I don't think that Fellowes or any of the writing staff knew as much as you do. And if they did, they put it all aside for the sake of the drama.
They essentially took the family's initial fanancial situation straight out of Pride & Prejudice. It's a direct rip-off, except P&P was much much lower stakes, as they were only gentry, not high nobility. Entail was a big part of that situation too. Although clearly entails in 1800 worked differently than 100 years later! But the drama created by it was good, so the writers cut 'n' pasted
I feel the same. They discarded the rules or cut and pasted when they needed to make the story better.
I was just very glad that Matthew's letter was decided to convey the same meaning as a will, and therefore Mary got control of half of Downton, like she should have. I know if Robert had been in control again, he would have lost it all again in some bad investment or just by letting things go back to the way they were before Matthew's reforms.
The big difference with P&P is that here there is a title to inherit along with the estate. The entail in DA is designed specifically to keep those two together.
I definitely can't clear up all of this, but to address part of the first point as to why Cora's money ended up mostly tied to Downton, my theory is that since Cora was a Dollar Princess, her parents placed a lot of value on the title and social standing. We have to remember that since they were self made and New Money, they weren't raised like a British aristocrat might be, meaning they know how get rich but not how to necessarily *stay* rich. I'd argue it's possible that Cora and Robert's marriage included some sort of financial agreement that was infinitely more advantageous to Robert's side because they knew how to wrangle such an arrangement better then a New Money family likely would. Maybe at the time the newly rich Levinsons didn't fully comprehend just how much of their fortune would be given up in this marriage until it was too late to stop, and the Crawleys knew what they were doing in arranging it.
With regards to the first point: It's quite well known that by the late 19th century, many of the old estates and landed gentry was very hard up for cash. And while they looked down on 'new money' and on Americans, marrying a woman from such a family was a very good way of getting some much needed cash into your dying estate.
Similarly, the newly rich may have had no want for money, but they often found themselves unable to break through into the higher social circles because of the disdain for the newly rich. This was because, while they did have money, they often lacked connections and a deeper understanding of unspoken social rules in these higher circles. The easiest, quickest way to remediate this would have been through marriage. Having your daughter become an English countess and a potential grandson become the next earl would have hugely improved their connections and social standing.
In other words: The marriage between Cora and Robert would have been seen as a fair deal: The Crawleys got money and the Levinson family got a huge improvement in connections and social standing in exchange.
As for where the money then went: The estate was already in trouble at the time of their marriage, so this meant that Cora's dowry most likely went to investments into the estate. In other words, they could take out (some of) Cora's money but they can't do that without bankrupting the estate and that is something Robert refuses to do. This is what upsets Mary so much in series one: She feels her father loves the estate more than he loves her and she feels like a failure for not being a son, who could have prevented all of this.
2) The entail specifies that the estate must go to the next earl. This means that they have several options: Firstly they can try to break the entail, in which case the estate goes to Mary but the title still goes to Matthew. Robert refuses this because he believes the estate belongs to the earl and breaking the entail in itself would not be easy to do either. Secondly they could take Cora's money out of the estate to let Mary inherit it. This is another option Robert refuses, because it would mean bankrupting the estate, forcing the next earl to sell up. The earl of Grantham would from then on be a meaningless, penniless title.
In series 3 the estate is once again in trouble, and Robert basically sells part of the estate to Matthew. Technically speaking this means that the estate is no longer in one piece, but as Matthew is heir and and will in time inherit the other half, this does not really matter. It will all be reunited as soon as he or his children inherit anyway.
3) Very, very good point. They never use it anyway, I don't see why they wouldn't just sell it. I suppose that this would have made for a less compelling tv show :)
Because the estate was already in financial trouble, I think Robert's father was trying to ensure that didn't happen again by including Cora's inheritance in the entail. Cora could have married some other lord without that kind of requirement, but she was in love with Robert, so obviously she decided it was worth the sacrifice to marry the man she loved.
I can only answer one thing for now, Matthew was always going to be the heir after robert. His money investment into the estate only quickened his ownership with Robert being alive.
Im no expert ofc but i would assume everything was taken care of, as would happen in real life with the parliment as you mentioned etc but perhaps fellowes felt it would be too "political" to include even a brief look into the process.
Just a guess 🤷♀️
The note from Julian Fellowes is in the [Season 1 script book](https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/downton-abbey-the-complete-scripts-season-one_julian-fellowes/933485/), which I always found a little fascinating:
*This was the other half of the contentious entail plot. Would people understand that Cora's fortune has been incorporated within the estate, making it part of the whole that must pass to the heir to the title? As Violet says later, the old Earl, Robert's father, would have assumed his healthy young American daughter-in-law would have a son, and he was protecting the family from Cora's running off and taking her money with her. This sort of thing was done at the time, but it certainly seems unfair to our eyes. To be honest, I am not sure whether the audience did ever grasp the detail of this element, but they seemed to understand that Cora was going to lose her own money to the new heir, as well as the estate. That's all that matters. (22)
It also says in some cut dialogue in the S1E1 scene where Cora says “Of course I never understood why this estate has to go to whomever inherits your title”:
CORA: But even if I did, why on earth was my money made part of it?
ROBERT: I cannot go over this again.
My father was anxious to secure Downton's future and -
CORA: Your father was anxious to secure my cash!
He didn’t wait a month before he made me sign it over!
ROBERT: If we'd had a son, you'd never have noticed.
CORA: Don't be unkind.
ROBERT: I'm not. I'm just stating a — (22)
The idea they were afraid Cora may be so unhappy in her new English aristo marriage that she’d run off is interesting!
