message 1:
by
Elise
(new)
Sep 04, 2021 03:05PM

reply
|
flag

Yes! I agree completely! In Mansfield Park, it's not the heroine who grows and learns, but the paternal figure; it's such an inversion of the normal paradigm. Others learn in the novel, mainly Edmund, but I think Sir Thomas has the most personal growth of all the characters, it just comes a little late in life for him.

Do we think she had someone 'in real life' in mind for Sir Thomas.
Can we call him 'A good man who allows bad things to happen' (eg, his daughter ruined beyond social rescue, a second throwing herself away on an inferior young man, his son growing up an extravagant wastrel and his other son unable to read the character of a woman who is morally tainted - not to mention that he was stupid enough to marry a pretty but stupid woman in the first place!)

Sir Thomas definitely 'improves' by the end of the book, and so does Tom (chastened by his near death experience in his illness, so we gather), and so does Edmund (his faulty 'vision' is corrected that once fell for Mary Crawford). Julia, we are hinted at, who was never as bad as Maria, does 'improve' as does her husband, and I think there is a hint there that, though Austen does not develop it, that Mr Yates and Julia will become 'better' and the former not as 'silly' as he once, that education and good company will work on them.
Mrs Norris definitely doesn't improve - nor does Maria. We are given no hint that her social punishment makes her reflect upon her foolish, rash and wrong past behaviour.
Lady Bertram doesn't improve - probably impossible. (Again, Austen does not raise the issue of whether a woman like Lady B could even improve)
Fanny, of course, does not 'improve' - because she doesn't need to!!


Do we think she had someone 'in real life' in mind for Sir Thomas.
I think she may have. She probably saw several negligent parents. The thing is Sir Thomas thought he was doing a good job until Maria proved otherwise in pretty spectacular fashion.
Can we call him 'A good man who allows bad things to happen'
Yes. I think so.
There is a lot of improvement in the novel, and I like your analogy to the discussion of improvement of their respective homes (Sotherton, Thornton Lacey, Everingham, even the improvement of Mansfield Parsonage is discussed.) Mrs. Norris and Maria don't improve, but Mansfield Park is improved by their absence. If you want to find out what happens to them, here's a little story:
https://ameliamarielogan.com/MtBoaBL....
I think the Crawfords do improve a little. Austen makes it clear they both regret losing Edmund and Fanny so there has to be something learned from that.
And yes, Austen does tease the tempting possibility of Henry deserving and winning Fanny, which was the basis for my novel.

And, yes, I concede that Mary and Henry do regret their losses - but whether they will ever 'come good' is less certain??
As ever, every Jane Austen novel leaves several more to be written about the rest of the characters she depicts.
With reference to which, I shall now go and read your 'other pen' that has, indeed, dwelt on misery...... (can't quite remember how Austen phrases it alas.) :)





How expensive would it have been to house her MP? After all, they have loads of spare rooms (Fanny takes over the old nursery I recall) and she can't have eaten very much (ie, to cause expense). She also acts as a companion and helpmeet to the uber-indolent Lady Bertram. And Mrs Norris uses her as an errand girl too.
She didn't have much by way of dresses (would she have got Maria and Julia's hand-me-downs? She might have made her own, or had the village seamstress make them, certainly not a posh dressmaker),
Was Sir Thomas ever going to fork out anything like a dowry for her at all, I wonder? I don't think there is any mention of it.
Of course, he'd have been very happy had she married Henry, not needing any dowry at all to induce it. Similarly, he would have been happier financially had Edmund married Mary Crawford with her money (something like £20k I think?)

