Talk:Bennet family

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The Bennet & Collins surname problem.

@Mare-Silverus: I see that you have noted the problem with the Bennet property being entailed to a person with a different surname. If the property was to be inherited exclusive in the male line, and if likewise surnames were inherited exclusively in the male line, then only another male Bennet should have been able to inherit the entailed property of Mr. Bennet; but the heir apparent had the surname Collins. You also suggest some possible explanation. However, this is not the only solution. Besides, there are certain points in your explanation which seem not to agree with Austen's comments and the plot in Pride and Prejudice.

Therefore, I would like to know whether you have read some explanation similar to the one you give here somewhere, or if you thought it out yourself. If you did read something after these lines in some Austen biography or something similar, then I think you should add a reference to that source. On the other hand, if this is all your own ideas, then I'm afraid that we probably have to delete it, or at least downgrade it to one possibility among others.

The suggested solution I've heard to the Bennet & Collins surname problem is that surnames also changed due to adoption - and that adoption was a fairly common practice in these days. Recall that Jane Austin's brother Edward was adopted by a family Knight at the age of 12 years, and changed his legal surname to Knight. In such cases, the adoptee could change his surname, but also retain his right to inheritance from his biological parents - including inheritance of entailed property.
On the other hand, the possibility that a son to any of the sisters Bennet would have precedence before Mr. Collins exists, since entailments could be very different in different cases, depending on the original stipulations when the property became entailed. It would however be rather unusual. In general, I think that "closest male relative" meant "closest male agnatic relative". This means that daughters' sons were not considered at all.
Did you read Austen's novel Persuasion? If so, you may remember that Sir Walter Elliot was in a situation similar to Mr. Bennet; his main possesion, Kellynch Hall, was entailed, and he only had (surviving) daughters. One of his daughters, Mary, was married, and had two sons. However, these were not counted as "male relatives" for the purpose of inheriting Kellynch Hall, since the inheritance would have been via the woman Mary. Instead, Sir Walter's heir apparent was his brother's son. The only thing that could change this was if Sir Walter remarried, and had a surviving son in his new marriage.
There did exist a way of 'breaking up' an entailed property, and resettle part of that property on some of the other relatives; see Fee tail#Resettlement. However, this was only possible if the present incumberant and his oldest son agreed. Exactly this had been Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's plan; but since they got no son, they could not do it. (See the third paragraph in wikisource:Pride and Prejudice/Chapter 50!) There is no hint anywhere that a son of one of the Bennet sisters in any way could keep the entailment in Mr. Bennet's branch of the family. (If Lizzy would have married Mr. Collins, and they would have had sons, then the eldest son would inherit Longbourne, but through Mr. Collins, not through Lizzy.) JoergenB (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia and the adjective parade

Someone really likes (or perhaps dislikes) Lydia Bennet. I don't see how the recent re-added list of adjectives qualifies as encyclopedic writing. Overall, this article more closely resembles a personal essay. Some of it is sourced, but the referencing is inconsistent. Conclusions drawn by juxtaposing bits of information from the novel itself and general historical knowledge of the period would appear to me to constitute original research or synthesis. I see that Artemisialufkin has also tried to clean this up, so all I can do at this point is pile my dismay at the state of the article on top of theirs. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a mess. Looking back through the article history, most of the edits seem to have come from a string of different IP addresses. I can only conclude they are the work of a single person. Artemisia (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor

I'd like to ask the anonymous editor who keeps undoing everyone's edits to please log in and defend their changes. Much of this article is completely unverified and clearly reflects the personal opinions of this editor. It's impossible to fix the numerous problems with this article when faced with someone who seems hellbent on keeping the article the way it is. Artemisia (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years later, the article doesn't seem greatly improved; it's one long essay full of original research and opinions, nowhere near Wikipedia standard.

Article Evaluation

Article Evaluation for Class: Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic of the Bennet Family. The section covers Lydia and all her characteristics and behaviors. The only thing that was distracting was the length of the quotes. No information is out of date. Nothing needs to be urgently added. There weren't clear citations within the text. It was mentioned that after every paragraph, citations are good. More citations were expected considering the quotations involved. The in text linking works out well.

Generally the tone is neutral except for a slight bias in the sentence mentioning Lydia as "assuming her sisters would be jealous (...anyways)".[1] The "anyways" isn't necessary and takes some of the objectivity away even if it's slight.

                                                      Jazminsl (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish

[Mary Bennet] is totally unable to think critically about her books, giving them more benefit than people. What on earth does this mean? Koro Neil (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tone bias

this article is one of the worst i've ever seen Thecitysolution (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr and Mrs Bennet

I've noticed there's an inconsistency in titles, in a few places when mentioning the names it switches between American English and British English. For example it'll use a period after Mr/Mrs while in other parts they remove it. With these changes the article would look more clean and professional. LuckyClover1111 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]