Richard and Ada don't get anything because of the costs of litigation. Yet John doesn't seem to work, but he seems independently wealthy aside from the inheritance. Sorry, didn't read the book, just watched this series. Can someone clear this up for me?
share.
He was not dependent on the litigation for his wealth.
.
Does the book ever explain where his money was from if not the Jarndyce estate? Did he make it? Did he inherit from some other rich cousin?
share.
As with all first-born sons of landed gentry, he inherited his estate (which had nothing to do with the Jarndyce case) from his father.
.
Oh, he is not the direct descendant of the dead Jarndyce. Weird.
share.
Well, we don't really know -- the whole case is byzantine as Dickens paints it. All we know is that his money was never dependent on the case's outcome, because he already had money. The young people didn't.
.
So in the books, there's no family tree that explains how they are all related?
share.
Haha, no: the whole point in the book is that the case is so ridiculously byzantine -- and all the lawyers and judges are deliberately making it moreso by the minute so they can extract every last dime from it -- that no one knows which way is up.
.
The dead Jardyce was his Great Uncle.
shareThe book suggests (but never directly states) that either his or his family's money is from the tea trade. I'm on my second read of the book so my memory is a little fuzzy on this part but it seems he gets called away from the story on occasion for "business", so it's possibly he's still involved with it.
shareJust to clear up a couple of the points raised on this thread. John Jarndyce had given up all interest in Jarndyce v Jarndyce and he was independently wealthy .
Gordon P. Clarkson