MovieChat Forums > The Draughtsman's Contract (1982) Discussion > Isn't it too early for the murder when t...

Isn't it too early for the murder when the heir isn't born yet?

posted 17 years ago by cengelm
6 replies | jump to latest

If the owner is already dead the pregnancy seems to be useless. Or was it possible to consider a fetus the heir?

[–] fxx2-1 17 years ago

The son was impotent, so they used the draughtsman to produce an heir. Without it the estate would have gone to another part of the family after the son/husband (the lord, count whatever he was, it's been a while) himself died. My theory is that now the women knock off the husband/count, making sure that they get the full estate.

Dead proprieter>husband>soon to be born baby?

damn, I have to watch it again...

[–] palefire-1 17 years ago

Right (and keep in mind that Mrs Talemann's husband is still living). If Mrs Herbert is preg., it will be assumed that her husband knocked her up right before he was knocked off.

[–] Colkitto 16 years ago

Firstly, yes, a foetus could be considered an heir. From the timing it would be assumed, if either woman is pregnant, that the child was conceived in Mr Herbert's lifetime and that the mother's husband is the father.

Secondly, Greenaway has stated that he chose the specific date of August 1694 because that was when the first Married Women's Property Act was passed, meaning that - if Mr Herbert has not made a will, which I think was left ambiguous - Mrs Herbert now has rights she could not previously have claimed.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

[–] advice31765 15 years ago

No, the will was discussed. The estate was to be left to Mr. Herbert's grandson when one was produced. Mrs. Herbert explained that her husband did not believe in women owning property even though the estate had been her father's and that is how her husband obtained it.

[–] PillowRock 15 years ago

It is specifically mentioned that Mr. Herbert did not believe in women owning property.

However, the question of whether Mr. Herbert had actually gotten around to writing a will was, I believe, left dangling. Somewhere in there was when Mrs. Herbert rebuffed Neville's questions as being beyond what he had a right to know (leading to the line: "Fogive my curiosity, Madame; and open your knees.").

Given that law had *just* changed in England regardingwomen inheriting property, it is possible that Mr. Herbert had previously relied upon the fact that law would automatically enforce the inheritance line that he wanted ..... and had not yet gotten around producing the newly necessary paperwork of a will that would bypass females. Given the attitude that is attributed to him, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Herbert would have made a will that bypassed female potential heirs ..... eventually. But we don't know that he has done it *yet*.

Also, this interpretation leads to the plot making more sense in terms of Neville siring an heir for them. If a males-only will is indeed already in place, then Mrs. Tahlman's pregnancy still has only a 50% (roughly) chance of producing a suitable heir. On the other hand, if women *can* (as of that year) inherit the estate, then Neville's progeny has secured the not only the wealth of the family, but its very survival (since there was only one child in the current generation, and she was married to an impotent husband).

[–] Local Hero 8 years ago

Yes, PillowRock's answer seems the most sensible to me (fwiw).