Search Results

Mary Frith, AKA “Moll Cut-Purse” 1584-1659 Mary Frith, better known as “Moll Cutpurse” is one of those historical figures that often feels too elusive to properly pin down. Her crimes are fairly well-documented thanks in part to the Newgate Calendar chapbooks which appeared at the close of the eighteenth century, and a likely hyperbolic biography published in 1662, three years after her death, as well as, most usefully, a string of arrest records. Yet the woman herself is still somewhat of a mysterious figure. Perhaps the most important part about the legacy of Mary Frith in the history of women and women’s equality, isn’t where she got her nickname “Cut-purse”, but the fact that she turned her transgression of femininity into a performance. Was she transgender, a lesbian, a cross-dresser or just a woman trying to survive within a dangerous patriarchal society? Called a “roaring girl” by pamphleteers (early modern press), Mary Frith was a well-known thief on the streets of London, known for her years on the streets but also for her characteristic cross-dressing. Frith was born sometime in 1584, into a respectable working-class family, her father was a shoemaker. Several parts of her life remain unclear, enlightened only by a sensational biography published in 1662, three years after her death. Although some scholars have suggested that Frith herself may have participated in the authoring or research of this book, its legitimacy as an accurate narrative is mostly disbelieved. One thing we do know is that she had been troublesome ever since her youth and that efforts to reform her behaviour, for example, her uncle attempted to send her to New England, proved unsuccessful, she actually jumped overboard off the ship and swam back to shore. Understanding Frith from her childhood is perhaps too hopeful, we can gather from legitimate primary sources (legal and arresting reports) that Frith was on the streets from a young age, not because she explicitly needed to be, as with many other lower-class people in Elizabethan England, because she wanted to. This, and descriptions of her general attitude and demeanour indicate why Frith was long thought to be transgressive in her nature. She was not interested in the complexities of learning how to be a woman, she was ‘loud and boisterous’, had an inherent ‘abhorrence’ to children and crucially, is often described as ‘masculine’. In her criminal career, she often took to cross-dressing, the source of much of the controversy concerning her, this choice might have simply made her life easier, yet by the point of her early twenties she had turned her daily life into a performative event, itself a lucrative venture, and it is for cross-dressing, or rather, ‘public immorality” that she is arrested for on Christmas Day in 1611 and publicly humiliated for in January 1612 in front of a crowd of keen fans of “Moll Cutpurse”. But are these descriptions fair, do they accurately display a woman who might have actually been a transgender man or do they present a woman who was simply unhappy with the lot she was given? That’s a complex question that in reality, we can’t ever hope to answer. Yet, she almost exclusively dressed as a man throughout her adulthood, she engaged in masculine activities, and several arrest reports write with disgust about her swearing, drinking and smoking. But, there is no proof of anything which would further a transgender or even lesbian conclusion, bar perhaps an aversion to prostitution. So, what exactly makes this woman, firstly so popular, and secondly commit an act which arguably puts her life and her freedom at risk more than her actions of petty theft? Let’s consider the why first, as stated above, Frith would have had no real reason to sink into this life of crime in Southwark throughout her childhood. She and her family were lower class, yes, but that didn’t lower her chances of respectable employment. Many daughters throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were actually trained in their father’s profession, Frith would have likely had this opportunity herself, especially as there is no mention of brothers. Furthermore, lower-class women did in fact have a clear route for the development of careers in service. Teenage girls would regularly begin service as kitchen maids, or housemaids in the service of nobility, many others would be married by their early twenties, their husbands making enough in their own professions to allow the women to be housewives, as frith’s mother appears to be. Yet whilst still a teenager, Frith was arrested at least twice for petty theft, in 1600 and in 1602, indicating that she had no interest in traditional life. This simple fact makes her transgressive of seventeenth-century gender roles, but does it make her transgressive today? Not really, right? The options for women might have been secure but they weren’t exactly freedom, perhaps that freedom of choice was what Frith was searching for. But that doesn’t really explain the cross-dressing. If we think about crimes that women committed on the streets, I bet the first thing that comes to your mind is something like Nancy in Oliver Twist, she might be a thief but she is primarily a prostitute, inarguably a dangerous position, even if you weren’t in actuality soliciting you might still be attacked, assaulted or raped, or on the other hand, arrested for soliciting. So, the choice to parade in men’s clothing might have initially been a sort of protective and practical measure. Similarly, it would have initially given her a sense of anonymity, allowing her to thieve without recognition. This anonymity was a common thread among other women, who would dress as men to move through society with more ease, for some, this choice was unquestionably gendered, see those who dressed as or even lived as men to work, marry, or even serve in the military, Frith’s actions don’t appear to be driven by a rejection of gender, rather of gender roles, which were not singularly tied. Being a woman in early modern England was often a case of ornamentalism rather than practicality, Frith’s rejection of marriage, of children and of her prescribed gender role does not appear to be anything but a rejection of an arbitrary performance. This is argued based on a number of facts, firstly, her character remained female in her performance, secondly, she did live entirely as a woman in the later years of her life, thirdly, her home was inextricably feminine (although this doesn’t necessitate gender it does support an argument that her rejection of gender norms was performative only), finally, Mary Beard has described it most succinctly, there was “no template for what a powerful woman looks like, except for that she looks rather like a man”. Even Queen Elizabeth I avoided several restrictions and expectations of her gender throughout her reign. So, it is reasonable to assume that whilst Mary Frith actively transgressed her prescribed gender role, she was not necessarily driven by a sexual or gendered disparity. Finally, let's consider the impact of Mary Frith’s transvestitism. We know that Frith rejected the arbitrary and stifling restraints of her gender from her childhood on and her efforts to turn this cross-dressing into performance throughout her adult life was not only lucrative but also, unsurprisingly, divisive, we also know that her fans, for want of a better term were rather disappointed with the woman herself, most leaving out of boredom when she was stood in repentance at St Paul’s Cross in 1612, but did she impact other women in transgression or crime? Arguably yes, so much so that the authorities were specifically looking out for women dressed as men whilst ‘important’ men (read those who are institutionally misogynist) published transcripts and denouncements of these women. Frith wasn’t the first, and she wasn’t the last but she was certainly extremely influential. The true extent of Mary Frith’s transgressions of her prescribed gender will never be fully clear to us, but what we can conclude is that she was stifled within a patriarchal society, unhappy with the life she was supposed to have and decided, through criminality and drama, to create her own. A transgressor if ever that was one. Sources Kyte, Holly, Roaring Girls, (London: Harper Collins, 2019) 'Mary Frith, or Moll Cutpurse, the Roaring Girl', East End Women's Museum, (20/11/2016), < https://eastendwomensmuseum.org/blog/mary-frith >, [03/03/2023] 'DANGEROUS WOMEN: THE CROSS-DRESSING CAVALIER MARY FRITH', Historic Royal Palaces Blog, (28/02/2020), < https://blog.hrp.org.uk/curators/dangerous-women-the-cross-dressing-cavalier-mary-frith/>, [03/03/2023]

Someone you may not have any awareness of in this list of women and equality throughout history is British councillor Mavis Best. Best led a group of black women activists from Lewisham who successfully petitioned for the recall of 'Sus' Law, the colloquial term for section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act, which allowed arrest based solely on suspicion of a crime. Police used this periodically to stop, search, arrest, detain and assault young black men. Whilst also a single mother Best’s leadership of the Scrap Sus campaign was singularly successful, and her personal involvement in protest unprecedented. She has received little awareness for her efforts however and remains largely in obscurity. Best moved from Jamaica to the UK in her early 20s in 1961, joining her brothers and sister in Peckham. Best was immediately aware of the restrictions placed against her, finding difficulties in employment opportunities, housing, policing and general hostility from the wider population. She would later tell an interviewer in a radio appearance that “We didn’t have the language to speak about racism in those days. That comes later. But we knew they didn’t like us. ” This awareness allowed for further enlightenment to ongoing Black Rights movements across the country, in the 1970s she studied community development at Goldsmiths College, where she met Basil Manning, who pushed for her involvement in the growing ‘Scrap Sus’ campaign, burgeoning in Lewisham. Best would go on to lead the fight for the repeal of this act whilst also raising her three children as a single mother. 'Sus' Law is a colloquial term for section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act. This entitled the police to stop and search, and arrest anyone in a public space if there was suspicion that they intended to commit an offence. Although it was slightly more complex to bring such cases to trial, there was still a good chance that the arresting force could provide proof of suspicion. Within a fundamentally racist society, this law was typically and increasingly used against young black men in Metropolitan areas. Often young men and boys were simply looking into a shop window or walking down a street. The treatment they would then receive was something more reminiscent of 1930s Germany. They were detained for days, with no notice given to families, physically assaulted in police vans and stations, and later wrongly accused of criminal activities such as theft or conspiracy, only 10% of 'Sus' convictions had supplementary evidence to police testimony. It was the subject of protest among other causes in the 1980 and 1981 Race Riots around England before Best became involved and it is telling of the institutionalised racism in the British Police force that when questioned on the law in 1980, then Met commissioner Sir David McNee argued that there was such a high proportion of black people incarcerated thanks to the law because they were “over-represented in offences of robbery and other violent theft.” Best’s leadership of the “Scrap Sus” Campaign was arguably fundamental to its quick repeal once protests had begun, quickly enlisting co-campaigner Paul Boateng, Best is described to have been almost obsessive in the organisation of the campaign, immediately taking to leadership and organising protests in days and being so involved in them that she was often dragged away by the very police she was protesting; they produced leaflets, and flyers to hand out at public events, personally marshalled families and communities to attend hearings, drumming up support and witnesses for any and all cases she could, pushing the effort with her group that the only way to win was to directly challenge the authority, call them what they were, liars. Boateng described how she was singularly committed to the campaign, calling him “at all times of the day and night and on the weekends, and say: ‘X, Y or Z is happening. You need to get down here. And I did.” Perhaps the most notable action of Best and her ‘Scrap Sus’ Protestors was their direct challenge of arrests. Best herself would refuse to leave stations until arrested men were released into her care, explaining later that this step was necessary for her and the communities affected because “by then their parents were so debilitated by the whole thing that they couldn’t do anything.” 1981 is described as one of the worst years for British Race Relations: National Front Protests had closed and opened 1980 and 1981 on a sour note, this was followed in January with the New Cross House which Fire saw thirteen young black people die. Could the fire have been started thanks to an arson attack as part of the aforementioned fascist protests? The suspicion was ironically never addressed. Mass protests in the following months were met with indignant racism and violence and in April the violence arguably reached a climax with ‘Operation Swamp 81’ in Brixton. Operation Swamp, named for Thatcher’s statement that Britain was “swamped” with other cultures saw 1000 people stopped and 150 arrested, actions which saw an uprising in the following days and continual uneasiness and readiness to protest in the following months throughout all of London. Protesting lasted three years, with both Conservative and Labour Governments ignoring the community’s complaints and efforts until 1981 when a Home Affairs committee was eventually formed to address the issue. The law was repealed in August but most agreed it was too late to repair the damage that had already been done throughout the year. Mavis Best is not a single success story, she continued to fight for Black rights throughout her career over the following three decades, working for Camden Social Services, and working with several grassroots community projects in the 80s and 90s. Throughout it all, Best would lead the movements, speaking up when others couldn’t or were too afraid to. For example, Best pushed for support for young people from their local churches, worked with the Anti-Racist Alliance in the early 90s, and continued to campaign specifically for black individuals mistreated by the law, such as Stephen Lawrence and was part of a panel to review the implementation of the Macpherson Report, which had concluded that there was ‘institutionalised racism’ in the UK police forces. Additionally, she helped start and support two efforts to provide aid to African and African-Caribbean people: the Saturday Achievement Project and the Simba Family Project. Almost 20 years after her involvement with “Scrap Sus”, in 1998, Best was elected Labour Councillor in Greenwich, her long time colleague, Paul Boateng, this year had become a minister at the Home Office, and it was Boateng who appointed Best to the committee which oversaw community development trusts. In 2002 she established the Greenwich African Caribbean Organisation. Throughout the 00s her activism continued, setting up a commemoration for the black and enslaved people of Greenwich centred around a grace of an unknown Black Person, who saw that a ceremonial juneberry tree was planted at Charlton House to commemorate the black people of the borough, the house had been partially built on the proceeds of slavery. Furthermore, her activism wasn’t solely restricted to London; on a holiday to Jamaica, she became so enraptured with a local campaign concerning employment that she stayed to assist them for several months. Unfortunately, acknowledging the problem does not entirely solve it and institutionalised racism is arguably as prevalent in today’s society as it was in the 1970s, it’s just got to be more creative in its discrimination. Still, Best’s contribution, and that of the women she led and inspired throughout her activism and political career shouldn’t have faded into obscurity as it has, it was her leadership and fearlessness which helped bring about the end of a brutal and devastating technicality of the law, and it is with her continued legacy that we can work to address ongoing racism in our society. Source Rose, Steve, ‘“She was not a woman to back down@: the fearless Black campaigner who helped to scrap the UK’s ‘sus’ law’, The Guardian, (02/12/2022), < https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/29/she-was-not-a-woman-to-back-down-the-fearless-black-campaigner-who-helped-to-scrap-the-sus-law >, [03/03/2023] ‘Best, Mavis’, Hackney Museum, < https://museum-collection.hackney.gov.uk/names/AUTH4748 >, [03/03/2023] Maggs, Joseph, ‘Fighting Sus: then and now’ Race Relations, (04/04/2019), < https://irr.org.uk/article/fighting-sus-then-and-now/ >, [03/03/2023]

