historyfocus

[historyfocus]

“innocent I came to jail, innocent I was tortured, innocent I must die…”

- Johannes Junius, 1628, a letter to his daughter

I find it important to remember that the persecution of witches (I speak from a European perspective) was not something that only harmed women. Around 20-25% of those executed in Europe for witchcraft were men [Male witches in Early Modern Europe, Apps 2003], and those unlucky few faced the same agony and misery as their female counterpart.

To disregard numbers based on gender is to kill the forgotten twice.

[historyfocus]

“Did Women have a political voice in Britain before 1918?":

I do have to note that this was a submission to an essay competition run by an undisclosed university, whilst I did not win a prize with the university, this won me second place in my school competition. Any constructive criticism on my writing is much appreciated, and very much welcomed. This essay was approximately 2000 words, I hope you enjoy it should you continue to read.

Prior to 1918, women were an influential force within British politics. The Representation of the People’s Act, passed in 1918, is often considered to be a revolutionary turning point for women’s political rights, suggesting that prior to this Act, women had little or no real political voice. However, long before 1918 women were established as a ‘parliamentary elector for a constituency’ (Representation of the People’s Act, 1918), they held a valuable presence in the British political environment, which resulted in women making significant contributions to important government decisions and legislation, though indirectly. Regardless of this, it is important to spotlight that both the Representation of the People’s Act and the opportunities for women’s influence within British politics was restricted by classist bias, with only those of a wealthier class being able to have a significant political voice throughout British history.

Women’s political voice, through participation in elections, existed to some extent before the 1918 Act. Moreover, the 1918 Act itself was exclusionary and, as such, was not the turning point in women’s political voice it has often been credited as. Most significantly, the Act’s exclusionist nature only allowed women over the age of 30, who met certain property requirements, to vote in national elections. This age restriction for women had been specifically established as a preventative measure: Parliament decided that women should not form a majority of the electorate, this concern being due to the deaths of soldiers in World War One having reduced the number of male voters. Furthermore, the act excluded an ‘estimated one-third of the adult female population, with a third of those excluded meeting the age requirements, but not the property requirements’ (Takayanagi, 2018). From this, it must be clarified that men faced neither the property discrimination nor age restrictions that women did. The Act did hold some meaningful symbolic significance as a national recognition of women’s rights and suffrage. It ‘saw the size of the electorate triple from 7.7 million to 21.4 million.’ (Representation of the People’s Act 1918, 2022). However, the Representation of the People’s Act was not the first government act that allowed women to participate in elections. For example, before the 1832 Reform Act was passed (which specified that women held no right to vote) there is evidence, although limited, to suggest property-owning women believed that they were as equally entitled to the franchise as male freeholders. Moreover, women were likely somewhat active in local elections, as ‘about a tenth of all property was owned by women’ (Larsen, 2018) throughout the eighteenth century in England. As well as this, women occasionally sat as candidates in local elections, with Elizabeth Garett Anderson being elected as the mayor of Aldeburgh in 1908, being the first female mayor in England. While a woman’s vote would be at risk of invalidation in disputed elections, and women were more likely to cast their vote through a proxy, such as their son, they ultimately formed a significant, albeit small, proportion of the electorate before 1832. As such, it can be seen that women had a direct political voice through participation in elections prior to 1918, even if it was strongly restricted by a patriarchal, as well as hierarchal society and limited only to local elections. Regardless of this, their direct political voice was not as extensive as the informal voice that women were able to present through radicalism and their influence over powerful men, such as their husbands.

