Why Will Mr Collins Inherit Longbourn? Entails in Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen's Novels

Have you ever wondered why Mr. Collins is inheriting Longbourn in Pride and Prejudice? Well in this video we dive into entails and Regency Era inheritance practices that answer that question. We look at exactly who it was that left Elizabeth Bennet's family's estate to Mr. Collins. And we look at the entails in Sense and Sensibility and Jane Austen's novel Persuasion as well.
💕
INSTAGRAM @elliedashie ➝ / elliedashie
WEBSITE ➝ elliedashwood.com
📽 Other Videos to Watch:
Is the Bennet Family Poor? • Is The Bennet Family P...
How to Size Up a Single Man of Large Fortune? • How to Size Up a Singl...
Did Captain Wentworth Buy Kellynch? • Did Captain Wentworth ...
Vea otros videos con subtítulos en español:
• Ellie Dashwood | Subti...
Links may be affiliate links which means I'll receive a small commission from your purchase at no extra cost to you. Thank you for supporting my channel.
✨✨ Try Audible: amzn.to/45Uzoqb
❤️ Shop my Amazon favorites: amzn.to/45WBoOM
🧐 Learn More
Barclay, K. (2017). Natural Affection, the Patriarchal Family and the “Strict Settlement” Debate: A Response from the History of Emotions. The Eighteenth Century, 58(3), 309-320. Retrieved July 13, 2021, from www.jstor.org/stable/90013401
Cannon, J. (2011). Aristocratic Century. Cambridge, GBR: Cambridge University Press.
English, B., & Saville, J. (1980). Family Settlement and the "Rise of Great Estates". The Economic History Review, 33(4), new series, 556-558. doi:10.2307/2594803
Hilton, B. (2013). A mad, bad, and dangerous people?: England, 1783-1846. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Law Quarterly Review. (1899). United Kingdom: Stevens and Sons.
Spring, E. (1964). The Settlement of Land in Nineteenth-Century England. The American Journal of Legal History, 8(3), 209-223. doi:10.2307/844170
Spring, E. (1988). The Strict Settlement: Its Role in Family History. The Economic History Review, 41(3), new series, 454-460. doi:10.2307/2597370
Stone, L. (1979). The family, sex and marriage in England, 1500-1880. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Thompson, F. M. L. (2013). English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. Routledge.
🎨 Favorite Classic Art Collections
Rijks Museum: www.rijksmuseum.nl/en
The Metropolitan Museum of Art: www.metmuseum.org/art/collection
Musee du Paris: www.parismuseescollections.pa...
Yale Center for British Art: collections.britishart.yale.edu/
Massachusetts Digital Commonwealth: www.digitalcommonwealth.org/
💻 KZbin Tools I Use
✨ Camera, Audio, Lighting, Tech ➝ obsw.it/s/3vyp
Editing Software ➝ adobe.prf.hn/click/camref:110...
Website Hosting ➝ go.shopmy.us/p-1619829
KZbin SEO Tool (CODE: elliedashwood)➝ www.tubebuddy.com/pricing?a=e...
Stock Footage & Images ➝ 1.envato.market/Ea9D7n
Music ➝ www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
🕰 Watching Guide
00:00 Why will Mr. Collins Inherit Longbourn? [Intro]
00:40 What is an entail?
01:37 Pride and Prejudice and English Law
02:30 How and Why of Entails
03:01 Mr. Bennet and Tenant for Life
05:14 Jane Austen’s Persuasion and Kellynch Entail
06:42 Real Inheritors
07:43 History of Entails and Strict Settlements
10:54 Sense and Sensibility and Inheritance
14:12 Who left Longbourn to Mr. Collins?
14:29 Cutting of Entail
16:42 Reestablishing the Entail
20:47 Were all estates entailed?
21:09 Could women inherit?
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
#mrcollins #prideandprejudice #janeausten #entails #regencyera

[@sophie7780]

as a law student i have to say you made this a lot more interesting than my property professor did lol

[@EllieDashwood]

😂😂😂 That’s so cool that you’re a law student!!!

[@lawyergrits]

@@EllieDashwood I'm another of your lawyer fans & I think you did a great job--accurate as well as interesting! When everyone was starting to watch Downtown Abbey with even the cast wondering what this "entail" thing was, I told people to just ask any law student who was at least a few weeks into their first property law classes. Law students would love to explain that concept to them & show off what they had learned already. I love that law school had the side benefit of helping me better understand Downtown Abbey, Jane Austen, & so much more!

[@charlesgantz5865]

@@lawyergrits Ok. Now you can explain Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

[@claireconolly8355]

Haha she's great!

[@gaylesuggs8523]

@@charlesgantz5865 oh goodness, yes, please do explain Jarndyce v. Jarndyce! LOL

[@MulanBelle]

I've always wondered why, when Lizzie turned Mr. Collins down, Mary wasn't then put forth as an option. It's not like Mary wouldn't make a good minister's wife and she would be perfectly capable of putting up with Mr. Collins. And if I remember correctly, Mary wasn't disinterested in him.

[@elizabethmorales7271]

I think given the time period it was customary to go after the eldest daughter. Which is what Mr.Collins originally did by wanting to pursue Jane at first. Mrs.Bennett tells him to instead go after Elizabeth as Jane was most likely going to be engaged. Aside from that, I don't think he noticed Mary. She isn't noted for being as beautiful as Jane or Elizabeth. After Elizabeth rejected him I think his pride was stung to a point where he wouldn't have wanted to settle for any of the sisters. Also, Charlotte was more astute than Mary so she snagged him pretty quickly, not really giving Mary a chance to try and pursue him. That's just my thoughts though I always thought Mary and Mr.Collins would have made a good match for each other

[@MulanBelle]

While I wonder why they didn't end up together, I'm not completely sure if Mary and Mr. Collins would have been a good match for each other. It's possible that they would just reinforce their bad traits. And then if they had children whose temperaments were more like Elizabeth's or Jane's, that wouldn't be a very comfortable household.

