I think that's reading into it what you want.
I've read Pride and Prejudice several times and never thought that, perhaps because I am not a lesbian.
I take "Charlotte" at her word.
Charlotte is pragmatic and reality based, unlike Elizabeth who is looking for romantic love.
The notion of romantic love as a precursor to marriage was still a pretty new concept at this time.
Marriage was more of a business contract. People married to have children, companionship, security and to make financial, social and political alliances.
Charlotte says it herself. She has no prospects and the offer from Mr. Collins is not only the only one she's received but is probably the last she'll ever get. She's old, pretty much past the age of marriage. She has no dowry. She isn't pretty, She has no status or political connections. She pretty much has nothing to commend her. She's looking at living out her life as a burden to her parents and after they die, what? The poorhouse or maybe taking a position as a housekeeper or companion if she's lucky. Marrying Mr. Collins is beyond Charlotte's hopes and dreams. He has status and upon the death of Mr. Bennett he'll have position and property. He has a rich and powerful patroness. By marrying him she'll have a nice household and servants for whom she is the mistress. It's also a step up in social status. She was looking at being a servant and with this marriage she has turned her future 180. He's no prize but like many of her fellow women, she bites the bullet, overlooks much and makes it work. Whether she grows to love him, tolerate him or hate him doesn't matter. He gives her status and property. That is the reality of Jane Austen's world.
Charlotte is what Jane was and Elizabeth is what Jane wanted to be. Only there was no Mr. Darcy or even a Mr. Collins for Jane. Charlotte and Mr. Collins were a jab at the society of the time, not an insult so much as a complaint and rebellion about the "system" in which Jane lived.
reply
share