Conclusion

Our project is now coming to an end so we wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been reading this blog over the last couple of months. We really hope that you’ve enjoyed hearing about our research and have found this blog interesting. Hopefully we’ve added to, and perhaps challenged any ideas about Georgian Families you might have previously held from Jane Austen’s novels. The intention of this blog was to question and examine what factors impacted sibling relationships among the Hampshire gentry by examining real case studies and comparing these to fictional families portrayed in the literature of the period.

For our last post we thought we would bring together some of the different concepts we’ve explored over the past weeks to see what conclusions we can draw about Georgian Gentry families in Hampshire.

• The factor influenced sibling relationships the most was undoubtedly gender, since it played a role in so many aspects of Georgian lives. Sons and daughters were brought up differently, receiving different types of education in preparation for their adult lives. This is where inheritance also played a role; boys, especially the younger sons would need a profession, whereas the heir would inherit money and daughters would be expected to marry. Boys benefited more from inheritance than their sisters, reflecting the way in which men were expected to be financially independent whereas girls were dependent on their male relatives. This was evident in the examples from the Bonham Carter family.

• Correspondence between siblings was frequent and valued, especially when separated for long periods of time. As seen in the Temple family, the sons wrote constantly to their sisters and mother while away at school and university, taking an interest in their education and planning visits during school holidays. This is evidence of close relationships between siblings despite factors such as age, distance and education separating them.

Mary Mee, mother of Henry (3rd Viscount
 Palmerston), William, Elizabeth and Frances Temple.

• Marriage proved to be the most divisive of the factors, we have seen that it both strengthened family bonds and caused increased tension. It was common for a spouse to become an additional sibling and child within their marital family, however, as seen in the Austen family, the engagement or marriage of one child could cause tension among the parents and their unmarried children. Whilst marriage was desirable for the Georgian gentry, it would have had an enormous impact on day-to-day life; this explains why it was a recurring topic between siblings, especially sisters.

• Significantly, our study has shown that inheritance does not just mean the passing of money from one source to another. In the case of both the Temple and Austen-Leigh families, the new heir also took on the care and responsibility of dependent relatives, showing that inheritance was not simply about money. Attached to being the heir was becoming the head of the family, and the responsibilities that came with this. 

An Early 18th Century Wedding

In drawing all of these together, we can determine that there was a multitude of factors that influenced sibling relationships; patterns which could have been similar in other counties alongside Hampshire. As in any period, there were factors which caused conflict in families; however we have seen that despite this, sibling relationships among the Georgian Gentry were largely strong and affectionate.

Money

‘A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of’

Mansfield Park

Love and money are the two aspirations for Jane Austen’s heroines, yet our research suggests that money did not always bring happiness. Whilst the eldest son inherited his father’s estate, it did not necessarily make his life easier than that of his younger brothers, since the inheritance came with a sense of duty towards his dependent relatives.

On his father’s death, Henry Temple’s mother wrote to him about his responsibility to his sisters:

‘you will be a second Parent, a more than Brother and in you my dearest Harry they will have a consolation for all their other affliction.’

Henry was clearly expected to take on the care and protection of his sisters, as they were still unmarried. This was not surprising given the relationship between Henry and his siblings, they clearly got on well together and he had previously taken much interest in their education, for example recommending that they take lessons from a particular dancing master.

 

It appears that a similar sense of duty was felt towards half-siblings, despite Jane Austen’s negative portrayal of Henry Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility. Indeed, her own nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh took on responsibility for his half-sister Anna, keeping up a regular correspondence with her, in spite of

‘sitting down under the double disadvantage of having nothing to say, and no time to say it in; I must trust to providence for making a nice long letter.’

He also attempted to provide for Anna financially. Mrs Leigh-Perrot (his great-aunt) made him her heir, leaving him £10,000 on the condition it would be in property and land since they were not subject to the legacy tax of 10%. This meant that in the meantime James’ income would be lowered, something that caused him to worry about providing for Anna,

‘I will have more difficulty in paying her the little I give her.’

This implies there were alternative forms of inheritance; it was not always as straightforward as passing money from father to son.

