Guest blog - More Apples of My Eye, by Nicky Ellam

More Apples of My Eye

Hello again. Welcome back to another little blog post about some of my favourite artefacts from the museums’ collections. This time, I’ve been sent to Wilberforce House and I’m currently next door in the Georgian Houses, which has displays related to local history and craftsmanship.

This year saw the 100^th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act being passed through parliament, which granted some, but not all women, the right to vote. Sadly, the Act only applied to women aged over 30 who owned property. At the time, 40% of women met the property criteria and it would be another ten years before women gained the same voting rights as men. Nevertheless, after a number of female suffrage movements had spent years campaigning for right to vote, the passing of the Representation of the People Act was a significant step forward. It would, therefore, be a crime not to introduce you to our resident suffragette, Flora Copper.

Flora is but one example of the wide variety of toys and games produced by suffragist organisations. When you come and meet Flora for yourself, you will see that she is displayed alongside a popular card game called ‘Panko’ which depicted scenes of life as a suffragette. These images were illustrated by E.T. Reed who worked at Punch magazine. Although most of the suffrage shops were based in London, their products were distributed across the country and were aimed at children as well as adults. They produced a range of dolls, some of which were even handmade.

Flora dates from around 1909 and is made out of a number of materials. Her hat is made out of felt, she has striped wool drawers and her features are drawn as well as embroidered. Flora’s name is a pun that refers to the violent confrontations between suffragettes and the police. When spoken, Flora Copper sounds exactly the same as ‘floor a copper’ and it is indeed quite possible that a suffragette gave a policeman an unexpected introduction to the ground. Edith Margaret Garrud, for example, was a well-known suffragette who was trained in jiu jitsu and used her skills to teach other suffragettes how to defend themselves.

Who Flora’s original owner was is an endless source of fascination for me. I like to create stories about who bought her and why. Was she perhaps bought by a doting father for his young daughter who was a budding suffragette? I know I definitely would’ve preferred Flora to a Barbie when I was a kid. Or maybe Flora was a lucky mascot for a suffragette in Hull? One of my colleagues wrote an interesting post about suffragettes from Hull who took part in protests, and it always warms my heart to imagine Flora in someone’s pocket as they chained themselves to a railing. (Click on this link if you’d like to read more about Hull’s connections to the suffragette movement: http://museumshull.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/votes-for-women.html)

Flora understandably has a somewhat disgruntled expression and I don’t know if the curators intended this when they put the displays together, but the way she’s positioned makes it seem as though she’s staring disapprovingly at the cabinet in the opposite corner which is home to our ‘hobble’ Edwardian dress. This style of clothing was in vogue from around 1910-1913 and gets its namesake from the long skirt that was either tied or narrowed so tightly from the knee down that women were unable to take a full step. Eventually, the start of the Great War caused the fashion to ebb away because women were encouraged to work, therefore, a greater emphasis was placed on clothing being more practical.

Hobble skirts and dresses were extremely dangerous to wear and are thought to have been a major contributing factor to women suffering serious injuries from falling over. Mercifully, as the fashion endured, dress designers endeavoured to make the hobble style more practical by adding hidden slits, pleats, as well as draping. Our dress dates from around 1912 and is therefore a later version of the hobble style. It’s possible, therefore, that it has some of these features that enabled women to have a bit more freedom of movement. Even so, I don’t think I could cope with wearing something like this. Being compelled to wear something so restricting or risk looking outdated would have been a form of torture for me. My Mum says I don’t so much walk as gallop, and she’s forever telling me off for leaving her behind!

I do find it strange that a style of clothing that was so restraining was in fashion at a time when many women were becoming more physically active and were campaigning for the right to vote. I wonder what people will say about today’s fashions 100 years from now?