Jane Austen discussion
This topic is about
Prideful & Persuaded
General Discussion
>
Besting the Worst People in Jane Austen
date
newest »
newest »
I think both General Tilney and Frederick Tilney are worse than Willoughby. And I would put Lucy Steele above Fanny. Fanny is protecting her "turf" so to speak, but there is a deviousness to Lucy that is genuinely unsettling.
J. wrote: "I think both General Tilney and Frederick Tilney are worse than Willoughby. And I would put Lucy Steele above Fanny. Fanny is protecting her "turf" so to speak, but there is a deviousness to Lucy t..."I put neither Willoughby or Fanny Dashwood at the top of my lists, you can see them on my blog.
I wouldn't say Lucy is worse than Fanny, Fanny had money to spare and prevented her half-sisters from having an inheritance. Lucy in poor, she is trying to marry well to save herself from poverty. Her behaviour towards Elinor is really Edward's fault, he was engaged and fell in love with someone else!
In S&S, I try to put the blame where it actually goes and that is on Mr. John Dashwood's pointy little head. He made the deathbed promise to his father. These are his sisters being impoverished. He is the man, so he is in charge of his family's finances. Fanny doesn't actually own anything (there was never any mention in S&S of Fanny's money being tied up in a trust before she married, and their finances were discussed with some detail). Austen's treatment of this couple is interesting because I felt that she does make John Dashwood more 'likeable' than Fanny Dashwood. And there's no doubt, Fanny is a bitch. But the bulk of the moral failing is John's, in my view.I too, find Lucy Steele to be utterly abhorrent. This does not discount Fanny's misdeeds. But they each inflict their damage in different ways. Fanny would just as soon not see Elinor and Marianne ever. Lucy fully enjoys tormenting Elinor (with her presence, her request for confidentiality, her insights into Edward's family, and her mis-information). Even her coup de grace of sending her regards on to the Dashwood family by way of a servant without stating which Mr. Ferrars she is now married to, is cruelty for the sake of cruelty.
I've read Northanger Abbey so few times. I still struggle to get a full picture of any of the Tilneys. I will follow along on this thread to see what is said. I thought for a general, General Tilney was fooled rather easily about Catherine's situation in life. And as a potential spouse for one of his sons, I thought his research into the matter bordered on lazy and neglectful. In fact, I didn't really find it believable.
Captain Tilney seems to be a scoundrel. He would like to flirt and possibly take to bed a pretty girl without suffering any consequences. This is clearly a moral failing. But Isabella Thorpe seems just as guilty and we can add to her shortcomings the betrayal of her fiance.
Fun stuff.
Shana wrote: "In S&S, I try to put the blame where it actually goes and that is on Mr. John Dashwood's pointy little head. He made the deathbed promise to his father. These are his sisters being impoverished. He..."You are right, John Dashwood was the one with the real power, he was the weak and dishonest one.
Lucy doesn't bother me as much. Yes she is mean to Elinor, but to her, Elinor is "the other woman". She can't afford to lose Edward. She's manipulative and cruel, but she at least has good reasons for it.
General Tilney is indeed an idiot.
Captain Tilney never sleeps with Isabella in the book and he doesn't do much damage. He's not that bad. (IMO)
There is a passage in P&P where Elizabeth and Maria are preparing to leave, and Lady Catherine asks how they are traveling and how glad she is that a manservant is being sent for them. Public travel in that era, such as traveling by post, could be extremely dangerous for an unaccompanied woman. General Tilney does not simply toss Catherine out, he places her in real physical danger.As for Lucy, her character, IMHO, has nothing to do with her poverty. There are many poor women in Austen who are not manipulative, spiteful and deliberately cruel. Even after she "marries up", she can't resist taking that one final shot.
J. wrote: "There is a passage in P&P where Elizabeth and Maria are preparing to leave, and Lady Catherine asks how they are traveling and how glad she is that a manservant is being sent for them. Public trave..."You are right about General Tilney, he also just screams at Captain Tilney for being late for breakfast, right in front of a guest. Those poor Tilney children have had a bad time of it.
As for Lucy, she has this older sister around who has no future. Anne is 30, she has no money, she has no prospects. Lucy lives with her worst outcome. So even though she is greedy and mean, I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for her. Lucy doesn't have a Mrs. Dashwood and a comfortable cottage. She is couch surfing and hoping to marry up through 4 years of secracy.
