Glory and B*llocks

[Guest]

Thanks to a very delayed (eight hour) train journey from Darlington to Chichester today I managed to read most of "Glory and B*llocks: the truth behind 10 defining events in British history" by Colin Brown*.

The chapters are;

1215 Magna Carta

1415 Azincourt

1588 Armada

1688 Glorious Revolution

1815 Waterloo

1833 Abolition

1928 Suffrage

1940 The Bunker

1948 the birth of the NHS

1982 Falklands

While none of the chapters specifically focus on the Great War, the span of history and politics around the issue of Suffrage raises a key question; whether the Great War was the main driver of Suffrage. That aside it is a truly brilliant read for anyone interested in British History

I think I learned more in reading this one book than almost any book I have read in the past decade. The author does a remarkable job digging very deeply into the ten subjects and provides some astonishing information. A truly wonderful piece of research and a rip-roaring read.

Tangible lessons from the Great War appear in the most unusual places in the later chapters. The legacy of the Great War still had a long lasting impact decades after the event. A strong BUY.

* formerly political editor of the Sunday Torygraph and the Indescribablyboring on Sunday, deputy political editor of the Indescribablyboring and Parliamentary correspondent for the Gruaniad.

MG

Edited for iPad induced predictive text nonsense.

[IanA]

Sorry, where do bullocks come into it?

[David Ridgus]

Sorry, where do bullocks come into it?

Well they would have pulled the supply carts at Agincourt, I suppose

[IanA]

Well they would have pulled the supply carts at Agincourt, I suppose

Bullocks.

* This item may contain nuts.

[David Ridgus]

The Great War was certainly the catalyst for suffrage but the jury is still out as to whether it was 'the main driver'. The Suffragists maintained it was their peaceful protests before the war linked with their calm support during it which had shamed men into giving them the vote. The Suffragettes maintained it was fear of the return of their campaign of violence that forced the Government's hand. I've also read that with so many men away in the army the only way to create a viable electoral roll was to include women householders.

David

[Guest]

Emmeline Pankhurst appears to have become an ultra patriot after the War started and abandoned her suffragette attacks according to Brown. If memory serves this is the opposite of how she is depicted in Oh! What a lovely War.

Post war women outnumbered men in the 21-30 age group which must have been a major factor, and one that possibly was a direct consequence of the War. The Representation of the People Act (1918) only gave the vote to Women aged 30 and older who owned property. It took another ten years to get equal rights.

[Seadog]

Quote

"Post war women outnumbered men in the 21-30 age group which must have been a major factor, and one that possibly was a direct consequence of the War"

Possibly?

[Steven Broomfield]

Well they would have pulled the supply carts at Agincourt, I suppose

It's Azincourt these days. Don't want to upset the French, do we. I mean they did win after all.

Book sounds good - sort of update of the works of Sellar and Yeatman, I suppose.

[Guest]

It is far more weighty than the rather flippant "1066 and all that". Very precise, very incisive and very educational. He takes the reader along the research trail in a very engaging way. Worth reading the reviews on Amazon. I have little doubt that specialist academics on each subject might challenge some of his views but to the layperson I suspect it will be very revealing. What was particularly interesting is that he reveals a very different version of the truth than the current mainstream version of events. The evidence he provides is extremely compelling.

I haven't read a more interesting book since David Landes' "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations". It takes one to another level of understanding. MG

[Guest]

Quote

"Post war women outnumbered men in the 21-30 age group which must have been a major factor, and one that possibly was a direct consequence of the War"

Possibly?

The demographic split pre war might have already been in the favour of women. It is extremely unlikely it was exactly 50/50 pre war. If women in the age bracket were more numerous pre-war, certainly the war would have widened the differential, but unless one knows what the split was pre-war (I don't know for sure but I suspect women outnumbered men) one can't say for sure if the Great War caused the majority or increased it. Maybe a better word is Probably, but I am not keen on stating 'facts' without having done some simple research. MG

Edit. Net migration and possible asymmetry in emigration between the sexes might also impact the data. Also I have no idea how the Influenza pandemic impacted the population. We're men weakened by the extertions of war (non-battle casualties) more susceptible? And if so, in sufficient numbers to impact the data.

It is not simply a case if deducting the men killed in the war from the equation. The underlying mortality rates differed between the sexes too, going back for decades, which compounded over time caused dislocates in the split between the sexes. Lastly the data was only collected during the decennial census, so we only have four snapshots of data (1901, 1911, 1921, 1931) spaning the period in question.

[Terry_Reeves]

Like a number of things, the beginnings of change in the area of women's suffrage began before the war. What the war did was to speed up the process. Nor should we forget that many of the men who fought in WW1 did not have the vote; the war brought about change in this area as well.

TR

[Guest]

Like a number of things, the beginnings of change in the area of women's suffrage began before the war. What the war did was to speed up the process. Nor should we forget that many of the men who fought in WW1 did not have the vote; the war brought about change in this area as well.

