Col Fitzwilliam is the youngest son of Darcy's mother? Are you smoking crack? Auchick (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge notice. I'll do this next week if I don't hear any objections.

Dvyost 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merged; the Penguin and Vivien Jones quotes seemed extraneous (I'm not even sure who the latter is), so I didn't transfer them.

Dvyost 19:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it, since the body of the article makes it clear he is a fictional character. The stat-box on the right might be confusing, but I think the article is clear enough. 128.97.149.133 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be renamed to Fitzwilliam Darcy? That is the name given in the book. Lady Aleena 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been over a month with no objections, I am renaming the article to the full name of the character.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have a redirect...plange 19:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be most cautious. :) - LA @ 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't NPOV to say "Often the very fact that a man belongs to the upper classes can make him fall short of these moral standards - as is the case for Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park, life in the upper classes tends to corrupt morals and social sensitivity. Mr. Darcy has a strong moral fibre and a natural if occasionally somewhat embarrassed kindness." Someone needs to reverse that. MorwenofLossarnarch 20:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIFY WIKIFY!!!

*Both Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth were, according to Philip Jose Farmer, recipients of the radiation that resulted from the meteorite that struck Wold Newton in Yorkshire in the 1790s. This allowed them to be the ancestors of many more famous literary characters, with genetic links to the likes of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan.

I thought this was vandalism but then looked into it and found this [1] which describes some of the author's work. However I don't think the text added to the Darcy article explains what this reference is well enough for a reader to understand. MKV 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back to a the page which shows a few actors who have portrayed Darcy as he is a literary character first - to preference one image in the infobox would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -Classicfilms 14:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this section in the page really encyclopedic? Estimating Mr Darcy's fortune, in the 21st century? I agree it's interesting to read, but with everyone's consent, the article would make more sense without it. 87.112.64.115

Agreed. It's unnecessary and doesn't add anything of any great relevance.--Joseph Q Publique 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of interesting, however the term "begs the question" is horridly misused here and makes it annoying to read. 121.45.93.216 12:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also very likely that he would have a private jet (or access to one), as the novel suggests neither he nor Bingley used public conveyances."

Such an estimation might not be entirely devoid of interest...perhaps it might help people unfamiliar with the time he would have come from, had he been real, to grasp somewhat of his stated appeal...actually, nah; that amount of dosh meant a heck of a lot more back then than even the inflation-adjusted amount could ever do these days: the world has changed (and for the better, too)...Mr. Darcy, by himself, could maybe have earnt fivepence a day, and that only at harvest time...the background people might need is the fact that the vast majority of the moneyed gentry, knew perfectly well that they could not have raised such sums as they commanded, by any amount of their own efforts, and therefore worshipped Capital with rather a large amount of superstition (and rather a small amount of comprehension of matters Economical)...*that* is the background against which Mr. Darcy found himself positioned....in this day and age, he'd probably sneer at the whole thing, get himself a good education, and go do medical research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.148.102 (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...well, what else would he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.148.102 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...? Lol :PRomtobbi 10:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...since when has an annual income of £850,000.00 been considered upper-middle class. The wiki article on "upper-middle class" shows this comment to be either uninformed, off-hand opinion or internally inconsisent with consesus research. Some of the data is interesting, but I would actually love to see a historical account of what Darcy's "��10,000 a year!" meant. "Translating" his wealth to contemporary contexts will only be speculative, but providing a broader historical account of the impact that figure had in Austen's context would provide a broader meaning to the characters and their motivations. That is, a short historical-critical essay on Darcy's inherited wealth and how/where that would have placed him within Regency landed society would be quite encyclopedic; whereas this current "reference" (especially the flip remark: no public conveyence then ergo private jets now) is drivel. -jk waters

Also, in the first section, it states that Darcy is "considered one of English literature's sexiest male characters." I have two problems with this. Firstly, if someone wished to say this in an encyclopedia article, they should have at least found an expert of some sort who explicitly states it. Secondly, from my own reading, I did not make the same conclusion. I thought him to be an elitist for most of the book rather than a sexist. If it is someone's original work, it has no place in the artice. If anyone has any objections to the removal of this, please state them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.13.169 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Darcy" is the common name, without question. Ichormosquito 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This good faith contribution has numerous spelling, syntax, grammar errors; however the critical problems are: 1. The writing is not NPOV. In fact the tone is very personal, as (cont. in "'discussion') of a writer who is enamoured of the person known as Mr. FitzWilliam Darcy.