In 1869, Sophia Jex Blake arrived in historic Edinburgh on a heartfelt mission. She wanted to study medicine at Edinburgh University and achieve a degree, allowing her to work as a medical doctor. At this time, there was not one British University willing to train women as doctors. There were eight big British universities: four in Scotland and four in England and although women were beginning to be allowed onto arts courses, Medical Faculties were closed to them. In the United States and European university cities such as Paris, Zurich and Bologna, women were being welcomed into medical faculties in good numbers. Britain was lagging behind shamefully. Sophia, a bold and determined character, from a wealthy London family, was always an excellent networker and general charmer. She seemed to understand public relations and strategy in a thoroughly modern way. In Edinburgh, she worked the salons of Edinburgh Society and drew courage from a number of progressive men willing to back her in her campaign. (There were many women backing her too, but they were not in positions of power to enable her to progress). While some high-profile medical men were liberal and progressive, of the enlightened sort, plenty were misogynistic, patriarchal and Calvinistic in their ways, much preferring women in the home, or as it was known, the domestic sphere. The early days of the female suffrage saw rallies and campaigns brewing, but women involved were accused of being ‘unnatural’ ‘prostitutes’ and ‘men in skirts’. At first Edinburgh said yes to Sophia. Hurrah! But this quickly turned to a no: Boo! A vote in another governing body of the university had gone against Sophia, much to her disappointment. It was thought that the efforts for accommodating one woman would be unfeasible. For example, for reasons of decency, it was apparently essential to teach women separately and alter the course for their delicate ways. To this, Sophia said: ‘I will find more women to make this worthwhile!” And she did. By advertising in the Scotsman newspaper for more women to join her on the course at Edinburgh. The editor of the Scotsman, Alexander Russel became a great champion of the Edinburgh Seven. So much so that he married one of them – Helen Evans! Six women replied to Sophia’s advert, and Edinburgh agreed to have them on special terms from the autumn of 1869. Sir James Young Simpson, Charles Darwin, Robert Louis Stevenson and Queen Victoria’s daughters supported the women. But there were seriously aggrieved opposers too – Sir Robert Christison and Sir Joseph Lister. Christison was a respected toxicologist, pathologist and physician to the Queen. He had given compelling evidence at the trial of graverobbers, Burke and Hare. His views on women in medicine were extreme. He didn’t mind female nurses and midwives. But he thought women’s brains were too small to be medics. (It’s since been discovered that Einstein had a small brain, and it is the pathways of the brain that matter more than overall size). Christison also thought women were too fragile to cope with the gory and upsetting side of medicine. Which is ironic because women had been delivering babies and tending to battlefield wounds since time began. Two of the most potentially gruesome aspects to medical care – obstetrics and war injuries – were already proven areas of expertise for women. So, what was the real problem? Why were the misogynists so vehemently opposed? To understand this, and how the campaign against the women grew violent, unyielding and embittered, we have to follow the stages of dissent. It was never going to be easy, trialing women on the esteemed medical course for the first time, but the extent of the battle to oust them could never have been anticipated. The first few months on the course went quite smoothly for Sophia and her female colleagues. The women worked diligently, and some sympathetic professors taught them independently of the main course, while they also helped each other to learn at their shared Georgian townhouse in Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh. The first big exams loomed in April 1870, and something controversial happened at this point. Edith Pechey, one of the Edinburgh Seven, achieved the top mark in the Chemistry exam. (Isobel came top in Anatomy and the women were generally in the top 4 out of around 200 students). The person who gained the top mark in Chemistry was routinely awarded the Hope Scholarship, laid down by Professor Hope forty years before. But Professor Crum Brown, advised by Professor Robert Christison decided that the award should go to the second top student – a man. So, Edith was denied the prize. At this moment, Sophia and the others began to understand what a momentous task lay ahead. Would they ever be allowed to graduate and become doctors? After the Hope Scandal, things went downhill. The women were jeered and laughed at, blocked out of lectures and exams, and death threats were sent to their home. At times, the Edinburgh Seven required a bodyguard to get around the city and some kindly Irish students protected them. This dissent reached a peak in November 1870, when the women arrived at the daunting Surgeon’s Hall building in the Old Town of Edinburgh, to take an Anatomy exam. In the dusk of a late Autumn afternoon, they saw that a large gathering had formed, with the purpose of blocking them from entering the exam hall. The subtext was that if they did not gather certificates from exams successfully taken, then they could be denied the right to graduate. This was now the aim of the opposers – to keep them women as hobbyists instead of rival professionals. The riot was an ugly scene – drunken singing, pelting of the women, name calling and violence. All carried out by middle class, educated students, possibly backed by senior professors and aided by ‘street rowdies’. One journalist of the time noted that: ‘In an age when chivalry towards women is the social norm, these men should be ashamed of themselves.’ Were the women daunted? Did they flee the violent scene? No. They linked arms and stood firm. After an hour of noisy demonstrating, a janitor eventually let them into the exam hall, where they calmly took the paper and passed. You might think the University opposers would feel shame at this point and accept them women were here to stay? The opposite happened. The men who wanted to the women to leave doubled their efforts and dug in. They were looking for a way to oust the women for good and in January of 1871, Professor Christison thought he’d found a way. It was at a meeting of the board of the Infirmary that Sophia spoke up during a debate. She said that the way the Seven had been treated was appalling, especially in the riot. She went on the say that the riot had been started by Professor Christison’s assistant, Edward Cunningham Craig, and that he was drunk and used foul language. This was taken as defamation of character and Sophia was served a writ and taken to court in June 1871. Public opinion after the riot and with regard to the court case was very much with Sophia and the other women. However, the all-male jury in the court of session decided Sophia had defamed the character of Cunningham Craig and she was the loser. That said, he was only awarded a penny, which was a way of saying what they really thought about his behaviour. From then on, Sophia Jex Blake was an international star – a celebrity activist - and she very cleverly turned her thoughts to a London Campaign to change the law through an Act of Parliament at Westminster. Edinburgh became more and more awkward and were determined that women would not get the degree level on the course, so the women began to leave Edinburgh to qualify in Bern and Dublin. Sophia formed a training hospital for women in London along with Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. In 1876, the law changed so that women doctors should be given equal rights as men, and in 1878, Sophia Jex Blake returned to Edinburgh as Scotland’s first woman doctor. She worked in Edinburgh until her retirement. The other members of the Edinburgh Seven also spent their life devoted to girls’ education, medical training for women and medical care for women. Sophia Jex Blake, we salute you. You can buy Janey's book The Edinburgh Seven: the first women to study medicine here

Militant suffragette might not be a term you’d immediately associate with a disabled teacher, but militant suffragette is an accurate description for the largely overlooked Rosa May Billinghurst, or as she was to the people who knew her, May. Billinghurst was born in Lewisham in London in 1875, at a time when women’s rights movements were growing globally. In New Zealand, all women over 21 were enfranchised in 1891, and in South Australia women received the same, as well as the right to stand for parliament in 1895. In the USA, campaigners were fighting for enfranchisement alongside black citizens, across the pond, in the UK, working-class movements for enfranchisement had been ongoing since the 1830s, women, still unable to vote even if they were landowners, were uniting to form organisations to push for the equal right to vote. Political support was unsteady, in 1869, John Stuart Mill published an essay in support of enfranchising women, after winning election on a platform which had advocated for votes for women. Also in the 1860s, Mill presented a petition to Parliament which would allow women the vote, an act drafted by early women’s rights group The Kensington Society and signed by the likes of Florence Nightingale and Mary Somerville. However, by the time of Billinghurst’s birth and childhood, women were no closer to achieving the vote than they had been 20 years prior. The Women’s Suffrage Committee was formed in Manchester in 1867, with meetings attended by a young Emmeline Pankhurst. In 1897 the committee joined with the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies. But the women’s suffrage movement took off as Rosa May Billinghurst would have been able to engage with the movement herself, with Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel breaking off from the central suffrage movement to create the organisation which earned its members the name suffragette, The Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). To return to our protagonist: Billinghurst had suffered polio as a child, becoming paralyzed from the waist down. Her disability does not appear to have been much of a hindrance to her activism, but rather a simple fact of her existence. As a teen she became actively engaged with the Women’s Liberal Association, seemingly joining the WSPU in 1907, marking a move from any peaceful engagement to the militant actions recognisable of the movement. Billinghurst’s exact actions in protests and activism are annoyingly, often unclear. We do know that she was a very active participant involved in marches and protests following elections. Billinghurst also founded the Greenwich branch of the WSPU in 1910, acting as its first secretary and naturally taking part in its demonstrations. Regarding accessibility, she was slated to be in a wheelchair-like device, effectively a tricycle and became well known among the press as the “cripple suffragette”. Such was the militant activism that on the Greenwich branch’s first march she was arrested after being thrown out of her chair by police (although she was allegedly happy with the publicity). Police also targeted her by stranding her in her chair in an alleyway with flat tyres, even stealing the valves. Billinghurst would go on to use her tricycle/wheelchair in further protests, hiding rocks, pamphlets and ribbons under her skirts and blankets. Her disability also worked in her favour when she was arrested and sent to Holloway prison (the first time) for breaking a window. She had been sentenced to hard labour, but her disability confused guards so much that they didn’t actually assign her any work to do! However, she was not safe from the curse of all militant suffragettes. In 1913, sent to Holloway, this time for damaging letters in a postbox, Billinghurst went on hunger strike and was consequently force-fed via nasal tube for two weeks, this ripped her nostril and broke her tooth, leading to her being released after only two weeks. In case you needed another example of the deplorable British police force in the early twentieth century, during protests to petition the king in May 1914 Billinghurst had like her peers, chained herself and her wheelchair to the gates of Buckingham Palace, the reaction of the police was to tip her out of her chair, leaving her stranded. The Representation of the People Act was published in 1918 by a Government who had had to acknowledge the value of women throughout the Great War. Perhaps the passing of the Act was also a form of gratitude for the militant actions of the WSPU and suffragettes like Billinghurst putting their political freedom aside during the war. The act only enfranchised women to vote in national elections when aged 30 and over, so it wasn’t exactly successful, but it was a start. Billinghurst retired from activism at the passing of the bill and died in July 1953. Sources: ‘Remembering the Suffragettes: Rosa May Billinghurst (1875-1953)’, LSE Blog, (2022), < https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsehistory/2022/03/23/rosa-may-billinghurst-31-may-1875-29-july-1953/ >, [26/02/2023] ‘Who were the Suffragettes?’, Museum of London, < https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/museum-london/explore/who-were-suffragettes#:~:text=The%20Suffragettes%20were%20part%20of,in%20parliamentary%20and%20general%20elections .>, [26/02/2023] (Youtube video) Kellgren-Fozard, Jessica, ‘“The Crippled Suffragette”//Rosa May Billighurst’, in Historical Profiles, Jessica Kellgren-Fozard, (2021), < https://youtu.be/9RuL6Y6BcGs > [26/02/2023] Hanlon, Sheila, ‘Rosa May Billinghurst: Suffragette on Three Wheels’, Sheila Hanlon, < http://www.sheilahanlon.com/?page_id=1314 >, [26/02/2023] “Billinghurst Letters” and “Alice Ker Letters,” The Women’s Library, Autograph Collection, Vol XXIX, 9/29, 1912-1913 Abrams, Fran Freedom’s Cause: Lives of the Suffragettes , (London: Profile Books, 2003) Dove, Iris, Yours in the Cause: Suffragettes in Lewisham, Greenwhich and Woolwhich , (1988)

Hey there, girls and gays, I hope you’ve got your face paints, feather boas and skimpy outfits ready for any Pride event you’re heading to… In the meantime, here’s some recommendations for queer content and queer history that you could engage with this month, I’ve split them into books, podcasts and TV and film so you can pick and choose depending on what you want, regardless of what you fancy, I hope that you’ll learn, be entertained, or be inspired (and hopefully all three). Books/articles and lots of written stuff A Short History of Queer Women, by Kirsty Loehr Kirsty Loehr is a writer and English teacher (and a lesbian), and this is her first historical book, it’s a thoroughly entertaining short account of the history of women who love other women, a brilliant introduction and rebuttal of any suggestion that queer women didn’t exist before the twentieth-century (yes, I have been told that). Loehr has written this book to be engaging to a vast variety of audiences, and whilst as a queer historian (true in every sense) not much of what she wrote was news to me, she has done a fantastic job of accounting for all of them, and I must say, the chapter ‘Feminism and Football’ made even me, the world’s biggest hater of football, like football. Loehr also featured on a recent episode of the History Hit Podcast Betwixt the Sheets, (a bit later on in this article), and made a pretty good case for the use of the word ‘lesbian’. Gay History and Literature, Essays by Rictor Norton Rictor Norton is a queer historian and has accumulated his work onto a website, this was a go to resource when studying for much of my under- and post-graduate degrees, as Norton explains queer history in an accessible and engaging manner, you should definitely browse the site but here’s a couple of my favourite articles: Lesbian Marriages in 18th-century England Satire on Queen Anne and Her 'She-Favourite' Anne Lister’s Diaries Edited by Helena Whitbread, Lister’s diaries have been decoded and published in several volumes. If you don’t know, (I don’t know how you wouldn’t), Anne Lister was a raging lesbian, her marriage to Anne Walker is regarded to be the first lesbian marriage in Britain, and she wrote explicit accounts of her many relationships with women in code in her diaries. The history behind the diaries themselves is astounding, so definitely check it out. As well as providing insight and proof that lesbians did exist in history, the diaries are also a fascinating insight into her business practises and the upper classes of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Marsha P. Johnson For IWD and Women's History Month, we posted an article about the person who inspires generations of queer people, her life and her tragedies and her successes. Marsha P. Johnson was a powerful and complicated person, read about her for Pride Month. Podcasts Betwixt the Sheets: The History of Sex, Scandal and Society Now I will point out some more specific episodes of Betwixt that you should check out, but I want to advocate for this podcast overall. Kate Lister, the author of The Curious History of Sex, and general icon, presents this often rather risqué podcast for History Hit (you’ll find me advocating for History Hit’s podcasts a lot), a lot of the episodes are either queer, or queer adjacent, and the whole thing is just delightfully sexy, and very very gay. A History of Queer Women – an episode featuring Kirsty Loehr, really entertaining and basically a whistle stop tour of a bunch of sapphics through history Molly Houses – Kate chats to Rictor Norton (check out his website above) about queer men in eighteenth-century London, a really enjoyable episode that highlights how queer subcultures have always found a way to exist. Pirates – Did you know there was a lesbian couple on board a pirate ship? They’re only part of this episode but it’s still worth checking out. Drag Queens – Need I say more? Female Pirates – See above, but this one’s just about the ladies 😉 The First Queer Activist – I feel like this is self-explanatory Not Just the Tudors Another History Hit Podcast, this time hosted by the incomparable Suzannah Lipsomb (what did I say?) this one looks more specifically at early modern Europe, but don’t be fooled into thinking that there weren’t queers sprawling around (King James and George Villiers, anyone?). There are fewer episodes as the series looks at the period generally, so there’s a lot of episodes about politics and art and all the other good things, but let’s looks at the gay episodes shall we? Female Sodomy – sounds contradictory, which it is. This episode talks about queer women executed in a charged period of lesbo-phobia, as I like to call it, in the Southern Netherlands. Was Queenship the same around the World? – this episode chats about female power but also notably King Christina of Sweden, a woman who eventually abdicated her throne because she refused to get married to a bloke. The Woman Who was crowned King – This episode looks a little more in depth at the aforementioned King Christina and her years long close friendship with her ‘bedfellow’. The Queer Shakespeare: John Lyly – It’s queer. TV/Film Pride This iconic film is based on the true story of the partnership and the friendships that emerged between the mining community in a small village in South Wales and a bunch of gays as they supported each other in protests against Margaret Thatcher, the police and the conservative press. There are of course fictional elements of this film, but it also does a great job of encapsulating the joy and fear of this period, with a sobering undercurrent of the Aids crisis throughout the film. It’s a Sin This TV show doesn’t need much explanation, at least it shouldn’t. Featuring a group of friends living in London in the 80s, the show is written by Russell T Davies and based on his and his friends’ experiences throughout the Aids crisis in Britain. I’ll be honest, it’s a struggle to get through part of this show, but whilst the sad points are devastating, they are so important to the history of queer people, and the happy moments, such as the themes of found family that are integral to the plot, make for a beautiful watch. Gentleman Jack Now here’s a controversial opinion, I, a queer historian, am not a huge fan of history’s favourite lesbian. Anne Lister has an undeniably unlikable quality, and if you’ve studied her, you might share my opinion (give me a week or so and I’ll explain myself I promise). But, anyone can admit that Suranne Jones as the infamous Gentleman Jack is a pretty big moment for lesbian history, and the representation of queer love in the show is brilliantly messy and lightly pathetic, just as it often is in real life. Also, much of the show is taken verbatim from her decoded diaries, so for historical authenticity, it’s up there. This list isn’t exhaustive by any means, there’s a lot more out there, if you’ve read, listened or watched something cool, share it below! Happy protesting, and check back soon to read about some pretty cool queer women in eighteenth-century Wales.