[@elizabethmorales7271]

@@MulanBelle I think they suited each other because they were both invested in religion and reading. Neither of them had like super bad traits, they were just really bad with social ques which isn't really drastic. They would have always lived within their means. Charlotte in a way encouraged his obsession with Lady Catherine simply to benefit herself by avoiding him. Mary would have at least genuinely enjoyed his company and would have found him a worthwhile companion. As for children, it doesn't really matter as they'll eventually leave the house and get married. Even if they're more sensible, they'll make their own way in society as Jane and Elizabeth did despite their mother being as she was.

[@claireconolly8355]

Pride.

[@thekingsdaughter4233]

@@elizabethmorales7271 so yes, they had similar interests, and yes, Mary might in time, with more maturity and life experience, have made a good wife for a minister- for a _good_ one. Mr. Collins should never, but NEVER, entered the ministry (for plenty of reasons). Together, the two of them would have become truly insufferable, dripping with "threadbare morality", commonplace catchphrases, and being very narrow-minded. I took it for granted that Jane Austen must have been an atheist, a "priest eater" or something very near that, from the way she described him. Then I came across the book, "Praying With Jane" and was very much surprised indeed.

[@jaymieindigo-blue4203]

Always thought that information was to show how Mr Bennett makes poor decisions based on him projecting his own values onto other's possible actions. That whole Lydia going away He thinks she's safe as nobody would waste time seducing a poor girl. He signed it expecting to simply have a Son. He married his wife expecting her to always be sweet and easy going. He let his daughters all out in society at once like he thinks it'll be easier to manage them in bulk.

[@beaubutts84185]

This video is excellent. I had to learn all of this in law school, and you explain the rule against perpetuities better than most law school study guides or textbooks. The explanation on the breaking the entail in particular is better than anything I got in 3 years of law school. You should be proud of yourself.

[@florianlipp5452]

To answer your question: From the perspective of Mr Bennet's father: If I understand the situation correctly, he had probably 2 sons: Mr.Bennet himself. Plus a younger brother. Neither of whom had any children at the time the entail was set up. With this entail, he wasn't trying to disinherit his grand children. But rather making sure that the inheritance wouldn't be split up but go to ONE of his grand children: a son of his oldest son if available. And only if that wasn't available a son of his younger son. Fron the perspecive of early 19th century England, this aim was perfectly reasonable in my opinion. It was NOT Mr. Bennets father who was at fault here. But rather Mr. Bennet himself. He had owned Longbourn for around 23 years. All this time, he had a revenue stream of 2000 a year. (And this revenue stream was NOT entailed but was his own to spend or to save). As Ellie has shown in previous video, that was some serious cash. Even 1000 a year would have afforded him a very comfortable lifestyle. If he had saved up the remaining 1000, he would have saved up 23.000 (plus 5% compounded interest that's a total of 44.000 after 23 years). Which is more than the total worth of the Longbourn estate Mr Collins will inherit and which would have afforded his daughters a decent life.

[@Aelffwynn]

Yep. Mr Bennet was irresponsible. He sat back and laughed at his wife and other people in society, but he was worse than them! He married for looks, not personality, and overspent for his entire adult life as you said! Even he acknowledged that he screwed up his daughters' inheritances.

[@lolaphilologist]

However if this was the case why wouldn’t Mr. Collins’ name be Bennett? He’s probably the son of a daughter.

[@debbiericker8223]

@@lolaphilologist It's possible he or his father acquired the different last name in a similar way that Jane's brother Edward Austen Knight did, too. I wish the book had explained that.

[@debbiericker8223]

I've done those same calculations before, lol, PLUS how much Mrs. Bennet's $5,000 dowry could have grown over 23 years if they hadn't spent the 4% or 5% it paid every year. AND AND AND the estate could have earned more than $2,000 a year if Mr. Bennet had gotten off his duff and hired a good estate agent to improve things. He may have loved Lizzy, but he did not act responsibly. But, as my husband always says, it's just a story/movie/book, Dear.

[@lynnb2562]

I have a feeling Elizabeth's grandfather knew exactly how irresponsible his eldest son was and that is probably the reason for the entail in the first place. Mrs. Bennet acts as if without it they would be able to provide a future for their daughters but knowing how irresponsible both of them are with money, I highly doubt there would have been much left by the time their daughters inherited.

[@michaelodonnell824]

For what it's worth, the British practice of "Entailment" away from the Female line hasn't completely ended. I'm Irish and a decade or so ago, because there was no Male heir, an estate in Ireland wanted to break the entail so that the daughters could inherit. It required an Act of the Dail (Irish Parliament) for that to happen. Breaking Entails was no small matter.

[@cminmd0041]

Yikes, that's pretty regressive when you've been outpaced by the English Royal family!

[@dolphmanity]

Why not go to the local orphanage and adopt a son after it was clear no natural son would be born?😊

[@Fercousion]

@@dolphmanitythe law mentioned heirs male born of the body, legitimately. Adopted sons won’t count, not even in the Regency Era because the lawyer can double check with their neighbours to see Mrs Bennet is really pregnant. The kid needs to be biological and legitimate to inherit the estate.

[@tymondabrowski12]

@@dolphmanity What? It's not regency era anymore, you shouldn't just adopt kids for inheritance protection or whatever. Adoption is a serious thing. it's a great thing but not if you treat that potential child instrumentally, as a mean to an end.

