Again, I’m uploading a piece of work from university which I was pleased with and achieved a grade I was also pleased with. The purpose of this essay was to examine the document identified in the text, and it sums up why I believe that Emily Wilding Davison was not a committed suffragette, but a trouble causing, self promoting, exhibitionist. Had I not been concerned that to say this in such explicit terms would have cost me marks, then I would have stressed this point more so, and there is a strong possibility I will come back to this in future to explain more so… To hell with those university essay word counts! Were I to write this essay now, there would of course be changes I would make, and perhaps points I would make more concisely. Nevertheless, here it is in the form it was submitted.
Document: Andrew Rosen, Rise Up Women! (London, 1974), Chapter 16: ‘The Arson Campaign.’ (Excerpt concerning the motives, actions & death of Emily Wilding Davison)
Document Analysis
The document in question examines Emily Wilding Davison’s belief in, and commitment to martyrdom. The evidence for the document is based on primary sources such as statements made in the report by Constable F. Bunn, who was at Epsom Station on 4th June 1913, and on original documents found amongst Davison’s private papers published in The Daily Sketch, 28th May 1914. Given that the book was written 61 years after the events it describes, it seems the purpose of the document is solely to give a historical account and perspective on Davison’s actions.[1] Having said this, its implications are subject to scholarly debate, as it claims ‘Emily Wilding Davison was imbued with the belief that a martyrdom would aid the WSPU’.
Gay Gullickson challenges this notion, making reference to the fact that recent years have seen scepticism around whether she was intent on dying. Davison had purchased a round trip ticket from London to Epsom, suggesting she intended to return to London.[2] This could appear to be conclusive that she did not plan on committing suicide however, Rosen also makes reference to this point and questions the clarity of ‘whether she decided on her dash in advance, or acted on impulse having brought the flags in order to wave them.’ This can be viewed legitimately as an answer as to why she could in theory still be committed to the cause of becoming a martyr for the WSPU, but still have purchased a train ticket which indicated future plans, and indeed counter’s Gullickson’s challenge.
There is however an argument which undermines Rosen’s theory further. Antonia Raeburn makes reference to the fact that the day before her collision with the King’s horse; Davison attended the Summer Festival at the Empress Rooms, instructing her companion Mary Leigh to read the following morning’s papers in order to see what she was planning on doing.[3] At this point it can be gathered that Davison was intent on causing a disturbance, however the severity of the disturbance is unclear. Rosen however, mentions the ‘two flags of purple, white and green’ which were acquired from the Suffragette headquarters on the morning of the Epsom Derby, and were found in her jacket after her death.[4] A forensic analysis in 2013 posed the suggestion that what Davison had intended to do was attach a women’s suffrage flag to the King’s horse, rather than simply collide with it. The analysis suggested Davison had purposely chosen a position providing optimum camera coverage; she had identified the King’s horse and tried to attach her flags to the horse as it passed, and accidentally collided with it.[5] Given the improved reliability of modern forensics, it would appear to be dismissive to attach no credibility to these findings, and it is the view of this essay that this is strong evidence to suggest that Davison’s purpose here was not martyrdom, but to use the King’s horse to promote her cause, thereby challenging the reliability of Rosen’s contention.