J,I love your point about General Tilney. Travel in that era was quite dangerous, exceptionally so for unaccompanied women. And he doesn't even send word to the Morlands to expect their daughter or check to see if she has traveling money (though now his incorrect understanding of her situation is that she is poor). He shows remarkably bad judgement or perfect indifference or even cruelty. That same passage has Lady Catherine bragging about what pains she took to send Georgiana onto Ramsgate with two manservants from Rosings. I am trying to work that little detail into the book I am currently working on, without much success. I think it would be quite ironic that the one time we learn of Lady C meddling in Georgiana's concerns it turns out spectacularly bad with Georgiana almost eloping. We'll see if I can make it work.
We agree about Lucy. I do think she is horrible, but deliciously so! I love reading the dialogue between she and Elinor, knowing they are rivals while everyone assumes they are friends, because they must always be polite. And Lucy is such a suck up to Fanny and Lady Middleton, cooing over their children and always doing little crafts for them! Lucy is a character I love to hate!
This is what I mean about my not understanding the characters in Northanger Abbey very well. It never says Captain Tilney sleeps with Isabella Thorpe. But why would a man show such attention to another man's fiancee? Another man who is, at present, absent from the scene. I can think only three reasons. 1. He's madly in love with the woman. This is not the case, here. 2. Flirting can lead to sex and free sex is better than paying for sex. Captains made only about 190 pounds a year. And I don't remember hearing much about the captain receiving an allowance from the General. 3. For the sheer fun of it or to prove he can do it. Maybe he had a bet with one of his fellow officers. Basically because he can.So clearly, I don't understand the captain very well. Maybe he and Isabella went beyond flirting, maybe they didn't. The book does not say. But they were certainly not behaving properly.
Any other ideas?
Shana, I think it is number 3. And I agree, it is not clear in the 20th century when I first read NA or the 21st when I have read it again whether Fred and Isabel had sex. Perhaps the language was more clear to the readers at the time.
Capt. Tilney flirted with Isabella and made a conquest of her for sport. She was an easy conquest. Henry says "The mess–room will drink Isabella Thorpe for a fortnight, and she will laugh with your brother over poor Tilney's passion for a month.” Henry seems under the impression Isabella thought Capt. Tilney was HER conquest instead of the other way around. I think it was a mutual flirtation based on opportunity and personality.
QNPoohBear,You could be absolutely correct. And I like the term 'for sport'.
But unless she marries him, I don't understand how he can be her conquest.
And yes, I do think it was a mutual flirtation.
Shana
Shana wrote: "But unless she marries him, I don't understand how he can be her conquest.."Easy. Every Regency romance features a jerk who wants to make the heroine/ a lady fall in love with him just because his ego is that huge. I suspect that's what motivated Captain Tilney. He was in Bath, bored and needed a conquest. Isabella's brother is an idiot too busy with his racing and trying to marry Catherine to notice his sister needs protection. Her mother is busy social climbing and socialzing and not smart enough to see her daughter needs a strict chaperone. Normally, John should call out Captain Tilney but I would suspect Tilney would win that one.
I agree completely (which is a relief, I may have a basic understanding of the novel after all). But this explains how Isabella is HIS conquest. And as a scoundrel, the captain also can enjoy the satisfaction of breaking up Isabella's engagement.How can Isabella look at her acquaintance with the captain with any satisfaction at all? I don't see how he can be HER conquest, at all. She doesn't marry him. She looks bad flirting with one man while engaged to another (possibly sullying her reputation). She loses her fiance. She loses her friend Catherine. Where is her conquest in any of this? The only thing she could possibly crow about are the brief attentions of the captain, which are now over.
Help me to understand your point, because I obviously think that one of them (the captain) got the best of the other (Isabella).
I don't think Isabella thinks about the consequences. I think she thinks she can flirt and make Capt. Tilney fall in love with her. She doesn't see he's a predator and she's easy prey. She would consider him a feather in her bonnet so to speak. Like she's thinking "I'm so beautiful and charming! Every man I meet will fall at my feet!" When Capt. Tilney seems like he's in love with her, it seems like a dream come true for her. I'm not disagreeing the captain got the better of Isabella, but I think she's just not seeing it that way because she's not smart enough to spot a rake when she sees one.
Perhaps money was important to her than she let on. Secure the eldest son of a wealthy man and then dump the backup boyfriend.