[@edisonlima4647]

I learned about this from Agatha Christie novels, of all places. As most of her novels are set in the early 20th Century, many of them deal with properties being divided and with the gentry losing land at breakneck speed. People have this illusion that Christie's side characters are almost always the rich and lazy, which is super ironic when in fact they are almost always losing money and power left and right, usually being left with only a house they can't mantain anymore (if even that much). Indeed, the pressures of surviving the way of life they were born into, the hurt pride of those people and the lack of preparation to face real life are some of the most common stresses that led to more than a few of the murders Christie writes about!

[@lllowkee6533]

I didn’t realize the landed gentry and royals were lazy AND considered it low class if they ever WORKED a day in their lives until DOWNTON ABBY!

[@ktdesignbox]

She herself was put on that situation, if I remember well from her autobiography.

[@christina1wilson]

I always thought Mrs. Bennett was so legally clueless that she had no idea who set up the entail. I figured it was either Mr. Bennet's father or maybe grandfather. Possibly in retaliation for Mr. Bennet's rather poor marriage choice."

[@cminmd0041]

I just think that knowing how fast Mr Bennett blows through money, he was VERY susceptible to the "Cut off your allowance." threat.

[@johnhix8892]

She also married up into a landed gentry. She may not have had any idea on entail because law was a man’s job and her father was a lawyer

[@dolphmanity]

Why not go to the local orphanage and adopt a son after it was clear no natural son would be born?

[@pajkt6283]

@dolphmanity, it could be in the entail that the decendant be a biological child.

[@dolphmanity]

@@pajkt6283 There were no DNA tests back then. Austen's own brother, Edward Austen, was adopted at age 12 by a wealthy childless couple. He changed his name to Edward Knight and inherited the Knight estate. The Bennet's should've done the same thing and broke the entail with the adopted son to provide for the Bennet women.

[@CarolinaBury]

I had always wonder why some female characters in Jane Austen could inherit and others couldn't. Thank you for the video!!

[@lpetitoiseau9146]

I wrote my masters dissertation on this. Excellent presentation. Thank you. Great work.

[@lisakilmer2667]

Another excellent little lecture. I have always assumed that the entail pre-dated Mr. Bennet by a couple of generations. But your attention to detail, revealing the phrase "away from his daughters" is very interesting. In your scenario, Bennet agreed to extending the entail, so that he could marry. His father may have recognized that Mrs. Bennet would have been profligate, especially since she was "marrying up" from the middle class. So Mr. Bennet appears to be even more feckless than just being too lazy to manage the estate well. One extra little point - I am sure Grandad Bennet wasn't trying to injure his granddaughters - one would assume he didn't live long enough to realize there was never a son. Thanks for doing all the research!

[@madiantin]

Random aside: That is a very pretty top you're wearing there. You have great taste in clothes.

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you!!! 😃

[@megan2176]

@@EllieDashwood I was imagining it was a dress - is it? Reminds me of a dress Winona Ryder wore in Reality Bites! So pretty! :)

[@penultimateh766]

Her pendant is nice too.

[@claireconolly8355]

She has amazing taste!

[@mch12311969]

@@claireconolly8355 That's what I noticed

[@thewol7534]

The reason the law regarding entails in perpetuity was changed was because within very few generations you could end up with a situation where people had all this land and property, but no money to maintain it or pay the debts of the previous generation. The sons who inherited estates were expected to support their mothers, and sisters, and provide for them from the estate. Also some titles were entailed to the property that came with the title. If you were created a peer and given a grant of land as part of that title, you couldn't have the title without the estate, or the estate without the title.

[@pkmntrainerlilly5]

I think it's very interesting, the way Jane Austen seemed to really make the cracks in a major cultural system of the time a theme in her works. It makes me imagine a future creator talking about authors who are now writing about the cracks in modern capitalism, the same way this channel does for Austen's time.

[@karawild1433]

This is probably the best and most comprehensible explanation I've seen on this complicated subject. Bravo!

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you! I’m so glad you enjoyed it. 😃☺️✨

[@dolphmanity]

​@@EllieDashwoodWhy not go to the local orphanage and adopt a son after it was clear no natural son would be born?

[@debbiericker8223]

In the USA (at least), you can create a legal "life estate interest" in your property for someone, so they can continue to live there after you die, until they die. A relative of mine got a life estate interest in her second husband's home as part of the pre-nup. She has legal right to live in of the home only during her lifetime, but she can't sell it outright. Title will automatically pass to his kids (her step-kids) when she dies. You can legally sell your life estate interest, but the older you are, the less financial value the life estate interest has because whoever buys it still only gets to live there until you die (no matter where you've moved to), unless the buyer is whoever is inheriting the house anyway. Typically, the person wanting to buy a life estate interest is the person next in line anyway, so they can go ahead and move in (and renovate, LOL!). Then, they'd automatically, fully own it after mom or step-mom dies, but they didn't have to wait for her to die, and she can use the money to move elsewhere.

[@EllieDashwood]

Wow! That is so interesting! I definitely think I’d want my step kids just to buy the life estate interest so that they wouldn’t just be sitting there waiting for me to die. 🤔😂

[@debbiericker8223]

@@EllieDashwood ...or plotting my accidental demise...

[@FlightyAngels]

@@debbiericker8223 Makes for a cool mystery :) book though.

[@someonerandom256]

My dad was left a house by his great aunt, but if he wanted to keep it at the end of 5 (or maybe 10?) years he had to make a $100,000 donation to the local school system, which she had worked for.

[@debbiericker8223]

@@someonerandom256 That's very interesting! Hopefully the house was worth more than $100K and the conditions were structured in such a way that the donation would be tax deductible.

