The Real Life Downton Abbey: How Life Was Really Lived in Stately Homes a Century Ago

by Jacky Hyams

  They’re known as ‘Mrs Astor’s 400’ – the number of wealthy people who can fit into the grand ballroom of the home of New York’s most powerful socialite family, the Astors. The 400 have always been acutely disdainful of outsiders. They hate the idea of their children marrying those who made their fortunes from what they see as the ‘vulgar’ pursuits of trade or moneymaking. But that kind of snobbery is on the wane in America, too. Eventually they too give into the reality – there is far too much new money sloshing around to ignore it – and their children start to marry into it.

  So by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century wealthy new-money Americans have become equally serious power players in this ‘age of bling’, spending millions on vast mansions, jewels and lavish entertaining – tens of thousands of dollars are blown on one outfit for a big New York costume party – in many ways aping the style and fashions of wealthy English aristocracy. But with one beady, lingering eye on the one status symbol their money cannot buy: class.

  In the years between 1870 and 1914, hundreds of rich American girls are put on display before the English and European aristocrats by their pushy, socially ambitious mothers – hoping to propel them into what could be described as a carefully ‘arranged’ but very grand marriage, where the trade-off for their ‘new’ American cash is a title and a big country estate and a heritage going back centuries. Shedloads of it. An estimated 10 per cent of aristocratic marriages between 1870 and l914 are with brides from the USA.

  This ‘Desperately Seeking An English Toff’ system works in some cases. There’s too much money involved for it not to work, and these girls have a wildly romantic notion about marrying an English earl or a duke. But there are huge cultural differences. As a result, some liaisons are unhappy, loveless and occasionally disastrous: wealthy, pampered American girls already used to servants and the latest mod cons like central heating complain endlessly about how chilly and cold the vast, unheated English mansions can be. The very English characteristic of ‘putting up with it’ or being stoic about physical inconvenience or discomfort has never really played well across the Atlantic. And there is a persistent belief among the English aristocracy, that lasts well into the twentieth century, that the only way to heat a room is by a fire – even though the cost of installing the ‘new fangled’ methods of heating their homes is affordable for some.

  American social princesses arriving into the English or Scottish countryside are aghast to discover that every time they want a bath in their chilly new stately home, a housemaid has to lug gallons of water up and down stairs if the kitchen is tucked far away in a different part of the enormous house. And, if they are unlucky, their day-to-day relationship with their cash-strapped English aristocratic spouse, often overly concerned with the cares of keeping the estate running, can be as chilly or remote as the house itself.

  In the Downton Abbey marriage, the Earl of Grantham believes he has secured the future of his estate this way by marrying the wealthy American heiress, Cora, Countess of Grantham. They wind up with three daughters and no male heir. Yet theirs is very much a love match rather than a mere merger of interests. Was this typical? Maybe not. Consider the story of the marriage of the fabulously rich railroad heiress Consuelo Vanderbilt and her marriage to ‘Sunny’, Charles Spencer Churchill, the ninth Duke of Marlborough and owner of the 187-room Blenheim Palace in Woodstock, Oxfordshire, in 1896.

  THE GIRL WITH THE DIAMOND-ENCRUSTED GARTERS

  Eighteen-year-old Consuelo’s dowry (part of which was paid in railroad stocks and shares) is equivalent to US $100 million today. Newspaper stories at the time carry gushing reports about her bridal undies: her pink lace corset (with real gold hooks) and her silk stockings (held up by diamond-encrusted garters).

  Yet Consuelo is a very unhappy bride. For starters, she’s in love with someone else. However, so desperate is Consuelo’s conniving mother Alva to up the ante socially by being mum to a duchess that Alva pretends to be dying in order to convince Consuelo to go through with the match.

  Consuelo cries all the way to the glittering wedding ceremony. Some stories claim she’s seen weeping at the altar. In their carriage afterwards, the Duke, close to bankruptcy, blithely informs her he’s given up the woman he loves to marry her money. The honeymoon isn’t even over when he orders a hugely expensive refurbishment of Blenheim.

