(Mods: Move as needed. I’m hoping it has a factual answer.)
When you say “Rather!” in response to someone, is it like saying “Quite so,” “I agree,” “Indeed,” “Yes” or is one of these meanings (or another one) more on the mark than another? Is it stronger or weaker than another affirmation? Does it have another connotation entirely?
I agree enthusiastically with what you just said. You are not only right but I’m happy you are right.
I have never actually heard anybody say “rather” and mean it. I’ve only heard it in old-fashioned schoolboy stories such as Billy Bunter, or else ironically. It may be that its usage died out around 1950.
But as for it’s meaning, it is noit mere agreement, but excited agreement with the preceding statement or question.
Cook: more cake, Bunter?
Bunter: Rather.
As everyone has said i.e.
a) excited and grateful agreement
b) only characters in a P. G. Wodehouse novel would say it
Just to add to the entirely accurate answers above, it is also very much a class signifier.
“Rather!” is very much the language of upper-middle class and above.
Show me a period drama in which a character responds to a statement or question with “Rather!” and I will expect to find that their family income is due at least as much to investment as to father’s work as a barrister, doctor in private practice, factory owner etc., that they are well-educated, have servants and plenty of leisure time, that mother spends her time doing good works for the poor etc. etc. etc.
It is slightly slang-y and therefore more likely to be used by younger generations than their more staid and respectable parents.
Pretty sure I’ve heard my grandmother use this (a sprightly old lady of 96). She’s not quite of the ‘class’ referred to (trained as a nurse, married a vicar) - but I expect aspired to be. I agree that in general, it has died out - she may be among the last living people to use it unironically.
I’m not the OP, but the answers so far raise a question:
If one does hear it from a non-elderly person in contemporary speech or contemporary entertainment, what’s it signifying now? Somebody speaking archaically pretentiously for comic effect, somebody sarcastically saying the equivalent of “well duh, that’s obvious” or what?
Or is it simply unused in contemporary speech except by the most elderly survivors of an earlier era?
I would say a little of this, but mostly your final sentence is correct.
I suppose I could imagine Boris Johnson using it not entirely jest, but even he would probably do so mostly for comic effect.
That absolutely puts her in the right class given her age. Higher class does not equal money. It has a high correlation, but money is not a precondition. A vicar is often intrinsically part of the established order, in a manner that just isn’t so in many other countries. This occurs both because of the central role the C of E has in England, and also, by reflection, where clergymen tended to come from in the social order.
It isn’t absolute, my grandfather was the rector of a small Devonshire village. But he came from humble working class roots. None the less, his position was essentially second only to the local squire.
Back then, these positions came with a “living”, which could be quite a comfortable income. (A rector lived on an income derived from the locale he was appointed, which could easily turn out to be derived from a very wealthy local landowner.) Especially when the rectory/vicarage came with the position. Such a life is long gone now. The rectory where my father grew up was sold off many decades ago, and the local vicar lives in a small flat, and rides a motorcycle around half a dozen villages tending to his flock. Even the village church sees few services.
Yes, I agree (my grandfather was vicar at Eton College, and then Sunningdale, both of which came with a large vicarage to live in). I was mainly responding to the point about “family income is due at least as much to investment as to father’s work”, which I don’t think was the case - they were not what you could call wealthy, at least until after they retired and then inherited some investments from their parents - as I understand it.
Just to be pedantic, this usage tends to be pronounced RathER!
It can also be said sarcastically, of course (but what can’t, when you’re British?)
I always thought it meant, “Hell yes!”. Thanks for the info on the class thing.
A response of “Quite so” (instead of “Rather!”) would connote “Obviously”, but in a rather more posh or snooty way. “Quite” is even more chilling, with, to me, a connotation of “No need to add another word, old chap”. So, IMHO, “Rather!” is quite effusive beside either of these. It is what a young man from an Agatha Christie novel would reply to the question “Anyone for tennis?”.
As other people have effectively said already, it strikes me as a ‘Hollywood Britishism’, as in, a bit posh and old fashioned.
Or Leslie Philips in a Carry On film.
Good example
I think it’s important to remember that most everyday speech is pretty informal and the interjection of comic phrases isn’t all that unusual. I use the term we’re discussing here fairly unironically, although not all that often; some of what people are describing as a ‘class’ thing here is probably just politeness, which is available for anyone to use.
Brit here, like bryanmaguire said the most common usage is by toffs in a Carry On film eyeing up a pretty lady.
Interesting, and that surprises me slightly. I would expect you to simply say “indeed” or “yes please” (as the context requires), which are also perfectly polite. I don’t think this particular question is one of politeness, myself.
I don’t generally limit my vocabulary in that way.
‘rather’ is a mildly comic-polite way to emphatically say yes. The mildly comic aspect is what makes it fun and sometimes useful.
In the same way that comic vulgarity can add to the emphasis, I suppose. Consider:
Q: is the cake OK?
A: yes, the cake is good
Vs
Q: is the cake OK?
A: holy shit yes!