Addressing employers

[Ben Lemmon]

I was just wondering what the customary fashion was in regards addressing employers? Would a youthful nursemaid, about the age of 16, refer to her employers, who are hypothetically Second class, using titles such as "Mr., Master, Madam, Mrs., Ma'am," or would she refer to them by their first names? This leads me to another question. How would the aforementioned nursemaid refer to her charges?

 

[monica e. hall]

No first names. Madam and Sir (or appropriate titles like 'Your Grace' - Dukes or Duchesses), when addressing them directly. Mr. & Mrs. (if they were second class) when referring to them. Children are more problematical. Nannies and nursemaids usually called the children by their Christian names when they were small, and graduated to 'Master' or 'Miss' (followed by Christian name) when they were about 13. But this might have been a middle-class affectation, as very often upper-class children, even when adult, were addressed by long-standing retainers by their Christian names, although they would have been referred to as Mr./Master/Miss by same servants in conversation with others. You've wandered into a social minefield here, Ben.

The aristocracy and the working classes often conspired to make the middle classes feel awkward (trade, you know). So working class nurserymaids often called aristocratic children by their Christian names, whereas their middle-class governesses perhaps didn't after 13 or so. It's fairly hard for us to figure out now.

Bob Godfrey is bound to know the answer. I only know that my working class (nurserymaid) granny called her charge 'Duff' all her life, and his wife 'Diana', and visited him when he was grown up with his own establishment - and I bet he never did that with his governesses.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Mr Godfrey to you, Mrs Hall!

But seriously, you've got it right (as always). 'Knowing your place' was crucial if you wanted to make a living in service. But there were always exceptions to the rule and considerable leeway was sometimes granted to particular (often eccentric) employees if their service (and indeed their friendship) was highly valued. From what you've told me, they didn't come more eccentric or more valued than your gran Rosina! The classic example of course is that of Queen Victoria's personal aide John Brown, who could address his Regal mistress simply as 'wumman' and get away with it.

And of course in a large household there were conventions too about how the servants should address one another. The 'upper servants', who had special responsibilities and often close contact with the 'upstairs' members of the household, expected to be addressed respectfully by the lower servants, who performed their work 'invisibly' and had little or no contact with their employers. Thus the housemaids, footmen etc would address or refer to one another by their first names, but would address the butler as Mr Jones (or whatever), the housekeeper or cook as Mrs Jones (even if she was unmarried) and the governess or lady's maid as Miss Jones (eve if she was married). And woe betide anybody who got it wrong.
.