Search this site

Born towards the tail-end of America’s infamous ‘Wild West’ era, Annie Oakley (1860 - 1929) emerged as a pioneering figure in a time when sharpshooting was highly revered, yet dominated overwhelmingly by men. The Wild West, a period marked by exploration, conflict and frontier life, witnessed the rise of sharpshooting as both a skill needed for survival, and a form of entertainment. Throughout the rugged and often lawless landscape, sharpshooters were celebrated for their precision and bravery - skills deemed exclusive to men. Oakley, however, defied these conventions with remarkable success. Renowned for her extraordinary marksmanship, and captivating stage performances, Oakley rapidly became one of the most famous sharpshooters of her time - earning her the title of “Little Sure Shot”. Her performances were always a blend of skill and showmanship, amazing audiences by hitting targets with incredible accuracy whilst performing complex and entertaining tricks: one of her most famous acts involve shooting targets whilst holding the gun upside down. Despite the dominance of men in the field, Oakley’s achievements were nothing short of groundbreaking. She not only performed in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show - which is considered to be the most famous Wild Western show of all time - but she also challenged the gender norms of her time by excelling in a field where women were rarely seen. This article will explore Oakley’s remarkable journey, illustrating how she rose to prominence and cemented her place as one of America’s greatest sharpshooters. By tracing her career from her early days, through to her ground-breaking performances in global tours, this article will uncover the factors which contributed to Oakley’s legacy. Annie Oakley (1860 - 1926) (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images) Early Life Born on the 13th August 1860 in Ohio as Phoebe Ann Mosey, Oakley had a very troubled start in life. At just six years old, she lost her father (Jacob Mosey) to pneumonia. As was the norm at the time, Mosey had been the family’s breadwinner, working as a farmer in Willowdell, where he earned just enough to support his seven children, his wife, and place a deposit on some farmland. However, following Mosey’s death, Oakley’s mother (Susan Mosey) was left with no support - financial or otherwise. Mrs Mosey was forced to move to a smaller home, and when the eldest Mosey child (Mary-Jane) died also of tuberculosis, Mrs Mosey was forced to sell the remainder of her assets (including the family’s pink milkcow) to cover medical expenses and funeral costs. Throughout 1866 - 67, Mrs Mosey attempted to ease the family’s financial burden by working as a nurse at Ohio’s Darke County Infirmary - a facility which primarily housed the elderly, orphaned, and those with mental illnesses. Here, Mrs Mosey earned $1.25 per week (just under $50 in today’s money) but the financial strain remained overwhelming. Left with no other option, Mrs Mosey made the difficult decision to send Oakley to the infirmary, where she moved at just eight years old. The Darke County Infirmary, circa 1870, where Oakley lived at just eight years old. For Oakley, life inside the Darke County Infirmary was bleak. The infirmary functioned as a workhouse, which meant that the non-disabled inmates were forced to work long hours for little pay. Despite the owner of the infirmary, Mrs. Edington, promising Mrs. Mosey that Oakley “would have no work, [...] except to watch a three-week-old baby boy”[1], Oakley recounted that she “was held prisoner”[2] - being forced to wake up at four in the morning to tend to farm animals, pick fruit, harvest vegetables and hunt deer. In addition, Oakley also endured physical abuse from Mrs. Edington. In her autobiography, Oakley recalled that Mrs. Edington “struck me across the face, pinched my arms and threw me out of the doors into the deep snow and locked the door.”[3] After six gruelling years, in 1874, Oakley managed to escape the infirmary. She returned home to live with her family, but the same economic issues still lingered - the family had very little money, leaving them frequently without food for long stretches of time. In an attempt to rectify this, Oakley used the skills she had learned throughout her time at the infirmary - and would use her father’s rifle to hunt small animals, which she would sell to a local grocery store for small amounts of money. Within a year, Oakley’s gunmanship improved so greatly that she was not only able to feed her family, but was also able to pay off the family’s $200 mortgage. Even Oakley felt surprised by her abilities, remarking “I don’t know I acquired the skill. I suppose I was born with it.”[4] Entrance into the Spotlight By 1875, Oakley’s talents had caught the attention of a hotel owner named Jack Frost, who lived about 80 miles away in Cincinnati. Frost first became aware of Oakley’s skills after purchasing some of the game she had hunted, and was so impressed by the quality that he personally invited her to compete in a shooting contest against well-known, highly regarded marksman and performer - Frank Butler. During the early 1870s, Butler was one half of The Graham & Butler Show, a show which depicted, and often heavily romanticised, the adventures of Wild Western cowboys. Wild Western shows like The Graham & Butler Show were not uncommon in 1870s America- to name just a few, Texas Jack’s Wild West, 101 Ranch Wild West Show and Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show all attempted to depict life as a cowboy living through the American Frontier. Such shows regularly drew in enormous crowds (the lifetime tenure of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, for instance, saw the sale of more than 2.5 million tickets) due to their low cost (with tickets being as low as 25 cents) and their country-wide tours across America. However, it is worth noting that, with the exception of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show in 1885, none of the Wild Western shows featured performances from women - reinforcing Oakley’s groundbreaking achievements. What distinguished The Graham & Butler Show from all the others, however, was the nation-wide opportunity to partake in a shooting contest with Frank Butler. Though The Graham & Butler Show was a high-selling, and much enjoyed show, these advertisements had been in production for over five years without any audience response. Or at least, that was the case until November 1975, when Butler and Oakley went head-to-head in a competition. The competition was no easy feat- there were twenty five shooting targets which the winner would have to hit consecutively. Ultimately, to the surprise of most, Oakley won the challenge - achieving the maximum score of twenty-five hits with twenty-five bullets, compared to Butler’s twenty-four hits with twenty-five bullets. According to Butler himself, he was a “a beaten man the moment [Oakley] appeared”[5], explaining that he was “taken off guard”[6] by the fact that Oakley was a woman - a fifteen year old, five-foot woman at that. As previously acknowledged, Wild Western shows did not feature women, or even dwell on the fact that women could be sharpshooters, making Oakley’s appearance even more shocking for Butler. In fact, as John Soluri points out, Oakley’s performance would have been “disturbing”[7] for nineteenth century audiences, due to the blend of “female labour and femininity exhibited in Oakley”[8] during a period where women were still confined to the private, family sphere. Remarkably, Butler did not feel threatened in his masculinity by Oakley’s talents. In fact, he rewarded her with $100, and tickets to The Graham & Butler Show for her and her family. Rapidly, Butler and Oakley developed a romantic relationship, and despite a 10 year age difference (26 and 16, respectively) the couple married in August 1876, less than a year after initially meeting. Butler and Oakley in their stage costumes, Circa 1885, (Getty Images). During the early stages of their marriage, Butler continued to perform with The Graham & Butler Show, and Oakley was left to be a housewife, further reinforcing the difficulties that accompanied female performers during this era: the entertainment world, much like many other sectors in the 19th century, was still deeply entrenched in patriarchal norms. Women were often relegated to supportive or background roles (if at all), and the idea of a woman stepping into a male-dominated field, particularly one as rugged and traditionally masculine as sharpshooting, was unthinkable. But, in the spring of 1882 Oakley’s life completely changed - just a short while prior to a performance, Butler’s show-partner, Graham, had fallen ill, rendering him unable to perform. Butler, left with no other choice, invited Oakley to come on stage to take Graham’s space - albeit merely as a prop-holder, and not as a sharpshooter. Unexpectedly, Butler’s aim throughout the performance was so poor that an audience member heckled “let the girl shoot!”, leading Butler to offer Oakley the chance to demonstrate her skills. Naturally, Oakley shot every target successfully, sparking an enthusiastic response from the crowd, and marking the beginning of The Butler and Oakley Show. Over the next two years, the duo performed together, and the word of Oakley’s extraordinary talents spread rapidly. In 1884, she worked with a new group, the Sells Brothers Circus, as the “Champion Rifle Shot”, but left after just one season. It is interesting to see here how Oakley’s identity has been stripped away - no mention of her name, or the fact that she was a woman - which was a huge contrast compared to their other acts (including “Cannonball George” and the “Ringling Brothers”) once again highlighting the difficulties which accompanied being a woman in the field of sharpshooting. By 1885, just one year later, Oakley joined the most popular group Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. This show depicted the Wild West as a primitive, uncivilised area, and was considered a “rodeo-drama”. It involved a number of acts, including depictions of bison hunts, and train robberies. Shooting was the main feature of the show, but animals were also used as a form of entertainment. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show Poster promoting the Buffalo Bill Wild West show highlighting "the peerless lady wing shot," Miss Annie Oakley. Artist unknown (Photo by Pierce Archive LLC/Buyenlarge via Alamy Images) Although Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show had only been running for two years prior to Oakley joining, her impact was both immediate and significant. Oakley quickly became a standout performer, spending most of her time in the lineup as the second act - a strategic placement that allowed the audience to acclimate to the sound of gunfire. Oakley was well-regarded by the audience, and had a reputation of being a charming and caring performer. Dexter Fellows, who served as the Press Agent for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show described Oakley as somebody whose “personality made itself felt as soon as she entered the arena.”[9] Oakley would take pride in putting the audience at ease - she would aim to not only entertain audiences, but to also challenge societal perceptions regarding women and guns. By embodying both grace and precision throughout her performances, Oakley would demonstrate to the audience, but particularly the women and girls, how guns could be both a tool for entertainment, but also an item crucial for self-defence. However, Fellows also observed the initial shock that greeted Oakley’s performances - recounting how “her first few shots brought forth screams of fright.”[10] This was a reaction which did not stem from the volume gunshots, but rather from the shock of seeing a woman defying such deeply ingrained gender stereotypes. Oakely’s tricks, which included shooting backwards whilst looking into a mirror, shooting corks off bottle tops, and shooting coins and glass balls whilst they were in mid air proved to be the show’s much needed revival. It also proved, for the first time in Oakley’s career, that not only was she capable of being a solo performer, but she was also capable of being the first big female star in the (very) male-dominated field of Wild Western shows. In a similar vein, Glenda Riley, author of The Life and Legacy of Annie Oakley, even suggested that Oakley’s stereotypically “feminine” attire also helped to propel her fame. Riley maintains that Oakley’s distinct Victorian-era dress “made Annie acceptable and appealing to everyone in her audience, young or old, male or female, old-fashioned or modern.” By blurring the line between what was deemed “feminine” or “masculine” in the late nineteenth century, Oakley helped to assure women that they could still be both independent and employed, yet also partake in traditional values. Unlike her male counterparts, who would opt for full buckskin outfits, or trousers, Oakley chose to wear high-necked dresses - always made by herself. Whilst the dresses were typically short, she would always ensure her legs were covered with handmade button-up socks. Further, during her time at Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, she deepened her connection to the audiences, often “entertaining them with punch, tea, and cakes”.[11] Oakley’s niece, Fern Swartwout also noted that Oakley would “take delight” in sharing with audiences “how she packed her trunks”.[12] Being so attentive to an audience was certainly not common, but further highlights Oakley’s dedication to her cause. Annie, 1894, in her signature outfit Perhaps surprisingly, throughout her time as an act for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, Oakley’s husband remained supportive of her endeavours- as historian Virginia Scharff explains: “Frank Butler understood that [Oakley] had a kind of star quality that he didn’t want to overshadow, and he didn’t have a problem with that. He adored her.”[13] This has also been supported by Oakley, who recalls how, at one of her Buffalo Bill shows, she asked her husband to be a prop-holder, holding the photograph of “Ducky” - a man who had asked for Oakley’s hand in marriage. Ultimately, Butler did just that whilst Oakley “sent a .22 calibre bullet through the photo.”[14] Though this wasn’t Butler’s only time on stage throughout Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, he certainly wasn’t a frequent star. He did, however, stay present in Oakley’s career - he became her manager where he would handle the show’s finances, write articles and press releases about her work. However, it is important to note that this was not reflected in the 1946 musical Annie Get Your Gun. The musical, intended as a biopic of Oakley’s life, portrayed Butler as self-absorbed and jealous - a portrayal that may have been used intentionally to reflect the stereotypical attitudes of men (especially husbands) during the nineteenth century. Oakley continued to amaze audiences with her tricks, including splitting cards on their edges, shooting whilst leaning backwards, or hitting targets whilst her gun was upside down. Such tricks stunned audiences and royals alike - during 1877 Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show had embarked on a tour of England as part of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee celebrations, and Queen Victoria was so impressed with Oakley’s talents that she coined Oakley “a very clever little girl.”[15] Though this quote may read as being condescending, Oakley was a widely celebrated figure, and she was actually the highest paid entertainer of her time - something which encouraged her advocacy for equal pay in her later life. Oakley’s celebrity encounters continued to grow - in 1890 whilst on a tour in Berlin, Oakley invited the German Emperor, Freidrich Wilhelm II, to be part of her signature trick: shooting a cigarette out of somebody’s mouth. It is crucial to note that Oakley was reaching levels of fame and recognition seldom seen within Wild Western shows. Throughout her sixteen year tenure as a performer for the Wild West Show, Oakley toured countries all over Europe, and simultaneously proved to men and women alike that women were capable of using firearms. Oakley’s performances proved especially popular with women and girls, and she utilised this popularity to prove that shooting was neither detrimental, nor too intense, to one’s womanhood. Likewise, she encouraged women to learn how to use pistols, and instructed that they could be kept discreetly within purses as protection. Notably, in 1898, with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Oakley wrote to American president, William McKinley, offering to train a regiment of women to fight, believing that women could contribute just as much to military efforts as men. But, this proposal was ultimately rejected, reflecting the societal norms and prevalent gender biases of the time. By 1901, following a train accident which permanently injured Oakley’s back, Oakley had decided to retire from Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. As a result, in an attempt to live a more quiet life, Oakley began an acting career. In 1902, she starred in The Western Girl, a play written specifically for Oakley. Here, she played the character Nancy Berry who would use pistols, rifles, and ropes to outsmart gangs of outlaws. Sadly, unlike her previous ventures, The Western Girl did not achieve significant commercial success. The play ran for a few months, and did not become a long-running hit, in part because the play’s storyline did not match the high-energy performances given by Oakley previously. In 1911, Oakley resumed her Wild Western performances by joining The Young Buffalo Show. Although critics found The Young Buffalo Show entertaining, its tenure was short and it ended in 1914. The entertainment business was seriously struggling at this time, with even Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show succumbing to financial troubles, and officially disbanding in 1913. Annie Oakley (Left) with co-star Vernon Seaver Jr in The Young Buffalo Show Late Life and Legacy At the dawn of World War One, although Oakley was reaching her 60s, she still continued to sharpshoot, and began to advocate more stringently for women’s rights. She continued to push for equal pay, and attempted to educate women on the importance of self-defence. On top of this, she adamantly proved that she still had her sharp skills by beating new records, including successfully shooting 100 consecutive targets at the age of 62. In 1917, she repeated her attempt to train a regiment to use guns. She wrote to the American Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, and offered to both fully fund and train a regiment of female volunteers to fight, as well as teach and train existing soldiers to accurately shoot. But, again, her offer was declined. The repeated decline of Oakley’s offers highlights the limitation of her influence despite her fame. Oakley’s expertise was clearly still not enough to overcome the entrenched gender bias, and this further illustrates the broader struggles for women in the twentieth century in overcoming institutionalised sexism. Oakley continued touring until 1925, when she fell ill with pernicious anaemia - an autoimmune condition. Not long after World War I, in 1926, Oakley passed away, and her husband, Butler, also died just eighteen days later. Although Oakley may not be a household name, her iconic abilities cannot be forgotten: she remains a poignant inspiration for women in the world of sharpshooting, which is still primarily dominated by men, and as an advocate for women’s equality and safety. Throughout her life, it is believed that she helped more than 15,000 women to use guns for self-defence, and has been recognised for such ability by both the National Cowgirl Museum and the Hall of Fame in Texas, as well as the National Women’s Hall of Fame, in 1993. Likewise, Oakley’s life has inspired a number of stories, including the 1937 film ‘Annie Oakley’, and the 1946 Broadway musical ‘Annie Get Your Gun’, which was later - in 1950 - turned into a film. Though the image of ‘cowgirl’ and ‘sharpshooter’ has, in many ways, evolved since Oakley’s time, Oakley remains the original embodiment of what it meant to live in these roles throughout the American Frontier. Not only this, but Oakley remained an inspiration to women of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - setting a great example of being both the breadwinner, whilst still presenting as a traditional woman. [1] ‘Frequently Asked Questions about Annie Oakley’, Annie Oakley Center, (2024) [27-08-24]. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Martin, Emily, ‘The True Story of Annie Oakley’, National Geographic, (2022), [28/08/2024]. [5] ‘Biography: Frank Butler’, PBS, (2019) [06/08/2024]. [6] Ibid. [7]Soluri, John, ‘Reviewed Work: Farming across Borders: A Transnational History of the North American West. Connecting the Greater West Series Sterling Evans’, Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, P. 491, JSTOR [28/08/2024] [8] Ibid [9] Reece, Amy, ‘Annie Oakley, Calamity Jane, and the Myth of the West’, Digital Repository, (2011) , P. 57 [29/08/2024] [10]Ibid. [11] Ibid, P.56 [12] Ibid. [13] Annie Oakley, directed by Riva Freifeld, (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2006), online film recording, Amazon [29/08/2024]. [14] Buffalo Bill Centre for the Wild West, Annie Oakley in her Own Words, online video recording, YouTube,18th May 2012, [30/08/2024] [15] Johnston, Winifred, ‘Passing of the Wild West: A Chapter in the History of American Entertainment’, Southwest Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 35-40. JSTOR [30/08/2024]. Further Reading ‘Biography: Frank Butler’, PBS, (2019) [06/08/2024]. ‘Annie Oakley: Biography’, Sky History, (2024) [07/08/2024]. Hunt, Kirstin, ‘How Annie Oakley Defined the Cinema Cowgirl’, Daily JStor, (2020) [07/08/2024]. McGrath, Ann, ‘Being Annie Oakley: Modern Girls, New World Woman’, Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 203 - 231. JSTOR, [08/08/24]. Riley, Glenda, ‘Life and Legacy of Annie Oakley’, First Edition, University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma: 2002.

