Search Results

The Ladies of Llangollen, Anne Lister, Anna Seward, and the problem of "Modern History's First Lesbians" Lesbians, sapphics, tribades, lesbi-gays, dykes, clitorist, beanflicker, Amy-John, clam smacker, scissor sister, invert. There’s plenty of names for women who love women, but what is our history, and who was the first lezza? Historical Sapphism Some historians believe that prior to the twentieth century there was simply no such thing as female homoeroticism, even arguing that women prior to this century couldn’t experience ‘lesbianism’ or lesbian sex because such concepts were invented by sexologists in the late nineteenth century. It’s laughable, and a brief look into the history books tell us quite opposite. In an article published in 2017, Anna Clark discusses historic sapphic subcultures among dancers and prostitutes, especially in metropolitan Paris in the early eighteenth-century. (Of course it's Paris.) Additionally, recent study of ‘deviant’ sexualities in European courts have explored Christina of Sweden’s affairs with women, notably Ebba Spare, as well as Marie Antoinette’s ‘lesbian’ sexual exploits which were the subject of several pamphlets during the French Revolution. Furthermore, in her 1789 denunciation, Hester Thrale Piozzi described Marie Antoinette as “ the Head of a Set of Monsters call’d by each other Sapphists ” Simeon Solomon, Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene, 1864 Used liberally in this article and by this historian generally, the terms 'Sapphic', and ‘Sapphist’ were understood to be insults relating to female homoeroticism based on the comprehension that the Ancient Greek poet Sappho had sexual and romantic relationships with women as early as the fifteenth century. Sappho is also where we get the term ‘lesbian’, as this was the term for people from the Isle of Lesbos, where she lived. This terminology is evidenced as early as the fifteenth century . Furthermore, Rebecca Jennings’ A Lesbian History of Britain: Love and Sex Between Women Since 1500, provides a valuable discussion of evidence of female homoeroticism throughout ancient, medieval and early modern history in medical texts, literature, visual art and travel journals. In fact, female sexual gratification during the fourteenth - seventeenth centuries was thought to be fundamental to conception and to curing symptoms of female hysteria; if a husband was thought to be incapable of administering an orgasm, it was expected that a midwife would do so. Thus, female ‘administered’ sexual gratification was well established. A lack of awareness may be attributable to a lack of legal jurisdiction regarding female homoeroticism in comparison to strict laws and punishments for male homoeroticism throughout the centuries. Phallic-free sex couldn’t really be comprehended in strictly patriarchal societies, so even when and where there were laws regarding ‘lesbianism’, they were based on the use of ‘tools’ which weren’t a real penis in intercourse with women. For example, women in the fifteenth and sixteenth century in the Southern Netherlands faced strict prosecution for the crime of sodomy. These facts did little to disprove dominant historiography concerning female homoeroticism (or rather lack thereof) in historical study until the publication of Anne Lister’s explicit sexual exploits in the 1980s. Emma Donoghue has described these texts as the 'Dead Sea Scrolls of lesbian history’ for their incomparable impact in proving female homoeroticism prior to the twentieth century. Since the rediscovery and decoding of her diaries, Anne Lister has become a sapphic icon comparable to Sappho herself. Her apparent singularity in her efforts to live freely in matrimony with another woman has elicited a wealth of historical and cultural media attention. Most recently, she has dominated BBC ratings in the series ‘Gentleman Jack’, named for Lister’s malicious nickname among Halifax residents for the way she appeared ‘like a man’ according to her dress and engagement in business. The show is well worth a watch, and has been developed according to the 26 volumes that Lister wrote, specifically focussing on the last eight years of her life, when she decided to settle down and ‘marry’. There are inaccuracies, and several liberties taken with costume (she didn’t wear a tall hat, for example), and her height, but the changes are not particularly important to the narrative of the show, nor how we remember her. (This isn’t a historical-fiction article, so no more comments about the accuracy of dress, I promise.) Suranne Jones as Anne Lister and Sophie Rundle as Ann Walker in Gentleman Jack, BBC The first series depicts Lister's determined mission to court and marry the much younger and often bewildered local heiress, Ann Walker. The final episode of the first series depicts the pair ‘marrying’ at the Holy Trinity Church in York on Easter Sunday, 1834. Series two follows their ‘marriage’ and Lister pushing Walker into making Lister a large beneficiary of her estate, something Lister had previously done for the 'love of her life' Mariana Lawton (née Belcombe). These events, depicted in remarkable accuracy support a popular belief that Lister was the first modern lesbian, and her ‘marriage’ to Walker unique. However, we know for a fact that female homoeroticism was not invented by this dashing sapphic in the eighteenth century, and if you cast your eye slightly broader, even the idea of marriage to another woman was not her own. (Shockingly, lesbians have always been trying to move in with each other and live their lives together.) Lister has had an undeniable impact on Sapphic history, yet her popular legacy as ‘Modern History’s first Lesbian’ is ridiculously unfair. For starters, the term lesbian, although used throughout this article, isn’t really one that we can use as the term was not popularly known or used, certainly not by the women we are discussing. Secondly, Anne Lister was not the only woman to fancy other women, otherwise she wouldn’t have found anyone to shag. And finally, if Anne Lister had to give an opinion on the subject, she would likely argue that she was 'Modern History’s First Lesbian', after the Ladies of Llangollen. Lady Eleanor Butler and Miss Sarah Ponsonby In July 1822, Anne Lister, along with her aunt, the elder Anne Lister, embarked on a long-awaited tour of North Wales, the shining moment of which was a stay in the Vale of Llangollen and two visits to a Tudor Style Cottage named Plas-Newydd. Meaning New-House’, Plas-Newydd was the home to the Anglo-Irish gentlewomen Lady Eleanor Butler and Miss Sarah Ponsonby. This pair of women were significant because they had done something completely out of the ordinary for eighteenth-century women, they had run away, and set up their own home, completely cutting ties with their families. Now that’s a simplified summary of events, so let’s go into more detail. Plas Newydd, the Ladies of Llangollen's Tudor home, is now a museum and historic house open to the public Ponsonby and Butler met in around 1776, Butler was already a spinster (she was in her 30s, scandalous!), and Ponsonby, an eighteen-year-old. They would meet for tutoring, long walks and deep conversations, when Butler travelled, they sent rambling letters, telling how much they missed the other. It became clear quite quickly, that the pair were completely obsessed with each other. (Typical.) In April 1778, discovering that Ponsonby’s family were discussing her marriage, they decided to sneak out from their respective homes in Kilkenny and escape to Wales, where Butler had found a discrete cottage for their elopement. The first escape effort failed, and they were both imprisoned in their homes, until Butler, learning that she was to be packed off to a convent, escaped, and managed to get into Ponsonby’s chambers, where she hid for several days whilst the families debated what to do with their unruly girls. Eventually, on the 6th May, they were allowed to leave, with Ponsonby’s trusted maid, on the premise that they would not take any income from their families, nor return to Kilkenny. (Such a hardship…) So, Butler and Ponsonby ran off to Wales, eloping in ‘exquisite retirement’. They found a home in Llangollen and spent their days engaging in literary scholarship and lengthy walks around the Welsh hills, and their evenings in the same bed. They became a site of fascination for society, their ‘romantic friendship’ as it was known, thought of as an exquisite form of platonic love. Even Queen Charlotte (yes that one) adored them, and the Ladies engaged with her by sending a plan of their home and gardens. They welcomed a constant stream of visitors there to view the extensive literary collection, and the spectacle of the ladies themselves. These visitors included Anna Seward, who we will discuss in a moment, William Wordsworth, and even Lord Byron. Portrait of