Another area of Rosen’s argument which is subject to debate is what he refers to as the ‘scepticism regarding the seriousness of her intentions’ when it was alleged she tried to kill herself by jumping off a balcony. Rosen follows this with the suggestion ‘she was regarded by some of the WSPU staff as a self dramatizing individualist, insufficiently capable of acting within the confines of official instructions.’ This essay questions the reliability of the latter of these statements. Newspaper reports taken from The Times at the time of the incident suggested that whilst the official statement, regarding Davison’s jump, to the House of Commons by Home Secretary Reginald McKenna claimed she jumped ‘onto a safety net’(thereby becoming the basis for any scepticism), this was actually challenged by Mildred Mansel of the WSPU, who claimed McKenna made a ‘deliberate mis-statement’ and that Davison ‘threw herself through a hole in the net and tried to commit suicide after being forcibly fed.’[6] It appears the accuracy of Rosen’s document must here be challenged, as it is apparent that there was indeed ‘scepticism regarding the seriousness of her intentions’ as Rosen suggested. However, the implication that she was regarded in this way by the WSPU staff appears to be unjustified, as the seriousness of her ‘attempted suicide’ was verified by the WSPU according to primary sources.[7] In this case, it was notably Mildred Mansel who reinforced the seriousness of Davison’s attempted suicidal jump who was the official organiser for the Bath district, for the WSPU, suggesting that contrary to Rosen’s contention, WSPU staff displayed support for Davison.[8]
Having examined the evidence in favour of and against the idea that Emily Wilding Davison, as Rosen quotes; ‘found a kind of ecstasy in the prospect of martyrdom’, or that she intended to simply ‘wave her flags as originally planned’, it can be concluded that recent evidence to the contrary of these claims seem to outweigh the contentions of Andrew Rosen. This is not to suggest that Rosen argues with bias, after all his document concedes that ‘there was scepticism regarding the seriousness of her intentions’ and that running on the course would result in death ‘was hardly a matter of certainty’. However, the document could have not been written in 1974 with the modern evidence in mind. Seemingly, new findings dispute what was, the general consensus regarding Davison’s death until recent years. The verdict given at the time was ‘Death by Misadventure’ however Maureen Howes fittingly suggests that regardless of her intentions, ‘Emily Wilding Davison was only the suffragette who deliberately risked death.’[9] This suggests that Rosen’s document, although may now be challenged, was for its time of publication objective and believed to be reliable, and it would be unfair to suggest it holds any bias, given the information available at this time.
Bibliography:
Books:
- Krista Cowman, Women of the Right Spirit, Paid Organisers of the Women’s Social and Political Union(WSPU) 1904-18 (Manchester, 2007)
- Maureen Howes,Emily Wilding Davison: A Suffragette’s Family Album (Gloucestershire, 2013),
- Antonia Raeburn, The Militant Suffragettes (Devon, 1974)
Journals:
- Gay L. Gullickson, ‘Emily Wilding Davison: Secular Martyr?’, Social Research, (2008).
Websites:
- Melissa Hogenboom, Emily Davison: The suffragette who died for her cause, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22596311, accessed on: 30/04/14.
- The Times, ‘Suffragist Violence..’ Wednesday, Jun 26, 1912; pg. 6; Issue 39935. ‘The Times Digital Archive’, accessed on 30/04/14
Videos:
- ‘Clare Balding’s Secrets of a Suffragette, Epsom Derby Festival, Channel 4 Racing.’ Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_URTWjgR0, accessed on 01/05/14.
[1] Melissa Hogenboom, Emily Davison: The suffragette who died for her cause, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22596311, accessed on: 30/04/14.
[2] Gay L. Gullickson, ‘Emily Wilding Davison: Secular Martyr?’, Social Research, (2008), p. 462.
[3] Antonia Raeburn, The Militant Suffragettes (Devon, 1974), p, 201.
[4] Raeburn, , The Militant Suffragettes, p. 201.
[5] ‘Clare Balding’s Secrets of a Suffragette, Epsom Derby Festival, Channel 4 Racing.’ Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W_URTWjgR0, accessed on 01/05/14.
[6] The Times, ‘Suffragist Violence..’ Wednesday, Jun 26, 1912; pg. 6; Issue 39935. ‘The Times Digital Archive’, accessed on 30/04/14.
[7] The Times, ‘Suffragist Violence..’ Wednesday, Jun 26, 1912; pg. 6; Issue 39935. ‘The Times Digital Archive’, accessed on 30/04/14.
[8] Krista Cowman, Women of the Right Spirit, Paid Organisers of the Women’s Social and Political Union(WSPU) 1904-18 (Manchester, 2007) p . 83
consideringandranting 