Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Yes, inbetween setting fire to public libraries and Midland Railway carriages.

 

 

 

Indeed. But yesterday's terrorists are today's freedom fighters, if they end up on the right side of history. Here I find myself in the rare situation of rejecting the modern narrative of the "liberal elite", which argues that "terrorism" is far too strong a word for the actions of the Suffragettes; "If you look at any major social change" opined one of the Left's Great and Good, "within it somewhere has been a degree of militancy".

 

Some degree of militancy? Cultural vandalism and arson was bad enough, but bombs I find impossible to condone. 

 

Don't get me wrong, votes for women and "gender" equality are societal goods, but I have always had rather more time for the Suffragists than the Suffragettes.  

 

Violence for a cause is still violence. Admittedly, there have been more bloodthirsty groups than the Suffragettes, though one senses that the Pankhurst Gang was very much still getting into its stride when there was an outbreak of peace in August 1914!  Modern terrorist law does not distinguish between hard and soft terror and it seems clear that these women had already crossed a line. The recent lauding of the 'gettes is to overlook their violent extremism and implies that the end justified the means; an argument that I always have a difficulty with.

 

And how effective were those means? One might say that the change in opinion over time was the result of many years of Suffragist campaigning. There is a school of thought that the violence of the Suffragettes was counter-productive, and it took the Great War to get female suffrage back on track.

 

We are still hearing outrage about force-feeding in response to hunger strikes and the 1913 Cat and Mouse Act, and I don't overlook the sense of desperation of campaigners in the face of a recalcitrant State, but you will find these elements dominating the narrative to the downplaying of the violence meted out by the women. I can understand the temptation to violence in the face of power, but turning to violence was still a choice and, I believe, a morally wrong one. 

 

1913 was an extreme year all round, with Ireland on the verge of civil war and army mutiny.  The Suffragettes were also growing impatient, bombing Lloyd George's house as well as a number of public spaces including Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, the Bank of England, the National Gallery, and railway stations. To be fair I doubt that they were actively trying to kill people, but the fact that they didn't in some instances seems to have been the result of luck; devices being defused or failing to go off.  Given the rapid escalation of violence and the number of bombs, the Suffragettes were lucky that the outbreak of war brought matters to an end before they killed anyone, whether accidentally or on purpose, and this has allowed modern commentators to indulge in a lot of white-washing and to present perpetrators as victims. 

 

I'm not the sort of soft-headed Luvvy who wears feminism on his T-shirt.  Rather, I believe in courtesy and respect, and equality is a necessary part of that and I will confess to being quite put out by that de trop music video of the Naughty Noughties, which I don't see as implying much respect!  But a part of courtesy and respect is not blowing up things when you disagree with people.   So, yes, I have a problem with these violent hotheads as poster girls for feminism.  I suspect that to say so will condemn me in many eyes, but there it is.  I have an aversion to violence and to the propagandising of history, and both are engaged here.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Edwardian

[webbcompound]

I sympathise with your viewpoint on violence, although things were much more complex in Edwardian politics than we often note. As far as I am aware the government initiated barbaric force feeding of sufragette prisoners in 1909, arson was committed against property, but the first bomb attack (in response) was not till1913, by which time almost 1000 women had been force fed, with many suffering chronic ill health as a result. The Pankhurst family split  in 1914 as a result of the Great War. Whilst Mrs Pankhurst and Christabel led the WSPU in suspending militant action and supporting conscription, Sylvia was thrown out of the organisation and worked as a Pacifist with women in the East End of London. My favourite photograph of this period was taken in St Petersburg and shows Mrs Pankhurst standing next to Colonel Maria Bochkareva in front of her regiment, the Tsarist Army's Womens Battalion of Death. The regiment went into action at the front and despite fighting well suffered heavy casualties and was pulled back to form the guard at the Winter Palace, which is where they still were when it was stormed by the Bolshevicks.