Lady Eleanor Butler and Miss Sarah Ponsonby out walking with their dog. Lister’s intrigue with these ‘Ladies of Llangollen’ as they were nicknamed, was two-fold; firstly, regarding their extensive literary scholarship, and secondly, the exact intimate nature of their relationship. During her visit on the 23rd July 1822, Lister attempted to ask Ponsonby about the true nature of their relationship, asking if they were ‘classical’, meaning homoerotic, which Ponsonby denied. Although she was unable to discern the true extent of the intimacy shared between Butler and Ponsonby, the impact on the then 31-year-old Lister was made. Later that day Lister writes, ‘I cannot help but thinking that surely it [their relationship] was not platonic’. (Very astute, Anne.) Romantic Friendship or homo-eroticism? Whilst historical study on the Ladies of Llangollen has not been lacking in quantity, in terms of ‘queer’ studies it has certainly been lacking in quality. The story of the pair’s attempted secret flight and eventual successful elopement, against the best efforts of their families, would, had either been male have been an undeniably sexually charged tale of forbidden lovers. However, dominant historiography continues to consider Butler and Ponsonby’s relationship as the idyllic platonic ‘Romantic Friendship’ of the long eighteenth century: a fairly common intimate relationship between women which surpassed any other friendship, but was not sexual. This is despite substantial evidence which supports an argument that their elopement was every bit the twenty-first century cottage-core fantasy it appears. As well as the basic fact that other romantic friendships would last for a few years at the most, and end with one or both women involved marrying men and moving on. Historians have struggled to conceptualise this relationship in light of the facts, for example, the 1936 narrative biography Chase of the Wild Goose by lesbian, doctor, and author, Mary Gordon presents the Ladies as proto-feminist and proto-lesbian. In her fantastical epilogue she alludes to the queer connotations of their partnership and thanks them for making ‘the way straight for the time that we inherited …’. However, she does not entertain a possibility of a sexual relationship. Similarly, Elizabeth Mavor, writing in 1971 strives to decry claims of a sexual relationship, or ‘Freud-ism’, concluding that whilst the Ladies of Llangollen are an example of an extraordinarily close ‘Romantic Friendship’ the ambiguity of their intimacy stems from their longevity, and nothing more. Now we know that these arguments are fundamentally flawed, female homoeroticism was an established fact, Gordon and Mavor’s obsessive attempts to avoid any implication of a sexual relationship, or ‘Freud-ism’ in their portrayals of the Ladies of Llangollen has resulted in texts which ignore glaring and simple facts. Such as their dramatic elopement; fifty years of cohabitation; bed sharing; exclusive use of the phrase ‘My Beloved’; never spending a night apart; and their uninhibited and unwavering dedication to each other from the moment of their meeting. (It's all very straight, isn't it?) If this were truly an innocent Romantic Friendship, why was their elopement scandalous? Lady Betty Fownes, Ponsonby's guardian, wrote of her happiness on hearing of Butler's impending confinement, 'I wish she had been safe in one [a convent] long ago; she would have made us [all] happy. Many an unhappy hour she has cost me, and, I am convinced, years to Sally [Sarah]' . Despite Mavor and Gordon’s wilful ignorance, the retirement to Wales was clearly understood by all parties to not be a temporary excursion. The dedication shown by these women was indicative even to their earliest contemporaries of something greater than a ‘Romantic Friendship’. Furthermore, considering primary texts such as the Hamwood Papers (Butler’s diaries and their correspondence) it is clear that Butler and Ponsonby thought of themselves as good as married. In convincing Fownes that she could be trusted with her guard, Butler promised that she would care for her ‘for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness or in health’. Whilst Ponsonby, in response to Mrs Lucy Goddard’s fearful warning that Butler was a woman who ‘does not understand virtue…’ adding, ‘…she might make love to you,” replied laughing , ‘I hope that she will love me… she does so beautifully. ’ Regardless of if these comments were meant in sincerity or jest, it is clear that they were aware of, and unafraid of the connotations their intimate relationship encouraged. In a discussion of their self-awareness it is also worth noting that the Ladies of Llangollen had a string of dogs named Sappho. As literary scholars this may be ignored as simple poetic favour, fragments of Sappho’s poetry which may have been considered homoerotic were typically censored throughout the eighteenth century. However, as stated, Sappho was already synonymous with female homoeroticism, Emma Donoghue and Susan Lanser have established that any exclusion of these excerpts indicate an inherent, and fearful understanding of deviance, but this censorship wasn’t complete, and the texts could be accessed. It would be ignorant to argue that the Ladies of Llangollen, whose literary scholarship was almost unparalleled, were unaware of the implication of this name. Why is it so difficult to accept historic sapphism? Jennings explains that the fundamental obstacle to studies of ambiguous sapphic relationships is ‘essentialism’ (the idea that same-sex relationships have always existed and need to be rescued) and ‘constructionism’ (that sexual practises and identities are defined by wider culture and thus, how we define them tells us more about ourselves than of the relationships in question). It is perhaps because of this difficulty, and because of what Jennings describes as an obsession with defining ‘lesbianism’ through sex, that the Ladies of Llangollen are overlooked as an example of female same-sex love and homoeroticism. To put it simply, it seems to suit conservatism to consider Anne Lister entirely singular in her vulgarity. Portrait of Anne Lister Fiona Brideoake provides the most effective rebuttal of reductive studies, starting with a criticism of Faderman’s conclusion that ‘lesbianism’ is a gendered commitment to another woman. Brideoake argues that these relationships are in fact, indicative of a multifaceted identity which should be considered equal to heterosexuality. However, the issues surrounding comprehending these relationships remain, thus, the terminology used to discuss them must be carefully chosen. Brideoake favours the umbrella term ‘ queer’ meaning alternative to heteronormativity, Sarah Bentley defines their relationship, or rather our understanding of ‘Romantic Friendships’ to be ‘queer platonic’. However, is the accuracy of their intimacy the most significant factor of their relationship? As Elin Salt, the playwright of ‘Celebrated Virgins’ a 2022 play about the Ladies of Llangollen, states ‘if this was a man and a woman... We'd just accept they were two people who loved each other .” It is not the complexities of their relationship which are important, it is their impact as perceived Sapphists which needs to be considered. An anti- ‘lesbian’ argument could be supported by Hester Thrale Piozzi’s good friendship with Butler and Ponsonby. Piozzi is damning of perceived sapphism. For example, in her in 1789 denunciation of Marie Antoinette; Piozi also accused Anne Seymour Damer, an artist who was a rumoured sapphist of ‘ liking her own sex in a criminal way... ’. Piozzi would have been aware of the suggestions made concerning the intimacy of Butler and Ponsonby’s relationship thanks to a number of news publications disparaging the Ladies and their relationship, such as an article titled ‘Extraordinary Female Affection’ for a 1790 issue of the St James’ Chronicle . It is perhaps due to the inaccuracies of such articles that Piozzi does not disparage Butler and Ponsonby as she does other women who appear unsuitably single , describing them instead as ‘ enchantresses’. However, as established ‘lesbians’ Anne Lister and Anna Seward both considered the Ladies of Llangollen as their emotional and erotic ‘kin’ it is in a study of these latter women that their position as ‘Modern History’s First Lesbians’ can be understood. Understanding sapphism through tragedy Queer history is often quite tragic, between forced heterosexuality, death and separation, you're hard pressed to find a truly happy queer relationship. Even Sarah and Eleanor's de facto marriage necessitated an almost permanent split from their families and homes. Queer individuals and relationships are recognisable through tragedy, a good example of this is Anna Seward, queer, a romantic poet and friend to the Ladies of Llangollen. Seward's writing and letters support an