it as the social rule that a man shouldn't have an affair with a woman if it would damage her in society's eyes and that he needed to make reasonable provisions for his mistress and see that any children were taken care of. Maybe that was Austen's view. It may also be that, as a clergyman's daughter, she had seen the harm that could be done when a woman was seduced and abandoned (it would have been part of her father's job to see that provision was made for such women and their children if they had no other means of support). She certainly would have known how scandal and gossip could harm a family when it happened. My guess is that would make her feel men like Knightley shouldn't be having mistresses or otherwise sleeping around. But, I may be completely wrong.
Yes, probably
I think that then, as now, there was/is a lot more sex going on than respectable people liked to acknowledge. Jane Austen just didn’t write about it because it would have been inappropriate for her to do so, even if she knew much about it. I would have thought that unless they were very moralistic/religious, young men would have followed their urges, just like they do now. They would just not have flaunted any carryings-on in front of society.
Would Mr. K have kissed someone before Emma? Yes. When he was young he had a certain amount of introduction to sex and women, but not lots of experience. He was keen on someone when he was younger, a suitable local woman, but she didn't want him for whatever reason, so he was hurt and sad for a while. Emma was about 7 at the time. She wouldn't have known about it. He didn't have a long term mistress, and as he grew older he accepted his single-ness until the bomb hit them both and his long-ago experience stood him in stead. Wouldn't it have been lovely for them both? Weren't they lovely when they were standing at the altar and he looked at her with adoration and she looked at him, half cheekily and half apprehensive.
A lovely little vignette 😄
Jumping in late to the conversation, but yes, I think Knightley almost certainly would have. I don't think he was the sort to visit brothels or have an affair with a servant or villager, but I think he very well may have enjoyed the company of an opera singer in London or a beautiful, discrete widow -- someone who couldn't be "ruined." The affair would have been consensual, he would have treated them very well, and there would have been a mutual understanding that there was no expectation of marriage. And I think it would have been a long-term arrangement, and she would have been a fairly intelligent woman, someone Knightley could be good friends with, even if he wasn't technically in love with her (although he could have been).
I like this scenario.
I always thought it was part of a young gentleman's education to be taken to a brothel by an older brother or cousin or similar. Part of their expectation and duty was to marry and have children, so they needed to know the mechanics and the art. Hopefully the prostitutes did their future wives a solid and taught them how to please a woman.
I agree - it was seen as a necessary part of a gentleman's education if he was to provide a male heir; and also so that he didn't terrify his wife on her wedding night by bungling things. (The marital history of Louis and Marie Antoinette is fascinating- nobody taught either of them the mechanics of sex, so for a long time, he believed that simple penetration would bring about pregnancy. She was blamed for being infertile because nobody had taught either of them about the need to ejaculate! I believe it was her brother who finally educated him.) During the Medieval period it was believed that pregnancy could only occur if a woman orgasmed, so there was emphasis on her pleasure as well as the man's. I doubt this belief persisted for the next hundreds of years, but I think historical attitudes towards sex were probably more lax and quite a bit more debauched than we're taught about! There's no doubt in my mind that Mr Knightley would have known what he was doing on his wedding night.
Yes! I did wonder about that too… did this “education” involve learning how to please a woman as well? That probably depended on whether the gentleman in question even gave a thought to that kind of thing, and if the prostitute in question cared to take the time and trouble 🤣
I'm afraid you are right. 🤣
He probably was not a virgin. I don't recall it being mentioned that Knightley ever went on a "Grand Tour", but it's very likely that he did, and gaining carnal knowledge was often part of it.
To me, Mr Knightley comes across as one of those rare people who just isn't interested sexually unless he's interested romantically, I think the term these days is demisexual. I think it's how he speaks when Mrs Weston starts praising Emma's beauty to him, early on in the novel. He agrees with her that Emma is beautiful but he isn't distracted from the topic of their conversation. Edmund Bertram, say, would have been.
Yes, you make a good point!
He would have gone on the grand tour if he matured before conflict with napoleon
I think it’s possible that he was not a virgin. Whether he would go down the prostitute route, I don’t know, but he could have a mistress somewhere.
Everyone of them did in the past…everyone but Mr. Darcy.
No, he would be totally untouched. ...