How Victorians addressed one another

efreysson

Closer than ever
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
101
Location
Iceland
I'm putting together a fantasy series set in an expy of Victorian London, and I could use some advice regarding how to have people speak to one another. I live in probably one of the least formal societies on Earth, and the whole business of addressing people by titles or formal superiority/deference is just plain odd to me.

Anyway, the protagonists are mostly lower/middle-class people interacting with one another and the underworld, but there's also a young, lesser nobleman who associates with them. There are also going to be some chapters focusing purely on upper class types.
 

Fuchsia Groan

Becoming a laptop-human hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,868
Reaction score
1,392
Location
The windswept northern wastes
Disclaimer: I'm not a historian, but I've read a lot of 19th-century British novels. Reading an 1891 one now.

Middle-class people definitely address one another by titles (Mr. X, Miss Y, Mrs. Z, Lady Whatever) in most situations. One exception: family members; another, close friends. In this book, two women are described as being close enough friends to call each other by first names, so that was a mark of intimacy. When husband and wife are discussing a mutual male friend, they call him Mr. Milvain.

Being called by your first name is often a mark of your low relative social standing. Scullery maids, for instance, get called "Clara," while the governess might be "Miss Clara" (somewhat better). But a "lady," even a middle-class one, would always be "Miss Last Name."

Lower-class people and underworld denizens are probably more likely to first-name one another, but nowhere near as likely as we are today.

Class is different, too. There's a gulf between a "shop girl" (a respectable uneducated working woman) and a governess (an educated woman who is poor enough to need to work for her living, but not with her hands). Today in the U.S., we might call them both "middle-class." Education gives people a different accent and the manners of a "lady" or "gentleman," even when they don't have the money to back it up. Someone like that would probably bristle at being addressed with their first name by anyone but an intimate.

I'll leave the floor to those who know more about this...
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
833
Location
Connecticut
Your best bet would probably be to get some Victorian fiction and see how the characters talk to each other. For upper and middle class manners Trollope is a gold mine -- try Phineas Finn or The Eustace Diamonds. Dickens will take you further down the social ladder -- Oliver Twist or Our Mutual Friend have pretty wide range of characters interacting. There are a few obvious rules (it's hard to go wrong calling someone Mr. X or Mrs Y, don't call people you've just met socially by their first name, titled nobility have special forms of address) but beyond that the "rules" get very fuzzy & contextual. Immersing yourself in the culture for a while through contemporary fiction is the best way to get a handle on how it worked in practice and what people of the time thought was normal or disruptive.
 

Marissa D

Scribe of the girls in the basement
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
365
Location
New England but hankering for the old one
Website
www.marissadoyle.com
Governesses would likely be addressed as "Miss Lastname", because they were gentlewomen. The whole level of upper servants were addressed differently from the lower ones (maids, footmen, grooms, etc., who were always addressed by their first names.) So a governess would be "Miss Lastname", a lady's maid or valet or butler would be addressed by their employers by their last names only (and as Mr. or Miss Lastname by lower servants); head cooks and housekeepers and nurses/nannies were always addressed as "Mrs. Lastname" regardless of their actual marital status.

And yes, titles were almost always used, even among good friends--it took a lot of intimacy to move to first name status. Women who'd lived side by side in villages or the lower-class bits of London might help deliver each others' babies and lay out dead family members, but they'd still address each other as Mrs. Men might use just last names with each other. With the nobility it could get complicated as a title was most often not the same as a last name; men would always be addressed by their title name, not their last name. When you write the parts of your story involving titled figures, get someone who knows how the title system works to read it over--it's complicated.

And read a few chapters of Dickens--it'll help give you a feel for this topic.
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
9,250
Location
Dorset, UK
Class is different, too. There's a gulf between a "shop girl" (a respectable uneducated working woman) and a governess (an educated woman who is poor enough to need to work for her living, but not with her hands). Today in the U.S., we might call them both "middle-class." Education gives people a different accent and the manners of a "lady" or "gentleman," even when they don't have the money to back it up. Someone like that would probably bristle at being addressed with their first name by anyone but an intimate.

Even today, in the UK they wouldn't both be considered middle class. Here, social class isn't that closely related to how much money you currently have or what job you do - that's part of it but not the main part. It's about the family background you come from, and various cultural ways (accent, mannerisms etc) which are generally considered to be indicative of your family background.