argument of lesbianism; she wrote to Mrs M. Powys in 1796 describing the Ladies of Llangollen as a modern Rosalind and Celia, the cross-dressing ‘lesbians’ of Shakespeare’s As You Like It . More significant however, is the suggestion that through their Portrait of romantic poet Anna Seward relationship, Seward was able to mourn the loss of her own love, living somewhat vicariously through her friends. The majority of Seward’s biographical studies pay little attention to the cause of her lifelong depression, perhaps to avoid a discussion of the poet’s sexuality. Literary studies of her work have however highlighted the cause of her heartbreak as the loss of Honora Sneyd, first to marriage and later to death, primary to that of the other numerous griefs Seward suffered, including the death of her sister and father, to both of whom she was remarkably close. Sneyd, who Seward refers to as the ‘sun of my youthful horizon’, ‘my lost Honora’ and ‘my constant companion’ is considered to be an equal or greater inspiration to Seward’s Ossianic literature than the death of her other famous lover Major Andre. She describes her grief for her lost lovers simultaneously, writing [the memory of them is] ‘rising, like an exhalation, in my memory’ . In her 2015 publication, Joellen DuLucia situates Seward’s grief and her sapphism in the context of her epic, Llangollen Vale, which personifies Butler and Ponsonby . This, along with William Wordsworth’s later sonnet were significant contributors to the Ladies’ popular celebrity, and the language used by both is thought to have protected the Ladies of Llangollen from scandal regarding the nature of their relationship. However, if read through a queer lens, Seward’s epic narrative in particular, can be read as an ode not only to ‘Eleanora and Zara’, but through the lack of tragedy, a melancholic ode to the tragic Honora Sneyd. Particularly enlightening is the line which hopes that they [Butler and Ponsonby] will ‘perish together beneath “one kind icebolt,” a peace she and Sneyd could never share. ‘Modern History’s First Lesbian’ herself, Anne Lister, first read about the Ladies of Llangollen in an 1810 article in the fashionable magazine La Belle Assemblee. However, Lister’s sapphism could not be attributed to the reading of an article. As her diaries indicate, Lister had been considered ‘odd’ throughout her childhood, too masculine, too daring and too vulgar. Her first relationship began when Lister was 15, and confined to the attic of her boarding school in fears that she would negatively influence the other girls. Her roommate, Eliza Raine, an Anglo-Indian girl who was also considered too non-conformist to share the usual dormitories, became her first love from 1806 until 1814. Moreover, Lister’s relationship with Mariana Lawton began in 1812, however, it is only once Mariana visits Llangollen in 1817 and writes of Butler and Ponsonby’s unparalleled devotion that the pair began to seriously envisage a future together, despite Lawton’s marriage and the unfortunate eventuality that her husband did not die. Initially pushed by Lawton, from the moment of her own visit in 1822, Lister too was entirely convinced; she wrote days after her visit ‘ I should not like to live in Wales – but if it must be so, and I could choose the spot, it should be Plas-Newydd at Llangollen, which is already endeared even to me by the association of ideas. ’ (Very platonic!) Plas-Newydd and Llangollen Vale became, during the lifetimes of Lady Eleanor Butler and Miss Sarah Ponsonby and continues to be to this day, a destination of pilgrimage for LGBTQIA+ individuals. This is indicative of their legacy as identifiable non-conformists to a cis and heteronormative society with which countless cannot identify. In considering the impact of these women on Anne Lister and Anna Seward it is clear that in a discussion of the ‘Modern History’s First Lesbians’ the Ladies of Llangollen do precede Anne Lister, regardless of the sexual intensity of their relationship. Further reading: ‘The Hamwood Manuscripts’, papers of Lady Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, comprising diaries and correspondence, together with related papers, (1774-1831) The National Library of Wales, < https://archives.library.wales/index.php/hamwood-manuscripts > Norton, Rictor (Ed.), "Extraordinary Female Affection, 1790", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook , (22 April 2005, updated 15 June 2005) http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1790extr.htm l Seward, Anna, ‘Llangollen Vale, inscribed to the Right Honourable Lady Eleanor Butler, and Miss Ponsonby’, in Llangollen Vale, with Other Poems, (London: 1796), Published online at Eighteenth-Century Poetry Archive, < https://www.eighteenthcenturypoetry.org/works/bse96-w0010.shtml > Thrale, Hester Lynch, Thraliana: The Diary of Mrs Hester Lynch Thrale (Later Mrs Piozzi), 1776-1809, Ed. Katherine C. Balderston, Vol.2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1942) The Diaries of Anne Lister Lister, Anne, Whitbread, Helena (ed.), I know My Own Heart: The Diaries of Anne Lister, (New York and London, 1988) Lister, Anne, Whitbread, Helena (ed.), No Priest but Love: The Journals of Anne Lister from 1824-1826, (New York: New York University Press, 1992) Lister, Anne, Whitbread, Helena (ed.), The Secret Diaries of Anne Lister, (London: Virago Press, 2010) ‘Courageous and Audacious Ladies of Llangollen’, Duke University Libraries, (06/03/2018), < https://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/2018/03/06/courageous-audacious-ladies-llangollen/ > ‘Female Sodomy’, Not Just the Tudors, (2022), https://open.spotify.com/episode/1UVn5aESC9aIf2ShXyEKKZ?si=OD_AV7_AR8ano9Qr7G3WcA Baigent, Elizabeth, ‘Lister, Anne’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/updated 2019), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/37678 > Bentley, Sarah, ‘The Ladies of Llangollen’, Wellcome Collection, (13/03/2018), < https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/WqewRSUAAB8sVaKN > Bowerbank, Sylvia, ‘Seward, Anna ( called the Swan of Lichfield), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004). < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/25135 > Brideoake, Fiona, ‘” Extraordinary Female Affection”: The Ladies of Llangollen and the Endurance of Queer Community’, Romanticism on the Net, Number 36-27, (November 2004, February 2005), < https://doi.org/10.7202/011141ar > Bryan, Nicola, ‘Gentleman Jack: The Ladies of Llangollen who intrigued Anne Lister’, BBC News, (02/04/2022), < https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60917657 > Castle, Terry, The Apparitional Lesbian: Female Homosexuality and Modern Culture, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993) Clark, Anna, ‘Secrets and Lies: Anne Lister’s Love for Women and the Natural Self’, in Clark, Anna, Alternative Histories of the Self: A Cultural History of Sexuality and Secrets, 1762-1917, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017), pp.5-77, <: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3840441 > Colwill, Elizabeth, ‘Pass as a Woman, Act like a Man: Marie-Antoinette as Tribade in the Pornography of the French Revolution’, in Merrick, Jeffrey, and Ragan, Bryant T., (eds.) Homosexuality in Modern France, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) Coyle, Eugene, ‘The Irish Ladies of Llangollen: ‘The two most celebrated virgins in Europe’’, History Ireland, Vol.23, No.6 (Nov/Dec 2015), pp.18-20, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/43598746 > Crampton, Caroline, ‘The lesbian Dead Sea Scrolls: Anne Lister’s diaries’, The New Statesman, (05/12/2013), < https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2013/12/lesbian-dead-sea-scrolls > DeLucia, JoEllen, ‘Queering Progress: Anna Seward and Llangollen Vale’, in DeLucia, JoEllen, A Feminine Enlightenment: British Women Writers and the Philosophy of Progress, 1759-1820, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015), pp.87-116, < DOI:10.3366/edinburgh/9780748695942.003.0003 > Euler, Catherine A., Moving Between Worlds: Gender, Class, Politics, Sexuality and Women’s Networks in the Diaries of Anne Lister of Shibden Hall, Halifax, Yorkshire, 1830-1840, (D. Phil: University of York, May 1995), Faderman, Lillian, Surpassing the Love of Men, (London: The Women’s Press LTD., 1985) Figes, Lydia, ‘Lesbian love and coded diaries: the remarkable story of Anne Lister’, Art UK, (10/05/2019), Gordon, Mary, The Llangollen Ladies, originally titled Chase of the Wild Goose (North Wales: John Jones, 1936, this ed. 1999) Grant, Allison, ‘The Dangers of Playing House: Celia’s Subversive Role in As You Like It’, Selected Papers of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference, Vol.4, Article 5, (2011), <: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/spovsc/vol4/iss2011/5 > Griffiths, Hannah, ‘The Ladies of Llangollen’, The National Archives Blog, (08/02/2022), < https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-ladies-of-llangollen/ > Hallett, Judith P., ‘Sappho and Her Social Context: Sense and Sensuality’, Signs, Vol.4, No.3, (Spring 1979), pp.447-464, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173393 > Hunt, Margaret R., ‘The Sapphic Strain: English Lesbians in the Long Eighteenth Century’, in Bennett, Judith M., and Froide, Amy M., (eds.) Singlewomen in the European Past, 1250-1800 , (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp.270-296 Iglikowski-Broad, Vicky, ‘Gentleman Jack: Anne Lister - the first modern lesbian?’ the National Archives Blog, (09/07/2022), Jennings, Rebecca, A Lesbian History of Britain: Love and Sex Between Women Since 1500, (Oxford, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood World Publishing, 2007) Katz, Brigit, ‘The 19th-century Lesbian Landowner who set out to find a wife’, Smithsonian Magazine, (19/04/2019), < https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/19th-century-lesbian-landowner-who-set-out-find-wife-180971995/ > Mavor, Elizabeth, ‘Butler, Lady (Charlotte) Eleanor’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2006), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4182 > Mavor, Elizabeth, The Ladies of Llangollen: A Study in Romantic Friendship, (London: Penguin Books, 1971) Reynolds, Nicole, ‘Cottage Industry: The Ladies of Llangollen and the Symbolic Capital of the Cottage Ornee’, The Eighteenth Century, Vol.51, No.1/2, (Spring/Summer 2010), pp.211-227, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/41468095 > Saunders, Amy, ‘The Afterlife of Christina of Sweden: Gender and Sexuality in Heritage and Fiction’, Royal Studies Journal, Issue 6, (2019), pp.204-221, < http://doi.org/10.21039/rsj.199 > Valladares, Susan, ‘” An introduction to the Literary Person[s]” of Anne Lister and the Ladies of Llangollen’, Literature Compass, Issue 10, (2013), pp.353-368 Willis, Matthew, ‘Who were the Ladies of Llangollen?’, JSTOR Daily, (10/04/2022), < https://daily.jstor.org/who-were-the-ladies-of-llangollen/ >

Is Vita and Virginia good for women's history? Gemma Arterton as Vita Sackville-West and Elizabeth Debicki as Virginia Woolf Gemma Arterton has been the main reason I’ve recommended Vita and Virginia since first watching, not just because of the death grip she has had on me since St Trinian’s , but rather because she has the rare quality of being able to depict female queer experiences in a relatable and convincing way. (If you haven’t watched the film, or Summerland, another queer period drama starring Arterton, go and watch them now). It wasn’t until I rewatched the film for the purposes of this article that I noticed just how well Elizabeth Debicki portrays female queerness. In fact, the subtleties of Debicki’s Virginia, as opposed to Arterton’s Vita make for, in my opinion, a more convincing narrative of female queerness. Debicki and Arterton Vita and Virginia is a film, adapted from a play, which is in turn based on the love letters of authors Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf. You might be wondering, if it’s a historical-fiction film based on a sapphic relationship, surely you’re not asking ‘Is this good for women’s history?’? Well, actually, yes. The narrative doesn’t simply depict that a homoerotic relationship happened between the two women. It also feeds into a narrative that queer, in particular bisexual women are either sexually promiscuous, or mentally unstable. That’s not to say that these women weren’t these things, Vita, as we will explore, was certainly sexually promiscuous, and to say that Virginia wasn’t mentally unstable would be an oversight of a lifetime. My criticism of this depiction isn’t that these women weren’t promiscuous and mentally unwell. However, Vita wasn’t simply a woman who fell in love quickly and dramatically, and Virginia wasn’t just a woman who paced the floor waiting for Vita. To skip ahead, whilst this film is not bad for women’s history, there are ways it could better represent and advocate for both queer women’s history and women’s literary history. N.b. as well as homoerotic scandal, sexuality, and identity, this article will also reference Woolf’s mental health (who is suspected to have had bipolar disorder). Virginia Woolf died by suicide in 1941, and some aspects of the film are hard to watch. There will be specific trigger warnings prior to discussions of these scenes. Please feel free not to read these parts if you may be affected by them. Accuracy Virginia Woolf is an author who needs little introduction. Born to a middle-class family in South Kensington, she married a friend of her brother, Leonard Woolf, to whom she reportedly had no attraction to at the start of their marriage. Despite this, the Woolfs were, as they appear in the film, reliant on each other emotionally and professionally. Together with contemporaries including Nessa and Clive Bell, (Virginia’s sister and brother-in-law) the Woolfs helped form the ‘Bloomsbury Group’ (basically your intellectually elite, sexually liberal, potential revolutionaries) and co-founded The Hogarth Press, an oft struggling publishing house which was, much to Virginia’s chagrin, saved from ruin by Vita’s work. Virginia was of course also the author of works such as Mrs Dalloway , A Room of One’s Own, and Orlando , a semi-biographical novelisation about none other than Vita Sackville-West. Recent work concerning Virginia Woolf often cites her relationship with Vita Sackville-West as the trigger to her most successful literary period. Personally, I think this is hyperbolic. The work written throughout and after the relationship the women shared was exemplary, this much is true. But assigning Virginia's success to Vita's influence would not pass by feminists if Vita were a man, hence her literary talent is not attributed to her husband, despite his influence on the author. Vita Sackville-West as a child The film spends more time on the typically Sapphic life of Vita Sackville-West. Despite being the only child of the third Baron Sackville and his cousin-wife, Vita was barred from inheriting her father’s estate and title, because, well, she was a girl. This was a point of lifelong contention, and some have (inaccurately) suggested that this contributed to her relationships with women. If there is evidence in Vita’s childhood of her sexual leanings, it is in what she would later describe as being psychologically “divided in two”: one side being feminine, soft, submissive, and attracted to men, the other masculine, hard, aggressive, and attracted to women. Her granddaughter, Juliet, has said that “ From the age of 12, Vita was sure she was gay… She would play in a khaki uniform then come in and put on her silks and pearls. ” Perhaps we could best describe Vita Sackville-West as suffering with compulsory-heterosexuality? Both her parents had lovers throughout her childhood, whom Vita was not only aware of, but partially raised by. For example, her fluency in French was largely thanks to the time spent in the Parisian home of Sir John Murray-Scott, her mother’s lover. Whilst her father’s mistress, an opera singer, lived with the family at Knole. Vita seems to have continued this informal familiarity with love and sex as she grew up, embarking on several affairs throughout her teenage years, early adulthood and indeed her marriage. For example, by the time of her formal society debut in 1910, she had a sexual relationship with Rosamund Grosvenor and a perpetually chaotic love affair with Violet Keppel, later Trefusis, the daughter of Alice Keppel, mistress to Edward VII. Vita and Violet met at Helen Wolff’s school for girls with their sexual relationship starting in their teen years and continuing for much of their adult lives. Vita married Harold Nicholson in 1913, after what she described as a “completely chaste” courtship . The pair immediately embarked on an open marriage, with both Vita and Harold enjoying same-sex relationships. Vita had secured herself a double bearded marriage. Each gave the other liberty to pursue the love and freedom they wanted, however, they were also aware of their marital duties as upper-class, and they dutifully had two children, Benedict, born in 1914 and Nigel, in 1917. Vita would also begrudgingly fulfil her duties as a diplomat’s wife when she absolutely needed to. Now you might be wondering, so, what was Vita? Gay, Bi? Straight up confused? If you Google ‘Was Vita Sackville-West gay?’, you’ll find several articles about the ‘fabulous forgotten history of Vita Sackville West,’ her lesbianism, relationship with Virginia, and her and her husband’s astounding gayness. Not to burst the bubble, but to quote Nick Nelson in Heartstopper . “I’m bisexual, actually.” Both Vita and Harold had relationships with men and women, they