** Sense and Sensibility Note: In Chapter 1 both the Dashwood sisters’ father and great uncle dies. But it is their uncle’s death (and his will) that causes a lot of their legal inheritance problems. I hope that helps explain any confusion of why I talk about their uncle dying vs their father. 😃
I have always enjoyed Austen's wry comment, "The whole was tied up for the benefit of this child, who, in occasional visits with his father and mother at Norland, had so far gained on the affections of his uncle, by such attractions as are by no means unusual in children of two or three years old; an imperfect articulation, an earnest desire of having his own way, many cunning tricks, and a great deal of noise ..." I suspect some personal experience inspired this passage!
Since none of the adaptations ever include that detail, I can see why so many people thought you had made a mistake. Even I was confused when I first read Chapter 1 (after I watched Emma Thompson's adaptation) and was like...wait, who is this other guy? And who is the child 👶🏻 this old uncle was charmed by? Then I realized the child was John Dashwood's young son, who is not shown in 1995 S&S but does appear in the 2008 version as a bratty redhead who mistreats Margaret's pony. But John Dashwood inherited money from his mother, plus got Fanny's £10,000 dowry, so it was really unfair that he got Norland and the money as well and his half sisters were left poor.
@@AH-yi3rl Exactly. If Mr. Dashwood could have inherited Norland without it being entailed to his grandson, he could have made portions for Elinor, Maryanne and Margaret right away, in addition to taking care of his wife. If he could have lived longer than he did, he would have had time to save up to give portions to his three daughters and left a sum to his wife, but he died before he could do this and tried to get his only son to promise to take care of the sisters, but John Dashwood didn't.
I personally love the idea of Anne letting go of her beloved Kellynch and moving forward to an adventurous life with Wentworth out of sight from that hiddeous family of hers.
I agree with you. On the one hand, I love the idea of Wentworth buying it for her (as impossible as that is, realistically) but a complete separation from her spoiled family and past would probably be what's best for her. I can relate to Anne's feelings about Kellynch. I loved my childhood house too, and it was taken from me by the carelessness of awful relatives. But sometimes you just have to let things go, even if it hurts.
I always thought Capital Wentworth worked it out with his sister and Admiral Croft to take over their rental lease of Kellynch, as his wedding gift/surprise so Anne can live in it again.
Oh, now THAT is a brilliant idea! "Happy Wedding! I sub-let the house for you!" I can actually see that happening. His sister would understand, and be willing to move to give Kellynch to Anne, a woman whom she GREATLY admired, respected, and loved, even before the wedding made her a sister. So strange that people outside the family can love and respect a person so much, while the family members just either hate that person, or just think "meh."
@@maracohen5930 It was. But he could rent it at this time as it was being leased by Sir Walter to the Crofts. They could have vacated the lease for Wentworth, especially since he was his wife's brother.
@@maracohen5930 interesting premise for a sequel! Cpt and Mrs Croft are allowed to live in Pemberly since she was raised there - her and Wentworth’s childhood backstory? Anne’s father and older sister expect to move from Bath back into Kellynch with the newlyweds to restore their local reputation - trials of living with the in-laws? Or maybe they switch houses with Wentworth and the father and older sister get to move into Pemberly - redecorating each house? - trying to get them out? If Anne sub-let Kellynch - her backstory and all the bad memories that would pop up? - Anne would still be at sister Mary’s beck and call, nothing would change on Mary’s part - martial discord? How about a story line that William and his new wife want to sub-let Kellynch until he inherits it - a bidding war between William and Cpt Wentworth? I would think Anne would prefer to live in her husband’s home like the times expected a wife to do - dealing with the local scandal at every turn? And it is clear from Mrs Croft enjoying sailing with her husband that Anne would prefer sailing with Cpt Wentworth over living alone in Kellynch or Pemberly - Anne at sea sequel?
I don't believe that Jane Austen would have ever foreseen anyone buying Kellynch or even that Anne would have wanted that. She loved Kellynch Hall, yes; but she loved Wentworth more - whether as a sailor or a sea captain. And that was how he made his money, after all. This is the main reason why the 1995 version is SO much better. It is my favorite of ALL the Austen adaptations, no matter the story, except for maybe Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. I love how, during the dinner party at the Musgraves, Mrs. Croft talks about having being apart from the Admiral (when he was a captain) and it was the only time she "ever imagined herself feeling ill" because of the separation, and how that is almost foreshadowing Anne being on board ship with Captain Wentworth at the end of the movie. (Spoiler alert there for anyone who hasn't seen this version. Go watch it, it's wonderful!)
Yes, the older I get the more I appreciate that adaptation and the book itself as well. I adore the quiet, gentle, yet passionate love between Anne and Wentworth. I also love that she has to go beyond her comfort zone to be with the man she loves.
Definitely the best Austen adaptation I've seen. Knocks the socks off the 1994 P&P (I'm not a fan). I saw Persuasion when it was first broadcast back in 1995. Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds are wonderful as Anne and Wentworth and the other cast members give excellent support. It embraces the melancholy feel of the book. Not flashy, but truthful and moving.
I don’t think loving Capt Wentworth more than Kellynch had anything do with it. It is just a romantic notion based on zero evidence in the book. Anne Elliot, as a woman of her times and primogeniture laws, would have no expectation whatsoever of owning Kellynch. The entire family knew Mr Elliot would inherit it. Anne was willing at first to marry Mr Elliot in order to live at Kellynch, but didn’t want iKellynch badly enough to marry him once her friend informed Anne what a cad and scoundrel he was. If she wanted Kellynch that desperately, she would have married Mr Elliot regardless. At the time of Mr Elliot’s proposal she had no proof that Capt Wentworth still loved her. Anne was willing to be an old maid and give up Kellynch.
That bit about "Remember, land is the gold standard of wealth," and "Okay Grandpa Cow," is absolutely hilarious, and probably made me laugh about three times harder than it should have.
I’m so glad you addressed why Mr. Collins’ last name isn’t “Bennet.” I always wondered that! From a character perspective I find it more fitting that unctuous suck-up Mr. Collins (or more likely his father/grandfather) changed his name to inherit, rather than Mr. Bennet, who is the picture of deeply rooted English squire-hood. FYI, one of Jane Austen’s brothers was fostered by wealthier relatives, and eventually changed his last name to “Knight” as a condition to inherit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Austen_Knight
@@EllieDashwood After all, Mr. Bennet is described as indolent - unlike Mr. Knightley in “Emma,” he’s not busy improving his estates, and he’s happy to let Mr. Gardiner handle all the Lydia/Wickham complications; not at all careful with money (even though he doesn’t seem to have expensive habits, other than perhaps book-buying); cynical about social conventions; and not very nice to people he doesn’t respect (starting with his wife and three younger daughters). Moreover, in Chapter 17 he strongly warns Lizzy against marrying merely for money (when he still thinks she hates Darcy). So it wouldn’t fit his characterization to give up a name and home he was comfortable with, and make himself agreeable to other relatives, in order to improve his financial standing. Mr. Collins, on the other hand, has “status anxiety” written all over him. The Church has always been a way for ambitious young men without wealth to rise in the world. (It’s interesting to speculate whether he knew he’d inherit Longbourn when he first chose a career as a minister. He could have had an older brother and/or cousin ahead of him in line, whose premature death suddenly made him the heir, like Matthew Crawley in Downton Abbey.)
Primogeniture as an proper institution arose itself out of feudalism. Obligations of military service came with land tenure. And with the costs of providing knight service, it was crucial to keep an together an amount of land within an estate to generate the income sufficient to meet the expenses of knight service. And since fighting wars was viewed as a man's business, sons were preferred to daughters. As you say, dividing the land over generations would leave the descendants with landholdings too small to be economically worthwhile. Thus, it was necessary for the benefit of the family as a whole that title to the land be mostly kept together, as if the knight service should not be provided, the tenure would forfeit, and the family would essentially lose their home.
Although much later, in Tess of the D'urbervilles there is direct reference to a name change in previous generations of family, simply in order to be associated with the gentry after purchase of an estate. It gives a pretty good explanation of the desire to fit in!
I always look forward to your videos. You're so good at explaining complicated topics and you consistently leave me wanting to reread an Austen novel :)
Ellie asks our thoughts on whether we would want to follow primogeniture today, especially if a woman letting her brother inherit. This happened in my family in 1991. My maternal grandparents had no surviving sons and only 1 surviving daughter, my aunt. My aunt left all her (meaning inherited from my grandparents) wealth to me, and very little to my 4 younger siblings. I am female, so this was not primogeniture of wealth passing to the oldest male. However, I divided the inheritance 5 ways. That meant I had much less, but I felt it was not fair or financially necessary to keep it all to myself.
Actually it's still primogenator just not male primogenitor. Primogenitor itself just means oldest child first not necessarily oldest male. In much of European history it inherently did me mail but as a legality and a term by itself it actually just means all this child. You choosing to divide the inheritance was your choice.
I know that the people that came up with primogeniture thought that it was for the best. That came crashing down in the Victorian era when the big landowners could no longer afford to maintain their estates and had to carve them up and sell them off piece by piece if they couldn't find a rich spouse. It's a shame that so many people were left destitute by primogeniture when ultimately it didn't work.
The real break came during the First World War. In 1914 conscription came in where all men over a certain age and fitness had to join the military. Up until then it was voluntary and the eldest son stayed safe at home while the younger sons joined up. The deaths in the four years of war were enormous and many a family had a whole generation of young men wiped out. Death taxes also came in to being and huge amounts had to be found to pay these taxes on the wealth of estates. Paintings and houses were sold. Even today paintings in galleries are given to offset death taxes.
If I lived in the time period, I think I actually would be okay with my older brother inheriting everything. Mainly because he is a reasonable person and would take care of me if I was unmarried.
I agree too since my hubby was the eldest and only son, but his youngest and spoilt rotten sister managed to get him and his eldest sister disinherited because her parents were totally under her control. Her mother admitted to me that she daren't go against her. She did this while my hubby was in hospital 40 miles from home fighting for his life having chemo on his bone marrow, so he was too ill to fight what she was doing. She didn't even allow hubby and his sister to have a keepsake and our children, the grandchildren, also didn't get a penny. Hubby would never have done that to her because he is like your brother, but he has nothing to do with her now, even thought she's tried to use our children to get back with us. She made her bed and now she can lie in it. That couldn't have happened in Jane Austen's time.
@@marys6800 I can tell you that this sort of rotten behavior could not have happened in pre second world war Europe either. I was a small child when we emigrated to America shortly before world war 2 but I still recall the closeness of families, including mine. It was all for one and one for all most definitely. Everything happening within the family was a concern for the entire family and nobody ever suffered alone...there was always a helping hand. It seems to be only now that people have come to think of themselves first and the family not just in second place but very much at the bottom of other obligations.
So, if you’re a Mr. Bingley, looking to establish yourself with the purchase of a lovely estate, how does that work? You need to find land that is not entailed?
Many of the large landowners owned a numbers of estates. These could have been part of a dowry or an inheritance and were not entailed so could be given to younger siblings or sold. Much like nowadays, when the owner of a family firm will work to keep it intact but will give other members of the family shares in it or smaller companies of their own to run independently.
