Etiquette For The Subaltern’s Wife

From Woman’s Weekly, February 9th 1918.

ETIQUETTE FOR THE SUBALTERN’S WIFE.

Some Useful Hints for the Girl who Marries a Junior Officer.

WHEN Jack and I became engaged nobody was dreaming about war, and yet it was only six weeks before war broke out.  Jack gave up his job at once and joined the Army, and, of course, I was awfully proud of him.  But I was intensely unhappy when his regiment was ordered to France just a very short time after.  He was in France for fifteen months, when he got a commission and leave.  He was now a subaltern, and the next event was that he was wounded and sent home.  When he left the hospital he was sent to another battalion of his regiment, which was stationed at a big naval and military town in England, because the doctors said he would never be fit for active service again.  On his first leave from there we were married.
Because, like everything else in war-time, our movements were so uncertain, we took a furnished house.
I was very nervous, thinking of the new people I should have to make friends among, especially as I had never known anything of military life, and I had often heard that there are little points of etiquette quite peculiar to Service people.
Jack was not of very much help to me, for whenever I asked him to give me some idea of things he would say:
“Don't you worry, you’ll soon slip into it all!”

MY FIRST CALLER. 
A FEW days after we arrived I had my first caller.  She was a doctor's wife, and had lived in the place for a good many years, and told me quite a lot of things about life in a garrison town.  One was that I, being a bride, would not pay a call on the wife of the captain-superintendent of the dockyard (she is the most important lady, because the Navy is the senior service, and always takes precedence of the Army) and the colonel’s wife until they had called on me.  Had I not been a bride I should have had to call on both of them very soon after we arrived.
Every call has to be returned within a week or ten days.  Another thing that has to be remembered is that the colonel's wife is treated with just as much respect by the junior officer's wife as the colonel is treated by the junior officers.  A sure way for a junior to become unpopular is for him to attempt to take an important part in the regimental social affairs.  And any young officer's wife who talks of her husband’s regiment as "our regiment" is very much disliked.
Sometimes the ladies of the regiment are invited to dine at the officers' mess on what are known as ladies' nights.  Then the colonel's wife, or, if she is not there, or if the colonel doesn't happen to be married, the wife of the next most senior officer is the first to rise from the table after dinner.

WRITING TO THE PADRE. 
WE had such a nice chaplain in the regiment.  I wanted to ask him to dinner one night, but I was so puzzled as to how to address him.  Jack helped me out of this difficulty, though.  The correct way to address the "padre" as everybody calls him, is to put his rank first and then "The Revd."; in our case it was Captain, The Revd. R. W. Bruce.  It's so hard to know all these things if you've never known anything of the Army customs.
In peace time it was the custom, when writing to an officer who was below the rank of captain, to address him as esquire, instead of second-lieutenant or lieutenant, as we do now.
When introducing a second-lieutenant or lieutenant to your friends, you always call him "Mr."  But if the man you are introducing is a captain or major, you use this title.
I nearly committed an unpardonable offence not very long after I arrived.  My brother Bob, who had joined as a Tommy, wrote to tell me he was being transferred to Jack's battalion, and in my supreme ignorance, thought it would be so nice for him to meet the colonel at our house.  Bob explained the situation to me very quickly, and I learnt that such a thing is not done.  When entertaining Bob I did not invite any of his officers, because in the Army the rule is for officers and men to keep quite apart socially.
Whenever an invitation is received, whether it's private or regimental—for instance, the regimental sports and things like that—it must be answered at the very earliest moment.  The regimental invitations are always formal, and so, of course, are answered in the third person.  But if the colonel's wife writes a friendly note asking you to dinner, you, of course, answer in the same way.

IF you are out walking with your husband, and he is in uniform, never take his arm.
WHEN you have been shopping and have collected parcels, do not expect a soldier to carry them for you.
DON'T let a soldier hold your umbrella over you if you are out in the rain.

[The tremendous number of casualties amongst junior officers meant that many new officers were not from the traditional 'officer class'.  Hence, many women must have found themselves officers' wives without any background to teach them the arcane rules of behaviour.  But the situation described here, where an officer from a  non-traditional background was posted to a garrison town in Britain, and so was accompanied by his wife, must have been relatively unusual.]        

A Missing Soldier

From the Halifax Courier, 8th April 1916.

MYSTERY OF A LONGWOOD SOLDIER.

Mrs. Baines of 23, Leymoor-road, Longwood, has received information that she has been awarded a pension from army funds from April 4 in respect of her husband, L.Cpl. George Baines, aged 29, of the West Yorkshire Regiment.  The notification states: “The change of payment must not be taken as indicating that there is any proof of the death of your husband.”  It was on Sept. 3, 1915, that Mrs. Baines was officially informed that her husband was missing after an engagement, the place and date of which were stated to be unknown.  Since that time she has naturally lived in suspense.  Lance-Corporal Baines enlisted in October, 1914, prior to which he was employed by the Longwood Engineering Co.  He formerly played football with the Parkwood United Methodist Church.  He left England in July last year for the Dardanelles, and his last letter to his wife was dated July 28.  Inquiries made of the American Ambassador brought the reply that the Turkish Foreign Office had no information of L. Cpl. Baines being a prisoner of war in that country.

[I have not written about casualties before, but this account is unusual in focussing on the effect on the family left at home.   

The story does not, of course, have a happy ending. The Commonwealth War Graves website records  Lance Corporal George Baines, aged 29, of the West Yorkshire Regiment, as one of the men killed during the Gallipoli campaign.  His name appears on the Helles Memorial to the nearly 21,000 men of the Commonwealth who died during the campaign and have no known grave.  

I don't know when Mrs Baines was told that he was presumed to be dead. We can only wonder when she stopped hoping to hear that he was still alive.]    

Tea for Soldiers’ Dependants at Sowerby Bridge

From The Halifax Courier, 29th January 1916.

SOLDIERS' DEPENDANTS.

ANOTHER PLEASANT ENTERTAINMENT

The thoughtfulness of the people of Sowerby Bridge and of the members of the local Soldiers and Sailors' Families' Association in particular, in looking after the comfort and pleasure of the dependants of the brave fellows who have gone forth in defence of liberty and Empire, was again demonstrated on Saturday, in the Wesleyan Sunday School at Bolton Brow.  A fortnight ago about 500 wives and children of soldiers and sailors from Sowerby Bridge were entertained, while on Saturday another 400 were treated in the same sumptuous manner.  This second party was for those “dependants” who don't come under the head of “wives and children,” comprising chiefly the mothers and sisters, or the nearest home relatives, of the men who are “on duty.”  Altogether 380 invitations were sent out, but rather more than this number sat down to tea, the benevolent spirit of the organisers prompting them to turn no one away who had a reasonable claim to partake of the good fare provided.  It was a happy idea to bring together in this way the local folks who have made great sacrifices for the benefit of the country, and in a very real manner the party served to create friendships and cement the feeling of those who have dear ones away on active service.

A substantial tea was served, and in the evening a splendid concert helped to while away a few pleasant hours.  It is scarcely necessary to add that the guests thoroughly enjoyed themselves.  The room was decorated in a neat and effective manner by Mr Walter Lumb.  The platform front was covered by small Union Jacks, the flags of the Allies were placed round the room. and streamers radiated from the centre in all directions.  On all the tea tables there were beautiful floral decorations.  The tea was what is known locally as a “knife and fork” one, and of appetising food there was enough and to spare.

Adoption of Fatherless Children

From The Illustrated London News, 22nd May, 1915.

LADIES' PAGE.

Miss Florence Nightingale’s birthday was celebrated by memorial meetings in a number of great towns on May 12, and the base of her statue in front of the Guards Monument in Pall Mall was surrounded with numerous beautiful wreaths, and was also saluted by every officer who passed by.  The London meeting was organised by the Women's Freedom League, which was founded by Mrs. Despard, sister of General Sir John French. It was addressed, amongst others, by Susan Countess of Malmesbury, and by Surgeon-General Evatt, who made a most interesting speech, because he had personally well known Miss Nightingale.  He described how, when he was surgeon in command at Woolwich, if any question arose in regard to any matter concerning the health of the Army, he used to go personally to consult Miss Nightingale, and never with-out profit; and he said that the health of our Army to-day is largely due to her trained judgment and her organising faculty.  The statue, “with a bunch of skirts in one hand and a lamp in the other,” came in for much criticism.  “She was a handsome woman, with a wonderful brow, and a woman of the world, and a remarkably highly educated woman in all general knowledge, not a frail, stooping, sad-faced, gentle creature; and yet she was the highest expression of womanliness,” said Surgeon-General Hyatt.