[@FlightyAngels]

This helps in understanding Downton Abbey in the first season. Thank you!

[@catofthecastle1681]

That entail goes with the title, created by the reigning monarch!

[@benedictus88able]

Thanks for a fascinating video! I practised law in the US (not estate/probate) for over 40 years and have danced in Regency dress in the Bath Assembly Rooms where Jane did, but had no idea that the English law on entails was so nuanced. Humans sure are capable of creating a lot of complications.

[@EllieDashwood]

That’s so cool that you practiced law! And it’s true humans manage to make everything super complicated. 😳

[@joannshupe9333]

Listening with rapt attention, but really mentally raising my hand and waving it around like crazy - Teacher! Teacher! Why would anyone in their right minds agree to sign away the power of clear inheritance??? But then - oh yeah - "Would you like to continue getting your allowance my dear son?" Oh.

[@EllieDashwood]

😂😂😂

[@NovelNobody]

Can I mention how much I love the graphics you use and the fonts/colors? They’re clean and beautiful, professional looking but interesting and I love the color schemes too. Really adds to all the videos!

[@marshaprice8226]

Thanks for explaining the details of how entails are set up and how they work. Most informative! Entails didn’t end in Jane Austen’s time. Part of the plot of a Georgette Heyer mystery published in 1953 involves the local squire, who was actually the tenant for life, being blackmailed by the murder victim for illegally selling timber and gravel from the estate to provide a nest egg for his wife - the same situation faced by John Dashwood, who abided by the rules which prohibited him from selling the estate’s assets.

[@NJMerlin]

Lord Peter Wimsey’s estates were entailed as of 1942.

[@perdidoatlantic]

It’s funny when Mrs. Bennett says that she would be ashamed to get Longbourne thru entail when, in fact, that’s exactly why she’s there.

[@shoshanaudelson4481]

And she is described as having a "mean" intellect, meaning she's a bit dim. 😂

[@Amethyzts]

your channel is really growing I remember it being at 12 thousand, and now you've tripled. your content is very entertaining and the growth is very well deserved!!

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw, thank you so much for your support! 😃☺️ The growth really is so much. I’m always amazed, wondering where all these people are coming from. 😂

[@dearyvettetn4489]

This was one of your most fascinating videos to date. I thought at first that Lady Katherine’s ownership of Rosings Park was a purely a fictional plot element, then I learned that women could actually inherit land, but didn’t know how that could come about. Thanks for the explainer.

[@juliao1255]

I am agog at the amount of knowledge you have about all of these matters - the legal complexities, the social complexities, the historical context that makes me appreciate Jane's novels so much more. In fact, you inspired me to purchase the entire Kindle set of her books right before I clicked on this video. I haven't read her works (except excerpts) since college (about a century ago -lol). So, thanks to you, I'm off to crack the cover of Pride and Prejudice now....

[@Bertvanmanen602]

Very insightful video. I always thought the entail had come from earlier generations but the idea that Mr Bennett himself did it, under pressure perhaps, is totally credible. A young man may not contemplate the idea he will not have a son or any child for that matter.

[@tessat338]

Here in Maryland, an entail was set up before the Revolutionary War, when Maryland was still a British colony. I don't know exactly how they managed to set up all the legal constraints, but the entail only came to an end in the 1980's when the family was finally able to sell off the surrounding acres of farmland for suburban housing and allow much-needed roads to cut through the property. It was clear to everyone, the family, the local government and the state of Maryland when control of the land would revert to the inheritors and they all just has to wait it out.

[@economath8164]

"I am interested in what you are saying and would like to subscribe to your newsletter." But in all seriousness, please tell us more about this!

[@akapam57]

I live in Maryland. I always wondered about certain areas in Baltimore county where the land was owned by families that go back many generations. In the 80s the land was being sold off bit by bit for roads and communities. And is still happening. I wonder.

[@tessat338]

@@akapam57 The land that I speak of was in Montgomery County, near the Howard County border, out in the farm country.

[@adwnpinoy]

If anyone is curious, you can find out more about the rule about entailing current generations plus 1 by looking up the “rule against perpetuities” which is the current equivalent (“lives in being plus 21 years”). The rule is pretty complex and has lead to fun hypotheticals such as the “fertile octogenarian” and even the “Kennedy Rule” in the US and the “royal loves clause” in other parts of the world. Many places have done away with the rule against perpetuities all together because of its complexity and just have certain public policies in place that make certain types of discrimination unenforceable in wills.

[@tinaham2007]

I’ve always wondered why Mr. Collins has a different last name if that family follows the male line. It seems like his last name would also be Bennett.

[@ginafromcologne9281]

I think he was maybe the son of Mr. Bennett's sister, who married Mr. Collins' father in the generation before. Because Mr. Collins is probably the real cousin of Mr. Bennett.

[@kamunurkamunur3468]

More likely that Collinses were a cadet branch of the Bennet family. Probably some generation back a younger son of Bennet family took surname Collins because of adoption. Jane Austen's own brother Edward changed his surname to Knight as he was adopted by Knight family - childless but wealthy relatives of his father.

[@kamunurkamunur3468]

But I think that the Bennet property entail is of much older times - it goes back to the common male ancestor of Mr Bennet and Mr Collins. The breaking of an entail was simplified by the Fines and Recoveries Act 1833, which happened already after Jane Austen's death.

[@gwenjackson8583]

What an informative video. I’ve always loved Austen’s novels but never had a real grasp of what was going on with the financial and legal stuff. Thank you!

[@mkv1783]

I have always had questions about the entail and how it works; especially as it applies in Downton Abby. I have never heard it explained so clearly and understandably as you have. Thank you.