Always “Susan” and “Mrs Stanton” in their letters, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are fundamental in the conversation of women’s rights, both in the USA and the rest of the Western World. Individually, they were influential, but their partnership is widely regarded to be a turning point in the women’s rights movement. This profile considers briefly these women individually before discussing their partnership, and the impact it had. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the daughter of a wealthy landowner was remarkably privileged in her upbringing, receiving an extensive education, including tutoring in Greek and advanced mathematics and learning law from her attorney/justice father. Stanton’s memoir gives insight into just how extensive the family’s wealth and precedence in New York was, she recollects three black male servants during her childhood, one of whom has been confirmed to be a slave. Stanton appears to have been fairly aware of the problem of her gender from an early age, writing that her father exclaimed that he wished she were a boy upon the death of her last surviving brother. However, she was not greatly affected during her early schooling, later, she inevitably encountered institutionalised gender differences when she was unable to attend university, as women were prohibited. The school she eventually was able to attend, the Troy Female Seminary, Stanton would go on to criticise for an over-reliance on the preaching of religion. Her beliefs for the rights of women were established fairly early, and are seen throughout her marriage; her vows omitted the word obey and pregnancies seem organised via some sort of birth control method, although the couple still produced seven, something which meant that the often restless Stanton was kept at home whilst her husband, a lawyer and abolitionist, travelled without her. It is on her honeymoon to England in 1840 that we can most clearly see the seeds of Stanton’s ‘feminism’. Here the couple attended the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London (I know, classic honeymoon antics…). Stanton wrote that she was appalled by the male delegates, who voted to prevent women from participating, even if they had been voted to be delegates of their respective abolitionist societies. In fact, these male delegates required the men to sit in a separate section, hidden by curtains (excusing William Lloyd Garrison, who disagreed with the ruling, and instead sat with the women). Stanton was the primary author of the 1848 Seneca Fall’s Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, modelled on the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This list of grievances included the wrongful denial of women’s right to vote, something which several co-organisers, including Lucretia Mott and Stanton’s husband, were concerned would ruin the meeting. However, approximately 300 men and women attended the convention, and Stanton’s Declaration, although controversial became the leading factor in spreading the women’s rights movement from 1848 onwards. Following this convention, Stanton would speak at the Rochester Women’s Rights Convention in New York two weeks later, an event organised by women who had attended the Seneca Falls convention. Also, in Stanton also participated in the 1850 National Women’s Rights Convention in the form of a letter “Should women hold office”. It was then tradition to open the convention with a letter from Stanton, who herself did not attend the convention until 1860. Susan B. Anthony, born into a Quaker family who shared a desire for social reform was almost predestined to become the face of the women’s rights movement. Susan’s early life followed tolerant teachings of her father’s religion (her mother was a baptist), and her parents specifically encouraged all of their children to be self-supporting, teaching them business and giving responsibilities at an early age. For one term, she attended the Quaker boarding school in Philadelphia, which her biographers have described as an unhappy period thanks to a strictness and humiliating atmosphere. This education ended according to the financial downturn of her family with the ‘Panic of 1837’. The family consequently sold most of their belongings at auction and Susan began teaching to provide another income. Unlike Stanton, Susan B. Anthony was not yet a fully established reformer by the time of their friendship. Introduced by a mutual friend, Amelia Bloomer (for whom “Bloomers” were actually named) Stanton and Anthoney are claimed to have immediately hit it off and as well as working together on reform, the pair became almost inseparable friends. In fact, Stanton’s biographers conclude that Stanton had spent more time with Anthony than with any other adult, including her husband, and their children actually came to think of Anthony as another mother. This was largely due to her consistent presence in the Stanton’s homes over the years, often caring for them to allow her friend to work in peace. In every home that the Stanton’s moved to after their move to New York City in 1861, a room was always set aside for Anthony. The pair’s success as coworkers is attributed, by biographers and the women themselves to their oppositional and thus complementary skills, Stanton would describe her and Anthony as complementary, where Anthony was an organiser and critic, Stanton was “rapid” and an intellectual writer. Throughout their close friendship, Anthony would regularly defer to Stanton, refusing to take office in any organisation which would place her above her friend. Throughout their partnership, Stanton and Anthony’s activism was unlike any others. Individual efforts for abolition, temperance and women’s rights within marriage took the forefront in the 1850s. Both women supported reform concerning women’s rights if their husbands were alcoholics (she had little opportunity for legal recourse even if he was abusive and left the family destitute, he could still win sole custody of any children upon separation). Together Stanton and Anthony formed the Women’s State Temperance Society in 1852. Stanton as President and Anthony ‘behind the scenes’. In support of alcoholism reform, Stanton publically criticised the reliance on religion in women’s marital lives, something which arguably led to her and Anthony’s ousting from the organisation a year later. Their move from temperance led to a focus on Women’s rights, and more specifically than that, Stanton and Anthony turned their attention to the recently passed Married Women’s Property Act, as a basis for further reform for women’s equality. This act intended to reform women’s rights upon their marriage. Existing matrimonial law meant that a woman effectively ceased to exist upon marriage, becoming an extension of her husband, a law set by English Common Law. The Act reformed this, meaning that women were able to retain identity, but still not properties. The pair petitioned the Judiciary Committee and the legislature was passed in 1860. Also throughout the 1850s both supported dress reform, citing practicality, although they, like many other women abandoned efforts to modernise dress to not draw attention from the movement itself. In 1860 Stanton again supported a women’s right to divorce, and further antagonised traditionalists with a pamphlet from the imagined perspective of a female slave, ‘The Slaves Appeal’. Anthony similarly engaged in anti-slavery activity throughout this period and both women were threatened by violence on their lecture tours. For the pair, anti-slavery and women’s rights came hand in hand, both seeing the legal status of women, especially those in marriage to have a similar grounding in male ownership. It is unsurprising that the two women were at the forefront of reviving the women’s rights movement as the Civil War ended. In December 1861 they submitted the first women’s suffrage petition directed to Congress during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, challenging the use of the specification ‘male’. In reaction to Congress refusing to permit women a space, Anthony announced her candidacy to run for Congress in October 1866. Largely unsuccessful, Anthony’s efforts did bring national attention to their efforts for women’s suffrage. In the same decade, the pair produced, edited and published a newspaper for women, The Revolution, from 1868-1870 and in 1869 formed the National Women’s Suffrage Association, then on travelling together to promote women’s rights. The pair weren't exactly popular with everyone though; this cartoon, produced in 1896 mocks Stanton and Anthony for being as important as George Washington, ironically, these women have been called the foremothers of Women’s equality. The decades of these women’s fight for women’s equality battled at times with society’s focus on the abolitionist movement, which many considered more important than women’s rights. For example, Stanton’s husband was an abolitionist but not a suffragist, whilst Horace Greeley as US Representative for founder and editor of the New York Tribune pleaded that women, “Remember that this is the Negro hour and your first duty is to go through the state and plead his claims.” This is despite many of the suffragists working for both purposes. They were told to wait until after the civil war and the enfranchisement of black people before pursuing women’s suffrage. However, several of these women, including Anthony and Stanton were unwilling to forget their own efforts, they saw an opportunity in this time of change, specifically in the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave the due process and equal protection under the law to “persons” without qualifications such as gender. When women attempted to vote under this rule, their votes were simply put into another box and not counted, or, as in Susan B. Anthony’s case in Rochester in November 1872, they were arrested. Acting on the basis of Anthony’s lawyer, she and her sisters successfully cast votes, they were arrested two weeks later. Trying to find a loophole by refusing bail in order to challenge the proceeding in court (under ‘federal habeas corpus’ which allows prisoners to challenge to cause of their arrest). Following this event, in December 1872, Stanton and Anthony wrote their New Departure Memorials to Congress, and although both were invited to read their memorials to the Senate Judiciary Committee (the group of senators who effectively judge the legality of pending legislation before it goes to Congress), it was rejected but again brought the issues to the forefront of politics. The next two decades of the women’s rights movement in the U.S. are complicated, divisions arose in the movement largely in part to the proposed Fifteenth Amendment, whilst Stanton and Anthony led a group (the NWSA) which pushed for total enfranchisement of all women (and people) regardless of race as well as a wide range of women’s issues, including divorce reform and equal pay. The alternative side, (the AWSA) did support the Amendment but argued that the enfranchisement of women was more beneficial than that of black men and that the movement should focus on women first. Failure of the Amendment to provide either meant that the two organisations merged in 1890, becoming the National American Women Suffrage Association, of which Stanton was initially president, then Anthony from 1892. The pair's lasting legacy is the drafting of the act which would eventually become the Nineteenth Amendment, which enfranchised women. The act was colloquially known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment and was passed in 1920, fourteen years after the death of Susan B. Anthony and eighteen after the death of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Their professional partnership gives insight into the reliance of women in the domestic sphere, just as Stanton fought for women’s liberty she was also homebound with seven children. Unmarried and childless, Anthony provided both intellectual aid and practical support to her friend and mentor. Perhaps without Anthony’s’ support, and without Stanton’s guidance, neither woman would have been able to have achieved half of their efforts for the rights of women. Sources Michals, Debra, ‘Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902)’, National Women’s History Museum, (2017), < https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/elizabeth-cady-stanton >, [25/02/2023] Hayward, Nancy, ‘Susan B. Anthony, (1820-1906)’, National Women’s History Museum, (2018), < https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/susan-b-anthony >, [25/02/2023] ‘Susan B. Anthony’, HISTORY, (09/03/2010 - 29/08/2022), < https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/susan-b-anthony >, [25/02/2023] June-Friesen, Katy, ‘Old Friends Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Made History Together’, National Endowment for the Humanities, Vol.35, No.4, < https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/julyaugust/feature/old-friends-elizabeth-cady-stanton-and-susan-b-anthony-made-histo >, [25/02/2023]