Edited September 16, 2019 by webbcompound

[Annie]

On the subject of violence I must agree since I have been of strong pacifist leanings all my life, but the subject of the Suffragettes is a dangerous area in which to venture an opinion even as a woman since even now it will engender fierce debate and anger amongst feminists of varying degrees of militancy and orthodoxy.  My feeling is that it was the war and the fact that a considerable number of women took up jobs that had been formerly seen as the domain of men and did rather well at them that in the end had the greatest influence on women getting the vote.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Annie
more to say

[Edwardian]

A government faced with violent criminality has to manage it somehow and must be seen to uphold the law of the land, however imperfect some may have found it, so violent protest will always make settlement with the protesters harder, if not impossible, at least in the short to medium term.  The "liberal elite" commentators of today have the luxury of sitting on the right side of history, rather than being members of a government that had to manage matters in the face of lawlessness, whatever one might think of the underlying issues.    

 

The Great War solved a number of the British government's more violent and urgent problems of 1913. Labour relations had not been good, but wartime conditions militate against strikes. The private army raised by Loyalists in Ireland turned itself into the Ulster Division and happily went off to slaughter on the Western Front, an equivalent act of suspension of the pursuit of a cause strong enough to have justified violence in the eyes of its adherents.

 

The problem with terrorism is that it both works and doesn't work. You might say that you would never had had the Good Friday Agreement without the Troubles, though I grew up in an era where terrorist outrages worked against compromise in at least the short and medium term.  Go back earlier and it seems fairly well known and accepted that the IRA, though hard to irradicate, had also been fought to a standstill at the time of Partition.

 

With the Suffragettes, even if one accepts the ends justifies the means argument, with which, as I say, I have problems, I suspect the violence was nothing but counter-productive and held up progress.

 

As a campaign led from within the social elite, albeit its distaff side, I suspect that the sufficiently widespread acceptance of the right and logic of female suffrage would have yielded results.  Although one cannot know so, I suspect that absent the violence of the Suffragettes and the intervention of the war, the necessary Parliamentary arithmetic for a change in the law would have been achieved sooner or later, quite possibly before 1918, but the terror campaign of the Suffragettes made that a political impossibility, rolling back much of the advances made by the Suffragists. The wiser Pankhursts may even have realised this and the pretext for a suspension of violence presented by the outbreak of the Great War probably did them a favour.

 

 

  

Edited September 16, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[sem34090]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed. But yesterday's terrorists are today's freedom fighters, if they end up on the right side of history. Here I find myself in the rare situation of rejecting the modern narrative of the "liberal elite", which argues that "terrorism" is far too strong a word for the actions of the Suffragettes; "If you look at any major social change" opined one of the Left's Great and Good, "within it somewhere has been a degree of militancy".

 

Some degree of militancy? Cultural vandalism and arson was bad enough, but bombs I find impossible to condone. 

Indeed. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this!

Quote

Don't get me wrong, votes for women and "gender" equality are societal goods, but I have always had rather more time for the Suffragists than the Suffragettes.  

Quite! I've been branded a misogynist for arguing this in the recent past.

Quote

Violence for a cause is still violence. Admittedly, there have been more bloodthirsty groups than the Suffragettes, though one senses that the Pankhurst Gang was very much still getting into its stride when there was an outbreak of peace in August 1914!  Modern terrorist law does not distinguish between hard and soft terror and it seems clear that these women had already crossed a line. The recent lauding of the 'gettes is to overlook their violent extremism and implies that the end justified the means; an argument that I always have a difficulty with.

Yes. "The end justified the means" is always a dangerous one. One person's justifiable end could be seen as wholly unjustifiable by another.

Quote

And how effective were those means? One might say that the change in opinion over time was the result of many years of Suffragist campaigning. There is a school of thought that the violence of the Suffragettes was counter-productive, and it took the Great War to get female suffrage back on track.

Another point I have made previously. This time my 'opponents' in the discussion couldn't find grounds to brand me a misogynist, so decided that I was simply lying without justification!!!