both, shockingly, seem to have genuinely loved each other and had sex at least three times (they had a third stillborn son) so if we must label them (something I try not to do) then bisexual definitely appears to be the more fitting terminology here. It’s worth mentioning here that bisexuality and historical study is a tricky subject, largely because historians don’t seem to be fully aware that attraction to more than one gender is a possibility. There is also a justified reluctance to label historical figures with twenty-first century awareness, but that's a different discussion. Violet Trefusis (Keppel) and Vita Sackville-West To turn to the drama of Violet Keppel… Vita and Violet had been in a sort of exclusive ‘lesbian’ relationship since their teens, this came to a crashing halt when Violet, depressed and abandoned by Vita since her marriage, agreed to an arranged marriage to Denys Trefusis. Vita, as the irrational woman that she was, made Violet promise to never have sex with her husband during a trip to France in 1918. Violet in turn forced Denys to this sexless marriage as a caveat of her agreement, and in 1919 they married. Shortly afterwards, Vita and Violet ran off to France, but Violet was swiftly retrieved by her husband. In February 1920 when they ran off again, news of the drama reached London almost immediately, in desperation, both husbands followed the couple in a two-seater aeroplane and dragged the women back to England and to their marriages. Later that year, Harold told Vita that Violet had broken her promise and slept with Denys. Violet attempted to keep her hold on Vita with love letters throughout the year, and in 1921 Vita eloped with her again, being called back by Harold’s threats to break off their marriage (and likely restrict her from her sons). Vita returned to England, and Violet to Italy. This characteristic Sapphic-drama is the immediate pretext to the opening of the film, in which Vita, freshly returned to England, now wants to focus on her legitimacy as a writer, gain access to the elite ‘Bloomsbury Group’, and is absolutely fascinated by the elusive figure that is Virginia Woolf. The film opens with cut scenes of Harold and Vita giving a radio interview about their successful marriage, Vita’s mother threatening to remove her sons from her custody, Vita herself arriving at a party hosted in Bloomsbury, gazing in awe at Virginia dancing, and then pursuing both Virginia and a place for her own novels within The Hogarth Press. Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West with their dogs The film is largely told from Vita’s perspective and is based on the letters exchanged between Vita and Virginia from 1922-1928. Broadly speaking, the screenplay does a fair job of depicting their complex romance, its strengths lying in Arterton’s depiction of Vita as somewhat self-obsessed, whilst simultaneously disparaging of her talents as a writer, especially in comparison to Virginia. As you watch, you find yourself struggling to believe Vita’s genuine feelings. Is she using Virginia for access to the Press? Yet the viewer also understands that Vita’s published works are far more successful than that of Virginia’s, or indeed of The Hogarth Press in its entirety. The publishing of her work would boost the company’s reputation. Virginia and her husband are wary of Vita and her work, its popularity and how she fits into their world. Debicki, as Virginia, presents as frantic, confused, and socially freer than Vita. She does not share a desire to have wildly popular novels, though there is a recognition that slightly more successful publications would be financially beneficial. She is also conflicted by Vita’s person, does she follow her blindly, or does she stay where she is safe, in her apparently loveless marriage? Throughout the film, Virginia is in a state of queer confusion and obsession, and Vita pursues her with the same rigour and brief infatuation as she did her previous lovers, with little understanding of Virginia’s unstable personality. This is a clear case of obsession and control. Vita arriving at Nessa Bell's art show with Mary Campbell Vita eventually loses interest, and stops replying to Virginia’s letters, demonstrating her lack of understanding of the complexities of Virginia’s mental health. This is furthered by the scene which sees Vita bring another woman to Nessa’s art show. Virginia spirals, and the audience can understand her staring into the choppy water as a foreshadowing of her eventual suicide in the River Ouse. The obsessive writing of Orlando in the following scenes depicts both a manic episode of Virginia’s bipolar, and Vita’s malignant narcissism; as Virginia produces a novel based on the split lives, loves, masculinity and femininity of Vita Sackville-West, who then returns to Virginia, flattered by the attention. This appears to be a fairly accurate depiction of the development of their relationship in 1927-1928. It’s worth mentioning that much of the film is fictionalised and although based on letters and other primary sources, there is only so far a dramatisation can go in terms of accuracy. However, there are several moments which are interspersed throughout the film which assist the story's legitimacy. These include on Vita’s side: references to Violet and Vita’s elopements, Vita and Harold’s open marriage and her reluctance to partake in her duties as a diplomat’s wife, mention of their Garden Design at Sissinghurst, and Vita’s mother’s threats to remove the children from her custody due to Vita’s promiscuity. On Virginia’s side of events, notable accuracy comes in the form of the co-dependence of her marriage, the informality of the ‘Bloomsbury Group’, in particular their views on sexuality, medical advice which actually made her symptoms worse, and the literary creativity that Vita inspired in her. Photographing Orlando Sensitivity (TW: mention of sexual assault, s*lf-h*rm, and s*icide) Virginia instigates intimacy with Vita It feels more fitting to discuss the intricacies of their sexual relationship and Virginia’s mental health through a critical lens aiming at sensitivity rather than accuracy. Virginia Woolf’s sexual encounters were not as free and positively queer as Vita Sackville-West’s. In childhood, Virginia had been molested by her older half-brother Gerald Duckworth at six years-old. Virginia’s biographers believe that it was these experiences which led to her life-long fear of sexual relationships and masculinity, the abuse by her half-brother(s) and potentially also by her cousin is described by Virginia as being a consistent feature of her childhood, and has been discussed by Hermione Lee and Lyndall Gordon as fundamental to her character. These experiences would have undeniably had an impact on Virginia’s already precarious mental health, and can be used to understand her codependency and obsession both with her husband and Vita. The scenes depicting the Sapphic couple’s sexual relationship suggest that this was the first time Virginia enjoyed sex. Considering her writing of her relationship with Leonard this may be a slight exaggeration, however, there is a sense that with Vita, Virginia found fulfilment in her sexuality that had been hitherto repressed. Even if dramatised for the purposes of the film. Virginia in her first scenes The film faces the common difficulty of how to depict Virginia’s health without buying into the narrative of the hysterical woman. Historians and psychologists have suggested that Virginia had bipolar disorder, characterised by periods of intense depression and elevated moods, sometimes known as mania. During these periods of mania the individual will rarely sleep and often have increased anxiety, sometimes hallucinations, all of which are portrayed in the film. Several scenes allude to Virginia’s eventual suicide and this is particularly notable when Virginia is briefly suspected to have gone into the water after her sister’s art opening. This small but meaningful moment directly depicts Virginia’s inability to understand her own emotions (the viewer can understand her heartbreak over Vita more clearly than herself). This is followed by the writing process of Orlando, which arguably poses as a manifestation of Virginia’s mania concerning Vita, subsequently encouraged by Vita’s typified narcissism. Orlando is a love letter, featuring Vita as an English Noble named Orlando spanning multiple centuries and genders. Relationships such as that with Violet Keppel and Virginia are both featured throughout the narrative and the title character is an enigma to the very end. The novel is a complex biography of a complex individual, it continues to divide opinion of if you are meant to like Orlando or not, and thus, of Virginia’s true feelings towards her. Perhaps the best adjective would be obsession. On some levels, the pair seem to have shared a good understanding