>>280827662
>Yeah, because it's a threat the the family's wealth.
Not in any substantive way. Marrying a commoner would take the family from pretty wealthy to kinda wealthy. Which is to say, they'd still have more than enough money to live comfortably. That's not nearly a big enough deal to force someone into an unhappy marriage for
>He has ... three other kids to think about.
No he doesn't, those are not his children. At least, I assume you're talking about Arthur and not Dad here. The siblings are not Arthur's children, and I don't think anyone should be held accountable to children they did not have.
>There is cultural, economic, and personal context to why he might want his son to marry a hotter, richer, younger girl instead of some random maid.
Sure, but he's still wrong
>This is also separate to the point I was initially responding to (the comment about what your ancestors would have wanted), which I don't find sporting.
I just roll my eyes whenever anyone brings up dead ancestors. It's ALWAYS "I polled your dead relatives and they happen to 100% agree with me". It's total nonsense. Tons of people who are alive right now would choose to marry a commoner if it meant giving up some wealth. For all we know, those people could be in the majority of the dead. After all, I'd wager a lot of our hunter gatherer ancestors wouldn't care about the class difference. It just means nothing. It's a poor attempt at societal peer pressure done by those who know that logic is against them