Catharine Dowman probably won’t be a name you’re familiar with, unless, of course you’re an ardent fan of early twentieth-century British Maritime History. In fact, even if you are, and even if you have visited Royal Museums Greenwich’s Cutty Sark, you still might not know who she is, which is a tragedy. So here is a long overdue article about this Suffragist who gave London one of it’s most famous maritime landmarks. (A note from Abby: if you’re not really bothered about maritime history don’t click off, I’m not going to start giving you ship facts, this is about Catharine.) Glossary: Deed poll - A legal document that must be filed to change your name in the UK Cutty Sark – Old Scots for ‘short skirt’ or ‘short petticoat’, the name of the ship comes from a Robert Burns poem ‘Tam o’Shanter’, a young witch ‘Nannie’ chases Tam, a drunk farmer after he catcalls her for her ‘Cutty Sark’ and she pulls off his horse’s tail! She’s the figurehead of the ship! Suffrage/Suffragette/Suffragist – protestors and activists for women’s right to vote. broadly speaking, Suffragettes were militant protesters and Suffragists were peaceful, though lines were often blurred. Barquentine – This is a type of sailing ship and simply means she had fewer sails than others, allowing for a much smaller crew but also slower travel. Brigantine – This is a smaller sailing vessel with two masts of different heights, this term is often shortened to ‘brig’ The Courtaulds and Public Service Catharine Courtauld (yes, that Courtauld) was born on the 25th May 1878, as the daughter of a wealthy textile family Catharine had an extensive education and a privileged upbringing. Contrary to any preconceptions you may have, the Courtaulds were unilaterally supportive of social reform, suffrage, and public causes; the family had a long history of funding hospitals, educational trusts, and charitable funds. Furthermore, prior to Catharine’s own birth, in 1866, two members of the family signed the first mass suffrage petition to Parliament! Catharine’s brothers Stephen and Samuel restored Eltham Palace (now an English Heritage site), and founded the Courtauld Institute of Art respectively. Their cousin, Katharina Mina Courtauld, ‘Min’, was a committed Suffragist who contributed to the 1911 Census Protests. Min’s half-sister, Elizabeth Courtauld, qualified as a doctor in 1901 and during WWI worked as an anaesthetist in a hospital 30km north of Paris. Catharine and her sister Sydney Renée were involved in the Mid Bucks Suffrage society, often hosting Garden Parties at their home in Frith Hill to fundraise for the cause, also selling art and sculptures for the effort. Moreover, Catherine was a founding member of the Artists’ Suffrage League and the Suffrage Atelier. Founding the League In 1907,and the Atelier in 1909, both organisations contributed artistic work to protests and propaganda efforts of the various Suffrage movements. Catharine’s work for the Suffrage Atelier were widely distributed in the form of postcards, and their typically witty nature made them popular and easily recognisable. (You can check out more of Catharine’s art and others in the Museum of London Collection !) Like other British Suffragettes and Suffragists, Catharine neglected activism during the outbreak of WWI to support the war effort. In 1918 (some) women in the UK were enfranchised, under the Representation of the People act. Specifically, women over the age of 30 who owned property, which included Catharine Dowman, although not the majority of the female population. Love and Scandal In 1912, Catharine met Mate Wilfred Dowman on board the Port Jackson, a Cadet Training Ship en route from London to Sydney, Australia. Scandalously, the married Dowman and Catharine fell in love. The couple would live together, unmarried(!) for several years, until Catharine changed her name by deed poll from Courtauld to Dowman in 1918. Unsurprisingly, this act was the final straw for Wilfred Dowman’s estranged wife Nellie and shortly afterwards she filed for divorce. Catharine and Wilfred were married in 1920. (Hurray for them?) Maritime Saviour The Cutty Sark, a former Tea Clipper and Merchant Navy ship, was spotted by Wilfred Dowman in Falmouth, Cornwall. Dowman recognised the ship as the one that overtook the ship which he had been an apprentice on in 1895. Cutty Sark had since been sold to the Portuguese, renamed the Ferreira and rerigged as a barquentine after a devastating storm. Dowman paid over the odds to have her returned to British ownership. An oft overlooked fact is that Catharine almost entirely footed the £3750 bill! (Approximately £108,700*) The Dowmans sold off other vessels that they already owned, including a brigantine called the Lady of Avenal, to buy Cutty Sark. They spent several years and a sizeable chunk of their finances to restore the ship to its former glory days as a sailing vessel. It made a public debut as the flagship of the Fowey Regatta in 1924, and for 16 years after this, she was moored in Falmouth as a training vessel for cadets. After Wilfred Dowman’s death in 1936, Catharine ‘sold’ the ship (for 10 shillings!) and donated £5000 (approximately £253,313*) for its upkeep to the Thames Nautical Training College. She was towed to Greenhithe, a village in Kent, where she served as an auxiliary vessel to HMS Worcester until 1950. After receiving considerable damage in January 1952, she was given to the Cutty Sark Preservation Society, and in 1954, moved to a custom-built dry dock in Greenwich where she remains. Despite a fire in 2007, 90% of the original ship materials remain intact! She is now a Grade 1 listed monument, open as a paid-entry museum as part of Royal Museums Greenwich. Her preservation is all thanks to Catharine Dowman’s generosity. If you want to learn more about Cutty Sark, Catharine, and Wilfred Dowman (and maybe even spot The HERstory Project’s founder in the flesh!) take a visit to Greenwich and the ship. If you’re lucky, Abby might even tell you about another Catherine’s influence on the British Tea Trade! *Currency conversions are completed by the National Archives Currency Calculator and only converts up to 2017 and does not take into account recent inflation, exact figures for 2023 would be much higher! Further reading: ‘Catharine Dowman’, Royal Museums Greenwich, (06/03/2018), https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/blog/catharine-dowman-preservation-cutty-sark ‘Catharine and Sydney Renee Courtauld’, Amersham Museum, https://amershammuseum.org/history/women-at-war/catharine-and-sydney-renee-courtauld/ Batchelor, Linda, ‘Saving Cutty Sark – The Legacy of Wilfred and Catharine Dowman’, National Maritime Museum, https://nmmc.co.uk/2023/06/saving-cutty-sark-the-legacy-of-wilfred-and-catharine-dowman/ ‘The Suffragettes’, Museum of London, https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/suffragettes

Easily one of the most overlooked artists of the 20th century, Sister Rosetta Tharpe paved the way for rock-n-roll artists long before rock-n-roll was a concept. Not only was she one of the first women to play the electric guitar, but she was one of the earliest rock stars who paved the way for the whole genre. She was using voice growl distortions and doing dramatic guitar performances when Elvis was just a toddler, yet for a long time she was overlooked in the conversations of rock-n-roll pioneers. Sister Rosetta Tharpe has openly been referenced as inspiration by so many icons, from Little Richard who openly raved about her performance changing his life to Beyoncé name dropping her in her song ‘Break my Soul - The Queen’s Mix’. So why is one of the founders of the genre, who inspired globally renowned artists not equally famous in the public’s memory? Let’s look at sister Rosetta Tharpe, the queer black trailblazer who pioneered the rock-n-roll revolution decades before any men came into the scene. ( To bes t understand and connect with her sound, here’s a Spotify playlist: beginners guide to Sister Rosetta Tharpe!) Born March 20th, 1915, Rosetta Tharpe (born Rosetta Nubin) was born in Cotton Plant, Arkansas. While both her parents were cotton pickers, her mother was both a preacher and a singer in the Church of God in Christ. At the time, black women preachers were practically unheard of, so we can thank this level of exposure to music and gospel to heavily influencing Tharpe so deeply. From a young age, she was extremely gifted at music, singing and playing guitar by age four. By six years old, she was already playing under the stage name Little Rosetta Nubin. She joined her mother in a traveling evangelical group across the American South, becoming well known among the southern gospel community where they travelled. After traveling, they settled in Chicago. This is where she developed her style of music, fusing blues, jazz and gospel music to create her distinct sound. Not only was she one of the few black woman guitarists, but her use of distortion on the guitar was ground-breaking and surprised audiences wherever she played. At 19, she married Thomas Tharpe, a preacher from the church she grew up in. While the marriage didn’t last, she adopted her husband’s surname as her stage name and ultimately created her name as we know it now, ‘Sister Rosetta Tharpe’. Her strong and distinctive voice and guitar playing paired with her electric guitar made for extremely unconventional gospel music, which both attracted certain crowds and isolated others. By 1938, she performed at the historic Cotton Club Revue, which had seen the likes of Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong. For most of the white audience members, her performance was the first time seeing a black woman perform, let alone perform her genre bending guitar routines. She released her first single ’Rock Me’ at 23, which fused gospel with rock’n’roll rhythms and tempos. Her first single made her a commercial success and she became one of the first commercially successful gospel singers. Not only was being a female guitarist in a male dominated industry, being a black woman in a predominately white industry was extremely difficult, and she had to fight nonstop to reach the level of fame that she achieved. Tharpe performed a couple of times with the Jordanaires in the early 1940s, where she had to deal with institutional segregation and racism while traveling from city to city. On tour, hotels would refuse her entrance, so Tharpe would have to sleep on buses. Restaurants didn’t allow her to eat inside so she would go to the back end of the restaurant to eat outside while performing to mixed audiences. Institutionalized racism wasn’t the only hardship she endured. Her approach to gospel music was very unconventional at the time, combining religious and secular music styles to make her own sound. Her music was a fusion of gospel and rock n roll, and this translated into her guitar style, but also her lyrics. Her first single “Rock Me” openly praised her love and sexuality, which left gospel audiences to feel scandalized by her music. In the chorus, she sings, “You hold me in the bosom/Till the storms of life is over/Rock me in the cradle of our love/Only feed me till I want no more”. The chorus can be both interpreted as a reference to a lover or to her religion. Even though it seems tame by our standards, the double entendre in the lyrics was quite scandalous for the gospel community, and new for the secular community, making the marriage between the two in her lyrics radical. Her most famous song “ Strange Things Happening Everyday” , had references to historic moments of the 1940s, from the end of WW2 to Jackie Robinson becoming the first black MLB player. In this song, she seamlessly translated the experience of living in the 1940s into her music, which made her especially popular among black WW2 soldiers. This song became the first gospel song to reach the mainstream charts. Sister Rosetta Tharpe continued being true to herself through her music and personal expression, never changing her sounds or her persona to accommodate mainstream music at the time, or the expectations of her as a black gospel singer, which can and should be seen as revolutionary. Sister Rosetta Tharpe was openly bisexual within the music industry in the 1940s, when bisexuality was seen as a cardinal sin, especially within the gospel community. While her music always had a gospel core, many of her songs were an open praise to her sexuality. In 1946, Sister Rosetta Tharpe saw Marie Knight perform at a concert in New York, and two weeks later began performing together on tour. The duo would perform together until 1950 as the two became creative and romantic partners. Several biographical accounts described how they didn't hide their sexuality from people except their audience, and that their relationship was an open secret within the music industry. Unfortunately, their rumoured relationship was a big topic discussed among gospel circles with no confirmation due to attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community at the time, but now we can look back and praise her for her unabashed queerness in and outside her music. Not many people highlight her bisexual identity as a part of her legacy, but it's central to her personal musical evolution and the larger evolution of the rock genre. With the decline of gospel music and the rise of predominantly white male rock genre, her popularity began to wane. Sister Rosetta Tharpe still performed to loyal niche audiences, specifically with British audiences, where she had a mini resurgence in her career after touring with black Blues icons around England until she tragically passed away at 53 years old in 1973 from a stroke and was buried in Philadelphia. Sister Rosetta Tharpe’s legacy is such an important one in the context of music history, but only in recent years has she been receiving her deserved accolades for effectively being the first gospel and rock star. Her guitar techniques alone inspired Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley’s guitar styles. Johnny Cash even cited her as one of his earliest heroes at his rock-n-roll induction speech. She inspired a whole host of legendary musical icons outside of rock-n-roll, with Aretha Franklin and Tina Turner citing her as a key vocal and performance influence. You’d expect someone as monumental to have a biopic, or books written about them. Even though she was one of the biggest gospel stars and had gospel and rock legends several rock legends praise her, her grave was unmarked for over thirty years. The most recognition she had received until the early 2000s was a 32 cent commemorative US postal service stamp (which is not the flex they thought it was) in 1998. In 2007, she was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame, which started a gentle revival of her name and legacy. Over the years, news publications would from time to time do a short special on her, but it wasn’t until 2018 that she would be recognized for her early influence in rock-n-roll. Sister Rosetta Tharpe was finally inducted in the rock-n-roll Hall of Fame in May 2018, which was celebrated with several tribute performances performed by talented black artists, like Felicia Collins and Questlove. Sister Rosetta Tharpe even had a short appearance in the recent Elvis biopic, which may not be entirely the accolades she deserves, but is a start to the flowers and accolades that this queer black icon deserves. Further Reading: Diaz-Hurtado, Jessica. ‘Forebears: Sister Rosetta Tharpe, The Godmother of Rock “N” Roll’. NPR , 24 August 2017, sec. Music. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/544226085/forebears-sister-rosetta-tharpe-the-god mother-of-rock-n-roll . Accessed 07/07/2023 Hermes, Will. ‘Why Sister Rosetta Tharpe Belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’. Rolling Stone (blog), 13 December 2017. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/why-sister-rosetta-tharpe-belong s-in-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-123738/ . Accessed 07/07/2023 https://www.facebook.com/erin.elyse9 . ‘Queer, Black & Blue: Sister Rosetta Tharpe Is Muva of Them All’. AFROPUNK, 7 March 2019. https://afropunk.com/2019/03/rosetta-tharpe/ . Accessed 07/07/2023 ✂️ Johnny Cash Cites Sister Rosetta Tharpe as His Earliest Hero . Accessed 23 July 2023. https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkxz6lLQRNCRioARVhyDTuplb3k9-0C6QZP . Sister Rosetta Tharpe. Rock Me . Lonesome Road, 1938. Wald, Gayle. Shout, Sister, Shout! The Untold Story of Rock-and-Roll Trailblazer Sister Rosetta Tharpe . Boston: Beacon Press, 2007. Accessed 07/07/2023

Thick winged eyeliner and striking colours of blue and gold are utilised in many modern portrayals of ancient Egyptians, but how accurate is this design? Makeup, cosmetic tools, and cosmetic containers have been found across Egypt, dating as far back as the predynastic Naqada periods (dated to 4000 - 3000 BC), where intricate cosmetic spoons were carved out of carob wood and used by people of all walks of life. Cosmetology was likely not reserved for the wealthy, and was accessible to all classes, albeit more prevalent among the rich. In this, I will consider a collection of makeup and beauty related artefacts found across Egypt. This collection, whilst not originally a set, represents cosmetic usage and a focus on appearance in the New Kingdom of Egypt, which is considered to date from 1550 BC to 1069 BC. Object 1 - A swivel top ivory pigment jar (The Met) Object 1 Object 1 is an early 18th dynasty swivel topped cosmetic jar that now resides in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It was discovered in the head of a coffin in Thebes, alongside other vessels and small trinkets, such as several ivory combs, and is dated between 1550 BC and 1458 BC. It is likely that it once held different types of dry or powdered cosmetics, such as a form of blush. It had inlaid coloured decorations of Egyptian Blue within the rosette pattern that is carved into the ivory. It would have been used after the morning bath and integrated as part of a daily routine, alongside body oils and perfumes, as there was a focus on hygiene and appearance at this time. Object 2 - Decorated Cosmetic Spoon (UCL Petrie Museum) Object 2 Object 2 is a late 18th dynasty carved and highly decorated cosmetic spoon, which is sometimes referred to as a ‘toilet spoon’ that is held in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology. It was interred in the tomb of the Egyptian governor Menena at the site of Sedment-el-Jebel in Lower Egypt. It has several decorative motifs with the shape of the ankh, which represents life, and several lotus flowers used throughout. This focus of decorative motifs which symbolise life and rebirth may indicate the importance of makeup and its implements in the daily life of many Egyptian people. The most striking decoration is of a naked woman with an instrument, likely a lute, who forms the main body of the spoon, with her standing in a boat which forms the base. Ducks and fish are also depicted around the base with other natural imagery. The intricateness of this design and the care taken to carve it is highly telling in the status that makeup and the practitioners of it held within Egyptian society. Object 3 - Cosmetic Set (The Met) Object 3 Object 3 is a collection of cosmetic tools that focus on the removal of hair, as seen by its inclusion of a razor, a whetstone, and tweezers. The collection also includes a tube of kohl, and a mirror. This collection has a tentative date of between 1550 BC and 1458 BC, placing it firmly in the 18th dynasty. This set is likely that of a wealthy person, as mirrors were not common objects in ancient Egypt, with the reflective surface being highly polished metals. They, like this one, are often very highly decorated and were mostly used for grooming purposes, especially when linked with kohl, which was utilised as a form of eyeliner and brow filler. The hair removal implements also indicate that this was owned by someone of higher status, as it is seen that the wealthier were more likely to remove the hair, primarily because of financials, but also as they commonly had lives where wigs were not an inconvenience, unlike the labourers. The Purpose of Makeup These objects provide an overview of a makeup set that would have been used in Egypt’s New Kingdom, primarily within the 18th dynasty. As a whole, makeup was a practical tool within Ancient Egypt, due to the kohl being used as a tool to protect the eyes and delicate skin from the harsh glare of the sun, and its reflection from the Nile and the desert sand. Kohl itself is also thought to have had some form of antibacterial and antimicrobial elements once it had been applied to the skin and eyes. The origins of Egyptian words also exposes how integral the usage of makeup was in their society. The Egyptian term for makeup palette is derived from the term ‘to protect’ showing this alternate use to shield the eyes and protect from germs. In the same way, the Egyptian term for makeup artist is derived from their term for writing and engraving, and due to the status of scribes within Egyptian society, it is assumed and understood that skill was required to properly apply makeup and that it was seen as an important role to be able to do so. The removal of the hair is also often seen in ancient Egyptian bodies, likely done in an effort to keep the person cooler in the extreme heat. It is thought that the use of wigs rose after this as a way to block the sun reaching the neck and head, whilst still allowing for the movement of air through the netting and therefore providing a cooling effect. It could also be a deterrent to pests, such as head lice that thrive in natural hair. It seems that the decision to remove the hair is entirely self preferential, but it is likely that it was considered a status symbol to wear a wig. Throughout some periods of the New Kingdom, archaeologists are aware of strict rules regarding hairstyle, especially related to class, but this is not easily seen within the record. Makeup also played a role in the ancient Egyptian religion and was associated differently with many of the deities in their pantheon. Horus was often depicted with thick black kohl surrounding his eyes, and Isis is often shown with red lipstick. It is also thought that it was believed that makeup had the power to reinvigorate and transform those that wore it into gods and protected them from evil spirits that may wish them harm, especially in the afterlife. Coffin texts that were utilised in the funerary process also included spells that gave instructions for makeup usage for the afterlife. It is reinforced within Egyptian art of both Pharaohs and Gods that makeup was utilised and seen as a powerful tool that was highly respected for all of its uses. Modern Day Applications Dramatic, thick eyeliner that has been inspired, or pays homage to Ancient Egypt, has become a staple in many fashion magazines and in film. Elizabeth Taylor’s 1963 depiction of Cleopatra cemented her as a sex symbol and perpetrated the Western ideal of ancient Egyptian peoples as being glamorous and highly decorated. This is increasingly seen throughout visual media, with Hollywood blockbuster movies such as 1999’s ‘The Mummy’ which goes to the extreme with the character of Anck-su-namun wearing full body paint that was used to identify whether she had been touched by anyone other than the Pharaoh himself. This link between Egyptian art and sexuality is continually perpetuated throughout the media with the ideal being increasingly fetishised, especially in the West. There is also no historical evidence of makeup being used in this way throughout Egypt, thereby allowing for this glamorizations to become the publically understood view of ancient Egypt. Makeup was a practical tool, a medical tool, and yes maybe a beauty tool, but it was certainly more than just a way for women to make themselves presentable for men. Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra in the 1963 film 'Cleopatra' where she is depicted with heavy makeup and a full headdress The character Anck-Su-Namun from the 1999 hit film 'The Mummy' who is stylised with body paint and golden accents Vogue also curates numerous displays dedicated to channelling ancient Egyptian style in their magazine. Articles such as “Egyptian Magic! 14 Ways to Channel Your Inner Cleopatra This Week” have been published to promote different makeup items and brands, utilising the allure of ancient Egypt and the perception that they were glamorous people. Articles such as this one have no real basis in history, and only further the Western glorification of Egyptian women. They aid women in feeling more ‘exotic’ but can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and the sexualisation of women. This is furthered by a 2017 photoshoot of Rihanna that was completed by Vogue Arabia, in which she was depicted as Nefertiti with bold colours and thick eyeliner. This was a glamorous reproduction of ancient Egyptian style that again has no real basis in historical fact, although it did depict a beautiful recreation of Nefertiti’s crown as seen in her famous bust. However, it has been considered by some to be a display of appropriation and once again allowing for the ideal of ancient Egypt to spread further from its truth. The article being published by Vogue Arabia also adds another layer of discourse to this, where the article can be seen as a reclamation of the western romanticization of Eastern beauty, or alternatively, as perpetuating these romantic notions of Eastern history further onto the Western audience. Rihanna herself is Barbadian and of other broadly European and African descent, decidedly not Arabic or Egyptian. However, despite the negative connotations that many modern uses of Egyptian style bring to light, the protective hairstyles and wigs that were utilised have stood the test of time and are still utilised by mostly black communities in the modern day. Rihanna on the cover of Vogue, stylised like the Nefertiti bust These women and companies reinforce Egyptian stereotypes regarding beauty and put forth the view of vanity, rather than understanding the religious, spiritual, and practical uses that makeup was used for at this time. The public view of makeup has become critical and bitter in recent years with many condemning overuse as a entrapment tool, however, they fail to understand deep historical ties and have little respect for the history and story that comes along with the development and pervasiveness of makeup as an artform, as well as part of daily life. Further Reading: Baduel, N. (2005). Tegumentary Paint and Cosmetic Palettes in Predynastic Egypt. The Impact of Those Artefacts on the Birth of the Monarchy. In: Origin of the State . L’Egypte pré- et protodynastique. Les origines de l’Etat Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Origin of the State. Toulouse, France: Origines, pp.12–13. Buckley, R. (2012). Time to Wake up to make-up. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics , 32(2012), pp.443–445. ISSN 0275-5408. Fletcher, J. (2005). The Decorated Body in Ancient Egypt: In: The Clothed Body in the Ancient World . Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp.3–13. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1w0dcp5.6. Healy, M. (2013). New Kingdom Egypt . Bloomsbury Publishing. O’Neill, B. (2011). Reflections of Eternity: An Overview on Egyptian Mirrors from Prehistory to the New Kingdom. Egyptological . Scott, D.A. (2014). A review of ancient Egyptian pigments and cosmetics. app.dimensions.ai , [online] 61(4), pp.185–202. doi:10.1179/2047058414y.0000000162. Tapsoba, I., ArbaultS., Walter, P. and Amatore, C. (2010). Finding Out Egyptian Gods’ Secret Using Analytical Chemistry: Biomedical Properties of Egyptian Black Makeup Revealed by Amperometry at Single Cells. Analytical Chemistry , 82(2), pp.457–460. doi:10.1021/ac902348g.

