Breaking an Engagement in the Georgian Era

January sees a spike in relationship breakups and inquiries regarding divorce. This is attributed to the ‘new year, new start’ thing and the strains on relationships caused by the festive season. In 2025, around 42% of marriages in the UK ended in divorce.

In the 18th century, divorce was a privilege of the rich. Before 1857, the divorce rate was around 3 per year. It was an expensive and long process involving an act of Parliament, and adultery was the only grounds for divorce. (I’m keeping this simple; it was of course, much more complicated and there were individual cases with very specific circumstances, but I can’t cover all that here.) The social stigma attached to divorce was so damaging that unhappy couples lived separately instead.

What if you had doubts before the marriage had taken place? Many historical romances include a broken engagement or a runaway bride, but was it that easy? No, not really, and again, social stigma and reputational damage were the crux of the issue.

Getting engaged

Until the 20^th century, getting engaged was a legal contract. Except for the most privileged or the most desperate, as soon as a woman accepted there was no going back. If you had doubts, there were serious consequences for both parties, but as always, it was worse for a woman’s reputation than it was for a man’s, regardless of who changed their mind.

Breaking an engagement was considered ‘bad form’; therefore, a gentleman should never propose unless he meant it, and a woman should never accept unless she was certain.

Short engagements

Once a proposal was made and accepted, many engagements were of short duration so as not to allow much time to reconsider 😬. Most couples had to wait at least three weeks for the banns to be read in church, or a man could pay for a common licence to avoid waiting for the banns. Please note, getting a special licence was not as easy as some historical romances would suggest, but again, that is a detailed topic for another time.

While a woman’s father (or guardian) and her betrothed discussed the marriage contract and financial settlements, so much could go wrong. If her father and betrothed could not reach a settlement and the engagement was called off, her reputation would be called into question.

“Of all the stages in a woman’s life…none is more dangerous as the period between her acknowledgement of passion for a man, and the day set apart for her nuptials.”
Hugh Kelly, History of Louisa Midway, p.15

Thanks for that, Mr Kelly, but I would suggest childbirth was more dangerous. Then again, a woman risking her life doing her duty to her husband was considered less threatening than damaging her reputation at that time. 🙄

Honour-bound

While a woman’s honour lay in the public recognition of her virtue, a man’s lay in his reliability to ‘stand by his declarations’. A man who went back on his word soon became a social pariah. Therefore, unless he discovered a flaw in his betrothed’s character (or her marital assets), once a man proposed he was expected to go through with it.

**“The End of the Song”** by **Edmund Blair Leighton**, **1890**.

Even an unmarried man and woman talking about marriage could have been misinterpreted and led a man’s honour to be called into question. Then there’s the good old historical romance trope of being caught alone (sometimes as a result of subterfuge by either party) and being forced to marry. If a man refused, he was considered a libertine, and his reputation was damaged. If a woman refused, she would be ostracised for her loss of virtue.

Crying off

A woman could change her mind about her betrothed and cry off. Even Jane Austen infamously reconsidered her actions the morning after accepting a proposal from Harris Bigg-Wither. However, if a woman did so, she risked being labelled a jilt.

Jilting one’s betrothed could lead to a scandal and, once again, a woman’s reputation could be irrevocably damaged. Sometimes, as may have been the case with Austen, both parties tried to sweep the issue under the carpet. If a woman simply changed her mind and the couple parted amicably, the woman might still find another suitor. However, this attempt to salvage a lady’s reputation rarely stopped gossip surrounding the scandal.

How to break the news

While most strongly advised against breaking an engagement, some etiquette manuals suggested an appropriate way to break an engagement was to write a letter requesting a release from one’s vows. A lady was not required to state a reason other than her will, but a man had to provide strong reasons, because his rejection would damage the woman’s reputation more than his.

Engaged couples were permitted more intimacies, such as speaking privately without a chaperone, travelling alone together for short distances, corresponding via letter and holding hands. A couple’s behaviour during this time could later be called into question if something went wrong. Oh, I’m getting the vapours at the thought! It was advised that all gifts received during the engagement (love letters, locks of hair, etc.) were returned to preserve the woman’s reputation.

In Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen, Marianne writes to Willoughby (even though she should not) which is why everyone believed them to have ‘an understanding’. After Marianne embarrasses herself when she sees Willoughby in London, he returns her letters and her lock of hair.

Etiquette manuals suggested that a man accepted a rejection with grace and fortitude and did not try to change the woman’s mind. However, there is evidence that many did not follow such advice. Some wrote impassioned letters begging for reconsideration, refused to return gifts or even made public spectacles of themselves. Goodness gracious! If the woman had significant marital assets, the man might also have sued for breach of promise.

The consequences

So, if a man broke an engagement, the consensus was that there must have been a serious fault regarding his potential bride’s virtue. If a woman cried off, she was labelled a jilt, and her virtue would also be called into question. As always, it was a no-win situation for a woman.

Breach of promise

As well as damage to one’s reputation, there may also have been financial consequences and further embarrassment if the issue was taken to court.

If a man sued for breach of promise (even though it was less common), it was more likely that they did so because of the loss of the assets their betrothed would have brought to the marriage.

A woman, on the other hand, could sue and claim recompense for emotional distress, loss of social standing, reputational damage, loss of virtue, wedding expenses and even pregnancy. For example, in 1824, Maria Foote sued her betrothed, Joseph Hayne, and won £3,000 in damages. Good for her! The law usually sided with the woman in such cases, which makes a pleasant change.

Choose wisely

So much could go wrong during an engagement, and the consequences of making a poor choice in marriage were lifelong. Breaking an engagement was possible but damaging to one’s reputation, and an unhappy marriage had to be endured without question. Is it any wonder that so many women remained single?

I used this research to write my short story, Jilted, which features in Tea for Two. Asher Mandeville is heartbroken when his betrothed and childhood love jilts him, but against the advice in the etiquette manuals, he goes after her.

Get your copy