Women throughout British history made their political voice heard through often radical political movements, thus allowing them to be strong influential forces behind monumental changes in the country. For example, women played a significant role in the 1833 abolition of slavery in England: with their actions, such as protest and publication, convincing many men who held direct political power to take up the cause of abolitionism. In fact, Lady Margaret Middleton has been credited with encouraging Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce to adopt abolitionism, leading to them founding the Anti-Slavery Society in 1823 (Crawford, 2011). Despite their disadvantages, working-class women were extremely active in politics through the medium of radicalism. Often overlooked, this underprivileged majority within the country would often risk life and limb for their right to self-expression. For example, many of those who attended the speeches of Henry Hunt at Peterloo in 1819 were working-class women. Furthermore, when the military was summoned in order to disband this gathering, ‘Eyewitnesses claimed that the women in the crowd had been deliberately targeted and a disproportionate number of women did become casualties.’ (Britpolitics, 2019) Acting as an example of lower-class participation in politics, the outcome of the Peterloo massacre also demonstrated an active attempt to control the female voice by men of a higher social class. Evidently, women would have had to have had a significant political voice within the country at this point for men to feel the need to suppress them. As well as this, some of the most significant acts of protest performed by these women were advocating for better treatment within the workplace. For example, in 1888 a match company in East London, Bryant and May, saw a strike of ‘around 1500 workers’ due to the extremely dangerous nature of their job. This specific act would eventually prove to be a success, as ‘By 1908, after years of public awareness of the disastrous health impact of white phosphorus, the House of Commons finally passed an act prohibiting its use in matches.’ (Historic UK, 2021). As such, women had a clear role in British politics, and regardless of social status, were the driving forces behind major changes within the UK.

Additionally, the roots of the British feminism that began to flourish throughout the 19th and 20th centuries can be traced back as far as the 16th century, through the reigns of England’s first regnant Queens: Mary I and Elizabeth I. Before considering the combined success of these Queens, it is also important to highlight the outwardly sexist tropes surrounding them, especially the slander that Mary I suffered post-humorously, being dubbed ‘Bloody Mary’. While this is a partial consequence of her sister Elizabeth’s reign, as she was used as a tool for propaganda, Mary I was awarded this title due to her execution of ‘about 275 Protestants’ where her father Henry VIII was responsible for an estimated ‘72,000 executions’ (Breverton, 2016). This statistic faithfully serves the hypocrisy of the male gentry, in the sense that a queen was condemned for the same actions that awarded a king loyalty and praise. Furthermore, whilst Elizabeth I, in contrast, was considered an extremely popular and successful Queen, many rumours and conspiracy theories suggested that she had been a man, as no woman could have ruled as effectively as she did. Through the overall success of the reigns of the English Queens throughout history post-Tudor era, the enforced image of female weakness and lack of authoritative fluency was challenged and strongly discredited. Whilst this form of female empowerment was only directly influential to the highest rungs of the gentry, it formed the pathway for Early Modern British feminism that would inspire the feminine voice within politics.

Finally, women often expressed their political opinions through writing, though this would be mostly limited to richer women who could afford an education. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft was an advocate for women’s rights during the 18th century, publishing the book Vindication of the Rights of Women. Throughout her writing, she challenged the perception of women as obedient creatures who were only worth their physical appearance, and expressed her own opinions against the prion of femininity, claiming that ‘Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.’ (Goodreads.com, 2022). Women who fought for the cause of feminism did not believe that women should hold a superior position in society, and often stayed true to the biblical images of women, however, they believed strongly that they deserved the same rights and lack of societal double-standards that men were awarded. The existence of these early feminist movements rebelled against a societal system that attempted to erase the political voices of women, and ultimately served to further amplify these voices.

In conclusion, women had a political opinion and, in some cases, a direct political voice within British politics before 1918, however, this right to self-expression was mostly limited to women of the highest social classes. Overall, women were restricted in their right to political involvement and expression due to the overarching male belief that they were incapable of such. Throughout history, however, this theory was criticised and disproven, with women forming some of the most powerful voices within political and social movements. Altogether, when the Representation of the People’s Act is disregarded, there were some limited rights for a woman’s direct involvement in politics, and the legacy of some of Great Britain’s most powerful women paved the way for the rights that women have to this day.