2. Moreover, the entire piece is essentially redundant of the current revision in place just above it, which takes away from the spirit of trying to achieve 'summary' within the article.

3. Sadly, however, the far more serious errors by this good faith writer is the adapting of Jane Austen's story and words to fit his/her point of view, to wit: JA provides no words in the novel that indicate Darcy to be shy in general society --the word is used only in connection with his second --very careful-- courtship of Elizabeth; at no point in the novel does JA have Mr. Darcy say he is "deeply in love with her" to Elizabeth --as twice said in the editor's piece; Mr. Darcy's famous letter emphatically does not provide Lizzy with " a heartfelt ... explaining (of) his true feelings about her" --indeed, one can easily recall one the most cold and bittersweet of opening lines in the enduring wars between the sexes, "Be not alarmed, Madam, on receiving this letter by the apprehension of its containing any repetion of those sentiments ..." (Chap. 35); contrary to the editor's piece, JA's word do not provide that "(t)he two continue to see each other" --in fact, the opposite is true; finally, at the Meryton assembly dance, JA's words make it clear that Mr. Darcy did indeed keep "to himself" and that he did indeed think of himself as "too good for them" (i.e., the country folk around him), and that he felt himself "to be above his company, and above being pleased.". JA makes its clear that Mr. Darcy's performance was not because he was "just afraid to meet new people".

I am grateful that another person wants to support/participate in Wikipedia. Welcome --more than may appear at the moment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbeans (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted this change because it greatly complicates the readibility of this already overlong sentence:

(1) The unrevised main clause reads, "However, Darcy --...-- eventually becomes attracted to Elizabeth, ..."

--would be revised to: "However, Darcy --... but eventually becomes attracted to Elizabeth, ...--"

The oppositional conjuction but is redundant to the adverb however, which opens the main clause by implying the oppositional development to come --in the main clause only.

(2) Worse, the conjunction but incorrectly conjoins the main clause to the subordinate clause, which instead should be set off parenthetically for sake of clarity; it does not have an oppositional conjunctive relationship to the main clause.--Jbeans (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I love Colin Firth's portrayal, this section:

"Colin Firth's Mr.Darcy in the BBC adaptation has been called the “definitive” Darcy,[4] and his "pond scene" made it into Channel 4's Top 100 TV Moments.[5] Colin Firth has found it hard to shake off the Darcy image,[6] and he thought that playing Bridget Jones’s Mark Darcy, a character inspired by the other Darcy, would ridicule and liberate himself once and for all from the character.[7] Colin Firth has also played the role of a "Mr Darcy" In the 2007 film St Trinnians."

belongs in the Firth article, not the Darcy article.

Certainly, a discussion of the relative merits of various performances might be relevant, but how the role affected a particular actor would more appropriately stay with the actor's article. Lmonteros (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should avoid putting too much emphasis on any particular actor's portrayal of the character. Austen's Darcy is a standout. So far none of the Hollywood portrayals have depicted him in all his brilliancy as the author painted him. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His mother, accurately noted on the article as Lady Anne Darcy, was born Lady Anne Fitzwilliam, daughter of the Earl Fitzwilliam, and sister of Lady Catherine, who married Sir Louis de Burgh of Rosings. I've always presumed that Sir Louis was a baronet, but Jane Austen never specifies whether or not he was a baronet or just a knight. In any case, another presumption is that Mr Fitzwilliam, Darcy's cousin, is a younger son of their aunt Lady Catherine's brother, the inheritor of the earldom, as Austen only specifies that he was "younger son an earl" or something to that effect. I believe somewhere in the book, the forename of Darcy's father is alluded to, in the part when Elizabeth is observing the portraits in Pemberly, and I am not certain, but think the forename was George, which makes sense, as he named his daughter Georgiana. But again, I am not certain I remember accurately about that. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existing wording and punctuation convey the flow-of-thoughts 'nicely' —i.e., there are two separate thoughts, with the second following very closely onto the first; hence using the semicolon in lieu of the traditional period. Agglomerating all into one sentence defeats the 'separateness'-with-balance carried by the existing punctuation.--Jbeans (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]