Not all land was entailed. Typically, agricultural land was entailed, but a mansion within a small park (like Netherfield) might well not be. Also, entails could be broken, if two generations (i.e. the present owner and the legal heir) agreed to break the entail. We see an example in "John Halifax, Gentleman": Lord Luxmore, when he discovers his father is in debt to many tradesmen who will be ruined if they are not paid, convinces his father on his deathbed to break the entail, in order to sell the estate and pay the debts. We get a hint of this in "Pride and Prejudice", where Mr. Bennet expects to have a son who will help break the entail, thus providing for his older sisters. However, when the heir was a distant cousin, like Mr. Collins or Mr. Elliot, there was no reason why he should want to break the entail.
You’re explaining this as a thing the group accepted and saw as a social and political move that benefited the entire family enabled me to understand why it worked so well for so long. It also highlights a key difference with the US where the concept of individual rights seems to have always have taken over that primogeniture mind set of the early settlers. I think even today you see much of this rights of the individual versus the common good played out in how the populace of different countries have handled many recent challenges.
One thing that I can't help but wonder is how would Elizabeth Elliot end up once Sir Walter died and Mr. Elliot and Mrs. Clay took Kellynch. It's not as if she had enough money left to live up to her standard of living and her personality seems to show that she might have burnt several bridges towards those that would have helped her. Since by the end of the book she's starting to feel conscious about her age, do you think she would have ended up deciding to marry bellow her ideal just for the sake of being married and safe or the famous Elliot Pride™️ would have prevented her from doing it? Sometimes I imagine Elizabeth a little like Lily Bart from The House of Mirth, but I digress...
I think the Elliot Pride (TM, lol) would have kept Elizabeth from marrying. I agree with your point that her egotism and rigid expectations would have led to burning bridges. However, I don’t think she would have met a tragic end like Lily Bart (heroine of one of my favorite books but a perfect example of Smart Women Making Dumb Choices), or even a grotesque one like Miss Havisham in “Great Expectations.” In true Austen comic fashion, she simply would have hardened into a caricature of herself, an aging, overdressed narcissist like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, fancying herself important without even busybody Lady Catherine’s actual knowledge of what’s going on in her parish (or the social status of being a wife, mother, and property owner).
@@stannieholt8766 smart women making dumb choices indeed! I don't think Elizabeth would end up as tragically as Lily, but I feel they are kinda victimized by their upbringings. Lily thinks her only value is her beauty and aristocratic manners because that's how her mother taught her, therefore she must marry very upwards. I imagine Elizabeth having a very similar mindset...
@@stannieholt8766 I love the idea of Elizabeth becoming as insufferable as Lady C! (I would not love being her companion but I'd read it in a heartbeat 🤭)
I like to think she poisoned Mrs Clay soon after her remarriage and then married the future Sir whatever Elliot (I forget the name he uses instead of Walter)
I never even thought that CPT Wentworth would buy Kellynch. But I've only read the book and seen the 1995 version and the old BBC version of Persuasion. I never even thought about Mr Collins last name either! Thanks for this video! I feel like I haven't been paying attention until you brought up these issues in your video.
Thank you for another good video! (By the way, historically and even now in English law, the transfer of land by deed is complex and fraught with potential missteps, even without the added complication of a complex "last will and testament" as the means of transfer between generations.) Both primogeniture (for property and titles) and the many enforceable conditions a testator/testatrix could add to their will led to some wild inheritance problems. Enough that they could become subject matter for law suits, family scandals, and (slightly fictionalized) for novelists (both Austen and Dickens come to mind). Here in western Canada, while the laws of inheritance are based on the English model, the statutes governing the transfer of estates by wills have been designed or amended to stop what was, in England, the practice of testators/testatrixes adding complex inheritance restrictions lasting hundreds of years, relying on what were called "mort main" laws. An estate there and then could be controlled by the "dead hand" of an ancestor for a number of generations because of a condition written into a will hundreds of years earlier. What a headache! And such conditions in wills could greatly interfere with the desires of people to deal with what remained of the estate property while living in a very different world from that of the original testator or testatrix, possibly living centuries later. In terms of my personal view, while I might have benefited from the principle of primogeniture as firstborn, unlike the heir in Sense & Sensibility, I feel compelled (on the basis of both ethics and filial love) to share any inherited family estate on equal terms with my siblings.
A very interesting question! Strangely not one that had yet crossed my mind. Another very informative video, really appreciate your way of breaking down complex legal history so it’s easier to digest!
thankyou so much for these videos !! i wonder if someday you could do one about jane eyre especially if Mr. Rochester could have divorced his first wife
He couldn't have divorced her just for being insane. The writer William Thackeray was in the same position as he had a wife who was in a mental asylum but loved someone else.
Thanks for the info, Ellie! You always explain tricky Regency concepts so well. But perhaps you can add in your next video about heiresses? Such as Anne de Bourgh in P&P? And who inherits the Woodhouse estate in Emma? I know her sister had sons (and it’s mentioned that little Henry will inherit Donwell Abbey) so would they get the Woodhouse land as well?
@Kate Prater: The Knightly situation is a perfect example of primogeniture. George Knightly is the elder brother, so he owns Donwell Abbey. Because during the book he is not married, his brother John's eldest son, "little Henry," is the heir apparent. It's one of Emma's comic arguments against George Knightly marrying Harriet Smith or Jane Fairfax or anybody except herself that little Henry might find himself disinherited. But when it comes to herself marrying Mr. Knightly, the argument disappears from her mind. She apparently has no trouble imagining that her own and Mr. Knightly's son will be the heir. As for the Woodhouse estate, I don't remember anything concrete being said about who would inherit. But because there are no sons, and nothing is mentioned explicitly about an entail, and no title to complicate things, there is nothing legal to bar Mr. Woodhouse from bequeathing his estate equally to his daughters, or the house, land & money to maintain it to one and some amount of money to the other, or everything to his eldest grandson, or anything else imaginable. The only thing the novel says about Emma is that she is "rich," so we know that she already has a lot of money settled on her, and we know that her sister married a younger son for love, so she also was probably just as rich if not more so as the elder sister. Maybe the elder sister gets the house and land; Emma wouldn't need it as the wife of George Knightly. Mr. Woodhouse is so silly and impractical that who knows what he did about his estate. Maybe the solicitors drew up the terms along practical lines (for the honor of the family as a group whole) and convinced him that the final document was his own idea.
Im so addicted to watching your videos ! I have never even read any of Jane Austens books but you make me want to read all of them lol. Please keep making your videos we appreciate them ❤
Just wanted to say thanks for the video! It's always fascinating to learn more about that era and it does make you think more about the details of the novels. :)
I don't think Captain Wentworth could or would buy Kellynch, but as the estate was at that time being rented by his sister, I don't think it's unreasonable that he and Anne might have lived there for a while. This was fascinating, particularly the idea of political power retained through generations.
I just finished reading Sense & Sensibility again, and I would love a better explanation of Elinor and Edward's finances at the end of the book once they have Mrs. Ferrars' blessing to marry. They mention Edward's living of 250 pounds a year at upmost. I know that Elinor will have had a thousand (I think?) as dowry and Edward I think has 2 thousand. But then there's this line: "nor was anything promised either for the present or in future, beyond the ten thousand pounds, which had been given with Fanny." Does this mean they got a lump sum of 10K? Or do they have 10K in savings or something like you mentioned in a previous video and they live off of the interest? How much do you think that would be? I've always wondered this.
I understood it to mean that Mrs. Ferrars gives them 10,000 pounds as a wedding gift. Invested, that would give them a yearly income of 500 pounds (interest at the time was typically 5% a year). Altogether, with Edward's 2000 and Elinor's 1000 also invested, and the income from Edward's living (including tithes and income from livestock and a vegetable garden), they would have a yearly income of about 850-900 pounds, which would keep them in modest comfort (considering Elinor isn't into fashionable dresses and expensive jewelry, and Edward isn't into hunting or gambling). The irony here is that Mrs. Ferrars gives Edward, who is the oldest son, the same amount that she gave as a dowry to her daughter, while Robert, the youngest son, gets an estate that yields double the income.
I always read that £10,000 as a reference to Fanny's dowry, which would only have been "given" (as the novel puts it so wonderfully) when she got married, but it did make me wonder if there was an inference that Mrs. Ferrars had half an idea to give a one-off gift of another £10,000 to Edward and Elinor when they got married. Apparently £10,000 in 1811 equates to £10.1 million today - just to give an idea of how rich she was.
Actually, for me, the worst part of that abysmal adaptation was a young woman, who months before is unable to complete a country walk, suddenly is able (and willing) to run a marathon around Bath (completely ignoring the prevailing customs of the Regency period).
My parents own 50 acres and they've willed it all to my brother so it won't be broken up after their deaths. (Not because he's male, but because of all the sweat equity he's put into it.) I'm fine with it. (He does also get to inherit three of his sisters living here on the land with him, so there's that.)
Interesting! It's almost like the family was a corporation or a trust fund and the members were beneficiaries, but had no decision power. Interested to see the "how" episode.
This was just a great video! Good job! I loved the bit with the cows. I’m confused as to how it would effect my family since my dad is a second son and has no sons. If he had some wealth would it go to my oldest male cousin? Interesting to think about!
My father is the oldest son and he has only daughters (and l'm the oldest). So I think of 2 possibilities: we would have another Mr Collins OR with a little bit of chance l'll inherite all
Wow in ancient China there were similar idea too, like the eldest son should inherit everything and take care his brothers and sisters "like their father". #FansFromHK
Capt Wentworth could rent Kellynch. If I remember correctly, Wentwood’s sister and brother-in-law rented it from Anne’s father and offered to step aside if Capt Wentworth and Anne wanted to live there.
No, this bit comes from the canceled chapter, and they were willing to step aside if Anne married Mr. Elliot and they wanted to live there. This chapter was replaced in the final version by the chapters about the Musgroves' visit to Bath and the famous love letter, but the idea of the Crofts being willing to step aside and Wentworth asking Anne about it appears in several the media representations.
Thank you so much for this video about Persuasion!!!!❤️ Your contents are always so interesting!!! I think Anne would have been very happy also living with Captain Wentworth in a cute cottage in the Somersetshire countryside, near Kellynch, the Musgroves and the Crofts🥰 Also I think I would have been ok with primogeniture if my husband would have been richer then my eldest brother 😂
Thank you for a very interesting video. This is a scenario that I had not considered. I am not a fan of this adaptation of Persuasion. The 1995 one is the gold standard for me. Although I am certain that Sir Walter would have never sold Kellynch, I think that it is possible that Mr Elliot may have considered this, as his interest was in money rather than the history or respectability of the family. I also note that a number of comments have been made about Mr Elliot marrying Mrs Clay. I do not think that this is what happened. Mr Elliot would have been in a position to seek a more advantageous match. His design is only to keep Mrs Clay from marrying Sir Walter and I believe that he could do this without actually marrying her himself. One final point, I think that Captain Wentworth's fortune of 20,000 pounds would not have been enough to purchase a property like Kellynch. For example Mr Bingley has a fortune of 4,000 or 5,000 pounds, meaning his fortune was 100,000 pounds and he was planning to purchase an estate. I prefer to see this as the beginning of the decline of the gentry with Anne and Captain Wentworth where money is more flexible and has fewer obligations than land.
