[barrkel]

Income well above average, but that's a flow, not a stock. She probably didn't consider herself wealthy because she didn't have a lot of wealth, like wealthy people have.

Wealth, especially pre-World Wars, in the UK as elsewhere in Europe meant owning land and collecting rents. You didn't get wealthy by having a high income. You had a high income because you were wealthy.

[thaumasiotes]

The £200 of passive income presumably came from a stock of wealth. And the passive income by itself was still 6 times the salary of the live-in maid. The stock of wealth should therefore have been valued similarly to six healthy female slaves. (Give or take some adjustments, but broadly similar.)

[nicoburns]

> The £200 of passive income presumably came from a stock of wealth

Given we're talking about Agatha Christie here, I imagine the £200 of passive income came from book sales.

[binarybits]

No, this was before she became a successful author. About half of it was an inheritance on her side. The other half came from his side.

[notfbi]

ok, but it even says they had a passive income (aka wealth) leading to 1/3 of that 25x maid's earnings.

Many factual points in the introduction, with the modest apartment, income in today's value, and her own regard of wealth frame it as if she's relatable middle-class.