Yes, Charlotte Lucas made her choice about marriage consciously and without self pity for it, but I will always firmly believe she was naive in doing this, and you cannot convince me that she ends up particularly happy. (Strap in, I’m ranting conducting “literary analysis”)
My first point to this argument is admittedly due to a bit of subjective reading, but I think Charlotte’s line telling Elizabeth “I am not romantic” after her engagement is misread by a lot of people. I don’t believe this is her saying that she never cared whether she likes her husband. I think she is saying this to mean she does not (or cannot) subscribe to the romantic strategy of marriage. For the sake of being thorough, I will specify that in this time, there were two main elements to a marriage: practicality (gaining title, property, fortune, or connections) and romance (how much you cared for and respected your partner). Obviously choosing a partner for both were ideal, but unless you were very rich or unbothered about losing a few degrees of social status, it was pretty dangerous to eschew practical marriage prospects for the hope of a better future romantic partner. I believe that is what Charlotte is saying to Elizabeth - not that she never hoped or cared to like her husband, but that she takes a practicality-first strategy to marriage rather than a romance-first one. And given her station in life, she wasn’t ever able to hope for the latter.
This brings me to my second point, which is that Jane Austen’s works serve often to critique the lack of autonomy young women have for themselves in her era, particularly those so unlucky to be born not that pretty, and fairly poor. (There is a whole aside to be had here to discuss that this just means poor in the gentry, but I will resist the urge for that rant.) Part of this critique is that the privilege of choosing a spouse based on romance only or even romance-mostly is reserved for very wealthy, firstborn children/often men. Completely removing romantic desire from Charlotte hollows the argument. You cannot say ‘it is unfair that women are shunted off to live small lives with ridiculous men based on the random circumstance of their birth’, while also saying ‘but some women don’t want anything more.’ You are supposed to feel that Mr Collins is an unfair option for both Elizabeth and Charlotte, but recognize that for a woman in Charlotte’s position, it is the most fair option she has. That is the critique. That you can be smart, and funny, and charming, but that a Mr Collins can be all you are able to realistically wish for. And that this may be due to no fault of your own, but whether your father is rich, or you are pretty. The injustice of the situation is only properly felt if Charlotte would have ever liked to be romantic, and Jane Austen obviously wants you to feel this injustice.
I recognize that part of Charlotte’s marriage to Mr Collins is supposed to be a lesson for Elizabeth to understand other points of view, but I don’t think the lesson is solely that ‘some sensible people don’t care that their spouse is ridiculous’. In fact, Jane Austen is pretty thorough in pointing out that relationships where one spouse is smart and the other simple are not good ones, and the smarter spouse ends up often suffering for most of their life in this choice. Rather, Elizabeth’s lesson is that she is improperly judging sensible women for not living up to idealistic romantic standards. If having a guaranteed home comes at the cost of putting up with a ridiculous husband, you cannot blame a woman for thinking this is a lesser evil than an unstable or no home. Judge the system, but do not judge her. Elizabeth needs to stop being elitist; she needs to stop scorning women for not maintaining a romantic ideal when they do not have the circumstances to make it safe. You can see this philosophy reflected in the kinder way Jane Austen treats Lady Elliot in Persuasion for choosing Sir Walter, for example, contrasted with her less apologetic take on Mr Bennet’s choice.
All of this is to say that I don’t think Jane Austen wants us to think this is an ideal choice for Charlotte, or even a very desirable one. I think she wants us to recognize that it kinda sucks, but it’s the best option Charlotte could hope for, and isn’t that unfair? We have to watch her accept him, and we have to grin and bear it because it’s the best she’s got, and we certainly cannot judge her for it, and isn’t that awful? So no, I don’t think Charlotte will actually be happy in that situation.
But, textually, I think there is also another peek into Charlotte’s mind that shows us not only that she is not wholly satisfied with her position, but also that she overestimated how much influence she would have in managing her own happiness. That comes when Lizzy is visiting Kent:
In her kind schemes for Elizabeth, [Charlotte] sometimes planned her marrying Colonel Fitzwilliam. He was beyond comparison the pleasantest man; he certainly admired her; and his situation was most eligible; but to counterbalance these advantages, Mr. Darcy had considerable patronage in the church, and his cousin could have none at all. (Volume II, Chapter IX)
Charlotte shouldn’t care about this distinction, unless she is hoping she and her family could be offered the parsonage of Elizabeth’s future spouse. And that is where her naivety is clear. She initially thought she just wanted a comfortable home, which she achieved, but now she is realizing that it is important she also has tolerable society, which neither her husband nor Lady Catherine provide. We are told she does not have a high enough income to maintain acquaintances with families in the village around her; this could maybe be overcome if they were inspired to a bit of condescension by his clergyman status, but her husband’s behavior makes this unlikely. So, she is hoping she might change her situation, and hoping she can rely on Elizabeth to do it.
(Another interpretation is that she is just after as big of a living as they can get or an otherwise primarily material motive, but I think is an uncharitable read.)
I think this is where she shows she is in a bit over her head. She thinks this is possible despite knowing that Elizabeth does not like Mr Collins, and that she finds his company embarrassing. He is not tolerable company for neither her nor Darcy. At this moment, Elizabeth is putting up with him for Charlotte’s sake, but Charlotte would have to be either dimmer than she is described in the novel, or just desperately hopeful, to believe that Elizabeth would be willing to go so far as to make Mr Collins the beneficiary of Darcy’s parsonage and thus keep him in their close personal circle. I personally think it’s a farfetched idea borne from desperate hope. This is her butting up against the realities of choosing a simple husband. Charlotte is finding that she is unable to insulate herself from Mr Collins by filling her world with people like Elizabeth, because having him as her husband must bring acquaintanceships with more silly people, and push away relationships with more rational people.
All this collected, I think Charlotte specifically is Jane Austen’s demonstration of the journey of early folly that befalls someone sensible when they choose to marry someone senseless. That even when someone sensible knows what they are choosing - and actively attempts to mitigate their partner’s senselessness - they will find themselves trapped in the barriers their partner’s poor behavior creates. That you will always be marked by the company you keep, particularly as a wife. And isn’t it terrible that this is a choice we force many smart young women to make?
I honestly think Charlotte is Austen’s most interesting character, mainly for the reasons that her future isn’t really specified, and the narration does not give us a real insight into her mind. I think there are so many ways to interpret her, and so many things she could represent, that I don’t think there’s ever a way to be quite sure of what she is or isn’t. But this is my personal contribution to be added to the pile