Edwardian Country House life TV series

A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Very Interesting to read.I heard about men and women married couples not sharing beds in the edwardian days, but i never believe it until i seen you're post!
I still wonder how babies were born back in those days? I'm really confussed.

Check out the English language,100 years on.

http://www.ukchatterbox.co.uk/msg/1708385

pretty shocking.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Michael sir. But it states that men and women and married couples never slept in the same bed back in the Edwardian days?
 
Dec 5, 2008
189
1
46
Not only did it not say never, it was also for the most part talking about the upper class, where many times marriages were for convenience and not love - unlike the majority of the second and third class.

And it was also considered at the very least a duty to procreate and carry on the family name, and last time I checked, that entailed at least a few nights of intimacy - rather difficult if you never shared a bed at least one time. And I rather doubt the Gentlewomen of the era were willing to shed their corsets and petticoats to go at it in the kitchen before breakfast to get said baby.

Even if the couple could not stand each other, they would likely have to spend at least a few nights together, until they got at least a son. That is basically the entire history of every royal family for centuries right there. Arranged marriages, mistresses and lovers, and often both parties unhappy and occasionally even unable to stand each other. But none of that mattered as long as they had a healthy son. It was very much the embodiment of 'bite your lip and think of England.' It was, for all intents and purposes, both parties duties. There was only one way to make a baby back then, and it wasn't by In-vitro.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>where many times marriages were for convenience and not love <<

Yes,i see were you are coming from.There is another reason for covenience for marriages. Women in Edwardian days married men for insurance purposers and support for the whole family and not actually love.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>But it states that men and women and married couples never slept in the same bed back in the Edwardian days?<<

The existance of an observable birth rate says otherwise.

Some couples may have chosen to sleep in seperate beds thriughout the night, but for babymaking, you don't need to occupy the bed the entire night. You just need to occupy it long enough to take care of business.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Michael sir.Now i get what you are on about,like in and out and out the door, that kind of thing.
By saying this, i don't like were this is headed,if you know what i mean by that, you know!
I understand you now
wink.gif
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
372
283
Easley South Carolina
>>in and out and out the door, that kind of thing.<<

Uhhhh...yeah...something like that. A wham, bam, thank you ma'am sort of thing though I really doubt they were all that cold blooded about it. I suspect that if one had been peeking through some keyholes back then, you might have found that the notion of Edwardian couples always sleeping in seperate beds was more romantic (If you can call it that) myth then reality.
 

Eric Longo

Member
Aug 13, 2004
888
0
86
Hi All

I just noticed this thread. I really enjoyed this series, and with Valentines Day coming I thought of this show and the Chef in particular. The Chef at Manderston, Monsieur Denis Dubiard, was kind enough to share a few pointers with me in my efforts to make Danish marzipan roses for someone very special. I got an "A"
happy.gif

Anyway, I thought you might like to see them.

My Valentine's Day marzipan roses

Best,
Eric


PS - Well, some stupid article online I just read stated that any edible roses make the worst and tackiest Valentine's gifts. I disagree!
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Hello Eric. You're Roses are very pretty,you are kind of like a modern Edwardian guy ,that's cool
wink.gif
. I think i remember the series being advertised a couple of years back,about modern people living like Edwardians did with out any modern technolghy.
 

Eric Longo

Member
Aug 13, 2004
888
0
86
Hi Alyson,

Thanks
happy.gif
I am glad you liked them. If you can see the series you might like it. There was mention of the loss of Titanic when the older son "Jaunty" is reading a newspaper.

Best,
Eric
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Howdi Eric.It sounds really interesting a bonus with Titanic mentioned. I never seen the series,but if i can find it in the dvd store,i am going to hire it!

Regards
 
May 1, 2004
294
0
86
I didn't see the series, but I read the spinoff book and enjoyed it. In fact, I bought it when I saw it at a remainder sale at my bookstore. A fun read.
 
