You send your only descendant to het only other male relative to offer her a better life. Mission accomplished. She grows loved, happy, and with a deep sense of family. Only to feel that she was never part of your family. You look forward to the day you will be with her openly, only to hear she was not at home.
It is natural, but cruel.
Regarding the last name, as they were all idiots to not understand Bingley 's wisdom, all I can say is that their children and their future never came into the discussion. They all discuss pride and lines and duty. Elizabeth almost crying because poor Darcy would give up his identity? Darcy all bloomy for it? James phewing to Robert that it didn't happen? Bingley put it nice. Who you are is not a name.
So the essence is elsewhere: would their dependants have different opportunities or a better future if Elizabeth were a Dutchess? I don't know. Maybe her son as a Duke 60 years from now would have the ability to influence law for women's rights. Should they plan based on speculation 60 years down the road? For my kids, I would consider any minute point.
Last, we are not in modern times with strictly regulated lady names. Why can't the father and the firstborn be Talbots and give the Darcy name to the rest? For Elizabeth to be a talbot, het husband should remain one. Even so, I am unsatisfied with "solutions" as if Elizabeth's name is a problem to be solved. I would focus on my children and after that if they could help society and those who have real problems better as a Duke or not. If not, then I would go with convention as there is no reason to agitate society. I just find their concerns and relief so egoistic. Pride, blood lines.
A title is not a burden. It is a unique opportunity to change the world for the better (back then) in ways that a lack of title cannot offer. Would Diana be Diana if she were Mrs Smith? Her compassionate character would be the same, but would she have succeeded in banning mines? I don't see anybody discussing the good they could do (and their children) if on top of their splendid fortune and presumed charitable feelings they also had a say in legislation (in a body that until today accepts only titled individuals and which had more power back then). Can they think beyond themselves?