Ahhh, yes, now I see your point, QNPOOHBEAR. Isabella’s perceptions may not match mine at all. I agree. Just like Lydia Bennet delighting in being the first of her sisters to marry without understanding (or caring) that she is paying a dreadfully high price for such a fleeting (and pointless) achievement. Thank you for taking the time! Shana 😄
Janet wrote: "Perhaps money was important to her than she let on. Secure the eldest son of a wealthy man and then dump the backup boyfriend."That's what I was thinking at first. It was a risky move though.
I don't think Isabella is a BAD character. Her intentions were selfish but I don't think she deliberately set out to hurt James.
Isabella isn't as wealthy or educated as many of the characters in Austen's novels. She's kind of a Lucy Stelle but not as sharp. Lucy knows exactly what she's doing at all times. Comparing Isabella to Lydia seems like a valid observation. She's a little older and a little more wise to the game than Lydia but still, she doesn't really understand the consquences of her actions. Lydia runs off with Wickham without a thought for her reputation or her family and how it would reflect on them. Then she shows no understanding or remorse for what she's done to her family. Isabella seems to show no understanding or remorse for what she did to James and indeed to her supposed dearest friend Catherine.
Janet wrote: "Perhaps money was important to her than she let on. Secure the eldest son of a wealthy man and then dump the backup boyfriend."That's what I was thinking at first. It was a risky move though.
I don't think Isabella is a BAD character. Her intentions were selfish but I don't think she deliberately set out to hurt James.
Isabella isn't as wealthy or educated as many of the characters in Austen's novels. She's kind of a Lucy Stelle but not as sharp. Lucy knows exactly what she's doing at all times. Comparing Isabella to Lydia seems like a valid observation. She's a little older and a little more wise to the game than Lydia but still, she doesn't really understand the consquences of her actions. Lydia runs off with Wickham without a thought for her reputation or her family and how it would reflect on them. Then she shows no understanding or remorse for what she's done to her family. Isabella seems to show no understanding or remorse for what she did to James and indeed to her supposed dearest friend Catherine.
QNPoohBear wrote: "Janet wrote: "Perhaps money was important to her than she let on. Secure the eldest son of a wealthy man and then dump the backup boyfriend."That's what I was thinking at first. It was a risky mo..."
I agree that Isabella is more Lydia than Lucy. Lucy would eat Isabella for breakfast!
I do think Isabella was greedy though, she was attempting to trade up.
I like your "attempting to trade up" comment.
So I've gone back and started reading Northanger Abbey again! Catherine is currently on her way to the abbey, riding with Henry Tilney, thanks to the maneuvering of the General. I like it better this time because we've been talking about the plot and the characters. And I have a better appreciation of Austen as a writer. This was one of her earlier works, but she wrote the first drafts of P&P and S&S (as epistolary novels) BEFORE she wrote Northanger Abbey, so her talent and skill were formed at this point in her life.Regarding the money issue that has come up, here is a refresher:
Catherine Morland has a three thousand pound dowry. She is one of ten children and the daughter of a clergyman, who has two livings, one of which is also in his gift. Mr. Morland also has an estate of four hundred pounds per annum, which helps to provide for his very large family.
Mrs. Thorpe "is a widow and not a very rich one". She has six children, none of whom seem to be married. Isabella is the eldest daughter. John, I believe, is the eldest son and is at Oxford.
James Morland is one of the elder sons, if not the eldest son of the Morland family. He is twenty, at Oxford, and will be ordained and able to receive a living from his father when he is twenty-three. The living he will receive from Mr. Morland has an income of four hundred pounds a year. Also part of the settlement proposed by his father is an estate of Mr. Morland's, also of four hundred pounds a year, that would go to James at the time of Mr. Morland's death. Given his circumstances, I think James is too young to consider matrimony at twenty!
I can't remember the size of Isabella Thorpe's dowry and it hasn't been revealed yet in my latest reading. But I do remember that it is smaller than Catherine's. So, we'll see.
So Isabella is confronted with the choice of waiting to marry for two to three years, then getting a living of four hundred pounds per annum. There should be an extra fifty pounds per annum assuming Isabella's dowry is one thousand pounds. Then she has to wait for her father in law to die to inherit an estate worth another four hundred pounds per annum. I understand her concerns, but I also think she did not do her due diligence. No clergyman can be ordained until he is twenty-three and James' age should not have been a secret. Is this a classic Lucy-scenario of a girl going after the bird in hand without thinking it through??