I'm a middle class woman and I'm glad I live in the 21st century. Some parts of these traditions were good, but not the sexism and classism. We still have those problems today of course, but at least our ideologies are changing over time so that people aren't always entirely trapped by the circumstances of their birth.
In answer to your question of "Would I be OK with primogeniture?" if I lived in Jane Austen's time (and I'm assuming her social class): IF, and that is a HUGE IF, I could have my modern family, with the wonderful people in it, then I would be, because my only brother is THE BEST, and does his best to take care of the rest of us, especially since my father died. He's "Head of the family," in his actions, if not by any kind of title. We take care of each other, but fortunately, he's still able-bodied, unlike my sisters and me. And my father was great, and wanted his daughters to have the means of being independent, or married or educated, or what we wanted. In short, he would have made sure that we had our own portions, and the opportunities to marry appropriately for the culture. My Dad never failed to tell us girls that he was proud of us, as well as that he loved us. Primogeniture may have made him have to pass an estate to my brother, as a whole, but he also raised my brother to care for his sisters, and his mother. We're a functional family, and the more I see of the world, the more grateful I am for it. All that said, I think I'd be heartbroken, so many, many times, seeing so many other families, dysfunctional families, having to deal with primogeniture. It's the sort of thing that "looks good on paper," but if the people involved don't take care of each other, and love and respect each other, and watch out for each other, then it is a recipe for disaster. John Dashwood OUGHT to have cared for his sisters. He promised to take care of his sisters. And yet, in the end, thanks to Fanny's masterful manipulation, he figured he was doing more than enough by simply not throwing them out onto the streets the very moment he took possession of the land. He did more for a friend of a friend than he ever did for his own sisters. Which, sad to say, is exactly the sort of thing I can see my uncle doing. My nuclear family is functional, but just one generation removed... YIKES! Primogeniture with my own grandparents would have been a DISASTER. Abusive parents do not make for happy children under any circumstances, but having it backed up by legal requirements to treat their golden child to the entire estate, and leave the rest with nothing? Oooooooooh, boy, what a mess. I can just picture it with my own grandparents, and how that would have flown like a lead balloon.
The entail will grant the inheritance to the closest male relative who may not be in a direct male line. He could be related through a woman for instance Mr Benett’s sister or his aunt. The line would be sons, brothers, sons of sisters, uncles, sons of uncles, sons of aunts and so on backwards. The exact inheritance would depend on the terms of the entail but as it was setup by Mr Benetts father it couldn’t specify his grandchildren as it could only include one unborn generation.
Completely unrelated question -- you stopped (according to your video posting history) making videos 4-years ago only to restart in the past nine months. Why did you stop? You make great videos.
It drove me wild seeing them do that in that movie. I had A LOT of problems with it anyway, but just that ending bothered me. Great vid! I think an interesting person to bring up with this is Sir Lewis DeBourgh since he specifically didn't see the need to entail inheritance away from the female line, so Anne will Inherit and yet, she is unlikely to have heirs so hm.
Might be interesting to look at the landowners abuse of the Inclosure Act, that despite starting a hundred years earlier, was still going on in Austen's time. The number of landowners was dropping and estates growing, and it was still a controversial subject.
My eldest brother would care for the family, and my younger one would too. My older brother would most likely have a few expletives to say, as he told the rest of us where to get off. So two out of three brothers would do their best to uplift the family if we were stuck in a time of primogeniture.
If kellynch was entailed then Sir Walter would not legally be able to sell it even if he wanted to. (Entailed meaning to avoid hefty death taxes an ancestor made a legally binding decision that the land must remain intact under one owner and always be inherited by the oldest male next in line to inherit)
Yes, I think Sir Walter would never sell but would have rented it to Capt Wentworth (at top rate!) but Mr Elliot would be happy to. He can't afford to keep it any more than Sir Elliot can. Of course, once Anne tells him No, the smart move would be to marry a RICH woman who could let him keep the Sir and the estate and give him a son.
@@cminmd0041 Mr Eliot already married a rich woman who died and now he is a rich widower. He may have money but he is not titled and doesn’t own land. Socially Mr Eliot is middle class and beneath Sir Walter Eliot, who is a Baronet. To move up socially and be a member of the House of Lords Mr Eilot must have a title and own land. That is why he is interested in inheriting the title of Baronet and the Kellynch estate. He can probably afford its upkeep.
I'm still confused. So the scene when Captain Wentworth buys Kellynch--was that just artistic license by the director? Believing most of us would simply assume he bought it, since most of us, myself included, don't understand how the money worked during that time period?
That quote by Sir Walter may need to be taken with a grain of salt though I think. He "condescended" to mortgage (meaning "he had no other option but to mortgage the hell out of everything, because he was super short on cash") but he wouldn't sell, because he wants to transmit Kellynch as whole as he received it. Except he can't if he transmits an estate that's mortgaged to the neck and above. What his heir will inherit is debt. Funny that an entailed property can be mortgaged by the way, inevitably someone inherits money problems with the "honor" of a title or a baronetcy at some point, very impractical. The quote is probably sarcastic here, don't you think ? It's Austen's style to write in the affirmative something that is actually what the characters think or want to project. Here I don't think we're meant to read that Sir Walter wouldn't even if he could; just that once again he's busy exalting "his dignity of baronet", but in the end he'd do whatever is expedient without affecting his comfort.
When you talked about Mr Collins name change, I wonder if his father could have changed it because of the feud he had with Mr. Bennett. Maybe to disassociate from him.
"Liked" this before I watched it...because...some things you just know. And I quite enjoy being proven right. MIlady, you are veritable walking Wikipedia of Austin...among many other things, I am certain.
The question that appears in my head is how does this system of land ownership works now in Britain? How was it changed ? Do we have any chances of meeting mr Darcy of Pemberly?
It's a vintage sweater clip. We wore them in the 1950s. She probably inherited it or bought it from an estate sale. It is possible that somewhere there in an artisan who makes reproductions and sells them at craft fairs.
My husband is the 3rd (young) son of an Israeli farmers family from a "Moshav" (a 30 acres farm) and according to the regulations of the "moshav"s the farm should stay intact and only 1 child - regularly a male - can inherit. (this is now, in the 21th century). The others are regularly get help with studying, and entails part of the savings - In their family the brothers left the village and have a carrers (the older in business, and my husband is a computer engineer) and their sister was the 1 to run the furm... but their father was always in remorse of passing the land to a woman, and from time to time was threatening to pass the land to 1 of his grandkids on the male line.... A year of so before he died, the brothers signed with a lawyer a waiver to the possibility that it'll happen... (thankfully, in the end the man came to his senses and entailed the farm to his daughter).... There are lot of differences: 1) the ownership of land is not connected to political power 2) If you own a land you have to run a farm, not live from the interest as Regency Era genrty. But the idea of leaving the land intact exists until now.
Primogeniture isn't applicable now for many reasons but one is that dividing the "estate" does not mean a family's standing or wealth will drop.Now that nearly everyone works, there is the capacity and expectation to earn additional money, with the inheritance being a bonus
I am for primogeniture because I can understand it made sense in the Regency era. But I am definitely against the male privilege. I think it is scandalous to our modern sensibilities and even in Jane Austen’s eyes! Thank you for your awesome and highly interesting videos, I learnt so much as a Jane Austen fan ❤
I know! I know! But I loved the idea that to punish Mr. William Elliott, Sir Walter Elliott sold the estate to Mr. Wentworth so it could stay in his near family. William would still inherit the baroncy title, but not get the wealth/estate.
That’s such an appealing scenario. But given how snobbish and dull-witted Sir Walter is, and how good Mr. William Elliot is at flattery and manipulation, I have trouble imagining that he would favor Captain Wentworth (husband of his least favorite daughter) over his legal heir. (Besides, the Captain has a habit of letting his true feelings show, at least through an eye roll or momentary grimace, and wouldn’t want to suck up to an idiotic landlubber who initially opposed him as a suitor.) If it were Mr. Bennet in “P&P,” though, I could absolutely picture him selling the estate out from under a titular heir he disliked to benefit an in-law he respected; he kiiiiiinda likes being eccentric and annoying (in a quiet, well-bred way) for shits and giggles. Luckily, both Jane and Lizzy’s husbands are rich, and self-made man Mr. Gardiner seems perfectly comfortable with a life in London.
@@stannieholt8766 but there’s the money issue. Sir Walter liked the lavish life but was running out of funds. Selling the estate to Wentworth to earn money and at the same time sticking it to Sir William looks like a win-win to me. It’s also technically his daughter’s house now, so he can apply the ever popular ‘family duty’ card (Anne loves her father after all) and live there whilst his daughter and son in law were at the sea. So selling has more benefits for him than keeping it for the next heir.
@@MabruBlack Hmmm, that sounds plausible! But would Sir Walter's desire to stick it to his successor outweigh his overwhelming sense of family pride? The only motivation I can see is if he gets offended when Sir William marries Mrs. Clay (as Austen hints will happen after she becomes his mistress... perhaps once she gives him a son that he wants to legitimate).
I'm glad primogeniture isn't a thing anymore. I'm the daughter of the 2nd son, so everything would've gone to my cousin. On Mum's side, my grandparents had two daughters, but Granddad lived long enough to have a grandsons, so everything would've gone to my cousin. But as I am the firstborn, and so are my mum and her parents, I still brag about being the one who counts as a generation
Thankfully, I have a good guy as a brother AND he's good with money! So he'd be the sort to take care of his sisters and make sure they were covered in the event of his untimely end.
Oh Ellie, I've done this so many times too! You read a word but don't recognize it as the word you've heard pronounced all your life. The word "Mortgage" is pronounced "MORE-gage" or "More-gidge" depending on your accent, just like the mortgage that you'd give the bank when you borrowed money to buy a house. It basically means a promise -"gage" that comes to term when you die - "mort."
Acabó de descubrir tu canal y es increíble 🤗 me encanta toda esta información. Ahora, tengo una duda, respecto a las herencias; primigenituras y legalidad de todo eso, ¿qué era lo que posibilitaba a la hija de Lady Catherine heredar todo? 🤔
Question: In the book (Persuasion) Annes cousin mr. Elliot says in a letter to mr. Smith (chpt 21) that when he inherits Kellynch his first visit will "be with a surveyer to tell me how to bring it with the best advantage to the hammer" which indicates cpt. Wentworth might have had the possibility to buy the thing. Silly as the movie is, its not impossible that he bought it...
Without watching the video yet: No. (a) It's an ENTAILED property that would normally require at least two generations of Elliot males to agree to sever the entail (unless the generation which ends the entail--some properties were entailed for a limited number of generations, not perpetuity--is William Walter Elliot) and (b) If we think of Bingley (who was going to buy an estate in P&P) he had £100,000 in gross assets (which invested in either 4% or 5% government/navy/etc stocks would give his income of £4,000 or £5,000 a year); in contrast, Wentworth has about £25,000. A "fortune" to be sure; but not "I can buy a house, park, and estate" level money.