Bibliography:

- Breverton, T. (2016). Protestant martyrs and Tudor torture: Bloody Mary I wasn’t as bloody as Henry VIII | All About History. [online] Historyanswers.co.uk. Available at: https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/kings-queens/mary-the-not-so-bloody-queen/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2022].

- Britpolitics. (2019). Case Study: The Peterloo Massacre in 1819 - Britpolitics. [online] Available at: https://www.britpolitics.co.uk/case-study-peterloo-massacre-1819/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2022].

-             Crawford, E., 2011. BBC - History - British History in depth: Women: From Abolition to the Vote. [online] Bbc.co.uk. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/abolition_women_article_01.shtml#:~:text=Although%20slavery%20was%20effectively%20illegal%20in%20England%20from,private%20into%20the%20political%20arena%20as%20strategies%20changed.  [Accessed 3 March 2022].

- Goodreads.com. (2022). A Vindication of the Rights of Woman Quotes by Mary Wollstonecraft. [online] Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1938850-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman [Accessed 18 Apr. 2022].

-Historic UK. (2021). The Match Girls Strike - Historic UK. [online] Available at: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Match-Girls-Strike/ [Accessed 24 Apr. 2022].

-             Larsen, R., 2018. Women and politics before 1918. [online] Derby.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.derby.ac.uk/blog/women-politics-1918/  [Accessed 3 March 2022].

- Parliament.uk. (2022). Representation of the People Act 1918. [online] Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/collections-the-vote-and-after/representation-of-the-people-act-1918/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2022].

-             Representation of the People’s Act, 1918 c.64 Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/upload/1918-rep-people-act.pdf [accessed 02/03/2022]

-             Takayanagi, M., 2018. The Representation of the People Act 1918: A Democratic Milestone in the UK and Ireland | OHRH. [online] Ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk. Available at: https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-representation-of-the-people-act-1918-a-democratic-milestone-in-the-uk-and-ireland/  [Accessed 3 March 2022].

[historyfocus]

Teaching Seems Hard, But Worth It? :

A personal experience with Work Shadowing: (so far)

Hello, you may know me as ‘historyfocus’, but it is important to remember that I am also as much of a student as anyone else. I may only be 17 as of now, but I am well aware of the fact that we never stop learning. Learning is an integral part of the human experience, after all.

So, naturally, I gravitate toward teaching when I consider my own future prospects. My family is full of teachers, so it seems almost ‘destined’ for me. As a result, I applied to, and got accepted into a work placement in my old secondary school.

Yesterday gave me quite a realistic look of what it would mean to be a history teacher, I even had the privilege of assisting with teaching with a group of younger children- think ages 12-13. It introduced me to multiple years, ranging from ages 11-15 working at varying levels. And, although I am well aware of the frustrations that comes with teaching, as I have seen in my own family- the feeling of gratification when someone understands a difficult concept because of your help is indescribably amazing.

I’ve also had the privilege of being given permission to develop some resources for the younger years as well, and am being offered an opportunity to teach a class through an activity later on during the two weeks I am working here. Today, there is more of a prerogative focus on work outside of teaching itself, which definitely has made me aware that being a teacher is a lot more than books and lecturing.

Overall, I’m definitely interested in teaching, and hopefully will get the opportunity to uptake mentoring when I’m in a more experienced position to do so.

[historyfocus]

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government”

.

.

.

-Extract from the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776: in reference to the ‘certain unalienable Rights… Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’

[historyfocus]

source: https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp02995/queen-mary-i

Why Mary I’s legacy as ’Bloody Mary’ is a product of the misogynistic patriarchal system and Elizabethan propaganda:

Mary I is a subject of historical controversy, and often regarded as ’Bloody Mary’: the brutal queen who gladly watched the bodies of those she deemed ’heretics’ burn.