TR

It seems that the suffragette movement was quite violent and made a few attempts to plant explosives (some successfully) and allegedly at least one plan to assassinate key politicians in the pre-war years This violent approach appears to have stopped during the war years, so one might argue the War decelerated the process in one sense (patriotism, suspension of hostilities) and accelerated it in other ways.

Brown points out that complete equality did not happen until 1928, some ten years after the initial Act. It is difficult to 'prove' if the War accelerated the slow process. There are certainly two schools of thought on this issue. MG

[David Ridgus]

. The Representation of the People Act (1918) only gave the vote to Women aged 30 and older who owned property. It took another ten years to get equal rights.

Which is another argument fielded by those historians who believe the war was not the main driver. Their argument was that despite the war the Government only did the minimum with which it could get away.

David

[Staffsyeoman]

Bullocks? We should never mind them, I understand.

Thanks for the tip - I will seek it out. But I am puzzled aa to the identity of the bunker alluded to in 1940.. Ramsay's at Dover? Whitehall? Surely not der Fuhrer's...

[Guest exuser1]

It seems that the suffragette movement was quite violent and made a few attempts to plant explosives (some successfully) and allegedly at least one plan to assassinate key politicians in the pre-war years This violent approach appears to have stopped during the war years, so one might argue the War decelerated the process in one sense (patriotism, suspension of hostilities) and accelerated it in other ways.

Brown points out that complete equality did not happen until 1928, some ten years after the initial Act. It is difficult to 'prove' if the War accelerated the slow process. There are certainly two schools of thought on this issue. MG

MS Pankhurst had a trained body guard of ladys ,they were trained in Jui jitsu by the Japanease lad Kano who introduced it to the UK ,he had a dojo in the West End ,the issue was increasing violence against the Pankhurst girls ,so answer was a body guard trained in 'Tricks'as it was known in some quaters , i met the grandaughter of one of the ladys a few years ago she was 82 a game old girl with some superb suffergette photograph albums including the guard being trained , what a great idea for a film Ninja Suffragetts

[Terry_Reeves]

It seems that the suffragette movement was quite violent and made a few attempts to plant explosives (some successfully) and allegedly at least one plan to assassinate key politicians in the pre-war years This violent approach appears to have stopped during the war years, so one might argue the War decelerated the process in one sense (patriotism, suspension of hostilities) and accelerated it in other ways.

Brown points out that complete equality did not happen until 1928, some ten years after the initial Act. It is difficult to 'prove' if the War accelerated the slow process. There are certainly two schools of thought on this issue. MG

My point is that what changed and what stayed the same? It is true that some elements of the suffragette movement were quite extreme, but that does not mean the majority were. The war did not decelerate the issue of votes for women, indeed it accelerated it. The suffragist movement, although providing the impetus for change, did not represent the majority of women in the UK. In 1918, the Government of the day recognised, because they had to, that the part women played in the war had significant impact, and that impact could not be ignored. I agree that patriotism had its effect on the part of the suffragist movement that was run by Emmeline Pankhurst, indeed I have a transcript of her meeting with David Lloyd George over this matter, but the move towards votes for women had already started well before that, as I have mentioned above. The 1918 election was another, but important, move forward towards universal suffrage.

TR

the same

[Guest]

Bullocks? We should never mind them, I understand.

Thanks for the tip - I will seek it out. But I am puzzled aa to the identity of the bunker alluded to in 1940.. Ramsay's at Dover? Whitehall? Surely not der Fuhrer's...

Dover

[Guest]

My point is that what changed and what stayed the same? It is true that some elements of the suffragette movement were quite extreme, but that does not mean the majority were. The war did not decelerate the issue of votes for women, indeed it accelerated it. The suffragist movement, although providing the impetus for change, did not represent the majority of women in the UK. In 1918, the Government of the day recognised, because they had to, that the part women played in the war had significant impact, and that impact could not be ignored. I agree that patriotism had its effect on the part of the suffragist movement that was run by Emmeline Pankhurst, indeed I have a transcript of her meeting with David Lloyd George over this matter, but the move towards votes for women had already started well before that, as I have mentioned above. The 1918 election was another, but important, move forward towards universal suffrage.

TR

Terry

You are clearly much better read than I am on the Suffragist movement.

One of the reason's that I recommended Brown's book is that it challenged mainstream versions of key historical events. I have never dived deeply into the suffragists' story so most of the information is new to me - I certainly had no idea how extremely violent some elements were. Assassination attempts. For people with specialist knowledge at the cutting edge of the debates I am sure they will be familiar with much of what I see as being 'new' or revealing. I would agree that the ultra violent element was probably a minority, but the militants were not confined to just a few. Rather like today's extremeists (a parallel that Brown makes) the actions of a few are often perceived to represent the majority who support the broader cause. Doubtless the more moderate elements were dismayed by the violent minority.