Primogeniture makes sense to preserve an estate. I've seen modern family feuds were siblings are fighting on selling a family estate. But I wish it would have been passed down to daughters or sons, depending on which child was best to keep up an estate.
Captain Wentworth could have bought out Admiral Croft's interest in the lease on Kellynch but he probably would have run through his capital of 20,000 pounds rather more quickly than was sensible. Invested wisely, Captain Wentworth's 20,000 would have produced an income of between 800 and 1000 pounds per year. Anne Elliot's 5,000 pounds would have probably gone to provide dowries for daughters and support for any younger sons.
Could you please expalin why Darcy does not go to St James frequently? If landed gentry relied on extended social connections I would have presumed her would have been keen to attend. Thanks for considering.
Attending court was not a necessity to establish social connections. Gentry connected with their local equals regionally. Attending court was not of interest to many country gentry. It was also expensive to live in London, renting or acquiring a house, and entertaining was expensive. I think it probably interested only a high echelon of the gentry.
Mr. Collins also could have been a cousin by means of a sister of Mr. Bennet's father. She married into the Collins family and when Mr. Bennet had no sons, the next in the male line would be this cousin. Happened all the time. Love your channel!
Wouldn't work. The estate cannot be inherited through a female (the sister's) line. I expect Mr. Collins or his father changed his surname to inherit an estate, much as Jane Austen's nephew James Austen Leigh did.
@@dorothywillis1 He was hugely in debt when he met Anne. He wanted to get on good terms with the family to ensure he got the money from the estate, given he and Sir Walter had fallen out
I thought the cousin who tries to hit on Anne will inherit Kellynch? Btw, great explanation! I had no idea only landowners could vote or go into the House of Commons. I thought people just wanted land to be thought of as “gentile”. Very interesting.
Regarding adopting someone else's son so you would have a male heir to inherit, Jane Austin's own brother did exactly that. And it's a darn good thing he did or his mother and 2 sisters would have been out on the street.
@@dranyakishinevsky adopted children could not inherit entailed land either, regardless of sex. The land Jane Austen's brother inherited had no such protections.
When Mrs. Bennet hit menopause and knew another baby was very unlikely, she and Mr. Bennet should have taken a months-long trip, arranged to adopt some unmarried woman's "natural" baby boy during that time, and returned to Longhorn to pass him off as her own biological "menopause baby," (A well-placed bribe might be required to get the birth record in their names, LOL!) Far fetched, perhaps, but it's better than spending the next 15 years pinning all your hopes into one of your daughters marrying a rich man.
Not all estates were entailed, and on some occasions, families were able to break the entail (with the permission of the parliament, or in an agreement between owner and heir, I believe).
Male primogeniture did not always hold, though. Lady Katherine did say that in her husband's family, it was not thought necessary to entail the estate away from the male line. So Anne De Bourgh was going to inherit her father's estate when Lady Katherine died.
When I watched that ending with Capt Wentworth buying Kellynch, I was like, "how would he buy a house from Mr Elliot, his former rival in love? LOL Nope that would have never happened." Surely I know very little about inheritance but it was a stretch anyhow!
Daughters of peers in the UK can still suffer from this: the wording of the Letters Patent that created a title, or the Act of Entail on an estate, can still prefer your male cousin over you or even a more distant all-male-line descendent of a common ancestor. Heirs/male heirs/heir-males as a term in the original creation, can still hold. One of my mum's friends is the daughter of an Earl who is barred in law from making any claim on his estate.(In private life she doesn't use her courtesy title of Lady [Firstname], she's just Mrs [Her Husband] .)
I think there's an organisation called "Daughter's Rights" which is politicking to change that? And I noticed when Prince William and his wife were having their first child, the law got changed so that the oldest child regardless of gender would inherit the crown. But change is very slow, I guess.
@@DaisyNinjaGirlYes, the British monarch has moved from agnatic or male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. But it isn’t retroactive hence why Princess Anne hasn’t risen in the line of succession. If the same thing happened for an earldom, dukedom, barony, etc but isn’t retroactively applied, it wouldn’t help any existing female heirs, only those born after the change.
So if Kellynch was mortgaged, does that mean the bank could take it if he was far enough in debt? I don't get the impression that he is that deep in the red, but that if he carries on, he might be.
The Estate of the Bennets is only entailed to mr bennet meaning he could use it while he was alive but he couldnt sell it. The next male in the line will inherit it and as she explained in another video Mr Bennett could have saved money to support his daughters. Lady catherines estate on the other hand isnt entailed so her daughter (or the female line) could inherit it. Another example of this is the movie Barry Lyndon where the protagonist marries a rich widow to become nobility.
@@malena5026 I understand the entail on the Bennet estate what I don't understand is why Rosings can pass through the female line. As Ellie explained it primogeniture meant estates pass through the male line. Why the exception here? Was this unusual or did only daughters often inherit?
@@robinhunt6778 Rosings is not entailed, therefore Sir Lewis could leave it freely to his wife, and she can leave it freely to her her daughter. Primogeniture only applies in certain situations of inheritance.
The book doesn't specify where Anne and Capt. Wentworth live after they are married, but it is written that mr. Elliott said to his friend (the husband of Anne's friend) that he will sell it if he gets a good purchase offer comes, so if Capt. Wentworth could afford buying kellyinch than I don't why mr. Elliott wouldn't sell it to him as soon as he inherited it. So I don't think the answer is so determined.
That’s an interesting thought! I think personally, his view of his family’s estate is probably as altered as his view of the baronetcy. As Mrs Smith points out, he changed a great deal from the age when he wanted to sell Kellynch: “Upon all points of blood and connexion he is a completely altered man. Having long had as much money as he could spend, nothing to wish for on the side of avarice or indulgence, he has been gradually learning to pin his happiness upon the consequence he is heir to.” And while being a baronet is large part of that consequence, I think having the family’s estate also would be important to someone with such changed views. But that’s just me! 🙂
Can see why they did it but like in Mansfield Park it must have been so frustrating if your older brother was a good for nothing! I’m the oldest but as I’m a girl I would probably have been quite indignant!
Please please please can you explain the Rosings Airess? I really want to understand how a female can inherit an estate and what legalities and conditions would be in place for this to happen? 🧡 thanks again for a great video!
Lady Catherine brags to Lizzie that Rosings is not entailed, so she can do what she likes. It was possible to break entails (if you were willing to tell white lies to a court) so that may have happened in the past, if there had originally been one.
I support the primogeniture as a woman. It wasn't just the oldest male inheriting the money. As the head of the family, he would be responsible for all those under his protection, including me, his supposed sister. And that meant I not only had a dowry and maybe some personal coin for myself, but also my oldest brother would provide for me if something ever happened...he was obligated to. Not so today...my oldest brother could blow me off:+) God bless~
In previous video, I thought Ellie Dashwood indicated that not all estates were entailed per “primogeniture” (50%?). (I read Persuasion several decades ago and have forgotten details.) How do we “know” from Austen’s book “Persuasion” that Kellynch specifically was legally not allowed to be sold?
We know it was entailed on the next in line male heir, so it was unsaleable. Same with Longbourn. On the other hand, Rosings was not entailed (we are told so specifically by Lady Catherine), nor was Hartfield (which would be inherited by Emma or Isabella). An interesting case is Norland in "Sense and Sensibility". It seems that the estate was not originally entailed - or at least part of it wasn't, because Mr. Dashwood (husband of Mrs. Dashwood of the story) expected to be able to bequeath enough money to his wife and daughters for them to be comfortable and have attractive dowries. However, the older Mr. Dashwood leaves the estate in such a way that it will go to the son - Mr. John Dashwood - and his son, Henry. So it seems that the older Mr. Dashwood has started an entail.
** Sense and Sensibility Note: In Chapter 1 both the Dashwood sisters’ father and great uncle dies. But it is their uncle’s death (and his will) that causes a lot of their legal inheritance problems. I hope that helps explain any confusion of why I talk about their uncle dying vs their father. 😃
I have always enjoyed Austen's wry comment, "The whole was tied up for the benefit of this child, who, in occasional visits with his father and mother at Norland, had so far gained on the affections of his uncle, by such attractions as are by no means unusual in children of two or three years old; an imperfect articulation, an earnest desire of having his own way, many cunning tricks, and a great deal of noise ..." I suspect some personal experience inspired this passage!
Since none of the adaptations ever include that detail, I can see why so many people thought you had made a mistake. Even I was confused when I first read Chapter 1 (after I watched Emma Thompson's adaptation) and was like...wait, who is this other guy? And who is the child 👶🏻 this old uncle was charmed by? Then I realized the child was John Dashwood's young son, who is not shown in 1995 S&S but does appear in the 2008 version as a bratty redhead who mistreats Margaret's pony. But John Dashwood inherited money from his mother, plus got Fanny's £10,000 dowry, so it was really unfair that he got Norland and the money as well and his half sisters were left poor.
People are going based on the film adaptations and not the actual novel.
@@TJAllenwood I'm afraid they do it all too often these days.
@@AH-yi3rl Exactly. If Mr. Dashwood could have inherited Norland without it being entailed to his grandson, he could have made portions for Elinor, Maryanne and Margaret right away, in addition to taking care of his wife. If he could have lived longer than he did, he would have had time to save up to give portions to his three daughters and left a sum to his wife, but he died before he could do this and tried to get his only son to promise to take care of the sisters, but John Dashwood didn't.
I personally love the idea of Anne letting go of her beloved Kellynch and moving forward to an adventurous life with Wentworth out of sight from that hiddeous family of hers.
In the 1995 movie, it's outright shown that Anne went on Wentworth's ship like Admiral Croft and his wife (Frederick's elder sister).
@@dyingearth I love that scene so so so much
@@dyingearth that's my favorite adaptation
I agree with you. On the one hand, I love the idea of Wentworth buying it for her (as impossible as that is, realistically) but a complete separation from her spoiled family and past would probably be what's best for her. I can relate to Anne's feelings about Kellynch. I loved my childhood house too, and it was taken from me by the carelessness of awful relatives. But sometimes you just have to let things go, even if it hurts.
@@dyingearth this is one of the reasons why the 1995 version is the superior adaptation!
I always thought Capital Wentworth worked it out with his sister and Admiral Croft to take over their rental lease of Kellynch, as his wedding gift/surprise so Anne can live in it again.
Oh, now THAT is a brilliant idea! "Happy Wedding! I sub-let the house for you!"
I can actually see that happening. His sister would understand, and be willing to move to give Kellynch to Anne, a woman whom she GREATLY admired, respected, and loved, even before the wedding made her a sister.
So strange that people outside the family can love and respect a person so much, while the family members just either hate that person, or just think "meh."
I would think the property was entailed.
@@maracohen5930 It was. But he could rent it at this time as it was being leased by Sir Walter to the Crofts. They could have vacated the lease for Wentworth, especially since he was his wife's brother.
