Page 85 of The Longbourn Bloodline

CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO

A FRIEND STICKETH

Darcy had never been at odds with Bingley. His friend had a nature too placid for stubbornness; at least he wasn’t obstinate before the great Pemberley Heir Debacle. Consequently, Darcy left Georgiana to the care of Mrs. Bennet at Longbourn and demanded that Bingley accompany him to London, where they would meet with their solicitors. It was the sensible thing to do. One required the facts before one could start dismantling a heritage that went back to the first William D’Arcy, whose name had graced the shores of England.

Darcy’s solicitor was old Mr. Blythewood, who had served his father and possibly his grandfather, whereas Bingley’s was a younger man, a Mr. Edward Waring, who had sharp eyes and wore his hair uncomfortably long.

“Gentlemen, please be seated.” Mr. Blythewood settled his spectacles and surveyed the documents Darcy had placed before him: Alice’s confession, George’s letter, the torn Bible page, and the undated miniature. Waring was examining the Pemberley settlement, seven sheets of vellum bearing seals a century old, and George Darcy’s baptismal record, laid out neatly, dated appropriately, and signed by the rector at Kympton.

Bingley dropped into the chair beside him, crossing his legs with the sort of careless ease Darcy could never quite manage. He had not uttered a word since Barnet, when his cheerful remark about the tolerable January roads had been met with silence.

Blythewood straightened the documents on the table. “I have examined the Pemberley settlement of 1662, and the entail amendments of 1689. George Darcy’s birth and christening have been witnessed and registered. Mr. Waring has done the same, independently, at Mr. Bingley’s instruction. We have compared our conclusions.”

“And?” Darcy’s voice was level.

“The entail,” Blythewood continued, pointing a finger at the relevant vellum, “is unambiguous. Pemberley is settled upon the heirs of the body of William Darcy and his wife Anne, to pass through male or female lines in order of birth.”

“Fee tail female was added,” Waring elaborated with an emphasis on female. “An unusual provision for the period, but not unprecedented. The Darcys, it seems, wished to ensure the estate could not escheat to the Crown for lack of male heirs.”

“But grafting an heir is possible, is it not?” Bingley ventured, leaning forward. “A common practice for childless couples seeking to secure the estate⁠—”

“Only if the language includes heirs general,” Blythewood said. “As the original Bennet entail did when I was asked to examine it.”

“Indeed,” Darcy confirmed, “we altered the Longbourn entail to remove the restriction to male heirs, retaining heirs general within its terms.”

“Correct, but the Darcy entail is specific and does not allow grafting,” Waring attested. “Which means if William and Anne Darcy’s physical line runs dry, the estate returns to the Crown for lack of any heirs.”

“And that is why they purchased the infant, George?” Bingley asked.

“We are solicitors, Mr. Bingley, not novelists,” Blythewood cut in smoothly, declining any invitation to speculate on illicit infant swaps. “We deal in instruments of law, and the recorded line looks to be in order.”

Waring smoothed his cuffs. “We deal only with the names and structure of the Darcy family tree.”

Blythewood cleared his throat and adjusted his spectacles. “Here are the facts we have put together from the family archives, the christening records, and legal documents. The original entail dates back further, but William and Anne Darcy amended it in 1689. They had three children. William Darcy, born 1690. George Darcy, born 1694, and Mathilda Darcy, born 1697. William died in 1711, and George became the heir apparent. Mathilda married a Mr. Charles Bingley of Yorkshire in 1717, and her parents kept her dowry and wrote her out of the family tree. The original William Darcy senior died in 1720, and Pemberley passed to George Darcy as the legitimate heir. George Darcy fathered a son, William Darcy, in 1723, and his wife, Catherine Astley, died about the same time. This son is your grandfather, Mr. Darcy.”

“Then it all seems clear,” Charles said. “My great-grandmother was disowned, and George Darcy inherited.”

“Except there is no legal way to disown an heir of the body,” Waring said. “For heirs general, of course, one can strike out an heir who displeases you.”

“Which means, for the purposes of inheritance in such an entail, Mathilda Darcy would have been considered an heir, if she is the physical daughter of William and Anne Darcy,” Blythewood said.

“What about George Darcy?” Bingley asked. “Surely, he is listed in the family archives, and the christening document is signed by the rector.”

“Yes, it would appear so,” Blythewood said. “However, if, as these documents, the torn pages and letters suggest, that George Darcy was not, in fact, born of William and Anne Darcy, then he was never an heir of the body. The entail should have passed, upon the death of his father, to the next legitimate heir, which would be Mathilda Darcy Bingley.”

Darcy stared at Charles. “So, you see your interest in this? And since you are marrying Miss Jane Bennet, it affects her too.”

“Oh, Jane will not care a fig. She would wish for Elizabeth to be mistress of Pemberley,” Charles waved aside his concern.

“So, to conclude,” Blythewood said. “If this account is accurate, and the boy raised as George Darcy was in fact the son of Thomas and Philippa Bennet.” Blythewood folded his hands. “Then his descendants, including yourself, Mr. Darcy, cannot qualify as heirs of the body under the Pemberley settlement.”

Bingley shifted in his chair. “What does this mean in practice, Mr. Blythewood? If the settlement names heirs of the body and Darcy’s line descends from a Bennet child, is Pemberley no longer theirs?”

“In theory,” Blythewood said. “But no Chancery court would take the evidence as presented. A torn page from a Bible, undated and unwitnessed, could have been written by anybody. An unsigned and undated miniature of an infant with the word “George” scribbled on the back, and a letter written by a woman who died a generation ago, confessing to knowledge she could not prove and did not act upon during her lifetime. Not to mention a mother’s note about a child leaving with a toy horse. Not exactly credible.”

“Now, wait a second,” Darcy said. “Alice Bennet confessed to honesty. Her wish was not to continue the lie.”

“Perhaps, but the letter is based on hearsay. There are no living witnesses. No parish records have been located to corroborate the details. There is no death on record for the second Darcy son, at least until 1774 when he died of old age. More tellingly, there is no christening record for George Bennet.”