You are right. The plan works in opening Fanny's eyes to the benefits of the lifestyle she's been able to enjoy. Obviously, his full plan was to get her to accept Crawford, but that was prevented by the elopement.
I agree it does seem kind of silly for him to be preoccupied by the expense of supporting Fanny, given how little it must cost to maintain her at MP. (And part of it may be that he feels he was duped into it by Mrs. Norris' zeal to adopt and then unwillingness to bear any of the burden.) But I think he's thinking of maintaining her as a gentlewoman for her future life. If she doesn't marry, he must feel like he has to make sure she has an establishment at some point. But it seems she'd be able to live at MP at least until he dies and after that what does he care? Maybe he doesn't think Tom would take care of her or keep her around once he inherits?
I always think the same thing when I read this passage in MP on Sir Thomas' reflection when he's expecting Fanny to go live with Mrs. Norris:
"...it became not undesirable to himself to be relieved from the expense of her support, and the obligation of her future provision".
Like, how expensive is her support? I think the second part, the obligation of her future provision may be a bigger concern. But this line is what makes me think this was part of his consideration in wanting her to accept Crawford.

While he and Lady B were alive, Fanny would always have a home at MP, and she is, in effect, a kind of 'companion carer' to Lady B (who misses her once she marries Edmund, and sister Susan arrives to take her place). (What will become of Susan I wonder? Will Tom fall for her!!??)
If Mrs Norris is secure in her home, and can't be evicted and has her 'pension' then Fanny could live with her and become effectiveliy an unpaid servant I'm sure, but Fanny is likely to outlive all her mother's generation, and that is where the problem really comes. As you say, will Tom let her stay on at MP - or, more to the point, his wife (assuming he doesn't marry Susan!).
I would think that Sir T would make some kind of modest settlement on her, some kind of annuity, to see her out, but that would divert capital, or the use thereof, from his own children.
It really is easy to see why Sir T is SO keen on her marrying Henry.

Yes, absolutely. But she was vindicated!
I personally have never liked the idea of Susan and Tom.


But Fanny refused to marry Henry based on his previous behavior with Maria and Julia (the elopement hadn't occurred yet) so the elopement is what allows Sir Thomas to see that she was right and vindicate her decision, so without the elopement there still would be a need for her to be vindicated. If she marries Henry without that happening, then no one would know she was right in her opinion or in refusing him at first, depending on what point she accepts him.

Like Elinor in Sense and Sensibility though, hers is a love she cannot speak, which puts her in a very difficult situation. Had she been able to tell Sir T she could never marry Henry as she was in love with another man, he might not have pressed her - but he'd have wanted to know who the other man was probably, and not been pleased when it was Edmund.


Surely it would have been less agonising for her to return to Portsmouth, sever all connection with MP and avoid Edmund and Mary 'for ever'. I could see her easily marrying one of her brother's fellow officers in a few years time (after setting her parents' household in order!).
On the other hand, maybe she might have felt that if she couldn't have Edmund, if she did marry Henry she might still 'see something' of Edmund , and might have thought that some kind of 'continuation' in a way, sort of 'scraps from the table'?
I seem to recall that in Tolstoy's War and Peace, Natasha's cousin (Sophia?) has loved Natasha's brother (Nicky?) all her life, but he marries another woman (Prince Andrei's sister!). I think Sophia, though heartbroken ,stays on effectively as Nicky and his wife's children's governess, and goes on loving Nicky, even though she can never have him. It's 'better than nothign' from her point of view.
Fanny might have felt the same about Edmund had he married Mary??


It's funny what you say about the name "Fanny" which I chose as the title of my book, because that's her name. But sometimes an amazon search for the book might lead to a page of fannypacks! But no, it's not a name you see much anymore.

I didn't see your other message when I replied earlier. You raise some interesting points. I do like the idea of Fanny leaving MP and finding happiness and a husband (who is neither Edmund nor Henry) elsewhere. Getting her parents' house in order would definitely be a bonus! I hope she would not enjoy the idea of being in Edmund's orbit for scraps of his attention. (I've never read W&P and now I kind of don't want to!) I agree with you that it might be odd to marry Henry and be in the same social circle with the man she used to love. But Austen did say it could happen. And I don't think Fanny would ever accept Crawford (or anyone else) unless she was completely over Edmund and in love with Henry.

