Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Who is the Worst Man in Jane Austen?
"In S&S, the first wife's fortune is only her husband's for his life and then goes to her son. So the husband never really "owns" it. I think this sort of thing must have happened a lot. If the woman was wealthy she would have posessions default to heirs of her body."Yes, that's very understandable. It still affects modern wives I would say, too. Very many married couples (in the UK at least) have 'mirror wills' leaving all their own possessions to each other, which is fine UNLESS the survivor remarries. Then the danger is that the children from the first marriage lose out completely on BOTH their parents' legacies, if the spouse making the second marriage then has another mirror will, and dies first. So the second wife scoops up everything - ie, whatever the husband had in his own right, plus whatever he inherited from his first wife - and totally cuts out the children from the first marriage. Plus, to add insult to injury, if the second wife has children from a first marriage of her own, she can leave everything to HER children, not her late husband's! Iniquitous!
So, in that sense, I can understand why the first Mrs Dashwood, John D's mum, left her own fortune to HER son (not her subsequent stepdaughters by the second Mrs D), and then to her grandson, both heirs of her body (as Elinor and Marianne are not...)
So, repugnant as Fanny Dashwood is, she does have a point I guess, at least in respect of any money that came to her husband via his mother.
Jane wrote the "three or four families in a country village" advice to her niece Anna who had never been out of Steventon. Jane had a lot wider scope to draw from. She visited Bath, Portsmouth, the seaside, lived in Bath, Southampton, back to Hampshire to the country and had two brothers in the navy. What she didn't know she looked up and asked. She wrote exactly the kinds of stories she wanted to write. ("Plan of a Novel" is hysterical and shows what she thought of suggestions on what to write https://pemberley.com/janeinfo/planno...)
Isn’t the big turn of fortune for Henry Dashwood, at the beginning of the book, that his uncle is so enchanted with Mr. John Dashwood’s son, who at that point is 2-3 years old, that he leaves Norwood to Henry Dashwood in such a way that destroys half the value of the bequest? The text even mentions that the uncle didn’t go so far as to disinherit Henry (implying that was an option). So Henry inherits Norland which now provides much less income and then has the further misfortune of quickly dying. This is why I think Mr.John Dashwoid is a pointy headed toad. He’s had a series of the most advantageous financial circumstances befall him and he is perfectly content to let his 3 half sisters and his step mother scrape by on 500 pounds a year.
But the key point is that Austen wrote about what she knew, or had first hand access to knowing (eg, about the Navy from her brothers). She didn't write about politics, or warfare or economics or foreign countries etc, which is what she is so often criticised for omitting - ie, that she lived through the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars and they hardly get a mention other than the naval officers in Persuasion and the militia in P&P. (
Thinking about it, what towns/cities appear in her novels where any live, ie, not reported only, action takes place? Discounting the small (market?) town of Meryton in P&P, I would say London in S&S where Willoughby snubs Marianne. (I think in P&P Jane's visit to London to stay with the Gardiners and where the Bingley sisters only visit her briefly, is only recorded in a letter to Lizzie??)Then there is Bath, of course, for NA and Persuasion. Lyme Regis for Persuasion too.
And Portsmouth for MP.
Any others??
Otherwise it is just characters visiting other people's house. Lady Catherine's Rosings, Rev Collins' parsonage in Huntsford (sp??), and of course Pemberley, plus the village of Lampton (sp?)
Anne Elliot visits her brother in law's Charles house, and his parents, the Musgroves, in Persuasion. Fanny visits Sotherton in MP. The Dashwood sisters move from Norland to Devonshire.
Emma, I think (??) is the only novel where there is no movement beyond Highfield?? Which of course is part of the aspect of the story, that Emma is 'tied down' by her circumstances. (If anyone needed to 'get out more' it's Emma! Boredom is in many ways the driver of the plot....)
I'm probably missing some of the locations - any others???
He’s had a series of the most advantageous financial circumstances befall him and he is perfectly content to let his 3 half sisters and his step mother scrape by on 500 pounds a year.**
People whom life has blessed don't always feel they owe anything for their good fortune!!!!!
A lot of off-screen action happens at Ramsgate.
Was Ramsgate where Wickham wooed Georgiana?
Referencing good fortune and entitlement, I can remember talking to someone who said if they won a fortune on the pools they wouldn't give a penny of it to charity, as it was 'their' money and no one else's.
