I think (although this may be an unwarranted assumption on my part that I may have made up in my own head) that when people said in Georgian times that "X was worth £1,000" a year that they specifically meant that X had an income from UK government debt of £1,000 a year.
In support of this I pray in aid the "fact" that a) interest bearing government debt as an investment vehicle with the interest service paid for by income tax was relatively new thing in Georgian Britain and b) the British economy in Georgian times was still not a fully market economy - in that not all goods, services or commodities were bought and sold - and that particularly in the country there were still fuedal-like economic transfers going on eg Darcey might have a large estate which allowed him to keep lots of servants and have nice things but that mostly those servants were paid for with a physical share of the estates' surplus agricultural output. Putting it another way, Darcy didn't buy his horse or food for the horse, or the tack for the horse or repairs to the stables - they all came from his estate. I'm not sure how much selling of agriculture there actually was compared to in situ consumption.
I think in 1815 most people still lived and worked in the country but that was about to change and part of the change was a more fluid market for food etc.
But I may be making all of that up inside my head.
Anyhow, £10,000 a year is enough money that he doesn't *have* to care much what anyone thinks of his behaviour.
no subject
In support of this I pray in aid the "fact" that a) interest bearing government debt as an investment vehicle with the interest service paid for by income tax was relatively new thing in Georgian Britain and b) the British economy in Georgian times was still not a fully market economy - in that not all goods, services or commodities were bought and sold - and that particularly in the country there were still fuedal-like economic transfers going on eg Darcey might have a large estate which allowed him to keep lots of servants and have nice things but that mostly those servants were paid for with a physical share of the estates' surplus agricultural output. Putting it another way, Darcy didn't buy his horse or food for the horse, or the tack for the horse or repairs to the stables - they all came from his estate. I'm not sure how much selling of agriculture there actually was compared to in situ consumption.
I think in 1815 most people still lived and worked in the country but that was about to change and part of the change was a more fluid market for food etc.
But I may be making all of that up inside my head.
Anyhow, £10,000 a year is enough money that he doesn't *have* to care much what anyone thinks of his behaviour.