MovieChat Forums > Upstairs, Downstairs (1974) Discussion > More on Richard's income .. and the serv...

More on Richard's income .. and the servants

posted 11 years ago by Naomi222
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm working my way through the series and have just gotten into series 5. And a few things still puzzle me.

1. How is Richard living at this point? It was mentioned in the answer on another thread that James bought the lease of the house from him, providing him with some money. And I believe he made some money in the stock-market? But once he marries Virginia, he's travelling constantly, staying in fancy hotels, eating in fancy restaurants,buying her gorgeous clothes, and planning to buy a home of his own. (A home perhaps more modest than the one at Eaton Place, but still one fitting his status as a viscount and MP.) Where is his income coming from now?

2. I'm rather baffled by the scene where James gives all the servants notice, prior to moving into his own flat. Surely it would have occurred to him that even living in their own home, Richard and Virginia will need servants. Probably not quite as many, if the house is smaller, but certainly they'd have a cook, a housemaid, and a 'man' to serve as butler and valet. So that would take care of Mrs. Bridges, Hudson and Rose. James would likely take Frederick with him as a general manservant (again, needed for a man of his status, even in a small flat or suite of room). Leaving only Ruby to be provided for of the 'old' servants. (And she could probably also have gone with Richard, as general scullery maid/under-housemaid.
Of course, once R&V end up moving into Eaton place, the number of servants expands by over 50% with the addition of Daisy, Edward and the Governess.

3. Anyone know if it was intentional for so many of the housemaids to have flower names? We started out with Rose. Then we got Daisy. Then we got Lily.

4. While I can certainly see the servants being upset and being split up and losing their long-held places, would there really have been any difficulty in finding new jobs? Despite overall high unemployment, my understanding of the period was that, during AND after the war there was a huge 'servant problem' -- with so many people leaving service for more lucrative jobs in the outside world.
Surely highly experienced staff would have been snapped up in a second. (And while obviously Daisy and Edward had been hoping to not return to service, they too should have been able to find places if they had wished to.)

5. When James is hestitating over moving out, out of concern about Georgina, wouldnt' it have made sense to her to move in with Richard? (Certainly living with her older, married uncle would be more sensible and socially acceptable than living with her widowed cousin.)

[–] jdcofield 11 years ago

1. Richard's capital apparently came from the money James paid him for the house. It was conservatively invested and provided enough for him to live on comfortably, especially since he got to keep on living, apparently rent-free, at Eaton Place. He would have received a salary as MP after about 1911 and presumably that would have been increased when he was serving in the Admiralty during the war. Perhaps he used that income for his day to day expenses and put any investment income back into his capital.

Lords used to receive a per diem payment for attending the House of Lords so after he became a viscount he would have had that as income too.

He seems to have been a very conservative investor in the stock market so I doubt he had a huge income from his capital. The windfall he made by investing on that insider tip in "Word of Honour" he donated to charity.

Virginia could have had her own income. Most likely anything her first husband left was earmarked for the children, but Virginia could have had the income from it as her own before she remarried. She may very well have had money from her own family, too. I would imagine that most of the money she and Richard spent came from her own resources.

2.James is the master of the house so it's proper for him to give all the servants notice. He would have left it up to his father and Virginia as to which of the servants they wanted to hire for themselves. Most likely it would have worked out as you suggest had they all not decided to stay on at Eaton Place.

3. Flower names were very common in the late 1800s / early 1900s.

4.True, but hard economic times after the war meant a lot of wealthy people were cutting back on servants and closing down or selling some of their houses. Hudson and Mrs. Bridges, being older, might have had a tougher time finding new jobs even if they were highly experienced.

5. That's always puzzled me a little, too. Perhaps the idea was that Richard and Virginia would have a smaller house, and with Virginia's two children in residence there wouldn't have been room for Georgina. But it would definitely have been scandalous for Georgina to keep on living with James without a chaperone. Of course the writers knew that in the end everyone was going to stay on at Eaton Place so they didn't put a lot of thought into all the implications.

[–] Naomi222 11 years ago

I thought Virginia might have some money (she obviously wasn't starving when they met), but she did seem to be more 'upper middle class' than upper class.

Just after Marjorie died, he mentioned that he made 400 pounds/year as an MP, but stated that it was nowhere near enough to live on .. the implication being "in the manner to which he was accustomed."

And yes, James was head of the house. But logically he might have asked his father if he expected to be able to take some of the servants before simply giving them notice. (Yes, I know it's more dramatic that way -- even if the fact that it was the beginning of the season made it likely that everything WOULD work out somehow.)

[–] jdcofield 11 years ago

Logic and James don't always have a lot in common. It would be typically impetuous of him to give all the servants their notice without thinking about his father's needs.