Yes Ramsgate is where Georgiana runs into Wickham, by his design.
Not the most romantic place in the world!!
Beth. Just a question not a slam. I have heard in general Americans are more charitable than Brits and other Europeans. Perhaps because of more government social services available than in US? In the US most nonprofit agencies other than health and welfare see little if any government funding and rely solely on public donations and other fund raising efforts. Some also have fees for services depending on their mission and clientele.
Janet, that sounds very plausible. I guess the tax system in the UK which pays for all the welfare and public services is regarded as what Brits 'pay into' so they may well feel they don't 'need' to give charitably?Sometimes, though, services which one would think are publically funded through taxes in fact are not. I was shocked to realise that the RNLI - the Royal National Lifeboat Institution - which basically sends lifeboats out to sea to rescue people, is a charity. OK, so there is the Coastguard as well, which is a national service, but the lifeboats are the RNLI's and the sailors that man them are all volunteers (and not all of them come home when they go out to rescue stricken boats in storms etc.)
Hospitals also constantly raise extra funds through charitable donations over and above tax funding - often for specific things such as new scanning equipment.
The most famous children's hospital, Great Ormond Street, is always advertising for charitable donations, possibly for things like providing rooms where parents can stay overnight to be with their children in treatment.
Americans, I think, may often believe (???) that the NHS provides 'all' medical treatment, but of course it is strictly rationed. Patients don't get things like the latest cancer drugs and so on 'automatically' - everything has to be approved by a top down funding committee which can stall new drugs for years. Patients then have to either buy them privately, or go without.
Well, I have heard the maternity accommodations are nothing like what the princesses get. It is pretty nice here if you have insurance. Private rooms are standard. I had a lovely room and stayed in it from check in until I left with my daughter 2 days later. I have heard not all vaccines are covered for you which is pretty standard here. Unfortunately health care here is not so great if you do not have insurance.
The lifeboat thing does surprise me though. Most public safety measures are fully funded by taxes. Some "luxury" items are not, such as police dogs. I think very small rural areas are more apt to need to do there own fund raising.
Well, it does seem possible still in the USA to 'die of poverty' rather than 'die of ill health'. That (probably!) doesn't happen here, except for, as I say, those denied life-extending drugs on the grounds of expense. The whole issue of health-care is very fraught of course, as it has to involve patient responsibiity. In the UK there are constant calls for the obese to be denied expensive treatment and sometimes they are, as in, they are told to lose weight first before they get treatment. As ever, in the developed west, the poor tend to be the most obese anyway (diet of junk food etc). It's complex and complicated and morally tricky all round!
Yes, I find the RNLI/lifeguarding/life-boat situation very unacceptable as a charity. That said, I do think that if boaters and swimmers get into difficulty because they ignored safety signs etc, then they should be charged for being rescued! Ditto with hill walkers and climbers - so many still go up mountains in trainers in the middle of winter etc etc. They should pay for their own rescue.
I always thought people climbing, or hiking in the back country, or doing those highly dangerous things should have to buy an insurance policy for rescue.
Yes, I agree. The troiuble is 'townies', as they so often are, just don't understand that the sea, and the mountains, can be dangerous, It might be more appreciated in countries with a known 'wilderness' like America, but in the UK we tend to think everywhere is 'safe' - in fact, townies probably think cities are more dangerous (which they are, but only from other people, rather than nature!)In the mountains (well, they are mountains in this country, thought they are pretty titchy compared with the Rockies!) the weather can change so fast. I've gone up a Scottish 'ben' in brilliant sunshine, and by the time I'd eaten my sandwhich not even at the top, the rest of the world disappeared into thick cloud. With the wrong clothes, wrong shoes, wrong map (or none), we'd have been in danger. In the USA, on 'easy' hikes in national parks it was always essential to take a LOT of water to drink.
You are right about the water. I almost made that mistake at Diamond Head in Hawaiian. Thankfully I had the sense to listen to my wiser hiking companion.
I would imagine Hawaii could be a pretty dangerous place the moment you get off a beaten track! I know the sea is dangerous there too, with the very sharp drop-off because of the sheer 'underwater cliffs' thanks to the volcanic geology.
Not to mention the tidal waves that can hit the island after an underwater earthquake anywhere in the Pacific just about!
