] ...] I have been thinking of her brother Edward and the Knight's adoption of him. I can't help but wondering how it came about.
] ...
] Was it considered a christian thing to share the children? Or a practical thing to provide for a child by leaving him to wealthy parents?

I imagine it was practical rather than an idea of sharing.

But it makes sense to me. A wealthy couple is childless but wish to raise and heir. They wish to prepare someone to give their money to.

So instead of just adopting as we do now - taking anyone's child. They select a family member for the distinction. Fanny is somewhat adopted in this manner. The Bertrams want to help the Price's. The concept of blood being important.... The childless couple would have some security in knowing what kind of people their hier comes from. In return the child would show devotion and love for being selected for the honour of being given a big wack of money.

With Edward I get the feeling they really liked the boy personally. They took to him personally.

I am sure it was painful to part with him, but boys went away to school anyway so it isn't so different. It was a good opportunity. He ended up providing his mother and two sisters with a home. The Austen's were probably very delighted and grateful for the Knight's decision to take on their son.

According to Emma the parents would retain the distinction of being the child's natural parents. He would still owe the couple duty and respect. It seems like it would be similar to having four parents instead of 2. Perhaps it was similar to having long time step parents as many children today have.