When historians mention European Renaissance literature, there are several names that get tossed into conversation without a second thought: Shakespeare, Petrarch, Castiglione, More, Celtic, Donne, Erasmus. This ‘elite’ club of, you guessed it, Dead White Men , easily pass historians' tests of true and legendary work. Making their way into the literary canon without question, this restrictive club has posed such a large problem that even gender historians have questioned whether women had a hand in early modern European culture. No historian’s argument is quite as famous as Joan Kelly’s 1977 essay, “Did Women have a Renaissance?” Kelly, one of the pioneering forces in gender history, argues that European women did not have a cultural Renaissance. Kelly posits the structures of Renaissance society initiated a more organised and centralised patriarchal government and culture that kept women more constrained to the home than ever before, consequently making it impossible for women to develop a public voice. But the Renaissance was a long period, stretching from the fourteenth-seventeenth century, some 400 years of incredible cultural production. It would be rewriting history (something men have always done quite well) to deny that across this stretch of time no women wrote or published. And indeed, the list of women writing during this period could form a canon of its own. To say nothing of the women who funded and supported the production of the books’ historians pour over in archives today, or the women whose homes, courts, and letters supported the work of the great corpus of Dead White Men , an oversight that ignores the material support individuals provided that allowed book production to occur. This article looks to recover the work of literary women during the Renaissance, putting to rest Kelly’s thesis and showing the force of women in Renaissance literary culture. Women who Wrote Despite the overwhelming focus on the Dead White Men’s Club in Renaissance scholarship, a substantial number of women wrote during the Renaissance period. The list is long enough to form its own elite club: Theresa D’Avilla, Caritas Pirckheimer, Christine de Pizan, Maria de Zayas e Sotomayor, Margaret Cavendish, Marguerite de Navarre, Dona Valentina de Pinelo, and Louise Labé, just to name a few. It is important to note that this group of women were elite in their own right. Literacy was still restricted to those who could afford to pay the immense costs of education, meaning most men and women who worked as labourers, journeymen, and peasants could not read or write. Restrictions on literacy were even more intense for women, and the authors of the period were nearly all of wealthy or noble backgrounds. It is this privilege, alongside their literary capabilities, that allowed their names to grace title pages. Kelly’s work does acknowledge some of these women, but she immediately discounts their work as simply parroting the styles and ideas of male authors. Kelly argues that women could only be considered as having their own Renaissance if they used literature to assert a cohesive feminine viewpoint and voice that differentiated from male writers. Throughout the 1970s when Kelly wrote, the existence of some universal feminine viewpoint was already being problematised within feminist movements. Arguments like Kelly’s, proposing that women shared universal concerns, often saw the experiences of women with the most power in a society, namely white, cis, straight, middle-class women, dominate discussions of the problems facing all women. Thus, the specific issues faced by women of colour, queer women, poor women, disabled women, etc. were disregarded as legitimate feminist concerns. If a universal feminine viewpoint does not exist today, how can we expect one to have existed during the Renaissance? Like women writing today, the women of the Renaissance wrote for numerous different reasons and from varied social positions. Thus, the topic and concerns they addressed in their writings equally varied. We cannot expect the writings of someone like Marguerite de Navarre, a princess and sister to the King of France, to echo the concerns of the daughter of a German lawyer, nun and poet Caritas Pirckheimer. So, it makes sense that reading across the writings of Renaissance women, a range of feminine voices emerge, each with differing concerns and focuses. Comparing the literary careers of Christine de Pizan and Margaret Cavendish gives us insight into the variety of women's writing that existed across the Renaissance period. Christine de Pizan was born in Venice in 1364, but as a child her family relocated to France when her father took a position as the French king Charles V’s physician. As a young teenager, Christine’s Father married her to a French nobleman, and she soon started a family of her own. But her husband died shortly after, leaving Christine in tough financial straits. Most women in her position would have remarried to secure financial stability, but Christine had another idea. Christine’s position in society granted her the good fortune of receiving a rigorous Italian humanist education as well as access to well-connected patrons within the French royal court. She soon set herself up as a court writer, securing the patronage of powerful men such as the Duke of Burgundy. This patronage was central to her success. An author’s career in this period was reliant on their ability to continually secure patronage from powerful men and women who could fund their work. In fact, Christine was one of the first women in the Renaissance to make a living off her writing, which was something even male authors struggled to successfully accomplish. ‘Thus, not all men (and especially the wisest) share the opinion that it is bad for women to be educated. But it is very true that many foolish men have claimed this because it displeased them that women knew more than they did. Your father, who was a great scientist and philosopher, did not believe that women were worth less by knowing science; rather, as you know, he took great pleasure from seeing your inclination to learning’…And Christine, replied to all of this, ‘Indeed, my lady, what you say is as true as the Lord's Prayer.’” ( Book of the City of Ladies ) This is perhaps even more impressive when considering the time in which Christine was writing. Christine was living through a period of political upheaval in France, writing towards the end of the Hundred Year War with England. This required her to play a careful political game to ensure continuing support for her literary endeavours while French court politics were in near constant upheaval. Nevertheless, she wrote prolifically and in a variety of genres – from the love poetry popular at the time to moral and historic works, even gaining a commission to write the official history of the reign of Charles V after his death. However, Christine’s most famous work amongst historians is her Book of the City of Ladies where she detailed women from history and religion who refuted the stereotypes of unvirtuous women. This work's specific focus on and defense of women has fascinated historians and stands to challenge Kelly’s thesis that female authors were not voicing feminine concerns, even if these concerns were not universal or do not mirror our feminist concerns today. Margaret Cavendish, on the other hand, had quite a different literary career. Born around 1623 in Colchester, England to a wealthy gentleman, Margaret spent her early life splitting time between the countryside and London. Eventually, her family secured her a place as a maid of honour in the court of the Queen of England, Henrietta Maria. Shortly after her appointment, she followed the Queen into exile in Paris at the start of the English Civil War. It was there that she would meet the widowed William Cavendish, Marquess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, another royal supporter. The two would marry in 1645, having to fight for their love as the Queen and key courtiers opposed the match. They settled in Antwerp until the end of the Civil War and the restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660, at which point the pair moved back to England. There, they settled in London for a short time before retiring to the countryside. Margaret wrote extensively throughout her married life, publishing poems, plays, biographies, including her own autobiography, and academic treatises. She wrote the first known utopian novel written by a woman, published her own atomic scientific theories, and produced astute political analysis of the English Civil War in her biographical work. Her utopian novel, The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing-World is particularly interesting as it sees a female heroine travel to and become the ruler of a Utopian world. Her heroine was intelligent, learned, and respected to the point of reverence by the ‘men’ of this new world - a utopian vision for the time indeed! No sooner was the Lady brought before the Emperor, but he conceived her to be some goddess, and offered to worship her; which she refused, telling him, (for by that time she had pretty well learned their language) that although she came out of another world, yet was she but a mortal; at which the Emperor rejoicing, made her his wife, and gave her an absolute power to rule and govern all that world as she pleased. But her subjects, who could hardly be persuaded to believe her mortal, tendered her all the veneration and worship due to a deity. ( The Description of a New World, Called the Blazing-World ) Her husband was equally literary, writing plays and biographies of his own. Many of these works are now believed to have been co-authored by Margaret. By all accounts, the two had quite a pleasant marriage bonded by their intellectual and literary pursuits with Cavendish granting Margaret the freedom to live quite an eccentric lifestyle. She was known for cross-dressing, wearing men’s vests and pants rather than elaborate gowns, though she had a penchant for beautiful dresses as well. She managed her own jointure, the land and money granted to her by her family on her marriage, and was nearly always financially secure throughout her life. The incredible privilege into which Margaret was born gave her a freedom to read and write at her leisure that was not available to the majority of European women in this period. Her status, wealth, and position gave her a unique freedom in her literary pursuits, and the range of work she left behind, often in contradiction to major theories of the time, reflects this. Both Christine and Margaret’s works were shaped by the circumstances of their life and times. They were influenced by the outcomes of their marriages, their positions within political and social structures, the wars that dominated their lives, their religious leanings, and their financial situations. Both authors were subject to the popular tropes and topics that dominated the intellectual worlds they existed within, as were most authors who were searching for success. Margaret had more freedom in her work than Christine, being less reliant on patronage and having more protection under her well-connected and doting husband. The voices that emerge in their works are differentiated by some 300 years between their publications, their different places in the world, and the different concerns that dominated their lives. Regardless, both women clearly left their mark on the literary, intellectual, and political worlds in which they existed, and to write them out of the Renaissance for not speaking in one voice is an oversight that cannot be repeated any longer. Women who Read Authors were not the only women who influenced Renaissance literature. While Kelly’s work on Renaissance literary culture focuses almost solely on the thought produced in writing, the only reason historians today can access that thought is because it was recorded in material books. Book production during the Renaissance period was much more exclusive than today. Authors were not paid for their writing; instead, they made money and sustained their literary careers either by self-funding their work or by securing patrons, as Christine de Pizan did. Patronage was so important as books were still quite expensive to produce during the Renaissance, and most could not afford to pay for production themselves. Further powerful and well-connected patrons could be vital in ensuring the success and popularity of a work by publicly supporting the book. These patrons were essential in ensuring books were produced throughout this period, and they often had a say in shaping the topics and language of the writing. Even when patrons did not directly dictate the substance of literary work, authors often tailored their products to their patron’s taste to ensure their continued support. A point that Kelly fails to acknowledge in her work on the Renaissance is that wealthy women patronised literary work just as wealthy men did. Work by historians like Helen Smith and Laura Lunger Knoppers have countered Kelly by attending to this oversight, unpicking the complexities of Renaissance book production to illustrate wealthy women were equally essential in the publication and production of Renaissance literature. Additionally, patronesses were much more likely to request works in their native languages such as French or English rather than in Latin, the dominant language used by intellectual and political elites until the end of the Renaissance period. Men saw it as a pointless exercise to teach women Latin because they were not the ones involved in high politics or in the intellectual pursuits within universities. While some wealthy women during this period were taught to read, they were largely only taught their native tongue. During the Renaissance period many translations of Latin texts, originally patronised by men, were commissioned by patronesses. This is so important because one of the major literary developments of the period was the growth of writing in native languages. Wealthy women patronising literary works were a part of this trend and contributed to the expansion of work in English, Italian, French, and German. Without their funding, it is unlikely we would have seen the same expansion of these languages during this period. One such patroness was Elizabeth Parr, the sister-in-law of Henry VIII’s final queen, Katherine Parr. Katherine’s brother, William Parr started his political career as the Baron Parr and rose to become the Marquess of Northampton. William had a disastrous first marriage to Anne Bourchier in which Anne left William and eloped with another man. Eventually, William started an affair with Elizabeth Brookes, the daughter of the Baron of Cobham, sometime in 1543 shortly before his sister became Queen. The two continued their affair throughout the rest of his sister and Henry’s reign, eventually marrying in secret in 1547, just after William was named the Marquess of Northampton. The protectorate government of King Edward VI recognized the match as legal in 1551, making Elizabeth the official wife of William after much contentious debate. However, Elizabeth had a hard time gaining recognition of her new position from the rest of the court. So, following in the steps of her husband, who was known to be a great patron of the arts, especially in music and an author himself, she started patronising literary work. Such patronage would have helped Elizabeth establish herself as a cultured and serious lady of court despite her scandalous secret marriage. She patronised the first of these works in the same year that her marriage was officially recognized. One was an English translation of a portion of Baldassare Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier that particularly focused on the good conduct of courtly women. Castiglione’s work was the Renaissance guidebook for proper court behaviour, and an extremely popular text at the time of Parr’s commission . Parr’s patronage was important as it once again aided the expansion of the English language’s literary use and additionally created an extended cultural dialogue around Castiglione’s text. As translations often involved interpretation and commentary on the part of the author, Elizabeth Parr’s patronage illustrates clearly that women were impacting Renaissance culture, expanding native languages, and creating extended discussions in their commissioning and patronage of translations. Women who Renaissanced One of the defining features of literary and scholarly communities during the Renaissance were literary circles and discussion groups which were vital to literary production. Women often participated in and even spearheaded this process throughout the period. Work written in the form of conversation between multiple parties, known as dialogic literature, was exceedingly popular during the Renaissance, and historians have started to understand that this genre reflected the world of intellectual and literary thought happening at the time. The majority of Renaissance literature was not developed alone, but was written or discussed in literary circles, either in person or through letters. Indeed, communal authorship was quite common in the period, such as the manuscripts of love poetry that circulated around the court of Henry VIII with different courtiers adding their sonnets and rhymes to the book before passing it along for others to respond or add to their work. Equally, authors often interacted in court circles hosted by both male and female courtiers and rulers, and, by the end of the period, salons or special gatherings for discussing intellectual thought became popular, especially in France. These salons were almost universally run and operated by women. The first known salon in Paris was overseen by Madame Rambouillet in the late 17th century. While Kelly overlooks the role of discussion and communal authorship to Renaissance literature, a focus on this type of production makes it evident that women were involved in and even organised the communities producing literary work during the Renaissance. Elisabetta Gonzaga, the duchess of Urbino, was one woman who had a defining role in Italian literary circles. Elisabetta was born in 1471 to the Duke and Duchess of Mantua where her father funded her extensive education. In 1488, she married Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, the Duke of Urbino. At their court, Elisabetta brought numerous authors and artists together under her patronage, often hosting grand literary and cultural gatherings and discussion circles. Perhaps the most famous author who came to live at her court was Baldassare Castiglione, the aformentioned author of The Book of the Courtier. In this work, Elisabetta is held up as the model Duchess, everything a perfect female courtier should be. Castiglione depicts Elisabetta’s real life literary gatherings in his work, showing her guiding discussions by setting the topics of conversation which illustrated how she not only impacted the Renaissance literary world by drawing great minds together, but by also directing those minds towards certain tasks and topics. Kelly herself acknowledges the role of Elisabetta in inspiring Castiglione’s work, but writes her off immediately as weak and compliant to the patriarchal rules of the time as nothing but an ornament to the court of her husband. She also sees no importance in Elisabetta’s direction of discussion because she supposedly contributed no thought herself. However, no thought would have occurred at all if not for Elisabetta creating a safe and well-funded haven for authors to gather. Further, the thought that was produced was done at Elisabetta’s direction, giving her great authority over the topics that would make their way into Renaissance literature. To write off the role of Elisabetta so easily is to undercut her central role in the world of Italian Renaissance thought and her influence over one of the most popular and influential texts of the period. By now it may seem silly to pose the question again – did women have a Renaissance? Not only did women have a Renaissance where they produced their own work and thought from a variety of viewpoints, but the Renaissance – and its male canon as it is popularly remembered today — would not exist without the patronage and backing of noble women and female courtiers who funded and supported the intellectual work of famous male authors. Ignoring the role of women in the Renaissance means telling only half the story of some 400 years of history. We need to account for the role women played in shaping, producing, and funding the intellectual thought that came to define the Renaissance as such a unique cultural period in Europe. We need to write women back into the period because women did write, read, and Renaissance. *It is important to note that there is historical debate over the term Renaissance, the exact period the term covers, and if such periodization even fits with the historical record. Additionally, this period of Renaissance is one that does not unproblematically extend outside of a European context. Further reading Adams, Tracy. 2018. "Christine De Pizan." French Studies LXXI (3): 388-400. Brenesmeyer, Ingo. 2019. "Introduction." In Handbook of English Renaissance Literature , by Ingo Brenesmeyer, 1-24. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Campbell, Julie. 2018. Literary Circles and Gender in Early Modern Europe: A Cross-Cultural Approach. Abingdon: Routledge. n.d. Christine de Pizan and Establishing Female Literary Authority. Accessed July 14, 2023. http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth214_folder/christine.html. Clarke, Danielle. 2000. "Introduction." In 'This Double Voice': Gendering Writing in Early Modern England , by Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke, 1-15. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire, London, and New York City: St. Martin's Press. Crawford, Julie. 2014. Mediatrix: Women, Politics, and Literary Production in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fitzmaurice, James. 2004. "Cavendish [née Lucas], Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle upon Tyne." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. September 23. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-4940?rskey=J2qjNt&result=3. Heitsch, Dorothea, and Jean-Francois Vallée. 2004. "Foreward." In The Renaissance Culture of Dialogue , by Dorothea Heitsch and Jean-Francois Vallée, ix-xxiii. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. James, Susan E. 2008. "Parr, William, Marquess of Northampton." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. May 24. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-21405?rskey=lNsdTv&result=5. Kelly, Joan. 1984. "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" In Women, History & Theory , by Joan Kelly, 19-50. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Robin, Diana. 2013. "Intellectual Women in Early Modern Europe." In The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe , by Jane Couchman, Katherine A. McIver and Allyson M. Poska, 381-406. London and New York City: Ashgate. Smith, Helen. 2012. 'Grossly Material Things': Women and Book Production in Early Modern England. Oxford and New York City: Oxford University Press. Walters, Lori J. 2005. "Christine de Pizan, France's Memorialist: Persona, Performance, Memory." Journal of European Studies 35 (1): 29-45.