 

In Mrs Leigh-Perrot’s case having no children of her own meant that her and her husband's money could be passed to other relatives. James discusses these possibilities in a letter to his mother and mentions that he has ‘great expectations’ that his sister Caroline will benefit from it. Since his father was only a clergyman, and therefore not very wealthy, this would have made the burden of providing for his relatives easier for James.

 

James Edward Austen-Leigh

 

Furthermore, these example show that women were not passive or ignorant about inheritance matters. Mrs Leigh-Perrot was conscious of who she wanted to receive her money and was aware of the taxation her money would be subject to.

In many cases inheritance was straightforward with the estate being passed from father to son. This was accepted as the norm, and therefore not likely to be challenged by younger sons or daughters. Indeed, there were many disadvantages of being the heir, such as having no choice of career, the expectation of providing for family members and the pressure of maintaining the estate and family reputation. It appears that female members of the family were well looked after by their male relatives in most cases, particularly by their brothers, displaying the strength of sibling relationships.

Inheritance

‘For [John Dashwood], the succession to the Norland estate was not so really important as to his sisters; for their fortune, independent of what might arise to them from their father’s inheriting that property, could be but small.’

Sense and Sensibility

The subject of inheritance played a huge role in the relationships between siblings, be them male or female. The law during the Georgian era permitted only the eldest surviving son or closest male relative to inherit a gentleman’s property and fortune, only in the rarest of circumstances when no male relative could be found did a woman become an heiress. So like marriage, inheritance was a key aspect in preserving a family’s legacy and name. Within our case studies of gentry families, there was clearly a difference in the treatment and upbringing of the heir when compared to the upbringing of their other siblings. By studying the wills of gentry families, we can begin to understand the structure of specific nuclear families and how family relationships were governed by gender.

As seen in the Carter family, all the children were raised with the knowledge that their eldest brother John would inherit their father’s estate and annuity of £1800 a year. Within the opening paragraph of “The Last Will and Testament of John Carter”, he clarifies

‘neither my said wife or any of my said younger sons or daughters shall have any right to complete an appropriation for unsevering the said annuity or any of the said legacies. Until then my trustees for the time being shall fund it convenient and deem it expedient to make such accusations.’

To put it simply, he is stressing that neither his wife nor any of his younger children had the legal right to take any of their intended inheritance prematurely or any of the money intended for their eldest brother. Placing such an emphasis on this implies Carter’s understanding of family affairs and his wish to maintain fairness among his children. To avoid conflict or changes to the estate, no family member was legally entitled to more than he deemed appropriate. This could be accurate, to an extent, in most families we have studied.

There is no doubt that the Carter’s were a close, nuclear family and John Carter ensured that all his children would be well provided for. Whilst the eldest son inherited the estate and annuity, his other children would receive a substantial amount of money on two occasions; entering adulthood by turning 21 and on their father’s death. It was planned that his younger son’s would receive £8000 on coming of age and then a further £4000 on Carter’s death. Likewise, his daughters would receive £5000 when they turned 21, then a further £4000 on his death. However, as Carter died while his children were all still young, the grounds of his will changed. Instead his younger sons inherited the full £12,000 on coming of age while his daughters received £9,000, providing them all with some financial support on entering adulthood.

The relationship and division between the heir and the other siblings is evident here, with gender and birth order playing the most significant role. Interestingly, it leads onto another aspect of inheritance; the professions and roles of the other siblings were governed by both their gender and their inheritance, whenever they were intended to receive it.

As we have seen, the eldest son was always destined to inherit the estate and continue the legacy of the family. They could also be entitled to other forms of inheritance, for instance if they were the closest male relative to a benefactor, they would then become entitled to two sets of money and property. This can be seen with John Carter’s son, who changed his name to Bonham-Carter by Royal Licence in order to inherit property from his cousin Thomas Bonham; another example of how inheritance played a role in maintaining nuclear family bonds and family legacy.