One speech at this meeting—from Miss Townsend, the representative of the Women Teachers of London—incidentally drew attention to an important problem that awaits us.  She said that her father was a Crimean soldier nursed by Miss Nightingale's aides, and so saved to come home and marry; but he died of the results of his wound twelve years later, leaving five small children, and all the help that her mother could obtain took the form of the removal of her children from her care into institutions for orphans.  The speaker urged that the mothers of the present-day soldiers' orphan children should be left to care for their little ones themselves, with some assistance from the State.  I have often urged this very point in happier days for any "fatherless and widows" of respectable life; and such consideration is yet more deserved by those who are of that position (so calamitous that the Church liturgy specially offers constant prayer on their behalf) purely and simply because the father was so brave as to give up his life for his country. In such cases, ought not Britannia to say to the soldiers' widows, as Pharaoh's daughter said to the mother of Moses, “Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages?”  To leave the children with their mothers need be no more costly than to intern them in institutions or “cottage homes,” deprived of all that mother-love means.  It will be less expensive, in fact, if the scheme be not weighted by a crowd of paid inspectors of the mothers, such supervision as would be necessary being given by voluntary committees of ladies.

A different idea, and one that is very desirable in some cases, is the adoption by childless women of means, married or single, of one or more of the children of killed or severely wounded soldier-fathers.  “Now's your time,” ladies!  There will be probably hundreds of poor but educated and honourable mothers unable to see their way, even with such assistance as they may expect to receive from public and private funds, to bring up with due advantages the families with whom they are left, and who would therefore consent, for a tiny baby's own sake, to resign it completely to a foster-mother of good position and certain ability to provide for the child.  The actual mother should be able legally (I believe this is not now the case) to make over once for all her parental rights to the adoptive mother; for success, the real mother must consent to allow the woman who is to fill the part to be the only mother that the growing child will know.  There is not in normal circumstances anything like the opportunity that there is now of finding ready for such adoption infants of thoroughly good stock, with a family record both of moral and physical soundness, and coming from educated and refined parents; for many of our best, strongest, and noblest men, with cultured brains and gentlemanly ways, alas! are now being reft from their wives and leaving unprovided-for their little children.  And though heredity is by no means a certainly working factor—else how does the Kaiser come to be the son of two of the finest characters of the last generation?—yet every racecourse and agricultural show tells how important a factor it is, speaking broadly. Adoption as a social custom has worked out well in ancient Rome and modern Japan.
...
FILOMENA

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_George_Walker

[I have included this piece not for the mention of Florence Nightingale, although it's interesting to realise that her influence on nursing was then quite recent, and there were many doctors and nurses still working who would have known her.  (She had died in 1910 at the age of 90.)  But the argument about adoption in the article is fascinating.  Adoption was not legal in England, Wales & Scotland before the 1920s.  I think it's remarkable that Filomena assumes that State assistance to widowed mothers is only appropriate if the mothers are 'inspected', either by paid inspectors, or as the writer suggests, by "voluntary committees of ladies".

It's also notable that the influence of genetics on the personality of a child is thought to be of paramount importance (in spite of the example of the Kaiser!) -  so all these ladies 'of good position' and able to care for a fatherless child should only consider adopting 'infants of thoroughly good stock, with a family record both of moral and physical soundness, and coming from educated and refined parents'.    Working class children from poor families were doomed to stay that way.]

Drinking by Soldiers’ Wives

From the Glasgow Herald, 11th January 1915.

THE CHARGES AGAINST SOLDIERS’ WIVES.

