I think so!
Posted by Marsha on May 10, 1998 at 17:03:30:
In response to So trivial?, written by Constanza on May 09, 1998 at 10:49:49
Not with me of course, but according to the standard of the times, most of those weren't a big deal
] Running into debt, gambling heavily (Wickham),
Gambling was quite a passion at the time. Such notable men as Beau Brummel (the leade of fashion) or before him, Charles James Fox, the leading opposition polititian of the day (neither of them a rake) lost entire fortunes at play.
seducing a young woman, leaving her pregnant and not caring for your child, (Willoughby),
Ahh, but I think they had a consentual love affair, not a seduction. And he didn't know she was pregnant. And as for caring for a child, why should he? Then, men weren't too concerned with children except as their "family" and heirs and a bastard doesn't fit under either. Most gentlemen of the period (most of whom had mistresses at least before their marriage) would settle money on the woman and child and never see them. W couldn't settle money on Brandon's daughter!
commiting adultery (Crawford),
It was still very common (though not as widespread as in Georgian times), for a wife and a husband each to have a lover. The society didn't pay much attention to it and it was not concidered a big deal in most cases.
- If they were so common, how comes Constanza 17:20:20 5/13/98
(0)
- Rakes: tall, thin object with which to sweep up leaves & cuttings Leanne S 14:17:42 5/11/98
(0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