@@maracohen5930 interesting premise for a sequel! Cpt and Mrs Croft are allowed to live in Pemberly since she was raised there - her and Wentworth’s childhood backstory? Anne’s father and older sister expect to move from Bath back into Kellynch with the newlyweds to restore their local reputation - trials of living with the in-laws? Or maybe they switch houses with Wentworth and the father and older sister get to move into Pemberly - redecorating each house? - trying to get them out? If Anne sub-let Kellynch - her backstory and all the bad memories that would pop up? - Anne would still be at sister Mary’s beck and call, nothing would change on Mary’s part - martial discord? How about a story line that William and his new wife want to sub-let Kellynch until he inherits it - a bidding war between William and Cpt Wentworth? I would think Anne would prefer to live in her husband’s home like the times expected a wife to do - dealing with the local scandal at every turn? And it is clear from Mrs Croft enjoying sailing with her husband that Anne would prefer sailing with Cpt Wentworth over living alone in Kellynch or Pemberly - Anne at sea sequel?
@@AuntLoopy123 see my comment to Mara Cohen, all my ideas for a sequel if he sub-lets Kellynch for Anne!
I don't believe that Jane Austen would have ever foreseen anyone buying Kellynch or even that Anne would have wanted that. She loved Kellynch Hall, yes; but she loved Wentworth more - whether as a sailor or a sea captain. And that was how he made his money, after all. This is the main reason why the 1995 version is SO much better. It is my favorite of ALL the Austen adaptations, no matter the story, except for maybe Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. I love how, during the dinner party at the Musgraves, Mrs. Croft talks about having being apart from the Admiral (when he was a captain) and it was the only time she "ever imagined herself feeling ill" because of the separation, and how that is almost foreshadowing Anne being on board ship with Captain Wentworth at the end of the movie. (Spoiler alert there for anyone who hasn't seen this version. Go watch it, it's wonderful!)
It's also my favourite book and adaptation. :)
Yes, the older I get the more I appreciate that adaptation and the book itself as well. I adore the quiet, gentle, yet passionate love between Anne and Wentworth. I also love that she has to go beyond her comfort zone to be with the man she loves.
Definitely the best Austen adaptation I've seen. Knocks the socks off the 1994 P&P (I'm not a fan). I saw Persuasion when it was first broadcast back in 1995. Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds are wonderful as Anne and Wentworth and the other cast members give excellent support. It embraces the melancholy feel of the book. Not flashy, but truthful and moving.
I don’t think loving Capt Wentworth more than Kellynch had anything do with it. It is just a romantic notion based on zero evidence in the book. Anne Elliot, as a woman of her times and primogeniture laws, would have no expectation whatsoever of owning Kellynch. The entire family knew Mr Elliot would inherit it. Anne was willing at first to marry Mr Elliot in order to live at Kellynch, but didn’t want iKellynch badly enough to marry him once her friend informed Anne what a cad and scoundrel he was. If she wanted Kellynch that desperately, she would have married Mr Elliot regardless. At the time of Mr Elliot’s proposal she had no proof that Capt Wentworth still loved her. Anne was willing to be an old maid and give up Kellynch.
Totally agree with you. Persuasion is my ultimate favourite Jane Austen although I like the others too.
That bit about "Remember, land is the gold standard of wealth," and "Okay Grandpa Cow," is absolutely hilarious, and probably made me laugh about three times harder than it should have.
I’m so glad you addressed why Mr. Collins’ last name isn’t “Bennet.” I always wondered that! From a character perspective I find it more fitting that unctuous suck-up Mr. Collins (or more likely his father/grandfather) changed his name to inherit, rather than Mr. Bennet, who is the picture of deeply rooted English squire-hood.
FYI, one of Jane Austen’s brothers was fostered by wealthier relatives, and eventually changed his last name to “Knight” as a condition to inherit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Austen_Knight
That’s an interesting point about their characterizations! 😃🤔
@@EllieDashwood After all, Mr. Bennet is described as indolent - unlike Mr. Knightley in “Emma,” he’s not busy improving his estates, and he’s happy to let Mr. Gardiner handle all the Lydia/Wickham complications; not at all careful with money (even though he doesn’t seem to have expensive habits, other than perhaps book-buying); cynical about social conventions; and not very nice to people he doesn’t respect (starting with his wife and three younger daughters). Moreover, in Chapter 17 he strongly warns Lizzy against marrying merely for money (when he still thinks she hates Darcy). So it wouldn’t fit his characterization to give up a name and home he was comfortable with, and make himself agreeable to other relatives, in order to improve his financial standing.
Mr. Collins, on the other hand, has “status anxiety” written all over him. The Church has always been a way for ambitious young men without wealth to rise in the world. (It’s interesting to speculate whether he knew he’d inherit Longbourn when he first chose a career as a minister. He could have had an older brother and/or cousin ahead of him in line, whose premature death suddenly made him the heir, like Matthew Crawley in Downton Abbey.)
I think a disagreement between Mr. Collins' father and Mr. Bennett is mentioned, so maybe the name change has something to do with it.
Primogeniture as an proper institution arose itself out of feudalism. Obligations of military service came with land tenure. And with the costs of providing knight service, it was crucial to keep an together an amount of land within an estate to generate the income sufficient to meet the expenses of knight service. And since fighting wars was viewed as a man's business, sons were preferred to daughters. As you say, dividing the land over generations would leave the descendants with landholdings too small to be economically worthwhile. Thus, it was necessary for the benefit of the family as a whole that title to the land be mostly kept together, as if the knight service should not be provided, the tenure would forfeit, and the family would essentially lose their home.
I’m able to enjoy Jane Austen’s work so much more now that I understand the rules so much better. 👒
Although much later, in Tess of the D'urbervilles there is direct reference to a name change in previous generations of family, simply in order to be associated with the gentry after purchase of an estate. It gives a pretty good explanation of the desire to fit in!
I always look forward to your videos. You're so good at explaining complicated topics and you consistently leave me wanting to reread an Austen novel :)
Aw! That’s so sweet! Thank you!
Ellie asks our thoughts on whether we would want to follow primogeniture today, especially if a woman letting her brother inherit. This happened in my family in 1991. My maternal grandparents had no surviving sons and only 1 surviving daughter, my aunt. My aunt left all her (meaning inherited from my grandparents) wealth to me, and very little to my 4 younger siblings. I am female, so this was not primogeniture of wealth passing to the oldest male. However, I divided the inheritance 5 ways. That meant I had much less, but I felt it was not fair or financially necessary to keep it all to myself.
Like Jane Eyre and her cousins
Actually it's still primogenator just not male primogenitor. Primogenitor itself just means oldest child first not necessarily oldest male. In much of European history it inherently did me mail but as a legality and a term by itself it actually just means all this child. You choosing to divide the inheritance was your choice.
@@angelwhispers2060 that’s what I said “I am FEMALE, so this was not primogeniture of wealth passing to the oldest MALE”
That is very great-hearted of you.
I know that the people that came up with primogeniture thought that it was for the best. That came crashing down in the Victorian era when the big landowners could no longer afford to maintain their estates and had to carve them up and sell them off piece by piece if they couldn't find a rich spouse. It's a shame that so many people were left destitute by primogeniture when ultimately it didn't work.
Primogeniture was to stop estates (and countries, even) being broken up into nothing through the generations.
The real break came during the First World War. In 1914 conscription came in where all men over a certain age and fitness had to join the military. Up until then it was voluntary and the eldest son stayed safe at home while the younger sons joined up. The deaths in the four years of war were enormous and many a family had a whole generation of young men wiped out. Death taxes also came in to being and huge amounts had to be found to pay these taxes on the wealth of estates. Paintings and houses were sold. Even today paintings in galleries are given to offset death taxes.
If I lived in the time period, I think I actually would be okay with my older brother inheriting everything. Mainly because he is a reasonable person and would take care of me if I was unmarried.
And I'm the opposite, so would have to make sure I married VERY well before my father died. Or become an infamous lady pirate.
It didn't help the Dash wood sisters
Mine would be one of those degenerate wastrels that gambled and whored the money away. Definitely glad I'm able to make my own money.
I agree too since my hubby was the eldest and only son, but his youngest and spoilt rotten sister managed to get him and his eldest sister disinherited because her parents were totally under her control. Her mother admitted to me that she daren't go against her. She did this while my hubby was in hospital 40 miles from home fighting for his life having chemo on his bone marrow, so he was too ill to fight what she was doing. She didn't even allow hubby and his sister to have a keepsake and our children, the grandchildren, also didn't get a penny. Hubby would never have done that to her because he is like your brother, but he has nothing to do with her now, even thought she's tried to use our children to get back with us. She made her bed and now she can lie in it. That couldn't have happened in Jane Austen's time.
@@marys6800 I can tell you that this sort of rotten behavior could not have happened in pre second world war Europe either. I was a small child when we emigrated to America shortly before world war 2 but I still recall the closeness of families, including mine. It was all for one and one for all most definitely. Everything happening within the family was a concern for the entire family and nobody ever suffered alone...there was always a helping hand. It seems to be only now that people have come to think of themselves first and the family not just in second place but very much at the bottom of other obligations.
More Anne Elliot, please! Persuasion is my favorite Jane Austin book
Yay! I have another Persuasion video coming out soon!
So, if you’re a Mr. Bingley, looking to establish yourself with the purchase of a lovely estate, how does that work? You need to find land that is not entailed?
Many of the large landowners owned a numbers of estates. These could have been part of a dowry or an inheritance and were not entailed so could be given to younger siblings or sold. Much like nowadays, when the owner of a family firm will work to keep it intact but will give other members of the family shares in it or smaller companies of their own to run independently.
Families also die out
Not all land was entailed. Typically, agricultural land was entailed, but a mansion within a small park (like Netherfield) might well not be. Also, entails could be broken, if two generations (i.e. the present owner and the legal heir) agreed to break the entail. We see an example in "John Halifax, Gentleman": Lord Luxmore, when he discovers his father is in debt to many tradesmen who will be ruined if they are not paid, convinces his father on his deathbed to break the entail, in order to sell the estate and pay the debts. We get a hint of this in "Pride and Prejudice", where Mr. Bennet expects to have a son who will help break the entail, thus providing for his older sisters. However, when the heir was a distant cousin, like Mr. Collins or Mr. Elliot, there was no reason why he should want to break the entail.
If the land is for sale, by definition it can't be entailed, so Bingley can just make a purchase as he sees fit.
You’re explaining this as a thing the group accepted and saw as a social and political move that benefited the entire family enabled me to understand why it worked so well for so long. It also highlights a key difference with the US where the concept of individual rights seems to have always have taken over that primogeniture mind set of the early settlers. I think even today you see much of this rights of the individual versus the common good played out in how the populace of different countries have handled many recent challenges.
One thing that I can't help but wonder is how would Elizabeth Elliot end up once Sir Walter died and Mr. Elliot and Mrs. Clay took Kellynch. It's not as if she had enough money left to live up to her standard of living and her personality seems to show that she might have burnt several bridges towards those that would have helped her. Since by the end of the book she's starting to feel conscious about her age, do you think she would have ended up deciding to marry bellow her ideal just for the sake of being married and safe or the famous Elliot Pride™️ would have prevented her from doing it? Sometimes I imagine Elizabeth a little like Lily Bart from The House of Mirth, but I digress...
