You did ask " Why did Mrs. Ferrars disinherited Edward after he refused to break his engagement to Lucy . . . and fail to disinherit Robert, after he had eloped with the same woman?", so that was the question I answered.
The situation really isn't that contrived. It reflects the way in which those at the time thought of property and of relationships between parent and children. It was perfectly normal for Mrs Ferrars to keep hold of her complete estate until she died. She was very wealthy, and able to make each of her sons a good annual allowance from her income without settling, i.e. effectively giving outright, any property on them. It is evident from the book that she much preferred Robert to Edward (perhaps he was more like her?). As many parents do, she tried to use her wealth to keep her children in line, and if she had settled an estate of any significant size on Edward he would then have been independent of her.
The discovery of his engagement to Lucy was a perfect example of her ability (as she thought) to use that power over him to force him to give up Lucy and marry the heiress of her choosing. She didn't understand or expect his insistence on keeping his promise to Lucy. She settled the estate which produced one thousand pounds per annum on Robert to punish Edward and to demonstrate to him the power she held. It seems not to have occurred to her that indolent, selfish Robert would do something of which she disapproved.
Remember that she still retained a great deal of property - she had given Fanny a dowry of ten thousand pounds, and eventually gave Edward the same amount (producing an income of £250 per annum I think, from memory) and knew she was being ungenerous to her eldest son.
But the question as who would inherit the rest of her property at her death remained.
It's contrived. I now see that it was a way for Austen to keep Elinor and Marianne living close to each other, while married to their husbands - Edward and Colonel Brandon.
The situation really isn't that contrived. It reflects the way in which those at the time thought of property and of relationships between parent and children. It was perfectly normal for Mrs Ferrars to keep hold of her complete estate until she died. She was very wealthy, and able to make each of her sons a good annual allowance from her income without settling, i.e. effectively giving outright, any property on them. It is evident from the book that she much preferred Robert to Edward (perhaps he was more like her?). As many parents do, she tried to use her wealth to keep her children in line, and if she had settled an estate of any significant size on Edward he would then have been independent of her.
The discovery of his engagement to Lucy was a perfect example of her ability (as she thought) to use that power over him to force him to give up Lucy and marry the heiress of her choosing. She didn't understand or expect his insistence on keeping his promise to Lucy. She settled the estate which produced one thousand pounds per annum on Robert to punish Edward and to demonstrate to him the power she held. It seems not to have occurred to her that indolent, selfish Robert would do something of which she disapproved.
Remember that she still retained a great deal of property - she had given Fanny a dowry of ten thousand pounds, and eventually gave Edward the same amount (producing an income of £250 per annum I think, from memory) and knew she was being ungenerous to her eldest son.
But the question as who would inherit the rest of her property at her death remained.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment