By Lea Rose
A look into antiquity in how women from upper class during 19th century feminized young males into becoming their "Dolly Maids'
Besides housemaids for the common rooms, a chambermaid for her quarters, and a ladies’ maid to see to matters of dress, an upper class woman would sometimes have a ‘Dolly-Maid’. Unlike other members of her staff of working class women, a lady’s dolly-maid would typically have been a Young man of formerly aristocratic stock. Deemed too sensitive or weak (and therefore at risk of embarrassing their wealthy families), these young men were forced into the service of other ladies in upper class circles, where it was expected that they rescind their masculinity completely in order to live out their lives in feminized domestic service.
Out of respect for their class, however, they were relieved of the harder work of cleaning, laundry, or cooking. A Dolly-Maid was instead expected to perform minor duties, like pouring tea, carrying the lady’s purse or hat, when shopping, or smoothing her skirts when she sat. On account of this endless proximity to the lady of the house, and the lack of heavy labour, the Dolly Maid almost always appears in the photographic record in formal uniform, distinguishing them from the other working women of the house. A uniform would include a long black woolen or cotton dress, a delicate white apron of broderie anglaise, and a high starched collar and cuffs. Lace caps, ribbons, and brooches were also considered daily wear.
The Dolly Maid’s underwear was perhaps more similar to the lady they served than other members of domestic staff. They were expected always to wear multiple lace petticoats, silk stockings, and, as was fashionable in the formal wear of aristocratic ladies at the time, a tight-lacing corset in the French style. Besides cementing their new position, such rigidity in dress ensured they learned to move and behave in ways more appropriate to women, a far cry from the freer movement the dolly would have been accustomed to as a formerly privileged young man. A housekeeper of Northridge House, West Sussex, described in 1886 her role in the daily dressing of the ‘Dolly’:
“We certainly had our fun with Mistress’s Dolly, the poor effeminate little thing. We dressed the Sissy up in silks and lace, and Anne [the ladies’ maid] always had a the pleasure of tightening the corset. We were all jealous of the Prissy things Mistress had him, so we were certain to tease thew Pansy. And Mistress kept him perfectly chaste all time I was there. So we ladies had nothing to fear about it. You would not even have guessed he ever used to be son of some Lord or such when we were all done with the Little Priss. And the poor Princess had to stay in that corset and ‘Her’ silks and frilly things all day long. The Little Fairy would spend all his time around the ladies all Prettied up morning until the night. I’d have been so terribly bored if it was me, but he was such a quiet thing and followed Lady Booth around the house in that stuffy little uniform as a Little Puppy Dog would.”
Indeed, from such written accounts of the lives of Dolly-Maids in 19th Century England, what becomes clear is their unusual and often awkward class position. They did not share the labour of the other working women, and their feminine and elaborate dress was sometimes envied, as was their constant proximity to the lady of the house. Yet, whatever background they’d had, they were understood to have ceased to be members of the upper class. Whatever education in Latin or Greek, their ability to ride or play a musical instrument, these aspects of aristocratic life were no longer to be accessible, and they would instead be forced to watch other aristocratic ladies enjoy such pursuits instead, from the vantage of the serving domestic worker. Such loss of status was perhaps most visible in the ways Dolly-Maids were expected to greet or address other ladies. Indeed, the Dolly-Maid’s curtsey was a source of much humor for other working women, who, if they envied the delicate fabrics they wore, certainly did not envy the practice required by Dolly-Maids to perfect the astonishingly numerous types of curtsey. These curtsies varied depending on the age, social class, married status of the women, or whether the lady being greeted had children. A Mrs. Elizabeth D’Aubigny, writing in 1890, remarked somewhat sourly that “the Dolly took up her skirts, put one foot behind her, lowered her head, and bobbed as if I were some grande dame ten years my elder! I told her Mistress, who had the poor thing practice the more appropriate form of Curtsey throughout the dinner, to the delight of everyone present, including the serving maids
Their permanent role as a ladies’ domestic servant, and their unrelenting proximity to other women, meant matters of propriety were of upmost importance for dolly-maids. Mrs. Paddock’s “Handbook for all Dolly-Maids: An introduction to the work of looking after Lady, to ladies’ dress, and to the rightful function of the Dolly-Maid in the lady’s household” introduces the ‘virtues’ expected of those now undertaking the role. “Modesty is God’s Gift to ladies and now it shall be yours,” she explains, “and Chastity is its greatest fulfillment.” Although the existence of female chastity belts during the medieval period is now rightly doubted, there are plentiful sources describing the use and function of similar devices for Dolly-Maids during this period. The same housekeeper from Northridge House, referenced above, describes fitting a chastity device and ensuring it was not able to be removed. “Mistress wanted him properly Caged, so she said, underneath his petticoats, which we were happy to do. So we laid the sobbing Sissy Boi down on his bed and he only had a little thing, and it fitted round his Sissy-Clit and we locked it up properly. and he was making such a fuss but we said ‘“You need to be Caged if you’re going to be around ladies and Mrs. Booth.” And it will feel nice if you’re in silk petticoats.” This was, without a doubt, a humiliating measure, and certainly a source of frustration for young men subjected to it. But it was widely understood to be a foundational measure for the Dolly-Maid’s ability to accept their new role, and a physical reminder of the impossibility of return to an imagined, idealized freedom of boyhood.
More crudely, it was a symbol of submission to a broader feminine order, as keys to the device were customarily given to visiting ladies as a gesture of goodwill. A Lady Foster-Shaw, writing in 1883, describes how she was given a Dolly-Maid’s chastity keys during a stay at her sister’s country house;
“And I put them round my neck and, as it was evening, I requested the Dolly to come to my rooms, where “She” curtsied and looked at me with the greatest expectation. Of course I believe that a chaste and proper Dolly-Maid is a great gift, and had no intention of upsetting that. It is denial in the face of passions and desires that creates the prissy, prim, and proper Dolly-Maid, and so I bade the Dolly to undress me, to see me in my lingerie, my slip and petticoats, which to any other young man would have been a source of much excitement, I’m sure. But for a Dolly-Maid an opportunity to prove their permanent disavowal of such base pleasures. I had dolly remove even those last vestments, and with my God-given flesh on show, requested that I be bathed, powdered, perfumed brushed and painted, until I was satisfied. I fear the poor Dolly had never in his life himself been so close to a woman in full immodesty, but he lifted his skirt and petticoats to prove to me he was chaste. Somewhat cruelly, I had taken off the necklace with the key during my undressing, which I’d hung round his neck. He flushed a ferocious red, which was ever more apparent given the white starched collar of his dress and the little lace cap my sister had him wear. Afterwards, I told him how important it was that he continue to give himself helplessly and hopelessly to the service of ladies, and to undergo such denial of his natural desires. That whatever dreams and desires he might have had as a young man of good family, that the everyday work of serving my sister would remain his calling now, and for the remainder of the life.”
For most, such standards of chastity were robustly policed and rigorously maintained. Working class women, who had much more sexual experience, who were often in relationships or who were mothers themselves, saw such measures with an ironic eye, either simply teasing the house dolly-maid, or seeing in it another eccentricity of upper-class social mores. Nicknames like ‘miss lily-white’ or ‘little miss prim’ were a common taunt, in reference to the enforced purity and femininity of the dolly. For the lady of the house however, reminders of her dolly-maid’s former masculinity were avoided, if not outright forbidden.”
Extract from ‘Leisure and Labour: Women and Class in 19th Century England’ by Eleanor Combes and Rachel Whitely
 |
| Madame Irina Huffington, with her modern day, Surgically Neutered, Dolly Maid, Fifi. Fifi’s Testes now dangle from her earlobes in the form of Pink Pearl Fobs. |
The Dolly Maid Phenomena is being kept alive Worldwide, by the Ladies of the Cassandra Sisterhood and the Cassandra Coterie.