I think the Elliot Pride (TM, lol) would have kept Elizabeth from marrying. I agree with your point that her egotism and rigid expectations would have led to burning bridges.
However, I don’t think she would have met a tragic end like Lily Bart (heroine of one of my favorite books but a perfect example of Smart Women Making Dumb Choices), or even a grotesque one like Miss Havisham in “Great Expectations.”
In true Austen comic fashion, she simply would have hardened into a caricature of herself, an aging, overdressed narcissist like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, fancying herself important without even busybody Lady Catherine’s actual knowledge of what’s going on in her parish (or the social status of being a wife, mother, and property owner).
@@stannieholt8766 smart women making dumb choices indeed! I don't think Elizabeth would end up as tragically as Lily, but I feel they are kinda victimized by their upbringings. Lily thinks her only value is her beauty and aristocratic manners because that's how her mother taught her, therefore she must marry very upwards. I imagine Elizabeth having a very similar mindset...
@@stannieholt8766 I love the idea of Elizabeth becoming as insufferable as Lady C! (I would not love being her companion but I'd read it in a heartbeat 🤭)
I like to think she poisoned Mrs Clay soon after her remarriage and then married the future Sir whatever Elliot (I forget the name he uses instead of Walter)
@@TheMotherofTacos I'd read the hell out of this book. Please write it!
I never even thought that CPT Wentworth would buy Kellynch. But I've only read the book and seen the 1995 version and the old BBC version of Persuasion. I never even thought about Mr Collins last name either! Thanks for this video! I feel like I haven't been paying attention until you brought up these issues in your video.
It does say that Mr. Collins is a distant relation. He is probably a descendant of a sister of Mr. Bennet's father or grandfather.
Thank you for another good video! (By the way, historically and even now in English law, the transfer of land by deed is complex and fraught with potential missteps, even without the added complication of a complex "last will and testament" as the means of transfer between generations.) Both primogeniture (for property and titles) and the many enforceable conditions a testator/testatrix could add to their will led to some wild inheritance problems. Enough that they could become subject matter for law suits, family scandals, and (slightly fictionalized) for novelists (both Austen and Dickens come to mind).
Here in western Canada, while the laws of inheritance are based on the English model, the statutes governing the transfer of estates by wills have been designed or amended to stop what was, in England, the practice of testators/testatrixes adding complex inheritance restrictions lasting hundreds of years, relying on what were called "mort main" laws. An estate there and then could be controlled by the "dead hand" of an ancestor for a number of generations because of a condition written into a will hundreds of years earlier. What a headache! And such conditions in wills could greatly interfere with the desires of people to deal with what remained of the estate property while living in a very different world from that of the original testator or testatrix, possibly living centuries later.
In terms of my personal view, while I might have benefited from the principle of primogeniture as firstborn, unlike the heir in Sense & Sensibility, I feel compelled (on the basis of both ethics and filial love) to share any inherited family estate on equal terms with my siblings.
A very interesting question! Strangely not one that had yet crossed my mind. Another very informative video, really appreciate your way of breaking down complex legal history so it’s easier to digest!
Thank you so much! I’m glad you’re enjoying the videos! 😃
thankyou so much for these videos !! i wonder if someday you could do one about jane eyre especially if Mr. Rochester could have divorced his first wife
That’s a super interesting topic! I’ll definitely add it to my video idea list!
He couldn't have divorced her just for being insane. The writer William Thackeray was in the same position as he had a wife who was in a mental asylum but loved someone else.
Thanks for the info, Ellie! You always explain tricky Regency concepts so well. But perhaps you can add in your next video about heiresses? Such as Anne de Bourgh in P&P? And who inherits the Woodhouse estate in Emma? I know her sister had sons (and it’s mentioned that little Henry will inherit Donwell Abbey) so would they get the Woodhouse land as well?
@Kate Prater: The Knightly situation is a perfect example of primogeniture. George Knightly is the elder brother, so he owns Donwell Abbey. Because during the book he is not married, his brother John's eldest son, "little Henry," is the heir apparent. It's one of Emma's comic arguments against George Knightly marrying Harriet Smith or Jane Fairfax or anybody except herself that little Henry might find himself disinherited. But when it comes to herself marrying Mr. Knightly, the argument disappears from her mind. She apparently has no trouble imagining that her own and Mr. Knightly's son will be the heir.
As for the Woodhouse estate, I don't remember anything concrete being said about who would inherit. But because there are no sons, and nothing is mentioned explicitly about an entail, and no title to complicate things, there is nothing legal to bar Mr. Woodhouse from bequeathing his estate equally to his daughters, or the house, land & money to maintain it to one and some amount of money to the other, or everything to his eldest grandson, or anything else imaginable. The only thing the novel says about Emma is that she is "rich," so we know that she already has a lot of money settled on her, and we know that her sister married a younger son for love, so she also was probably just as rich if not more so as the elder sister. Maybe the elder sister gets the house and land; Emma wouldn't need it as the wife of George Knightly.
Mr. Woodhouse is so silly and impractical that who knows what he did about his estate. Maybe the solicitors drew up the terms along practical lines (for the honor of the family as a group whole) and convinced him that the final document was his own idea.
Im so addicted to watching your videos ! I have never even read any of Jane Austens books but you make me want to read all of them lol. Please keep making your videos we appreciate them ❤
Just wanted to say thanks for the video! It's always fascinating to learn more about that era and it does make you think more about the details of the novels. :)
Aw, thank you! I’m so glad you’re enjoying the videos! 😃
Great video! Could you consider doing a video on illegitimacy and inheritance in the Regency Era?
I don't think Captain Wentworth could or would buy Kellynch, but as the estate was at that time being rented by his sister, I don't think it's unreasonable that he and Anne might have lived there for a while. This was fascinating, particularly the idea of political power retained through generations.
I just finished reading Sense & Sensibility again, and I would love a better explanation of Elinor and Edward's finances at the end of the book once they have Mrs. Ferrars' blessing to marry. They mention Edward's living of 250 pounds a year at upmost. I know that Elinor will have had a thousand (I think?) as dowry and Edward I think has 2 thousand. But then there's this line: "nor was anything promised either for the present or in future, beyond the ten thousand pounds, which had been given with Fanny." Does this mean they got a lump sum of 10K? Or do they have 10K in savings or something like you mentioned in a previous video and they live off of the interest? How much do you think that would be? I've always wondered this.
I understood it to mean that Mrs. Ferrars gives them 10,000 pounds as a wedding gift. Invested, that would give them a yearly income of 500 pounds (interest at the time was typically 5% a year). Altogether, with Edward's 2000 and Elinor's 1000 also invested, and the income from Edward's living (including tithes and income from livestock and a vegetable garden), they would have a yearly income of about 850-900 pounds, which would keep them in modest comfort (considering Elinor isn't into fashionable dresses and expensive jewelry, and Edward isn't into hunting or gambling).
The irony here is that Mrs. Ferrars gives Edward, who is the oldest son, the same amount that she gave as a dowry to her daughter, while Robert, the youngest son, gets an estate that yields double the income.
I always read that £10,000 as a reference to Fanny's dowry, which would only have been "given" (as the novel puts it so wonderfully) when she got married, but it did make me wonder if there was an inference that Mrs. Ferrars had half an idea to give a one-off gift of another £10,000 to Edward and Elinor when they got married. Apparently £10,000 in 1811 equates to £10.1 million today - just to give an idea of how rich she was.
Ellie, can you explain the impact of "death duties" on inheritance strategies?
The worst thing in the 2007 film is at the end when Anne looks straight into the camera with that “I got him” smile… just silly.
Actually, for me, the worst part of that abysmal adaptation was a young woman, who months before is unable to complete a country walk, suddenly is able (and willing) to run a marathon around Bath (completely ignoring the prevailing customs of the Regency period).
Ooh. Is that the version where she talks to the camera all the time? I didn’t like that.
@@michaelodonnell824 OMG how did I forget that- yes- running madly all about Bath was worse than the smile/ smirk!
@@l.c.6282 nope, that abomination is Mansfield Park
Persuasion 2007 just involves a lot of rapid walking and running with the camera right in front
I have never seen an adaptation of the book but I heard some new ones are going to be made which is great.
My parents own 50 acres and they've willed it all to my brother so it won't be broken up after their deaths. (Not because he's male, but because of all the sweat equity he's put into it.) I'm fine with it.
(He does also get to inherit three of his sisters living here on the land with him, so there's that.)
Interesting! It's almost like the family was a corporation or a trust fund and the members were beneficiaries, but had no decision power. Interested to see the "how" episode.
This was just a great video! Good job! I loved the bit with the cows. I’m confused as to how it would effect my family since my dad is a second son and has no sons. If he had some wealth would it go to my oldest male cousin? Interesting to think about!
My father is the oldest son and he has only daughters (and l'm the oldest). So I think of 2 possibilities: we would have another Mr Collins OR with a little bit of chance l'll inherite all
OMG! I was just thinking about asking this last night!
That’s so cool!
My favorite Austen book! So happy!
It’s an epic book!!!
Wow in ancient China there were similar idea too, like the eldest son should inherit everything and take care his brothers and sisters "like their father". #FansFromHK
Wow, that’s so interesting!
Capt Wentworth could rent Kellynch. If I remember correctly, Wentwood’s sister and brother-in-law rented it from Anne’s father and offered to step aside if Capt Wentworth and Anne wanted to live there.
No, this bit comes from the canceled chapter, and they were willing to step aside if Anne married Mr. Elliot and they wanted to live there. This chapter was replaced in the final version by the chapters about the Musgroves' visit to Bath and the famous love letter, but the idea of the Crofts being willing to step aside and Wentworth asking Anne about it appears in several the media representations.
😮
Thank you so much for this video about Persuasion!!!!❤️ Your contents are always so interesting!!! I think Anne would have been very happy also living with Captain Wentworth in a cute cottage in the Somersetshire countryside, near Kellynch, the Musgroves and the Crofts🥰
Also I think I would have been ok with primogeniture if my husband would have been richer then my eldest brother 😂
Thank you for a very interesting video. This is a scenario that I had not considered. I am not a fan of this adaptation of Persuasion. The 1995 one is the gold standard for me. Although I am certain that Sir Walter would have never sold Kellynch, I think that it is possible that Mr Elliot may have considered this, as his interest was in money rather than the history or respectability of the family.
I also note that a number of comments have been made about Mr Elliot marrying Mrs Clay. I do not think that this is what happened. Mr Elliot would have been in a position to seek a more advantageous match. His design is only to keep Mrs Clay from marrying Sir Walter and I believe that he could do this without actually marrying her himself.
One final point, I think that Captain Wentworth's fortune of 20,000 pounds would not have been enough to purchase a property like Kellynch. For example Mr Bingley has a fortune of 4,000 or 5,000 pounds, meaning his fortune was 100,000 pounds and he was planning to purchase an estate.
I prefer to see this as the beginning of the decline of the gentry with Anne and Captain Wentworth where money is more flexible and has fewer obligations than land.