Quote

We are still hearing outrage about force-feeding in response to hunger strikes and the 1913 Cat and Mouse Act, and I don't overlook the sense of desperation of campaigners in the face of a recalcitrant State, but you will find these elements dominating the narrative to the downplaying of the violence meted out by the women. I can understand the temptation to violence in the face of power, but turning to violence was still a choice and, I believe, a morally wrong one. 

Quite.

Quote

1913 was an extreme year all round, with Ireland on the verge of civil war and army mutiny.  The Suffragettes were also growing impatient, bombing Lloyd George's house as well as a number of public spaces including Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, the Bank of England, the National Gallery, and railway stations. To be fair I doubt that they were actively trying to kill people, but the fact that they didn't in some instances seems to have been the result of luck; devices being defused or failing to go off.  Given the rapid escalation of violence and the number of bombs, the Suffragettes were lucky that the outbreak of war brought matters to an end before they killed anyone, whether accidentally or on purpose, and this has allowed modern commentators to indulge in a lot of white-washing and to present perpetrators as victims. 

I can't help feeling that it is a flawed argument to suggest that it is permissible to condone terrorist acts on the basis they caused no deaths - As you say, it was most likely pure luck that no one was killed. Had it continued, how long would it be?

Quote

I'm not the sort of soft-headed Luvvy who wears feminism on his T-shirt.  Rather, I believe in courtesy and respect, and equality is a necessary part of that

EXACTLY!!! I agree wholeheartedly with this. And yet am, currently, deemed a sexist, misogynist, white male by the young women with whom I have to study English Literature currently!

Quote

and I will confess to being quite put out by that de trop music video of the Naughty Noughties, which I don't see as implying much respect! 

Which one? I hereby reveal my complete ignorance of music produced within my lifetime...

Quote

But a part of courtesy and respect is not blowing up things when you disagree with people.   So, yes, I have a problem with these violent hotheads as poster girls for feminism.  I suspect that to say so will condemn me in many eyes, but there it is.  I have an aversion to violence and to the propagandising of history, and both are engaged here.

Hear, hear!!! Well said, that man... Oh wait, that invalidates your opinion, doesn't it, these days.

45 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

I sympathise with your viewpoint on violence, although things were much more complex in Edwardian politics than we often note. As far as I am aware the government initiated barbaric force feeding of sufragette prisoners in 1909, arson was committed against property, but the first bomb attack (in response) was not till1913, by which time almost 1000 women had been force fed, with many suffering chronic ill health as a result.

But does that warrant a bombing? Yes, it's barbaric, but does that provide a valid excuse for what could be construed as attempted manslaughter? So they didn't actually kill anyone, but bombing a public place or committing arson has potential to do that.

45 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

The Pankhurst family split  in 1914 as a result of the Great War. Whilst Mrs Pankhurst and Christabel led the WSPU in suspending militant action and supporting conscription, Sylvia was thrown out of the organisation and worked as a Pacifist with women in the East End of London. My favourite photograph of this period was taken in St Petersburg and shows Mrs Pankhurst standing next to Colonel Maria Bochkareva in front of her regiment, the Tsarist Army's Womens Battalion of Death. The regiment went into action at the front and despite fighting well suffered heavy casualties and was pulled back to form the guard at the Winter Palace, which is where they still were when it was stormed by the Bolshevicks.

An interesting tale, and perhaps it is this sort of thing that we should be celebrating? Women proving they are every bit as capable as their male counterparts.

1 minute ago, Annie said:

On the subject of violence I must agree since I have been of strong pacifist leanings all my life, but the subject of the Suffragettes is a dangerous area in which to venture an opinion even as a woman since even now it will engender fierce debate and anger amongst feminists of varying degrees of militancy and orthodoxy.  My feeling that it was the war and the fact that a considerable number of women took up jobs that had been seen as the domain of men and did rather well at them that in the end had the greatest influence on women getting the vote.

Exactly - I can't help feeling that the militancy of the pre-WW1 years did more harm than good in some ways, serving only to anger the government and cause them to see the suffragettes as a threat and perhaps it was a useful tool on the government's part to be able to describe women as dangerous and irresponsible?

