Here a few facts that should help clear up the picture: 1) Edward's and Robert's mother is a complete hypocrite. Yes, she disinherited one son for becoming engaged to a girl without her permission, and did not disinherit the son who actually married the same girl. Illogical, irrational, unjust, but perfectly possible. 2) Edward tells Elinor in the book that Robert has always been his mother's favorite and will easily be forgiven for an offense she would never forgive Edward for (despite Elinor's skepticism, this turns out to be true). 3) Edward originally felt morally obligated to follow-through with his engagement with Lucy, even though he no longer liked her, because he gave her his word - the pressure to marry her against his own wishes came from nothing but his own sense of honor. 4) The book also mentions that, by the time Robert married Lucy, whatever legal matters were necessary to switch the estate from Edward to Robert had been done and sealed in stone. Apparently, by then, Mrs. Ferrars couldn't undo what she'd done - which Robert knew, and was why he felt secure marrying Lucy. So even if his offense had been enough to warrant disinheritance, Mrs. Ferrars' punishment for Edward by giving his estate to his brother was irrevocable. (I'll be honest and say I'm not 100% sure the book absolutely says this, but it's the impression I got. I think it's John who tells Elinor how much Mrs. Ferrars regrets that she can't punish Robert for disobeying her.) 5) Mrs. Ferrars and Fanny never liked Lucy - being deliberately nice to her was part of their modus operandi for snubbing Elinor because she was the one they could plainly see that Edward was interested in and was, therefore, the only visible threat to the plans for his marriage with Miss Morton.
Edward's and Robert's ultimate fates are brought about by a combination of hypocrisy, pettiness, and (I think) legal red tape. It's hilarious, as I'm sure Austen meant it to be.
Let me get this straight. Edward had been the main heir to the Ferrars estate for who know how long. Mrs. Ferrars even went through the trouble of planning a wedding between Edward and some wealthy heiress.
But upon learning of Edward's engagment to Lucy Steele and his refusal to break the engagement, Mrs. Ferrars not only disinherit Edward (which I understand), but suddenly decides to legally finalize Robert as the heir? She could undo Edward's position as the heir to the estate, but not Robert's position after he married Lucy?
Well, she was out of sons (Fanny was disqualified due to being a woman) and out of options, I guess ;) Maybe in her mind, Robert (her undisguised favorite) was the lesser of two evils, and admitting weakness on her part by restoring Edward's inheritance to him would have been more unbearable, so all she could do was leave it with Robert and vent as much as she could about it.
My theory is this . . . Austen wanted an excuse for Marianne and Elinor to live near each other with their husbands. By allowing Mrs. Ferrars to officially lock in Robert as the heir and prevent Edward from ever inheriting anything following his brother's elopement with Lucy; Austen made sure that Edward's only financial means would be the living at Delaford, ensuring that the Dashwood sisters would always live near each other.
1) Edward's and Robert's mother is a complete hypocrite. Yes, she disinherited one son for becoming engaged to a girl without her permission, and did not disinherit the son who actually married the same girl. Illogical, irrational, unjust, but perfectly possible.
2) Edward tells Elinor in the book that Robert has always been his mother's favorite and will easily be forgiven for an offense she would never forgive Edward for (despite Elinor's skepticism, this turns out to be true).
3) Edward originally felt morally obligated to follow-through with his engagement with Lucy, even though he no longer liked her, because he gave her his word - the pressure to marry her against his own wishes came from nothing but his own sense of honor.
4) The book also mentions that, by the time Robert married Lucy, whatever legal matters were necessary to switch the estate from Edward to Robert had been done and sealed in stone. Apparently, by then, Mrs. Ferrars couldn't undo what she'd done - which Robert knew, and was why he felt secure marrying Lucy. So even if his offense had been enough to warrant disinheritance, Mrs. Ferrars' punishment for Edward by giving his estate to his brother was irrevocable. (I'll be honest and say I'm not 100% sure the book absolutely says this, but it's the impression I got. I think it's John who tells Elinor how much Mrs. Ferrars regrets that she can't punish Robert for disobeying her.)
5) Mrs. Ferrars and Fanny never liked Lucy - being deliberately nice to her was part of their modus operandi for snubbing Elinor because she was the one they could plainly see that Edward was interested in and was, therefore, the only visible threat to the plans for his marriage with Miss Morton.
Edward's and Robert's ultimate fates are brought about by a combination of hypocrisy, pettiness, and (I think) legal red tape. It's hilarious, as I'm sure Austen meant it to be.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But upon learning of Edward's engagment to Lucy Steele and his refusal to break the engagement, Mrs. Ferrars not only disinherit Edward (which I understand), but suddenly decides to legally finalize Robert as the heir? She could undo Edward's position as the heir to the estate, but not Robert's position after he married Lucy?
Sorry, but I find that contrived.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment