Posted by Anne on August 26, 1998 at 16:22:34:
In response to Why?, written by Caroline on August 25, 1998 at 15:39:08
] Not necessarily. The point of the entail was to keep the land in one piece, not to keep it in the same name.
] However,I must admit that I have seen somewhere a suggestion that Mr. Bennet's name was originally Collins, and he took the name Bennet when he inherited the place.(as JA's brother took the name Knight when he was adopted by relatives and inherited a big house.) I don't know how seriously to take this particular line of enquiry.
Yes, but if the sole intent of the entail is to keep the land on one piece, what is to stop that one piece from passing on to Mr Bennet's eldest daughter? Her husband could then assume the name Bennet.... If Mr Bennet's name was never Collins, then at some time the property must have passed to a female relation, must it not? Otherwise, how did they come by their differing surnames?
- The law don't treat men and women the same Caroline 18:27:05 8/26/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.