The War Office is now in possession – at its own request – of the reports made by the inspectors of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on the alleged increase of drinking among women, more particularly soldiers’ wives who are in receipt of the separation allowance.  The result of the inquires made all over the kingdom by the society’s inspectors have resulted in the vindication of the characters of soldiers’ wives, who, in the opinion of the society, have suffered as a class for the wrong-doing of the few.  In the case of 122 branches the inspectors reported that there was in many cases actually less drinking than before the war, and no increase in any of them; in 26 there was an increase, but in 12, where there had been an increase shortly after the war broke out, the conditions had now improved.  In practically every branch the inspectors had been able to exert a beneficial influence over numbers of women ordinarily given to drink, and, as a result of the sobering influence of the times, they had, when persuaded to buy new clothes for their children, to pay off back rent and old debts, and even to open accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank.  Where women had wasted their allowance in drink and neglected their children it had been found on investigation that the drinking habit was of long standing.  In fact the society characterise the charges made against soldiers’ wives as a great slander.  

[There were many allegations that some soldiers' wives receiving the separation allowance had more cash than they had ever had before, and no husband to keep them in check, and that they were spending the extra cash on drink.  This was felt in some quarters to be immoral and a waste of public money, whether or not there were children involved. It was also thought by many people that the separation allowance was a charitable gift, not a right, and that anyone whose behaviour showed that they didn't deserve it - e.g, by drinking - should have it withdrawn.   This article does not combat that view, of course - it just says that most soldiers' wives were of good character, and so did deserve the allowance.]   

Support for Mothers

From the Holme Valley Express, 14th November 1914.

AN APPEAL TO HOLMFIRTH’S GENEROSITY.

Capt. J. E. Eastwood, in charge of the local Territorials who have volunteered for active service, writes to the editor of the “Express” as follows:-

“Very many thanks for the way you so promptly attended to my appeal for games, &c., for the men of “F” Company, also I must thank the kind patrons of the Holmfirth Picturedrome for the further parcel of tobacco and cigarettes.

I should like to know if the Holmfirth Distress Committee are keeping the mothers in Holmfirth who are dependent on their sons for support.  If so, I have one or two cases I could mention.  These men only get 1/- [1 shilling] a day, and have to pay for washing, &c., so this does not leave them much to send to their mothers.”

[I think that the separation allowance of 12s. 6d. a week, discussed by the New Mill Distress Committee in a previous post, was paid only to wives and not to mothers, even if they were dependent on their sons for financial support.  The pay of private soldiers was low to start with, and it seems astonishingly mean to hold some of it back to pay for necessities like washing.  (Laundry?)]  

Payment to Soldiers' Wives

From the Holme Valley Express, 7th November 1914.

NEW MILL DISTRESS COMMITTEE

The “Pay” of our Heroes: Important Correspondence

The Secretary reported that he had written to the County Council as follows:-
“I am requested to write again asking if we are to understand that no payment whatever must be made from our local relief fund, only in extreme cases of sickness, beyond the 12s. 6d. already allowed by the Government in the form of separation allowance and compulsory allotment.

In the case of an employer paying the wife of one of their employees who has joined the colours 5/- [5 shillings] per week direct, I assume that this is not within the control of our Committee.

I may say that one or two members of this Committee are disappointed with the fixed allowance of 12s. 6d., which they feel sure is not nearly sufficient for a wife to keep house, obtain clothing, food, etc., and they feel disposed to increase this allowance from the local relief fund.

Mr. W. Vibart Dixon had replied: “The Sub-Committee have entire control over any funds locally collected, and they may use that as they think best.  Money received from the National Relief Fund must be paid out strictly in accordance with the scale laid down to them, but the sub-committee may, if they think fit, use the local fund to augment the sum fixed by the scale.”

[This is a bit obscure. I understand from it that the separation allowance to the wives and children of serving soldiers was paid out of the National Relief Fund, and distributed via County Councils and then local (parish?) committees.  (Although the 'compulsory allotment' was an amount stopped from the men's pay, I believe, so I don't know how that worked.)  New Mill had evidently collected local relief funds as well, and they were being given permission to  spend that however they wanted. 

It's interesting that they thought that the 12s. 6d. separation allowance paid to a wife (plus extra for each child) was not sufficient to live on -  the suffragettes had complained in October (here) that women in the "Work for Women" Fund workshops were being paid only 10s. per week.]  

From the Halifax Courier,  12th September 1914.