For those of you who don't know the ins and outs of Pride and Prejudice, here goes...
It's around the early 1800's. Miss Elizabeth Bennett and her three sisters find themselves in their twenties and looking for husbands. So far, that's about it (I'm 42% of the way through, accuracy I can only thank to the wonderful people at kindle).
So far, I've learnt that marriage back in those days was about much more than it is today. Nowadays marriage is about choice or 'marrying your best friend'. It is also much more focussed on the actual wedding day; spending 15 grand to make promises in front of your family and friends, with the back-up of divorce to reassure your doubts. Back in Elizabeth Bennet's day, marriage was equally as un-romantic, revolving mainly around assets and estates.
Jane Austin writes how Elizabeth Bennet is against marrying solely for the reason of money, how she seeks a marriage based more on admiration and love. Elizabeth witnesses her friend accepting a proposal of marriage from a Mr Collins, who in the previous chapter had his same offer declined by Elizabeth. (Oh, obviously there is a Mr Darcy - she has met him and she appears to hate him, but we all know that secretly she is in love with him. I'm yet to reach that part of the book).
So naturally, all this love/marriage talk got me thinking about our choices today and most importantly, my choices. I don't think anyone would admit these-days to marrying their partner solely for the reason of security. In fact, I shouldn't imagine anyone would admit to marrying solely for the reason of love either. I guess realistically it's a balancing act for all the traits you deem important when looking for a partner.
I've thought many times about the presence of perfectly suitable suitors (ha) available to me. I have many very decent guy friends, who no doubt would make the most amazing life partners. I can picture several of them impressing the family at Christmas, proposing in the most romantic way, holding my hand through child birth, picking up the kids from school and treating me to amazing anniversary presents. Thing is, as spoilt as it sounds, that's just not enough for me. I want that extra thing. That thing you read about it books. That connection, the love, the passion. That's why I am single. In a way I guess it's true what everyone says; I am too fussy.
I always joke about being attracted to losers. If you look at my last few boyfriends it is evident. But to be brutally honest, I think there is something romantic about being in love with someone who doesn't tick all those security boxes above. If I love them, I love them regardless of those things. For me, for a long time, love has been the most important tick box of all but perhaps its time to relax that rule a little - maybe I'm making a rod for my own back.
Or perhaps I have even more reason to do like Elizabeth Bennet and stick to my guns. Stick to my guns and keep waiting for this amazing love.
So far, I've learnt that marriage back in those days was about much more than it is today. Nowadays marriage is about choice or 'marrying your best friend'. It is also much more focussed on the actual wedding day; spending 15 grand to make promises in front of your family and friends, with the back-up of divorce to reassure your doubts. Back in Elizabeth Bennet's day, marriage was equally as un-romantic, revolving mainly around assets and estates.
Jane Austin writes how Elizabeth Bennet is against marrying solely for the reason of money, how she seeks a marriage based more on admiration and love. Elizabeth witnesses her friend accepting a proposal of marriage from a Mr Collins, who in the previous chapter had his same offer declined by Elizabeth. (Oh, obviously there is a Mr Darcy - she has met him and she appears to hate him, but we all know that secretly she is in love with him. I'm yet to reach that part of the book).
So naturally, all this love/marriage talk got me thinking about our choices today and most importantly, my choices. I don't think anyone would admit these-days to marrying their partner solely for the reason of security. In fact, I shouldn't imagine anyone would admit to marrying solely for the reason of love either. I guess realistically it's a balancing act for all the traits you deem important when looking for a partner.
I've thought many times about the presence of perfectly suitable suitors (ha) available to me. I have many very decent guy friends, who no doubt would make the most amazing life partners. I can picture several of them impressing the family at Christmas, proposing in the most romantic way, holding my hand through child birth, picking up the kids from school and treating me to amazing anniversary presents. Thing is, as spoilt as it sounds, that's just not enough for me. I want that extra thing. That thing you read about it books. That connection, the love, the passion. That's why I am single. In a way I guess it's true what everyone says; I am too fussy.
I always joke about being attracted to losers. If you look at my last few boyfriends it is evident. But to be brutally honest, I think there is something romantic about being in love with someone who doesn't tick all those security boxes above. If I love them, I love them regardless of those things. For me, for a long time, love has been the most important tick box of all but perhaps its time to relax that rule a little - maybe I'm making a rod for my own back.
Or perhaps I have even more reason to do like Elizabeth Bennet and stick to my guns. Stick to my guns and keep waiting for this amazing love.