The book goes into the internal conflict within the suffragist movement and examines the background and circumstances of Emily Davison's death in the incident with the King's racehorse on Derby Day 912. She appears to have been at the heart of the militant faction. Allegedly 50,000 people turned out for the funeral. From the way Brown depicts some of the mass rallies and the violence they often involved, it appears that the militant element were not a tiny minority. Brown highlights parallels with the Irish nationalist cause - mass protests (30,000 at one rally) violence, bombings, public outrage, incarceration, a polarised press, attempts to be classified as certain categories of prisoners, hunger-strikes, attempted suicide, attacks on the Houses of Parliament, - more than 50 women arrested in one protest, wilful damage of high street property, close surveillance by Special Branch, increased security for Govt ministers etc. Most interesting of all (to me at least) was that Asquith and Lloyd George were both 'visceral opponents' of women's suffrage according to Brown - some thing that later Liberals tended to conveniently forget. Asquith shelved the Women's Suffrage Bill on 18th Nov 1910.

Brown does acknowledge that "By the end of the war few men were prepared to deny that women had earned the right to vote". The immediate post war legislation also allowed men aged 21 or over to vote (previously 30 and over). It would be harder to deny the vote to a generation who had fought so hard. It was because women outnumbered men in the 21-30 age group that the legislation still excluded women in this age group for another decade *. The suffragist movement's history is closely woven into the history of the Great War. What was new to me was that despite the greater role of women through the war years, equality at the polling station still took another decade. I had not realised it was only a partial concession to women.

Given the current nasty debates in political circles about the Great War, with some misguidedly arguing about 'fighting for democracy' as one justification, I thought the chapter was relevant to the debate. MG

* I am still trying to establish the hard numbers. It looks to me as if women outnumbered men in 1911 (I may be wrong on this). If this is the case, the War would not not have tipped the scales past 50/50, it simply tipped the scales further in favour of the greater number of women (I think). A subtle difference in the numbers argument. All very interesting stuff. MG

[auchonvillerssomme]

Heres the census comparisons.

[daggers]

Pity about the title: Glory and ***, if you are ordering it on loan from your local library! It raised some tweaked eyebrows when I asked for 'B***y Red Tabs'.

D

[Seadog]

Excellent stats the 1911 figures compared with 1921 are very interesting indeed.

Norman

[Mark Hone]

Be careful not to confuse the Suffragists ( the peaceful reform movement led by Millicent Fawcett) with the militant breakaway 'suffragettes'. As discussed previously on the forum , the fight for women's suffrage has parallels with the First World War in that popular understanding is often at variance with the views of academics. Recent books on the subject have generally discounted the role of the suffragettes to the point where Mrs Pankhurst and co are seen as actively hindering women gaining the vote in general elections. For example many MPs who had initially been sympathetic to the cause of women's suffrage (including Churchill and Lloyd George) were put off by the Suffragettes' increasingly violent campaigns. Mrs Pankhurst's imperious leadership eventually alienated many of her key supporters within the movement, including one of her daughters. Millicent Fawcett, whose movement actually had more members than the WSPU, is increasingly seen as the unsung heroine of the struggle. However ask most people who won the vote for women and they will say 'the suffragettes'.

[Guest]

Be careful not to confuse the Suffragists ( the peaceful reform movement led by Millicent Fawcett) with the militant breakaway 'suffragettes'. As discussed previously on the forum , the fight for women's suffrage has parallels with the First World War in that popular understanding is often at variance with the views of academics. Recent books on the subject have generally discounted the role of the suffragettes to the point where Mrs Pankhurst and co are seen as actively hindering women gaining the vote in general elections. For example many MPs who had initially been sympathetic to the cause of women's suffrage (including Churchill and Lloyd George) we're put off by the Suffragettes' increasingly violent campaigns. Mrs Pankhurst's imperious leadership eventually alienated many of her key supporters within the movement, including one of her daughters. Millicent Fawcett, whose movement actually had more members than the WSPU, is increasingly seen as the unsung heroine of the struggle. However ask most people who won the vote for women and they will say 'the suffragettes'.

This is also covered by Brown, particularly the autocratic and undemocratic leadership of Pankhurst. he also covers Fawcett in detail.

Your point on Suffragists and Suffragettes is noted. I didn't realise the latter was a breakaway group only associated with the WSPU rather than the SWS. I thought the latter were common to both main groups. Brown gives the impression the name was invented by a Daily Mail (who else?) journalist in 1906. MG

[Guest]

Heres the census comparisons.

Thanks for the data. I note there were 1,117, 276 more females than males in 1911 and 1,736,221 more females than males in 1921. The difference is 618, 945- a number similar in order of magnitude to the male fatal casualties of the Great War. It also corroborates my initial assumption that women already outnumbered men in the pre-war years, although it does not necessarily prove this was the case in the relevant age bracket. Given the numbers - a difference of over 1 million it would be very likely that women aged between 21 and 30 outnumbered men between 21 and 30 pre-war too.

If there is similar data broken down by age group, that would be of great interest. Thanks again. MG

[auchonvillerssomme]

Sorry for the delay but Saturday morning is men's breakfast at the pub.

last