The Story of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews

There is a painting from 1750 by artist Thomas Gainsborough called Mr. and Mrs. Andrews. The original hangs in the National Gallery in London, England, where it has been held in collection for more than 50 years. I have a reproduction hanging in my own home because I love the story behind it.

Mr. and Mrs. Andrews by Thomas Gainsborough

The painting depicts a man, Mr. Robert Andrews, and his wife, Frances Mary Carter. The two were promised to each other when Mr. Andrews was 15 or 16 years old and were married on November 10th, 1748; he was 22 years old, she was 16 years old. Far from being a purely romantic match-up, the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews was a business transaction. In a world before the widespread existence of corporations, you are essentially looking at Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, Inc.

The Andrew family was a member of the so-called landed gentry, meaning they were wealthy, often self-made, but didn’t have peerage, or a noble blood line. Historians believe that the bulk of the Andrews fortune came from real estate investments churning out gushers of rental income, but history has also uncovered that the father of the pictured Mr. Andrews made substantial high-interest loans to those in need of capital.

In fact, even the prince of Wales was £30,000 in debt to the elder Mr. Andrews; a substantial sum that would work out to £3.9 million today in inflation-adjusted terms, or roughly $6.1 million in the United States. Old man Andrews owned ships, traded with the colonies, and in an effort to help his son gain access to the upper class, bought an estate, arranged the marriage to Ms. Carter, and put in place the process by which he would take over the family business.

The bride’s family, on the other hand, had built a fortune in the drapery business. They were able to use the Andrews family fortune to protect their textile mills, preventing them from collapse. The painting depicts the Aubries estate, which historians believe was part of her dowry at marriage, becoming the property of her husband, the younger Mr. Andrews. The land bordered the bride’s father’s estate, known as Ballingdon. The woman’s lap remains unfinished, presumably so the artist could add a child in future years.

The reason I love the story of Mr. and Mrs. Anderson by Thomas Gainsborough is manifold.

The elder Mr. Andrews had to look beyond his own lifetime and hope of enjoying his prosperity to build a better life for his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He executed a well-conceived plan to give his eight kids what they wanted, secure their place in society, and ensure they had the financial resources to enjoy life.
Though not part of the peerage, even the royal family found was in debt to the shrewd Mr. Andrews, proving that in a meritocracy, merit does, in fact, tend to win over unfair factors such as heredity. There is a reason the Forbes list today is no longer dominated by DuPonts and Rockefellers.
The oak tree that is depicted in the painting is still standing on the same ground. The fact that real people stood in that very spot centuries ago makes the story all the more real.
The interesting changing sociological definition of marriage has evolved from what was essentially a joint stock corporation or partnership involving two people to a (presumably) monogamous life-long commitment between two people with the business functions being spun-off into things like limited partnerships, limited liability corporations, etc.
The artist, Thomas Gainsborough, wanted to paint landscapes. He hated “painting faces”, as he put it. Yet, in order to feed himself, he had to give other people what they wanted, which meant painting portraits. The free market works most of the time.
I’m fascinated by the elder Mr. Andrew’s desire to receive the approval of the upper classes, if not for himself, for his children. Arguably, it was a different time and things like family bloodlines still matter rather than the long-established new American, Indian, British, German, Japanese, Chinese, et al royalty of the self-made man a la Steve Jobs or Walt Disney. To borrow from the vernacular, everyone wants “street cred”. Today, that comes from your own accomplishments. No one cares if your father runs Google or your grandfather helped found a publishing empire, people only want to know what you have done. That wasn’t the case in the time of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews; street cred came from breeding, much like show dogs or cats.

Every time I walk by it, I’m reminded of all of these things. I’m also reminded that we all will someday meet our Maker, that life on a cosmic scale is ephemeral, and that part of duty is to build the future for those who come after us, just as we have benefited from the generosity and foresight of our fathers and grandfathers. It’s such a great painting on so many levels, including my love of storm scenes, of which this was one of the first.

DeyC3

I think you are a little heavy handed in your constant use of the term meritocracy. We have a meritocracy in the sense that those who make more money are better valued than those who make less. If we call that merit, then we go down a dark path…

Joshua Kennon

Because of the nature of the blog, when I talk about meritocracy, I am almost always talking about financial or economic meritocracy. But, as you are implicitly stating, meritocratic systems do exist and extend beyond economics. For example, a competitive school that held blind admissions without regard to race, gender, class, or religion would be an example of educational meritocracy.

My failure is in not using the adjective “financial” or “economic” before the term meritocracy to make that clear. That is a very good point. I’ll try to remember that in the future.

The existence of a financial meritocracy – of which the United States is certainly the greatest example in all of recorded human history across all time and cultures – does not automatically mean we have a political meritocracy, educational meritocracy, etc. I never meant to imply that I believe we do (I don’t – especially in early childhood education). What makes things complicated is the inter-related nature of our universe; e.g., the link between education and economic meritocracies.

For future reference, here is how I tend to define the terms for myself.

Financial or Economic Meritocracy: I define a financial or economic meritocracy as a system in which anyone in reasonable health has the free will to pursue his or her dreams and in which unfair competition by established businesses and institutions is prohibited. It does not mean everyone starts out with the same cards or capital levels. As a general rule, though, it does result in, over time, those who serve the needs of their fellow man amassing more money. This is the whole isn’t-it-ironic-that-the-justice-department-had-to-use-Microsoft-Word-to-prepare-the-anti-trust-complaint-against-Microsoft joke.

Merit: I define merit as a skill that adds value to other human beings and for which they are willing to exchange their time, effort, money, or affection with no outside coercion, acting totally in their own free will. If someone bakes the best pies in town, you are going to exchange something to get them – money, time, favors, merchandise, a good relationship.

Fair Meritocracy: In economic terms, I would define a meritocracy as a macroeconomic system in which 90 out of 100 in the top 1% are first-generation, self-made without unethical entanglements such as political kickbacks or theft. I wouldn’t care about income inequality between the richest and the poorest, only the standard of living for the bottom 10% to 20%, who shouldn’t have to worry about food, education, or health care.

Meritocracy does not mean that it is easy, or that luck doesn’t play a role in some events. It doesn’t mean things always work out (that isn’t possible in a complex system like ours – you may be a great dancer but if you are a jerk, no one wants to work with you). It does not mean life is always fair. Even a great meritocracy will have areas of unfairness due to human nature (e.g., most child stars having an older relative in the business that give them an opportunity to prove their skills).

DeyC3

Thanks for clearing that up.
Jason

I do like the story of smart business decisions. But since you talk about enjoying your life in your blog, it’s important to note that this marriage between them was not based out of love but merely a business decision.

As much as I like finance, love is priceless to me.

Joshua Kennon

Amen. But you and I have the luxury of looking at the world through the freedoms granted to those living in Western Civilization in the 21st century. That wasn’t even a remote possibility back then, at least not one that most people were willing to consider given the enormous family pressure that would have invariably resulted in getting cut off from their parents, grandparents, and siblings.

Then again, people still do it all the time today. I don’t understand it, but they do. A woman marries a guy she doesn’t love because he’s a doctor or lawyer; a man marries a girl because he got her pregnant and thinks it is the right thing to do; a gay person marries an opposite sex spouse because they think that is what God or their family want; a poor person marries a rich one because they desire money.

None of that makes sense to me, but it happens. In that sense, we’re no better than our ancestors.