Earl Fitzwilliam and Fitzwilliam Darcy
Posted by Linden on May 24, 1998 at 20:01:23:
In response to OOPS! A correction...., written by Caroline on May 24, 1998 at 10:36:43
] Linden, in that last post I muddled up your two Earls . My only excuse is that it was late at night...I can see and think more clearly now!
Sorry I hadn't made myself clear.
] Just because the real Earl Fitzwilliam ws Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, doesn't necessarily mean that Colonel Fitzwilliam's father was intended to be so, or that The Earldom of _______ (Jane Austen's term) was anywhere near Yorkshire at all.
] In short, I think you can imagine whatever you will about Darcy's relatives and their politics, but you cannot really use them to refute Chapman's Chronology. It's a fun idea, but it doesn't really work out as a logical construction. Sorry!
My attempted refutation has more in it than the assumption that Fitzwilliam Darcy (the fiction) was related to Earl Fitzwilliam (the real person) - that's only a minor point. However, I'm willing to stick my neck out and assert that Jane Austen's readers at the time would have assumed that she'd created a branch of the Fitzwilliam family for her novel.
- More on Earl Fitzwilliam Linden 20:02:35 5/28/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.