FYI - my favourite budgeting resource says a couple with 3 kids who make 450 pounds a year would have two maid-servants and instead of a man-servant would probably employ a boy. They might have enough to own a horse (especially since James and Isabella would be starting with no children). Also in their favour, they would not have the forty pounds of annual rent expense that this standard budget shows, since they'd have a parsonage.
Though Isabella could have called off the engagement in a more proper way (without the flirting with the captain), was she right to end it???
Every Regency romance features a jerk who wants to make the heroine/ a lady fall in love with him just because his ego is that huge. **
Indeed, and Austen makes that very specific in Mansfield Park, where Henry Crawford explicitly decides to make Fanny - who has been indifferent to him - fall in love with him. Unfortunately for him, not only does Fanny go on being indifferent to him (in fact, revulsed!), but, worse still, he is the 'biter bit' and falls genuinely for her instead. Ho ho ho!!!
Just as Lydia Bennet delighting in being the first of her sisters to marry without understanding (or caring) that she is paying a dreadfully high price for such a fleeting (and pointless) achievement. **
Except that it was other people who had to pay for her marriage, ie, Darcy and Mr Gardiner.
However, of course, had that marriage not happened, then yes, Lydia would have paid for her 'conquest' of Wycombe by being reduced to a fallen woman, utterly excluded, for ever, from society (like the adulterous Maria Bertram.)
Lydia runs off with Wickham without a thought for her reputation or her family and how it would reflect on them. Then she shows no understanding or remorse for what she's done to her family. **
I wonder when it would have finally dawned on her (had the marriage never taken place) that she had just screwed up her entire life at the age of 15? I think she'd have expected her family to take her back in (eg, if Wickham had just upped and left her in London), and for her to go back to being Miss Lydia Bennet as if nothing had happened. Then got very aggrieved when they refused to do so.....
I think she'd have felt hard done by all the rest of her life.
Though Isabella could have called off the engagement in a more proper way (without the flirting with the captain), was she right to end it???**
Tough call. It must have been the same tough call that every financially insecure young woman of the time faced - when do you grab the 'bird in hand', whatever the disadvantages (eg, like James Morland - moderately well off, but not that well off, and certainly not yet....), or hang on for a 'better catch'....which may not come along at all.
It's something that Charlotte Lucas has to face in P&P, and she opts to catch the bird-in-hand of Mr Collins. A prudent choice....but a rather sad one as well.
James Morland, of course, has an extremely lucky escape!!!!
You are right, John Dashwood was the one with the real power, he was the weak and dishonest one.**
I do wonder with John Dashwood if we are missing some back story. I can't quite remember the ages now, but I think the second Mrs Dashwood, the girls' mother, is still pretty young (early 40s?), and it could be that young (how young?) John Dashwood, recently (??) having lost his own mother, to find his father (how old at the time?) remarrying another woman who could only have been around 20 or so, and so promptly 'replacing' his own dead mother, might well not have felt very kindly towards his stepmother and half sisters????
That doesn't excuse his treatment of them, but it might explain it??
Fanny Dashwood is a good example of how a woman, though legally she had no power at all, could, if she picked a weak, controllable man, rule the roost in a marriage.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Just as Lydia Bennet delighting in being the first of her sisters to marry without understanding (or caring) that she is paying a dreadfully high price for such a fleeting (and pointless) achieveme..."I agree with everything you've said about Lydia throughout several posts. When I write of Lydia paying a dreadfully high price, I am referring to being married to a man of such low character and dependability as Wickham. He is not even in love with her! And as an ensign in the regulars, he makes maybe 150 pounds a year. When you add in Lydia's 100 pounds a year allowance from her father, they are not living at a level I would even call 'comfortable'. And how long before he takes a mistress? It sounds like a life of utter drudgery. But yes, you are right, others covered the financial cost and her sisters bore a social cost and a great deal of uncertainty for several weeks.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "You are right, John Dashwood was the one with the real power, he was the weak and dishonest one.**
I do wonder with John Dashwood if we are missing some back story. I can't quite remember the age..."
Beth-In-UK,
The backstory on John Dashwood would be interesting! Remember in S&S where Fanny actually tells him, 'you know your father would have given them everything if he could'? This might have even been true, but perhaps not for the reasons Fanny was hinting at. The father was supposed to be a kind man, I can't imagine he did not love his only son. But the way the fortunes of his two families had gone (wealthy first wife and eldest son who married well on one side versus poor second wife and three young and single daughters on the other side) probably did influence his desire of where to leave his money. His son did not need it! But since he had no choice in the matter, Fanny just uses her accusation as ammunition to get John Dashwood to withhold assistance from his half sisters. And withholding his assistance is exactly what John Dashwood wants to do, he is just looking for justification to do it!