In the UK, the main sea danger is getting caught in a rip, which is a fast outflow of water in a narrow channel on a beach. The incoming water, brought in by the waves, can sometimes form a kind of 'reverse river', that sucks you back out to sea. I've never been caught in one, but ironically surfers actually use them as 'fast lanes' to get back out behind the surf 'out back' to catch the next incoming wave.
Apparently they do dissipate 'out back' so even if you are caught in one you will reach a point out to sea where the 'rip' factor stops, and you should be able to swim back to shore again, though you might be quite far out by then of course (and if the tide is going out by then that is definitely dangerous.)
The best advice from lifeguards if you are caught in a rip is not to try and swim directly against it, as you will be weaker than the rip, but across it, as they are apparently only about as wide as a couple of cars - you'll reach the edge of the rip and be back in 'normal' water again.
But keeping your head and doing the rational thing when you are in danger can be a challenge....
The other main danger in the sea in the Uk is that we have a general longshore drift - the sea will carry you north wards along the coast. When you are in the water you have to constantly check your position vis and vis the shoreline, as you will inevitably find you have 'drifted' north from where you waded in. Given our rocky shorelines it could mean that instead of swimming back to a sandy beach you will be swimming back onto rocks instead. Not good.
However, the one really good thing about sea bathing in the UK is there are no sharks! (occasionally we hear of a 'Great White' scare' ,but they usually turn out to be harmless basking sharks.) We get jellyfish sometimes, but probably it's the sewage pumped into the sea that is the most dangerous element of sea bathing and surfing....
I got caught in a rip tide once in Florida and did not know what it was until many years later. When I finally returned to the beach my sister asked me where I had been because I was gone a really long time. Years later when I saw something about them on a nature program I said, "So that's what happened."
Probably as well you didn't realise what was happening as it must be pretty scary I'm sure. I sometimes think lifeguards should hold classes in how it feels to be caught in a rip, and how to get out - but they might think it a bit dangerous!!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Could a married woman own anything at all in her own right? Property was divided into two categories - real property (real estate) and chattel (moveables.) Real property was passed by will or through entail and a woman could inherit or be named in the entail. When Lady Catherine says that she sees no occasion for entailing estates from the female line, she is saying "away from" the female line. Clearly if an entail was written for Rosings, Anne would be first in line.
It was a husband's duty to provide "necessaries" for his wife - food, clothing, etc - if these were not sufficiently provided, the wife might purchase them on the husband's credit and he would have to settle the account. A husband might provide "necessaries" by allowing his wife a certain annual sum - pin money - that was hers exclusively, and exempt from coverture and from any debts incurred by the husband. So she had a right to whatever pin money was stipulated in the marriage articles and to anything she purchased with it.
Jointure replaced the old "dower rights" which were the interest in the husband's property a woman acquired upon marriage to support her in the event of widowhood, generally set at 1/3. Jointure, meant to provide for a widow, was an annual sum that might be fixed when the marriage articles were drawn or after marriage.
In cases of extensive property where there were no male heirs, a man might prevent his daughter's husband from taking possession of the property upon marriage by securing in a trust prior to her marriage. I highly recommend "Wedlock" by Wendy Moore for one of the most interesting property and marriage cases.
J. wrote: "Beth-In-UK wrote: "Could a married woman own anything at all in her own right? Property was divided into two categories - real property (real estate) and chattel (moveables.) Real property was p..."
Fascinating! I will have to check that out.
so did Mr Dashwood Sr essentially have nothing of his own to pass on to his wife and daughters? A life estate in Norland Park but nothing of his own. Even if he died intestate why didn't his second wife get 1/3? Did he have nothing but a home entailed to his worthless son?
Jan wrote: "so did Mr Dashwood Sr essentially have nothing of his own to pass on to his wife and daughters? A life estate in Norland Park but nothing of his own. Even if he died intestate why didn't his second..."Norland Park was entailed to Harry Dashwood. So Henry Dashwood had a life interest in it and hoped to save money for his daughters. The estate then would pass intact to John Dashwood and finally to Harry. If Henry Dashwood had lived many years, I am sure he would have saved enough of his income to provide the girls sufficient dowries. Henry Dashwood also had income from his first wife, but upon his death this also went by default to John Dashwood.
This is why it's so bad that John gave nothing to his sisters. When his father died, he inherited a massive estate and a fortune.
