Several years ago I wrote a series on servants, both inside and outside, at a grand country estate. Last year I dusted the series off, did a ton of fresh research, and rewrote everything for a ten-part blog series entitled “Regency Servants” for Austen Authors. Today, and for the following two-months-plus of Mondays, I will be sharing that series here. I will expand on several points that I didn’t have the space to do on Austen Authors, so while essentially the same information, there will be new material as well. It is a BIG subject worthy of more than ten posts!
The best place to start, before delving deeply into each servant and their role, is to provide a broad overview of servants during the Georgian and specific Regency periods.
First off, it is vital to establish that it is impossible to categorize every type of servant and staff member or to apply specifics across the board. Many great houses had specialty niches into which they placed a servant that might not fit in any other house. While the basic structure of the servant hierarchy was similar from house to house, the complexity of the great houses was such that a one-size-fits-all approach was not possible.
However a particular estate was staffed, the workers divided into inside and outside personnel. The inside servants divided again into upper and lower levels. In broad, general terms, those who worked within the walls of the house itself were the domestic staff, as opposed to those who worked outside on the estate grounds. Further creating some confusion were those staff member with a professional status who were employees and not a servant in the technical definition. I will delve into this distinction in next Monday’s post.
Terminology gets muddied a bit. Words like “employee” and “staff” which are now commonplace, were not used during the early decades of the 19th century in standard practice. For the purposes of this series, such terms add clarity, so I will use them to distinguish. Just bear in mind that in the past, a servant/staff member would most likely refer to themselves by their job title with everyone understanding the hierarchy and implications.
General Servant Information
“The sensible master and the kind mistress know, that if servants depend on them for their means of living, in their turn they are dependent on their servants for very many of the comforts of life; and that, with a proper amount of care in choosing servants, and treating them like reasonable beings, and making slight excuses for the shortcomings of human nature, they will, save in some exceptional case, be tolerably well served, and, in most instances, surround themselves with attached domestics.” ~Mrs. Beeton’s Book of Household Management
The greater the responsibilities and closer the association with the master or mistress of the household, the higher a servant’s standing. A definite hierarchy existed, servants acutely aware of rank and class distinctions amongst themselves. Service to an English estate, particularly for an esteemed aristocrat or respected gentry class family was considered a prime occupation. In a world of harsh working conditions and strict social divides, gainful employment on an estate provided an excellent salary, security, and prestige; a job to be proud of and possibly evolve into a professional career. If one played by the rules and wasn’t afraid of rough work!
Estimates based on census results from the first decade of the 1800s say domestic servants (household staff) numbered around 910,000 with some 110,000 being male. From 1775 to 1801, servants accounted for anywhere between 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 persons in the UK. Whatever the exact statistics, the point is that servants accounted for an enormous slice of the working class. Wages were meager, compared to some other jobs, but the perks worth the lower pay. Typically room and board were covered, clothing provided (uniforms and possibly cast-offs), monetary tips for special work or from guests of the house, left-over food, and the social benefit of employment in an upper-class house.
Turnover of personnel was far more common than we imagine. Upheavals in the family situations — death, marriage, changes in fortune, etc. — affected the servants, of course. Yet even in a stable household, the long hours, backbreaking labor, and exacting standards led to poor health or injuries and dissatisfaction with the job. The grass may well be greener in another house! Plus, with the majority being female, marriage with resulting children (or just the child without the benefit of a husband, as often happened) further upset the staff roster. As a small aside, it was not forbidden for domestic help to be married. Masters and mistresses established rules as they deemed proper and circumstances varied widely.
Excellent domestic help was in high demand. An exceptionally good worker could bargain for a higher salary or seek better employment. Conversely, a poor or untrustworthy worker could be swiftly discarded at the whim of the master. Another willing person could easily be found. Servants were typically discovered via recommendations from friends and relatives. If one’s maid was reliable, and she had a younger sister, viola!
Girls routinely took jobs at 12 or 13 years of age. Starting as a scullery maid at that age, with hopes to rise in the ranks, was viewed as a golden opportunity. References written for a worthy servant who may be relocating or simply wish to attain an improved position were not required from the employer, but often given.
Servants with experience and special skills — such as a governess, lady’s maid, valet, etc. — if unable to secure employment through the preferred methods above, might advertise in a newspaper, but more likely went to one of the “servant registry” offices scattered about where, for a fee, the office proprietors matched clients. These establishments were unregulated during the Regency so not always reliable, but it was another option both for the servant seeking a job and the employer seeking a worker.
Training schools for domestic help didn’t exist as we imagine it. However, there were charitable organizations with programs to help young ladies, primarily, such as the snippet below indicates. In other words, better a career as a servant than a career as a prostitute!
WINCHESTER FEMALE ASYLUM: 1815 Handbill announcing the opening of an asylum in Canon Street for girls between 13 & 16 to prepare them for their career as servants, with a strong emphasis on moral development. The project – “to rescue many young persons from misery and infamy and make them respectable members of society” – is outlined in detail by the joint matrons.
An exceptional domestic could rise to a position of power. The housekeeper and butler, for instance, often began service in a lower capacity. Children of trusted staff were fortunate as well. The prospect of future positions on the estate, references extended by the Master to gain entry into another great house, and/or the gift of higher education to secure an independent future were major perks commonly granted.
The layouts below are from London townhouses, but give the idea of how the servant-related areas of a house were designed.
Men were prized above females and earned a higher wage. (Go ahead and insert groan or “I am woman, hear me roar!” now) The number of male, liveried servants employed was a symbol of status for the Master; his ability to pay for a large number of men an indication of his wealth and prosperity. Likewise, the quantity and quality of servants employed across the board, male or female, displayed one’s prestige. Grab onto one of those super expensive male French chefs floating around after the Revolution to seriously prove your worth!
The precise number of servants necessary for a modest estate to function varied widely. A rapid calculation of the basic requirements easily leads to twenty persons (including the outdoor staff). A larger estate demanded a small army! The running of a grand home in an elegant style, such as Duke of Westminster’s household at Eaton Hall, might require up to fifty servants. Outside of the bare minimums — cook, housekeeper, maid, butler, kitchen maid, groomsman — other positions were optional and roles often combined.
Household servants, with the exception of the upper-level employees, would share rooms either in the basement or the attic. These accommodations were spartan, providing basic needs and scant more. If lucky the rooms possessed small casement windows for ventilation from the smoky fires and to provide sunlight and fresh air. Cast off rugs and wall hangings may be allowed to dim the cold seeping through the stone and add the warmth of homeyness. How comfortable their lodgings and well fed they were depended on the generosity of their master. I’m sure we all agree the Pemberley staff lived like royalty, right?
Many books have been written on this subject, as well as a plethora of website blog posts/articles. I’ll share links as I go along, beginning with the two below. The featured image for this post is the cover of Up and Down Stairs: The History of the Country House Servant by Jeremy Musson. A terrific book, and can be purchased on Amazon in print or digital HERE.
This ends Part One. Return next Monday for more!
Comments and questions are VERY welcome!