How many couples do you know who have split up in the last year? Now, how many celebrity couples? What about divorces? Shortly after news broke that Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn had split up after six years together, I saw a TikTok comment saying something to the effect of ‘surely, I can’t be the child of another divorce”. Despite never having engaged in Swifty content before, my For You Page was flooded with speculation of when the break-up album was dropping, or if Midnights was the break-up album? Let us not forget the separation of Phoebe Bridgers and Paul Mescal, followed in quick succession by theories of Mescal’s unrequited love for his Normal People co-star, Daisy Edgar Jones. Then, a couple of months later, Blake Shelton accidentally ‘hard launched’ Bridgers’ new relationship with comedian Bo Burnham while trying to film himself and his wife on Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour. My point is: break-ups, separations and crumbling relationships are an integral element of gossip culture. Everyone is guilty of trying to figure out if X is still following Y even though they deleted all their pictures together, or running to their mates to see if they know someone who knows someone who knows what went down. Where does this nosiness come from? Of course, we’ve known for a while (to say the least) that the media's approach to celebrity women, wives and mothers is vastly different to that of men (irrespective of whether or not they’re embroiled in some sort of separation drama.) In addition, we’ve also known that life imitates art and, accordingly, historical cultural attitudes surrounding break-up drama can be found in literature and theatrical works. Or, as I like to call it, ‘Leave Ur Man’ fiction. Before The Matrimonial Causes Act 1937, a divorce in the United Kingdom could only be granted on the grounds of adultery. A man could claim adultery with no questions asked, but a woman had to prove that her husband had been unfaithful. And in Norway - the setting of Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler and A Doll’s House - divorce law wasn’t liberalised until 1909 when it established a no-fault principle, therefore entitling wives to the same rights as their soon-to-be-ex-husbands. But that’s 1909. Let’s rewind thirty years to 1879, when A Doll’s House was first performed. If you’re not familiar with the play, the final act concludes with protagonist Nora Helmer becoming enlightened to the constraints of her dispassionate, insincere marriage to Torvald. She recalls passing from her father’s hands into Torvald’s, and how everything was arranged according to her husband’s taste. Nora is and has always been the titular ‘Doll,’ and she leaves the marital ‘doll’s house’ in search of herself outside of the patriarchal influence she’s always been subjected to. The ending caused significant outrage when it was performed across Europe. German adaptations went as far as rewriting the ending in 1880 (more on this later). However, Ibsen never outrightly described his work as feminist, instead attaching the label ‘humanist’. After all, a husband would surely not think twice about leaving his family and sham marriage, especially if his wife had berated him in the way Torvald Helmer berated his wife for making a crucial financial decision. The shift in tone between the Helmers’ marriage in act one and act three is unmissable: in Torvald’s eyes, Nora goes from being ‘[his] little lark’ and ‘[his] own sweet, little songbird’ to ‘wretched woman’. Paying closer attention to the change in language, we can see that Nora’s alleged wrongdoing - the ‘sin’ of disobeying her husband - presents an unintentional sense of agency. She is no longer ‘his little’ X, Y, or Z, she is a wretched woman in her own right. This doll that has been living in his house, mothering his children and sleeping in his bed is more conscious and clever than he could’ve ever imagined. And, just like that, ‘wretched woman’ becomes the highest of compliments. The play ends with Nora leaving the family home and her dispassionate marriage, as she should. At the time, The Social Demokraten newspaper had this to say: 'This play touches the lives of thousands of families; oh yes there are thousands of such doll-homes, where the husband treats his wife as a child he amuses himself with, and so that is what the wives become’, therefore acknowledging the naturalistic origins of the play and the obvious gender dynamic it seeks to criticise. However, 19th century European audiences weren’t as pleased with Nora’s girlbossery as I am. As mentioned, there was a German rewrite where an empowered Nora is disemboldened by the sight of her children and the realisation that she cannot abandon them. Ultimately, this is to naturalist theatre what Anna Todd’s After is to One Direction (its fanfiction!). It intends to keep any female audience-goers in their place by convincing them that leaving your patronising arsehole of your husband equates to completely abandoning your children. It's not the truth, has never been the truth, and the German rewrite by someone other than Ibsen is demonstrative of the societal priority of order over art. From my twenty-first century perspective (2001 babies rise up) I also don’t think the rewritten ending undermines the meaning of the play the way it intended to because it also takes a significant amount of maternal strength to stick out a sham marriage for the sake of your children. Don’t get me wrong, this is not me legitimising this version of the play. Ultimately, it highlights how, above all, nineteenth century men were afraid of the fallout Ibsen would catalyse by introducing a woman who took control of her own marital fate into the mainstream. Ibsen was doing what Britney Spears did when she wore that baby tee with ‘Dump Him’ on it: The structure and subject matter of A Doll’s House lends itself to some interesting staging concepts. Of course, it’s not a book, so you’re not meant to sit there, read it, think about it a bit, then put your copy back on the shelf (I’m hoping neither of my A Level English teachers see this). This is a play that demands to be staged, and I think these creative interpretations of A Doll’s Hous e are spawned solely off the back of Nora’s character arc and nothing else. One performance I’m particularly intrigued by is the 2007 Mabou Mines adaptation with Mark Povinelli cast as Torvald and Maude Mitchell as Nora. It is conceptually brilliant: Lee Breuer casted the three-foot-nine Povinelli and builds the set to his proportions, meaning Maude Mitchell (Nora) is constantly squeezing into the set to explicate her growth and empowerment. Through this, you could argue that there’s a layer of physical comedy added to an otherwise serious play which demonstrates how much audiences have changed since the original A Doll’s House performances. If Ibsen or any director he’d been collaborating with at the time had introduced even an inkling of comedy or farce, the whole purpose of the play would have been undermined and ultimately rather done the job of that sad German rewrite. But, nonetheless, I do think this is an interesting interpretation and if everyone were to perform plays the same, they might as well just stay on the page. I want to quickly touch on the contrast between Nora Helmer and the ‘protagonist’ of another Ibsen play, Hedda Gabler in Hedda Gabler . Obviously, Hedda is the titular character, but the play’s title refers to her by her maiden name rather than her married one which severs her character into two definitive binaries - the married Hedda Tesman, and the singular, hedonistic, anti-hero Hedda Gabler. I guess, in some respects, you can look at Hedda as the alternative reality version of Nora if she had stayed in her marital dolls’ house. Hedda is stuck in a loveless marriage but damns the Angel of the House - she is nowhere close to the archetypal wife and mother figure we see kicking around in other nineteenth century work. A 1898 New York Times critic described her as ‘selfish, morbid, cruel, bitter, jealous, something of a visionary, something of a wanton, something of a lunatic’ (side note: put those last three on my headstone). Hedda is Nora, Nora is Hedda, and in the words of Khaled Hosseini, ‘Like a compass needle that points north, a man's accusing finger always finds a woman.’ Regarding the title choice, Ibsen himself said: 'My intention in giving it this name [Hedda Gabler, rather than Hedda Tesman] was to indicate that Hedda as a personality is to be regarded rather as her father's daughter than her husband's wife.’If you’re anything like me, your response to this is “cool, why’d you have to bring her dad into this?” I believe this is a key bit of evidence in the argument that Ibsen isn’t a feminist playwright, or even sympathetic to a feminist cause in his work. He is at best neutral. Yes, he puts women in the centre of his works more than other playwrights before and during his lifetime, but he brutalises them and flings them before a nineteenth century audience that wanted to criticise and bully women. So, here we are. Maybe Ibsen’s naturalist intentions were noble in depicting women with the agency to leave their husbands, or maybe he knew that with his words he would be turning his female characters (and, more importantly, those who resonated with them) over to the so-called morality mob. Is that not what happens every time the Daily Mail posts some he-said-she-said gossip about the latest celebrity breakup? Ibsen had a long way to go, and we shouldn’t get into the habit of applauding fish for swimming, but he crucially depicts Nora and Hedda taking one small step for women leaving their bad marriages, one giant leap for womankind in pre-1900s theatre.

1443-1509 TW: Suicide, difficult birth, death and grief The badass single mum who ended 30 years of battles and started a royal empire Glossary Lord- A nobleman with a high-ranking position in society with political power Lady- A noblewoman who is high ranking and has political power or is married to a Lord Duke- A nobleman ranking higher than Lord but below the monarch Duchess- A woman who holds the title of Duke in her own right or is married to a Duke Earl- A nobleman of high rank above Lord Consummated- to solidify a marriage through sexual intercourse Dukedom- the given title to a Duke/Duchess but usually inherited by the eldest son of the duke Wardship- the legal guardianship of a minor and their estate by a court-appointed guardian (a bit like a godparent) Royal Charter- a grant by the King/Queen of independent legal personality on an organisation and defines its privilege and purpose Margaret Beaufort was born in Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, on the 31st of May 1443 (sometimes disputed as 1441). Her parents were Margaret Beauchamp, a widow, and the 3rd Earl and 1st Duke of Somerset, John Beaufort. Let’s just be grateful that young Margaret had a (slightly) different last name to her mother; otherwise, this would have been a very confusing start to her biography. Margaret has been described as the walking, talking concept of medieval adversity throughout her life. She was nearly a year old when her father passed away under suspected, but not confirmed, suicide after causing the failure of a serious expedition. John’s death meant that Margaret Senior would be a widow; this brought about some unusual laws regarding the custody of Maggie Junior. Usually, the law did not allow women guardianship due to the rules of holding land. The child (in this case, Margaret) and the feudal lands are returned to the King, which, at the time, was Henry VI. Margaret could be given custody of Maggie Junior if granted by the King. This seems to have happened before John went on the expedition, as he had negotiated with Henry VI that Margaret Senior would have the rights to their daughter’s wardship and marriage upon his death. Due to the issues caused by her father in life, the King went back on the negotiation and the wardship of Margaret’s extensive lands was granted to William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Margaret did remain in her mother’s custody, as set out in John’s will/negotiations with the King. Being with her mother appeared to be a blessing as she became well-educated; evidence proves this. For example, her French was excellent, and she translated many books from French to English. She practised her religion (Catholicism) in French, too. Her Latin wasn’t as strong, but this didn’t matter as women didn’t usually have an education like Margaret. Even knowing French was incredibly unique and impressive. It is also evident that this was part of the impression she had formed during the time, creating a legacy leading up to this day. As the only child of her father, she was the heir to his fortune, another unusual occurrence due to the same laws outlined above. Feudal lands could be held, in virtue, by an heiress on the death of the patriarch if there were no male heirs. Whilst John’s younger brother, Edmund, inherited the dukedom and some estates, Margaret inherited the riches. This made her susceptible to people wanting her wardship and hand in marriage. This leads us to discuss Margaret’s very brief first marriage. At just six years old, Margaret was desirable for marriage because she was financially stable. This, and her weak link to the throne of England caught the eye of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk. He was given, by Henry VI, both the wardship and the right to pick Margaret’s marriage. Naturally, he chose his son, John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk, who was seven. Their marriage was through Papal Dispensation, meaning the pope had the right to exempt the union from the Catholic canon law article 1083, which states, “ A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage .” The idea behind William’s unusual and, frankly, impatient plan was that he could secure the throne for his son through Margaret by claiming her to be the next inheritor of the crown. This claim became a part of his impeachment later on. The marriage was annulled when William was charged; his wardship over Margaret was removed. She was a free child again…for a moment. Margaret was 12 years old when she married her second husband, Edmund Tudor, in 1455. This was a marriage that Henry VI seemingly encouraged after he passed the wardship on to his half-brothers Jasper and Edmund. Whilst this marriage was legal, her age was considered to be too young for sex and pregnancy, most indivuals married at this age would not have a full marriage until they were sixteen. Edmund, more concerned about politics and the legitimacy of the marriage, decided not to wait for Margaret to mature to consummate. Margaret became pregnant for the first (and only) time. The birth of this child would be a crucial development towards the so-called ‘Wars of the Roses’. Edmund was the 1st Earl of Richmond, born in Hertfordshire in 1430 and a Lancastrian supporter. This means he supported the House of Lancaster, a male-line branch of the Plantagenets, which started when Henry III created the Earldom of Lancaster. Edmund was the half-brother of Henry VI through Catherine of Valois. Fighting for the Lancastrians and his brother, he was eventually captured by the Yorkists. The Yorkists belong to the House of York, another male-line branch of the Plantagenets but started by Edmund of Langley, the 1st Duke of York. During Edmund's capture at Carmarthen Castle, Wales, he contracted the Plague and passed away. Margaret was seven months pregnant. She was terrified of dying from the plague and how the ongoing issues between the Yorkists and Lancastrians could affect her and her child. She travelled to Pembroke Castle to seek protection from Jasper Tudor, Edmund and Henry VI’s brother, to ensure her and her unborn child's safety. Because of how young and small she was, the birth was considered highly traumatising to her physical health. She never had another child despite a further two marriages after Edmund. She and her son, who (spoiler alert) would become Henry VII, survived the traumatic birth, a testament to their strength. Despite the trauma of the delivery, she looked back on the day as nothing but a blessing. She referred to Henry in letters as her “ only desired joy ” and “ my good and gracious prince ”. As a Catholic, Margaret was welcomed back into society with a ceremony called Churching. This took place around six to eight weeks after the child's birth. In this ceremony, the new mother is