Glossary Antiquarians - The predecessors to modern archaeologists; mostly collectors who maintain no scientific principles or in depth recording systems. Ancient DNA Analysis - The analysis of DNA taken from the bones of ancient human remains to provide details on sex determination. Inhumation - A standard burial with a body lying flat in a rectangular cut grave Sexing - The scientific act of analysing a skeleton and assigning it a binary sex based on bone morphology and characteristics. These are mostly found within the skull and the pelvis. Sex determination within archaeological human remains begins from the moment the grave is uncovered. Grave goods, clothing, burial orientation, and location can all influence the primary informal sex determination. Unfortunately in antiquarian days, the analysis often stopped there and no further work was undertaken to accurately determine sex. There are several key examples of female remains being misgendered, and it poses the question as to whether other powerful figures of the past were actually women, as well as how many other powerful women we are yet to discover. The term ‘sex’ is used in an archaeological setting as opposed to ‘gender’ due to the binary biological markers that are seen on the skeleton and within the DNA, although it is critical to understand that these factors cannot relate to how this person would have identified within themselves during their life. It is entirely feasible that these individuals were buried with these supposedly gendered honours due to them expressing their own gender identity in life that has then been respected by their peers. However, this cannot be seen through the remains and therefore, sex determination remains a binary undertaking. It is incredibly important for us as a modern audience to rethink archaeological sex determination based on informal characteristics such as grave goods. It is imperative that the social structures of the period in which the remains date is considered alongside formal scientific methods to ensure that we are correctly determining sex and providing these individuals with the respect that they deserve. The Birka Burial A detailed archaeological drawing of the Birka Burial to show how the grave would have looked before it was filled in with soil. This is often the most important view as it shows the modern viewers how her contemporaries wanted her to be seen in death. Uncovered in 1878 in Birka, Sweden, these were the remains of an exceptionally highly respected Viking warrior who was elaborately buried in a chamber tomb. These remains were considered to be of a male until new research was undertaken in 2017 (a shocking 139 years after her discovery) proved otherwise. This is especially poignant as during this stretch of time, over 50 papers were published corroborating this mistruth as no one thought or cared to look deeper into the facts. The misgendering of female remains is a critical issue as the lives of powerful women are being disregarded and new insights into the social and cultural structure of the past are being lost due to the modern prejudices and societal systems. The burial was furnished with a multitude of weapons, shields, a chariot, and two horses. She was also dressed in silks with silver threads - a burial of extremely high status. These factors led the primary archaeologist, Hjalmar Stolpe, to determine that the remains were male without any further tests or investigation. Modern conceptions of gender and what it means to be a man or a woman have heavily influenced this prognosis, a flaw that is seen in the reanalysis of many sites. This was not fully called into question until archaeologist Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson completed an analysis of the remains themselves and determined them to reveal heavily female characteristics. This was decisively proven in 2017 by Neil Price and his team when they undertook genetic testing. This reanalysis of the Birka Burial has allowed for female success and the idea of an elite female force, such as the Valkyrie, to be admitted as more than just historical fiction; it opens up the discussion for it being historical fact. The infamous Osberg boat burial in Norway also provides some insight into the ideas of women warriors with the tapestry found within the burial depicting female warriors with weapons and shields. Hierarchical systems have been taken from more modern times and transplanted onto the figures of the past, but these systems likely do not reflect the reality and intricacies of life in ancient times. Discovering high status female burials is imperative to understanding women’s history and the development of our modern social systems. The Kazakhstan Burials The Valkyrie are not the only women warriors of legend! The Amazonians are also a well known group of female warriors, however, there has never been any strong evidence found to support their existence… or has there? Recently, a burial area in Kazakhstan was uncovered that dates to the 6th-4th centuries BCE and contains the burials of several women warriors who were laid to rest with arrowheads, swords, daggers, and other militaristic goods. These burials are contemporary to the period it is presumed the Amazonians lived and were active. At an average height of 5 '6", these women were far taller than the average height for the period and were also stockier, lending some credence to the legend of elite female warriors. Interestingly, at least one of the remains shows signs of bowleggedness from horseback riding! Despite this being an incredible find that is revolutionising the way we consider ancient women, for some time these remains were considered to be males based on the first interpretation given from the grave goods analysis. It is imperative that archaeologists’ and historians' opinions on the sexual determination of remains are not influenced by a burial containing militaristic grave goods as a male determination is not always accurate. There is currently limited published work on this site, but hopefully as more work is released we will understand more about these enigmatic ‘Amazonian’ warriors. The Ivory Woman An artist's interpretation of the Ivory Woman and her tribe, where she is a wise figure who teaches those around her. Her beads and body paint show her to be a high status figure. New research (published 6th July 2023!) proved decisively that the highest status individual in Copper Age Iberia was in fact a woman, rather than a man as previously assumed! Archaeologists have determined through contextual markers including other graves, grave goods, and the surrounding archaeological sites, that no man in fact came anywhere close to her level of influence. Her burial was highly elaborate and contained ivory tusks, rock crystal daggers, and ostrich eggshells. To have a single inhumation burial that is so lavishly furnished in this period indicates that she was indeed an extremely high ranked individual. She is now referred to as the ‘incomparable’. At the time of her discovery, her remains were considered to have belonged to a young man between 18 and 25. The remains were marked out as such due to the high status burial, as well as the burial itself being a lone burial as opposed to the multiple burials that characterise the period and area. This new research is fascinating as the only other high status burials in the area of the same period are also all women. Due to this, researchers are calling for the reanalysis of the political and social structure of Copper Age Iberia and how women fit into this system. Modern conceptions of sex and gender are highly rigid and have misguided antiquarians and archaeologists in the past. This call for reanalysis may radically change the narrative that modern society has presented to us and allow for more stories from many different cultures to be told. The Problems with Sexual Determination There are many dangers to informal sex determination that is based on grave goods and perceived societal structure, and they are seen very clearly through the mistakes made at Birka and in Iberia. The misgendering of remains allows for the role of women in the past to be diminished and for the more modern patriarchal narrative of history to be far more prevalent than is likely to be true. It is critical that these burials be carefully examined to allow for the importance of women and the multifaceted role of sex-gender in ancient social systems to be observed. Sexual determination is based on a set of characteristics that are not always diagnostic and have to be interpreted from a selection of factors. Sex estimation is primarily undertaken by studying the morphology of the pelvis and the skull, and these are the bones that reveal the most definitive sexual characteristics. These determinations can nearly never be absolutely certain without additional DNA analysis. Ancient DNA analysis is a relatively new field of study, but it is critical that it develops and is used across more sites as it can decisively prove biological sex and provide further detail regarding lineages and the movement of peoples. Moreover, sexual determination of remains may also undermine a group or societies beliefs regarding gender and how it is expressed in each person. This is particularly pertinent in reference to some Native American burials, where certain tribes follow or followed a system of non-binary gender within their communities. Further historical anthropological work, as well as ethnographic work, should be undertaken to determine how early communities viewed and worked with sex-gender systems to allow for a high degree of cultural respect to be placed on all remains that are uncovered. Moreover, assigning these burials a biological gender may inhibit the living descendants' ability to honour their ancestors and also allows for the removal of traditional cultures and for the cisgender narrative to be the only narrative presented to the public. Further Reading: Blair, Z. (2022). ‘Hail, Ye Givers,’ Sex and Gender in the Viking Age: A Discussion of Sex and Gender in Birka 581 and the Oseberg Burial. University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.4095 Cintas-Peña, M., Luciañez-Triviño, M., Montero Artús, R. et al. (2023) Amelogenin peptide analyses reveal female leadership in Copper Age Iberia (c. 2900–2650 BC). Sci Rep 13, 9594 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36368-x Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. (2020) ‘Warrior identities in Viking-Age Scandinavia’, Vikings Across Boundaries, pp. 179–194. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346194-12 Price, N., Hedenstierna-Jonson, C., Zachrisson, T., Kjellström, A., Storå, J., Krzewińska, M., Günther, T., Sobrado, V., Jakobsson, M. and Götherström, A. (2019) “Viking warrior women? Reassessing Birka chamber grave Bj.581,” Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 93(367), pp. 181–198. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.258 Wilford, J.N. (1997). Ancient Graves Of Armed Women Hint at Amazons. The New York Times. [online] 25 Feb. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/25/science/ancient-graves-of-armed-women-hint-at-amazons.html [Accessed 15 Jul. 2023]. Yablonsky, L.T. (2010). New Excavations of the Early Nomadic Burial Ground at Filippovka (Southern Ural Region, Russia). American Journal of Archaeology, [online] 114(1), pp.129–143. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20627646

Lee Miller (1907-1977) US Army official photograph. Lee Miller initially rose to fame as a model and surrealist, notably through her close working and personal relationship with artist Man Ray. However, Miller’s most profound work was created during her time as a war journalist and photographer. She spoke of this time so rarely that it was completely unknown to her only son, Anthony Penrose until he uncovered boxes of manuscripts and negatives in the attic of their family home after her death in 1977. Born in Poughkeepsie, New York in 1907, Lee Miller’s relationship with the camera began at home. Her father was an amateur photographer and she often modelled for him throughout her early years. At just 19 years old, Miller began her modelling career through extraordinary circumstances. Whilst living in New York, she was almost hit by a car and was saved by none other than Conde Nast, publisher of Vogue magazine. It was not long before she appeared on the cover of Vogue, and soon became interested in becoming a photographer herself. Her career as a model however was quickly derailed when Kotex, a period product company, used her image without consent. With little work available for a model who was the face of a period product brand, Miller decided to move to Paris and pursue photography. In Paris, Miller sought out Surrealist artist Man Ray and the pair would quickly become lovers and collaborators. They worked so closely together during this time that it is hard to decipher which artist made what work. Man Ray introduced Miller to the Surrealists, whose philosophy would profoundly influence Miller for the rest of her career. A key theme of surrealism that reoccurs in Miller’s work was the idea of the found object, where easily accessible objects are reconfigured or combined to create something new and interesting. For instance, whilst Miller was living in Paris she also worked as a medical photographer. On one occasion, after a mastectomy procedure, Miller asked the surgeon if she could take the woman’s breast that had been removed and place it on a dinner plate so that she could photograph it. After she left Man Ray and Paris behind, Miller returned to New York to start a photography studio, which she also abandoned when she decided to move to Cairo in 1934 to marry Egyptian businessman Aziz Eloui Bey. Although she was not formally working at this time, she continued taking photographs, which are considered some of her best work. Growing bored of her life in Egypt, her husband suggested that Miller take a trip back to Paris to catch up with her many friends and intellectual circles. During this trip, she met artist Roland Penrose, who Miller would leave her husband for and move to London with. While residing in London with Roland Penrose, Miller supported herself by working as a fashion photographer for Vogue. When the Blitz started in London in 1940, Miller began photographing the ruined remnants left behind by the bombing. In true Surrealist fashion Miller’s photographs captured comedic and absurdist elements of the bombed city, once again through the lens of the found object. The title of her photograph Bridge of Sighs refers to the bridge in Venice of the same name, where crossing prisoners would sigh at their last view of Venice before being sent to their cells. Miller’s interpretation comes in the form of a bridge created through the hollowed out remains of a bombed out apartment building. This version perhaps echoes the sentiment of the prisoners in Venice, with the citizens of London looking out at the city as the sun sets, not knowing what a night of bombing could destroy next. This photograph, like many others that Miller took during the war, highlights her ability to capture the absurd leftovers of the carnage of war without losing any sense of pathos for the tragedy. Lee Miller, Bridge of Sighs, 1940. As an American citizen, Miller was prohibited from contributing to the British war effort. Instead, she captured the activities of women serving in the British royal navy, known as Wrens. Miller highlights the uncanniness of modern warfare by placing women behind fire safety masks and machinery as if they are a fashion accessory. In her 1944 image Behind the Sight, she photographs a woman standing in front of a mounted gun. This playful image blurs the woman into the gun and her smile perfectly aligns with the mesh of the gun sight. The metal below this appears like two breasts, perhaps commenting on the boundaries being crossed by men and machines during the war. Lee Miller, Behind the Sight, 1944. Just days before D-day at the suggestion of her friend, David Scherman, Miller signed up to be a war correspondent for the US forces. She soon found herself on Omaha Beach, covering a story about an evacuation hospital. Her first story was published in Vogue in August 1944 entitled 'Unarmed Warriors', where she captured pictures of nurses doing their daily tasks, surgeries in progress and the many wounded men waiting for treatment or waiting to be sent back to the UK. One burn victim asked Miller to take his photo because he wanted to see how funny he looked. Miller later said that it was “pretty grim and I didn't focus good.” Lee Miller, 1944. Initially, Miller was confined to the field hospital, as female journalists were prohibited from venturing to the front lines. However, Miller unintentionally broke this rule when she arrived at St Malo in Brittany, for a story that was supposed to cover 'how the Civil Affairs team moved in after hostilities to get things running smoothly again'. The press had published that St Malo had been 'captured but not occupied'. In reality, the Germans had just been isolated from the mainland and had to be driven back into the fortress. Due to heavy machine gun fire, Miller was not allowed near the action and instead joined a group of soldiers to watch from a hotel window, where she captured incredible images of distant artillery explosions as Allied forces laid siege on the German fortress. Lee Miller, 1944. Miller covered the Allied forces in France all the way through to the campaign’s success. She became the first female journalist present during the liberation of Paris and travelled extensively in Europe throughout the rest of the war, covering the German retreat through Luxembourg, and eventually into Germany itself. Towards the end of the war, with her friend and fellow journalist, David Scherman, Miller visited the recently liberated Nazi concentration camps Buchenwald and Dachau. Many of the photos she took of the camps were later destroyed but she saved enough that the horrific events would not be forgotten. Shortly after visiting Dachau, Miller and Scherman went to Munich and were staying at Hitler's apartment when the news of his suicide was announced. On that same day, the pair decided to stage a photoshoot in Hitler’s bathtub. In the picture, the bathroom’s white carpet was soiled by the dirt of Dachau on the photographer's shoes. Nearly a whole roll of film was used on pictures of Miller in the bath. However, one of the most poignant images is one of the last, with a skinny looking David Scherman, uncomfortably sitting in the bath looking at the camera. Scherman was Jewish, and the carefully aligned shower over his uncomfortable body holds a different meaning considering that days before the pair had witnessed the horrors of the concentration camps and the gas chambers. When the war ended, Miller struggled to return to England, emotionally shaken and angered by what she had witnessed. She continued to wander around Europe living on a diet of amphetamines, coffee and alcohol. She somehow ended up in a children’s hospital in Vienna. Her last photographs as a war correspondent were of children in this hospital, who were well taken care of with the cruel paradox of the complete lack of medicine available. She wrote to her editor, “for an hour I watched a baby die… this tiny baby fought for his only possession, life, as if it might be worth something.” Miller was haunted by what she had seen during her time in the war and was permanently changed when she returned to England, and was prone to alcoholism and periods of depression. She continued being a photographer for Vogue until completely giving it up in the mid 1950s, where her passion for photography turned to the kitchen and she became a gourmet cook. Lee Miller strongly believed her war photography simply documented the war - she claimed “I’m busy making documents not art”. Despite this, without her time as a fashion model and Surrealist, her wartime work would not have shown the war as brutally and honestly as it was. Her son wrote that 'being a Surrealist artist must be the only possible training to enable a person to retain their objectivity in the face of the total illogicality of War - to make sense of the nonsensical.' The images she captured are arguably some of the most important and poignant images of the last century, let alone the war itself. The full extent of her impact has only emerged after her death with the efforts of her son, Anthony Penrose and their relationship is explored in the excellent film, Lee (2023) starring Kate Winslet that focuses on Miller’s time during the war. Further Reading: Davis, Caitlin S. (2006) ‘Lee Miller’s Revenge on Culture: Photojournalism, Surrealism, and Autobiography.’ Woman’s Art Journal 27, no. 1, pp. 3–9. Hessel, Katy. (2019) ‘Ami Bouhassane on Lee Miller.’ The Great Women Artists Podcast. How Lee Miller became such an influential force in Surrealist Britain (2018) The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/lee-miller-surrealism-uk-photo-man-ray-avant-garde-a8409826.html Liu, J.-C. (2015) ‘Beholding the feminine sublime: Lee Miller’s war photography’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 40(2), pp. 308–319. Penrose, Anthony. (2005) Lee Miller’s war. London: Thames and Hudson. Salvio, P.M. (2009) ‘Uncanny exposures: A study of the wartime photojournalism of Lee Miller’, Curriculum Inquiry, 39(4), pp. 521–536. Sliwinski, S. (2011) ‘Air War and dream: Photographing the London blitz’, American Imago, 68(3), pp. 489–516. The big picture: Lee Miller’s Sphinx-like Blitz spirit (2021) The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/mar/28/the-big-picture-lee-miller-self-portrait-with-sphinxes-vogue-blitz-second-world-war

Chopin in 1895 Kate Chopin is often regarded as one of the earliest feminist voices in American literature. She is frequently credited with introducing modern feminist ideas into fiction. However, her place within the feminist movement is far from settled. Critics like Christina R. Williams (2017) view Chopin as a clear early feminist, citing her bold portrayals of women who challenge societal boundaries. Conversely, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese argues that her writing transcends easy categorization, probing deeper questions about human desire, freedom, and society itself. The Complexity of Feminism in Chopin's Work The debate surrounding Chopin’s connection to feminism hinges on our understanding of feminism today versus in her time. Modern radical feminism often prioritises gender issues but can overlook the broader social and institutional forces that underpin women’s oppression. This narrow perspective may fail to encapsulate the essence of Chopin’s narratives, which delve into how family structures and societal expectations dictate women’s lives. Her work is not solely about male dominance; it scrutinises the intricate traditions and pressures that confine women. As Fox-Genovese insightfully notes, “Kate was nonetheless a woman who took women extremely seriously,” which lies at the heart of her writing. In this context, we shall closely examine Chopin’s renowned short story The Story of an Hour, which addresses the dynamics of the male–female marital relationship. Chopin clearly posits that the existing form of this relationship effectively suppresses female identity and selfhood. The death of Mr. Mallard signifies the end of Mrs. Mallard's silenced existence. This sudden realisation engenders an immensely powerful feeling of freedom from the constraints of such a relationship, as she envisions “beyond that bitter moment a long possession of years to come that would belong to her absolutely.” The Irony of Joy and Freedom The notion that the “joy” she experiences could be monstrous is dismissed as “trivial” by a “dear and exalted perception.” Through this “perception,” Chopin unveils the mechanisms at play within the institution of marriage in a conventional setting, which stifles individuality and personal identity. “There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.” When we couple this exploration of marital relationships with the symbolism in the story, which equates her freedom with the blossoming of nature, we grasp the point Chopin seeks to convey: the institution of marriage is unnatural and rooted in the domination of one individual by another. This domination can manifest subtly, often disguised as love, which is merely a euphemism for an exercise of power. It is intriguing to observe how these insights resonate with the perspectives of both Christina R. Williams and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Any text penned by a female author and centred on a female character inevitably engages with feminist concerns. Yet, due to Chopin’s complex themes and motives, it is challenging to confine her work within a rigid “feminist dogma” in the contemporary sense. Feminism itself is a layered and evolving discourse that cannot be reduced to a single, fixed position. However, in Chopin’s writing, we can discern an early, emerging feminist voice. The Narrative Arc of The Story of an Hour The narrative of The Story of an Hour is deceptively simple. Mrs. Mallard, who suffers from heart trouble, is informed of her husband’s death in an accident. Initially, she grieves but soon retreats to her room, where she experiences an exhilarating sense of freedom. When she descends the stairs and sees her husband alive at the front door, she is shocked, utters a piercing shriek, and dies. Chopin employs a minimalist approach, economising on both words and action. The basic exposition provided in the first two paragraphs reveals little about Mr. Mallard and focuses predominantly on Mrs. Mallard. Her delicate condition is mentioned right at the outset, and it is her sister who takes great care in delivering the news of her husband’s death. Notably, there is little mention of the husband initially, save for the fact that his friend has brought the news. The narrative centres entirely on her, with the entire plot revolving around her experience. This deliberate choice hints at the deeper mystery of their marriage. The absence of Mr. Mallard positions their relationship squarely within the conventional framework of power dynamics. Their union does not appear to be a love marriage that transcends societal expectations; rather, it resembles a typical marriage of convenience, sustained and shaped by social conventions designed to suppress womanhood. The Point of View and Character Development The story is narrated from a third-person limited perspective. The only thoughts we access are those of Mrs. Mallard, or Louise. Initially, she struggles to reflect on her own state. However, as she becomes aware of her situation and emotions, embracing them with “wild abandonment,” we gain insight into her character, revealing its complexities. Yet, as she descends the stairs, we are abruptly cut off from her thoughts. This manipulation of her point of view is executed with striking effect. While there is minimal conflict in the story, a moment of tension arises when Mrs. Mallard attempts to resist the "something" that, after a brief struggle, overtakes her. What she experiences is not an inner conflict but rather a tumult that fills her with the joy of newfound freedom. “There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully. What was it? She did not know; it was too subtle and elusive to name. But she felt it, creeping out of the sky, reaching toward her through the sounds, the scents, the colour that filled the air.” The irony in the story is particularly captivating and serves as a strong element throughout the narrative, not merely in its conclusion. Chopin’s commentary on the institution of marriage is profoundly ironic. The marital relationship, which is ostensibly founded on love, is, in reality, a power struggle in which “men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature.” The Duality of Love and Suppression The cement of love is, in fact, synonymous with the suppression of a woman’s identity and selfhood. From this fundamental irony arises the entire ironic situation of Mrs. Mallard, who feels liberated and exalted at the death of her husband, a man who had shown her nothing but love in their relationship. The ironic nature of the “heart trouble” she suffers from becomes increasingly apparent as we gradually uncover that it refers more to her spiritual condition than to a physical ailment. This leads us to the ultimate irony. When her death, upon discovering her husband is alive, is interpreted as “the joy that kills,” we encounter one irony beautifully concealed within another. Here, “joy” not only refers to the perception of those attempting to explain her death but may also serve as an ironic reference to her joyful state, the sudden end of which—and its ultimate futility—actually causes her demise. Symbolism and Nature in Chopin's Narrative The story is rich with symbolism drawn from nature, evident in the words and expressions Chopin employs, as well as in the immediate settings she creates. Mrs. Mallard’s “comfortable, roomy armchair” facing the “open window” suggests her longing and desire to escape the confines of her life, yearning to step through the open window that leads to a world where “the tops of trees are all aquiver with the new spring life.” “She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below, a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song, which someone was singing, reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves.” The contrast between the vibrant world outside, teeming with motion, and her life, in which she “sat with her head thrown back upon the cushion of the chair, quite motionless,” is striking. She finds the breath of rain quite “delicious,” and she too has been crying. This imagery symbolically represents her feelings about her situation. She is severed from the natural, dynamic world that exists beyond the confines of her life, which is tethered to the norms of the relationship she is or was in. She savours the delicious air of freedom but is left only to shed tears near the window, which seems to offer an opportunity not just to witness free life from a distance but to venture out and embrace it. This illuminates the fundamental structure of their marriage, revealing it as an institution grounded in tradition rather than the genuine reciprocity of love and the shared freedom characteristic of true comradeship. While Mr. Mallard appears unburdened and free to traverse the world, Mrs. Mallard remains constrained, her emotions stifled and her voice silenced. Her estrangement from herself is so profound that it seems as though she is, at long last, rediscovering her own being after years of inner suppression. Her shackles, though imperceptible, lie beneath the surface of a relationship that outwardly offers care and affection yet systematically denies her freedom. In this regard, Mrs. Mallard exemplifies what Simone de Beauvoir critiques in The Second Sex when she writes, “Genuine marriage would presuppose liberty and equality, both of which have been denied to women in patriarchal societies.” Beauvoir highlights that true love is founded on freedom, not restriction, regardless of how disguised it may be. A genuine relationship fosters individual growth, allowing people to breathe and become their authentic selves. However, marriage, particularly as shaped by patriarchy, rarely provides that space. Instead of nurturing emotional connection, it often serves to uphold entrenched norms, rituals, and hierarchies. What should be a personal choice gradually morphs into a social obligation. She further asserts, “It is not the individuals responsible for the failure of marriage: it is the institution,” signalling a crucial shift. The issue, she contends, lies not with flawed individuals but with a flawed system that prioritises one gender over another. The fundamental problem resides in the structure itself, which operates on unequal power dynamics, fixed roles, and expectations that leave little room for freedom or equality, paving the way for suppression. The Tension of Repression and Desire We learn that Mrs. Mallard is “young, with a fair, calm face whose lines bespoke repression and even a certain strength.” Repression and strength! With what force does this repression of the desire to be free—“body and soul”—explode within this woman of “strength”! We witness the tension building within her as something creeps out of the sky, preparing to overtake her with force. It moves through “the sounds, the scents, the colour that filled the air,” creating a tumult within her. She struggles to identify what this “something” is, attempting to resist it in vain. Ultimately, she becomes entirely possessed. The sensuous and sensational nature of this experience renders it as erotic as it is spiritual. We sense that the “repression” previously detected within her is also sexual. That “something” which has overtaken her is her own natural desire to be free—“body and soul free.” Throughout the entire description of her tumultuous state, the emphasis on the connection between body and soul is significant. But why does this force arise externally and then overtake her? Why doesn’t it emerge from within her? The symbolism here suggests that the force originates from nature and the sky. Chopin seeks to establish a connection between the force of natural desire and the essence of nature itself. The woman being overtaken is, in fact, reclaiming her nature, which has been forcefully repressed for far too long and now demands its rightful territory back. It does so like an act of nature and is extraordinarily powerful, for the stronger the repression, the more forceful its consequences. During Mrs. Mallard’s tumultuous experience, we first observe a “suspension of intelligent thought,” leading to a “clear and exalted perception” that cannot occur without intelligent thought. This suspension transpires during a brief moment of conflict when her own nature, her sense of freedom, overwhelms her. This is because “nature” brooks no intelligent thought, and no intelligent thought could eliminate it. “The clear and exalted perception” emerges when nature is allowed its course and is now unrestricted. The point Chopin seems to be making is that a social structure should not negate or deny nature but rather align with it. The exalted thought challenges the very notion of marriage as it exists today. It dismisses the idea that the joy enthralling her is “monstrous,” monstrous because such joy, such a notion of freedom, is perceived as unnatural or unacceptable. This brings us back to Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, whose introduction began this exploration. Fox-Genovese perceives Chopin as a social critic. In many of her stories, Chopin does not focus on individual relationships or gender-centric views. Instead, she examines the deeper conflict between human nature and the rigid institutions that seek to control it. There is no specific antagonist present; rather, we witness nature pitted against institution. Once Mrs. Mallard finds herself exalted, uplifted, and overwhelmed with joy, she undergoes a rebirth, transforming into “Louise,” and is no longer merely Mrs. Mallard. Her metamorphosis imparts new symbolic significance to nature’s springtime rebirth in the story, with the tops of its trees “aquiver” with new spring life. Chopin was deeply interested in the human connection with the surrounding world, particularly the bond women share with nature. In The Story of an Hour, she presents nature as a potent and living force, intricately linked to a woman’s inner life and the suppression that life endures. Louise’s awakening illustrates how this connection allows her to momentarily experience freedom and selfhood. Simultaneously, Chopin critiques how patriarchy, as an institution, suppresses not only female identity but also the natural forces of growth, change, and renewal. Through this lens, Chopin quietly yet powerfully critiques the systems that deny both women and nature their right to exist freely. Bibliography Chopin, Kate. "The Story of an Hour." Vogue, 6 Dec. 1894. Literature in Context, The University of Virginia, https://anthology.lib.virginia.edu/work/Chopin/chopin-hour. PBS. "Interviews: Kate Chopin and Feminism." PBS, www.pbs.org/katechopin/interviews.html. Williams, Christina R. "Reading Beyond Feminism: Kate Chopin's The Awakening and the New Woman." Scholar Commons, University of South Carolina, 2008, scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=tor. Accessed 24 Nov. 2024. Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Translated by H. M. Parshley, Vintage Books, 1989.