Mar 20, 2007
734
0
86
I watched the 'Edwardian Country House' series when it was first broadcast several years ago and found it captivating - altogether the most successful and informative variant on that whole 'Big Brother-meets-Costume-Drama' theme which has proved to be so popular in its various guises over the past decade. The producers did a masterful job of re-creating the conditions of both 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' life, so much so that it was painfully apparent that the Olliff-Cooper family fell all too easily into their roles as turn-of-the-century toffs and alienated many members of their staff hopelessly! This may have been unattractive but 'Sir John' argued (quite legitimately in my opinion) that the whole experiment would have been rendered pointless if they had approached it with their anachronistic, twenty-first century sensibilities intact. That was the main, and unavoidable, flaw in the whole concept, I suppose. The staff - particularly those lower down in the pecking order - were simply unable to shed their modern expectations and democratic attitudes and chafed agonisingly against the Edwardian-style restrictions placed upon them. Two scullery maids, I seem to recall, departed the house in misery and exhaustion within the first week. In the real-life socio-economic conditions of 1905-1910, with the workhouse (at best) or the streets (at worst) beckoning, I suspect they would have been simply too glad of the job to have retained that particular kind of pride!

One way or another, it all made for compelling viewing. The companion volume is great, too.
 
Jan 28, 2003
2,524
5
168
My grandparents, who were servants in a fairly notable household (Sir Alfred Duff Cooper, doctor to the Royal Household, parent to a notable politician and society daughter-in-law in WW2), probably because Duff just remembered and liked her. They seemed to have just left in the 1910s. I don't know why. I guess it was to do just their own personal circumstances, and nothing to do with their masters. My granny, however, continued to know Duff and Diana until just before WW2. Granny doesn't have seemed to have been very keen on Diana, and seems to have felt quite justified in expressing her opinions.

"Diana. Hummph!"
 
Mar 20, 2007
734
0
86
I recently polished off Philip Ziegler's biography of Lady Diana (which was first published whilst she was still very much alive) and, frankly, I was glad to return her to the shelf. From the time of her debut into Society in 1911, she trod a very, very fine line between aristocratic eccentricity and down-right weirdness. She must have been a truly exhausting wife and friend to have - let alone a mistress! Certainly, the stuffier members of the English upper crust (to say nothing of the middle classes) were justified in looking at her slightly askance.

I'm about to add a link to some contemporary photographs of Diana Manners/Cooper to one of the Duff Gordon threads, where they'll be more 'at home' than here.
 
May 1, 2004
294
0
86
From Martin, above: "The producers did a masterful job of re-creating the conditions of both 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' life, so much so that it was painfully apparent that the Olliff-Cooper family fell all too easily into their roles as turn-of-the-century toffs and alienated many members of their staff hopelessly! This may have been unattractive but 'Sir John' argued (quite legitimately in my opinion) that the whole experiment would have been rendered pointless if they had approached it with their anachronistic, twenty-first century sensibilities intact. That was the main, and unavoidable, flaw in the whole concept, I suppose. The staff - particularly those lower down in the pecking order - were simply unable to shed their modern expectations and democratic attitudes and chafed agonisingly against the Edwardian-style restrictions placed upon them. Two scullery maids, I seem to recall, departed the house in misery and exhaustion within the first week. In the real-life socio-economic conditions of 1905-1910, with the workhouse (at best) or the streets (at worst) beckoning, I suspect they would have been simply too glad of the job to have retained that particular kind of pride!"

Reading the experiences of the downstairs staff, I thought their dissatisfaction wasn't a flaw but a benefit of the experiment and of the show itself. I grant that the servants back in 1900 would have expected the hard work and harsh conditions and so did not complain or left to take their chances in the industrial towns. The dissatisfaction of the program's Country House servants showed mores and conditions have changed between employer and service staff.
Weren't there a couple of trade-unionists or Socialists at the fete, talking to the villagers and servants about rising up and demanding better conditions? It occurred to me that the labour movement may have been gaining strength and getting out of diapers at the turn-of-the-20th. Maybe some of the staff of the Edwardian Country House in 1900 felt the same dissatisfaction as the staff of the House in 2000