  Two sons are born. But the couple separate, a great society scandal in 1906 – even the King has insisted they should not divorce – and it isn’t until 1921 that a divorce is finally granted.

  So has the cash from the American heiresses ‘saved’ the British cash-poor, land-rich aristocracy from financial ruin? It certainly helped. Once you’ve sold off the family silver, your valuable art collection and other costly items to pay your debts the last thing you want to do is give up the house and the land.

  THE WIND OF CHANGE

  But the big social changes that are already starting to bubble underneath the surface in the Edwardian years – the rise of socialism, the suffragette movement with its push towards women’s rights, and the growing political awareness of the needs of working people, pushed forward by the dawn of World War I – are far more significant in changing the entire landscape for the many, a tidal wave of change, if you like, than big windfalls of cash for the small but privileged minority.

  And yet the innate snobbery of the aristocrats still prevails: many families still can’t help looking down their noses on these rich, youthful, usually high-spirited American girls whose manners are perceived to be ‘something between a Red Indian and a Gaiety Girl’.

  In addition, the huge spending power of the American heiresses easily surpasses anything the British aristocrats have known. So there’s an envy factor in there, too. The American girls are much better dressed, for starters. They think nothing of ordering 90 dresses at a time in Paris, only to wear them just once. (Wearing things once, of course, means no one can ever criticise you for donning the same garment again.)

  By 1914, 60 peers of the realm and 40 sons of peers have married American women. So some of those balls, lavish parties, champagne-spouting fountains and the other many indulgences of the ‘smart set’ that followed Edward VII were indirectly underwritten by the millions flowing from the coffers of the American heiresses, as well as propping up the existence of some of the country’s greatest estates.

  In the time-honoured tradition of the ‘if you’ve got it, flaunt it’ set so follows the mantra: ‘If you haven’t got it any more, use other people’s money’. After all, with so much hectic social networking at stake, who was going to let the outdated rules and snobbery of the older generation stop them?

  BEING LADY BOUNTIFUL

  Yet despite all this big spending and trading of money for status, the mega-rich are not completely oblivious to the world beyond their own.

  Outward appearances are everything. And while aristocratic families often treat their servants and those living on their estate as inferior beings from a separate planet, they are, at the same time, obliged to foster the general idea that they are moral guardians of the needy and less well off. They have to be seen to be conscious of their responsibilities to others. It is called noblesse oblige: if you are privileged and rich, you have a moral duty to public service and charity; it means you are seen to be putting your money to good use.

  This idea – of patronising the poor with one hand, dispensing charity and goodwill from the Big House, and exploiting them with the other by using them as an astonishingly cheap labour force – promotes the centuries-old view of a paternalistic lord and master who is concerned about the wellbeing of his tenants. And in fairness, not all the big landowning families are cynical in their treatment of the poor people living on their estates; some genuinely do form good relationships with their tenants and want to help them.

  Consuelo Vanderbilt, for instance, becomes well known for her devotion to the welfare of the poor people on the big Blenheim estate, and her concern for the wellbeing of her 40 l
ive-in servants – a dedication to charitable works that manifests itself throughout her life. Yet the truth is, Consuelo is behaving according to all the rules and traditions that dictate the every move of a very wealthy aristocratic woman: the Edwardian mistress of a country estate is a key player in this demonstration of concern for the needy. It is her role and hers alone to be Lady Bountiful, dispensing goodwill locally, making visits and perhaps giving advice and hand-me-downs to the needy tenants.

  Whatever her own feelings or views, the wealthy country-house wife is obliged, as an important duty, to visit the 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.

  SERVANTS WAGES: SLAVE LABOUR?

  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.

  THE WAGES OF SERVICE:

  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.

  PERKS OF THE JOB

  What sometimes makes country-house service a bit more attractive for some are the perks (perquisites), unofficial extras which come with the job. Here are a few examples:

  Hand-me-downs

  A lady’s maid with a generous or kind mistress might be able to sell the odd item of clothing handed to her, if the maid has no use for it herself. Or she can use the material – always a really good quality fabric like wool, silk or cotton, man-made fabrics are never used – to make something else, perhaps a small dress for an impoverished young sister or relative. Good sewing skills are an important and valued attribute in a lady’s maid.