blessed, and God is thanked for the safe delivery of the child. Once this was done, Jasper Tudor, as the carer of both her and his nephew, arranged Margaret’s subsequent marriage to Sir Henry Stafford. She was 14. Margaret’s third marriage was to Henry Stafford, the first cousin of Edward IV and Richard III, the aforementioned Yorkist Kings. His grandmother was also Margaret’s great-aunt. Stafford and Edward fought on the same battlefield at Townton but on opposing sides. Stafford’s side, the Lancastrians, had been defeated in 1461, and Henry VI was deposed. Edward IV took Pembroke Castle, where Jasper had managed to escape, but Henry (Margaret’s son and the future king) was captured and stripped of his land at age five. Why? Because land was power in the Middle Ages, and Henry and Margaret were on the wrong side to keep it. Over the course of five years, Stafford secured their pardon by swearing allegiance to Edward VI and the Yorkist faction, whilst Margaret worked hard to show she was an ally. Eventually, some land was restored to herself and her son. Playing favourites of the King was a dangerous but essential game, and Margaret was very successful at it (she may have even invented it!) In 1470, Henry VI was restored to the throne. Edward IV was in hiding after the imminent threat from Richard Neville, the “Kingmaker”. Margaret wanted all her son’s lands back, so she mustered the courage to visit Henry VI at Westminster. With Edward VI gone, she was reunited with Henry after nine years and took him to meet his uncle. What made this meeting so unique was the prediction Henry VI had bestowed upon Margaret’s son; he would be king someday. He wasn’t wrong. The restoration of Henry VI’s reign didn’t last, and Edward IV was back in 1471. Stafford reluctantly returned to fighting alongside Edward after dodging the invitation to fight alongside the Lancastrians. The Battle of Barnet was short and violent. Stafford was severely injured. Edward IV retook full power of the throne after the Battle of Tewkesbury in May, a month after Barnet. Henry VI was taken to the Tower of London, never to be seen alive again. With allies of Henry VI being killed left, right, and centre, Margaret had no choice but to send her Henry off to his Uncle Jasper, where they fled into exile to France. In October, Stafford succumbed to his injuries and died. Margaret was widowed and without her son once again. Her subsequent marriage, seven months after the death of Stafford in 1472, was the first marriage of her adulthood, and the first time she made the choice to marry. This marriage was tactical, it was for her own protection. Her superpower was her ability to make the best decisions for herself and her son. She chose Thomas, Lord Stanley: forty, widowed and ready to mingle. The Lancastrians and Yorkists highly desired his support throughout the ‘Wars of the Roses’ (the War of the Cousins as it was known during this period) due to the large amount of land he owned in Lancashire. He never dabbled in such frivolous things as war. Well, not yet, anyway. In 1482, Margaret’s mother and only parent died, which was devastating. She pushed on and, throughout the resumed reign of Edward IV, Margaret used her husband to cosy back up to him to make it safe enough for Henry to return from exile. He was in Brittany after a storm had thrown himself and Jasper off course to France. In particular throughout this period, Margaret fostered a good relationship with Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV’s wife and queen, and talks of a marriage between the eldest child of Edward and Elizabeth, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor came to fruition. Eventually, Edward IV agreed with Margaret that it would benefit Henry to return to England. A pardon was drafted, but in the series of unfortunate events that was Margaret’s life, Edward died in 1483, leaving the pardon incomplete. After his death, the legitimacy of Edward IV’s marriage to Woodville was questioned, suggesting Edward V (their son) was not a legitimate heir. Margaret, along with many others, believed Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage was legitimate and that these talks were… well, all talk. Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Edward IV’s younger brother, kept both Edward’s sons, Edward V, aged twelve and Richard of Shrewsbury and 1st Duke of York, aged ten, in the Tower of London. He did this under the guise of protecting them after demanding them both from their mother. After 1483, they were never seen again. To this day, their demise is a mystery. Margaret, who had maintained constant contact with her son, conversed on the matters of England and continued to plan his return. Yet again, she played up to his desire to be king and was prominent in the coronation of Richard III and Anne Neville. Many believe this was all part of Margaret’s brilliant master plan. She was, after all, suspected of being part of the plot to set the Princes in the Tower free. Unlike the past few kings, Richard III was most suspicious of Margaret and her husband, despite Stanley’s bid for loyalty. She used her shared physician with Elizabeth Woodville to continue the marriage negotiations between Henry and Elizabeth of York. Margaret could never go to Woodville personally; Richard’s men heavily watched the sanctuary at Westminster as Richard was very suspicious of everyone. In secret, they plotted the downfall of Richard. Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, also began Buckingham’s rebellion against Richard, and the two plots of Margaret and Buckingham overlapped. Buckingham was unlucky with timing and weather, leading to him being caught and killed in Salisbury town. Amongst all this, Stanley remained loyal to Richard and, if he knew of anything Margaret was plotting, kept incredibly quiet about it. With Buckingham dead and everyone else in the conspiracy in exile or sanctuary (here’s looking at you, Woodville), Margaret was in danger, and all the king’s wrath was heading her way. Margaret's final marriage choice proved only more intelligent when it saved her from the charge of high treason. Richard favoured the support of Stanley more than the fact that Margaret was on the verge of taking him down. She was in trouble, also, for sending money to her son to aid in the rebellion against Richard, another treasonous act. She was sentenced to life in prison, and all her land and money were removed from her and given…to her husband (she essentially lost nothing). What’s more, she was imprisoned in her own house. Stanley was extremely lenient and allowed continued contact between her and her son. If there was any doubt of affection in their marriage, his actions regarding Margaret were sure to squash it. He proved even more loyal to her when he overheard Richard’s efforts to capture Henry (still in Brittany) and alerted Margaret, who ultimately warned Henry. He fled with only an hour to spare. In 1485, Margaret gained support from Elizabeth of York (Woodville and Edward’s daughter) and raised money for Henry, whilst Henry had the help of the French King Charles VIII and his men. Stanley remained a mere fly on the wall whilst his wife and stepson worked to take Richard down whilst Richard held Stanley’s son hostage to control Stanley’s support. Eventually, the two sides came to blows in the Battle of Bosworth. Until the very last minute, Stanley watched from afar as Richard, on foot, headed straight for Henry. At this moment, Stanley moved in…to support Henry. The crown, fallen from the beheaded Richard, was placed upon Henry by Stanley as he proclaimed the young Tudor, Henry VII, King of England. Margaret had done it. What was next for our Lady Kingmaker? After weeping joyfully at her son’s coronation and subsequent marriage, she took part in many political activities. After the Battle of Bosworth, her first role was to keep custody of Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (Richard III and Edward IV’s nephew). He was a potential threat to Henry’s already weak claimant on the thrown, so keeping a close eye on him was important. Eventually, he was placed in the Tower of London, but this brief custody showed Henry's trust in his mother. Of course, her title also became ‘The King’s Mother’. She had the power to appoint the officers of lordship in Ware. She was given the wardships of her great nephews, Edward and Henry Stafford, who came with some excellent revenues for Margaret. At this point, Margaret also outranked her husband and essentially was allowed to act independently without her husband's approval- she was a widow without death. This fell under the attainder called ‘femme sole’, meaning alone woman, which was usually granted to women wanting to do business alone. This made sense if Margaret was of such high power. She also took a vow of chastity, continuing throughout and after her marriage to Stanley. It is believed there was affection between Margaret and Stanley during their marriage. To be seen as legally widowed and vowing to refrain from sex showed that despite historians’ beliefs that the two were affectionate, Margaret’s decision to marry Stanley was most likely primarily political. It worked. However, my interpretation is that her marriage probably was intimate and loving; otherwise, she would have taken the vow of chastity sooner. Consequent actions would not have taken place, either. In 1485 Margaret's signature changed from M. Richmond to Margaret R. Now, you could argue she was shortening Richmond to R, but I think we all know that the more likely case was to establish her ‘royalty’, so R in this case most likely stands for Regina (or ‘Queen’). (Interestingly, this refashioning of her name strongly resembles Cecily, Duke of York’s change to be known only as ‘The King’s Mother’ upon Edward IV’s earlier victory in The Cousin’s War, perhaps there is more to be considered about women's names and dynastic legitimacy?) Margaret was adamant about establishing her position and power. At her son’s wedding, her outfit was the same quality as that of the bride, Elizabeth of York. She also walked only half a pace behind her new daughter-in-law, which was usually custom at medieaval weddings. Still, it speaks volumes. The dynamic between Margaret and Elizabeth is incredibly typical of in-laws. Elizabeth showed her authority in simple ways, she had been raised the daughter of a king, afterall, a significant thing Elizabeth controlled was shopping for her children. Also, although one of Margaret’s granddaughters was named after her, which led to Margaret showing some favouritism towards her, Elizabeth proved her authority through little Margaret’s marriage to James IV, King of Scots, at Richmond Palace in 1502 in Elizabeth’s chamber. She even gave her away. Margaret was never in actual competition with her daughter-in-law. She grieved with her son when Elizabeth of York died, soon after giving birth to her last child, on her birthday, 11th of February 1503. She organised all the grieving and mourning procedures which helped keep her busy. She also saw Margaret off when she went to marry James IV in June of the same year. Death did not stay away for long, as Margaret’s spouse died in July 1504. Still, she remained busy and focused, keeping her mind off the grief for her husband of thirty-plus years. Her involvement in the Universities started in 1502 when she developed ‘The Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity’, which she initially established as a readership. Readerships are a position between senior lecturer and professor, acknowledging those with outstanding international recognition research. In 1505, Margaret also sponsored the re-establishment of Christ’s College, Cambridge (originally named God’s House), with a Royal Charter supplied by Henry. Earlier than this, in 1496, Margaret founded the lectureship in theology at Oxford College first but then at Cambridge soon after. Her money went into funding both universities throughout the later years of the 15th century and the early years of the 16th century. She had much influence at both universities and whilst Oxford was her first passion, she soon began to show favouritism to Cambridge. Her final project was her most gut-wrenching. Henry was sick by March of 1509 and did not have long left; he knew it, and so did everyone else. Margaret, his most humble supporter, was the only person he felt would uphold his wishes upon his death. She was responsible for organising the mourning procedures and was named chief executor of his Will. His death in April 1509 was the cruellest thing to have happened to Margaret during the trials and tribulations of her life. Whilst Margaret prepared for Henry VII to be buried with Elizabeth of York in his newly built Lady’s Chapel in Westminster Abbey, she had to help her grandson, Henry VIII, to the throne. He was seventeen and classed still as a minor. Margaret was to act as regent and take to being the head of government until the younger Henry was of age. Her motherly instincts had kicked in once more, and she did this of her own volition rather than the official position. Despite her failing health, her influence and abilities were recognised by others. Their faith in her allowed her to be the uncrowned queen she was. And it was very much deserved. Her own declining health had been known even before her son's death, and a Will of her own existed. She worked hard to set things up before she died and ensured that men surrounded Henry VIII, which was trustworthy and would benefit England and the King. Margaret never missed an opportunity for petty revenge. After causing a failed deal over a property with Margaret and becoming one of the most hated tax collectors in England, Edmund Dudley (along with Richard Empson) was arrested and executed under the encouragement of Margaret. Smells like some sweet justice. Henry VIII was officially crowned king and married his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon. Margaret watched this all unfold from afar. Eventually, she decided her final days must be at Westminster Abbey. She stayed at the abbot’s house (the house of the head of Westminster Abbey). She was physically closer to her son and safe in a place that played a large part in her life. Ironically, her predictions in her dying state were that her grandson would shy away from God, a fear that caused her to weep. And he does just this by defying the laws of the Catholic Church and creating his own! A scary coincidence or an astute observation? Who knows. It is said that Margaret passed on as the bishop lifted the host (the bread representing the body of Christ). This final representation of her enthusiasm for her faith was a fitting end for her. She was now with her beloved and only child and was buried alongside him in the Lady’s Chapel. Did death cease her power and title? Absolutely not. For one, in her Will, she referred to herself as Princess. She also left a large sum of £133, 6 shillings and 8 pence to the poor. This would be worth £88,800 today. She also wished many of her belongings to be separated between Christ’s College and College of St John for the foundations she had established in Cambridge. She was generous, and her self-proclaimed title as Princess or Regina was warranted. The ultimate Kingmaker and Mother. Sources and Further Reading: Brain, Jessica. (2021). Lady Margaret Beaufort. [Online]. Historic UK. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Lady-Margaret-Beaufort/ Britain’s Bloody Crown. (2016). Episode 4. Channel 5, 28th January. Cooper, Charles. H. (1874). Memoir of Margaret (Beaufort), countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dean and Chapter of Westminster. (2023). History: Lady Chapel. [Online]. Westminster Abbey. Available at: https://www.westminster-abbey.org/about-the-abbey/history/lady-chapel Johnson, Ben. (2011). The Life of King Edward IV. [Online]. Historic UK. Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/King-Edward-IV/ License, Amy. (2013). Elizabeth of York, the Forthcoming Biography: Interview with Amy Licence. [Online]. His Story, Her Story Blogspot. Available at: http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/02/elizabeth-of-york-forthcoming-biography.html Norton, Elizabeth. (2010). Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. Seward, Desmond (1995). The Wars of the Roses: And the Lives of Five Men and Women in the Fifteenth Century. London: Constable and Company Limited. Tallis, Nicola. (2019). Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch. London: Michael O'Mara.