It is a lot less money, but since women weren't expected to provide the bulk of the fortune, but rather to provide capital for the fortune of a younger child, it may be spot on or even generous proportionally.
I don't know what ratio is usually used, but I think we're told Sir Thomas Bertram had ten thousand a year, and we are told that Lady Bertram, with seven thousand in capital, was acknowledged even by her own family to be three thousand shy of the amount that was reasonable for the bride of a baronet. So at least at one rank of society and fortune, a 10:1 ratio of husband's to wife's fortune seems reasonable. Georgiana with thirty thousand would then be a generously good financial match for somebody with roughly her brother's income.
I don't know what ratio is usually used, but I think we're told Sir Thomas Bertram had ten thousand a year, and we are told that Lady Bertram, with seven thousand in capital, was acknowledged even by her own family to be three thousand shy of the amount that was reasonable for the bride of a baronet. So at least at one rank of society and fortune, a 10:1 ratio of husband's to wife's fortune seems reasonable. Georgiana with thirty thousand would then be a generously good financial match for somebody with roughly her brother's income.