(2 of 2)
Don't Work for Money. When Author Mitford (the Hon. Mrs. Peter Rodd) heard of Ross's paper, she dashed off an essay for Encounter elaborating his theme (her chief U distinction: "The purpose of the aristocrat is most emphatically not to work for money"). To this, Novelist Evelyn Waugh added a non-U note of his own: "All nannies and many governesses, when pouring out tea, put the milk in first." In the Spectator, the journalist "Strix" (Peter Fleming) pointed out that in U-speech there is "a relish for incongruity." Hence, a dull party can be a disaster, while a disaster (on the battlefield) can be a party. As for military U speech: "Although it is perfectly U to be wounded, it is slightly U-er to be hit"
The U voices did not go unopposed. In the Sunday Observer, Novelist Philip Toynbee came out strongly in favor of such non-U words as greens for vegetables, wealthy for rich, sweet for pudding, and wire for telegram. Graham Greene complained that by Nancy Mitford's exacting standard, Henry James would have to be considered non-U because he once began a letter "Dear Margot Asquith" instead of "Dear Mrs. Asquith." Another reader pointed out that Shakespeare's Richard II was addicted to using the non-U mirror. Sniffed Novelist Mitford: "It is probable that Richard II, like many monarchs, was non-U. As for Henry James ... he was an American."
Don't Change. In the Daily Express Etonian John Loder defiantly announced that he often uses "Cheers" when at "ritzy houses just to watch the horrified looks I get." Complained three aristocratic ladies, including a daughter of Lord Kilmuir: "We all come from what we thought were U families, but ... we all say 'mantlepiece' and have sugar in our coffee. Does this mean that we must change our classification?" On the contrary, said Sir Robert Boothby. In order to achieve a really classless society, "we must all become U as quickly as possible." But can the non-U speaker ever become U? For the answer to that, Britain had to turn back to the man who had started the whole controversy. "The question," Philologist Ross had said, "is one noticeably of paramount importance for many Englishmen (and for some of their wives). The answer is that an adult can never attain complete success."