estate’s tenants regularly, raise money for good causes like hospitals or for the sick and needy, and involve herself in fund-raising for local events such as bazaars, in garden parties and important dates on the estate social calendar. Many throw themselves into their charity work – it is, after all, the only route for independent initiative and action available to them. Everything else in their life is determined by a rigid series of rules and regulations – even their socialising and lavish entertaining follows a very specific set of rules.
They can’t be housewives or mothers, even if they want to, because they have armies of servants to do all their work for them. Their family relationships, including those with their husbands, are all conducted in a rigid, pre-determined way. So while the Lady Bountiful role is a must for someone in this elevated social position – the other women in her social circle are usually equally involved in charitable works – it winds up serving a useful purpose: in the absence of a fully formed Welfare State, there is, at least, one resource for helping the poor.
Though both husband and wife have this duty to the community to fulfil, aristocratic men and their male heirs do not, as a rule, get very involved in the day-to-day detail of charity work. It’s very much seen as women’s territory. So in the midst of all the planning, running the household, socialising and emphasis on status, the mistress of the house must allocate time, in between shopping in Paris or organising (with a lot of help) extraordinarily extravagant, money-no-object dinners, to be a visible charitable presence.
Yet when you look at the tiny salaries the toffs are quite happy to pay their servants, you can only scratch your head and wonder about the hypocrisy of it all.
S ERVANTS W AGES: S LAVE L ABOUR?
Servants are always seriously underpaid and over-exploited. Over hundreds of years, the poorest people are expected to be grateful for food and shelter, in return for what is usually incessant, hard physical labour.
They accept that their masters and betters rule their lives, simply because there are no other avenues of work. If you are at the bottom of the heap, you either starve or get on with the job in hand. And if you are fortunate, you get an employer who treats you with a degree of consideration.
In previous centuries, some country-house owners regarded the servants as part of the family. But by the nineteenth century this idea had started to fade, though it did survive in a few estates.
T HE W AGES OF S ERVICE:
Until the nineteenth century, servants’ wages were paid once a year. But gradually this changes, first to quarterly payments then, by the twentieth century, it becomes monthly. Men always earn more than women; usually, a woman receives half of a man’s salary for an equivalent job. Depending on the post and the person’s experience, the wages can increase – a little. However, a very young inexperienced person going into service for the first time might not receive any money at all initially: just food, a place to sleep and clothing.
Things are starting to improve a little for servants by the Edwardian era, because although there is still strong demand for their expertise, different types of work other than service have begun to emerge. Even working long, gruelling hours in a mill, a punishingly unhealthy way of making a living, may be seen as a better option: at least you have a semblance of freedom – you get to go home at the end of the day. Comparing that against a life in service where you get half a day off a week and are restricted in your behaviour by a series of inflexible rules (more about these in Chapter 4) – and where the penalty for breaking a rule can be instant dismissal – it’s easy to see why even the nastiest of other working conditions are more appealing to many youngsters.
P ERKS OF THE JOB
What sometimes makes country-house service a bit more attractive
Learning to Kill: Stories