The system where only the first son inherits the bulk of the inheritance, money and land, is called primogeniture. Daughters and younger sons might inherit smaller amounts of money, often not enough to live off of. Until the late 17th century, younger sons might inherit some land but after the late 17th century this custom stopped. The eldest son was the title holder and the pride of the family, and was groomed for his job.

The focus of the system was to keep the estate intact and protect the family name and land. In order to keep the inheritance valuable, any other children needed to be excluded from significant inheritance, and were required to make their own living. The other scenario would be breaking up the home and sum of money and divide it over all children. For the children individually this would probably be nicer but the money would, in a way, evaporate. The system as it existed protected the class of landed gentry from disintegrating.

This arrangement ensured that the English gentry as a group remained powerful and prosperous. The price to pay was the burden placed on individuals, namely the younger sons who had a hard time finding their place in society. It is even stated that the gentry rose to fortune at the expense of the younger sons.

To put it to numbers: between 1800 and 1919, there were 575 marriages of estate owners. These marriages produced 1167 daughters and 1394 sons. 891 sons were younger sons.

​

Education

From an early age, younger sons were told repeatedly that their adult masculine autonomy depended on their ability to become financially self-sustaining. Like their elder brother and sisters, younger sons were taught a range of social accomplishments. Sons might be taught to dance or be send to private school. Social accomplishments were seen as not too important for a younger son. It is clear that the first son was the best educated, and was for example send to university.

​

Options as a second son

It was not completely out of the question as a younger son to bank on inheriting from someone else. There might be an uncle or family member without sons that would take special notice of the younger son. This is what happens to Mr. Collins in Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice. He is a younger son who became a clergyman. Because of the family line, he is due to inherit the house of the Bennetts if the father were to die.

There was the option for a younger son to marry a wealthy woman and thereby gain the position of an independent gentleman or landowner. This was not always an easy solution, since young ladies with money were very popular and might choose to marry a first son. Another option was to marry a widow. You can probably imagine that these marriages were not necessarily made for love.

Quite a number of younger sons did inherit the family estate in the end, due to the death of the older brother. This happened in around 25% of cases.

​

Suitable jobs for gentry

There was a general model that was followed, starting in the 17th century. The second or third son would practice law, the next one would join the church and the youngest would learn a trade. Apprenticeships and jobs as tradesmen were fairly common up until the 19th century, where it was increasingly seen as a job too low for a son from the gentry. Military, mercantile, law, retail business (especially owning a business), medicine and working in the colonies were other suitable options.

In the 19th century, the army and the church became more popular options, especially sinc they did not involve an apprenticeship where the apprentice was a subordinate. Furthermore they were not seen as salaried positions (where hours worked equal pay, instead there was board and food and a compensation, which was deemed more refined.)

There are letters from younger sons trying to make their fortune in the colonies as well. Bengal, Madras, Bombay and Calcutta were options for English gentlemen to make a living for themselves.

​

Anxiety & feelings of insecurity

During the 16th century, a younger son was as much a stereotype as 'mother in law' is now. To call someone a younger son meant that they were an angry, frustrated young man who came with a host of grievances.

A lot is written about the feelings of younger sons on their uncertain position in live. They are born to fortune but will probably never inherit it. Furthermore, there was in the 19th century a great focus on men being 'masculine', keeping decorum and being financially independent. They were still elite men but their future was uncertain, and failure seemed always to be near. To hang around the house of the oldest brother and act as a servant was seen as the ultimate shameful position.

There was an agreement that the duty of a younger son was to minimize the cost to the core family. But there was also the understanding that older sons and family members had the responsibility to assist the younger son to a station. There was room for negotiation within the primogeniture system, and younger sons of wealthy families might get a starting sum of money for a business endeavor, or an apprenticeship. Younger sons would remind family members of their duty towards them if they felt it was neglected.

​

Sources:

Rothery, M., French, H., Decline through survival: the lives of the younger sons of the English landed gentry 1700-1900, University of Northampton (here)

Rothery, M., French, H., Male anxiety among younger sons of the English landed gentry, 1700-1900, Cambridge University Press

Wallis, P., Webb, C., The education and training of Gentry sons in Early-Modern England. (here)

https://www.wattpad.com/399858489-reading-the-regency-the-younger-sons-of-peers-and

YOUNGER SONS IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, JOAN THIRSK, History, Vol. 54, No. 182 (OCTOBER 1969), pp. 358-377