"Lower class" is pejorative here - "working class" is preferred. Historically, if you had to work for a living (as opposed to having inherited a load of wealth) you were working class. Originally, it was aristocrats and commoners. Middle class are well-to-do commoners. Upper class are aristocrats (note the present tense - this is still the case). If you're born working class, no matter how rich you get, you're still working class. If you have enough wealth to send your kids to public school (British definition, i.e. expensive, exclusive private school) then your descendants might one day be considered upper middle class. If you can afford to send your kids to private school and they learn to act like middle class people, they'll probably be considered as middle-middle class. If they're state school educated and speak with a regional accent, they'll be working class just like you - no matter how much money they go on to earn.

I can't really help with this from a historical point of view, but my advice to any non-Brit who wants to write a story set in Britain (contemporary or historical), you really do have to understand the class system and get the details right. And in Victorian times, class differences were way more rigid and impenetrable than they are now.

It's not really clear what you mean by "underground" in your post to be honest. Is the "underground" the slums that were in London at the time (I'm descended from working class Londoners who would've been living in these slums at the time you're writing about so be careful how you talk/write about them!). Why would middle class people have anything to do with working class people besides maybe buying things from them in the market - if they even did that and didn't stick to posh shops or send a servant to buy stuff? Or do you mean networks of criminal gangs and stuff? Even in such networks, class divisions would still exist. Corrupt upper class people may be colluding with criminal gangs but would still look down on them from a great height.

To me "London Underground" is a rail network, not people, albeit I call it the Tube. :greenie

ETA: re read and saw you said "underworld" not "underground" but it's still not clear what you mean

ETA#2: I second the recommendation for Charles Dickens. Not just for the mannerisms but also for the bigger picture in terms of how people of different social classes interacted and stuff.
 
Last edited:

Lil

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
867
Reaction score
155
Location
New York
If you are writing about paupers and criminals, you probably want to look into Henry Mayhew's "London Labour and the London Poor."
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
9,250
Location
Dorset, UK
I mean paupers and bottom-level criminals.

That would be a significant chunk of the population then. During the industrial revolution and up until the Victorian era many people were extremely poor and forced to live in slums, often working in factories or mills or other backbreaking work for long hours for very little money (if they were lucky enough to find a job at all). There was nothing like social security - there were workhouses if you were that desperate - and most rich people looked down on the poor (i.e. entire populations) from a great height and did little to help the poor. They did fuck all while over a million Irish people starved to death in the potato famine, blaming the Irish and saying they'd be better off dead (the famine was caused by wealth British ruling classes taking the best land, leaving the Irish on land so poor you could only grow potatoes. Potato blight caused the failure of the potato crop and they had nothing at all to fall back on.) A lot of poor people did end up as criminals... mostly because you could be thrown in jail for stealing a loaf of bread. Or even deported to Australia.

Granted that I'm not going to paint the entire upper class and upper middle class populations with the same brush (there must've been some that were philanthropic), but suffice it to say that extreme poverty was very common and life for ordinary people was extremely hard. Dickens's stories feature a lot of this kind of thing (including workhouses - Oliver Twist, for example), so they're a good place to start with the research.

To be honest, I'd be careful using terms like "underworld" to describe what is basically a very large number of people's entire lives. I can see how it would appear to be that way from the point of view of the wealthy though so maybe it's perspective.
 
Last edited:

efreysson

Closer than ever
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
101
Location
Iceland
To be honest, I'd be careful using terms like "underworld" to describe what is basically a very large number of people's entire lives. I can see how it would appear to be that way from the point of view of the wealthy though so maybe it's perspective.

Well, I am talking about the sorts that stab people, but yes.
 

ULTRAGOTHA

Merovingian Superhero
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
313
What rank is the younger/lesser nobleman? Is he the younger son/brother of a Duke? If so he's Lord Firstname. Younger son of any other Peer (Earl/Viscount/Marquess/Baron)? If so, he's Mr. Lastname. If he's the Eldest son of a Peer (other than Baron) he'd be Lord Coutesytitle. If he's a Peer himself, then he'd be Lord Title.

The way the Peerages work is they have first names, family lastname, and then there's the title. So Mortimer (First Name) Wimsey (Last Name) is the Duke of Denver (Title). Most people call him Your Grace. Non-friends would call him Duke. His family calls him Mortimer or Denver. His friends and those in his social circle mostly call him Denver. His wife is Honoria Wimsey, the Dutchess of Denver.