[sem34090]

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

A government faced with violent criminality has to manage it somehow and must be seen to uphold the law of the land, however imperfect some may have found it, so violent protest will always make settlement with the protesters harder, if not impossible, at least in the short to medium term.  The "liberal elite" commentators of today have the luxury of sitting on the right side of history, rather than being members of a government that had to manage matters in the face of lawlessness, whatever one might think of the underlying issues.    

Hindsight - such a wonderful device, ideal for the modern era.

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

The Great War solved a number of the British government's more violent and urgent problems of 1913. Labour relations had not been good, but wartime conditions militate against strikes. The private army raised by Loyalists in Ireland turned itself into the Ulster Division and happily went off to slaughter on the Western Front, an equivalent act of suspension of the pursuit of a cause strong enough to have justified violence in the eyes of its adherence.

 

The problem with terrorism is that it both works and doesn't work. You might say that you would never had had the Good Friday Agreement without the Troubles, though I grew up in an era where terrorist outrages worked against compromise in at least the short and medium term.  Go back earlier and it seems fairly well known and accepted that the IRA, though hard to irradicate, had also been fought to a standstill at the time of Partition.

Indeed.

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

With the Suffragettes, even if one accepts the ends justifies the means argument, with which, as I say, I have problems, I suspect the violence was nothing but counter-productive and held up progress.

As I mentioned in my post above.

8 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

As a campaign led from withing the social elite, albeit its distaff side, I suspect that the sufficiently widespread acceptance of the right and logic of female suffrage would have yielded results.  Although one cannot know so, I suspect that absent the violence of the Suffragettes and the intervention of the war, the necessary Parliamentary arithmetic for a change in the law would have been achieved sooner or later, quite possibly before 1918, but the terror campaign of the Suffragettes made that a political impossibility, rolling back much of the advances made by the Suffragists. The wiser Pankhursts may even have realised this and the pretext for a suspension of violence presented by the outbreak of the Great War probably did them a favour.

I think that is close to the truth of the matter.

[Compound2632]

49 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

As a campaign led from within the social elite, albeit its distaff side,

 

The carriages destroyed in the presumed Suffragette arson at Kings Norton carriage sidings on the night of Sunday 15 March 1914 (depicted in the newspaper photo I posted) were mostly first class vehicles. It's unclear whether this was an accident of the position of the carriages in the sidings, the superior combustibility of first class upholstery, or a deliberate choice. This incident followed on from an arson attack at the Carnegie Library in Northfield on 12 February. For myself, the destruction of a public library crosses a clear line between civilised and barbaric conduct but I'm perhaps biased: my father's working life was spent in the employ of Birmingham Public Libraries.

 

This is leading us back to Edwardian's former next-door-neighbour, the Rokeby Venus...

 

 

 

[sem34090]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The carriages destroyed in the presumed Suffragette arson at Kings Norton carriage sidings on the night of Sunday 15 March 1914 (depicted in the newspaper photo I posted) were mostly first class vehicles. It's unclear whether this was an accident of the position of the carriages in the sidings, the superior combustibility of first class upholstery, or a deliberate choice. This incident followed on from an arson attack at the Carnegie Library in Northfield on 12 February. For myself, the destruction of a public library crosses a clear line between civilised and barbaric conduct but I'm perhaps biased: my father's working life was spent in the employ of Birmingham Public Libraries.

Indeed. Not exactly a fair target.

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This is leading us back to Edwardian's former next-door-neighbour, the Rokeby Venus...

Who? I lose track of this thread.

[Edwardian]

24 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The carriages destroyed in the presumed Suffragette arson at Kings Norton carriage sidings on the night of Sunday 15 March 1914 (depicted in the newspaper photo I posted) were mostly first class vehicles. It's unclear whether this was an accident of the position of the carriages in the sidings, the superior combustibility of first class upholstery, or a deliberate choice. This incident followed on from an arson attack at the Carnegie Library in Northfield on 12 February. For myself, the destruction of a public library crosses a clear line between civilised and barbaric conduct but I'm perhaps biased: my father's working life was spent in the employ of Birmingham Public Libraries.

