Hi Roger
What I was relating wasn't quite contemporary, Roger, as it goes back a
quarter of a century, and though I was young many of the people there were
much older, so you had people who left school at fourteen or fifteen, which
was still current then, the atmosphere was redolent of antiquated social
modes, as was much of Britain in appearance, despite the pop boom of the
Sixties, one thing I always remember was that staff were addressed by first
name while management had to be spoken to by formal title plus surname -
i.e. Mr This, Mrs That etc. Ironically, given some contexts of these
multiple conversation, the overall manager, a Mrs Somebody (I'm not
mentioning names) was awarded the British Empire Medal for thirty years
service. This same public servant was hated by the organisers of a certain
charity for which we had to provide the catering for deprived children on
the grounds of her consistent overcharging for our services, the charity was
tied by a trust arrangement into dependence. The combination of meanness and
social status seems particularly appropriate to me.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Collett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Skivvy
Dave, you're losing the plot here.
Think back a century or more, highly separated classes of person, minimal
education and twelve years old or so, not sixteen plus. Ladies' maids were
in general in their late teens or in their twenties and came from a slightly
higher class of person with a better education, they were probably never
skivvies in their lives. You cannot compare with the present day. Believe it
or not, things HAVE changed since Victorian/Edwardian times.
Roger.
----- Original Message -----
From: "david.bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Skivvy
> > Also the skivvy would not have had the skills IMHO.
>
> Dunno, dear Roger (not Joanna). I can use a contemporary comparison,
junior
> hairdressers, shampooists, etc are simultaneously regarded as low on the
> pecking order, and poorly paid, while expected to pay finesses of
attention
> to the ladies (and sometimes gentleman's) hair. What I mean is that there
is
> not a necessary equation between skill and perception of status nor
> definitely reward. Poets should know that!
>
> Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> David Bircumshaw
>
> Leicester, England
>
> Home Page
>
> A Chide's Alphabet
>
> Painting Without Numbers
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Collett" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Skivvy
>
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> Back to the servants, and thanks again for Joanna's absorbing post, but I
> don't see that there would be a necessary split between forms of labour in
a
> servant establishment except when numbers created hierarchies of labour.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The point is that the mistress of the house would not have let a grubby
> little skivvy get her hands, which may have been contaminated by all sorts
> of crap, get anywhere near her hair.
> Also the skivvy would not have had the skills IMHO.
>
> Roger (not Joanna)
>
|