I'm a middle class woman and I'm glad I live in the 21st century. Some parts of these traditions were good, but not the sexism and classism. We still have those problems today of course, but at least our ideologies are changing over time so that people aren't always entirely trapped by the circumstances of their birth.
This channel is everything . Thank you ❤️
Thank you for your videos and all the information that you share, now when I'll reread the classical books I'll do it with a new perspective!
You are adorable and I absolutely adore your content.
Aw! Thank you!
I always assumed he rented Kellynch at the end of the movie. Sir Walter was renting it out at that time after all
In answer to your question of "Would I be OK with primogeniture?" if I lived in Jane Austen's time (and I'm assuming her social class):
IF, and that is a HUGE IF, I could have my modern family, with the wonderful people in it, then I would be, because my only brother is THE BEST, and does his best to take care of the rest of us, especially since my father died. He's "Head of the family," in his actions, if not by any kind of title.
We take care of each other, but fortunately, he's still able-bodied, unlike my sisters and me.
And my father was great, and wanted his daughters to have the means of being independent, or married or educated, or what we wanted. In short, he would have made sure that we had our own portions, and the opportunities to marry appropriately for the culture.
My Dad never failed to tell us girls that he was proud of us, as well as that he loved us. Primogeniture may have made him have to pass an estate to my brother, as a whole, but he also raised my brother to care for his sisters, and his mother.
We're a functional family, and the more I see of the world, the more grateful I am for it.
All that said, I think I'd be heartbroken, so many, many times, seeing so many other families, dysfunctional families, having to deal with primogeniture. It's the sort of thing that "looks good on paper," but if the people involved don't take care of each other, and love and respect each other, and watch out for each other, then it is a recipe for disaster.
John Dashwood OUGHT to have cared for his sisters. He promised to take care of his sisters. And yet, in the end, thanks to Fanny's masterful manipulation, he figured he was doing more than enough by simply not throwing them out onto the streets the very moment he took possession of the land. He did more for a friend of a friend than he ever did for his own sisters. Which, sad to say, is exactly the sort of thing I can see my uncle doing.
My nuclear family is functional, but just one generation removed... YIKES! Primogeniture with my own grandparents would have been a DISASTER. Abusive parents do not make for happy children under any circumstances, but having it backed up by legal requirements to treat their golden child to the entire estate, and leave the rest with nothing? Oooooooooh, boy, what a mess. I can just picture it with my own grandparents, and how that would have flown like a lead balloon.
The entail will grant the inheritance to the closest male relative who may not be in a direct male line. He could be related through a woman for instance Mr Benett’s sister or his aunt. The line would be sons, brothers, sons of sisters, uncles, sons of uncles, sons of aunts and so on backwards. The exact inheritance would depend on the terms of the entail but as it was setup by Mr Benetts father it couldn’t specify his grandchildren as it could only include one unborn generation.
Completely unrelated question -- you stopped (according to your video posting history) making videos 4-years ago only to restart in the past nine months. Why did you stop? You make great videos.
Aw, thank you! I’m adding this to the list of questions to address in a future about me video!
It drove me wild seeing them do that in that movie. I had A LOT of problems with it anyway, but just that ending bothered me.
Great vid!
I think an interesting person to bring up with this is Sir Lewis DeBourgh since he specifically didn't see the need to entail inheritance away from the female line, so Anne will Inherit and yet, she is unlikely to have heirs so hm.
Might be interesting to look at the landowners abuse of the Inclosure Act, that despite starting a hundred years earlier, was still going on in Austen's time. The number of landowners was dropping and estates growing, and it was still a controversial subject.
Great video! I didn’t know this info!
My eldest brother would care for the family, and my younger one would too. My older brother would most likely have a few expletives to say, as he told the rest of us where to get off. So two out of three brothers would do their best to uplift the family if we were stuck in a time of primogeniture.
Even if he could buy it I don't think Sir Walter would ever let it happen.
Agreed. Sir Walter would rather die than sell.
If kellynch was entailed then Sir Walter would not legally be able to sell it even if he wanted to. (Entailed meaning to avoid hefty death taxes an ancestor made a legally binding decision that the land must remain intact under one owner and always be inherited by the oldest male next in line to inherit)
@@marylut6077 Good point!
Yes, I think Sir Walter would never sell but would have rented it to Capt Wentworth (at top rate!) but Mr Elliot would be happy to. He can't afford to keep it any more than Sir Elliot can. Of course, once Anne tells him No, the smart move would be to marry a RICH woman who could let him keep the Sir and the estate and give him a son.
@@cminmd0041 Mr Eliot already married a rich woman who died and now he is a rich widower. He may have money but he is not titled and doesn’t own land. Socially Mr Eliot is middle class and beneath Sir Walter Eliot, who is a Baronet. To move up socially and be a member of the House of Lords Mr Eilot must have a title and own land. That is why he is interested in inheriting the title of Baronet and the Kellynch estate. He can probably afford its upkeep.
I'm still confused. So the scene when Captain Wentworth buys Kellynch--was that just artistic license by the director? Believing most of us would simply assume he bought it, since most of us, myself included, don't understand how the money worked during that time period?
Yes, absolutely. Or perhaps the script-writer didn't know himself how these things worked at the time.
That quote by Sir Walter may need to be taken with a grain of salt though I think.
He "condescended" to mortgage (meaning "he had no other option but to mortgage the hell out of everything, because he was super short on cash") but he wouldn't sell, because he wants to transmit Kellynch as whole as he received it. Except he can't if he transmits an estate that's mortgaged to the neck and above. What his heir will inherit is debt.
Funny that an entailed property can be mortgaged by the way, inevitably someone inherits money problems with the "honor" of a title or a baronetcy at some point, very impractical.
The quote is probably sarcastic here, don't you think ? It's Austen's style to write in the affirmative something that is actually what the characters think or want to project. Here I don't think we're meant to read that Sir Walter wouldn't even if he could; just that once again he's busy exalting "his dignity of baronet", but in the end he'd do whatever is expedient without affecting his comfort.
When you talked about Mr Collins name change, I wonder if his father could have changed it because of the feud he had with Mr. Bennett. Maybe to disassociate from him.
"Liked" this before I watched it...because...some things you just know. And I quite enjoy being proven right. MIlady, you are veritable walking Wikipedia of Austin...among many other things, I am certain.
The question that appears in my head is how does this system of land ownership works now in Britain? How was it changed ? Do we have any chances of meeting mr Darcy of Pemberly?
Can I ask you where did you get the clip that you use for your vest? It's so beautiful!!!
It's a vintage sweater clip. We wore them in the 1950s. She probably inherited it or bought it from an estate sale. It is possible that somewhere there in an artisan who makes reproductions and sells them at craft fairs.
My husband is the 3rd (young) son of an Israeli farmers family from a "Moshav" (a 30 acres farm) and according to the regulations of the "moshav"s the farm should stay intact and only 1 child - regularly a male - can inherit. (this is now, in the 21th century). The others are regularly get help with studying, and entails part of the savings -
In their family the brothers left the village and have a carrers (the older in business, and my husband is a computer engineer) and their sister was the 1 to run the furm... but their father was always in remorse of passing the land to a woman, and from time to time was threatening to pass the land to 1 of his grandkids on the male line....
A year of so before he died, the brothers signed with a lawyer a waiver to the possibility that it'll happen...
(thankfully, in the end the man came to his senses and entailed the farm to his daughter)....
There are lot of differences: 1) the ownership of land is not connected to political power 2) If you own a land you have to run a farm, not live from the interest as Regency Era genrty. But the idea of leaving the land intact exists until now.
I feel like primogeniture is also a big reason why cousins married cousins. Keeping it all in the family. Gross
There certainly was a lot of that 😳
Primogeniture isn't applicable now for many reasons but one is that dividing the "estate" does not mean a family's standing or wealth will drop.Now that nearly everyone works, there is the capacity and expectation to earn additional money, with the inheritance being a bonus
I am for primogeniture because I can understand it made sense in the Regency era. But I am definitely against the male privilege. I think it is scandalous to our modern sensibilities and even in Jane Austen’s eyes! Thank you for your awesome and highly interesting videos, I learnt so much as a Jane Austen fan ❤
Love the channel!! Can you explain how Emma Woodhouse was set to inherit Hartfield?
Hartfield apparently wasn't entailed, so it could be left to whomever Mr. Woodhouse liked.
I know! I know! But I loved the idea that to punish Mr. William Elliott, Sir Walter Elliott sold the estate to Mr. Wentworth so it could stay in his near family. William would still inherit the baroncy title, but not get the wealth/estate.
That’s such an appealing scenario. But given how snobbish and dull-witted Sir Walter is, and how good Mr. William Elliot is at flattery and manipulation, I have trouble imagining that he would favor Captain Wentworth (husband of his least favorite daughter) over his legal heir. (Besides, the Captain has a habit of letting his true feelings show, at least through an eye roll or momentary grimace, and wouldn’t want to suck up to an idiotic landlubber who initially opposed him as a suitor.)
If it were Mr. Bennet in “P&P,” though, I could absolutely picture him selling the estate out from under a titular heir he disliked to benefit an in-law he respected; he kiiiiiinda likes being eccentric and annoying (in a quiet, well-bred way) for shits and giggles. Luckily, both Jane and Lizzy’s husbands are rich, and self-made man Mr. Gardiner seems perfectly comfortable with a life in London.
@@stannieholt8766 but there’s the money issue. Sir Walter liked the lavish life but was running out of funds. Selling the estate to Wentworth to earn money and at the same time sticking it to Sir William looks like a win-win to me. It’s also technically his daughter’s house now, so he can apply the ever popular ‘family duty’ card (Anne loves her father after all) and live there whilst his daughter and son in law were at the sea. So selling has more benefits for him than keeping it for the next heir.
@@MabruBlack Hmmm, that sounds plausible! But would Sir Walter's desire to stick it to his successor outweigh his overwhelming sense of family pride? The only motivation I can see is if he gets offended when Sir William marries Mrs. Clay (as Austen hints will happen after she becomes his mistress... perhaps once she gives him a son that he wants to legitimate).
So, how come Lady Catherine de Bourgh's daughter Anne, is inheriting Rosings Park. (Apologies if you've already answered this question.) Thanks!
That's a great question! I think I cover that in this video: th-cam.com/video/SPFeB2bOO-0/w-d-xo.html
Here is an interesting topic idea for one of your videos - how did Queen Victoria inherit the monarchy, given that her father was not the king?
I'm glad primogeniture isn't a thing anymore. I'm the daughter of the 2nd son, so everything would've gone to my cousin. On Mum's side, my grandparents had two daughters, but Granddad lived long enough to have a grandsons, so everything would've gone to my cousin. But as I am the firstborn, and so are my mum and her parents, I still brag about being the one who counts as a generation
Wonderful waiting for the legal side :-)
Yay! I’m so glad you enjoyed it!
I loe your username! I see myself in both Elenor Dashwood and Anne Elliot :-)
Thankfully, I have a good guy as a brother AND he's good with money! So he'd be the sort to take care of his sisters and make sure they were covered in the event of his untimely end.