of the other, but their relationship feels unequal. Virginia’s love for Vita appears genuine, if obsessive. Vita’s love, on the other hand, is self-concerned, regarding the improvement of her own writing, engagement with the literary community she craves and, in some ways, about the power she could hold over her lovers. So, is this a fair representation? Of the women individually, it does feel fair, and in Virginia’s case in particular, sensitive; you can’t help but be struck by the constant expression of confusion, mild panic and anxiety that Debicki has. Arterton’s Vita is harsher, and less sympathetic. As a couple they aren’t greatly convincing, there is perhaps too much attention paid to their respective marriages, to feel as if they could have really had the impact on each other’s lives and literary careers that they did. Entertainment Like all historical-fiction, the point is to be entertaining before it is to be accurate. Which is why I hasten to add that although based on their letters, this film is not entirely accurate to the women it characterises and it can only speculate the gaps in the evidence. Regarding entertainment, the film is generally an enjoyable one. It is occasionally slow, and unless you know about Virginia’s experiences and Vita’s relationships, several of the references might go over your head. If you do understand these, however, they add to the entertainment brilliantly. Overall, Vita and Virginia is a film which aims to depict an adulterous Sapphic relationship without being vulgar. For all the words to describe this film, vulgarity is not one of them. Vita and Virginia manages to make a scandalous series of events natural and enjoyable to watch. Virginia later in the film, after a manic episode. Debicki's makeup is used to emphasise Virginia's insomnia and poor health at this moment. A stand out feature must be the wardrobe and set design. In particular, Vita’s silhouettes often depict the duality of how she considered her identity; split between the masculine, represented in clean tailored cuts intended to make Arterton appear taller than she is and dominant, and the feminine, shown in accessories, and glamourous make-up. She directly contrasts with the simpler femininity of the other women throughout the film, who wear more delicate, draped fabrics. Virginia’s wardrobe articulates her mental state and her lower social class. The fabrics for her outfits are noticeably lesser quality and the silhouettes are designed to be dishevelled. Often, her hair and makeup are used to present her worsening depression with great effect. Vita and Virginia are presented as flawed women and despite both being pretty unlikeable, they are easy to care for. Vita's costuming is a direct contrast to Virginia's Feminism The question of feminism when discussing Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf is an interesting one. Each are distinctly unique women, both shaped by their sex, identity, and experiences with men. Vita’s story, her sexual liberty, bearded relationship, and success in her professional and personal life is perhaps easier to depict as feminist in modern work. Her internal struggle regarding her sex and her inheritance as well as her determination to maintain her liberty and gain respect among her peers is admirable and relatable. Where she struggles against a recognisable patriarchal background, she gains sympathy and understanding. The modern audience enjoys a strong, independent woman. Virginia’s more tragic story, largely shaped by men, has often been subject to a feminist lens in an attempt to reclaim her story to fit modern definitions of gender, equality and sexuality. This film doesn’t really follow this pattern, and it is easy to forget that the Virginia on our screen was the wild, anarchical writer. It is Virginia’s, not Vita’s work which remains at the forefront of feminist literature. Vita and Virginia presents a narrative that Vita breathed life into Virginia throughout the narrative of this film, and that without her, Virginia would have struggled to be . Virginia’s writing is in danger of being pushed aside in this story, except of course for the work she produced about Vita. But, Virginia’s life was not about Vita, and the suggestion that it was, damages her impact on literary and feminist history. Is Vita and Virginia good for women’s history? Probably. Films like this one bring these individuals into the attention of audiences in an age when we can openly discuss the impact they had on each other as de facto muses, especially with the acknowledgement that Orlando is a love letter. But, as with any version of history, this shouldn’t be the only version of them. Both women were more than the people they loved, and I for one want to see Vita’s relationship with Violet explored on screen, and Virginia’s mental health, its causes and its repercussions shown in more depth. Further Reading: Vita and Virginia, dir. Chanya Button, (Bohemia Media, 2018), https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.3d8d1e48-e1bc-45d3-a4d2-aa2e34689b90?autoplay=0&ref_=atv_cf_strg_wb Beresford, George Charles, 'Woolf, (Adeline), Virginia', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004), < https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-1003284?rskey=pH0ozi&result=2> Gordon, Lyndall, Virginia Woolf: A Writer's Life, (Oxford University Press, 1984) Hochstrasser, T. J. , 'West, Victoria Mary [Vita] Sackville-', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2017), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/35903> Lee, Hermione, Virginia Woolf, ( Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1999) Woolf, Virginia, Orlando, (London, The Hogarth Press, 1928) Sackville-West, Vita, Woolf, Virginia, The Letters of Vita Sackville-West to Virginia Woolf, (London: Virago Press, 1992)

An integral part of our military history is the remembrance of those who lost their lives and gave their service to defending others. Towns and villages more often than not have a traditional war memorial from World War I or II taking centre stage in churchyards and cenotaphs. The names of local men carved on each Commonwealth or private grave remind us of their sacrifice. Yet how many women’s names have you seen? There are lots of important women in global services, however, men still greatly prevail when one thinks of the Army, Navy, or Royal Air Force. As someone with a very minor role in the armed services, in this article I aim to showcase the roles and dedication of women in World War I & II using their (lack of) memorials around the UK, specifically focusing on the British Army. A Woman’s Role: Women in front line combat is still statistically flat-lined despite it being legal to join all the Armed services in the UK. Recruitment targeting women for front line roles arguably falls short of standards. Only 12% of the British Army specifically, is female, with aims of increasing it to 25% in the next 10 years. Within this statistic; 9% are in non-combat positions (e.g. HR, logistics, catering, medical, and other auxiliary roles). These roles are the backbone of the military in any country no question. Without the men and women in these jobs, front line soldiers in combat simply would not function! It’s a small statistic, but women hold positions in support more than anywhere else in the army. It was only as recently as 2018, when the British MOD (Ministry of Defense) allowed women to serve openly in all branches of the army, with a previous law being overturned in 2014 stating women were only allowed in ‘supporting roles’, i.e. auxiliary roles, as they had been for centuries beforehand. In my opinion, this overturning of law is shockingly late considering the demanding and dangerous jobs women did during WW I & II. Prior to WW I & II there have been monuments, art, and literature dedicated to women about warfare and achievements. Often only individual achievements. We can see Roman and Greek praise and dedications to wives, sisters, or mothers, in funerary items, or to statues or plaques to Empresses, Queens, or Pharaohs. Cleopatra’s needle, Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple and hieroglyphics, Nefertiti’s tomb, and more are all types of monuments to women. However, women’s successes have been dismissed, buried, and overlooked by the men who ruled afterwards. This can mirror society today in part; War memorials tend to be male centric, forgetting the often unseen work of women which I explore more as the article progresses. Way back when, we were doing similar jobs to today’s 9% during in WW I & II. During both conflicts, you could be a nurse in the Queen Alexandra Imperial Nursing service, or join FANY (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry). In 1917 the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps was formed to solve the manpower decline, or join the ATS (Auxiliary