Talk:Pride and Prejudice

Colonel Fitzwilliam & the Earl of Matlock

Colonel Fitzwilliam is the son of an Earl but the Earl of what we don't know.

There were two nephews of Lady Catherine to require them, for Mr. Darcy had brought with him a Colonel Fitzwilliam, the younger son of his uncle Lord ----,

volume II chapter VII

"He likes to have his own way very well," replied Colonel Fitzwilliam. "But so we all do. It is only that he has better means of having it than many others, because he is rich, and many others are poor. I speak feelingly. A younger son, you know, must be inured to self-denial and dependence."

"In my opinion, the younger son of an earl can know very little of either. Now seriously, what have you ever known of self-denial and dependence? When have you been prevented by want of money from going wherever you chose, or procuring anything you had a fancy for?"
"These are home questions--and perhaps I cannot say that I have experienced many hardships of that nature. But in matters of greater weight, I may suffer from want of money. Younger sons cannot marry where they like."
"Unless where they like women of fortune, which I think they very often do."
"Our habits of expense make us too dependent, and there are not many in my rank of life who can afford to marry without some attention to money."

"Is this," thought Elizabeth, "meant for me?" and she coloured at the idea; but, recovering herself, said in a lively tone, "And pray, what is the usual price of an earl's younger son? Unless the elder brother is very sickly, I suppose you would not ask above fifty thousand pounds."

volume II chapter X

Time to remove the unsourced "Matlock" in the genealogy box. JIMp _talk·cont 11:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal implausibility?

From Talk:The_Quincunx#Core issue:

...novels built around entails frequently have got their law wrong. In Pride and Prejudice, the entail is far more likely to have been created under the will of an uncle, than on Mr Bennett's marriage, as parents rarely left their own daughters out from inheriting. User:Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey Jungle (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable citation is found, an editor's opinion is not an appropriate addition to the article. -Sketchmoose (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously its very unlikely. But then the book isn't exactly all that realistic in any other way. Is it likely that the father would allow Lizzie to avoid marrying Collins considering the risk of her being homeless? No. None of it is likely. maybe possible, but not likely.Lollipopfop (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the interrelation map is wrong

Elizabeth and Colonel Fitzwilliam weren't attracted to each other. It was colonel Fitzwilliam's one-way interest toward Elizabeth. So one arrow should be pointing to Elizabth from Fitz. But As you can see, the line that draws the two characters together has no arrow, implying that it is a shared feeling.

Anyone disagree that Eliza had no feeling toward fitz 'cause although she wasn't aware of it, she was already by then irrevocably in <3 with Darcy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.51.38.176 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

'Read this', then repeat 'Read this'..

The "Background" section was almost completely repititious of facts, even phrases, written immediately above in the preamble and first graphic; so I edited away such --and moved (most) of the balance into the preamble section. Also revised for the 'active voice', and against 'errancy' from the novel; e.g: --pls correct me if there is a citation otherwise (in the novel, not an adaption)-- but, IMO, the author does not write nor imply that Mr. Bennet is "relatively poor". She may indeed have invented some characters who think so, but it 'ain't the same' as reporting it here (the article) as a fact.--Jbeans (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)/edits by this User--Jbeans (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, don't complete understand the commentary, but you did a good job on the edit.SADADS (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Thanks be' for kind words, and apologies for my mumbles --the above edit may help; if not, pls specify your question and I will respond.--Jbeans (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr C. segues..

Rvtd edit; these two clauses are better conjoined, as by the semicolon, because: 1) tho' separate, they are closely related thoughts--more so than a period implies; 2) and, conjoined, the relative pronoun 'her' is not widowed from its antecedent 'Jane', as by the period.--Jbeans (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisions (of 20 Jan) track better with the novel's actual narrative: 1)JA uses four chapters and writes of "three days" between Collins's proposals to two different women; >'tis better that this is not reported as "immediately" (a word used overmuch in this article). 2)And, 'tis better that the phrase: "Once the marriage is arranged.." is not sequenced after: ..(he) "marries.. Charlotte Lucas", (a phrase now removed).--Jbeans (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Catherine speaks to Darcy

Welcome!, 'SweetCaramel' to Wikipedia—but: replaced your good faith edit-that-came-with-no-explanation, 'cause the original phrase tracks better the author's narrative (of her characters' behaviors). Here, IMO, Lady Catherine (who is keenly aware of 'pride-of-place', and knows ev-v-erybody's place) would never give an imperious order (ie: you will; you will not) to such a 'proud' man as her nephew, Mr. Darcy.

Per JA's character-narrative, 1) Darcy is of equal or greater 'pride-of-place', and 2) Lady C would know that a direct order from her to him would be disrepectful of him and his social rank. (Obviously, from the narrative of chapters 56 out, we learn that Lady C confronted Darcy and "made her feelings known". We readers are not provided the scene nor the words actually exchanged, but in the author's narrative we are given no reason to believe that Lady C strayed from boundaries of propriety in addressing Darcy—ie, no hint that she attempted to command a direct order upon him). Again, >> welcome 'SweetCaramel' to Wikipedia {>any relation to '-Caroline'?}; we're glad you're joining—hope you'll stay— the 'wordy workyard' here. --Jbeans (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)