The Duke's eldest son, his heir, uses a lesser title of the Duke's. In this case, Viscount St. George. His eldest son would be Gerald (First Name) Wimsey (Last Name) He is not a Peer, he's a commoner, but he does have a courtesy title of Viscount St. George. Most people call him My Lord or Your Lordship. Non-friends would call him Lord St. George or just St. George. His family would call him Gerald or St. George. His friends and those in his social circle mostly call him St. George. His wife is Helen, Viscountess St. George or Lady St. George.

Mortimer's other son is Lord Peter Wimsey (also a courtesy title). His wife is Lady Peter Wimsey.

Morimer's daughter is Lady Mary Wimsey (also a courtesy title). Her husband is whatever his name and title is. (So, Lady Mary Parker and Mr. Charles Parker)

Lesser nobility have other rules. If interested, just ask.
 

Marissa D

Scribe of the girls in the basement
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
365
Location
New England but hankering for the old one
Website
www.marissadoyle.com
What rank is the younger/lesser nobleman? Is he the younger son/brother of a Duke? If so he's Lord Firstname. Younger son of any other Peer (Earl/Viscount/Marquess/Baron)? If so, he's Mr. Lastname. If he's the Eldest son of a Peer (other than Baron) he'd be Lord Coutesytitle. If he's a Peer himself, then he'd be Lord Title.

The way the Peerages work is they have first names, family lastname, and then there's the title. So Mortimer (First Name) Wimsey (Last Name) is the Duke of Denver (Title). Most people call him Your Grace. Non-friends would call him Duke. His family calls him Mortimer or Denver. His friends and those in his social circle mostly call him Denver. His wife is Honoria Wimsey, the Dutchess of Denver.

Almost. A viscount's and baron's sons and daughters don't have a courtesy title; they are referred to as "The Honourable Firstname Lastname" but that's usually only in writing, not in speech. A Marquess's younger sons and his daughters have the courtesy title of "Lord Firstname Lastname" or "Lady Firstname Lastname."

And a duke would be addressed as "your grace" by those of lower social standing; those of similar social standing would call him duke or by the name of his title.

It's complicated. :) This might be helpful: https://www.debretts.com/expertise/essential-guide-to-the-peerage/courtesy-titles/
 

lonestarlibrarian

senior bean supervisor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
756
Reaction score
169
I was going to mention that if someone's a servant in a house, a lot of times they would give them a generic name to address them by, so that no one had to bother remembering "real" names when the staff changed. I can't find the source at the moment, but it would be something along the lines of, "The first housemaid always answers to the name of Mary, whether her real name is Annie, or Jane, or Susan" sort of thing. I want to say a First Footman was frequently called James, and the housekeeper was normally called Mrs. Surname, even if she was unmarried. Likewise, work was divided very strictly-- you won't find an upper housemaid doing the under housemaid's work of cleaning a grate or sweeping; and you won't find the butler performing a footman's duties. Housemaids can't wear a veil or a parasol, but lady's maids can. So there is a definite rank/precedence/status that hinges on your position, and the position of the person you're serving, that can get very complicated.

If you're getting away from the servant class and descending to more of the criminal class, another good resource is "Palace and Hovel", which is a series of vignettes written by an American visiting London in the 1860's, and observing all the strata of society, from bribing his way into Queen Victoria's patchouli-scented bedroom, to hobnobbing amongst the poorest and most destitute.

For example, one night, he and a policeman went under London Bridge to talk to a group of about a dozen people living amongst all the trash and mud--

You have a policeman talking to a vagrant (cadger)--
"What are you herding here for, Prindle," said the detective to the old fellow, who looked up in a morose way and muttered something under his teeth which sounded like "D--n the bobbies."

And you have the vagrant referring to his daughter--
"W'ats the use of throwin' sich things in the gal's face. Molly's a gal jest like any one else's gal when she can't get anything to eat. I don't blame her a bit."

And you have the daughter talking to her father--
"If I am bad, Jem," burst out the girl, raging with passion, and her eyes filled with tears, "who made me so? Who kept chiming into my ears that I had a pretty face and that I ought to sell it?"

And then you have an elderly vagrant woman talking to the first vagrant--
"Wuss luck, Jem; wuss luck, Jem; I halways knew as how it would come to this, a-sooner or a-later," said an old crone in the corner of the archway.

And you have the vagrant referring to his father as "The old man" but the girl refers to her father's father as "your poor old fayther."

