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.