How Rich Was Darcy, Really?

How Rich Was Darcy, Really?

How much money did Darcy have? Exactly how rich was he?

Any Jane Austen fan knows the easy answer: Darcy was worth ten thousand pounds per year. But a debate has gone on for years. What does ten thousand pounds actually mean in today’s terms? 

Lots of people (including some Austen Authors) have tried over the years to answer this question. Usually they try to adjust 10,000 pounds for inflation from the early 1800’s until now. The math to do this is pretty straightforward, and if you use this tool you come up with the sum of 213,000 pounds. Wow!  Another source says that one pound in Darcy’s day would translate to 80 pounds now, so Darcy’s income today would be more like 800,000 pounds!!! Either sum is impressive, but these kinds of formulas are overly simplistic, and today I would like to show you why. 

For starters, Darcy’s ten thousand pounds a year was most likely only a part of his income. He probably made a lot more than that. How do we know this? Because Austen tells us (through Wickham) that Darcy’s estate was a “clear” ten thousand pounds a year. The ten thousand was net, not gross. It was the amount of his income every year after he paid taxes. And people in regency days paid a LOT of tax. I wrote about taxes in regency England here. Even a brief look at that list will demonstrate that in order to end up with ten thousand pounds a year, Darcy had to start with a whole lot more.

Secondly, Darcy’s ten thousand pounds per year may have been just the income from money he had invested in the Bank of England  (although some disagree with this point). Gentlemen in Darcy’s day typically lived off of the interest on deposit with the bank, but they often also had investments in business. And it’s also possible that his ten thousand pounds may have been the income he derived from renting out his lands. Everything we know about Darcy suggests that he would have carefully diversified his holdings for maximum security. So again, Darcy likely had a lot more than ten thousand pounds annually. 

But even if we know that Darcy likely had a lot more than ten thousand a year, that doesn’t help us much, does it? Our economy is so different now from what it was in regency days. Imagine a modern person in Great Britain or the U.S. who earns ten thousand pounds (or dollars) a year. In those two countries that’s not much money. In fact someone with only that much income each year would be considered impoverished. But if you take that same person and income and put them in a developing country, one that has not yet become highly industrialized, their circumstances look much better. A person in a first world country with a small income can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in a less developed country. Therefore comparing the same income in two such different economies, even after adjusting for inflation, really doesn’t make sense.

After thinking about all of this, I decided that the best way to understand how rich Darcy actually was would be to compare him to the people around him, in his own time and country. How did ten thousand pounds a year compare to the yearly income of other people in England at this time? 

Fortunately we have abundant sources to answer this, and now we can start to get some answers that make sense. From contemporary records we know that a maid or other female servant might make around twenty pounds a year (room and board included), and a male servant might make twice that. They were at the lower end of the working class. At the upper end, a really prosperous merchant might make a thousand pounds annually.*** Further up the social scale we begin to see real prosperity. Mr. Bennet’s income was two thousand pounds a year. After his death Mrs. Bennet would be forced to make do with perhaps four or five hundred a year, and for her, as a member of the gentry, this would be considered a catastrophe. Wickham received three thousand pounds to compensate him for the living he was supposed to receive from Darcy’s father. And Bingley was considered quite a catch at four or five thousand a year. 

There is some disagreement over some of these numbers as various sources give different amounts. But they all agree that even the lower gentry in Jane Austen’s day were super rich compared to the working class. And Darcy was super rich even compared to other gentry! No wonder Miss Bingley tried so hard  to catch him!

But the most startling comparison is this: do you remember when Mrs. Bennet exclaimed that Darcy’s income was “as good as a lord”? She wasn’t kidding. According to this researcher, the “average” lord in Darcy’s day made just 8,000 pounds per year! This same researcher went to some lengths to find a person in the U.S. today who would be the equivalent of Mr. Darcy. I won’t repeat her calculations here, but her conclusion was that marrying Darcy in 1810 would be like marrying the heir to the Estee Lauder fortune today. Now that’s impressive! 

However, in the end, Darcy’s exact wealth doesn’t really matter. Fixating on it misses the point. If we get too caught up trying to calculate exactly how rich Darcy was we will miss the real message of Pride and Prejudice: that a person’s wealth doesn’t reflect their worth, and that true love is priceless.

But money never hurts 🙂

If you are interested in digging more into this topic here are some additional sources. I would love to hear what you think about Darcy’s riches!



***Please take these numbers with a grain of salt. Estimates vary widely.



Sharing is Caring!
Follow by Email
0 0 votes
SUBSCRIBE (optional)
Email alert of:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 19, 2021 5:31 AM

Thanks for sharing your research and putting this in perspective.

July 16, 2021 11:57 AM

Elaine, Thank you for sharing this fabulous post!

J. W. Garrett
J. W. Garrett
July 16, 2021 10:55 AM

Huh? What did you say? I was feasting my eyes on those pictures. Dang, he is a handsome man. Whew! Don’t tell my husband I said that. “Love you… honey.” My brain is still focusing on that picture… I’ll think about the money later. LOL!

As always, great post and something to think about… later.

July 16, 2021 6:30 AM

To be honest I’d marry him nowadays with ‘only’ £10.000 a year! (We could make up any shortfall by allowing visitors at Pemberley etc ?)
Thank you Elaine, great post! The reference to Estee Lauder was apt, I have three favourite perfumes two of which are White Linen and Youth Dew (the other is Chanel no5) 🙂

Jennifer Redlarczyk
July 15, 2021 12:20 PM

Wonderful post! Thanks so much!

cindie snyder
cindie snyder
July 15, 2021 9:06 AM

I agree true love matters more!

July 15, 2021 8:45 AM

Yes, your point at the end is so correct! True love is priceless.

John Smith
John Smith
July 15, 2021 7:50 AM

I think some of the estimated sums wildly underestimate the worth of Darcy. In the 1990s I researched a rich American dairy farmer who left an estate of something like 80,000 dollars, and the rule of thumb was to multiply any sum from the 19th century by 40, so his estate was something like 3 million dollars–at least in the millions. And you could see that in the way the family lived. Maybe today that would be 5 million, but still, were easily talking 3 million.

And the rule of 40 sort of applied to any point in the 19th century. Yes, of course it’s simplistic, but the rule pretty much works. Darcy’s 10,000 pounds a year would be equivalent to something like a million dollars a year, and that pretty much matches the way he lives. Of course, things also cost less then. Servants could be had for derisory sums. And if you were lucky you could find an important Old Master for 10-40 pounds

So, okay, I guess a rule of 80 for Darcy could be pretty much right on the nose. But his buying power would still have been so much greater than an income in the millions suggests.

Also, when they talk about income in Jane Austen, a lot of it is about money “in the funds,” i.e., from insurance annuities. Not “investments” in the modern stock-investing sense, and not, I think, deposited with the Bank Of England, but reliable, relied-upon insurance annuities. That’s what made them so “free and clear.” You paid for an annuity, you got an annuity. So, if the Bank Of England didn’t sell annuities, I don’t know who did. But such businesses must have existed.

Linny B
Linny B
July 15, 2021 2:51 AM

Great article! Really enjoyed it and the comparison with Estée Lauder heir was fun.
Thank you for sharing!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x