For the younger sons, their choice was to either marry an heiress (thus securing them finically) or to enter a respectful and stable profession. Carter felt this was a great significance, as he emphasises in letters he sent to his sons and his own will the importance of receiving a good education and a university degree. He considered it

“an ideal destination for all [his] boys”

The fact they were not entitled to inherit any money before they were 21 can be seen as a ploy for them to enter university and or find a profession. For his daughters, who could not enter into the same education as their brothers, they could only rely on marrying well, providing them with financial security and protection. The fact that the daughters had to also wait until the age of 21 before receiving any financial support could be interpreted as either their father treating all his children equally and fairly or creating an incentive for his daughters to marry young. Nevertheless, wills such as these pose as effective sources on how gender influenced sibling relationships.

For the women of the Carter family, like most nuclear families we have studied, there is no doubt that they would be well cared for and looked after by their elder siblings until they were married, thus strengthening the family bonds and sibling relationships. The sense of responsibility towards family members on the death of a relative was a common feeling in Georgian families and an area we will explore further in our next post.

Marriage

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”

Pride and Prejudice

The famous opening line of one of Jane Austen’s best loved novels is possibly the most fitting summary of Georgian attitudes towards marriage. To both men and women of the gentry, a good match satisfied a range of criteria, including the ideal of uniformity and character, alongside improving the family’s prospects. Once they were married, they would leave their own family and be embraced by their marital family, becoming another sibling to their in-laws.

Male heirs were expected to marry women of ‘good breeding’ and prosperous families to secure the family name and legacy, while their younger brothers would either marry an heiress who would too secure them financially or simply make a good match depending on their family’s wishes. For women, however, their only role in adulthood it seemed was to marry well, gaining them status and financial security and providing their husbands with an heir. As summarized by historian Amanda Vickery “getting married was the most decisive act a lady could do” (see The Gentleman's Daughter). So how would this affect sibling relationships?

Jane Austen believed,

“everybody [has] a right to marry once in their lives for love”

Jane Austen, by her sister Cassandra

which is why she places so much emphasis on it in most of her novels. Marriages of convenience were more realistic than the ‘love’ matches in Austen‘s novels and accepting marriage proposals was deemed a sense of duty to one’s family rather than to oneself. Hence, the uproar in Pride and Prejudice  when Elizabeth Bennet rejects her cousin’s proposal of marriage despite the fact she would be securing herself and saving her sisters and mother from hardship after their father’s death. Though this never happened to the Bennet family, in a real Georgian family rejecting such an offer of marriage would be devastating for the family. Within Austen’s own family, her rejection of Harris Bigg-Wither’s (a wealthy heir) proposal caused much tension between herself and her mother. Therefore we can question how engagement and marriage affected sibling relationships, and whether they caused more tension than ease.

Marriage seemed to be a recurrent topic of conversation in the letters between Jane Austen and her sister Cassandra. Whilst both believed in marrying for affection over anything else, they acknowledged that:

"Single women have a dreadful propensity for being poor, which is one very strong argument in favour of matrimony"

So if they could marry for love and also ensure financial security for themselves, they would be fulfilling their duties to their family and embracing “the manoeuvring business” of marriage. However, Cassandra’s engagement to Thomas Fowle was extended for many years, as insufficient funding on the part of them and their families meant they were unable to marry. This did not so much cause tension between Cassandra and her family, but rather intensify her relationship with Jane as the one person she could consult on the matter.

Silhouette of Cassandra Austen

Evidently, marriage created stronger bonds between families, especially if they were both nuclear families. This kind of connection can be seen in correspondence between the individual and their future in-laws. As seen in the letters between Mrs George Austen (Jane Austen’s mother) and her future daughter-in-law Mary, all the family were delighted with the news of her engagement to Frank Austen;

“when we assure you that we feel the most beautiful satisfaction at the prospect we have of adding you to the number of our very good children”

It is clear here that the spouse of the said sibling would be welcomed into the nuclear family almost automatically and become another child and sibling within their marital family. However, the marriage of one sibling could potentially cause tension between the parents and their other children. Now that the fourth son was engaged, speculations began as to when the other Austen children were to marry. Mrs George Austen emphasises this at the end of her letter to Mary

“I look forward to you as a real comfort to me in my old age when Cassandra is gone into Shropshire & Jane, the Lord knows where…Farewell for the present my dear Mary, and believe me every your most affectionate”

Though it may seem pushy of her to be marrying off all of her children, it was important for the mother that her sons married well, because it would be her daughter-in-law’s responsibility to care for her in her old age. This was increasingly important, because Mrs Austen’s own daughters would enter the same roles within their own husband’s family, so in a way she needed to replace her own daughters with daughters-in-law. So ultimately, Mrs Austen, like most gentry wives and mothers of her time, only wanted what was best and to take comfort in seeing all her children happy and settled, fulfilling her role as a mother and wife.