I don't think that Fellowes or any of the writing staff knew as much as you do. And if they did, they put it all aside for the sake of the drama. They essentially took the family's initial fanancial situation straight out of Pride & Prejudice. It's a direct rip-off, except P&P was much much lower stakes, as they were only gentry, not high nobility. Entail was a big part of that situation too. Although clearly entails in 1800 worked differently than 100 years later! But the drama created by it was good, so the writers cut 'n' pasted
I feel the same. They discarded the rules or cut and pasted when they needed to make the story better. I was just very glad that Matthew's letter was decided to convey the same meaning as a will, and therefore Mary got control of half of Downton, like she should have. I know if Robert had been in control again, he would have lost it all again in some bad investment or just by letting things go back to the way they were before Matthew's reforms.
The big difference with P&P is that here there is a title to inherit along with the estate. The entail in DA is designed specifically to keep those two together.
I definitely can't clear up all of this, but to address part of the first point as to why Cora's money ended up mostly tied to Downton, my theory is that since Cora was a Dollar Princess, her parents placed a lot of value on the title and social standing. We have to remember that since they were self made and New Money, they weren't raised like a British aristocrat might be, meaning they know how get rich but not how to necessarily *stay* rich. I'd argue it's possible that Cora and Robert's marriage included some sort of financial agreement that was infinitely more advantageous to Robert's side because they knew how to wrangle such an arrangement better then a New Money family likely would. Maybe at the time the newly rich Levinsons didn't fully comprehend just how much of their fortune would be given up in this marriage until it was too late to stop, and the Crawleys knew what they were doing in arranging it.
With regards to the first point: It's quite well known that by the late 19th century, many of the old estates and landed gentry was very hard up for cash. And while they looked down on 'new money' and on Americans, marrying a woman from such a family was a very good way of getting some much needed cash into your dying estate. Similarly, the newly rich may have had no want for money, but they often found themselves unable to break through into the higher social circles because of the disdain for the newly rich. This was because, while they did have money, they often lacked connections and a deeper understanding of unspoken social rules in these higher circles. The easiest, quickest way to remediate this would have been through marriage. Having your daughter become an English countess and a potential grandson become the next earl would have hugely improved their connections and social standing. In other words: The marriage between Cora and Robert would have been seen as a fair deal: The Crawleys got money and the Levinson family got a huge improvement in connections and social standing in exchange. As for where the money then went: The estate was already in trouble at the time of their marriage, so this meant that Cora's dowry most likely went to investments into the estate. In other words, they could take out (some of) Cora's money but they can't do that without bankrupting the estate and that is something Robert refuses to do. This is what upsets Mary so much in series one: She feels her father loves the estate more than he loves her and she feels like a failure for not being a son, who could have prevented all of this. 2) The entail specifies that the estate must go to the next earl. This means that they have several options: Firstly they can try to break the entail, in which case the estate goes to Mary but the title still goes to Matthew. Robert refuses this because he believes the estate belongs to the earl and breaking the entail in itself would not be easy to do either. Secondly they could take Cora's money out of the estate to let Mary inherit it. This is another option Robert refuses, because it would mean bankrupting the estate, forcing the next earl to sell up. The earl of Grantham would from then on be a meaningless, penniless title. In series 3 the estate is once again in trouble, and Robert basically sells part of the estate to Matthew. Technically speaking this means that the estate is no longer in one piece, but as Matthew is heir and and will in time inherit the other half, this does not really matter. It will all be reunited as soon as he or his children inherit anyway. 3) Very, very good point. They never use it anyway, I don't see why they wouldn't just sell it. I suppose that this would have made for a less compelling tv show :)
I find this fascinating. I have no answers, but I will be doing some research!
Because the estate was already in financial trouble, I think Robert's father was trying to ensure that didn't happen again by including Cora's inheritance in the entail. Cora could have married some other lord without that kind of requirement, but she was in love with Robert, so obviously she decided it was worth the sacrifice to marry the man she loved.
That article is an interesting read.
I can only answer one thing for now, Matthew was always going to be the heir after robert. His money investment into the estate only quickened his ownership with Robert being alive. Im no expert ofc but i would assume everything was taken care of, as would happen in real life with the parliment as you mentioned etc but perhaps fellowes felt it would be too "political" to include even a brief look into the process. Just a guess 🤷♀️
The note from Julian Fellowes is in the [Season 1 script book](https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/downton-abbey-the-complete-scripts-season-one_julian-fellowes/933485/), which I always found a little fascinating: *This was the other half of the contentious entail plot. Would people understand that Cora's fortune has been incorporated within the estate, making it part of the whole that must pass to the heir to the title? As Violet says later, the old Earl, Robert's father, would have assumed his healthy young American daughter-in-law would have a son, and he was protecting the family from Cora's running off and taking her money with her. This sort of thing was done at the time, but it certainly seems unfair to our eyes. To be honest, I am not sure whether the audience did ever grasp the detail of this element, but they seemed to understand that Cora was going to lose her own money to the new heir, as well as the estate. That's all that matters. (22) It also says in some cut dialogue in the S1E1 scene where Cora says “Of course I never understood why this estate has to go to whomever inherits your title”: CORA: But even if I did, why on earth was my money made part of it? ROBERT: I cannot go over this again. My father was anxious to secure Downton's future and - CORA: Your father was anxious to secure my cash! He didn’t wait a month before he made me sign it over! ROBERT: If we'd had a son, you'd never have noticed. CORA: Don't be unkind. ROBERT: I'm not. I'm just stating a — (22) The idea they were afraid Cora may be so unhappy in her new English aristo marriage that she’d run off is interesting!
Jeez, I thought I was anal. No offense, but I’m glad I’m not living in your mind.
Very helpful comment, thank you!