Territory service). In 1941, women were then legally conscripted into supporting roles. Those who were physically able to work (even if they were married) were employed in munitions, the Land Army, nurses for the Red Cross or other, textile factories, and the auxiliary. By the end of WW II, 450,000 were employed by the armed forces (excluding Infantry roles). Over 74,000 British women were serving in anti-aircraft units near the front lines in the ATS. However, close combat roles remained off-limits. Members of the ATS were known as ‘Ack Ack girls’ who supported reconnaissance, finding and locating enemy pilots and camps, getting bearings, and observing enemy aircraft, but were barred from pulling the trigger on weaponry. This is demonstrated by the 93rd Searchlight Regiment: an all-female unit part of the Royal Artillery conducting anti-aircraft operations, based in Southern England. Unbelievably, the ATS was not recognized as a military regiment until 1941. A trial run of 54 ATS members was conducted in order to test a woman’s ability in dealing with the same physical and emotional conditions male soldiers suffered in wartime. This was the ‘Newark Experiment’ orchestrated by General Pile (General Officer Anti-Aircraft Commander-in-Chief). Sent to Wales, the experiment was a great success; ‘they showed themselves more effective, more horror inspiring and more blood-thirsty with their pick-helves than many a male sentry with his gun’ and ‘the girls lived like men, fought their fights like men and, alas, some died like men’ wrote Pile on the work of the ATS and subsequent formation of the 93rd Regiment. They were given uniforms after 1941, and a higher rate of pay was to be in order if women were doing the same job as male soldiers. However, they were not personally armed, and originally did not have the authorization to pull the trigger or give the fire control order on weaponry as mentioned. Each unit had a male soldier integrated who could actually fire the mortar based off the woman’s calculation. Units were based around the South West and East of England, with some in Western Europe. Around 389 of these women were killed in bombings. This is a staggering figure for women who were essentially considered as supporting non-combat roles in the law’s eyes. Memorials The vast majority of memorials are specifically for male infantry soldiers who deserve to be memorialized for their actions in warfare. Women’s achievements and dedications for their time are often forgotten – even in Remembrance services. Yet women both on the front lines or behind the lines, were equally important. This is why the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial was created. In 2005, the towering bronze memorial was unveiled on the 60th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day by the Queen, in the center of Whitehall near Downing Street. This was the first dedicated pride-of-place monument in the UK to all women during World War II, named the ‘Women in World War II memorial’. It commemorates the women who served and survived, or lost their lives in the war. 22 feet high and 16 feet long, it depicts the outfits and uniforms of all the services and police, munitions garments, the Land Army, welding gear, farming, Air Wardens, pilot goggles and aviator jackets. ATS uniforms are also included thanks to General Pile’s efforts in 1941. 17 total uniforms are on display on sculpted hooks – as if they were hung up ready for another working day. The monument was designed by John W. Mills, whose mother was a firefighter in WW II. It remembers the 7 million plus women UK wide who were involved in wartime efforts. Baroness Boothroyd expertly remarked at the unveiling: “(women) hung them up and let the men take the credit”. The Baroness’ remark encapsulates the public and general opinions. Having seen the monument in person, the dedication is imposing and bold. Black with gold lettering for the title, a huge literal block statement, of which I found to really force the public to view and understand the gravity of war and who was involved. It is not the typical memorial such as crosses and plaques, but it is successful in creating a powerful statement on the impacts of war on women. However, this was unveiled in 2005 when women were not permitted in front line combat roles. Hypocritical much? Rather the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial commemorates the dedicated women of their time period, despite the lack of actual combat the majority saw. In hindsight, this hypocrisy crumbles. But like usual there was and still is tension over this memorial concerning its glorification of war, heightened because it is a women’s only memorial which brings its own criticisms. The memorial names no women either despite there being numerous key figures at play such as women code-breakers in Bletchley Park, or spies of the SOE (Special Operations Executive), and nurses killed in bombing raids. It displays their empty shells – their uniform. Seen to represent all women, but there are no statues or depictions of individual women unlike the majority of statues that show male soldiers; depicting faces and figures. Women are not a tangible entity, with some arguing the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial is a denial to the real women who represented our country as their bodies and faces are not visualized. On the flip side, I’m simply liking that there is a proper dedicated monument in Whitehall! Looking further back, WW I has a few low status memorials, for example a reworked 13th century stained glass window in York minster church. A commemorative plaque titled ‘Women of the Empire’, was made and unveiled in 1925. The Bury War memorial in Lancashire also features depictions of women in Land Army uniform, commissioned in 1924. There are few and far between female names added in inscriptions on male dominated plaques and crosses, one has to dig for and peer closer to see the sparse female names at the bottom of memorials. Moreover, I like how this plaque acknowledges all women in the empire, and not solely British women. Leading for it to be pretty inclusive. ‘Women of the Empire Window’ Women of all backgrounds, races, and ethnicities were expected to help the war effort, and the memorials in Whitehall and York portray this because they picture the uniforms any woman would have worn. Bletchley Park has a Roll of Honour memorial which is constantly being added to, as new information is being discovered after society’s interests in feminine history has increased in popularity. 75% of those who worked at Bletchley were female. When VE Day hit, almost all gave up their career to marry and resume relative normality with most never revealing what their true role was. In 2011, the Queen further unveiled a memorial dedicated to Alan Turing – who worked at Bletchley as a lead code-breaker. His untimely suicide in 1954 brought attention to LGBTQ+ rights and perspectives. It was not just the women who worked behind the scenes during war. This lead to perspectives changing on equality in warfare, and the fact that both men and women should and have taken public credit for what they achieved. Yet, this usually comes well after the lifetime of the individuals involved are over. Although in my opinion, the work of spies is to remain unseen - maintaining secrets. Therefore, no war memorial or public accreditation is to be erected. However, more individual contributions have been recently recognized such as respected British spies Pippa Latour and British-American Virginia Hall aka ‘A Woman of No Importance’. Other notable women include Winston Churchill’s youngest daughter Mary Churchill, who served in the ATS. Plus, we all know that future Queen Elizabeth II was also a member of the ATS. She worked as a mechanic and driver, making her the first female head of state to actively participate in conflict. Women now From 1938-45, women employed in industrial jobs increased from 19% to 27% as a percentage of total British female population. British women in the Tri-service auxiliary roles during this time were estimated to be 640,000 by 1945, compared to over 5 million British men total in all combat and non-combat roles. A further 3 million coming from Allied nations (excluding the Soviet Union). Leaving the male total to be about 8.5 million. By these figures, just 2.13% of British women involved in the war effort overall were auxiliary personnel in the Army, Navy, and RAF combined. If split equally for the purposes of this article only, we get an estimate of 0.71% of females in each service total. This is vast if we think to today where 12% of the total British army itself is female, remembering that the 2.13% in WW II is women in all three services! Women were a small percentile, but were involved in the main backbone of the war effort. As discussed, nowadays 9% of serving females are