Shana wrote: "Beth-In-UK wrote: "You are right, John Dashwood was the one with the real power, he was the weak and dishonest one.**
I do wonder with John Dashwood if we are missing some back story. I can't qui..."
I think the implication is that Henry Dashwood would have done something more for the daughters if he could, but Fanny is grossly exaggerating. Obviously Norland was always going to go to the son, but the father would have wanted a larger dowry for the girls. The extra thousand each would have made a big difference.
It is interesting though that Mr. Dashwood married for money first and maybe love second?
Bethany wrote: "It is interesting though that Mr. Dashwood married for money first and maybe love second?"Yes I believe that is the case. Marianne believes her parents had a grand love affair at any rate and Elinor seems to agree with her that their parents were happy. The money came from the first Mrs. Dashwood and was left to her son. Norland came from an uncle who took a liking to little Harry and left him Norland.
The uncle left the girls a thousand pounds a-piece.
"Mr. Dashwood didn't have much to give his daughters. ten thousand pounds, including the late legacies, was all that remained for his widow and daughters."
Mrs. Fanny Dashwood is meant to be the villain of the family. It says in Chapter 1: "Mr. John Dashwood had not the strong feelings of the rest of the family; but he was affected by a recommendation of such a nature at such a time, and he promised to do everything in his power to make them comfortable. His father was rendered easy by such an assurance, and Mr. John Dashwood had then leisure to consider how much there might prudently be in his power to do for them.
He was not an ill-disposed young man, unless to be rather cold hearted, and rather selfish, is to be ill-disposed: but he was, in general, well respected; for he conducted himself with propriety in the discharge of his ordinary duties. Had he married a more amiable woman, he might have been made still more respectable than he was; he might even have been made amiable himself; for he was very young when he married, and very fond of his wife. But Mrs. John Dashwood was a strong caricature of himself; more narrow-minded and selfish."
At first he thinks he'll increase the fortunes of his sisters by the present of a thousand pounds a-piece. He then really thought himself equal to it. The prospect of four thousand a-year, in addition to his present income, besides the remaining half of his own mother's fortune, warmed his heart and made him feel capable of generosity. "Yes, he would give them three thousand pounds: it would be liberal and handsome! It would be enough to make them completely easy. Three thousand pounds! he could spare so considerable a sum with little inconvenience." He thought of it all day long, and for many days successively, and he did not repent."
The comes Fanny who is eager to get her money grubbing hands on Norland and the family fortune. She's rude and ungracious to her step-mother-in-law.
In Chapter 2 shows how awful she really is as she talks John down. He says "He [Mr. Dashwood] did not stipulate for any particular sum, my dear Fanny; he only requested me, in general terms, to assist them, and make their situation more comfortable than it was in his power to do. Perhaps it would have been as well if he had left it wholly to myself. He could hardly suppose I should neglect them. But as he required the promise, I could not do less than give it: at least I thought so at the time. The promise, therefore, was given, and must be performed. Something must be done for them whenever they leave Norland and settle in a new home."
Fanny's argument is that the girls are not related to John by blood and they're just going to marry and take the money out of the family. She says several times they aren't REALLY related. Sadly I know people just like that. The stepchild or the wife isn't REALLY part of the family and therefore is less important than the blood relatives.
Yes Mrs. Dashwood is a youngish widow. I think she married very young and has remained stagnant in her growth, still thinking like Marianne does. For some reason, Elinor got all the brains in the family.
Sir John Middleton is 40
Colonel Brandon is over 35
But Fanny is wrong - John Dashwood and the girls have the same father, they are half siblings, not step siblings. Do we know how old John Dashwood is? ie, how much older than Elinor? That would indicate the age he was when his own mother died.
Do we assume that he didn't know his half sisters very well, eg, if he'd been packed off to boarding school, the university, then marriage??
Financially - so, Norland is entailed to John Dashwood, and the girls's father therefore has no legal right to do anything other than let his son inherit (and move in, and kick out his stepmother and half-sisters).The girls' father's first wife was rich, but her money was tied up such that only her own son (John Dashwood) could inherit it, so the father had no say in leaving any of it to his daughters.
