Mr. Bennet is a gentleman, which by definition was the lowest ranked member of the social class known as landed gentry. Income came from rents on the land that landed gentry owned. In Mr. Bennet’s case he may not have had land, but only the estate, which is entailed away to Mr. Collins. Mr. Bennet would not have married Mrs. Bennet if she had not come with a dowry; there is investment income from that dowry and the Bennet daughters all have expectations of a portion of the dowry, small that that may be, when Mrs. Bennet passes away.
Darcy and Bingley are wealthy, decent men and would not let their sisters-in-law live in poverty. Darcy stumps up something like 10,000 Pounds to pay Wickham’s debts so that Wickham will marry Lydia. (An ethical question, not touched on in the novel, is how much of Darcy’s money comes from slave plantation holdings in the West Indies.
Bingley’s money comes from commercial sources: manufacturing or merchandising or some such in the north of England.)
Spoiler warnings for
Pride and Prejudice and
Sense and Sensibility below. (I guess I don't need spoiler warnings for that as the discussion is already on-going, but just in case...).
Inheritance and property law issues really get me excited, haha. In the matter of entails, it's so interesting because lives are really formed and totally affected based on the will of a deceased.
From what I remember of P&P, it seems most likely that a prior grantor (most likely a member of the Bennett family) entailed Mr. Bennett's land. That meant that the land was most likely tied up by the Bennett family from a male Bennett who owned the land who would grant the land to his male descendant and then to the
male heirs of his body. In practical terms, it seems like each successor in this scheme only really enjoyed a life estate on the land (so he had no rights to sell) and his heirs had the remainder of the life interest in the land. Then once the heir inherited it, then he would then have a life estate and his heir would have the remainder of that life interest in the land. It seems the actual legal owners of the land were trustees or separate persons. This is so different from what we usually do in modern-day America (and probably England now), which is why I find it so fascinating.
I bet Mr. Bennett's father (or maybe even grandfather) placed the entail on the land because he learned from experience (his own or through observation of others) of the dangers of a spendthrift or financially irresponsible heir-apparent who could break up the estate or sell it unsatisfactorily to pay off gambling or other debts. The entail also kept up and perpetuated the strict English-style class system by keeping land in the chosen families and away from the growing wealthy middle class folks.
During this time, even with the development of the rules against perpetuities in England, an entail that specified that the estate only go to the nearest male relative would only be active for like three generations (the classic common law rule being that no condition or prohibition of any granting can be made by the grantor if it did not vest more than 21 years after the grantor's death). In other words, the restriction Mr. Bennett had would not have lasted forever but he was in the
right generation to be bound by it.
I think had Mr. Bennett had a son, he and the son could have most likely gotten together and removed the entail, resulting where each daughter could then have a share of ownership in the estate. Interestingly, if there had been no entail, then Mr. Bennett could have divided the estate equally among his daughters or given full ownership to one of the daughters or given the land in any which way to whomever he wanted as he pleased.* Of course, custom and societal pressures would probably control what he would actually do. This is even true without a will with no entail and no direct male heir as the English default law would have then evenly divided the estate between the daughters. In that situation, however, another question arises: whether a 1/5 share of the money coming from the estate would have provided each daughter enough individual income to live the lifestyle they were accustomed (probably not Lydia).
Of course, Mr. Collins could have done all the above if he wished, but he, of course, would not. I don't blame Mr. Collins for not doing it, as he would be stupid to do so. He has his own interests to think about. Plus, it's not like the Bennetts actually like him to make him want to do them a favor. That's why I find the whole Charlotte situation hilarious. Charlotte, Elizabeth's best friend, ended up marrying the man with the apparent/presumptive to the Bennett estate and will thus become mistress of that estate to the exclusion of her friends, the Bennetts. This is where I do understand why Mrs. Bennett would think Charlotte was a wolf in sheep's clothing and was sneaky. With her imagination running wild, she now saw Charlotte as someone who was knowledgeable about the entail and her daughters' bad situation, so, under the guise of being Elizabeth's friend, was waiting for years with bated breath, watching for the opportunity strike to take the Bennett household. Then Mr. Collins comes around with such an opportunity and barely hesitates to launch from her crouching position so she can finally take from them. But hey, if it was going to him anyway, why shouldn't Charlotte take advantage? Elizabeth didn't want him and he wasn't into any other sister. Charlotte didn't do any taking herself — she just took advantage of the situation for herself.
