Inheritance and the Need for a Widow’s Pension in Jane Austen’s Novels

Inheritance and the Need for a Widow’s Pension in Jane Austen’s Novels

By Jane Austen’s time, primogeniture was no longer the law of the land, but it remained a strongly entrenched custom of inheritance proceedings. Breaking apart large landholdings were frowned upon. An impoverished aristocracy, whose wealth rested in the agricultural realm, would lead to total chaos in the countryside or so it was assumed. The practice of primogeniture, with the family’s holdings going to the the eldest son, made paupers of younger sons or forced them to seek gainful employment in a handful of occupations: the army, the navy, the church, or law. (Medicine was not as well accepted as were the other four, but a some “gentlemen” chose the occupation.) 

mrbennet.gif But what occurred if there were no sons to inherit, as in the case of Mr. Bennet in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Sir Walter Elliot in Persuasion? Under English law, women were subordinate to their husbands. It was expected that she was under the “protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord.” The law stated the old adage of “two shall become one.” She was her husband’s “feme covert.” Any property she owned—real or personal—came under his control. A married woman could not draft a will or dispose of any property without her husband’s consent.

Women rarely inherited property (land). They could inherit “personal” belongings such as, furniture, jewelry, clothing, moveable goods, etc. But that does not mean that a woman could NOT inherit real property (meaning land, or what we now call “real estate”). The practice of primogeniture under English law presented the oldest son with the real property upon the death of the father. A “fee tail male” was the legal means to present the “entail” through the male line. It was possible for a father and his son to join forces to eliminate the entail. This would give the current owner something called “fee simple,” meaning ownership could be bequeathed without restrictions. In Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, a “fee tail male” agreement results in the Dashwood ladies’ displacement from their family home. Mr. Dashwood’s estate goes to the son of his first marriage. A “fee tail male” agreement also affects Mr. Bennet’s situation. Bennet is the life tenant of the Longbourn estate. Whichever of his ancestors created the fee tail male agreement is never identified. The entail that controls the Bennet estate (better known legally as “the remainder”) expires upon his death if he had no male heirs. The reader is told in Pride and Prejudice that Mr. Bennet had hoped to have a son [who could have joined with Mr. Bennet in terminating the fee tail male arrangement]. Unless Mrs. Bennet predeceases her husband, and Bennet remarries and produces a son, the remainder [the property] would go his closest male relative: Mr. Collins. 

Daughters could only inherit in the absence of a male heir, but such cases were rare. The law of intestate primogeniture remained on the statue books in Britain until the 1925 property legislation simplified and updated England’s archaic law of real property. Aware of their daughters’ unfortunate situation, fathers often provided them with dowries or worked into a prenuptial agreement her pin money or the estate which the wife was to possess for her sole and separate use, not subject to the control of her husband, was to provide the daughter(s) with an income separate from her husband’s.

prideandprejudice_126-e1431533593682.jpg In Mrs. Bennet’s case, her “nerves” make her both a comic and a sympathetic character. In reality, her ranting against the establishment was the lady’s only means to express her frustration. With the passing of her husband, she and any daughters that are not married would be out of their home. She will have no income other that the money settled upon her at her marriage. Locating suitable housing for a woman of her station with five dependents would be difficult. Her £4000 would likely yield only £200 to £250 in interest income yearly. Her situation would be more dire than the Dashwoods.

bts_poster_costumes.jpg  “ISense and Sensibility, the widowed Mrs. Dashwood and her three daughters do not inherit the great Dashwood estate, Norland, because the owner, Uncle Dashwood, suddenly changes his will and leaves it to his grandnephew. He does this for two reasons: The grandnephew is cute, and he will carry on the Dashwood surname, keeping Norland in Dashwood hands. So the four Dashwood women now must live on £500 annually (SS 1:2). Now while this does not put them on the street, this sum doesn’t give them the life they lived at Norland Park, a beautiful and spacious gentry estate with a large house attached to it. They must move to a cottage with moderate rent. And their social life is limited to where their feet can take them because they can’t afford a carriage and horse. A visit to London is out of the question financially, unless a friend covers their expenses. And their chances of landing a financially stable marriage are lessened by the daughters each having a dowry of only £1,000, their Uncle having given each girl that amount (and their inability to get out often to meet people)….The Dashwood ladies have a cottage at a very moderate rent; they have two maids and a man servant, whose pay would have been quite low; they have neither carriage nor horse; the four Dashwoods probably have limited wardrobes; and they appear to get quite a bit of food from Sir John Middleton, on whose estate they live. This amount would allow them to live in a minimally genteel way.” [Ray, Joan Klingel. Jane Austen for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006. 133-34.]

mrs-norris-1983-anna-massey
Mrs. Norris 1983 Anna Massey

 

From Jane Stabler [Explanatory Notes. Mansfield Park by Jane Austen. Oxford’s World Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003, 396-397.], we learn, “In Austen’s day, £600 a year is a comfortable income for someone who is careful with his money (and there is no doubt Aunt Norris’s extreme caution in this respect). Austen’s pinpointing of Aunt Norris’s income makes it clear that she can afford to employ three servants to help with the running of the White house so her exploitation of Fanny is mean, as well as cruel.”