Mary I (r. 1553-1558) was the first (officially recognised) English Queen regnant. Up until 2011, the British system of Monarchal Succession favoured male primogeniture, meaning that Mary’s youngest sibling, Edward VI (r. 1547-1553) inherited the throne directly after their father’s death at age 9. As well as that, Mary also had to win the throne in an extraordinary coup d’état after her cousin Lady Jane Grey succeeded Edward, due to her Protestant faith. (though, it is to be noted this is not the fault of Grey, who reigned for 9 days total, she is reported to have fainted upon hearing that she would ascend the throne of England).

So, Mary’s ascension to the throne was a rather difficult one, and she had every reason to believe that her position on the throne was a fragile one.

As well as this, Mary suffered through an extremely abusive adolescence, transitioning from the beloved treasure of her mother and father to being a neglected bastard child within around a year. She had been groomed from birth to be a potential Queen of England, for example being trained in (and excelling in) Latin, which was generally considered a course of study only intended for young men. So, being removed completely from the line of succession around the time her younger half sister Elizabeth was born would have definitely had a large psychological impact on Mary.

Furthermore, Henry kept Mary away from her mother, Catherine of Aragon up until her death in 1536 whilst also neglecting her, and using her as a lady-in-waiting to her younger sister.

All this was made worse by the extreme pain Mary was reportedly suffering from constantly, these ’usual troubles’ now believed to be endometriosis- which also prevented her from having children, and is now ultimately considered to be the cause of her death, if not a heavily contributing factor, at age 42.

Mary, upon her ascension to the English throne, also sought marriage with one of the most prominent Catholic powers of Europe: Spain. Now, to call this an unpopular decision would be an understatement, as Spain and England had been enemies due to the conflict of religions. That being said, Mary and Phillip II married in 1554. Whilst Mary was very fond of her husband, her sentiments were not returned by Phillip, and after numerous failures to produce a Catholic heir, Phillip spent much time away from his wife, leaving Mary lonely. As a Tudor woman, her alliance was also unconventional due to her older age when marrying, this being due to her father’s pursuit of his own matrimonial interests. She longed for a child to continue the Catholic faith she cherished, and her age and endometriosis prevented it. To add to this trauma, she experienced what is called a ’phantom pregnancy’ in which a woman who is desperate to conceive experiences all symptoms of pregnancy without actually being pregnant.

One of the major arguments, even so, in the vilification of Mary I is that she mercilessly butchered around 300 Protestant ’heretics’. Whilst it is true that she religiously persecuted religious dissidents, this was nothing uncommon for an English monarch. Edward VI is thought to have executed upwards of 5000 people as a result of the prayer book rebellions of 1549, and Henry VIII is rumoured to have executed at least 30000 people throughout his reign (though it is important to remember here that his reign lasted for 36 years).

So, why is it that we deem Mary I to be the ‘bloody’ one?

It is simply a combination of historic anti-Catholic sentiment, as even today with the current English rules of succession, no Catholic may ascend to the throne of England (this being decided after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 where James II was deposed) and, of course, classic misogyny. Men were expected to be the ’violent’ ones, and with Mary’s ascension to the throne, she was both expected to assume the position of a King, yet simultaneously criticised for it.

This, throughout history, had only been further reinforced by the propaganda campaign against Catholicism once Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558. Mary was seen as the main cause of the invasions of the Spanish Armada, for example. Ultimately, a lot of the successes of Elizabeth I’s rule had been partially contributed to by Mary, whose example could be learned from by this second English Queen.

Overall, it is important to remember that history is viewed through a biased lens, that of the victorious. Whilst Mary I definitely had her faults as Queen, she also made a positive impact in some regards, and does not deserve to be considered a villain overall. Even with her poor decisions as monarch, it is important to consider how pre-existing factors influenced her actions, in this case her traumatic childhood.

Whilst Mary certainly was a troubled ruler who made numerous errors throughout her reign, she wasn’t ”that bad”.

.

.

.

.

.

References:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-I

https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/british-history/mary-i

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/mary-i-facts-myths