[@bettykober6904]

I enjoy writing historical fiction. In my current story (setting March 1858 Devonshire and Yorkshire, England), one of my protagonists is a 30 year-old female. Her husband is deceased and she is living on her husband's land (no children). In my story, the house and rents from that property are hers alone as long as she lives. Upon her death, I have house/property revert back to her deceased husband's family. Oh, the research. Could this situation exist? Can't make a mistake on the basics of the plot, so kinda important. This video is so helpful to me.

[@maxineamon]

That was a great explanation Ellie. I really appreciated that you went into so much depth. One thing you didn't explain is why Mr Bennet and his father would risk the estate ownership leaving Mr Bennet's immediate family's possession at all. After all, Mr Bennet could have died young leaving his sisters (did he have any?), wife and any daughters without income. If he had brothers then they would provide for his family but there is never any guarantee of that. Was it that women were of such inconsequence that that was never a consideration? And that it was always preferable to leave it to an unknown distant relation rather than have the estate fall into the hands of a woman?

[@EllieDashwood]

That’s a very good question and the answer is that Mrs Bennet and the girls would have technically been provided for had Mr Bennet died young, but it would have not been enough to let them live up to the standards they were used too. Issues of that nature were legally settled between a bride and groom’s family before they were married, sort of like a prenup. But it had to do with more with cash and investments that existed outside of the entail (like the dowry that Mrs Bennet brought into the marriage). I do plan on making a video about this too!

[@cmm5542]

It wasn't so much that women were of inconseqence, as that their role in society back then didn't require them to provide for others. They COULD - witness Willoughby's aunt who provides for him until finding out about his affair. But then she disinherits him, and he can't marry with no money. There wasn't the same stigma against a penniless woman as a penniless male - men could not EXPECT wealthy women to look after them even if they were family; women COULD expect their male relations to look after them. Obviously this system had exceptions and limitations, many of which are explored in Pride and Prejuduce, but overall a father would feel he should leave his estate to a male rather than a female heir, because the male heir would be socially obligated (even though not exactly legally required) to look after the female relations, whereas a female heiress would have no obligation to look after her penniless male relatives. And while some men might marry a penniless woman, hardly any women would marry a penniless man!

[@zenmasterfu]

I have watched all the movies, read all the books, but you have given me such a new profound view on these books. Thank you for your work. Clearly a deep reader, I was going to ask about Mr. Elliot wanting to sell all of Kellynch, but you answered that too.

[@madiantin]

Well this was fascinating. I never knew all this information. Thank you so much for doing a video on it. Would I put the property into an entail? If I lived in that time period, yes, because it was apparently considered the sensible thing to do at that time...but I hope I would have the sense to make sure my daughters were included.

[@EllieDashwood]

That’s such a good point! It’s interesting how what the “sensible” thing to do is changes over the generations. 🤔

[@cminmd0041]

The problem with letting daughter's inherit is that women didn't keep property after marriage except for their Dowry until 1870 with the Married Women's Property Act. So if the 5 daughter's inherited Longbourn then Wickham would own a fifth of the estate once Mr Bennet died.

[@kiarona.]

If I was able to entail an estate, I think I would, knowing now how it works, but I would entail it to the first born child no matter what gender they were. That would save the estate from being broken up (as it would have been if the Bennet girls had inherited), and also give the estate the protection that an entail granted, while making sure my family was provided for

[@andreare7766]

That *was* interesting. I almost skipped this "not another Mr Bennet and the entail" video, instead it did turn out much more interesting and informative than I thought.

[@Hfil66]

The thing to bear in mind is that in the past the family estates were not just assets one could live off but they were family businesses (in pre-industrial Europe, land was the basis of business). Back in the early middle ages, estates were often split up amongst a number of male heirs, but that meant that the estates lost their economies of scale, and so it became the norm to try and avoid splitting up estates amongst a number of children - which is also why they would have written entails to make it difficult to have property split up. In modern times, the use of corporations as fictional people allows a business to remain intact while dividing up the financial ownership of a corporation amongst a number of shareholders, but the would not have commonly been an option available in pre-industrial times. As for allowing daughters to inherit, that could have become a problem when the daughter married and the property would then legally have become her husbands (although one could imagine the daughter still being allowed an entail on the property, which I assume would then remain intact for another male heir).

[@kiarona.]

With the daughter inheriting thing - I assume that's why Lady Catherine was so eager to have Anne marry Mr Darcy, because she knew he would provide for Anne well, but also it would keep the De Bourgh estate within the family when Darcy "inherited" it as Anne's husband. I'm also sure Lady Catherine would have made Mr Darcy sign a massive pre-nup (or the Regency equivalent) making sure Anne got to keep most of the estate for herself and the money from it until her death. Except LC made a few mistakes - she neglected to ask Mr Darcy whether he actually WANTED to marry her daughter in the first place, and she didn't have a plan B in case Darcy fell in love with another young lady with incredibly fine eyes 😂 I wonder if she'll now try to get Colonel Fitzwilliam to marry Anne. Sure he's only a younger son, but he's still family to them (I think) and he seems like a nice guy

[@cmm5542]

