"Shifting Heirs and the Ferrars Estate"

[seldonp38]

"SHIFTING HEIRS AND THE FERRARS ESTATE"

I have been a fan of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" ever since I saw Ang Lee's 1995 adaptation. In fact, the 1995 movie initiated my appreciation of Austen's novel and other works. But there is a certain aspect of Austen's tale that has confused me for years. And it has to do with Edward and Robert Ferrars and their family's fortune.

"Sense and Sensibility" told the story of Elinor and Marianne Dashwood - the older two of three sisters that encountered love, heartache and romantic obstacles when their father's death and half-brother's lack of generosity left them in financial straits. Elinor had fallen in love with Edward Ferrars, the mild-mannered brother of her sister-in-law Fanny; before she, her sisters and mother were forced to leave Norland Park in the hands of half-brother John and Fanny. Unfortunately for Elinor, Edward's family was determined that he marry an heiress. Later, she discovered that he had been engaged for several years to another impoverished young woman named Lucy Steele, the cousin-in-law of Sir John Middleton, Mrs. Dashwood's cousin and the family's benefactor. The younger and more impetuous Marianne fell deeply in love with a young man named John Willoughby. Although the latter harbored feelings for Marianne, he loved the idea of a fortune even more. Willoughby eventually rejected Marianne in order to marry a wealthy heiress, leaving the Dashwoods' neighbor Colonel Christopher Brandon to console her.

The story arc regarding Marianne's love life proved to be problem-free for me. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Elinor's story arc. I still have a problem with that obstacle to Elinor's romantic happiness - namely Edward's engagement to the manipulative Lucy Steele. In the novel, Mrs. Ferrars disinherited Edward in favor of his younger brother, Robert, after the Ferrars family learned about his engagement to Lucy . . . and he refused to break said engagement. Mindful of Edward's financial situation and his ambitions to earn a living with the Church of England, Colonel Brandon offers him the rectory at the former's estate, Delaford, for a low salary. This is where "Sense and Sensibility" becomes a bit tricky. The novel concluded Edward's visit to the Dashwoods' home, Barton Cottage, in which he not only proposed marriage to Elinor, but also announced that Lucy Steele had broken their engagement in order to elope with Robert. Only . . . the latter remained heir to the Ferrars estate by the novel's conclusion.

The financial fates of both Edward and Robert seemed to be tied with the character of Lucy Steele. Most of the Ferrars family and Lady Middleton seemed to harbor a high regard for Lucy and her sister, Anne. Yet, when Anne exposed Lucy's secret engagement to Edward, Mrs. Ferrars disinherited the latter in favor of her younger son, Robert. But after Robert's elopement to Lucy, he remained heir to the Ferrars estate. And to this day, I can only ask . . . why? Why did Mrs. Ferrars disinherited Edward after he refused to break his engagement to Lucy . . . and fail to disinherit Robert, after he had eloped with the same woman?

In the 1981 BBC adaptation, Edward (portrayed by Bosco Hogan) claimed that Robert's inheritance became irreversible, despite his elopement with Lucy. Frankly, the explanation given by Austen struck me as rather confusing. The miniseries' screenwriters Alexander Baron and Denis Constanduros failed to explain why Edward financially paid the price for refusing to break his engagement with Lucy. They especially failed to explain why Robert DID NOT pay the price for marrying her. Is there someone out there who can offer an explanation?

Comments

[jill-rg.livejournal.com]

Here a few facts that should help clear up the picture:
1) Edward's and Robert's mother is a complete hypocrite. Yes, she disinherited one son for becoming engaged to a girl without her permission, and did not disinherit the son who actually married the same girl. Illogical, irrational, unjust, but perfectly possible.
2) Edward tells Elinor in the book that Robert has always been his mother's favorite and will easily be forgiven for an offense she would never forgive Edward for (despite Elinor's skepticism, this turns out to be true).
3) Edward originally felt morally obligated to follow-through with his engagement with Lucy, even though he no longer liked her, because he gave her his word - the pressure to marry her against his own wishes came from nothing but his own sense of honor.
4) The book also mentions that, by the time Robert married Lucy, whatever legal matters were necessary to switch the estate from Edward to Robert had been done and sealed in stone. Apparently, by then, Mrs. Ferrars couldn't undo what she'd done - which Robert knew, and was why he felt secure marrying Lucy. So even if his offense had been enough to warrant disinheritance, Mrs. Ferrars' punishment for Edward by giving his estate to his brother was irrevocable. (I'll be honest and say I'm not 100% sure the book absolutely says this, but it's the impression I got. I think it's John who tells Elinor how much Mrs. Ferrars regrets that she can't punish Robert for disobeying her.)
5) Mrs. Ferrars and Fanny never liked Lucy - being deliberately nice to her was part of their modus operandi for snubbing Elinor because she was the one they could plainly see that Edward was interested in and was, therefore, the only visible threat to the plans for his marriage with Miss Morton.

Edward's and Robert's ultimate fates are brought about by a combination of hypocrisy, pettiness, and (I think) legal red tape. It's hilarious, as I'm sure Austen meant it to be.

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

These are the answers I have come across in the past. It's just that . . . I don't know. I really don't.

[jill-rg.livejournal.com]

Oh. Why not? I'm interested. Sounds like the same problem I have with some legal stuff in Pride & Prejudice.

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

Let me get this straight. Edward had been the main heir to the Ferrars estate for who know how long. Mrs. Ferrars even went through the trouble of planning a wedding between Edward and some wealthy heiress.

But upon learning of Edward's engagment to Lucy Steele and his refusal to break the engagement, Mrs. Ferrars not only disinherit Edward (which I understand), but suddenly decides to legally finalize Robert as the heir? She could undo Edward's position as the heir to the estate, but not Robert's position after he married Lucy?

Sorry, but I find that contrived.

[jill-rg.livejournal.com]

Well, she was out of sons (Fanny was disqualified due to being a woman) and out of options, I guess ;) Maybe in her mind, Robert (her undisguised favorite) was the lesser of two evils, and admitting weakness on her part by restoring Edward's inheritance to him would have been more unbearable, so all she could do was leave it with Robert and vent as much as she could about it.

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

My theory is this . . . Austen wanted an excuse for Marianne and Elinor to live near each other with their husbands. By allowing Mrs. Ferrars to officially lock in Robert as the heir and prevent Edward from ever inheriting anything following his brother's elopement with Lucy; Austen made sure that Edward's only financial means would be the living at Delaford, ensuring that the Dashwood sisters would always live near each other.