Система социального статуса, выработанная в агентстве, была ги | Lemix

Система социального статуса, выработанная в агентстве, была гибкой. Вот цитата из второй книжки.

Mary and Heather had developed a ‘mating’ system, based on the all-important distinctions of class. It assigned each client to one of these categories:

Lady and Gent
Upper class, not necessarily titled but definitely of superior breeding.

Gent For Here and Lady For Here
Upper middle class, public school educated
(Here being for our purposes).

Near Gent and Near Lady
(or Half Gent and Half Lady)
Middle class, with a professional background.

Gentish and Ladyish
Lower middle or working class.

WC (Working Class) was used in the very early days of the Bureau; soon replaced by MBTM (Much Better Than Most) and, a smidgeon lower, MBTS (Much Better Than Some).
Both could have an added V: VMBTM (Very Much Better Than Most); or even a further addition, GOOD, creating GOOD VMBTM.

+, ++, or –
All categories could be modified with plus or minus signs which enabled the client to be introduced to the next category (up or down).

For example, Ladyish++ could meet Near Gent–.
Similarly “Gent For Here” could be matched with Near Lady+.

Just
A “Near Gent, just” could be introduced to a “Near Lady”, though probably not to a Near Lady++.

A client in the Gent For Here category would almost invariably specify, ‘She must be a lady.’ The interviewer knew exactly what he meant, and immediately searched for a woman who had been to private or public school, spoke without any local accent, and moved in social circles similar to his. Similarly, a Much Better Than Some woman would ask for ‘a plain ordinary working-class man’, and be matched with a man categorized as Much Better Than Some or Working Class.

The interviewers recorded each client’s name, religion, age, profession, income and place of residence in a volume called the Black Book. Each client’s town was also entered alphabetically, since geography was a critical factor, especially with the difficulty of travelling in wartime. Index boxes contained a card for each client, recording his or her registration number, details about the client and about the type of person he or she wanted to marry.

On the back of each card, the interviewer wrote the registration number of all that client’s introductions, thereby avoiding the risk of sending the same introduction twice. There were so many clients that most letters of the alphabet needed two separate index boxes, one for men and one for women. Some smaller groups, of country or religion, such as clients living in India, or Jews, needed only one box for both men and women.

It was a very complicated set of records, ‘but,’ recalled Mary, ‘finding the right husband or wife, in the right place, at the right time, was a complicated business. And the system worked!’