He had at least 20 years after his second marriage to accumulate something. The two two oldest were considered marriagable aged though we would hardly think so now. He apparently had nothing put aside at an age when his daughters could be getting married. Lots of dead and/or lousy parents in Jane Austen. Catherine Moreland is the only protagonist with neither; may have both.
Jan wrote: "He had at least 20 years after his second marriage to accumulate something. The two two oldest were considered marriagable aged though we would hardly think so now. He apparently had nothing put as..."I don't think Henry Dashwood was negligent. Mrs. Dashwood the II had nothing and Henry Dashwood had seven thousand pounds of his own to give to them. So I think that is what he saved during his marriage. If he had been alive, he could have used this fortune for his daughters, if they received an offer. But because he died Mrs. Dashwood needs it to live off of.
The Daswoods were evidently gentry and they came to Norland from somewhere what happened to their previous property and money ( it had had nice lenin and china etc that they took when they left)Of course we arent told but somehow must be linked to these strange financial doings of those times I often wonder when I read S&S
Those items belonged to Elinor's and Mary Anne's mother so she got them from her family.
The feeling I get from reading S&S is that Mr. Dashwood wasn't negligent, he was unlucky to inherit late and then die right after. Jane Austen usually makes it pretty clear if the parents are negligent.
What are we to make of Edward Denham in the unfinished Sanditon? Was he really a would-be seducer or a wannabe would-be seducer? Let's NOT go by the TV series. I think he wanted to be Lovelace, the hero of Pamela, who is a would-be seducer but redeemed at the end by Pamela's extreme virtue. I really wish we knew where she was going with that story! Why Jane? Why didn't you tell Cassandra what the plan was?
QNPoohBear wrote: "What are we to make of Edward Denham in the unfinished Sanditon? Was he really a would-be seducer or a wannabe would-be seducer? Let's NOT go by the TV series. I think he wanted to be Lovelace, the..."I didn't include him because we just don't have enough information. I love when he considers kidnapping Clare (?) but then rules it out as too expensive! I really really wish we had more of this novel!
Thank you for all the very usual info on married women and property. For all the apparent safeguards, they were still pretty vulnerable to a bad (wicked or feckless) husband alas. If they had relatives of their own on their side (as Mrs Dashwood II has) to turn to, that was something, but otherwise they had no recourse at all to anything really. Grim indeed.Austen's novels are definitely full of negligent fathers . Mr Bennet in P and P, and Sir Walter in P are the two obvious ones, and I guess Mr (Lieut?) Price in MP, though he is less directly culpable I thinK?? Similarly, as you say, Mr Dashwood is less culpable and more, perhaps, unfortunate, though I agree he had 20 years to try and put something by irrespective of what happened to Norlands itself or his first wife's fortune (which rightly should have gone to her son, as it has). Mr Woodhouse is not financially negligent to Emma and her sister, but is effectively an emotional 'parasite' on Emma, or, at the kindest, a 'child' to her, wanting her to look after him emotionally the whole time, and not wanting her to leave him to marry.
Arguably, of course, an 'unprotected' female is necessary for there to be any drama at all. Emma - handsome, clever and rich, with very little to vex her as Austen says - is financially protected, but not emotionally.
The opening passage in S&S can be a bit confusing. Clearly, Norland is not an entailed estate, since Henry Dashwood referred to as the "legal inheritor" and the one to whom his uncle "intended to bequeath it." Entailed properties are not bequeathed.Henry has 7000 pounds in his own right, but a life interest only in the part of his late wife's fortune that was left to him. So that part of his income is lost upon his death. Moreover, the uncle's will sounds a lot like an entail - it allows Henry to live there during his lifetime and prohibits him from profiting from the estate - he cannot subdivide the estate nor sell its valuable asset, namely its woods. Henry hopes to set aside the income from a profitable estate for his wife and daughters, but unfortunately only survives his uncle by a year.
It shows how precarious wealth and fortune were even in these elite, property-owning levels of society. The two sisters go from being highly privileged young ladies living in a grand manner on a grand estate, to poor relations dependent on the kindness of their mother's cousin, with almost zilch prospects of making a marriage that would restore them to their former status.It makes me sympathetic to ruthless and social climbing Lucy Steele, determined to end up more prosperous than she started.
Marianne, of course is both cringingly embarassing and unconsciously funny when she recites her lists of 'basic requirements for a good life' to Elinor - she has no idea of what 'real' poverty is...