​@@kiarona. I don't think she would have wanted Anne to marry a man without his own fortune. The commonly heard interpretation that 'a woman's fortune became her husband's' isn't TECHNICALLY correct, but it often ended up that way in practice. Let me explain. In Christian doctrine, a husband and wife are 'one flesh', one legal entity in the church courts of the time. So TECHNICALLY the British Christian marriage contract was a 'what's mine is yours; what's yours is mine' agreement. Example: upon her marriage Elizabeth is mistress of Pemberly; she can give orders to the servants, spend the household budget on food and redo the decorations and generally treat it as her own property because it legally is. Darcy wouldn't have had to put her name on the title deed; she's his wife and his house belongs to her too. Simple, right? The genuinely Christian clergymen probably never thought of how avaricious men would take advantage of this system, and the hypocritical greedy ones wouldn't have cared. But while most couples handled the mutual exchange of each others' fortunes fairly reasonably, and as Ellie's videos have mentioned you could preserve certain sums to your own individual needs practically in law as well, the simple fact was that back then pretty much only men were trained in the law. They were the ones doing business, especially in the upper classes (it would have been more obvious just how much a baker's wife contributed to and thus was entitled to her share in the family business's proceeds!) So eventually people started to realize that even if on paper the husband's property 'belonged' to the wife (Mrs Bennett is certainly aware that Lougbourne is HERS!), as much as hers to him, it was a lot easier for a man to get control and abuse his wife rather than share, than it would be for wives (though there were also cases of greedy wives wasting both their own and their husband's fortunes, and there wasn't much a husband could do to recoup such losses as she was technically spending her own money with his consent!) So over the next hundred or so years property laws and marriage laws changed a great deal to safeguard these cases. But back to Jane Austen's own time, Lady Catherine isn't likely to want her daughter to marry Colonel Fitzwilliam with no money of his own to become hers, while her entire fortune will become his. Would Colonel Firzwilliam have abused his matrimonial good fortune? Highly unlikely, but to Lady Catherine it would have been the principle and the social appearance of her daughter 'favoring' a penniless even though well-born and family connected man. She talks more about Elizabeth's 'position' than fortune, as talking about money TOO much was seen a vulgar, but definitely part of her problem with Elizabeth too was that she was getting everything from Darcy in the marriage 'bargain' and giving nothing back. Obviously Darcy and Elizabeth cared more about relationship equality than financial equality because they weren't as shallow, but I think Lady Catherine would have insisted her own daughter marry someone her 'equal' in fortune as in station, or at least so much greater station it was a 'fair exchange' for her fortune. It really was a balancing act!

[@andreabartels3176]

@@cmm5542 there were even special ways for women to inherit to protect the property and the woman. A woman inherits an estate, with the provision that her husband is allowed to use the income, but the estate itself will go to her children. If she has no children, her husband will not inherit the property, but it will revert to his wifes family. The husband had only access to the income during his wifes lifetime and eventually until her child reaches majority.

[@cmm5542]

@@andreabartels3176 Yes, I remember reading about that as well.

[@BabyELF24]

I still don't understand how Mr Collins is the heir. If it was Mr Bennet and his father that set up a new strict settlement then how does that relate to Collins? The different surnames imply that Collins is inheriting through a female line somewhere so how is that any different than say Jane's eldest son inheriting instead of Collins?

[@alicemerray]

It's possible that Mr Collins started out as a Bennet & changed his surname, or it was changed for him. This was a thing people did back then (& on into the Victorian era, in fact IDK when it stopped being a thing) sometimes to basically cosy up to wealthier relations or even just friends & would then get named in the will. So for example, Name Change Wikipedia entry has this: "From the mediæval age to the 19th century, the era of family dynasties, name changes were frequently demanded of heirs in the last wills and testaments, legacies and bequests, of members of the gentry and nobility who were the last males of their bloodline. Such persons frequently selected a younger nephew or cousin as the heir to their estates, on condition that he should adopt the surname and armorials of the legator in lieu of his patronymic. Thus, the ancient family otherwise destined to extinction would appear to continue as a great dynasty in the making. Such changes were also more rarely demanded by marriage settlements, for example where the father of a sole daughter and heiress demanded that as a condition of his daughter's dowry her husband should adopt his father-in-law's surname and arms. " Maybe Mr Collins' father changed his surname upon marriage?

[@spoosieoopsie1616]

Sounds rather like Frank Weston--Frank Churchill.

[@CYTBlitz]

There is exactly one good thing to say for Shelley: He wrote Ozymandias

[@HowVeryNovel]

Such a hectic day, but I had to make time for this one! I remember reading up on entails when I first read P&P but, as ever, you've broken it down in a way that is FAR easier to understand (and fun to watch). I definitely learned some new things!! 😅✨

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw!!! Thanks so much for making time for my video! 😃 ☺️✨

[@jasonkwong3207]

Currently in the middle of reading Pride and Prejudice and this video certainly came in handy. Thanks!

[@EllieDashwood]

Yay! I’m so glad it’s helpful! 😃

[@nansemond01]

@Ellie Dashwood Came across your video through my KZbin recommendations and just had to watch it. As a history professor who teaches about the role of primogeniture and entail in colonial Virginia on occasion, I thought you did a great job at providing a general explanation of how entails (or rather the strict settlement) worked in the Georgian era. The only thing I would have added is that primogeniture wasn't just a social custom but part of the legal canon. If someone died without a will then their real estate would pass to their heirs by rule of primogeniture, with the primary male heir (if there was one) inheriting it all. That small detail aside, you did a fantastic job, and it warms my heart to see that so many people have watched the video! Ironically, it was an essentially medeival form of entail that prevailed in Virginia before the Revolution, when largely through Thomas Jefferson's efforts the practice was outlawed.

[@ginnieliebherr4245]

Wow! I thought I had a good gripe on entails but this was so informative and presented so much information I didn’t know in an easy to understand way while also being funny, entertaining and handsome. ✨

[@AloutkaKazawa]

It's very interesting! And it also explains a bit why the richest people in England (and having the majority of land) are truly the richest for the lat 500 years or more. (And it explains beautifully how marriage is not about love but about business)

[@atlanteum]

Thank you so very much for this video! I've been researching this very subject for a story I'm writing, digging through everything from family history UK blog posts to the always-painful-to-navigate documents on JSTOR... trying to piece one fragment of information from over here with another fragment from over there - none of which ever provided a comprehensive overview or context. Your video was a Godsend, offering more clarity in 24 minutes that I'd managed to scrape together over the past several weeks. The only question I am left with is - Do I now owe you a consultant's fee?