Nancy Wake in 1945 The endless rivalry between Tom and Jerry is a story as old as time. The cat-and-mouse chase has manifested across literary, cinematic, metaphoric, historic, and political realms. One of the most striking examples being the story of Nancy Wake (1912-2011), or, as the Nazis called her, "The White Mouse." Always outsmarting, manipulating, and evading brutal adversaries hiding behind their uniforms with her feminine charms, Nancy Wake, much like Jerry escaping from Tom each time, consistently eluded the Nazis' grasp. This earned her the fitting nickname: "The White Mouse."1 As a secret agent for the Special Operations Executive (SOE), a British organization created in 1940 to conduct espionage, sabotage, and reconnaissance in Nazi-occupied Europe, Wake honed her expertise in espionage, becoming a singular public enemy in the eyes of the Gestapo.2 She was placed on their most-wanted list with a bounty of five million francs on her head.3 Defying the stereotypical, misogynistic social conventions of her time and standing as a fierce advocate for humanity, Nancy Wake’s fiery spirit and bravery instilled fear in the supposedly "fearless" Nazi regime.4 The 20th century was globally plagued with a cycle of turbulent uncertainty. When many people fled from the disarray taking gruesome shape, Nancy Wake chose instead to survive, thrive, and seek out the chaos. At age 20, she left her quiet life in Australia and began her career in journalism in 1932 London. Young, ambitious, and driven by a passion for uncovering the truth, Nancy quickly immersed herself in the rapidly shifting political landscape of Europe in the years leading up to the Second World War. As a journalist, she was able to travel and witness first-hand the monstrosity and cruelty of the Nazi regime towards Jews. “In the middle of that beautiful city of Vienna, there was a big wheel in the square, and the Jews were tied to the wheel. The SS was whipping them. If ever I could do something one day, I’ll do it,” Nancy recalled in an interview decades after the incident.5 Amid Europe’s turmoil, Henri Fiocca, a wealthy French industrialist, captured Nancy's heart, and the two wed shortly after meeting. Their matrimony transpired in 1939, the same year World War II would commence. The UK and France then declared war on Germany in 1939. When Nancy offered to serve at a British recruitment centre, she was informed that she was not required and that she would be working only in the canteen.6 Greater opportunities awaited her in France, where her husband Henri was called up in 1940 to fight with the French Army. In the meantime, Nancy contributed to the Allied cause by helping neighbours, delivering clandestine messages, supporting soldiers staying at local hotels, and purchasing a car to use as an ambulance driver.7 Even being financially able to flee the growing unrest, Nancy and Henri chose to fight back. Their shared interest and resistance were well-suited to them as strong allies against Hitler's growing regime. When Germany invaded France in 1942, there emerged a loose association of resistance to Nazi occupation, called the French Resistance, and Nancy discovered her calling. She distributed clothing, false identification papers, and identity cards to help men avoid capture by the Nazis. With Henri, she purchased a hideaway house near Marseille to house escapees and organize underground operations.8 With her insurgent work, Nancy became acquainted with the top resistance leaders, including Ian Garrow, a British officer who established the O'Leary Line, an escape route for British prisoners of war. Her contact with such leaders and growing prominence soon placed her at the head of the Gestapo hit list. Despite regular encounters with Nazi officers, Nancy Wake successfully transported secret messages, coordinated safe houses, and orchestrated prison breaks, all while avoiding capture. She achieved this not only through meticulous planning and bravery but also by skilfully manipulating perceptions; by leaning into her femininity, through fluttering her eyelashes, seductive language, and the disarming charm of a femme fatale. Nancy often engaged Nazi officers in conversation without arousing suspicion, using flirtation as a calculated tool to make herself appear non-threatening and above suspicion.9 Her keen intelligence and aptitude for espionage soon made her too great a threat to ignore. By 1943, she was placed on the Gestapo's Most Wanted list, prompting an extensive manhunt. Aware she had to flee alone to avoid suspicion, she left Henri behind. Her three-month journey to England was nearly cut short when she was captured by the Milice, a paramilitary force aligned with the Nazis. After four days of interrogation and physical abuse, they failed to uncover her identity or her codename, “the White Mouse.” She was released after Garrow claimed she was his mistress, allowing her escape to continue.10 Nancy's flight was the turning point. Discovering about the Special Operations Executive (SOE), an organization set up by Churchill to hamper Nazi operations, she enlisted. Having undergone months of intensive training, she became a fully trained spy and agent (a rare role for a woman at the time), ready to take the fight back to Europe. From 1943 until the war's end, Nancy's dedication to the cause was clear through her deployment to France, where she conducted missions against the Nazis and led numerous resistance networks.11 However, being part of a war entails great sacrifice, something that Nancy could not fight off. This sacrifice would be the death of her late husband, the love of her life Henri. Call it intuition, but Nancy vividly remembered having a troubling dream about her husband’s death just before he was killed in 1944. Executed by the Nazis, Fiocca's actions and involvement as a resistance fighter led to his capture.12 Facing imminent execution, Henri showed no fear or remorse, paying the ultimate price for his loyalty to his country and love for his wife. War is the material expression of novel practices. No matter war's cyclical form (rising tension, mobilization, fighting, and the escalation of conflict), war's nature is uncertainty, the product of human behaviour's complexity. Not only in the practice of war as a whole but also in the roles and knowledge of women does this uncertainty surface, best attested to by Nancy Wake's experience.13 My main argument is that war, in disordering the social order, presents moments of resistance and redefinition by people, primarily women like Wake, against deeply ingrained societal attitudes. The twentieth century's prevailing vision of women as wives, mothers, and homemakers narrowly restricted their education and working lives, with the likes of Nazi Germany reinstating domestic responsibilities for girls while preparing boys for warrior life.14 But with wars forcing record-breaking societal upheaval, women like Nancy Wake transferred to the fields of nursing, factory labour, and, in Wake's case, combat and intelligence gathering.15 Not only did her actions thwart the Nazis but also undermined their rigid concepts of womanhood by using her femininity as a strategic weapon.16It is evident from Wake that war reveals and has the ability to dismantle the foundations of what is expected of society. It is evident from Wake that war reveals and has the ability to dismantle the foundations of what is expected of society. Yet, despite the radical nature of her contributions, Wake’s story is often side-lined in mainstream war historiography, which tends to centre male combatants or cast women primarily in support roles. Nancy Wake's affiliation with the Special Operations Executive illustrates the idea of complexity in historical thinking by presenting contradictions and complexities in the wartime roles of women. Rather than adhering to one or stereotypical story, Wake embodied multiple identities: femme fatale, strategist, and combatant, which illustrates how her action violated women's role expectations in the early twentieth century. Her history interrupts traditional narrative by revealing how war reaffirms and deconstructs cultural norms. The Nazi state enforced a rigid dichotomy of male virility and female domesticity, but Wake worked and manipulated within and against those limits with both her intelligence and her gendered expectation to her benefit.17 Her history closes off easy binary oppositions such as hero or criminal, feminine or militant, victim or agent. Rather, it calls for a closer look at the socio-political forces driving and driven by individual agency in times of war. Ultimately, Wake's legacy demonstrates how the choices of historical actors are driven by, and drive changes in, broader ideological, cultural, and political systems. Nancy Wake became the most decorated British servicewoman, celebrated for her courage, resilience, and ingenuity in resisting the Nazis. The once-feared men of steel were reduced to fools in their failure to capture the elusive "White Mouse”… a petite yet formidable force. Wake redefined what it meant to be a modern rebel, pioneering a new path in female espionage. She weaponized her gender and femininity, using charm and flirtation to escape enemy grasps and exploit the widespread belief that a woman couldn’t possibly outsmart them. Like Jerry evading Tom, she consistently outwitted brutal men hiding behind uniforms, earning her infamous nickname. War exposes the worst of humanity, but also its best. Nancy’s fearlessness pushed her to fight for justice against tyranny, and her sharp mind kept her one step ahead. Everyone becomes an outlaw in war, and she was no exception. Yet she knew her actions were justified in the name of freedom. Time and again, she slipped through the Nazis’ fingers with almost playful precision, moving with the kind of boldness that bordered on cockiness, as if daring them to catch her. They called her “The White Mouse,” a name as fitting as it was telling: like a certain clever cartoon mouse endlessly outwitting his pursuers, Nancy turned evasion into an art form. She helped shape history not just through violence or victory, but through conviction. Nancy Wake ran toward the fire when the world was burning. Her story is not just one of resistance, but of rewriting who gets remembered. To honour her is to demand space for women in the history books, not as exceptions, but as essential. 1 Nancy Wake, The White Mouse: The Autobiography of Australia’s Greatest War Heroine (Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985), 1 2 The National Archives (UK), “Nancy Wake – Special Operations Executive,” accessed April 22, 2025, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/nancy-wake/. 3 National Archives of Australia, “Nancy Wake: Second World War Heroine,” https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/student-research-portal/learning-resource-themes/government-and-d e mocracy/activism/second-world-war-heroine-nancy-wake. 4 Peter FitzSimons, Nancy Wake: A Biography of Our Greatest War Heroine (Sydney: HarperCollins, 2001), 98. 5 NZ On Screen, Nancy Wake Remembered, 2019, https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/nancy-wake-remembered-2019. 6 Russell Braddon, Nancy Wake: SOE’s Greatest Heroine (London: Cassell, 1956), 64. 7Ibid., 78. 8 FitzSimons, Nancy Wake, 123. 9 Wake, The White Mouse, 105. 10 Braddon, Nancy Wake, 99. 11 The National Archives (UK), “Nancy Wake – Special Operations Executive.” 12 FitzSimons, Nancy Wake, 150. 13Nancy Wake, The White Mouse: The Autobiography of the Woman the Gestapo Called the White Mouse (Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985). 14 Women and the National Community, Facing History & Ourselves, last modified August 2, 2016, https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/women-national-community. 15“Women of Steel: LIFE With Female Factory Workers in World War II,” TIME, March 8, 2017, https://time.com/4679011/women-factory-workers-wwii-life/. 16“Nancy Wake, the White Mouse,” War History Online, June 21, 2017, https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/nancy-wake-white-mouse.html. 17 Nancy Wake, The White Mouse: The Autobiography of the Woman the Gestapo Called the White Mouse (South Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985). Bibliography Primary Wake, Nancy. The White Mouse: The Autobiography of Australia’s Greatest War Heroine. Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985. Wake, Nancy. The White Mouse: The Autobiography of the Woman the Gestapo Called the White Mouse. South Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985., https://archive.org/details/nancywhite-mouseautobio1985 - The National Archives (UK). “Nancy Wake – Special Operations Executive.” https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/nancy-wake/ Wake, Nancy. The White Mouse: The Autobiography of the Woman the Gestapo Called the White Mouse. Melbourne: Macmillan, 1985. NZ On Screen. Nancy Wake Remembered. Documentary, 2019. https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/nancy-wake-remembered-2019 Secondary Facing History & Ourselves. Women and the National Community. Last modified August 2, 2016. https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/women-national-community. - FitzSimons, Peter. Nancy Wake: A Biography of Our Greatest War Heroine. Sydney: HarperCollins, 2001. https://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Wake-Fitzsimons-Peter/dp/0732295254 - Braddon, Russell. Nancy Wake: SOE’s Greatest Heroine. London: Cassell, 1956. https://archive.org/details/nancywakesoesgre0000brad "Nancy Wake, the White Mouse.” War History Online. June 21, 2017. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/nancy-wake-white-mouse.html - National Archives of Australia.“Nancy Wake: Second World War Heroine.” https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/student-research-portal/learning-resource t hemes/government-and-democracy/activism/second-world-war-heroine-nancy-wake - “Women of Steel: LIFE With Female Factory Workers in World War II.” TIME, March 8, 2017. https://time.com/4679011/women-factory-workers-wwii-life/.

Femininity was of key importance in the construction of the public identities of female pop stars in 1960s Britain. Utilising the work of Gender historians, who have established the malleability of gender and how it is crafted in the establishment of public identities, this essay will discuss the varied ways the femininity of 1960s female pop stars was presented to the British public.[1] Through the careful analysis of the careers of Sandie Shaw and Marianne Faithfull, I will illustrate how the diverse constructions of femininity were employed not only as a marketing tactic but also as a tool to assert proper codes of conduct for women in 1960s Britain. Furthermore, the evaluation of their careers exhibits the significant anxieties surrounding gender in post-war Britain and the manner in which societal discourses influenced representations of femininity in mainstream popular culture. Figure 1: Sandie Shaw, 1960s. Sandie Shaw rose to fame in 1964 following the release of the single ‘(There’s) Always Something There to Remind Me’ and garnered further success with the singles ‘Long Live Love’ and ‘Puppet on a String’, the latter winning the 1967 ‘Eurovision Song Contest’. Shaw became known for her theatrical style, her habit of not wearing shoes, and her romantic yet childlike songs. Femininity was a central component in the formation of Shaw’s identity as a musician, and in the way she was discussed in the media. Upon the outset of her career, Shaw was marketed as familiar and embodying a feminine paradigm that was relatable to the young women and girls of the 1960s. This is illustrated clearly by Tom Hutchinson, who wrote in the Women’s Mirror that Shaw was ‘a girl in a million, because she’s a girl like a million’.[2] Shaw was marketed to young women as someone they could relate to, but more pertinently, as an exemplary model of an acceptable feminine paradigm that could be replicated by young British women. This phenomenon has been identified by feminist scholars, such as Valerie Walkerdine, as a form of social conditioning that coerces women into expressions of femininity that are deemed appropriate within patriarchal societies. Within the context of post-war Britain, this was typically through representations of girlhood and womanhood in popular culture output (such as magazines, music and television). This can be seen within the aforementioned quote by Hutchinson, which champions Shaw’s admirable normalcy alongside her femininity. Born into a working-class family in Dagenham, Shaw worked in a factory before being discovered in 1964.[3] This origin was routinely emphasised in the press surrounding her, establishing her as an ordinary teenager whose success was possible for other teenage girls.[4] Alexandra M. Apolloni illustrates that Shaw was presented as a ‘real-life Cinderella’ who, despite her success, remained representative of the majority of young British women.[5] The repeated emphasis on ‘normality’, and indeed of the mundane, in the marketing of Shaw’s image was reflective of the rapid social change occurring in post-war Britain. Therefore, considering Shaw’s public persona was marketed as representative of the experiences of the majority of young British women in the 1960s, we can perceive the tensions and concerns surrounding femininity reflected within it. When analysing the discourses surrounding Shaw and, indeed, how she represented herself, the tensions between conservative and liberal attitudes surrounding gender in 1960s Britain are evident. The lives of working-class women were rapidly changing. For example, the traditional occupation for working-class women, domestic services, was on a steady decline, and the traditionally middle-class and male-dominated office work was now the vocation of 40% of young women between the ages of 15 and 17.[6] Furthermore, educational opportunities for women had significantly transformed in the post-war period, with 30% of British university students being women in 1962.[7] However, as Andrew August argued, conservative gender roles were still significantly present during the 1960s, as evidenced by the average age of marriage, which dropped from 24.6 in 1951 to 22.6 in 1971.[8] Women’s experiences of 1960s Britain were therefore complex, navigating a society that was simultaneously offering newfound freedom, all the while still championing patriarchal structures that sought to limit said freedom. Video of Sandie Shaw singing Puppet on A String in 1967 Such a dichotomy is notably present within Shaw’s public image. This is exemplified by a 1967 television performance of ‘Puppet on a String’, which focuses on Shaw singing alongside a swimming pool that has children playing within it.[9] Upon first glance, Shaw appears to be the epitome of ‘swinging culture’, dressed in a crocheted mini-dress and walking around barefoot (Fig. 1). In the performance, Shaw is sartorially presented as a distinctly modern and liberal woman, with her bare feet and sheer dress signifying anti-establishment sensibilities. However, as the performance progresses, she moves towards the playing children and begins to playfully splash them as she sings (Fig. 2). Figure 2: : Sandie Shaw performing ‘Puppet on a String’ on an unidentified television show, 1967. Figure 3: : Sandie Shaw performing ‘Puppet on a String’ on an unidentified television show, 1967. Therefore, while Shaw’s dress is evocative of anti-establishment sentiment, her actions within the performance place her in a maternal role. This is emphasised by the set, which is a recreation of a suburban garden, directly placing Shaw within the domestic sphere. Shaw’s rebellious fashion, contrasting the domestic setting, illustrates well the manner in which her femininity was employed to represent the inherent tensions that were felt by young women in the 1960s. This is made all the more evident by the lyrics of ‘Puppet on a String’, which Shaw was obliged to sing following a 1967 public vote.[10] While Shaw disliked the misogynistic content of the song, Apolloni argues that she was convinced to accept the vote due to public concern surrounding her perceived subversion of acceptable gender expression.[11] This concern originated to Shaw being cited in the divorce proceedings of TV executive Douglas Murdoch, who was alleged to have engaged in an extramarital affair with her.[12] This resulted in significant public outrage and a smear campaign which castigated Shaw as ‘a manipulative femme fatale who deliberately disrupted the marriage’.[13] Her role as an icon of attainable femininity was jeopardised as Shaw was perceived to have subverted this feminine paradigm and contributed to the widespread anxiety surrounding the sexualities of young women. Such widespread moral outrage is indicative of the societal anxiety surrounding sexuality that was engendered by the increasing autonomy allotted to women by such innovations as the 1961 introduction of the birth control pill.[14] While it is not explicitly stated, it is evident that the song was a part of a wider effort to reframe Shaw’s femininity in reaction to her transgression of acceptable gender roles. The lyrical content of the song further confirms this argument as it places Shaw in a distinctly subservient and patriarchal role. The lyrics to ‘Puppet on a String’ are markedly dissimilar to those of her prior hits. While songs such as ‘There’s Always Something (There to Remind Me)’ and ‘Girl Don’t Come’ follow the pattern of love songs of the era, a protagonist longing for emotional fulfilment or dealing with heartbreak, they still assert agency for the songs' female narrators. This can be illustrated by ‘Girl Don’t Come’, which is centred around a man’s disappointment at having been stood up on a date. The song is not judgmental of the woman for standing her date up, and instead focuses on the man’s feelings of romantic rejection. More broadly, this normalises women’s autonomy within their romantic life, presenting it as unremarkable. However, following Shaw’s perceived breach of acceptable behaviour for women, it became necessary to reject Shaw’s previous image of relative autonomy by depicting her in a significantly patriarchal manner. The lyrics to ‘Puppet on a String’ are markedly patriarchal, with the song’s narrator declaring that she will be ‘like a puppet on a string’ for the man she loves.[15] The song’s childlike melody is bolstered by lyrics of ‘merry-go-rounds’ and ‘fairs’, consequently ‘infantilising’ Shaw and depicting her as needing the control of a man.[16] The varied representations of Shaw’s femininity demonstrate how femininity as a concept was integral to the creation of the stage personas of female singers in the 1960s. The singers themselves were utilised as expressions of femininity that reflected the lived realities of women, therefore ensuring their marketability. However, when this curated image was jeopardized a traditional and patriarchal image of femininity was enacted to keep them within the confines of respectability. This further illustrates that while the 1960s saw definite progress for women’s rights, it remained a distinctly patriarchal decade in which a woman’s worth was inherently associated with the reproduction of an acceptable feminine paradigm. Figure 4: Marianne Faithfull, 1960s. Another key example of popular singers being utilised as symbols of femininity in 1960s Britain is the career of Marianne Faithfull. Faithfull’s early career, which saw success in 1965 with the release of ‘Marianne Faithfull’, was characterised by a significant focus on her expression of femininity. Much like Shaw’s career, Faithfull’s femininity was distinctly politicised and came to symbolise the wider political climate of 1960s Britain. However, unlike Shaw’s attainable image and working-class origins, Faithfull came to represent ‘a galvanizing idea of feminine sexuality and class’ that was reliant upon her presentation as a symbol of the white upper-class English woman, reflecting the class anxieties of the period.[17] Faithfull’s mother was ‘Baroness Erisso’ of the defunct Austro-Hungarian nobility, and these aristocratic origins were of key significance in the construction of her femininity.[18] Faithfull’s aristocratic pedigree was intentionally emphasised: in a 1964 press release, she was described as ‘a poetry reading sophisticate’.[19] Such descriptions were aided by Faithfull’s notably upper-class singing voice, sonically expressing to listeners her aristocratic heritage. Unlike Shaw, whose interviewers largely asked questions about domestic or trivial matters, such as lifestyle and leisure, Faithfull’s education was emphasised. In a 1968 interview with the BBC, Phillip Jenkinson asked her a broad spectrum of questions ranging from contemporary psychology to her belief in the afterlife.[20] The attention given to her superior education served to assert Faithfull as an intellectual and distinctly aristocratic woman. This was similarly expressed through her music, often exhibiting her upper-class education by singing in French or setting poetry to music. The marketing of Faithfull as a paragon of upper-class womanhood was inherently racialised. Scholars have noted that it served to ‘cast her as the apotheosis of English womanhood, a symbol of racial purity’.[21] While Faithfull’s aristocratic heritage was Austro-Hungarian, her received pronunciation and ‘haughty’ manner were evocative of a distinctly English tradition of nobility.[22] Faithfull’s whiteness, and particularly her blondeness, were central to her image as the ultimate example of English femininity. The aforementioned 1964 press release described Faithful as ‘lissome and lovely with long blonde hair’.[23] Music mogul Kim Fowley further illustrates this point when describing Faithfull as a ‘big-titted Aryan Goddess, the peak of wet-pussy goddess’.[24] Fowley’s deplorable racism and misogyny exemplify that Faithfull’s white Englishness was fetishised and held up as a racialised symbol of a mythic sense of English femininity. This image was not solely interpreted by those who interacted with Faithfull’s music but was, in fact, propagated by Faithfull and her management. This is not to say that Faithfull viewed herself as a paragon of white femininity; rather, her music catalogue helped reproduce this image alongside the wider political landscape of post-war Britain. This argument is exemplified by Faithfull’s 1966 album ‘North Country Maid’. This album consisted of covers of contemporary and traditional folk songs, with 6 of its 12 tracks being renditions of traditional British and Irish folk ballads. While folk music is a diverse music genre, the work of scholars such as Caroline Lucas demonstrates how modern British folk music can ‘produce whiteness’, and, that ‘English folk music can be understood as encoded with racialised meanings which reproduce whiteness within the nation’.[25] This is particularly true in the case of British folk music originating in the 1960s, which Julia Mitchell argues ‘echoed anxieties’ concerning immigration.[26] These anxieties often manifested in a mythic idealisation of an older Britain that was divorced from modern contemporary reality and often explicitly white.[27] Therefore, Faithfull’s recording of traditional folk ballads in ‘North Country Maid’ can be seen alongside such discourses. Faithfull’s musical output is inherently English, with numerous covers of iconic songs from English history, such as her 1964 cover of ‘Greensleeves’. While Faithfull herself certainly wasn’t a white supremacist, notably opposing Brexit and its racist underpinnings, the construction of her femininity as inherently white, alongside her recordings of historically English songs, was symptomatic of a growing English nativism and a racist cultural nostalgia. In fact, Faithfull’s anti-racist viewpoints exhibit how little agency musicians had in the construction and reception of their own image. The cultural anxieties of the period, such as feminine agency in the case of Shaw and racist anxieties in the case of Faithfull, were projected onto them by the public and their own management. As was perceived in the career of Shaw, the femininity of women pop stars in the 1960s was malleable and altered in response to social concerns and public scandal. Regarding Faithfull’s career, the widespread outrage following her 1967 arrest for drug possession, alongside her boyfriend Mick Jagger, stemmed from the emphasis on female purity and whiteness within her early career. Following the arrest and during the very public trial, Faithfull was acutely vilified for supposed corruption.[28] Apolloni astutely argues that this vilification of Faithfull is illustrative of a supposed breach of her racialised feminine archetype, as her romantic relationship with Jagger was representative of the corruption of her white femininity.[29] While Jagger is white, scholars of music history have demonstrated that rock music was explicitly racialised upon its introduction to the British market and was seen to be a potentially corruptive influence due to its association with black culture.[30] As Lee Marshall demonstrates, ‘the Stones explicitly aligned themselves to black music and black musicians’, consequently establishing themselves in the minds of white Britons as an example of the increasingly multicultural music industry, and more broadly British society as a whole.[31] Their appropriation of traditionally black musical styles, such as soul or r&b, established a sonic association between the white band members and black culture. To those who upheld the racist notion of racial and cultural corruption stemming from increased contact with black people and black culture, white men like Jagger appropriating black cultural output were perceived as evidence of white cultural decay at the hands of increased cultural contact. While he was never viewed as anything other than a white man, his cultural output made him a symbol of cross-cultural contact, and as Riley summarises, threatened ‘the exclusivity and whiteness of British identity’.[32] With this racist notion in mind, Faithfull’s arrest alongside Jagger was perceived as a transgression of her established image as a symbol of white femininity and further evidence of the perils facing white women in a multicultural Britain. This is best exemplified in a letter sent to Faithfull during the trial, which stated, ‘the sooner you leave this island with your long blond hair floating in the sea, it will be a cleaner place’.[33] The writer is evidently of the opinion that this feminine paradigm has been sullied, as they illustratively describe Faithfull as being a pollutive influence on British society by stating that Britain would be ‘cleaner’ in her absence. Its description of Faithfull’s blondeness makes the racialised facet of her identity plain; what she was once celebrated for was now used against her due to perceived transgression. Through this letter, it is evident that Faithfull’s arrest was perceived, at least by some, as evidence of the corruption of her established feminine paradigm, which was inherently associated with a racialised understanding of English womanhood. Unlike Shaw, who released her greatest hit ‘Puppet on a String’ in response to a gendered public scandal, Faithfull’s 1960s career did not recover. Following the trial, she descended into drug addiction and experienced homelessness before her meteoric comeback in 1979 with ‘Broken English, released 12 years after the arrest. Through the analysis of Shaw and Faithfull’s femininities, it is abundantly clear that the femininity of pop stars was presented in varied ways that were reflective of their own personal histories and the wider societal discourses surrounding gender, race and class. Shaw’s presentation was indicative of a societal tension between traditional gender roles and the increasing opportunities that were available for women in 1960s Britain. Depictions of Shaw’s eccentric and mildly rebellious femininity were still entirely dependent on the reassurance that she was acting within the confines of traditional gender ideals. This is evidenced not only by her performances, which contrasted her eccentricity with the domestic, but by her acutely patriarchal depictions following her perceived gender transgression. Faithfull’s femininity was similarly politicised; however, hers was dependent on a racialised notion of English womanhood that allowed her to be presented as an exemplary model of white English femininity. In the same manner that Shaw’s presentation of femininity was indicative of wider discourses surrounding gender, Faithfull’s emerged from the racist discourses surrounding the ‘exclusivity of Britishness’ that arose in post-war Britain. However, as was witnessed with Shaw, Faithfull’s transgression of this racialised view of English femininity resulted in widespread condemnation. Both women’s presentations of femininity arose from the complex dialogues surrounding gender and race in 1960s Britain and were central to the construction of their public identities. [1] Namely Judith Butler and Alexandra M. Apolloni. [2] Alexandra M. Apolloni, ‘Freedom Girls: Voicing Femininity in 1960s British Pop’ (Oxford University Press, 2021), pp. 51 [3] ‘Sandie Shaw (MBE) - Dagenham’s Eurovision Superstar’, East End Women’s Museum, 13 May 2022 [Accessed 7 May 2025] [4] Apolloni, pp. 49. [5] Apolloni, pp. 49. [6] Andrew August, ‘Gender and 1960s Youth Culture: The Rolling Stones and the New Woman’, Contemporary British History, vol. 23, 1 (2009), pp. 79-100 (pp. 81) [7] August, pp. 81 [8] August, pp. 81 [9] Sandie Shaw Channel, ‘Puppet on a String 1967’, December 24 2024 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uot2CpkEb8Q> [Accessed 28 April 2025] [10] Apolloni, pp. 63 [11] IBID. [12] IBID. [13] IBID. [14] Vicky Iglikowski-Broad, ‘Just a pill: 60 years of the contraceptive pill on the NHS’, National Archives, 4 December 2021 < https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/just-a-pill-60-years-of-the-contraceptive-pill-on-the-nhs/> [Accessed 2 May 2025] [15] Sandie Shaw, ‘Puppet on a String’, from Puppet on a String (Pye, 1967) [16] Apolloni, pp. 65 [17] Apolloni, pp. 196 [18] Apolloni, pp. 196-197 [19] Apolloni, pp. 202 [20] Phillip Jackson, ‘1968: MARIANNE FAITHFULL Talking | Film Review | Classic Interviews | BBC Archive’, Youtube, 31 January 2025 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwG55RBL89g&t=729s> [Accessed 5 May 2025] [21] Apolloni, pp. 206 [22] Apolloni, pp. 203 [23] Apolloni, pp. 199 [24] Apolloni, pp. 203 [25] Caroline Lucas, The Imagined Folk of England: Whiteness, Folk Music and Fascism, Critical Race and Whiteness Studies, vol. 9, 1 (2012), pp. 1-19 (pp. 1) [26] Julia Mitchell, ‘Postwar Politics, Society and the Folk Revival in England, 1945-65’ (Bloomsbury, 2019), pp. 80 [27] Lucas, pp. 1 [28] Apolloni, pp. 209 [29] Apolloni, pp. 209 [30] Apolloni, pp. 170 and 199 [31] Lee Marshal, ‘The Greatest Rock and Soul Band in the World? The Rolling Stones, genre and race’, Popular Music, vol. 73, 1 (2024), pp. 72-87 (pp. 83) [32] Riley, pp. 150 [33] Apolloni, pp. 210 Bibliography Apolloni, Alexandra M., ‘Freedom Girls: Voicing Femininity in 1960s British Pop’ (Oxford University Press, 2021) August, Andrew, ‘Gender and 1960s Youth Culture: The Rolling Stones and the New Woman’, Contemporary British History, vol. 23, 1 (2009), pp. 79-100 Brocken, Michael, Derek B. Scott and Stan Hawkins, ‘The British Folk Revival: 1944-2002’ (Taylor & Francis, 2017) Hodgkinson, Mark, ‘As Years Go By: Marianne Faithfull’ (Omnibus Press, 2013) Iglikowski-Broad, Vicky, ‘Just a pill: 60 years of the contraceptive pill on the NHS’, National Archives, 4 December 2021 < https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/just-a-pill-60-years-of-the-contraceptive-pill-on-the-nhs/> [Accessed 2 May 2025] Lucas, Caroline, The Imagined Folk of England: Whiteness, Folk Music and Fascism, Critical Race and Whiteness Studies, vol. 9, 1 (2012), pp. 1-19 Marshal, Lee, ‘The Greatest Rock and Soul Band in the World? The Rolling Stones, genre and race’, Popular Music, vol. 73, 1 (2024), pp. 72-87 Mitchell, Julia, ‘Postwar Politics, Society and the Folk Revival in England, 1945-65’ (Bloomsbury, 2019) Riley, Charlotte Lydia, ‘Imperial Island: A History of Empire in Modern Britain’ (Random House, 2023) Staubmann, Helmut (ed), ‘The Rolling Stones: Sociological Perspectives (Lexington Books, 2013) Walkerdine, Valerie, ‘Femininity as Performance’, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 15, 3 (1989), pp. 267-279 Websites ‘A summary history of immigration to Britain’, Migration Watch UK, 12 May 2014 < https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/48/a-summary-history-of-immigration-to-britain> [Accessed 10 May 2025] Agence France-Presse, ‘J.K. Rowling and other celebrities mourn Brexit vote: ‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted magic more’’, Raw Story, 25 June 2016 < https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/j-k-rowling-and-other-celebrities-mourn-brexit-vote-i-don’t-think-ive-ever-wanted-magic-more/> [Accessed 2 May 2025] Phillip Jackson, ‘1968: MARIANNE FAITHFULL Talking | Film Review | Classic Interviews | BBC Archive’, Youtube, 31 January 2025 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwG55RBL89g&t=729s> [Accessed 5 May 2025] ‘Sandie Shaw (MBE) – Dagenham’s Eurovision Superstar’, East End Women’s Museum, 13 May 2022 [Accessed 7 May 2025] Sandie Shaw Channel, ‘Puppet on a String 1967’, December 24 2024 < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uot2CpkEb8Q> [Accessed 28 April 2025] Music Faithfull, Marianne, ‘Come My Way’ (Decca, 1965) ______, ‘Love in a Mist’ (Decca, 1967) ______ , ‘North Country Maid’ (Decca, 1966) Shaw, Sandie, ‘Girl Don’t Come’, from Sandie (Pye, 1965) ______ , ‘Puppet on a String’, from Puppet on a String (Pye, 1967)

Unknown Artist, ‘Unknown Women, formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury’ (circa 1535), National Portrait Gallery. ‘Unknown woman, formerly known as Margaret Pole’ is a portrait currently owned by the National Portrait Gallery. Margaret Pole, born 14th August 1473, is an extremely interesting woman who experienced major fluctuations in her social standing from her birth, through the Wars of the Roses, the establishment of the Tudor regime and the oppressive Henrician age. Hence the title of the portrait, it has not been conclusively proven to be Margaret Pole and there has been debate on who exactly the sitter may be. This portrait has become an art history conundrum, the artist is unknown and the year of creation is an estimate, circa 1535. Originally, the portrait was confidently believed to be Margaret Pole but this was rescinded as a fact after examinations of the artwork in the 1960s and 1970s. Hilary Mantel noted that some original features may have been altered in the 20th century, such as the possibility that the black ribbon was added to hide damaged paint, this raised the question could the barrel charm have been added also? 1 Roy Strong noted that the portrait was first documented in 1785 and believed it to be a lady from the Barrington family playing the role of Margaret Pole, however, the National Portrait Gallery has identified the painting's origins as the 1530s so this argument is not completely persuasive. 2 There is little doubt that features have been altered on the painting but the questions are, which features have been altered and why? Unfortunately, it will likely never be known. Hazel Pierce has stood firm on her stance that as the barrel charm did not fade during the 1973 cleaning of the portrait it is more likely to be an original feature. 3 Pierce’s view is convincing, as the author of the first full biography on Margaret Pole her research was extensive and regarding this portrait, discussed with the National Portrait Gallery. The stance that this article will support is that the sitter is indeed Margaret Pole and from it historians can glean an insight into the countess and the treacherous medieval landscape in which she lived. Margaret’s parents were two nobles from the house of York, George, Duke of Clarence and Isabel Neville; the marriage had been part of a rebellion and a betrayal of George’s brother, King Edward IV, who had previously denied the union. Despite this, George and Isabel were forgiven and welcomed back into the Yorkist court. George however, never seemed to feel secure in his place within the regime. With Isabel’s death in 1476, George became increasingly erratic and destroyed any remaining patience Edward IV had with his displays of disloyalty. George was convinced that his brothers did not wish for him to obtain more wealth and power. This frustrated him greatly as he had vast ambitions for himself, thus he became riskier in his behaviour and involved in a string of legal disputes; the Duke refused to eat the King's food and his men were legally linked to the dark arts. The final straw for Edward IV was George’s judicial murder of Ankarette Twynho and John Thursby whom he believed to be responsible for the poisoning of his wife but were both almost certainly innocent. The image of the three brothers of York had been a powerful part of the Yorkist identity, brothers united against disputable Lancastrians who would shine the sun back on England. George’s behaviour though was erratic and untrustworthy. On 18th February 1478, George was executed for treason, reportedly by being “plunged into a barrel of sweet wine.”4 Margaret Pole was unlikely to remember much about her parents but the unhappy series of events that occurred after Isabel’s death had a profound impact on her life. George had died a traitor's death. Margaret was Yorkist royalty but also a traitor's daughter, these two things would come to define her reputation. His execution thrust her into a life of wardship that would only further change with the fall of the Yorkist dynasty. These would have been a major series of events in her life and perhaps years later, she memorialised them within portraiture. The rumours that have circulated around George’s execution focus on being drowned in a barrel of Malmsey wine. The rumour, started by Dominic Mancini, a peer with very little link to the Yorkist royals, could easily be false, but there has not been steadfast evidence against it either. Whether the barrel execution is true or false, it came to define George, Duke of Clarence in historiography where he has often been represented as fickle and foolish. Margaret Pole herself, went through dramatic changes of fortune during her adult life. Henry VII married her to Richard Pole, a staunch Lancastrian of humble standing; the couple had children, resided in the Ludlow household of Prince Arthur and settled into Tudor society. It was in the turbulent reign of Henry VIII and after the death of her husband however, that Margaret’s prominence rose. In 1512, Margaret regained her family’s wealth, titles and land, surpassing the expectations of her gender and becoming the only woman in England to hold a title in her own right, which she would be until 1532. Margaret showed herself to be ambitious and intelligent, she was also loyal and staunchly supported what she cared about, demonstrated by her actions regarding The Kings Great Matter which would eventually tie into the downfall of the Pole family. Margaret Pole lost standing with the King during the 1530s as she firmly planted herself in the Aragonese faction, interestingly, this is the estimated creation date of the portrait making it a vital timeframe to analyse. During the dissolution of Princess Mary’s household in 1533, Margaret refused to hand over the princess’ jewels and was dismissed from court. The Poles were also one of the noble families implicated in the Nun of Kent affair, a case inexplicitly linked to the growing treason laws and which demonstrated who in court was not supporting the new faith. In Europe, Margaret’s son Reginald, was on a catholic campaign to condemn the King’s actions. As long as he worked against the King abroad, his family would not be trusted at home. In a report from Eustace Chapuys from February 1535, Henry VIII supposedly referred to Margaret as a ‘fool of no experience,’ this personal insult demonstrated how far Margaret had come from being the trusted governess to Princess Mary years earlier.5 Henry VIII no longer approved of the Pole family and their matriarch and had no qualms about showing it. In the ‘Unknown Woman’ portrait, a barrel charm is visible on the wrist of the sitter. Margaret has not been conclusively identified as the subject of this painting but the barrel charm is the largest piece of evidence in favour of that stance, along with a W hanging off the black ribbon which would acknowledge her Warwick ancestry from her mothers side. The barrel is undoubtedly the most interesting of these motifs, as it would be a strange fashion choice unless the symbol meant something to the wearer or the viewers of the portrait. To the Pole family and those that knew them, it would mean very much indeed. If the barrel charm was an original feature, this portrait is very likely Margaret Pole subtly paying homage to her father. This is significant in multiple ways and, if we accept this portrait to be of Margaret, gives an insight into her boldness and how she felt towards the crown. Margaret would have been at the height of her wealth and influence visualising a charm that served as a memento of her father. Perhaps, in a nod to his own vast ambitions and in hopes that he would be proud of how high her effort had raised herself and her children. Or as a morbid reminder of how quickly one could fall from favoured courtesan to traitor. This portrait was created in the midst of an extremely dangerous period for Margaret Pole; treason laws were expanding and she had established herself as standing against the reformist court, as her son was actively campaigning against the King to catholic enemies of England. Yet, she was further associating herself with an executed traitor whilst simultaneously harking back to her family's royal legacy. Not only would this portrait have reminded people of the powerful dynasty Margaret came from but it looks humbly regal, she is graceful and surrounded by rich green hues. This is even more fascinating with the rumours that emerged from Chapuys of a plan to marry Reginald to Princess Mary and create a new claim to the throne, according to Lauren Mackay, Chapuys was corresponding with Reginald and meeting Geoffrey Pole frequently. 6 This plan never amounted to anything, but could this portrait have even been a reminder of the Yorkist legacy of the Pole family and eligibility to the throne? Could the barrel charm hint to a proud, rebellious attitude that Margaret and her children had gained from George, Duke of Clarence, who never caved on doing what he wished no matter how detrimental it could be. Or perhaps it served as a reminder to herself and the Pole family of how far one could fall if they walked the tightrope of traitorous behaviour, no matter who they were nor how regal their legacy was. It would be impossible to know exactly what was intended by this portrait and there are no surviving accounts from Margaret herself that shed light on any portraiture during her life. Could the barrel, when paired with the W, have been an effort to memorialise her parents or does this seem too much and more likely to have been added later to promote the image of Margaret Pole? Whilst both are possible, this was a contentious time in Margaret’s life, she and her children would have known how easy it would be to fall victim to Henry VIII’s executioner as had happened to many courtiers by the 1530s. Therefore, it would be reasonable for one to become mindful about their family and legacy and no small memento in a portrait would necessarily be too much. Portraits were designed to be long lasting and present a legacy to future generations. This was the era in which artists, such as Hans Holbein the Younger, created characterisations of Tudor figures through portraiture (or lack thereof) that have only recently begun to be deconstructed and viewed in more nuanced ways. This portrait then, could be evidence of the monumental effect that the execution of George, Duke of Clarence had on his daughter. If this is indeed Margaret Pole, then fifty-seven years later she was using not his badge, nor a Yorkist motif, but the method of his supposed fools execution as a token in a medium designed to be part of her future image for years to come. Additionally, doing this at a time when she was teetering on the edge of being viewed as a traitor would hint that she wanted to portray a strong message to King and court. This would display a pride in her legacy and bravery. This could be then, a dangerous and touching representation of herself to present to the ruthless world of Henrician England. No matter what is true or false, because Margaret has been linked to this portrait and George, Duke of Clarence linked to the barrel of malmsley wine for so long, they are explicitly bonded together through these things as unfortunate victims of traitor culture in historic regimes. There is no evidence that Margaret explicitly violated the Act of Supremacy or committed treason, which means that either she was innocent or she learnt from the rebellions that her father so proudly took part in and hid her actions better than he had. In her children however, the reckless abandon that harked back to George, Duke of Clarence was rife and they did not cover their actions well enough. It was with Reginald Pole’s explicit catholic campaign, Lord Montagu Pole's loose lips and Geoffrey Pole's tortured implication of his family that Margaret Pole was arrested. On 27th May 1541, with an Act of Attainder and no concrete evidence of treason, Margaret Pole was executed at sixty-seven years old. According to the French ambassador, this consolidated the “total ruin of her house.” 7 Margaret Pole’s life was dramatic, she navigated treacherous times and was witness to prolific reigns of English History. There is sadly a lack of conclusive evidence outside of her household accounts that directly allows historians to know her as a person, which is so often the case with historical women. This is also echoed with the mystery of this portrait and the question of whether or not she is the sitter. If the lady with the barrel charm is Margaret Pole, history certainly stands to gain slightly more insight into her courageous character and fascinating life. Hilary Mantel, ‘How do we know her?’, London Review of Books, Vol.39, No.3, February 2017 Hazel Pierce, Margaret Pole: Countess of Salisbury 1473-1541, (Cardiff, 2003) p.198 Ibid Michael Hicks, False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence: George Duke of Clarence 1449-78, (Gloucester, 1980) p.200. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 8, January-July 1535, pp. 98-124, 1885. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol8. Date Accessed 14th August 2025. Lauren Mackay, Inside the Tudor Court: Henry VIII and his six wives through the eyes of the Spanish Ambassador, (Gloucestershire, 2015) Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 16, 1540-1541. N.p., 1898. Print. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol16/pp409-429 Date Accessed 14th August 2025. Bibliography/Further Reading Hicks, Michael, False, Fleeting, Perjur’d Clarence: George Duke of Clarence 1449-78, (Gloucester, 1980) Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 8, January-July 1535, pp. 98-124, 1885. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol8. Date Accessed 14th August 2025. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 16, 1540-1541. N.p., 1898. Print. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol16/pp409-429 Date Accessed 14th August 2025. Lauren Mackay, Inside the Tudor Court: Henry VIII and his six wives through the eyes of the Spanish Ambassador, (Gloucestershire, 2015) Mancini, Dominic, The Usurpation of Richard III, ed. C. A. J Armstrong, (Oxford, 1969). Mantel, Hilary, ‘How do we know her?’, London Review of Books, Vol.39, No.3, February 2017. Penn, Thomas, The Brothers York: An English Tragedy, (London, 2019) Pierce, Hazel, Margaret Pole: Countess of Salisbury 1473-1541, (Cardiff, 2003) Unknown Artist, ‘Unknown Women, formerly known as Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury’ (circa 1535), National Portrait Gallery.

Jane Austen: Rise of a Genius is a three-part documentary which focuses on the writer Jane Austen’s life from her childhood to her death at age 41 in 1817. It is currently available to watch on BBC iPlayer and is narrated by the actor Juliet Stevenson. Alongside Stevenson other people discuss Austen including the actor Charity Wakefield and the writer Helen Fielding. Actors in period dress, including Emöke Zsigmond as Jane Austen and Adél Jordan as Austen’s cousin Eliza depict events from Austen’s life. Cassandra Austen, Vignettes of Early Kings of England from Austen’s History of England, 1922. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain. The first episode explores Austen’s early life in Hampshire, where she grew up and her early writing. There are several surviving notebooks that include works which Austen wrote between the ages of eleven to eighteen which were published after her death in 1817. These are largely fictional works which range from plays to short novels as well as other forms of writing. Jane Austen Expert, Kathryn Sutherland argues that these sometimes parody and critique writing from Austen’s lifetime. One of Austen’s early works was called the History of England and features illustrations by Austen’s sister Cassandra. It was written when Austen was 15 and parodies Oliver Goldsmith’s book The History of England from the Earliest Times to the Death of George II. This was a history book that was studied by children in the late 1700s including Austen and her siblings when they were growing up. Austen’s later work continued to satirise and critique popular writing. For example, Austen’s posthumously published novel Northanger Abbey subverts and critiques Gothic Literature which was popular in her lifetime. In many late Eighteenth Century Gothic novels, the heroine would have a bleak family history and there would be dark secrets surrounding her and her family (Scopic,2019). In contrast, Northanger Abbey’s protagonist Catherine Moorland has a happy upbringing with loving parents and many siblings. There are also no secrets surrounding her and her family. Moreover, many eighteenth century gothic heroines were written with little agency and had few personality flaws, in contrast Catherine is a flawed person, who actively makes events happen. (Scopic,2019). Charles Edward Brock, Illustration from Chapter Five of Catherine and her friend Isabella 1907 Edition of Northanger Abbey, 1907. Source Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain. The documentary does not explain why Austen’s early work remained unpublished during her lifetime. Nonetheless, the notebooks with her early writing contain wear from heavy use and were read aloud to other people during her lifetime. Moreover, Austen’s niece Anna Austen Lefroy and her half- brother James Edward Austen Leigh added their own contributions to one of the notebooks. Anna later wrote and published two children’s books including one named Springtide in 1842. James wrote a book called A Memoir of Jane Austen with the help and contribution of his sister Caroline, Anna and their cousin Cassy Esten Austen. This was the first major published biography of Jane Austen. Episode one also explores the difficulties Austen faced with getting her work published, using the example of her novel Northanger Abbey. Austen wrote Northanger Abbey in the early 1800s and sold it to a publisher named Crosby and Co with the understanding that it would be published immediately, which did not happen. Crosby and Co later claimed that they had no intention of doing this. Some years later, Austen’s brother Henry brought back the copyright for Jane. However, Northanger Abbey was not published until six months after Jane’s death in 1817. The inclusion of Austen’s struggles with Northanger Abbey works well as it is a struggle many writers face. This is because many writers including myself have struggled to get work published and this makes Austen appear as someone we can relate to. Episode two explores Austen’s life from her late twenties to her mid to early thirties. This episode refers to the publication of Sense and Sensibility, Austen’s first published novel. Episode two gives a brief overview of its characters and plot which is quite broad and is summed up in a few sentences. Then there is a brief analysis of a couple of points from Sense and Sensibility which is also done when Austen’s other novels are discussed. This works well as the documentary covers a lot of information so there is not enough time to give an in-depth analysis of every novel. Episode two is bolstered by the inclusion of clips from a 1995 adaptation of Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet (dir. by Ang Lee). Lee’s film won awards including the 1996 BAFTA Award for Best Film. Thompson won a BAFTA for best actress and Winslet won a BAFTA for best supporting actress. Lee’s film is compelling: however, the documentary would have benefited from exploring more film and television adaptations of Sense and Sensibility. Every director has their own ideas about how a novel should be depicted; therefore, it would have been interesting to see clips from more than one adaptation of Sense and Sensibility in order to see the differences and similarities between them. The final episode discusses Austen’s life from her mid- thirties to her death at age forty-one. This includes a discussion of work, that she produced later in life including her last complete novel Persuasion. Throughout the documentary, footage from film and television adaptations of Austen’s novels are used alongside quotes from them and a discussion about each of her works. This is done particularly well in the final episode when an emotional passage from Austen’s novel Persuasion is discussed. In this passage the novel’s protagonist Anne, receives a letter from her former fiancé Captain Wentworth, declaring that he has never stopped loving her and proposing marriage. Anne is greatly affected by the letter and goes to find him. The letter is very emotional as it involves Captain Wentworth talking deeply about his feelings for Anne. People in the documentary, including the actors Greg Wise and Samuel West talk about the letter and read quotes from it. Alongside this, clips of Anne reading the letter are shown from a 2022 production of Persuasion starring actors Dakota Johnson and Cosmo Jarvis as Anne and Wentworth. These clips work well alongside the discussion of Persuasion and quotations from it as they allow you both to imagine Anne’s response to the letter and see how she might have reacted to it. This is because although the scene is very emotional to read, the inclusion of clips from 2022 Film of Persuasion makes it even more affecting. This is due Johnson’s powerful performance of Anne’s response to the letter. Charles Edward Brock, Illustration from 1898 Edition of Persuasion of Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth. 1898. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain. While wrapping up the story of Austen’s life, the last episode omits details that were an important part of Austen’s life. For example, the documentary discusses how Austen and her sister Cassandra both became ill while they were away at boarding school. The documentary states that Cassandra alone looked after Jane while she was ill. This is then compared to when Cassandra cared for Jane when she was dying. Key details are missed here, therefore failing to dissect nuances in Cassandra’s care for Austen. It is true that Austen and her sister became very ill while at a school run by a woman called Mrs Cawley (Pibworth, 2017). Their cousin Jane Cooper who was at school with them, also became unwell and Mrs Cawley refused to inform the Coopers or the Austens of the girls’ health (Pibworth, 2017). Jane Cooper however wrote to her parents about her and her cousins’ illnesses and Mrs Austen and Mrs Cooper on hearing this, took their daughters’ home (Pibworth,2017). The girls were cared for by Mrs Austen and Mrs Cooper but tragically, Mrs Cooper subsequently became ill and died shortly after (Pibworth,2017). There are various sources that cover this period of illness, and none of them reference Cassandra as a caretaker of Austen. This undermines the authority of the documentary and suggests that not all sources about Austen’s life were consulted. This was a confusing choice for a biographical documentary because with these tactics the documentary, paints an incorrect picture of what happened. Therefore, the documentary should not have used the comparison between Cassandra and Austen’s years at school to the time when Austen was dying. As mentioned previously, there are actors who depict episodes from Austen’s life in all three episodes. The actors accurately depict emotional events and provide a strong image of Austen and the people surrounding her. A good effort is made by the costumes to match the contemporary fashion of Austen's time, however, there is not much nuance as decades change. Storylines could have been bolstered by more detailed costume choices to immerse the viewer in the programme. The actor Emöke Zsigmond wears a gold ring with a blue stone in all three episodes of the documentary. Austen owned a ring with a gold band and a turquoise stone and due to the similarities, the documentary is probably referencing Austen’s ring. Austen’s ring is currently on display in Jane Austen’s House which is a museum open to the public in Chawton in Hampshire. It was also formerly a house Austen lived in with her sister Cassandra, their mother and their friend Martha Lloyd. The reference to Austen’s ring makes the one Zsigmond is wearing seem very authentic to Austen. This is because it almost feels as if Zsigmond has become Austen due to the personal nature of the ring. Billy, Jane Austen’s House. 2011. Source: Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. Overall, this documentary makes some compelling points. This series is a great introductory watch to become familiar with Austen’s history and the literary techniques she used because the documentary gives a thorough and detailed account of her life and work. For viewers who are already familiar with Austen's life, this may not be an educational watch but it still offers a good illustrative view for all Austen enthusiasts. Bibliography A Memoir of Jane Austen by James Edward Austen Leigh. Available at: A Memoir of Jane Austen by James Edward Austen-Leigh | Jane Austen's House , (Accessed 20 December 2025). Anna Austen Lefroy: A Believer in True Love. (26 July 2011) Available at : Anna Austen Lefroy: A believer in True Love - Jane Austen articles and blog, ( Accessed 20 December 2025). Austen, J. (1996, originally published 1813) Pride and Prejudice, Penguin Classics: London. Garcia, J (14 May 2018) Jane Austen’s Juvenilia: Extravagantly Absurd and Outrageously Funny. Available at: Jane Austen's juvenilia: extravagantly absurd and outrageously funny – The Oxford Student , (Accessed 26 December 2025). Jane Austen: Rise of a Genius. (2025). Directed by Ali Naushahi. (Documentary) BBC 2 Television, 27 May-9th June. Jane Austen’s Ring. Available at: Jane Austen's Ring | Jane Austen's House (Accessed 19 December 2025). Pibworth, J. (2017). Why did Jane Austen go to School in Reading ?. Available at: Why did Jane Austen go to school in Reading? | Reading Museum. (Accessed 30 August 2025). Scopic, A. (2019) Her Dark Materials: The Gothic Novelas as a Social-Political Critique in Northanger Abbey. Available at: httpps://jasna.org/publications-2/essay-contest-winning-entries/2019-essay-contest/skopic/ (Accessed 6 August 2025). Sutherland, K. Jane Austen’s Juvenilia. Jane Austen’s Juvenilia | The British Library (Accessed 4 August 2025).

1443-1509 TW: Suicide, difficult birth, death and grief The badass single mum who ended 30 years of battles and started a royal empire Margaret Beaufort's extended family tree 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 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 Beauchamp and John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset Margaret’s Mother and Father 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. Henry VI of England 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”. Edmund Tudor and Jasper Tudor 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. Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, aka “The Kingmaker” 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. Thomas Stanley (Lord Stanley), 1st Earl of Derby 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. Edward IV of England and Richard III of England 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. Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Consort of England (Edward IV’s Wife) 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. Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, Queen Consort (Henry VII’s wife) 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. Effigies of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York seen in Lady Chapel , Westminster Abbey 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. Effigy of Margaret Beaufort in Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey 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.