Yes I have sympathy for Lucy too. At first I hated her for being catty to Elinor and clinging to Edward but when I read the annotated edition, I felt sympathy for Lucy. She's poor, uneducated and ungenteel. What else is she supposed to do? It's too late to find a suitable husband. Her uncle isn't interested in helping his nieces. AND she has an older sister who isn't very bright and unlikely to find a husband. She'll have to support Nancy forever.Marianne is like her mother. Too silly to understand their dire situation. She talks of renovating their new cottage and Elinor is like "With what money?! Who is going to even come see us now we're poor?"
Nancy is very funny but rather unlucky with so little going for her.Probably the funniest character in the book.
I'd love to see a sequel showing Lucy and Robert Ferrars and how they get along - and whether Lucy ever manages to win round his ghastly mother. The scene in the Emma Thompson film where Lucy thinks she might be regarded as eligible for Edward, and confesses all to Mrs F, and Mrs F goes totally loco in rage - is hilarious and ghastly at the same time.If I were Lucy I'd play the long, long game, and be revenged on Mrs F with a cold, cold dish when the time is right.
Perhaps it will be the once there is a grandchild all is forgiven deal.
As long as it’s a boy. Can you imagine the treatment she’d receive if she produced five daughters a la Mrs. Bennet? They still didn’t understand then that the man determined the baby’s sex. Wouldn’t Henry VIII have loved that! He probably would have beheaded the scientist who made the discovery, lol.
You are probably right. As long as the baby was a boy.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I'd love to see a sequel showing Lucy and Robert Ferrars and how they get along - and whether Lucy ever manages to win round his ghastly mother. The scene in the Emma Thompson film where Lucy think..."It's Fanny she confides in and Fanny who lets out the unholy screech "MARRRIED?!??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!" If his sister is that upset, what would his mother say?! Toxic family. I feel bad for Lucy but she seems to have the knack of winning them over. The end of the book does say Mrs. Ferrars went from having two sons, to one son, to no sons but she comes around because Lucy knows how to ingratiate herself and make herself indespensible. Robert and Lucy get liberal assistance from Mrs. F and a house in town. They're close with the Dashwoods and Lucy is quite Mrs. F's favorite while Elinor is the interloper.
Yes, that figures. Lucy will ensure SHE is the favoured DIL, and keep Elinor at bay. Luckily, Elinor couldn't care less about mean nasty Mrs F, and nor can hubby Edward.
I honestly don't blame Lucy though. Robert may be stupid and lazy and Edward unable to man up and defy his mother but Lucy gets the short end of the stick until she gets what she wants in the end. Thank goodness Austen wrote social satire and not the ridiculous drama playing out on TV in Sanditon. Edward Denham wins for nastiest man in Austen adaptations but I don't think she intended for him to be like THAT.
Edward was too nice for Lucy, so glad he wasn't snapped up by her. Mrs Ferrers and ghastly Fanny certainly deserve no pity. I can't remember much about Robert, though he was a bit daft (all that stuff about the ornamental cottage he went on at Elinor about?) - but was he as bad as his sister and mother?Still, if he's a bit 'dim but decent enough' (as in, not as bad and mean as Fanny and her mum), then I'm sure Lucy will be clever enough to keep him on side.
It's a bit like that other 'odd couple' - Mr Eliot and Mrs Clay in Persuasion - because Mr Eliot is 'not a good man' we don't care if impecunious but ambitious Mrs Clay does manage to get him to marry her.
By the sounds of things, marriage settlements were, effectively, the pre-nups of their day, but geared towards widowhood rather than divorce.
To this day, the issue of whether marriage automatically 'pools' all resources, wherever they came from, and whenever (eg, money made during the course of a marriage) is so, so contentious when it comes to divorce laws.
A middle aged wife who is 'dumped' for a younger model can still find themselves in financial difficulties - easy to say she can get a job, but after 20 years say out of the job market raising children her earning power will not be as great as it would have been had she not dropped out of outside employment (etc etc).
I wonder if, referencing Austen's era, that was yet another reason eloping was so, so dangerous for a young girl - because there would be no time to draw up protective marriage settlements for her (compounded by the danger that she'd probably likely run off with a Wickham or a Willoughby - the last kind of man you'd want your precious daughter to marry!!!)