[@valerielinares2068]

I love learning about the historical context of my favorite stories like Pride and Prejudice! It's so interesting and it helps me understand the story more!

[@eurekahope5310]

So fascinating! I had picked up on entail concepts from Austen but never fully understood the intricacies. This was very enlightening!

[@theguest4516]

When I first read the title I thought it was entrails!!! Am like why is s she talking about Mr. Collins entrails??? 😂🤣😂 Another great vid!!! Thank you!!! Take care and have fun!!! 💃🕺💃 😷😎😷

[@EllieDashwood]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@AdrianColley]

I can just see Mr. Collins conducting the augury now, looking to Lady Catherine for approval.

[@Natalie_11188]

This is why in USA law we have a “rule against perpetuities” trusts are only valid for a life in being plus 21 years. 😃

[@economath8164]

We inherited that rule from the English. :)

[@annadimoulis1406]

Thank you for making this video! This is best video I've seen thus far on the subject of entails and explains many things in Austen's books. Keep up the good work! ❤

[@ericarougelazarus9453]

Thank you! I could never understand how and why. Your channel is precious!

[@geoffreylrd7351]

I love the kind of content you cover in your videos, things I would’ve never thought to explore I’ve definitely made these books more deeply rooted in my mind. Thank you so much for the tremendous effort you put into these presentations.

[@lisamarie7151]

Such a interesting video! I could probably listen to you talking about anything in the world and you would make it interesting because you’re always so invested and excited about your topics. Love your channel so :) also so great to see that more and more people coming to your channel!!! I started following you when you maybe 5k subscribers and no you’re getting nearer to 50k. Amazing!!!!

[@TorchwoodPandP]

Thank you for clearing this up. It has been bugging me for a long time. You are awesomr!

[@cristinagrasso5855]

Great video as always! I love these informative videos

[@EllyseaAndDolls]

THANK YOU. 10+ years of questions have finally been answered with your video, really thank you so much, it was so interesting and detailed. Great work. And I even have a bibliography to read from too, now.

[@joyoung2483]

Thank you for clearing up the whole entail situation! Very informative!!!

[@gaylesuggs8523]

Very helpful video! I knew some of this, but you provided much more detail that now makes many of the situations in Austen's novels make more sense. The one thing that used to bother me was that if Longbourne is in the Bennet family and is traveling along the male line, then why would someone named "Collins" inherit it? I have justified it in my mind that perhaps Mr. Collins was at some point a "Bennet" who was then adopted by someone named Collins (similar to how one of Austen's brothers (Edward) was adopted and made heir of another family and adopted the last name of Knight at that time).

[@bholmes1035]

This has always bothered me too. In Persuasion, William Elliot has the same surname as Sir Walter. Same in Downton Abbey which also deals with entails in Season 1. Was it a situation like Frank Churchill from Emma? Raised by another relative and taking a different name? Was it ever explained?

[@peggychapman-miller4204]

Thanks for such insight into the entail issue. Adds so much understanding to Austin's books and Downtown Abbey issues. Love your way of speaking and teaching. Kudos!

[@christyb2912]

You are SO knowledgeable and SO interesting to listen to. Thank you!

[@GoldenGarden9]

Ellie, your videos are so informative and entertaining! Adding a whole additional of enjoyment to my love of Jane Austen's works :) Thanks!

[@midnightblack07]

Great video as always! You break down the potentially complicated legalities/practices in such an accessible and engaging way. All the things I learned through your channel have enriched my experience when reading Jane Austen and other books set during the Regency era. :)

[@beatrizcrossman3351]

Your videos on literature and history are top class! I wish you hadn't stop making them.

[@emigurumi]

A few days ago, I stumbled onto your channel for the first time, and I’m binge watching your content. Your explainers are wonderful! You filled in so many gaps in my knowledge about the historical context of her novels. Thanks so much for your awesome work! ❤❤❤

[@harrisonalexander5590]

Yes! I would have an entailed estate so quick.

[@sarat.8162]

I will definetely binge- watch all of your videos relating to Pride and Prejudice. I am currently reading the novel and I will get back to your content to get a better insight of characters. Thanks!

[@ameliecarre4783]

I never researched it but on both sides of my family I descend from lines of first sons over a few generations. And the first sons took over the farm while other sons had to either start their own farm or find another career. But it was more a custom than a legal procedure, all children were provided for as much as the family could. The thing with big enough estates, same as with kingdoms, is that the good management and stable prosperity of the land doesn't just affect the ruling family, but all the people living on it too. Quite a responsibility, and a good reason to not split the goods every generation, even if it sounds unfair to not treat all children the same. Of course it never was a concern in my family, at no point was there a big landowner with his own tenants in my ascendancy.

[@fernandofariajunior]

It is amazing how much a legal instrument like this can reveal about families and human relations in this book. Your videos are excellent!

[@delphinidin]

Thank you for all this new information you bring us about Regency Britain! I thought I knew a lot, but I'm always learning more from your videos. You really bring something new to us Regency fans. (And your way of asking for likes is adorable and effective lol)

[@nicolesykes7443]

Such a good video!! I love learning history with you through the lens of Jane Austen☺

[@Girlyfish66]

I understood entails but I didn’t know the specifics. Thanks for the great video! You answered all my questions as they came up.

