In contrast to today's society, marrying for love in Victorian England was not common in the middle and upper classes. Instead marriages were based on power, wealth, land, necessity, status, and convenience. Marriage was not so much between the individuals as between the families of the individuals. The main idea behind marriage in Victorian England between the middle and upper classes was that "marriage was a social duty, because it obliged the family and helped to widen social contacts" (Beckett 103). It was important to marry within the same class since social standing was just as important as wealth to many families. To marry outside of one's group would endanger the entire family's position in society so there was a tremendous pressure to ensure that this situation did not occur (Beckett 103). Often the married couple would grow to love each other, but it rarely started out that way in such cases (Habakkuk 145). Love was usually not the deciding factor in marriage arrangements.

Marriage was often closely related to decisions involving property (Habakkuk 146). Not only was the marriage of the eldest son of great importance regarding property; the marriages of other children were to be considered seriously as well. These marriages were important to the families because of the marriage settlements made by both sides therefore taking away wealth from the oldest son. For this reason, there were many inter-marriages in order to keep the wealth and property consolidated (Habakkuk 146). It was also beneficial to all involved if the woman happened to be somehow related. This meant that there would be less division of wealth and that property and money would remain in the family. It would not be necessary to engage in such a long, arduous process as was typically the case to make marriage negotiations. When a marriage occurred within the same family, there was no need for such time-consuming background checks, going over financial records, and bargaining between the families. Inter-marriage was more convenient and gratifying for all involved (Habakkuk 146). The eldest son was of the most concern, since he was the one who would inherit most if not all of the wealth and property once the father died. Because of this, it was essential that the woman he married had something which he lacked, whether it be money, power, or more property. The eldest son in any upper class family had the most choice in marriage. He would eventually inherit his father's estate, which included all land and money, as well as his father's title if the family was of the nobility. Younger sons were not as lucky, for most fathers did not like to split up the estate, so they generally received very little. They were expected to either marry an heiress, who might possibly be of a lower class, or if their own family name was excellent, they would marry a girl from a wealthy family who desired a better name. However, younger sons had a freedom that their older siblings did not. They were often allowed or encouraged to enter into careers in the military, church, and sometimes politics (Habakkuk 111). Eldest sons had to run the estates and could not pursue a career even if they wanted to; younger sons were somewhat more expendable.

In addition there was also the portion/jointure relationship to look at when contemplating marriage. The portion, also called the dowry, was the amount of money that a woman's family gave to her intended husband, which when "joined with that of her husband, would ensure the new family an economic competence commensurate with their station in life" (Habakkuk 147). However, the woman did not come out empty-handed from this arrangement. In return she would receive a jointure, or a set amount per year after her husband died. In this was, the woman's father would be left with the knowledge that his daughter would be taken care of should her husband die before her. It was up to the father to ensure that his daughter would receive a good jointure, because this was determined before the marriage took place.

Another factor families considered was power. Political power and connections were not to be ignored when contemplating marriage. A family could expect to do quite well in assuring a profitable marriage match if it had high social standing as well as political power (Habakkuk 152). Political power could take the place of money in some marriages. Politicians themselves could make "marriages better than was strictly warranted by the terms they could offer" (Habakkuk 152). However, if a family did not have strong political ambitions then the power factor was often superfluous.

While the reasons for marriage in the nineteenth century are very different from today, it is clear to see that the families in those times were trying to ensure, for the most part, that their children were taken care of. The upper class had no choice but to marry, as insurance that the family name was carried on, and as a guarantee that the estate would not fall into anyone else's hands.