Regency England - social division?

Question

During 199 England, was the social division between the upper, middle, and lower class drastic as it was during the Edwardian period?? Like, did parents of the upper class society strongly oppose their daughters marrying middle/lower class gentlemen?? And was the upper class society as suffocating and strict as it was during the Edwardian period??!!!

Ten points for the BEST answer.
Need much details, please!!

Answer 1

In the later part of the 19c it was fairly common for women from established families (gentlewomen) to marry men with money they had earned from trade. Remember that in the early 1800s in Jane Austen, this was very much frowned on (in 'Persuasion' she has Anne's father and sister articulate these feelings several times, the Eliot cousin has repaired his fortune by marrying a woman of no breeding, and in Pride and Prejudice, there are a few more comments... also, remember what happens in Sense and Sensibility with Lucy Steele) but by mid century there had been quite a few examples (Elizabeth Gaskell's mid 1800s novels focus on this question - eg 'North and South' for instance is about a factory owner in love with the daughter of a gentleman clergyman) including real-life marriages of wealthy Americans both women and men, to prominent but impoverished English nobility.
Paul Johnson makes the point in "birth of the modern' that the main objection to the waltz around 1815 was not that it was physical and sensuous, but that it was easy to learn, and that therefore young gentlewomen could be sensuous with men who were not gentleman (i.e. had no dancing masters to instruct them, as was needed for earlier dancing....)

By Edwardian (around 1900) times there were lots of examples of individuals who had raised themselves and their families from obscurity to the highest levels - eg First Sea Lord Jacky Fisher, a Prime Minister, and many others.. (sometimes the rise took a couple generations - eg the Darwins, starting from a country doctor and a potter in 1800 to Charles being buried in Westminster Abbey in 1882)

This is not to say that there weren't dramatic class separations, but in Edwardian times the separation accepted rise by meritocracy (esp. money) much more readily than in earlier days. Hobshawm describes this very well in his account of the Industrial Revolution... he says that in Britain, whatever happened in the last generation becomes an ancient tradition... so, by Edward's death, marrying cross class lines was much more widely accepted.

Answer 2

The period of Regency England is broadly the years from 1811 until Victoria ascends the throne. The middle class is a problematic term in the early eighteenth century, as are the notions of upper and lower class. Instead think of it this way: Land was extremely important. The upper class was composed of the gentry (people with estates) and the peerage (those with titles, the nobility, those who could have a seat in the House of Lords, if they were men). Sometimes the gentry was the peerage and vice versa; the lack of a title was not extremely important. J.A. Downie makes this point in his "refutation" of Habermas's theory of the Bourgeois Public Sphere. i use quotes because I don't think he refutes anything. The point is that titles seem not to make a difference. He references Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. This novel is written during and is set in the regency period. Lady Catherine considers Bennet a gentleman, but he has no title. There is a "middle class" of sorts, a Bourgeois elite that is trading and involved in the bourgeoning Industrial Revolution. Of course, this being the Regency, the merchant class buys land after they have sufficient wealth. Consider BIngley in Pride and Prejudice (also a point made by Downie). To the point of social division: During the reign of George IV, he both abandoned and tried his wife Queen Caroline, for high treason (adultery against His Majesty was considered High Treason, punishable by death). The English political scene was dominated by two parties Whigs and Tories. The Tories and Whigs got their start during the reign of Charles II. Those who favored the Bill of Exclusion to keep James II, his Cathloic brother, off the throne were considered Whigs. Those who were against Exclusion clearly favored the King's perogative and were considered Tories. During the showdown with Caroline, the Whigs took up her cause, and the Tories took up the side of the King. The battle between Caroline and George morphed into a battle between the upper class (who on the whole tended to support George) and the lower class (who were for Caroline). There was public unrest in the streets and the press. Why? Because this conflict mirrored the social divisions of the day. Property was needed to vote; and although, no specific law barred a commoner from marrying a member of the Peerage, social propriety certainly did. A note about the stifling nature of the upper class: For members of the class during the Regency, Caroline's infidelity was not the problem. George had numerous mistresses, including Lady Jersey. She chose to spend her time with commoners and specifically Italian commoners. The upper class was both class-conscious and xenophobic. One could diddle with others, but they needed to be of the same level and the affairs discreet. This stayed constant for even the Edwardian period. One final point. In the early 19th century, the Enclosure Act is passed and this ends the open countryside bringing the country poor to the cities (London, Manchester).

Answer 3

Girls of the upper class were NOT allowed to meet lower class men. Marriageable girls didn't have much access to middle class men. Once they were "on the shelf" (20 and older), a family might have married off a daughter to a middle class, but he had to have money or some other advantage for the family.

Merchants did move from middle class to upper class from time to time. It was still a scandal when they married noblewomen, but it did happen. It was more likely that a nobleman would marry a rich merchant's daughter. They were more accessible than noblewomen.

An heiress could always find a suitor.