(I imagine that English teachers of Austen have to get past the first classroom sniggers, and get them out of the way, before they can get stuck into teaching the novel!!!!!)
(In similar vein, I can remember reading a fantasy book, written by an American, to my children in which there was a young wizard called Randy. Oh dear, in the crude English vernacular that has made Fanny impossible as a name for a girl, so Randy is impossible as a name for a boy - it, er, means, well, I guess 'eager for sex' I suppose is the most innocuous way of defining it!)

I do think decamping back to Portsmouth would be her only option.
Yes, I agree she's too solemn for Captain Benwick, but I think they would have got on, at any rate. It's always a little difficult to decide whether his falling for Louisa Musgrove was or wasn't a good match - Captain Wentworth seems to think not, because Fanny/Phoebe Harville was, he says, an exceptional young woman, compared to the jolly, high spirited but not that bright (???) Louisa. (Mind you, her near death experience is said to have 'sobered' her, so she might be better now for Benwick?)




Anne de Bourgh is the heiress of Rosings because the estate was owned by her father, Sir Lewis de Bourgh. If Anne were to die before inheriting, the estate would probably go to another releative on the de Bourgh side. It is highly unlikely that Lady Catherine has the right to decide who will inherit Rosings. Colonel Fitzwilliam is related to Anne on Lady Catherine's side (the Fitzwilliam side) not the de Bourgh side. The Fitzwilliam side does have the earldom which is held by Lady Catherine's brother who is Colonel Fitzwilliam's father; but it has nothing to do with who inherits Rosings which was passed down on the de Bourgh side.


"When Edward was twelve years old he was presented to Thomas and Catherine Knight, who were relatives of his father and were wealthy. Thomas had given George Austen the living at Steventon in 1761. They were childless and took an interest in Edward, making him their legal heir in about 1783. ... When Thomas died in 1794 he left the Godmersham Park estate to his wife for her life, with the remainder going to Edward."
So the husband, Thomas Knight, decided to leave the estate to Edward Austen. If Thomas had died before making Edward his heir, I guess it's possible his wife could still have done so, but I think it would be unlikely because landed property would not automatically go to a widow upon the death of the owner. Thomas would have had to leave her the estate in a will, including the power to decide who gets it on her death in order for her to be able to then give it to Edward (or anyone else). In reality, he only left her a life estate with the remainder interest to Edward.
That being said, we do know that Mrs. Ferrars in S&S is a widow who has absolute control over the inheritance of her sons. This would have been the exception rather than the rule and would most likely have been determined in her marriage contract when she married their father, which means she probably brought a lot of money to the marriage and may even have brought the estate she ultimately gives to Robert.



I think I acknowledged that it's not impossible for a widow to have control of an inheritance and I mentioned Mrs. Ferrars as an example. I don't think it would be likely in the case of Rosings, but we don't know. The book doesn't say one way or the other what would happen if Anne dies without issue. I just think it's more likely there's already an established heir on the de Bourgh side, than that Lady Catherine could do what she wants with it.


And yes, you can imagine anything you like. P&P certainly doesn't tell us that Lady Catherine couldn't leave Rosings to Colonel Fitzwilliam if Anne predeceases her. I think it's unlikely, but that's just my opinion. I also prefer to think of Anne as surviving her mother and having an heir - maybe with Colonel Fitzwilliam as her husband.

She might indeed marry Colonel Fitz, but it would be nice if she got someone 'for herself' so to speak, and had more romance in her life. I can see her coming to Pemberley a lot, and being influenced by both Lizzie and Georgiana, and, with her overbearing mother dead, can 'un-crush' herself and finally blossom.





1 Claire Tomalin/Jane AUsten a life
2Dirdre Le Faye /Jane Austen-A family Record
3Jane Austen's Letters (fourth Edition) collected and edited by Deirde Le Faye


Also, maybe the salaries of captains, such as it was, might have varied according to the size and status of the ships they commanded, plus the date of their captaincy (ie, if Wentworth were older, and had been made a captain sooner than Harville, his salary might have been higher?)
But I suspect the difference in their respective wealth was because of prize money???

