Outdoorsy Type Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 It's been a while since I have read Emma, so maybe it's obvious, but most women were at danger of losing the roof over their heads if they were single when their father died. Emma is wealthy, but I seem to remember that she is completely unconcerned about losing her family home, and no next-in-line-heir is mentioned in the book. What am I not remembering? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 I don't think their estate was entailed as the Bennett's was, so Emma and her sister were eligible heirs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarasue7272 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 I don't remember exactly, but I imagine the house/property was not entailed. So her father could leave it to whomever he wished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeaganS Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 It wasn't entailed. Her sister would inherit eventually (probably) although since at the time Mr. Knightley had no heir, I think the plan was for Mr. Knightley's brother to inherit his estate and Emma would get her father's? I'm not sure it ever specifies, but either way, Emma is rich enough without the need for an estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outdoorsy Type Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 Ah, I assumed that a title was attached, like in Pride & Prejudice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavender's green Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 I'm not sure about Emma, but in Pride and Prejudice I think it's mentioned that her father could and should have set money aside for each girl early on in their family life, so that there would be time for interest to accumulate before they were a marriageable age. But he kept thinking that surely they'd have a boy eventually, who would be responsible and take care of all the girls if didn't marry well. Of course that didn't end well, and by the time they realized there wouldn't be a boy, there was no money to set aside for interest (at least for marrying nice and young I guess?). I mention this P&P background because maybe Emma's father was diligent and made provisions for Emma outside of the estate. But I think their estate just wasn't entailed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Lady Catherine did make a comment about the foolishness of entailing an estate in regards to the bennets (but fortunate for mr. colllins), and how wise that her own estate was not entailed so it would go to her daughter anne. . . (and probably the only thing that would get her a husband with lady catherine as a mil . . . some, younger son of an earl . .. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 It's been so long since I read emma - I went searching for the answer. It is pointed out that 1) - emma has a personal fortune of 30,000pounds. (much like georgiana and the bingly sisters had personal fortunes. you recall wickham wanted to marry georgiana for her money.) 2) mrs bennet is a spendthrift - though she could probably learn a thing or two about spending money from my mil. (I'm dead serious.) 3) there is no mention of any entailment - or not - on the woodhouse estate in emma. there was supposition that according to entailment laws - it was probably entailed by mr. bennett's father. if mr. bennett had had a son, that son could have broken the entailment, but not mr. bennett. http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html#entail this is specifically about hartfield - the woodhouse estate - and semi-true stories of jane austen's england. https://callynpierson.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/inheritance-law-and-emma/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Why did people entail their properties anyway? Seems like it only caused problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) I think it was a way of making sure the land stayed in the family. In a way, a bit like a pre-nuptuial agreement. ETA - so, entailed land could have different conditions set on it, but the idea seems to be that it can't be handed over to someone's new husband, or divided up, or some nasty father can't decide to disinherit his son - that sort of thing. Edited February 12, 2017 by Bluegoat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.