 

This is leading us back to Edwardian's former next-door-neighbour, the Rokeby Venus...

 

 

 

 

Indeed, the Elite Pankhursts may have sought out Elite Targets because, presumably, they had turned to violence against portions of the Establishment that they had failed to convince, e.g. the Church.

 

Not sure why the Rokeby Venus was chosen of all the Great Masters that had objectified the female form, as we would say nowadays.

 

Where one burns books or destroys art, for a cause, one has descended into barbarism and it is a short step to destroying people. Here we have a painting that was on public display in our National Gallery and a public library supported by charity; very much part of our Victorian ideals of democratising art and learning and putting these things within the grasp of the working man (or, indeed, woman).  To me that is an aggravating feature of the destruction.

 

The Nazi burning of books and the Taliban's destruction of ancient art are vociferously condemned, and rightly so, and while I wouldn't seek to suggest that the Suffragettes were as bad as either of those groups, their destruction of books and art must surely be equally deserving of condemnation?

 

EDIT: Preparedness to subvert civilised standards for an all important cause is a dangerous path, and is a mindset that you will find in the darker organisations of history. Another thing that those who control the narrative of history fail to mention is that a number of prominent Suffragettes went on to join the British Union of Fascists, including the one who slashed the Rokeby Venus. 

 

 

 

     

Edited September 16, 2019 by Edwardian

[sem34090]

15 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Indeed, the Elite Pankhursts may have sought out Elite Targets because, presumably, they had turned to violence against portions of the Establishment that they had failed to convince, e.g. the Church.

Quite.

Quote

Not sure why the Rokeby Venus was chosen of all the Great Masters that had objectified the female form, as we would say nowadays.

WHO?!

Quote

Where one burns books or destroys art, for a cause, one has descended in to barbarism and it is a short step to destroying people. Here we have a painting that was on public display in our National Gallery and a public library supported by charity; very much part of our Victorian ideals of democratising art and learning and putting these things within the grasp of the working man.  To me that is an aggravating feature of the destruction.

So I thought, but I didn't want to say so in case I was wrong - Destruction of Libraries and Galleries was arguably less of an issue for the elites, and more of an attack on the working classes. Potentially, ironically, an attack on Women who wished to try and better themselves through self-education where perhaps it would have been unavailable to them otherwise.

Quote

The Nazi burning of books and the Taliban's destruction of ancient art are vociferously condemned, and rightly so, and while I wouldn't seek to suggest that the Suffragettes were as bad as either of those groups, their destruction of books and art must surely be equally deserving of condemnation?

I think here, you and I stand by that famous quote from Herr Heine -

"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people."

 

In this argument, it is encouraging for me to know that there are allies out there!

 

History, as they say, is written by the victors. Some Feminists may argue that they are not the victors, not yet at least, but ultimately this chapter of history seems to have been written by the apparent 'victors'. There are still areas in which gender equality has not been reached, but I get an increasing sense that in other areas it is on the verge of being surpassed. But that is a controversial standpoint, and an unpopular one at that. This sense is not helped by the inequality of speech - There are things that Women are permitted to stay about men which men are certainly not permitted to say about Women.

Edited September 16, 2019 by sem34090

[Compound2632]

35 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Indeed, the Elite Pankhursts may have sought out Elite Targets because, presumably, they had turned to violence against portions of the Establishment that they had failed to convince, e.g. the Church.

 

Not sure why the Rokeby Venus was chosen of all the Great Masters that had objectified the female form, as we would say nowadays.

 

Where one burns books or destroys art, for a cause, one has descended in to barbarism and it is a short step to destroying people. Here we have a painting that was on public display in our National Gallery and a public library supported by charity; very much part of our Victorian ideals of democratising art and learning and putting these things within the grasp of the working man.  To me that is an aggravating feature of the destruction.

 

The Nazi burning of books and the Taliban's destruction of ancient art are vociferously condemned, and rightly so, and while I wouldn't seek to suggest that the Suffragettes were as bad as either of those groups, their destruction of books and art must surely be equally deserving of condemnation?