Education

‘A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages'

Pride and Prejudice

Just like today, education played a prominent role in the childhoods of the Georgian gentry. However unlike today, a child’s education was determined by their gender, with boys and girls segregated and taught different subjects. Upper-class boys were sent to boarding school from the age of seven, to be taught discipline and resilience away from female influence. The historian Anthony Fletcher suggests that the more upper class a boy was, the more time he spent away from home. In contrast girls were often kept at home or sent to small boarding schools where they were taught the necessary social graces to marry well. This opens up a key question for us to explore; how did being educated differently influence relationships between brothers and sisters?



Harrow School in the 17th Century

From the families we have come across in our research, it seems that Harrow was a popular choice of public school for the Hampshire Gentry to send their sons to. The Temple family sent both their sons, Henry and William, to Harrow. This seems to have strengthened the relationship between the brothers; Henry often wrote home on behalf of both himself and William, reassuring his mother that ‘we are both well’ and sharing his brother’s news:

‘Willy is placed in the third form and is going to play a match at cricket tomorrow’
 

When Henry moved on from Harrow, William clearly missed his brother, leading their mother to write to Henry:

‘Willy is as charming as ever but he feels like a Dove without her mate not having you with him’
 

The correspondence between Melesina Trench and her son Charles shows a similar feeling towards Harrow. Melesina’s sons from her second marriage also attended the school which she describes to Charles as:

‘Your nursing mother, dear Harrow’
 

Before informing him of the details of the speech day she had attended there. She keeps Charles up to date with the academic achievements of his half-brothers, suggesting that Charles is genuinely interested. It appears that sharing the experience of being educated away from home and loyalty to their school created a bond between brothers.

So how did this impact on their relationship with their sisters?

The Temple family, with two sons and two daughters, provides us with a good example of how a gendered education impacted on their relationships. We are limited by a lack of evidence concerning Elizabeth and Frances since they remained mostly at home, and therefore had less need to write to their mother in the way that Henry and William did. However, we can draw conclusions from information in letters written between Henry and his mother.

Most strikingly, we learn that Henry corresponds with his sisters in Italian, French and Spanish. In fact, in one letter Henry expresses his surprise at how much of Frances’ letter (written in Spanish) he could understand, considering how little he had been taught and how long ago, suggesting that his sisters’ knowledge of languages was equal, if not superior, to their brothers’. However their mother, Mary Mee, spoke these languages too, asking for Henry to

‘now and then favour me with an Italian, French and Spanish letters to keep up my languages’
 

If their mother knew these languages, it was more likely she would want her daughters to learn them. Furthermore, the family had spent several years in Europe when the children were young, perhaps where the children began to learn such languages.

The Five 'Positions of Dancing' from Thomas
Wilson's Analysis of  Country Dancing (1811)
 

There is no mention of Elizabeth and Frances learning any other academic subjects, with only music and dancing being discussed. These would have been important social accomplishments for the girls to learn in order to marry well. Such social accomplishments were increasingly recognised as necessary for boys too, with Eton College offering lessons in French, drawing, dancing and fencing at an additional cost. Parents were prepared to pay for their children to learn such accomplishments; Henry Temple’s mother wrote telling him that his father thought he should take additional lessons in Italian, and he would be happy to pay. However for boys, such lessons were viewed as extras, alongside a classical curriculum which took up most of their time. A sample Eighteenth Century timetable from Eton College shows that boys spent approximately 21 hours a week on classics, compared to 3 hours on ‘extra subjects.’

