own career. I myself moved quite rapidly from employer to employer during my

early career - being aware that these situations were incapable of bringing me

lasting satisfaction before being rewarded at last with the opportunity to serve

Lord Darlington.

 

It is curious that I have never until today thought of the matter in these

terms; indeed, that through all those many hours we spent discussing the nature

of 'greatness' by the fire of our servants' hall, the likes of Mr Graham and I

never considered this whole dimension to the question. And while I would not

retract anything I have previously stated regarding the quality of 'dignity', I

must admit there is something to the argument that whatever the degree to which

a butler has attained such a quality, if he has failed to find an appropriate

outlet for his accomplishments he can hardly expect his fellows to consider him

'great' .

 

Certainly, it is observable that figures like Mr Marshall and Mr Lane have

served only gentlemen of indisputable moral stature - Lord Wakeling, Lord

Camberley, Sir Leonard Gray - and one cannot help get the impression that they

simply would not have offered their talents to gentlemen of lesser calibre.

Indeed, the more one considers it, the more obvious it seems: association with a

truly distinguished household is a prerequisite of 'greatness'. A 'great' butler

can only be, surely, one who can point to his years of service and say that he

has applied his talents to serving a great gentleman - and through the latter,

to serving humanity.