What's interesting to me is when estates have entailed land, and then grow larger and assume lands that are not entailed and thus freely alienable and unencumbered. There are some stories were the landowners are pressured to sell off those unentailed lands to pay off debts and what-not, but he (usually it's always a he) feels a duty to keep the lands together.
*Though I wonder if the law gave the surviving spouse any life estate or usufruct rights....probably not after reading
Sense and Sensibility where the stepmother was at the mercy of the inheriting surviving male heir, who, with the influence of his wife, really put her and her daughters into a bad situation (for that social circle)...unless Jane Austen got the law wrong (there's some debate about her understanding of inheritance laws.
I just know that John Dashwood in
Sense and Sensibility had absolute freedom to do with his inherited estate as he wish as it was free from any entail, and had intended to provide well for his stepmother and three half-sisters as was his father's dying wish until his wife manipulated him into giving them barely anything. That scene in the 1995 Ang Lee-directed film version was hilarious. By the end, John Dashwood was convinced he was doing a lot of them when he really decided not to do much of anything with his wife, who wasn't at his father's bedside when he made his request to his son to provide for his stepmother and sisters, saying, "The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced your father didn't mean to give them 'real money!'"
Some spoilers of
Downton Abbey below, so read at your own risk:
I also like comparing and contrasting the Bennett and Dashwood situations in Jane Austen's England to peerage situations (think of
Downton Abbey) where the titles were attached to a piece of land.
Robert in
Downton not only had to deal with the land but his earldom as well. We know that there was no way Mary could inherit the title given the English rules regarding titles. Since
Downton takes place during the waning days of peerages with large estates being able to sustain themselves, the money that was keeping
Downton afloat came from Robert's rich American wife, Cora. Before the marriage between Robert and Cora, Robert's father knew that without Cora's money, the family wouldn't be able to upkeep Downton and the estate may have to sold off and then divided into pieces for whatever the new owner wanted to do with it. So, Robert's father made a deal with Cora's father to ensure that the money attached permanently to the estate (in the case of say, Robert dying before he inherited the earldom and Cora remarrying someone else, and he would then have rights to her money instead of Downton). That's why Mary didn't have any rights to the money either. The succession of the title, the land, and the money were now all encumbered by the entail.
All of the above is why Cora and Violet scheme early on to destroy the entail, which makes Robert furious because he bought into the con that maintaining the title and
Downton (thus upholding the traditions of country and the peerage system) was more important than his own family's interest. Violet, though older and snobbier and brought up in a more rigid way and had placed the utmost importance in this peerage class system and in titles, thought family was more important than all of that.
The funny thing about all the above is that in 1925, England outlawed the entail regarding real estate (titles are still entailed). Had Robert lived to 1925, which I think he would have, then the law would have destroyed the entail regarding the land itself. This meant that Mary could have inherited the estate outright or divided it between herself, Edith, and Sybil's daughter even if she didn't marry Matthew. Of course, it worked out better that she did because by season 3, Matthew ended up co-owning half of the estate outright and not through his apparent inheritance interests via his monied investment. He would then give his half of the ownership interest of the land to Mary, as he was free to do since his monied investment into Downton was separate from Cora's money that was entailed. Of course, marrying Matthew and having George ensured Mary had it all to herself and that, through George, the title and the land would freely go to her son.
I think the above paragraph brings up another point. Entails are only controlling for families who can upkeep the property. If they can't afford to keep the land, then it could go against the wishes of the entail and be sold off in whatever way was necessary.
TL;DR: I just realized how much I miss engaging with property law.
Fabian also directed Louder Than Words (which starred Timothy Hutton, David Duchovny and Hope Davis) as well as 2008's "Skin", which was about a a South African woman born to white parents, who was classified as "Coloured" during the apartheid era. As good as those movies were, this one is even better.
#barebutt
