# Downton Abbey-- Economics **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 25, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775 "2012-03-25T17:45:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/21 "2012-03-26T18:03:45Z")
> [@APB](#): > > One must distinguish between his title and his estates. He got his dukedom (plus a substantial pension for life) in 1702 for his first campaign as captain-general, an appointment he had obtained in a large part because of the Queen’s friendship with his wife. But he hit the really big financial jackpot only two years later when, in the wake of Blenheim, Queen Anne granted him the manor of Woodstock and Parliament agreed to pay for the construction of a palace on the site (although, in the end, they paid only part of the costs). But that is also precisely the moment when relations between Anne and Sarah break down completely, as the immediate effect of the victory on British domestic politics was to exacerbate the factional disputes that were already causing bitter arguments between them. Anne already thought that Sarah was going out of her way to be nasty towards her. Which, to a large extent, she was. Yes, I got a chuckle out of the Blenheim tour. IIRC there is still one stately room where the ceiling inside the plaster oval is all white, because Lady Churchill got into a dispute about money with her artist du jour and could not find anyone else good enough to paint a baroque ceiling full o cherubs for the price she wanted. I do find it odd that Anne or parliament had enough spare lands floating around to bestow upon the favourite of the moment to make them that wealthy. I would have thought any decently disposable asset would have been sold to support the royal lifestyle well before that. Yes, help was cheap; but keep in mind, in a lot of circumstances they were also providing room and board. Some may have come in from the village, but a lrge number lived on site and were fed by the (large) kitchen. A large mansion was a small village. Not only did it make no sense for a herd of servants to hike a few miles back and forth every day, but then what did they wear if it was pouring rain, etc.? the only gotcha is that you rarely hear of servants’ children being allowed to live there, I assumed they were farmed out to relatives back in the village. Wolowicz: _“Your family is rich, you have lots of servants.”_ Guthrapali: _“That’s not true. We only have 4 servants, and 2 of them are children!”_ **-Big Bang Theory** ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/22 "2012-03-26T18:08:06Z")
Another reason British land value declined in the 19th century was the development of refrigeration technology. This enabled worldwide shipping of food from the US and South America, where economies of scale meant that it could be grown much more cheaply. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/23 "2012-03-26T20:35:13Z")
Several British aristocrats married American heiresses to recoup the family fortunes, as Lord G. has done - The Duke of Marlborough and Consuelo Vanderbilt being the well-known example. After the Great War, increasing choices for women meant fewer and fewer were willing to enter domestic service, seen as a poorly paid low-status occupation. Increasing taxes in wealth meant that the great country estates became unviable, and by the 1950s one house of this type was being demolished every week, for few other institutions could afford to take them on, and when they did the fabric of the building was often poorly maintained. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/24 "2012-03-26T20:50:26Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > the only gotcha is that you rarely hear of servants’ children being allowed to live there, I assumed they were farmed out to relatives back in the village. At least in historical _fiction_, if not history, being married and/or with child was due cause for losing your position. If you had children before you were hired, then you left them with relatives, friends, or paid the whacky innkeeper and his wife to keep them. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this were the case historically, at least at some times in some places, but I admit I have no cite for that. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/25 "2012-03-26T21:48:08Z")
Female servants who married (and female employees in general) were expected to leave when they married, for their new job was keeping the home. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775/26 "2012-03-26T22:04:48Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Female servants who married (and female employees in general) were expected to leave when they married, for their new job was keeping the home. Occasionally you’ll hear of a groundskeeper’s cottage - far enough away from the main house that any noisy children would no be a disturbance. However, children would be noisy, rambuncious, disruptive, and liable to teach the landlord’s precious darlings some very bad habits (you know how those lower class types are!) so would not be welcome. I imagine that usually women servants came in two or three types - young and unmarried, or old enough that they did not need to watch the kids… or desperate enough that they left the children with someone else for extended periods. It’s not like conjugal visits were encouraged either (can’t have any weird sorts trespassing on the grounds), so unless it was a couple (usually an older couple) working for the manor, the full-time staff might as well be single. Plus I assume in Victorian times, having a pregnant servant who was showing was _just not done_, even if she was married. Not so shocking, considering that even up to the 1960’s it was not unusual for North American businesses to fire women when they got maried or pregnant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/downton-abbey-economics/616775.md?page=1)