Hanging on an unassuming wall in
the National Portrait Gallery, there is a painting of an elderly woman. The
neutral brown background to this piece creates an air of calm and the lady’s
eyes are calm and gaze out at the viewer. But don’t let the fur coat and
peaceful expression fool you, this is
not a member of the aristocracy or a snapshot of some kind of missionary heading
for retirement, but Emmeline Pankhurst, the militant Leader of the Women’s
Social and Political Union (WSPU). In a gallery filled with images of Britain’s
military heroes fighting in battle and politicians standing in the cabinet
office, this picture stands out because Pankhurst is not shown doing what she
is renowned for; campaign for the rights
of women and we should be asking, why? Unlike these other figures, Pankhurst
has not been immortalised in her heyday. Whilst the other paintings show young
men and women, Pankhurst is depicted as old and unthreatening. This should lead
us to question the extent to which the women’s suffrage movement has taken its
placed in the establishment of British history. Are the suffragettes only
welcome if they are no longer a threat?
A high profile example of how the
debate surrounding the suffragettes is still going on can be taken from the BBC History Magazine. In an edition of
the magazine published in 2007 Christopher Bearman took the contemporary notion
of the terrorist and applied to the women that helped to win half of our
population the vote. His article in which he stated that the WSPU were ‘case
and point’ for his belief that a terrorist would never identify themselves as
such received a swift and damning response from the renound feminist historian,
June Purvis. Purvis she reminds us that Bearman’s comparisons between the WSPU
and modern Islamic fundamentatlists were not only insensitive and
inappropriate, but an example of poor historical research (Bearman’s only
primary references were to the male dominated mainstream newspapers of the
day). And so why was it published? I can’t help but wonder what pieces like
this are doing for our perceptions of the WSPU and their standing as an
important part of this nation’s history.
There have been a growing number of
suffragettes appearing in contemporary entertainment. From the surge of
suffragette heroines popping up in period dramas, for example Lady Sybil in the
hugely successful Downton Abbey and
naïve Valentine Wannop in the BBC’s new World War One drama Parades End to the opening ceremony of the British Olympic Games,
suffragettes appear to be an accepted and to a certain extent romanticised part
of our history. The way in which these characters are portrayed as
“suffragettes” , however, gives us an insight into the way in which we today
wish to view our protesting predecessors. 1914 was the year of real fear, brought about
by the relentless actions of militancy carried out by the WPSU (as well as
other organisations) and yet Lady Sybil gets in trouble for taking part in a
by-election campaign and Valentine backs away in fear as Mary “Slasher”
Richardson gets to work in the National Gallery.
Neither of these women took part in
the actions or events that made the suffragettes different from the other
groups campaigning at the time. If we’re honest they’re pretty watered down
versions, maybe to make our Sunday viewing a little easier. The Nation Union of
Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) were an organisation that would have waved
placards and handed out leaflets. The WPSU bombed. They smashed windows, they
spat at policemen, slashed paintings and threw themselves in front of horses.
So not every member set fire to a post box, but what historian would deny that
these militant acts were what made this group of campaigners separate from the
rest of the movement. And yet these unladylike actions are at best ignored and
at worse condemned and not accepted as part of the WSPU’s identity even today,
over a century on.
Despite this, it’s not all bad. The
issues facing upper class suffragettes are well summed up in the line given by
Dame Maggie Smith’s character in Downton when
she says “how can one expect to bow to their majesties in the summer when they
have been arrested at a riot in May?” And if we’re honest even if Valentine
wasn’t impressed, Mary Richardson appearing in such a popular programme is
something those of us who want the suffragette spirit to live on should be
pleased about. The suffragettes taking their place in the story of Britain’s
history during the opening ceremony of this summer’s Olympic Games was a great
moment that shouldn’t be undermined and who knows, recent demonstrations in
London and the nearing of the centenary of partial women’s suffrage might
provide some interesting viewing!