 

The Northfield and Kings Norton arson attacks were part of a concerted campaign in Birmingham - the interior of St Philips Cathedral was defaced with slogans painted in white enamel and, on 9 June, the anniversary of Emily Davidson's death at the Epsom Derby, there was an attack on a painting in the city art gallery. [For a full account of this in the context of the Kings Norton arson, see S. Lea, Fire at King's Norton carriage sidings, in Midland Railway Society Journal No. 68 (Autumn 2018) pp. 22 - 27.]

 

A couple of interesting articles on Mary Richardson, firstly on the Rokeby Venus attack - giving the background to Edwardian's comment that I've underlined: 

http://www.artinsociety.com/from-the-rokeby-venus-to-fascism-pt-1-why-did-suffragettes-attack-artworks.html

and the second on her post-Great War involvement with fascism, along with that of other former suffragettes:

http://www.artinsociety.com/from-the-rokeby-venus-to-fascism-pt-2-the-strange-allure-of-fascism.html.

I should sound the note of caution that the author is an amateur in this field (as is the author of the MRS Journal article) and these articles have not been subjected to peer review. 

 

I note the quote from the Rokeby Venus' former owner, describing it as his "fine picture of Venus' backside" which does take us back rather too neatly to Destination Calabria.

  

Edited September 16, 2019 by Compound2632
Added Venus' backside.

[Edwardian]

18 minutes ago, sem34090 said:

Quite.

WHO?!

So I thought, but I didn't want to say so in case I was wrong - Destruction of Libraries and Galleries was arguably less of an issue for the elites, and more of an attack on the working classes. Potentially, ironically, an attack on Women who wished to try and better themselves through self-education where perhaps it would have been unavailable to them otherwise.

I think here, you and I stand by that famous quote from Herr Heine -

"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people."

 

In this argument, it is encouraging for me to know that there are allies out there!

 

History, as they say, is written by the victors. Some Feminists may argue that they are not the victors, not yet at least, but ultimately this chapter of history seems to have been written by the apparent 'victors'. There are still areas in which gender equality has not been reached, but I get an increasing sense that in other areas it is on the verge of being surpassed. But that is a controversial standpoint, and an unpopular one at that. This sense is not helped by the inequality of speech - There are things that Women are permitted to stay about men which men are certainly not permitted to say about Women.

 

Without wanting to mention the B-word, look at the forces that the 2016 Referendum has unleashed.

 

In the aftermath of a vote that brought our national divisions to the fore, one thing that became clear to me, a member of a complacent generation that had inherited the fruits of decades of campaigning for equality across gender, race and sexuality, is that there is a very significant portion of the population that never made that journey, and who never bought into a progressive agenda. 

 

So, not only is there further to go towards equality, but there is a real problem in gaining acceptance of what has already been achieved. 

 

Against this background, I really do not think it assists in the battle of hearts and minds to bring violent groups like the Suffragettes into the narrative as Heroes of the Struggle.  The "my gender right or wrong" reactions that Sem has experienced to my mind causes feminism to abandon the moral high-ground in favour of partisan hypocrisy.  Feminists are in danger of doing just this in relation to Trans rights, too. Celebrate Millicent Forcett all you like, along with others who campaigned peacefully and successfully for change, but never celebrate those who seek to impose change through violence, not persuasion, and who sacrifice humanity for an idea.   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[Compound2632]

Heck, this is all getting a bit serious. We need to cheer ourselves up with a bit of unashamed male gaze:

 

[Regularity]

Nice curves...

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

there is a very significant portion of the population that never made that journey,

 

2 minutes ago, Regularity said:

Nice curves...

 

There you go...

 

(Sorry for that, Simon.)

[webbcompound]

And to tie up a number of loose ends (internal combustion engines, elites, suffrage, incipient attack on railways..no knot really) Here is leading suffragette Lady Florence Norman on her motor scooter in 1916.

[Regularity]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

There you go...