  Making deals

  A butler or housekeeper might forge a relationship with certain tradesman making regular deliveries to the house where they might agree a discount for continued orders. Or they might be able to sell any unwanted goods that are handed down from the household.

  Tipping

  This is another hidden extra in a world where there is much at-home entertaining of wealthy guests. Though it is primarily the personal servants like the butlers or valets who are more likely to be handed tips by a guest than, say, a housemaid.

  Social Networking

  Socially, since marriage means the end of working in service for women, a good looking young lady’s maid hoping to find a husband views working in an elite household as a bit of a plus in the social stakes. There’s more chance of meeting other male servants if you have a very social boss who moves around. And, of course, moving around means the chance to network and meet staff members from other households, also useful for those who hope to move from job to job.

  Travel

  While certainly a continuation of normal servant duties, without any real break in the non-stop, round-the-clock nature of their allotted role, travel gives a lady’s maid, butler or valet the opportunity to broaden their horizons. The toffs are often on the move, travelling to other parts of the country for shooting parties, visiting their other homes (if they own several properties) and, of course, travelling abroad, sometimes within Europe (usually France or Italy), sometimes across the Atlantic to the US but also within the British Empire: a sea voyage to Africa, India or Australia is not unknown. And where the families also own town houses, the ‘uppers’ (meaning the servants with higher status) chance to socialise (on their half day off) is much greater in places like London, with its many entertainments, than it is in a more remote country area.

  When the family do go away, it is customary to take just a few servants with them, leaving the rest of the staff in the country house. At such times, some families might give the remaining staff in the house cash as payment, in lieu of providing their meals. Other toffs stop providing any food at all while they’re away – and just pay their servants’ board wages.

  WHEN EVERY PENNY COUNTS

  Long-term upper servants can fare slightly better if their employer dies and the household is broken up. In some cases, they might receive a small gift as a legacy before they start to search for a new position. Or even a small pension.

  Amazingly, given how tiny their pay packets are, many live-in servants do their best to save; when working really long hours (on average, 16–17 hours a day) with food and board provided, there is not much free time available to do anything but sleep. So it is not impossible to set aside a tiny sum of money.

  The cash saved is frequently sent or handed out to support their own family, a household where there are often many very hungry mouths to feed. Even a very small amount of money from a very small pay packet can make a real difference to a family with one adult wage coming in.

  Many poverty-stricken parents living in shockingly cramped and impoverished conditions actively welcome the idea of a teenage daughter going into service for this re
ason alone – and if she doesn’t make the grade in service, there’s no fulsome welcome home. Once you can earn, no matter how small a pittance your contribution, losing that meagre sum can put the survival of others on the line.

  Long-term live-in servants also save whatever they can because they worry about their old age. State pensions do not exist until 1909 and, without savings, many servants face a very tough time indeed if they grow too feeble to work. There are country-house employers who treat their older servants kindly by giving them a small pension. But there are no guarantees of anything.

  In the Edwardian era, London is the world’s financial capital. In the years between 1890 and l914, nearly half the international flow of capital is controlled by the City, or the Square Mile as we now know it. Millionaires from all over the world settle in London, buying grand houses in places like Park Lane or Grosvenor Square; they too become part of the wealthy coterie of Edward VII’s smart set. Yet the servants they employ to do their bidding are, in many cases, virtual slaves, trapped by a rigid, harsh social hierarchy in a world where one false move or mistake can mean unemployment and ruin. The only way to survive is to work hard, focus on keeping the employer happy and accept the role you’ve landed; you could, after all, win a promotion in time. Even if you did, however, the roles of master and servant, as we will see, are very clearly defined…

  THE HAVES

  Churchill’s American mother

  One very successful early merger of American money and aristocratic class is the wedding of stunningly beautiful New York heiress Jennie Jerome to Lord Randolph Churchill, 2nd son of the Duke of Marlborough, in 1873. Their first-born son becomes British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill.