Cold case files - The Riddle Case

[Vanessa]

No: HPFGUIDX 107131

wickywackywoo2001 wrote:
>The Riddles had servants, at least 3: a cook, a maid, and Frank
>the gardener.  This was either during the last year or two of WWII
>(Frank had been injured and returned home) or shortly after.  Now, I
>thought that WWII really brought to a close the "Upstairs, 
>Downstairs"
>kind of life of a family with domestic servants.  Yet the Riddles
>still employed a staff, so it seems to me they must have been QUITE 
>rich.

It's the cook that gives it away.  Even now, amongst wealthier 
middle class families, it's not unusual to have a maid/cleaning
lady 
who comes in once or twice a week to go over the house, and a *lot* 
of people with large gardens or grounds would employ a gardener at 
least part-time.  The cook is much more unusual, and certainly 
suggests they were a relatively wealthy family.

>2.  The maid found them in the morning, in the drawing room, still
>dressed in their dinner clothes.  So they still followed the
>old-fashioned tradition of dressing for dinner.  Does anyone know
>about what time dinner would have been served in that era?  And what
>was the usual pattern:  people would dress, then go down and eat
>dinner, then...go to the drawing room?  Was that normal?  Or would
>they go out, or go to bed?  Would one change clothes again after
>dinner, or stay in the same clothes until bedtime?  Was the drawing
>room like a family room, where a family normally would gather after
>dinner, or was it the "best" room, for entertaining guests?

Firstly; dressing for dinner is, even right now, not that unusual 
amongst wealthier families.  I certainly knew a few people who did 
it, and even not so well off families who did it "for show". 
In the 
late 40s and early 50s, dinner would be served around, say 7pm.    
There would be no need to change clothes after dinner, unless 
something special was happening – you were going out or receiving 
guests for cocktails etc.  It's also perfectly normal for the
family 
to retire to the drawing room; it would probably have been a room 
for entertaining, with a piano, card table, drinks cabinet, and so 
on.  It would be odd for "the family" to retire there with
children, 
but not odd at all given that they were all adults, and two were 
male.  It's possible, as someone has suggested to dismiss the 
servants at any time.  Chances are the cook would already have 
gone "off duty" unless there was to be a supper later on, and
the 
maid could have been told to clear up and go to bed after dinner.
Of course, this is all "in theory" – I think it's
important to 
remember that if JKR wants them to have an early dinner at 3pm, that 
could be what happened.  Equally, we could argue that perhaps they 
were expecting Tom, didn't want the servants to see him, and thus 
took dinner really early and packed all the servants off to the 
cinema for the night!  We just don't know.  Nothing she's
written is 
so unusual that it draws the attention, however.

>5.  Is it just accidental that the cook says that Frank could have
>crept into the house "while we was all sleeping..."?  Is "we" the
>servants, or the village?  Did the servants sleep in the house, or 
>did they come and go every day?  If they were IN the house, then 
>three murders took place without anyone hearing any disturbance.  
>The cook assumes it's because they were all asleep, but why were 
all >3 Riddles up so late, fully dressed, in the drawing room 
instead of >going to bed like the rest of the household?  Did they 
have an >appointment, perhaps?

Firstly, it's not unusual, given that the household
`only' has three 
servants, for them to go to bed before the family.  In the super-
rich, super-servanted households (I'm sure that's not a
word!)  you 
might expect ladies' maids to assist with undressing and
preparing 
beds, and butlers (etc) to deal with drinks; possibly also an 
undercook to prepare a cold cut supper, or suchlike.  But since they 
don't exist, the pattern of sending servants to bed (or at least, 
telling them they're dismissed) wouldn't be at all unusual.  
Frankly, if I were the one who had to get up at 6am to heat the 
stove and make coffee, I'd go to bed early too, even if the
family 
were still up drinking and smoking cigars at 11pm.  Equally, it's 
unlikely that the servant quarters were situated close to the living 
areas of the family; more likely they were attic rooms, or rooms on 
the lower floor near the kitchen and scullery; mostly because, after 
all, one would not want the servants overhearing one's
conversation!
Although the cook suggests it happened while "we was all
sleeping", 
that doesn't even indicate that the Riddles were up particularly 
late, it just means that the family had no interaction with the 
servants after dinner, which is quite normal.  They may well have 
been murdered early in the evening, after the cook and maid had been 
dismissed, and were, say, sorting out the washing up (I'm sure
all 
that clinking of saucepans and plates would have covered up any 
suspicious noises).

The problem with this sort of enquiry is that it's a scenario
well 
within the bounds of tradition or stereotype, and there are a 
*million* different explanations, all of which are quite, quite 
plausible.
I mean, let's face it; the servants could have seen absolutely 
everything, and then just had their memories altered by Riddle 
afterwards.  Or he could have put them into a state of 
unconsciousness.  Or the family knew he was coming and waited up 
long after the servants had gone to bed.  Or they could have been in 
the habit of staying up late anyway.  Or they just happened to have 
dinner early that day.  Or the cook was tired and the maid was out 
and about in town with her "boyfriend".  Or she was sick.
Or... it's 
just endless!