[–] tgrrrsss 9 years ago

Didnt servents often get a kind of "stage name" that was given to them by master or mistress of the house?

[–] nyctc7 9 years ago

Didnt servents often get a kind of "stage name" that was given to them by master or mistress of the house?

This was implied in the UD novelization, where Lady Marjorie came up with the name Sarah. It is muddled in the TV series, but when Sarah gave her name to Sir Geoffrey for the birth certificate of her soon to be child she said Sarah Moffat.

Every other thing I've seen whether Downton Abbey or Gosford Park or anything similar I don't ever recall the master making up a name for a servant.

As to Richard's finances, James stated that he paid most of the bills (IIRC when he announced to Richard his intention to marry Hazel). Of course after James's death Richard and Virginia moved out of the house, partly because it was too big for just the two of them, but also because they weren't rich. But I assume by moving to smaller digs outside London they could afford to live quite comfortably.

[–] cmkrcwi 9 years ago

They moved because the house had to be sold to help pay for James' debts.

[–] nyctc7 9 years ago

That's right. It wasn't Richard's house since he sold the lease to James. I don't know if they still do 99 year leases! At the time of LM's death we learn that there was a little over 60 years left to go. In the novelization we learn that the owner was the Duke of Westminster, who to this day is a major landlord, but things aren't what they used to be: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10500634/Duke-of-Westminster-no-longer-UKs-richest-property-magnate.html

[–] tgrrrsss 9 years ago

You have various leases to this day, many flats still start off with 99 year leases for instance yes.

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

I never understood all the references as to who "owned" the "lease" on the house. Isn't this oxymoronic? I'm a dunce when it comes to finances and real estate, but thought that Elizabeth's erstwhile Armenian beau had "bought" the place for her, as in free and clear. How did James come to own it/"the lease?" If E was a "re-gifter," why not give it to her father when she moved to America, or to Richard and James jointly?

Help?

BTW, didn't anyone else find Richard's fling with the con-artiste French murderess, what with his announcing his own need to marry into money, and swooning idiocy over her, cringingly embarrassing to watch and totally out of character for him?? (She was a *horrible* woman!!)

[–] nyctc7 8 years ago

Remember the "For Sale" sign on 165 at the end of the series? Under "For Sale" it said "Leasehold".

Real estate ownership is called "Freehold" in England and "Fee Simple" in America.

From Zillow.com:

What is the difference between leasehold and fee simple?

FEE SIMPLE: Fee simple ownership is probably the most familiar form of ownership to buyers of residential real estate. Depending on where you are from, you may not know of any other way to own real estate. Fee simple is sometimes called fee simple absolute because it is the most complete form of ownership. A fee simple buyer is given title (ownership) of the property, which includes the land and any improvements to the land in perpetuity. Aside from a few exceptions, no one can legally take that real estate from an owner with fee simple title. The fee simple owner has the right to possess, use the land and dispose of the land as he wishes--sell it, give it away, trade it for other things, lease it to others, or pass it to others upon death.

LEASEHOLD: A leasehold interest is created when a fee simple land-owner (Lessor) enters into an agreement or contract called a ground lease with a person or entity (Lessee). A Lessee gives compensation to the Lessor for the rights of use and enjoyment of the land much as one buys fee simple rights; however, the leasehold interest differs from the fee simple interest in several important respects. First, the buyer of leasehold real estate does not own the land; they only have a right to use the land for a pre-determined amount of time. Second, if leasehold real estate is transferred to a new owner, use of the land is limited to the remaining years covered by the original lease. At the end of the pre-determined period, the land reverts back to the Lessor, and is called reversion. Depending on the provisions of any surrender clause in the lease, the buildings and other improvements on the land may also revert to the lessor. Finally, the use, maintenance, and alteration of the leased premises are subject to any restrictions contained in the lease.

Julius Karekin did not purchase a fee simple (freehold) interest. He purchased the lease, which Sir Geoffrey had said should fetch (IIRC) £5,600. There were approximately 60 years left on the lease. He then gifted it to Elizabeth, who in turn gifted it to her parents. This is something not very familiar to Americans--99 year leases and such. Nobody here buys a 99 year lease to their home.

Why was this done? In the case of 165, the owner was the Duke of Westminster (stated in the novelization, left unsaid on TV). You can imagine that the aristocracy had a greater sense of keeping wealth in the family for future generations than the average person.

Richard inherited the lease when LM died. He then sold it to James as Richard needed money.

[–] SaliceMcD 8 years ago

Thank you so much for the information, which I've managed to understand after three readings. (That it was a struggle for me is no reflection on your presentation, by the way!)