#question response

I don't think any of Jane Austen's characters are self-inserts, though of course I can't say for sure since I didn't know her. I have heard multiple times that Austen's family said she most resembled Henry Tilney of Northanger Abbey. I think this might be in the biography written by James Edward Austen-Leigh (I don't really read biography). I do think Henry Tilney's voice is pretty close to that of the narrator.

The biography I have read said Jane Austen was a frivolous social butterfly as a youth, which sounds like neither Marianne or Elinor Dashwood. So I pick none! Both of the Dashwood sisters are pretty introverted, even though only one is self contained. I wouldn't use "social butterfly" to describe any Jane Austen heroine except maybe Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse. Marianne is a Romantic drama queen and Elinor is an Elder Sister.

As an side, one of the only books I've read where a character really felt self-insert is Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park by Micheal Crichton, but that's just a personal vibe. I don't go around basing analysis on it. I just think it's telling that when asked to write a sequel, he resurrected Ian Malcolm from the dead.

In this case, I think Darcy manages to walk a fine line where he isn't raising Caroline's expectations, but she also isn't delusional to hope that one day he'll propose to her.

Darcy doesn't really respond to Caroline's obvious flirting. He does dance with her at the Meryton assembly, but he also dances with her married sister Louisa, though no one else. He seems to mostly enjoy mean girl gossiping with her.

From Caroline's perspective, it's not wedding bells, but for someone who is that taciturn to seem to enjoy hanging out with her, she has some rational hope. Both that Darcy might someday be interested in more with her and that Charles might be able to marry Georgiana.

It's in the contrast instead of outright encouragment that Caroline has hope and then later fear. When Darcy is distant from most people but close to her family, there is reason to hope. When Darcy starts being interested in Elizabeth and seeking her out to listen to and speak to her, Caroline gets jealous and worried. I think Darcy is very careful not to raise real expectations in either Caroline or Elizabeth until he finally gives in at Rosings.

As an aside, I do wonder if Darcy dancing with just Caroline and Louisa at the Assembly gave people in Meryton the idea that he already had a tacit understanding with her. They mostly dislike his rudeness, but rude and unavailable? Unforgivable.

I don't personally like to draw parallels between the author's real life and their novels, unless something is clearly semi-autobiographical (Agnes Grey for example). But I would also say that not all Austen mothers are dead, absent, or incompetent. Mrs. Jennings is quite active, visits her daughters frequently, and seems to have a very loving relationship with at least Charlotte and her son-in-law (Lady Middleton doesn't like her mom). Mrs. Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility may not be as prudent as Elinor, but she is loving and close with her daughters, especially Marianne. Mrs. Morland is mostly not around for Northanger Abbey, but seems to be very involved with her children. The Musgroves seem very close despite boarding school and Mary Musgrove seems to be around her kids a lot, if not directly taking care of them.

Also, I think sometimes we get arrogant in our modern ideas of parenting and think children would have felt unloved in the past. However, expectations would have been different and comparison would be different as well. Children would look around and see that the way their parents expressed love for them was similar to other families, so they probably wouldn't feel deprived. I remember even reading a study that 20 minutes per day of genuine bonding with a child is all they really need. The Austens visited their wet-nursed children daily as far as I remember. And children today still have deep bonds with their parents despite 6 hours of school and after school activities. Or not, if their parents suck. But parents will suck under any model of parenting.

I think Austen was just interested in how parents can prepare their children for life or drag them down. She avoids the popular orphan trope and instead focuses on the ways parents can affect their children while alive. If her heroines are half-orphans, she always kills the more competent parent... You know I don't think the relationships are really that "distant" at all. Mrs. Bennet is right there, muddling in her daughter's lives. Fanny Price is over-parented. The Dashwood girls are close with their mother... Anne was close to her mother and is very close to a mother figure in Lady Russell. Emma has a close female mother figure as well.

In short, yes, a morning period followed the death of a parent, sibling, national figure, or distant relation.

In Jane Austen's novels, we see that in Sense & Sensibility, the Dashwoods have a six month time jump between when their father dies and the story begins. This is likely to account for the mourning period, where the family was mostly at home together and not engaging much socially. When they move to Barton Cottage, it seems that going out and dancing is now fine.

In Persuasion, Elizabeth Elliot wears ribbons of mourning for Mr. Elliot's wife, despite them only being distant cousins. Mr. Elliot himself is wearing morning when Anne meets him in Lyme and in Bath (Both master and man being in mourning)

“My dear Mrs Smith, Mr Elliot’s wife has not been dead much above half a year. He ought not to be supposed to be paying his addresses to any one.”

Here is what I think about your more specific questions, if a woman's guardian died right before her wedding, it might just go ahead so that she could be under the protection of her husband, especially if her next nearest relations were a long way off. If a man's parent died, there would be less reason to move ahead and they may wait. Honouring your mother and father is an important Biblical commandment and most people during the Regency were Christians, so this isn't just a social custom, it was also a religious one.

So I think there would be no hard and fast rule, it probably depended on the exact circumstances surrounding the death and marriage. If the marriage was something the parent wanted to see before they died for example.

Anyway, here is a good summary of mourning periods, though it doesn't fully answer your questions:

Typically historically-inspired manhwas go off the deep end in regards to plot for the sake of drama, but the author and the artist of this series both clearly seem to love the source inspiration, and as far as I can tell stay as accurate as they can to the ideas, visuals, and trials for a woman of that era. It's also just incredibly pretty. I would love to know what you think of it, if you do read it.

I have discussed webcomics/manhwas! I do read them. It's only 30 chapters so I will give it a read, but... I'm going to tear apart the historical accuracy so um, don't look below if you don't want to read that

Re this post. We don't know Lady Catherine's actual age, but we can make some reasonable assumptions:

The "in their cradles" statement leads many people to believe that Anne de Bourgh and Fitzwilliam Darcy are around the same age, which is 27/28. I really doubt Anne is older than Darcy, so 28 is probably her max age.

It seems Lady Anne Darcy and Lady Catherine de Bourgh were close, so probably near siblings in age. Both Darcy and Anne were probably born shortly after their marriages.

The average age of marriage was around 23 in this era

Lady Catherine being around 20ish + 28ish years of Anne being alive = she's late 40s early 50s. Not in her 70s

Now is it possible she married late and had a baby late? Yes, if she was 30 when she married and had Anne at 35, then her being around 70 is possible, but it seems far more likely that she married somewhere around the average age and had a baby fairly soon after her marriage.

You are in for the best time! It's a slow story but the character development is so natural and the story is so interesting even when not much is happening.

Also, don't worry about it being incomplete. It could have ended where it did, everything is wrapped up enough. You won't feel bereft and the publisher's note is also lovely.

Sorry, that was in the the post I must have deleted it. Yes, wedding dresses would be worn again. Fabric was very expensive at the time so except perhaps for royalty (we still have those gowns suggesting they weren't worn much), they'd be worn again.

As demonstrated in Emma 2020, the gowns in the Regency were very convertible and had removable parts. So a wedding gown would be at peak fancy, but then could be adapted to more regular use.