 

(Sorry for that, Simon.)

That's OK, Stephen. My "on-line persona" is about an accurate description of me as Frankie Boyle's "TV persona" is of him.

The difference is that he is much nicer in person (so I am told)...

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

And to tie up a number of loose ends (internal combustion engines, elites, suffrage, incipient attack on railways..no knot really) Here is leading suffragette Lady Florence Norman on her motor scooter in 1916.

 

Hers was certainly a life worth celebrating, both her contribution to women's rights and more widely.

 

But notice, please, she was a Suffragist, not a Suffragette!  

[webbcompound]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Hers was certainly a life worth celebrating, both her contribution to women's rights and more widely.

 

But notice, please, she was a Suffragist, not a Suffragette!  

I blame Wikepedia which has the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time, saying that she was at one and the same time a suffragist,  treasurer of the Liberal Womens Suffrage Union, and a suffragette. But then its references are her papers in the Women's Library Archives (good), and the biography of her husband (really?)

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

I blame Wikepedia which has the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time, saying that she was at one and the same time a suffragist,  treasurer of the Liberal Womens Suffrage Union, and a suffragette. But then its references are her papers in the Women's Library Archives (good), and the biography of her husband (really?)

 

She is noted as active in the Women's Liberal Federation and her hubby was a Liberal MP.  The Suffragettes broke with the Liberal Party, did they not? 

 

I believe her activities also fell within the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (aka Suffragists).  The Suffragettes (Women's Social and Political Union) split from them in order to pursue their militant agenda, which can be seen actively working against Suffragist attempts to influence government when they disrupted a WLF meeting attended by Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1908, one of them laying about her with a dog whip.  

 

As I say, in my view the Suffragettes were their own worst enemies.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, webbcompound said:

And to tie up a number of loose ends (internal combustion engines, elites, suffrage, incipient attack on railways..no knot really) Here is leading suffragette Lady Florence Norman on her motor scooter in 1916.

 

 

... and while we're making these important distinctions, is that not an electric scooter?

[Nearholmer]

I personally can’t tell, but mega on-trend if it is.

 

 

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, webbcompound said:

And to tie up a number of loose ends (internal combustion engines, elites, suffrage, incipient attack on railways..no knot really) Here is leading suffragette Lady Florence Norman on her motor scooter in 1916.

 

Its a pretty neat device, similar electric scooters of today aren't much different in appearance.  And let it be noted, in todays environmentally dominated thrust to replace diesel taxis with electric ones, we're only going back to the Late Victorian/Edwardian period....

 

Electric Taxi, 1898.

 

Lady Florence has just one problemette with her mode of transport, she's not going to get far, she's left the stand down...

 

 

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Heck, this is all getting a bit serious. We need to cheer ourselves up with a bit of unashamed male gaze:

 

That Beatrice is a right photo-bomber, she keeps popping up all over the place!

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hroth
Just one ruddy letter...

[Donw]

Violence was involved on both sides of the suffragettes.  There was quite a lot of ill treatment of women, regarding Husband as having the right to beat a wife for one, locking up sane women in mental institutes are examples. The force feeding of Suffragettes appears to have more to do with breaking their will than genuine concern. What I find unacceptable in general is the use of violence against those who have little influence in matters.  For example the American (supported by us regretably) tactic of 'Shock and Awe' I cannot believe they expected Hussain to capitulate so I assume it was to cow the Iraqui public in to not suporting a dictator. Doesn't sit right with me. As for those seeking to advance their cause by killing and maiming the public indiscriminantly ......

 

Don

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Hroth said:

That Beatrice is a right photo-bomber, she keeps popping up all over the place!

 

 

She was a Kentish Town engine for very many years* but for some time after the opening of the Tottenham & Forest Gate line in 1894, she was billeted at the LT&S shed at Shoeburyness for St Pancras - Southend trains. I believe she was also in demand for Royal Train workings but can't now find the reference.

 

*Here she is with the famous Read Brothers Bottling Stores in the background and a D299 5-plank open peeking over her buffer.