[@iuliap.3927]

This was so helpful! Your videos help me understand the world of Jane Austen even more (and I already love it SO MUCH❤).

[@barbaracherry1082]

Good job explaining a complicated subject without making me fall asleep!

[@bianbustrot7826]

Thanks for another great video! As Jane Austen and a history fan, I really appreciate your content, It's like my tea of the morning. Greetings from Argentina

[@EllieDashwood]

Hi Argentina! 😃👋🏻 Thanks so much for watching! 💕

[@aimeejenesse116]

@@EllieDashwood here from argentina too! Excellent vid

[@economath8164]

I've been waiting for this video. You did a great job! I hope the chapters I sent were useful.

[@Scout-bt3mo]

Thanks for clearing this up. I had been wondering why the Bennet daughters could not inherit but Anne de Bourgh could.

[@meghanthestorygirl4581]

Now the entail makes sense! Thanks so much for making this video.

[@EllieDashwood]

I’m so glad it helped! Thanks so much watching! 😃

[@JacquelineViana]

I see Ellie content, I like it first and watch it later

[@EllieDashwood]

😂 Thank you!

[@amyludwig8309]

Fascinating video! I loved learning about this. Thanks for another great post 😊

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you!!! I’m so glad you enjoyed it!

[@notthatnick5546]

Such an interesting analysis! I always wondered why Mr. Collins was going to inherit the estate. I thought it was because of English law, but then, there is Lady Catherine de Bourgh. She's a very wealthy and powerful woman, so clearly, women could inherit estates and have their own money. That left me a bit dumbfounded. So yeah, thank you for this!

[@EllieDashwood]

Yay! I’m so glad it helped! 😃

[@AdrianColley]

As a widow, Lady Catherine had more property rights than she did when Sir Lewis was alive, because it was long before the Married Women's Property Act 1870, and her property was effectively owned and controlled by her husband. It's possible that a similar trust arrangement protected her property from this fate, but we don't get any hint of it from Pride and Prejudice. It's also possible that she simply lost her property to Sir Lewis at marriage as a "feme covert", but that she re-acquired it at his death. (There's a decent murder mystery in there somewhere.)

[@notthatnick5546]

@@AdrianColley That's an excellent point, thank you! :)

[@captainjaneway80]

Another great episode. Thanks for all the hard work you put into producing these.

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you! 😃💕

[@tonychapman1912]

Loved this. First timer. Had to subscribe. Thank you.

[@Walls2008]

What a fantastic video! Thank you!

[@bettykober6904]

Miss Dashwood, I just had to say how very much I have been enjoying your KZbin channel. It is informative and lively. Thank You.

[@EllieDashwood]

Aw! Thank you! I’m so glad you’re enjoying it! 😃

[@sophiarain8901]

Very interesting - and very well explained, thank you!

[@pthaloblue100]

Well, that was an amazing explanation of entails, thank you!

[@gingersgiraffes219]

This was very interesting...I had no idea.

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

Thank you very much on your further explanation of entailments.

[@jspohl]

Thank you! I learned so much. 💖

[@KellieT73]

I love this legal information. Thank you, Ellie, you rock!

[@magdalenahinc285]

That's a great video! I feel like I learned something today 😊, thank you so much

[@bglboy09]

Miss Dashwood, Let me first express my sincere appreciation for your videos. I too love Jane Austen novels for their commentary on late feudal society. Though I could speak for ages on this, as you do so eloquently, I’ll limit myself to answering your question. I would entail my estate. If the estate is broken up, the granddaughters will recieve little to no support from the estate anyway. At least in the cast of an entail, the inheritor may be in a position to provide for his kinsman in such a case as the early demise of a tenant. I have 4 sons and 1 daughter but I have no estate to entail. Please do not cease to create such content. Sincerely, Mr. Nielsen

[@Aurriel]

As a non-native speaker the phrase "this entails that" maks so much more sense now!

[@senorpetirrojo5151]

That was a very interesting explanation...thanks very much for making the video.

[@ludoviclemaignen9432]

Thanks for explaining this topic that puzzled me as i was reading Jane Austen's books. It was very clear and useful.

[@penultimateh766]

I wonder where the boundary lies between "you may not squander this estate" and "you must manage this estate wisely".

[@somethingclever8916]

Gambling was common vice People would gamble their businesses and homes away on a card game

[@CopenhagenDreaming]

And basically this video also applies to all those who don't understand the general plot of Downton Abbey - since it's basically the same concept of an entailed estate, except that there's more of it. Also: Respect for the bibliography / source list! It gives a bit of an idea of the work that goes into one of these little videos - a LOT, it seems... As for whether I'd do an entail? Well, perhaps. Estates under a certain size cease to be viable, so there's a certain point - or at least there was, historically - in keeping the estate intact with a single owner. And then you add the importance of family names back then, so it was important that it went to a son, as there were rather few (if any?) examples of women keeping their family names after marriage, and even fewer passing them down to their offspring. I can't know what I would have done 200 years ago. These days, though? Of course I wouldn't! Times have changed. I can understand why some current large estates go to the oldest child, but gender shouldn't play a part. (Anyway, I have a one-bedroom flat and a cat. So the whole issue isn't really relevant to my situation. My boyfriend will inherit the flat and the cat if I die tomorrow. Or perhaps the cat will inherit the flat and my boyfriend? That's really a matter of semantics.)

[@kristinal-ghoul2680]

Very informative. It all makes more sense to me now!

[@aubreymaksimenko1625]

So informative and interesting! Great content!

[@benedictus88able]

PS: Previous post from Dolores Cordell, not Terry Bennett. Don't know why I can't get my own name on these things!