In contrast to wives, women who never married or who were widowed maintained control over their property and inheritance, owned land and controlled property disposal, since by law any unmarried adult female was considered to be a feme soleSome of the peeresses, in their own right had property, as well as the title which their husband couldn’t touch. Still, inheritance through the female of a peerage by patent was extremely rare and usually only put into the patent while the 1st peer was alive. [Peerage dignities are created by the Sovereign by either writs of summons or letters patent.] Usually, the patents didn’t allow for female inheritance. It was rare for a woman to be able to inherit a peerage created by patent. The Duke of Marlborough had his patent changed when it was obvious he would not have a son, but that was a rare occurrence. Most females succeeded to a lesser peerage created by writ. Once married, the only way that women could reclaim property was through widowhood.

I have completed a series of articles on Primogeniture for my personal blog, Every Woman Dreams, if you wish to know more. You will find them at the links below: 

The Effects of Primogeniture and Family Dynamics https://reginajeffers.blog/2017/06/15/the-effects-of-primogeniture-on-family-dynamics/

Female Inheritance Laws   https://reginajeffers.blog/2017/08/31/female-inheritance-laws-an-excerpt-giveaway-from-mr-darcys-brides/

Gavelkind, Inheritance in Opposition to Primogeniture https://reginajeffers.blog/2016/08/22/gavelkind-inheritance-in-opposition-to-primogeniture/

The Popularity of Primogeniture During the Regency Period https://reginajeffers.blog/2016/10/21/the-operation-of-primogeniture-in-regency-england/

Primogeniture and the 19th Century Entail https://reginajeffers.blog/2015/05/28/primogenture-and-the-19th-century-entail/

Primogeniture? Collateral Relatives? The First Laws of Inheritance…   https://reginajeffers.blog/2014/07/24/primogeniture-collateral-relatives-the-first-laws-of-inheritance/

The Roots of Primogeniture and Entails https://reginajeffers.blog/2017/07/10/the-roots-of-primogeniture-and-entailments/

Statue of Wills, Henry VII’s Answer to Primogeniture https://reginajeffers.blog/2016/09/05/statute-of-wills-henry-viiis-answer-to-primogeniture/

 

15 Responses to Inheritance and the Need for a Widow’s Pension in Jane Austen’s Novels

  1. I was riveted by this explanation of inheritance laws and grateful to have those familiar legal terms explained . As someone who was widowed in my thirties left with four young children I find myself reacting quite strongly to the plight of the Dashwoods and poor Mrs Bennett’s anxiety disorder and yes Mr Bennett’s inappropriateness. This aspect and insight is for me is as much of the appeal of Jane Austen as much as the fabulous romance . Thank you Regina!

  2. I’ve just been reading “The Last Summer Before the War” by Helen Simonson, in which the father’s will leaves an educated woman who had always handled her father’s financial, travel, and living arrangements across more than one continent under the care of a trust giving her only a tiny allowance, overseen by solicitors and executors who insist on itemized and justified accounts of every penny she spent, until she marries – when the trust would be broken and she would have quite a generous annual amount. If she never married, which is what she plans, she would never gain control of her inheritance . Today a will like that would be easily broken, but in 1914 it was thought quite logical. So of course one can easily imagine how much more trying conditions for women were a century earlier! At least in 1914 women could be doctors and nurses and lawyers .This woman was grudgingly given a position as a Latin teacher when there were no other suitable applicants, plus she could be paid much less – can you imagine ? Her salary was only 18 pounds sterling a year, and she was suspected of wasting it!

  3. Interesting article, Regina. Women have been second class citizens almost since the beginning of time. I’m in full sympathy with Mrs. Bennet. She may not have been the smartest woman in the world, but she definitely understood the threat. Thank you for the info. 🙂

  4. Great research Regina. Man… I’ll stick to living in the present. I know we have our own set of problems; however, I would not want to worry about the hedgerows all the time.

    • Mr. Bennet’s constant bemusement is likely a result of his sense of helplessness, as much as Mrs. Bennet’s nerves are. Have you not known someone who laughs at inappropriate times, as well as someone who is the “drama queen”?

  5. There are times that I wish I lived in the Regency period and then I remember things like this and I am thankful that I didn’t live back then. One thought I kept having as I was reading this was poor Mrs. Bennet.

    • One can have more “sympathy” for Mrs. Bennet’s nerves when one is aware of the few options she had during her lifetime.
      Even today, when I first moved to North Carolina and chose to purchase a house, I had to get my now ex-husband’s permission to do so. Our split was more amicable than most, but can you imagine what a contested divorce might hold?

      • Good God that sounds archaic Regina!!! My split from my first husband was anything but amicable and I dread to think how I would have fared.

        • He was still in Ohio, Teresa. Although he was threatening to sue for part of my mother’s meager inheritance, I had to “play nice” in order to get him to sign the necessary papers.

Your thoughts are precious!