in non-combat army roles, with the remaining 3% being combat and front line infantry. We have jumped from 0.71% to 9% in non-combat, and 0 to 3% in combat roles since the end of World War II. But what makes it more impressive is recently, the British Army has shrunk from 2.9 million soldiers in 1945, to about 82,000 infantry soldiers today. Totaling 112,000 in other roles - regular and reserve and excluding officers (a further 150,000 total if we include the Navy and RAF). A lot of numbers, but in terms of female representation; we have excelled in the ratio. The army has depleted, but female numbers have increased. If we choose to look deeper into the breakdown of gender in each regiment in the present day, the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps has 520 women serving compared to 300 men, and the Royal Army Dental Corps of 130 women to 90 men. They are the only two regiments which have a majority of females. Statistics are taken from a 2016 survey completed on diversity and gender in the army. These figures may have changed since the survey, but provide a good insight into gender breakdowns in the army. Since both regiments are auxiliary, women are still attracted and accepted into these roles, just as they were in WW II. However, there is huge variation in figures I have found whilst researching British women involved in WW II, but the fact remains the same; millions of women worldwide were killed and injured no matter how you count. Conclusions Women were vital to the war effort in both World Wars, but some argue it was simply expected to serve selflessly and perform duties during a time of conflict. The Newark Experiment by General Pile proved that women were capable of operating the heavy anti-aircraft machinery, had the physicality, and emotional intelligence to consistently do so. They contributed to the war effort and earned the ATS a place in military history, causing a perspective shift in the way we view a woman’s ability in battle. By having the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial forever display their uniform, we can preserve and celebrate those women publically. The memorial is great example of showcasing women’s achievements without exaggerating them for attention, which is what the developing ‘woke’ media can so often do. In my mind, the uniforms show an accurate portrayal of women’s roles at the time, and do precede similar duties undertaken today. The ‘Women of the Empire’ memorial window was specifically reworked and rededicated to all the women of WW I, showing an appreciation of servicewomen in a time when women did not have the right to vote until just after the war ended in 1918. The 9% of women today in non-combat, and 3% in front-line combat roles, show us the progress we have made in the army. Men are still the majority overall and are often thought of first when thinking of a war memorial, as more men did serve and die in battle. But, to have female auxiliaries commemorated during the world’s largest conflict to date, dictates how important women were and still are in war. Both in roles supporting men, or in their own right. There are a few other war memorials dedicated to women, but none generate the same prestige as the two I have discussed in this article. Women in WW I & II were thanked for their services in small and large capacities, and I hope we can continue to show our gratitude to more servicewomen and important individuals in the future. A Timeline of Women in the army 1899-1902: The Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Nursing Corps founded and expanded. 1907: FANY (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry) was formed. A crucial link between the front-lines and field hospitals, with ambulance drivers and Red Cross first aiders. 1915: A Women’s march in London was conducted in order to persuade the government to allow women in the workplace for the war effort. Undertaken before women had the right to vote. 1917: The Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps is used in response to the manpower crisis and supports duties in France and Belgium. 1917-18: Over 100,000 women are employed in industries which support the war effort. The number is most likely higher. 1938: ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service) formed (originally named the Queen Mary’s Army Auxiliary Corps). 1941 July: The ATS is recognized as a military service and its members are no longer volunteers – they are now paid service personnel. 1941 December: National conscription for women aged 20-30 years of age begins. In 1943, the age limit is increased to be most women of working age (generally 18 - 50 years of age) including married women. 1945 February: Future Queen Elizabeth II joins the ATS as a driver and mechanic. 8 May 1945: VE Day (Victory in Europe Day). Over 190,000 women are part of the ATS. 1949: The ATS was disbanded, and the WRAC (Women’s Royal Army Corps) is formed as its successor. In 1952 they are aligned with the British army ranks and standards. 1975: The Sex Discrimination Act is introduced – which continues the upholding of women in auxiliary and supporting roles only, despite petitions to change the law allowing women to serve in combat roles. 1991-92: Private Ellie Walton becomes the first female soldier to patrol with an arms and explosive dog in Northern Ireland. 1992: WRAC is disbanded and members join other regiments such as the Adjutant General Corps. 1999: Another petition is unsuccessfully launched against the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975. 2002: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) conclude that women are not fit for active service in close combat roles and women can affect ‘unit cohesion’ between men. 2009: The MOD states there was no statistical evidence for their earlier claims but continue to exclude women from close combat roles. 2014: The Women in Close Combat review lifted the ban on women employed only in supporting roles, with it coming into force in 2015. In 2018: Women are allowed in all branches of the military, including Special Forces and the Infantry. 2020 - 2023: Private Addy Carter, Captain Rosie Wild, and Lieutenant Hannah Knapton become the first females to pass P Company (Parachute Regiment), regarded as one of the toughest selections within the British army. Bibliography Women and War: A Historical Encyclopedia From Antiquity to the Present Vol. 2 [ONLINE] available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Women_and_War.html?id=lyZYS_GxglIC&redir_esc=y [Accessed 21 September 2023] 93rd Searchlight Regiment. 2022. [ONLINE] available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Searchlight_Regiment [Accessed 10 October 2023] Brigstock. K., 2007. Royal Artillery Searchlights. Royal Artillery Society Winter Meeting. Minutes from. [ONLINE] available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090443/http://www.army.mod.uk/images/images-microsites/RA/RASearchlights-Text-Final.doc [Accessed 10 October 2023] Tammy. P., 2003. Female Intelligence: Women and Espionage in the First World War. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/tammy-m-proctor-female-intelligence-women-and-espionage-in-the-first-world-war-new-york-new-york-university-press-2003-pp-205-3500-cloth/CAF221B1955E538224D836759D2150DE [Accessed 28 September 2023] Shaw. G., 2021. World’s oldest war memorial may have been identified in Syria . The Art Newspaper. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/05/28/worlds-oldest-war-memorial-may-have-been-identified-in-syria [Accessed 1 September 2023] Imperial War Museum. 2023. Women of the Empire – WW1 Window. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/30648 [Accessed 2 September 2023] Named Non-Royal Women. 2023. Public Statues and Sculpture Association . [ONLINE] available at: https://pssauk.org/women/categories/named-non-royal-women/page/3/ [Accessed 2 September 2023] Pruitt. S., 2023. Women in WWII Took on These Dangerous Military Jobs. History Channel. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.history.com/news/women-wwii-military-combat-front-lines [Accessed 1 September 2023] Atlas Obscura. 2019. Memorial to the Women of World War II. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/memorial-to-the-women-of-world-war-ii [Accessed 4 September 2023] National Army Museum. 2023. A timeline of women in the Army. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/timeline-women-army#:~:text=Women%20play%20a%20crucial%20role,even%20further%20back%20in%20time . [Accessed 2 September 2023] Nowaki. R., 2014. Nachthexen: Soviet Female Pilots in WW2. University of Hawaii. [ONLINE] available at: https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Nachthexen-SovietFemalePilotsinWWIIRochelleNowaki.pdf [Accessed 9 October 2023] Acknowledgments SUOTC for inspiration. Archaeology department University of Southampton.