It’s easy to imagine that this distinction between the education of boys and girls would damage relationships between brothers and sisters, with girls perhaps feeling second best or less capable than their brothers. However, this is what historians call a ‘present-centred’ view, trying to apply modern day feelings or preconceptions to past events. Instead we can understand that education in the Georgian period was vocational, it prepared the child for their adult life – which would be different for men and women. We must also remember that as members of the gentry, the Temple children would have received the best education possible, with money being no problem. Therefore just because Elizabeth and Frances Temple had not received the same type of education as their brothers did not mean they believed themselves to be badly educated.

It appears that education created a bond between siblings of the same sex, but it did not damage relationships with other siblings. As previously mentioned, letters between family members show that despite being separately educated siblings still thought of and wrote to one another and planned joint activities for the school holidays.

Our next post will explore how these relationships changed as education ended and siblings entered the adult world, with new demands being put on their relationships.

Please feel free to comment below if you have any questions!

Sibling Relationships

“Will you give me leave to defer your raptures till I write again? At present I have not room to do them justice.”

“Oh! it is of no consequence … But do you always write such charming long letters to her, Mr Darcy?'

Extract from Pride and Prejudice, where Caroline Bingley is scrutinising Mr Darcy’s constant letter writing to his sister, Georgiana.

Distance, whether it’s due to business or pleasure commitments, will always put a strain on a relationship. For siblings today, who move away to university or to find jobs, emails, Facebook, mobiles and Skype make it easier to stay in touch. But for Georgian siblings, all they could rely on were letters. So what can we learn about sibling relationships? As seen in our case study families and Austen’s characters, letters were vital tools in maintaining relationships and were reminders of the affection they felt for each other.

Fanny Price and her brother William in Mansfield Park are separated by his naval commitments and had limited time together. So their constant correspondences throughout the book allow them to maintain what relationship they have and the affection they hold for each other. Likewise, Pride and Prejudice can be applied here, as Mr Darcy is constantly writing to his sister Georgiana during his time away from Pemberley. Their relationship, however, is somewhat closer than Fanny and William’s. Although their large age difference creates a more parental relationship, the fact he talks to her a lot about Elizabeth Bennet implies intimacy and confidence. Nowadays, his long winded description of her ‘fine eyes’ would be replaced with a quick log onto Facebook to check out her profile picture.

But how far can we use these as reliable sources on sibling relationships? Well, many of our case studies can easily be compared to these literary examples. Letters between William Roxburgh and his sister Mary Roxburgh from 1797 mirror the same affection between Darcy and Georgiana. Though we don’t know if they were separated by business or pleasure, we can still determine that they are keeping a regular correspondence and maintaining a close relationship. The fact that she asks

‘Remember me to Mama and Papa and our acquaintances in London’

suggests that she is the one away from home and possibly prefers writing to her brother more than her parents. Moreover, the content of the letter implies how much she is enjoying her youth and freedom away from her family;

‘We have attended countless assemblies and some nights not returned home [until] one o’clock in the morning.’

This suggests that she is telling her brother significantly more than her parents, emphasising again their closeness and the level of confidence she holds him in over her parents.

Although they are not letters specifically between siblings, we can still see close sibling relationships within the nuclear Temple family of Broadlands. While her eldest son Henry was away at university, the efforts of Mary to maintain a close relationship between her children are clear in her letters to him. She always mentions what his brothers and sisters are doing and even discusses their own correspondence. In one of her letters she mentions how delighted his brother Willy was with the letter and maps he sent him and how he looks forward to seeing his brother at Hanover Square. She later comments that



Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston

‘your sister and myself are extremely delighted at the thoughts of joining you'

in her letter sent on route to Edinburgh, again implying her efforts to take her other children to visit her son. She follows this with talk of their holiday, encouraging him to spend time teaching his sister Lilly to ride and entertaining his sisters with his play writing skills.

Likewise, such affection is mirrored in Henry’s replies to his mother. As seen in our previous posts on letter writing, Henry Temple always ends his letters with ‘Believe me ever your affectionate son’.This, however, was not before writing ‘Send my love to brother and sisters’. In later years, we begin to see Henry enclosing letters to his sisters within his other letters home.