The book further goes on to explain, "'Cadger' is a Cockney term for people who will not work and have no habitation, but go from one place to another, roaming loosely, picking up anything they can get, honestly if they can get it that way, and if not they will not hesitate to steal for a living, or beg when they find people charitable enough and willing to commiserate their supposed sufferings. There are about 2,500 of this class in and around London, continually changing their place of residence, and to this class the hopeful family under London Bridge belonged."
 

efreysson

Closer than ever
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
101
Location
Iceland
What rank is the younger/lesser nobleman?.

I haven't quite decided. Clearly I will have to read up extensively on the fine details of nobility. But I guess I see his family as being of circa mid-importance, except he himself is the youngest of a bunch of children, and a family black sheep due to drinking, scandal and generally poor morals.

By the way, how did noble rank correlate to political power in the 19th century?

I was going to mention that if someone's a servant in a house, a lot of times they would give them a generic name to address them by, so that no one had to bother remembering "real" names when the staff changed. I can't find the source at the moment, but it would be something along the lines of, "The first housemaid always answers to the name of Mary, whether her real name is Annie, or Jane, or Susan" sort of thing.

Er, are you sure? Because this sounds straight out of Terry Pratchett.
 

Marissa D

Scribe of the girls in the basement
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
365
Location
New England but hankering for the old one
Website
www.marissadoyle.com
Re the servant names thing--it wasn't common, but it wasn't unheard of, either. I'v e also heard of instances where an employer might make a servant change their name if it were "too Irish".

Noble rank didn't necessarily correlate to political power. There were dukes who, apart from holding certain court positions, kept strictly out of politics, while others of lower rank were active indeed. And the younger sons of aristocrats could sit in the House of Commons (because strictly speaking they were "commoners" even if they held a courtesy title) and be very powerful indeed, holding important governmental posts--like Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill (second son of the Duke of Marlborough.)
 

neandermagnon

Nolite timere, consilium callidum habeo!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
9,250
Location
Dorset, UK
Er, are you sure? Because this sounds straight out of Terry Pratchett.

Yeah, I've come across that before. I think it's Tom for a kitchen boy. At least that's how it was in Moondial, by Helen Cresswell (children's book set in a stately home in England... time travel/ghost story type of novel). The story was very well researched and was made into a TV series that was filmed in the stately home in question (Belton House in Linconshire, according to Wikipedia.) They would've got details like that correct. I've not heard of the "too Irish" thing before but it doesn't surprise me in the least little bit.
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I think I've seen some Victorian household how-to books that include changing the servants names. Mary, Jane and James were common ones. Saki includes such a thing in one of the short stories I've read. He wrote in the Edwardian era IIRC.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Bolero

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
106
Location
UK
Regarding the famine in Ireland - history we did at school talked about the protectionism of the corn laws. Corn prices were kept artificially high by law. Also there were several bad summers. A lot of things added together. Repeal of the corn laws was a big crusading issue.

In terms of charitable people - Salvation Army, Elizabeth Fry would be a start for research.
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
833
Location
Connecticut
Noble rank didn't necessarily correlate to political power. There were dukes who, apart from holding certain court positions, kept strictly out of politics, while others of lower rank were active indeed.

Also important to remember that in the UK only members of the House of Lords were legally considered to have noble rank, and everyone else (inc. the sons & brothers of Lords) were legally commoners. And that some important positions were reserved for members of the House of Commons and could not be held by a Lord, while other positions were customarily held by Lords. For example the Chancellor of the Exchequer (basically Minister of finance, responsible for taxes) was always a commoner -- this is a major plot point in several of Trollope's books, where a hardworking MP whose dearest ambition is to hold that office is also the heir to a dukedom.

In the early 19c one of the major sources of political power for landed aristocracy in England was the "rotten borough," a piece of real estate that by historical accident was entitled to send a member to Parliament despite having very few actual inhabitants. The owner of a rotten borough could send pretty much anyone he chose to Parliament, and therefore owned votes in the house of Commons. Nearly all of these rotten boroughs were eliminated in 1832, and the expansion of the franchise & growth of urban constituencies largely diluted the power of the landed gentry.

By the later 19c the House of Lords was also starting to fill up with newly created Lords, many of whom received their titles as a reward for political service, nothing to do with hereditary nobility at all.

Generally speaking, noble rank correlated weakly with political power at the beginning of the 19c, hardly at all at the end.