Eve McLaughlin wrote: > Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of > Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since > the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have > taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, > but her grasp of law lacked something. For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding an entail, see this link: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet Chris Phillips

In message <001c01c4ba0b$0a2c52a0$774086d9@oemcomputer>, Chris Phillips <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> writes >Eve McLaughlin wrote: >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of >> Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since >> the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have >> taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, >> but her grasp of law lacked something. > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding >an entail, see this link: male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Eve McLaughlin wrote: > >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of > >> Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since > >> the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have > >> taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, > >> but her grasp of law lacked something. I replied: > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of understanding > >an entail, see this link: Eve McLaughlin wrote: > male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said > that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; It may be worth reading the page I linked to (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet) before dismissing it. As it points out, whatever Mr Collins was, he couldn't have been "a sister's son", as he is called "a distant relation". (Elsewhere Mr Bennet himself refers to Mr Collins as his "cousin".) Chris Phillips

In message of 25 Oct, "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote: > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > >> Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a > > >> family of Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it > > >> through, since the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) > > >> who would not have taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her > > >> social classes and wrote well, but her grasp of law lacked > > >> something. > > I replied: > > >For an alternative view, in which Jane Austen _was_ capable of > understanding > > >an entail, see this link: > > Eve McLaughlin wrote: > > male entail cannot pass through a sister to her son. It is never said > > that any other and more obscure settlement is intended./; > > > It may be worth reading the page I linked to > (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austen-l.html#collinsbennet) before > dismissing it. > > As it points out, whatever Mr Collins was, he couldn't have been "a sister's > son", as he is called "a distant relation". (Elsewhere Mr Bennet himself > refers to Mr Collins as his "cousin".) > > Chris Phillips In all this I am wondering what an entail is. To the best of my knowledge it remains a trust usually set up by a will. So each will needs careful examination to see what the terms actually were. Further I suspect that using the word "entail" in a will can lead to unclarity. Certainly earlier wills that I have seen were quite clear on (a) the main line of beneficiaries and (b) what to do when or if that main line failed. If others cared to call this an entail, then so be it, but the terms were those in the will. Having said all that, I suspect we are all reasonably clear on what a "male-entail" is. As something different, I was delighted to find only a few years ago that an ancestress of mine had left something (a wedding veil) on a "female-entail", to be owned in turn by the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter and was clearly specified in her will. I wonder if such female-entails are in any way common? And you may be glad to hear that the veil is still in use, is now in about the sixth generation of ownership and has adorned over 20 brides, including, I was surprised to find, my mother. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org