Like most historical sources, we cannot take these letters as wholly accurate and dismiss limitations, one being that affectionate closing to letters could have been written out of routine and politeness rather than for affection. Nevertheless, they highlight what types of relationships were to be had and encourage us to think about the factors that affected sibling relationships. The frequency of their correspondence and the more intimate topics discussed suggest the closeness and affection within sibling relationships. Whilst we have mentioned physical distance, further investigation has uncovered more specific factors that influenced and altered sibling relationships which we will be exploring in further posts.

Broadlands House, Hampshire

Letters

‘I have now attained the true art of letter-writing, which we are always told, is to express on paper exactly what one would say to the same person by word of mouth’

Jane Austen writing to her sister Cassandra, January 1801.

 

It is for this reason that letters play such an important part in our research. They provide us with a glimpse of the relationship between individual family members, through the frequency of correspondence, subjects discussed and the language used. We can see in Jane Austen’s novels the importance of letters between siblings such as Elizabeth and Jane from Pride and Prejudice or Fanny and William from Mansfield Park. Sense and Sensibility was originally written in an epistolary form, like Frances Burney’s Evelina and other novels from the period. Such novelists evidently believed that a story and understanding of characters could be conveyed effectively through letters.



Letter from Elizabeth Temple to her brother Henry1st
Viscount Palmerston (with the permission of the Special Collections,
 Hartley Library, University of Southampton).

 

This is why letters provide a valuable source for understanding family relationships. As mentioned in previous posts, families of the Georgian gentry were very mobile – it was uncommon for all members of the family to be together at the same time. Letters were therefore crucial for relaying news and maintaining family bonds despite separation.

The choice of how to open and close letters provides an immediate insight into the relationship between the correspondents. Throughout his youth at Harrow School, then at University in Edinburgh and Cambridge Henry Temple (the future Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston) signs his letters to his mother, ‘ever your affectionate son.’ Similarly his sisters Frances and Elizabeth write to their ‘Dear Mama’ from ‘Your most affectionate daughter.’ Such affection was not only reserved for females, the Rev. James Austen (Jane Austen’s eldest brother) addressed his son as ‘My dear Edward.’

But how far can we take this as evidence of close relationships? Whilst some historians have used it as evidence for increasingly loving family relationships, others suggest it is simply a change in the etiquette of letter writing. Whilst this may be true, it shows family members were prepared to use more sentimental language towards one another; it’s hard to imagine a university student today ending an email to his parents ‘ever your affectionate son.'

Perhaps stronger evidence of close familial bonds is the frequency of communication. A common theme in letters we have read is that of mothers telling their sons to write more often. Henry Temple’s mother regularly admonished him for not writing often enough, asking for a minimum of one letter a week. Similarly Melesina Trench wrote to her son Charles, ‘I write to say how impatient I grow for a line from you.’ In another letter she voices her concern at a rumour she has heard:

‘Oh my dearest Charles, if you really have been overturned, if you are lying such at the house of a friend, if you do not write because your dear hand is disabled – these are the thoughts that flash like lightning across my mind’

Letters provided assurance that family members, who may be away for months or years at a time, were safe. By the age of eighteen Henry Temple clearly understood his mother’s concerns and wrote to her ‘because I know it will be of satisfaction to you to hear that I am well.’

Letter from Mary Mee to her son Henry Temple,
3rd Viscount Palmerston (with the permission of the Special Collections,
Hartley Library, University of Southampton).

However it was not only mothers anxious for their children’s safety. In a letter to his son Edward, Rev James Austen writes:

‘You say you would like a letter from home once a week, and you ought to be gratified in so reasonable a wish, especially as it gives us pleasure to write to you.’

Whilst letters have their limitations, as indeed any historical source does, they shed light on the relationship between the correspondents. The letters sent between members of these three, Hampshire based gentry families clearly show loving, affectionate relationships. Whilst it is important not to draw conclusions only from the type of language used, when considered in conjunction with the frequency of letters and their content, it is clear that these family members had real concern and affection for each other.