Figure 1: Eleanor of Aquitaine Queen Consort of Henry 2nd of England, Illustration by E Hargrave from a Contemporary Portrait. Accessed December 17, 2025. https://www.maryevans.com/contributors/mep/eleanor-aquitane-47198863.html Eleanor of Aquitaine is considered to be one of the most powerful and formidable women of the High Middle Ages (c.1100-1300); she was brave, outrageous, artistic, adventurous, and political. As the Duchess of Aquitaine, Eleanor’s holdings made her a highly influential figure and positioned her as an equal, in terms of power, to her two husbands, King Louis VII of France and King Henry II of England. Her power was both a threat and a desire to the men around her, making her a target for multiple kidnapping attempts. Additionally, jealousy from her counterparts made Eleanor the subject of a number of derogatory comments, which described Eleanor as an evil-doer and a demon-queen. Despite this, Eleanor remained a strong and independent leader with a renowned ‘Court of Love’ in Aquitaine. A true she-wolf, Eleanor’s influence spanned countries & lifetimes. Born in c.1124 to Duke William X of Aquitaine and Aenor de Chatellerault, Eleanor was the eldest of three children in a powerful, ruling family. Although little is known about Eleanor’s childhood, there is evidence to suggest that she was highly educated, and she was believed to be literate and fluent in her native tongue. Eleanor was encouraged to love literature and the arts, largely due to her grandfather, Duke William IX. The Duke had been a leading figure in the development of Provencal literature (bodies of texts written in Occitan, predominantly in the South of France). William IX was an active poet at the close of the Eleventh Century, and was noted as being one of the first Troubadours, who were renowned in courts for their romantic literary poems. Eleanor was, therefore, surrounded by people who encouraged her education, and this manifested in a great love for romantic literature later in her life. In fact, when Eleanor was an adult, she became a patroness to great Provencal poets, such as Bernard de Ventadour. Marie de France, Eleanor’s eldest daughter, continued this legacy and similarly inspired the works of poets like Chretien de Troyes. Chretien was one of the most influential poets of courtly love and the Arthurian legend, and he credits Marie with the idea for his work Lancelot: The Knight of the Cart. By 1130, both Eleanor’s mother and younger brother, William, had died. Unfortunately, as the eldest daughter, this tragedy put Eleanor in a position of significant danger. She was now a young heiress sitting on the lands and wealth of the powerful duchy of Aquitaine (modern-day Southwestern France). To put it simply, Eleanor was a target: her status became desirable to those who could inherit her power through marriage, making her one of the most eligible women in Europe. Figure 2: The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Prince Louis of France on July 25, 1137, from a 14th Century French manuscript. Accessed November 3, 2025. https://www.alamy.com/the-marriage-of-eleanor-of-aquitaine-c1122-1204-and-prince-louis-of-france-later-louis-vii-of-france-1120-1180-on-25th-july-1137-14th-century-french-illuminated-manuscript-before-1399-image623357340.html In 1137, Eleanor’s father, Duke William X passed away from dysentery while away on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. Eleanor and her younger sister, Petronilla, both of whom were still just teenagers, were now orphans. However, while William X was ill, he knew he had to protect his daughters and, in turn, protect their family fortune. William wrote to King Louis VI of France, entrusting his daughters into his care. King Louis, seeing the vast lands that Eleanor owned, which were larger than his own kingdom, betrothed her to his son, Prince Louis, and the pair were married on 25 July 1137. Within a few months, King Louis VI was dead. Louis VII became King at just eighteen, and Eleanor became the Queen of France. In this marriage, Eleanor proved to be the dominant partner, but this was largely due to Louis’ upbringing: he was never meant to be King. Louis was raised to be a part of the clergy and had spent most of his life in monasteries, but the death of his elder brother Philip changed this, leaving the inexperienced, untravelled, quiet Louis as King. On the other hand, Eleanor had travelled throughout Aquitaine as the heiress of the duchy, had a well-rounded education, and was surrounded by politics throughout her life. In 1147, Louis accepted the lead on the Second Crusade, and Eleanor insisted on going with him. This showed her determination to reject the restrictive gender norms of the era, as it was not common for women to engage in military matters. Eleanor brought with her three hundred ladies-in-waiting and a baggage train, and she also led her own knights, known as the ‘Amazons.’ In comparison, Louis proved to be an ineffectual and weak leader in the crusade, abandoning more than three thousand men near Antioch. Ultimately, the crusade was a disaster, and, after being defeated at Damascus, Louis and the reluctant Eleanor returned to Paris. Although Eleanor bore him their second child, another daughter, in 1150, the marriage was a failure. Louis agreed to an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity (they were third cousins), and also Eleanor’s inability to provide a male heir and secure the line of succession. In 1152, after fifteen-years, their marriage was dissolved. Their two daughters, Marie and Alix, were declared legitimate, and Louis was awarded custody as per the custom and law. Figure 3: Henry II, from the Topographia Hibernica c.1186-1188 Accessed December 17, 2025. https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_II,_King_of_England/Gallery Eleanor was once again a single woman with powerful possessions, and was thus at risk of abduction and forced marriage. In March of 1152, while enroute to Poitiers, Eleanor evaded a kidnapping attempt from Theobald V of Blois by taking a boat to Tours. While at Tours, Eleanor was warned that Geoffrey of Anjou was waiting for her at Port-de-Piles, so her route was changed to evade capture once more. Geoffrey’s younger brother Henry, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, appeared to be a much better match for Eleanor, so she sent an envoy to Henry demanding that he marry her. Eleanor, who was experienced in war, politics, and was immensely powerful in her own right, was also a desirable match, and the pair were married on 18 May 1152. Just two years later, Henry became King Henry II of England, and Eleanor was his Queen. The couple inherited kingdom in crisis – there was lawlessness, civil war, and rebellions. This was a result of ‘The Anarchy’ which was a war of succession between Empress Matilda, Henry II’s mother, and her cousin Stephen of Blois who stole the throne from her. Henry II was both militarily and politically involved in his mother’s efforts to secure the English throne. In 1153, King Stephen agreed to the Treaty of Wallingford, which named Henry as his heir; Henry inherited the kingdom upon Stephen’s death a year later. Henry’s character suited the challenge of taking on a kingdom of unrest. He was noted for having a controlling temper and being impulsive, yet this caused clashes with Eleanor’s equally powerful personality. Despite this, the couple had eight children together, including two future kings of England – Richard I and John I. By 1167, however, Eleanor had returned to Aquitaine, leaving Henry behind. Historians have long speculated on the reasons why she left. For example, Eleanor may have been jealous of Henry’s unfaithful behaviour, which including having an affair with Rosamund Clifford. It could also have been due to his neglect of their children. Perhaps more simply, Eleanor had been pregnant for seventeen years consecutively, and it was likely that she was tired of having children and needed a break. The couples personality clashes likely gave Eleanor yet another reason to leave and return home to Aquitaine. In Aquitaine, now protected from outsiders and kidnappers by marriage, and knowing that her childbearing years were behind her, Eleanor was free to run her own lavish court in a way that many women could only dream of. However, Eleanor’s departure was not received well by her counterparts. In 1173, Peter of Blois wrote to the Queen at the request of his patron, the Archbishop of Rouen. Eleanor was told that “you will be the cause of widespread disaster” and will leave the “kingdom” in “ruin.” While Peter does compliment Eleanor as an “illustrious” Queen, he contrasts this by commenting on her “childish council” and “delinquent” nature. Yet Eleanor’s ruling of Aquitaine proved how effectively she could rule a Kingdom without her husband and without disaster. She filled the courts with poets and artists, and also addressed administrative matters, proving that she was a powerful ruler in her own right. Under Eleanor’s guidance, Aquitaine gained a reputation as ‘The Court of Love,’ and the poets, songs, and artworks that flourished here continued to be passed down through generations, becoming a key part of European culture. The monk Richard of Devizes, one of Eleanor’s contemporaries, described her as an “incomparable woman” who was “influential yet moderate” and “humble and learned.” However, Eleanor’s triumph in Aquitaine would only last a few years as, unbeknownst to her, Henry II had mortgaged Aquitaine to pay for his military campaigns. Henry II was also unpopular with his children, and, in 1173, Henry the Young King, Richard, and Geoffrey rebelled against Henry in a coup that lasted eighteen months. After their defeat, the three sons were forgiven, but for support of her sons, Eleanor was imprisoned by Henry for what would be the remainder of his life – sixteen years. Figure 4: Richard I "the Lionheart", in an 1841 portrait by Merry-Joseph Blondel. Accessed December 18, 2025. https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_I,_King_of_England When King Henry II died in 1189, Richard, now the heir apparent, became King Richard I, or ‘Richard the Lionheart’, and one of his first actions as King was to release Eleanor from imprisonment. When Richard left England for the Third Crusade, Eleanor was effectively left in charge of his kingdom, but this was no easy feat, as England had been left in disrepair after funding Henry II’s military campaigns. Richard spent only six months of his ten-year reign in the country, and Eleanor could therefore rule and instigate her policies without much restraint. However, much like his father, Richard’s military ventures also caused serious monetary issues as he essentially used England purely for revenue to fund his crusade. In 1192, Richard had made little progress in his quest, and was forced to arrange a truce. His whereabouts were unknown until January 1193, when Eleanor learned that he had been captured in Vienna by Duke Leopold and imprisoned in Dürnstein Castle. Richard was handed over to the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI, who demanded a colossal ransom of 150,000 marks. Raising this money was an extraordinary fiscal feat, and demonstrates the prosperity of England under Eleanor’s regency. Therefore, while Eleanor attempted to restore balance and peace to a kingdom in revolt, she had no choice but to implement high taxation and effectively bankrupt the country as a result of Richard’s endeavours. When King John took over the rule of a weakened England in 1199, Eleanor lost control as regent, but remained significantly influential. Eleanor escorted her granddaughter, Blanche, to the French Court to marry the Dauphin, which was a strategic match to secure peace between the bickering nations. This did not last long, however, due to her son’s unpopular reign in England, where strategic and diplomatic mistakes caused tensions to arise between the nations once more. Although Eleanor’s role in English rule had ceased, she remained intricately linked to the affairs of Aquitaine and continued her legacy there until her death at the impressive age of eighty-two in 1204. Overall, Eleanor of Aquitaine proved to be one of the most authoritative and charismatic figures of the Middle Ages. From a young age, Eleanor’s power and lands intimated those around her, and made her an equal match for her two husbands Louis VII of France and Henry II of England. As Louis’ Queen, Eleanor demonstrated her strong-willed personality and ability to reject the restrictive gender norms of the time. Marie and Alix, her two daughters from this marriage, both married into ruling families and continued her love affair with the literary arts. As Henry’s Queen, Eleanor helped bring stability to a Kingdom in ruin, and gave birth to a lineage of Europe’s future rulers. Two of her sons, Richard and John, became Kings of England, while her daughters, Matilda, Eleanor, and Joan, married into ruling families throughout Europe. As an independent leader, Eleanor’s court in Aquitaine was filled with poets and artists, and became renowned as the ‘Court of Love.’ Despite this, Eleanor was not loved by everyone, and was painted as a delinquent and evil Queen by her counterparts. However, her contemporaries reiterated that she was an influential and humble leader. Eleanor therefore proved to be a formidable she-wolf, and, with fifty-eight grandchildren including future Kings, Queens, Emperors, and Empresses, her legacy rocked Europe for centuries to come. Figure 5: 13th Century depiction of Henry II and his legitimate children. Accessed December 17, 2025. https://monarchies.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_II,_King_of_England#Legacy Bibliography Primary: Translation by M. Markowski of Peter of Blois' Letter 154 from the Latin text in Chartres Ms #208; Cf. Migne, P.L. 207:448-9. Secondary: “Eleanor of Aquitaine.” Women in History. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/women-in-history/eleanor-aquitaine/ Brooks, Polly Schoyer. Queen Eleanor, Independent Spirit of the Medieval World: A Biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine. United States: Houghton Mifflin, 1999 Carrasco, Isabel. “Eleanor of Aquitaine, the Forgotten Amazon Warrior That Fought in the Crusades and Was Then Vilified.” Cultura Colectiva, January 21, 2023. https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/eleanor-of-aquitaine-the-forgotten-queen-from-the-crusades/ Chapman, Robert L. "A Note on the Demon Queen Eleanor - Eleanor of Aquitaine." Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism, edited by Jelena O. Krstovic´, Vol. 39. Gale Cengage, 2000. https://www.enotes.com/topics/eleanor-aquitaine/criticism/criticism/robert-l-chapman-essay-date-1955 Mark, Joshua J. “Eleanor of Aquitaine.” World History Encyclopedia, March 29, 2019. https://www.worldhistory.org/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine/ Kelly, Amy. Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950 Meade, Marion. Eleanor of Aquitaine: A Biography. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1991 Galloway, Monique. “Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Queen Who Chose Her Kings.” The Collector, February 4, 2021. https://www.thecollector.com/eleanor-of-aquitaine/ Owen, D. D. R. Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen and Legend. Oxford: Wiley, 1996 Pernoud, Régine. Eleanor of Aquitaine. United Kingdom: Collins, 1967

The Caryatid Porch, Erechtheion, Athens. 2023. Sophia Charchalou. Last year, an AI generated video went viral across social media platforms depicting a caryatid, currently displayed in the British Museum, springing to life as she runs back home to her waiting ‘sisters’ in the Acropolis Museum, Athens. For those unfamiliar with the Acropolis monuments at the heart of the Greek capital, the caryatid was an architectural feature of the Erechtheion in which a sculpted woman was used in place of a conventional column. Some have argued that the caryatid specifically represented maidens from Caryae, a town in the Peloponnese whose women were condemned to slavery after siding with Persia in the Greco-Persian Wars. This theory is supported by the sculpting of the female figures, which appear restrained and burdened by the weight of a structure. Hence, it is important to note that the caryatids were potentially imagined as real, living individuals in the ancient world- distinct from each other, rendered with unique hair types and various curl thicknesses. The British Museum’s possession of this lone caryatid, taken by Lord Elgin in 1802, has fuelled controversy for decades. The Greek government has repeatedly demanded its return, along with other looted artefacts, but to no avail. In 2023, Rishi Sunak bluntly dismissed the appeals of Greek Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, effectively silencing the fight for justice. With Mitsotakis’ resolve seemingly broken, it now falls to AI to champion the cause that human diplomacy has failed to uphold. The ‘Buddha’ Jewels returned by Sotheby’s to India. Soutik Biswas, BBC News, 2025. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kz8r6gxrro [Accessed: 30.08.2025] Since around 2023, both media outlets and Mitsotakis have shown waning effort in challenging the caryatid’s repatriation, even as headlines increasingly celebrate the return of other artefacts in their homelands. This contrast only deepens the injustice. BBC News recently reported Sotheby’s return of the ‘Buddha jewels’ to India- sacred relics believed to be buried with bone fragments of Buddha himself. The cultural and religious weight of these objects underscores the glaring question: why not the caryatid, a relic from the sacred heart of Athens? She once stood in the Erectheion, facing Athena’s place of worship, above the tombs of the mythical kings Cecrops and Erectheius, where Poseidon supposedly struck the earth with his trident. If one artefact is returned, why not the other? Where is the line drawn? Dame Mary Beard, classicist and trustee of the British Museum, once described the Parthenon Marbles case as a “messy divorce”. Though one might say that the high-sounding excuse of ‘humanity’s collective treasure’ is more forced than a divorce. Her take exposes a rift among classicists: whilst some cheer on the British Museum’s stubborn grip, others, including the ‘British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles’, are waving their metaphorical divorce papers and demanding the marbles be returned. The Erechtheion, Athens. Sophia Charchalou, 2023. The scholars on both sides of this marble tug-of-war are amongst the most learned in their fields. Ironically, Mary Beard herself published a book called The Parthenon, which supposedly celebrates the monument’s cultural glory. One might assume that anyone who wrote such a book would be a staunch defender of seeing it whole, not cheering on its slow-motion dismemberment - a fate the Greek Prime Minister once compared to the Mona Lisa being hacked in half. In the face of this academic stalemate, perhaps only AI, the new vanguard of modern intelligence, can rescue the lost sister. Until now, the caryatid has mostly been treated as little more than a pawn in a diplomatic chess game between museums and their countries, a stance reinforced by the Brtitish Museum Act of 1963 which still ties the museum’s hands, allowing them to loan artefacts but never fully deaccession them. But this viral AI clip flips the script. The caryatid is no longer a lifeless marble column; she is a woman with legs that move, a mind that decides, and the autonomy to break free under the male gaze, to run, to travel and to reclaim her homeland. More than that, the clip gives her a voice and perspective. She is a stranger in a foreign land, surrounded by a foreign language, unfamiliar faces and the ache of being ripped from her family. Afterall, these marbles were once living stories, not just stately ornaments. The viral plea of the Caryatid: I want to go home. George Vardas, Greek City Times, 2025. https://greekcitytimes.com/2025/08/25/the-viral-plea-of-a-caryatid-i-want-to-go-home/ [Accessed 30.08.2025] Ingeniously, AI gives voice to the caryatid, transforming her from a silent marble relic into a fierce advocate for justice against British colonial appropriation. The clip revives a fierce debate long dismissed, framing it in the context of contemporary issues such as immigration, forced displacement and the displacement of culture under the guise of stewardship. In this light, AI emerges as a tool of remarkable expression and voice amplification for those who, whether human or marble, have been uprooted and silenced. So, who are we to enslave the women of Caryae? Marble is more than art, it is a symbol of silenced women, stolen lives and yet we’ve stopped asking the hard questions about why women’s stories are so easily erased from history. Bibliography: Primary Sources Greek City Times (2025) The viral plea of a Caryatid: I want to go home. Available at: https://greekcitytimes.com/2025/08/25/the-viral-plea-of-a-caryatid-i-want-to-go-home/ (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Secondary Sources The Art Newspaper (2024) ‘Like a child in a messy divorce’: Mary Beard and David Olusoga tackle Parthenon Marbles debate in British Museum panel. Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/07/08/like-a-child-in-a-messy-divorce-mary-beard-and-david-olusoga-tackle-parthenon-marbles-debate-in-british-museum-panel (Accessed: 30.08.2025) BBC News (2023) Sunak cancels Greek PM meeting in Parthenon Sculptures row. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67549044 (Accessed: 30.08.2025) BBC News (2025) Sotheby’s returns Buddha jewels to India after uproar. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kz8r6gxrro (Accessed: 30.08.2025) The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (unknown) Who We Are. Available at: https://parthenonuk.com/about-bcrpm/who-we-are (Accessed: 30.08.2025) The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles (unknown) The Case for the Return. Available at: https://parthenonuk.com/the-case-for-the-return (Accessed: 30.08.2025) The British Museum (unknown) Governance. Available at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Channel 4 News (2023) Elgin Marbles row is ‘minor thing’ compared to ‘big international issues’, Tory chair of Culture, Media and Sport Committee says. Available at: https://www.channel4.com/news/elgin-marbles-row-is-minor-thing-compared-to-big-international-issues-tory-chair-of-culture-media-and-sport-committee-says (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Channel 4 News (2014) Contested artefacts: should Britain lose its marbles? Available at: https://www.channel4.com/news/elgin-marbles-russia-greece-britain-contested-artefacts (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Independent (2023) Keeping Elgin Marbles in UK akin to ‘cutting Mona Lisa in half’- Greek leader. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/kyriakos-mitsotakis-mona-lisa-greek-greece-london-b2453656.html (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Independent (2024) New British Museum boss opens door to Parthenon marbles return with ‘lending library’ model. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-museum-parthenon-marbles-sculptures-artefacts-b2581828.html (Accessed: 30.08.2025) Legislation.gov.uk (unknown) British Museum Act 1963. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1963/24/contents (Accessed: 30.08.2025) UK Parliament (2023) Elgin Marbles: UK government assessment of loaning the sculptures to Greece. Available at: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/elgin-marbles-uk-government-assessment-of-loaning-the-sculptures-to-greece/ (Accessed: 30.08.2025)

“There is nothing connected with the staging of a motion picture that a woman cannot do as easily as a man, and there is no reason she cannot master every technicality of the art”. - Alice Guy-Blaché Like many industries today, the film industry has been subject to much scrutiny over gender discrimination, sexism and predatory behaviours within the last decade. For good reason a light has been shone on the institutional mistreatment of women - a culture that has been allowed to exist due to decades of male control within the hegemony of the large, market-leading studios. Since 2017, the #MeToo movement has been pivotal in initiating awareness and justice for victims of predators within Hollywood and the wider industry. Along with equality and diversity policies and earlier feminist efforts, the attention on the industry’s systemic gender issues is creating a platform for more women to claim positions of power and influence. This progress is perceived today as pushing the film industry forward in its inclusion of women in directorial, production-based and corporate roles. However, to talk about progress is to insinuate that the film industry of the past excluded women and forced them into positions of inferiority. While this was partly the case for a long time, the formative years of the film industry were shaped by many women who pioneered the practice and dared to experiment with the burgeoning technology of the time. For over a century these women’s contributions to cinema history have been all but forgotten. Their works have been lost, overlooked and miscredited. It’s time that these women are restored to their former glory and remembered for their valuable influence on the film industry and its future. Alice Guy-Blaché photographed in 1913 The mother of narrative film: Alice Guy-Blaché Towards the end of the 19th century, many inventors, engineers, and entrepreneurs were caught up in the race to develop the leading method of filming and exhibiting moving pictures. Ultimately, the Lumière brothers are widely credited as the ones to do this in Paris, France, in March 1895 when they showcased their invention the Cinématographe. The Lumières’ films were essentially documentaries: minute-long depictions of ordinary life made purely to show off their new technology. While the earliest film exhibitions did attract crowds, this was based more on the aesthetic and sensational appeal of moving pictures and their novelty as a relatively new medium of entertainment. It wasn’t until later that the potential of narrative film was realised. Twenty-two year old Alice Guy was in attendance at that first commercial film screening. Secretary to Léon Gaumont (who went on to found Gaumont Film Company which became the first film studio in the world), she had developed interest and expertise in cameras through her dealings with clients and a handful of engineers. Excited by the potential of film, Guy asked Gaumont if she could make her own film, to which he agreed (as long as it didn’t interfere with her secretarial work). With the creation of La Fée Aux Choux / The Cabbage Fairy (1896), narrative film was born. Like many early films, the original version perished; Guy’s 1900 remake, depicting a fairy who conjures babies out of cabbage patches, is the version most familiar to audiences today. From 1896 to 1906, Guy was the only woman in the world creating films, making her the first female filmmaker. Gaumont soon made Guy head of production for the entire company, solidifying her significance in the history of film. She held this position until she departed to the United States in 1907 with her husband Herbert Blaché. La Fée Aux Choux/ The Cabbage Fairy (Alice Guy-Blaché, 1900) They relocated because Herbert, who also worked for the Gaumont company, was transferred to Flushing, New York to oversee the studio there. Due to disputes over technology and film distribution rights involving Thomas Edison, by 1910 operation at the Gaumont plant had essentially ended. Seeing the opportunity presented to her, Alice Guy-Blaché established her own production company on the Gaumont site, thus founding the Solax Company. Guy-Blaché’s films at Solax are characterised by their on-location shooting and preference for realism, which differed from the convention of studio-shooting; a sign telling actors to “Be Natural” hung on one studio wall. By 1912 the Solax Company had raised enough funds for Alice (who was pregnant) and Herbert to build their own studio in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Fort Lee was emerging as a centre for early silent film production so Guy-Blaché’s presence among industry leaders signifies her success as a filmmaker. The studio successfully moved from only producing shorts to also releasing feature-length films, however growing costs and the ever-growing appeal of the West Coast later caused trouble for Solax. Alice Guy-Blaché is believed to have written, directed and produced around 1,000 films during her career. Unfortunately, only 150 are currently known to have survived; others may have been attributed to other directors, but Guy-Blaché worked tirelessly to reclaim many of her works before her death in 1963. One of her notable films from her Solax years was In The Year 2000 (1912), a remake of her 1906 Gaumont production Les Résultats du Féminisme. These films depict a world in which male and female gender roles are reversed (I'm sure Alice would've loved Greta Gerwig's Barbie). She also created a handful of female action films, which were a timely response to the ‘serial queens’ trend in silent cinema. The ‘serial queens’ were well-loved stars of serialised short films about the adventures of female action heroes, including serials like The Perils of Pauline (1914) and The Hazards of Helen (1914-1917). Guy-Blaché is also recognised for directing one of the first films with an all-black cast, if not the first. A Fool and His Money (1912) is by no means progressive in its representation of race, but its cast represents a significant piece of cinema history. Guy-Blaché in her final years After her divorce from Herbert and handling the bankruptcy of the Solax Company in 1922, Guy-Blaché returned to Paris where she began lecturing in film. Despite assisting her ex-husband on three films in Los Angeles, Alice was largely uninvolved in the booming Hollywood scene of cinema, and her name was omitted from many historical accounts of the early cinema industry. Towards the end of her life she became focused on reclaiming her name and tracking down lost works, endeavouring to have herself remembered as the pioneer she was. Slowly, she received some film accreditation, however it was not until 1968, some years after her death, that feminist film scholars acknowledged Alice’s existence and her role in cinema history was rightfully recognised. Pamela B. Green’s 2018 documentary Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché is a tender and informative exploration of Guy-Blaché’s work I absolutely recommend to anyone interested in learning more . America’s first female director: Lois Weber Director, screenwriter, pioneer: Lois Weber Lois Weber’s film career began in New York, where she had worked in theatre with her husband, Phillips Smalley, before working with the Rex Motion Picture Company. In 1913, the couple relocated to the ever-growing film community in Los Angeles where they signed contracts to write and direct under Universal studios. Before long, Weber, often publicly known as Mrs. Smalley, was a leading director at Universal Pictures. An early pop-culture ‘power couple’, the Smalleys collaborated on films together, but by 1916 it was evident that Lois was the dominant force in their filmmaking partnership. She wrote their scripts and directed many of their works. Phillips understood his wife’s expertise to such an extent that he was frequently observed turning to Lois for advice on important decisions. Her knowledge and artistic authority was evident in their working relationship. Weber experienced the height of her success in the mid-1910s. In these years she was often mentioned in print as one of the top Hollywood talents, considered with key filmmakers like D.W. Griffith (director of the racist film Birth Of A Nation (1915)), and Cecil B. DeMille, who later directed Sunset Boulevard (1950). In 1916 she was also the first and only woman elected to the Motion Picture Directors Association, remaining the only woman to do so before the association made way for the Screen Actors Guild in 1936. Throughout her career, Weber fostered not only her own successful career, but also the careers of various rising stars by supporting them in their journey to becoming Hollywood actresses. Husband and wife team, Phillips Smalley and Lois Weber Following her successful years at Universal, Weber established her own company called Lois Weber Productions, in 1917. Here she was able to forgo the thematic constraints Universal placed on her (they thought the films she wanted to make were too ‘domestic’) and began making the most intimate films of her career. Under the name of her own studio she endeavoured to write more complex parts for women. She was aware of Hollywood’s inclination to prescribe women one-dimensional labels like ‘flapper’ or ‘wife.’ Weber always had a tendency to write and direct films speaking to the social issues of her time. Films such as John Doe (1916), Where Are My Children? (1916) and Shoes (1916) discussed the abolition of capital punishment, legalisation of birth control, and urban poverty, demonstrating her penchant for social commentary in her filmmaking. One of the earliest proponents for film as a powerful medium for narrative drama, Weber hoped for her films to “have an influence for good on the public mind”, distinguishing herself from other (male) filmmakers whose aim for film was to associate it with highbrow culture in order to validate itself as an artform. Like her contemporaries, Lois used new filmmaking techniques, such as split-screen (Suspense, from 1913, or over-exposure effects (Where Are My Children?), but in some cases before they did. These are elements of their filmmaking that have long been praised by film historians and early film fans. However, Weber’s recognition as an experimenter has not been well documented. Weber’s use of over-exposure in Where Are My Children? (1916) After only a few years, Lois Weber Productions began to struggle and Weber’s output slowed from 1922. Some have noted that the end of her marriage that year was partly to do with this, citing her dependence on Phillips in the business-side of the company as more necessary to her success than she had led people to think. However, she was not the only person or company to struggle at this time; in fact, Lois did continue making a few more films after her divorce- something that her ex-husband never attempted. More important than the divorce to her eventual decline was the changing structure of the Hollywood film industry which favoured the mass-production and investment only the large studios could afford. Many independent studios could not compete. It is commendable that Lois’ career weathered the transition from silent to sound cinema after 1929 with her final feature White Heat (1934). Remaining as early Hollywood’s only female director during the, Weber’s films took on a low cultural value. Her work was marketed as ‘women’s films’, no longer perceived with the prestige and quality of her earlier releases. Upon her death at age 60 in 1939, Lois Weber’s eulogy described her as only a “star maker”, remembered not for her own successful and celebrated career, but for her ability to begin other actresses’ careers. Tragically, her 25 years in the film industry and writing and directing credits on 40 features and 100 shorts were omitted. Fading to obscurity Towards the end of the 1920s, many filmmakers and performers failed to hold the same prestige in the film industry that they had experienced at the peak of their silent film careers since the early 1900s. Anyone who’s seen Singin’ In The Rain (1952) will understand the difficulties many careers faced during this shift to synchronised sound. Most production had moved to Hollywood, capitalist studios were beginning to hold the monopoly on distribution and exhibition, and positions within studios were becoming increasingly gendered, pushing women out of executive roles. At the beginning of their careers, female filmmakers had been relatively free to contribute to the new medium behind the scenes as no expectations of what the commercial film industry should be, or what it would become, existed. Women’s ‘moral superiority’ was actually used as a legitimation force, assuring audiences of the virtue of the new means of entertainment. As time progressed and a small collection of studios consolidated their power over the entire industry, men asserted themselves in positions of authority, while the artistic qualities associated with women and their femininity were no longer a hallmark of quality filmmaking, seen rather as excessive and outdated. Lois Weber was essentially written out of history while she was still an active filmmaker; her male contemporaries cemented their legacy while she battled to find work. Alice Guy-Blaché directs Themes of being lost, disregarded, and unappreciated arise when considering early film’s female pioneers. MacMahan has named Alice Guy-Blaché “the lost visionary of cinema” and her work a “lost garden”, while Weber was “forgotten with a vengeance” according to Richard Koszarski. In fact, the presence of women within the dominant Hollywood film industry was all but nothing until many decades later, and even then it is debatable whether that has changed enough. Dorothy Arzner is regarded by many as the only female director in the “Golden Age” of Hollywood, with this title remaining well into the twentieth century. Remembering film’s female pioneers When elevating contemporary women within the film industry we should draw attention to their predecessors, who not only were a part of this burgeoning craft, but influenced the conventions we associate with commercial cinema today. Alice Guy-Blaché told The Moving Picture World in 1914 that “there is nothing connected with the staging of a motion picture that a woman cannot do as easily as a man, and there is no reason she cannot master every technicality of the art”. These words have never felt truer than today, when more women’s voices are being heard as they claim positions of artistic authority. There was never any inevitability that men would dominate filmmaking. In fact, the women active in the earliest version of the film industry held a significant share of the workload. In the act of bringing more women to the forefront today, we can also lift up these women of the past who did so much to Lois Weber surrounded by crew of The Angel of Broadway (1927) put their mark on the history of cinema. It’s also worth noting that I’ve only mentioned two women in this article. Ruth Ann Baldwin, Nell Shipman, and the first Black female filmmaker Maria P. Williams are just a few of the incredible women whose works have been lost and unappreciated over the last 100 years. By recognising them as not only women who were trailblazers, but also as pioneering filmmakers in their own right, we challenge contemporary representations of historical women. These women’s personal achievements and names should be recognised for their importance to film history alongside other well-documented visionaries in the story of film. Further reading: Dargis, Manohla, ‘Overlooked No More: Alice Guy-Blaché, the World’s First Female Filmmaker’, The New York Times, 2019, via Gaines, Jane and Radha Vatsal, ‘How Women Worked in the US Silent Film Industry’, Women Film Pioneers Project, 2011, via McMahan, Alison, ‘Alice Guy-Blaché’, Women Film Pioneers Project, 2018, via The Moving Picture World, 11 July 1914 O’Hara, Helen, Women Vs Hollywood: The Fall and Rise of Women in Film (London: Robinson, 2021) Photoplay, 1913, p. 73 Rose, Steve, ‘Why was pioneering director Alice Guy-Blaché erased from film-making history?’, The Guardian, 2020, via Stamp, Shelley, ‘Lois Weber’, Women Film Pioneers Project, 2013, via Lois Weber in Early Hollywood (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015), via Filmography A Fool and His Money, dir. by Alice Guy-Blaché (The Solax Company, 1912) Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché, dir. by Pamela B. Green (Zeitgeist Films, 2018) Danse Des Papillons, dir. by Alice Guy-Blaché (Gaumont, 1897) In The Year 2000, dir. by Alice Guy-Blaché (The Solax Company, 1912) La Fée Aux Choux/ The Cabbage Fairy, dir. by Alice Guy-Blaché (Gaumont, 1896) Les Résultats du Féminisme, dir. by Alice Guy-Blaché (Gaumont, 1906) The People vs. John Doe, dir. by Lois Weber and Phillips Smalley (Universal, 1916) Shoes, dir. by Lois Weber (Universal, 1916) Suspense, dir. by Lois Weber (Universal, 1913) Where Are My Children?, dir. by Lois Weber (Universal, 1916) White Heat, dir. by Lois Weber (Pinnacle Production Company, 1934)