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.