Mr Dashwood was hoping to raise some profits from farming the Norland estate, which he could then use to benefit his second wife and daughters, but died too soon.
He therefore tried to 'pass on' that intention to his son, so that his son would raise some money from profits from farming, to provide a living and dowries for his half sisters, in lieu of John Dashwood's father living long enough to do so.
It does raise the question, I wonder, what John Dashwood might have done had his sisters been full sisters, would he have been so mean to them (or rather, let Fanny be so mean?)( That is, of course, assumign his mother's money only went to him, and not any daughters.)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Financially - so, Norland is entailed to John Dashwood, and the girls's father therefore has no legal right to do anything other than let his son inherit (and move in, and kick out his stepmother a..."Let me hazard a guess, yes, it would play out exactly the same. Different words only, "They are only SISTERS, not brothers.." or whatever.
Bethany wrote: Beth-In-UK wrote: "Financially - so, Norland is entailed to John Dashwood, and the girls's father therefore has no legal right to do anything other than let his son inherit (and move in, and kick out his stepmother a..."Let me hazard a guess, yes, it would play out exactly the same. Different words only, "They are only SISTERS, not brothers.." or whatever."
Yes. She would find some excuse. "You can't take money out of the estate and ruin your son! Elinor and Marianne will marry soon, no doubt your mother will as well. She's not so old as to be in her dotage. Let their stepfather provide for them."
Yes, I don't think Fanny will or would ever improve in moral character. A bad un to the end methinks.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "But Fanny is wrong - John Dashwood and the girls have the same father, they are half siblings, not step siblings. Do we know how old John Dashwood is? ie, how much older than Elinor? That would i..."
I think Chapters 1 and 2 discuss all these delicious financial details.
Fanny definitely knew the three Dashwood girls were blood relatives:
"the Miss Dashwoods, who were related to him only by half blood, which she considered as no relationship at all,"
Lol.
As for the timing of the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. John Dashwood, it is supposed to have taken place very soon after he reached his majority.
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Financially - so, Norland is entailed to John Dashwood, and the girls's father therefore has no legal right to do anything other than let his son inherit (and move in, and kick out his stepmother a..."The first three paragraphs of S&S have always intrigued me. Was Norland entailed? Many of the provisions you are talking about sound like an entail (such as not being able to harvest the woods). But is it really entailed? Using a digital search, the word entail (and its derivatives) is not anywhere in the text, but that is not really definitive.
How about this little nugget?
"he invited and received into his house the family of his nephew, Mr. Henry Dashwood, the legal inheritor of the Norland estate, and the person to whom he intended to bequeath it"
Why would Austen mention that the uncle intended to bequeath Norland to Henry Dashwood if the property were entailed? I didn't think there was any room for intentions when a property is entailed. It just goes to the nearest qualifying relative (usually a male heir).
Then there's this:
"The old Gentleman died; his will was read, and like almost every other will, gave as much disappointment as pleasure. He was neither so unjust, nor so ungrateful, as to leave his estate from his nephew; but he left it to him on such terms as destroyed half the value of the bequest."
This pretty clearly says the old man could have left Norland to someone besides his nephew, doesn't it?
Jane Austen then goes on to say that the child (John Dashwood's little three year old son) had gained the affections of the great uncle so far as to out weight the years that Henry Dashwood's family had spent living with and doting upon the old man.
None of this says "entail" to me. Do any of you have a view on this? Again, its all in the first three paragraphs of Chapter 1.
No, it didn't sound as if Norland was entailed and it sounds like the father thought he would live long enough to see the girls married off so it wouldn't matter if John's son inherited. It would be a moot point by then. He didn't so awful John and greedy Fanny inherited and kicked out the Dashwood sisters and their mother.
It's pretty clear that Norland is not entailed because there is no power to bequeath an entailed property. The late Mr. Dashwood leaves Norland, by will, to Henry conditionally - it must succeed intact to John Dashwood, which means that Henry is prohibited from taking steps that would increase his fortune, thereby increasing that of his daughters. He is prevented from selling Norland's "valuable woods" or incurring any "charge on the estate" - that is, incurring debts on the property that the heir would have to pay off.
So, he can't deplete the 'capital' of the estate, or borrow money with the estate as security.As you say, had he owned it longer he might have had time to generate 'dividends' off the estate, leaving the capital intact, but he never lived long enough. He was, effectively, little more than a life tenant (personally - ie, only him, not his second wife or daughters)
Read the short story on my blog:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...