Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people died in their 40s. Short life expectancies. They didn't just look old, they were considered old and knocking on death's door in their mid 30s.

This has been debunked. The life expectancy overall was so short because of the high infant mortality rate. If a person survived childhood, they had a good chance of living into their 60's. Though women, of course, had to contend with pregnancy as well.

No, you're wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityinenglandandwales/2012-12-17#:~:text=In%201841%20life%20expectancy%20at,males%20and%2048%20for%20females.

Ummm --- PP's comment is directly referenced in the piece. That confirms PP and not you. Did you read it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're available to marry at, say, 17, and nobody marries you by 25, they figured there must be something wrong with you. Kind of like a house sitting on the market.

+1 See every thread on here with someone 30+ asking how to find a decent husband who makes good money and wants kids — she’s always told the answer is “be younger.” Since DCUM also believes marriage before 23 is vaguely appallingly young, you have a 7-year window to get it right. Not so different from the 17-24 regency window, just shifted later because we’re moved the social definition of adulthood back to 22ish rather than 16ish (for girls).

+ 1 We have not come such a long way, baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people died in their 40s. Short life expectancies. They didn't just look old, they were considered old and knocking on death's door in their mid 30s.

This has been debunked. The life expectancy overall was so short because of the high infant mortality rate. If a person survived childhood, they had a good chance of living into their 60's. Though women, of course, had to contend with pregnancy as well.

No, you're wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/mortalityinenglandandwales/2012-12-17#:~:text=In%201841%20life%20expectancy%20at,males%20and%2048%20for%20females.

Anonymous wrote:If you're available to marry at, say, 17, and nobody marries you by 25, they figured there must be something wrong with you. Kind of like a house sitting on the market.

+1 See every thread on here with someone 30+ asking how to find a decent husband who makes good money and wants kids — she’s always told the answer is “be younger.” Since DCUM also believes marriage before 23 is vaguely appallingly young, you have a 7-year window to get it right. Not so different from the 17-24 regency window, just shifted later because we’re moved the social definition of adulthood back to 22ish rather than 16ish (for girls).

They weren't doing anything else with their youbg adulthoods. They didn't go to college or work outside the home. Their goal (and their parents") was to marry. So you would do that as soon as possible and get the best match you could. If they didn't marry, they were a financial burden on their parents. Women could not inherit so they needed to marry to survive or failing that, move in with relatives. That is the plot of Sense and Sensibility. The two sisters are being displaced because their brother and his wife are inheriting the house. IIRC, the wife doesn't want them there. I can't remember now, but something like that.

If you're available to marry at, say, 17, and nobody marries you by 25, they figured there must be something wrong with you. Kind of like a house sitting on the market.

They needed to have lots of kids because babies and kids died from disease. Childbirth is dangerous the older you are.

Anonymous wrote:Fertility window was important for aristocracy looking for heirs.

+1

Pregnancy is also safer the younger you are, including late teens.

Fertility window was important for aristocracy looking for heirs.

Because women’s only purpose was to marry and bear children. Why would you marry a 30 year old instead of a 21 year old in this situation.

Anonymous wrote:Because people died in their 40s. Short life expectancies. They didn't just look old, they were considered old and knocking on death's door in their mid 30s.

This has been debunked. The life expectancy overall was so short because of the high infant mortality rate. If a person survived childhood, they had a good chance of living into their 60's. Though women, of course, had to contend with pregnancy as well.

Anonymous wrote:Because people died in their 40s. Short life expectancies. They didn't just look old, they were considered old and knocking on death's door in their mid 30s.

Ah yes, that makes sense.

Everything is relative. I wish I could again look like I did when I was 25. But I was a model, and I can tell you for sure that I did not look the same in photographs at 25 as I did at 19.

And like PP said, people didn't live as long. And childbirth was super dangerous. Better to pop those 5 or more children out as early as possible. Because remember, not all of the children are likely to survive. So you need to have a lot of them. Safer to do that earlier rather than later.

Because people died in their 40s. Short life expectancies. They didn't just look old, they were considered old and knocking on death's door in their mid 30s.

In Jane Austen's novels there is a sense of urgency regarding making a romantic match for most of her heroines. Even among the wealthy circles she wrote about, the women were considered "expired" very early in life. Anne Elliot, for example, is only 35/26 and is declared a spinster and without hope of marriage prospects.

25!!

Even during the regency period I can't imagine a 25 year old displaying very many unsightly signs of aging.

What are your thoughts?