Oh Ellie, I've done this so many times too! You read a word but don't recognize it as the word you've heard pronounced all your life. The word "Mortgage" is pronounced "MORE-gage" or "More-gidge" depending on your accent, just like the mortgage that you'd give the bank when you borrowed money to buy a house. It basically means a promise -"gage" that comes to term when you die - "mort."
see Middlemarch too, on the name-change thing. I connect it to aristocratic Roman tradition, when adoptions were common among the aristocracy.
Great video!
Aw, thank you!
Please make a video on what it would be like to marry a man in the navy or military in this time period.
Acabó de descubrir tu canal y es increíble 🤗 me encanta toda esta información. Ahora, tengo una duda, respecto a las herencias; primigenituras y legalidad de todo eso, ¿qué era lo que posibilitaba a la hija de Lady Catherine heredar todo? 🤔
Question: In the book (Persuasion) Annes cousin mr. Elliot says in a letter to mr. Smith (chpt 21) that when he inherits Kellynch his first visit will "be with a surveyer to tell me how to bring it with the best advantage to the hammer" which indicates cpt. Wentworth might have had the possibility to buy the thing. Silly as the movie is, its not impossible that he bought it...
Without watching the video yet: No. (a) It's an ENTAILED property that would normally require at least two generations of Elliot males to agree to sever the entail (unless the generation which ends the entail--some properties were entailed for a limited number of generations, not perpetuity--is William Walter Elliot) and (b) If we think of Bingley (who was going to buy an estate in P&P) he had £100,000 in gross assets (which invested in either 4% or 5% government/navy/etc stocks would give his income of £4,000 or £5,000 a year); in contrast, Wentworth has about £25,000. A "fortune" to be sure; but not "I can buy a house, park, and estate" level money.
Primogeniture makes sense to preserve an estate. I've seen modern family feuds were siblings are fighting on selling a family estate. But I wish it would have been passed down to daughters or sons, depending on which child was best to keep up an estate.
Captain Wentworth could have bought out Admiral Croft's interest in the lease on Kellynch but he probably would have run through his capital of 20,000 pounds rather more quickly than was sensible. Invested wisely, Captain Wentworth's 20,000 would have produced an income of between 800 and 1000 pounds per year. Anne Elliot's 5,000 pounds would have probably gone to provide dowries for daughters and support for any younger sons.
I guess I prefer primogeniture when the inheritance of land is concerned. It sounds more reasonable.
Could you please expalin why Darcy does not go to St James frequently? If landed gentry relied on extended social connections I would have presumed her would have been keen to attend. Thanks for considering.
Attending court was not a necessity to establish social connections. Gentry connected with their local equals regionally. Attending court was not of interest to many country gentry. It was also expensive to live in London, renting or acquiring a house, and entertaining was expensive. I think it probably interested only a high echelon of the gentry.
Mr. Collins also could have been a cousin by means of a sister of Mr. Bennet's father. She married into the Collins family and when Mr. Bennet had no sons, the next in the male line would be this cousin. Happened all the time. Love your channel!
Wouldn't work. The estate cannot be inherited through a female (the sister's) line. I expect Mr. Collins or his father changed his surname to inherit an estate, much as Jane Austen's nephew James Austen Leigh did.
And it’s a shame that once Mr. Elliot inherits he would likely have bled the estate dry and then sold it.
I think he has too much pride in his position and too much prudence to do that.
Unless Mrs Clay marries Sir Walter and has a son. Then no fancy house for Mr Elliott
@@dorothywillis1 He was hugely in debt when he met Anne. He wanted to get on good terms with the family to ensure he got the money from the estate, given he and Sir Walter had fallen out
@@dorothywillis1 Good lord, the last thing he had was prudence. Read the book.
@@MsJubjubbird Mrs Clay sadly marries Mr Elliot after being his mistress for a while. Kind of weird.
I thought the cousin who tries to hit on Anne will inherit Kellynch?
Btw, great explanation! I had no idea only landowners could vote or go into the House of Commons. I thought people just wanted land to be thought of as “gentile”. Very interesting.
Do you have to do research for your videos, or do you already know all this fascinating info?!
Regarding adopting someone else's son so you would have a male heir to inherit, Jane Austin's own brother did exactly that. And it's a darn good thing he did or his mother and 2 sisters would have been out on the street.
I wonder why the Bennetts didn't adopt a son to inherit after 2, 3, or 4 daughters were born. He could have inherited and looked out for his sisters.
@@dranyakishinevsky adopted children could not inherit entailed land either, regardless of sex. The land Jane Austen's brother inherited had no such protections.
@@giovana4121 Hadn't thought of that - that Jane's brother's inheritance hadn't been entailed.
When Mrs. Bennet hit menopause and knew another baby was very unlikely, she and Mr. Bennet should have taken a months-long trip, arranged to adopt some unmarried woman's "natural" baby boy during that time, and returned to Longhorn to pass him off as her own biological "menopause baby," (A well-placed bribe might be required to get the birth record in their names, LOL!) Far fetched, perhaps, but it's better than spending the next 15 years pinning all your hopes into one of your daughters marrying a rich man.
@@dsr8223 That would make a great book. So many possibilities!
I just assumed that Wentworth took over his brother in law's lease.
So this makes me wonder... why was Mr. Bingly able to buy Netherfield? I’m guessing there were occasions when Estates were sold?
Mr. Bingley was renting Netherfield, but at the end of the book he does buy an estate.
Not all estates were entailed, and on some occasions, families were able to break the entail (with the permission of the parliament, or in an agreement between owner and heir, I believe).
Male primogeniture did not always hold, though. Lady Katherine did say that in her husband's family, it was not thought necessary to entail the estate away from the male line. So Anne De Bourgh was going to inherit her father's estate when Lady Katherine died.
When I watched that ending with Capt Wentworth buying Kellynch, I was like, "how would he buy a house from Mr Elliot, his former rival in love? LOL Nope that would have never happened." Surely I know very little about inheritance but it was a stretch anyhow!
Daughters of peers in the UK can still suffer from this: the wording of the Letters Patent that created a title, or the Act of Entail on an estate, can still prefer your male cousin over you or even a more distant all-male-line descendent of a common ancestor. Heirs/male heirs/heir-males as a term in the original creation, can still hold. One of my mum's friends is the daughter of an Earl who is barred in law from making any claim on his estate.(In private life she doesn't use her courtesy title of Lady [Firstname], she's just Mrs [Her Husband] .)
I think there's an organisation called "Daughter's Rights" which is politicking to change that? And I noticed when Prince William and his wife were having their first child, the law got changed so that the oldest child regardless of gender would inherit the crown. But change is very slow, I guess.
@@DaisyNinjaGirlYes, the British monarch has moved from agnatic or male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture. But it isn’t retroactive hence why Princess Anne hasn’t risen in the line of succession. If the same thing happened for an earldom, dukedom, barony, etc but isn’t retroactively applied, it wouldn’t help any existing female heirs, only those born after the change.
I love Persuasion but have never cared for the 2007 Persuasion. The ending was one reason.
So if Kellynch was mortgaged, does that mean the bank could take it if he was far enough in debt? I don't get the impression that he is that deep in the red, but that if he carries on, he might be.
That’s an interesting question! I plan to talk more about the status of Kellynch in an upcoming video and will try to cover this!
Why was Lady Catherine's daughter Anne able to inherit Rosings?
I love your videos!
The Estate of the Bennets is only entailed to mr bennet meaning he could use it while he was alive but he couldnt sell it. The next male in the line will inherit it and as she explained in another video Mr Bennett could have saved money to support his daughters. Lady catherines estate on the other hand isnt entailed so her daughter (or the female line) could inherit it. Another example of this is the movie Barry Lyndon where the protagonist marries a rich widow to become nobility.
@@malena5026 I understand the entail on the Bennet estate what I don't understand is why Rosings can pass through the female line. As Ellie explained it primogeniture meant estates pass through the male line. Why the exception here? Was this unusual or did only daughters often inherit?
@@robinhunt6778 Rosings is not entailed, therefore Sir Lewis could leave it freely to his wife, and she can leave it freely to her her daughter. Primogeniture only applies in certain situations of inheritance.
The book doesn't specify where Anne and Capt. Wentworth live after they are married, but it is written that mr. Elliott said to his friend (the husband of Anne's friend) that he will sell it if he gets a good purchase offer comes, so if Capt. Wentworth could afford buying kellyinch than I don't why mr. Elliott wouldn't sell it to him as soon as he inherited it. So I don't think the answer is so determined.
That’s an interesting thought! I think personally, his view of his family’s estate is probably as altered as his view of the baronetcy. As Mrs Smith points out, he changed a great deal from the age when he wanted to sell Kellynch: “Upon all points of blood and connexion he is a completely altered man. Having long had as much money as he could spend, nothing to wish for on the side of avarice or indulgence, he has been gradually learning to pin his happiness upon the consequence he is heir to.” And while being a baronet is large part of that consequence, I think having the family’s estate also would be important to someone with such changed views. But that’s just me! 🙂
Can see why they did it but like in Mansfield Park it must have been so frustrating if your older brother was a good for nothing! I’m the oldest but as I’m a girl I would probably have been quite indignant!
Please please please can you explain the Rosings Airess? I really want to understand how a female can inherit an estate and what legalities and conditions would be in place for this to happen? 🧡 thanks again for a great video!
Lady Catherine brags to Lizzie that Rosings is not entailed, so she can do what she likes. It was possible to break entails (if you were willing to tell white lies to a court) so that may have happened in the past, if there had originally been one.
@@DaisyNinjaGirl oh wow thanks! Would love to know those legal details. So fascinating
I support the primogeniture as a woman. It wasn't just the oldest male inheriting the money. As the head of the family, he would be responsible for all those under his protection, including me, his supposed sister. And that meant I not only had a dowry and maybe some personal coin for myself, but also my oldest brother would provide for me if something ever happened...he was obligated to. Not so today...my oldest brother could blow me off:+) God bless~
I trust my brother but you never know how wealth will change you.
Just wondering: when Bingley rents netherfield, does he collect the rent from the tenants on the land or does it go to the owner?
Thanks :-)
Pretty sure the rent goes to the landowner. Bingley just rents the house and attached park, not the entire estate.
In previous video, I thought Ellie Dashwood indicated that not all estates were entailed per “primogeniture” (50%?). (I read Persuasion several decades ago and have forgotten details.) How do we “know” from Austen’s book “Persuasion” that Kellynch specifically was legally not allowed to be sold?
We know it was entailed on the next in line male heir, so it was unsaleable. Same with Longbourn. On the other hand, Rosings was not entailed (we are told so specifically by Lady Catherine), nor was Hartfield (which would be inherited by Emma or Isabella).
An interesting case is Norland in "Sense and Sensibility". It seems that the estate was not originally entailed - or at least part of it wasn't, because Mr. Dashwood (husband of Mrs. Dashwood of the story) expected to be able to bequeath enough money to his wife and daughters for them to be comfortable and have attractive dowries. However, the older Mr. Dashwood leaves the estate in such a way that it will go to the son - Mr. John Dashwood - and his son, Henry. So it seems that the older Mr. Dashwood has started an entail.
The author clearly states the situation in the early chapters of the book.