I know it would kill the whimsy a bit, but it would be interesting to see period dramas frame their heroines marrying for love less as "I think of marriage as a love match in a modern romance way" and more as "since I'm allowed choice, I want to ensure this man will actually respect me as a person for my whole life. I'm entering a contract where he has alarming control of my life, and I want to make sure it's not terrible, even when neither of us is young and hot anymore."
It's not said explicitly in so many words, but this is what Jane Austen was trying to say 250 yeas ago. "Make sure your husband has a good moral education and basic decency before you marry him."
Yup. In a world where you legally can’t get a job without being irrevocably cut off from every relationship you’ve ever known (and the jobs all SUCK to boot), there is no happy ever after without a well-padded purse. True love’s kisses won’t feed you.
Austen’s stories had two intentions: 1. To teach young ladies that no man who truly loves you would ask you to starve for him. 2. To point out to everyone else how awful systems that create situations where people must choose between being fed and being loved are.
That isn’t to say that folks didn’t hope for a life partner they’d love (Who wouldn’t want that?), but it could never be the singular or primary focus. A lady or gentleman determined to marry for love at all costs in a period piece is as anachronistic as a can of Spam.
